Jump to content

An attack upon IRON


Finster Baby

Recommended Posts

I'd also like to report that the New Polar Order forums have been down for some time now. The server no longer exists. This may not be an isolated event

It is really sad to see people resorting to such low levels, our :wub: to you.

Down with the criminals and their fanbois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If we just chalk every reaction up to being a consequence, no matter how great or small, we're bound to create a greater tragedy.

I absolutely agree with you on this point.

IC matters should have IC responses, not OOC consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to report that the New Polar Order forums have been down for some time now. The server no longer exists. This may not be an isolated event

I offer Polaris the greatest of luck in getting their forums back up. This is very unfortunate news coming from a friend of IRON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is truly sad to see some old players of the game trying to justify such OOC attacks indirectly. I cannot comprehend that how IRON's IC defensive actions will lead to such OOC actions and how low of an attempt it is to put a spin on this.

I hope the tiny entourage of these people do not take any ideas here to justify such criminal actions against anyone in future. These attacks can only be condemned unconditionally.

If one doesnt like the game? Dont play. Life goes on, game goes on, but attacking someone's personal property is truly a cowardly act. And again such attacks reaffirm our stand as righteous, that we are on the right side, fighting those who justify and those who harbor such criminal intentions and ability to act in such a way. Down with cyber terrorists.

o\ IRON.

Oh god, not the horrid OOC attacks! People aren't justifying anything - at best they're merely observing a simple cause/effect relationship. This self-righteous mumbo-jumbo in the midst of an "OOC Forum" is a bit frightening, really.

:v:

We don't know who it was. So I think that is jumping to a pretty big conclusion that we, in some way, "deserved" this attack as you may or may not have intended to imply.

Last I checked, we have not been at war with anyone since last year. All we've done recently is cancel a protectorate agreement with a group of people who were quite dishonest with us. *shrugs*

If you're uncertain as to what I meant or did not mean to imply, please do not assume I was implying a certain thing. Furthermore, a year's time is really not very long in this game to hold a grudge, so your last point is rendered invalid. I by no means meant to imply that IRON themselves deserved anything. At best I was observing that, by partaking in certain conduct/actions/stances, one opens themselves up to the possibility that they could receive this sort of a response.

I mean really, you can say "don't play the game," but really that also applies to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of people rationalizing such conduct is disappointing.

I'm finding that their rationalizations tend all too much to imply justification.

Yes, appropriate in-game reprisals and propaganda are certainly appropriate, as is some degree of frustration.

On the other hand, stepping outside of the virtual sandbox and attacking a business unaffiliated to IRON except by their content hosting is quite low. I'm simply stunned that people would seem willing to condone the use of illegal and destructive tools on anybody.

I'm not even so much upset that it was IRON, but that this was done at all. Anywhere.

o/ To the pursuit of justice, friends.

Edited by NuclearShawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, not the horrid OOC attacks! People aren't justifying anything - at best they're merely observing a simple cause/effect relationship. This self-righteous mumbo-jumbo in the midst of an "OOC Forum" is a bit frightening, really.

If you're uncertain as to what I meant or did not mean to imply, please do not assume I was implying a certain thing. Furthermore, a year's time is really not very long in this game to hold a grudge, so your last point is rendered invalid. I by no means meant to imply that IRON themselves deserved anything. At best I was observing that, by partaking in certain conduct/actions/stances, one opens themselves up to the possibility that they could receive this sort of a response.

I mean really, you can say "don't play the game," but really that also applies to you.

By your logic and point of view, anyone can interpret any IC action that is inappropriate in their point of view (maybe absolutely appropriate in eyes of the majority, like the recent case involving IRON) and thus establish the effect to be a DDoS attack. Hence thats why your 'observation' has little rationalization.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your logic and point of view, anyone can interpret any IC action and thus establish the effect to be a DDoS attack. Hence thats why your 'observation' has little rationalization or whatever it may have been implying.

Certain, shah, certain. Not any. Certain. You're using a logical fallacy here. If your flawed reasoning was correct, we'd be seeing a lot more DDoS's. Clearly there is a certain subset of actions which elicit such a response. They're not easy to denote, but given that all actions do not elicit such a response, not all actions can belong to said set.

You're getting rather fiesty about this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your logic and point of view, anyone can interpret any IC action that is inappropriate in their point of view (maybe absolutely appropriate in eyes of the majority, like the recent case involving IRON) and thus establish the effect to be a DDoS attack. Hence thats why your 'observation' has little rationalization.

I think the point you are missing is that if a tC member engages in OOC attacks or EZI or such it's horrific abuse, but if it's used against tC members and co in the form of hacking then it's just something to be expected. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree with you on this point.

IC matters should have IC responses, not OOC consequences.

And OOC matters should be left for OOC consequences where appropriate and not irresponsibly for political advantage in a way that blurs the barrier between game and not-game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Here, as in [OOC]real life[/OOC]. As Archon says, it is only a certain subset of actions that elicit such responses. You do not, for example see [OOC]Finland, Australia, or Japan being targeted by suicide attackers, but only the United States.[/OOC] One of these entities has attempted to exert hegemonic control over large swathes of the world, while the other has not. I would not presume to touch upon the ethics or legalities involved here, but I certainly see the cause and effect relationship of which Archon speaks operating here just as it does [OOC]in real life.[/OOC]

I do hope that the perpetrators of this attack are caught and punished by the legal system of whatever nation they reside in, as our laws are quite often all that hold most men from savagery, and civilizations cannot function without due respect for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And OOC matters should be left for OOC consequences where appropriate and not irresponsibly for political advantage in a way that blurs the barrier between game and not-game.

Do you understand that the world does not revolve around you and your do whatever it takes, ruin as many people's lives, so long as you can make a name for yourself as an investigatory journalist, no matter how many friends you lose or people you leave dead and bloodied along the way, just so long so you can make a name for yourself as an investigatory journalist, no matter how many friends you lose or people you leave dead and bloodied and dying along the way?

Edit: But seriously, I don't believe that Cybernations should EVER spill into the realm of OOC ALLIANCE actions. Let people be responsible for themselves. Nobody burns down someones house because one person inside may be a murderer. The forums are IRON's house. If you have a problem with what somebody has done, take it up with them personally, rather then by making an anonymous, wanton attack on every member. Take credit for what you do, if you aim to be a man.

Edited by NuclearShawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain, shah, certain. Not any. Certain. You're using a logical fallacy here. If your flawed reasoning was correct, we'd be seeing a lot more DDoS's. Clearly there is a certain subset of actions which elicit such a response. They're not easy to denote, but given that all actions do not elicit such a response, not all actions can belong to said set.

You're getting rather fiesty about this...

My POV is no set of IC actions should result in Criminal activity. Simple as that, nothing feisty. I am sure you are of similar opinion.

The certain subset of actions that you imply which would elicit such a response....I find this statement again quite weird...now I am guessing here >> So canceling a protectorate because our protectorate was conspiring against us and allies is wrong now? Clearly for you, this certain action falls in the subset that would elicit such a criminal response? Are you serious? lol, so now we should let people run their full course of conspiracy to undermine the alliance..otherwise omg we'll be DDoS-attacked again. :psyduck:

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't wish a DDOS on anyone's forum but why are you trying to make ingame waves with this? Pursue criminal charges and leave this crap out of the game.

DDoS attacks may be OOC, but they have IC implications. Embassies shut down. An announcement about what happened is perfectly in order. At the very least, it is okay to have in the Open World forum.

In other news, DDoS attacks are liekk totaly laem. )):

The neat thing is, if anyone gets thrown in OOC jail over this, they will return the most sobered person in all of Planet Bob, and possibly a rather decent player. ;>.> </optimism>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, and while I realized I did not explicitly state it, there's also the flip side of that which has an equally vital implication - attempting to get revenge for a digital act by delving into "RL" opens you up to just as much of a response.

So at that, I do wish IRON the best in catching the perpetrators. I hope this was never in question.

From what's been stated, if anyone is looking to get RL compensation for this attack it is one of the people who were attacked and who have absolutely no involvement or connection to this game other than hosting our forum. I'm not really sure they have any significant chance of getting any compensation, but from their perspective this is a simple attack on their property, and they really don't care about whatever issue someone may or may not have with IRON in some game that they've never played. In other words, for them, it's all "RL" (the horror).

If you're uncertain as to what I meant or did not mean to imply, please do not assume I was implying a certain thing. Furthermore, a year's time is really not very long in this game to hold a grudge, so your last point is rendered invalid. I by no means meant to imply that IRON themselves deserved anything. At best I was observing that, by partaking in certain conduct/actions/stances, one opens themselves up to the possibility that they could receive this sort of a response.

Unless you're going to elaborate on what those certain actions are and how in any way IRON opened itself up to having its forums host attacked, or how that's a justifiable response or even a response that rational people should be prepared to deal with in certain circumstances, then shah's later point about this, and how it could be used to say that any action someone doesn't like is grounds for something like this, still stands and is perfectly valid.

And OOC matters should be left for OOC consequences where appropriate and not irresponsibly for political advantage in a way that blurs the barrier between game and not-game.

Absolutely, but it hardly follows that we aren't allowed to make a public announcement informing everyone about what happened, as far as we know, and the extent of the attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...