potato Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 The same as whatever inane drivel you've said in the past. None whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 There would be nothing to gain materially from MK disbanding, having many people join MQ to hit a neutral and get countered, and then reforming. It would be a stupid waste of warchests and war potential if our intention was just to reform. Then why are there 60 nations still on the Mushroom Kingdom AA? Why has that number barely gone down for over a week? "We'll leave when we are good and ready" isn't flying, so the best way to squelch the "crazy talk" is simply to move on. It's easy, I can send instructions with dolphins on them and everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 Twynn you are correct, TOP is protecting and enabling MK attackers to get away with their atrocities. It's all part of TOP's agenda to become the sole superpower. But what else would you expect from an alliance such as The Order of the Pony. Their filth has been a stain on cn for a long time, just ask argent. The mastermind of all this is Ardus, the ex prince of MK and now lead FA guy at TOP. This was all part of his scheme to sacrafice MK and damage enemies while not starting a global war yet. Since they can't be seen defending an aggressive living alliance they fund a "dead" alliance that hit a neutral which would bring in moralists to their aid. It also solves the problem of MK having to choose between TOP and NG/NPO. As a check to make sure MK doens't go to "the other side" a disbandment is perfect to make sure that ns is neutralized and not an asset to Pacifica, an alliance TOP is actively trying to get destroyed since they are the only ones that pose a threat to TOP superiority. After their block PF(PonyFort) failed they got even more aggressive in the quest for power. This is just another loose end now tied up for them. Down with TOP, down with Ponies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 Twynn you are correct, TOP is protecting and enabling MK attackers to get away with their atrocities. It's all part of TOP's agenda to become the sole superpower. But what else would you expect from an alliance such as The Order of the Pony. <snip> Ok, we get it, there is no logical reason for TOP to be in on the whatever we're calling this...lulz, whatever. So why not give the people who are still on the Mushroom Kingdom AA 72 hours notice that protection of their AA will be dropped? Hell give 'em a week. That way there's no longer any question in anyone's mind about TOP being in on this and they can go back to being smug or whatever TOP does on a Sunday night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 *Play paradox games and geek out on history.. not like I would know Some AA's get permanent protection after disbandment like FOK and BN etc, maybe TOP will do that. I think it was Ardus that said they are not protecting the nations that engage in war so only the peaceful nations that are too lazy or inactive to move are protected. But if i was TOP I would be finding all of this great. You get rid of a polarizing ally without the cng crowd getting them and you get to watch alliances squirm on MK's way out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Ok, we get it, there is no logical reason for TOP to be in on the whatever we're calling this...lulz, whatever. So why not give the people who are still on the Mushroom Kingdom AA 72 hours notice that protection of their AA will be dropped? Hell give 'em a week. That way there's no longer any question in anyone's mind about TOP being in on this and they can go back to being smug or whatever TOP does on a Sunday night.You do realize that most alliances get far more than 72 hours of protection? It's only been two weeks, a vast amount of alliances get a month or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Then why are there 60 nations still on the Mushroom Kingdom AA? Why has that number barely gone down for over a week? "We'll leave when we are good and ready" isn't flying, so the best way to squelch the "crazy talk" is simply to move on. It's easy, I can send instructions with dolphins on them and everything. We were given indefinite protection. I have no intention of pretending like I'm going to play this game ever again, so I'll keep on collecting and sitting on the AA. The alternative of looking for a new alliance or dealing with tech raiders on and off until I get knocked out of range for any of them don't sound like any better options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Ok, we get it, there is no logical reason for TOP to be in on the whatever we're calling this...lulz, whatever. So why not give the people who are still on the Mushroom Kingdom AA 72 hours notice that protection of their AA will be dropped? Hell give 'em a week. That way there's no longer any question in anyone's mind about TOP being in on this and they can go back to being smug or whatever TOP does on a Sunday night.Blind assertion does not an argument make.TOP moves at her own pace, not yours.That said, why so hostile? With our number of mutual friends, we ought not be fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted September 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Blind assertion does not an argument make. TOP moves at her own pace, not yours. That said, why so hostile? With our number of mutual friends, we ought not be fighting. So because people like ChairmanHAL and myself have mutual friends with TOP, that means we aren't supposed to voice our disagreements? MK was an intensely polarizing alliance, I came back after three years with a clean slate and yet they managed to alienate me in one night's time, and then go on to try and upset global stability. TOP moves at her own pace, now that she holds a dominant position. I remember a time when we were allied and we all had to dance to a different tune in Citadel. All empires come and go, but the going is always faster when ego begins to trump rational decision making. Edited September 30, 2013 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 So because people like ChairmanHAL and myself have mutual friends with TOP, that means we aren't supposed to voice our disagreements? MK was an intensely polarizing alliance, I came back after three years with a clean slate and yet they managed to alienate me in one night's time, and then go on to try and upset global stability. TOP moves at her own pace, now that she holds a dominant position. I remember a time when we were allied and we all had to dance to a different tune in Citadel. All empires come and go, but the going is always faster when ego begins to trump rational decision making. If it actually took you just a night to be alienated from MK (who didn't really do anything particularly polarizing in the past few months before their disbandment), then I'm highly suspect of your claim that you had a clean slate. At least just be upfront about it. You don't like MK because they proved that it's possible to rule the world without some sort of inane "ideology" that doesn't actually have central tenants or distinguishing features- you know, things that define real ideologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted October 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) If it actually took you just a night to be alienated from MK (who didn't really do anything particularly polarizing in the past few months before their disbandment), then I'm highly suspect of your claim that you had a clean slate. At least just be upfront about it. You don't like MK because they proved that it's possible to rule the world without some sort of inane "ideology" that doesn't actually have central tenants or distinguishing features- you know, things that define real ideologies. Again, you miss your mark, but you are getting warmer. An ideology is "a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." Mushroom Kingdom had an ideology, it was just a bad one. I would question how much power they derived from their crown, with such a weak philosophy. They were never able to destroy their enemies like NPO did. Still, that was more cause for pity than hatred. My dislike was due to MK's poor diplomatic conduct towards HB. Why wouldn't I condemn them on their way out, as they attack a neutral alliance? Edited October 1, 2013 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Calling HB government, calling HB government. Cleanup isle 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted October 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Calling HB government, calling HB government. Cleanup isle 3 And, why would that be necessary? MK doesnt exist anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Blind assertion does not an argument make. TOP moves at her own pace, not yours. That said, why so hostile? With our number of mutual friends, we ought not be fighting. You are deflecting the question and making it about me. While I'm flattered, I also think I have my answer anyway. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Because some of us like HB or at least want to or are neutral about them, and you're making them look extremely stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Then why are there 60 nations still on the Mushroom Kingdom AA? Why has that number barely gone down for over a week? "We'll leave when we are good and ready" isn't flying, so the best way to squelch the "crazy talk" is simply to move on. It's easy, I can send instructions with dolphins on them and everything. Looking through, it's a lot of people who used to be active and basically maintain their nation to maintain their nation. I can't speak to why they all haven't gone elsewhere yet, but I suspect there are a lot of people who don't want to delete after all this time and can't see themselves joining or can't be bothered to join another alliance. Or they just haven't looked at our boards to see the disbandment (I don't think an in-game message was ever sent). I suspect you'll see the number start to go down as they slowly realize what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Ok, we get it, there is no logical reason for TOP to be in on the whatever we're calling this...lulz, whatever. So why not give the people who are still on the Mushroom Kingdom AA 72 hours notice that protection of their AA will be dropped? Hell give 'em a week. That way there's no longer any question in anyone's mind about TOP being in on this and they can go back to being smug or whatever TOP does on a Sunday night. To be fair, up until the recent AA reset, a lot of disbanded alliances had indefinite protection including Nueva Vida and Colossus. So, MK having the same is nothing new and not sure why it matters that TOP is protecting the AA? If it is because of MQ, sorry mate but just get the fuck over it. MQ=/=MK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 To be fair, up until the recent AA reset, a lot of disbanded alliances had indefinite protection including Nueva Vida and Colossus. So, MK having the same is nothing new and not sure why it matters that TOP is protecting the AA? If it is because of MQ, sorry mate but just get the fuck over it. MQ=/=MK. If you don't understand why this disbandment was different than the others, then I guess there's nothing left to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 If you don't understand why this disbandment was different than the others, then I guess there's nothing left to say. Please elaborate. I am curious as to why it is different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Please elaborate. I am curious as to why it is different? It's because we, supposedly, have a super secret plan (we do, it's just not what ChairmanHal thinks he knows). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Please elaborate. I am curious as to why it is different?Well he doesn't like the disbanding alliance to start... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 I do believe the highlighted MK nations are legitimate war targets for the neutral coalition? "neutral coalition" lol :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Please elaborate. I am curious as to why it is different? For starters...none of the alliances you mentioned had a significant number of members go rogue afterward or jump on a faux protectorate's AA and attack a random neutral alliance. I'd say TOP should be embarrassed, but they allowed several people on their AA already that flew the Mushqaeda flag. We also know what would happen if the anti-MQ coalition demanded that TOP give them up for justice--request denied. If TOP does not actively support MQ/the rogues, then they damn sure don't seem to have any problem with their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 For starters...none of the alliances you mentioned had a significant number of members go rogue afterward or jump on a faux protectorate's AA and attack a random neutral alliance. I'd say TOP should be embarrassed, but they allowed several people on their AA already that flew the Mushqaeda flag. We also know what would happen if the anti-MQ coalition demanded that TOP give them up for justice--request denied. If TOP does not actively support MQ/the rogues, then they damn sure don't seem to have any problem with their actions. That is it? Okay, I will give you that MK is doing it different but MK has always done it different. TOP has been a long-time ally to MK, so why would you think they would not extend protection to the MK AA? Frankly, I am hoping to poach the ever-loving shit out of MQ and DBDC. There are many quality people on those AAs. If the neutral coalition wants justice, meh. They can try and get it but won't do them much good. As for TOP not having a problem, if that were true, wouldn't they be hitting the neutral coalition right now instead allowing multiple AAs to hit MQ/DBDC... Quite a few alliances have allowed rogues to join their AAs, so that is nothing new. IIRC, didn't members of Thriller join AI while you were a member Hal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 That was preAI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.