brucemna
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by brucemna
-
-
1 hour ago, Hodor said:
I mean, I won't say this isn't disappointing in the same sense any young alliance surrendering after less than a week is disappointing. There is a lot to be learned from a real war experience, I've said as much to other new leaders asking for advice, especially in this case where you were arguably in a coalition with some of the strongest military minds (lol) in the game. Nothing will replace war as an experience. If you want to be an economic powerhouse, whatever that means, do not declare offensive wars and do not sign treaties.
So, while Coalition B runs to say that a new alliance peacing out after 5 days is the equivalent of an more established alliance fighting through the roughest parts of the war and then suing for peace, there is in fact a difference.
Disappointment is a understanding peace of mind. But was dont not wash is a AA that does not have the resources to be extended beyond its means to be able to fight any length of war regardless of length should not be chastised for thinking of the whole membership. This seems to be a big problem and stated many times by many people. Coalition A is not thinking of ALL members and what is best for the whole side. Instead the leadership are taking axstamd as it seems they are butthurt over logs and behind channel conversations. Personally if u can not take the heat amd hold of for personal grudge or hatred and put ur own members in a class that cause they do not have the means to accomplish a goal or need is a selfish act. Too many leaders or gov members seem to forget with leadership comes great responsibility to its membership for their self bring remember it is the membership nation that is suffering. The needs of the many outlay the needs of the few. When being a representative of ur member nations pride and circumstance must be put on the wayside until a time u r in a position in the future to actually find the retribution that is being seeked. Instead they ate trying to take this public to try and justify holding out by posting logs or repeating comvos that really are just statements of diplomacy that one needs hard skin to achieve the end goal. Coalition A states oh we surrender and accept the talks for the peace terms but yet escalate the matter through a war of words which has only prolonged and escalated something that could of be over by now.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, James II said:
You've said that about almost every alliance in the game now. At what point will you realize it's paranoia? You're at war with more than half the game, including people who initially entered the war on your side. It is pure paranoia.
If a alliance is not paranoid then they are letting their guard down. Considering over the number of posts over numerous threads andleaks from were I beleive someone mentioned that were given by someone on r side and other open and stated facts plus the biggest indication of all that many people can not let go of NPO 's past from other realms and events I think yes we should be paranoid when it seems to us that there is a movement that our membership for the old bump in the butt.
-
Congrats on ur peace. Nice to see a alliance that knows when to quit honestly and with dignity than some that cry momma I dont wanna play no more cause I cant have it my way amd they called me names and talked bad bout meafter I admitted I lost. Good luck interstellar people wish u the best rebuild
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Agreed, when are you gonna go ahead and do that?
Well let's see... how many wars are there and whom has to peace who and how many more escalations ... maybe 2022 or 2023 after the coa and companies whinning stops ?
-
On 1/12/2020 at 12:57 AM, Azaghul said:
Again: A change of scenery. Something different to do after months of doing the same thing over and over.
You only seem to be able to think in terms of stats. You really just don't get it.If people want a change of scenery we hop in a car book a flight or plant flowers in the yard. If u want to change dynamics of the current conflicts then stop posting spin doctor albums and cnn leaks and try being diplomatically responsible amd discuss what will bring peace and not act out and bring more or longer war
-
15 hours ago, Skepta said:
Roq, your ability to make up garbage and constantly act like a wanker never ceases to amaze me.
We do hate Col B because of moral stuff, but I wouldn't expect you to understand morals - You've made it perfectly clear by your actions that morals are beyond your comprehension. Sure, we hate certain alliances, GOONs being a prime example. However let's not pretend its just GOONs - We hate your garbage agenda that's killing the game that so many used to enjoy, and for that we hate BK/NPO and all those who are complacent with you rolling people out of the game. Believe it or not mate, after rolling other players, many of which including our friends, for over 6 months and in return having to deal with your incessant lying, coming up with a new excuse every single time we asked you to peace out with Col A, we kind of got sick of your shit. We were strung along and along, promised a peace deal that would never come. Evidently, this had been brewing for a long time.
And no, mate, we don't hug pixels - Which is a pretty awful statement considering we fought alongside you for over half a year. We got rolled for almost a month at the beginning, yet we retained our membership and rebuilt into a proper fighting force that has had a substantial impact on the war. The pixel hugger argument is void when you send us to do your dirty work for the entire length of the war.
So, cheers for killing the game, you're a complete tool.
Could not have killed it cause it brought out ur inside anger and u keep talking so some good must be happening to keep ur interest to wine and cry .
-
10 hours ago, Prefonteen said:
No. You don't get to do a no no u on toxicity. You don't get to gaslight on why the war continues either.
Your coalition is at the end of the day architect of this situation. Fight your war and frick off with the spin.
And u r whom to say what one can say or not. The war continues just to remind u .. because ur side surrendered but tried to dictate the terms of negotiation after agreeing to surrender. Seems to me with this new escalation regardless of reasons for it will only delay the outcome for your side as now we are busy with new toys to play with.
-
19 minutes ago, Stanislaw Augustus said:
My own highlights from the speech:
Although none are surprised by Coalition B’s capacity for violence and treachery, these acts further cement their place among the worst of Orbis’ reprobate. Where once before there may have been some slight hope of character we can now be certain that their words are literally worth less than the paper they are printed on...
Unlike their failed predecessors who have been discarded to the trash heap that is the history of Orbis, Coalition B has yet to be defeated. Indeed, it has become obvious that if Politics & War is to continue as a game the world must make a stand...
There is no price too high that cannot be paid when our lives and all those in Orbis are at stake – no violence so brutal that cannot be delivered upon this Babylonic beast...
In conclusion, to Coalition B, our enemy: scorn and defiance, slight regard, and contempt...
Many thanks to everyone who has offered support in the forum, Discord, and in-game. Intel said that at least two confused Coalition B leaders had to make use of a dictionary to understand certain parts of the speech, only to be enraged by the harsh but honest description of themselves. The tide is turning. The free peoples of Orbis can expect even more to rise up against them.
ZzzzzZzzzzzZzzzzz ... long winded and incoherent
-
31 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:
You make less sense with every post ?
Probally cause other replies make no sense as well ... was just a attempt tlr to explain in basic what has happened. Anyhow back to sleeping lol
-
1
-
-
Both TS and kertog were given terms of there surrender and peace talks. After hearing and suspecting that TS was to be dealt with separately everyone on that side walked away. Yes they say they are trying to talk peace but they want to do it on their own terms apperently as the surrending side. They had the chance to stay in talks amd follow the process until they would know for sure if there was any validity to the logs they dumped. Until they come to terms that peace will not be given until they can accept the process they were given the people on their side will suffer through this long war. No one has the intent to make anyone delete or leave the game as no one has the right to force anyone to do that.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Deliberately baiting rule-breaking behavior and making up utterly arbitrary meanings to common letter groups in order to use moderation as a weapon in order to do the damage that warfare never could is what's cancerous. There is a difference between that and duly reporting actual rule-breaking, and Goons has shown ad nauseam that they are not acting in good faith.
There r always rules in life but one common thing about them is people push the rules and push them to the point of breaking to gain advantage. Everyone pushes the limits and is not innocent. For example look at the game of golf. The rule committees for the tours and golf in general make rules on technical aspects on balls and the clubs. Players and companies that design amd make the products push them rules to limits and on occasion have pushed beyond the limits. Sure there are penalties but the point is on technical basis things get pushed and if one does not do it they get left behind. I am not saying breaking rules is a good thing but everyone does it and if one takes the high road and says no they have not well I will call bullshit. They game itself will not improve unless rules are tested and fixed. But regardless the technical aspect of this game is there and if u dont push the limits and work around to improve or keep up then u will be left behind. The way things are the game is the same for everyone and if u do not want to push them rules technically or morally then that is ur choice.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, XSSJBONGWEEDL0RD420 said:
How do you like your eggs?
In my pocket hard and ready to crack
-
8 hours ago, Syrachime said:
Well, you know... You could always just present terms, or start negotiations with the one-a- a-time-term-thing t$ and all of us seem more than open to. I'm just pointing out the obvious, yet hilarious fact that it's taking you guys half a year to come up with terms to deliver to us. If you guys aren't delivering terms because we are commenting on the status quo, doesn't that kind of prove that Coal B is the one delaying peace talks? XD
I think it has been mentioned a fee times ... kertog and ts are going to be dealt with on a separate basis with kertog I beleive going first. No one as well I beleive are currently saying ur not open to talks at the moment but if u remember do to sole circumstances such as ur side receiving logs and being paranoid things would not work out the way u guys wanted to u left the talks. As well the war has only been half a year so really saying half a year to come to or present terms is a bit much as u seem to be stating u expected the war to end when it started. Anyhow keep saying this stuff and I do see that Prefonteen is trying to lessen the posting and all maybe some others should follow suit. And see what happens.
-
1 hour ago, Mandystalin said:
I've just read the entire thread in one go (perhaps I am a tad masochistic) and actually it has been quite fascinating watching the progression of the response from Col B.
But my favourite little nugget was this post quoted above. So the rank and file of Col B are apparently fully informed of the deliberate 'no peace' policy of their leaders and presumably tacitly approve. Nice.
Considering I received the same message I think we find it most funny that when coalition A says the other side is trolling them that they would send such mass messaging to troll us. I .ean is it a serious attempt to turn people against there own gov?
