Talk:RainOfPain125

=Multiple disputes against "TTastic" edits=

"and the large northern island of Napistan was largely uninhabited compared to the rest of the world."
"IWW's claims across Napistan to more land

"the same in climate to Napistan"

"anonymous alt on a trip to Napistan"

The IWW voted to change the name of the continent to Anarquistica, or for short, Arctica on January 25th, 2020. The IWW was the only nation seriously settled there, and thus we decided we should be the ones to name it. Regardless if Napistan is an alternative name for the continent, the better solution would be to write "Arctica (Otherwise known as Napistan". This is in direct contrast to the factual history of CivRealms, and thus should be changed accordingly.[1] [2] [3] As an IWW member, and as the IWW chose to rename the continent, it makes sense that this wiki page refers to the continent as Arctica.

"Rain not only knew he would need a lot of help to organize."
Removing the explanation of a partial reason on why I created the IWW is removing bits of history that did not need to be removed.

Completely removing the backstory that lead up to the MCSpenguin-Rain conflict
Not sure what to tell you. I do not know of any "disputes" on what happened, and if someone has an alternative perspective on what happened, they are free to include it. For example, the page could have the original explanation on what lead to the conflict, and include "however, user claims that _". This is a better alternative than simply wiping history away. If it is disputed, then let someone dispute it - that is the point of discussions and neutrality warnings. However, there is evidence to support my perspective on what happened. Current claim maps at the time featured no claims in the Arctic in the area I was building a new town in[1] Ontop of more removed content, Maelstrom did infact exist at one point because it was featured in a claims map (cant find) but there is discussion of Maelstrom in general, as if it existed.[1] [2] [3] [4]

You also made a grammatical mistake removing "nation" in the sentence "Conveniently, a named "Greenland" threatened the IWW"

Vote rigging of the first Server Organizer election
It is factual that Ian, Feezor, Pierre, hiduckhi, and myself ran for Server Organizer.[1] While it is not possible to prove that votes were deleted (Google Forms does not show history of anything like that) there is factual historical record from me, who co-ran the vote, and can see the vote results, that suspicious behavior certainly did happen that suggests my claim of vote rigging is true. Within a single hour, 6 people voted for the same three candidates (and refused to cast their 4th or 5th ranked vote for me). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] This occurred two days after the vote had begun, all within one hour.[Time that the first vote was submitted] I personally know that they sought to rig the election by deleting and recasting votes, because the person who created the vote (Ian aka 5492) admitted it to me directly[1], after claiming that me going into group members DMs and asking them to vote was somehow manipulating the vote.[1][2].

Therefore it is not merely "allegations" but in fact conclusive evidence that supports my claim that the election was rigged.

I will later write more on "TTastic" edits, and then "Heyduckhi" edits.

= Reply to disputes -duck =

Napistan vs Artica
Regardless of a vote made within the IWW during january to rename Napistan, this name never stuck with it never being commonly used within or outside the IWW. By the time you were removed from the IWW you were the only remaining person who called it Arctica. Thus, it is incorrect to refer to the continent throughout the wiki as "arctica" rather than "Napistan" as it is not a common name and obfuscates the article. A better solution would be at some point in the article to say "Napistan (Known by Rainie as Arctica).

Wiki articles should reflect the commonly used names for things for the purpose of clarity and standardisation.

Removal of content from history of iww section
The "partial reason" was removed due to its biased framing. Content should be objective and impartial.

"but expected backlash to something so "radical" and bold as Anarchism. The conclusion was to build a nation that gathered enough members and resources to, in some capacity, resist the toxic or "shitter" elements on the server."

This is obviously partial as the people you are naming "toxic shitters" are solely in your opinion.

"Rain can be somewhat thanked for "reviving" or enlarging CivRealms (and by extension Civ in general) as an entirety due to the magnitude of the advertising effort for the IWW."

This is entirely incorrect. The invite bot shows you never made it into the top 5 invites to Realms in this time period (meaning your invites introduced less than 11 people) and you have never been "thanked" for "reviving" Civrealms. The iww was entirely irrelevant until months after you were removed and its player-numbers never rivalled countries such as Norlund and Alexandria, especially during this time period.

MCSpenguin conflict
This has been gone over many times. Your explanation for the conflict was entirely opinionated and factually incorrect as has been completely substantiated by Penguin himself on multiple occasions, notably on the reddit. This section was wiped as there was nothing significant which actually reflected the factual and accepted course of events which occurred. For example, you claim that penguin never communicated his claims to you when you asked and he was on an alt. This is demonstrate-ably incorrect as has been shown with logs. If you need to be reminded, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CivRealms/comments/gsw56u/illegal_nether_wart_farm_on_carbons_volcano_island/fs9kciy?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Vote drama
As shown in that conversation by 5492 with you (of which i still have the screenshots) and as reflected in the current article, the change of votes occurred as the opposition coordinated to vote for Hiduckhi and changed their votes. There is no evidence that this was suspicious or evidence of malpractice, especially as none of the supposed "victims" ever came out saying that their votes were deleted or that they were pressured to change their votes. What the logs do show, however, is you complaining that it was "unfair" for people to change their votes. Further, it is not vote manipulation to ask people if they want to change their vote, that is ridiculous. No one had an issue with asking people to vote for you. What IS vote manipulation is you directly getting people who were not part of the IWW from your own seperate discord server (the aca) and telling them to vote for you.

