A plea to all

[Charles Bolivar]

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

 

Again, for the last part, there is no way these alliances can be destroyed in earnest. Throughout the war, they have shown a level of confidence never seen in a losing side and that's because they're aware of all the aforementioned factors going in their favor. 

 

You are mistaking defiance for confidence.

The  main reason this war is continuing on our end is out of pure defiance against you and your associated cronies attempting to impose your own style of play and mindset upon this realm.

This war is most assuredly lost on our end but there is no point to surrendering if the terms of surrender are worse than the consequences of continuing hostilities.

And so we remain, defiant.

[Prefonteen]

3 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Remembering something done in 2018 is holding a grudge forever? I'm not exactly sure how this is supposed to be payback because 1. your infra was low for the most part. 2. I haven't even said anything indicative of that. The only comments I made were that past actions indicate you would swing towards vulnerable parties if given the chance.  I was usually not in favor of targetting you when it was just KT-TGH-Empyrea-Oblivion  with one of the reasons being the level of drama it'd induce not being worth it. The KETOG thing was not my idea originally and it was intended to be a shorter-length conflict and not intended to cripple but more of a team-building exercise for the sphere.

To the last part, how ironic. 

No one is being forced to leave the game.  With EM and Gorge, it'd have just been depriving them of the enjoyment of gains seen as ill-gotten. If you're sympathetic to gorge wanting to run around with his 45 cities from investing Pantheon's stuff then feel free or EM using Yakuza to get to 50 cities and his obsession with being the biggest and perpetually growing, then whatever man. 

Nothing was ever said along the lines that we could just roll a few alliances forever and never lose. Ironically such a situation existed before. Right now there are two sides: one is traditionally people who have lost and have less stuff overall, the other is mainly traditional winners who have a lot, so the war isn't hurting them that much. A weakness some alliances have is when they don't fight intensively for a long time, their members start to drop. However, there is no way this war no longer how long it lasts can produce an absolutely one-sided like Gorge describes. The other side is numerous, rich, and robust enough to continue to exist.  Their cities or banks aren't going away.

Historically alliances have ditched their allies because they see them as less robust and capable than the other side and that they can get a better deal by leaving them. That is what happened here. The alliances that left didn't do so as an act of protest at genuine risk. They believed their actions would be shielded.  Force has been the motivator either way: fearing the opposing sides ability to harm them or believing more the other side has more staying power than a burned ally left on the battlefield. As it gave motivation to the other side for those alliances to ditch for greener pastures, it was simply a repetition of the past where alliances would whittle down on on side and the norm of fleeing to pixel hug being perpetuated.

There is no indication we're going after Fark as Fark hasn't done anything to anger anyone. The NAP with Fark will be honored and we have no intentions of doing anything to them.

Again, for the last part, there is no way these alliances can be destroyed in earnest. Throughout the war, they have shown a level of confidence never seen in a losing side and that's because they're aware of all the aforementioned factors going in their favor. 

It's more that it's very important to highlight Gorge's things as he is repeating the normal route of selling us out to curry favor as he sees us as weak enough to go for such a move. If we were as strong as he's saying, he'd give into any demands.  Same as people like Alexio and other assorted traitors on your side.

No, that situation did not exist. The notion that it did is a fabricated narrative you conjured up to victimize yourself. A bunch of wars were fought, the majority of which your side or paracov before you was aggressive in. The majority of these wars were also anyone's game (often with your/paracov's side having the advantage) and were only won by syndisphere because of critical errors and underperformance by the opposing forces. The moment syndisphere became sort of dominant, it split and the outcome was IQ, which immediately proceeded to plot against ex-syndisphere/EMC. In this new set up, you got a few losses and then *again* parties previously affiliated with the winning side split off to help you finally take down TKR. You were never given extreme terms nor were you prevented from negotiating your surrender at any point in time.

There are significant differences in EMC's approach as a victor and the scorched earth policy your side is displaying here.

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Prefonteen

[Charles Bolivar]

I'm paraphrasing but I think Churchill summed it up best. Defiant in defeat but magnanimous in victory is the ideal.

[Sardonic]

1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

You are mistaking defiance for confidence.

The  main reason this war is continuing on our end is out of pure defiance against you and your associated cronies attempting to impose your own style of play and mindset upon this realm.

This war is most assuredly lost on our end but there is no point to surrendering if the terms of surrender are worse than the consequences of continuing hostilities.

And so we remain, defiant.

OK cool so it's entirely your coalition's stubbornness with regards to the relative pittance asked of you holding up the peace process.  Glad we finally got that settled, could probably have saved a lot of digital ink all around if your coalition were more honest about that fact instead of disingenuously whining everywhere about the length of the negotiations.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Sardonic

[Adrienne]

4 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

OK cool so it's entirely your coalition's stubbornness with regards to the relative pittance asked of you holding up the peace process.  Glad we finally got that settled, could probably have saved a lot of digital ink all around if your coalition were more honest about that fact instead of disingenuously whining everywhere.

Being opposed to being jerked around is hardly disingenuous whining. And if it's a relative pittance being asked, why is it so difficult to show that? You could easily make us look like idiots if the terms are actually nothing like you claim.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Adrienne

[Roquentin]

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

No, that situation did not exist. The notion that it did is a fabricated narrative you conjured up to victimize yourself. A bunch of wars were fought, the majority of which your side or paracov before you was aggressive in. The majority of these wars were also anyone's game (often with your/paracov's side having the advantage) and were only won by syndisphere because of critical errors and underperformance by the opposing forces. The moment syndisphere became sort of dominant, it split and the outcome was IQ, which immediately proceeded to plot against ex-syndisphere/EMC. In this new set up, you got a few losses and then *again* parties previously affiliated with the winning side split off to help you finally take down TKR. You were never given extreme terms nor were you prevented from negotiating your surrender at any point in time.

There are significant differences in EMC's approach as a victor and the scorched earth policy your side is displaying here.

 

The situation did very much exist from the end of Silent to IQ.  Fairly sure there were reps demanded in Oktoberfest and no one cared how many members those alliances lost.  Underperformance was symptomatic of the imbalance between the forces as one was comprised of casual players who flushed out under repeated losses and the other of "git gud advocate" The last war between Syndicate and Paracov was a last ditch effort and the numbers were not really on Paracov's side. Anyway what actually happened is EMC in light of having virtually no opposition spent months adding more and more alliances, did treasure island to get rich, rolled SK/Valyria,  did Papers Please, contemplated rolling VE/HBE and then BK broke off. The rest were openly saying they had no desire for any change whatsoever especially Buorhann. There were then multiple attempts to roll IQ out of existence. Knightfall was a lucky break, yeah, but that's it. People were back to business as usual after.

 

Your revisionist history to fool naive new people will always be false.  

Again, it's a difference in marketability than substance. Easy and fast kills that accomplish more destruction and setbacks = good.  Slow burn requiring more patience and endurance that at best would even best be a temporary setback = bad PR. 

Hit BK/GoG/etc. because they rebuilt = insane amounts of economic damage = good.

Long war against rich alliances that will at most result in decreasing the gap somewhat = bad.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Roquentin

[Sardonic]

1 minute ago, Adrienne said:

Being opposed to being jerked around is hardly disingenuous whining. And if it's a relative pittance being asked, why is it so difficult to show that? You could easily make us look like idiots if the terms are actually nothing like you claim.

Your use of language like  'jerked around' reads to me like you still fundamentally don't understand your bargaining position.  You are not entitled to white peace, hell, you're not even entitled to a reasonable peace.  The winning side will always have more leverage in negotiations and have a better outcome than the loser.  That's how it works.

At any rate, I've seen the terms, and frankly, I think they're extremely reasonable.  Beyond that, it's not my place to disclose.

[Charles Bolivar]

24 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

OK cool so it's entirely your coalition's stubbornness with regards to the relative pittance asked of you holding up the peace process.  Glad we finally got that settled, could probably have saved a lot of digital ink all around if your coalition were more honest about that fact instead of disingenuously whining everywhere about the length of the negotiations.

You are cute.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant

[Exar Kun -George]

9 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Cynic thing before that

LMFAO, i had nothing to do with Cynic stealing the bank what so ever, i did not even know he was going to do it. Can we cut the shit Roq? Like really, you guys are amazing at the way you just try to pin shit on people. 

