Jump to content

A plea to consider Co A line members


Guest John Q Listener
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Viva Miriya
Just now, Quichwe10 said:

Oh dear. I didn't realize I had any. I must lodge a complaint with the OWF registrar for this egregious mistake in my name. Thank you, kind sir, for notifying me of this grievous issue.

tl;dr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener

This thread is really disappointing to me, because I was really hoping to provide an enlightening experience to some of the leadership of Co A & Co who frequent these forums. Instead, this thread was hijacked by people with either no skin in the game or for some reason aren't willing to see how the Co A & Co leadership are damaging this game and their members. Very sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Q Listener said:

This thread is really disappointing to me, because I was really hoping to provide an enlightening experience to some of the leadership of Co A & Co who frequent these forums. Instead, this thread was hijacked by people with either no skin in the game or for some reason aren't willing to see how the Co A & Co leadership are damaging this game and their members. Very sad.

According to the thread, we are being criticized for not not giving terms to Coalition B good enough for them to want peace, and that it's not the job of the victors to tell the losers what they want from them. Speaking as an alliance leader in Coalition A, it takes two to peace, and Coalition has made its opinion clear that it does not want peace enough to tell us what terms they demand of us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
1 hour ago, Quichwe10 said:

According to the thread, we are being criticized for not not giving terms to Coalition B good enough for them to want peace, and that it's not the job of the victors to tell the losers what they want from them. Speaking as an alliance leader in Coalition A, it takes two to peace, and Coalition has made its opinion clear that it does not want peace enough to tell us what terms they demand of us. 

Weren't the terms leaked?? Do you have the terms or not? The terms seem to exist and not exist depending on what's convenient at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2019 at 3:39 AM, John Q Listener said:

Hello all,

As a Co B line member (and someone not in gov), I'd like the leaders/negotiators of Co A and t$ (whatever it is sorry) to consider the line members of Co A. Through the admission of many Co A posters on this very forum, there is a concern that some Co A players are not having a good time and might consider leaving the game. As a Co B member, I agree, I too am worried about the welfare and wellbeing of Co A players.

My plea today is for the leaders/negotiators of Co A/Syndicate or whoever else, put aside your ego and pride and act in the best interest of your alliance members. There has been a lot of posting recently about the allegation that Co B is deliberately strangling the game and making people quite, but I think that this is really just spin and displacing the responsibility of Co A & Co to act in the best interest of their members. 

Please post below if you also agree that Co A & Co should consider the welfare of their alliance members, thanks.

"put aside your ego and pride and act in the best interest of your alliance members" I agree with you, most of us want peace now and I think Col A leaders and members should be obligated to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

with term 1 being a frick you, you’re never going to accept this term),

Term 1 was actually negotiated and your side come out with suggestions that were appropriately included into the term and accepted by everyone there. The second term was submitted and there are claims we "forced" the opening of the term, when we were following the operating procedure we outlined. Term 1 is agreed, term 2 is opened and so on/so forth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
25 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

 

Quick question, how much do you read the forums and how much do you actually know about the leaks. I know Raigen hasn’t read any of them, but I’m not sure if John is being obtuse on purpose.

 

Your coalition’s official stance right now is that the leaks prevent peace (Going public). Their official stance is also to present the terms one by one (with term 1 being a frick you, you’re never going to accept this term), which made us unaware of the terms unless someone leaked them (which eventually happened). You can see the paradox that CoB has created, we either know the terms and then can’t have peace, or we don’t know the terms and thus can’t have peace.

Thanks for your response, but you are deflecting from the question I asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

 

Quick question, how much do you read the forums and how much do you actually know about the leaks. I know Raigen hasn’t read any of them, but I’m not sure if John is being obtuse on purpose.

 

Your coalition’s official stance right now is that the leaks prevent peace (Going public). Their official stance is also to present the terms one by one (with term 1 being a frick you, you’re never going to accept this term), which made us unaware of the terms unless someone leaked them (which eventually happened). You can see the paradox that CoB has created, we either know the terms and then can’t have peace, or we don’t know the terms and thus can’t have peace.

Pika, I've read the leaks. Like those messages Prefonteen leaked. So jokes on you.

Edited by Raigen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

This thread is really disappointing to me, because I was really hoping to provide an enlightening experience to some of the leadership of Co A & Co who frequent these forums. Instead, this thread was hijacked by people with either no skin in the game or for some reason aren't willing to see how the Co A & Co leadership are damaging this game and their members. Very sad.

"This thread is really disappointing to me, because I was hoping to provide an enlightening experience in which everybody agrees that my bias is absolute truth. Instead, people disagreed with me. Very sad!"

Edited by Prefonteen

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

"This thread is really disappointing to me, because I ws hoping to provide an enlightening experience in which everybody agrees that my bias is absolute truth. Instead, people disagreed with me. Very sad!"

This is quite a substantial response which definitely addresses key points raised in the thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Raigen said:

Pika, I've read the leaks. Like those messages Prefonteen leaked and Kastor too. So jokes on you.

So then you have seen:

 

1) the logs in which your coalition leadership strategizes about how to prevent peace from progressing in the immediate future

2) the logs in which your leadership puts coalition A through unneccessary hoops and generally acts like shit to tank the talks.

3) the various logs in which I (Partisan) make approaches to various coalition B figures and am given the runaround for an extended period.

 

What exactly is confusing you?

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Viva Miriya said:

I'd rather crush you all instead. Eventually there will be silence.

 

To quote a wise old man from a relatively well known franchise...

“If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

 

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Q Listener said:

This is quite a substantial response which definitely addresses key points raised in the thread. 

Your key points were addressed already in previous threads as well as this one. You opted to ignore basic logic and a heap of evidence so you could continue yelling "NANANA COAL A FAULT".

