Jump to content

The Princess is in Another Treaty


Epiphanus

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1288412411' post='2496938']
So I assume this makes MK de facto C&G members now. With [i]two whole treaties[/i] with C&G members they should just join amirite.
[/quote]Very well played.

But in reality... CnG is going to roll with MK, and vice versa, as long as ODN/=LOST= roll with MK and vice versa, and as we all know CnG of course rolls as a whole. It's that nasty transitive property of treaties again. Dang!

(It's a credit to MK that I can apply the transitive property, I wouldn't be able to if they were the kind of folks I thought would shirk their obligations and ignore their friendships to save infrastructure.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Sentinal' timestamp='1288412159' post='2496928']
What really was the point of canceling all your treaties when you're just going to resign them?
[/quote]
We are literally resigning every treaty we've ever had.

Literally.

Edited by Denial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288413062' post='2496949']
Very well played.

But in reality... CnG is going to roll with MK, and vice versa, as long as ODN/=LOST= roll with MK and vice versa, and as we all know CnG of course rolls as a whole. It's that nasty transitive property of treaties again. Dang![/quote]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove here. What you describe is, well, a treaty. You are very observant in spotting that MK, ODN and =LOST= all share one, and that they will probably be followed. There is, however, a fundamental difference between joining a bloc and having a treaty with a bloc, notably the non-chaining treaties. MK is allied to four different alliances, and we are committed to defending four different alliances. We might get dragged in to some larger war because of our mantra of not breaking treaties, but we have greater autonomy. If we were in a MADP bloc, the number of alliances we were directly responsible for would increase to 20-30, which is something we're not entirely comfortable with doing at the moment.

I don't think anyone disagrees that in some future war, C&G, MK and PB will probably be on the same side. This would be the case even if MK was still treaty-less. But we are now allied to a smaller selection of alliances who we are close friends with and we are quite content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288413235' post='2496950']
We are literally resigning every treaty we've ever had.

Literally.
[/quote]
Can we bring back Vanguard? They were the loveliest pit vipers I ever had the pleasure of acquainting myself with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1288410942' post='2496897']
We now possess 3 treaties covering 4 alliances: two members of C&G and two members of PB. This is hardly "every section of the web"; I'm not really sure where you're going with this.
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]Sarcasm aparently has not been invented yet.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1288417953' post='2497014']
[color="#FF0000"]Sarcasm aparently has not been invented yet.[/color]
[/quote]
Problems arise when you're stupid enough for people to basically believe anything that comes out of your mouth as being serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hero of Time, please write a 5 page essay on the transitive properties of treaties. Given our three newest treaties, I want this essay to include you linking MK to defending (or rolling with agressively) NPO, SOS Brigade, and Polaris. I expect the essay posted in this topic no later than tomorrow at 3:00pm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1288410754' post='2496891']
[color="#FF0000"]How many more treaties are you going to sign tonight? Why are you linking yourself into every section of the web? This is madness.[/color]
[/quote]

Not every section. They didn't sign a treaty with NPO yet :awesome:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, you all can stop looking. The princess is at my house. She always has been. It's where she goes when she's tired of low wage earning plumbers who crawl around in the sewers stalking her from castle to castle. Plus, I've got cocaine.

As for the topic. Meh. Don't care/congrats, I guess. My only surprise is that MK took an interesting concept of canceling their treaties and then ruined it. Makes me think the whole thing was either a fumbled foreign policy objective or a tarp in which that no one took the bait. I guess we'll see what they do next.

Edited by Kzoppistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1288412084' post='2496924']
Dear Comrade D34th, I am disappointed that you did not produce your required sour note until this late in the conversation. Comment number thirty is very slow. Please be quicker off the mark in future. In solidarity, Pingu
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]He's just jealous that Polaris is not (yet) on MK's list of freinds.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1288418191' post='2497015']
We have a winner!
[/quote]
This idea that we dissolved all of our treaties purely as a method of dropping a few of them while avoiding a 'PR hit' is inherently flawed.

Firstly, it assumes that there would have been a 'PR hit' by us cancelling some treaties. Where would this terrible PR hit come from, exactly? Mushroom Kingdom would have been ridding itself of treaties, slightly breaking apart this 'hegemony' that supposedly exists, which is something that our detractors would be celebrating. So, who would be responsible for the tirades and 50-page long threads of criticism that is usually associated with a 'PR hit'? Yes, those alliances that we hypothetically would have cancelled on would likely be frustrated, but MK has surrounded itself with rather sensible friends that generally express such feelings in private venues.

Secondly, it assumes that we care in the slightest bit what the Alteregos, the PrideAssassins, the Haflingers, the HoTs, the ChairmanHals, etc. of this Cyberverse think. Here's a hint: we don't.

We formulate and execute policies that are within the best interests of the Kingdom. We do not formulate and execute policies on the basis of how much or how little complaining they will provoke from the public.

Edited by Denial
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.


×
×
  • Create New...