Popular Post Syrachime Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 4 hours ago, Tarroc said: According to One And A Half Men or whatever the show is called, all that is needed for peace talks to begin is for KERTOG and CHAOS to admit defeat, and surrender, then people will begin discussing peace. "Hey, I have an idea! Sign this blank peace of paper saying you agree to anything in it! I know there is nothing on it right now, but after you sign it, we'll fill it in with terms and conditions that you have to abide by. It is the perfect contract!!!" That is what you are saying to Coalition A right now... And do you honestly realize how stupid it sounds? Do you honestly believe that anyone in their right mind is going to sign a blank piece of paper agreeing to something when NOTHING had been offered in terms of incentives to sign? News flash, Coalition B! People don't usually sign something without knowing what they are signing up for. Your request for our side to admit defeat and surrender to terms that haven't been put in place is honestly as pathetic as BKs ability to keep their allies close... If you want some form of a surrender, why don't you pull your heads out of the sand and offer something worth our time instead of wasting it? What's funny about this war is that I believe Coalition B was hoping to reestablish or form a new reputation of sorts? You guys are doing that quite lovely! *Insert sarcasm here*... With your 'admit defeat first, and THEN we'll talk'-stance, all I'm really seeing is the narcissistic, arrogant vanity of your leaders. Your Coalition, or at least a small group of people in it are so proud that they would sacrifice anything in their efforts to make themselves feel good. You can say I'm wrong and argue that is not the case here. If you do though, you MIGHT want to ask yourself why members of your own coalition are not only leaving it, but also turning against you and fighting the same coalition they were once apart of. You can blame Coalition A all you want to for that, but I can assure you it's not our fault you are at war with your own allies. Even if you guys win this war, the only reputation you'll have afforded to you when this is over is one of selfish vanity. You guys would rather win a war and lose EVERYTHING rather than accept defeat, or heaven forbid even think about white peace. That's the image I have of coalition B right now as just an average player, and I guarantee you that I'm not the only one. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Storm Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 22 minutes ago, japan77 said: Bwahahaha. Nearly every sentence in that paragraph is wrong. Impressive. Let's talk about history and unconditional surrenders. There has never been and never will be a unconditional surrender in which the loser did not wind up agreeing to all terms imposed by the victors. That's how that works. Let's note that coalition B has refused to talk about any potential terms until after coalition A's surrender. That is by definition a unconditional surrender. You seriously expect people to be willing to surrender unconditionally when the opposing coalition contains actors known to have imposed ridiculous terms. And don't give me any of the NPO isn't the same as NPO nonsense. Either own your name or change it. Similarly, given that BK has put rather ridiculous terms on the table in the past, an unconditional surrender to any coalition containing either alliance is a bad idea. Let's next talk about precedent. This particular game has never had unconditional surrenders, and establishing that precedent will lead to longer wars as the best possible victory condition has changed dramatically. There's also the fact that coalition B winning would encourage longer wars, as we have opened up a path to victory of literally just waiting out an opponent instead of smashing through their infra, although given how long the last few globals have been, this isn't truly a new idea, but it would be the first time it worked. Up until now, dragging out a war has at most resulted in white peace, but the precedent of improving conditions by dragging out a war has resulted in longer wars. Thirdly, it would establish that having net negative damage, rolling coalition allies, having secret arbitrary treaties that one can twist into a CB, and bullshit CBs are valid things along a path to victory. If you truly believe these are not bad precedents for the game as a whole, give me what you're smoking because I need to escape reality. That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up. 2 2 2 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justonia Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Pop said: That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up. NPO is absolutely an existential threat to this game. They're like the short, wiry kid with a loud mouth that will start a fight and have their 5 friends jump you while they stand back and snivel. TKR and our allies can continue at the current pace indefinitely, while NPO's conscript army continues to rout with surrender after surrender. Edited October 16, 2019 by Justonia 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 37 minutes ago, Pop said: If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony Hey don't put the others in your same league, NPO is game killing, the others are ok or annoying at best 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forsteri Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Micchan said: This game is called Politics and War 50% politics and 50% war the ice cream is called ben & jerrys are ben and jerry the exact same size is it truly 50% ben and 50% jerry I think jerry is a little bit bigger edit: what about bed bath & beyond is it 50% bedbath and 50% beyond @Micchan Edited October 16, 2019 by Forsteri edit: what about bed bath & beyond is it 50% bedbath and 50% beyond @micchan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justonia Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Epi said: It's not an unconditional surrender. We drafted joke terms on day 1 of this war. We drafted terms in the 2nd month of the war [carthago]. And we have a short list of possible terms even now. This isn't an issue, we could do it in 24 hours. "We have terms. The most perfect, beautiful terms you've ever seen. But you can't see them because the IRS is currently investigating them as part of a routine audit." 11 minutes ago, Epi said: "stats, we haven't lost", "activity, we haven't lost", "nations, we haven't lost". How dare we make the argument that we're actually winning against the paper tiger? Edited October 16, 2019 by Justonia 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Pop said: That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up. Who needs offensive wars when the attackers spend muni and gas air striking 300 infra cities 3 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kevanovia said: -snip- It's not a secret, unlike you we knew the war would be months long before you surrendered which is why instead of wasting our time jerking ourselves off about what kind of terms we were going to impose like your coalition did we spent that effort into actually running the war. Maybe if your coalition leadership weren't busy circlejerking about their stats and focusing on actually doing milcom we wouldn't have pulled down every single whale in your coalition so fast. And we still are more than happy to keep running milcom and pulling down more whales in T$ rather than wasting time writing terms that we'd probably have to throw out and rewrite in several months when yet another alliance decides to attack us. tl;dr first term is surrender, after that our coalition will begin discussing what the other terms are since it'll be several more months before you accept the first. edit: Imagine being brain dead enough to think admitting defeat is the same as unconditional surrender. This entire situation is due to how the KF terms discussion dragged on pointlessly for 4 months. Blame TKR/Guardian/GOB for how we decided to proceed with talks this time. Edited October 16, 2019 by Malal 2 6 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roq Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Malal said: It's not a secret, unlike you we knew the war would be months long before you surrendered which is why instead of wasting our time jerking ourselves off about what kind of terms we were going to impose like your coalition did we spent that effort into actually running the war. Maybe if your coalition leadership weren't busy circlejerking about their stats and focusing on actually doing milcom we wouldn't have pulled down every single whale in your coalition so fast. And we still are more than happy to keep running milcom and pulling down more whales in T$ rather than wasting time writing terms that we'd probably have to throw out and rewrite in several months when yet another alliance decides to attack us. tl;dr first term is surrender, after that our coalition will begin discussing what the other terms are since it'll be several more months before you accept the first. edit: Imagine being brain dead enough to think admitting defeat is the same as unconditional surrender. This entire situation is due to how the KF terms discussion dragged on pointlessly for 4 months. Blame TKR/Guardian/GOB for how we decided to proceed with talks this time. Soo..... You're saying that you don't have a finalized terms list. You expect the war to last a few more months (and you're not going to bother doing peace terms until it ends). 58 minutes ago, Epi said: And we have a short list of possible terms even now. This isn't an issue, we could do it in 24 hours. Hell, the pigeon could probably come up with enough memes that even alliances not smart enough to think of terms will be satisfied. Okay, so you do have a terms list. You just don't want to share it. Understood completely. From what I understand, you have been talking about peace, being disingenuous about the terms for months, with the hope that the war continues, and that you have time to create more terms. Completely understood. Edited October 16, 2019 by CitrusK 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan77 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Pop said: That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up. The game died when NPO literally murdered the entire multi-sphere project with their decision to back BK. Due to their actions, and refusal by BK et al to turn on them, we have two fairly prominent alliances that we can literally never trust to not be on the same side. (This is ignoring speculation that BK sphere's plan to hit Chaos wasn't pre-approved by NPO). Given NPO and BK's basically guarantee to always be