An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks

[Noctis Anarch Caelum 52]

 

 

[Syrachime 66]

On 12/10/2019 at 2:53 PM, Duke Arthur said:

Could someone explain what the war was about before the sort of surrender post? From august until that moment?

This war, and everything that it's revolved around has been about pointless crap that no one cares about from about October til now.  It stopped being a 'meaningful war' in any sense when drama set in around that time.  Since then, it's just basically been a general drama fest lacking any real coherent rhyme or reason.  So...basically it's just a drama war at this point which I'm nominating as the new name for this war.  Both sides have done it, and that's all we've seen.  I say that because I highly doubt anyone who plays casually cares at this point why both sides are still fighting six months in and counting.  Only leaders of the various alliances on both sides seem to care about about that at this point, with their agenda seeming to be to hurt the game.  You pick which side is doing that based on that statement, but again, I doubt the average player cares who it is.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Syrachime

[Prefonteen 9113]

6 hours ago, Syrachime said:

This war, and everything that it's revolved around has been about pointless crap that no one cares about from about October til now.  It stopped being a 'meaningful war' in any sense when drama set in around that time.  Since then, it's just basically been a general drama fest lacking any real coherent rhyme or reason.  So...basically it's just a drama war at this point which I'm nominating as the new name for this war.  Both sides have done it, and that's all we've seen.  I say that because I highly doubt anyone who plays casually cares at this point why both sides are still fighting six months in and counting.  Only leaders of the various alliances on both sides seem to care about about that at this point, with their agenda seeming to be to hurt the game.  You pick which side is doing that based on that statement, but again, I doubt the average player cares who it is.

I'll again note that I, and with me the entirety of t$ as well as its allies, am open to start negoiations whenever our opposition wishes. We've been waiting for terms, we'll continue to wait for terms.

[Syrachime 66]

30 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I'll again note that I, and with me the entirety of t$ as well as its allies, am open to start negoiations whenever our opposition wishes. We've been waiting for terms, we'll continue to wait for terms.

I honestly don't get why Coal B is so paranoid about releasing terms to you guys as well as the rest of Coal A.  Only reason they gave when I last spoke to anyone from there in October was "it's a waste of time".  Those were also the same people though that said they could care less about their PR and didn't care to throw out the lie that if we surrendered, we'd see negotiations, so clearly some priorities are skewed somewhere.  Just tag it onto the drama that's hurting the game.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum 52]

1 minute ago, Syrachime said:

I honestly don't get why Coal B is so paranoid about releasing terms to you guys as well as the rest of Coal A.  Only reason they gave when I last spoke to anyone from there in October was "it's a waste of time".  Those were also the same people though that said they could care less about their PR and didn't care to throw out the lie that if we surrendered, we'd see negotiations, so clearly some priorities are skewed somewhere.  Just tag it onto the drama that's hurting the game.

I don't think they've taken the time to come up with terms they'd expect anyone to accept yet tbh.

[Syrachime 66]

1 minute ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I don't think they've taken the time to come up with terms they'd expect anyone to accept yet tbh.

Which is funny to me...  We offered our surrender a month and a half ago, and there was a four and a half month gap between that and the start of the war marking six months and counting of this conflict.  The fact that one side can't come up with terms to deliver in that time span is honestly laughable.  I'm starting to think maybe we'd get somewhere if Coal A started offering terms to Coal B.  Outside of white peace, that might be the only way negotiations are gonna get going at this rate.  Especially if it is true that it is taking one side half a year to come up with something to deliver to the other side.

[Sisyphus 1963]

35 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

Which is funny to me...  We offered our surrender a month and a half ago, and there was a four and a half month gap between that and the start of the war marking six months and counting of this conflict.  The fact that one side can't come up with terms to deliver in that time span is honestly laughable.  I'm starting to think maybe we'd get somewhere if Coal A started offering terms to Coal B.  Outside of white peace, that might be the only way negotiations are gonna get going at this rate.  Especially if it is true that it is taking one side half a year to come up with something to deliver to the other side.

It would be more productive for representatives of Col A to speak with representatives of Col B if Col B is willing to allow Col A representatives to represent Col B until Col B can come up with a cohesive and comprehensive list of terms.  

I, of course, nominate Partisan.  

[Mandystalin 72]

On 11/28/2019 at 6:19 PM, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

 

I'm even getting PM's telling me my gov is lying to me, linking to topics like this. What on earth makes these imbeciles think, that my gov is lying to me? LOL!

I've just read the entire thread in one go (perhaps I am a tad masochistic) and actually it has been quite fascinating watching the progression of the response from Col B. 

 

But my favourite little nugget was this post quoted above. So the rank and file of Col B are apparently fully informed of the deliberate 'no peace' policy of their leaders and presumably tacitly approve. Nice. 

 

 

[Do Not Fear Jazz 833]

Put partisan and I in a room, we'll have peace in two hours 

[Noctis Anarch Caelum 52]

When some of the few comments are people saying they can’t post what they really think, you know it’s gotten pretty bad in the free speech department.

[brucemna 6]

1 hour ago, Mandystalin said:

I've just read the entire thread in one go (perhaps I am a tad masochistic) and actually it has been quite fascinating watching the progression of the response from Col B. 

 

But my favourite little nugget was this post quoted above. So the rank and file of Col B are apparently fully informed of the deliberate 'no peace' policy of their leaders and presumably tacitly approve. Nice. 

 

 

Considering I received the same message I think we find it most funny that when coalition A says the other side is trolling them that they would send such mass messaging to troll us. I .ean is it a serious attempt to turn people against there own gov? 

[Prefonteen 9113]

2 hours ago, Always Fear Jazz said:

Put partisan and I in a room, we'll have peace in two hours 

Probably.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum 52]

Coalition A & B are getting old, I'd call mine Coalition V.

[ComradeMilton 24]

8 hours ago, Syrachime said:

Which is funny to me...  We offered our surrender a month and a half ago, and there was a four and a half month gap between that and the start of the war marking six months and counting of this conflict.  The fact that one side can't come up with terms to deliver in that time span is honestly laughable.  I'm starting to think maybe we'd get somewhere if Coal A started offering terms to Coal B.  Outside of white peace, that might be the only way negotiations are gonna get going at this rate.  Especially if it is true that it is taking one side half a year to come up with something to deliver to the other side.

White peace is absolutely not going to happen. The longer CoA keeps trying to make this a public thing to change how it's going to work the more delay.

7 hours ago, Sisyphus said:

It would be more productive for representatives of Col A to speak with representatives of Col B if Col B is willing to allow Col A representatives to represent Col B until Col B can come up with a cohesive and comprehensive list of terms.  

I, of course, nominate Partisan.  

Partisan has his own peace to deal with.

[Sir Scarfalot 2702]

4 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

White peace is absolutely not going to happen. The longer CoA keeps trying to make this a public thing to change how it's going to work the more delay.

Partisan has his own peace to deal with.

The more you act in bad faith and aggress your own allies, the less likely anyone's going to buy any of your BS.

Since you're incapable of actually winning, your surrender is actually a reasonable solution.

[Prefonteen 9113]

7 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

White peace is absolutely not going to happen. The longer CoA keeps trying to make this a public thing to change how it's going to work the more delay.

Partisan has his own peace to deal with.

It's interesting. There have been no new official statements and threads on our part for a while, and we've reduced our posting and returned to private inquiries for a while now. Yet you continue to harp on, and we are no closer to peace than we were.

[Syrachime 66]

12 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

White peace is absolutely not going to happen. The longer CoA keeps trying to make this a public thing to change how it's going to work the more delay.

Partisan has his own peace to deal with.

Well, you know...  You could always just present terms, or start negotiations with the one-a- a-time-term-thing t$ and all of us seem more than open to.  I'm just pointing out the obvious, yet hilarious fact that it's taking you guys half a year to come up with terms to deliver to us.  If you guys aren't delivering terms because we are commenting on the status quo, doesn't that kind of prove that Coal B is the one delaying peace talks? XD

Edited December 15, 2019 by Syrachime

[King Olafr of the Faroes 81]

21 hours ago, Mandystalin said:

I've just read the entire thread in one go (perhaps I am a tad masochistic) and actually it has been quite fascinating watching the progression of the response from Col B. 

 

But my favourite little nugget was this post quoted above. So the rank and file of Col B are apparently fully informed of the deliberate 'no peace' policy of their leaders and presumably tacitly approve. Nice. 

 

 

No I mean.

 

It's funny how CoA thinks they have any cards to play. I'm gov and I'm getting PM'ed that my gov is lying to me. "euuuuhhhh, not sure how to handle that, must delete, hurr durr" .. or what exactly are they expecting me to do?

 

Everyone, coalition A included, know what kind of boneheads they are. The level of entitlement because they were once something is extreme.

[brucemna 6]

8 hours ago, Syrachime said:

Well, you know...  You could always just present terms, or start negotiations with the one-a- a-time-term-thing t$ and all of us seem more than open to.  I'm just pointing out the obvious, yet hilarious fact that it's taking you guys half a year to come up with terms to deliver to us.  If you guys aren't delivering terms because we are commenting on the status quo, doesn't that kind of prove that Coal B is the one delaying peace talks? XD

I think it has been mentioned a fee times ... kertog and ts are going to be dealt with on a separate basis with kertog I beleive going first.  No one as well I beleive are currently saying ur not open to talks at the moment but if u remember do to sole circumstances such as ur side receiving logs and being paranoid things would not work out the way u guys wanted to u left the talks.  As well the war has only been half a year so really saying half a year to come to or present terms is a bit much as u seem to be stating u expected the war to end when it started. Anyhow keep saying this stuff and I do see that Prefonteen is trying to lessen the posting and all maybe some others should follow suit. And see what happens. 

[ComradeMilton 24]

16 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Since you're incapable of actually winning, your surrender is actually a reasonable solution

We've won. CoA surrendered.  Not very well as they're still attacking, but they seem to definitely agree they surrendered.

9 hours ago, Syrachime said:

Well, you know...  You could always just present terms, or start negotiations with the one-a- a-time-term-thing t$ and all of us seem more than open to.  I'm just pointing out the obvious, yet hilarious fact that it's taking you guys half a year to come up with terms to deliver to us.  If you guys aren't delivering terms because we are commenting on the status quo, doesn't that kind of prove that Coal B is the one delaying peace talks? XD

CoA completed term #1 and left when #2 was presented.  tS should check DMs if they're confused by who is delaying what.

[Tartarus 115]

7 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

We've won. CoA surrendered.  Not very well as they're still attacking, but they seem to definitely agree they surrendered.

You're confusing surrendering with "offering their surrender"

[Noctis Anarch Caelum 52]

Would be news to me if surrender was even back on the table.

[SAXON 272]

44 minutes ago, Tartarus said:

Muffled Sounds

Is that jackboot pressing a little to hard? :c

[Noctis Anarch Caelum 52]

I think rather than ever be fully peaced, we might see IQ try wiping the neutrals & then cannabalize itself; or those likely to be next after the neutrals are destroyed align with the neutrals first.

So however it goes, don’t think we’re actually closer to peace despite the leaks. Although who knows for sure.

[Tartarus 115]

26 minutes ago, Dondarrion said:

Is that jackboot pressing a little to hard? :c

Hello my name is Don and I don't have a reply