Augustus Autumn

The world would just not be right without some sort of drama surrounding TGE and being vented on the OWF. Points to Heinrich for jacking Freddie's avatar, by the by. In all seriousness, good to see TGE coming up in the world.

All hail our terrible lizard overlords, especially Vice Mayor Gloin the Cruel!

Very nicely put. I doubt you'll see any avoidance of such tactics going forward since, ultimately, using analogies and then arguing over their validity is a great way to side-track any discussion into oblivion and thus avoid it all-together. Still, this post is definitely worth keeping around as a future reference point.

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1329947105' post='2925735'] What happens if [i]your member[/i] approaches a member of an alliance not on that list and agrees to a tech deal, do you still feel they have the right to renege on any agreement made? In this instance the agreement would not be unsolicited but the party in question may not have been approved by your government. [/quote] Considering your stipulation that such a tech deal would, in fact, be solicited I don't think this policy would cover such a situation.

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329926141' post='2925576'] Well, no, not really. The policy technically states that UE accepts all non-authorized foreign aid offers as donations, which is to say, if you send UE a tech deal and you're not on their white-list, their alliance policy is that they are actually encouraged to accept it and just run off with the money.[/quote] I think there's a difference between a refusal to gaurantee and encouragement to defraud. I've bolded what I think is the pertinent section below. [quote]Any member of a non-approved alliance who sends [b]unsolicited financial aid offers [/b]to member states of United Equestria, with the intent to initiate a tech deal or other financial transaction, will be considered to have made a donation to United Equestria. Each nation fitting the above description, and who makes unsolicited donations to member states of United Equestria, agrees and consents that they are making a charitable donation to said member states of United Equestria, regardless of any statements filed in the "Foreign Aid Reason" field or any preceding or subsequent unsolicited private messages, and that they neither expect nor demand any return of technology for their generous donations.[/quote] The way that I read this, if UE has not actually solicited the deal and/or the alliance sending the deal is not on their approved list, then if the deal goes south UE government refuses to validate the deal and be held responsible for it. While it's quite possible that, behind the scenes, UE gov is teling their people to proverbially chew-and-screw the buyers, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume something else is motivating this. [quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329926141' post='2925576'] This is something new for CN. Previously, alliances have refused to guarantee the payment of their sellers. This is novel in that if you send tech outside their white-list, their members are encouraged to run off with your money. It is a provocative move, although I do think there are reasons they feel they can get away with it. [/quote] I'm not going to disagree with you that this is new. I just think it's a bit of a jump to demonize UE for taking a radical stance on tech dealing without seeing the long-term effects. As I said above, if alliances don't like this policy then they shouldn't deal with UE. If they end up getting the short end of the stick from a UE tech dealer then they know to take their bussiness elsewhere. [size="1"]Insert shameless tech deal offer here[/size]

If you're so put off by an alliance's refusing to guarantee their members' tech deals, don't tech deal with the alliance. Seems simple enough to me.

Jerge, like I said to Roq, methodology aside good on your for doing what you feel is right. Personally, I couldn't agree more with your view of the state of interpersonal relations at this level of CN. The message will be ignored for the most part and the messenger will be shot, but it needed to be said.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1329783415' post='2924851'] Thanks, Gerard. [/quote] It's spelled with two "r"s. Nobody ever gets that right . [b]Edit:[/b] Well, three if you want to get technical. [b]Second Edit:[/b] You're welcome, Roq. We should chat sometime when we're both free.

I don't think the message has failed to get across, Roq. While there has not been a massive public falling out (yet) around this issue, there may very well be machinations behind the scene which you are not able to see. Not to hammer on a tired meme, but everything done around these parts is handled in the oh-so-loved private channels. Barring another Karma-like expression of outrage, the seeds that you've sown will only flower after time has passed (assuming that they flower at all). Methodology aside, good on you for doing what you felt needed to be done.

Congratulations to our Austrian allies.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1329625862' post='2923812'] If you think that wasn't intentional and something I told several people who asked me for it before, then ha. Like I said, keep goading me. It's usually a bad idea. 1337 guy knows what I have. Archon knows what I have. At the end of the day, they shouldn't play with fire. Did I not say I didn't want to have to do it? [/quote] Roq, in all honesty, this is one of those situations where your credibility with the community is now on the line. Should you produce the evidence you've hinted at, you'll be validated. If you don't, then this hate parade will continue until you're forgotten by the community at large. I'm not going to bother advocating one direction or the other, I'm just laying it out on the very slim chance that you haven't reached this conclusion yourself.

