Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Yanno it's one thing when salty leaders say to each other "you're shit", but I don't really why some irrelevant nobody to no one anywhere is trying to interject with that.

You've got less clout and experience than a micro, so why don't you let the real adults in the room handle it, and be quiet at your kiddy table. ?

Given that he’s an NPO member I’m certain he has more clout than you ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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? 

Yes, and we should probably start with an unconditional surrender from your side.

  • Downvote 1

1549687664_Senyor_Puloy_Sig2.png.0b2e28979c48ebd9c346106c5c9a52e8.png

With blood, sweat, and tears; even past the point that our guns and swords fail; even past the time when our bodies go frail; for Pacifica we shall always prevail! Without doubts! Without question! Whatever the cost! To whatever end!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Given that he’s an NPO member I’m certain he has more clout than you ;)

With NPO maybe, but my glorious rainbow-colored world conquest does not require the aid of vile robotics :v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
51 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Yanno it's one thing when salty leaders say to each other "you're shit", but I don't really why some irrelevant nobody to no one anywhere is trying to interject with that.

You've got less clout and experience than a micro, so why don't you let the real adults in the room handle it, and be quiet at your kiddy table. ?

I'd say relevant enough to get a response from you, thanks. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I'd say relevant enough to get a response from you, thanks. ?

I hope Akuryo has a direct line to the hospital Burn Unit for this one.

1549687664_Senyor_Puloy_Sig2.png.0b2e28979c48ebd9c346106c5c9a52e8.png

With blood, sweat, and tears; even past the point that our guns and swords fail; even past the time when our bodies go frail; for Pacifica we shall always prevail! Without doubts! Without question! Whatever the cost! To whatever end!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Senyor Puloy said:

I hope Akuryo has a direct line to the hospital Burn Unit for this one.

 

1 hour ago, Auctor said:

Oh good, we've moved on to you are or aren't relevant pwns. Now we get to find out who the big strong browser game dorks are.

If only this high-quality content could be NPO's official line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I'd say relevant enough to get a response from you, thanks. ?

Might've been clever, if i were somebody important and not a micro. Your SIr Scarfalot is showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Epi said:

That's what i meant about moderation. And i'm sure Sheepy would go out of his way to suit this unique attempt to make politics more interactive.

Ah okay gotcha. In that I agree haha. There's just too many voices from too many people who are not in charge in these threads and it's really derailed the conversation. The way I  been seeing it, Col B wants an admission of defeat by Col A before talks can begin. I don't believe I have seen anywhere where Col B will impose unconditional terms (besides Admission of Defeat) once that admission is expressed. It's just a gateway to getting the real peace talks started.

"Hey we give up, we 'surrender', lets talk about some peace terms and go about our business. We can also stop fighting while we do this." and the leaders of the coalitions can hash it out. But what do I know I'm not important.  

PnW peace conferences seem to be worse the HoI4 ones. If anyone plays that, especially MP, then you understand what I really mean ?

Edited by Singha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Singha said:

Ah okay gotcha. In that I agree haha. There's just too many voices from too many people who are not in charge in these threads and it's really derailed the conversation. The way I  been seeing it, Col B wants an admission of defeat by Col A before talks can begin. I don't believe I have seen anywhere where Col B will impose unconditional terms (besides Admission of Defeat) once that admission is expressed. It's just a gateway to getting the real peace talks started.

"Hey we give up, we 'surrender', lets talk about some peace terms and go about our business. We can also stop fighting while we do this." and the leaders of the coalitions can hash it out. But what do I know I'm not important.  

PnW peace conferences seem to be worse the HoI4 ones. If anyone plays that, especially MP, then you understand what I really mean ?

Roq seemed to suggest they just need to recognize accepting the terms would mean surrender, so don’t think they actually need to surrender first if they want to find out the terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it:

Side A doesn't want to take the generally unprecedented step of agreeing to preconditions for peace and/or making concessions without anything in return, and see an "admission of defeat" as a precondition/concession.

Side B doesn't want to negotiate with people posturing about how they haven't lost, and sees asking for an "admission of defeat" as a way to preclude it.

Seems like a good middle ground would be to hold negotiations where both sides agree to not debate who "won" as part of the talks (that doesn't mean that an admission of defeat can't be a peace term).  Side A doesn't have to make any one sided concessions without getting anything in return and Side B doesn't have to suffer listening to people on Side A posturing about not loosing.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

The way I see it:

Side A doesn't want to take the generally unprecedented step of agreeing to preconditions for peace and/or making concessions without anything in return, and see an "admission of defeat" as a precondition/concession.

So Side A doesn't want to lose the bargaining chip it sees its eventual admission of defeat as...

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

Side B doesn't want to negotiate with people posturing about how they haven't lost, and sees asking for an "admission of defeat" as a way to preclude it.

...and Side B doesn't want Side A's admission of defeat to be up for debate, as a bargaining chip or otherwise...

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

Seems like a good middle ground would be to hold negotiations where both sides agree to not debate who "won" as part of the talks (that doesn't mean that an admission of defeat can't be a peace term).  Side A doesn't have to make any one sided concessions without getting anything in return and Side B doesn't have to suffer listening to people on Side A posturing about not loosing.

...and the compromise is to give Side A what it wants.

Got it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edward I said:

...and Side B doesn't want Side A's admission of defeat to be up for debate, as a bargaining chip or otherwise...

Not what I said:

3 hours ago, Azaghul said:

Side B doesn't want to negotiate with people posturing about how they haven't lost, and sees asking for an "admission of defeat" as a way to preclude it.

 

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Singha said:

................There's just too many voices from too many people who are not in charge in these threads and it's really derailed the conversation...............

These forums are here for everyone.  I like to think that the actual, genuine political discussions are actually happening between our leaders in a much less cluttered and private space than this. 

Perhaps that is where an obstacle to peace lies, in the conflation of this public space with where the genuine negotiations are supposed to take place.  It would be very foolish indeed to allow the unregulated statements (trolling), and inadequately informed opinions (you may include mine if you like) that populate this forum to unduly influence political discussions between our leaders.  I do hope the negotiators are above that!!

Edited by Etatsorp
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Not sure how that makes it a lie.

That's not the lie.  The lie was, you "supposedly" had nothing to do with the original plot.

13 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean Akuryo claimed they were given different information regarding terms being built as revenge for KF terms. So we'll never really know, and would hardly believe that the terms were just "three" in number.

Akuryo had no access to the leader's chat about what terms, if any, were discussed.  His rambling is from the common chat, speculating with others who also had access there.

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

12 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Just an OOC question. When's the last time your IRL government told you the truth or was honest on a world scale?

IC : We never lied. We've said the exact same things since the DoW. In private channels too. Maybe it's time to look inward and just realize your bad at politics. Let the adults handle it, eh?

Just a OOC reply.  When's the last time anything about IRL mattered about a game?  Let alone this one?

IC: Yes, your leaders did.

>let the adults handle it

Anybody want to correct him on this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

The lie was, you "supposedly" had nothing to do with the original plot.

We did not ?‍♀️

I hope that's the lie you're looking for, but I mean it's the truth? 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a curious notion, there are 20 posts (2.3%) out of the 854 replies in this thread from TKR Gov/FA (3 people in fact) who may have anything to do with actual negotiations.  IMO none of these could be construed as inflammatory.  Unless representing in a clear manner a difference of opinion is considered inflammatory of course.  The posts from other TKR members equals a grand total of 97 (11.3%).  (I'll put in here a +/- 0.2% accuracy disclaimer - there was a lot of posts to sift through ?)

I would argue the angst and knotted knickers we seem to be dealing with here, and associated Coalition B FA policy development, could be attributed to a large portion of the remaining 86.4% of posts.

If negotiation is what coalition B wants, then it needs to happen elsewhere.  Hearts, minds and common ground are not being won here.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

  Unless representing in a clear manner a difference of opinion is considered inflammatory of course. 

Not inflammatory, just factually incorrect for the most bit :P 

2 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

I would argue the angst and knotted knickers we seem to be dealing with here, and associated Coalition B FA policy development, could be attributed to a large portion of the remaining 86.4% of posts.

Coalition B's development of a foreign policy hasn't really happened in this thread as much as responding to the 13.6% of factually incorrect posts plus whatever else KERTCHOGG has et all tried to spin in this thread.

Good attempt at trying to make it seem this thread is all Coalition B though, I daresay that's has to be one of the cheekiest attempts of deflection I've seen so far :P 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Etatsorp wrote: "I would argue the angst and knotted knickers we seem to be dealing with here, and associated Coalition B FA policy development, could be attributed to a large portion of the remaining 86.4% of posts." 

I would argue that that a huge portion of the remaining 86.4% of post were someway or another dealing with KERTCHOGG´s initial rhetoric of permawar and promises to totally destroy Colo B alliances, I think even forced disbandments were on the table by the most fanatical of  KERTCHOGG  posters in the first 2 months of this conflict when they had the upper hand.   

Also Etatsorp focusing on TKR posters only(who have been mostly civil) makes it look like TKR= KERTCHOGG  and TKR is the only legit voice for Colo A. 

But I agree OWF topics rarely lead to peace and this topic is not an exception, personally I´d like the war to last till new year and start peace then for obvious symbolic reasons, but if it takes longer then it just takes longer, existential threats like  thrown out in the first 2 months of the conflict by the initial winning side can not be forgotten and put aside that easily...

  • Haha 1
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.