STABLE Talks In Response to MOSCOW
by Pixeleen Mistral on 22/04/07 at 9:33 pm
SL military groups continue negotiations
by Omega Groshomme, war correspondent
treaty negotiations continue
April 19th at 20:06 SL time an organization of military groups gathered in conference to discuss a new more improved treaty in answer to the Merczateer proposed MOSCOW: Military Organization Standard for Conventional Operations and Warfare. The conference organized by the Alliance Navy was set forth to improve the SLSALT (Second Life Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) – by not only rewriting it, but by starting from scratch involving the entire military community. Groups being represented at this first of many meetings were SPARTA, Grand Federation USC, AN, SLSN, Corsairs and CDR.
Until now,the war between AN and Merczateers has merely been personal, but as the Merczateers’ attempt on an answer to the SLSALT with MOSCOW, and now the AN beginning a new involving all possible — it is clear this conflict has gone political. I had a chance to catch up with Alenzia Epsilon who is keeping record and overseeing with others on the development of STABLE. The proposed areas of debate and regulation:
Weaponry and Ammunition (allowable rate of fire, ammo types, etc.)
Leadership and Personnel Behavior (attacking base under non-group tags, avatar flight, etc.)
Vehicles and Aircraft (possibility of depleting fuel for vehicles, weapons systems by vehicle type, etc.)
Equipment Source and Content (minimizing laggy scripts, protection of intellectual property, etc.)
Land and Territory Regulations (Estate banning, setting land to safe, invalid homepoints, etc. )
Enforcement and Regulation (inter-group regulation enforcement, appropriate actions for infractions, regulatory body made up of all member groups, etc. )
To learn more, I spoke with Alenzia Epsilon – one of the participants in the STABLE talks.
Omega Groshomme: STABLE? What does this new treaty name stand for?
Alenzia Epsilon: STABLE stands for Standards Treatise on Armaments, Behavior and Limited Engagement.
Omega Groshomme: What is the goal for STABLE? And why not the recently proposed MOSCOW?
Alenzia Epsilon: The goal is to offer the combat community a chance to create their own treaty in the steps first put forth in SLSALT – it was a good start, but now we need to let the voices of all be heard.
Alenzia Epsilon: As I mentioned, MOSCOW (previously ANSUCKS) was formed on the basis of exclusion, and is being basically dictated to the group, not really using an open forum, or encouraging people to bring their ideas to the table.
bringing ideas to the table
Alenzia Epsilon: MOSCOW -is- the same treaty as ANSUCKS. That speaks volumes – a treaty first created with such an obvious agenda is not going to be neutral or unbiased. We are trying to be. That’s why we invited the Mercz to send their people, though they unfortunately declined.
Alenzia Epsilon: This is not a treaty run by the AN – this is run by the community.
Omega Groshomme: Most people see the Merczateer proposed MOSCOW is a way of isolation and is seen as communist,what is your take on this?
Alenzia Epsilon: Well, as they’ve not really included us in the creation, I’ve not been able to look over the drafts completely, though from what I have heard, it sounded like an attempt to force conformity where there could be innovation.
Alenzia Epsilon: I feel MOSCOW was an attempt to exile people the mercz didn’t like, and an attempt to defame and spread lies to the combat community – it was an obvious targeted negative PR campaign at the start – as for now, I’ve been too busy with STABLE to really keep up with the alleged changes.
Alenzia Epsilon: The Mercz aren’t bad people, I just feel they are taking a direction by dictating the terms of their treaty that many people are wary about – people are more comfortable following rules if they had a chance to see the process behind forming them.
Alenzia Epsilon: That’s our theory.
Omega Groshomme: As a participant of STABLE,what may i contribute to the creation of this treaty and would i be heard?
Alenzia Epsilon: Each combat group is allowed a maximum of 4 delegates, and they may offer their thoughts, and opinions during the debate phase. Each combat group is allowed one vote – this ensures no matter the group’s size, they are represented fairly, and come time for drafting, all groups will have an equal voice in deciding policy through a simple majority.
Alenzia Epsilon: Basically, we move topic to topic within our larger topic areas that I passed, until we’ve exhausted the debate, then will move to the next large topic.
debating topics to exhaustion
Alenzia Epsilon: Observers are allowed, but to keep things neat, all speaking is to be done through the delegates.
Omega Groshomme: You had mentioned earlier the Merczateers declined your invitation. Any certain reason?
Alenzia Epsilon: I really shouldn’t speculate, but like I’d mentioned earlier – they don’t see a reason to explore any other treaties, as they do not see a flaw with their treaty. That’s my best guess.
Omega Groshomme: Is this meeting just the base,will there be more in the future?
Alenzia Epsilon: Oh, this is only the beginning. We plan to meet again, and are very hopeful that more groups will contribute to the talks – we want to be sure that we come up with a good idea of what everyone wants before we convene to draft this. We’ve even discussed putting together a permanent review board to oversee the implementation and regulation of the treaty when it is completed.
Alenzia Epsilon: We expect the talks to span over several days, as we are keeping the actual meetings nice and short – we want to make sure people have time to enjoy SL – not eat up all their time.
Talks between these groups on this treaty will continue and all involved welcome more groups who see eye to eye. Development of this new treaty “STABLE” will give all groups involved a opportunity to help create it and bring it into effect. The AN and Corsairs STABLE might just be the one agreement the military in SL has been looking for as well an improvement over the isolated doctrine brought on by the Merczateers. These meetings will continue to be reported to let the public know of its progress in the future.
War correspondent Omega Groshomme reporting from STABLE conference room.
Bruno Ziskey
Apr 22nd, 2007
Well written indeed. Sparta has not been able to make it to every meeting, but we have agreed with the AN on pretty much every position they have taken. STABLE does provide for a way for the groups involved to bring certain problems to light, which is what I like about it the most, since it guarantees that every group has a say.
Alenzia Epsilon
Apr 22nd, 2007
Hello! Just an update -
Corsairs have pulled out of STABLE due to not agreeing when the assembly voted not to limit allowable damage in bullets, but all is still going well! we expect 1-2 more meetings before the treaty will be drafted and ready to sign. We’ll do our best to keep the combat community posted on developments.
Harlequin Salome
Apr 22nd, 2007
We also are happy to welcome any other groups that wish to join and have input. Even the Corsairs are welcome back, and even the mercz are welcome to join and have input, despite their attempts at slander.
The idea here is to give a guideline to help people in making new gear, and also allow smaller and newer groups and idea of what they should strive for in order to gain acceptance. Alot of newer groups often use shields, orbiters, and the infamous R2 bomb because they consider that to be a valid weapon, and are genuinely confused when they get banned from others’ bases. This sort of ruleset allows freedom of expression and growth in groups, while also keeping things to a dull roar of destruction.
The other thing is this doesn’t mean all non-signatories get banned and called losers and griefers. We happily engage in hostilities with groups that don’t use what we consider fair tactics, but it does allow us a way to say to groups we find to be using said tactics “Hey. Your constant use of psitechs is starting to piss us off. Here. Here’s the basic ROE of SL. Adhere, or hit the road.”
Its not an exclusionary thing by any means, but it does give groups the ability to fit things to their own liking. After all, Your World, Your Imagination, Your Battlefield.
Before comments come flooding in, I will ask that those that have taken to bashing the AN in previous stories, please give it a rest. You hate the AN. Fine. Whatever. We Get It. Take the troll behavior somewhere else.
Anonymous
Apr 22nd, 2007
And next to resign, is the Federation. We have decided to side with Mercz in the issue of treaties. Farewell, STABLE.
Helios Benelli
Apr 23rd, 2007
Hi,
I’m The TFA Commander, we’re a new group and engaged in combat the other day with the mercs, however we were unsure of the rules and regulations of these treaties and didn’t even know they existed until just recently.
So I was just wondering will STABLE be used by all combat groups? If so will all combat groups receive a copy of it once it is done?
Just wondering cause me and the blokes in TFA don’t wanna break any rules or nothing, just have no clue what they are.
Phantom
Apr 23rd, 2007
the only rules a combat group has to fallow is the TOS(terms of service) but many combat groups like the AN, use added rules to make combat more fair in the game. the Mercz once the MOSCOW is done will ban any combat group that doesn’t fallow it. on the other hand the SLSALT (the standard treaty right now) doesn’t really cover any actions to be took against some combat group that chooses not to fallow it, normally they will be engaged in combat anyways, but some groups do ban, but they tend to ban even if your fallowing the rules, and winning.
but if your interested in the two different treaty ask Harlequin Salome for the STABLE and SLSALT treats. and Ethan Schuman for the MOSCOW treaty.
the low down on the two different treaties is that STABLE offers a less strict system keeping with the LL damage system, while the MOSCOW treaty will have a lot more restrictions and only members of MOSCOW will be able to fight each other, not to sure how they will do this, but it sounds like they want to use a in game health counter server side system, but this means only one group can create the scripts and weapons for the system, making a very big limiting the creative side of combat groups.
John Endwahl
Apr 23rd, 2007
Combat. Fair. Combat? Fair? Hmmm….
Nacon
Apr 23rd, 2007
This never ends, doesn’t it?
Reality
Apr 23rd, 2007
John, I do believe you meant to say “Combat. Second Life. combat? Second Life? Hmmmm…..”
After all, this is a program we are talking about here, not real life! No one really ‘dies’ in Second Life … say there’s an idea for a ‘treaty’ between these pretend armies! If you’re ‘killed’ (teleported home due to damage or otherwise ‘killed’), why you can do what some older Text RPers did: Delete your username and start fresh with a new one!
But to be serious for a moment: The idea that there is a ‘war’ going on between any ‘army’ in Second Life … These groups are about as authentic, with as much real control or power as the ‘police’ groups.
phantom
Apr 23rd, 2007
I really think people aren’t connection things in there head. second life is a game, yes some people claim it to be more, and it can be, but in terms of combat it’s just a game.
now the LL have given people the ability to do a lot of damage with scripts, have one person able to take out every on in a sim, or crash the sim it’s self, having limits on the power of weapons limiting the rate of fire, and just limiting things can make the game more fair and fun to play. I my self hate people that stand on safe land, with auto killers and shields(doesn’t really work in safe land anyways) if your one of this people then god help you, but if you like to have a fair fight as something fun to do, a combat group that follows more then the TOS is what you want.
