Jump to content

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 673
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 negoti

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 f

That the exact problem with PnW. If you're (regardless of what coalition you're in) comfortable with watching people delete you're part of the problem. 

Posted Images

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
Link to post
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.

 

Link to post
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 post
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
Link to post
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 post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Archibald said:

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

Please.

Nope, reread my statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by James II
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Screenshot_20191207-124029_Samsung Internet.jpg

In this snap the words kert.. will never surrender.

 

Edited by brucemna
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brucemna said:

 

Screenshot_20191207-124029_Samsung Internet.jpg

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 post
Share on other sites
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 by James II
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 &#33;@#&#036;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 post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Roquentin
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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.