Denial

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1288697657' post='2499792'] Yes, I had no involvement in that war whatsoever, and didn't coordinate the successful peace talks that ended it. Right. [/quote] Yeah, that's pretty much correct. You didn't coordinate a damn thing, much like Invicta's Minister of Defence. Not once did I ever talk to you. The actual peace negotiations occurred largely between Vanguard, Echelon, Ragnarok and Valhalla. Legion was included every now and then for the sake of appearances. Look, your previous statement displays nothing but ignorance. You are trying to use the fact that NPO and Valhalla didn't touch Vanguard [b]in the middle of a global war[/b] as the basis of an argument that Pacifica and Valhalla were entirely benevolent towards Vanguard and its allies. That is utter !@#$%^&*. There were three reasons why NPO and Valhalla did not attack Vanguard in response to Vanguard defending Universalis against The Legion: i) they were militarily engaged elsewhere, ii) Vanguard held treaties with Ragnarok, Echelon and TOP at the time, each of which were allied to NPO and Valhalla, and iii) no one really cares about The Legion. But then, I shouldn't expect you to know any better, because you are, and always have been, entirely irrelevant and precluded from discussions of any real meaning. Everyone considers you a joke, even your own allies. I think you would probably even be able to get Valhalla to admit to the fact that "let's try to roll Vanguard" was pretty much a bimonthly activity for them. I no longer hold it against them, and look back on it with amusement (mostly because they were never successful ), but that does not mean it never happened.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1288624207' post='2499013'] Uh yeah. Shall we bring up the time when you attacked an MDP partner of both Pacifica and Valhalla, and then they didn't roll you as evidence for how they were both desperately trying to roll you, or was that just a smokescreen? [/quote] Oh, piss off. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1288579910' post='2498666'] Maybe I do, maybe I don't -- in this instance I'm not asking to confirm or refute an opinion I already have, but to ask what your guys' opinion on the matter is. You've said you see a difference, but no one seems to saying precisely what that difference is. What were you able to figure out with a full clearing of the decks that you couldn't imagine/decide upon before one? [/quote] That's really none of your concern. I've already explained as much as I can without blatantly laying out information that is restricted to the Kingdom and its allies. The important thing is that you seem to be willing to acknowledge how there could have (and has been) a difference in the re-evaluation process by dissolving all of our treaties several weeks ago. I have been honest and as forthcoming with information as possible, but I cannot really divulge anything further. But then, I don't think you [i]really[/i] expected an answer that comprised a whole load of sensitive information.

MK will be placing the entirety of BAPS on our EZI list.

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1288557497' post='2498225'] How would it have been any different? [/quote] You don't see how there would be a difference between the two? As I said, there are reasons we have re-signed the particular treaties we have so far decided to re-sign. Many of those reasons are a reflection of the last month. The Kingdom is not only removing contradictions from its foreign policy, but also charting a new path towards an entirely new vision for the Cyberverse. It is inevitable that some alliances will wish to contribute to this new vision, while others won't. Also, as I've mentioned previously, it is my personal hope that the dissolution of treaties and our actions since then (and from here on out) will serve to shake up the Cyberverse a little. Maybe create a bit of conflict somewhere down the line. Because, let's face it, when our detractors consist on people like HoT and Alterego, we're not going to get any real opposition unless we create it ourselves.

I don't understand soccer, but I do like being yelled at by kamichi. The loss by Real Vanguard to MK Dons in the final of the Castle Fairgrounds Premier League is still a damned outrage, though. Especially after Real Vanguard's unstoppable winning streak prior to that final.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288500708' post='2497820'] The only reason someone cancels treaties just to sign new treaties is to strategically reposition themselves. The only reason they would cancel ALL of their treaties and then re-sign with half of the same people is so that they can try to not hurt the feelings so much of the people they intend on ditching. Trying to avoid burning bridges, basically. But it's really thin and I don't think they're buying it. [/quote] Just think about it for a second. If even someone as daft as you was able to come to the conclusion that dissolving all treaties in order to avoid 'hurt feelings' would be entirely transparent, do you [i]really[/i] think that we would have pursued such a course of action? The Foreign Affairs Department of the Mushroom Kingdom is by far the most talented this game has ever seen; it consists of the [b]former leaders[/b] of LUE, TOP, Vanguard, Viridian Entente, TDSM8, Nueva Vida and Kronos, to name just a few. Even the vast majority of our entry-level Envoys have high level government experience. We know what we're doing. In the end, I should probably take comfort in the fact that our detractors don't possess the cognitive capacity to get past the idea that this was some sort of half-assed PR stunt.

