SLCB Harboring Rogues?

[Timeline]

Cool, then you'd probably have picked up that we have a mutual MDP partner.

As we talked on IRC, you know my views

plus Nemesis is MDoAP to LoSS

[commander thrawn]

This post is as epic as it is original.

Thanks for your contribution.

I only read the first page when I posted so sorry if I missed some parts.

Edited October 30, 2009 by commander thrawn

[Jingoist]

nvm cba

Edited October 30, 2009 by Jingoist

[ChairmanHal]

yaknow there was once a red alliance who frequently doctored or even made stuff up just so they could go to war. you arent quite up to par with all that so please stop trying before you hand Stickmen yet *ANOTHER* CB against you

Well see...either Invicta are war mongers altering logs to start a war or they are cowards that don't stand up for themselves properly and avoid war at any cost.

Will the Invicta bashers at least get on the same page? This thread already went through the looking glass chasing after Alice earlier today, I just want some consistency in my Lewis Carroll knockoffs.

[Scorbolt]

Let me put it this way, if it was not for how well connected iFOK is, you would have paid the reps at the asking of 3m each long before this topic was posted, the bottomline SCLB was in the wrong and only becuase you have the backing of iFOK (iFOK on them selfs not much to worry about, but when you take FOK and the rest then its an issue) you went about been an $@!.

Not at all the point remains the same, you are incapable of doing it off your own back, there for you have to get allies to fight your battles that you cause ?

Your original point was that FOK was the only significant ally of the Stickmen. That is not the same as not being able to fight without their allies. Also, as evidenced by this thread they are perfectly capable of doing it of there own back or did you miss the part when they conducted diplomacy and resolved the issue?

[Goose]

As we talked on IRC, you know my views

plus Nemesis is MDoAP to LoSS

It seems your infra hugging ways have improved. Though I doubt you have the courage to actually do anything.

[Bob]

Knowing what I knew all along last night, I was kinda shaking my head at your loftiness. Do these new logs change any of your original thoughts?

I think they don't at all, and you know why pork.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[A Soviet Attack]

Just as a point of interest, and I don't know if this has been mentioned already (haven't read the last few pages) but SLCB doesn't give a damn that Invicta's member attacked again. It's a simple mistake. I'm actually somewhat ashamed of myself that I let things come to this... We made a mistake. Consider this an olive branch - I'm tired of this, and I imagine Invicta is as well. Good day.

[William Blake]

You know, someone might very well suggest that such a scenario would be an excellent way to goad an alliance into starting a war. Yes, indeed. Someone might very well suggest that. But of course I would never say such a thing. Besides, who would be dumb enough to fall for such a hamfisted ploy?

Certainly not us.

Probably late, but you came down on the wromg side of the war decision.

Edited October 30, 2009 by William Blake

[Stonewall14]

Time to RoLL them commies IMO....

[Dochartaigh]

Knowing what I knew all along last night, I was kinda shaking my head at your loftiness. Do these new logs change any of your original thoughts?

wait wha? i am not exactly sure what you are talking about....

Oct 28 19:43:14 <Waltar|Invicta> ogodai said no go to the reps. What's going on with that?

Oct 28 19:43:26 <Matt-Shovel[sLCB]> The damage done was minimal, reps are hardly needed.

Oct 28 19:52:50 <Matt-Shovel[sLCB]> Well, sorry, but we aren't paying reps.

Oct 28 18:22:56 <ogodai> We've come to a consensus that given the tiny amount of damage dealt by Kurt, reps aren't really necessary and probably a waste of aid.

Oct 28 20:15:06 <ogodai> Well, we aren't going to pay - with regards to that, my apologies.

i would go through the last 6 or so pages and find the quotes about how SLCB always just wanted "reasonable" rep amount to pay and all but i think the above quotes from the logs paint (yes, the word can most certainly be used against SLCB) a different story.

so how are these logs supposed to prove that SLCB never refused to pay reps at all? oh wait, they can't. it seems that SLCB did not begin asking for reasonable rep amount until this thread was posted.

[Jingoist]

wait wha? i am not exactly sure what you are talking about....

Oct 28 19:43:14 <Waltar|Invicta> ogodai said no go to the reps. What's going on with that?

Oct 28 19:43:26 <Matt-Shovel[sLCB]> The damage done was minimal, reps are hardly needed.

Oct 28 19:52:50 <Matt-Shovel[sLCB]> Well, sorry, but we aren't paying reps.

Oct 28 18:22:56 <ogodai> We've come to a consensus that given the tiny amount of damage dealt by Kurt, reps aren't really necessary and probably a waste of aid.

Oct 28 20:15:06 <ogodai> Well, we aren't going to pay - with regards to that, my apologies.

i would go through the last 6 or so pages and find the quotes about how SLCB always just wanted "reasonable" rep amount to pay and all but i think the above quotes from the logs paint (yes, the word can most certainly be used against SLCB) a different story.

so how are these logs supposed to prove that SLCB never refused to pay reps at all? oh wait, they can't. it seems that SLCB did not begin asking for reasonable rep amount until this thread was posted.

again:

have you people seriously never heard of negotiating? i mean seriously.

sometimes it goes something like this:

a. initial offer

b. outright refusal to do anything of the sort

c. time passes

d. second offer

e. solution

again I say, also, that invicta gave us a reparations number at about 5 oclock server time. that number was rejected and we took a hardline stance that we weren't paying any reps due to the way certain invicta gov't members had treated us from the outset of the rogue incident. waltar is aware of these actions and has apologized for such. So yes, we did outright reject the thought of paying any and all reps as a negotiating tactic.

I further remind people that less than SIX hours passed between us rejecting the first reparations demand and the posting of this thread. Six. Hours.

I will also point out (again) that our negotiation tactics got us exactly what we wanted - a real, reasonable number - a number which we happily paid.

you may not LIKE the negotiation tactics, and that's fine with me. I don't really care whether you, or anyone else, like them or not. The simple fact remains, however, that they worked.

I'm guessing that you'll never come to me and ask me if I like how you negotiate. Same goes for us.

[astronaut jones]

again:

have you people seriously never heard of negotiating? i mean seriously.

sometimes it goes something like this:

a. initial offer

b. outright refusal to do anything of the sort

c. time passes

d. second offer

e. solution

again I say, also, that invicta gave us a reparations number at about 5 oclock server time. that number was rejected and we took a hardline stance that we weren't paying any reps due to the way certain invicta gov't members had treated us from the outset of the rogue incident. waltar is aware of these actions and has apologized for such. So yes, we did outright reject the thought of paying any and all reps as a negotiating tactic.

I further remind people that less than SIX hours passed between us rejecting the first reparations demand and the posting of this thread. Six. Hours.

I will also point out (again) that our negotiation tactics got us exactly what we wanted - a real, reasonable number - a number which we happily paid.

you may not LIKE the negotiation tactics, and that's fine with me. I don't really care whether you, or anyone else, like them or not. The simple fact remains, however, that they worked.

I'm guessing that you'll never come to me and ask me if I like how you negotiate. Same goes for us.

When people want to pin something on you, all logic goes out the window. They're right, you're wrong, $%&@ the facts and common sense.

[Dochartaigh]

again:

have you people seriously never heard of negotiating? i mean seriously.

sometimes it goes something like this:

a. initial offer

b. outright refusal to do anything of the sort

c. time passes

d. second offer

e. solution

again I say, also, that invicta gave us a reparations number at about 5 oclock server time. that number was rejected and we took a hardline stance that we weren't paying any reps due to the way certain invicta gov't members had treated us from the outset of the rogue incident. waltar is aware of these actions and has apologized for such. So yes, we did outright reject the thought of paying any and all reps as a negotiating tactic.

I further remind people that less than SIX hours passed between us rejecting the first reparations demand and the posting of this thread. Six. Hours.

I will also point out (again) that our negotiation tactics got us exactly what we wanted - a real, reasonable number - a number which we happily paid.

you may not LIKE the negotiation tactics, and that's fine with me. I don't really care whether you, or anyone else, like them or not. The simple fact remains, however, that they worked.

I'm guessing that you'll never come to me and ask me if I like how you negotiate. Same goes for us.

hahahahaha. ok. you at least admit to taking a hardstance and you missed 3 times that you refused to pay reps. not just once and wait for time to pass. so provide logs to back up that your plan the entire time was to pay reps that you wanted to pay, otherwise it looks more like this:

1) SLCB refused to pay reps

2) Invicta makes thread

3) SLCB begins stating they will pay reps only to the extent of damage done

4) SLCB states this was the plan the whole time and it was a negotiations tactic

5) .......

@astronaut jones- logic please. honestly, what Jingoist states is logical, but that does not mean that what i stated is now illogical. mine is based on what evidence has thus far been presented. until Jingoist provides evidence to support his claims, they can just as easily be a lie to make SLCB look better.

[A Soviet Attack]

Can you people read my post please - I outrank Jingoist. Conflict is over, we're silly fellows. Invicta is OK by us. Or by me. Dunno!

[Jingoist]

hahahahaha. ok. you at least admit to taking a hardstance and you missed 3 times that you refused to pay reps. not just once and wait for time to pass. so provide logs to back up that your plan the entire time was to pay reps that you wanted to pay, otherwise it looks more like this:

1) SLCB refused to pay reps

2) Invicta makes thread

3) SLCB begins stating they will pay reps only to the extent of damage done

4) SLCB states this was the plan the whole time and it was a negotiations tactic

5) .......

@astronaut jones- logic please. honestly, what Jingoist states is logical, but that does not mean that what i stated is now illogical. mine is based on what evidence has thus far been presented. until Jingoist provides evidence to support his claims, they can just as easily be a lie to make SLCB look better.

yes i'm probably going to dump logs between SLCB government members on the OWF to satisfy you. why don't i just give you an admin mask on our forums so you can see for yourself? give me a $%&@in break.

[Timtacious]

Can you people read my post please - I outrank Jingoist. Conflict is over, we're silly fellows. Invicta is OK by us. Or by me. Dunno!

This. /thread

Also, I think I like you

[HeinousOne]

Just so you folks know, this absolutely could have been rated as the Popcorn War 2.0. Just sayin......

Congrats on making peace I guess.

[Haflinger]

It shows that SLCB actually considered paying reps but courteously informed you that the number you provided was too high.

Where as, in your doctored logs, I fully got the impression they just weren't going to pay reps no matter what you offered, as it seemed they had made up their mind before the number was given. The logs were doctored in a very particular way to show SLCB in a poor light, very dishonest.

The impression we got was that they flat out refused to pay any reps at all, after considering paying them.

Then this thread happened, and they decided to come back and negotiate.

What I don't understand is what you think you will gain from this apparent exposé.

Perhaps our impression was incorrect. Maybe they meant to say that they wouldn't pay that much reps. But eh, the reality is that the negotiations were successful. Fundamentally, what does it matter whether someone misinterpreted someone else's statement on IRC?

Of course, that has never happened to anyone else here.

to be fair, if a member goes rogue, they are no longer the problem of the alliance they were once in, and they shouldn't have to pay reps for their former member(s) actions.

Now, if they still claim he's a member of their alliance in full standing, that's another thing entirely, and they should pay reps OR cut him loose so he can face the consequences. But, if he's rogue, he admits he's rogue and no longer in said alliance, and the alliance no longer considers him a member, then reps should not be paid.

So, yeah.. if he's still in, pay up or cut him loose.. if he's out, then you guys get nothing and should just attack him for attacking your members.

I completely agree with this statement. The reason we were negotiating with SLCB at all is because they contacted us initially and wanted us to not counterattack their member despite the unauthorized wars. Otherwise, we would have negotiated (or interacted in other ways) with the individual nation directly.

So, uh, when are we seeing the DoW?

Right after someone decides that editing logs for length is a CB.

Now I have to find someone else to go be a jackass to. Thanks a lot...

Can't you just let haflinger do the talking?

Waltar's my boss now

Didn't use to be that way. Heh.

Nobody? I doubt paying reps to Invicta starts wars very often tbh.

No, it doesn't. It's amazing how many people in this thread are still obsessed with it. People really need to move on and do something with their own alliances, instead of waiting for other people to do something interesting.

Just as a point of interest, and I don't know if this has been mentioned already (haven't read the last few pages) but SLCB doesn't give a damn that Invicta's member attacked again. It's a simple mistake. I'm actually somewhat ashamed of myself that I let things come to this... We made a mistake. Consider this an olive branch - I'm tired of this, and I imagine Invicta is as well. Good day.

We are too, and the gesture is appreciated. Thank you.

[Kevin McDonald]

I have found that if you stop and talk to SLCB members, and put away your biases against them, they can actually be reasonable people.

Good show on both alliances for getting this resolved.

[King Srqt]

Right after someone decides that editing logs for length is a CB.

Serious question; How is changing the order of the conversation to make it appear that Ogadai rejected reps before they were even discussed "editing for length"

Did you really feel that putting the last sentence of the conversation first would make things clearer? And why is it that all the parts that were "edited for length" just happened to be all the parts that showed that SLCB considered and discussed your offer?

Just curious.

[A Soviet Attack]

This has been going on literally since I started playing this game in '06. My name is Ogodai. O. G. O. D. A. I. Not Ogadai. Not woggydie. Not Oh Go Die. Not Oh Good Day.

It's six letters for god's sake. It's frankly UNACCEPTABLE to misspell it.

Hi srqt!

[Haflinger]

This has been going on literally since I started playing this game in '06. My name is Ogodai. O. G. O. D. A. I. Not Ogadai. Not woggydie. Not Oh Go Die. Not Oh Good Day.

It's six letters for god's sake. It's frankly UNACCEPTABLE to misspell it.

Goodai, mate.

Serious question; How is changing the order of the conversation to make it appear that Ogadai rejected reps before they were even discussed "editing for length"

This was not the intent of the OP. I'm sorry if that impression was produced by it.

[Penkala]

Poor show Invicta. Doctoring logs in order to make SLCB look worse shows the true reasons why you posted this thread and I am disappointed.

Agreed. This after the whole discussion about dumping private logs where one of your gov members said he had no moral qualms about doing it a couple weeks back makes me really not trust Invicta.

I am not sure exactly what difference the missing lines in the OP are supposed to make.

Then why didn't you just give us the whole thing? It's not like it's a 500-line conversation, and you were cutting out irrelevant parts to shorten the time it takes to read it. This was done deliberately.

[sammykhalifa]

This has been going on literally since I started playing this game in '06. My name is Ogodai. O. G. O. D. A. I. Not Ogadai. Not woggydie. Not Oh Go Die. Not Oh Good Day.

It's six letters for god's sake. It's frankly UNACCEPTABLE to misspell it.

Hi srqt!

Yeah, and you're a Mongol khan, not a ninja.

heh