Jump to content

Something to consider


souparmon
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

From the announcement where we walked away from talks:
 

 

If that misunderstanding was part of the concerns from your coalition, hopefully that's cleared up now.

This wasn't what was offered by our coalition to coalition A. So you're basically agreeing to do things how you see fit, and not how the winning side has agreed to present terms in a nominal effort to improve your sides negotiating power out of some weird fear that we're somehow going to enforce terms that are draconian in nature.

Edited by AppealDenied
Typo
  • Upvote 1

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

It's a fair bit more than a "few" jokes and offhand comments and it's backed up by the actions your coalition representatives have undertaken. That's the larger issue here - that we have not seen any genuine action being undertaken by Coalition B as a unit towards peace. I understand not everyone agrees and that coalitions have differing viewpoints and concerns among different member alliances but your coalition's appointed reps have held an uncompromising stance towards splitting our coalition and undermining our ability to negotiate amongst other actions such as delaying t$'s peace talks. Any one of these actions on their own could perhaps have been overlooked but the combination of all of them, regardless of leaks, have made it fairly obvious that they were not serious about peace during the three weeks we were working with them during. During the same time period, we made multiple concessions in an attempt to negotiate and none of those actions were reciprocated.

None of those concessions were reciprocated because they were not what was requested of you.

I'll cop to being somewhat new here still but from what I can tell you and your coalition seem to be banking heavily on decorum and norms.  In the hypernormalised year of our lord 2019, such things have somehow even less value than in years prior, so this seems like a really bad bet frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AppealDenied said:

This wasn't what was offered by our coalition to coalition A. So you're basically agreeing to do things how you see fit, and not how the winning side has agreed to present terms in a nominal effort to improve your sides negotiating power out of some weird fear that we're somehow going to enforce terms that are draconian in nature.

“Weird fear” backed up by several actions of Coalition B and also backed up by the collection of logs from Coalition B’s leadership.

We are agreeing to how Coalition B would like to conduct talks by going through the terms one-by-one, so long as the terms are all listed.

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AppealDenied said:

This wasn't what was offered by our coalition to coalition A. So you're basically agreeing to do things how you see fit, and not how the winning side has agreed to present terms in a nominal effort to improve your sides negotiating power out of some weird fear that we're somehow going to enforce terms that are draconian in nature.

I don't believe our "weird fears" are unfounded given all we've seen in the last week. As I said though, we tried to negotiate this and come to an agreement on the structure that would work for both parties. We listened to your concerns about not wanting these talks to be like Knightfall - and agreed with them - and submitted a counter offer we believed addressed both yours and our concerns but our concerns were not listened to or addressed in kind. There is a deep lack of trust between coalitions, as has been clearly demonstrated on these forums, and hiding terms behind the structure of talks does little to alleviate that. If they aren't draconian, there really shouldn't be an issue helping to engender a little trust in this process. The stated intent behind presenting the terms one by one was to keep things structured and organized. We agreed to negotiating them one-by-one for that reason and we intend to hold to that. 

1 minute ago, Sardonic said:

None of those concessions were reciprocated because they were not what was requested of you.

I'll cop to being somewhat new here still but from what I can tell you and your coalition seem to be banking heavily on decorum and norms.  In the hypernormalised year of our lord 2019, such things have somehow even less value than in years prior, so this seems like a really bad bet frankly.

I don't think asking to be treated with respect when we were making an effort to be civil in talks even with all the tensions is a ridiculous request. If you do, then maybe that's part of the issue between our coalitions.

  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

Oh please.  You have all of a few jokes and offhand comments worth of evidence for this claim.  The beginning of the peace process has been put forth by Col B, it is not our problem if Col A refuses to take that first step.  It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that just because we want to negotiate with one of the parties we're at war with first before settling anything else, that disbandment is being enacted as a matter of policy for the rest.  Were peace reached with said negotiable party, and Col B continued to refuse to grant terms, then you might have an argument.

Just answer to this question

GOONS want peace or not?

If you want peace find our coalition leaders and talk with them (asking for peace terms worse than staying at war is not asking for peace)

If you are ok with the current situation continue the war, for me GOONS at war and GOONS out the war makes no difference, the game healt is still at high risk

Just don't tell me you want peace and at the same time you support your coalition choices because the two things are in contrast and that's where the discussion for me ends

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Just answer to this question

GOONS want peace or not?

If you want peace find our coalition leaders and talk with them (asking for peace terms worse than staying at war is not asking for peace)

If you are ok with the current situation continue the war, for me GOONS at war and GOONS out the war makes no difference, the game healt is still at high risk

Just don't tell me you want peace and at the same time you support your coalition choices because the two things are in contrast and that's where the discussion for me ends

We wouldn't refuse peace were agreements reached.

I think you misunderstand me.  I'm not speaking as leadership of GOONS attempting to achieve an end for ourselves.  No matter what happens, GOONS will win.  I'm trying to give you good advice, because it seems patently obvious to me the way you've all been trying to go about this is naive,  misguided and more importantly, not working at all.

27 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

I don't think asking to be treated with respect when we were making an effort to be civil in talks even with all the tensions is a ridiculous request. If you do, then maybe that's part of the issue between our coalitions.

Not even talking about that aspect.  You believe you are entitled to peace out all at once as a coalition.  That there's some invisible righteous force willing to enforce that as a norm.  I'm telling you that by all accounts that's not going to happen.  It's unmaterial thinking.  It is not even as if any alliance of your coalition has the strength to meaningfully assist and change the fate of any other alliance in your coalition.  Were peace reached with one part, and the other part refused peace, you could just threaten re-enter anyway.

I get your position. I really do.  But doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing.

Edited by Sardonic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

It's a fair bit more than a "few" jokes and offhand comments and it's backed up by the actions your coalition representatives have undertaken. That's the larger issue here - that we have not seen any genuine action being undertaken by Coalition B as a unit towards peace. I understand not everyone agrees and that coalitions have differing viewpoints and concerns among different member alliances but your coalition's appointed reps have held an uncompromising stance towards splitting our coalition and undermining our ability to negotiate amongst other actions such as delaying t$'s peace talks. Any one of these actions on their own could perhaps have been overlooked but the combination of all of them, regardless of leaks, have made it fairly obvious that they were not serious about peace during the three weeks we were working with them for. During the same time period, we made multiple concessions in an attempt to negotiate and none of those actions were reciprocated.

We've been fairly clear with our stance here but maybe it's gotten lost amid all the recent leaks and drama. We took the first step when we publicly posted our offer to surrender. We have not rescinded them. None of what we're asking for is ridiculous or uncalled for and we made these overtures in private first. If we thought leaving it at that would have sufficed, we wouldn't have come here, but between how our requests were handled there and the narrative that we were the ones delaying talks despite all our best efforts to negotiate and come to an agreement with your coalition, we felt like publicly addressing our issues and concerns and making clear the progress of negotiations up until that point was necessary.

Clearly this is working since you're at peace now.

47 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

We are willing to negotiate though and we've made it clear what it'll take to get us back to the table. We still agree to surrendering as a term. All we're asking for is for talks to be conducted straightforwardly, with all terms presented upfront and all coalition members included. That's it.

We make it clear what it'll take. All terms will not be revealed or negotiated at once. tS is not recognized as a member of CoA and will need to negotiate peace on their own.  That's it.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AppealDenied said:

Until the full list of terms are presented and you all immediately dump them publicly as you are want to do; as partisan has shown.

If the full list of terms are presented and we're not being trolled and talks purposefully delayed, there is no reason for them to make their way here. We've stated a few times the purpose behind our actions and it wasn't "lol, look, logs". 

14 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

Not even talking about that aspect.  You believe you are entitled to peace out all at once as a coalition.  That there's some invisible righteous force willing to enforce that as a norm.  I'm telling you that by all accounts that's not going to happen.  It's unmaterial thinking.  It is not even as if any alliance of your coalition has the strength to meaningfully assist and change the fate of any other alliance in your coalition.  Were peace reached with one part, and the other part refused peace, you could just threaten re-enter anyway.

I get your position. I really do.  But doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing.

We had agreed to conduct talks separately initially and started to proceed with talks. The result was half the group being purposefully delayed and denied the ability to negotiate. That's not an acceptable outcome to us. We understand the position we're in but that doesn't mean we have to agree with the actions being taken and with the combination of all these issues I outlined, we played the cards we had available to us. If you think it was the wrong thing to do, that's your prerogative, but beyond continuing with the status quo, I don't see how we could have done much differently. This wasn't the first thing we ran to doing either, we attempted to work things out in private first.

Edited by Adrienne
  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

We wouldn't refuse peace were agreements reached.

Same for our side

Now step 2, what are your requests? Are you open to remove/modify some of your requests to reach peace?

14 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

No matter what happens, GOONS will win.

Win what? There's nothing to win in this game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Micchan said:

Same for our side

Now step 2, what are your requests? Are you open to remove/modify some of your requests to reach peace?

I am not my alliance's representative and this is not the venue for negotiations.

1 minute ago, Micchan said:

Win what? There's nothing to win in this game

Well that's just loser talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only representative for GOONS in the peace talks is me, and our terms have already been leaked. Take it up with the rest of the coalition and leave us alone.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AppealDenied said:

If you wanted to try and close the war, this isn't the way to do it.

Neither is trying to talk to you guys about it so, what are they supposed to do?

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sardonic said:

What was asked of them.

Is this supposed to be a circle back to the "one at a time" and "no public discussion" nonsense?  Cause that's exactly what all that is, especially after almost half of the terms have been leaked.   Or are those still "fake logs?"

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dr James Wilson said:

Is this supposed to be a circle back to the "one at a time" and "no public discussion" nonsense?  Cause that's exactly what all that is, especially after almost half of the terms have been leaked.   Or are those still "fake logs?"

And what has their tantrum earned them?

They should just do what what was asked and be done with it, or don't, I guess.  I'm not seeing how time is going to change any of the incentives involved here.  Attempts of claiming forced disbandment are meaningless so long as there is a pathway to peace, no matter how thorny they see it.  It's not the gotcha line so many of them seem to think it is.  In my view they're doing this to themselves.  I would have taken the deal months ago.

Edited by Sardonic
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

And what has your tantrum earned you?

Just do what what was asked and be done with it, or don't, I guess.  I'm not seeing how time is going to change any of the incentives involved here.  Attempts of claiming forced disbandment are meaningless so long as there is a pathway to peace, no matter how thorny you see it.  It's not the gotcha line so many of you seem to think it is.  In my view you're doing this to yourselves.  I would have taken the deal months ago.

Do you guys not check who you're responding to?   Or are you just copy/pasting computer generated responses?   I'm not Col A.   And as i told your other terrible shitposter the other day, one/two posts does not make a tantrum or me yelling.   I expected better from a longtime goon like yourself.  I guess you need to get better at shitposting too.

 

edited: and again, you jumped in well after the war was decided so you should all stop acting like goons contributed something...cause ya didnt.

Edited by Dr James Wilson
edited

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dr James Wilson said:

Do you guys not check who you're responding to?   Or are you just copy/pasting computer generated responses?   I'm not Col A.   And as i told your other terrible shitposter the other day, one/two posts does not make a tantrum or me yelling.   I expected better from a longtime goon like yourself.  I guess you need to get better at shitposting too.

My apologies, I didn't realize you were in one of the fence sitter alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

My apologies, I didn't realize you were in one of the fence sitter alliances.

Lol, yea, cause you got such big balls bandwagoning into the winning coalition.   And no need to apologize for posting before thinking.  It's a goons tradition.

Edited by Dr James Wilson

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Micchan said:

And in the ignored list it goes

My pronouns are He/Him/(Singular They) thanks.

1 minute ago, Dr James Wilson said:

Lol, yea, cause you got such big balls bandwagoning into the winning coalition

Admittedly it may not be the most difficult feast, but it is one whose meat we still relish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sardonic said:

My pronouns are He/Him/(Singular They) thanks.

Admittedly it may not be the most difficult feast, but it is one whose meat we still relish.

+1 for the first line.   You relish rotten meat?

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

We can't make anything less intensive or 100% risk-free for anyone so it's always easy and not burdensome at all.  Even though he's being sarcastic the point about commitment is very pertinent as the point is pertinent as newer/less entrenched alliances will be more enticed to ditch because it's easy to see it "if I get out of the way, I'll be on easy street."

Soft diplomacy is a valuable too you know?

Untitled.png

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.