Jump to content

Vacation Mode & The Forums


Aksel
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 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 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 ;) 

What are you talking about. We are calling Aragorn out over false claims about how Syndisphere used to conduct its peace negotiations (as he is using that to justify your current negotiation style). Try to follow the topic man.

8 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. 

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. 

I'm fine either way. Continuing to roll TKR is oft a welcome topic in the NPO :v 

t$ still has nothing to negotiate over. Is that also our fault? ;)

  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smith said:

The negotiations are intentionally being lengthen by your process. Here are some bullet points that might help you understand how. They might look familiar:

1. The system depends on how you approach the talks. If your approach is to waste time, no system can deal with that. KF is a prime example of that. So the time period really depends on how you handle your end of things. 

2. One war two fronts isn't a novel idea. 

3. That post of Parti boi isn't something I need to particular answer, because what was doesn't really matter to me. What is does, and here you have this. Either roll with it, or own your actions in having your players quit. 

5 minutes ago, Smith said:

Wow you were able to do both lines in one section! Also interesting to hear that dogpiling TKR in KnightFall hurt NPO?

The peace process did. Also the peace process was a certified mess dragged out by your side, that makes it clearer that the KF system is dead. Your alliance has the capability of dragging out negotiations over a publicly available document, and up until two weeks ago, claimed it "felt" like it was winning and therefore will not surrender. So how do you deal with alliances that refuse to take a L, and yet leaks terms and blames their opposition for their own leadership's refusal to negotiate and approach negotiations in bad faith? You try to create a system that minimises a lot of those risks. 

8 minutes ago, Smith said:

If I wanted Sphinx's opinion I'd just wait for him to leak it

Therein lies your problem. Alas, I'll await the Smith defence of how TKR is a righteous and honourable alliance given its history is filled with duplicitous behaviour most folks here had to deal with. 

 

9 minutes ago, Smith said:

I have no doubt. Hopefully it doesn't hurt you like KF apparently did?

Well rolling TKR twice in a year does have its benefits ;) 

 

8 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

t$ still has nothing to negotiate over. Is that also our fault?

More like you tried your luck shoehorning yourself into a peace agreement that was denied ;) But whenever the Coalition is ready, one will open up the articles of your surrender :v 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

1. The system depends on how you approach the talks. If your approach is to waste time, no system can deal with that. KF is a prime example of that. So the time period really depends on how you handle your end of things. 

2. One war two fronts isn't a novel idea. 

3. That post of Parti boi isn't something I need to particular answer, because what was doesn't really matter to me. What is does, and here you have this. Either roll with it, or own your actions in having your players quit. 

The peace process did. Also the peace process was a certified mess dragged out by your side, that makes it clearer that the KF system is dead. Your alliance has the capability of dragging out negotiations over a publicly available document, and up until two weeks ago, claimed it "felt" like it was winning and therefore will not surrender. So how do you deal with alliances that refuse to take a L, and yet leaks terms and blames their opposition for their own leadership's refusal to negotiate and approach negotiations in bad faith? You try to create a system that minimises a lot of those risks. 

Therein lies your problem. Alas, I'll await the Smith defence of how TKR is a righteous and honourable alliance given its history is filled with duplicitous behaviour most folks here had to deal with. 

 

Well rolling TKR twice in a year does have its benefits ;) 

 

More like you tried your luck shoehorning yourself into a peace agreement that was denied ;) But whenever the Coalition is ready, one will open up the articles of your surrender :v 

We've been pretty clear about our position with regards to peace, dating to weeks before the actual event. Not our fault you either did not communicate internally or you decided to conveniently ignore our clarifications ;) .

Anyways, 2 weeks and counting. I'm curious to see when the timer can stop!

 

 

2.- 

What "was" was used by Aragorn, your coalition ally, to justify what "is". So it does matter and if you lot don't want to answer on the subject, you should not be bringing it forward.

Edited by Prefonteen

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

What "was" was used by Aragorn, your coalition ally, to justify what "is". So it does matter and if you lot don't want to answer on the subject, you should not be bringing it forward.

The fact remains, the system was developed in response to KF, but it is the system now.

 

4 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Anyways, 2 weeks and counting. I'm curious to see when the timer can stop!

I'd give it 168 days ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

1. The system depends on how you approach the talks. If your approach is to waste time, no system can deal with that. KF is a prime example of that. So the time period really depends on how you handle your end of things. 

2. One war two fronts isn't a novel idea. 

3. That post of Parti boi isn't something I need to particular answer, because what was doesn't really matter to me. What is does, and here you have this. Either roll with it, or own your actions in having your players quit. 

The peace process did. Also the peace process was a certified mess dragged out by your side, that makes it clearer that the KF system is dead. Your alliance has the capability of dragging out negotiations over a publicly available document, and up until two weeks ago, claimed it "felt" like it was winning and therefore will not surrender. So how do you deal with alliances that refuse to take a L, and yet leaks terms and blames their opposition for their own leadership's refusal to negotiate and approach negotiations in bad faith? You try to create a system that minimises a lot of those risks. 

Therein lies your problem. Alas, I'll await the Smith defence of how TKR is a righteous and honourable alliance given its history is filled with duplicitous behaviour most folks here had to deal with. 

 

Well rolling TKR twice in a year does have its benefits ;) 

 

More like you tried your luck shoehorning yourself into a peace agreement that was denied ;) But whenever the Coalition is ready, one will open up the articles of your surrender :v 

?How we approach the talks ? doesn't matter much when you artificially lengthen the process. ?It is difficult for me to address a lot of the complaints you make about TKR because while I have played this game for ?3 years they are often things that happened before I joined PnW. ? It's interesting that you consider dogpiling an alliance for months as us hurting you though. ?

  • Haha 1

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

The fact remains, the system was developed in response to KF, but it is the system now.

 

I'd give it 168 days ;) 

Sure. So why are your coalition allies lying about the system having been the norm? It's new, and (imo) it's flawed. I don't want to be associated with pioneering it ;)

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smith said:

?How we approach the talks ? doesn't matter much when you artificially lengthen the process. ?It is difficult for me to address a lot of the complaints you make about TKR because while I have played this game for ?3 years they are often things that happened before I joined PnW. ? It's interesting that you consider dogpiling an alliance for months as us hurting you though. ?

Got it, so you haven't approached the talks in good faith, and trying to pin it on us! A lot of those complaints arise within the last three years too, but I guess you'd prefer to not really listen to folks and wash your hands off stuff this very government has pulled. Definitely the paragon of transparency and consistency. 

The KF peace talks were a matter of annoyance and definitely ended up with certain sections of our coalition at that point intentionally screwing us over. Thats a fact we see. But keep repeating your line like some sort of gotcha. 

3 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Sure. So why are your coalition allies lying about the system having been the norm? It's new, and (imo) it's flawed. I don't want to be associated with pioneering it

An informal system with similarities has existed before. We've just been absolutely clear on the contours of it and made it systemic. We're fine pioneering it, tyvm. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

Got it, so you haven't approached the talks in good faith, and trying to pin it on us! A lot of those complaints arise within the last three years too, but I guess you'd prefer to not really listen to folks and wash your hands off stuff this very government has pulled. Definitely the paragon of transparency and consistency. 

The KF peace talks were a matter of annoyance and definitely ended up with certain sections of our coalition at that point intentionally screwing us over. Thats a fact we see. But keep repeating your line like some sort of gotcha. 

An informal system with similarities has existed before. We've just been absolutely clear on the contours of it and made it systemic. We're fine pioneering it, tyvm. 

That system did not exist whatsoever though. Please point out the similarities beyond "YOU ALSO PRESENTED TERMS AND THERE WERE NEGOTIATIONS"?

 

Scratch that. You presented a term. Not plural.

Edited by Prefonteen

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

An informal system with similarities has existed before. We've just been absolutely clear on the contours of it and made it systemic. We're fine pioneering it, tyvm. 

Apparently we basically only set new precedence. I for one am glad to be moving the game forward!

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Got it, so you haven't approached the talks in good faith, and trying to pin it on us! A lot of those complaints arise within the last three years too, but I guess you'd prefer to not really listen to folks and wash your hands off stuff this very government has pulled. Definitely the paragon of transparency and consistency. 

The KF peace talks were a matter of annoyance and definitely ended up with certain sections of our coalition at that point intentionally screwing us over. Thats a fact we see. But keep repeating your line like some sort of gotcha. . 

We certainly are doing our best with the artificially lengthy framwork you have provided us. But as you know, we aren't perfect. 

I am sorry if dogpiling us was inconvenient for you, truly I am. When people are dogpiled they should certainly think about whether their aggressor is getting annoyed or not. I'm also sorry you don't feel we are transparent. Oh by the way, in the issue of transparency can you post those logs you used as your CB for this war?

Also you forgot to use ?????

Edited by Smith

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Apparently we basically only set new precedence. I for one am glad to be moving the game forward!

"I got caught in a lie and they're not letting me ignore it so i'm going to wait for keshav to step in and make a hurr durrr yesman joke to look like I wasn't serious".

  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

"I got caught in a lie and they're not letting me ignore it so i'm going to wait for keshav to step in and make a hurr durrr yesman joke to look like I wasn't serious".

Oh we know you're very desperate not to be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Smith said:

Oh by the way, in the issue of transparency can you post those logs you used as your CB for this war?

Difference is your FA team goes out and claims that like the gospel. "TKR is transparent please listen to us!" On the other hand, I don't need to post logs and out my source outside of submitting it to my allies, which I did. I also don't claim the mantle of being a just, honourable and transparent member. I'm transparent with my allies, and that's all that has always mattered to me.

5 minutes ago, Smith said:

We certainly are doing our best with the artificially lengthy framwork you have provided us. But as you know, we aren't perfect. 

Aww, then probably should stop blaming us for your members quitting then. 

 

5 minutes ago, Smith said:

Also you forgot to use

I'll use it whenever I want to. Tyvm.

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Oh we know you're very desperate not to be ignored.

At least now you're being honest for a change ;).

Yes. I do believe not having your peace representative be ignored for weeks would be helpful toward progressing peace.

Unless you have no interest in that ofcourse.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shadowthrone said:

Difference is your FA team goes out and claims that like the gospel. "TKR is transparent please listen to us!" On the other hand, I don't need to post logs and out my source outside of submitting it to my allies, which I did. 

Yes and we provide evidence of our claims because we are confident in them.

1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

Aww, then probably should stop blaming us for your members quitting then. 

But I can't while you continue to artificially lengthen the process with the goal of making people quit!

 

4 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I'll use it whenever I want to. Tyvm.

?Fa ? ir enough ?

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

snip snip snip

Since everyone in this thread is just rehashing the same old shit, I'll just copy paste my old post and maybe get a good faith response?

On 11/11/2019 at 8:45 AM, Hodor said:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smith said:

Yes and we provide evidence of our claims because we are confident in them.

 

We have always been confident in our claims too. Difference is do I want to out my source or not. It was decided that was unnecessary. 

 

2 minutes ago, Smith said:

But I can't while you continue to artificially lengthen the process with the goal of making people quit!

 

Again circular, but maybe approach the negotiations in good faith then. 

2 minutes ago, Hodor said:

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?

 

Maybe, but there is little faith to go off with that. Especially given the other parties includes Guardian, GoB and TKR. The latter being a literal unreasonable stumbling block through out KF negotiations, who's constant attempts at trying to get an IQ term removed solely because it was submitted by "IQ", being problematic. What the KF negotiations did and the actions right after by a few members of our own coalition, solidified the belief that the whole thing went belly up and a situation like that cannot arise again. 

I believe, the complete loss of faith in TKR or the ability of its negotiators along with the other two mentioned, led to the belief in systemising the negotiations in a manner we as a coalition found agreeable. Despite that, it seems your side is fine leaking discussions even before they've gone into full flow has further only hardened the stance in this format. 

6 minutes ago, Hodor said:

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.

Your premise is that enormous animosity does not already exist, which is problematic. To solve the issues between personnel was to narrow down the talks to discussing the terms and focus on the terms itself. If Term 6 is unreasonable after the 5 previous terms were found agreeable, why would you require to renegotiate those that were agreed? The focus should be finding a suitable for term 6 and completing that before moving on to term 7. Honestly, the logic to keep it solely focused on the terms work, if you give it a try and approach it as such. The constant back and forth over procedure isn't going to change the procedure itself, and seems more a pattern of behaviour from KERTCHOGG to find fault at every step for the sake of it, rather than attempting to honestly enter the negotiations in good faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:
 

We have always been confident in our claims too. Difference is do I want to out my source or not. It was decided that was unnecessary. 

 

Again circular, but maybe approach the negotiations in good faith then. 

Maybe, but there is little faith to go off with that. Especially given the other parties includes Guardian, GoB and TKR. The latter being a literal unreasonable stumbling block through out KF negotiations, who's constant attempts at trying to get an IQ term removed solely because it was submitted by "IQ", being problematic. What the KF negotiations did and the actions right after by a few members of our own coalition, solidified the belief that the whole thing went belly up and a situation like that cannot arise again. 

I believe, the complete loss of faith in TKR or the ability of its negotiators along with the other two mentioned, led to the belief in systemising the negotiations in a manner we as a coalition found agreeable. Despite that, it seems your side is fine leaking discussions even before they've gone into full flow has further only hardened the stance in this format. 

Your premise is that enormous animosity does not already exist, which is problematic. To solve the issues between personnel was to narrow down the talks to discussing the terms and focus on the terms itself. If Term 6 is unreasonable after the 5 previous terms were found agreeable, why would you require to renegotiate those that were agreed? The focus should be finding a suitable for term 6 and completing that before moving on to term 7. Honestly, the logic to keep it solely focused on the terms work, if you give it a try and approach it as such. The constant back and forth over procedure isn't going to change the procedure itself, and seems more a pattern of behaviour from KERTCHOGG to find fault at every step for the sake of it, rather than attempting to honestly enter the negotiations in good faith. 

You were informed before that we consider ourselves a single coalition for all intends and purposes. Your unwillingness to deal with us as an entity does not preclude us from coordinating and cooperating. Or was that your purpose in the first place?

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choochoo.jpg.325111e258b77c13f7d9f98cd079aaee.jpg

 

Greetings. My pal Max said words. I saw my buddy Critters reply with words. Then Fraggle searched for Fraggle and saw someone....Smith?  Hey buddy......been a while...say words. But three pages of off topic, non Mad Max nor Fraggle words? As useless as Partisan. Words!

 

 

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

Just now, Fraggle said:

Choochoo.jpg.325111e258b77c13f7d9f98cd079aaee.jpg

 

Greetings. My pal Max said words. I saw my buddy Critters reply with words. Then Fraggle searched for Fraggle and saw someone....Smith?  Hey buddy......been a while...say words. But three pages of off topic, non Mad Max nor Fraggle words? As useless as Partisan. Words!

 

 

Partipeace2.jpg

Greetings, Friend!

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Partipeace2.jpg

Greetings, Friend!

UncleTravelingMattFraggle.jpg.e84104cb3db546b2a99dc1099eba7462.jpg

 

From The Desk of Uncle Traveling Matt.

The Best of all Nations,

Fraggle Rock

 

Greetings Friends. The Nation of Fraggle Rock is declaring war against this piss poor animal snake named Partisan and any ally associated with this creature. You all have 29 hours to pledge support to Fraggle Rock or get out of the path of destruction that will be brought upon this poopy poop head.  You read that right....poopy poop.

 

P.S. We are now accepting donations for the upcoming war, from anyone.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
22 hours ago, Mad Max said:

An actual discussion.

Mostly because I want to laugh at your posts, but I'd like to see some solid argument as to why it would be appropriate to essentially suspend someone from posting because their nation is in vacation mode.

My stance: 0 Fricks

Vacation mode is meant to be used due to someone not being able to log on due to being on holiday or to busy to log on, however if you are able to log on and post clearly you do not need to be in vacation mode, right now its used to avoid wars or have peace for a short while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Difference is your FA team goes out and claims that like the gospel. "TKR is transparent please listen to us!" On the other hand, I don't need to post logs and out my source outside of submitting it to my allies, which I did. 

I don't appreciate the caricaturization of something we have been very upfront about directly (dare I say transparent about our transparency).  You noted some problems with some of our posters, and now I am noting a problem with yours.  I duly apologize if TKR's transparency been inconvenient for you.  

To everyone else, I say this: TKR is completely committed to transparency and consistency publicly, internally and otherwise.  And if ya didn't know we have this thing with honor too. 

 

47 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Your premise is that enormous animosity does not already exist, which is problematic. To solve the issues between personnel was to narrow down the talks to discussing the terms and focus on the terms itself. If Term 6 is unreasonable after the 5 previous terms were found agreeable, why would you require to renegotiate those that were agreed? The focus should be finding a suitable for term 6 and completing that before moving on to term 7. Honestly, the logic to keep it solely focused on the terms work, if you give it a try and approach it as such. The constant back and forth over procedure isn't going to change the procedure itself, and seems more a pattern of behaviour from KERTCHOGG to find fault at every step for the sake of it, rather than attempting to honestly enter the negotiations in good faith. 

Yes, this is perfectly calculated to get the harshest terms possible that would be agreed upon.  Giving us the ability to say, "oh term 5 and 6 are both a little too strong, but we'll give u 5 if you move a little on 6," is too much leverage I see.  If we can't even do that, the these fail to qualify as proper negotiations because the only people we'd be negotiating against are ourselves.  

To put this in a different context, consider consumer and producer surplus.  The market price isn't determined by the highest price the consumer would buy at nor the lowest price a producer would sell at rather an equilibrium price.  Negotiations often function similarly where demands on both sides are considered and negotiations lead to a compromise where nobody goes home fully happy nor fully sad.  But to try and maximize such that you find that so-called highest price we're willing to buy at for each term just defeats the purpose of real negotiations.  I understand the power dynamics at play here, but if you're going to play that way then don't yell at us for causing problems of your own making.

We clearly both want peace, and maybe its time we both started acting like it.

----------

To comment on the thread, I believe that any players who has a nation should have the agency to address their concerns on these forums.  Consider the difference between an inactive who hasn't played the game in a month versus someone in VM.  The cardinal difference here is likely a desire to protect their nation from the harms that befall an inactive nation.  If we were to ban, VMers then its a slippery slope to inactives and whoever else.  The point being that if we hold true to our original principle of using these forums as a point of communication between players of the game, nation status should not factor into whether or not we consider someone worthy of being on these forums.

Edited by Cooper_
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.