Friendship - Killing Politics on Bob?

[Garion]

R&R is the third most politically active XX alliance. Let that sink in.

 

You truly are a gift that keeps on giving.

[Azaghul]

The pat-on-backing going on here in the last few posts has been great guys, honestly.

 

But let's be honest here, listening to FA advice from anyone from C&G or TOP is essentially like attending "Become a Satellite/Serf 101." I find it incredibly ironic that anyone from C&G would dare criticize how another alliance or sphere handles its own FA when in reality, the FA policy of C&G has been "Attach Ourselves to the Winners."

 

We can trace that back to C&G and SuperFriends back in 2009, from Karma forward, until C&G decided to hop off and leech onto PB/DH. Now it would seem that NPO's making its rise again, and guess who's hopping on the NPO bandwagon? That's right - C&G. Now I'm not going to be critical of playing politics that way - if you all are content jumping ship to ship, that's entirely your call, I have no say nor do I care to have any say in what C&G elects to do FA-wise. But for the love of God, don't be the call girl of every rising power sphere and then go tell others that they need to step up. That's plain hypocrisy.

 

But honestly, it shouldn't come as shocking that you guys would suggest such things - that's been your doctrine for a while now. "Get in bed with every new power, jump ship before everyone turns on you."

 

 

Yev, you're welcome to read that entire post over again, but replace "C&G" with "TOP." It should serve the same purpose. The only difference being that TOP never had the foresight to jump ship before getting rolled with all of its butt-buddies.

C&G has had strong ties to MK, Umbrella and GOONS (let's not forget that MK was IN C&G) during, and before, the days of Supergrievances.  To say that they dumped SF to link up with DH/PB is really stupid.  It ignores the fact that, on balance, C&G was more in favor of opposing SF/XX than PB.

 

You also have it backwards with NPO and C&G.  C&G has had a major part in "rehabilitating" (for lack of a better word) NPO.  Athens/TLR were some of the first significant players to really reach out to NPO.  At the time, NPO was in a less favorable position politically than Athens/TLR/C&G.  NPO probably wouldn't be where they are today without them.  It's a relationship that has been mutually beneificial. 

[Neo Uruk]

Third most politically active? What kind of shit statistic is that?

That'd be like me saying: GOONS is first most retarded alliance in CN. Let that sink in. See how absolutely retarded that sounds?

I'm sure people will agree with what you said, despite your awful grammar in your "statistic." RnR doesn't work towards its goals, as given by its status in two blocs; they can't pick a side. There was a time when one bloc was pledging their support to those aiming to destroy the other, how coherent is RnR's FA if they stick with both sides?
 

You truly are a gift that keeps on giving.

You truly have nothing but one-liners.

[Omniscient1]

I'm sure people will agree with what you said, despite your awful grammar in your "statistic." RnR doesn't work towards its goals, as given by its status in two blocs; they can't pick a side. There was a time when one bloc was pledging their support to those aiming to destroy the other, how coherent is RnR's FA if they stick with both sides?

Throwing out some strange statistic about RnR being a below average XX alliance in terms of "political activity" ( which I still don't understand what you're talking about) just screams "I made this shit up on the spot ". You could have said "RnR signs the __ most treaties of any XX alliance" or even something qualitative like "RnR hasn't shown leadership ability" or some such. Then it could have been debated with facts and opinions.

My grammar followed your formula. It was worded that way to help highten the absurdity of your "fact".

Also hi. :)

[RevolutionaryRebel]

SuperGrievances 2.0

Coming Soon

It's not impossible. DH is still the biggest barrier standing in the way of C&G and political freedom and while I know first hand how deep the roots with MK go, nothing is guaranteed in this game. Though ATM, I doubt that's where they would be looking, even if they did have that liberty. R&R is definitely still raw over the LSF affair, for instance. It would take a lot of coaxing from NPO for a "New Grievances Order" to be viable, despite that being the most likely based on existing treaty ties.

 

I just think that SG 2: the Electron Sponge Boogaloo would be hilarious under the current paradigm. Especially if you added Dos in the mix.

 

Looking over the blocs actually, I think I wouldn't mind someone attempting to build an all-new bloc, even if the preference these days seems to be the construction of virtual blocs rather than discrete treaty-bound ones.

 

EDIT: But the majority of my love still belongs to LEO. Remember when everyone complained about colour politics killing Bob?

Edited May 14, 2013 by revolutionary rebel

[Neo Uruk]

Throwing out some strange statistic about RnR being a below average XX alliance in terms of "political activity" ( which I still don't understand what you're talking about) just screams "I made this shit up on the spot ". You could have said "RnR signs the __ most treaties of any XX alliance" or even something qualitative like "RnR hasn't shown leadership ability" or some such. Then it could have been debated with facts and opinions.

My grammar followed your formula. It was worded that way to help highten the absurdity of your "fact".

Also hi. :)

Well, I figured political activity was something you could determine as a thing. RnR signs treaties in many spheres, and hold onto some to keep getting rolled, as well as having what I would consider one of the weaker governments in the world.

[Jgoods45]

It's not impossible. DH is still the biggest barrier standing in the way of C&G and political freedom and while I know first hand how deep the roots with MK go, nothing is guaranteed in this game. Though ATM, I doubt that's where they would be looking, even if they did have that liberty. R&R is definitely still raw over the LSF affair, for instance. It would take a lot of coaxing from NPO for a "New Grievances Order" to be viable, despite that being the most likely based on existing treaty ties.

 

I just think that SG 2: the Electron Sponge Boogaloo would be hilarious under the current paradigm. Especially if you added Dos in the mix.

 

Looking over the blocs actually, I think I wouldn't mind someone attempting to build an all-new bloc, even if the preference these days seems to be the construction of virtual blocs rather than discrete treaty-bound ones.

 

EDIT: But the majority of my love still belongs to LEO. Remember when everyone complained about colour politics killing Bob?

 

Political Freedom? From what? We're happy with the way things are going and we're more than satisfied with the ties we have now. Furthermore, the relations between C&G and SF/XX are far too strained and there really isn't any desire to improve relations with those groups of alliances any time soon. 

[RevolutionaryRebel]

I did say I'm basing that off what would be more amusing for myself, rather than Alliance interests. Still, a bloc can only be derp-rushsed so many times before it thinks about ways of breaking-up those Alliance herds that keep getting fronted against them. Out of interest, when was the last time DH defended C&G from attackers?

 

Not saying this our of any ulterior motivation, just curious.

[Neo Uruk]

Out of interest, when was the last time DH defended C&G from attackers?

TOP-CnG. There hasn't been a direct assault on CnG since. Last war was the first war where DH was the target.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

TOP-CnG. There hasn't been a direct assault on CnG since. Last war was the first war where DH was the target.

That was before DH existed, while SuperGreviances was still a thing (incidentally, the last war I was part of IIRC), though. Not that those AAs that formed DH weren't on their side.

[IYIyTh]

in before mk polar conspiracy

[Garion]

 You truly have nothing but one-liners.

 

They're more than enough for people with your political acumen.

 

Well, I figured political activity was something you could determine as a thing. RnR signs treaties in many spheres, and hold onto some to keep getting rolled, as well as having what I would consider one of the weaker governments in the world.

 

R&R signs treaties in many spheres... just as any other relevant political player did/does. We don't even have that many anymore.

As for the government part, I'll concede Ego and Bambi suck big time.

[berbers]

As for the government part, I'll concede Ego and Bambi suck big time.

[Mr Vicarious]

Your commentary, while cute, ignores the entire point of my post, and therein lies the problem with your alliance. The complacency and acceptance of the game-wide overarching public opinion of Sparta, is what will keep you in that position of always having a target on your back. Whereas alliances like MK, NPO, had targets on their backs because they did way more right, in regards to winning (or trying to win) the broader political game. You do not need to set out for world domination to avoid a reputation such as yours. Take DT for instance. They are not really disrespected as an alliance, or fighting force by anyone on the game, yet nowhere in the back channels of CN do leaders sit around going "I wonder who DT is planning to go after next on their march to the top"... they are quiet (like you say Sparta is), they keep to themselves (like you say Sparta does)... but when the buttons get pressed, instead of slinking off into a deep dark corner, they saddle up and ride out. It is utterly amazing that after 5 years in CN, no leader in Sparta has ever realized that formula for success. So by all means, plug your ears, view my rant as a hate-masked personal vendetta (most of the time, it admittedly is, but in the broader area of this OP and ensuing conversation, it is a 100% honest, and globally predominant view of your alliance, and nobody works to fix it.), and just continue to be the worlds convenient punching bag simply because you accept the mediocrity of your members, and refuse to make the punching of your alliance inconvenient for those punching (re: stop rolling over and stand up).

 

 

 

2) This is absurd for so many reasons, I suggest asking those who fought us this past war. Or checking the compilation of coalition statistics from both sides and then tell me how "inactive" we are. An massive IRC presence is not the most important measuring stick of any alliance, who shows up at war time, is far more important.

Having fought TLR 3 wars straight, you were very inactive in all of them.

[Neo Uruk]

They're more than enough for people with your political acumen.

I'm sure.
 
 

R&R signs treaties in many spheres... just as any other relevant political player did/does. We don't even have that many anymore.
As for the government part, I'll concede Ego and Bambi suck big time.

You don't have that many anymore because you're in two pariah blocs.

[Canik]

The real issue is simply stupidity. Stupidly handling friendship is the cause of some of CN's woes, but not the actual friendship itself.  :)

[WarriorSoul]

I'm sure people will agree with what you said, despite your awful grammar in your "statistic." RnR doesn't work towards its goals, as given by its status in two blocs; they can't pick a side. There was a time when one bloc was pledging their support to those aiming to destroy the other, how coherent is RnR's FA if they stick with both sides?

 

I'm trying not to be offended by your ignorance, but it's difficult.

 

Maybe you haven't noticed, which wouldn't be shocking given your other blatantly oblivious posts, but SF and XX have been on the same page for quite some time now. How incoherent could our FA be when 7 allies are on the same page? :|

Edited May 14, 2013 by WarriorSoul

[WorldConqueror]

I'm trying not to be offended by your ignorance, but it's difficult.
 
Maybe you haven't noticed, which wouldn't be shocking given your other blatantly oblivious posts, but SF and XX have been on the same page for quite some time now. How incoherent could our FA be when 7 allies are on the same page? :|

You're missing the context of Myth's often argued position, where he says that SF and XX were never particularly close, and MHA/Sparta were trying to preserve their Umb ties, and etc.

[Neo Uruk]

I'm trying not to be offended by your ignorance, but it's difficult.
 
Maybe you haven't noticed, which wouldn't be shocking given your other blatantly oblivious posts, but SF and XX have been on the same page for quite some time now. How incoherent could our FA be when 7 allies are on the same page? :|

A year isn't really all that long. I mean, I guess it counts for something, but even during Dave War, RnR held ties in CnG - regarded by many to be the polar opposite camp.

[WarriorSoul]

You're missing the context of Myth's often argued position, where he says that SF and XX were never particularly close, and MHA/Sparta were trying to preserve their Umb ties, and etc.

 

Conceded. I wasn't there for the formation of XX, but I'll agree that XX and SF haven't always been on the same page. However, I'm referring to just prior to Dave and everything after, where (out of necessity, one might argue) both blocs have been on the same page. And that's really what I'm referring to. Neo Uruk made the point that we can't pick a side, which may have been valid around a year and a half ago, but at this time, it's a moot point.

 

A year isn't really all that long. I mean, I guess it counts for something, but even during Dave War, RnR held ties in CnG - regarded by many to be the polar opposite camp.

 

Meh, a year is plenty long enough to get them on the same page politically.

