Archibald Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Prefonteen said: Nope, reread my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) i know the thread has been hijacked and taken OOC with false OOC claims. Here is the OP and topic at hand. Coalition B feigned allowing peace. As you can see by their behavior, and admittdely by themselves. They intentionally stalled peace with a prerequisite that nation's and whole alliances from coalition A delete. We are told we cannot have peace because we delayed peace. This post was in response to the false claims, clearly disproven with the logs provided here where coalition B government admittedly, and in coalition channels were in fact intentionally delaying with no intention of peace, contrary to the claim The only other argument by coal b is they delayed peace because coal A posted logs, a retrospective argument, as you cannot have cause before effect. 1 hour ago, Archibald said: Edited December 7, 2019 by James II 2 "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, James II said: i know the thread has been hijacked and taken OOC with false OOC claima. Here is the OP and topic at hand. Coalition B feigned allowing peace. As you can see by their behavior, and admittdely by themselves. They intentionally stalled peace with a prerequisite that nation's and whole alliances from coalition A delete. We are told we cannot have peace because we posted the logs of their behavior in response to their false claims (as shown) that we delayed peace. This post was in response to the false claims that it was us delaying the peace, an outright lie and clearly disproven, with the actual events being contrary. The only other argument by coal b is they delayed peace because coal A posted logs, a retrospective argument, as you cannot have cause before effect. I didn't say anything about peace re: that. What I said was it was reprehensible. Not sure how many times we can tell y'all but goons has one negotiating rep and it ain't me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Archibald said: I didn't say anything about peace re: that. What I said was it was reprehensible. Not sure how many times we can tell y'all but goons has one negotiating rep and it ain't me. As you can see in the OP, and a number of comments in this thread. Your claims, including OOC attacks, are categorically false. Gas lighting will get you no where. Please stay on topic. Coalition B admits they never intended for peace, and that deletions (as shown in the logs) are a prerequisite for peace. The representatives they sent, were sent to troll coalition B (as shown in the logs). Log dumping after the fact, cannot be causation for the initial peace attempts being undermined, as cause must come before effect. The argument is objectively contrary to logic. 4 "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemna Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, James II said: i know the thread has been hijacked and taken OOC with false OOC claims. Here is the OP and topic at hand. Coalition B feigned allowing peace. As you can see by their behavior, and admittdely by themselves. They intentionally stalled peace with a prerequisite that nation's and whole alliances from coalition A delete. We are told we cannot have peace because we delayed peace. This post was in response to the false claims, clearly disproven with the logs provided here where coalition B government admittedly, and in coalition channels were in fact intentionally delaying with no intention of peace, contrary to the claim The only other argument by coal b is they delayed peace because coal A posted logs, a retrospective argument, as you cannot have cause before effect. In this snap the words kert.. will never surrender. Edited December 7, 2019 by brucemna 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, brucemna said: In this snap the words kert.. will never surrender. Except I’m not KERTOG & don’t decide these things, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemna Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, brucemna said: In this snap the words kert.. will never surrender. As well apperently if u back track more u where actually told it may take up to 30 days and throughput the talks u did have meaning the op .. it was told to u that terms were to be given one by one. But regardless in the op the key is up to 30 days but yet u posted and started dumping logs at 20 ...as well originally u all walked because TS was not included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, brucemna said: As well apperently if u back track more u where actually told it may take up to 30 days and throughput the talks u did have meaning the op .. it was told to u that terms were to be given one by one. But regardless in the op the key is up to 30 days but yet u posted and started dumping logs at 20 ...as well originally u all walked because TS was not included. As presented in the OP and In the logs, coal b were intentionally trolling in the peace discussions and throughout the process with no intention of allowing anyone in coalition A to surrender. That is why the logs are here. Not for you to derail the thread, but so that you can see your leadership has no intention of allowing us to surrender until a number of alliances and nation's in coalition delete. Edited December 7, 2019 by James II "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemna Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, James II said: As presented in the OP and In the logs, coal b were intentionally trolling in the peace discussions and throughout the process with no intention of allowing anyone in coalition A to surrender. That is why the logs are here. Not for you to derail the thread, but so that you can see your leadership has no intention of allowing us to surrender until a number of alliances and nation's in coalition delete. Seems to me that u guys can not accept something unless u get what u want when u want it. Which part u were told in the channels up to 30 days? Seriously u could not wait. Even Adrienne was teting to push for the terms on the spot for the full list. Which I am not criticizing but at the same time u were told thirty days.. so when someone says we will not surrender and someone saying TS is not included them walk out of the process and then 20 days post and leak .. wait my side did that. NOT!!!! U did not like the process which was going so now ur just trying to justify urselfs why the delay now. Do not tell me that there is not one of u that if the situation was not reverse u would still blame it on NPO trying the same crap. Or that u would not hold off or have not even in it own back channels !@#$ed or said similar things. And if u want to deny it .. post every log that shows every word of ur own back channel. The biggest problem u guys have is u think of the past cause all the wars before this went smooth like a baby butt. Well so what we are talking today and only today. None of u have any kind of thick skin cause personally if I saw them logs all my response would be oh well ain't the last time we gonna get trash talked or trolled. Seriously .. u guys say we want peace but yet not one of u can say maybe should of waited the 30 days to start this post period. U couldn't follow the outlined process so own it. 18 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said: Except I’m not KERTOG & don’t decide these things, lol. Sorry my buttons on phone where not working on some posts for some reason 8 hours 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? No stalling when they were told 30 days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 7, 2019 Author Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 hour ago, brucemna said: In this snap the words kert.. will never surrender. Noctis is not a part of our coalition. Your snapshot is irrelevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan77 Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 33 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Noctis is not a part of our coalition. Your snapshot is irrelevant? cool. Apparently, claims made by 3rd parties are relevant. Alright, time to leave our AAs, state outright absurd things and have them accepted as evidence. I don't sleep enough Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian Lastly, Hello world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 13 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. Are they at peace now? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illenium Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Quick/short thought: I actually miss IQ because IQ would of white peaced the war in 40 days. 3 1 Kitsune magics are fun~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 15 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. It wasn't effective lol. Basically the only thing that will change anything is war fatigue or pity. Almost no one who wasn't sympathetic to you before is sympathetic now. Edited December 7, 2019 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 So ineffective that you threatened people over it, and had your narrative killed on it's tracks about who was stalling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: So ineffective that you threatened people over it, and had your narrative killed on it's tracks about who was stalling. And the result is further stalling. incredibly effective 10/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: And the result is further stalling. incredibly effective 10/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: Refer back to my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Partisan's post had already addressed it before it was made. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemna Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 14 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: I would say it moved peace further away. For people that are saying that they are peeved at Ts being held out of talks to extend them in war and then not waiting til at least up til 30 days for the terms by posting this topic they extended it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 The remaining seven days (wherever that may have come from) would've made 0 difference, given the behavior and the logs. But you're free to keep grasping at straws and citing Noctis as somehow being a voicer for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, brucemna said: I would say it moved peace further away. For people that are saying that they are peeved at Ts being held out of talks to extend them in war and then not waiting til at least up til 30 days for the terms by posting this topic they extended it themselves. The longest war in the game’s history needed an extra month to figure out their initial peace offer? At least own up to it and say you guys didn’t even want peace yet. The logs already proved it multiple times anyway. I used to write college essays an hour before turning them in. Your collective coalition can’t present video game peace terms in under 30 days? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 8, 2019 Author Share Posted December 8, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, brucemna said: I would say it moved peace further away. For people that are saying that they are peeved at Ts being held out of talks to extend them in war and then not waiting til at least up til 30 days for the terms by posting this topic they extended it themselves. Ah yes. If we had posted it after 30 days of waiting rather than 21 days, surely you would have instantly presented your terms. How dare we! Edited December 8, 2019 by Prefonteen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemna Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Just now, Shiho Nishizumi said: The remaining seven days (wherever that may have come from) would've made 0 difference, given the behavior and the logs. But you're free to keep grasping at straws and citing Noctis as somehow being a voicer for us. Regardless of behavior or logs waiting the extra days might of helped. For 1 u dont know what would of happened and after 30 days then maybe it would of made ur propaganda post meaning this topic a little more legit. Even the original post logs I after reading it had a sense of desperation and impatience. Posting only after 20 days just shows ur pissed cause u wanted to dictate and getvwjat u want when u want it. It did not happen so here here we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 8, 2019 Author Share Posted December 8, 2019 Just now, brucemna said: Regardless of behavior or logs waiting the extra days might of helped. For 1 u dont know what would of happened and after 30 days then maybe it would of made ur propaganda post meaning this topic a little more legit. Even the original post logs I after reading it had a sense of desperation and impatience. Posting only after 20 days just shows ur pissed cause u wanted to dictate and getvwjat u want when u want it. It did not happen so here here we are. You'd have said the exact same thing after 30 days as you are saying now, friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts