BREAKING NEWS - Noobaxes announces he is quiting RAM

[DeletedUser]

you might be trying to impress cy or something by getting involved being the hero maybe you fancy her? but guess what brown tongue nobody is interested in anything you say or do EVER!, shes a big girl and is capable of talking to me without you butting in trying to act the hard man (which you aren't) TBH you dont stand a chance because i dont think skinny 7 stone wimps are her type.

Don't worry, I have already sent Cy plenty of pics in an effort to impress her, unfortunately you're right, 7 stone wimps aren't her type :lol:

Like I said originally chump, it was incredibly obvious what Cy had meant, Atraeus came to the same conclusions as myself, I would propose that is due to our significantly higher ability to read and comprehend the written word than your own.

If you have something more solid than your e-warrior forum persona, you can find me at ozzyfudd.

 

[DeletedUser]

What are you trying to say? I'm a bad tribemate because I gave my villages to my tribe and hit delete because of problems in real life?

No. I am saying that you must equate one with the other. I have had RL issues aswell and needed to be sat for a considerable length of time by friends until they passed. There are 2 statements running here.

1. You stating: "I good tribe mate would be able to coldly stab their friend in the back, for the good of their tribe."

Vice versa applies. A good friend would coldly stab his tribe in the back for the sake of their friendship.

2. SFC stating: "As EC said, a truly great tribemate will do anything for their tribe. We know this better than anyone else."

SFC clearly misquotes you here and twists your meaning into a meaning he wishes to get across. His statement is the one that I was addressing in my last post and it applies to anyone believing that "a good tribe mate will do anything for their tribe" without question.

I agree with that... partly. In noobaxes case, I think he just left because he was upset about the implications that his friends in DECIDE would be disappointed in him, rather than it was for the good of the tribe.

You think he just left because he was upset. That is dangerous. You openly state that you "think he left" which is a supposition and not an affirmation such as "I know he left". Now if your statement in relation to back stabbing friends before tribe mates suggests that noobaxes should have stayed with his tribe regardless of circumstances then my later statements definitely apply.

Ha ha! Parmenion, don't try and link genocide, mass murder, RL war and RL evils to an internet game. The consequences are clearly not the same.

According to your logic, we should never war on TW, because in real wars people get hurt?

Given my penchant for war the latter part of your statement makes no sense. Atraeus drew down the correct intelligent conclusions from my analogy. I can draw down hundreds of examples to illustrate my point but they all stem from real life history. I DO think is relevant to apply lessons/comparisons of real world history to an internet game which mimics the set up of countries/tribes. Language exists because of history, should we cast that out too just because it existed before the game did?

Can there ever be a debate without bringing up Nazis? :lol:

Sure. Would you like instead the example of how children rebelled during the 1976 Soweto Riots against the established apartheid regime in South Africa because they were being forced to learn a compulsory language in schools? I figured there were a tonne of potential examples I could give but the most easily recognizable one to the general human mind that reads these forums is that of WW2. My apologies if that seems old hat.

The fact that noobaxes is quiting RAM for good, states that he is through with the tribe, and has lost all loyalty to it. Not a good tribe mate.

Say if I became duke, I am a liberal thinker, and I value noobaxes opinions more than what he claims the current dukes do, would he return to RAM. Apparently not. He isn't leaving for the good of the tribe, he is leaving because he is annoyed at the dukes.

I agree with that... partly. In noobaxes case, I think he just left because he was upset about the implications that his friends in DECIDE would be disappointed in him, rather than it was for the good of the tribe.

2 quotes from you above.

1 States specifically that Noobaxes isn't leaving for the good of the tribe, he is leaving because he is annoyed at the dukes. This is an affirmation of N's intent/motivation

2 States specifically that you think Noobaxes left because he is upset. This is a speculation of N's intent/motivation

You contradict your knowledge/affirmation of the situation in the space of one post. You either definitely know or you are definitely speculating or worse you are changing from speculating to pretending to definitely know so as to back up your already ill-conceived attempt at logic or making sense. You cannot flip-flop and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[KarmaX]

Now, I understand all your point but in our tribe's council, noobaxes was asked several times to vouch for his words. He didn't bother. Mberns was with him against council decision regarding DECIDE and he even asked him to justify why. He simply just told that we should accept DECIDE"s deal, and no reasoning to back it up. After that he has been quiet. With your reasoning above, I'm sure that you would've voiced your opinion by giving reasons why, instead of just saying, I don't like this, I don't like that. Also, noobaxes is a long term friend of mine and I still think he is, regardless of me removing from council. If I were in his shoes, I'd had tried everything in my reach to prove me wrong and that too without being public in the forums, W30 skype room, which is his biggest mistake.

