Warfare & Tactics

Is English your first language? Have you used Google Translate?

Am I the only person struggling to understand what this thread is about?

Inference 1.
you yourself are participating and propagating the "agenda and military goals, to gain from, by mentioning it, and diminishing me",
A1. Of course I am mentioning it in the thread title , why not?
It is about Good Military Strategy.
I am not doing propaganda. I am looking for better and more efficient military and strategy goals and objectives for better and more concrete gains than by propaganda only.

How can your offer be of benefit to me if you are only stating that I am diminishing me?
I strongly disagree with your attacks against me.


Inference 2.
" except in this case you're diminishing the ability of your audience to respond or even comprehend your posts."
A2. I disagree with that. This statement is false and aimed at attacking me and diminishing my post and the ability of the "audience, future or not. to even comprehend my posts.
No matter how many hundreds and thousands I would spend on "keeping it simple", there would also be those attacking it as "diminishing the ability of your audience to respond or even comprehend your posts."
I will record the post by audio, so that there will be an audience, but that still will not solve the attacks or the state of the war or cover the previous attacks.

Your suggestion will only fuel to more evil to be continued.

I don't make or wish to make posters' ability to respond or even comprehend my posts diminished.
You mention that I diminish them, when in fact, I keep them in the positive truth and expose the kind of trap one or many, or you, are trying to set , against them...

The military police themselves confirmed with me that it is the case, about the current state of affairs and how you are trying to justify misinterpreting it for your own goals.



- Inference 3.
There is a reason that people in the real world (regardless of their first language) do not converse in the style that you do - it is, at worst, simply incomprehensible and is a huge barrier to effective communication.

A3. + People in my book do live in the real world.
I don't tend to suggest mix up with fictitious characters.

I don't suggest that my "style" of conversation is at worst, simply incomprehensible and is a huge barrier to effective communication.

You are the one mentioning it and , as the second previous poster above you, suggested it.

How can effective communication be about ineffective suggestions?
Also, why are the programmers not answering until today?
There is only one (programmer, I presume, or working with one) who finally answered after the EVElopedia is down and he also mentions he doesn't understand.

Why would the military police have to lie to me about this?

What if I just posted in a thread and asked to and tried to get others to get the thread closed because it is incomprehensible.

What if I infringed upon their right of expression and tried to coerce them ?


- Inference 4.
Would it have really hurt to have just said something like:


"I have 15 alts but I'm not sure how to use them effectively in PVP (or whatever else it is you're looking to do). Any ideas?"

A4.
I don't know tbh, what makes you think that it is not:
"incomprehensible and all the non-sense you like to label me with"?

Why would it be better or not have really hurt?
Isn't it all part of the same conditions you are trying to set? Or to infiltrate my systems?


Why PvP? (or whatever else it I am looking to do.) Any ideas?
What kind of solution will it provide to the military attack barrier you claim that I set up when I don't?

See, you try to cover your attacks against me, and past attacks and support of those facts.
Sorry, but it can't work.
Or if it would, how so?
It seems to me that it would only lead to more conflicts with no gains.
What gain would be achieved from it and why would the attackers not simply change their plans and attacks to adapt ?

I would prefer something that is designed to be stronger than this kind of apartheid or other type of marginalization.

That way, it would be more efficient at using them as valid targets and as deterrent to their "propaganda campaign to diminish me".
To try to hide the fact, or lie that I am participating in it, when I am not, is only fueling more evil and would be worst than working against me.
No, others, and perhaps , you, subconsciously or not, at least maintain and suggest that those military strategy are incomprehensible when you suggest them yourself in the open.


What about organizing mining to manufacture a war ship fleet with items?
What about exploring for items that goes in this war effort?
So to make killing those trying to attack our communication easier, and to investigate how and why they try to suggest it is not comprehensible, when they spy on it.

Perhaps it is a more moral approach than only a morally legal approach to military strategy?
What do you think?


Obviously, I have not finished to write the reply to this, but obviously also, there is more details to it.

I don't see why omitting past facts and attacks would really make the military strategy viable?

Wouldn't it just kill me?

Why are you trying to suggest this?

It seems all extremely slow.

Effective communication, at heart, is based on economy of syntax and inference; there is a particular reason why almost no natural language on the planet has an innate preference for superfluous and flowery expression as the default mode of expression when offered the choice between that and direct meaning. Language and communication between individuals naturally follows the path of least resistance for maximum communicative efficiency.

Don't believe me? Then ask yourself this: when we meet our friends, why don't we chat in riddles or converse in poems?

I think you are being deliberately obtuse and dangerously close to being considered spamming on the forums, when you write posts that the vast majority of people either simply can't understand, or refuse to expend the necessary effort in decoding said posts. It simply isn't worth the energy and headache involved in reading your OP, then re-reading, then trying to figure out some sort of logical sense to your narrative, and then maybe re-reading it again, before finally throwing their hands up in the air and moving on.

Since I now have time, I will take the time to build a database of the posts on the forums and make a list of the players in the alliances and related posts.

I will then register the part of my work that I create from it and omit the parts that is CCP's property.

I will even contact them before about it, but they told me that they couldn't confirm with me, or something like that, due to ongoing abuse and what not.


Edit:
As for the "understanding" part:
- One good way to not be left with misunderstanding is to stay ahead without having to interfere and ask clarification without reading.
If it does take you too long to understand, don't waste your time trying and move along.
Perhaps I did more than enough analysis on the subject already and trying to waste my work with public statement that it is non-sense and cannot be understood is only going to fuel more repercussion from my part.

Please make sure to inform me of which country you plan to invest in so I can steer clear out of it and avoid the constant attacks.
I wouldn't want to have to go apply for global peace work and be stuck due to some partisan tunnel vision inducing syndrome, supported by credits .


2.
Which part of your communication warfare strategy is supposed to be Good for me , except for risking to waste my time.
Do you have a corp for wardec or something?
Or should I simply be at war against you for Good military strategy?
Is that what you riddle me about?

You're offtopic.

I think Gecko in detention facilities everywhere can be good for military strat.
I am not too sure about the lowsec ones...

It is disturbing that they allow internet access in institutes for the mentally challenged ...

No, you're are really off-topic because it can't be any good for me.
You're only mentioning strategy to attack me and to incite others to do so.
Hardly a good measure in this thread or any others for that matter.

What about a strategy to harass players by reading their post to try mentally challenge them?
Again, that would be off-topic if that is not of any good to them.

Just because you try to coerce me or attack me with claims that you are not off-topic, when you are clearly only raising hell, isn't going to make it any more on topic.

The fact that you state that you decide what is on topic, or even lie about what is good for me is not a good medical service either, and whether I am afraid or not afraid isn't going to change this.

What do you think we should do , as part of our military strategy, to deal with traitors like you , if you were suggesting this to our corp?

What is the meaning that I don't see in them?
You certainly are only trying to attack me and are not even going to be able to ever formulate any sort of form of military strategy for me or my corp.
Move along, and go awox someone else if that's what you must do, and stay away from us.


Edit:
Even if I did work on API that 3rd party programmer would use to generate info for the game (still an automation process, even if it does not change in-game functions or processes)
and that work is thwarted by changes , as method to deny me rights to the work I would create, that would also be a Military Strategy in-game and out of the game as well. Especially if that were supported by the courts of that military entity.

Why should I have to waste 2 weeks learning about API which are only going to be changed, when I can program on my own for over a year already, and the work is still and always going to be good with any API changes or other electronic warfare?


Trying to hide behind your lack of knowledge or understanding isn't going to save you.
Trying to blame me for a lack of appropriate communication isn't going to save you either when I clearly am the one communicating and starting the thread on this.

The point is, you didn't want me to communicate in the first place, and you prefer justifying to restrict my communication, so that you can blame it on my lack of knowledge for communication.
That wouldn't be my fault because you would have tried to generate it, and 2. I would have been able to counter it, and 3. even prove how you came about to try to coerce me into this.

If you try to change the subject as part of Good Military strategy isn't of any good to me either.
How and why should it be?

What am I even reading.