Jump to content

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a suggestion (point 5)

1. War starts. Coal a wins.

2. War continues. Coal B wins.

3. After 3 or so months of attrition war, I got several messages calling me to leave BK, a half baked attempt of a surrender post was made.

4. The owf turned out as front 2. Alot of blaming over and forth between coal a and b. Coal A is still losing on all ingame fronts exept spies (see stats).

5. Coal A stopts the blame game (even making perhaps valid points). Some time after peace talks happen in a better atmosphere, away from the OWF. It might have taken some time but finally prefonteen & co discover that shouting and flaming against people you want to deal with does not really get them to see things your way.

 

* making point by point posts really stays awesome

* everything coal a pointed out might be right. Where did it bring us thus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, brucemna said:

Excuse me for reading his words as if he was part of ur coalition since he is defending you. And the sensitive skin was about ur coalition not him as I tried to emphasize. 

Yeah I'm not a coalition B person. I'm just giving my opinion on how things look right now.

NPO really needs to drop this "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. The rest of the world is watching, reading, and seeing what is happening. Not all of us are inherently opposed to NPO but upon viewing your actions once you achieved the upper hand... yikes.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

You have to start with one term and then go to a second.

Because it bears repeating: This is the first time in this world that anyone has tried to insist on doing terms this way.

I've seen it done by NPO (and only NPO) in other worlds, but that's it.

Edited by Azaghul
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Again: t$ has not been offered terms. No first term either. Your point is moot.

Thread's about Coalition A, not ts.

10 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Yeah, no. You don't get to justify your leadership's lies by claiming that "WE HAVE A LOT OF CHANNELS SO THIS IS SNAPSHOT" because 1) it does not discard what has been leaked and 2) we *do* have the context.

All of the other channels and times are where the other elements of the logs resided and 2) you *do not* have those

7 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

There would be no need for such a secrecy and/or piecemeal release, if the terms were reasonable.

Or, historically the confidentiality has always been how it's done and he other change has its reasons.

25 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

Because it bears repeating: This is the first time in this world that anyone has tried to insist on doing terms this way.

I've seen it done by NPO (and only NPO) in other worlds, but that's it.

So.... not the first time.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Thread's about Coalition A, not ts.

All of the other channels and times are where the other elements of the logs resided and 2) you *do not* have those

Or, historically the confidentiality has always been how it's done and he other change has its reasons.

So.... not the first time.

Friend... are you telling the OP of the thread that the announcement he posted in his capacity as a representative of his alliance and its coalition....  is not about his alliance?

 

giphy.gif

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Haha 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Which of the wars had their negotiations in public?

There's no need to worry about reasonable terms leaking, because there's no benefit to leaking them.

As such, the refusal to present them as a whole is an implicit acknowledgement that they're no good.

Thank you for playing.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Friend... are you telling the OP of the thread that the announcement he posted in his capacity as a representative of his alliance and its coalition....  is not about his alliance?

You titled it "An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks." As tS is not in CoA, this thread can't be about tS.

22 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

There's no need to worry about reasonable terms leaking, because there's no benefit to leaking them.

Have you noticed how little has been leaked so far?  It's weird to have that happen. No one's ever done peace negotiations in public and we're not doing it this time either.

22 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

As such, the refusal to present them as a whole is an implicit acknowledgement that they're no good.

Nope. While we have our reasons we see no reason to make them public as this is a private matter.

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

You titled it "An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks." As tS is not in CoA, this thread can't be about tS.

Have you noticed how little has been leaked so far?  It's weird to have that happen. No one's ever done peace negotiations in public and we're not doing it this time either.

Nope. While we have our reasons we see no reason to make them public as this is a private matter.

 

Ok gooner.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

I think Kerchtogg received literally a single term, our issue is that we don’t know the terms before we negotiate. And term 1 is basically lying about our CB.

 

I’m not KT’s FA btw. But I’m so tired of you making up shit. 

How is that making up shit? KERTCHOGG received the first team, we negotiated came to an agreement and the negotiations stopped there. That's fact. Where really is the lie here? :v 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Have you noticed how little has been leaked so far?  It's weird to have that happen. No one's ever done peace negotiations in public and we're not doing it this time either.

I've indeed noticed that more has been let out than what Yammie took in from Skate.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

That we got terms (plural) is a lie. We got 1 term. Out of 12. With no idea what the rest of the terms are, how can you expect negotiations? 

If you weren't to be entirely factual, you did receive terms. You accepted term 1 and received term 2. So plural works here. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CandyShi said:

This is kind of disingenuous, since term 1 was the official surrender, which we did prior to negotiations. But if you want to count it so you can save face, sure I’ll rephrase that.

 

 NPO only presented one term after we agreed to surrender.

 

You accepted to surrender and we presented to you the entire surrender term as Term 1. Term 2 went into different things, Term 3 etc etc. The fact that we only achieved a discussion on Term 1 is on you not us really, given how we were willing to continue going forward through the terms one by one, as clearly outlined before we opened the first round of negotiations. 

That's not really disingenuous. That's the process. You started it and then chose to walk away. That's all documented fact. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

So.... not the first time.

First time in this world though.  And NPO has been desperate to convey the idea that they aren't the same as they are in other worlds and should be given a clean slate in this world.

If that was the case, they wouldn't be acting in a way that is so unprecedented in this world and unique to them in other worlds.

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

You titled it "An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks." As tS is not in CoA, this thread can't be about tS.

Have you noticed how little has been leaked so far?  It's weird to have that happen. No one's ever done peace negotiations in public and we're not doing it this time either.

Nope. While we have our reasons we see no reason to make them public as this is a private matter.

 

3ixp86.jpg

Is this really what we have to argue against?

  • Haha 3

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Azaghul said:

Because it bears repeating: This is the first time in this world that anyone has tried to insist on doing terms this way.

I've seen it done by NPO (and only NPO) in other worlds, but that's it.

Sure and things change.... 

5 hours ago, CandyShi said:

not according to NPO and the rest of the game.

irrelevant to the point, but ok.

Also if you define CoB’s entire war discord as “little”, you’re dumb.

 

Pretty sure he(she?) was talking about the terms in private. Your coalition refused to present all the terms, and as such we assumed they were bullshit.

AND WE HAVE A WINNER .... the word assumed ... never assume hence why ua all in this position 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

Pretty sure you missed the part earlier where I say “I’m not a representative of CoA”.

 

This is all my speculation.

 

Aside from that, nice attempt at victim blaming. “Oh you assumed that there was malicious intent because of sketchy circumstances, that’s your fault”. 

And I assume we are still stalling you because it's funny. Just speculation though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CandyShi said:

Pretty sure you missed the part earlier where I say “I’m not a representative of CoA”.

 

This is all my speculation.

 

Aside from that, nice attempt at victim blaming. “Oh you assumed that there was malicious intent because of sketchy circumstances, that’s your fault”. 

Well when u use the word we it tends to put u in the pack. Refer back to ur post 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tiberius said:

And I assume we are still stalling you because it's funny. Just speculation though.

You're stalling because you're trying to drag out this war to maximize attrition and disbandment.  It's been clearly evidence in the logs that this is your strategy due to personal grudges against coalition A and some corruption of realpolitik ad absurdum.  

If you don't think you're stalling, I don't know what world you are living in.  I mean your mouthpieces are here arguing about whether T$ is in coalition A, presenting laughable terms, ignoring/trolling our reps and not engaging in real negotiations.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

You're stalling because you're trying to drag out this war to maximize attrition and disbandment.  It's been clearly evidence in the logs that this is your strategy due to personal grudges against coalition A and some corruption of realpolitik ad absurdum.  

If you don't think you're stalling, I don't know what world you are living in.  I mean your mouthpieces are here arguing about whether T$ is in coalition A, presenting laughable terms, ignoring/trolling our reps and not engaging in real negotiations.  

Mouthpieces? Seriously ... and your side wonders why no one wants to forge ahead when ur saying these things? Lol .. 

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.