Backroom Extortion is Back

[Mathias]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1289283614' post='2507430']
[color="#0000FF"]Everyone answers to the public eventually.[/color]
[/quote]

Way to ignore the argument. By your own admission you should have talked to someone else in MK gov instead of trying to turn this into a smear campaign. What I want to know is: why didn't you? You're by no means stupid, so that leads me to believe that you intentionally neglected the proper course of action in an attempt to gain sympathy from the global community.

[Earth Shaker]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289279949' post='2507344']
Why wait? Lets dance now, polly.
[/quote]

Dance all you want, I'll rock you and your lame box.

[Judge X]

That conversation reminds me of watching some lame cop show where 2 muggers rob a guy in a dark alley and get caught with his wallet and swear to the cops that he just gave it to them, they didn't rob him(even though they found a a gun on them). Then they hire some sleazeball fast talking lawyer to make everybody look at his left hand while his right hands stabs the guys whole family. Terrible business. No one profits from this (Except for those guys that are getting free money & tech for nothing but at the cost of being honor-less and dirty for taking what they have not earned through good economic investment or war).

Truly Shameless and shameful at the same time.

[uaciaut]

[quote]You know, I've thought about this topic, and I've realized something: MK actually usually are really great people. Perhaps we just had a misunderstanding. Perhaps someone in their government just made a mistake, and accidentally thought that each member of that trade circle payed our ghost 3m/50t, thus making their request for 15m/250t perfectly reasonable. Now, I'll gladly pay out the full 15m/250t myself if it turns out this wasn't just a misunderstanding, but for now I'll just stick with having sent the 3m/50t so MK wouldn't have to go to the trouble of sending the extra money back later after the issue is cleared up.

Oh, and I'd like a response from MK gov about this- regular MK members simply aren't enough to resolve the question of whether or not all we had here was a plain everyday misunderstanding. You know, I understand that disagreements happen and hope that we can all work past our pride and come to a clean and nice conclusion here.[/quote]

I don't know why you bothered to put this in the OP when you've pretty much sealed the deal already by posting this in public from the start. Oh well.

[Banksy]

[quote name='BlkAK47_002' timestamp='1289282844' post='2507398']
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this was premeditated at all. But the opportunity arose where you could either make NSO pay up, or roll them, and you took that opportunity. Your members expressed this clearly in the beginning of the thread. Now your tune has changed because you see public opinion turning against you. If Tamerlane and Bansky kept doing what they were doing roughly 20 pages back, then this situation would be salvageable. As I said before, by claiming that you weren't planning to attack them if they refused (and you quite obviously were)you just butchered any good defensive arguments you had going for you.
[/quote]
Eh, what was I doing 20 pages ago that i'm not doing now?

[Gorbie]

I think Shatt summed up this situation the best with:

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1289235635' post='2506195']
Utter. bull. !@#$.
[/quote]

I guess we really shouldn't be surprised by this. First MK pisses off their former allies by their mass drop of treaties with no warning. Then once they get their ducks in a row with the rest of their new friends they decide to start some crap with NSO to try and force a war by extorting far more compensation than they are entitled to. Then when the issue is brought to light and people question their motives MK and friends resort to personal attacks and "DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!" Glad to have reassurances as to what we can expect from MK in the future. I'll be curious to see how much luck you get in completing trades in the future after this fiasco.

I do have to applaud Delendum for actually discussing the points raised instead of resorting to name calling and wild conspiracy theories. It's nice to know not everyone over in MK has lost their marbles. Hopefully Archon's announcement will return some sanity to this 3 ring circus.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289255679' post='2506597']
Im arguing that if the terms were so outrageous, RV had every reason to negotiate down, he did not. That says something.
[/quote]

But does it say what you think it does? No. It says that given how disproportionately impatient you folks already were with the WORST RUN-AROUND GIVEN TO ANY ALLIANCE EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE, the likely result of "negotiating" (i.e. standing up for themselves in any way) probably didn't seem like a useful action in the face of a group more than happy to get a beat-down started.

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289277347' post='2507278']
MK has a very peculiar way of pretending to acknowledge its implications of force, yet at the same time dismissing them by pretending that merely having an army is in itself something that distorts negotiations.

That is a lie.

You can be the strongest person in the world, but that does not mean that you are expected to actually beat up everybody you come across. If that intention does not exist, then your "strength" does not become a factor in the negotiations, simply because it is not a strength that would be used.

The fact that MK is unable to make that distinction is a clear indicator of the intimidation that took place here. Most alliances wouldn't hold a newbie reneging on a trade agreement as a reason to use military force against an entire alliance. If MK's attitude in this thread is anything to go by, [b]every single[/b] time when you negotiate with a weaker alliance is a time when you might use military force, therefore you insert that possibility and use it as a tool in any "discussions".

It is quite amazing that its members cannot explicitly recognize this, and a sign of how ingrained MK's position of power has become in their mentality. You do not have to "dumb yourselves down" in order to talk with someone weaker than you on an equal level. You merely have to [b]not try and force them to do something[/b] with that shiny army backing it up.

Most alliance interactions go through smoothly without the use of force entering anybody's mind. The "strength" of most alliances who have someone scam them out of money for a trade wouldn't be a factor in negotiations, because most alliances wouldn't use that strength to beat up the guy's alliance.

And if you aren't going to use your strength, it won't make a difference. So do not try to pass off your arrogant "we are better than them in every measure, that's not our fault" rhetoric. You are [b]making use[/b] of that power to [b]fulfil an underlying goal[/b] that damages the weaker party. That is a far cry from the average "interaction" that goes on between alliances.



Merely having a military does not mean that an alliance will use said military at the drop of a hat. A noob scamming of his trade partners is [b]not[/b] a situation where an alliance should be using their military. Yet MK does not seem content to do what an alliance should do.

As you have admitted, MK makes full use of their status to meet their goals. From the point that use is made, the "military" stops being a passive and innocuous thing lying in the corner, and becomes a threat. You cannot both enjoy the benefits of your power and yet pretend that you are not using it.

If MK was not willing to use its military force, then its military force would have been irrelevant to the issue. Which is what would have happened between most alliances who face a minor issue with a trade gone wrong, and decide to *not* barge in accusing of lies and making initial demands they themselves regard as high (as belied by the expectation of them being lowered).





The "Kingdom" involves itself in crude bullying under the guise of an imaginary 2-year bogeyman.

The mere fact that this went from a small nation reneging on his trade promises to you intimidating another alliance into handing over what a wide section of the world is condemning you for is a key indicator of that. The "best interests" of NSO should not have even entered the equation, and they only did so because of MK's excessive policies.




Well, I haven't really seen any claims that the logs are fake, so I am not quite sure what was in question. Unless you are somehow trying to attribute that the element of choice removes the element of extortion - which would be ridiculous. Even if I were held at gunpoint I would still have the "choice" of dying on my feet, but that does not change the facts of the situation.



An alliance which does not [b]make use[/b] of its power to intimidate everybody it interacts with over minor issues would have no such problem. The words of MK members in this thread do not seem to indicate that they are capable of being such an alliance. Indeed, the mere fact that this question keeps popping up shows how ingrained it is that "having power" = "using it to get our way" is in the minds of the Kingdom.

Well done.
[/quote]
"Being of superior military strength does not distort negotiations except when it's MK" - Letum, 2010

[Voytek]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1289293325' post='2507798']
But does it say what you think it does? No. It says that given how disproportionately impatient you folks already were with the WORST RUN-AROUND GIVEN TO ANY ALLIANCE EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE, the likely result of "negotiating" (i.e. standing up for themselves in any way) probably didn't seem like a useful action in the face of a group more than happy to get a beat-down started.
[/quote]
Attempting to negotiate: prime CB

[Denial]

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1289276730' post='2507253']
Tyga mentioned rolling NSO once, and that was saying that MK and friends would be ready to roll NSO if needed. Other than that I can't see him saying you are looking for an excuse to roll NSO. Either you are an idiot and can't comprehend what he's saying, or you are trying to deflect his rather valid criticisms of your alliance.
[/quote]
You obviously haven't been looking very hard, then (or at all):

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289267922' post='2506923']
I thought I did.

I assumed everyone knew MK and allies are willing and ready to roll NSO whenever the opportunity arises.
[/quote]
[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289270818' post='2507045']
Not when your stronger negotiating position [i]is[/i] your military strength plus a fairly obvious desire to see NSO rolled. You can try and pretend the elephant in the room is not here but most if us can see it quite clearly.

If this was anyone else but NSO I highly doubt you'd have pursued it anywhere near as aggressively as you have, if at all.
[/quote]

So, what was that you were saying?

[Lukapaka]

I suppose it's no surprise to see NSO treated like dirt. When you talk the amount of jive they do, you shouldn't expect folks to treat you kindly. Sorry NSO, but it comes with the rep.

With RV at the stage, no doubt this thread is meant to make MK out to be the sole cause of this entire dilemma. Honestly, if it was [i]any [/i]other alliance, I'd be upset with MK, but seeing RV get all riled up makes me smile.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Lukapaka

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289293903' post='2507806']
"Being of superior military strength does not distort negotiations except when it's MK" - Letum, 2010
[/quote]

You know, you could at least have the guts to admit that you're playing a deliberate intimidation game rather than going off on this "oh, we can't help being so cool and strong" tirade. Everyone is well aware that you are all too willing to put that strength to use if your goals are not met, and that is the very antithesis of a benevolent giant.

But of course, you choose to hide behind your thin veneer, deflecting criticism with spin, misrepresentations and lies. And I do not know if I should commend you for being so dedicated to maintaining that illusion, or if I should be disgusted that this twisted thinking has seemingly seeped in so deep that it has made you unable to face yourself; which is truly the worst face of cowardice. Your blatant straw-man seems to unfortunately point towards the latter. Someone truly dedicated would have put forth more effort.

[Gorbie]

Well, so much for Archon restoring sanity. The other thing that has been bugging me about this whole situation is the debate on if the nation in question is a member of NSO or not. The two parties from MK state that they talked to 2 members of NSO before RV who told them that the nation in question was a member. Where is the logs from those conversations? I notice MK making a lot of claims about the many discussions and how they went and NSO refuting those claims. So why not show the proof to solidify your postion? Or has MK decided to run with the Thuganomics response of "Pay or burn"?

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289295258' post='2507817']
You know, you could at least have the guts to admit that you're playing a deliberate intimidation game rather than going off on this "oh, we can't help being so cool and strong" tirade. Everyone is well aware that you are all too willing to put that strength to use if your goals are not met, and that is the very antithesis of a benevolent giant.

But of course, you choose to hide behind your thin veneer, deflecting criticism with spin, misrepresentations and lies. And I do not know if I should commend you for being so dedicated to maintaining that illusion, or if I should be disgusted that this twisted thinking has seemingly seeped in so deep that it has made you unable to face yourself; which is truly the worst face of cowardice. Your blatant straw-man seems to unfortunately point towards the latter. Someone truly dedicated would have put forth more effort.
[/quote]
See, you really do not necessitate a lengthy reply, because all your verbose posturing and lengthy diatribes can be quite easily summarised down to one sentence. The very core of your argument, as has been shown previously, is an utter falsehood. You are still caught up on the erroneous notion that we were ready and willing to declare war on the New Sith Order if they did not meet our initial figure in the midst of those negotiations. If you are so certain of this, I would like to see some concrete evidence. Hell, I'll even cut you some slack, expand the acceptable scope of evidence, and let you try and find scenarios where the Mushroom Kingdom has immediately declared war because our first demands in negotiation were not met.

