No.32714
Hey there, big guys. Cian has been secretly recruiting people who are competent at PvP. Most of them are very good at PvP, a couple I'm unsure of. Many of them are HCF or former HCF. Regardless I formally give the following people full citizenship in Cian as well as Chanada.
Shadowshot03
Howdanrocks
ClumsyLobster
EliteDigger871
Achruss
Doge2
The previous names listed are hereby full citizens of Cian and Chanada. Each of them have pledged to protect Cian and its people in times of crisis and war. Futhermore this is only the first wave in people that will be joining Cian in the times to come, I'm expecting at least 5-10 more members in the coming days, all with PvP experience and many from HCF. Deals are already in place for individuals of other nations to loan combat loadouts to our new recruits should a situation arise where Cian is attacked.
As for our government, I am promoting former HCF Shadowshot03 to Minister of Defense. Currently our government consists of me, Niceman555 (Minister of Infrastructure) and Shadowshot03 (Minister of Defense).
With these changes and the rapidly evolving might of Cian's military, Cian would like to request the following for the benefit of Cian as well as the Chanadian Confederation:
-The promotion of Cian to a full voting member of the Chanadian Confederation
-Giving moderator access on the /civ/ board to all leaders of full voting nations.
-Giving the leader of Cian Admin access on whichever group Chanada's nether factories are on
-Logibear2, leader of Cian
No.32729
Arnold_palmer is hereby a citizen of Cian and Chanada.
No.32730
>recruiting hcf and not channers to live in chanada
No.32731
File: 1444436285955.png (17.79 KB, 388x237, 388:237, Screenshot from 2015-10-09….png)
none of these players besides achruss have ever even logged into the server. what are you trying to pull?
No.32732
the moment i see any of these people online i will believe you, but atm cian has a net citizenship of 0 people active.
No.32736
>>32731
Not yet. Hence recruiting. I'll tell them all to log on so you can be autistic and not believe your greatest ally.
No.32737
>>32731
Just gave the order for them all to sign on to the server to satisfy you.
No.32740
I'm confused- are you trying to create a military state or another Chan community that represents at least one board? Are these people even Channers, or is this an attempt to quickly achieve relevancy for a largely inactive nation?
Why not focus on bettering the community you already have, rather than sourcing in people who are from strictly PVP servers who have NO reason to contribute to the community we have in place.
Additionally your refusal to discuss where you are even gearing these guys from just makes this post all the more shady. Deals with other nations implies an unwritten allegiance in one form or another to them- do your deals include protecting the other nations if attacked? Do they include paying diamonds to parties that are technically against Chanada? Are they WP sympathizers? Nox sympathizers?
Your demands alone are a huge red flag with the context of your post.
No.32741
>>32740
>I'm confused- are you trying to create a military state or another Chan community that represents at least one board?
Cian still represents /bane/ and /tv/, there's no two ways about that. Bringing these people in won't sabotage that culture or the goals that went into initially creating Cian, in fact, it will enhance and further them. This is not casting aside the /bane/-/tv/ label, it's putting the foundation together to actually be able to work on it. Cian was founded by me and my friends from another website, no one had a problem when I brought them here.
>Are these people even Channers
Of the ones I know about? Yes. 4 and 8 chan are pretty popular, a LOT of people go on them. Truthfully I don't feel that's an absolute necessity when choosing members either, seeing as how plenty of chan nations have accepted non-channers. To restate it, yes of the ones I know about they are channers.
>Why not focus on bettering the community you already have, rather than sourcing in people who are from strictly PVP servers who have NO reason to contribute to the community we have in place.
You make a lot of assumptions there. Yeah, a big reason I brought these guys on the server was PvP, that's not necessarily all they're going to want to do. Some of them may only care for PvP and will not be as active during times of peace, but that's a hell of a lot better than having almost no one able to PvP competently.
>Additionally your refusal to discuss where you are even gearing these guys from just makes this post all the more shady.
1. Deals were made leveraged on trust and friendship to LOAN combat loadouts to them if Cian was attacked.
2. Multiple suppliers
3. There's simply no reason to reveal their names.
> Deals with other nations implies an unwritten allegiance in one form or another to them
Nations?
