Jump to content

Questioning the causes of serious Orbis Wars


Phoenyx
 Share

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Right, you trust Tyrion because you like his style of questions and thus you take his statements at face value without applying the same standard of scrutiny to them as you do with literally anyone else's statements. The fact that you disagree with and therefore scrutinize the statements Tyrion makes which you don't like is just further evidence of your intense and knowing bias.

This is all evidence which you have helpfully provided your own dang self.

Partisan actually has not merely "shown interest in" but in fact HAS done his due diligence and research on the subject, and in an intellectually honest and responsible manner to boot. Why you persist in believing such heinously inaccurate things about him is beyond me, really, since there's ample evidence to show that he has indeed looked very deeply into the matter. And since you'll ask, despite it being blatantly obvious, the evidence is that he's still a leader of a major bloc which has not fired him, expelled his alliance, nor disbanded. Which is what any halfway competent leader would do in the face of such an extraordinary failure on the part of another leader. Since they haven't, he must therefore have not failed so completely as you insist he has.

What you're neglecting, despite being told countless times and being shown a mountain of evidence in support of, is that unlike yourself, Partisan is an alliance leader. Which means that he both needs to be and in fact is responsible in his FA efforts, which includes both diligently and thoroughly investigating threats against the alliance as well as keeping the results of his efforts confidential. Confidential, by the way, mostly means keeping the evidence, sources of evidence, reasoning, and conclusions secret from irrelevant parties that scream victory from the rooftops and dump logs every time someone tells them something privately.

If Partisan had indeed just taken the Boyce rumors at face value and flatly declared war without following up nor considering what such a major action would entail, the entire bloc would have fired him. From a cannon. We didn't, since he DID do his research, he DID follow up, and brought the investigation to his peers for appraisal and deliberation. They deliberated, determined it was actionable, and took the appropriate actions. I can tell you this for certain because I AM privy to a fair chunk of that investigation. Yep, I said it: That info is there, I've got it up on my screen now, but I'm not going to give it to you nor will anyone else because it was given to us with the expectation of remaining confidential.

So, by all means feel free to continue faffing about, screaming for evidence and things to proudly leak for your own amusement. We'll be over here, actually trying to be intellectually honest and trustworthy, and actually getting that evidence. Do consider joining us when you grow up.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, its clear that Phoenyx has given evidence and we should trust him

  • Haha 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

  

13 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Anyway, there's a -reason- that I trust Tyrion. He asks the types of questions that one would expect from someone who generally wants to know more, as can be seen in my conversation with him concerning Ronny's HM leader source. 

Right, you trust Tyrion because you like his style of questions and thus you take his statements at face value without applying the same standard of scrutiny to them as you do with literally anyone else's statements. The fact that you disagree with and therefore scrutinize the statements Tyrion makes which you don't like is just further evidence of your intense and knowing bias.

This is all evidence which you have helpfully provided your own dang self.

Never mind his style of questions, the fact that he was asking questions to begin with is the point here. Unlike Partisan, who seemed to be content with what Boyce said. And again, it was one thing to be content with it before the war started- I know the reasoning- checking more credible sources could have been dangerous. But it was another thing entirely to disbelieve when Ronny said that there was no serious plan to attack Quack and when Tyrion and Kaz said they never had such a plan.

 

  

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

  

13 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Anyway, there's a -reason- that I trust Tyrion. He asks the types of questions that one would expect from someone who generally wants to know more, as can be seen in my conversation with him concerning Ronny's HM leader source. 

Partisan actually has not merely "shown interest in" but in fact HAS done his due diligence and research on the subject, and in an intellectually honest and responsible manner to boot.

And I and others are just supposed to trust you on that? Sorry, but no.

