NationStates Jolt Archive

And here's the official OOC thread for the NATO Warlympics.

That looks awesome. I've subscribe to it for good measure.

Thank you! :) We put alot of thought into it, and alot of time.

May I point out the entire screwing up of your thread (It begins...) WOULD NOT have occured had you just told us what hell you were up to.

All we asked to know was whether it was an exercise or not (not just as, others not associated with us as well) and recieved nothing but pedantic replies from NATO members.

We suggust in future you at least tell people whether it's an exercise or not (in your writing or in OOC notes), since our guess was it was either that or the biggest godmod in alliance history. If you take my point...

This is not meant as a flame, more a sort of statement of what occured yesterday from the eyes of a member of IA.

Our intentionions we're stated perfectly by Schultaria prime


it was decided a while ago that should we present this event to the public we would want to do in a creative and original way; by merely posing our intentions on the first post, the thread would have all but been assured to be dead before the first 72 hours. At the cost of your irritation we developed two key plot devices called suspense and tension, both of which are essential tools in the kit on any fictional writer.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8907846#post8907846

We suggust in future you at least tell people whether it's an exercise or not (in your writing or in OOC notes), since our guess was it was either that or the biggest godmod in alliance history. If you take my point...

Personally I enjoyed the thread... well, accept for the semi-OOC "What are joo doing?" posts which could have been done in telegram or MSN without spamming a perfectly good In Character thread.

They don't have to explain what they are doing, the whole way a thread is written is up to the author and I personally enjoyed reading something with more substance then a long list of military hardware taken directly from a military defence website followed with three lines of "RP".

Wow that was an anti-climax. Kind of. And I never declared war, I just put myself in a higher state of alert along with Aust.

Personally I enjoyed the thread... well, accept for the semi-OOC "What are joo doing?" posts which could have been done in telegram or MSN without spamming a perfectly good In Character thread.

They don't have to explain what they are doing, the whole way a thread is written is up to the author and I personally enjoyed reading something with more substance then a long list of military hardware taken directly from a military defence website followed with three lines of "RP".

I never said the writing wasn't decent.

But my point is can you blame us, they include bits about nations within IA and it would be an obvious follow on from Rumours. Which implyed an attack on IA... so would you not like clarification if someone just said they are shooting at things with Holy Panooly Identification if you were in IA.

Had NATO given such clarification even just saying don't worry it's an exercise on an IM then we could have avoided of all of that.

Wow that was an anti-climax. Kind of. And I never declared war, I just put myself in a higher state of alert along with Aust.

Indeed. I hope you learned your lesson from this, Guffingford: The whole world does not revolve around you..

<SNIP>

No. No, we didn't have to do that. At all. Actually, we did not want to do that. Forgive us for attempting to hold on to the tiny elements of suspense that are left in the NationStates world. I refer you to these posts..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8904910&postcount=36
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8907612&postcount=5
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8908179&postcount=7

..two of which are in this thread. Read them again.. and again.. and again.


Of course, I'm speaking as a roleplayer here, not as a NATO member, but Guffingford's frenzied posts, Aust's OMG CAPITALIZED POSTS!!11, and the "n00b"/"wanker" comments that some short-sighted, slow, and just plain dense roleplayers made, were all worth it. Because personally, I was extremely amused. Actually, I was laughing my behind off the whole time.

I'm not easy to amuse. So congratulations, Imperial Armies, you made me laugh, at you, no less, and that's no small feat. :D

When I see my name popping up twice and nobody's telling what is happening, do I make inane assumptions thinking it concerns me?

PS: I laugh at NATO for not being able to comprehend the most basic RP rules. Oh but laughing at NATO is already done to death because of numerous occasions like this, so old news here.

Okay fair enough, you're trying to use suspension. But guess what? WHen you mention IA nations etc then they are sure to imagine NATO is attacking them. People in NS react very pessimistically.

When I see my name popping up twice and nobody's telling what is happening, do I make inane assumptions thinking it concerns me?

Where did it pop up, Guff? Seriously? There were Panoolian flags being ravaged. If you ravage thousands of my flags, that is no act of war. Also, the very first post had your name. Something about soldiers coming back from a mission that had to do with Guffingford. No mention of them going back into your country. At least, that's if I remember Vastiva's post correctly.

Hogsweat - We knew that. We counted on a pessimistic reaction. But I, personally, did not think it would go as far as it did. Messages on regional messageboards, spam-fests to remove such messages, and the "WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU ATTACKING" posts that showed such rage and fright, when it could have all been settled by waiting for our announcement.

If we WERE attacking Guffingford, he would have had every right to ignore it. 89623424324 ship fleets DO NOT JUST MATERIALIZE OUTSIDE TERRITORIAL WATERS and start blowing the hell out of cities and villages that do not exist. Sheesh.

EDIT - Nice edit, Guffingford. How original of you to describe NATO as a bunch of whiners and n00bs. But then again, you're a master of creativity. :rolleyes: The hints we dropped to you, let me rephrase that, the hints we FED you, were innumerable. You, my friend, were blind to them. So were your allies, who only had war on their minds (once again, how original :rolleyes: ). You believed that every friggin roleplayer was after your blood. Paranoid, are we? I told you sir, I told you oocly, that I sincerely hoped your haste would not cause you embarrassment. :rolleyes:

What was your reply? "Thanks."

Sheesh #2.

The Merchant Guilds: You missed my point.

"Personally I enjoyed the thread... well, accept for the semi-OOC "What are joo doing?" posts which could have been done in telegram or MSN without spamming a perfectly good In Character thread."

There is nothing wrong with wondering what is going on, but there are various ways in which you can do it without having several posts one after the other basically asking the same OOC question. Telegramming the nation is one way, or perhaps asking for their MSN and talking with them about it that way, or the creation of a OOC thread... hell, just one nation asking about it in a subtle OOC post wouldn't have been as bad.

But it doesn't matter now and it's probably best that we leave this thread for actual OOC concerns with the new thread.

And edit: lets not turn this into a flamefest guys, constructive ciriticism is one thing, but to start insulting one like that is just childish. Guffingford, for someone who does some fairly good IC posts I would have hoped you would have gotten over this whole OOC mudslinging crap by now, you're better then that, note that it's not just you, it's just I tend to RP with you more.

1st post, 1st thread:
The Daffidar put his feet up and ordered another beer. "I'll tell ya, mate, it's been a strange few months. We're off to Guffingford, only we don't do much more then land a team and cast a few drones. The team comes back in a few days, and it's back into the water. What happens? Nothing."When a first post starts like this, with a thread tag NATO attached to it, am I being a retard here who thinks "hey, they might be up to something. I'll tell my friends about it and see what they say."

1st post, 2nd thread:
Speeding ahead of the fleet, the four chevrons of Checker FFGs moved quickly into closer range, their 5” LWGM guns pockpockpockpocking, blasting apart storefronts, tearing through vehicles flying Holy Panooly’s banners with deceptive ease. All around, bits of burning uniform and charred remnants of what might once have been military vehicles proved the effectiveness of the Vastivan attack.When you mention a nation name so explicit, you honestly think nobody thinks: "Hey, this might concern Holy Panooly!". Note both posts are the FIRST posts of the thread, so you cannot get around it has some relevance to me.

I'm not easy to amuse. So congratulations, Imperial Armies, you made me laugh, at you, no less, and that's no small feat. :DTisk tisk. The pot is once again calling the kettle... Oh it's too cliche to discuss this with people who cannot imagine what other people might conclude when they read the aforementioned posts. It's called RP etiquette, and yesterday I asked whether it's against IA or not, simple answer yes or no. Neither you nor Schultaria answered.

Indeed. I hope you learned your lesson from this, Guffingford: The whole world does not revolve around you..



No. No, we didn't have to do that. At all. Actually, we did not want to do that. Forgive us for attempting to hold on to the tiny elements of suspense that are left in the NationStates world. I refer you to these posts..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8904910&postcount=36
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8907612&postcount=5
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8908179&postcount=7

..two of which are in this thread. Read them again.. and again.. and again.


Of course, I'm speaking as a roleplayer here, not as a NATO member, but Guffingford's frenzied posts, Aust's OMG CAPITALIZED POSTS!!11, and the "n00b"/"wanker" comments that some short-sighted, slow, and just plain dense roleplayers made, were all worth it. Because personally, I was extremely amused. Actually, I was laughing my behind off the whole time.

I'm not easy to amuse. So congratulations, Imperial Armies, you made me laugh, at you, no less, and that's no small feat. :D

Really, I am more amused by your own foolishness in this matter.

I don't support mass spamming of threads but you did bring it on yourselves.

However lets start de-construction shall we:

In relation to AMF's comments:

Firstly, no you don't HAVE to tell us anything, but it is bad RP ettiquette to speak of people's units and then not tell them whats going on is it not.

Lets not even bring the concepts of common sense into this shall we.

Hell, lets say I ran an exercise with say crude copies of your defenses etc with your flags raised/markings after making a post about having maps and appearing to be preparing an invasion.

What would happen?

You'd be inquiring as to what on Earth I was doing? Would you not? Be it in the thread (Note: I did offer to delete my questions after they were answered).

I would also remind AMF that large scale military exercises especially of nation's whom can cause a 'World War' if they attack a bloc of other players. It is not out of character to begin possible preparations and going to a slightly higher level of alert. As for knowing targets that I don't support but I think you get my general point... (if you don't send me a TG and I will be happy to explain further).

In relation to Schultaria's comments:

Yes thats fine, but if you involve other players colours then you should tender a short explanation should you not. When asked this was not received... so common sense was abandoned again.

So GMB, I suggust you read them over and over and over again...

Well, now that this section of the event has been blown out of proportion, perhaps now would the perfect time to take stock and think about how one dimensionally the some characters (in both major senses of the word) are currently acting. The paranoia and self centered posting of several rp'ed nations in the absence of any prior mention, hinting, or discussion of even a skeletal outline or plot just shows how terrible the situation of I.I. has devolved. With all the out of character arguments concerning the locations of defense and attack being presented in this thread are absolutely astounding; it really does prove to the entire membership of NATO that the general world is quite self conscious about our actions and depresses us to believe that so much animosity was generated about an event where the location of said action wasn't even mentioned.

This event has been in the planning stages for almost three weeks, and it was decided a while ago that should we present this event to the public we would want to do in a creative and original way; by merely posing our intentions on the first post, the thread would have all but been assured to be dead before the first 72 hours. At the cost of your irritation we developed two key plot devices called suspense and tension, both of which are essential tools in the kit on any fictional writer. If anyone is irritated, it is the members of NATO in reading the flurry of out of character assumptions and posts from both former members and previous IC enemies. What we see here is a physical manifestation of a creative drought and a boredom epidemic combined with egocentricity and a blend of OOC/IC paranoia. The subtle hints included in our writing: the inclusion of training gear, the assembly of forces without the normally courteous "first telegram" rule, and the seemingly cohesive actions of our forces on singular area should have set off warning bells, but perhaps more in the arena of political action (Such as the entirely acceptable storyline boundaries introduced by Sarzonia and Skinny87).

In short it is time to rethink, in very serious and deep terms, the management of OOC and IC relations in the NS world; we apologize for perhaps causing you undue IC stress, but consider this a desperately needed wakeup call for all parties involved.

[EDIT]

-In short, remember the context of this forum. It is a storyline based forum, and sometimes not everyone is included in the plot. Guffingford, I did not give you an answer because I wanted to see just how much of a single track plotline has developed in IC relations. Don't take it personally, but see this as not just between us but between the entire gamut of nations aligned along these parallel spectrums. A serious OOC conference to resolve these differences might be in order, but I'll leave that to my counterparts on the other side to decide if they are willing to agree to such countermands.

Well, once again we have this whole NATO/RWC fiasco and once again both sides are squabbling.

Seriously, it is obvious that NATO has done this on purpose, the vagueness in the posts, and the continued vagueness from every poster, this was an obvious and a simple plan to have Guffingford and IA react badly and appear to warmonger.

Icly, a large NATO mobilisation would result in a large IA mobilisation, one only needs to look back to the cold war when the USA or Russia had war games, the other side immediately mobilised division of there own.

Looking from an outsiders perspective I can plainly see a little child (NATO) crying and screaming to annoy its hated brother (Guff and Imperial Armies.)

I would simply recommend that both parties admit their childishness and grow up, come on guys this is getting boring. Why don’t you all simply break up your alliances, have fun, rp like the old days.

You make a thread full of 'actions' and mention some enemies. You remain vague and then after a few pages you say you're holding exercises.
So far no prob, Good joke!(oh yes thats what is was: a joke)

Then you start discussing it and OOCly attack the party you pulled the prank on, that just makes it a sick joke.

Also, note: If India mobilizes forces (as it did 4 years ago) then Pakistan will respond(it did, it mobilized too). I dont hear noone saying Pakistan cant do that or 'the world doesnt revolve around you Musharaf!' Infact, everyone knew that could and would happen.

This looks mildly interesting, although I agree with the previous callers about it being much easier for you just to tell everyone what was happening. And Iuthia, I asked about this on MSN and got nothing but a bunch of snide, patronising and pedantic comments. So ya. Anyway, I have no further interest in this thread, so please no one try to start an argument with me, because I'm really not interested.

So far no prob, Good joke!(oh yes thats what is was: a joke)

Then you start discussing it and OOCly attack the party you pulled the prank on, that just makes it a sick joke.

Then perhaps some constructive criticism would be nice; right now it just seems you're posturing here, pretending to be in the "right", when all apparent focus appears to be demeaning our approach. And, as for OOC attacks, it's a sorry state to see how badly I.I. has developed, but let's consider this as yet another example to the growing list of global complaints about tensions and miscues as potential plot destroyers.


Also, note: If India mobilizes forces (as it did 4 years ago) then Pakistan will respond(it did, it mobilized too). I dont hear noone saying Pakistan cant do that or 'the world doesnt revolve around you Musharaf!' Infact, everyone knew that could and would happen.

Bringing real life situations into the political context of this argument is nice, but I believe the date of your argument is off. Shove the argument back about 92 years from the present day and focus on the tensions in Europe and look at the colonialism, the conflicting alliances, the arms races, and the growing egos in retrospect to the current political situations of I.I. I'm sure you can see some similarities in this argument, but tell me of a better way to bring painfully obvious the lack of variety in our political tensions than the arguments presented in this thread. Because conventional OOC "statement" (i.e. I.I. Needs Work or I.I.: Has Roleplay Declined?) threads obviously aren't making a serious impact on the quality of public IC interrelationships.

-----

I would simply recommend that both parties admit their childishness and grow up, come on guys this is getting boring. Why don’t you all simply break up your alliances, have fun, rp like the old days.

As for the alliances argument, I do not think your request can be honored for the arguments of friendship and convenience.

1. Alliances help to formulate and stabilize friendships with nations within NS by providing a ground of mutual communication and benefit. Every nation whom I consider to be either "good" or "active" friends on an OOC level all stem from alliances. I absolutely loathe making the first move in talking to someone, so such collaborations help to ease my ability in conversing with other people.

2. Alliances just seem to have a significant historical precedent whenever a large, anonymous, section of the population wants to band together for common goals. Through the aegis of a common organization, such banding can occur along regularized lines with little confusion as to how individual members are related to who. For a personal example, I currently have regularized relations with about 30 people, active relations with about 12, and direct, nearly daily, communication with about 4 but those are within the regularized structures of two alliances. Should those alliances be disbanded, my regularized relations would have to be individually categorized and paired up in my mind (who has a direct alliance with me, who has tensions with me, etc); frankly, that's a lot of excess work that eats up free external time which I sometimes can not afford to utilize on NS.

As I said in the other thread:

OOC: First off, this is supposed to be an IC thread, so all the OOC hijacking is NOT appreciated. And no, I don't care if there is not an 'IC Only' tag in the title. People need to start respecting the fact that a thread that contains RP is FOR RP ONLY. I'm starting to grow very sick of threads being torn apart by OOC bickering and TAG's. Stop it please.

Second, allow me to address Aust and everyone else who has expressed concern directly.

Maybe they could have told us that at the start, for those of us who don't read posts that carefully.

Why is it our responsibility to reveal our intentions at the start of a thread? Why is it our responsibility to make sure you and others do not make assumptions? Why is it our responsibility to make sure you don't act on those assumptions? Why is it our responsibility to essentially (for lack of a better term, if I can come up with one I will edit this post appropriatly) 'dumb-down' our posts so they are easily understandable at first glance? Why is it our responsibility to make sure you, and I quote, 'read posts carefully'?

I also have some more questions which do not necessarily need answers. If you would like to answer them, please TM it to me or start an OOC thread. As of this post, this will be the LAST OOC comment here. Moderators will be contacted if need be.


To those of you who have mobilized your forces in light of this thread:

Where do you get off?

Seriously folks, how do any of you know what's going on here? Nothing has been said so far, so all your discussion about this thread is nothing but pure speculation.

How do you 'know' we are attacking Guffingford?

Just because NATO mobilizes its forces does not mean that we are automatically attacking Guffingford. It does not mean we are automatically attacking anyone. How do you know we are not attacking a third party that has yet to respond? How do you know we are not attacking one of our own? How do you know we are simply doing nothing?

The point is, you don't. My other point is this: don't make assumptions based off of opinion. Unless something is said directly by one of the people involved, any comments or thoughts on what is going on is nothing but speculation.

Why are you forcing yourself into a thread designated for '[NATO]'?

Clearly this thread and this RP is for NATO and those outside NATO who may be involved. What gives you the right to enter a thread that is clearly not for you and start:

A. Hijacking it with OOC conversation.

B. Assuming that we are attacking someone who has not received any sort of notice about what is going on, be it in the form of a TM or the subtle use of their nation's name in a post. Granted, the latter does NOT mean that said nation has any knowledge whatsoever about what it going to happen to them, but at least when they do an ego search they can spot the thread.

It makes me very sad to see Guffingford, Aust, and company ready to declare war on NATO for something that may not even involve them. Please, get your facts straight and wait until some sort of concrete evidence surfaces before you go around mobilizing forces against us. And no, I do not buy the argument that because NATO and the RWC have a history that any sort of NATO mobilization automatically involves RWC folk. Won't fly here.

Alas, this will be my last OOC post here. I will be leaving shortly but I plan on having an IC one up tomorrow. As stated before, if some of you wish to continue this conversation, either TM it to me or start an OOC thread.

My major gripe here is the level of complaining about not knowing what we had planned. As I stated in the above quote, we are in no way obligated to reveal our intentions to anyone in either an IC or OOC manner. In fact, I think it was best that we didn't reveal our intentions, because there are very few threads that keep you in the dark, and keep suspence high. Almost everyone reveals their plot to a certain extent, and thus it has become the accepted norm. However, this is in no way law, and as I stated above we will not be held responsible for the overreactions of a few certain individuals.

Guff and company can resort to childish namecalling all they want, but clearly they are the ones with eggshell all over their face. Voll used an example of India and Pakistan, to which I say that example is bunk. There are too many countries in the NS world, and because of this vast network of nations, alliances and such do deal with more than one party at any given time. To think that NATO (an alliance that has been around longer than the RWC) only acts against RWC members (or ex-members, whatever) is not only selfish and egotistical, but it is inane and childish.

As I said above, there was ZERO indication as to what we were doing from the start. If Guffingford and Aust want to jump the gun and make false assumptions, that is not our problem and we will not be held liable for their actions. The RP was designated as "[NATO]", and I personally do not appreciate people muscling their way into the thread thinking it's all about them.

Get over it, learn from your mistakes, and move on people.

If you call NATO's militaristic interaction with Communist Missippi and pals roleplay, then yes you have had interaction outside the RWC. Now, because Automagfreek calls my reasoning behind all of this selfish, egoistcal, inane and childish (does that refer to the person, I think so.) allow me to explain the self-proclaimed "roleplay legend" a simple concept he probably heard about, but it must have slipped his mind so I'm delighted to remind a "roleplay legend" of its existence:

CLOSED RP TAGS.

Perhaps the NATO tag was to draw attention from all NATO members. Did anyone say, at any given moment the RP was closed for non-NATO members? No. Was there an indication NATO was going to strike at Imperial Armies? Yes, according to everybody who decided to help us out. Do I need to mention names? Was there anybody from the NATO camp telling us the RP is closed, what they're going to do and where? No. Whenever me or anybody else asked them (Greenmanbry Schultaria Prime in my case) I got a few vague answers. Nothing more, nothing less.

Guff and company can resort to childish namecalling all they want Says the leader of the gang of players who likes to play by the rules they make up and rewrite them as they see fit, the alliance leader of the nation known as Greenmanbry who started the name calling by just telling he's laughing at our "stupidity", not said with exactly that word but when you can read between the lines I'm sure you can extract that statement from his very own words. Like Vollmeria says, you mobilize for exercises, we mobilize.

ACTION > REACTION.

Do not jump to conclusions, Guffingford. You made that mistake once, and it has led to this fiasco. Learn from your mistakes, as Automagfreek suggested, and do not repeat such absurd statements again.

I do not write anything "in-between lines". I do not conceal anything I intend to communicate. I am not paranoid or afraid of consequences. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

Face it. There was absolutely no indication of NATO's will to attack you or Imperial Armies. We threw around a few flags, and mentioned that our soldiers are striking a continent with "sleeping" villages.

If you truly believe that the quality of NATO roleplays is such that our forces materialize out of the blue outside your region, that reflects on your roleplay experience, not on NATO's. The people who did reply to the thread in a paranoid manner were either IA members, or NATO-bashers. No neutral nations replied. Some asked us OOCly why we did not mention any location for the excercises. We repeated to them what we said to you: "Wait and see. We will follow RP-etiquette. Wait and see."

They all complied. You chose not to. Stop it. Leave us in peace. Do not direct your extreme anger, frustration and embarrassment at NATO.

EDIT - I find it interesting that you picked out statements that you found offensive, yet you chose not to reply to my other points, which could have finished this whole debate a long time ago.

If you call NATO's militaristic interaction with Communist Missippi and pals roleplay, then yes you have had interaction outside the RWC. Now, because Automagfreek calls my reasoning behind all of this selfish, egoistcal, inane and childish (does that refer to the person, I think so.) allow me to explain the self-proclaimed "roleplay legend" a simple concept he probably heard about, but it must have slipped his mind so I'm delighted to remind a "roleplay legend" of its existence:

CLOSED RP TAGS.

If you want to debate the meaning of the [NATO] tag, feel free to take the argument elsewhere. I cannot be held responsible for your interpretation of such a tag, but clearly to me, the rest of NATO, and those observing, a [NATO] tag means that the thread is for [NATO] members. But perhaps this isn't enough....perhaps we need to include in the thread title [NATO-IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF NATO PLEASE DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS THREAD.] Sorry, I didn't think we would have to go to such extreme lengths because people are interpreting a simple [NATO] only tag as an open invite.

Perhaps the NATO tag was to draw attention from all NATO members. Did anyone say, at any given moment the RP was closed for non-NATO members? No. Was there an indication NATO was going to strike at Imperial Armies? Yes, according to everybody who decided to help us out.

Please quote a specific post where we said we were going to strike at Imperial Armies. Please find a post that states that NATO was preparing to war with Imperial Armies specifically.

Do I need to mention names? Was there anybody from the NATO camp telling us the RP is closed, what they're going to do and where? No.

A [NATO] tag means it is for NATO members, plain and simple. If you went into the NS forum and muscled your way into a thread with a [ToY] tag, I'm sure the Triumvirate members would ask you to leave. If there is a tag in a thread title pertaining to a specific person or group, then the thread is not for you if you are not in said categories.

Have we degenerated to the point where we are now debating the meaning of alliance tags in thread titles? This should be a simple concept, and for the life of me I do not understand why this is so hard to comprehend.

Whenever me or anybody else asked them (Greenmanbry Schultaria Prime in my case) I got a few vague answers. Nothing more, nothing less.

You began flooding and hijacking our RP thread with OOC comments. We are not obligated to answer your OOC questions in an IC thread.

Guff and company can resort to childish namecalling all they want Says the leader of the gang of players who likes to play by the rules they make up and rewrite them as they see fit, the alliance leader of the nation known as Greenmanbry who started the name calling by just telling he's laughing at our "stupidity", not said with exactly that word but when you can read between the lines I'm sure you can extract that statement from his very own words.

Again, assumptions. You assume that Green was calling the lot of you stupid, but how do you know that was what he was saying? Your interpretation may not be the same as the next guy's, but regardless of how much reason I try to speak to you, you'll continue to think what you want anyways.

It seems to me that you forced yourself into a situation that was not meant for you, and now you are trying to cover your ass and save your dignity by hurling attitude about. Admit it, you were in the wrong here. A [NATO] tagged thread is meant for [NATO] and [NATO] activities, not for Guffingford. I don't know why you think the two automatically coincide, but they don't, regardless of what you assume.

Like Vollmeria says, you mobilize for exercises, we mobilize.

Then I'm afraid you are the ones who will inevitable look foolish, wasting all that money mobilizing forces just to find out that they were simple exercises between NATO nations. Nevermind that the thread as designated for [NATO] members. Nevermind that nobody else outside of NATO was invited to participate. Just continue making your assumptions, but kindly keep the hostilities to yourself when you discover that you were completely wrong.

ACTION > REACTION.

Learn to listen to yourself before giving advice to others.

Do not jump to conclusions, Guffingford. You made that mistake once, and it has led to this fiasco. Learn from your mistakes, as Automagfreek suggested, and do not repeat such absurd statements again.Understanding through self-reflection anyone? Calling other people's statements absurd isn't exactly the right way of leading a debate, especially someone who always claims to be on the higher moral ground.

I do not write anything "in-between lines". I do not conceal anything I intend to communicate. I am not paranoid or afraid of consequences. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.So you hereby admit you laugh at Imperial Armies because we drew an absurd conclusion from your own writings and mysterious way of concealing your true intentions?

Face it. There was absolutely no indication of NATO's will to attack you or Imperial Armies. We threw around a few flags, and mentioned that our soldiers are striking a continent with "sleeping" villages.That doesn't take away the fact you left out vital pieces of RP information on purpose meant to misdirect us. If you followed RP etiquette and informed us of your actions NONE of this would have happened.

If you truly believe that the quality of NATO roleplays is such that our forces materialize out of the blue outside your region, that reflects on your roleplay experience, not on NATO's. The people who did reply to the thread in a paranoid manner were either IA members, or NATO-bashers. No neutral nations replied. Some asked us OOCly why we did not mention any location for the excercises. We repeated to them what we said to you: "Wait and see. We will follow RP-etiquette. Wait and see."Again the insults and misquotations. You subsequently refused to answer a question for the sake of RP - which is totally ruined now. Now, my RP experience with NATO is not good. In fact, none of the RP experiences with people I know with NATO are good. The sole reason we haven't utterly destroyed NATO is because:
1) You begin to rally as many allies possible
2) If all else fails: ignore for some bogus reason.
These things don't fall from the sky you know, things said like this aren't really the most light thoughts about a group of players. I agree, several NATO members are good players but the way you play, without understanding of mistakes made by yourself is the most annoying. I admit, and I am not ashamed of admitting my mistakes we may have started too soon with ignores and such but you cannot get around the fact each and every person I talked to agreed: NATO was going to attack us.

They all complied. You chose not to. Stop it. Leave us in peace. Do not direct your extreme anger, frustration and embarrassment at NATO.Who jumps into conclusions now? The all-knowing Greenmanbry just sees through the monitor I am embarrassed, frustrated and angered by you? Wish I had your amazing mind reading abilities mate, I envy you!

I rest my case, everything else is overruled.

In all reality, I thing what got to people was the fact that Vastiva said in his post that he was attacking a village in Holy Panooly. Whether or not your intentions were to host a fake Holy Panooly setting in order to have a wargame is not important - the fact remains that it was decepting. Consequently, we had all the right in the world to be worried - hell, you would do the same.

If you want to debate the meaning of the [NATO] tag, feel free to take the argument elsewhere. I cannot be held responsible for your interpretation of such a tag, but clearly to me, the rest of NATO, and those observing, a [NATO] tag means that the thread is for [NATO] members. But perhaps this isn't enough....perhaps we need to include in the thread title [NATO-IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF NATO PLEASE DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS THREAD.] Sorry, I didn't think we would have to go to such extreme lengths because people are interpreting a simple [NATO] only tag as an open invite.

I don't think that the problem is that - I think that we are perfectly willing to leave your thread alone. Just don't assume that we won't get involved somehow, because it's obvious that in some way we are involved - whether or not this is just some sort of IC political joke. I mean the words Holy Panooly are spelt in Vastiva's post.


Please quote a specific post where we said we were going to strike at Imperial Armies. Please find a post that states that NATO was preparing to war with Imperial Armies specifically.

This is what grabbed my attention:

tearing through vehicles flying Holy Panooly’s banners with deceptive ease.

Reference: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8900285&postcount=1



A [NATO] tag means it is for NATO members, plain and simple. If you went into the NS forum and muscled your way into a thread with a [ToY] tag, I'm sure the Triumvirate members would ask you to leave. If there is a tag in a thread title pertaining to a specific person or group, then the thread is not for you if you are not in said categories.

How would we know at first that you don't want to grab NATOs attention? I mean it doesn't necessarily mean its closed to NATO if you don't say it is. It was a common misconception, so I suggest you all stop being so stubborn about it.

Have we degenerated to the point where we are now debating the meaning of alliance tags in thread titles? This should be a simple concept, and for the life of me I do not understand why this is so hard to comprehend.

I guess we have. If you want it to stop then I suggest you stop respoding to them all and stop fueling the argument. The same goes for Guffingford.



You began flooding and hijacking our RP thread with OOC comments. We are not obligated to answer your OOC questions in an IC thread.

That I can agree with.




Then I'm afraid you are the ones who will inevitable look foolish, wasting all that money mobilizing forces just to find out that they were simple exercises between NATO nations. Nevermind that the thread as designated for [NATO] members. Nevermind that nobody else outside of NATO was invited to participate. Just continue making your assumptions, but kindly keep the hostilities to yourself when you discover that you were completely wrong.

Yes, because if the United States mobilized for a wargame in the 1980s of course the Soviet Union would figure, "Hey look, we don't want to spend money on mobilizing even though our one large foe is having a wargame, and undeclared at that."



Learn to listen to yourself before giving advice to others.[/QUOTE]

Hell, this argument is getting more amusing every second!

But seriously people, I got the hint after the 5th post and I saw no backup coming from AMF. Do you realy think NATO is going anywhere without atleast having AMF on backup status, hell no, lest they want to get ravaged by Guff's palls.

Heh, not that I go anywhere without having atleast a regional defence force ready...

In all reality, I thing what got to people was the fact that Vastiva said in his post that he was attacking a village in Holy Panooly. Whether or not your intentions were to host a fake Holy Panooly setting in order to have a wargame is not important - the fact remains that it was decepting. Consequently, we had all the right in the world to be worried - hell, you would do the same.

You are right. The post was deceptive to a degree. But, Macabees, Vastiva did not say that he was attacking a village in Holy Panooly. He said that the vehicles in the village were flying, and I quote, much like you did, "Holy Panooly’s banners with deceptive ease.".

You had the right to be worried. No one is arguing otherwise! And we would have been worried too! But that is no justification for the flood of OOC posts that took place, from labelling us "n00bs" in an IC thread, to calling for an ignore on the thread, to Aust's and Guffingford's redundant comments. And no, Imperial Armies was not the only entity invovled. There were others as well. This criticism of OOC rubbish in and IC thread is directed not only to Imperial Armies.

I hope that cleared some things up.

Guffingford - You seem to extract offensive insults from every word I say. So I will not debate this with you. I will put the subject to rest. If you want to continue this debate, feel free to contact me through MSN.

You are right. The post was deceptive to a degree. But, Macabees, Vastiva did not say that he was attacking a village in Holy Panooly. He said that the vehicles in the village were flying, and I quote, much like you did, "Holy Panooly’s banners with deceptive ease.".

You had the right to be worried. No one is arguing otherwise! And we would have been worried too! But that is no justification for the flood of OOC posts that took place, from labelling us "n00bs" in an IC thread, to calling for an ignore on the thread, to Aust's and Guffingford's redundant comments. And no, Imperial Armies was not the only entity invovled. There were others as well. This criticism of OOC rubbish in and IC thread is directed not only to Imperial Armies.

I hope that cleared some things up.

True enough. Holy shit, has this argument actually been solved?? Yay!

I don't think that the problem is that - I think that we are perfectly willing to leave your thread alone. Just don't assume that we won't get involved somehow, because it's obvious that in some way we are involved - whether or not this is just some sort of IC political joke. I mean the words Holy Panooly are spelt in Vastiva's post.

Where those words mentioned on some sort of international stage? No, they were used to describe the situation. Unless you have spy satellites over everybody 24/7 (which I know for fact nobody would allow you to have sats over their territory), there is no way you'd know that HP flags were mounted on Vastivan vehicles.



How would we know at first that you don't want to grab NATOs attention? I mean it doesn't necessarily mean its closed to NATO if you don't say it is. It was a common misconception, so I suggest you all stop being so stubborn about it.

Again, this is debatable. If a NATO member posts a thread with a [NATO] tag, he probably wants to be just between NATO. If a non-NATO member posts a thread with a [NATO] tag in it, THEN that is an attention grabber. Simple and easy to understand.

I guess we have. If you want it to stop then I suggest you stop respoding to them all and stop fueling the argument. The same goes for Guffingford.

I wish the argument never started, but I will happily withdraw from it as long as the other parties in this thread do the same.

If memory serves me right, Didn't the US and Alllies use Russian/Warsaw Pact vehicles and weapons during training excercises? I do believe so.

Face it, you got bluffed and now you're trying to cover your tracks with ludacris claims. I can almost guarentee that if the "Imperial Armies" or any other power bloc was to do the same thing NATO has done, the reaction from NATO members would be something to the effect of: "Let's wait to see what happens." Not: "Where the hell are you attacking, you n00b(s)?!!!"

We were doing training excercises. Nothing More, Nothing Less. If I were in Aust of Guff's shoes, I would tag the tread, and wait. If an actual, no BS, attack was lanuched on me, then I would mobilize. Your reaction to vague details(HP Flags, for instance) was much too extreme. IA has some very powerful nations, I'll give them that, If NATO did actually attack them, I know they could withstand the tide for a while. All you guys had to do was wait, watch, and listen.

Face it, you got bluffed and now you're trying to cover your tracks with ludacris claims. I can almost guarentee that if the "Imperial Armies" or any other power bloc was to do the same thing NATO has done, the reaction from NATO members would be something to the effect of: "Let's wait to see what happens." Not: "Where the hell are you attacking, you n00b(s)?!!!"


You got jokes man, I have to give you props. I still remember the time when I moved a fleet an all of NATO began to post in my thread just because of the simple title [ATTN: NATO]. There were no indications in my post that it had anything to do with NATO, and I hadn't even had bad or good, or any, relations with NATO prior to that.


We were doing training excercises. Nothing More, Nothing Less. If I were in Aust of Guff's shoes, I would tag the tread, and wait. If an actual, no BS, attack was lanuched on me, then I would mobilize. Your reaction to vague details(HP Flags, for instance) was much too extreme. IA has some very powerful nations, I'll give them that, If NATO did actually attack them, I know they could withstand the tide for a while. All you guys had to do was wait, watch, and listen.


Then you and I differ. NATO and Guffingford do not have the most cordial relations ever and consequently, I would be deeply worried if all of a sudden NATO began to mobilize for a wargame - or at least congregate. That calls for at least some sort of limited counter mobilization.


Where those words mentioned on some sort of international stage? No, they were used to describe the situation. Unless you have spy satellites over everybody 24/7 (which I know for fact nobody would allow you to have sats over their territory), there is no way you'd know that HP flags were mounted on Vastivan vehicles.


Actually, my sattelites don't have to be over his territory - they just have to be orbiting over the correct hemisphere. Sattelites have a very wide range of view - especially geocentric sattelites, although this planet is so large, and I don't know the exact position of Vastiva, so I wouldn't be so sure that such a sattelite would even be able to photograph his land.


Again, this is debatable. If a NATO member posts a thread with a [NATO] tag, he probably wants to be just between NATO. If a non-NATO member posts a thread with a [NATO] tag in it, THEN that is an attention grabber. Simple and easy to understand.


Again, I have the stress the influence of past relations between NATO and RWC/IA. Anything by NATO is something to be worried about.

-----------------

Regardless, there was a lot OOC assumptions made by both sides, especially IA, however, face it people, OOC influences are always a part of IC roleplay, whether you like it or not.

The same thing went for when before I re-started my history I mobilized a fleet and all of a sudden NATO was on my ass. Same thing, no different.


---------------

I now depart from this thread unless something else comes up.

I agree - few came out of this without looking amaturish. NATO was trying to be too cute by half - and the RWC gang made assumptions.

Of course no one from NATO responded to my IC response to the mobilization.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8909602#post8909602

W.

Since this thread is listed as OOC and open, I'll chime in.

I appreciate the desire to have a creative opening, but as was indicated earlier, that opening was deceptive. Is it illegal or bad form? I'm not one to say, but I think if you didn't want people who aren't NATO members to respond, you should have written CLOSED: Attn: NATO in the subject line. That would have prevented a LOT of this bickering.

I think Aust was at fault for admitting that he didn't read the post all that thoroughly, but it seems as though you were looking to amuse yourselves by making fools of other RPers. I'm pretty disappointed with a lot of what I've seen in these threads.

I think Aust was at fault for admitting that he didn't read the post all that thoroughly, but it seems as though you were looking to amuse yourselves by making fools of other RPers. I'm pretty disappointed with a lot of what I've seen in these threads.

We weren't looking to make fools of anyone, you're making assumptions here. The thread was to the attention of NATO and NATO only, and casually we began RPing with ourselves and ourselves only. I thought people would have gotten the hint when we intentionally did not reply to their posts, be it IC or OOC. In fact, on the NATO boards we agreed to that: to interact only with ourselves and nobody else.

This was not an attempt to make people look like fools. We were trying to have an RP between ourselves, and unfortunatly people have psychoanalyzed the meaning of a [NATO] tag and made a much bigger deal out of this than there ever needed to be.

This post is in response to this (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420327) complaint in "Moderation".

It is not the responsibility of NationStates Moderators to judge whether or not a roleplay constitutes godmodding. We do not police roleplays.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using suspense as a literary tool. There's certainly no rule against it in NationStates (again, Mod do not police roleplays). In this case, though, another NationStates nation was specifically named without the prior consultation of the player who controls that nation; this would, in my opinion, reasonably lead that player to believe that he was directly involved. Thus, it is (in my opinion) perfectly reasonable for Guffingford to ask OOCly what is going on. A failure by AMF to provide an adequate response could get him labelled as a godmodder.

Fine. Again, it is not the responsibility of NationStates Moderators to judge whether or not a roleplay constitutes godmodding. We do not police roleplays.

The whole attack on "Holy Panooly" is eventually revealed to be a mock attack on a fake village not in "Holy Panooly". Fine.

Here is where NationStates Moderators get involved:

Automagfreek: You specifically mentioned "Holy Panooly" by name. So, you have no grounds to complain about "Holy Panooly" butting into a thread in which he's not involved because you have given him valid reason to believe that he was involved. Thus, I take strong exception to your blaming him for thinking that he's involved. It might even be officially warnable as flamebait (though I'm perfectly willing to dismiss this as being a bit of a stretch on my part, especially given that I don't normally police the roleplay forums). The fact that "Holy Panooly" was not actually involved In-Character is irrelevant because you chose not to make that clear to him, In-Character or Out-Of-Character.

If you want to use the name of someone elses nation in one of your roleplays without the permission of that player, then go ahead. It's not the responsibility of NationStates Moderators what is or is not godmodding or to police roleplays. But, do not presume to place blame on that player if he or she decides to call you out on it.

Everybody: Now, there's a fair bit of bickering going on, so we can do this the easy way or the hard way. The easy way is that everyone realizes that mistakes were made on all sides (and, at cursory inspection, it does look to me like mistakes were made on all sides), mutually apologize, and move on. The hard way is that I break out the Heavy Hammer of Mod, go through everything, search for anything construable as flamebait, and smack people with official warnings and 3-day forumbans. A note of caution: Those who think that they're in the right may find that I've judged their behavior to be far less than exemplary. So, which will it be? The easy way? ...or the hard way?

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

i have to say i agree with the Cogitation... we more than surely can just agree that things could have done perhaps a little better on both sides, and agreeing to that, let's move on... these things are supposed to fun stories, and this bickering i personally can't say i find all that fun...

for my part, if i caused any real confusion, i apologize... my intention was to write suspensful fiction that hopefully people would ascribe little *tag*'s to with the intention of discovering what was really going on... i can say for myself that if i were to be invading anybody, which i don't plan on doing because i have no IC reasons (or OOC for that matter) to harbour hostilities to anybody that's posted here, I would more than certainly give you your fair warning and attempt to work it all out beforehand.

ergo, for my part in this fun story-turned-fiasco, i apologize and urge everyone else to move right along on and enjoy the NATO warlympics

Automagfreek: You specifically mentioned "Holy Panooly" by name. So, you have no grounds to complain about "Holy Panooly" butting into a thread in which he's not involved because you have given him valid reason to believe that he was involved.

INCORRECT. Please read my one and only IC post in the thread:


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8902661&postcount=21

Clearly I made no mention of Holy Panooly personally. Vastiva made mention of him firing 'rounds' at tanks that flew the flag of HP. I seriously doubt this is any sort of valid reason for him to get involved ICly. This would make as much sense as getting ICly involved because someone burned your flag, or (in this instance) soldiers wearing your insignia for war games were 'killed' in the exercise.

Please tell me where and how this ICly brings him into the thread.

[Thus, I take strong exception to your blaming him for thinking that he's involved. It might even be officially warnable as flamebait (though I'm perfectly willing to dismiss this as being a bit of a stretch on my part, especially given that I don't normally police the roleplay forums). The fact that "Holy Panooly" was not actually involved In-Character is irrelevant because you chose not to make that clear to him, In-Character or Out-Of-Character.

How in the world can this ever be classified as flamebait?

Please Cog, I implore you to actually read the thread in question here. You will see that ICly and OOCly there is NO reason for HP/Guff to be involved in the thread. There was no specific mention to the player or the nation, and Vastiva engaging mock units that flew HP flags is gives HP/Guff no IC or OOC reason to get involved.

If you want to use the name of someone elses nation in one of your roleplays without the permission of that player, then go ahead. It's not the responsibility of NationStates Moderators what is or is not godmodding or to police roleplays. But, do not presume to place blame on that player if he or she decides to call you out on it.

Again, please read the thread in question. I (with all due respect, naturally) believe that you may be quite mistaken on this situation. I do not believe that casual mention of a player's name gives them the right to enter an RP, and the casual use of items resemble those from another nation also does not give them any real IC or OOC reason to enter the RP.

Again Cog, read the thread, particularly the first post, as it is the one in question.

Wow is all I've got to say. I went thruogh just the first page of bullshit and I don't know what to say, Im not even gonna bother to read the last two. As an Imperial Armies member I can honestly say I'm embbarrased by BOTH sides. People that I've respected and looked to as the leaders of I.I. are in here bickering and bitching at each other like their in elementery school. I saw that thread and yes I can say that I was confused and thought they were invading, and yes I was a bit angry that they didn't inform us and personally I think they should have, while it wasn't nessecarily wrong or against the rules for them not to it would have been very nice of them. But even though they didn't we shouldn't have exploded on them. Because of BOTH sides what could have and would have been a nice rp is ruined and the chance for future good rp is slimmed down because of the bad blood resulting from this. Both sides screwed up, IA and NATO, and both sides continued to screw up. Before this goes on and the results become worse can both sides please please please just shut up and move on. Was it honestly that big of a deal? Did it in any way truly affect or harm any of you?

tag for sheer nosiness

I have an amazing idea!

1) People who made OOC posts on the thread (inc me) apologise for posting on the thread with a lot with needless junk.

2) Vastiva and all the NATO members apologise for posting a misleading thread and then downright refusing to answer legitimate concerns about the thread.

3) NATO and Guff + Co. stay away from each other in RPs until they all learn to conduct themselves in a reasonably mature manner around each other.

4) We forget this whole thing ever happened.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation][The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation Semi-Official Stamp-of-Approval.][/modedit]

Nicely said SH, but as you know big ego's clash...and keep going on about things not realy important.

(agrees with Praetonia, apologizes)

Thankyou.

*apologises also*

After reading what Cog wrote:

I apologise for any comments that may have been deemed offensive that I have made in the course of this thread.

I apologise for anything I might have said that was offensive.

I love you all. No sarcasm involved. No really, I'm glad we can all stuff our pride down our throats. I'm sorry.

Again Cog, read the thread, particularly the first post, as it is the one in question.I did actually read the thread in question before posting (though not completely thoroughly, I'll admit).

How in the world can this ever be classified as flamebait? You mention his name in key places, you don't make it clear that he's not involved, you don't make it clear that these are mock units that are not in his territory, he calls you on it, and you blame him for jumping to conclusions. It might be a bit of a stretch, but this seems construable as flamebait to me.

Please Cog, I implore you to actually read the thread in question here. You will see that ICly and OOCly there is NO reason for HP/Guff to be involved in the thread. There was no specific mention to the player or the nation, and Vastiva engaging mock units that flew HP flags is gives HP/Guff no IC or OOC reason to get involved.While there is no explicit mention of his involvement, there is nevertheless very strong implication of such, especially since it's not made clear until much later that only mock units were attacked, not genuine units.

Now, I'd prefer to let this go without official action. I haven't looked thoroughly, so I don't think you're the only one at fault; it takes two to tango (and there's a lot more than two, here).

I will consult with another Moderator more familiar with the roleplay forums before making further comment or taking any action.

I have an amazing idea!

1) People who made OOC posts on the thread (inc me) apologise for posting on the thread with a lot with needless junk.

2) Vastiva and all the NATO members apologise for posting a misleading thread and then downright refusing to answer legitimate concerns about the thread.

3) NATO and Guff + Co. stay away from each other in RPs until they all learn to conduct themselves in a reasonably mature manner around each other.

4) We forget this whole thing ever happened.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation][The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation Semi-Official Stamp-of-Approval.][/modedit]This would be ideal.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

You mention his name in key places, you don't make it clear that he's not involved, you don't make it clear that these are mock units that are not in his territory, he calls you on it, and you blame him for jumping to conclusions. It might be a bit of a stretch, but this seems construable as flamebait to me.

I specifically did not mention his name. Again, here is my first and only IC post in that thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8902661&postcount=21

While there is no explicit mention of his involvement, there is nevertheless very strong implication of such, especially since it's not made clear until much later that only mock units were attacked, not genuine units.

This is debatable, and is more of a case of player interpretation and RP etiquette that is considered the norm. I'm sure each person has a different interpretation of this, so I realize now that arguing this point is futile.


Now, I'd prefer to let this go without official action. I haven't looked thoroughly, so I don't think you're the only one at fault; it takes two to tango (and there's a lot more than two, here).

I personally did nothing wrong. My IC post is clear of any provoking comments, my OOC posts are clear of any flamebait (even though my opinions are strong, I have remained respectful and not crossed the line), and all I have done is defend my friends who have come under fire here for something so downright silly.

I'm sorry if the thread title wasn't painfully obvious, as I thought (and the rest of the NATO guys too) a [NATO] tag would have been well enough to the point.

I'll appoligise personally: I am hereby sorry for anything I may have said that might have been found offensive by any party involved in this situation.

But I shall not appoligise as a member of NATO. 'Twas not I(us) who overreacted.

Again, as a minor member of the NS community, this probably counts for little or nothing.

I am willing to apologize for the out of character posts that Guffingford may have found offensive. Insulting anyone involved was not my objective. So here, I apologize for what I said in this thread.

I, however, refuse to accept the notion that this bickering was the fault of NATO. This bickering started because of persistent OOC comments on a [NATO]-tagged IC thread. We told them to wait. Personally, I told them that they had the right to ignore the thread if we launch an invasion on Imperial Armies by having our fleets simply "materialize" out of thin air. Furthermore, and I do not know how I could have dropped a bigger or more direct hint, I explicitly told Guffingford that haste would cause embarrassment.

I guess those are huge OOC indicators that would make them at least slow down and refrain from posting things like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8903255&postcount=25).

I am sorry if this is frustrating to you, Cogitation, but believe me, it is frustrating to me that we are being held liable for things we did not commit, just because Imperial Armies was impatient and turned an IC thread into a series of OOC comments that insulted NATO and its members.

Once again, I know I'm not exactly making things easier. Sorry to everyone involved, but I am still not convinced that NATO should apologize for acting childish when some individuals acted childish and resorted to calling us n00bs in our IC thread.

*Shakes head solemnly*

The point is that both sides overreacted. Imperial Armies jumped at the thought that NATO was interested in them, and NATO jumped the gun in hitting IA over the head with OOC hammers, and then IA again overreacted by calling NATO a bunch of n00bs and NATO just gave another slap in the face by continuing arguing the stupidest thing ever!

Dammit guys, my friends and I almost got in a fight over a parking spot yesterday while we were waiting in line for nine hours for Return of the Sith. Don't make the same mistake. :p

I think that we've all agreed, except for those who can't stuff their big egos down their throat, that it was a mistake on the part of both parties.

Get it over with, please.

Green, get on MSN!

By the way, Return of the Sith was worth nine hours of wait. Epic

By the way, Return of the Sith was worth nine hours of wait. Epic




-has been lurking-

-sneaks in-

It was great! I went to the midnight showing... Everyone should go see it. Heh.

-nods-

-thinks everyone should listen to what Praetonia recommended-

-leaves-

*Shakes head solemnly*

The point is that both sides overreacted. Imperial Armies jumped at the thought that NATO was interested in them, and NATO jumped the gun in hitting IA over the head with OOC hammers, and then IA again overreacted by calling NATO a bunch of n00bs and NATO just gave another slap in the face by continuing arguing the stupidest thing ever!

Dammit guys, my friends and I almost got in a fight over a parking spot yesterday while we were waiting in line for nine hours for Return of the Sith. Don't make the same mistake. :p

I think that we've all agreed, except for those who can't stuff their big egos down their throat, that it was a mistake on the part of both parties.

Get it over with, please.


Thanks Mac, same with you Prae, people regardless of whether your right or wrong just shut up and move on. Swallow your proud on this occasion, know inside you were right, but swallow that pride and move on. You don't have to post an apology as many others have but stop posting arguments defending what you did no matter how right you are cause all that leads to is more arguing and complaining. Lets end this now.

I'm not so full of self-indignation to deny that I(and the rest of NATO) were in the wrong. I think actually my post might have done the most harm for it seemed the most n00bish and Godmoddy without explanation. Therefore I swallow my pride and I apologize for my post.

My apologies for the OOC cluttering, it is sorted now.

Could I get a link to the IC thread?

Hey, Inkana,
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8916363#post8916363

Right. Hope my little clue in my post helped alleviate at least some of the tensions from random bomardments of towns without asking permission.

I've stayed out of this until now, and I just want to apologise for my actions. I was under the balife that you where preparing to attack me, and you should note that I TGed Vastiva to ask for information about where his nation was. I said that i thought there wouold be a war between us soon, I had this reply:


Sorry, no, I'm in a region of the same name, and the area is occupied. Besides, we've already RP'ed being separate, and thats not changing. Such positioning would have made our invasion of you in Brimstone easier - that didn't happen - I see no reason to give you the sudden opportunity for that advantage

This led me (as he didn't say that they wern't going to attack and he said he didn't want to give me a advantage) to balive an attack wouod come.

And seeing as the fact that the only clue they where Wargames was on the 3rd or 4th page, after I'd gone mad with requests about what happened, and there had been posts for IOR about his troops dressing up in Austian uniforms, I jumped to the inclusion about a attack on IA.

I apologise but that was my reasoning.