Sovyet Gelibolu

Proletaria Prevails!

[quote name='ZeroRemorse' timestamp='1332951883' post='2944366'] Little by little the Left is starting to shine May your treaty of Friendship turn into a thriving MDoAP in time comrades. [/quote] I resent the implication that this shininess is recent.

Lines being drawn.

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1332773475' post='2943323'] We're still the cats. [/quote] Indeed, this is a situation where Ogden Nash's truism breaks down.

[quote name='The Mongol-Swedes' timestamp='1332549346' post='2942408'] Wait - when did you come back?[/quote] A couple weeks ago, when Q tugged on my leash. They always come back.

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1332563073' post='2942496'] I'm here because of the subtitle. Congratulations. [/quote] This is nothing. Wait until we release the uncut, uncensored tape of AirMe beating furries with a stick for two hours straight. He would have kept going too, but the stick broke and we couldn't find him another. Shortages, y'know?

UCR's picture is that of Lenin Cat. This should should also be UCR's member title. KDF, I am disappoint. Not about the addition of the alliances, who are nice to have around. But only in your naming practices.

[quote name='Alex Thompson' timestamp='1332527815' post='2942235'] Love you too spock Though I'm a member of the LSF and I'll say "viva la revolucion" and all that, I do have to say that a permanent conference does sound quite daunting. [/quote] Only if new people continually show up. Which they really should, if they know what's good for them. This is not an opportunity that should be lightly passed by.

On the minus side, the number of posts per hour has dropped by an order of magnitude.

INT =/= ODN INT =/= TLR Heck, according to your formulation TLR =/= ODN.

I knew about this weeks ago. Always happy to take in the sight of some democratic commies doing their democratic commie dos.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332100442' post='2939841']Easy. Okay, so I think I explained the NG-Int troubles that went on due to resentment from people like Cheeky, arexes, etc.[/quote] That was a very deft change of subject. We were talking about MK and C&G, and you bring up NG. I'm sure you could mention several alliances in DH and PB, or which are bilaterally treatied to MK or some other DH/PB alliance that we're not fond of. The same could be said for just about every power sphere in the game. That doesn't change the fact that our actual allies have done nothing, other than be a couple treaty chains away from some people we're not fond of, to make us want to cut ties with them. In fact, quite the opposite. If the only criterion for INT dropping a treaty was that that treaty chained, eventually, to someone INT didn't like, we'd be left with only the LSF MDoAP, and that because the treaty has no cancelation clause. Fortunately for us, that's not the only criterion we consider in choosing whether or not to sign or keep treaties. Believe it or not, the actual relations between the alliances concerned play a role. [quote]Int wasn't really satisified with the last war, either[/quote] Would you be satisfied with fighting MCXA twice in a row? [quote]and has good relations with alliances not tied into the MK superstructure. For example, Sparta dislikes everyone in C&G except you.[/quote] Ookay. I'm sure they've gleaned this fine opinion of us from the extensive diplomatic relations that don't take place on our boards or IRC channel. I'm even more bewildered that you chose to bring up Sparta and not R&R, who we actually have a treaty, and regular, meaningful communication, with. [quote]Right now you are propping up people who got your FOK treaty axed because they were pissed off that Int pushed to go to war with NEW because of no apology. Pretty simple, no? TLR and NG are thick as thieves.[/quote] Now, I hadn't yet rerolled when our treaty with FOK hit the cutting room floor, but I'm fairly sure that NG, and its tie with TLR, or at least one or more ties between some of those alliances' predecessor alliances, existed before Cheeky left FOK. NG was under no obligation to us not to accept him as a member. I could be wrong, however.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332099847' post='2939835'] The issue is, that your mindset is not really in sync and your alliance is bound to MK regardless of you having no obligation. I don't think you're getting it. The pressure should be that Int is behaving in an inauthentic fashion by participating in this arrangement. False consciousness, if you will. [/quote] ... You admitted a few pages ago that you don't know INT very well. Even granting the claim that you know MK's mindset quite well, if you don't know our mindset on what basis can you compare the two? On what do you base the conclusion that we are being untrue to ourselves by being somewhere on a treaty chain that leads to MK?

I'm confused as to what force is supposed to be pressuring INT to leave C&G. It can't be the other member alliances. They've been nothing but solicitous to our interests and chummy with our members, making all due allowances for the odd "hate means love" culture that prevails in the bloc. It can't be MK. We've got no obligation to MK other than not to go hog-wild on their nations out of respect to our allies who do have treaties with them (and, of course, out of a desire not to get ourselves, and the rest of C&G, who would stand with us even despite this hypothetical slap in the face, rolled). It can't be the other parts of the web. Forcefully disbanding alliances and blocs was the purview of the Old Hegemony and is now the purview of the Glorious New Hegemony. Surely our eminent justiciars on the other side of the web wouldn't stoop to such depths. Not being in the CC I can't speak for INT, but I don't think we as an alliance need many more treaties after this one, and we don't need any that would drastically realign our position on the web.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332071234' post='2939624']I don't know Int nearly as well[/quote] That's probably why you prefer us to TLR. If you get to know us you'll find we're pretty awful people.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332068980' post='2939614']ODN was the biggest objector to the NPO treaty and I'm not sure what Int's was. TLR is tied at the hip with MK.[/quote] I'm curious. Is it just that we're that good at keeping a secret, or just that you don't care about us?

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1332065494' post='2939595']I didn't pay attention to that before, but yeah it is odd for alliances to be signing a treaty weaker than what they already have. Unless of course CnG is having internal rifts, then with treaties like this people can pick a side before the bloc falls apart.[/quote] Somewhere on our forums, there's a glass case containing delicate little models of the treaties we hold with other alliances. We've got an MDoAP with ODN that predates our joining C&G by a year and a half, and an MDoAP with GATO that predates their joining C&G by about a month. The spot for an MDoAP with TLR was empty, however, and that was just unsightly. So we remedied that eyesore, and now our glass case is laid out prettily again. But it's nice to feel appreciated by the OWF peanut gallery. So I guess attracting some speculation is another perq of signing this treaty.

[quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1332011479' post='2939355'] I have to admit that I'm disappointed that this thread didn't attract more attention from the conspiracy theory crowd, or at least from the usual critics. I feel so irrelevant. -Craig [/quote] Considering that the main criticism leveled against us is that we [i]are[/i] irrelevant, I would say that the haters, by staying away, are doing their job. P.S. Mods, I know that my username doesn't match my nation name. It used to, but "Sovyet Gelibolu" has since been deleted due to inactivity. If, in lieu of having to create a new account, my user name could be changed to "zimmerwald1915" in order to comply with board rules, and an email notifying me of this change could be sent to my account, I would greatly appreciate it. I PM'd someone about this a while ago, but never got a response.

Excuse me for being ill. I'll try to keep better control of all the influenza viruses in the world next time. Whereas you're old enough for people to point out when your harsh words are implying things they're not. M'kay?

Get a wiki please.

Have your powers of perception been altered, or can you not distinguish between myself and Rigas? We really don't look much alike, you know. He has better hair. Ya know, I have the strangest feeling I made the point that harsh words on the OWF weren't the same as eternal war in the post you quoted. I also seem to recall stating categorically, in public, that INT wasn't planning war against Nordreich. I don't know why exactly you fear me or my alliance, but this particular commie bogeyman will be staying safely in the closet, behind the delicious penny loafers. Given your obsession with making it look like INT's planning eternal war, I don't think you're the best person to be making this kind of statement.

I'm intrigued by the fact that some people can't distinguish between harsh words on the OWF and keeping an alliance in eternal war.

What I meant was "it'd be hard to keep it to those three alliances, without having everybody's friends [NV for NoR, Vox for FAN (they have an MADP, donchaknow?), LEO/ODN/PR/TGE/DR/etc. for INT] jump in too". I wonder when I stopped valuing clarity...

I've said it before, I'll say it again: that's the whole damn point

NoR DoWs INT, INT DoWs FAN, FAN DoWs NoR... I like this concept. Would be hard to execute though