Quichwe10

Then so be it. Let us go over your thesis, and subsequent posts yet again. We start with your OP, in which you have asked us, the leaders of Coalition A, to "think of our members", and to peace out, rather than stroking our egos. You state then that it doesn't matter what IQ has done, but that it's all really just spin, and us putting off the blame to IQ. There are two major issues that have been raised with your OP. Firstly, that Coalition A has been able to surrender, and that IQ's very leadership outright saying that they plan to war us until we are either disbanded or have left the game entirely. These points were mentioned several times on the first page of the thread. First by Filmore, who stated that KERCHTOG had surrendered to Coalition B, and made reference to the leaked logs of internal IQ channels that showed leaders of Coalition B purposefully stalling peace negotiations in order to have more and more Coalition A members delete. This is the very fourth response to your OP in the thread. Charles the Tyrant also makes reference to said leaked logs several posts down, to which you respond as such: We are indeed thinking of our membership right now because we are attempting to make peace with IQ. And yet, you decide to go, well, anything you say does not matter because you don't think we, Coalition A, is actually doing anything, and that any criticism of the current peace progress, where IQ refuses to speak to us whatsoever, is gaslighting you and shifting blame away from Co A. Partisan later comes into the thread and makes his own response, on how t$, a part of Coalition A, is unable to get peace, and makes reference to leaked logs that have IQ gov members continue to give us the runaround. The second page begins with multiple people attacking Partisan and blaming him for why t$ and its allies have not dropped out of the war. In response, Partisan points out that we are still trying to reach peace in private, that their doors are still open to IQ negotiators. He then makes reference to logs showing that IQ leadership has stated that they wish to destroy and punish t$ aligned coalition members as to why they have not sought separate peace. You quickly then drop back into the thread with: and: Both of these show a complete lack of willingness to actually read a thing and understand what is happening. Rather, it is vastly more apparent that your only purpose here is to continually blame Coalition A for every issue that has happened in the peace process, contrary to your opening attempt to appear as if all you wish for is honest and open discussion. You do this again on the start of the third page of the thread, once again stating, "think of the membership!". Pausing here for a moment, and actually assuming that you had been in earnest, something that has been shown to be patently untrue in this thread, you ask us to peace out for the sake of our members. And, again, you give us no direction on how to do so. Peace through private channels and behind closed doors have been halted, turned away, or rejected. The very ways you keep telling us to go through for peace do not exist. Sardonic attempts to defend IQ by saying that he is sure that continued statements by IQ that they wish to see Coalition A rendered entirely defunct from the game itself mean absolutely nothing, and that we must persuade IQ negotiators to give us peace in order to do so, a defense you upvoted. This brings us to a new issue, in that, how do we persuade IQ's negotiators to come to the table with us? We are defeated, and we have admitted as such, meaning that we cannot apply the pressure to force negotiators to the table via sheer military force. Economic force is not present, as all major alliances have incredibly large reserves to keep themselves going in the war. Appealing to the goodness of their hearts did not work, and by the comments of their leadership when they are in closed quarters, will not work because they seek to inflict more war upon us. The avenue we were left with was to appeal to Coallition B's membership, that they perhaps may push IQ negotiators to speak with us at the peace table. And, that now appears to have put far too much stock in them, as we can see by this very thread. Continuing on in the thread, you then post this: Again, you purposefully state, "think of the membership", and ask why we can't surrender. Much like sex, it takes two to tango here. Do you perhaps think that the victim of a serial killer is able to simply surrender to the serial killer, and the serial killer, who's just there to murder them, will actually agree? For peace to happen, both sides must agree to stop fighting the other. Coalition A wishes for the fighting to end. IQ evidently does not. That being said, I would predict that you would merely ignore this in totality, in order to continue to troll and shitpost. It is by page 4 then, that we begin to see you speak about the terms, and how they were leaked. As I explained to you, we had not been given the terms by IQ, so we did not know of them beforehand. After those had been leaked, IQ has refused to speak to us and give, confirm, or deny any further terms. DivineCoffeeBinge then comes in and tells Coalition A must give terms to IQ in order for peace to bring them to the table. Once again, we run into the issue of IQ refusing to speak to us, and a new issue in which, apparently, we're completely changing the original peace process. However, this is very easily explained by the logs that were leaked. That is, that IQ does not wish to peace with us. They would rather force us from the game entirely. Divine then comes in later that very page, and states that "the side that isn't winning doesn't get to set terms". Surprise surprise, this runs into the issue that, we're not setting terms. We're ready to receive them. It just so seems that IQ either does not have the terms, is not willing to give the terms, or just doesn't wish the war to end, the latter of wish would be supported by previously mentioned leaked logs. After that is where I step in, and attempt to explain once again my perspective on some things. @Edward I steps in with his portion on the infeasibility of minispheres. Unfortunately, I don't believe I'll be able to give you a response worthy of your own here, Edward, but with the concern of how to counteract too large groups, Rose's forward looking direction was to be a free agent that would be able to pick their own fights, and also to help keep the minisphere concept alive. This belief was a very large part of their joining of the current war, in order to prevent more people from making plans to attack other minispheres at their weakest or during a fight. I really only saw this war as an effort to be the first stress test of the system for how it would be enforced. Unfortunately, the IC/OOC and amnesia criticism was fully born out by NPO joining BK's side. But, before that, you had people who had previous working relations with each other fight each other for something that was all in fun and relative good cheer. And, this is where I'd probably chalk up so much anger stemming from here, because it was basically a time where defeat was seized from the looming jaws of victory. The system had had it's first war between people who'd known each other, the system had responded back to someone who attempted to abuse the system, and it had almost been working once again until NPO engaged on behalf of BK. Heading back into @John Q Listener's shitpostings, page six more or less was a series of shitposts until you once again moan that no one is accepting blame, and I explain as others did before me the situation at hand. Your subsequent posts just kept ignoring every single thing that was said to you, and continuing to blame Coalition A for not peacing out. It's actually here that you start going, "lalalalalalala everything I don't like is Hitler spin!" Coffee then comes in and goes, well, how does making it public help you, to which, our response is, well, nothing else worked, so why wouldn't we give it a shot, as well as explaining in more detail how it takes two to peace out. After that, you return: Once again, you refuse to listen to a thing that we have said, and continue to deflect and make your own assertion that it is Coalition A's fault for why no peace has been reached. Finally, I ask you to offer a rebuttal to the arguments that have been made, only to have you respond with faux offense, claiming that nothing you said was argued against, and that once again, Coalition A must take responsibility, while completely dodging my offer to actually discuss things honestly. So, with this, we have stated our issues, why they exist, and that we are unable to do as you so desperately wish us to do, only to be received by deaf ears. @Supreme Master Joi, I'm afraid that my hopes of honest discussion grow exceptionally dimmer the more time I spend in these forums. Edit: I suppose this also gives us another issue on how we'd be able to think of the members.

Then if you know better than I, then exactly lay out what facts you claim to know. Coalition A's leadership would greatly appreciate knowing what facts a member of but a single alliance in your coalition knows about the peace process that we do not. Perhaps you could once again go over how a refusal of your side to offer the remainder of peace terms is apparently the fault of ours? If we are truly discussing this, then outline for me what parts I have said are false, what parts are spin, and why they are as such.

Firstly, I am unaware of a war in the past where terms were given sequentially, and secondly, it's a bit hard to do things in sequence when we're waiting on another term to come in through the mail. As for this... Perhaps you did not read my previous post? The only people who know for sure what the terms are Coalition B, because Coalition A has not received them. To explain again, the leaked logs on the terms were taken from an internal IQ channel Coalition A does not have access to where they were discussing what terms to issue. Coalition A is not sure if these are the terms IQ wishes to give us because IQ has refused to speak or issue any terms to us. The feeling of unreasonableness is because the style in which the terms are being presented sequentially with the demand that the next term will not be seen until we agree to the presented term is because it is either unprecedented or so far out of the norm that it is unreasonable. All wars previous have had all terms be listed and given at once, without the demand that a term must be agreed to before another is given. I must express my disappointment here with how fully people on the forums seem to ignore any words that have been written, and immediately chalk it up to bad-faith actors when grievances have been aired in public because nothing that has been done in private has gone anywhere.

Firstly, the only terms given to us from that list was that the war ended, and that there was a NAP, both of which are no brainers since it's a peace treaty. No other terms had been given to us at that point in time. Those leaks were rather from an internal IQ leadership channel that Coalition A was not privy to. Since then, IQ has deemed it fit to refuse to confirm those terms or issue terms to us in the stead of the leaked terms. As well, IQ has repeatedly told us that there are ten terms in total, of which only 6 were mentioned in the leak. So no, we don't have terms.

Eh. I view their usage of downvotes as stating their hefty disagreement with what has been stated. Merely being on the losing side of a war should not mean that one loses the right to voice either their displeasure at less than stellar actions done by their opponents, nor to correct continually and demonstrably false statements. Coalition B itself made mention way back during the beginning of the war when they were on the ropes by planning to mass downvote Buorhan's posts, though that in of itself was also done to attack his total forum Karma to get a rise out of him. That incident right there, as well as Joi's statement on Karma are prime reasons why I favor rather the dissolution of the Karma system instead of the downvote. Wait, when did this happen? What was the reasoning given behind this?

According to the thread, we are being criticized for not not giving terms to Coalition B good enough for them to want peace, and that it's not the job of the victors to tell the losers what they want from them. Speaking as an alliance leader in Coalition A, it takes two to peace, and Coalition has made its opinion clear that it does not want peace enough to tell us what terms they demand of us.

Would you perhaps mind elaborating on your reasoning behind it? And, what would your opinion be on the elimination of the totaled karma system compared to that of the downvote?

This is definitely a suggestion I would agree with, the return of downvotes, and the removal of the totaled karma system.

Case in point, @Supreme Master Joi.

Judging by the previous two responses above you, I must confess that honest and open discourse is a bridge too far. That being said, in regards to Downvotes... An issue with having everyone be forced to do that then makes it so that there is a great deal more clutter around the thread as a number more of people voice their disagreement, and than others will just shake their heads in private and then say nothing. There is little wrong with honest and open discourse, but I must ask you how many people you think will scroll through every page until the very end and read through it all.

Thank you.

Oh dear. I didn't realize I had any. I must lodge a complaint with the OWF registrar for this egregious mistake in my name. Thank you, kind sir, for notifying me of this grievous issue.

My condolences then for the existence of YouTube comments.

Eh, usually in peacetime it's fairly quiet, with most things happening in internal alliance discord channels, like what you'd see if you headed over the Guardian's discord. Some places like TKR or NPO do a lot of stuff with people across alliances though, and as a result, they have a lot more stuff in public that's visible. In regards characters and stuff.... I'd chalk that up to increasing amounts of bad blood from how the war started, the forum fight about that, and subsequent actions through it. Before the war, there was a hope in the general shift away from massive hegemonic coalitions, where smaller blocs of people would fight for shorter amounts of time, do less damage, and do so more often. KT/TGH's general belief in more fighting = more activity = more fun is an example of that belief. The actions that happened to cause the war, that BK's bloc planned to attack both KETOG and Chaos bloc as they were in the middle of Surf's Up and the defenses made for that hurt that hope in microspheres. NPO's later entry to defend BK, who they were not tied to and were in fact their own bloc more or less put the nail in that hope's grave. The defense made for that, that NPO believed that they were going to be next, and that the rest of Orbis had decided that IQ was their enemy was... less than convincing. I honestly was pretty disappointed at the time, even with TFP having joined the war alongside BK. Continued issues ever since then have helped little to the increasingly bad situation there. As for Schattenmann, I don't believe I'm acquainted with him.

Us: What do you want from us? IQ: ....War sounds good. Us: Welp. DivineCoffee: Give IQ what they want. Me: Looks like they want war. You: TLDR