A Statement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[greatmagnus]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1289339102' post='2508524']
I believe he already answered, that he felt otherwise. Anyway, I just found it funny how you are still trying to deflect from the fact you asked for unreasonably high "reps", even when your King here said that-- it was an error.
[/quote]


MK is not asking for "unreasonable high" reps, RV himself said in this topic that the indicated amount was chump change. That point is over and not up for argument, especially since it came from RV who is the supposed victim.

[Earogema]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1289339233' post='2508525']
This situation we're posting about right now is another situation - ie: The 15m/250t wasn't based on some calculation, it was simply the mark MK set. Whether or not you agree that reps should even been proposed in this situation does not change the fact that the number fits within your standards of negotiation.
[/quote]
It doesn't though. There is a concrete number. It is a legitimate concrete number that isn't high to the point of breaking an alliance. 3 million is that number. Therefore it is the starting figure.

That is my standard of negotiation. I ask only what I know I should get. I don't ask more. If I don't know what I should get, then and only then do I ask higher.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1289339102' post='2508524']
I believe he already answered, that he felt otherwise. Anyway, I just found it funny how you are still trying to deflect from the fact you asked for unreasonably high "reps", even when your King here said that-- it was an error.
[/quote]
I haven't been deflecting that the reps were unreasonably high, I accept that they were and thought so personally. The payment for troubles based on the previously agreed upon amount is not unreasonably high, in my opinion.

Edited November 9, 2010 by tamerlane

[Branimir]

[quote name='greatmagnus' timestamp='1289339337' post='2508527']
MK is not asking for "unreasonable high" reps, RV himself said in this topic that the indicated amount was chump change. That point is over and not up for argument, especially since it came from RV who is the supposed victim.
[/quote]
NO TAKE BACKS!

[quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1289283280' post='2507403']
It was at this point that I will rather openly admit that the Kingdom erred. We demanded a sum of 15 million and 250 tech (a package of 3 million and 50 tech to each affected nation).
....
It was simply a rather high sum. In fact, I would say it was too high. [/quote]

[Partisan]

[quote name='greatmagnus' timestamp='1289339337' post='2508527']
MK is not asking for "unreasonable high" reps, RV himself said in this topic that the indicated amount was chump change. That point is over and not up for argument, especially since it came from RV who is the supposed victim.
[/quote]

Yet, your very own Archon just admitted in this very OP that the reps demanded were to high, thus making them unreasonable.

[Earogema]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289339262' post='2508526']
Im saying there is absolutely no evidence that we would have.


Oh its not odd that they felt threatened but spinelessness, until this point, has never been a characteristic of the NSO. Fear for "their lives" was nothing quoted to any alliance before. This is the alliance that would not surrender under terms, remember?


See above.
[/quote]
NSO surrendered under terms twice now, so that point is moot. Speaking of, they have been through 2 major losing wars. They pick their battles. I'm sure MK wasn't ready to go all out just after NoCB. Hell, I would figure NPO probably came to your doorstep a couple of times right after NoCB with stuff you didn't agree too and you just took it. But MK isn't spineless right? Of course not.

I will agree there is no overt evidence but I don't really need overt evidence to assume that war is possible. If somebody asks me for reps and I say no, I assume the worst. NSO already said "no" to a party and was attacked for it. Back then, even your king said that was stupid and that the war was just.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289339351' post='2508528']
It doesn't though. There is a concrete number. It is a legitimate concrete number that isn't high to the point of breaking an alliance. 3 million is that number. Therefore it is the starting figure.

That is my standard of negotiation. I ask only what I know I should get. I don't ask more. If I don't know what I should get, then and only then do I ask higher.
[/quote]
Right, the 3 million was a concrete number. But MK didn't use it - they used 15m/250t. Which is "inconcrete". Whether or not it was correct to do so, or whether or not you agree with it, doesn't make it any less up for negotiation. Maybe it'd be more correct for you to say "This situation [i]shouldn't[/i] have been up for negotiation."

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1289320404' post='2508135']
Yep that's MK in a nutshell. (not really).
[/quote]
Since you're so familiar with MK's package, I'll take your word for it.

[Earogema]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1289339597' post='2508533']
Right, the 3 million was a concrete number. But MK didn't use it - they used 15m/250t. Which is "inconcrete". Whether or not it was correct to do so, or whether or not you agree with it, doesn't make it any less up for negotiation. Maybe it'd be more correct for you to say "This situation [i]shouldn't[/i] have been up for negotiation."
[/quote]
Well yeah, I suppose that's what I meant. There should have been no negotiation, it should have been a request for 3 million that would be that.

[greatmagnus]

And after Archon said the reps were high that RV said they weren't. RV obviously read the first post and must have disagreed with Archon, else he would not have posted otherwise. Again, the supposed "victim" said it was chump change, not some bystander.

