shilo

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='21 July 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1279746970' post='2383261'] Sad when you consider what the old Gramlins was. I agree that it is not sad at all if you only consider what they became. [/quote] Sorry, I too wish they were the old ones, but I am at war with the new version for many months now, so forgive me if they do shape my view on the alliance more than they should do.

[quote name='deSouza' date='21 July 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1279741008' post='2383032'] So, the law of the new order is to simply claim something is grassroots and make it look like it has no apparent organization when you want to do something questionable? [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_U4mS133rdMA/SltL9OMKIOI/AAAAAAAAADg/A7t5TL-XBBs/s400/bart.jpg[/img] [/quote] Yes. Make insults and threats, as long as you are not gov, and your gov says "he isn't gov" you can do what you want.

[quote name='flak attack' date='21 July 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1279737783' post='2382914'] Then do tell, who was the second alliance that you are saying supports this, because of the three mentioned, only one of them still exists. That said, we are not and have never seriously claimed to be LUE reborn. Yes, members of our starting government were from LUE, but there were people from NAAC, ODN and NPO among the early membership as well. We joke about it because it's hilarious to think that people like you actually believe we're serious. [/quote] [quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1279737606' post='2382906'] -sigh- Heritage of [i]what[/i], exactly? LUE? NPO? There's a fair amount of ex-NPO in MK, aren't there?[/quote] To get this out of the way: I said heritage and values because I know those are not the same alliances. It's my believe however (correct me if I am wrong) that there are common values and that there is a heritage (obviously that has to do with quite a few members from MK stemming from LUE) that connects the two alliances. So I wondered out loud why those values no longer apply for the same people. -[i]before someone says once more that I said LUE and MK are the same: no I did not do so. Ie I don't think they are the same[/i]- [quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1279737606' post='2382906'] How about instead of scrabbling for a connection to 2006, you use MK's history as an alliance. You know, things the Mushroom Kingdom has actually done. They have certainly been around long enough to accumulate some history. Haven't they? [/quote] Well, generally you make good points would I have taken two completely different and unrelated events of two completely unrelated groups and compared them. What I did however is compare the reaction of an alliance and the values associated with that reaction to an alliance which shares a strong connection (read: if I wasn't clear before, that doesn't mean I think they are the same) and in my opinion also values to a situation that is pretty much the same, just with this group related to MK now opposing said action so strongly that an MDP was canceled (and they were a much bigger deal back then than they are now, so it was a very strong reaction), while MK now not only supports such an action, no, it commits the same acts and tries justifying them. And just for fun I also mentioned the support of ODN for their CnG ally MK now, when in 2006, ODN felt strongly enough about the same acts committed by GGA to cancel their treaty with them as well. [quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1279737606' post='2382906'] I'm sorry then, but you fail tenses forever. "Ex" indicates past. As in, the alliances that people call "Ex-Hegemony" used to be a part of the ruling hegemony. Most of the reason they're still called that in my opinion is that no one has come up with a better label, though Lord Fingolfin (sp?) had some good ideas in his thread. Though as long as we're discussing it, I'm sure there could be a healthy debate on how valid SuperGrievances is as a label...but I guess that's off topic. [/quote] I can see you disagree about my labeling, I am fine with that, I gave you a much more correct label instead, so consider this my official label in the context of this discussion. Anything else would be off-topic I fear, though I agree, definitely an interesting subject.

[quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1279736947' post='2382881'] Damn, you actually believe the "MK is LUE 2.0" stuff? [/quote] Nice try, although I never said it, it's good to take something not said instead of answering the post you quoted. [quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1279736947' post='2382881'] I was always under the impression that the reason they loved playing with it so was precisely because it got under the skins of people who honestly believed it. [/quote] Did you read the part where I said something regarding heritage and values, or did you just skip my post entirely to be able to write your version of my post and then respond to that one instead? [quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1279736947' post='2382881'] You had content? and here I thought you were just trying for a rimshot. [/quote] Yes, though admittedly, only in the post I wrote, ie the one you don't like to read and create your own version from that betters suits you. [quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1279736947' post='2382881'] Note the use of the prefix "Ex-", and then get back to me and we can discuss the validity of labeling things. [/quote] Note how hegemony as group name has nothing to do with being hegemonic, and then go back writing your own version of my posts for you

In our times, having a military deterrent seems to be a very smart choice. Congratulations to two fine alliances on cooperating on such an important project!

[quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1279735938' post='2382843'] I think it's funny that MK isn't LUE, ODN doesn't allow raiding at all, and you're desperately grasping at straws. But then I'm strange. I also think it's funny that you think there was a legit hegemony in 2006. [/quote] I think it's funny that you just ignore the part where I said support such action (to spell this out clearer: that was regarding ODN), and then try to define MK and LUE as two completely unrelated groups that in no way share values when MK has no problem admitting their heritage and likes to play around with it. And to be clearer, it would be all about shared values, not about comparing alliance structures, ie attacking uninvolved nations to bait another group into war was considered wrong then, and now it's either not wrong anymore because the moral has changed, or simply because the moral only applies to weaker parties - as we read before, might makes morality. I also think it's pretty much hilarious that since you have no argument to make, you MPK around sematics in hopes of being able to dance around the content of the post. But I'll help you out: since "ex-hegemony" is now used to define a group by all means not being in a position to be hegemonic, I simply used a term to define very loosely the same group of alliances back then. Just for you: alliances connected to NPO in 2006

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='21 July 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1279731171' post='2382716'] I'm glad I fought for the Karma side so that I could enable powerful alliances to attack small alliances at will without repercussions. Wait... [/quote] Yeah, I think many who fought for Karma not simply because they wanted to be the new top dog rather change the way things are done are wondering why things start slowly feeling so familiar again. [quote name='Bilrow' date='21 July 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1279734400' post='2382810'] In an ironic shift, it was LUE that dropped their treaty with GGA for that raid (rightfully so) and pushed for the censuring of Kevin the Great and I. ODN suspended their treaty and NAAC canceled theirs as well. I guess the "rules" are different when you are dominate force as to what is acceptable and expedient politically and willing to throw out the lessons learned in the past when you were the underdog. o/ The "new GGA", MK, \m/, and GOONS. [/quote] I think it is funny that two alliances canceled treaties with GGA for a certain safari and now either commit or support the same actions they dropped treaties for when they were "opposing the hegemony". Smells like hypocrisy to me.

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='21 July 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1279709253' post='2382376'] What's really funny here is that after having their alliance destroyed for their "noble cause", white peace, from their point of view, really does not look like an honourable end to this war anymore. By taking it, they will basically admit that they are the fools everybody else already knows they are. They placed themselves in position where they have no honourable option. The best they can hope for is to save what is left and this too is just thank to our impossible generosity. That unless, of course, the whole idea from the beginning was for Gramlins to serve as suicide bombers for C&G's coalition, and sacrifice themselves to slow our rebuilding and recovery from the war. The support they received from their friends, who held our allies from helping us, may suggests that this is exactly was the purpose of this idiocy. I have no hard evidence to support this "theory", but even without formally agreeing on this, quiet understanding between leaders of Gramlins and some of their "friends" could make this happen. Whether this is what happened or not, the idea that we will agree to roll back to the the day the ESA was signed, pretend that nothing happened since and allow Gramlins to continue from there is a complete nonsense. [/quote] Well, quite a few thought it and were told we should just ask privately for friends being allowed to intervene. And privately we were told it would ignite another curbstomp for us and our friends. So, while I am pretty sure that ram is simply a lunatic who brought destruction on his alliance by himself simply due to his ego, I am also pretty sure that when "others" had a chance to help us end this sooner, they did all they could to drag it out for us. I guess if you don't care about gRAMlins, they got a pretty good deal out of it without taking either publicity or stats damage, while ensuring economic damage to us for months.

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='21 July 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1279664462' post='2381371'] Is that flippancy I sense? because the whole Viceroy gig in the old era was nothing to be flippant about [/quote] No. It's sarcasm, as nothing else would fit there anymore. Trying to rationalize personal immorality by pointing out the immorality of someone else is simply stupid. The whole line of defense repeated every time acts of immorality are committed by those who opposed NPO is simply "but they did worse". That was true, but NPO was in power for many years, and the real bad stuff did not occur at the beginning. So correctly said "we haven't been in power long enough to be as bad as them". But even then, even if alliances aren't disbanded, just controlled by viceroys, that as was pointed out, is legal, will we still hear "but NPO did worse!"? Nothing what NPO did excuses anyone else from upholding a moral standard. Not doing so is the sole responsibility of whoever doesn't do it, and simply reflects on a low character, may that be an individual, alliances or whole groups of alliances.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='20 July 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1279655371' post='2381140'] No criminal knows the exact sentence they'll receive, even through plea bargaining. You're correct that they do know a rough outline ("guidelines"), yet you are incorrect that we have not provided such to IRON: 1) Our Codex prevents us from issuing harsh terms. 2) We would be crushed by everyone (deservedly so) if we issued harsh terms. 3) We've practically come right out and said what the terms are like 50 times. 4) Pay attention. Ertyy [/quote] All fine, I'd just like to add that you are being crushed right now as it is

[quote name='Banksy' date='20 July 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1279654852' post='2381125'] There is no traditional inflation, yes. But in GW3, very few ODN nations would have been capable of paying off that 200m. Now, it could be paid off by 35-40 nations in one cycle. There may be a cap on the aid, but not on the number of nations sending it. [/quote] Then you should ask how high the amount of reps were that ODN paid after GW3, and how long it took. Clearly, only greed inflated in any sense, the rest has been pretty constant.

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1279646119' post='2380859'] It's called playing along. Only thing you can really do when faced with tired jokes/lines. [/quote] And I thought it was part of a re-branding campaign! Does this mean I should delete the LUEnited Order propaganda signature?

[quote name='Nizzle' date='20 July 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1279645756' post='2380848'] This is absolutely hilarious. Please, folks, continue traveling from "It's about shoving it in the NPO's face because we can." to "It's just about tech-raiding." Also, continue saying "Might makes right" and traveling to "Survival of the fittest." I mean, really. This thread is about to reach Gold Mine potential, and it's all thanks to those wonderful folks conducting this raid If you guys weren't so torn between what you can do and what you are afraid of becoming, it wouldn't be so great. [/quote] The line of arguments here is quickly reaching MPK standards. And I mean this as a compliment!

[quote name='Moridin' date='20 July 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1279645188' post='2380827'] Wonderful, every disbandment that occurred under the NPO-led hegemony was neither right nor wrong. It is a relief to see we have abandoned all pretense of superiority to the old hegemony. [/quote] But they had viceroys!

[quote name='flak attack' date='20 July 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1279643694' post='2380768'] You are aware that, as of our last count, we have more former NPO and former GPA members than former LUE members, right? [/quote] Well, at least now we understand why your behavior is increasingly hegemonic

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1279642233' post='2380713'] You don't have to like what we're doing, I was merely asking why we're somehow worse than NPO & Co. On a more general note, MK and many more alliances have been raiding "innocent" nations for years, so using the whole "you're slaughtering bystanders" argument is a bit silly. This is what we do - the fact that this Safari is coordinated between multiple alliances, or that there is an actual political reason behind our campaign doesn't make it better or worse. It is what it is - raiding. Feel free to try and abolish the practice of raiding in this realm, if you're so concerned with innocent nations. Red is not the only sphere that has them. I know that many of my comrades, myself included, would love to turn the NPO into a crater again - for good, this time. But ruining alliances simply because we don't like them isn't really what we do (otherwise you'd see half of Bob in flames). NPO is free to conduct its business as it wishes, as long as it doesn't try to tell us how to write the raiding rules contained in the MK Vanguard Codex - the most holy document within the castle halls. We will not allow the Red Devil and its merry band if micro-alliances to impose its will upon us! [/quote] To be fair, most people don't claim you are as bad as NPO. I think you are on your way to act like them. And the critique here is about conducting attacks against third party nations with the goal to spite NPO. That's childish, and you should know its wrong not because others tell you or because Vladmir said so, but because I hope you can see what is wrong with that.

[quote name='Leet Guy' date='20 July 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1279639836' post='2380645'] Where does an argument like this hold up? You and so many others are claiming that eventually we will become the "New Hegemony," while besides having a different opinion on tech raiding there has barely been any similarities seen. You're basing your hatred on a completely false assumption, and I honestly don't even know how to respond to such comments. [/quote] I don't hate anyone here besides a few individuals committing act of terrorism against alliance homes. That said, those of us, who opposed to you being one of the new oppressors, can see you work from further away, can easily recognize, even before the war, the arrogance of power, which ultimately led to all the real bad stuff. You guys have as much if not more than NPO had at its peak, and you basically just ascended to the throne. So my opinion that you are on starting to act like NPO is simply based on observation. Believe me, I would be very glad you guys were what you said at the beginning of Karma when I was stupid enough to believe it, I truly wish. I am just disappointed that you proved me wrong, and NPO right which predicted that kind of behavior from you back in Karma.

[quote name='AirMe' date='20 July 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1279639589' post='2380637'] The only people who would beg to differ were the ones running people off this planet for 3 years. No one has been intentionally run off the planet nor has an alliance been attacked unjustly by the alliances you now assume control the world. For the most part, diplomacy has prevailed, and when it hasn't it wasn't the fault of the "New Hegemony" as you call them. No one has been obliterated just because they were named "insert alliance name here." Everything is cyclical what rises must fall and vice versa. And you are the one bringing up the NPO in regards to this argument not me. If you don't want people to play the NPO blame game you shouldn't use it as a defense yourself. Though you know nothing of what oppression actually is. You think you know..and what you think is oppression, is a walk in the park compared to what some people went through in the past. And I have no issue saying that the world is now better because there are no forced disbandment or viceroys. In fact I am damn proud to believe that. [/quote] Actually, if you look closer at history, we're about at the stage after GW2 ended. That was an almost even matched conflict, and only then, and especially after GW3, did the real juicy stuff happen. Now that your buddies are at the helm for only a few months, they already slowly practicing all the methodes they supposedly fought in Karma, starting with small things, and we will see when they will do the real fun stuff once more. So to be correct: No one has been obliterated yet, just because they were named "insert alliance name here." And don't sing me the song of oppression, playing the poor victim card ended the moment your friends started acting like their abusers. The world is better without it, but I just don't think this will be a permanent state. Rather, we toppled the one using such methodes, had a short break in which your gang of friends wasn't powerful enough yet, and now we're slowly going to repeat history cause they are too lazy to develop a new playbook. Also, obligatory "NPO did worse, so we're okay" comment.

Heft is a very competent leader, congratulations to NSO for once more having work in a leading role

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='20 July 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1279638368' post='2380602'] I always find it amusing when you try to paint an alliance as lacking independence, considering you're part of an alliance that was founded as a colony for FOK's sympathizers who didn't speak Dutch. You're the very definition of a vassal. [/quote] That is indeed ironic I have to say. A member of a vassal state accusing another alliance of lacking independence. Never thought about it like that

[quote name='AirMe' date='20 July 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1279638659' post='2380610'] It is still 100 times better than the world you tried to uphold. [/quote] Actually, in your world that you helped create, with New Hegemony only being in total control now for a months now, I would say you are definitely on your merry way of reenactment. But if it helps you sleep at night. Also, mandatory "NPO did worse, so we're okay" comment.

[quote name='pezstar' date='20 July 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1279638688' post='2380612'] TOP was there too, if I recall correctly. And I usually do recall correctly. [/quote] And TOP tried to help this one specific ally of yours in stopping this, if I recall correctly. And I know I recall correctly. Edit: Forgot to add another "NPO did worse, we're okay" comment.

I agree with Feanor. It's one of those "I told you so" moments Oh, and a mandatory "NPO did worse so we're ok".

[quote name='NoFish' date='20 July 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1279584255' post='2379527'] No, but your FAC does increase the amount of money you can move per aid cycle, which I believe is the important part as reparations are measured in money or tech, not in number of slots. Also yes alliances had more members, but they still had less total infrastructure and presumably a lower total income, thus meaning that the same amount of monetary reparations provided more of a burden on an alliance at the time. I won't even start on the warchest tangent, as it clearly says something about your alliance's war machien if you think the warchest you had then was anywhere near sufficient for the modern age. [/quote] Your attempts to first explain a non-existant inflation of prices by a supposed increase in aidslots, despite that not being true, won't find the support you're looking for by hanging onto that FAC argument. First of all, it's one of the least popular if not the least popular wonder out there. Second of all, as most reparations in war are not sent symmetrically, ie from large to large nations, or small to small, rather from large to small (money) or small to large (tech), thus guaranteeing that very likely one of the two parties not having an FAC, thus making it completely useless. Regarding financial capabilities, that too isn't true. ODN had to pay several hundreds of millions to Goons after GW3, after a substantial loss of membership and infrastructure, and it was payed back quickly. In the UJW, nations had long since rebuild, and I remember from my own nation, most had definitely gained strength. I had 10k infra at the start for example, and I had around 200 million in my warchest. Of course that's nothing compared to today, but 2.5 years ago, it wasn't bad, and that is all that matter since you said that back then it was supposedly so much harder to accumulate money. However, inflation had any merit would simply always be money the issue. But looking at the last war and the reparations, it's not even money, but technology. So no, there is no inflation, there are no more aidslots, FACs are simply irrelevant in the context of this argument, and financial capabilities are not the issue, it's clogging up aidslots for weeks and months with reparations that is. [quote name='kriekfreak' date='20 July 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1279617530' post='2380336'] Are you serious of just joking? IRON and having something up its sleeve. I wonder which ally of them orchestrated this, TOP or Valhalla. IRON isn't really an alliance that is leading, they are more the kind of followers as has been seen in the past 2-3 years. [/quote] A quality post, top notch content. Definitely worthy of being read again, it's that good.

I am sad to hear this. You guys are two very fine alliances, sorry to hear that the relationship broke down to a level where the treaty shouldn't and couldn't be sustained.