A Dark Templar Announcement

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1298153844' post='2638649']
CSN:

-Relaxed terms on length of payment.
-Relaxed terms on who in the alliance can pay.
-Reduced DT's portion to only *10k tech*
-Was willing to negotiate even further.

DT:

-Consistently lowered its offering to zero.

Who's trying hard here?
[/quote]
We are adamant, as is anyone with an intelligent perspective on this conflict, that no reps should have been demanded.

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298168133' post='2638866']
So you don't !@#$%^&* in your IRC public channel?
[/quote]
[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298169186' post='2638897']
Good God, now you're twisting public channel jokes into "hypocrisy and inconsistencies"?

*sigh*
[/quote]
Yeah, no offense Oz, but we joke around all the time. I like to engage in debauchery then come online and spew insults at whoever I can. That's what public channels are for.

[Varianz]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1298171741' post='2638976']
No I don't. I wouldn't lie about something like this.
[/quote]
That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion. You have no proof, so please withdraw your claim of OOC attacks.

[Fronz]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1298173654' post='2639021']
That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion. You have no proof, so please withdraw your claim of OOC attacks.
[/quote]

/me walks in whistling

Actually it happened, see [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=38&showentry=2691"]here[/url]

[Gibsonator21]

What Fronz said.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Gibsonator21

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1298169231' post='2638899']
Ok, you're right. DT proposed a couple of the terms. CSN accepted them.

What's your point? The fact is that CSN *lowered* their terms. This is a fact. Can't be disputed. Period. That proves that CSN is willing to work toward a decent solution. Or, like I said, work toward the middle.

DT's response? "Zero tech." Not working toward the middle. Period.

It doesn't matter who proposed what. In the end, CSN accepted the lowering of terms, DT didn't increase their willingness to accept them (i.e. meeting in the middle)... they decreased it (aka lowering terms.) Which is, you know, what I just said.

I'm not wrong. The facts support me. CSN negotiated the terms down, and was willing to keep negotiating, until you came back with the complete BS terms of "you apologize."

Speaking of allies controlling your affairs, why did you suddenly go from negotiating to following the hard-line response NoR has proposed of "not a single cent"? Could it be that NoR is controlling your alliance's affairs? NoRT, eh? Come up with some new arguments. I keep tearing yours apart.[/quote]

lawlz okay. if CSN was really negotiating the 40k term would have been lowered. it has not. CSN is still demanding 40k tech. that is not lowering the terms. the apology, when refused, was dropped immediately (gee, that is negotiating). DT did not increase wait wha? you just stated that you agreed that DT was the one that was proposing counter offers that CSN accepted, how does this mean DT was not trying to meet in the middle?

we simply got tired of CSN walking out of peace talks, proposing their own ridiculous terms, using !@#$%^&* reasoning to support said terms, and so on and so forth. so we proposed white peace, which has been what DT has felt should have occurred from the beginning. so no, you have only provided distortions of fact and have yet to destroy anyone's argument, let alone mine. maybe in your twisted, ignorant mind, sure you are winning these debates but most people see you for the fool that you are.

also, do not bring in any crap about some alliance controlling another alliance as i specifically asked everyone to stop with the Xiph !@#$%^&*. so please don't spout that crap at me as i have not stated that once, nor do i believe it.



[quote]My argument is that CSN is not going to (and should not) give in to the tactics DT is using. Running to the OWF, lying (through omission) about the peace terms, trying to hurt CSN's PR, refusing to negotiate in good faith... should not result in your enemy suddenly giving you white peace. If CSN were to respond to the tantrum DT's thrown by giving into their demands, it would only encourage the same behavior in the future. Just like giving people white peace has led to them believing they have a god-given right to attack any alliance they want and get away with it with no peace terms.

CSN should be reducing terms right around now. But you don't give a screaming child the candy they're demanding. It sets a bad precedent, where all you have to do to get white peace is act completely undiplomatic to the victors.

DT is ensuring that they do not receive white peace by making it impossible for CSN to offer it at this point in time. It's really that simple.
[/quote]

how has DT lied through omission when all the logs are up and none are edited in the least? seriously, are you trying to state we omitted something when the full logs are available for all to read? damn, you truly are ignorant. Trying to hurt CSN's PR, they did that the moment they demanded 40k tech.

we have tried to negotiate in good faith, it is CSN who expects to be able to do whatever the hell they please instead of negotiating and using diplomacy that normal alliances do. walking out=refusing terms and terms are void. this means terms are off the table. CSN then threw a temper tantrum not only the refusal to accept CSN's acceptance of voided terms, but CSN threw a temper tantrum over an apology that was dropped the moment they refused.

Then CSN has tried to use the apology term as some sort of PR weapon when fact is, it was offered, refused, then dropped immediately. yeah, some weapon. also, it is never impossible to offer white peace. CSN does not want to because they are in the midst of throwing their own temper tantrum because DT has dared to talk publicly with the !@#$%^&* they are trying to pull. guess what, they should not have attempted to extort DT in the first place and we would not be here now. the sole blame for this entire fiasco lies with CSN, not DT. it is CSN's fault they are in the midst of a PR disaster. it is CSN's fault that peace has not happened. it is CSN's fault that everything since the first talks have happened. they thought they could extort DT and found out that DT was not going to take it. instead of refusing the counter offer of 30k from any source and 10k direct from any DT nation, they should have accepted it right then and there. not act like a petulant child that just got told they can't get that shiny new toy but have to take a second-hand toy instead.

or, to truly avoid all of this, CSN should have just offered white peace instead of acting like a bunch of wanna-be thugs in the first place.

so you can attempt to spin this as if it is DT's fault, when the fact is, all the blame solely lies with CSN. that is like saying that GPA deserved to pay reps to Pacifica because Pacifica won the war. or that MK should never have !@#$%*ed about the reps they had to pay because they lost. or Athens, or anyone else who !@#$%*ed all the way up to Karma and then took their pound of flesh. your line of reasoning (and CSN's) is utter !@#$%^&* and should be fought against wherever it pops up.

hell, when CSN loses a war, i would !@#$%* if the victor tries to force CSN to pay extortionate reps. even after this, i would do so. why? because it is !@#$%^&*.

anyways, don't even bother responding, because i will just ignore it. i have already wasted way too much time on you and your ignorance. i refuse to do so anymore and this time i will keep it.

[Varianz]

[quote name='Fronz' timestamp='1298173783' post='2639025']
/me walks in whistling

Actually it happened, see [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=38&showentry=2691"]here[/url]
[/quote]
Oh Admin no, not screenshot leaks! Anything but that!

But seriously, how can you possibly blame DT for someone in [i]your[/i] alliance leaking screenshots?

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1298174632' post='2639058']
Oh Admin no, not screenshot leaks! Anything but that!

But seriously, how can you possibly blame DT for someone in [i]your[/i] alliance leaking screenshots?
[/quote]

If you even knew what you were talking about, you'd be smarter than arguing a point as asinine as yours.

[Varianz]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298175755' post='2639075']
If you even knew what you were talking about, you'd be smarter than arguing a point as asinine as yours.
[/quote]
Please, enlighten the world to any mistakes I made, instead of just posting a "no u" comment.

[Fronz]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1298174632' post='2639058']
Oh Admin no, not screenshot leaks! Anything but that!

But seriously, how can you possibly blame DT for someone in [i]your[/i] alliance leaking screenshots?
[/quote]
You asked for proof, I gave you proof, now because they were leaked screen shots the proof is suddenly invalid?

We never blamed DT, we never said it was someone in [i]our[/i] alliance. (OOC: The forums were hacked, a bunch of screen shots were taken and posted in the R&R deceleration thread)

You assume too much, and are jumping to conclusions.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1298176548' post='2639082']
Please, enlighten the world to any mistakes I made, instead of just posting a "no u" comment.
[/quote]

Other than the fact that it could be argued LOSS or DT were behind it? There is just as much evidence pointing to such since there was a proxy used to hack the forums. Did we ever accuse either? No, and for good reason. And for a group of people who argue that CSN has awful coordination and mindless sheep, you are giving us a lot of credit for running such a false flag operation.

[BamaBuc]

If what he said earlier in the thread was true, Penkala should start criticizing the reps any day now!

-Bama

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298175755' post='2639075']
If you even knew what you were talking about, you'd be smarter than arguing a point as asinine as yours.
[/quote]
OOC: So either enlighten us or quit throwing out accusations of OOC attacks. From what I can see in the blog entry, the only OOC issue is that a leaker in your government didn't remove IPs from screenshots they leaked. Certainly that information shouldn't be made public, but it looks like an internal problem to me. If someone outside of the alliance did something, then again, either enlighten us or quit with the accusations. It's a serious OOC allegation, not some stupid CN thing.

[Varianz]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298176776' post='2639088']
Other than the fact that it could be argued LOSS or DT were behind it? There is just as much evidence pointing to such since there was a proxy used to hack the forums. Did we ever accuse either? No, and for good reason. And for a group of people who argue that CSN has awful coordination and mindless sheep, you are giving us a lot of credit for running such a false flag operation.
[/quote]
If you're going to argue/imply that LOSS or DT were behind it, you need proof- otherwise, it's nothing more than slander. The fact that a proxy was used could just as easily indicate that it was someone within CSN who did not wish to be traced (since you have the IP's of all CSN members already). I am sincerely sorry that your forums were hacked, as that's crossing a line, but don't put the blame on others unless you have proof.
[quote name='Fronz' timestamp='1298176748' post='2639085']
You asked for proof, I gave you proof, now because they were leaked screen shots the proof is suddenly invalid?

We never blamed DT, we never said it was someone in [i]our[/i] alliance. (OOC: The forums were hacked, a bunch of screen shots were taken and posted in the R&R deceleration thread)

You assume too much, and are jumping to conclusions.
[/quote]
OOC: I don't know how much of this is OOC, so I'm tagging it to be careful. Screen-shots are not OOC. Hacking is, yes, but that could have just as easily been a CSN member. There is no proof that it was related to the DT reps situation.

IC: What's funny is that you're actually the ones jumping to conclusions, not me.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298176776' post='2639088']
Other than the fact that it could be argued LOSS or DT were behind it? There is just as much evidence pointing to such since there was a proxy used to hack the forums. Did we ever accuse either? No, and for good reason. And for a group of people who argue that CSN has awful coordination and mindless sheep, you are giving us a lot of credit for running such a false flag operation.
[/quote]

so use of a proxy means that somehow that is evidence that either LoSS or DT are behind it? come on SOM, you are better than this. it could not be argued that either LoSS or DT are behind it simply because a proxy was use to hack the forums.

so, if that is the proof that DT is doing OOC attacks on CSN, then the accusation is laughable.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1298176926' post='2639090']
OOC: So either enlighten us or quit throwing out accusations of OOC attacks. From what I can see in the blog entry, the only OOC issue is that a leaker in your government didn't remove IPs from screenshots they leaked. Certainly that information shouldn't be made public, but it looks like an internal problem to me. If someone outside of the alliance did something, then again, either enlighten us or quit with the accusations. It's a serious OOC allegation, not some stupid CN thing.
[/quote]

[OOC: Read the blog again and you will be able to infer a few key pieces of information, notably that we neither accused nor had evidence of who actually did it. The person who hacked into the account used a proxy which led to a dead end in finding out who it was. Last I checked, [i]no one[/i] from CSN has made any sort of accusation, nor would we have any reason to. Whoever did it knows exactly who they are and the type of person they are.]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1298177147' post='2639093']
If you're going to argue/imply that LOSS or DT were behind it, you need proof- otherwise, it's nothing more than slander. The fact that a proxy was used could just as easily indicate that it was someone within CSN who did not wish to be traced (since you have the IP's of all CSN members already). I am sincerely sorry that your forums were hacked, as that's crossing a line, but don't put the blame on others unless you have proof.
[/quote]

Please quote where we accused LOSS or DT of committing the hacking.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1298177292' post='2639094']
so use of a proxy means that somehow that is evidence that either LoSS or DT are behind it? come on SOM, you are better than this. it could not be argued that either LoSS or DT are behind it simply because a proxy was use to hack the forums.

so, if that is the proof that DT is doing OOC attacks on CSN, then the accusation is laughable.
[/quote]

I believe you misread what I wrote. I said that because of the proxy, it could have been [i]anyone[/i]... Pacifica, Athens, Walford, Jesus Christ Super Star, etc. etc. Hence why I was arguing Varianz's line of logic was asinine: it's inconclusive and we didn't accuse anyone of anything.

Edited February 20, 2011 by SpacingOutMan

[Varianz]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298177323' post='2639096']
Please quote where we accused LOSS or DT of committing the hacking.
[/quote]
Well there is this...
[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298176776' post='2639088']
Other than the fact that it could be argued LOSS or DT were behind it?
[/quote]
And before you go all "HERP THAT'S NOT AN ACCUSATION" it is, at the very least, an implication of their guilt, and I don't want to argue semantics.

[BamaBuc]

Just noticed that SOM is now CSN's MoFA... Hopefully he'll be able to bring some sanity to these negotiations that have rather lacked it on both sides.

-Bama

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298177323' post='2639096']
[OOC: Read the blog again and you will be able to infer a few key pieces of information, notably that we neither accused nor had evidence of who actually did it. The person who hacked into the account used a proxy which led to a dead end in finding out who it was. Last I checked, [i]no one[/i] from CSN has made any sort of accusation, nor would we have any reason to. Whoever did it knows exactly who they are and the type of person they are.]

Please quote where we accused LOSS or DT of committing the hacking.
[/quote]
OOC: I'm sorry, looking back through, I see the only person who was heavily implying that DT was responsible was Penkala, and he's in VE now. Good luck finding out who did it... Forum hacking is way out of line.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298177323' post='2639096']
I believe you misread what I wrote. I said that because of the proxy, it could have been [i]anyone[/i]... Pacifica, Athens, Walford, Jesus Christ Super Star, etc. etc. Hence why I was arguing Varianz's line of logic was asinine: it's inconclusive and we didn't accuse anyone of anything.
[/quote]

as said on IRC, i apologize for misunderstanding ya. also i too vote for JCSS.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1298177512' post='2639099']
Well there is this...

And before you go all "HERP THAT'S NOT AN ACCUSATION" it is, at the very least, an implication of their guilt, and I don't want to argue semantics.
[/quote]

Try reading in context as it may do you wonders. It could be argued it was [i]anyone[/i]. Does that mean I am implying that it is a global conspiracy to hack CSN? No.

[hizzy]

[quote name='Fronz' timestamp='1298173783' post='2639025']
/me walks in whistling

Actually it happened, see [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=38&showentry=2691"]here[/url]
[/quote]

Let me get this straight...

somebody says "xyz occured"...

and when a 3rd party asks for proof, you provide us with someone else who says "xyz occured"?

Is there something in CSNs water that turns people into drooling morons or is it part of your newbie academy?

[Fronz]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1298193746' post='2639337']
Let me get this straight...

somebody says "xyz occured"...

and when a 3rd party asks for proof, you provide us with someone else who says "xyz occured"?

Is there something in CSNs water that turns people into drooling morons or is it part of your newbie academy?
[/quote]
Yes, [i]Obviously[/i] our alliance leader and forum administrator calling someone out for hacking his forums is incredible.

[i]Clearly[/i] we invented the entire situation so we could get more publicity, its not like we don't have enough already, amiright?

and really, if you don't want to believe my secondary source, that's fine too. The whole forum hacking thing isn't really relevant and there is really no need for it to be a hot topic issue worth debating over.

[Bob Janova]

'Negotiating towards the middle' doesn't immediately make you the good guy. If we demand eleventy billion tech from Polar, we don't suddenly become the reasonable party when we lower our demand to one billion tech, and we don't have a right to expect that we get at least whatever half of eleventy billion is because that's the 'middle'.

And lol, you're really pulling 'someone hacked an account and leaked screenshots, we don't know who' into 'DT are doing OOC stuff so the terms are justified'? Go away, seriously.

[quote]Just noticed that SOM is now CSN's MoFA... Hopefully he'll be able to bring some sanity to these negotiations that have rather lacked it on both sides.[/quote]
Yes, hopefully he can convince the rest of his government to be reasonable.

[hizzy]

[quote name='Fronz' timestamp='1298196273' post='2639361']
Yes, [i]Obviously[/i] our alliance leader and forum administrator calling someone out for hacking his forums is incredible.

[i]Clearly[/i] we invented the entire situation so we could get more publicity, its not like we don't have enough already, amiright?

and really, if you don't want to believe my secondary source, that's fine too. The whole forum hacking thing isn't really relevant and there is really no need for it to be a hot topic issue worth debating over.
[/quote]

you clearly have no concept of what "proof" means. this may seem like a shock to you, but your alliance leader's word is worthless to most people.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1298214862' post='2639462']
you clearly have no concept of what "proof" means. this may seem like a shock to you, but your alliance leader's word is worthless to most people.
[/quote]

Good thing it's not his word, but rather several pieces of information including an unidentifiable IP address, someone impersonating a CSN member who has never had a forum account, etc. etc. I believe it is you who needs to take out a dictionary and learn what "proof" means. It's not that big or rigorous of a word, so I trust that it shouldn't take you [i]too[/i] long. And besides, we're not accusing anyone of it, so why even bother debating it? Penkala doesn't represent CSN in any fashion, so he can make accusations all he wants up to high heaven and it wouldn't reflect our current standing on the matter.

[Andre27]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298217166' post='2639492']
Penkala doesn't represent CSN in any fashion, so he can make accusations all he wants up to high heaven and it wouldn't reflect our current standing on the matter.
[/quote]

That's probably the only positive thing i have seen/heard about CSN in the last few months..

[hizzy]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298217166' post='2639492']
Good thing it's not his word, but rather several pieces of information including an unidentifiable IP address, someone impersonating a CSN member who has never had a forum account, etc. etc. I believe it is you who needs to take out a dictionary and learn what "proof" means. It's not that big or rigorous of a word, so I trust that it shouldn't take you [i]too[/i] long. And besides, we're not accusing anyone of it, so why even bother debating it? Penkala doesn't represent CSN in any fashion, so he can make accusations all he wants up to high heaven and it wouldn't reflect our current standing on the matter.
[/quote]

Please don't assume CSN means enough to give a !@#$ about.

The blog that other guy linked as "proof" was literally just someone else's word.