Jump to content

Onward Together


matt2004
 Share

Recommended Posts

my loyalty is and always has been to the alliance, not under. as for the straw that broke the camels back was his action last war mixed with the lack of transparency concerning info shared with his alliance

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ill take your luck but refute your point. Under and ST6 were gov at that point and they were expected to represent us. They failed and were removed from office at the next election. As for transparency it was questioned by several members repeatedly including myself. This change of gov should be seen as move in the right direction. Under may be related to the announcement in the sense he was one of the gov members replaced and the timing may seem suspect but this change was made with the intent to move forward as an alliance. Under's removal should been seen as signaling that even veteran members are not immune from the consequences of their actions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Axley said:

Ill take your luck but refute your point. Under and ST6 were gov at that point and they were expected to represent us. They failed and were removed from office at the next election. As for transparency it was questioned by several members repeatedly including myself. This change of gov should be seen as move in the right direction. Under may be related to the announcement in the sense he was one of the gov members replaced and the timing may seem suspect but this change was made with the intent to move forward as an alliance. Under's removal should been seen as signaling that even veteran members are not immune from the consequences of their actions.

 

The question is why now, why after 6 months of the war being over do you finally decide to do something about it. I know you and sirgogo were aware of what under was doing in  negotiations and whatnot because I told you personally. The timing is too convenient to be getting rid of him in the fashion you did with 1 week left of the Non-aggression pact. Something about this really doesnt seem sincere and it really makes one wonder...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Axley said:

Ill take your luck but refute your point. Under and ST6 were gov at that point and they were expected to represent us. They failed and were removed from office at the next election. As for transparency it was questioned by several members repeatedly including myself. This change of gov should be seen as move in the right direction. Under may be related to the announcement in the sense he was one of the gov members replaced and the timing may seem suspect but this change was made with the intent to move forward as an alliance. Under's removal should been seen as signaling that even veteran members are not immune from the consequences of their actions.

 

26 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Under was not your leader. If there was a transparency issue, it's your leader you should be looking at. At the end of the day, that's who's responsible for the direction of your alliance and the dissemination of information. (And honestly, you can't pretend you didn't know - the peace talks were plastered all over these forums.)

.......

Where were you all then? Why is this an issue only now? If it was an issue before, why has it taken so long to be addressed? You seem to be under this belief that the issues the community has with under are solely under's problem - they're not, they're yours too.

 

You haven't had a single election this entire time? Seems like the sort of thing you do going into a nice long rest period guaranteed by a six month NAP, not at the end of it. Regardless though, you can't put the entirety of this on under (or st6). Your leader should have been aware of everything going on as that is his responsibility. If under and st6 were failing, if there was a lack of transparency, he should have been addressing it. The buck stops with him ultimately. I'd love to hear some responses from him on these questions and why things are only being addressed a week before the end of the NAP.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Leopold von Habsburg said:

The question is why now, why after 6 months of the war being over do you finally decide to do something about it. I know you and sirgogo were aware of what under was doing in  negotiations and whatnot because I told you personally. The timing is too convenient to be getting rid of him in the fashion you did with 1 week left of the Non-aggression pact. Something about this really doesnt seem sincere and it really makes one wonder...

The timing is due to our leader returning to active duty. Matt had been on hiatus due to irl issues. Now that he's back and active he's making changes needed to drive us in the right direction. 

6 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

 

 

You haven't had a single election this entire time? Seems like the sort of thing you do going into a nice long rest period guaranteed by a six month NAP, not at the end of it. Regardless though, you can't put the entirety of this on under (or st6). Your leader should have been aware of everything going on as that is his responsibility. If under and st6 were failing, if there was a lack of transparency, he should have been addressing it. The buck stops with him ultimately. I'd love to hear some responses from him on these questions and why things are only being addressed a week before the end of the NAP.

even before the war we had not had an election in awhile. the last election I can actually remember took place a bit after The Oktoberfest War. The election was called to make sure the Gov is an accurate reflection of UPN and to get us back on the right track.

