Arthur Blair

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='25 April 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1272216161' post='2274465'] so when FAN was in a long war, all that was heard was eternal war. hell, even now vietFAN is still considered an eternal war by many despite the fact that it has ended. so you telling me that NPO is now not to blame for having brought forth the notion of eternal war to CN because the war spoken of has in fact ended? well, that is one less thing i hope that the old Heg is no longer blamed for. [/quote] Agreed. [quote]as for the whole "for the time being", you realize that currently for most there is no end in sight. to amad- yes his personal opinion is that 12-18 months there is an end in sight but who honestly knows. i mean there are 7 100k nations quite close in NS to one another. it would be hard to drag those nations down 1 by 1 without getting jumped by all of them. that is unless other alliance are finally released of the no reentry clause and allowed to aid IRON/DAWN. so it is quite simple to state "for the time being we are in this kind of war" because it could change but at the same time it may not change. [/quote] Yes. It's certainly a tough fight and you might not make it. I don't think it's fair to call it eternal just because you don't know the timespan or outcome though. [quote]but it is good to see at least one of the descriptions that CnG and others spewed at NPO/Old Heg is finally being laid aside. NPO/Old Heg is no longer responsible for having put FAN through an eternal war, nor could they have possibly even set the precedent for it since vietFAN did in fact end, thus according to Arthur Blair- it cannot possibly be called an eternal war since it is not eternal. thank you for clearing up that mess Arthur.[/quote] You're welcome, though I doubt it'll have much of an effect. I am after all just a cog in the hate machine that is the new hegemony. [quote]ahhhh this is so true. but hey, if Arthur is correct, then the Old Heg has never actually practiced EZI and thus yet another thing that CnG/others have attempted to cast on the Old Heg is wiped clean. that is 2 things that Arthur has essentially just stated the Old Heg can no longer be blamed for doing or practicing. [/quote] Again you are most welcome. If we keep eradicating a couple of things a day, in a couple of years their slate might be wiped clean.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='25 April 2010 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1272215287' post='2274445'] By your argument - three, actually. (Some of those surrender terms were from alliances on your side.) Since your alliance did not sign any of the terms in question, your interpretation of them isn't really very relevant. [/quote] So we are called to stand responsible for terms other people signed, but our interpretation of those terms are not relevant. This keeps getting better and better.

[quote name='StevieG' date='25 April 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1272201544' post='2274257'] Oh god, I said it was an empty statement, not an inaccurate one. [/quote] Would it be fuller if I was government? I'm sure I can weasel myself into some sort of position rather quickly, but then I expect a bunch of alliances to declare on grämlins on my say-so. My statement will be so full and rich with meaning and undertones...

[quote name='Haflinger' date='25 April 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1272203097' post='2274268'] From a casual reading of these peace terms, it would appear that while IRON and the Grämlins remain stubborn, the ranks of the neutral alliances have expanded well past the GPA, TDO, and WTF, and now include the following: [list=1] [*]The Immortals [*]TUF [*]House of Lords [*]GGA [*]FCC [*]Carthage [*]NADC [*]Echelon [*]MCXA [*]GDA [*]UBD [*]ICB [*]SNAFU [*]BAPS [*]Olympus [*]Valhalla [*]Invicta [*]Avalon [*]Molon Labe [*]DOOM [/list] [/quote] And which of these surrendered under the Easter Sunday Accords that are being paraded in the OP? ... Yeah. See you can argue that a lot of alliances might be kept under neutrality terms, but you're on the wrong side of town barking up the entirely wrong tree.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='25 April 2010 - 05:38 AM' timestamp='1272173905' post='2273995'] what in your mind is a genuine complaint? IRON/DAWN do not have a way currently to have any alliances help them out militarily for a while now since the no reentry clause has not been rescinded which means we are stuck in an eternal war for the time being unless gremlins rescind their unconditional surrender term. [/quote] Wait, are you really saying that a genuine complaint is "[b]for the time being[/b] we are stuck in an [b]eternal[/b] war"? ... You do realize that eternal means there is no "currently" or "for the time being"? There is only eternal. Forever. Infinite. You are eternally in war, or you are in war for the time being. You can not be both. I do not see a way for the terms signed to last forever. This is not a genuine complaint, it's an attempt to smear this horrible new hegemony with yet another baseless claim.

[quote name='Owned-You' date='25 April 2010 - 05:08 AM' timestamp='1272172063' post='2273936'] Although Athens technically didn't do anything wrong as it was cleared by Gandroff, I don't think it's wise to even bother raiding the misspelled applicant AA, unless asked by Pacifica. If not, it's only inviting these types of topics which do bring bad PR and just plain sloppy politics. Plus, I think tech-raiding is a terrible practice these days. But to each his own I suppose. [/quote] I think the only one who got bad PR out of this topic is silentkiller.

[quote name='StevieG' date='24 April 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1272153264' post='2273510'] Pretty empty statement then. In addition to pretty much only neutral alliances not being under terms or on "your" side of the last war. [/quote] Everything I said was entirely true and every fact can be verified through public information.

You're trying too hard and you're making it too obvious. That goes for a lot of people, not just the OP. Your efforts are currently having the opposite effect. You drive away anyone who would otherwise be willing to listen to genuine complaints.

This is as valid as any other complaint and/or grievance leveled at us and our friends since we conquered this world by force.

[quote name='StevieG' date='24 April 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1272111961' post='2272933'] I'm going to try to use some simple logic here. All the tech that Gramlins large nations are getting through tech deals is helping to them to keep IRON and DAWN under their boot. Why? Well, IRON and DAWN large nations that are in peace mode are unable to complete tech deals while Gramlins nations are free to keep dealing. Yes the peace mode nations can still receive tech, but this requires other banks to fund the deals. Without outside help, or the large nations themselves funding it, it gets a little harder to fund. Add to the equation that Gramilins upper tier is still significantly outnumbers IRONs and DAWNs. Even adding in Gramlins dropping nations, it is still not unrealistic for IRONS and DAWNs success to feasibly require a significant amount of time without outside intervention. Now lets just say that IRON and DAWN do win the war by slowly building, engaging, rebuilding then reengaging to bring down Gramlins nations one at a time. They will then require a massive rebuilding effort and then still need to pay significant Reps to the AAs that defeated them in the previous war. Looking at all that it becomes quite clear that C&G, MHA, and their power spheres are indirectly holding IRON and DAWN in terms for a unparalleled amount of time by retaining treaties and not actively looking to "call Gramlins off". That last statement, I admit contains a little bias, but I'm sure you can see my point. [/quote] Our treaties with grämlins are canceled. So any alliance that didn't already surrender to us in this war, go ahead. Show me your resolve.

Once again we are valiantly victorious. o/ Mushroom Kingdom o/ Complaints and Grievances

Well played, sirs.

As even bob janova claims, our involvement in the polar-\m/ war was not militarily, but attempting to broker peace. Even when we heard of the foolish attack that was going to come against us, we didn't lash out. We increased the pressure for peace and prepared for the worst. If this is what you're claiming we got attacked for, then I don't think we should ever let that band of dangerous alliances out of war. If they would attack alliances for trying to settle a third-party war peacefully...

They do deserve that, how does this translate to us being hegemonic? Especially in light of that even though they deserve such harsh treatment, they're getting a lot more leniency. They might even get off with just paying a couple hundred thousand tech. This was not an offensive move by us, we are the defenders. If you are hegemonic for defending yourself, I think most alliances are the new hegemony.

[quote name='Corinan' date='18 March 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1268878160' post='2228817'] Why the thinly veiled threats, C&G? You're Masters of the Cyberverse and the new hegemony, you're threats should be direct and blunt in nature. After all, what's two little alliances like the New Sith Order and Invicta going to do to threaten your grip on power? You're doing it wrong, is what I'm saying.... [/quote] We're still pretty new at this, but let me give it a try. NSO and invicta, you do well in teaming up and pooling your resources. We will not stand for your independence from our power structure. Your days are numbered, expect us. How was that? [i][size="1"]Also I think what you read as veiled threats is actually more like people not liking either alliance and expressing it in a thinly veiled backhanded compliment. But again, I'm not very good at this evil hegemony stuff.[/size][/i]

[quote name='Teddyyo' date='17 March 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1268855121' post='2228459'] Wrong again. It was on Gangland. The KKK faction was actually called the IKA. The native boy's name was something like Jordan Grueber. [/quote] I see you're still backpedaling. Just give up, you already sunk yourself and you're not getting that ship to rise out of the waters any time soon. Especially without a salvaging crew, no matter how much you shout "I WASN'T TRYING TO SINK IT" the ship is still going down.

[quote name='Teddyyo' date='17 March 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1268854795' post='2228454'] Wrong. I chose that example because I saw it on the History Channel last night. [/quote] All I see is "I wanted to paint you in as negative light as possible and it backfired so now I try to backpedal as hard as I possibly can."

[quote name='Teddyyo' date='17 March 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1268854080' post='2228439'] You all missed the point, though. The point was that you guys may think threats and insults on the OWF are a joke, but the rest of us can sometimes mistake it as being serious and take action. Call us crazy, but I gave you a good example. Perhaps not a very appreciative one, but good nonetheless. [/quote] Nothing you say further will detract from the fact that your example could've been made without invoking a white supremacist organization. You chose the KKK to paint us in as negative light as thinkable and it backfired immensely. Expect no one to take you seriously from here on out, you gambled and lost.

I agree with this. Follow this advice and you will have a lot more information flowing your way.

And Mushroom Kingdom takes home another three awards for 2009. Our awesomeness is unquestionable.

Then pray tell why did they attack us exactly? I've heard it was not to bloody us or because they hate us or because they feared we would come for them. I did hear it was so that their imagined side of a greater conflict would be victorious. And I see you finally agreed that your definition of a hegemony doesn't fit CnG/SF. Also very much yes. Let it be known that if you attack us, I have no problem with seeing your alliance enslaved to mine for five years, working in the tech mines and refineries feeding me power while you wither away. Horribly hegemonic, I know. I hope everyone keeps that in mind.

I'm sorry, but 'imposing self-interested solutions on the rest of the world' fits perfectly into it already and 'often in an oppressive or unjust manner' does not apply to CnG or supercomplaints. I would have to ask you for specific examples if you think I am wrong. We were not oppressive or unjust in our handling of the knights of ni affair, we were not oppressive or unjust in our handling of the TPF affair. 'Often' is still not always and is rather meaningless for the definition. TOP/IRON are the ones trying to oppress us. They are the unjust ones. That their attack was a failure of grand proportions does not change the fact that they wanted it and made the attempt. If motives and initial actions are irrelevant then I believe you are again straying far from the commonly perceived definition AND the true definition. We are a hegemony because an unwarranted, oppressive and unjust attack on us failed? And what makes paying for the damage 'unreasonable' exactly? From where I'm standing, it is only right. They are entirely responsible for this war. No matter how you try to twist it around. Furthermore we are attempting to come up with a reasonable end that demands they only pay a minor part of the damage they caused which I find to be severely lacking. I don't care if it takes them five full years to repay their debt, it will still be reasonable. They attacked us to rule the world, that is unacceptable. That sort of action against us is what CnG was founded to deter. That they thought they could just sweep us aside and go on to bigger conquests is their own folly. One they should by all rights pay for in full.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='12 March 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1268403795' post='2223347'] Using the term 'neo-Hegemony' for the alliances that made up the old Hegemony is disingenous sophistry. The neo-Hegemony is Supercomplaints, if there is such a thing at the moment (we'll see by how they treat TOP/IRON – pretty hegemonic so far – and what they do in the next few months). The Remnants will have to play the same game that groups like C&G did under the previous hegemony: keep quiet, don't give people an excuse to roll you, and stick together. [/quote] So do you have any evidence that this is how we roll or are you just basing yourself on wild speculation? Especially this 'keep quiet' part, I would love to hear the justification for that. Not giving people an excuse to roll you is always prudent, as well as sticking together.

And what hegemonic actions have CnG/supercomplaints performed by what set definition?

I am willing to extend my conclusion to an 'overarching structure in the MDP web'. If all it takes to be a hegemony is for CnG and supercomplaints to look out for their self-interest then I am sure we will gladly accept the moniker. Though I think this definition strays far from both the real definition of the word and what most people perceive it to be. This means that by defending ourselves successfully, we are a hegemony.