Old Man Chron

[TehChron]

I thought this was an OOC post?

I'm...sorry? You'll have to explain what you mean a bit better. How is referring to the individual accomplishments of folks from an OOC perspective IC?

It wasn't a dictionary definition; it was a list of synonyms. And I wasn't using it to debate. I was, as I stated, using it to improve the level of discourse here by providing the users of this forum with more ways to expressing blatancy. Something they seemed to be having a hard time doing. Given your stated goals of elevating debate around here, I thought you would have appreciated my efforts.

It would seem that my passion for the topic at hand has blinded me to your sincere efforts. I apologize. Your helpfulness is greatly appreciated.

[Smacky]

Just title the thread what the article is, Bob Janova's a big hypocritical bully. Seriously, disagreements of opinion with one player isn't worth a whole thread.

[TehChron]

Just title the thread what the article is, Bob Janova's a big hypocritical bully. Seriously, disagreements of opinion with one player isn't worth a whole thread.

The problem is hardly unique to one player. RandomInterrupt pointed that out pretty succinctly.

[Nick1a]

I'm...sorry? You'll have to explain what you mean a bit better. How is referring to the individual accomplishments of folks from an OOC perspective IC?

I was curious as to how you were badass in an ooc manner.

[Sal Paradise]

It would seem that my passion for the topic at hand has blinded me to your sincere efforts. I apologize. Your helpfulness is greatly appreciated.

It was my pleasure.

[TehChron]

I was curious as to how you were badass in an ooc manner.

And believe you me, we Old Guard folks were some pretty badass dudes back in the day. We, after all, were the ones that made the legend of Pacifica that’s been carried around and caricatured over the years. Us.

Hope that answers your question.

[Locke]

I was curious as to how you were badass in an ooc manner.

One can comment on an IC part of the game from an OOC perspective, correct? Or can we, the players, not acknowledge that the game exists unless we're in it from an IC perspective?

[Zeta Defender]

If you could rate the source of where the deterioration of the posts content on the CN Forum comes from, would you place it with a person, alliance or the whole culture behind the tl:dr movement and simplification of post content (i.e. No more wall of text)?

[Jebbie]

so what you are trying to say is bob janova ruined the game

i getcha

[TehChron]

If you could rate the source of where the deterioration of the posts content on the CN Forum comes from, would you place it with a person, alliance or the whole culture behind the tl:dr movement and simplification of post content (i.e. No more wall of text)?

To be fairly honest, I'd say it was the latter...And then it just creeped up over time. I wouldn't blame a single individual for it, nor, for that matter, can any one single person reverse it.

[Finch]

I think someone has something against bob But really Good thread would read again.

[Sileath]

I personally find no fault in the messages you quoted from Bob Janova. While you may disagree with them, those quotes are not to the caliber where an entire thread has to be centered around them and portrayed as an indication that the OWF is failing.

[TehChron]

I personally find no fault in the messages you quoted from Bob Janova. While you may disagree with them, those quotes are not to the caliber where an entire thread has to be centered around them and portrayed as an indication that the OWF is failing.

Well...You are kind of at the same level as ChairmanHal in being an offender of good taste in debating. So I guess it's frankly not that surprising that you miss the point.

Namely, im not saying the OWF is falling. Im saying I hate fake debaters.

[astronaut jones]

bob janova is someone who thinks he's a lot smarter than he really is. I still love you though, bobby j.

[Random]

I find all of Chron's points to be pretty valid, and though it would have done better to have used quotes from other players instead of just Bob so people wouldn't be constantly saying that this is some type of grudge post it is easier to research one player then many.

[TehChron]

I find all of Chron's points to be pretty valid, and though it would have done better to have used quotes from other players instead of just Bob so people wouldn't be constantly saying that this is some type of grudge post it is easier to research one player then many.

It's the reason why I directed folks to the tl;dr who can't be bothered to read the actual post in it's entirety. The tl;dr is a pretty good summary of what I was trying to say, and makes no mention of Janova.

Speaking of which;

so what you are trying to say is bob janova ruined the game

Mind showing me where I said that?

[Sal Paradise]

You didn't say it with your words. You said it with your heart

[TehChron]

You didn't say it with your words. You said it with your heart

But if it was just him, and it was about that I wouldnt have wasted several additional paragraphs saying I would be going after all fake debaters that annoy the hell out of me...

[Sal Paradise]

But if it was just him, and it was about that I wouldnt have wasted several additional paragraphs saying I would be going after all fake debaters that annoy the hell out of me...

That is all about your words. I'm talking about your heart. What did you say with your heart Chron?

[TehChron]

That is all about your words. I'm talking about your heart. What did you say with your heart Chron?

...

I want someone to hold me and never let go.

Lest I seriously tear up some people.

[Delta1212]

Oh just rank everyone you can think of in terms of their terrible debate styles. If nothing else, it would take this thread in untold directions of amusement.

[Sileath]

Too many quote blocks.. Bob Janova's statements are in bold, Chron's statements are in italics.

I would say those terms are high. But the reasoning (apart from the 'recovery' of 10,000 MK tech) is twofold:

- as members of One Vision, Echelon shares responsibility for 1V's aggressive actions and enforcement of monopolarity

- having stayed in the war so long, they have done a lot of damage to the alliances fighting them

Personally I'd say that they've always been a craven follower of an alliance (as well as a cut-and-run alliance in the past) and assigning responsibility to them is giving them too much credit.

Here our good friend Bob points out his feelings on the qualifications of how guilt is assigned to alliances involved in the Hegemony’s Pax Pacifica. Perfectly reasonable, after all, CoC-esque alliances are hardly worth the effort and time to force out large reps. After all, they were really too inconsequential to be all that involved anyway. At least, that’s his view. So by that logic, shouldn’t the larger and more important players of One Vision therefore logically also play a larger role in the oppression, and by extension, be more to blame?

I believe Bob's point is that less respect is held for those alliances who are perceived to be "puppets" as opposed to those perceived to be major players. While IRON was one of the largest alliances in CN before the war, they were perceived as self-determinant, which is why they would not be on the receiving end of ridicule as much as GGA.

This treaty has caused me several headaches in the past, but I know how much it meant to TOP. The fact that you have driven TOP to drop you, NPO, should be some indication of the level of affront your actions caused.

This is the right decision, classily done – not that I would expect any less from TOP.

Well, they *are* a classy alliance, after all. Clearly one of the NPO’s stuanchest allies over the past two years dropping the NPO now when they’re no longer of consequence is evidence of just how horrible the NPO’s reign of terror was while TOP was actually involved in it.

I believe it's a mistake to characterize NPO as an alliance which is no longer of consequence. Part of the nature of treaties, however, is that they require communication. From what my sources have told me, TOP was mediating the dispute between NPO and OV when NPO and TORN attacked. This could be perceived as an insult to TOP, regardless of whether or not the NPO/TORN CB was valid. I believe the "class" statement from Bob Janova comes from the line in the OP of the cancellation thread: "We wish Pacifica all the best, and we hope that the relationship between us will see repair in the future."

Most of the hatred for Pacifica comes from the parts of history you have not yet had time to catch up with – it is largely understandable. Karma has trodden carefull with respect to most alliances in the conflict; the NPO is being treated differently for a reason. Considering how few surrenders there were before the terms thread, or even Jipps' (fairly silly) thread, I don't think it made much difference.

So….Yeah. Huh. Well, at least you admit that the NPO’s being treated differently for a *reason*, although that implied reason applies very well to many other alliances not being dealt harsh reps. Or, for that matter, are referenced in the above quote. But hey, who am I to judge? Perhaps I don’t see the whole “picture”, as it were. And someone who’s as privileged as Bob Janova would have a better insight as to the distinguishments than I would?

In that quote by Bob, he is speaking to the OP, not to you. The OP has been playing CN for about a year, therefore was not on hand for all of the forced disbandments at the hands of NPO.

If you're going to resurrect an alliance with the same name, with many of the same people, you can't expect the history of the alliance you resurrect to be forgotten.

The true test will be if you gain power, and how you choose to use it then. It is very easy to be contrite and peace-loving when you have no power to go after anyone. The aggressive history of Nordreich as a part of the Initiative, or of Norden Verein under the protection of the NPO, is not so easily forgotten.

Wait…So…What? How the hell is a reroll of an alliance that disbanded that in name *used* to serve under the NPO any worse than an alliance that directly aided and abetted the NPO and survives to this day living off the fruits of that relationship?

You should assume good faith. I don't believe Bob was attempting to dig at Nordreich. As far as the aggressive history goes, he may be referring to LSF/Q-Collective incident as well as NoV's involvement in the Unjust War, but that is solely speculation on my part. Also, Bob pointed out that it's not just the name of the alliance, but the fact that many of the same people are in it.

Fixed, for the essential truth about why NPO is getting harsh terms. They already took their second chance and took over the world again.

Ooooh! Now it all makes sense, it’s all about second CHANCES. And clearly the NPO blew theirs back in 2006. Yeah, I remember fighting gramlins back in the day…Good…Wait. No I didn’t. Were you even *playing this game* back then, Bob? And what do you know about the circumstances? If you knew what was going on at all, you’d have already known that leaving the Orders off with a bloody lip was because the CoaLUEtion felt that the NPO was no longer a threat. There was no mercy involved at all, the CoaLUEtion just collectively, and naivelly, assumed that they’d be able to beat down any attempts the Orders made to take us down had we risen again. Hell, I’m sure Archon has logs of those conversations, possibly AirMe too, but I don’t think he was high enough up back then.

There was no “second chances” given, it was about the CoaLUEtion deciding that the Orders werent worth the effort of the beatdown anymore after Legion withdrew. Of course, after most of the CoaLUEtion betrayed the NPO to begin with after expressly telling Ivan personally they would help beat down on LUE. Well, I guess someone finally realized that the only certain way to beat the NPO is to get most of their allies to stab them in the back. Which was…Wait. No.

Second chance my rusty Gauntlet. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Clearly you’re just making things up again as you go along. Well, anything to support your unshakable moral foundations, right?

There are greater concerns than just pro- and anti-Pacifica. Shortly after I left NPO in February, I had a conversation with Moo about how I was perceiving the game to be boring. He acknowledged that this was true, but said that the Continuum was not solely at fault. At the end of the Great Patriotic War, a sense of competition was able to be achieved, which led to improved gameplay as alliances clamored for position. I also direct you to the quote in my About Me section:

[00:31] <Sileath> If it's a game, then why do you try to maintain an imperial utopia instead of oppressing people for fun and profit?

[00:32] <Moo-Cows> because it has to be fun

[00:32] <Moo-Cows> no one has fun if they are oppressed

How could you do that by our side, while we were so aggressive and despotic and whatnot? You should have disowned us two years ago then and fight the good fight then. Right?

Well, we did enter GW3. After that we realised that fighting the good fight is pointless if you will lose (as anyone attacking the hegemony will always do), and then we got close with TOP who convinced us that you aren't so bad after all, and then we didn't even want to fight you any more. (And if you notice, we haven't fought you now, either.)

Yep. Incitement is totally not attacking. I agree completely.

I don't think an alliance has only two options, either being rabidly pro- or anti-Pacifica. Gre was on the Karma side of the war, but it was not specifically against Pacifica, so their leadership among Karma should not automatically be interpreted as inciting hatred or violence against NPO, as IRON itself was a very formidable target.

While intellectual arguements can be made contradicting Bob Janova's points, I still don't see how his posts are dishonest at all or are being made in bad faith.

[Joe Kremlin]

If we want to make these forums a better place to discuss CN then Bob Janova is one of the last people I'd ask to improve his posting.

[enderland]

I am here to comment on one thing that utterly infuriates me on a personal level, and that is seeing how utterly far the political conversation has fallen on these Open World Forums. To be frank, I am an Old Guard Pacifican. I may not have been on the same Level as the Moldavi’s or Sponge’s of the NPO, but I was around, I know those guys better than most of you, and I remember the glorious days of that alliance under Ivan Moldavi’s leadership. And believe you me, we Old Guard folks were some pretty badass dudes back in the day. We, after all, were the ones that made the legend of Pacifica that’s been carried around and caricatured over the years. Us. Many of my comrades have left the Order for a multitude of reasons, which are largely irrelevant here, but we made the Order what it was, and we also are the ones that instilled fear in the hearts of Pacifica’s enemies. It’s a legacy that has lived on to this day through careful mismanagement, and one of it’s few benefits was stifling the “debate” I bemoaned earlier. I say it in such a way because it is simply a series of “no u” arguments attempting to masquerade itself as debate.

What's funny is you lament the lack of political discussion on these forums, and then instead of discussing politics open a thread to bash one of the few posters here who actually discusses things instead of simply BS like the overwhelmingly large portion of this game.

It's also funny because for most of the past two years, people who spoke out against the policies of The Hegemony were threatened into silence BY the same people you laud for their discussions.

We have folks right and left using deception, shameless hypocrisy, and basically manipulative and bullying “debate” tactics in order to try and make themselves appear to win arguments and look good.

