Doitzel Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Then why did they do it in the first place? For giggles, apparently. It's hard to ascertain a motive when they're talking so rapidly out both sides of their mouths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I'm ready Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Who said I was trying to? Then get out. You aren't helping anyone, and are going to be ridiculed. We may put you in the "Hurr Chair" even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Poaching members and slamming alliances that haven't done anything wrong wasn't in the pamphlet I got when I fought for Karma. Maybe it was in the small print. NSO thought it was a good idea doing it, so they did it. In the old days, they would have thought about it first, then thought how it breaks the unwritten laws of CN which was made by alliances who ruled through might makes right. edit: I'm not saying poaching is bad, it is. I'm saying that NSO's morals say (or said at one point) that it was right. Edited July 3, 2009 by CptGodzilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Ugh. Doppelganger, I'm sorry I wasn't in NSO long enough to run you through the Sileath School of Poaching. Here are the first 3 lessons: 1. Do not offer aid for joining 2. Do not offer a government position for joining 3. NEVER SEND AN IN-GAME RECRUITMENT MESSAGE You just handed a bunch of alliances a valid CB against you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 That basically means you are OK with people trying to poach your members. It is noted. Clearly you've missed the numerous occasions where they've said precisely that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George the Great Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 [ooc]I don't contend that it should be okay because they are neutral, I contend that it should be okay, period.Of course, when one wishes to test a social hypothesis in this realm it is just sound judgement that you do so under the auspices that you want to breach the waters against someone who won't automatically get all emo and butthurt over the situation. Obviously in this instance such belief was in error. So be it. If the experiment had garnered a new understanding on the conventions of the overly PC Cyberverse we may very well have considered a third stage to our experiment I believed that since step one, openly recruiting from Karma POWs, had gained little adverse response that this was simply a natural progression. I was wrong. Back to the drawing board. [/ooc] I thought the neutrals would think it was funny since obviously people join their alliances because of their politics. You guys came and asked us after the second week of war (or sometime around then) if you could begin recruiting from Karma PoW. We were all a bit thrown off and I'm not sure what our response was, but you guys did recruit from them anyway (I'm assuming we said that we didn't care). The fact of the matter is that you came and asked first, whereas in this situation, you did not. Karma PoW wasn't even made up of our own members, it was made up of surrendered foes and in the second week of war it was mostly full of nations that surrendered without fighting, you'd think this situation would warrant an initial request more than that one. Don't try to play that off as some sort of an experiment either, when it's fairly apparent that the NSO was and is desperate for members. NSO: Oh, we're not desperate for members, we do it for social experimentation only. Our stagnating recruitment and dwindling membership has nothing to do with it, at all. Did you guys purchase this idea from Rebel_Virginia's company? Sounds like something he'd think up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 For giggles, apparently.It's hard to ascertain a motive when they're talking so rapidly out both sides of their mouths. Eh, I only read the first 10 or so pages of heft, youwish, chey, and others saying "so deal with it" ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Ugh.Doppelganger, I'm sorry I wasn't in NSO long enough to run you through the Sileath School of Poaching. Here are the first 3 lessons: 1. Do not offer aid for joining 2. Do not offer a government position for joining 3. NEVER SEND AN IN-GAME RECRUITMENT MESSAGE You just handed a bunch of alliances a valid CB against you. I'm going to assume that you haven't read a single post beyond the OP, because you otherwise would look rather foolish. Edited July 3, 2009 by Style 386 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramneta Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 That basically means you are OK with people trying to poach your members. It is noted.Congratulations NSO for pulling this off No. It means we are discussing the matter. And since you are not a party (and neither am I), you still do not know what the outcome will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Then why have they apologised for it? I believe the wording was that it was in poor taste for the current political climate, not that it was in and of itself somehow morally "wrong". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I hate these filthy neutrals! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me As for you TDO - what does your gut tell you? yes, no or maybe? I'm thinking maybe. On a serious note - I support TDO's stance in this. They might be neutral, but you don't step over their sovereignty to exist and protect their membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I'm going to assume that you haven't read a single post beyond the OP, because you otherwise would look rather foolish. I believe the wording was that it was in poor taste for the current political climate, not that it was in and of itself somehow morally "wrong". This. I agree that poaching is not morally wrong, but it's only pragmatic to be more intelligent about it. Sending in-game recruitment messages to people of other alliances = CB Talking to friends via IRC about how cool your alliance is, and letting them make up their own mind = No CB even if there's a log dump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phetion Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I believe the wording was that it was in poor taste for the current political climate, not that it was in and of itself somehow morally "wrong". So calling an alliance pathetic, for no good reason is.. fine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoralDecadence Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I believe the wording was that it was in poor taste for the current political climate, not that it was in and of itself somehow morally "wrong". I belive it was the fact that it was poor taste, Period. Not for the "current political climate." It was simply insulting to every alliance that received that message and you're too full of yourself to see that. HOORAH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I believe the wording was that it was in poor taste for the current political climate, not that it was in and of itself somehow morally "wrong". Thank you, Ivan, for basically proving my point. I am just saying it's nice to see alliances forming their own morals in CN, than for 1 general moral standard to be roaming all of CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Clearly you've missed the numerous occasions where they've said precisely that. I was talking of TDO not NSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 You guys came and asked us after the second week of war (or sometime around then) if you could begin recruiting from Karma PoW. We were all a bit thrown off and I'm not sure what our response was, but you guys did recruit from them anyway (I'm assuming we said that we didn't care). The fact of the matter is that you came and asked first, whereas in this situation, you did not. Karma PoW wasn't even made up of our own members, it was made up of surrendered foes and in the second week of war it was mostly full of nations that surrendered without fighting, you'd think this situation would warrant an initial request more than that one.Don't try to play that off as some sort of an experiment either, when it's fairly apparent that the NSO was and is desperate for members. NSO: Oh, we're not desperate for members, we do it for social experimentation only. Our stagnating recruitment and dwindling membership has nothing to do with it, at all. Did you guys purchase this idea from Rebel_Virginia's company? Sounds like something he'd think up. No. I never asked anyone's permission to recruit from PoWs. I just decided that we would. Just making up crap for fun now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) I believe the wording was that it was in poor taste for the current political climate, not that it was in and of itself somehow morally "wrong". Ah, there's the answer we were looking for. You're not sorry for any harmful intent or offence, you're sorry that people responded more negatively than you anticipated. I just wanted to clarify. Edit: Your Lords use curious wording, though, I must admit: [2009-07-02 21:28:13] <Doppelganger> Roo, again, I am sorry for sending out those PMs to GOP, I was wrong. It was a bad move.[2009-07-02 21:28:20] <Doppelganger> you can take that line to the OWF ... [2009-07-02 21:30:14] <Roo[GOP]> One way or another our membership wants planet bob to know that we weren't bullied. To do that, we want a statement (in the OWF) from NSO saying that messaging and insulting our alliance was wrong. ... [2009-07-02 21:30:45] <Doppelganger> Messaging and insulting GOP was wrong of me. Edited July 3, 2009 by Elyat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I am just saying it's nice to see alliances forming their own morals in CN, than for 1 general moral standard to be roaming all of CN. It really is. However, some are trapped in a particular mindset that compels them to don their 'moral outrage uniforms' at every opportunity, regardless of what they may have been involved with in the past. It's entertaining as hell, frankly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 For giggles, apparently.It's hard to ascertain a motive when they're talking so rapidly out both sides of their mouths. Please feel free to point out where I have done so. All I see here is you, a noninvolved party, apparently butthurt that a topic doesn't include you, interjecting pointless rhetoric in the hopes of getting noticed. Good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 No.I never asked anyone's permission to recruit from PoWs. I just decided that we would. Just making up crap for fun now? I asked Liquid Mercury if I could, then a week or so later, you told me to just do it, so I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Ah, there's the answer we were looking for.You're not sorry for any harmful intent or offence, you're sorry that people responded more negatively than you anticipated. I just wanted to clarify. Or, as I once said to my former Queen: "I'm sorry you got angry when I called you lard-$@!." It's an apology. There's a 'sorry' in there and everything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Is there really anything more to discuss? Ivan has expressed regret over the situation now that TDO has sought to publicly humiliate the NSO in order to elicit an apology, instead of trying to contact Ivan directly. Now, all we have left is people flexing their new found political muscle in a situation they have no involvement in. I think it's time we call it a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoralDecadence Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Is there really anything more to discuss? Ivan has expressed regret over the situation now that TDO has sought to publicly humiliate the NSO in order to elicit an apology, instead of trying to contact Ivan directly. Now, all we have left is people flexing their new found political muscle in a situation they have no involvement in. I think it's time we call it a day. You mean like the multiple times they did try to contact Ivan directly before making it public? 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.