Matthew Conrad Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I don't really see the difference between the screenshot and the probable "leak" NPO got their information from. He didn't ask BC for the screenshot as it was just presented to him. I wonder how many alliances wouldn't look at leaked information if it was just given to them. It doesn't matter if info was leaked from a spy or disgruntled alliance member (NPO or otherwise) its not like everyone is innocent of doing this before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowen70 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Sorry but I suspect most governments accept randomly offered info especially when theres a big war brewing. Just thought I'd say what everyone else is afraid to. Most people don't shirk on information, a lot don't go seeking it but a combination of the possibility of knowing you'll be fighting those people fairly soon and simple human curiousity will make most people click on a link if its chucked their way. Human nature. He wasn't out organising or plotting against NPO, he just clicked a damn link to an image. We all know this is just a trigger, one of many waiting to be pulled. Now some people are trying real hard to make that CB work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t=0&start=0 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t=0&start=0 These were just in the last few weeks. So what has changed since then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Sorry but I suspect most governments accept randomly offered info especially when theres a big war brewing.Just thought I'd say what everyone else is afraid to. Most people don't shirk on information, a lot don't go seeking it but a combination of the possibility of knowing you'll be fighting those people fairly soon and simple human curiousity will make most people click on a link if its chucked their way. Human nature. He wasn't out organising or plotting against NPO, he just clicked a damn link to an image. We all know this is just a trigger, one of many waiting to be pulled. Now some people are trying real hard to make that CB work. Maybe people do accept info all the time. I've never had the luxery personally. Still you don't see them open ly showing it or advertising that they do. Why? Because there are consequences for doing it. That has always been known. So maybe you do it but you just don't get caught but when you do you have to pay the piper. "Everyone" doing it does not make it right. Not in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Get in line why don't you? I don't bow down to your hegemonial "line" concept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I don't bow down to your hegemonial "line" concept I woulda said hegemonious but hey I guess that's why we can't get along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t=0&start=0http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t=0&start=0 These were just in the last few weeks. So what has changed since then? Nothing. Both attacked parties either admitted or clearly committed one of the offenses they were charged with. For NSO, CDC clearly splintered off with several of NSO members without prior warning and recruited from their ranks. In MK's case, the UBD gov members made a public apology and admitted to deliberately going undercover in MK's forums to retrieve information. For OV, they guy only admitted to looking at screenshots, which he didn't ask for, presented to him by a BC member. NPO also can't prove any of the other charges. I think people would be content if they would provide either a public acknowledgment of crimes by OV or hard proof otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Then do something about it. Oh...I did. See you at update, chief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowen70 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Maybe people do accept info all the time. I've never had the luxery personally. Still you don't see them open ly showing it or advertising that they do. Why? Because there are consequences for doing it. That has always been known. So maybe you do it but you just don't get caught but when you do you have to pay the piper. "Everyone" doing it does not make it right. Not in the least. You can maintain a fiction that NPO and TPF don't do it if you like and I'm sure all and sundry will believe you :lol: At least as much as we believe half of the CB's that have come out in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jaym Il Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t=0&start=0http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t=0&start=0 These were just in the last few weeks. So what has changed since then? NSO declared war on an alliance that spied on them on the way out the door. MK declared on an alliance because some foolish leaders were running a small spy ring to collect guides. How do these relate to the situation at hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I woulda said hegemonious but hey I guess that's why we can't get along. Making fun of me because English is not my first language are you? OOC attack, OOC attack! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 See you at update, chief. I didn't think you could come out of peace mode yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Oh...I did. See you at update, chief. I'm very excited. Unfortunately, I wont be on at update. Could you post something for me in the DoW thread if I PM it to you? Thanks for getting things started around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Nothing. Both attacked parties either admitted or clearly committed one of the offenses they were charged with. For NSO, CDC clearly splintered off with several of NSO members without prior warning and recruited from their ranks. In MK's case, the UBD gov members made a public apology and admitted to deliberately going undercover in MK's forums to retrieve information. For OV, they guy only admitted to looking at screenshots, which he didn't ask for, presented to him by a BC member. NPO also can't prove any of the other charges. I think people would be content if they would provide either a public acknowledgment of crimes by OV or hard proof otherwise. The guy knew what he was taking. It's not like he was caught unaware. In my eyes it's the same thing as what happened to MK. If he had been tricked into looking.....fine. I'll cut him some slack on that one. He wasn't. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I seriously cannot believe that all of you wouldn't care if screenies of your forums were passed around as long as whoever received them didn't reeaalllyyy want to see it but it just happened landed in their lap and they couldn't help themselves. Edited April 20, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o-dog Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) If my allies go to war over it I will back them up on it. And you'd be as guilty as them for going to war over an act you have done yourselves numerous times before. None of the major alliances are totally blameless, yet TPF seem more than most to play the moral outrage card, which given your history, is quite ironic. Edited April 20, 2009 by O-Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jaym Il Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 The guy knew what he was taking. It's not like he was caught unaware. In my eyes it's the same thing as what happened to MK. In the MK case, they were actively seeking information from other alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 And you'd be as guilty as them for going to war over an act you have done yourselves numerous times before.None of the major alliances are totally blameless, yet TPF seem more than most to play the moral outrage card, which given your history, is quite ironic. While I was at TPF I never saw screenshot 1 of anything that wasn't directly related to TPF. To me it's not the same thing. Receiving info that is critical to the security of your alliance is not the same as taking a look at someone's secure forums just for kicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I seriously cannot believe that all of you wouldn't care if screenies of your forums were passed around as long as whoever received them didn't reeaalllyyy want to see it but it just happened landed in their lap and they couldn't help themselves. No. We'd go after the leak/spy. Not the person who received the information, who has been slightly low class if they don't come to us and tell us we have a leak, but they have not committed an aggressive act against us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 No. We'd go after the leak/spy. Not the person who received the information, who has been slightly low class if they don't come to us and tell us we have a leak, but they have not committed an aggressive act against us. Really? So as long as the guy doesn't give up his informant he can keep having info dropped in his lap as long as he doesn't ask for it? You're asking to be spied on if you ask me. Anyone who wanted to aggressively spy on you could just use that as his defense if you were none the wiser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroicDisaster Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) I'll put an agent in soldier to make sure no one from there is spying on us. And If I did that, you wouldn't consider that a CB? I might have missed something, but that's what I have pulled from this thread. Edited April 20, 2009 by HeroicDisaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I'll put an agent in soldier to make sure no one from there is spying on us. How does that sound? Also, just to say, warchest requirements are not that big of a deal. That's different than receiving info about us spying. I think warchest requirements are somewhat important. If you know how much we have you know you have to at least match it to be able to hang in a lengthy war. Then there's just the whole principle of the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t=0&start=0http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t=0&start=0 These were just in the last few weeks. So what has changed since then? Again, having someone give you intel gained through spying is not the same as actually spying. It's like saying all those who read TWiP are spies and on par with those who publish TWiP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Again, having someone give you intel gained through spying is not the same as actually spying. It's like saying all those who read TWiP are spies and on par with those who publish TWiP. I'll give you the active spying bit but I still think knowingly receiving info when you didn't seek it is just a notch below that and not drastically different. As for the Tattler and the TWiP, it's quite a bit different when the info is posted publicly and when it's passed between two people in secret. Also when you look at it the two proposed punishments are fitting with what I've said. In MK's instance they attacked the whole alliance. NPO just wants to ZI one guy. So the level of punishment isn't close to what you would get for actively spying as well. Edited April 20, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelrat Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I can´t help myself but it seems magicninja takes the thread title to literally. My advise to you would be, take a step back and read again what you posted, you may recognize some inconsistence in your thoughts. There were several replies needed to explaining the obvious to you and you are still trying deliberated to misunderstand them. However, this whole issue reminds me of Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 In the MK case, they were actively seeking information from other alliances. Nah, we're obviously blatant hypocrites and if you don't like it just try and stop us, wimps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.