No amount of long-winded buffonery, shrill outcries of malevolent hegemonns, or flowery narratives can obfuscate the harsh reality that you will not be able to meet the above challenge.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1289235144' post='2506187']
I'm not saying they don't, that's clearly not what happened here though. He sacrificed all his trades and changed colors, he had to go a lot further than the other members of the circle. It doesn't make sense for him to just change his mind like that after coming so far. Clearly he was instructed. NSO government saw a chance to do economic damage to MK and took it, even though they knew they were throwing their member under the bus in the process, poor show NSO.
[/quote]

Do you believe what you are saying? Like genuinely put weight behind this nonsense that spews forth from your mouth? Why just recently there was a discussion about a tech deal scammer on this very forum, who was he instructed by? Clearly an individual can't possibly be stupid enough to sacrifice their nation when they receive $3mil in aid and the dollar signs flash before their eyes. Clearly this could never happen without explicit instruction from their alliance, and indeed never has done.

Please. Do everyone engaging in discourse even close to rational a favour and pull your head from your ass.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Poyplemonkeys

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1289281718' post='2507369']
But crying 'implied threat!' whenever there is an NS disparity is ridiculous.
[/quote]

It is yes. But that does not mean it is never a vaild point.

[quote]
The fact is, when you claim MK was holding a 'gun' to the NSO's head you are claiming that we made our military presence felt in the chat.
[/quote]

Incorrect. The military strength advantage is a known prior to any "chat". You don't need to make it felt in said "chat" for it to be a factor in the minds of those you are "chatting" with.

[quote]
Nowhere did I see Pip or Yev saying "we're buying the tanks and increasing the alert level now," or anything else implying we were ready to attack the NSO if they didn't concede to our 'demands,' which would be similar to holding a gun to someone's head.
[/quote]

Hmm, are you really this obtuse? Go back to the initial statement I made about a threat not needing to be explicitly stated for it to exist. I thought my example demonstrated it quite well. I know you read it because you keep misrepresenting it but I did at least expect you to understand the basic reason I presented it.

[quote]
What actually happened was, over many years of hard work, MK built up a lot of tech and now has a higher NS than the NSO. By using your analogy of the gun, you are saying that because of this, every relationship in CN where there is a NS inequality is the equivalent of the superior party threatening to attack (pulling out a gun) on the other.
[/quote]

No it isn't. The difference being in this case you went in asking for what you knew and now readily admit was an excessive amount far above any compensatory amount for the trivial slight on a few members of your alliance. The fact that the NSO accepted that outrageous sum speaks more for the threat they perceived than the righteousness of your reparations demand.

[quote]
If there was any malice, I would agree with you. But there isn't. Any threats were nothing more than assumptions on the NSO's behalf. Because RV is a seasoned CN ruler and alliance leader I think I can safely say that he knew the difference between an actual threat and thin air.
[/quote]

Asking for 5 times the money lost is malicious as far as I'm concerned. You had no real reason to demand that amount of money and tech, you just assumed your military clout would force NSO to buckle. You assumed correctly.

[Denial]

Tyga, there is very little I disagree with in your above post. Just out of curiousity - and this is in no way a loaded question - what do you suggest could be done to remove the fact that a disparity in strength, political abilities, efficiency, and so on can distort the negotiations in the favour of the 'superior' party? I realise you will be of the opinion that we should have been seeking a lower level of compensation from the outset - something that I agree with - but beyond that, how can a large, militarily-potent alliance ever overcome the fact that a threat can be interpreted by the weaker party without it ever being even slightly alluded to?

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289296509' post='2507834']
Tyga, there is very little I disagree with in your above post. Just out of curiousity - and this is in no way a loaded question - what do you suggest could be done to remove the fact that a disparity in strength, political abilities, efficiency, and so on can distort the negotiations in the favour of the 'superior' party?
[/quote]

Be reasonable? A simple solution. When people come into a "negotiation" with an outrageous request then it is unreasonable, pure and simple. Kicking the guy who reneged on the trade circle deal out to get rolled or paying the three million lost by MK is more than enough as far as NSO's obligations. The latter probably being on the generous side. The fact of the matter is you knew NSO were in a no-win situation and decided to capitalise on it. When a larger group enters a "negotiation" in a totally unreasonable manner it creates an environment whereby the weaker group will be intimidated. This was undoubtedly your goal this time around as I see no other reason for you to do what you did.

Stop acting unreasonably and you won't have any issue from people like me, people will not perceive you as threatening in "negotiations" and I think you'll find that situations are rectified much faster and more easily. If that is what you sought, of course.

[quote]
I realise you will be of the opinion that we should have been seeking a lower level of compensation from the outset - something that I agree with - but beyond that, how can a large, militarily-potent alliance ever overcome the fact that a threat can be interpreted by the weaker party without it ever being even slightly alluded to?
[/quote]

I don't think anyone perceives a threat from people being reasonable. Therein in lies the problem here. MK was totally and utterly unreasonable because they knew they had the political and military clout to get away with it. Even now MK is being utterly unreasonable and Archon's sugar-coated !@#$ sandwich post is a prime example of that.

You and pretty much everyone in MK has admitted you got it wrong with the reparations demands. You can either suck it up and make more reasonable arrangements or you can carry on as you are. Doesn't really make a lick of difference to me but it is your alliances reputation being pissed down the drain at a rapid rate. 15 million and 250 tech isn't going to bankrupt NSO nor is it going to make any great difference to MK, so I hope it was all worth it for you. Just because NSO felt intimidated enough to accept the unreasonable reparations sum does not make you right.

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289295767' post='2507825']
See, you really do not necessitate a lengthy reply, because all your verbose posturing and lengthy diatribes can be quite easily summarised down to one sentence. The very core of your argument, as has been shown previously, is an utter falsehood. You are still caught up on the erroneous notion that we were ready and willing to declare war on the New Sith Order if they did not meet our initial figure in the midst of those negotiations. If you are so certain of this, I would like to see some concrete evidence. Hell, I'll even cut you some slack, expand the acceptable scope of evidence, and let you try and find scenarios where the Mushroom Kingdom has immediately declared war because our first demands in negotiation were not met.
[/quote]

The issue with your posturing is that you seem content to ignore what the rest of the world is saying in favour of arguing against straw-men of your own creation. To this extent, you have become fixated on the availability for a "negotiation" and the existence of leeway as making MK all nice and benevolent. To this extent you attempt to divert the discussion from "intimidation tactics were used" to the extreme of "if the initial offer was not accepted, it means war".

That is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, albeit one you are unlikely to acknowledge. Painting the world in black and white always suits those with your style of argument, the one that seeks to present "the other side" as having a position that is utterly illogical or unfavourable. It is the same style as the "at least they aren't viceroys" line of thought.

So, having gone so far into your strawman, you now lay the best part: demanding the other side provide evidence for a position you were able to make up, define and put in a context all on your own. That is a pretty impressive tactic, but it will not fly here.

The issue here is not that MK issued some form of absolute ultimatum backed with the explicit promise of military action. Intimidation does not have to be taken to that level in order to work. Your vaunted leeway did exist, but that is not some white knight that you can point to and say "everything is alright". MK entered those negotiations with the threat of force being a card on their dealing hand, something the other party was all too aware off.

This is where your malicious framing comes into play. By repeating your lies that all this criticism is focused solely on the "first demand", you can then point to the existence of the "leeway" as room for compromise, and thereby assert that there would be no military repercussion for your "first demand" Of course, the argument you are constructing makes no sense whatsoever, which is exactly what a good strawman is supposed to do. Instead of actually discussing what others say, you avoid it and put this ridiculous thing in its place.

Your spin won't work.

