KainIIIC Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1338418553' post='2974782']-snip- [/quote] Obviously very few will change their opinion based on one day of someone overposting. But to say that the OWF, even in these relatively inactive days, doesn't influence anyone I think is preposterous. Vox's campaign against NPO certainly turned the tide of public opinion. Sure, SF/VE and C&G eventually put together a sizable coalition to take them down, but if NPO hadn't lost the OWF for months on in, if they had defended their ground publicly instead of getting !@#$ on by the CoC and going into radio silence, things could have been different, and a lopsided curbstomp could have MAYBE been a relatively even fight (possibly enough to reduce the 9 months of reps, even a narrow victory?). When TOP beat the drums to roll Polar for all of last year, that OWF PR campaign politically isolated Polar, leading to a curbstomp that most non-Polar/SF/XX alliances were gleeful to jump in on. Also read: the isolation of GOD. I could go on, but as inane as the OWF often is, people's opinions DO get shaped by what people say if they decide to read it (and oftentimes, the ones making the political decisions are often the ones who post on the OWF). Perhaps it's a testament that a certain fungal alliance has 'controlled' the OWF for the past 3 years and has consequently been on top politically. The fact is, anyone checking out the OWF and reading your rants against alliances you want to get destroyed is not going to convince anyone that they dislike MK or Umb. It's not going to convince ex-Mj alliances to bond together with SF within the next couple months to roll DH. It's not going to cause PF/Duckroll to treaty Polar & co. to bring down the ebil C&G. If anything, it makes readers feel "meh" about them, or worse, make them want to want to do the opposite. That eventually trickles down into FA meetings and conversations amongst the various 'independent groupings' out there - should we move toward C&G, SF, Duckroll, Polar, NPO? etc. (but no! GOD's gonna be rolled, so is MCXA! DH is undefeatable, maybe C&G? etc.). Sure, it's a stretch to say that individual a + b's bad posting leads [i]directly[/i] to treaty x and rolling y. But it definitely seeps into people's minds, and unfortunately for you, you're not helping your cause. Brevity and more sparse posting may, however. Just my advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I honestly didn't expect this announcement to get so much attention. I feel like a celebrity =D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1338428238' post='2974900'] Obviously very few will change their opinion based on one day of someone overposting. But to say that the OWF, even in these relatively inactive days, doesn't influence anyone I think is preposterous. Vox's campaign against NPO certainly turned the tide of public opinion. Sure, SF/VE and C&G eventually put together a sizable coalition to take them down, but if NPO hadn't lost the OWF for months on in, if they had defended their ground publicly instead of getting !@#$ on by the CoC and going into radio silence, things could have been different, and a lopsided curbstomp could have MAYBE been a relatively even fight (possibly enough to reduce the 9 months of reps, even a narrow victory?). When TOP beat the drums to roll Polar for all of last year, that OWF PR campaign politically isolated Polar, leading to a curbstomp that most non-Polar/SF/XX alliances were gleeful to jump in on. Also read: the isolation of GOD. I could go on, but as inane as the OWF often is, people's opinions DO get shaped by what people say if they decide to read it (and oftentimes, the ones making the political decisions are often the ones who post on the OWF). Perhaps it's a testament that a certain fungal alliance has 'controlled' the OWF for the past 3 years and has consequently been on top politically. The fact is, anyone checking out the OWF and reading your rants against alliances you want to get destroyed is not going to convince anyone that they dislike MK or Umb. It's not going to convince ex-Mj alliances to bond together with SF within the next couple months to roll DH. It's not going to cause PF/Duckroll to treaty Polar & co. to bring down the ebil C&G. If anything, it makes readers feel "meh" about them, or worse, make them want to want to do the opposite. That eventually trickles down into FA meetings and conversations amongst the various 'independent groupings' out there - should we move toward C&G, SF, Duckroll, Polar, NPO? etc. (but no! GOD's gonna be rolled, so is MCXA! DH is undefeatable, maybe C&G? etc.). Sure, it's a stretch to say that individual a + b's bad posting leads [i]directly[/i] to treaty x and rolling y. But it definitely seeps into people's minds, and unfortunately for you, you're not helping your cause. Brevity and more sparse posting may, however. Just my advice. [/quote] Well, I'm referring to things influencing it directly. I mean, people are going to have anti-alliance X stances independently. NPO had a lot of things going poorly for it, like Dilber not being active when he had built most of the relationships. Most people didn't like NPO to begin with and treatied them because of security and because they wanted to be able to exist in a political sense. The alliances NPO didn't like were kept out of any viable political groupings for some time. It wasn't the public campaign so much that made NPO look bad, there was no way for them to respond to what Vox was saying, so they didn't. People were suspicious of getting rolled in the future by NPO because of NPO's tendencies to end up cutting some of their allies loose in order to keep other factions at bay. The alliances that turned on NPO didn't do so because of Vox and a lot of the establishment types that turned on NPO abhorred Vox and no one really gave them much heed in entrenched political circles because it was something they looked down upon. Vox was able to however have some agents within alliances that would cause problems for NPO and leak intel like when the Continuum forums started leaking. edit: I'll take your examples. In the TOP case, it was a lot of alliances that were disenfranchised by Grub's decisions during the war. TOP was just the loudest and most bellicose out of them, but an entire grouping of alliances got a harsher beating than they would have otherwise since they got the carpet pulled from under them. Polar had also burned bridges with more traditional allies, but it wasn't really TOP's posting that made