Declaration of War

[firingline]

13 minutes ago, CrinkledStraw said:

Post what was said between the five days where you wanted to have a rules decided beforehand duel and the creation of this thread. 

 

I won't log drop as BritishDude specifically mentioned his concerns about that.

 

But we recapped Armen's history of personal attacks, I reiterated my concern, I explained that the last time this happened AO had taken it pretty seriously and considered Armen to be on something of a short leash.

 

BD spoke to LWW and to one of the people that Armen personally attacked. BD claimed that Armen is subject to their charter, and punishment could be up to expulsion, but that BD did not want to litigate the past and did not feel the current incident rose to the level of action, which was reasonable to us.

 

We ultimately landed on the least Nukes6 could live with was a commitment that if Armen commits a fourth personal attack in the future, functionally the same as the first two and of course in the absence of coercion (i.e. we can't personally attack him, wait for a response in-kind, and go running to gov with that), that CCC would likely move forward with an expulsion.

 

The answer was no.

 

As a result, Nukes6 declared war.

 

Edited June 19 by firingline

[firingline]

2 minutes ago, Canik said:

Definitely don't follow them around continuing to engage and insult. Simply blocking and ignoring the person might have worked. You should at least try it first.

 

The latest incident began when Armen started trolling me out of the blue. I hadn't 'followed' him around, engaged him, or insulted him. I got a ping, checked it, and it was Armen trolling. 

 

Again - the onus is not on me to avoid an attack. The onus is on the attacker to, y'know, not personally attack people.

[CrinkledStraw]

3 minutes ago, firingline said:

 

I won't log drop as BD specifically mentioned his concerns about that.

 

But we recapped Armen's history of personal attacks, I reiterated my concern, I explained that the last time this happened AO had taken it pretty seriously and considered Armen to be on something of a short leash.

 

BD spoke to LWW and to one of the people that Armen personally attacked. BD claimed that Armen is subject to their charter, and punishment could be up to expulsion, but that BD did not want to litigate the past and did not feel the current incident rose to the level of action, which was reasonable to us.

 

We ultimately landed on the least Nukes6 could live with was a commitment that if Armen commits a fourth personal attack in the future, functionally the same as the first two and of course in the absence of coercion (i.e. we can't personally attack him, wait for a response in-kind, and go running to gov with that), that CCC would likely move forward with an expulsion.

 

The answer was no.

 

As a result, Nukes6 declared war.

 

 

So nothing. 
Thanks, as I expected. 

[firingline]

3 minutes ago, CrinkledStraw said:

 

So nothing. 
Thanks, as I expected. 

 

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

[CrinkledStraw]

Just now, firingline said:

 

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

 

Post what was said between the five days where you wanted to have a rules decided beforehand duel and the creation of this thread. 

[ADude]

1 hour ago, CrinkledStraw said:

 

Post what was said between the five days where you wanted to have a rules decided beforehand duel and the creation of this thread. 

 

Or Armen could just you know...

 

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

[lilweirdward]

1 hour ago, firingline said:

The latest incident began when Armen started trolling me out of the blue. I hadn't 'followed' him around, engaged him, or insulted him.

Ok fine, blatantly lying in the stupidest way possible will finally be what baits me into responding to you directly. 
 

“The latest incident” occurred on 4/16. You posted this on 4/15.

 

And before you say that this isn’t when the latest incident occurred, I actually agree. On 4/5, you changed your nation description to the following, which Armen noticed on 4/14 after you created Nuke6, leading to your exchange that you quoted in the post above:

 

 

You’ve harassed Armen relentlessly and continuously for years, and if you think I don’t have the receipts to prove it, just ask around. 

[firingline]

36 minutes ago, lilweirdward said:

Ok fine, blatantly lying

 

Nobody's blatantly lying. You, of course, are conveniently leaving out half of the story to portray me as having initiated this latest conflict. But it's not true.

 

Armen began trolling me about my wars with GATO, which occurred before all of that (mid to late March).

 

Quote

You’ve harassed Armen relentlessly and continuously for years, and if you think I don’t have the receipts to prove it, just ask around. 

 

You don't. It's why your fellow gov thinks this happened "several years ago" - because those are the receipts you've provided. You selectively provide 'receipts' to portray an inaccurate picture of what happened.

 

It hasn't mattered that, for the most part, we laid off Armen pretty significantly. (I won't claim to be perfect, but what should it matter - occasional IC trolling is not justification for personal insults.) The second I popped into the news, he was back to trolling, becoming enraged, and launching OOC attacks. Just like he always does.

 

This all goes back to point number 3 or 4 in your strategy of "flooding the zone with !@#$." Even if I had initiated the conversation in which Armen personally attacked others, it just doesn't matter. Because: 

 

> 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

 

FURTHER, this conflict began after our final attempt to resolve this issue, when we asked CCC gov if they'd boot Armen if there was a future fourth personal attack that was unprovoked. CCC would not commit to that. Which proves it's not about what I do, you were just flat-out fine with him getting away with personal attacks - even unprovoked personal attacks.

Edited June 20 by firingline

[CrinkledStraw]

1 hour ago, ADude said:

 

Or Armen could just you know...

 

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

So go ahead ahead and post where Armen trolled FL about his real life in that five day span. 

[ADude]

7 minutes ago, CrinkledStraw said:

So go ahead ahead and post where Armen trolled FL about his real life in that five day span. 

Fortunately I am not privy to FL’s conversations nor do I choose to be, but with that said I do enjoy your effort to keep moving the goal post whenever your side is refuted in the slightest.

[firingline]

21 minutes ago, CrinkledStraw said:

So go ahead ahead and post where Armen trolled FL about his real life in that five day span. 

 

What are you going on about?

 

The five-day span was the time when I was negotiating regarding the personal attacks that had taken place prior. 

 

I don't understand what point you're trying to get at here, but you seem to have absolutely no idea what's going on here and seem to be just attempting to deflect from NG's ally behaving in a way that NG has publicly said is unacceptable. I won't let you steer the conversation further off-topic, so don't expect further responses to your tangents.

Edited June 20 by firingline

[CrinkledStraw]

1 hour ago, ADude said:

Fortunately I am not privy to FL’s conversations nor do I choose to be, but with that said I do enjoy your effort to keep moving the goal post whenever your side is refuted in the slightest.

My goalposts have been planted the entire time, and it’s not a tangent when someone sticks to one topic.

 

Just say you wanted a war with armen, as you clearly did. That would be more respectable. 
 

I’m not deflecting from his actions, because I don’t believe you. You weren’t upset when you wanted your fun little rules decided before hand duel, and now it’s a problem. Sure. 
 

My points, the entire time, have been: The reason for this war is quite silly (you instigate), and show the proof.

Edited June 20 by CrinkledStraw

[CrinkledStraw]

3 hours ago, firingline said:

 

I won't log drop as BritishDude specifically mentioned his concerns about that.

 

But we recapped Armen's history of personal attacks, I reiterated my concern, I explained that the last time this happened AO had taken it pretty seriously and considered Armen to be on something of a short leash.

 

BD spoke to LWW and to one of the people that Armen personally attacked. BD claimed that Armen is subject to their charter, and punishment could be up to expulsion, but that BD did not want to litigate the past and did not feel the current incident rose to the level of action, which was reasonable to us.

 

We ultimately landed on the least Nukes6 could live with was a commitment that if Armen commits a fourth personal attack in the future, functionally the same as the first two and of course in the absence of coercion (i.e. we can't personally attack him, wait for a response in-kind, and go running to gov with that), that CCC would likely move forward with an expulsion.

 

The answer was no.

 

As a result, Nukes6 declared war.

 

Also, they didn’t want to litigate the past, the most recent issue was nothing, he is subject to their charter, but you got upset at that and declared war.

 

Like I said, nothing happened recently, and this is silly. You wanted war. Just say that.

[Lyanna Mormont]

5 hours ago, firingline said:

TC has plenty to say about personal attacks…

 

Here’s NG’s take:

 

> 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

 

But, you know, it’s inconvenient to their cause right now, so they’re just going to pretend it’s totally not a big deal at all.

 

I am going to provide some context for why the above quote exists. I have redacted parts of the conversation because otherwise it would be a form of doxxing and an OOC attack. The blacked out parts are there to not share information about a person's real life. 

 

 

This is from the Alpha Wolves TE server. The person being talked  about here has told me that they do not appreciate the OOC comments. As a leader, I believe very strongly in supporting my alliance members. Hence my call out to Firing Line for repeatedly using a person's real life activities as an insult in a gameplay discussion. That was Firing Line's response which continued into DM as seen here:

 

 

 

Firing Line was not receptive to the conversation and I chose to give up talking to him directly and instead pointed out the conversation in Wolves TE to Devo and Warden. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 20 by Lyanna Mormont
updated image to remove name

[CrinkledStraw]

I’m shocked! Shocked I say! FL is the victim here! 😂

[firingline]

1 hour ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

I am going to provide some context for why the above quote exists.

 

Unfortunately, you've chosen to do the opposite. No reasonable person starts the screenshots at my response and says that's "context". You even went so far as to black out Lenin and Kersch's comments, which is strange. Unfortunately I don't have access to those logs at this time, so I can't provide direct play-by-play, but the actual context went something like this.

 

-Earlier, you had gotten into some sort of argument with me.

-Paul repeatedly made (OOC: IC jokes) about how he was drinking, and was going to attack me (in TE). As I recall, he was clearly fishing for a response, because he mentioned it several times in a row. Everything was fine and lighthearted on both sides.

-I responded back to his trolls with 'have another beer, Paul', or something to that effect. Thought absolutely nothing of it. Paul said absolutely nothing about it.

-You later publicly, aggressively confronted me about my statement. That's now how normal adults handle situations like that. You could have nicely DM'd me to discuss if you perceived an issue. But it wasn't about helping Paul. It was about attacking me, because you were mad about our earlier argument.

 

Quote

 

The person being talked  about here has told me that they do not appreciate the OOC comments

 

 

I like how you try to get creative in calling it an 'OOC comment' (even though it wasn't), because it was certainly not an attack. But:

 

-Talking about normal day-to-day activities (like drinking a few beers) repeatedly in comments to others, certainly opens you up to reasonable responses referencing that topic. There's nothing inappropriate about that.

-Not all OOC discussions are bad - OOC attacks are bad. And you're clearly attempting to blur the line between the two.

-Paul never told anybody anything about 'not liking ooc comments' (again, 'ooc comments' being a strange new phrase here.)

-I don't recall Paul ever conveying to me that he had issues with me discussing the topic of drinking a beer. If he had, I happily would've honored his request. He actually had clearly been fishing for a response from me, because every time I ignored his statement he said it again, so I thought it was reasonable banter.

 

 

 

Additionally, not that it matters, you didn't "give up talking to me." I told you repeatedly the conversation was over and to leave me alone.

 

Devo and Warden clearly had absolutely no issue with what you pointed out, because they never said a word to me. I reached out to Devo and had a short convo - he clearly had no issues, all he said is 'you know you're Lys favorite person.' I also discussed it with Kersch who, while backing your complaints as genuinely felt, agreed that I hadn't really done anything wrong. I also reached out to Paul 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. Meant nothing by it, just thought it was playful banter. Happy to talk if you want.'

 

So - there's your full context.

 

That being said, if you have a major problem with me saying 'have another drink, Paul' in response to him saying several times he was drinking and going to attack me (ooc 'comments' lmao), then I can't imagine how furious you were at actual malicious personal attacks. Odd you don't seem to have much to say about that subject.

Edited June 20 by firingline

[KameraadLenin]

y'all are just rogues lmao. this mentality of saying you offended my IRL so im going to punish you in game in ridiculous.

are you able to take legal action? no?
did you report it to discord and did discord take action? no?
did you block the person, ban the person from your discord, or leave their discord? no?

then this is some highschool BS.

this could have easily been dealt with by the offended individuals involved just not speaking to each other anymore, truly as simple as that.

Anything afterwards is a pathetically disingenuous attempt at extorting CCC to kick out a member because of a personal dispute that took place completely outside the official venues of the game (the forums, and CN itself.)

Either the IC/OOC divide exists, or it does not. If someone treated you like that in real life, a mature person would just stop talking to you and cut contact, which is exactly what happened months ago between the individuals involved

Firingline's circus is just them taking an OOC dispute and punishing people IC, who have nothing to do with or even want to be involved with a dispute that happened out of game between private individuals.

you do not get to bring OOC accusations into your IC actions and expect there to be no IC consequences.

You are all rogues, and you will be treated as such, by everyone else's standards who have ever mattered in this game.
I'll remind you NG wasn't even a "real alliance" when we rogued on IRON during that war, we had to make peace with all offended parties before we got to normalize our relations with pretty much everyone else in the game. If NG wasn't a "real alliance" when we rogued IRON, there aint no shot that FL's circus is, and I dont think many alliances across the web would want to legitimize something like this.
 

Edited June 20 by KameraadLenin

[Lyanna Mormont]

22 minutes ago, firingline said:

 

Unfortunately, you've chosen to do the opposite. No reasonable person starts the screenshots at my response and says that's "context". You even went so far as to black out Lenin and Kersch's comments, which is strange. Unfortunately I don't have access to those logs at this time, so I can't provide direct play-by-play, but the actual context went something like this.

 

-Earlier, you had gotten into some sort of argument with me.

-Paul repeatedly made jokes about how he was drinking, and was going to attack me (in TE). As I recall, he was clearly fishing for a response, because he mentioned it several times in a row. Everything was fine and lighthearted on both sides.

-I responded back to his trolls with 'have another beer, Paul', or something to that effect. Thought absolutely nothing of it. Paul said absolutely nothing about it.

-You later publicly, aggressively confronted me about my statement. That's now how normal adults handle situations like that. If Paul had disclosed to you that he was sensitive to the topic of alcohol (which is weird, considering he had just bragged about it several times) you could have nicely DM'd me to discuss. But it wasn't about helping Paul. It was about attacking me, because you were mad about our earlier argument.

 

 

I like how you try to get creative in calling it an 'OOC comment', because it was certainly not an attack. But:

 

-Talking about normal day-to-day activities (like drinking a few beers) repeatedly in comments to others, certainly opens you up to reasonable responses referencing that topic. There's nothing inappropriate about that.

-Not all OOC discussions are bad - OOC attacks are bad. And you're clearly attempting to blur the line between the two.

-Paul never told anybody anything about 'not liking ooc comments' (again, 'ooc comments' being a strange new phrase here.)

-I don't recall Paul ever conveying to me that he had issues with me discussing the topic of alcohol.If he had, I happily would've honored his request. He actually had clearly been fishing for a response from me, because every time I ignored his statement he said it again, so I thought it was reasonable banter.

 

 

 

Additionally, not that it matters, you didn't "give up talking to me." I told you repeatedly the conversation was over and to leave me alone.

 

Devo and Warden clearly had absolutely no issue with what you pointed out, because they never said a word to me. I reached out to Devo and had a short convo - he clearly had no issues, all he said is 'you know you're Lys favorite person.' I also discussed it with Kersch who, while backing your complaints as genuinely felt, agreed that I hadn't really done anything wrong. I also reached out to Paul 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. Meant nothing by it, just thought it was playful banter. Happy to talk if you want.'

 

So - there's your full context.

 

That being said, if you have a major problem with me saying 'have another drink, Paul' in response to him saying several times he was drinking and going to attack me (ooc 'comments' lmao), then I can't imagine how furious you were at actual malicious personal attacks. Odd you don't seem to have much to say about that subject.

 

Moderation:

 

Please remove the above quoted post for featuring OOC information about a CN player. This is a vagrant violation and why I edited the post to not include OOC information. 

 

Again, Firing Line, keep OOC comments out of IC discussions. This is beneath you. 

 

[firingline]

7 minutes ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

Moderation:

 

Please remove the above quoted post for featuring OOC information about a CN player. This is a vagrant violation and why I edited the post to not include OOC information. 

 

Again, Firing Line, keep OOC comments out of IC discussions. This is beneath you. 

 

 

(OOC: There's no 'OOC information' there, nor is there any violation.)

 

You posted heavily redacted screenshots starting with my comment and ignoring all context implying I said something awful.

 

Unfortunately that leaves me with no choice but to describe what actually happened. If you did not want that, you should not have posted redacted screenshots all but accusing me of something I didn't do.  (OOC: But I certainly have not included any personal information or anything of the sort.)

Edited June 20 by firingline

[Lyanna Mormont]

2 minutes ago, firingline said:

 

There's no 'OOC information'.

 

A player, in chat, referenced having a beer. That's not "OOC information" nor is it a violation of anything. None of the information I've posted here is OOC.

 

In a discussion about CN TE you were arguing with the person about CN TE. In that gameplay discussion you told them to do something that was OOC and implied that they were arguing and being belligerent because of the OOC activity. The OOC activity has nothing to do with CN TE. The conversation was about CN and you brought real life into it. That is the problem. That was the problem then, and it is the problem now. His real life information should not be shared in an IC forum. 

 

 

[Caustic]

4 minutes ago, firingline said:

 

There's no 'OOC information'.

 

A player, in chat, referenced having a beer. That's not "OOC information" nor is it a violation of anything. None of the information I've posted here is OOC.

 

Discord is not Cybernations. You were asked to stop referencing the person's alcohol use. You refused to stop, now you're name dropping him here on the forums. Stay classy.

[firingline]

5 minutes ago, Caustic said:

You were asked to stop referencing the person's alcohol use.

 

By whom?

 

I was yelled at by Lyanna, with no idea about what the issue was at first.

 

Quote

You refused to stop, now you're name dropping him here on the forums. Stay classy.

 

I was careful to stop and did everything a reasonable person would do (including reaching out to discuss with Paul), although to this date the only person to complain about this is... Lyanna. Not anyone else.

 

The crocodile tears are pretty cute, though, Caustic. Lyanna brought screenshots about this to the forums, trying to inaccurately portray my actions for NG's political benefit. But now you're deeply offended because I've explained what really happened. Shocking.

 

But this is typical NG, desperately trying to redirect the topic since they have no explanation for their defense of CCC. I'd still like to understand where NG's criticism of Armen and CCC are at? This is clearly a very important subject to you, and not at all an example of pulling the victim card whenever it's politically convenient to NG, but ignoring blatant personal attacks when it's your allies' mouths they're coming from.

Edited June 20 by firingline

[cobwebbyarc6]

I'm getting confused.

I thought OOC attacks looked like this:

 

"You should rethink your life and how you're so obsessed with a text based game. I'm sure it's probably interfering with your marriage a bit."

 

It gets so messy when we change the rules, I guess.

[CrinkledStraw]

FL has proven himself, with his own words, wrong over and over. This part is especially good though. 

“If he didn’t want to discuss it, then he wouldn’t have brought it up.”

”I am perfectly allowed to reference it.”

 

So you can say anything you want OOC, but it’s bad if someone else does. Sure.

[firingline]

17 minutes ago, CrinkledStraw said:

FL has proven himself, with his own words, wrong over and over. This part is especially good though. 

“If he didn’t want to discuss it, then he wouldn’t have brought it up.”

”I am perfectly allowed to reference it.”

 

So you can say anything you want OOC, but it’s bad if someone else does. Sure.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant.

 

If I have a conversation with you and repeatedly mention having a few beers, it's totally OK for you to mention something back about me drinking a few beers. That's how normal human interactions work. I'm the one who brought up the topic. If I didn't want to discuss it, I wouldn't bring it up. By bringing it up, it is a cue that it is socially acceptable to reference that back in the conversation. By bringing it up multiple times when it isn't responded to, it is a social cue that you'd actually like the other person to reference it. The polite thing to do when someone brings a topic up to you repeatedly is to address it, not just 'ghost' the person.

 

...do you understand now?

Edited June 20 by firingline