Guest John Q Listener Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Sun Tzu said: hey buddy handing onto the past is what makes this war going we must learn to forgive and forget All I'm trying to do here is to highlight how Col A & Co leadership/FA are not considering their line members. They continue to demonstrate this by posting logs and deflecting responsibility. All I want them to do is look after their members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 20 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: What about owr and Carthago whom you supposedly seek to punish/destroy more? That's knowledge we extracted from logs of your own channels. Or sanreizan? I've been told punishment is sought against them too. Between those, that's the majority of tS' allies. I'm confident that peace would be reached in all cases. A few offhand comments do not prove a conspiracy. The debate about intent is just meaningless conjecture. You can no more prove that we wouldn't grant peace than I can prove we would, so let's just skip that conversation. The only path I can see is persuading those who can negotiate to get peace, and just go from there. You got a bad hand, I'm sorry, but your coalition has to play the hand they've been dealt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 I think the problem here, with all these new faces posting, they probably don’t know who their leaders are in those dumped logs. Either that, or reading is too hard. 1 3 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Is Col B so powerful that they are making it impossible to surrender? It does seem really weird that Col A & Co keep saying they want to surrender but then they haven't yet? Why aren't they thinking of their membership? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Tzu Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, John Q Listener said: All I'm trying to do here is to highlight how Col A & Co leadership/FA are not considering their line members. They continue to demonstrate this by posting logs and deflecting responsibility. All I want them to do is look after their members. and that is great its just I detected some rudeness in there and yes I know that all of this is just some text on a screen and nobody can hear tone of voice so I do apologize if I am mistaken Edited December 7, 2019 by Sun Tzu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillzBob Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 i love how these GOON guys are trying to flip the narrative lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astryl Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 minute ago, KillzBob said: i love how these GOON guys are trying to flip the narrative lol There's nothing to flip, your leaders are on the record saying they walked away from the peace talks. Quote Queen of Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Tzu Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Just now, KillzBob said: i love how these GOON guys are trying to flip the narrative lol well not all goon members act like a goon member there are some good people out there or at least there is always hope for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, KillzBob said: i love how these GOON guys are trying to flip the narrative lol Just now, AppealDenied said: There's nothing to flip, your leaders are on the record saying they walked away from the peace talks. Exactly, no flipping here. 1 minute ago, Sun Tzu said: well not all goon members act like a goon member there are some good people out there or at least there is always hope for it I hope so too, thanks for your good wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillzBob Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 from all these threads that keep popping up it would seem NPO and BK does not want people to surrender they want them to quit the game so that these aa"s cant come back to fight another day and that right there is just not alright its evil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Tzu Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 minute ago, John Q Listener said: Exactly, no flipping here. I hope so too, thanks for your good wishes. you're welcome 1 minute ago, KillzBob said: from all these threads that keep popping up it would seem NPO and BK does not want people to surrender they want them to quit the game so that these aa"s cant come back to fight another day and that right there is just not alright its evil and those are the people that are going to ruin this game or at least people in gov like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillzBob Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, AppealDenied said: There's nothing to flip, your leaders are on the record saying they walked away from the peace talks. its a good thing im not in it for either side im in farksphere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teaspoon Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, CandyShi said: I seem to recall them being on the record about being open to peace talks so long as they have a full list of terms (even agreeing to negotiate 1 by 1). I also seem to recall your leaders intentionally stalling the 1st of the month talks, and them restricting it to the 1st of the month in the first place. The losers do not get to set the terms of surrender, sorry 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillzBob Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Teaspoon said: The losers do not get to set the terms of surrender, sorry No they dont but when the other side is deliberately stalling just to make people quit the game is not alright 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Tzu Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Teaspoon said: The losers do not get to set the terms of surrender, sorry yeah but they can ague and try to make peace deals more fair, in there eyes at least EDIT: and yes at some point the loser has to acment whatever demands the winner wants Edited December 7, 2019 by Sun Tzu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Nice troll/10 OP. Why everyone bit the bait to start screeching about logs everyone's already seen including you, I don't know. I just facepalmed, personally. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Tzu Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, CandyShi said: Do you know what the term negotiation means? Because I think making a reasonable request in exchange for cooperation doesn’t count as setting the terms, its called negotiating. Do you also know anything at all about how wars (and peace) have worked in this game? I think what you’re trying to say is that we haven’t tried to argue, in which case I’d like you to do your required reading. I thought I did read the required but I guess not, so what do I need to read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teaspoon Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 minute ago, CandyShi said: Do you know what the term negotiation means? Because I think making a reasonable request in exchange for cooperation doesn’t count as setting the terms, its called negotiating. Do you also know anything at all about how wars (and peace) have worked in this game? The way wars have worked in the past could not possibly be less relevant. They do not matter in the slightest and have no bearing on how anyone else conducts war in the present or going forward. So what if NPO and BK have ulterior motives for presenting terms the way they did? There was still a path to peace on the table for coalition A which its leaders could have taken to spare their members from continued war. That they did not, and without anything resembling leverage with which to change those terms, is entirely on them and their damned pride. My question is what exactly is the point of all this? Dumping logs, making a dozen threads complaining about how their enemies are treating them - what is the goddamn point? What are they hoping to achieve? Nothing posted here is going to change the minds of coalition b leadership. Y'all are just making fools out of yourselves for the sake of your own pride. You lost. Acquiesce to the victor's surrender terms, disband, or die screaming. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 24 minutes ago, AppealDenied said: There's nothing to flip, your leaders are on the record saying they walked away from the peace talks. What peace talks were these exactly? The ones deliberately being stalled by your own leaders with the intention of destroying our communities. Or, do you mean the peace talks which just were just not happening at all? We walked away from what was a deliberate waste of time perpetrated by your own leaders. 1 hour ago, John Q Listener said: Very interesting how the Col A & Co posters in this thread have demonstrated the very sentiment that is damaging the game for Col A line members. Sad! I will give you some credit, you are doing a great impersonation of Trump. I've never seen such dedication before ? +1 respect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippythefish Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 20 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said: I will give you some credit, you are doing a great impersonation of Trump. I've never seen such dedication before ? +1 respect rude accusation. John here can spell and doesn't have a moronic fanbase with which to pander. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 29 minutes ago, Teaspoon said: The way wars have worked in the past could not possibly be less relevant. They do not matter in the slightest and have no bearing on how anyone else conducts war in the present or going forward. So what if NPO and BK have ulterior motives for presenting terms the way they did? There was still a path to peace on the table for coalition A which its leaders could have taken to spare their members from continued war. That they did not, and without anything resembling leverage with which to change those terms, is entirely on them and their damned pride. My question is what exactly is the point of all this? Dumping logs, making a dozen threads complaining about how their enemies are treating them - what is the goddamn point? What are they hoping to achieve? Nothing posted here is going to change the minds of coalition b leadership. Y'all are just making fools out of yourselves for the sake of your own pride. You lost. Acquiesce to the victor's surrender terms, disband, or die screaming. t$ wasn't given an avenue to peace. 15 minutes ago, Epi said: All major alliances try to force the opposition out of the game. And i mean real opposition, ideological and personal. Not the for-fun politics we have from time to time. Personally I've spent 3 years opposing perma-war and trying to keep people in the game. Even those i hated most, might have enhanced someone else's experience and shouldn't be destroyed, just reduced. The idea this is solely something our coalition is doing or that we alone have the power to do so is ridiculous. That said, of our two coalitions i think our peripherals truly believed we were doing the right thing and a permanent victory wasn't our aim. I guess that's the difference between realists and those of us here that want to preserve competition, we've bought a dead narrative. We're naive. But i for one prefer to live in ignorance and play the game, rather than transform into some keyboard warrior, the likes of which we've only seen more of recently. This is bullshit and you know it epi. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teaspoon Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 16 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: t$ wasn't given an avenue to peace. You're the one who has been claiming that coalition B leadership's goal is to force you to disband, which is an avenue to peace right there. If you don't have the leverage to force better terms, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by stirring up shit on the forums when you know that they could not possibly care less? 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, Teaspoon said: You're the one who has been claiming that coalition B leadership's goal is to force you to disband, which is an avenue to peace right there. If you don't have the leverage to force better terms, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by stirring up shit on the forums when you know that they could not possibly care less? Well, at least one member from coalition B can publicly admit their goals at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teaspoon Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said: Well, at least one member from coalition B can publicly admit their goals at least. I am not even remotely affiliated with leadership of my own alliance even, never mind the people who are setting terms for the war. The outcome of this war and the surrender doesn't particularly concern me. I'm just sick of the ridiculous amount of whining for no real purpose. If you're so convinced that coalition b isn't going to stop until you disband, what's the point of complaining about it? Edited December 7, 2019 by Teaspoon 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.