Dung Fu, the Drama Continues

[DeletedUser]

Atraeus, your account doesn't reflect your skill, ok. Is there an account on any world that does?
Because if there isn't you should just quit the yapping and admit to this entire community:

1. Yes, guys, I have never played this game in a decent manner. I just lack the skill. Or might have it but haven't had the chance to test in my years/months of playing.
2. Yes, guys, all I ever did in this game is talk (an awful lot sometimes) and do diplomacy. (which some of you evil people like to call Tribal Hugs)
3. I'm a nice, honest, great guy. That won't necessarily make me a good or skilled tw player. I'm perfectly aware of that, so please don't judge me by my gaming skills cause, oh well, even if they might exist in theory, I have yet to prove them.

Of course, if you do that you'll risk getting comments like: "Just stfu, you noob" next time you give your oppionon (this is one evil forum, I know), but I believe that a big part of the people that lost respect for you when you started this embarrassing thread might like you again.

P.S. If you, please do it in a short post cause otherwise lazy ones like me won't read it. :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

Okido, now that i got the time for it, here comes my reply to the first post, ignoring all what has been written between. To recapitulate for the inattentive reader (or the one with a short memory), this thread started because of this:

Your response failed to address even a single of the arguments i raised with a counterargument. All you did was slur me personally by saying there were obvious misconstruction's that even a half-intelligent reader can figure out and other such nice insults.

See, i may be an idiot (and my tribesmates'll happily confirm this for you), but i do think it's low to state that there are misconstruction's in an argument, but not point them out. I posted all my evidence for all to see and confirm/deny. You haven't done a single such thing, hell you even refuse to name the player you referred to earlier (obviously because no such player exists).

After the above quote, Atraeus felt the need to lead people away from the thread this discussion was being waged in up till then and start a new one here. The wisdom of such a move i shan't go into, what i shall go in to is the arguments you posted in your first post here. Which once again fail to address those i brought up in my last substantial post in the original thread.

Now, in general it's pretty darned easy to reply to your post as most of your points are moot due to one simple fact: you've chosen to take one point i never argued you on and then say that was the begin of our debate. It wasn't, this was as a direct result of this post. It is this post and the arguments therein that you have not once seriously answered to. You've tried a couple times, and every single time you have been proven wrong. I've posted the facts for all to see and you have not answered a single one of them. You keep spinning words and posts, but none of it answers my arguments.

So given that you posted this in the first spoiler in this thread:
I have left out anything not directly related to my debate. What others have said to each other, and myself, that is not related to this debate, is moot in my eyes. I am sure that you won't mind me skipping the debate you had with Gicu for all of two posts or so about a deal you did or did not make with him concerning MF refugees.

The debate we were having was about the honour of BD attacking DECIDE when it was already at war with GREEN. Whether or not it was überhaupt true that we were doing so, who was attacked by whom player-wise and so forth. To reiterate what i posted in my last post in the DECIDE thread about this topic:

Let's see:
1. you said you didn't touch the acvenne attacks, i proved you wrong.

2. you said [DN] aren't attacking green. By the admissions of DN members earlier in this thread they were and they considered several K's worth of Green members refugees. That to me is equal to a war declaration. We all know that refugees are a valid reason to go to war, but we also all know that if a tribe is prepared and equipped to defend those refugees then it'll be a full-blown war. Green are clearly willing to defend their new recruits, so either [DN] stops eating them (doubtful) or it's a war. It means Green needs to stack their border with [DN] to stop their members from being eaten (given the obviously bigger skill at the other side). 5 caps, less, more doesn't matter. What matters is there's a threat and i doubt either [DN] or DECIDE would leave their back door undefended when faced with similar circumstances.

3. you referred to some unnamed player other then Acvenne, i asked you who that player was.

4. you said that the situation with the few of us attacking DECIDE is not the same as DN attacking GREEN. I concurred as you were proven wrong (and apologised) for the so-called attack from BD on DECIDE. But not so for the other situation.

5. i asked you what the difference was between the situation between DECIDE/BD and the situation between GREEN/[DN] (in terms of the refugee being on or offlimits).

6. I quoted you yourself when you (not me) said you were the spokesperson for DECIDE in this thread. I also gave reasons as to why it's logical from past and current behaviour to assume this even in the absence of your quote.

7. i apologised for saying you were here against your wishes as that was one deduction to far.

8. i said that you are making an argument you wouldn't make if the tables are turned. And i asked - again - what the difference between the two situations is.

Now one point i need to adress is this bit from your first post:

I explain I was never defending Acvenne, nor refering to her when I was speaking of BD attacking

I'll quote myself here yet again ...

really, you were? Then why was only his name mentioned? I just combed through this entire thread. I found not a single other name. Not one.
1. TT bringing up how we're attacking DECIDE
2. TT yet again
3. this guy is on fire

do note that up to there no names are mentioned. But wait ... what happens now?

4. Chamica bringing up the player in question.
5. [spoil][/spoil] (note: i added bold)

Yup, that's you running with the Acvenne name. I went through all your posts and found a couple more where you mentioned Acvenne. Not once did you mention another player. Given that you already apologised for reacting on misinformation that BD was launching widespread attacks on DECIDE: please do tell what player you're talking about then if it's not Acvenne?

Again: yes you did mention acvenne several times, yes you used him as the example of us attacking DECIDE. Yes you are refusing to tell us which other players you were talking about that we were supposedly attacking as a tribe.

Respond to my arguments, counterprove my points but do so with facts. You haven't done this once, all you're doing is trying to spin words to make it seem as if you are the undeserved victim of persecution when it is anything but. You have insulted, manipulated, spinned in the DECIDE thread and i see you did exactly the same in the original post in this thread.

 

[Gicusan]

I am more intrested in the deceiving and unsincere parts of Atraeus posts.
Stop calling for simphaty and cry you are targeted by people organised into an evil plot. You opened a thread about you. You chose this. You pick the riped fruits.

2. I write a lot, this is true, but I only do so because I have a lot to express. Sorry you hold that against me, but to say it is "snake-type" is a bit over the top. I think what I write is very clear, and hard to misinterpret. Nothing "snake-type" about being direct.

You almost never answer the things we debate upon but carefully chose to answer only the few that suit you in building a response. continuously for tens of replies.

3. Skill determines how you judge a man's character? Nevertheless, you choose to judge me with what you have to go on, which is stats alone. I could simply redirect your attention to JPohlman, who has openly claimed to not be a great player, but has proven himself in both his tribe's leadership and public image. His tribe is the number one tribe. Mine was the number five. Last time I checked, which was shortly before I quit recently, our accounts were close to even as I recall in all stats. So again, there is more to what a player can contribute than what stats can reflect. But I suppose it makes little difference, after all, you can take this out and you still have seven more reasons to attack me.

We are not talking JP here. He does not brag on all forums pointing fingers to others and showing himself. Even so, he is a decent player ingame and he sits his tribe members a lot when needed. And this is shown by TW stats also. Unlike yours, his first conquers are both much earlier and consisted in players that probably put quite a fight. He has a few barbs and intribes but mostly he goes for the enemy of the tribe to ennoble. There are signs of good playing in that account even if not very active at all. Not in yours. Unlike you he sits there not only helping but also leading his tribe.

I will skip the part where you call me deceiving because you posted an ingame mail without asking. If you had the morale level to do it, I doubt you will have the one to understand what I was talking about there.

7. I defended them both because I believed in them, and because I was a member. I do not defend them anymore, and have not for reasons that I explained in that last big post you and so many others knock, reasons you chose not to read. For the record, I still believe in them. Seriously man, what about that makes me a megalomaniac?

the fact that you belive in your tribe has nothing to do with the clear reason I called you Megalomaniac for. This is what I said: "I dislike you because you defend a rival tribe that on top of things is a weak tribe. of course that you defend it too meat your megalomania rather than help them.".
Your answer is a classic case of twisting an argument that is present in most of your posts. I said you are using that opportunity to show off, not that the love for your old tribe makes you a megalomaniac. I doubt you cannot reason those words so I have to asume you are intentionaly eluding the real meaning there.

This and many other twists of yours do not nicely ake the nice pose you make in the next paragraph:

8. It is my thought that nothing I write is any less sincere than any other poster, and in some cases (that most recent novel particularly), I have been extremely sincere and honest, so again, I have no idea where you are coming from with this.

after reading this whole thread and still being able to think i have to side with Atraeus. this thread is seriously amazing he has made a fool of 2 mods and has got 2 of w30 bigs players grasping at straws.
i dont understand how Gicusan can even comment or come up with his own opinion on this subject as he has proven and even commented that he doesnt read all the posts......
i also love how prem or whatever he is called keeps saying how everyone was going off topic when he was the main person bringing up stuff that had nothing to with the original thread.....

I totally agree.

For example, do you really "totally agree." with that last statement you double post on?

I do.

Let us see. You agree with the fallowing:
1. "Ateaeus has made a fool of 2 mods and has got 2 of w30 bigs players grasping at straws." I have no idea what "grasping at straws" means but I am not doing it for sure. Still, congratz on your acomplishments. Very subtle. We did not notice because you were too good I asume.

2. "Gicusan cannot comment because he did not read all Atraeus posts." Yup he can as you can see. I gave a cross reading to most big ones and read all the decent sized. Still, there is not too much of a change in Atraeus arguments and he keeps talking about the same stuff regardless the contraarguments he is facing. Besides, what I did in the last posts was showing the position Atraeus has in comparition to the other TW players around this forum: he does not play the game anymore. he does not help his friends in war time. he has never proved too much skill in game. he twists arguments and make humangous posts in order to feed his megalomania. I dont need to read the detailed arguments on a refugee to say that.

3. you also agree with a person that posts withoud barely checking who is he talking about: "prem or whatever he is called" I am sure he gave a very good read to the thread and he understood everything. His phrase construction. His perfect wording. Classy reasoning. Not to mention the arguments. All are a strong proof he is the best poster to be completely in agreement with.

4. parm was off-topic. I doubt he was as the topic is: "this is a thread about me" as you stated in the first post. Still you agree.

Not only you agree with him. But you also added this to your signiature. Nice man. We are seeing more and more about you.

See/ I can write a big post also Sorry everyone. It wont happen again this year.

PS. Yes Atraeus, a few of the stuff I acused you for I say I am guilty also. I am provokative many times. I certainly like to show off, probably more than I should. But most I dont do. Especialy deceiving part. I am here with my posts, talking stright as always. Many in my tribe call me names for it from time to time. But I am not quitting decency to make a stand (see the posting of IGM. you gonna try some Skype soon?) nor do I twist your arguments (see above and also many other previous ones easy to find in the thread).

 

[DeletedUser]

Lol! And the fans come out again! (Note: it takes three BD to attack one little ol' me. :icon_eek

@Pinky:

I admit that my account does not reflect what I can do in game. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how to build a nuke, how to use Opera, how to account for lag while timing a snipe, or even how to build a village. Even if I were new to this, there are resources everywhere that offer bountiful information. So people can consider how intelligent I appear to be, and ask themselves how well someone like me can comprehend these basic functions, and base an opinion on that.

I was never a diplomat for Decide. I was for my old tribe in W17, but that has nothing to do with this account.

Contrary to your post, I'm not complaining that my skills in game are being judged. I'm merely defending the circumstances that reflect said skills in tantamount force to my attackers. As a counter point, the nature of your post is you complaining that I defend myself. I find it strange that it should bother you, surely you respect a man willing to stand up for himself? Hmm... very strange indeed.

@ Badlapje:

I love how you direct your post at the readers. You are not out to express anything to me, guess that says something to the nature of your debate Bad. Now, before you try redirecting that finger: yes, I wrote that way with my first post, but the "not-so fine print" spoiler aside, that was because it was directed at two people. Yours is not.

Still, whether I said the name of the player or not is redundant. I was clear from the outset that I was not referring to Acvenne. I said her name a few times while referring to an unrelated debate over an accusation of Gicusan's about us breaking some agreement, one we did not, but that's not the same as basing this separate debate (about how opportunistic BD is) around her. Note: in an effort to disprove me, you did not use any of my posts as evidence, you used a post of yours, and posts of things other people said. That's not evidence, that is supporting your own accusations with things I did not do. Seriously Bad? And you expect me to entertain that?

For the record, I said this (notice the emboldened statements):

[spoil]

In closing, my official stance:

In retrospect, when I heard that Decide was getting hit, I thought it was ridiculous for its timing. I wasn't scared for Decide, but it was certainly a low move in my eyes. So I posted what I thought. When I found out that the information was exaggerated, then I was certainly pissed at a certain Decide player, lol! But I was wrong to take it how I did, I admit that. In any event, I was expressing it how I saw it. I see nothing wrong with BD attacking Acvenne, as I personally do think she is their refugee, but that's not Decide, that is me. We disagree there, as well as we do on a few other subjects. I do think to wait until Decide were at war to attack them (non Acvenne) would seem opportunistic, given the reason being over a refugee, as there was plenty of time to do it before hand. If others don't see it as opportunistic, then that is their prerogative. If I gave the sense that attacking Acvenne now would be opportunistic, then I take that back, because it would not be. As for what is happening with DN, they went after their refugees, as was their right, but for Green to attack them, that pissed me off. That was one of the reasons why I said what I said before about DN declaring, Decide will never get the credit it deserves for Green, and it deserves it in my opinion. I do see a difference in the way BD views Decide, and how Decide views Green for potential war (and planning for such), so I do think that there is a difference between what I am saying, and what Bad and Gicu are saying. I also know for a fact that I do not represent Decide, and whether people want to attribute my opinions to them or not, I can't help that, but I will say this: I believe BD has every right to war Decide. If BD wanted to war Decide without me frowning upon it, all they'd have to do is wait a couple weeks. I would not call it opportunistic to attack while Decide are just at war; but I would if they were attacked within just a matter of days after said war begun. Same for THE. That's my opinion, not Decide's.

That is where I stand, and if this has to continue, then bring your boots fellas, cuzz the further this debate goes, the deeper the dung.

[/spoil]

So, while you have still not proven that I was secretly talking about Acvenne and not the other player, you choose to ignore that I made clear Acvenne was never the subject of my reasoning on many occasions, or even myself going so far as to rebuke that very logic.

Respond to my arguments, counterprove my points but do so with facts. You haven't done this once, all you're doing is trying to spin words to make it seem as if you are the undeserved victim of persecution when it is anything but. You have insulted, manipulated, spinned in the DECIDE thread and i see you did exactly the same in the original post in this thread.

That is a lie. I did respond to you with counter points, and after I realized where you were going with your debate, I realized it was a waste of time. Proof. As for the rest of this quote, its just more of the same, old same old. Nevertheless, let the masses judge for themselves. If you are out for the truth, you would agree to this I think.

I have every post involved in the matter quoted in the first post, and if anyone wants to know the full story, they can read it themselves. Further, they can go back to the Decide Decides to Declare thread and get the full story there. In short, I said it best when I wrote this:

[spoil]

@ Bad:

Ouch! Your entire post was an attempt to further insult, and discredit me. Where I told you that I disagreed with you, and told the masses to go make their own opinion, in response you unleash a barrage of insults?

I find two things amusing here: 1. you are trying so hard, you almost seem desperate. To be honest, I'd love to know why. and 2. that throughout my time on these PnP's, you have tried to uphold an image of a clear thinking, calm individual; an image you have certainly proven false to me by your actions here.

Fact: if you gave two shits about the truth Bad, you would agree that people can go make their own opinions. But you insist on getting me to continue with a pointless argument over the "true" meaning of my words, so that you can further have the opportunity to table feed them your own perspective.

The fact is, not once have you even addressed the point I was making. You have addressed what words I've used, you've used other people's quotes and tied them in with me, you've tried to make of me some kind of martyr where there is nothing more than an individual writing. You have tried to put a different point in my mouth, and insomuch as you refuse to admit that I was never going for the point you say I was to begin with, there is no point in continuing this song and dance. And you want to hold it against me for taking a calm, clear minded approach to this debate?

Say what you will bad, but you've lost my respect.

[/spoil]

Further, holding true to this post:

[spoil]

From henceforth, the world can consider the first post of this thread my final word on the matter. Want the sum of it? Skim to the end and read my official stance.

