The Princess is in Another Treaty

[Stefano Palmieri]

Oh come on ODN, you could do so much then this cheap floozy, well our cheap floozy.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288422735' post='2497056']
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.

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.
[/quote]

What about what your allies thought? Im sure they didnt like being ditched en masse in such an dismissive fashion because MK said they wanted to clean up the treaty web only to see them come back and going on a treaty splurge 3 weeks later. Good luck ODN

[Voytek]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1288434690' post='2497108']
What about what your allies thought? Im sure they didnt like being ditched en masse in such an dismissive fashion because MK said they wanted to clean up the treaty web only to see them come back and going on a treaty splurge 3 weeks later. Good luck ODN
[/quote]
I'm sure you know better than we do what our own allies thought of it.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Style #386' timestamp='1288410694' post='2496885']
lol like odn would even honour their treaties anyway!
[/quote]



Nice to see you two together once again.

[Denial]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1288434690' post='2497108']
What about what your allies thought? Im sure they didnt like being ditched en masse in such an dismissive fashion because MK said they wanted to clean up the treaty web only to see them come back and going on a treaty splurge 3 weeks later. Good luck ODN
[/quote]
I'm... I'm almost at a loss for words here.

You do realise that simply omitting parts of my post doesn't mean they no longer exist, right? I already dealt with that [b]exact[/b] ridiculous argument in my post. In that part you conveniently left out of the quote.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Denial

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288422735' post='2497056']
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.
[/quote]

Actually it would mean that MK didn't have the courage to cancel treaties they didn't want to keep and to overcome that shortage they went around and cancelled all treaties to only re-sign a few selected while leaving out those they didn't have the courage to cancel. I wouldn't say that you made your policy based on how much the public would complain, but how your cancelled allies would feel about it. It's a small (or medium, you did have alot of treaties) scale one, but still a PR move.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1288441936' post='2497177']
Actually it would mean that MK didn't have the courage to cancel treaties they didn't want to keep and to overcome that shortage they went around and cancelled all treaties to only re-sign a few selected while leaving out those they didn't have the courage to cancel. I wouldn't say that you made your policy based on how much the public would complain, but how your cancelled allies would feel about it. It's a small (or medium, you did have alot of treaties) scale one, but still a PR move.
[/quote]
You're assuming we had which treaties we wanted to re-sign set in stone in our minds from the outset (I'll give you a hint: we didn't, there was a [i]lot[/i] of discussion and argument over the matter).

[Denial]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1288441936' post='2497177']
Actually it would mean that MK didn't have the courage to cancel treaties they didn't want to keep and to overcome that shortage they went around and cancelled all treaties to only re-sign a few selected while leaving out those they didn't have the courage to cancel. I wouldn't say that you made your policy based on how much the public would complain, but how your cancelled allies would feel about it. It's a small (or medium, you did have alot of treaties) scale one, but still a PR move.
[/quote]
Or, alternatively, we did it for reasons other than PR! I know this might be hard for those of you who base your decisions on the changing whims of the public to grasp, but we had clear strategic objectives in mind when pursuing this path.

In addition to what Voytek mentioned, you make the erroneous assumption that we lack the stomach for cancelling treaties. That flies in the face of the fact that we cancelled quite a few of them in the last 12 months. And what massive PR hits we took for that!

Oh, wait.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1288443303' post='2497189']
You're assuming we had which treaties we wanted to re-sign set in stone in our minds from the outset (I'll give you a hint: we didn't, there was a [i]lot[/i] of discussion and argument over the matter).
[/quote]

Out of curiosity could this discussion not have taken place prior to the mass cancellation? Are you suggesting that you cancelled all your treaties because you simply had not decided which ones were in your best interest to keep? I could understand this attitude if the matter was somewhat critical and action was required swiftly to ensure your long term interest, but given MK was sat in a rather cosy position I struggle to see why the discussion would not happen prior to the action.

Each to their own I guess. Congratulations to you both on a somewhat expected re-union.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1288443303' post='2497189']
You're assuming we had which treaties we wanted to re-sign set in stone in our minds from the outset (I'll give you a hint: we didn't, there was a [i]lot[/i] of discussion and argument over the matter).
[/quote]

Actually I am only saying you had treaties you didn't want to re-sign set in stone. But yeah, that much is an assumption.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288444399' post='2497204']
Or, alternatively, we did it for reasons other than PR! I know this might be hard for those of you who base your decisions on the changing whims of the public to grasp, but we had clear strategic objectives in mind when pursuing this path.

In addition to what Voytek mentioned, you make the erroneous assumption that we lack the stomach for cancelling treaties. That flies in the face of the fact that we cancelled quite a few of them in the last 12 months. And what massive PR hits we took for that!

Oh, wait.
[/quote]

Obviously you had strategic goals, nor I am saying otherwise. No one would have the trouble of cancelling as many treaties as you did if they didn't have strategic goals in mind. That said, one thing doesn't stop the other and you seem to have missed what I wrote when I said it was a small scale PR move aimed at your former allies and not the public in general. So I am not sure what massive PR hits and not taking them have to do with anything, but good for you.

[Denial]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1288445793' post='2497225']
Obviously you had strategic goals, nor I am saying otherwise. No one would have the trouble of cancelling as many treaties as you did if they didn't have strategic goals in mind. That said, one thing doesn't stop the other and you seem to have missed what I wrote when I said it was a small scale PR move aimed at your former allies and not the public in general. So I am not sure what massive PR hits and not taking them have to do with anything, but good for you.
[/quote]
No, I did not miss what you wrote. You have stated that we had a PR gain (or, at least, an attempt to avoid a PR hit) in mind when choosing to dissolve our treaties. I have laid out a number of reasons explicating why this is not the case.

I really don't see how you have the audacity to claim that you know more about our intentions than we do. It's quite laughable.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288446383' post='2497227']I really don't see how you have the audacity to claim that you know more about our intentions than we do. It's quite laughable.[/quote]
People like to feel like they're being Incisive And Analytical. It's not that big of a secret.

[Lucius Aerilius]

I love you guys.

[kevin32891]

This treaty announcement is a bit boring. Not as good the UmbMKGOONS treaty.

But congrats nonetheless on the treaty you two.

[tamerlane]

I had no idea how devious and underhanded we were! WTG GUYS!

[Derwood1]

Congrats guys, pretty good looking treaty there!

[D34th]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1288421109' post='2497040']
[color="#FF0000"]red annoying stuff[/color]
[/quote]

Exactly, envy is eroding my soul, you can't imagine how bad I feel for not being allied with MK anymore, but what matter is that I love them and they love me.

MK

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288446383' post='2497227']
No, I did not miss what you wrote. You have stated that we had a PR gain (or, at least, an attempt to avoid a PR hit) in mind when choosing to dissolve our treaties. I have laid out a number of reasons explicating why this is not the case.

I really don't see how you have the audacity to claim that you know more about our intentions than we do. It's quite laughable.
[/quote]

I thought I just said I was assuming. You [i]can't[/i] read. Luckily for both of us though, this argument has exhausted its usefulness so I'll stop here.

EDIT: No, I did say it. Oh well.

[quote]Actually I am only saying you had treaties you didn't want to re-sign set in stone. [b]But yeah, that much is an assumption[/b].

[/quote]

Edited October 30, 2010 by Lusitan

[Yankees Empire]

Finally, our meatshields have returned. Now it's time to impose our Orange will across this world.

[Bob Ilyani]

Another CnG alliance back into the fold.

[Volgan]

Yep, returned to the fold. No worse the wear. Why they left no one knows. Not everyone in the ODN was quite so forgiving for a treaty partner that just threw all their threaties out their pram.

None the less here goes.

go mk [size="2"]Go ODN[/size] [size="5"]Go ODN[/size] [size="7"]Go ODN[/size]

Edited October 30, 2010 by Volgan

[Rikhard II]

I'm happy to see this signed.

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1288452923' post='2497288']
I thought I just said I was assuming. You [i]can't[/i] read. Luckily for both of us though, this argument has exhausted its usefulness so I'll stop here.

EDIT: No, I did say it. Oh well.
[/quote]

Huh? I guess it's true, you are free to make baseless claims and then sidestep clear explanations as long as you attach a 'disclaimer' that you don't know what you're talking about.

Certainly Denial and Voytek's mistake was to think you were actually trying to make an argument rather than simply dodging rebuttals to your ethereal accusation.

[Poiven]

I am looking forward to being allied with Mushroom Kingdom, again.

~Poiven

[Kevanovia]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288422735' post='2497056']
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.

[/quote]

The people you canceled on would be frustrated as you stated, but just because they're "reasonable" doesn't mean they won't be upset. This could set up a new pathway for them to see things from a different perspective and perhaps down the road side against the Kingdom.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Kevanovia