Declaration of War

[firingline]

1 hour ago, jerdge said:

blah

 

 

Since when is breaking a "rule" the only thing that can start a war in Cyber Nations?

 

Virtually every war has been based on community-developed standards and 'rules'. To quote TC high gov:

 

Quote

Lyanna — 01/18/2024 8:43 PM Do not troll about people's real life it's a very real line
And it's not hard to follow

[Canik]

Did NG threaten IC war over it though?

[firingline]

1 hour ago, Canik said:

Did NG threaten IC war over it though?

 

According to you the only thing they should have done is reached out to Discord moderators.

 

According to Devo, they complained to him and NATO considered IC consequences (obviously they ultimately decided against them, but not for lack of trying on NG's part.) 

 

So to answer your question properly - yes, NG sought IC consequences for alleged OOC 'conversations'. 

[jerdge]

3 hours ago, firingline said:

Since when is breaking a "rule" the only thing that can start a war in Cyber Nations?

 

Virtually every war has been based on community-developed standards and 'rules'. To quote TC high gov:

Start wars for whatever reason you can conjure, or for no reason at all, for what I care. Exploit any RL stuff as an excuse (is it what you've been doing here, BTW?)... It's lame, lazy, bad form, but you're not breaking any hard rule by doing that.

And I don't care! You're entitled to put out cringeworthy performances all year round, if that's what you strive to. Have fun!

 

If and when you'll genuinely want to fix RL stuff through in game actions, instead, then my points will apply.

Address them or not: either way - I bet you guessed it! - I don't specifically care about what you specifically do.

[ADude]

5 hours ago, jerdge said:

[Sorry for the entirely OOC post, there's no IC way of addressing this thread.]

 

I've been against bringing RL stuff into the game since 2007. To be fair, I have rarely been listened to on this (and on so many other things!)

Nonetheless, against my best judgement, I'll try again...

 

 

RL offences need to be dealt with in RL.

 

1. If someone breaches some enforceable RL rule(s) in the process of attacking you in any way, have them rules enforced by those in charge of enforcing them.

Some analogies here are: an assault, call the cops; slander, hire a lawyer; breaking the platform's rules, bring it to the moderators. Usually there already are avenues designed for that, just make use of them.

 

2. If someone is nasty but they don't break any rule when attacking you in RL, while you have no actual leg to stand on, if you really feel aggravated and talking it out with them is not feasible, share it with your friends: for starters, they may provide you with suggestions, and in any way and at the very least they will help you get over it.

Of course, none of you should go vigilante against the offender: after all they didn't break any actual rule.

Your friends might have one or multiple talks with the offender, and in case they're friends with them too they might help with making peace in some way. Often your friends will break up with the offender or they will downgrade their relationship with them (if you're right, that's it), which can act as a deterrent against further attacks. (I personally wouldn't intentionally aim at it, anyway, as I think that meddling with others' relationship is manipulative and unhealthy.)

If it looks like the offender will attack you again and again, do everything you can to just ignore them. Again, basically every socially-oriented Internet stuff nowadays has features to enable users to ignore trolls: just use them without mercy.

Also: ask yourself why you should care about what someone intentionally being a dick is saying about you. What they're doing isn't worth your time, there's already too much idiocy around and you can't and shouldn't waste your time over it.

An analogy here is: someone abrasively making fun of you without crossing the line into hate speech, slander or other illegal stuff: ignore them and talk with your friends instead. Have fun!

 

I acknowledge that it can suck to be unable to force them to stop, but on the other hand you must realize that you can't and you won't (and you shouldn't) always have it your way. What if some unknown individual vandalizes your car and they also get away with it? Will you forever snarl about it, our will you claim agency over you time, and you'll just move on?

 

3. In no case you should try to use the game to set your RL counts straight. For starters, by design it can't work, as the game has no meaningful influence on RL. It's ridiculous and delusional. You'll look like you're trying to exploit a RL issue, maybe even a serious one, for your in-game ends. You'll pollute the game with unrelated stuff that a lot of people will be annoyed to just learn of. You'll jeopardize any chance of setting it straight in RL, where it belongs, instead. You'll reinforce bad precedents.

 

RL offences need to be dealt with in RL.

 

 

What if the OOC issue is against the IG entities IG charter and said entity will not hold the offender accountable IG? As well as considering that most of these OOC issues are focused on a small handful of individuals who report it but continually nothing is done about it (LWW shared screenshots of their own inaction on this).

 

Should we just drop the issue or would this not open them to attack to try and hold them accountable?

