Jump to content

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, brucemna said:

I personally give ur side credit for wanting peace  but then because u think something is going to happen because ur handed logs by someone who themselves did not want the war to end possibly we are held in a status quo here. I would on ur part look at the people or person that gave u the logs and see what that person's own motives are and see if that person has more to gain.  NPO does not benefit as we are self sustaining and have the power within ourselves to forge forward.  

To clarify, logs were not the sole reason for leaving. We detailed all our reasons for leaving in the OP of this thread. We put forward a concentrated effort in the face of clear trolling and efforts to tank talks and tried our best to show that we were willing to negotiate and make concessions. The leaks we received back then and those that have emerged on here since have just clarified what we already suspected based on the behavior of your representatives - that they didn't want peace and had no serious intentions of entertaining us. So why should we waste our time trying to do all that if they don't have any intention of progressing towards peace? If that has changed and they're willing to earnestly engage with us, I'll repeat what we've been saying this whole time - we're here and willing to listen and work with them.

  • Upvote 4

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

To clarify, logs were not the sole reason for leaving. We detailed all our reasons for leaving in the OP of this thread. We put forward a concentrated effort in the face of clear trolling and efforts to tank talks and tried our best to show that we were willing to negotiate and make concessions. The leaks we received back then and those that have emerged on here since have just clarified what we already suspected based on the behavior of your representatives - that they didn't want peace and had no serious intentions of entertaining us. So why should we waste our time trying to do all that if they don't have any intention of progressing towards peace? If that has changed and they're willing to earnestly engage with us, I'll repeat what we've been saying this whole time - we're here and willing to listen and work with them.

I am not disputing a effort on ur part at the beginning at all. My side of it looks as if because one side is not getting what they want when they want it the narrative has been changed to a propaganda assault to try and restart the process. Sure being transparent is one thing dumping logs in the OP does not help with any process. If one wanted to the original OP could be cause of  the logs be taken as if u are redeclaring war or rescinding ur surrender to continue this war. Which is fine if u dont think if terms were actually given were not beneficial to all involved. But this was more of the process than any terms as my understanding is no one received terms. The op was delivered in Nov.  From what I cam see the logs posted come from the beginning of october above ... seems to me if I recall u surrendered in the beginning of november .. meaning between the october logs and November surrender the mood had changed and twenty days later after ur side stopped or walked however u would like to word it. Seems again without following the process to see the validity of the logs ur side posted publicly.  I see u used the words monthly as well. Meaning there was still 10 days til the end of the month and maybe 20 more days of patience would of given u a stronger arguement to what there is now. We are now in december and I would assume now cause of the logs posted after the OP sure this will prob keep going on.  There is no shame in calling out someone but when calling out dont shame.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, brucemna said:

I am not disputing a effort on ur part at the beginning at all. My side of it looks as if because one side is not getting what they want when they want it the narrative has been changed to a propaganda assault to try and restart the process. Sure being transparent is one thing dumping logs in the OP does not help with any process. If one wanted to the original OP could be cause of  the logs be taken as if u are redeclaring war or rescinding ur surrender to continue this war. Which is fine if u dont think if terms were actually given were not beneficial to all involved. But this was more of the process than any terms as my understanding is no one received terms. The op was delivered in Nov.  From what I cam see the logs posted come from the beginning of october above ... seems to me if I recall u surrendered in the beginning of november .. meaning between the october logs and November surrender the mood had changed and twenty days later after ur side stopped or walked however u would like to word it. Seems again without following the process to see the validity of the logs ur side posted publicly.  I see u used the words monthly as well. Meaning there was still 10 days til the end of the month and maybe 20 more days of patience would of given u a stronger arguement to what there is now. We are now in december and I would assume now cause of the logs posted after the OP sure this will prob keep going on.  There is no shame in calling out someone but when calling out dont shame.  

Your side of it my friend, seems to be a bit unwilling to recognize the logs for what they are: A clear proof of malignant intent. You seem to be searching for a way to deflect responsibility for peace delaying back to coalition A, when we have -logged and well- evidence that this was not the case.

 

We do want peace, and we are here, willing to sit back down and negotiate our terms of surrender the moment coalition B shows us that they are ready to seriously entertain it. If that desire is there then by all means, please do hit us up.

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Your side of it my friend, seems to be a bit unwilling to recognize the logs for what they are: A clear proof of malignant intent. You seem to be searching for a way to deflect responsibility for peace delaying back to coalition A, when we have -logged and well- evidence that this was not the case.

 

We do want peace, and we are here, willing to sit back down and negotiate our terms of surrender the moment coalition B shows us that they are ready to seriously entertain it. If that desire is there then by all means, please do hit us up.

Something tells me though part of the conditions to start agian maybe to admit that this open forum stuff dumping and so forth may be the wrong avenue as well u may face separation in parts of coalition in talks and that publicly ... maybe offer in private that condition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

There really is nothing more to it. If you want the toxicity present on forums to end which I admit is present on both sides to varying degrees, this war needs to end and in order to do so you need to put pressure on your own government to end this charade. Your gov does not listen to us but they are answerable to their own memberships at the end of the day.

Negotiations are done privately. Until CoA closes this public aspect how do you expect them to resume?   As for bitterness, resentment and grudges formed here, they're not going to disappear hen CoA chooses to resume negotiations in the traditional manner.

  • Downvote 1

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, brucemna said:

Something tells me though part of the conditions to start agian maybe to admit that this open forum stuff dumping and so forth may be the wrong avenue as well u may face separation in parts of coalition in talks and that publicly ... maybe offer in private that condition. 

The logs were necessary because your coalition's leadership was publicly blaming us for no progress being made in peace talks while in private were strategizing on how to drag out the peace process for as long as possible to make as many people quit out of boredom on our side as they could. It's not acceptable to gaslight somebody and expect them to just sit back and take the abuse. The blame here is on your leadership for developing a strategy specifically designed to pressure people out of the game. It's not on us for to standing up to people telling intentional lies. This war has been going on for like 7 months, there is no reason for anybody to believe that your coalition leadership was going to change their tactics when they were still lying about what they were doing. Keep in mind that during the period that you are saying we should have still been trying to negotiate they were still trying to think of ways to drag the war out. The only option we had left when shown that your leadership was trying to delay talks to get everybody to quit was at least show what they were saying isn't true. 

Edited by Smith
  • Upvote 3

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Smith said:

The logs were necessary because your coalition's leadership was publicly blaming us for no progress being made in peace talks while in private were strategizing on how to drag out the peace process for as long as possible to make as many people quit out of boredom on our side as they could. It's not acceptable to gaslight somebody and expect them to just sit back and take the abuse. The blame here is on your leadership for developing a strategy specifically designed to pressure people out of the game. It's not for us to standing up to people telling intentional lies. This war has been going on for like 7 months, there is no reason for anybody to believe that your coalition leadership was going to change their tactics when they were still lying about what they were doing. Keep in mind that during the period that you are saying we should have still been trying to negotiate they were still trying to think of ways to drag the war out. 

Let's see here. U dont want to negotiate or walk away from talks cause a third party supplied u with logs that may or may not want peace talks cause they are part of the war or not a d may benefit the war continuing ?  Seriously .. dont u think there comes a point where someone may have played ur side and they got the best of u. U say my side wants to prolong this but yet u keep dumping logs pushing ur opponent away to talk ? Personally if logs like this were posted in the public forum and used as propaganda to make r side look bad like this u think I would actually come and give u a chance to get out of a losing situation. From what I see ur making this harder on urself than anything. Agian I never would of walked away cause I feel or get third party information of any kind. It would make me more cautious yes but I would keep moving forward until I was certain that whatever evidence u may have considers with the mood of the talks.  Meaning say for example we gave ur coalition white peace but then came back with terms that will make people quit from TS then ya u would have the terms to say,hey this is wrong we dont accept. But what u have is logs from a month before ur offer of surrender was made.  The views of October may habe changed a month later but now u will or may  not know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Negotiations are done privately. Until CoA closes this public aspect how do you expect them to resume?   As for bitterness, resentment and grudges formed here, they're not going to disappear hen CoA chooses to resume negotiations in the traditional manner.

It's very normal for there to be public announcements and informal arguments on these forums over peace terms in addition to formal discussions taking place privately.  Especially when they are stalled, and these are more stalled than most because your side was/is deliberately stalling.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, brucemna said:

But what u have is logs from a month before ur offer of surrender was made.

 

12 hours ago, ArcKnox said:
Quote

    underlordgc11/3/2019, 7:56:43 AM
    And we can just stall them by saying we want people to get organized or some random bs like that

 

Announcement made on November the 2nd.

Literally the day after.

You really should read before trying to argue.

And as a side note, they came from people who were Coal B, or are still in it but are disgruntled.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Smith said:

No coalition has ever held people at war for 7 months and expressed excitement over people quitting before. I'm not sure what you would expect to see in our coalition channel since we aren't in a position to do what your side has been doing and when we were in that position in past wars we didn't do it

The war length, no, but the excitement over getting people to quit, is a Thanos go to.  He gleefully loves it, and that love did not start this war.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

 

Announcement made on November the 2nd.

Literally the day after.

You really should read before trying to argue.

And as a side note, they came from people who were Coal B, or are still in it but are disgruntled.

Well, the ones you're citing now are from Gorge specifically who was fine with everything until it conflicted with his itinerary. Some of the lower level ones might be leaks from people still in, but the ones are definitely from Gorge. inb4 not relevant but it is worth pointing it out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Negotiations are done privately. Until CoA closes this public aspect how do you expect them to resume?   As for bitterness, resentment and grudges formed here, they're not going to disappear hen CoA chooses to resume negotiations in the traditional manner.

So we're supposed to continue working in private despite clear evidence that y'all have no desire for peace?  And when we go public about these troubling facts, its our fault for preventing the peace process?  

Which is it, buddy?  Do you want peace or not?  We honestly don't have time to sit here and be gaslighted.  

 Whether they be TKR, NPO, GOONS, T$ or otherwise, our members don't deserve this.  But obviously our systemic "bitterness, resentment and grudges" is more important than acting in their interests.  Man up or quiet down.  It's clear you have no intention of resolving this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Well, the ones you're citing now are from Gorge specifically who was fine with everything until it conflicted with his itinerary. Some of the lower level ones might be leaks from people still in, but the ones are definitely from Gorge. inb4 not relevant but it is worth pointing it out

I'm aware. He had said so himself:
 

Quote

₲ɆØⱤ₲Ɇ11/3/2019, 1:01:11 AM
And I can understand war to this point, like I’m on board however really past this point we’re overdoing it

However, him having his own motives does nothing to change the content within the logs themselves.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, brucemna said:

Let's see here. U dont want to negotiate or walk away from talks cause a third party supplied u with logs that may or may not want peace talks cause they are part of the war or not a d may benefit the war continuing ?  Seriously .. dont u think there comes a point where someone may have played ur side and they got the best of u. U say my side wants to prolong this but yet u keep dumping logs pushing ur opponent away to talk ? Personally if logs like this were posted in the public forum and used as propaganda to make r side look bad like this u think I would actually come and give u a chance to get out of a losing situation. From what I see ur making this harder on urself than anything. Agian I never would of walked away cause I feel or get third party information of any kind. It would make me more cautious yes but I would keep moving forward until I was certain that whatever evidence u may have considers with the mood of the talks.  Meaning say for example we gave ur coalition white peace but then came back with terms that will make people quit from TS then ya u would have the terms to say,hey this is wrong we dont accept. But what u have is logs from a month before ur offer of surrender was made.  The views of October may habe changed a month later but now u will or may  not know.

The "third party" was a member of your coalition leadership which actually makes him a first party as he was directly involved.

It is not "may or may not" as they directly say they don't want the war to end. 

We know their views did not change after October because we have logs in November which is when this thread was created showing they were still trying to stall peace. And again, while they were doing this in private they were publicly blaming us for peace not progressing.

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smith said:

The "third party" was a member of your coalition leadership which actually makes him a first party as he was directly involved.

It is not "may or may not" as they directly say they don't want the war to end. 

We know their views did not change after October because we have logs in November which is when this thread was created showing they were still trying to stall peace. And again, while they were doing this in private they were publicly blaming us for peace not progressing.

Well the logs I recall seem to be sated the month of october mostly.  As for it being a member or was is the key word then obviously he passed the logs to u with intent of forcing u away from the table for their own benefit amd gain meaning u either payed or promised something possibly. If they did it on their own volition then I would question that person's motives and possibly through talking u may get that answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, brucemna said:

Well the logs I recall seem to be sated the month of october mostly.  As for it being a member or was is the key word then obviously he passed the logs to u with intent of forcing u away from the table for their own benefit amd gain meaning u either payed or promised something possibly. If they did it on their own volition then I would question that person's motives and possibly through talking u may get that answer. 

Yes there were more October logs as we were only halfway into November when this thread was made, but the logs continue into November showing their intent. 

However, it kinda seems like no matter what answer we give you or how much evidence we provide you there doesn't seem to be a scenario in which you would accept that the blame lies with your leadership. Am I wrong on this? Because I've pointed out multiple misconceptions that you have had and you seem to just move the goal post.

If we prove that they were still doing things in November then you say that you thought it was mostly happening in October. If we show it's not from a third party you say the person is untrustworthy. Then you say we must have paid or promised them something. 

We are providing tons of evidence for our claims while you make assumptions such as this with no proof whatsoever. Why is that?

Edited by Smith
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Smith said:

Yes there were more October logs as we were only halfway into November when this thread was made, but the logs continue into November showing their intent. 

However, it kinda seems like no matter what answer we give you or how much evidence we provide you there doesn't seem to be a scenario in which you would accept that the blame lies with your leadership. Am I wrong on this? Because I've pointed out multiple misconceptions that you have had and you seem to just move the goal post.

If we prove that they were still doing things in November then you say that you thought it was mostly happening in October. If we show it's not from a third party you say the person is untrustworthy. Then you say we must have paid or promised them something. 

We are providing tons of evidence for our claims while you make assumptions such as this with no proof whatsoever. Why is that?

U call it evidence as in a trial. U say our side is to blame no peace cause of intent. And ya I am sure u could prob show log after log. But here is the thing. I understand what u r trying to say about the backing off cause of suspicion as well. With that in mind it seems to me u r doing more accusing than trying to find a way to get to talking. Ur missing the point if ur saying it is the other sides intent to drag this out longer and longer why are u doing all this dumping and so forth knowing that it will piss our side off and not want to come to the table anyways after this. Agian as I mentioned and this is just me personally ... if I had or knew I would be attaining them logs and would of just continued with the process with caution and see where the talks actually went. Meaning done the process of TS letting the rest of ur coalition finish their talks with a condition of completing talks with Ts as well separately. If at that time u still did not like the terms walk away. Then this thread and jumping may or may not have been justified. Instead u r dumping on the process and prolonging the conflicts. And honestly if behind the back trash talking upsets u and r not able to get by it and had to walk away then maybe I would question ur own ability to lead. Sometimes cause being a leader u need tough skin to be able to meet the responsibility to ur coalition . Sounds more from ur side it is more personal than business to u. 

2 minutes ago, Abdi said:

Can someone just quickly expain wich coalitions are at war and some major alliances in them? 

Thanks

This name looks familiar lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

So we're supposed to continue working in private despite clear evidence that y'all have no desire for peace?  And when we go public about these troubling facts, its our fault for preventing the peace process?  

Which is it, buddy?  Do you want peace or not?  We honestly don't have time to sit here and be gaslighted.  

 Whether they be TKR, NPO, GOONS, T$ or otherwise, our members don't deserve this.  But obviously our systemic "bitterness, resentment and grudges" is more important than acting in their interests.  Man up or quiet down.  It's clear you have no intention of resolving this.

Yes. Negotiations will be done in private. If you haven't heard anything yet then wait until you do. Patience is a virtue. Despite any stalling, you are all simply prolonging the period of silence towards peace talks while you are continuing this public show that no one apart from Coalition A really cares about. 

If you feel that strongly that your members dont deserve this then tell them to ask for individual surrenders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yes. Negotiations will be done in private. If you haven't heard anything yet then wait until you do. Patience is a virtue. Despite any stalling, you are all simply prolonging the period of silence towards peace talks while you are continuing this public show that no one apart from Coalition A really cares about. 

If you feel that strongly that your members dont deserve this then tell them to ask for individual surrenders. 

"Patience is a virtue"  There's patience and then there's waiting around for a miracle to happen. In this case it's the latter, as we can see from publicly available information.

  • A. Any and all attempts to negotiate have been trolled
  • B. Only happen on the first of every month
  • C. Despite surrenders on the OWF, no terms have been offered and no attempts to have communication between parties has been established properly (t$ literally hasn't gotten a server and has been kicked out of one)
  • D. ColB leadership wishes for disbandment of ColA alliances. (No alliance in this game is every going to voluntarily disband from an external mandate, this is not CN)
  • E. Apparently despite having literal months at this point, ColB hasn't figured out what terms it wants
  • F. ColB leadership believes that T$ hasn't fought long enough and wants to continue the war against them

And there's more, but I'm not going to bother with it since I have other things to do.

  • Upvote 2

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, japan77 said:

"Patience is a virtue"  There's patience and then there's waiting around for a miracle to happen. In this case it's the latter, as we can see from publicly available information.

  • A. Any and all attempts to negotiate have been trolled
  • B. Only happen on the first of every month
  • C. Despite surrenders on the OWF, no terms have been offered and no attempts to have communication between parties has been established properly (t$ literally hasn't gotten a server and has been kicked out of one)
  • D. ColB leadership wishes for disbandment of ColA alliances. (No alliance in this game is every going to voluntarily disband from an external mandate, this is not CN)
  • E. Apparently despite having literal months at this point, ColB hasn't figured out what terms it wants
  • F. ColB leadership believes that T$ hasn't fought long enough and wants to continue the war against them

And there's more, but I'm not going to bother with it since I have other things to do.

A. Quit posting here

B. Process agreed upon apperently

C. U dont know what the terms are cause u walked from the process meaning TS negotiations where to happen after the rest of ur coalition came to agreement. 

D ur right not CN  but with that in mind ur assuming disbandment without hearing any terms 

E. U dont know cause u didnt wait to hear them or stay in talks once ur paranoia and suspensions got the best of u 

F.  Actually may be possible but u dont know agian for fact unless the actual talks happened . Meaning hence why they were separated for a agreement meaning yes they may have had to fight a lot longer but that time would of been determined by the lengths of the negotiations for the rest of ur coalition... 

 

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, brucemna said:

A. Quit posting here

B. Process agreed upon apperently

C. U dont know what the terms are cause u walked from the process meaning TS negotiations where to happen after the rest of ur coalition came to agreement. 

D ur right not CN  but with that in mind ur assuming disbandment without hearing any terms 

E. U dont know cause u didnt wait to hear them or stay in talks once ur paranoia and suspensions got the best of u 

F.  Actually may be possible but u dont know agian for fact unless the actual talks happened . Meaning hence why they were separated for a agreement meaning yes they may have had to fight a lot longer but that time would of been determined by the lengths of the negotiations for the rest of ur coalition... 

 

For D,E,F, there was a set of publicly posted logs that literally contained all of those. As for A, given that any and all OWF postings were made months after negotiations were attempted,. This happened before anything was posting. As for B, agreed upon mainly because yet again, we're trying to communicate and will take any offer to communicate if it's available. As for C, yet again, we've trying to communicate and obtain terms for months, and yet again we've gotten nothing beyond the basic surrender term (we literally found out about more terms from leaks than from your official negotiators).

As such, please go educate yourself on what's actually happening instead of parroting random talking points like a broken speechbot.

 

  • Upvote 2

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Smith said:

The logs were necessary because your coalition's leadership was publicly blaming us for no progress being made in peace talks while in private were strategizing on how to drag out the peace process for as long as possible to make as many people quit out of boredom on our side as they could.

I take it you didn't check the dates on the logs?  The people who made them made them before any negotiations began here.

5 hours ago, Smith said:

It's not acceptable to gaslight somebody and expect them to just sit back and take the abuse. The blame here is on your leadership for developing a strategy specifically designed to pressure people out of the game. It's not on us for to standing up to people telling intentional lies. This war has been going on for like 7 months, there is no reason for anybody to believe that your coalition leadership was going to change their tactics when they were still lying about what they were doing. Keep in mind that during the period that you are saying we should have still been trying to negotiate they were still trying to think of ways to drag the war out. The only option we had left when shown that your leadership was trying to delay talks to get everybody to quit was at least show what they were saying isn't true. 

This is just incorrect.  Not hard to believe,, but if most CoA members think like this it's no wonder they're out of control and preventing negotiations.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.