MaGneT

A question to CsN: Do you think it is wise to have Liz in charge of your alliance? Please shed some light on the thought process (or lack thereof) that lead to this decision.

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312934486' post='2776227'] <snip> [/quote] Seriously, every time I read one of your posts I wonder why you're not in DT.

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1312927519' post='2776153']Well yeah, had to tell them that. Do you not remember the part where we said (in private), should they accept it, we'll forgive reps after 5k (or 10k?) of it they accept that? If we give them those two options (40k tech vs. fighting for a week) it's an easy choice. But either way, like we've said a bunch, it was handled poorly.[/QUOTE] Perhaps if you had competent leadership then you wouldn't have had to outsource your decisions. You might have also had the capacity to analyze your situation with some degree of objectivity, because the fact that your actions were reprehensible alone could not deter you. Then again, senseless bloodlust always seems to take charge over reason... [QUOTE]I think we have admitted we were wrong and handled that situation poorly. We just won't apologize for it, at least I won't, because it's just something to keep for the future, a learning experience if you will. [/quote] Ah, and what have we learned? Don't treat people like crap when they did nothing wrong at all? Don't let Pxychosis run your alliance for you? Try your jolly hardest to grovel for public support when you don't even have the humility to make amends for your wrongdoings? Truly admirable. Hats off. [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1312927877' post='2776155'] For CSN: Why won't you apologize for the DT debacle? Are you trying to make any amends over it seeing as that lifeline was thrown earlier in the thread? [/quote] Well, clearly because it was our fault for entering on an optional treaty and then beginning peace discussions when we heard the front was closing off! We still haven't admitted our grave mistake, so why should they apologize for responding justly and in kind! WC, the answer to your question is swimming deep in a pool full of a delightful mixture of stupidity, pride and paranoia.

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1312861965' post='2775490'] I happen to know the intentions of CSN .gov. You don't. When DT's supporters brought it to the OWF, they forced CSN to dig in and enforce harsh terms to avoid "looking weak." You forced the white peace option off the table. Deal with it. [/quote] You do realize that this is the same stupid argument that alliances used to use to justify a PZI on a raid target that didn't know about any backchannels and would come out in the OWF and say "why are these guys attacking me?" There was an issue that was being widely discussed without much knowledge to the details. We at DT sought to clarify that discussion. CsN looked weak (and continues to do so) by not admitting that they were wrong. That is no one's fault but their own.

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1312606950' post='2773264'] I'm not willing to buy forgiveness. We wouldn't throw a fit about it, not in public. We would absolutely oppose it and stand up for ourselves, but we'd try and be as "manly" about it as possibly. Fair enough. [/quote] I can't fault you here at all, actually. The first line is something I'd say in your place, though we both know it wouldn't be buying, it'd be returning what was stolen. Regardless, I understand the principle behind that and the manly idea. Not my way of doing things, but it's a difference in principle rather than a lack of one. I'll take a leaf out of your book and agree to disagree on this one. Fair enough?

Hmmm, I like you guys. This is an alliance with cojones.

