Jump to content

An analysis of Mushqaeda political dynamics


The Zigur
 Share

Recommended Posts

 
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.


It's rather sad that you were once in TOP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's rather sad that you were once in TOP.

 

I agree. TOP has rarely lead, and ever clung to the robes of others such as Lord Holton's current alliance. If TOP is seeking a global leadership role, you would do well to study and ask the advice of those who have fought and reigned before you. I suggest you watch this presentation by Professor Mainelli, a distinguished professor at the Gresham Lannister School of Governance.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bth_lol-face.jpg

 

TOP has some work to do on the friendships front. Gotta wonder what they are thinking alienating all their friends for a dead alliance.

 

Junka, You should maybe take a look at TOP's current friends. Doubt that most of them really care all that much. But thanks for attempting to speak on our (our being TOP's friends and allies) behalf but please stop doing so until you are actually far better informed as to what is going on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clear at this point that you've completely ignored what I posted. I guess it's just slander after all.

 

Very well...the horse appeared to twitch, it must need another beating...

 

Our protection of the MK AA after its disbandment was exceedingly standard.

 

On paper perhaps, but any neutral observer can look at the slow pace of departures from MK and the MQ debacle and see there was nothing standard about it in practice.

 

We have not extended our protection to any nation that went to war with TDO or anyone else, as those nations willingly chose to go rogue. If you want confirmation of this, feel free to ask any of the alliances involved. 

 

Oh I will.  But it's funny how you think your presence in the room doesn't somehow alter the behavior of others without you having to say anything.

 

Several ex-MK nations that had gone rogue on TDO have applied to join TOP. Their applications have been put on hold while we have contacted TDO and its co-combatants to establish a procedure by which these nations can individually negotiate an exit from the war.

 

Meanwhile they enjoy the full protection of TOP.  To say the owe reps to TDO is understatement.  Somehow though I don't think they'll be paying a dime.

 

Contrary to the claim that conspiracy theorists are circulating, TOP did not have substantial foreknowledge of MK's impending disbandment. We were informed four hours before the event. The rest of MK's allies were likewise blindsided; GOONS, for example, received 20 minutes' notice. While we are flattered at your belief in our facility and cleverness, there was no intricate plot at play, and indeed the net effect of MK's departure was that we lost one of our closest allies. This was not an advantageous event for us.

 

Actually, I wasn't the first one to advance the theory, but it certainly fit everything in terms of the evidence on hand.  Is it possible you weren't clued in in advance?  Absolutely.  Have you done anything that would cause me to have faith that TDO will be compensated by those who went rogue on them before they are admitted into TOP and thus be punished in some form or fashion?  No.  Do I expect to see a minimum of 45-50 people on the MK AA this time next week (there are 62 now)?  Absolutely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile they enjoy the full protection of TOP.  To say the owe reps to TDO is understatement.  Somehow though I don't think they'll be paying a dime.

How did you miss the dozens of posts where we said people weren't protected by TOP unless the alliances wronged by them released them? It's even in the applications subforum. For an author you seem unable to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Junka, You should maybe take a look at TOP's current friends. Doubt that most of them really care all that much. But thanks for attempting to speak on our (our being TOP's friends and allies) behalf but please stop doing so until you are actually far better informed as to what is going on. 

Well it is fortunate that in politics friends come and go. I had hoped that TOP could inherit the legacy of order and be the centerpiece of a new hegemony, but unfortunately their conduct has been extremely disappointing. Those who upset global stability seldom tend to reign long. After all, I have heard of how TOP was crushed by the Dark Templar in a recent war, so they are obviously not invulnerable.

 

History is littered by the corpses of pretenders who made small mistakes, alienated the wrong people, and overestimated their own reach.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8afaQFLSTH4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On paper perhaps, but any neutral observer can look at the slow pace of departures from MK and the MQ debacle and see there was nothing standard about it in practice.

 

Explain, please.

 

Oh I will.  But it's funny how you think your presence in the room doesn't somehow alter the behavior of others without you having to say anything.

 

Again, please explain.

 

Meanwhile they enjoy the full protection of TOP.  To say the owe reps to TDO is understatement.  Somehow though I don't think they'll be paying a dime.

 

As TDO & company are not attacking MQ nations that are at peace and remain so, those nations would not need our protection. Furthermore, you apparently missed the segment in which I said that all applicants must be at peace anyway, and that all are cleared with the necessary alliances before being allowed to embark officially upon the application process. Regardless of circumstances, no nation wishing to join TOP receives the protection afforded an applicant until they've fulfilled the conditions necessary to become an applicant.

 

The issue of reparations is one that would be handled between TDO and the individual nations in question. As can, once again, be verified by the alliances concerned, we have made no efforts to negotiate on the behalf of the applicants; each nation is responsible for securing peace on its own. That said, TDO has voiced no interest in asking for reparations from anybody. Nor, indeed, have GOP, CCC, TTE, or NATO (I am unaware of the policies of TPF and FARK on this issue). If you have issue with their handling of this war that they are involved in but you are not, then I suggest that you take this up with them rather than me.

 

Actually, I wasn't the first one to advance the theory, but it certainly fit everything in terms of the evidence on hand.  Is it possible you weren't clued in in advance?  Absolutely.  Have you done anything that would cause me to have faith that TDO will be compensated by those who went rogue on them before they are admitted into TOP and thus be punished in some form or fashion? No.

 

See above.

 

No. Do I expect to see a minimum of 45-50 people on the MK AA this time next week (there are 62 now)?  Absolutely.

 

I can't speak to that. If it does indeed come to pass, it could be the result of several factors---namely deletions, departures to join the war, and departures to join other alliances---all of which are vastly more likely than the theory that you are advancing. 

 

Edited by Crymson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Do I expect to see a minimum of 45-50 people on the MK AA this time next week (there are 62 now)?  Absolutely.

What difference does how long they take to clear the AA make?

 

Is it possible that some of them are going to go rogue in the future? Yes. But if we shut off protection today, those future-rogues have a wide array of protected AAs to choose from for the exact same purpose.

 

MK was a very close ally to us and we have a lot of time for many of the individuals still residing on the AA. We have no way of knowing for sure what any of them are planning to do, in fact many of them probably don't even know themselves yet, but we're not going to let them all get rolled because a few of them might go rogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hal, Let me guess, next you are going to state that NAAC or FOK or many of the other numerous AAs that are dead but still have members on the AAs. Also, to even attempt to call yourself a neutral observer is beyond ridiculous as it is quite clear you have a rather large bias against MK and are incapable of seeing beyond that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone in the room says, ‘it’s the quiet ones you’ve got to watch.’ This sounds to me like a very dangerous assumption. I’ll bet you anything that while you’re watching a quiet one, a noisy one will fucking kill you!
Edited by IYIyTh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so Valhalla doesn't like TOP but their FA path is basically "ok now treaty TOP's allies minus UPN and GOONS"

 

So Hal doesnt like MK and voices his opinion regarding what he considers BS(as Hal has been known to do for many many MANY years), and now he speaks for Valhalla entirely?

 

You sir are a moron of the highest caliber if after so long on Planet Bob you are still in the 'one member speaks and it represents the whole alliance because he posts a lot!' club.  Also just to give you a small hint, Valhalla is not a democracy and policy is set 'officially' by one person......and if your guess is that Hal is that person you are denser then lead and truly are uninformed.

 

As for Vals FA path? lets see....MI6(Val MDoaP treaty before TOP's by a month *though TOP did have an ODoaP prior* so that is a draw I spose), DoD(Bassman has long been a friend(and ex-ally) to Valhalla and we shared a common respect for each other for years which carried over to DoD and its government, so if that tie came as a surprise to you refer to my statement on your density), Umbrella(They approached Valhalla with diplomatic talks when we split from AI and after many chats we both found we had many things in common, not to mention WhiteMagic has long been known and respected by Valhallans and helped pave the way. So once again no surprise there once common ground was found, plus it did not hurt that Umbrella had earned our respect in the war we fought just prior with their fortitude and style) and Polaris?(If you dont know the story there and why your statement is hilarious and wrong, then I certainly wont clue you in as watching you ramble on about things you obviously know nothing about is amusing as hell....but suffice to say Valhalla did not 'follow' TOP making friends there. lol)

 

 

-Now please continue the ongoing "No U" argument with Tywin and Hal as they need to be kept busy. TY-

 

CJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not often Rey gets literarily drop kicked to end a thread, but when it happens, man it's nice to watch.