Definitely worth checking out the alliance.

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1329610942' post='2923648'] It's more like: "Remember that I used to be in the old crowd, not the multiple times I folded like a lawn chair when I caught a whiff of trouble." [/quote] I guess sometimes it's more fun to remember 2009 than to actually attempt to do something productive. Sorry to hear your time in the sun is over, Londo, but that doesn't mean the world is going to end. Bigger and better have come and gone before you.

All I'm really taking from this argument, Londo, is that things were better "back in the day" and that nobody can possibly be as cool as the old crowd. If there's a more blatant attempt at dissuading others to even bother trying, I'm not sure I've seen it.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329269707' post='2920755'] There is a clear difference between lauding a post and highlighting its strengths and whatnot, as that itself can add to the discussion. But putting words into the opposition's mouth (justified or not (I say not, but I don't care enough to argue it)) is one of the most annoying possible ways to do so. [/quote] It was less to put words into the mouth of the opposition, as it were, and more a general commentary. Were I or anyone to take the time to find them, every thread has a post which could be used to point out the community's trend of ignoring fact in favor of point-scoring and hype.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329267848' post='2920713'] Honestly I would rather every sordid affair MK has ever been involved with be aired in public simply so we can be done with this issue in a timely manner rather than have to deal with more rank nuggets like these. You're worse than both the problem and the solution. Edit: added a few more offending posts to the pile [/quote] I'm not going to disagree with you regarding the content of what I said. Considering, however, the level of discourse throughout this sordid affair including some lovely song lyrics, all angles of character assassination and general mockery going on here I don't think you're seeing anything intellectually substantial from either end with a few exceptions. Bob and some others have made good points throughout the thread - that MK has spied on other sovereign alliances has yet to be disputed in any real way. That an act viewed at one time as utterly unacceptable is now being either lauded or ignored in favor of personal attacks. That absolutely no consistent standard will be applied here. Will any of these points matter one iota? Not if they're buried below post after mindless post of questions regarding Roq's mental stability, self-image or outright insults. My point? Sometimes solid points need to be rehighlighted in the interest of creating visibility for those actually willing to attempt to sift this mess for something worthwhile. My apologies if you feel it's bringing the discussion down further.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1329267095' post='2920695'] If we say MK is responsible, not only bros and lebubu, then we ought to say Umbrella is responsible, not only Roquentin. Since some people are saying MK's allies should reconsider their position, will that same measure be applied to Umbrella's allies? [/quote] Assuming there is an equal standard across the political landscape, you would hope so. But everything is relative here, so this probably won't happen. Be nice if things were so fair, though.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1329266684' post='2920687'] The central point here seems to be that [b]MK spied on several alliances[/b] (at least UPN and NSO from the screenshots). This is not being denied, MK instead relying on character assassination and deflection to try to get people to ignore it. Okay, this particular example is from January 2011, but the individuals involved are still present and in relatively senior roles in MK (bros is forum admin and lebubu is a Prince), so there's no particular reason to think that the spying has not continued to the present day (and Roq outright accuses them of doing this more recently). Let's just put that out again. MK demonstrably spied on at least two alliances. This goes far beyond what, for example, NpO did to get rolled by VE. Any alliance which retains support for MK is supporting spying, something which would make most of them blatant hypocrites. Now, there's also the question of how many other people and alliances were complicit in the spying, of whom Roq himself was obviously one. But that should not distract us from the core point that MK has been proved to carry out spying on other alliances, something which is a stone wall CB and which would cause any half-decent alliance to reconsider relations with them. If it's true that bros either abused admin access or set up back doors or took database backups and used them for intel, then that is particularly despicable, because he advertises himself as a trusted member of the community doing a service. [OOC]And claims it's outside the IC political arena.[/OOC] But that's not proved, all that's proved is that he was acquiring intel from these boards for MK. [/quote] Bob, your attempt to get back to the facts is an unwelcome obstacle toward the general shouting, yelling and mobbing going on here. Here on the Open World Forum there is no room for reason, logic or critical thinking. Away with you.

