Hyperbad

Has a nice ring to it. I approve. ^^

Closest to conservatives, pretty much expected. I don't like some of the questions and how the meaning behind some isn't clear enough as to what they mean but my ability to answer accurately is probably more hampered by my knowing little of Canada's politics.

I chuckled.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1300238532' post='2665997'] "The greatest conflicts are not between good versus evil, but between all parties who think they themselves are good." I doubt that either side handled themselves well. One by their choice of emissary, and the other by their reception of such a guest.[/quote] Indeed. Still, given that the comments by NPO members happened on their own forums I don't hold it against them simply because it's their turf and if one should feel comfortable anywhere, it's at home. Don't like it? gtfo kind of thing. Such a policy may not be good for business but I'd consider it more or less common sense where if you don't want uncensored views and statements don't go there.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1300236713' post='2665965'] While I prefer not to take sides between two groups that, in my mind, have remarkably similar modus operandi, nevertheless I do have to provide a small observation also noted by others. If it was a true desire to mend bridges or even just inform NPO of VE's current status, sending SethB was a remarkably poor decision. Surely any seasoned diplomat would have sensed warning flags going off right away. [/quote] Whenever this sethb business gets brought up my eyes just glaze right over and I reach for that ice pick we have in here to pluck out my eyes because it comes up so frequently and both sides are oblivious. VE felt it was necessary to send sethb over and whether others can see it as necessary after the fact is moot. They felt it necessary and so from there you go about doing so in the best manner possible. I don't know if they sought out whether it was ill-advised or not but hadn't they then they should have. Had they done so and it came back favorable I still would have used any friends members might have to gauge the attitude towards sethb. This wouldn't be normal procedure but only that for circumstances where tensions will obviously run very high. In cases where it was ill-advised you hold off on that extra step and do everything else in the mean time. When sethb got there, there really shouldn't have been any of that nonsense. Sincere feelings could be stated without going that far and if they didn't want him there they should have simply denied him a mask but then who ever masks might also have differing views and the reaction of membership isn't always predictable.

Since when is asking a legitimate question is trolling? MK hasn't been shy about bringing war to other alliances without a formal declaration in this conflict. Personally, it's something I can understand and not a policy I'm really opposed to. Despite that, one can be disinterested in politics yet still understand the difference between "I'm bringing conflict to you" and "I see you've brought conflict to us." Since no official DoW was posted the lines can be drawn without an arrow either way and I'd see it as reasonable. If an arrow was pointed from MK to CoJ I'd see that as reasonable but also a bit misleading as the connotation most would get is they issued a formal declaration though, I suppose, it would technically be correct since their nations declared on ours first. Your chart illustrates things in a definitive manner thus presenting them as fact. I challenged something presented in it as fact (that we issued a DoW). You respond with our recognizing hostilities. I state they are not the same. You respond more or less with "you're trolling" then later "he just wants a PR boost." If you're looking to just ignore the issue raised then instead of making excuses for why you shouldn't consider what I've said you could simply disable comments on your blog.

Yes, we recognized that MK brought war to us. How is that the equivalent of a DoW?

CoJ didn't DoW MK.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1299817914' post='2659552'] [b]If you aren't prepared to make collective FA decisions you don't belong in a bloc[/b], Rok's FA decisions differed from SF, how much only recently became this obvious, but them leaving is in hindsight not a surprise what so ever. [/quote] Sounds like in this case it goes both ways then since none of the concerned alliances cared to compromise.

[quote name='Burnsey' timestamp='1299709200' post='2657983'] I see a pattern of whining from the other side.. [/quote] Both sides are whining and !@#$%*ing. It'd be amusing to me if only it wasn't so darn annoying. It makes me want to eat my own brain.

A direct challenge to the Carlos Accords? [img]http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii129/irishlass3375/intredasting.jpg[/img]

Before the advent of non-chaining treaties you never saw such caution. Why would things change now? I'd say the opposite: less value needs to be placed on treaties in order to allow a political scene with greater dynamics. If treaties mean too much then acting in your own best interest without a treaty will see you ostracized. It reduces your options and forces you to play to others benefit. Treaties may not ensure one has power but they certainly are not useless. They create an aura of influence and migh around those who have a large number of them simply by people knowing that these other alliances with all of this NS might have their back in a war or otherwise support them in conflict. Their use is in soft power, for the real muscle you rely on good close relations and having similar philosophies. The bad name ODPs have results from the opportunism they've been used for. If given a real purpose and not used as a "get me into a fight with a specific alliance" tool then the reparations aren't all that likely if it could be consolidating with the larger policies an alliance has. Sounds like a position in opposition to military treaties in general.

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1297667687' post='2632640'] We broke the GRL Record on valentines day [/quote] I thought the record was 69.96? What's GRL at now?

Neither Pacifica nor Polaris have done anything to warrant a change in opinion.

[quote name='jeff barr' timestamp='1297465964' post='2629733'] If I was DH, I would be worried. It appears to me NPO is trying to do to DH what IRON did to gramlins. Whilst DH's ally, Goons, get gangbanged. [/quote] There really isn't a reason for DH to be worried. Gramlins was bleeding members and we lack the ratio of nations IRON had to Gramlins. Additionally high ranking nations were joining IRON of their own accord to combat the attempt to establish a new precedent they disliked. Lastly, Gramlins was politically isolated thus after IRON peaced out with the other alliances they had fought they could operate openly and without fear of attack from other parties. It [i]might[/i] have worked despite the challenges but DH is able to bank roll their fallen nations to continue the war thus questioning how successful any meat grind effort will be. This war was never going to be won by us. Significant alliances would need to join on our side of the war but it was never going to happen. Taboos, grudges, friendships, a lack of concern or a belief in the cause all have played their part in ensuring it. Some of us have had no problem accepting the reality of our situation before even going in.

[quote name='Tarfiel' timestamp='1296614817' post='2615393'] tl/dr... Is there a Reader's Digest version? [/quote] What do you want the tl/dr of, the OP or resulting... stuff?

War itself bores me about as much as silent nation building. Tension building up to what might be a war and the uncertainties which follow have always been of greater interest to me. So no, I won't appreciate it.

There most definitely is something to be said for leaders who do so from the front. If one does then you may see a strong boost to moral and your members generally being well motivated. They'll witness their higher ranks expecting of others what they would do themselves. In waiting to engage an uncertainty may develop within the membership where those nations begin to lose confidence and feel used. A lot of this varies by alliance. In the small, intimate, gatherings it's easier to meet, greet and learn about each other thus dispel any lack of faith one might have otherwise held. As an alliance grows though the leader is less likely to be known well by each and every individual member. That level of contact just isn't possible because of time constraints so those alliances are more likely to send their leaders in with the initial blitz. A further influence to all of this is the type of war fought (aggressive, defensive) along with its reason and ones goals in it; the kind of assistance provided and its frequency and lastly the individual members way of thinking. Some alliances simply don't require the leaders to be engaged in combat from the beginning to end in order for members to be willing to fight. Where each alliance falls in this spectrum is to be judged on a case by case basis.

[quote name='Hidraca' timestamp='1296425768' post='2611576'] No, he just said the same thing I did. Don't be obtuse.[/quote] We declared just under two days ago and after displaying my disbelief of whether he honestly felt we would sit out the entire war he more or less says "then come on in." The only reason we would have to rush in like that would be if the war was winding down. Presumably he would have replied no, the war isn't winding down with peace on the horizon. Said response would have drawn the "then there's no reason to rush" reply. I simply took his comment in context to the discussion we were having.

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1296425183' post='2611558'] Come out of peace mode then. We're waiting on pins and needles for you to come and play. [/quote] Are you saying this conflict is at an end and if we're going to fight we better get those shots in now?

[quote name='Hidraca' timestamp='1296424732' post='2611549'] Our friends and us are waiting with baited breath. [/quote] I'm pleased to hear I'll have a welcoming party. I hope you don't mind me building a rocket like Dr. Evil's, stuffing it with fireworks and confetti then launching it over your capital. The show should be [i]specatacular[/i] and I've always wanted to do something like that. Above and beyond the celebration others have held. Those usual ones are just so [b]dull[/b]. They rival for my WoT for sleep remedies.

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1296423242' post='2611509'] I think "declaring war" and then hiding in peace mode is a far worse PR move than anything we can do against CoJ. [/quote] I find it hard to believe you think our mid to upper tier is going to stay in peace mode for the entire duration of this conflict as you seem to suggest by use of the word "hiding". Further still it appears you're all trying awfully hard in putting forth that assertion as if you're trying to convince others and it's not as damaging as you would like to believe. All one needs to do is look at those who have taken part in the discussion (used loosely) on either side. It's the usual suspects with very little in the way of others leading one to believe most have no strong opinion either way. So I'll briefly comment on what this whole back and forth is about. Is it possible the strategy chosen is a mistake? It certainly is and only time will show what kind of impact it will have but comparing it to others isn't at all a possibility. Once chosen we can't go back to a save and replay it for a different outcome. Is it possible other strategies would ultimately have a less favorable outcome? It is particularly when you consider how the declarations of involvement have trickled in as it would have led to each alliance going in getting pounded on more or less one at a time. None of the assertions made here about one strategy being better than another is provable making the whole debate pointless.

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1296419449' post='2611419'] Try the veal, child.[/quote] I like veal. Unfortunately last time I ordered there was far too much for me to eat (I seldom cook) and it sat in the freezer for nearly an entire year. My girlfriend always gets sad over it though. Something bad about eating babies. I don't know. She just rambles and I tune her out. [quote]3 slots if there's a warrior among you.[/quote] Orders are orders. This isn't one of those rare times where I feel compelled to go against them. Some of us actually had showed a real interest in blitzing with the initial DoW, others were more patient. Either way nukes will fly; just a matter of when the quantity will pick up.

ITT GOONies froth at the mouth over the thought of killing some monks. Goading us or negative PR attempts won't make it happen any sooner so relax and be patient. The time will come when you get that chance.

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1296358828' post='2610306'] I'm sorry, but do you realize that it takes time to prepare for war? You can't just pop in your forums and announce to everyone that GOONS is DoWing on a major alliance the next day. How many members are going to be caught off guard and end up being hit by the opponent's counter attack while at DEFCON 5 without full military? How many members are going to hate you? [/quote] To be truthful the alliance seemed to get a bit restless because we've been on alert since not long after NpO got attacked under the impression it would drag in 64Digits. It's probably also true that the constant readiness made some relax their guard a bit after a few days thus contributed to the poor blitz. There certainly has been a fighting spirit within the alliance where members begrudgingly followed orders into peace mode.