Jump to content

An Appeal to Phoenyx (Peace negotiations/Propaganda)


Sir Scarfalot
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Scarf, you seem to be assuming that my primary goal is to be popular among forum voters. It's not. My primary goal for a while was to make sense of the global war- why did it happen, whose narrative(s) were right, things of that nature

Interesting.... you fail to realize that motivations and narratives can actually be true and different for both warring parties. Meaning it's simply what side you are on that will decide who's narriative is "right".

 

16 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Not too long after I got involved, my own reputation was put in question. So at this point, it's not just to try to make the truth of what happened in the global war, it's also to clear my own name. A

Not really sure what happened to you beside consistent posting that upset your alliance government, I don't agree with forcing members to stay quite or push then to post a certain viewpoint however I also don't blame them. 

 

Once again truth is completely subjective to who you are and what side you support. It's my understanding that multiple people have tried to explain the war to you, it's basically on you at this point if you have not formulated a decisive point of view 

 

But more so on point, the upvotes do not mean you have a following, they mean someone was able to relate to what you said or agree on that specific post. The forums are a captive audience simply due to the fact it's a public forum where opinions and viewpoints for major alliances and events are shared. The fact you have so many more downvotes should be a sign you are not exactly posting anything of substance or anything of value 

Edited by Azazel
  • Upvote 4

0b3897cd640f95254329f7a2d45d8c77b1c120e.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Azazel said:

  

17 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Scarf, you seem to be assuming that my primary goal is to be popular among forum voters. It's not. My primary goal for a while was to make sense of the global war- why did it happen, whose narrative(s) were right, things of that nature.

 

Interesting.... you fail to realize that motivations and narratives can actually be true and different for both warring parties. Meaning it's simply what side you are on that will decide who's narriative is "right".

 

Seems like you're going for Obi-Wan's version of the truth :-p...

 

 

Now I certainly think it was a cool star wars line, and there can certainly be times when stretching the truth to its breaking point and beyond has its uses, but I personally believe that there is really only one truth. Getting to that truth frequently isn't easy and finding it has issues of its own. Quoting Frank Herbert from one of his Dune novels: "“Beware of the truth.... Although much sought after, truth can be dangerous to the seeker. Myths and reassuring lies are much easier to find and believe. If you find a truth, even a temporary one, it can demand that you make painful changes." So I can certainly understand why people would like to have their own subjective "truths". It's just not for me.

  

1 hour ago, Azazel said:

Not really sure what happened to you besides consistent posting that upset your alliance government, I don't agree with forcing members to stay quiet or push them to post a certain viewpoint however I also don't blame them. 

Here's what Harry Flashman, FA for my first Alliance, told me before we realized that my being in TFP wasn't going to work for either of us:

eaa7992e5743f18de6189cbf74aa1f47.webp?si

Harry Flashman11/09/2020

Hey. I saw your post on the forum. I’m asking again, can you please stop trying to speak for both this alliance and Swamp; and then in turn, Rose. We have relationships with people, developed over years in this game and your public guesses about what is going on are not helping them or us; and are in parts entirely inaccurate. I know you mean well but please allow our relevant government members, namely Cosmos, Quichwe and me, to do the talking where FA is concerned. Positions in government do come along from time to time and are open on a purely merit basis to anyone in TFP, some of those promoted at the weekend waited six months for their turn to arrive.

 

I believe I got more accurate later, but by then we'd already went our separate ways. It may also be my approach. I wouldn't be surprised if large Alliances are large precisely because they know how to handle politics in such a way that they don't ruffle the feathers of other large alliances too much. Perhaps Avoiding to mention certain painful truths that may be part of this. 

 

  

1 hour ago, Azazel said:

Once again truth is completely subjective to who you are and what side you support. It's my understanding that multiple people have tried to explain the war to you, it's basically on you at this point if you have not formulated a decisive point of view 

 

To be honest, I believe that the -objective- version of the truth may well be the version that I was told by my original Alliance, TFP. Certain details may have been missing, but it doesn't change the main narrative. What I had wanted and still want was to try to publicize the objective truth, put it into the history books. I thought trying to focus on getting people to agree to this might help end the war and I still think it could reduce if not eliminate certain grudges now that the war has ended. I think we can agree that, in a sense, wars that end with strong disagreements don't really end, per se- they are only put on pause. Better to work on those disagreements while on pause then when the wars are put on play again.

 

1 hour ago, Azazel said:

But more so on point, the upvotes do not mean you have a following, they mean someone was able to relate to what you said or agree on that specific post. The forums are a captive audience simply due to the fact it's a public forum where opinions and viewpoints for major alliances and events are shared. The fact you have so many more downvotes should be a sign you are not exactly posting anything of substance or anything of value 

 

I happen to know that some people like what I have to say regarding the global war. Firwof is just about the only one who doesn't mind being public about it. When one gains powerful enemies, it stands to reason that most wouldn't want to be publicly associated with them, even if they agree with them in private.

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you're C13 and have been playing just slightly longer than I.  Let me be clear:  We don't know anything.  The real foreign affairs work is done at a level higher than you and I would even be aware about.  When our alliance and sphere leaders go to discuss things like peace settlements, even people in said alliance govs have very little idea what's going on other than maybe the leader, 2ic, and high gov FA.

The Orbis World Forums are a stage - and the posters here are merely players.  You're not going to be able to uncover what goes on in those closed-off talks via postings on the OWF.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BrythonLexi said:

Dude, you're C13 and have been playing just slightly longer than I.  Let me be clear:  We don't know anything.  The real foreign affairs work is done at a level higher than you and I would even be aware about.  When our alliance and sphere leaders go to discuss things like peace settlements, even people in said alliance govs have very little idea what's going on other than maybe the leader, 2ic, and high gov FA.

The Orbis World Forums are a stage - and the posters here are merely players.  You're not going to be able to uncover what goes on in those closed-off talks via postings on the OWF.

