Jump to content

Denial

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,860

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Denial

  1. The FIT Initiative

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1326758690' post='2901181']
    Didn't read the whole thread, but this is !@#$@#$ stupid. 3mill/100t deals increase the inflation of tech by making nations much larger than they should be by procuring tech cheaper.
    [/quote]
    Maybe you should have read the entire thread. Or at least the original post.

  2. Peace Found

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1326678159' post='2900551']
    I always wondered what funny could be. Until you all destroyed Sparta for me. No surrender? Keep it up! You can stay in peace only for so long. If you were manly, you'd suck up defeat. And my vict'ry'd make it all complete!

    You have my little armies.
    Do you know you're all just plain pathetic.
    [/quote]
    ... And Ardus announces his candidacy for Worst Poster Ever 2012.

  3. Opportunity Lost

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1326473799' post='2898811']
    Why wait for next war?

    They clearly preempted you, and you won. They don't appreciate the white peace offers, I say start adding on 50 tech per member for every day they avoid taking peace.
    [/quote]
    This needs to be done.

  10. Hypothetical: Umbrella vs. MK

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326324641' post='2897643']
    Depends if TOP chooses to assist MK in this hypothetical scenario. The treaty is non-chaining I believe, so it would depend on who starts the war and if TOP would want a war with Umbrella.
    [/quote]
    I think we've made it clear from this recent war that we control TOP!

  11. The dawn of the Iron Age

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Denial

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326275438' post='2897337']
    [b]The issue is, the Bastion working group established working relationships that could have not been done without.[/b] Honestly, Umbrella was always going to go in given its Triumvirate at the time and the relationships established with Xavii and I in particular. It's why I was the first Citadel to commit, much to the chagrin of others. I merely tried to convince OV to try to appear reasonable because it was going to screw us over in terms of the other Citadel alliances if we didn't. Well, FCC would have gone in for sure as well. As I have said, I affected the outcomes of various fronts simply because we were the glue between Cit and the rest.
    [/quote]
    I don't disagree with the statement in bold. All I am saying is that the process you're referring to was just one piece of the puzzle, and certainly not a larger piece than any of the others.

    Many people may have had 'intentions' to support VE/Vanguard/GOD (and thus C&G + SF) with their defence of OV, but it was fairly lonely for quite some time - this is something that all leaders of Vanguard, VE, and GOD have posted about extensively in the past.

    As for the rest, I don't really care for engaging with you about what you believe you affected or didn't affect. I really don't know why you have this rather odd compulsion to be recognised. You, and Umbrella more broadly, were important but minor players in the Karma era; a tag that fits everyone involved, really. You have a much greater chance of persuading people of your supposed brilliance by talking up events of the 12 to 18 months, a period during which Umbrella's influence has been pervasive and largely admirable.

  12. The dawn of the Iron Age

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326272261' post='2897330']
    Except, I never said that. Essentially what happened was a lot of people had the idea at the same time. I met Xiph and Delta by mere coincidence of knowing Tulak as well. [b]That's where the bulk of the coalition efforts took place with yours taking place externally[/b], but in alignment with ours since we couldn't really deal with you due to TOP hating you. I didn't know them before that.

    edit: since you probably won't take my word for it

    We had originally used #collective for the VE-Int crisis with Gre and Umbrella committed. Bob Janova can confirm this. It was a really awkward situation since SF and LEO had signed treaties with Int to help win them over before that. Eventually, Int saw what hardballing could lead to and made a sacrifice for the greater good.
    [/quote]
    I do take your word for such groupings existing - I was fully aware of them - but the bold statement is the type of sentiment that my previous post was aimed at (whether it's posted by you, or anyone else). What was your external was our internal, and vice versa. Yes, a sizeable group of alliances came together for that ridiculous ODN/Int spat with VE; Vanguard found itself in the middle of it, being fed information by friends and allies on both sides. Yet that did not form the basis of the "bulk" of the Karma coalition in terms of plotting, planning, or scheming. As I said previously, it was far from guaranteed that anyone besides our respective blocs would assist VE/Vanguard/GOD in defending Ordo Verde - not until NPO declared war in a mediated peace discussion. Further, I can guarantee that half the alliances you'd list from those discussions would have also sat in separate discussion channels with Vanguard - more than half if you include those that would have done the same with MK, or Athens, and so on. I mean, there's a reason we were all allied, right?

    Karma was quite a special conflict in this regard. Never before, or since, had there been such a diffuse assembly of alliances, each making substantial plans in their own corners, but uniting relatively effectively towards a common goal when required.

  13. The dawn of the Iron Age

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Denial

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326262616' post='2897281']
    Yes, but Gre wasn't really proactive in doing anything. They had taken forever to leave Q and didn't want to do a bloc after that. It was a constant question we had asked people in Gre, "when are you leaving Q?" since we wanted it to happen.

    Basically, what happened with Karma was Archon was the first person to step up to the plate and write a speech and everyone was fine with him doing it. Actually, no, I think some complained after he did it.

    MK hadn't really been really proactive on the political front in terms of coalition-building due to the previous war and had adopted a weird attitude of doing things like PIATing NPO. I would say Vanguard was the more proactive C&G alliance.
    [/quote]
    Almost everyone likes to take credit for being the mastermind or prime architect of Karma; you appear to have tried it just a few posts back, claiming to hand Mushroom Kingdom a coalition on a silver platter. The truth of that era is that it was an aligning of the stars - multiple talented leaders, from various power spheres, working towards roughly the same goals. Unlike the Hegemony (and later, ex-Hegemony) propaganda at the time, there was no grand and detailed scheme, laid down months ahead, by those that would eventually comprise Karma (though some of us had hoped and planned for something like it). A great deal of luck was involved in the Karma conflict unravelling the way it did; for quite some time, in the week leading up to the NPO declaration of war, it appeared as if Vanguard, VE and GOD - and thus C&G and Super Friends - would stand alone in the inevitable defence of their treaty partners in Ordo Verde. Support for the war from some parts came hesitantly and reluctantly.

    Of course, that's not to say there weren't leaders and alliances that were more proactive than others. Archon, I believe, would be the first to admit that Mushroom Kingdom receives more credit (and blame) for Karma than it warrants or even desired; it was the general public, following Archon's first speech, that gave MK a figurehead position at the front of Karma.

    Additionally, I disagree with Rafa's summary of events; Rafa served incredibly well as Shield (MoFA) during that era, but there were many events that remained solely in realm of myself (as Sovereign) and QTUN (as Vizier). I don't necessarily see Vanguard as being more proactive than Mushroom Kingdom in assisting with forming Karma, but I do believe we were more effective (partly because of the after effects of MK being blacklisted) and, contrary to what Rafa said, had been operating with the goal of toppling Pacifica since our very formation. For instance, Vanguard entered the Karma War with a set of treaties that had mostly been finalised by December '08, with the addition of C&G membership in February '09. Our treaty list was designed intentionally, methodically, and with a singular goal - to play a leading role in bringing about what would eventually become Karma.

    Vanguard and Mushroom Kingdom complemented one another, however. What most don't know was that the idea of Vanguard's entry in to C&G was floated several months (I'm talking 6 to 9 months) before it occurred, in the old boys club that was #luemobile, once it became apparent just how complementary our foreign affairs paths were. Hell, Vanguard and MK, at the highest levels of leadership, were discussing a bilateral treaty whilst simultaneously maintaining the public appearance of us hating one another; it was safer that way, for reasons that Rafa alluded to. Anyway, I digress - Vanguard had firm treaty links to Super Friends, the 'blue sphere', Stickmen, the VE/OV grouping, and ODN. What Vanguard was unable to do - that is, befriend Citadel, due largely to our rivalries with Old Guard and TOP - Mushroom Kingdom could do, and the puzzle was brought much closer to completion. Mushroom Kingdom's other ties also helped, and both Athens and Greenland Republic played critical roles in further solidifying ties to the blue sphere, Sparta, and so on.

    Yet Vanguard, Mushroom Kingdom, and C&G's strategies were collectively just one aspect of what would lead to the manifestation of Karma, and this brings me back to my initial point. No one alliance, or even one grouping of alliances, can legitimately take the label as the prime builders of the Karma coalition. While C&G's alliances were working assiduously, so too were Ragnarok, Viridian Entente, FOK, Umbrella, GOD, and so on. Each of those alliances could easily detail a similar story to what I told above, which is why it's such !@#$%^&* whenever anyone tries to parade around as if they built Karma with their own two hands.

  14. The dawn of the Iron Age

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Yggdrazil' timestamp='1326250454' post='2897166']
    Of course they wouldn't!
    Without Umbrella the Mushroom Kingdom would not had the core requirement for it to develope.Now that the influence is established, Umbrella is not as significant to MK's infuence as it once was.
    [/quote]
    what on earth

  15. Rate the War Ability

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by Denial

    [quote name='Proest' timestamp='1326162110' post='2896633']
    snip
    [/quote]
    If ODN, GATO and MK are rated 6, 5 and 6, respectively, it'd be amusing to see what would happen to MHA in a war against alliances rated 9 or 10.

  21. The dawn of the Iron Age

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Denial

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325640993' post='2891830']
    I didn't wash my hands of anything. I was posting on these forums for months about it. Does OsRavan who was actually there agree with your account? I don't think so. Who should people trust more? Your third hand accounts or his? I am referring to your alliance as a whole who had to keep the "we attacked for the hell of it" narrative, which was something you all wanted to do a week before any conflict erupted.[/quote]
    For the past couple of months, this thread included, you have consistently attempted to shift responsibility from yourself and on to Mushroom Kingdom for the planning and execution of the DH-NPO war. A stark contrast from the onset and peak of that war, where you'd tell anyone who would listen about your plotting and scheming in order to bring about the conflict. Krack is a hit-and-miss kind of poster, but his rather probing questions aimed at you in this topic have revealed some of the truth of the situation.

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325640993' post='2891830']
    It was pretty well-executed and if you would have preferred the entire Polar coalition remaining at war for the duration, then ha.[/quote]
    In your eyes, a war that cost Doomhouse, collectively, more strength and political clout than it bequeathed strategic benefit is well-executed? I sure hope your posturing and rhetoric regarding bringing down Mushroom Kingdom and some of its allies isn't all bluster - I am sure we would enjoy having an opponent whose criteria for a well-executed war is so pitifully low. Maybe you should send Unknown Smurf a message; you guys seem to be equal in goals and talent.

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325640993' post='2891830']
    You're an armchair quarterback who hasn't done anything in years and I am blamed for your lack of communication with your external allies on the subject leading to worsened relations.[/quote]
    Better an armchair quarterback than a pariah who is kicked from the alliance he once led for his inane and nonsensical conspiracy theories.

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325640993' post='2891830']
    It's not like this war has been planned any better, the only saving grace of your coalition planning is the NS advantage. You've also gotten lucky that SF and XX weren't even on the same page.[/quote]
    A war where minimal damage has been taken by TOP/IRON, Doomhouse, and blocs we consider friends (C&G, PB, Mjolnir, PF), whilst all opponents are thoroughly defeated and in ruins? Not to mention that targets were assigned so well as to allow many alliances to finally settle long-term grudges. Not planned any better? Oh, please. This current effort was like the Gallic Wars; your effort was a little more like Vietnam.

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325640993' post='2891830']
    Want to know the reason some people didn't want to come onto the front? It's because they wanted nothing to do with you, so they screwed me to screw you.[/quote]
    We certainly must have had such a dramatic turn around in political clout in the past few months. I mean, going from an alliance so hated that they'd screw innocent Roquentin to get to us, to an alliance that can play a lead role in rallying a successful coalition in this current conflict, is quite a feat!

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325640993' post='2891830']
    Want to know the reason Archon posted in addition to what I've already disclosed? Sardonic wanted to do it and I preferred Archon posting it rather than it being a GOONS thing.
    [/quote]
    Sardonic is a little like potato - can't be trusted with announcements.

  22. The dawn of the Iron Age

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325640072' post='2891818']
    Ah yes, it had nothing to do with you making people paranoid and unwilling to help us out. You could have easily vetoed any plan if you wanted to.

    I love to be criticized by a guy who's mostly inactive and out of touch.
    [/quote]
    Wait, so I was simultaneously making people paranoid [i]and[/i] inactive? That's quite a talent.

    You were more than willing to step up and take credit for orchestrating it as the conflict broke - as Krack has mentioned in this thread already - but as it became clearer that it was ill-conceived and poorly executed, you began attempting to wash your hands of some rather serious responsibility.

  23. The dawn of the Iron Age

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Krack' timestamp='1325569516' post='2891295']
    I don't know how I could be any clearer. A year ago, when you attacked NPO again (unprovoked and with no reason other than Doomhouse was bored) - I had a conversation with you where I said (paraphrase) "I'm a little surprised these other idiots would do this, but I'm shocked you'd participate in it and not try to talk them out of it." And your response was (paraphrase) "Talk them out of it? It was my idea. I suggested it and made it happen! Hahaha!"

    So ... for you, a year later, to chastise the rest of them with a statement like, "More MK, but it's addressed to everyone who enjoyed playing NPO-lite when it was a dick move" is comical.
    [/quote]
    You're incorrect about the reasoning behind that war. You are, however, correct about Roquentin having his grubby little hands all over the planning stages of the conflict and making an absolute mess of it.

  24. "Elite" vs "Mass" alliances

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by Denial

    [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1325584582' post='2891388']
    I've never run a totally 'elite' alliance before, those I lead were always a combination of elite nation building but were always around 170-250 members so far. In my personal opinion it is less hard to lead an elite alliance than it is to lead a mass- or the in-between-form. People are more self-sustainable, smarter and that just reduces the time the leadership has to spend on actually guiding its members. I think elite alliances have more trouble making sure their members are happy because they will most likely be more informed, interested in the FA of the alliance and are harder to satisfy.[/quote]
    What you've said here, kriek, is largely correct in terms of leadership - at least in my experience. Having led both a mass-member alliance (LUEnited Nations, 600+ members at its peak), and a smaller elite alliance (Vanguard, ~85 members at its peak), I'd have to say that the former far surpasses the latter in terms of time required from, and stress levels experienced by, leadership. Additionally, the extra time involved in a mass-member alliance is generally not going towards entirely productive tasks; indeed, a great deal of effort and attention is by necessity given to maintaining activity, order, and cleaning up after mistakes made by membership (from nation-building errors to diplomatic blunders). As such, a talented and politically-adroit leader of an elite alliance can wield as much - if not more - influence as his or her counterparts in the giant alliances. For instance, compare the political clout and initiative of Mushroom Kingdom, TOP, Umbrella, Vanguard, GOD, etc in their prime against 'giants' such as MHA, Sparta, IRON, and so on. That's not to say mass-member alliances cannot be the drivers in the political game - just look at LUE, NPO, NAAC, GATO, GOONS v1.0 - but it appears that age ended quite some time ago.

    The only aspect of your paragraph there that I would disagree with is the final sentence. I must say, I've never come across a membership so difficult to 'satisfy' and keep in line than that of LUE, but then, that was also a strength of that alliance.

    To answer the question put forth in the original post - both types of alliances are critical. Any leader worth their salt would recognise that, no matter the style and structure of their alliance, there are both advantages and disadvantages to the way in which his or her alliance operates. Elite and mass-member alliances complement one another.

  25. Peace Is Achieved

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1325557193' post='2891126']
    Probably because they fought hard and with honor. Fighting like MHA did is a lot more respectable than hiding in peace mode and hoping everything turns out well in the end.
    [/quote]
    An alliance being commended for not running in to peace mode [i]en masse[/i] is rather pathetic, really. We may as well start handing out little ribbons to everyone for 'participation'.

×
×
  • Create New...