Jump to content
George

A plea to all

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

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.

Yea SK hit us first that war, I believe Mensa didn’t request our help. Something with prots I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

Yea SK hit us first that war, I believe Mensa didn’t request our help. Something with prots I think. 

It was unfortunate timing, we didn't build tanks and still coulldn't find targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

To be followed by Sparta imploding shortly afterwards 🤣

Followed by the Macedonians followed by the Romans followed by the Byzantines followed by the HRE followed by the Hapsburgs followed by Napoleon followed by the Entente followed by the League of Nations followed by the Axis followed by the Soviets followed by the EU followed by NATO followed by...

(excessively oversimplified of course)

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
forums pls

Share this post


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

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

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

George stole Pantheon’s bank. That in and of itself that makes him a thief by definition.   Stealing BK’s too?   Well, that’s your internal matter to deal with, not mine.   

And regarding negotiations, my sincere apologies.  I must have simply missed the part where they had actually started.  My bad.  I didn't realize I had become so powerful in this game that I can now singlehandedly keep the longest global war in the game’s history continuing on with mere words alone. I will exercise my newly discovered power more wisely going forward.   

Edited by Kaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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 because  the cost of surrender under the terms presented is far greater than the cost of remaining at war.

Put it to you this way.  What is an alliance's most important asset?

It's not cash.

It's not the political goodwill of its allies.

It's not even its ability to meaningfully project force in the world.

It's the ability to generate entertainment for its membership through storytelling.  The healthiest alliances entertain through actions in the world, generating stories, having the members feel part of a rich history.  This engagement is the true lifeblood of alliances, and at its core, the alliance's story is the heart.  An alliance can survive near total destruction, loss of allies, hell, in some worlds, even temporary foreign viceroys, but an alliance's story being crushed and made stagnant is the truly mortal blow. 

As I cast my eyes over the many empires of ash I see stories ending.  Even the husks that remain, the lifeblood has been removed.  I wonder how much life many would have left were a free peace reached immediately.  I have fought the rot of a losing battle before, many times on a lunar world, colonized by many hostile to goonkind.  We lost many wars, but never did we lose the story, and eventually, we gave it a happy ending.

So the peace isn't free?  So what.  So some group or another might get left out in the rain?  So what.  A potential rivalry formed by such an action has tremendous storytelling utility, even if you are still forced to work with them by circumstance.  You may think you're taking a bold stance, but from where I sit, you seem to merely choosing a needlessly early ending to your story, stubbornly refusing the inevitable.

Again though, I have to say, I am enjoying this tremendously from where I sit.  The black sun of GOONS has only just begun to rise over the horizon, and the longevity of this war only makes the glorious black dawn that much closer to reality.

Edited by Sardonic
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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. 

Please DM me on discord because I legitimately don't get your guys issue to how things have been presented so far.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

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

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

I don't really care if he is or not, you're the one whining about how he is. Let me get my cup to collect your further tears. :D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

And the loosing side will always have leverage because prolonged warfare also carries high costs for the winning side.

The terms may be "extremely reasonable" but the process BK/NPO are attempting to impose to get there is entirely unreasonable and unprecedented.  Based on the degree of bad faith that has been shown so far we have little reason to believe that the proposed terms will be "extremely reasonable" and much reason to believe otherwise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

I don't really care if he is or not, you're the one whining about how he is. Let me get my cup to collect your further tears. :D

I'm not whining. I'm not in BK. I'm saying CoA is trusting a liar in these threads and now people are even admitting they know George is a liar and still believing his posts. It's kind of hilarious how much cognitive dissonance is manifesting here.

16 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

And the loosing side will always have leverage because prolonged warfare also carries high costs for the winning side.

The terms may be "extremely reasonable" but the process BK/NPO are attempting to impose to get there is entirely unreasonable and unprecedented.  Based on the degree of bad faith that has been shown so far we have little reason to believe that the proposed terms will be "extremely reasonable" and much reason to believe otherwise.

Terms and private negotiation are not at all unprecedented.  They've happened in every single war in this game that hasn't ended in white peace.  The process is one term by one term. If you don't like it, remain at war. We can accommodate you either way you choose to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

Put it to you this way.  What is an alliance's most important asset?

It's not cash.

It's not the political goodwill of its allies.

It's not even its ability to meaningfully project force in the world.

It's the ability to generate entertainment for its membership through storytelling.  The healthiest alliances entertain through actions in the world, generating stories, having the members feel part of a rich history.  This engagement is the true lifeblood of alliances, and at its core, the alliance's story is the heart.  An alliance can survive near total destruction, loss of allies, hell, in some worlds, even temporary foreign viceroys, but an alliance's story being crushed and made stagnant is the truly mortal blow. 

As I cast my eyes over the many empires of ash I see stories ending.  Even the husks that remain, the lifeblood has been removed.  I wonder how much life many would have left were a free peace reached immediately.  I have fought the rot of a losing battle before, many times on a lunar world, colonized by many hostile to goonkind.  We lost many wars, but never did we lose the story, and eventually, we gave it a happy ending.

So the peace isn't free?  So what.  So some group or another might get left out in the rain?  So what.  A potential rivalry formed by such an action has tremendous storytelling utility, even if you are still forced to work with them by circumstance.  You may think you're taking a bold stance, but from where I sit, you seem to merely choosing a needlessly early ending to your story, stubbornly refusing the inevitable.

Again though, I have to say, I am enjoying this tremendously from where I sit.  The black sun of GOONS has only just begun to rise over the horizon, and the longevity of this war only makes the glorious black dawn that much closer to reality.

See, that's the spirit.

Personally, I have no issues admitting defeat and surrendering. The issue is the terms provided are simply unpalatable with the result being this war will remain ongoing until these terms have been modified. We have no incentive to admit defeat and surrender under these terms so why should we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

See, that's the spirit.

Personally, I have no issues admitting defeat and surrendering. The issue is the terms provided are simply unpalatable with the result being this war will remain ongoing until these terms have been modified. We have no incentive to admit defeat and surrender under these terms so why should we?

Suit yourself, seems like a waste of a lot of good stories though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

See, that's the spirit.

Personally, I have no issues admitting defeat and surrendering. The issue is the terms provided are simply unpalatable with the result being this war will remain ongoing until these terms have been modified. We have no incentive to admit defeat and surrender under these terms so why should we?

You should note that we've been doing this for like a month already. For some reason a lot of CoA is complaining about it, though, so it'd be great if you'd explain this to the CoA people.

Share this post


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

Suit yourself, seems like a waste of a lot of good stories though.

I'm more of a non-fiction fan myself 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

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:

Since I was pinged, I shall comment. TEst was hit for a variety of reasons in Papers, Please. The issue was (and is) that no CB was officially given because the real reason, which was told to me by Jessica Rabbit, was that EMC was "afraid" of our upper tier. They saw what we could do when we hit their ally, and were worried about us "teaching the other side how to fight". Those were her words, not mine. This was also before I started aggressively trolling her during peace talks, which I've apologized for, so we were still on good terms at that point. EMC Rolled TEst because they were afraid of a wild card element that wasn't glued to their side like others had thought. They used the hitting of their ally, which was authorized and approved by tS gov at the time, though it was believed to only be TEst hitting them, not Arrgh and RW as well, as reason to hit TEst. The reasons given were Not following the deal perfectly, hitting an ally, running rampant for a year, being a threat to the game, I'm an asshat, and such were largely given as the reason for the war, but the real underlining reason was fear. EMC didn't want the threat of paperless siding against them in a conflict. That's why TI happened, to provide funds and growth to try and "catch up" to TEst, that's why I told JR that TEst was going to be militarizing at the end of TI because I knew they were going to hit us, and JR herself told me the main reason is because our upper tier was a threat to them and that worried them. 

I don't begrudge them for doing so. But also don't discount what Roq is saying. Unknown to EMC at the time Roq and I were in close contact, we were talking about working together here and there and were getting closer (at least in my mind) to becoming allies. Roq wanted to bring in NPO to help TEst in Papers, Please but we both knew it wouldn't turn any tides and would only cause the war to go further. The peace talks were rubbish in that war, and they were prior to me flipping the "I'm gonna be a constant dick" switch, because there were no clear terms laid out just like there were no clear official CBs given. Our side surrendered privately pretty early in that war, stating we want to surrender and start negotiations after round 2 or so. The talks took a while to start by EMC, and the original terms presented had OOC insults to Rozallia included, rough anti-raiding penalties against Arrgh, and an Infra limit on TEst (we were already at the infra limit just about at the time of the terms). Things dragged out from that point largely from the OOC term (which did get removed), me being an utter douche, and just really, really slow responses from EMC in the peace channel.

 

Partisan, when you say Papers, Please didn't involve NPO at all, you are correct that it did not, directly. However considering Roq wanted to bring in NPO but the fruitlessness of it was known, we decided not to. TEsts disbandment afterwards removed future politics between us until KF planning. That ground work of trust between Roq and I before PP and during is what allowed us to work together on KF. 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Terms and private negotiation are not at all unprecedented.  They've happened in every single war in this game that hasn't ended in white peace.  The process is one term by one term. If you don't like it, remain at war. We can accommodate you either way you choose to go.

This degree of stonewalling and gaslighting is unprecedented.  The length of the delays is unprecedented.  Demanding people "surrender" before negotiations begin is unprecedented.  Demanding that people accept terms one by one before they even know what the other terms are is unprecedented.  The refusal to include an alliance in the other coalition as part of negotiations is at least unusual if not unprecedented.

As far as "privacy" is concerned, what isn't unprecedented is making public announcements about ongoing negotiations.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sardonic said:

Put it to you this way.  What is an alliance's most important asset?

It's not cash.

It's not the political goodwill of its allies.

It's not even its ability to meaningfully project force in the world.

It's the ability to generate entertainment for its membership through storytelling.  The healthiest alliances entertain through actions in the world, generating stories, having the members feel part of a rich history.  This engagement is the true lifeblood of alliances, and at its core, the alliance's story is the heart.  An alliance can survive near total destruction, loss of allies, hell, in some worlds, even temporary foreign viceroys, but an alliance's story being crushed and made stagnant is the truly mortal blow. 

As I cast my eyes over the many empires of ash I see stories ending.  Even the husks that remain, the lifeblood has been removed.  I wonder how much life many would have left were a free peace reached immediately.  I have fought the rot of a losing battle before, many times on a lunar world, colonized by many hostile to goonkind.  We lost many wars, but never did we lose the story, and eventually, we gave it a happy ending.

So the peace isn't free?  So what.  So some group or another might get left out in the rain?  So what.  A potential rivalry formed by such an action has tremendous storytelling utility, even if you are still forced to work with them by circumstance.  You may think you're taking a bold stance, but from where I sit, you seem to merely choosing a needlessly early ending to your story, stubbornly refusing the inevitable.

Again though, I have to say, I am enjoying this tremendously from where I sit.  The black sun of GOONS has only just begun to rise over the horizon, and the longevity of this war only makes the glorious black dawn that much closer to reality.

Very nice.  Truly a wonderfully singular viewpoint!! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Azaghul said:

This degree of stonewalling and gaslighting is unprecedented.  The length of the delays is unprecedented.  Demanding people "surrender" before negotiations begin is unprecedented.  Demanding that people accept terms one by one before they even know what the other terms are is unprecedented.  The refusal to include an alliance in the other coalition as part of negotiations is at least unusual if not unprecedented.

Delays from CoA trying to do these things publicly? Surrendering when you're the loser in a conflict is accurate and perhaps something new we're introducing. Term-by-term is how it is. tS is not going to be included in CoA negotiations or their results. They have a separate peace to negotiate.

Share this post


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

Snip

Can you stop lying? 
You repeating yourself, a troll with the same nuance as a parrot. Like seriously people have explained the answer and provide proof why your statements is wrong repeatedly. And you always return with the same tired argument in a different wording.
All what you doing is collecting downvotes, and dragging out the puplic debate, with statements that you know is wrong. 

Edited by Zim
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Like seriously people have explained the answer and provide proof why your statements is wrong repeatedly. And you always return with the same tired argument in a different wording.

No.  In the spirit of negotiation I can offer to stop discussing CoA's self-harming behavior in exchange for CoA members and allies ceasing to post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coalition A have straight forward claims backed by evidence. Meanwhile Coalition B are all over the map trying to pick a path to reach their narrative destination.

It is easy to decipher what is BS and what is legitimate. The narratives, the lack of evidence to back claims, the constant gaslighting and spinning coming from Coalition B fits into the BS category.

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.