ForgotPants Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 5 hours ago, Hodor said: underlordgc: underlordgc: underlordgc: underlordgc: Also, let me reiterate that st6 and skae are the official points of contact for our coalition, please refrain from attempting to go around them It's his winning personality of repetition which brings us closer to peace everyday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Me Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 17 hours ago, Aesir said: You can't control people beyond your own Alliance >.> If I could I would rule all of Orbis by now! Not that some of them haven't tried and are still trying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sir Scarfalot Posted November 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Epi said: Both sides have their faults, but this is the weakest and most inaccurate attempt to demonize Coalition B. Neither side wants peace. Nnnnno, the peace talks stalling is easily the strongest demonization against Coalition B (outside of their attacking their own allies on multiple occasions, lest that be forgotten) and the one that's had the weakest rebuttal. If you're talking about the derailment topic of NPO's entry into the war itself, then maybe, but that's a derailment that's discussed plenty elsewhere. Edited November 22, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Thalmor Posted November 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2019 18 minutes ago, Epi said: this is the weakest and most inaccurate attempt to demonize Coalition B. If it's so weak, then can you rebut it? 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Smith Posted November 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2019 38 minutes ago, Epi said: Both sides have their faults, but this is the weakest and most inaccurate attempt to demonize Coalition B. Neither side wants peace. The "both sides are bad" argument doesn't work when one side is doing their best to negotiate and are providing proof that the other side is intentionally stalling. I appreciate you being honest that your side does not want peace though. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Ataxia Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 39 minutes ago, Epi said: Neither side wants peace. So you read this post and saw all the evidence of our side trying to get peace while your side constantly ping ponged us around showing no true interest in getting peace, and this is the conclusion you reached? Yikers 4 House Stark Discord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sval Posted November 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2019 8 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said: This is where I take a Jeffersonian approach to PnW. If you're unhappy with how your coalition is handling peace negotiations: take a separate peace and leave. If you're unhappy with how your alliance is responding to peace negotiations: Quietly bow out and leave. Works for me. Oh, wait. 22 1 <~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.<+Curufinwe> Can confirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted November 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Epi said: I've heard the article names were already leaked. So this is what's holding up negotiations rn, "Cessation of Hostilities." They've agreed to surrender and other terms, but they haven't agreed that when we peace we will "stop fighting" that is like mind blowingly stupid. It's been 8 days since any conversation has taken place and hey there are 2 ways i saw them walking away was reasonable. The cessation of hostilities is not what is holding up talks, as you are well aware because we've clearly stated our objections both in the server, in our embassy with you, and in the OP. I recommend you take a look again. We have stated multiple times we are willing to negotiate but we aren't willing to continue jumping through hoops for a side that is not likewise interested in engaging in earnest talks. If you do want to make an earnest effort, you'll find us all ears. 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namukara Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 Why don't you just join a server and I'll play marriage counsellor and try to get your relationship back on track? I feel that's the best way for everybody right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aero Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Epi said: If it's a concession on your apart to have accepted the first term. Perhaps we are being unreasonable. I personally wanted T$ in the negotiations (spicier drama) but that's just me. Still, i'm gonna maintain my personal opinion that you guys likely have the terms and this is an exercise in futility, the rational doesn't compute on why you'd stop here and not elsewhere. In private you justified this with diplomats being busy, but it's been a lot longer now and there isn't really a reason to pause on this thing. It's basically a hand waive. If you guys wanna engage in earnest talks, then revisit the chat. I'm sure we can come to an agreement over the course of 3 hours rather than 3 weeks. This is what I've been saying aswell. If there are new terms involved in what Col A wants I fail to see why they couldnt be adressed in the place they could have made a bigger difference. In the current