A friendly debate of the validity of jokingly using faked logs

[Sooner]

What follows is a friendly debate between Wentworth of NATO and SoonerNation of VE.

Remain civil. This was an intellectual debate between two persons. We ask that it be kept intellectually intact in that regard.

Neither one of us is in our alliance's government.

wentworth[NATO]: Is this where I come to get schooled?

[5:15pm] You made this room moderated for normal users.

[5:15pm] SoonerNation: lol

[5:16pm] wentworth[NATO]: lol, you should know I hold no ill will towars you or VE

[5:16pm] SoonerNation: likewise

[5:16pm] wentworth[NATO]: *towards

[5:16pm] SoonerNation: thats why i thought a civil debate would be best

[5:17pm] wentworth[NATO]: Would you like to start?

[5:17pm] SoonerNation: you're the guest so i'll let you

[5:18pm] SoonerNation: So why do you think faked logs are a good joke?

[5:19pm] wentworth[NATO]: Because it was obvious by reading them, that they should be viewed as light hearted and humerous. The goal was to subtley poke fun at what we view as a weak CB

[5:20pm] wentworth[NATO]: As for the use of a banned member,

[5:20pm] wentworth[NATO]: I will concede that to be in bad taste. I had no knowledge that he was banned as I was not around at the time of his banning

[5:21pm] SoonerNation: okay, you brought up another point but let me first answer the main point

[5:23pm] SoonerNation: the problem with faked logs is that they are fake and have been used in the past by all sides as a means to start a war. Case in point, the BLEU-GUN war. Faked logs were used leading up to that war. It caused a lot of hurt feelings to many players because it took away a piece of authenticity to the game. Logs were considered secure. After it was disclosed that they could be faked after the war and that most of the logs used to start that war were faked, it left a bad taste

[5:25pm] wentworth[NATO]: So those logs were or could have been faked, and that was used as the sole reason for war correct?

[5:25pm] SoonerNation: yep

[5:25pm] wentworth[NATO]: I see that as a very valid concern. However, I believe that this is a different case, because we clearly pointed out they were fake, and included the actual reason for war in the DoW.

[5:26pm] wentworth[NATO]: We never were intending anyone to actually think we were serious, hence the over use of Hoo's vainity, etc within the logs

[5:26pm] SoonerNation: even though you knew that most people look down upon faked logs?

[5:26pm] wentworth[NATO]: If faked logs are used as the sole reason to launch a war, yes. I can understand that,

[5:27pm] wentworth[NATO]: Our reasons are quite clear. MDoAP partner was attacked.

[5:28pm] wentworth[NATO]: Had we say, DoW'd athens because I don't care for Londo, and faked logs to use as a CB, that would be worng.

[5:28pm] wentworth[NATO]: *wrong.

[5:28pm] SoonerNation: you could have easily have said that without the faked logs though. Those faked logs took away from the sincerity of your DoW.

[5:29pm] wentworth[NATO]: If you choose to look at it with completely serious glasses on, then yes. Personally, I enjoy DoW's that have a bit of humor in them

[5:30pm] wentworth[NATO]: Alas, humor is in the eye of the beholder i suppose.

[5:30pm] SoonerNation: I don't personally view DoWs as serious. but that wasn't humor. that was something else entirely

[5:31pm] wentworth[NATO]: What exactly was it? Did we post them as fact? Did we use them as the reason to DoW? No. We used them to poke fun at a war that was started using a flimsy six month old CB.

[5:31pm] SoonerNation: humor would have been telling a joke, not using a banned member or a person's vanity.

[5:32pm] SoonerNation: okay the next point, the CB

[5:32pm] SoonerNation: you view it as a joke yes?

[5:32pm] wentworth[NATO]: I apologized for the Banned member reference, but I will not for poking fun at a persons vainity.

[5:32pm] wentworth[NATO]: And yes, the CB was not valid in my eyes.

[5:32pm] wentworth[NATO]: However,

[5:32pm] SoonerNation: so do you view spying as joke? that it's not harmful to an alliance?

[5:34pm] wentworth[NATO]: During a wartime, such as Karma, I do not view it as reprehensible. It is a tactic that has been used by many, even alliances on the opposite side. Had the roles been reversed, I would not support rolling athens for something they did while at war.

[5:35pm] SoonerNation: a sixth month old CB is a joke? so what a former Rok player did your alliance for over a year does not matter? even though he could have done irreparable harm to your alliance?

[5:36pm] wentworth[NATO]: I feel I should also point out, I am not government of NATO in any way and these are my opinions only. This certain former RoK member was attempting to gain our war plans, while at peace.

[5:36pm] wentworth[NATO]: Different scenario

[5:36pm] wentworth[NATO]: Furthermore

[5:37pm] wentworth[NATO]: I don't really care what Pres. Magee did or Rish for that matter. Hoo apologized and I believe him that they had no knowledge of it

[5:37pm] SoonerNation: i'm not VE gov either

[5:37pm] wentworth[NATO]: RoK may not like us, but I completely believe they would not do anything like that

[5:38pm] SoonerNation: okay, let's put you in athens'rok's shoes then.

[5:39pm] SoonerNation: a small alliance approaches you about being their protectorate. your alliance is known as a good protector, one where if a protectorate fails, that protectorate's government is given a new role in your alliance. 6 months pass and this alliance comes clean about what their real mission was in becoming your protectorate.

[5:40pm] SoonerNation: and here is a real world spin on this that i just dealt with.

[5:40pm] wentworth[NATO]: please continue

[5:42pm] SoonerNation: imagine you're a teacher. you've just graded the final exams and have gone home for the break. near the end of the next semester, a student approaches you about a group of students that cheated and conspired against your final. they admitted to being part of the planning of stealing the final and cheating on the final with other students.

[5:42pm] SoonerNation: how do you approach this situation?

[5:43pm] SoonerNation: what do you think happen to the student that came forward and what should happen to those that were dishonest and did not come forward?

[5:43pm] wentworth[NATO]: Did these students conspire to cheat, or did they actually go through with it?

[5:45pm] wentworth[NATO]: In my opinion, that is the crux of the argument. If they indeed went through with it, they should all be punished.

[5:46pm] wentworth[NATO]: However, if it was canceled, then we punish them anyway, we are now punishing people for ideas, a very dangerous thing indeed.

[5:47pm] SoonerNation: why is it dangerous when Universities do the very same thing for even conspiracy to commit cheating?

[5:48pm] wentworth[NATO]: Because you are punishing them for ideas they had, not actions they took.

[5:50pm] SoonerNation: so if an alliance had the idea of doing irreparable harm to your alliance in either war or peace time, and you have no idea if it went through or not. do you take the other side at their word that it did not even though they conspired to do you harm?

[5:50pm] SoonerNation: how can you trust them?

[5:51pm] wentworth[NATO]: I took RoK at their word.

[5:51pm] wentworth[NATO]: Magee only had seven posts, but that does not matter when he could screen shot our war planning

[5:51pm] wentworth[NATO]: They claim they knew nothing about it, ok I believe them

[5:51pm] wentworth[NATO]: Though I may be more forgiving than most.

[5:53pm] SoonerNation: so why should Rok and Athens, take TPF at their word when there is no evidence that it was cancelled?

[5:53pm] wentworth[NATO]: Because there is. Mhawk just wasn't the one to cancel it.

[5:54pm] wentworth[NATO]: There is also no evidence that RoK didn't receive info about our war planning,

[5:55pm] wentworth[NATO]: It can go both ways. I believe this whole thing is blown out of proportion, on both sides.

[5:55pm] SoonerNation: so do you now see why it is not a weak CB because there is a "continued" threat in existence?

[5:55pm] SoonerNation: I agree it was blown up but diplomacy would not have "solved" the issue at hand.

[5:56pm] SoonerNation: the owness was in TPF's hands and it was stated by TPF that diplomacy would have just stalled the war.

[5:56pm] wentworth[NATO]: There is a continued threat in existence in RoK then Sooner. Regardless of Rish being gone or not, RoK still may be conspiring against us, there is no evidence to prove otherwise

[5:57pm] wentworth[NATO]: I dont believe that, but can you see how I can use that argument in that situation as well?

[5:58pm] SoonerNation: i do. that is why evidence is the most important aspect of any stance or position, much like intelligence. Was due diligence done by either side? that is to be seen.

[6:00pm] wentworth[NATO]: I agree Sooner. And personally, as far as I am concerned, the issue with RoK is over. We attacked their treaty partners. If they want to roll us, they will and they have every right to.

[6:00pm] SoonerNation: and I think we've run out of arguements for our stances at this point. lol

[6:01pm] wentworth[NATO]: lol, too true. I will apologize for the use of a banned member. Had I been diligent myself, that wouldn't have happened.

[6:02pm] wentworth[NATO]: I respect your position and the way you argue it, with civility and tact. Unless there is anything else, I will leave you to whatver it is you are doing.

[6:02pm] SoonerNation: okay, you mind if I post our logs on the OWF?

[6:02pm] wentworth[NATO]: absolutely not, I have nothing to hide.

Enjoy and discuss.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Sooner

[Deadshot]

o/ Sooner for being a delight to debate with.

[Sooner]

o/ to Wentworth for being a worthy oppoenent.

[Gopherbashi]

[5:50pm] SoonerNation: so if an alliance had the idea of doing irreparable harm to your alliance in either war or peace time, and you have no idea if it went through or not. do you take the other side at their word that it did not even though they conspired to do you harm?

That might be a very legitimate argument, had Athens not known the end result of the project in question.

[von Metternich]

Seems like a good and diplomatic fella.

+1 for emm...interviewmanship.

[Ephriam Grey]

I'm sorry, but you can't have these sorts of debates without me present, Sooner.

)): Sooner )):

<3

Edited January 3, 2010 by Ephriam Grey

[Bob Janova]

As long as the 'logs' are obviously fake, and no-one is trying to push them as a serious CB, I think it's a perfectly acceptable target for a joke, and NATO executed the joke rather well imo.

[Cobalt]

Good stuff. I got a chuckle out of NATO's DoW - very obviously faked logs and all that jazz. Glad you two could talk it out with civility and class. Just like to point something out though:

[5:56pm] wentworth[NATO]: There is a continued threat in existence in RoK then Sooner. Regardless of Rish being gone or not, RoK still may be conspiring against us, there is no evidence to prove otherwise

A giant flying microwave flew to earth on an asteroid made of cotton candy and created the first one-celled organism, thereby initiating the cycle of evolution which has forged the world as we know it. There is no evidence to prove otherwise, and now we both sound ridiculous.

This phrase needs to be removed from political discourse. From an argumentative standpoint it is just a way of trying to use a lack of evidence as a point of evidence - a practice which screams of desperation and grabbing at straws. If you have proof regarding an issue, great. Use it. If you do not have evidence, but also do not have anything that proves otherwise - you still have nothing, so give it a rest. Its kinda like making a mountain out of a molehill, without the molehill.

[/rant]

edit: would like to add that the above rant has nothing to do with the Rok/NATO et al. situation, just my issues with the phrase "there is no evidence to prove otherwise" and other statements of similar meaning.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Tungsten

[Deadshot]

Good stuff. I got a chuckle out of NATO's DoW - very obviously faked logs and all that jazz. Glad you two could talk it out with civility and class. Just like to point something out though:

[5:56pm] wentworth[NATO]: There is a continued threat in existence in RoK then Sooner. Regardless of Rish being gone or not, RoK still may be conspiring against us, there is no evidence to prove otherwise

A giant flying microwave flew to earth on an asteroid made of cotton candy and created the first one-celled organism, thereby initiating the cycle of evolution which has forged the world as we know it. There is no evidence to prove otherwise, and now we both sound ridiculous.

This phrase needs to be removed from political discourse. From an argumentative standpoint it is just a way of trying to use a lack of evidence as a point of evidence - a practice which screams of desperation and grabbing at straws. If you have proof regarding an issue, great. Use it. If you do not have evidence, but also do not have anything that proves otherwise - you still have nothing, so give it a rest. Its kinda like making a mountain out of a molehill, without the molehill.

[/rant]

edit: would like to add that the above rant has nothing to do with the Rok/NATO et al. situation, just my issues with the phrase "there is no evidence to prove otherwise" and other statements of similar meaning.

I can concede that point, it is the same Bertand Russel uses in his Teapot theory. This same point has been used a billion times on both sides of this war and both sides should stop using it

[Sigrun Vapneir]

o/ friendly debate and those capable of it.

I still think faking logs is dumb dumb dumb. And didnt find the joke anywhere near funny enough to justify it.

[Lenny N Karl]

Clearly this thread is another example of posting a fake log. VE and NATO having a polite, civil debate? When will we all put a stop to all these fakes logs??!!

[King Tom]

Since i did not see this, here is a like to the post.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...77446&st=20

That way people can read it.

Edited January 3, 2010 by King Tom

[Ch33kY]

Sooner, are the logs of your conversation with Wentworth real? You can't believe anything these days.

Back on topic, the logs in question are deliberately and obviously fake and intended as s a joke. My personal opinion on the matter is that they should not be used, even as a joke. There is a time and a place for jokes, but as DoWs are one of the few sacred serious moments in CN and I don't think it was appropriate.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Ch33kY

[Deadshot]

Sooner, are these real logs? You can't believe anything these days.

They are, I was there to witness it

[TypoNinja]

Good stuff. I got a chuckle out of NATO's DoW - very obviously faked logs and all that jazz. Glad you two could talk it out with civility and class. Just like to point something out though:

[5:56pm] wentworth[NATO]: There is a continued threat in existence in RoK then Sooner. Regardless of Rish being gone or not, RoK still may be conspiring against us, there is no evidence to prove otherwise

A giant flying microwave flew to earth on an asteroid made of cotton candy and created the first one-celled organism, thereby initiating the cycle of evolution which has forged the world as we know it. There is no evidence to prove otherwise, and now we both sound ridiculous.

This phrase needs to be removed from political discourse. From an argumentative standpoint it is just a way of trying to use a lack of evidence as a point of evidence - a practice which screams of desperation and grabbing at straws. If you have proof regarding an issue, great. Use it. If you do not have evidence, but also do not have anything that proves otherwise - you still have nothing, so give it a rest. Its kinda like making a mountain out of a molehill, without the molehill.

[/rant]

edit: would like to add that the above rant has nothing to do with the Rok/NATO et al. situation, just my issues with the phrase "there is no evidence to prove otherwise" and other statements of similar meaning.

The phrase your looking for is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and its logical follow ups. Alas, people frequently make the incorrect leap of assuming that lack of evidence against something counts as evidence for it.

[Electric Mango]

+1 to both parties for a very civilized and intelligent discussion. You are role models to all and should be commended for your use of diplomacy and your talk as gentleman. Now to get to the heart of the topic.

I believe that using faked logs is an acceptable practice as long as it is beyond a doubt a reasonable doubt to the ordinary laymen or clearly labeled as faked. I for one find it amusing because I enjoy the political satire a-la Saturday Night Live and other related comedy.

Unfortunately faked logs will never go away so we can never 100% trust their validity unless we were personally present so we may as well be able to make fun of them the way Will Ferrel makes fun of George Bush.

Keep raising the bar and I bid thee farewell.

\,,/

[Ch33kY]

They are, I was there to witness it

Are you real? I demand empirical uncontrovertable proof!

Edited January 3, 2010 by Ch33kY

[Sooner]

Yes, these logs are real.

[Undabaningi Rasticus]

[5:23pm] SoonerNation: the problem with faked logs is that they are fake and have been used in the past by all sides as a means to start a war. Case in point, the BLEU-GUN war. Faked logs were used leading up to that war. It caused a lot of hurt feelings to many players because it took away a piece of authenticity to the game. Logs were considered secure. After it was disclosed that they could be faked after the war and that most of the logs used to start that war were faked, it left a bad taste

This is so far from the truth I can only assume that you have been badly misinformed.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Undabaningi Rasticus

[Johjima]

[09:36] <Exaotus|UMBRELLA> I can't wait to betray TOP

[09:36] <Exaotus|UMBRELLA> it's going to be so much fun to nuke them

[09:36] <Exaotus|UMBRELLA> they don't deserve to be an alliance

This is an actual quote from an Umbrellailure IRC channel. It has not been altered or changed in anyway. What do we make of it?

[alpreb]

[09:36] <Exaotus|UMBRELLA> I can't wait to betray TOP

[09:36] <Exaotus|UMBRELLA> it's going to be so much fun to nuke them

[09:36] <Exaotus|UMBRELLA> they don't deserve to be an alliance

This is an actual quote from an Umbrellailure IRC channel. It has not been altered or changed in anyway. What do we make of it?

Wouldn't mind. More targets to me (B and , may I add, reacting on out-of-context irc quotes is beyond silly.

Edited January 3, 2010 by alpreb