MCRABT

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1340147931' post='2989334'] Oh, that's what you were planning? No, sorry, you're not getting him or your tech. Come at me bro. [/quote] We shall see [quote name='Alex Thompson' timestamp='1340148074' post='2989339'] also, [17:18] <MCRABT[IRON]> Reps are precisely why everyone around here has no balls (and no, that wasn't me impersonating him) [/quote] I don't recall making that statement perhaps you will enlighten me with the full context. I am certain If that is me then it's in reference to taking reps after defeating an alliance at war.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1340147070' post='2989305'] I did not vote for this and IRON are a bunch of whiny !@#$%*es. [/quote] If you feel that strongly about your alliances position you know where the declare war button is. You're the anarchist pal. That'll do LSF I look forward to my 100 tech and filling Alex Thompsons slots if our noble friends at NoR give us a look in.

Good luck guys

Solid stance, all the best BFF.

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1339771936' post='2984827'] It's hilarious that the people calling these wars stupid also want the International to defend LSF stupidity. [/quote] The moral of the story is there isn't one

Dig them a hole and dump them in it NoR.

Good luck Pacifica

Congrats guys

Congrats on the new government and the cancellation.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339172307' post='2979430'] Vorenus: The point of this venue is to be a political soapbox for people. I resent the thinking that has come to dominate that this is supposed to be some sort of bulletin board or a place where political moves are simply hailed if the parties are relatively well off. I don't know about never. In large part, the reason I am in the position I am is that I wasn't as vicious as my current opponents despite seeing everything coming that was and the defamation that took place when I couldn't respond. It's only in response to that string of events I post like this. It wasn't exactly the norm until I had an actual reason to be responsive in that way. Maybe not responding it would make me a bit more sympathetic, though I doubt that it would in a [b]tangible[/b] sense since it wouldn't change the overall political situation(I guess I'd be on par with Schattenmann or something) but I've never known anyone who would willingly take a string of insults targeted at them as an individual over a long period of time. The hating is retaliatory. I've not liked alliances in a political sense prior to the string of events, but it was in a detached way, even with alliances I really hated, it didn't cross certain boundaries where it became more than just x opposing y. I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way about that particular set of alliances. I don't see myself as a victim on these forums because people criticize my posting, but I do have issues with getting accused of a long range of items and being sold out whole sale by an alliance I dedicated years to that enjoys the benefits of it. It's kind of the opposite of your sig and the rewards are not in proportion to the service. It's more inversely proportional to the service. A point you are making about "rising above the tittle tattle" that is adopted by most of the people who don't like the set of the alliances is to withdraw entirely from the forums, which makes opposing viewpoints more rare, and prods me to post more simply because the views aren't represented adequately in this venue. I'm not sure whether or not ceding the forums to a particular political grouping has been the wisest of choices for them, however. I would more than welcome a time where I could just say "well, everyone said what I wanted to say." Despite most of the alliances that are actively disliked by the grouping you mentioned being quiet, they are still attacked every time they post and it makes them no more sympathetic. [/quote] Absolutely nothing wrong with any of what you said buddy, I don't expect you to rise above the tittle tattle in fact it would probably lead to the situation you described above and would be counter productive to playing your role within the community. People should see it for what it is however, two opposing factions pursuing their own political agendas. Thus as explained above complaints about "Roq hate fes" hold as much weight as a paper clip. You will try to discredit those who you hold grievances with and they will return the favour by any means at their disposal. As you have quite rightly pointed out, it is in ones own interest to counter views that attempt to bring discredit, you wouldn't expect undermining the influence of major alliances to be easy and if it was success would taste rather bland now wouldn't it.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1339151521' post='2979303'] Or perhaps the drivel is diversionary to draw away from the underlying problems that are developed earlier in this thread? Also the "victim complex," only works in diminishing another's claim when it is being used solely as the basis of their argument. That is not valid in this or any of the instances I think you would indicate a "victim-complex," was used. More often than not it is those whom are outright lambasting others rather responding to the conversation and valid talking points who are actually employing a victim complex that prevents them from responding -- hint -- it's not Roq. (Also, never? I just did. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/ehm.gif[/img]) [/quote] Well perhaps it is? I don't particularly care as it is irrelevant to my point, you can't claim the moral high ground while rolling around in the muck. I'll break it down a little more for you so you don't misinterpret what I am saying. Regardless of how you present your argument, you and your lot are here for the same reason as the people you so vehemently detest, you come to propagate your views at their expense and think because you go about it in a less abrasive (way at times), you think you arer more justified in pursuing your desired outcome which is inversely the same as your opponents. Thread after thread Roq and his usual suspects turn up to add there bit to discredit MK, NG, Umbrella et al because it serves there political agenda, then when the shoe is put on the other foot the tears flow. It's tittle tattle and neither of you has high ground to claim because your objectives are the same. The second part of your post is a lot of nonsense, If you took the straw out of Roqs arsehole for a minute you might get a glimpse of the bigger picture.

Congratulations on the treaty guys

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1339020186' post='2978407'] Quick, turn this into a Roquentin hate fes.... Oh, you're way ahead of me guys! [/quote] I think he does a fair share of hating in any thread he has the opportunity, action and reaction, it's a vicious cycle. The victim complex only works when you have the high ground, you gain the high ground by rising above the tittle tattle something you and Roq have never been willing to do.

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1339002708' post='2978280'] His record for... siding with his bloc until TOP hit MK? Huh. [/quote] His record for signing treaties for the exact same reason everyone does and for the reason they exist in the first place. [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339009334' post='2978332'] The difference is, that the people I am targetting the allegations to are the ones who talk about wanting to fight all the time and wanting wars that are good for entertainment value and challenging. It's one thing to play politics in the sense you're suggesting, but when your(not your as in MCRABT) rhetoric consists of "let's shake things up" and the actions don't line up with the rhetoric, it's another thing altogether. edit: If only my track record was taken into consideration more of the time. D: [/quote] I don't think who you are targeting is relevant. You know perfectly well that the most urgent priority for an alliance (nation state) in the international system is to ensure its survival, because there are other large actors competing for influence and the system is filled with anarchy the only way to do this is to sign treaties (make alliances). You can "shake" things up but only within the constraints of they system itself, trying to change the way it operates requires stability in the system itself which is unattainable, undesirable and certainly not what folks are referring to when they say they aim to "shake things up". Anyone who has ever been in a position of relevance has been there by virtue of the network they created around themselves, it just shows they have played the game well. "Shaking things up" is just a reference to exercising ones power effectively and efficiently to achieve their own goals.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1338941552' post='2977942'] Meh, it's a common belief in his AA. Keep in mind the people launching these criticisms have also nestled themselves in huge treaty web configurations so they can avoid real opposition for as long as possible! [/quote] Welcome to CN, this isn't an allegation you should be targeting at any specific group of people especially given your track record at Umbrella. Securing the interests of yours and your own is the name of the game, don't hate the player hate the game.

Well done guys onward!

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s5nTdkk0u7E/TD0rig9-QeI/AAAAAAAAAtQ/yHMGm5XMU0Y/s1600/Copy+(5)+of+stephen-fry-cheshire-cat-2010--large-msg-126291729369.jpg[/img] This picture represents the expression on my face as I read this thread. Edit: How rude of me, congrats on the treaty!

Congratulations STA onward and upward.

5 years is a respectable landmark well done

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1338229762' post='2973639'] That was the point. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img] [/quote] The point is there isn't a point. That's a clever trick.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1338219381' post='2973593'] I told you to stop being an idiot, but you continue. 1. I was not in gov at the time. 2. Our HC banned tech dealing with Gre after that one deal was done. Obviously you're not over it, or you wouldn't randomly bring it up in a thread about NG. [/quote] 1) You were MoFA at the time. If you weren't I wouldn't have been talking to you about it. 2) After I displayed considerable dismay at your stated position. It was brought up in a different context in which it worked as a stellar example. It wasn't therefore brought up randomly.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1338213526' post='2973566'] My God, it was one noob sending Gramlins 50 tech two years ago because he didn't know any better. Stop being an idiot, and get over it. [/quote] That was never the problem, the problem was your refusal as a government member to stop dealing tech with Gremlins despite their willingness to keep your MDoAP allies in a pointless conflict. I am long since over it but it works as a fine example of your noobish behaviour when it comes to foreign affairs. [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1338198162' post='2973527'] Certainly an interesting perspective considering I would view MCXA as one of the most active alliances in terms of foreign affairs aside from your ally in Non Grata after this previous war. I don't know about their internal affairs and am not quite sure how one would accurately measure either subjective quality but I'd have to emphasize that any judgment either way would just be that -- subjective. It's neither here nor there. Arexes, find me a job so we can play again. Edit: What a difference a word can make. [/quote] You've made a point and then nullified it by the logic of your own argument.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1338195817' post='2973518'] You think so, huh? Interesting. [/quote] While I have a new found respect for their internal efficiency, i've seen little to indicate they are going to be any more potent than they have been in the past two years in terms of foreign affairs, given there achievements in that period it doesn't bode well. I'd love to be proved wrong though, MCXA were once fine friends and capable allies.

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1338183007' post='2973457'] No sir you have it all wrong, See we SELL at 3/50. Giving our nations more money and well, it makes our nations grow. Were not Umbrella by any chance. Our slots are extremely full (Larger then Umbrella's efficiency). So well, we have half your members, but thats not something you could brag about. As our members are active enough to complete tech deals, as yours seem to just sit there with empty slots. MCXA's war capabilities have been bragged about by many of our latest enemies. LSF is treatied to us now, ODN and INT have told us were pretty good in the battle field as well. So MCXA being "Bad" is more of because you just don't like us so you consider us bad. CSN is also viewed as "bad", but they're slot efficiency is currently at the top (Larger then MCXAs and Umbrellas) and trust me... Ive been in CSN, they know how to "war" NG considers all alliances bad because they simply cannot match them. See while you sit here and think of corny slogans, we complete tech deals. Guess which is the most effective. [/quote] It's a pity all that hard work is going to go to waste because idiots like you are changing MCXA's status from irrelevant to simply irritating. You being bad has little to do with your internal affairs which seem to be fairly well in order but rather your complete ineptitude when it comes to foreign affairs. For example refusing to stop aiding an alliance at war with your MDoAP partner because it impinges your members ability to grow or just generally picking arguments for the sake of being disliked everywhere. It's not very clever. also Boooo arexes is terrible etc etc.

Well this certainly is a little surprising, congratulations to the ponies you have a top class friend there.