Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Epi said:

We've already made a concession and i'm fairly certain it's the last one we'll make. Initially we wanted an admission that they'd lost the conventional war before negotiations began, I.E surrender because they'd be negotiating in bad faith if their members didn't believe they'd lost and had no intention of signing at all. It also waste a fk ton of time and place unnecessary stress on everyone involved.

From memory, it was Rose member that proposed "We'll agree to 'surrender' as a term before negotiations begin" which is what we're asking for now. I vividly remember it being discussed, though whether or not that person talked to the leadership of Co. B and is responsible for our change in policy i can't say for sure.

Also to note: Lol, every time you post, Hippo's posting at the same time with a contradictory tone or message. Look back to the last page
Hippo: "give us an incentive"
Syra: "we're not asking for an incentive"

Not sure how a 'surrender first before we present terms' is much of a concession, but if you say so.  And our statements might be contradictory, but I'm not involved in the peace talks.  I'm merely throwing out suggestions to try and move the process along beyond this small impasse.  Even if you don't like the idea I throw out there, at least I'm offering a way to try and get us out of this mess that we ALL got ourselves into.  It's something more substantial than just saying you need to surrender before we present terms.

To be fair, at least you presented something.  Even if it was just a joke, at least it was something and that could have been built on/debated.  I appreciate the fact that you actually took the time to do that.  Making and presenting terms may not be worth the stress and seem like a waste of time to you right now, but it is absolutely necessary.  What goes around comes around.  You might very well find yourself in this same situation one day if NPO decides to turn on you guys because BK is getting too strong and 'threatening the balance'.  Pushing you down and not accepting anything but your surrender first before they will talk to you.  Allies today could just as easily be enemies tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

Not sure how a 'surrender first before we present terms' is much of a concession, but if you say so.  And our statements might be contradictory, but I'm not involved in the peace talks.  I'm merely throwing out suggestions to try and move the process along beyond this small impasse.  Even if you don't like the idea I throw out there, at least I'm offering a way to try and get us out of this mess that we ALL got ourselves into.  It's something more substantial than just saying you need to surrender before we present terms.

To be fair, at least you presented something.  Even if it was just a joke, at least it was something and that could have been built on/debated.  I appreciate the fact that you actually took the time to do that.  Making and presenting terms may not be worth the stress and seem like a waste of time to you right now, but it is absolutely necessary.  What goes around comes around.  You might very well find yourself in this same situation one day if NPO decides to turn on you guys because BK is getting too strong and 'threatening the balance'.  Pushing you down and not accepting anything but your surrender first before they will talk to you.  Allies today could just as easily be enemies tomorrow.

It's not as easy as you might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

19 pages later & this thread still probably hasn't made any progress toward peace. Although I don't really see anything wrong with just eventually white peacing a conflict if the opponent hangs in long enough & most get bored fighting them after doing most of the damage which can be done to them, whether in recognition of their fighting resolve or just so people can move on eventually.

*Shrugs* 

From my understanding, Coalition B wants us to surrender before making terms for peace and feels it is a waste of time to do so otherwise.  Coalition A wants their non-negotiable surrender term included in a package along with a list of their other terms so it cam be hammered out without having to straight up admit defeat before they see the terms...  That's where this debate is stalled right now.

Your pick on which one is in the right, and which one is in the wrong.  That insignificant impasse is literally why everyone is still fighting.

2 minutes ago, Auctor said:

It's not as easy as you might think.

Maybe not, but it gets us somewhere.  Further than where this pointless bickering has got both coalitions.  Even if you had just a few terms to put on the table, that would be something to start talking about.  Right now, all we have to do is argue over who is right and wrong about the stance they take.  And we see 19 pages later where that's gotten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

*Shrugs* 

From my understanding, Coalition B wants us to surrender before making terms for peace and feels it is a waste of time to do so otherwise.  Coalition A wants their non-negotiable surrender term included in a package along with a list of their other terms so it cam be hammered out without having to straight up admit defeat before they see the terms...  That's where this debate is stalled right now.

Your pick on which one is in the right, and which one is in the wrong.  That insignificant impasse is literally why everyone is still fighting.

Maybe not, but it gets us somewhere.  Further than where this pointless bickering has got both coalitions.  Even if you had just a few terms to put on the table, that would be something to start talking about.  Right now, all we have to do is argue over who is right and wrong about the stance they take.  And we see 19 pages later where that's gotten us.

There will be no peace until Buorhann surrenders control of TGH to me as Viceroy.

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

Just now, Tiberius said:

There will be no peace until Buorhann surrenders control of TGH to me as Viceroy.

So...Coalition B wants a flat out surrender before presenting terms and feels it's a waste of time to do so otherwise in addition to Buorhann surrendering control of TGH to Tiberius as Viceroy.  That's what has us stalled out in perpetual war, got it. LOL. XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Syrachime said:

So...Coalition B wants a flat out surrender before presenting terms and feels it's a waste of time to do so otherwise in addition to Buorhann surrendering control of TGH to Tiberius as Viceroy.  That's what has us stalled out in perpetual war, got it. LOL. XD

The world is your oyster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean coalition A can budge on their non acceptance of a non negotiable term first too. It doesn’t have to be us.

Also I love how you’re trying to blame the NPO behind this impasse when Sphinx and the rest of the Coalition collectively voted upon this. 
 

It’s straight forward enough. Accept you’ll be surrendering and budge on that and then we can move onto discussing other portions of your surrender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I dont get is this:

IF coal. A says: 'we surrender', coal. B presents terms. 

IF coal. A then thinks: 'these terms are bonkers' then they can keep fighting.

Why not try this? If the terms are bonkers, show them in the OWF and keep the moral high ground, if they are okay, then peace.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The world is your oyster. 

Oysters are delicious.

33 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

So...Coalition B wants a flat out surrender before presenting terms and feels it's a waste of time to do so otherwise in addition to Buorhann surrendering control of TGH to Tiberius as Viceroy.  That's what has us stalled out in perpetual war, got it. LOL. XD

Yeah, we'd also like 2 number 9's, a number 9 large, number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, 2 number 45's, one with cheese, and a large soda.

Since you'll count any meme peace term as real shit anyway.

Edited by Khandov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I"m not sure complaining about the lack of clear surrender terms is much different than admitting you've already lost the conventional war. So not really sure what the benefit is in complaining over that condition rather than just fighting longer. I would think mainly they have that condition since they don't want to give Coalition A wide terms, so they're requiring a leap of faith for it to be worth their time; even if I doubt they have high expectations Coalition A will be able to collectively agree to that.

Although I guess PR wise its better than saying there is no way for Coalition A to collectively get peace if they wanted it badly enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 classmates had a fight, they don't want to talk to eachother. the teacher puts them together and after a long talk he asks them to shake hands. Neither boy will stretch his hand first. Teacher says that they won't leave their spot until they shake hands. It's been like 5 months and the boys are still staring at eachother and neither is willing to make the first move.

Sounds familiar?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

Someone on the KETOG/Chaos side is eating fish flakes for my amusement.

lol, just in case they were thinking about it; you had to remind them almost anything would be up for grabs as far as what comes after. XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

And uh, yeah, a lot of the nuances of this war is NPO's fault.  BKsphere only started the war, but NPO escalated it in multiple ways (Not just by dragging in more and more people that had no ties to this conflict).

The war would have been over in a month then lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

And uh, yeah, a lot of the nuances of this war is NPO's fault.  BKsphere only started the war, but NPO escalated it in multiple ways (Not just by dragging in more and more people that had no ties to this conflict).

Pot kettle situation right here folks.

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

13 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Nah. If you aren't willing to accept term one, the rest are pointless. Honestly, no amount of equivocation from your side will change this. Unless and until it's clear you are willing to surrender/admit defeat, there's no point for talks to go on. You're free to read @Akuryo's post earlier in this thread that showcased it was a simple one-liner and we moved straight into the terms and negotiated stuff till a compromise was found. That was demonstrated with Ming and whomever else tbh. Not about to change it now for folks who's leadership state they do not wish to surrender in public while trying to pull this guilt-trip on the forums. No thanks. 

I think we may be understanding the terms differently then.  The way we understand "unconditional surrender" is that we're agreeing to the other terms before we even know what they are.  However, it seems like you're using the term to just mean we admit defeat, and then we can negotiate the rest of the terms.

 

Am i misunderstanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Laffopuritain said:

I think we may be understanding the terms differently then.  The way we understand "unconditional surrender" is that we're agreeing to the other terms before we even know what they are.  However, it seems like you're using the term to just mean we admit defeat, and then we can negotiate the rest of the terms.

 

Am i misunderstanding?

You’re not misunderstanding there. The admission of defeat is the first term the rest can be negotiated after. Yes. We aren’t expecting the admission of defeat as an acceptance of all other terms lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

Pot kettle situation right here folks.

As we had discussed, you admitted you could see our perspective and I admitted I could see yours.  Doesn't mean either of us was right, or wrong, since there's a lot of unknowns.  Don't know who you are, so why would your word be taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

As we had discussed, you admitted you could see our perspective and I admitted I could see yours.  Doesn't mean either of us was right, or wrong, since there's a lot of unknowns.  Don't know who you are, so why would your word be taken?

I don't see why you wouldn't take it.

There was absolutely no strategic advantage to dragging GOONS in against your allies. 

There were 2 possible scenarios.

A. We were lying, and planning to enter the war against you, in which case you changed absolutely nothing by dragging us in early.

B. We were telling the truth, and did not intend to get involved, in which case you've caused a ton of extra damage against your allies for no reason whatsoever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh my god this is still going.

6 hours ago, Keegoz said:

Maybe next time don't joke in a vc whilst we have peace talks about the bs terms you can quickly come up with if we surrender whilst we have someone in said vc.

If IQ were serious about peace (which they are not), they'd be handling this better. These attempts so far have been to humiliate and attempt to swap the blame to our coalition for stalling peace. Not a surprising tactic as most their allies have no idea the games their negotiators have been playing.

Buddy, if IQ wasn't serious about peace they wouldn't bother responding. As has been said many, many times - they're winning. They literally have no reason to have this conversation at all if they didn't genuinely want peace. Use your head jfc.

Oh you're "humiliated"? Next time try winning the war.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 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.