Jump to content

Official Blackwater announcement


energizer

Recommended Posts

This isn't SE, even if you have the biggest and most members people will find a way to take you down.

Of course. And I doubt if anyone that joined OP expected anything else.

As I said, I was attracted to a large, active, non-SE centric alliance for trades, the organization and the community. But I can only speak for myself.

I am sure that every member of every non-OP alliance had their reasons for joining their individual alliances. And I doubt that anyone would question their reasons for joining. Yet for some reason, the motives of those that decided to join OP are being questions.

Oh well.

Edited by Thomasjtx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the main point is OP did some heavy recruiting in SE. I don't even play SE, and alliances like LE were formed in TE and have members from a bunch of different SE alliances.

It's nice to have a bunch of members, but ultimately it is the small alliances with high activity rates that do best in terms of coordinating wars and achieving a high avg. ns.

and judging by the in-game message posted, it looks like OP was aiming for the best and most active TOP nations. This isn't SE, even if you have the biggest and most members people will find a way to take you down.

Yes, Jim recruited heavily from SE. However, alliances like OP have a bunch members from a bunch of SE alliances. Diomede is in Argent, Elborrador is from NpO, CowboyTX is from GPA, Drai is from MK, FinsterBaby is from IRON, etc. The main point is that we appealed to a large variety of nations for a vast number of reasons. It's really nice to have a bunch of members who have a high activity rate, and ultimately it will be the largest and most active alliance that will do the best in terms of coordinating wars and achieving a high avg. ns.

Judging by the fact it was sent by a TOP member to members of SEVERAL other alliances, it looks like Jim was aiming for the best and most active SE nations. Honestly, if Jim was aiming for the best and most active TOP nations, he had many other means available. Amazingly, in SE, NPO pretty much had the most members and the highest NS, and they were still taken down. So many it is just like SE? Of course, at least in SE people had justification for their actions and it was the big alliance that lead with the aggressive actions.

It's amazing how much you can understand when you take a second to think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, I actually joined Ordo Paradoxia because I thought it'd be a good opportunity to work with both allies and allies of allies I wouldn't normally interact with much in SE. This includes Citadel with members such as Methax, Tobbogan and Samus. Even people like Drai and elbo. But the *actual* reason(s) don't matter, do they?

You joined to work with Elborrador? :psyduck:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure many people joined for many reasons yeah. there is no right or wrong reason to join an alliance.

My only point was, I see no evidence to the statements ive been seeing such as

"we're the only alliance that went so far as to refrain from making allies in this game, which attracts a large portion of members."

or someone says...

"Maybe you are big because you promised something you could not back up. Just a thought.

and you respond

"We promised a treaty free alliance and a sanction free sphere. We have followed through on both. Just some facts. "

I've been seeing similar sorts of comments all over the place.

I have no problem with you not signing treaties or giving sanctions. And no problem if you feel thats how te "should be played." Or that part of the current cohesiveness of your alliance is beleif in those philosophies. Those are all things I can buy.

But to either say or imply that the reason you have so many members is due to those two philosophies is imo a bit ridiculous. You are so big because of a highly organized, motivated, wide spread mass recruiting effort on both SE and TE. And none of those recruiting drives made your stance on sanctions or treaties their central message to attract new members.

So, I'm just saying. Why ever people joined, I find it hard to beleive that the majority joined because of those two stances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to either say or imply that the reason you have so many members is due to those two philosophies is imo a bit ridiculous. You are so big because of a highly organized, motivated, wide spread mass recruiting effort on both SE and TE. And none of those recruiting drives made your stance on sanctions or treaties their central message to attract new members.

None of them? How many have you experienced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure i havent seen every recruiting drive you have made. The only ones i've seen period were due to people complaining all over the place on SE about mass pming and than posting the messages.

However, just from the above sources ive seen more of your drives than I can count off hand.

Here is the bottom line though:

I provided you with direct proof as to why I felt your stance on treaties and sanctioning were not what created your member base.

If you think i'm wrong, provide the counter proof.

I'm not infallible. And I'm also not part of OP. I'm making a hypothesis based on what I *think* to be overwhelming evidence.

If i'm wrong about the points you raised in your recruiting drives, provide me with some dated counter proof right here. Some dated screen shots of your recruiting messages maybe, showing how before you became big your mass pm's were containing reference to your stance on treaties and sanctions would do the job nicely. That would at least demonstrate that treaties and sanctioning was at least part of your recruitment pitch.

