How unified are the four blocs?

[Denial]

[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!".

[flak attack]

[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." 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]
Without people like Feanor, all the world would have to look forward in the morning is the self-fellating of has-beens like yourself. It's hilarious to hear a member of CoJ calling others out for not being leaders on the world stage. When was the last time your alliance ever did anything relevant?

[D34th]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1307940728' post='2730401']
Because it benefits Schat's interests as to what group of people they should treaty if they want to break away from what he defines as the central power structure in his diagram.
[/quote]

Should I wear my tin foil hat now?

[Buzz Lightyear]

theres enough dislike between alliances in diff blocs to keep us from being one big entity. id rather fight against some of the alliances up there than along side

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Buzz Lightyear' timestamp='1307942423' post='2730415']
theres enough dislike between alliances in diff blocs to keep us from being one big entity. id rather fight against some of the alliances up there than along side
[/quote]
You can say that again.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1307944973' post='2730430']
You can say that again.
[/quote]

That.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1307940737' post='2730402']
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]
I definitely got hyperbolic in my assessment of what MK has been doing lately, but what do you want me to do with your smugtastically simplistic opinion of what's going on in this discussion?

[quote]I must have imagined the BiPolar War.[/quote]
The one where TOP asked NpO's permission to attack C&G? Real movers-and-shakers. Right up there with doing cleanup for Doom House and sending buckets of money to bail out GOONS in the last couple weeks of Doom House's war. Earth shattering. I can see why you really look to TOP as an example of alliances that are changing the world.
Like I said, I like TOP, but it was ironic for you to quote a longtime Pax Pacifica-era TOP GM while talking about movers-and-shakers.
[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1307940737' post='2730402']
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]
This is getting kind of old, frankly. I know I for one have specifically stayed as far away from "DOH NOES NEO HEGEMONY" as I can, only referring to the tainted H-word when its absolutely necessary. If you automatically reduce anything that remotely criticizes something you or your allies do as some kind of meme, that's a you problem. If you don't have the time, desire, or ability (or some combination) to engage in a discourse, then go away and just stick to hitting "collect taxes" every 20 days with the rest of them. This is where we talk about things.
As I said, if you don't like hearing comments about how utterly interconnected a certain group of alliances is, then use all that super-duper world-changing you've been doing to do something about the cause of it. Go nuts, take a page from the Xiphosis playbook and cut MK from the alliances that keep doing it. But, yes, while you're in the middle of the biggest treaty mess in history, you're going to have to read about it. NPO had to deal with it, now its your turn.


[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1307941242' post='2730408']
Without people like Feanor, all the world would have to look forward in the morning is the self-fellating of has-beens like yourself. It's hilarious to hear a member of CoJ calling others out for not being leaders on the world stage. When was the last time your alliance ever did anything relevant?
[/quote]
People like Feanor that do what exactly? Feanor's been a good guy to talk to in the past, but I'm serious, please explain to me how being cuddle-bunnies with NPO for 2 years, then being cuddle-bunnies with NpO for a year, and then becoming cuddle-bunnies with MK for the foreseeable future is keeping the world exciting and unpredictable. CoJ is not claiming to be world-shifters, so you can put that one back in your pocket. I don't need to be a member of- or in charge of the biggest or most relevant alliance to know which alliances are not making anything interesting; I could do it from GPA. But if you really want to know, we're so relevant that $400,000,000 in reps was demanded from CoJ for threads I wrote [i]6 months prior[/i]. We're relevant enough that Doom House wanted ODN to declare war on us even though we were already fighting GOONS and MK (20 times our nation count), [i]and[/i] The International also discussed attacking us. How many 20-nation micros do you see pulling 11 alliances into a war coalition channel (successful or not)? Oh, just one? Yeah, just CoJ.
I'm a one-man relevance machine and you know how I know? You can't stop talking about CoJ or me, instead of talking about the ideas being discussed. In a thread about treaty arrangements, your big gun is "you're irrelevant, CoJ is little."

