User talk:Samroberts

An invitation to resume talks on CDF Boards

The following has been posted on the Iron Cross Brotherhood discussion page, and has been copied here for the sake of maintaining continuity and providing context:

I would like to invite the Iron Cross Brotherhood to send a representative to visit the Fort Creedy Boards once again, so that we may resume our discussion concerning your group's wiki entry. During the deletion vote on your group's wiki page, there has been mention that you would be willing to modify this entry, and we would like to know your future intentions regarding this declaration. Please contact me via PM or via the Diplomacy thread on our boards. --Samroberts 20:43, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

We refuse to talk with the CDF at all

Hello, I recently saw your message on the ICB discussion page about re-invitation for more talks. Well, i'm sorry to say that we refuse to speak any further with the CDF. I went to the CDF diplomacy section in your forums and went prepared to sort things out in a civil manner, without bullcrap. Anyhow, judging from the reaction of 95% of the people on your forums, seems like I can't discuss a thing with the CDF or come to any compromise. I did not come into the forum acting hostile, yet I was met with rude and hostile comments from some very disrespectful people.

There will be no further talks. I was thinking of modifying the wiki page for you guys if all had gone well.... but instead I was met with childish insults and complete narrow-minded comments, including personal threats in Private Messages on the forum. If this is any indication of the immature CDF community, then as I said... I refuse to engage in any other talks. I will never go back to that forum. I would be wasting my time. Therefore, i'm not going to change it. At all. It will remain the exact same as it was in the first place. And as you can see, the wiki page will not be deleted.

Nobody wanted to come to an agreement. Nobody wanted to sort things out. Fine, they won't be sorted out. Furthermore, i'm inclined to believe that this is a rediculous attempt by the CDF to metagame their victory over the ICB. The CDF wants to get rid of us just because they see us as a threat in Peppardville (which, we were not), and they figure the easiest way to get rid of us is to ban us from the game. Wow, nice roleplaying there, guys. Don't like an enemy group? Just ban them! Perfect idea...

As well, i've noticed several anti-CDF groups have arisen because of the actions that the CDF has taken against the ICB. Well, serves the CDF right for being unreasonable and narrow-minded.

Also, just a side note... We never wanted to be hostile with the CDF. If you'll note, the verbal 'takeover' of Fort Creedy was a mistake. After that, we extended a hand of friendship. But it seemed that the CDF community was too immature to grasp the concept of friendship.

Feel free to get back to me in a private message, but I will not ever enter that CDF forum again. - Atomini 18:27, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Sam's reply

Greetings Atomini,

Thank you for allowing me to discuss with you here. First, let me state that I believe this whole incident has been blown way out of proportion. And I do mean, way out. Although I cannot say that I am speaking in an official capacity for the Creedy Defense Force, I would like to offer an apology for the poor greeting you have received on our board. Personally, I found you to be quite courageous to step forward and come meet us, and I believe that we should have treated you with courtesy even though you had different views from us. In order to avoid such incidents in the future, The Creedy Defense Force is currently now in the process of establishing a Diplomatic Immunity policy to shelter ambassadors of goodwill from such a rude onslaught of flaming and baiting of the kind you had to face.

Now, to be honest, I do suppose that I have come here to ask you to change your wiki page. If you wish to keep it as is, then so be it. As you say, the community has voted in favour of free speech and I will respect the will of the majority. Nevertheless, I would require a concession from your part. Some valid points and counterpoints have been raised during the voting process on the Iron Cross Brotherhood wiki entry, and there has been some amount of controversy. I would like you to allow me to make an addition to the Iron Cross Brotherhood to describe this controversy in an NPOV manner. If you wish, we could enter into arbitration and hand this over to a moderator who will handle this fairly for us.

I also believe that entering into such an arbitration process is more of something of a last measure, and that other alternative solutions should be attempted first, so I have come to speak to you to see if we could reach some sort of compromise on this matter. You have said yourself, that had things been different, you would gladly have modified the entry. Maybe now we have had time to evaluate things calmly, we can find some sort of mutually acceptable solution. Before you say it's too late, I will tell you that it is never too late to make things right. So let us take a few steps back, and pretend that I had managed to reach Fort Creedy and the Diplomacy threads in time to intervene and speak to you before all of this escalated. This here, you and me speaking, trying to find a solution, is what should have happened. Are you willing to give it a try?

--Samroberts 21:01, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Reply

The time to evaluate things calmly was back at square one when we were first confronted by the CDF with the situation. The CDF had their only chance, and blew it. In turn, they have made themseves out to be an extremely non-negotiable and immature group. It wasn't as if I was unnaproachable or in any way radical about anything. Anyhow, i've already explained myself there. Your suggestion of the use of a moderator doesn't really do anything either. If a moderator is required to handle the situation, then that means something has gone wrong. In all fairness, things should be worked out at the lowest level first (between both sides of the arguement). Again, this just shows that the CDF really do require a moderator to sort things out rather than being able to handle the situation civilly themselves.

I respect the fact that you are coming to me civilly and wanting to work everything out. You are rare among the hundreds of others in the CDF... I wish there were more people like you out there, but everything you are doing right now is defacto, it's after the fact. The proper time for talks like this should have been back at square one, but like I said, the CDF blew it. I feel this is a direct result of the CDF community taking EVERYTHING personally. THey fail to realise this is a game, and furthermore it is a ROLE PLAYING game... which means if we can play the role of Nazis or Fascists, it doesn't mean at all that we are Fascists or Nazis in reality. I even clearly stated that we have no intention of being Nazis.

In any case, there is an extremely small chance that I may change the images of SS Soldiers to images of Wehrmacht Heer soldiers instead, as I do understand that the imagery of SS troops isn't taken upon as being legitemate. Otherwise, I feel i've done enough by placing a disclaimer at the bottom of our wiki page (and I might even move it to the top of the page along with an anti-swastika logo to push our point even further).

I hope you understand our situation. - Atomini 15:10, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Another Reply

Salutations Atomini,

I must congratulate the Iron Cross Brotherhood for having added a renouncement of nazi ideology at the top of the ICB’s wiki entry; the anti-swastika logo which you have displayed is an excellent initative on your part and I heartily applaud this act. To make things even clearer, you may want to add some statement clearly indicating denunciation of the atrocities committed by the Nazi Party during World War II. I feel that doing so would contribute in conveying a firm statement that you are in no way endorsing Nazi beliefs and doctrine. I do hope you will consider this suggestion as a valid enhancement to your wiki.

As you have stated previously, involving a moderator at this point is quite unnecessary. A moderator is to intervene only when both parties are having difficulties in communicating and of achieving some form of mutually acceptable compromise. I find that you are a reasonable and accessible person who is both open-minded and willing to discuss issues.

There is another point I wish to discuss with you here today. I understand there is a bit of bad blood between the CDF and ICB at this point in time. Just because there are some tensions between our survivors groups, it does not necessarily mean that this is a situation that will last forever. If we look at the bigger picture, the Zombie Menace is a threat to all survivors. As survivors, it is our duty to fight these beasts and reclaim Malton for the good of all humanity. It is ridiculous to have two fervent pro-survivor groups who are at each other’s throats.

Now, the status between our two groups is a bit ambiguous. Officially, the ICB is considered some form of vague undetermined menace by the CDF, and we are on a precautionary war-stance until further notice. No operations or hostile actions whatsoever are being planned by the CDF against the ICB, but we must be wary, as the status between our two groups is still undetermined at this time. When you left our boards, many things were left unsaid and many issues were left unresolved.

With the intent of avoiding unnecessary conflict between our two groups I would like to officially propose some form of non-aggression pact. The CDF will stand down and tolerate ICB operations in Peppardville. If you are to stay in the area, both the ICB and CDF might as well learn to live as civilised neighbours, should they not? I’m even considering lobbying in your favour, and of allowing the ICB to have sponsorship of a revive point on the CIT, as a gesture of goodwill.

Regards, --Samroberts 18:37, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

Non-Aggression

Atomini, greetings once again.

Considering the lack of reply on your part, it is truly starting to be difficult to take your group seriously. Nevertheless, the Creedy Defense Force has made the following statement in the discussion section of your wiki entry, and we consider this our official stance until proven otherwise:

The Creedy Defense Force is now standing down to a stance of non-aggression and neutrality towards the Iron Cross Brothers. If any member of the Iron Cross Brothers is inadvertently slain by a member of the Creedy Defense Force, please reach us on our boards, and send a Private Message to CDF leadership, and we will investigate the allegations thoroughly.

We realise that the Iron Cross brothers have sworn to never again to enter the Creedy Defense Boards. We at the CDF believe that anyone claiming leadership of a group should display some form of maturity and avoid such statements. Diplomacy is an important part of leading any group, and the CDF is keeping it's channels open to the ICB on the off-chance you decide to reinitiate negotiations.

Disclaimer: We still do not approve of what you stand for, even if you claim it is only role-play, but we are still willing to hammer out some sort of deal if you plan on establishing yourselves near the area of safety which the Creedy Defense Force and it's numerous allies have fought to establish in the Peppardville/Giddings area.

--Samroberts 19:42, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Sorry for the lack of reply.

Sorry for the lack of reply. I'll have to get back to you about this later, as my computer recently busted and was in the shop. Thus, this is why I couldn't reply sooner. As I said, i'll get back to you later when all is sorted out. -Atomini 05:02, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

Veterans of Fort Creedy Response

Gragh Mrh Mrh Graaaagh! Brnr Mrh. General Alex Creedy 18:39, 5 April 2006 (BST)