TWiKileaks

[JT Jag]

The White House Press Secretary making a press release for the executive office is hardly worth a comparison to wikileaks, and that's much closer to what you're doing at this point Schatt.

[potato]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1293950760' post='2560671']
Well I'm sorry you are blind.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96498&view=findpost&p=2560514"]BAW[/url], [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96498&view=findpost&p=2560540"]BAW[/url], [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96498&view=findpost&p=2560531"]BAW[/url] (Also I actually like two of the three people I quoted.)


Also I know you're simply going to respond with that's not whining. So I'll go ahead and post the definition of whining.



All of these responses look like complaints to me. This thread really doesn't need to be responded to at all, because it's boring. That's why I was sort of surprised to see all the negative responses by MK members. That was my main point. This announcement will be replied to much more than it deserves. However, I'm pretty sure Schatt knew that and that was his goal.
[/quote]

It would help if you actually read your definition instead of just doing a mere copy-paste. If you want to really push it, at best, one of those could be considered whining. Even then, it would be farfetched. But I guess reality isn't going to stop you from seeing things you want to see. Have fun with that.

Schatt, old pal, I've seen better works from you. I expect the next edition to be an improvement.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293954531' post='2560703']
Schatt, old pal, I've seen better works from you. I expect the next edition to be an improvement.
[/quote]
I'm f5'ing my PM inbox

[MrMuz]

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1293952967' post='2560689']
I like how an alliance of 525 nations is bragging about wonder counts when it's so close to two alliance with 166 and 208 nations. Through some wonder/nation ratio and then let's see the bragging.
[/quote]

Poor ratio, especially for the high ANS, but not bad at all for an alliance which was forced to disband them and only started buying those wonders a few months ago.

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]As a piece, this is one of those things that the sum of the parts are truly greater than the whole. To re-wrap the whole Pacifican narrative and place a new label on it is truly nauseous. The drivel that Sir Paul writes, the same literature that you have reposted, is of no importance to anyone outside of Pacifica. It is in practice, prolonging the Pacifican myth to it's own members, and a thinly veiled attempt to shield it's vulnerabilities to the rest of the world.

However, for everyone's entertainment, lets look at a valid comparison between the New Pacific Order, and the Mushroom Kingdom. We will learn, that by the numbers, the Mushroom Kingdom is a superior alliance on a per-nation basis.

In all of the skewed statistics, Schattenman neglected to inform the audience that the New Pacific Order is composed of 526 nations; whereas the Mushroom Kingdom is only made up of 208. That is more than 2:1 disparity in total nations.

Pacifica may pride herself on nation count, but when it comes to military preparedness, the Mushroom Kingdom has her beat in every single category by a wide margin. Below is a list of the percentage of nations in each respective alliance in relation to the military wonders they posses. As you can see there is a wide gap between MK and NPO, the nature of which dramatically favors Mushroom Kingdom.

New Pacific Order
WRC 20%
SDI 42%
MP 47%
HNMS 31%
FAB 34%
AADEF 29%
Pent. 48%

Mushroom Kingdom
WRC 51%
SDI 71%
MP 76%
HNMS 63%
FAB 71%
AADEF 60%
Pent. 60%

If you pay close enough attention, you will notice that MK eclipses NPO by a large margin in every single category by a margin of at least 12%, and that in major strategic categories like MP/SDI/WRC by margins that equate to about 30%.

So what about Pacifica's much vaunted economic juggernaut? Well, as it turns out, that is an even a more grandiose pipe dream. Using the rule of thumb that every nation has 5 aid slots, the reader can deduce that Pacifica's finance department is merely competent, but not at all worthy of the praise that they lavish on themselves. For all of it's propagandized economic aptitude, it has only succeeded in mustering a scant 33% of it's aid slots for use, while the other 66% are left desolate.

On the other hand, if we examine the Mushroom Kingdoms economic habits, we can see that she has developed a much more healthy aid slot usage of 79%, a ratio that is far higher than that of the NPO. The total of 823 aid slots that Mushroom Kingdom has used is in total, is barely short of the 893 slots that NPO has used.

By the evidence that I have provided, which I have harvested and extrapolated from the public sphere, only one conclusion can be reached. The Mushroom Kingdom is indeed, an all around better prepared, and more competent alliance economically and militarily when compared to the New Pacific Order. Furthermore, for an alliance that prides itself on it's militarism and economic genius, the New Pacific Order is decisively behind the curve of most of it's adversaries, and may even rightfully be considered inferior by the smaller and more efficient alliances that make up the Mushroom Kingdom and it's core allies.[/color]

Edited January 2, 2011 by DictatatorDan

[Il Impero Romano]

Pretty awesome sigs.

