Jump to content
Kastor

Are we willing to forgive?

Read my post, then vote. It is a short post.  

175 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Oogie Boogie said:

snipped

Because after 9 months of war, people get sick of it. Everyone just wanted it to be over, that does not mean everyone satiated their displeasure with Col B.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOC I’m driving and can’t read responses, but I’ve thought about it and I realized I’m conflating the argument.  I’ll save these reservations if war breaks out.  The victims have a right to be mad (which I said originally).  The post is about forgiveness, not a justification for a war that hasn’t even broke out yet.  I retract my previous statement lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Oogie Boogie said:

I'm being absolutely sincere when I ask this. I wasn't around during the war. I've gathered from reading history that it dragged on way too long and the cheating side was particularly brutal in both their terms of surrender and their tactics in battle.  After the ban hammer came down, and the tides turned, why did you not only offer peace, but write the agreement, if you weren't satisfied with the terms?  I understand lasting resentment and justified sour grapes for what transpired, but I don't understand how people agreed to peace and we're still talking about another potential war for the same conflict. What was the point of peace?  A halftime agreement? If you weren't done with Cam then, I'm trying to wrap my head around why you offered peace in the first place. It just seems like reneging to me I guess. Once again, I understand that members have the right to be upset and it's mostly them threatening people, but if you hated Epi so much, why didn't you address it in the peace agreement to deal with him?  It seems like you offered peace and now, after the fact, you're making new demands that weren't agreed to initially.  I don't know.  Like I said, I wasn't around. Maybe if I had been a victim I'd feel differently.  Just my two cents.

Correct me if im wrong...

As someone who was able to be on both sides of the conflict,  both struggled to work w/ each other.  The majority of the time was spent figuring out who was where as well who agreed w/ who.  Thus lead to those being against IQ & w/ them. Same w/ F1, it was a flip flop of who agreed or disagreed w/ em.  That also lead to agruing in Coalition war chats & splitting & regrouping in different areas.  Talks started around November but kept getting delayed by Coal. A & Coal. B cus of constant change of views, intel, etc. For the longest road, Alex, & his staff where alongside NPO & co for the fact they were able to control rss, econ, MAś, FAs, & even present a lot of complaints w/ solid proof while some others were slide under to protect their people.  But just like what would happen in irl governments admit of aliens exist, those truths came out, alongside leaks from other aas which ended up starting the Great Leak War.  After a couple months of more war & more leaks coming from both sides (adding to the chaos that was still happening that I mentioned earlier) NPO ¨Cheat Day" arrived which the mods flip flopped only to mass mute, suspend, & ban on IQ forces so other aa´ś could have chances to control. That lead to an uneasy peace, treaty cancelations, & splitting of what used to be a well interlaced treaty web. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Oogie Boogie said:

OOC I’m driving and can’t read responses, but I’ve thought about it and I realized I’m conflating the argument.  I’ll save these reservations if war breaks out.  The victims have a right to be mad (which I said originally).  The post is about forgiveness, not a justification for a war that hasn’t even broke out yet.  I retract my previous statement lol.

It's just not meta to let people walk away unscathed after they do something stupid in this game is what I've been trying to say lol.

Players like @Aero, @Azazel, @King Arthur think they could change this meta and get away with things, hence the backlash that they are getting (majority from me lmfao).

(I'll respond to your other point later, I don't feel like waiting for the next war lmfao)

 

 

 

As for these "toxic posts". If you really look at them, all we are saying is that we are Undefeated, will stay Undefeated, Screw the haters, and Camelot is going to be rolled. Then we post logs that are already circulating around the game. If these attack their rl character, I am extremely sorry that PW is their life lol. For most, they are just jealous that this is the reality of PW 😄

Again, if anyone gets the idea of their irl character being attacked, well I'm extremely sorry that PW has become rl for them lmao. 

The ones that do really believe it do be like dat can @ me on the PW Main Chat so I can be crucified or report me so that I know it's for real and not some faux morale outrage lmfao

Until then CHOOOO CHOOOOO!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oogie Boogie said:

I'm being absolutely sincere when I ask this. I wasn't around during the war. I've gathered from reading history that it dragged on way too long and the cheating side was particularly brutal in both their terms of surrender and their tactics in battle.  After the ban hammer came down, and the tides turned, why did you not only offer peace, but write the agreement, if you weren't satisfied with the terms?  I understand lasting resentment and justified sour grapes for what transpired, but I don't understand how people agreed to peace and we're still talking about another potential war for the same conflict. What was the point of peace?  A halftime agreement? If you weren't done with Cam then, I'm trying to wrap my head around why you offered peace in the first place. It just seems like reneging to me I guess. Once again, I understand that members have the right to be upset and it's mostly them threatening people, but if you hated Epi so much, why didn't you address it in the peace agreement to deal with him?  It seems like you offered peace and now, after the fact, you're making new demands that weren't agreed to initially.  I don't know.  Like I said, I wasn't around. Maybe if I had been a victim I'd feel differently.  Just my two cents.

To stop the bleeding that IQ & Coalition B caused. IQ and others were attempting to get people to quit the game, the war had been raging on for close to a year - it was time to end it. 
 

Think of the peace like stitches to stop the bleeding. Had we not have put stitches in, Orbis would continue to bleed out. During the time you have stitches you are supposed to take it easy until the wound is healed. The argument at hand is that there are those that did not follow the appropriate procedures to keep the wound clean so that it would heal - they kept performing actions that has caused the wound to become infected.

How bad the infection is has yet to be seen.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to read between the lines here.  Here's my personal assessment of what's going on here.  I'm not going to argue about it, because I'm admitting I could very well be wrong and I'm not strong in these convictions.  It's just a gut feeling.  I think Camelot was sincere when they publicly apologized.  I think it was an attempt to show t$ and others that they were not afraid to only say they were sorry behind closed doors, but also in the public sphere for everyone to see. I think it was meant to be a message that they meant what they were saying in private. Here's how it blew up in their face.  A lot of people clearly have disdain for Epi. A lot of the commentary seems like it's a wink wink nudge nuge, alluding to the fact that if they simply removed Epi and threw him to the wolves that it would REALLY prove they were sincere.  That's just my take.  It could be completely off base.  Although, I think most people want them to remove Epi on their own accords, not because they were bullied into it.  Where this all backfired, because they made this public, is now if they actually decided to remove Epi for their own reasons, because they felt he was cancerous and bad for their culture, it would publicly appear that they were bullied into it or removed him to save themselves from getting rolled.  That's a REALLY bad look for the alliance and a horrible precedent to set.  Basically if they kicked Epi now it would sure look like their members could be sent to the chopping block by the rest of Orbis.  Why would anyone want to join an alliance that could be bullied by the mob to kick their members to the curb for a "cheek clapping" as Eurimbago puts it lol.  I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes.  It seems like they're backed into a corner with no good options, although I suppose they've put themselves in this situation.  Sincerely wish both sides luck in resolving this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eumirbago said:

Well yeah, I hope no one spends too much time on these games that they don't have time to care for themselves lmfao

I guess yeah, I'm happy for you? Lmfao that's what I hope for all the players in this game lol. They get entertainment, then walk away after indulging in it for however long they wanna put in it lmfao.

As far as shitposting goes, I'm sorry you attribute it to people's real lives? I guess the people that actually take the effort in this game are actually 800 pounds and live in the ghetto amirite? Can't imagine for other players if my playstyle already means I'm already frothing in the mouth waiting for Epi's post living in a basement lmfao.

Sorry, but just like you, I don't feel like spending hours on this game. I'm more of a ctrl f, ctrl c, ctrl v type of player.

Aka Yes, it is just a game get over yourself lmfao

 

2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Imagine being that guy who makes assertions about someone IRL because he doesnt like that persons posting.

I guess I had this coming when responding with a different view.... how dare I....hahaha.

I challenge you to find any one person that my post singles out.  It was meant as a mildly amusing caricature of a person online taking stuff too seriously.  Anyway, it's never been said that I'm a master of the written word.  So in the modern interest of ensuring no-one is offended either directly or obliquely, you may consider any such unintended consequence regretful.

On another note, I guess the core of my contribution in the first instance (curiously yet to be addressed without resorting to some vague Ad Hominem response should have known better on this platform) is that holding onto grudges is not generally a healthy thing.  I am not pushing for people to forgive as that is too personal an issue, and there are individuals out there who are yet to be suitably held to account.  Nor have I suggested forgetfulness, a foolish notion that would lead to a repeat of history.  I am suggesting perhaps a slightly more charitable outlook in consideration of the large numbers of new members, in both former coal A & B alliances alike, who ought not share in any planned retribution for the historical wrongs of others.  Also that it'd be nice to see some new (or at least evolving) points of difference drive the politics and war of Politics & War.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Etatsorp said:

 

I guess I had this coming when responding with a different view.... how dare I....hahaha.

I challenge you to find any one person that my post singles out.  It was meant as a mildly amusing caricature of a person online taking stuff too seriously.  Anyway, it's never been said that I'm a master of the written word.  So in the modern interest of ensuring no-one is offended either directly or obliquely, you may consider any such unintended consequence regretful.

On another note, I guess the core of my contribution in the first instance (curiously yet to be addressed without resorting to some vague Ad Hominem response should have known better on this platform) is that holding onto grudges is not generally a healthy thing.  I am not pushing for people to forgive as that is too personal an issue, and there are individuals out there who are yet to be suitably held to account.  Nor have I suggested forgetfulness, a foolish notion that would lead to a repeat of history.  I am suggesting perhaps a slightly more charitable outlook in consideration of the large numbers of new members, in both former coal A & B alliances alike, who ought not share in any planned retribution for the historical wrongs of others.  Also that it'd be nice to see some new (or at least evolving) points of difference drive the politics and war of Politics & War.

Too late, im offended ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Etatsorp said:

 

I guess I had this coming when responding with a different view.... how dare I....hahaha.

I challenge you to find any one person that my post singles out.  It was meant as a mildly amusing caricature of a person online taking stuff too seriously.  Anyway, it's never been said that I'm a master of the written word.  So in the modern interest of ensuring no-one is offended either directly or obliquely, you may consider any such unintended consequence regretful.

On another note, I guess the core of my contribution in the first instance (curiously yet to be addressed without resorting to some vague Ad Hominem response should have known better on this platform) is that holding onto grudges is not generally a healthy thing.  I am not pushing for people to forgive as that is too personal an issue, and there are individuals out there who are yet to be suitably held to account.  Nor have I suggested forgetfulness, a foolish notion that would lead to a repeat of history.  I am suggesting perhaps a slightly more charitable outlook in consideration of the large numbers of new members, in both former coal A & B alliances alike, who ought not share in any planned retribution for the historical wrongs of others.  Also that it'd be nice to see some new (or at least evolving) points of difference drive the politics and war of Politics & War.

Oh good lmfao I've been getting hit with the "HE'S DOING OOC ATTACKS" line for a bit now and I can't differentiate anymore.

My apologies haha

My responses to Camelot is a result of them continuously trying to change the narrative of what previously happened. Just out here making sure that the history stays the way it happened and not some made up bullshit by people.

They have been doing it through all channels of public communication in Orbis. I am merely replying to their posts and doing so in a grander stage, where everything is set in stone, to make sure that they can't get away with it. Will it destroy my character? So be it. It's going down with them 😆

Tho it should speak wonders about who @Epi, @Azazel@King Arthur, and @Aero were if a village idiot can just come in out of nowhere and blindside them and be forced to back off. They know wut it do.

But yes, my tone will definitely change to something more productive like with @RightHonorable. He knows wut it do.

Edited by Eumirbago
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oogie Boogie said:

I'm being absolutely sincere when I ask this. I wasn't around during the war. I've gathered from reading history that it dragged on way too long and the cheating side was particularly brutal in both their terms of surrender and their tactics in battle.  After the ban hammer came down, and the tides turned, why did you not only offer peace, but write the agreement, if you weren't satisfied with the terms?  I understand lasting resentment and justified sour grapes for what transpired, but I don't understand how people agreed to peace and we're still talking about another potential war for the same conflict. What was the point of peace?  A halftime agreement? If you weren't done with Cam then, I'm trying to wrap my head around why you offered peace in the first place. It just seems like reneging to me I guess. Once again, I understand that members have the right to be upset and it's mostly them threatening people, but if you hated Epi so much, why didn't you address it in the peace agreement to deal with him?  It seems like you offered peace and now, after the fact, you're making new demands that weren't agreed to initially.  I don't know.  Like I said, I wasn't around. Maybe if I had been a victim I'd feel differently.  Just my two cents.

At that point everyone was tired of arguing about peace. They just peaced to sort of reset everything and recoup.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Oogie Boogie said:

I'm being absolutely sincere when I ask this. I wasn't around during the war. I've gathered from reading history that it dragged on way too long and the cheating side was particularly brutal in both their terms of surrender and their tactics in battle.  After the ban hammer came down, and the tides turned, why did you not only offer peace, but write the agreement, if you weren't satisfied with the terms?  I understand lasting resentment and justified sour grapes for what transpired, but I don't understand how people agreed to peace and we're still talking about another potential war for the same conflict. What was the point of peace?  A halftime agreement? If you weren't done with Cam then, I'm trying to wrap my head around why you offered peace in the first place. It just seems like reneging to me I guess. Once again, I understand that members have the right to be upset and it's mostly them threatening people, but if you hated Epi so much, why didn't you address it in the peace agreement to deal with him?  It seems like you offered peace and now, after the fact, you're making new demands that weren't agreed to initially.  I don't know.  Like I said, I wasn't around. Maybe if I had been a victim I'd feel differently.  Just my two cents.

Unless someone breaches the NAP, there's no deal to renege on. Absent a superceding agreement, anyone is justified in attacking anyone else for any or no reason. There's no need for a 'point' to war.

As for the 'point' of peace, it's rather simple really: everyone needed a good solid break. The fact that the wounds haven't healed, nor ever will heal fully, doesn't mean that the peace was wasted.

An important bit of context that you're missing, by the way, is that IQ conducted themselves reprehensibly and indefensibly on both IC and OOC levels. They constantly walked back on their own assurances and promises, never once acting in good faith whatsoever. Camelot was not the worst of it, not even close, but even to this day they've failed to make any apologies that they didn't immediately undermine the credibility of. Really, the only thing that's saving their reputation at all is the simple fact that they really were 'just following orders', and could not have constructively objected to their overlords regardless.

An even more important bit of context that you really desperately need to be aware of is this:

14 hours ago, Oogie Boogie said:

It seems like you offered peace and now, after the fact, you're making new demands that weren't agreed to initially.

That, right there? The ability do do exactly that was IQ's precondition for even beginning the process of formulating the structure of peace discussions, let alone peace discussions themselves. They were completely unwilling to consider the possibility of being held accountable for their own terms, and constantly moved the goalposts with the explicit intention of preventing peace from accidentally occuring. If you find 'making new demands that weren't agreed to initially' distasteful, then yes. As a victim, you would feel differently, because that was what went down.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that past transgressions need to be forgiven as well as forgotten.  I say this not because those that supported Col B did nothing wrong, but because the powers that were no longer are.  When the defiant leaders of Col B that were pushing for the literal death of the game left, so too did their fanatic ideology.  This in turn opened up the game to a whole new world without the likes of NPO and other toxic, like-minded individuals.  Who supported who during the war is redundant at this point.  We all want to leave the stupid war we were forced to fight in back in the past, and that is where it should stay.  Who did what during the war is irrelevant today because the circumstances in this era are far different from what they were a year ago.  And to start up any new war on the basis of 'revenge' honestly makes you no better than leaders that pushed a war for nine months to see us all delete.  Find new reasons to start a war...  Being petty isn't a good one in my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone needs an enemy, it's what drives you to be better.  Have you not been watching the Micheal Jordan doc?

It's even better when you don't have to make up reasons to want to roll them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2020 at 11:35 AM, Eumirbago said:

Oh good lmfao I've been getting hit with the "HE'S DOING OOC ATTACKS" line for a bit now and I can't differentiate anymore.

My apologies haha

My responses to Camelot is a result of them continuously trying to change the narrative of what previously happened. Just out here making sure that the history stays the way it happened and not some made up bullshit by people.

They have been doing it through all channels of public communication in Orbis. I am merely replying to their posts and doing so in a grander stage, where everything is set in stone, to make sure that they can't get away with it. Will it destroy my character? So be it. It's going down with them 😆

Tho it should speak wonders about who @Epi, @Azazel@King Arthur, and @Aero were if a village idiot can just come in out of nowhere and blindside them and be forced to back off. They know wut it do.

But yes, my tone will definitely change to something more productive like with @RightHonorable. He knows wut it do.

Ah the old IC/OOC divide.  It is indeed difficult to discern at times.  I'm certainly not an old hand in online communities such as this, but it seems some like to bring the IC/OOC element into any discussion, very occasionally as a valid response, but mostly as some sort of reverse Ad Hominem or straw man argument.  In my view, people who break the rules automatically are operating OOC - the rules of the game apply to all players and an IC bad-man antagonist operating within the rules of the game could be a much valued contributor.  An IC lovable character breaking the rules (caveat being intent to cheat etc) is not an OOC good person (as far as can be determined by the average online punter anyway) and is not a valuable contributor to the game IMO. 

Goons springs to mind at this juncture.  I had my reservations from the beginning from gut instinct, difficult to sustain in the face of a large portion of the game claiming they were all just IC and were playing within the rules (everyone tripping over themselves to jump on board the anti-nazism agenda not a bad thing in itself ofc), and that OOC they were all just great fun peeps.  But there were clues to their true OOC character including IMO their using moderation as a weapon (rule breaking if proven), and the appearance of their mercy board.  But what sealed the deal as to their true poisonous OOC character was their response when the coal B (not everyone I know) cheating scandal was exposed and their voluminous libelous claims against Alex out of pure spite.  These actions remain unforgiven in my mind, but a non-issue because they're happily gone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Syrachime said:

I do think that past transgressions need to be forgiven as well as forgotten.  I say this not because those that supported Col B did nothing wrong, but because the powers that were no longer are.  When the defiant leaders of Col B that were pushing for the literal death of the game left, so too did their fanatic ideology.  This in turn opened up the game to a whole new world without the likes of NPO and other toxic, like-minded individuals.  Who supported who during the war is redundant at this point.  We all want to leave the stupid war we were forced to fight in back in the past, and that is where it should stay.  Who did what during the war is irrelevant today because the circumstances in this era are far different from what they were a year ago.  And to start up any new war on the basis of 'revenge' honestly makes you no better than leaders that pushed a war for nine months to see us all delete.  Find new reasons to start a war...  Being petty isn't a good one in my opinion.

Well frick me in the ass and call me Roquentin then.

It’s almost as if people struggle to ‘forgive and forget’ in less than half the time the war actually lasted after being strangled with the intention of bring driven out of the game for 8 months.

The thoughts laid out by the vast majority of people here isn’t an eternal grudge like NPO had (to the point where they defined their entire policy with certain alliances as their enemies essentially for their entire existence), people here are simply saying that when the NAP comes around Camelot may very well get rolled. It’s a more than reasonable expectation to hold. What happens after that war is up to them, to truly prove that their FA has genuinely shifted from the spiteful machine of IQ.

While I do believe that it’s necessary for people to eventually move on from the past instead of festering toxicity leading to Paracov 2.0, it’s also important to actually use politics in this game.

Sure, wars declared simply for ‘fun’ can bring enjoyment, but at the same time players often need a reason to keep fighting, a CB. If we set the precedent of ‘oh it’s in the past’ without a single war fought, what type of future does that set in terms of wars?

Tldr; sure, forgive but not instantly, and forget, but not instantly. Also, frick you for making me type this on phone ❤️

Edited by Bacchus
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

i mean you also got rolled at the very start of the war as well, to which Grumpy and Guardian say... your welcome.

Just a tussle between friends. That black eye looked manly on us for a while anyway!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of these games is to continually hold grudges in order to force political movement. The tipping point is when you push too far; resulting in wanton destruction or scattering (disbandment).

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Case in point.

Besides, the point of these games is to forge an interesting story and allow every player in it to have fun doing so.

Either way, you're a solid example of 'going too far'.

I suppose for some, but it's very misguided to think that a portion of the playerbase isn't playing to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing to win and playing to destroy the game are not the same thing. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Critters said:

Playing to win and playing to destroy the game are not the same thing. 

You're not even really supposed to do either of those, because the game is supposed to be persistent.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hime-sama said:

You're not even really supposed to do either of those, because the game is supposed to be persistent.

Exactly!

There's no such thing as 'winning' in the sense of winning a game of checkers or a round of TF2; you can struggle for it as long as you like but that doesn't change the simple fact that it isn't an applicable concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 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.