Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations

[Brooklyn666]

For somehow who tries to build the foundation of his arguments on cognitive fallacies, you sure do set up a lot of false dichotomies.

 

Well why don't you point out what you find problematic and I'll address it. It's not really helpful or informative for you to point the finger at me for doing what literally everyone else in every one of these threads does all the time unless you're gonna provide some constructive criticism. Otherwise it's just a double standard.

[Sisyphus]

Well why don't you point out what you find problematic and I'll address it. It's not really helpful or informative for you to point the finger at me for doing what literally everyone else in every one of these threads does all the time unless you're gonna provide some constructive criticism. Otherwise it's just a double standard.

See, now you're moving the goal posts.

 

I find it problematic that you rely on pointing out cognitive fallacies as a subtle appeal to authority (another cognitive fallacy) and then commit cognitive fallacies in the same post.

 

Get better at recognising cognitive fallacies, so you don't look like a hypocritical jackass when you fail to realize you're arguments are just as logically unsound. That's literally my constructive critism (as could've easily been inferred by my previous post).

[Prefonteen]

Yea, I understand why you might interpret things that way, but can you also understand that there might be some confirmation bias in play on your part? It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative in this instance, so there's no way for me to absolutely prove to you that I'm telling the truth, but let's look at this way If we can agree on the following:

 

1. That tS and SK were extremely close allies for a long time and we worked together to smash paracov together many times

2. That we have witnessed firsthand your side's war capabilities by being on your side and winning with you all the time

3. That we know the less than stellar fighting capabilities of our current allies by having fought against them many times

 

If we can agree that the above things are true, then why on earth would we plan for months to deliberately turn on you for absolutely no reason just to run to paracov where'd we be certain to get our asses kicked by you?

One of two things are true. Either we deliberately planned and schemed for months to drop you and then roll you in a war that we had also been planning the whole time (if you look at the buildup prior to the war, you'll see in the beginning we were a day or two behind everyone else, so we clearly that far in still hadn't planned on attacking), or, we tried to do something different but it just didn't work and we ended up back in the same pattern but on the other side because of our treaty changes. Can you honestly say that the former seems like the more likely scenario?

 

Hey, if it's worth anything to you: I feel like we're actually making progress. Sometimes you got to fling some shit at one another before you can move on .

 

Anyways. I do agree that it's entirely possible that it has not been intentional on your part. In practice, it may still have ended up !@#$ us in a way, but naivity does not equate to duplicity and that would be a redeeming factor. If anything, i'm glad you are at leas acknowledging our grievance and trying to establish the dialogue.

 

Part of the frustration is that it's hard to get a read on where naivity ends and intention starts, if that makes sense.

 

I certainly agree on all 3 points, and I also agree that it doesn't make much sense if you explain it that way. Should definitely note that people do not always act rationally. We've seen this in this game over an over .

 

If we deduct that way:

- Maybe you thought that with SK moving, you could tip the scales and as such the move seemed beneficial enough (given the reward of being heralded as a savior of sorts within paracov, and the foundation for a or even the lead role in a now winning sphere)

- I can reasonably assume that you (read: SK as a whoe) approached others within our sphere to join you in moving away from tS as well (correct me if i'm wrong?). Maybe this is a worst case scenario.

- Maybe you started out wanting a third sphere, realized it wasn't viable and then decided you had no option but to come at us.

- Maybe you somehow felt slighted over something (anything) that occurred between tS-SK and that we are unaware of, and maybe that has driven you to move.

- Or maybe it was indeed all a plot.

 

Point being... there can be many rational, semi-rational and irrational motivations that influenced your decisions. There is a case to be made for every scenario, and every scenario can be refuted in a different way as well. 

 

Your line of reasoning does make sense on its own. There have been conflicting messages going out from SK though. A point of contention I want to bring up is that I recall a prominent SK figure stating that in order for your plans to succeed, tS had to be defeated, or something along those lines. If you wish I can dig for the quote. It's on the OWF here somewhere.

 

That quote on its own would invalidate the entire proposition brought forth in this particular discussion. Could you elaborate on how we need to interpret that?

 

EDIT: got it! (It was Mikey)

 

O/SK

 

I like t$ a lot still, but there are few alliances I'd rather test myself against more than them!

 

Many may say that this proves our sphere a sham, that we just joined covenant. Fact is to take on syndisphere would require them and us to work together, so we are. To truly make our third way viable we feel the need to strike down, even for a moment, the current leaders, especially when their might is equal to everyone else together. Maybe a victory will encourage others, maybe not. But there can be no better goal for us than to attempt to unseat the champions, and in any event we are not blind to the negative feelings directed towards us which would make conflict inevitable. We strike first, as we have always done.

 

Win or lose, we intend to remind the world that the SK from 2015 never went anywhere.

 

 

At the same time......0/10 no scroll, coup Valdoroth.

 

If your third sphere's viability is considered mutually exclusive with peaceful relations with tS, I can understand that... but that kind of invalidates any claims of your involvement in this war being no more than the direct result of Rose aggression.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Partisan

[Charles Bolivar]

Like 3 or 4 days before the war started. Once Rose told us their plans, we knew you would preempt us anyway so there was no reason for us to hold back.

 

 

 

So rose pretty much decided they were going to attack our sphere and everyone else didn't have a choice in it? Surely rose would only have planned an attack if they had their allies' backing or did they just tell you what was going down and expected you to be a part of it?

[greatkitteh]

So rose pretty much decided they were going to attack our sphere and everyone else didn't have a choice in it? Surely rose would only have planned an attack if they had their allies' backing or did they just tell you what was going down and expected you to be a part of it?

 

NPO fought for steve

[Sailor Jerry]

NPO fought for steve

NPO fought for your mom!

[greatkitteh]

NPO fought for your mom!

 

Steve is NPO's wall

[Sailor Jerry]

Steve is NPO's wall

OOOOOOk?

[greatkitteh]

#Postupthewall

[Prefontaine]

I'm not in Syndicate, but this is a thread for declaring things. I declare I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.

[greatkitteh]

I'm not in Syndicate, but this is a thread for declaring things. I declare I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.

 

I declare FOR STEVE

[Charles Bolivar]

NPO fought for steve

 

NPO fought for salt by the sounds of it

[greatkitteh]

NPO fought for salt by the sounds of it

 

Steve invented giant salt rocks to stop nuclear famine

[Mikey]

 

 

I certainly agree on all 3 points, and I also agree that it doesn't make much sense if you explain it that way. Should definitely note that people do not always act rationally. We've seen this in this game over an over .

 

If we deduct that way:

- Maybe you thought that with SK moving, you could tip the scales and as such the move seemed beneficial enough (given the reward of being heralded as a savior of sorts within paracov, and the foundation for a or even the lead role in a now winning sphere)

- I can reasonably assume that you (read: SK as a whoe) approached others within our sphere to join you in moving away from tS as well (correct me if i'm wrong?). Maybe this is a worst case scenario.

- Maybe you started out wanting a third sphere, realized it wasn't viable and then decided you had no option but to come at us.

- Maybe you somehow felt slighted over something (anything) that occurred between tS-SK and that we are unaware of, and maybe that has driven you to move.

- Or maybe it was indeed all a plot.

 

Point being... there can be many rational, semi-rational and irrational motivations that influenced your decisions. There is a case to be made for every scenario, and every scenario can be refuted in a different way as well. 

 

 

Your second point is correct, which I hope will put to rest finally these notions of long term plotting. If we really had  secret plan to join the paracov, for whatever reason, and try to mask it under the guise of a "3rd" sphere, we would have had no reason to approach alliances on both sides. If even just one of them had said yes, any such plot would have been immediately undone, because they would never agree to it once it came up, and would almost certainly leave and spill the beans. We hoped to pull from everywhere, unfortunately it didn't happen and we got a smaller version which largely took mostly from Paragon. For that, at least, we can't be blamed. The others we spoke to had their reasons and I don't blame them for refusing, but that can't be put on us.

 

Hopefully at least we have shown that, up to the point of leaving you and making the new sphere, we honestly not had no ill intentions or desire to back stab you. Our members had their own specific internal reasons for voting for a suspension for Gandalf, it wasn't a signal to initiate some "stage 2" of our plans or intended as a slap in the face. I can see why you might take it us one, and I'm not going to ask you to like it or approve of it. Our talks with TKR, among others, about the 3rd sphere should demonstrate our legitimate intentions with regards to that endeavor. As for your suspicions beyond that point...Well we've said what we have to say. Besides Gandalf, who would require at minimum 2 other Councillors and the King to set policy, no member or government has expressed any ill feelings towards t$. We have little reason to move to Paracov as we have almost no ties there. We had a longstanding relationship with NPO, whom we broke with for this. Aside from Rose, who seemed to share our desire for a 3rd sphere, our history with the rest of the paracov is either negative or neutral at best. Even if we did join them and somehow manage to tip the scales, I highly doubt we'd be hailed as hero's or somehow become the new "leader" if there even is one. It would just be more of the same, only with the names swapped and with people we have largely no contacts with.

 

You may still have your suspicions, but short of giving you access to our forums, there isn't anything else we can do to definitively prove anything. At this point people will just have to make up their minds based on what has been said, and leave it at that. Any further discussion of these particular issues will likely only invoke further acrimony, which I hope as much as possible to avoid.

 

 

 

EDIT: got it! (It was Mikey)

 

 

If your third sphere's viability is considered mutually exclusive with peaceful relations with tS, I can understand that... but that kind of invalidates any claims of your involvement in this war being no more than the direct result of Rose aggression.

 

 

I should mention this briefly given that it is my fault. Much as it tingles me inside to be called someone "significant" within SK, I haven't been so for quite sometime. At this point I'm just a member, one who perhaps has an unnatural attachment to the alliance, and a strong desire to defend it from those accusations I know are false. I cannot speak for the government in this area about what they thought, but those are indeed my personal feelings. I believe that for tri-polarity to truly take place, the three spheres must be at least somewhat balanced, to the point where no one can overtake the other two. Given time, we might have achieved that, recruiting more alliances to our cause. But once this war became apparent, there was really nothing else to do. There were certainly suspicions from some people that you wanted to attack us (and given the outpouring of negative feelings here and on IRC following that departure, such feelings were at least as legitimate as your own. And as such I am willing to knowledge they may have been unfounded). Certainly if we had won, it might have been an easier sell for alliances to take the plunge on something otherwise and unknown and seemingly on unstable footing. I feel these are probably the reasons the war was planned, but being that I have never explicitly asked anyone in Rose and they didn't post about it, I can't say for certain. But once it became clear this was happening I think our choice was obvious to have to participate, given our ally was and given what a loss would almost certainly do to the existence of the sphere.

 

I will also admit that my statement was a bit of fluff...truth be told I really do not have any ill will for t$. I only started playing again relatively recently so I don't have many strong feelings for most groups, but the people I have come to know I like. Frankly, as much as is possible given we are at war, I had hoped to avoid any pissing contents, negativity, or the idea that we were doing it specifically because we dislike you. Obviously I went about it in a terrible way and down the line old friends will all laugh about how a former FA could flubb so badly in his rush to steer things away from acrimony, while I hide in the bathroom and cry.

 

So rose pretty much decided they were going to attack our sphere and everyone else didn't have a choice in it? Surely rose would only have planned an attack if they had their allies' backing or did they just tell you what was going down and expected you to be a part of it?

 

 

I can't speak for any intentions of theirs. It could well be this war was planned quickly and on the fly as soon as the militarization began. But Brook is telling the truth when he says that our knowledge and intent to attack you began a few days prior. I'm not sure why this has become such a huge point of contention. We aren't trying to say they dragged us into this per se. We have no treaty requiring aggression and we made a choice to enter into this. Our only point is that we are attacking in support of the plans of an ally and not as the coup de grace of some longer plot to reach this point. Doesn't change the fact we are here, it doesn't mean we want you to accept or like the fact we are at war. Just trying to put to rest claims that we have been hoping for this, because, while not entirely unreasonable given your perspective, they are unfounded.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mikey

[Spaceman Thrax]

So like three pages back I encouraged Brooklyn to speak to me because Partisan can go on forever.

 

Parti's way more annoying, will drag your crap out in public, and actually powerless? Seems like an easy choice to me.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Manthrax

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Gandalf obviously has his hate-boner, nobody can deny that. 

 

 

Putting the guy who hates your ally in charge of your FA really does kind of set the future direction, no?

Edited September 15, 2016 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Buorhann]

Putting the guy who hates your ally in charge of your FA really does kind of set the future direction, no?

 

I don't think they really grasped that yet, or the blunder of even keeping him in gov.  Almost as bad as giving Kastor access to the alliance bank.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Buorhann

[Cody K]

I don't think they really grasped that yet, or the blunder of even keeping him in gov. Almost as bad as giving Kastor access to the alliance bank.

SK did accept Kastor into the ranks not too long ago...

[Mikey]

Putting the guy who hates your ally in charge of your FA really does kind of set the future direction, no?

 

 

I don't think they really grasped that yet, or the blunder of even keeping him in gov.  Almost as bad as giving Kastor access to the alliance bank.

 

Aisha you were in our government and you know full well how it works. Nothing major gets done without input from everyone and nobody, not even the King, has the authority to unilaterally enact significant decisions. Yes, appointing him given the circumstances would generally signal a shift in our policy, which is why we no doubt explained to t$ and other concerned parties the specific reasons he was being kept on. It is why we have bothered responding to these accusations rather than ignoring them, because we know how this can be seen without knowing what went on internally.

 

Look, nobody was positive about the leaks or any harm done to t$, but for a variety of personal reasons our members voted overwhelmingly to let the issue drop with a 2 month suspension. Despite whatever reservations others such as myself may have had regarding the choice, at that point the answer is obvious. I have always considered my core responsibility to be to ensure the enjoyment of myself and my members - in this game, and in all the various games SK has been in before. I haven't asked the current gov about it, but I would be exceedingly shocked if they did not feel the same. Yes the action carried foreign policy repercussions. Maybe it was harmful, maybe it wasn't, maybe it reverberated back in time and caused the Russian invasion of the Crimea. I have no idea, and at the point at which our members made their choice I no longer care.

 

Nobody has failed to grasp anything. Nobody has claimed actions do not carry consequences or that you were going to love these decisions. We are merely pointing out the same circumstances we made you all aware of when this happened, to respond to accusations we have been somehow planning this conflict since April or whenever it was. Clearly there is going to be no agreement on that point and thats fine. But don't try and pretend we are ignorant of the optics we have repeatedly recognized and tried to explain when it has been brought up.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mikey

[Spaceman Thrax]

SK dropped us and planned to war us. We figured this out and hit them first.

 

Been chatting and doing some checking up. This statement wasn't completely fair to SK. I saw their online levels, and made the assumption they were ready to jump on us or an ally. Combined with the fact that I assumed them to be involved in Rose's war planning (which is true, they had been for 2 days prior), hitting them before they were able to harm us or our allies made perfect sense, so I gave the order.

 

I had taken Vald's statement that I received that we beat him by 20 minutes to a DoW to necessarily mean that he intended to strike aggressively. That's not something I can prove. I later presented it to Brooklyn, and rather than disconfirm he made a comment about not being involved in the planning until 2 days prior, so I assumed that meant the hit was approved. In the above statement, I was annoyed and hastily used a royal "us" to mean our coalition, rather than the Syndicate: a meaningful distinction for SK.

 

...Alrighty so that's clear now! Sorry for being hasty. Everyone can get back to their dumpster fire now!

[Buorhann]

Appointing him FA and not dropping him after the leaks just showed how much you cared about amending relations to your allies and friendly alliances.  Not once to my knowledge did any of the alliances attempt to persuade SK into dropping/getting rid of him, we all held good faith in SK to deal with him appropriately, but the best you did was suspend him from alliance chat.  You let a single person become a symbol for how much of a damn you give to those who consistently dealt with the headaches given by your alliance - whether it was dumb!@#$ery in wars or subpar communication.

[Kastor]

I don't think Gandalf being FA head really matters as much as you guys are trying to say it does. It takes an alliance to declare war, not one man.

[Buorhann]

I don't think Gandalf being FA head really matters as much as you guys are trying to say it does. It takes an alliance to declare war, not one man.

 

Doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the principle of the matter.

[Mikey]

Appointing him FA and not dropping him after the leaks just showed how much you cared about amending relations to your allies and friendly alliances.  Not once to my knowledge did any of the alliances attempt to persuade SK into dropping/getting rid of him, we all held good faith in SK to deal with him appropriately, but the best you did was suspend him from alliance chat.  You let a single person become a symbol for how much of a damn you give to those who consistently dealt with the headaches given by your alliance - whether it was dumb!@#$ery in wars or subpar communication.

 

Ok? That isn't what we have been denying. Contrary to your assertions that we are unable to understand the ramifications of our actions, nobody has tried here to make up for the resentment over Gandalfs re-appointment or the consequences of it. I have repeatedly acknowledged the ill-will it generated and the damage it may very well have done to that relationship (maybe my overuse of qualifications like "may" are causing this issue? I just try and shy away from completely definitive statements when I am not party to the direct discussions involved). The only thing we have tried to clear up, given that we understand where you are coming from, are the claims that his reappointment is proof our some longstanding plot to undermine you. I am not going to restate anything because there is no way to make this any more clear. Suffice it to say the only thing we have contended, regarding this particular issue, was part of some scheme. That you had cause to view it that way, that it was going to be taken badly, and that it may have worsened relations, has not been contested.

 

Edit: And this "alliance chat" claim is completely untrue and I have no idea why you are so quick to bring it up. Gandalf had his title fully stripped for the duration of the suspension. From the time we found out, to the vote by our members on his future, to the end of the suspension they decided upon, we had no Master of Whispers. That obviously includes him not being in the chat. Maybe it looked that way because that was his main form of interaction with you all prior to this. I don't know. But his suspension was total. I imagine that isn't enough for you either and I do not think it should be. But at least criticize the real decision.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mikey

[Eld Fen]

Appointing him FA and not dropping him after the leaks just showed how much you cared about amending relations to your allies and friendly alliances.  Not once to my knowledge did any of the alliances attempt to persuade SK into dropping/getting rid of him, we all held good faith in SK to deal with him appropriately, but the best you did was suspend him from alliance chat.  You let a single person become a symbol for how much of a damn you give to those who consistently dealt with the headaches given by your alliance - whether it was dumb!@#$ery in wars or subpar communication.

 

Good god this dead horse has been beaten so many times it's back to a molecular level. You can think whatever you'd like about "just suspending him from alliance chat" but it's total garbage. Away from whatever fictional world you're living in: we let our members let their voices be heard and handled it well beyond a slap on the wrist. In the end, our allies were informed about his punishment and had a solid 4 months to let their opinions be heard. Surprise! They didn't.

 

It's bought up all the time as a faux pas against SK whenever we don't do something everybody likes. And you wonder why Gandalf might have a hate boner.

 

Regardless of your perception of the situation it's done- SK doesn't run on one persons goal.

 

Also Kastor, be quiet.