form of everything the actions that were made have done nothing but keep the same silence and war extensions that we've had through the entire thing. Both sides are willing to talk. If Col A has new terms they wanna discuss bring them back to the table! Edited November 22, 2019 by Aero Xross 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 (I still think this is all dumb and want this to hurry up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted November 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Epi said: If it's a concession on your apart to have accepted the first term. Perhaps we are being unreasonable. I personally wanted T$ in the negotiations (spicier drama) but that's just me. Still, i'm gonna maintain my personal opinion that you guys likely have the terms and this is an exercise in futility, the rational doesn't compute on why you'd stop here and not elsewhere. In private you justified this with diplomats being busy, but it's been a lot longer now and there isn't really a reason to pause on this thing. It's basically a hand waive. If you guys wanna engage in earnest talks, then revisit the chat. I'm sure we can come to an agreement over the course of 3 hours rather than 3 weeks. Partisan's theater, isn't going to be able to change the minds of leadership but perhaps words can. ~ Also i apologize for the above post if any of it was considered especially opsec. I don't think it was, but it was a reply to leaks by your coalition so Eh. 50/50. 10 minutes ago, Aero Xross said: This is what I've been saying aswell. If there are new terms involved in what Col A wants I fail to see why they couldnt be dressed in the place they could have made a bigger difference. In the current form of everything the actions that were made have done nothing but keep the same silence and war extensions that we've had through the entire thing. Both sides are willing to talk. If Col A has new terms they wanna discuss bring them back to the table! If we had had the terms or saw any actual action being taken to progress t$ towards peace, we wouldn't have felt the need to engage in "Partisan's theater", as you call it. We've stated our objections, both to the way talks have progressed and to the first term, and yet we demonstrated a willingness to negotiate, which your negotiators have not reciprocated. What we're asking for is not ridiculous or unprecedented. Edited November 22, 2019 by Nizam Adrienne 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aero Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Nizam Adrienne said: If we had the terms, we wouldn't feel the need to engage in "Partisan's theater", as you call it. We've stated our objections, both to the way talks have progressed and to the first term, and yet we demonstrated a willingness to negotiate, which your negotiators have not reciprocated. What we're asking for is not ridiculous or unprecedented. Its not WHAT you're asking for. It's where you asked for it. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted November 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2019 Just now, Aero Xross said: Its not WHAT you're asking for. It's where you asked for it. Our inquiries in private led us nowhere, as you can see in the OP. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefonteen Posted November 23, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted November 23, 2019 9 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: There has never been such an agreement it's just how it's done. You know what you did even if you want to pretend otherwise. You leaked. CoA is the culprit. CoB won and has a right to provide demands that will be completed in exchange for peace. The same goes for tS, though theirs is separate. This is public so I can't really say who wants what. I do know what I did- I divulged material which I publicly promised to divulge going into this. I also posted a clear, evidence-based rationale for the actions my alliance and its coalition decided to take in the wake of rather obvious attempts at gaslighting and framing us. What's your point? 1 hour ago, Epi said: Both sides have their faults, but this is the weakest and most inaccurate attempt to demonize Coalition B. Neither side wants peace. Please provide detailed arguments as to what exactly is "inaccurate" about the logs we have shared. We do want peace. We just don't want to be given the runaround and we *definitely* don't want to be framed as the culprits of peace delays after being given the runaround. I'm disappointed at you taking this stance as we actually had what I felt were cordial conversations about this prior to the events of november 1st. The actions of coalition B negotiators did not match your assessment and by your own admission, you anticipated things to be different. Yet here you are, pushing the party line.... 56 minutes ago, Epi said: I've heard the article names were already leaked. So this is what's holding up negotiations rn, "Cessation of Hostilities." They've agreed to surrender and other terms, but they haven't agreed that when we peace we will "stop fighting" that is like mind blowingly stupid. It's been 8 days since any conversation has taken place and hey there are 2 ways i saw them walking away was reasonable. Two Fronts If they'd left after knowing T$ wasn't included. That's totally fair i wouldn't have negotiated peace if