Rebirth Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Yeah sometimes the kids do something bad and don't wanna take a grounding so they opt for a beating.Sad when that happens. I see that Soldier admits to supporting child abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 So you assume he would for some reason?I didn't get a chance to shoot Nixon. Does this mean I would have if I had the chance? I would have to or else be made a fool later. Safe>sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I love the smell of bias in the morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I see that Soldier admits to supporting child abuse. It's called an analogy. Pretty neat stuff. I learned it when I was 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebirth Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I suggest that next time you pick an analogy that doesn't make your side look like the abuse children. Usually an analogy is used as a tool to make your side look better, but I like your style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellisus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Yeah sometimes the kids do something bad and don't wanna take a grounding so they opt for a beating.Sad when that happens. Wow. I like how you (and by extension TPF, and by extension NPO) consider the rest of the Cyberverse as "children." Hubris is quite ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Wow. I like how you (and by extension TPF, and by extension NPO) consider the rest of the Cyberverse as "children."Hubris is quite ugly. Go Stretch Armstrong go! Bunch of Spy lovers the lot of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellisus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Bunch of Spy lovers the lot of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobama Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I would have to or else be made a fool later. Safe>sorry This is the sort of attitude which leads to these sorts of nights. You must, of course, realize the fact that there literally was a guy who wanted to feel important, got his hands on some screenshots of really unimportant stuff and decided to give them to leadership who probably just said "um...ok" in response. I mean, on a personal level, you realize this, and are just toting the party line with this ridiculous show of a thread. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savethecheerleader Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Go Stretch Armstrong go!Bunch of Spy lovers the lot of you. I never said that OV was completely innocent in what they did. I didn't say that I like BC or the things that they do. I was merely commenting on the slanted question in the poll. Would I be upset? Certainly. Would I make every effort to find a peaceful solution? You bet I would. Would I keep disciplinary actions appropriate to the type of information being leaked? I like to think so. Edited April 21, 2009 by savethecheerleader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I've never taken or given info. I've also advocating holding anyone responsible for the act accountable. If you have the nads to have a go anyway. Maybe it's better to cower for years and build up all your rage though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 This is the sort of attitude which leads to these sorts of nights.You must, of course, realize the fact that there literally was a guy who wanted to feel important, got his hands on some screenshots of really unimportant stuff and decided to give them to leadership who probably just said "um...ok" in response. I mean, on a personal level, you realize this, and are just toting the party line with this ridiculous show of a thread. Right? No actually. I've said if people had evidence against anyone who did it to string them up. My allies, even if it were me. Not that I'd ever do such a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I never said that OV was completely innocent in what they did. I didn't say that I like BC or the things that they do. I was merely commenting on the slanted question in the poll. Would I be upset? Certainly. Would I make every effort to find a peaceful solution? You bet I would. Would I keep disciplinary actions appropriate to the type of information being leaked? I like to think so. Alliances have been rolled for less. They offered to leave the punishment at the one guy. OV refused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellisus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) I've never taken or given info. I've also advocating holding anyone responsible for the act accountable. If you have the nads to have a go anyway. Maybe it's better to cower for years and build up all your rage though. Well I'm glad you hold Moo and allies accountable then. I guess I'll go vote yes. Edit: o/ Hypocrisy! Edited April 21, 2009 by Bellisus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 No one *wants* screenshots of their forum floating around, quit waving that red herring around it only makes your hands stink, and it doesnt fool anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have to think about that one. I have to think real hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savethecheerleader Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Alliances have been rolled for less. They offered to leave the punishment at the one guy. OV refused. If that punishment is limited to a pre-set period of war, or even a one-time trip to ZI, I do have to concede that the punishment is not unfair. I don't know the specifics in this case, though, so I can only comment on the hypothetical posed in the OP. To do this, however, one has to know how it is I came by this information. As has been alleged, it's awfully hypocritical to use information obtained in a way similar to the offenses one is accusing the other party of. As for alliances being rolled for less... well I think that may be a motivator for many on Karma's side- it seems to be something that many on their side would like to see end. Edited April 21, 2009 by savethecheerleader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Well I'm glad you hold Moo and allies accountable then. I guess I'll go vote yes. Seriously, if you have real proof that Pacifica was spying like OV did take them to the woodshed by all means. Nobody is special in my mind. It seems people "knew" Pacifica was engaging in this king of stuff for years but just let them get away with it. That's not Pacifica's fault if it's true. Look knowingly taking screenies of anyone's forum is bad. I think everyone can agree on that. So it was the punishment that was issue I suppose. What is a proper punishment? The guy wasn't just handed the links and was told"Hey look at these!" No he was told what they were before he ever got them. He knew perfectly well what he was getting himself into. He knew there may even be consequences. He just couldn't pay the piper when it came down to it. Why? Why cause a GW when you were clearly in the wrong? Take your licks, pick yourself up and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 If that punishment is limited to a pre-set period of war, or even a one-time trip to ZI, I do have to concede that the punishment is not unfair. I don't know the specifics in this case, though, so I can only comment on the hypothetical posed in the OP. To do this, however, one has to know how it is I came by this information. As has been alleged, it's awfully hypocritical to use information obtained in a way similar to the offenses one is accusing the other party of. The logs show a one time trip to Zi offered. Accepted and then recanted. I hear tell of a story where the sentence was reduced to one round of attacks and was still cast aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) 1. Seth accepted spy info from BC, that's how he knew the NPO warchest requirements. 2. NPO accepted spy info from BC, that's how they knew Seth had seen the screenshot. The first is a horrible crime but the second is not? As a very august individual said recently, every alliance accepts info. I have to say it's amusing as heck to watch people falling all over themselves trying to defend 2 without condoning 1. And watching people who have clearly explained the difference between spying and receiving info in the past suddenly pretending they cant see any difference now is a real hoot too. Whatever. Good luck with that. Edited April 21, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellisus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 The logs show a one time trip to Zi offered. Accepted and then recanted. I hear tell of a story where the sentence was reduced to one round of attacks and was still cast aside. The logs also show Moo admitting using the same spy tactics to obtain the information about spying. I'm not endorsing OV's actions, but I am not about to go make a biased poll about it, and then think my side is 100% right. Spying, and war, is dirty business. Nobody is innocent. If we have to have a global war over it, so be it. And let's drop the pretense. NPO was looking for a reason to declare on someone far from the center of the MDP web. Might as well have been Hyperion. Oh wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 We had loads of private screenshots from our forums and IRC logs spread around CN last summer. It certainly wasn't a pleasant experience but there was not a whole lot we could do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 1. Seth accepted spy info from BC, that's how he knew the NPO warchest requirements. 2. NPO accepted spy info from BC, that's how they knew Seth had seen the screenshot. The first is a horrible crime but the second is not? As a very august individual said recently, every alliance accepts info. I have to say it's amusing as heck to watch people falling all over themselves trying to defend 2 without condoning 1. And watching people who have clearly explained the difference between spying and receiving info in the past suddenly pretending they cant see any difference now is a real hoot too. Whatever. Good luck with that. The only difference I see is one getting info pertaining to the security of their alliance and the other getting info he had no right to in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellisus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 The only difference I see is one getting info pertaining to the security of their alliance and the other getting info he had no right to in the first place. Couldn't OV argue that they were performing an action that was "pertaining to the security of their alliance"? Security is a pretty vague term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Couldn't OV argue that they were performing an action that was "pertaining to the security of their alliance"? Security is a pretty vague term. Taking screens of NPO's warchest requirements? Where'd that Stretch Armstrong go? 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.