James I

Bye. -FoG

How is this guy still in government?

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1328565567' post='2915590'] Hopefully those of you upping the post count of this thread with negative comments will eventually figure out the symbolism of the following image, if you can't, PM me: [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CAoFDpupTaY/SSDH-DREBrI/AAAAAAAABX0/BRpgWSny-cQ/s400/LUCY+FOOTBALL.jpg[/img] [/quote] Has anyone sent you a PM?

[quote name='Warmongrel' timestamp='1322973978' post='2861480'] The Legends of Cybernations, as remembered by Warmongrel. The list is long, compiled from memory, and probably forgets a few people.[/quote] I've heard of eight of those. Can anyone else claim as many as that?

You really are as brave as a lion for doing this because it looks like hard work.

It's what we normally do.

[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1301136947' post='2677050'] I have one question. Which signatures carry the greater weight: this pact's co-signatories' or those which bind your alliance, those of your government? After all, what happens in the scenario where signatories to this treaty find their alliances in direct conflict with each other and are bound to attack one another by their government? [b]Will refusal to attack be justified on the basis of this treaty?[/b] Now, while I have grown fond of the Orange Defense Network and Umbrella, I must still do my very utmost to reserve judgement on the Mushroom Kingdom, but it is a mere enquiry, is it not? [/quote] Quite astute. That is the consequence of this document. It was not signed on a whim.

This is probably a bit hopeful, but it'll be interesting to see whether the winner takes a moment to look at his closest challengers - some of whom he'll surely recognise as somewhat weak in the art of polemics - and reflects or just cements his reputation with a succession of posts that display false emotion, illogic, inanity or endlessness. I can accept that some of the nominations and votes for members of MK might be swallowed up under the sheer weight of our "side"'s numbers (in terms of game activity, in terms of those signed up on our boards and in absolute terms), but notwithstanding the slight inherent bias, let's be clear: the winner is going to be someone who for the most part indisputably damages the perception of his alliance and himself amongst those reading what he writes, whatever their political persuasion.

5. If you take reps, then you are clearly lacking in that most prized of assets: honour.

KNOW YOUR DEATH.

Is this the re-re-re-birth of CoR/cn[CoR]e/City of Rapture? Or unrelated? Help me out with the names, SW.

[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1295697780' post='2591745'] I don't know why people just only sign ODPs, since that's basically what every treaty out there is these days. Anyway, to me, ODPs are just as important as MDPs, though I feel that viewpoint is shared by but a tiny minority of people playing CN [/quote] That it's a tiny minority that shares your perspective should clear up the confusion you were trying to explain in the first sentence.

I agree. The vast majority of the treaties signed these days have clauses in them which allow for the sort of conduct described, but it's true that actions can go against the spirit of a treaty while falling outside of its exact legalistic wording, I suppose. That's been the case for a long, long time though.

Your political dominance, however, is a distant memory.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1294929080' post='2574046'] You still have my vote James [/quote] This and next week would be prime !@#$faced nations time for me btw, but I can't be bothered to organise it.

Only 25 (with very inclusive counting criteria) this year. I am nicer than this "bros2".

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1294685872' post='2571210'] Perhaps you should take it instead as a sign that a fair number of people are sitting around drumming their fingers, mumbling "well, get on with it!" You do have something planned I hope other than waiting for another opportunity to attack Pacifica again or picking off a mid-tier alliance on a trumped up CB I hope. [/quote] What exactly do you suggest we do to relieve you of your boredom? There are probably two options for MK in terms of foreign policy. The first is that we sit around doing nothing. You state you do not want this. The second is your stated preferred course of action. Given that interest in global politics revolves around war, I imagine this route involves bringing about war sooner than it might currently (but please correct me if I am wrong). To accelerate the prospect of war, there is a required change in relationship towards other alliances. This might be against those within our group of allies or against those outside it. You will disapprove of any action against those outside because it will necessarily involve "waiting for another opportunity to attack [an alliance on the other side] again" (which impliedly involves well-founded [i]casus belli[/i]) [i]or[/i] "picking off [an alliance on the other side] again" (which impliedly involves weak [i]casus belli[/i]). What remains? The option for MK to act against its allies. This is not going to lead to a satisfactory outcome given that acting against the interests of allies does not fit with the Hal ideology that loyalty should prevail above all. Assuming that you choose to disown that policy in the name of developing some intrigue in the world's politics, you should note that, because ties are now so intertwined, MK simply does not have the power to break the core of the cluster of alliances it is in up. Even if it chose to alienate a significant number of allies, it is difficult to imagine that all other intra-group ties would be severed, meaning that MK would be likely to remain on the stronger side of the treaty web no matter what. And no, I am not advocating either option, just pointing out that you will be displeased with whatever ends up happening.

[center][size="4"][b]THE FUNPOWDER PLOT[/b][/size][/center] The result of the final at Artolia Park has been mired in controversy as favourites and long-ball merchants MK Dons were overcome by a Tigris Altaica side lacking in everything but tedium. The match was all going to plan as MK took an early lead, but a quick response from Tigris and a second-half goal from MagicalTrevor sealed the victory. Interestingly, MagicalTrevor - match-winner and ex-MK Dons star - had a secondary role throughout the competition. His role? Vice-president of the World Cup Committee and self-styled Jack Warner Jr. He is rumoured to have wanted to get one over on former friend James I - conductor of the MK Dons orchestra - and appears to have secured his wish in an ill-advised but successful match-fixing attempt with the help of willing co-conspirator referees and the controversial but well-known poisoning of bed-ridden super-sub Archon.

IRON's new pip is better than GATO's!

Is it policy to have no negative awards? I think I remember "Most Hostile Alliance" being up last time (or perhaps it was 2008), but I could be wrong. I don't think "Worst Poster" is a bad idea.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293576665' post='2556568'] Anything that a player not in MK says gets this type of response, it's old and boring. You guys need to realize this game isn't just about MK players. You guys need to think before you post. Make your own awards if you want the results to be rigged as usual or try working with others with the process that SCY set up and see how it goes. [/quote] No. Banksy has just explained to us how he wants to suppress any element of bias built into the awards system. After this, you suggested that he rig up his own awards to get the desired results.

My three-month hiatus from IRC and forums in 2008. Planning to do that again soon, but for longer.

A glorious result and the boost to our goal difference means anything but a defeat against White City United guarantees us qualification to the next round.