Denial

[quote name='Ejayrazz' timestamp='1286240612' post='2474890'] Does this mean you'll leave us Ninjas alone? [/quote] Hahaha. No.

Stage 1 of our newest clever plot to set up IRON is complete.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286201644' post='2474202'] If anyone takes this picture seriously they have serious issues. I did laugh out loud when I saw it though. [/quote] It's pretty much the best Cyberverse-related image I've ever seen.

[quote name='Some-Guy' timestamp='1286147539' post='2473560'] You guys are way dumb, the imagery is pretty simple to understand. Collectively the six alliances are Pandora and they are 'subtly' letting everyone know that they have access to another hidden weapon that they can call on if needed. So the real question is: who's the secret seventh signatory - The alliance that's hidden in the box? [/quote] Paradox Kingdom imo

[quote name='Xerxer' timestamp='1285985703' post='2471791'] You could start by pointing out where exactly the rubbish is, then maybe we'd have something... [/quote] I'd begin with the entirety of the original post.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1285981419' post='2471729'] [color="#0000FF"]It should come as no surprise that Xerxer's former friends and allies are coming out in an attempt to discredit him. It is common practice against those who dare speak the truth to the public.[/color] [/quote] It's also common practice against those who spew a whole load of rubbish.

[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1285959175' post='2471285'] The gameplay is lame.[/quote] Pretty much this. The moral crusaders and propagandists can harp on about tech raiding or whatever else driving hordes of people out of the game, but any impact tech raiding may have is a drop in the bucket compared to the [i]thousands[/i] of players that quit the game because: i) the gameplay does not hold anyone's attention for that long, ii) it is bordering on impossible for a new player to catch up to the largest nations, and iii) there have been zero meaningful updates in the last 18 months.

