Forgive me if I am wrong, but what I am seeing, as an outsider with no knowledge of the negotiations, is that some people said (on another thread) that they wouldn't surrender because the surrender terms are worse than surrendering itself.
Which is true? That they did not let you surrender? Or that the surrender terms were too harsh for you to accept. Or is it that they ignored you when you looked to negotiate the surrender terms?
I have heard reports of negotiation attempts being trolled, logs of such trolling would be very informative to the wider community, although I accept the reality that they may be private/deleted. Maybe I missed them, apologies if I did.
To be clear I am taking no sides, just looking for facts.
I think it is very clear that:
a) If Coalition B is not letting you surrender that is an act of very bad faith for this game. This will lead to the death of your sphere, either by quitting or disbandment.
b) If the terms are too harsh for your liking but they refuse to negotiate them down then that is also in bad faith for the game, i.e. people will want to quit more due to having an effectively dead nation, however, they are winning the war so it seems they should have more power at the negotiation table at the very least.
c) If they have laid out terms and you are attempting negotiation but cannot come to an agreement then that is a very unfortunate situation.
d) If they are trolling your negotiation attempts then it is similar to a)
Anyway, all the best.
Edit: Just read surrender terms in Kastor's post. Seems that an unfortunate scenario has occurred. I am free to be corrected.
Edit 2: Seems like the term withholding is due to non approval. Looks like bad faith to me but feel free to refute coalition B.