Until you can provide some form of evidence though, I'm not sure why you are arguing with me.

Are you actually honestly claiming that the reason large numbers of nations were attracted to your AA was due to your stance on treaties and sanctions? I dont think you really are.... since so far the evidence shows that would be a ridiculous assertion.

If i'm wrong... prove me wrong. And i'll apologize for thinking as I did.

edit to add: I've noticed you also have the (to me) annoying habit of ignoring the main point of your opponents posts completely. As though, when you cant prove someone wrong you just dont acknowledge that. You just skip over it and select some minor side line to concentrate on. And to play semantic games with.

Personally, i've never been too impressed with semantic games. And I have more respect when an opponent either admits the person they are arguing with might actually have a point, or atleast refrains from attempting to misdirect the conversation.

Honestly.

Edited by OsRavan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion, Instead of stating your opinion and then telling others to disprove your opinion, collect some evidence to confirm your opinion. Then it will no longer be your opinion, but you could claim it as "fact".

I suggest you PM a sample of OP members and ask them why they joined. I think 30 or 40 members would be a valid sample. Compile your results and then come back and present them. Other than that, it remains your opinion.

You can take my previous post as your first data point. I expressed that one of my reasons for joining OP was their position on sanctions.

I look forward to your statistical analysis. :D

Edited by Thomasjtx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until you can provide some form of evidence...

Wait a second... LE declared war on us, and then you came in to help them, citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes". I haven't seen any evidence presented for that. Do you mean to tell me that LE has no basis on which to say we spied away their nukes prior to their aggressive actions because they do not have proof to back it up?

I've found in my time here that one does not need proof to make accusations, just look at LE. So, let me just tell you this right now: I didn't even know we had a nation building guide until someone just said it. I do know, however, that I joined for one simple reason: No treaties. Treaties just make TE less fun...

Now you show evidence of 1 (one) recruitment message and say that you've seen many more. You're the one trying to prove we didn't get members due to our stance on sanctions and treaties. Therefore, sir, the onus falls on you.

Though, I don't understand why you wish to derail this thread...

Edited by Titus Pullo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thomas. I did provide proof. That was the point on me providing multiple differnt OP recruiting messages. I.e showing that your stance on treaties and sanctions were not part of your main recruiting drives and not subjects which you were using to attract other people.

I would NEVER request someone else to provide evidence if i had not done so first. And behold... I did.

I'm sure there are some individual OP members who maybe joined either for or partly for those reasons. And i'm also sure theres some OP members who, in their desire to win an argument, would claim that was the case whether it was true or not. Note, in your case, I take you at your word for why you joined.

That said, polling all OP members would be a piece of proof yes.

What I provided is *also* a piece of proof though. If we look at how OP, by their own admission, recruited their first 200 odd members at the least (and probably more than that) we see that the message they were sending to motivate people had nothing to do with treaties or sanction status.

I provided you with hard evidence. That said, just because I provided some hard evidence thomas, does not mean my position is yet a "fact". I'm willing to entertain the notion that there is strong counter evidence to mine. I would just like to see it.

Edited by OsRavan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second... LE declared war on us, and then you came in to help them, citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes". I haven't seen any evidence presented for that. Do you mean to tell me that LE has no basis on which to say we spied away their nukes prior to their aggressive actions because they do not have proof to back it up?

I've found in my time here that one does not need proof to make accusations, just look at LE. So, let me just tell you this right now: I didn't even know we had a nation building guide until someone just said it. I do know, however, that I joined for one simple reason: No treaties. Treaties just make TE less fun...

Now you show evidence of 1 (one) recruitment message and say that you've seen many more. You're the one trying to prove we didn't get members due to our stance on sanctions and treaties. Therefore, sir, the onus falls on you.

Though, I don't understand why you wish to derail this thread...

Wait a second Pullo. Where did I ever say anything about spying away our nukes? What on earth are you talking about? Dont confuse myself or ODN with other individuals or alliances.

I dont beleive I have ever said anything about nukes in my reasons for war. If I remember correctly, my reasons have had to do with coming to our friends defense. Not about nukes.

I provided two recruitment messages in fact. And I maintained that those two messages were the standard messages sent out to all of the people you recruited. If you think that is incorrect you only have to provide a message that says otherwise.

