crazy canuck

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1296161008' post='2606028'] I've seen a lot of comments from them pointing out how many alliances were attacking them, whether that is considered complaining I agree is unclear. I don't think I actually accused them of complaining, but just stated I think the longer they are in a losing war the more they will come to wish it will end. [/quote] Ok, but why do you think they are in a losing war? Goons dont appear to care how much damage they take or how long the war goes - they seem to be of the view that helps them in the long run. And to the extent they are willing to soak up all that punishment how is it that they will utimately be on the losing side of the war? I would be interested in your analysis on that point.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1296160064' post='2606005'] Now as some are realizing what will likely happen they aren't as thrilled sounding over the prospect of this war lasting a long time as they did previously. [/quote] It would be helpful to me if you could identify the "some" who are coming to this realization and why it is they are not thrilled at the prospect of war any longer. You will have to forgive me. I have only scanned the thread but it is hard for me to know who you are talking about. Also, it would be helpful to me if you could identify the reasons why you have formed this view. Honest question. I am not following your logic.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296159390' post='2605995'] Really, "Recognition of War with NPO meatshields/vassal states" doesn't sound pompous and cocky to you? [/quote] Best one liner of the thread. By far.

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 July 2010 - 03:33 AM' timestamp='1279881181' post='2385717'] I am not trying to say that SF/C&G don't hold power. That would be idiotic... all I have said is that the concept of "SG" needs a mirror to define SG. The fact SG is powerful is largely irrelevant for my argument. [/quote] I see that you have come around to what I have been saying all along. Add to your analysis that in order for SF/CnG to have such a mirror they need to create it and you will have fully understood the point. Also, now that you have acknowledged that we are playing in a unipolar world in which SF/CnG hold power I dont understand why it is you tried to deny it a while back by saying I had no evidence of such a thing. Maybe you dont really understand what the word Unipolar means or at least you are using it in a manner not found in the usual definition.

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 July 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1279751400' post='2383401'] Hmm, you're not really looking at it properly. It's a relatively objective way of looking at the world regardless of who is in 'power,' you're just adding your brand of bias. Read into it how you will, it's just saying that there is no unipolar world. This is hardly ground breaking analysis. [/quote] Lol, you are spinning so hard I am surprised you can still stand straight. If you are trying to convince people that SF/CnG dont hold power in CN you are doing a terrible job. You should drop the logical flaw that if one power exists there necessarily needs to be another power. Not only does that not make any sense (unless you subscribe to some odd religious CN dualism) it also doesnt meet any kind of CN historical analysis. I think whoever wants to spin this yarn ought to send another poster out to the mound. You are not throwing many strikes atm.

[quote name='shilo' date='21 July 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1279747179' post='2383271'] Sorry, I too wish they were the old ones, but I am at war with the new version for many months now, so forgive me if they do shape my view on the alliance more than they should do. [/quote] Oh, I dont blame you at all. The old Gramlins are but a pleasant memory. An alliance which is truly dead and gone.

[quote name='shilo' date='16 July 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1279330671' post='2375317'] Whimpery? Yeah. Sad? No. Not when they had and continue to have the chance to stop this. But when pride combined with delusions leads to the destruction of an alliance, it's not sad, it's well deserved. [/quote] Sad when you consider what the old Gramlins were. I agree that it is not sad at all if you only consider what they became.

[quote name='SynthFG' date='21 July 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1279740448' post='2383007'] I'll save the details for my CN memoirs [/quote] That would be a very interesting read to have one day.

[quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1279733619' post='2382786'] Are you sure the joke wasn't the other way around? [/quote] It was said both ways. Obviously I selected the form of the joke most applicable to what actually happened... But all of this is beside the point and is taking us way off topic. The point I was making is that scenarios of future political moves which treat SF and CnG as one entity are ignoring the fact that any relationship can break down. As example take Gremlins/TOP which was once considered one of the closest in the game. So much so that people thought we would eventually merge. Somebody made the point that all it take is the turn over of leadership and the dymanic changes completely. All you need to do is look at Ram for proof of that.

[quote name='SynthFG' date='21 July 2010 - 03:50 AM' timestamp='1279709407' post='2382378'] there was no special grudge against IRON, just a historical accident that put Gre on them for a 2nd time, and Gre whilst they could take on anyone at the top levels were never powerful enough to enforce this alone, even if they had a remotly justifiable reason to demand it This is all about the ambition and ego of one idiot to dominate the SF/CnG side of the web as a leader, He's been thwarted and rejected in that ambition more times in the past 6 months than has yet been made public and now he has nothing left but this, [/quote] I am not surprised to read the second paragraph but I do find it hard to believe that part of his plan didnt involved bringing down IRON to build up his credibility as leader of the block... I can just imagine how the leaders of SF and CnG must have looked on in amusement as all of this unfolded.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='21 July 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1279731102' post='2382712'] Could you blame them? Take notice of the decision's Ramirus has made, and the people he has alienated lately. I'm guessing you don't like IRON, but heck, I could probably make you pick NPO if the alternative was a Ramirus led Gramlins. [/quote] He is also wrong saying that there was a choice of one over the other. We were close to both. Gramlins violated our treaty, came to our forums and apologized over and over about it. Most of us believed their apologies were sincere and I do think that most of the Gramlins who did come to our forums were sincere. This was prior to the reign of Ram formally starting (or it was right on the cusp) but as I look back on it now his fingerprints were all over this. You are also quite right that after that they continued moves under Ram's unfluence that have led them to be the sad remnant of a once great alliance that we see today.

[quote name='James IV' date='20 July 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1279693704' post='2382197'] I see the NPO being a "free agent" like Terrel Owens in the NFL. Right now they are the black sheep of the political scene. At some point though, some alliance is going to be looking over their treaties and will come to the conclusion that for them, the risk of signing with NPO is less than the reward. NPO is still a very talented alliance with quite a bit of NS of their own to throw around. If signing with NPO looks like it will help overthrow the SG bloc in place, someone(s) will pick them up. [/quote] This analysis assumes that SF/CnG are a singular unit and will always remain that way. I know from bitter experience that aint necessarily so. I still have the old joke "Gramlins dont betray TOP" ringing in my ears....

[quote name='Banksy' date='19 July 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1279608544' post='2380205'] The very fact that we have a 'SuperGrievances' term shows that such a group must exist. There would be no need to define this group if there was no counter. I agree that the proposed counter is weak and diverse, but there is a degree of group identity. [/quote] As others have pointed out we are playing in a unipolar world. Identifying that unipolar power does not identify an opposition to that power. By definition it illustrates that there is no other power.

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='19 July 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1279571071' post='2379264'] Call it far-fetched or insane, only time will tell the truth. [/quote] Ok, your post was far-fetched and insane. to the OP, an excellent analysis. Thank you for taking the time to post.

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1279562103' post='2379053'] I saw the point you were trying to make, but you were let down by your poor choice of words. I tend to respond to the posts people actually make rather than the ones they might intend to. [/quote] Sematics? Really? You are trying to get out of a silly comment through semantics. Well even if you want to play the semantics game your alliance mate was still bright enough to understand what I was talking about and she had the good grace to respond to my question. You on the other hand have done nothing but dodge the question. Why is that? Especially since you now admit you understood the question all along?

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1279558599' post='2378972'] Who's upset? I don't see anyone upset by this; I think you're confusing "upset" and "amused". [/quote] Dont worry. Even though you didnt understand the point your alliance mate did and she answered the question.

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='19 July 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1279559200' post='2378980'] From a purely personal standpoint, my line of logic is that while I don't like any of the alliances mentioned in the OP -- truly -- I criticize this method of cancellation not because of my AA, but because of the realpolitik tripe. You'll notice that the vast majority of Shrooms in this thread have applauded the cancellations. I've never liked realpolitik, and I never will. At this point, I'm getting to be a broken record. [/quote] First, thank you for answering my question. But I am not sure why you think this is realpolitik tripe. IRON has bled a lot for its allies in the last couple wars. Indeed a strong argument that if it were not for IRON's commitment to its treaties, it would not have bled at all - or at the very least would have had suffered substantially less damage. To me that does not speak to an alliance engaged in realpolitik. One thing you can never accuse IRON of is not standing by its treaty obligations. Very few of us out there can the same claim. I see this as IRON making sure that it can continue to live up to that reputation. They have done so openly and transparently. To me that is the direct opposite of the realpolitik we have seen from some others.

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 08:53 AM' timestamp='1279554795' post='2378892'] Why not? You are. [/quote] That was way to easy. Now that you have our attention, could you explain to me why some people in MK seem upset by this move. I dont understand the logic behind that response.

[quote name='The Warrior' date='18 July 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1279503338' post='2378079'] I actually think that someone is worried about actually becoming the new 'hegemony' instead of just the joking that has gone on. That would be a legitimate concern of course. The old hegemony is no more after all. [/quote] Bang on. Some of the negativity I hear from a minority of CnG is I think motivated by that. Without a strawman ex-heg to aim at what else is there other then to have an introspective look at what CnG/SF has become. That isnt the fault of anyone involved in SuperComplaints. It is the natural progression of things. Once you achieve what you set out to achieve it is time to re-evaluate. I think some within SuperComplaints may not want to fully acknowledge that they have now reached that point and a good way to put it off is to imagine that there is still an ex-heg boggyman out there that is still undefeated and that poses a risk. If there is such a thing I would very much like someone to identify it for me because I cant see it and I suppose that this move by IRON may have been the thing that finally opens everyone's eyes to that fact.

[quote name='flak attack' date='18 July 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1279483265' post='2377677'] It's been quite obvious as of late that Duckroll is moving to take their immediate allies and form a separate power sphere from the other ex-Heg alliances. I would have thought they would try to bring NATO and TFD with them, but I assume they realized that even with all their faults, NATO and TFD do at least have an element of loyalty. Could end up putting NSO in a bad position in the future though. [/quote] Two questions? Why are you trying to paint Duckroll as the next potential threat to CN peace (read a threat to the new hegemony that is SuperComplaints) and why are you trying to do that in the context of a thread in which IRON is decoupling itself from part of the treaty web?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 July 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1279035259' post='2369335'] I have no interest in tying the current situation to TOP... It has nothing to do with what's going on right now; we should stop discussing it. As for what's going on now, I have already stated that I miscalculated how many people would misunderstand and/or deliberately misrepresent what we're demanding. That doesn't make our intentions malicious nor our goal unjust. [/quote] All right. Thank you for clarifying your position. I will say no more about the break down in the relationship between Gre and TOP save to say that it is one of the things I will always regret about my game experience here - that and deleting my first nation thinking at the time I didnt want to return to the game. As for the miscalculation of others, if you are correct that people have simply misunderstood what you have been saying then you might want to reconsider the way in which you say things. I am pretty certain you demanded an unconditional surrender. I am pretty certain the vast majority of the CN community thinks that was and is a daft idea. I am not sure where there is room for misunderstanding. I am pretty sure that Ram said he had the official agreement of CnG to an amendment he was proposing. He didnt. I am not sure where there is room for misunderstanding there either. As I said, you might want to reconsider the way in which you say things.

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='12 July 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1278978381' post='2368677'] I just want to say, to the lot of you talking about the Citadel collapsing and your feelings on it: don't. You seriously are rewriting history left and right and as someone who was there for a long time, all of you are either leaving out details or generalizing things beyond the point of recognition. edit: nor do I really see how it has anything to do with the surrender terms to begin with [/quote] I agree - even though some of your criticism may have been directed at me. The only reason I entered the fray on that point is that Matthew seemed to be trying to tie his current predicament into some "selfless act" Gre commited to try to "save" TOP in what has now become the mists of time. That is why I encouraged him to just step up to the plate and take the hit. No amout of revisionism can save him and Gre now. The only honourable thing left to that alliance is to acknowledge they made a monumental miscalculation and stop trying to brazen their way through it.

Syth and Matthew. You guys are wonderful at revisionist history. It find it a bit comical that you are asserting that Gramlins breaches of its treaty obligations to us and then Gramlins subsequent actions had nothing but TOP's best interests in mind. Truth is you set on a new direction. One that ultimately ruined your alliance, pulled apart the Citadel and destroyed one of the closest alliance relationships this game has ever seen. Step up to the plate and take the hit for what you have done. Enough of this waffling around trying to come up with some justification. The proof is in the pudding. It is too easy to just blame Ram - although I have to admit he is a very easy target. Gramlins made moves that made Ram's insane leadership possible before he formally came to power.

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='08 July 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1278648077' post='2364291'] This discussion is making either of you look good. Just so you know. [/quote] Agreed. I am not sure why either of them keep going at eachother. This thread does illustrate the problem of trying to institute a ban from posting on these forums. Most people have stuck with this game because of its social aspect. Banning one of the main routes of participating in that part of the game can lead to some high emotions as obviously happened in this case. Note that this is not a comment as to who is in the right here. I think when tempers cool a bit both of them will reflect on the fact that they could both have handled this better.

[quote name='Lamuella' date='05 July 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1278353777' post='2360387'] anyone who didn't already know how awesome Louisa is and how awesome it is that she's back doesn't deserve an announcement [/quote] When Louisa is involved there can never be too many announcements.