peace talks

[Salt Meat]

1 hour ago, Syrachime said:

So we have term A...  Now...what is term B, C, and D?  What incentive does Coalition A have to fulfill term A and surrender if we don't know what B, C, and D are, or are going to be?  Said it once, and will say it again...  No one in their right minds agrees to sign a blank document and THEN fill in the details after.  I'm sure there are some that would be more than happy to surrender if they know what is going along with it.  So, tell us what your terms B, C, and D are since A is clearly established.  Maybe then some might surrender.

I'm somewhat dumbfounded. My entire post was explaining how you're not fulfilling anything, and then you go and repeat the same damn thing again like you never even read it.

Nobody is expecting you to surrender before you receive all the terms. The fact that you will surrender and admit defeat is one of the terms, and you need to be willing to accept it before anyone bothers progressing forward with other conditions, because it appears to be a non negotiable term.

 

Again, for those who can't seem to grasp it. You don't surrender yet, you just have to be willing to do so as part of the peace agreement.

 

Good Lord, I'm not even involved in the talks and I can manage to understand that. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Of The Flies

[Adrienne]

21 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

No just your members seem to loudly be demanding it in public but. I mean for a couple of months your side didn't deny Keegoz/Sketchy's statements till we brought it up here on the boards and got a secondary dismissal from @Hodor. Still awaiting the day when KT/TGH #1's withdraw the statement too   (If I've missed it linky please!) 

So we're back to this again, fun. Around and around the hamster wheel goes...

[Syrachime]

8 minutes ago, Of The Flies said:

I'm somewhat dumbfounded. My entire post was explaining how you're not fulfilling anything, and then you go and repeat the same damn thing again like you never even read it.

Nobody is expecting you to surrender before you receive all the terms. The fact that you will surrender and admit defeat is[\b] one of the terms, and you need to be willing to accept it before anyone bothers progressing forward with other conditions, because it appears to be a non negotiable term.

 

Again, for those who can't seem to grasp it. You don't surrender yet, you just have to be willing to do so as part of the peace agreement.

 

Good Lord, I'm not even involved in the talks and I can manage to understand that. 

I get it, but your side seems determined to secure a surrender before giving us any other terms to go through with it.  To my knowledge, our side hasn't ever said it wouldn't surrender.  It just wants to know what's going with that surrender first.  However...the responses I've read seem to say give up first and then they will tell us the terms...  Honestly, this could all be solved if Coalition B would simply say if our side surrenders, this is what we expect.  Instead, I keep hearing say you give up, and then we'll discuss what we expect...  There's a big difference there, isn't there?  I'm not involved in the talks either.  I just think peace would progress if you offered your terms with the surrender rather than holding the terms til after a surrender is given which you yourself just admitted doesn't end the war...  What incentive does our side have to surrender if we don't know happens afterwards and it doesn't end the war right then and there?

Edited October 16, 2019 by Syrachime

[Salt Meat]

Just now, Syrachime said:

I get it, but your side seems determined to secure a surrender before giving us any other terms to go through with it.  To my knowledge, our side hasn't ever said it wouldn't surrender.  It just wants to know what's going on with that surrender first.  However...the responses I've read seem to say give up first and then they will tell us the terms...  Honestly, this could all be solved if Coalition B would simply say if our side surrenders, this is what we expect.  Instead, I keep hearing say you give up, and then we'll discuss what we expect...  There's a big difference there, isn't there?  I'm not involved in the talks either.  I just think peace would progress if you offered your terms with the surrender rather than holding the terms til after a surrender is given which you yourself just admitted doesn't end the war...  What incentive does our side have to surrender if we don't know happens afterwards and it doesn't end the war right then and there?

Maybe admission of defeat is better terminology? You're not wrong that surrender implies laying down arms and submitting to terms. Admitting defeat means what it says, you recognize that you've lost, but can still be fighting if you don't like the peace terms.

Is this all held up over semantics?

Would you be willing to admit that you've lost, but still fight until you achieve acceptable terms?

@Shadowthrone is all that you're looking for to start discussing terms, that they admit that you've defeated them? 

[The Mad Titan]

8 minutes ago, Of The Flies said:

Maybe admission of defeat is better terminology? You're not wrong that surrender implies laying down arms and submitting to terms. Admitting defeat means what it says, you recognize that you've lost, but can still be fighting if you don't like the peace terms.

Is this all held up over semantics?

