An Invitation from the Mushroom Kingdom

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1310448689' post='2754779']
I came in here for some charming TOP-NpO feudin' and fightin', and instead there's some !@#$% micro guy spraying HoTesque everywhere. Not impressed.
[/quote]

To be fair, he has an idea of what he's talking about in regards to Karma. TOP pressured the Grämlins to force Fark and company to give IRON better terms of surrender. Chill stepped way above and beyond his authority and made an agreement that nobody else gave him permission to. Fark and company (me being a member of the "and company") were less than thrilled with the methods used by Janova and the Grämlins to impose their will upon us in TOP's name. Namely the "you can't win this war without us. If you don't capitulate to our demands we'll make our own peace and leave you to fight alone" method. The entire situation was FUBAR.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Emperor Marx

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1310455861' post='2754826']
To be fair, he has an idea of what he's talking about in regards to Karma. TOP pressured the Grämlins to force Fark and company to give IRON better terms of surrender. Chill stepped way above and beyond his authority and made an agreement that nobody else gave him permission to. Fark and company (me being a member of the "and company") were less than thrilled with the methods used by Janova and the Grämlins to impose their will upon us in TOP's name. Namely the "you can't win this war without us. If you don't capitulate to our demands we'll make our own peace and leave you to fight alone" method. The entire situation was FUBAR.
[/quote]

In all fairness, Gramlins saved you from alot of damage by fighting our top tier, damage you'd have taken otherwise that you could never hope to recover from high amount of reps, mandatory full navies etc we'd have to keep .

Edited July 12, 2011 by shahenshah

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1310457155' post='2754835']
In all fairness, Gramlins saved you from alot of damage by fighting our top tier, damage you'd have taken otherwise that you could never hope to recover from high amount of reps, mandatory full navies etc we'd have to keep .
[/quote]

Absolutely. The Grämlins leadership, however, were tools.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1310457532' post='2754837']
Absolutely. The Grämlins leadership, however, were tools.
[/quote]
Count yourself lucky it wasnt Ramirus

Edited July 12, 2011 by shahenshah

[Azaghul]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' timestamp='1310444629' post='2754734']
That would be a yes, Feanor.
[/quote]
Keep in mind he cancelled his protectorate agreement with MK and got a protectorate for his alliance with FARK instead, in response to our treaty with you. Not on the same level as cancelling on GOONS over it but still.

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310445775' post='2754751']
Hold on, so I'm supposed to believe Chill (who you're claiming lied about TOP's intentions in the first place and then was forced out of Cybernations completely)?[/quote]
He's in Umbrella now, actually.

As for his intentions with TOP, I talked with many that were involved and saw some of the logs a while back when I was looking into this in the run-up to the MK/TOP treaty. My impression is that Chill [i]thought[/i] (but didn't [i]know[/i]) TOP would get involved for IRON, and mistakenly presented that thought as if it were a fact.

[quote]I don't even remember who the third member was (LM?), but since you're asking for my opinion, the Gramlins leadership at the start of the Karma War was completely undependable. They went from giving their word in December to hemming and hawing while they read the tea leaves as the rest of us sweated it out. So, to answer your question, yes I completely dismiss it. I lost respect for their leadership (and apparently their general alliance membership did too) during that war.[/quote]
The third conclave member (triumvir) was LM, and if you'll remember, he was the main guy organizing Karma's military strategy. He also has a very care-free fun loving style and is one of the last people that would lie about something like this.

[Krack]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1310452925' post='2754808']
Actually, MHA mentioned attack on FARK would lead to there involvement. That didnt happen. The notion that SF would never have gotten involved on the front is simply absurd. SF was already involved to pull us in piling up on NSO and Ramlins got involved without any chains and perhaps managed to convince MHA to join in on the trip.
[/quote]

Of course an attack on FARK was going to lead to MHA's involvement. But that's not the front TOP started (or the war it desired). It wanted a war with C&G and that's the war it picked. Had they waited for a C&G first strike (or for their own valid CB down the road to start their own aggressive war), there's no reason to believe SFs or Harmlins would have come to MK's defense. TOP could have sat there and done nothing (ie, not jumped to the defense of the allies of their stupid allies who started a BS war) and they'd still be the #1 ranked alliance right now. The idea that SFs and Harmlins was going to participate in some orchestrated beat down of TOP (necessitating a TOP preemptive strike) is revisionist fiction. As I stated earlier, they went looking for trouble and found it.

