Which alliance is the biggest MK lapdog?

[Pingu]

Hang on. You said you totally agree with Prodigal Moon's analysis about pats on heads. And then you disagree with it. In the space of two consecutive posts (why oh why the double posting?). Are you drunk?

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1342287965' post='3010164']
Hang on. You said you totally agree with Prodigal Moon's analysis about pats on heads. And then you disagree with it. In the space of two consecutive posts (why oh why the double posting?). Are you drunk?
[/quote]

1- You said [quote]If only Roq, Schatt and other haters would pat us on the head rather than spew mild, ineffective venom[/quote]... So I am saying that if you dont have consideration for an ally that you said over and over that was one of your closer ones, a "pat on the head" would't do much right?

2- sorry for the double post

3- I am always drunk..

Edited July 14, 2012 by King Louis the II

[Pingu]

So you [i]don't[/i] agree with Prodigal Moon. Despite saying you totally agree with him. Pass the bottle please - it's clearly good stuff.

[bkphysics]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1342283666' post='3010141']
If only Roq, Schatt and other haters would pat us on the head rather than spew mild, ineffective venom, maybe we would have defected by now and brought down the evil fungal hegemony. What use is analysis unless it leads to changed, effective action? The point is not merely to understand the world, but rather to change it.*

*Head-patting strategy not guaranteed to work. No warranty given or implied.
[/quote]

I think you make an invalid assumption that anyone would want you to "defect" and "bring" down the evil empire. Clearly history has shown us that the ODN does not possess the gumption to fulfill such a role. As for the usefulness of analysis, it does lead to change as it breeds discussion, which in turn can bring together like minded individuals who may not have been aware of their shared interest.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1342296303' post='3010213']
So you [i]don't[/i] agree with Prodigal Moon. Despite saying you totally agree with him. Pass the bottle please - it's clearly good stuff.
[/quote]

Oh my, he said


[quote], for me, has some additional connotation that the alliance actually looks up to the master alliance, and even wants to carry out their agenda, not because it empowers them or advances their political standing, but because their main goal is social approval. A pat on the head, if you will. From my observations, ODN is the alliance among the options that best fits into that role vis-a-vis MK.[/quote]

ODN looks for approval by their MASTER. A pat in the head for anyone else is pointless. Since ODN only sees MK (and actually TLR as well) and they will do anything to please them as a lapdog will do.

You said, if you guys "pat us in the head" too instead of hate we may change. All am I saying that you will not. No matter what other friends do for you. At the end of the day you will follow MK or TLR. Any other firendship is basically pointless.


Add: Optional Defense Network is becoming fashionable again

Edited July 14, 2012 by King Louis the II

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1342220596' post='3009875']
Fwiw Rey's a much better OWF poster than a lot of you guys.
[/quote]

You must be a very poor judge of posting.

[Master Holton]

I also voted TOP. Unironically.

[jaaku]

Voted TOP. Obviously.

[Melancholy Culkin]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1342297814' post='3010226']
You must be a very poor judge of posting.
[/quote]

Actually I think I'm slightly above average and judging that!

[itseZe]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1342297628' post='3010224']
ODN looks for approval by their MASTER. A pat in the head for anyone else is pointless. Since ODN only sees MK (and actually TLR as well) and they will do anything to please them as a lapdog will do.

You said, if you guys "pat us in the head" too instead of hate we may change. All am I saying that you will not. No matter what other friends do for you. At the end of the day you will follow MK or TLR. Any other firendship is basically pointless.


Add: Optional Defense Network is becoming fashionable again
[/quote]

That you felt the need to add a random insult after your argument shows your faith in your own argument.

But I'll follow suit: You might have more success patting people "on" instead of "in" the head.

[Schattenmann]

Did ODN win yet?

[OsRavan]

lol, I think a big reason you see alliances jockying and enjoying being voted 'lapdog' is mostly because the more pissed off and insulting your enemies get, the greater the sign you are doing something right.

I mean ::snorts at king louis:: I cant even get offended cause... what? Optional defense network is becoming popular again based on.... what? Does this even make any remote sense in the context of this war?


Being serious for a second (though I dont know why im bothering here) the real problem with threads like this it is mostly outsiders commenting on relationships they arent a part of. If we put aside the 'spin' and 'pr points' motive of a topic like this and take it at face value, you essentially have people who dislike said alliances commenting on how they suck and dont think for themselves. Why dont they think for themselves? Because they are doing something *you* wouldnt do. You dont like MK, cant stand them, think they are evil. Whatever. As such, you cannot envision a scenario where MK has a genuine give and take friendship with someone else.

Isn't it funny how the lapdogs are *always* your enemies and never your friends? I know ive found that ironic. I am waiting for the people in this thread who are going on about MK lapdogs to make a thread about SF/XX being god lapdogs. I cant think of any argument that applies to MK's allies that wouldnt apply to sf/xx following god's lead. Go on, im waiting (and for the record I dont consider those alliances lapdogs either. I find the notion of 'lapdogs' anywhere eye roll worthy)

To those that know them, the idea that alliances as strong willed with independent smart membership/leaders and a strong community as alliances like TOP, NG, TLR, Umbrella (ODN though im biased there) are just blindly following MK... or are just trying to hide behind mk... is ridiculous. You dont have to like these alliances, but I dont see how anyone who interacts with them on a regular basis can actually seriously think they are mindless lapdogs.

Reality is rarely as black and white as you would make it out to be. In reality, MK's relationship with every alliance in this thread is complex and filled with genuine respect and also a give and take in terms of how it works. The idea that you can play back-seat quarterback and make sweeping judgements is ridiculous.

Whatever alliance you are in... I can point to someone and call you their lapdogs. And use as much evidence and logic as has been placed in this thread. Chaining in a war will shed no insight for you on how alliances interplay with each other behind closed doors.

Ultimately, by dumbing down complex motivations and relationships into catch phrases all you are accomplishing is limiting your chance to actually understand your enemy (and thus perhaps beat him)

Edited July 15, 2012 by OsRavan

[Alterego]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1342313402' post='3010300']
lol, I think a big reason you see alliances jockying and enjoying being voted 'lapdog' is mostly because the more pissed off and insulting your enemies get, the greater the sign you are doing something right.

[/quote]

or its close to the bone and they try to skewer it by saying they voted for their own alliance. that way they never really know for sure what people really think of them. its a common MK tactic that seems to have been adopted by the parasites that feed off their position of power

[OsRavan]

... yeah. You just didnt get the overall point I was making there at all, did you?

[Monster]

Alterego is right on that account.

The other thing that doesn't work is the notion of "lapdogs" not existing at all. If we want to get out of the connotations the term has, satellite alliances do exist. Prodigal Moon made the best definition of satellite/lapdog/whatever. It's an alliance that doesn't really have its own agenda or only has agendas that fit with the more dominant alliance. Implying every relationship a dominant alliance has with its allies is an equal one filled with genuine respect and whatnot is ignoring reality. There have always existed alliances that are more demure and more likely to go with the flow.

The nonexistent "complexity" which basically means there are points of contention at times and it's not exactly "yessir," which no one actually thinks is the case doesn't help anyone in terms of "beating their enemy," because the implication you make with "understanding" is somehow this information would be crucial in terms of playing the alliances off one another. They don't really care or have the will to break off on points of contention or be swayed into breaking and any disagreements will be pushed aside at the end of the day.

[Pingu]

[quote name='bkphysics' timestamp='1342296634' post='3010218']
I think you make an invalid assumption that anyone would want you to "defect" and "bring" down the evil empire. Clearly history has shown us that the ODN does not possess the gumption to fulfill such a role. As for the usefulness of analysis, it does lead to change as it breeds discussion, which in turn can bring together like minded individuals who may not have been aware of their shared interest.
[/quote]

Which is obviously why Roq's strategy of peddling his crackpot analyses in every thread on the OWF worked so well. I'm glad he throttled back a bit. But I don't think it's because he's built his rebel alliance and now stands poised to overthrow the evil empire.

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1342297628' post='3010224']
You said, if you guys "pat us in the head" too instead of hate we may change. All am I saying that you will not. No matter what other friends do for you. At the end of the day you will follow MK or TLR. Any other firendship is basically pointless.
[/quote]

Well, first, it was a fairly obvious joke. Try patting my head and I'll peck your kneecaps off. Secondly, I'm sorry you're still upset about the way the treaty web worked that caused you to dump us, but I invite you to ask our friends who are not MK or TLR whether they have found the relationship to be basically pointless. I suspect you will find some disagreement, and I don't reckon it's all false consciousness.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1342320310' post='3010339']
The nonexistent "complexity" which basically means there are points of contention at times and it's not exactly "yessir," which no one actually thinks is the case doesn't help anyone in terms of "beating their enemy," because the implication you make with "understanding" is somehow this information would be crucial in terms of playing the alliances off one another. They don't really care or have the will to break off on points of contention or be swayed into breaking and any disagreements will be pushed aside at the end of the day.
[/quote]

Perhaps this is due to genuine friendship and shared interests? Radical notion, I know. Between friends and allies, points of contention tend to be worked out through discussion, give and take, other practices of mature relationships. Only a truly radical disagreement or a sharp divergence of interests is likely to strain such relationships to the point where a split becomes imaginable. What I don't understand is why you think accurate understanding of your opponents and their relationships is not crucial to trying to defeat them.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1342202922' post='3009757']Another example of this, for those that prefer historical ones, is the unholy treaty between MK and TOP. Both parties there knew the treaty was not there for a friendship, it was put in place because it ensured Polaris would be kept down as long as that treaty was in place. TOP was livid about bipolar, and MK capitalized on that.
[/quote]
I had a good laugh at this. There's a lot of circular reasoning going on. You know nothing about the internal dynamics of our relationships but you [i]assume[/i] that it wasn't for friendship and MK was the leader in this because well, we lead everything. And you then use that as evidence that all our allies (or at least TOP) is our lapdog.

Anyone who was active in MK or TOP at the time knows that the idea that there was "no friendship" behind the treaty is laughable. Lots of outsiders could tell it was going to happen just by looking at the number (scores) of diplomatic mask applications going both ways.


[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1342313402' post='3010300']
lol, I think a big reason you see alliances jockying and enjoying being voted 'lapdog' is mostly because the more pissed off and insulting your enemies get, the greater the sign you are doing something right.

I mean ::snorts at king louis:: I cant even get offended cause... what? Optional defense network is becoming popular again based on.... what? Does this even make any remote sense in the context of this war?


Being serious for a second (though I dont know why im bothering here) the real problem with threads like this it is mostly outsiders commenting on relationships they arent a part of. If we put aside the 'spin' and 'pr points' motive of a topic like this and take it at face value, you essentially have people who dislike said alliances commenting on how they suck and dont think for themselves. Why dont they think for themselves? Because they are doing something *you* wouldnt do. You dont like MK, cant stand them, think they are evil. Whatever. As such, you cannot envision a scenario where MK has a genuine give and take friendship with someone else.

Isn't it funny how the lapdogs are *always* your enemies and never your friends? I know ive found that ironic. I am waiting for the people in this thread who are going on about MK lapdogs to make a thread about SF/XX being god lapdogs. I cant think of any argument that applies to MK's allies that wouldnt apply to sf/xx following god's lead. Go on, im waiting (and for the record I dont consider those alliances lapdogs either. I find the notion of 'lapdogs' anywhere eye roll worthy)

To those that know them, the idea that alliances as strong willed with independent smart membership/leaders and a strong community as alliances like TOP, NG, TLR, Umbrella (ODN though im biased there) are just blindly following MK... or are just trying to hide behind mk... is ridiculous. You dont have to like these alliances, but I dont see how anyone who interacts with them on a regular basis can actually seriously think they are mindless lapdogs.

Reality is rarely as black and white as you would make it out to be. In reality, MK's relationship with every alliance in this thread is complex and filled with genuine respect and also a give and take in terms of how it works. The idea that you can play back-seat quarterback and make sweeping judgements is ridiculous.

Whatever alliance you are in... I can point to someone and call you their lapdogs. And use as much evidence and logic as has been placed in this thread. Chaining in a war will shed no insight for you on how alliances interplay with each other behind closed doors.

Ultimately, by dumbing down complex motivations and relationships into catch phrases all you are accomplishing is limiting your chance to actually understand your enemy (and thus perhaps beat him)
[/quote]
Excellent post.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Azaghul

[Monster]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1342322642' post='3010349']
Which is obviously why Roq's strategy of peddling his crackpot analyses in every thread on the OWF worked so well. I'm glad he throttled back a bit. But I don't think it's because he's built his rebel alliance and now stands poised to overthrow the evil empire.
[/quote]

Repeating myself gets tiresome. Basically, the message received is that I was just stating the obvious and being repetitive wasn't conducive to much. Nothing crackpot about it.


[quote]Perhaps this is due to genuine friendship and shared interests? Radical notion, I know. Between friends and allies, points of contention tend to be worked out through discussion, give and take, other practices of mature relationships. Only a truly radical disagreement or a sharp divergence of interests is likely to strain such relationships to the point where a split becomes imaginable. What I don't understand is why you think accurate understanding of your opponents and their relationships is not crucial to trying to defeat them.
[/quote]

The former creates the latter. The value placed on friendship above political disagreements causes a certain track to be followed.

A radical disagreement will be pushed aside and made into a non-issue based on a concession by the less aggressive party in most cases, consequently a split between certain alliances is unimaginable, when they are on the same page action-wise and will be even if not mentally.

My point is that the information has little use since it can't be used to make people act on x, y, z, which is where it'd be useful in terms of defeating an enemy. If you could offer someone something to make them split off, it'd be more useful as opposed to "friends forever," which is what the whole "disagreements are all sorted out and someone wins out in the end" comes down to. In terms of overall value, it's mostly what people already think and of little pragmatic use.

edit:
The analysis isn't really useful in this instance because it's obviously SCY getting digs in at people. I don't think he intended it to be a thread where people band together to go up against the listed alliances.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Roquentin

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1342313402' post='3010300']
lol, I think a big reason you see alliances jockying and enjoying being voted 'lapdog' is mostly because the more pissed off and insulting your enemies get, the greater the sign you are doing something right.

I mean ::snorts at king louis:: I cant even get offended cause... what? Optional defense network is becoming popular again based on.... what? Does this even make any remote sense in the context of this war?


Being serious for a second (though I dont know why im bothering here) the real problem with threads like this it is mostly outsiders commenting on relationships they arent a part of. If we put aside the 'spin' and 'pr points' motive of a topic like this and take it at face value, you essentially have people who dislike said alliances commenting on how they suck and dont think for themselves. Why dont they think for themselves? Because they are doing something *you* wouldnt do. You dont like MK, cant stand them, think they are evil. Whatever. As such, you cannot envision a scenario where MK has a genuine give and take friendship with someone else.

Isn't it funny how the lapdogs are *always* your enemies and never your friends? I know ive found that ironic. I am waiting for the people in this thread who are going on about MK lapdogs to make a thread about SF/XX being god lapdogs. I cant think of any argument that applies to MK's allies that wouldnt apply to sf/xx following god's lead. Go on, im waiting (and for the record I dont consider those alliances lapdogs either. I find the notion of 'lapdogs' anywhere eye roll worthy)

To those that know them, the idea that alliances as strong willed with independent smart membership/leaders and a strong community as alliances like TOP, NG, TLR, Umbrella (ODN though im biased there) are just blindly following MK... or are just trying to hide behind mk... is ridiculous.
[/quote]


1- after deep thinking I think I can not say that I really dislike MK, they do what they are supposed to do. So no dont think they are "evil"

2- Comparing MK lapdogs with XX to God? Oh my you really are on shrooms The alucinogic one. XX went on God/CSN side to honnor treaties , moreover God/CSN neither start nor plotted to start the last 2 wars. ODN specifically followed MK despite having allies on the other side. So please making this comparison just make you look bad.

3- Everything that ODN in the recent years show that it still deserves the "optional" brand. At least your actions just show this. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1342297814' post='3010226']
You must be a very poor judge of posting.
[/quote]
Shouldn't you be busy being too cool for school and giving zero $%&@s?

[OsRavan]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1342324597' post='3010370']

2- Comparing MK lapdogs with XX to God? Oh my you really are on shrooms The alucinogic one. XX went on God/CSN side to honnor treaties , moreover God/CSN neither start nor plotted to start the last 2 wars. ODN specifically followed MK despite having allies on the other side. So please making this comparison just make you look bad.

[/quote]

I honestly dont know what you are babbling about with the optional defense stuff unless you are still butt hurt over Sparta cancelling on ODN last war, but tbh I dont really care so lets stick to point two.

dude... ::slow face palm:: Seriously? 1) You do realize XX and SF had treaties on the 'other side' too? Both this war and last? 2) You do realize ODN has 'followed treaties' this war (and last for that matter)? Right? 3) In fact, you do realize the *ONLY* alliances *not* to follow treaties in this war have been on the sf/xx side? And I dont say that as a negative cause honestly in coalition war who really cares? More power to them for being smart and willing to maneuver. But the SF/XX side has repeatedly hit without treaty connections this war or with a long string of oAs at other points. Which is something you should be *PROUD* of. But its a little silly to thump your chest about your side only entering wars via treaty chains considering the facts.


The point isnt that SF has lapdogs or that MK does. The point is that calling people lapdogs in the context you are doing is idiotic and purely driven by your politics. Literally everything you just complained about can be applied to your allies. I cant tell if you are purposely not seeing the point here (in which case kudos for drawing me into your madness) or if you really dont get it.

Essentially it seems as though your argument for being a lap dog is that MK's allies honored their treaty with MK without 'questioning' mk or some such. Well 1) how do you know what went on behind the scenes? 2) Near as I can tell, XX didnt 'question' their allies before they went in, so guess that makes you lapdogs?

[keeology]

i'll say one thing about ODN. they aint deserving the Optional nick name back. its been great fighting ODN again a good solid alliance. i aint going to go around saying who is who's lap dog. or pretend i know the relationship MK has with ODN,TLR,NG or anyone else. i thought this more of a joke thread by SCY one to have fun in. i voted TLR cause they offered bacon. witch is still have not received . i demand my bacon TLR so personally i agree there isnt a lap dog alliances for either side.

[Unknown Smurf]

I think the problem here is the perception of a lap dog alliance. While Os is not MKs lapdog per se, one could say the friendship he has with members/leadership of MK causes ODN to follow MK in a lapdog manner...

But who is to say that MK isn't doing what ODN/Os asks? Like Azaghul said, I don't have an inside view of that relationship. That said, I believe its a little bit of give and take as with any good relationship.

[Neo Uruk]

If you're an MK ally, it's because you share common goals. It's never been MK dictating everyhing an alliance does. Ever.

[Monster]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1342345274' post='3010446']
If you're an MK ally, it's because you share common goals. It's never been MK dictating everyhing an alliance does. Ever.
[/quote]
I don't really agree. It's more certain alliances lacking the proactivity to feel secure without a more dominant alliance to steer them. A lot of it has to do with cultural cachet and the fact that sycophancy towards MK by a wide array of groups in the past and present has existed since Karma. MK relies a lot on being perceived as "cool."

At the end of the day, there's a reason people have said certain alliances have wasted their potential as no one should want to be overshadowed in favor of another alliance. The problem is, the appropriate King of the Mountain mentality that should exist doesn't in a number of large alliances. Laziness prevails.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Roquentin