Jump to content

Schattenmann

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,763

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Schattenmann

  1. Roxas

    Posted

    May I suggest that if there is nothing to report, that you report nothing?

    While I appreciate, truly, the work you're putting in, we must also bear in mind that unlike forum threads, blogs are only displayed on the main page 5 at a time, and getting to older ones is a hassle.

    Every "report" you post with no content knocks actual blogs with actual content off the list.

  6. Schattenmann

    Posted

    I'm curious, the International is not the only alliance with a Mandatory treaty with LSF. So would you say that every alliance with a Mandatory treaty with LSF should be attacking Nor and now IRON?Assuming the wiki is up to date, that list would be:NATO, INT, UCR, New Sakura and the Resistance and the Socialist Workers Front.

    I've been in continuous contact with an LSF ally about this war since it began, and here is the difference between The International and the rest of LSF's allies: LSF was given some kind of assurances from Int that they were all for a war with NoR, and that they would be right beside LSF. When the war began, LSF fully expected The International to go to war as well, but when it happened, Int dragged out a reply for a few days and then told LSF "tough luck." At that point, LSF told the rest of its allies to just let it ride, not to activate the treaties. While Int was asked and declined to honor their treaty, the other allies were never asked to go to war to begin with.

  7. OsRavan

    Posted

    Alright, I think blog by blog is too many blogs for each reply to each other, and my blog is getting pushed down, so here you go:

    “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

    ― Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

    The above quote nicely sums up my view of the OWF and why I tend to not engage in debate on it. However, I must be bored with this war because i'm actually going to waste my time responding to your blog. Normally i'm a firm believer of sitting back and just watching the BS.

    I also don't claim to be up to Schatt levels of posting ::bows to the master::. You have more experience and probably talent in that sort of thing than I do. So I wont be as witty as you or score as many rhetorical points. Or be as entertaining. Which is why my goal here isn't to 'beat' your post.

    But, if you are interested in honestly hearing my thoughts (as opposed to 'scoring points' over a perceived in-game enemy) i'll attempt to answer your comments honestly and thoughtfully.

    As you so often like to say, don't assume you know what I feel. First off I *DO* think you have no business sharing your thoughts there. You can disagree with me, but what we are doing is debating opinions. Note: I dont deny your *right* to post. I deny that you should *choose* to exercise that right in the manner you did.

    Next Note... I was not responding to Hal. I specifically said that direct allies of involved partners (which Valhalla is) have a stake and thus should share their thoughts. Otherwise it would have been somewhat hypocritical of me to be posting there.

    I thought *YOU* schatt had no business getting involved. I was responding to *Your* post not Hals. I showed this by quoting you and addressing you. I have no issue with what Hal did. If I had an issue with him it would have been his post I quoted, not yours. I have issue with what you and other lesser would-be-schatts were doing.

    As to the OWF. Maybe this has to do with our different approaches to CN. Can the owf have an impact on the game? Yes it can. But the impact it has is one I dont approve of. I do NOT embrace the philosophy that if my enemy does something 'wrong' (in a moral sense) I must do the same or risk them beating me.

    Do I like winning? Of course I do. I love it. But it is not the single most important thing to me either. I would rather lose the game but not sink to the level the average OWF poster resides at. Rather than win by becoming what I hate. In an OOC sense I think poorly of those who twist themselves inside and out trying to score OWF points. I can look at a thread on the OWF and before I even open it I know exactly what everyone will be saying. That to me says something about the OWF's worth.

    Does that mean there arent gullible fools that take the OWF banter as deep debates revealing the truth of CN? Of course those people exist. But normally I have better things to do with my real life time than entertaining them. I make an exception for you because I think you *are* intelligent. Wrong. But smart.

    Excuse me? There you go putting words into my mouth. *AGAIN*.

    You complain all the time that people tell what you really think on a subject. And there you went and assumed you knew what I felt. Where did I say you were irrelevant? I most certainly dont THINK that. If I said it I would owe you an apology and tender it to you (as it would probably be me getting carried away in angry rhetoric. Possible I suppose). But I honestly dont recall ever saying that to you.

    Despite the OWF propaganda (do we need another example of that place being a cesspit?) i'm no ones puppet ::wry head shake::. I assure you I am a well educated adult capable of my own opinions. I dont consider you irrelevant. Maybe some of my in-game allies do. And if they do, I would tell them they are wrong.

    I DO consider you to be a negative influence on this game, one who is damaging it (i'll go more into that shortly) but I do not consider you irrelevant. If I felt you were irrelevant I wouldnt be wasting my time responding to you.

    The *issue* is that you are in fact all *too* relevant. My opinion of the people who listen to you and give you credence is relatively low. But that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of them.

    In fact, it is *because* I consider you relevant that I think you bare a responsibility for what I view as the degradation of debate in this game.

    I'm not even going to go into your BS about ODN's actions against CoJ way back when (unless you really want me to) because that isn't actually my issue with you. You still seem to be hung up on that war, but I assure you I moved past it long ago. I dont actually agree with most of your post about what happened and I think you are presenting a nice spin story to show yourself in a good light. But there no point in side tracking this argument on a subject I doubt anyone but you and I actually care about. If you really want me to engage you on that subject I am happy to ::bows::. But I'm going to assume it was an aside and not the main crux of your argument.

    So, here in sum is my problem with how you conduct yourself. And it is essentially an OOC issue. My problem with you, is you have a goal or an ideology of how the game should be. Your so called CoJ World View. I say you are the problem because you have essentially adopted a slash and burn technique to achieving your goal.

    IN MY OPINION (I am not going to keep repeating this. Assume everything i type here is my opinion of what you are doing not hard fact) you have decided that in order to achieve your goals Alliance X Y and Z are in your way. As such, you will do whatever you have to in order to trample them.

    That includes dumbing down complex issues into easy rhetorical scoring points. You dont actually care about understanding an alliance or where they are coming from or what they are doing. You aren't interested in promoting deep debate. Or putting yourself in others shoes and understanding and learning from them. You want to force the square peg into the round hole so you can score some OWF points, rile up the masses (that power on the owf you were referring to) and try to harness that to achieve your vision of what the planet should look like.

    Never mind if anyone else shares or agrees with that vision. Its yours so it must be right. Forget about seeing what others think or where they stand. Forget about mutual respect.

    This is a political simulation game, and politics at time can lead to war and be about enemies. But real life politics can also be about reaching understandings, compromises, and growing/expanding (mentally). You dont see the second half.

    And if an alliance stands in your way of getting where you want, you'll do everything you can to embarrass them, make their players miserable (ic and in many cases ooc) and run 'em from the game itself if you can.

    The end result is that you have a culture obsessed with winning as the end all be all. More times than I can count.. hell in this very blog.... you dismiss alliances as being toadies. As their every action being about winning or avoiding a rolling or whatever.

    Can it help you 'win'? Sure. But to me one of the things destroying the fun in this game is that sort of attitude. The idea of 'them and us' and that everyone is playing for the win, nothing else. That sort of divisive black and white attitude drives people away. And more importantly it withers true intellectual discourse.

    I fully expect, for example, that you will take my huge WoT in this blog, throw away 90 percent of it, and then address only the parts you can score a point off of or use to try and make me seem foolish. I hope i'm wrong, but that is what I expect.

    Whats the point of me posting on the OWF if I know that you are going to treat my posts as something you have to "beat". That isnt freaking fun. Who wants to be part of that? I play this game for entertainment not for struggle and dominance. I play this game to have fun. To engage with friends. To see interesting political dynamics. To be part of a strong community. Sometimes just to blow !@#$ up.

    And that attitude, which I firmly believe in is the healthy approach to this game, is what YOU undermine with your posts and approach to the OWF. IMO you and those like you have created an atmosphere where any rational moderately intelligent and sane individual has to either avoid the place, resort to lulz, or discourse on the level of a freaking fourth grader.

    Are you doing this single handily? No. But you are the 'poster child' of this approach. And *that* is why I think you are damaging to CN. Not because of any BS spying on ODN applicant AAs.

    And maybe part of the reason I dislike you, is I also don't like being called a 'dog' by some OWF personality. Again, it gets back to why you play the game. I am speaking for myself here blah blah blah usual disclaimers. But I don't give a damn about MK's agenda. Hell, I don't even know what it is (according to your view since I think it is just to have fun).

    When I defend MK (or any other alliance) in a war I dont do so because of any mysterious agenda. Or because I 'want mk in power'. I do so because they are my *friends* and my cn-brothers-in arms. I dont really care what or why they fight. I find the IC morality of CN eye-roll worthy. Always have. I'm with them because I like them as people. And if Im going to blow stuff up.. or be blown up by others... I want to do it with them.

    That is something anyone I ally with needs to have.

    Now, can you think I have the wrong approach? Sure. But again, you are trying to fit the square peg into the round hole by dismissing friends of MK as 'dogs'.

    Is that how you view COJ's treaties? Everyone is either your dog or you are theres? I kinda pity *you* if that is the case. What a horrible way to go through this game. Never interacting with anyone except on a real-politic basis. I would go insane. That isnt FUN. And this is supposed to be a game.

    Instead of applying *YOUR* approach and philosophy to others actions, what you should do is try to understand us. And at least go 'hey, I dont like it or agree but I can see where you are coming from and respect that.'

    And there is where we disagree. I see the world as multi polar. We have blocs and alliances with different cultures, different goals, different mindsets. Different ways of playing the game. And your refusal to see that damages the game. Your obsession with seeing it as dualistic puts pressure on those who DONT fit your view to either QUIT the game or CONFORM to it.

    In other words... YOU are creating exactly what you supposedly oppose by your instance on fitting everyone into the dualistic model. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. If you refuse to see anything but black and white, you are exerting pressure on people to identify with a pole.

    Whelp, I saw your WoT and raised you an Epic WoT ::grins::. Look, do i dislike you? Yeah I probably do. Do I hate you in any ooc sense? No. Do I think you are intelligent? Most definitely.

    Which is why i'm bothering to actually reply to you. I'm sure some will say I am just feeding you. Giving you attention that you want. But, what I hope comes from this, is that for a minute you forget that i'm leader of ODN and you are leader of CoJ and that, by your dualistic model, we are supposed to hate each other.

    Instead I hope you actually consider what I wrote. And even if you decide you don't agree with it, you realize i'm being honest with you. And you consider if maybe in one or two places I may have had merit or a point. And if you respond, you respond to me in like fashion and put the IC politics aside. ::shrugs::.

    But yeah. Hopefully that also clears up why I dislike you. Which has nothing to do with any specific incident three wars ago.

    edit: fixed a few typos and some wording that glared out on me.

    Ok, so, I noted earlier this will be re-write 5 for this reply; I set out to be brief in each one. Brevity is my weak point, but I've gotten better each time.

    Basically, I'm sort of disappointed by where this went. When I said I was going to respond to your initial post with a blog, you sent me a PM and said you were interested in "intellectual conversation" so I went ahead with my blog and posted something that outlined our philosophy and worldview, what its implications are for the world (and why it is superior), and why the dominant mode is inferior and how it is perpetuated. I'm not going to say whether or not it was "intellectual" but it was as close as this essayist gets.

    In reply, you went on a sort of tirade, opening your response to the "intellectual conversation" that you yourself asked for with a quote demeaning the entire process as a juvenile waste of time. You then turned 'round again and start talking about "mutual respect" and "reaching understandings, compromises, and growing/expanding (mentally)" in politics, but you spend the entirety of your reply making wild accusations about me, and demeaning anyone that participates in the OWF.

    This kind of doublespeak met everything you said, to the point that people were querying me to ask if you were serious, and I myself was querying other people that I respect to ask them if this was serious.

    You make a lot of claims about Cult of Justitia's and my personal detrimental effects on the game and the OWF climate. You do not substantiate one of them. In my initial blog, I tried to reply to your open-ended/vague statements (that we're "amoral" and you don't like my leadership of CoJ) by making my best guess about what you meant and replying from there, but in this reply you blasted me for it. So, lesson learned, I'll leave it on the floor. You say that we literally force alliances and people out of the game with our worldview and interactions, but you do not name one or even attempt an example. It's rubbish.

