Popular Post Kevanovia Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour 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. You either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are lying through your teeth. Our coalition has been open to discussing peace for months. You are now using the “blame it on KnightFall” tagline, when none of the representatives at the table in our Coalition were on the opposite side of you during KnightFall. Keegoz - KT (Did not participate in Knightfall) Mhearl - Rose (Was a part of your coalition in KnightFall) Myself - Soup Kitchen (Did not exist during KnightFall. I was also not a part of the KF conflict) Every single excuse that you’ve thrown out in regards to discussing peace keeps coming out as bullshit. Why don’t you just own up to the fact that you want this war to be a never-ending conflict and that you are the ones holding up the process? 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT Jag Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Obviously the solution here is to have all involved parties surrender to GOONS. We've already started the process. 3 2 Quote ONE WORLD OR NONE CyberNations veteran, Co-Pilot Emeritus Hambassidor (Head Ambassador (Minister of Foreign Affairs)), Head of the Ministry of Log Dumping, GOONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan77 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Roquentin said: 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. the definition of the term surrender is "cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority." So to be clear, you're asking for an admission of defeat, not a surrender. So, we could still keep fighting after admitting defeat? are you really trying to emulate the allies handling of the central powers in ww1? lmao. we all know that was effectively an unconditional surrender in all but name. Basically, your stance is that it isn't a "unconditional surrender" on a very minor technicality since if we admit defeat, how exactly are we supposed to oppose terms we don't like? fight? 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 Prefontaine Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 Damage ratios are a poor example of winners and losers in this game. Take Papers, Please. Terminus Est clearly lost that war. I personally netted about 2B in profits from loot (didn't get a big bank hit) and myself and several others had much, much larger damage dealt numbers than damage received. Over all TEst had positive damage ratios in that war because we had more targets with infra to destroy than we had infra to destroy in our alliance. Lets say each member had 1B infra to lose, and we had 30 members. The most TEst could have lost was ~30B. If there's 500B in infra on the other side, we can deal way more damage than it's possible for us to take. Damage ratios ca be a metric of how well your alliance performed, but definitely not if you've won or lost. The damage ratios in this war are also a little skewed. The biggest factor was Coalition A blowing up each others infra in a war just before this war (due to the leaks that war stopped). They had less infra to lose going into this fight so the amount of damages they could have taken were lessened by their own side. Coalition B has also been farming some soft targets arguably not tied to coalition A in attempts to balance some of the stats. All that said, I am actually curious of what the peace terms are. There's been a lot of alleged terms thrown around publicly, and I've heard some others privately. Wouldn't be a horrible idea to set some of the record straight. 2 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, japan77 said: the definition of the term surrender is "cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority." So to be clear, you're asking for an admission of defeat, not a surrender. So, we could still keep fighting after admitting defeat? are you really trying to emulate the allies handling of the central powers in ww1? lmao. we all know that was effectively an unconditional surrender in all but name. Basically, your stance is that it isn't a "unconditional surrender" on a very minor technicality since if we admit defeat, how exactly are we supposed to oppose terms we don't like? fight? You're agreeing to it being a term of the final agreement, not finalizing the agreement right away. There wouldn't be an armistice or peace until we reached a final agreement, yeah. In terms of the Central Powers, they didn't have much of a say in their terms as it was mostly negotiated without them as a factor. The terms only would become binding once they are all accepted. These aren't the real terms btw. Term 1: Admission of Defeat/Surrender You: Okay. Fighting doesn't end Term 2: Adrienne switches to guinea pig avatars. You: No. Fighting continues Me: How about a week? You: ok. Peace is finalized So to give an example, we lost in Silent and we were willing to admit defeat but the thing we were fighting on was the reps and their size and that was the only thing we fought on. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT Jag Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Ok, what if KETOGG/Chaos admitted to a state of shmerple, defined as willingness to consider surrender based on an exchange of further terms. Shmerple only transforms into surrender upon the signing of a peace accord, much like a trap card. 3 Quote ONE WORLD OR NONE CyberNations veteran, Co-Pilot Emeritus Hambassidor (Head Ambassador (Minister of Foreign Affairs)), Head of the Ministry of Log Dumping, GOONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: All that said, I am actually curious of what the peace terms are. Those don't exist. Edited October 16, 2019 by Shiho Nishizumi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, JT Jag said: Ok, what if KETOGG/Chaos admitted to a state of shmerple, defined as willingness to consider surrender based on an exchange of further terms. Shmerple only transforms into surrender upon the signing of a peace accord, much like a trap card. I believe that shmerple is the default state of any coalition in any war. The terms are the meat and the potatoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: Those don't exist. Where are you getting this? Basically cooper or someone else said on the hope radio show that he had an idea of what the terms are but that you didn't want to surrender. I'm not at liberty to disclose them, but you could look at the Ming or NP as models and not be too far off. Of course they're subject to change. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Roquentin said: Where are you getting this? Basically cooper or someone else said on the hope radio show that he had an idea of what the terms are but that you didn't want to surrender. I'm not at liberty to disclose them, but you could look at the Ming or NP as models and not be too far off. Of course they're subject to change. One of our guys overhearing some of your lot talking about it. There's also a contradiction here. Malal says that you can't be fricked to even bother coming up with terms, yet you say that you have them (but can't present it). Which one is it? If you're going to make a statement, at least make sure that you aren't contradicting each other mere pages apart. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, Roquentin said: Where are you getting this? Basically cooper or someone else said on the hope radio show that he had an idea of what the terms are but that you didn't want to surrender. I'm not at liberty to disclose them, but you could look at the Ming or NP as models and not be too far off. Of course they're subject to change. While I'm not a fan of the idea of public negotiations -- It gets messy -- your side might want to get together and make public what the terms for peace would be. I am a neutral party int his war, I've been spectating on and off and have some people on both sides I speak to about things. The public image being portrayed is that your side are a bunch of unreasonable douchenozzles in terms of peace. The reason the war is still going is because your terms for peace. If your terms are reasonable, and that metric will vary from person to person, then you take away one of the PR aspects in the war which you are losing in my opinion. If your terms aren't reasonable, well, I get why you wouldn't want them to be public knowledge which sort of further puts you in a place of continued losing that PR aspect. Also, if your terms are reasonable, and your opponents have been spinning that they aren't to some of their allies, you might see some of their allies look for individual peace. 1 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Cooper_ Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Roquentin said: 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. This just isn't fair, and you know it. As someone who I believe is decently well-versed in political theory and psychology, I think you know much better than I that once someone surrenders, the negotiating position is severely diminished. And you've been clear that you want surrender. Fine. Make that clear in negotiations, but post your terms and don't accept anything until you're satisfied. If these terms are as acceptable as is claimed, then there should be no harm in making a simple post on the OWF or to our leaders about what terms you have and then we can negotiate. I can't think of a good reason to not present the terms given the fact that you can walk away from negotiations if you're not satisfied after you've shown the terms and we've started negotiation. I won't go so far as to call us the good guys, but the people who have subjected us to arcane first-of-the-month-only negotiations to just delete and block our representatives multiple times certainly aren't neither. So please let's get off our high horses together, and actually work to fix this mess. If you really want to know the secret to NPO's insecurity, it's not grand coalitions nor secret conspiracies rather it comes down to duplicity, a lack of communication and paranoia. If you're truly adamant about protecting your interests, then work with us, communicate with us the terms that you are pursuing, and plan to negotiate in good faith. I can promise you the same from our side. 58 minutes ago, Roquentin said: Where are you getting this? Basically cooper or someone else said on the hope radio show that he had an idea of what the terms are but that you didn't want to surrender. I'm not at liberty to disclose them, but you could look at the Ming or NP as models and not be too far off. Of course they're subject to change. No, I didn't say that. What I said is that we know you want a NAP and surrender plus unspecified terms, but that the main reasons of why we don't want to surrender are not just limited to this but also systematic. There are precedent and political concerns to consider. I appreciate you guys listening to what we are saying, but third-hard corruptions of my statements aren't useful. Edited October 16, 2019 by Cooper_ 2 10 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...
Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 13 minutes ago, CandyShi said: Only NPO would think that alliances that surrender are still in the war. ..That actually explains a lot tbh. No. In the last war, the other side said it was fine with that one but disputed the others. They agreeing to surrender when the final terms are agreed upon. Don't twist my statements into some sort of orwellian thing. 12 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: This just isn't fair, and you know it. As someone who I believe is decently well-versed in political theory and psychology, I think you know much better than I that once someone surrenders, the negotiating position is severely diminished. And you've been clear that you want surrender. Fine. Make that clear in negotiations, but post your terms and don't accept anything until you're satisfied. If these terms are as acceptable as is claimed, then there should be no harm in making a simple post on the OWF or to our leaders about what terms you have and then we can negotiate. I can't think of a good reason to not present the terms given the fact that you can walk away from negotiations if you're not satisfied after you've shown the terms and we've started negotiation. I won't go so far as to call us the good guys, but the people who have subjected us to arcane first-of-the-month-only negotiations to just delete and block our representatives multiple times certainly aren't neither. So please let's get off our high horses together, and actually work to fix this mess. If you really want to know the secret to NPO's insecurity, it's not grand coalitions nor secret conspiracies rather it comes down to duplicity, a lack of communication and paranoia. If you're truly adamant about protecting your interests, then work with us, communicate with us the terms that you are pursuing, and plan to negotiate in good faith. I can promise you the same from our side. This is kind of the lack of understanding here. It's not supposed to be a bargaining chip in our opinion. You can agree to admit defeat but negotiate on the other things. The last few times you've had no interest in admitting defeat, so nobody wants to fight on that. I don't think you've been around long enough to know what is behind our insecurity or not. The stuff I say that is dismissed as paranoia are at least contingency plans and there is a basis for acting. 12 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: No, I didn't say that. What I said is that we know you want a NAP and surrender plus unspecified terms, but that the main reasons of why we don't want to surrender are not just limited to this but also systematic. There are precedent and political concerns to consider. I appreciate you guys listening to what we are saying, but third-hard corruptions of my statements aren't useful. You did say they were light. I mean there's no way to prove what you did or didn't say but you said you heard they were light but that it set a bad precedent to surrender with the damage stats. I don't record people without their knowledge, so yeah, this won't be verifiable either way. 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Wait so agreeing that we will be discussing the terms of your surrender/defeat is now unconditional surrender and not possible? Literally all your representatives needed to state was that they accept to admit defeat as a part of the final terms and they won't negotiate with regards to that. Defeat is non-negotiable, once that term is out of the way everything else is negotiable tbh. The prevailing idea is that once everyone is clear that the negotiations are for Coal A's surrender we can move on to discuss the other terms, with which you can either do the what you're doing now, reject, or accept and work towards peace. If you aren't willing to accept the first term in any peace deal, why would someone play their hand and release the rest/work on the rest when the non-negotiable term isn't accepted? Also I love how Japan77 and JustinM have some sort of crazy idea that Chaos is allowed to team up with other mini spheres to hit alliances, but the NPO can't because it'd kill the game. Your entire position is predicated on TKR's right to win and everyone else's right to loose and I'm terribly sorry if we aren't going to let that fly. You don't have a monopoly on winning or "just" actions. Your own actions led to this, so own up to it rather than raving in apocalyptic terms that we've broken some agreement or word we made with TKR. We made neither, nor did you make one to upkeep mini spheres, since you broke that concept first, we just answered your provocations with actions to protect our interests, same as you. It's nice to see you try to pull some honour card again, its quite nifty to see. Do tell us more how TKR are all just and right and every one else who does something against the TKR is absolutely wrong. Your narcissism is fun to read. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Just now, CandyShi said: I don’t see any oppressive government or accusations of double-think or thought speak or censoring of media, so either you’re baiting people (which wouldn’t surprise me) or you’re stupid and use words that you don’t understand (which wouldn’t surprise me). You’re derailing from the point of my post, which was that “surrender”, “diplomacy”, and “neutrality” have as much value to NPO as avoiding hegemony. (see: TEst, AD, TFP, Yarr, Swagrr, t$) The way I interpreted is you were saying it as NPO would think surrendering at war is possible e.g. like war is peace. Don't be obtuse. I mean you're flamebaiting for sure here, so glasshouses. 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...