[/spoil]

I will now thank you for finally getting this thread on topic, literally for the first time since it was started. But I had my say, you had yours, and again, the masses can be the judge. It is my thought that when we are debating if I wrote something or not, the truth of my past posts are self evident, and can therefore speak for themselves. So no amount of commentary from either of us will change what was, or was not in fact, originally said. I don't know about you Bad, but I think this is the most level headed and logical path for this debate. Now, I'm sure you and Gicu will continue the way you did the last time I took this approach, by saying this is insulting and evasive and dishonest, but meh... you do what you gotta do.

@ Gicu:

I'll try to keep this simple.

1. I take pride in responding to nearly every point.

2. Show me where I have bragged. I have never bragged about my in game skill, and have only joked about my PnP skill. So if your accusations of me based on stats is to be unbiased and not a double standard, JP certainly is a very apt analogy. Further, you assume I did not sit accounts, or help out in any way, things that stats do not show. Just more groundless attacks on me.

3. A misconception is a twist? If I misunderstood you, I am sorry, but that does not make me manipulative. Nevertheless, since Decide are unrelated to this thread, I don't even see where you are coming from with the idea that I am even defending them. Where in this thread has Decide been an active part? Not since the first post are they even minutely relevant.

Now, on to the quoting part (sorry peeps, had to do it :icon_wink.

Let us see. You agree with the fallowing:
1. "Ateaeus has made a fool of 2 mods and has got 2 of w30 bigs players grasping at straws." I have no idea what "grasping at straws" means but I am not doing it for sure. Still, congratz on your acomplishments. Very subtle. We did not notice because you were too good I asume.

They made fools of themselves by either not reading everything or posting groundless points. But only people that read everything would realize that. Still, even as I was thinking this very point while we were debating, I did not exploit it. Personally, I think that shows some character, but we can agree to disagree. As a side note: grasping at straws essentially means you are desperate to prove a futile point by using anything you can get, or simply trying to justify a lost cause.

I'm of the mind that all of you are doing this.

2. "Gicusan cannot comment because he did not read all Atraeus posts." Yup he can as you can see. I gave a cross reading to most big ones and read all the decent sized. Still, there is not too much of a change in Atraeus arguments and he keeps talking about the same stuff regardless the contraarguments he is facing. Besides, what I did in the last posts was showing the position Atraeus has in comparition to the other TW players around this forum: he does not play the game anymore. he does not help his friends in war time. he has never proved too much skill in game. he twists arguments and make humangous posts in order to feed his megalomania. I dont need to read the detailed arguments on a refugee to say that.

Suddenly, your post goes from targeting me to targeting the audience. Who are you trying to prove this to?

Anyway, you are agreeing with the flawed logic that a man can base a solid case on limited information, and that it is acceptable to ignore information that is both readily available, and plausibly offering more relevance to said case. I still stand that this is a flawed line of reasoning, and is nothing more than either laziness or personal bias. As for the rest of this point, by now, anyone reading can make up their own mind the validity of my case.

3. you also agree with a person that posts withoud barely checking who is he talking about: "prem or whatever he is called" I am sure he gave a very good read to the thread and he understood everything. His phrase construction. His perfect wording. Classy reasoning. Not to mention the arguments. All are a strong proof he is the best poster to be completely in agreement with.

I do agree that Parm went off topic, and what Llama was referencing were the two consecutive posts where Parm argued he was on topic, then switched to say he didn't care about the topic of the thread.

4. parm was off-topic. I doubt he was as the topic is: "this is a thread about me" as you stated in the first post. Still you agree.

No, this thread was about continuing a debate between me, yourself and Bad. It became all about me when so many jumped a bandwagon to attack me for totally unrelated reasons, and that was why I put that edit in, as a joke, to mock how obvious it is that I touched a nerve with my debates.

Not only you agree with him. But you also added this to your signiature. Nice man. We are seeing more and more about you.

Yep. I just agree with it that much.

See/ I can write a big post also Sorry everyone. It wont happen again this year.

Lol! I was impressed to be honest, and am honored you'd invest so much time on me. :icon_razz:

PS. Yes Atraeus, a few of the stuff I acused you for I say I am guilty also. I am provokative many times. I certainly like to show off, probably more than I should. But most I dont do. Especialy deceiving part. I am here with my posts, talking stright as always. Many in my tribe call me names for it from time to time. But I am not quitting decency to make a stand (see the posting of IGM. you gonna try some Skype soon?) nor do I twist your arguments (see above and also many other previous ones easy to find in the thread).

I disagree. I think you do. While Bad has done most of the twisting, you have jumped aboard his ship and continued an attack on me that has been bordeline silly. When you know better, that makes you endorsing a deception. In my eyes, that makes you deceptive as well. So say what you gotta say, I certainly know you are going to, because there is no way in Gods green earth this debate is gunna die anytime soon. Until then, you haven't fooled me.

 

[DeletedUser]

Note: in an effort to disprove me, you did not use any of my posts as evidence, you used a post of yours, and posts of things other people said. That's not evidence, that is supporting your own accusations with things I did not do. Seriously Bad? And you expect me to entertain that?

I quoted myself because i already posted quotes from you which you failed to respond to in the original thread. You failed in your post yet again to address the arguments i employed. Yet again you are just blowing smoke up yer arse and insulting me.

Given you are both unwilling and unable i'll stop posting on this topic lest something new comes up. As good as you are with words is as bad as you are with arguments. Once you decide to stop wasting my time with wordplay and actually address the arguments give me a ring and i'll be happy to debate further.

 

[DeletedUser]

The debate we were having was about the honour of BD attacking DECIDE when it was already at war with GREEN. Whether or not it was überhaupt true that we were doing so, who was attacked by whom player-wise and so forth.

To add my viewpoint on the situation... there is a very large difference in the situation of DECIDE attacking GREEN, and BD attacking DECIDE. A difference of timing, and scale of attacks.

The attacks that [DN] made were limited to -O- refugees (and a few on toasta, who could be argued to be a REBORN refugee, if necessary), and were not by the entirety of [DN]. They may have been on a slightly larger scale than the attacks by BD on DECIDE, but they were certainly not enough to call it a war by your own definition.

DECIDE then attacking GREEN, when GREEN were in a small scuffle with [DN], I do not see as being dishonourable- the tribe that they were attacking were not in any way stretched defensively on more than a local scale. I also think that it is true that DECIDE planned war with GREEN from a time long before [DN] started attacking (which is also the case for attacks by BD on acvenne).

However, in the case of BD attacks on DECIDE (if there were more than just on acvenne), it was clear that DECIDE was already at war with GREEN, on a scale that would require by far the majority of their resources to be focused in the opposite direction to BD. This is, in my view, opportunistic, to attack a tribe with its back turned. It is obvious simply from the conquers history that the fight between GREEN and DECIDE was much more intense than it ever was between [DN] and GREEN.

The issue with acvenne is now resolved, I guess, as the account in question has been deleted. My view on the matter (and Atraeus', for those who have read it) is that the attacks on acvenne were acceptable within the definition of refugees. It is attacks on other, long-standing DECIDE players (the presence of which I am unsure of, but if they happened- as you state in what I quoted above, the argument is about the theory) that I would view as being opportunistic.

As the situation is at the moment, however, stats between BD and DECIDE stand at 0-0 in the last week. It cannot be said that there are any decent attacks going between the tribes.

 

[tomas torquemada]

I have to agree with the sentiments of face on this one.

Can I ask, as i got caught out on this once, are there or were there any attacks on Decide by BD appart from acvenne ????

seems a simple question, once this is proved one way or the other then a decent debate can be had, until then its all smoke and daggers.

TT

 

[DeletedUser]

it was already admitted by Atraeus that there were no widespread attacks from BD on DECIDE. There were a couple attacks by Canine- against acvenne who was a MF refugee (and now kicked out again). There was also a crossnobling between beaker and some DECIDE guy i don't know the name of.

The relevant quote:

@ BD and DN:

I was informed that we did have incommings to multiple players. As it turns out, the player that informed us of this was posting inaccurate information. Acting on this faulty information, I am the one in the wrong and apologize for the confusion. Make of it what you will.

My mistake was grounded on misinformation, and I can certainly be flamed for that. But my reasoning was not unsound. I have clearly expressed the logical way to view this information, given the convenient timing with Gicu's post, and likewise with the reasoning of how legitimate of a voice he is for the tribe, all coupled with common Tribal Wars philosophy.

Afterwards however, Skunk found it necessary to blow pretty much his entire O on a few recent captures from Parmenion which put parm right behind me in ODT. This however happened a while after the debate in question. Don't be surprised though if you see Parm reacting to that one though.

PS: TT you already more or less agreed with me here btw

 

[tomas torquemada]

Badlapje

No issues agreeing with you when your right and as i said then i was caught out with dodgy info, so unless someone comes on and proves to me that other attacks took place then i say its all smoke and daggers.

I have a feeling if BD launched a full attack on any tribe we wouldnt really be debating if it was taking place or not we would just follow the trail of bodies.

TT

 

[DeletedUser]

it was already admitted by Atraeus that there were no widespread attacks from BD on DECIDE.

What I quoted you saying in my above post made it sound like the whole question was theoretical anyways. My post was basically what my view on things would have been if it had have happened.

As it is, I think the whole argument stemmed from some misinformation from within DECIDE :icon_confused:

 

[DeletedUser]

Much appreciated TT.

I have a feeling if BD launched a full attack on any tribe we wouldnt really be debating if it was taking place or not we would just follow the trail of bodies.

My thoughts exactly, though i'm sure at least one of our neighbours should be capable of mounting a decent fight :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

A biased and largely worthless opinion here. But what kind of man would I be if given the freedom of speech, and I didn't abuse it!

My opinion is merely that this was a miscommunication that led to pages and pages of debating from both sides of the disagreement. And why did it start? The whole thing stemmed from the fact that a player in DECIDE led us to believe that BD had launched some form of major scale attack on him. I'm not sure if BD had attacked him, or hadn't, but what I do know is that they didn't attack him as hard as myself and also Atraeus & co thought =/

Though as for this continuation of the drama, I think that it's pretty evident from Parmenion's posts, and other BD fanboi's posts that BD know that to an extent they're wrong. Rather than counter Atraeus's evidently valid points, you chose to question an unrelated topic and stick to incessantly flaming that. Now, does that appear to be a logical way to attack for someone who has a valid point related to the subject? *waits for the hordes of BD fanbois to say "yeah, it does"*

Because, whilst Badlapje & co. are correct about their right to attack that refugee DECIDE recruited (I think DECIDE were crazy to recruit him). I think the rest of your posts are hypocritical, show double standards and your mediocrity at debating coherently. Why? once again, it leads back to you guys attacking Atraeus's right to share his 2 cents.

Lets use Pervis for an example, when he used to come onto these forums on a rare occasion whilst having quit W30. Did BD attack him for adding his opinion then? Funnily enough no. Would BD attack one of the retired BD veterans coming onto these forums and bashing one of BD's enemies? No. The reason being it's retarded to do so, and if it wasn't Atraeus with some good points, BD wouldn't have ever questioned his right to post.

If you do want to question Atraeus's impact on this world (even with his teeny weeny 600k point account), then you should look at some of the opinions posted about him/DECIDE before he stood up to BD. DECIDE were regarded fairly highly despite being untested due to their PnP presence. Who was the leader of their PnP, and their representative? Atraeus. If you had looked them up on TWstats without their PnP influencing your judgment of them, you would have said they sucked. Atraeus's hard work on the PnP was very valuable to his tribe and you'd be mad to deny this.

*Note: I refer to BD's members arguing with Atraeus as BD, for convenience and the fact most of BD members who do actually post here are flaming Atraeus.

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe if you made your post shorter, Gicu might actually read it.

 

[DeletedUser]

@ Wrath: You hit the nail on the head for some of the points I was getting at. This post should serve as a solid follow up to the truth behind those attacks, though almost everything in this post has already been posted elsewhere at some point. So not much new to it. I will say this however, you and Bad both asked if this whole debate was over the theoretic attacks, but for me it has not been for some time. It has been a debate over whether or not I was ever referencing
Acvenne when referring to said attacks to begin with, and it is that very point that I continue to debate now.

@ TT: This was never a situation of smoke and daggers, and I resent the implication for deception, as I truly was acting on a misconception that I believed was fact. Further, Decide never even got involved in this. I did, and some DN did, but Decide never touched it.

@ Bad: I really don't have time to continue this, and I felt that I already responded to everything you wrote in the first post, every single post you made except that last one, which you never brought over into this thread, as I suggested. However, I wanted to see it ended, so I went back over the entire damn thing, and I had an epiphany. I realized where we both went astray, and discovered how redundant this debate truly is.

If you want it broken down in short, I will try my best.

All of my statements regarding my thoughts of BD's honor are based on the idea of BD attacking Decide as a tribe shortly after they went to war with Green. I discovered my info was wrong, that they were not attacking Decide, and I publicly apologized for this misinformation. I did, however, state that had BD attacked Decide in reality, then I would stand by my logic. The point of this was to say, you can flame me for wrong information, but you cannot flame my logic. It was a matter of opinion, one I still stand by. However, since BD weren't attacking, they retained their honor and everything was hunky dory, and any further debate would be a matter of opinion, and not honor. Yet somehow, there have been a plethora of posts all questioning my own honor since I announced the mistake, most of it unrelated to the actual debate. There was one aspect that was related to the debate, and it is the idea that I was originally debating for a refugee. This is not true, and I will focus on this topic now.

To begin clarifying this fiasco, I will give you this: the player in question was the cross nobling (skyhawk). My point of not saying his name was to reiterate how redundant the name would be, given that I never deviated from referring to a non-Acvenne player. Just saying non-Acvenne should be enough to denote "not Acvenne" when the matter was pressed.

Now, not knowing about the cross nobling, I can easily see where you, Bad, would have misinterpreted my points and posts. I was vague about the attacks at first, not being specific, because I thought you guys were aware of the attacks, and therefore had no need to. Likewise, I was having a side debate (as mentioned) with Gicusan involving a refugee at the same time. So if you really believe what you are arguing Bad, I will not see it as a personal attack, but merely a misunderstanding, and a valid one at that.

In any event, when I stated multiple members were being hit, that was because that was what I was told at first. I heard something I didn't like, I jumped out there of my own accord, and I stated what I thought. Then I later discovered that that was an exaggeration, and that it was just one player on top of Acvenne, and that the one player was just a cross nobling incident. When I found out this truth, I was pissed to have started such a stink over nothing, knowing I just made an ass of myself. I admitted to it immediately. I was very clear about the misunderstanding, and apologized for acting hastily on faulty information, and while rrespect has gone to other people involved, like TT, this fact has gone completely overlooked by my political asailants. I am not sure what more you can expect from me on that as far as honor goes.

This debate has been a waste of time because as far as I can tell Bad, your debates have either been an intentional misconstruction, or an unintentional misunderstanding debating my own misunderstanding. In this, we are both wrong, and I would just as soon see an end to the confusion.

Now, back to our debate. You believe that I was never referring to a third party, but instead was referring to Acvenne. You have stood by your "proof," and have challenged me to respond to that truth. And while I feel I have in my own way, you have been unsatisfied. So I will post something on it now just so you cannot say that I avoided it yet again, though I am still certain it is redundant, given the focus of this post.

[spoil]About Acvenne: my reasoning was never about it being just her. While it would seem opportunistic to wait until Decide were at war to launch full scale attacks on her as well, it would not be wrong in my eyes, as she was a refugee. But that was never the focus of my debate. It was all about BD attacking Decide. Not Acvenne, but other players, as I thought you were, and using Decide having recruited Acvenne as an excuse when the timing was so close to the declaration time, which again, is what I thought was going on.

Having said all of that, here's to your debate. You claimed to have proved me wrong about Acvenne with this:

really, you were? Then why was only his name mentioned? I just combed through this entire thread. I found not a single other name. Not one.
1. TT bringing up how we're attacking DECIDE
2. TT yet again
3. this guy is on fire

Those are all things TT said, not me.

do note that up to there no names are mentioned. But wait ... what happens now?

4. Chamica bringing up the player in question.
5. (note: i added bold)

Something ChamichA said, not me.

Yup, that's you running with the Acvenne name.

No, that's other people running with her name, not me. These are not things I wrote. But you did quote me following number 5, so lets get on to that.

This is what you quoted to use against me, highlighting Acvenne as if it matters:

1. There is a very distinct difference between claiming a refugee, and claiming a breach of an agreement. You accused Decide of being dishonorable for breaking an agreement that we neither made, nor broke. You and I talked about it, yes, but to the best of my knowledge, it was never agreed upon, and even so, those talks came after Acvenne joined. If you CBA to get your facts straight, then I'd say you're poorly representing your tribe.

Note: Read over that passage again. It had nothing to do with our debate Bad, this is directly related to the separate debate where Gicusan questioned Decide's honor for breaking an agreement to not recruit MF, an agreement that was never made. Further, I was reminding him that Acvenne had been recruited before there were even talks of the agreement. It was in that context, and that alone that Acvenne was referenced.

So when I said you were twisting my words, and using other people's words to put things in my mouth, this was just one part of what I meant. However, if you honestly did misunderstand me, then I suppose it wasn't a twist so much as confusion.[/spoil]

No, I'm not going to address the other points you asked for three reasons: because I feel it would be more effective to address each point one at a time, but more importantly, because they are all either related to this fact, or this debate, and by ending this debate, I am confident that I can successfully prove the others moot. Further, I feel I have already addressed them in other posts, and I simply don't have time to go any further into reiterating those points right now. But I will give you and other readers this, however:

[spoil]To those that don't know, the other questions were pretty much asking why I would think Acvenne isn't a refugee (which I do think she is and clarified this); how attacking her is different then DN attacking their refugees (which I was never basing my debate on BD attacking her to begin with, so that is how); and other such matters essentially based on the intricacies of DN's combat with Green, and Acvenne, all of which unrelated to the topic of my debate, which, if I haven't said it enough times, was about BD attacking a non-Acvenne Decide member, which in the end, they were not. Shmexy, huh?[/spoil]

Now again, you only have one thing on me Bad, and that is that I didn't specify the other player until it was pressed. This is a circumstantial thing that can be used to accuse me of changing my points, which is what you have done, but it is not the case. I have proven time and again during this debate that I am willing to admit when I am wrong, anything past that is just people intentionally attacking me with total disregard to my nature and character, if not even the facts at hand.

I assumed when I referred to Decide being attacked, BD would know who I was referring to. You can say what you want about it, but my logic was never based on Acvenne getting attacked. However, if you do want to continue to accuse me of this, then I will continue to debate it insomuch as I am able, and certainly look forward to more "proof."

In closing, everything about our debate was a misconception. I was wrong about BD attacking Decide. You were wrong about me basing my debate on a refugee, or even debating her status as such, and everything that spawned from that fact. Further, I am not a representative of Decide, and in no way represented them during this debate, and as such, Decide was never even involved in this mess. Personally, it seems like a fair place to leave the matter in my eyes.

So I think we can resolve it by this: I will admit again that I was wrong to stir the debate in the first place, but I will reiterate that all the subsequent wrongs from all parties (DN and BD members alike) that followed did not make a right either.

Cliff notes?

Regarding my debate with Badlapje:

I was wrong at the beginning of my debate about BD attacking, and admitted it.
Bad was wrong about the point behind my debates revolving around Acvenne.
We were all wrong because of a series of misunderstandings (unless of course, he was intending the misconstructions, without a response I have no way of knowing).

BD has not lost honor as far as I am concerned regarding this debate, nor has Decide.

However, all the other debating, flaming and trolling of this thread is another story altogether. :icon_biggrin:

 

[DeletedUser]

You playing an account yet?

 

[DeletedUser]

@ Wrath: You hit t,<SNIP> walls and walls of text, more walls than in China.... </SNIP> scovered how redundant this debate truly is.

If you want it broken down in short, I will try my best.

Short, I like short, Thanks Atraeus..... :lol:

All of my statements regarding my thoughts of BD's honor are based on the idea of BD attacking Decide as a tribe shortly after they went to war with Green. I discovered my info was wrong, that they were not attacking Decide, and I publicly apologized for this misinformation. I did, however, state that had BD attacked Decide in reality, then I would stand by my logic. The point of this was to say, you can flame me for wrong information, but you cannot flame my logic. It was a matter of opinion, one I still stand by. However, since BD weren't attacking, they retained their honor and everything was hunky dory, and any further debate would be a matter of opinion, and not honor. Yet somehow, there have been a plethora of posts all questioning my own honor since I announced the mistake, most of it unrelated to the actual debate. There was one aspect that was related to the debate, and it is the idea that I was originally debating for a refugee. This is not true, and I will focus on this topic now.

To begin clarifying this fiasco, I will give you this: the player in question was the cross nobling (skyhawk). My point of not saying his name was to reiterate how redundant the name would be, given that I never deviated from referring to a non-Acvenne player. Just saying non-Acvenne should be enough to denote "not Acvenne" when the matter was pressed.

Now, not knowing about the cross nobling, I can easily see where you, Bad, would have misinterpreted my points and posts. I was vague about the attacks at first, not being specific, because I thought you guys were aware of the attacks, and therefore had no need to. Likewise, I was having a side debate (as mentioned) with Gicusan involving a refugee at the same time. So if you really believe what you are arguing Bad, I will not see it as a personal attack, but merely a misunderstanding, and a valid one at that.

In any event, when I stated multiple members were being hit, that was because that was what I was told at first. I heard something I didn't like, I jumped out there of my own accord, and I stated what I thought. Then I later discovered that that was an exaggeration, and that it was just one player on top of Acvenne, and that the one player was just a cross nobling incident. When I found out this truth, I was pissed to have started such a stink over nothing, knowing I just made an ass of myself. I admitted to it immediately. I was very clear about the misunderstanding, and apologized for acting hastily on faulty information, so I am not sure what more you can expect from me on that as far as honor goes.

