Jump to content

Evidence


Qaianna
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know I'll be told to start a new thread on this issue, so I'll actually ... you know, do it.

The current situation that started this: the World Federation posted a screenshot, provided by someone, and used that as part of their decision to declare war on the United Earth Directorate. The justification of this war is NOT the topic (see that thread if you want to argue over it or show support).

I'm opening this side discussion since part of the debate over there is whether the screenshot could have been faked. Which makes me now wonder ... given how screenshots and logs are both demanded and falsifiable, what really amounts to factual evidence these days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That which is believed by the most people is fact ;)

A screenshot is factual if the person implicated in it accepts that it is not faked. Obviously, direct links to CN (war screens, aid screens, etc) are factual. Evidence that can be corroborated by a neutral authority (for example historical records of war or aid which are also kept by an alliance uninvolved with the dispute) are factual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the ease which I have learned that a !@#$%* account can be pesudo-anonymously edited (A fake name can be used to obfuscate the actual editor's identity) , I would consider it to supporting evidence and nothing more. Further proof would be needed to establish a prima facie case against someone than just a scrap of paper that anyone can edit.

But I would agree with Bob on one respect, direct links to CN are first rate proof as is the testimony of someone who will gain nothing by lying about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... given how screenshots and logs are both demanded and falsifiable, what really amounts to factual evidence these days?

How good a story you spin around your "evidence" and how good the other side's "evidence" is. It's all about the dressing, not the meat at the center. In this case wF wanted to go have a nice beatdown but they bungled the dressing pretty badly and now they look hella stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barely anything. There are very very few reasons to declare war. Helping an ally or a friend is the best.

To aggressively declare war, IMO the only good reason is if the alliance you are attacking is bullying someone else (for example, dow on wF in this situation).

Above all, it is always necessary to negotiate with the alliance you attack for a peaceful resolution of whatever problems exist before aggressively declaring war. War is more or less never okey - unless it is in the above two scenarios. There are always enough bad guys (ie. wF) to keep the good guys interested.

Edited by Starcraftmazter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That which is believed by the most people is fact ;)

A screenshot is factual if the person implicated in it accepts that it is not faked. Obviously, direct links to CN (war screens, aid screens, etc) are factual. Evidence that can be corroborated by a neutral authority (for example historical records of war or aid which are also kept by an alliance uninvolved with the dispute) are factual.

Are you really going to say that there is a neutral authority? Come on! Everyone is bias to one side or the other; history is never fact. This goes for parties, both involved and removed, from said piece of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'll be told to start a new thread on this issue, so I'll actually ... you know, do it.

The current situation that started this: the World Federation posted a screenshot, provided by someone, and used that as part of their decision to declare war on the United Earth Directorate. The justification of this war is NOT the topic (see that thread if you want to argue over it or show support).

I'm opening this side discussion since part of the debate over there is whether the screenshot could have been faked. Which makes me now wonder ... given how screenshots and logs are both demanded and falsifiable, what really amounts to factual evidence these days?

You must ask Johan to speak to you in your heart to know the truth of things. Fortunately, he always says the same thing, "Gain statistical superiority, and destroy your enemies in my name."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really going to say that there is a neutral authority? Come on! Everyone is bias to one side or the other; history is never fact. This goes for parties, both involved and removed, from said piece of history.

There can be a neutral authority for a particular issue. In fact, TDO or GPA would be neutral authorities for almost every issue, but I don't believe they collect the data or want to wade into world politics by being arbiters of truth. But let's say there's an argument between an SF alliance and a Frostbite one; alliances in Citadel, C&G or ex-Hegemony would be reasonable sources of neutral verification in this case. Or if there's a dispute over NPO's terms, an alliance that didn't take part like NpO, or one that was on a different front if there aren't enough of the former, would be 'neutral enough'.

Of course, everyone has their biases, but I'm talking about verifying 'facts' (like those used by Bilrow in the Ni thread) as either true or false, not matters of opinion, so unless the bias is strong enough to outright lie about the veracity of a point, it wouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what you call facts? There are very few real facts in life, most of them come from numbers; even then you can manipulate numbers to work for you. Asking a 'neutral authority' to look at anything to verify; they are not neutral anymore. Being truly neutral means that you do not involve yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm essentially talking about records of past war, aid, AAs worn, nuke strikes, that type of thing, which today is directly available from the game (the only truly objective record we have). Those records from a neutral authority are as close to absolute truth as is available, where they exist.

Being truly neutral means that you do not involve yourself.

This is not true. Being neutral means you do not take a side in an issue, or favour one party over another. It's true that the easiest way to do that, and the one which successful neutral alliances have taken, is never to get involved in anything at all. But a judge is a neutral party in a trial, even though he's intimately involved. It is possible to be a neutral party in an issue without being completely dissociated from it. Providing corroboration of facts would not be taking a non-neutral stance in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to tell a fake screen shot from a real screen shot, anyone can pick a fake from a non-fake screen shot. Here is an example for you.

fakenotfake.png

The one on the left is the one taken from the WF DoW. While the one on the right is a screen shot from one of my messages.

Edited by Ezequiel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to tell a fake screen shot from a real screen shot, anyone can pick a fake from a non-fake screen shot. Here is an example for you.

fakenotfake.png

The one on the left is the one taken from the WF DoW. While the one on the right is a screen shot from one of my messages.

I dont get what you did there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to tell a fake screen shot from a real screen shot, anyone can pick a fake from a non-fake screen shot. Here is an example for you.

fakenotfake.png

The one on the left is the one taken from the WF DoW. While the one on the right is a screen shot from one of my messages.

That's to do with image compression however, is it not? The best way to fake a screenshot is simply to edit the html, which bears no affect on the graphical aspect of the screenshot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm essentially talking about records of past war, aid, AAs worn, nuke strikes, that type of thing, which today is directly available from the game (the only truly objective record we have). Those records from a neutral authority are as close to absolute truth as is available, where they exist.

This is not true. Being neutral means you do not take a side in an issue, or favour one party over another. It's true that the easiest way to do that, and the one which successful neutral alliances have taken, is never to get involved in anything at all. But a judge is a neutral party in a trial, even though he's intimately involved. It is possible to be a neutral party in an issue without being completely dissociated from it. Providing corroboration of facts would not be taking a non-neutral stance in my opinion.

We are fighting about something now that really isn't worth it... I do get your point, i just feel that this does not happen in most cases. People posting facts are rare, where opinions are interjected a dime a dozen. I wish we could get more straight facts, but I won't be holding my breath.

Edited by Lord Strider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's surprising how often people manage to screw up faking a screenshot, when it's really trivially easy.

fakescreenshot.png

I do get your point, i just feel that this does not happen in most cases.

Oh, I don't disagree. Evidence and facts are in short supply in most CN arguments. This thread's about what we would consider to be hard evidence, though, and I would say that counts :)

Edited by Bob Janova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...