[quote]In all fairness, Gramlins saved you from alot of damage by fighting our top tier, damage you'd have taken otherwise that you could never hope to recover from high amount of reps, mandatory full navies etc we'd have to keep . [/quote]

In all fairness, when Gramlins decided they wanted to leave tC and were worried they were gonna get rolled as a result, they cut a deal with SFs (among others) that they were "all in" on a united mutual defense of any of the group (including MHA, Sparta, VE, MK). So when VE's treaty partner was attacked on a manufactured CB in order to beat down VE, Gramlins was expected to uphold their commitment. Their response four or five months later was less than ideal at the start of the hostilities, but frankly, they eventually chose wisely because if they didn't participate they would have got the beat down in the next war.

They took "a lot of damage"? Too bad; that was the deal and it the smartest/best move for the survival of their own alliance. Fark and RoK lost almost 25% of their NS and were on the winning side.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Krack

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310472990' post='2754880']
Of course an attack on FARK was going to lead to MHA's involvement. But that's not the front TOP started (or the war it desired). It wanted a war with C&G and that's the war it picked. Had they waited for a C&G first strike (or for their own valid CB down the road to start their own aggressive war), there's no reason to believe SFs or Harmlins would have come to MK's defense. [u][i][b]TOP could have sat there and done nothing [/b][/i][/u](ie, not jumped to the defense of the allies of their stupid allies who started a BS war) and they'd still be the #1 ranked alliance right now. The idea that SFs and Harmlins was going to participate in some orchestrated beat down of TOP (necessitating a TOP preemptive strike) is revisionist fiction. As I stated earlier, they went looking for trouble and found it.[/quote]

So your argument basically is for TOP to choose [s]infra[/s] tech over friends? Because in all other scenarios TOP would have been involved with SF and CnG. I'll agree with you that if TOP was all tech huggers, they may [s]have /possibly / perhaps[/s] could have stayed out, but that is an assumption, reality and fact is TOP goes to bat for its allies. Sorry if its not what you hoped TOP to be despite the propaganda from some isolated corners of the world.

[quote]
In all fairness, when Gramlins decided they wanted to leave tC and were worried they were gonna get rolled as a result, they cut a deal with SFs (among others) that they were[u][b] "all in" on a united mutual defense[/b][/u] of any of the group (including MHA, Sparta, VE, MK). So when VE's treaty partner was attacked on a manufactured CB in order to beat down VE, Gramlins was expected to uphold their commitment. Their response four or five months later was less than ideal at the start of the hostilities, but frankly, they eventually chose wisely because if they didn't participate they would have got the beat down in the next war.

They took "a lot of damage"? Too bad; that was the deal and it the smartest/best move for the survival of their own alliance. Fark and RoK lost almost 25% of their NS and were on the winning side.
[/quote]
Gre hit us and hard, they fulfilled whatever commitment they made to you regarding the 'defense'. Unless you guys had also decided IRON's terms 5 months in advance.

Oh and btw, whatever happened to your 1 on 1 duel with someone from Val? I recall you challenged and when it was accepted, you ran behind your 'protector'?

Edited July 12, 2011 by shahenshah

[Krack]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1310474461' post='2754885']
So your argument basically is for TOP to choose [s]infra[/s] tech over friends? Because in all other scenarios TOP would have been involved with SF and CnG. I'll agree with you that if TOP was all tech huggers, they could have stayed out, but that is an assumption, reality and fact is TOP goes to bat for its allies. Sorry if its not what you hoped TOP to be.
[/quote]

No, my argument was that TOP should have realized how dumb their allies were. TOP got rolled because of their ally's (you) defense of your friend's stupid aggressive actions. At some point you have to say "you're being dumb, I'm not helping you throw your alliance away because you want to defend some other idiot's right to be anti-social." They didn't, so they took a beating. IRON has been rolled for the same reason on consecutive occasions. You deserve each other. But any suggestion that SFs, MHA and Sparta were sitting around waiting for an excuse to roll TOP (necessitating TOP to act aggressively and against all common sense) is ridiculous. My only hope regarding TOP is that eventually they stop failing so spectacularly at realpolitik and start picking better (wiser, more social, more likeable) friends.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1310455861' post='2754826']
[b]To be fair, he has an idea of what he's talking about in regards to Karma. TOP pressured the Grämlins to force Fark and company to give IRON better terms of surrender.[/b] Chill stepped way above and beyond his authority and made an agreement that nobody else gave him permission to. Fark and company (me being a member of the "and company") were less than thrilled with the methods used by Janova and the Grämlins to impose their will upon us in TOP's name. Namely the "you can't win this war without us. If you don't capitulate to our demands we'll make our own peace and leave you to fight alone" method. The entire situation was FUBAR.
[/quote]

No, he doesn't, and no, we didn't. What happened was that we were beyond furious that the Gramlins had attacked our ally. They knew it, and so, in an act of what was probably contrition--as they, one of our closest allies, had attacked another of our closest allies, and had done so on an oA to boot--they almost immediately came to us and said they'd work to get good terms for IRON in a short period of time. Our response was, "That's probably the least you could do at this stage, so yes, please do." At no point did we ask the Gramlins to threaten anyone, and at no point did we threaten anyone ourselves.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Crymson

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

How am I just now getting around to seeing this thread?

Looks interesting. Ill definately check it out.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310472990' post='2754880']
Of course an attack on FARK was going to lead to MHA's involvement. But that's not the front TOP started (or the war it desired). It wanted a war with C&G and that's the war it picked. Had they waited for a C&G first strike (or for their own valid CB down the road to start their own aggressive war), there's no reason to believe SFs or Harmlins would have come to MK's defense. TOP could have sat there and done nothing (ie, not jumped to the defense of the allies of their stupid allies who started a BS war) and they'd still be the #1 ranked alliance right now. The idea that SFs and Harmlins was going to participate in some orchestrated beat down of TOP (necessitating a TOP preemptive strike) is revisionist fiction. As I stated earlier, they went looking for trouble and found it.[/quote]
I disagree with you about Gre, Ramirus was firmly in control at that point, and he was very anti-TOP.

[quote]In all fairness, when Gramlins decided they wanted to leave tC and were worried they were gonna get rolled as a result, they cut a deal with SFs (among others) that they were "all in" on a united mutual defense of any of the group (including MHA, Sparta, VE, MK). So when VE's treaty partner was attacked on a manufactured CB in order to beat down VE, Gramlins was expected to uphold their commitment. Their response four or five months later was less than ideal at the start of the hostilities, but frankly, they eventually chose wisely because if they didn't participate they would have got the beat down in the next war.

They took "a lot of damage"? Too bad; that was the deal and it the smartest/best move for the survival of their own alliance. Fark and RoK lost almost 25% of their NS and were on the winning side.
[/quote]
Most of the hold-up with Gremlins dealt with Chill, who made himself very unpopular with many people. However I don't really think it was ever really in doubt that Gremlins would support us. I talked with a lot of them at the time, and the general membership was firmly behind Karma.

[Krack]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1310513937' post='2755134']
I disagree with you about Gre, Ramirus was firmly in control at that point, and he was very anti-TOP.
[/quote]

Firmly in control of who? Only his own alliance. As history proved, nobody in any other alliance was following his lead. You think Gramlins was going to make a solo preemptive attack on TOP? I'm gonna go with "no". Regardless, TOP didn't attack Gramlins. They attacked MK because that's who they wanted to fight with.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Krack

[Crymson]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310536210' post='2755372']
Firmly in control of who? Only his own alliance. As history proved, nobody in any other alliance was following his lead. You think Gramlins was going to make a solo preemptive attack on TOP? I'm gonna go with "no". Regardless, TOP didn't attack Gramlins. They attacked MK because that's who they wanted to fight with.
[/quote]

MHA was very willing to follow Ram's lead; indeed, they did so. Neither they nor the Gramlins would have been involved against TOP; MHA had an MDP with us, and there were still those in the Gramlins who would have freaked out had Ramirus tried to go to war with us. However, both would have almost certainly ended up at war with IRON.

You're really not on a roll, are you? All of your claims have been incorrect, more or less.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Crymson

[Krack]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1310539732' post='2755378']
MHA was very willing to follow Ram's lead; indeed, they did so. Neither they nor the Gramlins would have been involved against TOP; MHA had an MDP with us, and there were still those in the Gramlins who would have freaked out had Ramirus tried to go to war with us. However, both would have almost certainly ended up at war with IRON.

You're really not on a roll, are you? All of your claims have been incorrect, more or less.
[/quote]

You just repeated everything I wrote in post #331 and then claimed I was incorrect. Your reading comprehension is terrific.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310540116' post='2755382']
You just repeated everything I wrote in post #331 and then claimed I was incorrect. Your reading comprehension is terrific.
[/quote]

Yet another broken claim. Let's go over it, shall we?

[quote]
Of course an attack on FARK was going to lead to MHA's involvement. But that's not the front TOP started (or the war it desired). It wanted a war with C&G and that's the war it picked. Had they waited for a C&G first strike (or for their own valid CB down the road to start their own aggressive war), there's no reason to believe SFs or Harmlins would have come to MK's defense.
[/quote]

It wasn't the war we desired, eh? Apparently you think you know our motives better than we did. What we desired was a war against CnG/SF that we could win. We felt they were out for our destruction. If becoming involved against SF would have increased our chances of victory (ours being we, IRON and other allies), then we'd have become involved there. As it was, we (correctly) predicted the enemy's strategy and made the move we felt was most likely to disrupt it.

Like I said, you're really not on a roll. What you said above is completely broken, and thus far, so is your claim that I'd merely repeated your post #331.


[quote]TOP could have sat there and done nothing (ie, not jumped to the defense of the allies of their stupid allies who started a BS war) and they'd still be the #1 ranked alliance right now.[/quote]

Where was it that I repeated this? I certainly disagree with it. We'd

[quote]
The idea that SFs and Harmlins was going to participate in some orchestrated beat down of TOP (necessitating a TOP preemptive strike) is revisionist fiction. As I stated earlier, they went looking for trouble and found it.
[/quote]

As noted before, SF was already involved. Several SF alliances were part of the bait for we and IRON. They engaged NSO with a large number of alliances in order to draw we and IRON in. The other side's plan was for CnG to attack we and IRON once the two of us were engaged with those alliances. You are forgetting that CnG and SF, amongst others, were working together.

The above has been noted repeatedly and has been confirmed by some of the military planners from the other side. Why you're claiming that it's revisionist fiction is beyond me. Indeed, it seems that you're the one trying to revise history.

I don't think anyone has that MHA and the Gramlins would go to war with TOP. They were almost certainly earmarked for IRON from the start. And as IRON was perhaps our closest ally at the time, we were virtually guaranteed to be fighting alongside IRON, and so attacks upon them would impact us indirectly in a significant way.

What was it you were saying about reading comprehension?

Edited July 13, 2011 by Crymson

[Crymson]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310475523' post='2754891']
My only hope regarding TOP is that eventually they stop failing so spectacularly at realpolitik and start picking better (wiser, more social, more likeable) friends.
[/quote]

This is a hilarious statement, given that you switched protectors from MK to FARK because the former signed a treaty with TOP.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Crymson

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310475523' post='2754891'] My only hope regarding TOP is that eventually they stop failing so spectacularly at realpolitik and start picking better (wiser, more social, more likeable) friends.
[/quote]
We're not likeable???

[jerdge]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1310541380' post='2755386']I don't think anyone has that MHA and the Gramlins would go to war with TOP. They were almost certainly earmarked for IRON from the start. And as IRON was perhaps our closest ally at the time, we were virtually guaranteed to be fighting alongside IRON, and so attacks upon them would impact us indirectly in a significant way.[/quote]
Of course I can't tell [i]everything[/i] I know on the subject (not to mention that my memory can fail), but I can absolutely confirm that the MHA would have hated to go to war with TOP.

I was there, and while the relationship at the time wasn't great like it used to be, we hadn't any issue with TOP [i]per se[/i] and with their membership but rather (tho my memory can be a bit confused on this part) it was some of their choices and allies we didn't "entirely" like. It was their stuff and they were right in doing things in their way, if you ask me, but we didn't [i]have[/i] to like it either.
The MHA knew that she would have probably had to fight IRON ([i]again[/i]) and that thought didn't make us (me, at least) enthusiast either: with IRON it started seeming like the same bad movie being repeated over and over.

Anyway, Crymson is correct that it looked like, with all the cards fallen into place, the MHA (and Gre) would have been at war with IRON - or at least that is what I was being told at the time.
I believe that for some time the Härmlins had unintentionally become the joint that blocked the web and prevented certain rivalries to spark a global conflict - something I was very glad of at the time (being me the hippie I am!) - but eventually the friction became too great and the entire structure collapsed. At that point we were in a bad spot, with some allies going one way and others going to clash with them, but I guess it was the price to pay for having had peace in the prior months.

Of course at the time the Grämlins-IRON ordeal hadn't happened yet and the MHA would have sided with The Grämlins to hell and back, basically no matter the circumstances and against anybody if necessary. The fact that TOP was in the aggressive (NpO's) side and that they had attacked first (and the Grämlins' friends) just allowed us to swallow a slightly less bitter pill. It was anyway unfortunate that it had to go that way.

