peace talks

[Kastor]

So I read/skimmed this, and this whole thing is silly.

 

If you guys need an impartial moderator, let me know. 

[Cooper_]

2 hours ago, Epi said:

 

Y'all should just let me and @Cooper_ do the peace talks. Maybe throw in a goon, Abbas, a hippo and Frawley.

It's all be solved in 15min.

 

I mean I would, but I'm afraid @Nizam Adrienne would lock me in a basement.  

It would be cool, nonetheless, to have some sort of model talks to see how things would work out if our coalition leaders would allow us Epi .  I have a feeling we'll just be considered meddling kids like every Scooby Doo villain ever. 

Also, you got me thinking, so here are some other ideas to throw around as well:

- Each side pick two independent, non-aligned representatives and they arbitrate a peace deal to which either side can accept/deny.

- Each side pick a leader on the other side to represent them to get a sort of feel for the other sides shoes.

- A private VC to discuss things that can't be recorded (as I previously pitched).

- An OWLS v2.0.

- A moderator for peace talks who could evaluate terms without disclosing them and also keep confidential a surrender if one occurs.

- An exchange of alliances 1 by 1 out of the war until we are left with the biggest alliances.  For example, Camelot for let's say TGH.  

 

2 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I support a TKR who doesn't surrender & hope the silly voices thinking only short term don't get to their Queen. Keeping the war going is the best move for Chaos, not sure why they should even consider surrender when it means certain doom moving forward. Next global war will just be worse for them if they do so.

As Nizam put it, this is the end game. If Chaos gives up now, will be over for a dynamic political landscape if GOONS becomes another NPO type alliance. So might as well fight like this is the last major war which isn't a curb stomp. Both sides should be playing to win imo.

 

Uhh no.  We've already lost to GOONS as TKR and CB surrendered to GOONS.  AFAIK we haven't surrendered to NPO, so GOONS is therefore better.  Get your facts straight.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Cooper_

[ChloeJessica]

27 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Uhh no.  We've already lost to GOONS as TKR and CB surrendered to GOONS.  AFAIK we haven't surrendered to NPO, so GOONS is therefore better.  Get your facts straight.

bearing in mind that im new to this, if you surrendered to us why are we still fighting? 

(not a callout post, just curiosity)

[Do Not Fear Jaz]

He's right, GOONS is the best.

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi

[Daniel Storm]

1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

What ground do you have to stand on if you're too dumb to realize what you've admitted here?

Here's an official post from the leader of BK saying that he doesn't think we have any ground (for negotiations I assume, otherwise this post is less intelligible than the average trump post. You don't need ground to surrender, you need ground to negotiate), which means that they wouldn't even allow us to negotiate even if we agreed to the term, thus proving my point. 

 

 

Edit: And before you deviate from the point and say my first sentence doesn't make sense... that was the point.

 

If you're going to flamebait at least try to be comprehensible. 3/10

[Guest Frawley]

1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

What ground do you have to stand on if you're too dumb to realize what you've admitted here?

Here's an official post from the leader of BK saying that he doesn't think we have any ground (for negotiations I assume, otherwise this post is less intelligible than the average trump post. You don't need ground to surrender, you need ground to negotiate), which means that they wouldn't even allow us to negotiate even if we agreed to the term, thus proving my point. 

 

 

Edit: And before you deviate from the point and say my first sentence doesn't make sense... that was the point.

 

Your point doesn't make sense.

You are going to surrender, we know it, you know it. This thread and the insistence of your side to receive terms has de facto said it.

You lose nothing by agreeing to negotiate the terms of your surrender.  There is no great PR boost that we get from you stating what is already known within the context of a negotiation. 

[Jeric]

Man this place smells like egos. Or is it eggos... 

Why not have all the leaders meet in private chat (one per alliance) and hash it out there. Clearly this is just becoming a dick measuring contest with post after post of "you're wrong" "you're stupid" "you're a lier" 

The only term that's not negotiable is the surrender. Im not sure if that sunk in.. but that means EVERYTHING else is negotiable... So.. negotiate

[Guest Frawley]

1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

IYou lose nothing by agreeing to post all your "terms", with surrender being non-negotiable.There is no great PR boost that we get from you stating what should be already known within the context of a negotiation. Objectively speaking, if you present the terms to our Coalition and we turn them down (assuming they aren't completely ridiculous) you have the high ground. On the other hand, it's reasonable to assume that the only reason you AREN'T presenting them is BECAUSE they're ridiculous. 

If you present ridiculous terms after getting a ss/proof/whatever of someone saying "we surrender", you get the the PR boost from propaganda, being able to "prove" that you won to the entirety of Orbis and thus diminishing the war effort, since we'd keep fighting bc of BS terms. There's a difference between, say, fighting knowing you're going to lose and giving up ("surrendering", unless you want to redefine "surrender"), then having to get up and fight again.

Aragorn doesn't mean that at all. We don't need peace, your side is asking for terms, you are not in a position to argue that whatever agreement we come to, won't be a surrender.

As to the rest of your post, when you have a problem with Scarfcolism the first step is to admit that you have a problem. Only afterwards can we hit the remaining 11 steps.

[Roquentin]

Yeah, this is basically the gist of your side's arguments against it being a surrender negotiation instead of a peace negotiation.

1. You claim to lose leverage by admitting the war is lost before a final agreement is made. 

2. You claim it's unconditional surrender even though by definition it is not unconditional surrender as you are not bound by any terms you don't agree to or know about after disarming unlike confederates in the American Civil War,  Germans/Japanese in World War II, etc.

3. People on your side won't fight if they think the war is the lost so you don't want to say that.(idk why since people have fought knowing a war was lost before)

4.  You're winning.

These are the main reasons why people don't want to move forward without the precondition.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Roquentin

[Pasky Darkfire]

3 hours ago, Jeric said:

Man this place smells like egos. Or is it eggos... 

Whooops...

Edited October 24, 2019 by Pasky Darkfire

[The Mad Titan]

8 hours ago, CandyShi said:

What ground do you have to stand on if you're too dumb to realize what you've admitted here?

Here's an official post from the leader of BK saying that he doesn't think we have any ground (for negotiations I assume, otherwise this post is less intelligible than the average trump post. You don't need ground to surrender, you need ground to negotiate), which means that they wouldn't even allow us to negotiate even if we agreed to the term, thus proving my point. 

 

 

Edit: And before you deviate from the point and say my first sentence doesn't make sense... that was the point.

 

Really giving Scarf a run for his money aren’t you? As Frawley and others with basic reading comprehension noted I specifically said “in regards to surrender”. The only reason you would need leverage there was if you were going to try and negotiate to less than a surrender. 

We have no interest in that, and the war will continue till that term is met.

>INB4 Hurr Durr Unconditional Surrender makes us accept everything"

Edited October 24, 2019 by Aragorn, son of Arathorn

[Theodosius]

5 hours ago, Jeric said:

Man this place smells like egos. Or is it eggos... 

Why not have all the leaders meet in private chat (one per alliance) and hash it out there. Clearly this is just becoming a dick measuring contest

Those chats are even worse than OWF my man. It usually smells like sweaty armpits laced with kerosene in there, ready to spontaneously combust at any given moment.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that, however. All that potential to be incinerated alive makes it an exciting and thrilling experience.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Theomer

[AkAk]

The less people involved in those chats the better.

[ChloeJessica]

1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

And what if you read my post I said “leverage for surrender” doesn’t make sense unless your idea of surrender is unconditional, in which case leverage for **negotiating** is what I interpreted it as.

Agreeing to surrender before you know the terms is unconditional by default.

 

Also I forgot to put this analogy: Say you’re signing a contract. In this scenario, you’re agreeing to sign the contract before you see it, which is stupid. 

lmao you have no idea what you're talking about

no wonder yall are getting your asses kicked

[Comrade Joe]

On 10/15/2019 at 3:50 PM, Seb said:

I want peace  call me a pixel hugger

No, you're a coward. 

[ChloeJessica]

1 minute ago, CandyShi said:

I too like to win arguments by saying “ur salty lmao” and not responding to the points.

your points have been responded to a thousand times and you keep asking because either you don't like the answer or you don't understand it so there's no point in interacting with you further other than to point and laugh

 

[ChloeJessica]

2 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

your sides points have been responded to a thousand times and you keep asking because you either don’t like the answer or you don’t understand it so there’s no point in interacting with you further other than to point and laugh.

 

[Archibald]

5 hours ago, CandyShi said:

Agreeing to surrender before you know the terms is unconditional by default.

 

Also I forgot to put this analogy: Say you’re signing a contract. In this scenario, you’re agreeing to sign the contract before you see it, which is stupid. 

Your analogy sucks. A better one is it's more like a company saying "come to our office to read the contract", you saying "what's on the contract" them saying "come read it" and you throwing a fit about it for the next 27 pages.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Archibald

[ChloeJessica]

4 minutes ago, Archibald said:

Your analogy sucks. A better one is it's more like a company saying "come to our office to read the contract", you saying "what's on the contract" them saying "come read it" and you throwing a !@#$fit about it for the next 27 pages.

"but if we come to your office and don't accept the contract then we lose leverage because everyone will know we went to your office!"

[DivineCoffeeBinge]

1 minute ago, ChloeJessica said:

"but if we come to your office and don't accept the contract then we lose leverage because everyone will know we went to your office!"

But you don't understand if it becomes known they went to the office they wouldn't be able to say "but we never read that"

 

good god this is the dumbest 'peace process' I've ever seen and the amount of flailing about it makes me pleased the war is still ongoing

[Pasky Darkfire]

9 minutes ago, Archibald said:

Your analogy sucks. A better one is it's more like a company saying "come to our office to read the contract", you saying "what's on the contract" them saying "come read it" and you throwing a !@#$fit about it for the next 27 pages.

I Think this analogy is a little misleading, too. It's more like One company saying "We have a contract." Then, the other side saying "Okay, Send it over so we can review and sign or counter offer." So, The first company sends over the first page with one line written on it. The second company goes "Is this it?" The first company then giggles to themselves and goes "No. But you have to accept the first page before we'll let you see the rest." The second company raises an eyebrow at the first company as their reps try to contain themselves from shitting each other with laughter and then the Second company goes "We'd like to see the rest, if you don't mind." And the first company goes "OHH OBVIOUSLY YOU JUST WANT THIS TO GO ON FOREVER WITH THINGS LIKE YOUR READING AND YOUR WANTING THE WHOLE CONTRACT TO READ AT ONCE, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT THE EFFORT FORTH IF YOU CAN'T EVEN ACCEPT THE FIRST LINE OF THE FIRST PAGE. NOW WE'RE GONNA GO OVER HERE INTO THE CORNER AND BE HOSTILE AND BAN YOU FROM TALKING TO US ABOUT IT FOR A MONTH!" Where in then the workers and executives of both companies spend the next 300 pages (Because there have been no less than 6 of these threads hitting the 20 page mark or MORE) yelling at one another and flinging shit across the table at the other side. It's like watching United States Politics in action as an outside observer at this point. fricking Bewildering and you gotta wonder why the next mass extinction event is taking so god damn long.

[ChloeJessica]

Just now, Pasky Darkfire said:

snip

contracts have preconditions all the time. ever heard of an NDA?

Just now, CandyShi said:

I could say your analogy sucks as well.  In your analogy what happens is people join a group DM to discuss, when we’re not even at that step. Your side requests an admission of defeat (also known as surrender) BEFORE negotiations, with no guarantees on terms (also known as unconditional surrender). 
 

Honestly if you want to compete making ridiculous analogies I’d say “You walk up into the office and a person points a gun to your head” 

 

[DivineCoffeeBinge]

1 minute ago, CandyShi said:

Your side requests an admission of defeat (also known as surrender)

An admission of defeat is by no means a surrender unless you have a horrible concussion-related brain injury.

 

An admission of defeat is saying "okay, we lost, you won." A surrender is saying "we will not fight any longer." You can admit defeat without surrendering ("we're losing now but we'll keep fighting and try to turn this around") and you can surrender without admitting defeat ("we were kicking your ass but we want the war to end so we can do more important shit, so fine, go ahead and say you won, we don't care") and conflating the two terms into one is remarkably stupid, I hope for the sake of all that is sane and rational that you aren't actually in charge of anything because holy heck that's just... seriously, I feel dumber for having read that, it's really impressive

[Pasky Darkfire]

Just now, ChloeJessica said:

contracts have preconditions all the time. ever heard of an NDA?

If you are referring to a Nondisclosure Agreement then I am very familiar. And they are the bane of my existence at least once a week. But they can also write that clause into the main contract. But maybe you're on to something. Let's have all the Negotiators sign an NDA that states "until negotiations are complete", lock them in a the room, and see what comes out at the end.