Chairman Lmao

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1287974975' post='2492478'] Don't get mad, get even. I know I have done so and it feels rather good. When you set out to cripple Polaris, you created a memory. Such memory was bound to surface at the most inconvenient time. There is no forgiveness, only war. [/quote] Will do.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1287918772' post='2491950'] Firstly, no they have not sprung back up. IRON was the second largest alliance in the game by a significant margin before Karma. They got decimated by Gremlins and lost half(?) of their membership. When they came out of terms they came nowhere near their former level statistically.[/quote] IRON started Karma with ~780 nations and 20mil NS. Out of these 780, I think around 300 nations were below 4kNS. Additionally, we had loads of dead weight, like any other alliance of our size. Considering all this, Gre+Fark alone was more than a match for IRON's strength. Apart from them we also fought MHA, FCC and 3-4 of RoK's small allies, whose total NS was actually quite sizeable-and all these alliances almost exclusively fought IRON. I don't think the fact that we got decimated should come as a surprise to anyone. At the end of the war, we had 550 nations( we went down to 500 much later), so we lost around 230, nowhere near half of 780. Also, I think retaining more than 500 members after a month of the most devastating war in history was actually something to be proud of. [quote]Politically they became less relevant as they followed TOP in its crusade for community standards. Before BiPolar, Polaris was one of the few alliances in the game increasing its membership while IRON were stagnating.[/quote] If I remember correctly, the gap between WoTC and Karma was around the same as that between Karma and Bipolar. We both lost around the same fraction of our initial strengths in WoTC and Karma respectively. NpO had little short of 12m NS before WoTC and 9m before Karma(and were ranked 7 or 8). Before Bipolar, IRON had a little short of 14m NS and were ranked #4 ahead of Sparta.This along with the fact that building back your top tier takes a significantly longer time due to tech means we did atleast just as well as Polar in rebuilding. As for us "following" TOP- my perception was quite different. What I saw was TOP backing IRON in many situations even at the risk of alienating other allies(like FOK during the Purple drama). They originally had plenty of other allies who were in a much better political situation than us, and we were the only strong link TOP had with ex-Hegemony. Actually, one of the first things that came to my mind when Polar peaced out with \m/ was "Oh $h** TOP's getting screwed because of us". So I have to question how much of that "following TOP" part is your biased perception and how much is reality. [quote]Politically, of course, Polaris manages to be a premier alliance for the majority of politically active nation rulers, while IRON is a running joke. I doubt most people could even name anyone in your current government, but I suspect you know who is in Polaris's.[/quote] Oh I think they'll atleast know MCRABT thanks to MK. [quote]Secondly, while i'm sure IRON has a desire to excel, the lack of community for IRON's size means that it is incapable of applying this desire and achieving some actual results. This is clearly observed by looking at your mediocre statistics. Nowhere did I say that IRON didn't have a community or a drive to excel, simply that it didn't have one to the extent that more capable and successful alliances do. [/quote] Yes, we are not terribly strong now it will take a long time for IRON to become as powerful as it was before Bipolar/Karma. But show me a singlle alliance that got back-to-back beatdowns in quick succession( Yeah MK lost both UJW and WoTC, but there was quite a long gap between them) and still manage to be atleast as relevant as IRON is today.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1287891444' post='2491758'] As others have mentioned, the community aspect of the successful alliances probably has more to do with the fact they are successful than simply getting beat down. MK and the NpO got beaten down in NoCB and sprang back because of their strong core communities. On the other hand, alliances like Legion and [b]IRON[/b] haven't showed any spark since they were beaten down (Dove and Karma). [/quote] IRON rose from the ashes atleast as quickly(if not even quicker) than Polar. I am, of course assuming that by "spark" you mean a drive to excel, not endless babbling and begging for attention like MK did.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1286121881' post='2473016'] One of the two worst kept secrets in CN. [/quote] The other one being?

Holy CRAP! :0

What is your opinion about IRON? And how did the events during the Bipolar wars influence it?

