Old Man Chron

[TehChron]

So you would have no qualms with going to "none" and letting yourself get raided all the time? At what point do you not think that it is ok to bully someone?

Certainly I wouldnt mind. But unfortunately, I need to be a member of my alliance In the game in order to be a part of that community proper, and frankly I dont consider the OOC repercussions worth the effort.

If this is "just a game" why do you care so much about how people post? For being "just a game" you sure put a lot of time into it. Also, since it is "just a game" then wouldn't being able to play the game actually matter?

...Yeah. I kinda said that with the whole "still participated while banned" bit that I mentioned earlier.

"Back then" was vague enough it could have meant anything. My apologies for not 100% correctly interpreting your post. Perhaps you could make an effort to be more clear in the future instead of using vague generalizations.

Apology accepted. Its not like you arent having a difficult time understanding the rest of my posts anyway, so I apologize for making them too...Dense...for you.

"Point invalidated."

I wish I could just post that and feel good about myself, knowing I had shred someone else's argument and "won!"

If one particular person was not the point of the OP, it would have been far more effective to take posts from this huge swarm of people (which I agree exist) and show that the problem is widespread instead of taking one poster and targeting them for what is apparently "not the point of the OP."

Already said I was too lazy to bother filling the quote limitation while writing this up.

POINT INVALIDATED.

Inference =/= Fact.

Four posts are not evidence to "convict" someone with 4,514 posts. Then again 0.1% is reasonably sufficient to adequately determine the character of someone's posts.

POINT INVALIDATED

Not necessarily a conviction based entirely on those posts. I saw several more, but quite frankly, I didnt think it was a worthwhile use of my time to go around and write up a hit on Bob Janova when he really wasnt even the main subject of this post.

But once again, and I tire of saying this to you, inference=/= fact.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Chron

[Machiabelly]

inference=/= fact.

Nor does someone saying something repeatedly = fact.

You are either a lazy debater, which would be a bit ironic all things considered, or you are spinning this. If you use one person as the example, please don't act surprised or upset that people infer it as a personal attack.

Please don't quote the part of the OP where you said you were lazy, I am not talking about lazy research, I am talking about lazy debating.

Almost finally...political debate is spin. Most debate is spin...two people spinnng the same set of facts to support thier view or goal.

Finally...you disagreeing with a post does not invalidate it to anyone but you.

[Ertyy]

I wonder how you would fare if you weren't all nice and secure in a coat of treaties and blocs when all those rumors started flying around of your subtle opposition to the "hegemony". I wonder how you would fare if you weren't aligned in part to the New Pacific Order and friends while people thought you were "opposed" to them. I wonder how safe you would have been.

And that is my point, exactly. You were allowed to survive because you appeared, for a time, to be "friendly". Then when the opportune moment came you flip flopped to the other side.

We joined Q with the idea that we would have some kind of a say (and ameliorating effect to the probable asshatery) in what went down. Barring a few isolated instances, that turned out not to be the case. Our clout and/or diplomatic finesse were just not up to the job. Anyway, when it became pretty clear that we were just along for the ride, we also had to consider that one did not leave Q lightly. For the longest time, we were the top pick for the next beatdown, so leaving Q was a nice way to make sure our next war resulted in us going back to tech selling. The highly paranoid internal reaction to the codex was certainly evidence of that.

So, ya, we left when we felt it could be done without compromising our position too much. We've done the best we can walking a line between our security and our integrity. Obviously, we haven't been the champions of righteousness, but I believe our internal position has been mostly the same throughout our history.

If that isn't enough for you, then w/e. Rightness on planet bob is mostly dependent on the political affiliations of the actor and critic, anyway.

Fake Edit: We haven't been significantly allied to NPO for quite awhile now. Even if we were once on their side, it hasn't been the case for awhile.

[TehChron]

inference=/= fact.

Nor does someone saying something repeatedly = fact.

I don't recall saying anything that could be considered a fact that I didnt support with evidence, or was not commonly accepted as fact. If you feel I am doing that, feel free to show me how.

You are either a lazy debater, which would be a bit ironic all things considered, or you are spinning this. If you use one person as the example, please don't act surprised or upset that people infer it as a personal attack.

Surprised? No. Annoyed? Yes.

