peace talks

[JT Jag]

Just to be completely clear to various KELLOGCHAD leaders, you can do all of this--- the discussions, the informal surrender, the exchange of terms--- behind closed doors where none of your membership will roast your nuts. You could talk to Coalition B leadership, say you're considering surrender and you want to see the terms. They'd give you the terms. If you don't leak the terms to the forums, we won't leak that you came looking for surrender in the first place. Take your time, figure out if the terms are right for you. Even if you're discussing surrender terms, it doesn't mean you've actually surrendered. Please be smart about this, hellwar is boring.

[Changeup]

21 hours 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.

It's not a threat, it's what will happen. And didn't an entire sphere just turn against your coalition because of BK?
 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Changeup

[Shadowthrone]

1 hour ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

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.

That's easy to say, yet harder to believe. Seeing how you have no idea who the source is, or what the conversation entailed and trying your best to get me to out it with the logs through multiple means is fun to watch though. I don't need to admit to your plans as they are your own. What I freely admit to though, is you said things that came to us, and decided to well backfire on you instead. It may be a good idea to not plan rolling NPO and pinning the blame on us, for things we weren't really involved in and make a hegemonic play and expect no resistance. 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Shadowthrone

[Ayayay]

10 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

That's easy to say, yet harder to believe. Seeing how you have no idea who the source is, or what the conversation entailed and trying your best to get me to out it with the logs through multiple means is fun to watch though. I don't need to admit to your plans as they are your own. What I freely admit to though, is you said things that came to us, and decided to well backfire on you instead. It may be a good idea to not plan rolling NPO and pinning the blame on us, for things we weren't really involved in and make a hegemonic play and expect no resistance. 

 

Like bourham once said, we aren't going to burn our sources just for you.

[Kevanovia]

1 hour ago, Of The Flies said:

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.

Again, this is not how the talks actually went. We were straight up told that we have to admit defeat and surrender before we heard the terms. We even attempted to clarify, asking to see the rest of the terms. We didn’t deny their request to surrender. We just denied to surrender before seeing the rest of the terms.

 

Maybe going forward, since this is now the popular opinion of Coalition B, talks will be more fruitful.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Kevanovia

[Smith]

I can't believe the alliance that has a history of making up CBs and not providing any proof would make up a CB and not provide any proof

[Charles Bolivar]

4 hours 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"?

Channeling Ramirus is never a good thing.

[Buorhann]

11 minutes ago, Smith said:

I can't believe the alliance that has a history of making up CBs and not providing any proof would make up a CB and not provide any proof

Because there isn't any proof.  There's multiple sources saying the CB is faulty as hell and the main reason is for NPO to maintain "good ties" with BK.

31 minutes ago, Malal said:

Like bourham once said, we aren't going to burn our sources just for you.

You don't have to, we already know it's bullshit.

[Buorhann]

5 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. Unless their actual goal was to supplant NPO once again with TKR/the old hegemon.

What are our political goals?  That is, if there is any.

Your initial statement seems to be questioned by your speculation of the latter.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Buorhann

[Do Not Fear Jaz]

9 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

What are our political goals?  That is, if there is any.

Your initial statement seems to be questioned by your speculation of the latter.

So you're saying you have no political goals to speak of? So either A. You have horrendous leadership who isn't capable of long term planning, or B. You are a chaos inducing entity because you lack any actual agenda and must be destroyed.

[Smith]

Just now, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

So you're saying you have no political goals to speak of? So either A. You have horrendous leadership who isn't capable of long term planning, or B. You are a chaos inducing entity because you lack any actual agenda and must be destroyed.

I think the question being asked is you are say we are working against our "supposed goals" as if you had specific ones in mind. What are the "supposed goals" you are referencing?

Though I will point out our sphere's coalition name is Chaos  

[Buorhann]

2 minutes ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

So you're saying you have no political goals to speak of? So either A. You have horrendous leadership who isn't capable of long term planning, or B. You are a chaos inducing entity because you lack any actual agenda and must be destroyed.

Didn't claim anything.  You're the one who made a statement of our political goals.  I'm just asking what are they, since you seem to know.

[Sketchy]

7 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

How about Buor walks back what Sketchy and Keegoz said?

I sincerely apologize for calling you Brave and Beautiful. I now see the error in my ways and It probably won't happen again.

 

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi

[Roquentin]

Yeah, that's the only thing we have to go on. As far I can see is since there's no room for diplomacy since I could say Frankfort is the capital of Kentucky and it would be dismissed as an outright lie. That's sort of the issue when someone is like "we hate you forever. you are beyond awful and always lie. everyone should never believe anything you say". Basically all I can tell is they wanted to extend the war to bleed people dry so more alliances would drop out and we'd have to capitulate and become isolated and then get perma-rolled later on and I guess maybe they were relying on tS as a future secret weapon? This is all speculative but these have been the main theories.

[Buorhann]

At least you got something right, they're theories.

[Arawra]

9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Yeah, that's the only thing we have to go on. As far I can see is since there's no room for diplomacy since I could say Frankfort is the capital of Kentucky and it would be dismissed as an outright lie. That's sort of the issue when someone is like "we hate you forever. you are beyond awful and always lie. everyone should never believe anything you say".

You can't reasonably expect your enemies to accept your word when you say you have these incriminating logs being used to enter a war against our coalition while also refusing to present them. I know you guys said it time and again that you don't have to prove anything, but don't complain about being called liars in public view when it's entirely your fault. Victim card rejected, I bestow upon you my official no u.

[Toph]

Ok so since the entire argument of Coalition B is that our side needs to surrender (though what they really mean is admit defeat which is not the same thing), then my question is, why? Why not just negotiate peace? Terms unfavorable to Coalition A obviously means they lost. Seems like a complete pride thing.

Asking for a surrender first is a bargaining tactic because if Co B then asks for a very punitive term and Co A doesn't want it, you could shut down negotiations and leak the surrender of Co A, therefore pressuring them to accept terms they otherwise wouldn't have.

So you're either being too prideful, which is the PR argument you make against TGH and KT, or you have one or more very punitive terms that you don't want to reveal because you plan on pressuring the other side via PR. Considering the comments on the first/second page from Co B members that contradict each other, once saying they don't have terms because they don't want to bother because we'll never accept, another saying they had terms ready on the first day, and Roq saying they have terms but isn't allowed to disclose them, it seems very possible that the second scenario is true.

If it's true you're only allowing negotiations once a month, you're obviously not acting in good faith. Despite what people say you don't actually have to admit defeat to start negotiations. That's not like some physical law of the universe. Just negotiate, anything outside of that is BS and probably nefarious.

Edit: switched coalition letters lol woops

Edited October 17, 2019 by Toph

[Do Not Fear Jaz]

44 minutes ago, Smith said:

I think the question being asked is you are say we are working against our "supposed goals" as if you had specific ones in mind. What are the "supposed goals" you are referencing?

Though I will point out our sphere's coalition name is Chaos  

 

44 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Didn't claim anything.  You're the one who made a statement of our political goals.  I'm just asking what are they, since you seem to know.

 

43 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Or C) you guys planned to attack us first

Three replies, lots of words, no one addressed my point. Which I'm assuming is confirmation of my original assessment.

 

Cheers.

[Buorhann]

So your point was to make a statement, have nothing to back it up when questioned, and then fall back on "LOL I GOT YOU GUYS MY POINT IS PROVEN"?  Looks like you're on the right side then.

[Roquentin]

11 minutes ago, REAP3R said:

You can't reasonably expect your enemies to accept your word when you say you have these incriminating logs being used to enter a war against our coalition while also refusing to present them. I know you guys said it time and again that you don't have to prove anything, but don't complain about being called liars in public view when it's entirely your fault. Victim card rejected, I bestow upon you my official no u.

Um, except every time it's happened before, it's eventually known to be the case that it was based on something real It also wasn't the sole reason. The actual reason was to balance the war out because of the considerable risk to our security from the KERTCHOGG coalition having a cakewalk victory  which was in the statement where it says this is why we declare war on TKR. You've focused on the proximal cause for the target choice not the overall aim. 

This is the absurd aspect of it since if you recall correctly, I was excoriated by Manthrax  and the rest in Trail of Tiers a few years back for the same thing and now the source of the intel from that war was made the leader of  CoS and that was after he had pushed for the war based  on the intel he got from someone now in a CoS protectorate.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Roquentin
clarifation

[Azaghul]

4 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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. 

So, two people in government made threats in comments in a Declaration of War Thread.  No formal announcement.  No claim to be speaking for the coalition.  If an opposing leader posted a comment to that effect in a Declaration of War thread we posted I'd brush it off as posturing.

You're being deliberately obtuse if you think that's proof of an agreed upon policy.  It's posturing so you can play the victim card as well as propaganda to motivate your membership.

Quote

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. 

You care about the public narrative or you wouldn't be here on this forum.  This isn't just about what TKR thinks.

[Buorhann]

You guys want to know why this entire war is bullshit on Coalition B's views?

Here's a couple of reasons:
1)  NPO pretty much threw everything in this, despite this "not being their war" initially.  GOONs, GPWC (Despite telling us that they're not part of this, but hey that changed quickly), their own allies, etc.

2) People are worried about what Keegoz/Sketchy said.

3) Majority of CBs from them are against TKR, but not against Chaos as a whole or KETOG, or both of our spheres - just TKR.

[Micchan]

Ok I have a solution

Coalition B explains all the peace terms, Coalition A accept to surrender... at the same time

Like two people are ready with the post and at the update both submit the reply at the same time

Thank me later

[Zim]

14 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I guess maybe they were relying on tS as a future secret weapon? This is all speculative but these have been the main theories.

It is kinda talk like this that make you lapped as liar. Is this your newest conspiracy theory? that our side, somehow made BK act like idiots, and got them to pull t$ into the war? Who clearly wasen't readry for a war.
An alliance you still treaty bound to, by the way. It honestly seems extremely weird that neither of you two sides have started to dismantle that treaty. 

Beside t$, dosen't have numbers, to contest with your control of the mid tier, only Fark have that. The rumors was more in the direction that it would be Fark joining and not t$, Which is my guess why you got them to sign a DNR in the frist place. 
Beside that you are allied to t$, as i pointed out earlier. And they fought on side of BK, in the start of the war. It would have seen as improbable for t$ to join our side in the war, even just days before BK's attack on them.