[Krack]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1310541380' post='2755386']
It wasn't the war we desired, eh? Apparently you think you know our motives better than we did. [b]What we desired was a war against CnG/SF that we could win.[/b] We felt they were out for our destruction. If becoming involved against SF would have increased our chances of victory (ours being we, IRON and other allies), then we'd have become involved there. As it was, we (correctly) predicted the enemy's strategy and made the move we felt was most likely to disrupt it.
[/quote]

That sucks. Too bad [i]that[/i] war didn't exist. Instead, you had a choice of (a) defending IRON* and losing, or (b) doing nothing and continuing to be the #1 ranked alliance. You made a great choice *rolls eyes*.

You felt they were out for your destruction? Oh well; you were wrong and it got your alliance rolled for no reason. Maybe if you were better at picking friends, conversing with other alliances (including non-allies), and understanding the political dynamic going on, your alliance wouldn't have got rolled right out of the top spot (no pun intended) because of your paranoia.

You know what would have really disrupted the enemy's strategy? Keeping your nose out of it. Nobody was looking to engage TOP in anything. Here's something you can use for next time: "No, we're not defending your right to be stupid and start a war you can't win."

*Who was defending NSO, who itself was defending Polar's right to roll \m/ on a trumped up BS CB.

EDIT: Spelling

Edited July 13, 2011 by Krack

[Believland]

[quote name='KagetheSecond' timestamp='1310545015' post='2755395']
We're not likeable???
[/quote]
Maybe if you started 3rd grade erection jokes you'd be A LOT cooler. Till then you're a nobody.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1310555783' post='2755418']
Maybe if you started 3rd grade erection jokes you'd be A LOT cooler. Till then you're a nobody.
[/quote]


Could say the same about you. You're a nobody.

[Fulgrim]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310555498' post='2755417']
That sucks. Too bad [i]that[/i] war didn't exist. Instead, you had a choice of (a) defending IRON* and losing, or (b) doing nothing and continuing to be the #1 ranked alliance. You made a great choice *rolls eyes*.

You felt they were out for your destruction? Oh well; you were wrong and it got your alliance rolled for no reason. Maybe if you were better at picking friends, conversing with other alliances (including non-allies), and understanding the political dynamic going on, your alliance wouldn't have got rolled right out of the top spot (no pun intended) because of your paranoia.

You know what would have really disrupted the enemy's strategy? Keeping your nose out of it. Nobody was looking to engage TOP in anything. Here's something you can use for next time: "No, we're not defending your right to be stupid and start a war you can't win."

*Who was defending NSO, who itself was defending Polar's right to roll \m/ on a trumped up BS CB.

EDIT: Spelling
[/quote]

Why are you obsessed with the view that we wanted to retain the number one spot? We fought, we lost, we displayed the most awesome fighting display against the majority of CN (including your one man band, you odious little gimp - its going to be great rolling you in the near future btw), we found out who our friends were (and most importantly, who weren't) and made some great new friends.

Im happy, you should be too.

[Krack]

[quote name='Fulgrim' timestamp='1310558241' post='2755424']
Why are you obsessed with the view that we wanted to retain the number one spot? We fought, we lost, we displayed the most awesome fighting display against the majority of CN (including your one man band, you odious little gimp - its going to be great rolling you in the near future btw), we found out who our friends were (and most importantly, who weren't) and made some great new friends.

Im happy, you should be too.
[/quote]

Quite the contrary, I don't think your alliance (well, at least the leadership) wanted to hold on to the number one spot at all; everything it did for at least a year and a half said "please come beat the hell out of us" (which is probably why you were so paranoid everyone was working together to come attack you). My point was that the alternative to the choice you made meant TOP would remain the #1 ranked alliance; and that in my opinion, you chose incredibly poorly.

[img]http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsE/5123-9434.gif[/img]

Even this guy thinks so.

[Believland]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1310556799' post='2755420']
Could say the same about you. You're a nobody.
[/quote]
I know

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1310558827' post='2755425']
Quite the contrary, I don't think your alliance (well, at least the leadership) wanted to hold on to the number one spot at all; everything it did for at least a year and a half said "please come beat the hell out of us" (which is probably why you were so paranoid everyone was working together to come attack you). My point was that the alternative to the choice you made meant TOP would remain the #1 ranked alliance; and that in my opinion, you chose incredibly poorly.
[/quote]


...which, again, wasn't something they were enjoying. But it's not surprising, coming from a Fark protectorate, that the notion of sitting idly at the top is something you consider fun and entertaining.