Denial

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1289276730' post='2507253'] Tyga mentioned rolling NSO once, and that was saying that MK and friends would be ready to roll NSO if needed. Other than that I can't see him saying you are looking for an excuse to roll NSO. Either you are an idiot and can't comprehend what he's saying, or you are trying to deflect his rather valid criticisms of your alliance. [/quote] You obviously haven't been looking very hard, then (or at all): [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289267922' post='2506923'] I thought I did. I assumed everyone knew MK and allies are willing and ready to roll NSO whenever the opportunity arises. [/quote] [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289270818' post='2507045'] Not when your stronger negotiating position [i]is[/i] your military strength plus a fairly obvious desire to see NSO rolled. You can try and pretend the elephant in the room is not here but most if us can see it quite clearly. If this was anyone else but NSO I highly doubt you'd have pursued it anywhere near as aggressively as you have, if at all. [/quote] So, what was that you were saying?

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289277347' post='2507278'] MK has a very peculiar way of pretending to acknowledge its implications of force, yet at the same time dismissing them by pretending that merely having an army is in itself something that distorts negotiations. That is a lie. You can be the strongest person in the world, but that does not mean that you are expected to actually beat up everybody you come across. If that intention does not exist, then your "strength" does not become a factor in the negotiations, simply because it is not a strength that would be used. The fact that MK is unable to make that distinction is a clear indicator of the intimidation that took place here. Most alliances wouldn't hold a newbie reneging on a trade agreement as a reason to use military force against an entire alliance. If MK's attitude in this thread is anything to go by, [b]every single[/b] time when you negotiate with a weaker alliance is a time when you might use military force, therefore you insert that possibility and use it as a tool in any "discussions". It is quite amazing that its members cannot explicitly recognize this, and a sign of how ingrained MK's position of power has become in their mentality. You do not have to "dumb yourselves down" in order to talk with someone weaker than you on an equal level. You merely have to [b]not try and force them to do something[/b] with that shiny army backing it up. Most alliance interactions go through smoothly without the use of force entering anybody's mind. The "strength" of most alliances who have someone scam them out of money for a trade wouldn't be a factor in negotiations, because most alliances wouldn't use that strength to beat up the guy's alliance. And if you aren't going to use your strength, it won't make a difference. So do not try to pass off your arrogant "we are better than them in every measure, that's not our fault" rhetoric. You are [b]making use[/b] of that power to [b]fulfil an underlying goal[/b] that damages the weaker party. That is a far cry from the average "interaction" that goes on between alliances. Merely having a military does not mean that an alliance will use said military at the drop of a hat. A noob scamming of his trade partners is [b]not[/b] a situation where an alliance should be using their military. Yet MK does not seem content to do what an alliance should do. As you have admitted, MK makes full use of their status to meet their goals. From the point that use is made, the "military" stops being a passive and innocuous thing lying in the corner, and becomes a threat. You cannot both enjoy the benefits of your power and yet pretend that you are not using it. If MK was not willing to use its military force, then its military force would have been irrelevant to the issue. Which is what would have happened between most alliances who face a minor issue with a trade gone wrong, and decide to *not* barge in accusing of lies and making initial demands they themselves regard as high (as belied by the expectation of them being lowered). The "Kingdom" involves itself in crude bullying under the guise of an imaginary 2-year bogeyman. The mere fact that this went from a small nation reneging on his trade promises to you intimidating another alliance into handing over what a wide section of the world is condemning you for is a key indicator of that. The "best interests" of NSO should not have even entered the equation, and they only did so because of MK's excessive policies. Well, I haven't really seen any claims that the logs are fake, so I am not quite sure what was in question. Unless you are somehow trying to attribute that the element of choice removes the element of extortion - which would be ridiculous. Even if I were held at gunpoint I would still have the "choice" of dying on my feet, but that does not change the facts of the situation. An alliance which does not [b]make use[/b] of its power to intimidate everybody it interacts with over minor issues would have no such problem. The words of MK members in this thread do not seem to indicate that they are capable of being such an alliance. Indeed, the mere fact that this question keeps popping up shows how ingrained it is that "having power" = "using it to get our way" is in the minds of the Kingdom. Well done. [/quote] "Being of superior military strength does not distort negotiations except when it's MK" - Letum, 2010

With all this criticism, we're going to be swimming in reparations shortly!

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1289275432' post='2507200'] So we can take this as your admission of being 'the bad guys' ? [/quote] Sure, why not. Now what?

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1289274604' post='2507178'] You're not the same. IMO, you're worse. Because unlike NPO and friends, you lie through your teeth about it. [/quote] You do realise your side did exactly what you just accused us of, right? They never came out with "we're the bad guys, deal with it". In fact, the exact opposite was true; their actions were always dressed up in 'morality', 'community standards', 'threats to colour spheres and the cyberverse', and so on.

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1289273816' post='2507155'] Why are you people suprised by this? Seriously.....why? Oh thats right....MK was one of the most vocal about morality and whatnot during the 'karma' war.... Ok....continue being suprised by their aggressive actions, its totaly OK.....I understand. They are different from the old hegemony? They wanted you to think that. They fed you the right diet for such inane thoughts to sprout... [i][b][u]IF[/u] you are a mushroom[/b][/i] [/quote] Okay, for the moment, let's just pretend that the claim that we've ~become the monster~ and we're just as bad as you guys when you were in power isn't a blatant falsehood. If it's correct, why should anyone care when the alternative to us is a reversion back to the old hegemony, which is apparently just the same? What's the impetus for change? Just curious on how anyone still thinks claiming 'you're the same as us!' is a good strategy.

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1289273398' post='2507142'] We seem fine with it. But hey if you dont like it you're free to do something about it.[/quote] If you're fine with it, why all the complaining? Why not get down from the cross? I believe that's mhawk's territory, anyway. [quote name='Chron' timestamp='1289273398' post='2507142'] I know. Now just apply a bit more critical thinking and you should be able to figure it out. I hear you MKers dont need your hands held for the difficult stuff, right? This shouldn't be a problem. [/quote] I'll let you in on a secret. Posting a whole load of incomprohensible drivel that no one understands does not make you clever or gifted, it just makes you an idiot.

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289273053' post='2507131'] This is a false way of trying to sideline the issue. The possibility of a leeway does not remove the fact that intimidation was present as a tool within the discussion. That sort of logic would simply go back to the "you accepted it so it's alright" kind of thinking, which is the basis of bullying. The fact is that MK asked for something that is widely vilified as unreasonable, and were able to get it because of that intimidation. Holding a position of "we could have gone down to a more reasonable level" does not change the very simple fact that you employed intimidation tactics.[/quote] Again, what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable is subjective. Secondly, we cannot remove the fact that we are superior to NSO in every measure from the negotiations. As Ardus and I have both previously asked, what would you have us do? Decommission our military, reduce our economic efficiency, remove our treaties and friendships, and dumb ourselves down so that the Kingdom and NSO negotiated on an entirely even footing? As for trying to 'sideline the issue', I'll remind you that the beginning of this discussion was not regarding whether or not our military supremacy influenced our capacity to pursue our desires in the negotiation. You will find that I stated that in my very first posts. What the debate has been about is whether we were looking for any excuse to roll NSO. That has been refuted. Subsequently, you have been furrowing your brow in a lame attempt to understand the situation at hand, and throwing out accusations that have very little to do with the situation nor any basis in reality. [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289273053' post='2507131'] This is much more than just a "perception" of you guys having a good army. It is because you are expected to [b]make use[/b] of the brute force of all your allies if you do not meet your goals. This is why the attempts to sideline this issue by saying "we have an army, so what" are mere spin. It is not about merely [b]possessing power[/b], but the willingness to [b]use that power[/b] that causes this to be an intimidation tactic. And the presence of some leeway does not remove the fact that said desire existed.[/quote] Time and time again this ridiculous argument has been refuted. The very officials that took part in this negotiation have stated, incontrovertibly, that there was room for the New Sith Order to negotiation. They chose not to negotiate; rather, they saw an opportunity to play the victim, at the detriment of their own alliance, in order to maybe score a few PR points. You are operating under the same misguided assumption that Tygaland was, reading straight out of Alterego's copy of Henny Penny's Guide to International Politics. There is a very clear difference between possessing the capacity to use military force, and actually acting on that capacity. Merely having a top-notch military does not mean that an alliance will use said military at the drop of a hat. Again, I'll reiterate a point I made earlier. It is quite clear that your perception of what constitutes negotiation is still tainted by the precedents your own alliance set. The Kingdom does not involve itself in Pacifican 'negotiation' where an ultimatum is given at the beginning and there is no room for discussion. As has been stated numerous times, there was a clear opportunity for the New Sith Order to have a genuine, good faith discussion with our government regarding the nature of the final resolution. That opportunity was alive and kicking up until the point where it became clear that RV was more interested in playing the victim to score a few PR points than actually negotiating in the best interests of his own alliance. [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289273053' post='2507131'] Discussions with obscene demands and intimidation may be genuine, but they do not fulfil the requirements of good faith. These discussions were also a long way from being fair or on equal terms. Your repeated attempts to discredit arguments by questioning motivations will never manage to cloud that. [/quote] It is great to see you admit that the negotiation was genuine. It is also pleasing to see you acknowledge that the negotiations were not adhering to the principle of good faith; it is difficult to meet that criterion when one party refuses to negotiate because they have ulterior motives regarding gaining some PR points by playing the 'horribly-transgressed' victim. Again, how exactly would you suggest a larger alliance overcome this problem of negotiating on fair and equal terms when dealing with a smaller alliance? It is something that Pacifica has never seemed to master in the past - what with the ultimatums and [i]actual concrete evidence of martial means being used[/i] if demands were not met - but I am interested to see if you have come up with any solutions during your time outside of the dominant group of alliances.

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1289272952' post='2507127'] How unexpected, that we play hardball in wartime negotiations when we're presented with options that we find unsavory.[/quote] How's that working out for you? [quote name='Chron' timestamp='1289272952' post='2507127'] Hey I was responding to what you were saying, you tell me. [/quote] No, really. What you said makes absolutely no sense.

[quote name='Bavaricar' timestamp='1289272856' post='2507122'] 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> [/quote] 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 name='Chron' timestamp='1289272557' post='2507106'] Yeah, because we totally didnt learn our lessons the last few times we didn't take off the cuff threats seriously. Ha. First we're naive, then we're paranoid? Figure it out. [/quote] Maybe, just maybe, you guys should grow up, get over yourselves, and actually attempt some diplomacy rather than being intentionally difficult to work with in any discussion. Every single diplomatic conflict NSO has been involved in has been a result of your own childlike desires to somehow 'stick it to those new hegemonists'. The funny thing is, the only damage that has been dealt because of those tactics is to your own alliance. [quote name='Chron' timestamp='1289272670' post='2507116'] Similar to how pointing out your alliance affiliation will make it clear that, as someone who is supporting the clear aggressor in this situation, you are an individual who has no argumentative credibility whatsoever. I like it. We should use that more often. [/quote] what

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1289271104' post='2507053'] You do realise that bringing up someone's AA in no way invalidates their points, or strengthens yours in this situation. But do carry on, it is amusing to see you resort to 'HURR UR IN NPO LAWL' to somehow reinforce your failing argument. [/quote] Hey, guess what. Pointing out the alliance he belongs to (which is entirely valid, as it gives insight into his character and what he will and will not condone from the alliance he is a part of) was just one of several points refuting his claims.

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289271301' post='2507061'] I was responding directly to a post which suggested negotiating to a more reasonable level, so there isn't much subjectivity there.[/quote] There is a high degree of subjectivity in any discussion of what constitutes reasonable or unreasonable compensation and negotiation. [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289271301' post='2507061'] Oh, I see. You're trying to dismiss the implied threat of military force by making it seem like *any* form of army is a threat. This negotiation involved the element of MK's ability to curbstomp NSO being used to further MK's goals in the discussion. To have a different negotiation, all you would need is not introducing that element in the first place.[/quote] 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 name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1289270810' post='2507044'] I believe Tyga is saying that you were abusing your stronger position to force NSO to pay for something that should have been a non-issue. [/quote] No, that is not all of what Tyga has been saying. He has been claiming that we are looking for any excuse to roll NSO. That is blatant misinformation. [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289270818' post='2507045'] Not when your stronger negotiating position [i]is[/i] your military strength plus a fairly obvious desire to see NSO rolled. You can try and pretend the elephant in the room is not here but most if us can see it quite clearly. If this was anyone else but NSO I highly doubt you'd have pursued it anywhere near as aggressively as you have, if at all. [/quote] If this was anyone but NSO, I think the negotiations would have gone much smoother; NSO has a habit of being intentionally obtuse and difficult to work with. If they were negotiating in good faith, I imagine the resolution to this issue would have been quite different. I do not refute the idea that part of our negotiating strength is the disparity in strength and competence between the Kingdom and NSO. However, you seem to have this misguided idea stuck in your head that we wish to see NSO burn and that we are looking for any opportunity to see this wish fulfilled. If that was true, NSO would be in the process of being reduced to a crater as we speak. Again, drop the hyperbole and conspiracy theories. I would even be willing to accept your point that the level of compensation is high had you made your case without invoking Henny Penny. [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289270837' post='2507046'] For this to hold true, then your "superior negotiating position" would have to be backed by nothing but a bluff. Since I am assuming that is not true, then what is going on here is a 'negotiation' where your chances are 'augmented' by your "superior military" via that military being used if your goals are not met. That is called intimidation, and people not giving in would, in accordance with the above, result in an "excuse" for an attack. Given that the initial demand is unreasonable, that means that said excuse has been manufactured in accordance with a political goal, which is why this is so harshly criticised. The fact that the other party caved in before that point doesn't really change anything. Force is merely a tool to fulfil the hegemon's goals, force isn't a goal in itself.[/quote] This is a complete falsification. Firstly, you make the erroneous assumption that we would have immediately resorted to military action had the initial demands not been met. This has been refuted throughout the topic, where Kingdom officials have stated they entered the negotiation with the intention for there to be some back and forth regarding the final figure. You know, kind of the very definition of the word negotiation. Secondly, you ignore the fact that our chances of fulfilling our goals through negotiation are improved simply by the perception of superior military and diplomatic skill; it is not necessary for us to immediately resort to actual warfare. Lastly, there is still a difference, no matter what you and Tygaland may think, between seeking compensation for a transgression and looking for 'any excuse' to attack the New Sith Order. Overall, it is quite clear that your perception of what constitutes negotiation is still tainted by the precedents your own alliance set. The Kingdom does not involve itself in Pacifican 'negotiation' where an ultimatum is given at the beginning and there is no room for discussion. As has been stated numerous times, there was a clear opportunity for the New Sith Order to have a genuine, good faith discussion with our government regarding the nature of the final resolution. That opportunity was alive and kicking up until the point where it became clear that RV was more interested in playing the victim to score a few PR points than actually negotiating in the best interests of his own alliance.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1289270368' post='2507021'] Prove it. Walk away with a refund or a simple $3mil/50tech. If you do then perhaps we'll begin to believe you had no intentions to roll NSO. [/quote] what How in the world would lowering the level of compensation prove that?

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289270123' post='2507010'] Do you often begin 'negotiations' with unreasonable levels and an army at your back? Because that might give a clue as to why people don't bother. [/quote] Firstly, what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable is subjective. Secondly, what would you have us do? Drop our treaties and decommission our armed forces prior to negotiation? Lastly, a member of Pacifica harping on about negotiation buttressed by superior military force is a little rich.

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289269515' post='2506991'] When your "stronger negotiating position" is based on the threat of brute force, the difference might be very thin indeed. [/quote] Augmenting the chance of meeting our goals in negotiation due to our superior military does not equal looking for any excuse to roll NSO, as has been erroneously claimed by Tyga. If his claim was true, and we were looking for any excuse to attack NSO, we would not be interested in negotiation whatsoever. It's funny, really. We are labelled as some evil hegemon, while simultaneously being criticised as looking for any excuse to attack other alliances (who that alliance happens to be seems to change on a weekly basis, according to the fickle public). If we were the evil hegemon many claim us to be, we would have already rolled those alliances we apparently wish to see burn. We wouldn't bother with 'excuses'. The simple fact of the matter is that we really couldn't care less about attacking NSO. I realise that our detractors won't take my word for this, but the reality is that there are many other alliances we detest far more than NSO.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289268962' post='2506960'] I have criticised the "compensation" but that does not detract from the stronger bargaining position MK had compared to NSO when the resolution was "negotiated". I wonder what that stronger position could have been seeing as their complaint had no leg to stand on which counts out any perception of "right" being the reason for the strength of position in the negotiations. Must be something else...can't put my finger on it. I'll ask Alterego and see if he can help me out. [/quote] There's a difference between being in a stronger negotiating position and your ludicrous claim that we are looking for any excuse to roll NSO.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289267922' post='2506923'] I assumed everyone knew MK and allies are willing and ready to roll NSO whenever the oppotunity arises. [/quote] Oh, please. If that's what we wanted to do, we would have done it already. You would know as well as any that NSO aren't exactly shrewd when it comes to politics; barely a week goes by when they don't provide a reason for someone to declare war on them. Yet have we gone to war with NSO? No. Critise the decision regarding the level of compensation all you want, but drop the Alterego-like 'the sky is falling!' hyperbole.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1288775953' post='2500756'] You get the enemy you deserve and Im not much of an enemy. I guess that means you arent much of an alliance. After all it took most of the world to get you up from 2 years hunched over and on your knees, werent much of an opposition yourself. [/quote] Heh, get back to me when you are forced into rerolling after your alliance and your allies are pushed into disbanding, when PZI and EZI are regular practices, and curbstomps occur frequently and systematically on trumped-up justifications. How's that EZI that you consistently claimed that Karma would be enforcing on BAPS? Has the sky fallen yet? Besides, I'll remind you that when I previously took a leading role in toppling the dominant force - Pacifica and its allies - I did so within 3 months of myself and my alliance entering the Cyberverse (hint: I'm talking about LUE and the First Great War). So, I've done it twice. What have you done? You have faced an entirely benign opposition that simply sits back and laughs at your feeble attempts to form opposing coalitions, rather than attempt to crush them before they begin. And yet you still have not achieved a thing. In fact, I think you have probably even sent your cause backwards! Great job.

[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1288654756' post='2499357'] GOONS as an alliance, sets out to hunt down unallied targets for the purposes of casual warfare. That in mind, I am kind of surprised anyone here is really that angry at all. There are few sizable un-allied targets in the world, and even fewer which present a real challenge to an experienced and well supplied player. Reason would follow that methrage's and his compatriot's demonstration of selflessness in sacrificing their own nations for the personal enjoyment of the GOONS would have been welcomed. He has been kind enough to stick it out for some time. He has personally fought all the way down through the various NS tiers, dolling out the casualties as an added trophy as he went, and now that the fun has been exhausted it is only fitting to move on. But the banter of honorable sparing and free spirited combat is not the extent of the rewarding exchange he and the GOONS have had. As an act of good will hes even volunteered to be their personal tech farm and to sell them an immense amount of technology for well under market price. Moreover, throughout this entire extended episode Methrage has been a valiant warrior against the forces of boredom, creating a public spectacle worthy of GOON history, the result of which is this crude display of emotion and discontent worthy of the carnal arenas of past. The people upset here need to just cool off a bit, Methrage hasn't offended the GOONS in the slightest, in fact hes been a great agent of their desires. He doesn't deserve oblivion, or death, or anything of that sort. He deserves applause and accolades for the venerable hero of GOONland and Planet Bob that he is. [/quote] Wow, I can see why you got a promotion!

Congratulations to our friends in GOD and Genesis.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1288745877' post='2500281'] No, I'm telling you why our side made the offer it did. You're claiming that NPO not attacking Vanguard then was because ... well some reason that is in your delusions. I'm telling you I actually know why Vanguard got the offer that it did. chefjoe and I did all the work. NPO wasn't involved, incidentally. They just didn't care enough to want to attack you. That was my point. My point was that this has absolutely nothing to do with Pacifica. It's you who's paranoid that they're still coming to get you. [/quote] Wow, you're really all over the place here. 1) You had nothing to do with the Vanguard/Legion process besides being kept just informed enough so that Invicta would place its signature on the final agreement. 2) Pacifica and Valhalla did not attack Vanguard in the noCB War because: i) they were engaged elsewhere, ii) we shared mutual allies at the time: Ragnarok, TOP and Echelon, and iii) there was general disdain towards Legion and the rest of the Purple Sphere (I was getting fed logs of the main Coalition channel at the time, and my god did they say some interesting things about Legion/Invicta/UPN!). 3) Pacifica and Valhalla not attacking Vanguard during the noCB War thus does not prove that they were not looking for any excuse to roll us. Do you realise you are pointing to a major conflict, where both Pacifica and Valhalla were already militarily engaged, and saying "look, they didn't break 3 treaties to attack you in the middle of a global war!" as proof that Pacifica and Valhalla did not want to see Vanguard burn? 4) Vanguard did not "get the offer". We received a demand from Legion for $3billion, then $2billion in reparations. We laughed these demands off, and said we would only pay a token sum (in the area of what was eventually paid), or we would continue with the war and have Echelon, Ragnarok and GGA hit Legion/UPN/Invicta. As has been previously mentioned, the prime reason why we sought an end to a conflict we were quite clearly dominating is so that the aforementioned allies would not be fighting on multiple fronts (they were engaged elsewhere due to the nature of the noCB War). 5) Pacifica and Valhalla both worked assiduously, on numerous occasions, to isolate us in an attempt to have us rolled. Any government members from Ragnarok and Echelon that were in power at the time could testify to this fact. As Ragnarok and Echelon were mutual allies between Vanguard and Pacifica/Valhalla, they were often called upon to mediate conflicts (conflicts that would have erupted into war had there not been said treaty barriers). Ragnarok in particularl could testify to the lengths that Pacifica and Valhalla went to in trying to get Ragnarok (and many of our other allies) to cancel on us. 6) Hell, NPO et al would even go to alliances such as MK and GR and express just how much they desired to see us burn (this is post-noCB War), with not-so-subtle hints that the aforementioned alliances should drop their ties to us. 7) Your last claim makes absolutely no sense. Where exactly have we ever been talking about current-era Pacifica? I really don't see how you could possibly twist a discussion regarding the history of relations between Vanguard and Pacifica/Valhalla, and your consistent and perpetual irrelevancy, into something to do with paranoia regarding Pacifica "coming to get me". I mean, the main point of discussion, Vanguard, doesn't even exist any more. If you're going to try and make insults, at least put some thought into them. 8) You're an idiot. Stop running your mouth about issues you do not comprehend or have any knowledge of, and focus on getting Invicta out of Pacifica's collective colon and towards some sort of shape where one could call it a decent alliance without having a sarcastic smirk on one's face.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1288719768' post='2499971'] So, it is your contention that if Rafa hadn't joined my private channel that morning, there would have been a peace deal anyway? You're funny. Here's how it looks from my point of view. I got Vanguard to agree in principle to paying reps, and chefjoe helped Legion figure out a reasonable reps offer which you guys then accepted, having finally been moved from your white peace rock. [/quote] That's not what happened. At all. My God, you're delusional. You do realise you're trying to tell me - the person that was the one and only determinant in regards to what Vanguard would and would not sign - what we agreed to and why, right? If there was any person or alliance that influenced our decision, it was Universalis, who desired that we seek peace. You, The Legion, and UPN were in a piss-weak bargaining position due to the fact that we had Ragnarok, Echelon and GGA just bursting to join and declare on each of you. The reality of the situation is the only reason Invicta was ever included - similar to The Legion - is that you were given scraps of information due to the eventual need of your signature on the final document. But hey, keep on sucking up to Pacifica! One day you might be invited to the big boy's table.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1288701815' post='2499808'] I didn't talk to you. I talked to Rafael_Nadal, initiating peace talks between Legion, UPN, Invicta and Vanguard. Mere hours later, there was a peace agreement. Sorry, didn't need you. (All the actual work on our side to get terms to end the war was done by me and chefjoe.) [/quote] Hey, guess what. You spoke to Rafa (not QTUN or I; the high government at the time), because you were a secondary concern that had no impact on the peace process. Crap rolls down hill in a chain of command and, unfortunately for him, Rafa was the one stuck speaking to you. I'm sure one of the perks of Rafa rising to Sovereign (and a good one, at that) later on down the line was the opportunity for him to delegate downwards such displeasing responsibilities