Of Pickaxes and Hammers - A Tale of Surrender

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

1 hour ago, MRBOOTY said:

hey watch it buddy you dont want to be the target of my next diss track

That might be enough to get me to listen lmao. I love a good song dedicated to yours truly.

[Khai Jäger]

17 hours ago, Evernt said:

August 12th - The Coal Mines and The Socialist League officially admit defeat to KERCHTOGG**.
Following the admission of defeat the following terms have been accepted: 
-Complete and unconditional surrender
-No Further Terms at this time.

KETOG + Chaos rn ^

[Khai Jäger]

3 hours ago, Rosey Song said:

Is it desperation?  I see your side constantly upset and stressed, while we're over here having a good time.

Looks like you're having fun. Totally. Lmao

Every single one of your wars are like this. You attack once or not even attack at all. Seems like you have given up fighting all together.

[Daniel Storm]

Unconditional Surrender is what Japan and Germany did at the end of the Second World War, the term means that no conditions or guarantees are given to the surrendering party.

 

I sure hope that wasn't how you intended to use the term, because that's a pretty steep price for peace.

Edited August 12, 2019 by Dad

[Nokia Rokia]

6 hours ago, Rosey Song said:

Is it desperation?  I see your side constantly upset and stressed, while we're over here having a good time.

i mean our micros enjoyed talking smack and sh.tpost.ng memes and songs as well we left because the war is pointless and we enjoy the fact we are climbing towards top 50s with no one caring to the confederation bloc this is the perfect time for organizing 

1 hour ago, Dad said:

Unconditional Surrender is what Japan and Germany did at the end of the Second World War, the term means that no conditions or guarantees are given to the surrendering party.

 

I sure hope that wasn't how you intended to use the term, because that's a pretty steep price for peace.

i mean i simply wont pay a price they give sides that i was told no terms will be pressed

[Nokia Rokia]

21 hours ago, Tarroc said:

Not to be rude, but who the hell are The Coal Mines and The Socialist League? When did you join the war? Hell, when did these alliances even FORM?

we came to exist from boredom of being part of some overgrown micros if you did not put your snout so high and gave a damn you would have noticed on the 47th day of TCM we sat at 50th place and BK i`snt gonna hit us they arent as special as some extensions of kertchtog however i`m glad that i have met a lot of new people from this occasion some people i`ve met still drive my mind to thoughts of how did some you get so big and how many of others looked down on you now how many of those others look down on people just like others treated them i guess this annoying over confident stance the nerds of this game take is way they die so hard sometimes i was once like you all however i learned its so easy to put in your place and took such a lesson to heart now i refrain from insulting people just for leading small alliances cause sometimes those small alliances are better ran than big alliances as proven during TF and NR Vs Panth a top 10 alliance proven numerous times before this as well

[Sphinx]

8 hours ago, Khai Jäger said:

snip

That's what Rosey meant, they know they've obviously lost the war so he's having a good time in other games, just not this one. :V  

[Buorhann]

Just FYI - It was just a surrender post.  Nothing fancy.  No new battles, blah blah blah.  Stereotypical stuff.

[Pasky Darkfire]

9 hours ago, Sphinx said:

That's what Rosey meant, they know they've obviously lost the war so he's having a good time in other games, just not this one. :V  

If your alliance fought as well as you shit talked, You'd all still suck.

[George Clooney]

On 8/12/2019 at 12:28 AM, Nizam Adrienne said:

Pretty sure what was meant was that there would be no terms, not that anyone from our coalition would try and add terms after the fact.

"Complete and Unconditional Surrender" does have a nice ring to it though.  Pardon me while I scribble some notes for later.

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

On 8/12/2019 at 7:07 AM, Sketchy said:

You are only positive in net damage by dragging in other alliances who have left your coalition. Why deviate from the strategy now?

you are only net positive as you had no infra to lose if you take in to account the infra you had before surfs up you would have nothing to brag about.

Think Colo B should have one term, that all of KETOG remove their heads from each other's asses and understand you lost, you did not meet any goal, you have not won, and holding on to the stats like a badge only goes to show how short-sighted you really are. but hell keeps holding out you have already lost and that's clear to anyone who has half a brain.

Most from your side wants peace, sure they might what white peace but peace never the less and you claim your all having fun if that's true why send people over about peace, keep fighting and enjoy it. damn stop spamming the forums telling everyone how much fun your having as in truth it's coming across as your trying to convince your side of the fun more than the other side

Edited August 13, 2019 by Elijah Mikaelson

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Actually @Elijah Mikaelson even counting for infra damage of surfs up as well as the deleted infra by Coalition B, KERCHTOGG would sitll be positive by several tens of billions.

[alyster]

57 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

you are only net positive as you had no infra to lose if you take in to account the infra you had before surfs up you would have nothing to brag about.

Add all of our pre war infra together and you will not get that ammount. That story about Surf's Up causing our positive net damage is a myth they tell you to ease your mind. 

NPO sold its' infra. Still negative net damage ?‍♂️

Edited August 13, 2019 by alyster

[durmij]

5 hours ago, alyster said:

Add all of our pre war infra together and you will not get that ammount. That story about Surf's Up causing our positive net damage is a myth they tell you to ease your mind. 

NPO sold its' infra. Still negative net damage ?‍♂️

Forget it man. I spent a long ass time trying to get them to understand that lost income from bad econ could outpace damages easily. It was fruitless. This will be fruitless too. Math is nothing in the face of entrenched attitudes.

[Roquentin]

7 hours ago, alyster said:

Add all of our pre war infra together and you will not get that ammount. That story about Surf's Up causing our positive net damage is a myth they tell you to ease your mind. 

NPO sold its' infra. Still negative net damage ?‍♂️

I don't really care what you think because you're toxic and Adrienne has seen it fit it to endorse and enable your antics , but we didn't sell infra initially for the most part. It was mostly after the initial decs and you can still check most of our damage is from infra loss than other things  We can check our stats.

If I attack someone with 1200 infra while having 800 infra, it's still negative net damage anyway for them. You seem to imply we care about net damage. We only care about the damage we do in terms of eliminating the military capacity of your side. You guys have been into statpadding sine the last war, but it's never been my concern as long as you lose your infra either way. 

 

2 hours ago, durmij said:

Forget it man. I spent a long ass time trying to get them to understand that lost income from bad econ could outpace damages easily. It was fruitless. This will be fruitless too. Math is nothing in the face of entrenched attitudes.

You didn't spend any time. You just made condescending comments like the smug !@#$ you are. You literally proposed logistically impossible solutions knowing that it was the case while sucking up to Buorhann and there were never any private convos about it. You just did it as a taunt towards an alliance you didn't like. Zero good faith and that is the definition of durmij.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Roquentin

[alyster]

21 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I don't really care what you think because you're toxic and Adrienne has seen it fit it to endorse and enable your antics

You mean her putting up the ad I made? Glad it got under your skin. 

Probably should have posted to the other topic, but just to say to you. Would have much more respect for you if you'd man up and say with realpolitik reasons why you attacked TKR. Everyone likes to be on the winning side. I understand you fully. But as long as you try to masquerade it, I will pick on it.  

21 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

but we didn't sell infra initially for the most part. It was mostly after the initial decs and you can still check most of our damage is from infra loss than other things  We can check our stats.

Granted your infra loss ratio is higher than ours, which however doesn't mean you didn't sell infra to make the loss smaller. I mean I'm not on the bandwagon to blame you for it. By selling you got some cash back that otherwise you would have lost. However if some people say damage gap is due to Surf's Up infra damage, then I will point out infra sales as well. 

Oh btw, your infra loss ratio is also higher because Coalition B has more people. We can just pick up fresh targets with high infra more often while ours has burnt away some time ago. 

[Roquentin]

2 minutes ago, alyster said:

You mean her putting up the ad I made? Glad it got under your skin. 

I mean, yeah, exactly. Since it literally implies everything was imagined so you know the implications, right? I was probably too harsh with the comment. At least Adrienne has finally come around to some extent and understood that there was a genuine concern rather than it just being me making it up and her being a convenient target.

2 minutes ago, alyster said:

Probably should have posted to the other topic, but just to say to you. Would have much more respect for you if you'd man up and say with realpolitik reasons why you attacked TKR. Everyone likes to be on the winning side. I understand you fully. But as long as you try to masquerade it, I will pick on it.  

It wasn't about being on the winning side.  It wasn't really the path of least resistance. Beating up people who have less cohesion and experience organizationally as a coalition would have been the easier path especially with the odds we'd have given them.  By entering I knew it would virtually give tons of PR ammo to everyone else and it would make me into the worst person in the world in the eyes of the other side. It was something I had to take onboard. We saw the potential to have an impact on the war so we wouldn't have to fight alone after if we wanted to maintain independence.

 

[Adrienne]

40 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

At least Adrienne has finally come around to some extent and understood that there was a genuine concern rather than it just being me making it up and her being a convenient target.

I understand the path that led you there but I still disagree with what you've said and your actions and believe that concern to be heavily misplaced. Regardless, we're at an impasse since, despite all the evidence I've shown to the contrary, you still see fit to brand me a liar and think I had it in for you.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Nizam Adrienne

[Roquentin]

1 minute ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

I understand the path that led you there but I still believe that concern to be heavily misplaced. Regardless, we're at an impasse since, despite all the evidence I've shown to the contrary, you still see fit to brand me a liar and think I had it in for you.

I don't know if it's had it in as a personal thing, but if you felt someone had it in for you or simply saw them as a threat and wanted to kill off your minisphere and minispheres altogether, then I would see you acting on it. I mainly haven't replied to you in the other topic since it just gets into the whole someone will be said to have lied thing and I have too many people to reply to in the topic. 

[Adrienne]

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

I don't know if it's had it in as a personal thing, but if you felt someone had it in for you or simply saw them as a threat and wanted to kill off your minisphere and minispheres altogether, then I would see you acting on it. I mainly haven't replied to you in the other topic since it just gets into the whole someone will be said to have lied thing and I have too many people to reply to in the topic. 

The thing is though is that this is a general pattern of behavior I've seen come from you guys and it doesn't matter what sphere we're in or what we do - you're convinced TKR is out to get NPO. I don't know what I can do to convince you at this point that we're not. We are not driven by a grudge in our FA dealings. I'm not going to pretend there aren't anti-NPO sentiments with certain parts of our alliance but let's be real. After Knightfall especially, there are anti-just-about-any-alliance sentiments within TKR. Hell, I yelled at CoS for months over last war, all throughout it to be honest, but we worked it out in the end. Everyone here has seen the leaks that showed some of my members being upset over allying SK but they got used to the idea and Squeegee laughed it off. We allied both of them anyways and it's worked out. We've shown we can work with people we have issues with and we could have arrived at that point with you if you stopped trying to vilify us at every turn.

After our talks finished last Feb/March, during this whole time when that shadow gov narrative would have been starting up, we even sat out a global against you. I know you recognized that as a gesture then, or at least some of your membership did. We had people internally pushing for us to enter that conflict. We said no and we stuck to it. Your response, on the other hand, was to take the first chance you got to strike at us. Every war we've had against you, you've hit us first. I would love the chance to move on and be able to do something with this new sphere without feeling like I continually have to worry that you're not going to let bygones be bygones.

[Shadowthrone]

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

I mean, yeah, exactly. Since it literally implies everything was imagined so you know the implications, right?

Hey they just enjoy enabling gaslighting behaviour + calling folks subhuman for fun. Not at all toxic! 

5 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

The thing is though is that this is a general pattern of behavior I've seen come from you guys and it doesn't matter what sphere we're in or what we do - you're convinced TKR is out to get NPO. I don't know what I can do to convince you at this point that we're not. We are not driven by a grudge in our FA dealings.

I guess those sentences pretty much outlay the huge difference we have in how we see one another. You believe we're hitting you off a grudge, we really aren't. It was a calculated decision based of the threats. The fact that you spend hours trying to push that narrative, is enough for us to know where you stand, that NPO is some crazy, grudge holding alliance. I mean your entire push has been that, and it's nonsense but it signifies the gulf between how we see things. If NPO acts vs TKR its a grudge, if TKR plans to hit the NPO, it definitely has nothing to do with the past. Got it. 

8 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

After our talks finished last Feb/March, during this whole time when that shadow gov narrative would have been starting up, we even sat out a global against you. I know you recognized that as a gesture then, or at least some of your membership did. We had people internally pushing for us to enter that conflict. We said no and we stuck to it. Your response, on the other hand, was to take the first chance you got to strike at us. Every war we've had against you, you've hit us first.

We'll continue to preempt threats given the mechanical advantages of the same. If there is any cognizable intelligence on valid attacks on the NPO, we've always stated we'd hit first. Also sitting out of AC, how nice of y'all. If you're comparing AC's situation to this, than I'm more than glad to expand the war, given how historically limited wars/limited fronts have always been used as a reason further down the road, and has never ended well.

At the end of the day, we hit first, you aren't special. That's our SOP. As long as you see our actions as based off grudges, we really have no common starting point. We don't have it in for you, but it seems you keep popping up as a threat with plans to roll us, and here we are. Might be best to find new targets to hit and you won't have us preempting you  

[Adrienne]

26 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I guess those sentences pretty much outlay the huge difference we have in how we see one another. You believe we're hitting you off a grudge, we really aren't. It was a calculated decision based of the threats. The fact that you spend hours trying to push that narrative, is enough for us to know where you stand, that NPO is some crazy, grudge holding alliance. I mean your entire push has been that, and it's nonsense but it signifies the gulf between how we see things. If NPO acts vs TKR its a grudge, if TKR plans to hit the NPO, it definitely has nothing to do with the past. Got it. 

We'll continue to preempt threats given the mechanical advantages of the same. If there is any cognizable intelligence on valid attacks on the NPO, we've always stated we'd hit first. Also sitting out of AC, how nice of y'all. If you're comparing AC's situation to this, than I'm more than glad to expand the war, given how historically limited wars/limited fronts have always been used as a reason further down the road, and has never ended well.

At the end of the day, we hit first, you aren't special. That's our SOP. As long as you see our actions as based off grudges, we really have no common starting point. We don't have it in for you, but it seems you keep popping up as a threat with plans to roll us, and here we are. Might be best to find new targets to hit and you won't have us preempting you  

I understand the idea I'm being genuine here might be an odd concept but I'm not trying to push a narrative here and I don't have anything to hide. To clarify though, I don't believe you're hitting off a grudge necessarily. I think you view us as a threat because you believe we're operating off old grudges. You guys have said and acted in such a way that the only reasonable conclusion I've been able to draw through all our interactions is that you're operating off a belief that our only goal is to hit you. If you want to take that as anything other than how I meant it, feel free. I'm not going to dignify the rest of your response by continuing to respond in good faith though since you're clearly not willing to engage back with it.

@Roquentin, I was very serious about my offer to hit me up. I don't know if we'll get anywhere because it's pretty clear there's a deep divide between our positions but if you feel like giving it a shot, I will too.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Nizam Adrienne

[Shadowthrone]

16 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

I understand the idea I'm being genuine here might be an odd concept but I'm not trying to push a narrative here and I don't have anything to hide. To clarify though, I don't believe you're hitting off a grudge necessarily. I think you view us as a threat because you believe we're operating off old grudges. You guys have said and acted in such a way that the only reasonable conclusion I've been able to draw through all our interactions is that you're operating off a belief that our only goal is to hit you. If you want to take that as anything other than how I meant it, feel free. I'm not going to dignify the rest of your response by continuing to respond in good faith though since you're clearly not willing to engage back with it.

If the starting point of your response is, "I'm genuine, but you're hitting me because of grudges,"then that is not good faith. I do believe that your goal this war, was to hit us in separate parts in the sense that hit BKsphere enough to have NSO free further down the path to knock out as well. That was the information we acted upon. If you're asking us to trust you that would not be the case, as it was before our entry, we said nah. Not because of grudges, or emotions, but because we'd prefer to not having to keep our entire alliance's security in the hands of your word tbh. It's a decision based of that. It was trust you, or trust the information that we have, and we went with the latter. Easy enough to understand why we'd trust the latter's word over yours. So presuming our motivation to hit you is based off some grudge, in and of itself showcases the difference on how we view things. You still believe we operate on grudges, or we have it in for you/TKR based off grudges. We don't. 

Also yes pointing out you're not special and our SOP has always been preemption is somehow not good faith! Got it  

 

[CuppyCakeYums]

Congrats on being in your first global whether you wanted to or not . Hope the rebuild is swift!

 

[Adrienne]

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

If the starting point of your response is, "I'm genuine, but you're hitting me because of grudges,"then that is not good faith. I do believe that your goal this war, was to hit us in separate parts in the sense that hit BKsphere enough to have NSO free further down the path to knock out as well. That was the information we acted upon. If you're asking us to trust you that would not be the case, as it was before our entry, we said nah. Not because of grudges, or emotions, but because we'd prefer to not having to keep our entire alliance's security in the hands of your word tbh. It's a decision based of that. It was trust you, or trust the information that we have, and we went with the latter. Easy enough to understand why we'd trust the latter's word over yours. So presuming our motivation to hit you is based off some grudge, in and of itself showcases the difference on how we view things. You still believe we operate on grudges, or we have it in for you/TKR based off grudges. We don't. 

Also yes pointing out you're not special and our SOP has always been preemption is somehow not good faith! Got it  

 

If the starting point of your response is to bring up an ad from six months that stood up for less than eight hours because we decided to pull it, apologized to you guys for it personally and explained the situation, and you're continuing to use that to vilify us by declaring us toxic, then entire post already started from a lack of good faith. I'll respond back to you seriously when you decide to engage seriously. Until then, I'd prefer not to waste my time.

Apologies for hijacking your thread, Nokia. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Nizam Adrienne