Old Man Chron

[Ejayrazz]

Listen, this isn’t some kind of random venting. It’s a serious condition affecting the Open World Forum. 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. It lowers the standards of the OWF, and needs to stop. I’m fed up with it…And it’s not just one or two people, it’s systematic, and it happened during the NPO’s reign, and is continuing now.

You were on the opposing side of the political spectrum of where many lay now, The Initiative side of things were MUCH worse than what they are now - anyone disagreeing with this is blinded by nonsense (Which, I could consider this a fact and you could consider it an opiniuon) - and no, this isn't a deep shot at NPO, but rather some of their allies they supported (which was typical in OWF content), which prominent individuals later stated they hated to avidly support, which lead to other problems, eventually leading to the demise of Initiative merely because some alliances 'went too far'. Quite a few of your allies were redundant and moronic with most of their discussions, you had a better chance trying to convey points by method of sign language to a blind person than you did with diplomatically discussing issues with some of them. The quality has always 'lacked' depending on which side you lay on, fundamentally it is widely accepted the 'two sides' which 'once existed' completely felt the other was partly, or mostly, illogical, redundant, or enraged with idiocy. Hell, even your own allies sometimes laughed and ridiculed GOONS after their destruction for their nonsense - you know, the same behavior the 'old guard' supported publicly but later acknowledged they completely disliked most behavior displayed by their allies. This 'degrading style' has always existed, you're just now on the opposite side, though 'degrading' in itself is, as I always say, is subjective, as is many other things in this game. What you view as a 'lie' is a 'fact' to someone else because typically both sides slightly are twisted to fit their own needs - I do not condone it, but unfortunately this is how the game has transpired.

You acknowledged it existed prior to these moments, the problem is I personally feel it was much worse and the "no u" comments, which is WHERE this meme began within this OWN community, were more frequently used in the old days. I should know, I was THERE during GWI, and many would agree with me. (I could call this a fact, you could call it an opinion)

Only I wasn’t around for that, so like hell I have an excuse to let this time slip by. If you’re going to debate, debate honestly, if you’re not going to debate honestly, don’t debate at all, or be open about your intentions. And that goes to everyone practicing that. Every single one, and there are a lot of folks who both participate in, and encourage these kinds of actions…But some are significantly more brazen about it than others.

You earlier acknowledged the 'lying and degrading' posting styles existed even during NPO's reign, though I envy your intentions to mark hypocrisy and blatant lying, why didn't I see these types of threads to your own allies? To your own comerades? You state you represent truth, well, lets be truthful because we both know your side during those times bluntly lied about things, as have others..It doesn't make it right, but why didn't I see these posts matched with such passion? Because you were different? Because it was the past? I am finding it difficult to comprehend your conveynece when I see hypocrisy within your message all in itself: You don't represent 'truth', you represent an opinion which has been stirred overtime to fit your perspective, which is perfectly fine, but isn't 'truth' nor does it signify the other side is 'lying'.

I see a child get hit by a bus..I take it as the bus hit the child, you saw it from an opposing view, yet you feel the child ran into the bus..Two different perspectives, but no one is 'lying' or 'blatantly lying'. If an anti-Citadel member hears something pertaining to our bloc, they'll jump on it..because it is a mitigating difference as opposed to hearing the same situation with an ally. Their is doubt. Their is biased opinions. These exist and collide with one another, therefore eventually deriving an opinion. If I said: Citadel expelled OG because OG bluntly stated they'd use Citadel as a tool, someone may take it for an excuse to "maintain our moral high ground and merely doesn't admit they simply no longer wish for an ally who opposed them and defended a treaty partner". I could call this ignorance, but they could call it careful observation. Now, I will go on and on about how they lie and whatnot..but, that is essentially what is flawed with your post: Everyone has doubts. Everyone is usually biased. Everyone takes things how they choose, but it doesn't make them liars, it makes them not gullible because we have seen so much lying in this game..this is how the players have generally adapted over time - to take every word with a grain of salt.

I have a different perspective on said matters. I do not feel anyone is necessarily lying (with the exception of a select few, which BobJ is not one of them), I feel because of the carefully laid formula above, it emits the current status in which everyone is skeptical and assumptions, inferences, and biased observation leads to where we are today.

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.

From this, I sense sarcasm, which is an opinion, but it doesn't make you a liar. This is part of what I am speaking of, you feel TOP of one way as Bob does another, yet he isn't calling you a liar. I can give you a fact:

TOP absolutely loved NPO. You can rip this argument apart if you wish, but I am giving you a fact as an ally of theirs who constantly spoke to them about NPO and they countlessly defended them when needed as they were allies, in which they eventually cancelled. It wasn't a treaty they merely used, they did indeed envy their relationship - believe me, I heard it every day. But will you believe this FACT? Probably not. Why? Cause you already have an opinion of TOP. You already do not trust them and you certainly have no reason to trust me, so why would you listen to this FACT? Because its all about opinion. This is a fact, whether you like it or not, but those disagreeing with it I do not gallop and finger point them as liars, I finger point them as individuals with a different perspective. Ultimately, I would know as I was one of their closest ally, especially amongst leadership, but as stated above, if you choose not to believe it, it doesn't make you a liar.

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?

We all have opinions on how we have come to the events today, but even I understand why the NPO is being 'blamed for a reason'. They were the 'leader', they were seen as the supporter of their allies who caused havoc and problems. Just a basic example:

01[10:04] <07Ejayrazz> Many believe [Certain alliances listed here] displayed LUCRATIVE behavior on the big boards. They were loved and hated for it, but even allies out of WuT sometimes were upset by the trolling and nonsense. NPO supported their behavior because, well...as weird as it sounds, they were honorable and stuck by their allies' sides. This behavior also lead to all three of these alliances being attacked and destroyed later on. [Of course, this wasn't the only reason, but this behavior transpired to private means and tension wasn't too great]

01[10:05] <07Ejayrazz> Since NPO did what was technically right..sticking up for their allies in public [especially at the time]...they suffered great PR losses

01[10:05] <07Ejayrazz> Which still are felt today

01[10:05] <07Ejayrazz> No !@#$@#$ way is NPO the same NPO back in the day in my opinion

Do I think it is right? I don't care anymore to be honest, but what I will say is enemies don't die, they come back stronger and smarter in this game. I mean, you have people like Mary in IRC banning people merely because 'she doesn't like them', yet she is in her position. For an alliance which advocates representation, little instances like these add up, tension builds and grudges are formed. None of this is a lie, now is it mate? No, it is a viewpoint.

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?

GGA? I wont argue this.

TOP? Reasons mentioned above, previously.

As I mentioned, I see the argument of observational perspectives elapsing your point more so than logical facts. You do make some points clear, such as my "GGA? I wont argue this." Your point of "How come some people get off free while others dont" is more so in the line of political representation, in my opinion, which is a realist perspective, as stated is MY perspective mate.

Hell, even I agree there was no 'second chance' as well, I agree with it entirely - because from MY perspective, Coa has a chance of defeating you if nuclear arsenal were used, but there are NO FACTS - just opinions.

My problem with your thread is you carefully, and deliberately, target someone not suitable for your thesis. Bob can be right, Bob can be wrong, but he isn't this huge liar and 'fake debater' as you proclaim. As others said, there are three notable problems with your points:

1. Use more than one person

2. Use more notable individuals which fit your thread more so than Bob.

3. Fact vs. opinion

Your post in itself isn't a FACT, it is an opinion.

I hope you understood the referenced 'formula' in which biased views and skepticism elude the entire of point which makes fact vs. opinion such a notable problem.

I hope you can at least understand my perspective.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Ragashingo]

Actually those quotes were chosen because they provided a readily available set of posts showcasing Janova's unequivocal apathy towards self-consistency.

Yet they still all revolve around what I said they did.

Perhaps had you legitimately read the OP rather than skimmed it...

Oh please. I skimmed it at 2am last night and made a single post. I then read it throughly multiple times and made more post. You can stop pretending I'm arguing with you after only skimming your op.

Disproven from the OP.

Did you misquote or something? I have no idea what you were talking about there... I mean you quoted yourself then said disproven...?

You mean the Legion withdrawing after using the Coven doctored logs as a terrible and opportunistic excuse to grab the #1 spot before trying to go for the moral high ground afterward?

Yes, that too.

Let's be blunt here: You all decided the Orders weren't worth the effort it would cost to keep them down.

I said as much. I also know from hindsight that we were wrong in our choice back then. Our actions allowed the NPO to dominate the game for the next two plus years. But we weren't willing to trade our positions of power for the betterment of all.

Im...Sorry? IGC surrendering a couple of days into the war and getting near white peace in the time before reps is hardly merciful. You all just had bigger fish to fry, considering how the CoaLUEtion couldnt gain a decisive advantage until after the Legion stepped in.

Large reps were certainly discussed during the multiple CoaLUEtion / NPO peace talks. As were other harsh punishments including disbanding entire alliances. And again it was no simple thing. There were some who wanted nothing less than disbandment and (obviously) some who were willing to accept a simple apology. Sure political and military concerns played a huge role in the ending of the war, but again, mercy had its part and it was not an insignificant one.

I established in the OP why Im confident he deserves it. The fact Im calling out someone I think needs to be called out, damned be the consequences, damn near qualifies as a dictionary definition of integrity.

Not if you're wrong about it all.

I never said "REAL" Pacifican. I said "Old Guard", which is a statement of fact.

Read lower down in your own op silly:

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.

Well, guess what? I can, and I will.

Thats what I was referring to. Hardly baseless of me to refer to your own words, even going so far as to maintain their proper context while using them in this debate.

[TehChron]

You may need to go over the quotes once again, Raga. Im afraid you are either misunderstanding fundamentally what was said in the quotes, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I doubt it's the latter.

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.

How does that revolve around the issue you named in the first place? Which was not NPO, rather it was:

Meh, despite my better judgement of time management (as in needing sleep) I reread the op and wasn't pleased. The whole op comes off reading like a disgruntled attack on Bob Janova mixed with anger directed at those who once supported the NPO but now oppose them... or something.

Turning into:

Bob Janova was talking about the NPO by name four out of the six times you quoted him. You mentioned the NPO at least four times in direct response to the Bob Janova quotes. The NPO came up, again by name, at least three times in your op before you even started quoting Bob.

I recommend reviewing your previous posts when making claims on what you said or did not say. It's easy to lose track of your arguments in a heated debate like this.

Oh please. I skimmed it at 2am last night and made a single post. I then read it throughly multiple times and made more post. You can stop pretending I'm arguing with you after only skimming your op.

You showed a preconceived bias in that single post. And I called you out on it. Mind explaining the leap of reasoning it took to conclude how calling you out on that preconceived bias is pretending anything?

Did you misquote or something? I have no idea what you were talking about there... I mean you quoted yourself then said disproven...?

A rebuttal supported by evidence of what I said...regarding your erroneous claims of what I was saying...In light of the previous point I just made, I guess keeping track of one's own arguments is something new.

Are you even trying to honestly debate here?

I said as much. I also know from hindsight that we were wrong in our choice back then. Our actions allowed the NPO to dominate the game for the next two plus years. But we weren't willing to trade our positions of power for the betterment of all.

I can respect integrity and candor. Even if it is just realistic hindsight.

Large reps were certainly discussed during the multiple CoaLUEtion / NPO peace talks. As were other harsh punishments including disbanding entire alliances. And again it was no simple thing. There were some who wanted nothing less than disbandment and (obviously) some who were willing to accept a simple apology. Sure political and military concerns played a huge role in the ending of the war, but again, mercy had its part and it was not an insignificant one.

I find it interesting that the folks who wanted complete disbandment apparently had no power to force a compromise in the final terms.

Which kinda makes them irrelevant.

Not if you're wrong about it all.

I'm not the one claiming I made arguments I actually did not. And at least I showed why theres a foundation to my reached conclusion...Thats kind of...Dare I say it?

Honest.

Read lower down in your own op silly:

Thats what I was referring to. Hardly baseless of me to refer to your own words, even going so far as to maintain their proper context while using them in this debate.

Dude, you made a list of things a "REAL Pacifican" did then with your next sentence you proudly said you would do those same things. If you don't want your proposed actions to be linked with the New Pacific Order then I'd suggest you don't refer to them as being a "Real Pacifican" like you originally did.

Eh....Mind showing how the quoted bit actually lines up with that assessment? Im afraid Im not following you.

@Ejayrazz, you're points are much more serious and thoughtful and should be replied to in kind. However, since I recall double-posting being frowned upon, and since I want to give your response its own post, Im gonna need to save it for later.

[Bob Janova]

If it wasn't intentional, it wasn't a second chance.

What? Most second chances are not given intentionally.

Since it's Wimbledon fortnight, let's use a tennis metaphor. If I am a match point down, give my opponent an easy smash and he accidentally misses it, that is just as much of a second chance as if he deliberately missed it. In fact if you had actually been reading my posts, instead of looking for ways to score cheap points, you'd have noticed that I already said that it didn't matter whether the CoaLUEtion gave the NPO its second chance out of mercy, strategic considerations or incompetence.

[Strudeldorf]

Nope, I wasn't. And of course you dont remember the exact reason, the logs that lie was based upon were of the one and only time I have ever been drunk (while online).

And of course you didnt see the logs of my attempting to defend myself. Get over it, I have.

And frankly speaking you should have more important things to worry about than soul searching over the reason I was thrown out.

Meh, frankly, I don't care all that much about it. Saw it and thought I'd comment to see the reaction, just so I could get your side.

But this tangent shouldn't distract that, the small bit aside, I agree with what you're saying.

[Grumpdogg]

I really don't think people are going to stop posting their opinions or perceptions of events in favour of straight up facts. The whole perception vs reality thing is basically the essence of politics, and is what leads to good/bad PR, drama and conflict.

[Infinite Empire]

The force is strong with this one...