Jump to content

DivineCoffeeBinge

Members
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

107 Excellent

About DivineCoffeeBinge

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Alliance Pip
    GOONS
  • Leader Name
    DivineCoffeeBinge
  • Nation Name
    Caffeinistan
  • Nation ID
    182726
  • Alliance Name
    GOONS

Recent Profile Visitors

115 profile views
  1. Yes but you see GOONS are involved, which means Noctis feels it is his solemn duty to Kramer in and explain as loudly and clearly as possible how much he disapproves I worry about his health
  2. And if you do, how quickly can you shed yourselves of it?
  3. Look in Methrage's world there is only one sin that matters, and that's being a goon Because he is seemingly unbalanced, you see
  4. "Barely a footnote," says Methrage I guess in order to not be a footnote you have to post 24/7 about things that happened in an entirely different game and how much you hate someone, that's how you achieve relevance (seriously, man, are you feeling okay, you need to find some healthier outlets)
  5. We can't stop here! This is browser game country!
  6. What I'm struggling to understand, personally - and I don't speak for John in this, or anyone else for that matter - is that even granting full and unconditional benefit of the doubt, by which I mean taking your words entirely at face value... did you honestly think the 'public approach' was going to help peace happen faster? Honestly? Like, okay, even if I accept the premise that 'Coalition A wants peace, but Coalition B is deliberately stalling peace talks in an attempt to roll some Coalition A members so hard that they either disband or quit playing,' which honestly under normal circumstances I would struggle with but we're playing the 'for sake of argument' game here, even if I accept that premise I struggle to understand how the conclusion that public accusations, leaks, and otherwise making a spectacle of the process on these forums in any way brings peace closer - which, recall, is at least in theory the goal of Coalition A. The whole thrust of my admittedly realpolitik-tinged discussions of peace and diplomacy and war and the like throughout this thread can be likened, essentially, to a street fight. One person, Coalition B in this example, is winning the fight and has the other person, Coalition A, knocked down and is roundly kicking him about the midsection, probably hoping for a kidney shot, right? So if Coalition A wants the fight to stop - if they want to stop being kicked - does calling the guy doing the kicking names make that more likely to happen, or less? I just... don't get it. This is the part I can't wrap my head around. Every representative of Coalition A I've read a forum message from repeats, again and again, that they want peace. But these actions don't make peace any easier to achieve. They don't make it more likely that Coalition B is going to offer better terms, or negotiate in a manner more to Coalition A's liking. All they do is make it more likely that Coalition B members are gonna say something roughly analogous to "hey screw you, pal, don't you call us liars" and resume the bombing campaigns. It poisons the well, to mix a metaphor. Now, if the announcements and leaks were instead saying "Coalition A has determined that peace is unobtainable at this time so we're burning all our diplomatic bridges in an attempt to point out to the rest of Orbis how vile and wicked we think Coalition B is, and we hope those entities not involved in the war might decide to weigh in," then sure, I could see that. That'd be a perfectly valid and reasonable approach. It could even work. But saying "guys we really want peace" while taking actions that make peace harder to achieve - even if peace was really hard to achieve in the first place, even if Coalition B's leadership is being exactly as intransigent as you suggest - just... boggles my mind. If you really and truly want peace, find something Coalition B wants more than it wants to keep kicking you. But this? These past few weeks of forum activity? That isn't gonna fit the bill. Peace isn't something you demand. It's something you buy, and I don't think your present course of action is lowering the price. I think it's doing precisely the opposite.
  7. No, I get cause and effect just fine; my contention is that Coalition A's actions demonstrate a desire for peace on their terms. And the side that isn't winning doesn't get to set terms. If you genuinely believe that Coalition B 'does not desire peace,' well, then it is then incumbent upon you to make them desire it, either by making them regret how the war is going or by making them an offer they can't refuse - by giving them something they desire even more than they desire to continue winning the war. And what I see on the forums? Ain't that. Now, again, I have to say that it appears to be doing wonders for the morale of Coalition A, as they can direct all of their emotional investment in the game towards a hatred of the 'vicious, insincere' Coalition B instead of taking their leadership to task for the way they've prosecuted the war, it absolutely achieves a positive goal for their side in that aspect, well done and good job. But it by no means brings anyone closer to peace, so let's not pretend otherwise.
  8. I'm not telling Coalition A to get peace; I don't, as I've said repeatedly, care that much one way or the other. I'm telling Coalition A 'your approach is boneheaded, you should consider adjusting it if peace is really what you want.' I was, admittedly, attempting to use more polished language than that but I guess it wasn't getting through.
  9. There's no contradiction. Coalition B isn't under any obligation to tell a price for peace, or even to set one. Coalition B is winning the war, and you yourself make a pretty compelling case that ending that war isn't in Coalition B's best interests, so given those two facts, why should Coalition B set any price? Why should they do much of anything beyond continuing to win the war? If Coalition A wants peace, they're the ones who are going to have to buy it. Clearly they haven't managed it so far, but rather than saying 'well I guess our offer wasn't high enough, let's try again' they've opted to start flitting about the forums making thread after thread about the wickedness and awfulness of Coalition B - which, I would bet cash money, is not going to make peace any more achievable for them. All that does is raise the price. Admittedly, that wasn't the real purpose in this stream of leaks and accusations, no matter how hard anyone tries to claim it was; the purpose is to try and shore up the morale of Coalition A members so they can blame Coalition B for the war's continued existence rather than the intransigence of their own leadership. Which is the smart move to make, of course, and it's clearly working pretty well considering the results, but it's not exactly getting anyone closer to peace. Which, as I've said, suits me fine.
  10. First, a disclaimer: I am not in a position of leadership or negotiation either for my alliance or the coalition. Having said that... Peace isn't something one is given. Peace is something one buys. I would argue that if Coalition A wants peace, they aren't offering enough to get Coalition B to give it to them. Now, we can argue all we want about whether the price Coalition B sets for peace is too high, but that doesn't change the fact that they're under no obligation to give peace. Why should they? They're winning. The onus is on Coalition A to convince Coalition B that peace would be in their best interests, directly or indirectly; if they're unable or unwilling to do that, Coalition B can just... keep winning. Now, maybe the offer hasn't been good enough. Maybe Coalition B wants something that Coalition A is yet unwilling to concede. I don't know (and if I'm being entirely honest, I don't entirely care; I've never known an Orbis at peace, the prospect holds no compelling attraction for me). But the fact remains that it's up to Coalition A to buy peace via some sort of concession - maybe it's the disbanding of an alliance, maybe it's an essay on the criminality of stealing fizzy lifting drinks, maybe it's enforced regular payments of filthy lucre, I don't know. But Peace isn't going to be a thing unless and until Coalition A buys peace - and thus far all I'm seeing from them is repeated plaintive cries that Coalition B won't just tell them the price outright but instead just keeps saying "nope, that ain't enough." Well, try harder. Either Coalition A buys peace, or the war keeps going. That's just... how it works. Both on Orbis and anywhere else, honestly.
  11. It's bound to be more effective than the current course of action. Or at the very least, more decisive.
  12. Okay so I guess you're not gonna try meditation like I recommended. How about the gym? Regular workouts have been shown to be beneficial to one's mood and mental health
  13. Oh, I'm not really surprised, I just hold out hope that one day maybe he'll actually take the advice I gave him as something other than a smartass remark 'Cause seriously this can't be a healthy response to anything that happens on a browsergame, dude should try finding some way to relax and de-stress
  14. "I was hoping for an actual discussion, why don't all the people I started off by being insulting towards seem to want to actually discuss things in good faith?" --A Very Smart Person Also refried beans are amazing and I love them despite the fact that they look suspiciously like dog food
  15. truly the dialectic that elevates us to a higher level
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.