So when does the spin campaign begin to dismiss these images as innocent / unimportant / faked?

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1328217801' post='2913308'] I would read such a thing as long as my coup attempt is documented as a revolutionary fight for freedom against an oppressive government regime. If it is not told in that light, I may be forced to attack you. [/quote] I'd best get a mention for my part in that, along with the eighteen other coups or whatever that I was involved in. In all seriousness, don't unearth this corpse. The world smells better with it gone.

[quote name='Henry' timestamp='1307664249' post='2728252'] The commentators here are in fact "letting them" do what they want to do. They are just merely expressing their opinion. Will their disagreements with the UINE terms actually have any sort of serious consequences for RnR? I doubt it. People here have the desire to put forward their thoughts despite not being able to "do anything about it" and its always been this way. Perhaps someday this incident will be quoted in some overly verbose declaration of war but have absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand. This whole thing is like !@#$@#$ amateur hour at the global despots club. I don't know why people care about it one way or the other. [/quote] It's something to do, I suspect. Which, incidentally, works to help keep whatever power structure is presently in place exactly where it is. Bread and circuses, as it were. Not to say it's an artificially created situation, but it's certainly not a bad thing. In regards to my "let them" comment, the soap-boxing which goes on amounts to a mother standing on her doorstep yelling at her children to wear their hats. They might not wear those hats, but they'll remember her words when it gets cold out. If she'd let them off without attempting the warning they may very well not be as mindful. It's a poor comparison, but I hope you get where I'm going with that.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1307663954' post='2728247'] The problem is you use UINE in your example while emphasizing MK: You mention R&R only once and don't even mention XX, which isn't any less "hegemonic" than PB/DH. [/quote] If there is any emphasis, it's perceived. I picked the first alliances / blocs which came to mind as well as the most recent event (read: I don't hang out in the cool IRC channels and have no contact with the behind-the-scenes goings-on). Also, thank you but you won't find the "H"-word being used here nor is that sad repeated characterization at all relevant. Cheers. Also, what is XX supposed to be?

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1307662516' post='2728232'] This "discourse" matches its title in that it egregiously lacks depth and details. Your one claim about the actual "evolution" of politics on Bob is that events are cyclical, which really wouldn't constitute an evolution at all, since every step in the process would be a reversion as well as a progression. Additionally, your claim that CN politics are cyclical is ill-founded, since the constant transfers of power your theory would require simply haven't happened; political control in the modern CN political era has changed hands exactly once, which does not constitute a cycle at all. Also, you warn the "soap-boxers" to be less outspoken because the alliances they speak out against will ultimately have public opinion turn on them. This ignores the fact that the "soap-boxers" are often the ones who determine public opinion and can also be used as a gauge of it. [/quote] I would argue that politics, such as they are, in the 'verse follow a very simple cycle - an alliance climbs to the top only to be knocked down by another alliance climbing to the top, thus the alliance once more resumes the climb. The only think which changes are the names of those in power at any given time, not the actions of all associated. In regards to the soap-boxing, there's a time and place for it. Post-WotC everyone saw the value of a group of people gathering, hammering on the same point over and over again until it changed public opinion. People also forget that it took timing as well as a long period of investment for that effect to pay off (Vox Populi). Since then the proverbial soap boxing comes screaming to the surface the second any war has begun, finished, is being planned or whatever. The endless comparisons of one evil to another seconds after someone does something which might be considered a bad idea by someone somewhere are premature at best and damaging to that person's cause at the worst. I'm advising that it might be time to simply let things play out rather than constantly be up in the faces of alliances whom the soap-boxer perceives as doing something wrong. [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1307662613' post='2728234'] UINE accepted, if its cool in their book it should be cool in ours [/quote] Again, this isn't a commentary on the RnR-UINE war. Thanks anyway. [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1307662719' post='2728235'] How can we not deter them and at the same time be in a position to allow them to be unjust? [/quote] By doing nothing. [quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1307663213' post='2728240'] For someone who likes the "you can't have morals, look at what you've done!" argument, you seem to forget that you were NPO's and TPF's errand boy and personal spokesman when they were at the height of their power and performing some of the most heinous acts Planet Bob has ever seen. So please forgive me for speaking out against things that I think are wrong in spite of the fact that my alliance has declared wars and collected reparations. I'll come back when our résumé includes [OOC]crossing the IC/OOC line by essentially banning players from the game[/OOC], installing viceroys, disbanding alliances, and using people's personal lives as CBs. [/quote] Mathias, like HoT, now appears to understand as well what the effects are of simply allowing alliances acting improperly. Thank you for demonstrating, gentlemen. Of course, the return to the "X is alright because Y was far worse" formula is a little distressing but I'll let it slide for the sake of the comedic value. [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1307663286' post='2728241'] I like how we're comparing the way MK treats it's arch enemy to the way R&R treats some random bad alliance who messed up a tech raid. What makes that even dumber is that MK treated NPO quite a bit better IMO, seeing as they neglected to dethrone their leader and alter their charter.[/quote] The bickering is a fun example of the degredation of alliance politics to watch, though.

