Letum Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296385532' post='2611001'] My knowledge of the situation is greater than Azaghul's. [/quote] I assume it's also greater than Archon's too? [quote name='TheNeverender'] We've survived savage assaults from the world's #1 alliance - twice. And we've helped lead coalitions that have defeated that alliance - twice [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296385830' post='2611004'] I assume it's also greater than Archon's too? [/quote] Helped lead? That could easily refer to the role played by him in being its voice. That doesn't necessarily implicate organization and of course that's a rhetorical flourish. Considering Archon had no involvement prior to the Ordo Verde situation, yes. MK was not in #collective on 3/19. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296385974' post='2611005'] Helped lead? That could easily refer to the role played by him in being its voice. That doesn't necessarily implicate organization and of course that's a rhetorical flourish. Considering Archon had no involvement prior to the Ordo Verde situation, yes. MK was not in #collective on 3/19. [/quote] Tbf Roq, MK may not have built the exact wartime coalition that hit the Hegemony, but they were very involved in the politics involving C&G/BLEU's comeback from WotC and leading to Karma (i.e. getting SF onside, really, and a bunch of other stuff.) Edited January 30, 2011 by Kalasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296385974' post='2611005'] Helped lead? That could easily refer to the role played by him in being its voice. That doesn't necessarily implicate organization and of course that's a rhetorical flourish. Considering Archon had no involvement prior to the Ordo Verde situation, yes. MK was not in #collective on 3/19. [/quote] Writing pretty stuff isn't leadership. If it was, the world would be led by speech-writers, marketing personnel and authors. It isn't. The idea that MK did nothing tangible to help Karma would necessitate some pretty terrible leadership skills on their behalf, and some vastly exaggerated bragging afterwards. I may not be best pals with MK, and may have found some of Archon's judgements lately unwise, but I do still hold him in a better regard than that. Sure, they may have not been on the OV deal. But OV was just Karma's analogue of the Sarajevo Shooting, and you know that. Edited January 30, 2011 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1296386161' post='2611007'] Tbf Roq, MK may not have built the exact wartime coalition that hit the Hegemony, but they were very involved in the politics involving C&G/BLEU's comeback from WotC and leading to Karma (i.e. getting SF onside, really, and a bunch of other stuff.) [/quote] Getting SF onside? SF made the coalition. BLEU and C&G and had little involvement. SF were the prime movers. The idea of a coalition to oppose any further encroachments by the Continuum originated with them. The two you mention didn't get involved until late in the game, meaning when the Ordo Verde thing started. Edited January 30, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296386814' post='2611014'] Getting SF onside? SF made the coalition. BLEU and C&G and had little involvement. [/quote] Sure, SF had a lot of involvement, but BLEU and C&G did work to ensure that SF ended up onside. I thought I had logs of Xiph telling me about SF's FA back then but apparently my memory is playing tricks on me because I can't find them (come to think of it, I think they were posted on the OWF o.O) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1296387211' post='2611019'] Sure, SF had a lot of involvement, but BLEU and C&G did work to ensure that SF ended up onside. I thought I had logs of Xiph telling me about SF's FA back then but apparently my memory is playing tricks on me because I can't find them (come to think of it, I think they were posted on the OWF o.O) [/quote] No, I don't know where you're getting this from. They started it. SF was the side and BLEU and C&G got on it. You're referring to Xiph, so I suggest consulting GOD's wiki. Edited January 30, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296387270' post='2611020'] No, I don't know where you're getting this from. They started it. SF was the side and BLEU and C&G got on it. You're referring to Xiph, so I suggest consulting GOD's wiki. [/quote] Alright, I'll take your word for it, but if I were in C&G/ex-BLEU's position focusing on SF would be the smart move, and if they didn't it was rather stupid of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296386814' post='2611014'] Getting SF onside? SF made the coalition. BLEU and C&G and had little involvement. SF were the prime movers. The idea of a coalition to oppose any further encroachments by the Continuum originated with them. The two you mention didn't get involved until late in the game, meaning when the Ordo Verde thing started. [/quote] I can attest to that. When Gremlins left Q, SF was very worried about our well being and already discussed our defence should Q decide they want to play mafia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296325159' post='2609666'] oh i know. i think the level of discourse in CN, since Karma, has risen for sure. but at the same time, the level of intelligent conversation has dramatically decreased. yes, Doomhouse is more like 1V and not Q. PB is far more like Q and then DH would be One Vision. [/quote]MK aren't even in PB. This analogy falls down somewhat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Liebenow Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Not going to lie, even though I oppose MK and DH and PB, I absolutely loved the OP. Good read. Hopefully this will make things interesting for years to come. EDIT: My only concern comes from the potential problem that may arise if no incentive is given to come out on top, but that's an issue we can all tackle later. Edited January 30, 2011 by Jake Liebenow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296379715' post='2610920'] The big difference is that PB is a block with alliances [i]tied[/i] to those other groups with treaties. Q was a block with alliances actually [i]in[/i] those major blocks. PB as a block isn't fundamentally different than other blocks, it is its own block where each alliance has ties to other blocks and alliances.[/quote] Q had alliances in a few other blocs (1V/Ring Cycle/Citadel/BLEU) but towards the end, it no longer had any in BLEU and lost one alliance in Citadel. Also Q was not tied to AZTEC iirc. There is little difference between having a member of PB be in another bloc and being extensively tied to the other bloc. The fact that this (oh and someone mentioned that Q was much larger than PB...) is the only thing you can think of to counter my argument shows that PB is very much similar to Q of old. [quote]I listed some other things which you ignored.[/quote] oh i am sorry, NPO needled MK. poor baby... oh and moralism- the thing that MK created ya mean? against NPO?... yeah, okay. all of a sudden moralism is bad, yet Archon as Voice of Karma- moralism was all the rage. please. ya'll just some pathetic idiots who are exactly like NPO. use something or someone until it no longer is needed and then cast it off. [quote]NPO's problem wasn't setting up wars, it was setting up 10-1 curbstomps.[/quote] and you honestly think that you are not curbstomping NPO? considering the fact that Umbrella is struggling to find targets and what not... please. again, ya'll just as pathetic. [quote]I generally agree about reps (it was in the OP). And as I said earlier and in the OP, there are many different things. PB isn't comparable to Q. There is a lot more freedom in general. We don't try to destroy communities.[/quote] right. you hit NPO without any reason other than some retarded ass ones. Polaris was hit without any reason other than some retarded ass one. Diplomacy was not used at all. MK has been going around wanting Polaris PZIed and !@#$ like that. Freedom is a tricky word. so yeah, this argument does nothing as it is mostly wrong. PB is still quite comparable to Q. And considering the past- MK/DH is gonna be forcing NPO to pay out the nose simply for existing this time. oh and for not kissing DH/PB's ass. yeah- pathetic. so much for your freedom. Can't even exist unless you attempt to kiss the asses of those in power... wait- sounds very similar to Q's time. Ask Polaris- WoTC was done because Polaris was seen as a threat and Polaris refused to kiss the ass of TOP/Gremlins (wait, you mean NPO had little to do more than nodding okay) who pushed majorly for that war. yep, freedom sure seems the same as it was under Q. [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296387270' post='2611020'] No, I don't know where you're getting this from. They started it. SF was the side and BLEU and C&G got on it. You're referring to Xiph, so I suggest consulting GOD's wiki. [/quote] this kinda makes no sense. especially since CnG was a long time hated enemy of NPO and BLEU was just crushed by Citadel/Q... SF had a hand in WoTC on Q's side. at that time BLEU/CnG were tied together and were extremely anti-Q. How could SF be the side when SF was the one heavily tied to Q and BLEU/CnG were anti-Q? it honestly makes absolutely no sense. Sure, Karma could not have happened without SF, but to state that SF somehow started the anti-Q feelings is absolutely misleading. CnG/BLEU were trying to build relations with other alliances long before SF came to be anti-Q. check out MK's treatying or trying to ally Citadel for example. so please stop suggesting that SF somehow began the anti-Q movement that was long underway before SF finally decided to get on board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296412670' post='2611289'] oh i am sorry, NPO needled MK. poor baby... oh and moralism- the thing that MK created ya mean? against NPO?... yeah, okay. all of a sudden moralism is bad, yet Archon as Voice of Karma- moralism was all the rage. please. [/quote] But Doch its all our fault for buying that karma lie apparently , if you check the various posts which effectively disinherit that legacy it seems those of us who bought that line were fooled by a lie that was designed simply for political expediency. Now that moralism that was so readily espoused no longer serves a political purpose it has been disregarded and utterly rejected, leaving those of us who believed in it twisting in the wind....such is life Edited January 30, 2011 by Cataduanes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 The only thing most people dont get was that Karma didnt happen to bring justice to the world. It was to end the injustice that came from NPO & friends. It was in no way sure it wouldnt be replaced by the injustice of some other alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296412670' post='2611289'] this kinda makes no sense. especially since CnG was a long time hated enemy of NPO and BLEU was just crushed by Citadel/Q... SF had a hand in WoTC on Q's side. at that time BLEU/CnG were tied together and were extremely anti-Q. How could SF be the side when SF was the one heavily tied to Q and BLEU/CnG were anti-Q? it honestly makes absolutely no sense. Sure, Karma could not have happened without SF, but to state that SF somehow started the anti-Q feelings is absolutely misleading. CnG/BLEU were trying to build relations with other alliances long before SF came to be anti-Q. check out MK's treatying or trying to ally Citadel for example. so please stop suggesting that SF somehow began the anti-Q movement that was long underway before SF finally decided to get on board. [/quote] SF started the serious anti-Q movement. There was no real resistance before they took it up. They made it happen. They weren't really. SF was the side because BLEU/C&G were in no position to do much after WoTC and didn't try either. MK tried to ally Citadel for its own security if you're referring to early attempts in 2008 rather than an anti-Q movement. I know more about this than most people because I was intimately involved and if SF doesn't start the actual movement to oppose Q, it doesn't happen at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1296394889' post='2611074'] MK aren't even in PB. This analogy falls down somewhat. [/quote] seriously, that is the best you got. hence why i said DH was 1V.... so how does my analogy falter simply because MK is not in PB? [quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1296413576' post='2611309'] But Doch its all our fault for buying that karma lie apparently , if you check the various posts which effectively disinherit that legacy it seems those of us who bought that line were fooled by a lie that was designed simply for political expediency. Now that moralism that was so readily espoused no longer serves a political purpose it has been disregarded and utterly rejected, leaving those of us who believed in it twisting in the wind....such is life [/quote] oh i know mate. i know. [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296421424' post='2611460'] SF started the serious anti-Q movement. There was no real resistance before they took it up. They made it happen. They weren't really. SF was the side because BLEU/C&G were in no position to do much after WoTC and didn't try either. MK tried to ally Citadel for its own security if you're referring to early attempts in 2008 rather than an anti-Q movement. I know more about this than most people because I was intimately involved and if SF doesn't start the actual movement to oppose Q, it doesn't happen at all. [/quote] oh i get that SF made the anti-Q movement far more serious, but to state it was SF who started it to begin with is not true. It was started well before that and was the main reason behind WoTC in my eyes. BLEU was a semi-serious threat with their ties to CnG. Thus, the only way to ensure that Q remained dominant was to crush them. Once SF finally hopped onto the anti-Q train, it became a much bigger threat since you are correct, after WoTC, all BLEU/CnG could do was rebuild and hope. but again, SF did not start the anti-Q movement, i would put that on CnG fully. BLEU was at one point tied in with Q so i won't even give them much credit. As for MK/Citadel- yes, that was for MK's security but since at that time MK's security was totally tied to bringing NPO/Q down, that bit can be easily tied into the anti-Q movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 All right, I guess we just misunderstood each other. fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296379822' post='2610922'] Pacifism might be the wrong word, but what I'm referring to is the desire to only fight in self defense. Treating war as something to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.[/quote] That's definitely not pacifism, and I dont see anything wrong with it. Nor do I believe it is very widespread either, frankly. It's a position I have a lot of affinity for, and I certainly havent seen any evidence that I am in anything but a very tiny minority in that. The much more common position seems to be a burning desire for war - held back by only by an equally urgent fear of losing. Every major player seems to be driven primarily by those two opposing forces, and all the rest is transparent propaganda. [i] [/i][quote]The problem is almost everyone nowadays wants to be the "good guy", to the point that is stifling the game.[/quote] I read that sentence over and over and I still cant parse it as anything but darkest sarcasm. I am pretty sure that was not your intent, which leaves me completely unable to even imagine what you do mean by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Azaghul! They let you back in! That said, can we please just condense this !@#$ down for once and say they attacked "Because they wanted to, and it was fun"? I mean I think it's high time people started breaking out the heavy weaponry to fight just for the hell of it. I mean I just so happened to glance at these forums on a whim today (showing someone else what the game was) and saw the NPO getting facestomped and immediately decided to re-create my nation. Why? Because war and wartime are fun as hell. Sure, I know there's gonna be a reconstruction period afterwards that'll have me lapse into inactivity or even leave again, but for now, I can catch up and have some fun having it out on the forums and game. Let's just have a fun time and not over-analyze it quite yet, k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 [quote name='deth2munkies' timestamp='1296435885' post='2611773'] Azaghul! They let you back in! That said, can we please just condense this !@#$ down for once and say they attacked "Because they wanted to, and it was fun"? I mean I think it's high time people started breaking out the heavy weaponry to fight just for the hell of it. I mean I just so happened to glance at these forums on a whim today (showing someone else what the game was) and saw the NPO getting facestomped and immediately decided to re-create my nation. Why? Because war and wartime are fun as hell. Sure, I know there's gonna be a reconstruction period afterwards that'll have me lapse into inactivity or even leave again, but for now, I can catch up and have some fun having it out on the forums and game. Let's just have a fun time and not over-analyze it quite yet, k? [/quote] You still remember your way to the castle right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057'] Autofellatio [/quote] Thank you MK for saving the game! What would all us multi-polar spheres have done if you hadn't come in and cut us in half again! If you're so bored, quit, or tell your dumbass friends to stop signing so many treaties with each other. If I got a nickel for every time Azaghul trumpeted to the heavens MK's treaty-cut, I would have a nickel palace. Is anyone else getting just really sick of the self-contradiction that is MK's recent philosophy? I know I am. What does it matter how many treaties you canceled if you go make 2 more overlapping blocs? I am tired of hearing about how stagnant things are when you're in the middle of the stagnation. Oh yes how revolutionary, three overlapping blocs [i]b-b-b-but we canceled some outlier treaties[/i]. Multi-polar world, yeah. AZTEC and Duckroll are deffo clearly defined poles. Dh, PB, and C&G are like totally distinct, man. The complaining about whiteknighting while you paint yourself as the glorious savior of the game is just hilarious. Edited January 31, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1296326384' post='2609697'] What does GOONS get away with? [/quote] Attacking protected nations. [quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1296416851' post='2611374'] The only thing most people dont get was that Karma didnt happen to bring justice to the world. It was to end the injustice that came from NPO & friends. It was in no way sure it wouldnt be replaced by the injustice of some other alliance. [/quote] Indeed. At the time I suggested that Karma was going to replace the injustices that Continuum produced, as it failed to address the root cause of the problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1296450680' post='2612148'] Thank you MK for saving the game! What would all us multi-polar spheres have done if you hadn't come in and cut us in half again! If you're so bored, quit, or tell your dumbass friends to stop signing so many treaties with each other. If I got a nickel for every time Azaghul trumpeted to the heavens MK's treaty-cut, I would have a nickel palace. Is anyone else getting just really sick of the self-contradiction that is MK's recent philosophy? I know I am. What does it matter how many treaties you canceled if you go make 2 more overlapping blocs? I am tired of hearing about how stagnant things are when you're in the middle of the stagnation. Oh yes how revolutionary, three overlapping blocs [i]b-b-b-but we canceled some outlier treaties[/i]. Multi-polar world, yeah. AZTEC and Duckroll are deffo clearly defined poles. Dh, PB, and C&G are like totally distinct, man. The complaining about whiteknighting while you paint yourself as the glorious savior of the game is just hilarious. [/quote] Schatt, I just gotta ask you bro... are you mad? (By the way, Doomhouse isn't a bloc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1296454324' post='2612523'] Schatt, I just gotta ask you bro... are you mad? (By the way, Doomhouse isn't a bloc.) [/quote] right. then why is it that Doomhouse declared on NPO and not each individual signatory. not to mention, why name it or even sign an entirely separate treaty? it is a bloc regardless of what you say. all your actions taken thus far has shown it is a bloc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1296454324' post='2612523'] Schatt, I just gotta ask you bro... are you mad? (By the way, Doomhouse isn't a bloc.) [/quote] It's a life style right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.