KERCHTOGG Coalition Announcement on Peace

[Marxalot]

On 11/8/2019 at 9:16 AM, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I pretty much just said that.

Edit: Also if terms were ready, they would have been given already. So good reason to suspect they haven't been made already. lol

But even if you do trust their source, it seems odd for them to have had to wait so long to get this information.  As to the claims in the post, it's hard to tell what's true, and what's not true. The post itself, and their references in it, don't say how they came to their conclusion. However, if they'd had a full discussion with me, I'd have given them some of my observations, some of my insights, that I hope they'd incorporate into their findings. And, it turns out that I was right. They have a post up at the same time as mine, with their conclusions in there. However, they make the point that the paper isn't finished yet.  So it's possible their conclusion would change if

[Prefonteen]

On 11/8/2019 at 10:38 AM, Shadowthrone said:

It wasn't necessary or a precondition to make a public forum post  

 

On 11/8/2019 at 2:29 PM, SleepingNinja said:

I was gonna say, I thought it would have been fine to do it in private too but to each their own. No complaints here, if they wanna post it that's cool too.?

Private overtures were made prior to the public posts by both sides. Initial negotiation (read: surrender) attempts were nearly torpedoed by hosile negotiators who made the exclusion of t$ a sticking point, and then set an arbitrary 24 hr deadline for kerchogg to offer their surrender, while simultaneously going afk for a majority of that period. In the process, t$' private inquiries and requests for clarification were entirely dodged and avoided, with the t$ representative being bounced back and forth between different reps within coalition B. To top that off, t$' inquiries (which were conducted *after* kerchogg was directly informed t$ would have to approach on their own) were used in the kerchogg chat to admonish Kerchogg negotiators for "trying to go around the official coalition B negotiators".

All of this is public record and logged.

The public posts were made less than 2 - 3 hours before the deadline your negotiators set, and the window for surrender closed, with the express purpose of fulfilling your terms in order to get one step closer to peace. The past week has been a shitfest in which coalition B negotiators have conducted their business in a similar manner as described above.

Now, are we going to discuss peace or are you going to continue attempting to frame these delays as anything other than the direct (intended?) consequence of your own rubbish?

Edited November 10, 2019 by Prefonteen

[Hodor]

50 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Private overtures were made prior to the public posts by both sides. Initial negotiation (read: surrender) attempts were nearly torpedoed by hosile negotiators who made the exclusion of t$ a sticking point, and then set an arbitrary 24 hr deadline for kerchogg to offer their surrender, while simultaneously going afk for a majority of that period. In the process, t$' private inquiries and requests for clarification were entirely dodged and avoided, with the t$ representative being bounced back and forth between different reps within coalition B. To top that off, t$' inquiries (which were conducted *after* kerchogg was directly informed t$ would have to approach on their own) were used in the kerchogg chat to admonish Kerchogg negotiators for "trying to go around the official coalition B negotiators".

All of this is public record and logged.

Now, the public posts were made less than 2 - 3 hours before the deadline your negotiators set, and the window for surrender closed, with the express purpose of fulfilling your terms in order to get one step closer to peace. The past week has been a shitfest in which coalition B negotiators have conducted their business in a similar manner as described above.

Now, are we going to discuss peace or are you going to continue attempting to frame these delays as anything other than the direct (intended?) consequence of your own rubbish?

[Guest Curufinwe]

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

[True King]

4 hours ago, Marxalot said:

But even if you do trust their source, it seems odd for them to have had to wait so long to get this information.  As to the claims in the post, it's hard to tell what's true, and what's not true. The post itself, and their references in it, don't say how they came to their conclusion. However, if they'd had a full discussion with me, I'd have given them some of my observations, some of my insights, that I hope they'd incorporate into their findings. And, it turns out that I was right. They have a post up at the same time as mine, with their conclusions in there. However, they make the point that the paper isn't finished yet.  So it's possible their conclusion would change if

The Truth:

Might as well enjoy it.

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

On 11/8/2019 at 2:29 AM, The Point Guard said:

Hey man, do some homework before you talk out your ass, Mr. Magical Keno King. Less land buying, more history checking. We did join CoA this war. Then tS left us high and dry on the battlefield for some bullshit unilateral deal they made. So why would we attack our friends to bail out more tS douchebaggery and defacto help out people who hate us?

No joke, the same alliance tS went in for is an alliance harboring a Alpha-rogue. Sheeeeet man. That was a no brainer.

Well I bought my cities, Alpha bought yours with the 200b they claimed they won off keno?

[namukara]

Damn, this is still going on? Why don't you just make peace already so food prices drop to 58 PPU?

[Sir Scarfalot]

9 hours ago, namukara said:

Damn, this is still going on? Why don't you just make peace already so food prices drop to 58 PPU?