Edited November 9, 2010 by greatmagnus

[SoADarthCyfe6]

RV should have never agreed to those terms, if he thought it was extortion (which I do agree with completely) he should have told them to sod off and then make a big fuss about it on the OWF. But he didnt do that, and so he is stuck with paying the reps and is now being insulted by the creation of this topic. Really not much to be said here anymore.

I would love to see NSO say no, for I o/ Drama.

[JT Jag]

[quote name='KagetheSecond' timestamp='1289339645' post='2508534']
Since you're so familiar with MK's package, I'll take your word for it.
[/quote]Say now!

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289339565' post='2508532']
NSO surrendered under terms twice now, so that point is moot. Speaking of, they have been through 2 major losing wars. They pick their battles. I'm sure MK wasn't ready to go all out just after NoCB. Hell, I would figure NPO probably came to your doorstep a couple of times right after NoCB with stuff you didn't agree too and you just took it. But MK isn't spineless right? Of course not. [/quote]
I don't see how the point is moot. Ask any alliance that had to negotiate those surrender terms and I doubt they'd agree that negotiating with NSO was easy yet this time, this was not the case. Also, you're comparing lemons and cake (I'd use apples and oranges but they have more similarities than what you are attempting to compare).

[quote]
I will agree there is no overt evidence but I don't really need overt evidence to assume that war is possible. If somebody asks me for reps and I say no, I assume the worst. NSO already said "no" to a party and was attacked for it. Back then, even your king said that was stupid and that the war was just.
[/quote]
Thats fine but we find ourselves back to the point that has been pounded over and over again, they could have tried to negotiate. Negotiating doesn't mean "no" and it also denotes a bit more of a protest than "fine, just put it here".

[Kzoppistan]

Why are there 35 pages of this? Anyway, let's pray for [s]war[/s], er, peace.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Partisan]

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1289339815' post='2508537']
RV should have never agreed to those terms, if he thought it was extortion (which I do agree with completely) he should have told them to sod off and then make a big fuss about it on the OWF. But he didnt do that, and so he is stuck with paying the reps and is now being insulted by the creation of this topic. Really not much to be said here anymore.

I would love to see NSO say no, for I o/ Drama.
[/quote]

RV had his alliance to think of. NSO has been rolled a couple of times now and although I'm sure they like war, they need to rebuild at some point too. I assume that to be the reason why he did not refuse the terms. Any sane person knows that NSO is currently not capable of defending itself properly against any serious threats. To me it looks like the MK negotiators tried to use that to their advantage.

[Earogema]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289339898' post='2508540']
I don't see how the point is moot. Ask any alliance that had to negotiate those surrender terms and I doubt they'd agree that negotiating with NSO was easy yet this time, this was not the case. Also, you're comparing lemons and cake (I'd use apples and oranges but they have more similarities than what you are attempting to compare).


Thats fine but we find ourselves back to the point that has been pounded over and over again, they could have tried to negotiate. Negotiating doesn't mean "no" and it also denotes a bit more of a protest than "fine, just put it here".
[/quote]
I'm not comparing anything that different. I am comparing two alliances which faced devastating wars where they were outnumbered having to readjust policy to avoid getting rolled again. The point is moot because obviously it isn't the same NSO. You just clarified that yourself.

And they shouldn't have had to negotiate (as ktarthan corrected me). There was a concrete number. You don't bring up negotiations for a concrete number.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289338957' post='2508518']
If RV didn't like it, he didn't have to agree to it. We've already established that no gun was put to his or NSOs head so why did he just up and accept the terms?

Why are we here again? Branimir! you got us lost again!
[/quote]

What do you mean? He was told there would be consequences or something of that order. Even if all you have is a banana under that jacket, people will still think it's a gun. You established that in MK's perspective there was no gun to NSO's head. Good for you. I am pretty sure if you had told RV "hey look, we're asking for reps but we're not going to do anything about it if you don't pay" he wouldn't have paied anything.

Just quit the dumb argument.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289340112' post='2508545']
I'm not comparing anything that different. I am comparing two alliances which faced devastating wars where they were outnumbered having to readjust policy to avoid getting rolled again.[/quote]
I don't have the patience to explain the finer details with you but Im going to tell you right now you are wrong and that will have to do.

[quote]And they shouldn't have had to negotiate (as ktarthan corrected me). There was a concrete number. You don't bring up negotiations for a concrete number.
[/quote]
You are being obtuse and misinterpreting ktarthan's point. Again, I dont have any more time for this for Dear Leader is very tired.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1289339906' post='2508541']
Why are there 35 pages of this? Anyway, let's pray for [s]war[/s], er, peace.
[/quote]
[ooc]Go to your profile here on the forums and select 40 so that you get 40 topics / 40 posts per page. It makes it alot easier to read through topics by just scrolling down to read more post instead of clicking for the next page. [/ooc]

I wonder if NSO even considered to see what the treaty web would render if they refused to pay. I hope that NSO friends would defend them if they were attacked if they refused to pay. I wonder what STA would have done if this had gone to war. Defend NSO or sit out because of mutual frienships with NSO and MK.

This entire episode is surprising. I would never have thought that MK could be so butthurt over logs being dumped. The solution is to simply not act this way in the future. They have found a pair though and will probably continue to use this muscle for quite a while. All this over a trade circle. It is quite a precedent that has been set here. Alliances should take note of the type of people that live in MK.

All Hail The Kingdumb!

[Earogema]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289340565' post='2508551']
I don't have the patience to explain the finer details with you but Im going to tell you right now you are wrong and that will have to do.


You are being obtuse and misinterpreting ktarthan's point. Again, I dont have any more time for this for Dear Leader is very tired.
[/quote]
Again, I provide a solid example and you simply tell me I'm wrong. Okay then.

I am not manipulating his point. He was telling me what my own standard on negotiations was.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1289340433' post='2508547']
What do you mean? He was told there would be consequences or something of that order. Even if all you have is a banana under that jacket, people will still think it's a gun. You established that in MK's perspective there was no gun to NSO's head. Good for you. I am pretty sure if you had told RV "hey look, we're asking for reps but we're not going to do anything about it if you don't pay" he wouldn't have paied anything.

Just quit the dumb argument.
[/quote]

Ill have my daily potassium and you can have your outrage, k bro?

Edited November 9, 2010 by tamerlane

[Golan 1st]

Yeah, the post Karma world is much better than before, because being extorted by MK is a lot better than being extorted by the NPO and co.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1289334367' post='2508407']I'm clearly biased, but I don't see the problem here. NSO agreed to pay a sum. Then they complained about the sum they agreed to publicly. Now MK wants the agreed-to sum.

Not too hard to comprehend.
[/quote]Yeah
I guess that a GOON explaining how MK are actually not so bad is convincing
This only show what lows MK reached.

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1289336611' post='2508443']Actually, we have a bit of tact and don't do that.[/quote]As can be demonstrated in this thread.


[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289338957' post='2508518']If RV didn't like it, he didn't have to agree to it. [b]We've already established that no gun was put to his or NSOs head[/b] so why did he just up and accept the terms?

Why are we here again? Branimir! you got us lost again![/quote]Speak for yourself.
Many of us think that a gun WAS pointed at NSO's head.

[Joe Izuzu]

Because I have no life, I have read this entire thread. As usual, it is replete with irrelevancies, people posting just to hear themselves talk, and a blatant lack of objectivity on the part of many.

After absorbing the few cogent posts, and purging the many idiotic ones, I am left with a few questions.

1) Were all of the MK nations back-collecting on the same day?
2) Did the NSO member/ghost drop the trades on day 20?
3) Have MK members lost the ability to obtain temp trades on short notice, either from fellow MK members, or from members of friendly alliances?
4) Did any or all of the MK nations actually try to replace the lost trade?
5) Has it become common practice for alliances to pay reps for lost trades, even when they cut the offending member/ghost loose and give the wronged alliance permission to roll it?
6) Did MK have legitimate reason to believe that the cancellation was deliberately orchestrated by NSO in an attempt to harm MK?


I seriously doubt that the answer to any of those questions is "yes".

In all honesty, it seems to me that MK saw the cancellation as an opportunity to humiliate NSO. There is no other reasonable explanation that would justify demanding the 15 mil/250 tech as they did. Frankly, MK was not justified in asking for any compensation, other than permission to roll the offending nation. NSO gave them that permission. MK did not have any justification in seeking outrageous compensatory damages from NSO. They simply saw a situation that gave them a (bad) excuse to bully an alliance that they detest.

Given the circumstances, I cannot excoriate RV for posting the logs and for trying to smear MK's reputation with the truth of MK's bullying.

[Comrade Craig]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1289285054' post='2507521']
Taking a private matter public is, to my way of thinking, a perfectly reasonable method of protest when one side in the private matter was attempting to extort money from the other side. I may not like either alliance in this conflict, but the New Sith Order was wronged. That's all there is to it. So you get i front of your microphone and admit you did evil, but then turn around and try to blow the matter of Rebel Virginia taking it public entirely out of proportion. Good one. So now you're publicly extorting, rather than privately doing so. You've switched from being the bully in a washroom to being the bully on the playground. How admirable.
[/quote]

The time to stand on principle is before you shake hands and agree to a deal. Whining about it after the fact strikes me as petty, not noble. I expect more from the mighty Sith. To me, RV comes across as a petulant child, not a virtuous defender of righteousness.

-Craig

[JT Jag]

[quote name='Golan 1st' timestamp='1289341041' post='2508563']
I guess that a GOON explaining how MK are actually not so bad is convincing
This only show what lows MK reached.[/quote]A GONS post in an entirely unrelated thread! It never fails.

Seriously, think up some new material, maybe think up something more creative than an ad hominem.

Edited November 9, 2010 by JT Jag