Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Logical Fallacies and You

First, a disclaimer: I'm not an expert. I've also let my temper get the better of me in arguments before - most do at one point or other. That being said, I think it's important to recognize when one is committing such offenses, be it yourself or others in a debate, argument, or disagreement. All the better to offer more substantive debate and hone your skills, and if nothing else, learn how to pull the rug out from under your detractors when they use fallacies, and keep yourself from falling into the same trap.

Coming from a more NationStates mindset, let's work with what we're familiar with, shall we?

"Either you support me, or you're against me and a tool for my oppressors."

This is what's known as a False Dilema. We see this sort of thing all the time, unfortunately, with people forgetting that there can be, and usually is, neutral ground to one degree or other. Statements like this only serve to polarize groups, and force those who tend to be more weak-willed or not wishing to cause too much fuss, to eventually choose sides when in reality, they needn't.

"Person A said that Person B had a history of trolling behaviour, but because I didn't personally see it all and Person B is my friend, it must not be true."

This here is called an Argument from Ignorance. I'm sure you can see where the name comes from. Because one has not seen or does not see the whole picture, whether by choice or no, one decides to disbelieve entirely. Ignorant indeed, and again, seen all too often.

"If you ban one person for something, you have to ban everyone for everything even remotely resembling it."

Slippery Slope, this. It doesn't take into account individual differences with each particular case, and overgeneralizes, aiming to 'panic' one's opponent into making a decision more palatable to the challenging side. Basically, blowing a situation out of proportion with wild suppositions. Never pretty.

"If you won't give me your support, I'm going to declare war on you."

Appeal to Force - I think that one is self-explanatory. Tell me how often we see that sort of stuff, on forum and off. Though this refers to some of the n00b wars that go on all the time, I'm sure you can see how it can apply to a plethora of other situations.

"I was here first, so I shouldn't have to share!
You're just trying to undermine me and take away everything I have by engaging me in conversation!"

Appeal to Pity - appropriately pitiful, and based entirely on 'feelings' rather than anything of content dealing with the case at hand. More often than not, emotional fluff designed to evoke a 'you poor baby, everyone stop picking on them' response so they can avoid having to face facts or deal with a the situation. Tender-hearted or overly-emotional types seem to be particularly succeptable to this one.

"If you keep wanking so hard, it's going to fall off."

Could not resist getting ye olde Steel Penii ref in there, perdon. Appeal to Consequences. Again, looking to 'scare' the person into giving in.

"Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the religious text known as The Bibkortalmicon is a load of collops."

Predjudicial Language - just one more tool to try and make one's opponent appear or feel foolish, rightfully so or not. A very common tactic, and one all too easy to fall into, given how competitive and hasty debates can get.

"I got voted the Most Forum-y Forumite on the forum, so I think I ought to know what I'm talking about when I say anything concerning it. Everyone else accepts it, why not you?"

Appeal to Popularity/Emotion. Because X amount of people claim something, it must be true. Even when it isn't. I'm sure you can see where this one comes in, no? Unfortunately, even decent folk fall into this particular trap. 'How can all those people be wrong?' springs to mind. While a point being argued can very well be true, this isn't the most effective way to prove it.

"You're a <--insert race, creed, color, gender, religion, alliance member, what have you-->, so you aren't qualified to offer an opinion."

"Person A is part of the Big Bad Alliance, so you obviously can't take their word for anything."

"You're telling me I can't have $tech, but you use the same thing!"

Ad Hominem attacks. Now, I'm sure we've all seen them, and likely many of us have used them in the heat of the moment. From the mild, to the mean, these arguments tend to have nothing based in fact, and are simply designed to cut, and often, elicit a negative emotional response in ones opponent - sometimes in the hopes that they will commit a greater faux pas. Basic message? 'Because you're $thing, you suck'.

Bad, naughty. Moving on.

"Long ago, a Bangladeshi lied to me, therefore, all Bangladeshi are liars."

Hasty Generalizations. Any time you stoop to painting any group with so broad a brush you open yourself up for all sorts of trouble - and run the risk of looking like a bigoted idiot. Not to disparage, but this and other fallacies like it seem to pop up most often in the debate/discussion forums simply because the activity there lends itself more to it. Often used to flame, to bait, and otherwise just be nasty, it's one of the less palateable fallacies we see all too often on the boards.

"In discussing what we think ought to be done about $problem in NationStates, me and my group of ten or so people got together and polled one another, and came up with a solution that we know everyone will agree to."

Unrepresentative Sample. Often you see this with well-meaning (or otherwise) groups out to save the world, or make it all a better place because they, for some reason, have the answers, and fail to see why we all don't just jump on the bandwagon. This isn't to say they're all malicious, anything but. What they miss is that a small group of like-minded people cannot in any reasonable way represent a much larger group who hasn't been asked their opinion on the topic at hand. The idea may or may not be a good one - that's beside the point when arguing 'we've polled this small group and come up with an answer for the whole'.
Not to be confused with Moderation, where a small group has been asked by the owner to well, moderate.

"The Thelelfymenelricosians breed like roaches, hence, like roaches, they ought to be exterminated."

False Analogy, and another one of the others with the potential to get rather nasty rather fast. Arguing that because two things supposedly share a trait, that they must obviously share others and be treated accordingly. It falls flat when shown that there are other elements that prevent the analogy from holding true.

"In spite of having been warned repeatedly about posting unsuitable content on the boards, Player A contines to maintain they have done nothing wrong, and that they are obviously the focus of some grand conspiracy to keep them down."

Slothful Induction is likely the hardest argument to overcome, as usually the subject of it is so convinced of their innocence they are unwilling to consider another option. Seen many, many times in Moderation under one form or other, be it trolling, flaming, posting, griefing, what have you - this one will likely (sadly) never die out. So long as an appropriate cross can be found, you'll find these folks hanging themselves on it.

"Because Player A seemed to be rushed in his response, he was clearly misquoted, and the other side are misrepresenting him."

Style Over Substance - wherein the manner an argument or statement was delivered is said to affect the truth of it. Often offered up by apologists or well-meaning people who dislike seeing anyone shown up, this is hoped to draw either pity to allow the person to avoid having to answer it, or an attack by the opposites in that - those loking for any weakness to show up and blow out of proportion. "Showing a temper? Obviously lying," for example.

"Half of the new members of The Syndicate are from the group 'AirPowah', meaning there is a conspiracy by that group to take over."
(This after excluding the fact that several other members have left The Syndicate, a majority of other various groups were included in between the memberships in question, and others were already members of The Syndicate before becoming members of AirPowah.)

The Fallacy of Exclusion - the delightful argument that is used rabidly to defend one's point of view, while leaving out pertinent details. Another one that can be difficult to argue against on NS, given how many of those who tend to use it dislike having uncomfortable facts brought up that mess with their limited viewpoint. Some fall into this trap simply by not knowing the rest of the story, and can generally be talked to amicably enough, even if they still disagree by the end of it.

"Freedom of speech is a good thing, thus, we all ought to be free to express ourselves any way we wish to on the forums."

Granted, freedom of speech can be a wonderful thing when not abused, but these sorts of 'Accidental' arguments suggest that a general rule should cover everything when exceptions realy ought to apply. We see a lot of this get argued on the forums as well, and it's usually all well and fine until something comes up the arguer doesn't prefer, then it's all sorts of 'take it off and ban the jerk, I am offended!' To put it more clearly, 'Tubgirl', anyone?

"Because one deletion was reversed, all deletions should be reversed."

The ever-popular Converse Accident where the one arguing claims that because an exception was made for one, all cases should be treated the same, regardless of the circumstances. This is one I've seen mostly come up with those who feel they or their buddies have been wrongfully treated and thus, when someone else gets a break, claim they ought to get one as well.

"As far as I'm concerned, you and my friend are rivals. Therefore, nothing you say can be considered rational. So it isn't."

Ah, Begging the Question. This is always a fun one where the person arguing presumes that all points have been agreed on, hence, their analysis must be correct. It boils down to 'because I say so', in essence, and is a weak argument along the same lines of "Because I'm telling the truth, I'm not lying." One of the more arrogant approaches to debate, and usually, aside from the yes-men who invariably support one side or other in it, it falls flat.

"But as the $political_preference you are, it must have given you a thrill to ban one the best informed $opposing_political_preference posters."

Attacking an argument from a different and generally weaker position than their opponent, otherwise known as a Strawman tactic. This to me has always smacked of the 'Oh yeah, well you're just jealous!' sorts of responses that seem to happen when the one using said weak attack gets frustrated with losing headway in an argument.

"Whatsisbucket of the Great and Terrible Alliance has terrible spelling problems, therefore all members of that alliance are poor spellers."

The fallacy of Composition - one that is extremely easy to fall into, regardless of what group you associate with. After all, if you lump folks together and make them look worse than you ... you get the picture. See also 'Hasty Generalization'. Both can be rather poisonous depending on the context used.

For those interested in a more succinct reference, there is this page, among others to better familiarize oneself with the more common fallacies.

A secondary disclaimer:

To those who find themselves looking, and thinking 'hey, I think she's taking a shot at me', fine and well. When idly typing this up for my own amusement, I used a plethora of past and present examples, most often, having been melded together from several occurences - some more widely memorable than others, granted. Given how many threads, and warnings, and bans, and rants we have to draw from, I figure it's inevitable that there may be a similarity or two here and there.

I suppose you'll be presented with several choices, then. One might be to take the opportunity for a bit of introspection. Another might be to just blow this off as just someone elses take on things. You could I suppose choose to be offended and make a fuss where there needn't be one, but as always, that would be up to you.

Me, I'm gonna order some pizza, kick back with my fam, and call it good.

Happy Debating, all.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

When Ego gets in the way of Reason

Earlier I was invited to participate in talks that had the potential to merge the two IRC channels pertaining to NationStates II on the Esper network. A bit of background history to begin with:

Nanakaland founded the #nationstates2 channel some time ago. He then proceeded to make it clear that not everyone was welcome there (whether they had committed any bannable offenses or not), which seemed to be rather much not in the spirit of the game. The channel was sporadically active, depending on who was logged on and when.

At one point it became abundantly clear that the animosity and exclusive behaviour had gotten entirely silly, I created a new channel for the use of folks wanting to discuss, without the draconian rule - #nationstates_2.

This created rather a ruckus - including if I recall, the infamous 'NationStates Mafia' conspiracy and such. It was, in a word, silly.

Knowing that Euroslavia and others were better qualified, I passed over ownership/founder status to him, and called it good. I'd thought that things had somewhat settled.

Fast-forward to present. Euroslavia, in a gesture of good will, offers a merge to clear up the two, and combine in a way that pleases both sides, and eliminates confusion over the two. This is what happens next.
(Followed by a complete log of everything that happened while I was in channel at least, in the second post. Feel free to compare. Not all needed to be repeated here for the sake of brevity.)

Forward again. After much discussion and being invited to aforementioned talks, Nanakaland illustrates exactly why such a merger will never take place - his ego simply will not allow it. Logged file to follow.

[15:33] <-Nathicana-> So what are each channel's reasons for wanting a merge? Earlier I heard flat out 'no' from Nanaka along with other things that needn't be mentioned.
[15:34] <-UploadedMinds-> Nanakaland: the discussions between the denominations are
[15:34] <-Nanakaland-> A similar thing happened in the Middle Ages when there was just Catholisism and Eastern Orthodoxy..
[15:34] <-Nanakaland-> They tried to unite again...
[15:34] <-Nathicana-> But we're not talking religions right now, we're talking these two channels. Lets not dredge all that up.
[15:34] <-Nanakaland-> The patriarch and pope ended up excommunicating each other
[15:35] <-UploadedMinds-> Nana, to the topic
[15:35] <-Neutron-> Nanakaland: A wee bit offtopic?
[15:35] <-Nanakaland-> My point is...
[15:35] <-Nanakaland-> When there's two divisions...
[15:35] <-Nanakaland-> One slight disagreement is enough to make things worse when you try to talk
[15:36] <-Neutron-> There are two divisions for apparently no reason. The two channels cover the exact same topic, they are just run by two different sets of people.
[15:36] <-UploadedMinds-> As founder: Do you want a merger or not?
[15:36] * Nathicana waits for the apology to be offered first.
[15:37] <-Nanakaland-> Who founded #NationStates_2?
[15:37] <-Nanakaland-> and why?
[15:37] <-Nanakaland-> There was already a #NationStates2 for a long time
[15:38] <-Rezo-> you didn't really reply to the question...
[15:39] <-UploadedMinds-> As founder: Do you want a merger or not? (y/n)
[15:40] <-Nanakaland-> Can I use a lifeline?
[15:40] <-Euroslavia-> no.
[15:40] <-Nanakaland-> :(
[15:40] <-Nanakaland-> no then.
[15:40] <-Neutron-> Nanakaland: It is in the best interest of everyone that the channels merge
[15:40] <-Nanakaland-> if Euro doesn't want one...
[15:40] <-Nathicana-> I think honesty would be best.
[15:41] <-Rezo-> <-Neutron-> Nanakaland: It is in the best interest of everyone that the channels merge <---- I'd tentatively disaree...
[15:41] <-Euroslavia-> that wasnt my answer
[15:41] <-Euroslavia-> i was responding to your "can i use a lifeline"
[15:41] <-Nathicana-> Neutron, there is no point to forcing it, and I'm not convinced of 'greater good' or 'best interest' depending.
[15:42] <-Nanakaland-> who proposed a merger and why?
[15:42] <-Nanakaland-> why were there two separate channels in the first place?
[15:42] <-UploadedMinds-> it came up
[15:42] <-Nanakaland-> why do the two parties disagree?
[15:42] <-Euroslavia-> I proposed it because there's no point in having 2 #nationstates_2 channels
[15:42] <-Nathicana-> Well, you yourself would have to answer part of that, Nanaka.
[15:43] <-Nanakaland-> well, one is #NationStates2
[15:43] * Euroslavia notes that he said two
[15:44] <-Nanakaland-> well...
[15:45] <-UploadedMinds-> well, I am internationalist enough not to care about the name of the place I tux arounfd in
[15:46] <-Euroslavia-> ok
[15:46] <-Nanakaland-> No one answered my question
[15:46] <-Nanakaland-> Who founded #NationStates_2 and why?
[15:46] <-Nanakaland-> There was already one channel, they should have known that confusion would follow
[15:47] <-Nathicana-> I recall the other channel being largely inactive, and exclusive at the time. So I created a new one that wasn't. Simple as that.
[15:47] <-Nanakaland-> It was exclusive at the time...
[15:47] <-Nanakaland-> because GregorydelosSantos was in there
[15:47] <-Nathicana-> which it shouldn't be.
[15:47] * Euroslavia nods. It wasn't too active.
[15:47] <-Nanakaland-> telling me who to ban
[15:47] <-Nanakaland-> until I realized
[15:48] <-Nanakaland-> it wasn't inactive and it still isn't
[15:48] <-Nathicana-> I don't care for the excuses, the fact remains, it was not a friendly channel.
[15:49] <-Nathicana-> In any case, I created the new one, it got used amply, and I handed over ownership to Euro, considering he knows more about it and is better qualified to have the keys so to speak.
[15:49] <-Nanakaland-> yeah
[15:49] <-Nanakaland-> but now there's two similarly sized channels, #NationStates_2 peaking in American time, #NationStates2 peaking in European time...
[15:49] <-UploadedMinds-> right
[15:50] <-Nanakaland-> with similarities in almost everything.
[15:50] <-UploadedMinds-> yeah
[15:50] <-Nathicana-> So one -could- mean relatively continuous use, or two could reasonably continue to exist and work as they have been.
[15:51] <-Nanakaland-> why don't we keep things the way they are?
[15:51] <-Nanakaland-> I see no problem.
[15:51] <-Nanakaland-> If we can't agree, there's no harm in keeping things the way they are.
[15:51] <-UploadedMinds-> because as people said: it's pointless
[15:51] * Nathicana looks for the disagreements.
[15:51] <-UploadedMinds-> Nana, that is a fallback
[15:52] <-Euroslavia-> wait, you just spoke of how similar both are, then you say that you want to keep things as they are?
[15:52] <-Nathicana-> Not seeing any so far, other than Nanaka's ...
[15:52] <-Euroslavia-> I'm a little confused here.
[15:52] <-Neutron-> It is like having two spoons when you're eating your breakfast cereal, only one is needed.
[15:52] <-Nanakaland-> I have been in #NationStates2 since I have been active in IRC
[15:52] <-Nanakaland-> it'd be like throwing out your favorite spoon and another and then buying a new, Neutron
[15:52] <-Nathicana-> Ok, so ego and 'feelings' are the issue.
[15:52] <-UploadedMinds-> apparently
[15:53] <-Nathicana-> It's a channel. It really shouldn't be a big deal.
[15:53] <-Nanakaland-> would you give up #nationstates for a compromise?
[15:53] <-Nathicana-> If it seemed like it was needed? Sure.
[15:54] <-Nanakaland-> let me rephrase that...
[15:54] <-Nathicana-> Not like we haven't done it before. I mean heck, we had to switch servers entirely and start all over.
[15:54] <-Nathicana-> And there was problems with that, too.
[15:54] <-Nanakaland-> Would Karma give up #NationStates for a compromise?
[15:55] <-Nathicana-> No idea. How am I supposed to answer for Karma?
[15:55] <-UploadedMinds-> Nanakaland: is Karma involved?
[15:55] <-Nathicana-> Besides, this argument gets us nowhere. #nationstates is not in question.
[15:55] <-UploadedMinds-> right
[15:56] <-Nathicana-> If Nanaka doesn't want to, he shouldn't be forced to. People are as free as they ever were to choose where they want to hang out. If it makes a difference to him, so be it. *shrugs*
[15:56] <-UploadedMinds-> yeah
[15:57] <-Nathicana-> I guess I don't get what the big deal is. Merge, or don't. Simple.
[16:00] <-Nanakaland-> don't
[16:00] <-Euroslavia-> why? Give me a good reason.
[16:00] <-Nanakaland-> It is my largest channel.
[16:00] <-Euroslavia-> a valid reason.
[16:00] <-Nanakaland-> I cannot give it up.
[16:00] <-Nanakaland-> It'd be like giving up a carpool where I'm driver
[16:01] <-Nathicana-> ...
[16:01] <-Rezo-> o.O
[16:01] <-Euroslavia-> so you're letting your emotions mess with the future of NS2, and the fact that there are 2 NS2 channels.
[16:01] <-Rezo-> You're an... Odd... person.
[16:01] <-Nanakaland-> no...
[16:01] <-Nanakaland-> It doesn't matter if there are two NS2 channels
[16:01] <-Nathicana-> I think this is a rather sad commentary then.
[16:01] <-Nanakaland-> it's been like it was for almost a year
[16:01] <-Nanakaland-> there is no problem currently
[16:01] <-Euroslavia-> instead of thinking about #nationstates2 , think about the future channel and how successful it could be.
[16:02] <-Nanakaland-> I don't care...
[16:02] <-Nanakaland-> #nationstates2 is my channel...
[16:02] <-Nanakaland-> I have had it so long it'd be hard to give it up
[16:02] <-Euroslavia-> so you dont even care about NS2, you care about it being your channel.
[16:02] <-Euroslavia-> I think I get it.
[16:02] <-Nathicana-> Well there we have it. It isn't about NationStates2, it's about Nanakaland and his feelings.
[16:02] <-Nanakaland-> no Euro
[16:02] <-Nanakaland-> I can't really explain it
[16:02] <-Nathicana-> I think you just did.
[16:03] <-Nanakaland-> I ran out of time
[16:03] <-Euroslavia-> no, i understand perfectly.
[16:03] <-Nanakaland-> let me rephrase it
[16:03] <-Nanakaland-> I don't want to share power with nathicana who hates my guts
[16:03] <-Nanakaland-> which will happen if we're ops in the same chan
[16:03] <-Nanakaland-> and I'm running out of time because I have to go in 5 minutes
[16:03] <-Nathicana-> I don't hate you.
[16:03] <-Euroslavia-> She stated before she didnt hate your guts.
[16:04] <-Nanakaland-> She does.
[16:04] <-UploadedMinds-> I think it's the other way around
[16:04] <-Euroslavia-> agreed
[16:04] <-Nanakaland-> I don't hate Nathi
[16:04] <-Nathicana-> I think I'd know if I hated someone or not.
[16:04] <-Nanakaland-> But I know Nathi hates me
[16:04] <-Nanakaland-> Damn, I have to go in 5 min
[16:05] <-Euroslavia-> You refuse to interact with her, for the sake of NS2. You refuse to cooperate. That shows enough, especially when Nathi is willing to cooperate.
[16:05] * Nathicana rolls her eyes and lets Nanaka go on with his martyr complex.
[16:05] <-Nanakaland-> But basically I founded NS2, I don't want to merge.
[16:05] <-Nanakaland-> Why is it so important that there be a merger?
[16:05] <-Euroslavia-> I this, I that...that's all that matters.
[16:05] <-Nanakaland-> no Euro...
[16:05] <-Nathicana-> His ego will not allow it, Euro, as he's stated. I don't think you're going to get anywhere with him, even if you put the earlier nastiness he spouted at you aside.
[16:05] <-Nanakaland-> it will affect those who come to #NationStates2...
[16:05] * You were kicked by Nanakaland (Oh yeah, you don't hate me, you just insult me constantly.)

For the record, I do not hate Nanakaland. He has however repeatedly shown he is incapable of separating disagreement from 'hate'. I admit I dislike his demeanor, and attitudes on several occasions, this being one of them. If he showed even a modicum of regret for some of the crap he's spewed, I might even feel sorry for him.

As stated, this is a prime example of what's really wrong with the situation - it's not about NationStates II, as has previously been hinted at, it's about ego, and 'feelings', not wanting to compromise or share, and needing to be 'boss'. Just doesn't get any more selfish than that.

I'm sorry he can't take being challenged. And I'm sorry that question of silly channel ownership has him wound so tight that he feels he needs to lash out and blame other folks for his own seeming inadequacies, or whatever the problem is. I'm sorry he can't just have fun and enjoy things without finding someone to point the finger at for whichever thing isn't going exactly his way at the time.

That being said, merge the two, or don't - I'm not sure it matters that much in the long run. What I do think is that people are entirely capable and well within their rights to hang out wherever they like, and will continue to do so.

Just like those who continue to make excuses, false accusations, and problems where there needn't be any will as well, given past performance.


In another effort to bring some unity, the following, posted with permission:

[11:18] <-Nathicana-> Euro!
[11:18] <-Euroslavia-> Nathi!
[11:19] <-Nathicana-> You still want a combined channel thingie?
[11:19] <-Euroslavia-> yus!
[11:19] <-Nathicana-> Right then. His statements claim his big issue is 'sharing power with nathi who hates me waaaaaah', right?
[11:20] <-Euroslavia-> yep
[11:20] <-Nathicana-> So ... don't involve me. Simple. Doesn't have a leg to stand on then. ;)
[11:20] <-Euroslavia-> :[11:20] <-Euroslavia-> I want you to be involved though...
[11:20] <-Nathicana-> Y'all still have my support, silly. Besides - I'm just one person and quite frankly, am not that important. I'd like to see you succeed.
[11:21] <-Euroslavia-> bah, no offense to anyone else, but I don't trust too many people more than you. I know I can count on you, as an op in a combined NS2 channel.
[11:22] <-Euroslavia-> Nana needs to realize that he can't get everything he wants. He needs to compromise too.
[11:23] <-Euroslavia-> If he can't accept you as an op, I really don't want a channel merger.
[11:23] <-Nathicana-> I appreciate the vote of confidence, truth. But I think you're going to have to at least make the offer to see if he is at all willing. Call it a compromise on your end for him having to sacrifice that ego of his. My opping isn't that big a deal, Euro. You having the combined bit you want is.
[11:24] <-Euroslavia-> :[11:24] <-Nathicana-> You don't really have much to lose by offering. If he still grasps at straws and starts tossing out new excuses, call him on it. At least he can't say you didn't try, no?
[11:25] <-Drakonia|WorldCreating-> You can always Op Nathi after the merger too.
[11:25] <-Euroslavia-> true
[11:25] <-Nathicana-> Eh, that'd smack of lying, and I'm not cool with that.
[11:25] <-Drakonia|WorldCreating-> Once, you can convince Nana. Is what I meant...no subterfuge intended.
[11:26] <-Nathicana-> He's stated his reason for not wanting it is he doesn't want to share 'power' with me, which is just plain silly. Take that reason away, and he's got nothing other than 'my ego won't allow me to share 'power' with anyone'.
[11:28] <-Euroslavia-> what's your opinion on the channel option? Should it be here? there? a new channel?
[11:28] <-Nathicana-> I think that whichever option has the most support would work just fine.
[11:28] <-Nathicana-> After all, it isn't the little things that ought to matter too much in looking at the big picture.
[11:29] <-Euroslavia-> yep
[11:29] <-DPUO-> If I may butt in, people usually have trouble looking at any picture larger than their own immediate surroundings and whims; judging from what I read on the logs, I doubt Nanaka's much of an exception to that rule.
[11:30] <-Euroslavia-> true
[11:30] <-Euroslavia-> "[12:30] <-Nanakaland|Busy-> for us both to drop our channels is to do a disservice to regulars"
[11:30] <-Nathicana-> Which is why I think you ought to make the offer.
[11:31] <-Nathicana-> and no, no it isn't a disservice. It's just a change in location, which really is no big deal.
[11:31] <-DPUO-> Euro, was that in reply to the idea of a new channel?
[11:31] <-Euroslavia-> yep
[11:31] <-Nathicana-> Gee, I have to change a little setting on my autojoin. *rolls* :P
[11:31] <-Euroslavia-> [12:31] <-Nanakaland|Busy-> Rejis suggested that if there was a merger
[11:31] <-Euroslavia-> [12:31] <-Nanakaland|Busy-> I really don't see a need
[11:31] <-Euroslavia-> [12:31] <-Nanakaland|Busy-> we've had 2 NS2 channels for a long time
[11:31] <-Euroslavia-> [12:31] <-Nanakaland|Busy-> That's one of the problems
[11:32] * DPUO considers making a new channel when a perfectly good one's in existence to be rather silly.
[11:32] <-DPUO-> Is this going on now?
[11:32] <-Gruenberg-> still with this?
[11:33] <-Euroslavia-> [12:33] <-Nanakaland|Busy-> we took up all of the good names
[11:34] <-Euroslavia-> oh come on now.
[11:34] <-Nathicana-> It's important to Euro. Figured it was worth a shot. If he wants to keep being selfish, I suppose that's his affair.
[11:34] <-DPUO-> Man, that's a poor excuse. I suppose I should keep me lip buttoned though.
[11:34] <-Nathicana-> Nanaka is full of poor excuses, you'll find.
[11:34] <-DPUO-> That poor?!
[11:35] <-Nathicana-> Truth? Yes.
[11:35] <-Nathicana-> He's grasping at straws now, as predicted.
[11:37] * DPUO ponders wading in and attempting to use common sense.
[11:37] <-Euroslavia-> [12:37] <-Nanakaland|Busy-> all you want is to have power over all of NS2 probably
[11:38] <-Euroslavia-> cause I'm a powerhungry moderator. Yes.
[11:38] <-Nathicana-> Ok now, that is just right out. This from the guy who has publicly stated he can't give up power?
[11:39] <-Gruenberg-> how much 'power' is being an op in a channel of about 10 people anyway?
[11:39] <-Nathicana-> It isn't. That's the thing Nanaka can't get through his thick head. It means 'power' to him, and that's all that counts in his mind. The fact that it's nothing doesn't occur to him.
[11:41] <-Euroslavia-> I'm done. Again.
[11:41] <-Euroslavia-> If he can't even come up with a valid excuse, Im not even going to attempt to talk to him.
[11:41] <-Nathicana-> Care to post the full convo for ref, or is it not worth it?
[11:41] <-DPUO-> Yay! I got kicked!
[11:42] <-Euroslavia-> I'll post it
[11:42] <-Euroslavia-> same place, my forum
[11:42] <-Nathicana-> Nanaka proves himself to be a fraud. Ah well. Wish I could say I expected better of him.
[11:42] <-Euroslavia-> agreed
[11:43] <-Nathicana-> Permission to post convo from here on my site as well?
[11:43] <-Euroslavia-> definitely
[11:43] <-Nathicana-> Righto then.
[11:43] * DPUO find it sad that it's impossible to engage in something approximating to reational conversation with a ChanOp. Ah well.
[11:44] <-DPUO-> Yeesh, that was badly mis-spelled.
[11:44] <-Euroslavia-> hehe
[11:44] <-Euroslavia-> posted
[11:44] <-Euroslavia-> Link
[11:44] <-Euroslavia-> all 3 attempts
[11:45] <-DPUO-> "* You were kicked from #NationStates2 by Nanakaland|Busy (go back to #NationStates_2)" - sums it up, really.
[11:45] <-Euroslavia-> ...
[11:45] <-Euroslavia-> what an asshat
[11:45] <-Euroslavia-> so then he'll want to kick Pacitalia, and one other person
[11:45] <-Euroslavia-> for being in both channels
[11:46] <-Euroslavia-> he completely ignored the issue of Nathi not being opped
[11:46] <-DPUO-> *Shrug* - I may be an arsehole at times, but I like to think I at least am a reasonable arsehole. Unlike some.
[11:46] <-Euroslavia-> it was quite funny really
[11:46] <-Euroslavia-> so its quite obvious that it wasn't an issue in the first place. He was just searching for excuses.
[11:46] <-Nathicana-> He's doing the same thing as before, which is why I created THIS channel to begin with.
[11:47] <-Euroslavia-> yep
[11:47] <-DPUO-> What, being an unusually territorial plonker?
[11:51] <-Euroslavia-> making his channel unfriendly for certain people and basically turning it into a place for only those that he likes

I think the results speak for themselves. Nanakaland is a fraud, and a liar. Since he can't be trusted or relied on, I'd suggest folks vote with their feet, if any of them care about this sort of thing at any rate. I know well enough that anyone who cares to contribute would be welcome in #nationstates_2, and needn't fear the sorts of petty reprisals Nanakaland is known for dealing out.

Rampant egomania, false accusations, and pettiness, or just fun gameplay without the crap. You choose, folks.

UPDATE: For another pertinent example of ego getting in the way of reason, check Melkor out these days. I don't know what's up with the boy, but he's seemed to have completely lost all sense of reality when it comes to the game. Bias and attempted misuse of power anyone?