Adrienne Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. =\ 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bezzers Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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 1 Quote Roll Squeegee pact with Redarmy and Ameyuri Blues Brothers pact with Redarmy Leader of the Elyion Resistance. If it's backed by NPO, you know it's evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygon Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefonteen Posted December 2, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astryl Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Shark Week does not apply to members of Coalition B. 1 Quote Queen of Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jasnah Kholin Posted December 2, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 6 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astryl Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 1 1 Quote Queen of Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasnah Kholin Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astryl Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Just now, MCMaster-095 said: 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. Perhaps you should point to the things GOONS leader(s) are saying and not mid gov? But, I mean, I revert back to my previous post about reading comprehension. 1 2 Quote Queen of Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasnah Kholin Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, AppealDenied said: Perhaps you should point to the things GOONS leader(s) are saying and not mid gov? But, I mean, I revert back to my previous post about reading comprehension. Well I would advise not directly contradicting what your leaders are saying, especially if you just end up saying to defer to your leaders. Makes for a bad look overall, and looks like you're just making up stuff to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 27 minutes ago, AppealDenied said: Shark Week does not apply to members of Coalition B. Then why does it necessitate the additive "These raids cannot be countered." It wouldn't make sense to present coalition B with terms to sign on behalf of all non-involved parties. Furthermore, it implies Pantheon, Fark, WTF, and Immortals will be subject to these raids, which most of us expect IQ to go after down the road anyways. Thank you for the confirmation. 1 Quote "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, MCMaster-095 said: Well I would advise not directly contradicting what your leaders are saying, especially if you just end up saying to defer to your leaders. Makes for a bad look overall, and looks like you're just making up stuff to say. AppealDenied is correct, I misunderstood the scope of the term. The failure is my own. Your lectures are misplaced, pubbie scum. Edited December 2, 2019 by Sardonic 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Sardonic said: AppealDenied is correct, I misunderstood the scope of the term. The failure is my own. Your lectures are misplaced, pubbie scum. Your name is familiar. Have we met? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Just now, Prefonteen said: Your name is familiar. Have we met? If it was in a nation or colony simulator, likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasnah Kholin Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, Sardonic said: AppealDenied is correct, I misunderstood the scope of the term. The failure is my own. Your lectures are misplaced, pubbie scum. Thank you for clearing this misunderstanding up, good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.