any member of our Coalition was forced to stay. Keshav and Underlord were incredibly clear about T$ negotiations being carried out separately (First thing said in the chats and pinned). Yet to my knowledge we've been vague on 'two fronts' = 'two separate peaces', It's likely if you'd clarified this with us we would've agreed the war doesn't end until both of you get peace. The only limitation on conducting T$'s peace separately is collective bargaining power. And if you guys don't intend on being allied post-war this isn't a negative. By trying to include them you're basically hinting at that not being the case IMO. TFP would be ashamed of us Lets assume that KERTOG doesn't have the full list of terms and this is the most pressing matter on their agenda besides getting T$ into negotiations. RE: Two Fronts. If getting T$ into negotiations was more important than curiosity they wouldn't have already agreed to any terms. So curiosity is more important, why stop negotiating for 8 days on a term that's been in every peace negotiation in Orbis history because it literally means "PEACE!" Now hey. Maybe i'm reading into this wrong. Maybe they're not holding up negotiations. Perhaps 'Cessation of Hostilities" is too harsh a term. How about 'We peace on every day but Sundays" or "Everyone below 1000 score is ours to raid to death". The options are limitless. And if we're all being honest with ourselves, this meme is probably how it will all end. All i'm saying, is that if they didn't already know the terms and needed to know them. They would've skipped over this meaningless thing then held out for T$ when they actually had something. But no, what's more likely is they have the terms and decided to drag the war out. So they agreed to the first one as a token so they could pull a stunt like this. So yes, both coalitions are asshats. But only one of them is bad at lying. uhhh.... what? The "cessation of hostilities" term has at no point been communicated to be an issue whatsoever by coalition A officials. Kerchtogg negotiators have been consistent with their structural inquiries about A) the status of t$ and B ) their concerns about the negotiating structure. After coalition A negotiators made a final note of their issue with the general process, your negotiators responded by telling them "no" and unilaterally pushing talks to the next term (as coalition A had accepted term 1 as a token of good faith hoping this might be reciprocated) without further addressing the issue brought up. So, as the issue wasn't addressed, negotiations stalled. That's not rocket science and to interpret coalition A's transparency regarding its concerns while it attempted to appease your unneccessarily complicated demands as malicious is a matter of serious mental gymnastics at best. In your last 2 paragraphs you make assumption about what coalition A would've or should've done based on an assumption they knew things they probably did not know. Have you considered that perhaps they were negotiating *in good faith* with the understanding that t$ was going to at the very least be entertained with regards to peace, and that with every passing day during which coalition B ignored t$, their goodwill decreased? On a final note: The suggestion that kerchtogg negotiators did not repeat their concerns with the approach taken by coalition B on multiple occasions is blatantly false. You were aware of the problem, and you didn't care because you had the might to. Your negotiators then spent their time on the forums, calling coalition A out for "negotiating in bad faith". Perhaps that impacted coalition A's decision making process as their assessment of your motivations ...evolved. 41 minutes ago, namukara said: Why don't you just join a server and I'll play marriage counsellor and try to get your relationship back on track? I feel that's the best way for everybody right now. I tried on behalf of t$. I was removed from that server, spent 20 days being givent the runaround and ended up here on the forums because private inquiries were ignored. 39 minutes ago, Epi said: If it's a concession on your apart to have accepted the first term. Perhaps we are being unreasonable. I personally wanted T$ in the negotiations (spicier drama) but that's just me. Still, i'm gonna maintain my personal opinion that you guys likely have the terms and this is an exercise in futility, the rational doesn't compute on why you'd stop here and not elsewhere. In private you justified this with diplomats being busy, but it's been a lot longer now and there isn't really a reason to pause on this thing. It's basically a hand waive. If you guys wanna engage in earnest talks, then revisit the chat. I'm sure we can come to an agreement over the course of 3 hours rather than 3 weeks. Partisan's theater, isn't going to be able to change the minds of leadership but perhaps words can. ~ Also i apologize for the above post if any of it was considered especially opsec. I don't think it was, but it was a reply to leaks by your coalition so Eh. 50/50. Tell me. How exactly would t$ joining negotiations lead to "spicier drama"? I daresay that going into this, we were more moderate than most parties. It's funny that you try to frame our withdrawal from a deliberately obstructive process as "theater". Both t$ and kerchtogg tried to visit and revisit the various chats and topics over and over. In each and every instance, those visitations were met with hostility, trolling, obstruction or silence. What else besides withdrawing and making a public statement would you reasonably expect us to do in the face of what appears to be an opponent hell bent on stretching the war and being as destructive as possible? I'll also add once again that I was not given the opportunity to conduct diplomacy through private channels, and this has forced me to conduct it in public channels. That is a direct consequence of your own decision to spend 3 weeks giving t$ the runaround. If you wanted any different outcome, a simple token of good faith or a semblance of clarity would have done wonders. 34 minutes ago, Aero Xross said: This is what I've been saying aswell. If there are new terms involved in what Col A wants I fail to see why they couldnt be adressed in the place they could have made a bigger difference. In the current form of everything the actions that were made have done nothing but keep the same silence and war extensions that we've had through the entire thing. Both sides are willing to talk. If Col A has new terms they wanna discuss bring them back to the table! They were addressed in private DM's and in the negotiation channels by kerchtogg and t$ alike. Each time these issues were addressed, it was met with hostility, goading, trolling or silence. That's right abotu where "what you've been saying" stops making sense. 24 minutes ago, Aero Xross said: Its not WHAT you're asking for. It's where you asked for it. You mean through private channels, even more private channels, official channels and when all that failed, eventually, public channels? Alright then. Where should we have asked for it? 13 minutes ago, Epi said: Ehh okay. Fair enough you attempted it before and it didn't quite work out, but you know who we're dealing with here. Waiting 2-3 weeks isn't going to change anything. Posting on the forums is gonna have the opposite affect and make them double down. IQ doesn't like making concessions in private, screw doing it on the world stage. Term 1 wasn't really negotiated tbh, we shared a term, you guys changed a word and agreed to it. From memory you didn't argue too fiercely, def didn't walk out over it (brief logistical hiatus aside) or feel particularly affronted even though i assumed you would be. If you want T$ in the negotiations, petition us in the peace chats. Under's rules goes out the window, if this is something you guys want, that's where to do it. Because that's where they have the opportunity to say "okay" rather than write a word wall justifying miscommunication and blaming you. "IQ's establishment of a faulty and obstructive negotiation structure, the trolling and hostility of its negotiators and its attempts to drag out any chances at peace, as well as its consequent framing of coalition A as the culprits should not be addressed in public because IQ prefers fricking us over in private over fricking us over in public." Got it. Re; your last sentence: You were petitioned in peace chats to get t$ in the negotiations. You were just dicks about it 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hodor Posted November 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 23, 2019 Have yall even read the OP, like your questions are answered IN THE OP. Wild. 1 2 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batavus Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 44 minutes ago, Epi said: (...) IQ doesn't like making concessions in private, screw doing it on the world stage. (...) Nobody likes making concessions. CoalA has taken the world stage to say: we are willing to admit defeat as part of a peace deal. At some point IQ also has to move. To start: seriously be available for talks. Or we can continue to fight the same war with roughly the same sides forever, except for the occassional alliance leaving CoalB in a coffin (Electric Space, Hanseatic League) or under fire (Carthago, OWR). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 We’re trying too hard to appease ignorance. Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 14 minutes ago, Epi said: Travelling again, so can't reply in the detail I want to. But I mean little offense in my analysis, they're just logical deductions with the information I have at hand. I know we're not being saints in this and that whatever I say here will likely be denied by Coalition B. Later or that they'd prefer I'd not said anything at all. But not everyone on our side is being stubborn and as a whole that transforms out perspective. Me and Aero do believe peace is possible and we're not preventing negotiations. If you'd persisted in the attempts to negotiate or convince the coalition you may have seen a different result. Your information is faulty then. And short of begging, our negotiators have tried their damnest in attempting to discuss peace, well before Syndicate/HS even got pulled into the war. 4 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefonteen Posted November 23, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted November 23, 2019 29 minutes ago, Epi said: Travelling again, so can't reply in the detail I want to. But I mean little offense in my analysis, they're just logical deductions with the information I have at hand. I know we're not being saints in this and that whatever I say here will likely be