Just as an aside, I’m totally for the war following the player even out of corp.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. - Sun Tsu
Don’t reply to him anymore. He removed himself from serious discussion of the topic. Between strawmen, dodging the topic, and resorting to memes, there’s nothing worthwhile he can contribute.
Guess I need to be very specific.
When we were discussing war decs you decided to change topic to Concord protection.
Dodging of the question of when people leave corp Concord protection is only lost if they are actively flagged as a war target. People not at war do not lose their Concord protection. People switching from a 1 man corp do not lose their concord protection for joining a larger group unless that group is at war. War strips Concord protection, not leaving corp.
And that is where you decided to use no true scotsman where because I am doing something you disagree with we ended up with you deciding that I am not allowed to discuss anything because as you say “no true scotsman” would do such things.
Flagging this only means I need to clarify. And I’ll go one step further. @ISD_Buldath Feel free to review.
I’m having difficulties following the discussion at the moment and struggle with the coherency of arguments.
I’ll read it again later.
It’s alright. Reship. I’ll wait for another fight.
We’re not fighting here.
1 Like
One could say we were.
No. I get that you do, seeing how you don’t create coherency in your arguments and only so you don’t feel like losing. Only I’m not fighting you nor do I want to “deliver defeat”. I’m trying to learn about new ideas on wardecs here. So when you say “nobody is being forced” when the idea is to force players, or you say there’s a denial and I point to the overall victory not being denied and you then come with Sun Tzu, then it makes it difficult to get something out of it, because I’m trying to understand your suggestion. I still think it’s just a radical one and you haven’t convinced me that it isn’t.
Do you understand what I’m saying to you?
It’s hard to lose a debate. Seriously understood. You look for a loophole you can exploit but when that loophole turns out to be a noose there isn’t much direction you can go besides looking for another loophole and hoping it isn’t another noose.
So far we agree that players can choose if an effect of a war applies to them. They do this by choosing to remain in a corporation or leaving it. Obviously this has a time limit and a CEO can choose to remove someone from a corp against their wishes but that’s the power the CEO has and they are allowed to use it to their own discretion. As choice by a player is still done it is not really an argument of if a player decided to do something or not. Choice by inaction is also a decision.
As Sun Tzu said it isn’t about how many battles you win. Subduing the enemy is your objective. Perhaps not in the manner they choose but when they have a choice it is theirs to make. The same way you have a choice to make. The same choice everything here I’ve ever suggested has been about benefit’s gained for a risk at a cost.
Like I said, your entire fight with this topic and the people here is a problem for the coherency of your responses.
See, now you say it’s not about winning fights or battles, quoting Sun Tzu, but when it’s not about the fights then why do you want to keep fighting players after they’ve left their corporation? Where is the sense in that?
Where is the sense in attacking someone in the first place you don’t have to? Because you want to. Because you can. Because ganking is what people can do. Because defining anyone’s personal choices is impossible without being that person. But we’re not talking about every personal choice ever made because we’ll end up going to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy book Restuarant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams.
Also I believe CCP did a video on that:
Again, you’re lacking coherency. You’re not connecting back to the statement of Sun Tzu, instead are you now talking about the Hitchhiker’s Guide …
How can I follow you there?
By educating yourself. Only you can choose to learn.
Then teach me and start making sense.
You’ve quoted Sun Tzu, but I don’t think you actually mean what he says. Because to accept Sun Tzu’s statement would you have to be able to accept a victory completely without having a fight, which is exactly what you get when players run from their corporation. And that’s not what you want.
1 Like
Maybe it isn’t what you chose as the end solution. But you present the enemy with a choice. Risk fighting us. Their decision was theirs to make to not take that risk. Who knows why. It wasn’t your choice to make.
You should perhaps learn about Sun Tzu more.
Perhaps it would be best to know the teachings he presented.
Start there.
No, you should. I think you see it as losing when players run from you. But not as their loss, but as yours.
Who’s victory is it? The ones who ran to save their pieces or the ones who forced them to run without fighting?
When you don’t know, how can you talk about war in the first place?
That’s a deflection. Both sides can assume victory or defeat based entirely on perspective. When you ask a yes or no question where the answer is entirely dependent on the individual you don’t ask a yes or no question. A loaded question is returned to. If the answer to the question was A then you claim they don’t know anything about war because B. Same for if the answer is B.