deth2munkies
-
Posts
2,607 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by deth2munkies
-
-
[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1330017080' post='2926741']
So you are saying that his reply isn't correct? I'm just making sure so the next time I ghost an alliance's affiliation I know what to expect.
[/quote]
If you're going to keep talking past me and not actually listen to what I have to say, there's no reason to keep it up. -
[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1330016085' post='2926727']
Does this mean that you are wrong and that they didn't violate your sovereignty?
[/quote]
Where did I say they violated [i]my[/i] sovereignty. They are violating the sovereignty of every alliance that they ghost, if they ghost mine, they are violating my sovereignty.
The big thing is that this was an order from the top of MK, "Go out and violate sovereignty". They attempted take-backsies by throwing some of their own members under the bus to save face, but it doesn't change what they've actually done. -
[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1330015366' post='2926722']
Luckily, the alliance is allowed to control who is under their banner. They had every right to attack our nations ghosting them. Note that 1337 wasn't saying "Don't attack or we'll roll you" it was "Sorry bout that, won't happen again". There's a gulf of difference between the two.
[/quote]
To that specific alliance, yet the order was given to ghost without restricting it to that alliance. If you've shown you're willing to ghost for as pathetic a reason as this, you show you have no respect for alliance boundaries or sovereignty. -
[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1330013652' post='2926702']
This is a line that confuses me. How are we violating an alliance's sovereignty? Is ghosting a violation of sovereignty now, on par with sending viceroys to run a defeated alliance? Or is it publicly disagreeing with UE's new policy? Because I wasnt aware that debating opposite sides of an issue and making policies clear was a violation of sovereignty, that's called politics.
[/quote]
If an alliance is not allowed to control who is under their banner, it is a violation of sovereignty.
I'm sorry you fail to grasp very basic political concepts, this thread has gone from a ridiculously stupid political move by one side to an overreaction and embarrassment of the other.
That said, I knew it was coming. MK and friends have become so ridiculously petty and childish that if anyone ever told them not to do something, they'd do as much of it as possible out of spite. Involving 3rd parties via ghosting AAs is quite possibly the dumbest way they ever could have gone about it. -
[quote name='Mack Truck' timestamp='1329992252' post='2926467']
What have we done OOC that ever affected CN gameplay?
[/quote]
Two words: Biodad Kingdom. And that's just a recent example.
You have no place to talk, MK was never meant to take a leadership role. That was to fall to one of the large alliances of Karma. MK has only been strong as a counterpoint, never as a maker of official policy. Unfortunately, they were all too weak and uncharismatic and such a system would collapse, hence the necessity of DH and the second war in order to maintain power. That war just served as a reminder of MK's failure and the failure of all of the other large alliances to set up an effective ruling class. Now all we have are punks who have forgotten how to actually use politics to achieve ends and instead use threats and OOC attacks.
It was a simpler time before all of this !@#$, and I enjoy the reflection in this thread. -
This is like the 15th "can't we all just get along" post by jerdge. I respect you, and it's well written as always, but do you honestly think that people who disagree with you will be persuaded by it?
I think the OOC stuff has gotten worse than ever, especially with all this RoK !@#$%^&*, and it really needs to stop. These dumbasses are chasing off some of the few people who still find this thing fun, and that's just bad for everyone involved. -
[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329785168' post='2924863']
That is really old stuff. You're making me think about Brehon's rant in his last (was it his last?) bootleg radio show.
Also, to be honest I think that most player don't [i]really[/i] remember you either, by now, but they just know what they've been told you did (which is still something, though).
[/quote]
There are people that don't know who Bilrow is? Jesus, now you're making ME feel old, THANKS JERDGE!
(also on another note, I see its "jerdge" like "jerj", but I always for some reason mentally move the d and make it "Jderge" like "jay-dirge"...no clue why) -
All I remember about Grenval...and Chris Kaos for that matter is that they were oooold GATO and cause old timers to have fits when you mention their names.
VX is familiar but never left a strong impression on me. -
You're doing it again.
The reason why it's not going as well as you planned is because you're trying to respond to everyone. A large group of people do not deserve responses and you don't need to repeat your points several dozen times because people are trying to talk past you. Only address those that actively engage the topic, and even then sparingly. There's no reason that you need to have damn near 1/3 of the posts in a 500+ post thread. Instead of posting a billion 1-2 sentence responses, wait till there's a general trend in dissent and crush it with a paragraph or so.
Also, trying to say "[url="http://xkcd.com/1013/"]rise up sheeple[/url] and revolt!" never works. People don't like being told what to do and what to think, especially when you're trying to take down an evil empire figure that supposedly has a grip on peoples' perceptions.
At the end of the day, this is politics, and you're playing it incorrectly. You have plenty of cards, but need to re-evaluate your strategy for using them.
My personal opinion on this mess is that it should be no surprise to anyone that letting someone else that plays have access to your forums is a bad plan. MK has spent a long time desensitizing the population to all of the things that were unthinkable for better (nuclear warfare) or for worse (spying), you can't undo that with one post about hypocrisy. -
Pez: Roq knows what he's doing. Your memory of Karma might be faulty, because pretty much anyone ever involved in that coalition knows he had quite a lot to do with it. The only reason Archon and the others get all the attention is because they bring their oratory to the forums where Roq isn't as verbal or, let's face it, as eloquent as they are.
Roq: You of all people should know that "People of the world, UNITE!" posts don't work...at all. They never have and never will. You've done enough without having to start publicly forming coalitions. That sort of thing happens organically over time, you can't force it. As I said before, I'm unconvinced it will happen for several reasons, but if it does it won't be because you coordinated it over this forum: it will be because people took what was said here and applied it to their own worldview. Those people will be the ones that change things, not you. -
Kzopp, I think you're overestimating it a bit.
I really don't think the current power structure is going out without a sweeping change in philosophy regarding alliance politics, and it's more likely everyone will get bored and whither off the face of Bob before that happens.
I and others championed several political theory arguments during the reign of the NPO, not so much because I (I say "I" because I can't speak for others who argued the same way) wanted them to change thus, but because it provided an interesting counterargument to the current power structure. Among them were the emphasis on friendships, the emphasis on simplifying the complex political arrangements that people had built, and the emphasis on expressing grievances through force. These were all very interesting views on politics and lent themselves well to establishing allies to overthrow the established power structure, which made them simple and easy to adopt for that purpose.
The problem was that these philosophies do not lend themselves well to a ruling class. Without all of the political barriers, complex language, and necessity for reasons behind going to war; we find ourselves in a one-sided political state without a chance to galvanize a resistance with a rallying cry for simpler times. Arguing for the opposite is STILL met with backlash from those that fought for these ideals in the first place without really thinking about them, so it's impossible to get a large enough resistance movement through those. Either someone needs to come up with something new, enough people need to become disgusted with the new ways, or the ruling class needs to change their line before something big can happen.
This is a mere bump in the road, only the people whose servers are directly in bros's care will really be bothered by this, spying is one of the things that was once thought unacceptable, but was adopted as a "freedom fighting" technique that was good when used for the right reasons and/or a natural thing that everyone does. Trying to make outrage over it is nowhere near as easy as it was 3-4 years ago. -
[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329261724' post='2920628']
Actually I think he's made it rather clear that it's about wanting to discredit MK. I'm not saying the reason has anything to do with the accusations being true or false - just that I don't see him or anyone else going on about, as you said "a noble pursuit of justice." In terms of someone appearing narcissistic - welcome to Planet Bob.
[/quote]
MK really doesn't need any discrediting, they've done it themselves through their overt actions time and again over the past year. Everyone with any sort of intelligence or moral compass has abandoned that place for other alliances or simply by dropping off the face of Bob.
What's going on here is someone that has been trying to live with all that bile weighing down upon him and finally snapping to the pressure. I'd like to know why.
[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1329262411' post='2920630']
This thread is becoming even funnier...
[OOC]MK is genuinely worried about Roq health people, you should know better, shame on you.[/OOC]
[/quote]
OOC: Yeah, sure, I'll bet they've started with the image macros already. -
Another idealist manifesto that is far too similar to all those that have come before it. Nothing on that list will ever happen because no matter what you do, there will always be !@#$%bags. You should know that more than most.
Anyway, what is all this stuff about? I see a lot of hate getting thrown around but little in the way of motivation for it. -
The coldie hungers
-
I'm trying to recall the last time a group of alliances decided to attack someone they figured would eventually come into the war that their allies were in.
Oh whatever, I'll stop being coy: You're doing the dumb thing TOP and IRON did last time, and I'm laughing my ass off at the sheer irony of it.
Have fun with the curbstomp, I have a feeling it'll be coming around next time. -
More interesting than normal but not earthshattering, still excellent for a first publication.
Thanks at least for bumping up the bar, I await further issues. -
[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1322925766' post='2860664']
wow, did i really just pop back randomly in the middle of another polar-stomp?
either i have incredible timing or this ship's sailing in circles
[/quote]
Heeey Doitzel.
I'm really not surprised, grudge has been simmering for a while and people were getting bored, hence war. -
Looking at that application made me think about how much more I need to post. This seems really interesting and I'd love to give it a shot. I've been putting off joining/creating an alliance until after school ends anyway.
-
There you guys have been hiding. It's been a long time no see VoC
As for the actual declaration, it's just business, treaties breaking as they will, do what you must. -
[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1322452127' post='2854214']
No just no.... and not just because you cannot spell my name.
Though the name Bob Sanders will live on in CN until its death, just for one simple mistake in typing.
[/quote]
For those unawares:
[spoiler][img]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0904/did-you-polar-really-too-stupid-to-read-cyber-nations-cybern-demotivational-poster-1239471143.jpg[/img][/spoiler] -
[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1322426865' post='2853969']
If we had waited for the treaties to naturally resolve we would have still lost that war. IRON would have went in support of NSO who was fighting GOD (I think that was the SF member) which would have triggered the rest of Superfriends and their friends. I remember members of FARK and MHA telling me they already had the target list ready and members ready to attack IRON the moment they entered to assist NSO. This large assault on IRON would have brought in us (TOP!). This would have left CnG/others free to engage us on their terms. Sandwiched in between those two blocs and all their friends would have ended in a surefire defeat.
The pre-emptive strike was meant to engage CnG on our terms by using our large amount of high end nations. We would choose the targets which meant their large nations would be absolutely hammered by the end of week one (it worked!). From then one we would continue to attack downwards until their upper tier was destroyed. The reason for all of this was because it was known that CnG/friends were waiting on us to join before making their move.
The pre-emptive strike was a very high risk/high reward move. Their was the chance that in the end it wouldn't work and that we'd still lose. In that case our hope was that we'd atleast go out swinging rather than sitting there and taking it. The strategy from a military/stat standpoint was solid but obviously it was horrible from a political standpoint as it gave Grub the opportunity to pull out of the war.
My personal issues with Grub and therefore the NpO is the deceitful manner in which they conducted themselves. They approved the plan and emphatically stated that MK was considered on the other side of the war and they would receive no help from Polar. Afterwards they went to MK/CnG with our plans and then pulled out of the war an hour or so after we entered. Looking back should we not have put our faith in Polar? Of course not. A very dumb decision on all of our parts and we paid for that mistake. Nevertheless, many of us involved in the pre-emptive strike feel that Polar must pay for their lies. You might not consider that a valid reason for war but we do and that's why this is happening.
[/quote]
I'll defer simply because I don't remember the specific makeup of all of the blocs at that time and which treaties were still active, although I'm fairly sure since you declared directly on all of CnG, at least one of those was allied to an aqua member of SF (I think RoK was in it at the time...at least Fark was...) so they were coming in regardless. It also put NpO in one hell of an awkward position, but then that's what all of this was about anyway.
Like I said, Grub was a dick, he didn't straight up lie to you, but he intentionally mislead you, which is good enough for me. I've just seen a lot of people trying to defend it by claiming that the make up and possible outcome of the war would be drastically different had not polar quit, and it really wouldn't have been, the first strike pretty much went as badly as it possibly could even without the whole Polar thing. As far as I'm concerned there's no statute of limitations on this thing so I'm not gonna try inane legal posturing like that.
Enjoy stomping them for all the good it will do. As for me, I've always had a soft spot for Polar ever since WotC. I felt like they got humbled enough that they were in a good spot for a while, then they pulled the !@#$ in BiPolar that I thought wasn't quite as big a deal since I wasn't really paying attention to the politics at that point. It may be irrational and stupid, but I hope they can get through this one and get back on track eventually. -
[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322423505' post='2853925']
Unless you are a believer in the "hey, it was a master plan to lure TOP into a false sense of security for over six months and then [b]lead them to do the unthinkable[/b]", their efforts had to be sincere and the warming up of relations had to be real.
[/quote]
That's never even been true from what I've heard out of TOP/IRON before.
Polar didn't ask you or convince you to do anything, from what I understand, you went to them for approval, to make sure it wouldn't blow back on you, and they said (paraphrased), "Go for it, we won't attack you or anything". It was a deceptive choice of words, but the decision was yours and yours alone. What they did was dickish, they denied you full information about the actions you were undertaking, but they had no part in planning or executing those actions, that was on you. -
Yes, it's a curbstomp, thank you for reminding us.
It's really hard to get into this conflict when you really have no stake in the revenge fantasy at its core. I guess it's kind of funny to see how much the situation has changed over the last year (that I've largely been away for). -
I had to look up the wiki to actually familiarize myself with this war because it was during one of my "do not care" phases.
I remember the hilariously bad decision to first strike C&G instead of waiting for the treaties to naturally resolve. From what I read here, they were mislead by the fact Grub neglected to tell them that there was peace on the table so they went through with it the same night Polar peaced out.
Funnily enough, the war had become less about \m/ by that point and more about everyone stomping everyone elses' face, with a bunch of old rivalries flared up and everyone having a merry old time. Odds are, there would have been a few conflicts that would last a while after the Polar peace then the war would have died out without affecting IRON, TOP, or C&G.
While yes, Grub was a !@#$% and they probably deserve this, I still have to question the level of anger here when it was your stupid decision to attack in the first place. Let's say polar doesn't peace out and you go through with your attack, it gives you no strategic advantage over the situation whatsoever, and indeed gives legal ground for Polar and a myraid of other non-chaining defensive treaties to be activated where they wouldn't before. It was YOUR $%&@up that caused you to take all that damage, not Polar's. They didn't even skate by with less damage as no one from C&G would have ever fought them directly. If they HADN'T peaced out, the overall damage probably would have been about the same as if they had, you would have taken a massive beating, and they'd have a bit more damage from the 3 they were fighting.
I don't oppose this as a war fought on point of principle, withholding information from "allies" in war is a dick move, but I don't think "we took all this damage we shouldn't have so we're going to dish it back out" is an accurate reason when no matter what had happened, if you went through with your plan, you would have taken that or more.
Official United Equestria Policy Annoucement
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1330017584' post='2926754']
I don't talk to anyone in Mushroom Kingdom nor care that they are the alliance that did it. If you think my alliance's relationship to them is clouding my opinion I assume this wont change your opinion of my previous comments. I'm just merely clarifying what is deemed an act of violating sovereignty.
"Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory" is one of the definitions given to the word, seeing as they are allowed to retaliate as needed I don't understand how they are violating their sovereignty. However it could be debated that since they are ghosting on orders they are still under the protection of MK therefor making it an act of war. However by my assumption changing your alliance affiliation removes you from said alliance therefor making this discussion pointless.
[/quote]
Acting as an agent of one alliance while wearing the AA of another is duplicitous at best, criminal at worst, and looked down upon universally.
It would be like a politician from one nation walking into mine, claiming that he was the leader of one of my states, then funneling all of the money and information from that state back to his old alliance. It's definitely violating my sovereign right to control what goes on in my own nation.