Ragnarok Announcement

[WarriorConcept]

Now, don't get me wrong, Hoo. I still find you to be generally a likeable guy. I just am not sure if you had the choice to go with your allies about ending an alliance's existence and standing in their way of something like that that you would do the right thing. I just don't know you well enough to be able to make that call.

GOD is trying to end an alliance's existence?

Edited December 31, 2009 by WarriorConcept

[Lord Boris]

GOD is trying to end an alliance's existence?

I'm just stating that as more of a hypothetical along the lines of, if ally x wanted to end the existence of alliance y, and Hoo could go along with it or stop it from happening, which would he do?

[Mussolandia]

I hear Rok is spying on NATO these days.

That's true, actually.

[Nolissar]

Well this tread, as was only possible owing to the lack of conclusive evidence presented by either side has more or less degenerated into the typical No U, my allies never lie so therefore they and we are right, and you are wrong, ect, diatribe I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed anything of substance or import (if there was any to be missed in the first place) so in summary:

Hoo and Warbuck had an initially private conversation "A" which both of them submit they kept a record of (log).

I have yet to see this contention disputed to date and therefore am prepared to accept it as a fact.

A conversation "B" which ostensibly was purported to be the aforementioned conversation "A", was circulated to TPFs allies and other parties.

This could have been done by either Hoo or Warbuck themselves or somebody to whom either of or both Hoo and Warbuck shared "A". "B" being manufactured by a third party without any knowledge of "A" is so exceedingly unlikely so as to be virtually impossible, so I’ll just leave that out.

It would on the surface of things, be illogical for Hoo or one of his allies to disseminate either "A" and most certainly not "B" to TPF and its allies, and while logic and political discourse around these parts seem to meet most infrequently, given the clearly ‘tense’ climate of the day, for Hoo or an associate to do so would be such an act of abject stupidity that one must consider the first possible route of dissemination the least likely. One is forced therefore to conclude the Warbuck or an associate of his is the source of this leaked log. As Warbuck has not decided this, we can take the second issues as closed.

Hoo claims that "A" did not include a line ‘[19:21:38] VanHooIII[RoK] and they need to leave the game’ which was included in "B", the logs circulated by Warbuck.

Warbuck’s starting position in this topic was that this line was in fact in "A" and that "B" and "A" are in fact one and the same, or that in the event said line was not part of "A" it was part of "B" because his logs had be tampered with by a third party. The latter assertion is exceedingly unlikely, although admittedly possible, if only just. That point is however moot, as Warbuck himself, http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2070794 claims that his ‘my logs were hacked’ defense was sarcastic, and http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2070831 that he does not believe it happened, and so, we are left with Warbuck’s assertion that "A" = "B", and that Hoo, therefore is lying or misrepresenting his logs.

It would seem odd to me for Hoo to accept the rest of "B" as conveying his exact words, while objecting only to a single sentence if that were not the case (ie, the line in question was not Hoo’s but added in later) unless, his (Hoo’s) sole desire was to discredit Warbuck, which again is a possibility, but seems to me a massive waste of time for Hoo at this juncture, so I’ll happily discount that.

Now to Warbuck. He himself sated:'[00:45] <Warbuck[ADI]> idk... that was the one line that made me change my mind, tbh... and it was there.' Implying that it was the presence of this line which made him leak the logs, which seems a bit far fetched given that what Hoo had said earlier in the log certainly wasn’t all flowers and cookies and would undoubtedly have had the same effect. So on the balance of probabilities, it would seem more likely, though rather stupid and needless for Warbuck or one of his associates to have inserted the line in question if it in fact was inserted, than for Hoo to have deleted it from his version of the logs.

As neither side is able to provided proof positive, this will no doubt remain, as it has been a continual back and forth ‘No U’ between Hoo’s supporters and those allied against them, who even if proof positive were presented give the appearance of being unlikely to be sawed in any event.

I think the most significant post in this topic to date, besides the OP, has been:

In seriousness though... the faked logs and the real logs really say the same thing. RoK, or at least Mr. HOO believes the TPF war will be a way to teach not only TPF but IRON and CDT a lesson. Though personally I don't see what IRON and CDT have done wrong exactly, nevermind the legitimacy of the CB against TPF.

I think it possible but unlikely Hoo would lie about this, but on the other had accept that even without the so called ‘hacked’ line, the logs by themselves could have served the purpose for which Warbuck distributed them. So I’ll just join the growing chorus, of those who say ‘who cares, surely there must be something more interesting going on?’.

Edit: Silly smilies showing up when they are least wanted

Edited December 31, 2009 by Nolissar

[Van Hoo III]

I hear Rok is spying on NATO these days.

That's true, actually.

I heard that one too. I still haven't seen any proof of this, but that's cool. We've never sent spies to an alliance in our history and no offense, but why on earth would we choose NATO if we did?

I eagerly await the formal accusation so I can slap it aside for the trumped up lie that it is.

[Doitzel]

That's true, actually.

And I plagiarised a John Lennon interview.

[wickedj]

lol Nolissar, might wanna use a different letter or add some spaces

Anyway. to try to doctor logs on Hoo just because you think some people are gullible enough to fall for it is never good and may admin have mercy on whoever is behind it

[flak attack]

So, I might have missed something, but let me get this straight:

Warbuck's conclusion was that he was probably hacked and a single line of a single log was edited. So you're telling me *someone* decided to hack this poor sap's computer, locate the log of a conversation that he just knew was there, altered a line, then gave a little prayer that Warbuck would then take the now-edited log (after conveniently forgetting the original conversation and having not referenced it since) and pass it around?

Really? That was your defense?

Not only that, but he had to have passed the logs around, so the whole "I'm checking my logs" thing is an obvious farce. There's only one place that a log of "person A with person B" could've come from when person A is complaining about a leak. If he had passed it around and copied and pasted, he would be able to say "yeah, I remember that, and yeah it was there". Not "oh... hmmm... let me go find that... what day did you say that was? Oh well... I mean it looks like it's still there, but I don't remember... maybe I got hacked".

That's a terrible, terrible lie. Yeah, I'm sure someone's gonna think I'm just an SF flunky, but my reaction to this from the outset was "eek, I hope Hoo's being honest here", but really, look at the sides and how they behave. Only one of them adds up.

The only alternate conclusion is that Hoo circulated the "incriminating" version in an attempt to head off warbuck circulating them, in which case warbuck would indeed be caught off guard and have to look them up. I find this version of events implausible.

I really don't see why the argument went on beyond these two posts.

[NoFish]

I'm just stating that as more of a hypothetical along the lines of, if ally x wanted to end the existence of alliance y, and Hoo could go along with it or stop it from happening, which would he do?

For the record, we're only involved in this so far as supporting our allies in Rok. For once we're not trying to pursue old grudges or disband anyone. Shocking, I know.

[Mussolandia]

I heard that one too. I still haven't seen any proof of this, but that's cool. We've never sent spies to an alliance in our history and no offense, but why on earth would we choose NATO if we did?

I eagerly await the formal accusation so I can slap it aside for the trumped up lie that it is.

I can wait

[bzelger]

I'm glad to see this clarified.

[Van Hoo III]

I can wait

Nevermind, I've been brought up to speed.

Yeah, I still eagerly await that accusation. lol

[Alterego]

RoK got spaiz ...

Well this is new, silly & original

[juslen]

So, either Hoo is lying and intentionally attempting to harm IRON and CDT by proxy AND force them out of the game, or Hoo is telling the truth and is just attempting to harm IRON and CDT by proxy? I'm obviously not inclined to trust Hoo but even if I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt it doesn't look good to me.

The idea that this whole war was a trumped up means of warmongers trying to assault the ex-Hegemony for being ex-Hegemony can no longer be labeled absurd paranoia, it's been admitted.

Why are you assuming that he wishes to harm IRON and CDT by proxy? Hoo is stating his honest opinions about IRON and CDT and the fact that this war may end up hurting IRON and CDT by proxy. That does not mean that he set out to wage war with TPF in hopes of bringing IRON and CDT into the fight. I am eager to defend two of my allies in SF (GOD & Rok) but that does not mean I look forward to seeing IRON on the opposite side of the war if my alliance ends up joining in. We can make assumptions all day but it doesn't benefit anyone. There are friends and foes on each side of this potential conflict.. just because Hoo or any other leader does not approve or like another alliance does not mean they have hopes of destroying them. Perhaps you know more than I do about Hoo.. perhaps I have a bias because he has a good track record with my alliance, but I would like to give both sides the benefit of the doubt until someone shows me actual proof of actual lust for war in order to destroy ones political or military "adversaries"

[Strykewolf]

You know?

I'm just a newbie, and all...somewhat. Never really had all that much to do with quite a few alliance leaders. I have read a lot, though.

I think I may have dealt with Hoo in passing, once. But, it's been awhile if it did.

Folks know that I tend to speak my mind. And he tends to speak his mind, as well.

Ummm. So?

The part of 'they need to leave the game' doesn't fit what I've seen/read in the past.

At all.

((shrugs))

[magicninja]

http://&#33;@#&#036;%*.com/f6afdba15

Careful who you talk to I guess.

[Bob Janova]

Those logs look pretty fake from where I'm sitting.

[magicninja]

Those logs look pretty fake from where I'm sitting.

Possibly, I just was searching and came across them.

[Vend3tta]

http://&#33;@#&#036;%*.com/f6afdba15

Careful who you talk to I guess.

Well ain't that just somethin'.

[fluffyewunga]

Having talked to warbuck that doesn't read like him. Maybe those trying to claim faked logs shouldn't then fake others to prove their point.

edit: 1 day I'll learn to spell and type

Edited January 1, 2010 by fluffy ewunga

[KaitlinK]

Having talked to warbuck that doesn't read like him. Maybe those trying to claim faked logs shouldn't then fake others to prove their point.

I would refrain from commenting on this thread for a bit if I were you... just a suggestion to help avoid people from looking foolish.

[Bob Janova]

That advice could be applied to pretty much every post in this thread, including the OP. But they don't read like real logs to me either. It's certainly still quite possible that Warbuck did add the line, but bringing more logs into a thread about how logs can't be trusted doesn't get us any closer to working out what is going on.

[magicninja]

That advice could be applied to pretty much every post in this thread, including the OP. But they don't read like real logs to me either. It's certainly still quite possible that Warbuck did add the line, but bringing more logs into a thread about how logs can't be trusted doesn't get us any closer to working out what is going on.

Indeed.

I was actually searching for hoo logs for the other thread and came across these. I figured you guys would like something new to talk about.

I saw Hoo react when he first learned the logs in the op were edited. I'm confident he didn't say those things. These new logs I don't know. It's possible they are faked I guess, just like it's possible any and all logs are faked.

/me shrugs

[crushtania]

A despicable recourse for the petty and perpetually aggrieved. I have every faith in my RoK brothers - hopefully the culprit will be flushed out before too long.

o/ RoK!

[KinKiac]

Anyone who would like to look at my computer in person can see that the logs are intact, and that the line is there. I was merely making a point- unless someone hacked me- then the logs are correct. Now who on earth would hack me to put a lousy line in a log?

This is a nice move- claiming that incriminating logs are fake. Unfortunately, the line that is supposedly "fake" IS there, and it finishes your thought there when you are calling NPO, and IRON, CDT, etc toadies that deserve their wrath.

But I suppose you just want more drama.

*sighs*

Who wants more drama? YOU leaked logs. YOU started the drama. YOU turned your back on your allies to save infra. Im sorry dude but your credibility went out the window the moment you leaked the logs, faked or not. The fact that you decided to NOT defend your allies via e-lawyering, AFTER telling them you would support them, says a lot. Especially your former protectorate. That also gives you motive to fake the logs, but I really dont care if the logs are faked or not. What YOU are doing is stoking the flames of a worldwide conflict. Do you think your alliance is going to get away from this conflict now without being attacked and badly hurt? (no that is not a threat, just pointing out something I think is obvious) YOU just ensured that your alliance will NOT be neutral in this conflict. If your alliance ends up getting rolled for this, your alliance mates will all have YOU to blame. Great job, brilliant political move*tongue-in-cheek*. If you wanted to go to war, why didnt you just defend RoK and save your honor? Now you get to go to war without honor. Ill say it again, great job!

*that last sentence was sarcasm in case you didnt get it

What can I say, its 4:30 AM, I'd already invested the first 5, decided that the extra one wasn't the worst of it.

But really, you claim he edited the logs, thats a two way street, you've got a text editor just as he has. Theres no way to say who did it, and really only two people know, and threads like these... whats the purpose?

You try too hard. Not to mention you are highly biased. No one is going to listen to you but those who are already on your side. If this thread is such a waste of time, then stop posting here.

Or was it Hoo that was lying? These logs prove nothing...

If they prove nothing, then why is your alliance posting them to your general membership? The authenticity of the logs have been questioned and can not be trusted either way. So again, why post them to your alliance if you can not verify the authenticity? Also, why would you accept logs from someone who has motive to lie?