ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 1 minute ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: 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 the people who are in charge say exactly the same thing 1 minute ago, Pasky Darkfire said: 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. not actually a bad idea, it would certainly get more results than this thread has Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 11 minutes ago, ChloeJessica said: not actually a bad idea, it would certainly get more results than this thread has Whaaaaat? Noooooo. I liked Rehash of "How Long Will This War Go On For" #254. I feel we really got down to the bare bones of the arguments in this one. I'm sure someone will budge after this one. Guaranteed. >_> Yeah. Let's lock em in the room. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 10 minutes ago, CandyShi said: So clarification: You expect people to continue fighting as normal when discussing peace, what’s the point in withholding the terms before this? Let’s use an analogy here. If Japan had said “we’re going to surrender eventually anyways” before the atomic bombs were dropped, do you think that would encourage or discourage the Japanese people to continue fighting? If we’re going to continue fighting either way there’s literally no difference between your side saying “here’s our terms, term 1 is nonnegotiable” instead of what you’re doing right now, which is being vague and untrustworthy. TL;DR In wars people usually don’t admit defeat until when they surrender. The problems with a NDA is that it relies on trust and punishment. Breaking a NDA in PnW will have literally 0 consequences for Coal. B, since they make up 2/3 of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, CandyShi said: If we’re going to continue fighting either way there’s literally no difference between your side saying “here’s our terms, term 1 is nonnegotiable” instead of what you’re doing right now, which is being vague and untrustworthy. I don't expect anything beyond my friends and I getting to keep using your nations as loot pinatas to fuel our growth. What I would bet actual people in leadership expect is for the side that is losing to admit to their loss so that no one wastes time with 'negotiation sessions' that end up going nowhere because the losing party is acting like the winning party, because we all have, like, lives to live and wasting time in unproductive negotiations isn't anyone's idea of fun... but you'd have to ask them about it. I suspect you won't, you'll continue to flail about how unreasonable it is that the people who are blowing up your stuff want you to admit that your stuff was blown up before they stop, which... sure, okay 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted October 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: you'll continue to flail about how unreasonable it is Here’s the thing. Both sides are being unreasonable. Coalition A is right, Coalition B withholding terms and requiring a surrender before discussing other terms is unreasonable. Coalition B is right, Coalition A not admitting defeat would be unreasonable. Congratulations. You’re both right. Now would you stop debating who is right and start doing something productive? Edited October 24, 2019 by Prefontaine 5 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, CandyShi said: You have 2 cities, 1k infra each, and are in 4 wars. 2 of the wars are against inactives, 2 are against Arrgh so you don’t have any loot there. try again? I seem to recall all winning parties giving terms to the losing parties in history? Even in the game’s history in fact. So if you want to assert that you’re the winning party, the best course of action is to **supply terms**. Big talk coming from someone who either rerolled (making your point irrelevant) or joined 3 days ago (so you would know nothing about the war except what your alliance told you, proving my earlier point entirely). 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt Meat Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 24 minutes ago, CandyShi said: Big talk coming from someone who either rerolled (making your point irrelevant) or joined 3 days ago (so you would know nothing about the war except what your alliance told you, proving my earlier point entirely). I'm fairly certain someone born 3 days ago would know enough to understand the peace process being presented to you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, CandyShi said: I’m pretty sure someone born 3 days ago knows that someone claiming to “loot and pillage to build my nation”, yet doesn’t loot or pillage or build his nation is just being told to say that. Nah dude I was speaking more generally of my alliance rather than myself in specific and I'm sorry that I gave you enough credit to think you'd comprehend that, I won't make that mistake again P.S. "being told to say that" ahahahahaha it's great that you think anyone I'd listen to actually cares enough about rebutting you on the forums Edited October 24, 2019 by DivineCoffeeBinge added postscript 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt Meat Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 1 minute ago, CandyShi said: I’m pretty sure someone born 3 days ago knows that someone claiming to “loot and pillage to build my nation”, yet doesn’t loot or pillage or build his nation is just being told to say that. We're not that organized. We're more like a pack of rabid dogs let loose on the forums posting whatever we can to give our leadership headaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, CandyShi said: I’m pretty sure someone born 3 days ago knows that someone claiming to “loot and pillage to build my nation”, yet doesn’t loot or pillage or build his nation is just being told to say that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, CandyShi said: The problems with a NDA is that it relies on trust and punishment. Breaking a NDA in PnW will have literally 0 consequences for Coal. B, since they make up 2/3 of the game. *Pinching the bridge of my nose* As opposed to a surrender without a signed contract, which apparently would hold all the consequences for you forever in a browser based video game with people who can easily attest and prove there was no contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, CandyShi said: Sorry I thought the word “I” indicates that you’re talking about yourself as well. Still proves my point that you have no idea what’s going on if you have 1k infra cities yet don’t have 5 cities yet. we are literally working according to a plan that we know all the details of. turns out being new doesn't prevent us from learning. stop showing your ignorance. also, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Just now, CandyShi said: Can you clarify what you’re saying here? I’m pretty sure Nova Rita are the only alliance who don’t have parties sign...? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Just now, CandyShi said: Oh right you’re IQ. The blob that insists on keeping its members cities as low as possible so they can control the low tier while complaining that everyone else is higher city count. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do Not Fear Jaz Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 25 minutes ago, CandyShi said: Sorry I thought the word “I” indicates that you’re talking about yourself as well. Still proves my point that you have no idea what’s going on if you have 1k infra cities yet don’t have 5 cities yet. This is by design. 10 minutes ago, CandyShi said: Oh right you’re IQ. The blob that insists on keeping its members cities as low as possible so they can control the low tier while complaining that everyone else is higher city count. Also, lol. Can someone sensible from KT show up? 1 4 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: I don't expect anything beyond my friends and I getting to keep using your nations as loot pinatas to fuel our growth. What I would bet actual people in leadership expect is for the side that is losing to admit to their loss so that no one wastes time with 'negotiation sessions' that end up going nowhere because the losing party is acting like the winning party, because we all have, like, lives to live and wasting time in unproductive negotiations isn't anyone's idea of fun... but you'd have to ask them about it. I suspect you won't, you'll continue to flail about how unreasonable it is that the people who are blowing up your stuff want you to admit that your stuff was blown up before they stop, which... sure, okay Speak for yourself. I thrive on negotiations. I revel in unneccessarily drawn out discussions about absolutely inconsequential semantics. With every infuriating tangent the snake grows. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 16 hours ago, Frawley said: 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. If you're certain that we're going to surrender, and we're certain we're going to surrender, then there's absolutely no reason to withhold negotiation on any other point. Since your actions have thus far been jerking around with "negotiations only on a specific time" "no negotiations for another month" and other bullshit, then there is either an uncertainty on the point of surrender and therefore you're full of shit, or you have some particular reason to act like an entitled sack of shit and are therefore full of shit. Either way, there's no reason to negotitate with you on any level, as you've long since proven to be toxic and unable to cooperate with anything or anyone even when it's in your interests to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Just now, Sir Scarfalot said: If you're certain that we're going to surrender, and we're certain we're going to surrender, then there's absolutely no reason to withhold negotiation on any other point. Since your actions have thus far been jerking around with "negotiations only on a specific time" "no negotiations for another month" and other bullshit, then there is either an uncertainty on the point of surrender and therefore you're full of shit, or you have some particular reason to act like an entitled sack of shit and are therefore full of shit. Either way, there's no reason to negotitate with you on any level, as you've long since proven to be toxic and unable to cooperate with anything or anyone even when it's in your interests to do so. fine by us. much as id rather end this war so we can all go back to growing instead of endless fighting, crushing you into the dust for the indefinite future is an acceptable alternative. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ChloeJessica said: fine by us. much as id rather end this war so we can all go back to growing instead of endless fighting, crushing you into the dust for the indefinite future is an acceptable alternative. If you'd rather end the war, then we're coming out ahead since we'd rather not end the war. You're not getting what you want while we are getting what we want, and that's what I'd call a victory in my book. Edited October 24, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, ChloeJessica said: fine by us. much as id rather end this war so we can all go back to growing instead of endless fighting, crushing you into the dust for the indefinite future is an acceptable alternative. Nah, Chloe, come join the dark side of "screw it let's just foreverwar then, no one foreverwars like a goon" It's where I'm at and the drinks are better 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Just now, DivineCoffeeBinge said: Nah, Chloe, come join the dark side of "screw it let's just foreverwar then, no one foreverwars like a goon" It's where I'm at and the drinks are better i don't think im quite posadist enough for that yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, ChloeJessica said: i don't think im quite posadist enough for that yet YET Stick around, You'll get there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt Meat Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said: If you'd rather end the war, then we're coming out ahead since we'd rather not end the war. You're not getting what you want while we are getting what we want, and that's what I'd call a victory in my book. Why ask for peace terms then if you don't want to end the war? It's really starting to get mesmerizing. "We want peace terms offered to us...but we don't want to end the war" "We won't admit defeat until we see all the terms... Also we're winning" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 21 minutes ago, Of The Flies said: Why ask for peace terms then if you don't want to end the war? It's really starting to get mesmerizing. "We want peace terms offered to us...but we don't want to end the war" "We won't admit defeat until we see all the terms... Also we're winning" Ffffffffffffooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreverwar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rygus Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said: Can someone sensible from KT show up? Pasky essentially summed this up for us. It's like being forced to sign page 1 of a contract and not being able to see the rest of it until we do so, and since we have very little incentive to sign for peace right now, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Candy is right in pointing out that guys lack of loot taking by the way, their situation is in no way indicative of what they claim. I think many people seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. The reason we don't want to sign for peace is because of Coal B.'s lack in giving terms that apply after a potential surrender, on top of the fact we're still dealing plenty of damage. Our situation is enough to satisfy plenty of our members into staying in this war. Simply saying: "why bother giving terms if they wont accept them anyways?" is a defeatist attitude and in no way a position a "winning side" should be taking. If Coal. B is so confident in their victory, why don't they keep pursuing terms on a regular basis instead of waiting months? Why not list a set of terms in tandem with a surrender? Why not find common ground? Truth is Coal. B simply doesn't want to find common ground. They don't want peace, and if they don't want peace, neither do we. Edited October 25, 2019 by Rygus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.