Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

@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 :grinning:

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :grinning:

@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.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Love you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Syrachime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Upvote 2

mlem.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Roquentin
  • Like 1
  • 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.