Jump to content

The Silence is Deafening


Filmore
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Shadowthrone I represent my perception of things only.  A perception that does however appear to coincide with many on this forum i.e. that the negotiations in earnest have yet to begin due to deliberate delays from Coalition B.

I am happy to accept I may be wrong, however in the absence of publicly available information, I’m necessarily reduced to observing the people on this and other forums, and making judgement calls supported by my perception of their tendency to veracity, and if anything they say is compelling, consistent and evidence based.

 Unfortunately for you, Coalition B fails that test.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Etatsorp said:

@Shadowthrone I represent my perception of things only.  A perception that does however appear to coincide with many on this forum i.e. that the negotiations in earnest have yet to begin due to deliberate delays from Coalition B.

 

Because those who've been posting here in general are from Coalition A, and we really aren't bothered with public posturing, given that the KERTCHOGG front knows our position as recently as six hours ago in the negotiation channels. 

Again, the onus on us isn't to make these negotiations a public spectacle to feed your often inflated opinions on the processes underway. 

17 minutes ago, Etatsorp said:

I am happy to accept I may be wrong, however in the absence of publicly available information, I’m necessarily reduced to observing the people on this and other forums, and making judgement calls supported by my perception of their tendency to veracity, and if anything they say is compelling, consistent and evidence based.

Consistent and evidence based would require a full disclosure of negotiating channels. If your government has indeed done that, I imagine it would put peace back quite a while, since the basis for any negotiation is based on the confidentiality of the same. Otherwise, you really have no evidence, which means that your evidence based approach is nothing other than untrue and devoid of fact/evidence :) 

@Prefonteen, our position has been amply clear with regards to the KERTCHOGG front. With regards to your request, I'd await an official intimation from the Coalition, when the same is ready. Moving into a public forum, would most definitely not speed up the process :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Buorhann said:

If the readers haven't figured it out by now, IQ is simply attempting to kill the game.  Just like how NPO did it in CN (Queue the "It's the Admin's fault" reasoning).

For years I ignored this kind of posts because I wasn't in CN or any other game of this kind thinking was some kind of butthurt of the losing side or just a myth created by a combination of coincidences

Now I saw it with my eyes and I feel like an idiot for not listening the warning and giving them the chance to do it

 

Anyway I have the power to end everything

w0f8YnE.png

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Because those who've been posting here in general are from Coalition A, and we really aren't bothered with public posturing, given that the KERTCHOGG front knows our position as recently as six hours ago in the negotiation channels. 

Again, the onus on us isn't to make these negotiations a public spectacle to feed your often inflated opinions on the processes underway. 

Consistent and evidence based would require a full disclosure of negotiating channels. If your government has indeed done that, I imagine it would put peace back quite a while, since the basis for any negotiation is based on the confidentiality of the same. Otherwise, you really have no evidence, which means that your evidence based approach is nothing other than untrue and devoid of fact/evidence :) 

@Prefonteen, our position has been amply clear with regards to the KERTCHOGG front. With regards to your request, I'd await an official intimation from the Coalition, when the same is ready. Moving into a public forum, would most definitely not speed up the process :) 

While I can't comment on what has or hasn't been disclosed to TKR's members, I think leveraging the internal disclosures of political negotations to delay a peace agreement is malicious at best. The basis for any negotiations has nothing to do with confidentiality. It has to do with obtaining a mutually desirable outcome through dialogue and potentially, compromise. Power balance may dictate whether benefits of an agreement may be tilted to one side or another.

The transparency exhibited in TKR's (or any alliance's) internal communications has no bearing of this. I will have you know in advance that I fully intent to disclose negotiations to $yndicate members if and when they occur, in order to involve them in a decisionmaking progress which may impact their nations for the foreseeable future. If you were to decide to use that as a leverage to stall negotiations, then that's your prerogative, but not on us.

 

Regarding our request: I've already stated in private that my public comments are the result of your ambiguity. We aren't asking you for anything out of the ordinary. Merely a clear channel of communications, a timeline as to when we can reasonably expect any start to preliminary discussions and the presentation of your terms. All the rest can be ironed out.

But these requests form the basis of any future outlook on progress toward peace. If you cant even fulfill that, how exactly is t$ supposed to have faith in your stated willingness to negotiate?

 

 

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

While I can't comment on what has or hasn't been disclosed to TKR's members, I think leveraging the internal disclosures of political negotations to delay a peace agreement is malicious at best. The basis for any negotiations has nothing to do with confidentiality. It has to do with obtaining a mutually desirable outcome through dialogue and potentially, compromise. Power balance may dictate whether benefits of an agreement may be tilted to one side or another.

Compromise requires confidentiality, to allow individuals to compromise without the necessity of walking back public proclamations or further attempt to sell unsellable things to their members. I'd point you to real life parallels, (i.e BREXIT for example), as to why public posturing and leveraging of the same is dangerous to the outcome of negotiations. 

5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

The transparency exhibited in TKR's (or any alliance's) internal communications have no bearing of this. I will have you know in advance that I fully intent to disclose negotiations to $yndicate members if and when they occur, in order to involve them in a decisionmaking progress which may impact their nations for the foreseeable future. If you were to decide to use that as a leverage to stall negotiations, then that's your prerogative, but not on us.

 

If you do wish to draw red lines and push a certain narrative to your members, that is you prerogative, but expecting us to feed narratives and public posturing is silly at best, as negotiations are best done by the empowered individuals without the necessity of public posturing or red-lines. There are enough examples of negotiations that have failed or dragged on unnecessarily because of the same, which is why the Coalition is following a closed door process of the same, to reduce the necessity of populist tendencies. Let the technocrats do their work ;) 

6 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Regarding our request: I've already stated in private that my public comments are the result of your ambiguity. We aren't asking you for anything out of the ordinary. Merely a clear channel of communications, a timeline as to when we can reasonably expect any start to preliminary discussions and the presentation of your terms. All the rest can be ironed out.

As I've stated, the Coalition will respond to your requests when it is ready to :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, alyster said:

Plural? Name 2 terms besides surrendering that have been presented ?

Hate to break it to you but plurals are for two or more in English. Good luck on your next ESL test!

  • Downvote 4

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
53 minutes ago, Micchan said:

For years I ignored this kind of posts because I wasn't in CN or any other game of this kind thinking was some kind of butthurt of the losing side or just a myth created by a combination of coincidences

Now I saw it with my eyes and I feel like an idiot for not listening the warning and giving them the chance to do it

As a former CN player that's a load of bull&*#%. Sorry to say but the NPO had the opposite effect in CN. Because the NPO were undefeated for so long within CN it gave people a goal to strive for and actually was much more interesting because of it. CN died after the Karma war, ironically. And before anyone bothers I was completely anti-NPO between 2006-2010, my time in CN.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shadowthrone  FYI, TKR Gov has not divulged any details of the proceedings, and I would not expect them to either.  I’d be careful about suggesting that sort of thing if I were you, though baseless accusations and seeding false ideas seem to be your coalition’s MO.  In itself your apparent history of this type of subterfuge supports my opinion.

You are indeed correct that my opinion is not supported by evidence.  Nor does my opinion amount to a truth claim.  I did indeed spend some words highlighting this deficiency, among other things.

But lack of evidence doesn’t mean untrue.  And my opinion is what I believe to be true based on facts I know subjected to reason. You are in fact implying a truth claim on this forum by contradicting my opinion when not identifying it as unfounded beyond your own reason.  

Having said that, I do not think an open negotiation forum would be a good idea.  There ought be respect of the requirement for confidentiality in these proceedings.  As such I do not expect you to support your claims on this thread with evidence.  It then follows that those who are involoved in the negotiations should not, out of common decency, parade around on forums asserting superior knowledge that can’t be shared.  This behaviour won’t put out any fires,  but may well start a few.  Unless that’s what you’re seeking of course!

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Malal said:

Hate to break it to you but plurals are for two or more in English. Good luck on your next ESL test!

I do hope you’re not on the Coalition B negotiation team!  I think your strengths lie elsewhere

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, alyster said:

Angry ranting instead of a reply. GG WP did we strike a nerve?

https://i.imgur.com/hIgIWDc.mp4

 

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

As a former CN player that's a load of bull&*#%. Sorry to say but the NPO had the opposite effect in CN. Because the NPO were undefeated for so long within CN it gave people a goal to strive for and actually was much more interesting because of it. CN died after the Karma war, ironically. And before anyone bothers I was completely anti-NPO between 2006-2010, my time in CN.?

I believed that until some month ago, I will not make the same mistake again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
12 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

I don't think nationsims were designed or envisioned to be constantly PVP (cycles of global war theory). I think they're designed to be mild roleplaying political games with constantly moving parts. PnW culture has constantly set out to "not let the game die" and sought that purely through making sure there's constant war. I would contend that is what is leading to consolidation and monopolization of stats and politics. If you're only goal is to "win" you forget to have fun while you're playing the game.

Games only have the staying power as to how much is put into them. Runescape and WoW having staying power because they always are adding the next new update, more quests, better items, etc. Once players hit the limits of how they can play and manipulate the gameplay aspects (by that I mean find the best builds, figure out marketing, and ultimately acquiring the prerequisites) and hit the endgame it's up to the developer to find new ways to push the ceiling and keep things interesting. At the same time one must be wary of not overcomplicating things as to not overwhelm new players especially in a browser based game like this in 2019.

And more realistically speaking most online games have a life cycle, it's kind of just an unfortunate truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Micchan said:

I believed that until some month ago, I will not make the same mistake again

You should read @Bartholomew Roberts' post just above tbh. If you honestly believe any one alliance can effectively kill a game, then you're entering Sir Scarfalot levels of reason and understanding rather than looking at the objective truth of things. 

Alliances had done as many kinds of wars, versus enough opponents and had all their revenge and plotting that leaders simply started growing out of the game. It has nothing to do with the action of the NPO. If anything Oculus was an attempt of leaders coming together to take out their remaining enemies and the opposition didn't have the skill to build a coalition strong enough to offer a second pole. Honestly, CN was past its sell-by-date once their admin stopped caring. 

PnW is an entirely different perspective and if anything without the NPO doing things here, you'd have a lot less opposition to your alliance and its hegemony in the past. So I mean, for what its worth, we've actually done actions and created enough of a buzz to make things keep ticking. If you think a long war is built to kill alliances, than I'd say the precedent for such wars is also at your doorstep, given your government's position during Knightfall and the effects that has had on this one. So everyone's to blame if you believe long wars are problematic, but I don't see it necessary to flip the switch with regards to it, since it benefits you more than anyone else, and that isn't something I find worth doing :P 

At the end of the day, we're all here with specific goals and objectives. Your alliance sees it best to conduct months long wars from experience, and we're fine continuing that paradigm as it suits us just fine ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepingNinja said:

Games only have the staying power as to how much is put into them. Runescape and WoW having staying power because they always are adding the next new update, more quests, better items, etc. Once players hit the limits of how they can play and manipulate the gameplay aspects (by that I mean find the best builds, figure out marketing, and ultimately acquiring the prerequisites) and hit the endgame it's up to the developer to find new ways to push the ceiling and keep things interesting. At the same time one must be wary of not overcomplicating things as to not overwhelm new players especially in a browser based game like this in 2019.

And more realistically speaking most online games have a life cycle, it's kind of just an unfortunate truth.

I think you raise some valid points, for sure. However, there are also multiple examples showing that constant development will actually drive people away. WoW Classic, Old School Runescape, even Nationstates are all good examples of games where not a lot of new content is being introduced but have a committed community.

I agree marketing and platform choice are super important in 2019 but you also have to remember nationsims are a niche category. So niche that PnW and Nationstates are the only two choices really left in that category (that I know of). There's only so much appeal to arguing on old-school forums and min-maxing a spreadsheet called a "nation" but there is again a committed community.

41 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

You should read @Bartholomew Roberts' post just above tbh. If you honestly believe any one alliance can effectively kill a game, then you're entering Sir Scarfalot levels of reason and understanding rather than looking at the objective truth of things. 

Alliances had done as many kinds of wars, versus enough opponents and had all their revenge and plotting that leaders simply started growing out of the game. It has nothing to do with the action of the NPO. If anything Oculus was an attempt of leaders coming together to take out their remaining enemies and the opposition didn't have the skill to build a coalition strong enough to offer a second pole. Honestly, CN was past its sell-by-date once their admin stopped caring. 

PnW is an entirely different perspective and if anything without the NPO doing things here, you'd have a lot less opposition to your alliance and its hegemony in the past. So I mean, for what its worth, we've actually done actions and created enough of a buzz to make things keep ticking. If you think a long war is built to kill alliances, than I'd say the precedent for such wars is also at your doorstep, given your government's position during Knightfall and the effects that has had on this one. So everyone's to blame if you believe long wars are problematic, but I don't see it necessary to flip the switch with regards to it, since it benefits you more than anyone else, and that isn't something I find worth doing :P 

At the end of the day, we're all here with specific goals and objectives. Your alliance sees it best to conduct months long wars from experience, and we're fine continuing that paradigm as it suits us just fine ;)

Your perspective on CN and Oculus is objectively wrong. Oculus accumulated 90% of the game's nations and nationscore. There were no nations left to form another "pole", just random assortments of players that happened to not be in Oculus. 

PnW NPO is and has been showing the same pattern of behavior that 2010 NPO showed in CN. Your leadership can't decide if they want to lead or not. You want to go back and forth between "this is NPO's sphere" and "we're just quietly watching peace negotiations". As they learned then, you will all learn now - you can't be leaders who don't lead. You're the figurehead of an objectively inactive/poorly lead sphere (ODN, Polaris, USN, and micros) and you're burning bridges with the people who could bring competence to your list of allies. Without overwhelming numbers and tricks played keeping t$sphere out of the war for so long, NPO wouldn't have found the success it saw in this war imo. GOONS is the only solid ally you guys have and they're brand new and also tied to BK.

Idk where loyalties between NPO and BKsphere truly lay, but NPO is truly in a poor FA position post-war if BK, an non-official ally, doesn't reciprocate loyalty.

 

edit: idk why I turned this thread into critiquing NPO's playstyle lmao. Y'all do whatever you want idc. There's a lot of history repeating itself in PnW is all I'm saying. I wouldn't be shocked if NPO dropped off all the useless allies its accumulated just like it did post-Cortath.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Your perspective on CN and Oculus is objectively wrong. Oculus accumulated 90% of the game's nations and nationscore. There were no nations left to form another "pole", just random assortments of players that happened to not be in Oculus. 

The remaining alliances did what they did, because they saw no benefit in working with others and any benefit in prolonging the FA of the game for the sake of it. There really was nothing left, and the major alliances themselves were devoid of active leaders with separate goals. If you see the trajectory of the bloc, multiple alliances of the bloc have rogued out as they decided it was end-game hitting the NPO on their way out. Really, there was no FA architecture left, since like you point out, there really wasn't any motivation left. 

 

18 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

PnW NPO is and has been showing the same pattern of behavior that 2010 NPO showed in CN. Your leadership can't decide if they want to lead or not. You want to go back and forth between "this is NPO's sphere" and "we're just quietly watching peace negotiations". As they learned then, you will all learn now - you can't be leaders who don't lead. You're the figurehead of an objectively inactive/poorly lead sphere (ODN, Polaris, USN, and micros) and you're burning bridges with the people who could bring competence to your list of allies. Without overwhelming numbers and tricks played keeping t$sphere out of the war for so long, NPO wouldn't have found the success it saw in this war imo. GOONS is the only solid ally you guys have and they're brand new and also tied to BK.

 

Interesting analysis. I think the position of the NPO post Karma and here are materially different though. I think you assume our standing/position vis a vis being the centre of a sphere, or being a periphery. Those choices have no doubt been debated and our position post war has been looked at, and we'll wait and watch what paths open up. 

With regards to our list of allies, Polaris/USN/ODN have been nothing but the finest partners any alliance can ask for, and have truly been partners in deciding how we do our FA, and competent, loyal and honest folk. There is no need to cut them, as they will always be an integral path of the NPO way forward and hopefully we will with them. 

In terms of where we go from here, let us see. I don't see it necessary to lay out cards to non-involved parties, but nevertheless, where we go should be interesting in changing the face of politics of Orbis and hopefully set up fun politics for the next cycle of wars. Though that's the optimist in me, while realistically speaking, I can bet on how the next war will go :P 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alyster said:

Any more of that rage? Keep it coming son.

Also then stop lying when you're done :) 

Oh dang, you $100% totes got me with the good ole "calm down bro" meme from 2007. I'm so triggered over this OOC attack I guess imma have to demand reps for it and refuse any further negotiations until TKR agrees to stop supporting your nazi-esq toxicity :^)

  • Downvote 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Malal said:

Oh dang, you $100% totes got me with the good ole "calm down bro" meme from 2007. I'm so triggered over this OOC attack I guess imma have to demand reps for it and refuse any further negotiations until TKR agrees to stop supporting your nazi-esq toxicity :^)

lol this is who negoatiator have to put up with :D 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.