In any case, our actions will show much more than any words said here can. So thank you for your luck we will use it to show our intentions for the better because I can talk all night but frankly our actions should do the talking to avoid wasting either of our time further. That and i have my newborn son sleeping on my lap and I should probably get hime to bed before we are both asleep in my recliner lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kastor said:

Your leader has been inactive for 14 months? And you all re-elected him?

IRL issues can take time. I was gone for almost a year on hiatus after I left the military to deal with PTSD and UPN accepted me back with open arms. Things happen. As for Matt being re elected he has not been. The elections have not been held yet for High Gov. The recent elections were for the MPs

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Axley said:

IRL issues can take time. I was gone for almost a year on hiatus after I left the military to deal with PTSD and UPN accepted me back with open arms. 

There's a world of difference between being reaccepted as a member after a year long hiatus and being allowed to keep the title of leader during a year long hiatus lol

  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Adrienne said:

There's a world of difference between being reaccepted as a member after a year long hiatus and being allowed to keep the title of leader during a year long hiatus lol

You're right but as I said elections have not been held for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep in mind thats the last one I can remember. My wife gave birth 3 days ago and I've been the one up with our son so she can recover. I'm working on 5 hours in the last 72 so my memory isn't the best right now lol

Speaking of which...I'm gonna take a nap while its quiet, lol. Please bear in mind we are working towards better and our action will reflect that better than words can explain it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only question is how did The Former leader of OFA become FA as for Under i never really dealt with him and when i had access to the Coalition B coordinating channels i only saw BK,NPO,Camelot,Goons,GoG

i did not see UPN, Acadia, TCW and lessor counter parts that belonged to COAL B

sides for the Micro Leader who is now gov and Couped his own alliance stole its bank and ran away i again dont see any issue Every Single Alliance has a Toxic Person In Its Leadership That No One Wants To Deal With Largely Example Cooper from TKR and CitrusK From Whatever Micro He Is Leading Now 

Some People Find Me Toxic Its All Down To Perception And 90% Of ALL Old All Old Alliances Refuse To Treat New Alliances With Any Respect And Rather Make Fun Of em Without Remotely Talking To em Or Remotely Figuring Out How They Function Most Major Alliances Get SO Caught Up In Politics They Often Forget What Fun Is.

  • Downvote 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sirgogobeans said:

Speaking for myself and not the whole alliance here, I was largely kept in the dark while Underlord did his thing, I disagreed with him on several things including the war but couldn't really do anything about it other than just up and leave.  This is not met to be a publicity stunt showing off that Underlord is gone, we were already working on this soft reset of sorts before he had left.
Thats my take on things as a UPN member, there's some more stuff I could get into but won't.

 

6 hours ago, Axley said:

Under is a troll who crossed a line he couldn't be bothered to see. His fellow members were not spared from his conduct either. He has shown himself to be unworthy of our trust and support as an ally and was treated accordingly. Under's actions and words are his own and the elections results show that the alliance has chosen a different direction than Under's. You hate the man but then question the alliance for kicking him out? That shows you'd complain no matter what was done. Whether he was banned immediately or shortly before the NAP ended wouldn't matter. The message is that UPN will take responsibility for his actions no longer as they are unbecoming of a member of UPN. 

 

5 hours ago, sirgogobeans said:

I can totally see where the suspicion comes from.  If you ask me, I think the reason underlord was able to do what he did for so long was he was the source of information about what was going on ingame for a lot of the members.  A member should be able to trust their allience gov to give them accurate information, as I found out fairly quickly during the war, this was not the case with Underlord.  Its hard to know what someone is really up to when they can pick and choose what you know which is what seems to have happened. (This is just my opinion)

Personally I lost faith in him during the war when I found out from some others what had gone on during peace talks. I can't speak for the whole allience.

 

4 hours ago, Axley said:

my loyalty is and always has been to the alliance, not under. as for the straw that broke the camels back was his action last war mixed with the lack of transparency concerning info shared with his alliance

 

Several of you were made aware of unders behavior half a year ago. You failed to do something about it up until now that the NAP is ending.

In addition, you have failed in any diplomatic outreach during that time. As far as i'm concerned, your hands are not clean.

Edited by Prefonteen

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mitsuru said:

All I'm reading are excuses. You disliked Under's actions but reelected the Prime Minister again who was responsible for making Under a representative of your alliance during peace talks. Your Prime Minister was inactive due to irl issues but he and you all failed to replace him with someone who was not inactive and could've kept Under in check if it actually was such a concern to you. You were aware of what Under did but couldn't be bothered to speak up against it because he was your "source of information" basically coming down to the fact, that you were all just too lazy to inform yourself about Orbis and PnW and other alliances.

(On a side note: Considering how condemnable you found his actions, you still believed that he was a good source of information? It did not dawn on you that he was presenting you a heavily skewed version of things considering that you were aware of how he was behaving during peace talks?)

Let's be real here. For the past few years you were always able to stick to your alliance with Acadia because at the end of the day you could always hide behind the power that were NPO and BK. Just like the leadership of Acadia and Polaris, this whole thing completely went to your head and you thought yourself in a most comfortable position where you were calling the shots. This then failed because your big protectors were all involved in an elaborate cheating scheme. So what follows is white peace and six months of peace during which you all went radio silent. After six months of said peace during which you had plenty of time to make amendments, you then drop the person you consistently rallied behind (a lack of speaking out or taking consequences does not exclude you from guilt) in an effort for a last minute publicity stunt. And then you try to "explain" it away in good old fashioned IQ style with nonsensical excuses like "Our PM was away for 14 months" and "We only just had an election for the first time in five years".

Anything I forgot?

Edit: Also the fact that matt let's you all now take the heat instead of speaking up himself here really says a lot about his leadership in all honesty.

yes you forgot a few things. UPN never hid. We fought like everyone else. Do not insult my intelligence. As for cheating? NPO faced the music for what they did. If we were knowingly complicit in the cheating we would of faced similar punishment. As for being aware of what under was doing in peace talks? screenshots of logs that never showed the whole log just snips that pained under bad without the context of the whole conversation were taken with a grain of salt. when you main source of information is from the enemy that's what happens.

My message was never that we were free of guilt but that our coming actions would show our new direction. Under was questioned by his own alliance during the entire war. we didn't speak out? Do not insult my intelligence. We did. it fell on deaf ears. As a result changes were made.

no matter what I say you will paint it as an excuse. So I will repeat myself since you seem like you can't be bothered to read. Action speak louder than words. Ours will reflect our claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Windseeker said:

UPN is immortal, after everything it went through in CN since 2007, I am pretty sure it's gonna outlive CN (probably even P&W tbh)

You have a very pessimistic outlook. 

  • Haha 1

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Axley said:

yes you forgot a few things. UPN never hid. We fought like everyone else. Do not insult my intelligence. As for cheating? NPO faced the music for what they did. If we were knowingly complicit in the cheating we would of faced similar punishment. As for being aware of what under was doing in peace talks? screenshots of logs that never showed the whole log just snips that pained under bad without the context of the whole conversation were taken with a grain of salt. when you main source of information is from the enemy that's what happens.

My message was never that we were free of guilt but that our coming actions would show our new direction. Under was questioned by his own alliance during the entire war. we didn't speak out? Do not insult my intelligence. We did. it fell on deaf ears. As a result changes were made.

no matter what I say you will paint it as an excuse. So I will repeat myself since you seem like you can't be bothered to read. Action speak louder than words. Ours will reflect our claim

You did know, with almost complete context (just what Under discussed in private coalition servers with allies alone is damning). 

Or you didn't know? But then why would you speak up? And why wouldn't you oust Under if he was ignoring your concerns?

Your actions look more like doing nothing. 

At this point I'd honestly believe Under left of his own volition, leaving you to hold the pot and now you've finally snapped back into reality and want to play damage control before everything crumbles in on itself completely. 