>Are they WP sympathizers?
Doubtful
>Nox sympathizers?
Uh... we are Nox sympathizers. You realize that right? We are allied with Nox. We sympathize with them.
>Your demands alone are a huge red flag with the context of your post.
A request is a lot different from a demand. Plus I feel the requests I made were of equal weight to the value I just added to Chanada as a whole, after they all log in of course.
No.32743
>>32741
We're not allied with Nox.
Have you tested these guys to actually make sure they're good?
None of their names pop up on badlion or kohi, this wouldn't be the first time people lied about being pvpers or hcf.
No.32745
>>32743
>We're not allied with Nox.
>We're not allied with Nox.
>We're not allied with Nox.
>We're not allied with Nox.
>We're not allied with Nox.
>We're not allied with Nox.
>We're not allied with Nox.
when did this happen
No.32746
>>32741
>Nations?
>>32714
>Deals are already in place for individuals of other nations ....
>Uh... we are Nox sympathizers. You realize that right? We are allied with Nox. We sympathize with them.
We are no longer allied with Nox. I'll just assume you're out of the loop after being inactive.
That said, people need to start paying attention to what's going on with the rest of the server because every action a neutral party does is looked under the microscope for ANY reason to justifiably aggress on them. If you have no ulterior motives in populating your town with PVPers, go for it. Transparency with these topics is usually preferred but it makes sense that you wouldn't want to give out the names of people supplying you. I'm sure they aren't individuals that are banned from Chanada or what not, but it's still a red flag from outside party's perspective.
No.32747
>We are no longer allied with Nox.
when did this happen
No.32748
>>32741
>Cian still represents /bane/ and /tv/, there's no two ways about that.
This sort of implies there is anything there to continue representing, other than activity and lack involvement.
>Truthfully I don't feel that's an absolute necessity when choosing members either, seeing as how plenty of chan nations have accepted non-channers
Oh boy, this won't possibly go wrong.
No.32749
Can we post with names so I can see if someone relevant is actually replying?
No.32750
>>32749
Are you not going to reply if you deem someone irrelevant?
This is a bit silly.
No.32751
>>32747
When Nox decided to pearl innocent people, non combatants, and otherwise un shitty people. Also when they used Chanada as a scapegoat for pearling people under the basis they were Mir-Chanada war combatants when they knew we stated wanting nothing to do with the conflict.
We've been neutral from the beginning of the WP/Nox conflict. The post has been pinned for a little while now.
No.32753
>>32750
Truthfully I'm concerned you're not bg and someone is stealing his pepe gimmick.
No.32754
>>32751
So there was no official dissolution of the alliance?
No.32755
>>32753
The pepe post is not me, the other recent anon posts are.
No.32756
>>32755
you see this is why we use names
No.32758
>>32754
https://www.reddit.com/r/Civcraft/comments/3o0c25/a_final_statement_from_nox/
They already knew. It sounds like you're really pushing for an official document besides our neutrality statement. But there you go.
No.32759
>>32758
>To our allies: you are formally released of any treaty obligations to us. We will continue to uphold ours to you for as long as you may want it.
Seems rather like "you aren't obligated to help us" as opposed to "we end the alliance".
No.32761
>>32759
Seems that way to you.
Either way an alliance with Nox is bad news so
No.32762
>>32761
Seeing as how we didn't vote to dissolve or otherwise reject the alliance Cian reserves the right to uphold and consider valid the Chanada-Nox alliance.
No.32763
>>32762
Nox rejected the alliance
No.32764
>>32763
To my knowledge they released us of our obligation to the alliance, not ended the alliance itself.
No.32766
>>32762
With what population, defense infrastructure, and liquid wealth do you even have the right to singlehandedly uphold an alliance?
look man clearly everyone thinks this is a bad idea and you should take your head out of your ass
No.32767
>>32764
The only favour Nox is going to do for Chanada is not attack us
No.32768
>>32766
I have about 10-15 competent PvPers joining our ranks, and about half of the list I already gave already logged in within 2 hours of giving them the server address to confirm their participation. Granted, I do not have the ability to properly equip them as Cian has not been attacked. My stance is more of a symbolic gesture, but if Nox asks me and therefor Cian to assist in something that we can do, we will do it. Regardless of if there's an alliance or not Nox has Cian's full support.
No.32769
>>32768
A single state cannot have an alliance with another nation/group. This was already discussed at the Mir war meeting when we discussed the law code.
No.32770
>>32768
To clarify further I do not expect Nox to ever need Cian's help. Without supplies we really can't do anything. It's a symbolic gesture that shows the support of me and my nation.
No.32771
>>32769
>A single state cannot have an alliance with another nation/group. This was already discussed at the Mir war meeting when we discussed the law code.
1. We are upholding an alliance that has not been officially dissolved via vote by Chanada.
2. I do not believe that law code was ever ratified via vote
3. Regardless of whether or not we have an alliance with Nox our support will be the same.
No.32772
>>32768
Can you answer my previous question
>>32743
No.32773
>>32762
I do not recognize Cian as a sovereign state
No.32774
>>32768
>I have about 10-15
>lists 7
>2 log in
> about half of the list I already gave already logged in within 2 hour
dude only 1 has logged in stop talking out your ass. You used to be pretty cool. Stop lying bro. Seriously what are you trying to pull here?
No.32775
>>32773
I do not recognize Tazmily as a soverign state.
>>32772
I have tested most of them personally, yes.
>>32774
3 have logged in so far as per my knowledge, check again.
No.32776
>>32775
>3 is about half of 10-15
is that how math works in serbia?
No.32777
>>32776
Half of those I listed is 3.5
No.32778
>>32775
On what server did you test them?
What gamemode did you do?
How well did they do against you?
No.32779
>>32778
lotta demands for an anon
No.32780
>>32779
So you're gonna resort to meming instead of answering questions noe?
No.32781
No.32782
>>32780
he doesnt feel comfortable being called out on his bullshit. you should really be more considerate
No.32783
>>32781
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
No.32784
>>32783
Now that's the kind of answer I've been waiting for this entire time
No.32785
>>32778
Logi can you please answer those questions?
No.32786
>>32784
So are you gonna answer the questions now
No.32787
>>32785
there's like 200 questions which ones you talking about
No.32788
No.32790
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>32777
7/2 =3.5 gg.
you are still full of fam. you used to be alright, what happened? ect. ect.
No.32791
>>32788
how was i supposed to know that was you fam
No.32792
>>32746
>Also when they used Chanada as a scapegoat for pearling people under the basis they were Mir-Chanada war combatants when they knew we stated wanting nothing to do with the conflict.
Really, you're basing all of this off a single comment in a buried thread made by MCisFTW? You know better than to think he was representative of the official leadership. I didn't mind the PR post on the subreddit throwing us under the bus to gain some distance but please don't pretend the entirety of Nox was somehow involved in scapegoating Chanada when we've literally done nothing for you but spearhead the entire Mir war and make enemies of people we were formerly on neutral to friendly terms with, purely for your sake.
The treaty was not written to allow unilateral abrogations by either side. Chanada cannot simply decide to not fulfill alliance obligations, just like Nox cannot simply decide we don't want to fulfill them either. That said, we proactively offered to void the treaty without the one-month waiting period or any penalty clauses. If Chanada refused that offer then the alliance would still be in place. Just like if we had refused to dissolve the treaty, you would have to follow the stipulated guidelines that maintain all treaty obligations for the period of one month and the use of prisonpearl to enforce any violations.
Logibear, if your people are (a) active and (b) competent enough we can gear them. Will need them to get on kohi for some test fights first.
No.32793
>>32785
look at that post
i wasnt the one who posted it, but i would like to know the answers to those as well
No.32795
Cool logi stopped responding
It's pretty interesting how none of these "pvpers" come up on kohi or badlion
No.32796
>>32792
(if this is really sin) save it for a private dialogue. Without spilling all the beans - we appreciate everything you have done for us. Ask papa.