Deception? check

Shameless hypocrisy? check

"debate"? check

manipulative? not really

Looks like you missed the manipulative one with this post.

Ooooh! Now it all makes sense, it’s all about second CHANCES. And clearly the NPO blew theirs back in 2006. Yeah, I remember fighting gramlins back in the day…Good…Wait. No I didn’t. Were you even *playing this game* back then, Bob? And what do you know about the circumstances? If you knew what was going on at all, you’d have already known that leaving the Orders off with a bloody lip was because the CoaLUEtion felt that the NPO was no longer a threat. There was no mercy involved at all, the CoaLUEtion just collectively, and naivelly, assumed that they’d be able to beat down any attempts the Orders made to take us down had we risen again. Hell, I’m sure Archon has logs of those conversations, possibly AirMe too, but I don’t think he was high enough up back then.

Are you trying to say that no one directly involved in an event can make any sort of discussion on it? Then how can you possibly comment on the state of the CN:OWF forums given that you have not been involved in them for the past year or however long?

I’m sure Citadel knows the feeling, right Jenova?

Classy, what are you, 10 years old? Intentionally misspelling someone's name (multiple times) after spelling it correctly for the rest of the thread? If that is your "preferred" style of "arguing" I see no reason to even want it on these forums.

Ah yes…Jenova, I almost forgot (not really), about your citing of the various “tragedies” that occurred to alliances that disbanded, I feel that I absolutely *must* remind you that no one forced those communities to disband or leave. This is a game, and the slain victims of the Continuum (and it was the Continuum, you don’t get to wash your hands off just because you’ve come up with a new blanket label, kids) decided they werent having fun anymore. And thus left. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I am sure you would likewise feel the same if the NPO is subjected to two years of war.

Their community exists beyond a place where you can touch them. So quit trying. Revenge is all fine and dandy, but don’t dress it up as some blatantly hypocritical “Justice” or else TOP and Valhalla and GGA would be in the same boat as the NPO. Them being the ring leader is one thing, as is making an example out of them. So be honest about it.

After calling out Bob for making statements about the events of GW1 I do not think you should be making comments as to why different Hegemony alliances received different peace terms. Considering you are not privy to most of those discussions I find this rather hypocritical of you to make such a claim after specifically calling out BobJanova for the same sort of thing.

No one would deny you your lump of meat, but the fact that the large lot of you, *especially* folks who have no business talking out of both sides of their mouth and arent even dirtying their hands, are calling for blood based on some foolish idealogical bent is frankly aggravating as hell to me. You’re all lying. Blatantly, obviously. Janova is just one example…And I doubt he’s even trying to bother hiding it.

Pot meet Kettle.a

The OWF is full of Bob Janova’s, and you want to know what Chron called Bob Janova back in the day? TheBlitz. Andaras…or whatever his name was. Prodigal_Chieftain. And you know what I did to them? What the REAL Pacificans did to them? We dragged them out into the open for their posturing, and hung them out for everyone to see them as they really were. And mocked them.

Unfortunately, the average quality of the NPO owfers now is quite different than it may have been back then, and in fact they are the ones who get mocked (for far less intelligent "arguing" or "debating" than you seem to have such a problem with).

Well, guess what? I can, and I will. And as a member of FAIL I call upon *all* CN players who are annoyed as heck with the posturing and the preening on this forum to join me, and the rest of our League, as we dress down and destroy this culture of spin and empty rhetoric. Know me sign, and know fear. Chron is back, and when you see my Gauntlet’s Spiked digit, you’ll know you’re screwed.

If you being back means I have to deal with more self righteous avengers on the forum... there are already plenty of them. Plus it's even more funny you pick FAIL as an example of "quality forum posts" when you consider that one of the more prominent members of FAIL is quite good at the sorts of behaviour you do not seem to like.

Tl;dr: I really wish I didn’t have to use one of these, as it kinda flies in the face of posting such a long thing…But it’s ultimately necessary, since so many folks are secure in their belief that the only argument worth reading is a short one. Even if it’s a blatant lie. I may have been banned, but that was my own fault. Im back, better than ever. I hereby serve notice; I will brook no spin, no disingenuity, no falsifying, no strawmen, and no attention whoring. My Gauntlet is my sign, and it is a sign of war. You may not who the hell I am, but I don’t care, for you will soon. I will be coming for whatever I feel deserves coming at. And I frankly don’t care what side of the treaty web you’re on. Fake debating will be called out. Respect.

Oh give me a break you called someone out based on about 4 posts out of hundreds in a thread that did not need to be here.

[TehChron]

What's funny is you lament the lack of political discussion on these forums, and then instead of discussing politics open a thread to bash one of the few posters here who actually discusses things instead of simply BS like the overwhelmingly large portion of this game.

It's also funny because for most of the past two years, people who spoke out against the policies of The Hegemony were threatened into silence BY the same people you laud for their discussions.

Then they allowed themselves to be silenced. Im discussing intellectual dishonesty here. Feel free to air out your grievances and the fact you IC consider yourselves the moral betters of CN elsewhere.

I saw quite enough of it in the Valhalla thread. If you honestly cared about responsibility for IC crimes in this game, you would not have supported the manner in which Valhalla was released from the war.

I don't care what side of the Treaty web a person is, if I see intellectual dishonesty, I will be calling it out. I've proven quite well in the quoted portions that Janova is quite guilty of "fake debating". As I have already explained, he is not discussing, he is, in fact, cleverly BS'ing. And thats what has earned my ire. If you feel that I am mistaken, then show me how.

No, really. Feel free.

Deception? check

Shameless hypocrisy? check

"debate"? check

manipulative? not really

Looks like you missed the manipulative one with this post.

I'm sure you feel you made your point very well. Mind sharing that idea with the rest of the class?

Are you trying to say that no one directly involved in an event can make any sort of discussion on it? Then how can you possibly comment on the state of the CN:OWF forums given that you have not been involved in them for the past year or however long?

Not commenting on anything I havnt seen. Just what ive observed over the past two months since I returned. Once again, note the fact that I pointed out Janova most likely was not around back then. Or if he was, then I can not recall it. Participation =/= observation.

Once again, Im commenting on how far OWF discussion has fallen since early 2007, my previous heyday of activity. Perhaps the context of that statement wasnt made clear enough by the biographical slant of the rest of that paragraph?

Classy, what are you, 10 years old? Intentionally misspelling someone's name (multiple times) after spelling it correctly for the rest of the thread? If that is your "preferred" style of "arguing" I see no reason to even want it on these forums.

...

You're saying I lack class just because of a proof-reading error? Do you realize the staggering irony of that statement?

I am sure you would likewise feel the same if the NPO is subjected to two years of war.

I think the fact that you believe the NPO will be able to hold out for two years of war is more telling of the accuracy of my statement than any inference otherwise.

After calling out Bob for making statements about the events of GW1 I do not think you should be making comments as to why different Hegemony alliances received different peace terms. Considering you are not privy to most of those discussions I find this rather hypocritical of you to make such a claim after specifically calling out BobJanova for the same sort of thing.

I based it on Janova's cited definition of justice. Hence the fact I kept the term 'justice' within quotation marks to illustrate that point. I suppose you didn't notice that. I also note that the bold is yours, which is nice. I dont recall putting any heavy emphasis on that part of the statement...So mind my asking why you think I did?

Pot meet Kettle.a

Inference =/= faaaaact.

Unfortunately, the average quality of the NPO owfers now is quite different than it may have been back then, and in fact they are the ones who get mocked (for far less intelligent "arguing" or "debating" than you seem to have such a problem with).

As the NPO members can tell you, I actually screamed at them for their failure in that 200 page thread in #nsa, and in large part, that was one of the major tipping points leading me to decide on making this thread. Because theyre all pretty much guilty. I didnt post in that mess due to being banned a day or so before it went up.

But once again, inference =/= faaaaaaact.

If you being back means I have to deal with more self righteous avengers on the forum... there are already plenty of them. Plus it's even more funny you pick FAIL as an example of "quality forum posts" when you consider that one of the more prominent members of FAIL is quite good at the sorts of behaviour you do not seem to like.

Mind expanding on this point? I dont quite get what you're referring to.

Oh give me a break you called someone out based on about 4 posts out of hundreds in a thread that did not need to be here.

Oh, no need to actually read the OP, none at all. Youve pretty much gotten a pure crystallization of my argument right there.

tl;dr Ender from Kronos, who's claim to fame being it's ability to wash its collective group of any responsibility for it's members foot in mouth disease, is saying that a whole bunch of vague inferences are a rebuttal to my post.

Unless the definition of "rebuttal" was changed recently...Inferences are not a rebuttal, Im afraid. He can feel free to try again, though.