ktarthan

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329945852' post='2925725'] We will attempt to rectify the flaws and errors present in a timely manner. [/quote] The entire policy is a flaw. Scrap it. Teach your small nations not to accept aid unless they're supposed to. [i]Everyone is happier.[/i]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329944620' post='2925702'] What I'm saying is that in honest mistakes, we [i]may[/i] forward the refund elsewhere, we are simply under no obligation to do so. Obligating ourselves invites abuse. [/quote] 1) This is not made clear anywhere in the policy or in the application process. In fact the application form explicitly states that refunds will [i]only[/i] be sent, in cash, to the nation who send the aid. 2) If this is added to the policy, it's still not enough. You [i]might[/i] not intentionally cause economic harm to innocent tech buyers who were unaware of your policy? Edit: And even if you forward the refund elsewhere, the fact still remains that you wasted 10 days of the buyer's slot.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329942868' post='2925681'] How we handle things is up to the discretion of us. The refund policy is as it is to prevent malicious abuse; If we offered to redirect funds, the lot of you would flood to us just to lock our aid slots up as needless middlemen (Bear in mind that two of UE's aid slots are also wasted in this action). Honest incidents can be addressed, at our discretion, in a more friendly and helpful manner. Malicious attempts to abuse this and lock up our aid slots will not be entertained. [/quote] What I'm saying is that if there is a nation who legitimately didn't know of your policy and has a valid claim for a "refund", they have no reason to want to do so. They have all the economic incentive to just let UE keep the money. If they go through the refund process it will use up [i]at least[/i] 10 days of a slot which is equal to ~33 tech, or ~$1M. This is on top of the 10 days that the initial aid takes to expire, which totals ~67 tech (~$2M) in losses that are a direct result of this policy and of no fault of the buying nation. If they don't do the refund (which is their best option), they're then out ~33 tech (~$1M) plus the initial ~$3M. [b][i]This policy has the potential to cause unnecessary economic harm to completely innocent nations.[/b][/i]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329939236' post='2925652'] We will make a good faith effort to fulfill valid refund applications, but we cannot guarantee this if a malicious attempt is made to abuse this policy and flood our forums with refund requests. The refund process exists primarily for parties who either (a) were caught up in this transitional period or (b) make unsolicited aid offers without being aware of this policy. We have no intention of screwing innocent parties of their money. [/quote] Alright let's talk about the refund policy. Let us assume an innocent nation that falls under (b). Let us also assume the best case scenario for everything involved. That nation has used up an aid slot for 20 days with a net zero gain. If he immediately finds a new seller, that deal will have effectively taken 50 days to complete. If the buyer says nuts to the whole refund process and eats his losses, sure he'll be out $3M, but at least his aid slot opens up 10 days earlier. Any buyer will tell you those 10 days is absolutely more valuable than a measly $3M. UE has created a policy where an innocent [i]victim[/i] is better off if they don't pursue the recourse offered in that same policy. Either whoever wrote it and the people who signed it are completely brainless, or they're intentionally trying to cause strife. Calling it a refund is a joke, as you've already stated that it's not unreasonable for a nation to have not known about this policy to begin with.

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1329934963' post='2925624'] I am thoroughly enjoying watching everyone reading into the Worst Case Scenario of this Policy when UE has made it clear that they do no wish to 'rob' people of their money. They used this announcement and policy to simply discourage people not on the White List from sending them offers so that they can avoid any sort of entanglement that involves the thievery of other people's money. Not that I expected anything less from the OWF. [/quote] "Reading into the Worst Case Scenario" of a policy is how you evaluate its worth. If a policy has a Worst Case Scenario that is unacceptable and not accounted for, then it is not a valuable policy. Sometimes that Worst Case is not readily apparent and excusable, given the subsequent amendment of the policy once it is known. The issues with this policy, however, are totally obvious regardless of its intent.

[quote] United Equestria takes no responsibility in informing every individual state outside of our borders, and trusts that interested foreign governments will perform the due diligence to inform their member states of our new policy. [/quote] This is, in short, the reason why this policy will fail. Unless you do your due diligence (hint: this thread is not that), this is nothing short of advocating stealing. Scenario: A nation is a member of an alliance not on your white-list. They don't read the OWF. They don't check their alliance's forums more than once every couple weeks because they're busy with other things. In the meantime they send a tech deal offer to a UE nation which they found by random, which is met with no message, but the offer is accepted. Under this blanket policy, you just stole this nation's money. Edit: The refund policy doesn't mean jack. Aside from the completely inane usage of slots, and the fact that there's no indication of the actual criteria UE uses to refund the aid, and the fact that there's no promise of expediency in the refund process (time is money, friends), if someone doesn't know about this policy they won't find out about the refund application until after the aid they initially sent has expired. At which point there's no guarantee that it'll stay on their aid screen to be screen-shot as is required in the process.

[quote name='wes the wise' timestamp='1329870490' post='2925314'] Follow the Golden Rule my friends. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12) "Do to no one what you yourself dislike." (Tobit 4:15) I agree with the OP. The issue I have is that people sometimes forget that the person on the other side has feelings too, and you just might ruin their day. Be decent toward people, in this game. [/quote] What about Masochists?

[quote name='NoMercy' timestamp='1329814995' post='2925049'] I think the line was drawn by admin. He prohibited Viceroys overtaking CN Forums by receiving admin access. I think you can apply that on this case. Spys that sign up at foreign alliances do so as an IC action. They IC answer the interview questions, give their nation data, go through the academy and want to be an IC part of the community. bros however had OOC tasks. He maintained Forums and updated them. There is nothing IC when it comes to that. Admin, with his ruling, explicitly labeled !@#$@#$ with the Forums and the database as OOC action. [/quote] As far as I know, bros didn't do anything malicious to the forums or database themselves. I guess you can disagree with me, but I think that accessing/intentionally gaining information that is restricted by IC conventions can only be considered an offense IC. Regardless of the method used to access it (as long as it's legal). Think about it this way: The only reason the info bros took was considered confidential is because of the game, so why should he be reprimanded anywhere other than the game? If I wanted to start a member's only gaming forum, and someone told me not to trust bros to do it because he had previously used his admin access to view information privy only to ~members of a Cybernations alliance he was not a part of~ I'd probably laugh in their face. [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329821692' post='2925062'] No, actually I don't have any trouble at all. That's why I commented on your interaction with it. [/quote] Alright, consider my memory hazy. Remind me of my personal interaction with the IC/OOC divide. [quote] Well, nevermind the potential pending biodad litigation [/quote] When the subject of litigation over the biodad thread came up, bros (and other leadership, I'm assuming) took the wildly unpopular (within MK) route and complied with the request to have the thread deleted. [quote] fooling around with peoples forums in an illicit manner isn't something that shouldn't be encouraged OOC as being "okay," because their actions happened to benefit them IC as well they still have some very OOC ramifications, like how it wouldn't make sense to encourage or to have bros host anothers forums or handle any sort of sensitive personal data. Forums are still very much Private property. [/quote] I think I've stated my opinion on this fairly well above. Unless bros has taken actions that can be considered malicious from an OOC standpoint (I don't much care how he got the info, as long as it wasn't illegal) then I'll maintain my opinion that it should only have IC ramifications. People not wanting bros to admin their forums where they don't want him to see the information? Completely justified. People trying to paint every thing that bros is involved with in a negative light? Completely unjustified.

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1329785023' post='2924862'] Actually it's not part of the game, it's a service provided at someone's expense about the game. [/quote] That's like trying to argue that treaties and politics in general aren't part of the game. Technically you're right but it's not a good point because for a large number of people, the politics are what we actually "play". "The game" is everything that has been built around the literal [i]game[/i] of CyberNations. Forums and IRC channels have already been established as valid "IC" references, so I think it also follows that they can be considered part of the game's canon.

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1329783846' post='2924856'] As far as I am aware, there is no available spy op in CN that gives me access to the UPN database. [/quote] There's also no spy op in CN that lets me pose as a new member in an enemy alliance, gain membership masks, and feed information back to my real alliance. I'm pretty sure that's still considered part of the game.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329778566' post='2924794'] Well, you would know when/where the distinction is appropriate I guess being the authorities on it etc. [/quote] Do you have trouble differentiating between a person and their AA? Given that you replied to me with the plural "you", I'll suggest you work on that before you comment on [i]my[/i] interaction with the IC/OOC divide. [quote] Also, I have an objective OOC opinion that a web-master should never act as one has in bro's' instance. [/quote] What actions has bros taken that should be condemned OOC? [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1329779292' post='2924800'] Registering on the fungus forums is an in-game action? News to me. [/quote] That's kind of the point. Bros committed an act of in-game spying. There's no need to drag that anywhere but the game.

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1329775229' post='2924770'] This should be an excellent opportunity for bros to offer more technical assistance to all the people registering on your boards. [/quote] In-game actions, say hello to out-of-game opinions.

Also it should be noted that no proof has been presented of Roq's allegation that RoK was spied on. We clearly don't know what Nagasaki will bring, but I prefer not to count my chickens before they hatch.

Legion still has to keep its head above 200 members for 10 days. Surprisingly though, it looks like Deinos has a more tenuous grasp on that magic number; 7 nations >20 days inactive, whereas Legion has 0. If Deinos hadn't picked up 4 new nations just today, they'd have already dipped down to 199. The contest for the 12th sanction spot is proving to be rather entertaining.

[quote name='Augustus Autumn' timestamp='1329268605' post='2920728'] I'm not going to disagree with you regarding the content of what I said. Considering, however, the level of discourse throughout this sordid affair including some lovely song lyrics, all angles of character assassination and general mockery going on here I don't think you're seeing anything intellectually substantial from either end with a few exceptions. Bob and some others have made good points throughout the thread - that MK has spied on other sovereign alliances has yet to be disputed in any real way. That an act viewed at one time as utterly unacceptable is now being either lauded or ignored in favor of personal attacks. That absolutely no consistent standard will be applied here. Will any of these points matter one iota? Not if they're buried below post after mindless post of questions regarding Roq's mental stability, self-image or outright insults. My point? Sometimes solid points need to be rehighlighted in the interest of creating visibility for those actually willing to attempt to sift this mess for something worthwhile. My apologies if you feel it's bringing the discussion down further. [/quote] There is a clear difference between lauding a post and highlighting its strengths and whatnot, as that itself can add to the discussion. But putting words into the opposition's mouth (justified or not (I say not, but I don't care enough to argue it)) is one of the most annoying possible ways to do so.

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1329268582' post='2920726'] I apologize. I didn't realize MK and their allies were the only ones permitted to mindlessly post in support of their interests. It won't happen again! [/quote] That's not a thing that I said. I cannot be present at all times to police the useless posts on both sides, but I do what I can. Also yours was among a few that particularly stood out to me, so you got lucky.

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1329268026' post='2920715'] He's just appealing to the people to [i]actually address the issue[/i] instead of attempting to debase one another. (Oh look, you just did it!) Truly, I don't think I could have expressed myself any better than he has. (Edit: That's why I quoted him!) [/quote] Bob's post was quality. Yours was just one in a chorus of "Me too!"s that couldn't have done less to enrich this discussion.

[quote name='Augustus Autumn' timestamp='1329266866' post='2920692'] Bob, your attempt to get back to the facts is an unwelcome obstacle toward the general shouting, yelling and mobbing going on here. Here on the Open World Forum there is no room for reason, logic or critical thinking. Away with you. [/quote] [quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1329266920' post='2920693'] Don't ask these people to think for themselves! [/quote] [quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1329267450' post='2920705'] You've done a terrible job assaulting Roqs character here. MK would like you to edit this post. [/quote] Honestly I would rather every sordid affair MK has ever been involved with be aired in public simply so we can be done with this issue in a timely manner rather than have to deal with more rank nuggets like these. You're worse than both the problem and the solution. Edit: added a few more offending posts to the pile

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1329266497' post='2920683'] I stopped reading on page 15. Someone please tell me if there's anything worth seeing after that because I just can't do anymore. A quick thing that pops out at me though. If the ultimate goal here is taking down MK (which you've said explicitly a few times), you're doing it all wrong. You don't just get up on a soapbox and throw information around like this. That leaves too much to chance and the fickle nature of the OWF. You gotta dig in the dirt behind the scenes. [b]You're looking and sounding like some noob who wants to take over the black team just screaming and hollering all over the place.[/b] The problem is, you've been here way too long and you've seen multiple alliances get taken down for different reasons. So there's no excuse other than incompetence for you to be acting like this. Basically, I'm not upset with you taking shots at MK. MK will be alright, though their souls may be shaken to the core. I'm upset because your execution is piss poor. If you're going to do something, do it right. This is just sad. [/quote] Referring to TOLWYN as a noob is, quite obviously, banned.

My friends have nothing to do with my own integrity.

This isn't exactly addressing a bad argument per se, but I reserve the right to depart from this blog's theme whenever I damn well please. Also it follows along the general theme of elevating the level of discourse. I'd just like to speak a bit on a piece of my personal philosophy. It's very simple, and I'm sure you've heard it before, but its implications are wide and honestly it can be more difficult to follow than you'd first imagine. Err on the side of caution. This is a very useful thing to keep in mind whenever making risky decisions, but I think that it's something that can be viewed as an approach to dealing with the world. Granted, there are going to be situations where haste and risk are necessary, but any good rule has its exceptions, and everything should be met with discretion. Another more specific way to say this that relates better to our politics: Only makes assumptions to your detriment. This is about staying intellectually honest as you disagree with a person, as well as resulting in a much more sound and thoughtful argument. If you can still thoughtfully debate for a point while giving favour to your opponent's viewpoint whenever as assumption is required, then not only can you be sure that you were intellectually honest in presenting your opinion, but also that your point will stand up to far more scrutiny than it would otherwise. If you are unable to make an assumption in a way that favours the other viewpoint (it doesn't have to be by much), then you must either find a way to reach your conclusion without the assumption or at the very least be honest about how big the assumption is. I got a bit distracted while writing this, so I can't remember if I said everything I wanted to. So as always, if any elaboration is required, please say so.

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1329254637' post='2920550'] Well the allegation is that everyone on DH govt forums knew about it... which would include sardonic and 1337 (among others). Also I believe that 1337 asked Bros to use his access to check RoK forums to prove something about rampage, which has yet to be proven.. I guess we will have to wait until friday. [/quote] The screens in the OP predate the creation of the DH gov forum by several months (it was created a bit after I left GOONS gov). If he's calling out DH gov from January, that'd be me, and I never heard a peep. If he's calling out DH gov who've accessed the forum, he's talking about stuff unproven by this OP (apparently to be seen on Friday).

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329253224' post='2920539'] Were any of the leadership of GOONS privy to the information gleaned from such intelligence gathering procedures? [/quote] Up until my departure in May, I didn't hear a peep of this. Edit: I was former GOONS Co-Pilot, for reference.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329252778' post='2920536'] Roq blows the whistle on MK and allies' spy ring because of personal vendetta. They dominate the forum with character attacks. [/quote] There has been no indication (plus a statement by 1337) that anyone other than bros, lebubu, and Roq were privy to the contents of the screenshots. [quote] No discussion of the implications of utilizing said spy ring has come up yet, but probably will once Roq collapses from exhaustion and exits the theater. [/quote] Roq has been absent from the thread for the past couple hours, but sadly, the current train does not appear to be losing steam.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329249279' post='2920507'] I'm confused. When exactly did telling the truth become a priority for you and yours? Certainly this is a new revelation over the last 24 hours. I don't know why you think labeling Roq as being complicit absolves the pretty blatant indication that this was an aggregious offence (that there appears to be a much larger one no doubt,) done by your ilk. Granted, he was allied to them but that's not the case anymore. Unless you're going to tell me treating him like !@#$ was out of love...get out. [/quote] Telling the truth has [i]always[/i] beein a priority for me. That's all I can speak to. And my mention of complicity was in reference to the "truthfulness" of his words, it has nothing to do with absolving anything. So my previous question stands.