Shadowthrone Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, CandyShi said: I think you’re getting the order wrong, expecting your opponent to surrender THEN having terms revealed is unconditional surrender. Nope. But keep trying to spin that. 1 minute ago, CandyShi said: Please specify. If you say this war then I’m going to have an aneurism out of sheer stupidity. Chaos literally teamed up with KETOGG to hit BKSphere. So unless you're attempting to reinvent the English dictionary, I'm quite certain I'm right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefonteen Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Roquentin said: 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. 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. A question to roq: So are you planning to force your ally to unconditionally surrender and accept bogus terms for defending its protectorate from a scenario aggressively pushed by BK, while also having directly attacked said ally's protectorates yourself? 1 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Just now, Prefonteen said: A question to roq: So are you planning to force your ally to unconditionally surrender and accept bogus terms for defending its protectorate from a scenario aggressively pushed by BK, while also having directly attacked said ally's protectorates yourself? Is tS part of KERTCHOG? Should it adopt collective bargaining with KERCHTOG then it'd be bound by anything KERTCHOG does. Otherwise, we can surrender jointly with tS to Cov and co and admit Clarke did nothing wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 18 minutes ago, Roquentin said: Is tS part of KERTCHOG? Should it adopt collective bargaining with KERCHTOG then it'd be bound by anything KERTCHOG does. Otherwise, we can surrender jointly with tS to Cov and co and admit Clarke did nothing wrong. You win this round, Hamster. Until the next time! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Storm Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 28 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: Chaos literally teamed up with KETOGG to hit BKSphere. So unless you're attempting to reinvent the English dictionary, I'm quite certain I'm right Did you forget Rose or did we finally stop pretending that Rose isn't a part of KETOG? 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan77 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said: Also I love how Japan77 and JustinM have some sort of crazy idea that Chaos is allowed to team up with other mini spheres to hit alliances, but the NPO can't because it'd kill the game. Your entire position is predicated on TKR's right to win and everyone else's right to loose and I'm terribly sorry if we aren't going to let that fly. You don't have a monopoly on winning or "just" actions. Your own actions led to this, so own up to it rather than raving in apocalyptic terms that we've broken some agreement or word we made with TKR. We made neither, nor did you make one to upkeep mini spheres, since you broke that concept first, we just answered your provocations with actions to protect our interests, same as you. It's nice to see you try to pull some honour card again, its quite nifty to see. Do tell us more how TKR are all just and right and every one else who does something against the TKR is absolutely wrong. Your narcissism is fun to read. Let's be very explicitly clear here. Chaos+KETOG+Rose literally had less fire power than BK-sphere on its own. The way that power separated after knightfall was problematic in the sense of there being two huge blocs (N$O and BK-sphere), two smaller spheres (Chaos, KETOG), and one very small sphere (Rose). The last three had to team up if they ever wanted to beat one of the big two from a sheer numbers perspective (Skill can make up a difference, but it's rather limited due to how this game is designed). Honestly Rose-sphere's firepower isn't so much a sphere as Rose and a few friends. Ideally, T$ would've anchored a different sphere from NPO, and similar so for BK and TCW. So there would've been 7 spheres, but I digress. As soon as it became evident via leaks that BK-sphere planned to roll us with their literal 3:1 city advantage, we had two options, either ask for help rolling them or roll over and die. We did the former because that's rational. I believe we did reach out to someone in N$O with regards to this. We're merely stating that you had the opportunity to convince the world that N$O and BK-sphere were not allied in any way. Given your literal treaty obligations pre-war, there's no MD-level treaties for your entrance, and you never claimed entrance off your OD-level treaty with Polaris, which is the only treaty joining the two spheres, the world would have a 3+sphere system. (Let's not forget that KETOG and Chaos were happy beating up each other until the leaks happened). Your alliance's actions single-handily returned the world to a 2-sphere system. While you could and you appear to be arguing that Chaos's actions reduced the world from a 5-sphere thing down to 3, as I pointed out earlier, in terms of fire power, it was already that. For there to have been truly more than 3 spheres, BK-sphere and N$O would have had to be smaller. Thanks for confirmation that your interests literally placed a non-treaty partner over a MD-level partner. It's very enlightening, and makes it apparent that unless your name is BK, one should not even bother with considering NPO as an ally, as otherwise they'll stab you in the back if your actions threaten BK. 2 3 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...
Guest Karl VII Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, japan77 said: just summed up your post np bro Edited October 16, 2019 by Karl VII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 7 hours ago, Epi said: Even if it was more strategically sound to build up your coalition more and hit us in 6 months with Syndi - Fark. This will be the log NPO uses as their CB next time around. 1 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.