Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/21/19 in all areas

  1. 30 points
    Greetings, friends! Almost 3 weeks ago, Coalition A posted two separate public announcements in which KERCHTOGG and $yndisphere both offered their preliminary surrender, contingent on the negotiation of terms. These surrenders marked the fulfillment of demands set by Coalition B as prerequisites for any negotiation to occur and were posted separately as a token of good faith following the near breakdown of the monthly (1st of the month) negotiations. The statements of some Coalition B officials had indicated that the fulfillment of these demands would allow for the beginning of earnest negotiations and ultimately, peace. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. It has been well documented that prior to the expansion of the war to include The $yndicate and its allies, KERCHTOGG-Coalition B peace had stalled. For reasons of their own, Coalition B implemented a 1-month timeline for any talks, meaning that on the 1st of every month, KERCHTOGG would be given a window to surrender. If KERCHTOGG failed to do so, no avenues for peace were to be had until the next month. A few weeks prior to the November 1st negotiations, Coalition B was informed that Coalition A intended for the negotiations to include $yndicate representatives: Shortly thereafter, Afrika Korps inquired with t$ about their position on the coalition and peace. As Coalition B has justified its escalation with t$ by asserting that The $yndicate's protection of TEst was an "aggressive" interference in the broader coalition war and as consequently, t$ and its allies had been engaged by a variety of Coalition B participants, we had been under the impression that Coalition B viewed us as a part of Coalition A. Our response went unanswered until November 1st, the night of the preliminary negotiations. Once Khai answered, we immediately confirmed what Adrienne had already told Coalition B on October 17th: that t$ and its allies sought to to be included in coalition-wide negotiations. As no objections had been raised, we were under the impression that a joint negotiation was to kick off later that night. Unfortunately, when negotiations did begin and representatives were brought into the chat, the appointed $yndicate representative was promptly removed. Furthermore, the tone of the negotiations was immediately set by Sealteam6, one of the appointed Coalition B negotiators. Simultaneously, The $yndicate's inquiries through private channels were initially ignored and eventual responses were evasive. Sphinx: TheNG: Skae: The $yndicate's inquiries through private channels were leveraged by under to (troll) admonish KERCHTOGG for "trying to go around their appointed negotiators". In addition, Coalition B negotiators set a 24 hour deadline for KERCHTOGG to surrender if negotiations were to begin. After the 24 hour window, there would (again) be no avenue toward peace for an additional month (until Dec 1st). For the remainder of the 24 hour window, Coalition B negotiators were barely responsive in their chats with KERCHTOGG, and t$ received no updates. The public surrenders were posted a few hours before the window would close as a token of good faith. By compromising and allowing negotiations to be conducted separately despite our preference for joint negotiations, and by accepting the preliminary surrender requirement, our coalition sought to open up an earnest dialogue with the intent of negotiating the terms of our surrender. Starting with the KERCHTOGG surrender negotiations, the following snippets stem from the first days after the negotiating channels were opened. These days primarily saw KERCHTOGG requesting to for the presentation of peace terms, as well as occasional inquiries as to the status of t$. The structure of peace talks as enforced by Coalition B is, on its own, debatable. Coalition B has opted to hide the content of the terms of surrender, revealing one article at a time and refusing to move on until that article is (barring exceptional circumstances) irrevocably accepted. Aragorn has publicly argued that this approach has been the norm prior to Knightfall. That has proven to be a lie. The argument Coalition B brings forth for this approach is one of structure and speed. We pose that it is designed to force Coalition A negotiators to negotiate blindly and at a disadvantage and to cause talks to proceed more slowly. In a vacuum, the reservations concerning this structure might've been set aside for the sake of good faith. Unfortunately, the conduct of underlord as well as the continued silence regarding half of the coalition served to enhance already existing concerns over the motivations underlying Coalition B's approach toward these negotiations. A few days ago, Epi (CAM gov) also publicly commented on the potential cause for the delays in presentation of terms to t$. When Coalition A agreed to surrender and to accept the demand for separate negotiations, it did so with the understanding that peace terms would be presented, and that the entirety of the coalition (even if negotiations were to be separate) would be given the chance to begin working towards peace. This understanding is derived from posts such as: Ultimately, the broad categories of the terms (without details as to what they entail) were presented. As the initial articles include (forced) admissions of guilt and revocations of CBs, the blind negotiation of terms creates a dilemma for us. The (irrevocable) acceptance of such an admission of guilt - even if these admissions were based on false premises - weakens one's position when it comes to Articles such as IV and VII. When one does not know the impact of term 1 on term 8, it becomes impossible to evaluate the merits of accepting, rejecting, or negotiating said terms for his side. The negotiating position of our side would therefore be untenable. Furthermore, while it has been suspected for quite some time due to all of the aforementioned occurrences, we've recently had it confirmed that Coalition B does not actually desire peace and these occurrences are intentional with the aim of delaying peace talks. The log below isn't our only piece of intel regarding this but serves as a sample of the information we've been receiving. Between notorious trolls hijacking the negotiation process from the beginning, a negotiation structure designed to undermine Coalition A negotiators, the structural delays in moving the $yndisphere peace process forward, general lack of clarity in Coalition B communication, public hints by Coalition B government officials regarding the above issues being deliberate, and the apparent lack of desire for actual peace, the collective alliances of Coalition A conclude that they can no longer in good faith maintain the status quo with regards to negotiations. Considering the unfortunate exhaustion of good faith through these negotiations, the alliances comprising Coalition A consider themselves unified for the duration of the war. Moving forward, all negotiations will be conducted jointly. We furthermore withdraw from negotiations until a full list of terms is presented to representatives of the entire coalition. Our offer to surrender jointly will continue to stand, as will our offer to negotiate the terms one by one (chronologically) once the full, detailed list of terms has been published. /s/ All Coalition A Combatants
  2. 20 points
    For what it's worth, I too think the way terms are being handled is dumb as hell and y'all should have been given a list over a month ago.
  3. 16 points
    Ugh, Partisan, how dare you?! Coalition B has made it clear that leaking the contents of the totally good faith negotiations would result in totally not good faith negotiations. How dare you squander their totally honest and earnest outreach?!?
  4. 13 points
    Please reread (or read for the first time I guess) the OP. Before logs were brought out, plenty of attempts at actual diplomacy were made, and they were ignored and/or trolled. Now, part of the problem of keeping this behind closed doors is that your side's negotiators and government officials consistently make false claims about the progression of negotiations. While being given the run around, we are accused of stalling negotiations and being the cause for delays. Simultaneously, your officials threaten ours with sanctions if they share contents of the negotiations. We're not going to indulge that and take the blame for your side's transparent attempt at keeping us at war indefinitely. If you're going to make a move like that, you're going to have to own up to it. There is no merit for us in playing along if there is no desire for peace.
  5. 9 points
  6. 8 points
    Do you know G Nations personal story? Do you react like this to every deletion? Exactly the toxicity this game needs to lose. A shame such an old alliance has ended up with such a toxic representative.
  7. 8 points
    Maybe I wouldn't be forced to seek out the OWF if my alliance and half my coalition had not been deliberately ignored in private channels for 3 weeks. t$ has not been allowed to "negotiate". Keep on trying to gaslight friend.
  8. 7 points
  9. 7 points
    Prefonteen is fully explaining what is happening and providing ample evidence to back it up. Yes, there's a lot of text because there's a lot of stuff to say and show.
  10. 3 points
    Each passing day I regret helping OWR cut BK less and less. Even when we were their ALLIES they were about this level of “help”.
  11. 2 points
    If you need this many words to describe why the imagery you choose is not nazi imagery - then it is nazi imagery. Also lol, if you google "my loyalty is my honor", the literal first result is "this is a nazi slogan." Come on man, do you really need to be this facetious?
  12. 2 points
    All this mention of CoA this and CoA that makes me feel like Church of Atom is important. says coa more!
  13. 2 points
    Well the most obvious Colo B spin would be that: Colo A is stalling and making peacetalks impossible by not accepting all the terms blindly and outrightly But seriously this is getting ridiculous
  14. 2 points
    It’s apparent that Coalition B doesn’t want peace. Why should we continue to ask for it then? We will never beg for it if that’s what they’re thinking. They want endless war, then that’s what they should receive. BK/NPO will know it was a mistake to mess with T$ and they should be the ones begging for peace next June when we’re still fighting and they’ve run out of resources/money with their military-only builds.
  15. 2 points
    Bad analogy, isn't it? 1. It has been clearly established that GOONS uses Something Awful. 2. It has also been clearly established, from Bluetarch's comments, that a membership of Something Awful is essential for being a part of GOONS. You guys claim that a membership of something awful isn't a criteria for being a member of GOONS. Well, I am inclined to say you are just lying, since you have no evidence to back it up. As for you guys not being related to Something Awful, who knows if you are? We don't doxx people, no one is aware of anyone else's real life identity. Maybe you guys are stakeholders in SA in some form or the other, and are lying about it. That would explain Bluetarch's comments.
  16. 2 points
    Seems to me you are using pnw membership to pay for your webhosting services. Your culture might want to look into donations rather than money-grabbing schemes. Only 9.95$ boys.
  17. 1 point
    The discord is so dumb, actually. You can't talk about anything, or the mods will warn you, and once I literally got my thing deleted and a warning for posting a link to an alliance affairs post, in the place where I posted it. I was also told I couldn't talk about it to the mods, and if I did I'd be warned for it.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    skip to 30 seconds in if you want to save time.😉
  20. 1 point
    The thing is I just deleted all my econ buildings to build war ones and not only would it have been kind of a waste of money and time on my part it would have also make me look kinda dumb if the war ended now, so i asked our leadership to stall for some time so that my ego wouldn't be hurt. This one is on me i guess, sorry everyone 😕
  21. 1 point
    So ok I take that little girl and your avatar, I photoshop her head over the monitor with all that dripping saliva, then I put something else over the keyboard and oh boy looks like a CB GOONS can use to hit us
  22. 1 point
    Please edit my avatar over the girls face
  23. 1 point
    Mornings.. What a gyp.
  24. 1 point
    Thanks for all your support guys! Long live TLE
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    @George (James T Kirk) Your mom is redacted. And on a totally unrelated note. They can rack up around 100 upvotes per post. *Scribbles that down* Multiply by 10, carry the 2, - an apple. Hm perfect formula.
  27. 1 point
    OWR saw what they were doing back when BK and NPO were still making some attempt to be not completely overt about it and left while we still could. They don’t care what happens to them or their allies so long as, at the end of the day, they’re on top.
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    Welp, Press F for Christmas peace. Valentines peace maybe?
  30. 1 point
    Nation link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=176695 Violation: Nation description contains the word "Nazi" which is filtered on the official Discord and as per the game rules, I quote: "In-game Communication All forms of in-game communication, including but not limited to, messaging, war declaration reasons, alliance announcements, leader, city, or nation names, and nation and alliance descriptions must be appropriate. Vulgar language, mean comments, Nazism or Nazi related names and titles, Terrorist organizations related names and titles etc. are not allowed and will result in your nation receiving a strike." Consider the word is filtered on the Discord, which I figure would also extend to in-game nations. Screencap of offending nation's description:
  31. 1 point
    This has really descended into complete and utter chaos hasn't it?
  32. 1 point
    It’s a shame you feel that way. What an embarrassing place this has become recently.
  33. 1 point
    Remember when we were all bound by peace treaty to say NPO did a good job that one war? And how that went? The more things change... I'd like to point out that this is coming from the side who's majority opinion on improving the game was not changing the war mechanics but on just advertising more. Bringing in new players, just so they can purposely be driven out. Brilliant strategy.
  34. 1 point
    Income from playing isn’t very significant. There’s a reason why BK bought hundreds of thousands of resources at decreased prices from whales last month. They couldn’t afford the prices on the market. They had what... $20B (resources/money) remaining in their war chests before T$phere entered the war. Assuming it’s lower now. NPO may have an actual bank still, but they’ve given billions to their allies to keep them in the war, specifically Cam and GOONs. This is while having military-only builds themselves. I know they say NPO’s bank is huge. But supporting hundreds of ppl for months on end with little replacement of funds will have taxed a huge percentage of their reserves. Income from baseball won’t replace it.
  35. 1 point
    Guys, you're taking this FAR too seriously. Obviously BK camp is annoyed and upset. She's been asking for you to do stuff in a fashion that any women would. She's just being indirect, my young lad. When you get older, you will both understand ladies more, and understand ladies less... That's just something you have to deal with. Now go buy a bouquet and a box of chocolates, and go apologize young man. I want you and this lady to be romping by the nights end!
  36. 1 point
  37. 1 point
    Oh no, Screencap of a beige nation? Whatever shall I do? You could have just shown a picture of the Pirate War Policy definition.
  38. 1 point
    Hello negative reputation user The Meat. While we salute your attempt at spreading your 'culture', we feel your 9.95$ could have been better spent elsewhere, like the already established in-game donation method knows as credits. All credit donation money goes straight into paying PNW.com bills and not into sa.com bandwith fees, which is an offsite, unaffiliated moneygrabbing scheme disguised as a meme-board.
  39. 1 point
    I just saw this... That says it all really.
  40. 1 point
    The title says it all. Liek if you cri evrytim.
  41. 0 points
    Please don't mind Milton, he's a refugee from the incredibly impoverished BK who we took in out of the goodness of our hearts
  42. 0 points
    Chief Wiggum let you guys off light, I would have issued warning points to everyone who didn't follow the rules here. Instead, he issued a public (0-point) warning to all and just hid most of the rule-breaking posts. On this report, I don't see anything as a violation of the in-game rules. Best I can tell, no one is trading real-world goods for in-game goods. If GOONS said "pay us $9.95 and we'll let you in and send you aid" that would be against the rules, but it doesn't appear that that's what's going on. As far as I know, no one in GOONS is receiving any money, and it also appears that just because one member may have told another player that you need a Something Awful forum account does not mean that is the official policy of the alliance anyway. There's just not enough evidence here of a quid pro quo for me to take any moderation action.
  43. 0 points
    My interpretation is that the they/them would signify reference to the Jewish people and perhaps a hatred of.
  44. -1 points
    Toxic communities Thank you, you two are very intellect.
  45. -1 points
    I know this is hard to understand, but us accepting a pubbie into the alliance is literally destroying your entire argument, and with it this hilarious farce of a report. You don't think Alex wouldn't already have told us to stop if he thought what we do is wrong?
  46. -1 points
    In this particular instance it would appear they are using this definition of them/they only to skirt around this rule with technicalities and specifics, even if that was not the case, I think the vagueness and potential misinterpretation is enough cause to remove this from the offending nation's description, and warn/strike the user at moderation's discretion. Though you seem privy to the forum rules I do want to reiterate for others and as a reminder that this is a no discussion forum, exempt for some specific postings.
  47. -4 points
  48. -16 points
    You seem a lot more inclined toward log dumps and complaining on the OWF than negotiations. Maybe spend more time on the latter if that's a genuine desire of yours.
  49. -23 points
    I'm trying to figure out how this topic moves you closer to peace. I'm also trying to figure out how this moves the peace process beyond the constant whining about procedure that has taken place so far. Of course if you were actually engaged in something called 'negotiations' regarding the terms as they come up, that'd be great, but that's not happening at the moment either. Evidently, you like the current state of things, and don't want peace. So be it. I'm comfortable watching your members delete in frustration (R.I.P. G Nation) and your alliances slowly die. Are you?
  50. -26 points
    If the people who think I'm "toxic" (whatever the hell that means), actually cared if their alliance mates were deleting, they'd do what was necessary to end the war on survivable terms, not extend it to the bitter end. My conscious is clean.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.