All the mudslinging you see in the first few pages, yes, they were outta anger, without much thinking, and everyone is human, and they surely make mistakes, but one thing we keep in mind is not be open about tribe out in the public. Yes, me and mberns too had a big fight in the past few week, and yes, we fought it out with each other in the tribe, and now we understand each other even more and are friends again.

A tribe doesn't belong to the duke, but the duke belongs to the tribe. If he had dis-satisfaction with me; yes, he should fight it out and prove me wrong inside the tribe, instead of posting in the public forums. About threatening, being the duke of RAM, I have never threatened noobaxes. Also, cshipley's mail was a sarcastic one, and it might be taken in both ways, but all he really meant was noob to realize and get back what he deserves, instead of being a threat. I know you're a smart man Parm, and I hope you don't side just because we're on the other side of the flame.

 

[DeletedUser80229]

parm you should help me write my essays

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with that... partly. In noobaxes case, I think he just left because he was upset about the implications that his friends in DECIDE would be disappointed in him, rather than it was for the good of the tribe.

The fact that noobaxes is quiting RAM for good, states that he is through with the tribe, and has lost all loyalty to it. Not a good tribe mate.

Say if I became duke, I am a liberal thinker, and I value noobaxes opinions more than what he claims the current dukes do, would he return to RAM. Apparently not. He isn't leaving for the good of the tribe, he is leaving because he is annoyed at the dukes.

I respect your opinions Parm, but in this case your logic isn't well thought through.

Parm's logic is totally fine and I agree with him. As far saying that I cared about what DECIDE members think of me, that's totally ridiculous. I never cared, both in RL and in this game, about what people think of me. Never.

This is TW so there will be wars. We would have to fight DECIDE at some point but it was cleary not the time to do that and it shouldn't have happened that soon and that way (when we are doing poorly against Phoenx).

When my former tribe BD's counsel started making decisions based upon what their interests were in relation to the world and those interests conflicted with mine (and I was not a member of the counsel), then I adopted a policy of non compliance in most matters and a rallying of the the minority of members who were opposed to the decisions being made. The outcome was a little different in that the entirety of the counsel quit playing the game for various reasons proposed by them. So an 8 million point player can cause significant damage to a tribe when they create civil strife among the players. A very good reason for any counsel to listen to their players who are discontent.

Parm sumarizes it perfectly. I stopped complying to tribal matters and it kept going downhill until I had enough. Then, I slammed the door.

I didn't like a lot of things in RAM, wether it's the existence of the academy (that I wanted to dismantle), lack of commitment from a lot of members, privs taken, threats, insults (for disagreeing) and I can keep that list going and going.

 

[KarmaX]

Yes, but you should be fighting, and voicing it out instead of keeping it in all the time, or instead of saying something, and then disappearing in your own world. I never hesitate or fall back on what I want to voice out. You should know that being different person, we have sometimes entirely different view on things, and with just plain statement, we can't seem to understand it or get it. All I wished was that you had tried harder to voice your opinions, rather than just saying few lines and then disappearing. But, when a mass have same opinion, then we should just carry it out, and deal with it, regardless of right or wrong because majority has decided on it, and as a tribe member, we all equally have to share our mass thought and weight.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, but you should be fighting, and voicing it out instead of keeping it in all the time, or instead of saying something, and then disappearing in your own world. I never hesitate or fall back on what I want to voice out. You should know that being different person, we have sometimes entirely different view on things, and with just plain statement, we can't seem to understand it or get it. All I wished was that you had tried harder to voice your opinions, rather than just saying few lines and then disappearing. But, when a mass have same opinion, then we should just carry it out, and deal with it, regardless of right or wrong because majority has decided on it, and as a tribe member, we all equally have to share our mass thought and weight.

noob no matter how much i hate karmax he is right on this one...

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not going to fight over and over for the same things for the sake of having a harder voice. Every time talked about things, it was no and move on. My way or the highway, I chose the highway.

 

[KarmaX]

Yes, highway and road trips are fun, but not for long. Soon you'll have to go home, and get back to business.

 

[DeletedUser79042]

Soon you'll have to go home, and get back to business.

Unless someone gets hired elsewhere Karma... :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

Appreciate your reply Karmax and it sounds to me quite like Noobaxes is approaching this situation as I did the one with BD.

