This is What You've All Been Waiting For

[hizzy]

ironfist i bet you read his post like 12 times.

not that i blame you for pretending to ignore it though, he cut ya deep didn't he?

Edited November 29, 2010 by hizzy

[Ironfist]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1290999979' post='2525619']
ironfist i bet you read his post like 12 times.

not that i blame you for pretending to ignore it though, he cut ya deep didn't he?
[/quote]

I'm confused because I don't know if this is sarcasm or not. So I read your post 12 times and decided to comment.

[Believland]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1290998181' post='2525604']
i don't mind rogues, tbqh.

Actually, I tend to find it hilarious when alliances go out of their way to heckle a rogue, calling them ineffective/insignificant/etc... but then pull out all the stops to get them sanctioned to neutralize "the threat".
[/quote]

How do you think they get the rogue to be so ineffective?

[Mathias]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' timestamp='1290990102' post='2525525']
It's not a given that an alliance will grant a sanction when it is requested of them. As I said before, GATO could have said no. It wouldn't have been the first time a sanction request has been denied so don't act as though it's cast iron convention that 'rogues' get sanctioned.

Obviously, I never expected GATO to go against convention and reject the request, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to simply ignore the act of war.
[/quote]

There was no reason for GATO not to sanction you, and yes I saw the reasons you gave in the other post. Sanctioning a nation on the request of another alliance is a courtesy most would extend in the hopes that if they ever need the favor returned, it will be. But of course a self important jackass like you has to make a big deal out of it and "Declare War on GATO" because of their egregious "act of war." You're nothing but a routine rogue, and that calls for routine procedure to be followed.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1291000256' post='2525623']
How do you think they get the rogue to be so ineffective?
[/quote]
Definitely thorough the heckling. Right? Or have I been doing this wrong the whole time?

[Ninja gumby]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1290990330' post='2525528']
Get off your high horse and stop turtling.
[/quote]

^ this guys got a great idea. You should try it. Rebels dont turtle they stand and fight.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Ninja gumby

[Rebounder]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1291000751' post='2525626']
There was no reason for GATO not to sanction you, and yes I saw the reasons you gave in the other post. Sanctioning a nation on the request of another alliance is a courtesy most would extend in the hopes that if they ever need the favor returned, it will be. But of course a self important jackass like you has to make a big deal out of it and "Declare War on GATO" because of their egregious "act of war." You're nothing but a routine rogue, and that calls for routine procedure to be followed.
[/quote]

The extent to which you're not getting Aimee's point is baffling, hilarious, and yet depressing all at once.

She did not "declare war on GATO," she simply said that GATO sanctioned her, which is a hostile act, so hostilities exist between her and GATO. She did not say she didn't expect them to sanction her, and she did not say she was going to somehow defeat GATO. That's about all there is to it.

But I love how MK, MHA, and GATO have simply come into this thread, quite perturbed about being rogued on, to gloat about how they are beating us. Do you really I expected anyone to join the "Reformation" AA and wage war on a structureless Hegemony? Do you really think either of us expected to visibly hurt your stats, especially with my nukeless nation? That isn't the point here at all. Personally, I am drawing attention to the fact that without individual action, the world will never change from its current dreadful state, and I am also simply saying that I'm tired of everyone telling one another to "do something about it," and simply that statement makes alliance leaders cower in fear, although together we all can "do something about it."

However, you seemed to have missed the point, and for that, I feel sorry for you.

[Rugby]

Brb, signing MDP with GATO.

Also, get in line guys. VODKA was here first and we're surrendering to them.

[Ironfist]

Rebounder, you will achieve nothing, and neither will your friend. If you want to change this place up, do something proactive, don't just rogue on alliances. Yes, they will gloat, because you've made it all the sweeter for them by saying how you're going to change the world through these immature actions.

You can play hero all you like, no one will care in a few pages time, and once again, it will be forgotten.

[caligula]

Rebounder, I can assure you that outside of those of us who read the forum you are not even on our radar. Seriously. That's how ineffective you are in whatever (? what are you trying to accomplish lol?) you are doing. It really puzzles me that you assume any of the alliances you have attacked actually care about what you or anyone else who attacks a fellow member of ours (Which, seems to be on the pre-text of nothing in hopes of becoming something rather than having an actual cause.)

It's nice to know that MHA is a global puppeteer controlling the treaty web though.

lmao.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Ninja gumby' timestamp='1291003948' post='2525650']
^ this guys got a great idea. You should try it. Rebels dont turtle they stand and fight.
[/quote]
Really? I've always thought that rebels were about undermining and thus using guerrilla tactics to bring down a superior foe, not seeking a decisive battle. It would seem foolhardy for someone rebelling against a power structure to engage it on terms where the structure has all the advantages. Amazing to think that all those rebel leaders have been 'doin it rong'.

[Queen Hoopdy the 1st]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1291016656' post='2525776']
Really? I've always thought that rebels were about undermining and thus using guerrilla tactics to bring down a superior foe, not seeking a decisive battle. It would seem foolhardy for someone rebelling against a power structure to engage it on terms where the structure has all the advantages. Amazing to think that all those rebel leaders have been 'doin it rong'.
[/quote]

What you would call a rebel using guerrilla tactics is what I would call a rogue turtling to prolong his inevitable fate. Perhaps we'll just have to disagree on that.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Queen Hoopdy the 1st' timestamp='1291037470' post='2525849']
[b]What you would call a rebel using guerrilla tactics is what I would call a rogue turtling to prolong his inevitable fate[/b]. Perhaps we'll just have to disagree on that.
[/quote]
Would anyone from FAN like to call the good lady out on that remark?


I have not been waiting for this, thank you very much.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Queen Hoopdy the 1st' timestamp='1291037470' post='2525849']
What you would call a rebel using guerrilla tactics is what I would call a rogue turtling to prolong his inevitable fate. Perhaps we'll just have to disagree on that.
[/quote]
It was not me that characterized him as a rebel, in fact it was one of your members who used the term, I was merely responding to him. I have no stake in this quarrel, and I wish you luck in dealing with the rogue. But the point of my earlier post was to express my amusement at the statement that "rebels stand and fight". Since the term 'rebel' isn't common here, I was drawing upon knowledge of rebels in the other realm, and to me it would seem that standing and fighting is not what rebels do. They undermine, they sabotage, they propagandize, they spread dissent. They may even engage in opportunistic hit and run attacks, but what they don't do is seek decisive military engagements, because doing so would lead to their rapid destruction.

[jer]

[quote name='caligula' timestamp='1291009653' post='2525711']
(Which, seems to be on the pre-text of nothing in hopes of becoming something rather than having an actual cause.)

It's nice to know that MHA is a global puppeteer controlling the treaty web though.

lmao.
[/quote]
The attitude I am rebelling against is demonstrated ably by your own 'Azrael Alexander' (and let me assure you, it has nothing to do with your deluded idea that you might be a global puppeteer, "lmao"):

[quote name='Azrael Alexander' timestamp='1290954215' post='2525287']
I'd be perfectly content if our influence was non existent as we after all are not trying to be a "respectable hegemon".[/quote]
You're not trying to be anything, other than perhaps a useful tool for the leaders of the most influential alliances to wield (always with your own self-preservation and cowardice at the forefront of your thinking, of course) whenever necessary. You clearly enjoy being tools, ready for the use of whichever side is looking like the most powerful at any given time, with the prize of never risking being in the firing line yourselves. If that wasn't the case and you truly didn't want to use your influence for anything, you'd be neutral.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' timestamp='1291045397' post='2525872']
-snip-
You're not trying to be anything, other than perhaps a useful tool for the leaders of the most influential alliances to wield (always with your own self-preservation and cowardice at the forefront of your thinking, of course) whenever necessary. You clearly enjoy being tools, ready for the use of whichever side is looking like the most powerful at any given time, with the prize of never risking being in the firing line yourselves. If that wasn't the case and you truly didn't want to use your influence for anything, you'd be neutral.
[/quote]
May I have your permission to [ooc]sig[/ooc] this?

Edited November 29, 2010 by Hadrian

[jer]

Of course.

[Azrael Alexander]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' timestamp='1291045397' post='2525872']
You're not trying to be anything, other than perhaps a useful tool for the leaders of the most influential alliances to wield (always with your own self-preservation and cowardice at the forefront of your thinking, of course) whenever necessary. You clearly enjoy being tools, ready for the use of whichever side is looking like the most powerful at any given time, with the prize of never risking being in the firing line yourselves. If that wasn't the case and you truly didn't want to use your influence for anything, you'd be neutral.
[/quote]

Get it into your mind that we are not "tools to be used" as we follow the will of the members of the alliance. Every major decision our alliance has taken has been made by the people. Some have tried to use us before by accelerating an agressive war and we did the right thing by not following. So don't give me that honkey about us being sheeps. I was perhaps being a little strong when I said "I'd be perfectly content if our influence was non existent" but the point I was trying to make was were not trying to be a "hegemon". Maybe you would like us to be but we don't, it's as simple as that. Every alliance is fully within thier ights to play the game in the way in which is most enjoyable to them. There will inevitably be some in the MHA who would wish to go neutral but most like myself enjoy the occasional war now and then. The fact is inevitably every alliance will fall and until that times comes there will allways be someone chating the "coward" "self-preservationists" chant.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Azrael Alexander

[jer]

I did have this idea that your leadership were the ones who made all the cowardly decisions and the membership just went along with it like the dumb mass that they appear to be, but now you are telling me that it is the membership of the MHA that are all tools, and not just the leaders? I really do not know what to make of this, I guess the problem is worse than I thought.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1291008835' post='2525705']
But I love how MK, MHA, and GATO have simply come into this thread, quite perturbed about being rogued on, to gloat about how they are beating us.
[/quote]
Perturbed? You don't even have nukes. You're literally a tech raid to us.

[scytale]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' timestamp='1291058251' post='2525961']
I did have this idea that your leadership were the ones who made all the cowardly decisions and the membership just went along with it like the dumb mass that they appear to be, but now you are telling me that it is the membership of the MHA that are all tools, and not just the leaders? I really do not know what to make of this, I guess the problem is worse than I thought.
[/quote]
Whenever there’s a large gathering of people, they will start to gather together into group according to various factors. In the case of CN, it’s the way they prefer to play. The alliances are just an expression of the player's preference of play. The successful ones are likely the ones that have a significant following for the type of play the alliance represents. As for the MHA, our alliance is one where the decisions are made by the members and the members can and have changed the alliance according to the members will. What will the MHA stand for in the future? Only those that will be members in that future know. If you are serious about making change, join the alliance and make a change from the inside.

Well, I for one thank you for this little diversion.

[Azrael Alexander]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' timestamp='1291058251' post='2525961']
I did have this idea that your leadership were the ones who made all the cowardly decisions and the membership just went along with it like the dumb mass that they appear to be, but now you are telling me that it is the membership of the MHA that are all tools, and not just the leaders? I really do not know what to make of this, I guess the problem is worse than I thought.
[/quote]

Would you prehaps care to divulge any of these "cowardly decisions" or does simply saying it enough times just make them so? Every alliance has made bad decisions in the past, are making them right now and will do so in the future. Many other alliances are also as quite and will work in the background like us, is there a reason we have been singled out by your esteemed self?

Edited November 29, 2010 by Azrael Alexander

[augustus334]

uh oh they have nukes now

[Rebounder]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1291059799' post='2525971']
Perturbed? You don't even have nukes. You're literally a tech raid to us.
[/quote]

There have been countless topics in which people have voiced their discontent regarding the current hegemonic structure, yet I have made a multi-page thread without making any new points. I have drawn attention to the woes of Bob, and I will continue to do so until things change.

Say hello to the newest thorn in your side, Hegemony.

[quote]Would you prehaps care to divulge any of these "cowardly decisions" or does simply saying it enough times just make them so? Every alliance has made bad decisions in the past, are making them right now and will do so in the future. Many other alliances are also as quite and will work in the background like us, is there a reason we have been singled out by your esteemed self?[/quote]

I was there to help you desert NPO. You hung on until it was certain Karma was the winning side, at which point you facilitated a switch. You're not fooling anybody.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Rebounder

[Banksy]

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1291008835' post='2525705']
Do you really I expected anyone to join the "Reformation" AA and wage war on a structureless Hegemony? Do you really think either of us expected to visibly hurt your stats, especially with my nukeless nation? That isn't the point here at all. Personally, I am drawing attention to the fact that without individual action, the world will never change from its current dreadful state, and I am also simply saying that I'm tired of everyone telling one another to "do something about it," and simply that statement makes alliance leaders cower in fear, although together we all can "do something about it."

However, you seemed to have missed the point, and for that, I feel sorry for you.
[/quote]
Well, yes I think you did. If you didn't expect others to join you, you wouldn't have asked them to do so. In fact, someone did join you after you convinced them to do so in this very thread, so kindly cut the crap.

You've actually highlighted exactly why we think you're a complete joke in this paragraph. Yes, you are technically 'doing something about it,' but as you've pointed out, it's completely ineffective. This is why we're on top, because the opposition is so complete devoid of imagination that the only way we can 'fall' is through our own actions. This is a forum where alliances meet to discuss world events, it is alliance centred politics. And here you are, trying to convince [i]individual[/i] nations to stand up and fight. You are, in short [doin it rong]. If you issue is with alliance leaders who don't stand up to those you apparently despise, then this complete and utter failure (it's like a tech raid target putting himself on a target list) is hardly likely to inspire them.