Jump to content

Possible Conclusions on Global War 16's genesis and continuation


Phoenyx
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Orcinus Orca said:

Problem is, aside from Patrick in Eclipse, the rest of your "audience" agrees with Arric here. You don't seem to realize that.

You're only looking at the responses to my posts here. Some aren't that keen on making their feelings known here in the forum so much, but still say things to me in more private settings. 

20 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

That does raise the question, if not in fact actually beg the question of who the actual heck your intended audience even is.

 

Believe it or not, I don't actually reveal everything I know. 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Believe it or not, I don't actually reveal everything I know. 

Not only does that not actually respond to my post, but in fact is laughable as you're apparently incapable of withholding anything.

16 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

You're only looking at the responses to my posts here. Some aren't that keen on making their feelings known here in the forum so much, but still say things to me in more private settings.

Including, apparently, people's private communications to you.

Friend, that? That's just rude. Don't do that to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Not only does that not actually respond to my post, but in fact is laughable as you're apparently incapable of withholding anything.

No, I actually do with hold things, but of course you wouldn't know what those things are.

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Including, apparently, people's private communications to you.

Friend, that? That's just rude. Don't do that to people.

 

Here's the issue- the thoughts of some -really- make a difference. Alliance leaders, say. Sometimes, I think that what they say is so important, that I think it's best to reveal it than to simply hold on to it. There is, of course, a price that frequently has to be paid for that.

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

No, I actually do with hold things, but of course you wouldn't know what those things are.

Here's the issue- the thoughts of some -really- make a difference. Alliance leaders, say. Sometimes, I think that what they say is so important, that I think it's best to reveal it than to simply hold on to it. There is, of course, a price that frequently has to be paid for that.

"Frequently" is probably not the most accurate word here.  I doubt you are ever going to get more opportunities, unless someone out there is really, really, profoundly stupid enough to tell you anything of even mild importance ever again.

Edited by HeroofTime55

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, HeroofTime55 said:

"Frequently" is probably not the most accurate word here.  I doubt you are ever going to get more opportunities, unless someone out there is really, really, profoundly stupid enough to tell you anything of even mild importance ever again.

I've actually been given more opportunities. I think the main issue here is I'm fairly new to all of this. Clearly, I made some mistakes at first, but I'm getting a better feel for the politics here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I've actually been given more opportunities. I think the main issue here is I'm fairly new to all of this. Clearly, I made some mistakes at first, but I'm getting a better feel for the politics here. 

They have not told you anything new that they don't expect you to spill on the forums.  Almost certainly they've just fed you their public narrative at this point.  You are the antonym of OPSEC.

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2020 at 3:28 PM, HeroofTime55 said:

They have not told you anything new that they don't expect you to spill on the forums.  Almost certainly they've just fed you their public narrative at this point.  You are the antonym of OPSEC.

 

Lol :-p. There is some truth to what you say, but it's only partial. Put simply, I do actually maintain some things in private. The trick is to have a fairly good feel for what I will keep private and to know what I will reveal. Once people get a feel for this, it's easier to speak to me. Clearly, some people still believe it's worth taking the risk. Another thing- if I believe in someone, it's pretty hard to shake my faith in them, barring me finding strong evidence that suggests they weren't being honest with me. I like to think that I am good at figuring out the truth given sufficient information and time, but this is something that everyone can judge for themselves as time goes by. 

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 4:29 AM, Phoenyx said:

I know there are those who don't like my posts. To them I say, sure, put me on ignore or what have you. If you keep on reading, though, then clearly there is -something- about them that is keeping you here. So, as mentioned yesterday in a post, I think I may have reached some final conclusions as to the genesis and continuation of Global War 16.

 

I believe that at best, it started due to a misunderstanding on Boyce's part, with his notion that HM/TCW/Swamp was going to attack soon, possibly in early December. Quack decided Boyce words could be trusted and that it would be for them to strike first. From everything I've read, it would seem Boyce misunderstood plans for a defensive Coalition and instead took them for plans for an offensive Coalition. Boyce and Partisan may have since begun to have doubts as to the veracity of this, but they may feel that it's best to continue onward with this CB then admit they may have been mistaken.

 

Some time after Partisan made a CB thread that included Boyce's statement of the afore mentioned forces allegedly conspiring to attack Quack, Ronnie stated that Swamp had approached HM, suggesting that they attack Quack. I believe his memory of events might have been influenced by Partisan's CB. When Ronnie explained to me that he hadn't actually spoken to anyone in Swamp and showed me the log of his conversation with a fellow HM leader, which was much more ambiguous than Ronnie's statement, I came to the conclusion that Ronnie's fellow HM leader was simply referring to the defensive Coalition that Swamp et al have made no bones about creating. Initially, I thought it should be a simple matter for Ronnie to get clarification from his fellow HM leader as to what he meant and I asked him if he'd do so. Ronnie never responded to this line of questioning, however. For a while, this frustrated me- why wouldn't he want to clear this up? I finally came up with a theory that may fit- he may have realized that he'd made a mistake and that his fellow HM leader had indeed only been referring to the defensive Coalition that in fact occurred. However, for him to admit that might make his judgement not look so good and so he decided it would be better to just remain silent on the issue.

 

That's pretty much it.

Wow ok miscommunication goes a long way

World leaders take notes on this you may need it

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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...
 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.