Smith

This is exactly part of the problem. If you are in a situation where you cannot reliably know who is on the other side of the screen you can't really argue for informed consent when you're not certain one party is actually able to reliably make that decision. The obvious solution then is just not do the action that might result in asking a child to expose their face to a bunch of adults. I like many of GOONS players and some of them I consider friends, but this behavior is gross to me. I said this in DMs to a person in GOONS gov earlier but I'm not just going to sit back and pretend this is okay. If you are in a situation where you have to say the words "we aren't going to ask people to eat pet food anymore" maybe you should realize you fricked up somewhere along the way.

That you are focusing on a 11 year old ignoring the sign up policy to a text-based browser game instead of fully grown adults asking for that 11 year old child to expose their face is very concerning to me.

It's not okay for people to bully children because they played a video game before they should, what is wrong with you?

I skimmed through this thread so maybe I missed this being addressed? But right now I just see attempts to discredit the people upset with OOC bullying rather than addressing the bullying itself. As somebody who has also frequently spoken up against the racism, sexism, etc in this game long before GOONS got here this is also something that is important to be addressed and should not just be swept under the rug because KT/TGH have done terrible things too Incorrect. I am pointing out the narrative that it's only Nazi sympathizers who do not like this as demonstrably false.

Actually your own ally called mercy board's "essentially abhorrent" and said that "when we were in a position to do something about it in Orbis, we did" following up with "I do hope it doesn't return in any shape or form in PnW again" Keep in mind this was just referring to MS Paint drawings and not requiring people to eat fish food. The narrative that it's just Nazis upset about trying to bullying people into this is invalid

As was pointed out earlier your side had no problem arguing and blaming our side for the delay in talks earlier. It's only now that actual evidence has been displayed that you don't want to particpate in a "circlejerk".

It's funny that people like @Shadowthrone always try to make a big deal out of what the #2 of an alliance said meanwhile he is the #2 of NPO and has this in his signature: Apparently it only counts if it's our side doing it

The "both sides are bad" argument doesn't work when one side is doing their best to negotiate and are providing proof that the other side is intentionally stalling. I appreciate you being honest that your side does not want peace though.

Your coalition leadership has previously had no problem discussing who was stalling the negotiations and blaming us for it. This has happened in multiple threads throughout the OWF. Here is such an example: It is only now that those claims have been proven to be false that your coalition has stopped posting and started complaining about us providing evidence for your side's lies and gaslighting.

No worries! Feel free to forward the thread to your leadership!

NPO sure is quick to respond to things that can change the topic but not the actual content of Partisan's thread. Will be 48 hours without a real response soon

It really says a lot that this thread has been up for more than 24 hours and so far nobody is disputing the proof of Coalition B's stalling, instead they are only making threats because the evidence was provided.

Something I noticed in those logs is while individuals such as Skae were appointed to represent Coalition B in talks they are not actually in channels where the decision making process is made. Which makes these "representatives" essentially only a middleman/messenger for the people who make the actual decisions. This another example of something that provides no benefit but drags the negotiation process out. This is especially concerning because as can be seen in multiple posts by Coalition B leadership whenever those leaders are asked a question they defer to the representatives who they know full well are out of the loop. To quote a certain hamster "This is very problematic".

Well this thread has already got a more open response from Coalition B on their intent.

> require your opponents to do something illegal > call the cops on them > they are arrested and you win by default This is the real 4D chss

Should have been obvious these logs were fake when somebody said they like TKR, GOONS isn't that dumb

It's Lordship pride week so we are calling it a "micro" sphere

My understanding is we are now allies

Yes and we provide evidence of our claims because we are confident in them. But I can't while you continue to artificially lengthen the process with the goal of making people quit! ?Fa ? ir enough ?

We certainly are doing our best with the artificially lengthy framwork you have provided us. But as you know, we aren't perfect. I am sorry if dogpiling us was inconvenient for you, truly I am. When people are dogpiled they should certainly think about whether their aggressor is getting annoyed or not. I'm also sorry you don't feel we are transparent. Oh by the way, in the issue of transparency can you post those logs you used as your CB for this war? Also you forgot to use ?????

?How we approach the talks ? doesn't matter much when you artificially lengthen the process. ?It is difficult for me to address a lot of the complaints you make about TKR because while I have played this game for ?3 years they are often things that happened before I joined PnW. ? It's interesting that you consider dogpiling an alliance for months as us hurting you though. ?

The negotiations are intentionally being lengthen by your process. Here are some bullet points that might help you understand how. They might look familiar: "So you're admitting that t$/$yndispere never did negotiations your way? Specifically: - we never made our opponents wait multiple weeks before presenting terms after they offered their surrender. - we never revealed terms one at a time, forcing opposition to accept term 1 before being allowed to see term 2 (and so on). - we never force-split peace negotiations into two servers. The times we did have split negotiations, we gave opposition the choice between leaving the war seperately, or negotiating together. It was their choice, not our demand. Procedurally, there are very few if any similarities between the way peace talks were historically conducted and your "super cool new structured way". Can you kindly stop making blatantly false claims?" Just change "we never" to "IQ is currently" Wow you were able to do both lines in one section! Also interesting to hear that dogpiling TKR in KnightFall hurt NPO? If I wanted Sphinx's opinion I'd just wait for him to leak it I have no doubt. Hopefully it doesn't hurt you like KF apparently did?

You are being blamed for creating a peace system that is intentionally slow with the goal to drive people out of the game. Also while I know you are Keshavbot and must fulfill line 1. blame TKR and line 2. passive aggressive emoji, TKR is not the only alliance in our coalition. I have no doubt you are happy to "drag out" the war because that's obviously your real goal

Gosh darn it Hodor, now he is going to ignore both Partisan AND I and only respond to you

I have said the actions you have taken on multiple occasions now. The post from Partisan you are ignoring even lists some of them in bullet point. Maybe you missed that so I'll post it for you again. Here are some of the intentional actions: "So you're admitting that t$/$yndispere never did negotiations your way? Specifically: - we never made our opponents wait multiple weeks before presenting terms after they offered their surrender. - we never revealed terms one at a time, forcing opposition to accept term 1 before being allowed to see term 2 (and so on). - we never force-split peace negotiations into two servers. The times we did have split negotiations, we gave opposition the choice between leaving the war seperately, or negotiating together. It was their choice, not our demand. Procedurally, there are very few if any similarities between the way peace talks were historically conducted and your "super cool new structured way". Can you kindly stop making blatantly false claims?" Just change "we never" to "IQ is currently"