Ardus

Well, I can only hope everybody else is slacking off on communications. We won't be and I'd love for it to become another powerful advantage in our pockets

Nobody should seek respect. One should simply act and act simply. Respect will come in its own due course.

I've been making rounds (or getting/letting/slacking until Cent or Sal do it) telling allies whenever we even get the idea of signing a treaty with somebody. My little birds tell me this isn't exactly a unique practice, even if there are clear holes throughout CN. I think the problem is more evident with cancellations. People rarely cut ties on "good terms" anymore, if they ever did. Treaties don't fall until there is not a single hook left to hang it on. So when cancellation comes around, the one or both of the alliances probably (1) dislike the other, possibly intensely and/or (2) calculate that the other will be on the opposite side of a foreseeable conflict. The former provides an emotional motivation to be curt and cut with little heads up. The latter provides a pragmatic reason: you don't want to give a potential enemy any additional time to react or control a situation. I have been lucky to not have to cancel any treaties in recent history (excepting CTI and CE, which were already clearly defunct), so I can't provide detailed guidance on how to properly move forward with divergence. I can say that the trend of surprise nullification and misleading or false justifications provided (cancelling over A when in fact you're preparing for war B) provides for very dangerous and powerful resentment that people underestimate and which can lock up global affairs for a very long time. If nothing else: don't send deputies to do it, don't go public before you've informed in private, and be honest in your reasoning. The last may well prove surprisingly helpful and the other party you're looking to cut may give you a view you hadn't considered.

Long ago I was once like you. They're really quite alright when you get to know them.

Don't worry, I'm sure you're not "the lone alliance that feels this way" and, in time, we'll permit some "wussy move" that gives you an opening to "hit then." You're a two-watt bulb screwed into a broken circuit. I don't give a good goddamn about what you "thought".

I would attempt to poach you, but I dare not steal morsels from an ally's dish. The parade of conclusion marches on. The Endwar is upon us.

I really didn't think we'd get this far, this fast, but great ideas can overcome even TOP SPEED. To the worst treaty imaginable

Yes, yes~

The people yearn for enlightened discourse and we deliver.

It is, but it also appears that Doombird Doomcave has joined MQ in that jihad against The Democratic Order. I understand and share your affinity for them as ex-allies, but they should probably be subject to the same general condemnation as MQ.

Identical acts should engender identical responses, Goldie.

CoJ: Destroyer of Non Gratan hopes and dreams

The Mushroom Kingdom was sworn to its oath of reconciliation to the New Pacific Order from the end of DH/NPO. You would have likely missed this detail from your absence, as it was not written and thus I do not believe recorded in the wiki, but rather agreed to alongside the Limited War clause by those who negotiated it: Brehon and I.

The affinities of your past and present are without distinction, and given the presumed alignments placing Paradoxia and your beloved Pacifica in conflict, you have a clear and present bias that taints your argument, contrary to your asserted claims of "no bias." Your argument has nonetheless been otherwise challenged on a number of grounds, a few of which you contested and a few of which have not. At present a few nations joined the extremist cause later than the bulk of actors. It is too early to tell if there is some malevolent deception at play. I do not believe there is and I do not believe our old friends would make the mistake of taking advantage of our own loyalty. If they in fact are so taking advantage of us, it will become self-evident and we will act accordingly, but your present prognosis is premature and thus invalid.

A handful of nations joining the terrorist wing a day or two into the conflict does not a strategic reserve make. All men are responsible for the consequences of their actions. The Mushahadeen (or whatever) is responsible for their own, Paradoxia is repsonsible for her own, and you are responsible for your own. Your attempt to argue otherwise is without merit. I am unamused by your continued efforts to libel Paradoxia from an alliance of complex alignment, ex-Pacifican.

A measured response by Viridia that reaffirms its dedication to the well-being of green, neutral and non-neutral alike. I would not have expected anything less.

Both coalitions ceased existance with the end of that war and trying to sort who got the most out of the fight is an exercise in futility.

