An Announcement from TLR and NPO

[Monster]

Schatt did a better job of stating what I tried to say. D:

But I think this is a good rule: if MK likes it, it's generally bad.


xd Azaghul. FAN said they had bigger fish to fry and Fark probably hates you more now.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Roquentin

[Ardus]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1330845496' post='2933040']
You seem to be forgetting a certain group of alliances that preempted NPO a few months ago.

Edit: Damn it Mandellav beat me to this point.
[/quote]
TLR holds our chain. We're a bunch of mad dogs.

[Mandellav]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1330845667' post='2933043']
TLR holds our chain. We're a bunch of mad dogs.
[/quote]

MK are a bunch of pippies.

[Monster]

Who, Mandellav, who? I'll repeat FAN said they had bigger fish to fry. MK is hated by SF/XX and is hated by a lot of people across the web. They just have to start acting on it.

[Mandellav]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330845976' post='2933045']
Who, Mandellav, who? I'll repeat FAN said they had bigger fish to fry. MK is hated by SF/XX and is hated by a lot of people across the web. They just have to start acting on it.
[/quote]

Didn't you call for the destruction of NPO recently?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Mandellav

[Monster]

Only to get to MK. xfd Then I sorted things out with NPO diplomatically since it was kind of based on tempers flaring between Brehon and I. We both apologized and it was settled more or less, unless they've changed their mind. I don't have any designs on NPO unless they become an MK proxy.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Roquentin

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Mandellav' timestamp='1330845287' post='2933037']
So because I choose to talk about a true and honest friendship, I'm damned to foreign policy naivete because I chose not to talk about the strategic implications of the treaty. Because every single time a treaty comes up on this board the rhetoric is always a clear cut argument about security and power and not about the friendship at hand. Excuse me for not living up to what is expected of me as an ally. I'll try better next time.[/quote]
Because your (plural familiar) snuggle-bunnies FA explanations are never along the lines of strategy, they are always "true frinds forever!" silliness. Not one mention in the OP, not one mention in the numerous replies to posts similar to mine.
6 pages in we get these two gems:
[b]This treaty exists very much in part to better defend CnG.[/b] From who?! What enemy lies beyond the mists that C&G's Doom House and Pandora's Box allies can't defeat without NPO's tech-depleted ranks thrown on top of the pile?

[b]As for animosity toward NPO, you've greatly exaggerated that animosity from our other allies. Furthermore, I seem to recall just defending NPO against FARK not to recently. That might ring a bell. There are apparently still alliances out there that want their shot at NPO for events that happened years ago. We'll be there to defend them should that happen again.[/b]
That's odd! [i][b]I[/b][/i] seem to remember [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_House-NPO_War"]just defending NPO![/url] Ring a bell? And while you keep holding up the [i]CAKEWALK [/i]that was defending NPO from Fark, it is your constituent AAs of TLR, and TLR's current allies and pals which attacked NPO over and over and which blacklisted NPO.
I guess you were for rolling NPO for no reason before you were against it. Now you know what nice guys they are

As for this:
[b]I've made that argument from day one to those treaty partners who do not share the same zeal for NPO that we do. Ultimately, those allies gave their blessing because they trust our judgement more than they dislike NPO.[/b]
And what was the reason that NPO got tonked over and over? Because they were getting too powerful. And what's the difference to DH/PB between an NPO that's getting more powerful in 2012 and an NPO that was getting more powerful in 2011? This time TLR is there to keep NPO where it belongs! And if not--you know as well as I do--TLR will get told to get out of the way or get bent.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Azaghul]

For the life of me I can't figure out what FARK hating MK has to do with FAN, FARK, or others outside of TLR's allies having it in for NPO.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Azaghul

[Mandellav]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330846268' post='2933047']
Only to get to MK. xfd Then I sorted things out with NPO diplomatically since it was kind of based on tempers flaring.
[/quote]

Good to hear. I guess the oA doesn't help us strategically either.

[Monster]

Who needs to target NPO when you have pre-Karma NPO in MK right over there?

[Steve Buscemi]

Congrats guys! Airme on a NPO treaty upgrade. Times do change.

o/ coward coalition! o/ airme radio freakout

[Denial]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1330846371' post='2933048']
Because your (plural familiar) snuggle-bunnies FA explanations are never along the lines of strategy, they are always "true frinds forever!" silliness. Not one mention in the OP, not one mention in the numerous replies to posts similar to mine.
6 pages in we get these two gems:
[b]This treaty exists very much in part to better defend CnG.[/b] From who?! What enemy lies beyond the mists that C&G's Doom House and Pandora's Box allies can't defeat them from without NPO's tech-depleted ranks thrown on top of the pile?

[b]As for animosity toward NPO, you've greatly exaggerated that animosity from our other allies. Furthermore, I seem to recall just defending NPO against FARK not to recently. That might ring a bell. There are apparently still alliances out there that want their shot at NPO for events that happened years ago. We'll be there to defend them should that happen again.[/b]
That's odd! [i][b]I[/b][/i] seem to remember [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_House-NPO_War"]just defending NPO![/url] Ring a bell? And while you keep holding up the [i]CAKEWALK [/i]that was defending NPO from Fark, it is your constituent AAs of TLR, and TLR's current allies and pals which attacked NPO over and over and which blacklisted NPO.
I guess you were for rolling NPO for no reason before you were against it. Now you know what nice guys they are

As for this:
[b]I've made that argument from day one to those treaty partners who do not share the same zeal for NPO that we do. Ultimately, those allies gave their blessing because they trust our judgement more than they dislike NPO.[/b]
And what was the reason that NPO got tonked over and over? Because they were getting too powerful. And what's the difference to DH/PB between an NPO that's getting more powerful in 2012 and an NPO that was getting more powerful in 2011? This time TLR is there to keep NPO where it belongs! And if not--you know as well as I do--TLR will get told to get out of the way or get bent.
[/quote]

I wasn't convinced at first, but you won me over with the italics and bold.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330845666' post='2933042']
Schatt did a better job of stating what I tried to say. D:
[/quote]
None of us ever know what you're trying to state.

[Monster]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1330846543' post='2933056']
None of us ever know what you're trying to state.
[/quote]

Because your perceptions are colored by your bias.

I stated the TLR-NPO thing was based on "idle talk" or maybe to put it in better terms, OOC chit chat like the minecraft example or the skype one.


For the record, involvement in blacklisting from that corner was rather minimal other than thwarting Londo's plans to treaty NPO. It was mostly the alliances that NPO was close to securing treaties with that had their allies blacklist them.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Roquentin

[Voytek]

two things:

- lol roq
- lol schatt
- this treaty is awesomely themed

[Monster]

lol voytek

"hey we'll let you roll our ally if you let us roll yours"

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1330846543' post='2933056']
None of us ever know what you're trying to state.
[/quote]


That would explain all of the belittlement and name-calling, but none of the real motivation behind it.

@Roq, I'll give Brehon the benefit of the doubt. It's not as if this treaty is going to disappear tomorrow.

Edited March 4, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Monster]

The language I write in isn't the best, but it's not like reading Foucault or Hegel.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330846775' post='2933060']
lol voytek

"hey we'll let you roll our ally if you let us roll yours"
[/quote]
yeah what about it

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1330846534' post='2933055']
I wasn't convinced at first, but you won me over with the italics and bold.
[/quote]
Oh, is this better for you?

Because your (plural familiar) snuggle-bunnies FA explanations are never along the lines of strategy, they are always "true frinds forever!" silliness. Not one mention in the OP, not one mention in the numerous replies to posts similar to mine. 6 pages in we get these two gems: This treaty exists very much in part to better defend CnG. From who?! What enemy lies beyond the mists that C&G's Doom House and Pandora's Box allies can't defeat them from without NPO's tech-depleted ranks thrown on top of the pile? As for animosity toward NPO, you've greatly exaggerated that animosity from our other allies. Furthermore, I seem to recall just defending NPO against FARK not to recently. That might ring a bell. There are apparently still alliances out there that want their shot at NPO for events that happened years ago. We'll be there to defend them should that happen again. That's odd! I seem to remember just defending NPO! Ring a bell? And while you keep holding up the CAKEWALK that was defending NPO from Fark, it is your constituent AAs of TLR, and TLR's current allies and pals which attacked NPO over and over and which blacklisted NPO. I guess you were for rolling NPO for no reason before you were against it. Now you know what nice guys they are As for this: I've made that argument from day one to those treaty partners who do not share the same zeal for NPO that we do. Ultimately, those allies gave their blessing because they trust our judgement more than they dislike NPO. And what was the reason that NPO got tonked over and over? Because they were getting too powerful. And what's the difference to DH/PB between an NPO that's getting more powerful in 2012 and an NPO that was getting more powerful in 2011? This time TLR is there to keep NPO where it belongs! And if not--you know as well as I do--TLR will get told to get out of the way or get bent.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Monster]

That was just a riposte. How many MK members don't actually like NoR aside from you? I remember quiz said something along those lines.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330847047' post='2933065']
That was just a riposte. How many MK members don't actually like NoR aside from you? I remember quiz said something along those lines.
[/quote]
mostly just the ones that are left-leaning i guess, afaik the majority opinion is a positive one

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1330847014' post='2933064']
Oh, is this better for you?

Because your (plural familiar) snuggle-bunnies FA explanations are never along the lines of strategy, they are always "true frinds forever!" silliness. Not one mention in the OP, not one mention in the numerous replies to posts similar to mine. 6 pages in we get these two gems: This treaty exists very much in part to better defend CnG. From who?! What enemy lies beyond the mists that C&G's Doom House and Pandora's Box allies can't defeat them from without NPO's tech-depleted ranks thrown on top of the pile? As for animosity toward NPO, you've greatly exaggerated that animosity from our other allies. Furthermore, I seem to recall just defending NPO against FARK not to recently. That might ring a bell. There are apparently still alliances out there that want their shot at NPO for events that happened years ago. We'll be there to defend them should that happen again. That's odd! I seem to remember just defending NPO! Ring a bell? And while you keep holding up the CAKEWALK that was defending NPO from Fark, it is your constituent AAs of TLR, and TLR's current allies and pals which attacked NPO over and over and which blacklisted NPO. I guess you were for rolling NPO for no reason before you were against it. Now you know what nice guys they are As for this: I've made that argument from day one to those treaty partners who do not share the same zeal for NPO that we do. Ultimately, those allies gave their blessing because they trust our judgement more than they dislike NPO. And what was the reason that NPO got tonked over and over? Because they were getting too powerful. And what's the difference to DH/PB between an NPO that's getting more powerful in 2012 and an NPO that was getting more powerful in 2011? This time TLR is there to keep NPO where it belongs! And if not--you know as well as I do--TLR will get told to get out of the way or get bent.
[/quote]
post more words. you will win the war if you post lots and lots more words. the more words you post the more people you win over to your cause. words.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Voytek

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330846626' post='2933057']
Because your perceptions are colored by your bias.

I stated the TLR-NPO thing was based on "idle talk" or maybe to put it in better terms, OOC chit chat like the minecraft example or the skype one.
[/quote]
This is actually a brilliant strategic treaty on TLR's part and is part of a very long term FA plan that has slowly been gathering steam for over a year and a half from Athens through TLR, but only really kicking into gear during the past summer while I was away.

I'm actually surprised at how many people have failed to see how clever rush has been about this.

This treaty is a strategic masterpiece and it's going right over your heads.

[Monster]

The thing is, relations based on skype ruin the political aspect of the game, because if I become OOC BFFs with you, I'll never break up.

To give another example: Gre-MCXA was based on Syzygy-Sam knowing eachother IRL and it died as soon as both were gone.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Roquentin

[Voytek]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330847315' post='2933068']To give another example: Gre-MCXA was based on Syzygy-Sam knowing eachother IRL and it died as soon as both were gone.[/quote]
any treaty based on just two people knowing each other is a weak treaty, it doesn't matter how they know each other