Vacation Mode & The Forums

[Redarmy]

I personally don't really care either way. It's going to happen every war. Side A is will make fun of Side B for x number of people in VM. Then Side B will point out how many people on Side A are on VM. If we blocked people from posting on the forums, they will just go to discord. 

[Adrienne]

2 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

One should ask @Sphinx about your antics during KF, to see how you've approached negotiations in bad faith. 

Seeing as it was Yui and not Sphinx that was involved with peace talks in Knightfall, you should be asking her. I'm sure you'll find a more accurate picture. I don't believe Sphinx was even an observer in talks.

[Hodor]

1 hour 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. 

Sure, so we acknowledge enormous animosity exists I see that that would go a long way to worsen this, especially since, and I'm not assuming intention here, your side put forward a particularly antagonistic negotiation team (tbh I don't know who is exactly our negotiation team is so feel free to call the kettle black, but either way it proves my point). I would say if we wanted your way to work it would only work if there was zero animosity and enough trust that all actors were at least attempting to negotiate in good faith. If you can read Under's posts on the forums and look me in the eye and say he is going to be a good faith negotiator, then I think we've already diverged too far for divergence's sake.

To the other point, if our airing of grievances on the forums (an area you all claim is already our echo chamber, so what's the harm?) is the issue, what would you have done in our place if we were given a term, we publicly submitted to that term and then were cold shouldered for days, and finally this brand new procedure was thrust upon you? Surely even in a good faith environment people don't accept new precedent without discussion, and if discussion is barred then what?

 

ALSO:

As the first person to make claims of toxicity in this thread which has used that term to devolve into this shitshow, I never accused IQ and friends of toxicity. I was careful with my words.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Hodor

[Ayayay]

5 hours 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 said your coalition but since you want a quote by yourself I found this in a couple seconds of searching

On 4/15/2019 at 6:34 PM, Hodor said:

Literally any life-form with 2 brain cells to rub together could have engaged with that information in a more rational manner.

 

[Ayayay]

 

6 hours 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".

Funny you bring up the war where we were told we had to change TC's name, had to accept an infra cap, were banned from recruiting, and also have a "totally not a viceroy" installed to make sure we wouldn't send aid to IQ. The defense EMC made for all those demands was that we lost the war and therefore we should suck it up and accept any and all terms forced upon us. How about you take EMC's advice and suck it up and accept any and all terms we demand as well? You lost, didn't you?

[Hodor]

38 minutes ago, Malal said:

  I said your coalition but since you want a quote by yourself I found this in a couple seconds of searching

No joke, I said to myself, if anyone has the willpower to find the one time I lost my shit on Leo/Aragorn/Thanos, they'd have their case, so in this instance well done. I lost my temper once, no excuses for that one.

[Ayayay]

39 minutes ago, Hodor said:

No joke, I said to myself, if anyone has the willpower to find the one time I lost my shit on Leo/Aragorn/Thanos, they'd have their case, so in this instance well done. I lost my temper once, no excuses for that one.

I'll admit I was expecting a spin or defense, it's refreshing to see that sometimes people are willing to own up to their mistakes. You're too good for TGH.

[Arawra]

I've never been so petrified of a winking face until now

[Teaspoon]

So how about that thread topic!

[Guest PhantomThiefB]

12 hours ago, Malal said:

I'll admit I was expecting a spin or defense, it's refreshing to see that sometimes people are willing to own up to their mistakes. You're too good for TGH.

Not gonna lie, been thinking this since I joined the game lol. He's completely out of place there.?

[Adrienne]

16 hours ago, Malal said:

 

Funny you bring up the war where we were told we had to change TC's name, had to accept an infra cap, were banned from recruiting, and also have a "totally not a viceroy" installed to make sure we wouldn't send aid to IQ. The defense EMC made for all those demands was that we lost the war and therefore we should suck it up and accept any and all terms forced upon us. How about you take EMC's advice and suck it up and accept any and all terms we demand as well? You lost, didn't you?

While I was not a part of those talks, from my understanding all of those terms except for the acronym (not name) change were put into place because you exited the war earlier than the rest of your coalition and the terms expired when your coalition reached a peace agreement. There's a difference between doing that while the remainder of your allies are still at war and doing that at the conclusion of the war. The conclusion of the war was what Smith stated.

Edit: Seeing as you reached that agreement on May 20 and the rest of your coalition peaced on June 1, you only had to put up with all that for about 13 days. There was also no viceroy.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Nizam Adrienne
Looked it up

[Robot Santa]

Bring this thread back on topic or face the wrath of Claus

[Ayayay]

5 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

While I was not a part of those talks, from my understanding all of those terms except for the acronym (not name) change were put into place because you exited the war earlier than the rest of your coalition and the terms expired when your coalition reached a peace agreement. There's a difference between doing that while the remainder of your allies are still at war and doing that at the conclusion of the war. The conclusion of the war was what Smith stated.

Edit: Seeing as you reached that agreement on May 20 and the rest of your coalition peaced on June 1, you only had to put up with all that for about 13 days. There was also no viceroy.

Talking about terms presented and the reasoning for them, we had to fight a long time to get the garbage viceroy term dropped.

 

5 hours ago, Robot Santa said:

Bring this thread back on topic or face the wrath of Claus

This thread is about people vming and still using the forums to talk about the war. Therefore, the war, the reasons for it's length (terms or lack thereof), and related posts are on topic tbh

23 hours ago, Hodor said:

 If you can read Under's posts on the forums and look me in the eye and say he is going to be a good faith negotiator, then I think we've already diverged too far for divergence's sake.

My Malal roleplay is mostly for the OWF because, as I've stated for years, the OWF doesn't matter so I may have some fun with it. Malal and Under are two separate entities that I try my best to rarely overlap.

[Buorhann]

Did under just go full retard in this thread or something?

[Ayayay]

14 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Did under just go full retard in this thread or something?

And this is the case I was making earlier @Hodor. We have had to constantly deal with this toxicity for years which is why I called you out originally. I'm sure you understand how frustrating dealing with these kinds of people can be now.

[Buorhann]

Yes, the person who has trolled others for several years is somehow an innocent player.  How many peace talks have you intentionally trolled in the past, under?

[Ayayay]

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Yes, the person who has trolled others for several years is somehow an innocent player.  How many peace talks have you intentionally trolled in the past, under?

Honestly? I posted one line in the Ayyslamic Crusade's "peace server." Wasn't a troll so much as pointing out that negotiations had been secretly underway which wouldn't have gotten everyone so heated if Rose had informed your coalition that they had been in peace talks with us since day 1 so it wasn't really my fault imho. 

[Buorhann]

Lol ok.

[Ayayay]

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Lol ok.

I've always prided myself on doing onto others what they've done unto us. I've been on the receiving end of actual trolls and flamers during peace talks and when this was brought up with other coalition members on the other side we were always told to suck it up. Therefore, even if I decided to flame and troll it would be 100% fair game so long as one alliance on the otherside was an ally of them and did nothing to stop them. Not my fault that no one ever reigns in their allies or tells them to cut it out.

[Buorhann]

On 11/14/2019 at 2:17 PM, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

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

Well, yes.  Let's add another to the list.  You're the only ones to have attacked allies who supported you, in the same war.

[Chief Wiggum]

11 hours ago, Malal said:

This thread is about people vming and still using the forums to talk about the war. Therefore, the war, the reasons for it's length (terms or lack thereof), and related posts are on topic tbh

This thread is about people vming and still using the forums to talk about whatever in general. This doesn't mean you can start discussing that whatever here.

Last warning to everyone to go on topic: arguments about why people that are in VM should still post at the forums (about anything) or shouldn't.

Gratitude.