Would you be willing to admit that you've lost, but still fight until you achieve acceptable terms?

@Shadowthrone is all that you're looking for to start discussing terms, that they admit that you've defeated them? 

All that is needed is that it is accepted that there will be an admission of defeat in the final peace and that is a non-negotiatable term.

[Comrade Marx]

That sounds incredibly simple. Perhaps we can argue about it for another 7 pages, though.

[Zim]

I can't really see why IQ need to hear the words "we surrender" to enter negotiations. Is it only out of pride, ego, moral boast?
Or is there something more to it?
I can kinda get the impression that many of your terms are going be unacceptable, for most alliance to say the least. 
I can alreadry guess that one of your terms is going be 6-12 months DNR. Unacceptable long, and with BK and NPO both proven themself willing to break treaties on a whim, i can't see much reason for anyone to accept that. 
Else it maybe an attempt to split our coalition up, duing the followering negotations? So you can impose harsher terms on individuelle alliances, then you can on the coalition as a whole. And then afterward you can focus on alliances, that is unwilling to agree to what is without a doubt ridiculous terms, maybe you even give terms you know won't get accepted, on some alliances. 
So you have an excuse to keep rolling them, cough TKR cough...
Until they either die, or agree to your out there terms.

But to be fair, since BK attack on t$, i haven't seen the greatest need to surrender, on this side of Christmas. Maybe we can reach peace in the new year?
 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Zim

[Miller]

56 minutes ago, Of The Flies said:

Nobody is expecting you to surrender before you receive all the terms.

 

56 minutes ago, Of The Flies said:

you need to be willing to accept it before anyone bothers progressing forward with other conditions

lmfao 

[Elder Rachael]

20 hours ago, Forsteri said:

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

 

This is ridiculous its is clearly 33.33% Bed, 33.33% bath, and 33.33% beyond. You cant just combine Bed and Bath

 

[Syrachime]

40 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

All that is needed is that it is accepted that there will be an admission of defeat in the final peace and that is a non-negotiatable term.

So, is an admission of surrender in the final peace all you guys want?  I'm not trying to make fun of you guys, I really want to know what you want.  The problem is your request is being perceived as surrender first and THEN here are our terms rather than surrender + our terms.  Why not give it a shot and offer something to go along with that surrender?  I'm not involved in the peace talks and I'm not going to say what our collation would accept in terms for peace.  I am saying though that you should at least put something on the table so it can be discussed.

Come on guys, it's been four months...  The average player in this game doesn't care about the politics of this and all prolonging this war is doing is hurting the community.  I don't think anyone would argue that this war hasn't negatively affected the game.  If you want this game to survive, this toxic, childish show of politics has got to stop.  I think it's long past time to quit playing politics and hammer something out for the greater good.  As I said, I'm not involved in the peace talks, but as an average player, there is no fun to be had watching you guys argue over literally nothing and destroy the game while your at it...  I'm sure that's something both sides can agree on.

[Kevanovia]

1 hour ago, Comrade Marx said:

That sounds incredibly simple. Perhaps we can argue about it for another 7 pages, though.

More simple than laying out all of your terms and emphasizing that surrender is a non-negotiable?

[The Mad Titan]

1 hour ago, Syrachime said:

So, is an admission of surrender in the final peace all you guys want?  I'm not trying to make fun of you guys, I really want to know what you want.  The problem is your request is being perceived as surrender first and THEN here are our terms rather than surrender + our terms.  Why not give it a shot and offer something to go along with that surrender?  I'm not involved in the peace talks and I'm not going to say what our collation would accept in terms for peace.  I am saying though that you should at least put something on the table so it can be discussed.

Come on guys, it's been four months...  The average player in this game doesn't care about the politics of this and all prolonging this war is doing is hurting the community.  I don't think anyone would argue that this war hasn't negatively affected the game.  If you want this game to survive, this toxic, childish show of politics has got to stop.  I think it's long past time to quit playing politics and hammer something out for the greater good.  As I said, I'm not involved in the peace talks, but as an average player, there is no fun to be had watching you guys argue over literally nothing and destroy the game while your at it...  I'm sure that's something both sides can agree on.

All we want is for there to be an agreement that Coalition A is negotiating peace that will eventually result in the surrender. The reason for this is your side refuses to admit defeat, and we have no interest in discussing who won this war. We are more than happy to discuss any other term that will be presented, but if you look at your sides leaderships past peace talks it will be four weeks before even agreeing to say "we lost", and we have no interest in wasting our time. 