So Fraggle can sell foods for a premium of course. We'll end the war as soon as all food producers agree to fix food prices at 200 for the general market and 1 when Fraggle buys it.

[Placentica]

On 11/9/2019 at 10:54 PM, Elijah Mikaelson said:

Well I bought my cities, Alpha bought yours with the 200b they claimed they won off keno?

You'd be wise to extricate yourself from this situation you've created for yourself.  He didn't have a choice, it was alliance orders.  Besides, if you did actually win it by Keno and not some cheat, that's far fricking worse.  If you have a problem with the way Alpha does it's own economics and milcom, you can take it up with me.

[Arthur Wellington]

Im not part of any government but:

IF coal B is the winner of this war (thats why there are 2 sort-of-surrender posts, right?) then why is coal A. dictating stuff? Why keep making threads and posts on how evil, bad, dodging, lazy, lowsy and so on, and so forth, coal B is? (Even if you are right, you guys might really be, I have no clue)

I think many non gov players feel one way or the other about peace but gov members of a losing side talking trash (even if you believe them to be correct and right) seems weird. 

If you want peace, swallow your objections, impatience, and bravado. Save it for the next global war?

Also: in soccer if a trainer looses too many matches, they are fired by their club and some choose to leave themselves. ?

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Duke Arthur

[Ibsheway]

1 hour ago, Duke Arthur said:

Im not part of any government but:

IF coal B is the winner of this war (thats why there are 2 sort-of-surrender posts, right?) then why is coal A. dictating stuff? Why keep making threads and posts on how evil, bad, dodging, lazy, lowsy and so on, and so forth, coal B is? (Even if you are right, you guys might really be, I have no clue)

I think many non gov players feel one way or the other about peace but gov members of a losing side talking trash (even if you believe them to be correct and right) seems weird. 

If you want peace, swallow your objections, impatience, and bravado. Save it for the next global war?

Also: in soccer if a trainer looses too many matches, they are fired by their club and some choose to leave themselves. ?

 

 

you shouldn't speak about stuff you don't know about brother ? 

firstly its FOOTBALL secondly its manager thirdly its getting sacked fourthly no manager/player leaves after signing contracts because the departure/termination fee is big digits 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Ibsheway

[True King]

31 minutes ago, Duke Arthur said:

Im not part of any government but:

IF coal B is the winner of this war (thats why there are 2 sort-of-surrender posts, right?) then why is coal A. dictating stuff? Why keep making threads and posts on how evil, bad, dodging, lazy, lowsy and so on, and so forth, coal B is? (Even if you are right, you guys might really be, I have no clue)

I think many non gov players feel one way or the other about peace but gov members of a losing side talking trash (even if you believe them to be correct and right) seems weird. 

If you want peace, swallow your objections, impatience, and bravado. Save it for the next global war?

Also: in soccer if a trainer looses too many matches, they are fired by their club and some choose to leave themselves. ?

 

Err... They haven't lost yet & can still fight many more months. Still a ways off from a victory where they have no say in peace. They never disarmed.

They'll have lost if presented terms of surrender and actually accept them. Although absent that, it continues.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Prefonteen]

3 hours ago, Duke Arthur said:

Im not part of any government but:

IF coal B is the winner of this war (thats why there are 2 sort-of-surrender posts, right?) then why is coal A. dictating stuff? Why keep making threads and posts on how evil, bad, dodging, lazy, lowsy and so on, and so forth, coal B is? (Even if you are right, you guys might really be, I have no clue)

I think many non gov players feel one way or the other about peace but gov members of a losing side talking trash (even if you believe them to be correct and right) seems weird. 

If you want peace, swallow your objections, impatience, and bravado. Save it for the next global war?

Also: in soccer if a trainer looses too many matches, they are fired by their club and some choose to leave themselves. ?

 

 

Hello. I understand why you might feel about it this way. I'm not here to chest thump about whether we can or can not continue the war. The fact is that the war continues in whatever capacity until peace is agreed on. We are not dictating anything. On the contrary: We have following coalition B's instructions and awaiting their terms. That i'd daresay is the opposite of dictating  .

With that said, our surrender is an acceptance of a prerequisite demand that we will accept a surrender (as was clarified by government). It is not an unconditional surrender in which we pre-emptively agree to any and all terms and progressions demanded from us without objection. Peace processes can be exhaustive affairs with far-reaching impacts on the nations of hundreds of members. Quite often, the process toward peace can be as influential on shaping post-war environments a the peace terms themselves.

 My role as a representative of The $yndicate is to find a way to end this in a manner which is satisfactory to the members I represent. That includes consistently probing for clarity regarding the state of our peace process, and communicating directly and transparently about this. When it appeared private inquiries were being ignored, it was a natural consequence for me to shift to public inquiries.

I do not care for ego and you therefore will not see me balk at the notion of surrendering. I do not however see it as in my members' best interest to be reactive when it comes to these matters. If you see me asking for clarifications and pointing out inconsistencies which to my side appear problematic as "talking trash" then i'm afraid there is not much I can do to change your views as I suspect anything besides us being mute will be viewed as such. That said, i'm always willing to discuss . All you need to do is ask!

Waiting for the "next global war" is silly. We don't know who, what or when the next global war is.

 

Also: Our members are free to leave if they wish postwar. I'm not holding them back. I won't comment on track records for obvious reasons.  

[Arthur Wellington]

2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Hello. I understand why you might feel about it this way. I'm not here to chest thump about whether we can or can not continue the war. The fact is that the war continues in whatever capacity until peace is agreed on. We are not dictating anything. On the contrary: We have following coalition B's instructions and awaiting their terms. That i'd daresay is the opposite of dictating  .

With that said, our surrender is an acceptance of a prerequisite demand that we will accept a surrender (as was clarified by government). It is not an unconditional surrender in which we pre-emptively agree to any and all terms and progressions demanded from us without objection. Peace processes can be exhaustive affairs with far-reaching impacts on the nations of hundreds of members. Quite often, the process toward peace can be as influential on shaping post-war environments a the peace terms themselves.

 My role as a representative of The $yndicate is to find a way to end this in a manner which is satisfactory to the members I represent. That includes consistently probing for clarity regarding the state of our peace process, and communicating directly and transparently about this. When it appeared private inquiries were being ignored, it was a natural consequence for me to shift to public inquiries.

I do not care for ego and you therefore will not see me balk at the notion of surrendering. I do not however see it as in my members' best interest to be reactive when it comes to these matters. If you see me asking for clarifications and pointing out inconsistencies which to my side appear problematic as "talking trash" then i'm afraid there is not much I can do to change your views as I suspect anything besides us being mute will be viewed as such. That said, i'm always willing to discuss . All you need to do is ask!

Waiting for the "next global war" is silly. We don't know who, what or when the next global war is.

 

Also: Our members are free to leave if they wish postwar. I'm not holding them back. I won't comment on track records for obvious reasons.  

I get what you are saying but dont you think alot of words are used to describe a simple situation, coal A is loosing more then it is winning? Game mechanics make it so that it not that clear but no one is making the case coal B is losing. IF you agree on that then the OWF is pretty strange.

So many posts about the start of the war and why some people are really stupid. Even if all that is true, isnt the simple fact (coal A is losing more then it is winning, coal B is not losing) worth a different attitude, not throwing more wood onto the fire but trying everything, even if you dont agree, to get peace?

And I dont know alot of pnw war history but wouldnt it be normal for example TKR leadership to step down because of lost wars? 

By dictating I meant the tone of the debate, rather then the effort. I only rerolled some 2.5 months ago but since I started out there was there never a moment when anyone thought that coal B could loose. Reading the OWF sometimes is like its the other way around. And perhaps yes, being mute for some time in this topic (peace) would actually move things in a better direction then things are going now (not you personally)

 

 

[True King]

3 hours ago, Duke Arthur said:

I get what you are saying but dont you think alot of words are used to describe a simple situation, coal A is loosing more then it is winning? Game mechanics make it so that it not that clear but no one is making the case coal B is losing. IF you agree on that then the OWF is pretty strange.

So many posts about the start of the war and why some people are really stupid. Even if all that is true, isnt the simple fact (coal A is losing more then it is winning, coal B is not losing) worth a different attitude, not throwing more wood onto the fire but trying everything, even if you dont agree, to get peace?

And I dont know alot of pnw war history but wouldnt it be normal for example TKR leadership to step down because of lost wars? 

By dictating I meant the tone of the debate, rather then the effort. I only rerolled some 2.5 months ago but since I started out there was there never a moment when anyone thought that coal B could loose. Reading the OWF sometimes is like its the other way around. And perhaps yes, being mute for some time in this topic (peace) would actually move things in a better direction then things are going now (not you personally)

Has NPO won every war after Roq was leader? Depends why they lost, in a curb stomp like Knight Fall; wasn't much they could do to win & they fought pretty long at least.

[Prefonteen]

3 hours ago, Duke Arthur said:

I get what you are saying but dont you think alot of words are used to describe a simple situation, coal A is loosing more then it is winning? Game mechanics make it so that it not that clear but no one is making the case coal B is losing. IF you agree on that then the OWF is pretty strange.

So many posts about the start of the war and why some people are really stupid. Even if all that is true, isnt the simple fact (coal A is losing more then it is winning, coal B is not losing) worth a different attitude, not throwing more wood onto the fire but trying everything, even if you dont agree, to get peace?

And I dont know alot of pnw war history but wouldnt it be normal for example TKR leadership to step down because of lost wars? 

By dictating I meant the tone of the debate, rather then the effort. I only rerolled some 2.5 months ago but since I started out there was there never a moment when anyone thought that coal B could loose. Reading the OWF sometimes is like its the other way around. And perhaps yes, being mute for some time in this topic (peace) would actually move things in a better direction then things are going now (not you personally)

 

 

Forced abdications would only occur if there is a rift between the will of the members and what the leadership does, and from what I gather... alliances like TKR are perfectly unified because they feel justified in their stances and actions. They feel IQ alliances have wronged them and so long as that view is shared by their members, I imagine you won't see them break because of a loss. 

If historical context interests you, I would suggest scouring the wiki and asking questions outside of your alliance. You'll find different viewpoints and learn, for example, that Knightfall and this war are the first two victories for many alliances in your coalition, ending a long losing streak going back to 2014/2015. If forced abdication were the norm, you would see radically different leadership on your side. That is not to say i'm taking anything away from these victories. Just...as I said, historical context.

The tone of the debate is always a product of the actions and stances taken by both sides. If you see one side dictate it, then there are reasons for that involving both sides. For this bit I can only speak for t$: We've never claimed we are winning. It was clear we'd lose. What we did contest, is why we ended up being dragged into the war, as the assertions made by some did not match our motivations.

Similarly with regards to peace, some of the things asserted by underlord for example, do not reflect what is going on behind closed doors and so I took the time to contest him on that.

Being mute is problematic when there are contradictions in play. Not setting them straight means these contradictions become the new truth. That is unfortunately the way things work.

[Arthur Wellington]

I think one of the problems is the OWF being a megaphone. It blasts so loud that it gets confusing. 

As for the abdicating, twas sort of a jest but not completly. Seeing how many people (both sides) are leaving and how much score and infra is lost, it amazes me there is no consequense for that. 

Also, t$ might be a different story, but the outcome is still the same as you say. 

The losing side (sure, both sides) is using a megaphone (again, perhaps with correct statements, I really still dont know) and that seems weird to me. 

[Prefonteen]

15 hours ago, Duke Arthur said:

I think one of the problems is the OWF being a megaphone. It blasts so loud that it gets confusing. 

As for the abdicating, twas sort of a jest but not completly. Seeing how many people (both sides) are leaving and how much score and infra is lost, it amazes me there is no consequense for that. 

Also, t$ might be a different story, but the outcome is still the same as you say. 

The losing side (sure, both sides) is using a megaphone (again, perhaps with correct statements, I really still dont know) and that seems weird to me. 

Why is it weird for an alliance (winning or losing) to clearly communicate its position in public? 

 

Frankly, that used to be the norm before some IQ governments adopted a policy of steering clear of the owf as much as possible. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Prefonteen

[Shadowthrone]

5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Why is it weird for an alliance (winning or losing) to clearly communicate its position in public? 

 

Frankly, that used to be the norm before some IQ governments adopted a policy of steering clear of the owf as much as possible. 

Radio silence will always be the best policy with regards to the forums  

[Do Not Fear Jaz]

On 11/11/2019 at 2:57 AM, Duke Arthur said:

Im not part of any government but:

IF coal B is the winner of this war (thats why there are 2 sort-of-surrender posts, right?) then why is coal A. dictating stuff? Why keep making threads and posts on how evil, bad, dodging, lazy, lowsy and so on, and so forth, coal B is? (Even if you are right, you guys might really be, I have no clue)

I think many non gov players feel one way or the other about peace but gov members of a losing side talking trash (even if you believe them to be correct and right) seems weird. 

If you want peace, swallow your objections, impatience, and bravado. Save it for the next global war?

Also: in soccer if a trainer looses too many matches, they are fired by their club and some choose to leave themselves. ?

 

 

You're the smartest person here.

[Shadowthrone]

23 minutes ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said:

You're the smartest person here.

Hey, you haven't seen TKR attempting to negotiate over the word "surrender" yet. Or the hills they choose to fall on their sword just yet  That'd make even Noctis look reasonable  

[Prefonteen]

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Hey, you haven't seen TKR attempting to negotiate over the word "surrender" yet. Or the hills they choose to fall on their sword just yet  That'd make even Noctis look reasonable  

Kettles

[Shadowthrone]

3 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Kettles

Meet pot  Though I think the last time NPO was on the losing side, we still signed peace within 30 days?  

[Prefonteen]

18 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Meet pot  Though I think the last time NPO was on the losing side, we still signed peace within 30 days?  

That's a lot easier when your opposition is quick and easy about the terms hehe

[Adrienne]

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Hey, you haven't seen TKR attempting to negotiate over the word "surrender" yet.

Neither have you ?