Etat

@Inst you sound like you might have an eating disorder. This sort of attitude to eating and weightloss is very unhealthy. FYI fasting causes the release of stress hormones that (off the top of my head) trigger fat storage, muscle protein breakdown, hypertension and many other undesirable things. Your weight loss is quite likely to be mostly water, muscle breakdown, and yes a little fat.

Goon's take heed. Where there is a power differential between two parties, an abuse of the power exists unless steps are taken to moderate it. By power differential I mean any situation where you have the capacity to influence a decision or have any sort of unequal impact upon another. This includes having someone (absurdly) desire to join your alliance, you're automatically in a position of influence over that person. When the poo hits the fan, standing back and saying 'I didn't make them do it your honor', or 'it was all just a bit of fun' are not defenses. I'd remind you that IRL people suicide over this online stuff, it is quite serious. Young people in particular need to be protected from themselves and those that would take advantage of them, and given the grotesque virtue signalling littered about the OWF by Goons in other threads I expected you to agree. Your actions and opinions as published in this thread unfortunately indicate your OOC persona's disturbingly resemble your IC ones (who'd ever have thought it). Goons grow up please, I can put up with your collective idiocy IC, but screwing with young people OOC (yes even if they're laughing you're still screwing with them) is not cool. If I was that boy's old man you'd be getting a message with a distinctly different tone.

Very nice. Truly a wonderfully singular viewpoint!!

Settle children

No one is contending that these people shouldn’t be welcome here, and aside completely from the notion that you’re talking about crossing the IC/OOC boundary, it is contended that Goons have: 1. Any sort of moral authority upon which to make public claims against this purported behaviour. 2. The capability and inclination to assess allegations of this sort of behaviour on its merits, and make a fair judgement. This is supported by point that the majority of Goons posts devolve into ‘no u’ nonsense the minute they’re challenged. You might claim, and argue finicky legalities that Goons making value judgements of others posts is not the same as censorship, I actually agree from a certain perspective! However it has massive scope to turn into a bullying tactic. Another type of behaviour not welcome in this community IMO, and a tactic that I wouldn’t knowingly facilitate. Anyway I think it much better that forum moderation and gameplay remain seperate. Even if you’re not talking about using a peace term to exact IC retribution for OOC activities, coalition B has stifled this game for long enough without putting in place terms that stifle the OWF for another 12 months as well. If you are crossing boundaries however, all forms of IRL criminal activity (as suggested) that finds its way into this community should be reported appropriately in the first instance, and left well alone in the second.

What you’re suggesting would put Goons on a level playing field, a situation they’ve apparently yet to experience, and one I’m sure they’re keen to avoid in the interests of sustaining their regularly self-advertised war fighting rep.

I agree! The up-vote and down-vote function in its current form seems to be purely a mechanism that promotes the value of public opinion over content. Certainly the value of public opinion is contestable, however I see it as a contributor to either a homogeneous, or a polarized and dysfunctional community. Neither of these situations are much fun IMO, and possibly hurts the recruitment and retention of players (read sources of funding). It seems to be the kind of thing that appeals to those prone to herd mentality, and generally empowers the mindless. It will likely be stifling the submission of ideas, and perhaps even social interaction, inherently giving support to the majority over the minority, and as such I think it is a negative feature on this forum. Anything that allows a positive contribution should be kept, such as the up-vote function. The absence of a down-vote function will not stop people from publicly being seen to disagree, but will require them to put in a bit of effort to do so, and encourage debate. Going a bit deeper, the up-vote / down-vote system also promotes a dichotomous approach to ideas. This IMO is unhealthy, and IRL we see it all the time i.e. those who hold a different view are evil (vs good). This often leads to ad hominem attacks, an overused and poisonous fallacy of argument, and absolutely unnecessary. Where IC persona's are a target of ad hominem attacks, so the risk of OOC attacks increase. As an aside, I do wonder how many people refrain from up-voting, or indeed engaging in discussion about any one of Noctis's posts purely because of the reputation inflicted upon him by down-voters alone.

I’m pretty sure you haven’t been paying attention to what’s been shown to have been said and done in the pursuit of peace by coalition A members.

Fixed for you!!

Don't know why you're asking me mate, I'm not Gov. Anyway, I saw this approach to peace as an opportunity for the 'leaders' stifles laughter of coalition B to grow as people......you fail ?

Two things are apparent in this war: 1) Coalition B cannot defeat coalition A in war through military force alone (otherwise the war would be over), 2) Coalition B cannot keep their coalition together over time. Therefore it stands to reason that it is far more likely Coalition B will implode before they defeat coalition A as things currently stand. There is no way, after all this war so far, that I would delete to miss that moment!!

? explains a lot I guess

I do hope you’re not on the Coalition B negotiation team! I think your strengths lie elsewhere

@Shadowthrone FYI, TKR Gov has not divulged any details of the proceedings, and I would not expect them to either. I’d be careful about suggesting that sort of thing if I were you, though baseless accusations and seeding false ideas seem to be your coalition’s MO. In itself your apparent history of this type of subterfuge supports my opinion. You are indeed correct that my opinion is not supported by evidence. Nor does my opinion amount to a truth claim. I did indeed spend some words highlighting this deficiency, among other things. But lack of evidence doesn’t mean untrue. And my opinion is what I believe to be true based on facts I know subjected to reason. You are in fact implying a truth claim on this forum by contradicting my opinion when not identifying it as unfounded beyond your own reason. Having said that, I do not think an open negotiation forum would be a good idea. There ought be respect of the requirement for confidentiality in these proceedings. As such I do not expect you to support your claims on this thread with evidence. It then follows that those who are involoved in the negotiations should not, out of common decency, parade around on forums asserting superior knowledge that can’t be shared. This behaviour won’t put out any fires, but may well start a few. Unless that’s what you’re seeking of course!

@Shadowthrone I represent my perception of things only. A perception that does however appear to coincide with many on this forum i.e. that the negotiations in earnest have yet to begin due to deliberate delays from Coalition B. I am happy to accept I may be wrong, however in the absence of publicly available information, I’m necessarily reduced to observing the people on this and other forums, and making judgement calls supported by my perception of their tendency to veracity, and if anything they say is compelling, consistent and evidence based. Unfortunately for you, Coalition B fails that test.

@Duke Arthur you are sort of correct when saying ‘Coalition A has won the moral high ground‘, except also kind of wrong in that such a notion suggests the right moral position is that which can be won by arms. This is not the case. This does not invalidate fighting in support of the right moral position, nor clearly does holding it guarantee success in a contest of arms. The delays we’re seeing are an abuse of power plain and simple.

Sure in individual wars. I was of course referring to the global war. As far as baseball debts are concerned, I will pay them when I will not be funding your planes and ships etc. If you're an a$%e, no tips are paid.......simple!! It is not for me to comment on any position that TKR, or any other coalition A alliances have on what constitutes a 'win'. I do try to make general comments about subjects that are in the public space about which I have an opinion. The discussion around stats and how that relates to 'winning' has been at the very least equally robust from coalition B, and I'm not of a mind to go down that path. Statistics will always support whatever argument you're making and thus leads nowhere in these sorts of debates. That does not necessarily mean they have no value however, and within your own alliance or personally you may indeed deny or accept the value of net damage, it matters little to me. I am merely providing a perspective on how some may see it. Have a great day ?

I find it curious that you've ignored the meaning of my post, within which was notably absent any statement suggesting net damages were an indicator of 'winning'. FYI I do not believe it possible that anyone can make a valid claim to having won in this war based on monetary cost alone, or for that matter any statement of sustained economic activity, as it totally ignores the multiple other reasons war was declared. After the many years PnW has been in existence with no generally accepted metric for 'winning' a war (beyond an admission of defeat), I'm not inclined to acknowledge that Goons have got if all figured out after a couple of months of existence, mostly spent parading around on forums trolling everyone else. The continuous crowing about your battle prowess against a 'bloodied and beaten...' opponent speaks more of your collective character than most of the egotistical nonsense you've explicitly articulated. All I can say at this point is that time will tell more of the strength of your alliance than your own self-advertised performance in this war.

I'm not so sure it's that dumb. IMO wars cost a lot of money, especially when you keep buying your way out of trouble. As an aside I wonder if you've had any dealings with loan sharks? Anyway, imo net damage, though not the whole picture, can provide a useful yard-stick to measure relative cost. For instance, of the 7000+ attacks made against TKR you've managed a whopping great $118 mil net damage! I do indeed recognize you as a high performing military alliance (for sure you are doing well against an opponent already outnumbered and militarily depleted), though how your exceptional abilities will translate to long term economic management remains to be seen. Love your work guys, and spare me your notoriously humble responses!!

I guess the point of my post was to bring yet another perspective to this situation regardless of what you hold to be true. And you're absolutely right about my focus on TKR, simply because tallying up the number of posts and attributing it to each aa/coalition would be an onerous task indeed........I've got better things to do with my time ? But without tallying it up, I would suggest that the percentages of comments attributable to people in a position to negotiate on behalf of their aa's/coalition A, and the rest may well be similar. At the heart of it is my view that your gnashing of teeth and frustrated comments in attempting to explain your surrender term is wholly self inflicted and avoidable. As I have demonstrated, it seems statistically viable that you have spent the vast majority of your time engaging with individuals who are not suitably informed or authorized enough to negotiate the future of this war. By simply engaging with our leaders in the appropriate forum, rather than taking it to the masses, clarity of position most likely would have been established and possibly even agreement (at least on some points). As leaders of large aa's, you expose yourselves by being triggered and reacting at each and every aggravating post from the masses. @Shadowthronebelieve it or not I was not really trying to deflect anything here, though I'm intrigued and a little flattered that you think I was ?

Here's a curious notion, there are 20 posts (2.3%) out of the 854 replies in this thread from TKR Gov/FA (3 people in fact) who may have anything to do with actual negotiations. IMO none of these could be construed as inflammatory. Unless representing in a clear manner a difference of opinion is considered inflammatory of course. The posts from other TKR members equals a grand total of 97 (11.3%). (I'll put in here a +/- 0.2% accuracy disclaimer - there was a lot of posts to sift through ?) I would argue the angst and knotted knickers we seem to be dealing with here, and associated Coalition B FA policy development, could be attributed to a large portion of the remaining 86.4% of posts. If negotiation is what coalition B wants, then it needs to happen elsewhere. Hearts, minds and common ground are not being won here.

These forums are here for everyone. I like to think that the actual, genuine political discussions are actually happening between our leaders in a much less cluttered and private space than this. Perhaps that is where an obstacle to peace lies, in the conflation of this public space with where the genuine negotiations are supposed to take place. It would be very foolish indeed to allow the unregulated statements (trolling), and inadequately informed opinions (you may include mine if you like) that populate this forum to unduly influence political discussions between our leaders. I do hope the negotiators are above that!!

@Shadowthrone and co,............Sigh..........but that you would talk to my leadership as much as you talk to me. Anyways, I feel that I may have led you astray, and thus am obliged to put this one to bed. You and your colleagues for the duration of this war have not, nor are capable of using the written or spoken word to change my mind. The crux of my issue with much of what you say has to do with the sheer quantity of logical fallacies that pervade your posts (trigger point identified). You do not need a decade of nation sim experience, nor personal knowledge to identify these. And despite what little value you may place in someone who has an alternate view to you, Cooper is spot on when he says our internally and externally published positions are entirely consistent. As for the concept of spin, well I'd suggest we move away from that notion as it is much like statistics, you can select and bend facts in support of any stance you choose (yet another trigger point), which is why common ground needs to be sought before we move on. The surrender option is clearly not common ground. Please do not misconstrue my choice to engage with you here with good manners and amicability as a lack of resolve or insight. I may be new to PnW and online forums, but not elsewhere. Be mindful that every time you post you expose yourself, which is why you will unlikely find any of my posts thrown up here quickly. Furthermore I rate loyalty and honor as highly desirable qualities, I do hope I embody these and would quite rightly (as Cooper has done so) take issue with those who called these into question without foundation. Nor will I be drawn into specifics or historical debate as I am wholly unqualified to comment in these arenas. I will however attempt to contribute to commentary on current general notions present in the public sphere. As a final note, and as has been highlighted, I am new, not involved in peace talks, hold no Government position, and as such represent myself and my opinion only! I hope to be here for a while yet, real life permitting ? Have a great day mate, I wish you well in all things

Without which I sift back through this whole thread (and others) to review my understanding of where we are at, my perception of the angle on the 'surrender first' term that you are taking now is not the angle that I perceived when it was first posited. The original angle imo was very much 'we have terms, you must surrender first to see them'. Now we seem to be getting our ear bent in a much softer fashion such as you've just posted. I have no reason to disbelieve/distrust you or Goons in general, for you are an amicable and friendly bunch ready to converse. But equally so I am not exactly what you'd call fully cognizant of the historical foundation and primary personalities that lead to this war, and as such necessarily am required to take some things on trust, such as historical motivations and breaches of trust that feed the apparent distrust between our coalitions. (Geez does that make sense to you?? It does to me......happy to clarify if necessary). Basically I read the tone, coherence and consistency of people's posts in OWF, and continual reflection hasn't displaced my trust in TKR gov, but has in others. Have a great day ?

I'm under no illusion that I might change the minds of Epi, Roq, yours or anyone else who is steadfast coalition B with my posts. I will however continue to post (hopefully thought provoking) points of view, that I feel may be of interest to others.