Dear VE, A dear message from TKTB's supposed spy

[Solaris]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1292821119' post='2545567']
lawlz. VE is still trying to claim that what Bob J did was different than what Was did? seriously? that is like claiming that without an official and separate statement on the OWF, a post stating an AA is protected is invalid. VE making NEW's argument look almost decent since 2010.
[/quote]Everyone without an overly obvious OWF PR stratagem has agreed, that while the situations have similarities, they indeed have differences. Inability to recognize the differences is inexcusable for anyone who claims intellectual honesty.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Solaris

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Screwedupmonkey' timestamp='1292748332' post='2544222']
As if NPO has any love for VE as it is......

AKA your !@#$ doesn't matter
[/quote]

Welp, you really told me. I feel horrible now

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1292834673' post='2546274']
Everyone without an overly obvious OWF PR stratagem has agreed, that while the situations have similarities, they indeed have differences. Inability to recognize the differences is inexcusable for anyone who claims intellectual honesty.
[/quote]

actually from what i can tell it is mostly just VE and your allies stating this, which means there is an overly obvious OWF PR stratagem at play. Inability to recognize this is inexcusable for anyone who claims intellectual honesty.

see, i can play that stupid "if you don't agree with me you are dumb or lying or blah blah blah blah blah" bs game too.

[Solaris]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1292852984' post='2546488']
actually from what i can tell it is mostly just VE and your allies stating this, which means there is an overly obvious OWF PR stratagem at play. Inability to recognize this is inexcusable for anyone who claims intellectual honesty.

see, i can play that stupid "if you don't agree with me you are dumb or lying or blah blah blah blah blah" bs game too.
[/quote]From what you can tell, I can tell you need to read less selectively. You can't say Rudoplh is an ally of mine, but he readily regognized the situations have differences.


edit: '

Edited December 20, 2010 by Solaris

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1292859048' post='2546571']
From what you can tell, I can tell you need to read less selectively. You can't say Rudoplh is an ally of mine, but he readily regognized the situations have differences.


edit: '
[/quote]

wait, you are seriously trying to state that Rudolph readily recognized the differences in the situation in regards to what VE and your allies have been spouting???? cuz it looks more like he is stating that the acts are similar and that the only difference is Was is being punished for his action whereas Bob is not. yup, sure seems like i am the one with selective reading going on.

[quote name='Rudolph' timestamp='1292776258' post='2544497']
I'll admit that I failed to understand that bit and I thank you for bringing it up, Solaris, much appreciated.

What Bob did ingame in spying \m/'s top nation was an act of war against them by infringing their rights of security within their alliance in accordance to \m/'s charter.

What Was did was a single act by himself (from the current knowledge that I have, passed information to a small band of people in the Skype Call. And did infringe on VE's rights of security, no doubt about that) and is taking the punishment for that action.

Whereas Bob was given the opportunity to repent for his wrong doings against \m/, Was was given no opportunity at all to make it up for VE and is taking the punishment brought down upon him for his action. Therefore losing an entire year's effort of growth into his nation, while Bob hasn't even lost a day's collection on his nation's taxes.


* Fixed that for you, not trying to be condescending or anything. Just a Grammar Nazi >_>
[/quote]

[Bob Janova]

[quote]VE is still trying to claim that what Bob J did was different than what Was did? seriously? that is like claiming that without an official and separate statement on the OWF, a post stating an AA is protected is invalid[/quote]
I'm sorry but this has to be an attempt to win Worst Analogy 2010. I'm not buying that as a serious post.

[quote]For all I know, you spread General's warchest information about to whomever you wanted and had a laugh about getting away with it. I have no way of knowing if you kept it to yourself or not. [/quote]
Well, I didn't ... believe me or not . Indeed, this aspect is difficult to prove as I mentioned in my reply to Haf, which is why the spying itself is usually what people point at. (That said, in this case it is [i]exactly[/i] the difference between me and Was – we are upset with Was because he [i]distributed[/i] that information; if he'd just looked at it we'd almost certainly never have noticed and I doubt he'd be being attacked for it, though I don't set military policy.)

[quote]This is the very first time I have heard you say it was a mistake for you to spy on our members.[/quote]
If you'd accepted the idea of an apology in August you could have heard it then

[Caliph]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292882117' post='2547047']
Well, I didn't ... believe me or not . Indeed, this aspect is difficult to prove as I mentioned in my reply to Haf, which is why the spying itself is usually what people point at. (That said, in this case it is [i]exactly[/i] the difference between me and Was – we are upset with Was because he [i]distributed[/i] that information; if he'd just looked at it we'd almost certainly never have noticed and I doubt he'd be being attacked for it, though I don't set military policy.)
[/quote]
So the only reason Was is attacked is because he [i]spread[/i] your warchest information? So if I had someone spy on you, but they never shared the information gathered from a 'Gather Intelligence' spy attack, said spy would not be attacked you or VE?

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292882117' post='2547047']
If you'd accepted the idea of an apology in August you could have heard it then
[/quote]
An apology by itself was not, and is not, sufficient to close the case. It is as I said with Impero, a start, but by no means an end.

[Bob Janova]

To be honest they probably would because there's no way to prove that no harm was done. The same is true of most forms of spying as a CB. In Was's case, if he hadn't distributed the information, there wouldn't even have been an investigation, whereas an intel spy report generates evidence. The harm is done by distributing the information (or acting on it personally, i.e. if I decided to attack The General or sent messages to his trade partners threatening them into cancelling or something), but, rather like speeding being an offence because actual dangerous driving is much harder to prove, obtaining it is treated as an offence. I think that's a pragmatic answer, not one of principle, so I'll probably take some heat for it.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='zenergy' timestamp='1292799945' post='2545030']
So in other words, VE sucks? Wow, I didn't see that one coming.
[/quote]

Don't worry, we still love you too

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292887920' post='2547171']
To be honest they probably would because there's no way to prove that no harm was done. The same is true of most forms of spying as a CB. In Was's case, if he hadn't distributed the information, there wouldn't even have been an investigation, whereas an intel spy report generates evidence. The harm is done by distributing the information (or acting on it personally, i.e. if I decided to attack The General or sent messages to his trade partners threatening them into cancelling or something), but, rather like speeding being an offence because actual dangerous driving is much harder to prove, obtaining it is treated as an offence. I think that's a pragmatic answer, not one of principle, so I'll probably take some heat for it.
[/quote]
As much as it pains me to say, I find the above a logical assessment.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292887920' post='2547171']
To be honest they probably would because there's no way to prove that no harm was done. The same is true of most forms of spying as a CB. In Was's case, if he hadn't distributed the information, there wouldn't even have been an investigation, whereas an intel spy report generates evidence. The harm is done by distributing the information (or acting on it personally, i.e. if I decided to attack The General or sent messages to his trade partners threatening them into cancelling or something), but, rather like speeding being an offence because actual dangerous driving is much harder to prove, obtaining it is treated as an offence. I think that's a pragmatic answer, not one of principle, so I'll probably take some heat for it.
[/quote]

This is quite logical as Merrie says which is why i am curious as to why you never offered to make amends for your action? as you stated, there is no proof that you never spread the info around to others, thus, you should be punished. that is unless you think yourself above your own law?

[Alterego]

mistake sorry, thought I was in a different thread

Edited February 1, 2011 by Alterego

[Manwe]

Locking.