I can understand when you say you feel Noobaxes should have given reasons etc to back up his points and Noob in turn says that he was sick of fighting for the same things over and over. The problem with even a semblance of democracy that takes on board the issues of all yet ultimately it becomes a dictatorship of the majority. So where is the individual left to go when their views in relation to many things contrast with where they want the direction of the tribe or more importantly, their account to go?

For example, I was vehemently against BD going to war with Phoenix or even creating the bully-boy situation which gave Phoenix no option but to go to war with us because we had RAM breathing down our necks in the SE with the collapse of DN and a tonne of cities going barb in that direction. I was absolutely against the recruiting of Templarz & Valdivar from Phoenix given it was done without even consulting Phoenix and letting them know. This is a tribe that we had very good relations with from the start of the world, not unlike RAM's situation with DECIDE.

Now I did participate in the war against Phoenix but the more I said I am unhappy with recruiting policies, strategic policies etc, the more I basically got told to like it or lump it by leadership and I got told that I was simply losing my temper for the sake of it and impeding the direction the tribe was going. It became pointless arguing with them and so I was left with the choices of leaving the game, leaving the tribe or suffering in silence. I was rescued from having to make that decision by canine-, the internal duke who actually took on board my points and decided that recruiting would be frozen and strategic policies would be frozen until such time as these internal issues were resolved.

The outcome was that leadership decided that they were not getting their own way, were sick of playing the world or had RL stuff they would rather do and made an announcement they were quitting which caused a domino effect resulting in many players quitting.

The point is that if a person has a tonne of problems with their tribe, it takes a lot of time in RL explaining that reasoning and when you have someone at the other end you don't think will listen then there is no point. There is also the time investment. Spending hours on forums or skype explaining reasoning is a tedious and tiresome exercise. It is a far wiser investment of one's own personal time to just decide this ain't working for me and go your own direction.

I can appreciate why people would disagree with that but ultimately nobody in this game owes anyone else explanations for their actions. Noobaxes on the other hand provides a multitude of reasons in his very first post in this thread. Granted you will say it should have been dealt with internally etc but that would be your decision in relation to how you would like things to be dealt with. How one person deals with a situation is certainly not binding to any other on any level. If it was then there would be the control issue and master/slave relationship. Usually we find that propriety (what people consider to be correct or appropriate behaviour) is a tool for those people to impose what their thoughts are on correct or responsible behaviour on others to lock them into a certain way of acting or dealing with situations. This inherently removes other options from the target by proxy.

 

[DeletedUser]

Appreciate your reply Karmax and it sounds to me quite like Noobaxes is approaching this situation as I did the one with BD.

I can understand when you say you feel Noobaxes should have given reasons etc to back up his points and Noob in turn says that he was sick of fighting for the same things over and over. The problem with even a semblance of democracy that takes on board the issues of all yet ultimately it becomes a dictatorship of the majority.

Parm, again I always enjoy your posts, whether I agree with them or not - they are well-reasoned and well-argued without flaming.

Your statement reminds me of the quote I think I used in the Skype chat when people were talking about Noob "being outvoted" and "he lost the vote by the majority, so he should just be quiet and do his job."



Sometimes the "majority" just means all the stupid people are on the same side ...

 

[DeletedUser71844]

No. I am saying that you must equate one with the other. I have had RL issues aswell and needed to be sat for a considerable length of time by friends until they passed. There are 2 statements running here.

1. You stating: "I good tribe mate would be able to coldly stab their friend in the back, for the good of their tribe."

Vice versa applies. A good friend would coldly stab his tribe in the back for the sake of their friendship.

Tribe A is the tribe you are currently in. Tribe A is at war with Tribe C.
Tribe B has your friends in it. You are truly loyal to Tribe B. They are near both tribe A & C.
Tribe C is at war with Tribe A.

You sabotage Tribe A and join Tribe C, to at a later date, sabotage them too.
Does this make you a good tribemate, or a good friend?

No matter who you stab in the back, the tribe you join afterward will benefit from it. Thus making you a good tribemate, in their tribe at least.

 

[DeletedUser]

SFC, looks like you are making my point for me, but my apologies if I am picking you up wrong in the regard.

By your above example it appears that it leaves very little wiggle room for being a bad tribe mate based upon the recipient's viewpoint of always benefiting from the protagonist's actions. Is that what you wished to convey?

Unfortunately Cy-Pres that happens more often than I think we would all like to see! The really fun thing is that the "stupidity" or "stupid people" simply depends on where you are sitting in relation to the fence.

Its like I have always said; it is all a matter of perception.

 

[DeletedUser71961]

Don't worry, I have already sent Cy plenty of pics in an to impress her, unfortunately you're right, 7 stone wimps aren't her type :lol:

Like I said originally chump, it was incredibly obvious what Cy had meant, Atraeus came to the same conclusions as myself, I would propose that is due to our significantly higher ability to read and comprehend the written word than your own.

If you have something more solid than your e-warrior forum persona, you can find me at ozzyfudd.

ok i get it you made your point, im thick but you and everybody you are currently brown tonging are highly intellectual right? this attacking of somebodies grammar or level of intelligence thing left w30 a long time ago and normal people don't like predigest people thinking they are above others these days, its old, boring and weak so change the record, i play this game as it is (a war game) which normally means i get aggressive and i will never change so you might as well just get over it and take things with a pinch of salt like everybody else does because you are wasting your time, if you used that massive brain of yours you might have worked that out for yourself, also a lot of people probably want us both to STFU!

 

[KarmaX]

Appreciate your reply Karmax and it sounds to me quite like Noobaxes is approaching this situation as I did the one with BD.

I can understand when you say you feel Noobaxes should have given reasons etc to back up his points and Noob in turn says that he was sick of fighting for the same things over and over. The problem with even a semblance of democracy that takes on board the issues of all yet ultimately it becomes a dictatorship of the majority. So where is the individual left to go when their views in relation to many things contrast with where they want the direction of the tribe or more importantly, their account to go?

For example, I was vehemently against BD going to war with Phoenix or even creating the bully-boy situation which gave Phoenix no option but to go to war with us because we had RAM breathing down our necks in the SE with the collapse of DN and a tonne of cities going barb in that direction. I was absolutely against the recruiting of Templarz & Valdivar from Phoenix given it was done without even consulting Phoenix and letting them know. This is a tribe that we had very good relations with from the start of the world, not unlike RAM's situation with DECIDE.

Now I did participate in the war against Phoenix but the more I said I am unhappy with recruiting policies, strategic policies etc, the more I basically got told to like it or lump it by leadership and I got told that I was simply losing my temper for the sake of it and impeding the direction the tribe was going. It became pointless arguing with them and so I was left with the choices of leaving the game, leaving the tribe or suffering in silence. I was rescued from having to make that decision by canine-, the internal duke who actually took on board my points and decided that recruiting would be frozen and strategic policies would be frozen until such time as these internal issues were resolved.

The outcome was that leadership decided that they were not getting their own way, were sick of playing the world or had RL stuff they would rather do and made an announcement they were quitting which caused a domino effect resulting in many players quitting.

The point is that if a person has a tonne of problems with their tribe, it takes a lot of time in RL explaining that reasoning and when you have someone at the other end you don't think will listen then there is no point. There is also the time investment. Spending hours on forums or skype explaining reasoning is a tedious and tiresome exercise. It is a far wiser investment of one's own personal time to just decide this ain't working for me and go your own direction.

I can appreciate why people would disagree with that but ultimately nobody in this game owes anyone else explanations for their actions. Noobaxes on the other hand provides a multitude of reasons in his very first post in this thread. Granted you will say it should have been dealt with internally etc but that would be your decision in relation to how you would like things to be dealt with. How one person deals with a situation is certainly not binding to any other on any level. If it was then there would be the control issue and master/slave relationship. Usually we find that propriety (what people consider to be correct or appropriate behaviour) is a tool for those people to impose what their thoughts are on correct or responsible behaviour on others to lock them into a certain way of acting or dealing with situations. This inherently removes other options from the target by proxy.

It might be you didn't get my point yet. Like your example was "if a person doesn't like the law of the country, he can leave the country", but you're completely mistaken in the way we view things. If you don't like the law, you do a strike and fight to change the law. That is what a good citizen of every single country does. You reply sounds like if you don't like things, turn your tails and abandon your country.

BD, might be something different, but in RAM you have to make your point, instead of just saying I don't like it, which is just plain and not enough. When I gave my point, I had reasoning on it, and it wasn't just some plain text saying about it. Yes, as Cypres says, "

Sometimes the "majority" just means all the stupid people are on the same side ...

", but I already explained it in the previous post which I'll repeat again. Sometimes, yes, the majority of the tribe might take wrong decision, but it doesn't mean that you have to abandon a tribe for that, you should try to reach out even more or as a tribe mate just carry the weight, and try to make wrong, the right.

Every thing in this world has two side of a coin, ying and yang, good or bad. For example, PHOENX chose to war RAM, but in future if they lose the war, would you call it a bad decision? From my point of view, it'll be that they tried whatever they could to make that decision right and had their members try their best to fight for it.

But, don't know why when it comes to RAM, now people say, yes noobaxes is right. What I'm saying here is, that we both are at fault, one for not listening soft spoken words, and one for not voicing out his words, and not listening. Parm, you have mentioned that its more time taking to do explanation and a lot of hassle, then why have time to talk to outsiders about it rather than coming it at your own? That is all I say, and hope the one that is missing in action, will come back to his home after having his small road trip.

 

[DeletedUser]

I do not know where my road trip will lead me, but I do appreciate the change of tone towards me.

:icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

No. I am saying that you must equate one with the other. I have had RL issues as well and needed to be sat for a considerable length of time by friends until they passed.

No, you must not equate them. The consequence is different, leaving a tribe out of choice is being disloyal and leaving because you are forced to isn't.

There are 2 statements running here.

1. You stating: "A good tribe mate would be able to coldly stab their friend in the back, for the good of their tribe."

Vice versa applies. A good friend would coldly stab his tribe in the back for the sake of their friendship.

2. SFC stating: "As EC said, a truly great tribemate will do anything for their tribe. We know this better than anyone else."

SFC clearly misquotes you here and twists your meaning into a meaning he wishes to get across. His statement is the one that I was addressing in my last post and it applies to anyone believing that "a good tribe mate will do anything for their tribe" without question.

No, the meaning is the same. A truly good tribemate would be able to stab their friends in their back because they value their tribe and tribe members more highly.

You think he just left because he was upset. That is dangerous. You openly state that you "think he left" which is a supposition and not an affirmation such as "I know he left". Now if your statement in relation to back stabbing friends before tribe mates suggests that noobaxes should have stayed with his tribe regardless of circumstances then my later statements definitely apply.

I shouldn't have used 'think', I know. It isn't dangerous, Noobaxes more or less says it himself. If he left to further the success of the tribe, he would have said so.Instead he insults RAM players who made never made a bad choice in the council, and declares he has left for good. As I said, if the leadership and council were replaced, would he return? Apparently not, even if RAM was a better place. Therefore he has no intent to better the tribe by leaving it. Which is why your analogy regarding physicists etc. has no relevance.

Given my penchant for war the latter part of your statement makes no sense. Atraeus drew down the correct intelligent conclusions from my analogy. I can draw down hundreds of examples to illustrate my point but they all stem from real life history. I DO think is relevant to apply lessons/comparisons of real world history to an internet game which mimics the set up of countries/tribes. Language exists because of history, should we cast that out too just because it existed before the game did?

If you really think the Nazi regime, where millions of people died can mimic tribal wars (a game), you are wrong. That is if you're coming from a teleological perspective. If you are saying that being blindly nationalistic is bad, then your analogy does make sense and I apologize for assuming it was relevant to this thread.

Sure. Would you like instead the example of how children rebelled during the 1976 Soweto Riots against the established apartheid regime in South Africa because they were being forced to learn a compulsory language in schools? I figured there were a tonne of potential examples I could give but the most easily recognizable one to the general human mind that reads these forums is that of WW2. My apologies if that seems old hat.

Yes, it was old hat, that was my point. And apology accepted. :icon_smile:

2 quotes from you above.

1 States specifically that Noobaxes isn't leaving for the good of the tribe, he is leaving because he is annoyed at the dukes. This is an affirmation of N's intent/motivation

2 States specifically that you think Noobaxes left because he is upset. This is a speculation of N's intent/motivation

You contradict your knowledge/affirmation of the situation in the space of one post. You either definitely know or you are definitely speculating or worse you are changing from speculating to pretending to definitely know so as to back up your already ill-conceived attempt at logic or making sense. You cannot flip-flop and expect to be taken seriously.

I definitely know. I shouldn't have used 'think'. And that's not me trying to cover up my tracks.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe the Gods have sent down a master of English, and his name is Parmenion.

I love the posts Parm, such a good read.

But on the matter at hand, tribal politics can get pretty rough sometimes and some people are left with only a handful of choices. Some of which they don't realize they had until it's too late. I think that Noob did what he thought best and to me it was probably better that he leave instead of getting into a heated argument with the leaders of the tribe and ultimately bringing the possibility of a split in the tribe.

I've seen that happen too many times in my experience with tribes.

 

[DeletedUser79042]

but I do appreciate the change of tone towards me

It took 8 pages of a pnp thread and almost all other-than-RAM pnp'ers to get them RAM guys switch over to the "reasonable" side noob :icon_neutral:

Better late than never :icon_wink: