Jump to content
Seb

peace talks

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

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?

I’m not arguing with your reasoning for attacking, but still don’t think allowing an honorable defeat would be bad idea if you want to maybe get some kind of deal together.

Share this post


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

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

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Epi said:

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.

🍻 I'm glad we were able to provide each other more insight in private!

1 hour 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. 

We'll just agree to disagree then. I know what instance you're referring to, but I think everyone is a big enough boy around here to own up to their own words. So, not my job to address that. The point is - It's not mine attitude and certainly not coalition-wide.

I wasn't exactly expected to be embraced as a beacon of truth, there is no to little trust going around :P There were certain leaders on your side trying to kickstart negotiations early in the war, and that is when these terms were adopted - in case of victory. The attempted talks botched before they could even initialize though, so as far as I'm aware there were never any terms presented. I'd be happy to provide more insight in private if you'd like, but it does not really change anything at this point.

As for the monthly 24 hour reality show-style negotiations, it's public information on what happened in those so far. It speaks for itself, bickering or trying to make a stance based on it is pointless tbh.

44 minutes ago, Frawley said:

@Abbas Mehdi

Watch this space :)

I'm glad I gave you an idea! Anything to inconvenience Abbas tbh.

 

---

Good luck on trying to keep the drama alive, folks.

Edited by Theomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:P we could always create a thread named 'Peace Negotiations' and just put all our cards on the table. You dudes could each commit to surrendering and we could individually provide and discuss our terms. It'd be the first time anyone reading the wiki could actually get a feel for what the peace process was like. I'm sure there are enough mods in both coalitions to remove anything that was off-topic.

Additionally, it would be very easy to see who supported what <>.

Edited by Epi

Share this post


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

:P we could always create a thread named 'Peace Negotiations' and just put all our cards on the table.

That would only work if only the coalition leaders were to chat in that thread. Not everyone all at once like this is here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Singha said:

That would only work if only the coalition leaders were to chat in that thread. Not everyone all at once like this is here.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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?

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. 😁

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


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

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

hmmmmmmm. He knows not what he says, *corrected 

Edited by Epi

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 👍

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

Not what I said:

That's a distinction without a difference.

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.