Jump to content

An analysis of Mushqaeda political dynamics


The Zigur

Recommended Posts

This is a way to gain XP before the upcoming war. Declaring as MK would likely have started a war. This way they seem like a bunch of rogues before being reabsorbed/reforming MK. Its pretty transparent folks.

Wanna bet?


Is that any different from NPO being beat down purely from fear during the NPO-Doomhouse war?

Very different.


We don't really have a leadership though. Hell, the most formal thing we've got going is a "send me aid" thread and a "embarrassing CN stuff you've done" thread.

I need to get a mask so I can see the second one ;_; Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting points and perspective. Only way to prove/disprove your hypothesis is if a strong group assembles to help give MQ a 21 gun salute sendoff from Bob, or wait until the end of the war on TDO and watch if/how many MQ 'ascend' from Bob and do not either form a diff AA, or join another established set of AA's etc.

 

Until either of the above come to pass its just conjecture and an invitation to a "NO U!" circular argument/thread.

 

CJ

 

 

TBH my money is on the latter.  It's the only discussion/arguments the people on here know how to do.  I'm actually sure people try and have a tournament on how many words they can produce just to say no u - while trying to look smart, but in the end looking like complete bell-ends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there isn't exact overlap, a lot of MK's NS is going elsewhere, and a lot of MQ's NS is coming from elsewhere, but for the most part you're right.  Not entirely though.

MK also had nations join DBDC.
 

MQ has gained only 1.6 million NS. That leaves 1 million NS transferred to another/other AAs. That is a far cry from "not a singal nation".

DBDC had almost a million of MK's NS join them.
Not even sure who you're quoting, I assume it is me and if so then you're quite wrong. Edited by Commander shepard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The size of such a foe is irrelevant--our words are our law and we will be compliant with our law, just as we would with any treaty.

 

Woah there partner, with words like that you could end up in the first wave instead of the third, gotta keep a lid on those emotions to successfully navigate to the back of the damage taken line...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah there partner, with words like that you could end up in the first wave instead of the third, gotta keep a lid on those emotions to successfully navigate to the back of the damage taken line...

The fact that a months old leak of a then already outdated post is the best retort you have says enough already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that a months old leak of a then already outdated post is the best retort you have says enough already.

 

Oh, sorry I didn't realize you had changed priorities, I look forward to TOP leading the charge for the next war ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry I didn't realize you had changed priorities, I look forward to TOP leading the charge for the next war ;)

 

I know you're saying this because you're joining mi6 and war is great and you would like to be right there with TOP killing everything that moves right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll put it this way: if there were a weak/fringe alliance with this many members hopping to a rogue AA, with multiple members defending the rogues from the original AA, someone would have used it as a CB against orignal AA already.

You mean the grand total of 5 people declaring from the MK AA then leaving it and the 3 sending aid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry I didn't realize you had changed priorities, I look forward to TOP leading the charge for the next war ;)

With your level of bravado I hope to see you there as well, either with us or crushed under our boot heels.

 

But what do I know, you're an OWF soapbox hero who's never accomplished anything but making a fool of yourself in public places. So of course you'd make a dumb deduction like the one you made in the above post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read, but the assumptions don't add up. Yes the idea of a protected reserve under the guise of disbandment makes sense, but the motives don't. You are right that MK would not weaken its stance if it were to continue existing. Which is exactly what this war would do. Your belief that they do not know how this war will go is wrong. Look at the ingrediants;

 

You have a bunch of people not well liked in the CN Community and a war that is outright picking on the weakest people to attack. Do you know how many people in CN want an unprotected bully to kick after years of wars of realpolitik? The idea that it could be done without counter is quite simply not one that can be maintained. As is the idea that TOP or others could then come in to back up MK at any point. Without formal treaty TOP gets regarded as the attacker so anyone who can can e-lawyer out. Guess when people most likely e-lawyer out? When someone performs an offensive act to defend a bully. So MK in any likely scenario end up burning a bunch of NS fighting a neutral alliance. Not going to happen if they plan to regroup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your analysis flatly ignores that the Kingdom is protected by not only The Order of the Paradox, but also The Last Remnants.  It ignores the utter absence of strategic gain or value to be enjoyed by Paradoxia by the asymetric invasion of The Democratic Order, a neutral alliance of no threat to Paradoxia and to whom Paradoxia wishes no ill.  It assumes the absence of consequence for those nations engaged in conflict with TDO, who must bear the usual costs of war and will face the task of resolving their decisions should they choose to repent their extremist ways.  Finally, it inelegantly attempts to veil bias with claims of no bias.  As for the "screen captures", I simply do not see them in the post--whether this is a technical difficulty on your end or mine, I could not say.[/quote]

 

As I noted before, I do not believe you and TOP government were made aware of this mushroom plot. Several other MK allies were caught totally by surprise by the disbandment and I don't see any reason to believe that you were any different. Everything I have posted in here should not, however, seem so unrealistic, whatever poker face you chose to present on the OWF.

 

The fact of the matter is, Mushroom Kingdom has made many enemies, and If you think I am the enemy, you are wrong, I have been gone for years and have had no part in the wars since Karma, probably making me the most objective person in this thread. The actions of Vox Populi, whom I was a member, made the success of MK possible.

 

So with this established, lets look at the objective, undeniable facts: Mushroom Kingdom publicly announced a surprise disbandment. At the same time, Mushqaeda, a protected affiliate of MK,  attacked The Democratic Order "for the lulz" as they used to say. TOP then stated that the MK AA is protected against any attack like with other disbandment agreements. Later, with public outrage increasing, MK members under this protection are still able to leave at will to provide direct military support to MQ. This makes MK a de-facto strategic reserve where nations can move to the battlefront whenever necessary.

 

The common (and recent) history of Mushroom Kingdom and Mushqaeda (and other proxy AAs) highly suggest that they are hardly independent entities. If Mushqaeda is curbstomped in the next few days, the rest of the batch in Mushroom Kingdom currently cannot be touched without dragging TOP into the conflict and starting a world war.

 

TOP needs to think carefully and decide whether they will allow their friendship with MK to be abused by MK radicals. Protecting a disbanding alliance is honorable, but such protection is historically given to assist the disbanding alliance members in finding new homes, not to provide a militant safe haven. Ardus, it makes you look either weak, or complicit. Even if a larger war doesnt happen, it affect's TOP's reputation. Sleep on it.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words

Alternatively, isn't it possible that we wanted to protect our friends and former allies? There are members of MK who do not want to join the MQ crusade and have no intention of doing so. You've seen the amount of hatred some groups have for MK, and an unprotected AA would simply be an invitation for their members to be attacked and raided.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less about MQ and their attack on TDO, or the events surrounding it. It's certainly not an MK shadow government ploy like you're making it out to be. What I care about is protecting my former allies from the wolves (those that choose to remain peaceful, that is- those who engage in hostilities are doing so with full understanding of the consequences and have accepted them as such). Could the MK AA be used as a "strategic reserve" for MQ nations? Maybe. But what do you propose TOP do? Leave our friends to get torn apart by packs of roving idiots?

 

In short, you're looking too much into this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Later, with public outrage increasing, MK members under this protection are still able to leave at will to provide direct military support to MQ. This makes MK a de-facto strategic reserve where nations can move to the battlefront whenever necessary.

And by that logic any alliance not currently involved in the war is in fact a de-facto strategic reserve...

If MQ's goal was to have a protected back-up force it would have made much more sense to hide it in a number of separate alliances thereby ensuring that it wasn't possible for anyone to plan for or preempt the entry of their reserves.

But please keep up your conspiracy theorizing, it's quite amusing. Edited by Megamind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternatively, isn't it possible that we wanted to protect our friends and former allies? There are members of MK who do not want to join the MQ crusade and have no intention of doing so. You've seen the amount of hatred some groups have for MK, and an unprotected AA would simply be an invitation for their members to be attacked and raided.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less about MQ and their attack on TDO, or the events surrounding it. It's certainly not an MK shadow government ploy like you're making it out to be. What I care about is protecting my former allies from the wolves (those that choose to remain peaceful, that is- those who engage in hostilities are doing so with full understanding of the consequences and have accepted them as such). Could the MK AA be used as a "strategic reserve" for MQ nations? Maybe. But what do you propose TOP do? Leave our friends to get torn apart by packs of roving idiots?

 

In short, you're looking too much into this.

 

A respectable position. There are few things more honorable than protecting friends, but there are times when your friends will abuse their friendship to take advantage of you. Would you continue to help a friend who crashes at your palace, and takes advantage of your generosity to steal, or to use your resources to help their friends, even if it places your position at risk?

 

TOP did nothing wrong in assisting MK in my opinion. But, now that you are aware of what is taking place, you have to decide whether to continue helping the friends taking advantage of you, or whether you will do the firm but right thing. If I was TOP, I would have given MK members a limited amount of time to find a new alliance and again contribute to society. Lending your protection and assistance long term simply enables MK members to slouch around and enable the terrorist lifestyle of some of their old members. Get the honest ones on their feet and contributing to another alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I noted before, I do not believe you and TOP government were made aware of this mushroom plot. Several other MK allies were caught totally by surprise by the disbandment and I don't see any reason to believe that you were any different. Everything I have posted in here should not, however, seem so unrealistic, whatever poker face you chose to present on the OWF.

 

The fact of the matter is, Mushroom Kingdom has made many enemies, and If you think I am the enemy, you are wrong, I have been gone for years and have had no part in the wars since Karma, probably making me the most objective person in this thread. The actions of Vox Populi, whom I was a member, made the success of MK possible.

 

So with this established, lets look at the objective, undeniable facts: Mushroom Kingdom publicly announced a surprise disbandment. At the same time, Mushqaeda, a protected affiliate of MK,  attacked The Democratic Order "for the lulz" as they used to say. TOP then stated that the MK AA is protected against any attack like with other disbandment agreements. Later, with public outrage increasing, MK members under this protection are still able to leave at will to provide direct military support to MQ. This makes MK a de-facto strategic reserve where nations can move to the battlefront whenever necessary.

 

The common (and recent) history of Mushroom Kingdom and Mushqaeda (and other proxy AAs) highly suggest that they are hardly independent entities. If Mushqaeda is curbstomped in the next few days, the rest of the batch in Mushroom Kingdom currently cannot be touched without dragging TOP into the conflict and starting a world war.

 

TOP needs to think carefully and decide whether they will allow their friendship with MK to be abused by MK radicals. Protecting a disbanding alliance is honorable, but such protection is historically given to assist the disbanding alliance members in finding new homes, not to provide a militant safe haven. Ardus, it makes you look either weak, or complicit. Even if a larger war doesnt happen, it affect's TOP's reputation. Sleep on it.

Are you incapable of reading the several clarifications posted in the last few days? TOP protects those nations currently on the MK aa, who have a seniority from before the disbandment and are not involved in hostile activities against TDO(including non-tech deal related aid). How much clear do you need to have it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...