[Peace] In our time

[Waldo]

I'm the best burden they've ever had 

[hope]

congrats on peace OWR/Carthago, you guys fought well! good luck on your rebuild and future endeavors :]

[Sketchy]

2 hours ago, Sphinx said:

If you call being beaten into a bloody pulp, "winning" then you're at the front of the pack mate.

You do realise the irony in that statement right?

Who am I kidding of course you don't lmfao.

Nothing says confident in victory like bullying people into staying in the war and reminding everyone "WE ERR WENNING GAIS" when people peace out lmfao.

Congrats on peace OP.

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

Congrats on peace

Also side note, no one will hit these alliances, Carth is allied to T$ and OWR allied to Polar, BK/tCW do not have the balls, they only hit smaller alliances who wont have protection.

[Roq]

7 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

Congrats on peace

Also side note, no one will hit these alliances, Carth is allied to T$ and OWR allied to Polar, BK/tCW do not have the balls, they only hit smaller alliances who wont have protection.

Ultra protection

(They both are with T$)

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

Just now, CitrusK said:

Ultra protection

(They both are with T$)

just saw that, so yeah BK wont do anything, they are slowly losing allies due to how they are treating people.

[Roquentin]

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

You do realise the irony in that statement right?

Who am I kidding of course you don't lmfao.

Nothing says confident in victory like bullying people into staying in the war and reminding everyone "WE ERR WENNING GAIS" when people peace out lmfao.

Congrats on peace OP.

There's an issue with giving a morale boost to an opposing coalition whose most vocal leader claims to be winning/going to win and says stuff like "you'll see" any slightest bit of reason for them not to come to the table and accept the surrender/meme terms is problematic. Given it's possible this was known by Coalition A in advance, it only serves to prolong the war.

If people on your side peaced out on the same basis, then you would be down to very few diehards as most of the alliances on your side have had it worse than the ones who have peaced out on our side.

[Sketchy]

Just now, Roquentin said:

There's an issue with giving a morale boost to an opposing coalition whose most vocal leader claims to be winning/going to win and says stuff like "you'll see" any slightest bit of reason for them not to come to the table and accept the surrender/meme terms is problematic. Given it's possible this was known by Coalition A in advance, it only serves to prolong the war.

If people on your side peaced out on the same basis, then you would be down to very few diehards as most of the alliances on your side have had it worse than the ones who have peaced out on our side.

Are you talking about the people peacing out being the issue?

I'd argue if you think its necessary to go nuclear on your allies (or allies allies) who've fought for 3 months alongside you just to avoid a morale boost on your enemies, then you are just re-enforcing my point about your confidence in said "victory". 

Not sure what the rest of your post is about. Yes, if people peaced out on our side we'd be down to a few diehards, they haven't yet? I'm not sure what your trying to get at here tbh. People on our side are free to do whatever they want. No one stopped North Point or Ming from peacing out nor complained about it as far as I'm aware.

Anyway I will be happy to personally come to the table accept your surrender and present you with my meme terms whenever you like Roq. 

[Cooper_]

8 hours ago, Epi said:

schmucks

As a New Yorker, I approve of the Yiddish.

[Sisyphus]

Hard fought and well deserved. 

[Hassan]

Another two bite the dust.

[Buorhann]

What are you even talking about @Roquentin?  Are you going with "What ifs" ?

[Kurdanak]

Happy rebuilding! I had a lot of fun fighting Carthago in particular, see you around.

[Pasky Darkfire]

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

If people on your side peaced out on the same basis, then you would be down to very few diehards as most of the alliances on your side have had it worse than the ones who have peaced out on our side

So what you're saying here... is that our entire side is more diehard than yours? I'm inclined to agree. Don't need to keep a gun to my head to keep me giving/taken a beating. That's what Sadomasochism does to ya.

 

3 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Are you going with "What ifs" ?

No, Buor. He's jst kidding... Unless?

[RyanK]

Disband nubs

[Raphael]

Congratulations on peace guys.

[Roquentin]

11 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Are you talking about the people peacing out being the issue?

I'd argue if you think its necessary to go nuclear on your allies (or allies allies) who've fought for 3 months alongside you just to avoid a morale boost on your enemies, then you are just re-enforcing my point about your confidence in said "victory". 

Not sure what the rest of your post is about. Yes, if people peaced out on our side we'd be down to a few diehards, they haven't yet? I'm not sure what your trying to get at here tbh. People on our side are free to do whatever they want. No one stopped North Point or Ming from peacing out nor complained about it as far as I'm aware.

Anyway I will be happy to personally come to the table accept your surrender and present you with my meme terms whenever you like Roq. 

I am. 

It's not. There's never been a time where any coalition just said "hey guys you can peace out unilaterally." It's a ridiculous premise.

I'm trying to get at the fact that the condition of the alliances on your side has been significantly worse than the condition of the alliances on our side that have peaced out. It looks ridiculous to peace out because of fatigue when the other side has been at war for significantly longer and drastically more intense combat. The strategy of holding out that your side is implementing is based on people being less willing to fight than you are.

North Point and Ming are barely affiliated and their ally is one of the only major alliances on the KERCHTOGG side to be serious about peacing. The fact that Rose itself doesn't want to peace out with KETOG/Chaos when they could have means it's easy for them to give the green light to their allies who had no obligation to participate.

The rest is about literally your own alliance leader saying you will win. The level of arrogance exhibited in this topic just shows the point. The fact that he takes every peripheral dropping out as a big victory and a rationale for holding out just means this will take longer to get to its conclusion. It's ultimately immaterial to the actual war as most of the alliances dropping out aren't exactly the ones engaging the most.

 

 

So yeah. My stance is clear. If anything, the people wanting peace dropping out makes it easier to sustain the war until we're satisfied. I'm not going to respond further because the obtuse trolling that is a hallmark of your side is coming out when this was literally said:

 

15 hours ago, Buorhann said:

You’ll see.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Roquentin

[Roq]

5 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

That's what Sadomasochism does to ya.

I think we'll get along very well.

[Toph]

Roq it's pretty bold of you to come on here and complain that our side is the reason we're not at peace when your literal 2IC goes around to every thread on the OWF and says stuff like "we will only accept surrender" etc. Oh and you also say that.

You're not concerned with the war ending so stop your fake outrage. If you wanted peace, we would've had it by now. But no, you're hell-bent on getting us to surrender and are dictating the terms at the expense of all of your allies.

Way to be the problem and then project it onto everyone else.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Toph

[Kevanovia]

It’s not even wanting the surrender that’s the issue, it’s the fact that you continue to hide your terms because you want the war to go on. In order to present your terms, you want us first to surrender. How ridiculous is that?

Scenario:

Side 1: wE WiLl oNLy tElL yOu TeRmS iF yOu SuRrEnDeR

Side 2: Okay, in order to stop the war since it’s dragging on for so long - we surrender.

Side 1: VICTORY!! YOU OWE US 300 BILLION IN REPS! Also, change your names to ‘Side 1’s !@#$’ .

Side 2: No. We’re not doing that. 

Side 1: Pfft. You have already lost, you said so yourself. ‘Hey OWF, they surrendered! They lost! They said so themselves! Next round we can impose even harsher terms hurrdurr.’

You know full well that we (Coalition A) are in a much better place then what you (Coalition B ) are presenting, and this war is much closer than the current projection that’s put out. This is in all likelihood why you are threatening alliances in your coalition in order to keep them there. 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Kevanovia

[Sketchy]

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

I'm trying to get at the fact that the condition of the alliances on your side has been significantly worse than the condition of the alliances on our side that have peaced out. It looks ridiculous to peace out because of fatigue when the other side has been at war for significantly longer and drastically more intense combat. The strategy of holding out that your side is implementing is based on people being less willing to fight than you are.

How is any of that relevant to anything I said.  If you want to yap about irrelevant stuff why are you responding to me.

If our strategy is holding out, so is yours. So I really don't see what your point is there either.

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

North Point and Ming are barely affiliated and their ally is one of the only major alliances on the KERCHTOGG side to be serious about peacing. The fact that Rose itself doesn't want to peace out with KETOG/Chaos when they could have means it's easy for them to give the green light to their allies who had no obligation to participate.

Most of the micros who peaced out on your side were as loosely if not more loosely affiliated to your side than North Point or Ming are to ours (Both are direct Rose allies so idk what your point is there).

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

The rest is about literally your own alliance leader saying you will win. The level of arrogance exhibited in this topic just shows the point. The fact that he takes every peripheral dropping out as a big victory and a rationale for holding out just means this will take longer to get to its conclusion. It's ultimately immaterial to the actual war as most of the alliances dropping out aren't exactly the ones engaging the most.

What does what Buorhann is saying have to do with what I said in my original post? How does Buorhanns supposed arrogance have anything to do with your policy of people exiting wars?

I feel like you are having an argument with yourself at this point. 

 

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

33 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

It’s not even wanting the surrender that’s the issue, it’s the fact that you continue to hide your terms because you want the war to go on. In order to present your terms, you want us first to surrender. How ridiculous is that?

Scenario:

Side 1: wE WiLl oNLy tElL yOu TeRmS iF yOu SuRrEnDeR

Side 2: Okay, in order to stop the war since it’s dragging on for so long - we surrender.

Side 1: VICTORY!! YOU OWE HAVE TO REPAY YOUR LOAN OF US 300 BILLION IN REPS! Also, change your names to ‘Side 1’s !@#$’ .

Side 2: No. We’re not doing that. Who had a 300 billion loan?

Side 1: Pfft. You have already lost, you said so yourself. ‘Hey OWF, they surrendered! They lost! They said so themselves! Next round we can impose even harsher terms hurrdurr.’ We can demand 450 billion for the loan they owe us 

You know full well that we (Coalition A) are in a much better place then what you (Coalition B ) are presenting, and this war is much closer than the current projection that’s put out. This is in all likelihood why you are threatening alliances in your coalition in order to keep them there. 

Think you have this wrong Kev my friend.

But I kindly fixed it for you :D, made bold the changes to your statement

[Buorhann]

Didn’t think I’d trigger some folks with only 2 (3?) words.

[True King]

21 hours ago, Critters said:

Maybe so, but we can still not lose, and that’s what we are going to do.....

Think these recent peace announcements makes a white peace or no peace stance easier to maintain.

[Blink]

It's been an absolute pleasure guys, good luck with the rebuild.