In Response to Mr. Brookbank

[iamthey]

It's unfortunate that people who try to take the actions you just endorsed get ZI'd. Eternally.

That's not true. There is an EZI treaty floating around that several prominent alliances have signed, if people wish to legitimately rise to power in large alliances, share their ideas and win over their fellow leaders they are completely free to do that. However, if they wish to form "terrorist groups" or whatever you want to call them and wage ideological war, spy, and seek to destroy the power structure then they should expect a defensive resistance from that structure. Its one thing to work within the system its quite another to seek to seize it by outside means or destroy it.

[Vilien]

That's not true. There is an EZI treaty floating around that several prominent alliances have signed, if people wish to legitimately rise to power in large alliances, share their ideas and win over their fellow leaders they are completely free to do that. However, if they wish to form "terrorist groups" or whatever you want to call them and wage ideological war, spy, and seek to destroy the power structure then they should expect a defensive resistance from that structure. Its one thing to work within the system its quite another to seek to seize it by outside means or destroy it.

Be a good boy and you wont have any trouble.

Unless, of course, we deem your alliance to be a threat. If that's the case, we'll get around to rolling you.

[iamthey]

Be a good boy and you wont have any trouble.

Unless, of course, we deem your alliance to be a threat. If that's the case, we'll get around to rolling you.

Avoid the crux of the argument if you like it doesn't change the point. No one is going to kill you for making an argument. There are a lot of people in this thread who have done just that, I don't see them all being ZI'd as we speak.

[Vilien]

Avoid the crux of the argument if you like it doesn't change the point. No one is going to kill you for making an argument. There are a lot of people in this thread who have done just that, I don't see them all being ZI'd as we speak.

You mean the people who were in alliances that have already been on the receiving end of a roll, or the ones who are still on the list?

[Ragashingo]

Avoid the crux of the argument if you like it doesn't change the point. No one is going to kill you for making an argument. There are a lot of people in this thread who have done just that, I don't see them all being ZI'd as we speak.

I think you're the one who just missed the point. Of course no one is going to ZI people for just talking about it. They would roll us for doing something about it though.

[Lockeria]

That is a reference to Shan's CB in the polar war against PUKE, and NV. As his reason for war he said "We don't like you, and want you dead". It has become a fairly common thing said around our gov as a joke. Fin was obviously joking and referencing this, not seriously threatening the life of JB. Saying otherwise is just an excuse to try to get mod or admin action against him.

Yes, it is obviously an excuse to get the mods against him because everyone knows all the inside jokes of IRON leadership, especially those based on a throwaway one-liner "CB" in a war that happened months ago. If you guys seriously say this to people regularly, it's about goddamn time someone took offense.

To give a little context JB has been bugging the entire IRON leadership over the matter for awhile. I myself had a cool headed and polite conversation with him over the status of his EZI last week. This was not simply a random thing fin said it was the product of being annoyed for several weeks.

So if you wanted to get off an EZI list, you'd just give up after getting rejected?

He was simply ending the conversation by making it impossible to have a coherent discussion. We give everyone their fair chance to talk to us and argue their point

Uh...

ZI's are ordered as a means of protection the point of which is to A ensure they can never become relevant within an alliance and B to ensure they themselves do not acquire nuclear weapons.

Yeah, because you need so much protection from a guy who most alliances wouldn't let in gov for fear of getting rolled, which, as I've argued in the past, is a ridiculous thing to happen to someone like JB, who is one of the least belligerent people in this game. As for nukes, 20 nukes won't even scratch IRON.

The man is just trying to play a game, why not only disallow him to use his name, but also chase him down and disallow him from even playing the game the way it was meant to be played? That attitude just sickens me and if you were in his place, I'm sure you'd be just as frustrated as he is.

[iamthey]

I think you're the one who just missed the point. Of course no one is going to ZI people for just talking about it. They would roll us for doing something about it though.

No, we are just operating under different interpretations of "do something about it". If do something about it is harboring EZI targets, and trying to destroy alliances who declare people as such then of course you will be rolled your making your own enemies there. But no one is going to roll you for not having an EZI list yourself and encouraging your own allies to do the same.

Edited March 22, 2009 by iamthey

[Vilien]

No, we are just operating under different interpretations of "do something about it". If do something about it is harboring EZI targets, and trying to destroy alliances who declare people as such then of course you will be rolled your making your own enemies there. But no one is going to roll you for not having an EZI list yourself and encouraging your own allies to do the same.

So "do something about it" is "let us do what we want, or we roll you." You're saying that you don't have the power to make other people have EZI lists, which is already obvious and really doesn't prove anything. We want you to stop preventing people from playing the game. What are we supposed to "do about it"?

[Ragashingo]

No, we are just operating under different interpretations of "do something about it". If do something about it is harboring EZI targets, and trying to destroy alliances who declare people as such then of course you will be rolled your making your own enemies there. But no one is going to roll you for not having an EZI list yourself and encouraging your own allies to do the same.

So your version of "do something about it" actually means "do something but don't dare oppose those who you feel are wrong."

Glad we got that cleared up.

We want you to stop preventing people from playing the game. What are we supposed to "do about it"?

Exactly. One's allies generally already agree with them and don't need convincing. It's the ones doing the harsh ZIs that do need convincing.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Lord of the Mayflies]

Free Brookbank

[iamthey]

In either case whether you fail at convincing those in power, or choose to take more direct action nothing is done.

Edited March 22, 2009 by iamthey

[Vilien]

In either case nothing is done.

And so we come to the inevitable conclusion to this thread. You'll deal with the issue at your leisure, and an active player is banned from the game. Thanks for keeping us safe, IRON.

[Ragashingo]

In either case whether you fail at convincing others, or choose to take more direct action nothing is done.

Of course if the ones in the wrong would take their own advice and "do something about it" the game would be a better place. But no, they'd rather continue being a detriment to the game all for the sake of their own security.

[Sebastian]

Dear Bama.

While answering people you started with Jason's post, thus forgetting mine. It's an honest mistake, and normally I wouldn't care. However, you continue to claim that Brookbank said Finster had made a death threat. Reading the public address once more, I am still unable to find this part of it, and so is ctrl+f. If he does claim so, would you please direct me to it, and excuse my sloppiness?

If what you meant is the section where that Brookbank claims that Finster wishes him dead in RL, please stop using the term death threat. A threat and a wish are vastly different in nature, and the discussion is meaningless if the terms are wrong.

[iamthey]

And so we come to the inevitable conclusion to this thread. You'll deal with the issue at your leisure, and an active player is banned from the game. Thanks for keeping us safe, IRON.

Glad we could be of service.

[jer]

No, we are just operating under different interpretations of "do something about it". If do something about it is harboring EZI targets, and trying to destroy alliances who declare people as such then of course you will be rolled your making your own enemies there. But no one is going to roll you for not having an EZI list yourself and encouraging your own allies to do the same.

The language you use illustrates to me that you see running people out of the game as a tactical advantage to yourselves and nothing more. If this is the case then it's sad that such a huge alliance is so self-absored that they readily view individuals as threatening and needing to be isolated, outcasted and eventually pushed out of the game completely, even if it is to the detriment of the community in which we all reside. It's as though you'd be happiest if CN was just IRON and no-one else. No differing opinions, no potential enemies, pure bliss. Right?

Edited March 22, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Calixo]

i didn't see Brookbanks post, and i am not familiar with the topic it had, but i will say i respect bamabuc

and i respect TOOL aswell, so yeah props to him for speaking his opinion

[Chief Savage Man]

i didn't see Brookbanks post, and i am not familiar with the topic it had, but i will say i respect bamabuc

and i respect TOOL aswell, so yeah props to him for speaking his opinion

You can see an external copy of his post in my signature.

[ChairmanHal]

I usually agree with you Hal. but i have had a couple of people over the years tell me to go and die and it was very much OOC. it can happen in a heated discussion. again, without the context, we cannot truly know why JB took it to be an OOC death wish.

A few points on JB.

1. He has come back at least once as a new character and was not bothered. It was later when he decided that he could not play as the new character that "Jonathan Brookbanks" was reborn. I therefore have a lot less sympathy for him than people who come back as a new character and only wish to play the game with a truly fresh start.

2. He has made a nuisance of himself not once, but repeatedly, luring people into talking with him in confidence and then log dumping whenever he decides the game isn't going his way. It's frankly hard to trust someone that does such a thing time and time again.

3. Context is indeed important. However, give his obvious love of drama...call me skeptical.

[BamaBuc]

You're focusing repeatedly on one throwaway accusation which, if it's as obviously baseless as you are suggesting, does not need a thread to debunk it. So why make the thread? Especially when the thread in which the accusation was made has been killed off. This is where my confusion lies... of all the things you could take from Starfox's thread, you chose this.

I guess it just rankles with me to see that you are quite happy to brush off the critical issue of EZI with some vague and caveat laced disapproval in favour of attempting to cause a furore over this very small incident. The accusation towards FB should not affect him or the way he plays in the slightest, whereas EZI does affect JB and many other players in a very tangible way. ZI listers are limited to a select few ways of playing the game; ways which are rather extreme and which certainly aren't for everybody. This fact undoubtedly turns people away from CN, which makes the issue worthy of a thread. FB being accused of something, not so much.

Anyway, I see you had a lot of posts to address, so I'm grateful for you taking the time to reply to me. Thank you.

I intended to post this in JB's thread, not in an individual topic. I chose to address this because it was the part of the thread that I most disagreed with. I agree with JB on EZI (although I think language like "banning" and "cyberstalking" is too harsh), so I did not see the need to rephrase what he said. Usually when I reply in a debate thread, I don't do a full analysis of the OP, I just contest the parts I disagree with. That's what I intended to do here, but the thread was deleted. But by that point I had the whole post thought out and had made up my mind to post it, so not having the option of doing so in the existing thread, I started my own. I hope that makes more sense.

Dear Bama.

While answering people you started with Jason's post, thus forgetting mine. It's an honest mistake, and normally I wouldn't care. However, you continue to claim that Brookbank said Finster had made a death threat. Reading the public address once more, I am still unable to find this part of it, and so is ctrl+f. If he does claim so, would you please direct me to it, and excuse my sloppiness?

If what you meant is the section where that Brookbank claims that Finster wishes him dead in RL, please stop using the term death threat. A threat and a wish are vastly different in nature, and the discussion is meaningless if the terms are wrong.

Sorry about that.

"FinsterBaby, an IRON Council member - After attempting to talk to him regarding my status on their banned players list, FinsterBaby went so far to say that he wanted me to die...an in character hatred that, for him, apparently has grown to include real life death wishes."

Those were his words... He did not actually use the word "threat", but in fairness to me, I could not see his post when I wrote my OP. However, he's still accusing Finster of wanting him to die IRL, which is absolutely baseless considering that this is a war-related game. He is saying that the man behind FinsterBaby's computer is so depraved that he wishes another human being to die because of a video game. That is not an accusation to be made lightly.

-Bama

EDIT: Also, I added the link to JB's post into my OP.

Edited March 22, 2009 by BamaBuc

[Lord of Destruction]

Thank you for bringing this forward.

Apart from the fact that I am disagreeing with NPO and IRON in this matter, I just have one question.

In JB's post and in other posts I have seen on this forum, there is talk about an "NPO script". Is there any chance to get a short description of this script and why it is / is not breaking the rules?

Thanks

Because your question was never answered:

It's not a script. I can not, and will not, go into describing it, but it does not break any rules.

[Dochartaigh]

A few points on JB.

1. He has come back at least once as a new character and was not bothered. It was later when he decided that he could not play as the new character that "Jonathan Brookbanks" was reborn. I therefore have a lot less sympathy for him than people who come back as a new character and only wish to play the game with a truly fresh start.

2. He has made a nuisance of himself not once, but repeatedly, luring people into talking with him in confidence and then log dumping whenever he decides the game isn't going his way. It's frankly hard to trust someone that does such a thing time and time again.

3. Context is indeed important. However, give his obvious love of drama...call me skeptical.

i know bout JB. though i think i forgot about the new character.

[Mogar]

Thank you for bringing this forward.

Apart from the fact that I am disagreeing with NPO and IRON in this matter, I just have one question.

In JB's post and in other posts I have seen on this forum, there is talk about an "NPO script". Is there any chance to get a short description of this script and why it is / is not breaking the rules?

Thanks

NPO has a program that goes by many names, i believe the most recent expose thread had it called skynet, it uses data gathered from the game to give NPO nations the ideal targets for them to hit, and makes "making target lists" obsolete, as well as having to PM memeber nations to tell them their targets, instead NPO members only have to log onto the NPO forums and can access the program.

[cookavich]

I really hate apologies that are meant to be backhanded insults.

[Heft]

A few points on JB.

1. He has come back at least once as a new character and was not bothered. It was later when he decided that he could not play as the new character that "Jonathan Brookbanks" was reborn. I therefore have a lot less sympathy for him than people who come back as a new character and only wish to play the game with a truly fresh start.

2. He has made a nuisance of himself not once, but repeatedly, luring people into talking with him in confidence and then log dumping whenever he decides the game isn't going his way. It's frankly hard to trust someone that does such a thing time and time again.

3. Context is indeed important. However, give his obvious love of drama...call me skeptical.

Indeed. JB got more chances than most, and did a better job of squandering them than most. He had power, he retained influence, and in the end he wrecked himself, without any help from others. He's not exactly the poster-child for mistreatment. I understand the anti-EZI crowd and their sentiments and at this point I don't think it's really worthwhile to hold more than one or two, maybe three people to those lists, but JB is not the martyr you are looking for.