It's also not often I get "literarily drop kicked" but come out still right.

snip

Please. We all know what's going on and we all know you're trying to backpedal hard as hell right now. Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it is fortunate that in politics friends come and go. I had hoped that TOP could inherit the legacy of order and be the centerpiece of a new hegemony, but unfortunately their conduct has been extremely disappointing. Those who upset global stability seldom tend to reign long. After all, I have heard of how TOP was crushed by the Dark Templar in a recent war, so they are obviously not invulnerable.

 

History is littered by the corpses of pretenders who made small mistakes, alienated the wrong people, and overestimated their own reach.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8afaQFLSTH4

 

Who have TOP alienated though? From what I can tell, they have recently gained 2 new allies and have lost none. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hal, Let me guess, next you are going to state that NAAC or FOK or many of the other numerous AAs that are dead but still have members on the AAs. Also, to even attempt to call yourself a neutral observer is beyond ridiculous as it is quite clear you have a rather large bias against MK and are incapable of seeing beyond that. 

 

Honestly?  MK made a nice foil for people such as myself.  Why would I want them to simply die?  It would be mildly unsatisfying.

 

This is the same alliance that decided one day to drop all their treaties...until they didn't of course.  The same alliance that also split off members into multiple satellite groupings during the last war for God knows what reason.  They have a history of hijinks that goes well beyond that.  So when they announced out of the blue they were disbanding while still holding a significant number of members both on their AA, naturally I was somewhat skeptical.  That they then migrated a number of members to a wartime satellite grouping (MQ) and then launched them at a neutral alliance fits the previous pattern of Andy Kaufman-esque behavior and reinforced my belief that the whole thing was a bit of unfortunate sketch comedy and that they would eventually announce that they were going back to being an alliance again. 

 

But hey, if I got wrong and Andy Kaufman MK is really dead, I'll be sure to write a nice eulogy.  But with so many people hanging around the AA and its satellites, and you can include DBDC on that list, I'm still waiting for the "ta-da, we tricked you all".

 

OOC: Which is pretty much what everyone did when the real Andy Kaufman died...there was an absolute refusal by many to actually believe it, based on things he had done in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same alliance that decided one day to drop all their treaties...until they didn't of course.  

 

We did drop all our treaties. But we never said we wouldn't resign any of them.

 

Also, disbanding an alliance doesn't mean every single nation is leaving Planet Bob. You, of all people, should know this. But I won't hold my breath for that so called eulogy.

 

dolphin_0217_ba03_837469a.JPG

Edited by potato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly?  MK made a nice foil for people such as myself.  Why would I want them to simply die?  It would be mildly unsatisfying.

 

This is the same alliance that decided one day to drop all their treaties...until they didn't of course.  The same alliance that also split off members into multiple satellite groupings during the last war for God knows what reason.  They have a history of hijinks that goes well beyond that.  So when they announced out of the blue they were disbanding while still holding a significant number of members both on their AA, naturally I was somewhat skeptical.  That they then migrated a number of members to a wartime satellite grouping (MQ) and then launched them at a neutral alliance fits the previous pattern of Andy Kaufman-esque behavior and reinforced my belief that the whole thing was a bit of unfortunate sketch comedy and that they would eventually announce that they were going back to being an alliance again. 

 

But hey, if I got wrong and Andy Kaufman MK is really dead, I'll be sure to write a nice eulogy.  But with so many people hanging around the AA and its satellites, and you can include DBDC on that list, I'm still waiting for the "ta-da, we tricked you all".

 

OOC: Which is pretty much what everyone did when the real Andy Kaufman died...there was an absolute refusal by many to actually believe it, based on things he had done in the past.

 

They're gone, Hal. There are individuals who have a lot left in them, but MK as an alliance is no more. Only other explanation is they've taken playing possum much farther than they need to; they could have convinced most of the world while sacrificing far less tech and cash. What they're doing now seems suboptimal if they plan to be an alliance. 

Edited by Roadie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

As somebody who actively took a leadership role in a coalition that pissed on the unofficial rules of war (An attack on one is an attack on all; undeclared wars, etc), you have no real room to speak about the "regular way" of doing things. You assume that TOP would tell you to piss off if you approached them about accepting a former MQ member, but you haven't actually done it? So you're assuming things now? With no evidence? You know what they say; when you assume, you're sort of a douche. 

 

Almost as unimaginative and boring as hitting the neutrals.

 

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Woodstock_Massacre

 

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.

 

I love you so much. 

 

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.

 

While it is possible, you're wrong. MK was never going to reform. In fact, I posted in our disbandment discussion thread specifically stating that I would help lead a revival of the MK old guard if anybody ever tries to reform MK with our sole purpose being exterminating those who wish to sully our name. So no, you're wrong. 

 

If popular opinion was not against Mushqaeda, you would not have seen the response we had.

 

Popular opinion is actually with us. Check the MQ DoW thread. A bunch of opportunists and cowards who want to hit former MK members attacking us, along with some of our longest-standing OWF detractors posting against us, is hardly solid evidence for popular opinion being against us. Try again. 

 

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.

 

No, I think it can be denied pretty easily. People taking advantage of an opportunity to hit their former enemies when they aren't protected isn't indicative of public opinion. 

 

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 isn't granted to everybody, especially people who refuse to even attempt to see reason. Why should we be respectful of somebody who cannot even be bothered to stop shitposting for 5 minutes?

 

I am convinced by TOP's sincerity and have edited the OP to reflect their recent contributions to this thread. Although I believe Mushroom Kingdom intended nothing but mischief, I am very relieved to know that TOP was not involved.

 

Mushroom Kingdom disbanded. Mushqaeda isn't Mushroom Kingdom. 

 

Arrogance is the downfall of many regimes. Just look at the mushrooms. They should make an attempt to make friends out of foes, or they will not last much longer. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the highest form of warfare is winning without a fight.

 

Study our history, child. We made many a friend out of our foes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arrogance is the downfall of many regimes. Just look at the mushrooms. They should make an attempt to make friends out of foes, or they will not last much longer.

Make friends out of foes??  what does making friends with "our foes" mean in your mind? If becoming friends with MK after they were our foes (and later NpO) isn't that??

 

 

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the highest form of warfare is winning without a fight.

I believe us and NpO just won a war without a fight few weeks ago.

 

 

Anyway, you have been doing a good job at masking your hatred for TOP, but the last few posts from you just expose your shit (well, to the informed they know your shit from the beginning).

Edited by ROMMELHSQ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular opinion is actually with us. Check the MQ DoW thread. A bunch of opportunists and cowards who want to hit former MK members attacking us, along with some of our longest-standing OWF detractors posting against us, is hardly solid evidence for popular opinion being against us. Try again.

 

If popular opinion was with the Mushrooms, then where is the popular response to the popular response? Where are the masses counter-attacking TTE, NATO, TPF? Where are the crowds chanting down the efforts to preserve global stability?

 

It is easy to measure the popular response against Mushroom Kingdom, you need only look at the war screens. But I see absolutely no evidence of any popular support for the Mushrooms in-game. Just goes to show Mushroom Kingdom ruled out of mass fear of their military might, rather than from any source of legitimacy, and that their most recent action was striking out against the world at large.

 

 

Anyway, you have been doing a good job at masking your hatred for TOP, but the last few posts from you just expose your shit (well, to the informed they know your shit from the beginning).

 

I seem to recall retracting some of my statements about TOP and conceding that TOP was not attempting to help the Mushroom Kingdom's plots, and even engaging in tech deals with TOP members, and reaching out to TOP govt privately. So where exactly is this evidence of hatred for TOP, an alliance I once served with in Citadel?

Edited by Tywin Lannister
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...