Jump to content

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours 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.

I wonder if this will eventually become true if you keep repeating it?

  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

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

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.

You realize I can just post logs showing you are lying right?

Early November here is NPO amongst others discussing how to stall peace talks:

underlordgc11/3/2019, 7:55:58 AM

Anyways, I can give a link to kertogibdvsujs to join the peace server

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

###

TheNG11/1/2019, 4:46:18 PM

I mean there’s plenty of ways to slow down talks

TheNG11/1/2019, 4:46:29 PM

We have reps demands in our back pocket

TheNG11/1/2019, 4:46:40 PM

The various humiliating joke terms

###

Leo the Great11/1/2019, 6:01:53 PM

I don’t think the discussion was about about actually finding peace

Leo the Great11/1/2019, 6:02:08 PM

Rather two different ways of prolonging it till they are dead

Roquentin11/1/2019, 6:02:17 PM

ah

Roquentin11/1/2019, 6:02:26 PM

well the not including thme is a goood stlal tactic

Leo the Great11/1/2019, 6:02:33 PM

Drag peace talks vs insist on separating them

Roquentin11/1/2019, 6:02:44 PM

separate talks for anyone not kertchogg proper

---

A couple weeks later here is NPO amongst others blaming us for peace talks not going fast after planning to make them slow:

They even made the argument that they were trying to increase the speed of peace talks while secretly planning to do the opposite 

Edited by Smith
  • Upvote 2

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Smith said:

You realize I can just post logs showing you are lying right?

Early November here is NPO amongst others discussing how to stall peace talks:

underlordgc11/3/2019, 7:55:58 AM

Anyways, I can give a link to kertogibdvsujs to join the peace server

underlordgc11/3/2019, 7:56:43 AM

That can be adjusted just as easily as the logs themselves.  It's nearing the point of just saying remain at war for as long as you like and you know the things you have to do in order to resume peace talks. Do those things to then pursue peace. Do not do those things and you're tacitly admitting you want to continue the war.

  • Haha 1

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

That can be adjusted just as easily as the logs themselves.  It's nearing the point of just saying remain at war for as long as you like and you know the things you have to do in order to resume peace talks. Do those things to then pursue peace. Do not do those things and you're tacitly admitting you want to continue the war.

This ain't it, chief.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2019 at 11:07 PM, ComradeMilton said:

What's going in these threads is entirely counterproductive. CoB's negotiating team might start talking to him again if he closes these threads and contacts them in the negotiations server in private.

tenor.gif?itemid=5274592

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of complaining by Col B about how Col A made things public just serves to prove that it was an effective move.

For those in Coalition B who actually want peace, they need to think about what they would play along with if they were in our shoes.   I very much doubt many of them would be reacting much differently than we are.

Wars in this world are simply too mutually destructive in both net damage and opportunity cost for the winning side to have the leverage to make the other side do whatever it wants.  

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tiberius said:

'Despite any stalling'

Third party here. Glad someone on colB is finally addressing the stalling.

My question to you is, do you think the stalling (which has been shown to be intentional not circumstantial by the logs unless you can prove otherwise) is okay? 

I think the main argument from coA is that stalling is bad faith negotiation, especially when done 'so we can get two months more of infra grinding.'(underlordgc) In the past I believe that peace negotiations have been swift and have never heard of intentional stalling before which I too, would feel like was done in bad faith if I had to experience it.

What is your sides pov?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

The amount of complaining by Col B about how Col A made things public just serves to prove that it was an effective move.

For those in Coalition B who actually want peace, they need to think about what they would play along with if they were in our shoes.   I very much doubt many of them would be reacting much differently than we are.

Wars in this world are simply too mutually destructive in both net damage and opportunity cost for the winning side to have the leverage to make the other side do whatever it wants.  

No one is complaining lol ... only complaint I see is the original post complaining that there is no terms given.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Darzy said:

Third party here. Glad someone on colB is finally addressing the stalling.

My question to you is, do you think the stalling (which has been shown to be intentional not circumstantial by the logs unless you can prove otherwise) is okay? 

I think the main argument from coA is that stalling is bad faith negotiation, especially when done 'so we can get two months more of infra grinding.'(underlordgc) In the past I believe that peace negotiations have been swift and have never heard of intentional stalling before which I too, would feel like was done in bad faith if I had to experience it.

What is your sides pov?

Yes, stalling is absolutely okay. Stalling in general happens a lot more than you think. Just one example of stalling from Coalition A would be that they stalled in agreeing to surrender for a while. It was pretty clear after the first month that Coalition B would be winning this war. Yet they stalled for 4 months before agreeing to surrender. Just because Coalition A at that point wanted terms doesn't mean Coalition B needs to start talks until they are ready to do so. 

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

16 minutes ago, Darzy said:

Third party here. Glad someone on colB is finally addressing the stalling.

My question to you is, do you think the stalling (which has been shown to be intentional not circumstantial by the logs unless you can prove otherwise) is okay? 

I think the main argument from coA is that stalling is bad faith negotiation, especially when done 'so we can get two months more of infra grinding.'(underlordgc) In the past I believe that peace negotiations have been swift and have never heard of intentional stalling before which I too, would feel like was done in bad faith if I had to experience it.

What is your sides pov?

I would say that dumping logs and bringing stuff forward is bad faith. Regardless of talks going slow or even being stalled if u may ... dumping logs and posting public is just not a good thing unless there is a joint agreement from both sides to post transparently.  If they did not want these talks to take so long they would of agreed to the process to reach terms in the order they would of occured. If at the end there is something in the terms they did not agree with then yes justifully they would have a reason to refuse any agreement. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yes, stalling is absolutely okay. Stalling in general happens a lot more than you think. Just one example of stalling from Coalition A would be that they stalled in agreeing to surrender for a while. It was pretty clear after the first month that Coalition B would be winning this war. Yet they stalled for 4 months before agreeing to surrender. Just because Coalition A at that point wanted terms doesn't mean Coalition B needs to start talks until they are ready to do so. 

Now now. They are not stalling.  They are dumping logs posting publicly and having peace talks here. You know just like the little kid whom sees candy on the store shelf and starts crying cause mommy says not yet we have to pay for the candy first. So the child starts crying yelling and screaming  throughout the store throwing temper tantrums and yells at other customers mommy is a bad person and mean to me cause she yelled at me to stop crying.  So mommy even takes the candy away til the child stops his crying and behaves.  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Yes, stalling is absolutely okay. Stalling in general happens a lot more than you think. Just one example of stalling from Coalition A would be that they stalled in agreeing to surrender for a while. It was pretty clear after the first month that Coalition B would be winning this war. Yet they stalled for 4 months before agreeing to surrender. Just because Coalition A at that point wanted terms doesn't mean Coalition B needs to start talks until they are ready to do so. 

I may not agree with your response completely but at least I got a civil response. Thank you! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brucemna said:

I would say that dumping logs and bringing stuff forward is bad faith. Regardless of talks going slow or even being stalled if u may ... dumping logs and posting public is just not a good thing unless there is a joint agreement from both sides to post transparently.  If they did not want these talks to take so long they would of agreed to the process to reach terms in the order they would of occured. If at the end there is something in the terms they did not agree with then yes justifully they would have a reason to refuse any agreement. 

"We did shitty things but they are the real meanies for exposing our bullshit."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

"We did shitty things but they are the real meanies for exposing our bullshit."

Well if I recall we all do shitty things or even say crap during war ... I think they call it something like in the heat of the moment stuff.  Secret is looking past it and moving on. It's called having thick skin .. not a ego f

Edited by brucemna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Azaghul said:

The amount of complaining by Col B about how Col A made things public just serves to prove that it was an effective move.

For those in Coalition B who actually want peace, they need to think about what they would play along with if they were in our shoes.   I very much doubt many of them would be reacting much differently than we are.

Wars in this world are simply too mutually destructive in both net damage and opportunity cost for the winning side to have the leverage to make the other side do whatever it wants.  

"Complaining"? You accepted leaked, personal logs including OOC information as part of your war effort. If we did the same you all would be -loudly- crying about the evil of coalition B and you know it. We'd have a thread an hour demanding Alex ban every coalition B member for having personal information. And frankly, you'd be in the right to do it.

None of us care about you "finding out" that our leaders don't much care for you all. That's literally how war goes and if you didn't know that before I don't know what to tell you. Our irritation stems from how much you're pretending to be in the right because a couple idiots mad they were no longer the centre of attention threw logs at you and you ate them up like candy.

Search my past posts and you'll see me regularly, often posting about how much I wish this war would end. Now? Now I would be completely ambivalent if we actually did try to burn you out of the game.

But the thing is - no one's going to do that. Because of course no one's going to do that. Because it was literally people chatting with friends (they thought) about how they're going to "destroy their opponents". Because people -talk like that in a private setting-.

This is the equivalent of leaking "logs" of someone saying "man I'm gonna KILL that guy" in irritation and going "As you can see they had plans to murder".

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

2 minutes ago, Archibald said:

"Complaining"? You accepted leaked, personal logs including OOC information as part of your war effort. If we did the same you all would be -loudly- crying about the evil of coalition B and you know it. We'd have a thread an hour demanding Alex ban every coalition B member for having personal information. And frankly, you'd be in the right to do it.

None of us care about you "finding out" that our leaders don't much care for you all. That's literally how war goes and if you didn't know that before I don't know what to tell you. Our irritation stems from how much you're pretending to be in the right because a couple idiots mad they were no longer the centre of attention threw logs at you and you ate them up like candy.

Once again chief- are you sure you want to run with this one?

  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Archibald said:

Show me where I'm wrong and I'll concede.

I really, really hope you are not going to try to politicize this for the sake of muddying the water to cover up for your lack of IC arguments. Please view:

  

On 12/6/2019 at 12:24 AM, Prefonteen said:

You have no idea what this is about, do you? A full coalition channel log with 95% IC content was leaked and then spread. The channel contained a few discussion which included OOC content (read: discussion on RL stuff). The doc in question was long and most who shared it did so before reading it thoroughly, under the assumption that they were fully IC logs. The information in it pertained mostly IC info, and some OOC tidbits. 

Coalition B officials informed some of us that the logs contained some OOC material. Following that, the logs were immediately taken out of circulation in many coal A channels. My personal reaction was an immediate "Oh shit, thats not the intent- i'll get rid of 'em". While the material wasn't serious, none of us like OOC shit, and so we understood the gravity of the situation.

We are not looking at deliberate doxx or malicious intent, nor are we looking at a refusal to take accountability.The moment the problem was brought to our attention, correction ws attempted.

This is now (on multiple occasions) being used to start some witch hunt shitfest which I frankly find less than classy.

 

Unless the matter was taken farther than the above, that is. If that occurred feel free to correct me and i'll retract my words. OOC and doxxing has no place here.

 

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I really, really hope you are not going to try to politicize this for the sake of muddying the water to cover up for your lack of IC arguments. Please view:

  <bunch of crap about how accidental the dox was>

Buddy I don't give a damn-what- your intent was. You LEAKED IRL INFO. As someone who has already been doxxed themselves, please ask me how much I care about how "oopsy poopsy i stumbled upon real life information and didn't remove it :(".

Vet your shit better. This excuse doesn't fly.

Edited by Archibald
Used the word "shit" too much cause this is personal to me. Edited down.
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Archibald said:

Buddy I don't give a damn-what- your intent was. You LEAKED IRL INFO. As someone who has already been doxxed themselves, please ask me how much I care about how "oopsy poopsy i stumbled upon real life information and didn't remove it :(".

Vet your shit better. This excuse doesn't fly.

If you want to be specific, people from coalition B at the time leaked it. We received it.

Other than that, my point still applies. You can do 2 things: We either put the focus back on the IC or you can continue focusing on OOC things yet again, further contributing to the toxic OOC shitfest which has already been getting louder and louder.

I'd prefer staying IC.

  • Upvote 4

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

If you want to be specific, people from coalition B at the time leaked it. We received it.

Other than that, my point still applies. You can do 2 things: We either put the focus back on the IC or you can continue focusing on OOC things yet again, further contributing to the toxic OOC shitfest which has already been getting louder and louder.

I'd prefer staying IC.

lmao. Please, please tell me your argument is "Actually, we didn't leak it, it was your guy sooooo we are the heroes"

Please.

  • Downvote 3
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.