Jump to content
Seb

peace talks

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
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 ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shadowthrone said:

Nope ;) 

:<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "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. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 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? 

I posted that list of meme terms with the intention of finding out what you guys would find acceptable. Look back a few pages or just think to yourself what terms are you guys likely to accept or might be funny. <> We might agree lol.

To be honest,  we came up with a long list of terms we thought were gonna be imposed on us by KERTOG early in the war. Far more than anything our coalition could come up with for you guys. It must be pretty relieving for you dudes to know we're not going to 'scorch the earth', isolate and roll your peripherals, disband spheres and black list players etc.

Edited by Epi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Epi said:

To be honest,  we came up with a long list of terms we thought were gonna be imposed on us by KERTOG early in the war. Far more than anything our coalition could come up with for you guys. It must be pretty relieving for you dudes to know we're not going to 'scorch the earth', isolate and roll your peripherals, disband spheres and black list players etc.

I'm curious as to what you thought we'd do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buorhann said:

I'm curious as to what you thought we'd do.

RE: This

46 minutes ago, Epi said:

'scorch the earth', isolate and roll the peripherals, disband spheres and black list players etc.

Initially stated by Sketchy. reiterated by Keegoz and clarified by other members of your coalition in the early threads. You set the tone of the war to "we're gonna eradicate you", Royalist then went around removing all the protectorates and whether related or unrelated each was couped, rolled or otherwise disbanded. Those considered too loyal were refused peace when the 'exchange' was proposed. And some were even even turned into vassals RE: Frontier Records or drawn into service against their old allies FR/Animation Domination.

The goal was to destroy any semblance of a 'BK-Sphere' and break up the Covenant. <> By contrast things will end pretty mildly now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Lol, and all that rhetoric came after NPO lied to us.

Fair enough. But we'd been hearing similar things prior to that as well <> And ayy, i get it. Trying to reshape the politics requires a purge, but i'd prefer we weren't in that list lol. And it looks like we sure as hell were xD.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Lol, and all that rhetoric came after NPO lied to us.

The NPO lied was it? More like the situation changed and our options changed. But I mean easier to remove all the context/nuance and claim the NPO "lied." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

The NPO lied was it? More like the situation changed and our options changed. But I mean easier to remove all the context/nuance and claim the NPO "lied." 

Huh.  First it was "We have logs from TKR" to "Orange man bad" to "Our situation/options changed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Huh.  First it was "We have logs from TKR" to "Orange man bad" to "Our situation/options changed".

Our situation changed because of the logs from TKR? I mean even that level of comprehension isn't that hard I imagine tbh. Unless you're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. The TKR logs was a strong enough component to expand the war, given that it became untenable with those logs to not act at the given the changing situation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Epi said:

Fair enough. But we'd been hearing similar things prior to that as well <> And ayy, i get it. Trying to reshape the politics requires a purge, but i'd prefer we weren't in that list lol. And it looks like we sure as hell were xD.

I've seen this "eradication" rhetoric repeating recently with a recurring pattern in the last few pages, and while I understand people trying to keep the thread alive by throwing shit back and forth, I'd just like to point out that this is.. going a bit too far. The Coalition A, monstrosity in itself, had a colossal number of exactly 3 terms to be laid out in the eventual peace talks. One you can guess yourself, the other two were related to bank/nation changenames. I'm pretty sure this was already made public awhile ago, and can be confirmed by a dozen leaders present in that conversation.

Merging speculation with one forum post in the heat of the battle, and producing a grand conspiracy out of it 4 months later is hardly any evidence for words that you've laid out/someone told you. The other speculations you've made all stem from the aforementioned false assumption, so I'd rather not get into that and make this a pissing match :P 

I'd rather instead reiterate what Partisan said above - The chief obstacle in this war is and has been communication, or rather the lack of it. Both sides have taken the battle to the forums to "one up" the other side, and while that is no uncommon for a global war, this one has been particularly intense and dirty. Combined with misinterpretation and forum battles spilling over to the "talks", if we can call them that, the product is not at all surprising, really. Here's to more clarity in the future, eh?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Theomer said:

-snip-

Ultimately, we'll never know what you guys truly intended back then. But i'll trust yah, the forums have been brutal. 🍺 Goodluck with the talks and yeah, i'll always promote communication and freedom of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Theomer said:

I've seen this "eradication" rhetoric repeating recently with a recurring pattern in the last few pages, and while I understand people trying to keep the thread alive by throwing shit back and forth, I'd just like to point out that this is.. going a bit too far.

Not when it seems you folk were busy being gung-ho calling for the death of alliances/communities at a leadership level ;) 

57 minutes ago, Theomer said:

he Coalition A, monstrosity in itself, had a colossal number of exactly 3 terms to be laid out in the eventual peace talks. One you can guess yourself, the other two were related to bank/nation changenames. I'm pretty sure this was already made public awhile ago, and can be confirmed by a dozen leaders present in that conversation.

I mean we will never know and would have to "trust" your word on it, especially when there is very little trust to be given. You can claim that, but there were enough folks in and around your coalition who said otherwise, 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. 

Not really a pissing match insofar as you were never really in a position to dictate terms with a whole raft of alliances, and I daresay, it's far too much of a cop out for you to claim otherwise given the fact we'll never know. It's a great PR spin, but pointless given that it's probably untruthful to state it so in public. 

Also there's been enough clarity regarding the admission of defeat since it was first submitted a couple of peace talk cycles ago. If KERTCHOGG wanted more, they were free to ask, rather than try to make it a PR standing point of an unconditional surrender which factually wrong, and focused on trying to spin this term into something else other than what it really was. There was no "miscommunication" as much as KERTCHOGG running with their own interoperation despite a number of clarifications and here we are still debating if we want their unconditional surrender or not. Despite these clarifications if that's the hill y'all want to fall on your swords for, you can see why we're reluctant really moving forward, since folks aren't particularly interested in negotiating in good faith. 

Edited by Shadowthrone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Huh.  First it was "We have logs from TKR" to "Orange man bad" to "Our situation/options changed".

Not sure how that makes it a lie. The line about the logs was only one part of the post.  The overall point in the post was that if we allowed the situation to continue as it was going  it would create a circumstance where we wouldn't be able to do much on our own after if the situation at the time persisted, so it was better to fight then than to fight later.  The things stated in the logs were coming close to fruition, so we couldn't let it keep going, but the overall situation was problematic in how it was transpiring at the time. I also don't recall saying that we would never enter the war.  The fact you feel you were owed something by us has been the problematic part throughout this as if we had some moral duty to let you come out on top without providing any resistance. We didn't. The consequences of KETOG/TKR coming out on top were seen as being pretty bad potentially. The major alliances on the Coalition B side petitioned for support because they needed it, so we acted knowing the situation wouldn't turn out well if we didn't try to do something. This whole notion where an "honorable defeat" for coalition B would have been great for everyone is something people plain don't agree with and you'll never be able to force that view on anyone else besides your own circlejerk or some stockholm syndrome sufferers.

It's pretty simple: 

1. You achieving an absolute crushing victory over coalition b = no gain for us.  It would be a potential hellscape for our interests  as we wouldn't be able to win on our own.

2. Coalition B didn't want to lose and asked for support. 

3. We tried to turn the situation around to avoid the worst case scenario for us and them.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Not when it seems you folk were busy being gung-ho calling for the death of alliances/communities at a leadership level ;) 

I mean we will never know and would have to "trust" your word on it, especially when there is very little trust to be given. You can claim that, but there were enough folks in and around your coalition who said otherwise, 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. 

Not really a pissing match insofar as you were never really in a position to dictate terms with a whole raft of alliances, and I daresay, it's far too much of a cop out for you to claim otherwise given the fact we'll never know. It's a great PR spin, but pointless given that it's probably untruthful to state it so in public. 

Also there's been enough clarity regarding the admission of defeat since it was first submitted a couple of peace talk cycles ago. If KERTCHOGG wanted more, they were free to ask, rather than try to make it a PR standing point of an unconditional surrender which factually wrong, and focused on trying to spin this term into something else other than what it really was. There was no "miscommunication" as much as KERTCHOGG running with their own interoperation despite a number of clarifications and here we are still debating if we want their unconditional surrender or not. Despite these clarifications if that's the hill y'all want to fall on your swords for, you can see why we're reluctant really moving forward, since folks aren't particularly interested in negotiating in good faith. 

My recollection described above is what I understand from my discussions as a third party getting involved at a later point. There are also logs which support my assertion where specific negotiators from both sides have a rare moment of clarification together.

That said, I'm not sure why your response is as defensive as it is. I'm not interested in inserting myself in a pissing match over who was more wrong during a breakdown of communication between two parties i'm not a part of. What I am interested in however, as a party now involved, is facilitating the progression of peace negotiations beyond the first hurdle.

As current representative for The $yndicate with regards to peace negotiations, i'd be a bit disappointed if you were to accuse me of negotiating in good faith before i've ... entered negotiations ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

As current representative for The $yndicate with regards to peace negotiations, i'd be a bit disappointed if you were to accuse me of negotiating in good faith before i've ... entered negotiations ...

Wasn't directed at you and more at Theo ;) 

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

That said, I'm not sure why your response is as defensive as it is. I'm not interested in inserting myself in a pissing match over who was more wrong during a breakdown of communication between two parties i'm not a part of. What I am interested in however, as a party now involved, is facilitating the progression of peace negotiations beyond the first hurdle.

Well we shall see where these efforts go. It does get annoying to constantly put out clarifications for people who aren't interested in listening and constantly running the same unproven line over and over again though. So you have a mountain to climb if that's the line they sold internally for months ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Not sure how that makes it a lie. The line about the logs was only one part of the post.  The overall point in the post was that if we allowed the situation to continue as it was going  it would create a circumstance where we wouldn't be able to do much on our own after if the situation at the time persisted, so it was better to fight then than to fight later.  The things stated in the logs were coming close to fruition, so we couldn't let it keep going, but the overall situation was problematic in how it was transpiring at the time. I also don't recall saying that we would never enter the war.  The fact you feel you were owed something by us has been the problematic part throughout this as if we had some moral duty to let you come out on top without providing any resistance. We didn't. The consequences of KETOG/TKR coming out on top were seen as being pretty bad potentially. The major alliances on the Coalition B side petitioned for support because they needed it, so we acted knowing the situation wouldn't turn out well if we didn't try to do something. This whole notion where an "honorable defeat" for coalition B would have been great for everyone is something people plain don't agree with and you'll never be able to force that view on anyone else besides your own circlejerk or some stockholm syndrome sufferers.

After the Sphinx logs, Chaos had good reason to think a preemptive strike was their best chance & don’t remember seeing any talk of harsh terms. Only if they end up agreeing to bad terms did they really do anything wrong. So I don’t see any reason to make the terms reflective at all of the rhetoric of a few people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

After the Sphinx logs, Chaos had good reason to think a preemptive strike was their best chance & don’t remember seeing any talk of harsh terms. Only if they end up agreeing to bad terms did they really do anything wrong. So I don’t see any reason to make the terms reflective at all of the rhetoric of a few people.

I don't claim to know what the terms were going to be but Coalition B had no intention of chancing the levying of terms upon them if they could avoid it. The problem is the power imbalance the situation where they are totally KOed would create. 

Theirr counter has been along the lines: KETOG/Chaos wouldn't have kept working together, but the information we had was that the main sources of tension like CoS  and others likely wouldn't be continuing post-war and had already planned to fracture if surf's up had ended independently.  That leaves a TKR that had been friendly towards KETOG unlike some of the angrier Chaos alliances throughout Surf's Up and making kissy face with them since the start of the year. The same TKR was fairly antagonistic and hostile to us and there were enough indications that the hostility would be acted upon. See the problem?

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Wasn't directed at you and more at Theo ;) 

Well we shall see where these efforts go. It does get annoying to constantly put out clarifications for people who aren't interested in listening and constantly running the same unproven line over and over again though. So you have a mountain to climb if that's the line they sold internally for months ;) 

Fair enough. I'll drop that discussion then. My bad ;).

Sure it gets annoying. That's part of the whole song and dance though. We all have to deal with clarifying misgivings constantly. As for climbing mountains... It's not up to me to decide for other alliances and spheres. From what i've gauged however, they appear more willing to negotiate than you might think. Hence why I suspect communication has been a bigger issue than the actual terms or power balance.

 

But, we'll see!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.