[Canik]

2 hours ago, firingline said:

 

According to you the only thing they should have done is reached out to Discord moderators.

 

According to Devo, they complained to him and NATO considered IC consequences (obviously they ultimately decided against them, but not for lack of trying on NG's part.) 

 

So to answer your question properly - yes, NG sought IC consequences for alleged OOC 'conversations'. 

So no, they did not threaten IC war over it. Thank you for your clear answer and not trying to spin it, btw.

[jerdge]

7 hours ago, ADude said:

What if the OOC issue is against the IG entities IG charter and said entity will not hold the offender accountable IG? As well as considering that most of these OOC issues are focused on a small handful of individuals who report it but continually nothing is done about it (LWW shared screenshots of their own inaction on this).

 

Should we just drop the issue or would this not open them to attack to try and hold them accountable?

In game you can't hold them accountable for what they do/did IRL, it's delusional to think otherwise.

 

IG documents or rules that attempt to police RL behavior with IG actions are confused in scope and should be fixed.

Most if not all CN sub-communities also have a RL counterparts, though: it makes sense to set up rules for the RL interactions within and between such communities. Such rules may establish RL sanctions for RL transgressions, up to the forcible removal from the RL community and communication channels/infrastructure, which could also imply expulsion from the IG entity as well.

The crucial part of this is that a given RL community can absolutely act incoherently with their rules as they're stated, which definitely is bad form, but doing so again is something that happens IRL and should remain strictly there. Again, trying to hold them accountable in game for what they do/did IRL is a nonstarter.

 

You should do what you feel like doing about the issue, if it was me I'd definitely drop/avoid raising it

in game.

 

I can't say what I'd do off game as I don't know what actually happened.

(This is a good occasion to invite anyone somehow feeling the urge of sharing any details with me, to please first consider that I'd rather not spend my time on them, thank you.)

 

Edited June 28 by jerdge
typo

[Johnny Apocalypse]

11 hours ago, firingline said:

 

Since when is breaking a "rule" the only thing that can start a war in Cyber Nations?

 

Virtually every war has been based on community-developed standards and 'rules'. To quote TC high gov:

 

 

You're right; rules exist based on whether the community agrees they are a precedent that should be followed. Appropriate use of team-sanctions; providing assistance to parties engaged in open war; violating a set of agreed terms in a peace treaty etc.

 

 

It's worth nothing that actual rules, as determined by the creator of this universe that go beyond what we as a community think are appropriate have been introduced too. One example of conduct where certain actions due to the IRL implications of IC conduct? The outlawing of imposing Viceroys on other alliances as a term for surrender, specifically if they involve handing over root admin access to alliance forums. This was introduced in response to NPO doing precisely that, as it would be considered tantamount to theft of personal property.

 

IC actions can translate into action being taken to prevent OOC transgressions in the future, though I doubt  the above example is one that was intended. So you may be lucky and something may be done to prevent this, but I feel a clear distinction needs to be made that while most of us would agree that it is not appropriate to use personal details to accomplish IC goals? Your approach is not which ought to be something the community is left to deal with via IC means.

 

It's been said a few times now; these infractions should be the remit of an impartial moderation team, but evidently god is dead (there used to be a time where coming vaguely close to crossing that line resulted in being given a warning, whereas this has now gone on for 15 pages and that garrys mod player is still outside) which is why you consider this a viable approach. Which I don't blame you for trying but I do know it's not worked in the past.

 

 

19 hours ago, A1ph4 0m3ga said:

AO here: Retired CCC gov and retiring CN nation ruler

I want to hand out the official "e-lawyer" certificates to all involved in the above discussions. You have all succesfully completed your honorary doctorates and can officially put in your ruler signature: Certified E-Lawyer, Planet Bob School of Law, Digiterra University. 

 

the tl;dr for all those who don't want to read 14 pages of back and forth

 

-JA makes long posts

 

Enjoy your day! Touch the grass of your wonderful nations, unless you're fl whose nation is a smoldering crater of nuclear fire. Goodbye!

 

Finally someone recognises the one universal truth of this thread. Looking around; it seems to be catching on!

 

To everyone who has since made post consisting of more than 1 paragraph:

I ain't readin' all that; but I'm happy for you or sorry that happened tho

Edited June 28 by Johnny Apocalypse

[firingline]

7 hours ago, Canik said:

So no, they did not threaten IC war over it. Thank you for your clear answer and not trying to spin it, btw.

 

Of course they didn’t. I was in NATO. They wouldn’t threaten NATO with war.

 

The only one spinning anything is you. NG attempted an IC remedy to what they falsely claimed was an OOC attack. What that IC remedy is may vary based on politics. But your POINT was that OOC and IC are separate, and NG sure doesn’t see it that way. 

[Franz Ferdinand]

It does appear that Firingline has been able to sneak into Peace Mode. A failed stagger?

[firingline]

54 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

It does appear that Firingline has been able to sneak into Peace Mode. A failed stagger?

 

CCC lets FTW declare one war and it all goes to hell.

[Lyanna Mormont]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:08 AM, firingline said:

 

Of course they didn’t. I was in NATO. They wouldn’t threaten NATO with war.

 

The only one spinning anything is you. NG attempted an IC remedy to what they falsely claimed was an OOC attack. What that IC remedy is may vary based on politics. But your POINT was that OOC and IC are separate, and NG sure doesn’t see it that way. 

 

Lyanna: Firing Line keep your comments IC

 

Firing Line: I WILL SAY WHAT I WANT AND YOU WILL DEAL WITH IT SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

Lyanna: Warden and Devo, can you talk to Firing Line about the OOC comments towards my member, thanks. 

 

Warden: Yeah, he should not be doing that

 

Firing Line: SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NON GRATA CBDSJKBCJKDSBNJKCDS BLAH BLAG ACNJKDSCJKNDSCDSJK SCREEEEEEEEEE 

 

Lyanna: so anyway

 

[DavidMustaine]

3 hours ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

Lyanna: Firing Line keep your comments IC

 

Firing Line: I WILL SAY WHAT I WANT AND YOU WILL DEAL WITH IT SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

Lyanna: Warden and Devo, can you talk to Firing Line about the OOC comments towards my member, thanks. 

 

Warden: Yeah, he should not be doing that

 

Firing Line: SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NON GRATA CBDSJKBCJKDSBNJKCDS BLAH BLAG ACNJKDSCJKNDSCDSJK SCREEEEEEEEEE 

 

Lyanna: so anyway

 

non grata:  We love trolling

 

random person trolls non grata

 

non grata:  

[firingline]

14 hours ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

Lyanna: Firing Line keep your comments IC

 

Firing Line: I WILL SAY WHAT I WANT AND YOU WILL DEAL WITH IT SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

Lyanna: Warden and Devo, can you talk to Firing Line about the OOC comments towards my member, thanks. 

 

Warden: Yeah, he should not be doing that

 

Firing Line: SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NON GRATA CBDSJKBCJKDSBNJKCDS BLAH BLAG ACNJKDSCJKNDSCDSJK SCREEEEEEEEEE 

 

Lyanna: so anyway

 

 

That's an interesting representation of what you claim happened, because Warden didn't talk to me. Devo didn't either. Or Gear. No matter what Warden may or may not have said to placate you, not a single member of NATO was concerned enough about the incident to even talk to me about it.

 

Let's be super clear - nobody made personal attacks to your member (which is why you're trying to use terms like 'ooc comment', which isn't really a thing). I engaged your member on a topic he brought up to me several times in a row. Only one person ever complained about it - you. And it's no coincidence it happened hours after I publicly contradicted you on something and you got very upset about it. You thought you saw an opening to weaponize victimhood (again), and you just embarrassed yourself, because nobody cared.

 

Edit: 

 

Let me be clear: I'll never personally attack anyone. It's what I'm standing up against right now (and, for the record, what your alliance is fighting for.) Hell, even if my IC trolling starts hurting someone's feelings, I'll back off. Apologize even. It just doesn't matter. None of this is worth making somebody feel that badly.

 

Frankly, the fact that you're trying to seize on a good-natured conversation to portray your side as the victims, all in the interest of backing someone who actually continually personally attacks others, is pretty gross. I haven't once seen you criticize Armen's behavior in this thread. For someone so sensitive to even the slightest "OOC comment", it's hard to understand.

 

Be better.

Edited July 3 by firingline

[CrinkledStraw]

January 18: “If he didn’t want to discuss it he didn’t need to bring it up”

Lyanna: “The person being talked about here has told me that they do not appreciate the OOC comments.”

The person never told anybody anything about 'not liking ooc comments

I also reached out to the other person and said 'hey, Lyanna seems to be implying that there's something hurtful in what I said - if there's something in there that I touched on that I shouldn't have, I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional...'

 

And I’m sure the other person’s response validates your words and you’d be happy to post it. 

 

June 25: “So it's his fault you repeatedly personally attacked him because he shouldn't have said anything about his life in the first place?”
That’s literally what you said on January 18. 
 

[Mogar]

A good natured conversation is some interesting verbiage.

[Bionic redhead]

18 hours ago, DavidMustaine said:

non grata:  We love trolling

 

random person trolls non grata

 

non grata:  

 

On 6/26/2024 at 11:58 PM, cobwebbyarc6 said:

How many times does someone need to say that victim blaming is not okay?

 

[firingline]

8 hours ago, CrinkledStraw said:

January 18: “If he didn’t want to discuss it he didn’t need to bring it up”

Lyanna: “The person being talked about here has told me that they do not appreciate the OOC comments.”

The person never told anybody anything about 'not liking ooc comments

I also reached out to the other person and said 'hey, Lyanna seems to be implying that there's something hurtful in what I said - if there's something in there that I touched on that I shouldn't have, I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional...'

 

And I’m sure the other person’s response validates your words and you’d be happy to post it. 

 

June 25: “So it's his fault you repeatedly personally attacked him because he shouldn't have said anything about his life in the first place?”
That’s literally what you said on January 18. 
 

 

There's a world of difference between the two scenarios. It's obviously not as simple as "if it's said on Discord then who cares."

 

Armen used a piece of personal info he gleaned from Discord conversations to personally attack Spectre in a way he thought would be especially hurtful during a completely unrelated conversation months later.

 

I responded to Paul's repeated attempts to engage on the topic of his drinking that night (he brought up drinking in the context of IC actions several times in a row to the point where it became clear he wanted to discuss it and it would be rude not to.) My response was good-natured, on-topic, and not designed to be hurtful to Paul. I didn't wait until six months later during an unrelated argument to bring it up in a way meant to humiliate or enrage Paul.

 

NG keeps trying to conflate things. Not every OOC discussion is bad. There are hundreds of OOC discussions each day on Discord. What's bad are OOC personal attacks. That's something Armen has done, not me. 

 

 BTW, here's some example of 'OOC comments' in response to conversations about drinking that Lyanna would find "problematic". From your own channel. Interesting that these folks have not been kicked out of NG yet.

 

Quote

[2:05 AM]Waffles: have you considered getting slightly less drunk?

 

 

Quote

[1:11 AM]CrinkledRietje: She’s very drunk celebrating the Bruins win

 

Quote

[9:58 PM]pinnnie the woohbl: Is this my name but slurred in a drunk manner?

 

Quote

7:34 PM]Jerby is typing…: go home. yer drunk

 

Quote

[9:14 PM]weebl6000: Got 28 recordings of just you being drunk

 

There's dozens more pages of this. Many of these statements are more offensive than what I said, and don't follow someone bringing up the topic of themselves drinking several times in a row. 

 

These kinds of conversations have long been seen as reasonable by the CN community. But if Lyanna disagrees and wants to shift the culture, she should start by kicking out each of these members. Until then, I'm tired of the crocodile tears. Non Grata most certainly does not care about stuff like this, unless they can use it to further their own political goals.

Edited July 3 by firingline

[Lyanna Mormont]

2 hours ago, firingline said:

 

There's a world of difference between the two scenarios. It's obviously not as simple as "if it's said on Discord then who cares."

 

Armen used a piece of personal info he gleaned from Discord conversations to personally attack Spectre in a way he thought would be especially hurtful during a completely unrelated conversation months later.

 

I responded to Paul's repeated attempts to engage on the topic of his drinking that night (he brought up drinking in the context of IC actions several times in a row to the point where it became clear he wanted to discuss it and it would be rude not to.) My response was good-natured, on-topic, and not designed to be hurtful to Paul. I didn't wait until six months later during an unrelated argument to bring it up in a way meant to humiliate or enrage Paul.

 

NG keeps trying to conflate things. Not every OOC discussion is bad. There are hundreds of OOC discussions each day on Discord. What's bad are OOC personal attacks. That's something Armen has done, not me. 

 

 BTW, here's some example of 'OOC comments' in response to conversations about drinking that Lyanna would find "problematic". From your own channel. Interesting that these folks have not been kicked out of NG yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's dozens more pages of this. Many of these statements are more offensive than what I said, and don't follow someone bringing up the topic of themselves drinking several times in a row. 

 

These kinds of conversations have long been seen as reasonable by the CN community. But if Lyanna disagrees and wants to shift the culture, she should start by kicking out each of these members. Until then, I'm tired of the crocodile tears. Non Grata most certainly does not care about stuff like this, unless they can use it to further their own political goals.

 

The difference is you and the NG member were discussing CN TE. It was a conversation about Cybernations and you were insulting him about his real life while in the middle of a conversation about Cybernations. The above examples have zero to do with anything in the game. Weaponizing real life and obviously OOC conversations in an IC forum is not appreciated.

 

The real issue is, you were asked to keep Ooc comments out of an IC argument and you had a tantrum. 

 

 

Edited July 3 by Lyanna Mormont
spelling is so hard

[firingline]

31 minutes ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

The difference is you and the NG member were discussing CN TE. It was a conversation about Cybernations and you were insulting him about his real life while in the middle of a conversation about Cybernations. The above examples have zero to do with anything in the game. Weaponizing real life and obviously OOC conversations in an IC forum is not appreciated.

 

The real issue is, you were asked to keep Ooc comments out of an IC argument and you had a tantrum. 

 

 

 

You're lying. To be clear, I did not "insult him". It was also not a "discussion about cybernations" nor was it an "IC argument." It was a discussion about drinking. I was not the one who brought up the drinking - Paul did, repeatedly. Just as your members have in your channel.

 

If you dispute my characterization, you're free to post uncensored logs to prove your point. Include each time Paul referenced drinking, and my response. (Oh wait, you won't, as it would destroy your argument.)

 

I will also say - you can't have it both ways. If it was an IC conversation, why was Paul bringing up drinking? Was he bringing it up IC? If so, what's the problem with my response. If it was OOC, then per your own standards that's OK. So which one was it?

 

The only one weaponizing anything here is you. You were being a petulant child and trying to get somebody "in trouble" because you were mad that you lost a debate to them earlier. Unfortunately for you, nobody agreed with you back then, and we have plenty of proof from your Discord that you don't really care about OOC comments regarding alcohol. 

Edited July 3 by firingline

[firingline]

@Lyanna Mormont I'd also like to call on you to address the issue at hand, rather than trying to drag this conversation into the muck. Gaslighting is bad.

 

As apparently the leading anti-OOC figure in Cookout, concerned about even the hint of impropriety, I would love to hear your stance on the repeated personal / OOC attacks coming from your ally.

 

Then again you had a member running around with the nickname of 13/50 and shouting the "N" word and said if people have a problem with it that's on them, so it kinda seems less like you have and principles and more like you just want whatever is politically expedient for Non Grata.

Edited July 3 by firingline

[Gh0s7]

7 hours ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

The difference is you and the NG member were discussing CN TE. It was a conversation about Cybernations and you were insulting him about his real life while in the middle of a conversation about Cybernations. The above examples have zero to do with anything in the game. Weaponizing real life and obviously OOC conversations in an IC forum is not appreciated.

 

The real issue is, you were asked to keep Ooc comments out of an IC argument and you had a tantrum. 

 

 

In the interest of a good faith argument. Do you have logs or proof of some kind, of the member raising the issue with you at or around the time of the situation arising? Seeing his complaint would solidify your argument, and given the identity has already been acknowledged on both sides, there would be no further harm by providing it. It would also diminish FLs claim that you are acting purely out of your own interests and not theirs. You can redact any additional information comprised in the complaint for the sake of privacy

Edited July 3 by Gh0s7

[firingline]

6 minutes ago, Gh0s7 said:

In the interest of a good faith argument. Do you have logs or proof of some kind, of Paul raising the issue with you at or around the time of the situation arising? Seeing his complaint would solidify your argument, and given the identity has already been acknowledged on both sides, there would be no further harm by providing it. It would also diminish FLs claim that you are acting purely out of your own interests and not Pauls. You can redact any additional information comprised in the complaint for the sake of privacy

 

I'm sure she doesn't, considering I reached out privately to Paul to try to find out if there was a subject I should stay away from. I was completely caught off-guard that anybody had any problem with that comment. It was such a non-issue until Lyanna started freaking out. (Which, again, was TOTALLY unrelated to the argument earlier that day she was seething about!)

 

I'm happy to stay away from things that trigger Paul if I know about them. But if somebody is jokingly trash-talking about drinking and how they intend to roll me several times in a row (clearly looking for conversation on the topic), flipping back a quick "have another drink!" seems like an incredibly reasonable, friendly response.

Edited July 3 by firingline

[CrinkledStraw]

One side continues to say the person’s name even after being asked not to, but of course you wouldn’t bring personal things up in a way that could be hurtful months later. That would heinous.

 

And, again, just because you reached out to the person, doesn’t make you right. They clearly didn’t say anything back to you.

[okonkwo]

I read all 15 pages of this and I’m absolutely dumber for it. 
 

*I was already dumb, but am now dumber.

 

Edited July 3 by okonkwo
Clarification