Siberian Tiger Alliance Announcement

[Moridin]

I am not sure why there appears to be such a taboo against expressing one's opinion. Yes, it probably doesn't carry much weight without being presented as an argument, but that doesn't mean someone should be verbally attacked simply for doing so.

[TypoNinja]

I am not sure why there appears to be such a taboo against expressing one's opinion. Yes, it probably doesn't carry much weight without being presented as an argument, but that doesn't mean someone should be verbally attacked simply for doing so.

Express your opinion by all means, but unless you have some standing that makes your opinion valuable merely becuase its yours* failing to provide reasoning will typically result in ridicule.

*Members of government typically fall into the category but it does depend on government structure on how much weight each voice carries.

Edited November 26, 2009 by TypoNinja

[Branimir]

Express your opinion by all means, but unless you have some standing that makes your opinion valuable merely becuase its yours* failing to provide reasoning will typically result in ridicule.

By those immature ones, that are on the other side of the political specter and are attempting to make a pot shot at a guy by utilizing childish playground antics. Such behavior, shouldn't be really seen, or defended.

You know, while I find it quite amusing that someone is trying to rationalize it and defend it by really poor means, it really isn't the subject matter of this topic.

[Lord Brendan]

By those immature ones, that are on the other side of the political specter and are attempting to make a pot shot at a guy by utilizing childish playground antics. Such behavior, shouldn't be really seen, or defended.

You know, while I find it quite amusing that someone is trying to rationalize it and defend it by really poor means, it really isn't the subject matter of this topic.

The reaction might have been a tad overdone because it was Haf, but I'm pretty that anyone would have been made fun of for such a useless post.

[Mathias]

When I first saw this 28 pages ago, I had the craziest notion that this situation had been resolved.

I guess Kronos just wants to continue being wrong.

[TypoNinja]

By those immature ones, that are on the other side of the political specter and are attempting to make a pot shot at a guy by utilizing childish playground antics. Such behavior, shouldn't be really seen, or defended.

You know, while I find it quite amusing that someone is trying to rationalize it and defend it by really poor means, it really isn't the subject matter of this topic.

Ahh your one of those idealists who think everyones opinion has merit automatically. Alas they do not, the world is full of stupid people without a clue. That is where backing your position comes in, providing reasoning for a position increases the likelihood that people will understand, and even agree with your opinion. This separates those actually worth listening to from the usual 'party line parrot' crowd.

Unless one has the ability to put their opinion directly into policy a position with no justification is inherently worthless.

I am by no means attempting to pot shot anyone, I merely hold to the self evident realization that much like a Theory without evidence, an Opinion without reason is a useless construct.

This by necessity sets up a class of people who's opinion is not relevant. While it may not be fair, it is accurate, and no one ever claimed the world was fair.

[Branimir]

Ahh your one of those idealists who think everyones opinion has merit automatically.

I am one of those people that have common courtesy and are matured to a level.

Meaning one that accepts if someone just expresses support to a stance or interpretation, because he agrees to it, to its reasoning as such adopting it.

Half of the posts around here are just expressions of support to someones else's opinion, providing nothing else but copy paste of what the person you are agreeing to said.

Stating simply you are agreeing to someone and his provided reasoning does not in it self mean your opinion is lacking merit. That depends if original reasoning to which you are agreeing, is lacking merit.

So that would mean, in this case, that you think Tyga's interpretation is lacking merit, has no backing or argumentation actually. You spinned this thing too hard in an attempt to defend this childish playground antics, you lost yourself.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Branimir

[Pablo Monkey]

Express your opinion by all means, but unless you have some standing that makes your opinion valuable merely becuase its yours* failing to provide reasoning will typically result in ridicule.

*Members of government typically fall into the category but it does depend on government structure on how much weight each voice carries.

Yes, government members are the only ones who should ever comment on anything. I believe my voice and the voices of the other rabble should be silenced at all costs.

Oh yeah, I believe Tyga!

[TypoNinja]

I am one of those people that have common courtesy and are matured to a level.

Meaning one that accepts if someone just expresses support to a stance or interpretation, because he agrees to it, to its reasoning as such adopting it.

However smoothly veiled calling me immature and lacking in courtesty when I have in fact been quite polite, reflects more on yourself than upon me.

Half of the posts around here are just expressions of support to someones else's opinion, providing nothing else but copy paste of what the person you are agreeing to said.

Hey, I never said I didn't think half the posts on the OWF weren't worthless, in fact 50% usefull content is probably being overly generous.

Stating simply you are agreeing to someone and his provided reasoning does not in it self mean your opinion is lacking merit. That depends if original reasoning to which you are agreeing, is lacking merit.

That is different from from the point I was making. There is a differnce between agreeing with another's reasoning and putting forth an un supported statement, the difference is subtle, but there.

So that would mean, in this case, that you think Tyga's interpretation is lacking merit, has no backing or argumentation actually. You spinned this thing too hard in an attempt to defend this childish playground antics, you lost yourself.

If you think Tyga never explained himself you haven't been watching too closely, but as you seem more interested in trying to take pot shots at me rather than anything constructive, I shall take the steps necessary to remove my self from your vitriolic presence.

Yes, government members are the only ones who should ever comment on anything. I believe my voice and the voices of the other rabble should be silenced at all costs.

Oh yeah, I believe Tyga!

How did you take away that from my position of "One should justify their position?"

Edited November 26, 2009 by TypoNinja

[Branimir]

However smoothly veiled calling me immature and lacking in courtesty when I have in fact been quite polite, reflects more on yourself than upon me.

Actually, it was directed at those that made childish fun at Haf, as such not extending common courtesy to him or accepting his judgment in this case by weak antics.

I dunno why you inherently recognized yourself in it, that speaks something too.

That is different from from the point I was making

Actually, no. By his stating his support to Tyga's expressed argumentation and stance, he is adopting it and as such, if his and Tyga's opinion have merit depends on Tyga's posts and points.

If you think Tyga never explained himself you haven't been watching too closely, but as you seem more interested in trying to take pot shots at me rather than anything constructive, I shall take the steps necessary to remove my self from your vitriolic presence.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted and in no way replies to my point.

But I can see your predicament, you dig too deep and cant really reply. If Haf's judgment to support Tyga's interpretation expressed by Haf's words saying:"I support Tyga's interpretation of the facts in this incident"; has no merit, then that is due to Tyga's meritless opinion in the first place.

So it is you which is, in effect, saying how Tyga didn't explained himself properly.

Anyway, best to end it here, due to not being the subject matter and due to you being all over the place with what you are saying.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Branimir

[Drostan]

When I first saw this 28 pages ago, I had the craziest notion that this situation had been resolved.

I guess Kronos just wants to continue being wrong.

That's probably because you didn't read this topic so much as use it as an excuse to make snarky comments laden with irony.

Protip: If you want a topic to die, antagonizing those involved is a poor way of going about it.

As for the 1B reps request, that has been corrected in private. Verily, no specific request for 1B was made. Originally there was an informal request made for full damages done to Tyga's nation but that was never put on the table as an earnest request and so I certainly withdraw my statement. If you ask your government members, there was significant confusion regarding the negotiations, and somehow that specific number ended up being passed off as a fact for a while.

I will now try to bring to a close the strange tangent this discussion has spawned between Bob and Branimir etc: Halflinger's curt statement of opinion was humorous because of the timing. The topic had nearly fully exhausted itself when he decided to baldly step in for a moment, offer a rather worthless two cents, and then walk on. I don't think anyone was seriously trying to take Halflinger to the woodshed for this but rather exercising their sovereign right to a sense of humour.

[ChairmanHal]

Anyway, long story short, congrats to both parties for reaching a somewhat agreeable solution.

Based on the OP and subsequent remarks by Kronos, they can't even seem to agree if one paid the other reparations.

Yeah, they both deserve the Planet Bob Prize for Peace.

If there is a take away from all this, it's that if rogues from your alliance attack STA, by all means stand back out of way and let them have at it. You might get sued otherwise.

[Masterof9puppets]

Actually, Mr. Facts, Tygaland accused Kronos of coordinating the filling of war slots for the rogue, not for the rogue action itself.

Eh, yeah he did. I was there. You were not.

If you want logs, feel free to query me.

[Tygaland]

Based on the OP and subsequent remarks by Kronos, they can't even seem to agree if one paid the other reparations.

Yeah, they both deserve the Planet Bob Prize for Peace.

If there is a take away from all this, it's that if rogues from your alliance attack STA, by all means stand back out of way and let them have at it. You might get sued otherwise.

Yes, next time any alliance buds off some rogues and they attack the STA, leave us to handle them. If we need help we have allies more than willing who will do a far better job. Thanks for helping out with the message!

[Mathias]

If there is a take away from all this, it's that if rogues from your alliance attack STA, by all means stand back out of way and let them have at it. You might get sued otherwise.

Most alliances wouldn't take too kindly to people interrupting their military operations.

[ChairmanHal]

Most alliances wouldn't take too kindly to people interrupting their military operations.

Most people don't need a lawyer when they pull someone out of a burning car either. But hey, if there's a chance I do something wrong and get accused of making the injuries worse (or God forbid they decide to claim I made the injuries worse on purpose...) and face the equivalent of a multimillion dollar lawsuit, then by all means, crawl out of the car yourself. I'll be standing over here. Watching the fire.

EDIT: 'out of' not 'of'

Edited November 26, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[Kilkenny]

Yes, next time any alliance buds off some rogues and they attack the STA, leave us to handle them. If we need help we have allies more than willing who will do a far better job. Thanks for helping out with the message!

Just curious, does this mean STA will stay out of the way of other people's rogues??

[Tygaland]

Just curious, does this mean STA will stay out of the way of other people's rogues??

We don't make a habit of attacking nations that have gone rogue on other alliances unless asked to. To pre-empt your "gotcha" over the IRON issue, the nation from the STA involved had no idea the nation he had attacked had gone rogue and was raiding legally under STA's tech raiding rules. When asked to peace out his war he did.

People continually trying to compare the two issues are probably more determined to delude themselves rather than convince me, I suppose.

[Kilkenny]

We don't make a habit of attacking nations that have gone rogue on other alliances unless asked to. To pre-empt your "gotcha" over the IRON issue, the nation from the STA involved had no idea the nation he had attacked had gone rogue and was raiding legally under STA's tech raiding rules. When asked to peace out his war he did.

People continually trying to compare the two issues are probably more determined to delude themselves rather than convince me, I suppose.

Well, my follow up question then would be, if the same situation came up would you pay reps?? (kinda like you received??)

Thing is it is too easy to tell if the nation you are raiding is going rogue or not, just look at their war screen. If they are attacking a particular alliance and slots are open, walk away or wade in full blast if they have no problem with you attacking (verify through PM). If it isn't already in your Tech raiding procedures, then it should be added (actually being serious here). Nothing bugs me more than ANYONE jumping a rogue nation to tech raid, no matter who, without asking first (sometimes there just isn't enough nations in range to attack, or the slots may not be needed to actually take care of the guy). And to be honest, a Tech raider is not dong the damage that an attacker does.

On the other hand, I also understand wanting to attack nations of yours that go rogue as well. I have doen that several times, sent TPF nations after TPF rogues for the sole reason of embarassing TPF or whatever depending on why or on who they went rogue. (there are ususally talks between us and the other allaince)

[pezstar]

Well, my follow up question then would be, if the same situation came up would you pay reps?? (kinda like you received??)

Thing is it is too easy to tell if the nation you are raiding is going rogue or not, just look at their war screen. If they are attacking a particular alliance and slots are open, walk away or wade in full blast if they have no problem with you attacking (verify through PM). If it isn't already in your Tech raiding procedures, then it should be added (actually being serious here). Nothing bugs me more than ANYONE jumping a rogue nation to tech raid, no matter who, without asking first (sometimes there just isn't enough nations in range to attack, or the slots may not be needed to actually take care of the guy). And to be honest, a Tech raider is not dong the damage that an attacker does.

On the other hand, I also understand wanting to attack nations of yours that go rogue as well. I have doen that several times, sent TPF nations after TPF rogues for the sole reason of embarassing TPF or whatever depending on why or on who they went rogue. (there are ususally talks between us and the other allaince)

The same situation would not come up for the STA.

[Daikos]

No, you have to state that his opinion is irrelevant because he isn't supporting Kronos and people who doesn't support Kronos should be ridicularized because of it.

Because members of your alliance and your associates would never do something like that.

[Buds The Man]

Well what fantastic reading on this thanksgiving day. I am only sorry I was not more readily able to be involved. Glad this has been put to semi rest and we all can get back to more important things.

o/ kronos

o/ dr. Dantics

congrat STA

[jadoo1989]

Based on the OP and subsequent remarks by Kronos, they can't even seem to agree if one paid the other reparations.

Yeah, they both deserve the Planet Bob Prize for Peace.

If there is a take away from all this, it's that if rogues from your alliance attack STA, by all means stand back out of way and let them have at it. You might get sued otherwise.

Haha, I wouldn't go that far, but compared to where the negotiations were in the days/hours prior to the reaching of the solution, I would call this a 'somewhat agreeable solution' under the circumstances.

Point taken, though.

[HeinousOne]

Based on the OP and subsequent remarks by Kronos, they can't even seem to agree if one paid the other reparations.

Yeah, they both deserve the Planet Bob Prize for Peace.

If there is a take away from all this, it's that if rogues from your alliance attack STA, by all means stand back out of way and let them have at it. You might get sued otherwise.

You could consider it, insuring that friends of the rogue do not keep the target busy (OOC: Fill slots) so that STA cannot do maximum damage in order to defend the assaulted nations. You say the Kronos atackers would do maximum damage but is there not the liklihood that they would not as the rogue nation was a very highly respected one within Kronos before going rogue?

I think you are just pissy because STA leadership has paid more attention to Kronos leadership during this little incident then they have over all the months of Valhalla trying to "make friends" with STA. I guess these posts of yours are enough for me to assume that such a silly notion is long gone? I don't come around much so I wouldnt mind having my assumption clarified.

Well, my follow up question then would be, if the same situation came up would you pay reps?? (kinda like you received??)

Thing is it is too easy to tell if the nation you are raiding is going rogue or not, just look at their war screen. If they are attacking a particular alliance and slots are open, walk away or wade in full blast if they have no problem with you attacking (verify through PM). If it isn't already in your Tech raiding procedures, then it should be added (actually being serious here). Nothing bugs me more than ANYONE jumping a rogue nation to tech raid, no matter who, without asking first (sometimes there just isn't enough nations in range to attack, or the slots may not be needed to actually take care of the guy). And to be honest, a Tech raider is not dong the damage that an attacker does.

On the other hand, I also understand wanting to attack nations of yours that go rogue as well. I have doen that several times, sent TPF nations after TPF rogues for the sole reason of embarassing TPF or whatever depending on why or on who they went rogue. (there are ususally talks between us and the other allaince)

Was not the nation that attacked STA a very well respected nation within Kronos before going rogue? Do you really believe they are going to attack him with the same vehemence as STA nations would in defense of our Supreme Chancellor?

[D34th]

Because members of your alliance and your associates would never do something like that.

And I'll criticize them too, and if members of my alliance or our associates jump of the bridge you will jump too and think this the right thing to do?