WorldConqueror

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1290129303' post='2516976'] It's currently under construction. [/quote] That bloc would be pretty hawt.

I'm famous!

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1290025398' post='2516036'] [center] [IMG]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e110/airmike94/2yv8cqc.png[/IMG] 8/10 - The Mario reminded me of Squintus's avatar. Well made. Font is overused in Pacifican propaganda though. [/center] [/quote] Hooray, AirMe doesn't think that my propaganda sucks. I am intrigued to see what you think of the others now.

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1290030322' post='2516100'] I don't believe that NADC has a treaty with NPO. You might be mistaking them for NATO. And ironic that you do this just as I'm putting the finishing touches on my new treaty web. [/quote] That is true, we also do not have a treaty with Hydra. Nice work though.

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1289894236' post='2514391'] "Humour or humor (see spelling differences) is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. ..." Not your strong point, eh? [/quote] To be honest, I didn't get it either. Why do you subtract the number of registered users on your forums from the number of people wearing your AA in-game? I feel that I am missing a fundamental piece of the puzzle.

[quote name='DragonsPhyre' timestamp='1289456982' post='2510193'] Talks were going on about TIO possibly joining long before we heard anything about IAA joining Sirius. So, yeah, it's a coincidence. [/quote] I see, thanks for the answers. Just struck me as odd that 2 blocs who weren't tied together previously now share 2 signatories. [quote name='Sentinal' timestamp='1289457192' post='2510195'] Actually it's all a giant conspiracy. [/quote] Yes, because that's what I was implying.

Was there some kind of conscious decision to draw Synergy and Sirius closer together, or is it just coincidence that IAA recently joined Sirius, and then TIO joins Synergy?

[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1289454414' post='2510146'] Sometimes, the people arguing for a particular position I believe actually cause me to lose faith in that belief. This is one such case. In this case, I am inclined to be on the "side" (if you can call it a side) of NSO. The reps were advantageously taken by an alliance in a politically superior position from an alliance with far less political clout. But seeing that position argued so [i]poorly[/i] makes me ashamed to even consider such thoughts... [/quote] Eh, since MK pulled out of this thread it has gone downhill drastically. It's become an echo chamber for people to bash MK without knowing/caring about this situation, which doesn't help anything. If you want some well articulated and reasonable arguments from the NSO side, go back to the start of this thread, or around 10 pages back. It's hard to argue well against 'Do something about it' or 'haterz gunna hate' from MK protectorates.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289421079' post='2509578'] There are all sorts of reasons why they don't do that, but if it is something they want to do, then why would they care that it is setting a precedent or not? [/quote] Because people don't only consider the present state of affairs, and know that any precedent they create now could just as easily be used against them in the future.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289419055' post='2509548'] Many alliances have the power to do all sorts of things, but don't do them. Any number of alliances have the power to successfully demolish other alliances and get away with it, but they don't. Not due to lack of power or ability, but because it just isn't what they want to or think is right to do. [/quote] That is true, except the last part. You are completely discounting both soft power and long-term strategy.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1289417077' post='2509530'] In all fairness, NPO guys are about as serious as they come. I see far more serious/angry posts from NPO members than sarcastic. But to address the OP. Any conflict involving NSO won't amount to much, as all their allies always seem to back out and say NSO told them not to defend them. I hardly imagine NSO getting defended even if someone DoW'ed them with the CB: "Just because." I know NPO wouldn't unless they could win. Although maybe the IC/Brown/Purple allies would. It's funny to think FEAR, NATO, Invicta, etc have more balls than the 'legendary' NPO though. 2010 sure isn't 2007-08. [/quote] That may be so, but just because a majority are serious doesn't mean they all will be. I tend to throw jokes in when I get the opportunity for it. And once equals always now? That's a pretty amazing leap. I think you'll find we're quite prepared to defend NSO if need be. Incredible though, that you [i]know[/i] what we'll do. What else can you predict for us, Nostradamus?

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1289411184' post='2509441'] Was about to ask if he was joking around or not. edit: there's a word for that... [/quote] Yeah, for an alliance that jokes around as much as you guys, you really need to learn to recognize sarcasm, judging by the discussion I saw about this in #mushroom earlier.

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1289408074' post='2509407'] There are some people who have claimed war/force was [i][b]never[/b][/i] considered to be alternative course of action, I wonder what those other options were. [/quote] Me too, I didn't get an answer when I mentioned it earlier.

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1289407774' post='2509405'] With Random in charge of Polar I think we will be seeing a much closer relationship between the Orders, with a possible reinstatement of the Ordinance of Order itself. [/quote] Indeed. There is no bigger fan of Pacifica than Random.

[quote name='SirBombAlot' timestamp='1289395084' post='2509287'] Bawwww, bawwwwww, bawwwww. Push the *&^%$## button already. [/quote] Damn bro, your logic and reason sure proved us wrong!

