Jump to content

The Silence is Deafening


Filmore
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, James II said:

not including  even presenting it to the surrendering party,

Wrong. The first term was presented and the KERTCHOGG negotiators were told the schedule of talks, and the manner and form which it would take. 

 

6 hours ago, James II said:

They don't want it, otherwise they'd show more urgency.

We've said as much. We're willing to peace out and work on the agreement with KERTCHOGG, if they do not wish to, we can continue the war. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Epi said:

Proof Micchan is the antichrist and we should name this war Judgement day. When Abbas, George, Partisan and Prefontaine ride out, the four horsemen of the apocalypse. 

You look like a prostitute, I think I will kill you

1516651296_gta_sa%202018-01-22%2016-35-16-027.jpg

brb going to jump from the tallest mountain with a bike

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Wrong. The first term was presented and the KERTCHOGG negotiators were told the schedule of talks, and the manner and form which it would take. 

 

We've said as much. We're willing to peace out and work on the agreement with KERTCHOGG, if they do not wish to, we can continue the war. 

If you were really willing to peace out and work on an agreement in good faith you wouldn't be such arrogant a$$ holes about imposing ridiculous processes on terms.

I'm glad I'm not the one that has to actually deal with negotiations.   NPO is utterly insufferable.

Edited by Azaghul
  • Upvote 2
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
On 11/8/2019 at 8:15 PM, Filmore said:

It's been 6 days since Syndisphere and KERCHTOG have agreed to surrender to Coalition B, and yet no negotiations have taken place yet. It's almost as if they don't actually want the war to end. For a while they have been making claims that it has been the KERCHTOG leaders that have been stalling negotiations, and now that it's their time for action, they do nothing. Hell Aragorn and Roq didn't even bother replying to those threads. So the question is, what happens now that the leaders of Coalition B refuse to negotiate any sort of peace? Will the alliances who are sick of war on the Coalition B side end up peacing out and risk being attacked like OWR and Carthago? 

NPO/BK feel they need to cause some more of the EMP whales to delete first, and kill a few more alliances so they can feel safe in the glass house they live in, I mean both BK and NPO do not go above 2k infra due to the fact they are scared of being hit, need anyone say anything more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

5 hours ago, Epi said:

24 hours is pretty mild. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 3 months if we'd let Bourhann and Underlord be the only negotiators. 

I feel pretty confident that both of us would've reached a peace ordeal quicker than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this has something to do with it:

1. The War part of this was won by coal B for some months now (im pretty new and at my start it was clear coal A could not win). Coal A did not give up for many weeks after their defeat was pretty clear. 

2. Based on the OWF, the Polics side (how wrong are the actions of Coal B in coal A's eyes) is won by coal A. Moral high ground victory if you will. Especially after the admission if defeat on the 2nd nov.

Coal A felt no rush after part 1 was apparent for all involved. Coal B feels no rush after part 2 was apparent. 

Coal B feels pretty strongly about part 1 being apparent importany and thus should dictate peace talks.

Coal A feels part 2 is being important and thus should dictate have a large say in peace talks.

To be clear, as a pretty neutral PnW player since im new: coal B is right and coal A should be humble, patient and beg a bit more. 

 

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Malal said:

Anti-memesphere has spent the past week complaining about procedure and semantics rather than accept any terms we presented them. The only term they've accepted so far is that they lost the war and that took 4 months so we'll probably be in negotiations for another 5 years at this rate.

 

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

Edited by alyster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, alyster said:

 

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

1. Surrender.

2. Accept the rest of the terms.

3. ??????

4. ????

5. ????

6. ??????

7. ????????

8. ????????????

9. ?

10. ??????????????????

 

 

Do you accept?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Duke Arthur said:

Perhaps this has something to do with it:

1. The War part of this was won by coal B for some months now (im pretty new and at my start it was clear coal A could not win). Coal A did not give up for many weeks after their defeat was pretty clear. 

2. Based on the OWF, the Polics side (how wrong are the actions of Coal B in coal A's eyes) is won by coal A. Moral high ground victory if you will. Especially after the admission if defeat on the 2nd nov.

Coal A felt no rush after part 1 was apparent for all involved. Coal B feels no rush after part 2 was apparent. 

Coal B feels pretty strongly about part 1 being apparent importany and thus should dictate peace talks.

Coal A feels part 2 is being important and thus should dictate have a large say in peace talks.

To be clear, as a pretty neutral PnW player since im new: coal B is right and coal A should be humble, patient and beg a bit more. 

 

I dont believe in begging for a myriad of reasons. We are willing to come to the table, surrender and negotiate the acceptance of terms. If our opponent is unwilling, then that is their prerogative, but they'd be better off simply telling us. 

We've been approaching in good faith. Going as far as begging would have no upside besides catering to the egos of people who will not change their mind. 

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I dont believe in begging for a myriad of reasons. We are willing to come to the table, surrender and negotiate the acceptance of terms. If our opponent is unwilling, then that is their prerogative, but iheyd be better off simply telling us. 

We've been approaching in good faith. Going as far as begging would have no upside besides catering to the egos of people who will not change their mind. 

I was kidding on the last part but the rest might, and I may be wrong, have something. Coal A made Coal B wait for many weeks, then posted on the 2nd instead of the 1st (not regarding what one might think about that time thingy). 

Now because coal B isnt responding quick enough or in the right way people get frustrated? Seems odd. Again, I might be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Duke Arthur said:

I was kidding on the last part but the rest might, and I may be wrong, have something. Coal A made Coal B wait for many weeks, then posted on the 2nd instead of the 1st (not regarding what one might think about that time thingy). 

Now because coal B isnt responding quick enough or in the right way people get frustrated? Seems odd. Again, I might be wrong.

Coal A posted on the 2nd due to a process which I described in another thread. (

)

 

I do think what you're describing may play a role in coalition B decisionmaking. In that sense, you're not wrong at all. What I find curious though (and this is imo also the cause of some of the frustration on the Coal A side) is that prior to the "breakthrough" of the surrender, coalition B spewed a lot of rhetoric about the continuance of the war being the fault of coalition A's stubbornness and ego.

A component of that rhetoric was the claim that all coalition A had to do was surrender to start negotiations. With the concession of accepting the demand of the prerequisite surrender (which was in itself a demand which is setting a new precedent), there was a reasonable expectation that negotiations might start. In my view, this has not occurred and what we are seeing is an attempt at frustrating negotiations before they really kick off.

On our (read: t$') end of things, we waited a week and patiently inquired over and over. No server has been made and no terms have been presented. We continue to wait and our position hasn't changed. My responses are the product of coalition B officials calling out parties on our side for not being forthcoming. That's a record I will set straight.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

A component of that rhetoric was the claim that all coalition A had to do was surrender to start negotiations. With the concession of accepting the demand of the prerequisite surrender (which was in itself a demand which is setting a new precedent), there was a reasonable expectation that negotiations might start.

But they have started friend. The opening article has been placed in view of KERTCHOGG to negotiate on. Once this is wrapped up, we shall move onto the second article and so on, so forth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

But they have started friend. The opening article has been placed in view of KERTCHOGG to negotiate on. Once this is wrapped up, we shall move onto the second article and so on, so forth. 

Not doing it all public? Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

But they have started friend. The opening article has been placed in view of KERTCHOGG to negotiate on. Once this is wrapped up, we shall move onto the second article and so on, so forth. 

Friend, if you were to send under to me I would be inclined to send Fraggle.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Duke Arthur you are sort of correct when saying ‘Coalition A has won the moral high ground‘, except also kind of wrong in that such a notion suggests the right moral position is that which can be won by arms.   This is not the case.  This does not invalidate fighting in support of the right moral position, nor clearly does holding it guarantee success in a contest of arms.

The delays we’re seeing are an abuse of power plain and simple.

  • Upvote 1

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Not doing it all public? Lol

The KF negotiations as I stated earlier were an anomaly that one doesn't wish to repeat. Especially given that negotiations are best done when people aren't trying to run a morality play on the forums to pressurise negotiators. 

If KERTCHOGG's intentions are more inclined to run such a PR play, they are free to, but that would be in bad faith, given how confidentiality is a necessary condition for negotiators to be able to their job effectively :).

Just now, Prefonteen said:

Friend, if you were to send under to me I would be inclined to send Fraggle.

Under is the selected representative of UPN. He has a right to be present during negotiations, and to negotiate on their behalf, as do all representatives in a specified front. But for a side seeking peace, I do enjoy your attempts at trying to troll our coalition. It does engender a lot of good will! Good job friend.

1 minute ago, Etatsorp said:

The delays we’re seeing are an abuse of power plain and simple.

Why, holding peace talks and proposing terms to only have a discussion on the format of the talks itself, rather than the proposed term is truly an abuse of power! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

ba5.gif

These negotiations sound like a job for Ace Attorney at Law; actually glad not to being involved in that.

Well I've barely been involved yet, just been watching the negotiation channels, it should get interesting :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

The KF negotiations as I stated earlier were an anomaly that one doesn't wish to repeat. Especially given that negotiations are best done when people aren't trying to run a morality play on the forums to pressurise negotiators. 

If KERTCHOGG's intentions are more inclined to run such a PR play, they are free to, but that would be in bad faith, given how confidentiality is a necessary condition for negotiators to be able to their job effectively :).

Under is the selected representative of UPN. He has a right to be present during negotiations, and to negotiate on their behalf, as do all representatives in a specified front. But for a side seeking peace, I do enjoy your attempts at trying to troll our coalition. It does engender a lot of good will! Good job friend.

Why, holding peace talks and proposing terms to only have a discussion on the format of the talks itself, rather than the proposed term is truly an abuse of power! 

Ah, here we go. So because I am seeking peace, I should let your officially elected negotiators run around misrepresenting facts on the fora and take them trolling any requests for clarification without response? 

I'm going to refer you to this, and what follows it. 

 My comments here are a response. I'll also note that the Fraggle comment is lighthearted reference to Under's general demeanor being rather hostile and obstructive.

As for "pressurizing negotiators"- You've had a week to have any meaningful discussion, and multiple requests have been made. Since private inquiries aren't being answered, the public inquiry is made. What else exactly would you have me do, *ally*?
 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Well I've barely been involved yet, just been watching the negotiation channels, it should get interesting :P 

If you can give me access anyways, then maybe I can help mediate/watch if you think it will get interesting. I’ll do the confidentiality agreement not to repost. Got me a little more interested in what’s going on with it.

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.