peace talks

[True King]

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.

[Azaghul]

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.

[Pasky Darkfire]

This is still a fricking thing? How many times have we made the circle by this point?

[Edward I]

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.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

The better compromise is that both Coalition A and B surrender to Coalition G who gives terms to both of them.

[Azaghul]

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.

 

[Edward I]

22 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

Not what I said:

That's a distinction without a difference.

[Azaghul]

8 minutes ago, Edward I said:

That's a distinction without a difference.

Refraining from denying something is not the same as a positive affirmation.

[Buorhann]

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 October 30, 2019 by Buorhann

[Buorhann]

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?

[Shadowthrone]

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 October 30, 2019 by Shadowthrone

[Shadowthrone]

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  

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  

Edited October 30, 2019 by Shadowthrone

[kalev60]

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...

[Guest PhantomThiefB]

9 hours ago, Buorhann said:

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?

Possibly the fact that the game's called Politics and War? Politician's lie all the time, and deflect blame. Sort of like this game. Crazy huh? Almost like the game may be based off the Politics human's invented throughout the ages..

And no, we still didn't. Notice how no one bothered to correct me? Almost like I have a point or something. Who knows. ?‍♂️

[Comrade Marx]

13 hours ago, Akuryo said:

The better compromise is that both Coalition A and B surrender to Coalition G who gives terms to both of them.

I agree that everyone would be better off if they surrendered to GOONS.

[Azaghul]

9 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

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.

I'd only have enough energy to get through about 3 pages of counting before I got tired and gave up, so I have about 8.6% of the stamina as you do for making a count like this.

[Pasky Darkfire]

9 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Possibly the fact that the game's called Politics and War? Politician's lie all the time, and deflect blame. Sort of like this game. Crazy huh? Almost like the game may be based off the Politics human's invented throughout the ages..

And no, we still didn't. Notice how no one bothered to correct me? Almost like I have a point or something. Who knows. ?‍♂️

No one bothered to correct you because:

A. The first part in your post. Everyone tries to deflect blame everywhere else like outside politicians, like this game is based of human created politics, huh Crazy.

B. Almost every NPO mouthpiece is at least decently good at avoiding gotcha posts. whether confirming your statement or denying it, one way or the other someone is going to use it against them later on. Especially if they can prove (Or have the patience to go digging all over these very forums) they did. And to them it's better to just let points they don't like or insignificant points to drop and not defend or attack them. Because they get lost in the fray of one line "wit" or WoT they and others type.

C. They like it better when others respond against you because it's easier to make that responder, and everyone they're tied to an enemy. Or a villain. Not that everyone doesn't already do a good enough job of that themselves. -Gestures Vaguely at Everything-

 

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

What do you mean? The government never lies. There is no global warming, The Mueller Report was a witch hunt, and Epstein most definitely killed himself in a guarded cell while on suicide watch.  /s.

[Dio Brando]

42 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Almost every NPO mouthpiece is at least decently good at avoiding gotcha posts. whether confirming your statement or denying it, one way or the other someone is going to use it against them later on. Especially if they can prove (Or have the patience to go digging all over these very forums) they did. And to them it's better to just let points they don't like or insignificant points to drop and not defend or attack them. Because they get lost in the fray of one line "wit" or WoT they and others type.

I’m almost offended. 

 

[Pasky Darkfire]

5 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

I’m almost offended. 

Ohhh Dio. You're my favorite NPO mouthpiece. And your wit is always on point, don't ya know.

[Cooper_]

16 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Not inflammatory, just factually incorrect for the most bit

Aww that was almost a compliment.  

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi

[True King]

1 hour ago, Epi said:

@Etatsorp I think you're underestimating the value of these forums. Bk-NPO and Kertog are all too keen to abandon them when their situation is disadvantageous. But without them we wouldn't be able to post public statements or engage with the 'entire' enemy coalition, leaders and members alike.

If i post something here, i get a proper and political explanation, rather than a meme or a short response such as i would get on discord. Sure the thread has at times dragged on and i'd prefer we move to greener pastures; different and more entertaining topics. But it has contributed to the talks. Maybe we'll see peace tomorrow because of it, that's up to you guys.

I don't think its beneficial for Chaos/KETOG to enter into talks where their surrender is a given & can't be used as a bargaining chip at all; with only additional terms for them to be negotiated from there. Entertaining the idea of such terms in public I think just makes it seem like they are contemplating surrender and not really useful toward anything.

[Buorhann]

8 hours ago, Epi said:

@Etatsorp I think you're underestimating the value of these forums. Bk-NPO and Kertog are all too keen to abandon them when their situation is disadvantageous.

Maybe you can speak for BK/NPO, but I don't think you really speak for KETOG.

-------

On topic:  The reason why peace hasn't been achieved in any manner is because there's multiple reasons as to why the war still exists.  It's not just a matter of pride, but that is one of many factors.  It'd be absolutely stupid to give in, as it'd simply cement the power base of IQ 2.0 when they're the cause of the war the begin with.  Simply look at them consistently dragging more alliances in (Even going so far to continue hitting previous allies, such as OWR and Carthago now).

Is that what you want?  To pretty much give up to that?

Older vets can say whatever about Syndisphere back in the day and our dominance then, but we never pulled that shit (Other than Mensa bullying Vanguard, but even those that surrendered/white peaced out were never dragged back into the same war).

 

Let's put it this way.  There's quite a few of you rumor mongering around saying, "Just surrender and rebuild, then go back at it again".  What you're forgetting is that 'rebuilding' gives them time to consolidate their new numbers (Just look at GPWC and GOONS adding into this).  Their current allies wouldn't give up their spot riding on the coattails, because they'd risk being put through the traumatic experience of getting their asses handed to them again.  So you got IQ 2.0 + GPWC + GOONS + whoever else cowers to them.

>"But we got top tier advantage if we rebuild!"

You won't for very long.  And it wasn't that much of an advantage when some of the upper tier nations simply sat on their ass and not attempt to even dive down to make use of their higher city counts, or even attempted to fight when they got attacked.  If you're not willing to fight a war, don't count yourself as part of an advantage.  Leave the war decisions to vets, or go hide off into some obscure place and build up pixels.

Don't get me wrong though, there are some upper tier nations still making use of their city count with their raids.  Those are the real MVPs.

>"The war is boring though"

That is literally the only way to lose.  You cannot be pinned down.  It's easy and cheap to rebuild.  The only way to actually lose is by being bored of the game and the war itself.  Congrats, you as a player, lost.

And if you're one of those players, congratulations again - you've just contributed to regressing the game back into stagnation.  If you think there will be big changes in the game after the war, well, you won't be wrong on that simple line of thinking - but you'll be wrong in what you want to happen.

>"There's no reason why we're fighting"

There's very clearly a huge reason to fight.  Just go dig through the Alliance section of the boards and look at the initial DoWs, or hell, the big leak that came from TCW.  If NPO/BKsphere were willing to plot together to roll the two smaller spheres - what makes you think that wouldn't happen again?  It's already been verified that NPO/BK won't fight each other, so who else would they go after once their membership base got bored and wanted a fight?

This isn't a matter of Roq claiming that it's in NPO's best interests to join in due to some fear of a MegaTKRsphere, it's their fear of losing BK as an ally despite severing that MDP tie.  Which is dumb, considering how alliances in KETOG and Chaos have fought each other more times than NPO/BK has been in any kind of conflict within the past few years (Or even supported them too in Knightfall).

>"But I don't like to fight"

Why are you playing then?  Just hop in VM and contribute to the forums.  This is almost as bad as the players who whined about Baseball being their life.

>"I don't know how to fight/raid"

Talk to your local pirate or milcom player.  Every alliance has them.

>"I just need a break"

Take a break.  There will be plenty of targets and plenty of rebuild opportunities when you get back.

[Sval]

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

On topic:  The reason why peace hasn't been achieved in any manner is because there's multiple reasons as to why the war still exists.  It's not just a matter of pride, but that is one of many factors.  It'd be absolutely stupid to give in, as it'd simply cement the power base of IQ 2.0 when they're the cause of the war the begin with.  Simply look at them consistently dragging more alliances in (Even going so far to continue hitting previous allies, such as OWR and Carthago now).

We knew this was coming sooner or later. It happened to others who left the coalition, it was always going to happen to us. The narrative of only hitting people who leave and act against them really doesn't fit anymore.

But I'd rather be here, in this position, running on empty and taking a beating than be associated with that kind of conduct. I can think of little more toxic.

Anyone on Orbis who isn't in Coalition B and thinks they're safe from this; you have my pity.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Sval

[Daniel Storm]

its just a raid bro