Denial

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1308799424' post='2738912'] You're completely ignoring a lot of history that happened between the treaty being dropped, and the treaty being re-signed. [/quote] Yes, how dare I disregard the few weeks where we didn't hold a treaty with them, yet remained in constant contact and allied to two of their bloc mates!

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1308799183' post='2738903'] Never did anything to offend me. Just came of as glorified MK lapdogs. Then they dumped you lot for GOONS. That was funny. [/quote] Yeah, we dumped them by having a treaty of the exact same strength as what we hold with GOONS.

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1308777326' post='2738613'] Huh, I thought we had seen the last of this wording due to the loophole contained within. [/quote] It's not really a loophole. It's a statement that neither party felt it necessary to bring out the e-lawyers into forcing a period of non-aggression, or something similar, should the treaty be cancelled or violated. Why? Because the treaty won't be cancelled or violated.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1308779582' post='2738656'] Very interesting treaty. Should I suppose that the Mushreich faction has achieved victory against the Mushroom Kommuna? [/quote] The triumph of the Glorious Mushreich was inevitable. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1308785201' post='2738733'] Not saying it applies to the rest of vikings.bloc, but they're going to be drug along with NoR when MK launches its next war of conquest. [/quote] War of conquest? All the Reich is asking for is lebensraum

I appreciate all the speculation about what Mushroom Kingdom will do. The Royalty can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe our official position is that both sides are comprised of petulant children whose mutual destruction would be a vast improvement for the Cyberverse.

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1308548345' post='2735598'] Hey, I seem to remember in NPO's surrender in the Karma war, they had to abandon any claims to AAs other then their regular AA and their cadet and applicant AAs. Athens, GR, and LOST all had their signatures on that. The circumstances and intentions might be different, but whats up, kettle? [/quote] Wow, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. That term in the surrender agreement of the Karma War was in response to numerous instances where NPO (NpO, GGA and TPF had also joined in, on different occasions) had declared that any alliance forming under particular names - LUE and NAAC as the prime examples - was strictly forbidden, under the penalty of war. In effect, NPO was in control of those AAs, and in control for two reasons: i) to prevent opponents re-materialising against the hegemony of the time, and ii) simple vindictiveness. It was political, and something that everyone has moved on from - as far as I'm aware, NPO doesn't care about those AAs, and anyone that wanted to reform old alliances has now done so. It was closure, for both sides. There is a world of difference between what went on there, and a merged alliance wishing to preserve the former alliance affiliations of its components.

Best of luck, gents.

I came for the announcement of a bloc; I stayed for further evidence of Super Friends being an absolute joke.

Congratulations, gentlemen.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1308358595' post='2733389'] Sadly, this man is right. Further, the more micro AA's that exist, the worse off the game becomes. I dont think that it is coincidence that as the larger alliances get smaller, wars are fewer and further between. And those wars last longer because now you have get umpteen alliances to agree on terms for one combatant. The splinters from the larger alliances that make these smaller ones, are a detriment in every way to the game (except for the satisfaction of the founders, in their own minds, that they have their own little piece of CN to hold on to)... I hope more smaller alliances take this advice to heart, and begin to seek out mergers into larger alliances, that we may restore some political fluidity to this game. [/quote] [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1308359027' post='2733398'] This is 100% correct. The large number of alliances also makes it a lot harder for anyone to wield much power without having dozens of treaties. That's also detrimental. [/quote] Agreed with these two gentlemen, though I must say the proliferation of small alliances is just one of a handful of major, fundamental problems with the game and Cyberverse. We've come a long way, in terms of the characteristics of alliances. As others have pointed out, the original 'Age of Super-Alliances' was in the midst of the Great War. You had alliances such as LUE, GOONS, ODN and NAAC with anywhere between 600 and 800 members, while those such as GATO, NPO and Legion were well over 1000. As far as the quantity of alliances goes, well, I still remember being a MoFA and struggling to find enough alliances to assign to just four senior diplomats (though, this was back in early 2006).

During my 5+ years in the Cyberverse, and having been involved in or privy to the details of quite a number of peace treaty negotiations, I have to say I've never seen a process that was as long, annoying, and downright pointless as this one. It's as if the new strategy of gaining more favourable terms is to overwhelm the victor with paperwork, pedantry and outright idiocy. I applaud my fellow coalition government members who chose to put up with the weeks of incessant !@#$, because I sure as hell wasn't interested in doing so.

They hate freedom and stole Christmas.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1308094458' post='2731502'] Imagine the activity in the government forums. [/quote] About the same as the MK government forums :haw:

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307939737' post='2730387'] The world defers to Denial's expertise in creating a "more interesting Cyberverse" as a member of an alliance that left one bloc to join another one instead of "putting dots on maps."[/quote] You're right, the sum of Mushroom Kingdom's achievements can be summed up as leaving one bloc to join another. I'll have to remember that the next time you and your ilk are frothing at the mouth while parading about your conspiracy theories of MK orchestrating everything that ever occurs in the Cyberverse. You can't have it both ways. Either we sit around and do nothing, or we're an omniscient puppet master determined to bend all alliances to our will. Try to be consistent, please. [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307939737' post='2730387'] Double irony points for praising a guy from TOP, [i]TOP[/i], for his opinion on being a leader on the world stage. I like TOP a lot, but "aggressive" and "ambition" are not two words I associate with them.[/quote] I must have imagined the BiPolar War. [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307939737' post='2730387'] And as I told Banksy, if you disagree with the way I arranged my dots, you're welcome to try to refute it. Then we'll open the wiki or treaty compendium and you can re-join the rest of us here in the real world. [/quote] I couldn't care less about the arrangement of your dots. What I do care about is pointing out the lunacy of arranging dots on a map in the first place, as if the miscreants on this forum will gaze at their glorious wisdom, cease furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation, and proclaim "my god! I see it now! We're being oppressed by a new hegemony! Rise up, comrades - let us free ourselves of these tyrants!".

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307842996' post='2729496'] Just because a bloc exists doesn't make it a power sphere. [/quote] [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307894368' post='2729867'] Almost every alliance that has started a war since the time of Karma has been screamed and yelled at by the community at large for being aggressive. If you take out the alliances that are considered aggressive (TOP/MK/GOONS/NpO/VE ectt..) then all you are left with is alliances who are simply happy with existing. Those alliances have no political ambition and more importantly no set of balls. Unless the alliances that I've mentioned do anything then prepare for a long and boring summer/fall. [/quote] Above are two of the very, very few valuable comments in this discussion. If you people put as much effort into improving your political position relative to those you consistently rail as you do putting dots and labels on maps, perhaps we'd have a more interesting Cyberverse. [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307918013' post='2730082'] Why Polaris is in NPO's cluster? Just because we share one common ally(Two if you consider TIO ODP with NPO)? [/quote] Well, sharing a common ally is enough justification for many aspects of the ~maps of the new hegemony~ that we see floating around.

It'd be a close one, but I believe we'd come out on top. Particularly so after Umbrella/MK have a chance to rebuild some from the previous war. But it's not something I'd like to see occur; I quite like Nordreich these days,

Superior upper tier, tech levels, and Wonders, even after a protracted war. I'll take that.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1307251922' post='2724243'] You seemed to have missed my point, I don't really care what you think about it. [/quote] And what a fantastic 'point' that was.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1306882847' post='2721572'] Hey look, they even have a Josef Thorne wannabe. That's what I said. You attack [i]opponents[/i] for existing. ("Because their interests and goals were opposed to our own" is nothing more than dressed up "Because they opposed us".) Or, well, perceived opponents. [/quote] That's the most idiotic argument I've seen you post in a while. And that's saying something. Seriously, re-read what you just said. In case it doesn't sink in, I'll explain it for you. What you are saying is that we attack opponents for existing, rather than attack opponents for being opponents. That is like saying an alliance comes to the defence of an ally simply for existing (!), not because they are an ally. Or better yet, we treaty a friendly alliance because they exist (!), not because they're a friendly alliance. Yes, opponents exist. It would be difficult for them to be opponents if they didn't. But attempting to shift the emphasis of the sentence from the word 'opponents' to the word 'exist' does not legitimise the Janova-Alterego hypothesis that Mushroom Kingdom attacks alliances simply for existing. Now, let me ask you something. Do you constantly criticise Mushroom Kingdom simply because we exist, or because we exist [i]and[/i] we engage in actions that have your faux-moral sensibilities all aroused in righteous indignation? If we use your logic, you're running a campaign against MK simply because we exist, you [i]monster[/i]!

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1306807707' post='2720977'] It's still "your leadership" even if you're a part of it. And yeah, your true feelings are revealed in the DoW, not in whatever cover story you spout now. Your statement that you "can never let Pacifica have a chance of returning to power" or whatever in the DoW, the reasoning that you just wanted to smack Pacifica and knock them down for daring to grow beyond what you deemed an acceptable size, the prolonging of the war when they dared to use tactics designed to defend themselves against your objectives. And then the systematic extortion of "reparations" for your aggressive attack (in terms of coalition-coalition here, don't throw me a dumb "but mk never desmandid reps from npo!!!1"), when you [i]knew[/i] that Pacifica's allies had [i]no choice[/i] but to defend her - Yeah, bravo. In my opinion it's a mistake to even re-open channels, to pretend that you are even a legitimate group. You're thugs, organized criminals. You need to be put down, not pandered to. [/quote] No one tell him.

This is a perfect display of an author having a particular conclusion in mind at the beginning of writing, and then warping the facts as much as necessary to fit that conclusion (and even then, doing a piss poor job). If you take your head out of the sand and look around a little, it'll become apparent how ridiculous it is to claim MK is at the centre of everything and pulling all the puppet strings.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1306767479' post='2720600'] Reparations levied by post-Hegemonic alliances have included the two largest sums ever, in this war NPO were subject to a 'peace agreement' that involved them taking a beating for not fighting the way the victors wanted them to – something FAN refused to accept and were applauded for doing so – and you have Ardus stating that the NPO front was 'pure realpolitik' (i.e. power-mongering) and Denial stating that it's justified to hit an alliance that you perceive as opponents simply for existing.[/quote] No, that is not at all what I said. You are already becoming a laughing stock much alike an Alterego or a HeroofTime - there is no need to hasten that process by pulling false statements out of your ass and weaving them in to the rich tapestry of !@#$%^&* that you call a post. I mean, you have even started using the classic Alterego lines of "MK will attack you simply for existing!" and "MK aren't holding people in permanent war... yet! Just wait and see, they'll do it!" How pathetic. What I stated is that Pacifica was attacked because their interests and goals were opposed to our own. They were not attacked for existing. If we attacked alliances merely for existing, why aren't we attacking RIA, MCXA, or TFD? Those jerks have the audacity to exist right as we speak! Or better yet, why aren't we attacking 64Digits, BAPS, or SOSBrigade, whose members are overtly hostile to our own? The fact of the matter is, as I have stated elsewhere, Pacifica was attacked for both tactical (in terms of the war we just had) and strategic reasons (our long-term insterests). They were attacked because in both a tactical and strategic sense, Pacifican interests were contrary to our own. If, following this war, Pacifican and Kingdom interests do not clash, then we will not be on opposing sides of another war. But then, without MK and NPO driving world politics, what will all the lowly peons such as yourself have to base your misguided rants and conspiracy theories on? As much as I doubt it would happen, it would be amusing to see a rebuilt MK and Pacifica form the Unholy Alliance v2.0 and see all of you squirm. [quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1306786054' post='2720782'] Became the [url="http://www.myclassiclyrics.com/artist_biographies/images/Godzilla_biography.jpg"]monster[/url] [/quote] Is NPO Mothra? [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1306788298' post='2720806'] That's not at all what was said by your leadership. You lot singled out Pacifica, and spoke with some sort of faux universal moral authority, trying to call back to the days of Karma, that Pacifica needed to permanently be held down. All the while explaining why you are exempt from the same standards you held Old Pacifica to.[/quote] Hint: I am part of the leadership. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1306788298' post='2720806'] MK is a crooked alliance, and you're a fool if you think we are going to ever trust you again, or fall for any of your cutesy phrases, misinterpretations, and misdirections. So please give it a rest. You're not fooling anyone, you're just making yourself look dumb.[/quote] Yes, my statement that we based our decision to attack Pacifica on a pragmatic analysis of our short- and long-term interests is definitely a cutesy phrase and a misdirection. How silly of me. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1306788298' post='2720806'] Yeah, maybe some people will play along in the hope that you won't roll them again for daring to speak out of line, or in come cases like Pacifica, daring to exist. But that's just not my style. I'll call your bull!@#$ when I see it. [/quote] Right, because there's so few people that criticise MK and its allies. We're just so damn good at oppressing everyone!

You mean to say that we didn't want alliances whose interests are opposed to our own in a position of power? Well, this is a development as shocking as it is terrible!

Well, this topic is amusing. Bob Janova showed he's got about as firm a grasp on history and fact as HoT does. Quite an accomplishment, really.

1. LUE/GATO/NAAC vs NPO/NpO 2. MK vs NPO The game has essentially been shaped around these two sets of rivalries, with only occasional deviations. All other rivalries pale in comparison.