No.32797
>>32792
>Really, you're basing all of this off a single comment in a buried thread made by MCisFTW? You know better than to think he was representative of the official leadership. I didn't mind the PR post on the subreddit throwing us under the bus to gain some distance but please don't pretend the entirety of Nox was somehow involved in scapegoating Chanada when we've literally done nothing for you but spearhead the entire Mir war and make enemies of people we were formerly on neutral to friendly terms with, purely for your sake.
Sintralin, please. Perhaps it was shortsighted to assume MC had a role in leadership; my active interactions with your group and your decisions to put him in charge of certain attacks on Mir misled my judgement. It does not change the rest of my statement, it consisting of both opinion and fact (and not intentional shit spewing of misleading information).
It's fact that Nox is responsible for pearling non-combatants. I suppose it's my subjective judgement that those pearled are innocent and generally unshitty people, but it's a sentiment that is backed by people like Josh and Immer and a sentiment that backs not wanting to be involved in your current conflict, among other reasons.
>purely for your sake.
I get being upset at me. But there are other people who have contributed a lot to Nox, have or have had active friendships with you personally and I don't have to name them. Saying it was purely for our sake implies some sort of selfless helping attitude, instead of considering the pre-text of the situation. Don't act like you don't owe anybody anything, just like we shouldn't act like we owe NOTHING to you (which I concede is the underlying message in my dissent against Nox as a group).
That said, me not agreeing with your current motives in no way rejects our appreciation for the involvement in the Mir war. I think it just comes down to a fundamental conflict of interests.
No.32798
This should really be in the thread on the chan meeting, but...
When did we "disassociate" our alliance with nox? The whole point of the Confederation was to get every nation to talk to each other - and not let a single figurehead decide on what is their version of "right", regardless of the circumstances.
All I've seen is that we're not getting involved with the conflict at this time - from the post saying that pearling people over the Chanada-Mir incident.
Not getting involved is quite different from cutting all ties. Besides, and I don't know about anyone here, but If Papa/Sintralin asked for help in their conflict I'd be up there asap on my way fighting with my own set of prot, and equipment. I don't see why we shouldn't scratch their backs after they helped us scratch ours during the Mir war.
Furthermore, Nox's last post on the sub did not end our treaty. That I think should be up for discussion in our next chan meeting. We should clarify our stances before we make anymore moves, because I don't want one person to call all the shots while other nations sit back and bitch.
No.32799
>>32798
>When did we "disassociate" our alliance with nox?
Basically we are taking up their offer to not uphold our side of the treaty. There are plenty of very good reasons for this.
>If Papa/Sintralin asked for help in their conflict I'd be up there asap on my way fighting with my own set of prot, and equipment.
I guess you have the right to do that but in my opinion it would be a bad decision, and it would have some long lasting consequences regardless of who wins the battle.
No.32801
>>32799
>Basically we are taking up their offer to not uphold our side of the treaty.
>we are taking
>we are
>we
Who is this we? By we, I assume you really mean you, because I don't recall the Confederation ever coming to a decision regarding foreign policy in this area. This is what the Confederation is here for, the least we can do is pull ourselves together to come to a group decision about this particular issue.
No.32802
>>32799
>Basically we are taking up their offer to not uphold our side of the treaty.
Who is "we" though? Because right now it only seems like you and Yearn.
I don't have any problem with your opinion, It just be great if everyone could talk about it, instead of making decisions.
Weather it's a good or bad option, it needs to be talked about because not everyone sees this as a black and white argument. I for one know that there is an extremely high chance where there are people in chanada who support Nox by either fighting for them, or are supplying them. Then on the other hand their are people who would like to remain an ally, but not get involved. Further down the line, there are people who do not want any part or involvement in nox's war.
No.32804
>>32797
>a sentiment that backs not wanting to be involved in your current conflict, among other reasons.
This is why we made the post releasing Chanada of treaty obligations, because we knew there would be disagreements. I still don't see why you think the treaty was nullified prior to that post. There was no official meeting, no discussion, and the treaty was written explicitly to prevent people from simply pretending it didn't happen. Just like Nox couldn't have backed out of our treaty because we didn't like something we saw on here.