[i]MK used blatant intimidation tactics. Those intimidation tactics do not require an immediate war on the "initial figure", they merely require that war be on the table, even on the fifth figure. A small nation reneging on a trade agreement is not something over which the possibility of war should be on the table in the fist place, and that is one of the key reasons there is such furor here. If I am to take the words of your members here at face value, then MK seems to regard "war" as a default card to carry around in their interaction with any alliance, which is a very disturbing tactic. Sure, you might have Archon cover it up with pretty words and allow a "first demand" that you can move down from, but it does not change that you are making active use of your power to shape the world in accordance with your goals.
[/i]
And I could at least respect that, if you were honest to yourself enough to admit it.

So yes Denial, I am not meeting your challenge, because it is a false challenge on a false position that exists only as your propaganda construct. Feel free to once again redefine what the everybody is saying so that it will fit within your propaganda goals. After all, reality is what MK says it is.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Letum

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Lord Strider' timestamp='1289263143' post='2506814']
Just like a parent sometimes has to tell their children to do their chores.
[/quote]

But he totally could have negotiated.

[Denial]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289297465' post='2507842']
Be reasonable? A simple solution. When people come into a "negotiation" with an outrageous request then it is unreasonable, pure and simple. Kicking the guy who reneged on the trade circle deal out to get rolled or paying the three million lost by MK is more than enough as far as NSO's obligations. The latter probably being on the generous side. The fact of the matter is you knew NSO were in a no-win situation and decided to capitalise on it. When a larger group enters a "negotiation" in a totally unreasonable manner it creates an environment whereby the weaker group will be intimidated. This was undoubtedly your goal this time around as I see no other reason for you to do what you did.

Stop acting unreasonably and you won't have any issue from people like me, people will not perceive you as threatening in "negotiations" and I think you'll find that situations are rectified much faster and more easily. If that is what you sought, of course.

I don't think anyone perceives a threat from people being reasonable. Therein in lies the problem here. MK was totally and utterly unreasonable because they knew they had the political and military clout to get away with it. Even now MK is being utterly unreasonable and Archon's sugar-coated !@#$ sandwich post is a prime example of that.[/quote]
I thought this might be your response, and again, you're kind of preaching to the choir here in regards to whether the amount demanded was too high or not. What I was more interested in - due to the first half of your previous post dealing with the way power impacts upon negotiation - was more theoretical; how one can ever overcome the fact the negotiations in the Cyberverse are always skewed in one party's favour, prior to them even beginning, as a result of disparities in strength, skill and political connectedness?

[OOC: I'm probably interested because I study a great deal of negotiation and dispute management theory, and quite regularly put said theory into practice, in real life.]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289297465' post='2507842']
You and pretty much everyone in MK has admitted you got it wrong with the reparations demands. You can either suck it up and make more reasonable arrangements or you can carry on as you are. Doesn't really make a lick of difference to me but it is your alliances reputation being pissed down the drain at a rapid rate. 15 million and 250 tech isn't going to bankrupt NSO nor is it going to make any great difference to MK, so I hope it was all worth it for you. Just because NSO felt intimidated enough to accept the unreasonable reparations sum does not make you right.
[/quote]
The way I've explained it elsewhere - and this is just my personal view on it - is that those officials responsible were not looking for war, but they did make unneccessarily high demands due to a number of factors. Those factors range from the previous intransigence of the New Sith Order, miscommunication and, from what I can tell, a genuine desire to have a bit of back and forth negotiation regarding the final resolution. My interpretation is that those officials quite quickly realised that the final resolution that NSO agreed to was less than ideal, and were ready and willing to recommence negotiations. However, by this time, RV had decided to run off to the forums and commence a smear campaign.

I accept your implication that this entire scenario was not really worth pursuing for the Kingdom. Yet, this can quite easily be turned around; was the chance for NSO to score a few PR points against MK really worth paying $15m and 250 tech for, rather than sitting back down at the negotiating table and paying much less?

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289297478' post='2507843']
<snip>
[/quote]
So, when are you going to stop spreading misinformation and provide some evidence to back up your claims?

