Feanor Noldorin Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Well he doesn't like the disbanding alliance to start... Nor our alliance. It's not surprising to see him in here blabbering about us but he should atleast try to do it in an amusing or interesting manner. Telling us we should be "embarrassed" or making some dumb jab about us being smug on a Sunday night is unimaginative and boring. Fake Edit: Perhaps I shouldn't be that hard on him. Im sure he's trying very hard and on the bright side, I doubt he'll sink to the moronic level of the leader of his alliance who once compared us to Hitler and the Nazis earlier this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Nor our alliance. It's not surprising to see him in here blabbering about us but he should atleast try to do it in an amusing or interesting manner. Telling us we should be "embarrassed" or making some dumb jab about us being smug on a Sunday night is unimaginative and boring. Fake Edit: Perhaps I shouldn't be that hard on him. Im sure he's trying very hard and on the bright side, I doubt he'll sink to the moronic level of the leader of his alliance who once compared us to Hitler and the Nazis earlier this year. Almost as unimaginative and boring as hitting the neutrals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Almost as unimaginative and boring as hitting the neutrals. I thought it was a stupid decision but I helped run through GPA back in the day so you won't find me on a soapbox condemning it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link Gaetz Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Most of what is said around here is unimaginative and boring, including this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 That was preAI. True, it was Olympus they joined. They did manage to allow Olympus to merge with them to form AI, so that must mean on some level that Valhalla (and thus Hal) supports the roguery Londo and Thriller committed. I mean, that is basically what Hal is saying about TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 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? Thriller, Auctor points out, wasn't AI nor Valhalla. Also, there is a major difference between accepting a rogue and working out whatever diplomatic issues that might create with what is going on here. That should have been enough, clearly it wasn't. So let's continue. Different =/= well or proper. If my friend robs a bank, that's wrong. If I give him a ride from the place where he ditched his getaway car back home knowing he robbed a bank, that makes me an accessory after the fact. That TOP stepped up to protect the MK AA was 10x expected. That they continued to do so once it became clear what MK members were up to, in some cases not even bothering to change their AA before declaring wars on TDO and its protectors, shows a callous disregard for the actions of MK, MQ and support for MK and its little lulzfest. I'm perfectly fine with irreverent (a la Kashmir), I even manage a good laugh out of someone's late light drunken posting. But there comes a point that a line must be drawn. CCC, TE, Zulu, NATO, TPF, and all those who stepped up and fought the Mushqaeda rogues will always have my respect for not just saying they oppose MQ, but actually doing something about it. But hey, if you want people who will jump off your AA and into stupidity or use the benefits of membership in your alliance and do whatever the hell they want, please recruit and accept MQ and DBDC members. They might be good in a fight, but they'll eventually get you into fights you didn't need to be in and put your alliance at risk in the process. Nor our alliance. It's not surprising to see him in here blabbering about us but he should atleast try to do it in an amusing or interesting manner. Telling us we should be "embarrassed" or making some dumb jab about us being smug on a Sunday night is unimaginative and boring. Fake Edit: Perhaps I shouldn't be that hard on him. Im sure he's trying very hard and on the bright side, I doubt he'll sink to the moronic level of the leader of his alliance who once compared us to Hitler and the Nazis earlier this year. It's interesting how you do that. Insult someone, but then make sure you don't quote them, least they see that you are talking about them, and around them. <_< I'll be direct. TOP isn't Nazi Germany. TOP is Pakistan in terms of Planet Bob, with all the negative implications that come with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 True, it was Olympus they joined. They did manage to allow Olympus to merge with them to form AI, so that must mean on some level that Valhalla (and thus Hal) supports the roguery Londo and Thriller committed. I mean, that is basically what Hal is saying about TOP. That's such a reach, I don't think Reed Richards could stretch that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) That's such a reach, I don't think Reed Richards could stretch that far. Superhero humor is best humor. Edited October 2, 2013 by porksaber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 It's interesting how you do that. Insult someone, but then make sure you don't quote them, least they see that you are talking about them, and around them. <_< I wanted to add something to what Ardus said, so I quoted him. Afterwards, I made a general comment about you. There was no need to quote one of your post as I wasn't addressing anything you directly said. You're an active member in this thread so Its apparent you would read the post without me having to tag you're name. Perhaps next time I will do so and make sure I increase the font size and highlight your name. I'll be direct. TOP isn't Nazi Germany. TOP is Pakistan in terms of Planet Bob, with all the negative implications that come with it. See, I knew I was being to hard on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incitatus Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Most of what is said around here is unimaginative and boring, including this post. Favorite post of this thread ^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 I wanted to add something to what Ardus said, so I quoted him. Afterwards, I made a general comment about you. There was no need to quote one of your post as I wasn't addressing anything you directly said. You're an active member in this thread so Its apparent you would read the post without me having to tag you're name. Perhaps next time I will do so and make sure I increase the font size and highlight your name. See, I knew I was being to hard on you. In this post, username feanor noldrin points out that he was interested in adding something to that one thing (ostensibly one of many) that user ardus said. Following the aforementioned errata, he made a general comment about user chairman hal. He proceeds to mention that it wasn't necessary for chairman hal to quote one of his own posts as feanor noldorin wasn't directly speaking to, in a contradictory fashion or otherwise, to chairman hal. He makes the assumption that since chairman hal is an active member of this very thread (translated: autistic), he didn't necessarily need to undertake any sort of special accomodation to ensure that the attention of chairman hal would be drawn to his input into the conversation. User Feanor Noldorin will consider using elaborative decoration to the text to which he wishes to draw the attention of chairman hal in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus 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.We have proactively informed those applying to TOP that they must individually settle their outstanding conflicts, with special emphasis on ensuring they leave with the blessing of the neutrals and those parties publicly declared to their defense. I'm willing to give anybody a second chance who seeks it and let bygones be bygones. I have thrived and suffered both by that rule, but I believe it to be a good one.This is not the first time I have seen the "implied strong-arm" argument casually tossed at an alliance I call home. It is worth less than a flea's waste, an fabricated accusation of wrongdoing where no whiff of wrongdoing exists. Your feigned \m/oral outrage is similarly thin, premised on the desire to tech raid and seek petty vengeance upon those no longer deeply integrated into the broader political web. TOP is protecting those who don't want to be involved and is willing to accept those who respect the requests of those they have wronged. Given our long history with MK, the common procedures in international affairs, and a desire to not exacerbate global population declines, it is absolutely the correct course of action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 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. Applying to another alliance or going rouge is too much effort yay apathy. I'm going to do what I have been doing for the past year keep my nation alive by doing the bare minimum although I dont have anyone to remind me when I get close to deletion so I might not last. I am however glad I read this thread more things change the more they stay the same crazy runs the OWF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) 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.At worst people will speculate for a month or however long this draws on, once the affair subsides and nothing has happened (mk reform, mass MK declare ect) whatever questions there are in the mind of the audience will be answered. Even if we were embarrassed(lol) or remotely concerned with the peanut gallery's opinion, even if we actually considered this a mistake, reality will prove a better argument against untamed speculation than any ridiculous backpedalling, or token withdrawal of protection. Also your moral high horsing is amusing. Edited October 2, 2013 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted October 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 At worst people will speculate for a month or however long this draws on, once the affair subsides and nothing has happened (mk reform, mass MK declare ect) whatever questions there are in the mind of the audience will be answered. Even if we were embarrassed(lol) or remotely concerned with the peanut gallery's opinion, even if we actually considered this a mistake, reality will prove a better argument against untamed speculation than any ridiculous backpedalling, or token withdrawal of protection. Also your moral high horsing is amusing. To be fair, it's totally possible that the "peanut gallery" has influenced affairs to the extent that an MK reformation or reinforcements won't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 To be fair, it's totally possible that the "peanut gallery" has influenced affairs to the extent that an MK reformation or reinforcements won't happen. Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted October 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 If popular opinion was not against Mushqaeda, you would not have seen the response we had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Wrong again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) To be fair, it's totally possible that the "peanut gallery" has influenced affairs to the extent that an MK reformation or reinforcements won't happen.To be fair what you are proposing is an untestable and unverifiable hypothesis. Regardless of evidence, argument or occurrence- the parameters of your theory will shift such that it will never be wrong. You present a coherent and internally consistent narrative, but it is one which could be as much fantasy as it is fact. Essentially this is second rate propaganda.If popular opinion was not against Mushqaeda, you would not have seen the response we had.'Popular opinion' is at best an indication of impotence. Enemies of ex-MK are frustrated, and so they have come out to volunteer their opinion. Besides, any first semester stats student knows that voluntary response polls almost always overrepresent the most negative and opinionated elements of a population. Edited October 2, 2013 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted October 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) To be fair what you are proposing is an untestable and unverifiable hypothesis. Regardless of evidence, argument or occurrence- the parameters of your theory will shift such that it will never be wrong. You present a coherent and internally consistent narrative, but it is one which could be as much fantasy as it is fact. Essentially this is second rate propaganda. A fair analysis; you are correct that the impact of public opinion is very difficult to measure. However, if you look at the war timeline, In the first five days only TTE and CCC responded (along with a few daring but unrelated TPF raids), both for treaty related reasons. 5 days is a long time in a war, and it was obvious many were confused and even afraid of Mushqaeda and uncertain as to what would happen should they attack or criticize. It was only after the 21st, when ZULU and GOP declared war for non-treaty reasons, and public opinion began to be openly voiced from members of uninvolved alliances, that the tide began to turn against the soldiers of Allachron. Of course, this is just my opinion and analysis, and never claimed it to be a theory or fact. But I don't think it can be denied that the "peanut gallery" at the very least encouraged other alliances to become involved. Edited October 2, 2013 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 A fair analysis; you are correct that the impact of public opinion is very difficult to measure. However, if you look at the war timeline, In the first five days only TTE and CCC responded (along with a few daring but unrelated TPF raids), both for treaty related reasons. 5 days is a long time in a war, and it was obvious many were confused and even afraid of Mushqaeda and uncertain as to what would happen should they attack or criticize. It was only after the 21st, when ZULU and GOP declared war for non-treaty reasons, and public opinion began to be openly voiced from members of uninvolved alliances, that the tide began to turn against the soldiers of Allachron. Of course, this is just my opinion and analysis, and never claimed it to be a theory or fact. But I don't think it can be denied that the "peanut gallery" at the very least encouraged other alliances to become involved. Wrong again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted October 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Well, what would be the alternative analysis from my friends in TOP? "Wrong again" is not much of an analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Neither is whatever drivel you're posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Wrong again While it perturbs me to see the disbanded(ing?) MK members like Potato giving responses such as this, I can say that I understand and have even come to expect such low-quality conversation from them. TOP, especially government and former government of TOP, I like to hold to a higher standard. At least iamthey attempted to respond to Tywin, while you simply show a complete lack of basic respect for a fellow ruler. It's rather sad to see from an alliance I used to call home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 While it perturbs me to see the disbanded(ing?) MK members like Potato giving responses such as this, I can say that I understand and have even come to expect such low-quality conversation from them. TOP, especially government and former government of TOP, I like to hold to a higher standard. At least iamthey attempted to respond to Tywin, while you simply show a complete lack of basic respect for a fellow ruler. It's rather sad to see from an alliance I used to call home. Respect is earned, not given. And people have spent a long time explaining in clear and simple words why Junkalunka was wrong. He refuses to understand and keeps on harping about how MK=MQ and we're losing miserably... After a while, you get bored of trying to reason with morons and you don't want to bother anymore. 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.