[Schattenmann]

Now this is serious, Dan.

[Jgoods45]

This is simply outrageous.~

I hope you burn~

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1293955813' post='2560711']
Now this is serious, Dan.
[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]Did I rain on your parade? That's too bad.[/color]

[Sargun II]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1293956701' post='2560718']
[color="#ff0000"]Did I rain on your parade? That's too bad.[/color]
[/quote]

You say "rain on [his] parade" as if you actually did.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1293955205' post='2560706']
[color="#FF0000"]

New Pacific Order
WRC 20%
SDI 42%
MP 47%
HNMS 31%
FAB 34%
AADEF 29%
Pent. 48%

Mushroom Kingdom
WRC 51%
SDI 71%
MP 76%
HNMS 63%
FAB 71%
AADEF 60%
Pent. 60%[/color]
[/quote]

Wait, so overall percentage is all it takes? When I get my WRC, I'm going to create a one man band, and it will apparently be the best alliance in the world. Thx for showing me the light DD.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1293956701' post='2560718']
[color="#ff0000"]Did I rain on your parade? That's too bad.[/color]
[/quote]

On the contrary, I think you gave him precisely what he was after.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1293942879' post='2560524']
Woah killer, I'm just having some fun and hopefully giving some, and I think if you read carefully you'll find I've got a double-edged tongue.
[/quote]
I just assumed you were capable of coming up with new material, not some Sir Paul story. It's just a repost.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1293950760' post='2560671']
(Also I actually like two of the three people I quoted.)[/quote]
I hate you too

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1293957875' post='2560723']
Wait, so overall percentage is all it takes? When I get my WRC, I'm going to create a one man band, and it will apparently be the best alliance in the world. Thx for showing me the light DD.
[/quote]
Wow, a strawman. No, ANS/Wonder stats et al are merely indicators of competency. These stats were used in the article and he rebutted them. If you think the NPO is a superior pound-for-pound fighting machine then you are completely deluded.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Banksy

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1293958124' post='2560725']
Wow, a strawman. No, ANS/Wonder stats et al are merely indicators of competency. These stats were used in the article and he rebutted them. If you think the NPO is a superior pound-for-pound fighting machine then you are completely deluded.
[/quote]


A strawman is when you go after the person and not the argument.

I believe that word you were looking was wit.

In this case ANS does show competency it shows that one alliance is willing to recruit, take on new members, and teach them, and the other does not. The way I poked fun at him earlier, was just a lot more fun.

[Gandroff]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1293955205' post='2560706']
(Insert wall of obnoxious red text here)
[/quote]

You're using all nations in your calculations, not just those large enough that they would have wonders. MK is a top heavy alliance(In this case at least) compared to ours with 76% of their nations above 30k NS while only 41% of our nations are above 30k NS. Without doing too much research let's just say only our nations above 30k NS have wonders, if that were the case our ratios would be:

WRC - 49%
SDI - 99.5%
MP - 111%
HNMS - 72%
AA-Def - 66%
FAB - 78%
Pentagon - 112%

While not as accurate as they could be they are better than your hastily thrown together numbers.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Gandroff

[General Scipio]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1293957875' post='2560723']
Wait, so overall percentage is all it takes? When I get my WRC, I'm going to create a one man band, and it will apparently be the best alliance in the world. Thx for showing me the light DD.
[/quote]
Yes a one-man alliance is in everyway comparable to a 200 or a 550 man alliance.

inb4 someone says that a 200 man alliance isn't comparable to a 550 one.

Edited January 2, 2011 by General Scipio

[General Scipio]

[quote name='Gandroff' timestamp='1293958741' post='2560729']
You're using all nations in your calculations, not just those large enough that they would have wonders. MK is a top heavy alliance(In this case at least) compared to ours with 76% of their nations above 30k NS while only 41% of our nations are above 30k NS. Without doing too much research let's just say only our nations above 30k NS have wonders, if that were the case our ratios would be:

WRC - 49%
SDI - 99.5%
MP - 111%
HNMS - 72%
AA-Def - 66%
FAB - 78%
Pentagon - 112%

While not as accurate as they could be they are better than your hastily thrown together numbers.
[/quote]
It's not MK's fault that you have a lot of fluff in your alliance. Also 112% have a Pentagon? Yup, I sure do trust your numbers.

[Gandroff]

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1293958964' post='2560734']
It's not MK's fault that you have a lot of fluff in your alliance. Also 112% have a Pentagon? Yup, I sure do trust your numbers.
[/quote]

Out of the numbers I used? Yes. 247 pentagons when I only considered the 220 nations above 30k NS.

And when did I say it was MK's fault? I said when you start throwing around stats you need to make sure they're at least realistic. Saying 80% of our nations don't have a WRC when maybe only 10% can even get them makes for a poor statistic.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Gandroff

[Farrin Xies]

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1293958964' post='2560734']
It's not MK's fault that you have a lot of fluff in your alliance. Also 112% have a Pentagon? Yup, I sure do trust your numbers.
[/quote]

It's true. The really cool Pacificans actually have [ooc]haxxored the game and gotten[/ooc] two Pentagons.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1293958858' post='2560733']
Yes a one-man alliance is in everyway comparable to a 200 or a 550 man alliance.

inb4 someone says that a 200 man alliance isn't comparable to a 550 one.
[/quote]

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of his argument. Sorry you didn't get it.

[General Scipio]

[quote name='Gandroff' timestamp='1293959070' post='2560735']
Out of the numbers I used? Yes. 247 pentagons when I only considered the 220 nations above 30k NS.

And when did I say it was MK's fault? I said when you start throwing around stats you need to make sure they're at least realistic. Saying 80% of our nations don't have a WRC when maybe only 10% can even get them makes for a poor statistic.
[/quote]
Do you know what else is a poor statistic? Using the 30k nation barrier but then including counts for all nations.

[Banksy]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1293958537' post='2560727']
A strawman is when you go after the person and not the argument.

I believe that word you were looking was wit.

In this case ANS does show competency it shows that one alliance is willing to recruit, take on new members, and teach them, and the other does not. The way I poked fun at him earlier, was just a lot more fun.
[/quote]
No, I meant what I said. Red text person said MK was superior militarily [or whatever] to the NPO because of its wonder coverage. You took an aspect of his argument [wonder percentage] and claimed you proved the point that these are meaningless because of the statistical supremacy a one man alliance would have using this statistic. But you didn't address the issue that MK was a superior military alliance. I'm sure you would have 100% wonder coverage, but you wouldn't be a strong alliance as a result of your stat.

[quote name='Gandroff' timestamp='1293958741' post='2560729']
You're using all nations in your calculations, not just those large enough that they would have wonders. MK is a top heavy alliance(In this case at least) compared to ours with 76% of their nations above 30k NS while only 41% of our nations are above 30k NS. Without doing too much research let's just say only our nations above 30k NS have wonders, if that were the case our ratios would be:

WRC - 49%
SDI - 99.5%
MP - 111%
HNMS - 72%
AA-Def - 66%
FAB - 78%
Pentagon - 112%

While not as accurate as they could be they are better than your hastily thrown together numbers.
[/quote]
MK has a high ANS because we're better than the NPO. If you remove all of the MK nations below 30k NS, we would have correspondingly higher wonder coverage [almost 100% MP, SDI and FAFB coverage, actually].

As for your actual statistics, lol.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Banksy

[General Scipio]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1293959152' post='2560737']
I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of his argument. Sorry you didn't get it.
[/quote]
And I was pointing out that they way you did it was stupid because the two things are not comparable at all.

[Chief Savage Man]

Thread has crashed and burned already.


RIP TWiP may history forget this slight upon your memory.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1293959877' post='2560741']
No, I meant what I said. Red text person said MK was superior militarily [or whatever] to the NPO because of its wonder coverage. You took an aspect of his argument [wonder percentage] and claimed you proved the point that these are meaningless because of the statistical supremacy a one man alliance would have using this statistic. But you didn't address the issue that MK was a superior military alliance. I'm sure you would have 100% wonder coverage, but you wouldn't be a strong alliance as a result of your stat.


MK has a high ANS because we're better than the NPO. If you remove all of the MK nations below 30k NS, we would have correspondingly higher wonder coverage [almost 100% MP, SDI and FAFB coverage, actually].

As for your actual statistics, lol.
[/quote]


[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1293959889' post='2560742']
And I was pointing out that they way you did it was stupid because the two things are not comparable at all.
[/quote]


Just like its ridiculous to say a one man alliance is better than MK based on ANS, its ridiculous to say MK is better than NPO based on ANS. Do you two still not get it?