Jump to content

John Warbuck

Members
  • Posts

    398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by John Warbuck

  1. [quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='19 February 2010 - 09:00 AM' timestamp='1266591613' post='2192016']
    Everyone uses Minister of xyz department when they don't know someone's charter, so don't get snippy with me, the fact I remembered you were FA is good.



    Because the moment you begin dumping logs it's your fault and the logs can never be trusted until confirmed by the other source. In this case they were not, you looked at fault, therefore you got the blame. And Again, I could care less what was said between both parties, my challenge to you which you've still failed to answer is to admit your wrong doings. I've repeated endless times now that ADI handled this situation wrong and that is a primary reason why ADI will be eternally at fault for it, but that should Warbuck come to the public eye and admit he made a mistake that at least he can try to repair the damage done.

    PS: Masheen, Not everyone is on here enough to reply within minutes. Hefe likely wasn't paying attention during your claims against him. -_-
    [/quote]
    ADI handled this situation wrong by getting harassed the past two months? ADI is responsible for RoK's inability to move on, and their thirst for aqua bloodshed? That is rich. And I've already on countless occasions admitted that my initial handling of the situation was not good, but people have selective hearing and have chosen not to recognize that. The point is that two wrongs don't make a right, and that people in your position have no clue what the political terrain was like for ADI at the time that we made the choices we made. And you have no clue what factors influenced those decisions, because you were not there.

  2. [quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='19 February 2010 - 04:39 AM' timestamp='1266575965' post='2191842']
    [b]You sort of wonder how credible a witness he is when he's faked 'evidence' in the past surely?[/b]


    [/quote]
    And what evidence do you have of this? This is the evidence that Masheen is talking about- the evidence to the claim that I faked logs. The evidence that Hoo cut and snipped and used to accuse me of evidence altering.

  3. [quote name='El Hefe' date='18 February 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1266555291' post='2191507']
    This is not a court of law, but a court of public opinion. You are "guilty" until proven "innocent" here.

    Thus far, I've seen nothing from ADI - Warbuck especially - that would "prove them innocent" so to speak.
    [/quote]
    But let me ask this. Has your leader shown you ALL of the evidence? I know I've shown my people all of it.

  4. [quote name='Lord Tri' date='18 February 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1266547225' post='2191020']
    I spent four hours finding information and trying to prove that Warbuck is lying, want to know what happened? I couldn't. His story adds up, 100%. Am I brainwashed? Doesn't really seem like it, cause one who is brainwashed doesn't typically attempt to call out the brainwasher. So do us all a favor, and just stop.
    [/quote]
    True story. Amazing how you can show someone 8 pages out of a 28 page conversation and twist the context, but when you see the ENTIRE conversation, things have a completely different perspective. And in those four hours, which, were anything but pleasant, I showed Lord Tri everything; what made me look bad, what made me look good, and everything in between. The point that I've been making all along is that people have made judgments on ADI without having all of the facts.

    Any witness will be proven true in court until he or she is cross-examined. What that means is that when you listen to Hoo's case, he will only defend the points that make him look good. I've not one time refused to give the whole story to anyone curious enough to approach me for it. I've shown them ALL the evidence, which includes me saying some things to protect my friends that don't make me look good.

    All I've seen is mindless banner waving on the OWF. In private people have questioned me- and with hard questions. They've all come to their own conclusions, but at least I can say they took the effort to do the research. I can respect opposing viewpoints, but everyone waving a banner just because one person says "I am wronged!" is insanity. Neither ADI nor RoK is perfect in this. However, RoK has refused to let it go.

  5. [quote name='ktarthan' date='18 February 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1266530858' post='2190325']
    The section it is under is "Protection" that deals mainly with ADI's protection of LSN. It also says "come to the aid of". It's clear that this section has defense in mind, but I guess if you want to take advantage of a badly written treaty to bandwaggon LSN into a bad position, then I guess that is your perogative.
    [/quote]
    You are seriously trying to bring out the bandwagon argument? How many alliances is NATO at war with now? I lost count. Two alliances declaring in defense of an alliance that is being dogpiled is hardly a bandwagon.

