The Overtime Accords

[Cager]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1305157877' post='2710312']
ITT:
When MK does it, it's [i]strategy[/i]
When NPO does it, it's [i]cowardice[/i]


[/quote]

Mushqaeda will enjoy annexing your alliance.

[Kilkenny]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305152801' post='2710276']
Tactical use of peace mode to control declarations is not cowardly and (OOC: bad for the game). Hiding nations in peace for the entirety of a war and limiting the overall number of wars that can be fought is.

The two are not comparable.
[/quote]


Uhm, what??? they are the same. You jumped NPO and they put as many upper tier nations as they could into peace mode to limit damage.

You spend all war complaining that NPO is not fighting and demand they bring out x number of nations, but before they come out, you jump most of your natinos into peace mode, to limit damage. It is the same thing. It is a strategy, plain and simple. The funny thing is that, once again, MK spends an entire war critizing a side for a action they don't like (you weren't able to curb stomp all of NPO) but when push came to shove, you adopt the strategy and then try to convince everyone that it is legit....when you do it.

Fact is, as far as I am concerned, it is a legit strategy...use it, But don't expect us to buy your spin.

But I wish you would figure out what the spin is...are you in peace mode to limit damage cause the mighty NPO can crush your upper tier (thought 3 weeks of war wouldn't crush anyone), or is NPO to few to even attack you?? I mean to hear you talk NPO has plenty of targets and can't even fill a fraction of the slots available so it doesn't matter about your peace mode nations...but if that is true, and everyone is in anarchy...then why hide in peace mode???

[the rebel]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305152338' post='2710271']
Not exactly, in the past would you see alliances !@#$%*ing about their terms in their own surrender thread? EZI is gone. Harsh terms are for the most part gone. [b]The necessity of allying with the lead alliances to avoid being curb-stomped is gone.[/b]
[/quote]

That sounds awfully familiar... Ah yes one of the many reasons for this war and i think it even came from a member of MK goverment, was that NPO hadnt tried hard enough to make friends with MK which could of progressed towards a treaty, so because of that they was viewed NPO as a threat... So going off that your last point isnt true.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Cager' timestamp='1305158684' post='2710326']
Mushqaeda will enjoy annexing your alliance.
[/quote]
Ignoring the argument and making an attack so far off-base that it can't even be considered tangential. You're going to give the ham-fisted GOONS a run for their money!

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305152338' post='2710271']
Not exactly, in the past would you see alliances !@#$%*ing about their terms in their own surrender thread? EZI is gone. Harsh terms are for the most part gone. The necessity of allying with the lead alliances to avoid being curb-stomped is gone.[/quote]

In the present you see alliances on both sides !@#$%*ing about the terms in the surrender thread. EZI is replaced by EoG and the extending of conflicts simply because the winning side had nation rulers who didn't feel like they got enough war (the alternative being you felt that NPO needed beaten on more for lulz, which is worse). Harsh terms are still here and were presented during this very war to DT among others. The necessity of allying with the lead alliances to avoid being curb-stomped is still very much in play and to say otherwise is to be ignorant of how Planet Bob has worked since 2006.

I'm honestly trying to figure out if you believe what you are saying and you are simply still trying to catch up or if you're being handed bad scripts to transcribe and not reading them for content.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305100599' post='2710047']
When quoting my leaders you seem to have forgotten my actual leader and focused instead on Mushroom Kingdom for some reason, and for that your post is as useless as it is fallacious. But I'll spare you the effort of looking it up:
I don't really see moralism here, but if you do, good for you. You might want to check with a doctor though.
[/quote][quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305152801' post='2710276']
Tactical use of peace mode to control declarations is not cowardly and (OOC: bad for the game). Hiding nations in peace for the entirety of a war and limiting the overall number of wars that can be fought is.
[/quote]
Are you illiterate, Lusitan?

Edited May 12, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Monster]

Azaghul gives his own opinions which aren't official, especially not for other alliances.

