Timberland Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Sorry MHA you guys are good stat collectors but TOP is the greatest of all time. OF ALL TIME !!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) -snip- OOC: More evidence that this is an IC thread in an OOC forum: An alliance leader has now taken the time to make an official clarification. IC: So, if I understand you correctly, Jack Diorno doesn't speak for Athens or CnG. However... The leader of Athens (you) and lots and lots and lots of CnG members are coincidentally cheering on the conclusions, refining the details, and supporting the underlying assumptions of Jack Diorno's statements. Pack it up boys! We've just been out E-lawyered! Edited October 13, 2009 by WalkerNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) They weren't so far flung when we signed them 2+ years ago. Understandable - and this is by no means unique. Nor was my post a critique of TOP or of any specific alliance in the web. Sparta ended up on this list and we love them dearly, and know how committed they are and have always been (at least since we have known them) to defending all their allies, and not simply siding with the victors at any opportunity. The list Jack has made is a very rough correlation, and no single data point should be considered trustworthy, as artifacts can certainly arise from his measurement process. My post was simply an illustration of a general trend that exists. Edited October 13, 2009 by Londo Mollari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meer Republic Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I find your nonsense tiresome too. Repeatedly having to read paragraph after paragraph of your members' attempts to dress up rampant cowardice as the result of some sort of complex decision making process that is way above our simple concepts of 'honour' and 'loyalty' is getting boring. To save us from this in future can I suggest that you include this line in future treaties: Then you can just say you were following treaties and that the cancellations were simply a result of a lack of communication and direction, which you had coincidentally only noticed just before a major war. I would suggest a smart move on your part would be to avoid reading threads involving us then, but then what would you do with your time? I'm sure it could be arranged for a member of our alliance to demonstrate our rampant cowardice to you one on one just pop on over and we'll fix something up...but then again that would involve actually doing something other than flapping your mouth. On the treaty front, ou don't have one with us and I think I can say with confidence you never will so it should be of no concern, as it stands those we are treatied with are to my understanding not of the same school of thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Understandable - and this is by no means unique.Nor was my post a critique of TOP or of any specific alliance in the web. Sparta ended up on this list and we love them dearly, and know how committed they are and have always been (at least since we have known them) to defending all their allies, and not simply siding with the victors at any opportunity. The list Jack has made is a very rough correlation, and no single data point should be considered trustworthy, as artifacts can certainly arise from his measurement process. My post was simply an illustration of a general trend that exists. Regardless of the larger implications of what was said in the OP, it was only meant as a comedic run, and I'm pretty sure the escalation of this thread is due to several people taking offense and attempting to talk down those who agree with the satirical conclusions reached. Put simply, had this been left well enough alone, it would not have escalated to the degree which it has. But since there were several overreactions, this thread has escalated in combativeness significantly. You guys all need to take a chill pill, in short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severus Snape Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The nature of this thread was somewhat ambiguous at the outset but it has evolved into a distinctly in-character discussion. Moved to World Affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I would suggest a smart move on your part would be to avoid reading threads involving us then, but then what would you do with your time? I'm sure it could be arranged for a member of our alliance to demonstrate our rampant cowardice to you one on one just pop on over and we'll fix something up...but then again that would involve actually doing something other than flapping your mouth.On the treaty front, ou don't have one with us and I think I can say with confidence you never will so it should be of no concern, as it stands those we are treatied with are to my understanding not of the same school of thought. If any of you are so upset with my comments that you want a 1v1 then go ahead and declare, I would applaud your conviction and enjoy the war. Just so long as you know that it won't shut me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 OOC: More evidence that this is an IC thread in an OOC forum: An alliance leader has now taken the time to make an official clarification.IC: So, if I understand you correctly, Jack Diorno doesn't speak for Athens or CnG. However... The leader of Athens (you) and lots and lots and lots of CnG members are coincidentally cheering on the conclusions, refining the details, and supporting the underlying assumptions of Jack Diorno's statements. Pack it up boys! We've just been out E-lawyered! Oh no, I am not vilifying TOP or any other specific alliance. I am simply observing that there is in fact a factual and mathematical basis behind some of Jack Diorno's observations. If you would like to discuss this, I encourage you to address the actual points I made instead of just talking about e-lawyering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchh Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Oh no, I am not vilifying TOP or any other specific alliance. I am simply observing that there is in fact a factual and mathematical basis behind some of Jack Diorno's observations. If you would like to discuss this, I encourage you to address the actual points I made instead of just talking about e-lawyering. While I would agree the WN didn't address any of your points, you'd be just as guilty of the same crime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Well, this thread seems like a big poke at TOP dressed up as statistics. Considering they fought and considering they had friends on both sides, I'm just going to give up on intelligent debate and go with a 'No, u'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Crymson, will you please stop debating this irrational person? He doesn't like us. We'll live. Edited October 13, 2009 by Some-Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyNail Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Finally a serious thread on this topic that so many care so much about....wait...I'm sorry, this is not the topic I meant to post in. I though this was an intelligent thread that had relevance. My mistake. Please carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchh Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Finally a serious thread on this topic that so many care so much about....wait...I'm sorry, this is not the topic I meant to post in. I though this was an intelligent thread that had relevance. My mistake.Please carry on. Like you would know anything about relevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyNail Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Like you would know anything about relevance. quiet and get back under my desk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Well, this thread seems like a big poke at TOP dressed up as statistics. Considering they fought and considering they had friends on both sides, I'm just going to give up on intelligent debate and go with a 'No, u'. The sad thing is that this was never about sparking debate. It was a joke. From JACK DIORNO. What are people thinking deciding to take offense to this? Do they have such thin egos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I wish this had been started two years or more ago so we could have a real idea of the history and track records of alliances, but what can I do except whine that I want these stats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 ...Do they have such thin egos? I do, words hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 As if anyone needed proof that TOP was all about protecting themselves and their own. I thought that was common knowledge by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The sad thing is that this was never about sparking debate. It was a joke. From JACK DIORNO. It may have not sparked debate if it was even the least bit entertaining, or possibly even funny and humorous. The debate is what has turned this thread into an entertaining joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) While I would agree the WN didn't address any of your points, you'd be just as guilty of the same crime Quite to the contrary, I addressed the only relevant point. It might be the pinnacle of irony that a key member of the coalition that fought to ensure that people wouldn't have to post I don't represent my alliance! is now clarifying that a member of the alliance that he leads does not speak for his alliance. Particularly when the member in question clearly represents the popular sentiment shared not only in his alliance but apparently within the bloc to which they belong. As if anyone needed proof that TOP was all about protecting themselves and their own. I thought that was common knowledge by now. Everyone Shhh! The prophet speaks! If we listen closely we might learn which alliance will be upgrading a treaty with a long-term and loyal treaty partner! Edited October 13, 2009 by WalkerNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 What Jack Diorno is saying is that, regardless of whether the letter of the treaties is honored, the pattern of signing lots of MDPs with far flung corners of the treaty web is a "survivalist" practice, and therefore dishonorable, because a non-chaining MDP signed by an alliance which spreads its treaties far and wide is much less likely to be activated than a non-chaining MDP signed by an alliance which keeps all of its treaties on one side of the web. And certainly in cases where it is most sorely needed, a non-chaining MDP is more likely to be honored by an alliance which keeps all of its MDPs on one side of the web than one which casts its nets far and wide. In both cases, the treaty will be honored due to the non-chaining clause, but yet there is still a substantive difference hmmmm?Jack Diorno has therefore advanced a very precise definition of a property or behavior of alliances called "survivalism". The more spread out an alliance's non-chaining MDP treaties are among different parts of the treaty web, and the more treaties it has, the less likely any given non-chaining MDP treaty is to produce actual defense of an attacked treaty partner. "Survivalism", because it enables entry into any part of any war, ensures that a highly "survivalist" alliance can come out on top every time, due to siding with the winning side, while still preserving the illusion that its non-chaining treaties mean just as much as those signed by a "non-survivalist" alliance. The problem is assuming that those who sign treaties spread out far and wide do so intending to ever have to cancel any of them because they conflict. At the time TOP signed the treaties that ended up conflicting, they didn't conflict. At one point FoK and Gremlins, which would be two of TOP's main allies that were on the opposite side of it's other allies (IRON and NPO), were in Q with TOP. Over time TOP's allies drifted apart from each other, placing TOP in a lose/lose situation. Labeling that as "survivalism" is very unfair. You could accuse NPO of it, as they signed many treaties that obviously were strategic and didn't have any friendship behind them. TOP, not so much. The problem with this thread is that it is in many ways a joke, but it is rapped around potentially serious ideas that people hold, and it's not unreasonable to see it as trying to propagate those ideas by disguising it as humor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medtech Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Finally a serious thread on this topic that so many care so much about....wait...I'm sorry, this is not the topic I meant to post in. I though this was an intelligent thread that had relevance. My mistake.Please carry on. Rusty Your My Hero This thread is much fun. It's amazing how simple statistical opinions can turn into a you hurt my feelings fun fest. /me gets some popcorn Edited October 13, 2009 by medtech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The problem is assuming that those who sign treaties spread out far and wide do so intending to ever have to cancel any of them because they conflict. At the time TOP signed the treaties that ended up conflicting, they didn't conflict. At one point FoK and Gremlins, which would be two of TOP's main allies that were on the opposite side of it's other allies (IRON and NPO), were in Q with TOP. Over time TOP's allies drifted apart from each other, placing TOP in a lose/lose situation. Labeling that as "survivalism" is very unfair. You could accuse NPO of it, as they signed many treaties that obviously were strategic and didn't have any friendship behind them. TOP, not so much.The problem with this thread is that it is in many ways a joke, but it is rapped around potentially serious ideas that people hold, and it's not unreasonable to see it as trying to propagate those ideas by disguising it as humor. I like you Azaghul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It may have not sparked debate if it was even the least bit entertaining, or possibly even funny and humorous. The debate is what has turned this thread into an entertaining joke. No, the thread itself gave me a concussion from the over the top defensiveness shown by a lot of posters. The OP was amusing, though. You should all take a step back and relax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodvar Jarl Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Fine, TOP is planning our Bad Boy point accumulation, at some point of our choosing, we will make you all so mad at us that all of you attack us (except our allies, allies stay allies and will not declare war on you), but you will realise that is in accordance with our World Conquest scheme, by that time though, there will be nothing stopping your annexation. Then we betray Grämlins. 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.