by Chkalovsk II » Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:56 pm
by The Atmoran Diplomat » Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:33 pm
by Lethen Empire » Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:05 pm
Lethen INA: Victory in Tel Aviv! Jerusalem within reach! Pro-Crusader assault on Isratine going very well | Raaagh! The Viking Age: Lethen sailors confiscate capital from the con-artists leading Japan in a nostalgic callback to our medieval forefathers
by Lethen Empire » Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:04 pm
Lethen INA: Victory in Tel Aviv! Jerusalem within reach! Pro-Crusader assault on Isratine going very well | Raaagh! The Viking Age: Lethen sailors confiscate capital from the con-artists leading Japan in a nostalgic callback to our medieval forefathers
by The Protacan-Anzotac Peoples » Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:25 pm
by The Protacan-Anzotac Peoples » Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:35 pm
Deian salazar wrote:Denied, ridiculous amount of tanks, and number of troops.
by The Protacan-Anzotac Peoples » Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:38 pm
Deian salazar wrote:Denied, ridiculous amount of tanks, and number of troops.
by The Atmoran Diplomat » Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:47 pm
by The Atmoran Diplomat » Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:48 pm
Deian salazar wrote:The Atmoran Diplomat wrote:I'll like to make a comment, rare for Modern Tech. Also the hard numbers are really hard for more advanced nations in Late PMT and Early to Mid FTL since at that those tech levels shit gets crazy
I'll be expecting you to have about 2.5 million, 3 million max for our rp's, due to mt and wanting to appeal to realism players.
by New Edom » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:28 pm
by The Atmoran Diplomat » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:31 pm
by Bjorden » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:18 pm
by Common Territories » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:15 pm
by Common Territories » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:27 pm
Deian salazar wrote:Common Territories wrote:So not to distract anyone from the purpose of this thread, but I'd like to point out to Montenbourg that you do not have permission to use any of the vehicles, aircraft, and warships you've claimed to posses in your application. I know you just copy-pasted it from Edom's application, but I'd like to ask you to remove claims to my property in your application. If you wish to purchase anything listed there, you're free to make an application anytime on my storefront.
They could be stolen stuff, literally IC'ly.
Edit: Just proposing a possible IC solution.
Edit2: It looks like you're stalking my thread too. SACTO seems to be.
by Common Territories » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:36 pm
Deian salazar wrote:Common Territories wrote:No, they can't be stolen and wont be. I do not give my consent to any of that and im saying again for the user to cease their claim on my intellectual property. Unlike this person, Edom legitimately purchased the items on my storefront, getting consent to use said items - I've duly noted in my first post that the user is invited to purchase the same items Edom has if they wish to make an application. If the user doesn't wish to take them down, I will be forced to contact Moderation about having them removed. Im just trying to be friendly here and ask nicely for them to be taken down, especially since this isn't a big deal or anything.
No worries or anything, I was just proposing solutions to it through IC stuff.
by Common Territories » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:46 pm
Deian salazar wrote:Common Territories wrote:Well that's not happening tbh. Im not gonna write off on multi-billion dollar warships, multiple aircraft, and other items to be stolen off like electronics in an unlocked car at 2am. Like I said, if the person wants to have them, he's free to purchase them like everyone else.
On the subject of proposing IC stuff, mind me making an IC post as Imperion? It's a condemnation, but I wanted to get your permission before making it since it'd come off badly if I just posted it out of the blue.
Condemnation of who exactly?
by Common Territories » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:07 pm
by Common Territories » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:17 pm
Deian salazar wrote:Common Territories wrote:I want to keep specifics for the IC post, but it's mostly related to criticisms, condemnation, and politics related to how this organization is structure/operated. I wont deny it's a little bit based on OOC information, so it'll seem OOC at times, but it's purely an IC post condemning this organization for what we see it as.
I think it's a bit too early to judge how this runs, given I've got to work with the people on the constitution.
I would like such a condemnation to be delayed until say...after the 2nd election is done the constitution is finished, as well as after we get about 20 members?
Then I'll feel as if there's been enough times, operations, structure firmly established(We do have a structure but I mean you'll be able to see how the structure runs), etc. to warrant firm judgement by a major powerful nation which could alter the alliance's course. You do understand condemnations can cause strife among members?
We've got it largely structurally finished, but I just would prefer people to wait and see what we do and how we run, act, commence ops, our policy, etc. so they get the full picture and can use examples such as specific interventions, diplomatic agreements, etc. as criticism.
I would also like to finish the joint writing of the Constitution and the writing of the laws, separation of powers, etc. and discuss with my fellow members to discuss our policy for things like this both for now and the future to be handled.
I strongly request this, out of desire for things to be smoothed out all the way and be shown how everything works.
EDIT: Same as BTO, due to a slightly different structure.
by New Edom » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:25 pm
Common Territories wrote:Deian salazar wrote:I think it's a bit too early to judge how this runs, given I've got to work with the people on the constitution.
I would like such a condemnation to be delayed until say...after the 2nd election is done the constitution is finished, as well as after we get about 20 members?
Then I'll feel as if there's been enough times, operations, structure firmly established(We do have a structure but I mean you'll be able to see how the structure runs), etc. to warrant firm judgement by a major powerful nation which could alter the alliance's course. You do understand condemnations can cause strife among members?
We've got it largely structurally finished, but I just would prefer people to wait and see what we do and how we run, act, commence ops, our policy, etc. so they get the full picture and can use examples such as specific interventions, diplomatic agreements, etc. as criticism.
I would also like to finish the joint writing of the Constitution and the writing of the laws, separation of powers, etc. and discuss with my fellow members to discuss our policy for things like this both for now and the future to be handled.
I strongly request this, out of desire for things to be smoothed out all the way and be shown how everything works.
EDIT: Same as BTO, due to a slightly different structure.
To be fair, this organization may still be fresh, but there's still plenty to make condemnations/criticisms about; a communist or democratic organization would be far more heinous and out for blood than Imperion in condemning this organization for example. Whether they're factually correct or maliciously wrong isn't the point here. I wanted to make a stark IC point about how we see this organization, that's all. If I did as you say and waited until this organization was in a better position, what would be the point of making my post then? It's like telling someone not to make a post in a military thread of them attacking until the defender is fully prepared to counter them for said post - by that I mean it's counterproductive to wait until you're in a perfect position to refute our condemnation. Simply put, this is not how condemnations work. You don't exactly get the right to say "Don't condemn us until there's nothing to condemn!" because that defeats the entire point of condemning you. Realistically speaking too, your "elections" and "recruitment of 20 members" could take months or a year to happen - god forbid it takes longer than that or you never reach that point for some unknown reason. Regardless of how long it would take, I don't want to delay my post because (A) you want to be in a perfect position to refute our condemnation, and (B) not want it to have some sort of affect on this organization (I mean, that's sorta the point right?).
So here's what im thinking. If you still say no (I respect the OP's decision to say no to this post in their thread obviously), I will simply post it elsewhere and spread it via that fashion instead (I'll be sure to share it here too). Like I've just stated, I wont let your desire to have a perfect position to refute our condemnation stifle that very condemnation's purpose. So it either gets posted here first, or it gets posted elsewhere first and shared here.
by Common Territories » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:38 pm
Deian salazar wrote:Common Territories wrote:To be fair, this organization may still be fresh, but there's still plenty to make condemnations/criticisms about; a communist or democratic organization would be far more heinous and out for blood than Imperion in condemning this organization for example. Whether they're factually correct or maliciously wrong isn't the point here. I wanted to make a stark IC point about how we see this organization, that's all. If I did as you say and waited until this organization was in a better position, what would be the point of making my post then? It's like telling someone not to make a post in a military thread of them attacking until the defender is fully prepared to counter them for said post - by that I mean it's counterproductive to wait until you're in a perfect position to refute our condemnation. Simply put, this is not how condemnations work. You don't exactly get the right to say "Don't condemn us until there's nothing to condemn!" because that defeats the entire point of condemning you. Realistically speaking too, your "elections" and "recruitment of 20 members" could take months or a year to happen - god forbid it takes longer than that or you never reach that point for some unknown reason. Regardless of how long it would take, I don't want to delay my post because (A) you want to be in a perfect position to refute our condemnation, and (B) not want it to have some sort of affect on this organization (I mean, that's sorta the point right?).
So here's what im thinking. If you still say no (I respect the OP's decision to say no to this post in their thread obviously), I will simply post it elsewhere and spread it via that fashion instead (I'll be sure to share it here too). Like I've just stated, I wont let your desire to have a perfect position to refute our condemnation stifle that very condemnation's purpose. So it either gets posted here first, or it gets posted elsewhere first and shared here.
However you can't condemn this organization without permission IC'ly.
Secondly, I need to negotiate with my members and ministers first before allowing it to discuss proper procedure for this kind of stuff, and would at least like everything to be finished before a condemnation is launched.
So I at least say you wait until the constitution and everything is finalized and finished.
EDIT: I don't mean any hostility, I'm just acting in what I think seems rational.
Users browsing this forum: Untecna