 

At the start, I actually got some very interesting information from 2 of the leaders on the Anti Quack side of things. Based on this, as well as other information, I think I figured out what started Global War 16 and I think most of the leaders on the non Quack side have as well- namely, that tCW, HM and Swamp had no plans to attack Quack first. The Quack side believed Boyce' allegation that TCW, HM and Swamp were probably going to attack Quack in December or January. Now, it was one thing to believe this before the war started- they were afraid that had they tried to confirm Boyce' allegation, they might have sprung an earlier attack.

 

Once the war started, the Quack version of events got a boost from Ronny, who publicly admitted that he and HM had apparently briefly considered attacking Quack if Rose were to be part of the attack, after a fellow told him that Swamp had reached out to him about the possibility of "countering Quack's growth".  The key word to remember here is is briefly. Ronny never said that Rose agreed to do so and he also said that after this minor blip on the radar screen, the notion of attacking Quack apparently disappeared.

 

Tyrion publicly stated that Swamp had had no plans to attack Quack, but he did acknowledge that perhaps someone in Swamp had brought up the idea with HM. Now, if I'd been Tyrion's position, I would have probably asked Ronny who his source was, as I did in fact do. But I'm not. Because he hadn't asked, Ronny never shared the conversation he had had with a fellow HM leader that led him to believe that Swamp wanted to attack Quack with the help of one or more other spheres. He did reveal after I asked him though, and for that, I am thankful. Both Tyrion and I felt that the source's words were much more ambiguous and that it was quite possible that Ronny's source may simply have been referring to the defensive treaties that Swamp was working on in order to avoid getting rolled by Quack should Quack choose to attack them.

 

The actual conversation I had with Tyrion after I shared Ronny's chat with his unknown HM leader source is actually fairly interesting for historical purposes. Here it is:

**

Lord Tyrion11/21/2020 Thanks.  People keep using the word "curb" their growth, which to me means military action.  But the quote that was actually used says "counter" which indicates more obtaining balance/closing the gap

Phoenyx7511/21/2020 Exactly

Lord Tyrion11/21/2020 curb means I want to bring you down.  Counter means I make my own move to position myself stronger

Phoenyx7511/21/2020 Partisan saw the quote and still thinks it meant to attack Quack. I think if we could just get Ronnie to talk to this HM leader and see what he meant... Might help resolve this.

Lord Tyrion11/21/2020 You tried, he's not interested in outting his source it seems

Phoenyx7511/21/2020 You may be right. Don't you think it'd be good if he did though? What I'm getting at is if you were to say that you would like to know publicly... It could perhaps go a long way to convincing any detractors that you are also in the dark as to this source.

Lord Tyrion11/21/2020 I don't have a relationship with Ronny, you've probably talked to him more than I ever have.  But given that this whole thing has me not well liked by one sphere, I'm not really wanting to risk having another dislike me for trying to put any political pressure on them.  At the end of the day, the people in Rose and Hedge that are the decision makers know the facts of the situation - they all know there was no offensive being formed.  Quack can ultimately think what they want to think, it's not going to change the fact that the rest of the spheres know what transpired.

Phoenyx7511/21/2020 Are you sure about Ronny though? I think that, like Partisan, he may have at least initially thought that Swamp -did- want to do a first strike. Maybe he's having second thoughts now, don't know.

Lord Tyrion11/21/2020 But at the same time, in order to do that he'd have to throw another leader and ally in HM under the bus a little bit

Phoenyx7511/21/2020 mm Well, I guess I can keep on badgering- probably more through private channels now. I really think that the end of the war might be in exploring these things but like you suggest, the whole thing is pretty sensitive.

Lord Tyrion11/21/2020 Has Ronny given you a reason for not wanting to share his source?

Phoenyx7511/21/2020 No I wish he had. But... I have talked to someone else in Grumpy It seems that [Ronny] got in trouble for sharing anything I think HM didn't even like his initial post in public concerning this. May have liked his leak to me even less, don't know.

Lord Tyrion11/21/2020 Nobody liked his post lol

Phoenyx7511/21/2020 Lol 😛 Well, the other side certainly used it, even did an ad and all

Lord Tyrion11/21/2020 Even if it were accurate, idk why you'd put that out there

Phoenyx7511/21/2020 I kind of do... It's like, maybe he felt there was some truth to what Partisan was saying. Maybe Partisan's leaks actually persuaded him of this. I mean I think it's good to be honest, but the irony here is that what he believes to be true may actually be false.

**

I found it ironical because of the fact that Ronny was doing himself no favours in believing what is apparently a false belief to begin with. It was painting one of his allies as being the aggressor when all the hard evidence suggested this wasn't actually the case.

 

Edited by Phoenyx
slight edit
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing - what you've "revealed" is kinda public knowledge anyway.  All the different spheres gave their public reasons for fighting - but that's irrelevant.  The OWF has, is, and always will be a stage.  It's kinda like basing your knowledge of the Scottish monarchy off Macbeth.  The real action, again, is behind closed doors.  The things every alliance / sphere says in public, and what they say in the closed door discussions, is completely different.

There's paperless treaties, different possible CBs, and all sorts of things that I don't have any idea about, and i'm the low gov FA person for ASM.  The real politics of this game happens in secret.

Edit: Let me give an example from the real world.  In 1618, Bohemian aristocrats chucked a Holy Roman official out of a window in Prague, igniting the Thirty Years War - a conflict that dragged Europe into a decades-long slaughter.  The common soldier was fighting for God, be it Catholic rule or Protestant.  However, the real reason many of these empires went to war was completely different.  King Gustavus Adolfus of Sweden claimed to be fighting in defense of Protestantism - but was really fighting to expand Swedish control in the Baltic and northern Germany.  The French rode out to combat the Holy Roman Empire, despite both of them being nominally Catholic - because the French wanted to curb Austrian aggression.

The casus bellis we are given are not the actual causes for war.  But we will likely never know what really ignites these things, because they happen in secret and for underhanded reasons.  It is not our place to know, and that is why we are not at the negotiation tables.

Edited by BrythonLexi
Adding example
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

That's the thing - what you've "revealed" is kinda public knowledge anyway.