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1288464674' post='2497412'] The people you canceled on would be frustrated as you stated, but just because they're "reasonable" doesn't mean they won't be upset. [/quote] Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. What I also said is that fact that we surrounded ourselves with reasonable, mature friends would prevent some sort of 'massive PR hit' that we've supposedly been trying to avoid from ever eventuating. This, in combination with the other points I have already outlined, makes the idea that we dissolved all of our treaties due to 'PR' concerns absolutely ludicrous. [quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1288464674' post='2497412'] This could set up a new pathway for them to see things from a different perspective and perhaps down the road side against the Kingdom.[/quote] If that occurs, then I would personally say that the dissolution of our treaties reached one of its objectives.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1288452923' post='2497288'] I thought I just said I was assuming. You [i]can't[/i] read. Luckily for both of us though, this argument has exhausted its usefulness so I'll stop here. EDIT: No, I did say it. Oh well. [/quote] You do realise that saying that your argument is an 'assumption' does not preclude you from having people point out you're incorrect, right? [quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1288483095' post='2497597'] It still seems like a reasonable question to ask why you didn't just do the evaluating/soul-searching/etc. that you felt was necessary and then just drop the treaties you decided not to keep. [/quote] Because that would not have allowed re-evaluation to the depth that we felt necessary. The past three weeks have been a worthwhile experience. The treaties we have signed over the past couple of days are a reflection of that process.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1288445793' post='2497225'] Obviously you had strategic goals, nor I am saying otherwise. No one would have the trouble of cancelling as many treaties as you did if they didn't have strategic goals in mind. That said, one thing doesn't stop the other and you seem to have missed what I wrote when I said it was a small scale PR move aimed at your former allies and not the public in general. So I am not sure what massive PR hits and not taking them have to do with anything, but good for you. [/quote] No, I did not miss what you wrote. You have stated that we had a PR gain (or, at least, an attempt to avoid a PR hit) in mind when choosing to dissolve our treaties. I have laid out a number of reasons explicating why this is not the case. I really don't see how you have the audacity to claim that you know more about our intentions than we do. It's quite laughable.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1288441936' post='2497177'] Actually it would mean that MK didn't have the courage to cancel treaties they didn't want to keep and to overcome that shortage they went around and cancelled all treaties to only re-sign a few selected while leaving out those they didn't have the courage to cancel. I wouldn't say that you made your policy based on how much the public would complain, but how your cancelled allies would feel about it. It's a small (or medium, you did have alot of treaties) scale one, but still a PR move. [/quote] Or, alternatively, we did it for reasons other than PR! I know this might be hard for those of you who base your decisions on the changing whims of the public to grasp, but we had clear strategic objectives in mind when pursuing this path. In addition to what Voytek mentioned, you make the erroneous assumption that we lack the stomach for cancelling treaties. That flies in the face of the fact that we cancelled quite a few of them in the last 12 months. And what massive PR hits we took for that! Oh, wait.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1288434690' post='2497108'] What about what your allies thought? Im sure they didnt like being ditched en masse in such an dismissive fashion because MK said they wanted to clean up the treaty web only to see them come back and going on a treaty splurge 3 weeks later. Good luck ODN [/quote] I'm... I'm almost at a loss for words here. You do realise that simply omitting parts of my post doesn't mean they no longer exist, right? I already dealt with that [b]exact[/b] ridiculous argument in my post. In that part you conveniently left out of the quote.

[quote name='PrinceArutha' timestamp='1288381966' post='2496566'] harry harper was an old denizen of planet bob. a popular member of planet bob and of NpO. [/quote] That's using the term 'popular' rather loosely.

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1288418191' post='2497015'] We have a winner! [/quote] This idea that we dissolved all of our treaties purely as a method of dropping a few of them while avoiding a 'PR hit' is inherently flawed. Firstly, it assumes that there would have been a 'PR hit' by us cancelling some treaties. Where would this terrible PR hit come from, exactly? Mushroom Kingdom would have been ridding itself of treaties, slightly breaking apart this 'hegemony' that supposedly exists, which is something that our detractors would be celebrating. So, who would be responsible for the tirades and 50-page long threads of criticism that is usually associated with a 'PR hit'? Yes, those alliances that we hypothetically would have cancelled on would likely be frustrated, but MK has surrounded itself with rather sensible friends that generally express such feelings in private venues. Secondly, it assumes that we care in the slightest bit what the Alteregos, the PrideAssassins, the Haflingers, the HoTs, the ChairmanHals, etc. of this Cyberverse think. Here's a hint: we don't. We formulate and execute policies that are within the best interests of the Kingdom. We do not formulate and execute policies on the basis of how much or how little complaining they will provoke from the public.

[quote name='Some-Guy' timestamp='1288415831' post='2496987'] TOP had a PZI list? [/quote] Indeed they did. I spoke with Lemeard for an extended period of time attempting to remove myself from it, but I was told NPO and GOONS (the original version) were pressuring them to maintain my spot on said list. Strangely enough, it was that interaction that eventually led to quite a good friendship between Lemeard and I. Edit: I must acknowledge, however, that TOP would have been fairly lax in enforcing such a policy, if it weren't for NPO and GOONS v1. I got the feeling that while disliking me, they didn't particularly care if I was allowed to rebuild and join an alliance or not.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288415420' post='2496980'] I'm still not sure what you were trying to say, my post basically implied that the seeming literal meaning was absurd, and that I wouldn't even credit you with an idea so ridiculous. I do hope I'm not mistaken in that. [/quote] I'll let you in on a little secret. When people mention the pronoun Hegemony, they are referring to Pacifica and its group of allies that dominated the game from 2007 to 2009. Those alliances, in general, are still alive and kicking, despite their switch from domination to irrelevancy. That was the literal meaning. Or you could somehow understand the post to mean that I believe that NPO is still in control of the game. Sounds sensible!

[quote name='Style #386' timestamp='1288414389' post='2496965'] Can we bring back Vanguard? [/quote] That's the rumour. I really have no idea where people get this stuff from.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288413503' post='2496954'] He's oppressing me! Did you see him oppressing me? (Besides the fact that I already stated I view it as nothing more than prepubescent chest-puffing) Oh, and while we're at it, I did enjoy the "irrelevant leech on the underbelly of the Hegemony" line. I might just have to make another sig out of that, I think it's an instant classic. [b]Was a little confused by the "not much has changed" bit, unless Denial means to imply NPO and Co. are still running this show?[/b] [/quote] It is quite clear that the Invisible Hegemony is now in control.