Why shouldnt I be annoyed that folks decide to ignore the larger point of my post due to my choice in examples, without even bothering to prove that my examples are invalid? It's laziness and foolishness at it's finest, and I have every right to be ticked at that.

Almost finally...political debate is spin. Most debate is spin...two people spinnng the same set of facts to support thier view or goal.

Being misleading and trying to present yourself as upfront and honest is what im taking issue with. "Fake debate". Which I go through the trouble of defining in the OP. Have you read it, by the way?

Finally...you disagreeing with a post does not invalidate it to anyone but you.

Calling out a fake inference and a wrong-sided assumption for what they are actually *does* invalidate it. Sorry to say. Perhaps the lazy debater is you?

[Sal Paradise]

inference=/= fact.

inference=/= fact.

Nor does someone saying something repeatedly = fact.

inference=/= fact.

You are either a lazy debater, which would be a bit ironic all things considered, or you are spinning this. If you use one person as the example, please don't act surprised or upset that people infer it as a personal attack.

inference=/= fact.

Please don't quote the part of the OP where you said you were lazy, I am not talking about lazy research, I am talking about lazy debating.

inference=/= fact.

Almost finally...political debate is spin. Most debate is spin...two people spinnng the same set of facts to support thier view or goal.

inference=/= fact.

Finally...you disagreeing with a post does not invalidate it to anyone but you.

inference=/= fact.

The blatantly blatant blatancy of your argument is blatant, Machiabelly. If you were a real debater like me, you would rely on the same argument and vocabulary over and over again, and use a single person as an example to prove that fake debating is endemic on these forums.

[Machiabelly]

You would think that me knowing you admitted to being lazy would let you know that I read the OP.

If everything you say about Bob Janova is 100% true and I agreed with it fully, I could still call this thread out as a personal attack due to you only using one person as an example. The two things are seperate. Why should you be annoyed that people call you on something that is at the least lazy? Especially when your post is about making a better OWF.

I mentioned spin in particualr because you mention it in a few of your replies to people.

I may be a lazy debater, and person in general, that is why I am not on a crusade.

[enderland]

But once again, and I tire of saying this to you, inference=/= fact.

Unless it's your inference?

[Sileath]

I'm glad you endorse leaving an alliance when you disagree with their FA direction.

I did that once.

[TehChron]

You would think that me knowing you admitted to being lazy would let you know that I read the OP.

Or one of my several replies that has reiterated that fact.

I mentioned spin in particualr because you mention it in a few of your replies to people.

I may be a lazy debater, and person in general, that is why I am not on a crusade.

Well, I guess thats a difference of opinion then.

And Sal, thanks for the thought

inference=/= fact.

But I think ive got things covered.

To Machiabelly: As far as this being about Bob...it really isn't. But if you feel so strongly that my analysis of him is incorrect, you're free to show how I could, in fact, be incorrect...Evidence is really nice, after all.

Ender, feel free to respond to my actual points.

Edit: Spelling. Edit 2.0: Clarification of whom im addressing.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Chron

[Sal Paradise]

And Sal, thanks for the thought

But I think ive got things covered.

Don't hesitate to call if you need any help again.

As far as this being about Bob...it really isn't. But if you feel so strongly that my analysis of him is incorrect, you're free to show how I could, in fact, be incorrect...Evidence is really nice, after all. Ender, feel free to respond to my actual points.

That directed at me? Hard to tell, because I never said anything about it. For the record, I don't care about Bob.

[kingzog]

Our security wasnt in danger at the time Continuum was founded.

*snort*

Good one.

Oh, wait, you're serious?

I don't know how to put this nicely, but the NPO never liked you. They liked your stats, but they despised your alliance. But I was only in their private member, military and diplomatic channels. What would I know?

[TehChron]

That directed at me? Hard to tell, because I never said anything about it. For the record, I don't care about Bob.

Sorry, should have said Machiabelly. I guess I really need to start paying attention more to what I say in these replies.

/facepalm

[Machiabelly]

As far as this being about Bob...it really isn't. But if you feel so strongly that my analysis of him is incorrect, you're free to show how I could, in fact, be incorrect...Evidence is really nice, after all. Ender, feel free to respond to my actual points.

Edit: Spelling.

For clarity, I did read the OP.

OK, I am not sure if I am not being clear, or you are purposefully misreading what I say.

I did not say your opinion of Bob is incorrect. What I sad was that if you employ an admittedly lazy method of presenting your point (in this case only using one person as an example), then my opinion is that you should not be annoyed when people accuse you making the thread only to attack that person.

The fact that you insist it isn't a personal attack will not change people's opinion.

I have read your posts with interest for a long time, and I am surprised that you would not forsee that outcome when you decided to single one person out. One could infer, though that does not equal fact, that if an attack on Bob was not the main thrust of the thread, then it was at least a secondary one.

One question though, do you disagree I am lazy, disagree I am on a crusade, or disagree that lazy people should not go on crusades in the first place.

Edited because while I was replying you clarified that it was me not Ender you were talking to

Edited June 28, 2009 by Machiabelly

[Sal Paradise]

*snort*

Good one.

Oh, wait, you're serious?

I don't know how to put this nicely, but the NPO never liked you. They liked your stats, but they despised your alliance. But I was only in their private member, military and diplomatic channels. What would I know?

Interesting, my objection to that hilarious lie came from someplace else. Who knew that pre-toilet seat Grämlins were in such a precarious situation?

[ModusOperandi]

There are many of us from '06 still around; let go of the past and just move on.

[kingzog]

Interesting, my objection to that hilarious lie came from someplace else. Who knew that pre-toilet seat Grämlins were in such a precarious situation?

Oh no, this was mid-toilet seat. I (briefly) belonged to the NPO while Grämlins was part of the Continuum.

Members regularly clamored for Grämlins' death, the general line being something like, "When we've finished with GR, Grämlins will be next, right?" (And this was before the war against GR.)

Out of the many times I saw this happen, only once did I witness an NPO higher-up admonishing people not to "speak about our allies that way" although, if I recall correctly, that was followed by a "Not yet, anyway."

Many "lols" ensued.

[Sal Paradise]

Ohh... mid-toilet seat Grämlins. That's different.

Although, members of the NPO clamouring for the death of an alliance hardly puts that alliance at risk. If anyone listens to the frothings of the NPO membership less than the OWF it's NPO leadership.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[Heft]

I find it interesting that people are now shifting a World War against the immediate aggressors to a witch hunt of ALL the alliances who had some connection to the Continuum/1V. You better start bashing my alliance then - lets see how far you all get.

Generally it's not that people are trying to out everyone who played a part in the hegemony ever, but responding to people who did indeed play a role, sometimes major, and now act as if they've been fighting the evil hegemony forever.

The only mutual defense treaty that C&G ever held with any Continuum alliance was the Sparta-Athens treaty. Furthermore, Sparta did not engage in any wars from the signing of that treaty prior to the Karma War, nor did the Continuum launch any large scale offensives. In contrast, The Grämlins were directly militarily involved in the curbstomp and subsequent extermination of Norden Verein as Continuum members. I would therefore argue that The Grämlins were very much more a part of the hegemony than C&G ever was, even if they did disagree with it vocally while a part of it, and subsequently left to fight it.

Citadel has always been a vital component of the hegemony, and Continuum can easily be looked at as a Citadel/One Vision truce. Gramlins were a vital part of that, obviously. So, yes, Gramlins were a more important member of the hegemony than C&G (which, well, never really was in any considerable capacity) and most other blocs, save pretty much for One Vision and Continuum itself.

We joined Q with the idea that we would have some kind of a say (and ameliorating effect to the probable asshatery) in what went down. Barring a few isolated instances, that turned out not to be the case. Our clout and/or diplomatic finesse were just not up to the job. Anyway, when it became pretty clear that we were just along for the ride, we also had to consider that one did not leave Q lightly. For the longest time, we were the top pick for the next beatdown, so leaving Q was a nice way to make sure our next war resulted in us going back to tech selling. The highly paranoid internal reaction to the codex was certainly evidence of that.

So, ya, we left when we felt it could be done without compromising our position too much. We've done the best we can walking a line between our security and our integrity. Obviously, we haven't been the champions of righteousness, but I believe our internal position has been mostly the same throughout our history.

If that isn't enough for you, then w/e. Rightness on planet bob is mostly dependent on the political affiliations of the actor and critic, anyway.

