Ragnarok Announcement

[camerontech]

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.

Will the claws come out if she does? Or will it just be the vague threats that continue?

Bully tactics are a poor way to shut up opposing opinions.

[murder]

No one except Hoo and Warbuck know the exact truth. Some will argue over interpretations and varying levels of personal confidence. Nearly all will fall in line with their particular affiliations. So you know about as much as I do w/r/t this particular issue. $%&@ all.

I was going to say something clever, but you already stole my idea

It seems like people are just going to argue for the next few days about this and what was actually said--But I'll let you in on a little secret--Only Hoo and Warbuck actually know what was said in this conversation, and chances are you are going to leave this thread believing the same person that you did before you read this thread.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, PLANET BOB (It looks like it will be an interesting one)!!!!!

[Mathias]

I might support the "it's one person's word against another's, so let's just forget the whole thing," if Warbuck hadn't decided to defend himself with "OMG SOMEONE HACKED MY COMPUTER AND EDITED AN UNEDITABLE .TXT FILE!"

[ss2342]

Woot, first and foremost I would like to say how houred I am to have changed from Warbuck's friend who has a clue (unlike a large portion of people here) to a "IT Specialist Consultant" - cbf finding the person/post that said it, but I am thankful for your kind words .

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...p;#entry2072152 - cbf quoting

Amazing post, basically what I was thinking of doing, although I think you could've done with less opinion in there. Specifically regarding this line, which I'll paste here, for win factor.

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.

I think you're forgetting that the same works in Warbuck's case (sorta). If you know Warbuck, you'll realize he's not stupid. At least, not stupid enough to think adding a single line to a log is going to change the victor of a war.

So really, we have Warbuck adding it in a way that he thinks would change the victor of a war, or Hoo trying to discredit Warbuck.

Sorry if I'm missing something there, but that really does look like the only motive behind someone adding/not adding a log.

I'm willing to change my stance, or rather make a new post regarding it if someone can point me in a different direction for motive, keeping in mind that it's not going to be too complex if Warbuck did doctor the logs, because that would imply that he would've been smart enough not to get caught .

Also, the main "attack" on Warbuck seems to be how he defended himself against the initaial claims of fake logs.

I want you all to consider how you would react.

You get informed by someone who you were talking to that the logs you leaked, posted, w/e were wrong.

You're tired, it's early morning/late night.

For me, the first thing I would do is check, for sure. What's the point in arguing if you're not 100% sure it's not a fault on your end.

Alternatively, you could respond with something like "No, I believe that those are the exact logs. I am familiar with the exact words used, and those are them. I suggest that either you are lying about this, or you've been hacked".

Forgive me if I'm wrong again, but I really do think that checking would be what I would do here, also, the better thing to do.

After checking, and confirming that the logs are how you leaked them, you would be alerted to the fact that your logs differ.

There are a few options here.

1. Coldfront, purposely or not, managed to send different an extra "faked" line to another end user.

I would personally discount this as not viable, but of course, possible. (Unlike some noobs who seem to think it's not >.>)

2. The logs have somehow been changed at your own end. "Hacked".

Once again, I wouldn't think this viable, for the sole reason that people who play CN don't have the skills to do something like that to an average user. Of course, still possible, and more viable than number 1.

3. The other user is lying.

This is immediately what I would assume, and would form the rest of the conversation around this basis. Also, it would seem the other user is trying to blame you, and is therefore not going to admit to such.

Now for what I would say.

I'm pretty sure it would be along the lines of what Warbuck himself said.

Mention a possible but un-incriminating idea. I think opening hostilities this early in a conversation is a bad thing.

So, something along the lines of being hacked. Of course, I wouldn't consider this option really, as Warbuck did too. He said it was sarcastic, but maybe that's not the right word. More along the lines of just saying it because it's a possibility.

After checking with someone who had more knowledge on the matter than himself, Warbuck posted in the pm, which is fair enough. Why wouldn't he if he wasn't sure?

So, hacking is somewhat possible, but as you saw, Hoo got hostile at this mention, obviously implying that he thought Warbuck doctored the logs himself.

Imagine you're being accused. Are you going to sit there acting like it's still possible you got "hacked" when the other person is being hostile?

I sure as hell know I wouldn't, hence a response along the lines of.

"Dude, I didn't edit !@#$ in those logs. Unfortunately, theres possible way I can prove it, but all I can think of is that you doctored them youself, in which case, stop being such a !@#$%, and admit it"

Of course, this is where Warbuck's and mine strategies differ, but you get the point.

tl;dr: Warbucks defense was reasonable.

Of course, the only real reason I'm convinced that it wasn't Warbuck, is that humans are stupid. Everyone slips up eventually, and after talking to Warbuck off an on since this thread started, he hasn't said anything I consider suspicious. Therefore, at the moment, I side with him.

Feel free to talk to me about such issues in private on IRC - ss23[ADI], and no, I don't keep logs . Unforutantly, I don't close my IRC client either, so they're there, loaded, all the time. Very handy .

/me vanishes

[ss2342]

I might support the "it's one person's word against another's, so let's just forget the whole thing," if Warbuck hadn't decided to defend himself with "OMG SOMEONE HACKED MY COMPUTER AND EDITED AN UNEDITABLE .TXT FILE!"

See my previous post

[Confusion]

Woot, first and foremost I would like to say how houred I am to have changed from Warbuck's friend who has a clue (unlike a large portion of people here) to a "IT Specialist Consultant" - cbf finding the person/post that said it, but I am thankful for your kind words .

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...p;#entry2072152 - cbf quoting

Amazing post, basically what I was thinking of doing, although I think you could've done with less opinion in there. Specifically regarding this line, which I'll paste here, for win factor.

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.

I think you're forgetting that the same works in Warbuck's case (sorta). If you know Warbuck, you'll realize he's not stupid. At least, not stupid enough to think adding a single line to a log is going to change the victor of a war.

So really, we have Warbuck adding it in a way that he thinks would change the victor of a war, or Hoo trying to discredit Warbuck.

Sorry if I'm missing something there, but that really does look like the only motive behind someone adding/not adding a log.

I'm willing to change my stance, or rather make a new post regarding it if someone can point me in a different direction for motive, keeping in mind that it's not going to be too complex if Warbuck did doctor the logs, because that would imply that he would've been smart enough not to get caught .

Also, the main "attack" on Warbuck seems to be how he defended himself against the initaial claims of fake logs.

I want you all to consider how you would react.

You get informed by someone who you were talking to that the logs you leaked, posted, w/e were wrong.

You're tired, it's early morning/late night.

For me, the first thing I would do is check, for sure. What's the point in arguing if you're not 100% sure it's not a fault on your end.

Alternatively, you could respond with something like "No, I believe that those are the exact logs. I am familiar with the exact words used, and those are them. I suggest that either you are lying about this, or you've been hacked".

Forgive me if I'm wrong again, but I really do think that checking would be what I would do here, also, the better thing to do.

After checking, and confirming that the logs are how you leaked them, you would be alerted to the fact that your logs differ.

There are a few options here.

1. Coldfront, purposely or not, managed to send different an extra "faked" line to another end user.

I would personally discount this as not viable, but of course, possible. (Unlike some noobs who seem to think it's not >.>)

2. The logs have somehow been changed at your own end. "Hacked".

Once again, I wouldn't think this viable, for the sole reason that people who play CN don't have the skills to do something like that to an average user. Of course, still possible, and more viable than number 1.

3. The other user is lying.

This is immediately what I would assume, and would form the rest of the conversation around this basis. Also, it would seem the other user is trying to blame you, and is therefore not going to admit to such.

Now for what I would say.

I'm pretty sure it would be along the lines of what Warbuck himself said.

Mention a possible but un-incriminating idea. I think opening hostilities this early in a conversation is a bad thing.

So, something along the lines of being hacked. Of course, I wouldn't consider this option really, as Warbuck did too. He said it was sarcastic, but maybe that's not the right word. More along the lines of just saying it because it's a possibility.

After checking with someone who had more knowledge on the matter than himself, Warbuck posted in the pm, which is fair enough. Why wouldn't he if he wasn't sure?

So, hacking is somewhat possible, but as you saw, Hoo got hostile at this mention, obviously implying that he thought Warbuck doctored the logs himself.

Imagine you're being accused. Are you going to sit there acting like it's still possible you got "hacked" when the other person is being hostile?

I sure as hell know I wouldn't, hence a response along the lines of.

"Dude, I didn't edit !@#$ in those logs. Unfortunately, theres possible way I can prove it, but all I can think of is that you doctored them youself, in which case, stop being such a !@#$%, and admit it"

Of course, this is where Warbuck's and mine strategies differ, but you get the point.

tl;dr: Warbucks defense was reasonable.

Of course, the only real reason I'm convinced that it wasn't Warbuck, is that humans are stupid. Everyone slips up eventually, and after talking to Warbuck off an on since this thread started, he hasn't said anything I consider suspicious. Therefore, at the moment, I side with him.

Feel free to talk to me about such issues in private on IRC - ss23[ADI], and no, I don't keep logs . Unforutantly, I don't close my IRC client either, so they're there, loaded, all the time. Very handy .

/me vanishes

First off

are you sure you aren't defending WarBuck just because you are Gov in ADI.

Let's see.

WarBuck and ss2342 are in ADI.

Both are Gov.

OMFG why in the world would you contradict each other.

[ss2342]

First off

are you sure you aren't defending WarBuck just because you are Gov in ADI.

Let's see.

WarBuck and ss2342 are in ADI.

Both are Gov.

OMFG why in the world would you contradict each other.

Lolwut? I have no idea where you got that information from, but you're mistaken.

I'm not gov in ADI. Not even close, in fact, most member's don't even know me. I have something like 4 posts on our forums lol.

Also, I would contradict Warbuck if he lied about the logs, which basically means, if someone can change my mind, I would be happy to leave ADI.

I'm willing to accept that he might've, but until I have proof, I'm thinking he didn't.

Also, if someone convinced you that your alliance leader had doctered logs, would YOU stay with that alliance?

It's not a lack of loyalty to an alliance, it's about honor of yourself.

[Asriel Belacqua]

First off

are you sure you aren't defending WarBuck just because you are Gov in ADI.

Let's see.

WarBuck and ss2342 are in ADI.

Both are Gov.

OMFG why in the world would you contradict each other.

The man does make a point. Now, yes, granted, you do have to take his point with a grain of salt because he is in ADI, however, you do have to take things such as this into account when you are analyzing situations such as this.

I'd say his post, and his reasoning were a bit biased, considering his position, and he does have a reason to defend that of his fellow alliance-mate, so, now, what we need to do, is have someone analyze Hoo's response the same way he did, in as many different possible ways as possible and determine which sounds more reasonable.

The results would, of course, also be unable to be fully trusted, since it is biased people coming to conclusions based on biased reasoning, however I think we'd be closer to the answer than we are now.

Currently nobody really knows except for Hoo and WarBuck. You can assume what you want, and think what you want, but in reality, unless someone else has been told by both parties, no one else knows.

[Jacapo Saladin]

Has anyone considered that warbuck wasnt the one who changed it? Anyone who he leaked the logs to could have added it in order to make the logs seem more important. (although resorting to hacking claims does in my mind put more suspicion on warbuck)

[Confusion]

One more thing I would like to address..

Why would Hoo bring this to OWF if he "had" faked the logs. It doesn't make sense to me.

If Hoo would've actually said he wanted those AA's to leave the game, WarBuck would've come to OWF and post it to make Hoo look bad.

Having Hoo come to OWF to address this, proves he isn't lying because he came and made it straight not to make anyone look bad because if you notice he never accused anyone of faking the logs, he is defending himself not attacking someone unlike others.

Atleast I know if I would've faked logs I wouldn't bring it to OWF and look like an idiot in front of Planet Bob.

If WarBuck would've posted this trying to make it straight it would be diffrent, but that isn't the case.

so Who in there right mind would try to address something in OWF knowing they lied?

That doesn't make sense to me that's why I believe Hoo, he came to OWF to make things straight not make people look bad.

So if you don't understand this then you Sir Are Blind.

But then again we have those types of people.

Edited January 1, 2010 by marcus the great

[Penkala]

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*

I talk to Hoo. A lot. He has never, ever, ever mentioned wiping out any alliance or making them leave. That wouldn't be a challenge for him. Simply put, your logs are not believable.

Edit:

The rest of this thread is going to consist of people with an interest in the logs being true or those with reason to be angry at Hoo (Hey, who in this scenario could possibly fit in that category?) insisting that Hoo is lying and/or that it's his word against Warbuck's and so everyone should just ignore this topic, while his allies defend him. No one will make any headway in the argument. Taunts, horrible zingers and unfortunate posts will fill a couple dozen pages and none of it will matter because everyone in the topic will have made up their mind on the matter upon having read the OP and the subsequent discussion will consist of those people defending their opinion against others doing the same thing. Nobody with a chance to be swayed will ever read any of the argument.

There, I just saved us all a lot of time and energy.

Good call.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Penkala

[KaitlinK]

Will the claws come out if she does? Or will it just be the vague threats that continue?

Bully tactics are a poor way to shut up opposing opinions.

Wow my post couldn't be more misunderstood if I typed it in Latin... I believe we will soon see some additional information regarding this matter.

But by all means bring on the opposing opinions!

[Hunterman1043]

http://!@#$%*.com/f6afdba15

Just in case these haven't been posted yet.... I haven't had time to go through the past 27 pages.......

tl;dr - Editing logs to make someone look bad is just plain wrong and the most ignoble/pathetic thing you can do. Shame Warbuck, shame.

[BDRocks]

http://!@#$%*.com/f6afdba15

Just in case these haven't been posted yet.... I haven't had time to go through the past 27 pages.......

tl;dr - Editing logs to make someone look bad is just plain wrong and the most ignoble/pathetic thing you can do. Shame Warbuck, shame.

Anyone know who he was talking to?

Also Warbuck and his defenders stance will be "fake". Calling it now

Edited January 1, 2010 by BDRocks

[ss2342]

I think you'll all find this was the unedited log - http://!@#$%*.com/m46fb57cb

[popsumpot]

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!

Seems like someone went from 1 to 28 in under 5 seconds.

EDIT: New page foiled me.

Edited January 1, 2010 by popsumpot

[mdnss69]

Anything else you fellas in RoK would like to share regarding... "misinformation"?

[Bob Janova]

First off

are you sure you aren't defending WarBuck just because you are Gov in ADI.

Let's see.

WarBuck and ss2342 are in ADI.

Both are Gov.

OMFG why in the world would you contradict each other.

If you discount all the people in Ragnarok (including yourself), SF and Hoo's various social circles as well, then you can discount ADI members. Personally, I believe that just because someone has a bias doesn't mean you can't make a good point, and you made absolutely no effort to address ss's points.

Neither side of the argument really makes sense. Why would Hoo 'unsay' that line and then come to OWF? Well, perhaps as damage limitation, if the real logs were already being circulated and he thought that the extra exposure of the rest of the log was less damaging than having the 'running you from the game' line out there and unchallanged. Why would Warbuck add that line before circulating the logs? Perhaps, in a fit of pique, he wanted to make Hoo look a little worse – though the unchallenged part of the logs already does that, so he would have had to be not thinking rationally to think it was a good idea.

Both sides are roughly equally plausible, and people are going to believe the person they like the best in that sort of situation. The really amusing thing of course is that it doesn't matter – what Hoo definitely said about IRON and CDT being enemies of RoK and that not looking likely to change is much more interesting than a line that was either said or fabricated in a moment of anger.

[Farnsworth]

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

I agree with this assessment of Big Daddy Warbucks. Good going. lol

Have fun with all those super-secret, OPSEC conversations that important people will be dying to have with you!

[WorldConqueror]

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!

MHA and RoK are brothers now? Interesting.

[Xiphosis]

MHA and RoK are brothers now? Interesting.

Person who only sees AA's says what?

[von Metternich]

MHA and RoK are brothers now? Interesting.

Oh and don't forget the MDP we've had for half a year.

Person who only sees AA's says what?

LMAO! I lol'd so hard!

[SpiderJerusalem]

Anything else you fellas in RoK would like to share regarding... "misinformation"?

I bet you have something juicy to back up such comments, rite?

[WorldConqueror]

Oh and don't forget the MDP we've had for half a year.

LMAO! I lol'd so hard!

Small things really do amuse small minds, eh?

I was referring to the use of the word 'brothers' in the context of MHA-RoK relations. I've never heard it used in that context before, except as part of a general 'aqua brothers' thing. Furthermore, having an MDP makes you brothers now, eh? Your family reunions must be of epic proportions.

Anyway, I have heard MHA call the Gremlins, and NPO, brothers, both of whom they had/have 'eternal' treaties with. See my point, or are you too busy LMAOing to comprehend?

[SpiderJerusalem]

Anyway, I have heard MHA call the Gremlins, and NPO, brothers, both of whom they had/have 'eternal' treaties with. See my point, or are you too busy LMAOing to comprehend?

Much like NPO called Polaris brothers for so long