    More disturbing than your outright weird analysis on CoJ's effect on the OWF and game were some of your personal accusations, which really had me wondering if maybe you are Rebel Virginia. I, I: Schattenmann, will "make ... players miserable (ic and in many cases ooc) and run 'em from the game itself if you can." Is that a joke? Am I on candid camera?

    But again, no examples. I'll cop to making jokes about a certain person when I was in GOONS five years ago, but the insidious and false accusation that I or Cult of Justitia OOC attack people with the aim of running them out of the game is beyond the pale.

    It is also more doublespeak. While throwing these sorts of neurotic unsubstantiated accusations at me, you extoll the virtues of your best buds MK. MK? From Bilrow to AirMe to WickedJ to VanHooIII and KaitlinK to Roquentin, your pals's policy is OOC attacks and making people--real people--miserable in real life so that they will quit the game. And those are your friends who you'll blindly follow to war (but you're no puppy on a leash, not you!) regardless of where, who, when, or why just because they're your friends. And indeed, from your reply, it is clear and you make clear, that you play CyberNations from an OOC perspective, here to make friends above playing the game itself, and you're calling me the boogeyman whilst hobnobbing with these guys?

    And on top of all that! you throw jibes about the OWF because people post along allegiance rather than objectively, and then you yourself excuse all of your allies of any transgressions simply by virtue of your friendship with them: "they are my *friends* and my cn-brothers-in arms. I dont really care what or why they fight. I find the IC morality of CN eye-roll worthy. Always have. I'm with them because I like them as people."

    You like them as people, but I'm a real, real stinker?

    Here we are butting-up against the brevity ceiling. Tromp put it more succinctly than I could ever hope to: "What it comes down to OsRavan, is that you don't like the analysis provided by Schatt, and fail to refute it... Which seems to make your blood boil. You go on a long rant without making a single rebuttal. That's kind of an accomplishment, I guess, but not a positive one!"

    I struggled with this reply, I'll tell you all that; I felt like there was almost nothing to reply to, but at the same time I couldn't just let it lay. What few political or topical points you tried to make were barely there and unsupported, and as for the insults, I didn't want an argument. I'm glad other people saw it, because I felt like it might look like I was laying down.

    It's disappointing, because I wanted that intellectual conversation.

  9. Schattenmann

    Posted

    Not a question for your show, just a general question, is there a way to listen to these after it has been broadcast?

    Well, that's a sticky question. Right now they are being recorded, but I haven't got a way to host them. AirMe's old CN Talkshow was hosted on pod-o-matic, so I went there, but the free account limitations in bandwidth and storage mean that I'd be able to post maybe 4 shows and maybe 3 people could listen to them. I'm not playing a free browser game to accumulate monthly hosting bills, so until I can find something else, the short answer is "no, not right now."

  14. ChairmanHal

    Posted

    I have to highly disagree with #7 for reasons that don't really fit into the "things I'm going to talk about in public" category. No limit made sense in the era before the modern idea of childhood, 18 made sense when more 18-year-olds had full-time jobs and families than not, and 21 makes sense now.

    -any organization that will allow you to carry an automatic rifle for the purpose of killing people, drive a million dollar armored vehicle

    While it's true that stateside they have to follow the state age where the base is located, military personnel in foreign bases or in bases within 50 miles of Canada or Mexico can drink at 18. The branches that are more strict do so of their own volition and if the Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Army are all allowed to let 18-yr-olds drink, but they all agree that 18 is too low, then what does ChairmanHal have to add to it?

    -participate in triple penetration hard core porn movies as an "actor"

    Child pornography was produced above-board by commercial studios in America and Europe well into the 1980s; just because a 12-year-old could be in a porno 25 years ago doesn't mean it was right. Just because an 18 year old could legally drink 25 years ago doesn't mean it was right.

    -legally own property, vote in elections, be convicted as an adult of all crimes, and make a million other adult decisions because you are "mature enough to take on the responsibility"

    We know that the human brain has not fully matured until the early 20s, particularly in impulse control. If anything, all of those ages could be raised. Times change.

  17. Phineas

    Posted

    Cult of Justitia has its own principles and school of thought. It's not a codified dogma, but we advocate for justice, independence, intellectual discourse, and integrity in foreign affairs. Likewise, we fight against subjugation, extortion, and bullying.
    'fighting' in this case being a metaphor for posting on the owf i assume
    http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97918
    'fighting' in this case being a metaphor for falling on one's sword i assume

    At the very least, we were able to fall on our own swords without Umbrella's money.

  19. Omniscient1

    Posted

    It's very simple: It's one thing to make an off-color OOC joke based on things you heard through the grapevine (I know I'm ashamed to have done it) and it's another thing entirely to go routing through peoples lives. It takes a special kind of crazy to commit the kind of serious OOC attacks we're talking about, and that kind of person just doesn't understand that there are people who have limits and lines and standards. They can't imagine genuine empathy or morality because they can't experience it, so they have to reason it in a way that they themselves can understand, and that is that if they don't have any humanity, no one else does either. It is nothing more than a reflection of their base state, just as revealing as their commission of the acts to begin with.

  20. Beefspari

    Posted

    Ladies and gentlemen, yet one more argument against the genre of *~-ThE cAlLoUt-~* Have fun, Beefy.
    You're starting to get it. We were doing a schtick where I was the ignorant poster and you were the one trying to use logical arguments. If only it still worked when the roles were reversed.

    No, I got it

    Ok, I'm game

    I just never depend on the audience to also get it. It doesn't matter if I know you're being goofy, but everyone else takes this seriously. People are that dumb.

  22. Beefspari

    Posted

    We didn't ask anyone for help except for the standard sanctionsIn terms of CoJ, we didn't ask for or receive any help
    Sorry, facts like these have always been irrelevant when we pointed them out. This time the shoe's on the other foot.You had to call in allies because you couldn't handle a single nation. That's a fact.

    Ok, I'm game: Which allies of CoJ attacked Orangeveria? Relevant information to make this easy for you: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Cult_of_Justitia#Treaties

  23. Beefspari

    Posted

    . . . I don't think you did what you think you did.

    OrangeAvenger rogued me, CoJ responded by countering him. We didn't ask anyone for help except for the standard sanctions, and in fact most members of CoJ have no clue I was even at war this week because I didn't post a standard attack report on our forum.

    So you'll forgive me if I have no idea what you're getting at. OrangeAvenger declared war on three people from three different alliances. He was sanctioned by GOONS's senator, so I guess if I want to be all :smug: I'll claim that Sardonic needed Umar's help. He was countered by a nation from one of the AAs he attacked, and by the protector of another alliance.

    In terms of CoJ, we didn't ask for or receive any help, and in fact I fought OrangeAvenger longer than Sardonic, with whom he made peace a day earlier than anyone else.

    As for your mystery:

    Now, OrangeAvenger is unfortunately gone. I'm not totally clear on the details, but he sent out aid and then did something to cause his nation to vanish forever.

    I may be of some help:

    orangeavenger.png

    OrangeAvenger was wiped from Planet Bob by the cleansing fires of Justitian nukes, his stain wiped forever from the world in a holy pyre of judgement on the last day of his existence. We have cleansed the ground of the former Orangeveria and made it suitable for habitation once more. emot-ms.gif

  25. Gibsonator21

    Posted

    What I enjoyed were the membership counts.MHA lost 102. Iron lost 118.NPO gained 9 members.While there is some acceptance of those on the losing side hemorrhaging members, those on the winning side should not lose more than a couple dozen. Membership count through a war is a fascinating window into just how strong a community is. IRON has quite a bit of work to do, that was just really, really sad. When you bleed nearly a quarter of your membership in a winning war, you have serious work to do, I'm sorry.

    VE lost 10% or more of its membership while winning the war on Polaris.

×
×
  • Create New...