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1307656814' post='2728141'] Several people in MK spoke out against the terms that R&R gave UINE, but thanks for trying. [/quote] I'm not attempting a value judgement - I think my comment is more telling considering the alliance affiliation you're displaying right now as well as the signature image you're showing to the world. There's nothing wrong with being the bad guy. Personally, I always enjoyed that element. As for what persons within the Mushroom Kingdom did or did not do in reference to the RnR-UINE incident, that's irrelevant to what I've raised here. But thanks for trying. [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307657087' post='2728148'] Yeah, MK is a strong supporter of R&R! [/quote] Your contribution to the discourse has been noted. [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1307657914' post='2728164'] What R&R did was bad, but what MK did was just as bad. Randomly initiating an offensive war and then demanding reparations from the defeated defensive nation. Actually, if you randomly invade someone, beat them into the ground and then demand money, isn't that more extortion than reparation? [/quote] And the third in a string, which leads me to beleive that I've been unclear. Were the intent behind my raising the subject to directly address the RnR-UINE conflict and however the Mushroom Kingdom was involved (it wasn't, unless I missed something) then I would have indicated as much in the original statement. Allow me to rephrase. [i]If an alliance wants to engage in actions which will foment revenge, grudges, anger and potentially its downfall and seems entirely happy to continue engaging in said actions, let them. Waving your arms, yelling and crying will not deter them. Allow them to be unjust since these alliances will continue to do so anyway. Everything cycles around in the end.[/i] [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1307658827' post='2728177'] I was waiting for the "But look! MK is good people too!" charade based on that thread. Didn't expect it so soon though. Speaking out against one relatively tiny violation does not at all absolve you of the massive crimes you have committed, but nice try. [/quote] While being inflammatory, HoT actually seems to get what I'm trying to get across here.

[center][IMG]http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo346/VArgansk/EnclaveFlag.png[/IMG][/center] With the close of the most recent conflict (RnR-UINE) once again there seems to be the growing argument over terms, commentary from uninformed parties and all the usual good things which mark that the 'verse political climate is returning to normal. Pandora's Box / Doomhouse / whatever has demonstrated having undeniable military control of the current era we find ourselves in, everyone is hating the correct people in the correct amounts, we've had a feel good war where one person (Keve) was able to be lambasted by the public and called all sorts of fun things. The sun is shining, rain is right, etc. With this also comes the usual cry for caution. The peace terms accepted by UINE have served to provide materials for the latest soap boxing. More than one person has raised concern about how terrible the terms are, how wrong it is to do such-and-such and other fun commentary. I would ask this - why does anyone care if an alliance decides to act in a completely draconian manner? We've seen what happens to those alliances that do - they get burned to the ground when public opinions turns against them and reaches a critical point. If another alliance wants to walk down that road, let them. They know what they're doing. It's not for us to warn them. If the Mushroom Kingdom, RnR, Sparta or whoever wants to go over to the proverbial dark side they're free to do so and deal with the hell that follows. Let them - it's more amusing that way and a much more effective lesson in the long term. For a case-in-point I don't believe we'll be seeing Ramirus ever returning to pull the kinds of stunts he did during the GRE-IRON-DAWN conflict. For those who take the "I said nothing, and then they came for me" path consider this - national rulers have a certain knack for being able to escape personal death. You cannot be killed, cannot be taken prisoner and will always be able to rally support again. Let them come for you, over and over. At the end of the day, the persecutors tend to become the persecuted. The cycle will continue, always. To play upon the battle cry from the last major war, everything must die, but something will live. Rest assured of that.