This debate has been a waste of time because as far as I can tell Bad, your debates have a misunderstanding debating my misunderstanding. In this, we are both wrong, and I would just as soon see an end to the confusion.

Now, back to our debate. You believe that I was never referring to a third party, but instead was referring to Acvenne. You have stood by your "proof," and have challenged me to respond to that truth. And while I feel I have in my own way, you have been unsatisfied. So I will post something on it now just so you cannot say that I avoided it yet again, though I am still certain it is redundant, given the focus of this post.

[spoil]About Acvenne: my reasoning was never about it being just her. While it would seem opportunistic to wait until Decide were at war to launch full scale attacks on her as well, it would not be wrong in my eyes, as she was a refugee. But that was never the focus of my debate. It was all about BD attacking Decide. Not Acvenne, but other players, as I thought you were, and using Decide having recruited Acvenne as an excuse when the timing was so close to the declaration time, which again, is what I thought was going on.

Having said all of that, here's to your debate. You claimed to have proved me wrong about Acvenne with this:



Those are all things TT said, not me.



Something ChamichA said, not me.



No, that's other people running with her name, not me. These are not things I wrote. But you did quote me following number 5, so lets get on to that.

This is what you quoted to use against me, highlighting Acvenne as if it matters:



Note: Read over that passage again. It had nothing to do with our debate Bad, this is directly related to the separate debate where Gicusan questioned Decide's honor for breaking an agreement to not recruit MF, an agreement that was never made. Further, I was reminding him that Acvenne had been recruited before there were even talks of the agreement. It was in that context, and that alone that Acvenne was referenced.

So when I said you were twisting my words, and using other people's words to put things in my mouth, this was just one part of what I meant. However, if you honestly did misunderstand me, then I suppose it wasn't a twist so much as confusion.[/spoil]

No, I'm not going to address the other points you asked for three reasons: because I feel it would be more effective to address each point one at a time, but more importantly, because they are all either related to this fact, or this debate, and by ending this debate, I am confident that I can successfully prove the others moot. Further, I feel I have already addressed them in other posts, and I simply don't have time to go any further into reiterating those points right now. But I will give you and other readers this, however:

[spoil]To those that don't know, the other questions were pretty much asking why I would think Acvenne isn't a refugee (which I do think she is and clarified this); how attacking her is different then DN attacking their refugees (which I was never basing my debate on BD attacking her to begin with, so that is how); and other such matters essentially based on the intricacies of DN's combat with Green, and Acvenne, all of which unrelated to the topic of my debate, which, if I haven't said it enough times, was about BD attacking a non-Acvenne Decide member, which in the end, they were not. Shmexy, huh?[/spoil]

Now again, you only have one thing on me Bad, and that is that I didn't specify the other player until it was pressed. This is a circumstantial thing that can be used to accuse me of changing my points, which is what you have done, but it is not the case. I have proven time and again during this debate that I am willing to admit when I am wrong, anything past that is just people intentionally attacking me with total disregard to my nature and character, if not even the facts at hand.

I assumed when I referred to Decide being attacked, BD would know who I was referring to. You can say what you want about it, but my logic was never based on Acvenne getting attacked. However, if you do want to continue to accuse me of this, then I will continue to debate it insomuch as I am able, and certainly look forward to more "proof."

In closing, everything about our debate was a misconception. I was wrong about BD attacking Decide. You were wrong about me basing my debate on a refugee, or even debating her status as such, and I believe everything past this has either been an argument of opinions, or a groundless escapade to hide the inherent misconceptions in the debate. Regarding this debate: BD have not acted dishonorably, and Decide was never even involved in this mess. Personally, it seems like a fair place to leave the matter in my eyes.

So I think we can resolve it by this: I will admit again that I was wrong to stir the debate in the first place, but I will reiterate that all the subsequent wrongs from all parties (DN and BD members alike) that followed did not make a right either.

Cliff notes?

I was wrong in my debate.
Those challenging me were also wrong in their debate.
We were all wrong because of a series of misunderstandings.

BD has not lost honor.
Decide has not lost Honor.

Past this, I think we can agree to disagree.

As for the rest of this thread, not related to Bad's and my debate, well... that's a different story altogether. :icon_biggrin:

HOLY MOTHER OF DOG!!!!!! You said short!!!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

lmfao! :icon_cool:

 

[DeletedUser]

Short, I like short, Thanks Atraeus..... :lol:



HOLY MOTHER OF DOG!!!!!! You said short!!!!!

hahahaha

 

[xinryr]

Cliff notes?

I was wrong in my debate.
Those challenging me were also wrong in their debate.
We were all wrong because of a series of misunderstandings.

BD has not lost honor.
Decide has not lost Honor.

Past this, I think we can agree to disagree.

He gave you some cliff notes, though

 

[DeletedUser]

That was short. :icon_cool:

EDIT: Considering I have yet had a follow up to my final post, I presume this debate has reached a close. I find it coincidental that all the subsequent attacks from other players (mostly BD, but there were a few others willing to try) have also ended with this debate. Perhaps there was a tie between them after all. But whatever the case, while I do feel many players made utter fools of themselves attacking me here, I also feel that everything has been adequately addressed by both sides. So for anyone looking to get the full story, I advise the same as I have from the start: go back, read, and then base an opinion. It was an entertaining thread to say the least. :icon_cool: