Jump to content
Prefonteen

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Thanks

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 6

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, japan77 said:

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

The irony.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brucemna said:

 

This name looks familiar lol 

That doesnt answer the question though does it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, Milton might not actually know what is going on in upper gov and might just be repeating whatever line he has been given. Parrots are great mimics after all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Nah, he's intentionally bullshitting.

Captain obvious over here ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.