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1312527745' post='2772500'] Ok, the problem I have believing that is a genuinely held belief in the ability to reconcile the issue is that the stipulation of "paid by 2k+ tech nations" isn't an act of contrition, it's a punishment. That's what you extract from someone, not something that's offered, because it harms them more than it helps you. Now, I realize why he said this, however, that doesn't change the point I'm making. For instance, "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. I will forgive you if you let me kill your father." is a patently silly situation. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying this in order to lobby for "better terms of forgiveness" because that's obviously not how it works. I don't expect you to forgive them, and that's really my point. DT, based on everything I've seen, doesn't really have much interest in forgiving CSN, whatever they do (not that they've done anything up to this point). You want your pound of flesh as settlement. Do bear in mind that I'm not actually criticizing you for this. The original line isn't, after all, "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. I forgive you." and for good reason. I don't actually think what CSN did is on the level of murdering someone's parent, of course, but metaphor only gets you so far.[/QUOTE] I think Bob included that because CsN was adamant that we pay from our 2k+ nations. Obviously, this is all mere speculation. The idea that you could pay us off after wronging us and make things right is absurd. I like to think that we're above petty bribes... though a repayment would likely be necessary. [QUOTE]I would simply prefer that lip service not be paid toward the possibility of forgiveness if it isn't realistically available, as it's a concept I take fairly seriously. It's a difficult thing to wrestle with and most people don't do well with it. If you're being genuine, I apologize, but I've seen enough "I'm open to forgiving them if they just X" followed by X actually happening and the person finding that they weren't as open to it as they thought that it makes me wary of such situations, especially when the ribbing continues in the post that first raises the subject. [/quote] I understand your suspicion, I'd share it in your shoes, so I won't try to talk you out of it. That being said, I can give you my word that I'm being genuine when I say that my settling of the conflict with CsN does not need to be violent. That's coming from DT's war guy. Bob is our FA guy, so I'd be inclined to think that he's being genuine as well. But, of course, this does not really reveal my motivation for being open-minded towards forgiveness. Back a few years ago, I was at the helm of an alliance called SOUL, which merged to create SOLID. Both were signatories of BLEU. As you'll recall, BLEU made some big mistakes as a bloc and ended up being destroyed. We never had the opportunity to make some things right, when we realized the gravity of our deeds, it was far too late. That bloc meant a lot, achieved a lot and frankly, it really sucked to lose that. Now, I know that there is a certain survival instinct in wanting to avoid being public enemy #1, but I have faith that there is some real desire among some of you to make things right. Whether I'm right or wrong, it's no skin off my back. I still expect you to take this with a pretty big grain of salt, because obviously you don't really know me, so to you, my word should not mean much, but it's the best I can do. [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1312531979' post='2772538'] I'm OK with having done it. Would I do it again? No, I would handle that situation entirely differently. Even if I weren't OK with it, there is no chance I would pay the reps back.[/QUOTE] Just out of curiosity - can I ask why not? [QUOTE]It was actually following Goose's lead. Those negotiations were run by Goose. Sure, we supported him, but everything in CSN was done at his whim at that point.[/QUOTE] Well, I'll quote this just so it looks twice as silly. [QUOTE]So if I go to your forums and have an embassy created, we would be able to have a cordial conversation and see where things go from there? I'd be willing to try that.[/QUOTE] I'm not in charge of that, but I'd talk with you. [url=http://thedarktemplar.net/forum/index.php]Go for it[/url]. [QUOTE]Read up. And yeah, the winning alliance does dictate terms. It's still up to the losing alliance to accept them, however. And believe me, we won't do anywhere near the amount of !@#$%*ing you guys did if we're put in that situation in the future. But no way we can prove that until the time actually comes, so it's a moot point.[/QUOTE] Are you trying to prove that you lack any sort of backbone? That you'd allow yourself to be extorted just for peace? If you can't stand up for yourself when you're being wronged... [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1312534531' post='2772546'] CSN gets a bad rep because of how we [b]created[/b] the DT fiasco, mainly. [/quote] Fixed that for you. [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312552006' post='2772609'] There are, really, two reasons why we haven't sought forgiveness. The first one being a general animosity that still exists on the IC and partially the OOC level between (I suppose) individuals on both sides, though I can't speak for anyone in particular in DT. Likewise, this animosity has been further marred by indirect means that DT is/are linked to, such as RoK, Legacy, etc (obviously I wouldn't hazard to say that DT is directly at fault for those failed relationships because that would also be absurd, but even guilt by association tends to be subconscious). The second one being a more OOC reasoning: if we sought forgiveness straight-up, then what would be the point of our ever-loving bitter relations? In other words, if everyone decided to forgive one another, the game would just be an exercise of My Little Pony. And while the argument can [and has been] be made that reparations also "kill" the game, it's definitely a somewhat of an OOC justification to maintain IC animosity; OOCly, I have no problem with DT at all and I would also have no problem with sitting down with you guys and making sure that at the OOC-level we could remain amicable. IC-wise, though, it's an entirely different thing as one might imagine, and I do personally hold a deep appreciation for the differences in OOC/IC persona.[/QUOTE] Well, I don't think DT and CsN can ever hate each other OOC. Even though the founding members came from rival clans in Starcraft, we were always friendly and have a respect for people that played the game that we did, especially the same type of custom map. As far as IC goes, don't justify the fact that you're too damned proud to bow your head in shame and say "yeah, we were jerks to you, sorry," by saying that you want to spice things up. It's a feeble excuse. Either act with principle or continue to be treated as scum. The ball has been in your court for a while now - for your sake, I hope it's not too late for you. [quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1312586118' post='2772922'] I would love to see some talking between DT and SF, why? Because I think there should be a level of peace in the game, even if you want to blow each other heads off. If you want to go and kill someone, you are going to do it, no reason not to be civil, because if you aren't and act more out of impulse, then you will just be making a fool out of yourself. [/quote] DT's problem isn't with SF directly. It's with CsN. The problem with SF is simply that they enabled them to commit extortion. I've made it quite clear in other threads that other parties within SF had a large part in the extortion, but the guilt lies at CsN's feet. Nowhere else. Now, I had a bit of trouble understanding why you think DT going after them would be an act of impulse. I'd think it'd be a justified and thought-out retaliation - but hey, I can be wrong every now and then. Justify what you said with an argument rather than the pathetic plea to be seen as a voice of reason trying to make all of we supposedly belligerent maniacs get along.

