A Reduction of Paper Announcement

[Smith]

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Well well. A mocking attack on Acadia and subtle shot at Roz Wei too. Ain't that nice. Alright lets address this here publicly for once.

Lets shoot down the puffing out of the chest to start with. Fark's Stratagem has been spying SIR ever since Acadia dropped their protection so for all the puffing out, they wouldn't do a thing if Acadia or any other papered alliance protected SIR. They were asked to stop which they did, so now they're doing attacks and threatening everyone to let it happen, again, because Acadia isn't in the picture. 

Now, on the matter of SIR. When they were Iron Guard they were very present and aggressive, for which they got destroyed. Their nations were deleted, the alliance gone. They certainly paid for it. With SIR however what has gone down is a harassment campaign from this cast of characters here from Fark, Stratagem, and friends. 

They make a show of it and the story always is the same. They talk of RL matters and when told that such things are not valid reasons they cite things said on discord that relate to in game. I ask for evidence of this and they state that they do not need it. Apparently some racist words were said on Acadia's Discord server (and apparently it may have been Gabranth who isn't and hasn't been SIR as far as I know) and as we all know, these people mash that screenshot button if they see any such things and yet provide no evidence on this case? So today I'm talking again with them and they cite Fark's server... no screenshots again which is weird. If you have a killshot, you'd think it'd be posted. Instead apparently I'm supposed to take Kosmo's word as fact or something.

Finally a screenshot is posted: 

Which apparently proves guilt on this "raid". Even though even I knew about it as Kosmo saw fit to go talking about it everywhere saying we were protecting people doing such things. No evidence of it being them again was provided at the time. The above is apparently 3 of 6 and there is some stuff in the other ones... I ask for it, get told I'm nosy. Right.

The start point of such harassment being:

 

However as Starbuck mentions (I'm talking to Queen M and he has been told so he hasn't predicted anything folks). An issue here is for all their talk, RL matters is actually not something these people are so clean themselves on. 

They're noted anti-white racists, Starbuck in particular recently put on quite the show where he went around talking "Kill all white people", admitted he wouldn't say the same about black or Jewish folk, mocked anti-white racism being a thing, and all the usual matters that come with such behaviour. As I was someone who suffered such things at a young age he eventually relented and apologised, however this attitude we know is very present on that RL political end. White people, but white men in particular are the enemy. Queen M has tried to use her apparent White man as a shield, which is funny as by the very words of that end that is no shield at all. 

So you see, RL is not your friend. You don't see me, a sufferer from such racism and a white man (so enemy #1) hitting such people over such reasons. These people shouldn't be doing this Jihad over RL reasons either.

To further expand, where is the Crusade on Ibrahim, Abu, and however you spell Moreao? ISIS supporters. Seems they don't care to hit them for whatever reason. 

Now some might remark that then, I would never protect those Muslim folks then certainly... except I totally did. All of them were in RW at some point and thus protected. They no longer are for reasons up to them.

So question, is that Bastion guy part of SIR? 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Smith

[Yarr]

1 minute ago, Critters said:

So much angst and ire in this thread. I wish there was a mechanism in this game in which we could "declare war" on the people we had a problem with instead of crying about it on the OWF. If only there was a way......

They are young , so they will discover that button soon 

[Kastor]

2 hours ago, rollo said:

Not apathy. The fact he's the nicer version of me.

 

Also, if I'm reading this thread correctly: world sides with nazis. got it. we'll keep that in mind.

 

When you post another thread? You guys never do anything but complain. You get others to hit these nazis for you even when you were in range.

[durmij]

10 hours ago, George Clooney said:

This is a very unfortunate thread.  The OP is fairly OOC insulting to a number of Acadia members, some of whom had relatives who fought against the Nazis in World War II, at least one of whom had family members die in the Holocaust.

A long time prominent member of your community is currently arguing that women are genetically inferior enough to justify taking away what little political power the citizen is given in modern society. This statement was also irrelevant to the op, but I wanted to bring it up to mirror your own argument's flaw. Your post is an example of a red herring; these circumstances don't matter to the situation at hand. What matters is that your AA protected an alliance full of people who promote genocide and hate speech, and this is the second time they've done this in a short while.
 

9 hours ago, Keegoz said:

I remember when bringing OOC shit into the game was a good enough cb to be dogpiled. This game is going downhill fast.

False equivalency. Instagram drama and targeted hate speech are not comparable.

Edited December 5, 2017 by durmij
Spelling

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

Anyone ever notice that only when I go into VM or say I'm gonna quit, they decide to mess with my bois.

I should never go into VM again. It's a bad omen for people.

[durmij]

4 hours ago, Rozalia said:

To further expand, where is the Crusade on Ibrahim, Abu, and however you spell Moreao? ISIS supporters. Seems they don't care to hit them for whatever reason. 

I only have time for this one clarification out of the lot. Those three were driven out. None of them can use the forums, they are banned from most discords, and where they aren't banned they are mocked ruthlessly. Ibrahim is still rolled on occasion. The white supremacists, in contrast, are met with middling responses and hand waving, in spite of the fact that they have never signalled that they intend to change their behaviour.

1 hour ago, Auctor said:

Actually, at the risk of further pedantry, this can be a free speech issue. It's just not a constitutionally protected free speech issue under the first amendment. John Stuart Mill would make the case that the government is less of a threat to free speech than the social pressures of a given era.

The only reason to make the argument that social pressures inhibit free speech is to take the absurdist reductionist stance that free speech is impossible. The large institution and concrete impediments definition is used because it gives a clear framework and affords the individual some agency and responsibility in fighting social pressures.

[Kriegskoenig]

11 hours ago, kosmokenny said:

When they apply to the alliance listing their reason for joining as "14/88 sieg heil" and their membership is enthusiastically approved, theyre nazis

Let's clarify something nobody has really admitted:

Nearly all the screenshots you have, and this info you mention here, came from me. 

 

Why?  Because when Kosmo got upset and was too angry to bother providing ANY evidence, I went and found everything I could possibly locate, even from old IG forums. 

 

Why?  Because I cared enough that even when Kosmo was kinda a dick to me for asking him what proof he had (and didn't provide much), I wanted to be sure that he was either right or wrong before I started suggesting we lynch people, or told Acadia to ignore him. I spent the better part of a decade as a criminal investigator; I know how to make a federal case, through research, surveillance, and presenting physical evidence.

 

I found enough proof to give to Acadia's gov with a solid case that members hadn't reformed and most wouldn't apologize for previous behavior.  I made the mistake of giving it to Kosmo and James when I found it, as a show of good faith.  People have dumped those screens in public, without crediting the source (me) in an impatient, though understandable effort to incite the public mob to exert pressure as well.  Acadia isn't run as an outright empire, and their process may have taken a bit long for our taste, but they did the right thing, and you got handed SIR on a platter as a target.

 

Food for actual thought: Why did it take Acadia this long to act?  Why was Kosmo so agressive and hostile to begin with?  Why did no one but me actually present Acadia with evidence?  Do you all monitor your members, let alone your protectorates, closely enough that I couldn't find dirt on them too, of which you are not aware?

 

Do we really even need to be in the business of mud-slinging over this, when the goal was accomplished, and those who made use of nazi-like ideology or outright nazi-affiliated symbols and sayings were exposed and ostracized, not because of unsourced accusations, but through my search for proof?

 

Final note.  It's a game.  Relax.  We got the bad guys.  Let's go after Ibrahim next. 

Anyone?

...Bueller?

[Mitsuru]

11 hours ago, Hope said:

it was more addressing everyone but w/e

Ok. Sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive.

[Micchan]

I just want to say that a valid CB is only related to the game, you should not roll alliances based on ideologies or anything said by single players, at best you can place an embargo

If you don't like what a player says you can block or ignore him

 

On the other hand there's a lack of action so if you really want to start a war try to involve TKR pls

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

34 minutes ago, Micchan said:

if you really want to start a war try to involve TKR pls

I told you folks, the sjw agenda and the globalist agenda go hand in hand.

Also I've never met anyone who has fierce conviction and then backs down. 

Unless this is all a smokescreen to hide Nuke Bloc/TKR sphere's activities.

[KillzBob]

hi

[Auctor]

57 minutes ago, durmij said:

The only reason to make the argument that social pressures inhibit free speech is to take the absurdist reductionist stance that free speech is impossible. The large institution and concrete impediments definition is used because it gives a clear framework and affords the individual some agency and responsibility in fighting social pressures.

You're making an argument as to what it would be appropriate for a government to intervene in, not about what is free speech as such. Free speech is the freedom to say anything of course and the freedom to associate or not associate with that person based on what you hear them say is another right, but boiling down "free speech" absolutely to what is protected by the first amendment is lacking in nuance itself. If a large private corporation were to fire someone for something they say or an opinion they express, for instance, that certainly impinges on their freedom of speech but it does not do so in a way I would see as justifiable for the authorities to intervene to protect.

 

Any absolute freedom is impossible to enforce in a real world, but to say that because it can't be enforced it isn't a right is to make an argument freedoms can't exist. I think people should be free from being murdered, but people get murdered every day and that doesn't cause me to reevaluate the essential value of believing in a right to not be murdered. Not being able to have a society that holds to an absolute standard doesn't invalidate the idea of all those things those principles can encompass.

[durmij]

6 minutes ago, Auctor said:

You're making an argument as to what it would be appropriate for a government to intervene in, not about what is free speech as such. Free speech is the freedom to say anything of course and the freedom to associate or not associate with that person based on what you hear them say is another right, but boiling down "free speech" absolutely to what is protected by the first amendment is lacking in nuance itself. If a large private corporation were to fire someone for something they say or an opinion they express, for instance, that certainly impinges on their freedom of speech but it does not do so in a way I would see as justifiable for the authorities to intervene to protect.

 

Any absolute freedom is impossible to enforce in a real world, but to say that because it can't be enforced it isn't a right is to make an argument freedoms can't exist. I think people should be free from being murdered, but people get murdered every day and that doesn't cause me to reevaluate the essential value of believing in a right to not be murdered. Not being able to have a society that holds to an absolute standard doesn't invalidate the idea of all those things those principles can encompass.

I'm really only defending the large institution public space argument in the modern North American context. It doesn't really hold up to scrutiny of it's principals, especially once you look at social constructs and the realities of power, but it's a decent functional model to work with in the mean time.

The real issue is the discourse is that groups use the same language to describe different models. As you pointed out, absolute freedoms are impossible to realize, but a large number of people still ascribe to the notion that criticism is as dangerous to liberty as government shock troops. I agree that principles and freedoms are more aspirational goals than rigid requirements, and the inability to implement them wholesale without accommodation does not invalidate them.

[Buorhann]

7 hours ago, rollo said:

Also, if I'm reading this thread correctly: world sides with nazis. got it. we'll keep that in mind.

 

No, you nitwit.  The "world" doesn't side with "nazi's".

They're just not going to do your dirty work for you.

You guys have treaties and a alliance bloc, how about you join the rest of the game by using them instead of being worse than GPA?

[Dark Kermie]

6 hours ago, Micchan said:

I just want to say that a valid CB is only related to the game, you should not roll alliances based on ideologies or anything said by single players, at best you can place an embargo

Umm posting racists images on discord and shit talking Queen M doesn't count?

 

6 hours ago, Micchan said:

On the other hand there's a lack of action so if you really want to start a war try to involve TKR pls

I literally have no idea how to take TCL yet, I mean, is he worth the effort of declaring?  What if I like him better than Lordship? Does that mean I still should declare on him?

[Micchan]

10 minutes ago, GalacticManatee said:

Umm posting racists images on discord and shit talking Queen M doesn't count?

1. Her fault for using discord instead of the beautiful forums

2. No, not part of the game (but every war is welcome right now so who cares, go on)

10 minutes ago, GalacticManatee said:

I literally have no idea how to take TCL yet, I mean, is he worth the effort of declaring?  What if I like him better than Lordship? Does that mean I still should declare on him?

Irrelevant we are close to the 16/12 <---16 dec, right way to write it

The one and only infinite leader will change this world once again with the power of his legs

[Buorhann]

Micchan doesn't know the beauty of immediate gratification when it comes to messages across Discord, or chat room behavior.

She's inferior to all of us.  We must let her be and preserve history through her, where we were all once ignorant before the coming of Yahoo Messenger, ICQ, and AIM.

[Thalmor]

25 minutes ago, GalacticManatee said:

shit talking Queen M doesn't count?

 

Shit-talking isn't a CB, no.

[Kyubnyan]

Just now, Thalmor said:

Shit-talking isn't a CB, no.

Debatable.

[Thalmor]

2 minutes ago, Kyubnyan said:

Debatable.

It's really not. If Person A shitalked Person B, it's not justification enough for Person B's alliance to hit Person A's alliance. 

If OOC slurs or threats were used, then that's a lot more understandable. 

[Dark Kermie]

2 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

It's really not. If Person A shitalked Person B, it's not justification enough for Person B's alliance to hit Person A's alliance. 

If OOC slurs or threats were used, then that's a lot more understandable. 

I believe that's what happened followed by the image spam.

[Guest Epi]

120

Edited December 11, 2020 by Epi

[Dark Kermie]

15 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Irrelevant we are close to the 16/12 <---16 dec, right way to write it

The one and only infinite leader will change this world once again with the power of his legs

I await the return of daddy legs, though I was told he wont lead again....

[Micchan]

14 minutes ago, GalacticManatee said:

I await the return of daddy legs, though I was told he wont lead again....

Even if he's not the leader is still my only leader (even if TCL is good and he's doing great)

[Prefonteen]

8 hours ago, Auctor said:

You're making an argument as to what it would be appropriate for a government to intervene in, not about what is free speech as such. Free speech is the freedom to say anything of course and the freedom to associate or not associate with that person based on what you hear them say is another right, but boiling down "free speech" absolutely to what is protected by the first amendment is lacking in nuance itself. If a large private corporation were to fire someone for something they say or an opinion they express, for instance, that certainly impinges on their freedom of speech but it does not do so in a way I would see as justifiable for the authorities to intervene to protect.

 

Any absolute freedom is impossible to enforce in a real world, but to say that because it can't be enforced it isn't a right is to make an argument freedoms can't exist. I think people should be free from being murdered, but people get murdered every day and that doesn't cause me to reevaluate the essential value of believing in a right to not be murdered. Not being able to have a society that holds to an absolute standard doesn't invalidate the idea of all those things those principles can encompass.

can you rephrase this as a comic so I can understand what you're saying?