 

The cynic incident was merely me stating we should keep the BC bank, i had nothing to do with the planing or the actual part of doing it. In fact the first I spoke to him about it was after the fact as shown here: https://prnt.sc/q5toqb

 

So yes im guilty of not wanting to give it back, I however am not the one who plotted to or helped steal it, so GTFO of here with that absolute bull shit.

 

However since you like to lie, i think ill go through my own logs of the colo server + the other ones ive got to highlight your and Keshavs lies (on top of this one) 

Edited December 3, 2019 by George (James T Kirk)

[Roquentin]

Just now, George (James T Kirk) said:

LMFAO, i had nothing to do with Cynic stealing the bank what so ever, i did not even know he was going to do it. Can we cut the shit Roq? Like really, you guys are amazing at the way you just try to pin shit on people. 

 

The cynic incident was merely me stating we should keep the BC bank, i had nothing to do with the planing or the actual part of doing it. In fact the first I spoke to him about it was after the fact as shown here: https://prnt.sc/q5toqb

 

So yes im guilty of not wanting to give it back, I however am not the one who plotted to or helped steal it, so GTFO of here with that absolute bull shit. 

You wanted to keep it on his behalf and thus an accessory. Distinction without difference. Don't care man.

[Charles Bolivar]

1 minute ago, George (James T Kirk) said:

LMFAO, i had nothing to do with Cynic stealing the bank what so ever, i did not even know he was going to do it. Can we cut the shit Roq? Like really, you guys are amazing at the way you just try to pin shit on people. 

 

The cynic incident was merely me stating we should keep the BC bank, i had nothing to do with the planing or the actual part of doing it. In fact the first I spoke to him about it was after the fact as shown here: https://prnt.sc/q5toqb

 

So yes im guilty of not wanting to give it back, I however am not the one who plotted to or helped steal it, so GTFO of here with that absolute bull shit. 

You must be new around here. Roq pinning everything on everyone else without accepting any responsibility is kind of his modus operandi.

Welcome to Bob

[Kaz]

24 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

OK cool so it's entirely your coalition's stubbornness with regards to the relative pittance asked of you holding up the peace process.  Glad we finally got that settled, could probably have saved a lot of digital ink all around if your coalition were more honest about that fact instead of disingenuously whining everywhere about the length of the negotiations.

What stubbornness are you referring to exactly? I’m fairly confident that one side offered formal surrender, but the other side has continually refused to even give the terms for what, 5-6 weeks now?.   What’s been leaked so far can’t be considered as legitimate “terms of surrender” by any standard of measurement in any game that I’ve ever played     

Air your full terms in public. Let the Orbis community decide how realistic they are if you’re so confident in your position. I really don’t think you have the guts to do so. 

[Prefonteen]

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

The situation did very much exist from the end of Silent to IQ.  Fairly sure there were reps demanded in Oktoberfest and no one cared how many members those alliances lost.  Underperformance was symptomatic of the imbalance between the forces as one was comprised of casual players who flushed out under repeated losses and the other of "git gud advocate" The last war between Syndicate and Paracov was a last ditch effort and the numbers were not really on Paracov's side. Anyway what actually happened is EMC in light of having virtually no opposition spent months adding more and more alliances, did treasure island to get rich, rolled SK/Valyria,  did Papers Please, contemplated rolling VE/HBE and then BK broke off. The rest were openly saying they had no desire for any change whatsoever especially Buorhann. There were then multiple attempts to roll IQ out of existence. Knightfall was a lucky break, yeah, but that's it. People were back to business as usual after.

 

Your revisionist history to fool naive new people will always be false.  

Again, it's a difference in marketability than substance. Easy and fast kills that accomplish more destruction and setbacks = good.  Slow burn requiring more patience and endurance that at best would even best be a temporary setback = bad PR. 

Hit BK/GoG/etc. because they rebuilt = insane amounts of economic damage = good.

Long war against rich alliances that will at most result in decreasing the gap somewhat = bad.

...my..... revisionist history? holy crap man hahaha

1. Oktoberfest: Reps were demanded in that war, yes. There were large differences between the nature of that war and this one however:

- We were not caught plotting a war while the other party was busy fighting a second party. We were directly hit with a CB which was unfounded/had no supporting evidence presented. In the case of KETOG etc- BK clearly plotted to hit, as has been proven over and over.

- Our war had not been dragging on for half a year. It lasted (in total) from 15 October - 7 November 2015. That's including negotiations.
- We presented our terms the moment UPN/DEIC decided to surrender. As soon as possible. We did not stall for over a month with bollocks excuses.

- We did not prepare a document of (reportedly) 65 different terms. Or is that rumor unfounded?

- Finally, we did not deliberately drag out the war. You are clearly doing so right now.

 

2. With regards to the "perpetual rolling" situation you claim existed from the end of Silent to IQ:  The only major war between IQ and Silent was Papers please, which did not involve your side whatsoever. Paper's please was a war against TEst which had taken the opportunity to hit syndi/emc allies during silent, and had been rather aggressive with small matchups in general while growing a very sizeable upper tier. That war was a given. Even @Prefontaine acknowledged this. The VE war never occured. "contemplated" means "did not happen", so let's scratch that off the list. That leaves us with the SK war as the only war which was baseless aggression (and which I cede to you) before papers, please. That's a markedly different picture than:

 

Quote

Nothing was ever said along the lines that we could just roll a few alliances forever and never lose. Ironically such a situation existed before.

3. The underperformance occurred from scratch, while paracov etc. were in advantageous positions. They were often down to mismanagement, rather than member incompetence. Paracov was behind the curve on military innovations and coalition warfare (entering one at a time, focusing on navy and nukes in early wars, not realizing air was king etc. etc.)- member flush only might've started playing a role in the last two or so wars, at which point paracov was supplemented by alliances like NPO and Alpha (which was large at the time). You ae once again bullshitting.

4. BK breaking off in itself is already one of the largest alliances breaking off from syndisphere, thus syndisphere splitting. What the rest thought on the matter is irrelevant to he assertion that syndisphere did split the moment it became dominant. (on a side note, at the time I was in HW and in talks with IC about the possibility of TKR linking up with us in a hypothetical split. t$ had gone paperless. Mensa was boring itself to death (literally). All major powers in "dominant" syndisphere were either on their way out, went paperless, or were looking outwards. Your argument is completely baseless.

 

So when you make claims like

Quote

Your revisionist history to fool naive new people will always be false.  

...you better back it up.

1 hour ago, Sardonic said:

Your use of language like  'jerked around' reads to me like you still fundamentally don't understand your bargaining position.  You are not entitled to white peace, hell, you're not even entitled to a reasonable peace.  The winning side will always have more leverage in negotiations and have a better outcome than the loser.  That's how it works.

At any rate, I've seen the terms, and frankly, I think they're extremely reasonable.  Beyond that, it's not my place to disclose.

Yes, yes. Might makes right. I get it. GOONS is in this with a different perspective. There's a lot of historical contradictions at play which neither involve nor seem to interest your alliance. I'm not certain what you are trying to point out. We're aware of our bargaining position. Feel free to try to impose what you wish, we'll go from there.

We're simply not willing to *both* be spat in the face *and* be held responsible for that.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Prefonteen

[Sardonic]

5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Yes, yes. Might makes right. I get it. GOONS is in this with a different perspective. There's a lot of historical contradictions at play which neither involve nor seem to interest your alliance. I'm not certain what you are trying to point out. We're aware of our bargaining position. Freel free to try to impose what you wish, we'll go from there.

We're simply not willing to *both* be spat in the face *and* be held responsible for that.

You are correct, things that happened before GOONS' arrival do not interest me.  I merely question the hill your coalition is literally dying on.  Having seen the terms, posts like Charles' over there trumpeting defiance at all costs make little sense.

But ce la ve.  GOONS has always thrived on conflict.  We have and will continue to benefit from this war greatly.  My curiosity is more of an academic one really.

[Avakael]

43 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

Your use of language like  'jerked around' reads to me like you still fundamentally don't understand your bargaining position.  You are not entitled to white peace, hell, you're not even entitled to a reasonable peace.  The winning side will always have more leverage in negotiations and have a better outcome than the loser.  That's how it works.

At any rate, I've seen the terms, and frankly, I think they're extremely reasonable.  Beyond that, it's not my place to disclose.

The assorted alliances of Coalition A acknowledge that they are required to admit defeat, and did so 3+ weeks ago. The assorted alliances of Coalition A will eventually be required to accept terms, after the usual haggling process that hasn't (officially) begun yet.

The assorted alliances of Coalition A are not, however, required to make the war worth the effort to win. That's your problem to solve.

[Prefonteen]

3 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

You are correct, things that happened before GOONS' arrival do not interest me.  I merely question the hill your coalition is literally dying on.  Having seen the terms, posts like Charles' over there trumpeting defiance at all costs make little sense.

But ce la ve.  GOONS has always thrived on conflict.  We have and will continue to benefit from this war greatly.  My curiosity is more of an academic one really.

I'm happy to explain to you why we are "dying on this hill", though I daresay i've already done so a good couple of times. If you're genuinely interested you're free to poke me on discord I suppose. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Prefonteen

[Sketchy]

24 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

That leaves us with the SK war as the only war which was baseless aggression (and which I cede to you)

The SK war wasn't baseless aggression. The CB was against Valyria and Mensa helped us hit them.

Ironically it was actually BK who jumped into that war without invitation and turned it into a dogpile.

[Prefonteen]

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

The SK war wasn't baseless aggression. The CB was against Valyria and Mensa helped us hit them.

Ironically it was actually BK who jumped into that war without invitation and turned it into a dogpile.

Alright that's fair. If roq brings it up you're on explanation duty. 

[Sketchy]

Just now, Prefonteen said:

Alright that's fair. If roq brings it up you're on explanation duty. 

Yes sir!

[Roquentin]

58 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

...my..... revisionist history? holy crap man hahaha

1. Oktoberfest: Reps were demanded in that war, yes. There were large differences between the nature of that war and this one however:

- We were not caught plotting a war while the other party was busy fighting a second party. We were directly hit with a CB which was unfounded/had no supporting evidence presented. In the case of KETOG etc- BK clearly plotted to hit, as has been proven over and over.

- Our war had not been dragging on for half a year. It lasted (in total) from 15 October - 7 November 2015. That's including negotiations.
- We presented our terms the moment UPN/DEIC decided to surrender. As soon as possible. We did not stall for over a month with bollocks excuses.

- We did not prepare a document of (reportedly) 65 different terms. Or is that rumor unfounded?

- Finally, we did not deliberately drag out the war. You are clearly doing so right now.

 

The point wasn't about CBs.  It's that you went for punitive terms even though there was considerable attrition and knowledge it would set the alliances back for a long time so no game health concern entered into the equation in any of those wars. It was a longer war for its time.

Again like I said fast burn vs slow burn.

Quote

 

 

2. With regards to the "perpetual rolling" situation you claim existed from the end of Silent to IQ:  The only major war between IQ and Silent was Papers please, which did not involve your side whatsoever. Paper's please was a war against TEst which had taken the opportunity to hit syndi/emc allies during silent, and had been rather aggressive with small matchups in general while growing a very sizeable upper tier. That war was a given. Even @Prefontaine acknowledged this. The VE war never occured. "contemplated" means "did not happen", so let's scratch that off the list. That leaves us with the SK war as the only war which was baseless aggression (and which I cede to you) before papers, please.

In the light of no opposition, hits on smaller alliances were done with no eye to political change. Whether there were reasons or not, people were happy were happy in their consolidation. The vision the people had for the game did not include competitive wars. The side seized full advantage as much as possible and added many alliances despite having no serious competitors.

Quote

 

That's a markedly different picture than:

 

3. The underperformance occurred from scratch, while paracov etc. were in advantageous positions. They were often down to mismanagement, rather than member incompetence. Paracov was behind the curve on military innovations and coalition warfare (entering one at a time, focusing on navy and nukes in early wars, not realizing air was king etc. etc.)- member flush only might've started playing a role in the last two or so wars, at which point paracov was supplemented by alliances like NPO and Alpha (which was large at the time). You ae once again bullshitting.

I'm not. In many cases, the blitzes on one side weren't as impactful as the others in addition to the things you mentioned along with leaks.  You outblitzed Rose in multiple wars.

 

Quote

4. BK breaking off in itself is already one of the largest alliances breaking off from syndisphere, thus syndisphere splitting. What the rest thought on the matter is irrelevant to he assertion that syndisphere did split the moment it became dominant. (on a side note, at the time I was in HW and in talks with IC about the possibility of TKR linking up with us in a hypothetical split. t$ had gone paperless. Mensa was boring itself to death (literally). All major powers in "dominant" syndisphere were either on their way out, went paperless, or were looking outwards. Your argument is completely baseless.

