Jump to content

Hey guys!


Earogema
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know we have this whole deal every time where when a war comes along, one side (or both) are accused of "BAAAAAAAAAAW"-ing.

Usually this is said to the alliance that was/is, posturing/asking for it. The whole "Do something about it," mentality is rampant here.

These alliances are thus usually perceived as being fighters. They won't give their enemies any inch, unless it's just a respectable duel. Which a war isn't. They are also perceived as cowards a lot of the times- fighters only when convenient. I'm not going to argue who's tough or anything, this is just what I've noticed.

Now, of course, eventually once the war happens there's lots of forum posts from said alliance that are complaining about being attacked, that the CB is shoddy, that the war is terrible, etc, etc, ad infinitum (or ad around 82 pages). This is why they are accused of BAW-ing.

Now I have to ask- Is it not possible to wage a war of words and violence at the same time? Is it not possible to fight both on the forums, and the game?

Let's assume for example, that Grub's offer of peace really is simple to achieve. Well then, if that's the case, \m/ and PC are really fighting just because they can. Then all the gripes that \m/ is raising on the forums is merely a continuation of the conflict with Polar, correct? Now granted, we may assume that Grub's terms are not lenient, and this is why war still occurs. Even then, it is still just another fight. This one would be to get lighter terms. We know that PR is important in today's political arena, yet we should totally ignore that fact?

I just like to fight. I fought for a while as a rogue in Vox, and I did so on the forums too. I didn't care that my nation was in pieces. You think I just sat in peace mode? No, I stayed in war, and even deleted my wonders just to pay my bills (yes, I know this is terrible nation building, I don't really care). Both arguing and war are fun things, I don't see why I can't have my cake, and eat it too.

Just something I think could be considered the next time one of these things happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we have this whole deal every time where when a war comes along, one side (or both) are accused of "BAAAAAAAAAAW"-ing.

Usually this is said to the alliance that was/is, posturing/asking for it. The whole "Do something about it," mentality is rampant here.

These alliances are thus usually perceived as being fighters. They won't give their enemies any inch, unless it's just a respectable duel. Which a war isn't. They are also perceived as cowards a lot of the times- fighters only when convenient. I'm not going to argue who's tough or anything, this is just what I've noticed.

Now, of course, eventually once the war happens there's lots of forum posts from said alliance that are complaining about being attacked, that the CB is shoddy, that the war is terrible, etc, etc, ad infinitum (or ad around 82 pages). This is why they are accused of BAW-ing.

Now I have to ask- Is it not possible to wage a war of words and violence at the same time? Is it not possible to fight both on the forums, and the game?

Let's assume for example, that Grub's offer of peace really is simple to achieve. Well then, if that's the case, \m/ and PC are really fighting just because they can. Then all the gripes that \m/ is raising on the forums is merely a continuation of the conflict with Polar, correct? Now granted, we may assume that Grub's terms are not lenient, and this is why war still occurs. Even then, it is still just another fight. This one would be to get lighter terms. We know that PR is important in today's political arena, yet we should totally ignore that fact?

I just like to fight. I fought for a while as a rogue in Vox, and I did so on the forums too. I didn't care that my nation was in pieces. You think I just sat in peace mode? No, I stayed in war, and even deleted my wonders just to pay my bills (yes, I know this is terrible nation building, I don't really care). Both arguing and war are fun things, I don't see why I can't have my cake, and eat it too.

Just something I think could be considered the next time one of these things happens.

I'll be the first to agree with you on some of the sillier back and forth over who is a better warrior.

But let them have their fun. We were young warriors once, too.

I also am in total agreement that fighting on these forums is good, just as sparring pre-war is a load of fun.

However, you have me curious. Will you share the objectionable terms that you are fighting against with us? :ehm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be the first to agree with you on some of the sillier back and forth over who is a better warrior.

But let them have their fun. We were young warriors once, too.

I also am in total agreement that fighting on these forums is good, just as sparring pre-war is a load of fun.

