Jump to content

An Appeal to Phoenyx (Peace negotiations/Propaganda)


Sir Scarfalot
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

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

  

 

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.

Name one leader in quack who has been convinced by your spam. 

We haven't. 

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arric II Vysera said:

  

6 hours 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?

 

Actually, they still talk to me from time to time, just not in DMs. They talk to me in the public realm now, which is honestly where I wanted the majority of this discussion to happen anyway.

 

  

5 hours ago, Arric II Vysera said:

 

6 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

...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. 

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?

 

I believe it was the right decision to make it public because I think that a lot of people are confused as to what started this war, even leaders. I believe the reason for this is that leaders, even in the same general faction in the non Quack side, clearly weren't sharing enough information between each other. Before I arrived, Tyrion hadn't seen Ronny's chat log with his HM leader and no one knew of Tyrion's reaction to said chat log for obvious reasons. Things don't have to stop here, either. Eventually, we might finally learn who Ronny's HM leader was and from there, we can go into things such as, what did he mean and perhaps even more importantly, who said HM Leader's source or sources were.

 

5 hours ago, Arric II Vysera said:

 

6 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

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 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.

 

I disagree. Clearly, -some- don't appreciate what I am trying to do, but I also believe that some do. I also know for a fact that I have brought information to people that they didn't previously know. As to the issue of trustworthiness, I am trustworthy in terms of my honesty, but I do acknowledge that one needs to be careful with what one says to me if their goal is for it to remain confidential. I will say this- I have certainly not revealed all of my sources. As a matter of fact, I have only revealed my sources if they are Alliance heads. The reason for this is relatively simple- being Alliance leaders, their words are extremely powerful and would add credibility to what was said. For this reason, I felt that revealing their identities outweighed the repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Name one leader in quack who has been convinced by your spam. 

We haven't. 

 

The fact that you are simply calling it spam strongly suggests that you haven't really been following what I've been saying all that much. That is your right, certainly, just making an observation. As to persuading Quack leaders, that is clearly the hardest thing to do, namely because my observations have led me to believe that your side was fooled into believing that you were going to be attacked by tCW, HM and Swamp when the truth is, there had been no serious plan for that, only a plan to -counter- attack you if you attacked one of their groups first, with Rose joining into this defensive treaty very shortly before the war itself began. 

 

Tyrion quoted a rather famous line to me regarding this: "It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled". This is particularly true when people are unwilling to question their sources of information.

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus. I'm not even sure what he did, but the fact that he managed to unite the Orbis community into hating him scares me.

  • Haha 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

 

The fact that you are simply calling it spam strongly suggests that you haven't really been following what I've been saying all that much. That is your right, certainly, just making an observation. As to persuading Quack leaders, that is clearly the hardest thing to do, namely because my observations have led me to believe that your side was fooled into believing that you were going to be attacked by tCW, HM and Swamp when the truth is, there had been no serious plan for that, only a plan to -counter- attack you if you attacked one of their groups first, with Rose joining into this defensive treaty very shortly before the war itself began. 

 

Tyrion quoted a rather famous line to me regarding this: "It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled". This is particularly true when people are unwilling to question their sources of information.

Right, so my point earlier stands: You've convinced no one of anything.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Corpsman said:

Jesus. I'm not even sure what he did, but the fact that he managed to unite the Orbis community into hating him scares me.

I questioned elements of both sides of the war, during the war.

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

Right, so my point earlier stands: You've convinced no one of anything.

Feel free to try to prove that :-p. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phoenyx said:

I questioned elements of both sides of the war, during the war.

Oh, you must be new. Rule #1 of PnW, don't speak unless you have an alliance and a few billion money backing you.
Wish I took my own advice smh.

  • Like 3

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

"It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled". This is particularly true when people are unwilling to question their sources of information.

Wow the hypocrisy of this statement is astounding.

 

anyways can you guys stop giving attention to the brick wall. You guys are trying to teach someone who believes they are an expert in something they aren’t.

I believe anyone who continues to give attention to this guy after a month of his shit posting is an idiot so i’ll Give you a strategy, look upon his big walls of texts and then reply “lol idiot” without reading it. The result will still be the same as if you actually read and replied.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Corpsman said:

Jesus. I'm not even sure what he did, but the fact that he managed to unite the Orbis community into hating him scares me.

