Jump to content

Announcement from The Order of the Paradox


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 841
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1303235631' post='2693723']
Please show me the path that led you to this conclusion. [i]PLEASE[/i]

I want to understand you, HoT, but its so hard when you put on such daft displays. Please help me.
[/quote]
Well, how else is NPO responsible for MK dragging their feet? Perhaps you would like to share your rationale? Because I've given it my best shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303232978' post='2693681']
One person saying they did not know about peace terms = MK not telling their allies? You can't honestly believe that.
[/quote]
That's not what he said.

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303228093' post='2693602']
I dont think we even knew about peace negotiations taking place...
[/quote]
The word "we" was in use there.

Also, another one of MK's allies had to be told that there were peace negotiations going on by us, because MK hadn't told them.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303235355' post='2693718']
As for buying time and security, not really. Do you remember the drama with GOD cancelling on GOONS over it?
[/quote]
I'm sure that GOD poses a terrifying threat to MK and TOP now. You must all be checking over your shoulders every time you walk down the street.

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303239345' post='2693786']
I was just trying to bring across that its not up to you to make the judgement about our allies. We're not judging yours, are we?
[/quote]
Actually, you lot make judgments about the NPO-Legion relationship every single day on these forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1303252603' post='2693959']
Well, how else is NPO responsible for MK dragging their feet? Perhaps you would like to share your rationale? Because I've given it my best shot.
[/quote]

I have given my rationale and you are more than welcome to go reread my posts though I am pretty sure you will return only to make some half-witted remark that purposefully obfuscates my rather clear message and will inevitably prove to be a waste of my time. So the trip ends here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1303221742' post='2693555']
Many alliances that were allied to MK burned up a lot of political capital with everyone else in order to please MK in the last war, like NpO and STA, now they are being rolled in a war MK seems to consider the same as their war they declared on NPO.
[/quote]
[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1303227895' post='2693599']
GATO is another alliance that comes to mind who switched sides mid war abandoning NSO, which burned a lot of political capital for you guys as well, not sure on your reasons other than you guys you guys were close to CnG at the time.
[/quote]
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1303234971' post='2693709']
Pandora's Box is peripheral to Doomhouse. Very close in the inner circle, mind you, but Doomhouse is the center of power. And the center of Doomhouse, politically, is MK. GOONS is filled with clueless newbies and is focused on growth, Umbrella is filled with tech-fattened nations and is focused on accumulating more tech. MK is the center of politics in DH, and is where all the "big names" hail from.
[/quote]
Dance puppets, dance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303238366' post='2693766']
Well it's always wise strategy as the aggressor to not hold back. What would be the point of launching an attack half ass.
[/quote]
Well the fact that they launched the attack says a lot.

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1303239248' post='2693785']
[img]http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa3/BlueLightning_01/will9324858.gif[/img]
[/quote]
It's the key to our revenge for the preemptive strike!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1303171355' post='2692960']
Hey Flonker, I didn't know you were still around. Sorry to see you in that crappy alliance but I assume you're probably thinking the same about me.

Hope you and yours are well and stuff.
[/quote]

We be hangin, tovarisch.

Mostly, though, we're all sittin here wonderin what you guys were smokin & howcome you didn't [b]share[/b].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303262817' post='2694146']
He specifically said "[u][b]I dont think[/b][/u] we even knew about peace negotiations taking place...." Don't be purposefully dense.
[/quote]
... And you changed the word "we" to "they." Do me the favour of avoiding being purposefully dense in return, please. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1303260568' post='2694103']
I have given my rationale and you are more than welcome to go reread my posts though I am pretty sure you will return only to make some half-witted remark that purposefully obfuscates my rather clear message and will inevitably prove to be a waste of my time. So the trip ends here.
[/quote]
I mean a logically valid rationale, not "It's your fault for not accepting terms we designed to not be accepted" followed up with "MK decides when to negotiate, deal with it, but it's still your fault."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1303227542' post='2693596']
Are you [i]seriously[/i] this stupid? NpO burned its political capital for sure, but their reasons were twofold: a) they disliked TOP and b) Grub wanted to satisfy his ego and make sure the world knew that NpO carried through on its threats (I'm virtually quoting him here.) They didn't do what they did to make MK happy.
[/quote]

Are you seriously that stupid, don't answer it was rhetorical. You are as clueless today as you were at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303232978' post='2693681']
I love all these people that were not there for the months that we built up friendship with MK before signing telling us the real reason for our treaty.
[/quote]

Legion members have said for years that they honestly like the NPO now, despite the wars and the Viceroy period; you're just getting a small taste of what they have had to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Gandroff' timestamp='1303096565' post='2692294']
You're making a huge assumption here when you say we're not putting in effort. Both sides of this discussion have been "lacking in effort" if that is what you want to say is going. I'm just going to leave it there. [b]Our current method is how we want to go about it and we will continue to go about it that way.
[/b]
Changing targets, rather than escalating, is what we were told you were doing when we asked what was going on, which we all agreed would not happen. It seems like the same thing to me personally.
[/quote]


would the bolded part be considered attitude or arrogance? Guess some things don't really change over time eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1303190751' post='2693302']Furthermore the moniker of "Hopeless" carries with it far more than simple NS observations. It's a wonderful play on words. Our enemies now face only varying degrees of defeat and are militarily hopeless. The sheer idiocy and lunacy that leads the enemy coalition is hopelessly incurable. Attempting to get anything done with many portions of enemy coalition is a hopeless endeavor, as so many will grandstand and complain even when we do things to their benefit. I believe a passing idea for the name of their coalition was "Hope", so there's the sarcastic retort that they are "Hopeless". There's the blind belief in victory from some voices (such people are hopelessly disconnected from reality) and doom-saying from others: literal cries of hopelessness. All in all, it's a very fitting title for our defeated foes.
[/quote]
A more-accurate, and less-fallacious, description would be the “Reluctant Coalition”.

Not that I expect DH to be interested in accuracy. However, the description is consistent with the factors that you identify as evidence of "hopelessness", given it was NPO's reluctance to enter the NpO conflict that resulted in DH's "preemptive strike". DH's attack on NPO also determined the composition of the "coalition" by virtue of NPO's treaties, and it is the coalition's perceived reluctance (i.e. use of Peace Mode) to continue fighting a conflict that [u]it did not initiate[/u] which DH has subsequently used as a pretext to keep it at war.

But for DH's attack on NPO, this whole conflict would have concluded when NpO achieved peace.

Edited by Sir Humphrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1303275323' post='2694318']
Legion members have said for years that they honestly like the NPO now, despite the wars and the Viceroy period; you're just getting a small taste of what they have had to deal with.
[/quote]
Most Legion members I have spoken with on the matter (though admittedly not a scientifically rigorous sample space in the slightest) have praised the Viceroy period as something which helped lift them up to become a respectable alliance. Granted, not all of NPO's installed viceroys were that successful, but to toss the word around as if it was some sort of travesty that happened to Legion is... Incorrect.

Edited by HeroofTime55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1303270522' post='2694241']
Are you seriously that stupid, don't answer it was rhetorical. You are as clueless today as you were at the time.
[/quote]

It's extremely obvious to me that you, Archon and Arsenal (and possibly Londo, but I doubt it) had some sort of scheme going to bring down TOP that everyone else didn't know about for OPSEC reasons. I knew what was happening in #tfw and it wasn't discussed there, so clearly it was only discussed at the very highest levels. As for the fact that you wanted to prove to the world that NpO would follow through on its threats, that's what you told C&G when we asked you not to attack \m/, I'd be happy to provide exact quotations of what you said.

The only thing I can't work out is at what precise point in that war you set up the trap, but I'm far from clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303242292' post='2693820']
Who is we? People judge, human nature.
[/quote]
It's one thing to silently judge, it's another to take it out in the open. Because if you just do it for yourself, you always have the option to correct mistakes in your judgement due to new information. If you just burst out with the first thing that comes to your head, you end up looking like an idiot because you have no knowledge about the subject at hand.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303255624' post='2693998']
The word "we" was in use there.

Also, another one of MK's allies had to be told that there were peace negotiations going on by us, because MK hadn't told them.
[/quote]

I dont think it would have mattered to us either way. I could imagine MK telling someone and him not passing it on because it appeared as irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303235406' post='2693719']
Do we trust them right at the moment? Yeah. Unlike NpO, MK carry their animosity in the open. Dont see any.
[/quote]
MK carries their animosity out in the open when they feel ready for a war and want to lure an opponent into war, in the time between the noCB War and Karma War, MK acted like they had no grudges towards NPO, they even signed a treaty together (NAP that becomes MDP on 1 day of the year iirc), but it wasn't until they slowly gained the trust and treaties with many of NPO's allies, that eventually the Karma War came and they openly became the spokes person for the Karma Side and took it upon themselves to make sure NPO along with several of their allies were punished for any perceived wrong doings. If its more politically convenient to be your friend, they won't let you see any animosity, until showing that animosity would be in their favor.

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1303290850' post='2694494']
MK carries their animosity out in the open when they feel ready for a war and want to lure an opponent into war, in the time between the noCB War and Karma War, MK acted like they had no grudges towards NPO, they even signed a treaty together (NAP that becomes MDP on 1 day of the year iirc), but it wasn't until they slowly gained the trust and treaties with many of NPO's allies, that eventually the Karma War came and they openly became the spokes person for the Karma Side and took it upon themselves to make sure NPO along with several of their allies were punished for any perceived wrong doings. If its more politically convenient to be your friend, they won't let you see any animosity, until showing that animosity would be in their favor.
[/quote]

Meh, MK held back on that one because anything else would have meant destruction for them (as NPO proved time and time again, they are not very lenient with those who oppose them).

TOP on the other hand has shown a lot of leniency towards defeated opponents. But the most profound counterargument is that MK is currently in a position of power and wouldnt need to appease anyone if they didnt want to. MK has too many loudmouths to actually enforce an alliance wide tactic of deception by playing friend while being foe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303291229' post='2694495']
Meh, MK held back on that one because anything else would have meant destruction for them (as NPO proved time and time again, they are not very lenient with those who oppose them).

TOP on the other hand has shown a lot of leniency towards defeated opponents. But the most profound counterargument is that MK is currently in a position of power and wouldnt need to appease anyone if they didnt want to. MK has too many loudmouths to actually enforce an alliance wide tactic of deception by playing friend while being foe.
[/quote]
While TOP is lenient, MK have shown themselves to be as ruthless as NPO was at the height of their power, but you guys are the ones putting them in a position where they don't need to appease anyone. If MK didn't have you guys backing their every move they wouldn't be able to get away with what they want here, but they declared NPO without needing a CB when NPO refused to declare on MK or give them a reason to attack. With your backing MK is now doing exactly the same as NPO did that made many of their allies turned on them, they use their power ruthlessly to display what happens when alliances oppose them, then hunt down former enemies from past wars to give themselves something to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOP as a single entity might be able to give someone more power than they currently have, but we do not hold much of it on our own. Even if TOP and MK wouldnt be allied, MK would still be the top dog.

Umbrella for example could kick TOPs ass any time currently. But i do love to hear everything revolves around us. Please continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303292888' post='2694504']
TOP as a single entity might be able to give someone more power than they currently have, but we do not hold much of it on our own. Even if TOP and MK wouldnt be allied, MK would still be the top dog.

Umbrella for example could kick TOPs ass any time currently. But i do love to hear everything revolves around us. Please continue.
[/quote]
I don't mean it as insult to TOP, but you are a powerful alliance, so anything you do in any war makes a big difference. I just think you guys chose to align yourselves on the wrong side, but its not like you can't fix your FA to not support alliances seeking the destruction of others for fun, as you've done in the past when you've disagreed with the actions of allies. Their side would still have a big advantage had TOP not gotten involved, but your powerful piece of their arsenal, which adds a lot to their strength and the odds their opponents face.

Of course TOP isn't solely responsible though, you're just one of many alliances who have chosen to follow MK's lead here and give them whatever support they need. I still think TOP will change their foreign policy so they don't support such action eventually and go with what you think is right, but if even I think that I'm sure MK thought of that before signing the treaty and still think about it, as the relationship between MK and TOP before the last war never had much trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...