Il Impero Romano Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Hello CN!1. The screenshot in WF's DoW is fake. Here is my outbox during the time that screenshot says it is sent. You cant not delete outbox messages so here it is: The message to DelusionalLeader is the one I mass messaged to everyone who attacked WFers. Ill screenie that pic too so it does not look strange. I showed WF that screenshot of my outbox yesterday on my other computer so I dont have that exact pic but I did another one on this computer. 2. That nation had a seniority of 1 day. Alliance Seniority: 11/29/2009 8:14:55 PM (2 Days) Their screenshot says the message was sent on the 29th at 8:15:09. A few seconds before he joined? Why would I share secrets about war plans to a nation that hasnt even joined the alliance, let alone a brand new nation. 3. The !@#$%* link is non-existent. If as WF says the !@#$%* link was deleted, it would show this message: http://!@#$%*.com/maf3cded instead that !@#$%* link shows this: http://!@#$%*.com/a4de44c7f 4. Delusional Leader IS NOT A MEMBER. I told WF that they could destroy him etc. as he was a rogue. There was no application for him on the forum, there was no account for him on the forum 5. WF are UED's allies through TSU. Its an econ bloc but they are still allies and I take that seriously. Why would I want to attack my own allies? I have been friends with WF's gov for a long time too. 6. Yes I screwed up a lot, I lost the protectorate for the alliance, I lost all respect for the alliance in CN. Isnt that enough? 7. Im pretty sure Delusional Leader's plan was to do this and get UED attacked. He was successful. Now I dont know if this was planned by someone else but im pretty sure that he is a reroll that planned this. He sent each of UEDs members a link of a WF member to attack by their NS. That takes time and effort to do. 8. I also said that WF could ZI the members that attacked if they wanted to. There was no reason for this war. I really dont know what else to say or what else to do. Im sorry Your entire counter claim is based on a screen shot. Your entire argument before was based on a screen shot. Now your trying to say that a screen shot that looks exactly like the one you provided to show that you did not order the attacks is fake? How predictable. If you notice, the other OP does not say that you definitely ordered the attacks, only that you and your whole alliance is a dangerous mess. What it does say is that you defiantly lied,. If you can prove the screen shot that they were given by the nation in question was a fake, then I would contact WF and do so immediately. If you cannot, understand that you calling that screen shot a fake is the exact same thing as calling your own screen shot a fake, as they are the exact same in quality and nature. Also, you could have easily deleted his account on your forums, so that's nothing to stick on. (Also for the rest of you crying about this without even naturally considering the things I stated above, never wonder again why people get so fed up with this game) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Falsify evidence... not so much... but a pretty valid reason to roll to war on its own. What is? Your entire counter claim is based on a screen shot. Your entire argument before was based on a screen shot. Now your trying to say that a screen shot that looks exactly like the one you provided to show that you did not order the attacks is fake? How predictable. This is a double sided argument - what is there to say that your screenshot, which was in fact obtained from a rogue, is more reliable than this one? If you notice, the other OP does not say that you definitely ordered the attacks, only that you and your whole alliance is a dangerous mess. What it does say is that you defiantly lied,. If you can prove the screen shot that they were given by the nation in question was a fake, then I would contact WF and do so immediately. If you cannot, understand that you calling that screen shot a fake is the exact same thing as calling your own screen shot a fake, as they are the exact same in quality and nature. Actually, the burden of proof lies with the accuser in modern society. Perhaps you'd feel more at home in the middle ages. The screenshot is obviously faked, it makes no sense and the entire alleged situation serves to benefit UED in no way whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Matveyev Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 "Article V: Coordinated Response in Case of Buyer Aggression The TSU is not a military union, however, it is understood that aggression, coercion or intimidation against a signatory, if left unchallenged, sets an unacceptable precedent. To this end, any aggressive war undertaken by a third party against a signatory of this pact will result in an embargo of technology to that third party. If a buyer alliance can be shown publicly to have tried to intimidate, coerce or negotiate privately with a signatory in a way which violates the spirit or provisions of this treaty, that buyer will also face a termination of technology exchanges." http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=73273 Does this mean that wF will have an embargo placed on them by the Tech Sellers Union? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Death II Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 So your CB is that you think we are a dangerous mess? That does not give you the right to attack us. Also my screenie is real because look at the clock in the screenie and look at the OP, look at the tabs open, one was WFs DoW. There is no way that I could have magically faked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphon88 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 The first big test for the TSU. It will be interesting to see how that plays out for such a promising idea as the TSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwthegreat Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 "Article V: Coordinated Response in Case of Buyer AggressionThe TSU is not a military union, however, it is understood that aggression, coercion or intimidation against a signatory, if left unchallenged, sets an unacceptable precedent. To this end, any aggressive war undertaken by a third party against a signatory of this pact will result in an embargo of technology to that third party. If a buyer alliance can be shown publicly to have tried to intimidate, coerce or negotiate privately with a signatory in a way which violates the spirit or provisions of this treaty, that buyer will also face a termination of technology exchanges." http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=73273 Does this mean that wF will have an embargo placed on them by the Tech Sellers Union? This makes things even more interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freedomfight3r Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Your entire counter claim is based on a screen shot. Your entire argument before was based on a screen shot. Now your trying to say that a screen shot that looks exactly like the one you provided to show that you did not order the attacks is fake? How predictable. If you notice, the other OP does not say that you definitely ordered the attacks, only that you and your whole alliance is a dangerous mess. What it does say is that you defiantly lied,. If you can prove the screen shot that they were given by the nation in question was a fake, then I would contact WF and do so immediately. If you cannot, understand that you calling that screen shot a fake is the exact same thing as calling your own screen shot a fake, as they are the exact same in quality and nature. Also, you could have easily deleted his account on your forums, so that's nothing to stick on. (Also for the rest of you crying about this without even naturally considering the things I stated above, never wonder again why people get so fed up with this game) To be fair to King Death, at least his screen shot shows the internet browser. WF's screen shot does not. For all we know, that could have been a little edit done by someone using Opera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 What is? Hating an alliance... its the only truly honest CB out there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Not liking King Death is a valid CB against his alliance. I'm glad I could settle this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Not liking King Death is a valid CB against his alliance. I'm glad I could settle this debate. I am liking you amoral Sith better everyday! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I am liking you amoral Sith better everyday! You amoral Pacificans aren't so bad yourselves...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 This is a double sided argument - what is there to say that your screenshot, which was in fact obtained from a rogue, is more reliable than this one? ...that was my entire point, he cant claim one is fake without inferring that his own is a fake either. Actually, the burden of proof lies with the accuser in modern society. Perhaps you'd feel more at home in the middle ages.The screenshot is obviously faked, it makes no sense and the entire alleged situation serves to benefit UED in no way whatsoever. Actually the burden of proof in modern society is entirely contingent on the situation. When a party can gather enough extrinsic evidence to infer intent then the burden lies with the accused to show through real evidence that which is inferred was not their intent at the time in question , for example, and I can provide you with numerous other examples where the burden of proof shifts to the accused if you would like. Perhaps you should go back to school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Hating an alliance... its the only truly honest CB out there Honest - maybe, valid - certainly not. Edited December 1, 2009 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphon88 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Not liking King Death is a valid CB against his alliance. I'm glad I could settle this debate. It's pretty much the basis for most CBs, admitted or not. Also Corinan, can you please change your avi. On the basis I've watched CSI:Miami and it's has left a taste as sour as lemons in my mouth. Theres no need for me to associate that travesty loosely defined as a television programme with your posts. I dont want not liking your avi to become a valid CB now do I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Honest - maybe, valid - certainly not. Hatred is very valid, just not very accepted. Life would be simpler if it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Your entire counter claim is based on a screen shot. Your entire argument before was based on a screen shot. Now your trying to say that a screen shot that looks exactly like the one you provided to show that you did not order the attacks is fake? How predictable. WF's screenshot is very easily fakeable as SCM proved in the other discussion. I myself have very little computer knowledge but have done the same sort of fakes just messing around with mates. KD II's, not so much... Certainly don't imagine faking an outbox could be as simple as faking a message is, if it's even possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Any screenshot is fakeable, including the one given to WF and the one KD2 uses in the OP here. In fact in Chrome it's trivial to fake a screenshot, but it's rather easy with any browser. Arguing about whose screenshot is better is rather pointless. The 404 for that !@#$%* link is more interesting, that does imply that something is not right with this affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 To be fair to King Death, at least his screen shot shows the internet browser. WF's screen shot does not. For all we know, that could have been a little edit done by someone using Opera. You don't even need Opera to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) WF's screenshot is very easily fakeable as SCM proved in the other discussion. I myself have very little computer knowledge but have done the same sort of fakes just messing around with mates. KD II's, not so much... Certainly don't imagine faking an outbox could be as simple as faking a message is, if it's even possible. I'm referring to the other message from KDII's first thread, the one that looks exactly like the screen shot in WF's. Also note that WF's screen shot mentions "lunch". I don't really care about his outbox, as it could just be that the other nation deleted it. As for the !@#$%* link, I've been told that's what you get when a link expires (not deleted). Edited December 1, 2009 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 unfortunately KDII, it seems that all those who fought against NPO/Heg for the fact that they hit OV for absolutely no reason, do not care that WF hit you for absolutely no reason, particularly VE who seemed to be amongst the loudest alliance decrying NPO's CBless war against OV and the fact that NPO hit OV in the midst of peace talks. this seems that WF hit UED after peace talks were concluded and an agreeable solution was found. in my opinion that makes it worse than NPO hitting in the middle of talks when a solution was not already agreed on. In fact, WF is basing this entire thing on the word of a rogue and a screenshot that has now been proven to be faked. sorry, but the !@#$%* never existed as KDII proved. it was not deleted or expired or any of that jazz. it never existed. so ya'll may think KDII is incompetent but why would he send a link to something that does not exist, if he truly wanted WF hit? awesome on VE for condoning and supporting a war that only last year they fought against. nice 180.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 unfortunately KDII, it seems that all those who fought against NPO/Heg for the fact that they hit OV for absolutely no reason, do not care that WF hit you for absolutely no reason, particularly VE who seemed to be amongst the loudest alliance decrying NPO's CBless war against OV and the fact that NPO hit OV in the midst of peace talks. this seems that WF hit UED after peace talks were concluded and an agreeable solution was found. in my opinion that makes it worse than NPO hitting in the middle of talks when a solution was not already agreed on. In fact, WF is basing this entire thing on the word of a rogue and a screenshot that has now been proven to be faked. sorry, but the !@#$%* never existed as KDII proved. it was not deleted or expired or any of that jazz. it never existed. so ya'll may think KDII is incompetent but why would he send a link to something that does not exist, if he truly wanted WF hit? awesome on VE for condoning and supporting a war that only last year they fought against. nice 180.... Grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Grow up. That's not much of a rebuttal to a very good series of points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Grow up. seriously, that is all you got? how am i the one needing to grow up? wow just wow. nice counter-argument mate..... That's not much of a rebuttal to a very good series of points. he has none it seems. Edited December 1, 2009 by Dochartaigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Matveyev Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Grow up. ...that's all you got? Edit: Too slow Edited December 1, 2009 by Ray Matveyev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 seriously, that is all you got? how am i the one needing to grow up? wow just wow. nice counter-argument mate..... Im in class, I'll be glad to elaborate on how and why you should grow up shortly. 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.