>"for your sake"
as in Chanada, not you personally. Nox would not have attacked Mir if Chanada hadn't had an issue with them. We wouldn't have gotten into conflict with them, period. Various members of Nox/Mir had previously been on good terms before it started, to the point where they thought we were backing *them* in the war. There were several conflicts of interest for us, so it's not like that's a foreign concept.
Anyway, this is ultimately pretty pointless. We're not going to forsake the friendships we've made with Chanada, we're not going to change our foreign policy re: the chan states as a result. Unless Logibear's people manage to beat Crayfish or Vita we're not going to waste prot. So nothing is really going to result from this exchange, I just think it's a bit petty to soapbox against us for some moral high ground after the history our two states have had.
No.32805
>>32804
>So nothing is really going to result from this exchange, I just think it's a bit petty to soapbox against us for some moral high ground after the history our two states have had.
I agree and apologize if I've personally offended you.
No.32806
>>32802
are you me? are you josh x yearn? are you syncrates, dubs...outcast? no?? well then fuck right off.
if you disagree take it up with your town leader(s) they are all good listeners. AFAIK we (WE) are in agreement. Chanada is not getting involved, taking a step back and laughing on the sidelines as the world burns
>>32804
I just think it's a bit petty to soapbox against us for some moral high ground
we are chanada lass. from the soapboxing redditors point of view, there is very little moral high ground to be had. Touch bases with papa or hit me up me on skype. No need to air the laundry here.
No.32807
>>32806
>if you disagree take it up with your town leader(s) they are all good listeners. AFAIK we (WE) are in agreement. Chanada is not getting involved, taking a step back and laughing on the sidelines as the world burns
Are we talking about the alliance itself, or just getting involved. Either way, I really don't like the fact that Chanada has become a closed-door discussion, where the national leaders decide things without any sort of public input beyond what they themselves feel necessary to take into account from their own citizens. Chanada used to discuss issues out in the open, but it seems rather than striving for public discourse the simplest option has been to have the three remaining leaders come to a 'consensus' without a whole lot of hassle from the rest of the alliance group. Just doesn't sit right with me, fam, although in this case I completely agree, getting involved is suicide.
No.32808
>>32807
name one time chanada has discussed an issue of war and national security out in the open?
No.32810
>>32808
The creation of the alliance in question, if I recall.
No.32811
>>32806
>Chanada is not getting involved
Pic related. I don't believe for one second that there is no one involved.
>>32808
First one I remember was talking about openly was Titan. Talked about it pretty openly when the Gensokyo/MTA conflict was on too. Mir war conversation was pretty open too.
Military o.ps were kept quite, but that's obvious.
No.32813
>>32811
You know what it is? People realized that it was easier to just have HanTzu speak for us, rather than discuss it as an entire alliance. Keep in mind, these were decisions that were supposed to be affecting the future of the entire alliance, but they were done largely without public input. The fact is, people realized that the easier thing to do was to just do things and then spring a 'gotcha' moment on the public when it was released, and if anybody whined just say "oh, well, you missed the boat." Immelol tried to do this with his HKE crap and got shut down, but when people did it with the Mir War and we woke up in a 'ceasefire' that was apparently not recognized by Mir at the time (as evidenced by Gb's pearling) it was a-okay.
I'm not saying that we should sit around in a group passing the bong and talking philosophy or writing a constitution or something. What I'm saying is that certain things should have public input, and whether or not to terminate an alliance is certainly one of them, regardless of whether the three major leaders of Chanada agree. It just doesn't sit well with me that these things, which were once discussed by the common citizenry during meetings, are now decided behind closed doors and then sprung on us.
No.32814
>>32810
>>32811
all were closed door meetings. There may have been more people present but we sure as hell didn't shitpost on a public board about it.
I don't believe every single citizen is needed to be present for a decision that, really is common sense and seemingly unanimous. Anon, if you are a /k/, taz citizen - take it up with your town leader. If you are a pol citizen. The leader calls the shots - this is what happens in an authoritarian government...