I have provided two messages to back me up. You have provided none. Despite the fact that you, with access to the OP forums and the actual people who did the recruiting, should easily be able to see all your messages and post any that went counter to the ones I provided.

I have provided you with *Two* recruitment messages both of which show no mention of treaties or sanctions in their list of reasons why one should join OP.

They also claim that a week before the round started, already 200 members were recruited. Thats more than half of your alliance.

Now, you say two aren't enough. Well, thats two more than what you have posted. When you post *one* message from a similar time period, than you will have the right to claim the moral high ground.

All of these messages should be on your TE forums no? Or in the boxes of your recruiters? It should be very very easy to post some proof of messages being sent out before the round started that backs up your claims. If such a thing existed.

And again, get your facts straight for your first point. Not only do I fail to see what my reasons for joining the war have to do with your recruiting (classic case of you trying to avoid the facts with misdirection) its also inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second Pullo. Where did I ever say anything about spying away our nukes? What on earth are you talking about? Dont confuse myself or ODN with other individuals or alliances.

I dont beleive I have ever said anything about nukes in my reasons for war. If I remember correctly, my reasons have had to do with coming to our friends defense. Not about nukes.

---

All of these messages should be on your TE forums no? Or in the boxes of your recruiters? It should be very very easy to post some proof of messages being sent out before the round started that backs up your claims. If such a thing existed.

First of all, learn to read properly. LE claimed, without proof, that OP spied away it's nuclear arms aggressively. Now you have come to their "defense", even if they were the aggressors. However, you maintain that it's not true unless you see proof. Have you asked LE for proof that their war was defensive? Of course not. Why? Just like many of the others who bandwagoned, you have double standards. You believe everything LE says, but demand OP prove everything. Really... learn to read. "and then you came in to help them" is called an interrupting element or a nonessential expression.

Second, let's look at the messages you received. They are the same, no? The only difference is the numbers are updated. This means they both contain "If you are interested please reply to this message and I will send you more information." and neither contain a link to the TE forums. Yet you somehow presume that forums for OP already existed at that point and assumed that there was no further information provided once a person replied to the message. It was already well established what kind of alliance we would be, and if anyone wrote back with concerns of sanctioning or treaties they would have been answered by Jim. By the same token, if those people were concerned enough about sanctions and treaties to ask, it would have been those answers that drove them to join OP.

Note, I have never said that the only means by which we grew to be our size is through proclaiming to be a treaty free alliance and a sanction free sphere. I haven't even said that was the primary means. However, we did promise it, and we have followed through. Also, a nation building guide was indeed provided, and those who followed in undoubtedly got into the top 5%. This all started by Ammon saying we promised something and didn't back it up. Do you believe we failed to follow through?

You still are attempting to derail this very oddly placed DoW.

Edited by Titus Pullo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how your opinion on the motivation of any nation’s AA selection has any relevance or connection to Blackwater’s DoW.

But with that said, I even more so fail to see how posting the content of one recruiting message translates to “evidence” of the motivation of any portion of OP members.

Yes, you have evidence of a recruiting message. No, you have nothing that even comes close to evidence of motivation.

But again, I fail to see how this has anything to do with Blackwater’s DoW on OP. Would you care to connect those dots for me?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said pullo... only a few posts up you cant hide from your own statement.... was this...

Pullo:

LE declared war on us, and then you came in to help them, citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes".

I can read quite fine. Where am i misreading the above statement?

You used quotations when citing *my* reasons for war. That implies you are directly quoting or paraphrasing me. Yet I have never said that. All I said is i'm coming to the defense of my friends.

I said nothing about who was the aggressor, who was to blame, or anything about nukes or spies or bandwagons.

You said I *cited* my reason as the spying away of our nukes by OP. Do you know what the definition of cited is? No where did I cite any such thing in my posts.

You are misquoting me, and instead of admitting you misquoted me, you are now giving some convoluted attempt to explain how really, indirectly, in spirit, i meant blah blah blah.

Kindly dont make up statements of mine, or thoughts of mine. Please only respond to things that I actually type. Do not attribute quotes to me that I don't actually say. Or motivations to me that I have not commented on. If you are going to claim I cited something, make sure I actually did so.

Moving on...

My contention isnt that you lied about your stance on sanctions or on treaties. My stance is YOUR stance on those two subjects were irrelevant to your growth and size. I'm sure your members are happy with your stance. That's fine. Maybe it even plays a role into your retention of members, I dont know.

But we can see how you went about recruiting. Like most larger alliances you recruited by sending messages out. Telling people about your alliance to spark their interest. No where in those items of interest were your treaties or sanction views mentioned. Therefore, logic implies that people who were interested in your alliance based on that message... hundreds of them... were not interested for those above reasons. The people who responded to the message did so because of something *within* the message clearly.

That's not to say they werent happy and pleased when they found out your stance. But to claim that the reason you are so large is because of your stance on treaties and sanctions defies the proof and evidence and common logic we have. If you think im wrong to say that, just please show me some proof to counter what I provided for you.

And it has nothing to do with the dow thomas. I was responding to someone else's comments about the reason for OP's size. And than my comment was responded to. And around we go in a derailed circle heh.

Edited by OsRavan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said pullo... only a few posts up you cant hide from your own statement.... was this...

Pullo:

LE declared war on us, and then you came in to help them, citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes".

I can read quite fine. Where am i misreading the above statement?

You used quotations when citing *my* reasons for war. That implies you are directly quoting or paraphrasing me. Yet I have never said that. All I said is i'm coming to the defense of my friends.

I said nothing about who was the aggressor, who was to blame, or anything about nukes or spies or bandwagons.

You said I *cited* that for a reason. Do you know what the definition of cited is? No where did I cite any such thing in my posts.

---

But to claim that the reason you are so large is because of your stance on treaties and sanctions defies the proof and evidence and common logic we have.

Again: Really... learn to read. "and then you came in to help them" is called an interrupting element or a nonessential expression.

It's not my fault you don't understand how English works. As for the use of quotations in that instance, it's called a "Special Emphasis".

As to your second point, show me where I have said that those are the only or primary reasons we are so large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed (in regards to why members joined) that *you* said that pullo... though I do think you implied it. My original post wasnt actually directed at you but at Drai. You just felt like jumping in and randomly attacking.

And frankly, as this conversation proves, I have a far better grasp of the English language than you. Which is kind of sad, since I never considered myself to have all that good of a grasp.

Since you seem obsessed with splicing hairs, allow me to show you what I mean.

Lets start with the statement in question again so its fresh in our minds.

You said... and *I* quote:

"LE declared war on us, and then you came in to help them, citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes"."

Now, here is out definition of citation:

1. Military. mention of a soldier or a unit in orders, usually for gallantry: Presidential citation.

2. any award or commendation, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty, esp. a formal letter or statement recounting a person's achievements.

3. a summons, esp. to appear in court.

4. a document containing such a summons.

5. the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent.

6. a passage cited; quotation.

7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context.

8. mention or enumeration.

Now. You claim... and I quote.... "you came in to help them, citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes".

Now. According to the definition i so nicely provided you, show me where I cited that as a reason.

Next, you used quotes around the words "You spied away our nukes".

I'm guessing you were unaware, but let me explain to you what quotations mean in the English language.

I refer you to this .edu site for your education pullo...

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/

To copy some relevant bits...

The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else. The quotation mark is also used to designate speech acts in fiction and sometimes poetry.

I would even grant you that, in some less formal settings, quotations can also be used to represent sarcasm or to paraphrase what someone else is saying.

Now. Back to your statement Pullo.

You said... and *I* quote again

"LE declared war on us, and then you came in to help them, citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes"."

What I am maintaining is quite simple. You can NOT cite that as one of my reasons. Why? Because I never said it. You can NOT quote me as saying that. Again, because I never said it in any way shape or form.

The "them" in your statement is LE. The "you" would either be me, OsRavan, or possibly official ODN policy (which I would represent when speaking in an official capacity). Neither of which can be cited or quoted saying what you said.

Now, i'm quite willing to lend you a hand in working out how to correctly cite and quote your work. ((Ironically, in real life, that's partly what I do for a living.))

You arent always right pullo. Honestly, talking to you I have to work hard not to get annoyed sometimes. The right thing to do here, is to admit that you were *assuming* I felt that way. But that, clearly, you can not cite or quote me doing as you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now. According to the definition i so nicely provided you, show me where I cited that as a reason.

---

The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else. The quotation mark is also used to designate speech acts in fiction and sometimes poetry.

---

What I am maintaining is quite simple. You can NOT cite that as one of my reasons. Why? Because I never said it. You can NOT quote me as saying that. Again, because I never said it in any way shape or form.

Show me where I said that -you- cited it as a reason. Let me explain how nonessential expressions work: "LE declared war on us, and then you came in to help them, citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes"." Can be properly read: "LE declared war on us...citing one of the reasons as "You spied away our nukes"."

---

Next, note the OWL site states "The primary function..." This means that there are other functions for quotations, such as the use of special emphasis.

---

Again, show me where I cited it was one of -your- reasons. I still assert you need to learn the English language better.

The right thing to do, would be for me to tutor you in the subtleties of the language. I'd be more than happy to assist you on IRC.

Edited by Titus Pullo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You joined to work with Elborrador? :psyduck:

aren't you cute. Remind me again, how many rounds have you led an alliance to the #1 spot in?

How many wars have you fought in, in TE, where your alliance was vastly outnumbered and still managed to win?

i'm going to go out on a limb and say you haven't done !@#$, whereas this is most certainly not my first rodeo. I know what it takes to deliver hurt in TE. I know how to fight, i know how to organize nations to fight, and more importantly i know how to stand up for what i believe in.

Sure i'm loud and talk a lot of !@#$, but i can back that talk up so untill someone comes along and shuts me up, i'm going to keep trolling and stirring the pot in TE because no one else has the balls to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aren't you cute. Remind me again, how many rounds have you led an alliance to the #1 spot in?

How many wars have you fought in, in TE, where your alliance was vastly outnumbered and still managed to win?

i'm going to go out on a limb and say you haven't done !@#$, whereas this is most certainly not my first rodeo. I know what it takes to deliver hurt in TE. I know how to fight, i know how to organize nations to fight, and more importantly i know how to stand up for what i believe in.

Sure i'm loud and talk a lot of !@#$, but i can back that talk up so untill someone comes along and shuts me up, i'm going to keep trolling and stirring the pot in TE because no one else has the balls to do it.

That's a sorry reflection of TE. Also, this is my first time around (being active) on Planet Steve. My opinion of you is one built by your words on other planets, and reinforced by what brief commentary I've seen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a sorry reflection of TE. Also, this is my first time around (being active) on Planet Steve. My opinion of you is one built by your words on other planets, and reinforced by what brief commentary I've seen here.

ooc: in SE I'm FAAAR more calm and intelligent. you are however one of the few that i've ended up targetting in both worlds :/ w/o derailing the topic, until the defense network proves their not a bunch of opportunists I will continue to hate on them, especially when they try and talk smack to the emperor of the most powerful pound for pound alliance in SE. [/ooc]

My opinion of you, and the orange destruction network is one that has been entirely formed from actions within TE. In TE i'm an arrogant son of a !@#$%* who calls everyone out and dares them to man up and make the game not so dull. For the record most people agree that the first 3 rounds of TE were by far the best rounds to play, people didn't get bogged down in the politics and people didn't take things too seriously. more importantly people had thick skin.

In fact if i was the same person in both worlds i would definitely NOT be in OP. there are quite a number of members of OP that i wish to see burn in SE, but i'm enjoying working with and interacting with them in TE.

fact of the matter is, in TE i troll everyone thats not my allies, mostly b/c i'm sick of this pack mentality and the politics of TE. all the annoying aspects of SE crammed into 2 months :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, this is my first time around (being active) on Planet Steve. My opinion of you is one built by your words on other planets.

That is not a good thing. And I say that only for your own good. What happens on Bob, stays on Bob. What happens on Steve, stays on Steve.

That is lesson #1, followed closely by there is no FA on Steve. Most everyone on Steve knows that and lives that.

:ehm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad when the only alliance that's really putting in an effort to make a point by not signing treaties has to stand up against this many alliances.

People complain that we're too big and ruining the game, but maybe we're so big because we're the only alliance that went so far as to refrain from making allies in this game, which attracts a large portion of members.

I find this thread to be amusing.

Looks like warfare upon a small alliance, will be your downfall. So I have to :lol1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean our downfall will be the agressive actions against us by a coalition of alliances, right?

Not really.

While several of those alliances were friendly with each other, few...if any, had any actual treaties.

It happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...