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289376867' post='2509197'] It is a smear campaign when it consists of hyperbole, misinformation and downright lies. Yes, we did make the initial demand of $15m and 250 tech, but no, that was not the final offer, and no, we were not looking for war. Yes, there was room for negotiation. A number of avenues were available to the New Sith Order, including going above the officials involved and appealing to the high government.[/quote] The implied threat of force was always there, most blatantly when it was stated: <Yevgeni> Him or you. We consider NSO responsible as he was, up until a hour ago, one of your members by all standards. RV had stated that NSO was not protecting the nation and you were free to hit him, and your representatives then restated the earlier demand for 15M/250T. If NSO refused to pay, in what manner did you intend to hold them responsible if not war? And it's not the sum that was demanded that's the problem, so saying he could have negotiated doesn't mean anything, unless you were expecting him to negotiate you down to $0. It's not that you were asking for an exorbitant amount, but that you were asking for anything at all, beyond having the member released for attack, and possibly the return of the 3M if you were lucky. Though, the 3M would be a courtesy from NSO, considering they had nothing to do with the creation of the TC nor the nation canceling the trades. [quote]This simplifies the situation in a manner that excuses the behaviour of NSO. They were intransigent, difficult to work with, and were purposely negotiating in bad faith in an attempt to one-up us - which is always to their own detriment in the end, and is a proven pattern of behaviour - as Yev explained above, but we called them on it.[/quote] It doesn't simplify anything. Is it not a fact that in the discussion with RV he explicitly said that NSO would not protect the nation in question? You should have attacked the nation, and that should have been the end of it. Stating that you will continue to seek the full 15M and 250T because they were not immediately acquiescent during the negotiations where you demanded that sum is pretty ridiculous. If you approached me with those demands over a canceled trade I'd be understandably annoyed in the negotiations too. [quote]If our actions were being applauded by you and your ilk, we'd be doing something wrong. [/quote] No u? But really, that wasn't what I was saying, and you know it. [OOC]My point was that Napoleon had plenty of resolve in invading Russia. Hitler had resolve right up until he shot himself (damn you Godwin).[/OOC] I could have resolve to continually punch myself in the face, that doesn't make it a good idea.

[quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1289375897' post='2509188'] Neither would there be a public outcry -- not of this degree, at least -- if the NSO had taken steps to resolve this situation in private rather than to publicize it. I'll readily admit that we initially asked too much of the NSO in this scenario and have done so multiple times already, but their response only served to worsen the problem and provide us with less of a reason to help them out, and that is something that's really not debatable. [/quote] That's true, but that's not really an argument. There would be no situation to resolve if you guys had not fronted up with those demands. And saying that you are justified in maintaining your demands because they took it public and pissed you off doesn't really hold up either. I'm sure you pissed them off by demanding 15M and 250T for a cancelled trade, so by that logic they should be completely justified in bringing it public and giving you a PR hit since the demands "only served to worsen the problem and provide (them) with less of a reason to help (you) out".

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1289375293' post='2509178'] But...you see...NPO did worse! We aren't them. We are just! [/quote] Heh. "The NPO did bad things. We are MK. We did a bad thing. But because we are not NPO, the thing we did is doubleplusgood!"

[quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1289374659' post='2509163'] It's really not. There is absolutely no incentive for us to request less money of the NSO after they've made an open attempt at damaging the reputation of our alliance. [/quote] The thing that damaged the reputation of your alliance was your demand of 15M and 250T for a canceled trade. RV going public did not cause this situation. There would be no public furore if there were no demands. See how that works?

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289373480' post='2509144'] That's not at all what Quiz said. Just a tip: when you attempt to spin someone's words, you need to at least leave [i]some[/i] of the thrust of the original message in. You're really quite bad at this. What Quiz is arguing is not that we had no choice in the matter. The Kingdom made quite a deliberate choice, a choice to demonstrate our resolve and make it clear that we do not capitulate in the face of smear campaigns and some righteous indignation from the usual faux moral crusaders. As I have explained previously, if the New Sith Order was interested in negotiating a lower amount of compensation, then heading to this forum and trying to score a few cheap PR points, rather than approaching MK high government with a reasoned and well-expressed case, was not the way to do it. [/quote] Except that it wasn't a smear campaign, you did request that NSO pay you a sum equivalent to 7.5 times the money you paid in the first place. Over an action that was taken by one nation, who, even if they were an NSO member at the time, was booted and free for you to attack at your leisure. And considering that no alliance has asked for 'reparations' from another alliance due to a nation skipping out on a paid-for trade circle before, I find your attempt to paint yourselves as the victim quite amusing. Demonstrating your resolve to continue on a ludicrous course isn't something laudable.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1289372310' post='2509126'] Do you deny that MK were the initial aggrieved party in this ordeal? [/quote] They were 'aggrieved' by an individual nation, not the NSO.

I haven't really decided on a name yet, though it is tentatively called CSKA Francograd for the moment. Adapting a Russian name suits us pretty well, and the military tie-in seems pretty fitting too. But I'm not 100% sure, I guess I'll see what I come up with while I'm waiting for these last few players.

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1289289801' post='2507727'] Re-sign the Sectumsempra Treaty. or turn red into a glass parking lot. [/quote] Or maybe...both at the same time. It's so crazy it just might work. In any case, I'm not too sure why you're answering a rhetorical question directed at MK, but go hard mang.

[quote name='Shodemofi' timestamp='1289288613' post='2507689'] Archon repeating what was said in the other thread doesn't make MK's extortion any more acceptable. Not to totally NPO-Godwin this thread, but this is the "they agreed to it" logic is the same thing that they used to force alliances to disband. [/quote] Not wanting to derail so I'll just address this quickly and leave it. You really can't force someone to disband. You can push for disbandment in a war, but you can't actually physically make them disband. And you can certainly make disbandment look like the preferable option, but that's not forcing. Probably more semantic than anything, it is an important distinction though. And disbandment doesn't require the opposing government's consent, so your example that we got small alliances to agree to terms and then justified those terms by saying 'they accepted it', would imply that those terms handed down were not disbandment.

[quote name='delendum' timestamp='1289287110' post='2507622'] So you think we're unimpressive I take it [/quote] I think you have potential, I'm just not sure that you have been the source of enough tyranny and horror yet. I'd like to see a real contender for 'Most evil and tyrannical alliance ever', but let's face it, we got such a headstart on everyone else that you all have a lot of catching up to do. :| [quote name='NorthernLights' timestamp='1289287617' post='2507642'] Sure let me get into MK gov real quick, brb WC. [/quote] Sounds good mang.