Your analysis flatly ignores that the Kingdom is protected by not only The Order of the Paradox, but also The Last Remnants. It ignores the utter absence of strategic gain or value to be enjoyed by Paradoxia by the asymetric invasion of The Democratic Order, a neutral alliance of no threat to Paradoxia and to whom Paradoxia wishes no ill. It assumes the absence of consequence for those nations engaged in conflict with TDO, who must bear the usual costs of war and will face the task of resolving their decisions should they choose to repent their extremist ways. Finally, it inelegantly attempts to veil bias with claims of no bias. As for the "screen captures", I simply do not see them in the post--whether this is a technical difficulty on your end or mine, I could not say. The Mushroom Kingdom is dead; the world may cease its trembling. The coordination observed in the terrorist faction Mushquaeda reflects ad-hoc cooperation among its component states. While this system frequently fails when attempted by mass-recruitment alliances, the extreme activity of MQ makes it not only a viable method of coordination, but a superior form of coordination. The argument for the existence of continued central command is premised on the erroneous belief that such a central command would be necessary to execute with MQ's level of military sophistication. That belief is woefully clouded by an overabundance of experience and faith in centralized systems and ignores historical experience. Higher grades of activity and analytical capacity among individual states permits a higher degree of decentralization. MQ's present status as perhaps the most active single group on the planet permits the logical and extreme conclusion of absolute decentralization, which we now observe. TOP's position has been made clear time and time and time again, with such frequency that I am increasingly disappointed with a public sphere for which I already had very low expectations. If any wish to act with respec to the conflict and desire clarification, though it should not be necessary, they may approach either myself or the other members of Paradoxia's government. If any force interested should decide to cut a corner and act so as to trigger our delcared intentions and obligations, we will act upon our words using any and all options at our disposal. The size of such a foe is irrelevant--our words are our law and we will be compliant with our law, just as we would with any treaty.

Godspeed [s]you filthy commies[/s] gentlemen.

A lazy, short post that would necessitate lengthy historical analysis to rebuff. This is more of a thing for Crymson to bite on; you know I can't be assed, Omni.

After eQ, TOP first looked to better integrate itself with old proximate allies from the sphere it fought alongside. At every turn I found individuals and alliances willing to take all that TOP could provide but who were unwilling to offer even a token acknowledgment of cooperation in return. Were we to stay put and remain a peripheral plaything of a bloc that itself succumbed to stockholm syndrome with Pacifica? Or perhaps we should have sat down at the feet of Non Grata or the Sith, begging for scraps? The most ambitious proposal I heard was to seek patronage from his majesty the Emperor personally. And to think I even considered it for a moment. Dangerous Weather forms and goddamn if people don't start returning calls. You sucked at the teat of an alliance I helped lead to glory and then had the nerve to get on a high horse and look down upon my new home and our offers of friendship. Your only redeeming quality was loyalty, and the only alliance to whom I trusted you to remain loyal is gone, her valiance wasted on some third-rate neutral wasteland. Though there remain among the ranks of C&G men whom I respect tremendously, against the common opinion of my new direct and proximate allies, the shackles of my own loyalties and affections that kept your interests in the back of my mind have been unlocked and dissolved. By God it is liberating. Get bent, you blood-sucking parasite.

(1) Actually writing it is, every time I've even reconsidered doing it, a horrifying chore. The only meaningful attempt to write it in a controlled collective failed miserably. (2) The wiki covers a lot of stuff and, where it fails to do so, can be fleshed out.

In time you'll learn to love it.

Not all neutrals are cut of the same cloth, and attempts to bring harm to the most respected of them would end poorly for any force of any strength.

Nations flying the Mushroom Kingdom alliance affiliation who do not initiate conflicts enjoy the Blessings of Johan and are protected by The Order of the Paradox. Those who leave to any other AA (assuming it isn't our own or somebody with whom we hold a treaty) are not. Those who start wars while on the MK AA are not. Those who join the MK AA after the date of disbandment are not. The same rules apply to the Alchemy affiliation. Should any MK nation join the jihad and later realize their error, they will have to resolve the damages they have inflicted through the usual diplomatic channels before turning to Paradoxia for further blessing. The simple way to put it is if they don't start something, nobody's starting anything with them. This is not a controversial or conspiratorial position. It is the exact same policy most, if not all, alliances exercise when extending protection over defunct AA's, whether that protection is time-limited or indefinite. It is the best and least that TOP can do for what was its oldest ally--to offer time to think to those who are undecided about what to do next or who simply haven't been able to respond to these events. If any of your allies disbanded, you would do the same. I will admit I am concerned that parties interested in the conflict may become overzealous and attempt to engage heretofore uninvolved nations on the MK affiliation as a result of Mushquaeda's actions. I aim only to prevent such a thing from occurring. Should any alliance be compelled to act by their moral or ethical beliefs, they may do so without a peep of support or objection from Paradoxia, but they must do so with only an interest to defense of those who require defense, not vengeance upon bystanders for perceived historical slights.