 

Your explanation is so inconsistent I can't blame anyone for doubting it. I'll need to see a timeline and complete breakdown of how all this shook out or I'm going to have to go with my gut here and just assume you're absolutely full of shit. 

  • Upvote 3

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Axley said:

As for being aware of what under was doing in peace talks? screenshots of logs that never showed the whole log just snips that pained under bad without the context of the whole conversation were taken with a grain of salt. when you main source of information is from the enemy that's what happens.

Gorge posted high gov IQ logs, all with context. Those painted a worse light about them due to those people having their intentions laid bare to be seen.

In spite of what you're claiming here, I can't say that seems like you felt too strongly about Under's behavior during the war and afterwards. Six months and an MIA leader coming back to get things going, and at the tail end of a NAP? Nobody, and I mean *nobody* seemingly trying to be acting leader in the interim so to do all the things an AA leader does, and not just handle the Under thing?

Sorry, but your alibis isn't convincing.

  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sisyphus said:

You did know, with almost complete context (just what Under discussed in private coalition servers with allies alone is damning). 

Or you didn't know? But then why would you speak up? And why wouldn't you oust Under if he was ignoring your concerns?

Your actions look more like doing nothing. 

At this point I'd honestly believe Under left of his own volition, leaving you to hold the pot and now you've finally snapped back into reality and want to play damage control before everything crumbles in on itself completely. 

 

Your explanation is so inconsistent I can't blame anyone for doubting it. I'll need to see a timeline and complete breakdown of how all this shook out or I'm going to have to go with my gut here and just assume you're absolutely full of shit. 

the cheating scandal was not what was questioned. What Under was questioned about was why peace talks kept breaking down. The war was dragging on and everybody was feeling the stress. I repeatedly asked Under for logs of the peace talks but was met with silence. The first time i requested them he responded with ill see what i can do. then he never acknowledged any of my further requests.  As for reaching out to other alliances I hung out in other discord servers to try to get a feel for whats going on because Under refused to give us more. Under let his power go to his head and it alienated him from UPN and led to a lack of trust in him. I admit the timing is questionable. but the decision to ban Under was made after the election was over. 

As for an alibi i've offered no such thing. in fact I openly admit I should of done more. It was my motivation for running for Gov. I want to see us back on the right track an i hope to help us do so by getting more involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for what I'm planning on doing? I'm pushing for better FA relations and growth as an alliance. I realize UPN has burned a lot of bridges and I want to work to rebuild them in manners beneficial to both sides. I simply ask that you give the new gov a chance to prove themselves capable before you label us the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh hey it's 2015 again!

Good on getting rid of @Malal!

We're still gonna fricking roll you if it's not yet clear! 

I await TCW cancelation @Sphinx @RightHonorable or else you can get this smoke too got me fricked up

Edited by Eumirbago
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mitsuru said:

(On a side note: Considering how condemnable you found his actions, you still believed that he was a good source of information? It did not dawn on you that he was presenting you a heavily skewed version of things considering that you were aware of how he was behaving during peace talks?)

To clerify what I ment, those who questioned Under and had information outside of his skewed reports did not think he was reliable, however from my observation this was not the majority of members.  Many members relied on Under for information for one reson or another.  Those of us that did have outside information would protest but most of the time we would either be ignored or sometimes argued down.  

Underlord was funtionally leader until Matt returned, upon return plans were made to soft reboot the allience; elections were held for the low gov (not matt, underlord ect).  Underlord was removed following a disagreement and the new gov was made official. 

Thats a rough timeline from my perspective, I admit I do not have the full story.  Either way what can we do to show you we mean business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say though you guys are a bunch of !@#$es not standing by your homeboi like that.

Even Camelot stood in solidarity with @Epi's foolishness lmfao

Shit even @Sphinx is out here standing with pride regarding @RightHonorable's foolishness

Doesn't matter, they can all get this smoke regardless lmfao

Edited by Eumirbago
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.