Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Azaghul said:

*citations needed*

1. Sketchy and Keegoz posted that during NPO's DoW thread. The proof is around, I'll see if I can link that to you. What I cannot find is Sketchy and Keegoz or Sketchy's boss withdraw their statements/apologise for it and try to work past it. 

2. Our entrance to this war occurred once we received logs regarding your leader's intention. I've shared it with the required peoples and have kept it from public viewing, for multiple reasons, including not needing to reveal the source/ on the request of the source to not share personal communications between themselves and me and other reasons. But the nature of those logs have been widely discussed. 

2 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Either be straightforward with the terms or stop bullsh*tting us that all you want is surrender because no one believes that with your current stance. Saying all you want is a surrender while also telling us there are more terms afterwards if we surrender is undeniably contradictory.

I mean we've been very straight forward. Either agree that to our first term, an admission of defeat/surrender and that you won't try to negotiate this term out, and you'll have the rest of the terms. Since you aren't willing to agree to term 1, doesn't make sense to really go through the rest honestly. 

No one here said there won't be more terms, all we've said is if you're willing to accept defeat/surrender then we can move on to the other terms, so I find it difficult how that's a) not straightforward and b) contradictory? 

2 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

) It was never our stated goal to end BK and NPO, we have stated our actual goal multiple times over

1. It might not have been yours personally, but your coalition leadership seemed to sing a different tune publicly for a while. I'm yet to see them withdraw/apologise and fix the trust deficit regarding those statements. If you'd like to keep going down this rabbit hole though, we can. 

2 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

2) Literally all that was ever discussed when we were undeniably on top was surrender and one other term

It's your word vs Keegoz/Sketchy and multiple other rumours oh and your own former coalition government members contradicting you. I daresay, either your coalition never had a clear ending to this war, or you're trying especially hard to backtrack on those terms and no one's buying it atm. But nevertheless, since you say one other term, feel free to share it if you want to! I'd counter with enough terms we've heard floating around from your coalition mates/former and we can take notes, shall we? 

2 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

3) We weren't going to hide anything like you're trying to do

 

No, because you're not in a position to demand terms. There's not much to hide with regards to terms. It's also easy to claim this, but we'll never know will we? 

I mean my best suggestion, stop having folks from your membership constantly threaten us/ hope for our disbandment in public at least. If you want us to appease you, asking for it with a straight face would work better than this disingenuous trap your members seem to be trying. The guilt-tripping and faux outrage, with threats of future rollings/disbandments (just read Micchan's posts in this thread lol), and constant sniping, doesn't really win you brownie points with a coalition you're trying to get peace from. In fact it only gives us more reason to not care/compromise with your coalition since your members, at least the ones posting in public are more interested in the death of communities/alliances. 

You can either go full scarfy, or you do not and try to repair those bridges. You can't go full scarfy with the posturing than expect us to care about what y'all want. Maybe not suggesting that no-deal Brexit is the best outcome to your own member-base, when reality is different could be a good first step. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to be sure I'm clear on this.. Is the actually stalling on peace talks simply:


Coalition A: We want to know all of the terms for peace.
Coalition B: You have to admit defeat before we present terms.


Is that really all it is? Surrender, defeat admissions, white peace, or whatever is virtual always term one of any agreement at the end of a war. Can't you simply agree that term one of the peace agreement is that a side surrenders (or whatever verbiage you want)? You can then begin the process of working on the terms. Because honestly, if you can't agree on that, I'd hate to be one of the coalition negotiators. The pigeon is going to lose all of his feathers by the end of this. He'll have to cover his body with pieces of paper that have "Clarke did nothing wrong" on them. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Is that really all it is? Surrender, defeat admissions, white peace, or whatever is virtual always term one of any agreement at the end of a war. Can't you simply agree that term one of the peace agreement is that a side surrenders (or whatever verbiage you want)? You can then begin the process of working on the terms. Because honestly, if you can't agree on that, I'd hate to be one of the coalition negotiators. The pigeon is going to lose all of his feathers by the end of this. He'll have to cover his body with pieces of paper that have "Clarke did nothing wrong" on them. 

Well you've got it. Maybe Coalition A would now as well. That's literally what it is. Term one, Coalition A agrees to admit defeat/surrender. What's term two now? And we'd give it. If Coalition A isn't willing to agree to term one, why would we be bothered in covering the other terms. Like Roq made a post about this weeks ago and so have I. But it's literally that, Coalition A is not willing to admit defeat/surrender and therefore the peace talks have not progressed. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Well you've got it. Maybe Coalition A would now as well. That's literally what it is. Term one, Coalition A agrees to admit defeat/surrender. What's term two now? And we'd give it. If Coalition A isn't willing to agree to term one, why would we be bothered in covering the other terms. Like Roq made a post about this weeks ago and so have I. But it's literally that, Coalition A is not willing to admit defeat/surrender and therefore the peace talks have not progressed. 

I've done plenty of negotiations in these games. I've done plenty of negotiations on contracts and other things in real life. You typically agree to things as a package. From what I've been seeing is more of, they're willing to but want to know what the package is. And generally speaking, the side dictating terms is the victor. You're the one making the guidelines of what is needed for peace, so that means you won. 

Just present them the package, they'll come back to you with any problems they might have with said package, ask for changes or things to be removed. You can then present a counter with some different terms, or explain why certain terms are effectively non-negotiable. Then after that they can try to work with the non-negotiable terms and trim some of the other terms. So on and so forth.

I don't want you to think I'm saying Coalition A is dumb for not admitting defeat. I think they're being somewhat petulant about it, sure. But Coalition B really isn't any different. At this point both sides are just screaming at each other with their ears plugged. The real winners of the war will be the alliance(s) who actually side step this bull-crap that's going on and push their coalition to actually start negotiations. Because if as you say the hold up is literally what I described, then neither side his the high ground on this one and you're both just children playing in the mud; you're both just getting dirty over nothing.

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

I've done plenty of negotiations in these games. I've done plenty of negotiations on contracts and other things in real life. You typically agree to things as a package. From what I've been seeing is more of, they're willing to but want to know what the package is. And generally speaking, the side dictating terms is the victor. You're the one making the guidelines of what is needed for peace, so that means you won. 

Just present them the package, they'll come back to you with any problems they might have with said package, ask for changes or things to be removed. You can then present a counter with some different terms, or explain why certain terms are effectively non-negotiable. Then after that they can try to work with the non-negotiable terms and trim some of the other terms. So on and so forth.

I don't want you to think I'm saying Coalition A is dumb for not admitting defeat. I think they're being somewhat petulant about it, sure. But Coalition B really isn't any different. At this point both sides are just screaming at each other with their ears plugged. The real winners of the war will be the alliance(s) who actually side step this bull-crap that's going on and push their coalition to actually start negotiations. Because if as you say the hold up is literally what I described, then neither side his the high ground on this one and you're both just children playing in the mud; you're both just getting dirty over nothing.

I mean I've done negotiations before and there are multiple ways to it. A package while may be the norm, it's not necessary to always be the case. The point is, we want our non-negotiable term to be accepted so that we can move on with the rest, rather than play that hand and go through the headache of wasting hours if at the end of it they try to negotiate the surrender/admission of defeat out of the agreement. So we might as well not waste our time till that's accepted and cleared and the rest then can be discussed tbh. 

If you're saying we should move first with releasing the entire package, I'd like to state our Coalition collectively disagrees with the necessity to do so, and while we'd like to work out an agreement, a simple enough acknowledgement that the entire process is to be discussing their surrender/admission of defeat is not a terrible request. Literally there are multiple ways to solve this conundrum, and they chose the extreme (not surprised). So we're fine continuing the war till they've come to acknowledge their defeat and communicate the same. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

You're side is presenting the terms required for another side to receive peace. That in itself shows that you're the victors. Wanting to see the terms of peace is not a big ask. It's basically the smallest ask possible. Be the bigger alliance and just put the peace terms on the table. You gain so much more than you lose. You look like the more reasonable alliance (assuming your terms aren't bonkers) and you have to give up nothing to do so. 

You don't even have to "go through the headache of wasting hours", because all you're doing is presenting the list to them. Give them the terms, and then when they come back start off with "Do you admit defeat". If the answer is no, well then there doesn't need to be further discussion. Now you would have at least tried. Now you would have the moral high ground. Now you would not only be winning the war, you'd be winning the political war too. 

Solid suggestion, been discussed and discarded. There's not much to gain. The starting point will be the non-negotiable terms first, and then the negotiable ones. If we can't seem to agree on the non-negotiable one's first, the rest is absolutely pointless. We'd rather not play those cards as there's no reason to, and no motivation either. 

We've tried through multiple channels to make it clear what it'd take to open these negotiations, they seem to think they don't need to back down, so I don't see why we'd need to either. They are motivated to continue the war, so we might as well continue to do so. 

Again, I'm not trying to "claim" the moral high ground here insofar as correcting the lie that we want their unconditional surrender. There's no morality at play here or political war either. To all those who wanted to surrender and move on, we gave them terms and moved on to signing agreements. These folk don't need any special treatment from what how we've been operating up till this moment ?‍♀️

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Solid suggestion, been discussed and discarded. There's not much to gain. The starting point will be the non-negotiable terms first, and then the negotiable ones. If we can't seem to agree on the non-negotiable one's first, the rest is absolutely pointless. We'd rather not play those cards as there's no reason to, and no motivation either. 

We've tried through multiple channels to make it clear what it'd take to open these negotiations, they seem to think they don't need to back down, so I don't see why we'd need to either. They are motivated to continue the war, so we might as well continue to do so. 

Again, I'm not trying to "claim" the moral high ground here insofar as correcting the lie that we want their unconditional surrender. There's no morality at play here or political war either. To all those who wanted to surrender and move on, we gave them terms and moved on to signing agreements. These folk don't need any special treatment from what how we've been operating up till this moment ?‍♀️

There's always morality and political battles to win in these situations; its where the term "political capital" basically originated. The constant discarding or ignoring of them is what lead to Knightfall, where major factions whom were not allies teamed up to take down the dominant sphere in the game. These little sort of decisions may not seem like much. Aragorn can say he doesn't give a crap about PR. But there is a critical mass that eventually gets reached by the dominant sphere, which you guys now are. When that threshold is reached, you could end up getting your Knightfall. I'm just saying it's good to be mindful of your public standing. Sometimes little things go long ways.


Regardless, I'm not involved with the war. I was just joining the conversation for a little bit and am going to be bowing out now. If you want the last word, by all means take it. If not, I wish you luck sorting this gridlock up. 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 3

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Epi said:

Even if our terms were harmless they use them to vilify us. 

If your terms where harmless, you would publicly them, so it would put pressure on the gov of war exhausted alliances to accept them. 
 
If your belief truly is that it is the pride individuals leaders, that cause the unwillingness to admit surrender, then that would be the way combat that. 
As you would be putting pressure on does leaders by their own alliance, that might even have them removed. 

That you not willing to state your terms is more sign for me , that your terms, is so harmful as they can be used as a reason to keep the war going for the KERCHTOG coalition. 
I can see why our side, aren't willing to surrender frist, and then get handed a Versaille treaty 0.2

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

There's always morality and political battles to win in these situations; its where the term "political capital" basically originated. The constant discarding or ignoring of them is what lead to Knightfall, where major factions whom were not allies teamed up to take down the dominant sphere in the game. These little sort of decisions may not seem like much. Aragorn can say he doesn't give a crap about PR. But there is a critical mass that eventually gets reached by the dominant sphere, which you guys now are. When that threshold is reached, you could end up getting your Knightfall. I'm just saying it's good to be mindful of your public standing. Sometimes little things go long ways.


Regardless, I'm not involved with the war. I was just joining the conversation for a little bit and am going to be bowing out now. If you want the last word, by all means take it. If not, I wish you luck sorting this gridlock up. 

Fair enough. I think the basic misunderstanding from where I'm sitting is that there is a belief in any political capital remaining to be fought for, or created. From an NPO point of view, we knew what entering this war would do to our political capital, and the costs incurred. The reaction from KERTCHOGG while over the top, has made it amply clear that these are the sides, and six months down the line, we're going to have round 2 of this fracas. If there were alliances to win over, move around and real politics to be played, I agree and this negotiation would be handled differently. It's my firm belief that there is none left, and this is the end game, we're going to have a few more rounds of the present war in repeat over the next six-ten months and whomever still stands at the end of the day, would be where the politics and optics matter. 

That being said, given that there's nothing to be found here, at least in public, then PR goals over overrated. There's enough entrenchment and I doubt anyone wants to take a risk again in trying something different for a while. We have Fark sphere who enjoy being left alone and onto their own devices. KERTCHOGG who's out for NPO blood. tS/NPO/HS who are on slippery slope and wherever the three of us go, won't tip the scales too much, but the KERTCHOGG door is closed, the BKsphere one is half open for us. I mind given the options we have, you can see why we're not really perturbed by the idea of a "political war" because the cards have been dealt, and its a wait to see who's are higher. There is no real FA reset possible at the end of this war, folks have taken it to personal/OOC that stops any real IC movement. If you think there's still scope, I'm all ears, but I don't see it, and I doubt even you can pull together different parties outside of those already entrenched in their sides to work together on a common target. If you could, it'd be probably be versus the NPO, which is fair, but then you can see why a good peace is necessary to ensure we're ready for that round. 

tl;dr politics is dead, these seem to be the entrenched sides and folks are too personally involved in all of this to skip the IC role-play and straight out just want to kill one another. I daresay, at this point for the foreseeable future, it is the endgame of politics. 

EDIT: Also realised this post is dripping with cynicism. At the end of the day, let all things burn and we'll see what survives ;) 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one side finally accepts an unconditional surrender with terms to come later, the other side needs to then issue no terms, and say, "See? We imposed no conditions on you after the surrender. You're a bunch of fricking idiots. See you in 4 months."

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Of The Flies said:

And have you learned the difference between doing something and saying that you're willing to do something yet?

You should probably go back and re-read what I initially quoted. Based on this question I think the joke went over your head. 
 

6 hours ago, Of The Flies said:

Do you communicate in anything other than off the mark super sick burn one liners?

It’s harder to contradict yourself (hint hint) if you stick to one sentence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2019 at 12:41 PM, 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

 

It's 30% bed, 15% bath, 7% & and 48% beyond.

Don't @ me.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPO/BK just attacks everyone even people not really involved with the major conflict which is between Choas block and IQ. This is quite a messy political practice because you just mass produce tons of enemies. That is big mistake for Coalition B. Although, they appear victorious now they have to deal with the crushing consequences of their actions later. Throwing away allies and betraying trust won't end well no matter how many times they convince themselves they are okay...

Chaos Bloc mistake was failure to focus just on NPO and nobody else. Also another mistake was pre emping BK thinking that former IQ allies wouldn't find someway to step in. There needs to trust that there are no leaks, maybe even turn over government members that are oddly uninvolved of too quiet.

For every peaceiing out peripheral entities very early could have more or less made the war move faster. It doesn't really matter how fast of slow the war moves it only matters that things are either being created or destroyed. I have no problem being in constant warfare.

 

Edited by Deulos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know reading through this thread had me asking repeatedly what kind of stretches y'all do to fit your entire heads into your own fricking asses like that? Most of this thread must save a fricking boatload on colonoscopy procedure costs. 
it is just as easy to present your list of terms as a packet as it is for Alphabet Soup over here to accept the first term as non-negotiable. I'm glad leaders can be so fricking asinine all at once.

ffs it's like the shitty political sim version of "Days Of Our Lives" in here.

12 minutes ago, Epi said:

CoS buys some Tegrity Weed and denounces big kool-aid farma.

tenor.gif

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean I've done negotiations before and there are multiple ways to it. A package while may be the norm, it's not necessary to always be the case. The point is, we want our non-negotiable term to be accepted so that we can move on with the rest, rather than play that hand and go through the headache of wasting hours if at the end of it they try to negotiate the surrender/admission of defeat out of the agreement. So we might as well not waste our time till that's accepted and cleared and the rest then can be discussed tbh. 

If you're saying we should move first with releasing the entire package, I'd like to state our Coalition collectively disagrees with the necessity to do so, and while we'd like to work out an agreement, a simple enough acknowledgement that the entire process is to be discussing their surrender/admission of defeat is not a terrible request. Literally there are multiple ways to solve this conundrum, and they chose the extreme (not surprised). So we're fine continuing the war till they've come to acknowledge their defeat and communicate the same. 

No.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

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.

Bruh.

You had two high ranking coalition officials state that those comments you keep referencing were not the position of the coalition as a whole. I understand you want Sketchy or Buor to personally walk back ever negative thing ever said by Scarf or other hot heads, but you know that is never going to happen. We don't hold Sphinx's absurdity as the absolute truth for your coalition, so extend us the same treatment.

We've publicly and privately conveyed that our terms, in the event of our victory, would be white peace. Show me where you've been told with authority otherwise and I will concede that point.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley

Coalition A Negotiator: Dear Coalition B, we would like to discuss the terms of our surrender. 

Coalition B Negotiator: Sure Coalition A, we were thinking that the terms of your surrender would include X, Y & Z

CAN: X and Z are fine, but we are not comfortable with Y for reasons G & H

CBN: Okay, would a reword of Y to Y2 work

CAN: Yes

*war is over*

CAN: No

*war continues until common ground is reached*

 

^ This is what needs to happen, its not unconditional, it is an acknowledgement that you are ready to accept a peace process starting with a surrender.

Edited by Frawley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Miller said:

You should probably go back and re-read what I initially quoted. Based on this question I think the joke went over your head. 
 

It’s harder to contradict yourself (hint hint) if you stick to one sentence. 

I'm completely aware of what you were getting at, you thought you had some super sick burn over a contradiction and ran to make your post without actually reading what was written. However, there was no contradiction whatsoever.

 

You quoted two things, myself saying that nobody is expecting anyone to surrender before receiving terms, and myself saying that they need to accept that surrender is one of the terms before advancing further.

 

A basic understanding of the fact that physically surrendering is not the same as accepting that you will have to surrender as a term, would very quickly tell you that your "joke" has not gone over anybody's head, it just completely missed the mark and made no sense. 

Edited by Of The Flies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.