Jump to content
Prefonteen

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Hodor said:

underlordgc: underlordgc: underlordgc: underlordgc: Also, let me reiterate that st6 and skae are the official points of contact for our coalition, please refrain from attempting to go around them

It's his winning personality of repetition which brings us closer to peace everyday.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Aesir said:

You can't control people beyond your own Alliance >.>

If I could I would rule all of Orbis by now!

Not that some of them haven't tried and are still trying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides have their faults, but this is the weakest and most inaccurate attempt to demonize Coalition B. Neither side wants peace.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Neither side wants peace.

So you read this post and saw all the evidence of our side trying to get peace while your side constantly ping ponged us around showing no true interest in getting peace, and this is the conclusion you reached?

Yikers

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

If it's so weak, then can you rebut it?

I've heard the article names were already leaked. So this is what's holding up negotiations rn, "Cessation of Hostilities."  They've agreed to surrender and other terms, but they haven't agreed that when we peace we will "stop fighting" that is like mind blowingly stupid. It's been 8 days since any conversation has taken place and hey there are 2 ways i saw them walking away was reasonable.

  1. Two Fronts

    If they'd left after knowing T$ wasn't included. That's totally fair i wouldn't have negotiated peace if any member of our Coalition was forced to stay. Keshav and Underlord were incredibly clear about T$ negotiations being carried out separately (First thing said in the chats and pinned). Yet to my knowledge we've been vague on 'two fronts' = 'two separate peaces', It's likely if you'd clarified this with us we would've agreed the war doesn't end until both of you get peace. The only limitation on conducting T$'s peace separately is collective bargaining power. And if you guys don't intend on being allied post-war this isn't a negative. By trying to include them you're basically hinting at that not being the case IMO.
     
  2. TFP would be ashamed of us

    Lets assume that KERTOG doesn't have the full list of terms and this is the most pressing matter on their agenda besides getting T$ into negotiations. RE: Two Fronts. If getting T$ into negotiations was more important than curiosity they wouldn't have already agreed to any terms. So curiosity is more important, why stop negotiating for 8 days on a term that's been in every peace negotiation in Orbis history because it literally means "PEACE!"

    Now hey. Maybe i'm reading into this wrong. Maybe they're not holding up negotiations. Perhaps 'Cessation of Hostilities" is too harsh a term. How about 'We peace on every day but Sundays" or "Everyone below 1000 score is ours to raid to death". The options are limitless. And if we're all being honest with ourselves, this meme is probably how it will all end.

    All i'm saying, is that if they didn't already know the terms and needed to know them. They would've skipped over this meaningless thing then held out for T$ when they actually had something. But no, what's more likely is they have the terms and decided to drag the war out. So they agreed to the first one as a token so they could pull a stunt like this.

    So yes, both coalitions are asshats. But only one of them is bad at lying.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you just join a server and I'll play marriage counsellor and try to get your relationship back on track? I feel that's the best way for everybody right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

-snip-

If it's a concession on your apart to have accepted the first term. Perhaps we are being unreasonable. I personally wanted T$ in the negotiations (spicier drama) but that's just me. Still, i'm gonna maintain my personal opinion that you guys likely have the terms and this is an exercise in futility, the rational doesn't compute on why you'd stop here and not elsewhere. In private you justified this with diplomats being busy, but it's been a lot longer now and there isn't really a reason to pause on this thing.

It's basically a hand waive. If you guys wanna engage in earnest talks, then revisit the chat. I'm sure we can come to an agreement over the course of 3 hours rather than 3 weeks. Partisan's theater, isn't going to be able to change the minds of leadership but perhaps words can.

~ Also i apologize for the above post if any of it was considered especially opsec. I don't think it was, but it was a reply to leaks by your coalition so Eh. 50/50. 

Edited by Epi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Epi said:

If it's a concession on your apart to have accepted the first term. Perhaps we are being unreasonable. I personally wanted T$ in the negotiations (spicier drama) but that's just me. Still, i'm gonna maintain my personal opinion that you guys likely have the terms and this is an exercise in futility, the rational doesn't compute on why you'd stop here and not elsewhere. In private you justified this with diplomats being busy, but it's been a lot longer now and there isn't really a reason to pause on this thing.

It's basically a hand waive. If you guys wanna engage in earnest talks, then revisit the chat. I'm sure we can come to an agreement over the course of 3 hours rather than 3 weeks.

This is what I've been saying aswell. If there are new terms involved in what Col A wants I fail to see why they couldnt be adressed in the place they could have made a bigger difference. In the current form of everything the actions that were made have done nothing but keep the same silence and war extensions that we've had through the entire thing. Both sides are willing to talk. If Col A has new terms they wanna discuss bring them back to the table!

Edited by Aero Xross
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

If we had the terms, we wouldn't feel the need to engage in "Partisan's theater", as you call it. We've stated our objections, both to the way talks have progressed and to the first term, and yet we demonstrated a willingness to negotiate, which your negotiators have not reciprocated. What we're asking for is not ridiculous or unprecedented.

Its not WHAT you're asking for. It's where you asked for it. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

-snip

Ehh okay. Fair enough you attempted it before and it didn't quite work out, but you know who we're dealing with here. Waiting 2-3 weeks isn't going to change anything. Posting on the forums is gonna have the opposite affect and make them double down. IQ doesn't like making concessions in private, screw doing it on the world stage. Term 1 wasn't really negotiated tbh, we shared a term, you guys changed a word and agreed to it. From memory you didn't argue too fiercely, def didn't walk out over it (brief logistical hiatus aside) or feel particularly affronted even though i assumed you would be.

If you want T$ in the negotiations, petition us in the peace chats. Under's rules goes out the window, if this is something you guys want, that's where to do it. Because that's where they have the opportunity to say "okay" rather than write a word wall justifying miscommunication and blaming you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Epi said:

(...) IQ doesn't like making concessions in private, screw doing it on the world stage. (...)

Nobody likes making concessions. CoalA has taken the world stage to say: we are willing to admit defeat as part of a peace deal. At some point IQ also has to move. To start: seriously be available for talks. Or we can continue to fight the same war with roughly the same sides forever, except for the occassional alliance leaving CoalB in a coffin (Electric Space, Hanseatic League) or under fire (Carthago, OWR). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re trying too hard to appease ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Travelling again, so can't reply in the detail I want to. But I mean little offense in my analysis, they're just logical deductions with the information I have at hand. 

I know we're not being saints in this and that whatever I say here will likely be denied by Coalition B. Later or that they'd prefer I'd not said anything at all. But not everyone on our side is being stubborn and as a whole that transforms out perspective. Me and Aero do believe peace is possible and we're not preventing negotiations. 

If you'd persisted in the attempts to negotiate or convince the coalition you may have seen a different result. I do fear by publicizing the issue you've doomed it to failure. 

As for the inaccuracy of logs. You're trying to deduce our official position across multiple leaders and ex-negotiators. Even if we were totally united on issues which we aren't you still would've got very different responses subject to misunderstanding. 

Just as I have a unique perspective on how things are going so do all of they. And the intentions of each alliance are ultimately different as well.

I use the term theatre to describe the forums not in a derogatory sense, but instead because they are an IC performance (to change hearts and minds, perspective and knowing your opponents rebuttal already) with an audience in mind. I love it xD. 

I don't like justifying the positions of other alliances. It's not my job to do. So don't make me an advocate for them. Just grasp that when I find you guys are doing something objectively ridiculous I call them out for there stuff too. 

 

tenor (8).gif

Edited by Epi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Epi said:

Travelling again, so can't reply in the detail I want to. But I mean little offense in my analysis, they're just logical deductions with the information I have at hand. 

I know we're not being saints in this and that whatever I say here will likely be denied by Coalition B. Later or that they'd prefer I'd not said anything at all. But not everyone on our side is being stubborn and as a whole that transforms out perspective. Me and Aero do believe peace is possible and we're not preventing negotiations. 

If you'd persisted in the attempts to negotiate or convince the coalition you may have seen a different result.

Your information is faulty then.  And short of begging, our negotiators have tried their damnest in attempting to discuss peace, well before Syndicate/HS even got pulled into the war.

  • Upvote 4

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.