Sardonic

Coalition A: The Initiative Coalition B: Karma Makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.

Nah. Now that GOONS are here, the fun can really start.

Sun Tzu once said that the pinnacle of military deployment approaches the forumless.

Wow, great self-own of your coalition. Masterful.

If you criminalize downvotes, only criminals will have downvotes. I'm kidding. This seems like a reasonable step to curtail certain kinds of negativity but go off OP.

Congratulations on having your bad poster record expunged, Deulos. I hope this will rehabilitate your posting quality. It won't, but I can hope anyway.

I'm confident that peace would be reached in all cases. A few offhand comments do not prove a conspiracy. The debate about intent is just meaningless conjecture. You can no more prove that we wouldn't grant peace than I can prove we would, so let's just skip that conversation. The only path I can see is persuading those who can negotiate to get peace, and just go from there. You got a bad hand, I'm sorry, but your coalition has to play the hand they've been dealt.

They peace, then you receive terms, likely on an humorously quick basis so as to discredit the fears people have, then we can all put this business behind us.

Well, maybe formally request they peace out?

Take the ultimate leap of faith, tell your allies to peace out, and that you forgive them. Admittedly it's not the greatest option, but I'm not seeing any other for you.

You can't change the wind, but you can adjust your sails.

The pathway to peace exists. The fact that the implicit preconditions of the peace are disagreeable to Col A does not disqualify that fact. I have full faith that after the first wave of peace is reached, the second wave will be negotiated in due time. Col A chose this path, stating that the cost of surrender was too high, betting that their leverage would improve with time. They bet wrong. You can tell they bet wrong because so many are falling back on this forced disbandment nonsense, as their alliances crumble to ash. This is all based on accepting your framing of course. Picking the key pieces out of your framing however, I have to say I completely disagree with them: 1. That the winning coalition is obligated to even provide peace to the losing coalition 2. That any player or alliance of the game has any responsibility to make the game 'fun' for any other player or alliance 3. That the fact that any player has spent time or money on the game changes the moral worth of their experience 4. That anybody can even be 'forced' to disband in the first place. This is all academic anyway. In my view Col B has been more than generous.

It beats being starved for entertainment!

My pronouns are He/Him/(Singular They) thanks. Admittedly it may not be the most difficult feast, but it is one whose meat we still relish.

My apologies, I didn't realize you were in one of the fence sitter alliances.

And what has their tantrum earned them? They should just do what what was asked and be done with it, or don't, I guess. I'm not seeing how time is going to change any of the incentives involved here. Attempts of claiming forced disbandment are meaningless so long as there is a pathway to peace, no matter how thorny they see it. It's not the gotcha line so many of them seem to think it is. In my view they're doing this to themselves. I would have taken the deal months ago.

What was asked of them.

I am not my alliance's representative and this is not the venue for negotiations. Well that's just loser talk.

We wouldn't refuse peace were agreements reached. I think you misunderstand me. I'm not speaking as leadership of GOONS attempting to achieve an end for ourselves. No matter what happens, GOONS will win. I'm trying to give you good advice, because it seems patently obvious to me the way you've all been trying to go about this is naive, misguided and more importantly, not working at all. Not even talking about that aspect. You believe you are entitled to peace out all at once as a coalition. That there's some invisible righteous force willing to enforce that as a norm. I'm telling you that by all accounts that's not going to happen. It's unmaterial thinking. It is not even as if any alliance of your coalition has the strength to meaningfully assist and change the fate of any other alliance in your coalition. Were peace reached with one part, and the other part refused peace, you could just threaten re-enter anyway. I get your position. I really do. But doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing.

None of those concessions were reciprocated because they were not what was requested of you. I'll cop to being somewhat new here still but from what I can tell you and your coalition seem to be banking heavily on decorum and norms. In the hypernormalised year of our lord 2019, such things have somehow even less value than in years prior, so this seems like a really bad bet frankly.

Oh please. You have all of a few jokes and offhand comments worth of evidence for this claim. The beginning of the peace process has been put forth by Col B, it is not our problem if Col A refuses to take that first step. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that just because we want to negotiate with one of the parties we're at war with first before settling anything else, that disbandment is being enacted as a matter of policy for the rest. Were peace reached with said negotiable party, and Col B continued to refuse to grant terms, then you might have an argument.

Civility is liberal hogwash and I'm glad it's gone. Embrace materialism!

El Presidente, the people may be calling for an election next year!

Our specific group's history is far longer than that of this world, CN, Lunar Wars and others have all been highly educational. Beyond our group, colonies of the motherland are among the most skilled and numerous in the games that goons have collectively colonized. Take the mighty Imperium of EVE Online. They had their period trapped in a small backwater of space called syndicate, and grew to dominate the game. We may arguably be in our syndicate period now, but take note how we have grown in a mere 100 days, and consider the trajectory, particularly if we continue gaining members at our current rate. I have seen the future, and it is goons.