History 101 - The Moral High-Ground - Page 2

Jon Shafer · April 10, 2003, 10:20

It folded because I had plans for the team which were thwarted by your loving northern neighbor. Had Lux no way out, there would have been quite a different situation.

Everyone will try to justify their wars however they can. It's irrelevant. It's up to the other teams to decide who is right, and back-and-forth bickering accomplishes nothing.

Shiber · April 10, 2003, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by HarryH
The Lux situation happened very fast. We barely had any time to discuss it amoungst ourselves.

Yet at that time your team was the fastest to move the save on. You could have spared some of your time to discuss this issue - or is racking up "score" in the time counter really that important to you?

Quote:

What we provided to Lux was entirely within our territory and used our resources. Once the risk was gone, why didn't you give some of the compensation back?

The payment, IMHO, was deserved mostly to compensate for the diplomatic risks involved in keeping your little secret, and the risk that a GoW/ND search party would find Lux on our continent, conquer their lands and stir things up, while also having an excuse to scout our lands ("we are searching for additional Lux survivors"). Also, Lux was supposed to stay more than just two or three turns on our continent.
By suddenly deciding to kill off Lux (again, without letting your partners know), and then demanding the money back, you were basically saying "Okay, the deal is off, although it was already put in effect, just because we decided so, without consulting you at all. Now can we have our money back?". Unacceptable.

Shiber · April 10, 2003, 10:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Anyway, the only reason I've been arguing at all is Vox's attempt (by Beta) to place blame for this war on GS by flat out lying (the initial claims of cutting roads and such).

I don't have a problem with warfare. Vox attacked us, hoping to conquer us. That's fine, no big deal. But doing that and trying to convince the rest of the teams that GS actually picked the fight? That's a charge I feel we have to counter.

After all, if a lie is repeated enough, somebody may start to believe it, particularly if nobody else speaks up about the truth.

-Arrian

I fully support Arrian's statement.

HarryH · April 10, 2003, 11:17

Quote:

Yet at that time your team was the fastest to move the save on. You could have spared some of your time to discuss this issue - or is racking up "score" in the time counter really that important to you?

We did delay that one save but we could not delay it forever. The quick time for moving the other turns is irrelevant.

Quote:

By suddenly deciding to kill off Lux (again, without letting your partners know), and then demanding the money back, you were basically saying "Okay, the deal is off, although it was already put in effect, just because we decided so, without consulting you at all. Now can we have our money back?". Unacceptable.

I do not remember us demanding the money back. I only pointed out that Nathan linked the gold as compensation for the risk. Once the risk was gone the compensation was no longer needed.

Beta · April 10, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber

Yet at that time your team was the fastest to move the save on. You could have spared some of your time to discuss this issue - or is racking up "score" in the time counter really that important to you?

Wrong. I played that turn. And we waited almost the full 24 hours to play it. Trip and I were scrambling to put together an agreement - which in retrospect - should have had more time go into it.

The time score was and is not important to us. I believe that is a function of a smaller team - and therefore we reach decisions sooner - that's all.

Shiber · April 10, 2003, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by HarryH
I do not remember us demanding the money back. I only pointed out that Nathan linked the gold as compensation for the risk. Once the risk was gone the compensation was no longer needed.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I've already made my stand.

Let it go. It's not like that gold is going to help you now.

Beta · April 10, 2003, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Beta reminds me of the Iraqi Minister of Information.

-Arrian

And GS reminds me of the American Political/Journalistic machine - so self-assured about it's own righteousness in all of this.

... Beta.

Shiber · April 10, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by BetaHound
Wrong. I played that turn. And we waited almost the full 24 hours to play it. Trip and I were scrambling to put together an agreement - which in retrospect - should have had more time go into it.

I won't argue my point anymore. It seems that you have already agreed that Vox has made crucial mistakes in its negotiations with Lux.

Shiber · April 10, 2003, 11:46

Quote:

Originally posted by BetaHound
And GS reminds me of the American Political/Journalistic machine - so self-assured about it's own righteousness in all of this.

... Beta.

Again you insist on avoiding the point.
It is not that GS is "righteous". We have already agreed that GS was often not "nice", or "fair", in its dealings with Vox. I would never say that GS was always "righteous" - although we were always honest, and never told a lie. Unfortunately, we can't say the same about Vox, who have lied to us and to other teams countless times, privately and publicly. That is what upsets me, and as I can see upsets most of my teammates, and Vox advertising its lies publicly in an attempt to win some diplomatic credits was the last straw.

nbarclay · April 10, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by HarryH

The Lux situation happened very fast. We barely had any time to discuss it amoungst ourselves. What we provided to Lux was entirely within our territory and used our resources. Once the risk was gone, why didn't you give some of the compensation back?

Were you prepared to give us a few hundred extra gold if a worst-case scenario came to pass, like a GoW/ND alliance invading our continent? Risk is just that: risk.

Quote:

You mean the suggestion that Vox send gold to GS so Vox would be like, how did I read it in the early chat log, a "free Forbidden Palace" for GS was considering our needs and feelings?

Nice half-truth here. The goal was a mutually beneficial relationship in which you would have gotten your gold's worth and then some. (Not that we ever quite reached the point in the game contemplated in that discussion.)

asleepathewheel · April 10, 2003, 12:22

This thread is quite amusing.

Betahound admonishes GS members for taking the game too seriously whilst composing a 500 word essay on the subject and GS "crimes".

I agree with Arrian's earlier points: This game is largely warfare driven, I have no problems with declarations of war. I would have had no problems with your breaking of the treaty to begin a war, after thats not an unrealistic situation. I do have a problem with the lies you have spread. They are totally unneccesary, I think all teams would view land as a legitimate pretext to war, no need to make up violations and agressive moves. Just makes you look weak.

What's more, the lies you made, were quickly retreated from mere hours after their telling. If you're going to try to use propaganda, you should at least show some backbone. Give your story and stick to it. Don't post "I admit that the GS observer warrior did not move to our road. He was taken out where he has stood" and similar things. Stick to your story. Force us to contradict everything on the world stage. Make us work for it. Now, everyone realizes what is going on. Had you kept your story straight, perhaps you would receive more sympathy from other teams? Of course with your track record, that would probably be unlikely.

I find your lies to be irritating. I find your lack of backbone in this propaganda (and war) effort to be far more an impeachment of Voxian-in-game-character. A liar who quickly admits his crime is mostly harmless, someone who believes his lies is far more dangerous.

Wittlich · April 10, 2003, 14:14

"Lack of backbone in this war" REALLY?

Well, I guess we shall soon see who's backbone is the weakest.

Eli · April 10, 2003, 14:16

I can testify that Grog's backbone was very weak.

Shiber · April 10, 2003, 15:15

I thought that when people post a long and detailed list of all their secrets, it usually means that they know that they are going down.

Jon Shafer · April 10, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
Frankly, I am less than impressed...

Blah blah, etc. etc.

...focus on economic rather than military priorities.

Nathan

You were saying?

Arrian · April 10, 2003, 15:28

Bah, nevermind.

GhengisFarb™ · April 10, 2003, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I find your lies to be irritating.

And I find your face to be irritating. Therefore, feel I the need to bash it in............

Just kidding.

Don't take the game too seriously, people, it is a game.

mjmacy · April 10, 2003, 16:48

I think this is fun. I think it was worth declaring war just to get these reactions.

Aeson · April 10, 2003, 17:01

Vox Public Announcement - Operation "Troll"

Beta · April 10, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
This thread is quite amusing.

Betahound admonishes GS members for taking the game too seriously whilst composing a 500 word essay on the subject and GS "crimes".

I never admonished anyone for taking the game too seriously. Heck - I take my gaming seriously. My sense is that everyone here does too. I objected to the 'personalization' of some of the comments - and I don't think I was alone in that. Even some members of GS concurred with this.

Quote:

I find your lies to be irritating. I find your lack of backbone in this propaganda (and war) effort to be far more an impeachment of Voxian-in-game-character.

Good.

(And do you really think we expected anyone to believe them?

)

Beta · April 10, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Bah, nevermind.

Well, maybe we can find something to agree on after all...

Beta · April 10, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Again, says the guy whose team folded like a house of cards.

Anyway, the only reason I've been arguing at all is Vox's attempt (by Beta) to place blame for this war on GS by flat out lying (the initial claims of cutting roads and such).

I don't have a problem with warfare. Vox attacked us, hoping to conquer us. That's fine, no big deal. But doing that and trying to convince the rest of the teams that GS actually picked the fight? That's a charge I feel we have to counter.

After all, if a lie is repeated enough, somebody may start to believe it, particularly if nobody else speaks up about the truth.

-Arrian

All is fair in love and war and civ3 MP.

But enough of this. In the words of the immortal

Marvin Gaye ...

Let's get it on.

Shiber · April 10, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by BetaHound
(And do you really think we expected anyone to believe them?

)

Then what were you trying to achieve by that?
Seriously - I am curious. Put the game aside for a second; what motivated you into posting that? Were you hoping to accomplish something, or was it just for fun?

Hot_Enamel · April 10, 2003, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber

Then what were you trying to achieve by that?
Seriously - I am curious. Put the game aside for a second; what motivated you into posting that? Were you hoping to accomplish something, or was it just for fun?

It does sound like Vox thought they would get away with it....but then quickly decided that honesty would be the best policy after the all GS name calling.

As an outsider....this issue is the most boring of what has been said.

Vox lied...they admit it.

Get back to the good old fashioned trash talking

HarryH · April 10, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Shiber wrote:
I thought that when people post a long and detailed list of all their secrets, it usually means that they know that they are going down.

Hey Eli, what was all that stuff Grog was saying?

Beta · April 10, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber

Then what were you trying to achieve by that?
Seriously - I am curious. Put the game aside for a second; what motivated you into posting that? Were you hoping to accomplish something, or was it just for fun?

I am the Iraqi Information Minister. I could not help myself.

asleepathewheel · April 10, 2003, 20:45

Wittlich · April 10, 2003, 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber

Then what were you trying to achieve by that?
Seriously - I am curious. Put the game aside for a second; what motivated you into posting that? Were you hoping to accomplish something, or was it just for fun?

It was for fun...just like this game is for fun. "Silver-tongued Beta" was/is fully in his "political game persona" and announced our justification for our actions. It doesn't matter that the justification included bull (Reference: Grog actually moving when he really didn't) - It keeps the game "interesting" to say the least.

Beta · April 10, 2003, 21:37

Why, thank-you Witt.

Appreciate that.

Theseus · April 10, 2003, 23:59

Jesu Christo... I'm away for a bit, and all the FUN starts!!

Weeelllll, let me throw in my two cents:

VOXIANS!!

Lie, or not.

Posture, or not.

Politic, or not.

None of it matters. You have taken Grog, which, on behalf of my good friend Arrian, I and all of Gathering Storm take as a GREAT offense.

Your blood shall run, and your line will end.

Here endeth the lesson.