The wiki article reflects the objective facts as they stand.

"Rain had issues with the results, claiming that the election was rigged as voters were allowed to change their votes upon request, as per the caucus. He claimed that by allowing voters to change their votes, 5492 had collaborated with the opposition to manipulate the results, despite the overwhelming support for the ability to change votes by all but Rain himself."

This is factually correct and reflects your complaints here.

"Simultaneously, due to the perceived unfairness of the vote by the opposition especially as it became evident that Rain was vote-stuffing by means of inviting new and inactive members from his personal discord to vote in the IWW election, the Crab group (Led by Ian/5492 and Hiduckhi) transferred snitches and bastions for the event that Rain refuse to abdicate."

this is also factually correct as previously elaborated.

- heyduckhi

 Reply to disputes - TTastic 

Word, what the duck said.

= Reply 2 =

Erasing of IWW history
It is your job to prove it is "partial"

I did not name anybody. Do toxic and/or shitter players exist? The answer of course is yes. It isn't my opinion that "the people I am naming" (which is nobody) are shitters. This is not an opinionated statement.

MCSpenguin conflict
OK, lets see what I wrote and determine if I claimed they 'never communicated'.

"asked chat if anyone had claims in the Arctic, but was given no valuable response."

"did not respond clearly in chat despite being online (on an alt) at the time."

I had never made the claim that "they never communicated"

This is because MCS did not give a valuable or adequate response. They suggested the land I was in *may* be MCSpenguin's but nothing further. They wrote " " but went on to ask " " and never replying when I sent the coords. If I were concerned that someone may be in my territory and asked them for coords, and the coords were wrong, then I would have given up and stopped talking about it - because there would be no reason to continue the conversation. There was no reason to suggest it would be MCSpenguins, because there was nothing on the claims map to show anyone inhabited that area. If MCS wanted to keep his bastions intact then it should have been his responsibility to A. make claims on the map B. bluntly tell me that the coords I provided *are* MCSpenguin's land. MCS getting his bastions busted was entirely consequences of his own actions and not ours in our effort to clean up and remove the remaining bastions from the previous nation of Maelstrom. Thankyou for providing the logs to prove I was in the right. I can include this in the MCS conflict section when I re-add it because it is relevant information to my experiences on CivRealms.

Vote rigging in the IWW
I never claimed that 5492 was deleting votes in order to remove votes for me. I claimed that 5492 was deleting votes in order to remove votes for me and change them to someone else.

I also never claimed anyone was "pressured" or coerced into changing their vote.

Yes. The vote was going to be held by me, and we were going to run the vote just like any other vote, except with IRV. Nowhere was it written that users could "change votes" after-the-fact. No vote done with IRV / Google Forms EVER involved the option to change votes once you casted one. There was never a precedent that you could change votes. Google Forms does not allow you to take your submission back and re-submit, it requires admin-level intervention to delete a vote and have them recast it, which is, to put it dumbly, "unnatural" and not traditional. The only reason the rules changed was because 5492 perceived me encouraging others to vote as "manipulation" and decided to manipulate back by deleting votes and having users recast their votes. This could only happen because 5492 was the owner of the Google Form instead of me, allowing him to fuck things up in the opposing parties favor. Everything about the vote went my way as intended except for the vote manipulation or deleting, etc.

I never claimed to encourage a bunch of folks from the Anarchist Communist Association to flock into the Industrial Workers of the World discord in order to rock the vote in my favor, and there is no proof to suggest I did.

I have no clue why you are referring to the vote as a "caucus". Its almost as if you deliberately used this word to convey or build the idea that deleting votes and recasting them was *supposed* to be apart of the election, which is not what I ever intended when I created the vote.

There is no evidence to suggest "overwhelming support for changing votes" existed. If such a large support existed, why didn't it present itself in earlier IRV votes where users could not change their vote? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes I agree there was an opposition to me being elected, it was not clear that there was an opposition to the IWW as a whole. There was nothing to suggest I was going to "refuse", maybe you should include that statement, that would add to the "objective factual evidence" or what not.

Again, I never claimed to have "vote-stuffed".

I do not deny that snitches/bastions were transferred. I can not vouch that it actually happened, because I was never aware of the traitor movement. It wasn't my job to worry about internal security and thus

TTastic response
TTastic did not reply to the disputed "Rain not only knew he would need a lot of help to organize." section concerns.

= reply 3 - duck =

IWW content removal
"it is your job to prove it was partial"

the content was framed in a biased, opinionated and thus partial manner. Theres nothing more to be said, you know exactly what I meant.

The framing of Anarchism as "bold" in that fashion is opinionated and partial, regardless of my or your personal beliefs on the matter.

MCSpenguin

 * 1) MCSPenguin DID reply adequate response when you asked whose the claims were. By the time you gave coordinates he had logged off.
 * 2) It was YOUR responsibility to ensure that you were breaking unowned bastions, not the owners.

"MCS getting his bastions busted was entirely consequences of his own actions and not ours in our effort to clean up and remove the remaining bastions from the previous nation of Maelstrom"

No, it was a response of your neglect in working out who's bastions you were breaking. By that logic, it was your fault that Partyanimal griefed Tolstoy because you neglected to reinforce the town, and not partyanimal. You were the one breaking the property, it is your responsibility to ensure you know what you are breaking. Maelstrom was no where near the bastions that you were breaking.

Literally every claim you have made to say that you're "right" in your response is covered in Penguins original post and it is useless for me to just repeat what he says. If you are incapable of acting in good faith according to the demonstrated facts you should not be writing a wiki. It is clear you are incapable of providing an objective, factual or impartial account of these events.

IWW vote drama #2
I could go through point by point and disprove every claim you have made in your response here, however, this is really just reflecting the contentiousness of this issue which is currently reflected in the article as it stands. The facts remain that:

"Rain had issues with the results, claiming that the election was rigged as voters were allowed to change their votes upon request, as per the caucus. He claimed that by allowing voters to change their votes, 5492 had collaborated with the opposition to manipulate the results, despite the overwhelming support for the ability to change votes by all but Rain himself."

and that

"Simultaneously, due to the perceived unfairness of the vote by the opposition especially as it became evident that Rain was vote-stuffing by means of inviting new and inactive members from his personal discord to vote in the IWW election, the Crab group (Led by Ian/5492 and Hiduckhi) transferred snitches and bastions for the event that Rain refuse to abdicate."

ttastics FAILURE to respond
Cool, I responded tho

-ducky

= July 2nd 2022 RainOfPain125 =

MCSpenguin-RainOfPain125 incident
Making nonsense edits like removing the backstory of events leading to MCSpenguin pearling me doesn't fix any bias, it simply removes the content altogether - which is not what Neutrality Notice's are for.

I can remake the story of events, and then provide the MCSpenguin side in order to stay neutral. I can prove that the IWW aquired a new farm in the south, I can prove that I intended on creating a Capital town in the south near the farm, I can prove that there were abandoned nations in Napistan, MCSpenguin can only prove that I was at the wrong place at the wrong time for the right reasons.

However, I do not like the ahistorical explanation of what followed. The IWW page claims this was a dispute between the Union and penguin, when it was merely nothing more than my own wrongdoing and should be presented as such. The page also goes on to claim that me being pearled for two weeks was the reason we created the Union Organizer position,which is factually wrong -

We held a vote in the Anarchist Communist Association discord regarding making our own dedicated discord for IWW on civ, mostly for the purpose of delegating positions and roles to people. Even though UO as a title wasn't made yet, it's intended purpose already began way before I got pearled.

Arctica
This can be moved as a footnote in Napistan's & IWW's history. I will refrain from calling the continent Napistan.

IWW Vote Rigging & Intention to Violently Coup
At the end of the day, it's not a stretch to say the intended purpose of manipulating the vote was to rig it in order to avoid the hassle of a hostile takeover of the IWW. It is made very clear on the IWW page that bastions/snitches were taken over by the crowd of traitors that aimed to subvert the Union, under the guise of "what if Rain doesn't honor the vote results?".

I also know that the traitors refused to participate in the vote because they didn't believe it could be as easy as voting themselves into power, using the claim again that I would not honor the results of a rigged vote. Why would they prepare to violently take over the nation if the vote didn't go their way, if they didn't even plan on voting to begin with? The answer is obvious.

And again, it's not a stretch to say deleting honest votes to recast new one's was vote manipulation because at no point before or after this vote did the IWW ever allow deleting and recasting votes - there was no history, traditions, or rule that said it was a thing. Nowhere on the vote for Server Organizer did it say it was a thing. It was the only vote where a second person had access to the voting back-end and it was the only time that someone abused their power to mess with the votes in order to get their desired result. Most people would call that manipulation.

If it is still necessary, then I can provide my side of events vs yours to be "unbiased", but you'll need loads of evidence to support it. =July 6th, 2022 RainOfPain125 v tybug= Please provide reasoning on why giving context to the situation regarding my ban on CivUniverse was "bias" that needed to be removed. It was done in this edit. Explaining that Ian is a controversial person is not biased, as it is generally well understood that their server and their character is controversial (refer to CivUniverse and Ian_X12 pages respectively). It is also not "bias" to point out, considering the ban was done after the server had already closed, that there was little to no practical reason behind the perma ban besides for clout or making him look better. Not to mention, if Ian wanted to make his server a "safer place" then he would have been perma banning the real doxers, alt addicts, and known pedophiles from this damn server while it was online and running.

The fact that ian is controversial is not relevant to the fact that you were banned for doxxing. It is not biased to say that this ban occurred after the server closed, which is why I left that comment in ("After CivUniverse closed..."). It is, however, not appropriate to speculate on why the ban occurred in the fashion that you did. --Tybug (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)