Arawra Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 52 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. There's a lot of nothing you've said in that post other than supposedly both coalitions want to force the other out of the game, and something something you guys are realists but Col A wants to preserve competition, wouldn't that essentially make your goals to become a hegemony? Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftbehind Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, Teaspoon said: 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? It has nothing to do with us and more of showing everyone the nonsense that is consuming the game. You are smart enough to figure that out. Quote FORMER LEADER OF COTL. PLEASE GROW INTERNALLY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Thalmor Posted December 7, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 7, 2019 OP is concern trolling and should've been ignored, but this somehow grew to 4 pages in a few hours so I'll bite. As a member of a Coalition A alliance, I'm fine with whatever my government decides. However, with the terms that have been leaked, I would prefer to remain at war indefinitely than to accept the terms. I think there are many on Coalition A who feel similar, especially considering that Coalition B members have repeatedly said they're fine with us quitting or wanting alliances on our side disbanded. Knowing that our opposition has that consensus about us did a great job pissing us off. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 38 minutes ago, Leftbehind said: It has nothing to do with us and more of showing everyone the nonsense that is consuming the game. You are smart enough to figure that out. Too much expectation of him. If he was smart enough to figure it out, you wouldn’t have had to explain it. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) @John Q Listener for a community that comes from a comedy forum i expected your shitposts to be better. why dont you think of goons members before you post? you're embarassing all of the members of your alliance who know to actually post Edited December 7, 2019 by hope 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etat Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 hour 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. Two things from a rank and file member. 1. Peace has not been reached because a. your leaders won't talk to our leaders, and b. because the terms that have been made available are worse than peace. This is not rocket science mate, but you may insist on ignoring these facts as you have thus far. And for what it's worth I believe Co B people have been 'whining' more about lack of peace that Co A members, albeit the volume of Co A chatter has increased because this is the only forum upon which peace discussion is happening. Co A posts are generally not whiny at all, in fact they appear pretty consistently opposed to Co B and your goals. 2. The point of dumping logs presumably is to plant the seeds of discontent into the huge cracks in your own coalition. Certainly a healthier war tactic than perma-rolling nations to deletion which you people are doing. You people are now undeniably aware of the disease that is rife amongst your leadership, and time will tell if the healthy and reasonable parts of coalition B will choose to excise the rot. For us the logs only confirm what we already knew, and is a humorous aspect of this game (OOC off limits of course) 1 hour 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. Being new I'm not sure about the veracity of a lot of what you said, however I appreciate the notion that not all Co B members and leaders support perma-war and nation deletion. This certainly is an area of common ground. 2 Quote Celer Et Audax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Thalmor said: OP is concern trolling and should've been ignored, but this somehow grew to 4 pages in a few hours so I'll bite. As a member of a Coalition A alliance, I'm fine with whatever my government decides. However, with the terms that have been leaked, I would prefer to remain at war indefinitely than to accept the terms. I think there are many on Coalition A who feel similar, especially considering that Coalition B members have repeatedly said they're fine with us quitting or wanting alliances on our side disbanded. Knowing that our opposition has that consensus about us did a great job pissing us off. Okay then, guess that settles the thread. I'll remember to quote this exact post every time anything comes up regarding how unfair losing a war is. Edited December 7, 2019 by John Q Listener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 3 hours ago, Prefonteen said: "you need to surrender harder" Come on friend It's bound to be more effective than the current course of action. Or at the very least, more decisive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zim Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 16 minutes ago, John Q Listener said: Snip What is it with you and low quality bait? I can't see how you didn't get sick for posting worse bait, then the lowest trolls on /pol/ I really hope you a monthly subscriber on Something awfull, if this is what you call quality contest. Else i can honestly say that Reddit have a higher standdard for posters then your dying forum. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Wellington Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1. War starts. Coal A is winning do massive dmg. I mean dang Azaguls net dmg! 2. Coal B gets reinforcement and the initiative turns, B wins. 3. Coal A goes on after defeat as attrition, both side looses members on vm and deletetion. 4. Coal B, fighting an attrition war it did not started, is extremly careful of defectors, because that undermines the war. Hence owr, carth and tS. 5. Coal A drags its feet still, waiting until Nov to sort of surrender, which ofc keep bugging coal B. 6. Coal B has initiative, doesnt respond well to half baked surrenders and gets antagonized all the time on the OWF. Sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. Coal B plays the attrition game really well, utilizing a Coal A tactic, only better. 7. Coal A has hardly any options. Attrition is still happening, a new front has been reinforced, the OWF. 8. I agree with the op AND the guy who turned it around on coal B. 9. I get alot of downvotes. 1 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teaspoon Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 2 hours ago, Leftbehind said: It has nothing to do with us and more of showing everyone the nonsense that is consuming the game. You are smart enough to figure that out. Ah yes, "everyone". I'm sure the leadership of coalition B cares an awful lot about what... *checks notes*... FARK and a bunch of micros?... thinks of their decisions in a war which doesn't involve them. Top form, mate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 44 minutes ago, Zim said: What is it with you and low quality bait? I can't see how you didn't get sick for posting worse bait, then the lowest trolls on /pol/ I really hope you a monthly subscriber on Something awfull, if this is what you call quality contest. Else i can honestly say that Reddit have a higher standdard for posters then your dying forum. Thanks for the micro perspective I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zim Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, John Q Listener said: Snip My god this is sad. Goons for the first time, i kinda feel pity for you neckbeards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 I think there are some points we need to go through col b. 1) Col A has already admitted Col B has won the war. 2) Col A has said they want the peace terms. 3) Col A has not been given any. Your argument is Col A is delaying peace. No, we are not. The coalition has sought peace for months now. Still are. The logs arent to start peace. It is to show that one side doesnt want peace. We have repeatedly proved col a is pushing for peace while col b is delaying peace. We wanted the terms one by one as per the rules which was stopped by trolling and delays on part of col b. We want all the coalition to peace together, a term which is unjustified and not recognized according to col b. I agree col b are the Victors and to the Victors belong the spoils of war. But that is in real life. Here, unless there is consensual peace, there cannot be peace or a victor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftbehind Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 37 minutes ago, Teaspoon said: Ah yes, "everyone". I'm sure the leadership of coalition B cares an awful lot about what... *checks notes*... FARK and a bunch of micros?... thinks of their decisions in a war which doesn't involve them. Top form, mate. Hi Wall, my name is Lefty. How are you? It's to the player base game wide. It's not to the leaders of IQ and their little brothers in GOONS that like to take the easy route. It's to anyone that has been wondering why have this war been going on? Well, this thread and the others was us shining a light on it. The logs just verified it. Like it or not I've had people on your side message me already and tell me how much they dislike what has been going on. Quote FORMER LEADER OF COTL. PLEASE GROW INTERNALLY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Teaspoon said: 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? I didn't know pointing out lies and hypocrisy was complaining ? But carry on with your narrative if it suits your own beliefs. We will still be here fighting with what we have left. Edited December 7, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 40 minutes ago, AntMan said: I think there are some points we need to go through col b. 1) Col A has already admitted Col B has won the war. 2) Col A has said they want the peace terms. 3) Col A has not been given any. Your argument is Col A is delaying peace. No, we are not. The coalition has sought peace for months now. Still are. The logs arent to start peace. It is to show that one side doesnt want peace. We have repeatedly proved col a is pushing for peace while col b is delaying peace. We wanted the terms one by one as per the rules which was stopped by trolling and delays on part of col b. We want all the coalition to peace together, a term which is unjustified and not recognized according to col b. I agree col b are the Victors and to the Victors belong the spoils of war. But that is in real life. Here, unless there is consensual peace, there cannot be peace or a victor. Ummm weren't there terms leaked? Are these Schroedinger's terms now, and they exist/don't exist at the convenience of the author. 14 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said: I didn't know pointing out lies and hypocrisy was complaining ? But carry on with your narrative if it suits your own beliefs. We will still be here fighting away. Fighting from beige mode is now an emerging strategy, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 34 minutes ago, AntMan said: I think there are some points we need to go through col b. 1) Col A has already admitted Col B has won the war. 2) Col A has said they want the peace terms. 3) Col A has not been given any. Your argument is Col A is delaying peace. No, we are not. The coalition has sought peace for months now. Still are. The logs arent to start peace. It is to show that one side doesnt want peace. We have repeatedly proved col a is pushing for peace while col b is delaying peace. We wanted the terms one by one as per the rules which was stopped by trolling and delays on part of col b. We want all the coalition to peace together, a term which is unjustified and not recognized according to col b. I agree col b are the Victors and to the Victors belong the spoils of war. But that is in real life. Here, unless there is consensual peace, there cannot be peace or a victor. First, a disclaimer: I am not in a position of leadership or negotiation either for my alliance or the coalition. Having said that... Peace isn't something one is given. Peace is something one buys. I would argue that if Coalition A wants peace, they aren't offering enough to get Coalition B to give it to them. Now, we can argue all we want about whether the price Coalition B sets for peace is too high, but that doesn't change the fact that they're under no obligation to give peace. Why should they? They're winning. The onus is on Coalition A to convince Coalition B that peace would be in their best interests, directly or indirectly; if they're unable or unwilling to do that, Coalition B can just... keep winning. Now, maybe the offer hasn't been good enough. Maybe Coalition B wants something that Coalition A is yet unwilling to concede. I don't know (and if I'm being entirely honest, I don't entirely care; I've never known an Orbis at peace, the prospect holds no compelling attraction for me). But the fact remains that it's up to Coalition A to buy peace via some sort of concession - maybe it's the disbanding of an alliance, maybe it's an essay on the criminality of stealing fizzy lifting drinks, maybe it's enforced regular payments of filthy lucre, I don't know. But Peace isn't going to be a thing unless and until Coalition A buys peace - and thus far all I'm seeing from them is repeated plaintive cries that Coalition B won't just tell them the price outright but instead just keeps saying "nope, that ain't enough." Well, try harder. Either Coalition A buys peace, or the war keeps going. That's just... how it works. Both on Orbis and anywhere else, honestly. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avakael Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 6 hours ago, Prefonteen said: "you need to surrender harder" Come on friend Just repost the original surrender statement but in all caps, that'll work 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 1 hour ago, John Q Listener said: Ummm weren't there terms leaked? Are these Schroedinger's terms now, and they exist/don't exist at the convenience of the author. We want the terms presented by coalition B. Also, only 4 terms were leaked. Not all 10. And we are not even sure if those are the real terms or not. They might very well be obsolete atm. 1 hour ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: I would argue that if Coalition A wants peace, they aren't offering enough to get Coalition B to give it to them. So you want Coalition A to come up with terms huh? Fine. I'll draft a set of 10 terms based on the topics provided by Col B. Col B has 24 hours to submit the terms. And post that, I'll have 72 hours to draft a term table and post it in a separate post. I think that will be enough to set the ball rolling, no? 1 hour ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: Now, we can argue all we want about whether the price Coalition B sets for peace is too high, but that doesn't change the fact that they're under no obligation to give peace. Why should they? They're winning. I'd ask you to read the beginning of this reply for that. As for winning, they can keep winning for all I care. 1 hour ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: The onus is on Coalition A to convince Coalition B that peace would be in their best interests, directly or indirectly; if they're unable or unwilling to do that, Coalition B can just... keep winning. The problem with this is peace for coalition A is strictly in the bad interests for Coalition B. Your leaders have admitted that whatever war there is post this will always be between the current two sides. They have also literally stated that in case there is a second war, they will not be able to win. This literally is the reason your coalition is holding back peace. Because they want to keep winning. 1 hour ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: Maybe Coalition B wants something that Coalition A is yet unwilling to concede. I don't know (and if I'm being entirely honest, I don't entirely care; I've never known an Orbis at peace, the prospect holds no compelling attraction for me). But the fact remains that it's up to Coalition A to buy peace via some sort of concession - maybe it's the disbanding of an alliance, maybe it's an essay on the criminality of stealing fizzy lifting drinks, maybe it's enforced regular payments of filthy lucre, I don't know. The problem with your first sentence is coalition b doesnt want anything. Else I am sure they would have made their demands known. Unless they demand something, we cant give them anything. I agree that Coalition A need to buy peace. But you cant buy something if the shopkeeper doesnt tell you the price. Name a price and we will see what can be done. Both of us are speaking the same language-you want us to buy the peace and we want to buy the peace. Honestly, you should be asking Col B to name the price. 