[quote name='Anu Drake' timestamp='1285933242' post='2470961'] Don't call it a comeback, everyone's been here for years. But I do get your point on the rising levels. It's as if someone has opened a box that they shouldn't have. What's that box name I'm looking for... [/quote] [IMG]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz304/Revanche23/haw-1.gif[/IMG] Any claim that levels of tech raiding have risen is absolute nonsense. I challenge anyone making those claims to produce some concrete data. Anyone that has been: 1) around long enough to remember previous eras and 2) is not purposely ignoring facts to suit their political agenda, would realise that the prevalence of tech raiding has remained relatively constant. What changes is how much people either brag (think of the former incarnation of GOONS and \m/ in the Unjust Path era) or complain (think of right now) about the practice. Technology raiding is something that has always crossed ideological lines: there were raiders in The Initiative and The League, there were raiders in the ~ Coalition and the Unjust Path, there were raiders in both sides of the noCB War, there were raiders in both sides of the Karma War, just as there were raiders on both sides of the BiPolar War. The only time tech raiding actually matters is when there is a dearth of meaningful drama and/or when one particular 'side' wants to further themselves politically. Interestingly enough, said side will always ignore the fact that they are actually allied to raiders.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285924702' post='2470920'] Many of the larger alliances are largely stationary without ever making risky moves, which is how they get so big and are able to stay that way a lot of the time, so it makes for stale politics if the larger alliances and their treaty announcements is all the forum has to talk about. Micro alliances can makes things more interesting as people are able to act more freely without going through all the internal procedures a large alliance might need to in order to go to war. Also large alliances with more treaties and NS have more to risk, making them very hesitant to go to war unless they think they will have an overwhelming victory usually. [/quote] I would agree with you that the share of large alliances that are politically dynamic has certainly declined when you compare the current era with those past; for example, the Great War era. But to say that large alliances as a rule are less likely to engage in exciting politics is just wrong. I realise that people reminiscing about the Great Wars is a little overdone, but it is an important comparison to make. Over the course of the 2006 to 2007 period, you had a group of sanctioned alliances - and medium-sized non-sanctioned alliances - that in general could be counted as purpose-driven and relevant in their own right. I am referring to the simultaneous existence of LUE, NPO, NAAC, GOONS, GATO, NpO, FAN, TOP, CDS, The Legion, ODN, GGA, ICP, Nordreich, and so on. Conflict and excitement could be, and was, created by any single one of these alliances. Whether it was LUE vs NPO, GATO vs NPO, LUE vs GOONS, NAAC vs NpO, Nordreich vs the countless communist reincarnations, or The Legion and ODN vs common sense, the Cyberverse was vibrant because of rivalries, big personalities and clear goals. Take that situation and juxtapose it with the realities of today. Half the sanctioned alliances have either no forum presence, no entertaining personalities, or no reason to exist. We are plagued by the same generic alliance template repeated over and over again, just with a different name and on a different colour sphere. I think I can safely say that no one outside of the alliances themselves would care if the likes of MHA, TOOL, GPA, Sparta, WTF, TDO, MCXA, GATO, RnR, TFD, NATO, GLOF and LoSS ceased to exist overnight and their members were assimilated into other alliances. I know for a fact that Mushroom Kingdom isn't the only alliance to play the game that all players inevitably lose: "name a MHA gov member!" The fact that the largest alliance in this game is also the poster child for everything that is wrong with an alliance is rather insightful. Again, compare that to bygone eras, where the major players were those that I mentioned above. It wasn't a rarity for people to be able to recite not only the upper government, but also the lower level officials, of alliances like NPO, LUE, NpO, NAAC, GATO and GOONS. Where I disagree with you is where you begin to make the assertion that the solution is microalliances. The fact of the matter is that microalliances do not have the numbers, talent pool, or resources to do anything even slightly interesting outside of rather ineffectual rogue campaigns. What CRex has stated in this topic is much closer to the truth. It is always the large alliances that drive Cyberverse affairs. Yes, small alliances have been the trigger for many wars, but as has been stated in this topic already, the small alliances would not have held this capability if the large alliances were not looking for conflict at those points in time. Saying that small alliances cause wars is like saying Franz Ferdinand caused the First World War. We don't need more small alliances, we need less. What we need is more alliances like MK, NPO, GOONS, Umbrella, TOP, FOK, NpO and VE (and maybe even NSO, but an NSO that isn't so short-sighted that they get themselves into easily-avoidable losing wars every fortnight).

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1285911459' post='2470805'] I liked the OP. Good to see you posting again, Crex. [/quote] I agree. This is the first quality galaxy of text we have had in quite some time. A nice change from the drivel that can be found in World Affairs at the moment.

Congratulations, you have stumbled across the fact that alliances change their direction a little bit over the course of four years.

Some might say they even ascend via [i]the unjust path[/i]. [IMG]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz304/Revanche23/frantic.gif[/IMG]

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285765513' post='2468220'] Revisionist justification.[/quote] Do you actually know what revisionism is? Or are you just being your pseudo-intellectual self, inaccurately and haphazardly throwing around whatever important-sounding terms that first come to mind with the intellectual aptitude of an infant? I am siding with the latter, because there is in no way, by any stretch of the imagination, that 'revisionist justification' is at work in my previous reply. It is no surprise that someone of your stock would disregard genuine advice and insight from someone that has actually played a leading role in the downfall of a hegemony not once, but twice. All you are interested in is taking every opportunity to criticise with a collection of insults of ever-increasing stupidity. What exactly is revisionist about what I said? That my comments were consistent and with a set agenda? That I, as a leader of alliances, determined this commentary agenda in relation to the foreign policy objectives of my alliance? The evidence backing my assertions is on public record here in this forum and in the previous forums for Cyberverse discussion. The evidence backing my assertions is the fact that my alliance's foreign affairs activity continually matched my public and private comments. The evidence backing my assertions here is my word regarding my motivations; there is hardly a collection of dissertations or essays regarding my intentions for me to be 'revisionist' against. How about you actually reply to my post? Or would that be beyond your obviously limited cognitive capacity? [quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285765513' post='2468220'] I've not attempted to make you appear as an 'evil oppressor', so drop the silly little insults, please.[/quote] Strange, I seem to remember you stating: [quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285679760' post='2466807'] We get it, already. You once demanded justice and now you're wearing the crown. [/quote] This implies, albeit erroneously, that I once stood for justice but now I stand for injustice. Hence, you attempting to portray me as some form of 'evil oppressor'. [quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285679760' post='2466807'] I have no issue with SuperComplaints being top of the tree for now. What I object to is your wholesale use of pompous, hypocritical and revisionist posting as a tool to create conflict or buttress your own position. [/quote] You might want to stop using words you don't understand. I will accept pompous, but I much prefer the term smug. And I will not apologise for that. But enlighten us all, how have I been hypocritical or revisionist? I would like a detailed explanation with some analysis, not just a one-liner that does not provide any factual basis. [quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285679760' post='2466807'] As for the rest of your essay, since when did the de facto role of the player or group of players become the formulator of conflict?[/quote] ... Since forever?

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285697304' post='2467008'] On the losing side and seeking redress from the NPO, you always used a lot of words to whine about the other side. You now do just the same, but with the added 'come do something about it' arrogance of power. Hence the adaptation of a quote some man made in some other world. [/quote] I never whined. Every substantial post I made was part of a greater, two-pronged campaign: i) to assist in the downfall of the reigning power structure, transforming the status quo, and ii) to provoke both oppressed and peripheral alliances in relation to the Hegemony to grow a pair and stand up for themselves. What separates my posts of the pre-Karma days (and pre-First Great War, if you want to go back that far) and those made by those such as IRON members today is that my criticism was poignant, consistent, and most importantly, it was [i]attached to real, actual foreign policy strategy[/i] in both the public and private arenas. Comments here in this venue should never just be sporadic and exist outside of a carefully-considered public affairs campaign. Before any significant post is made, a question should be asked: "does this help or hinder my alliance's strategy, and is it congruent with our overall direction?" The leaders of every successful counter-movement in the Cyberverse's history have understood this; LUE prior to the First Great War, the New Pacific Order following the First Great War, the New Polar Order when planning for the Unjust War, and Complaints & Grievances before the Karma War. You can even witness this process outside of movements aimed at changing the status quo. The massive, organised campaign against the Green Protection Agency by the New Pacific Order and its allies is a prime example. That campaign was so successful that two thirds of the active Cyberverse actually bought into the nonsense that GPA was a terrible threat and no longer neutral. I do not see how expecting the people that take issue with the status quo should develop some strategy beyond impotent and ill-considered propaganda lines is arrogance. I think if you got past your childish attempts to make it appear as if I am some sort of evil oppressor, you would see that I have a point. At least you acknowledge in your post that I have been consistent in my complaints that people should grow a pair. I am attempting to be as constructive as possible here without actually giving our detractors pointers on how to bring about our downfall. I realise that it will probably never be seen as constructive by those that are hostile to the Mushroom Kingdom and I. However, I would just urge those that are unhappy with who is currently dominant in the Cyberverse to sit back and spend some time on self-reflection. Take some time to think about whether constantly harping on about 'you're just as bad as we were!' and 'Super Grievances are ruining the Cyberverse!' is really an effective way to initiate change and improve your position. [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1285699255' post='2467039'] I'm sure regardless of the relationship shared between IRON and MK, you will never be short of someone to project your superiority complex upon, in this regard I would not be overly concerned about your "entertainment" drying up in the near future. You criticize for good reason yet you aim for hostility in order to satisfy your need for entertainment. I must have missed the memo that informed Bob that criticizing to create hostility was "for good reason".[/quote] If criticism breeds hostility, hostility breeds conflict, conflict breeds political dynamism, and political dynamism breeds entertainment, I think it is thus perfectly acceptable to criticise. If you do not accept this, take my previous advice. Gather up those alliances that similarly do not accept my assertion, develop some meaningful and effective strategy, actually lead your own alliance and maybe even a larger force, and aim to change the status quo. [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1285699255' post='2467039'] Your perception of "objectivity" seems succinctly subjective to me my good sir, how can you possibly create and objective point of view when you are driven by a personal agenda such as the one detailed above?[/quote] Look at aid slot usage and efficiency, technology levels, wonders, improvements, growth rate, war performance, whether an alliance is leading or following in foreign affairs, and so on. These are rather objective, easily-measurable criteria for alliance performance. In general, the alliances we criticise perform dismally in each of these areas. I'll use the example that another MKer mentioned earlier. We tend not to verbally assault TOP, an alliance that attacked us in the most recent war, because they perform far better in the aforementioned areas than the vast majority of alliances. They are a quality group, even if we do disagree with them on a number of more subjective issues. We are happy to let TOP be, so long as they don't attack us again [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1285699255' post='2467039'] IRON has never lacked independent thought, to the contrary we have always pursued our own agenda regardless of how you and your subjective objectivity would like to present us. I do concur however that we a have not done nearly enough to advertise the positive facets of our culture, we have let the propaganda go untackled and for that we have paid the price. [/quote] When exactly did you pursue your own agenda? Was it when you blindly followed the Pied Piper of Pacifica? Was it that brief period following the Karma War, the transition period between a Red master and an Orange one, when you flailed around with no direction? Or was it when you attached yourself to the Paradoxian underbelly, shadowing their every move, and even cancelling a whole range of treaties at their request? [quote name='Deimos27' timestamp='1285699986' post='2467054'] This is your justification for the constant, exaggerated hostility behavior you show other alliances? The absolute you're using of not getting along making things entertaining may be true, but that doesn't have to mean disrespect and hostility. The alliances on the receiving end are not 'objectively terrible' - that's just your opinion and no, having it doesn't give you the right to behave with such negativity towards a community that plays the game in a different manner or is located at a rival sphere of influence. [/quote] That's just, like, your opinion, man. Three amusing things from this post. Firstly, I can act towards any alliance I wish with hostility. I have always maintained this capability. Just as you can do the same. Secondly, yes, you operate in the Cyberverse in a different manner to more efficient and dynamic alliances. You may not see this as a point worthy of derision, but I do. Lastly, anyone trying to argue that IRON has, or has ever had, its own sphere of influence is laughable. [quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285702530' post='2467078'] What is this 'other side'? Or are you saying that if you are not a member of SuperComplaints, then, by definition, you are the 'other side'? [/quote] You know, you guys really need to get your story straight. First, we are evil oppressors restricting the sovereignty of the alliances that are on the 'other side' to us. In the very next criticism, there is no 'other side'! If there is no 'other side', how exactly could we oppress them? You're not Invisible Woman; you cannot choose to be visible or invisible when it suits. [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1285713259' post='2467257'] There is no "opposing side," you realize, correct? Just a status quo of cowards who have to justify their inaction by propping up hypothetical bogeymen. [/quote] How exactly are we cowards? You see, this is what I'm getting at above. There is a clear group of people that dislike the status quo, yourself included, but cognitive deficiency seems to limit you all to only being able to throw out a few nonsensical insults and hope that somehow this will change things. If we were cowards, we would be fabricating wars to curbstomp any sign of potential resistance to our dominance before it even formed, just as the Hegemony did. If we can be called a dominant force at all, we are a benign force. Not only have we not moved against any nascent counter-movements, we actively encourage them! How that equates to cowardice is beyond me. The New Sith Order is an alliance that once had the potential to be a leading force in a counter-movement, but instead of putting some effort into a greater campaign, you try and 'stick it to those Super Grievances jerks' by doing idiotic things like aiding rogues to the point that it initiates losing wars. [quote name='NorthernLights' timestamp='1285715611' post='2467299'] I believe he means the group of people who pretend an "other side" exists at all and worse act like it's secretly forming a cohesive unit to stand up together. [/quote] I am not sure how we are pretending that an opposing side exists. Many of us are acknowleding an 'other side' does not exist in any meanignful form outside of a collection of misfits that venture onto the forum to find opportunities to brandish their brilliantly-crafted propaganda weapon of 'you're just as bad as we were'.

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285679760' post='2466807'] We get it, already. You once demanded justice and now you're wearing the crown. [/quote] What in the hell does that even have to do with what I just said? Anyway, we'll ignore the fact that you utterly failed to offer a response that contained even a scrap of relevance to any of the issues I raised. In direct response to you, I have always been consistent with my contentions. When I was on the 'losing side', I urged people to grow a pair and stand up for themselves. Now that I am on the 'winning side', I am calling for the very same thing. How dare I expect people that are disgruntled with the current status quo actually move past impotent whining and tired propaganda lines, and instead use some strategy and creativity to improve their position!

I'd say Umbrella, ODN, FOK.

All this talk of potential reconciliation between Mushroom Kingdom and IRON is a little sickening, to be honest. Personally, I hope the rather hostile relationship continues. A Cyberverse where everyone gets along is not an entertaining Cyberverse. As for the MCRABT accusation that Mushroom Kingdom criticises every alliance outside of our supposed 'sphere of influence', so what if we do? We criticise for good reason; the alliances on the receiving end are objectively terrible. I have never been a fan of the "do something about it" response, but this is a case where it is warranted. However, I mean to use the 'do something about it' in a somewhat constructive way. If what you say is true, MCRABT, and Mushroom Kingdom does indeed criticise a wide range of alliances and create hostility, why don't you use that created hostility to your advantage? How about you discover the testicular fortitude and capacity for independent thought that your alliance has always lacked, work out how to do that whole 'leading' and 'diplomacy' stuff, and forge an opposing force of parties whose delicate sensibilities have been so impugned.

This is truly groundbreaking.

Happy birthday to my friends and longtime allies in Ragnarok.

[quote name='AAR0N' timestamp='1284643414' post='2455747'] i'm not sure why exactly you guys are jealolus that's just like the only answer there is to this poll, i mean what else other than jealousy would be the point behind this poll, if it isn't jealousy it has to be fear, fear of us or what we may become, either that or you guys are just dicks, i'm not really sure [/quote] I'm not sure whether to break down hysterically laughing or crying. I assume the latter, considering I am a member of the ~alliance that cries the most~

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1284641523' post='2455741'] Why is this even a subject of debate? Who cares? STA handles their internal affairs how they want to, and it's not for you to decide whether or not legitimate agreements between allies should be allowed. [/quote] I agree. The only thing more ludicrous than this thread is the fact that it provoked analyses that are as useless as they are lengthy.

My god, what constitutes political discussion has gone downhill in the last few months. As for the poll, I stand by my vote in the ~official~ Worst Alliance Ever competition: Legion.

It's our party and we'll cry if we want to [img]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz304/Revanche23/colbert.gif[/img]

There is one very easy way to begin fixing this game and alleviating the boredom that current players face. Give alliances an in-game [i]reason[/i] to fight. Something finite, tangible and desirable. I say desirable because, let's face it, something as useless as alliance sanctions won't change a thing. If you think about it, in a world absent of resource scarcity and with no in-game reason for alliances to exist other than to prevent all-pervasive raiding, it's a damn miracle that we have experienced as many wars as we have. A base solution to this key problem, which could be built upon, could be as simple as increasing the importance of land and simultaneously capping the amount of overall land available to all nations.

Rather than sift through fifty pages of drivel, I'll just wish our allies in Ragnarok best of luck waging a war that was triggered by and based upon a clear-cut, solid [i]casus belli[/i].