Invisible Hegemony

[Alterego]

Its the glaring contradictions that got my attention. The announcement repeatedly contradicted itself then went on to say hes not giving the real reason why they cancelled.

[quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1286243374' post='2474955']
pieces of digital paper are more or less irrelevant now. [/quote]
Treaties are irrelevant now

[quote]
I should note that the Kingdom is not going paperless. [/quote]
We are not tuning our backs on treaties


[quote]
That said, the treaty web is a malady, sapping the lifeblood from this planet. It entraps and entangles. It prevents. And, most criminally of all, it dictates. It defines who your friends are.[/quote]
Treaties are a sickness destroying our world

[quote]
I should note that the Kingdom is not going paperless. [/quote]
We are not turning our back on treaties

[quote]
It defines who your friends are. It defines who you respect and who you don't. It divides the world into poles and ties you to people you may not have consented to. [/quote]
Treaties with friends divide the world

[quote]
The Mushroom Kingdom still has its friends. We are as close to our friends as we were yesterday. [/quote]
We still have the exact same relationship with our friends just as if we had treaties with them


[quote]
I should note that the Kingdom is not going paperless. We're simply hitting the reset button. I'm not sure I would recommend "taking advantage of the situation" as it might be. That might not end well for you. [/quote]
Our excuse that the treaty web is killing the planet will not stop us signing treaties. We are simply ditching all our treaties. Except the two treaties we have decided to keep. Nothing has changed btw, we will still defend our former treaty partners and they will still defend us. Just as if we still had treaties.


[quote]
The prevailing question seems to be - why? Not a bad question, actually. There are people in a far better position than myself to answer this question, I would say, so there isn't terribly much I'm going to be willing to say publicly.
[/quote]

Despite what I said about the treaty web killing the world being the reason we dropped all our treaties save two but will still behave as if we had treaties Im not prepared to say why we really did it.

[Ogaden]

Up is down, war is peace, ignorance is strength etc.

[Biazt]

This is one of the worst posts I've seen in a long time, and judging from the current state of the OWF that's saying a lot.

[Schad]

Both the essay and Alterego's post both seem to share the same misunderstanding: that signing treaties while disparaging the treaty web is hypocritical. The problem, though, isn't that alliances hold treaties; it's that they sign so many of the bloody things that it becomes virtually impossible to invoke one treaty without reneging on another.

If MK rushes out and signs 15 new treaties this week to replace those they've canceled you might have a point, but one can decry gluttony without being anorexic.

[Tautology]

I have no idea about the quality but the manner, quantity, and relation of Archon's post are good in the context of the OWF. He doesn't grasp or waffle, his writing isn't pompous, and what he presents is well-organized. It'd be boring if all OWF posts were exactly like that but there's a lot to be admired in his style.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1286510757' post='2478569']
Third- many of MK's former allies have publicly stated they will defend MK should anyone mess with MK. [/quote]

Which calls to question if this is in fact the real "Invisible Hegemony". For all practical purposes it is as though the cancellations never took place. Yes, alliances sometimes make a point of providing coverage to a long time ally after a treaty is canceled, but the longer this period of treaty adjustment lasts, the more curious it becomes.

[quote]Fifth- you do realize that MK is redoing their FA which means that sooner or later they will come out with more treaties.[/quote]

If it is merely the same basic set of treaty partners under treaties with different names, nothing has changed and one has to wonder what the whole point was.

Oh and regarding the OP...so what has NPO done lately to make itself relevant again? You can talk propaganda all day if you like, but if MK's behavior is so transparent, what's the plan for doing something about it beyond this analysis?

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1286592013' post='2479319']
Oh and regarding the OP...so what has NPO done lately to make itself relevant again? You can talk propaganda all day if you like, but if MK's behavior is so transparent, what's the plan for doing something about it beyond this analysis?
[/quote]
Woo lawd, Hal and Valhalla using the relevance line. When has Valhalla ever been relevant? The only relevance you ever had was borrowed from us, by using our protection to make retarded moves and cringe-worthy posts. :golfclap:

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1286594291' post='2479345']
Woo lawd, Hal and Valhalla using the relevance line. When has Valhalla ever been relevant? The only relevance you ever had was borrowed from us, by using our protection to make retarded moves and cringe-worthy posts. :golfclap:
[/quote]

That's amusing coming from an alliance that built its empire on the backs of others, and then when presented with credible evidence on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS that it was about to be the subject of an attack by superior forces, deluded itself into thinking that it was somehow immune to such an attack.

Nahh...NPO threw good parties back in the day and set up some descent fights, but unless and until you show you're capable of doing something other than consuming Planet Bob bandwidth, you might as well be GPA.

[Branimir]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1286592013' post='2479319']You can talk propaganda all day if you like, but if MK's behavior is so transparent, what's the plan for doing something about it beyond this analysis?[/quote]
I believe we may proceed with creating a pie chart. Our pie chart will still be more relevant then Valhalalalala on their most relevant of days, btw.

I disagree with the notion of "invisible hegemony", or whatever. The ruling structure is well known. Though what is interesting, that a crucial part of it is doing some reshuffling. Lets see how that pans out before any ground breaking in depth analysis, IMO.

Edited October 9, 2010 by Branimir

[Zombie Glaucon]

I can't describe how disappointed I was when I discovered that this wasn't a lolcats thread.

Definitely not relevant to my interests.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1286592013' post='2479319']
Which calls to question if this is in fact the real "Invisible Hegemony". For all practical purposes it is as though the cancellations never took place. Yes, alliances sometimes make a point of providing coverage to a long time ally after a treaty is canceled, but the longer this period of treaty adjustment lasts, the more curious it becomes.[/quote]

the fact that it is so visible kind of defeats the whole purpose of being invisible. currently, basically every treaty partner MK had that was dropped, has stated "don't $%&@ with MK". that is not exactly invisible. now, you can make this claim in a few months once MK has redone their FA and signed new or old treaties and we see who their new allies are and see how many old allies were left in the street.

[quote]If it is merely the same basic set of treaty partners under treaties with different names, nothing has changed and one has to wonder what the whole point was.

Oh and regarding the OP...so what has NPO done lately to make itself relevant again? You can talk propaganda all day if you like, but if MK's behavior is so transparent, what's the plan for doing something about it beyond this analysis?
[/quote]

we won't know what has changed until MK starts signing treaties.

as for NPO, they are no longer that relevant though they could be an upcoming threat. as for Junka, he is a failure that keeps trying.

[Denial]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1286592013' post='2479319']
Oh and regarding the OP...so what has NPO done lately to make itself relevant again? You can talk propaganda all day if you like, but if MK's behavior is so transparent, what's the plan for doing something about it beyond this analysis?
[/quote]
We hold an invisible treaty with NPO.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286600783' post='2479432']
We hold an invisible treaty with NPO.
[/quote]

Well there was that web radio station project...

But um, yeah, I beat you guys about the head and shoulders a bit, but you've got more common sense than that.

[Kalasin]

Back in the day, ChairmanHal was one of the Hegemony's loudest supporters. I have to say I find this little catfight rather amusing.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1286607636' post='2479500']
Back in the day, ChairmanHal was one of the Hegemony's loudest supporters. I have to say I find this little catfight rather amusing.
[/quote]
It actually reminded me of that fake fight between TPF.gov that ended up in the tattler.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1286567750' post='2479056']
Both the essay and Alterego's post both seem to share the same misunderstanding: that signing treaties while disparaging the treaty web is hypocritical. The problem, though, isn't that alliances hold treaties; it's that they sign so many of the bloody things that it becomes virtually impossible to invoke one treaty without reneging on another.

If MK rushes out and signs 15 new treaties this week to replace those they've canceled you might have a point, but one can decry gluttony without being anorexic.
[/quote]
Everyone has seen them being vetoed by VE trying to get into PB. Now they are scrambling around looking for new treaty partners. Could be fake but its a lot of work for nothing if it is just a joke.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Alterego

[potato]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286709360' post='2480317']
Everyone has seen them being vetoed by VE trying to get into PB. Now they are scrambling around looking for new treaty partners. Could be fake but its a lot of work for nothing if it is just a joke.
[/quote]

You're too gullible. Or dumb. Can't decide yet.

[Alterego]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1286710305' post='2480323']
You're too gullible. Or dumb. Can't decide yet.
[/quote]
If its all a joke isnt it the intent to trick people? Why so annoyed if it is a joke and it worked? Was all this work creating a massive joke like this intended not to work?

Edited October 10, 2010 by Alterego

[Voytek]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286711558' post='2480329']
If its all a joke isnt it the intent to trick people? Why so annoyed if it is a joke and it worked? Was all this work creating a massive joke like this intended not to work?
[/quote]
He's mocking you for not getting the joke, not getting angry.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1286712252' post='2480334']
He's mocking you for not getting the joke, not getting angry.
[/quote]
Dropping all treaties, a fake or real bloc, leaked screen shots from inside MK confirming its all legit and savaging their allies continuing the "joke" this morning. When do we get the punchline, next month? If its a joke its the mose elaborate ever devised why should people not be taken in? or this could be a lame PR attempt to play it all down

Edited October 10, 2010 by Alterego

[Voytek]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286713091' post='2480336']
Dropping all treaties, a fake or real bloc, leaked screen shots from inside MK confirming its all legit and savaging their allies continuing the "joke" this morning. When do we get the punchline, next month? If its a joke its the mose elaborate ever devised why should people not be taken in? or this could be a lame PR attempt to play it all down
[/quote]
What? I'm talking about the screenshot of the "PB veto post".

Edited October 10, 2010 by Voytek

[Alterego]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1286713333' post='2480338']
What? I'm talking about the screenshot of the "PB veto post".
[/quote]
Ok so your application wasnt vetoed by VE?

Edited October 10, 2010 by Alterego

[Schad]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286709360' post='2480317']
Everyone has seen them being vetoed by VE trying to get into PB. Now they are scrambling around looking for new treaty partners. Could be fake but its a lot of work for nothing if it is just a joke.
[/quote]

An image of that nature would probably take a good two minutes to generate...whether true or false, I don't think that the person who made the screenshot set aside a large chunk of their day.

And none of that really changes the fact that they would [i]still[/i] have considerably fewer treaties, and more importantly, fewer potentially-conflicting treaties.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1286714571' post='2480341']
An image of that nature would probably take a good two minutes to generate...whether true or false, I don't think that the person who made the screenshot set aside a large chunk of their day.[/quote]
True. If it is a joke they will call it a joke and if it isnt they will still call it a joke.

[quote]And none of that really changes the fact that they would [i]still[/i] have considerably fewer treaties, and more importantly, fewer potentially-conflicting treaties.
[/quote]
If they join PB their dropping of the treaties post makes them liars and terrible allies to the people the abandoned. Id love it to be true but life isnt that sweet.

[Schad]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286714960' post='2480345']
If they join PB their dropping of the treaties post makes them liars and terrible allies to the people the abandoned. Id love it to be true but life isnt that sweet.
[/quote]

Neither you nor I are really in any position to comment on whether they're good or bad allies when taking into account the totality of their actions, given that neither of us are or were allied to them. However, even those former allies that are annoyed by this move don't seem to be anywhere near your judgment, and for good reason: with the exception of this singular event, a peacetime cancellation that is notable solely because of its scope, MK has an excellent reputation for defending their treaty-partners.

As for the assertion that they are liars...mind pointing me to a single piece of supporting data?