A Dark Templar Announcement

[Farnsworth]

[quote name='Farnsworth' timestamp='1297668001' post='2632652']
All tech reps proposed in the IRC logs are exorbitant.

I still hope for and expect better of CSN.
[/quote]

Good news, everyone! Quoting this guy for truth. He exports logic.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1297679539' post='2632811']
Xiph's not an idiot and knows that he won't get away with forced disbandments; any statements to the contrary are simply posturing. As for the second part, I can understand where they're coming from in refusing to pay reps- it's a bitter pill to swallow given the hypocrisy of the whole situation.
[/quote]
When people believe their own hype the lose touch with reality. Read his blog, its clearly an attempt to condition people to disbandment being ok. Why else would he boot CSNs gov out of their own negotiation to take over and demand reps he knows they wont pay. RIA have also said they are prepared to take this wherever it goes no matter how unpopular. He even admited its his own desire that they be disbanded as you can see from the logs


[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If it was me it'd be no terms, tbh.
[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If someone hit me with an ODP or a PIAT
[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> They'd be put down


[size="3"][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98632"]RIA thread[/url]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1297661715' post='2632427'][/size]

[size="2"]
One of our allies recently came under fire for a move that was heavily criticized as being poor diplomatically and has drawn fire from a number of quarters because of it. RIA prides itself on it's consistent stance of standing by its allies and utilizing all diplomatic and military resources to defend them under any and all circumstances. Our historical record should make this clear to everyone, and our actions so far this war should serve to reinforce that point for anyone who was unclear on our stance.[b] We will not now, nor will we in the future, abandon a friend and ally over the popularity of their decisions.[/b][/size]
[/quote]
[size="3"]
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=53&showentry=2682"]Disbandment blog[/url][/size]

[size="2"][quote]Myths and Modern CN
11 February 2011
21 Comments
Posted by Xiphosis
The title is broad and you could probably write a decent sized paperback on it if you took the time, so I'm only going to address a few that crop up fairly often. They're the assumptions, generally commonly accepted things that are - in my opinion - founded on bull.

1) Disbandment. Might as well start with the big one.

The myth generally goes as follows; disbandment is immoral, because it's what Q did and it's done when you gang bang alliances with vastly superior numbers, and it serves no purpose other than killing the game.

The reality is, disbandment was around before Q and - usually - reserved for larger alliances that constituted more of a continuing threat [like NAAC, for example]. It was a legitimate war tactic up until Q got a monopoly on using it and pushed it on several AA's that could put up no legitimate fight; this sullied it in most peoples eyes as a bully tactic used by cowards.

The other big myth about disbandment is that it kills the game - not really true. A culture of kiss-ass-or-die did a lot more damage than disbandment ever did - this is a case of two things happening roughly at the same time in great volume, and thus being linked, even when they were unrelated. The two things, in this case, being the degradation of politics/leadership quality around the same time the use of disbandment increased rapidly.

It's important to make clear the two are not linked, though. The majority of uses of disbandment during the "Q Era" were done, not for the security of the alliances involved as beforehand, but for personal thrills. When you do anything for shallow reasons, it makes the entire process devoid of any point or legitimacy.

The decrease in leadership quality/general comes from the aforementioned kiss-ass-or-die culture that got held in place for a long time, along with a lot of old guard ending up apathetic [this is still going on] and not teaching newer generations of players what standards should be - although, not necessarily what they were. What's a good CB now is not what it would've been in 2006 and that's, despite what many would think, not the end of the world. Even then leadership looked for reasons to go to war and CBs were still their excuses to do it - as the game evolves, so do the excuses.

If disbandment eliminates a continuing and routine threat to your alliance - regardless of side, creed, etc. then you have every right in the world to eliminate the threat. "But it kills the game!" I can already hear, and not so. How many of you did time in prior alliances? I'd guess the majority. How many of the alliances you were in sucked? Total shells of inactivity and poor leadership?

We have roughly 140 alliances. There is no harm in weeding out a lot of them. Will some of their members quit? Sure - but the good ones, the ones who make for good members and good leaders will move on. And they will better the alliances they join. It has a positive domino effect. More than that, it means that leaderships have to actually take their jobs and decisions a lot more seriously - right now, there's a general assumption that the losing side gets white peace. I doubt that would be the case if the situations were reversed - I certainly don't think most of the Karma, BiPolar or PB sides would've gotten white peace had we lost, but it's become the 'standard.' But there's consequences to that being the case, namely, there's no incentive to think anything through. DoW whoever you want, for whatever reason you want - what's it matter if you lose? You'll walk away without a slap on the wrist. The really crap leaders never get their ass handed to them on a platter anymore, and we see a lot more of them as a consequence. Disbandment has it's upsides.[/quote][/size]

Edited February 14, 2011 by Alterego

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1297679992' post='2632817']
When people believe their own hype the lose touch with reality.
[/quote]

I'm just going to leave now. You're doing the arguing for me.

[Captain Flinders]

[quote][23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If it was me it'd be no terms, tbh.
[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If someone hit me with an ODP or a PIAT
[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> They'd be put down[/quote]

DT didn't hit CSN, they hit Legacy. An alliance who (as far as I understad though it may have changed) were alright with white peace with DT.

Though maybe you can clarify something for me. How is it that your government, assuming you support Xiphosis' stance, can claim such outrage towards the activation of a oA clause when DT did it, yet support CSN in their activation of the same kind clause against LoSS? Yes, yes supporting allies and all that, but surely you can see the double standard here. Supporting them in their decisions is one thing, but GOD has gone far and beyond as far as their involvement in the CSN/DT discussions. So clearly there's a level of personal investment here that contradicts what your government claims to stand for.

[Varianz]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1297679992' post='2632817']
-snip-
[/quote]
Interesting. However, I still believe that Xiphosis, while he may personally support forced disbandment, is not stupid enough to try it in the current political climate.

[fant0m]

I honestly can't believe anyone thinks these terms are even approaching reasonable. The only thing more ridiculous than the actual rep demands is the behaviour and conduct of several CSN gov members in those logs. Is Liz seriously the MoFA of CSN because if she is.......

[erikz]

[quote name='fant0m' timestamp='1297681124' post='2632839']
I honestly can't believe anyone thinks these terms are even approaching reasonable. The only thing more ridiculous than the actual rep demands is the behaviour and conduct of several CSN gov members in those logs. Is Liz seriously the MoFA of CSN because if she is.......
[/quote]

She looks like an irrelevant person, desperately trying to be relevant.

Whats a person like her doing at peace talks? She clearly shows her intentions, which aren't getting peace.

[Wishywashy]

[quote][23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If it was me it'd be no terms, tbh.
[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If someone hit me with an ODP or a PIAT
[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> They'd be put down[/quote]
Lol.

I guess you can just keep nuking CSN until they decide you've taken enough damage and demand 4 tech, DT. Until then...

[Kowalski]

I haven't read the OP, due to the fact that even if I did I probably wouldn't believe any of it due to DT's recent internal actions within NOIR. Maybe someone else can tell me in simple terms, is this just a case of one alliance wants reps and the other doesn't want to pay and the ensuing PR nonsense to try and win over the public and persuade the other side to relent?

[Wishywashy]

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1297683704' post='2632860']
I haven't read the OP, due to the fact that even if I did I probably wouldn't believe any of it due to DT's recent internal actions within NOIR. Maybe someone else can tell me in simple terms, is this just a case of one alliance wants reps and the other doesn't want to pay and the ensuing PR nonsense to try and win over the public and persuade the other side to relent?
[/quote]
If you want to remove common sense as a factor, yes.

[Mark Ashton]

It'll be a good day for CN when

1. GOD burns and doesn't get terms
2. CSN burns because they are the sort of backboneless alliance that's only the tough guy when surrounded by a group.

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Wishywashy' timestamp='1297683890' post='2632862']
If you want to remove common sense as a factor, yes.
[/quote]
I do, so thank you.

[RailForge]

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1297683704' post='2632860']
I haven't read the OP, due to the fact that even if I did I probably wouldn't believe any of it due to DT's recent internal actions within NOIR. Maybe someone else can tell me in simple terms, is this just a case of one alliance wants reps and the other doesn't want to pay and the ensuing PR nonsense to try and win over the public and persuade the other side to relent?
[/quote]

That's exactly the case.

The rest of the thread is made up of complaints. I've found them hilarious, personally, but there's nothing of substance here. No one is declaring that they're going to go to war for DT's "rights" or because they're "morally offended" over it. It's just the typical OWF groaning.

[Freelancer]

[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1297648480' post='2631838']
I'm surprised. Seriously? Those weren't negotiations. Those were just demands with a gun pointed at DT's head.

40k might be a bit much, but I won't flinch if DT was made to pay it.
[/quote]

To be fair, the gun was pointed at LoSS first, as a matter of fact 48 hours before DT even entered the war, the consensus The Brain had, were going walk away from this, Xiao wrote what I call one of the most creative surrender terms I've seen in years, it would have been a crowd pleaser

Goose and I were in IRC discussing the whole thing when all of a sudden DT posts there DOW, and my immediate reaction was.

"WTF happened to peace? I was ready to crawl back in my hole"

Icheliebebrad, I must commend you on one of the better smear campaigns I've seen in awhile, this is right up there with Shatts work.. ( Thats a compliment) never mind TLDR crowd, this is one of the more finely crafted smears and for that I give you kudo's.

[b]Now for the BAD NEWS... [/b]

It won't make a bit of difference, it sure won't make The Brain look at CSN any differently, most of leadership there and us have been working together for years, even Goose's brother the Nobel Friar Tuckman resides under our roof giving spiritual and moral guidance to us retired heathen's and thieves.


Don't think I didn't walk away not learning something from all this.. " Were all stubborn SOB's and none of us our surrendering to anyone " thats a rare quality and when this is all over, Loss and yourselves should stop by our local watering hole, we'd like to get to know you guys allot better.

Ohh !@#$ almost forgot, my personal views on this, I'll let the screen shot speak for itself.

[IMG]http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd139/freelance_r/freelancerquote1.jpg[/IMG]

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='RailForge' timestamp='1297673234' post='2632731']
When DT sided with the NpO aligned forces of this conflict, they sided with CSN's enemies. DT revealed where their allegiances truly lie. They lie with the enemy. It is CSN's duty to its members and its allies to hinder by any means at their disposal, their enemy's current and future capabilities. Every point of tech that CSN don't take now, will be a point of tech that will be used against them or their allies in the future.

Neutering your enemies is the smart play. That's what this is.
[/quote]

ahhh so according to you, since Ragnarok entered on Polaris's side, all of SF is against RoK (which would include CSN/GOD against RoK of course)? since Athens entered on your side, they are against their allies IAA, GATO, and TIO? since ODN entered on your side they are against their allies GATO? since VE hit Polaris, VE must be against NV? i am sure there are plenty of others to state but i don't feel like it. glad to see that according to you, CSN and GOD backstabbed their ally RoK.

[quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1297679121' post='2632797']
The only 2 names that you seem to focus on is Goose and Allied threat. Liz was never a member of CSN until just recently, same with gibsonator. Allied threat has been terribly inactive as of late leaving goose (who is rather inactive himself) the only person who has dealt with something like this.

but please do tell me how CSN government hasn't changed for 2 and a half years.
[/quote]

Gibby has been gov previously though.

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1297683704' post='2632860']
I haven't read the OP, due to the fact that even if I did I probably wouldn't believe any of it due to DT's recent internal actions within NOIR. Maybe someone else can tell me in simple terms, is this just a case of one alliance wants reps and the other doesn't want to pay and the ensuing PR nonsense to try and win over the public and persuade the other side to relent?
[/quote]

lawlz. honestly have never visited the NOIR forums but it can't be any worse than the stunt Sparta and Darkfall did.

[mr3looc]

It's The Brain not BRAIN. Our name is not an acronym.

You could at least get that much right.

[RailForge]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1297688627' post='2632883']
ahhh so according to you, since Ragnarok entered on Polaris's side, all of SF is against RoK[/quote]

SF usually rolls together. That we didn't this time was caused by one heck of an internal miscommunication. It's been resolved. The rest of SF went with VE's side, so we were able to look out for RoK's interests despite them fighting for Polar. RoK are our friends, and we'd never abandon them, let alone be "against" them.

[ace072199]

All I have to say to this is it does not surprise me in the least that Xiphosis is involved in this.

[Hydro]

ffs learn2diplomacy for yourself already you useless !@#$. clear proof that even after all these years, soviet_< silent-

[Alterego]

[quote name='RailForge' timestamp='1297689112' post='2632888']
SF usually rolls together. That we didn't this time was caused by one heck of an internal miscommunication. It's been resolved. The rest of SF went with VE's side, so we were able to look out for RoK's interests despite them fighting for Polar. RoK are our friends, and we'd never abandon them, let alone be "against" them.
[/quote]
Miscommunication? Rok told you they were rolling with Polar and GOD ran off to the other side as quick as their little legs could carry them. It was a cold and calculated attempt by GOD to save their skin and not leave themselves being in the same position as Rok. They showed guts and GOD showed their infra hugging side.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1297662612' post='2632487']
I believe it's in reference to the "joke" Kronos and others played on Valhalla while treatied to them. The one where SF was going to roll Valhalla for spying, causing Valhalla to go to peace mode.
[/quote]

Yeah which I don't really get. CSN can only dream of achieving half of that level of supreme military coordination. The only new thing I've learnt from this thread is that Liz is not very funny and evidently from the logs an [i]incredibly[/i] classy girl.

[RailForge]

[quote name='ace072199' timestamp='1297689197' post='2632890']
All I have to say to this is it does not surprise me in the least that Xiphosis is involved in this.
[/quote]

LOL, Aurora Borealis.

Aren't you and yours the same scum who tried to coup our fellow SuperFriend, Monos Archein?

[LAAT501legion]

40k tech?!
I'm speechless, I hope you weren't serious

[erikz]

[quote name='Hydro' timestamp='1297689468' post='2632895']
ffs learn2diplomacy for yourself already you useless !@#$.
[/quote]
You mean like CSN did with Xiphosis right?

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1297670712' post='2632686']
Please don't. We don't expect it and we don't want it. No one in GOD has any misconceptions that someone like Echelon or NPO would do everything we've done to them and worse, given the chance. Why do you think we're so harsh on our enemies? Out of petty cruelty? It may make for good jokes to say so, but I know you're too intelligent to honestly believe that. We know we have to do unto them so hard that they don't have the capacity left to do unto us in return. If we get terms after losing at all to one of the alliances that hates us, it will only be because they don't have the will, means, or political capital to disband us.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Oh cut it. Had you not been so eager to push for excessive reparations or disbandment you would not have to worry about it coming back to bite you. Simple decency is by no means a weakness.[/color]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1297668044' post='2632653']
That part is rich, considering you've been talking non-stop for months about how MK supposedly extorted your alliance - without threatening war - for a sum of 15m-250t.

Talk about cheap change.

There is one consistent thing on Digiterra, Rebel_Virginia, and it is that you are always going to be tilting at windmills. With that said, I entirely agree with the wise words of Ardus.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]For a canceled trade, yes, it was excessive. There is a difference between war reparations and canceled trades to most people. Also, you didn't threaten war? Certainly not the impression I had.[/color]