  6. [quote name='Lamuella' date='18 February 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1266519876' post='2189989']
    you're here for ADI, but quite crucially you're not here because of treaty obligations to ADI.

    Your treaty with ADI is a [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=78869&view=findpost&p=2119240]protectorate[/url] with obliged defense for them and optional defense for you. Since they are currently attacking rather than being attacked, you have in effect just declared war on GOONS without any diplomatic cover. Have fun trying to get peace for this one.
    [/quote]
    ADI entered the war in defense of NATO. LSN has the option to defend ADI on any actions.

    [quote]Article III - Protection

    The Aqua Defense Initiative has chosen to offer protection to The League of Soviet Nations and will defend The League of Soviet Nations, should LSN come under attack. The League of Soviet Nations has the option to come to the aid of ADI in [b]battle[/b], should ADI feel that LSN is prepared and wishes to do so. [/quote]

    Battle would be defined as aggression or defense, so there is no way to claim that LSN did not enter this via a treaty option. LSN came in to help their friends, ADI, who are helping our friends in NATO.

    I find it so odd that for two months, ADI has been called the untrustworthy backstabbers that don't honor treaties, but when ADI or an ally of ADI honors a treaty, it is turned around in the other direction. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Choose one.

  7. [quote name='Sardonic' date='18 February 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1266528502' post='2190229']
    Well excuse me for taking a break to collect and reload, it's called "tactics".

    [/quote]
    Yes, but I was looking forward to having my guys declare war on you :(

    I'm already at war with lamuella, I thought it would be great to see another show down with you- it would seriously be fun for all involved.

  8. [quote name='Jebbie' date='18 February 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1266507975' post='2189692']
    jesus christ what is your deal

    we kicked warbuck out of TDO gov for a reason and i think his actions since has more than justified it
    [/quote]
    I don't recall ever being kicked out of TDO government. The vote overwhelmingly failed. I just decided to leave of my own accord to start ADI. I have no clue what it accomplishes for TDO as a neutral alliance to even involve themselves in this matter either.

  9. [quote name='Smacky' date='18 February 2010 - 04:06 AM' timestamp='1266487607' post='2189475']
    GOONS ain't Troy bub.
    [/quote]
    Oh, I know. And I'll give them credit for being experienced at war and a tough challenge. I'm just pointing out that everyone thought Troy would pwn us and we did better than people expected. I look forward to this challenge and am pleased to take it on with our great friends in LSN. :ehm:

  10. [quote name='tobbogon' date='17 February 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1266469015' post='2188891']
    Is it possible to win a thread this early?

    Anway, weren't you given peace already? I thought that ment you were done fighting. Guess not. Too bad im not in GOONS.
    [/quote]
    Troy surrendered and white peace was given to all else that did not limit anyone's ability for re-entry. Read much?

  11. [quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='17 February 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1266460401' post='2188630']
    You and I both know I wasn't referring to that person. And I'm not talking about this on the OWF, I'm telling you that your complaints fall on deaf ears if you think telling me you can't control your own member from feeding information out of ADI.
    [/quote]
    Well, actually, once I found out about it, I have cut this person off from information until I decide his fate.

  12. [quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='17 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266460096' post='2188621']
    Because you left Rok for FEAR...

    You also verbally attacked Rok, it goes both ways and the way you treated the situation is far from being able to cry foul over that.

    As for a contact inside ADI, I stopped caring the moment a member of Asgaard left us for ADI per your attempts to get him to join several times while he was a member of Asgaard. BUT that does not matter in this situation, it is my reasoning for not caring about anything you want to whine about.

    End this senseless debate by saying ADI is at fault for its own actions, own up to it, and claim what little honor you might have left that you try and tell people you have.
    [/quote]
    John S. is an alliance hopper that came to ADI without anyone asking him to. He also left ADI within 3 weeks. Maybe sooner. His stay was short, nonetheless.