it happen. It was the fact that TOP was in a position of strength since they were well connected(adopted the Dark Paradox plan Feanor had) and DR had become popular and people started tying themselves to DR like AZTEC and NG for instance. I mean, there were a lot of treaties and relationships made possible by the fact that enmity of Polar for whatever reason was a common sentiment. I don't see TOP who were big on the moral aspects of the BiPolar war initially as being willing to collude with the elements they had cast scorn on previously like \m/ and PC. When Penguin was in charge and the anti-Polar posting started, Polar was in a much stronger position and Feanor and Crymson's threats were just as impotent as my posting since TOP was under terms at the time, even. MK's decision to split off from 'moralist' allies lead to the weakening of Polar in time for a rolling by raiding elements(PB). After the PB war, more Polar allies grew disillusioned and didn't see staying tied to Polar as worth it. I mean, I don't really think the actions of the alliances I rant against would somehow be moderated by my "rants" as you put it. Everyone determines what they find acceptable on their own. In most cases, it's just so long as they don't bring it to their doorstep or to their allies doorstep, they'll be fine with it. The way things shape up is that people start seeing a particularly powerful grouping as a threat and begin to act accordingly. If rants could somehow prevent people from acting in their self-interest, then we have a real problem with people acting on their self-interest. I mean, they don't really obscure what MK did or what GOONS did regardless. It's moreso if people don't see a threat, they won't act on it. In a lot of cases, people do, but they decide the best course of action is to lay low rather than being proactive FA-wise in the ways you describe. That's the main difference between them and people who have consistently won wars. They're more willing to make pragmatic decisions like the ones you mentioned. There's also a lot of enmity within the groups you mentioned, so unless they perceive an immediate existential threat, they'll let that get in the way. I mean, you can try to secure yourself as much as possible by treatying people, but if you're not part of the core, eventually someone will clash with one of your allies or you. For instance, Argent was basically flayed for treatying UE because people in the dominant grouping don't like them. I have never seen any actual dispute of the things I have said in a factual sense, so it's not the content, but rather the tone, and it's been kind of difficult to figure out how to moderate it in a way that I can live with, because I'm not really going to compromise my views for a theoretical reader who isn't willing to confront me directly on it either publicly or privately. I've always been willing to listen to specific criticisms rather than vague statements. I'm not really sure how everything, regardless of relevance or factual basis ends up getting written off as a rant. I guess it's due to the lack of more political literature and polemic on the forums. In fact, I would ideally prefer more people being willing to post about things they don't like or disagree with since it would reduce the need for me to make sure someone is representing an opposing view. However, there's always been a silent opposition to people like DH or to me, and that's rather cumbersome. I appreciate the advice though, since I can acknowledge some faults like I did in the Roq bingo thread. It's kind of hard to find a happy medium between not posting at all and posting less when threads take different turns. Edited May 31, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I bet you didn't think you would get this much press Symphony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muwen1234 Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Congratulations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aguacenta Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Jake Liebenow' timestamp='1338427242' post='2974871'] I'll be honest, I thought Symphony merged with someone ages ago. But I'm really glad they didn't. I like this treaty. Lots. [/quote] Semi-off-topic, but you're correct in your memory. We've had a couple alliances merge into us in part or in whole in the past, but have always maintained the governmental structure, charter, and name that we were founded with two years ago. ...or maybe we disbanded and no one told me. Both, seem equally likely to me. *toot* *toot* Edited May 31, 2012 by xlostx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1338416525' post='2974749'] it hasn't been used because I have one thing that you and arexes don't. [/quote] [img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhhn6xjuAM1qeafox.gif[/img] Go on. Edited May 31, 2012 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astarle Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Jake Liebenow' timestamp='1338427242' post='2974871']I'll be honest, I thought Symphony merged with someone ages ago. But I'm really glad they didn't.[/quote] We tend not to make superfluous posts (with few exceptions) so in general you'll only see the most official of announcements from us. With that said... our [url="http://forums.cnsymphony.com"]forums[/url] and channel #symphony are pretty lively so please feel free to stop in some time. [quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1338428829' post='2974910']I honestly didn't expect this announcement to get so much attention. I feel like a celebrity =D[/quote] [quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1338430024' post='2974922']I bet you didn't think you would get this much press Symphony [/quote] I'm going to blame all this attention on our obviously beautiful artistic collaboration. Dat sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Tell me arexes, is your blood [u][i][b]LITERALLY[/b][/i][/u] boiling over this? Also, hi Roq. Funny seeing you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1338473960' post='2975145'] Tell me arexes, is your blood [u][i][b]LITERALLY[/b][/i][/u] boiling over this? Also, hi Roq. Funny seeing you here. [/quote] I don't thinks so, he always posts like that. Congrats Umbrella, I will keep cheering you on, the Genmay is still in you Edited May 31, 2012 by Timmehhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'm glad to see that Umbrella has rethought their policy of announcing treaties on the OWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 It was cancellations, not signings. I mean, if there were silent treaty signings or secret treaties outside of FAN, that'd be mildly interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) edit: double post Edited May 31, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1338482967' post='2975168'] It was cancellations, not signings. I mean, if there were silent treaty signings or secret treaties outside of FAN, that'd be mildly interesting. [/quote] That's disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1338483896' post='2975173'] That's disappointing. [/quote] How so? I don't really get the whole thing with public cancellations when most people hate public anything. It's kind of like "well let's !