Jump to content

ComradeMilton

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1777

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ComradeMilton

    Time for everyone to Embargo GOONs

    in Orbis Central

    Posted · Edited by ComradeMilton
    Oops, typo

    35 minutes ago, Placentica said:

    As the first Global Market Manipulator and embargoed by an entire alliance, this weak attempt is disappointing, EM.  You can do better

    The quoted SS was a DNFJ post, actually.

    Quote

    Hope you are enjoying your Vacation mode though.

    Uh...

    Anyway given our extensive use of the on-market trading for strategic goals I am deeply alarmed by the connotations and consequences of this grass-root movement's rapidly growing alliance-based support.  Perhaps we can enter into negotiations with all of these embarjisans to lift these monstrous conditions and return dignity to GOONS.

    Something to consider

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    16 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

    With how much they've abused the system, if NPO/BK keeps them don't think anyone can say it would be unfair to change the game mechanics during the war anymore. This war has already went well beyond caring about what is fair in regards to game mechanics.

    Enter the post-war rise of Opus Dei.

    Question for all Coalition leadership.

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    16 hours ago, Sisyphus said:

    The problem is that this has been a self-admitted IQ strategy from (pretty much) the get-go (once they understood they wouldn't topple things immediately).

    GOONS is the budding algae on the surface of the real problem: neo-IQ players are (and have been) attempting to kill off the "livestock" by poisoning the water. 

    A pity IQ hasn't existed for something like nine months at this point.  As for GOONS being new and that being important, I'll just leave this here for the poster who thinks that materes.

    HDwujJ1.png

    • Upvote 1

    [RoH/DoW] Kingsglaive War with GOONS

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

    Making you guys do a mercy board & see how fun you think it is might actually be a good term. You should be willing to do it if forcing new players to.

    I can do a silly poem or MS paint comic if you want.  Previous formats were usually writing, drawing, and joke term, pick one of three.

    7 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

    Just want you to eat some dog food for me on YouTube, you can keep most of your face covered if you want.

    After three posts before doing that explaining that was a joke term and would not be accepted so shouldn't be accepted.  The server for that is still up and you can read the thread for yourself.  Anyone can.

    The War

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    14 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

    Coalition B does not have the power or leverage to dictate what coalition A alliances identify themselves as. If the constituents of coalition A present themselves as unified, then for all intends and purposes they are. To argue otherwise is a matter of pedantic semantics.

    What coalition B can affect, is how the peace of coalition A is approached. Due to the balance of power you can push for or force a split negotiation as you have. While we may accept that (as we have in November), it still does nothing to alter the status of coalition A as a unified coalition.

    You said what I said except in longer format.

    11 hours ago, Avakael said:

    We stopped bothering to read what Comrade Milton was posting somewhere in late 2016. It's not really a y'all thing.

    Pity. Agreeing with me in very thorough detail is more effort than just noticing we agree and moving on.

    Question for all Coalition leadership.

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

    We bent over backwards trying to negotiate with you all and come to an agreement on structure that would address both our concerns, even going so far as to essentially ignore our concerns with the first term in order to show we were willing to make sacrifices and still you refused to listen to our concerns. We stated then we wouldn't continue with talks until you did (13th). We didn't fully walk until a week later (20th) when it became apparent that your coalition was purposefully trolling to delay talks. We had no desire to waste our time with a coalition who did not appear to actually desire peace.

    I hope it's clear who walked for those who keep disputing it.

    An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    16 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

    Since you're incapable of actually winning, your surrender is actually a reasonable solution

    We've won. CoA surrendered.  Not very well as they're still attacking, but they seem to definitely agree they surrendered.

    9 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

    CoA completed term #1 and left when #2 was presented.  tS should check DMs if they're confused by who is delaying what.

    • Like 1

    The War

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

    You seem to be slow on the uptake. Let's try again:

     

    - I speak for t$

    - I represent t$ and its allies (along with others)

    - I represent coalition A (along with others)

    You don't represent CoA to CoB as tS as far as CoB is concerned is not a part of CoB.  You're separately agreed and mentioned you accepted that and had been seeking that separate peace, then expressed frustration at what you perceived as being ignored. If you need to inform CoB, who are probably at least friendly, what they need for peace, it's to return to the peace server and begin work on the second term.