So here ya go, flak: while I have said nothing about, nor advocated, any specific action regarding the diagram that I posted, you say "Schat's interests as to what group of people they should treaty if they want to break away" But your tiny little relevancy-obsessed mind doesn't even think about why I might want NS to be less concentrated. You see a treaty web picture and you go NEEENENENEEEE NEO HEGEMONY JOKES, but it's you and your allies whining and moaning about boredom. We have the same interest, but you can't see past my AA. You think things will be more peaceful if 105,000,000 NS is no longer tied up together? I don't. And then MK can go to war every 3 months and have a real fight with real risks and real victories. But what you've got right now are unimaginative people signing treaty after treaty after treaty. It doesn't matter if they're your friends or not: the more they sign, the less exciting things are. The less there are, the more competing interests there are. Every treaty is one more set of handcuffs. I know what I'm doing about it, running my alliance regardless of size in a manner that doesn't contribute to it by keeping zip-o compulsive treaties, very few treaties of any type, basing actions on specific and intrinsic values of the alliance, and doing what we can where we can considering our relative size. I didn't get Most Active Ruler 2010 by worrying about how relevant, big, or powerful CoJ is, I did it by doing, doing, doing, doing every week.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Buzz Lightyear' timestamp='1307942423' post='2730415']
theres enough dislike between alliances in diff blocs to keep us from being one big entity. id rather fight against some of the alliances up there than along side
[/quote]
[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1307944973' post='2730430']
You can say that again.
[/quote]
[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1307945785' post='2730439']
That.
[/quote]
Which is why all of you being tied together with those alliances makes so little sense.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Drai]

Getting a ton of reps and having your name mentioned doesn't make you relevant. It just means you're annoying too many people and they are sick of it (If you're going to say 'it's only your side' then just don't. Obviously people on your side or within your group of allies aren't going to stop somebody going to bat for them even if you're annoying). Reminder that without too much effort you could have paid a quarter of what you did.

And for your 'most active award', that means absolutely nothing in terms of useful activity. Posting on the OWF isn't usually what's going to start wars, so if you want to brag about something then please brag about how you are doing your part to shape the treaty web or start a conflict in the future (making diagrams and explaining how you want people to see them isn't working). I can't tell if you bring up the award ironically or are actually proud of it and think it carries any weight in a conversation so disregard this point if it's the latter, you got me.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Drai

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307946198' post='2730446']
Which is why all of you being tied together with those alliances makes so little sense.
[/quote]

It's immoral for you (or anyone, for that matter,) to question the sovereignty of an alliances right to self-determination, even if your assumptions about it are incorrect.

Edited June 13, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307946139' post='2730444']
The one where TOP asked NpO's permission to attack C&G? Real movers-and-shakers. Right up there with doing cleanup for Doom House and sending buckets of money to bail out GOONS in the last couple weeks of Doom House's war. Earth shattering. I can see why you really look to TOP as an example of alliances that are changing the world.
Like I said, I like TOP, but it was ironic for you to quote a longtime Pax Pacifica-era TOP GM while talking about movers-and-shakers.[/quote]
I consider the WoTC to be a fairly important war that we were at the very forefront (from a political and military sense) especially considering all the diplomatic entanglements at the time. Post-Karma we were considered at the head of one of the four poles of power. I'll be the first to say we didn't necessarily thrive in that environment in a political sense but I think its safe to say it was considered TOP sphere vs SF/CnG/Frostbite. The wars we prevented were due to the fact that it would have led us to an unwinnable situation against those three blocs (we should have plunged in at TPF war regardless of peace or not). It would have been stupid to try and actively go up against all three blocs. I think you would be fine with acknowledging that.

We asked NpO's input on attacking CnG to make sure their treaty with MK would not kick in and we'd be clear to fire on them. The objective was to win and our strategy was the best opportunity. Infact, it wasn't clear that it would even work IF NpO hadn't backed out of the war. I'd say it was one of the ballest moves in the history of our planet. If you disagree feel free to mention a situation that beats it.

We aren't revolutionary or haven't brought anything radical to the political game but we have always had the ambition to move up and succeed. We've also have a history of using our military power to achieve our objects which is something alot of others refuse to do.

I think the leaders of the NPO during my tenure (Moo, Dibler, Tyriun, Vector, DarkMistress) would find the "cuddle-bunnies" comment slightly amusing (along side the leaders of TOP) because of the nature of our relationship. It wasn't like GGA where they had access to their private channels. We went back and forth between one another and didn't always support each other during certain situations. The arguments in the Continuum mostly had NPO on one side of the issue and TOP on the other side. I realize those facts don't fit into your generalizations and the political points your trying to make but its the truth.

I also don't think its safe to say we were in it with the NpO for a year. One of their officials can correct me if I'm wrong but I think we only really started to have dialogue with them for a couple of months prior to Bi-Polar. During the Kronos situation in which we wrongly diffused we would have ended up fighting them or their sphere. The FOK/tLC thing would have seen us fighting them and the same with the TPF War. So once again I believe your wrong.

The last one you said was about MK but I'll just leave that out of the conversation because regardless of what they say I doubt you'd believe them. Maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: "longtime Pax Pacifica-era TOP GM" -- Out of my four tenures as Grand Master only one occurred during the time of Pax Pacifica.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307988993' post='2730656']
We aren't revolutionary or haven't brought anything radical to the political game but we have always had the ambition to move up and succeed. We've also have a history of using our military power to achieve our objects which is something alot of others refuse to do.
[/quote]
This is what I was getting at, and at the end of it I'm sorry I let my annoyance with flak's !@#$posting put an edge of dismissal/belittling on the point.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1307987378' post='2730644']
It's immoral for you (or anyone, for that matter,) to question the sovereignty of an alliances right to self-determination, even if your assumptions about it are incorrect.
[/quote]
If you're being serious this is dumb, if you're being sarcastic well played.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Schattenmann

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307989528' post='2730658']
If you're being serious this is dumb, if you're being sarcastic well played.
[/quote]

[mattski133]

[quote name='ty345' timestamp='1307800694' post='2729165']
Next major global war almost inevitably with current political standings: SF and XX vs PB/DH and maybe CnG
[/quote]

dibs on you for first dance!

EDIT: ITT, four ununified blocs forced to band together against terrible posting.

Edited June 13, 2011 by mattski133

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307989528' post='2730658']
If you're being serious this is dumb, if you're being sarcastic well played.
[/quote]
Yes.

[Max Power]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307988993' post='2730656']
I consider the WoTC to be a fairly important war that we were at the very forefront (from a political and military sense) especially considering all the diplomatic entanglements at the time. Post-Karma we were considered at the head of one of the four poles of power. I'll be the first to say we didn't necessarily thrive in that environment in a political sense but I think its safe to say it was considered TOP sphere vs SF/CnG/Frostbite. The wars we prevented were due to the fact that it would have led us to an unwinnable situation against those three blocs (we should have plunged in at TPF war regardless of peace or not). It would have been stupid to try and actively go up against all three blocs. I think you would be fine with acknowledging that.

We asked NpO's input on attacking CnG to make sure their treaty with MK would not kick in and we'd be clear to fire on them. The objective was to win and our strategy was the best opportunity. Infact, it wasn't clear that it would even work IF NpO hadn't backed out of the war. I'd say it was one of the ballest moves in the history of our planet. If you disagree feel free to mention a situation that beats it.

We aren't revolutionary or haven't brought anything radical to the political game but we have always had the ambition to move up and succeed. We've also have a history of using our military power to achieve our objects which is something alot of others refuse to do.

I think the leaders of the NPO during my tenure (Moo, Dibler, Tyriun, Vector, DarkMistress) would find the "cuddle-bunnies" comment slightly amusing (along side the leaders of TOP) because of the nature of our relationship. It wasn't like GGA where they had access to their private channels. We went back and forth between one another and didn't always support each other during certain situations. The arguments in the Continuum mostly had NPO on one side of the issue and TOP on the other side. I realize those facts don't fit into your generalizations and the political points your trying to make but its the truth.

I also don't think its safe to say we were in it with the NpO for a year. One of their officials can correct me if I'm wrong but I think we only really started to have dialogue with them for a couple of months prior to Bi-Polar. During the Kronos situation in which we wrongly diffused we would have ended up fighting them or their sphere. The FOK/tLC thing would have seen us fighting them and the same with the TPF War. So once again I believe your wrong.

The last one you said was about MK but I'll just leave that out of the conversation because regardless of what they say I doubt you'd believe them. Maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: "longtime Pax Pacifica-era TOP GM" -- Out of my four tenures as Grand Master only one occurred during the time of Pax Pacifica.
[/quote]
Great post.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307988993' post='2730656']
I consider the WoTC to be a fairly important war that we were at the very forefront (from a political and military sense) especially considering all the diplomatic entanglements at the time. Post-Karma we were considered at the head of one of the four poles of power. I'll be the first to say we didn't necessarily thrive in that environment in a political sense but I think its safe to say it was considered TOP sphere vs SF/CnG/Frostbite. The wars we prevented were due to the fact that it would have led us to an unwinnable situation against those three blocs (we should have plunged in at TPF war regardless of peace or not). It would have been stupid to try and actively go up against all three blocs. I think you would be fine with acknowledging that.

