Terms for KETOG

[Buorhann 7561]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Coalition A: "We want different wars, not the same sides"

Coalition B: "Here have 12 months NAP so we dont have to have the same sided wars for a year"

Coalition A: ? thats ridiculous.

Personally the terms aren't really that ridiculous and as Hodor says everything always starts at the extreme and gets negotiated. 

Just fwiw, we did have different wars before this one.

So your little mockery there is redundant.

[Roquentin 1413]

1 hour ago, durmij said:

 

Correction to you both, there was a war where NPO wouldn't surrender until a clause saying they did a good job was included.

Wow, @George Clooney I'm getting credit for your brilliant line. 

Still inspires so much bitterness lol

 

@Cooper_ things change. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Roquentin

[durmij 4737]

5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Wow, @George Clooney I'm getting credit for your brilliant line. 

Still inspires so much bitterness lol

 

@Cooper_ things change. 

There's no bitterness in stating the facts. Also, "lol u mad" has never been and never will be a valid argument. It's lower than whataboutism.

Edit: Would someone with more freetime than myself please dig up that thread. I feel like there are some insights to be pulled from it.

Edited December 2, 2019 by durmij

[Archibald 58]

43 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

And even our own Alliance.  I myself expect to be nuked repeatedly under this term.

You and dorkmeat prob. Maybe me too given my warns

[Adrienne 2432]

39 minutes ago, Aero Xross said:

It has come to my attention that there is a need for those who don't exactly agree with everything within Col B to speak up. And act of good faith is something someone also told me was missing. 

The position we are being put in makes any act of good faith we try to do null. Now whether you believe it's even possible for us to have a heart big enough to do such an act is your own opinion but not everyone in Col B is 100% behind what is being said or done. For one, not a single AAs goal is to fight until disbandment. It's is perceived like this because of no context leaks. Life goes on if it happens but it's not what we want. That is not the goal. At the end of the day for a lot of us, hell, for all of us. Peace is the goal. But increased volume and talks has made it next to impossible to do much. 

The terms that were leaked were never finalized. Infact, the only terms that should even be viewed as official are the first 2 which were the only 2 that were officially presented to KERCGOGG during peace talks. 

On the front of t$ terms in this. At the time these were written the t$ front of things was not being discussed as it was made clear after the first set of Peace talks concludes t$ would have their time in the light. Obviously this isn't the case now but things are ever changing and ever evolving. 

My word is my bond and all we have on this planet is our word. Do with it as you wish but you all wanted an act of good faith. This is all I can offer you.

You had weeks to show an act of good faith and instead, it was three weeks of us bending over backwards trying to show that we were willing to engage and have our concerns taken seriously to receive no reciprocation or good will in return. It's really not too late or a null effort but your coalition keeps working against that with continued trolling of our reps and other such actions. This viewpoint that they want to fight until we disband or are seeking to drive members out of the game is not solely based on leaks but also on their actions and words on here and in back channels with us. 

Furthermore, you really can't say these terms weren't finalized or shouldn't be counted as official when several of your coalition mates are validating them through defense of their terms. You've also not shown us anything contradictory to what's been posted by Kastor. It could be cleared up in a second if they aren't correct.

[Guest John Q Listener]

1 hour ago, Malinok said:

I'd rather keep fighting. This kind of BS backfired for NPO in CN.  History will repeat itself, sooner rather then later I think.

Pretty hard to keep fighting from beige

[Adrienne 2432]

13 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

@Cooper_ things change. 

This is in regards to the "we only have surrender/NAP/meme terms" statements? Convenient how that was your party line up until we posted our surrender and things only changed the second you got what you wanted and got us into talks.

[Roquentin 1413]

1 minute ago, Adrienne said:

This is in regards to the "we only have surrender/NAP/meme terms" statements? Convenient how that was your party line up until we posted our surrender and things only changed the second you got what you wanted and got us into talks.

Wrong. He linked a screenshot from August 30th. You posted your topic on November 2nd. At the time, those would have been sufficient not my fault you just spent all the time antagonizing people. =\

[Adrienne 2432]

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Wrong. He linked a screenshot from August 30th. You posted your topic on November 2nd. At the time, those would have been sufficient not my fault you just spent all the time antagonizing people. =\

He posted multiple screenshots, some as late as mid October. Try again.

[Roquentin 1413]

5 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

He posted multiple screenshots, some as late as mid October. Try again.

Well they were all collected after the post I made then but those were the minimum for a while and that's what the discussions previous reps had raised primarily. The solicitation after finalized them. The NP ones had repayments in mind as well so I was referencing that one more in the October 16th post. Most of the terms are pretty meme-y. 

[Adrienne 2432]

Just now, Roquentin said:

Well they were all collected after the post I made then but those were the minimum for a while and that's what the discussions previous reps had raised primarily. The solicitation after finalized them. The NP ones had repayments in mind as well so I was referencing that one more in the October 16th post. Most of the terms are pretty meme-y. 

TIL 10b+ in reparations is meme-y. Can't wait for the real "meme" terms.

[CandyShi 270]

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Most of the terms are pretty meme-y. 

Which raises the question of: Why not present all the terms at once? If you consider most of them to be meme terms then surely presenting them would progress peace talks?

 

 

[Shiho Nishizumi 1836]

Just now, CandyShi said:

Which raises the question of: Why not present all the terms at once? If you consider most of them to be meme terms then surely presenting them would progress peace talks?

Because the entire point of the set-up is to make it as drawn-out as possible.

[Tiberius 289]

5 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Which raises the question of: Why not present all the terms at once? If you consider most of them to be meme terms then surely presenting them would progress peace talks?

 

 

The suspense is exciting.

[CandyShi 270]

6 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Because the entire point of the set-up is to make it as drawn-out as possible.

(I think that’s what I’m trying to imply)

[Bezzers 1197]

CoS and Valinor pay 500 mil to UPN for... What? The Soup term to TCW has been explained, the 50 mil from soup to UPN is pretty easy to dismiss, the others seem to have some context and meaning but the CoS giving reps to UPN seems rather... Meaningless. If @Sphinx wanted our cash maybe I'd understand bettera, if anyone in that coalition has a claim to reps from us, it would be TCW. I don't think anyone actually does, most of the combatants here entered willingly and the others are asking for reps over a war they wanted, regardless of whether or not you consider the original logs validating our CB outdated, but anyway. Can someone explain that to me? Or is the simple explanation just that UPN is broke as hell and really needs that cash bro 

[Zygon 730]

5 hours ago, AppealDenied said:

I'm fairly certain that "here are the terms, lets talk about them" is a negotiation. 

 

Then again, context is hard for some people.

[Guest John Q Listener]

Perhaps it's because I haven't been around as long as some of the other people here, but I find it interesting that one group of players seem to post ~a lot~ about how they aren't owned or something. Not really sure about what this furious ownzone-posting will actually accomplish, but it seems to assuage some form of hurt ego, perhaps.

 

[Prefonteen 9112]

2 hours ago, Aero Xross said:

It has come to my attention that there is a need for those who don't exactly agree with everything within Col B to speak up. And act of good faith is something someone also told me was missing. 

The position we are being put in makes any act of good faith we try to do null. Now whether you believe it's even possible for us to have a heart big enough to do such an act is your own opinion but not everyone in Col B is 100% behind what is being said or done. For one, not a single AAs goal is to fight until disbandment. It's is perceived like this because of no context leaks. Life goes on if it happens but it's not what we want. That is not the goal. At the end of the day for a lot of us, hell, for all of us. Peace is the goal. But increased volume and talks has made it next to impossible to do much. 

The terms that were leaked were never finalized. Infact, the only terms that should even be viewed as official are the first 2 which were the only 2 that were officially presented to KERCGOGG during peace talks. 

On the front of t$ terms in this. At the time these were written the t$ front of things was not being discussed as it was made clear after the first set of Peace talks concludes t$ would have their time in the light. Obviously this isn't the case now but things are ever changing and ever evolving. 

My word is my bond and all we have on this planet is our word. Do with it as you wish but you all wanted an act of good faith. This is all I can offer you.

Thank you for your response.

It's strange to me that this could not be communicated to t$ for the first 20 - 30 days. The logs which you claim are out of context are supported by additional logs which are in my posession but which I have to this day kept to myself. They hail from a channel to which your alliances does not appear to have access, and prominently feature major figures involved in the peace process.

Our concerns were brought to the public because of a combination of a failure to communicate with t$, what looked to be a (deliberate) frustration of peace talks on both the ketog and t$ front and the receipt of a series of logs (over time) which suppoted the consideration that there might be no genuine interest in peace. The practices which led us to make that post have continued to this day.

In light of this, the maintenance of confidentiality which your coalition appears to demand (regarding peace talks) is something we can not uphold without seriously harming our own internal stability as well as our external brand. This is primarily due to factually misleading statements made by coalition B officials prior to our post, which frame coalition A as unwilling to come to the table.

I once again implore you and yours to simply meet us, and present the entirety of your terms. We will work with you and walk through them one-by-one. I do not believe this has to be as complicated as it appears to me.

[Do Not Fear Jazz 833]

Shark Week does not apply to members of Coalition B.

[Prefonteen 9112]

Just now, AppealDenied said:

Shark Week does not apply to members of Coalition B.

Sounds like a shitty shark week then. What happened to the unbiased, ballsy GOONS?

[MCMaster-095 262]

3 hours ago, Sardonic said:

Shark Week is a GOONS tradition.  I would expect nothing less, and nor should anybody else who are living in our world.  I can assure you it will be applied fairly to bad posters of both coalitions.

 

4 minutes ago, AppealDenied said:

Shark Week does not apply to members of Coalition B.

Might want to make sure your posts don't contradict each other.

[Do Not Fear Jazz 833]

7 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Sounds like a shitty shark week then. What happened to the unbiased, ballsy GOONS?

All good things come in time, snek.

 

2 minutes ago, MCMaster-095 said:

 

Might want to make sure your posts don't contradict each other.

You'll note that Sardonic and I aren't actually the same person.

[Prefonteen 9112]

Just now, AppealDenied said:

All good things come in time, snek.

 

You'll note that Sardonic and I aren't actually the same person.

I'm just observing the facts, friend! When the good things come I will observe those too.

[MCMaster-095 262]

Just now, AppealDenied said:

You'll note that Sardonic and I aren't actually the same person.

The "you" was referring to Goons as a whole. And I was unaware being different people means that you get to say whatever you want, regardless of whether it's true or not.