RE: MK Leaks

[Krack]

[quote name='Cotillion' timestamp='1341111288' post='3000902']
you can do better than this
[/quote]

Is this one of those magic times when you're using [i]sarcasm[/i] only you mean something completely different than the definition of sarcasm?

[Omniscient1]

When did it become a bad thing to hate the people on top just because they're on top? Isn't that how we were urged to play the game post-Karma by a lot of people?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Omniscient1

[The Pansy]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1341112981' post='3000910']
When did it become a bad thing to hate the people on top just because they're on top? Isn't that how we were urged to play the game post-Karma by a lot of people?
[/quote]
Leave GPA alone

[Cotillion]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1341111669' post='3000904']
Is this one of those magic times when you're using [i]sarcasm[/i] only you mean something completely different than the definition of sarcasm?
[/quote]
such magic times do not happen because i am a certified Good Poster; when i say that i am employing sarcasm, i am (unless im being really meta when i say i am employing sarcasm). i admire your flippancy in writing off archons post as saying nothing though, it's what i would do if i was in your shoes too.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote]...the fact that Moo didn't have **** to do with anything. MK was a GOONS project, through and through, and built with the specific intent to help oppose the Orders (see: Unjust War). There are three people whose "mercy" allowed those on ZI lists to get off of them and eventually helped MK form: banned member, DarkSol, and Helsbecter. That's not to say NPO wasn't willing to get me off the ZI list (in return for my service), but it was Dilber who led that effort, not Moo. I actually remember a screen of Ivan flipping pretty bad that Moo would have let GOONS do this, which leads me to...
[/quote]

After noCB, NPO really could've dispersed you guys quite easily from MK. They didn't, and therefore you survived for a long time by Moo's mercy, but this point of contention is really distracting from the main points.

[quote]Any competent alliance with a decent or significant spy resources should be unknown to the vast majority of the population, which would include you. Of course, this assumes you're familiar with how a competent alliance operates, which is unlikely.
[/quote]

1. Everyone knows that networks of spies coming from one alliance are useless these days unless that alliance is in a FAN-like situation
2. That last comment was a pathetic personal jab. It was just a cookie-cutter, in that you could use it on anyone and it'll have the same condescending value. I'm not insulted by your implication that I lack... whatever you implied, but I am shocked you would take the trouble to insult me yet not make the insult something personalized to me. I'm an attackable guy, and I'm, here making arguments about your specific past, yet the best insults you hurl at me are just typical charges of incompetence? And what's so special about how an alliance "operates?" We're not talking Fortune 500 companies here, bub.

[quote]A comparison of terms between those given by NPO and those given by MK would contradict the implications of that statement. Trust me though, I'm sure we all miss the days of EZI, disbandments, wonder deletion, and the like. We can work on that though, if you'd like, and see how well people and alliances deal with being properly "dog-whipped." You talk an awful big talk for contributing next to nothing, I wonder if you'd do any better than the "!@#$%*es" you call out. And lastly...
[/quote]

You guys start wars without reason, when you once cried that NPO's wars were "unjustified," and then make your victims pay reparations, then attack them again without too much time for recovery. You can't keep doing these Obama-esque throwbacks damning the previous administration while hardly doing any better. You, just like NPO, somehow convinced idiotic alliance leaders that the way to be leaders in this world is to try to follow you as closely as possible, and if they aren't useful to you anymore or become a threat to you, you have a pack of dogs willing to take them down to try to impress their master. I have no idea, however, how you convince your allies they're making a wise decision. Do you and NPO know some sort of Jedi mind trick?

[quote]I'll admit I'm hazy now on Vox's history, but if memory serves most of their membership and founders weren't on PZI lists at the time of founding, only once they actually declared open resistance. The initial point you were trying to contest was that MK was founded by PZI targets and spies. Many of MK's founders had been on PZI lists and had gone to great lengths to get off of them (or had simply rerolled), while for many in Vox Populi their trips to that ever-so-fun list to be on came about as a result of their joining.
[/quote]

I know Doitzel was definitely on the list, and I would venture to guess at least two or three of the other founders were as well (Chickenzilla and Cheyenne, maybe?). It seems likely for most of 'em.

[quote]But it's ok, I can understand being upset when "!@#$%*es" went on to rule the world while you wound up as nothing.
[/quote]

You're the second one of your kind in this thread to have made this assumption. You assume my quest in this world is for fame or power. That's the difference between a Voxian and a Shroom. We fought NPO together, but Vox despised their power while you [i]envied[/i] it. It's pathetic from my point of view, but I suppose we view the world through different lenses.

[quote name='Cotillion' timestamp='1341107379' post='3000883']
i am quite aware of what sarcasm is, i am a proud member of the mushroom kingdom and so have been thoroughly educated in such matters from birth. the truth of the statement that we were founded by zi targets and spies was not relevant for the purposes of my post - i was making reference to the same statement by user banksy which has become somewhat popular, which is relevant given the implication that your fun came from your spying activities and being at war. i have successfully elicited the expected response from you, though, making you look completely devoid of of a sense of humour (and scy too, but there's a surprise! (that last part was also sarcasm [img]http://mushroom-kingdom.info/boards/Smileys/kickass/shh.gif[/img])). i suggest you join mk to avail of our academy which now offers lessons in posting courtesy of myself and legendary owf poster banksy.
[/quote]

Just saying something that's relevant to the topic just because Bansky said it at some point isn't sarcasm

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1341112981' post='3000910']
When did it become a bad thing to hate the people on top just because they're on top? Isn't that how we were urged to play the game post-Karma by a lot of people?
[/quote]

I'm glad you used the term "on top" because now I get to do a relevant analogy! Thanks for that. Now, let's say CN is a bunch of kids playing king of the hill. If one kid is standing on top, it naturally makes sense that a bigger kid will try to tumble him so that he can have the top spot. Once the biggest kid is on top of the hill, then inevitably two of the smaller ones team up to topple him, then of course battle between the two of them for the supreme position on the hill. In this well-performed instance of game theory, there's always commotion, and the game is continuous. However, with this moronic CN mindset, one kid says to a bunch of other kids "Hey, let's control the hill TOGETHER!" and he sits on top while protected from the remaining kids (a minority in comparison, obviously) by his "allies," whom he only occasionally encourages with a passing "WE're doing great, huh guys? Let's all laugh at those powerless guys at the bottom!" and the dumb kids around him eat that !@#$ up. The problem is, despite the assertions to the contrary by the top kid, they're not any closer to winning the game than the outsiders at the bottom of the hill. For some reason, they forget that the game's idea is to be at the top of the hill, and instead they settle for "well at least no one can push us from this intermediate spot we have on the hill." That's how little girls and !@#$% boys would play king of the hill, and that's how most alliances here do it. It just makes no sense for it.

[Cotillion]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1341120664' post='3001023']
Just saying something that's relevant to the topic just because Bansky said it at some point isn't sarcasm
[/quote]
i was attempting to explain the underlying irony through which i mocked you, no need to get reductive up in here

perhaps i should just end sentences with ¿ or (!) in future to assist you in interpretation, saving you the trouble of replying

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1341120664' post='3001023']
so many words from someone who wasn't gov in MK/NPO[/quote]

I'm not sure what's funnier...that you say MK was granted mercy because NPO didn't give us the FAN treatment, or that you compare us to NPO and then say we can't keep talking about how bad NPO was compared to MK.

Who says MK members are the only posters with a sense of irony! Maybe we're just the only ones who see it.

Edited July 1, 2012 by rsoxbronco1

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1341124577' post='3001066']
Who says MK members are the only posters with a sense of irony! Maybe we're just the only ones who see it.
[/quote]

You're lot is generally oblivious to it.

[Archon]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1341120664' post='3001023']
drivel that i'll individually quote in a moment
[/quote]

Oh you're cute. Really, you are. Here, let's try this one again:

[quote]After noCB, NPO really could've dispersed you guys quite easily from MK. They didn't, and therefore you survived for a long time by Moo's mercy, but this point of contention is really distracting from the main points.[/quote]
Gonna just leave rsox's reply here, since that was pretty awesome...so here's that part.

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1341124577' post='3001066']
I'm not sure what's funnier...that you say MK was granted mercy because NPO didn't give us the FAN treatment, or that you compare us to NPO and then say we can't keep talking about how bad NPO was compared to MK.
[/quote]

And then I'll add a comment about it really wasn't all that much of Moo giving mercy, and leave it at that. You weren't there and you don't know, and while it's hilarious watching you try to pretend you were, it's also a little irritating. Though you did just give me a fond memory of Philosopher (the one who *was* there, if you were wondering), so thanks I guess. Let's see, what's next:

[quote]1. Everyone knows that networks of spies coming from one alliance are useless these days unless that alliance is in a FAN-like situation[/quote]
Just leaving this one here to laugh about. Nothing I feel like publicly saying.

[quote]2. That last comment was a pathetic personal jab. It was just a cookie-cutter, in that you could use it on anyone and it'll have the same condescending value. I'm not insulted by your implication that I lack... whatever you implied, but I am shocked you would take the trouble to insult me yet not make the insult something personalized to me. I'm an attackable guy, and I'm, here making arguments about your specific past, yet the best insults you hurl at me are just typical charges of incompetence?[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but you're pretty much irrelevant and unremarkable as an individual in this game/world, so there was no point in bothering to invest in personalizing the response. You decided to take a shot at the collective set of my allies from 5 years ago, so I took one back. I do enjoy holding up mirrors and seeing what people say when they judgmentally respond. "Pathetic personal jab." I do hope you take note. Really, I do. Oh, and before you take the obvious (albeit flawed) route of saying something to the effect of "But you just personally attacked me again by commenting on my relevance wah hypocrite!" I'd like to note that I'm making an observation-based judgment derived from years of dealing with the politics of this world.

[quote]And what's so special about how an alliance "operates?" We're not talking Fortune 500 companies here, bub. [/quote]
And this shows that you actually completely missed the implication of the remark, which is actually pretty hilarious. Considering the few queries I got about this post I'm pretty sure it was hard to miss, but uh, hey, it actually helps reinforce the point I was trying to make pretty well.

[Drai]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1341120664' post='3001023']
However, with this moronic CN mindset, one kid says to a bunch of other kids "Hey, let's control the hill TOGETHER!" and he sits on top while protected from the remaining kids (a minority in comparison, obviously) by his "allies," whom he only occasionally encourages with a passing "WE're doing great, huh guys? Let's all laugh at those powerless guys at the bottom!" and the dumb kids around him eat that !@#$ up.
[/quote]
Except that since MK has been 'on top' we've been on the heaviest front of our coalition's side in every war, minus the one a few months ago.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Drai

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1341124577' post='3001066']
I'm not sure what's funnier...that you say MK was granted mercy because NPO didn't give us the FAN treatment, or that you compare us to NPO and then say we can't keep talking about how bad NPO was compared to MK.

Who says MK members are the only posters with a sense of irony! Maybe we're just the only ones who see it.
[/quote]

It's pretty simple, rsox, that "We're not as bad" is just an admission of guilt.

[quote name='Archon' timestamp='1341129601' post='3001086']
And then I'll add a comment about it really wasn't all that much of Moo giving mercy, and leave it at that. You weren't there and you don't know, and while it's hilarious watching you try to pretend you were, it's also a little irritating. Though you did just give me a fond memory of Philosopher (the one who *was* there, if you were wondering), so thanks I guess. Let's see, what's next:[/quote]

If it wasn't that Moo was being merciful, then what was it? I was not in either alliance at the time, but "you weren't there" isn't an acceptable excuse not to discuss the issue. It's all in the past, so there's no reason not to have an open discussion regarding things that happened years ago.

[quote]Just leaving this one here to laugh about. Nothing I feel like publicly saying.
[/quote]

You're not being as sneaky as you think you are by saying this.

[quote]I hate to break it to you, but you're pretty much irrelevant and unremarkable as an individual in this game/world, so there was no point in bothering to invest in personalizing the response. You decided to take a shot at the collective set of my allies from 5 years ago, so I took one back. I do enjoy holding up mirrors and seeing what people say when they judgmentally respond. "Pathetic personal jab." I do hope you take note. Really, I do. Oh, and before you take the obvious (albeit flawed) route of saying something to the effect of "But you just personally attacked me again by commenting on my relevance wah hypocrite!" I'd like to note that I'm making an observation-based judgment derived from years of dealing with the politics of this world.
[/quote]

I'm glad you corrected your mistake and made a more personalized jab at me, just don't let it happen again. As to my relevance, I guess I can't do the obvious "You're taking the time to have this discussion aren't you?" since you sort of pre-empted it, but I'll say while I don't ind myself as relevant as you, I'l l say I'm definitely more relevant than any alliance "leaders" who have gone with the ebb and flow of the treaty web over the years, siding one year with NPO then immediately switching to kissing your feet. They're just numbers you amass to call yourself a powerful man, and it didn't really take much intelligence to do, just some dumb luck that some imbecile said "Let's follow the guy who called him self the Whatever of Karma now!"

[quote]And this shows that you actually completely missed the implication of the remark, which is actually pretty hilarious. Considering the few queries I got about this post I'm pretty sure it was hard to miss, but uh, hey, it actually helps reinforce the point I was trying to make pretty well.
[/quote]

I didn't get any queries about that post . And I caught that the point of your post was to attack pretty much every alliance I've ever been in, though if I had to guess is all you could name is one or two (NADC, MHA, ACV, Corp, Gondor [now Deinos], NSO, CoJ), so your goal was to insult at least one of them in particular. However, it was really just a childish attempt to get a rise out of me you didn't get. I'm not one of your posters, Archon, so I don't have that big of a soft spot for people insulting me. Other than that, your comment didn't have any significant meaning to me other than indicating how flustered you are, so I moved on. I did laugh, however, that you think running an alliance really takes a high level of skill.

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1341134205' post='3001098']
Except that since MK has been 'on top' we've been on the heaviest front of our coalition's side in every war, minus the one a few months ago.
[/quote]

They've all been curb stomps, so I won't eat that tripe.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1341134205' post='3001098']
Except that since MK has been 'on top' we've been on the heaviest front of our coalition's side in every war, minus the one a few months ago.
[/quote]

Now don't get me wrong, I don't agree with most of what Stonewall Jaxon has said in this thread, but lets be honest: your quoted post is a huge stretch of the truth.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1341189928' post='3001436']
Now don't get me wrong, I don't agree with most of what Stonewall Jaxon has said in this thread, but lets be honest: your quoted post is a huge stretch of the truth.
[/quote]
Wait, what? Are you saying MK weren't on key fronts until the last war?

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1341192964' post='3001466']
Wait, what? Are you saying MK weren't on key fronts until the last war?
[/quote]

They may have been on 'key fronts' but they were never taking the heaviest hits as Drai seemed to imply.

Karma: MK fought TPF (who was sanctioned at the time yes). But they had help of the entire C&G, PC, Dark Templar, CCC, FoB (who joined C&G afterwards), IoM, and Neuva Vida.

In TOP/C&G, yes they fought for real though they had a lot of help and did outnumber TOP&co.

In the NPO pre-empt they had help from Umbrella, GOONS, FAN and NoR, who (all together) outnumbered NPO 3:1 and had all counters covered.

In the next war they only had to deal with CRAP, CSN, TTK, and NPL, and they had the help of GOONS/Umbrella as well as Europa and Alchemy. No offense to any of those alliances, but when the most competent alliance in all four of those alliances is CSN, you have a problem. It's common knowledge that Mjolnir took the brunt of the damage in that was as well.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1341197070' post='3001496']
They may have been on 'key fronts' but they were never taking the heaviest hits as Drai seemed to imply.

Karma: MK fought TPF (who was sanctioned at the time yes). But they had help of the entire C&G, PC, Dark Templar, CCC, FoB (who joined C&G afterwards), IoM, and Neuva Vida. [/quote]
You realize that many of the alliances that helped were otherwise occupied right? and MK had to fight some of TPF's allies (albeit with the help of STA and NpO)

[quote]In TOP/C&G, yes they fought for real though they had a lot of help and did outnumber TOP&co.[/quote]
You're helpless if you don't understand what you just said. MK used to be Umbrella plus any other alliance. MK has never attained that level afterwards.

[quote]In the NPO pre-empt they had help from Umbrella, GOONS, FAN and NoR, who (all together) outnumbered NPO 3:1 and had all counters covered.[/quote]
Someone doesn't know how MK-Umbrella relations went after that war and for what reasons.

[quote]In the next war they only had to deal with CRAP, CSN, TTK, and NPL, and they had the help of GOONS/Umbrella as well as Europa and Alchemy. No offense to any of those alliances, but when the most competent alliance in all four of those alliances is CSN, you have a problem. It's common knowledge that Mjolnir took the brunt of the damage in that was as well.
[/quote]
We already discounted this war. You're really digging by neglecting MHA too. It was an easy front compared to those they had taken for the last two years, but still a fight.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Archon' timestamp='1341129601' post='3001086']
Oh, and before you take the obvious (albeit flawed) route of saying something to the effect of "But you just personally attacked me again by commenting on my relevance wah hypocrite!" I'd like to note that I'm making an observation-based judgment derived from years of dealing with the politics of this world.
[/quote]

Yeah, polish that turd!

[Banksy]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1341197070' post='3001496']
They may have been on 'key fronts' but they were never taking the heaviest hits as Drai seemed to imply.

Karma: MK fought TPF (who was sanctioned at the time yes). But they had help of the entire C&G, PC, Dark Templar, CCC, FoB (who joined C&G afterwards), IoM, and Neuva Vida.

In TOP/C&G, yes they fought for real though they had a lot of help and did outnumber TOP&co.

In the NPO pre-empt they had help from Umbrella, GOONS, FAN and NoR, who (all together) outnumbered NPO 3:1 and had all counters covered.

In the next war they only had to deal with CRAP, CSN, TTK, and NPL, and they had the help of GOONS/Umbrella as well as Europa and Alchemy. No offense to any of those alliances, but when the most competent alliance in all four of those alliances is CSN, you have a problem. It's common knowledge that Mjolnir took the brunt of the damage in that was as well.
[/quote]
I don't know if you were around for karma or TOP/C&G but they were pretty big wars. TPF had quite a bit of NS on them, sure, but that was a massive front (and one I don't think Drai was referring to judging by the timeframe on his post, but it was still significant). TOP/C&G was absolutely huge. MK has never recovered from that war (and neither has TOP). TOP had an upper tier comparable to Umbrella's today (ANS was less but the same number of large nations) and after the first 2-3 weeks only MK, the ODN and NpO had more than 5-10 wars going at once (and it lasted months) with MK taking the bulk of the upper tier throughout. The same goes for NPO/Doomhouse when MK and GOONS took the vast majority of the wars which were fought in the middle and (formerly middle) - lower tiers until the final two weeks when the large NPO nations came out of PM.

If you re-read his post you will see that he didn't say MK took the on themselves, simply that they were in the biggest fronts (which is true for 2010-2012) with the [i]exception[/i] of the MHA one.

While it's fine to say that we had help with those wars (and we did, invaluable help) he is correct in saying we were on the biggest fronts, and anyone with a memory of the events can attest to the fact we took the biggest workload on those fronts.

e: SPERG KINGDOM

Edited July 2, 2012 by Banksy

[berbers]

And to be fair to MK, they are fighting 5 AA's right now and have a ton of offensive wars declared on them, so I would say they are once again fighting on a large scale.

[flak attack]

We get depressed when we don't get a good front in a global war. That's why we started this one so close to the last one.

[berbers]

Flak, I seen you had a few wars going, did you somewhat satisfy your war lust

[Goose]

I most likely left him dissatisfied and wanting more.

[Vol Navy]

I still laugh that anyone even pretends MK was treated harshly in WoTC. Less than two weeks war and very light terms compared to what they gave out later to alliances they defeated. Even wonder decomming was light by comparison.

[Floyd]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1341211367' post='3001677']
I still laugh that anyone even pretends MK was treated harshly in WoTC. Less than two weeks war and very light terms compared to what they gave out later to alliances they defeated. Even wonder decomming was light by comparison.
[/quote]

Considering in noCB MK fought what 8 or 9 alliances each bigger by multiples except I believe echelon whom was a little smaller. In the days where maybe a few people had an WRC and an unheard of crippling terms to a small alliance, who had gotten out of a major war what 6 months prior where the majority of our allies were perma-war'd, back stabbed MK or disbanded from the game. Followed by a blacklisting by the dominant power in the game. We still managed to inflict tremendous hurt on the primary antagonist of the war. We then managed to pay back those unheard of reps so quickly that we ground the Pacifican bank(that could literally move billions LOL) to a halt with our efficiency. The reason why the reps now seem so low is the rate of inflation in the game, much larger nations than before which allow for an easier pay off on a smaller portion of the alliance.

[Drai]

- I wasn't referring to the Karma war, but we actually did take a pretty big hit there too. If only because our front dragged on for a couple months after others peaced out so we were taking a lot more nukes than anybody else.
- TOP war was incredibly destructive and trying to say anything else is wrong.
- The NPO war didn't hurt our upper tier much, although most of our upper tier did take 20+ nukes that war which adds up. However our lower and middle tiers were outnumbered hugely so overall this war did hurt us a lot.
- The war a few months ago was pretty tame like I said.
- And here we are again fighting multiple alliances, a couple entirely by ourselves.
- Hi Roq this is not the context in which you like to bring up how we complain about damage, I am arguing against a claim made by Stonewall Jackson.

So to Stonewall (and Unknown Smurf) yes we have taken a ton of damage. More than most on our side. Largely because of being on the longest fronts --> most nukes taken, but also some of the tougher opponents. This directly goes against your implication that we are standing on top and shouting words of encouragement to our friends.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1341211367' post='3001677']
I still laugh that anyone even pretends MK was treated harshly in WoTC. Less than two weeks war and very light terms compared to what they gave out later to alliances they defeated. Even wonder decomming was light by comparison.
[/quote]
The war wasn't as long or crippling as later fronts, though it was very fierce and we fought all out (most MKers fighting 6 vs. 1) in a time when average warchests were a lot smaller.

However I disagree on the terms. The reps were large considering the size of our alliance, and the only alliance we ever gave harsher terms to was TOP/IRON.