Auctor Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 the cool thing is no one is losing 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 Holy 32 pages, and still going. Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Roquentin said: The hows and why's don't really matter. If there's a hit by one member of the opposing coalition, all of the other side is liable. So you and NPO can be held liable for every individual war declaration performed by your entire coalition? As much as I'd like to utilise the same logic in counter arguments in the future. I won't , simply because it is stupid logic and you know that yourself. You are utilising it because it is convenient to do so but don't make it the norm as we have more than enough nonsense already when it comes to e-lawyering. Edited October 27, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt Meat Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 2 hours ago, Buorhann said: No one in their right mind would have their members do spy ops when 1) They’re newly established or 2) They do it on alliances in the middle of a major war. Thats just stupid, and the fact one of the justifications used was “We’re a raiding alliance”, well... But that's the thing though. Nobody "had" anybody do anything. Yes, we are a raiding alliance. Newbies are not only allowed, but encouraged to raid. They're told to only target inactive, small, or unconnected nations and alliances. Sometimes they screw up and target someone they're not supposed to. When that happens, our government deals with it and makes amends. Most are happy with an apology and/or reparations, others apparently decide to drag us into a global war and cause billions in damage to their allies. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etat Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 @Shadowthrone and co,............Sigh..........but that you would talk to my leadership as much as you talk to me. Anyways, I feel that I may have led you astray, and thus am obliged to put this one to bed. You and your colleagues for the duration of this war have not, nor are capable of using the written or spoken word to change my mind. The crux of my issue with much of what you say has to do with the sheer quantity of logical fallacies that pervade your posts (trigger point identified). You do not need a decade of nation sim experience, nor personal knowledge to identify these. And despite what little value you may place in someone who has an alternate view to you, Cooper is spot on when he says our internally and externally published positions are entirely consistent. As for the concept of spin, well I'd suggest we move away from that notion as it is much like statistics, you can select and bend facts in support of any stance you choose (yet another trigger point), which is why common ground needs to be sought before we move on. The surrender option is clearly not common ground. Please do not misconstrue my choice to engage with you here with good manners and amicability as a lack of resolve or insight. I may be new to PnW and online forums, but not elsewhere. Be mindful that every time you post you expose yourself, which is why you will unlikely find any of my posts thrown up here quickly. Furthermore I rate loyalty and honor as highly desirable qualities, I do hope I embody these and would quite rightly (as Cooper has done so) take issue with those who called these into question without foundation. Nor will I be drawn into specifics or historical debate as I am wholly unqualified to comment in these arenas. I will however attempt to contribute to commentary on current general notions present in the public sphere. As a final note, and as has been highlighted, I am new, not involved in peace talks, hold no Government position, and as such represent myself and my opinion only! I hope to be here for a while yet, real life permitting ? Have a great day mate, I wish you well in all things Quote Celer Et Audax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 50 minutes ago, Etatsorp said: @Shadowthrone and co,............Sigh..........but that you would talk to my leadership as much as you talk to me. Anyways, I feel that I may have led you astray, and thus am obliged to put this one to bed. You and your colleagues for the duration of this war have not, nor are capable of using the written or spoken word to change my mind. The crux of my issue with much of what you say has to do with the sheer quantity of logical fallacies that pervade your posts (trigger point identified). You do not need a decade of nation sim experience, nor personal knowledge to identify these. And despite what little value you may place in someone who has an alternate view to you, Cooper is spot on when he says our internally and externally published positions are entirely consistent. As for the concept of spin, well I'd suggest we move away from that notion as it is much like statistics, you can select and bend facts in support of any stance you choose (yet another trigger point), which is why common ground needs to be sought before we move on. The surrender option is clearly not common ground. Please do not misconstrue my choice to engage with you here with good manners and amicability as a lack of resolve or insight. I may be new to PnW and online forums, but not elsewhere. Be mindful that every time you post you expose yourself, which is why you will unlikely find any of my posts thrown up here quickly. Furthermore I rate loyalty and honor as highly desirable qualities, I do hope I embody these and would quite rightly (as Cooper has done so) take issue with those who called these into question without foundation. Nor will I be drawn into specifics or historical debate as I am wholly unqualified to comment in these arenas. I will however attempt to contribute to commentary on current general notions present in the public sphere. As a final note, and as has been highlighted, I am new, not involved in peace talks, hold no Government position, and as such represent myself and my opinion only! I hope to be here for a while yet, real life permitting ? Have a great day mate, I wish you well in all things @Shadowthrone How dare you not recognize a man of such intellect and scholarly virtue. Everyone knows that the largest vocabulary wins, and you good sir, frankly came to this battle of wits unarmed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 3 hours ago, RC Bandit said: Yes Buorhann keep up the blame game. You're a key member that will continue this war forever, as long as you stand strong. Better yet, drag more alliances into the war. The more the merrier right? But then again why listen to me? I'm just a stupid newbie that can't read and gathered intelligence on the wrong alliance. I’d love to keep the war going, I’m perfectly fine with raiding away ala-Arrgh style as it is. But before you go around accusing someone of dragging in alliances, you may want to take a very hard look at the very alliances you’re fighting alongside with. You folks claim that we pulled GOONS in, but uh... anyone want to make a list that IQ 2.0 pulled in? This isn’t anything new. 2 hours ago, Of The Flies said: Sometimes they screw up and target someone they're not supposed to. When that happens, our government deals with it and makes amends. You are correct with this. Unfortunately, your government’s way of handling things is “Take my word.” Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 4 hours ago, Roquentin said: The hows and why's don't really matter. If there's a hit by one member of the opposing coalition, all of the other side is liable. GOONS hitting TGH wouldn't do much to TGH, so it wouldn't harm the people who participated in the spying besides TGH proper who already are dead in that range. It's the same as the Empyrea issue. The coalition member with nothing to lose does something knowing they have nothing to lose, thinking the ones who have skin in the game won't take a hit and it won't work like that. There is no reason for limited or localized involvement when the core of KERTCHOGG has been unified and indicated it will remain as such. No core constituent has sued for individual peace and all are sticking to maintain the coalition. So you agree that Jazz pointing out that “we escalated” after their attack on TKR is simply just bullshit. At least we agree on one thing then. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artifex Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 How long do ya'll think this war can continue before one side ceases to exist entirely? I like to think that the war is going to continue forever, and at some point it's just going to be two alliances left with a few tens of nations each: the merged remnants of each coalition. So the Top 50 will consist of those two alliances and the rest will be Farksphere. Quote Love you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrachime Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Malleator said: How long do ya'll think this war can continue before one side ceases to exist entirely? I like to think that the war is going to continue forever, and at some point it's just going to be two alliances left with a few tens of nations each: the merged remnants of each coalition. So the Top 50 will consist of those two alliances and the rest will be Farksphere. It's going to last until one of three scenarios are met. 1. One side's bank can't produce the materials/money to sustain the war and they have to peace out. 2. Both sides come to a compromise of sorts, and/or waver in their demands. 3. Members in their respective Coalition leave because of the extreme positions being taken and either form/join new alliances or delete entirely. Honestly? Take your pick on which you think is most likely to happen. Edited October 27, 2019 by Syrachime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) The bank one won't happen, unless it's a newer alliance. Also, most of the well established alliances will offer loans to help cover the costs of war (Or threaten them to not leave). Between looting, Baseball, and daily bonus - the war is at a point where most nations can easily rebuild to enough Infra to max out military if they wanted to. The majority of the "important" damage has already been done 'physically'. #2 could happen, maybe. The talks haven't gone very well the times they occurred. #3 will most likely happen, or has the greatest chance of happening imo. IQ 2.0 already saw multiple alliances leave their side, whether it's due to this idea or the fact they were simply just not as invested into it (Or better yet, they were lied to in some cases). Other than North Point, I don't think any other alliance bailed because they were absolutely broke. Maybe some other micros who left earlier, but I don't recall it being stated. Edited October 27, 2019 by Buorhann Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrachime Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 I'm personally hopeful that a compromise can be reached, but with the egos in the way, doubt it'll happen. As such, I'm also inclined to believe that option 3 is the most likely outcome. Like you said, with credits and daily login bonuses, financing the war isn't an issue. Guess it will depend on how entrenched each side is in their position and how unwavering they are to compromise. If both sides keep that up, the death of the game will be imminent and happen because of egos. Proves that saying true that pride always comes before the fall... Where the pride lays depends on who you ask, honestly as you'll get a different answer each time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Syrachime said: I'm personally hopeful that a compromise can be reached, but with the egos in the way, doubt it'll happen. As such, I'm also inclined to believe that option 3 is the most likely outcome. Like you said, with credits and daily login bonuses, financing the war isn't an issue. Guess it will depend on how entrenched each side is in their position and how unwavering they are to compromise. If both sides keep that up, the death of the game will be imminent and happen because of egos. Proves that saying true that pride always comes before the fall... Where the pride lays depends on who you ask, honestly as you'll get a different answer each time. We kill each other, we kill the game = profit. Let's do this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utter Nutter Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 This continued argument is fine and all, but I think you all forgot the actual purpose of it. To find a middle ground so people stopped quitting due to the longest lasting war in our history. Between the Chaos/Ketog war and this one, we have been at war for 80% of the current year. During that time, politics sucked. Today, my country is being torn apart by politicians that can't agree on anything and manipulate the working class to get some leverage on one another. It's funny how this game reflects the same thing. Nothing is ever solved, the "leaders" don't look out for their members and the only thing that matters is their own stupid pride!!! get it together boys and girls, don't kill the game just yet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 The thing about war is it's all about the victory conditions. You might think you've beaten somebody, but until they agree with you, you haven't. Some people are plain crazy and will never admit defeat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanderlion Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 41 minutes ago, Ogaden said: The thing about war is it's all about the victory conditions. You might think you've beaten somebody, but until they agree with you, you haven't. Some people are plain crazy and will never admit defeat. Agreed. What we're saying is we'll negotiate peace once they admit they lost. Until then, we'll keep on fighting. While the peace negotiations are ongoing, we'll keep on fighting. If either side is unhappy with the negotiations, we'll keep on fighting. Essentially we're going to keep fighting til peace, or til the enemy's ability to fight is reduced to only soldiers as they're blockaded, their alliance has collapsed or cast them out, and their improvements, cash and resources are reduced to what they can make from baseball and the daily login bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Seb said: This continued argument is fine and all, but I think you all forgot the actual purpose of it. To find a middle ground so people stopped quitting due to the longest lasting war in our history. Between the Chaos/Ketog war and this one, we have been at war for 80% of the current year. During that time, politics sucked. Today, my country is being torn apart by politicians that can't agree on anything and manipulate the working class to get some leverage on one another. It's funny how this game reflects the same thing. Nothing is ever solved, the "leaders" don't look out for their members and the only thing that matters is their own stupid pride!!! get it together boys and girls, don't kill the game just yet. What would you do then, Seb? I'd argue that the alliances involved are looking out for their members who are actively participating. It's not simply pride, but the future outlook of the game as well. You have the largest alliances banding together to roll the smaller ones, one way or another. And they will do so again. Edited October 28, 2019 by Buorhann Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefonteen Posted October 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 28, 2019 29 minutes ago, Flanderlion said: Agreed. What we're saying is we'll negotiate peace once they admit they lost. Until then, we'll keep on fighting. While the peace negotiations are ongoing, we'll keep on fighting. If either side is unhappy with the negotiations, we'll keep on fighting. Essentially we're going to keep fighting til peace, or til the enemy's ability to fight is reduced to only soldiers as they're blockaded, their alliance has collapsed or cast them out, and their improvements, cash and resources are reduced to what they can make from baseball and the daily login bonus. I don't think an admission of defeat is the problem. From what I gather from poking around, a lot of the previous breakdowns were the result of a breakdown of communication due to the miscommunication (on your side) and misinterpretation (on kerchtogg's side) of the loaded term of surrender before the presentation of the instruments of surrender. Kerchtog coalition was made to believe that the term was designed as an unconditional surrender similar to (for the gamers out here) the "unconditional surrender" option in paradox' EU4. That is to say, they would prematurely have to agree to what terms followed, and be seen as reneging on "peace" if they found said terms unacceptable. From that vantage point, I too would have refused to surrender. It was later clarified by coalition B that this was not the case, and that the surrender term was merely a preamble to the start of "real" negotiations about instruments of surrender. I anticipate this whole admission of defeat thing to blow over fairly easily at this point. As I was not around for the kerchtog-coal B talks in person, I can not speak on the cause of this miscommunication. I would however point out that the "Accept our terms or see you in a month" policy taken by coal B negotiators probably has not been helpful in identifying and addressing the cause of the breakdown in communication which has been holding up negotiations. Here's to a better procession from here, eh? 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menhera Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Maybe it would be a good idea for both coalitions to publish a list of what terms they would be willing to accept and which ones they would like to be accepted. And if not that at least a standpoint of how they view the situation/what they want the situation to be post war. That would give common ground and maybe make politics less hostile and more constructive, no? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Menhera said: Maybe it would be a good idea for both coalitions to publish a list of what terms they would be willing to accept and which ones they would like to be accepted. And if not that at least a standpoint of how they view the situation/what they want the situation to be post war. That would give common ground and maybe make politics less hostile and more constructive, no? Nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menhera Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Just now, Shadowthrone said: Nope :< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entwood Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 "What we're saying is", I am SO sick of hearing this. The game is not fun this way, nor challenging. Asshats from Jr high, on both sides. Alex should impose term limits for leadership positions. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Joke's on you we'll just cycle terms. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Joke's on you we'll just cycle terms. This pretty much already happens to some extent and there are enough people who don't hold an official leader position who wield considerable influence where it's not really a gamechanger. Most of the complaining about leaders staying around long doesn't really look at that most people don't actually want the responsibility leadership entails and for good reason. It's not glamorous and no one's getting any real glory from being a leader. It's literally just masochists who volunteer to stay leaders and stick it out. Like I did say I had suspicions/prejudices towards people who have been leaders for longer than I have or have cycled in and out over the past 5 years, but there's a reason they're sticking around and I don't blame them. It's not really about wanting to dislike them/blacklist and it'd be better if we could find common ground at some points, but it just hasn't been there so we see the worst in each other. Edited October 28, 2019 by Roquentin 1 3 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.