    3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

    I hope this helped.

     

    • Upvote 1

    A plea to consider Co A line members

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

    Alright, so you're conceding the point that IQ is at fault for stalling peace talks and deliberately acting in bad faith, up to and including directly plotting against their active treaty allies? Great. Now you just have to accept the fact that is absolutely, unequivocally despicable.

    IQ doesn't exist and hasn't existed for months. The peace talks are being stalled because CoA isn't participating.  He didn't concede we acted in bad faith, or that we're stalling peace talks or anything else.   Your opinion of CoB members and government being negative isn't going to get you peace. Returning to the well-staffed peace server on Discord with its platoon of CoB negotiation staff and principal negotiator in a term-by-term negotiation will.  The longer that takes to accept the longer we can remain at war.  It seems like, at this point, it has to be clear to CoA that not only have we won this war, we're also able to operate normally while continuing the war.

    • Like 1

    Question for all Coalition leadership.

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Deulos said:

    What I'm trying to figure out is why anyone is even responding to GOONS members. By responding you derail the threads and get off topic. This thread should have a cordial, brainstorm like tone.

    GOONS is a member of CoB and has a representative on our negotiating group. You could ignore us here, but not where it matters.

    An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Syrachime said:

    Which is funny to me...  We offered our surrender a month and a half ago, and there was a four and a half month gap between that and the start of the war marking six months and counting of this conflict.  The fact that one side can't come up with terms to deliver in that time span is honestly laughable.  I'm starting to think maybe we'd get somewhere if Coal A started offering terms to Coal B.  Outside of white peace, that might be the only way negotiations are gonna get going at this rate.  Especially if it is true that it is taking one side half a year to come up with something to deliver to the other side.

    White peace is absolutely not going to happen. The longer CoA keeps trying to make this a public thing to change how it's going to work the more delay.

    7 hours ago, Sisyphus said:

    It would be more productive for representatives of Col A to speak with representatives of Col B if Col B is willing to allow Col A representatives to represent Col B until Col B can come up with a cohesive and comprehensive list of terms.  

    I, of course, nominate Partisan.  

    Partisan has his own peace to deal with.

    • Haha 2

    The War

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

    You aren't negotiating rather you are demanding.  Giving us one term and saying "you have to accept this if you want to see the next one" is not a negotiation it's an ultimatum as @Menhera correctly points out.

    The first term will be negotiated and finalized and then the second will be done in the same way.  Negotiation.

    30 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

     Y'all are trying to shove the worst terms in Orbis history down our throats in what was a close war with a rock-solid CB and calling it "negotiations."  Just because you call it negotiation that doesn't make it one.  How peace negotiations actually work is that you one side presents terms that they want to see enacted and the other responds saying "I'm ok with terms 1-3, but term 4 is not ok because X and term 5 isn't ok because of Y."  Then after some discussions, you might compromise on giving up opposition for term 4 in exchange for the omission of term 5.  In an actual negotiation you have discussions and work issues out so that both sides leave unhappy but satisfied.  

    We're doing that, but not permitting various terms to be used against other terms.  How peace negotiations previously used to work (and may again) is as you describe. It is not how it will occur this time.  This time we'll negotiate over each term individually and then move onto the next to negotiate the next.

    30 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

    Also, no matter how much GOONS deny it, y'all have played a key role in changing the dynamic of this war.  Again, I like you as an alliance, but you have enforced NPO and BK by giving them the firepower they need to be free of war weariness and moderates in their coalition calling for rational actions.  You didn't make or were involved with the disgusting commentary made by your leadership, but nonetheless have allowed it to be carried out.  It's not exactly an easy position to be in, I get it.  I know y'all dispute the circumstances around your original entry into the war, but nonetheless that argument on GOONS doesn't fully function neither.

    It's not an argument. The alliance was not involved in those areas until well after the material leaked. If you truly have access to what you believe are the logs you can tell that very easily. Nothing has been carried out. No alliances have been forced to disband and player attrition doesn't look to have really increased much.

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept