Jump to content
Seb

peace talks

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Malal said:

I'm hesitant to listen to the views of someone who belives that unconditional surrenders are not only possible in this game but are actually being demanded.

“An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party”.

 

I’m hesitant to listen to the views of someone who believes that unconditional surrenders are not only impossible in this game but are actually not being demanded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, japan77 said:

Literally the first line of the wikipedia article: An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party.

We literally have no guarantees of what terms you're going to put down in terms, and you're asking for our surrender before outlining the terms. By definition of the term its unconditional.

You'd be agreeing to surrender/admission of defeat as one of the terms. You wouldn't be formally surrendering  at that point. The guarantees you have is that you aren't agreeing to any of the other terms in advance and the other terms that you'd be able to negotiate on would have guarantees. The Japanese for instance had to accept unconditional surrender as part of the Potsdam declaration which meant the the Japanese armies had to obey commands from the allies and  SCAP could do whatever they wanted in terms of reorganizing the country. This is some awkward wordplay if you insist on continuing this line of thought.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You'd be agreeing to surrender/admission of defeat as one of the terms. You wouldn't be formally surrendering  at that point. The guarantees you have is that you aren't agreeing to any of the other terms in advance and the other terms that you'd be able to negotiate on would have guarantees. The Japanese for instance had to accept unconditional surrender as part of the Potsdam declaration which meant the the Japanese armies had to obey commands from he allies and  SCAP could do whatever they wanted in terms of reorganizing the country. This is some awkward wordplay if you insist on continuing this line of thought.

So we'd be surrendering, then getting the terms of surrender yes? 
We have no guarantees of what those terms could be. You could literally insert "All of you disband and delete" as a surrendering term, and because we surrendered, we'd have to abide by it. Also, there's literally no reason You couldn't make one of the terms "I now control your armies and I get to reorganize your alliances any way I want". 
That's pretty clearly an unconditional surrender.

Edited by japan77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, japan77 said:

So we'd be surrendering, then getting the terms of surrender yes? 
We have no guarantees of what those terms could be. You could literally insert "All of you disband and delete" as a surrendering term, and because we surrendered, we'd have to abide by it.
That's pretty clearly an unconditional surrender.

No you'd be surrendering on x conditions and you'd be able to accept or reject the other terms until we finished a final agreement. Any terms wouldn't be binding on you unless you agreed to them.

So let's say "okay we have the admission of defeat out of the way, so next term is TKR has to rename to the The Knights Rodent and put a guinea pig on its flag." You could say no at that point and we'd either have to drop it or talks would stall out until someone gave in.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the solution here is to have all involved parties surrender to GOONS. We've already started the process.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

No you'd be surrendering on x conditions and you'd be able to accept or reject the other terms until we finished a final agreement. Any terms wouldn't be binding on you unless you agreed to them.

So let's say "okay we have the admission of defeat out of the way, so next term is TKR has to rename to the The Knights Rodent and put a guinea pig on its flag." You could say no at that point and we'd either have to drop it or talks would stall out until someone gave in.

the definition of the term surrender is "cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority." So to be clear, you're asking for an admission of defeat, not a surrender. So, we could still keep fighting after admitting defeat? are you really trying to emulate the allies handling of the central powers in ww1? lmao. we all know that was effectively an unconditional surrender in all but name. Basically, your stance is  that it isn't a "unconditional surrender" on a very minor technicality since if we admit defeat, how exactly are we supposed to oppose terms we don't like? fight?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, japan77 said:

the definition of the term surrender is "cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority." So to be clear, you're asking for an admission of defeat, not a surrender. So, we could still keep fighting after admitting defeat? are you really trying to emulate the allies handling of the central powers in ww1? lmao. we all know that was effectively an unconditional surrender in all but name. Basically, your stance is  that it isn't a "unconditional surrender" on a very minor technicality since if we admit defeat, how exactly are we supposed to oppose terms we don't like? fight?

You're agreeing to it being a term of the final agreement, not finalizing the agreement right away. There wouldn't be an armistice or peace until we reached a final agreement, yeah. In terms of the Central Powers, they didn't have much of a say in their terms as it was mostly negotiated without them as a factor.

The terms only would become binding once they are all accepted. These aren't the real terms btw.

Term 1: Admission of Defeat/Surrender

You: Okay.

Fighting doesn't end

Term 2:  Adrienne switches to guinea pig avatars.

You: No.

Fighting continues

Me: How about a week?

You: ok.

Peace is finalized

 

So to give an example, we lost in Silent and we were willing to admit defeat but the thing we were fighting on was the reps and their size and that was the only thing we fought on.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, what if KETOGG/Chaos admitted to a state of shmerple, defined as willingness to consider surrender based on an exchange of further terms. Shmerple only transforms into surrender upon the signing of a peace accord, much like a trap card.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

All that said, I am actually curious of what the peace terms are.

Those don't exist.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi

Share this post


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

Ok, what if KETOGG/Chaos admitted to a state of shmerple, defined as willingness to consider surrender based on an exchange of further terms. Shmerple only transforms into surrender upon the signing of a peace accord, much like a trap card.

I believe that shmerple is the default state of any coalition in any war.

The terms are the meat and the potatoes.

Share this post


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

Those don't exist.

Where are you getting this? Basically cooper or someone else said on the hope radio show that he had an idea of what the terms are but that you didn't want to surrender. 

I'm not at liberty to disclose them, but you could look at the Ming or NP as models and not be too far off. Of course they're subject to change.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Where are you getting this? Basically cooper or someone else said on the hope radio show that he had an idea of what the terms are but that you didn't want to surrender. 

I'm not at liberty to disclose them, but you could look at the Ming or NP as models and not be too far off. Of course they're subject to change.

One of our guys overhearing some of your lot talking about it.

There's also a contradiction here. Malal says that you can't be fricked to even bother coming up with terms, yet you say that you have them (but can't present it). Which one is it? If you're going to make a statement, at least make sure that you aren't contradicting each other mere pages apart.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Term 1: Admission of Defeat/Surrender

You: Okay.

Fighting doesn't end

Only NPO would think that alliances that surrender are still in the war.

 

..That actually explains a lot tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My peace term, I want 2000 upvotes. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Only NPO would think that alliances that surrender are still in the war.

 

..That actually explains a lot tbh.

No. In the last war, the other side said it was fine with that one but disputed the others.

They agreeing to surrender when the final terms are agreed upon. Don't twist my statements into some sort of orwellian thing.

12 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

This just isn't fair, and you know it.  As someone who I believe is decently well-versed in political theory and psychology, I think you know much better than I that once someone surrenders, the negotiating position is severely diminished.  And you've been clear that you want surrender.  Fine.  Make that clear in negotiations, but post your terms and don't accept anything until you're satisfied.  If these terms are as acceptable as is claimed, then there should be no harm in making a simple post on the OWF or to our leaders about what terms you have and then we can negotiate.  I can't think of a good reason to not present the terms given the fact that you can walk away from negotiations if you're not satisfied after you've shown the terms and we've started negotiation.

I won't go so far as to call us the good guys, but the people who have subjected us to arcane first-of-the-month-only negotiations to just delete and block our representatives multiple times certainly aren't neither.  So please let's get off our high horses together, and actually work to fix this mess.

If you really want to know the secret to NPO's insecurity, it's not grand coalitions nor secret conspiracies rather it comes down to duplicity, a lack of communication and paranoia.  If you're truly adamant about protecting your interests, then work with us, communicate with us the terms that you are pursuing, and plan to negotiate in good faith.  I can promise you the same from our side.

This is kind of the lack of understanding here. It's not supposed to be a bargaining chip in our opinion. You can agree to admit defeat but negotiate on the other things.

The last few times you've had no interest in admitting defeat, so nobody wants to fight on that.

I don't think you've been around long enough to know what is behind our insecurity or not. The stuff I say that is dismissed as paranoia are at least contingency plans and there is a basis for acting.

12 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

 

No, I didn't say that.  What I said is that we know you want a NAP and surrender plus unspecified terms, but that the main reasons of why we don't want to surrender are not just limited to this but also systematic.  There are precedent and political concerns to consider.  I appreciate you guys listening to what we are saying, but third-hard corruptions of my statements aren't useful.

You did say they were light. I mean there's no way to prove what you did or didn't say but you said you heard they were light but that it set a bad precedent to surrender with the damage stats. I don't record people without their knowledge, so yeah, this won't be verifiable either way.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait so agreeing that we will be discussing the terms of your surrender/defeat is now unconditional surrender and not possible? 

Literally all your representatives needed to state was that they accept to admit defeat as a part of the final terms and they won't negotiate with regards to that. Defeat is non-negotiable, once that term is out of the way everything else is negotiable tbh. The prevailing idea is that once everyone is clear that the negotiations are for Coal A's surrender we can move on to discuss the other terms, with which you can either do the what you're doing now, reject, or accept and work towards peace. If you aren't willing to accept the first term in any peace deal, why would someone play their hand and release the rest/work on the rest when the non-negotiable term isn't accepted? 

Also I love how Japan77 and JustinM have some sort of crazy idea that Chaos is allowed to team up with other mini spheres to hit alliances, but the NPO can't because it'd kill the game. Your entire position is predicated on TKR's right to win and everyone else's right to loose and I'm terribly sorry if we aren't going to let that fly. You don't have a monopoly on winning or "just" actions. Your own actions led to this, so own up to it rather than raving in apocalyptic terms that we've broken some agreement or word we made with TKR. We made neither, nor did you make one to upkeep mini spheres, since you broke that concept first, we just answered your provocations with actions to protect our interests, same as you. It's nice to see you try to pull some honour card again, its quite nifty to see. Do tell us more how TKR are all just and right and every one else who does something against the TKR is absolutely wrong. Your narcissism is fun to read. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

Don't twist my statements into some sort of orwellian thing.

I don’t see any oppressive government or accusations of double-think or thought speak or censoring of media, so either you’re baiting people (which wouldn’t surprise me) or you’re stupid and use words that you don’t understand (which wouldn’t surprise me).

 

11 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

No. In the last war, the other side said it was fine with that one but disputed the others.

You’re derailing from the point of my post, which was that “surrender”, “diplomacy”, and “neutrality” have as much value to NPO as avoiding hegemony.

(see: TEst, AD, TFP, Yarr, Swagrr, t$)

2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Wait so agreeing that we will be discussing the terms of your surrender/defeat is now unconditional surrender and not possible? 

I think you’re getting the order wrong, expecting your opponent to surrender THEN having terms revealed is unconditional surrender.

Share this post


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

I don’t see any oppressive government or accusations of double-think or thought speak or censoring of media, so either you’re baiting people (which wouldn’t surprise me) or you’re stupid and use words that you don’t understand (which wouldn’t surprise me).

 

You’re derailing from the point of my post, which was that “surrender”, “diplomacy”, and “neutrality” have as much value to NPO as avoiding hegemony.

(see: TEst, AD, TFP, Yarr, Swagrr, t$)

The way I interpreted is you were saying it as NPO would think surrendering at war is possible e.g. like war is peace. Don't be obtuse.

I mean you're flamebaiting for sure here, so glasshouses.

Share this post


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

Chaos is allowed to team up with other mini spheres to hit alliances

Please specify. If you say this war then I’m going to have an aneurism out of sheer stupidity. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, you guys are playing yourselves at this point. Just laughing at the idea you guys refuse to accept surrender would a term in surrender terms.

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.