  13. [quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='17 February 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1266459711' post='2188611']
    ADI has your mind (Warbuck's), which is of course your own. [b]You wouldn't attack Rok, because Rok would destroy you. You showed the world your true colors. Rok is not attacking you[/b], yet, and I'll be surprised if they get to you first, there's quite a line I've seen and heard. You posted logs, you were given the neutrality route, it was right to stay with your ally and you were wrong for leaving. Yes, you've made it very easy for them so far, how does that change?

    This is all that really mattered, but I did read the rest.
    [/quote]
    We wouldn't attack FEAR either. And RoK hasn't attacked us? The last two months have been nothing but a barrage of verbal attacks. The only line they haven't crossed has been with military. They even have a contact inside ADI feeding them intel, which I know about. I know who it is, and what he has been sharing.

  14. [quote name='John Warbuck' date='17 February 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1266456263' post='2188498']
    You know what I find so ironic about you, Hoo? You impose your own qualities on the people you try to slander. [/quote]


    [quote name='Van Hoo III' date='17 February 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1266458228' post='2188569']
    No, it is the same load of crap he has been spewing this entire time. None of it is correct, none of it is accurate. John Warbuck is hands down the worst alliance leader I have ever seen, and that is saying a lot. He lies, lies on top of lies, forgets his lies and makes up new ones, and then lies about his reasons for lying.

    This may shock you, but the line to attack John Warbuck does not start and end with Ragnarok, we just hope to be the first.
    [/quote]
    And it continues in the same manner.

  15. [quote name='Van Hoo III' date='17 February 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1266455788' post='2188473']
    We did't cancel on you due to your faked logs either, but it [b]is[/b] the reason that you will be attacked.

    You were cancelled on for declaring support and then revoking it without speaking with us first. You blindsided an ally (who you pledged support to) when you made a public stance and took shots at us when you did so. You have admitted to mishandling that entire issue, so I am not sure why you're so confused now. You have been told multiple times that had you wanted to stay out of the war, you simply needed to say so. We would have understood.
    [/quote]
    You know what I find so ironic about you, Hoo? You impose your own qualities on the people you try to slander. The deceit, the misinformation of allies, the asking people to betray their principles and allies and then getting infuriated when they tell you to take a hike. And then you spend two months repeating your own lies over and over again until even you believe them.

    I spoke to you before that post, btw- and you told me it was my duty to "defend" you. I saw it was aggression and didn't agree with you. Had I told you privately, you'd have canceled on us too, but posted some bogus post filled with lies as the reason. Just wait until another one of your protectorates has a mind of it's own that happens to disagree with the all high and mighty Hoo. The same thing will happen.

    You try to say that you would NEVER say that you want people out of the game, but you will badger, threaten, and harass a sovereign alliance and go to that alliance's protectorate and tell them to cancel their agreement with us. You will have your "Propaganda Ministry" make our members' lives a living hell for over two months, and then you want to tell us that your DoW is on us, and that we are the ones threatening aqua sphere peace. Do you even read what you write, Hoo? Do you even catch a single glimpse of the insanity in your posts?

    But when it comes down to this DoW that you promise we will receive, make sure that you do it for the true reasons. ADI has a mind of our own. We wouldn't attack an ally. We showed the world your true colors. THAT is why you are attacking us. Not logs, not neutrality, not right vs wrong. That is why you've badgered me relentlessly for two months. And honestly, if it comes to war, so be it. I won't make it easy for you.

  16. [quote name='Van Hoo III' date='17 February 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1266455028' post='2188440']
    That was not the reason for the cancellation and you know it. Do you [b]ever[/b] stop lying or are you just programmed to lie every time you speak or type?
    [/quote]
    Want the link to that thread I just quoted? You canceled on us IN THE THREAD. The cancellation came before any logs, and conspiracies about logs. The cancellation came based off of what I just quoted above, and the DoW is about the same exact thing. You want to try and play like you are making a moral stand, but you are just pissed off that ADI wouldn't go to war against FEAR. That is what you are trying to cover up by degrading me. THAT is the secret.

  17. [quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='17 February 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1266454100' post='2188407']
    What are you talking about? They said you could have remained neutral.
    [/quote]
    They canceled on us because we went neutral.

    Here was ADI's statement, which is why RoK canceled the treaty. Anyone claiming ADI was not going to defend RoK should read the bolded lines. Anyone who claims RoK was mad about us supporting the other side should read the bolded lines.

    [quote]In the beginning stages of ADI's development, RoK was there for us. Like a big brother, they gave us guidance and they protected us. We at ADI feel deeply indebted to our brothers at Ragnarok. When this whole situation developed, we saw the CB and we voiced our support for Ragnarok. [b]We have brothers on the other side of this however.[/b] Our brothers on the other side are also likely to suffer [b]immense damage[/b], which may [b]crush them[/b] for a great and long time.

    ADI is a typical democracy, but in times of war, the Lord High Sentinel assumes all authority, and this decision that I am about to make is my decision, and it is being made with ADI's [b]membership and allies in mind[/b]. It is truly the [b]most difficult decision that I've ever needed to make.[/b] For anyone that thinks running an alliance is easy- it is not. This is one of the worst parts of running an alliance and making decisions.

    As things have developed, ADI has noticed that what was once an airtight CB is becoming shaky. [b]We were also told in the beginning that our friends at FEAR would not be involved with this.[/b] Due to a [b]blunder by me personally,[/b] I did not investigate. [b]I took RoK for their word[/b], and TPF had a MADP with FEAR that I soon found out about. [b]This puts ADI in a huge conflict of interest in which we have needed to choose.[/b]

    [b]RoK claims that ADI must defend them,[/b] however, since [b]RoK made the first move, this falls under Optional Aggression.[/b] In order for me to make a Declaration of War in favor of RoK, I need to see more reason to do so. [b]FEAR attempted to have ADI mediate between the two sides, and RoK did not want to come to the table. ADI will continue to offer themselves as an unbiased mediator.[/b]

    Should RoK make a true and real attempt to negotiate terms with TPF and company, and those talks fail, it will be at that point that ADI [b]will defend RoK to the death.[/b] However, without such an attempt at diplomacy over the matter, ADI will [b]not get involved on either side of the conflict[/b]. [b]We cannot support wiping out an entire group of alliances over a personal vendetta. It goes against what we stand for. It is why we gave peace to TDO and did not go to war.[/b] It is the same reason that we will sit this one out unless diplomacy fails.

    I would like no hard feelings with RoK- we still owe you a LOT, and you are still our brethren. I just cannot, in good conscience support this. I've been going back and forth over this for the past two days, and I really didn't want to be a disappointment to RoK. However, I also do not want to be a disappointment to my own members. They've been asking questions lately that I cannot give solid answers to. I cannot ignore their concerns. Their concerns are my concerns as well.

    Should RoK wish to mediate with TPF, ADI will be there to help. [b]We wish to be there first hand to see if TPF is as stubborn as the claims people make indicate. If that is the case, ADI will have a just and true reason to go to war.[/b] But at the moment, we do not. I know this decision will be met with skepticism and many will begin to flame on this thread. That's fine. I don't care what people think of me- I only care what I know to be true and just.

    Signed for the Aqua Defense Initiative,

    Lord High Sentinel John Warbuck [/quote]

  18. [quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='17 February 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1266453272' post='2188384']
    This is what matters. You bailed in a time you shouldn't have, if you had issues you handle them after conflicts. Any alliance that leaves an ally in the dust before a potentially blockbuster war receives just as much discontent feelings about them. But this time you left an ally in the dust for... what? [b]I never even saw enough evidence to fully hate Rok.[/b]
    [/quote]
    We didn't hate RoK. We just had two allies that were about to go to war [b]against each other[/b]. We couldn't be unfair to either side, so we stayed neutral. Then RoK made the moves after then, harassing us, baiting us, threatening us, and making all attempts possible to wreck our image. All we wanted was to move on. If staying neutral when two allies are going to fight each other is betrayal in your eyes, then what is attacking an ally in defense of another ally?

×
×
  • Create New...