We asked NpO's input on attacking CnG to make sure their treaty with MK would not kick in and we'd be clear to fire on them. The objective was to win and our strategy was the best opportunity. Infact, it wasn't clear that it would even work IF NpO hadn't backed out of the war. I'd say it was one of the ballest moves in the history of our planet. If you disagree feel free to mention a situation that beats it.

We aren't revolutionary or haven't brought anything radical to the political game but we have always had the ambition to move up and succeed. We've also have a history of using our military power to achieve our objects which is something alot of others refuse to do.

I think the leaders of the NPO during my tenure (Moo, Dibler, Tyriun, Vector, DarkMistress) would find the "cuddle-bunnies" comment slightly amusing (along side the leaders of TOP) because of the nature of our relationship. It wasn't like GGA where they had access to their private channels. We went back and forth between one another and didn't always support each other during certain situations. The arguments in the Continuum mostly had NPO on one side of the issue and TOP on the other side. I realize those facts don't fit into your generalizations and the political points your trying to make but its the truth.

I also don't think its safe to say we were in it with the NpO for a year. One of their officials can correct me if I'm wrong but I think we only really started to have dialogue with them for a couple of months prior to Bi-Polar. During the Kronos situation in which we wrongly diffused we would have ended up fighting them or their sphere. The FOK/tLC thing would have seen us fighting them and the same with the TPF War. So once again I believe your wrong.

The last one you said was about MK but I'll just leave that out of the conversation because regardless of what they say I doubt you'd believe them. Maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: "longtime Pax Pacifica-era TOP GM" -- Out of my four tenures as Grand Master only one occurred during the time of Pax Pacifica.
[/quote]
I'll join TOP's side for the duration of the next war launching as many nukes as I can, if you guys decide to start the war without it being one of your allies ideas and you come up with a target other than NPO, NpO or direct allies of theirs. I would love to fight alongside you guys in another war as long as it isn't just a continuation of a pointless war for revenge against those who have already been punished good enough.

[D34th]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1308118621' post='2731742']
I'll join TOP's side for the duration of the next war launching as many nukes as I can, if you guys decide to start the war without it being one of your allies ideas and you come up with a target other than NPO, NpO or direct allies of theirs.
[/quote]

I heard they are preparing to roll MK. Prepare yourself

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1308120349' post='2731755']
I heard they are preparing to roll MK. Prepare yourself
[/quote]
Every single one of you would stand up and cheer us on.

[Jaiar]

No and 0-10%...gotta love that, the MKers and such already came in and skewed the poll.

I would bet/pay 1000 tech that it's Yes and 90-100%. That RIA guy has already shown to everyone that we are still feared. We are defeated and still feared. We have few treaties and still feared. We sit quiet and our silence causes fear.

[D34th]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1308158963' post='2731914']
Every single one of you would stand up and cheer us on.


[/quote]

Can I join TOP and help? Vouch me

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1308118621' post='2731742']
I'll join TOP's side for the duration of the next war launching as many nukes as I can, if you guys decide to start the war without it being one of your allies ideas and you come up with a target other than NPO, NpO or direct allies of theirs. I would love to fight alongside you guys in another war as long as it isn't just a continuation of a pointless war for revenge against those who have already been [u]punished good enough[/u].
[/quote]

I think that is a matter of perspective.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1308159614' post='2731916']
No and 0-10%...gotta love that, the MKers and such already came in and skewed the poll.

I would bet/pay 1000 tech that it's Yes and 90-100%. That RIA guy has already shown to everyone that we are still feared. We are defeated and still feared. We have few treaties and still feared. We sit quiet and our silence causes fear.
[/quote]

Don't give yourself too much credit there buddy, you were by far the most boring and unthreatening opponents I've fought. I'm really not in the mood for seconds.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse

[lebubu]

I'm down with beating the NPO into the ground every year or so. You know, out of fear.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1308159614' post='2731916']
No and 0-10%...gotta love that, the MKers and such already came in and skewed the poll.

I would bet/pay 1000 tech that it's Yes and 90-100%. That RIA guy has already shown to everyone that we are still feared. We are defeated and still feared. We have few treaties and still feared. We sit quiet and our silence causes fear.
[/quote]

Yes, that's it. Fear. I'm scared !@#$less.

NPO should cut with the isolationist nonsense and build themselves a proper side. Far from being scared, we'd love it if you gave us a run for our money.