EVE Search - Sylph Alliance: A case study in cognitive dissonance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Intergalactic Summit

Sylph Alliance: A case study in cognitive dissonance

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.22 17:36:00 - [1] "only through a series of repeated failures do some learn the true value of their alliance" The have been several internal communiques within Sylph Alliance recently, which have led some Gallente researchers to ponder the uncomfortable position of some within Sylph who outwardly claim competence, but for whom reality regularly strikes down that assertion. Here is an example of one such communique: Quote: Hail Sylph Allaince! This mail is being sent to inform all pilots that where involved in roaming gangs or Home defense that you all did an outstanding job of cleaning our space yesterday. As a long standing sylph fleet member and alliance investor it was nice to see the actions of our pilots joining with our coalition efforts to keep our space clean of reds. All of you who put your pods and ships at risk i must say you did an outstanding job at showing you wont put up with the oppression form our red counterparts in the south. Please continue to be active in fleets and enjoy the kaik we all know and love. Sylph proved that we are still a force to be reconned with and will continue to be so in the future. Great Job Guy and Gals this was a good site to see and the executives all have been talking about the wonderful job the FC's new and old did in the numerous ops that took place. Unfortunately, the pilots within Sylph alliance recognise this not to be the case, as evidenced in the following examples taken from the time of this communique: Combat Example A Combat Example B Combat Example C Combat Example D I would like to show you an example where Sylph alliance have performed well, for the sake of balance. Alas, no such example exists in the records that I have. The result of this uncomfortable cognitive dissonance is an exodus of any pilots and corporations with any trace of self-awareness, and a crumbling and ineffective leadership. Membership has declined from a peak of over 1000, to a mere 400. The once populous and active Sylph alliance is now a drifting husk, of this there can be little doubt. Membership has dwindled, and organised resistance against Ushra'Khan has proven futile and is now at an end. Despite the cushion of the slavers of Providence, this alliance is reaching the only sensible natural conclusion of its evolutionary history. Be assured, we shall not rest, not until we have delivered what we promised Sylph Alliance since their betrayal many years ago. We have not forgotten. We shall not forgive. ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.23 08:38:00 - [2] Originally by: Graelyn You obviously didn't want that space anyways. Correct. Maybe you'd like to check where we have claimed space to understand why we wouldn't want IS-R etc. We also know that deploying capitals to push them out their space would simply mean 400-odd pilots from Providence coming along for the fun of blowing them up. Our current strategy means they die anyway, without giving you and yours a chance to destroy our capital assets. Seems to be a good strategy to date. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.23 09:58:00 - [3] Originally by: Rodj Blake We've been hearing this anti-Sylph propaganda from U'K for a little while now, and yet I've not heard any reports of U'K capturing any Sylph space. Amusing. When have we stated that we wish to capture their space? Never, because we don't. What we have clearly stated is that we wish to kill them, and we do not need to capture their space to do that. Rather, we simply need to control their access to Empire and make their 0.0 space a living hell. The results speak for themselves. 800 fewer members. 3 changes of leadership within 3 months. And the destruction of their assets at will. Will they collpase within a month? We make no such arbitrary statements. The road to their destruction has been over two years long. We have the patience to see it through. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:45:00 - [4] Originally by: Grr There was a time a few years ago the Ushra'Khan alliance lost their space, many corps left and the alliance turned into a drifting husk of what it once was too. For a while the alliance had less than 400 members. Quantity does not equal quality. Just look at Ushra'Khan now. Do not assume the end is near for Sylph. Even at its darkest days, the U'K had effective leadership and fleet commanders, and continued guerrila campaigns from Curse. No sensible pilot would claim the same thing would happen to Sylph if they lost their space. There is no leadership. There is no quality. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.23 19:32:00 - [5] Originally by: Graelyn You see, your current Alliance IS one of MANY who exist as proof against your own theory. Please name all the alliances who have lost all their space and come back stronger. I can only think of two - Red Alliance, and Ushra'Khan. Every other alliance I can think of who has lost all their space either disbanded, or is a shadow of their former self. You somehow think Sylph can survive such a trauma? The truth is they can barely survive an empire wardec and some cloakers in their space. You are either deluded or playing the fool. Which is it? ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.24 09:13:00 - [6] Originally by: Graelyn Fool. You're not taking any of their space! We control their space. They cannot kill sanshas and collect bounties. They cannot mine. They cannot conduct business in empire. We earn more ISK killing sansha in their sovereign territiory than they do. The point we're making is that we do not need to take their sovereignty to control their space. Therefore, we can destroy them without conquering their space in the 'traditional' manner. The results so far speak for themselves. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.25 15:37:00 - [7] Originally by: TwoTone Wyvern [ You know, maybe it's just me, but causing a fairly puny 20% more ISK damage than an opponent doesn't appear to be the greatest basis for mockery. Glass houses and all that..... AM don't fly alone, they fly with ProvidenceBloc. For U'K to attain a positive efficiency in that context is nothing short of miraculous (and shocking) ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.25 17:39:00 - [8] AM are next ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.25 18:50:00 - [9] Originally by: Tomahawk Bliss Originally by: Butter Dog AM are next shouldn't you "finish" Slyph first? or I don't know...CVA maybe? the key word in my transmission is "next", you illiterate buffoon ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.26 09:41:00 - [10] Originally by: Areo Hotah With AM rooted deep in Providence, and UK paying regular visits to their space, I don't see what will change much in the military side of things. Yet the reasons to aim the propaganda machines at AM seem a bit clouded to me. Please enlighten me. There is a very real difference between roaming through their space sometimes, and a focused presence in every AM system for months on end, the likes of which Sylph understand. No asteroid belt, no stargate, no station, no jump bridge, no empire route will be free from our prying eyes. Economic activity will shut down. Demoralised pilots will flee to 'safer' grounds. Corporations will leave. Leadership shall bicker. Their time will come, it is up to them to pass the test, or go the way of Sylph Alliance. But I digress, there is work to be done. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc

Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.26 21:14:00 - [11] Originally by: Valotaan 3 is still not right, but much better :-) And then count the pilots who are not on any killmails because you were running to fast. Are you trying to suggest that your defence of your space with less than 10 pilots is some kind of achievement? Face facts. Your alliance is useless, and dying. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.28 11:18:00 - [12] Originally by: Dimebag Delia Would guess either -7- or Cold Steel could manage UK solo. That's a pretty inaccurate statement. Those alliances have less cap ships than my lone corp, never mind a serious lack of competent FC's. There is also the fact that U'K can field much larger fleets than those entities alone. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if any single Providence holder would like to fight U'K without the holding hands of the rest of the Bloc, we would accept the challenge with relish. However, for whatever reason, this challenge is yet to be accepted. Though I think we can all guess the reasons with some accuracy. But it stands. I ask any holder to put their ships where their mouths are, and accept it. But they know that U'K attract a more experienced, more skilled combat pilot - it is the nature of our alliance and our existence (until recently, U'K existed only for combat, and held no space). I think we are all slightly paranoid (in a healthy way) about recruiting pilots who live only for sansha hunting rather than true combat. It is those pilots who bloat the Providence holders and cause them to be ineffectual on the field of combat. We have no wish to go the way of Cold Steel, -7-, etc - ineffectual sansha hunting alliances who's response to threat is simply a mass of numbers. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.28 12:42:00 - [13] Originally by: Grr But there's the thing, no Providence holder will ever have to face a serious threat alone. Yes, you are right, however I think it's important to draw a line between the GalNet posturing and the reality of certain entities ability. My challenge exists to those holders who would publicly doubt us, but will not back their words up with the acceptance of such a challenge. I understand this. But regardless, the challenge does stand to be accepted if a holder wished to test themselves. CVA have my respect as an entity who is competent on the field of battle. I consider some of your pilots our equal on the field. You do not need the meatshield of your holders when fighting us, yet you choose to bring them regardless. That is your choice but, my slaver friend, it is not the way to demonstrate your strength. Your holders will not truly develop into competent fighting forces unless they are 'cut loose' and learn to stand on their own feet. The culture of dependency is not the panacea you seem to think. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.29 09:24:00 - [14] Originally by: progodlegend I was unaware of this open challenge, but out of curosity, what kind of fight are you even talking about, a 20 on 20 man fleet, 30 on 30, 40 on 40 etc.? You temporarily remove yourself from the ProvidenceBloc, that means no more shared channels or joined fleets, and with the open agreement of no interference from the other holders and CVA (this would have to be confirmed by them publically, as a matter of honour), Ushra'Khan will then assault your space. If you lose, you are evicted and can say goodbye to 0.0 life (and likely CVA will just install another holder, but we'll enjoy ourselves, so who cares). If you win, you get to keep your space. Let's call it an 'Alliance 1v1'. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.29 11:32:00 - [15] Edited by: Butter Dog on 29/09/2009 11:35:33 You have greater numbers in your alliance and all the advantages of defensive structures like POS, Jump Bridges, and Cynojammers. Not to mention basing in your home space for ease of logistics. If you won't accept the challenge, it's not because the challenge is unfair - it's because you are weak. Also - this challenge stands in reverse too. If you would like to try to assault our space without the interference of our allies on a 'Alliance 1v1' basis, we would gladly accept, on the same terms. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.29 17:35:00 - [16] Edited by: Butter Dog on 29/09/2009 17:35:03 Originally by: Niding Butters, you fail to grasp the Deliverance project. We are in Providence to develop the region, not to accomodate the whims of terrorists and criminals. I understand the deliverance project perfectly well. I am simply offering a challenge to silence the mouths of your holders who would doubt our strength and resolve. There is no holder our equal. Although, I will say, the CVA themselves are of course a competent fighting force. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.29 19:00:00 - [17] Originally by: Tomahawk Bliss that doesn't make any sense, why would anyone forsake hard won allies to make things easier for ones enemies? Butter Dog, you want them to die then take them out. If you can't do it then aim for something in your ability to do. Look, it's really very simple. It's called 'making a point'. Some Providence holders claim they could match U'K combat ability. I refute that, and they claim I am wrong. So, I offer a challenge to any holder who thinks this - an offer for them to put their money where their GalNet posturing is. To prove what they claim. Unsurprisingly, no holder has accepted the challenge. We all know the reason for this - every holder knows that U'K would crush them if they tried to stand alone. I'm afraid that no holder can claim to have strength, all the time they hide under the skirt of the CVA when something a little scary looks their way. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.29 21:48:00 - [18] Yes, you are right, numbers alone are a valid tactic, and they do indeed work in some circumstances. There is a critical mass above which individual pilot skill hardly matters. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.30 12:02:00 - [19] Originally by: progodlegend Come on, what does Uk have to offer to sweeten the deal? But, yes I am aware you made the same offer on your space, which I find interesting and must admit that is tempting. But once again have to ask, what the conditions of such a victory would be, do we have to take over a system? all the systems? some systems? just stations? Talking about the assualt on our space: we'll request that -A- and other allies don't get involved. Just you and us, no outside help on either side. You win by capturing our two stations and driving us out. And we shall hand the space back to -A- in these circumstances, since we would not be worthy of holding space we cannot defend from one holder alliance. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.30 17:42:00 - [20] Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Coming from an Alliance that hides behind -A- makes this post even slightly more comical. This from an alliance who brought along 500 of their closest pets to destroy 1 U'K tower some months ago. You scared? Irony overload, or are you actually as deluded and bitter as you sound? ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc

Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.30 21:35:00 - [21] Originally by: Aquinzus All I can say is LMFAO. What a one sided bull**** deal, a person would hev to be brain dead or just plain ignorant to accept those terms. Bitter your a fool if you think any Alliance would take that wager, the Holder guys have absolutely nothing to gain except right to say they won. And for you to say invade your space, I dont think your -A- masters would let people just come in and take the stations / space that your renting off of them away. But wait I guess your going to tell us -A- gave you those stations / space since your such close Allies and all. Here let me give you a loaded deck of cards and then let me tell you that if you dont play with my cards that your a loser, but if you do it wont matter because your a loser anyway. yes what a deal! I will take 3 contract to Aquinzus please. We pay no rent, and I sure -A- would not want neighbours who cannot fend for themselves against a lone Providence holder. We would have to be inept in the extreme to fail against such an 'onslaught' We all know what the facts are. We all know the level of competence of the individual holder alliances. Which makes their prior claim to be able to match us 'one on one' quite laughable. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.