LordBucks Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297823055' post='2635043'] Yes, that too. Thank you for reminding our audience. Is there any credibility, though to Lordbricks' comments that GOD has secretly declared war on Nueva Vida or something like that? Or is Lordbricks without any authority to speak on behalf of GOD, as most observers and this reporter surmise? [/quote] I to am a reporter that was doing my job and digging. I did not like the truth, therefore I have attempted to warn you. Xiph is after you. btw, can I be a yellow brick. Yellow bricks are cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 zzptm has admitted in this thread to masquerading as both a CSN and GOD member. Is this truly how low NV will stoop to slander us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealthkill Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297823055' post='2635043'] Yes, that too. Thank you for reminding our audience. Is there any credibility, though to Lordbricks' comments that GOD has secretly declared war on Nueva Vida or something like that? Or is Lordbricks without any authority to speak on behalf of GOD, as most observers and this reporter surmise? [/quote] No, it's LordBricks's satirizing your conspiracy theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1297822890' post='2635035'] But Fallout, Middy, and Lei have no government status in GOD either, and you said their posts were a "official, flat, baseless denial"! Do I sense some double standards? Why, I[i] never[/i]. Yes, they are deserters. If you abandon your alliance in times of war, you are a deserter. Edit: I really don't see how you can possibly say otherwise, unless of course you are saying that desertion is okay if they agree with you. [/quote] Typical troll squad tactics. They're obviously reflecting the opinion of their alliance in the matter of rubbishing my allegations. That's not so hard to figure out. It's most unlikely that a senior member of government would make an official statement unless the matter was very serious in their eyes. The matter of hostilities between NV and GOD is something of a degree more advanced than rubbishing allegations, so it's prudent to not act on that information if it arrives via a non-government member that is perhaps taking the idea of rubbishing allegations too far. As for the matter of desertion, absolutely. That is why the matter of reparations is so serious: if CSN is already fracturing over it in a time of war for desertions to occur because of it, there must be other repercussions happening beneath the surface because of this issue. Where there is smoke there is fire, or, in this case, where there are deserters over non-combat issues, there is a profound moral dilemma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I see that zzptm (if that's even his real name) has avoided my question. It seems that he has no qualms pretending to be a member of both CSN and GOD, this is a shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordBucks Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297823521' post='2635059'] The matter of hostilities between NV and GOD is something of a degree more advanced than rubbishing allegations, so it's prudent to not act on that information if it arrives via a non-government member that is perhaps taking the idea of rubbishing allegations too far. [/quote] Dude, Xiph is coming. Listen to me dammit I'm trying to save NV lives here. From one reporter to another the Darkness is coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297823521' post='2635059'] Typical troll squad tactics. They're obviously reflecting the opinion of their alliance in the matter of rubbishing my allegations. [/quote] It must be nice to live in your world, where everyone who disagrees with you is just screwing around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I now fear for the bloodbath that the next inquisition shall bring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1297824176' post='2635072'] I now fear for the bloodbath that the next inquisition shall bring. [/quote] Nobody, nobody expects [i]our[/i] Inquisiton. Not even the [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=203533"]Spanish Inquisition[/url]. Edited February 16, 2011 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1297823284' post='2635053'] I'm sure on there way out the first thing they thought about was sending a message to NV [/quote] Then why did they leave? If CSN is soundly defeating DT, why would anyone feel the need to desert? Especially when there could be free reps in staying? Is the promise of reps an attempt to retain members leaving over some unrelated issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midkn1ght Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297823521' post='2635059'] The matter of hostilities between NV and GOD is something of a degree more advanced than rubbishing allegations, so it's prudent to not act on that information if it arrives via a non-government member that is perhaps taking the idea of rubbishing allegations too far. [/quote] We have hostilities? When'd that happen, oh right, when you made the OP. I thought a few of our members just didn't like NoR, we didn't really feel one way or another about NV from their ship with VE afaik, but hey, learn something new everyday. [quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1297826786' post='2635120'] Then why did they leave? If CSN is soundly defeating DT, why would anyone feel the need to desert? Especially when there could be free reps in staying? Is the promise of reps an attempt to retain members leaving over some unrelated issue? [/quote] Ask them? We lost like 10 members, 5 or 6 of them upper midsized, total from a few days after this war kicked off to early today, haven't checked since a few minutes after update, to inactive deletions. Just because they lost members doesn't mean they left due to rep objections, but I realize suddenly where I'm talking at, logic has no place here. Edited February 16, 2011 by Midkn1ght Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloop Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1297832115' post='2635225'] We have hostilities? When'd that happen, oh right, when you made the OP. I thought a few of our members just didn't like NoR, we didn't really feel one way or another about VE afaik, but hey, learn something new everyday.[/quote] No, no, no. Clearly you haven't been paying attention, Middy. Hostilities started when Xiph made an invisible DoW on GOD, therefore causing VE to DoW on us, then themselves, as mandated by our treaties (BE, Below, etc.). It's all obviously a prelude to us demanding unreasonable reps from VE so we can DoW on FARK, MHA, and IRON simultaneously in the famous triple break-off flank attack. NV was just another smokescreen, like NoR and DT, because they're all obviously too poor to finance our campaign of terror. We'll round them up later. Edited February 16, 2011 by Aloop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1297822890' post='2635035'] Yes, they are deserters. If you abandon your alliance in times of war, you are a deserter. Edit: I really don't see how you can possibly say otherwise, unless of course you are saying that desertion is okay if they agree with you. [/quote] To clarify, I think that zzzptm is saying that these people knew of the stigma associated with deserting your alliance, but disagreed so strongly that they were willing to accept that stigma. I'm not sure how I feel about that, because I do not know any of the people who left, so I do not know their motivations. While the theory is certainly a valid one, it is certainly possible that this group is composed only of a bunch of people who couldn't take the heat. I'd imagine that there are definitely a few in there that disagreed with CSN's handling of the reps situation, though. To claim that everyone in a 150 person alliance wants to stay aboard after such a controversial move that put their alliance in hot water is a bit of a stretch. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm just speaking from my own experience on Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1297826786' post='2635120'] Then why did they leave? If CSN is soundly defeating DT, why would anyone feel the need to desert? Especially when there could be free reps in staying? Is the promise of reps an attempt to retain members leaving over some unrelated issue? [/quote] Exactly. Why desert when one's side is [i]winning?[/i] The nation count comes in the wake of the controversy over reparations, as documented earlier in leaked information from CSN's forum. Some losses may be due to the way old nations simply vanish, but given the existence of the controversy, it seems more likely that the [i]recent[/i] departures are connected. The dissent in the CSN can't be the only fallout from the outrage over the reparations, which I maintain are there to draw in allies of DT in a manner that can be construed as offensive - although I suppose a lesser probability would be to render DT incapable of action for the near term, 1-3 years. All the same, the reparations are offensive and do not make general sense. The justification offered for them is weak. It makes no sense to keep them on the table. Whatever the expected benefit of this move, one must ask if it will be worth the cost in view of the totality of the reaction to it. Should the reparations be removed from the table, I would attribute that event not to the efforts of this humble reporter, but to sane heads prevailing at the bargaining table. In that, there is no loss of prestige in doing what is right and honorable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordBucks Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297857095' post='2635552'] The dissent in the CSN can't be the only fallout from the outrage over the reparations, which I maintain are there to draw in allies of DT in a manner that can be construed as offensive - although I suppose a lesser probability would be to render DT incapable of action for the near term, 1-3 years. All the same, the reparations are offensive and do not make general sense. The justification offered for them is weak. It makes no sense to keep them on the table. [/quote] This is what I have been telling you, Xiph is using it to draw out NV. Don't listen to Aloop, he just doesn't want you guys to see Xiph coming. It doesn't matter how strongly they 'disagreed' with their government and if they were willing to leave CSN over this than CSN is really better off without them. Deserters are deserters, you don't get to put your spin on it if it happens to be an advantage to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='LordBucks' timestamp='1297858852' post='2635562'] It doesn't matter how strongly they 'disagreed' with their government and if they were willing to leave CSN over this than CSN is really better off without them. Deserters are deserters, you don't get to put your spin on it if it happens to be an advantage to you. [/quote] Seriously, who deserts the winning side? The underlying reason is still valid. Thank you for sweeping it under the carpet, as it shall only draw attention to how little basis you have for dismissing the reason on an [i]a priori[/i] basis. To simply observe a phenomenon and then refuse to discover the underlying reasons for said phenomenon is obscurantism and an insult to intelligence. Two members posted disapproval with the demand for reparations. More than two, many more than two, left the alliance at a time when it had a total of 12 million NS brought to bear against Dark Templar, when one would expect an opposite effect to be happening. As an outsider looking in, the information I can see indicates that the reasoning behind the reparations isn't washing with folks on the CSN side of things, either. Someone earlier said logic was absent in this discussion. I don't agree. It's here, and quite a few people are trying to distract others from looking at the matter with a critical eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297862655' post='2635587'] Seriously, who deserts the winning side? The underlying reason is still valid. Thank you for sweeping it under the carpet, as it shall only draw attention to how little basis you have for dismissing the reason on an [i]a priori[/i] basis. To simply observe a phenomenon and then refuse to discover the underlying reasons for said phenomenon is obscurantism and an insult to intelligence. Two members posted disapproval with the demand for reparations. More than two, many more than two, left the alliance at a time when it had a total of 12 million NS brought to bear against Dark Templar, when one would expect an opposite effect to be happening. As an outsider looking in, the information I can see indicates that the reasoning behind the reparations isn't washing with folks on the CSN side of things, either. Someone earlier said logic was absent in this discussion. I don't agree. It's here, and quite a few people are trying to distract others from looking at the matter with a critical eye. [/quote] There are 2 sides to the coin in the argument of nations leaving the alliance. CSN has lost a total of 20 nations over the past month of war. We do not know if the loss has come from surrenders (I only see 1 CSN nation in a POW AA) who never changed AA, inactive members who got deleted (They have 3-4 nations over 20 days currently), or if they actually deserted the alliance due to government disagreement. One thing that I will say is that if a member is in an alliance where he does not agree with the government, he is in the wrong alliance. If he leaves during a war, the alliance is better off without him. I can say this for any alliance, any side, or any reason for leaving. If someone in GATO left the alliance in the middle of a war for the reason "my government keeps getting me into losing wars and bad situations" I would say GATO is better off without him. If someone in CSN left the alliance because of the reps, CSN is better of without him. (also not all nations give 100% to their allies so winning side or not, if they take a bunch of damage they will leave. And yes, leaving during a war is desertion, no matter the reason) Edited February 16, 2011 by CptGodzilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1297826786' post='2635120'] Then why did they leave? If CSN is soundly defeating DT, why would anyone feel the need to desert? Especially when there could be free reps in staying? Is the promise of reps an attempt to retain members leaving over some unrelated issue? [/quote] I think the general problem is war deserts is all the same. Inactive person you never hear from and never offers helps gets hit, asks for help, it doenst come and he storms off. Nothing new, but feel free to spin it any way you guys want, unless you have some kind of proof its just heresay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I'm not sure I buy the conspiracy theory. I think it's just CSN enjoying a little abuse of power because they can. Hopefully they stop that soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297815217' post='2634878'] Therefore, one wonders if other alliances should observe rules at all when dealing with the threat posed by alliances bent upon breaking every rule and living without honor. [/quote] A: No. [quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1297816175' post='2634906'] sorry zzzptm, but I already addressed this issue a few days ago http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98618&view=findpost&p=2632449 but to tell you the truth, of all of GOD's previous enemies, I would rather set up FEAR than NoR [/quote] Why set up enemies when you can set up allies? [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1297822890' post='2635035'] Yes, they are deserters. If you abandon your alliance in times of war, you are a deserter. Edit: I really don't see how you can possibly say otherwise, unless of course you are saying that desertion is okay if they agree with you. [/quote] Sorry Mr. Black-and-white, there's more to the world than two shades. Anyway, if we want to talk about desertion, where's the cavalry for Rok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted February 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1297864141' post='2635608'] One thing that I will say is that if a member is in an alliance where he does not agree with the government, he is in the wrong alliance. If he leaves during a war, the alliance is better off without him. I can say this for any alliance, any side, or any reason for leaving. [/quote] If the alliance has lost its soul, honor, and decency then the one who departs is better off without that alliance. The alliance is then the worse for it, as a potential voice of reason has chosen to cease to strive with his former allies, finding them beyond the pale. The fact remains, there's something rotten in CSN. The cure for that cancer is letting go of the abuse of power - for whatever ends - and granting the white peace to DT. Simple as that. If CSN doesn't want to go that route, then it will live with the consequences of that choice, as surely as everyone is fated to live with the consequences of all the choices we make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1297903185' post='2636142'] Sorry Mr. Black-and-white, there's more to the world than two shades.[/quote] Funny, I didn't think we were discussing the world at large. You're right about the world, though- in the same way that someone saying it's daytime at high noon is right. [quote]Anyway, if we want to talk about desertion, where's the cavalry for Rok? [/quote] I can't help but notice a distinct lack of alliances attacking Ragnarok. As for why that is... figure it out for yourself. It's much more amusing to me, this way. Edited February 17, 2011 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfire99 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1297903185' post='2636142'] Sorry Mr. Black-and-white, there's more to the world than two shades. Anyway, if we want to talk about desertion, where's the cavalry for Rok? [/quote] If you read more and talked less, you would see that every alliance attacking Rok has been countered(the one, yes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1297904418' post='2636151'] I can't help but notice a distinct lack of alliances attacking Ragnarok. As for why that is... figure it out for yourself. It's much more amusing to me, this way. [/quote] Buddy, everyone already knows what you did. There's no discussion left over it except to point and laugh at anyone from GOD talking about loyalty in war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1297906098' post='2636172'] Buddy, everyone already knows what you did. There's no discussion left over it except to point and laugh at anyone from GOD talking about loyalty in war.[/quote] I think foxfire has the right sentiment, unfortunately. Man, you are no fun at all. At least amuse me by guessing! Edit: Unless that was your guess? Pretty accusing tone for a guess, though. Edited February 17, 2011 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.