Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 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?

If you all collectively agree to admit defeat, doubt you'd all then collectively choose to keep warring just because some on your side find their terms disagreeable though. So would be kind of an extreme step for your leaders to take, unless they were confident it wouldn't weaken their position if they don't like the terms. What terms would be acceptable at this point I would imagine are highly subjective and vary across your side.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

If you all collectively agree to admit defeat, doubt you'd all then collectively choose to keep warring just because some on your side find their terms disagreeable though. So would be kind of an extreme step for your leaders to take, unless they were confident it wouldn't weaken their position if they don't like the terms. What terms would be acceptable at this point I would imagine are highly subjective and vary across your side.

You are the peanut gallery.

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

2 hours ago, Of The Flies said:

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

This is false, there was a pretty big change in maintaining one of the advantages we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

This is false, there was a pretty big change in maintaining one of the advantages we have.

What advantage is there though?

The only difference I can see between preemptively bringing us in and us hypothetically entering ourselves is the mass spy killing campaign against us before we started combat, and considering most of our nations weren't old enough to even be at half capacity yet, it didn't really make a difference.

As someone who had mine killed, the end result is someone once or twice a day blowing up 5-10 of my planes. 

Not really an advantage worth dragging in a potentially neutral alliance over.

And on the other hand, you've allowed an alliance of 100+ new nations on "the other side" to gain valuable combat experience in a winning war where the stakes are low and mistakes can be easily learned from without much consequences.

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

48 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Coal B then says “Hey they surrendered, that means you guys should give up the war effort”, which hypothetically puts in an even worse negotiation position.

 

Did you repeat what your alliance told you or did you think this through?

Um, no. Not how it works. You can acknowledge the war is lost but that you can keep fighting for better terms. Akuryo gave his example already. He didn't want to do the infra cap so he made it worth Sphinx's while to go with the mandated repayments instead.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

Coal B then says “Hey they surrendered, that means you guys should give up the war effort”, which hypothetically puts in an even worse negotiation position.

 

Did you repeat what your alliance told you or did you think this through?

Thx for your reply altough I wonder if that last sentence was absolutly nessesary ?

And,

Well, im under the assumtion Coal. B. already says what you suggested. But even if they are not, what would it matter? 

If I read this thread correcly, and DO correct me if im wrong, the general idea is that coal A. lost but that Coal B. will present nasty terms (and waged the war dirty, but that is the confusing part). 

There are no game mechanics the make sure that wars cannot be waged after a post on the forums says: 'we surrender, now tell us what you want!'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R Johnson said:

It's usually pretty standard to admit defeat when you've lost a war.  Not sure why this is such a problem for Coalition A.  '

It's not anyone else's fault if you are unwilling to do something so simple and obvious.

Please explain how we lost again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Keegoz said:

 

You can also just present terms and say a surrender is non-negotiable. You know as is common place and after the shit pulled this war forgive me for not believing you have any good intentions with this negotiating tactic.

I don't see the point if you don't feel your side has lost.  I didn't come up with the idea of having it as a precondition and I didn't decide on it, but it's proving its value. Kind of the issue here is you feel morally wronged and that you have some moral superiority here. I'm not tempted to indulge this vilification. You're the one at the end of the day who did say our intent was to become hegemonic and that it'd be our last shot to do anything so we're already in a weird place there.

 

4 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

This is reductionist if not strawmaning the point I was making.  

Chaos was founded because we found people who had a similar interest in changing things up and making things dynamic.  Maybe you're right in that this wasn't a big change from KF because IIRC we tried to do the same with NPO post-ToT/pre-AC.  I don't think we've changed on this point, and it has been a fundamental aspect of our treaty choices (including our past tie with TcW).  Even the logs you had posted previously concerning our plans about IQ were largely a secondary concern given that they mainly developed out of a mutual want to create the dynamic aforementioned which IQ hurt.

 

Quote

As for the whole friendliness thing, I'd urge you to reconsider that point because there were definitely many periods of tension if not hostility.  We don't remember fondly getting backstabbed by half of the game pre-KF.  But just like our emphasis on not creating long-term grudges, we don't believe in long-term friendships neither.  Also, unless you wanted TKR to be alienated for the 3/4 of the game that dogpiled us forever, we would have had to reconcile with at least some future ally/bloc so that point isn't unique.

And NO.  We did not by any means have any plans or feelings to attack BK at the time.  As Kev had explained, our plans were to continue community outreach programs and have fun wars.  This was our  publicly stated goal, and we intended to keep with them.

It wasn't a huge change but it was clear from your outreach to former enemies and others that you were going against certain alliances. The whole IQ as generic thing doesn't really cut it with me because there were actual tensions with the individual alliances. So I've even heard of the trade bot term is being painted as draconian and that it's a major reason for your resistance to give up, so if you have it in for the people who did it, then that's not going to matter if they have a bloc or not.

To be honest, if Chaos was really never going to engage in another political war again then they should have been more vocal about it. Like I doubt anyone would feel any fear if they thought it was just a bunch of people screwing around with random 1 on 1s. If your goal was basically to depoliticize the game, then there was no transparency on that and  it just looked like Chaos was a vehicle for revanchism. It's really hard to believe a bloc with at least 2/3 alliances having bad history and dislike of others would just do random hijinks instead.

Quote

TKR is strongly based on honor as you know (which includes lying).  If you had actually seriously talked to us, maybe we could've explained how wrong your take was.  I can create almost any narrative I want from out-of-context screenshots and hearsay and so can you, but I don't think you did your due diligence here.  Also, from what I understand, Adrienne did try to talk you guys down, but your minds had been already made up.  That isn't fair to us nor to you and your members.  I am a very strong proponent of communication.  Maybe we didn't do enough, but you definitely erred here too because you fundamentally misconstrued our intent (if this is actually what you believed and not spin).  Moral of the story is please reach out in GOOD FAITH before taking as rash actions as you did (again assuming that this was your motive which I'm not convinced of).

lol. I wouldn't go on this line of TKR having always acted honorably.  The point isn't that the narrative is from x, y, z but rather that it is super plausible and the level of trust isn't there. I'm not really sure how Adrienne tried to talk us down?  Everyone she interacted with came away with the impression she was gonna strike whenever it was opportune.  This combined with Smith's constant baiting and the pronouncements by TKR people of NPO ruining the game like Lordship and Mitsuru before we hit TKR made it pretty clear that a lot of people there had issues.

Quote
 

Again I think you're oversimplifying my point.  I'm not saying that economics is a condition of you're interests rather an expression.  I take it that you strive for a position of safety and strategic strength for NPO.  Economics serves as a proxy for measuring that in a direct and an indirect sense.  Primarily, the more growth, cities, bank you have then the better position you are to fight a war.  In reference to the indirect measure, "war is never really profitable" is the key here as someone in a position of strategic strength will have the ability to choose when he/she fights and will likely not get drawn into a war unless it is chosen.  The point I was making was that when comparing your interests, which in part (directly and indirectly) stem from economics, with your strategic positions now versus an NPOless war, is that it is quite clear that you would be better served by staying out.

It isn't that clear based on past precedent. There are plenty of instances of major alliances sitting out and then the next war being worse than if they had made common cause with the people that had been fighting the last one. In fact, it was the standard case in several wars and Partisan referenced it a while back. A united front is better than hoping to win alone.

Quote

The PR idea is bs because there was a very legitimate reason for you not getting involved: "no relations with any of the combatants," or so was conveyed.  And your PR is MUCH WORSE now than it ever would've been.  That is just a fact.  Also, IIRC TKR still had SALT and 69, so that whole pixel-hugger argument doesn't seem too compelling.  

You're assuming PR with KERTCHOGG is the same as relations with people in general or that we would have been popular by sitting out. There were actually more ties with one side(just optional though), but we weren't trying to be an extension of the Cov/BK sphere at the time and the idea behind cancelling was that they were strong enough to not lose badly so it wouldn't be us totally screwing them by dropping to execute the prior deal. At the same time,  there was no reason not to assume we wouldn't be a big target after.  It would be logical if BK sphere collapsed to go after the next biggest sphere, as comparisons had been constantly made to show we were super big compared to everyone else despite a lot of it being protectorates like Cov/BK, so we would  easily end up becoming victims of the same propaganda.  Salt and 69 were curbstomps  so it is still compelling. It didn't result in heavy losses for TKR to fight those alliances.

 

Quote

This imposes an interesting dilemma.  We return to our economics, which was the point of T$' plan until you entered fully.  Alternatively, we go for you, which goes against our beliefs and our public statements as well as jeopardize our strategic position.  Also, a collapse of the BK sphere wouldn't imperil you if you weren't tied to them as you say since no one was paying significant attention until you forced T$' hand into doing its rules thing and then entering fully yourself.  Either way the BK collapse was arguably of it's own doing since it made plans it obviously couldn't follow through on.  The external factor here was that you seemed to value that relationship more than your own PR, strategic position or relationship with your allies.

There was plenty of attention directed at us lol. It was clear to some extent people in TKR held NPO responsible and kept calling us out. CovBKsphere is the only one that doesn't have a history of beating on people for appearing to be bigger purely based off nationcounts and it was the only one if it was salvagable to take on KERTCHOGG or KERTOG or whatever permutation might have existed. We wouldn't have had another move to make short of KETOG/Chaos breaking up themselves and moving to different spheres after.  The concerns we typically shared with the Cov/BK side were immaterial to KERtCHOGG and people like us were usually seen as bigger problems. KERTOG had a diametrically opposed worldview which we had no way of reconciling with them wanting to appear small numbers count/treaty-wise while at the same pooling the best fighters into one sphere. With Chaos it seemed to be more of the same, with Ripper saying that closing gaps wasn't the reason behind his participation in Knightfall.  Signing TKR and protecting the former TKR allies with the TKR leaks showing they planned to keep TCW as a secret ally, raised tons of suspicion along with Rado's pivot to KT/TGH fa-wise and then making soup.

Our PR was never going to be great for a multitude of reasons and I already explained our strategic position was served by avoiding an overwhelming defeat for BK. The thing with allies or rather tS in particular there was an understanding with the prior FA head and that a scenario where BK got totally annihilated wasn't beneficial. There were a lot of issues with BK cited in terms of diplomatic incidents but there was agreement that balance-wise, it wouldn't be ideal for such a scenario to transpire as a result of us cancelling. This changed when the FA head disappeared and even then I was understanding of the fact that they felt BK had been too combative in some situations and they might want to see BK get bloodied. However, when the damage had already been done and BK was looking to be in dire shape and losing support, the stance they had didn't change. Others involved either saw the same issues we did or were more understanding of our concerns about a domino effect even if they thought it was paranoid and were more open to doing stuff. At the end of the day, it just was never part of any arrangement we had that enabling the annihilation of that sphere was a cornerstone of our sphere especially since it was known to some extent there was no way they could live up to the paper stats. It would also establish the precedent that we would have to follow directives from them in all future situations and rely purely on their connections as we'd have burned any bridges we had with anyone else. So when they're changing things up from leader to leader and don't really think of highly of us with condescending comments of "you kept losing to people like us for years," I can't really let them determine our fate solely.

Quote

I don't know what comments you're talking about, but they weren't reflective of our view at the time, which can be independently backed up at the time with screenshots (timestamped and all).  I mean I just think it's even more reflective of a failure of communication.  As for the leaks, if you can't out your person then there really is nothing distinguishing it from speculation and I'll treat it as such.  Otherwise, anyone has free reign to say whatever they want.

There were constant callouts from high profile TKR members like Smith. It basically seemed like Smith was acting a surrogate for the real views and then when tS went in, some of the others started poping out.

Quote

I've pointed out inconsistencies beforehand, but I was mostly referring to the idea of supporting your interests which really haven't been served by your actions.  I mean we can look at some of Frawley's recent posts.  It's not really a contest that a lot of your lines are spin.  An idea is to publicly state those FA goals, complicated or not, so that you can point back at them and be truly consistent.  Transparency has its perks, which is also what TKR has attempted and is attempting to do.  

Well everyone says we're acting too much in our interests, so I don't know how this works. I don't know that you know what our best interests are.  Our FA goal was to contest the consolidation of KERTCHOGG and avoid the return of beatdowns on "blobs" by the  "git gud" squad and encouraged abandonment of allies. I've even been told that some people are in fact just preferring to fight perceived paper tigers.

Quote

I appreciate that, and I only respond in the way that I expect to be responded to.  It's just a game at the end of the day, so I'm not here to be toxic but just to have politics and protect the game when I think it needs it.

 

Well, you bring an aura of innocence to the table due to being almost entirely new. I"m just not convinced that the things you say are wholly representative of what TKR is thinking.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 12:31 PM, Roquentin said:

 

 

 

Okay let's explain this again. Anyone could have hit TEst even if you're upset it was BK. It could have been a combo of Polar/acadia/upn.  So Typhon and others entered aggressively and it could have had spillover effects on the other fronts if we didn't counter right away, so it was done in a rush.  We had no designs on Typhon or Aurora prior to that. We had wanted TS to incorporate Typhon in order to make the sphere more streamlined and self-reliant post-war, but we had no real connections to Typhon or any of the other tS prots. So when tS made it clear we were through with the signings and deliberate lack of disclosure and the shooting down of any mediation to salvage the sphere prior to that, we couldn't hold back  further than we already were. By not engaging the hard front ourselves(tS), we were already carrying less of the burden and by avoiding hitting prots, it would have been more pressure on our coalition partners.

Right. So again, you hit your ally's protectorates while allowing a direct multi-alliance coalition hit on your ally. The treaty was still in effect, was it not?

 

How exactly do you equate signing a treaty your ally does not like to that?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Right. So again, you hit your ally's protectorates while allowing a direct multi-alliance coalition hit on your ally. The treaty was still in effect, was it not?

 

How exactly do you equate signing a treaty your ally does not like to that?

Let's break it down once more:

1. tS leaves the war without telling NPO because it disagrees with NPO's actions assuming NPO will lose and  frequently says KERTCHOGG is in the right and had trashed NPO to its opponents and ghosted it for several days.

2. NPO covers for a variety of tS actions that undermine NPO's position and embarrass it like protecting Sanreizan/letting in people who had been at war with NPO back in/etc. while NPO is fighting in hopes that the relationship is still salvageable and does its best to sanitize tS perspectives when it is forced to handwave these actions away. tS shoots down mediation attempts.

3. Two alliances exit the coalition NPO is in and sign tS immediately without NPO knowing with it having been in the works for a while. The signings and hostility make it clear that the die has been cast and the sphere is dead and the treaty is just a glorified NAP and post-war positioning has begun with it being known tS will cancel.

4. An ongoing situation with TEst, an alliance led by a KERTCHOGG military leader erupts into resumption of hits. tS goes in for TEst and is countered.  As tS' hostility had been shown, but the treaty exists as a glorified NAP, we move to hit the alliances we can to reduce the pressure on the other alliances.

 

Edited by Roquentin
clarification
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Please explain how we lost again?

Well I mean this is the crux of the whole peace issue right here.

You don't think you've lost, and that's fine, but the coalition doesn't want to discuss terms with you until you have "lost", in whatever way you choose to define it. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering NPO leads a hegemony in CN, it's pretty safe to assume you're trying to do the same. With the introduction of GOONs and the appearance of your suspicious GPWC horde, it's not far fetched to say you're doing the same here. And it's really kinda sad. Dominating online simulator games to the point of hegemonic stagnation is not in your long-term self interest, and clearly you haven't come to terms with that yet.

You point at all your enemies losing members as a good thing. Funny because everyone used to frown at KT for doing the same. But you don't care about this game having members outside of NPO and it's sphere, and it's obviously just bad for the game. Everything you do is in bad faith, Roq. Maybe one day you'll finally gain some self awareness.

Edited by Toph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Toph said:

 

Considering NPO leads a hegemony in CN,

 

This again. False. We can get into this one, but the last person you should be shitting on who's actually dismantled NPO's hegemony in CN and stood up to them would be Roq. Really, half-understood history seems to be your strong suit. 

 

23 minutes ago, Toph said:

With the introduction of GOONs and the appearance of your suspicious GPWC horde, it's not far fetched to say you're doing the same here.

Right, new communities joining the game = NPO hegemony. Understood. Expanding the player base is somehow proving a NPO hegemony, because your circle jerk finally has competition now is it? :P 

24 minutes ago, Toph said:

Dominating online simulator games to the point of hegemonic stagnation is not in your long-term self interest, and clearly you haven't come to terms with that yet.

NPO's never really done this. But again selective reading of histories can point to this.

24 minutes ago, Toph said:

You point at all your enemies losing members as a good thing. Funny because everyone used to frown at KT for doing the same. But you don't care about this game having members outside of NPO and it's sphere, and it's obviously just bad for the game. Everything you do is in bad faith, Roq. Maybe one day you'll finally gain some self awareness.

More like, the war and its allied activities have led to actions and reactions and none of us really have clothed ourselves in glory. But if anyone's acted in bad-faith here, we can continue playing with what-aboutisms, since its the party who got dealt with who believes in good faith or bad faith, and I can point to quite a few instances where folks dealt with us in bad faith in the last 120 days alone, that led to this war ;) 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

This again. False. We can get into this one, but the last person you should be shitting on who's actually dismantled NPO's hegemony in CN and stood up to them would be Roq. Really, half-understood history seems to be your strong suit. 

 

Right, new communities joining the game = NPO hegemony. Understood. Expanding the player base is somehow proving a NPO hegemony, because your circle jerk finally has competition now is it? :P 

NPO's never really done this. But again selective reading of histories can point to this.

More like, the war and its allied activities have led to actions and reactions and none of us really have clothed ourselves in glory. But if anyone's acted in bad-faith here, we can continue playing with what-aboutisms, since its the party who got dealt with who believes in good faith or bad faith, and I can point to quite a few instances where folks dealt with us in bad faith in the last 120 days alone, that led to this war ;) 

Roqs actions in this game speak for themselves. Hitting anyone you think is a threat is transparent. Your rhetoric and Roqs have been consistently hegemonic from the very beginning. You can try to spin it anyway you'd like but the proof is in the open for all to see. You complain about Buorhann talking on the OWF sounding a certain way, and yet everything that comes from your mouth, Roqs mouth, and your goons oozes with a superiority complex that is frankly pitiful.

Expanding the player base? You expanded NPO and friends player base. You try to make some morality argument here that bringing people to this game is a good thing, therefore if they ALL land up on NPO's side, it's fine and not a hegemony. Yes, your actions, your power, and your view of other alliances being a threat to you and preempting them, is a hegemony. Again, you can spin it any way you like and try to make everyone else drink whatever koolaid you drank a while ago, but it's inauthentic and bullshit. NPO controls GPWC and the "new player base". If you want to be real and stop making up some dumb spin, disband GPWC. Otherwise, you're just using this "new player base" as a farm to exploit and a lower tier army to do your bidding.

Riiiiight. "NPO has never really done this" and yet, Roq had to gloriously stand up to them in CN against their hegemonic ways. Nice hole you have there. Check your spins, make sure they align.

So you don't believe in good faith or bad faith is what you're saying? Ok yeah, let's throw out fairness and equity and make everything about our own short term self interest at the expense of the future environment. We've pointed to countless ways your side has negotiated in incredible bad faith. But by all means, continue to try to protect your overlord and glorious leader Roq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

To be honest, if Chaos was really never going to engage in another political war again then they should have been more vocal about it. Like I doubt anyone would feel any fear if they thought it was just a bunch of people screwing around with random 1 on 1s. If your goal was basically to depoliticize the game, then there was no transparency on that and  it just looked like Chaos was a vehicle for revanchism. It's really hard to believe a bloc with at least 2/3 alliances having bad history and dislike of others would just do random hijinks instead.

We didn’t want to depoliticize the game, but rather wanted to rejuvenate it. By working alongside people we wouldn’t normally work with (IE: NPO...doh!), promoting mini-spheres, etc we wanted to help clean the slate of how people viewed various alliances and push reset on the political landscape. (Which is why we wanted to hit/dismantle IQ, and it is why we dropped said discussion once IQ disbanded).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

If your goal was basically to depoliticize the game, then there was no transparency on that and  it just looked like Chaos was a vehicle for revanchism.

The goal wasn't to depoliticize the game but that doesn't mean the only other option for our sphere was revanchism, as Kev detailed. 

 

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It wasn't a huge change but it was clear from your outreach to former enemies and others that you were going against certain alliances. The whole IQ as generic thing doesn't really cut it with me because there were actual tensions with the individual alliances.

Sure, there were tensions. But there were tensions with several alliances. This isn't an NPO hate fest like you continually try to make it out to be. We also don't make decisions based on "revanchism".

 

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It was clear to some extent people in TKR held NPO responsible and kept calling us out..... I'm not really sure how Adrienne tried to talk us down?  Everyone she interacted with came away with the impression she was gonna strike whenever it was opportune.  This combined with Smith's constant baiting and the pronouncements by TKR people of NPO ruining the game like Lordship and Mitsuru before we hit TKR made it pretty clear that a lot of people there had issues.

First, this was after you joined in on t$'s war against Grumpy and Guardian and there was concern that it meant t$'s rules were not going to be adhered to. Context is important. Second, after the first issue came up, we talked with t$ regarding it and they reassured us that the rules would be adhered to and that you were included in them under "associates". We also publicly and privately stated we believed you were a separate conflict and that we had no intention of escalating against you. So I fail to see how people came away with these impressions. Also, we're back to impressions again? Thought you had some juicy (non-existent) logs on me...?

 

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Our PR was never going to be great for a multitude of reasons and I already explained our strategic position was served by avoiding an overwhelming defeat for BK.

Your PR isn't great because you went against the agreement you "implicitly" made with t$ in the war against Guardian and Grumpy and you lied to do so. Shocker.

 

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

There were constant callouts from high profile TKR members like Smith. It basically seemed like Smith was acting a surrogate for the real views and then when tS went in, some of the others started poping out.

Correct. I'm just a pretty face, after all. Smiles and waves while the shadow gov puppeteers plot megamerges and wars against NPO.

  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toph said:

Roqs actions in this game speak for themselves. Hitting anyone you think is a threat is transparent. Your rhetoric and Roqs have been consistently hegemonic from the very beginning. You can try to spin it anyway you'd like but the proof is in the open for all to see. You complain about Buorhann talking on the OWF sounding a certain way, and yet everything that comes from your mouth, Roqs mouth, and your goons oozes with a superiority complex that is frankly pitiful.

Wait, so dealing with threats is hegemonic language now? Or would threatening folks with disbandment be hegemonic? To me the latter would seem hegemonic language, while the former which Roq ( and myself) use quite often, is the same you or anyone else in this who's interested in the politics/war side of it does as well. Otherwise, you know [citation needed] with this lie. 

1 hour ago, Toph said:

Expanding the player base? You expanded NPO and friends player base. You try to make some morality argument here that bringing people to this game is a good thing, therefore if they ALL land up on NPO's side, it's fine and not a hegemony. Yes, your actions, your power, and your view of other alliances being a threat to you and preempting them, is a hegemony. Again, you can spin it any way you like and try to make everyone else drink whatever koolaid you drank a while ago, but it's inauthentic and bullshit. NPO controls GPWC and the "new player base". If you want to be real and stop making up some dumb spin, disband GPWC. Otherwise, you're just using this "new player base" as a farm to exploit and a lower tier army to do your bidding.

NPO doesn't need to do "anything" for your benefit. Meanwhile you're free to recruit folks and strengthen your own alliances within the rules of the game. If you fail at that, asking us to stop to "please" you again is attempting to easy-mode out of this. GPWC is an aberration that we had no role in bringing outside of one of our members attempting to do so. We didn't bring GOONS in either. That would be @Do Not Fear Jazz. I'd prefer you pass on the credit where its due tbh.

Moreover, TKR and KETOGG preempted folks here, I don't see you claiming that its hegemonic in nature? If viewing alliances as threats makes one a hegemonic power, guilty as charged. I'll own up to that one, as long as every leader who began this war, owns up to it. Again, I fail to see where we're hegemonic here. 

1 hour ago, Toph said:

Riiiiight. "NPO has never really done this" and yet, Roq had to gloriously stand up to them in CN against their hegemonic ways. Nice hole you have there. Check your spins, make sure they align.

 

No. The height of its hegemony in 2008 (folks seem to think modern NPO has any semblance of a hegemony), had a coalition formed against it. Since then (what 10 years now?) the NPO has never had/led a hegemony and the I doubt we have many players in government (actually any at all) from back then minus Roq and myself, and we definitely were not in the NPO at the time. My spins are suitably aligned. If your claim is NPO killed CN, I can tell you that's bullshit. If your claim is Roq/NPO want to run a hegemony, I can point out how that's again nonsense, given the tendency of our leadership to stand against hegemonies and our actions speak for it in this verse. In fact, we've done more to fight against a hegemony in this game than most others (outside of Sketchy/Keegoz and the old school Rose leadership in KETOGG rn), so again, [citation needed]. 

1 hour ago, Toph said:

So you don't believe in good faith or bad faith is what you're saying? Ok yeah, let's throw out fairness and equity and make everything about our own short term self interest at the expense of the future environment. We've pointed to countless ways your side has negotiated in incredible bad faith. But by all means, continue to try to protect your overlord and glorious leader Roq.

Everyone here has been playing with their short term interest in mind. The only difference is the standard is it's alright if its your side, but its bad if its the NPO.

tl;dr You're just whining/angry that you're losing a war and grasping at straws in trying to put that forth. Our side has only asked for the discussions to centre around your sides surrender and if that's bad faith, fine with me, but hey at least we've been upfront claiming that's all we need to proceed further. Like you know how Akuryo and co didn't blink an eyelid to do the same and we moved forward and negotiated a proper deal. 

1 minute ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

So I fail to see how people came away with these impressions. Also, we're back to impressions again? Thought you had some juicy (non-existent) logs on me...?

We do ;) 

1 minute ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Your PR isn't great because you went against the agreement you "implicitly" made with t$ in the war against Guardian and Grumpy and you lied to do so. Shocker.

 

Haven't lied, we shared the information with tS/HS and they disagreed with the necessity of using it now amongst other things. We decided it'd be too late to wait on it. 

21 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

We didn’t want to depoliticize the game, but rather wanted to rejuvenate it. By working alongside people we wouldn’t normally work with (IE: NPO...doh!), promoting mini-spheres, etc we wanted to help clean the slate of how people viewed various alliances and push reset on the political landscape. (Which is why we wanted to hit/dismantle IQ, and it is why we dropped said discussion once IQ disbanded).

Once again if your idea of rejuvenating the game is to combine with other spheres to take down everyone else, that sounds like a great idea. Just don't complain when folks do their best to put a spork in it next time ;) 

 

3 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Sure, there were tensions. But there were tensions with several alliances. This isn't an NPO hate fest like you continually try to make it out to be. We also don't make decisions based on "revanchism".

I'd love to believe that, but your own logs pretty much on IQ point to the contrary. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Toph said:

Considering NPO leads a hegemony in CN, it's pretty safe to assume you're trying to do the same. With the introduction of GOONs and the appearance of your suspicious GPWC horde, it's not far fetched to say you're doing the same here. And it's really kinda sad. Dominating online simulator games to the point of hegemonic stagnation is not in your long-term self interest, and clearly you haven't come to terms with that yet.

You point at all your enemies losing members as a good thing. Funny because everyone used to frown at KT for doing the same. But you don't care about this game having members outside of NPO and it's sphere, and it's obviously just bad for the game. Everything you do is in bad faith, Roq. Maybe one day you'll finally gain some self awareness.

Well you see us as bad inherently is the issue there. GOONS is a self-starter and not like a designed thing and the GOONS Global Hegemony might be interesting but the war wasn't meant to institute NPO hegemony. GPWC is really a lucky thing but at the same time it's just a mass invasion and  the war is actually helping show who might be interested long-term. The goal isn't stagnation like idk how suiciding into your coalition was particularly safe or stagnatory. It was a huge shake up and super climactic.

I don't really know where I said them losing members is good inherently. The problem is if their members have an expectation of winning and getting to beat up on people they see as sucking and they want to quit because they can't beat them up all the time and have to lose then it might not be bad. The problem is less us and the culture your side has cultivated where they feel entitled to win most of the time and beat up on perceived slowpokes. I wouldn't be as concerned with breaking the whole "we get to beat up on people" thing if you guys hadn't stigmatized getting hit or losing so much. Like not you personally but the usual winners ruined Keegoz and shamed him too much for losing that he basically shifted to wanting to roll BK all the time and the others who were shamed a ton for losing also had issues with their members and that's the type of paradigm I really dislike. The lesson here isn't "Oh NPO is steamrolling people and we should quit." More we want it not to be encouraged to ditch your alliance/allies if the going is tough. A lot of these guys who are quittign now had the wrong expectations and had been coddled too much. We want people to put effort into fighting so there can be more viable political configurations without the expectation of it being easy mode or needing to return to farmville on extremely short attention spans. We don' t really have a sphere anymore which sort of boxed us into the thing we were accused of doing already even though we hadn't been actually doing it.

Re: The threat thing, the thing is in a hegemonic set up we'd be making up the threats. If we're going to have to grind it out for months, then the people are actually threatening and it's not just us easily slamming them and beating on them for fun. Even now they feel they didn't lose, so I don't know what you're going about here.  We just don't want it to be encouraged on either side to be wimps and girlymen(arnold reference, no misogyny intended) who cut and run but you guys have always encouraged it so we'd become disadvantaged.

  • 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.