 

  

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Why you persist in believing such heinously inaccurate things about him is beyond me, really, since there's ample evidence to show that he has indeed looked very deeply into the matter. And since you'll ask, despite it being blatantly obvious, the evidence is that he's still a leader of a major bloc which has not fired him, expelled his alliance, nor disbanded. Which is what any halfway competent leader would do in the face of such an extraordinary failure on the part of another leader. Since they haven't, he must therefore have not failed so completely as you insist he has.

Tons of people have said they really don't care whether the reasons were justified. There are a -few- who care though, so it makes sense that an Alliance leader would have to at least believe what they say. And I do believe that Partisan believes what he says. However, that does -not- mean that he has to do any due diligence. A strong belief will do apparently.

 

  

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

What you're neglecting, despite being told countless times and being shown a mountain of evidence in support of, is that unlike yourself, Partisan is an alliance leader.

No mountains of evidence are needed to prove that Partisan is an Alliance leader. A few quick clicks can verify that.

  

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Which means that he both needs to be and in fact is responsible in his FA efforts, which includes both diligently and thoroughly investigating threats against the alliance as well as keeping the results of his efforts confidential.

No, sorry, one doesn't follow the other. As mentioned, most don't really care whether the CB is valid. Many have said that here. A few care a little bit. So all he has to do is post a few ambiguous logs from Sphinx, Boyce coming up with his prediction that tCW, HM and Swamp would probably attack in December or January and presto!, you've got your CB.

 

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Confidential, by the way, mostly means keeping the evidence, sources of evidence, reasoning, and conclusions secret from irrelevant parties that scream victory from the rooftops and dump logs every time someone tells them something privately.

 

I'd be curious to know how you classify irrelevant parties. Anyone who isn't in Quack gov perhaps? Because it seems that pretty much -everyone- on the Quack gov side of things doesn't agree with some if not all of the Quack narrative on this. Those who care, ofcourse, as mentioned, many don't.

 

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

If Partisan had indeed just taken the Boyce rumors at face value and flatly declared war without following up nor considering what such a major action would entail, the entire bloc would have fired him. From a cannon. We didn't, since he DID do his research, he DID follow up, and brought the investigation to his peers for appraisal and deliberation. They deliberated, determined it was actionable, and took the appropriate actions. I can tell you this for certain because I AM privy to a fair chunk of that investigation. Yep, I said it: That info is there, I've got it up on my screen now, but I'm not going to give it to you nor will anyone else because it was given to us with the expectation of remaining confidential.

Have you ever considered that some if not all of your sources are fully aware of these clauses and may be using them to their advantage? That they could have used these very same clauses against you to twist information? The reason I bring this up is because I've seen this done in real life. Because in real life, I have also been in such situations, only I was on -both- sides, so I could see how it was twisted. 

 

Anyway, go on, believe that Tyrion lied to me and everyone else if it makes you happy. But just remember something- I never accused Partisan of lying. But you -have- essentially accused Tyrion of lying. 

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Anyway, go on, believe that Tyrion lied to me and everyone else if it makes you happy. But just remember something- I never accused Partisan of lying. But you -have- essentially accused Tyrion of lying. 

Everyone important in pnw is going to lie to you and others in your position when you ask about opsec stuff. They will either lie, or say it's opsec, or they will just ignore.  

Same shit IRL, go ask the general of the military about what actually started the most recent war, or something else that's obviously opsec. He will tell you either to stfu and move along, maybe he will tell you what the news outlets know, whether its false or true, or he will just ignore you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2020 at 1:41 AM, Phoenyx said:

 

I think I know a fair amount about the global war at this point, which is the main thing I've been talking about for a while.

You don't know much at all. You just pretend you do. Or you've deluded yourself into thinking you do. 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dtc justice said:

Everyone important in pnw is going to lie to you and others in your position when you ask about opsec stuff. They will either lie, or say it's opsec, or they will just ignore.  

I can easily seeing Tyrion saying it's opsec or ignoring, but not lying. How much have you actually spoken to Tyrion?

 

To be honest, I don't think any of the Alliance leaders I've spoken to have tried to deceive me and that makes sense. As Scarf pointed out about Partisan, leaders have reputations to uphold. If only he'd use the same logic not just for his own leader, but for other leaders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I can easily seeing Tyrion saying it's opsec or ignoring, but not lying. How much have you actually spoken to Tyrion?

 

To be honest, I don't think any of the Alliance leaders I've spoken to have tried to deceive me and that makes sense. As Scarf pointed out about Partisan, leaders have reputations to uphold. If only he'd use the same logic not just for his own leader, but for other leaders. 

Ah, but Tyrion isn't the one that made the active decision that started the open warfare. His passive (and completely understandable and justified mind you, assuming he was the one approached and not the instigator) plotting against Quack, whether or not it existed, is something that fundamentally required a public counter-narrative to be presented. If he hadn't posted a counternarrative and just ignored or went "it's a secret" about it, those would have had no other possible interpretation other than a confirmation. Since Tyrion knows this, and more importantly his interests are best and most responsibly served by a denial, chose to actively deny. (That his allies contradicted that denial isn't really important in this instance since I'm talking about what I suspect Tyrion's decision making process included, and the contradictions happened post facto.)

Tyrion's counter-narrative is completely understandable and exactly what a responsible leader should have done in his position. Whether it is lying, deceiving or not isn't important ethically on the level he's playing at, since he most definitely has a higher responsibility, which is to the security and well-being of his subordinates. If one's rivals approach with a deal to take down a threat, then cooperation is the only responsible option... and ensuring both the success and mutual benefit of the venture is the critical duty of a leader in order to maintain their alliance's political and strategic security.

So, yeah, I say he lied. Liar liar pants on fire. Even so, I do not fault him for that, since it was absolutely the right thing for him to do, strategically and ethically.

Ethics do change when you have higher responsibilities. Leaders do not have the luxury of arbitrary and absolutist philosophy like you and I do. I know that's not a happy statement to hear, I certainly didn't like saying it, but that doesn't make it not a very real and unfortunate reality. But, consider stuff like running a red light. You're not allowed to do it... but police officers are allowed to. And it would be unethical for you to run a red light in virtually all circumstances... but it is unethical for a police officer not to on a regular basis. It's the same here: It's unethical for you or I to lie in most circumstances (the old "nazi looking for a jew in your attic" oversimplification notwithstanding), but it would indeed be unethical for someone in Tyrion's position, or Partisan's position for that matter, to not lie when doing so serves their alliances' interests. (Of course, making sacrifices for ideological reasons is also both possible and laudable, at least when those bearing the brunt of the costs agree with that ideology. I personally support Partisan's efforts to avoid being a hegemon, even... nay, ESPECIALLY when those efforts resulted in being at the bottom of a dogpile. But that's just my own personal opinion, and I suspect Tyrion's members would not have shared that opinion.)

TL;DR: Sometimes alliance leaders lie. That doesn't make them bad, though. The rest of us just have to deal with it.

I think most people understand that without even saying, and your failing to recognize that is a big part of what's making people annoyed with you.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
I still am perfectly happy sacrificing strategic power for ideological reasons, but I'm definitely in the minority and I respect other playstyles, even if I don't agree with them.
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Ah, but Tyrion isn't the one that made the active decision that started the open warfare. His passive (and completely understandable and justified mind you, assuming he was the one approached and not the instigator) plotting against Quack, whether or not it existed, is something that fundamentally required a public counter-narrative to be presented. If he hadn't posted a counternarrative and just ignored or went "it's a secret" about it, those would have had no other possible interpretation other than a confirmation. Since Tyrion knows this, and more importantly his interests are best and most responsibly served by a denial, chose to actively deny. (That his allies contradicted that denial isn't really important in this instance since I'm talking about what I suspect Tyrion's decision making process included, and the contradictions happened post facto.)

Tyrion's counter-narrative is completely understandable and exactly what a responsible leader should have done in his position. Whether it is lying, deceiving or not isn't important ethically on the level he's playing at, since he most definitely has a higher responsibility, which is to the security and well-being of his subordinates. If one's rivals approach with a deal to take down a threat, then cooperation is the only responsible option... and ensuring both the success and mutual benefit of the venture is the critical duty of a leader in order to maintain their alliance's political and strategic security.

So, yeah, I say he lied. Liar liar pants on fire. Even so, I do not fault him for that, since it was absolutely the right thing for him to do, strategically and ethically.

For my part, I understand why you would believe Tyrion is lying. It fixes what would otherwise be a flaw in Quack's narrative. I also don't agree with you and your notion that it would be fine for Tyrion to deceive in this way. Also don't think it would be possible and finally, Tyrion himself has said that if he -did- have such a plan, it would have come out. That being said, I know that even some in Quack have been amenable to the theory that there was no serious plan for tCW, HM and Swamp to attack Quack in the forseeable future.

 

Thing you might consider- why is it that Ronny is so reticent about revealing his HM leader source? And why do you think it is that Boyce has been so quiet regarding his predictions?

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

I can easily seeing Tyrion saying it's opsec or ignoring, but not lying. How much have you actually spoken to Tyrion?

I actually know tyrion quite well yes. You're so zerod in on one thing and that's really just sad. The amount of hours you have invested into such a futile argument lol

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

For my part, I understand why you would believe Tyrion is lying. It fixes what would otherwise be a flaw in Quack's narrative. -blah- Also don't think it would be possible and finally, Tyrion himself has said that if he -did- have such a plan, it would have come out.

...His plan did come out. So it seems we're on the same page here and there's no 'flaw' at all. Mountains of evidence cannot be simply overlooked because someone with a vested interest merely said "nope"; that's not how logic works.

11 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I also don't agree with you and your notion that it would be fine for Tyrion to deceive in this way.

Why not? You would actually fault him for doing his job?

See, that kind of absolutism is what's really making you a pariah, as well it should.

11 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Thing you might consider- why is it that Ronny is so reticent about revealing his HM leader source? And why do you think it is that Boyce has been so quiet regarding his predictions?

They're doing their damned jobs as leaders. See the post you're quoting; it presents an explanation as to why leaders do their damned jobs.

I won't hecking reiterate something you're literally quoting, and in fact you've exhausted my patience for today. I'll be back tomorrow with the cluebat again, maybe.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

I actually know tyrion quite well yes.

 

Does that mean you have had long talks with him? Also, do you think he lied when he said that he had no knowledge of any plan to attack Quack first?

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

...His plan did come out.

I'm guessing you're referring to Ronny's infamous statement that was turned into an ad. To whit:

  

On 11/2/2020 at 9:56 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I can tell you straight up what has been going on from Grumpy's point of view.  Swamp came to HM about a month ago, asking about hitting you guys, and as the leader of Grumpy, I said i would only be on board if Rose was also on board, and Rose said no, so Grumpy was out.

 

For starters, Ronny himself poked a gigantic hole in the notion that this alleged plan ever went far, if it indeed even existed when he said, in the very next sentence:

On 11/2/2020 at 9:56 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

After about a week, I assumed the plan died since I didnt hear anything more about it.  

 

He then makes a statement which, if true completely eradicates that there was any plan whatsoever on the plan of HM to attack Quack after this brief week of contemplation on it:

  

On 11/2/2020 at 9:56 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Last week Quack militarized out of the blue, so we militarized and started talking to the other blocs, because we didn't know what they were doing or who they were planning to hit. Swamp and HM basically agreed that if one of us gets hit, we will help the other one because we cant let the strongest bloc in the game start steamrolling the smaller blocs, and we were waiting to see if Rose would also agree.  From what I understand Rose didn't jump on the bandwagon till a few hours before you guys attacked on Friday.  If we were all on board from the get go, we wouldn't have spend the 2 hours before you attacked frantically trying to decide how we wanted to handle you guys.   If we had all actually been working together, we would have had target lists together, and hit you first.

 

Now, you may say, 'But Phoenyx, I'm not referring to Ronny's denial of any plan, I'm talking of Ronny's statement that Swamp had such a plan'. To which I would present Exhibit B, Ronny making it clear that he himself hadn't spoken to anyone in Swamp:

  

On 11/2/2020 at 11:49 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

When I found out about potentially hitting Quack it was presented to me as Swamp came to us asking about it, I wasn't directly involved in the original discussion, I heard about it second hand.  Some gov of Swamp is saying it wasn't their idea, so I dont know whose idea it was besides Sphinx since he was pushing for it even back when we were at war with them.


Bringing us back to the HM leader that HM refuses to disclose for reasons they haven't revealed. Whenever you want to get to the bottom of anything, always look to the sources that -don't- want to talk. Tyrion's denial was crystal clear, unlike this unknown HM leader's ambiguous statement. To whit:

  

On 11/2/2020 at 11:52 AM, Lord Tyrion said:

Again, name calling isn't necessary.   As Ronny clarifies below, he heard it all second hand and wasn't involved in any discussions either.  So I'll say it again, those discussions didn't happen.  If you pull up a log that says otherwise, I'll be happy to have it thrown in my face, because they don't exist.  

 

Moving on...

59 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

  

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

I also don't agree with you and your notion that it would be fine for Tyrion to deceive in this way.

Why not? You would actually fault him for doing his job?

 

You notion that deceiving people is his job makes no sense to me.

 

56 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

  

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

Things you might consider- why is it that Ronny is so reticent about revealing his HM leader source? And why do you think it is that Boyce has been so quiet regarding his predictions?

They're doing their damned jobs as leaders. See the post you're quoting; it presents an explanation as to why leaders do their damned jobs.

This post is complicated enough without me trying to find something you're referring to. So I'll just say that I believe the -reason- that Ronny won't reveal his HM leader source is probably because that HM leader doesn't want to be revealed. As to why Boyce doesn't want to elaborate on where he got this notion that tCW, HM and Swamp were probably going to attack in December or January, I'm also not sure, but I suspect it's because he either knows or suspects that his guess didn't have much evidence behind it. 

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

He doesn't want that guy to be pestered by you incessantly, and thus be tempted to hand in his 72.

Ronny doesn't need to tell me who this HM leader was to move along in resolving this. The main issue isn't really this HM leader anyway- it's who he spoke to. It would seem he spoke to someone in Swamp, but the who of it matters. Tyrion has admitted it's possible that -someone- in Swamp spoke to this HM leader, but the main issue is what the Swamp leader meant, not what this HM leader took away from it. What I found sad was that Ronny hadn't even told Tyrion who his HM leader source was, which necessitated Tyrion to defend himself in the forum against what amounted to an unknown accuser. 

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

You don't know much at all. You just pretend you do. Or you've deluded yourself into thinking you do. 

Regarding this Global war, I think I know quite a bit. But by all means, feel free to prove me wrong :-p. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phoenyx If you want to get into the business of finding leaks and writing news, join a news group. Maybe they can teach you how you should and shouldn't handle stuff like this.

Also, pro tip, there is much much more interesting stuff that happens than this. What you are currently babbling about is something that is not only irrelevant and boring, but a common occurrence. So, in essence, you are telling us about something none of us can bother to give 2 shits about.

Something interesting I remember was the whole Forest scandal. Now THAT was some interesting shit. Go do that, learn from people like Arctic, and come back when you have an interesting and intriguing story to present.

  • Upvote 4

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, Corpsman said:

@Phoenyx If you want to get into the business of finding leaks and writing news, join a news group. Maybe they can teach you how you should and shouldn't handle stuff like this.

I'm actually in one. They even made me a reporter :-p. So far, all my investigations have been done in the forum though. The one who runs it has been helpful. For one, they clued me in to Yang's "secret HM leader" identity joke :-p. 

 

  

1 hour ago, Corpsman said:

Also, pro tip, there is much much more interesting stuff that happens than this. What you are currently babbling about is something that is not only irrelevant and boring, but a common occurrence. So, in essence, you are telling us about something none of us can bother to give 2 shits about.

Something interesting I remember was the whole Forest scandal. Now THAT was some interesting shit. Go do that, learn from people like Arctic, and come back when you have an interesting and intriguing story to present.

Maybe one day, but for now, I'm kinda more interested in current events. Your thread actually got a bit of my attention as you may have noticed. If new things grab my interest, will definitely get into them. I doubt I'll ever stop wanting to know who Ronny's HM leader was though. Or, more importantly, this HM leader's source and what they really meant. Not to mention more on Boyce's reasoning that tCW, HM and Swamp were probably going to attack Quack in December or January. 

 

 

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phoenyx said:

Your thread actually got a bit of my attention as you may have noticed.

My thread got a bit of everyones attention, don't understate my accomplishments. Smh.

/s

Edited by Corpsman
  • Haha 2

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

You have managed to miss every single point Scarfalot made, and instead reverted back to "I believe tyrion he wouldn't lie hurrrr secret hm leader". 

And no, neither I nor relevant players on either side of last conflict seem to have much interest in sharing the remainder of the intelligence that drove this war and may drive future politics with you.

My members were presented with the why's and what's at the onset. My allies and government are intimately aware of all considerations and evidence that factored into our decision to go to war. As are various key leaders on the other side. 

Similarly, ts listens to continued dialogue in private non-phoenyx channels. 

You are not, nor will be, aware of the contents of any of that, because youre neither relevant to our interests as an individual, nor particularly trustworthy or refreshing to interact with. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

You have managed to miss every single point Scarfalot made, and instead reverted back to "I believe tyrion he wouldn't lie hurrrr secret hm leader". 

And no, neither I nor relevant players on either side of last conflict seem to have much interest in sharing the remainder of the intelligence that drove this war and may drive future politics with you.

My members were presented with the why's and what's at the onset. My allies and government are intimately aware of all considerations and evidence that factored into our decision to go to war. As are various key leaders on the other side. 

Similarly, ts listens to continued dialogue in private non-phoenyx channels. 

You are not, nor will be, aware of the contents of any of that, because youre neither relevant to our interests as an individual, nor particularly trustworthy or refreshing to interact with. 

 

This isn't just about me. What is said in the forums is as much as most people in the game get to see. Anyway, here's to hoping that the Quack and non Quack narratives finally come to resemble each other in the future. Until that time, it's only natural that there will continue to be distrust on both sides. 

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

38 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Anyway, here's to hoping that the Quack and non Quack narratives finally come to resemble each other in the future.

The likelihood of this happening in any given large conflict, Quack v. NPC or not, is incredibly small due to both sides of a conflict trying to show that their narrative is the absolutely correct or most correct narrative when placed in comparison against their opposition, both from an offensive and defensive position, through evidence and general spin.

 

On 12/29/2020 at 6:37 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Right, you trust Tyrion because you like his style of questions and thus you take his statements at face value without applying the same standard of scrutiny to them as you do with literally anyone else's statements. The fact that you disagree with and therefore scrutinize the statements Tyrion makes which you don't like is just further evidence of your intense and knowing bias.

This is all evidence which you have helpfully provided your own dang self.

Partisan actually has not merely "shown interest in" but in fact HAS done his due diligence and research on the subject, and in an intellectually honest and responsible manner to boot. Why you persist in believing such heinously inaccurate things about him is beyond me, really, since there's ample evidence to show that he has indeed looked very deeply into the matter. And since you'll ask, despite it being blatantly obvious, the evidence is that he's still a leader of a major bloc which has not fired him, expelled his alliance, nor disbanded. Which is what any halfway competent leader would do in the face of such an extraordinary failure on the part of another leader. Since they haven't, he must therefore have not failed so completely as you insist he has.

What you're neglecting, despite being told countless times and being shown a mountain of evidence in support of, is that unlike yourself, Partisan is an alliance leader. Which means that he both needs to be and in fact is responsible in his FA efforts, which includes both diligently and thoroughly investigating threats against the alliance as well as keeping the results of his efforts confidential. Confidential, by the way, mostly means keeping the evidence, sources of evidence, reasoning, and conclusions secret from irrelevant parties that scream victory from the rooftops and dump logs every time someone tells them something privately.

If Partisan had indeed just taken the Boyce rumors at face value and flatly declared war without following up nor considering what such a major action would entail, the entire bloc would have fired him. From a cannon. We didn't, since he DID do his research, he DID follow up, and brought the investigation to his peers for appraisal and deliberation. They deliberated, determined it was actionable, and took the appropriate actions. I can tell you this for certain because I AM privy to a fair chunk of that investigation. Yep, I said it: That info is there, I've got it up on my screen now, but I'm not going to give it to you nor will anyone else because it was given to us with the expectation of remaining confidential.

So, by all means feel free to continue faffing about, screaming for evidence and things to proudly leak for your own amusement. We'll be over here, actually trying to be intellectually honest and trustworthy, and actually getting that evidence. Do consider joining us when you grow up.

This is all correct. If I make a mistake from an FA standpoint and House Stark suffers needlessly for it, Zygon would undoubtedly be awaiting my resignation. In this case, we did not suffer needlessly, and once our membership was made aware of why we were at war, they understood that it was for a good cause and here I am, still at service to HS. 

Edited by Darth Ataxia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Darth Ataxia said:

  

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

This isn't just about me. What is said in the forums is as much as most people in the game get to see. Anyway, here's to hoping that the Quack and non Quack narratives finally come to resemble each other in the future. Until that time, it's only natural that there will continue to be distrust on both sides. 

The likelihood of this happening in any given large conflict, Quack v. NPC or not, is incredibly small due to both sides of a conflict trying to show that their narrative is the absolutely correct or most correct narrative when placed in comparison against their opposition, both from an offensive and defensive position, through evidence and general spin.

 

You may well be right. That actually bolsters my case though. Here's the way I see it- you have 4 sides here, Quack, tCW, HM and Swamp. Quack says tCW, HM and Swamp were going to attack. HM says they considered it briefly, but that Swamp had suggested the idea first. Swamp, vis a vis TI and TFP, deny any knowledge of such a plan. tCW, via Sphinx, essentially says the same. So what we have now is kind of like a poker game of a very long duration. The thing is, the only side that has been ready to call from the start is Swamp. HM, and Quack seem to be fine with just upping the ante indefinitely, the ante being time and there being a lot of that. Now to be fair, Quack may not be able to get much more out of Boyce anyway even if they wanted to, especially if his evidence cards are terrible, which I strongly suspect they are.

 

I suspect Ronny's HM leader source is in the same boat, mistaking Swamp's plans to do a defensive bloc as plans for an offensive one. 

 

  

42 minutes ago, Darth Ataxia said:

This is all correct. If I make a mistake from an FA standpoint and House Stark suffers needlessly for it, Zygon would undoubtedly be awaiting my resignation. In this case, we did not suffer needlessly, and once our membership was made aware of why we were at war, they understood that it was for a good cause and here I am, still at service to HS. 

 

I think anyone can believe that you believed that tCW, HM and Swamp were going to attack, certainly before the war and quite possibly to this day. However, I think the takeaway from this is probably pretty straightforward- check with bloc FAs before going on rumour. Because attacking first doesn't guarantee you will win and in this case and also makes you out as the aggressor in the eyes of many. Finally, if what the non Quack forces are saying is true, there would have been no attack on Quack at all if Quack hadn't attacked first. 

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

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

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