It's not irrelevant because it was dominant for a while rather than immediately and it wasn't the intention for the majority. It's not a split when it's one side. It doesn't matter if he dilly dallied with the motion, it's been confirmed that TKR didn't actively pursue it because they felt comfortable in their position. tS went paperless and kept some treaties paperlessly. 

Quote

 

So when you make claims like

...you better back it up.

The point was fundamentally your side has a lot of people who have had their hand on the driver's wheel. They chose to operate in a certain way when they had power and the only thing you can point to is literally one of the most maligned alliances on *our* side now.  So let's just be clear your side has certain advantages that are a product of its historical ascendance and they make it a much different animal.

Quote

Yes, yes. Might makes right. I get it. GOONS is in this with a different perspective. There's a lot of historical contradictions at play which neither involve nor seem to interest your alliance. I'm not certain what you are trying to point out. We're aware of our bargaining position. Freel free to try to impose what you wish, we'll go from there.

We're simply not willing to *both* be spat in the face *and* be held responsible for that.

Erm, the other side held out for months and made it as heated of a conflict as possible. The only impetus for the sudden change of heart  it seems is you have more stuff to lose so you want to end it. You're  an addition with a different set of circumstances.

[Charles Bolivar]

54 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

You are correct, things that happened before GOONS' arrival do not interest me.  I merely question the hill your coalition is literally dying on.  Having seen the terms, posts like Charles' over there trumpeting defiance at all costs make little sense.

But ce la ve.  GOONS has always thrived on conflict.  We have and will continue to benefit from this war greatly.  My curiosity is more of an academic one really.

What else do we actually have left besides defiance? Defiance of terrible terms which are trying to impose upon us a state of gameplay which we abhor and is alien to this realm. A style of gameplay which our "side" for years has rejected and refused to employ because it is toxic and destructive for the greater community.

If you want to try impose these terms upon us, by all means try to do so. But to use your own term, we will remain on this hill no matter the cost because  the cost of surrender under the terms presented is far greater than the cost of remaining at war.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant

[Kaz]

1 minute ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

What else do we actually have left besides defiance? Defiance of terrible terms which are trying to impose upon us a state of gameplay which we abhor and is alien to this realm. A style of gameplay which our "side" for years has rejected and refused to employ because it is toxic and destructive for the greater community.

If you want to try impose these terms upon us, by all means try to do so. But to use your own term, we will remain on this hill no matter the cost.

They are kind of like ancient Sparta finally defeating Athens after generations of warfare and then not having the ability to govern the democratic city-state once the war was over.   ? 

[Charles Bolivar]

17 minutes ago, Kaz said:

They are kind of like ancient Sparta finally defeating Athens after generations of warfare and then not having the ability to govern the democratic city-state once the war was over.   ? 

To be followed by Sparta imploding shortly afterwards ?

Edited December 4, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant

[durmij]

Friendly neighbourhood context bot here.

Can confirm on the SK-Valyria war @Prefonteen. Valyria signed Oblivion, then told Oblivion to drop Rose because Rose sucks and they were going to build a new sphere and probably roll Rose. So we talked to Mensa about preempting, and in the interim BK rolled them because of, raids I think? They actually pissed off a lot of people in a short time frame and we were like, the third group to roll them in under 6 weeks. TEst being the first.

The moral of the story is, don't plot against an alliance with their long-term protectorate unless you're REALLY sure of yourself.

[ComradeMilton]

19 hours ago, Akuryo said:

What I believe is irrelevant to the fact that Alex has a history of overstepping the very bounds he claims to abide by because he doesn't understand when to shutup and what information should not be given.

Which means you implicitly admit you believe George is a thief.  You're just bitter that it's proven he's a thief.

2 hours ago, Kaz said:

What stubbornness are you referring to exactly? I’m fairly confident that one side offered formal surrender, but the other side has continually refused to even give the terms for what, 5-6 weeks now?.   What’s been leaked so far can’t be considered as legitimate “terms of surrender” by any standard of measurement in any game that I’ve ever played     

Air your full terms in public. Let the Orbis community decide how realistic they are if you’re so confident in your position. I really don’t think you have the guts to do so. 

Terms are discussed privately. This is public.  While this and similar threads remain active it's unlikely negotiations will resume.