Starcraftmazter Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) Three very simple questions. 1. Do you think an alliance is incompetent if they believe a screenshot from a rogue, containing an invalid (ie. not working) link? 2. Based on this, is wF incompetent for going to war, based on such evidence? 3. And, is VE incompetent for blindly supporting wF and harassing those who choose to investigate, instead of investigating themselves? See, I just think such actions portray incompetence to a very significant degree, and I am wondering if others agree or if I am off the mark. If you are a government member of an alliance, what would you have done? Edited December 2, 2009 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 i think it is quite clear what my opinion on this matter is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Sorry had to, for those who don't care... ADD an i don't care option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Something is wrong here... The poll says eight people voted but they're are only 7 responses... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Sorry had to, for those who don't care...ADD an i don't care option Well if you don't care, there is always the option of not voting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) Something is wrong here...The poll says eight people voted but they're are only 7 responses... That would be the "View Results" button. Edited December 2, 2009 by Gopherbashi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Sorry had to, for those who don't care...ADD an i don't care option That's why there's null votes. Something is wrong here...The poll says eight people voted but they're are only 7 responses... That's what happens when you null vote. Well, biased poll is biased, it's clear what response you're looking for. Luckily, I happen to agree with you though. Even though I want to see UED get rolled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 The more war the better imo so #2 is obvious. Don't really know what to say about 1 and 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Well, biased poll is biased, it's clear what response you're looking for. Luckily, I happen to agree with you though. Even though I want to see UED get rolled. How is it biased. The more war the better imo so #2 is obvious. Don't really know what to say about 1 and 3. You're a bad person Dry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xR1 Fatal Instinct Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Well, wF blatantly fails anyway, I had them as a protectorate b4 and they told me to eat nukes from a nuke rogue b4 they would do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I didn't need this topic to persuade me how incompetent wF and VE both are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleda Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 wF already had all the CB they needed for a war anyhow . "I don't like you" is just as good a reason as any, they should finish the job IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 How is it biased.You're a bad person Dry Just the way you've written the questions seems to be fishing for the "yes" answer on all three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 wF already had all the CB they needed for a war anyhow . "I don't like you" is just as good a reason as any, they should finish the job IMO. If they'd actually said that, then I'd be fine with it. They manufactured a false CB, and poorly at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenex Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Just the way you've written the questions seems to be fishing for the "yes" answer on all three. Well coming from someone with no opinion nor do I represent the opinion of my alliance. All of his questions are factual there is no bias there what so ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Just the way you've written the questions seems to be fishing for the "yes" answer on all three. Maybe it's because it's obvious that they are incompetent? I don't think that is bias. I could have worded them very badly if I wanted to, but I tried to be objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Maybe (should have raised a red flag, independent confirmation sought)/Yes (not enough facts for a CB)/No (VE was only going on what its treaty partner said...hard to fault them for that, though in hindsight they could have done more due diligence). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) You weigh the poll clearly one way to skew the results when you include 'blindly' in the question. If you cared for the poll results, you would remove your biased adjectives and biased reporting of what happened, and say 'Is VE incompetent for supporting wF?'. 'Harassing those who choose to investivate' is another weighted comment, in that a) it has no bearing on the competence of an alliance to dispute a claim, however truthful it may turn out to be by facts unknown at the time, until the facts corroborating that truth are discovered, and in b ) you imply that VE did not want the facts that disputed the accepted truth to be discovered, which is false. VE is happy to see that the truth came to light, and disappointed that the person we trusted as the source of the information misled us, and backstabbed our allies in wF. We look forward to the resolution that wF and UED will reach from this, and will stand behind Enrage and World Federation as they seek to rectify this situation. VE's official policy on all matters is to support our allies. That is why they call them allies. Call it 'blindly' if you want, but we take pride in the fact that we will help our allies in their time of need and stand behind them. Throughout the situation there was no sign that the information that Rajistani was giving wF and VE was anything but the facts. It of course turns out now that that was just not true. The only actions of malice in this whole affair were those of Rajistani, in deliberately misleading his friends, alliance mates, and allies. Did we investigate the link in the screenshot enough, so that we could verify why the link led to that page? No we did not. We trusted Rajistani's explanation that the link must have been deleted or expired. Misplaced trust? Yes. Incompetence? No. edit: stupid sunglasses. Edited December 2, 2009 by goldielax25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 announcement from VE? So... was the !@#$%* link ever checked by anyone before you backed up wF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwthegreat Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 You basically summed it up in a nut shell so to speak, SCM. Nice job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloop Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) Maybe it's because it's obvious that they are incompetent? I don't think that is bias. I could have worded them very badly if I wanted to, but I tried to be objective. And failed rather miserably. The poll is begging for yes votes. You've taken a polarized position, and are only concerning yourself with looking for incompetence in VE/WF when there's clearly 3 sides of the issue you could be scrutinizing for incompetence. If you wanted to start an opposing poll fishing for opinions on the incompetence of UED leadership and the UED members who attacked WF, then you'd be objective. Publically suggesting what the topic of the third poll should be would get me in trouble, so I'll PM it to you if you're desperate to know. Edited December 2, 2009 by Aloop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 So... was the !@#$%* link ever checked by anyone before you backed up wF? Oh yes, I checked it myself. I do accept that I am incompetent in the ways of 404 errors and what they mean, and accepted that when I saw the explanation that it could have expired or been deleted as reasoning for why it no longer worked and showed the 404. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Publically suggesting what the topic of the third poll should be would get me in trouble, so I'll PM it to you if you're desperate to know. Please PM me what this third poll would be, I am very interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) You weigh the poll clearly one way to skew the results when you include 'blindly' in the question. If you cared for the poll results, you would remove your biased adjectives and biased reporting of what happened, and say 'Is VE incompetent for supporting wF?'. Well in my opinion, it is correct. Would you care to refute that and explain why VE did not blindly follow wF? 'Harassing those who choose to investivate' is another weighted comment, in that a) it has no bearing on the competence of an alliance to dispute a claim, however truthful it may turn out to be by facts unknown at the time, until the facts corroborating that truth are discovered, and in B) you imply that VE did not want the facts that disputed the accepted truth to be discovered, which is false. VE is happy to see that the truth came to light, and disappointed that the person we trusted as the source of the information misled us, and backstabbed our allies in wF. You're disappointed that a rogue mislead you? Really? As for the harassing, I think it implies that you did not want the truth to be found or at least if not that, were unwilling to listen to people who wished to investigate the claims made in the OP (of the CB). I think this is entirely relevant to your competence. We look forward to the resolution that wF and UED will reach from this, and will stand behind Enrage and World Federation as they seek to rectify this situation. VE's official policy on all matters is to support our allies. That is why they call them allies. Call it 'blindly' if you want, but we take pride in the fact that we will help our allies in their time of need and stand behind them. Whist not directly linked with competence, I think a good ally will do more than simply support their allies in all situations. As I mentioned elsewhere, you had the very real opportunity to protect your ally from this mess, if you had put more effort into scrutinizing their CB and investigating the evidence within in. It really don't serve you well not to do that - CBs will always be scrutinized, so it may as well be an ally who takes the first shot to see if the CB is in fact infallible before it is posted - don't you think? Throughout the situation there was no sign that the information that Rajistani was giving wF and VE was anything but the facts. It of course turns out now that that was just not true. The only actions of malice in this whole affair were those of Rajistani, in deliberately misleading his friends, alliance mates, and allies. Did we investigate the link in the screenshot enough, so that we could verify why the link led to that page? No we did not. We trusted Rajistani's explanation that the link must have been deleted or expired. Misplaced trust? Yes. Incompetence? No. I think placing trust in a rogue is incompetence. And failed rather miserably. The poll is begging for yes votes. You've taken a polarized position, and are only concerning yourself with looking for incompetence in VE/WF when there's clearly 3 sides of the issue you could be scrutinizing for incompetence. If you wanted to start an opposing poll fishing for opinions on the incompetence of UED leadership and the UED members who attacked WF, then you'd be objective. Publically suggesting what the topic of the third poll should be would get me in trouble, so I'll PM it to you if you're desperate to know. This poll is in regards to the DoW by wF of UED and by the handling of the issue by wF and VE. I don't see how UED's leadership's actions are relevant here at all. Edited December 2, 2009 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 oh look! Polarized topic, strong wording, leading questions... takes me back to the aggressive tactics lecture in my marketing statistics class last semester. 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.