No.32815
>>32813
>you know what?
gee i wonder who could be posting this...
you have a very distinguishable writing style and diction
No.32816
>>32814
>all were closed door meetings. There may have been more people present but we sure as hell didn't shitpost on a public board about it.
True, but those meetings were open to any chanadian, not a meeting of three leaders.
As which nation I'm from, it's irrelevant. I am a citizen of Chanada and I have a right to speak on it. You, Syncrates, and Josh have a right to speak for your respective nations, but you do NOT have the right to speak for the dozen or so Channers who are not part of those three nations but are still active parts of the community. Assuming that you have consensus because the major parties of the alliance agreed is not a valid strategy for making decisions for the entire group, because you don't call the shots for everybody, only /Pol/ynesia, /K/ountry, and Tazmily.
No.32817
>>32814
I'd like to think that the leaders would tell their people what the fuck is going on and giving an explanation then. Instead of making this into a huge fucking shit fest.
No.32818
>>32816
>you do NOT have the right to speak for the dozen or so Channers who are not part of those three nations
If they do not meet the requirements to become fully vested voting members of chanada, then I absolutely do have the right to speak for them. Good day sir.
No.32819
No.32820
THIS IS NOW CUTE MONKEY THREAD
ALL WHO PROTEST SHALL BE HOO-HARRD
No.32821
>>32818
Tigen and I both came to regret pushing that through and every international decision that comes to pass only reinforces that regret. I can only hope that we don't wake up to a Chanada where the newer nations feel resentful of the older ones for never asking them what they wanted out of the alliance and suddenly start pushing back. We have enough conflict within this alliance, we don't need to start digging the trenches for the next ones by loudly declaring what we can and cannot decide for them.
I used to blast HanTzu and Dave for those types of statements and I now see that ultimately, power does corrupt the perspective of leadership. Seven months ago, you would never have said that, immer. I agree with your decision, but not your methodology. I respect you, but I respectfully disagree with how you have handled certain things, this being one of them. I'm loyal, but I'm not going to sit here and agree for the sake of it.
No.32823
>>32821
HOOHOOOOOHOOOOOHOOOOIHOHOHOOHOHOHOHJHOHOHHHHOOOOOOOHOOOOHOOOOHOOH OI OOHOHOHOHOOHOOOOOHOOHOHOO
HOOOOOOOHHOOO
HOOOOHOOHOHOOHOOOOHO
HOOOOHOOOOHOHOOHOOOOHOOOK
No.32825
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
whats it doin boys
No.32826
>>32821
you are now against legislation you fought tooth and nail to push through.
It established a minimal criteria for activity and wealth in order to hold votes, and that's bad somehow?
Suprabuilder, fofa2012 et al, do not deserve the same amount of say (or any really) in chanada's role in geopolitik. sorry.
No.32827
>>32813
>HanTzu
>bringing my name up in shit that doesn't involve me in the slightest
okay
No.32828
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>32827
BG CAN'T HELP IT
HE'S A NATURAL FIRESTARTER
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
No.32830
>>32768
>I have about 10-15 competent PvPers joining our ranks
vid related
>>32775
>I do not recognize Tazmily as a soverign state.
lel
ITT: Logi tries to make his shitpost of a town relevant by shipping in PvPers
Fucking hell, at least reddit actually had a population, even if they were 90% shitters.
>>32823
>>32820
HOOO HOOO
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAA HAAAA HOO HAAAA HAAA HOOOOOO
No.32831
>>32830
SOMEONE ALREADY USED THAT WEBM YOU SHITTER
No.32850
>>32826
>It established a minimal criteria for activity and wealth in order to hold votes, and that's bad somehow?
I never wanted to strip newer nations of all representation entirely. I think that for most things yes, it really doesn't matter if they have a say or not, but in the instance of alliances and such, yes I do think that Neustria and /A/kihabara deserve at least some say just as much as we do, even if it is only expressing their opinion in a meeting during a discussion.. They have people who are affected by our actions, but according to you their only recourse is...what exactly? Complain to you, josh, and sync after you make decisions without them? It just doesn't sit well with me, even if you are making the right decisions.