As for the second part, your side's leaders made it clear what would happen to us if we were in your shoes, we have no interest in a "greater good" which translates to "you give we take". Considering your side's public and stated goal was to end BK and NPO, wanting those same people to simply admit they lost is hardly an egregious escalation.

[Kevanovia]

2 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

All we want is for there to be an agreement that Coalition A is negotiating peace that will eventually result in the surrender. The reason for this is your side refuses to admit defeat, and we have no interest in discussing who won this war. We are more than happy to discuss any other term that will be presented, but if you look at your sides leaderships past peace talks it will be four weeks before even agreeing to say "we lost", and we have no interest in wasting our time. 

Obviously saying “we lost” and then proceeding to negotiate is much different than having a surrender being a ‘non-negotiable’ term.

What time are you “wasting” if you are going to be at war anyway? Your narrative is such an obviously dishonest one.

Again, the people at the negotiating table were not the same people at the negotiating table during Knightfall. At this point it doesn’t even matter. Coalition B is trying to save face from their bone headed move of “requiring a surrender before discussing terms” by now trying to rephrase it into something else. Just lay out the terms and make clear that you don’t wish for surrender to be negotiable. The damage you have created is already done, at this point everyone on both sides are just smashing their head against a wall. This is a tired argument.

[The Mad Titan]

1 minute ago, Kevanovia said:

Obviously saying “we lost” and then proceeding to negotiate is much different than having a surrender being a ‘non-negotiable’ term.

One is the prelude to the other. You must say that you lost and it is not up for debate in the eventual document.

 

2 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

What time are you “wasting” if you are going to be at war anyway? Your narrative is such an obviously dishonest one.

Our own personal time? If we are going to do the dance for four weeks we can do the low intensity fighting rather than run circles in peace servers.

 

4 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

Again, the people at the negotiating table were not the same people at the negotiating table during Knightfall. At this point it doesn’t even matter. Coalition B is trying to save face from their bone headed move of “requiring a surrender before discussing terms” by now trying to rephrase it into something else. Just lay out the terms and make clear that you don’t wish for surrender to be negotiable. The damage you have created is already done, at this point everyone on both sides are just smashing their head against a wall. This is a tired argument.

Theres no attempt to save face, at this point I think its perfectly clear we care absolutely zero about what you think. However if you can't understand the difference between unconditional surrender and what we are asking, then it's only fair to educate you.

[Kevanovia]

8 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

One is the prelude to the other. You must say that you lost and it is not up for debate in the eventual document.

 

Our own personal time? If we are going to do the dance for four weeks we can do the low intensity fighting rather than run circles in peace servers.

 

Theres no attempt to save face, at this point I think its perfectly clear we care absolutely zero about what you think. However if you can't understand the difference between unconditional surrender and what we are asking, then it's only fair to educate you.

When did I state anything about an unconditional surrender?

[Syrachime]

15 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

All we want is for there to be an agreement that Coalition A is negotiating peace that will eventually result in the surrender. The reason for this is your side refuses to admit defeat, and we have no interest in discussing who won this war. We are more than happy to discuss any other term that will be presented, but if you look at your sides leaderships past peace talks it will be four weeks before even agreeing to say "we lost", and we have no interest in wasting our time. 

As for the second part, your side's leaders made it clear what would happen to us if we were in your shoes, we have no interest in a "greater good" which translates to "you give we take". Considering your side's public and stated goal was to end BK and NPO, wanting those same people to simply admit they lost is hardly an egregious escalation.

To be honest, I could care less who is in the right, and who is in the wrong.  We've been at war for four months, and I know there are people on both sides as well as neutral parties that also could care less at this point.  This war has been going on for months and has been dragged out because of pathetic, toxic politics.  And said politics is destroying the game for new and old players alike.  Ending this war for me isn't about who is right or wrong, it's about saving the game from the toxicity before it gets worse than it already has.  NO one wants this to turn into CN, do we?  You want to set a precedent?  Step up and be the bigger person by at least trying to negotiate peace with a substantial offer including terms and conditions for surrender.  That's all I'd like to see Coalition B do by putting up an offer for peace.  I'm sorry if I'm asking for the world when I make that request.

[Azaghul]

26 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Considering your side's public and stated goal was to end BK and NPO, wanting those same people to simply admit they lost is hardly an egregious escalation.

 

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

1) Leaks and rumours about intentions to attack in the immediate or very near future, was received by the NPO.

2) Not really conjecture. See 1). 

*citations needed*

[Changeup]

21 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Theres no attempt to save face, at this point I think its perfectly clear we care absolutely zero about what you think. However if you can't understand the difference between unconditional surrender and what we are asking, then it's only fair to educate you.

You should be worried about saving face. There's such a thing as planning for the long-term, and not caring about what we (or, for that matter, the rest of Orbis) thinks is going to come back to haunt you in a big way when the next war comes.

[Roquentin]

6 minutes ago, Changeup said:

You should be worried about saving face. There's such a thing as planning for the long-term, and not caring about what we (or, for that matter, the rest of Orbis) thinks is going to come back to haunt you in a big way when the next war comes.

These types of threats are exactly why we're not motivated to appease you. They've been a thing from the get-go. You crossed the line originally and none of the leaders who made those prounouncements have taken their words back or walked back their rhetoric. Appeasing you is appeasing people that have stated they will never trust us and hate us. You made it clear you will intimidate allied alliances into leaving us and it will be a recurring thing, so we don't care. In terms of other people, time will tell, but KERTCHOGG's stance of permanent enmity along with trying to get parts of our side to turn on each other for their benefit has been made clear. We're done with the years of these intimidation tactics against our interests and have no reason to enable them.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Roquentin

[Auctor]

so the good news is we wont surrender either

[Syrachime]

7 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

These types of threats are exactly why we're not motivated to appease you. They've been a thing from the get-go. You crossed the line originally and none of the leaders who made those prounouncements have taken their words back or walked back their rhetoric. Appeasing you is appeasing people that have stated they will never trust us and hate us. You made it clear you will intimidate allied alliances into leaving us and it will be a recurring thing, so we don't care. In terms of other people, time will tell, but KERTCHOGG's stance of permanent enmity along with trying to get parts of our side to turn on each other for their benefit has been made clear. We're done with the years of these intimidation tactics against our interests and have no reason to enable them.

What are you so afraid of with us?  You say we are the ones intimidating alliances into leaving you, but didn't you guys turn your backs on t$ when BK attacked them?  Didn't Order of the White rose and another alliance leave BK because of this war?  As far as I'm aware, we haven't done anything to make that happen.  You guys did that yourself.  You guys are the ones destroying your own PR and prolonging this war over something as pathetic as politics isn't helping your image...  Like I said, I guarantee you the average gamer could care as less about the hows and whys of this war.  You guys are your own worst enemy at this point, not us...

[Edward I]

2 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

something as pathetic as politics

....so, the game? Not sure why you're playing a political simulator game if you think politics is pathetic.

2 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

Like I said, I guarantee you the average gamer could care as less about the hows and whys of this war.  You guys are your own worst enemy at this point, not us...

Apparently we're not average gamers then.

[Syrachime]

5 minutes ago, Edward I said:

....so, the game? Not sure why you're playing a political simulator game if you think politics is pathetic.

Apparently we're not average gamers then.

It's a political simulator, yes.  However, there is such a thing as taking politics too far.  I actually enjoy politics, just not when it turns into childish, toxic mud slinging.

And while you may not be an average gamer, you need to keep in mind that not everyone is as passionate about this as you might be.  If you go to the extremes, the only thing you'll have left are extremists on your side.  Most people hate extremes and would rather leave that than stick around with it.  Good luck attracting new players if you take politics to the extreme.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Syrachime

[The Mad Titan]

6 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

It's a political simulator, yes.  However, there is such a thing as taking politics too far.  I actually enjoy politics, just not when it turns into childish, toxic mud slinging.

And while you may not be an average gamer, you need to keep in mind that not everyone is as passionate about this as you might be.  If you go to the extremes, the only thing you'll have left are extremists on your side.  Most people hate extremes and would rather leave that than stick around with it.  Good luck attracting new players if you take politics to the extreme.

As extreme as “you can’t spin your way out of this. Your time is up. Scorched earth. Anyone tied to NPO and BK will sink with the ship”?

Don’t get indignant about extremes when it’s your side that pushed it there. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Aragorn, son of Arathorn

[Salt Meat]

2 hours ago, Miller said:

 

lmfao 

haha lol lmbo so funny that you can't read and understand a simple sentence.

 

Accepting that you will have to surrender to end the war is not the same as actually, physical doing it, dingus. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Of The Flies