Phoenyx

Nice :-). When will it start?

Fine -.-

Pfffft. Anyway, if you think I and Ronnie are mistaken somehow, why not try to explain why?

Gotta hand it to you Ronny, that one was good :-). Seems accurate to me.

Well, you know that your word does carry a lot of weight with me. But here is my theory- while I fully believe you that why the war happened or CBs were not brought up at the peace talks, could it not have been a factor that, while unmentioned, still had an effect, if not in the peace talks, at least in bringing them about? Perhaps more importantly, I think that it's good that leaders establish their credibility. We may both remember things being said here where they questioned your word based solely on the fact that Ronny had been told that Swamp had reached out to HM trying to get support to attack Quack. You yourself said that some in Swamp may well have wanted to attack Quack, but you flat out denied it ever being your plan. People doubted you based on what amounts to rumours and that made me upset, because in all my dealings with you, your word and your actions have concorded with each other. I felt you had gotten a bad wrap and to this day, I'm still not sure why Ronnie didn't reach out to you and try to sort out the truth behind this rumour. Alright, fine. That being as it may be, there are issues here regarding credibility of various people, yourself included. You have always seemed uninterested in putting much effort in verifying whether or not Boyce's claims were in fact valid. Why is that?

I see no reason that we need to have global wars and the fact that it seems to only happen around twice a year makes it clear that while it may be cyclical, there are significant pauses between these events. There is a difference between someone who dislikes wars and someone who is a "pixelhugger". The main issue here is -why- one dislikes wars. Now I think that most people can agree that they don't like having their militaries and infra destroyed, but people different in what they're willing to do to avoid having this done. Some may not care that much for this and live for the thrill of the virtual fight, for a continual stream of wars. I think pirates best fit this description. Others may favour a more restrained version, cooking up various reasons to get into a fair amount of wars. Finally, there are those, like me, who are in this more for the community then for the wars. Now I've heard some stop playing the game part and just continue talking with people they've met here. Perhaps one day I'll do that, but I think that would make more sense once I have played the game for a long period of time. For now, I like the fact that when one of my Alliance or sphere members are attacked and I'm in a good position to do so, I can counter attack, and it feels good when, if I'm attacked by a formidable foe, I can get helped in return. As a side note, I actually did try farmville and found it to be dull. Real life has adversity and I do like some realism in my games.

Slogans are easy. Harder it to do the actual work, to dig through what happened and see who was actually maligned.

Yes, this is definitely something that I recommend people to do if they don't like hearing what I have to say.

Sorry, but I'm not taking your word for it either. I think I have some pretty good theories as to why it started. Also, it stands to reason that you yourself wouldn't be interested in a post mortem analysis, as you may suspect or even know that your quick conclusion that Swamp wanted to attack Quack first was in fact a misinterpretation on your part, and possibly a misinterpretation on the part of your source. I will grant that there are other possibilities, but that one seems the most likely to me at this point.

It takes 2 to tango. I'd have posted a whole lot less if I had gotten little if no responses. I have even gotten some positive feedback, which is generally the lifeline for anyone who writes. Not much point in writing if I feel I'm not getting through to anyone. I'm fine. It's not my fault so few others make threads of this nature. And clearly, whether people like me or not, quite a few people feel the desire to respond to them. Some even appreciate what I have to say.

Wars between nations, sure. I sincerely doubt that most global wars started for no reason at all though. Certainly not this one. You're making my case for me. Whether good reasons or bad, most wars are started for reasons. They may be bad reasons that make no sense when sober, but reasons nonetheless. I certainly understand anger and resentment, I feel them myself. However, they're not states that I like to be in. Now, some can and will certainly do what you've done with this George fellow. Personally, however, I tend to believe what many AA groups have stated in various ways, "“Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.” I'd rather try to explain -why- I got to feeling this way about someone, to myself and with others, in an effort to draw the poison out of my system. Whether the other party or parties wish to do the same is up to them. I'm not saying that global wars will stop. However, it is my hope that in the future, people are a little less trusting of sources that are essentially passing on rumours because they are too far from the original sources to ensure reliability. Now, those on the Quack side of this war and even some on the anti Quack side of this war can believe and even argue that the sources stating that TCW/HM/Swamp really were going to attack Quack first. But the proof is in the pudding- go to the sources themselves and this time, ask them more reaching questions. Thing is, the parties who have the power to do this don't want to. Why is that? Food for thought. I must admit this made me laugh :-p. It's not true of course, but I wonder if perhaps, after you and your Alliance felt that I wouldn't be a good fit for TFP, you came to realize that I could be beneficial for your sphere. Not so that I could mentally disintegrate the opposition as you say, but rather because I would challenge the beliefs that got them into this war. I would go so far as to say that my many arguments questioning the reliability of the sources they relied on both to initiate the war (Boyce) and to continue it (Ronnie's statement) may well have helped end the war- because who wants to continue a war when they suspect that they got into it for the wrong reasons and are continuing it for the same?

No, I've never been a fan of war. This may seem like a paradox, seeing as I joined this game to begin with. One might question why I did so, and why I continue to play it. The reason is fairly straightforward- it has to do with the fact that wars/battles tend to bring people together to face a common threat. Without such an impetus, it can be easily to stick to oneself. So in essence, I joined this game, as I have joined other war games in the past, not for the wars per se, but for the community and the politics that such wars create. Not per se, no. This game had war designed into it and I'm fine with that. My issue is not with starting a war, but on determining the credibility of those involved in it. This is -not- a straightforward issue of determining that x or y side is being deceitful. In wars with relatively decent leaders, no side has to be trying to deceive others. The issue here is more subtle- who does more research to find out the truth? I've clearly come to certain conclusions on that. In a way, it's actually pretty easy to determine- just see who -doesn't- want to answer certain key questions in a war and by that method, you can easily determine who isn't a fan of uncovering the whole truth.

I've found that a lot of the time, people confuse the difference between listening and -agreeing-. I have listened a great deal to what many of you have to say. It's just that I don't -agree- with a lot of it. I've played war games for a fair amount of time myself, though this one is new to me. One thing I will admit, I have never been in a war game where the reasons for starting wars can be so important in the game. I like it. War shouldn't be something that is started for frivolous reasons in my view, even in a game. However, part and parcel with that is that people aren't always going to -agree- as to why a war started. This is certainly the case here. Now some may say that once the war is over, why the war started no longer matters. I'd strongly disagree with this, for the primary reason that if we don't learn from our mistakes, we're bound to repeat them. To me, it seems very probable that this war started based on false information. I still haven't figured out how -much- of it was false, but it's not for lack of trying. Again, some may say, what does it matter, the war's over. It matters for one very important reason- credibility. In this war, a lot of leaders' credibility was questioned. I spoke to various leaders in this conflict- Ronnie, Tyrion, Partisan, Adrienne. Of the leaders I spoke to, none of them seemed to be trying to deceive me. However, it was literally impossible for all of them to be right on some things, not least of which because some of the things they stated contradicted what others stated. I did my best to figure out whose versions of events made the most sense. I think most if not everyone here knows what side I ultimately chose to believe, but just in case- I chose the side of TFP and Immortals. In a general sense, I also chose the anti Quack side, but specifically TFP and Immortals. The reason was relatively straight forward. Their side made the most sense. I had spoken to the leader of Immortals as well as one of the leaders of TFP and they had directly denied any involvement in plans to attack Quack first. On the other side of the story, all we had were rumours. Boyce certainly wasn't a part of the anti Quack forces- to this day, most if not all of us have no idea where he got this notion that TCW/HM/Swamp was going to attack Quack in December/January. Oh, I've been told that there were various TCW sources in a conversation I had with Adrienne, Cooper and others, but what exactly did those sources say exactly? The reason I believe this is so important can be reasoned with the a certain story from a non Quack source, Ronnie, leader of Grumpy. He believed, and perhaps still believes, that Swamp had at one point in time been reaching out to HM to see if they'd help attack Quack. When it was first brought up, Quack took this as vindication that they were right all along- they even made an ad from a few things that Ronnie said. But once I started looking at Ronnie's words more closely, the story seemed to unravel. For starters, no one from Swamp had actually spoken to Ronnie about such a plan. Instead, he'd heard it from -another- HM leader, whose identity is still unknown to me and the public at large. That source, in turn, made a statement that was far more ambiguous than Ronnie's own. Clearly, it would be nice if we could ask a few questions of this HM source- what did he mean? And, probably even more important, who was -his- source, or sources? These are the types of questions that matter for those who take credibility -seriously- as opposed to those who just ask their followers to trust them. Everyone can pick the type of leader they have. I think it's clear what kind of leaders I'm looking for personally, and I know I'm not the only one. An interesting way to put it. But I am not disturbing -everyone's- peace. Furthermore, in an internet forum, it is pretty easy to ignore what any particular person has to say. I've been told that a group has formed with the specific goal of putting me on ignore here. I contend that the main reason that some here are disturbed by what I say has nothing to do with -me- saying it, per se, but rather, that others will say it too. In effect, what is going on here is a war of memes, or ideas. In the one faction, you have people in positions of power who don't want to be questioned and have the means to make like difficult for anyone who would challenge this status quo. And on the other, you have those who would question them anyway. This is a war of a different sort then the one we just fought, but I think that ultimately, it is a more important one and one that will have much more lasting consequences.

Sure, and I imagine lessons can be learned from all of them. I wasn't involved in the previous wars, but I was in this one, so that's the war I'm focusing on.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rely on your word for this one.

I figured as much. You're not the only person here though.

Lol :-p. But no, I had nothing to do with the initiation of this war. I certainly put a lot of effort into trying to achieve peace, though it's clear that many didn't appreciate my efforts in this regard. And it seems equally clear that others don't like the fact that I continue to bring up issues regarding this war. I think the points I raise are worth bringing up despite stiff opposition from certain quarters to me doing so, however, and so I do. You know, a long time ago, I told Rose's Valk, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." I'm not afraid to ask the questions that others, for whatever reason, choose not to. You can keep on beating around the bush, refusing to deal with what I think is the -real- reason that you dislike my posts. That's your call to make, but so long as there are a few brave souls who are willing to explore issues that most want to avoid even thinking about and I'm not censored from doing so, I'll continue to ask these questions and look for their answers.

You know, I find it rather ironic that the Quack side started with "Oh, the non quack side is censoring too much" and now it's like you guys just want to do the same thing. If you don't want to listen to what I have to say, no one's forcing you to read my posts, let alone respond to them.

I know. I just think we could still learn form this war. There are small wars, perhaps some pirates attacking, perhaps 2 Alliances going at it, and then there are big, global wars. The small ones, perhaps not worth too much attention, but a global, that involves a -lot- of Alliances and I definitely think there are some lessons we can still learn from it. Ofcourse, it takes 2 to tango. If no one else is investigating certain loose ends from the war, then that'll be the end of it.

Yes, this war is over. All I'm asking is, what did we learn, and is there still more we can learn from it? Reminds me of some lines from one of Frank Hebert's Dune books: ** “Beware of the truth, gentle Sister. Although much sought after, truth can be dangerous to the seeker. Myths and reassuring lies are much easier to find and believe. If you find a truth, even a temporary one, it can demand that you make painful changes. ** I think many prefer to just kill the messenger.

I am definitely glad that the global war has finally ended. However, I think some of the more thoughtful among may want to reflect on one thing- should this war have ever started? For a long time now, I have focused on 2 questions, one for each side of this war. The 1st is for the Quack side: the issue of why Boyce came say what may have been fateful words, namely that he believed that TCW/HM/Swamp would attack Quack in December/January. I'm not saying that there was no validity in what he said, but was it -completely- valid? A question that I, at least, think should be better explored. I made a thread exploring Boyce's words here: Much the same thing happened on the other side, this time in regards to something Ronnie, the leader of Grumpy said, and his source. I get into this in another thread: Too often, people take what amounts to rumours and run with them. I think the name that this war was given, "The Leaky Faucet War", while certainly illuminating a certain part of the war, may not draw enough attention to the fact that leaks and rumours are frequently sprinkled with false information. Perhaps another title for the war could end up being "The broken telephone war", after the broken telephone effect. Now, the easy thing would be to downvote this thread, or ignore it. A bit more work would be to insult me or the thread. But I think in order to avoid wars like this, where everyone thinks the other guy is the one to blame, these questions shouldn't just be asked- serious effort should also be put into answering them.

I may stop posting much here. And I'm certainly glad that peace was finally achieved. That being said, a peace doesn't change the fact that some things were left unanswered, at least publicly. The main ones that come to mind: 1- Who was Ronnie's HM leader source? 2- Why did Boyce state that TCW/HM/Swamp were going to attack Quack in December/January? Perhaps the answers will never enter the public domain. But I believe the fact that those questions remain shrouded in mystery says a lot of the desire, or lack thereof, of many of the war participants' desire to let the truth be known to all.

Well said Partisan. I guess the story was too long for some, but I read every word.

We may not get along, but that was some good writing.

Well, we agree on that anyway.