Death Before Dishonour

[bagpuss]

[quote]obscurus
Sent Today, 08:09 PM

...the fact that silence and other helped the 57th after the BC thing is not at stake here: we tried to get hold of Ven and everyone for days to talk about this thing, to no avail.
We tried, and lots. Please contact Penedono: he should have the logs of what REALLY happened, and if u want to know the TRUTH, not the trolls' reality. And we are convinced that this jpg file has been altered - if we weren't we would have never done something like that. And why should have we, after all? [/quote]

prefer to answer in here rather than via PM

I somehow doubt its that hard to contact Ven over a period of several days, a simple post on their forum would of sufficed saying you needed to takl urgently. But did you bother using their forum? I suspect not being the last post in your embassy on the 57th forums was feb 4th. Its a secure embassy too just like Silences so no other diplomats can even see what you said in there.

I'll have a look at the offending jpeg tomorrow and see what i can deduce from it for myself.

[Delta1212]

So... GLOF is defending itself by claiming that Ven really [I]did[/I] fake the screenshot and that it wasn't just a compression issue.


Ok... How in the hell is it ok to ignore a treaty and attack someone you hold an MDP with without talking to them because they sent you a faked screenshot regarding one of your members? Ignoring [I]completely[/I] the fact that Ven seems not to have faked it and that the member in question apparently subsequently went rogue, that would still be a [I]horrible[/I] CB. Cancel a treaty over something like that? Sure, I could see it. Attack someone? Not so much. Attack your treaty partner? Are you completely insane?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Delta1212

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='16 February 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1266357407' post='2186257']
So... GLOF is defending itself by claiming that Ven really [I]did[/I] fake the screenshot and that it wasn't just a compression issue.


Ok... How in the hell is it ok to ignore a treaty and attack someone you hold an MDP with without talking to them because they sent you a faked screenshot regarding one of your members? Ignoring [I]completely[/I] the fact that Ven seems not to have faked it and that the member in question apparently subsequently went rogue, that would still be a [I]horrible[/I] CB. Cancel a treaty over something like that? Sure, I could see it. Attack someone? Not so much. Attack your treaty partner? Are you completely insane?
[/quote]

The question would be is GLOF's leadership completely incompetent or do they have some kind of agenda and they though everyone would be to busy to notice when they attacked their allies. Either way people noticed and now they will have face the music.

[Thunder Strike]

[quote name='Treborprime' date='17 February 2010 - 03:55 AM' timestamp='1266335733' post='2185633']
If the other screenshot is fake then that doesn't sit well for the 57th does it? Since well that is what Veneke presented to GLOF for having Iyeman expelled from the Lodge.

Either way there is questionable content with this whole issue. I do not believe the command board to be a fake. [u][b]But that just like everything else in this thread is an opinion.[/b][/u]
[/quote]

After being give Root Admin access to the 57ths forums I have to say I am quite certain that screen shot is a fake.
There is no evidence of such a post on their boards or any evidence in the Moderator or Admin logs to suggest that such a post has been deleted or edited.

[Hobgoblin70]

[quote name='Heft' date='16 February 2010 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1266346590' post='2185898']
No one declares war over just screenshots any more. It's generally frowned upon and accepted that while a screenshot may be valuable intel and might constitute evidence, it is not by itself a smoking gun, ever. There are two basic reasons for this:

1. Screenshots are exceptionally easy to fake, especially of forum posts.
2. Screenshots are exceptionally easy to [i]claim[/i] as being fake.

Put those two together and you end up with screenshots being notoriously unreliable.

Why anyone would ever think "Some of the pixels appear to be distorted differently" would actually fly as a CB is beyond me.
[/quote]

There is a large difference between "some of the pixels appear to be distorted differently" and the relevant pixels and only the relevant pixels of a larger screenshot being distorted differently. It is the difference between coincidence and evidence.

[Heft]

[quote name='Hobgoblin I' date='16 February 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1266367014' post='2186548']
There is a large difference between "some of the pixels appear to be distorted differently" and the relevant pixels and only the relevant pixels of a larger screenshot being distorted differently. It is the difference between coincidence and evidence.
[/quote]
You miss the point. No one takes "pixels look shopped" seriously, nor should we.

In any case, I believe it was established that it was not [i]only[/i] those particular pixels which appears abnormal, but that entire line, and also that at least one alternative explanation was provided for that line being different. Was it enough to be concerned and investigate further? Yes. Was it enough to just launch an attack without even considering other options? No.

It's that distinction that has landed GLOF in such trouble here. No one is disputing that there might be something wrong with that image or that it might have indeed been a forgery. It's GLOF's reaction to these possibilities that have everyone scratching their head and wondering if they've gone crazy or not.

Maybe this will make it clearer. If the NSO had done what GLOF did here, given our well known history of not exactly getting along with 57th, people would have claimed, rightly or wrongly, that we were simply using it as an excuse to hit someone we don't like. When GLOF does it, it looks like you're using it as an excuse to hit their own ally.

This makes no sense.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Hobgoblin I' date='16 February 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1266367014' post='2186548']
There is a large difference between "some of the pixels appear to be distorted differently" and the relevant pixels and only the relevant pixels of a larger screenshot being distorted differently. It is the difference between coincidence and evidence.
[/quote]
Right, except that that section is in a different font because it's detailing an unregistered user or somesuch.

[Lord Panda]

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1266367991' post='2186581']
Right, except that that section is in a different font because it's detailing an unregistered user or somesuch.
[/quote]

Anonymous user is the words you're looking for, I think.

[tarman2010]

To the guy saying earlier that the shot of Ven's post must be true because there's no visual evidence that it has been shopped in terms of pixels, faking a forum post does not require you to edit the image in any way. The best graphic editor I have on my PC is paint and I could fake a forum post of yours with very little effort.

[Ecogeek]

[quote name='Heft' date='16 February 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1266367400' post='2186562']
"given our well known history of not exactly getting along with 57th, "
[/quote]

I'm not going to get in this one way or another as far as CB goes, but I just want to say one thing.

I've figured it out. It [b]IS[/b] a grand conspiracy. GLOF is trying to patch up the 57th's relations with everyone. All the people who are, if not exactly siding with the 57th, siding [i]against[/i] GLOF.

So thank you. And wow, you guys sure know how to succeed at conspiracies. I don't think [i]anyone[/i] could tell that this is was your goal was.

[agafaba]

Your right, GLOF only wanted to take down 57th themselves.
Thats why they allied them in the first place, and gave them money to rebuild... it just wouldnt be the same if GLOF didnt do it themselves.

If only I had saw the truth earlier

All this nonsense about conspiracies to take down 57th is a joke, say what you want about bad decisions but you cant honestly believe it was all planned out by GLOF can you?

[Ecogeek]

[quote name='agafaba' date='18 February 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1266515669' post='2189876']
Your right, GLOF only wanted to take down 57th themselves.
Thats why they allied them in the first place, and gave them money to rebuild... it just wouldnt be the same if GLOF didnt do it themselves.

If only I had saw the truth earlier

All this nonsense about conspiracies to take down 57th is a joke, say what you want about bad decisions but you cant honestly believe it was all planned out by GLOF can you?
[/quote]

I did [u][i][b]not[/b][/i][/u] say it was a conspiracy to take down the 57th! I said it was a conspiracy to [u][i][b]help[/b][/i][/u] the 57th.

Read.

[agafaba]

[quote name='Ecogeek' date='18 February 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1266522794' post='2190059']
I did [u][i][b]not[/b][/i][/u] say it was a conspiracy to take down the 57th! I said it was a conspiracy to [u][i][b]help[/b][/i][/u] the 57th.

Read.
[/quote]

Actually that wasnt directed at you, haha a lot of people have said they were trying to take the opportunity to beat you guys down.
Sorry for the confusion.

[Ecogeek]

[quote name='agafaba' date='18 February 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1266526338' post='2190153']
Actually that wasnt directed at you, haha a lot of people have said they were trying to take the opportunity to beat you guys down.
Sorry for the confusion.
[/quote]

I might have overreacted. I had a bad day.

[Defective]

Thou has stated those intentions on the speach from thy scroll.

Thou has hoped everyone has learned thy lesson from thee.

Never surrender, right patton