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1285701061' post='2467066'] You will also have to note MK has always been very critical of a lot of people. You just brushed it off because we couldn't do anything about it. Nowadays, the tables are turned and you !@#$ your pants all while complaining that we are mean and too harsh about your defaults. And before you go complain about us being negative to people on the other side, look at how we interact with TOP, who's proved its worth after that little blunder, and shut it. [/quote] Whether you are in power or not is irrelevant to whether we find you annoying. IRON has never liked MK since the UJW( from what I've heard, I wasn't around then). We don't think you'll attack an alliance because they are "terrible"- I think even you are better than that. So your political power is entirely irrelevant.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1285671692' post='2466772'] All this talk of potential reconciliation between Mushroom Kingdom and IRON is a little sickening, to be honest. Personally, I hope the rather hostile relationship continues. A Cyberverse where everyone gets along is not an entertaining Cyberverse.[/quote] I find this part of your post wierd. Let's run through what happened in this thread. IRON Council announced MCRABT as our new President and it was followed by multiple MK'ers responding with how "terrible" we are and what it'll do to our relations etc etc. In response, MCRABT said he's to work out any differences anyone had with IRON, which is what sensible people do. If MK doesn't want reconciliation, that's fine (with almost everyone in IRON including me). If MK-IRON relations go down further, it will be because you [i]chose[/i] it to be so, not because of MCRABT. The choice was(maybe still is) yours. [quote]As for the MCRABT accusation that Mushroom Kingdom criticises every alliance outside of our supposed 'sphere of influence', so what if we do? We criticise for good reason; the alliances on the receiving end are objectively terrible.[/quote] MCRABT didn't accuse you of just "criticizing" alliances outside your sphere of influence, he accused you of showing open hostility (or criticisms with enough venom for most people to perceive it as hostile) towards them, which is quite another matter. If you haven't noticed, most of MK's "criticisms" run along the lines of " baww alliance X is soo terrible and pathetic!!" or with some variations thereof to make the targeted alliance look stupid. They are not even criticisms, just meaningless rants which only serve to provoke the members of the targeted alliance and entertain those who don't like them. As you said in your later post, it might be that the targeted alliance is bad at fighting wars, diplomacy, nation building or whatever . You seem to believe that this enough for you to flamebait, provoke and be hostile towards them. You have every right to do so; but again, this is your choice, and it is this choice of yours that MCRABT and most IRONers don't like. You see, you really haven't addressed his point at all. [quote]I have never been a fan of the "do something about it" response, but this is a case where it is warranted. However, I mean to use the 'do something about it' in a somewhat constructive way. If what you say is true, MCRABT, and Mushroom Kingdom does indeed criticise a wide range of alliances and create hostility, why don't you use that created hostility to your advantage? How about you discover the testicular fortitude and capacity for independent thought that your alliance has always lacked, work out how to do that whole 'leading' and 'diplomacy' stuff, and forge an opposing force of parties whose delicate sensibilities have been so impugned. [/quote] If IRON wants do something about it, it will. [i]Whether[/i] we want to do it or not is for us to decide . Anyway, this is all way beside the point- as far as I can tell, Rab was looking to iron out our issues through constructive dialogue, not war. The option of war always exists - it does not need pointing out. However two reasonable parties may choose to settle their issues by other ([i]better?[/i]) means, if they both choose to. [quote]If criticism breeds hostility, hostility breeds conflict, conflict breeds political dynamism, and political dynamism breeds entertainment, I think it is thus perfectly acceptable to criticise. If you do not accept this, take my previous advice. Gather up those alliances that similarly do not accept my assertion, develop some meaningful and effective strategy, actually lead your own alliance and maybe even a larger force, and aim to change the status quo. [/quote] The hostility that your "criticism" breeds leads to political drama, which is quite entertaining( only the drama part, the incessant trolling is quite annoying and most of the time simply ignored.)- I accept that. It is very wierd to claim that just because it leads to entertainment, it is "perfectly acceptable". Do you then believe that it was "perfectly acceptable" for IRON/TOP to aggressively declare on you? ( It was great fun for a lot of people, including me). Plenty of stupid things have lead to "entertainment" in the past [quote]Look at aid slot usage and efficiency, technology levels, wonders, improvements, growth rate, war performance, whether an alliance is leading or following in foreign affairs, and so on. These are rather objective, easily-measurable criteria for alliance performance. In general, the alliances we criticise perform dismally in each of these areas. I'll use the example that another MKer mentioned earlier. We tend not to verbally assault TOP, an alliance that attacked us in the most recent war, because they perform far better in the aforementioned areas than the vast majority of alliances. They are a quality group, even if we do disagree with them on a number of more subjective issues. We are happy to let TOP be, so long as they don't attack us again [/quote] I do not hope to fathom what you think you can achieve by "verbally assaulting" alliances which don't satisfy your criteria. You certainly can't change them. Not everyone can be Umbrella ( IRON isn't)- that doesn't mean they should get trolled for it. It is exactly this attitude that anyone who is not "good enough" must be continuously mocked and ridiculed that I dislike. Anyway, since IRON has generally been good at stats and stuff, I'm guessing your main problem with us is the FA: [quote]When exactly did you pursue your own agenda? Was it when you blindly followed the Pied Piper of Pacifica?[/quote] "Blindly?". IRON and NPO shared a long relationship that predated our MADP( see the Empire war for example). They were the second only alliance to open diplomatic contacts with IRON. To me it sounds like you're saying being treatied to the top-dog is itself a crime. You simply have no basis to claim we were following NPO blindly. [quote]Was it that brief period following the Karma War, the transition period between a Red master and an Orange one, when you flailed around with no direction?[/quote] See above. You "think" we were just TOP's lapdogs with no basis whatsoever. You don't even have a point. [quote] Or was it when you attached yourself to the Paradoxian underbelly, shadowing their every move, and even cancelling a whole range of treaties at their request? [/quote] This is simply incorrect. And randomly making up facts based on your suspicions is not the way of maintaining your credibility. I feel half-stupid for typing up such a big response to you now.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1285349273' post='2463429'] [color="#0000FF"]Congratulations MCRABT. I am sure you will do as fantastic a job as your predecessor in maintaining IRON's relationship with TOP.[/color] [/quote] I am sure he will And lebubu ( and other MK'ers in this thread): IRON does not appoint its leaders on the basis of who takes our relationship with MK to new heights. MCRABT has been chosen by the alliance of IRON and the instituitions that govern it( aka the IRON Council) to be our President, and as you do not belong to IRON, commenting on who we elect/appoint as our leaders is really not your place. I understand you guys don't like him. But if you want to deal with IRON, you will have to deal with the IRON President and that's that. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said. And finally, o/MCRABT I have complete faith in you! 0/IRON!