Judge Hocho
Apr 23rd, 2007
Frankly, I don’t see it as making combat ‘fair’ — which as alluded to is an arbitrary term.
What the original SLSALT did, and STABLE attempts to do (IMHO) is to ensure equity in broad, general strokes.
Everyone has enough to deal with, given the proliferation of griefers, one goal is to limit the types of weaponry crafted by the groups to minimize the effect of dispersion to this faction. If you don’t build a mousetrap that destabilizes the grid, that’s one less object out there. Minimal effect? Probably, but it takes a lot of small events to make a large impact.
Additionally, there is the psychological effect associated with proper ethics training. You get some kid, who normally might become a griefer finding him or herself instead attached to a military that emphasizes honor and integrity and de-emphasizes cages, nukes, etc. et al … maybe, just maybe you will have kept one more annoyance from forming. If every military did that even once, it’s a winner.
When we say we’re ‘combating griefing’, this is how we do it these days. Less overt, but more far reaching effect.
As for standardized combat methodology, it merely seeks to limit the afore-mentioned scope and reduce the ‘short cuts’ such as shields and AV flying. These are viewed as poor for several reasons, not the least of which being considered ‘weak’ but also include the ancillary effects. Firing damage rounds in or around public damage land is problematic; having the round do it’s job as quickly and efficiently as possible is preferred. Using shield breakers may cause after effects (as we all are aware).
IMHO, again (standard disclaimer) I see STABLE in the same light as SLSALT, with the main difference being the coordinated effort of many groups forming the verbiage and the addition of methods to counter inappropriate behavior in a signing member.
Cheers.
//signed//
Judge Hocho, Lt. Col. AN AD Wing Commander
Phantom
Apr 23rd, 2007
Well yes, having combat groups following the treaty does prevent them becoming griefers, but to tell the truth if some one wants to be a griefer there isn’t much you can do to stop that, and I can make an alt with in the time it takes to write this, so one can very easily have a alt to grief when they feel like it.
if some one really wanted to make a nuke and knew how to they would, if some one wanted to get one they can, and using an alt they can use it when ever they feel like it. you may think your helping SL with grieffers but really it’s not really helping. I think gambling does a better job to combat grieffing right now then some treaty.
harlequin salome
Apr 23rd, 2007
Actually, Phantom, I’ve had morethan a few people who were griefers join the AN and hang up the shield and orbiter. Being a part of a group is what drives alot of these harassers, because they go out with friends and fuck up others’ good time in a desire to be part of a social grop and a sense of belonging.
Wht is important to lot of groups is the feeling of being part of something larger and better, and the AN tries to give that. We try to instill into members that simply passing training is an accomplishment to be proud of. Being surrounded by people that have worked hard to get where they are often leads to members not wanting to let their fellows down by resorting to griefing.
*shrugs* it doesn’t stop everyone, to be sure, but it has helped more than a few people give up their old ways, and that makes it worth the effort.
Ethan Schuman
Apr 23rd, 2007
While well-written, I’d say I have to disagree with the spirit of the article. Omega, you should endeavor to check your facts regarding MOSCOW if somewhat unbiased reporting on these two measures is your goal. To that end, you may contact me through IM at any time if you wish to discuss MOSCOW. I encourage you to take advantage of this soon, however, as once the intial MOSCOW document has been voted into action and enacted, I will be stepping down as acting moderator to allow an elected replacement to fill the position.
First off, MOSCOW was NOT just a Merczateers initiative, it was a community initiative set up by two Merczateers. The only group that we had encountered which was not invited to the first MOSCOW meeting was the AN, due not just to our personal disagreements with them, but those of nearly every other faction that had voiced an interest (either through attendance or correspondance). The second part of this that I find amusing, is that Miss Epsilon is using outdated and innaccurate information based upon incomplete reports and hearsay. Whether she does this willingly or not I do not know. The Alliance Navy WAS invited to the second meeting of MOSCOW, with the only condition being that they would be required to address the assembly and pledge to be better sports when it comes to SL. These terms were unacceptable to them, so the AN declined the invitation (which is still, even now, open) and attempted to make their own treaty. The Merczateers did not attend the STABLE meeting, as we do not believe the Alliance Navy really has the best interests of the combat community at heart, and that STABLE is just an attempt to counter MOSCOW. As for “dictating the terms of the treaty” as it were, that statement could not be further from the truth. The first meeting of MOSCOW involved a recommended series of points to address in consideration of the first draft of the treaty. Points were discussed in person (including the controversial GunGrade proposition) and likes and dislikes were pointed out. Then I took this input, compiled it, and began to draft a document candidate, while at the same time engaging in direct correspondance with faction leaders for a more in-depth analysis of the issues. Then at the next meeting, review and voting occurs. The process is FAR from centralized, and the speaker normally serves to address and compile input and concerns, not raise them.
To address the regulation of technology: Many MOSCOW groups so far seem to be for the general idea behind it, but not with the execution. My attempts so far to devise a new proposal more agreeable to all parties have been unsuccessful as of yet, but like all negotiations in which a suitable agreement is the objective of all participants, I’m confidant that we will reach and ratify a compromise soon.
Kristian Kit (mercz)
Apr 23rd, 2007
You know what the stupid thing is. Mercz and AN want more or the less the same rules. We hate AV flying, phantoms, prim sitting , nukes and all that shit. Helios if you want to join a treaty maybe you can let your people remove there cages from our base then? and when they are busy we also have over 8000 phantom bullets. Our sim is constantly down because of those greifers of your leading. Anyway back to the point. In my opinion are Mercz an An both honourable armies. whatever you think of us. We have similair rules. There were no skirmishes last week between An and mercz and the only battle is the political one. SLALT, MOSCOW or STABLE. well i can agree on both sides. I think the treaty shouldn’t be a doctrine and more a forum but on the other side. I’m getting really sick of greifers that crash our sim like the TFA. Banning them is not unreasonable if they prevent us from enjoying our SL experience. Noobs don’t have HQ’s or bases. nothing to lose exceptwhen you get banned for greifing. when we ban someone from badnarik that person can not join mercz anymore cause he is on the shitlist. Het is useless for AN to cause he is unable to attack.
we have to find a solution to finish the political war and get back to our beloved bunkers and manholes again.
my M4 gets dusty
Kristian kit
Apr 23rd, 2007
owh ethan and i wrote at the same moment
Omega Groshomme
Apr 23rd, 2007
Ethan,its an interview,dont smear my name because of facts,dicuss it with the person interviewed. As for you,i have tried to interview mercz regarding moscow or mercz in general,noone was interested so i decided to not try anymore. If you want to have a serious discussion with your members as well i will.
Nacon
Apr 24th, 2007
kids kids…. I thought your big concern was about griefers in SL, protesting RL Business like one (idiot) claims that IBM hired AN for protection and what not.
But now you kids are playing stupid game by making rules? Geez, I wonder how that works with real idiot greifers in SL, would they follow your rule of “combat”?
and Herald…. where the fuck were you to ask that kind of questions?
Oh right… they don’t care, they just want a shit-up drama on their site, to feed some attention to the advertising deal that you see on the side of the pages. Meaning they are losing their traffic.
AN and Mercz are being used for mere profit.
(I’ve been wondering when you kids are going to figure that one out for yourself?)
Bruno Ziskey
Apr 24th, 2007
Nacon, you’re really starting to annoy me now. We use these rules in order to keep our battles fair. Griefers are not likely to follow these rules, that’s fairly obvious. We use these rules in order to show that we are BETTER than the griefers, we limit ourselves to what we can do by creating and using these rules. You get it now?
harlequin salome
Apr 24th, 2007
The same thing, but one of the tenants is that MOSCOW was intended to cut people out. MOSCOW started, right off the bat, with Ethan admitting it was being used to exclude enemies of the AN. That right there is enough to destroy any faith in Mr Schuman, at least to a rationally thinking individual.
In the business world, when someone does something like tht, they lose credibility. And yet the only person even mentioning this MOSCOW is Ethan. Meaning the guy that spat in the face of the assembled members and used them is still in a leadership position. You can talk all you want, Ethan, but your actions speak louder than your lies, and you can’t talk your way out of this. Only dig the hole deeper.
Domine
Apr 24th, 2007
Funny how Omega touches on the responses like he has, but whatever. I have a hard time believing Mercz is used for profit… Haha, I mean sure, almost did that whole mountain dew thing but honestly..
… Fucking political bullshit. Someone find out who, exactly started the political shit and bitch at them.
Nacon
Apr 24th, 2007
Bruno said “Griefers are not likely to follow these rules, that’s fairly obvious.”
No shit! …but here what you didn’t (seem to) get it.
Commander Cirius Montale on “WAR!” report said “To respond to mr Nacon here, yes, IBM did indeed discuss its security arrangements with the Alliance Navy, and we did indeed provide information and recommendations to its staff within SL.”
(I’m guessing that name could be fake?)
That’s the “idiot” I’m talking about. If it was really true… you’d look like a fool in business world… whoops, too late, you kids already are.
Domine said “Fucking political bullshit. Someone find out who, exactly started the political shit and bitch at them.”
I agree… and it was Urizenus by poking them their past issue. Causing them to fight over like little babies… So Urizenus can write more crap on the Herald and knowing that he caused them back into the heat again, thus more crap to write for MERE PROFIT from their traffic on their advertising plan.
Now you get it, Bruno?
“you’re really starting to annoy me now”
Well geez, that’s quite a shame, isn’t it?
Phantom
Apr 24th, 2007
Ethan did, but just bitching at him doesn’t seem to help, I think it’s better just to ignore him.
Ethan Schuman
Apr 24th, 2007
“The same thing, but one of the tenants is that MOSCOW was intended to cut people out. MOSCOW started, right off the bat, with Ethan admitting it was being used to exclude enemies of the AN. That right there is enough to destroy any faith in Mr Schuman, at least to a rationally thinking individual.”
Excellent misinterpretation of my words, Mr. Salome. While I don’t know if you meant to type “enemies of Mercz” instead of “enemies of AN”, the context of your words seem to indicate that you did. If MOSCOW was intended to exclude all enemies of Mercz, then why were the Feds, CN, and SLSN present at the meeting. The answer to this, and to your accusation, is quite simple: The Alliance Navy has proven itself time and time again to be unwilling to advance the standing of the military combat community if it compromises their position and agenda as the “Sandbox Bullies of Second Life”. The breakdown of your STABLE talks is evidence of my point, as is your response to the unconditional invitation to MOSCOW. Harlequin, I can’t stand you personally, but do not be so vain as to think that I would waste countless hours of my time in negotiations and diplomacy with other groups simply to get back at AN, or you personally. You aren’t worth that time. I know the thought of someone doing something genuinely good for the community must be a foreign concept to you, but it actually does happen. And on a personal note, considering the actual agenda for STABLE, you calling me a liar would be a classic case of “pot, kettle, black”. I’d love to expose you for the fraud that you are, but once again, you simply aren’t worth the time, and I doubt the readers of this article and these comments have interest in that.
To Nacon:
Some people find news of our group goings on to be interesting. Obviously you are one of them, given the frequency of comments you post in articles relating to both the Alliance Navy and Merczateers. As the Herald has to pay their bills and their reporters somehow, why SHOULDN’T they report on issues of interest and advertise on them? No one forces you to read the articles, just as no one forces you to click the ads. If the Herald makes a small profit off spreading word of our groups, I personally don’t have any problem with it at all.
Ethan Schuman
Apr 24th, 2007
Addition:
One of the PROPOSED tenants of MOSCOW is not engaging in COMBAT with groups who do not belong to the convention. This proposal was made in an attempt to cut down on conflict caused by differing Rules of Engagement, not to snub groups. It is hoped that this proposal, in conjunction with a sense of shared purpose, would draw more military groups into the fold of MOSCOW, especially the smaller groups who are known for causing trouble by interfering with the Second Lives of other non-military grid members. Members would still be free to associate with other groups at will, just not to engage in active warfare. However, as I said, that tenant is a PROPOSAL. It has yet to be ratified, and will only be once all members of MOSCOW have had a chance to review, critique, suggest alterations, and approve it.
Judge Hocho
Apr 24th, 2007
Something I fail to comprehend Nacon. You are obviously an outsider looking in, seemingly fascinated by what you witness, yet decry everything everyone — regardless of “sides” — stands for. You mock our policies, you deprecate our personnel and quizzically ask of the author, “How could you write this, and respond?”
I ask you, why would you even care? What would possess you, save extreme envy to even participate is something you find so ridiculous?
Failing to perform even adequately in the capacity of dissenter, I am curious what would cause you to continue your vitriol to the point of utter absurdity, lashing out at the individuals (calling them ‘idiots’ and ‘children’) is the sign of a weak mind, and a delicate position. Given that you absolutely have no concept for that which you speak (IBM used the AN both as an anti-griefing force and technology presenter during the Innovation Jam, Phase 2 on IQ island (http://eightbar.co.uk/2006/09/18/an-amazing-show-the-alliance-navy-and-an-ibm-3d-jam/) as well as anti-griefing aid during the results: Noted here, http://eightbar.co.uk/2006/11/14/innovation-jam-results/). As for the business world, the cusp of technology that SL (or any metaverse technology we are currently investigating) is (are) patterned more like video games, than pre-existing frameworks; when in Rome ….
Sometimes it takes ‘the kids’ to show we old folks what the right direction to follow should be.
As for age, some of us are old enough to be your father — not that I would be proud of that, given your abusive and inconsequential remarks as of late.
If you dislike the concepts presented here, you are welcome NOT to take part.
Don’t feel obliged to respond with some apoplectic diatribe; I will not be posting to you, nor reading your posts again. You see, at my age, I realize I have that option.
//signed//
Judge Hocho, Lt. Col. AN AD Wing Commander
phantom
Apr 24th, 2007
Judge your links are broken it seems
Judge Hocho
Apr 24th, 2007
No, it appended the trailing parenthesis to the URL which it stripped out the meta tag.
Just remove the trailing parenthesis to make it work.
Cheers.
–Judge
phantom
Apr 24th, 2007
http://eightbar.co.uk/2006/09/18/an-amazing-show-the-alliance-navy-and-an-ibm-3d-jam/
http://eightbar.co.uk/2006/11/14/innovation-jam-results/
this are the links I believe this should work with out any playing around with it
Nacon
Apr 24th, 2007
“What would possess you, save extreme envy to even participate is something you find so ridiculous?”
Even I wonder why you even bother with something so ridiculous like for an outsider like myself and this whole “Me and my armies” pride.
Life is silly I guess?
Nacon
Apr 24th, 2007
(god damn typepad, breaking up my post)
The point is about IBM… they DIDN’T hire for actual protection…. it was a little stupid party, just to see what you can do in SL.
Are you even reading with your glasses on?
Bruno Ziskey
Apr 24th, 2007
And are you even using your brain Nacon? Don’t ever insult Cirius Montale by calling him an idiot. I personally know him and the AN, and Cirius Montale is much smarter (not to mention more rational) than you. So what if IBM did hire the AN as security? Even if the AN were to do nothing security related, they are still able to show themselves as being one of the few military groups in SL that actually don’t go around randomly griefing people, as I have seen others do. Get your facts straight before you start typing Nacon.
Nacon
Apr 24th, 2007
“So what if IBM did hire the AN as security?”
oy… youre one of the people actually didn’t read anything. In my post, I said “The point is about IBM… they DIDN’T hire for actual protection”
The key word is “DIDN’T” as in DID NOT, not DID.
I won’t bother reposting crap till you got any facts in from now on, silly kids.
Tsukasa Keiko
Apr 24th, 2007
Mr. Nacon,
It appears to be you who is reading without glasses; Care to read the second paragraph of the second link? The two posts are indeed for separate events- we presented at one, and provided security at the other. I’d hate to drag IBM into this drama, so please do read again, and leave it at that.
//signed//
Tsukasa Keiko, Gunnery Sgt. AN Fleet Division
Nacon
Apr 25th, 2007
YES! duh! no SHIT! I know what they wrote but you’re still not getting it. I’m just saying WHAT they really didn’t.
Maybe this will help you, go to a sim called ARC Research Center. You will see signs about researching something that they wanted.
I’ll be damn if you kids don’t get it. If you don’t… fine, for forget it, let’s say “I was wrong” and go back living in your own fantasy that you started with. I’m not gonna pray or wish you any luck figuring it out. God damn kids.
Luca Vasilopita
Apr 25th, 2007
‘Even I wonder why you even bother with something so ridiculous like for an outsider like myself and this whole “Me and my armies” pride.
Life is silly I guess?’ – Nacon
My armies and I.
‘YES! duh! no SHIT! I know what they wrote but you’re still not getting it. I’m just saying WHAT they really didn’t.
Maybe this will help you, go to a sim called ARC Research Center. You will see signs about researching something that they wanted.
I’ll be damn if you kids don’t get it. If you don’t… fine, for forget it, let’s say “I was wrong” and go back living in your own fantasy that you started with. I’m not gonna pray or wish you any luck figuring it out. God damn kids.’
Your post makes you sound as if you’re annoyed at being proven wrong, which would make you the “God damn kid” as it were.
Proteus Hand
Apr 25th, 2007
This is getting stupid, between both the AN and the Mercz, since we both have miniature versions of us, like Corsair and Sparta, CN, and the Feds, they’re all just going to end up siding with the favored larger army.
If you’re going to do that, why not just dissolve into the larger army, or better yet, act as an extension of their main group.
It’ll be the same in the end; you’ll just have two massive forces only this time, under different ROE standards, using equipment and tactics the other side would more than likely consider “griefer”, for example, Merczateers sitting into Alliance Navy fleet ships and killing the pilots was considered a “griefer” tactic by AN forces, but in turn, the Merczateers were highly offended by the AN’s use of massive phantom weaponry.
Bruno Ziskey
Apr 25th, 2007
Or the old guy who does nothing but whine and complain about “young hooligans” all the time because he’s too bored and lazy to do anything else.
Alex
Apr 25th, 2007
Being one who loves to put in their own two cents, I’d like to point out that the irrational ravings of Mr Nacon are not entirely born of outside views. Mr Nacon, first name: Neil, is of course a member of Titan Industries, the company with the strongest chance of getting the MOSCOW contract as well as the former Novus Ordo Imperialis. The group that was, upon occasion, severely humiliated by the Alliance Navy. This argument is born out of pure hatred, which is something incredibly petty to harbour of those you have played against in a game. Jesu Christo, you haven’t even met them!
You do appear to be over-using the insult ‘kids’. Is it that you have run out of things to say? Or do you honestly believe yourself to be mentally superior to your ‘political’ opponents, so to speak.
P.S. If you’re wondering how I guessed the name, I’ve seen you in the Midgar RP. If it isn’t Neil (a highly unlikely outcome, given the evidence) then apologies. Your arguments really are the ravings of an uninformed madman.
Inuyasha Deere
Apr 25th, 2007
Moskau, la la la la la la la … Anyway, I believe that MOSCOW is a much better arms treaty, due to the fact the Merczateers aren’t terrorists, not to mention, I recieved limited support in the third battle of the SLSN-CN war. The AN wear shields on many occasions, a move that I see as griefing. Plus, AN, The Baldassare Family (a mafia), and civilians in the simulator of Kurkenbrai entered this battle for no reason.
Learn this SLSN- stay off The Grand Federation/LA/CN land, and we won’t attack you. Continue to keep coming, you will be pounded in the fourth battle by SAS,TN,CN,LA,The Grand Federation, Army SL,USMC,and USAF/ARIA. Got that?
Best Regards,
Imperial Admiral -Inuyasha Deere
Kristian Kit
Apr 25th, 2007
There is no use in creating 2 treaties. You will create 2 groups with one leader in it ( mercz who is the big daddy in Moscow and AN in stable. A big massive army that can overrun the others anytime. In the meanwhile the moscow members don’t recognize the Stable members and vice versa. They will be seperate. There is no other solution then ending up with 2 big armies that deny each other existence after the big groups conquered the smaller ones. That is bitch fighting. This isn’t about the actual reasons for the war anymore. this is about the rules. As long we are discussing about the rules we don’t come to the actual war.
I’m going to ingnore Nacon btw…
Nacon
Apr 25th, 2007
No Alex, I’m not “Neil”, although I do recall him.
Sure, of course I sound like a crazy madman like Prok, but if you really wanna know, ask. I’m just done helping by giving you hints which none of you able to figure it out. Back into your own fantasy world. It’s quite a pity.
Bruno Ziskey
Apr 25th, 2007
Hmm…sounds to me like you’re trying to say that you are Profoky, Nacon. Can’t say as that would surprise me a lot.
Inuyasha, your post has both nothing to do with this article AND is feeble-minded, showing that you are a total noob and a waste of prims. Your forces are nothing more than noobs without any training, armed with freebie weapons that I have seen them use whenever they attempt to attack the AN’s base. As I have spent quite a few hours at the AN’s bases, I can say with full confidence that they do NOT wear shields. Anybody who stays on the base long enough can tell that the AN don’t wear shields, kid. If you fire at them and the AN are not dying, that most likely means that your shots aren’t hitting them. Well, guess that happens when you don’t TRAIN your guys, huh? It’s funny how much you sound like Ares Artizar, as you both are total retards who can’t even make a worthwhile defense of your pitiful base. As for your attacks on the SLSN, I would back down from attacking them, as they are allies of the AN and are friendly with Sparta. To be honest, I’ve been itching to find a noob group like yours with a base to attack. You put one foot down on the SLSN base, and you’re guaranteed to feel the wrath of both the AN and Sparta. We beat the Persians so I doubt you’ll be any better.
Luca Vasilopita
Apr 25th, 2007
“There is no use in creating 2 treaties. You will create 2 groups with one leader in it ( mercz who is the big daddy in Moscow and AN in stable.” – Kristian Kit
Well, I’d like for you to consider the Cold War. Now, given the Merczateers TF outlining and storybase, let’s label you as the USSR. This in turn will effectively label the Alliance Navy as the United States. On one side, we have the Warsaw Pact-esque groups (Merczateers, CN…) and opposite we have NATO-esque groups (Alliance Navy, SLSN, Sparta…).
We’re already beginning to see a sort of stalemate where both groups just work hard at their technology and interior politics, trying to always get a 1up on eachother.
We’re also beginning to see the “mini” conflicts that we have seen through the cold war (Korea, Vietnam, Cuba…).
Situations like this will really be the only news we see until either one of the groups makes the first move on eachother, which will result in one very large conflict that will span not days, but weeks. The largest operation thus far in SL’s recorded combat history was Operation Crucifix, which resulted in the Merczateers TF wiping and closing their sim to the public (They declared this a “win” for some reason, even though all signs point to them being worse off than before). Surely another large operation will result in something similar, if not worse for one of the groups.
Ethan Schuman
Apr 25th, 2007
The ego of the Alliance Navy begins to shine through here once again. The assumption that the Merczateers are interested in providing entertaining combat to a group that would stoop so low as to use a defected general to purchase a portion of our headquarters (which we did not have a copy of), and return to their own sim to put that on display is laughable. The Alliance Navy has REPEATEDLY shown a desire to engage in unsportsmanlike conduct, and flat out refuses any attempt to rectify the current situation in the combat community that they themselves do not initiate. The behavior of the Alliance Navy yesterday in their combined assault on CN’s headquarters is showing just how pathetic they really are. SLSN and CN are engaged in a war (one which I’m told SLSN initiated). Both are parties that have been actively participating in the MOSCOW talks. While this engagement was going on, the Alliance Navy sends a full combat force (with two admirals at the lead) to attack CN. AN claimed they did so because they were allies with SLSN. Everyone knows the real truth, however. The Alliance Navy is unable to go any prolonged period of time without a fight. It’s a simple statement of fact. The group that they chose to be the target of their abuse was completely and totally unable to fight back, and they knew this. In addition, the Alliance Navy knows what happens when non-MOSCOW groups engage MOSCOW factions, and were actually surprised when they were banned (as they were told they would be). This is not a Cold War, as MOSCOW as a group is not interested in the Alliance Navy and STABLE, or what happens to them. I personally wish the Alliance Navy well in their endeavors, and hope that they develop both a comprehensive arms treaty that suits the needs of their group, and the maturity to stop pestering the groups that have repeatedly expressed a desire to have no further interactions with them.
Phantom
Apr 25th, 2007
Not going to go over the AN buying your building since I wasn’t there. but it’s your own fault to have such a member that owns your buildings able to sell them to your enemy.
any one in the STABLE treaty would still be able to look at any members of the MOSCOW as a combat group, but not the other way around. because STABLE like the SLSALT won’t limit people to who they can attack.
I just want to say, that no matter the size of my enemy, the size of my army or my allies, I would still support any of my allies with a great deal of force, regardless of who the enemies of my allies are.
Bruno Ziskey
Apr 25th, 2007
Wow Ethan, you really outdid yourelf this time in spreading lies and more bullshit. Lemme clear up some of this trash:
“The Alliance Navy is unable to go any prolonged period of time without a fight. It’s a simple statement of fact. The group that they chose to be the target of their abuse was completely and totally unable to fight back, and they knew this.”
Now, let’s see….a military group, fighting another military group. How is that unexpected? And how about all those threats that Inuyasha, who runs the CN (and despite being a so-called “navy” don’t have a single ship that’s anywhere near useful) made to the AN, threatening their destruction? Are those threats supposed to be just ignored? Perhaps, but where would be the fun in that?
“AN claimed they did so because they were allies with SLSN. Everyone knows the real truth, however.”
*cough, cough* Wow this bullshit is thick. Guess what? The AN IS ALLIED WITH SLSN. Want proof, besides the words of the AN? The AN is the group thats helping the SLSN to get up on their feet, a noble act, although this is invariably going to be misconstrued as the AN growing another group to control, something that is impossible, as I have seen the SLSN have different viewpoints on some things, and the AN didn’t get all pissy and start whipping them or anything. Next on the agenda….
“In addition, the Alliance Navy knows what happens when non-MOSCOW groups engage MOSCOW factions, and were actually surprised when they were banned (as they were told they would be). This is not a Cold War, as MOSCOW as a group is not interested in the Alliance Navy and STABLE, or what happens to them.”
WOW, isolationism AND gathering your own dominating power? Now tell me THAT’S not Communist. Correct me if I am wrong, but you had said that MOSCOW was not meant as an end to the AN, yet later on you say that it is. I could post chat lags here from the MOSCOW meeting I took about how you accused the AN of pushing everyone around (more lies, as the AN have never pushed me around), but SL is down right now.
Honestly Ethan, I don’t know why the Mercz even support the CN, besides that the CN want to destroy the AN and nothing more. Inuyasha and his *cough* navy *cough* are nothing more than a bunch of kids who start whining when nothing goes their way. The attack on the CN is a show of pure military politics, the only kind of politics a Spartan like me can stand without falling asleep: You mess with the big boys, you end up in the hospital. Banning them from his base only showed that Inuyasha tried to pick on a group bigger than him before he was even close to being ready. Underdog? Under foot is more like it. You could do so much better for allies (or at least pets) Ethan, honestly.
Kristian kit
Apr 25th, 2007
luca: The largest operation thus far in SL’s recorded combat history was Operation Crucifix, which resulted in the Merczateers TF wiping and closing their sim to the public (They declared this a “win” for some reason, even though all signs point to them being worse off than before). Surely another large operation will result in something similar, if not worse for one of the groups.
we shot down the sim almost 12 hours after the attack. That was because of the arna incident and we had to redo our base. I admit that, that battle was the largest assault ever. I don’t know how to deny it but i fought in there for 11 hours on saturday (GMT+1) and 4 hours on the next when it stopped. The reason why we declared it as victory or just as not-losing was that jeremy told us that the original plan was to attack for full 100 hours and it stopped after 34-39 or something. Besides at a certain moment tp’s went down and the sim started to lag.I’m not going to whine about the gravpacks and the spawnkiling again. We heared that stories now.
And about that cold war. I want to get some things straight for once and for all. WE ARE NOT COMMUNISTS. We never been and i suppose we will never be. What individuals do is not my business but mercz was/is a neo-russian inspirated army in red army style. But it has nothing to do with the cold war or communism.Besides we don’t have a warsaw policy cause we don’t involve weaker groups in our business.That is just not fair.Attacking weaker groups is cheap. I wouldn’t call this a cold war.Also because what ethan said. If we really don’t recognize you as an army we are not interested in cold-war-a-like competition. But in my personal opinion it shouldn’t end like that. Mercz and Alliance Navy are the largest and strongest armies in SL. An has great technology and Mercz has some well trained warriors. This war could be interesting as long it comes to war again. I already said that my m4 got dusty well i sold it as old iron today
harlequin salome
Apr 25th, 2007
” The reason why we declared it as victory or just as not-losing was that jeremy told us that the original plan was to attack for full 100 hours and it stopped after 34-39 or something. ”
Dot. Dot. Dot.
Does that mean if the mercz show up in the woofer and we ban them all before they can shoot, its a victory? Had the sim not been set to no access, make no mistake. The fight would have continued.
To use banning as a way to say “Yay! We Won!” is childish, but perhaps there are more people who think this way. Perhaps thats why MOSCOW is appealing to a few groups. Because banning can somehow be considered a win of sorts.
Thats a joke. Sorry, but thats a pure joke.
Rob Arten
Apr 25th, 2007
“The assumption that the Merczateers are interested in providing entertaining combat to a group that would stoop so low as to use a defected general to purchase a portion of our headquarters (which we did not have a copy of), and return to their own sim to put that on display is laughable.”
Mmm. I cannot really blame my superiors for passing up such an opportunity. Buy the Kremlin? What better way to celebrate a victory. Jonathan Arna sold this little memento of his own free will. Are you going to say that selling an object that is his is wrong? Hell, I’m sure you’d see the funny side if you bought the ‘Green Tower’. I certainly would.
As for assisting our allies, isn’t that the point? Well, I believe the last alliance we had was with the Mercz, and they were less than supportive. Maybe it’s understandable that you don’t know how real Alliances work?
This brings to light a lovely problem with your MOSCOW agreement. So, you’re going to ban anyone who doesn’t play by your exact rules. And you called SLSALT restrictive? Hell, it’s not like we ban people for flying. It’s just another challenge. It looks to me as if you’ll ban anyone that you can’t beat. Which figures.
[Signed]
Master Gunnery Sergeant Rob Arten
E-7 Alliance Navy Marine Division
Senior Drill Instructor