Shadowthrone Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Nizam Adrienne said: Neither have you ? Oh but I have Just didn't take part in it, though this time around, I'm looking forward to it! Edited November 12, 2019 by Shadowthrone 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted November 12, 2019 Author Share Posted November 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: Oh but I have Just didn't take part in it, though this time around, I'm looking forward to it! I think your memory is a little off. Regardless, it ultimately doesn't much matter. It was hardly a major issue like you're implying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 Tbh I tried deleting but I thought about poor Alex starving. 2 1 Quote "Though it starts with a fist it must end with your mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 On 11/9/2019 at 6:44 PM, Prefonteen said: 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? Post the logs. Also if the first step in peace is for Coal A to surrender to Coal B and Coal A is okay with surrender wouldn't that indicate the current block in peace negotiations is Coal A for not posting their surrender? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 18 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said: Post the logs. Also if the first step in peace is for Coal A to surrender to Coal B and Coal A is okay with surrender wouldn't that indicate the current block in peace negotiations is Coal A for not posting their surrender? The kerchtogg negotiation logs are not mine to bring to the OWF, and there have been no logs for the t$ side of things (as terms still haven't been presented). The first step for peace was fulfilled (it was at an earlier point clarified that for now a preliminary surrender with the understanding that it does not go into effect until the negotiations over other terms are fully completed sufficed) with the post. I don't see how you are seeing coal A at fault there? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Prefonteen said: The kerchtogg negotiation logs are not mine to bring to the OWF, and there have been no logs for the t$ side of things (as terms still haven't been presented). The first step for peace was fulfilled (it was at an earlier point clarified that for now a preliminary surrender with the understanding that it does not go into effect until the negotiations over other terms are fully completed sufficed) with the post. I don't see how you are seeing coal A at fault there? There was no surrender in this thread. "In this spirit, the undersigned parties do hereby proclaim their acceptance of the prerequisite Coalition B demand for an acceptance of a surrender once other terms have been negotiated." is not a surrender. Write "Coalition A surrenders to Coalition B." It's only six words and that's if you count the A and B as words. As for the logs, IMO, don't dangle them like an asset if they are not an asset. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said: There was no surrender in this thread. "In this spirit, the undersigned parties do hereby proclaim their acceptance of the prerequisite Coalition B demand for an acceptance of a surrender once other terms have been negotiated." is not a surrender. Write "Coalition A surrenders to Coalition B." It's only six words and that's if you count the A and B as words. As for the logs, IMO, don't dangle them like an asset if they are not an asset. We already surrendered to the might that is GOONS. We accept @Do Not Fear Jazz as our mighty viceroy and @Nizam Adrienne as his Queen. Now, let's all make nice and hug it out. Even Nerds and Smoths. But jokes aside we have fulfilled the condition laid out to commence peace talks. Your fellow reps have recognized this and otherwise wouldn't be commencing in peace negotiations with KERCHTOGG reps. 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 That's kind of them to stretch so much to accommodate the Coalition B statement vs. the actual demand. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 On 11/12/2019 at 6:39 AM, Shadowthrone said: Meet pot Though I think the last time NPO was on the losing side, we still signed peace within 30 days? You mean after we presented terms in a timely fashion and was cooperative in compromising on the terms? Keep in mind, what you're doing here is setting a new precedent. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Buorhann said: You mean after we presented terms in a timely fashion and was cooperative in compromising on the terms? Keep in mind, what you're doing here is setting a new precedent. You mean the negotiator on your end was reasonable and we arrived at a privately acceptable negotiated agreement. Changes when there are different negotiators this time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) Happy to see people took my advice and implemented the Keshavbot: if anybody { 'mentions NPO'}; then keshav ('brings up TKR from 3 years ago') if keshav = { 'has no argument' } then keshav posts = ( 'passive aggressive emoji' ) Edited November 14, 2019 by Smith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: There was no surrender in this thread. "In this spirit, the undersigned parties do hereby proclaim their acceptance of the prerequisite Coalition B demand for an acceptance of a surrender once other terms have been negotiated." is not a surrender. Write "Coalition A surrenders to Coalition B." It's only six words and that's if you count the A and B as words. As for the logs, IMO, don't dangle them like an asset if they are not an asset. Your negotiators quite literally demanded the above, and by virtue of kerchtogg channels having been set up at the very least, it seems that they were satisfied by it. Why are you contesting this exactly? Edited November 14, 2019 by Prefonteen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 5 hours ago, Prefonteen said: Your negotiators quite literally demanded the above, and by virtue of kerchtogg channels having been set up at the very least, it seems that they were satisfied by it. Why are you contesting this exactly? I pre-answered you in this very thread on this very page. All I'm contesting is you haven't surrendered. If it's satisfactory to Coalition B is entirely different than whether or not Coalition A did the task assigned. 18 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: That's kind of them to stretch so much to accommodate the Coalition B statement vs. the actual demand. See? Acknowledged and explained on an alliance behalf. I'm criticizing you personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Just now, ComradeMilton said: I pre-answered you in this very thread on this very page. All I'm contesting is you haven't surrendered. If it's satisfactory to Coalition B is entirely different than whether or not Coalition A did the task assigned. See? Acknowledged and explained on an alliance behalf. I'm criticizing you personally. No. You're misunderstanding my post: The announcement fulfills -word for word- the term as demanded by coalition B. Therefore your argument is moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 If that helps you, I'm all for it. It'd be nice if you surrendered too, though. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.