Fake Edit: We haven't been significantly allied to NPO for quite awhile now. Even if we were once on their side, it hasn't been the case for awhile.

(emphasis mine)

That's just crap. If you had complaints you kept them largely to yourself. I can't recall Gramlins ever seriously stepping up and saying "This is wrong" about anything. You may not have directly participated in a few things, but that doesn't mean anything when we had tons more alliances chomping at the bit for fresh blood, and half of your nations were too big to get very involved regardless of your position. It's possible that you voiced a small protest here and there, but, honestly, if I can't remember it than it probably wasn't the sort of protest that would ever begin to make any difference anyway. Obviously you were an alliance more perhaps pacifistic, or at least less aggressive than most of the others, but that in itself hardly mattered. The closest to directly complaining you came was springing the Codex on us, which was more passive aggressive than assertive, and which was claimed to not be a criticism anyway.

[Joe Kremlin]

The closest to directly complaining you came was springing the Codex on us, which was more passive aggressive than assertive, and which was claimed to not be a criticism anyway.

What about when they left?

[TehChron]

For clarity, I did read the OP.

I have read your posts with interest for a long time, and I am surprised that you would not forsee that outcome when you decided to single one person out. One could infer, though that does not equal fact, that if an attack on Bob was not the main thrust of the thread, then it was at least a secondary one.

One question though, do you disagree I am lazy, disagree I am on a crusade, or disagree that lazy people should not go on crusades in the first place.

Edited because while I was replying you clarified that it was me not Ender you were talking to

I disagree with all three assertions. The first being due to the fact I believe your motivation behind abstaining from comments is apathy rather than laziness, the second because I frankly dont see anything you could be crusading on, and the latter I disagree with because seeing lazy folks rise up only to not do anything is unintentionally hilarious.

And I was responding to both you and Ender...I should probably clarify that via edit.

[Grumpdogg]

This whole thread fails because it doesn't address the biggest problem on the OWF - 'lulz' speak in Alliance Announcements.

Posters should at least try to make the OP Announcement sound like a political leader. If you can't type out a short statement that roughly sounds like what you hear on the news, then get someone else in the alliance to do it for you, or maybe wait a few more birthdays before writing that DoE...

PS: Oh and then there's the "OMFG THIS TREATY LUB MAKES ME **** IN MY ****ING PANTIES!!!111" replies...

EDIT: Unless you're in the RIA, please be coherent.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Grumpdogg

[TehChron]

This whole thread fails because it doesn't address the biggest problem on the OWF - 'lulz' speak in Alliance Announcements.

Posters should at least try to make the OP Announcement sound like a political leader. If you can't type out a short statement that roughly sounds like what you hear on the news, then get someone else in the alliance to do it for you, or maybe wait a few more birthdays before writing that DoE...

PS: Oh and then there's the "OMFG THIS TREATY LUB MAKES ME **** IN MY ****ING PANTIES!!!111" replies...

EDIT: Unless you're in the RIA, please be coherent.

What you dont realize is that the intellectual degradation of the forums is encouraged by the sorts of folks who dont actually support coherent posting and generally honest/eloquent debate.

What you're complaining about is just a posting style and a falling of accepted standards. Thats just a rant. What im pointing out is a deliberate and calculated style that is meant to bring down the level of posting you seem to prefer.

Of course, you're more than welcome to use my thread as a soapbox for whatever crusade you like...Just make sure to know exactly what you're crusading against in the first place.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Chron

[Heft]

What about when they left?

I was pretty clearly referring to when they were in Continuum, not when they left. Even then, they didn't really hold up "we disagree with these things" as a reason for leaving. My point was not that they didn't ever disagree with some things, but whether they ever did anything to actually try and change it. The person I was responding to indicated that a reason they joined was because they thought they could have a bigger say in how things went, and a major reason they left is because they were unable to do so. My point was that they never actually made any serious attempt to change the course of the Continuum.

[TehChron]

Gramlins left due to a sadly unstoppable, un-veto-able and overall messy public government sanctioned-vote to drop membership and run out of there.

The government did so only with great regret at being forced to follow their charter to the letter.

[Strudeldorf]

my nonsensical ouster

You were threatening to leak milcom info for something or other. I don't remember the exact reason, but it was a fairly solid one.

Other then that, you make a very good point.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Strudeldorf