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1312520340' post='2772429'] Unless you think trying to distinguish between Bad and The Worst Thing Anyone Has Ever Done is an attempt at justification, I really wasn't. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in that? In response to your question, what would you consider an adequate attempt to right things? I ask this because, from what I've seen, most people don't actually accept attempts to make up for anything in this game once it's settled in. Meaning no offense, but there's been enough vitriol (and I'm not going to criticize your reasons for it, I'm just saying) directed at CSN from DT over the last few months that I honestly don't think it's a salvageable situation short of CSN committing mass suicide. [/quote] I didn't catch the distinction, forgive me. To me, it struck me as a "yeah, it sucked, but you'd do the same in his situation" kind of thing. I don't fault you for that. As far as your mass suicide claim goes, I think they're well on their way to doing that. I'll let Bob handle our answer: [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1312522065' post='2772456'] An apology and a repayment of reps, payable by their 2k+ tech nations. Also an apology for making us apologize. That would be a step in the right direction, if they actually wanted to make amends. [/quote] DT tends to be a forgiving group. We're pretty reasonable people, despite the esteemed and worthy-to-lead Liz Girard's babble earlier in the thread about us being oh-so-difficult to work with. I mean, every now and then we get in a huff and storm out of discussions ... excuse me, hold on, someone's whispering something in my ear. Wait, really? That was [i]her[/i] that did that? Sheesh, and they have her running the place? No wonder they've made a thread groveling on their knees, begging to be looked at with indifference rather than disgust. Sorry about that, I didn't mean for you to hear my inner monologue. That was a little immature of me. Back to what I was saying, I think Bob is very correct in saying that if CsN approached DT with genuine goodwill and a working desire to set things right between us, many of us would be receptive. Now, that's obviously not an official statement and we're just two guys in an alliance of 50, but I think it's important to emphasize that a few of us see this more as an unresolved conflict than a score that can only be settled in blood. [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1312520823' post='2772436'] You're being a little hyperbolic, I think... [/quote] Perhaps I have a flair for the dramatic, at least as far as words are concerned. It's fun. [quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1312521318' post='2772443'] This thread is only getting better. [/quote] You're welcome . [quote name='Velocity111' timestamp='1312522555' post='2772460']are you ok with having the same reps per unit of NS imposed on your alliance should you ever lose a war in your future? [/quote] I'm going to predict that it's likely one of them will say something along the lines of "it's the right of the winning alliance to impose whatever demands they see fit." If they do, or already have while I was typing this post, I'll make a sig with that quote in advance of the inevitable !@#$%*ing and moaning that will result if they are given the same treatment.

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1312519277' post='2772420'] The war was a wakeup call for quite a few people. [/quote] Which is all the more revealing when you see that a supposedly "awakened" alliance will stand by the atrocities of their allies...

I see that this is a step in the right direction from you. Although you have wronged me, I'm glad to see it. So I ask: Do you plan on attempting to right that which you did wrong? You know what I am referring to. EDIT: I noticed in the earlier pages, when Delta addressed our issue with CsN, while doing a very grand and seemingly persuasive job of absolving his allies of all guilt, seemed to ignore what was firmly established in around 90 pages of myself and some friends slapping those who blindly supported extortion around in a debate. Seeing as I feel no need to rehash the obvious for the millionth time now, you can field my question in the way that it was intended: that a wrong act was indeed committed and that I am curious to see if you have any intent on rectifying it, or simply justifying your sadistic actions to the public.

I'd actually be shocked if anyone disliked the RIA. You're like the class clown who somehow does really well in all of his classes and is nice to everybody. The problem is the crew you roll with is led by the scrawny loudmouth with the older brother who is a defensive lineman.

To clarify, I'm not whining and I'll be here until an hour after the server turns off, even if the Suggestion Box remains completely ignored until that day. That being said, I think that growth in CN could be enhanced. I said it before and I'll say it again - growing is boring. There is very little differentiation in the process for a mature nation. Pay bills for 20 days, buy a ton of infra/land, collect taxes. While you're at it, toss out 3mil to a bunch of little guys, get 50 tech in the mail 10 days later and another 50 tech 10 days after that. Rinse and repeat. Now, as I said, this is good enough and I'll keep doing it contently. That's good and jolly, but the aid system could be far more interesting. I'm tossing a bunch of ideas around in my head as I pace around my room here. What sticks out most is applying something of a light-speed principle to aid. Of course, c needs to vary for each nation, otherwise we'll just have an aid cap that can't be reasonably reached. So, what do we change? First, we would need a fundamental overhaul of how aid slots actually function. Forget the aid slots that take 10 days to expire. I say make them expire based on how much is sent. There shouldn't be a baseline of 3mil = 10 days and every additional 3mil is another 10 days, or something like that. Instead, base it on the nation that is sending the aid. Make a formula (with some sort of exponent involved, of course) that incorporates tech, land and infra into the mix. I'd also suggest that it favors infra, because ever since the tech bonus was uncapped, infrastructure has become but a showpiece. Essentially, the function would be that a larger nation would be able to send out more aid more quickly. So, a big guy might be able to toss 500mil in the amount of time I can toss out 50mil. It should be slightly more complex than 10x the size = 10x the rate, though. If a nation has 5k infra and 10k tech, I'd say that his aid should go more slowly than a nation with 10k infra and 5k tech. Why? Well, many of you would argue that if a nation is more technologically advanced, it'd be able to send out aid more quickly. But considering that the technology for foreign aid is given to all nations via the fact that a 0 tech nation can send aid, I'd say that's silly. A higher tech level should give you a benefit, but infra:tech ratio should be chief. So, what remains is the infrastructure necessary to distribute that aid and the land mass that the aid is taken from. I'm not sure if land should have any effect, but if you are considering this, keep it in mind. We should also toss some other variables into the mix. Make a Foreign Aid Commission speed the rate that a nation can process its aid as a replacement to the +50% bonus to aid. Add Cargo Ships as naval vessels to do the same. Perhaps add Cargo Ports as improvements and if a receiving nation has them, they reduce the processing time. A big snag many of you might be thinking is "well what about those huge nations who will just send out 1bil and get 30,000 tech in return?" Okay, so let's say it takes them X days to clear that outgoing 1bil slot. It'd take a whole lot longer for that little guy to clear is 30,000 tech slot. Well, the next obvious argument is "it will take X days for a lot of nations to acquire 75% of the largest nation on Bob's tech, you don't have to worry about the little guy even sticking around for a day after he sends out that 30k tech." You're absolutely right if you thought that. So what do we do about that? Pretty simple. For cash in an aid deal, it can all be there the day that it is accepted. This makes sense both realistically and in gameplay. Obviously, nowadays, you can wire billions in a moment. That'd be consistent. Gameplay-wise, cash aid is often used for instant purposes, as in the case of an impending war. Tech, however, if viewed as computers and stuff, needs to be shipped. Gameplay-wise, it isn't used for quick, pre-war aid, but instead for slow growth. I'd recommend making tech added to a nation at the end of an aid slot's duration. I'd also recommend making aid slots containing tech only able to stay open if the nation sending it regularly pays their bills. This will discourage people from making these huge purchases from undedicated newbies or their buddy who they called up to make a dummy nation to help inflate their own. It will raise the value of the active tech seller vastly, as those who can be trusted will be swamped with massive deals. I think it's a pretty good though primitive idea. Any feedback/thoughts? I obviously need to refine it, but I figure I may as well not go further because I think I got the gist across and I want to hear any criticism y'all have.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1312431897' post='2771518'] Can we expect another complete side change in the next year or are things slowing down in the Legacy FA department? [/quote] We plan on respecting them, so I'll guess no.

Lately there have been a lot of moans and groans among the community about how CN's player population is now well below 20,000. A lot of people are talking about how the next war is "the last war" and the game is dying. That's silly. CN, as a game and as a community, is still going strong. The political landscape of alliances is constantly changing and I think that I'm more engaged than I have been since the months leading up to Karma. That being said, I understand their complaints. We are facing a dwindling population and the gameplay has remained stagnant for quite some time. The way I see it, there are three distinct camps on this issue. First, we have the people who think that Admin is letting the game die, everything is coming to an end no matter what we do and that things are so boring. Next, we have the people who claim that there is nothing wrong as most of the people who have left were not major political contributors anyway. These are primarily the folks that say that talking about the decline of CN is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lastly, we have the folks who see flaws and propose them and the other two camps shoot down the proposals. Everyone is a little bit right here and the only proper way to move forward is to analyze why everyone is upset. After every major war, there is a lull in the action. People complain about a lack of drama as the main parties of the previous war lick their wounds. Political maneuvering gets done, but it is usually nothing like the rapid treaty action in the immediate buildup before a war. It's the calm after the storm. During wars, there is a lot of in-game action as well as a lot of forum-based political maneuvering. The difference here is in-game action. The problem is, during peacetime, the only in-game way that a single player can affect anything is by growing. You can make friends by being a diplomat or argue on the OWF to make a political impact, but the only thing you are doing as the ruler of your nation is pay bills, buy infra, collect and tech deal. The obvious issue here is growth - not necessarily growth itself, but the process of doing so. Many people see the problem as being that it takes far too long to grow back in between wars, so the action is more segmented and further apart. I disagree, I think that just making the intervals between the hands-on part of the game shorter will not solve people's discontent. Instead, I'd suggest making growing a more hands-on process. Infrastructure is not my primary concern, there is a very good suggestion out there to make rebuilding infra easier and that's a step in the right direction. I think we should focus on international commerce. Let's start with aid slots. A lot of us have toyed with the idea of uncapping foreign aid. $3,000,000 - heck, even $4,500,000 - is nothing to a nation that has existed for more than a year, 50 tech is insignificant in a world with nations that have over 10,000 tech and 2,000 soldiers won't help a nation above 10k NS. Some have said this takes skill, because you need to manage your aid slots more wisely and you can't drop x-hundred million bucks on a new guy and suddenly make him huge. Understandable objections, but they just don't hold up. This reminds me a lot of when I used to play Starcraft. You were only able to control 12 units at a time and many of us were under the impression that it took a lot of skill to be able to manage a very large army. While that's true, as it forced you to perform a difficult task and certain nuances allowed the player to excel at moving a large army, it turned out to be very limiting. When Starcraft II was released, you were able to control as large a group as you could find to select. It reduced the amount of mindless clicking and allowed me to focus more on strategy. It also enabled me to do more interesting and complex things with my troops, because I didn't have to worry about managing 72 units in 6 different sections. Uncapping aid alone would reestablish the importance of bank nations. It would revolutionize tech dealing and growth. It'd be the first in a few steps to add more commerce to the game, but I say it's long since necessary. If enough of us think this is right, we could put a decent and intelligent suggestion together and hopefully Admin and the mods will see where we're coming from. Thoughts?

This was a bad choice...

Congratulations guys, your existence is a credit to Planet Bob. Here's to another year Sidenote, I just realized that I was already in alliance leadership when you guys were founded. Damn...

[quote name='queenhailee' timestamp='1311880254' post='2766321'] Some people seem "surprised" or "offended" Olympus is neither. Certainly, we knew the potential outcomes of our course of action and we prepared for them. We offered the rest of AcTi a way out if they chose. Teddyyo did not escalate the hostilities with his thread. He has shown that Batallion had already ordered the alliance to war. That's one difference between Bat and I. If I had done something for which I deserved punishment (or someone thought I did badly enough to seek war), I would take that punishment and tell my brothers and sisters it was my bad and my pain to bear on my own. And I'd use my best foot-stomping ability and patented squinty eyed looks to get them to let me take it alone. Batallion has a history of making big mistakes. But you know what? He knew this was in the works. And this time he didn't flee to peace-mode and allow his folks to take the damage alone. He also has a far better war chest than he's had in the past. He took people's criticism and advice to heart and did make changes for the better. He has a way to go (but then, don't we all?) But one has to respect that he's set out on that journey. AcTi has ridden to war because they were ordered to. Perhaps they knew of the safety net, or perhaps that information was withheld from them. Neither really matters, they can hold their heads high for defending their AA. Now that they know the "out" is available, they have the information they need so they can make the best decision for themselves. No. Olympus isn't shocked or offended. They're doing what they need to do, just as we are. [/quote] I don't know you, nor have I ever seen your post. Based on this, you should more. Hats off. Classy.

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1311828518' post='2765938'] SF and MJ are much weaker than I had imagined. [/quote] Yeah, we are. But then again, Mjolnir has 5 member alliances, 2 of which are 50ish members (DT and Asg). SF only has 4 member alliances.

The sad truth here is that if you're not in an alliance or protected, you will be attacked. While some may sympathize with your plight, helping you is simply not a political reality. If you would like to be part of a neutral peace-loving group, I'd recommend the Green Protection Agency. They're very nice.

This is really cool, actually. Congratulations on this

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1311808352' post='2765616'] Exactly. This thread and the posters on it are CN's politics at their best. The same people who is hailing Olympus were the same who were saying one month ago that OOC actions weren't reason enough for an IC war and wre crying about OOC/IC line. Consistence isn't a quality who is easily found in cyberverse. [/quote] For once, I find myself in complete agreement with you. The last part of course, about consistency. Edited to clarify.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1311796571' post='2765494'] To be fair they can and they did. Its not a precedent OOC attacks have resulted in serious consequences for years. A sustained verbal personal attack is nothing like a comment on a person’s background. [/quote] But is it the correct precedent? I agree with everyone who is saying that Batallion went way overboard with this. There's no place for talk like that. So I certainly understand the outrage and this reaction, but is it appropriate? I don't have a concrete position here and this is a good opportunity to discuss where, exactly, the "line" is. That being said, where is the line between a sustained verbal personal attack and a harmless comment? It's purely subjective. What you're saying here is that if something that occurs OOC is offensive enough, it is appropriate to take IC action. For argument's sake, let's say that I weigh 350 pounds (I'm much lighter than that). You come into #DT every day, and when I say "hey, Alterego" you reply "hey, fatty". Is that okay, or should I attack your nation? Let's step it up. How about one day, you decide to troll me and go on about how fat people suck, trying to goad me into a fight. Is that okay, or should I attack your nation? Now, one of these days, I'm in a bad mood and I bite. I tell you to shut up, you tell me that I'm so fat that someone needs to play a Pokéflute to get me out of bed in the morning. I tell you that I'm fed up with it, you tell me "go eat yourself to death, tubby". Is that offensive enough, or is it acceptable? Let's say I just kick you from the channel and it's done. There will be an obvious IC effect as I would avoid aligning myself with you. Common OOC interests or OOC disputes certainly reflect themselves in FA here on Planet Bob, right? We can't control that and it'd be silly to. I think that there is a happy medium somewhere between this sort of thing and wars for OOC reasons. No one would support having an ally who insults their Earthly persona, but at the same time, no one would support a war because two people had an argument about OOC politics, right? What I'm really wondering is if this particular incident is an example of the line itself. After all, if this was slightly less severe, I think we can all agree that it will have a lot less support, but if it was slightly worse, there would be no doubt about the validity of Olympus' CB. EDIT: Noticed this guy posted between me and hizzy [quote name='kwell' timestamp='1311806204' post='2765595'] How can I know the facts when you are unwilling to post them here? Scared that the public will see them as flimsy? Oh wait, they already do : P Try again, if the ooc attacks are that bad, surely the public will agree with you. By not posting them either as screen shots or link tells me thay you even question how flimsy they are. Again, I speak only for me, not my aa. Wait, that doesn't matter for Olympus, now does it : P [/quote] The logs were very inappropriate and I have a feeling that the deities who rule these parts would make them disappear quite quickly. Any abridged version would really take the impact out of them. If I had to guess, Olympus avoided posting them as a matter of taste and as a matter of protecting their member's personal information. And your second part. First, you don't need to announce that you don't speak for Umbrella in everything you post. It's understood on here that everyone does not necessarily speak on the part of a government. Second, of course it matters for Olympus! It's hard to take someone seriously who clearly did not even have the capability of reading and understanding the OP. What part of [i]only declaring on Batallion[/i], not all of AcTi, do you not understand?

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1311788821' post='2765392'] This whole situation is just dumb. Next time someone trolls IRC, [i]ban them from the channel.[/i] [/quote] That makes a lot more sense to me. I'll keep this precedent in mind the next time someone I don't like makes a comment about my background, though.

Just retain players. It's simple. If the community shuns anyone new who comes in saying something stupid, they're not going to stay. If someone decides to be nice and hold that person's hand, that's one new player. Stop being dicks and everything will be fine.

I don't think anyone, friend or foe of Umbrella, can feel anything but somber on this occasion. Best of luck moving forward, that's quite a gap to fill.