This Week in Pacifica

[Innerspeaker]

I aspire to one day be in a Vox Populi screenshot <3

o/ Schatt

[Lord of Destruction]

Here it comes, the slander affect. Sorry but I am not anti-order. That is why I have said here in public that James is better off either changing his ways or leaving because he isnt going to cause any drastic changes to happen in the Order. Go ahead and spin that.

The Sir Paul Accords are a tool. This is not an Anti-Order statement it is just a matter of fact. That fact is why I asked Mr. Dahl if it had been used against him yet.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

[Ogaden]

Some people? Oh, God.

You said NPO is anti-ideas because you got called treasonous for proposing new ideas. I've seen Pacifican self-contradiction plenty of times, but this one is rich!

The next time you want to go and add to the "Vox stifles change by its very existence" by making something up, make sure you don't do it in front of the whole damned world.

Look, man, NPO hasn't shared info with its membership for much longer than Vox's 7 month existence. Your nearsightedness is just silly. I don't know how long you've been around, but if it's over a year then you're just spouting crap. If it's less than a year then you just don't know what you're talking about.

And again, if your leaders aren't sharing information vital to your decision on what road to take your antion down (with whom) then it's up to you to decide if that's important to you or not. There's always going to be a "threat" to Pacifica to justify the gov's actions--that's the nature of the "revolutionary front" beast NPO tries to play. If you want information so you can be a part of what's going on, join FOK! or some other democratic alliance.

How so? I certainly don't see things that way. Someone has just as much right to say my ideas are dumb or suspect as I have to propose them in the first place.

[HeinousOne]

As you're clearly taking an Anti-Order bias on everything from what I've seen... yes, I wouldn't trust your explanation. I don't believe you could speak of it in a non-biased tone.

The Sir Paul Accords do not restrict you from posting your opinion on the [OOC]forums[/OOC]. It restricts you from making a fool of yourself.

No matter how obvious it is that someone is making a fool of themselves it all comes down to a matter of opinion on whether that person is actually doing such.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

You state that the Sir Paul Accords are about restricting people from making a fool of themselves. So basically it is a tool for enforcing the opinion that someone is making a fool of themself.

It is a long winded version that could have been shortened to "make a fool of yourself and you shall be censored". I understand why the NPO would do such, I really do, but why are you trying to sell it as more then it really is when a previous statement made but minutes earlier states otherwise?

[Lord of Destruction]

No matter how obvious it is that someone is making a fool of themselves it all comes down to a matter of opinion on whether that person is actually doing such.

You state that the Sir Paul Accords are about restricting people from making a fool of themselves. So basically it is a tool for enforcing the opinion that someone is making a fool of themself.

It is a long winded version that could have been shortened to "make a fool of yourself and you shall be censored". I understand why the NPO would do such, I really do, but why are you trying to sell it as more then it really is when a previous statement made but minutes earlier states otherwise?

As I suspected, you put your own twist on it.

You are wrong about the Paul Protocols, but no matter how much I argue the specifics with you, which I cannot because doing so would be breaking OpSec, you would not be convinced. In your mind, you shall always think of them as a restricting tool to prevent you from posting your opinion.

[Ogaden]

No matter how obvious it is that someone is making a fool of themselves it all comes down to a matter of opinion on whether that person is actually doing such.

You state that the Sir Paul Accords are about restricting people from making a fool of themselves. So basically it is a tool for enforcing the opinion that someone is making a fool of themself.

It is a long winded version that could have been shortened to "make a fool of yourself and you shall be censored". I understand why the NPO would do such, I really do, but why are you trying to sell it as more then it really is when a previous statement made but minutes earlier states otherwise?

Well, words have consequences.

There is no such thing as a harmless opinion, harmless opinions have started world wars.

Hopefully, my opinion will not be one of them.

Edited April 1, 2009 by James Dahl

[JBone]

I'm not sure how long you've been in Pacifica, or playing CN for that matter, but that's the way they've ALWAYS done it, before Vox even.

You of all people might want to check the Tattler again.

So might you.

[JBone]

Nice knowing ya, TPF.

The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.

..................GOTCHA.

[Ejayrazz]

Well, words have consequences.

There is no such thing as a harmless opinion, harmless opinions have started world wars.

There are harmless opinions, this is where delivery comes into play.

[HeinousOne]

As I suspected, you put your own twist on it.

You are wrong about the Paul Protocols, but no matter how much I argue the specifics with you, which I cannot because doing so would be breaking OpSec, you would not be convinced. In your mind, you shall always think of them as a restricting tool to prevent you from posting your opinion.

No, as I stated it is a tool meant to be used to prevent someone from posting an opinion those in power do not like. When they do not like it and act upon it they are expressing their opinion and then acting upon it. How does that not equate for you? Where is the twist in that?

Also, how the hell does discussing this break OpSec? OpSec is short for Operations Security. I understand maintaining silence to maintain the structure of an operation.

How is this discussion an Operation or how does it affect an Operation? Once again, another idea that has become a tool to be used for much more then it is intended for.

Oh, you don't want to talk about something? Just claim OpSec and you are good. Right?

[Lord of Destruction]

No, as I stated it is a tool meant to be used to prevent someone from posting an opinion those in power do not like. When they do not like it and act upon it they are expressing their opinion and then acting upon it. How does that not equate for you? Where is the twist in that?

Also, how the hell does discussing this break OpSec? OpSec is short for Operations Security. I understand maintaining silence to maintain the structure of an operation.

How is this discussion an Operation or how does it affect an Operation? Once again, another idea that has become a tool to be used for much more then it is intended for.

Oh, you don't want to talk about something? Just claim OpSec and you are good. Right?

It is in an area only NPO Cadets and NPO members can see. As you are neither, and neither is all of CN, to discuss something they cannot see would be breaking OpSec.

Following that, I'll speak no more about the Paul Protocols, as that would be derailing this thread even more than it is.

[HeinousOne]

It is in an area only NPO Cadets and NPO members can see. As you are neither, and neither is all of CN, to discuss something they cannot see would be breaking OpSec.

Following that, I'll speak no more about the Paul Protocols, as that would be derailing this thread even more than it is.

Its ok, I will not continue to push you. You may slip away.

As far as derailment, how is what we are discussing not have to do with Pacifica? I thought you guys liked to see Pacifica talked about in "This Week in Pacifica"?

My question still stand for Mr. Dahl, if he can still speak here, have they mentioned the Sir Paul Accords to you yet?

[Geoffron X]

TWiP, in summary.

"We have a spy in your forums. Also, Boss Hogg joined NPO and stole some aid."

What... was the point of that? In fact, that screenshot was taken before BH was banned, so most likely BH was the spy, who is no longer in the alliance. So you, once again, probably have no spies. Oh, I'm sure another will come, but the membership of spies really seems like a revolving door, doesn't it?

EDITED TO ADD: I mean it's not like that you revealed any sort of high drama, and honestly, there was some good stuff that you missed.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Geoffron X

[New Frontier]

I highly anticipate next week's screen shots about screen shots about screen shots.

I adore the style of these posts, but I feel the level of substance is somewhat less lately. What is the point of protecting your spies in OPSEC areas if you don't use their screenshots anyway?

[Ogaden]

Its ok, I will not continue to push you. You may slip away.

As far as derailment, how is what we are discussing not have to do with Pacifica? I thought you guys liked to see Pacifica talked about in "This Week in Pacifica"?

My question still stand for Mr. Dahl, if he can still speak here, have they mentioned the Sir Paul Accords to you yet?

Not under that name, no.

We are given very clear guidelines in the academy, of which I have attempted to follow.

[Schattenmann]

TWiP, in summary.

"We have a spy in your forums. Also, Boss Hogg joined NPO and stole some aid."

What... was the point of that? In fact, that screenshot was taken before BH was banned, so most likely BH was the spy, who is no longer in the alliance. So you, once again, probably have no spies. Oh, I'm sure another will come, but the membership of spies really seems like a revolving door, doesn't it?

EDITED TO ADD: I mean it's not like that you revealed any sort of high drama, and honestly, there was some good stuff that you missed.

Oh, I wouldn't say I missed it, Geoffron.

[hizzy]

You're, not your. Sorry, not understanding you mate, haha. Unless, it was intentionally done, which of course now he will pull this move. -.-

Either way...I hate Richard Simmons.

Well, ya it was intentionally done, because I did it right, and usually I intend to do things right.

"Oh. Your. God." I'm not trying to say "you are God" or "you are good." Especially when you consider the person I was talking to.

I was just saying "OMG" but with "your God" instead of "my God".

*Futurama, anyone?

[Nintenderek]

Not under that name, no.

We are given very clear guidelines in the academy, of which I have attempted to follow.

So they regulate how you can post on these forums?

[yetanothername]

So they regulate how you can post on these forums?

Duh. Don't you remember radio-slience from a while back?

[MaGneT]

I highly anticipate next week's screen shots about screen shots about screen shots.

I adore the style of these posts, but I feel the level of substance is somewhat less lately. What is the point of protecting your spies in OPSEC areas if you don't use their screenshots anyway?

That one is slightly obvious.

Vox can use that to tip off alliances that they like.

[Nintenderek]

Duh. Don't you remember radio-slience from a while back?

Yes, I do remember, I was hoping to be able to hammer someone from NPO about it again

What is the point of protecting your spies in OPSEC areas if you don't use their screenshots anyway?

We do use them, we just don't publish them to the masses. It's the same reasons NPO and GGA uses their spies. GGA has openly admitted to having spies in Vox, but you don't see them making any publications about it. What do they use them for? We use our spies for that same reason, a reason any alliance would use spies for.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Nintenderek