Bavaricar

[quote name='o ya baby' timestamp='1289284137' post='2507471'] 15,000,000 and 250* don't shortchange us! [/quote] IMO MK deserved $3,000,000. Thus teh adjustment.

Speak negatively in public about the Mushroom Kingdom? "That'll be $12,000,000 and 250 tech, pls." How cute.

Oh and yeah, one more pet peeve. "Good faith" negotiations don't start with a high number. They start with "good faith" numbers. That is all. Have a nice day.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289273007' post='2507128'] Right, it's a straw man. That's why your post proved my point that there is a clear difference between seeking compensation on the one hand, and wishing to see an alliance rolled and acting upon that wish on the other. [/quote] For what it's worth, your attempt to twist the point of my observation into whatever it is you are trying to twist it into made no sense.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1289272469' post='2507103'] You have no idea how amusing I find this post. And no, I legitimately don't mean that in an insulting way. [/quote] I have to agree that this is amusing to see alliances tremble in your presence again. As you clearly know (judging by what I suspect to be the source of your amusement), once upon a time in real alliances, unprovoked attacks were declared on without hesitation to keep whatever negotiations might ensue honest. <i>Then</i> reps or member-booting discussions took place. Alas, remember how even the GPA used to handle <b>any</b> single allied nation that hit it? How weak-willed today's alliances have become. As for the policy change, I think it has been this policy for quite some time in practice. So, congrats on making it public and thanks for sharing it with us in print.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289272264' post='2507096'] There is a high degree of subjectivity in any discussion of what constitutes reasonable or unreasonable compensation and negotiation. Oh, please. You know as well as any other that whether the mention of military matters entered the discussion or not, the disparity between MK and NSO would have still influenced the capacity for both parties to meet their respective goals from the negotiation. There's no way around that. Again, you make the false assumption that our [i]ability[/i] to roll NSO automatically translates into an [i]intention[/i] to roll NSO if our original demands were not met. That is quite a leap, and just plain ignorant. [/quote] Straw. Man. From over here, it seems rather that the MK would prefer extracting cash and tech from less favorably positioned alliances over rolling them (or in this case having them rolled by smaller allies). Far more profitable and less "evil," subjectively speaking of course. <rolleyes>

I take solace in knowing that any aid Methrage might send is tantamount to a steady radioactive poisoning of its recipients. Also, [redacted].

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1286146503' post='2473551'] Either way this discussion isn't about our tiff, it's about asking STA government questions. [/quote] Well, it's part of the question of under what circumstances might the STA remove their sanction from Methrage's nation. At this point, it sounds like the answer is yes, if he jumps through your [ooc]something awful[/ooc] hoops. I just wanted it to be known that by leaving the sanction on until he participates in your mercy board, such a sanction rides dangerously close to endorsing your mercy board. Understand?

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1286146017' post='2473534'] This is a serious accusation, and seeing as a conclusion has been reached that it was one rogue ex-goon it is a very irresponsible one too. [/quote] Hardly. Methrage was not the only one targeted.

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1286144696' post='2473515'] That's a pretty big "if". It's my understanding that GOONS is more than willing to discuss peace with you. [/quote] Hate to butt in here again, but I think you know the barrier to peace for KN is our refusal to participate in their "mercy" [OOC]player humiliation[/OOC] board. Someone the other day really hit the nail on the head, GOON requirements for peace for alliances or nations who declare on them or fight back have nothing to do with Planet Bob politics. It's all lulz and schadenfreude with no relation to this realm. After seeing how the goons still like to stalk nation leaders outside of this realm, their forum is one place I will never visit in this incarnation.

[quote name='Jay Z' timestamp='1286144255' post='2473508'] He's saying that in this case the governments of certain alliances (VE for example) told their general membership about what was coming. Because they told their general membership and there was then a "leak" (the OP is considered as a leak), the general membership will not be told of this anymore. [/quote] Congrats on punishing all of your members over a leak, that most likely came from the gov level. I also don't even see what's the big opsec deal here, it was going to made public one way or another. If keeping members in the dark on other things like this in the future really is some alliances' response to this, that smells more like an excuse to further isolate some weak government members from their alliances' memberships.

Another fool's errand would be a more appropriate name for this group.

Policy DoWs are awesome. o/

Cool election announcement. o/

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1285732742' post='2467636'] What the hell are you talking about. [/quote] Each time you respond to one of my posts you ask generally why someone has not ruled it off-topic. It's a cute tactic. And yep, I finally fell for it. Have fun.