[HHAYD]

Peace mode strategy:

If NPO uses it, they're cowards

If MK uses it, they're professional strategists.

Logical? Decide that for yourself.

[quote name='Cager' timestamp='1305158684' post='2710326']
Mushqaeda will enjoy annexing your alliance.
[/quote]
Mushroom Kingdom: "I may disagree with what you're saying, but I respect your right to be stomped flat for it."

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1305161620' post='2710355']
Azaghul gives his own opinions which aren't official, especially not for other alliances.
[/quote]
At least we don't scream; "CB!". Your alliance or its buddies? Dunno.

Edited May 12, 2011 by HHAYD

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1305159929' post='2710339']
Uhm, what??? they are the same. You jumped NPO and they put as many upper tier nations as they could into peace mode to limit damage.

You spend all war complaining that NPO is not fighting and demand they bring out x number of nations, but before they come out, you jump most of your natinos into peace mode, to limit damage. It is the same thing. It is a strategy, plain and simple. The funny thing is that, once again, MK spends an entire war critizing a side for a action they don't like (you weren't able to curb stomp all of NPO) but when push came to shove, you adopt the strategy and then try to convince everyone that it is legit....when you do it.

Fact is, as far as I am concerned, it is a legit strategy...use it, But don't expect us to buy your spin.

But I wish you would figure out what the spin is...are you in peace mode to limit damage cause the mighty NPO can crush your upper tier (thought 3 weeks of war wouldn't crush anyone), or is NPO to few to even attack you?? I mean to hear you talk NPO has plenty of targets and can't even fill a fraction of the slots available so it doesn't matter about your peace mode nations...but if that is true, and everyone is in anarchy...then why hide in peace mode???
[/quote]
Did you see the stats I posted earlier?

As for being in peace mode: inactivity for some, tactics for others. If individuals feel the desire to go into peace mode I'm not too concerned about it (I say that as a 2nd in command of Milcom).

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1305160031' post='2710340']
That sounds awfully familiar... Ah yes one of the many reasons for this war and i think it even came from a member of MK goverment, was that NPO hadnt tried hard enough to make friends with MK which could of progressed towards a treaty, so because of that they was viewed NPO as a threat... So going off that your last point isnt true.
[/quote]
Do you see us trying to attack every alliance that doesn't have a treaty with us or an ally? Nope.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305161238' post='2710351']
In the present you see alliances on both sides !@#$%*ing about the terms in the surrender thread. EZI is replaced by EoG and the extending of conflicts simply because the winning side had nation rulers who didn't feel like they got enough war (the alternative being you felt that NPO needed beaten on more for lulz, which is worse). Harsh terms are still here and were presented during this very war to DT among others. The necessity of allying with the lead alliances to avoid being curb-stomped is still very much in play and to say otherwise is to be ignorant of how Planet Bob has worked since 2006.

I'm honestly trying to figure out if you believe what you are saying and you are simply still trying to catch up or if you're being handed bad scripts to transcribe and not reading them for content.
[/quote]
- An extended alliance to alliance war is not the equivalent of chasing people across re-rolls. EoG is not either.
- Harsh terms to DT: got very, very little support outside of CSN and GOD.
- There are plenty of alliances outside the former SF/C&G/PB sphere that exist in peace.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1305161306' post='2710352']
Are you illiterate, Lusitan?
[/quote]
Guess what, I'm not in Umbrella and don't speak for them. I don't speak for MK in any official capacity either, unless explicitly noted.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305168574' post='2710422']
Guess what, I'm not in Umbrella and don't speak for them. I don't speak for MK in any official capacity either, unless explicitly noted.
[/quote]

Then you really should stop trying. Or is that your cover for when your posts (about 99% of them I think) end up in FAIL.


[img]http://techbuddha.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/vader-fail.jpg[/img]

[Colasal]

lol about time
All the best The Legion, The Phoenix Federation, Regnum Invictorum, Cult of Justitia, The Sasori Initiative, 64Digits, Sanitarium, NADC, and SNAFU, (Henceforth referred too as Team Rocket).

[Ardus]

The presence of MK nations in peace mode in no way diminishes Pacifica's ability to attack MK or conduct offensive operations. They could bring all of their upper tier out of peace mode and there would be defensive slots to spare (or darn close to it). Furthermore, NPO has opted in a number of cases to mitigate damages by having some of "the 22" not declare offensive wars, so you're making hay over targets that NPO has itself chosen not to strike, regardless of status.

I've railed against the mass peace mode strategy employed by the Hopeless because it is designed to drag out wars and incentivizes the implementation of harsher terms. None of us have given a hoot or a holler about people cycling in and out to rearm or direct enemy forces into targets better prepared for battle.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Ardus

[Alterego]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305168574' post='2710422']
Did you see the stats I posted earlier?

As for being in peace mode: inactivity for some, tactics for others. If individuals feel the desire to go into peace mode I'm not too concerned about it (I say that as a 2nd in command of Milcom).

[/quote]

You have half your alliance in peace mode. Unknown numbers are inactive and unknown numbers are there because they "desire" being there themselves during wartime and 2ic of milcom isnt "too concerned". I actually believe you when you say vast swathes of your alliance have all but packed their bags and gone inactive based on poll numbers in recent times. Whats surprising is you cant get them involved during a major war and how casually you dismiss it while your allies are expected to take the brunt of the fighting. GOONS were smashed fighting mid and lower levels for you and Umbrella are expected to do the heavy fighting at the top yet you cant even get half your alliance to turn up for the fight because of inactivity or a "desire" to sit out the fight in peace and you arent [u]too [/u]concerned. The alarm bells should be ringing my friend if they arent then the decay has reached the leadership and its already too late

[Ardus]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1305171569' post='2710456']
You have half your alliance in peace mode. Unknown numbers are inactive and unknown numbers are there because they "desire" being there themselves during wartime and 2ic of milcom isnt "too concerned". I actually believe you when you say vast swathes of your alliance have all but packed their bags and gone inactive based on poll numbers in recent times. Whats surprising is you cant get them involved during a major war and how casually you dismiss it while your allies are expected to take the brunt of the fighting. GOONS were smashed fighting mid and lower levels for you and Umbrella are expected to do the heavy fighting at the top yet you cant even get half your alliance to turn up for the fight because of inactivity or a "desire" to sit out the fight in peace and you arent [u]too [/u]concerned. The alarm bells should be ringing my friend if they arent then the decay has reached the leadership and its already too late
[/quote]
OOC: People have lives. The people who comprise MK tend to have rather demanding lives. Especially around this time of year. Especially this year more than most. I would be "alarmed" if my members started shirking their real responsibilities for the frivolous rigors of this damn game.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1305171569' post='2710456']
You have half your alliance in peace mode. Unknown numbers are inactive and unknown numbers are there because they "desire" being there themselves during wartime and 2ic of milcom isnt "too concerned". I actually believe you when you say vast swathes of your alliance have all but packed their bags and gone inactive based on poll numbers in recent times. Whats surprising is you cant get them involved during a major war and how casually you dismiss it while your allies are expected to take the brunt of the fighting. GOONS were smashed fighting mid and lower levels for you and Umbrella are expected to do the heavy fighting at the top yet you cant even get half your alliance to turn up for the fight because of inactivity or a "desire" to sit out the fight in peace and you arent [u]too [/u]concerned. The alarm bells should be ringing my friend if they arent then the decay has reached the leadership and its already too late
[/quote]
If half the alliance turned up they wouldn't have slots to take. A decent number of those in peace are only there for tactical reasons and will be out again.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1305171815' post='2710460']
OOC: People have lives. The people who comprise MK tend to have rather demanding lives. Especially around this time of year. Especially this year more than most. I would be "alarmed" if my members started shirking their real responsibilities for the frivolous rigors of this damn game.
[/quote]