However, you have me curious. Will you share the objectionable terms that you are fighting against with us? :ehm:

I don't know what the terms are. I'm just saying, working under the assumption that the terms are bad, then it would make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to realize that if you adopt the whole "do something about it" mentality as \m/ has done, then words should mean very little, which means that any CB used against \m/ should not bother ya'll since you "love war" as ya'll keep claiming.

the use of the "do something about it" mentality is a double edged sword since it is usually used due to the fact that most alliances are far to apathetic or cowardly to actually do a damn thing but the moment someone does do something it causes quite a hiccup for those using the "do something about it mentality".

this hiccup is exactly what you describe above. the total mentality of Bob is that there needs to be some sort of valid CB in order to go to war and thus, the need for the defender to attack the integrity of the CB in order to show that it is not valid and thus, show that the aggressor (using defender and aggressor merely to define who DoWed not to state which side feels what) is in the wrong. but by doing that, the whole "do something about it/I LOVE WAR" mentalities take a large hit as does the credibility of the defending alliance. which leads to those who support the aggressor proclaiming they are bawwwwwing.

also, since those who abide by the "DSAI" (sorry got tired of typing it out) mentality usually feel they do not have to have CBs to declare war (as has been stated by several on \m/'s side, tech raiding is warring and warring is tech raiding), then that also leads one to the conclusion that CBs should not actually matter to the "DSAI" crowd and thus any attempt at showing the CB to be false is bawwwing.

there is also the fact that one of the claims of the "DSAI" crowd is that their alliances are sovereign and should be able to do as they please due to said sovereignty. if the "DSAI" crowd is sovereign and can do as they please, so can other alliances which includes using a CB that the "DSAI" crowd may not like to hit them. but once the "DSAI" crowd begins to attempt to tear apart the CB (if possible), then it is seen as bawwwwing since they proclaim sovereignty and all that jazz and thus, the other alliance is only projecting their own sovereignty and in their own way.

by all accounts Polaris should be hailed by the "DSAI" crowd instead of attempting to be demonized as they are doing everything that the "DSAI" crowd feels are at the heart of any alliance. Polaris also placated the other side of the fence by presenting a valid CB versus some cooked up or faked CB as we have seen in the past.

but it seems that regardless of your ideals and what your beliefs are, they matter very little when it comes to demonizing an enemy. thus, the "DSAI" crowd will go against their own beliefs in order to demonize Polaris, while the other side of the fence either supports or demonizes usually based on how treaties fall.

very few will actually hold to their beliefs regardless of treaty or belief system. those who do, i honestly applaud them as it is far easier to abandon them in order to demonize an enemy or an alliance you hold a grudge against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what the terms are. I'm just saying, working under the assumption that the terms are bad, then it would make sense.

Ah very well. Also, since we are in the OOC area, I hope you of all people know what I mean by repeating my wish that you'd disband. It has nothing at all to do with OOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to realize that if you adopt the whole "do something about it" mentality as \m/ has done, then words should mean very little, which means that any CB used against \m/ should not bother ya'll since you "love war" as ya'll keep claiming.

the use of the "do something about it" mentality is a double edged sword since it is usually used due to the fact that most alliances are far to apathetic or cowardly to actually do a damn thing but the moment someone does do something it causes quite a hiccup for those using the "do something about it mentality".

this hiccup is exactly what you describe above. the total mentality of Bob is that there needs to be some sort of valid CB in order to go to war and thus, the need for the defender to attack the integrity of the CB in order to show that it is not valid and thus, show that the aggressor (using defender and aggressor merely to define who DoWed not to state which side feels what) is in the wrong. but by doing that, the whole "do something about it/I LOVE WAR" mentalities take a large hit as does the credibility of the defending alliance. which leads to those who support the aggressor proclaiming they are bawwwwwing.

also, since those who abide by the "DSAI" (sorry got tired of typing it out) mentality usually feel they do not have to have CBs to declare war (as has been stated by several on \m/'s side, tech raiding is warring and warring is tech raiding), then that also leads one to the conclusion that CBs should not actually matter to the "DSAI" crowd and thus any attempt at showing the CB to be false is bawwwing.

there is also the fact that one of the claims of the "DSAI" crowd is that their alliances are sovereign and should be able to do as they please due to said sovereignty. if the "DSAI" crowd is sovereign and can do as they please, so can other alliances which includes using a CB that the "DSAI" crowd may not like to hit them. but once the "DSAI" crowd begins to attempt to tear apart the CB (if possible), then it is seen as bawwwwing since they proclaim sovereignty and all that jazz and thus, the other alliance is only projecting their own sovereignty and in their own way.

by all accounts Polaris should be hailed by the "DSAI" crowd instead of attempting to be demonized as they are doing everything that the "DSAI" crowd feels are at the heart of any alliance. Polaris also placated the other side of the fence by presenting a valid CB versus some cooked up or faked CB as we have seen in the past.

but it seems that regardless of your ideals and what your beliefs are, they matter very little when it comes to demonizing an enemy. thus, the "DSAI" crowd will go against their own beliefs in order to demonize Polaris, while the other side of the fence either supports or demonizes usually based on how treaties fall.

very few will actually hold to their beliefs regardless of treaty or belief system. those who do, i honestly applaud them as it is far easier to abandon them in order to demonize an enemy or an alliance you hold a grudge against.

So discourse isn't "doing something about it?" A lot of people felt Vox did stuff, and we most certainly weren't a military force. I feel as if when people say that words don't count along with "doing something about it" that they really don't have a leg to stand on. In fact, they are VERY much tied together. Especially in this "brave new world."

I will admit Polar did something about it, but for Polar/Polar's allies/supporters to deride our discourse as "BAWING" when it agrees with our actions is- it seems to me - foolish and contrary. Of the same token, \m//allies/supporters should also realize their own faults in this instance.

Edited by Earogema
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So discourse isn't "doing something about it?" A lot of people felt Vox did stuff, and we most certainly weren't a military force. I feel as if when people say that words don't count along with "doing something about it" that they really don't have a leg to stand on. In fact, they are VERY much tied together. Especially in this "brave new world."

I will admit Polar did something about it, but for Polar/Polar's allies/supporters to deride our discourse as "BAWING" when it agrees with our actions is- it seems to me - foolish and contrary. Of the same token, \m//allies/supporters should also realize their own faults in this instance.

Why would you let that bother you?

Edited by Fantastico
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So discourse isn't "doing something about it?" A lot of people felt Vox did stuff, and we most certainly weren't a military force. I feel as if when people say that words don't count along with "doing something about it" that they really don't have a leg to stand on. In fact, they are VERY much tied together. Especially in this "brave new world."

I will admit Polar did something about it, but for Polar/Polar's allies/supporters to deride our discourse as "BAWING" when it agrees with our actions is- it seems to me - foolish and contrary. Of the same token, \m//allies/supporters should also realize their own faults in this instance.

for one, Vox never took on the "DSAI" mentality. their main weapon was words and not military and they knew that. those with the "DSAI" mentality is all about military power and war not words. if it was about words, then \m/ would know how to use diplomacy and they would know that using the might makes right attitude is more about scaring others versus attempting to allow for discourse. hence why \m/embers tend to go for the "Do something about it" argument instead of actually discussing the issue in a logical manner.

while some \m/embers do partake in discourse such as yourself and SF, most simply go with "DSAI" type answers as was shown when Polaris confronted \m/ on the forums over the FoA tech raid.

so no, DSAI mentality is the method used by WUT and Q (though not all alliances) in an attempt to rule out of fear instead of discourse. DSAI=might makes right attitude and by that very thing does not include discourse as you cannot rule by fear if people are able to discuss issues.

while i see your point on how it is foolish and contrary to deride ya'lls discourse as Bawwing, i am simply illuminating why it is seen that way. this is much the same manner as whenever NPO speaks of basically anything they are called hypocritical or whiners or bawwwing. this includes \m/ and their allies who now wonder why everyone on our side of the fence are stating they are bawwing.

it is a vicious cycle that will most likely never die out and i know i am guilty of partaking in it as well. essentially until the DSAI mentality ceases to exist, those who embrace it will be seen as Bawwing and complaining the moment they finally attempt discourse after a DoW has been presented. if they wish to continue with the DSAI mentality, it must take on a new meaning which means it needs to take on a new style. one that includes actual discourse of an issue prior to a DoW. had \m/ been all over the boards attempting discourse instead of going with the "we ain't wrong you are, we aren't paying reps, if you don't like it, do something about it" argument that was presented, i would state that they would have every right to continue the discourse after a DoW was presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for one, Vox never took on the "DSAI" mentality. their main weapon was words and not military and they knew that. those with the "DSAI" mentality is all about military power and war not words. if it was about words, then \m/ would know how to use diplomacy and they would know that using the might makes right attitude is more about scaring others versus attempting to allow for discourse. hence why \m/embers tend to go for the "Do something about it" argument instead of actually discussing the issue in a logical manner.

while some \m/embers do partake in discourse such as yourself and SF, most simply go with "DSAI" type answers as was shown when Polaris confronted \m/ on the forums over the FoA tech raid.

so no, DSAI mentality is the method used by WUT and Q (though not all alliances) in an attempt to rule out of fear instead of discourse. DSAI=might makes right attitude and by that very thing does not include discourse as you cannot rule by fear if people are able to discuss issues.

while i see your point on how it is foolish and contrary to deride ya'lls discourse as Bawwing, i am simply illuminating why it is seen that way. this is much the same manner as whenever NPO speaks of basically anything they are called hypocritical or whiners or bawwwing. this includes \m/ and their allies who now wonder why everyone on our side of the fence are stating they are bawwing.

it is a vicious cycle that will most likely never die out and i know i am guilty of partaking in it as well. essentially until the DSAI mentality ceases to exist, those who embrace it will be seen as Bawwing and complaining the moment they finally attempt discourse after a DoW has been presented. if they wish to continue with the DSAI mentality, it must take on a new meaning which means it needs to take on a new style. one that includes actual discourse of an issue prior to a DoW. had \m/ been all over the boards attempting discourse instead of going with the "we ain't wrong you are, we aren't paying reps, if you don't like it, do something about it" argument that was presented, i would state that they would have every right to continue the discourse after a DoW was presented.

I can safely say that "DSAI" was part of what Vox wanted. It wasn't justifying force for the sake of force though, it was more like rise up and oppose those who would seek to crush you. So yeah, it was different and yet strangely the same.

As for diplomacy: It's possible that \m/'s discourse there was meant to inflame, which was obviously the effect. War was thus necessary. If that's the case, then certainly whining about the war would be seen as ironic, yet at the same time it would not be without merit. \m/ could find a variety of problems with the diplomacy being engaged, while still disagreeing with the entirety of why the war is being fought, or agree with the war, but attempt to vilify the enemy combatants.

However, I see your point as to why these insults will continue and you have a very valid point. "DSAI" though, seems to be a very constant theme of the game, and I doubt that it'll ever just fade away. Even as discourse continues, alliances will just think of better ways of wording that phrase, and it seems to be a part of history that we never learn from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power." ;)

I can't help but chuckle at some of the things people suggest, like I should throw my alliance in front of every trainwreck "tech-raid" on another alliance because I don't like tech-raiding. The whole "do something about it" spiel is just so annoying because people are constantly shifting the goal posts on what constitutes doing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power." ;)

I can't help but chuckle at some of the things people suggest, like I should throw my alliance in front of every trainwreck "tech-raid" on another alliance because I don't like tech-raiding. The whole "do something about it" spiel is just so annoying because people are constantly shifting the goal posts on what constitutes doing something.

If you don't like what I'm doing, go finds the server CN is hosted on and smash it to pieces. Not going to? Then be quiet and leave me alone, coward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That image is so amazingly true. I wouldn't even mind it if it was good political discourse and debate, but the "shut up you crybaby!" bullcrap that has pervaded this community since the first GOONS became dominant is tiresome. These newer generations... *sigh*

Edited by Elyat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posters on this forum largely follow a predetermined pattern of behavior which I have sought to map out here:

[pic]

Haha, nice job. Hilarious and accurate. If I was guessing I'd say the majority of folk quickly end up at the 'troll' boxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...