For @Cooper_ @Akuryo @Mad Max @Sir Scarfalot
How about it. This is fundamentally wrong. You do not need trust to talk to someone you have differences with.
Let's take a simple example. Grumpy despises and has no trust for Guardian. Assume Grumpy hit Guardian in a 1v1 war. Guardian ends up completely wiping the floor with Grumpy to the point that they can't even fight back, You are staying that at that point it's a matter of trust to come to the table and discuss peace. This is wrong. If one side is unwilling to come to the other for talks it would be a matter of pride, not trust. You do not need to trust them to have civil discussion.
Another example. Let's say my girlfriend does something to completely lose my trust. If she wants to make amends, is that going to stop her from coming to me for a civil discussion? If I want to make it right, is that going to stop me from "hashing out my terms." Trust actually has nothing to do with having civil discussion when you are required to have it.
You actively work with someone at work and you don't trust him. Are you just not going to talk to him despite having to? As players of this game we have to talk, whether each side likes each other or not. Not having trust is a mere excuse to avoid the reality in-front of you in this case.
Yes, this is merely a false perception. Where has it stemmed from in the first place? I personally would like to know.
Trust has nothing to do with a difference of beliefs, as those are mere opinions. What is clear to everyone is that it's the difference of opinions that has postponed peace talks until now. Just as Scarf said, Memesphere has their beliefs as KERCHTOGG has their own.
What's even more funny is that something commonly and openly implied is this, "One side will give in eventually." Now when that is openly implied or said, it becomes a competition to see who will outlast who. That in itself extends the conflict by a lot, not to mention discourages talks because it gives a semblance of weakness at that point/in that mentality.
I'm not calling conversations between alliances naive. What I'm calling naive is blaming the lack of communication on trust. It's like saying you won't talk to your mother because you don't trust her, but you need to talk to her because she's the one who has been and still is taking care of you. There is nothing that has declared one side or the other can't be trusted for the fulfillment of peace. All the precedents of the past clearly say that if peace was achieved and discussed it would be upheld in a proper manner.