Mirreille
-
Posts
2,786 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Mirreille
-
-
[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1292705649' post='2542997']
Welcome to a new world where friends defend friends [b]when it suits their agenda[/b] without the need for e-lawyering.
[/quote]
I expanded that a bit for you, you left some relevant bits out.
-
Out of curiousity, do you have totals for infra and tech lost/destroyed as well? I know you can look at any sort of statistic in lots of ways, but I think those numbers would be interesting too. Also, why UPN, if you don't mind me asking?
-
[quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1292536747' post='2541148']
I imagine those who look up to you are disappointed with this statement. This only confirms what many of us already knew and that is you don't have the force of personality to change anything. Too bad.
[/quote]
Really? you choose to use this as an argument? Who do you think has the force of persnality to change things? Whenver I have seen someone try it, they went down in flames, from Doitzel to AlmightyGrub. The few who MIGHT have the ability to even think about it are either sitting on their hands, or out to pasture. At least Schattenmann is in there pitching!
-
[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1292223354' post='2538260']
I understand why you might do this, but I still think it was a serious misstep.
[/quote]
I'm curious who this remark was directed at; Polar? Legion? Both? Or was it intended to be cryptic from the start?
For months people have been saying,"Someone do something interesting, shake things up!". Now as soon as someone does, all they do is complain.
I am curious to see where this treaty leads events down the road. -
[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1292293206' post='2539034']
I don't know. It would have been a pyrrhic victory but I think supercomplaints would have come out on top anyway like Delta has said or maybe a draw. The alliances on the TPF side for the most part weren't prepared and the strategy relied entirely on TOP. I don't think it would have ended with them in a position to demand reps.
[/quote]
This sounds reasonable to me, since the vibe from the TPF side was not really positive, but they were going to fight regardless. The interesting what-if for me is would the Bi-Polar War have happened, or would it have run a different course?
Speaking of Bi-Polar, how that turns out without the flip flop might have been interesting. TOP & friends were able to do great damage, so if NpO still fights on their side, does that war go to a settlement, or was it still too unbalanced? I also wonder what things would be like if Frostbite had not fallen apart and there were still around 4 different poles for aliances to gravitate too. Keep in mind this is all pre-FB thinking though. -
None taken WANA, but I think you are comparing apples and oranges there. NPO dominates RED sphere still simply by weight of numbers. Purple has far more diverse groups and no one giant power like NPO, so you can't expect the same sort of agreements to arise out of different circumstances.
I'm also one of those people who didn't like the ODP going, but it was clear it was never going to fly. Now we can focus on building better economies and relations without that stumbling block in the way. Kudos to all those who put the efforts in to make this happen, I know I didn't do anything to deserve having my name on this treaty.
-
[quote name='VeritasK' timestamp='1291663597' post='2532147']
I Voted Luna Lovegood.
[/quote]
Luna Lovegood is not scary. How could you even BEGIN to consider her scary?
Voted UPN because they are more unpredictable then Legion, and just as scary!
-
Are you and DoDoei123 planning on joining the same AA at the same time, or are you going to take seperate paths and then compare notes? I agree with Aimee, two weeks is not long enough to get more then a surface impression, though I understand your time contraints and wanting to see as many different groups as you can. Two weeks is barely enough time to get over the natural reticence of long time members when they are around brand new people they don't know very well.
If you get the chance to go back to NPO again it would be interesting for you, you are in a possition to compare what they were back when you were with them to what they are now. -
[quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1291066899' post='2526018']
I think we still have far too much old blood representing the total population. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but the constant debates about events that happened years ago gets stale, and I imagine it's much more annoying for the folks that never experienced such events.
[/quote]
Thank You! I've been waiting for one of you old timers to realise this and say it for years. -
[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1290679455' post='2522942']
[img]http://www.rustypants.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/rock-em-sock-em.jpg[/img]
Fight! Fight! Fight!
[/quote]
at that picture, are you implying if these two were to fight NPO would knock MK's block off??? I thought Rok & MK were friends.... FIFTH COLUMNIST!!!
Seriously though, if these two groups can't even be civil to each other in their embassies, then this is a smart move. It will save you both a lot of headaches in the long term, and you don't have to be friends with everybody. -
[quote name='Uralica' timestamp='1290623694' post='2522232']
A fair bit later, actually.
It did make for some interesting IRC conversation though. Had about five alliances try to change my mind.
[/quote]
Christmas came early this year.
Though I do feel bad for TOOl losing so many members at once, this sort of situation is always hard to deal with. I wish them the best of luck going forward; don't think of it as a blow, embrace it and turn it into an opportunity. -
You know at first I didn't like the newer flag, even if it isn't as "busy" as the old one. Then I took a second look, and it really isn't that bad. If the mushroom was not so blocky it would really be quite nice, but I think it detracts from the flag as a whole. Still an improvement though.
Congrats on the government change as well, musical chairs should be much more fun now.
-
[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1290259849' post='2518167']
I never said it was - Foreign Affairs is something that takes time; although it's not easy, it's possible. Lastly, if alliances really committed to becoming more intertwined with the C&G-SF side of the web and succeeded, the world would be much more interesting.
[/quote]
Even with your post in reply to Levistus's comments, I still don't understand this; having everyone tied up even more in the treaty web will make the world more interesting? How???
-
[quote]B. Valhalla seeks for peace in the world. Therefore, member nations are forbidden from engaging in aggressive wars without prior approval from the Marshall.
C. Development of nuclear weapons for strictly defensive purposes is tolerated. Any nation seeking to launch nuclear weaponry must only do so with official Einherjar consent.[/quote]
I'm sorry, you took the time to change one little thing(btw, BOOOOOO! even months.
), and missed the opportunity to change these two bits into something better? "Valhalla seeks for peace in the world"? "strictly defensive purposes"? 
Would you like a bowl of mild farina with that?
I love you guys, but you seriously dropped the ball on this one. The viking kitties was good, but not good enough to cover for the slacking. -
[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1289920894' post='2514623']
AirMe didn't you know? There are three possible outcomes for any event:
1) Nothing happens. Insert lots of "Do something about it" statements from smug individuals.
2) Reparations paid. Insert cries of extortion from those paying.
2) War. Insert lots of "Becoming the monster" statements from people getting rolled.
There is no middle ground. There is no room for countermeasures that aren't straight up war. Anything else is just a blatant PR grab to cover up one of the above 3 scenarios that have occurred within the last few weeks.
[/quote]
You're finally beginning to realise what Pacifica had to deal with all that time they were on top, aren't you? The perception of your position becomes more important then the reality. Maybe you should ask MHA how they dodge all criticism while being number one in the sanctioned list, they seem to be really good at it. -
[quote name='Linden16' timestamp='1289775271' post='2513083']
Your agenda is to corner the twinkie market.
[/quote]
Way to kill a thread right from the start.
I was going to say I can't help you find your agenda, because I already have one of my own, but between Linden16 and Bzelger it looks like this situation has been resolved. Now which one of those two is the secret agenda? -
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1289269885' post='2507002']
The choice the NSO made here was to use the conversation for a PR war (see: this thread). RV knew perfectly well we weren't going to roll him for asking to reduce the price to a more reasonable level.
[/quote]
Cosidering NSO got rolled not to long ago over a matter of $6M and a officer underestimating the threat you might think they would be a litle gun shy right about now. Once you rejected the normal route of dropping the member(and the $3M for the harbor?), I am not surprised that NSO assumed the worst, especially with the initial figure requested. Also, this is RV you are talking about. I have no idea why you think you knew what his response was going to be, RV is anything but predictable. If you had not gone with that outrageous number in the first place, RV would have had nothing to run to the forums with. None of the arguments presented here have given anyone a reason to agree with you that the demand was reasonable.
No you are not montsers, and I can even believe Denial, et.al. when they say you all had no intention of rolling them. You seem incapable of seeing things from their perspective though, and I doubt you would have been displeased if a reason for war with them presented itself.
[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289269976' post='2507004']
NSO is an alliance that cannot be communicated with by anybody on the "opposite side of the web". It isn't for a lack of our trying. Every effort to get questions answered is deliberately resisted. Every suggestion or request is trumped up to extortion. Every reasonable and expected request flatly denied. [/quote]
I think I saw a \m/ member in here saying that dealing with them was not that difficult; are they on the opposite side of the web from you?
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1289270387' post='2507024']
I can't think of a single scenario where the aggrieved party has demanded more than they're going to get.
[/quote]
There are some people in Gramlins who would probably disagree with you. -
[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1288361758' post='2496310']
Google is
This would be a good argument, except that the leader of MK just admitted to always having wanted to see BAPS burn.
Always means in 2007 too, when they were MDP partners.
[/quote]
Google IS awesome, I agree.
If that is actually the case, I'd have to say he is moving at TOP speed on that little project.... -
From 2007 Haflinger? Really?
Talk about saving it for a rainy day.... -
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1288229232' post='2494716']
Essentially, they have grown a lot, but due to some decisions they are growing at a much lower rate that they could potentially be if they held off nukes until 6k infra and 4-5 economic wonders.
[/quote]
While I agree with you, everyone has their own approach to how to build a nation, and after being in that long-term war I am sure they have very different priorities. Getting bigger would only put them into range of far more powerful/wealthier nations. I've seen this idea before, both in individual nations and even whole alliances, where they intend to try and dominate in a specific(usually lower) range. I don't know how that really works out, the lack of a fully developed economy and having fewer improvement slots would seem to be a problem, but some people are out there trying to make a go of it. -
[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1288205783' post='2494372']
No disrespect but your 20% WRC coverage, 30% SDI coverage, and spitballs you call nukes aren't much to brag about.
[/quote]
I'd actually disagree, did you ever see their stats right after they got peace? I'm not even sure if they had [b]ONE[/b] WRC to their names. Since then they have built up rather nicely. I'm sure from your perspective they are not performing at an elite level, but they seem to be doing just fine by their lights. -
[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1288008191' post='2492695']
For VE there is NAAC, for MK there is BAPS, for NPO there is TPF (not disbanded, but a shadow of their pre-Karma selves).[/quote]
BAPS is still around too, unless there was a previous BAPS that I know nothing of???
-
[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1287785728' post='2490840']
I'd also note that the NPO was not attacked since Karma and now occupies the #2 spot in the game. If reparations were intended to hold them down or punish them, it was obviously ineffective in actually effecting the alliance's ability to grow and become powerful.
So its not to say that heavy terms are the way of the future and that we all need to start going around disbanding alliances or whatever, but simply levying huge financial reparations on alliances is, at best, ineffective.
[/quote]
Your point about the nukes/navy/etc. saving a defeated alliance money I can agree with. Also I am sure you point about the slot usage are accurate too, but then why do it if it is inefficient for both parties?
NPO was not attacked in war, but suffered large numbers of raids and it is only their sheer size that enabled them to climb to #2; they would have gotten there anyway, and it is quite possible the raids slowed them down some.
I also disagree with your last point, as heavy reps cripples an AA's tech strength, which is a large amount of an AA's military effectiveness. Monetary reps are not overly harmful in and of themselves but they do tie up aid slots quite well. If you want to neuter your opponents for the long term then you hit them with large reps, it seems to be quite effective at doing that. -
[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1287779351' post='2490773']
I am not sure monetary terms alone do anything but take alliances out of the game for long periods of time in which they can rebuild without the burden of military costs or fear of having to participate in a war. I think they can be strong discouragements for senseless declarations against your alliance from small groups, but at the end of massive wars its basically a security blanket given to the defeated party, that has the side effect of making the defeated party feel like martyrs and give them something to rally around as being unjust or unwarranted.
[/quote]
You make it sound almost as though being given heavy reps is a good thing.
Go back and read the Trashcat's comments about TDSM8's disbandment, and shortly afterwards. I don't think heavy terms did them much good, and I am sure they are not the only group that considered reps to be a burden. Also, ask NPO how much that "security blanket" was worth during their recent terms. Saying this sort of thing is beneficial to people paying reps is just whitewash.
A note from Dark Fist
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1292707845' post='2543050']
Thank you, person I've never spoken with. It's good to know that you are so intimately aware of how I run my alliance and what our philosophy and goals are.
[/quote]
I did indeed quote your post, but your post was a general one, and my comment was meant to be read in the same light. 'Agenda' as I used it there could be anything from your stated desire to protect your old alliance/ally after their disbandment, or someone who just wanted to get a war going if they see the sides looking favorable. It wasn't a knock on you.
I was going to ask if these raids by NEW had all been declared before most of the posts stating they were protected had been made, but from Finnish Commie's posts and a couple others it seems that is a main issue in this dispute ATM?