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289298371' post='2507851']
I thought this might be your response, and again, you're kind of preaching to the choir here in regards to whether the amount demanded was too high or not. What I was more interested in - due to the first half of your previous post dealing with the way power impacts upon negotiation - was more theoretical; how one can ever overcome the fact the negotiations in the Cyberverse are always skewed in one party's favour, prior to them even beginning, as a result of disparities in strength, skill and political connectedness?

[OOC: I'm probably interested because I study a great deal of negotiation and dispute management theory, and quite regularly put said theory into practice, in real life.]
[/quote]

I actually said more than that, you seem to have missed the main thrust of my comments which centred around the stronger party being reasonable in negotiations rather than beligerent.

[quote]
The way I've explained it elsewhere - and this is just my personal view on it - is that those officials responsible were not looking for war, but they did make unneccessarily high demands due to a number of factors. Those factors range from the previous intransigence of the New Sith Order, miscommunication and, from what I can tell, a genuine desire to have a bit of back and forth negotiation regarding the final resolution. My interpretation is that those officials quite quickly realised that the final resolution that NSO agreed to was less than ideal, and were ready and willing to recommence negotiations. However, by this time, RV had decided to run off to the forums and commence a smear campaign.
[/quote]

My point is that there was absolutely no need for the unreasonable behaviour of MK's representatives over a trivial issue alliances deal with on a daily basis. MK set the ball rolling here by being totally unreasonable which put NSO on the defensive. Trying to blame this on NSO's reaction to your unreasonable demands is putting the cart before the horse.

[quote]
I accept your implication that this entire scenario was not really worth pursuing for the Kingdom. Yet, this can quite easily be turned around; was the chance for NSO to score a few PR points against MK really worth paying $15m and 250 tech for, rather than sitting back down at the negotiating table and paying much less?
[/quote]

There would have been no PR points to score had you been reasonable in the first place. Again, you blame the NSO for reacting to your provocation which is arse-about.

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289298447' post='2507854']
So, when are you going to stop spreading misinformation and provide some evidence to back up your claims?
[/quote]

And of course, you have to continue employing your favourite tactic, that of completely ignoring what other people say in favour of repeating your own straw-men. It is really quite disgusting that you attempt to create a faux high ground by making up stuff from the depth of your imagination and then outright lying when attributing them to someone else. It is disturbing that you seem content to stick your fingers in your ears and parrot of your falsehoods one after the other. And it is vile than you use such a blatant political agenda to distort and misrepresent everything around you.

The world does not believe for a moment that this was a discussion with a benevolent MK where any contrary action whatsoever could not have resulted in war. You know it, and yet you seem intent on twisting it to its exact opposite. Keep on redefining reality, it isn't working.

[Denial]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289298693' post='2507856']
I actually said more than that, you seem to have missed the main thrust of my comments which centred around the stronger party being reasonable in negotiations rather than beligerent.[/quote]
No, I got that. What I meant in my reply is that I don't think a party being 'reasonable' - considering how subjective this term is - is an all-embracing remedy for the power disparities that inherently skew negotiations in favour of one party. It really does not work that way.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289298693' post='2507856']
My point is that there was absolutely no need for the unreasonable behaviour of MK's representatives over a trivial issue alliances deal with on a daily basis. MK set the ball rolling here by being totally unreasonable which put NSO on the defensive. Trying to blame this on NSO's reaction to your unreasonable demands is putting the cart before the horse.[/quote]
If a nation running off with $3m after agreeing to a particular trade set-up is a daily occurrence for other alliances that they let slide, then I pity them. I realise that you are determined to go to any length necessary to excuse NSO and blame the Mushroom Kingdom - as per usual - but both parties are at fault here.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289298693' post='2507856']
There would have been no PR points to score had you been reasonable in the first place. Again, you blame the NSO for reacting to your provocation which is arse-about.
[/quote]
I am not blaming NSO, I am stating that both parties are at fault, and questioning whether the chance to run a smear campaign was really worth paying $15m and 250 tech for.