1 hour ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: But Peace isn't going to be a thing unless and until Coalition A buys peace - and thus far all I'm seeing from them is repeated plaintive cries that Coalition B won't just tell them the price outright but instead just keeps saying "nope, that ain't enough." Well, try harder. Once again, I completely agree with your first sentence. And you are right about the Col B wont tell us the price. Again, you are contradicting yourself here by saying Col A needs buy peace and immediately later saying Col B isnt telling the price. You literally are telling Col B is stalling the negotiations and then blaming Col A for delaying it all in one single sentence. The correct thing to do right now is for you to urge your coalition leaders to give the terms since that's what you want and I want. And the "I dont really care about peace" attitude you display is something you should fix if you are actually asking col A to peace because you cant have war and peace in the same line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzy Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 The main issue seems to be that roq claimed the reasons for sending the terms one by one were discussed in private with coA leaders. If we were to be privy to that discussion or, more precisely, able to understand why the terms are being given one by one, instead of all at once as has been the precedent, better understanding of the underlying situation could be achieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 37 minutes ago, AntMan said: Once again, I completely agree with your first sentence. And you are right about the Col B wont tell us the price. Again, you are contradicting yourself here by saying Col A needs buy peace and immediately later saying Col B isnt telling the price. You literally are telling Col B is stalling the negotiations and then blaming Col A for delaying it all in one single sentence. There's no contradiction. Coalition B isn't under any obligation to tell a price for peace, or even to set one. Coalition B is winning the war, and you yourself make a pretty compelling case that ending that war isn't in Coalition B's best interests, so given those two facts, why should Coalition B set any price? Why should they do much of anything beyond continuing to win the war? If Coalition A wants peace, they're the ones who are going to have to buy it. Clearly they haven't managed it so far, but rather than saying 'well I guess our offer wasn't high enough, let's try again' they've opted to start flitting about the forums making thread after thread about the wickedness and awfulness of Coalition B - which, I would bet cash money, is not going to make peace any more achievable for them. All that does is raise the price. Admittedly, that wasn't the real purpose in this stream of leaks and accusations, no matter how hard anyone tries to claim it was; the purpose is to try and shore up the morale of Coalition A members so they can blame Coalition B for the war's continued existence rather than the intransigence of their own leadership. Which is the smart move to make, of course, and it's clearly working pretty well considering the results, but it's not exactly getting anyone closer to peace. Which, as I've said, suits me fine. 1 3 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 17 minutes ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said: There's no contradiction. Coalition B isn't under any obligation to tell a price for peace, or even to set one. And the contradiction is: You are telling Col A to peace but you yourself arent ready to peace. The log dumps are just us showing the rest their fate. Keep increasing the price. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, John Q Listener said: Fighting from beige mode is now an emerging strategy, apparently. You have my apologies, I should have known you were one of these much prized rarities. A 2 city strategical genius who has been playing for less than a month and has 25 easy wars under his belt. Please continue to tell all of us about...strategy... 7 hours ago, nippythefish said: rude accusation. John here can spell and doesn't have a moronic fanbase with which to pander. I will also give you +1 respect for your mastery of either irony or sarcasm. Edited December 7, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DivineCoffeeBinge Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 2 hours ago, AntMan said: And the contradiction is: You are telling Col A to peace but you yourself arent ready to peace. The log dumps are just us showing the rest their fate. Keep increasing the price. I'm not telling Coalition A to get peace; I don't, as I've said repeatedly, care that much one way or the other. I'm telling Coalition A 'your approach is boneheaded, you should consider adjusting it if peace is really what you want.' I was, admittedly, attempting to use more polished language than that but I guess it wasn't getting through. 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.