Death Before Dishonour

[NoFish]

[quote name='agafaba' date='15 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1266290954' post='2184218']
It was confirmed to the same standards that 99% of screenshots used here have been in the past, why do you expect more from GLOF? If they are wrong and the first 2 are authentic then it is a computer anomaly that is to be blamed not any lack of effort on GLOFs side. It is justified if your MDP partner is lying to you just to achieve some spiteful revenge.
[/quote]
I've been hearing this and similar lines from GLoF and friends quite a bit, and I gotta wonder, what are all these times where screenshots have been proven fake in the past? I'm really having trouble remembering a single instance where a war was declared over artifacts or discoloration in a picture.

[agafaba]

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 03:41 AM' timestamp='1266291689' post='2184274']
I've been hearing this and similar lines from GLoF and friends quite a bit, and I gotta wonder, what are all these times where screenshots have been proven fake in the past? I'm really having trouble remembering a single instance where a war was declared over artifacts or discoloration in a picture.
[/quote]

Maybe not in a while, but I can guarantee that most if not all screenshots that were used for CBs lately have gone through the works, not to mention there have been times when shots were proven fake that were first assumed to be true. If people stop wars because of pixels why is it hard to understand why it could also start them?

[quote]Yes, going to war over a possibly fake screenshot before resolving the issue in private channels with your MDP Partner is reasonable to you.

I see we're not going to get anywhere. [/quote]

I dont know why I would trust the word of someone who by all evidence sent fake screenshots to me to mess around with my alliance, especially when that person is the leader of an alliance.

Regardless of 1 minute or 1 month the screenshots are still as fake as they always will be. If you want to argue how long they gave before they decided to act instead of waiting then thats a different matter altogether. Personally I think it was a bit rash, however I have already stated I might do the same thing myself in their case.

Edited February 16, 2010 by agafaba

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Gopherbashi' date='15 February 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1266285925' post='2183945']
Because I've only got one FOK guy on me right now, and I'd love some more opponents. We can quickly sign a treaty and I'll draw up something in paint and send it to you within the hour.
[/quote]

No, I found some real super secret screen shots from MCXA forums.

Here it is! Enjoy
[img]http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz112/supercoolyellow/gophersplan.jpg[/img]

[NoFish]

[quote name='agafaba' date='15 February 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1266291921' post='2184295']
:words:
[/quote]
I asked if you could give me a precedent that you and GLoF keep referring to. So far all I've gotten is long-winded generalization.

[tarman2010]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='15 February 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1266292188' post='2184313']
No, I found some real super secret screen shots from MCXA forums.

Here it is! Enjoy
[img]http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz112/supercoolyellow/gophersplan.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

You sir, made my day.

[agafaba]

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 03:55 AM' timestamp='1266292522' post='2184331']
I asked if you could give me a precedent that you and GLoF keep referring to. So far all I've gotten is long-winded generalization.
[/quote]

So let me understand this... sending fake screenshots to mess around with an alliance isnt a valid cause for war in your opinion? Just because it isnt an everyday thing so several members dont have links to possibly year old threads where it happened before?

[Bower3aj]

[quote name='NoFish' date='15 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1266289773' post='2184129']
You know, come to think of it, it's [i]awfully[/i] convenient that GLoF somehow managed to stay out of a war when almost every one of their allies was involved in it. Almost as though they intentionally kept themselves unoccupied in case something came up. Now, unlike certain alliances, I'm not one to toss accusations without evidence... but it certainly makes you think, huh?
[/quote]

Really? How bout no. We were neutral to start. All of AZTEC was. As soon as an AZTEC member broke that neutrality we promised our support to the original allies that asked for our help. That ally was not the 57th. Just because our allies were never countered doesn't meant that we were not sitting there ready to go in to defend them. This is the second clear attempt at grasping for air that I've seen in this conversation.

[NoFish]

[quote name='agafaba' date='15 February 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1266293076' post='2184367']
So let me understand this... sending fake screenshots to mess around with an alliance isnt a valid cause for war in your opinion? Just because it isnt an everyday thing so several members dont have links to possibly year old threads where it happened before?
[/quote]
No, I'm saying that the screenshot wasn't proven to be a fake to a degree of certainty reasonable enough to go to war over - much less with a high-level treaty partner while ignoring the cancellation clause. I cannot remember any time an alliance has gone to war because some of the pixels in a screenshot given to them looked kind of funny. You keep insisting that there's precedent and I keep calling you out on it not being there. Feel free to correct me at any point in time by showing me an actual example, until then I'll keep assuming that there isn't one.

Edit:
[quote name='Bower3aj' date='15 February 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1266293683' post='2184407']
Really? How bout no. We were neutral to start. All of AZTEC was. As soon as an AZTEC member broke that neutrality we promised our support to the original allies that asked for our help. That ally was not the 57th. Just because our allies were never countered doesn't meant that we were not sitting there ready to go in to defend them. This is the second clear attempt at grasping for air that I've seen in this conversation.
[/quote]
No need to get all defensive, I'm not accusing you of anything - some of us like to have this thing called "proof" before we make accusations. I'm just pointing out how this looks suspiciously like it could have been premeditated, though I agree that it's far more likely you guys are just being opportunistic.

Edited February 16, 2010 by NoFish

[agafaba]

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1266293707' post='2184412']
No, I'm saying that the screenshot wasn't proven to be a fake to a degree of certainty reasonable enough to go to war over - much less with a high-level treaty partner while ignoring the cancellation clause. I cannot remember any time an alliance has gone to war because some of the pixels in a screenshot given to them looked kind of funny. You keep insisting that there's precedent and I keep calling you out on it not being there. Feel free to correct me at any point in time by showing me an actual example, until then I'll keep assuming that there isn't one.
[/quote]

You know there has been precedent before to change events because a picture has proven to be fake, just as many of you are saying should be done here. I dont see how that is any different from starting a war for the same reason. As well I dont understand what you would consider reasonable, any photoshop done half decently is going to look real except for the exact evidence found in these pictures.

[Leigon]

[quote name='agafaba' date='16 February 2010 - 04:29 AM' timestamp='1266290954' post='2184218']
If they are wrong and the first 2 are authentic then it is a computer anomaly that is to be blamed [b]not any lack of effort on GLOFs side.[/b] It is justified if your MDP partner is lying to you just to achieve some spiteful revenge.
[/quote]

Come again?

This whole business shows a total lack of effort on GLoFs side.

They didn't even take half a day to examine the evidence, didn't get into contact with anyone from their allies. The least longtime allies deserve before one fights them over something like this, breaking a cancelation clause too I assume, is that you give them time to answer to your accusations.
Probably it would have been for nought anyway, seeing the distrust that is flowing between these two alliances. But you got to try.

Why this didn't happen and why they felt they had to react so quickly is beyond me, but really it can't be said that they tried everything to verify the claims and the veracity of the screens.

[Aurion]

[quote name='agafaba' date='15 February 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1266294179' post='2184438']
[b]You know there has been precedent before to change events because a picture has proven to be fake, just as many of you are saying should be done here.[/b] I dont see how that is any different from starting a war for the same reason. As well I dont understand what you would consider reasonable, any photoshop done half decently is going to look real except for the exact evidence found in these pictures.
[/quote]

If I recall correctly, the only thing that's been anything close to proven so far is that the screen of Veneke talking about his SUPER SEKRIT PLANS FOR GLOF is fishy as hell.

So yeah, no.

And that's leaving aside the whole deal with GLoF plunging a knife into 57th (their freaking allies) when 57th's [i]other[/i] allies are fully committed to a global war.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Aurion

[NoFish]

[quote name='agafaba' date='15 February 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1266294179' post='2184438']
You know there has been precedent before to change events because a picture has proven to be fake, just as many of you are saying should be done here. I dont see how that is any different from starting a war for the same reason. As well I dont understand what you would consider reasonable, any photoshop done half decently is going to look real except for the exact evidence found in these pictures.
[/quote]
You don't see why you should have a different level of certainty for not going to war as there is for going to war? Really? If you're [i]not sure[/i] about your CB you don't go to war. It's as simple as that. It's a pretty fundamental principle. A very small amount of uncertainty is needed to prove a CB bad, while a very high amount of certainty is needed to prove it good. Do you see the difference now?

And I'd like to note that you [i]still[/i] haven't given me examples of [i]anything[/i]. Does the concept of arguing using facts scare you that much?

[Goldie]

Xiph gives us faulty information all of the time. Look out GOD, your days on Bob are numbered

[Defective]

[quote name='Aurion' date='16 February 2010 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1266294543' post='2184456']
If I recall correctly, the only thing that's been anything close to proven so far is that the screen of Veneke talking about his SUPER SEKRIT PLANS FOR GLOF is fishy as hell.

So yeah, no.

And that's leaving aside the whole deal with GLoF plunging a knife into 57th (their freaking allies) when 57th's [i]other[/i] allies are fully committed to a global war.
[/quote]


Through it all, what has been done is done. Why not put it in the past and move on?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Defective

[Roosterton]

[quote name='NoFish' date='15 February 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1266289773' post='2184129']
You know, come to think of it, it's [i]awfully[/i] convenient that GLoF somehow managed to stay out of a war when almost every one of their allies was involved in it. Almost as though they intentionally kept themselves unoccupied in case something came up. Now, unlike certain alliances, I'm not one to toss accusations without evidence... but it certainly makes you think, huh?
[/quote]

Given the general GLoF stupidity seen here recently, I wouldn't be surprised if that actually was the case.

[agafaba]

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1266294886' post='2184469']
You don't see why you should have a different level of certainty for not going to war as there is for going to war? Really? If you're [i]not sure[/i] about your CB you don't go to war. It's as simple as that. It's a pretty fundamental principle. A very small amount of uncertainty is needed to prove a CB bad, while a very high amount of certainty is needed to prove it good. Do you see the difference now?

And I'd like to note that you [i]still[/i] haven't given me examples of [i]anything[/i]. Does the concept of arguing using facts scare you that much?
[/quote]

I simply dont have the patience required to sift through thousands of posts looking for when it has happened in the past. I dont have any links ready to.. well anything in the CN forums.

[Coloradia]

GLoF, if you need even more proof that you are wrong. NSO and I agree here, seriously, I'm agreeing with NSO. That's when you know you have to be wrong GLoF.

After dozens have pointed out ways in which it becomes clear that the IP wasn't faked. All GLoF says in response is "ITS FAKEZORZ GTFO THEY LIEZ TO US WE KEEL DEM". Yeah... when dozens of people have shown that it likely isn't fake, and you haven't even come up with a rebuttal to that. It's pretty clear that they are not fake and you are afraid to admit that in attempts to save face. Little bit of info for ya, you aren't saving face, you look like bigger idiots every hour that passes.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='The Great One' date='16 February 2010 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1266309071' post='2185276']
GLoF, if you need even more proof that you are wrong. NSO and I agree here, seriously, I'm agreeing with NSO. That's when you know you have to be wrong GLoF.

After dozens have pointed out ways in which it becomes clear that the IP wasn't faked. All GLoF says in response is "ITS FAKEZORZ GTFO THEY LIEZ TO US WE KEEL DEM". Yeah... when dozens of people have shown that it likely isn't fake, and you haven't even come up with a rebuttal to that. It's pretty clear that they are not fake and you are afraid to admit that in attempts to save face. Little bit of info for ya, you aren't saving face, you look like bigger idiots every hour that passes.
[/quote]

To make this even more crazy I am agreeing with GOD and I can not stand them. Thats a true gift of GLoF to bring together all of Planet Bob. Of course they did this by attacking their allies. Even if they had proof that was not so easly dismissed you don't just up and attack your allies. If a global war was not raging a coalition would already have been formed and GLoF rolled. Lucky for them current events prevent that. At the moment. GLoFs time will come and when all is said and done they will get what is coming. As far as I can see 57th will have nice CB for a long time after this and when they choose to use it they will no doubt find a great deal of support. GLoF your cutting your own throats. This is gonna be fun.

[Chimaera]

You know, I'm starting to think this entire world war can be ended by everyone agreeing over how big of opportunists GLoF is being in this situation.

[Goldie]

I f'ing agree with TBB. Damn this brave new world we live in.

[Treborprime]

[quote name='The Great One' date='16 February 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1266309071' post='2185276']
GLoF, if you need even more proof that you are wrong. NSO and I agree here, seriously, I'm agreeing with NSO. That's when you know you have to be wrong GLoF.

After dozens have pointed out ways in which it becomes clear that the IP wasn't faked. All GLoF says in response is "ITS FAKEZORZ GTFO THEY LIEZ TO US WE KEEL DEM". Yeah... when dozens of people have shown that it likely isn't fake, and you haven't even come up with a rebuttal to that. It's pretty clear that they are not fake and you are afraid to admit that in attempts to save face. Little bit of info for ya, you aren't saving face, you look like bigger idiots every hour that passes.
[/quote]

Of course there is the screenshot of their internal command board. That would be just about impossible to fake, [u][b]yes actually it would[/b][/u]. If I were the 57th I would be worried about who sent that particular screenshot. Even if the IP screenshots weren't faked this would further complicate things. I will not pretend to understand the politics coming into play here. All I know is that there is a lot of armchair photo-shoppers in this thread and commanders for that matter.

Remember this is just a game.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Treborprime

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Chimaera' date='16 February 2010 - 08:14 AM' timestamp='1266326047' post='2185481']
You know, I'm starting to think this entire world war can be ended by everyone agreeing over how big of opportunists GLoF is being in this situation.
[/quote]

I'm down with that...and Veneke and I haven't agreed on a whole lot in a very long time, which technically means I would have a personal interest in watching GLoF fry the 57th's leadership.

That's right...the only people left supporitng GLoF on this one are...well...GLoF.

[Coloradia]

[quote name='Treborprime' date='16 February 2010 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1266332018' post='2185559']
Of course there is the screenshot of their internal command board. That would be just about impossible to fake, [u][b]yes actually it would[/b][/u]. If I were the 57th I would be worried about who sent that particular screenshot. Even if the IP screenshots weren't faked this would further complicate things. I will not pretend to understand the politics coming into play here. All I know is that there is a lot of armchair photo-shoppers in this thread and commanders for that matter.

Remember this is just a game.
[/quote]
You are aware that that screenshot was comprehensively proven false correct?
.

[Treborprime]

[quote name='The Great One' date='16 February 2010 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1266333019' post='2185575']
You are aware that that screenshot was comprehensively proven false correct?
.
[/quote]

Ok I will play this game with you.

which one in particular?

The IP screenshot initially submitted by Veneke. Which we originally took at face value?

Or the internal command board? In order to fake something like that there would be a lot of pix-elation distortion. You would lose quality from the original screenshot and there is no graphic editor out there that can overcome these issues [u][b]totally[/b][/u]. I see no [u][b]discernible distortion[/b][/u] in the image. If someone created and manipulated an image than well I take my hat off to them. If that is the case someone still needs access to a base image to manipulate ( sorry can't do that from scratch ). The question still begs to differ who from the 57th took that screenshot? Still though I see no way how the command board image could have been faked. I can definitely see how the IP images could be misinterpreted.

One observation on the IP screenshots - the distortion shown in the IP screenshots is [u][b]inconsistent[/b][/u] with JPEG compression. You should have uniform distortion throughout the image and not just around the text. It looks like someone did a bad job matching the color around the text. *shrugs*

The command board screenshot seems to be imo the only valid thing in this whole mess. I imagine that would make just about any leader in this game angry. What happens afterwards... that I guess is the real debate here?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Treborprime

[SWAT128]

[quote name='Treborprime' date='16 February 2010 - 07:25 AM' timestamp='1266333954' post='2185591']
Ok I will play this game with you.

which one in particular?

The IP screenshot initially submitted by Veneke. Which we originally took at face value?

Or the internal command board? In order to fake something like that there would be a lot of pix-elation distortion. You would lose quality from the original screenshot and there is no graphic editor out there that can overcome these issues [u][b]totally[/b][/u]. I see no [u][b]discernible distortion[/b][/u] in the image. If someone created and manipulated an image than well I take my hat off to them. If that is the case someone still needs access to a base image to manipulate ( sorry can't do that from scratch ). The question still begs to differ who from the 57th took that screenshot? Still though I see no way how the command board image could have been faked. I can definitely see how the IP images could be misinterpreted.

One observation on the IP screenshots - the distortion shown in the IP screenshots is [u][b]inconsistent[/b][/u] with JPEG compression. You should have uniform distortion throughout the image and not just around the text. It looks like someone did a bad job matching the color around the text. *shrugs*

The command board screenshot seems to be imo the only valid thing in this whole mess. I imagine that would make just about any leader in this game angry. What happens afterwards... that I guess is the real debate here?
[/quote]


The one of the Veneke post one is fake because it doesn't conform to the format of the 57th forums. There is supposed to be a larger gap between where his post ends and the signature spacer is. Read the GLOF DoW topic and you'll see that it's faked.