 KillerPoodle wrote:
You post is a very good example of a discussion I recently had with Angrim in GC about the value of arguing in GC.
When you have one side of a disagreement who are very vocal in GC and forums and you have another side who are not, the argument which supports the former is heard much more often and the collective conscious of the game perceives that argument as "the truth" regardless of it's actual accuracy. It's a direct example of "If you say it often enough, people will believe it".
NC did not used to participate in GC banter and forum warfare unless forced and as a result the side which paints them in a bad light is the one everyone "knows".
It is true that NC is happy to go to war to support their position
sooner than most when diplomatic failures occur and sure enough many
folk who dislike war automatically assume that makes them bad guys and
diss them in GC (E.g. Rill) even when they have no skin in the game and
only a hazy view on the details of a particular issue. This enhances the
effect described above so that most people's perception of the guys who
don't talk as much in GC is slanted.
It's interesting that you mention the mCrow, but fail to see that this is a supporting example of how the situation is as I have described above - E.g. not nearly as black and white as some would paint it.
|
Well, of course I can only draw conclusions from what I have at my disposal, that makes them necessarily biased, but that´s too why I wrote this post, to get more information. If I would really enjoy blaming others instead of trying to understand them, I would have stayed in DLord and would be fighting at your side right now^^ Mh, maybe sounds rougher then meant, but you get the direction I hope... Let´s say, so I am sure, that I am not on the wrong side...
But the question is still, how with "It is true that NC is happy to go to war to support their position sooner than most when diplomatic failures occur " in mind any of my conclusions are wrong? How can an alliance, that tries harder to stick to the diplomatic side, not see NC as a potential threat, especially when they are backed by a big alliance like yours? Consone "only" pushed around, you have an ally even fighting out wars (and doing so very sucessfully). And at least as Halycone percieved it, as long as NC was on the winning side, you did nothing, but as there was only the danger of them getting real contra for their actions, you tried to throw in your wight.
You accuse others (probably rightly so) to instigate conflicts, especially through going over smaller alliances, you even seem to surpase them with using a small alliance to always be able to cry "foul!" when they are getting into real problems...
That´s probably not what you want, but I can understand why it is percieved as such, and your reactions here didn´t change that (yet)...
I mean, I can be wrong and it has nothing to do with NC and only with power play. But why I should only believe you, that you are trying to the right/justified stuff, while all the others are only mean/dumb/dishonourable? (well, very probable power/revenge seems really to have a part in it, but I still think it´s not the only reason for all the ones involved)
And to black and white: well, at least I had both on both sides, I don´t see where you yourself would start using even only grey in your description of your own position^^
Tweet
Why are we fighting?
Topic Options
