Jump to content

Unacceptable Behavior


Cooper_
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Khanter Molchaniye said:

-snip-

Should note that according to this thread and asking the alleged Mr Robot, there was no hacking involved *at all*. BK’s banking software had no security or fail safe, which allowed another person to remotely use said banking software through Leo’s own negligence. No one logged into Leo’s account for anything, the bank withdrawals were strictly through BK’s banking software. As for who removed most of BK’s membership, you’d have to continue asking around to find who did it.
 

One thing I can sympathise with you on is the hacking part, or at the very least other people knowing your password (different to above because the email et password was already in the software). I have had my now defunct Facebook broken into plenty of times, and I have always condemned people breaching the OOC line.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Cypher said:

BK’s banking software had no security or fail safe, which allowed another person to remotely use said banking software through Leo’s own negligence. No one logged into Leo’s account for anything, the bank withdrawals were strictly through BK’s banking software. 

This is objectively false, but I appreciate you contributing your immense knowledge on the inner workings of BK software. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't really surprise that the same people who have actually tried to cripple alliances by trying to make them insolvent, have stolen banks or condoned it, bragged about deletion stats before, and threatened perpetual repeat hits so far are taking some sort of moral high ground and pretending BK deserved it when other people reciprocate the bad feelings. These are all things that ruin the experience for people

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Says the leader of an alliance who is happy to see players delete rather than accept Col B's list of surrender terms. Furthermore as a leader, if your members are tired of war and on the verge of leaving, then it is your responsibility to either A. Accept surrender terms if the alliance as a whole is struggling or B. Direct your members to get individual surrender terms if they do not wish to further participate. 

Let me refer you to these threads.
 

 

As for individual members, I've never kept or restricted my own members beyond common decency.  As long as they weren't rule breaking or going over the line (I understand that's a subjective statement) with antagonizing other players, I was cool with them.  They can say what they want.  I never gagged any one.  As a matter of fact, some of the players under my lead did leave.  It's their game.  They can choose to play or not.  I'm not concerned about TGH, we're all grown adults for the most part that can make our own decisions.  I'm concerned about the overall health of the community within the game.  When a side very clearly wants to surrender to end the war, yet the other side wants to keep imposing certain restrictions just to stall out talks and hopefully push more of their opponents to leave/quit - that's a huge issue.

I'm going to keep it at that though.  I could say a lot more on the topic, but this isn't the thread for it.

--------------

Now, back on topic, it seems "hacking" didn't exactly happen.  It seems that someone simply had access to Leo's account that he gave out his own info for, whether it was through his account being tied to a bot or by direct information sharing - I'm guessing we'll soon find out.  Now whether @Alex comes down on account sharing/botting, as well as the player who used that info to their advantage - we'll see.

I'm imagining that rules will be changed for bot scripts soon due to this situation.

 

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'l just mention one last time when you make your hatred towards a group clear and a peace disproportionately helps you due to structural advantages, there isn't anything it for the other side. The war did no real damage to you after a certain point besides delaying accumulation. It's in your interest to accumulate more and build on the structural advantages which makes them bigger, so peace is by default in your favor as a group. Throughout the war your group has talked being in good shape and how everyone else is relatively poor all and that's it. So if they both hate us and have wanted to hit us before and is a group of people that have  a history of cooperation with relatively brief  disruptions along with their structural advantages, we don't really get much out of just a mere peace deal. You wouldn't have given up 50b or whatever at any point in exchange for a shorter war. We don't see peace as an inherent good. There has to be something in it for us that we benefit from at least equally.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

-snip-

Only one side had their allies swap sides.

You had our surrender.  All you had to do was negotiate it out instead of stalling it out.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You wouldn't have given up 50b or whatever at any point in exchange for a shorter war.

You got a longer war like you wanted and are still requesting around 50b from us lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Only one side had their allies swap sides.

Yeah, they know you mainly hate BK/NPO so they get to benefit from that.  They had their own goals of what they wanted to do accumulation-wise and it didn't add up for us in relative terms. We never had anyone peace out on a moral basis. It was mostly not wanting to fight, not having stuff(we even gave it when it was needed, lol), and so on. We never had anyone give a real moral reasoning for peacing out.

I don't think we ever really did anything bad to those alliances besides not wanting to white peace, not wanting to peace at x time, etc. We always explained our rationale calmly and people were onboard until they weren't.

 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Yeah, they know you mainly hate BK/NPO so they get to benefit from that.  They had their own goals of what they wanted to do accumulation-wise and it didn't add up for us in relative terms. We never had anyone peace out on a moral basis. It was mostly not wanting to fight, not having stuff(we even gave it when it was needed, lol), and so on. We never had anyone give a real moral reasoning for peacing out.

Literally all the major peace outs were on a moral basis. Let's ask them shall we?

@Asierith @Sval @Sphinx

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Literally all the major peace outs were on a moral basis.

Like which?

Carthago ran out of stuff and they didn't want to fight for the surrender term. el chach was pretty vocal that he thought we were too hated to get a surrender and should just accept white peace. Sval never said anything and has had a grudge for a long time and he has a history of ditching wars early. 

TCW: Not really moral. The arguments given were that TCW was unhappy due to war length and that they couldn't  make enough money to buy more cities so more people would be at the highest levels. These were the primary ones given. They saw the war ending as a net financial gain. That also ties into banking and other stuff. We at no point saw a moral case just that people were upset about the war length.

List goes on.

 

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Smith said:

 

image.png.2b2a64678bad6c6b3d80902d7cb253b7.png

 

 ?????

The channel was renamed after it was rumored TCW would hit. That's what it was about. You don't have to take my word for it. Ask someone else.

re Partisan edit So yeah, none of these people are exactly humanitarians or anything. You have all our logs anyway for most of the time and you can find out.

In most of the cases, we could have warred KERTCHOGG to the end of time with no objections as long we let them sit out and profit disproportionately.

 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The channel was renamed after it was rumored TCW would hit. That's what it was about. You don't have to take my word for it. Ask someone else.

re Partisan edit So yeah, none of these people are exactly humanitarians or anything. You have all our logs anyway for most of the time and you can find out.

In most of the cases, we could have warred KERTCHOGG to the end of time with no objections as long we let them sit out and profit disproportionately.

 

 

1 minute ago, Sval said:

We watched our allies become the monster they claimed they were trying to fight.
We watched them consistently refuse to act in good faith.
We burned for people who have consistently proven they were not worthy.

We have continued to watch them as they turned this into a fight for the very soul of Orbis.

Definitely no moral objections here. Move along, people.

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sval said:

We watched our allies become the monster they claimed they were trying to fight.
We watched them consistently refuse to act in good faith.
We burned for people who have consistently proven they were not worthy.

We have continued to watch them as they turned this into a fight for the very soul of Orbis.

There were no delays or anything before you peaced out. We were just going to settle for surrender/NAP and you didn't want to fight for that. 

Keep pretending to be dramatic and all when you even told me that we weren't trustworthy and this also doesn't even touch on your little plot earlier in the year lmao

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Definitely no moral objections here. Move along, people.

Can you point to anywhere in the logs where he said that?

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roquentin said:

We were just going to settle for surrender and you didn't want to fight for that.

Interesting, I didn't see that anywhere in the logs.  I might've overlooked that, mind pointing it out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

There were no delays or anything before you peaced out. We were just going to settle for surrender/NAP and you didn't want to fight for that. 

Keep pretending to be dramatic and all when you even told me that we weren't trustworthy and this also doesn't even touch on your little plot earlier in the year lmao

Can you point to anywhere in the logs where he said that?

He's literally saying now that he has moral objections. Sphinx evidently had moral objections. But let's keep our head in the sand. Everyone is just a stupid pixelhugger who betrayed you for money.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

He's literally saying now that he has moral objections. Sphinx evidently had moral objections. But let's keep our head in the sand. Everyone is just a stupid pixelhugger who betrayed you for money.

He's saying now because it looks better. You do realize he's left wars early before right?

With Sphinx, you can read all the upper leadership logs about it. If he had moral objections they were never really clear. He was happy to see TKR in bad shape.

So yeah, that is what happened.

 

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Interesting, I didn't see that anywhere in the logs.  I might've overlooked that, mind pointing it out?

i can't remember the specific place. There's a convo where Keegoz says he can get people to agree to surrender 6 month NAP when Sphinx was talking to him and then it didn't happen and you dug on the basis of people leaving the war. That showed your attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

He's saying now because it looks better. You do realize he's left wars early before right?

With Sphinx, you can read all the upper leadership logs about it. If he had moral objections they were never really clear. He was happy to see TKR in bad shape.

So yeah, that is what happened.

Right. So that's why he left one side only to end up on the other. I bet he must be ecstatic to be able to finally make bank with a nice econ build now that he's on coal A's side.

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

i can't remember the specific place. There's a convo where Keegoz says he can get people to agree to surrender 6 month NAP when Sphinx was talking to him and then it didn't happen and you dug on the basis of people leaving the war. That showed your attitude.

Please don't get started on "attitude".

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

Right. So that's why he left one side only to end up on the other. I bet he must be ecstatic to be able to finally make bank with a nice econ build now that he's on coal A's side.

Please don't get started on "attitude".

He didn't end up on Coal A's side by intention dude. They had been looking to pad infra. If this is about Sval that is. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

No, I'm referring to Sphinx.

Oh he got to build out of range a while ago. More TCW have been able to build higher infra and puff up due to the side switch. This will be profitable for those particular nations. kalev will get to buy some more stuff for sure. Well that is until he has to beige other nations in his bloc lmao and get beiged due to the current meta. The closest was maybe saying KERTCHOGG was down and out definitively and not a threat. I didn't agree and I knew enough people were just a discord ping away and would strike at an opportune time.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Oh he got to build out of range a while ago. More TCW have been able to build higher infra and puff up due to the side switch. This will be profitable for those particular nations. kalev will get to buy some more stuff for sure. Well that is until he has to beige other nations in his bloc lmao and get beiged due to the current meta. The closest was maybe saying KERTCHOGG was down and out definitively and not a threat. I didn't agree and I knew enough people were just a discord ping away and would strike at an opportune time.

I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this conversation due to moral objections.

  • Haha 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.