Popular Post Prefonteen Posted November 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) Greetings, friends! Almost 3 weeks ago, Coalition A posted two separate public announcements in which KERCHTOGG and $yndisphere both offered their preliminary surrender, contingent on the negotiation of terms. These surrenders marked the fulfillment of demands set by Coalition B as prerequisites for any negotiation to occur and were posted separately as a token of good faith following the near breakdown of the monthly (1st of the month) negotiations. The statements of some Coalition B officials had indicated that the fulfillment of these demands would allow for the beginning of earnest negotiations and ultimately, peace. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. It has been well documented that prior to the expansion of the war to include The $yndicate and its allies, KERCHTOGG-Coalition B peace had stalled. For reasons of their own, Coalition B implemented a 1-month timeline for any talks, meaning that on the 1st of every month, KERCHTOGG would be given a window to surrender. If KERCHTOGG failed to do so, no avenues for peace were to be had until the next month. A few weeks prior to the November 1st negotiations, Coalition B was informed that Coalition A intended for the negotiations to include $yndicate representatives: Spoiler Shortly thereafter, Afrika Korps inquired with t$ about their position on the coalition and peace. As Coalition B has justified its escalation with t$ by asserting that The $yndicate's protection of TEst was an "aggressive" interference in the broader coalition war and as consequently, t$ and its allies had been engaged by a variety of Coalition B participants, we had been under the impression that Coalition B viewed us as a part of Coalition A. Spoiler Our response went unanswered until November 1st, the night of the preliminary negotiations. Spoiler Once Khai answered, we immediately confirmed what Adrienne had already told Coalition B on October 17th: that t$ and its allies sought to to be included in coalition-wide negotiations. As no objections had been raised, we were under the impression that a joint negotiation was to kick off later that night. Unfortunately, when negotiations did begin and representatives were brought into the chat, the appointed $yndicate representative was promptly removed. Furthermore, the tone of the negotiations was immediately set by Sealteam6, one of the appointed Coalition B negotiators. Spoiler Simultaneously, The $yndicate's inquiries through private channels were initially ignored and eventual responses were evasive. Sphinx: Spoiler TheNG: Spoiler Skae: Spoiler The $yndicate's inquiries through private channels were leveraged by under to (troll) admonish KERCHTOGG for "trying to go around their appointed negotiators". In addition, Coalition B negotiators set a 24 hour deadline for KERCHTOGG to surrender if negotiations were to begin. After the 24 hour window, there would (again) be no avenue toward peace for an additional month (until Dec 1st). Spoiler For the remainder of the 24 hour window, Coalition B negotiators were barely responsive in their chats with KERCHTOGG, and t$ received no updates. The public surrenders were posted a few hours before the window would close as a token of good faith. By compromising and allowing negotiations to be conducted separately despite our preference for joint negotiations, and by accepting the preliminary surrender requirement, our coalition sought to open up an earnest dialogue with the intent of negotiating the terms of our surrender. Starting with the KERCHTOGG surrender negotiations, the following snippets stem from the first days after the negotiating channels were opened. These days primarily saw KERCHTOGG requesting to for the presentation of peace terms, as well as occasional inquiries as to the status of t$. Spoiler ----- ----- ----- ----- The structure of peace talks as enforced by Coalition B is, on its own, debatable. Coalition B has opted to hide the content of the terms of surrender, revealing one article at a time and refusing to move on until that article is (barring exceptional circumstances) irrevocably accepted. Aragorn has publicly argued that this approach has been the norm prior to Knightfall. That has proven to be a lie. The argument Coalition B brings forth for this approach is one of structure and speed. We pose that it is designed to force Coalition A negotiators to negotiate blindly and at a disadvantage and to cause talks to proceed more slowly. In a vacuum, the reservations concerning this structure might've been set aside for the sake of good faith. Unfortunately, the conduct of underlord as well as the continued silence regarding half of the coalition served to enhance already existing concerns over the motivations underlying Coalition B's approach toward these negotiations. A few days ago, Epi (CAM gov) also publicly commented on the potential cause for the delays in presentation of terms to t$. Spoiler When Coalition A agreed to surrender and to accept the demand for separate negotiations, it did so with the understanding that peace terms would be presented, and that the entirety of the coalition (even if negotiations were to be separate) would be given the chance to begin working towards peace. This understanding is derived from posts such as: Spoiler Ultimately, the broad categories of the terms (without details as to what they entail) were presented. Spoiler Article I - Official Surrender Article II - Cessation of Hostilities Article III - NAP Article IV - Physical & Material Reparations Article V - Colour, Flag, & Theme Terms Article VI - War Heroes Article VII - Financial Terms Article VIII - Public Announcements Article IX - Thunderdome Article X - Fun Terms As the initial articles include (forced) admissions of guilt and revocations of CBs, the blind negotiation of terms creates a dilemma for us. The (irrevocable) acceptance of such an admission of guilt - even if these admissions were based on false premises - weakens one's position when it comes to Articles such as IV and VII. When one does not know the impact of term 1 on term 8, it becomes impossible to evaluate the merits of accepting, rejecting, or negotiating said terms for his side. The negotiating position of our side would therefore be untenable. Furthermore, while it has been suspected for quite some time due to all of the aforementioned occurrences, we've recently had it confirmed that Coalition B does not actually desire peace and these occurrences are intentional with the aim of delaying peace talks. The log below isn't our only piece of intel regarding this but serves as a sample of the information we've been receiving. Spoiler Between notorious trolls hijacking the negotiation process from the beginning, a negotiation structure designed to undermine Coalition A negotiators, the structural delays in moving the $yndisphere peace process forward, general lack of clarity in Coalition B communication, public hints by Coalition B government officials regarding the above issues being deliberate, and the apparent lack of desire for actual peace, the collective alliances of Coalition A conclude that they can no longer in good faith maintain the status quo with regards to negotiations. Considering the unfortunate exhaustion of good faith through these negotiations, the alliances comprising Coalition A consider themselves unified for the duration of the war. Moving forward, all negotiations will be conducted jointly. We furthermore withdraw from negotiations until a full list of terms is presented to representatives of the entire coalition. Our offer to surrender jointly will continue to stand, as will our offer to negotiate the terms one by one (chronologically) once the full, detailed list of terms has been published. /s/ All Coalition A Combatants Arrgh Aurora Carthago Church of Atom Church of Spaceology Empyrea The Fighting Pacifists The Golden Horde Grumpy Old Bastards Guardian House Stark Knights Templar The Knights Radiant Oblivion Order of the White Rose Rose Sanreizan Seven Kingdoms Silenzio Soup Kitchen The Syndicate/The Enterprise Terminus Est Typhon Valinor and all associated fighters Edited November 20, 2019 by Prefonteen 8 1 3 131 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Solomon Wolfe Posted November 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) So the truth comes out as it always does eventually. Wonder what spin Coalition B will put on all this to say we’re the ones stalling. Edited November 20, 2019 by Solomon Wolfe 1 19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Solomon Wolfe said: So the truth comes out as it always does eventually. Wonder what spin Coalition A will put on all this to say we’re the ones stalling. You mean coalition B? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Wolfe Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Lol, yeah. Thanks for telling me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roq Posted November 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 Guys, you're taking this FAR too seriously. Obviously BK camp is annoyed and upset. She's been asking for you to do stuff in a fashion that any women would. She's just being indirect, my young lad. When you get older, you will both understand ladies more, and understand ladies less... That's just something you have to deal with. Now go buy a bouquet and a box of chocolates, and go apologize young man. I want you and this lady to be romping by the nights end! 1 5 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Solomon Wolfe Posted November 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 It’s apparent that Coalition B doesn’t want peace. Why should we continue to ask for it then? We will never beg for it if that’s what they’re thinking. They want endless war, then that’s what they should receive. BK/NPO will know it was a mistake to mess with T$ and they should be the ones begging for peace next June when we’re still fighting and they’ve run out of resources/money with their military-only builds. 1 1 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Benfro Posted November 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 We look forward to a rational and well argued response from the opposing Coalition... 3 1 15 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygon Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Darth Ataxia Posted November 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Benfro said: We look forward to a rational and well argued response from the opposing Coalition... I wish you luck in your quest 1 17 1 House Stark Discord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr James Wilson Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Can you really withdraw from negotiations that only happen once a month and are more a formality then an actual forum for discussion? 1 2 The Volleyball Avanti Immortali ..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artifex Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Pic is Coal B in a nutshell 1 1 2 Love you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinesomeMC Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 This is why Coalition C will be the true winner 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Joe Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 "The great battle of our time" because we're all going to die of old age before this war comes to a conclusion. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limbuwan Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 24 minutes ago, Solomon Wolfe said: It’s apparent that Coalition B doesn’t want peace. Why should we continue to ask for it then? We will never beg for it if that’s what they’re thinking. They want endless war, then that’s what they should receive. BK/NPO will know it was a mistake to mess with T$ and they should be the ones begging for peace next June when we’re still fighting and they’ve run out of resources/money with their military-only builds. Baseball 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Betting 1 food Col B will post a forum post to counter this. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namukara Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 29 minutes ago, Benfro said: We look forward to a rational and well argued response from the opposing Coalition... I think you might be waiting a while for that. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalev60 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Well the most obvious Colo B spin would be that: Colo A is stalling and making peacetalks impossible by not accepting all the terms blindly and outrightly But seriously this is getting ridiculous 5 Charlie Chaplin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Wolfe Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Limbuwan said: Baseball Income from playing isn’t very significant. There’s a reason why BK bought hundreds of thousands of resources at decreased prices from whales last month. They couldn’t afford the prices on the market. They had what... $20B (resources/money) remaining in their war chests before T$phere entered the war. Assuming it’s lower now. NPO may have an actual bank still, but they’ve given billions to their allies to keep them in the war, specifically Cam and GOONs. This is while having military-only builds themselves. I know they say NPO’s bank is huge. But supporting hundreds of ppl for months on end with little replacement of funds will have taxed a huge percentage of their reserves. Income from baseball won’t replace it. Edited November 20, 2019 by Solomon Wolfe 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hodor Posted November 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) Ugh, Partisan, how dare you?! Coalition B has made it clear that leaking the contents of the totally good faith negotiations would result in totally not good faith negotiations. How dare you squander their totally honest and earnest outreach?!? Edited November 20, 2019 by Hodor 1 37 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Clooney Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 I'm trying to figure out how this topic moves you closer to peace. I'm also trying to figure out how this moves the peace process beyond the constant whining about procedure that has taken place so far. Of course if you were actually engaged in something called 'negotiations' regarding the terms as they come up, that'd be great, but that's not happening at the moment either. Evidently, you like the current state of things, and don't want peace. So be it. I'm comfortable watching your members delete in frustration (R.I.P. G Nation) and your alliances slowly die. Are you? 3 1 1 78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefonteen Posted November 20, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, George Clooney said: I'm trying to figure out how this topic moves you closer to peace. I'm also trying to figure out how this moves the peace process beyond the constant whining about procedure that has taken place so far. Of course if you were actually engaged in something called 'negotiations' regarding the terms as they come up, that'd be great, but that's not happening at the moment either. Evidently, you like the current state of things, and don't want peace. So be it. I'm comfortable watching your members delete in frustration (R.I.P. G Nation) and your alliances slowly die. Are you? Have some more koolaid. This topic does not move us closer to peace. It also does not move us farther away from peace than we already were. The conduct of your negotiators in combination with intel from multiple sources indicating that there is no earnest desire for peace among coalition B government, has led us to conclude that there is no longer merit in indulging coalition B's transparent attempt at deliberately delaying peace talks and gaslighting us over it in public (as you are doing now). As for you second statement: Funny. That sort of sums up the general motivations of some coalition B government officials which have been leaked to us in private. 1 1 48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namukara Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, George Clooney said: I'm trying to figure out how this topic moves you closer to peace. I'm also trying to figure out how this moves the peace process beyond the constant whining about procedure that has taken place so far. Of course if you were actually engaged in something called 'negotiations' regarding the terms as they come up, that'd be great, but that's not happening at the moment either. Evidently, you like the current state of things, and don't want peace. So be it. I'm comfortable watching your members delete in frustration (R.I.P. G Nation) and your alliances slowly die. Are you? Why would they agree to terms without knowing the rest of them while they're doing it? It makes no sense as a negotiating strategy if you genuinely have any desire for peace. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MonkeyDLegend Posted November 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, George Clooney said: I'm comfortable watching your members delete in frustration (R.I.P. G Nation) and your alliances slowly die. Are you? Don't pretend you know why G Nation deleted, also you should learn to read. 1 8 Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D Former Director of Finance, Security in e$ Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Wellington Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Do you really need this much text to say: 1. Coal B wont present all terms at once, we dont like that, we want them all at once! 2. The enemy is stupid and nasty! We act in good faith, they are bad! 2 1 2 39 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts