Announcement from Dark Fist

[Voytek]

tl;dr for those who don't want to read 38 pages:

NSO asks /b/ to spam DF's forum with gore and porn. When DF finds out about this they make a thread on the OWF explaining the situation. NSO enters the thread and tells DF to "do something about it" while at the same time threatening smaller alliances who criticize them. NSO then proceeds to issue DF an ultimatum for tattling on them and demand reps and an apology. When NSO finds out the numbers aren't on their side they back down and pretend they were never planning to do anything in the first place.

And just when you thought things couldn't get worse for NSO, a thread was created showing their horrible military organization and laughable warchests.

So NSO affirmed a few things many have been suspecting for a while. They are an alliance that loves to go around acting tough to make up for their inadequate actual strength. They would have a hard time beating any alliance half their size. And the only people they threaten are neutrals and alliances they greatly outnumber.

I'm sitting here scratching my head; how is it that some people - human beings capable of reason far beyond any other animal - are able to come up with posts that showcase the mental capacity of a frog?

It's time to join the rest of the world, Vlad. Repetition is not a substitute for evidence. Never has been, never will be.

[Margrave]

Wow, looks like you think you have a good CB on us. What are you going to do about it?

Brother, it seems they intend to do something about it. Or do you think all the chatter on IRC is just about how sweet NSO's logo is?

check yoself befo u wreck yoself, bro. I'd hate to see NSO get smashed up for this.

[Fireandthepassion]

You edited out a very important part, namely that what this all started with... An (as it now seems) empty accusation from Corinan of NSO:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2042768

Hey I'm not saying that NSO shouldn't do the same. But it's really asinine to veil a threat as an opinion then try to say you aren't making threats. If SCMazter wants to destroy NSO he should just do it. He just sounds opportunistic and will hop on the bandwagon when someone else gets on the lets war NSO and starts conducting the train.

[Ejayrazz]

Brother, it seems they intend to do something about it. Or do you think all the chatter on IRC is just about how sweet NSO's logo is?

check yoself befo u wreck yoself, bro. I'd hate to see NSO get smashed up for this.

Check your nation.

[AirMe]

Hey I'm not saying that NSO shouldn't do the same. But it's really asinine to veil a threat as an opinion then try to say you aren't making threats. If SCMazter wants to destroy NSO he should just do it. He just sounds opportunistic and will hop on the bandwagon when someone else gets on the lets war NSO and starts conducting the train.

You sir, I like you. You have a good head on your shoulders.

[Tromp]

Hey I'm not saying that NSO shouldn't do the same. But it's really asinine to veil a threat as an opinion then try to say you aren't making threats. If SCMazter wants to destroy NSO he should just do it. He just sounds opportunistic and will hop on the bandwagon when someone else gets on the lets war NSO and starts conducting the train.

I see SCMs 'threat' more like a way of calling NSO on their empty threats they made publically, indeed a reaction to NSO threatening CSN.

What's with this backing of NSO? They can expect someone to react when they're threatening others all over the place. But when NSO gets called out, they need protection?

It comes off to me as the little bully that has plenty of jaw when facing someone of near-equal or inferior strength, but calls for the help of his big brother when he meets someone who is stronger than him.

[Wad of Lint]

tl;dr for those who don't want to read 38 pages:

NSO asks /b/ to spam DF's forum with gore and porn. When DF finds out about this they make a thread on the OWF explaining the situation. NSO enters the thread and tells DF to "do something about it" while at the same time threatening smaller alliances who criticize them. NSO then proceeds to issue DF an ultimatum for tattling on them and demand reps and an apology. When NSO finds out the numbers aren't on their side they back down and pretend they were never planning to do anything in the first place.

And just when you thought things couldn't get worse for NSO, a thread was created showing their horrible military organization and laughable warchests.

So NSO affirmed a few things many have been suspecting for a while. They are an alliance that loves to go around acting tough to make up for their inadequate actual strength. They would have a hard time beating any alliance half their size. And the only people they threaten are neutrals and alliances they greatly outnumber.

Could you please direct me to where you have proof of the bold statement?

[2burnt2eat]

Could you please direct me to where you have proof of the bold statement?

He doesn't have any, he plans on saying it enough until it gets accepted as fact.

[Kaiser Gutenhagen]

tl;dr for those who don't want to read 38 pages:

NSO asks /b/ to spam DF's forum with gore and porn. When DF finds out about this they make a thread on the OWF explaining the situation. NSO enters the thread and tells DF to "do something about it" while at the same time threatening smaller alliances who criticize them. NSO then proceeds to issue DF an ultimatum for tattling on them and demand reps and an apology. When NSO finds out the numbers aren't on their side they back down and pretend they were never planning to do anything in the first place.

And just when you thought things couldn't get worse for NSO, a thread was created showing their horrible military organization and laughable warchests.

So NSO affirmed a few things many have been suspecting for a while. They are an alliance that loves to go around acting tough to make up for their inadequate actual strength. They would have a hard time beating any alliance half their size. And the only people they threaten are neutrals and alliances they greatly outnumber.

I'm not sure if that's an objective summation.

I think this can easily be settled with a 'Best Two Outta Three' game of Rock Paper Scissors. I'll moderate.

[Ejayrazz]

Where is the evidence an NSO member didn't do it? Or what about the accusations NSO was framed? Where is that evidence?

This leads us no where, how many times must we go through this? People, stop accusing others when it all too circumstantial It is a two way street.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[mythicknight]

Rock Paper Scissors sounds like a fine idea.

[Moridin]

Where is the evidence an NSO member didn't do it? Or what about the accusations NSO was framed? Where is that evidence?

This leads us no where, how many times must we go through this?

Where's the evidence you didn't do it? Is it okay to accuse someone of something just because there's no evidence to the contrary?

[Gorchin]

I'm not sure if that's an objective summation.

I think this can easily be settled with a 'Best Two Outta Three' game of Rock Paper Scissors. I'll moderate.

I say a DoW will solve all these problems....i don't even care who writes it

[2burnt2eat]

Where is the evidence an NSO member didn't do it? Or what about the accusations NSO was framed? Where is that evidence?

This leads us no where, how many times must we go through this?

Most people don't log everything they do and collect proof in the off-chance someone accuses them of something imaginary. It's impractical, silly, and infeasible to expect them to of done as such; especially for them to know exactly what people will be trying to pin on them.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[Kaiser Gutenhagen]

I say a DoW will solve all these problems....i don't even care who writes it

I'll take you up on that.

[Voytek]

Where is the evidence an NSO member didn't do it?

Wow. This is just... wow.

Have you ever been introduced to the concept of "burden of proof"?

Edited December 23, 2009 by Voytek

[Jacapo Saladin]

Where is the evidence an NSO member didn't do it? Or what about the accusations NSO was framed? Where is that evidence?

This leads us no where, how many times must we go through this?

I believe the phrase is "Innocent until proven guilty".

[Ejayrazz]

Where's the evidence you didn't do it? Is it okay to accuse someone of something just because there's no evidence to the contrary?

Give me a call, I was in surgery at the hospital when this occurred.

@2burnt2eat:

Exactly. Innocent till proven guilty. I give NSO credit, they have the right to say innocent till proven guilty, but when NSO members (not the alliance as a whole) start accusing SCM of doing this, they have stooped to his stupidity.

@Voytek: Good job depicting one sentence from the entire post to clearly misinterpret it.

It is funny some people claim it was SCM's doing, while others claim it was NSO. Both need to stop quite frankly because it both seems too circumstantial.

Ex 1: Just so happens this turns up on /b/ right after an argument with SCM?

Ex 2: Just so happens SCM was on /b/ at this exact time to find that exact topic?

Everyone quite frankly should stop this cycle.

/me facepalms

Edited December 23, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[2burnt2eat]

Give me a call, I was in surgery at the hospital when this occurred.

@2burnt2eat:

Exactly. Innocent till proven guilty. I give NSO credit, they have the right to say innocent till proven guilty, but when NSO members (not the alliance as a whole) start accusing SCM of doing this, they have stooped to his stupidity.

@Voytek: Good job depicting one sentence from the entire post to clearly misinterpret it.

/me facepalms

What members, and accusing SCM of exactly what?

[Wad of Lint]

Exactly. Innocent till proven guilty. I give NSO credit, they have the right to say innocent till proven guilty, but when NSO members (not the alliance as a whole) start accusing SCM of doing this, they have stooped to his stupidity.

I personally have made no accusations, and those who have are just silly.

[Bob Janova]

We're not in a court of law. No-one is going to convict NSO of harbouring the person who did it. However, in the complete lack of evidence (which is a feature of /b/ invasions), to find the most likely culprit, you look at who would be most likely to do it – i.e. who had a motivation to do it. There isn't really a motivation for DF, CSN or anyone else who wanted to make NSO look bad, because their issuing threats to CSN and then failing to follow through was already quite sufficient to do that. Obviously most third parties who don't really care about either side don't have a motivation. NSO (or at least petty members of NSO) do have one, particularly in the spur of the moment when they were looking rather silly, so unless you can show evidence that points at someone else, that's the most likely.

It's quite funny that, after making empty threats themselves, NSO and Frostbite are now trying to paint DF as cowardly for not running straight into their guns. We all get it, NSO will sit and posture and never come out from the safe shadow of Mother Polaris.

[Fireandthepassion]

I see SCMs 'threat' more like a way of calling NSO on their empty threats they made publically, indeed a reaction to NSO threatening CSN.

What's with this backing of NSO? They can expect someone to react when they're threatening others all over the place. But when NSO gets called out, they need protection?

It comes off to me as the little bully that has plenty of jaw when facing someone of near-equal or inferior strength, but calls for the help of his big brother when he meets someone who is stronger than him.

It's not really a calling out at all that SCM doing. If so he's doing a really poor job of it. No one is protecting NSO here because I doubt NSO really NEEDS anyone to protect them. On the other hand does CSN really need SCM to be making this topic to state that he, as an ally, that he would support them if NSO made good on their threat?

SCMs only call out has no base as there is no hard evidence of what he claims to be true (which mind you is really defaming to the characters, OOC and IC, of any member of NSO). Does his "call out" have some merit? Possibly. If you're going to call someone out it's sure a lot more interesting when you just do what you're calling out. Want to know why? It makes a statement with a lot more impact.

[Satsukage]

zomg! CN dramaz!

Thanks for the entertainment guys!

[Ejayrazz]

What members, and accusing SCM of exactly what?

I edited my post for clarification.

Both can easily say this is 'too fishy', given the examples I provided. Sorry for the vagueness.

Pain medication making my head fuzzy.

[Kaiser Gutenhagen]

We're not in a court of law. No-one is going to convict NSO of harbouring the person who did it. However, in the complete lack of evidence (which is a feature of /b/ invasions), to find the most likely culprit, you look at who would be most likely to do it – i.e. who had a motivation to do it. There isn't really a motivation for DF, CSN or anyone else who wanted to make NSO look bad, because their issuing threats to CSN and then failing to follow through was already quite sufficient to do that. Obviously most third parties who don't really care about either side don't have a motivation. NSO (or at least petty members of NSO) do have one, particularly in the spur of the moment when they were looking rather silly, so unless you can show evidence that points at someone else, that's the most likely.

It's quite funny that, after making empty threats themselves, NSO and Frostbite are now trying to paint DF as cowardly for not running straight into their guns. We all get it, NSO will sit and posture and never come out from the safe shadow of Mother Polaris.

He used the most words. I therefore side with him.

I actually don't know, nor do I care, what this argument is about. But Bob Janova has successfully made me a supporter. I actually never even read his post, so I don't know what I'm supporting.

But still, lots of words!