Official Independent Republic of Orange Nations Announcement

[Denial]

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285765513' post='2468220']
Revisionist justification.[/quote]
Do you actually know what revisionism is? Or are you just being your pseudo-intellectual self, inaccurately and haphazardly throwing around whatever important-sounding terms that first come to mind with the intellectual aptitude of an infant? I am siding with the latter, because there is in no way, by any stretch of the imagination, that 'revisionist justification' is at work in my previous reply. It is no surprise that someone of your stock would disregard genuine advice and insight from someone that has actually played a leading role in the downfall of a hegemony not once, but twice. All you are interested in is taking every opportunity to criticise with a collection of insults of ever-increasing stupidity. What exactly is revisionist about what I said? That my comments were consistent and with a set agenda? That I, as a leader of alliances, determined this commentary agenda in relation to the foreign policy objectives of my alliance? The evidence backing my assertions is on public record here in this forum and in the previous forums for Cyberverse discussion. The evidence backing my assertions is the fact that my alliance's foreign affairs activity continually matched my public and private comments. The evidence backing my assertions here is my word regarding my motivations; there is hardly a collection of dissertations or essays regarding my intentions for me to be 'revisionist' against.

How about you actually reply to my post? Or would that be beyond your obviously limited cognitive capacity?


[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285765513' post='2468220']
I've not attempted to make you appear as an 'evil oppressor', so drop the silly little insults, please.[/quote]
Strange, I seem to remember you stating:

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285679760' post='2466807']
We get it, already. You once demanded justice and now you're wearing the crown.
[/quote]
This implies, albeit erroneously, that I once stood for justice but now I stand for injustice. Hence, you attempting to portray me as some form of 'evil oppressor'.

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285679760' post='2466807']
I have no issue with SuperComplaints being top of the tree for now. What I object to is your wholesale use of pompous, hypocritical and revisionist posting as a tool to create conflict or buttress your own position.
[/quote]
You might want to stop using words you don't understand. I will accept pompous, but I much prefer the term smug. And I will not apologise for that. But enlighten us all, how have I been hypocritical or revisionist? I would like a detailed explanation with some analysis, not just a one-liner that does not provide any factual basis.

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1285679760' post='2466807']
As for the rest of your essay, since when did the de facto role of the player or group of players become the formulator of conflict?[/quote]
... Since forever?

[o-dog]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1285767439' post='2468236']
Do you actually know what revisionism is?
[/quote]
We all look upon our posting history with affection. I'm sure the narratives you weave in your head are particularly beautiful and cognitavely brilliant.


[quote]
This implies, albeit erroneously, that I once stood for justice but now I stand for injustice. Hence, you attempting to portray me as some form of 'evil oppressor'.
[/quote]
Rubbish. It means that MK and her cronies now comfortably wallow in the decadance of power. It's not all about 'you'.


[quote]
You might want to stop using words you don't understand. I will accept pompous, but I much prefer the term smug. And I will not apologise for that. But enlighten us all, how have I been hypocritical or revisionist? I would like a detailed explanation with some analysis, not just a one-liner that does not provide any factual basis.
[/quote]
Again, it is not all about 'you'; get your pompous ego in check. Your colleagues sweat hypocrisy. Revisionism: See above.


[quote]
... Since forever?
[/quote]
That's just your limited view of what it takes to enjoy life on this planet.

[Chairman Lmao]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1285671692' post='2466772']
All this talk of potential reconciliation between Mushroom Kingdom and IRON is a little sickening, to be honest. Personally, I hope the rather hostile relationship continues. A Cyberverse where everyone gets along is not an entertaining Cyberverse.[/quote]
I find this part of your post wierd. Let's run through what happened in this thread. IRON Council announced MCRABT as our new President and it was followed by multiple MK'ers responding with how "terrible" we are and what it'll do to our relations etc etc. In response, MCRABT said he's to work out any differences anyone had with IRON, which is what sensible people do. If MK doesn't want reconciliation, that's fine (with almost everyone in IRON including me). If MK-IRON relations go down further, it will be because you [i]chose[/i] it to be so, not because of MCRABT. The choice was(maybe still is) yours.

[quote]As for the MCRABT accusation that Mushroom Kingdom criticises every alliance outside of our supposed 'sphere of influence', so what if we do? We criticise for good reason; the alliances on the receiving end are objectively terrible.[/quote]
MCRABT didn't accuse you of just "criticizing" alliances outside your sphere of influence, he accused you of showing open hostility (or criticisms with enough venom for most people to perceive it as hostile) towards them, which is quite another matter. If you haven't noticed, most of MK's "criticisms" run along the lines of " baww alliance X is soo terrible and pathetic!!" or with some variations thereof to make the targeted alliance look stupid. They are not even criticisms, just meaningless rants which only serve to provoke the members of the targeted alliance and entertain those who don't like them. As you said in your later post, it might be that the targeted alliance is bad at fighting wars, diplomacy, nation building or whatever . You seem to believe that this enough for you to flamebait, provoke and be hostile towards them. You have every right to do so; but again, this is your choice, and it is this choice of yours that MCRABT and most IRONers don't like. You see, you really haven't addressed his point at all.

[quote]I have never been a fan of the "do something about it" response, but this is a case where it is warranted. However, I mean to use the 'do something about it' in a somewhat constructive way. If what you say is true, MCRABT, and Mushroom Kingdom does indeed criticise a wide range of alliances and create hostility, why don't you use that created hostility to your advantage? How about you discover the testicular fortitude and capacity for independent thought that your alliance has always lacked, work out how to do that whole 'leading' and 'diplomacy' stuff, and forge an opposing force of parties whose delicate sensibilities have been so impugned.
[/quote]
If IRON wants do something about it, it will. [i]Whether[/i] we want to do it or not is for us to decide . Anyway, this is all way beside the point- as far as I can tell, Rab was looking to iron out our issues through constructive dialogue, not war. The option of war always exists - it does not need pointing out. However two reasonable parties may choose to settle their issues by other ([i]better?[/i]) means, if they both choose to.

[quote]If criticism breeds hostility, hostility breeds conflict, conflict breeds political dynamism, and political dynamism breeds entertainment, I think it is thus perfectly acceptable to criticise. If you do not accept this, take my previous advice. Gather up those alliances that similarly do not accept my assertion, develop some meaningful and effective strategy, actually lead your own alliance and maybe even a larger force, and aim to change the status quo.
[/quote]
The hostility that your "criticism" breeds leads to political drama, which is quite entertaining( only the drama part, the incessant trolling is quite annoying and most of the time simply ignored.)- I accept that. It is very wierd to claim that just because it leads to entertainment, it is "perfectly acceptable". Do you then believe that it was "perfectly acceptable" for IRON/TOP to aggressively declare on you? ( It was great fun for a lot of people, including me). Plenty of stupid things have lead to "entertainment" in the past

[quote]Look at aid slot usage and efficiency, technology levels, wonders, improvements, growth rate, war performance, whether an alliance is leading or following in foreign affairs, and so on. These are rather objective, easily-measurable criteria for alliance performance. In general, the alliances we criticise perform dismally in each of these areas. I'll use the example that another MKer mentioned earlier. We tend not to verbally assault TOP, an alliance that attacked us in the most recent war, because they perform far better in the aforementioned areas than the vast majority of alliances. They are a quality group, even if we do disagree with them on a number of more subjective issues. We are happy to let TOP be, so long as they don't attack us again [/quote]
I do not hope to fathom what you think you can achieve by "verbally assaulting" alliances which don't satisfy your criteria. You certainly can't change them. Not everyone can be Umbrella ( IRON isn't)- that doesn't mean they should get trolled for it. It is exactly this attitude that anyone who is not "good enough" must be continuously mocked and ridiculed that I dislike.

Anyway, since IRON has generally been good at stats and stuff, I'm guessing your main problem with us is the FA:

[quote]When exactly did you pursue your own agenda? Was it when you blindly followed the Pied Piper of Pacifica?[/quote]
"Blindly?". IRON and NPO shared a long relationship that predated our MADP( see the Empire war for example). They were the second only alliance to open diplomatic contacts with IRON. To me it sounds like you're saying being treatied to the top-dog is itself a crime. You simply have no basis to claim we were following NPO blindly.

[quote]Was it that brief period following the Karma War, the transition period between a Red master and an Orange one, when you flailed around with no direction?[/quote]
See above. You "think" we were just TOP's lapdogs with no basis whatsoever. You don't even have a point.

[quote] Or was it when you attached yourself to the Paradoxian underbelly, shadowing their every move, and even cancelling a whole range of treaties at their request? [/quote]

This is simply incorrect. And randomly making up facts based on your suspicions is not the way of maintaining your credibility. I feel half-stupid for typing up such a big response to you now.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Chairman Lmao

[Chairman Lmao]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1285701061' post='2467066']
You will also have to note MK has always been very critical of a lot of people. You just brushed it off because we couldn't do anything about it. Nowadays, the tables are turned and you !@#$ your pants all while complaining that we are mean and too harsh about your defaults. And before you go complain about us being negative to people on the other side, look at how we interact with TOP, who's proved its worth after that little blunder, and shut it.
[/quote]
Whether you are in power or not is irrelevant to whether we find you annoying. IRON has never liked MK since the UJW( from what I've heard, I wasn't around then). We don't think you'll attack an alliance because they are "terrible"- I think even you are better than that. So your political power is entirely irrelevant.

[Juan Castro 2]

[quote]You "think" we were just TOP's lapdogs with no basis whatsoever. You don't even have a point.
[/quote]

They don't require a point , they don't need to think. Just saying RON over and over again is way easier than actually backing up their arguments with facts.

[ROMMELHSQ]

[quote name='Edifice' timestamp='1285703979' post='2467101']
The complaining about how this would damage MK-IRON relations was quite excessive... from the MK side. I'm not sure how that transitioned into "stop whining, IRON".
[/quote]
That is truly amusing....but I guess it have something to do with them being elite in something...

[King Louis the II]

That's a thread that was supposed to be the announcement of Iron gov. Some people love to take any opportunity to take cheap shots...

Good luck in your new gov Iron.

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1285731379' post='2467604']
Or was it when you attached yourself to the Paradoxian underbelly, shadowing their every move, [b]and even cancelling a whole range of treaties at their request?[/b]
[/quote]

Not true, IRON did that move on their own brah.

True, TOP had discussed future mutual strategy with IRON, sure - what we both planed to do and where we wanted to go, but TOP would have never suggested nor did they suggest that IRON dump a ton of alliances all at once (because that was pretty stupid and brought a ton of attention on them), or to drop Old Guard or TAB. To be honest it wouldn't have hurt TOP's interests to keep a few meatshields around at arms length either.

[mythicknight]

[quote name='Some-Guy' timestamp='1285869089' post='2469931']
Not true, IRON did that move on their own brah.

True, TOP had discussed future mutual strategy with IRON, sure - what we both planed to do and where we wanted to go, but TOP would have never suggested nor did they suggest that IRON dump a ton of alliances all at once (because that was pretty stupid and brought a ton of attention on them), or to drop Old Guard or TAB. To be honest it wouldn't have hurt TOP's interests to keep a few meatshields around at arms length either.
[/quote]

You're talking to the unholy union of Vlad's hot air thesaurus and Haflinger's delusional ramblings. A perfect iq-killing machine, some might say.

[quote name='Chairman Lmao' timestamp='1285853482' post='2469695']
This is simply incorrect. And randomly making up facts based on your suspicions is not the way of maintaining your credibility. I feel half-stupid for typing up such a big response to you now.
[/quote]

Everyone figures him out eventually. Don't feel bad.

[quote name='Juan Castro 2' timestamp='1285860194' post='2469772']
They don't require a point , they don't need to think. Just saying RON over and over again is way easier than actually backing up their arguments with facts.
[/quote]

Indeed. Besides, I control IRON's FA now

[dev0win]

Cheers guys. Bring back the love MCRABT

[Banksy]

Oh wow, IRON found a spell checker. Pity the dreary level of debate hasn't improved.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1285913202' post='2470834']
Oh wow, IRON found a spell checker. Pity the dreary level of debate hasn't improved.
[/quote]

Tank u fur cumming aund lurning us hao two speekz gud liek u dus Banskee. :3

Also, congrats again Rab.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1285913202' post='2470834']
Oh wow, IRON found a spell checker. Pity the dreary level of debate hasn't improved.
[/quote]

Ahh yes because your intellectual input in this thread has been truly spectacular. "IRON is stupid" rebuttal without any justification or examples is tired and frail. Given your apparent lack of creativity and your tendency to repeat this same old tired line, (not only when talking about IRON I might add) I would say you are hard pushed to lecture anyone on the quality of their posts.

With that said I think it's time this thread is allowed to die.

Edited October 3, 2010 by MCRABT

[AnCapistan]

Oh trust me, I think anyone can find a few reasons why IRON is "stupid".

[The MVP]

[quote name='Proximus' timestamp='1285204712' post='2461616']
Peron is the only victor of this thread, because he is no longer the spokesperson for a heap of garbage.

The rest of us lose.
[/quote]

Wrong topic. This is a topic about IRON government change and not Arsenal stepping down.

[quote]Whining about the affairs of other alliances is what they're known for these days (as a recent poll confirmed).[/quote]

You can Thank me now and oh my goodness, You're welcome.

Edited October 3, 2010 by The MVP