Denial

It's nice to see Feanor up there again.

Here's a few I still have for some reason: [img]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz304/Revanche23/Mario.jpg[/img] [IMG]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz304/Revanche23/LeaguePrevails.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz304/Revanche23/League.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz304/Revanche23/35jh7x1.gif[/IMG]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1286958060' post='2483411'] It's obviously a fragile bloc. Hell I'm surprised you got together in the first place. The notion that VE and FOK/iFOK would throw in with the likes of PC and GOONS really is distasteful. And to think I once had some respect for you guys...[/quote] I am sure each and every member of Pandora's Box is now regretting the decision to form the bloc after hearing they have lost the respect of someone of your standing.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1286958919' post='2483419'] Really? Really? What did you have invested in the \m/-NpO war? and again, what did you have invested in the \m/-STA incident? In both cases nothing, nothing at all short of treaties chaining, and that wasn't the case. Yet in both cases MK came in heavy and at a serious political cost to us. [/quote] I'm pretty sure the 'political cost' of those incidents were a direct result of your own stupidity. In both circumstances, Mushroom Kingdom acted as a mediator attempting to avoid heightened conflict that would be to the detriment of both sides. The fact that you are trying to equate curbstomps to some used political capital - which was in fact wasted by the alliance complaining, not reduced by any third party - is downright hilarious. That's all you've got on us, really? We hurt your feelings after you acted like morons? Get your hand off it.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1286957851' post='2483409'] That's not quite true, there are several incidents over the last year where MK forced its view on alliances with issues and said issues had zero MK involvement. Just because you haven't "rolled" a alliance doesn't mean you haven't had a dramatic negative impact on it. [/quote] I'll echo Voytek and ask you to actually back up your claims by naming those alliances and how we've had a "dramatic negative impact" on them.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1286956638' post='2483403'] [color="#0000FF"]NPO did the same thing, but that doesn't mean they didn't have certain alliances within their sights prior to that, however. And that is what I am saying in regards to PB and #stratego. Although I must say that it is humorous to see an MK member talking as if he is a member. I suppose it is no longer a secret where MK lies on the spectrum.[/color] [/quote] There are quite obviously alliances we dislike, but unlike other alliances - pre-Karma NPO, GGA, Valhalla, and so on - we don't use that as motivation to fabricate justification for war against those alliances. The history of Mushroom Kingdom and, more importantly, the history of Mushroom Kingdom since the Karma War, demonstrates that we are happy to leave alliances alone as long as they leave us alone. If we were an aggressive alliance void of any ethical standards, The Legion would have been rolled as many times in 2010 as they were in 2007.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1286956273' post='2483398'] [color="#0000FF"]You could, but you won't. For the simple reason that doing so would cost you most of your political capital, and could also potentially backfire. Therefore you will do exactly as I say, and wait for the individual alliances involved to provide you with a CB, or at least an excuse, to do as you wish. PB may be a lot of things, but stupid it is not.[/color] [/quote] So, what you're saying is that we won't attack anyone until an alliance gives us a concrete and valid reason to? Yeah, pretty much.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1286951474' post='2483356'] [color="#0000FF"]It's only a matter of time really. [b]You're not able to use #stratego itself as a CB.[/b] Not if you're hitting alliances on at a time, but I'm quite sure all alliances there have found themselves on a list, if they weren't already. For some reason I doubt you fellows are going to sit back and ignore alliances you know to be enemies.[/color][/quote] Sure we could. But we aren't and, in regards to your mistaken analysis, therein lies the rub. [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286949654' post='2483332'] Its people like you and Stumpy who are saying bring it on. It takes real guts to say thay when most of the world who have twice devastated any potential opposition in the last 18 months simply by weight of numbers.[/quote] wat Okay, what I think you are trying to say here is that the 'opposition' has been crushed twice in 18 months. Let me hit you with some knowledge. Firstly, that's what wars do; one side inevitably loses. Secondly, eighteen months is a rather long time. Yes, the Karma and BiPolar wars were substantial and game-changing, but alliances like MK, TOP and NpO have shown how easy it is for a decent alliance to rebuild and remain politically significant even under the burden of reparations. Lastly, maybe if you stopped relying on the same rag-tag bunch of misfits from 18 months ago, you might be able to do something more than moan on about 'curbstomps' and 'extortion' that never actually happened. Want to know why you're still in opposition? Because after a year and a half you still haven't found even one single useful propaganda tool, let alone a viable strategy. [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286949654' post='2483332'] Your excessive beatdowns and extortive reps demands from key alliances have guaranteed your dream of another beatdown will not happen unless you just decide to roll another alliance trying to get their allies sucked into the war. Why dont you tell all the dozens of fringe alliances around your 3 blocs to get lost and when the numbers are no longer 3 to 1 in your favour you might have the potential of an opposition forming.