The Princess is in Another Treaty

[Voytek]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1288464674' post='2497412']
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.
[/quote]
The thought of an MK ally magically transitioning straight from solid dependable friend to worst enemy is getting you just a tad overly hot and bothered.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[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]

I doubt *every* one.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1288410670' post='2496884']
So who else to go? Athens, FoB, and GR right?
[/quote]
They will practically end up back in CnG the big cancellations they had really amounting to nothing but bad drama.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[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]

It still seems like a reasonable question to ask why you didn't just do the evaluating/soul-searching/etc. that you felt was necessary and then just drop the treaties you decided not to keep.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1288482531' post='2497588']
They will practically end up back in CnG the big cancellations they had really amounting to nothing but bad drama.
[/quote]

You heard it here first. I think.

[Believland]

[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]

Don't you see it?

MK ---> Umbrella ---> Argent(?) ---> TOP ---> IRON ---> NSO ---> NPO ---> TPF ---> FEAR ---> NEW ---> iFOK ---> GOONS ---> MK

Clearly you are blind.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1288487131' post='2497638']
Don't you see it?

MK ---> Umbrella ---> Argent(?) ---> TOP ---> IRON ---> NSO ---> NPO ---> TPF ---> FEAR ---> NEW ---> iFOK ---> GOONS ---> MK

Clearly you are blind.
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]If only the non-chaining treaty was never invented.

So pretty much MK will end up signing new treaties with all of its old treaty partners, save for a few, because their attempt to redefine themselves and gain new freinds did not receive exactly as an enthusastic reaction as anticipated.

In short the net effect is the same as canceling a few treaties.[/color]

[Denial]

[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]
You do realise that saying that your argument is an 'assumption' does not preclude you from having people point out you're incorrect, right?

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1288483095' post='2497597']
It still seems like a reasonable question to ask why you didn't just do the evaluating/soul-searching/etc. that you felt was necessary and then just drop the treaties you decided not to keep.
[/quote]
Because that would not have allowed re-evaluation to the depth that we felt necessary. The past three weeks have been a worthwhile experience. The treaties we have signed over the past couple of days are a reflection of that process.

[Denial]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1288464674' post='2497412']
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.
[/quote]
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. What I also said is that fact that we surrounded ourselves with reasonable, mature friends would prevent some sort of 'massive PR hit' that we've supposedly been trying to avoid from ever eventuating. This, in combination with the other points I have already outlined, makes the idea that we dissolved all of our treaties due to 'PR' concerns absolutely ludicrous.

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1288464674' post='2497412']
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.[/quote]
If that occurs, then I would personally say that the dissolution of our treaties reached one of its objectives.

[Max Cristof]

Oh hey my name on a treaty.

Go us, etc.

[Snowbeast]

We aren't signing any more treaties after this. You can all go home now. Goodbye.

[Uralica]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1288487131' post='2497638']
MK ---> Umbrella ---> Argent[s](?)[/s] ---> TOP ---> IRON ---> NSO ---> NPO ---> TPF ---> FEAR ---> NEW ---> iFOK ---> GOONS ---> MK
[/quote]

Argent does indeed have an MDoAP with Umbrella. Also, one could omit NPO/TPF, or replace NSO/NPO with TOOL, and they'd still be correct.

Anyway, I'm about as surprised at this treaty as I am at the number of times I've been blown off by women. AKA "not particularly."

EDIT: awkward wording is awkward.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Uralica

[Omniscient1]

Congrats to our allies in ODN and MK on their awesome treaty.

[HeroofTime55]

[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]The only reason someone cancels treaties just to sign new treaties is to strategically reposition themselves.

The only reason they would cancel ALL of their treaties and then re-sign with half of the same people is so that they can try to not hurt the feelings so much of the people they intend on ditching. Trying to avoid burning bridges, basically. But it's really thin and I don't think they're buying it.

[Denial]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288500708' post='2497820']
The only reason someone cancels treaties just to sign new treaties is to strategically reposition themselves.

The only reason they would cancel ALL of their treaties and then re-sign with half of the same people is so that they can try to not hurt the feelings so much of the people they intend on ditching. Trying to avoid burning bridges, basically. But it's really thin and I don't think they're buying it.
[/quote]
Just think about it for a second.

If even someone as daft as you was able to come to the conclusion that dissolving all treaties in order to avoid 'hurt feelings' would be entirely transparent, do you [i]really[/i] think that we would have pursued such a course of action? The Foreign Affairs Department of the Mushroom Kingdom is by far the most talented this game has ever seen; it consists of the [b]former leaders[/b] of LUE, TOP, Vanguard, Viridian Entente, TDSM8, Nueva Vida and Kronos, to name just a few. Even the vast majority of our entry-level Envoys have high level government experience.

We know what we're doing.

In the end, I should probably take comfort in the fact that our detractors don't possess the cognitive capacity to get past the idea that this was some sort of half-assed PR stunt.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Denial

[Madder Red]

Congrats to MK and ODN.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288502369' post='2497829']
Just think about it for a second.

If even someone as daft as you was able to come to the conclusion that dissolving all treaties in order to avoid 'hurt feelings' would be entirely transparent, do you [i]really[/i] think that we would have pursued such a course of action? The Foreign Affairs Department of the Mushroom Kingdom is by far the most talented this game has ever seen; it consists of the [b]former leaders[/b] of LUE, TOP, Vanguard, Viridian Entente, TDSM8, Nueva Vida and Kronos, to name just a few. Even the vast majority of our entry-level Envoys have high level government experience.

We know what we're doing.

In the end, I should probably take comfort in the fact that our detractors don't possess the cognitive capacity to get past the idea that this was some sort of half-assed PR stunt.
[/quote]You really have a way of living up to your name

Feel free though to provide the 'real' reason for your actions. Or at least concoct some crazy 'alternate' theory.

'Cause, I mean, it's pretty much obvious that many of your former friends just weren't 'good enough' to re-sign with. Watching you scramble to pretend that relationships still exist there after this stunt, it is entertaining to watch.

Any other possible scenario would be provided for in simply canceling the undesired treaties and keeping the ones you wanted to keep. Why cancel an agreement to just re-sign the exact same thing a week later? Come on, we're not that stupid.

I don't think your FA team is as bright as you would like to believe.

[tamerlane]

HeroofTime - Maybe its a mistake to put our faith in the intelligence of the greater CN community but Im confident not all are as desperate to create a narrative as you are.

Edited October 31, 2010 by tamerlane

[Stumpy Jung Il]

People's biggest problem seems to be that they didn't understand MK's intentions with canceling all of her treaties. It was not to reallign ourselves with some completely new power center. It was because our treaties were hugely conflictual and we wanted to take a step back and reassess our position. We were inevitably going to resign with people we had treaties with already.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1288477391' post='2497532']
The thought of an MK ally magically transitioning straight from solid dependable friend to worst enemy is getting you just a tad overly hot and bothered.
[/quote]That's not quite what he said, but I've come to expect less than adequate reading skills from MK drones.

[quote]HeroofTime - Maybe its a mistake to put our faith in the intelligence of the greater CN community but Im confident not all are as desperate to create a narrative as you are.[/quote]It's not a narrative, it follows logically. For example:

[quote]People's biggest problem seems to be that they didn't understand MK's intentions with canceling all of her treaties. It was not to reallign ourselves with some completely new power center. It was because our treaties were hugely conflictual and we wanted to take a step back and reassess our position. We were inevitably going to resign with people we had treaties with already.[/quote]There is no reason why you couldn't have assessed the situation and then can canceled only those treaties you felt you needed to do away with.

But the people getting canceled on would have probably felt rather unhappy about the sudden cancellations. Betrayed, even. So, naturally, by canceling everything at once, MK tried to pretend they weren't singling out some of their former allies. Based on rumors circulating IRC, I don't think they bought it. Rumors, of course, are less than reliable, but I know I sure as hell wouldn't buy it if I were a former ally of MK.

Edited October 31, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Sandwich Controversy]

Good thing you aren't.

[potato]

Has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, you're not as as smart or as "in the know" that you would like to be? At least concerning MK matters. You keep on saying "the only reason is...". There are as many reasons as there are cancelled treaties. If not more. Maybe you don't want to see them, maybe you can't.

If our allies and ex-allies have a problem, they know where to find us. They don't have to go through you to air their - sometimes - legitimate disappointement.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1288556450' post='2498211']
Has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, you're not as as smart or as "in the know" that you would like to be? At least concerning MK matters. You keep on saying "the only reason is...". There are as many reasons as there are cancelled treaties. If not more. Maybe you don't want to see them, maybe you can't.

If our allies and ex-allies have a problem, they know where to find us. They don't have to go through you to air their - sometimes - legitimate disappointement.
[/quote]I never said they had to go through me... Good lord, where do you come up with this nonsense?

I am an external observer, but it doesn't mean I can't draw the obvious logical conclusions from what I see. Meanwhile, you all just keep denying it while providing thoroughly laughable alternative 'explanations.'

[HeroofTime55]

Edit: The dreaded double post >_>

Edited October 31, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[potato]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1288557070' post='2498221']
I never said they had to go through me... Good lord, where do you come up with this nonsense?

I am an external observer, but it doesn't mean I can't draw the obvious logical conclusions from what I see. Meanwhile, you all just keep denying it while providing thoroughly laughable alternative 'explanations.'
[/quote]

So, when several members (both gov't and non-gov't) of the involved alliances tell you you're actually wrong in your "obvious logical conclusions", what do you do? Keep up repeating the same thing ad nauseam?

Edited October 31, 2010 by potato