@#$%* about non-public cancellations alienating people from politics," but at the same time let's denounce anyone who starts drama as being bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1338482788' post='2975167'] I'm glad to see that Umbrella has rethought their policy of announcing treaties on the OWF. [/quote] Actually, I technically had no permission or authority to announce this. I'm a generic diplomat and hold no official gov position. I just got tired of waiting, and after realizing it'd probably take another day or two for someone in Umbrella to photoshop some fancy sigs for us, I just crudely sketched them MSPaint-style and posted this without asking anyone first. That said, this treaty is still the real deal, I just jumped the gun on it. I'm whimsical like that. Edited May 31, 2012 by LegendoftheSkies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1338414003' post='2974707'] We also both know that you've not been entirely truthful with the people you tried to sell us out to so cut the !@#$. [/quote] Two things. 1) We did not 'sell' you out. We (and you too) had an obligation to keep IRON out of trouble. We tried (several times too) to make sure the idea that was floating around in PB was shot down but it wasn't. So you (all of PB) forced our hand in the decisions we had to make following that. You made sure we had to pick. We choose IRON because they are a better ally than Umb ever was (not entirely your fault, mind you). If anything, you sold you out, or you sold IRON out. It's either not neither. 2) I'm not sure what or who told you what we said or have said or are saying but all of it is 100% correct. So it's either a distorted version you are hearing or I don't know. [quote]And I hope you know that IRC also logs the things which you say as well as what other people say, I got some real good stuff on you. [/quote] I don't favor posting logs. And haven't had too. My problem with Umb's current attitude is that you are backtracking an awfully lot atm. You are basically saying such things we are talking about did not exist. I'm simply baffled at why you would claim such a thing. It's far easier to say a) you didn't mean it that way, or b) you meant it but wouldn't taken action on it. But that's just me. Oh and everyone and his daughter knows I dislike a portion of PF (mainly Gramlins), all of SF and XX and yes I don't particularly care for Valhalla either. Closing remark: I think it's a slippery slope were we are heading that neither of us really want to pursue for logical reasons and for the fact that we are still very much ingrained in each other's FA (we share good friends). So to spare them the trouble of seeing us fighting I will depart this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1338473960' post='2975145'] Tell me arexes, is your blood [u][i][b]LITERALLY[/b][/i][/u] boiling over this? Also, hi Roq. Funny seeing you here. [/quote] Literally not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1338487940' post='2975199'] ........ SNIP I don't particularly care for Valhalla either. [/quote] Hey were growing on you it used to be you couldnt STAND us. See hard FA work does the job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 You are/were I very much like several individual people in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1338489510' post='2975217'] Hey were growing on you it used to be you couldnt STAND us. See hard FA work does the job [/quote] Well you guys don't call or write anymore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1338487940' post='2975199'] Two things. 1) We did not 'sell' you out. We (and you too) had an obligation to keep IRON out of trouble. We tried (several times too) to make sure the idea that was floating around in PB was shot down but it wasn't. So you (all of PB) forced our hand in the decisions we had to make following that. You made sure we had to pick. We choose IRON because they are a better ally than Umb ever was (not entirely your fault, mind you). If anything, you sold you out, or you sold IRON out. It's either not neither. 2) I'm not sure what or who told you what we said or have said or are saying but all of it is 100% correct. So it's either a distorted version you are hearing or I don't know. I don't favor posting logs. And haven't had too. My problem with Umb's current attitude is that you are backtracking an awfully lot atm. You are basically saying such things we are talking about did not exist. I'm simply baffled at why you would claim such a thing. It's far easier to say a) you didn't mean it that way, or b) you meant it but wouldn't taken action on it. But that's just me. Oh and everyone and his daughter knows I dislike a portion of PF (mainly Gramlins), all of SF and XX and yes I don't particularly care for Valhalla either. Closing remark: I think it's a slippery slope were we are heading that neither of us really want to pursue for logical reasons and for the fact that we are still very much ingrained in each other's FA (we share good friends). So to spare them the trouble of seeing us fighting I will depart this thread. [/quote] This is great because it's pretty much what I said Umbrella's allies would do afterwards for all of its "sacrifice." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Myth, how about you tell us how you really feel? I can't quite seem to figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1338490514' post='2975228'] Myth, how about you tell us how you really feel? I can't quite seem to figure it out. [/quote] I feel !@#$@#$ fantastic. Yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1338490514' post='2975228'] Myth, how about you tell us how you really feel? I can't quite seem to figure it out. [/quote] He feels like a prophet. HE TOLD YOU, MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.