[/quote] Excessive beatdowns? You mean the Karma War, where Pacifica was brought down to just under sanctioned alliance status? Or the BiPolar War, where TOP suffered the same [i]terrible[/i] injustice of falling out of top 12 alliances for a small period of time? Need I remind you that in both cases, the alliances that received these putative 'beatdowns' were in fact the initial aggressors? If the Karma and BiPolar wars - two of the closest and least predictable wars we have had since the first two Great Wars - are your idea of 'excessive beatdowns', then I would hate to see what you call what happened to alliances in the One Vision/GATO War, the myriad stompings of Legion, the noCB War, and so on. I'm beginning to think you use the term 'excessive beatdown' synonymously with 'war which Alterego was on the losing side of'. As for your last assertion, it really is indicative of how pathetically incompetent you people are. You expect me and my alliance to specifically demand that alliances go and join your side? How about you do some damned work instead of !@#$%*ing incessantly on the forums about things that have never happened, and will never happen. Heh, I am suddenly reminded of your campaign against the forces of Karma based on the fact that we were going to EZI every BAPS member. Ah, you are a comedy goldmine. [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286949654' post='2483332'] I didnt you notive you complaining about the opposition when you were being torn up in the last war. [/quote] I don't even know what that is meant to mean. If you are referring to the BiPolar War, didn't you just state that it was an 'excessive beatdown' on our part? But not we got 'torn up'? Make up your mind, fool.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286941030' post='2483173'] First, I haven't seen anyone post around here that I would consider my "better" in a very long time. I am an egotistical, arrogant sociopath that manipulates people for my personal entertainment when I am bored - finding my equal among the befuddled masses is no small task. But keep trying. Second, I made no demands whatsoever. You highlighted that having two major conflicts in a year and a half was somehow an exceptional exploit on the part of the stat collectors currently running the Cyberverse. I made a sarcastic comment because I believe such an evaluation to be "shortsighted and plagued by incompetence" from the point of view of those that like to think that those that "possess guns" actually should use them. The experience that I speak from is having nearly a decade of actionable effectiveness in venues such as this where I have observed and created multiple situations that drove the underlying currents of the realm at large, sometimes for good, mainly not, always to be entertaining. In regards to your specific point, I would simply counter that by asking what you ever did independently without someone else holding your hand that you can show for it. I have three fine examples in my signature, each of which I am proud of here. The fact that an alliance can make a mistake, take a real beating and still stand proud is a sign of something better than just having the most guns at this particular point in history anyway, in my opinion. The number of guns can change over time, integrity and resolve rarely do. [/quote] You make me laugh, I'll give you that. Though somehow I don't think that's your intention.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286940236' post='2483158'] *rollseyes* First, I have no guns. Second, anyone that knows anything about this place knows that if I did have guns, they would be firing. That is just how it is. Considering that the term "hegemony" can refer to myriad social/economic/militaristic structures don't you believe it is time to perhaps give up the concept in the context from which you are utilizing it? The apparatus you describe has not existed coherently in nearly two years. And the one that has replaced it is every bit as capable of pushing the same forms of "atrocities" as those you bemoan when it suits them. I speak on that from experience. [/quote] Capable? Yes. Has the dominant force done that? No. The only experience you speak from is creating an alliance that is so short-sighted and plagued by incompetence that rather than devise a plan and set some goals that may lead to success, you try and 'taunt' larger alliances by doing idiotic things like aiding rogue nations. Great job! And to use your analogy, if you don't have 'guns', and aren't attempting to get some 'guns', then you are really in no place to be criticising how those that do possess guns are using them. Stop demanding that your betters fight themselves for your entertainment. If you want entertainment, create some. Either by bringing the fight to your betters, or hey, how about all you fine gentlemen complaining about the 'stagnant Cyberverse' fight amongst yourselves? Or maybe are you attempting (rather poorly) to utilise the idea of 'stagnancy' and the 'lack of conflict' as a political tool?

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286939601' post='2483151'] Wow, two whole wars in a year and a half? Amazing. [/quote] Two wars that changed the face of the Cyberverse where the results were by no means determined before the first shots were fired. Compared to the era of the Hegemony, which while comprised of more wars, those conflicts were pre-determined with the opponents severely outnumbered. The former provided entertainment and political dynamism for a sustained period of time, whereas the latter only contributed a small, short-lived buzz for the alliances that were fabricating the justification upon which they curbstomped others. Again, as I said to Alterego, if you want more conflict, get your !@#$ together and bring it.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1286904642' post='2482600'] The people who told the joke are mocking the subjects of it. And granted, there will always be suckers for such nonsense, but it doesn't really make it funny to anyone besides yourselves. It stopped being funny a while ago, now it's more annoying than anything. Especially when you can only draw a response by poorly hinting at the 'joke' several times first, and then you proceed to mock anyone who bothers to respond to your 'hints.' [/quote] So we can simultaneously entertain ourselves and annoy you and your ilk? It sounds like the best of both worlds. [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286905141' post='2482611'] Would you let them or would they be crushed at the slightest hint of a conversation regarding such a thing being mooted? With most of the world and the big 3 blocs of PB/C&G/SF all on the same side of the world a proper opposition is obviously not something thats wanted. After 18 months of inaction & curbstomps it looks like another 18 months of inaction & curbstomps is on the cards unless the three blocs question and their respective entourages part ways. The losers in the last war six months ago are still under terms so you should get back to reality and realise there will be no opposition to this super bloc of three blocs. [/quote] Firstly, do you see any of the alliances present in the #stratego discussions being crushed? Secondly, in the last 18 months we have had two entirely world-changing major wars, with a couple of near-misses. If you desire more conflict, I would recommend you assemble all your incompetent friends and start devising some sort of effective strategy beyond screaming about injustice that doesn't exist and fighting invisible monsters. Lastly, being an effective opposition is never just about relying on those alliances that are already fully committed to your cause; rather, it is about putting pressure on the weakspots of the dominant force and persuading peripheral alliances over to your side.

My money is on Mushroom Kingdom.

So, um, what was the point of that tirade, exactly? 1. When talking about an alliance, the terms "reduce to useless fragments", "injure beyond repair or renewal", "ruin", "render ineffective or useless", "invalidate", "defeat completely" and so on point towards forcing disbandment to me. To use one example, to render an alliance ineffective or useless would essentially mean to push it to the point where it could not protect its own members or live up to the aims in its charter. This would lead to disbandment, as we have seen in the past. If the aforementioned terms are not applicable to alliance disbandment, I would hate to see the words you would use to relate to disbandment! 2. What the hell are you even talking about here? Seriously, you're all over the place. 3. I'll be sure to rearrange my post according to your standards next time!

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286713493' post='2480339'] Ok so your application wasnt vetoed by VE? [/quote] [img]http://www2.fileplanet.com/images/110000/119394ss_sm2.jpg[/img] Sometimes it's about mind games.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1286696419' post='2480252'] [color="#0000FF"]I've made it quite clear that I do not seek to disband GOONS. I merely wish for them to reform their ways, and be removed from a position of power. Also, that was well over three years ago, and I left due to the fact I did not like the way they did things. I saw the actions as wrong then, and I see them as wrong now. But if you must reach for straws Mr. Denial, please be my guest.[/color] [/quote] That's not what you said amongst the other anti-GOONS conspirators. Though, I must acknowledge you did slightly raise the average IQ level up from 40 when you entered that room. [quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1286696621' post='2480255'] Moralist. "Kill or Be Killed." [/quote] Sorry, I am a proud invisible hegemonist.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1286695548' post='2480244'] [b]You must think anyone in favor of executing murderers are hypocrites as well or anyone willing to use a punishment on only someone who has done that same punishing action onto others undeserved[/b]. Have you heard the phrase "an eye for an eye" before and understood the principle behind the saying? I think the same could apply here and in general when dealing with alliances who try forcing excessive reps onto others. [/quote] Yes I do. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1286695120' post='2480237'] Did he say disband? I thought he just said "Destroy", with the context referring to the outcome of a military engagement. Or are you saying that if GOONS is ever in a losing war, it will very likely disband then and there? [/quote] Okay, firstly, if you want to play semantics, you might want to learn the meaning of the word you are debating. Destroy: 1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate. 2. to put an end to; extinguish. 3. to kill; slay. 4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate. 5. to defeat completely. Notice how all of them point towards pursuing disbandment? Anyway, the discussion of semantics is irrelevant, as RV makes his intentions even more clear a number of other times: <%Rebel_Virginia> As much as we agree GOONS needs to go, we need to win this thing. <@HeroofTime55> We have to kill GOONS <%Rebel_Virginia> We agree. <%Rebel_Virginia> GOONS must die. So, are you going to try and argue "kill" and "die" now means "hug lovingly"?

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1286693152' post='2480226'] Considering the subjective nature of morality, so long as Rebel Virginia's actions are in line with his personal beliefs, that it is impossible for him to be disingenuous when discussing morality on that "revelation" alone. [/quote] "GOONS force micro-alliances to disband, they are terrible!" "We must disband GOONS!" That's not an example of moral relativism, that's a textbook case of hypocrisy.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1286671475' post='2480018'] [color="#0000FF"]Would you care to enlighten me on how I was responsible or complicit with the NPO's old hegemony? Because this certainly is news to me.[/color] [/quote] I would point you towards pre-blue text and loyal Pacifican Rebel Virginia. Also, after the recent revelation that you have a clear goal of disbanding GOONS, I could point you towards current era Rebel Virginia as being disingenuous when bleating about morals.

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1286607559' post='2479498'] The best part of the logs in my opinion is the part about demanding 90m for every day at war. "Guys, were the biggest moralists on the planet right?" 2 minutes later "I got a good idea, next time GOONS screw up lets charge them 30x more than they would ask from us for the same situation. That'll show the world just how moralist we are right?" Seriously, drop the hypocritcal moralist act, it's getting old. [/quote] You mean the people responsible or complicit in the worst aspects of the pre-Karma era aren't legitimate when they now harp on about morals? I refuse to believe it [img]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz304/Revanche23/colbert.gif[/img]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286584986' post='2479242'] This has been happening since 2006, and having large paperless alliances just makes it a bit harder to work out the sides (and also ensures that if those alliances enter and lose they'll stay down for longer, probably). But that wasn't actually what I meant – I meant that by having publically known treaties you can make a better case for being the defensive side and get more support to your side, making you more likely to win. For example look at GW2; Fark were clearly the primary defender but because LUE hadn't announced their treaty, they lost the legal argument about defence and half the League abandoned them. Aloha: in such a case, MK would be defended if and only if their friends (former allies) were completely sure that they'd win the resulting war. For example if NPO attacked and they were sure they could get significant SG support, most of them would defend; if Pandora's Box attacked, they probably wouldn't. (That's an intentionally ridiculous example before someone runs in to point out Umbrella's, GOONS' and GOD's friendships with MK.) Like how all VE's friends didn't actually defend it when the hegemon of the day decided to roll them. [/quote] AirMe has already covered most of what needs to be said, but I'll also correct you on your claim about The League. The fact that LUEnited Nations fought alone on the battlefield while other League signatories sought peace had nothing to do with losing some 'legal argument'; rather, it was because LUE realised it was the prime target of NPO and GOONS, and as such, bargained peace for its allies at the expense of having to face weeks of war alone and rather harsh surrender terms. It was better that we took the hit rather than the entirety of The League and associated alliances.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1286592013' post='2479319'] Oh and regarding the OP...so what has NPO done lately to make itself relevant again? You can talk propaganda all day if you like, but if MK's behavior is so transparent, what's the plan for doing something about it beyond this analysis? [/quote] We hold an invisible treaty with NPO.

And I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. We do not work that way.

[quote name='Cornelius' timestamp='1286513527' post='2478623'] The alliance on the paper is worth more than the paper, you're right. [b]I think the point Dam is trying to make is that a written agreement from you is worth more than a verbal one[/b]. If nobody put any stock in treaties, there would be no treaties. [/quote] Then Mr Damsky is talking out of his ass.