denied by Coalition B. Later or that they'd prefer I'd not said anything at all. But not everyone on our side is being stubborn and as a whole that transforms out perspective. Me and Aero do believe peace is possible and we're not preventing negotiations. If you'd persisted in the attempts to negotiate or convince the coalition you may have seen a different result. I do fear by publicizing the issue you've doomed it to failure. As for the inaccuracy of logs. You're trying to deduce our official position across multiple leaders and ex-negotiators. Even if we were totally united on issues which we aren't you still would've got very different responses subject to misunderstanding. Just as I have a unique perspective on how things are going so do all of they. And the intentions of each alliance are ultimately different as well. I use the term theatre to describe the forums not in a derogatory sense, but instead because they are an IC performance (to change hearts and minds, perspective and knowing your opponents rebuttal already) with an audience in mind. I love it xD. I don't like justifying the positions of other alliances. It's not my job to do. So don't make me an advocate for them. Just grasp that when I find you guys are doing something objectively ridiculous I call them out for there stuff too. I sort of take issue with the notion that "if we'd persisted in our attempts to negotiate or convince the coalition, we might have seen a different result". We persisted in our attempts for 20 days, and did not see any meaningful progress. We also saw ample evidence of malicious intent in evidence provided to us (ranging from private logs claiming coal B intended to keep us at war to your appointed representative's first words into the conversation with kerchtogg being that t$ could go die). At what point would our persistence transcend into naivety? You also note that our attempt at deducing your official position across multiple leaders is problematic. How else exactly would we have to deduce your viewpoints in the absence of any official statements by coalition-appointed representatives? I also daresay that had I based our deduction of your coalition viewpoints entirely on the conduct of your officially appointed negotiators (from scratch), my case for the suspicion of foul intent would have been far greater, far quicker. From my discussions thusfar, it seems that it is actually the quiet leaders on the coalition B side in this process who harbor the most moderate viewpoints. Unfortunately, their nuance appears absent in your approach to the peace negotiations. Whether that is by design is something I am very suspicious of at this point. 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 If I was the negotiator for either side, I would probably just be willing to white peace as my minimum offer. Although maybe that has something to do with surrender going against my principles. Good luck reaching a conclusion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Syrachime Posted November 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 23, 2019 6 hours ago, Archibald said: (I still think this is all dumb and want this to hurry up) You might as well get comfortable. Peace isn't going to happen for a long time thanks to the ridiculous politics behind this war... 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 5 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said: If I was the negotiator for either side, I would probably just be willing to white peace as my minimum offer. Although maybe that has something to do with surrender going against my principles. Good luck reaching a conclusion. If I was the admin of this game, I would probably just be willing to delete you. Although maybe that has something to do with watching you post on the forums going against my principles. Good luck reaching a deletion. 2 3 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Tiberius said: If I was the admin of this game, I would probably just be willing to delete you. Although maybe that has something to do with watching you post on the forums going against my principles. Good luck reaching a deletion. With the way you guys are conducting peace talks, doesn't seem you guys want them to surrender anyways. lol Edit: Also considering Roq didn't want to consider my war part of this one & when I notified him of the peace agreement reached with GOONS (Didn't seem Col A considered my wars connected anyways); he was happy to hear cooler heads prevailed and only ongoing war I had declared on a Col B alliance was peaced out. So don't think I'm getting any closer to deletion or I'm still at war with any alliances from Col B, although even if you guys do decide to put me in Col A; still wouldn't bring me any closer deletion. So good luck with that. Not a big deal warring however many months you would want to fight if I'm brought back into the war when off beige. Edited November 23, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sval Posted November 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 23, 2019 Guys, I sincerely hope you did some warm-up exercises (such as actually reading the OP) before engaging in all these mental gymnastics. I have genuine concern for your health. 12 12 <~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.<+Curufinwe> Can confirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts