thisperson

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1295656493' post='2589840'] [color="#0000FF"]Hello friends. Once again, I am Rebel Virginia. I'm sure you all know by now VE's story of Polaris' alleged spying, but what you may not know is the truth. A few days ago, People's Champion Lennox, aka 00Lennox, returned to this world. He joined VE. Almost immediately one Mr. Impero approached him about possibly setting up a sting on Polar. Note that Impero's offer was made prior to Lennox's conversation with Dajobo. Impero sent to People's Champion Lennox, aka 00Lennox, private information from the most secure of VE's forums - information, contrary to the claims of VE, is not available to all members. In fact, many VE members were baffled at how People's Champion Lennox, aka 00Lennox, could have acquired such information. Now they'll know. Impero gave it to him. [/color] [IMG]http://i451.photobucket.com/albums/qq240/Rebel_Virginia/Screenshot2011-01-21at121743AM.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i451.photobucket.com/albums/qq240/Rebel_Virginia/Screenshot2011-01-21at121814AM.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i451.photobucket.com/albums/qq240/Rebel_Virginia/Screenshot2011-01-21at121844AM.png[/IMG] [/quote] @OP Eh, I still don't see much difference with the ideas presented here and the ones in the previous "Impero lied!" thread. It seems like most everyone is talking about the same thing but completely avoiding the main point. So you're saying that the screenshots occurred before Xiph asked Impero to confirm the spy? Because all I'm seeing here is: Previous Event #: Lennox told Imp he was spying. And had passed along information. Previous Event #+1: Imp told Xiph and Co. (I don't know many names of political figures on Bob) and then proceeded to confirm it. Thread Event #+2: Screens that just look like the confirmation orders relayed to Lennox. And someone out there, is lol'ing very hard at the mass confusion and circular arguments about CB/doctored screens. [size="1"]Also, some of you need a simple mental time line at the very least. :| [/size] I'm curious about the 4 minute member masking though, but I should say I wouldn't be surprised about it. Competent players who are doing things a second+ time around, tend to get the green light off the bat. Be they old, or starting fresh. These are just my observations. -thisperson.

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1285168426' post='2460976'] Hypocrites doing hypocritical things? How extraodinarily ordinary. [/quote] Not able to wrap your mind around an idea and its implementation, along with the difference between a criticism of standards and the outright dismissal of it? How quaint. You condescending !@#$. At least be intelligent enough to understand that which you ridicule. Edit: To stay on topic. Glad to meet you Uni. You have great protectors.

@ UPN: Hahaha. You're $%&@ed now. @thedestro: What is your warchest? I'm curious.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281467584' post='2410011'] [b]Holy cripes you are stubborn. I don't see how my premise was wrong. I don't think you even know what the hell you're talking about. And I don't care about how TENE spied that or sedrick attacked that, or whatever !@#$%^&* you pull out of your $@! because that has nothing to do with anything about what we're talking about. We are talking about how your friend says that we are at war because of our policy of accepting rogues. We are not. It's very clear that we are not. [/b] [b]Here are the facts:[/b] [b]Sedrick applied to NSO. We accept him into our protection. You are saying that this war is about our policy of accepting rogues. Under this logic, that would mean RoK would have to declare war on us for accepting him. But they did not. [i]Had[/i] they done this, the CB would be that we accept rogues to our alliance.[/b] You fail to understand that things are interconnected. Your policy is what led to war, but having a DoW because of your policy reeks of arrogance, and no alliance would commit that mistake. Besides, who really gives a crap about said policy? I don't care if you change it, I'm letting you know it's not practical. And if you keep it and it leads to more problems later on, well all the more fun to watch. But harboring someone who was at war, is considered an act of war, we both agree on this. You are arguing semantics regarding warfare, and you want Rok to acknowledge some superiority in you by saying that they're going to destroy XX-thing (kind of like saying it's a war against terror, and the audacity required for such a move speaks volumes). Stop it, you're making a fool of yourself. It has nothing to do with your policy regarding the DoW but everything to do with it in leading up to war. This is what I think you don't get. [b]RoK initiated attacks against Sedrick. We could have considered that an act of war right there. But we didn't. [/b] No, no you couldn't. The first act of war was already committed when you accepted the nation that was at war. For all intents you are at war, and your leaders should do damage control before that translates to in-game action. [b]Hoo tells us not to aid Sedrick, otherwise it's an act of war. We aid Sedrick. Act of war. We are at war.[/b] Yes. [b]Do you see the line of progression? Because I don't think you do. We could have easily made different choices at each of those steps, which would lead to an entirely different war with a different CB. [/b] [b]Jeez man, it's not that hard. Hoo has stated countless times that we are at war because we aided Sedrick. $%&@. It even says so in his DoW. I don't see why you have to get off track and argue each point as if I was making an opinion.[/b] You're right, I don't see why I'm arguing this now either. I'm done. Talk about caring too damn much and wanting things set straight. [b]And we're not attacking the CB. We're attacking at how people are misconstruing the CB for something else.[/b] Semantics. [/quote] Edit: Bold is you. I'm just text.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281464108' post='2409951'] What the hell is this deal with it crap? Aren't we dealing with it? Aren't you posting in a thread where we imply that we are dealing with it? Also, this "led to war" argument is getting a little redundant. I don't think you are understanding my line of logic. There were choices to be made. For example, when [b]1.[/b] we accepted sedrick, [b]2.[/b] RoK could have declared on us right there for accepting a rogue nation. But they didn't. [b]3.[/b] When RoK attacked sedrick while he was under our protection, even after we told them that he was under our protection, we could have declared that as an act of war. But we didn't because that would be a dumb thing to go to war over. When we were told not to send aid because that would be act of war, we did it anyways. That's what caused the war. Do you see the choices being made and the ones that weren't made? Here you are talking about how logical you are, and yet there's not a shred of it in you. [/quote] I'm no leader, so I do not know what your leadership is doing right now. But by deal with it I meant: Stop attacking the damn CB through the spreading of misinformation and griping, and just take your lumps with the understanding that you were in the wrong. To rectify the situation one must first admit that a mistake was made. Should Rok admit that it was eager for war? I do not know, history is written by the victors, meaning they have you by the balls right now (meaning you don't have much say in the matter since it boils down to a point of who has more combined resolve and NS). Should NSO? Up to you. RV mentioned that you did, somewhere earlier in the thread, so I'm assuming that all that's left is peace talks. That's up to your leaders and ours. I agree, I am not following your line of logic, but will "it doesn't make any damn sense" change your mind? No. So let's go to the elementary, in order to build an accurate understanding of how things work, you need a set of factual laws to apply to all else. That's how my understanding works. And when your premise is wrong, you then continue to build under the misconceptions. Meaning the rest of your argument is wrong. Who was in the right and who was in the wrong will boil down to whether Sedrick did spy on TENE and TENE then retaliated (keeping in mind that an exposed operation is only there because one has a superior spy force...) Or whether TENE decided to just randomly spy on an unaligned. And even then, that's a huge stretch because Sedrick wasn't in your AA at the time. So going off of your post, your first mistake is that you believe accepting Sedrick was the correct course of action. Arguable? Yes. It was wrong because he had aggressive wars going on. It was right because he was an unaligned and seeking protection from a stomping. Depends on whose side you're on in all this. Your next point. Yes, Rok could have declared war then and there for your acceptance of Sedrick but they didn't. This doesn't exactly scream blood thirsty alliance to me, they respected you up to that point (one could argue) but w/e your idea of reality, your universe. You then skip ahead to Rok attacking Sedrick, and miss the logs from Rok's DoW. In which your .gov member gave Rok all the reason to DoW by being antagonistic (in that he aided Sedrick after being warned off by Hoo). Again, up to interpretation. To you it was correct because he was a member, and members get aided, although your clause of "not until all wars are resolved" is a good one). To Rok, they tolerated you and then you kicked them in the balls. Again, interpretation. (And yes, you mention them later, but an argument should be linear, just my nitpicking here, and I won't hold it against you since I'm not perfect) So your reasoning for you having a reason to DoW is moot, since it comes after Rok's, and at that point you're already in war. All this shows me is that this is true. [quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1281419756' post='2409237'] Thats so cute to try to hang that ragtag bunch of folks who called themselves non-alliances around us. But then again, reality tends to warp itself to what you want to see anyway. [/quote] And yes, of course sir, I'm the illogical one.

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281463176' post='2409933'] Conflicts of interest can be easily solved if the two parties simply do not want war. Did you see NSO declaring war when RoK attacked their member without clearance? Of course not, but that can "technically" be an act of war as much as aiding can. Likewise, if RoK had not wanted war, they could have easily continued negotiations beyond the mere pittance of a single day, and demanded restitution for the aid. Or provided what NSO asked for. Or accepted the offers of mediation. Or just plain waited. But they didn't, because wars in our world evolve primarily not because of their triggers, but because you just don't like the other guy. Events like these are excuses and pretexts - 6m is not a threat to RoK, NSO merely happens to be an alliance on the "outside" of the power structure that won't bow down when faced with gun-ho politics. And yes, I am fully aware of the irony. [/quote] Rok, as a sovereign alliance, is fully capable of deciding what constitutes war. Did they want war? Well actions speak for themselves, so yes, yes they did. Did NSO want war under these same standards? Yes, it appears so as well. I don't see a problem here. Two alliances played chicken. Neither blinked and it just so happens that one was in a tank, and the other was dropping explosives from a B-52. [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281463342' post='2409940'] Listen. I know what you're saying, but you're wrong. If we hadn't had aided him, and we waited for your evidence to come down, we would've kicked him out already. Do you see where I'm going with this? There was a choice to be made, and we made the wrong one. [/quote] And it led to war...deal with it. What part of actions have repercussions is difficult to understand?

[quote name='m3g4tr0n' timestamp='1281454440' post='2409704'] I would like to see them stop hiding behind their CB, man up, and admit that they're only doing this to destroy NSO. [/quote] You have faulty logic and I don't believe you understand what a Causus Belli is for. Let me help you. A CB = You done goof'd and we're going to smash you for it, because there is a conflict of interests between the two of us (tl;dr: an event used to justify starting a war). Now, if you don't know what war leads to (Pro-tip: Destruction) I weep for our collective intelligence. [quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281459227' post='2409813'] Hoo didn't say "aid, and we'll negotiate more" he said "aid and we'll smash you". Why are people still arguing that Hoo didn't negotiate further? [/quote] This. [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281460156' post='2409839'] So are we changing the CB now? I thought we were at war because we aided the guy. Not because of our policy. If this is the case, I suggest you reword your CB a little bit. [/quote] Faulty logic seems to be a running theme amongst you blokes. /Dig. Again, I hate to point out the obvious, but your policies dictate your actions. Your actions dictate global reception. Now, if you don't see how this can lead to war, then you're just stupid. (Actions provide CBs) So your policy enabled you to accept an unaligned who was at war with an alliance, otherwise known as a rogue under other alliance's policy. Do you see what I did there? All I see here is a conflict where NSO and Rok tried to enact their own policy. NSO should have had enough sense of self preservation to not provoke Rok after Hoo explicitly stated his future actions, should the conditions be met. And before you start again with the whole, 'We will do as we wish, and pull out all our guns to protect every-individual member!' Understand that Rok is protecting TENE, and doing the same thing you are, only with less stupidity and belligerence. Hint, he didn't provoke your .gov, your .gov provoked him. And arguing otherwise (that .gov actions are not the et al qualifier for warfare) is just dumb. Yes, yes they are. Government members are the heads of alliances, look towards the men (or women) that you trust with your pixels before they're called into action, lest you prove them lacking once events have transpired. -This has been a public service announcement by thisperson. tl;dr: Enjoy your grave.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281419547' post='2409230'] Also, if every alleged act of war resulted in war then everyone would basically always be at war. [/quote] Cute. No, we would have people with manners and level heads, not to mention some balls or ovaries. Tread softly and carry a big stick.

[quote name='bkphysics' timestamp='1281365820' post='2407531'] Exactly. The political capital that would be needed to cause the NSO to band is simply not there and to be honest, disbanding any alliance forcibly seems to be a move that is beyond the reach of any alliance. The thing to focus on would be has GOD ever successfully disbanded an alliance via force like it is being alluded to? As well, what ramifications would they suffer in this case? Surely no one is that blindly ignorant to think they can disband an alliance by force and not get the biggest curbstomp beating of the planet put on them. [/quote] Uh yes, yes we have. Terry Howard and his ilk were wiped from this earth. Edit: Hmm. I remember that we went to war with them, but Rok did the disbanding in the second war for breach of surrender terms. Blast. That's not on our list of accomplishments. *shrug* Nothing wrong with admitting an error. Something NSO should learn to do more of, IMO. But you'll probably just toss that out as unbeliever's propaganda. Whatevs man. Also @ the current pages: white peace. We gave that out before it was the kewl thing to do. CCC can attest to that. We're the ones who do things, and don't bother with whether we're liked for it or not (It's why I like us). Get your facts right NSO. You moan and whine far too much to just be peddling the bs to yourselves, and it's disconcerting that people will look at these current pages and just swallow the steaming piles whole.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281333071' post='2406734'] First, I have no idea what you are even trying to say with this post. You lament the curbstomps of my successors and then boldly claim to be doing the same thing and ask if I am going to oppose it? In what way are you expecting me to oppose such an action? I am not a leader in any alliance. I am retired. I have a non-authoritative position in the Orders and that is it. I have voiced my concerns here and I believe I have spoken plainly enough that even you can tell where my sympathies lie. So yes, you are the new Hegemony, and yes, I would oppose you with every breath of every soldier in my army and in my alliance if I had one to command because you are wrong. You cry out when others do these atrocities and then you hitch up your wagon and carry on doing the exact same thing and wonder why no one considers you a legitimate authority. At least I did it with style. [/quote] I am saying that it is rich of you to accuse us of cowardice for needing allies to stand up to a dominant power, when it is obvious that the hegemony also required allies to maintain their dominance. The street goes both ways, and seeking friends (like minded individuals) is not an act of cowardice. (I was not a government member, and so I cannot speak on behalf of those who allied one another, but this is my understanding of how things progressed) I was referring to in-game action, after looking at your nation however, I'm assuming that that aspect of the game does not interest you. Also, I do not believe it was us crying out when others did this. In fact, I think our actions spoke for themselves during the Karma war, when an accumulation of all pent up frustrations broke loose. It's what you mistakenly called cowardice earlier. And getting back to the topic at hand, are you honestly suggesting, that given the same scenario, and opposite shoes; if you had warned someone off of aiding a rogue (because the evidence was present in-game) plus you had made the results for such action clear, that if said terms were then violated you would not uphold your word? Keep in mind that this is not some fabricated CB presented without proof of logs or readily available evidence.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281330553' post='2406534'] You can yawn all you like. The simple fact is that neither VE, GOD or FARK were ever able to face the NPO, Polar or NSO one on one and defeat them. They all had to have help. They all [i]begged[/i] for help. They were/are all cowards. [/quote] This sort of behavior is amnesiac. Have you already forgotten the environment endorsed by your offspring and the large number of curbstomps required to keep the hegemonic rule in place. It wasn't exactly cowardice when the entire world was plagued with a people that breathed without hope. I recall the war scares while under the Pacifican/Bi-Polar boot. No one dared stand. Cowardice. Such a funny term you use. I do not believe you understand it. And it is easy to say this now, but tell me Moldavi, are you of such courage that you would dare oppose our Hegemony? Our so called dominance now? No, why? Because you know as well as us that NSO was in the wrong in this. Now put up or shut up, to put it in eloquent terms. You are a man of action, and of few words, at least I had been led to believe so. How utterly disappointing when the legends are wrong.

[quote name='Wad of Lint' timestamp='1281311727' post='2405249'] The New Sith Order accepted Sedrick earlier this week unaware of his issues. Soon after he was given membership, we were approached by outside entities which let us know he was on their target lists. Further, they commanded, with no discussion that he would be attacked. [snip] [b]While I'm not in the business of offering protection to rogues. I am in the business of protecting my members. I am in the business of providing all aid and assistance to my members until my alliance no longer breathes life. When you wish me to drop that protection, you better have a good reason and be willing to back up your claims. If you are unwilling to discuss the validity of your claim, I am unwilling to halt my protection. It is unreasonable to assume that I will take the word of every individual who makes unsubstantiated claims, and I am a reasonable man.[/b] The New Sith Order is not your bait. We are not a puppet to be wielded for your nefarious purposes. We will not support these archaic practices which we fought to prevent during Karma. We are not afraid of bloodshed, sweat or missiles. Where diplomacy fails the sword will prevail. [/quote] Alright, I suddenly get why everyone tells me that you are full of yourselves. Ignorance and incompetence beget confidence. That said, no alliance should have to do your homework for you. I am unaware as to how things function for other alliances, but here at GOD we screen our members. Wars, aid, and just a general background check with some allies. We also check for a modicum of intelligence with spelling and grammar, and barring a slight language barrier, we're unforgiving of the basic rules of English. tl;dr: Either your OPSEC sucks or you deliberately sought conflict with Rok. Either way, the fault lies with you, and you are getting yours. Do not twist and turn this to pander to the masses with your convoluted logic of hogwash.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='14 July 2010 - 08:50 AM' timestamp='1279122593' post='2371024'] So let me get this straight. You don't care about what MCXA thinks, but you care enough to post about it ? ... ... [/quote] He is willing to ridicule it. Derision does not equate to respect, you would do well to learn that. Also, wipe that smug look off, it's unbecoming.

Repercussions. We seem to hold differing opinions of what constitutes bad and good outcomes.

Funny how this got overlooked. Also, I believe that the 1k tech+ term was for the benefit of those who hadn't suffered enough during the war. Clearly the nations with smaller amounts of tech were dealt larger losses during the actual conflict, and it stands to reason that if they currently have more than 1k tech, then they were either huge before the start of war, or they escaped into peace mode while their brethren were slaughtered. See, we're merciful in a weird kind of way. [/Mytwocents]