-
2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:
You're stalling because you're trying to drag out this war to maximize attrition and disbandment. It's been clearly evidence in the logs that this is your strategy due to personal grudges against coalition A and some corruption of realpolitik ad absurdum.
If you don't think you're stalling, I don't know what world you are living in. I mean your mouthpieces are here arguing about whether T$ is in coalition A, presenting laughable terms, ignoring/trolling our reps and not engaging in real negotiations.
Mouthpieces? Seriously ... and your side wonders why no one wants to forge ahead when ur saying these things? Lol ..
-
9 hours ago, CandyShi said:
Pretty sure you missed the part earlier where I say “I’m not a representative of CoA”.
This is all my speculation.
Aside from that, nice attempt at victim blaming. “Oh you assumed that there was malicious intent because of sketchy circumstances, that’s your fault”.
Well when u use the word we it tends to put u in the pack. Refer back to ur post
-
7 hours ago, Azaghul said:
Because it bears repeating: This is the first time in this world that anyone has tried to insist on doing terms this way.
I've seen it done by NPO (and only NPO) in other worlds, but that's it.Sure and things change....
5 hours ago, CandyShi said:not according to NPO and the rest of the game.
irrelevant to the point, but ok.
Also if you define CoB’s entire war discord as “little”, you’re dumb.
Pretty sure he(she?) was talking about the terms in private. Your coalition refused to present all the terms, and as such we assumed they were bullshit.
AND WE HAVE A WINNER .... the word assumed ... never assume hence why ua all in this position
-
7 hours ago, Darzy said:
Is there a reason/has it been disclosed to CoA leaders privately? This seems to be the main issue.
If u go back to the OP u will see that it was discussed that terms would be given over one by one and the process could take up to 30 days. As well coa was informed that the kertog part would be dealt with separately and once that was complete then TS would then be brought to the table.
-
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:
We know that because I am taking the statements of representatives from coalition B at face value. Meaning: That's literally what we have been told over and over for the past 6 weeks, right up until today.
Seems to me u were given logs by a butthurt person and u got steered in a direction that brought us here. Agian I just want to say people in private a d I am almost sure it happens on both sides tend to say things that just come to mind in reaction to stuff as a initial response. It is up to individuals on how the take or perceive them words. I understand ur hesitancy in talks but agian I think u just took the wrong road and it could of been used to give urself a more stronger position in the long run instead of having to sit here and let it drag out and out. Whem it comes down to it there is no blame on anyone. Ur side or ours. People do or say what they want depending on the moment.
-
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:
You mean the short public log, after 17 days of silence, in which Epi assumed they're making us wait for ketog?
That statement was in direct contradiction with what negotiators had been telling us up to that date. Once we received the logs confirming our suspicions as well, it was clear peace wasn't genuinely being entertained. his is further supported by terms still not being ready yet.
Just out of curiosity how do u not know terms are not ready? Listen what is done is done. I personally beleive u jumped the gun. Which in hindsight is ur porgrative. Personally I would of let the rest of ur coalition agree. Then when it came ur turn then u would of found out the truth to ur suspicions. Suspicion is one thing that could of actually helped u. When it came to TS side of things I would of waited and negotiated with the end result that even though we cancelled r treaty u maybe should of asked for a nap for a period of say 6( or another time frame) months with NPO to make sure u can rebuild and so forth. Would of helped u two ways. First if denied then maybe u have a arguement here. If allowed that gave u a set time to use FA and propaganda to build urself up to be in a much stronger position than u r today. Just my thoughts.
-
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:
There were no talks for t$ in the first place. Our approach of trying to work things out privately was deliberately ignored. To tell us we should approach privately after we demonstrated that this did not work is desingenuous.
Actually correct me if I am wrong ... did I not see in the original op something about ts talks would begin after the rest of ur coalition have agreed to terms. If so did someone not suggest later in this threa u should of let that go on and accept the first terms on condition that peace is settled with u ?
-
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:
Perhaps your points are not very well constructed.
Is that not what a lot of people have been telling u .. that by posting this topic and dumping logs and so forth that u have not constructed a well thought out process in which to have peace talks revive and move on? And that maybe u should try a different approach?
-
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:
I think you're just trying to conjure up arguments at this point.
Actually I seem to be repeating myself over and over answering in different ways to get one point across... but yet it seems the denseness is to thick.
-
2 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
You're free to respond to him. But accusing him of something in a process he isn't a part of makes you look like a fool who has no idea of what you're talking about.
In fairness, you had made that much clear a couple of pages ago already.Excuse me for reading his words as if he was part of ur coalition since he is defending you. And the sensitive skin was about ur coalition not him as I tried to emphasize.
[agreement] Interstellar - Opus Dei
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Spin doctor