 

It certainly is now. I've revealed it publicly, after all. 

 

31 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

All the different spheres gave their public reasons for fighting - but that's irrelevant.

 

I strongly disagree with you there.

 

  

32 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

The OWF has, is, and always will be a stage.  It's kinda like basing your knowledge of the Scottish monarchy off Macbeth.  The real action, again, is behind closed doors. The real action, again, is behind closed doors.  The things every alliance / sphere says in public, and what they say in the closed door discussions, is completely different.

I find it immensely ironical that you would bring up Macbeth, which in turn leads to its creator. Allegedly, that was Shakespeare. I believe the truth was revealed in the film Anonymous. Have you seen it? If not, you might want to take a look at the trailer:

 

Sometimes, the truth is not what it appears to be. But with enough digging, you can frequently get to it. And you don't have to be royalty to do the digging.

 

  

37 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

There's paperless treaties, different possible CBs, and all sorts of things that I don't have any idea about, and i'm the low gov FA person for ASM.  The real politics of this game happens in secret.

 

Paperless treaties were acknowledged, but the thing is, they were all -defensive- paperless treaties. One of them, Rose's treaty to defend HM if it were attacked by Quack, apparently only happened hours before Quack actually attacked, according to Ronny himself. So yes, a lot of the big decisions -originate- in secret, but as time goes by, they can make it to the public sphere.

 

  

39 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Edit: Let me give an example from the real world.  In 1618, Bohemian aristocrats chucked a Holy Roman official out of a window in Prague, igniting the Thirty Years War - a conflict that dragged Europe into a decades-long slaughter.  The common soldier was fighting for God, be it Catholic rule or Protestant.  However, the real reason many of these empires went to war was completely different.  King Gustavus Adolfus of Sweden claimed to be fighting in defense of Protestantism - but was really fighting to expand Swedish control in the Baltic and northern Germany.  The French rode out to combat the Holy Roman Empire, despite both of them being nominally Catholic - because the French wanted to curb Austrian aggression.

The casus bellis we are given are not the actual causes for war.  But we will likely never know what really ignites these things, because they happen in secret and for underhanded reasons.  It is not our place to know, and that is why we are not at the negotiation tables.

 

Well, I can certainly agree that wars are frequently started for reasons that aren't generally accepted by the public. To give a more recent example, I think that Vietnam war would qualify. However, I think the truth is out there and its general outlines can frequently be discovered to those who are willing to put in the time and the effort to find them. As to whether it is our place to know, I think that ultimately depends on one's moral leanings. If one wants to know why one is at war, in a game or in real life, then one tends to put a lot of effort into finding out. If not, then one won't find out. However, I think we can all agree that Nazi soldiers saying that they were "just following orders" is not a reason that most of us would like to say in the event that we ever did something wrong. One can't go too wrong in a game, but still, I think it can be good training for when the choices are not all fun and games.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

Phoenyx you want to know why we all laugh at you? You don't understand opsec. You posted 2 private conversations you had with alliance leaders in a single post in this thread. Why would anyone take you seriously and tell you shit when that's what you do?

 

Here's the thing about opscec. I think that sometimes, it doesn't even benefit the people who would like it to remain opsec. Certainly now that the hot war is over. Some people like me aren't interested in being part of what I like to call the "ra ra" crowd, cheering their side on regardless of what the truth is. Some people want to know why the war -really- started. By sharing what I know, it is my hope that help in researching this. One thing I hope that some people noticed- Tyrion, being the leader of one of the highest scoring Alliances in the game, certainly knows a fair amount of opsec info. But did you notice that he hadn't known about Ronny's conversation with the HM leader? 

 

Now, I don't know why Tyrion didn't ask Ronny what his source of information was. Regardless, it's quite clear that he didn't know and that I may have helped -him- to understand a piece of a certain puzzle. I think we need more investigators to help unravel the truth in these matters, not less. In order to do this, though, sometimes you have to give some information to receive some information. 

 

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I don't know why Tyrion didn't ask Ronny what his source of information was

Because Ronny is good, and he's been a player for a very, very long time. He has a trustworthy reputation. 
What I don't understand is why a self admitted new player who does not seem to understand what the term 'opsec' means and changes alliances the way most of us change pants feels that player like Ronny or Tyrion owe them an explanation. These players lead, that is enough for those who follow them. It is enough for the rest of us. It should be enough for you. We all follow our leaders. When they start to consistently make bad decisions, most alliances replace those leaders. The fact that people like Ronny are still leading speaks volumes to their credit. 

You need to lurk more.

Honestly, truthfully no offense intended, and I hope you have a merry Christmas.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief... I can't even.

But I'll try. @Phoenyx, there's a concept that you should be introduced to: It's called "trust".

"Trust" means considering that other people may know more than you do, and therefore their decisions may be better for you, personally, than you might think given what you think you know at the time. "Trust" means that when you find someone worthy of following, you at least consider what they say and do to be at least possibly correct, and you give them the benefit of the doubt and don't outright revolt against their decisions by default.

You see, sometimes we don't know things. Either our understanding is flawed, or we simply don't have the information ahead of time. Ideally of course we would research that information, but it is logistically impossible to develop a full scholarly knowledge that's objectively true about literally everything, especially complex multiplayer environments such as politics and warfare wherein there are multiple competing reasons for the same exact things even from the same side, let alone opposing sides. We can indeed do so with hindsight, but even the deepest spies and highest lords of this realm cannot achieve such clarity by the time decisions must be made. Therefore, in those cases, we must delegate at least some of our decision making process to our leaders, allies, or advisors. Ones that we "trust", so that we can make a decision with a much more reasonable level of surety.

When we refuse to "trust", however, we must act entirely on our own observations, and it is physically impossible to achieve full and comprehensive observation of all things. One can achieve that with hindsight, eventually, given sufficient "trust" to be informed by those that know the bits one does not. However, by then the world has moved on and decisions have to be made that need observations from the present. Therefore, "trust" is mandatory in order to compete on an equal level as anyone else, and mandatory in order to make decisions that are beneficial for, or at least less detrimental to those that "trust" the one making the decisions.

Thing is, while you might know these things in terms of yourself, your selfishness has blinded you to the most fundamental truth of all: "Trust" works both ways. You have to make decisions based on your observations and research... and so does everyone else.

There's therefore another concept you should be told about: It's called "insult".

"Insult" can sometimes mean making it clear to someone that they should not trust you. Even if you intend to deal with them fairly, their observations of you are negatively impacted. Any insight you might give them, even if true and accurate, are rendered useless by virtue of your prior actions towards them creating an environment devoid of "trust". When you re-post something that someone told you privately and in confidence, then you "insult" them and show them that they should not have "trusted" their assumption of privacy and confidentiality. When this happens, they cannot "trust" anything else about you without risk, so they must remain mindful of that. This is costly, and when one's decisions affect others' welfare or effect changes in the environment of the world, such costs cannot be taken lightly. Thus, it is simpler and safer to just plain not "trust" you after such an "insult".

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
danged quote marks
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically adding onto "When you re-post something that someone told you privately and in confidence, then you insult them and show them that they should not have "trusted" their assumption of privacy and confidentiality."

This, Pheonyx, is why "opsec" exists.  Things that are classified as secrets, because them being leaked can negatively impact everybody, be it reputation or otherwise.  If somebody had leaked the paperless treaties among Hedge, Rose, etc., then things would have gone on very differently - Quack might not have attacked, the coalition may have never formed or rushed to eachothers mutual defense, etc.  If somebody had leaked Quack's plans to attack Rose and/or Hedge (I have heard variations of who they planned on hitting first), Rose/Hedge may have attacked first (if they didn't - again, it is unclear).

"Trust" plays an important role in our community, and the designation of "opsec" is there for the exact reason of "trust" and allowing plans to be safely executed - instead of the details being leaked by any random member, foiling the entire plan.  If Quack's plans were leaked, they could have been dogpiled even faster.  If Hedge/Rose/etc.'s paperless treaties were leaked, that could have spelt doom to the whole coalition and maybe lose them the war.

By violating this "trust", not only would more people lose pixels (a meaningless thing in a web game, of course), but real life relationships could be severed over the resulting paranoia.  This game community allowed me to find a home with comrades.  If I had instead leaked everything ASM ever did to RON or something, I could've sacrificed myself to being homeless for Gods knows how much longer.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:

Because Ronny is good, and he's been a player for a very, very long time. He has a trustworthy reputation. 

You misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that Tyrion didn't trust that Ronny was saying what he believed to be true. The issue is whether Ronny interpreted what this HM leader said correctly. If you'd read Tyrion's response after I showed him Ronny's HM leader's statement, I think it's clear that Tyrion was thinking the same thing I was, namely that Ronny may have misinterpreted what the HM leader was saying. 

  

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:

What I don't understand is why a self admitted new player who does not seem to understand what the term 'opsec' means...

 

I understand what it means. The issue here is whether being too close to the chest with one's information can actually backfire. I think that's what happened here. Put another way, why is it that I was the one showing Tyrion Ronny's source material for his famous statement? Don't you think it would have been better if Ronny had shared it with Tyrion himself? If that had happened, Tyrion could have been asking Ronny the questions he was asking me. What we have here is failure to communicate.

 

  

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:

and changes alliances the way most of us change pants

 

I think a little context is in order here. I switched Alliances 4 times since I started playing. 3 out of the 4 times, I switched because I wanted to continue to post about the global war in the way that I'd been doing. In the last instance (my 3rd switch), I did so because I had been invited to join Rose and the temptation to be in the Alliance with people like Vekz and... funny story guy (sorry, his name escapes me right now) won out. The fact that they were also the Alliance with the highest score in the game was just icing on the cake. Also, I had thought that the guy who invited me understood that I really liked posting in the forum. Perhaps he didn't see the problem with it, but once I got into the Alliance, it soon became an issue, so that's why i switched back to the Alliance I'm now in.

 

  

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:

feels that player like Ronny or Tyrion owe them an explanation.

 

I think the main issue here may be that we just have different mindsets. I know that, for many soldiers, they hear orders to attack x/y/z Alliance and they carry them out. And that's fine if that's the type of player you are. I'm not. I want to know -why- I'm attacking someone. And I did get some cursory explanations from the Alliance I started out with and for a little bit of time, that was enough. But I soon found out that I wanted to know more and it became clear to me that all the main parties in the war were conversing about it here. So I asked some questions. I ended up getting some answers that, to this day, I find to be interesting, and I have done my best to try to share what I have learned. Now, I get it, this type of discussion is not for everyone. But no one has to read what I have to say on the matter, let alone comment. Time and again, though, I find that not only are people listening to what I have to say, but they are commenting. And yes, some of these same commenters are also downvoting my posts. Fine, so there is something in my posts that they don't like. But it's also clear that there is enough people who feel that something should be said in response in a fairly civilized manner, and that's what's keeping this going.

  

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:

These players lead, that is enough for those who follow them. It is enough for the rest of us. It should be enough for you.

 

Should it be now? I have lead Alliances and Coalitions of my own in other games. And to be honest, the players I prefer the most are those who don't simply follow orders, but who take initiatives of their own. To also engage i diplomacy as well. This doesn't mean we will always agree, but I have that so long as civility is maintained, I've found ways to make it work. Diplomacy and the search for truth is a lot of work and generally speaking, the more the merrier in my view. 

 

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:

We all follow our leaders.

 

Generally speaking, yes, we do. That doesn't mean we shouldn't question them if we have doubts and/or want to learn more about things. Now, to be sure, there is a time and a place for such things. But this game proceeds at a fairly slow pace for the most part. So, for the most part, there is actually a fair amount of time to talk about various political aspects of the game and I have certainly put that time to good use in my view.

 

  

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:

When they start to consistently make bad decisions, most alliances replace those leaders. The fact that people like Ronny are still leading speaks volumes to their credit. 

 

I can see that he does have some good qualities. You may have noted that I have never questioned his honesty. However, just because someone believes something doesn't mean it is true. His beliefs concerning what Swamp's alleged wish to attack Quack is further put into doubt by the fact that he never spoke to anyone in Swamp himself.

 

  

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:

You need to lurk more.

How are you so sure?

 

  

3 hours ago, Angantyr said:


I hope you have a merry Christmas.

You too.

 

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Good grief... I can't even.

But I'll try. @Phoenyx, there's a concept that you should be introduced to: It's called "trust".

 

I know the meaning of the word :-p. However, to make sure that we are on the same page, I think it might be good to start with a dictionary definition:

Firm belief in the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing; confidence or reliance.

  

2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

"Trust" means considering that other people may know more than you do, and therefore their decisions may be better for you, personally, than you might think given what you think you know at the time.

 

I like how you are putting in the word "may" a lot. It's important.

  

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

"Trust" means that when you find someone worthy of following, you at least consider what they say and do to be at least possibly correct, and you give them the benefit of the doubt and don't outright revolt against their decisions by default.

 

I think we've got to put this into a real world example. I think my relationship with Tyrion is probably best suited. For a considerable amount of time, I did indeed trust him in this sense. However, there came a time where I felt that some of the things he told me should be shared among a wider audience. I think it's clear he didn't agree and that's where our conversations essentially ended. That doesn't mean that I "revolted". Google has 3 definitions for revolt and they are all just too strong for this context:

**

intransitive verb    To attempt to overthrow the authority of the state; rebel.

intransitive verb    To oppose or refuse to accept something.

**

What happened was that we had a difference of opinion. I'm fairly sure he was always aware that I might share what he told me- from the get go, he said that if I wanted to be involved, I would have to keep what he told me in private and initially, I thought that might work. And it did, for a time. But not for long.

 

  

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

You see, sometimes we don't know things. Either our understanding is flawed, or we simply don't have the information ahead of time. Ideally of course we would research that information, but it is logistically impossible to develop a full scholarly knowledge that's objectively true about literally everything, especially complex multiplayer environments such as politics and warfare wherein there are multiple competing reasons for the same exact things even from the same side, let alone opposing sides. We can indeed do so with hindsight, but even the deepest spies and highest lords of this realm cannot achieve such clarity by the time decisions must be made. Therefore, in those cases, we must delegate at least some of our decision making process to our leaders, allies, or advisors. Ones that we "trust", so that we can make a decision with a much more reasonable level of surety.

 

I actually do agree with that. It's why when TFP, my first Alliance, said that we had to either pay 50% taxes or get involved in this global war, I chose to get involved in this global war. I didn't know all the details yet, but as you say, sometimes time is of the essence, so I got to it. However, even as I did so, I decided to send a message to the player I was attacking, to try to get a bit of information from their side of things. The first player I attacked never responded. The second player did, however, and part of his response got me motivated to go beyond simply listening to my own leaders. Here is what got me galvanized to go beyond simply listening to what my own leaders at TFP had told me:

**

From: Phoenyx  Date: 11/08/2020 Sunday 4:39 am Seen Hm. I'm going to ask how it started. I don't really like sending my troops into battle without understanding how things started. I'll let you know what I find out.

 

From: Harald Bluetooth  Date: 11/08/2020 Sunday 6:29 am i mean what else are we than pawns in a bigger play? at least this is more fun that not doing anything

**

 

And sure, he had a point- it was certainly funner that not doing anything. But I felt that I could do more than just be a pawn in someone else's game and so I came to this forum. 

 

  

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

When we refuse to "trust", however, we must act entirely on our own observations, and it is physically impossible to achieve full and comprehensive observation of all things.

 

In another game I play called "Call of War", I like to put up a motto in the Coalitions I form: "Trust, but verify." There is certainly some truth in what you say. But that truth applies to -everyone-, including leaders. I should know, I've been one often enough. There are indeed times in wars where there is little if any time for doubts and disagreements. However, there are also times when there is indeed enough time.

 

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

One can achieve that with hindsight, eventually, given sufficient "trust" to be informed by those that know the bits one does not. However, by then the world has moved on and decisions have to be made that need observations from the present.

 

Right now, the global war has ended. There is certainly time to use that hindsight you are referring to at this point in time. But it isn't enough for there to be an opportunity. Those in power have to want to take advantage of it.

 

  

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

"Trust" works both ways. You have to make decisions based on your observations and research... and so does everyone else.

 

Agreed.

 

  

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

There's therefore another concept you should be told about: It's called "insult".

"Insult" can sometimes mean making it clear to someone that they should not trust you. Even if you intend to deal with them fairly, their observations of you are negatively impacted. Any insight you might give them, even if true and accurate, are rendered useless by virtue of your prior actions towards them creating an environment devoid of "trust". When you re-post something that someone told you privately and in confidence, then you "insult" them and show them that they should not have "trusted" their assumption of privacy and confidentiality. 

 

No here, we don't agree. This is actually an issue that comes up in the real life, and it has certainly come up in mine. The bottom line is this- if someone can persuade you to keep political information "in confidence" as you say, they can have enormous power over you and even others. How, you say? Simple. Let me give you a real world example, one that happened to me. My parents had their disagreements growing up and I got fairly involved in some of these disagreements. In many ways, I trusted both of them, to a great extent. Ofcourse, there were times when they didn't agree with each other. So, who to trust? What if, due to less than ideal circumstances, my mother decides to confide certain things to me and tells me certain views she has concerning my father? Should I keep her words in confidence, not talking to my father about them? After all, these words were "in confidence", were they not? But shouldn't your other parent know what they have been accused of? Perhaps there was been a mistake, a misinterpretation. There's really only one way to find out, and that's to break the "trust" and talk to the other parent. Is it wrong to do so? A matter of opinion, I suppose. I don't think I was wrong to do so though. Throughout my life, I've had similar situations to this one. I like to be involved in various political issues and that tends to get me into the thick of things. In one activist group I used to be in, I decided to try to codify how I think things should be. Essentially, it went like this:

If the harm of keeping something private outweighs the harm of revealing it, one should reveal it. Naturally, people can disagree as to when the scales are tipped one way or another and they can make decisions based on their feelings on the matter.

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

I know the meaning of the word :-p. However, to make sure that we are on the same page, I think it might be good to start with a dictionary definition:

Firm belief in the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing; confidence or reliance.

  

 

I like how you are putting in the word "may" a lot. It's important.

  

 

I think we've got to put this into a real world example. I think my relationship with Tyrion is probably best suited. For a considerable amount of time, I did indeed trust him in this sense. However, there came a time where I felt that some of the things he told me should be shared among a wider audience. I think it's clear he didn't agree and that's where our conversations essentially ended. That doesn't mean that I "revolted". Google has 3 definitions for revolt and they are all just too strong for this context:

**

intransitive verb    To attempt to overthrow the authority of the state; rebel.

intransitive verb    To oppose or refuse to accept something.

**

What happened was that we had a difference of opinion. I'm fairly sure he was always aware that I might share what he told me- from the get go, he said that if I wanted to be involved, I would have to keep what he told me in private and initially, I thought that might work. And it did, for a time. But not for long.

 

  

 

I actually do agree with that. It's why when TFP, my first Alliance, said that we had to either pay 50% taxes or get involved in this global war, I chose to get involved in this global war. I didn't know all the details yet, but as you say, sometimes time is of the essence, so I got to it. However, even as I did so, I decided to send a message to the player I was attacking, to try to get a bit of information from their side of things. The first player I attacked never responded. The second player did, however, and part of his response got me motivated to go beyond simply listening to my own leaders. Here is what got me galvanized to go beyond simply listening to what my own leaders at TFP had told me:

**

From: Phoenyx  Date: 11/08/2020 Sunday 4:39 am Seen Hm. I'm going to ask how it started. I don't really like sending my troops into battle without understanding how things started. I'll let you know what I find out.

 

From: Harald Bluetooth  Date: 11/08/2020 Sunday 6:29 am i mean what else are we than pawns in a bigger play? at least this is more fun that not doing anything

**

 

And sure, he had a point- it was certainly funner that not doing anything. But I felt that I could do more than just be a pawn in someone else's game and so I came to this forum. 

 

  

 

In another game I play called "Call of War", I like to put up a motto in the Coalitions I form: "Trust, but verify." There is certainly some truth in what you say. But that truth applies to -everyone-, including leaders. I should know, I've been one often enough. There are indeed times in wars where there is little if any time for doubts and disagreements. However, there are also times when there is indeed enough time.

 

 

Right now, the global war has ended. There is certainly time to use that hindsight you are referring to at this point in time. But it isn't enough for there to be an opportunity. Those in power have to want to take advantage of it.

 

  

 

Agreed.

 

  

 

No here, we don't agree. This is actually an issue that comes up in the real life, and it has certainly come up in mine. The bottom line is this- if someone can persuade you to keep political information "in confidence" as you say, they can have enormous power over you and even others. How, you say? Simple. Let me give you a real world example, one that happened to me. My parents had their disagreements growing up and I got fairly involved in some of these disagreements. In many ways, I trusted both of them, to a great extent. Ofcourse, there were times when they didn't agree with each other. So, who to trust? What if, due to less than ideal circumstances, my mother decides to confide certain things to me and tells me certain views she has concerning my father? Should I keep her words in confidence, not talking to my father about them? After all, these words were "in confidence", were they not? But shouldn't your other parent know what they have been accused of? Perhaps there was been a mistake, a misinterpretation. There's really only one way to find out, and that's to break the "trust" and talk to the other parent. Is it wrong to do so? A matter of opinion, I suppose. I don't think I was wrong to do so though. Throughout my life, I've had similar situations to this one. I like to be involved in various political issues and that tends to get me into the thick of things. In one activist group I used to be in, I decided to try to codify how I think things should be. Essentially, it went like this:

If the harm of keeping something private outweighs the harm of revealing it, one should reveal it. Naturally, people can disagree as to when the scales are tipped one way or another and they can make decisions based on their feelings on the matter.

I am both amazed and confused by the amount of detail you put into dissecting 2 words lol. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BrythonLexi said:

Specifically adding onto "When you re-post something that someone told you privately and in confidence, then you insult them and show them that they should not have "trusted" their assumption of privacy and confidentiality."

This, Pheonyx, is why "opsec" exists.  Things that are classified as secrets, because them being leaked can negatively impact everybody, be it reputation or otherwise. 

 

Agreed. On the other hand, when enough information is shared, this can also have negative impacts on everyone. To give a possible example- had Quack gone to tCW, HM and Swamp leadership and said, "Hey, are you guys really planning on attacking us?", they may have found out that no, wasn't happening, they were only creating treaties to -counter- attack Quack should Quack attack first. Now, I understand why Quack didn't do this- they felt that, had they done so, it may have triggered these groups to attack Quack early. 


Similarly, I also understand how, even after the war had started, Quack continued to believe that these groups did have plans to attack them first. I believe this was bolstered by Ronny's statement that was turned into an ad. However, upon closer examination, it was revealed that Ronny hadn't actually talked to anyone in Swamp himself and any plans to attack Quack seemed to fizzle out shortly after they were brought up in HM.

  

3 hours ago, BrythonLexi said:

If Quack's plans were leaked, they could have been dogpiled even faster. 

 

Or it could have avoided the conflict entirely, if part of the leak had included -why- they were going to attack tCW/HM and the leaders in those groups assured them that no, they had no plans to attack Quack first. We may never know. But I think it's good to see that leaked information doesn't always have to lead to disaster, but can in fact lead to its opposite.

1 minute ago, Polar Bear ArcticExplorer said:

I am both amazed and confused by the amount of detail you put into dissecting 2 words lol. 

His whole post was about trust. I figured it might be a good idea to get a dictionary definition of the word :-). 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What happened was that we had a difference of opinion. I'm fairly sure he was always aware that I might share what he told me- from the get go, he said that if I wanted to be involved, I would have to keep what he told me in private and initially, I thought that might work. And it did, for a time. But not for long."

 

Everyone in this thread is giving you good solid advice and a massive second chance to be accepted in this game and you choose to spit in their faces... You focus so, so much on politics. (I get it, it's politics and war) However you really should focus more on the people and individuals involved. Even if you think some info should be leaked to public for the greater good you should at least ask the other person involved if they consent to release information or block out their name if they want privacy. I don't understand how you can not show anyone this basic courtesy and respect and think you are in the right morally.

Edited by Mayor
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mayor said:

"What happened was that we had a difference of opinion. I'm fairly sure he was always aware that I might share what he told me- from the get go, he said that if I wanted to be involved, I would have to keep what he told me in private and initially, I thought that might work. And it did, for a time. But not for long."

 

Everyone in this thread is giving you good solid advice and a massive second chance to be accepted in this game and you choose to spit in their faces... You focus so, so much on politics. (I get it, it's politics and war) However you really should focus more on the people and individuals involved. Even if you think some info should be leaked to public for the greater good you should at least ask the other person involved if they consent to release information or block out their name if they want privacy. I don't understand how you can not show anyone this basic courtesy and respect and think you are in the right morally.

 

I think this may be because you didn't read all the posts I've been posting recently. Put simply, yes, it can be a privilege to get certain types of information, and I do appreciate what Tyrion shared with me. However, when it comes to political information, sometimes I really do think that information should be free. Free to anyone who'd like to know, that is. I don't think that anything that Tyrion shared with me was of the "loose lips sink ships" variety. Now, I think it's clear that he wasn't happy that I shared it, but as in the case with my parents, there are definite disadvantages to -not- sharing this information as well. As to blocking out his name, his name was the very reason that the information was so important. I felt that people should know what we discussed as I think a lot of good points were raised there, points that I didn't see raised publicly in the past. I think I made the right call.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

No here, we don't agree. This is actually an issue that comes up in the real life, and it has certainly come up in mine. The bottom line is this- if someone can persuade you to keep political information "in confidence" as you say, they can have enormous power over you and even others. How, you say? Simple. Let me give you a real world example, one that happened to me. My parents had their disagreements growing up and I got fairly involved in some of these disagreements. In many ways, I trusted both of them, to a great extent. Ofcourse, there were times when they didn't agree with each other. So, who to trust? What if, due to less than ideal circumstances, my mother decides to confide certain things to me and tells me certain views she has concerning my father? Should I keep her words in confidence, not talking to my father about them? After all, these words were "in confidence", were they not? But shouldn't your other parent know what they have been accused of? Perhaps there was been a mistake, a misinterpretation. There's really only one way to find out, and that's to break the "trust" and talk to the other parent. Is it wrong to do so? A matter of opinion, I suppose. I don't think I was wrong to do so though. Throughout my life, I've had similar situations to this one. I like to be involved in various political issues and that tends to get me into the thick of things. In one activist group I used to be in, I decided to try to codify how I think things should be. Essentially, it went like this:

If the harm of keeping something private outweighs the harm of revealing it, one should reveal it. Naturally, people can disagree as to when the scales are tipped one way or another and they can make decisions based on their feelings on the matter.

raw.png.3fd9cab2c69d7dc223012d84328ed384.png

To begin with, this analogy is just strange bruh. Parents shouldn't confide in their kids in this manner. Second, what does this example illustrate and how does it relate to this game? What is it about your parents venting their problem to you, that proves keeping information given to you in confidence can be harmful?

Edited by Arric II Vysera
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Arric II Vysera said:

To begin with, this analogy is just strange bruh. Parents shouldn't confide in their kids in this manner. 

 

That's matter of opinion. However, my mother actually would have preferred a therapist. However, my father has never been much for therapy :-p.

 

  

56 minutes ago, Arric II Vysera said:

Second, what does this example illustrate and how does it relate to this game? What is it about your parents venting their problem to you, that proves keeping information given to you in confidence can be harmful?

When you can't confirm with the other party, it's easy to not be able to hear a proper defense. To be honest, this example is very similar to the example of my parents and it can also apply to this game. You have 2 different parts, the Quack side and the anti Quack side (for lack of a better term). Actually, it's even more complicated, because you have factions within the anti Quack side and they aren't concording on an important point, namely whether or not Swamp had approached tCW and HM with an offensive or a defensive treaty. I hope it is beginning to dawn on you how sharing information, such as the conversation I had with Tyrion, could help illuminate the truth?

 

47 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

You see how quickly everyone attacked you when we start discussing how you leaked all these private convos you had? Do you not see how you solve nothing by posting essays?

 

Yes, lots of attacks. I suspect not nearly as much reading of my "essays" explaining why I did what I did...

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gods.  It's clear examples don't work, as you just read into them and argue the facts of the examples and not the lessons to be learned.

Let's try pros and cons, aye?

 

Action: Leaking opsec info

Pros: Get [what you believe to be] the truth out there.

Cons: Violate someone's trust.  Lose trust from other members of alliance governments.  You may not be believed.  You may lose respect.  You may be kicked out of your alliance.

 

 

Action: Start many forum posts

Pros: Get your words out

Cons: People dislike you more for spamming.  Possibly reported for spam.  More chance to be seen as a liability.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Oh gods.  It's clear examples don't work, as you just read into them and argue the facts of the examples and not the lessons to be learned.

You being the dispenser of lessons and I the recalcitrant student, eh :-p?

  

4 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Let's try pros and cons, aye?

 

Action: Leaking opsec info

Pros: Get [what you believe to be] the truth out there.

Cons: Violate someone's trust.  Lose trust from other members of alliance governments.  You may not be believed.  You may lose respect.  You may be kicked out of your alliance.

 

It seems clear that while you were busy trying to explain why you believe what you believe, you weren't paying much attention to why I believe what -I- believe.  I will try to explain my reasoning for doing what I did. Now, I understand that humans are frequently a tribal species and this can be reflected in the fact that we tend to believe what our alliances tell us, trust them, etc. Problems arise when our Alliances are not dispensing the best suggestions. Now, of all the Alliances that I could have started out with, I'm glad that I started out within the TFP/TI sphere of influence. When I picked out TFP, I felt that they would probably best represent what I had in mind, an Alliance that focused on protecting its members rather than aggressive wars. However, I came to feel that they were too insular when it came to speaking here in the forums. So I switched over to my current Alliance, FSR, which was more amenable to allowing me to speak my point of view here. Near the end of November, I also began speaking to Tyrion at length about the war for a few days. He said a lot of things, many of which I had not seen him share here in the forums. I felt that this lack of insight provided to the forums was important. I also felt that sharing it might get Quack to believe Tyrion, TFP and others when they said that there were no first strike plans to attack them.

 

Now, I will grant that there are still many in Quack who continue to believe that such plans were afoot, but I also believe that some may have been persuaded otherwise, perhaps in part because of the conversations I shared. I think my sharing those conversations was also important in that it illuminated a rift that I had been trying to point out on my own, namely Ronny's perspective and how his source' meaning was ambiguous, not just to me, but to Tyrion. I felt that these things were worth the repercussions that I might face for revealing these things and I still feel that way.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

When you can't confirm with the other party, it's easy to not be able to hear a proper defense. To be honest, this example is very similar to the example of my parents and it can also apply to this game. You have 2 different parts, the Quack side and the anti Quack side (for lack of a better term). Actually, it's even more complicated, because you have factions within the anti Quack side and they aren't concording on an important point, namely whether or not Swamp had approached tCW and HM with an offensive or a defensive treaty. I hope it is beginning to dawn on you how sharing information, such as the conversation I had with Tyrion, could help illuminate the truth?

Phoenyx, what would you be confirming by leaking and expecting an opposing party to play along? You don't have any guarantee of honesty or transparency there at all. Apparently you haven't been paying attention: Leaking as carelessly as you have puts cooperating sides at odds with another, and damages reputation since there is potential for it to be misrepresented. We've seen it with Ronny and Tyrion, we've seen it with you, and we've seen it with Boyce and Sphinx (although this was deliberate).

You're not illuminating anything by leaking, you're just showing everyone you are naive and untrustworthy.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Arric II Vysera said:

Phoenyx, what would you be confirming by leaking and expecting an opposing party to play along? You don't have any guarantee of honesty or transparency there at all. Apparently you haven't been paying attention: Leaking as carelessly as you have puts cooperating sides at odds with another, and damages reputation since there is potential for it to be misrepresented. We've seen it with Ronny and Tyrion, we've seen it with you, and we've seen it with Boyce and Sphinx (although this was deliberate).

You're not illuminating anything by leaking, you're just showing everyone you are naive and untrustworthy.

 

You're right on one point- I don't have any guarantees that anything I reveal will get the results I am looking for. That being said, I think it's kind of like casting a net to catch fish. Sure, you might come up empty, but the more you cast the net, the more likely it is you will catch some fish.

 

When I arrived here, there was a very strong Quack narrative- the narrative was that Quack had gotten some leaks and these leaks suggested that tCW, HM and Swamp were going to attack Quack. Boyce stated that he believed those attacks would happen in December or January. Then, Ronny seemed to confirm that there were plans for an attack, his words being put into an ad and this clearly being a major plank in the Quack narrative. Now, based on what I had been told by my sphere, which at the time was the TFP/TI part of Swamp, I believed that Swamp had had no such plans. So, how to account for this Quack narrative? I quickly determined there were 2 places that could lead to answers. Boyce and Ronny. Boyce, being on the Quack side of things, proved to be uninterested in elaborating on where he got his information regarding this December/January prediction, but I soon found out not only that Ronny hadn't spoken to Quack himself, but the exact words that he had heard from his source that got him to believe that Swamp had wanted to attack Quack. The first thing I felt was, this information should be made public, and so that's what I did. I imagine he wasn't pleased, but I felt that importance of getting this information out there was more important than whether he thought it should be.

 

Later, I spoke to Tyrion about it and found out that he hadn't seen this log either. He revealed that he also felt that the log was ambiguous, which in turn was more evidence that a misunderstanding had taken place. I felt that this should also be revealed, as it would present further evidence that Quack's narrative was mistaken. 

 

I don't think I can really be clearer than this. When information is too compartmentalized, it can be hard for the truth to be revealed. So I did the best I could to try to put the pieces out there. I believe with the more pieces are out there, the easier it is to see the truth, like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Now whether others want to put out more pieces to make it easier to see the big picture or not, is up to them.

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

You're right on one point- I don't have any guarantees that anything I reveal will get the results I am looking for. That being said, I think it's kind of like casting a net to catch fish. Sure, you might come up empty, but the more you cast the net, the more likely it is you will catch some fish.

Its not though. Have you noticed that the only people who have the information you want are the also the ones not talking to you?

32 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

...The first thing I felt was, this information should be made public, and so that's what I did. I imagine he wasn't pleased, but I felt that importance of getting this information out there was more important than whether he thought it should be.

Later, I spoke to Tyrion about it and found out that he hadn't seen this log either. He revealed that he also felt that the log was ambiguous, which in turn was more evidence that a misunderstanding had taken place. I felt that this should also be revealed, as it would present further evidence that Quack's narrative was mistaken.

Why should it be made public and why was it more important for that information to be public? It didn't shed light on anything, and only turned people against you. With all this leaking, what information do you have that wasn't already known by the time you arrived?

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

I don't think I can really be clearer than this. When information is too compartmentalized, it can be hard for the truth to be revealed. So I did the best I could to try to put the pieces out there. I believe with the more pieces are out there, the easier it is to see the truth, like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Now whether others want to put out more pieces to make it easier to see the big picture or not, is up to them.

I don't think you have grasped that we all get what you're trying to do. The issue is, you are now being told that you "putting the pieces out there" (leaking) is not appreciated. Again, you are not doing a service or making demonstrating anything that isn't already known, you are just marking yourself as an untrustworthy individual.
 

 

  • Upvote 3
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.