Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Hodor said:

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  

How about Buor walks back what Sketchy and Keegoz said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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? 

Your coalition saying all you want is surrender is contradictory with then saying "actually we also want a bunch of other terms we won't tell you about".

8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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. 

A fragment of one sphere of coalition leadership is not representative of the entire coalition's goals, as you're well aware. It was one of your guys' favorite things to remind me of during Knightfall after all.

8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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? 

You'll have to show your citations on that one. I don't recall anyone besides Akuryo discussing terms and as I stated when you brought it up, Akuryo was not a part of terms discussions and what he was stating was not the truth of the situation. I believe there were a more recent trolling with terms but considering your reps came to the talks with the intent to troll and nothing else, ours had fun returning the favor. I don't need to backpedal anything though because it's never been any different. I'll show you our term when you show us yours;)

8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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. 

We've tried the straight faced asking, you haven't seemed willing to appease us yet, why would that change now? If you're deciding to feel threatened by Micchan after choosing to engage with her, I can't help you. Might surprise you that not everything is a trap though and they genuinely have questions for you. You can choose whether to engage with them or not, that's your decision.

All in all though, you've made it pretty clear with your posts all throughout this war that you're going to react the same way whether we're polite and straightforward or not so there's not much incentive for me to tell them to back off either. I doubt a handful of members posting or not will significantly improve or endanger goodwill that you've made evident you don't have.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frawley said:

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.

Anything other than this is a semantic argument used for the only purpose of extending the war. Which is especially silly because the longer the war goes on, the further KETOG/Chaos get from achieving their supposed political goals. Unless their actual goal was to supplant NPO once again with TKR/the old hegemon.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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. 

 

So... 2 people.  Were they elected as leaders of the coalition?  Did they claim that they were speaking for their alliance or the coalition?  Was it part of a formal statement?

Very weak evidence of a supposedly coalition-wide policy, or even a serious policy.  Frankly it comes across as crocodile tears.

Quote

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. 

Considering your very low standards of evidence above, unspecific secret logs is hardly convincing.  Of course you'll claim that it only matters if it satisfies you, since no one can disprove secret logs.  But if you want anyone else to trust that it isn't bullshit you'll have to do better.

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

Anything other than this is a semantic argument used for the only purpose of extending the war. Which is especially silly because the longer the war goes on, the further KETOG/Chaos get from achieving their supposed political goals. Unless their actual goal was to supplant NPO once again with TKR/the old hegemon.

How does extending the war help us "supplant NPO once again with TKR/the old hegemon"?

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

How does extending the war help us "supplant NPO once again with TKR/the old hegemon"?

It doesn't, so now that you've admitted that none of your war goals are possible, let's talk about your surrender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frawley said:

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.

Many peace agreements in this world don't include a formal "surrender".  Even one sided ones that may include an admission of defeat, one party agreeing to stay out of the an ongoing war, etc.  Calling it a "surrender" is a peace term and it is normal to want to see all proposed terms before agreeing to any individual terms.

The only time I've seen anyone insist that the other side agree to terms individually before they'll reveal further terms is NPO in CN in 2008* and Gremlins under Ramirus Maximus (2010?).  This is a new precedent you are trying to set.

*11 years ago, I'm aging myself with this one.  You too since we were both a part of it

9 minutes ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

It doesn't,

So why did you claim that it was our "actual goal" if we "extend the war"?

Edited by Azaghul
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

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. 

 

Exactly how much time would be wasted in typing out your initial terms?  I guess I'm confused about this talk of wasted time considering every thread that's created talking about the end of the war goes on for weeks. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, we're happy (personally I'd prefer) to keep fighting, and you guys seem to be the same. So bar the lack of counters, which I'm sure you guys can work on, the status quo seems pretty good to me.

Re peace - its pretty simple, TKR and co agree that you lost, then the higher ups of both sides will negotiate. If either side isn't happy, we keep fighting til either one side can't fight anymore, or more likely the differences are ironed out.

I think we should leave peace discussions til maybe late Dec so we can have an Xmas peace, or just a truce for that day and keep fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

Many peace agreements in this world don't include a formal "surrender".  Even one sided ones that may include an admission of defeat, one party agreeing to stay out of the an ongoing war, etc.  Calling it a "surrender" is a peace term and it is normal to want to see all proposed terms before agreeing to any individual terms.

The only time I've seen anyone insist that the other side agree to terms individually before they'll reveal further terms is NPO in CN in 2008* and Gremlins under Ramirus Maximus (2010?).  This is a new precedent you are trying to set.

*11 years ago, I'm aging myself with this one.  You too since we were both a part of it

So why did you claim that it was our "actual goal" if we "extend the war"?

You are very good at being baited but not very good at understanding the bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Of The Flies said:

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.

You still don’t realize you’re saying we don’t have to surrender to know terms, but then say the opposite. Look at what you wrote up there. Actually read it. A couple of times, preferably. Then look up the definition of a contradiction. Or keep trying to say I don’t understand. That’s more amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

<drastically not getting it again

why are you all under the opinion that "stating you surrender" = "npo has my nuts in a vice". Jesus christ. it's a formality.

Edited by Archibald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

So... 2 people.  Were they elected as leaders of the coalition?  Did they claim that they were speaking for their alliance or the coalition?  Was it part of a formal statement?

No two leaders from TGH/KT. They threatened us with perma-war and those comments are yet to be walked back. It would be equivalent of Roq threatening TKR with perma-war and no one else denying it for weeks till there's some half-hearted denial to save face. They have yet to walk back their own statements. So feel free to contact TGH's #2 and KT's (Trium now I guess?) and they are free to communicate the same. 

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

Considering your very low standards of evidence above, unspecific secret logs is hardly convincing.  Of course you'll claim that it only matters if it satisfies you, since no one can disprove secret logs.  But if you want anyone else to trust that it isn't bullshit you'll have to do better.

Why would I expect TKR to trust my CB on TKR? You forget, I don't particularly have any reason to show you the said logs of all people. Actually I daresay especially you Azaghul, but I mean the said logs have been shared with folks who we were allied with and other parties as necessary. Again I have no reason to out my source to any of you and since they preferred to not be named or outed, I'm not about going to start now ^_^  But if you want a full context of our entrance and reasons for war, I can point you to a few WoT's explaining the same rather than going through it again at this moment in time. 

 

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

2 hours ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

Anything other than this is a semantic argument used for the only purpose of extending the war. Which is especially silly because the longer the war goes on, the further KETOG/Chaos get from achieving their supposed political goals.

How Frawley is phrasing it and how the actual talks have transpired are two different scenarios.

I feel like there are a select few of us on both sides of the fence that are on the same page. It would be beneficial to all parties involved if the terms were laid out. (As we have been arguing this whole time)

  • Upvote 3

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Archibald said:

why are you all under the opinion that "stating you surrender" = "npo has my nuts in a vice". Jesus christ. it's a formality.

I wrote a whole thing about how my point was more about everyone on both sides being a bunch of spoiled brats with their heads wedged between their legs screaming about how their farts smell the most like roses. And how easy it is to literally list out terms with a small asterisk next to the first one that says surrender *Non-Negotiable. As easy as screaming about you wont continue neg. until the first term is accepted. Both having pros and cons and technically being vaild. And how childish it is to block and ignore negotiations for a month, with a provided countdown timer, because you didn't get what you want.

But it was around the second or third time I called you a fricking pinecone while typing that I realized I'm just really pissed off from work. I preemptively recall my pinecone statement. And just offer, with my above statement, the attached photo for a tl;dr from my point of view.

The_Truth.JPG

  • Haha 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Why would I expect TKR to trust my CB on TKR? You forget, I don't particularly have any reason to show you the said logs of all people. Actually I daresay especially you Azaghul, but I mean the said logs have been shared with folks who we were allied with and other parties as necessary. Again I have no reason to out my source to any of you and since they preferred to not be named or outed, I'm not about going to start now ^_^  But if you want a full context of our entrance and reasons for war, I can point you to a few WoT's explaining the same rather than going through it again at this moment in time. 

If your CB were valid and there were actual proof to be had, we'd own to it. Claiming something so easily disapproved and basing it on a brief discussion about a hypothetical defensive situation in which I essentially said we'd roll with it and my tone is the antithesis of that. This isn't a "REEEE, you don't have proof" stubborn refusal to agree with you. It was literally never a part of our plans and you are aware of that, you just won't admit it. That's fine, that's your business. If you enjoy coming on here for the sole purpose of perpetuating your disingenuous circle jerk, more power to you.

  • Upvote 4

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Miller said:

You still don’t realize you’re saying we don’t have to surrender to know terms, but then say the opposite. Look at what you wrote up there. Actually read it. A couple of times, preferably. Then look up the definition of a contradiction. Or keep trying to say I don’t understand. That’s more amusing.

I mean I really don't understand how you aren't grasping the concept, and I really can't think of any more ways to say the same damn thing? Are you being intentionally obtuse? 

 

I am not saying the opposite.

You do not have to surrender to know terms.

Surrender is the first term. You need to be willing to do it for the war to end.

You do not do it yet.

Do. Not. Do. It. Yet.

You have not surrendered at this point, you have just acknowledged you have lost and that you WILL surrender as part of the final peace.

Again, in case you still don't understand, you have not surrendered to progress the peace talks. You have acknowledged that you will do it. 

You have not done it.

  • Upvote 1
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.