[quote name='Sentinal' timestamp='1288412159' post='2496928'] What really was the point of canceling all your treaties when you're just going to resign them? [/quote] We are literally resigning every treaty we've ever had. Literally.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288410501' post='2496873'] At any rate, I'm sure someone somewhere has IRC logs of NPO stifling speech if such situations occurred as often as you claim, feel free to PM me them if you can come up with any, I would be honestly curious to read them. [/quote] My own history is enough evidence. I was placed on the PZI list of all Initiative signatories, with the exception of VE, following my commentary in the post-Great War era. As were many of my comrades. The result was that we had to reroll, and even then, we were constantly threatened because i) we spoke our minds, and ii) because certain people would not let our previous identities go. I'm not in the habit of maintaining logs from years back, but any of our allies at the time - specifically, Ragnarok and Echelon - could attest to the fact that Pacifica, Valhalla, and others, were looking for any excuse to roll us. Similar experiences were had in the early days of the Mushroom Kingdom, to the point where they created an entire department that was focused on monitoring what was said in public venues. I realise you were just an irrelevant leech on the underbelly of the Hegemony during that era (not much has changed, I guess), and thus probably weren't privy to much of the information regarding their actions, yet to claim that there was anywhere near the freedom to express dissent back then as there is now is just blatant misinformation.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288409026' post='2496852'] Right, and NPO and friends also never attacked people just for saying things either. Yet everyone always whined about how the NPO was somehow 'oppressing' them. Not that I think you're oppressing me, because I don't, just as NPO never really oppressed anyone else's speech, they just puffed out their chests in the same way you do now, tossing veiled threats whenever something is said that they didn't like.[/quote] You might have a point if there weren't countless examples of individuals being placed on PZI lists for their commentary on the forum during that era. Not to mention the more private threats of war against entire alliances if one or two members happened to post something that wasn't favourable towards Pacifica. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288409026' post='2496852'] If you want my analysis of what this treaty does, well, it does interesting things. For one, MK can never be allowed into PB with this treaty active, because if they did join, it would create a clear hierarchy within the bloc. Now, some alliances, like FOK's vassal state, are used to second class status, but I don't think VE's massive ego can work with being a second-rate member. Remember, VE wants to run the show, and as much as they mock with their stale little "VEto" joke, it's been confirmed by the leak from their membership. Beyond that, it has the slightest potential to help tear apart PB in the distant future. If this was a four member treaty with a third member of PB, that capacity would be extended greatly, but with only 2 signatories, it's weak at best. For those who would laugh at this idea, just look what the UJP did to WUT. Beyond being a smaller fraction, PB also benefits from it's infancy. But eventually, with MK being prohibited from joining by the aforementioned tiering that would occur, this agreement will work against PB. Syncing is not possible in the long term, and it is always the bigger bloc that collapses first. [/quote] Hahaha. You really have no clue whatsoever. I almost pity you; it's a little like watching a UPN member trying to figure out the war system.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1288407112' post='2496827'] Considering that HeroofTime55's post is, partially, correct, why didn't you join Pandora's Box? [/quote] We're still a little touchy about the VEto, obviously.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288406682' post='2496822'] GOONS and Umbrella will always stand by VE, PC, FOK, and its vassal state. MK will always stand by GOONS and Umbrella. Therefore, MK will always stand by VE, PC, FOK, and its vassal state. VE, PC, FOK, and its vassal state will all stand by MK for similar reasons. It's the transitive property of treaties, and everyone knows full well what kind of relationship exists between the signatories of this agreement. Trying to deny it is a massive stretch of logic and reality. [/quote] If that was the case, don't you think we would have joined Pandora's Box?

We have an obligation to defend GOONS and Umbrella. We do not have an obligation to defend VE, iFOK and PC (nor do they have an obligation to defend us). The difference is as simple as that.

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1288374048' post='2496463'] Congratz and all nice treaty and such but why not just sign with the bloc instead of becoming defacto members. Yes i realise its non chaining but really like any of the above AAs wouldnt join in anyway. I do like the board access part to the treaty shows a lot of trust and solid foundations for future relations between the three. [/quote] You have the capacity to be a reasonable person, Buds, so I'm sure you can tell the difference between these Accords and being a member of Pandora's Box. [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1288374496' post='2496466'] What a suprise.... This is totaly innovative and on the cutting edge of progress for sure lol NOT. [/quote] [img]http://watchboratonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/borat-high-five.jpg[/img] [quote name='We Are Not Alone' timestamp='1288380343' post='2496546'] Its almost like they never left. Well it was nice having MK gone for a whole few weeks. Also I could've called this treaty from a mile away. Lines being drawn obviously. [/quote] Predicting that MK would sign treaties with our closest friends? My God, you're like some sort of prophet.