Communists, fascists, and liberals sleeping together, mass hysteria!

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corpsman said:

Oh, you must be new. Rule #1 of PnW, don't speak unless you have an alliance and a few billion money backing you.
Wish I took my own advice smh.

 

I'm in an Alliance. The billions, not so much :-p. Anyway, conversing with others in this game is what makes it for me. When I started, I was only talking to people within my own Alliance, but once the global war hit, I wanted to know more about it, from both sides. I still do, but at this point, the information I'm trying to get is a lot harder to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

I'm in an Alliance. The billions, not so much :-p. Anyway, conversing with others in this game is what makes it for me. When I started, I was only talking to people within my own Alliance, but once the global war hit, I wanted to know more about it, from both sides. I still do, but at this point, the information I'm trying to get is a lot harder to come by.

Have you considered why said information is getting harder to come by?  You leak private conversations with your alliance leaders in the name of "information" that, if i'm going to be quite frank, doesn't even matter.  Those in positions of power and trust are not going to keep talking to you if opsec stuff is just gonna get leaked.

 

I get it.  Information good.  But it's not so good as to forfeit months or even years of trust in the community.  The people in the closed door discussions are people who have spent a long time building up trust and competency in the game.  As it stands, you're doing the opposite - lowering your ability to be trusted, especially among those who have the information you seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Have you considered why said information is getting harder to come by?  You leak private conversations with your alliance leaders in the name of "information" that, if i'm going to be quite frank, doesn't even matter.  Those in positions of power and trust are not going to keep talking to you if opsec stuff is just gonna get leaked.

 

Here's the thing- I don't want information just so that I can hoard it away. Especially when it comes to this global war. Like Tyrion and others have said, there are good people on both sides of the conflict, but this disconnect as to what really happened doesn't help in my view. I even found someone who was on our side who believed Quack's side of events, think I changed that, but the point is, there's still a lot of confusion out there as to what real started this war and I'm happy to offer my theories as to what really happened and why I believe it, and also continue to push the powers that be to dish out more info, not to me per se, but to the public at large.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

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. 

 

The fact that you believe what you are citing to be important is evidence enough that you have no idea what is going on. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Both sides of the war know what it was about, what is put out publicly is an attempt to win a PR battle.

You’re taking the PR quick hits and using them as evidence/the Bible. That’s why no one thinks you’re credible, and the reason why the only people that are giving you your desired upvotes are the other people that have yet to learn how politics (and be able to see the truth of the political climate) on Orbis works.

 

Edit: Also, Merry Christmas :)

Edited by Relic
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Actually, they still talk to me from time to time, just not in DMs. They talk to me in the public realm now, which is honestly where I wanted the majority of this discussion to happen anyway.

Mate, the war is over and you're still looking for "Ronny's HM leader" for you to get to the bottom of this. No one with the info you want is talking to you, that's why you're still here.

9 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I believe it was the right decision to make it public because I think that a lot of people are confused as to what started this war, even leaders. I believe the reason for this is that leaders, even in the same general faction in the non Quack side, clearly weren't sharing enough information between each other. Before I arrived, Tyrion hadn't seen Ronny's chat log with his HM leader and no one knew of Tyrion's reaction to said chat log for obvious reasons. Things don't have to stop here, either. Eventually, we might finally learn who Ronny's HM leader was and from there, we can go into things such as, what did he mean and perhaps even more importantly, who said HM Leader's source or sources were.

You leaked because people are confused as to why the war started? But everyone knows why the war started, there is like 28+ page thread for it. The only point of contention was who was at fault for the escalation.

That doesn't justify a leak.

10 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I disagree. Clearly, -some- don't appreciate what I am trying to do, but I also believe that some do. I also know for a fact that I have brought information to people that they didn't previously know. As to the issue of trustworthiness, I am trustworthy in terms of my honesty, but I do acknowledge that one needs to be careful with what one says to me if their goal is for it to remain confidential. I will say this- I have certainly not revealed all of my sources. As a matter of fact, I have only revealed my sources if they are Alliance heads. The reason for this is relatively simple- being Alliance leaders, their words are extremely powerful and would add credibility to what was said. For this reason, I felt that revealing their identities outweighed the repercussions.

I don't know what you understand from trustworthiness. You can be honest without being a liability, you can give the truth and provided evidence when prompted for it WITH support from your source in doing so.

But no, you leak conversations and blindside the other person and that's without being challenged or prompted for evidence by anyone. How does that make you trustworthy? Its not just about being 100% transparent.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Relic said:

The fact that you believe what you are citing to be important is evidence enough that you have no idea what is going on. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Both sides of the war know what it was about, what is put out publicly is an attempt to win a PR battle.

I think you are -way- too confident in these assertions. But if you'd like to cite evidence so support these assertions, by all means do so. Also, are you a reroll? I see that your current account was created in October.

 

5 hours ago, Relic said:

You’re taking the PR quick hits and using them as evidence/the Bible.

I don't think any of the evidence I'm using could be classified as "PR quick hits" as you say, but again, if you think there is evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it.

  

5 hours ago, Relic said:

Edit: Also, Merry Christmas :)

 

Lol :-p. You too. 

2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

You might have an alliance, sure, but we both know empirically that they're not backing you at all :P

Actually, they did attack Isjaki once they were ready to do so. You, on the other hand, have gone back to Syndicate- attacking you at this point would mean breaking the NAP.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arric II Vysera said:

Mate, the war is over and you're still looking for "Ronny's HM leader" for you to get to the bottom of this. No one with the info you want is talking to you, that's why you're still here.

Partial points- you are certainly right that I'd like to know who Ronny's HM leader was. However, that is certainly not the only reason I'm still here.

 

2 hours ago, Arric II Vysera said:

You leaked because people are confused as to why the war started? But everyone knows why the war started, there is like 28+ page thread for it. The only point of contention was who was at fault for the escalation.

I'm thinking perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing? The point in contention that I am referring to is whether or not tCW, HM and Swamp were actually going to attack Quack first. From what I have seen, there is -very- little evidence that this was the case and a lot that it wasn't. From what I can seey, the primary piece of evidence suggesting that they were in fact going to attack first comes Boyce. However, the only evidence that has been presented he was in a position to know were certain conversations he had with Sphinx. Those conversations, in turn, paint a very ambiguous picture. Sure, one can read into them the notion that tCW, HM and Swamp were considering attacking Quack, but there was certainly no timeline on it and as has been mentioned elsewhere, tCW was a non voting member of Swamp. Furthermore, there is a -lot- of evidence, from former Swamp Alliance leaders such as Tyrion and Kaz, that they hadn't even -heard- of such a plan, and had they heard of it, they would have opposed it.

 

The only piece of evidence that came from the anti Quack side that I have seen in the forums is Ronny's contention that Swamp had been looking to hit Quack. However, he later revealed that he had never actually spoken to anyone in Swamp himself, instead relying on an ambiguous statement made by the famous HM leader. Tyrion, I and possibly others believe that his statement may have only been referring to the defensive treaties that were in fact being put into place at the time, Partisan believes that it is evidence that there was in fact a plan to attack Quack. The main reason I and others would like to know who this HM leader was is to be able to ask him what he meant by his ambiguous statement.

 

  

2 hours ago, Arric II Vysera said:

I don't know what you understand from trustworthiness. You can be honest without being a liability, you can give the truth and provided evidence when prompted for it WITH support from your source in doing so.

But no, you leak conversations and blindside the other person and that's without being challenged or prompted for evidence by anyone. How does that make you trustworthy? Its not just about being 100% transparent.

 

The issue has to do with how transparent some people would like to be. This is an issue I've definitely had with a fair amount of people, and certainly not just in this game. Gamewise, my wishes for transparency tend to work best when I have a considerable amount of in game power. Unfortunately, I don't have a whole lot of this in this game at this point in time. I have often said that I do greatly respect Tyrion's ability to be restrained in what he says. However, there is also a point where I felt that he was -too- restrained. People were calling him a liar because what he said seemed to contradict what Ronny said and he didn't even ask Ronny for his source to see if the discrepancy could be cleared up. To this day, I don't know why that was. All I know is that as soon as I started reading the posts with this issue, I sent Ronny a message asking him for it and he provided it to me. He now says that he regrets doing that, because I ended up sharing it in the forums. Honestly, though, I think I did him a favour in the long run, because what his source says provides an explanation that can mean that Ronny said what he believes to be true, it's just that he may have misinterpreted what his source said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Actually, they did attack Isjaki once they were ready to do so. You, on the other hand, have gone back to Syndicate- attacking you at this point would mean breaking the NAP.

Okay, so they attacked Isjaki well after we both beiged you. Bruh, you had full military and the first-strike advantage, plus a lucky as heck ground control on me that could have been a serious problem, but they... weren't 'ready'? "Strong military" it says on your alliance's page... between the unholy huge communist propaganda posters. Well, alright I'll give you this much, it isn't the worst BS I've seen on an alliance page, but if your alliance isn't meeting minimum military requirements at all times and can be prepared to counter within a day, then you guys are objectively doing it wrong. Especially if you're cheeky enough to have your own protectorates.

I like how Immortals has been completely absent this whole thread :awesome:

Oh, and, indeed, merry holidays~ Enjoy your extra revenue and security. And I'm not trying to be flippant there, I mean it: Beige is no defeat, you gave me the same back in the war yourself, and if you're robust enough to survive that and appreciate it then there's hope for you yet.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I think you are -way- too confident in these assertions. But if you'd like to cite evidence so support these assertions, by all means do so. Also, are you a reroll? I see that your current account was created in October.

 

I don't think any of the evidence I'm using could be classified as "PR quick hits" as you say, but again, if you think there is evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it.

Easy enough. Look at every war ever and talk to people responsible for orchestrating them, they will confirm. There is a public PR battle that spins narratives. These narratives should not be consumed at face value if you are attempting to work out what is truly going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Okay, so they attacked Isjaki well after we both beiged you. Bruh, you had full military and the first-strike advantage, plus a lucky as heck ground control on me that could have been a serious problem, but they... weren't 'ready'? "Strong military" it says on your alliance's page... between the unholy huge communist propaganda posters. Well, alright I'll give you this much, it isn't the worst BS I've seen on an alliance page, but if your alliance isn't meeting minimum military requirements at all times and can be prepared to counter within a day, then you guys are objectively doing it wrong. Especially if you're cheeky enough to have your own protectorates.

They have a strong military if you're c15 or below- we have a fair amount of nations in that range. We only have a single player who's a c20+. 

  

2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

I like how Immortals has been completely absent this whole thread :awesome:

Yeah, well, I know that Tyrion wasn't too happy about me revealing our discord conversations. That and something else which I probably shouldn't get into at this time.

 

37 minutes ago, Relic said:

Easy enough. Look at every war ever and talk to people responsible for orchestrating them, they will confirm. There is a public PR battle that spins narratives. These narratives should not be consumed at face value if you are attempting to work out what is truly going on.

At this point, I think I have a pretty good idea as to what caused this war. That's not to say I wouldn't like more confirmation and there are some aspects that I am less sure about, but yeah. My main wish at this point is to get both sides to agree as to what happened. Perhaps one day, but that day may still be pretty far off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Actually, they did attack Isjaki once they were ready to do so.

Your alliance is even more pathetic than you lmao. They were doing well in the global until I walked in and single-handedly flipped them from hundreds of millions in positive to hundreds of millions in negative, and their response? Banning me from their discord lmfao.

If you are so smart and intelligent, you should know this by now, pirates don't care about being attacked.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Isjaki said:

Your alliance is [insult removed]. They were doing well in the global until I walked in and single-handedly flipped them from hundreds of millions in positive to hundreds of millions in negative, and their response? Banning me from their discord lmfao.

My Alliance is the only Alliance I've been in so far that is ok with me posting what I'd like to post about here. As to you flipping them, not sure what that's about. I know that we only have one player who's actually in your city range, though, so perhaps that has something to do with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

My Alliance is the only Alliance I've been in so far that is ok with me posting what I'd like to post about here. As to you flipping them, not sure what that's about. I know that we only have one player who's actually in your city range, though, so perhaps that has something to do with it. 

Ah sure, city ranges matter against a guy who has zero armies most of the time. Didn't see that coming 😛

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.