Woman of your word

[Teriethien]

"I reject any such nefarious intent" - Themis denies that there could have been such intentional manipulations, thereby calling Experimentum a liar.

Or that she disagreed with that sort of intentions behind a treaty. At least that's what it reads like to me. But more importantly, by that line of reasoning you'd be calling anyone who disagree with you a liar. At the most she said Experimentum was wrong - saying he 'may have felt' implies it wasn't a lie, since lying is purposely not telling the truth. If you believe in something false then you may be wrong but not a liar.

But like I said I'm only commenting on this one line. If she called him a liar elsewhere that's a different issue.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Teriethien

[Experimentum]

From what I've gathered.... the issue isn't whether or not the writ was written with bad intentions (I think the bad intentions have been proven twice over at this point), its that Themis' still denies the "machinations" that have occured, and is thereby calling Experimentum a liar.

On top of that, you've got this gem;

"What ever cute machinactions he may have felt were written into the Writ, I reject any such nefarious intent. I pledge that if in fact there ever was or currently is then I will find myself on the other side of a conflict with the Order."

Lets break it down:

"What ever cute machinactions he may have felt were written into the Writ" - Stating that Experimentum believes there was intentional manipulation put into the writ.

"I reject any such nefarious intent" - Themis denies that there could have been such intentional manipulations, thereby calling Experimentum a liar.

"I pledge that if in fact there ever was or currently is then I will find myself on the other side of a conflict with the Order." - Themis then goes on to state that if there are or if there were any "cute machinations" in the Writ which were made with "nefarious intent" that she will find herself fighting against the Order. Here in lies Experimentum's second issue, that by saying that she is violating her oath to the OBR.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me...

Good job, Tungsten. That's a fairly well put Cliff Notes version and probably sufficient for most purposes. There are additional details such as the timing of Themis' original post as it related to my original post four months ago, the implications of the body of her post, what could and could not be considered a reasonable interpretation of her post, etc. but, unless Teriethien or someone else requests a thorough breakdown with additional accompanying screenshots, I'd prefer to err on the side of brevity. (Plus I've got RL work to do. Hope you can understand that.)

Speaking of reasonable interpretations Teriethien, while I believe you are correct in noting that Themis never publicly uttered the words "lie" or "liar" I also believe that its clear by the tone of her two posts concerning me and the attempts at character assassination contained therein that she was doing no less than accusing me of lying. As evidence of reasonable interpretation in this case, I present Sal Paradise's response to her first post.

As to the issue of the Writ's existence before Themis' nation came into being and what would normally be a good reason to let the gal off the hook, Themis herself saw fit to nullify such a consideration when she said:

I pledge that if in fact there ever was or currently is then I will find myself on the other side of a conflict with the Order.

Had she said that once, I too would be inclined to give her a break (as I did for four months). But twice? Sorry. She dug a hole for herself and it's time to call her on it.

That makes sense, thanks. Making a fuss over it (even as a side issue), on the other hand, is beyond pointless.

<snip>

Then again I really have no idea what's going on so maybe I should have just quoted Tyga

There's not a thing in the world wrong with not really getting it, Teriethien. OBR's methods, rules, and regulations can be quite convoluted. I doubt that anyone not fully immersed in the traditions of the OBR could easily grasp the severity of Themis' infraction.

What she did is worth making a fuss over because the penalties for such actions are clearly (well... maybe not precisely clearly since it's all largely legalese) spelled out in the Roselution - the document that might best be called our constitution. Themis appears to have committed Treason and is subject to trial in the Chamber of Inquisition with the penalty of expulsion and ZI very real possibilities. The Chamber of Inquisition, you see, adheres to a Medieval standard of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply there.

OOC: OK. I really do have to get back to work now. This has turned out to be an enjoyable discussion. Thank you all for your comments so far. I look forward to seeing what turns up next.

[Jacques Cousteau]

Now THIS is entertaining.

I love when all of my favorite parts of the game come together to fight.

And to those people who state that this thread is worthless and completely lacks drama; That would be because these threads have been created to entertain certain people. Not the public at large.

[raincoat2]

Seems rather pointless.

Also,

That reads to me like a statement against the intent behind the Writ's loopholes. How does it actually conflict with her oath?

Actually its a statement that their isn't any nefarious intent. Its a more formal style of english, but yes she is rejecting the possibility that there is any nefarious intent.

[astronaut jones]

The latest showing of the Black Rose Opera rolls into town.

The funny thing about all this drama is that nobody would have cared for your clever little legal tricks anyway, so you're tearing each other apart on the basis of an internal OBR word game.

For real, this is CN. People wouldn't have let them attack their alliance without retaliating because some treaty they signed had some oh so clever wording to it.

The typical reaction if they presented that to someone would be "pfft, $%&@ that !@#$."

[Jacques Cousteau]

For real, this is CN. People wouldn't have let them attack their alliance without retaliating because some treaty they signed had some oh so clever wording to it.

The typical reaction if they presented that to someone would be "pfft, $%&@ that !@#$."

The writ was born back when those in power put more importance on following treaties to the word.

[Das Girl]

This is quite entertaining but that aside, I have never known Experimentum to be anything but honest. I wish you the best of luck in resolving this matter.

[WarriorConcept]

The writ was born back when those in power put more importance on following treaties to the word.

When was that?

[Experimentum]

This is quite entertaining but that aside, I have never known Experimentum to be anything but honest. I wish you the best of luck in resolving this matter.

*Experimentum bows to one knee before the esteemed Das Girl

*Experimentum risks being so presumptuous as to offer a hug

It is truly a pleasure to see you, fair lady. I've sincerely missed you and would be happy to have you commenting here even if it were to flay me. As fellow citizens from the very earliest days of Digiterra, we've seen the world change before ours eyes in ways we would never have imagined yet, ironically, those of us that have been here from the start have only grown closer. Heck, Arctic/Quercus and I actually talk to Ivan on occasion in a mutually respectful manner. Who ever would've thought that could happen?

Again, welcome, fair Das Girl.

[Jacques Cousteau]

When was that?

Oh good lord. I am sure you will make a point to wow me with dozens of examples of old timers breaking the law set down by, and signed with their own hands.

That is really not the point.

In today's CN, scores of treaties are signed due to friendships held between individual leaders in those alliances. These alliances would gladly go to war for each other even if there was no scrap of paper to prove their relations. While this is noble and honorable, it was not like this in the early days of Digiterra. Alliances signed pacts (especially NAPs) with others simply to give themselves a strategical edge over their opponents.

The wording of the treaties held carried more weight because the alliances were not always so completely tied to one another.

That is why today you see treaties written in language as simple as "If you mess with him, you mess with me. Ya dig?"

[WarriorConcept]

Oh good lord. I am sure you will make a point to wow me with dozens of examples of old timers breaking the law set down by, and signed with their own hands.

That is really not the point.

In today's CN, scores of treaties are signed due to friendships held between individual leaders in those alliances. These alliances would gladly go to war for each other even if there was no scrap of paper to prove their relations. While this is noble and honorable, it was not like this in the early days of Digiterra. Alliances signed pacts (especially NAPs) with others simply to give themselves a strategical edge over their opponents.

The wording of the treaties held carried more weight because the alliances were not always so completely tied to one another.

That is why today you see treaties written in language as simple as "If you mess with him, you mess with me. Ya dig?"

Just because they'd go to war for each other without having a treaty, doesn't mean they have. They sign the treaty normally when they feel they're ready to go to war for them, then follow their treaty to the letter, much like you're arguing they did in the past. In the end they all, or at least a majority, follow their treaties to the letter and your jab towards to past still goes unfounded. Or are you claiming LUE had that treaty with Fark

[Experimentum]

Oh good lord. I am sure you will make a point to wow me with dozens of examples of old timers breaking the law set down by, and signed with their own hands.

While I don’t know that WarriorConcept would go quite that far, he’s certainly one of the most well-versed citizens of Digiterra. As I once was (a very long time ago), he has been privy to a wide range of confidential information from an array of alliances for a good while now. Chances are, if you believe yourself to be thoroughly informed on all the ins and outs of why Alliance X went to war with Alliance Y, WarriorConcept could sit you down and explain how the whole mess was actually due to some completely unrelated (OOC: and RL) matter. He could but he wouldn’t. He rolls like that.

The wording of the treaties held carried more weight because the alliances were not always so completely tied to one another.

That is why today you see treaties written in language as simple as "If you mess with him, you mess with me. Ya dig?"

When I was a member of The Legion in the earliest months of its existence (and a 200 nation alliance was considered a whopper), we were in fact approached with such a treaty by… LUE I think… perhaps GOONS. Unlike what might happen today, that document wasn’t taken seriously or considered appropriate at all. No proposed treaty bereft of a slew of clauses, provisions, and articles was ever considered a genuine effort. At the very, incremental least there were sections describing the nature of the proposed relationship, under precisely what conditions one alliance could come to the aid of the other militarily, financially, and diplomatically, and how long the two had to wait to punch each other in the nose once the treaty was cancelled. Violating any of those terms was a big no-no and could likely create a situation in which your alliance suddenly found itself fending off political attacks from alliances other than the one you signed with in the first place.

Oddly enough Jacques, in going off on this tangent you’ve managed to illustrate exactly why the Writ De Credo was so “nefarious” in its language. The Writ sought to convey a sense of professionalism and thoroughness (and comfort as a result of both) while surreptitiously side-stepping, circumventing, and taking advantage of a number of widely accepted conventions of inter-alliance relations. In a time in which I agree that the letter of the law was held quasi-sacred, the Writ exploited that trust.

Which also goes to show… hmm… OK. I’m too distracted now. I can’t go on with this line of thought any longer. The continued absence of OBRers in this thread has become simply too conspicuous. Not only has the entire membership failed to come to the assistance of their newly minted Dame, Dame Themis herself seems… unwilling to answer to the charges raised. She appears to be exceedingly reluctant to utter but a syllable in her own defense even as the evidence mounts and public opinion has gradually evolved.

I’m forced to wonder exactly why that is. I know that the Knight’s Council and then-Squire Hime Themis found themselves having to smooth relations with a number of Writ Signatories when the deceptive nature of the document was revealed. What I don’t know is precisely what they told them all. I imagine that whatever was said had to be close to the OBR party line the Knight Protector established here. Given the general consensus now prevalent that the Writ was most certainly manipulative, dishonest, and perhaps even “nefarious,” and the Queen’s own unintentional testimony on how precisely the Writ was designed to be so, it would appear that the good Knight Protector’s post was… incorrect. By extension it also seems apparent that whatever all those Signatories were initially told may have also been… incorrect.

Perhaps, by their absence, OBRers seek to avoid such a thing being introduced into the discussion. I can understand that. Public revelation of yet more questionable activity would indeed be politically inconvenient.

[Jacques Cousteau]

Just because they'd go to war for each other without having a treaty, doesn't mean they have. They sign the treaty normally when they feel they're ready to go to war for them, then follow their treaty to the letter, much like you're arguing they did in the past. In the end they all, or at least a majority, follow their treaties to the letter and your jab towards to past still goes unfounded. Or are you claiming LUE had that treaty with Fark

You are more or less stating my/our end of what is not really an argument. I am not arguing that in the past folks followed treaties any closer than they do today. I am simply trying to get at the fact that today's game play is much more influenced by RL relationships or conflicts than it was in the past. That fact has a large influence over how treaties are looked at, and as is important in this topic, written.

While I don’t know that WarriorConcept would go quite that far, he’s certainly one of the most well-versed citizens of Digiterra. As I once was (a very long time ago), he has been privy to a wide range of confidential information from an array of alliances for a good while now. Chances are, if you believe yourself to be thoroughly informed on all the ins and outs of why Alliance X went to war with Alliance Y, WarriorConcept could sit you down and explain how the whole mess was actually due to some completely unrelated (OOC: and RL) matter. He could but he wouldn’t. He rolls like that.

Oddly enough Jacques, in going off on this tangent you’ve managed to illustrate exactly why the Writ De Credo was so “nefarious” in its language. The Writ sought to convey a sense of professionalism and thoroughness (and comfort as a result of both) while surreptitiously side-stepping, circumventing, and taking advantage of a number of widely accepted conventions of inter-alliance relations. In a time in which I agree that the letter of the law was held quasi-sacred, the Writ exploited that trust.

I have no doubt WarriorConcept could do just that. Just as you could have, and just as i could have quite some time ago as well.

And don't be so sure i don't see the writ as nefarious a piece of literature as you do. The "tangent" i went off on apparently accomplished just what i wanted it to in relation to my side discussion with WarriorConcept.

[JoshuaR]

No, I agree with Bob Janova. Treaties were followed to the letter only figuratively. They were followed to the letter regarding INTENT. For example, you have your drinking buddies style treaties that tell a story only well enough so that you know clause x means defense, clause y means non-aggression.

So regarding Experimentum's earlier posts about the Writ, I couldn't care less.

Now he has a fair point in this thread since the topic is not about the death cookie but instead about some individual responses regarding the writing.

[Taget]

What I'm seeing is legalistic meta-commentary.

Other alliances knew what they were signing and OBR knows what alliances intended to sign. No change of inflection here or there was ever going to make anyone say "Well I guess we're stuck. Have your way with us" nor would OBR have ever been foolish enough to actually take that line of argument.

And thus why I say it amounts to meta-commentary. They are asides meant to make themselves appear clever internally but are not statements of meaningful policy to be presented to the outside world. And probably not even meant for whatever roleplayer takes place within OBR.

[WarriorConcept]

You are more or less stating my/our end of what is not really an argument. I am not arguing that in the past folks followed treaties any closer than they do today. I am simply trying to get at the fact that today's game play is much more influenced by RL relationships or conflicts than it was in the past. That fact has a large influence over how treaties are looked at, and as is important in this topic, written.

RL relationships? Do elaborate please.

[Experimentum]

I have no doubt WarriorConcept could do just that. Just as you could have, and just as i could have quite some time ago as well.

My most sincere apologies. I had no idea you were a gray-haired old timer as well. I feel a bit upset that I haven't met you until now.

*Experimentum shakes Jacques Cousteau's hand

Hm. OBRers. Still I see none. Curious.

[Jacques Cousteau]

RL relationships? Do elaborate please.

Relationships formed by the people behind the characters.

[WarriorConcept]

Relationships formed by the people behind the characters.

I'd contend that's the part of the game where the OOC/IC line will have become blurred, and that those relationships were just as existent back then as it is now.

[Manwe]

RL relationships? Do elaborate please.

They are things you discuss after OOC tags.

(hint hint!)

[Experimentum]

The Wait For Themis

I wouldn’t be a good host if I didn’t do a recap at this point. Lord knows no one can be expected to go all the way back to the beginning of a discussion just to find out what its about anymore.

• 1. Back in late February I

exposed the fact that the OBR’s Writ De Credo was a con job.
2. Six pages later, then-Squire Hime Themis said it just wasn’t so, implied that I was lying, and pledged:

What ever cute machinactions he [that’s me – Sir Experimentum] may have felt were written into the Writ, I reject any such nefarious intent. I pledge that if in fact there ever was or currently is then I will find myself on the other side of a conflict with the Order [meaning OBR of course].

3. I let the accusation go and considered myself in permanent retirement.
4. June 28th arrived and it was announced that Squire Hime Themis had been promoted to Dame Themis; the female equivalent of a Knight. During the ensuing discussion now-Dame Themis went a little farther in her accusations against me this time charging me with libel. (Libel – a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.) In other words, she was this time explicitly accusing me of lying. She went on to repeat her pledge to all of Digiterra/Planet Bob:

What ever cute machinactions he may have felt were written into the Writ, I reject any such nefarious intent. I pledge that if in fact there ever was or currently is then I will find myself on the other side of a conflict with the Order.

5. The next day I received word of Dame Themis’ accusations by horse-borne courier. (I have no idea why it was sent that way. Most folks know OBRers use text messaging these days.) Less than happy at the news, I returned from retirement, started the thread you’re now reading and challenged the Dame to reaffirm her pledge to stand against the OBR should it be definitively proven that the Writ De Credo was a deliberately deceptive document.
6. Dame Themis responded by posting some nonsensical gibberish about a presumably mythological construct named RL. She followed by contacting me privately (OOC: Personal Messenger) only to elaborate on this “RL” fairy land and to request that I retreat from my public challenge. I responded, privately, by reiterating my challenge. She then replied with a “no” wrapped up with a bow in more “RL” gibberish.
7. I informed the world of the Dame’s decision and finally presented irrefutable evidence of the Writ De Credo’s intentionally deceptive nature – screenshots of the original discussion between the Black Rose Herself and me on the very evening the Writ was being… written.
8. Das Girl showed up and I melted.
9. A general consensus developed that the Writ was indeed deceptive (Example 1, Example 2) and that the Dame was subject to answer for her accusations (Example 3)
10. For more than 48 hours neither the Order of The Black Rose as a whole nor Dame Themis have had the courage, honesty, or honor (your pick) to so much as address the charges placed.

And so we all begin “The Wait for Themis.”

[Freelancer]

*Freelancer takes a big whiff *

Ex, can you smell it ? I believe that would be the aroma of fear in the air.

To members of The OBR, this is one of those time's where silence isn't golden, everyone's honor is being called into question here, fear none I dusted off my Webster's dictionary and await eagerly for an official response.

[katydid]

I see things differently.

I’ve not been around long, but when I look at Experimentum’s nation, I see he hasn’t either. It looks to me like he started a nation for the sole reason of posting this thread taking what appears to be RL personality conflicts with Hime Themis (OOC: this has bad breakup written all over it) public. And that to dredge up issues that are from an agreement that was negotiated back in the end of 2006 or the beginning of 2007? I mean, geez. Really?

On top of that when I looked up the agreement you are complaining about on the wiki, they canceled it months ago. How many of the nations involved back then are even playing now? I mean except for the ones who start a nation just to get all whiny and sling mud every 6 months or so (I read your last thread) to keep old grudges alive. Seems like 1) somebody needs a nap; 2) somebody needs to just cut the cord with Hime Themis. You hate each other, cool, no need to get all public drama all over it; 3) somebody needs to stop beating the dead horse.

I see you are trying to look nice and court the crowd, but you are just selling hate and I'm not buying it. I just see a bitter former player coming back semi-regularly for the sole purpose of being spiteful. I give them credit for not getting involved in these petty old issues with someone not really even playing anymore. I hope they don’t respond to you and take the bait to lower themselves to your level. Well, my level now, too. I’m going to go shower off and not read this thread anymore.

[Jacques Cousteau]

I do believe the OBR thinks Knight I will toddle off, and all of this will be forgotten.

Sadly for them, this is not the case.

I also request a response of some kind from The Order.

[Bedford Forrest]

I am not speaking for my alliance or as a diplo to the OBR, or for Dame Themis. But this is seriously a tedious wind chase if ever there was one. All this Sturm and Drang over "May have felt?" Gimme a break.

In fact, dealing w/ Dame Themis, I know she and the OBR could answer very well on her/their own.

But... she said... she wouldn't.

And... she hasn't.

Looks like she kept her word.

Can someone lock this thread before it gets even sillier? Please?

Edited July 2, 2009 by Bedford Forrest