WorkingClassRuler
-
Posts
1,661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by WorkingClassRuler
-
-
[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1323791887' post='2876596']
I shall leave you to wonder what was at the end of the chain.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure I know, I just don't think ODN see it. Or - even worse- don't bother looking. In which case, they're pretty much just filling the same role they always have in their entire CN history. -
[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1323791170' post='2876572']
Indeed, our goal is to provide a proper defence for the New Pacific Order. Done. Another goal is to ensure the security of ourselves and our allies who went in on our behalf. Done.
[/quote]
An honorable goal, indeed, but that was not the end of the chain, was it? -
[i]Look what you've done.[/i]
Noobs are going to see a [i]neutral[/i] as the top alliance and walk away laughing at us all.
-
You're all serving someone else's goals.
Stop pretending you're doing anything else but that. -
[quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1323783314' post='2876497']
(that being said I'm shocked to see you back WCR, it's been awhile not that you'd know me or remember me from the Aqua Ice stuff)
[/quote]
Hey mate. We all deserve awards or motorboats full of money for accomplishing Aqua ICE. Phew! -
It humors me to see the line being constantly redrawn in the light of the present. NPO is gaining back their political power through TOP, who have (rather marvelously, I must say) embedded themselves with the real power core, and so now MHA betrayed NPO. MHA betrayed TOP. Gråmlins have reformed and we forget Ramlins. MHA betrayed The Gråmlins.
At the time, our decision not to support an aggressive war based on a !@#$%^&* CB was heralded as the wise, honorable choice. As was the decision to leave Continuum.
The decision to defend CnG against an aggressive war was an honorable choice. Mushroom Kingdom said they would never forget it.
The decision to remain allied with Gråmlins was an unpopular choice - people wanted us to drop them right then and there - but we stayed until there was peace. (Insert ETERNAL TREATY! shout here. Yes, I'll get to that.)
Now all that's forgotten.
But [i]I[/i] don't forget how the leaders of these alliances - in many cases not the leaders we signed those treaties with - decided to jump off a bridge and assumed we'd just jump off with them. Any idiot can tell from our [i]name[/i] that concepts like attacking on a !@#$%^&* CB, a "complete surrender", or an aggressive attack on an uninvolved party would never be cool with us. And yes I'm sure LiquidMercury is going to remind us that apparently MHA promised to sit out of Bi-Polar, which I can't say is true or not, nor can anyone in MHA right now. If that's true then no, I don't agree with it.
We must now say it was self-serving! MHA wants MHA to survive. But so is curbstomping an ally's ally self-serving survival. Isn't Doomhouse self-serving by attacking Polar/XX? They're not doing it for TOP's benefit or to make TOP feel better about being betrayed two years ago. They are certainly not doing it for Umbrella and VE's benefit, that's for sure. It's in these giant curbstomp wars in which many alliances with conflicting treaties have historically been forced to chose a side because of [i]someone else[/i] and more often than not that alliance will chose to go where the power is.
Every year, around about the same time, some leader in a major power cluster is going to jump off a bridge and assume everyone else will want to jump off with them. Not all of their friends will. Not all of their friends [i]can.[/i]
MHA is not the only alliance to have refused, even more than once, nor will we be the last to do so. (More to the point - nor have we done anything so dramatic since Bi-Polar TWO YEARS AGO.) And I don't care what you try to say - no piece of paper with a foreign body should force you to forget your own code of conduct. You cannot sign with someone like GOONs and initiate a crusade against tech-raiding alliances. Likewise, you cannot sign with a diplomatic, non-aggressive alliance and expect us to be your meatshields.
Some context for anyone who cares. If you don't, good for you, but I feel like writing it:
After signing what we thought to be an important alliance-bonding Eternal Treaty with NPO, what would be a bold political move to get ahead of the pack and make our own power plays, we were instead treated like the boy they kept under the stairs. And yes, play that tiny violin for us but anyone who actually knew MHA at the time knew we were moving away from the remaining Continuum alliances and were creating our own power cluster. Had VE/SuperFriends not set their trap with OV, we would have done exactly that. And after 4-6 months of a lot of backroom stuff I won't go into detail with, NPO then expect us to follow them on an aggressive war we had spent a week prior telling them was wrong to follow. We didn't even get the required notice - MHA found out NPO was actually going to war when we saw the DOW. It was an unilateral aggressive action which did [i]not[/i] trigger a mutual defense treaty.
We also didn't cancel the treaty, it was voided by Karma as part of NPO's peace terms. Terms we had no say in the making or signing of.
Now. Ramlins was not Gråmlins. I can't express that enough. Anyone who was allied to Ramlins, anyone who left Gråmlins because of Ramirus' leadership knows that. The Hårmlins Accords was the direct opposite of the NPO Treaty because the relationship meant more than the words on the paper. It was a mutual bond, not a hopeful political maneuver. When that changed, our Brother was not our Brother anymore. We stayed in it out of faith that things would change and probably because of Shamshir's sheer will to keep us together. But anyone who actually knew what Ramlins had become knew it was not Hårmlins, and I have no regrets about letting that treaty go. My brother was already dead, why hold onto his corpse? A decorative table ornament?
There have been far, far more times in which we have militarily or politically supported our allies than the few times in which we could not. I wrote this because I know our actions were justified and no rewrites of history will ever change these facts. I don't care who is in power or who feels like extracting their revenge next - the contributions that our so-called allies made to their own fates will never be erased from my mind.
TL;DR They made their beds and were made to lie in it. -
[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1323774352' post='2876437']
I also like to think I was loud enough to allow the more quietly anti-NPO Crush and Sorum to slip into Triumvirate status without raising alarms, but more likely than not that's my own delusion of grandeur. Nevertheless, I do see your point and appreciate my inclusion in the example.
[/quote]
It's not really part of the conversation but Sorum and Crush didn't slip into anything. The way was paved for them and they were chosen, that Triumvirate was every bit intentional. Though either view makes it sound underhanded or manipulative when it wasn't like that, they were/are awesome, talented and well-liked.
We moved too slowly on FAN peace and our move away from Q was overly cautious but that was smart for the time. I'm sure appearing like some hero on the OWF is attractive for some but it's not for everyone.
And loyalties are so short here I doubt it would have avoided our current situation. The OWF is important but what happens between Governments and Leaders is far more crucial.
(OOC See, I got on topic eventually. ) -
People say there's no personality in Planet Bob, no honor, no balls, no interest, no fun. And them comes the Knights of Ni! to slap you all in the face with a fish.
MHAil o/ -
OOC:
I !@#$@#$ hate the mobile version of this forum. I can't edit my !@#$@#$ posts and I keep getting logged out.
IC:
Swap ODN for GATO.
Bugger it - more poetry for everyone. -
-
If you're so tough Wilson, how bout [s]ODN[/s] GATO and MHA try this one on one? I highly doubt you'd be acting like such a big shot.
Also, for crossing my attention, Vogon Poetry attacks on [s]ODN[/s] GATO will now double in intensity and voganity.
Edit: This is not the acronym you were looking for. -
MHAil Scorn o/
-
[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1323609593' post='2873823']
I see MHA bringing up defending CnG, but where were you when NPO needed you?
[/quote]
The message was quite clear that NPO didn't need MHA for at least 4-6 months prior - if indeed we had ever been needed for anything but as a meat shield made to think we were important. Unfortunately those who succeeded you Dilber couldn't muster even the slightest interest in maintaining a real partnership. Narcissus was too busy staring into the water to hear anything we had been saying.
There's also an on-going theme here that MHA doesn't support aggressive preemptive attacks, despite them becoming common place nowadays. -
[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1323584431' post='2873472']
Regardless, we received word after MHA was hit that you would be enter the war by hitting Non Grata, another TLR ally. The declarations you seen a few days ago would of probably been the same except you would be fighting 3 members of C&G, TPE, Hooligans and probably a few NG allies.
[/quote]
That's exactly my point. Yes, we would have entered this war. The only delay was coming up with the right plan to enter, which anyone would (and has) experienced in the same circumstances. Can you please tell the OP this so they can stop with this nonsense? -
[quote name='Devilyn Caster' timestamp='1323584008' post='2873446']
Let me reiterate. I included MHA based on the fact that there were no declared Defensive wars. I had heard no plans for MHA to enter the conflict. Now if what you are saying is true, then great. I am just making note of the fact that several alliances ganked your MDoAP partner and you did not declare in their defense, while you had no allies on the other side whom were under direct attack. Am I wrong?
[/quote]
Sorry, but I was under the impression CnG attacked us because they heard we were going to attack their ally? Is that not the story? I was sure that was the story.
Secondly, thank you for once again proving this [i]is[/i] a personal callout and now not only are you are a hypocrite, you are also a liar.
Thirdly, most, if not all, of our allies are at war. Do you think it's feasible that we would declare war on every single alliance who have attacked every single ally - or come up with a plan that would use our force more productively? The only other alternative is asking us (and indeed anyone in this situation) to line up to get slaughtered and that can't possibly be the crux of your argument. Because then it would appear that you - CnG, having been similarly lined up for execution once before - are now trying to cheer on the execution of others? Is that honestly what you're trying to propose here?
It would actually be far more noble, more loyal, more the CnG that you think you are, for you to stop helping this war. It is cowardly of [i]you[/i] to be sitting there making jibes at [i]us[/i] and I am convinced you would never have the guts to say any of this if you were on the other side. -
[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1323583878' post='2873435']
We had allies on both sides. Poison Clan attacked Polar in defence of \m/ and FOK hit Polar using every article of their treaty. Back then, MK was allied to Polar and FOK and PC was allied to Athens. I think (could be wrong, was a long time ago) we were arguing amongst ourselves what we should do before we were attacked.
[/quote]
So what you're saying, and I completely agree with you if it is, is that there are justifiable reasons why an alliance wouldn't automatically join a war? Just like there was two years ago, just as there is now. -
MHAil o/
-
[quote name='Devilyn Caster' timestamp='1323582924' post='2873380']
This thread was not made to callout MHA, like I said previously I mentioned them as an example with what knowledge I had at the time I wrote the OP. My point with this thread is that it seems as if honor is dying out from this game - at least from my perspective. I am relating this to my experiences pre-Karma, experiences very few can lay claim to. This isn't a callout to any one alliance in particular, rather a discussion and a presentation on why I believe the other side to be acting in a cowardly manner.
Also I forgot to put this in the OP but my opinions are my own and not that of my alliance. Hiya Rush
[/quote]
If you're not looking to call out specific alliances then maybe you shouldn't specifically mention alliances as an example.
It also doesn't change my point that CnG have waited to go to war before and were attacked for it, therefore really shouldn't be calling anyone cowards based on that exact same behavior.
Am I making progress yet? -
[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1323581950' post='2873274']
The guy who made that post was abandoned at the end of the war. Justifiably, but left to burn nonetheless. And his only treaty was to you.
How are you? I am swell.
[/quote]
No, MHA was still there for Ramlins with Fark, preventing counters and trying to achieve peace.
I'm well thank you. -
[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1323581840' post='2873261']
Let me preface by saying, I dont 100% share my colleague's view. However, one thing universally agreed on, is that wars need to be shorter. And the delays in completing the expansion phase, make the war drag out that much longer. For instance, our intel says that you were gonna hit NG. Your pre-empt came 5 days after NG hit your ally. Why wait the 5 days? Im guessing you had some sort of hope that we would commit forces elsewhere, leaving fewer counter options. But at the end of the day, the numbers game doesnt change. And once Fark made the pre-empt on NPO, it no longer became necessarry for our coalition to have to look for chains, or go through the headache of finding such connections. So even if the delayed strat on hitting NG would have worked, and we would have committed forces elsewhere, we would have just diverted them back to get where they are needed. All that your coalition has done, since the war began, is ensured that your primary combatants, are locked up longer than need be, and ensured that once again, we have a war that will be measured in months and weeks, not weks and days. This is why this (OOC):game(OOC) planet, is dying.
[/quote]
The planet is dying because of a few days wait in a global war? Wars which happen once a year at best? The fact that there is a wait at all is due to the tangled treaty web and the necessity to think over your options several times before hitting someone. Nobody wants to line up to be slaughtered, it's not going to help anyone's allies (regardless of who you are, which side your one, or which war we're talking about) by running into a very obviously laid trap - hence the unpredictable declarations we've seen. And indeed, I don't know all the details but I do know this war situation has been changing every single day so what was going to be a good idea yesterday, may very well spell disaster today. I simply don't agree that it's the root cause of the death of Planet Bob.
And plus TOP waited two years before attacking Polar, it's not like patience is in short supply. -
[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1323581049' post='2873238']
The situation was not as clear-cut as you make it sound. NpO was at war with FOK and PC in addition to \m/. MK was pretty much handcuffed from defending anyone. Mk were also frantically working long hours (poor MagicalTrevor) to try to resolve the conflict peacefully(which is the best option, when you have 2 allies fighting, just sayin....) TOP and Co. attacked during that time. So, it really is not as if MK was doing nothing to help their allies on both sides. They were trying to contain and end the conflict.
Im editing this because I kinda sound condescending in the beginning, and I dont mean to.
[/quote]
Don't you see the contradiction then? THis thread was made to claim that MHA was doing nothing towards this war and therefore were cowards when you've just pointed out how much there is going on behind the scenes. MK were not cowards for waiting at all, I completely agree, but nor are MHA cowards for also waiting. That's my point, that's what I've been objecting to. -
[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1323580636' post='2873233']
Things can change a lot in two years. Allies drop one another and become enemies, sides change, old enemies become friends. Although we remember the sacrifices you made for us years ago, we can't overlook the possibility that you may seek to bring harm to ourselves or one of our allies. We saw the MHA, a large,uninvolved alliance who had a valid reason to hit us or one of our allies and took action. Simple as that.
I recall listening to a Spartan member rant about the war who went on to say that they wanted to see a neutral C&G or a C&G that could've avoided your front all together if we wanted to. I don't see how this is possible after your bloc mate aggressively attacked a C&G member's ally. Another Spartan member would proceed to call us out in their DoW thread. Our bloc has always prided it's self with the simple fact that we defend our allies regardless of the odds or consequences, a trait that is slowly dying in this universe. It's nothing personal, just business.
[/quote]
The names of the alliances involved shouldn't matter. If something is going to held up in CN as being a cowardly act then it should be considered cowardly regardless of who does it.
IE:
MHA waits to go to war, that is cowardly.
CnG waited to go to war, that was cowardly.
And the opposite should be true:
IE:
CnG defended their ally from a preemptive attack, that was loyalty.
MHA defended CnG from a preemptive attack, that was loyalty.
More to the point, one alliance should not be able to accuse another alliance of doing something cowardly if they themselves have done it previously. It's hypocrisy of the highest standard. I know CnG's war against us is nothing personal, I've not said it was, but when members of CnG make a call out thread and specifically call us cowards? Yeah, I'm going to take it personally and I'm going to show you why it's hypocritical and wrong for you to do so. -
[quote name='Devilyn Caster' timestamp='1323579421' post='2873220']
Like I said before, I was not privy to information for the other coalition. If you guys were actively planning to come to your allies aid, that's reassuring. But why wait then? What were you waiting for?
I included MHA because you did not Declare in defense of your allies. While I have much thanks for your help during TOP-CnG, it doesn't really apply to my vent here, since this vent is about the current conflict. While you may have been planning your entry (as i've heard from my fellow CnGers) I have not seen the logs or the proof. It was nothing personal. This is not an attack on any alliance because I hate them. The only alliance I genuinely dislike is Polar.
[/quote]
CnG had not declared in defense of their allies when they were attacked by TOP. CnG were waiting while their allies were at war when they were attacked. Just like you I have not seen the logs but I can assume that they were going to enter, just as you can assume MHA was going to enter this war. But if MHA are cowards for waiting "so long" now, then surely CnG were cowards for waiting back then? [b]You are accusing other alliances of doing the exact same thing that CnG has done previously.[/b] And not just that - you're accusing the very same alliance that came to help you when you were preemptively attacked, as being a coward.
For one it just doesn't make sense but it is also outright insulting. Helping CnG was a good thing to do, I used to be proud that we stood up for you but now look where it's got us. The people we helped to save now attack us and try to paint us cowards for being in the exact same situation they were.
That's the disturbing trend in CN and I'm afraid it's nothing new. -
[quote name='Devilyn Caster' timestamp='1323575335' post='2873167']
Believe me, I am thankful for your defense of CnG during that time. But the political landscape has shifted, as have your friendships/allies. All I am noting is that it seems as if people are hiding behind this idea of cowardice as a "strategy". Am I implying MHA are cowards? Not directly. I'm not sure what your plans for war were before the present. But I do know that you had multiple allies engaged by many different alliances and that you did nothing.
[/quote]
But it's not about whom we're allied with now. The only thing that's really changed for us between then and now is that we're no longer allies with the alliance that attacked you. (I don't want to say it's name, it only makes Liquid Mercury appear.) You have applied an assumption on our plans and intentions and concluded by yourself that we were doing nothing, when only the opposite were true. The basis for your conclusion is an assumption and I'm telling you it's incorrect. You cannot simply paint everyone who did not immediately go to war as cowards.
I don't wish to speak for VE but I highly doubt they willingly let their allies burn either.
[quote name='Devilyn Caster' timestamp='1323575335' post='2873167']
And I didn't intend to single out MHA, you just came to mind while venting. I will say of the three alliances I mentioned by name you have by far been the best to your allies currently fighting.
[/quote]
I thank you but you must understand my confusion then as to why you did decide to include MHA. Especially as I pointed out in my original post that MHA was there for CnG when they needed it.
One Year. Ten Months. Twenty-five days.
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1323834104' post='2877221']
Yawn.
[/quote]
None of which was ever a problem when we were allied to TOP. Like NPO's evil or the Continuum's war mongering, all we're acceptable up until it didn't benefit TOP.
I also sure love taking advice from the second of two alliances to fail dismally at being #1, the other being GOONS. Whereas as NPO was a "do something" alliance, they always managed to rebuild and regain the top spot after a war - and therefore held the title for three-ish years and made being #1 part of their culture - TOP gained #1, threw their weight around, got beat down and have never challenged for the top again. You can't hold yourself in the same league of NPO as a worthwhile #1 because they were successful and TOP blew it. In the end, we all lose the spot eventually - at least MHA didn't lose it from egotistical power plays or Planet Bob joining together to bring us down.
This is of course assuming anyone cares about being #1. It was fun to reach but not once did MHA think we would change to being more aggressive or politically active because of a statistical number. Not once did we stop being a peaceful, diplomatic, fun-based alliance because we were #1.
GPA ain't going to stop being neutral because the OWF finds it boring.
So anyone wanting to criticize MHA for doing nothing while #1 shouldn't waste their breath. We were never going to, entertaining Planet Bob was never our responsibility. If you wanted someone interesting in the top job, either grow or merge enough to pass us or destroy ourselves as everyone between us until you're #1 and have all the fun you want. It's not our fault no one bothered to do either of those things.