SLCB Harboring Rogues?

[erikz]

Do something about us, ignore us, or simply stop pursuing arguments because of "our" hollow posturing.

Wait... wut?

Did someone say AAF?

...oh, you're back in the old nest. nvm.

[Louisa]

Another triumph for the Haflinger School of Diplomacy (patent pending).

God I am glad I do not have to deal with this junk.

[MCRABT]

1 sec while we doctor the logs to make Stickmen look hostile in negotiations and such.

The logs are irrelevant to the issue here. The issue is that SLCB thinks believes it is OK to get of scott free with attacking small nations because the damage is insignificant. Am I to presume then that SLCB would not ask for reps if one of there low NS nations were raided for 24 hours?

[Neo Uruk]

The logs are irrelevant to the issue here. The issue is that SLCB thinks believes it is OK to get of scott free with attacking small nations because the damage is insignificant. Am I to presume then that SLCB would not ask for reps if one of there low NS nations were raided for 24 hours?

Probably not as it takes little to rebuild at 5k NS.

[Benjamin Arouet]

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.

Thanks Jack, that is exactly my read on the situation. The difference is subtle, and substantively still conveys the same sequences of events, but it is manipulated in order to cast SLCB in the worst light possible.

[spearo]

The logs are irrelevant to the issue here. The issue is that SLCB thinks believes it is OK to get of scott free with attacking small nations because the damage is insignificant. Am I to presume then that SLCB would not ask for reps if one of there low NS nations were raided for 24 hours?

If you had of read the whole thread you would know reps were paid when we were offered a reasonable figure as opposed to paying probably over 10x the damages caused per nation.

[Jingoist]

The issue is that SLCB thinks believes it is OK to get of scott free with attacking small nations because the damage is insignificant.

have you even read the thread?

we refused to pay their first offer. they made a second offer, and we gladly paid what was a fair amount.

[Frozenrpg]

Do something about us, ignore us, or simply stop pursuing arguments because of "our" hollow posturing.

You know... I do enjoy the "well do something about it" response. It is as if all all logic and conversation has been thrown out at this point and now it is time for one to use their fists. Well good sir, you just had a good enough reason and justification to 'do something about it' yourself, and yet to you decided to bring it here where the arguments presented by Invicta fall on deaf ears only to be told "Private chans FTW" (I know, it was quite unexpected). And yet, it gets interesting again, as Invicta is presented in an even worse light for editing logs to try and turn the masses against SLCB. So yet, in the end you have accomplished nothing, and only served to lower your own alliance's credibility.

Bravo Invicta, you just pulled a GGA.

[Proko]

It's hard to think of how Invicta could have handled this worse.

I think it just became clear how that was possible.

[Neo Uruk]

You know... I do enjoy the "well do something about it" response. It is as if all all logic and conversation has been thrown out at this point and now it is time for one to use their fists. Well good sir, you just had a good enough reason and justification to 'do something about it' yourself, and yet to you decided to bring it here where the arguments presented by Invicta fall on deaf ears only to be told "Private chans FTW" (I know, it was quite unexpected). And yet, it gets interesting again, as Invicta is presented in an even worse light for editing logs to try and turn the masses against SLCB. So yet, in the end you have accomplished nothing, and only served to lower your own alliance's credibility.

Bravo Invicta, you just pulled a GGA.

Invicta: The New GGA

This actually makes sense due to them buddy-buddying NPO recently.

[Azaghul]

Quotes from the OP:

Apparently, undoctored logs as posted above:

These paint an entirely different picture to me, can someone from Invicta please tell me why the original logs were doctored?

EDIT: highlighted the differences to make it easier to see.

There goes Invicta's credibility. That's just stupid.

[WarriorConcept]

Not in every situation, but I think they would in a situation like that, because there's no doubt about who is right or who is wrong.(Not about this topic, but about the rogue matter.)

Not every bloc acts the same way, and SLCB is its own alliance.

Regarding the doctored logs, I really wonder why you just tainted your credibility with the public for this little dispute. I understood their reason for posting the topic but doctoring logs really just undermined your little pr victory.

[spearo]

There goes Invicta's credibility. That's just stupid.

Indeed, hardly the best strategy.

Edited October 29, 2009 by spearo

[astronaut jones]

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.

[SpacingOutMan]

And as is the way with Purplol. Not really a necessary announcement, though I'm sure I made a few unneeded ones in my term in government. Grow a spine, and all that jazz.

[Big Z]

The ultimatum itself was a terrible idea. The fact that you doctored those logs just made it worse, something I didn't think was possible until now. Congratulations on exceeding all expectations, Invicta. Your handling of this situation was brilliant. Bravo.

[Amonra]

Doctored?

I say Condensed

Jor never said that these were the full logs, they were quotes of the converstion.

Those were ogodai's words.

So if you quote people you are doctoring logs?

[spearo]

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.

Once again we paid reasonable reps.

[Delta1212]

Doctored?

I say

Jor never said that these were the full logs, they were doctoring logs

I agree.

[KillerKoel]

Doctored?

I say Condensed

Jor never said that these were the full logs, they were quotes of the converstion.

Those were ogodai's words.

So if you quote people you are doctoring logs?

I missed where Ogo said that we absolutely aren't paying reps, on the un-doctored logs...

Adding things =/= condensed.

[astronaut jones]

Doctored?

I say Condensed

Jor never said that these were the full logs, they were quotes of the converstion.

Those were ogodai's words.

So if you quote people you are doctoring logs?

They were doctored in a way to deliberately misrepresent the truth. So in other words, they were doctored so as to lie in invicta's favour.

Dude, there's no way you can spin that and try to make it good for invicta, or even that they had a legitimate reason to do such a thing. Don't even try.

[Tromp]

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

The full logs that Timtacious posted show ogodai initially agreeing that 3M per nation sounds reasonable, and then returning later and saying that no reps will be paid. This is all that was claimed in the OP.

Let's take a look at what the OP claimed:

A few days ago, member nation Kurtopotamia of Seaworthy Liberian Cardboard Boxes (SLCB) launched an unprovoked attack on two Invicta nations. Well, maybe "unprovoked" is not the right word. Certainly Invicta didn't take any military action against SLCB. But, to be fair, our alliance and our Purple Unity brothers did have the temerity to unseat the Stickmen senator, Michiel de Ruyter. So I can see how that might have made Stickmen member SLCB feel a little threatened.

But, to be fair, SLCB carefully and painstakingly looked into the matter. I know they must have done so carefully and painstakingly because of how much time it took them to figure out what was going on. Now, someone might very well suggest that more than 24 hours to establish that a member had gone rogue borders on dithering. Someone might very well suggest that. But I would never say such a thing.

But, finally, it was established that Kurtopotamia had not acted with the support of the SLCB government or their allies. It was a pretty straightforward matter of a member who had gone rogue. Easy. We've all been there. Member goes rogue; member is reprimanded and ordered to stand down; member either does so or is ejected from the alliance to be dealt with as the victim's alliance sees fit; and, of course, member is expected to pay reps. These are pretty established procedures between alliances when a member has gone rogue. Easy, like I said. Right?

Well, apparently not. Apparently SLCB has taken it upon themselves to decide that their member – whom they concede was in the wrong by going rogue – does not owe any reps at all:

<ogodai> Well, we aren't going to pay - with regards to that, my apologies.

<Waltar|Invicta> We've come to a reps number too.

<ogodai> Hooray

<Waltar|Invicta> Yep. As Imentioned to Matt, we're looking for 3m for each nation at Invicta that he attacked.

<Waltar|Invicta> Figure that's fair.

<ogodai> It certainly SOUNDS fair

<ogodai> Well, very sorry.

So, SLCB admits that their member went rogue, and that the reps requested (a paltry $3M for each of the two victims) are fair, but they refuse to pay it. And they continue to harbor the rogue.

Hmm.

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.

Bolded parts emphasis of mine.

Several deliberate attempts of Jorost to twist the truth to his liking.

First of all, according to Jorost, SLCB never intended to pay reps. Far into the topic, this was proven wrong:

all we ever wanted was a reasonable number

Second, the doctoring of the logs. This has been commented on already, so I won't.

Third, if we were to believe Jorost, SLCB agreed that 3m was 'reasonable'. However he cut some crucial parts out of his log in the OP, that would contradict his story, as shown here and:

We won't pay a ridiculous sum of money for what amounted to nothing.

so we're supposed to thank them for asking for not wasting our time by asking for 10X too much money?

One could only guess why you would want to change the course of events like the way Jorost did.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Tromp

[astronaut jones]

Once again we paid reasonable reps.

I got into the thread late and I wasn't about to read 22 pages to get caught up, so I commented on the original. Congrats on paying reps.

edit: a reasonable rep amount, that is.. 3m for nothing just so as to not "waste" an aid slot is a bit much.

Edited October 29, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Tromp]

I agree.

I c waht u did thar.

[Neo Uruk]

Doctored?

I say Condensed

Jor never said that these were the full logs, they were quotes of the converstion.

Those were ogodai's words.

So if you quote people you are doctoring logs?

You added a line, no way to spin that one no matter how fancily you try to word it.