The Silence is Deafening

[Prefonteen]

6 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

You mean like everyone presenting terms for their associated blocs? Nice subtle call out there Parti boi, but you know that characterising every sphere putting forth their terms for discussion coalition wide before the final terms were agreed, is SOP. 

The process. The public red-lines followed by the passion plays on the forums, not worth it. 

By arguing against solely the IQ terms and attempt to blame IQ for the delay in peace and then turn around and blame for every other term on the KF peace list, when we literally had only one term. 

 

I do agree that KF negotiations were initially problematic as even the word surrender was argued. At the same time though... that was nothing new- it occurred in almost every preceeding war. I don't find KF to be anything out of the ordinary.

[Raphael]

4 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

 

as even the word surrender was argued.

There's a spectre haunting Orbis it seems

[True King]

23 minutes ago, namukara said:

What we're seing is the alliance that meant death for CN giving this game a taste of that lovely medicine. IMHO the stalling with regards peace, the fact they are completely refusing to negotiate with T$ (regularly scheduled reminder to coalition b that your treaties with NPO mean nothing to them), and their total failure to explain their actions is proof positive of the lack of respect that they show for their fellow players.

Yeah, I don't really see it all that impossible to turn the war around if necessary.

[Hodor]

4 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

A procedure based on order, confidentiality and rewriting the anomaly that was Knightfall negotiations, is one there is consensus for. KF was a shit level attempt at negotiations and one will never return to that public mess. Negotiations need to be structured and ordered behind closed doors to go through the agreement/articles in peace. I have no idea how looking to complete the agreement in an orderly fashion is looking to ruin the game for you. But if you'd really like to see that, I can imagine few folks would be willing to do that  

I guess on its face this isn't a terrible rationale. I would point out that there is a really not unsubstantial mixing of the sides from KF to now. There are 9 members of your KF coalition that are on the opposite side of this conflict. So if it was truly scarring for the victorious parties of KF wouldn't those 9 alliances also be in agreement (they probably are) and unlikely to repeat that process?

Additionally, by presenting terms one by one and demanding the previous be accepted before the latter is revealed has a far larger potential for things becoming public out of frustration. Say terms 1-5 are reasonable and accepted under the assumption that all will be reasonable, but then 6 is either unreasonable or unreasonable in light of its combination of the other 5, I imagine you will not allow renegotiation of the previous 5 by saying "YoU aLrEaDy AgReEd." You're forcing us to make choices with imperfect information which will have no other outcome but to take an extremely long time, and with interlocutors like Under, lead to enormous animosity.

 

tl;dr your base rationale may be sound, but followed to its logical conclusions it leads to an atrocious outcome

[Adrienne]

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

By arguing against solely the IQ terms and attempt to blame IQ for the delay in peace and then turn around and blame for every other term on the KF peace list, when we literally had only one term. 

Yeah, no. We were abundantly aware of who presented what term - the terms were clearly labelled with the names of the alliances/blocs who submitted them after all. Where you're getting this idea that we believed IQ responsible for every term, I have no idea.

What we did blame IQ for was the attitudes of their representatives throughout talks. Particularly for such a one-sided war, the constant degradation, insults, and superior attitude displayed any time we talked or tried to voice our concerns regarding terms or ask for clarification did little to invite our participation. If you're looking to understand why talks stalled for so long from our side, that was the single greatest contributor. And, to be clear, it wasn't just IQ that adopted this attitude but your representatives were the ones who displayed it most prominently.

I'll let you in on a little secret though. Believe it or not, your trade bot term was not the term we took most issue with. Putting forward the idea that it was the only term we fought or cared about I'm sure can be easily contested by anyone who had the misfortune of having to argue their terms with me as well. You guys were simply the most inflammatory about your term and that's why it took longer to reach a consensus on. Given the time it took to reach a consensus, it is understandable how you might arrive at that conclusion, but it wasn't the reality on the ground.

[True King]

1 minute ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Yeah, no. We were abundantly aware of who presented what term - the terms were clearly labelled with the names of the alliances/blocs who submitted them after all. Where you're getting this idea that we believed IQ responsible for every term, I have no idea.

What we did blame IQ for was the attitudes of their representatives throughout talks. Particularly for such a one-sided war, the constant degradation, insults, and superior attitude displayed any time we talked or tried to voice our concerns regarding terms or ask for clarification did little to invite our participation. If you're looking to understand why talks stalled for so long from our side, that was the single greatest contributor. And, to be clear, it wasn't just IQ that adopted this attitude but your representatives were the ones who displayed it most prominently.

I'll let you in on a little secret though. Believe it or not, your trade bot term was not the term we took most issue with. Putting forward the idea that it was the only term we fought or cared about I'm sure can be easily contested by anyone who had the misfortune of having to argue their terms with me as well. You guys were simply the most inflammatory about your term and that's why it took longer to reach a consensus on. Given the time it took to reach a consensus, it is understandable how you might arrive at that conclusion, but it wasn't the reality on the ground.

Bot Term was pretty bad in its original form at least.

[The Mad Titan]

I’m sure this is the thread that will finally guilt us into conforming exactly to what’s our enemies want us to do. 

I feel so ashamed and am deeply concerned about the OWFs feelings and sensibilities. 
 

Our coalitions conduct during peace talks is very troubling. One day our rogue governments will hopefully rejoin the respectable orbis community at large, as they have never wished for anything but the best for our alliances  

 

 

[Adrienne]

2 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I feel so ashamed

There, there. You're safe now, friend.

[True King]

Just now, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I’m sure this is the thread that will finally guilt us into conforming exactly to what’s our enemies want us to do. 

I feel so ashamed and am deeply concerned about the OWFs feelings and sensibilities. 
 

Our coalitions conduct during peace talks is very troubling. One day our rogue governments will hopefully rejoin the respectable orbis community at large, as they have never wished for anything but the best for our alliances  

Well, GOONS have already shown the kind of alliance they intend to be if they have the power. Trying to push around noob nations who post on the forum & have libertarian leaning views into humiliating themselves before them for entertainment or be under constant attack. Might be more of a handicap for your side than benefit having them.

[Hodor]

46 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I’m sure this is the thread that will finally guilt us into conforming exactly to what’s our enemies want us to do. 

I feel so ashamed and am deeply concerned about the OWFs feelings and sensibilities. 
 

Our coalitions conduct during peace talks is very troubling. One day our rogue governments will hopefully rejoin the respectable orbis community at large, as they have never wished for anything but the best for our alliances  

I miss the old BK, straight from OO BK 

The Yoso BK, set on his ayy BK 

I hate the new BK, the IQ BK 

The Aragorn BK, spaz in the OWF BK

I miss the funny BK, making memes BK

I gotta say, at that time I'd like to treaty BK 

See, I grew up with BK, it wasn't any BKs 

And now I look and look around and there's so many BKs 

I used to love BK, I used to love BK

I even had the ayy lmao bot, I thought I was BK 

What if BK made a song about BK 

Called "We don't want a new hegemoney"? Man, that'd be so BK 

That's all it was BK, we still love BK 

And I love you like BK loves BK

Edited November 11, 2019 by Hodor

[Filmore]

1 hour ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I’m sure this is the thread that will finally guilt us into conforming exactly to what’s our enemies want us to do. 

I feel so ashamed and am deeply concerned about the OWFs feelings and sensibilities. 
 

Our coalitions conduct during peace talks is very troubling. One day our rogue governments will hopefully rejoin the respectable orbis community at large, as they have never wished for anything but the best for our alliances  

 

 

You're sadly mistaken if you think this is meant to guilt trip you. I've been hearing a lot of rumors about how there's at least 2 alliances still in Coalition B that want out of the war and have plans to drop BK/NPO ties after the war. This is more or less a rally call for them, to see if we can get this going along faster by further weakening the coalition.

[True King]

When the game is pretty much dead, dominated by a hegemonic power only interested in maintaining power. To the extent they enable alliances like GOONS to do whatever they want to newer nations and weaker alliances they decide to attack, who really fought for the right reasons or did anything to prevent it in the last major war which could have prevented that power bloc from forming?

Don't think a game which just revolves around most major alliances consolidating together for power, as they just roll micros or disconnected alliances who have no chance to keep themselves occupied would be much fun for anyone except those who like to bully the weak...

Edited November 11, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Azaghul]

4 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Yes because a bot term is worth extending a war over for months, only because TKR did not want to give IQ anything. You literally jacked around negotiations for something which wasn't even the worse off terms in the entire agreement. Also that was literally the only IQ term, so you p much held out in the hope of not giving IQ what it wanted, and for other discernible purpose of value. 

Nizam addressed this.

Quote

There's a history of it being done here too. So this isn't a first. KF was the anomaly to that. 

When?

Quote

NPO is one among equals in the coalition. Any perceptions of power is yours, and fundamentally wrong. 

That's the talking point but most people here aren't that naive.

Quote

Because Under, Sphinx and whomever has posted defending it here is selectively ignored by you, in your attempt to paint this as a NPO process. 

I used the word "most", not "only".

Quote

TKR has some good people and things going for it, the fundamental approach to play is completely flawed. It's not about actually having fun. 

Sorry you don't have a monopoly on deciding world standards. As long as you believe TKR is entitled to set that, your fundamental approach to be the world's moral police will have us oppose it  

Having an opinion isn't claiming a monopoly on anything, but nice try at a deflection.  I wouldn't expect an NPO member to "get it".

[True King]

What I see Irony in is I think before Shadowthrone critized before TKR wanting art to undo mistrades, comparing it to the most toxic behavior ever. (GOONS mercy board practices in CN is only thing I can think of he could have been referencing); yet now they're supporting fully importing the most toxic kind of mercy board type terms and propping up an alliance who takes it to extremes.

My gut instinct tells me GOONS should probably not be allowed to grow into a major power & isolated politically until the members disperse into less morally corrupt alliances.

[Robert Jordan]

2 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Well, GOONS have already shown the kind of alliance they intend to be if they have the power. Trying to push around noob nations who post on the forum & have libertarian leaning views into humiliating themselves before them for entertainment or be under constant attack. Might be more of a handicap for your side than benefit having them.

Do they really do this? TFP as a whole, for instance, is fairly libertarian (0/0 taxes and all that jazz) and we have received no hate from GOONS.

[True King]

Just now, Robert Jordan said:

Do they really do this? TFP as a whole, for instance, is fairly libertarian (0/0 taxes and all that jazz) and we have received no hate from GOONS.

Yeah, was their policies in CN & already started them up here.

[Marxalot]

59 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

What I see Irony in is I think before Shadowthrone critized before TKR wanting art to undo mistrades, comparing it to the most toxic behavior ever. (GOONS mercy board practices in CN is only thing I can think of he could have been referencing); yet now they're supporting fully importing the most toxic kind of mercy board type terms and propping up an alliance who takes it to extremes.

My gut instinct tells me GOONS should probably not be allowed to grow into a major power & isolated politically until the members disperse into less morally corrupt alliances.

The current plan is to hold off on the war for a couple more months to allow the system to settle, and then re-introduce them. That's a very difficult task and I'm not a particularly good planner. But the plan should work out. There's a lot of people out there who like GOONS & I'd like to see that happen.

[True King]

Just now, Marxalot said:

The current plan is to hold off on the war for a couple more months to allow the system to settle, and then re-introduce them. That's a very difficult task and I'm not a particularly good planner. But the plan should work out. There's a lot of people out there who like GOONS & I'd like to see that happen.

What? The Mercy Board terms? Think you guys should abolish it.

[DivineCoffeeBinge]

4 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Well, GOONS have already shown the kind of alliance they intend to be if they have the power. Trying to push around noob nations who post on the forum & have libertarian leaning views into humiliating themselves before them for entertainment or be under constant attack. Might be more of a handicap for your side than benefit having them.

Dude, you both overestimate the degree to which Goons dislike libertarians and underestimate the degree to which we don't like you, personally

Probably because you won't stop shouting from the rooftops about how we're the epitome of evil and wickedness, just look at how we behaved on CN - a game that I for one, as well as many of my alliancemates, never played

You've made a hobby out of poking the bear, so you don't really get to cry about how unfair it is when the bear takes your arm off, I hope this helps

Edited November 11, 2019 by DivineCoffeeBinge

[True King]

8 minutes ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said:

Methrage, you both overestimate the degree to which Goons dislike libertarians and underestimate the degree to which we don't like you, personally

Probably because you won't stop shouting from the rooftops about how we're the epitome of evil and wickedness, just look at how we behaved on CN - a game that I for one, as well as many of my alliancemates, never played

You've made a hobby out of poking the bear, so you don't really get to cry about how unfair it is when the bear takes your arm off, I hope this helps

You guys have made very clear constantly reminding me you guys exist and don't like me, as well as plan to attack eventually. Makes more sense to just fight now.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Marxalot]

9 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

You guys have made very clear constantly reminding me you guys exist and don't like me, as well as plan to attack eventually. Makes more sense to just fight now.

editor's note: I cut out the god damn video

Shocked you didn't post some maplestory anime music video tbh

 

9 minutes ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said:

Dude, you both overestimate the degree to which Goons dislike libertarians and underestimate the degree to which we don't like you, personally

Probably because you won't stop shouting from the rooftops about how we're the epitome of evil and wickedness, just look at how we behaved on CN - a game that I for one, as well as many of my alliancemates, never played

You've made a hobby out of poking the bear, so you don't really get to cry about how unfair it is when the bear takes your arm off, I hope this helps

Yeah, a large chunk of us had some flavor of a lolbertarian phase and quite literally grew out of it in our late teens/very early 20s so we end up being dismissive of of libertarian ideology because it just comes off as babby's first politics. The only libertarians that draw any real attention/hate are the "Age of Consent" types and the "I'm a pseudointellectual douchebag who votes straight ticket GOP and wants to pass off my ideas to people who don't know better" guys.

 

Also I'm very obviously talking about libertarians in the american sense of right-libertarianism. I've very aware libertarian-socialism is a thing and extremely different from the former.

[True King]

1 minute ago, Marxalot said:

Shocked you didn't post some maplestory anime music video tbh

 

Yeah, a large chunk of us had some flavor of a lolbertarian phase and quite literally grew out of it in our late teens/very early 20s so we end up being dismissive of of libertarian ideology because it just comes off as babby's first politics. The only libertarians that draw any real attention/hate are the "Age of Consent" types and the "I'm a pseudointellectual douchebag who votes straight ticket GOP and wants to pass off my ideas to people who don't know better" guys.

 

Also I'm very obviously talking about libertarians in the american sense of right-libertarianism. I've very aware libertarian-socialism is a thing and extremely different from the former.

I don't feel like explaining the various types of Libertarianism to you; although obviously you lean toward the more socialist types. Agorism might be compatible with your beliefs & Libertarianism. Its explained some in the New Libertarian Manifesto.

Although mainly if Roq had a CB against TKR; then I most certainly do with all the threats & hostility with the constant embargo spam messages. If war is inevitible, might as well fight while you guys are attacking friends; even if I don't have any treaties with them. You guys have given me CB enough to hit you guys by telling all your members to embargo me or spam embargo (remove and reembargo constantly)

Although I'm not complaining, you guys gave good reason to attack at least with all the BS.

[DivineCoffeeBinge]

51 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

You guys have made very clear constantly reminding me you guys exist and don't like me, as well as plan to attack eventually. Makes more sense to just fight now.

 

Ah yes, the well-known and just Casus Belli of "reminding me you exist"

 

[True King]

34 minutes ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said:

Ah yes, the well-known and just Casus Belli of "reminding me you exist"

Different when they include threats of attacking, as well as reminders you guys intend to. With all the hate shown, no reason for me to pretend you guys are joking about wanting to hit me when in a stronger position. So actual threats, although so far everyone I've spoke with from Coalition B considers our war separate and don't think you guys should even need help. So we'll hash things out in-game over the remainder of the month, unless someone decides to escalate it and combine the wars.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Preemptive Strike is what its called when attacking first after it being leaked another alliance plans to. So there is that.

[DivineCoffeeBinge]

36 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Different when they include threats of attacking, as well as reminders you guys intend to. With all the hate shown, no reason for me to pretend you guys are joking about wanting to hit me when in a stronger position. So actual threats, although so far everyone I've spoke with from Coalition B considers our war separate and don't think you guys should even need help. So we'll hash things out in-game over the remainder of the month, unless someone decides to escalate it and combine the wars.

My dude in the entirety of my time in this game you've done nothing but spout off about how much you hate Goons and how they're a cancer on the game, and now you're going to act like you were provoked? By - as per your last post - being reminded that we exist?

Look, we're loud and abrasive and pretty obnoxious but trying to act like you're the aggrieved party here just doesn't hold up. I'm starting to understand why they call you Methrage.