Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

If everyone else would just follow Chaos and BK's lead and surrender to GOONS we could have this war over by Monday.

  • Upvote 1

 

sigsize_od.gif
ONE WORLD OR NONE
CyberNations veteran, Co-Pilot Emeritus
Hambassidor (Head Ambassador (Minister of Foreign Affairs)), Head of the Ministry of Log Dumping, GOONS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Epi said:

This isn't an unconditional surrender, it's a token that they can't give lightly. To ensure they go ahead with peace instead of baiting us into providing terms they'll spend 6 weeks tearing apart on the OWF. 

We're not asking them to surrender first, rather we're asking them to negotiate their surrender. No less a PR loss. But substantially different. 

We didn't ask NP, "have you surrendered" we asked "do you want to surrender" etc. 

I think you'll find our point is embedded in your post.  You require our surrender as a token of our intent to peace, but lets be clear about what this token implies, it is trust.  If it is our trust you seek, then you must earn it.  If you are not interested in our trust, then I suggest you reconsider your approach to seeking peace as this way hasn't and most probably won't work for you.  You have of course made a rod for your own back with this one.....

If our leadership do trust you, then there are presumably other reasons to refuse this precondition.  In this case the argument can be made that despite your claim to victory, we have our own notion of victory (which I might add really isn't subject to your approval, but would ordinarily be up for discussion), or some other ideal ending to this war.  For what it's worth, the only way to reach an agreement in this instance is to engage in a no bs chat with our leaders, which has yet to occur.  That it hasn't occurred speaks more of your own motivations and/or the absence of our trust in you (I'll refer you to my first point).

On a final note, this is not a shitpost trying to trigger your latent AVM to rupture, it is but my point of view (not necessarily that of my government before you rush off and start adjusting your secret terms), and hopefully for you an insight into how many of the TKR rank and file perceive you and your terms, and why you won't break us.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar my friend!!  Be nice and make progress ?

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Etatsorp said:

Be nice and make progress

Nah. 

Whenever your "idea" of victory is done with and you're ready to surrender, feel free to talk to your government and bring them to the table. We really don't need to move a muscle to help y'all out ;) 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Etatsorp said:

I think you'll find our point is embedded in your post.  You require our surrender as a token of our intent to peace, but lets be clear about what this token implies, it is trust.  If it is our trust you seek, then you must earn it.  If you are not interested in our trust, then I suggest you reconsider your approach to seeking peace as this way hasn't and most probably won't work for you.  You have of course made a rod for your own back with this one.....

If our leadership do trust you, then there are presumably other reasons to refuse this precondition.  In this case the argument can be made that despite your claim to victory, we have our own notion of victory (which I might add really isn't subject to your approval, but would ordinarily be up for discussion), or some other ideal ending to this war.  For what it's worth, the only way to reach an agreement in this instance is to engage in a no bs chat with our leaders, which has yet to occur.  That it hasn't occurred speaks more of your own motivations and/or the absence of our trust in you (I'll refer you to my first point).

On a final note, this is not a shitpost trying to trigger your latent AVM to rupture, it is but my point of view (not necessarily that of my government before you rush off and start adjusting your secret terms), and hopefully for you an insight into how many of the TKR rank and file perceive you and your terms, and why you won't break us.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar my friend!!  Be nice and make progress ?

There's no trust required. Nobody is asking you to take any sort of leap of faith.

The coalition leadership just wants you to admit that you've lost. 

There's been a lot of talk from your coalition about winning the war, even in your own post. That's not something I'm here to take away from you. It's fine, if you think you're winning, more power to you.

But that's the rub. They don't want to negotiate terms until you no longer believe you're winning, because they believe they've won, and that you've lost. 

Legitimately all that they want is your coalition to come to them and say, "Alright, you win. Let's talk peace."

That's it. No unconditional surrender, no blind trust, just acknowledging that you've lost, be it now or however long it takes for you to believe that you have.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Nah. 

Whenever your "idea" of victory is done with and you're ready to surrender, feel free to talk to your government and bring them to the table. We really don't need to move a muscle to help y'all out ;) 

I'm under no illusion that I might change the minds of Epi, Roq, yours or anyone else who is steadfast coalition B with my posts.  I will however continue to post (hopefully thought provoking) points of view, that I feel may be of interest to others.

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Of The Flies said:

There's no trust required. Nobody is asking you to take any sort of leap of faith.

The coalition leadership just wants you to admit that you've lost. 

There's been a lot of talk from your coalition about winning the war, even in your own post. That's not something I'm here to take away from you. It's fine, if you think you're winning, more power to you.

But that's the rub. They don't want to negotiate terms until you no longer believe you're winning, because they believe they've won, and that you've lost. 

Legitimately all that they want is your coalition to come to them and say, "Alright, you win. Let's talk peace."

That's it. No unconditional surrender, no blind trust, just acknowledging that you've lost, be it now or however long it takes for you to believe that you have.

Without which I sift back through this whole thread (and others) to review my understanding of where we are at, my perception of the angle on the 'surrender first' term that you are taking now is not the angle that I perceived when it was first posited. 

The original angle imo was very much 'we have terms, you must surrender first to see them'.  Now we seem to be getting our ear bent in a much softer fashion such as you've just posted. 

I have no reason to disbelieve/distrust you or Goons in general, for you are an amicable and friendly bunch ready to converse.  But equally so I am not exactly what you'd call fully cognizant of the historical foundation and primary personalities that lead to this war, and as such necessarily am required to take some things on trust, such as historical motivations and breaches of trust that feed the apparent distrust between our coalitions. (Geez does that make sense to you?? It does to me......happy to clarify if necessary). 

Basically I read the tone, coherence and consistency of people's posts in OWF,  and continual reflection hasn't displaced my trust in TKR gov, but has in others. 

Have a great day ?

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

Without which I sift back through this whole thread (and others) to review my understanding of where we are at, my perception of the angle on the 'surrender first' term that you are taking now is not the angle that I perceived when it was first posited. 

If listening to the spin of your government members, makes you believe this, then that's on them. Since the opening rounds of discussions, we have always maintained the same line and as such haven't really softened our stance on things. I've intimated the same request (telling us this will be a negotiation for your surrender) to different folks from your side since the opening rounds of discussion originally occurred. 

5 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

The original angle imo was very much 'we have terms, you must surrender first to see them'.  Now we seem to be getting our ear bent in a much softer fashion such as you've just posted. 

Not much of a "softer" fashion as much as consistently been saying the same thing since the beginning. We aren't interested in your unconditional surrender, and never did ask for it, given the same terms were given to multiple parties on your side who exited the war. In fact we were the first to offer a white peace for both your protectorates and our own to exit the war back in July? 

5 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

But equally so I am not exactly what you'd call fully cognizant of the historical foundation and primary personalities that lead to this war, and as such necessarily am required to take some things on trust, such as historical motivations and breaches of trust that feed the apparent distrust between our coalitions. (Geez does that make sense to you?? It does to me......happy to clarify if necessary). 

The said breaches of trust are to me a mirage used to hide the unwillingness to actually surrender or enter discussions with the intent to achieve a deal. Again, we've always been open to negotiating your surrender, and have maintained that throughout. Your governments are trying to force our hand on budging first, and we don't really see the need to and hence haven't really bothered keeping up the facade of niceties when clearly it seems to be a waste of our time and your time. 

5 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

Basically I read the tone, coherence and consistency of people's posts in OWF,  and continual reflection hasn't displaced my trust in TKR gov, but has in others. 

Fair enough, but if the starting point of your government is a grossly unfair spin of our terms, then that's disappointing, given how we've posted literal walls of texts for the better part of the last 45 days, dealing with what we require to move onto the next term. So I'd suggest revisiting what they did promise to yourselves as members, and see what we've been saying for the better part of the last month and a half, and you'll probably find the picture starkly different to what was sold to you ;) 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Buorhann said:

GOONS is supposedly in due to our actions after they had members caught using spy operations on us.

They claim innocence and we just couldn’t take the risk of their word.  So they reacted with a military strike on Syndicate, Typhon, and TKR.

We reacted with a strike on TKR as that was the strategic target since we'd be joining the coalition anyways. Soup and TGH countered for TKR with war decs, meaning that you yet again expanded the war. Typhoid was hit after they countered NPO in defense of Senraizen.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Buorhann said:

GOONS is supposedly in due to our actions after they had members caught using spy operations on us.

They claim innocence and we just couldn’t take the risk of their word.  So they reacted with a military strike on Syndicate, Typhon, and TKR.

and that was your choice, wasn't it? you chose not to take our word and you had to know the consequences of that when you did it. you are still the ones who escalated, not us.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Fair enough, but if the starting point of your government is a grossly unfair spin of our terms, then that's disappointing, given how we've posted literal walls of texts for the better part of the last 45 days, dealing with what we require to move onto the next term. So I'd suggest revisiting what they did promise to yourselves as members, and see what we've been saying for the better part of the last month and a half, and you'll probably find the picture starkly different to what was sold to you

You can ask any of our members, but we pride ourselves on being consistent with our viewpoints internally or externally.  We use the same arguments explaining our views to our members as we do on the OWF.  That is what our transparent FA goals and focus on honor affords us.  On the whole, our members share our viewpoints in what we see as unreasonable.

I'm here specifically for my community and do everything in my power to represent that fact.  I do take it as an offense to be accused of breaking what I consider to be a somewhat sacred duty of any gov.  Feel free to discuss whatever you want to discuss in terms of the war, but in this case where, in all honesty, you have no idea what you're talking about nor good reasons to talk about it, please desist.

Also, It really makes me happy that we have members as engaged as @Etatsorp.  I strongly believe in democratization past just gov and older players, so rock on Etat and all the others who are posting :).  TKR and every alliance who has new members posting is lucky to have y'all.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

You can ask any of our members, but we pride ourselves on being consistent with our viewpoints internally or externally.  We use the same arguments explaining our views to our members as we do on the OWF.  That is what our transparent FA goals and focus on honor affords us.  On the whole, our members share our viewpoints in what we see as unreasonable.

I'm here specifically for my community and do everything in my power to represent that fact.  I do take it as an offense to be accused of breaking what I consider to be a somewhat sacred duty of any gov.  Feel free to discuss whatever you want to discuss in terms of the war, but in this case where, in all honesty, you have no idea what you're talking about nor good reasons to talk about it, please desist.

He's not accusing you guys of being inconsistent; he's saying you've consistently misinterpreted what we're demanding despite multiple, detailed explanations from several members of our coalition. He's not advising people to comb through your government's various statements for inconsistencies; he's telling people to compare them with those from Coalition B. We've been consistent as well (we haven't "softened" our demand because we haven't changed it), and anyone can find out as much by just reading what we post.

He called it spin because, at this point, the creative interpretations of "unconditional surrender" from Coalition A amount to either ignorance or plain obtuseness.

12 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Also, It really makes me happy that we have members as engaged as @Etatsorp.  I strongly believe in democratization past just gov and older players, so rock on Etat and all the others who are posting :).  TKR and every alliance who has new members posting is lucky to have y'all.  

Yes. New players are always good.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think a number of the Coal A leaders know that's what we've been asking for and have been arguing in bad faith because they want to keep the war going for reasons

the rank and file im willing to give the benefit of the doubt and this doesn't apply to *all* the Coal A leaders of course

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

You can ask any of our members, but we pride ourselves on being consistent with our viewpoints internally or externally.  We use the same arguments explaining our views to our members as we do on the OWF.  That is what our transparent FA goals and focus on honor affords us.  On the whole, our members share our viewpoints in what we see as unreasonable.

I'm here specifically for my community and do everything in my power to represent that fact.  I do take it as an offense to be accused of breaking what I consider to be a somewhat sacred duty of any gov.  Feel free to discuss whatever you want to discuss in terms of the war, but in this case where, in all honesty, you have no idea what you're talking about nor good reasons to talk about it, please desist.

Yes because all of that is somehow not a spin, and could also grossly misrepresent what we've also consistently been saying both here in public and to our members. You honestly need to get off the belief that you're entitled to not being called out for spin, or that you have a monopoly on the truth. No one does, we have our views of how things played out and you may feel strongly about a certain thing, you may call it fact, but it most definitely is not. But asking your members to objectively go through your own spin and our statements is somehow offensive to you, befuddles me, but I mean you do you Cooper, believing that your spin cannot be called out for what it is, while you're free to attack everyone else for the same. I guess you just believe in different standards in treating your posts and those who have a different view. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChloeJessica said:

i think a number of the Coal A leaders know that's what we've been asking for and have been arguing in bad faith because they want to keep the war going for reasons

the rank and file im willing to give the benefit of the doubt and this doesn't apply to *all* the Coal A leaders of course

I think most people, and average players in general want the war to end.  The only reason everyone is still fighting is because Coalition A wants to see all the terms of Coalition B before accepting any kind of surrender.  Coalition B wants Coalition A to surrender first, and then talk to us about the other terms. 

I understand that Coalition B wants the surrender to show that Coalition A is serious about peace talks.  However, most of Coalition A wants is to see your terms even if it's just a few of them.  I think we all get that right now after 30+ pages that surrender is non negotiable.  If Coalition B would put SOMETHING on the table though for the other side to think about, that could go a long way to ending this pathetic war.  And it really has became pathetic that this one little issue is all that's standing in the way of peace...

I honestly don't see where the harm is in the other side saying surrender is non-negotiable, but we have terms A, B, and C that we want to see happen to go along with it.  That gives Coalition A something to think about and discuss with the other side.  It would take nothing to do that, and all holding back terms is doing is making it seem like either an unconditional surrender, or that Coalition B has horrendous terms they want to impose on Coalition A.  You can kill both theoretical fears by simply presenting terms that go with the surrender.  Who knows?  You might get it then.

...Then again, I feel it's pointless to even bother posting about it because everyone's pride is in the way.  I think those leading these peace talks care more about their egos than they do about peace or the stability of the game.  Hence why we could very well be fighting til New Years and beyond.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

You can kill both theoretical fears by simply presenting terms that go with the surrender.

Don't really need too. Why don't you agree to open the discussions regarding your surrender, see the terms and if they are so horrible, just continue fighting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

Don't really need too. Why don't you agree to open the discussions regarding your surrender, see the terms and if they are so horrible, just continue fighting?

I'm not involved in the peace talks, so that is not my call to make.  Just calling things for how I'm seeing them.  Maybe not by you or others leading the charge, but most average people are see it similarly to how I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Considering the price Ramirus paid for one in the only notable instance of an alliance requiring an unconditional surrender, seems like an odd term get hung up on.

It destroyed Ramirus & Gremlins in CN when he got hung up on wanting unconditional surrender from IRON in the BiPolar War. I’ve been told he later came back to CN & claimed he did it because he hated Gremlins & wanted to ruin them; although I don’t believe that was why even if he said it later to try rationalizing it. By the end of that war, all Gremlins allies had already peaced IRON out & most of Gremlin’s other former high gov left the alliance. It’s often seen as one of the worst political moves ever in CN, even if he didn’t have more terms for them after and mostly wanted to make a point I think.

It's not the same at all.  The unconditional surrender required them to take a leap of faith on whatever terms Ramirus would impose by agreeing to it. No other terms are imposed by conceding the surrender/defeat in this case. It's not a black box that they sign ahead of time and I've gone over and over again over the actual examples of unconditional surrender because unconditional surrender means they have to do whatever you say and give up fighting.

The difference in support is different as well as no one supported Ramirus because no one wanted to set the precedent of agreeing to a black box of terms they do not know about. The alliances that peaced out in this case had no intention of fighting a real war and/or disliked their allies beforehand for not winning in  a blow out victory or other reasons or they had severe internal issues like TUE. Most of the alliances on our side do not want to waste time arguing who is winning or who won so we have consensus. The fact that multiple big names in the other coalition have stated they are not losing and have reasons to hold out or that it's a bargaining chip, it shows they think they are doing well enough to continue and our side doesn't feel it needs to indulge that type of thinking. 

The scenarios have nothing in common with each other and it is the height of sophistry to tie them together.

Your post and Kastor's pretty much are outright lies at worst and severe misinterpretations at best.

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

19 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It's not the same at all.  The unconditional surrender required them to take a leap of faith on whatever terms Ramirus would impose by agreeing to it. No other terms are imposed by conceding the surrender/defeat in this case. It's not a black box that they sign ahead of time and I've gone over and over again over the actual examples of unconditional surrender because unconditional surrender means they have to do whatever you say and give up fighting.

The difference in support is different as well as no one supported Ramirus because no one wanted to set the precedent of agreeing to a black box of terms they do not know about. The alliances that peaced out in this case had no intention of fighting a real war and/or disliked their allies beforehand for not winning in  a blow out victory or other reasons or they had severe internal issues like TUE. Most of the alliances on our side do not want to waste time arguing who is winning or who won so we have consensus. The fact that multiple big names in the other coalition have stated they are not losing and have reasons to hold out or that it's a bargaining chip, it shows they think they are doing well enough to continue and our side doesn't feel it needs to indulge that type of thinking. 

The scenarios have nothing in common with each other and it is the height of sophistry to tie them together.

Your post and Kastor's pretty much are outright lies at worst and severe misinterpretations at best.

I feel like surrendering to see the terms is also taking a similar leap of faith and it might be a matter of semantics. They already did the GOONS surrender. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I feel like surrendering to see the terms is also taking a similar leap of faith and it might be a matter of semantics. They already did the GOONS surrender. ?

They aren't surrendering right just yet. They're agreeing to it as a final condition. They know this. I already outlined the reasons they don't want to agree to it which mostly have to do with their internal morale being based on not losing, so they're saying if they say that it's a lost war ahead of time, they will lose morale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

They aren't surrendering right just yet. They're agreeing to it as a final condition. They know this. I already outlined the reasons they don't want to agree to it which mostly have to do with their internal morale being based on not losing, so they're saying if they say that it's a lost war ahead of time, they will lose morale.

I would think asking for surrender terms would signal they are thinking about it if the terms aren't bad & understand accepting the means surrender. If they're called surrender terms, the surrender parts goes without further explanation. So maybe you're over complicating it, not really sure why this is a communication issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ChloeJessica said:

and that was your choice, wasn't it? you chose not to take our word and you had to know the consequences of that when you did it. you are still the ones who escalated, not us.

Wasn’t exactly -my- choice, but I supported it.  And would do so again given the circumstances at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

Soup and TGH countered for TKR with war decs, meaning that you yet again expanded the war. Typhoid was hit after they countered NPO in defense of Senraizen.

Oh boy.

2 minutes ago, ChloeJessica said:

which is fine. but stop pretending we entered the war unprovoked.

You entered by provoking us, but continue putting your heads in the ground claiming otherwise.  Before then, we had done absolutely nothing towards your alliance.  At all.

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...

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 3
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.