 

Also, note that R&R had one CnG tie during Dave, to Int, which really served absolutely no purpose throughout the course of that war, and resulted in a fairly unceremonious cancellation directly after. Of all the alliances you could pick in the last year or so to provide an example of conflicting treaties, I wouldn't actually put R&R near the top, considering that both IRON and NPO had ties to Non Grata and CnG prior to the last war.

 

And  before you make another counter-argument. :|

 

I've made a motion to rename the war "The Conflict of Interest War" for a reason

[Neo Uruk]

Meh, a year is plenty long enough to get them on the same page politically.
 
Also, note that R&R had one CnG tie during Dave, to Int, which really served absolutely no purpose throughout the course of that war, and resulted in a fairly unceremonious cancellation directly after. Of all the alliances you could pick in the last year or so to provide an example of conflicting treaties, I wouldn't actually put R&R near the top, considering that both IRON and NPO had ties to Non Grata and CnG prior to the last war.
 
And  before you make another counter-argument. :|

Fair enough. Although I will point out that DH was the primary target of the last war, and NPO/IRON had no qualms with CnG (that weren't resolved diplomatically, at least) Edited May 15, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Fair point. I didn't necessarily mean for my point to come across that way.

 

It was, however, to counter Yev's point that R&R hasn't ever done anything.

It's still my point.

 

You made the argument that R&R had helped the creation of the SF-XX superbloc. However, I had already said as much. Treaties and blocs are not an end: they are means to an end. The problem with R&R and so many alliances is that they think that the goal in this game is to get treaties: it's not. Treaties are tools to achieve goals.

Your argument is exactly what I reproach to R&R: you've spent years in one of the most powerful political position one could hope for. Yet, you did nothing [i]with[/i] it. Alliances like MK, NPO, TOP, Umbrella, Polaris and GOD (to name a handful) experience the ups and downs of this game because they use their political capital to accomplish things (less for GOD these days). That's why they also end up getting their comeuppance sooner or later (and global wars are centered on that objective).

 

Your alliance is simply content to exist and sign treaties. 

[IYIyTh]

It's still my point.

 

You made the argument that R&R had helped the creation of the SF-XX superbloc. However, I had already said as much. Treaties and blocs are not an end: they are means to an end. The problem with R&R and so many alliances is that they think that the goal in this game is to get treaties: it's not. Treaties are tools to achieve goals.

Your argument is exactly what I reproach to R&R: you've spent years in one of the most powerful political position one could hope for. Yet, you did nothing with it. Alliances like MK, NPO, TOP, Umbrella, Polaris and GOD (to name a handful) experience the ups and downs of this game because they use their political capital to accomplish things (less for GOD these days). That's why they also end up getting their comeuppance sooner or later (and global wars are centered on that objective).

 

Your alliance is simply content to exist and sign treaties. 

 

Well, you would have no way of knowing -- but, they certainly have done more than their fair share with their political capital. I think it had more to do with long-term goals more than short-term "Hey these guys are a threat let's see if we can manipulate all of our allies into attacking them," though.

[Rayvon]

Well, you would have no way of knowing -- but, they certainly have done more than their fair share with their political capital. I think it had more to do with long-term goals more than short-term "Hey these guys are a threat let's see if we can manipulate all of our allies into attacking them," though.

So R&R/CnG are the big-picture masterminds beh .... I can't even get that question out ........

[IYIyTh]

So R&R/CnG are the big-picture masterminds beh .... I can't even get that question out ........

 

I never said that.

 

I did however defend the notion that R&R is/was so politically inept in that up until recently it has yielded much more influence in and outside their respective sphere than the other parts and pieces therein. (The little pups have grown, in before alliance x y z are bad doesn't count.)

 

CnG is playing their own game, their short-term goals tended to coincide with the ebb and flow of the recently ended period in CN and so they played their part.

 

You don't have to lead a movement in order to gain from one.

Edited May 16, 2013 by IYIyTh