The Mad Titan Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 44 minutes ago, Smith said: The last time TKR was in a coalition that gave peace terms to IQ we simply asked for a surrender. If I remember correctly your side complained and then requested we add in a term saying you "fought hard". Here is a link: In those talks we also did not intentionally drag them out by proposing terms one at a time. We did it in a quick way like every other major war has seen before this one (at least since I've played). What a coincidence you change the style of negotiations to a much slower format now after the war has already been dragging on for over 6 months. 1: Revisionist history. Your coalition wasn’t in a position to push for any more than a surrender. It was well known reps would have been sought if feasible given the war was defensive. Us adding the phrase is more to our credit then yours. 2: We are conducting peace talks as they have been done traditionally, KF was the exception. Additionally the war has only dragged on because your side has refused to enter talks, and even now won’t engage in talks though they technically exist. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: 1: Revisionist history. Your coalition wasn’t in a position to push for any more than a surrender. It was well known reps would have been sought if feasible given the war was defensive. Us adding the phrase is more to our credit then yours. 2: We are conducting peace talks as they have been done traditionally, KF was the exception. Additionally the war has only dragged on because your side has refused to enter talks, and even now won’t engage in talks though they technically exist. Syndisphere never did terms the way you are doing them. What are you talking about? Edited November 14, 2019 by Prefonteen 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 3 hours ago, Malal said: 3 hours ago, Curufinwe said: TLDR: Case in point. 3 hours ago, Malal said: Your side of the game has been super toxic since day 1 and driven out large numbers of people who didn't want to deal with you. It's a big part of the reason that very few people from our side of the game use the owf; because we got sick and tired of you years ago. You're only complaining about toxicity now because you got completly stomped in a war and want to rail against us and the only way you know how is to !@#$ and moan on the OWF. I've addressed this before. If you can provide one instance of me being toxic, lay it on me. You can't differentiate individuals from a group, and that's your problem, not mine. You are talking out of your ass, and it shows. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: 1: Revisionist history. Your coalition wasn’t in a position to push for any more than a surrender. It was well known reps would have been sought if feasible given the war was defensive. Us adding the phrase is more to our credit then yours. 2: We are conducting peace talks as they have been done traditionally, KF was the exception. Additionally the war has only dragged on because your side has refused to enter talks, and even now won’t engage in talks though they technically exist. 1. I doubt a debate over historical positioning will change much here but I'm sure if our side had kept the war going on for another 6 months we would have been able to ask for more if we wanted. Regardless of that reps were not sought, the terms were easy, and the talks went quickly despite complaints on your side. Also feel free to take the credit for adding that phase, I certainly don't want it! 2. You are wrong here but Partisan can better address this point Edited November 14, 2019 by Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 9 minutes ago, Hodor said: I've addressed this before. If you can provide one instance of me being toxic, lay it on me. You can't differentiate individuals from a group, and that's your problem, not mine. You are talking out of your ass, and it shows. I can point to several from your alliance and leaders, meaning you at least support it even if you don't directly participate in it yourself. 9 minutes ago, Smith said: 1. I doubt a debate over historical positioning will change much here but I'm sure if our side had kept the war going on for another 6 months we would have been able to ask for more if we wanted. 1: So then that sounds like lack of willpower on your part, rather than toxic behavior on ours. Just because we finish our wars doesn't make it "toxic". And if you consider that toxic its just as toxic to refuse to enter talks, and then enter them in bad faith and ignore the "talks" when you apparently the war to end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: So then that sounds like lack of willpower on your part, rather than toxic behavior on ours. Just because we finish our wars doesn't make it "toxic". And if you consider that toxic its just as toxic to refuse to enter talks, and then enter them in bad faith and ignore the "talks" when you apparently the war to end. It is not a lack of willpower but a lack of desire to run our opponents out of the game. Also, you seemed to have missed Partisan's post pointing out your second point as being incorrect and my response reaffirming that. What were you talking about there? Edited November 14, 2019 by Smith 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: 1: Revisionist history. Your coalition wasn’t in a position to push for any more than a surrender. It was well known reps would have been sought if feasible given the war was defensive. Us adding the phrase is more to our credit then yours. 2: We are conducting peace talks as they have been done traditionally, KF was the exception. Additionally the war has only dragged on because your side has refused to enter talks, and even now won’t engage in talks though they technically exist. 26 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Syndisphere never did terms the way you are doing them. What are you talking about? 8 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: I can point to several from your alliance and leaders, meaning you at least support it even if you don't directly participate in it yourself. 1: So then that sounds like lack of willpower on your part, rather than toxic behavior on ours. Just because we finish our wars doesn't make it "toxic". And if you consider that toxic its just as toxic to refuse to enter talks, and then enter them in bad faith and ignore the "talks" when you apparently the war to end. Going to leave this here for posterity: @Aragorn, son of Arathorn makes grand claims about the evils of old Syndisphere an gets called out for talking out of his ass by the person who conducted negotiations at the time. He chooses to ignore it and continues making grand statements on different topics. I suppose we'll be doing this song and dance again in a week or so when you pop up in a new thread. Edited November 14, 2019 by Prefonteen 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, Smith said: It is not a lack of willpower but a lack of desire to run our opponents out of the game. Also, you seemed to have missed Partisan's post pointing out your second point as being incorrect and my point reaffirming that. What were you talking about there? We aren't to blame for your lack of ability to keep your members interested. Take responsibility for not peacing earlier and the members who left in that time. 27 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Syndisphere never did terms the way you are doing them. What are you talking about? Not our exact way but in a more organized fashion then KF, which we are trying to avoid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: We aren't to blame for your lack of ability to keep your members interested. Take responsibility for not peacing earlier and the members who left in that time. Not our exact way but in a more organized fashion then KF, which we are trying to avoid. So you're admitting that t$/$yndispere never did negotiations your way? Specifically: - we never made our opponents wait multiple weeks before presenting terms after they offered their surrender. - we never revealed terms one at a time, forcing opposition to accept term 1 before being allowed to see term 2 (and so on). - we never force-split peace negotiations into two servers. The times we did have split negotiations, we gave opposition the choice between leaving the war seperately, or negotiating together. It was their choice, not our demand. Procedurally, there are very few if any similarities between the way peace talks were historically conducted and your "super cool new structured way". Can you kindly stop making blatantly false claims? Edited November 14, 2019 by Prefonteen 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: We aren't to blame for your lack of ability to keep your members interested. Take responsibility for not peacing earlier and the members who left in that time. Misrepresentations of peace talks aside, you are responsible for your intentional actions to drive players from this game. 5 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: Not our exact way but in a more organized fashion then KF, which we are trying to avoid. "not our exact way" No it did not resemble it at all 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 I love how literally every thread devolves into accusations about who's sabotaging peace talks no matter the topic 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Smith said: Misrepresentations of peace talks aside, you are responsible for your intentional actions to drive players from this game. What do we log in and press delete nation? What intentional acts do we take, besides "dragging out" the war, aka making sure we win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 minute ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: I love how literally every thread devolves into accusations about who's sabotaging peace talks no matter the topic Hey now. In this case its about how peace talks were done years ago! We're giving you some variety in your OWF meals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: I love how literally every thread devolves into accusations about who's sabotaging peace talks no matter the topic Personally I blame Fraggle 7 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: What do we log in and press delete nation? What intentional acts do we take, besides "dragging out" the war, aka making sure we win. Hahaha "What did we do to try to kill our opponents alliances besides try to kill our opponents alliances". You are specifically making the war as long as possible in the hope more people on our side quit the game. You are intentionally stifling the activity and gameplay of the global community in an effort to drive people out. You are then justifying this by saying others did the same such as above even though you quickly had to admit that was wrong Edit: Also why do you keep ignoring Partisan? He is presumably a person with feelings too Edited November 14, 2019 by Smith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 9 minutes ago, Smith said: Personally I blame Fraggle Hahaha "What did we do to try to kill our opponents alliances besides try to kill our opponents alliances". You are specifically making the war as long as possible in the hope more people on our side quit the game. You are intentionally stifling the activity and gameplay of the global community in an effort to drive people out. You are then justifying this by saying others did the same such as above even though you quickly had to admit that was wrong How is it intentionally stifling the activity of the game when thats a simple byproduct of war? I could just as easily say you are intentionally stifling the game by continuing to argue procedure rather than the actual terms presented and obviously came into talks with bad faith. If the war is really that bad for your membership you would think that finding peace as quick as possible would be a priority. Since thats obviously not the case, you cant be suffering that bad. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: How is it intentionally stifling the activity of the game when thats a simple byproduct of war? I could just as easily say you are intentionally stifling the game by continuing to argue procedure rather than the actual terms presented and obviously came into talks with bad faith. If the war is really that bad for your membership you would think that finding peace as quick as possible would be a priority. Since thats obviously not the case, you cant be suffering that bad. Any particular reason you keep ignoring Partisan's post pointing out your previous claim was false? You previously justified your new and much slower method of peace negotiations by saying that's how most peace talks were conducted. His post also points out the several actions your side has been doing to delay peace talks and why your argument of us not making peace a priority is inaccurate Edited November 14, 2019 by Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Smith said: Any particular reason you keep ignoring Partisan's post pointing out your previous claim was false? You previously justified your new and much slower method of peace negotiations by saying that's how most peace talks were conducted. His post also points out the several actions your side has been doing to delay peace talks and why your argument here doesn't add up Any particular reason you keep ignoring that you haven't shown any intentional actions, and any actions you have pointed to can easily apply to you if thats the case. I responded to partisan and said we are conducting them in a more ordered way. Remember that its your alliance that made peace talks so miserable last time that we decided this was the structure to do them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: How is it intentionally stifling the activity of the game when thats a simple byproduct of war? I could just as easily say you are intentionally stifling the game by continuing to argue procedure rather than the actual terms presented and obviously came into talks with bad faith. If the war is really that bad for your membership you would think that finding peace as quick as possible would be a priority. Since thats obviously not the case, you cant be suffering that bad. "came into talks with bad faith" How? By requesting to see the terms and asking for the inclusion of t$ while still trying to find middle ground in proceeding after being trolled by under? Or by accepting your strange demand for surrender prior to any talks after enduring your 1-month radio silence policy every time talks seemed to fall through? You keep speaking of bad faith, but from what I can see, there've been no unreasonable requests made. That's without delving into the clusterfrick that is your handling of t$ so far. 1 minute ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: Any particular reason you keep ignoring that you haven't shown any intentional actions, and any actions you have pointed to can easily apply to you if thats the case. I responded to partisan and said we are conducting them in a more ordered way. Remember that its your alliance that made peace talks so miserable last time that we decided this was the structure to do them. 25 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: So you're admitting that t$/$yndispere never did negotiations your way? Specifically: - we never made our opponents wait multiple weeks before presenting terms after they offered their surrender. - we never revealed terms one at a time, forcing opposition to accept term 1 before being allowed to see term 2 (and so on). - we never force-split peace negotiations into two servers. The times we did have split negotiations, we gave opposition the choice between leaving the war seperately, or negotiating together. It was their choice, not our demand. Procedurally, there are very few if any similarities between the way peace talks were historically conducted and your "super cool new structured way". Can you kindly stop making blatantly false claims? Edited November 14, 2019 by Prefonteen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: Any particular reason you keep ignoring that you haven't shown any intentional actions, and any actions you have pointed to can easily apply to you if thats the case. I responded to partisan and said we are conducting them in a more ordered way. Remember that its your alliance that made peace talks so miserable last time that we decided this was the structure to do them. I have said the actions you have taken on multiple occasions now. The post from Partisan you are ignoring even lists some of them in bullet point. Maybe you missed that so I'll post it for you again. Here are some of the intentional actions: "So you're admitting that t$/$yndispere never did negotiations your way? Specifically: - we never made our opponents wait multiple weeks before presenting terms after they offered their surrender. - we never revealed terms one at a time, forcing opposition to accept term 1 before being allowed to see term 2 (and so on). - we never force-split peace negotiations into two servers. The times we did have split negotiations, we gave opposition the choice between leaving the war seperately, or negotiating together. It was their choice, not our demand. Procedurally, there are very few if any similarities between the way peace talks were historically conducted and your "super cool new structured way". Can you kindly stop making blatantly false claims?" Just change "we never" to "IQ is currently" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 52 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: I can point to several from your alliance and leaders, meaning you at least support it even if you don't directly participate in it yourself. I'm sure you can understand that if I had any concerns with the behavior of my alliance or allies I would express them privately with leadership and work to a resolution. I wouldn't air the dirty laundry on the forums. My alliance is well aware of my position on forum conduct, and frankly the fact of the matter is, there are maybe 3 alliances that don't harbor a toxic vocal minority. Maybe I'll end up there someday ?♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) Gosh darn it Hodor, now he is going to ignore both Partisan AND I and only respond to you Edited November 14, 2019 by Smith 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) I love how we're being blamed for people quitting the game, because of KERTCHOGG's leaders unwillingness in negotiating peace accords. At the end of the day, this is the system you have to work with. Either you can, or own up to folks quitting the game because of your unwillingness to surrender and negotiate peace. Also for all the claims that the previous method was far superior, TKR still dragged out negotiations over a publicly available document for what 2+ months? It's quite fun to see them blaming everyone else for their own leadership's failure in coming to negotiations with the idea to actually arrive at a consensus document detailing their surrender. Either way, if the war continues, we're more than happy to drag the war out till our peace goals are achieved Edited November 14, 2019 by Shadowthrone 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: I love how we're being blamed for people quitting the game, because of KERTCHOGG's leaders unwillingness in negotiating peace accords. At the end of the day, this is the system you have to work with. Either you can, or own up to folks quitting the game because of your unwillingness to surrender and negotiate peace. Also for all the claims that the previous method was far superior, TKR still dragged out negotiations over a publicly available document for what 2+ months? It's quite fun to see them blaming everyone else for their own leadership's failure in coming to negotiations with the idea to actually arrive at a consensus based peace. Either way, if the war continues, we're more than happy to drag the war out till our peace goals are achieved You are being blamed for creating a peace system that is intentionally slow with the goal to drive people out of the game. Also while I know you are Keshavbot and must fulfill line 1. blame TKR and line 2. passive aggressive emoji, TKR is not the only alliance in our coalition. I have no doubt you are happy to "drag out" the war because that's obviously your real goal Edited November 14, 2019 by Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Smith said: You are being blamed for creating a peace system that is intentionally slow with the goal to drive people out of the game. The length of negotiations depends on how you approach it. It could be orderly and we could go through it quite quickly, or we can sit here and pontificate on how you don't like the process. Prolonging negotiations isn't going to change the method or change the terms of your surrender. 2 minutes ago, Smith said: Also while I know you are Keshavbot and must fulfill line 1. blame TKR and line 2. passive aggressive emoji, TKR is not the only alliance in our coalition. Why I do love your meme, its easy to use TKR as an example given the litany of actions your alliance has committed that has intentionally harmed mine. The KF peace was another on that list. Actually almost everyone in this coalition has been wronged by the TKR, so its literally the easiest of examples to use While TKR is not the only alliance in the coalition, I still do believe you'd be the one dragging the rest of your coalition mates in any negotiation. One should ask @Sphinx about your antics during KF, to see how you've approached negotiations in bad faith. 4 minutes ago, Smith said: I have no doubt you are happy to continue the war because that's obviously your goal I'm fine either way. Continuing to roll TKR is oft a welcome topic in the NPO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: The length of negotiations depends on how you approach it. It could be orderly and we could go through it quite quickly, or we can sit here and pontificate on how you don't like the process. Prolonging negotiations isn't going to change the method or change the terms of your surrender. The negotiations are intentionally being lengthen by your process. Here are some bullet points that might help you understand how. They might look familiar: "So you're admitting that t$/$yndispere never did negotiations your way? Specifically: - we never made our opponents wait multiple weeks before presenting terms after they offered their surrender. - we never revealed terms one at a time, forcing opposition to accept term 1 before being allowed to see term 2 (and so on). - we never force-split peace negotiations into two servers. The times we did have split negotiations, we gave opposition the choice between leaving the war seperately, or negotiating together. It was their choice, not our demand. Procedurally, there are very few if any similarities between the way peace talks were historically conducted and your "super cool new structured way". Can you kindly stop making blatantly false claims?" Just change "we never" to "IQ is currently" 7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: Why I do love your meme, its easy to use TKR as an example given the litany of actions your alliance has committed that has intentionally harmed mine. The KF peace was another on that list. Actually almost everyone in this coalition has been wronged by the TKR, so its literally the easiest of examples to use Wow you were able to do both lines in one section! Also interesting to hear that dogpiling TKR in KnightFall hurt NPO? 7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: While TKR is not the only alliance in the coalition, I still do believe you'd be the one dragging the rest of your coalition mates in any negotiation. One should ask @Sphinx about your antics during KF, to see how you've approached negotiations in bad faith. If I wanted Sphinx's opinion I'd just wait for him to leak it 7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: I'm fine either way. Continuing to roll TKR is oft a welcome topic in the NPO I have no doubt. Hopefully it doesn't hurt you like KF apparently did? 1 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.