Etat

I think you'll find our point is embedded in your post. You require our surrender as a token of our intent to peace, but lets be clear about what this token implies, it is trust. If it is our trust you seek, then you must earn it. If you are not interested in our trust, then I suggest you reconsider your approach to seeking peace as this way hasn't and most probably won't work for you. You have of course made a rod for your own back with this one..... If our leadership do trust you, then there are presumably other reasons to refuse this precondition. In this case the argument can be made that despite your claim to victory, we have our own notion of victory (which I might add really isn't subject to your approval, but would ordinarily be up for discussion), or some other ideal ending to this war. For what it's worth, the only way to reach an agreement in this instance is to engage in a no bs chat with our leaders, which has yet to occur. That it hasn't occurred speaks more of your own motivations and/or the absence of our trust in you (I'll refer you to my first point). On a final note, this is not a shitpost trying to trigger your latent AVM to rupture, it is but my point of view (not necessarily that of my government before you rush off and start adjusting your secret terms), and hopefully for you an insight into how many of the TKR rank and file perceive you and your terms, and why you won't break us. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar my friend!! Be nice and make progress ?

You brought a certain amount of cheer to my day with your posts Herb, especially the first one!! Have a good one

@Herb@Madden8021 Bring it in for a big hug guys ? it's going to be ok!!!

Threats will get you nowhere my friend! Neither apparently does war or your silken tongue ?

It isn't collusion based on what I've read on this thread, but the word makes us sound bad right? For what it's worth, and despite some questionable forum posts, I think Goons are a marvelous antagonist in PnW What will the future bring?

I am who I choose to be big man I gather it might be a little hard to understand for some, but that's not my problem. Have a great day my friend!!

So I've quoted my original post so that we have no misunderstandings (the bane of many a negotiation). I am sorry if I've been unclear with my meaning. What I mean to say is that surrender as a precondition may be amenable to someone if their circumstance in their mind indicated imminent destruction with no hope. I did not mean to imply that is the perception held of coalition A by coalition A. To be absolutely clear, I personally think (as does my leadership as far as I know) that a precondition of surrender is unacceptable to us. As far as surrender being a part of a broader peace-deal (a package deal some may call it), where all the terms are upon the table to be discussed, then I see no problem with you taking the position that our surrender is non-negotiable. Please do not get confused between surrender as a precondition and surrender as a non-negotiable element of a (hopefully) future peace deal, as you seem to have done already. To paint a logical picture, a stated precondition of surrender to negotiate terms is necessarily non-negotiable, however a non-negotiable surrender is not necessarily a precondition to negotiate terms. I am of the opinion that the only purpose that you have for asking for surrender before releasing terms is because it serves your own purposes to our detriment. I grant you that the highly probably detriment I am predicting may be an essential non-issue for coalition A to service, but equally so it may be a deal breaker and we would end up right where we are now. So given the latter, we would also be in essence arming you with a point of difference i.e. that we backed out of a surrender, and given the vitriol on this forum and the apparent diplomatic impasse we find ourselves in, I'm sure you can understand that is not unreasonably the last thing we desire. I am certain there are other opinions out there, certainly more informed with historical context. However this is just me calling it how I see it, desiring peace and not wishing to get burdened with game destroying conditions to how I/we choose to play. I will fight insofar as I believe it the best option at any given time, and your position thus far sustains this belief. Have a great day

Demanding a surrender before releasing terms in this case is a powerplay, plain and simple. I for one would like to see at least a 50:50 war:peace ratio, and do feel it is time to thrash out a peace, but that won't start with coalition A just bending over and pumping up egos in coalition B over a term such as this. You talk about negotiations, well this first term is where it starts and you already seem incapable of negotiating. Doesn't bode well for further terms now does it? In my view it is fine for surrender to be non-negotiable, but only in the context of the broader peace deal, not as a pre-condition. People would likely only accept surrender as a pre-condition when they're literally facing imminent destruction with no hope whatsoever, however this is a separate debate that only people with suitably sized heads should engage in.........and this has apparently yet to occur.

I'd like to know what you think is working?

lol close I guess

I don't really get it. Coalition B want everyone else out of the sand-pit who won't play their games, who will you play with if you get your way?? It normally plays out like this: everyone else goes to another sand pit which is more fun without the big kids wrecking it for everyone else, then......hey ho, here come the big kids who are bored over in their sand pit all by themselves to do the same. Coalition B leaders, you are incredibly poor politicians, you apparently personalise everything and you do not seem to have the interests of everyone (including your own coalition's nations) as the driver for best possible outcomes. You exercise your power with great glee and with little consequence, and no desire for accountability. I don't need to be a long term player or involved in your farcical negotiations to see the feebleness and selfishness in your actions. Here's a top tip for coalition B leaders, the people who call the shots are ultimately responsible for the outcome! You have the hordes behind you to effect nearly any change you desire. If you want peace then make it happen. It is an unpleasant reality that power differentials exist and that one needs to account for them when conducting business with others in an ethical manner. For our part all I can say is that overwhelmed the underdog does not give up, but a good first step is to throw it a bone.

It's been said that "it's impossible to ignore the meaning attached to them (images) in modern culture when we're discussing the people and groups who use them." I've not quoted the poster using the tab because this is meant as a general post. My argument is that it is actually possible to ignore additional meanings that other people have attached to images and symbols, it is just about recognizing your own personal bias's and how they influence your view on the world. That is not to say that it's a bad thing to feel revulsion for the nazi's when looking at a swastika, but that does not make a person posting a swastika a nazi. To dig a little deeper into bias's, we all have them, and they are largely a product of the culture(s) within which we have existed, and not necessarily anything we have control over. By extension this mandates that we show respect to each-other up until the point where it is unequivocal that another holds a demeaning and wholly unacceptable position or belief, at which unpleasant point it becomes a mod issue and we can exercise our inherent right in life to then ignore that person(s). At no point ought we sacrifice the higher ground and devolve into name calling or ridicule when dealing with heavy issues such as this. We are a geographically and culturally spread out group of people on this forum, and associations that we as individuals, or even a large group of us may have with certain imagery are not necessarily globally held. Targeting a person or group of people based on such flimsy information that we garner from this forum, usually demonstrates an ignorance equal to that inherent in the groups we purportedly (and loudly) detest. We should all exercise great care before calling out someone as a nazi, racist, homophobe etc. because the implications can be dire for that person. As an aside I am not a believer in suppressing historical images for the purposes of protecting an individual's sensitivities. Firstly we can un-link a person's belief system (political or otherwise) from a posted image because the connections you make are subjective (note I did not say untrue), and secondly suppressing images and ideas will not eradicate the past and nor should we be trying to achieve this. I for one believe the holocaust should be fully remembered in as much detail as possible as an atrociously inhumane part of human history and will acknowledge that it was those specific people involved at the time who held those beliefs and carried out those detestable actions (probably not some dude in PnW Afrika Korps). And finally none of us should want to miss out on one of life's most important lessons, that the world is an insensitive and unfair place to live, however we must do our utmost at all times to make the best of it (by this I mean 'toughen up princess'). One last thing is that I do hope that people on here are above "cursory google searches", when informing their posts on such a potentially inflammatory issue, as you will find what you seek, but not usually illumination.

10 cases over the last couple of updates?? I assume there's more, but how much more? Even twice that number doesn't seem enough to ruin Alex's holiday over. Nor does it seem enough to warrant modifying a war-fighting strategy in the midst of a global war to eradicate the risk of it occurring since it apparently most likely won't anyway. Sure the risk of exploitation exists, however the certainty people have that this is going on is absurd, the targeting of suspect individuals unnecessary, and shows that there are a few life lessons still to be learnt among us.......namely that life isn't fair, move on. I do however agree it should be fixed, and that people have been self-reporting and conducting themselves fairly with their opponents shines quite a positive light on the Orbis community! Save your bile for RL people!

I don't know anything about scripts, and personally I think if someone clicks up 100mil/day then they must lead a very sad life. Anyways, as for my 2c worth, I reckon just leave baseball the way it is for most of the positive reasons already mentioned.

Pure Deuce Bigalow

Me too! A couple of commonly held ideas may help with your perspective however: that empty ships make the most noise, and that if you can't explain something clearly and succinctly then you probably don't know what you're talking about. Read into this how you will, generally speaking though it seems that the more people post on here the more those same people are caught out lying, and they're slowly finding themselves friendless as recent events indicate.

Fun with flags

A point lost on many

Art thou suggesting TCW is more virtuous than TKR?? Anyways I die when I delete!! Keep trying big man, God loves a trier

Pride is worth more than military units

We have digressed somewhat. That which is implied is largely subjective. The subjects who you reference will clearly have a different view to you based on their personal experience. In any case where do we stop? This thought progression generally devolves into a game of excuses and blame, a world in which truth is sought and fabricated, facts (I laugh) excluded from the majority (including me) who are directly affected by the outcome, and is rarely resolved. I'm not calling anyone out, but asking 'what is left for those (the majority) looking into the fog and seeking leadership?' One answer might be Loyalty, (and honor), and a forum with people hopefully trying to make things better for everyone. Hopefully this is it.

Perhaps. As I said I've very little experience in this. Ultimately though I would've thought that all the distrust and interpersonal issues that arise and result in these wars occur at the top of the pyramid. For my part, I've had some great convo's with members of many alliances and have little reason to distrust them as people. Of course we're all towing our AA's POV but that doesn't amount to distrust, respect if anything else. Loyalty is a good thing. If the head was chopped off all alliances, I think the game would move on, probably have a nice period of peace too.........not suggesting that as a solution of course.

The solution seems to be some form of limit on war duration and/or a pre-determined metric for winning the war. An official DoW should cover both these points (as well as a CB I hesitate to add) or be otherwise deemed invalid. Both would be ideal. Claiming the war is won despite ongoing war, and/or retrospective claims are not what I mean. 'Purging the weak' is basically a fast road to creating an oppositional community, bereft of new ideas (and new players) that will decline into a morass of bitterness that'll eventually migrate over to the next nation sim. (Just a view from a newbie with little nation sim experience of course) There is apparently more to a nation sim than just war, not that anyone new would know (I'm 110 days old and haven't yet known peace). I'm certain we can war later on over ongoing/unresolved issues (most of which I couldn't care less about)......indeed, an apparently wise person did say to me something along the lines that you can't lose if you don't delete your nation, so if true and from a certain perspective, does this render all war pointless?? As distasteful as the term 'agree to disagree' (temporarily of course) might be to some, it may be the only way we stimulate this game into a more desirable state.