on the same side, there's really not enough sphere-centering alliances to create a multi-sphere game, at-best we might have 3 spheres, and more realistically, the game has been forcibly regressed into a 2-sphere game. (3-spheres isn't really sustainable, we need something similar to the 5-sphere setup we had before this war for a sustainable multi-sphere game). This is ofc ignoring NPO managing to bring over GPWC and GOONS, although who knows what they'll do from here. All the information we have both alliances is very limited, and it's certainly possible they could turn on NPO, but even this still doesn't break our 2-sphere problem unless something truly drastic happens. I'm mainly here at this point because I like fellow members of Chaos and esp tkr, and because I'm working on improving some basic bots (because I find that interesting), as well as watching to see just how badly can the actions of a single alliance kills a game, so the next time I play this kind of game, I can begin planning around such actions. 3 3 1 Quote I don't sleep enough Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian Lastly, Hello world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, japan77 said: Bwahahaha. Nearly every sentence in that paragraph is wrong. Impressive. Let's talk about history and unconditional surrenders. There has never been and never will be a unconditional surrender in which the loser did not wind up agreeing to all terms imposed by the victors. That's how that works. Let's note that coalition B has refused to talk about any potential terms until after coalition A's surrender. That is by definition a unconditional surrender. You seriously expect people to be willing to surrender unconditionally when the opposing coalition contains actors known to have imposed ridiculous terms. And don't give me any of the NPO isn't the same as NPO nonsense. Either own your name or change it. Similarly, given that BK has put rather ridiculous terms on the table in the past, an unconditional surrender to any coalition containing either alliance is a bad idea. Let's next talk about precedent. This particular game has never had unconditional surrenders, and establishing that precedent will lead to longer wars as the best possible victory condition has changed dramatically. There's also the fact that coalition B winning would encourage longer wars, as we have opened up a path to victory of literally just waiting out an opponent instead of smashing through their infra, although given how long the last few globals have been, this isn't truly a new idea, but it would be the first time it worked. Up until now, dragging out a war has at most resulted in white peace, but the precedent of improving conditions by dragging out a war has resulted in longer wars. Thirdly, it would establish that having net negative damage, rolling coalition allies, having secret arbitrary treaties that one can twist into a CB, and bullshit CBs are valid things along a path to victory. If you truly believe these are not bad precedents for the game as a whole, give me what you're smoking because I need to escape reality. It's not an unconditional surrender to begin with as you are not laying down arms. You'd be approaching us as a defeated party and acknowledging defeat. You would be abel to negotiate on the other points and would have no obligation simply from agreeing to the first one to agree to the rest. Unconditional surrender would be us requiring you to turn over control of your militaries and internal workings and then implement whatever terms we have and you wouldn't know about. The rest of your post is just subjective bs where you're the good guys objectively. How I see it is the complete opposite. You've done plenty of questionable cbs and won yourselves. For me, it's ultimately you are the traditional winners and you don't want to eat some humble pie. Your side raised the stakes with its apocalyptic proclamations. You gave us essentially a blank check by saying we'd have to completely smother you and dominate or be hunted to the ends of the earth. 14 minutes ago, japan77 said: The game died when NPO literally murdered the entire multi-sphere project with their decision to back BK. Due to their actions, and refusal by BK et al to turn on them, we have two fairly prominent alliances that we can literally never trust to not be on the same side. (This is ignoring speculation that BK sphere's plan to hit Chaos wasn't pre-approved by NPO). Given NPO and BK's basically guarantee to always be on the same side, there's really not enough sphere-centering alliances to create a multi-sphere game, at-best we might have 3 spheres, and more realistically, the game has been forcibly regressed into a 2-sphere game. (3-spheres isn't really sustainable, we need something similar to the 5-sphere setup we had before this war for a sustainable multi-sphere game). This is ofc ignoring NPO managing to bring over GPWC and GOONS, although who knows what they'll do from here. All the information we have both alliances is very limited, and it's certainly possible they could turn on NPO, but even this still doesn't break our 2-sphere problem unless something truly drastic happens. I'm mainly here at this point because I like fellow members of Chaos and esp tkr, and because I'm working on improving some basic bots (because I find that interesting), as well as watching to see just how badly can the actions of a single alliance kills a game, so the next time I play this kind of game, I can begin planning around such actions. Um, so again, this is entirely your subjective perception. I simply saw the wholesale dismemberment of the BKsphere as being dangerous for us. We would have no ability to resist a similar sized coalition on our own and our only major alliance treaties were tenuous and based on a leader who vanished. This wasn't an easy war even with us going in, so all this claptrap about killing the game is laughable. You're the ones who made the decision to pool the majority of traditional elites into two spheres that made up your side. You just wanted to win and you felt entitled for history to repeat itself and you could get back to winning and smashing mid tier people you don't like. We at one point completely operated in a sea of darkness surrounded by your hegemony in a very isolated capacity. The fact that you can't handle losing isn't my problem. Edited October 16, 2019 by Roquentin 9 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justonia Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) With all this yammering, I don't hear an argument against white peace. I don't like the framing of this discussion because it seems predicated on the fact that Coalition A is losing, which is highly questionable. You call us entitled and demand unconditional surrender. This is both hypocritical and delusional. PNW isn't a game you can "win" by dismantling assemblages of people at a whim. The truth here is that Coalition A is stronger because it's to a larger extent made up of real people with real relationships and therefore has more staying power. Edited October 16, 2019 by Justonia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 You don't know what unconditional surrender is, so stop using it. It's like some Princess Bride shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender Here you go buddy. Come back when you've read up. 1 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Justonia said: With all this yammering, I don't here an argument against white peace. I don't like the framing of this discussion because it seems predicated on the fact that Coalition A is losing, which is highly questionable. You call us entitled and demand unconditional surrender. This is both hypocritical and delusional. PNW isn't a game you can "win" by dismantling assemblages of people at a whim. The truth here is that Coalition A is stronger because it's to a larger extent made up of real people with real relationships and therefore has more staying power. Your side is completly crushed and there is 0 will for us to accept white peace from people who are more than happy to try and drive us out of the game when they think they're on top yet at the same time refuse to admit defeat when they clearly lost. Again, the only people who talk about unconditional surrender is your side because that's what your leadership intended to do upon us originally and are projecting their own fears upon a simple admission of defeat. Edited October 16, 2019 by Malal 1 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justonia Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Just now, Malal said: Your side is completly crushed You have zero understanding of game mechanics if you think that's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Justonia said: You have zero understanding of game mechanics if you think that's true. I'm hesitant to listen to the views of someone who belives that unconditional surrenders are not only possible in this game but are actually being demanded. 1 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Clooney Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 20 minutes ago, CitrusK said: Soo..... You're saying that you don't have a finalized terms list. You expect the war to last a few more months (and you're not going to bother doing peace terms until it ends). Okay, so you do have a terms list. You just don't want to share it. Understood completely. From what I understand, you have been talking about peace, being disingenuous about the terms for months, with the hope that the war continues, and that you have time to create more terms. Completely understood. Logically speaking, you given us no reason to be serious about peace, or think you are serious about obtaining peace, so what would be the point in finalizing a list of terms to offer you? So you can firmly decline them and ask for our surrender? That's not going happen. You don't even understand your predicament, let alone anything else. Actually a few more months sounds like an overly optimistic goal for when peace will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justonia Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 This line of conversation is completely telling of NPO's intent from the beginning. It's to completely dissolve anyone even remotely capable of challenging them, no matter the cost or time involved. There shouldn't be an alliance in this game that isn't opposed to that line of thought. Quite frankly, anyone appeasing them by standing out or being one of their pawns is allowing the game itself to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, George Clooney said: Logically speaking, you given us no reason to be serious about peace, or think you are serious about obtaining peace, so what would be the point in finalizing a list of terms to offer you? So you can firmly decline them and ask for our surrender? That's not going happen. You don't even understand your predicament, let alone anything else. Actually a few more months sounds like an overly optimistic goal for when peace will happen. I'm uh... In Fark... But duly noted. The thing about giving them terms before they surrender, is so that both sides know stuff. Because, Kerchtog could surrender today, and talk to your government. Your government could impose a term like "The Knights Radiant cannot sign a Protectorate for a duration of..." and then the war would continue until that term was removed. It's good to know which terms are "good" and which terms are "bad." before entering negotiations. It's just good to know what you're surrendering to. And it's good to know which terms are extending the war. I don't think there's a chance in hell that Kerchtog surrenders, unless they are explicitly told terms before hand. And they have the chance to fight against those terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan77 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 19 minutes ago, Roquentin said: You don't know what unconditional surrender is, so stop using it. It's like some Princess Bride shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender Here you go buddy. Come back when you've read up. Literally the first line of the wikipedia article: An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. We literally have no guarantees of what terms you're going to put down in terms, and you're asking for our surrender before outlining the terms. By definition of the term its unconditional. 1 Quote I don't sleep enough Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian Lastly, Hello world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheNG Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 So this thread is a prime example of why letting your idiot members go on deranged forum rants is rarely a good thing. Never go full Scarfalot kids. I'll just bring this bad boy back out since it amusingly still applies. 8 1 1 1 Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, japan77 said: Literally the first line of the wikipedia article: An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. We literally have no guarantees of what terms you're going to put down in terms, and you're asking for our surrender before outlining the terms. By definition of the term its unconditional. You'd be agreeing to surrender/admission of defeat as one of the terms. You wouldn't be formally surrendering at that point. The guarantees you have is that you aren't agreeing to any of the other terms in advance and the other terms that you'd be able to negotiate on would have guarantees. The Japanese for instance had to accept unconditional surrender as part of the Potsdam declaration which meant the the Japanese armies had to obey commands from the allies and SCAP could do whatever they wanted in terms of reorganizing the country. This is some awkward wordplay if you insist on continuing this line of thought. Edited October 16, 2019 by Roquentin 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan77 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Roquentin said: You'd be agreeing to surrender/admission of defeat as one of the terms. You wouldn't be formally surrendering at that point. The guarantees you have is that you aren't agreeing to any of the other terms in advance and the other terms that you'd be able to negotiate on would have guarantees. The Japanese for instance had to accept unconditional surrender as part of the Potsdam declaration which meant the the Japanese armies had to obey commands from he allies and SCAP could do whatever they wanted in terms of reorganizing the country. This is some awkward wordplay if you insist on continuing this line of thought. So we'd be surrendering, then getting the terms of surrender yes? We have no guarantees of what those terms could be. You could literally insert "All of you disband and delete" as a surrendering term, and because we surrendered, we'd have to abide by it. Also, there's literally no reason You couldn't make one of the terms "I now control your armies and I get to reorganize your alliances any way I want". That's pretty clearly an unconditional surrender. Edited October 16, 2019 by japan77 Quote I don't sleep enough Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian Lastly, Hello world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, japan77 said: So we'd be surrendering, then getting the terms of surrender yes? We have no guarantees of what those terms could be. You could literally insert "All of you disband and delete" as a surrendering term, and because we surrendered, we'd have to abide by it. That's pretty clearly an unconditional surrender. No you'd be surrendering on x conditions and you'd be able to accept or reject the other terms until we finished a final agreement. Any terms wouldn't be binding on you unless you agreed to them. So let's say "okay we have the admission of defeat out of the way, so next term is TKR has to rename to the The Knights Rodent and put a guinea pig on its flag." You could say no at that point and we'd either have to drop it or talks would stall out until someone gave in. Edited October 16, 2019 by Roquentin 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.