Jump to content
Prefonteen

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

We know that because I am taking the statements of representatives from coalition B at face value. Meaning: That's literally what we have been told over and over for the past 6 weeks, right up until today.

Seems to me u were given logs by a butthurt person and u got steered in a direction that brought us here. Agian I just want to say people in private a d I am almost sure it happens on both sides tend to say things that just come to mind in reaction to stuff as a initial response. It is up to individuals on how the take or perceive them words. I understand ur hesitancy in talks but agian I think u just took the wrong road and it could of been used to give urself a more stronger position in the long run instead of having to sit here and let it drag out and out. Whem it comes down to it there is no blame on anyone. Ur side or ours. People do or say what they want depending on the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, brucemna said:

Seems to me u were given logs by a butthurt person and u got steered in a direction that brought us here. Agian I just want to say people in private a d I am almost sure it happens on both sides tend to say things that just come to mind in reaction to stuff as a initial response. It is up to individuals on how the take or perceive them words. I understand ur hesitancy in talks but agian I think u just took the wrong road and it could of been used to give urself a more stronger position in the long run instead of having to sit here and let it drag out and out. Whem it comes down to it there is no blame on anyone. Ur side or ours. People do or say what they want depending on the moment. 

The logs existing and us having knowledge of them impacts our view of the situation, irrespective of whether the person who brought them to us wants to steer us.

I'll tell you this: we are still ready to come to the table and negotiate. We have also been consistent in approaching in private, even after the posts. We have never ruled out talks- frankly, i'd prefer if talks could start up. That's not our decision to make though. We're here whenever coalition B is ready to talk.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

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!

You have to start with one term and then go to a second.  There's been no change since you posted these unproductive threads.

9 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

The logs existing and us having knowledge of them impacts our view of the situation, irrespective of whether the person who brought them to us wants to steer us.

How many servers does tS have?  How many channels each servers?  How many government channels? How many channels does the Coalition B server have? How long has talking been happening in them?  You have one of at least forty channels in at least four servers for a very narrow fixed date and taking it as if it's the entire content when you lack context, exclude your biases when trying to interpret them, ignore your ignorance of all of the many, many other places where discussions take place, etc.  If you combine all of that, even assuming the leaked logs were valid, they don't provide what the CoA and tS and CoA-Internet defenders actually think that they do.  You end up with maybe sixteen frames of a feature length movie and you're treating it like it's the movie itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

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

Is there a reason/has it been disclosed to CoA leaders privately? This seems to be the main issue.

Share this post


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

Is there a reason/has it been disclosed to CoA leaders privately? This seems to be the main issue.

I explained it during the negotiations as well :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

You have to start with one term and then go to a second.  There's been no change since you posted these unproductive threads.

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

4 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

How many servers does tS have?  How many channels each servers?  How many government channels? How many channels does the Coalition B server have? How long has talking been happening in them?  You have one of at least forty channels in at least four servers for a very narrow fixed date and taking it as if it's the entire content when you lack context, exclude your biases when trying to interpret them, ignore your ignorance of all of the many, many other places where discussions take place, etc.  If you combine all of that, even assuming the leaked logs were valid, they don't provide what the CoA and tS and CoA-Internet defenders actually think that they do.  You end up with maybe sixteen frames of a feature length movie and you're treating it like it's the movie itself.

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.

4 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Yeah, they know.  They don't like it.

 

44 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I explained it during the negotiations as well :P 

Again: Half the coalition has not received a single term.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

/Thread.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Again: Half the coalition has not received a single term.

KERTCHOGG has. I do like your repetition like a broken recorder at this point in time, but I was answering a question that was asked regarding if we informed folks why it will be done this way. I think I've explained it to you as well :P 

And no you really don't have all the context unless you have gone through each and every single line of log and every preceding discussion/side discussion and other discussions through DMs and other places regarding it. 

Edited by Shadowthrone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Darzy said:

Is there a reason/has it been disclosed to CoA leaders privately? This seems to be the main issue.

If u go back to the OP  u will see that it was discussed that terms would be given over one by one and the process could take up to 30 days. As well coa was informed that the kertog part would be dealt with separately and once that was complete then TS would then be brought to the table. 

Share this post


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

KERTCHOGG has. I do like your repetition like a broken recorder at this point in time, but I was answering a question that was asked regarding if we informed folks why it will be done this way. I think I've explained it to you as well :P 

And no you really don't have all the context unless you have gone through each and every single line of log and every preceding discussion/side discussion and other discussions through DMs and other places regarding it. 

Yes, I too am disappointed that I have to repeat myself this often :)

53 minutes ago, brucemna said:

If u go back to the OP  u will see that it was discussed that terms would be given over one by one and the process could take up to 30 days. As well coa was informed that the kertog part would be dealt with separately and once that was complete then TS would then be brought to the table. 

I have already corrected you regarding that last statement.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


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

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

Nah. 

Given what leaked (I don't care for your "We DidN't PrEsEnT tHe TeRmS" excuse), I know I'm right.

Share this post


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

Nah.

Which of the wars had their negotiations in public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point that we may as well halt everything and go enjoy the Holidays. How does that sound?

Edited by Madden8021
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

KERTCHOGG has. 

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. 
 

18 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Which of the wars had their negotiations in public?

Which one of the wars had the victors 

1) Only negotiate on the 1st of the month

2) Not present all the terms to their enemy

Also isn’t GOONS’ official stance that they want to shake up the wars? Or does this only apply to authoritarian control of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

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 

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? 

Edited by CandyShi

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.