Jump to content
Prefonteen

$yndicate treaty cancellation

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Seeing as you have never been in a coalition war where allies ditched for greener pastures, I'm not sure you can understand. This is the first time you have ever been on the losing side. The stakes are too high to take such soft stances on betrayal.

Erm... you're making the wrong comparison.

You've finally found yourself on the winning side, and these are the policies you implement. Having been on the winning side plenty, I can with confidence state that in your situation, I would not stamp out any dissent with military force.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

tS is a later thing and the concerns people have there are different as was noted, tS members were still at large militarily until fairly recently. When people feel they're ready to move forward with tS, then they will. Peace isn't an inherent good. tS had more to lose than everyone else so that plays into it too as it had been relatively unscathed compared to the other combatants. PM bombing people to take advantage of the less involved players' war fatigue doesn't help though.

 

 

 

Your second comment seems to be misdirected :).

Okay, so it's a matter of not wanting to peace yet then, and it has nothing to do with "we're still drafting terms, please hold" as was conveyed to us over and over. Thanks for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Erm... you're making the wrong comparison.

You've finally found yourself on the winning side, and these are the policies you implement. Having been on the winning side plenty, I can with confidence state that in your situation, I would not stamp out any dissent with military force.

It's a completely different thing than your situation. You won wars right off the bat or within a few weeks so "dissent" was minimal.  It's easy to keep people happy when it's easy to win or they have no other option. The side that can just barnstorm in and do heavy damage quickly doesn't have the problem of needing people to grind it out. On the other hand, we're fighting some rather tough nuts to crack which requires a tougher attitude from alliances involved. I also don't recall the Syndicate taking too kindly in Knightfall when an ally wanted to peace out. Most of the issues have been from people not being able to handle difficult circumstances. We can't make it an acceptable norm at this point for people to peace and sign the best pixel hugging destination they can find. 

43 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

 

 

Your second comment seems to be misdirected :).

Okay, so it's a matter of not wanting to peace yet then, and it has nothing to do with "we're still drafting terms, please hold" as was conveyed to us over and over. Thanks for clarifying.

They are stilll deciding on front specific terms.

Share this post


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

It's a completely different thing than your situation. You won wars right off the bat or within a few weeks so "dissent" was minimal.  It's easy to keep people happy when it's easy to win or they have no other option. The side that can just barnstorm in and do heavy damage quickly doesn't have the problem of needing people to grind it out. On the other hand, we're fighting some rather tough nuts to crack which requires a tougher attitude from alliances involved. I also don't recall the Syndicate taking too kindly in Knightfall when an ally wanted to peace out. Most of the issues have been from people not being able to handle difficult circumstances. We can't make it an acceptable norm at this point for people to peace and sign the best pixel hugging destination they can find. 

They are stilll deciding on front specific terms.

for 30 days?

 

As for dissent management... well, syndisphere had its share of internal dustups and fallout. t$ often mediated and worked to generate consensus. We didn't go around threatening to roll everyone and their mother.

Edited by Prefonteen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

As for dissent management... well, syndisphere had its share of internal dustups and fallout. t$ often mediated and worked to generate consensus. We didn't go around threatening to roll everyone and their mother.

This is very true.

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Seeing as you have never been in a coalition war where allies ditched for greener pastures, I'm not sure you can understand.

If I’m not mistaken, this sounds like a personal problem.

If you’re admitting to people “leaving for greener pastures”, you’re pretty much admitting to being part of the screw up on your side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

House Stark still kept the MDoAP though... This is all a conspiracy between NPO and t$ to lower their infra to hit BK.

shhhhhh

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

I just do not think an alliance wanting peace should be a a reason to hit them, they are independent and should be able to make their own choices?

This is based on what I know, now if they did something like TFP who i believe made an agreement to beige people and passed it off as something else, then yeah that would be a valid CB as its helping the other side.

At the risk of being drawn back into the discussion over this, the incident in question was solely done for a treasure, which Roq then responded by claiming that it was slot filling and that he was going to report us to Alex for rule breaking, unless we committed to air strikes. 

Unfortunately whether or not this would have counted as war interference slipped our minds as the immediate response was to look at game rules and request that Alex weigh in on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Comrade Marx said:

Best wishes to both parties. I can't offer anything more cliche than that.

 

Also, the only history that matters is the history here. If you're bringing unrelated nonsense into your arguments here you have lost the narrative. Nobody cares about what happened 6 years ago somewhere else. 

One could argue that isn't true at all. Everything comes full circle eventually. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

This is very true.

If I’m not mistaken, this sounds like a personal problem.

If you’re admitting to people “leaving for greener pastures”, you’re pretty much admitting to being part of the screw up on your side.

The grass always looks greener on the other side.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Epi said:

The grass always looks greener on the other side.

I dunno man. My grass be lookin pretty damn green. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I dunno man. My grass be lookin pretty damn green. 

44143344170_6c3211e09c_b.jpg

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

-snip-

To be honest the grass is pretty green around him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Prefontaine seems to me if u took all this to the back channels peace may have been accomplished by now instead if doing the wine and cheese thing here. As the surrounding side has been my past experience that the surrending parties should realise the step by step process to achieving peace. Such as splitting members of the coalition to negotiate on terms of levels of involvement. For instance in a court of law defendants are often tried separately due to different circumstances.  All the semantics in this thread is doing nothing but continuing a cycle of circle jerk that will never end for anyone.  

Edited by brucemna

Share this post


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

I dunno man. My grass be lookin pretty damn green. 

Why ask for peace then?  Love that green grass and just stay at war.

Share this post


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

@Prefontaine seems to me if u took all this to the back channels peace may have been accomplished by now instead if doing the wine and cheese thing here. As the surrounding side has been my past experience that the surrending parties should realise the step by step process to achieving peace. Such as splitting members of the coalition to negotiate on terms of levels of involvement. For instance in a court of law defendants are often tried separately due to different circumstances.  All the semantics in this thread is doing nothing but continuing a cycle of circle jerk that will never end for anyone.  

I’m pretty sure you haven’t been paying attention to what’s been shown to have been said and done in the pursuit of peace by coalition A members.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

@Prefontaine seems to me if u took all this to the back channels peace may have been accomplished by now instead if doing the wine and cheese thing here. As the surrounding side has been my past experience that the surrending parties should realise the step by step process to achieving peace. Such as splitting members of the coalition to negotiate on terms of levels of involvement. For instance in a court of law defendants are often tried separately due to different circumstances.  All the semantics in this thread is doing nothing but continuing a cycle of circle jerk that will never end for anyone.  

I like new players with no nations attempt to blend a pixelated game and court of law in the real world from some unknown nation together.

(Protip:  He did attempt to go through the back channels first.  Maybe you should read thoroughly before criticizing.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

@Prefontaine seems to me if u took all this to the back channels peace may have been accomplished by now instead if doing the wine and cheese thing here. As the surrounding side has been my past experience that the surrending parties should realise the step by step process to achieving peace. Such as splitting members of the coalition to negotiate on terms of levels of involvement. For instance in a court of law defendants are often tried separately due to different circumstances.  All the semantics in this thread is doing nothing but continuing a cycle of circle jerk that will never end for anyone.  

How dare you besmirch my good name and accuse me of leaking back channel information. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


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

Why ask for peace then?  Love that green grass and just stay at war.

hjhgjh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well did ts ever think of pushing the talks more by offering what they might agree to start.   For instance ... dear enemy ..we understand the plan to separate us from the coalition but we offer this on our part to blah blah blah if u say offer the rest of our coalition these conditions of say white peace for example blah blah blah.  Whatever terms u may feel. They may or may not be close to anything but at least it's a start ... and may speed up the process. I find myself no one is right or wrong but in general both sides have agreed at some point for peace.  So all I  saying is instead of whining or making drama here do it in the back channels. Hell even if they wont talk just leave the message to plant a seed .  The onus is up to your side as well as ours to achieve the end game. 

4 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

How dare you besmirch my good name and accuse me of leaking back channel information. 

Umm can u show me quotations please lol 

Share this post


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

@Prefontaine seems to me if u took all this to the back channels peace may have been accomplished by now instead if doing the wine and cheese thing here. As the surrounding side has been my past experience that the surrending parties should realise the step by step process to achieving peace. Such as splitting members of the coalition to negotiate on terms of levels of involvement. For instance in a court of law defendants are often tried separately due to different circumstances.  All the semantics in this thread is doing nothing but continuing a cycle of circle jerk that will never end for anyone.  

Was attempted. Was ignored.

55 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Why ask for peace then?  Love that green grass and just stay at war.

My grass is green irrespective of war or peace. What's your point?

40 minutes ago, brucemna said:

Well did ts ever think of pushing the talks more by offering what they might agree to start.   For instance ... dear enemy ..we understand the plan to separate us from the coalition but we offer this on our part to blah blah blah if u say offer the rest of our coalition these conditions of say white peace for example blah blah blah.  Whatever terms u may feel. They may or may not be close to anything but at least it's a start ... and may speed up the process. I find myself no one is right or wrong but in general both sides have agreed at some point for peace.  So all I  saying is instead of whining or making drama here do it in the back channels. Hell even if they wont talk just leave the message to plant a seed .  The onus is up to your side as well as ours to achieve the end game. 

Umm can u show me quotations please lol 

Again, backchannels were tried and it was made clear that we were willing to consider any terms presented (and move from there). Whether or not that'd lead to an agreement would be dependent on the terms and procession of negotiations.

"Well you should've offered more" is a bit of a silly point to make, as diplomatic talks and/or negotiations tend to take 2 parties to come to the table. If the opposing coalition is unwilling to peace because they feel we haven't burned enough yet (which has been stated on various occasions), but pretends its drafting up terms, then it won't matter what we say, do or offer, because the foundation of genuine desire for talks isn't there.

 

 

Also... You quoted @Prefontaine instead of me. That's why he responded ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking what the terms are and offering ur own surrender with terms are different ... the whole gist of this thread comes out u been waiting waiting and waiting .. send ur own terms in ... slot of times when the surrending party is actually the aggressor in discussing terms meaning own it send it offer the penalty it goes lite for all.  Bringing all this here tends to create more resentment and harsher endings. NPO  in the past itself has had some of the harshest terms put on is. Hell even our current emporer has done it to us. But the one thing we have done is take terms for our allies. We sucked it up. Is what it came down to. Hell even once if I recall we made reps for one AA that fought us just cause our ally asked.  Seriously ... if I were in shoes such as urs I would send my own list what we are willing to do and work from there. At least then a thread like this does make sense.  There is no reason why both sides can not come to terms. Personally I dont care or am I for or against any of this. I am just prob one of the many who are just fed up with the drama queen syndrome from everyone.  Playing victim does not always work unless ur willing to maybe shown political aggression with the pen instead of the sword. Sometimes as well through these acts the worst of enemies can become the best of friends. Hell this version of NPO in this realm started with two enemies becoming one after years of hate.  Why cause the one person decided enough was enough and eventually went to the other and built a strong relationship in the end. 

Edited by brucemna

Share this post


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

Asking what the terms are and offering ur own surrender with terms are different ... the whole gist of this thread comes out u been waiting waiting and waiting .. send ur own terms in ... slot of times when the surrending party is actually the aggressor in discussing terms meaning own it send it offer the penalty it goes lite for all.  Bringing all this here tends to create more resentment and harsher endings. NPO  in the past itself has had some of the harshest terms put on is. Hell even our current emporer has done it to us. But the one thing we have done is take terms for our allies. We sucked it up. Is what it came down to. Hell even once if I recall we made reps for one AA that fought us just cause our ally asked.  Seriously ... if I were in shoes such as urs I would send my own list what we are willing to do and work from there. At least then a thread like this does make sense.  There is no reason why both sides can not come to terms. Personally I dont care or am I for or against any of this. I am just prob one of the many who are just fed up with the drama queen syndrome from everyone.  Playing victim does not always work unless ur willing to maybe shown political aggression with the pen instead of the sword. Sometimes as well through these acts the worst of enemies can become the best of friends. Hell this version of NPO in this realm started with two enemies becoming one after years of hate.  Why cause the one person decided enough was enough and eventually went to the other and built a strong relationship in the end. 

What harsh terms exactly has NPO been given in the past?

 

As for sending a list- we literally have given a blank check and preemptively surrendered (as was requested). I.e. We've essentially told them: "alright, we're ready to surrender. What's it gonna take".  I don't think it can be much more straightforward than that.

If after offering our surrender we were to start throwing out terms while coal B remains mute, we'd essentially be bidding against ourselves *before negotiations even started*. That'd be a selfdestructive foreign policy.

 

For the last bit... i'm not sure what you're trying to say. All t$ has asked so far is for its private overtures to be reciprocated.

Edited by Prefonteen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

What harsh terms exactly has NPO been given in the past?

 

As for sending a list- we literally have given a blank check and preemptively surrendered (as was requested). I.e. We've essentially told them: "alright, we're ready to surrender. What's it gonna take".  I don't think it can be much more straightforward than that.

If after offering our surrender we were to start throwing out terms while coal B remains mute, we'd essentially be bidding against ourselves *before negotiations even started*. That'd be a selfdestructive foreign policy.

 

As for the last bit... i'm not sure what you're trying to say. All t$ has asked so far is for its private overtures to be reciprocated.

K the key word was what is it gonna take u ask. Well apperently if I have read right one of the terms for talks was to separate ts from the rest of ur coalition but with ur open or blank check ur not going to go for that.  U can correct me if u like but my point is u say urself blank cheque well then maybe show more patience and stop bringing it out in the open such as this thread. Each day hit the server and ask r terms ready.  Dont just sit show a aggressive side. I am not questioning if u want peace or even of u have gone back channels.  I am just saying if and since so much time has gone by even offer ur own terms to agree to as it may help speed up the process. As if you think this process is not working try something new instead.  Offer say white peace for ur allies and say u are willing to accept terms dealt or put ur own limits knowing of course it will be negotiated.  Hell even I know if I hand in a blank peice of paper to my teacher I am going to get a F lol. Emd the war first then do ur propaganda move with the FA game.  In other words everyone needs to stop playing the blame game with each other now and get to peace then after all is said and done play the game

Edited by brucemna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Quichwe10 said:

At the risk of being drawn back into the discussion over this, the incident in question was solely done for a treasure, which Roq then responded by claiming that it was slot filling and that he was going to report us to Alex for rule breaking, unless we committed to air strikes. 

Unfortunately whether or not this would have counted as war interference slipped our minds as the immediate response was to look at game rules and request that Alex weigh in on things.

Don’t worry about the risk, the quoted post was a downright falsehood; as evidenced by the fact that Alex didn’t give me any warning and furthermore allowed me to proceed and take the treasure.  Let’s not beat about the bush, TFP were pulled back into the war by the side we’d originally and reluctantly fought on to bump up BK’s stats; any other justification is utter gibberish.  
 

Sorry to derail the OP.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

K the key word was what is it gonna take u ask. Well apperently if I have read right one of the terms for talks was to separate ts from the rest of ur coalition but with ur open or blank check ur not going to go for that.  U can correct me if u like but my point is u say urself blank cheque well then maybe show more patience and stop bringing it out in the open such as this thread. Each day hit the server and ask r terms ready.  Dont just sit show a aggressive side. I am not questioning if u want peace or even of u have gone back channels.  I am just saying if and since so much time has gone by even offer ur own terms to agree to as it may help speed up the process. As if you think this process is not working try something new instead.  Offer say white peace for ur allies and say u are willing to accept terms dealt or put ur own limits knowing of course it will be negotiated.  Hell even I know if I hand in a blank peice of paper to my teacher I am going to get a F lol. Emd the war first then do ur propaganda move with the FA game.  

We offered to compromise and conduct talks for the first 20 days. When it became clear that we weren't going to receive terms, we posted the earlier thread.

We also haven't been given a server, and we have structurally inquired about terms being ready. As I said, it took 20 days before we went public with our thread. That's a reaction, not the cause.

I think you are misundersanding us :). Our post stems from a loss of faith in coalition B's claimed willingness to peace out at this time. We continue to be open to talks, we continue to structurally inquire and we continue to do so both in public and private. We do not however, agree to allowing coalition B to present us as the culprit (which was occurring prior to our posting of the thread) while we've been bending over backwards.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 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.