The Future of Neo-Hegemony ?

[lebubu]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='30 March 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1269961359' post='2241115']
That said, 90% is way off the mark. It presupposes that the literacy rate in MK is actually that high. [i](I kid...sorta)[/i]
[/quote]

We are the most intelligent and active community so um.

[scythegfx]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='30 March 2010 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1269961359' post='2241115']
It was far more than 2-3 members in non-government positions and if you'd like a list of names, I can probably dredge one up for you.

[/quote]
Please do, I'd love to see your follow up on this one.

[quote]Let's also not forget the various members of the "Fans and Alumni of MK Country Club" (and you know who you are) that come strolling into a thread, speak as though they have the authority of Moses (great guy, comes for bagels at the East New Jerusalem Deli every Saturday before Temple) and then talk down to anyone who disagrees.
[/quote]

Terrible, terrible joke. absolutely pitiful, please try harder.


[quote]
P.S. for MK in general: End the war. You're starting to look a bit pathetic...like NpO making sure that the old GOONS was totally destroyed pathetic...and how exactly did that work out for them in the end anyway? Next target in the next Great War, which I'm sure some of you remember quite vividly
[/quote]
We've offered terms a few times now, It's no longer in our hands to "end the war", the war ends when TOP decides to man up and accept their reparations like big boys(and girls)

[quote name='lebubu' date='30 March 2010 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1269961737' post='2241118']
We are the most intelligent and active community so um.
[/quote]
lol, It's funny because it's true.

[der_ko]

[quote name='lebubu' date='30 March 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1269961737' post='2241118']
We are the most intelligent and active community so um.
[/quote]
The educated world is behind us too.

Edited March 30, 2010 by der_ko

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 March 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1269959791' post='2241102']
The 90% was not used in that way, it was in fact in a hypothetical quotation which is the logical extreme of the MK position, which appears to be that whatever members say 'doesn't count'. (I'm not sure why they bother, for example, having membership interaction with Grämlins and Umbrella, or foreign embassies on their boards, if they really believe this, which is why I am sure they don't and it's just an anti-TOP propaganda line because really Crymson is the only thing about TOP that they can pick on for PR.)

I didn't say that 3 members make alliance policy, or that Crymson is 'in no way representative', so that's a straw man, and the below is an ad hom, so you just have slippery slope to go and you'll have a full set!

Let's make this totally clear, hopefully you might get it this time. An alliance leadership member carries more weight than a general member – if Cortath, or Archon, says something opinionated, you should pay more attention to it than if you or I do. But it does not suddenly mean that all the alliance thinks that way, or that you should base your policy on that alliance on one leader's opinions.
[/quote]
You realize that a "hypothetical quotation" and a strawman would be the same thing right? If you keep contradicting yourself in every post people might stop taking you seriously.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 March 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1269959791' post='2241102']
If Archon steps down, would you expect all your allies to drop you and re-evaluate whether you're the same alliance?
[/quote]
No. Which is why we have little reason to belie anything changed in TOP just because crymson decided not to run the last term. Your attempt to run this line of arguments alongside one where you say that anything bad that crymson did while leading TOP isn't TOPs fault is pretty amusing.


[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='30 March 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1269961359' post='2241115']
It was far more than 2-3 members in non-government positions and if you'd like a list of names, I can probably dredge one up for you.
[/quote]
Please do. Since it was more than 3 I assume that a list of 4 different people would be no problem for you to come up with. I am going to disregard anything you list that's said after TOP 'pre-empted' us for obvious reasons.

Somehow doubt I'm ever going to get this list no matter how many people claim that it'd be easy to make.

Edited March 30, 2010 by neneko

[Schad]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='30 March 2010 - 07:21 AM' timestamp='1269951674' post='2241049']
Bob, there have been quiet a few occasions in the past where the expected did not happen. One never knows till one tries.

Of course there has to be genuine goodwill and a sincere effort on the part of both, in the case of alliance X from NH and alliance Y from SG/karma to come to common ground and build bridges. I know there are hindrances and preconceived notions on both sides, but time and history has shown that such can be overcome. Case in point Ragnarok-Polar MDoAP, post NoCB which before it was signed would have made most folks sit back and lol.

Of course there is always option one, the ghetto of the mind. I do believe though, that it will get stale rather soon. People being people, they will gravitate towards their old friends on the opposite side one way or another. Case in point, there are folks in Valhalla that i consider to be cool to hang with, some in IRON i would like to know better, hell theres some in TPF i dig :shrug: There is no lasting hate on this planet anyway. Mistrust? Yes, hatred? nope.
[/quote]

It's not likely to be direct connections that swing the balance, but rather the connections to groups that aren't firmly aligned; a treaty signed between an ex-Heg alliance and a member of SF or C&G certainly isn't going to outweigh their connections to core allies, but through strengthened ties with alliances that aren't firmly entrenched in either camp they can likely avoid spending the next couple years on the wrong end of a beatdown.

Frostbite is a good example...while active, it represented a power sphere that wasn't in either camp, and it presented the possibility of battle lines that couldn't be boiled down to pseudo-Hegemony vs. pseudo-Karma; the chances are that another such sphere of influence will emerge and shift the balance. Might not mean that the entirety of the ex-Hegemony grouping is resurgent (kinda hope that it doesn't, simply because re-drawing the lines entirely is more enjoyable than seeing the same battles time and again), but individual alliances aren't necessarily faced with a choice between abandoning their traditional allies to join the current powers-that-be, or remaining under constant threat of getting rolled.

[Archon]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='30 March 2010 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1269961359' post='2241115']
P.S. for MK in general: End the war. You're starting to look a bit pathetic...like NpO making sure that the old GOONS was totally destroyed pathetic...and how exactly did that work out for them in the end anyway? Next target in the next Great War, which I'm sure some of you remember quite vividly.
[/quote]

Hi, we've had the same offer on the table for a while now, it only took days of TOP needing to discuss things before finally voting on it. Given that most folks seem to think we're not nearly being harsh enough, and that, if memory serves, we're closer to their initial offer than to C&G's initial offer, I'd say that maybe the onus of ending the war isn't on us, but might actually be on TIDTT getting their !@#$ together. Now of course there are other complicating issues, but anyone actually involved in the situation and not talking out of their $@! (that would be you, oh ignorant one) would know that C&G is not actually a part of those issues and is actively working to resolve them.

But please, go on, continue to pretend you know what you're talking about. Also, if you want to compare to the Goonland Resistance movement, you'll need to wait another month or two of actual fighting followed by another half year or so of inactive warring.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='30 March 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1269965871' post='2241147']
Hi, we've had the same offer on the table for a while now, it only took days of TOP needing to discuss things before finally voting on it. Given that most folks seem to think we're not nearly being harsh enough, and that, if memory serves, we're closer to their initial offer than to C&G's initial offer, I'd say that maybe the onus of ending the war isn't on us, but might actually be on TIDTT getting their !@#$ together. Now of course there are other complicating issues, but anyone actually involved in the situation and not talking out of their $@! (that would be you, oh ignorant one) would know that C&G is not actually a part of those issues and is actively working to resolve them.

But please, go on, continue to pretend you know what you're talking about. Also, if you want to compare to the Goonland Resistance movement, you'll need to wait another month or two of actual fighting followed by another half year or so of inactive warring.
[/quote]
I was gonna say something like this but it would seem that Archon said it best. Stop lecturing us Hal and start talking to TOP.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]if memory serves, we're closer to their initial offer than to C&G's initial offer[/quote]
That still doesn't mean it's a reasonable offer, though I'm glad at least that negotiations are happening.

[quote]Which is why we have little reason to belie anything changed in TOP just because crymson decided not to run the last term.[/quote]
Ah, so you [i]do[/i] acknowledge that one person isn't the alliance! This is a pleasing step forwards! Hopefully now you can stop using 'Crymson said ...' 'Crymson did ...' as reasons why TOP is evil and must pay large reparations.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 March 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1269968162' post='2241165']
That still doesn't mean it's a reasonable offer, though I'm glad at least that negotiations are happening.


Ah, so you [i]do[/i] acknowledge that one person isn't the alliance! This is a pleasing step forwards! Hopefully now you can stop using 'Crymson said ...' 'Crymson did ...' as reasons why TOP is evil and must pay large reparations.
[/quote]
TOP did those things when crymson was in charge. One person isn't the alliance though wich we both agree on so no it's not "crymson did" it's "TOP did".

[Brother Kane]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='30 March 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1269965871' post='2241147']
Hi, we've had the same offer on the table for a while now, it only took days of TOP needing to discuss things before finally voting on it. Given that most folks seem to think we're not nearly being harsh enough, and that, if memory serves, we're closer to their initial offer than to C&G's initial offer, I'd say that maybe the onus of ending the war isn't on us, but might actually be on TIDTT getting their !@#$ together. Now of course there are other complicating issues, but anyone actually involved in the situation and not talking out of their $@! (that would be you, oh ignorant one) would know that C&G is not actually a part of those issues and is actively working to resolve them.

But please, go on, continue to pretend you know what you're talking about. Also, if you want to compare to the Goonland Resistance movement, you'll need to wait another month or two of actual fighting followed by another half year or so of inactive warring.
[/quote]
You might want to double check that. We accepted peace two days ago and have been trying to finalize it, while your side has been relaying information back and forth between 20 people instead of talking to us all at once. We can't even get an answer on a ceasefire while we negotiate, much less a single term. Our side has nothing to do with this war continuing.


[quote name='neneko' date='30 March 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1269968474' post='2241167']
TOP did those things when crymson was in charge. One person isn't the alliance though wich we both agree on so no it's not "crymson did" it's "TOP did".
[/quote]
The correct term is "Simpsons did it."

Edited March 30, 2010 by Brother Kane

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='30 March 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1269966620' post='2241154']
I was gonna say something like this but it would seem that Archon said it best. Stop lecturing us Hal and start talking to TOP.
[/quote]
We actually voted and accepted your peace terms two days ago.

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='30 March 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1269969128' post='2241175']
We actually voted and accepted your peace terms two days ago.
[/quote]

[s]We voted on and accepted the figure of reparations.[/s]

YAY! I got something wrong.

Sowwy.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Some-Guy

[AirMe]

That's funny, our coalition government has had regular contact with SGC and she didn't mention anything about acceptance of terms until about 12 hours ago. Last I checked a day was 24 hours. And 2 days would equal 48 hours.

Again this is to the best of my knowledge and based on when I received certain information. There really is only one ....entity....throwing a wrench into the process at this point and that is all I am really willing to say at this point on that.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Lonely' date='30 March 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1269932425' post='2240964']
Like the vast majority of people on these forums, he probably doesn’t care in the least about your opinion.
[/quote]
And I don't give a !@#$ about his opinion either to be perfectly honest but since as these are public discussion forums, I'll feel free to expound my feelings on the matter regardless of whether anyone cares about them or not.

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='30 March 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1269942599' post='2241008']
Judging ODN on the basis of one man's post? or letting your natural aversion to ODN have full rein?? enquiring minds would like to know
[/quote]
It must be the latter, obviously.

[Rafael Nadal]

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='30 March 2010 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1269971023' post='2241188']
We voted on and accepted the figure of reparations.
[/quote]
You may have accepted the figure, but I'm pretty we still had the surrounding terms to come to a consensus on.

[WalkerNinja]

AirMe,

Reparations figures were voted on and accepted by the Heptagon Council two days past. We are standing under a flag of truce attempting to comply with the terms that we have been given, and we are still getting attacked. We are defeated, we have admitted this, and we have agreed to the cost of peace.

Apparently the bloodlust of some alliances has not been adequately slaked.

[AirMe]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='30 March 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1269972266' post='2241201']
AirMe,

Reparations figures were voted on and accepted by the Heptagon Council two days past. We are standing under a flag of truce attempting to comply with the terms that we have been given, and we are still getting attacked. We are defeated, we have admitted this, and we have agreed to the cost of peace.

Apparently the bloodlust of some alliances has not been adequately slaked.
[/quote]

I am only going off of the info I have. Like I said my timeline might be a bit off. It's safe to say 99% of us have our pens ready to make this official.

[Rafael Nadal]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='30 March 2010 - 11:04 AM' timestamp='1269972266' post='2241201']
AirMe,

Reparations figures were voted on and accepted by the Heptagon Council two days past. We are standing under a flag of truce attempting to comply with the terms that we have been given, and we are still getting attacked. We are defeated, we have admitted this, and we have agreed to the cost of peace.

Apparently the bloodlust of some alliances has not been adequately slaked.
[/quote]
There has been no agreed upon truce, and the ceasefire that is being discussed has little to do with hammering out the other terms between CnG and TOP.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Rafael Nadal

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='AirMe' date='30 March 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1269972401' post='2241202']
I am only going off of the info I have. Like I said my timeline might be a bit off. It's safe to say 99% of us have our pens ready to make this official.
[/quote]
This includes CnG. There has been no truce or ceasefire agreed to, however.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy

[MCRABT]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='30 March 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1269965871' post='2241147']
Hi, we've had the same offer on the table for a while now, it only took days of TOP needing to discuss things before finally voting on it. Given that most folks seem to think we're not nearly being harsh enough, and that, if memory serves, we're closer to their initial offer than to C&G's initial offer, I'd say that maybe the onus of ending the war isn't on us, but might actually be on TIDTT getting their !@#$ together. Now of course there are other complicating issues, but anyone actually involved in the situation and not talking out of their $@! (that would be you, oh ignorant one) would know that C&G is not actually a part of those issues and is actively working to resolve them.

But please, go on, continue to pretend you know what you're talking about. Also, if you want to compare to the Goonland Resistance movement, you'll need to wait another month or two of actual fighting followed by another half year or so of inactive warring.
[/quote]

My understanding of the situation is that the onus is on neither CnG nor TOP at this point and unless we want to have our peace talks publicly that we take them back in to the private domain where they can be concluded without the interjection of every Tom, Dick and Harry on these forums.

Edited March 30, 2010 by MCRABT

[Archon]

TOP has also been threatening to back out of their agreement to peace if the rest of TIDTT doesn't get peace soon, and the holdups to that peace do not directly involve C&G

Unless of course C&G is supposed to selectively ceasefire certain alliances and not others while still remaining in a state of war...similarly, C&G could probably peace out all of TIDTT but we would leave people on the field. TIDTT couldn't bare to do it (unless TOP feels like individually surrendering now), so why should C&G be expected to?

TOP can either accept the peace formally by surrendering (anything less is simply words that can be taken away, as has been implied a number of times) or by working assiduously to get their allies to accept peace so that they can all surrender and get on with it.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote]TOP can either accept the peace formally by surrendering (anything less is simply words that can be taken away, as has been implied a number of times) or by working assiduously to get their allies to accept peace so that they can all surrender and get on with it. [/quote]
Likewise, Archon, C&G can work assiduously to get their allies to offer a real peace offer. We're not the ones being unreasonable or making outlandish claims and there is simply no way our allies will or can agree to what has been asked of them by that ally of yours that is delaying this peace settlement.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='30 March 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1269973448' post='2241214']
Likewise, Archon, C&G can work assiduously to get their allies to offer a real peace offer. We're not the ones being unreasonable or making outlandish claims and there is simply no way our allies will or can agree to what has been asked of them by that ally of yours that is delaying this peace settlement.
[/quote]

I think we all agree on that. Technically, the entity holding this up is only allied to one alliance.

[Berith]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='30 March 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1269973058' post='2241211']
TOP has also been threatening to back out of their agreement to peace if the rest of TIDTT doesn't get peace soon, and the holdups to that peace do not directly involve C&G
[/quote]
TOP has been stating that having already agreed to a peace the membership is quite confused why we are still at war.
TOP has also been stating that being that we are still at war after agreeing to peace terms, our ability to pay reparations is decreasing, which means that we will not be able to pay the same amount of reparations we were able to pay previously.
As far as your statement about that peace not directly involving C&G, that depends on your definition of [i]directly[/i], and while I do not wish to dive too far into battles of semantics I will state that given that the peace being held up involves C&G and that the holdup was allied to MK and presumably still holds a close relationship with MK one could make a case that C&G [b]is[/b] directly involved.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Berith

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='AirMe' date='30 March 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1269973732' post='2241215']
I think we all agree on that. Technically, the entity holding this up is only allied to one alliance.
[/quote]
Gramlins. Gramlins. Gramlins. It's not that hard to say. Not sure why people are tip toeing around it.