brucemna
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by brucemna
-
-
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:
Ah yes. If we had posted it after 30 days of waiting rather than 21 days, surely you would have instantly granted our request. How dare we!
No just saying u may have had more sympathy for ur cause.
2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:The longest war in the game’s history needed an extra month to figure out their initial peace offer? At least own up to it and say you guys didn’t even want peace yet. The logs already proved it multiple times anyway.
I used to write college essays an hour before turning them in. Your collective coalition can’t present video game peace terms in under 30 days? Lol
I beleive I heard during the time terms where going to be given one by one to discuss. Either way it was about the process u did not like. And hence instead of following it u tried to rush it.
2 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:You'd have said the exact same thing after 30 days as you are saying now, friend.
Umm I doubt it. To be honest I may have had words but I would not be saying the exact same things. Most that do u know me would know that from past.
-
Just now, Shiho Nishizumi said:
The remaining seven days (wherever that may have come from) would've made 0 difference, given the behavior and the logs.
But you're free to keep grasping at straws and citing Noctis as somehow being a voicer for us.Regardless of behavior or logs waiting the extra days might of helped. For 1 u dont know what would of happened and after 30 days then maybe it would of made ur propaganda post meaning this topic a little more legit. Even the original post logs I after reading it had a sense of desperation and impatience. Posting only after 20 days just shows ur pissed cause u wanted to dictate and getvwjat u want when u want it. It did not happen so here here we are.
-
14 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
I would say it moved peace further away. For people that are saying that they are peeved at Ts being held out of talks to extend them in war and then not waiting til at least up til 30 days for the terms by posting this topic they extended it themselves.
-
4 minutes ago, James II said:
As presented in the OP and In the logs, coal b were intentionally trolling in the peace discussions and throughout the process with no intention of allowing anyone in coalition A to surrender.
That is why the logs are here. Not for you to derail the thread, but so that you can see your leadership has no intention of allowing us to surrender until a number of alliances and nation's in coalition delete.
Seems to me that u guys can not accept something unless u get what u want when u want it. Which part u were told in the channels up to 30 days? Seriously u could not wait. Even Adrienne was teting to push for the terms on the spot for the full list. Which I am not criticizing but at the same time u were told thirty days.. so when someone says we will not surrender and someone saying TS is not included them walk out of the process and then 20 days post and leak .. wait my side did that. NOT!!!! U did not like the process which was going so now ur just trying to justify urselfs why the delay now. Do not tell me that there is not one of u that if the situation was not reverse u would still blame it on NPO trying the same crap. Or that u would not hold off or have not even in it own back channels !@#$ed or said similar things. And if u want to deny it .. post every log that shows every word of ur own back channel. The biggest problem u guys have is u think of the past cause all the wars before this went smooth like a baby butt. Well so what we are talking today and only today. None of u have any kind of thick skin cause personally if I saw them logs all my response would be oh well ain't the last time we gonna get trash talked or trolled. Seriously .. u guys say we want peace but yet not one of u can say maybe should of waited the 30 days to start this post period. U couldn't follow the outlined process so own it.
18 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:Except I’m not KERTOG & don’t decide these things, lol.
Sorry my buttons on phone where not working on some posts for some reason
8 hours ago, Darzy said:Third party here. Glad someone on colB is finally addressing the stalling.
My question to you is, do you think the stalling (which has been shown to be intentional not circumstantial by the logs unless you can prove otherwise) is okay?
I think the main argument from coA is that stalling is bad faith negotiation, especially when done 'so we can get two months more of infra grinding.'(underlordgc) In the past I believe that peace negotiations have been swift and have never heard of intentional stalling before which I too, would feel like was done in bad faith if I had to experience it.
What is your sides pov?
No stalling when they were told 30 days
-
2 minutes ago, brucemna said:
In this snap the words kert.. will never surrender.
As well apperently if u back track more u where actually told it may take up to 30 days and throughput the talks u did have meaning the op .. it was told to u that terms were to be given one by one. But regardless in the op the key is up to 30 days but yet u posted and started dumping logs at 20 ...as well originally u all walked because TS was not included.
-
2 hours ago, James II said:
i know the thread has been hijacked and taken OOC with false OOC claims. Here is the OP and topic at hand.
Coalition B feigned allowing peace. As you can see by their behavior, and admittdely by themselves. They intentionally stalled peace with a prerequisite that nation's and whole alliances from coalition A delete.
We are told we cannot have peace because we delayed peace. This post was in response to the false claims, clearly disproven with the logs provided here where coalition B government admittedly, and in coalition channels were in fact intentionally delaying with no intention of peace, contrary to the claim
The only other argument by coal b is they delayed peace because coal A posted logs, a retrospective argument, as you cannot have cause before effect.
In this snap the words kert.. will never surrender.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
"We did shitty things but they are the real meanies for exposing our bullshit."
Well if I recall we all do shitty things or even say crap during war ... I think they call it something like in the heat of the moment stuff. Secret is looking past it and moving on. It's called having thick skin .. not a ego f
-
57 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Yes, stalling is absolutely okay. Stalling in general happens a lot more than you think. Just one example of stalling from Coalition A would be that they stalled in agreeing to surrender for a while. It was pretty clear after the first month that Coalition B would be winning this war. Yet they stalled for 4 months before agreeing to surrender. Just because Coalition A at that point wanted terms doesn't mean Coalition B needs to start talks until they are ready to do so.
Now now. They are not stalling. They are dumping logs posting publicly and having peace talks here. You know just like the little kid whom sees candy on the store shelf and starts crying cause mommy says not yet we have to pay for the candy first. So the child starts crying yelling and screaming throughout the store throwing temper tantrums and yells at other customers mommy is a bad person and mean to me cause she yelled at me to stop crying. So mommy even takes the candy away til the child stops his crying and behaves.
-
16 minutes ago, Darzy said:
Third party here. Glad someone on colB is finally addressing the stalling.
My question to you is, do you think the stalling (which has been shown to be intentional not circumstantial by the logs unless you can prove otherwise) is okay?
I think the main argument from coA is that stalling is bad faith negotiation, especially when done 'so we can get two months more of infra grinding.'(underlordgc) In the past I believe that peace negotiations have been swift and have never heard of intentional stalling before which I too, would feel like was done in bad faith if I had to experience it.
What is your sides pov?
I would say that dumping logs and bringing stuff forward is bad faith. Regardless of talks going slow or even being stalled if u may ... dumping logs and posting public is just not a good thing unless there is a joint agreement from both sides to post transparently. If they did not want these talks to take so long they would of agreed to the process to reach terms in the order they would of occured. If at the end there is something in the terms they did not agree with then yes justifully they would have a reason to refuse any agreement.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Azaghul said:
The amount of complaining by Col B about how Col A made things public just serves to prove that it was an effective move.
For those in Coalition B who actually want peace, they need to think about what they would play along with if they were in our shoes. I very much doubt many of them would be reacting much differently than we are.
Wars in this world are simply too mutually destructive in both net damage and opportunity cost for the winning side to have the leverage to make the other side do whatever it wants.
No one is complaining lol ... only complaint I see is the original post complaining that there is no terms given.
-
9 minutes ago, japan77 said:
"Patience is a virtue" There's patience and then there's waiting around for a miracle to happen. In this case it's the latter, as we can see from publicly available information.
- A. Any and all attempts to negotiate have been trolled
- B. Only happen on the first of every month
- C. Despite surrenders on the OWF, no terms have been offered and no attempts to have communication between parties has been established properly (t$ literally hasn't gotten a server and has been kicked out of one)
- D. ColB leadership wishes for disbandment of ColA alliances. (No alliance in this game is every going to voluntarily disband from an external mandate, this is not CN)
- E. Apparently despite having literal months at this point, ColB hasn't figured out what terms it wants
- F. ColB leadership believes that T$ hasn't fought long enough and wants to continue the war against them
And there's more, but I'm not going to bother with it since I have other things to do.
A. Quit posting here
B. Process agreed upon apperently
C. U dont know what the terms are cause u walked from the process meaning TS negotiations where to happen after the rest of ur coalition came to agreement.
D ur right not CN but with that in mind ur assuming disbandment without hearing any terms
E. U dont know cause u didnt wait to hear them or stay in talks once ur paranoia and suspensions got the best of u
F. Actually may be possible but u dont know agian for fact unless the actual talks happened . Meaning hence why they were separated for a agreement meaning yes they may have had to fight a lot longer but that time would of been determined by the lengths of the negotiations for the rest of ur coalition...
-
4
-
20 minutes ago, Smith said:
Yes there were more October logs as we were only halfway into November when this thread was made, but the logs continue into November showing their intent.
However, it kinda seems like no matter what answer we give you or how much evidence we provide you there doesn't seem to be a scenario in which you would accept that the blame lies with your leadership. Am I wrong on this? Because I've pointed out multiple misconceptions that you have had and you seem to just move the goal post.
If we prove that they were still doing things in November then you say that you thought it was mostly happening in October. If we show it's not from a third party you say the person is untrustworthy. Then you say we must have paid or promised them something.
We are providing tons of evidence for our claims while you make assumptions such as this with no proof whatsoever. Why is that?
U call it evidence as in a trial. U say our side is to blame no peace cause of intent. And ya I am sure u could prob show log after log. But here is the thing. I understand what u r trying to say about the backing off cause of suspicion as well. With that in mind it seems to me u r doing more accusing than trying to find a way to get to talking. Ur missing the point if ur saying it is the other sides intent to drag this out longer and longer why are u doing all this dumping and so forth knowing that it will piss our side off and not want to come to the table anyways after this. Agian as I mentioned and this is just me personally ... if I had or knew I would be attaining them logs and would of just continued with the process with caution and see where the talks actually went. Meaning done the process of TS letting the rest of ur coalition finish their talks with a condition of completing talks with Ts as well separately. If at that time u still did not like the terms walk away. Then this thread and jumping may or may not have been justified. Instead u r dumping on the process and prolonging the conflicts. And honestly if behind the back trash talking upsets u and r not able to get by it and had to walk away then maybe I would question ur own ability to lead. Sometimes cause being a leader u need tough skin to be able to meet the responsibility to ur coalition . Sounds more from ur side it is more personal than business to u.
2 minutes ago, Abdi said:Can someone just quickly expain wich coalitions are at war and some major alliances in them?
Thanks
This name looks familiar lol
-
4 minutes ago, Smith said:
The "third party" was a member of your coalition leadership which actually makes him a first party as he was directly involved.
It is not "may or may not" as they directly say they don't want the war to end.
We know their views did not change after October because we have logs in November which is when this thread was created showing they were still trying to stall peace. And again, while they were doing this in private they were publicly blaming us for peace not progressing.
Well the logs I recall seem to be sated the month of october mostly. As for it being a member or was is the key word then obviously he passed the logs to u with intent of forcing u away from the table for their own benefit amd gain meaning u either payed or promised something possibly. If they did it on their own volition then I would question that person's motives and possibly through talking u may get that answer.
-
7 minutes ago, Smith said:
The logs were necessary because your coalition's leadership was publicly blaming us for no progress being made in peace talks while in private were strategizing on how to drag out the peace process for as long as possible to make as many people quit out of boredom on our side as they could. It's not acceptable to gaslight somebody and expect them to just sit back and take the abuse. The blame here is on your leadership for developing a strategy specifically designed to pressure people out of the game. It's not for us to standing up to people telling intentional lies. This war has been going on for like 7 months, there is no reason for anybody to believe that your coalition leadership was going to change their tactics when they were still lying about what they were doing. Keep in mind that during the period that you are saying we should have still been trying to negotiate they were still trying to think of ways to drag the war out.
Let's see here. U dont want to negotiate or walk away from talks cause a third party supplied u with logs that may or may not want peace talks cause they are part of the war or not a d may benefit the war continuing ? Seriously .. dont u think there comes a point where someone may have played ur side and they got the best of u. U say my side wants to prolong this but yet u keep dumping logs pushing ur opponent away to talk ? Personally if logs like this were posted in the public forum and used as propaganda to make r side look bad like this u think I would actually come and give u a chance to get out of a losing situation. From what I see ur making this harder on urself than anything. Agian I never would of walked away cause I feel or get third party information of any kind. It would make me more cautious yes but I would keep moving forward until I was certain that whatever evidence u may have considers with the mood of the talks. Meaning say for example we gave ur coalition white peace but then came back with terms that will make people quit from TS then ya u would have the terms to say,hey this is wrong we dont accept. But what u have is logs from a month before ur offer of surrender was made. The views of October may habe changed a month later but now u will or may not know.
-
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:
Your side of it my friend, seems to be a bit unwilling to recognize the logs for what they are: A clear proof of malignant intent. You seem to be searching for a way to deflect responsibility for peace delaying back to coalition A, when we have -logged and well- evidence that this was not the case.
We do want peace, and we are here, willing to sit back down and negotiate our terms of surrender the moment coalition B shows us that they are ready to seriously entertain it. If that desire is there then by all means, please do hit us up.
Something tells me though part of the conditions to start agian maybe to admit that this open forum stuff dumping and so forth may be the wrong avenue as well u may face separation in parts of coalition in talks and that publicly ... maybe offer in private that condition.
-
9 minutes ago, Adrienne said:
To clarify, logs were not the sole reason for leaving. We detailed all our reasons for leaving in the OP of this thread. We put forward a concentrated effort in the face of clear trolling and efforts to tank talks and tried our best to show that we were willing to negotiate and make concessions. The leaks we received back then and those that have emerged on here since have just clarified what we already suspected based on the behavior of your representatives - that they didn't want peace and had no serious intentions of entertaining us. So why should we waste our time trying to do all that if they don't have any intention of progressing towards peace? If that has changed and they're willing to earnestly engage with us, I'll repeat what we've been saying this whole time - we're here and willing to listen and work with them.
I am not disputing a effort on ur part at the beginning at all. My side of it looks as if because one side is not getting what they want when they want it the narrative has been changed to a propaganda assault to try and restart the process. Sure being transparent is one thing dumping logs in the OP does not help with any process. If one wanted to the original OP could be cause of the logs be taken as if u are redeclaring war or rescinding ur surrender to continue this war. Which is fine if u dont think if terms were actually given were not beneficial to all involved. But this was more of the process than any terms as my understanding is no one received terms. The op was delivered in Nov. From what I cam see the logs posted come from the beginning of october above ... seems to me if I recall u surrendered in the beginning of november .. meaning between the october logs and November surrender the mood had changed and twenty days later after ur side stopped or walked however u would like to word it. Seems again without following the process to see the validity of the logs ur side posted publicly. I see u used the words monthly as well. Meaning there was still 10 days til the end of the month and maybe 20 more days of patience would of given u a stronger arguement to what there is now. We are now in december and I would assume now cause of the logs posted after the OP sure this will prob keep going on. There is no shame in calling out someone but when calling out dont shame.
-
7 hours ago, ArcKnox said:
>In this case ur side stopped talking cause of one concern instead of continuing to see what the final outcome will be with the process given.
DID. YOU. READ. THE. LOGS?
How can one not read the logs. Point is how do u know there is truth to the logs when the process was stopped when u stopped the talks due to the concerns instead of following the process to see what the separated terms for TS was to be. Could there have been a extended week or two... Could there have been crippling reps... could there have been a vice Roy or could there have been other unkown factors. That's is a unkown. My point is from experience I would of continued the process to find out what the outcome would of been. Now with what has happened the narrative has changed cause of paranoia and assumption. Instead some took it upon themselves and r using semantics log dumpling and open forum and assuming what the outcome was gonna be. I personally give ur side credit for wanting peace but then because u think something is going to happen because ur handed logs by someone who themselves did not want the war to end possibly we are held in a status quo here. I would on ur part look at the people or person that gave u the logs and see what that person's own motives are and see if that person has more to gain. NPO does not benefit as we are self sustaining and have the power within ourselves to forge forward.
-
7 minutes ago, Smith said:
No coalition has ever held people at war for 7 months and expressed excitement over people quitting before. I'm not sure what you would expect to see in our coalition channel since we aren't in a position to do what your side has been doing and when we were in that position in past wars we didn't do it
I was referring to trash talk in ur channel. And this is not a past war as we are talking present tense. As for length of wars it dont matter. Wars can last from one attack to indefinite given the circumstance. In this case ur side stopped talking cause of one concern instead of continuing to see what the final outcome will be with the process given. Hell if I stopped everything cause of trash talk I would be locked in a room not moving on in life. Given that as mentioned before my play would of been for the first part of the process I would of accepted the terms on condition of tS getting peace with their terms amd negotiations. Then if not happy decline and go from there. Honestly though with what has happened with the log dumps and forum discussions i dont know if that would be possible now. I would think though u could try and maybe it works or it doesn't
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Legoboyvdlp said:
I definitely got them directly from the devil and their source was some random archangel in heaven.
?
Agian perfect example of why it is what it is
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Legoboyvdlp said:
Do you usually have words like these coming out your mouth - sounds like it's coming out the wrong end.
And u wonder why the peace talks are were they are at lmao .. serious question for u .. where did the logs come from and how did u get them lol. Just so maybe my leaders know who is accountable
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:
It's near impossible to have faith once you read the contents of the logs themselves. How is it possible to have faith when a member of NPO's upper gov is advocating prolonging the war simply to eradicate our communities based on some bs presumption we would do likewise when all past evidence indicates otherwise? How is it possible to have faith when Roq paints the forums with posts claiming he doesn't hold a grudge but then a log reveals he has been waiting more than 3 years for this moment?
The truth of the matter is that by revealing these logs, our coalition is holding your coalition's leadership accountable for their words and actions. Something which the members of your own side should be doing but sadly aren't.
Also sup bruce, how long has it been?
Okay I cam understand ur scepticism on the intent. In all honesty how bout u post logs from ur coalition channels and I bet we will see similar kinds of intents as well. We all know that in private we all say things such as let's ruin them til they .... well u get the point I think we all have some intelligence in us. And sure maybe from 3 or so years ago before NPO time here when we were vanguard i can relate to maybe what 3 years means. We all know history is never forgotten and given a chance we all may say vindictive things to air out r resentments. With that in mind we also know that when it comes down to it we all settle down during talks and move on with our peace and heck sometimes we make knew friends. Regardless of anything as the surrending coalition I think the processes given to talk peace or not out of the norm and in many cases talks happen with segregation in certain instances. Log dumping or threads like this only make the process of peace longer and create longer or more distasteful resentment to reach the peace terms.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:
It's near impossible to have faith once you read the contents of the logs themselves. How is it possible to have faith when a member of NPO's upper gov is advocating prolonging the war simply to eradicate our communities based on some bs presumption we would do likewise when all past evidence indicates otherwise? How is it possible to have faith when Roq paints the forums with posts claiming he doesn't hold a grudge but then a log reveals he has been waiting more than 3 years for this moment?
The truth of the matter is that by revealing these logs, our coalition is holding your coalition's leadership accountable for their words and actions. Something which the members of your own side should be doing but sadly aren't.
Also sup bruce, how long has it been?
I am good .. will respond d in a bit family stuff
-
3 minutes ago, ArcKnox said:
This thread has a definitive lack of relevant logs being dumped!
This logdump brought to you by the Council for the Restoration of PURE DECADENCE
And ur point is ? ... let's refrain a bit. Agian part of the other coalition walked away from the talks. So the talks ceased. Okay they wanted ts included ... understood. Now regardless of the timing of the talks tell me in ur private channels if it was reverse or even no one has not talked crsp that they know is not going to happen. Personally I know even people in my own alliance prob want me to quit or other AAs as I sure I have built resentments somewhere. Logs dont make the peace talks cause it is not going to change cept maybe for someone recieving bad terms. I would of gotten what I could for peace then dump these then maybe u had a ground to stand on. Now u have just given motive to delay it.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Leftbehind said:
You can't end a war if the enemy doesn't want it to end.
I actually have not seen anything where it says no one wants it to end. I do see that there was a process that one side seems to not want to follow and until that is followed then talks will happen
An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks
in Alliance Affairs
Posted · Edited by brucemna
And I cant answer his opinion why ? ... should the comment by u then maybe be shush it Roberts ur not in the war.? Oh wait u have sensitive skin forgot that lol . Say anything u like Roberts u have every right to say what u what.