Starfox101 Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 YOU HAVE MY TECH :awesome: :awesome: :nuke: I've got some opens slots. I'll take that tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 I don't think I've read anything as ridiculous as DF wanting reps I said we didn't. Thank you for attempting to understand the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 I said we didn't.Thank you for attempting to understand the issue. You said to me you would have apologised personally for your accusation but because NSO had already demanded reps (which were removed from their demands almost immediately) earlier your members no longer supported you apologising even though it was a personal apology, not an alliance one. You then stated that your members were now demanding reps for the cost of militarisation during this pissing contest at which point I said you were being stupid. I stand by that. Is that not true then? I see that it was your members rather than yourself, so whilst you might not have officially asked for it, it remains one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Believe me, I have attempted to understand so much about this issue that my head hurts. I cannot fathom the logic of it being brought to the public on any level, so if you're looking for understanding from me you're going to have to help me a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) If you're referring the war against NoV, that was done by TPF over a year ago. In fact many members of the NSO, myself included, actively opposed the CB of that war. Also, what does that even have to do with the current situation? I didn't say all members of the NSO supported that war, I said there were some. In fact, some of the most vocal in this instance of flimsy proof are the ones who supported that instance of flimsy proof. You yourself have been rather consistent, I'm simply highlighting the fact that once the tables are turned we find the former aggressors (or closer to the aggressors supporters) singing a very new tune. Obviously hypocrisy is not new to this world but it certainly never gets old. You know as well as I do that so many people will support their own side or agenda despite the inherent hypocrisy. All Corinan demanded was an apology from you to his alliance for the accusation you made without any evidence to support it. I was speaking to Corinan and cleared with him that the apology from you would be sufficient with regards to the apology NSO requested. I told you as much on IRC. An apology? For what? For drawing a reasonable conclusion then making that conclusion widely known? As so many before have been saying to DF, if NSO has a problem with how DF handled the situation they can go ahead and do something about it. Right? Edited December 23, 2009 by Captain Flinders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Is that not true then? I see that it was your members rather than yourself, so whilst you might not have officially asked for it, it remains one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. If you want to be very specific, it was suggested by 1-2 people. Obviously it's a silly idea. The reason I mentioned it to Tyga, was to convey our feelings and why we believe we have been unjustly treated by NSO in this incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 I didn't say all members of the NSO supported that war, I said there were some. In fact, some of the most vocal in this instance of flimsy proof are the ones who supported that instance of flimsy proof. You yourself have been rather consistent, I'm simply highlighting the fact that once the tables are turned we find the former aggressors (or closer to the aggressors supporters) singing a very new tune. Obviously hypocrisy is not new to this world but it certainly never gets old. You know as well as I do that so many people will support their own side or agenda despite the inherent hypocrisy. An apology? For what? For drawing a reasonable conclusion then making that conclusion widely known? As so many before have been saying to DF, if NSO has a problem with how DF handled the situation they can go ahead and do something about it. Right? i find this quite amusing and hypocritical. you bring up the TPF-NoV war and the ridiculous CB used there based on OOC crap, which i am quite sure you had an issue with that. but this OOC based accusation without a shred of proof, you are perfectly fine with. yes, you are someone who should be listened to. this is thread is awesome. it is bringing out all the ridiculous people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 An apology? For what? For drawing a reasonable conclusion then making that conclusion widely known? As so many before have been saying to DF, if NSO has a problem with how DF handled the situation they can go ahead and do something about it. Right? Hit the nail on the head here, I think. Was the thread a good idea? No, probably not; call out threads rarely are. Indeed, if the information had simply been spread about the backchannels it probably would have been far more damaging to NSO's reputation. Does it still make NSO look bad? Yeah, a little, it seems to be likely that someone in NSO (be it gov't, member sanctioned, or a rogue action) initiated the attacks on DF's forum. But you know what makes it worse? NSO threatening war over a call out thread, which was spawned indirectly from NSO threatening someone else with war for a stupid reason. (in b4 NSO threatens to declare war on GOD for this post, then backs down almost immediately) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 It's really tough to decide which of you is more distasteful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 I stand with my alliance, if they do not believe the proposed actions are acceptable. It was you who made the accusation, not your alliance. You are hiding behind your alliance's opinion as an excuse to not take responsibility for your actions. This is rather insulting....but then again, more or less anything you say is. I also believe Daggarz is rather exaggerating. How is it insulting? ^ I just thought the contrast of those two posts was funny. I don't see how the posts are related at all. You did not contact NSO in a diplomatic manner over the issue with the porn/gore request, you went public on this forum. Then you have the audacity to accuse the NSO of not being diplomatic enough when they hold you accountable for your words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 i find this quite amusing and hypocritical. you bring up the TPF-NoV war and the ridiculous CB used there based on OOC crap, which i am quite sure you had an issue with that. but this OOC based accusation without a shred of proof, you are perfectly fine with. yes, you are someone who should be listened to. this is thread is awesome. it is bringing out all the ridiculous people. I think you're misunderstanding where exactly I stand here. NoV was attacked and utterly destroyed for unsubstantiated OOC claims. I obviously wasn't cool with that. DF has not attacked NSO nor destroyed them and the only thing I've said so far is that people shouldn't discount the possibility of NSO being at fault simply because the evidence is weak. I'm not saying any action should be taken, I'm simply saying that given the well documented controversial nature of NSO members that something like this would not be unheard of. Am I calling for their destruction? Of course not. So cool your guns man, no hypocrite here. I'm just trying to get a more rounded and healthy look at the whole ordeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 An apology? For what? For drawing a reasonable conclusion then making that conclusion widely known? As so many before have been saying to DF, if NSO has a problem with how DF handled the situation they can go ahead and do something about it. Right? For making an unsubstantiated accusation against the NSO. The NSO did do something about it, they demanded reps and an apology but withdrew the needless request for reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggarz Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 even my girlfriend tells me i exaggerate all the time. I am sorry.. its how I am Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) For making an unsubstantiated accusation against the NSO. The NSO did do something about it, they demanded reps and an apology but withdrew the needless request for reps. lol I didn't even know reps were on the table. In all fairness, that makes it seem even more like something NSO would do. Edited December 23, 2009 by Captain Flinders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 even my girlfriend tells me i exaggerate all the time. I am sorry.. its how I am I won't ask what it is you exaggerate about to your girlfriend. lol I didn't even know reps were on the table. In all fairness, that makes it seem even more like something NSO would do. They weren't on the table for long because a situation like this does not warrant them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggarz Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 I won't ask what it is you exaggerate about to your girlfriend. hehehe $@! >:-| I cant leave this thread. How about we agree to drop this thread, STA can drop FB and everyone is a happy camper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 It was you who made the accusation, not your alliance. You are hiding behind your alliance's opinion as an excuse to not take responsibility for your actions. It was an alliance announcement, we discussed it before it was posted. Of course it was my idea, so I don't mind being the subject of your blame game. How is it insulting? Basically you're implying that I was standoffish and undiplomatic because of the obvious fact that our allies don't abandon us at the first glimpse of trouble... This is false for several reasons. One, I always prefer a peaceful resolution. Two, I care deeply about our allies and do not want to bring them unnecessary war. And three, because you are implying I was undiplomatic )): I don't see how the posts are related at all. You did not contact NSO in a diplomatic manner over the issue with the porn/gore request, you went public on this forum. Then you have the audacity to accuse the NSO of not being diplomatic enough when they hold you accountable for your words. They seem related to me. In one you imply I was not diplomatic, in another someone says I was too diplomatic (at least that is the implication). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 It was an alliance announcement, we discussed it before it was posted. Of course it was my idea, so I don't mind being the subject of your blame game. Blame game, I wasn't aware blame was in dispute here. Basically you're implying that I was standoffish and undiplomatic because of the obvious fact that our allies don't abandon us at the first glimpse of trouble...This is false for several reasons. One, I always prefer a peaceful resolution. Two, I care deeply about our allies and do not want to bring them unnecessary war. And three, because you are implying I was undiplomatic )): You aren't diplomatic. You bring things to the public forum for attention. If you were truly diplomatic and not wanting unnecessary drama then you'd have spoken to NSO privately about your concerns. Your next venture in diplomacy was telling me that NSO were preventing a peaceful resolution by not compromising when they clearly did compromise and wished only for you to apologise for making your accusations in public with no proof in an effort to smear them. You, on the other hand, made no conciliatory moves at all and preferred playing the innocent victim of NSO aggression when it was you who created the situation we were supposed to be trying to resolve. Anytime anything was asked of you you trotted out "my alliance won't let me" which to me doesn't sound like a leader taking responsibility for his actions and more an excuse. They seem related to me. In one you imply I was not diplomatic, in another someone says I was too diplomatic (at least that is the implication). Well, you can act in one manner in one instance and in another in another instance. The second instance does not negate the first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Your next venture in diplomacy was telling me that NSO were preventing a peaceful resolution by not compromising when they clearly did compromise and wished only for you to apologise for making your accusations in public with no proof in an effort to smear them. As I said, at that time I asked Corinan to clarify what it is he wants me to apologise about, and he ended the discussion. Really, I think we are going in circles here. You, on the other hand, made no conciliatory moves at all and preferred playing the innocent victim of NSO aggression when it was you who created the situation we were supposed to be trying to resolve. Anytime anything was asked of you you trotted out "my alliance won't let me" which to me doesn't sound like a leader taking responsibility for his actions and more an excuse. Here is the thing, I do not believe I or my alliance did anything wrong. I generally would prefer to solve issues in order for it to not lead to war, but I am rather concerned about betraying what I believe is right in order to do so. Furthermore, our alliance believes NSO is the aggressor here, and as a leader it is my job to represent my alliance. I am sorry that we do not agree with your point of view, but seriously...get over it. Well, you can act in one manner in one instance and in another in another instance. The second instance does not negate the first. That's very interesting, so you are at least willing to limit your accusation of me being undiplomatic to only specific decisions we have made regarding this issue, but not others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 As I said, at that time I asked Corinan to clarify what it is he wants me to apologise about, and he ended the discussion. Really, I think we are going in circles here. He ended the discussion because he was tired of your evasion. Hence Penguin spoke to you until he had to leave and the baton was passed to me. After speaking to you I can empathise with Corinan's frustrations. Here is the thing, I do not believe I or my alliance did anything wrong. I generally would prefer to solve issues in order for it to not lead to war, but I am rather concerned about betraying what I believe is right in order to do so. Furthermore, our alliance believes NSO is the aggressor here, and as a leader it is my job to represent my alliance. I am sorry that we do not agree with your point of view, but seriously...get over it. As I said, if you really did want to prevent unnecessary drama you'd not have created this thread and instead spoken to the NSO privately. Your actions betray the words you now type. That's very interesting, so you are at least willing to limit your accusation of me being undiplomatic to only specific decisions we have made regarding this issue, but not others? I didn't say you were diplomatic in any case. I said it is possible for someone to be diplomatic in one instance and not diplomatic in another. Conversely, in the examples you compared, it could easily be concluded your handling of both issues showed naivete, which is probably closer to the truth here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 As I said, if you really did want to prevent unnecessary drama you'd not have created this thread and instead spoken to the NSO privately. Your actions betray the words you now type. Without amazing foresight, we did not believe the announcement would cause such drama as it has. I didn't say you were diplomatic in any case. I said it is possible for someone to be diplomatic in one instance and not diplomatic in another. Conversely, in the examples you compared, it could easily be concluded your handling of both issues showed naivete, which is probably closer to the truth here. I'm so sorry I was naive to collaborate with your ally in order to prevent the fallout from a rogue attack on us, and to ensure it does not impact negatively on the larger issues at hand. How immoral of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Without amazing foresight, we did not believe the announcement would cause such drama as it has. Evading the point again. That being that it is amusing to see you accuse NSO of not meeting your diplomatic sensibilities when you decided to take the undiplomatic approach and plaster your accusations all over the public forum. If you didn't think an accusation against the NSO alleging they attempted an OOC porn/gore attack on your forum would cause drama then you are more naive than even I imagined. I'm so sorry I was naive to collaborate with your ally in order to prevent the fallout from a rogue attack on us, and to ensure it does not impact negatively on the larger issues at hand. How immoral of me. I didn't say anything about the rogue issue. I was just comparin gthe situations and the conclusions that could be drawn from them seeing as you presented them for discussion. Edited December 23, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Who is this Santa person? No such person exists on Planet Bob. Father Christmas is a member of Invicta. Attack them for ghosting....? Interesting, they are pretty large. Looks like NSO may have been picking up some of GATO's ghosting policies. Why couldn't this have been some third party asking /b/ to raid their forums to start a war? I blame UTOPOS. Look, you guys have gone and made me agree with Zilla. What is wrong with this picture? I genuinely believe the announcement was funny, and many people told me it was as well. I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on this, but frankly this is expected. I hope that you can get over it. OOC: Wait, you accused someone of an OOC criminal act and thought it was funny? Leave it to the stat counter to point this out As an aside why do people buy tanks 48-24 hours ahead of time? Navy/Nukes i can understand some people only keep a couple on hand during peace but tanks? you can buy a ton of them in seconds.. Normally, alliances buy tanks like that when they expect to be attacked, as it's handy to keep them on hand in case you receive a quad. You're kidding right? You let a nation go rogue on one of yours, and then let him peace out because his old alliance wants him back for when they attempt a real update attack? As a member of Kronos, I'm sure you'll understand the great virtue inherent in protecting rogues from your AA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Is that not true then? I see that it was your members rather than yourself, so whilst you might not have officially asked for it, it remains one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Is it? NSO's threats put many alliances on alert. Money was spent on militarization, some nations were put into peace mode. And then it turns out it was a fluke, a rather costly one at that. It's like a false bomb threat, and we know what happens to people reporting those. It's my opinion that it should not be without consequences. Throwing ultimatums around is not something to be taken lightly. Edited December 23, 2009 by Viluin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 LMAO. It's your own fault you got scared and went to peace mode or bought tanks. No one elses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 LMAO.It's your own fault you got scared and went to peace mode or bought tanks. No one elses. Your alliance wouldn't expect an attack at the update if you were given an ultimatum like that? Even NSO themselves militarized. I think you should work on your strategical skills before the next war. 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.