You are right, Ive noticed half of every alliance in peace mode. No wait, its just one alliance with this excuse. The last alliance who had a similar policy was UPN. They had no problem with large numbers being inactive too. They didnt try to spin it they just admitted they wanted the NS and were happy to run an alliance of inactives. Now its MK and suddenly its offensive to bring up the reason they and their allies ridiculed UPN about and why some wanted to put them down.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305168574' post='2710422']
As for being in peace mode: inactivity for some, tactics for others. If individuals feel the desire to go into peace mode I'm not too concerned about it (I say that as a 2nd in command of Milcom).
[/quote]
Are your allies controlled by an almighty AI? Or are they also affected by the same problems that your peace-mode members are experiencing but your alliance decided to make a bigger fuss over the problems? Or are you merely mentioning that your alliance is poorer prepared for war than your allies? Or are you trying to save your NS but too scared to mention it? Or is your alliance simply trying to indirectly show the world that they do what they damn please?

Edited May 12, 2011 by HHAYD

[Azaghul]

Since y'all have done us the gracious favor of focusing almost exclusively on us with your offensive declarations in the upper ranks our co-belligerents haven't had to worry about anyone getting attacked who doesn't choose to launch offensive war. Thanks for that!

Edited May 12, 2011 by Azaghul

[Ardus]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1305172538' post='2710466']
You are right, Ive noticed half of every alliance in peace mode. No wait, its just one alliance with this excuse. The last alliance who had a similar policy was UPN. They had no problem with large numbers being inactive too. They didnt try to spin it they just admitted they wanted the NS and were happy to run an alliance of inactives. Now its MK and suddenly its offensive to bring up the reason they and their allies ridiculed UPN about and why some wanted to put them down.
[/quote]
Any attempt to compare MK to UPN is self-defeating. I'd encourage a different analogy.

I don't really give a damn what every other alliance is doing. The circumstances of the Kingdom are unique both collectively and individually. I care more about their actual well being than I do their nations being out of peace mode so you can !@#$%* and moan about some other non-point. That is, after all, what you would do.

Some are in peace mode because they're inactive and for good cause. Some are in peace mode because having them fight would be an utterly idiotic decision on our part. Whatever the reason, they're there. Their presence is not incongruous with my stated justifications for opposing the Hopeless strategy. Their presence does not deny our enemies opportunities for engagement. Their presence is not permanent. There is simply no real argument to be had here.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Ardus

[Alterego]

Makes you wonder why MK even demanded this war when they are seeming incapable of putting up a 21 day fight of any note against a heavily outnumbered enemy

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1305173721' post='2710485']
Makes you wonder why MK even demanded this war when they are seeming incapable of putting up a 21 day fight of any note against a heavily outnumbered enemy
[/quote]
It's not like 56% of our alliance is in war mode and we have 61 active wars or anything!

Edited May 12, 2011 by Azaghul

[Alterego]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305174198' post='2710490']
It's not like 56% of our alliance is in war mode and we have 61 active wars or anything!
[/quote]
[b]You [/b]demanded this 21 day war against NPO, you knew well in advance it was coming, this was your big chance to really hurt them and thats the best you could manage?

[flak attack]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1305174719' post='2710498']
[b]You [/b]demanded this 21 day war against NPO, you knew well in advance it was coming, this was your big chance to really hurt them and thats the best you could manage?
[/quote]
Point me to an open defensive slot and I'll take it.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1305174719' post='2710498']
[b]You [/b]demanded this 21 day war against NPO, you knew well in advance it was coming, this was your big chance to really hurt them and thats the best you could manage?
[/quote]
WPE is already over you know.

[Alterego]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1305174930' post='2710501']
Point me to an open defensive slot and I'll take it.
[/quote]
You lack the desire to take slots. Umbrella and GOONS were assigned to do the heavy lifting. Thats why Umbrella with 2/3 your nations has the same number of wars as you. Its why GOONS have 3 times your wars and only a little over twice your nations. They have the desire to take slots while half your alliance sits in peace and the rest complain that MK cant get a slot and both your allies do far more fighting. I hope when you are done with them you ditch them a little more respectfully than your previous allies.