 

Not much else to respond for me at that point :)

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
1 minute ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

To quote a wise old man from a relatively well known franchise...

“If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

 

 

Sure, but the person in your example actually surrendered and allowed himself to be struck down. This is different to the current series of events, where one side of the war is choosing not to surrender.

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

Your key points were addressed already in previous threads as well as this one. You opted to ignore basic logic and a heap of evidence so you could continue yelling "NANANA COAL A FAULT".

 

Not much else to respond for me at that point :)

Actually I think you'll find that you've been trying to put the most amount of spin you can on a bad situation for yourself. What I'm doing is presenting a more balanced view of the situation. Have you thought about the best interest of your members lately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

Sure, but the person in your example actually surrendered and allowed himself to be struck down. This is different to the current series of events, where one side of the war is choosing not to surrender.

Actually I think you'll find that you've been trying to put the most amount of spin you can on a bad situation for yourself. What I'm doing is presenting a more balanced view of the situation. Have you thought about the best interest of your members lately?

What exactly is unbalanced about the sentiments displayed by your coalition leadership in raw logs? The data in that case speaks for itself.

 

..i'll again note that t$ has not been allowed to surrender, making your point moot.

I would not presume to lecture me on the best interest of my members. We know our situation and we are aware of our (lack of) options.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

What exactly is unbalanced about the sentiments displayed by your coalition leadership in raw logs? The data in that case speaks for itself.

 

..i'll again note that t$ has not been allowed to surrender, making your point moot.

I would not presume to lecture me on the best interest of my members. We know our situation and we are aware of our (lack of) options.

Thanks for replying.

I note that your alliance isn't representative of Co A, and usually you'd have to talk to someone in an actual position of authority before a surrender could be organised. Sure, I'm not in gov, and sure, maybe things are done differently here but you can try that approach. 

I am also sure that your members love being either inactive or in beige mode. They likely really appreciate the style of play that you have chosen for them. Perhaps it would be time to change your strategy or something if your current one isn't working, otherwise what do you think will change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

Thanks for replying.

I note that your alliance isn't representative of Co A, and usually you'd have to talk to someone in an actual position of authority before a surrender could be organised. Sure, I'm not in gov, and sure, maybe things are done differently here but you can try that approach. 

I am also sure that your members love being either inactive or in beige mode. They likely really appreciate the style of play that you have chosen for them. Perhaps it would be time to change your strategy or something if your current one isn't working, otherwise what do you think will change?

I do get what you're trying to convey. The problem is that we did try exactly what you are suggesting, and it landed us nowhere. The public approach was done out of necessity, because private attempts were largely ignored. It wasn't our preferred avenue to peace. 

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I do get what you're trying to convey. The problem is that we did try exactly what you are suggesting, and it landed us nowhere. The public approach was done out of necessity, because private attempts were largely ignored. It wasn't our preferred avenue to peace. 

What I'm struggling to understand, personally - and I don't speak for John in this, or anyone else for that matter - is that even granting full and unconditional benefit of the doubt, by which I mean taking your words entirely at face value... did you honestly think the 'public approach' was going to help peace happen faster? Honestly?

Like, okay, even if I accept the premise that 'Coalition A wants peace, but Coalition B is deliberately stalling peace talks in an attempt to roll some Coalition A members so hard that they either disband or quit playing,' which honestly under normal circumstances I would struggle with but we're playing the 'for sake of argument' game here, even if I accept that premise I struggle to understand how the conclusion that public accusations, leaks, and otherwise making a spectacle of the process on these forums in any way brings peace closer - which, recall, is at least in theory the goal of Coalition A.

The whole thrust of my admittedly realpolitik-tinged discussions of peace and diplomacy and war and the like throughout this thread can be likened, essentially, to a street fight. One person, Coalition B in this example, is winning the fight and has the other person, Coalition A, knocked down and is roundly kicking him about the midsection, probably hoping for a kidney shot, right? So if Coalition A wants the fight to stop - if they want to stop being kicked - does calling the guy doing the kicking names make that more likely to happen, or less?

I just... don't get it. This is the part I can't wrap my head around. Every representative of Coalition A I've read a forum message from repeats, again and again, that they want peace. But these actions don't make peace any easier to achieve. They don't make it more likely that Coalition B is going to offer better terms, or negotiate in a manner more to Coalition A's liking. All they do is make it more likely that Coalition B members are gonna say something roughly analogous to "hey screw you, pal, don't you call us liars" and resume the bombing campaigns. It poisons the well, to mix a metaphor.

Now, if the announcements and leaks were instead saying "Coalition A has determined that peace is unobtainable at this time so we're burning all our diplomatic bridges in an attempt to point out to the rest of Orbis how vile and wicked we think Coalition B is, and we hope those entities not involved in the war might decide to weigh in," then sure, I could see that. That'd be a perfectly valid and reasonable approach. It could even work. But saying "guys we really want peace" while taking actions that make peace harder to achieve - even if peace was really hard to achieve in the first place, even if Coalition B's leadership is being exactly as intransigent as you suggest - just... boggles my mind.

If you really and truly want peace, find something Coalition B wants more than it wants to keep kicking you. But this? These past few weeks of forum activity? That isn't gonna fit the bill. Peace isn't something you demand. It's something you buy, and I don't think your present course of action is lowering the price. I think it's doing precisely the opposite.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

What exactly is unbalanced about the sentiments displayed by your coalition leadership in raw logs? The data in that case speaks for itself.

 

..i'll again note that t$ has not been allowed to surrender, making your point moot.

I would not presume to lecture me on the best interest of my members. We know our situation and we are aware of our (lack of) options.

Your members can individually surrender though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Term 1 was actually negotiated and your side come out with suggestions that were appropriately included into the term and accepted by everyone there. The second term was submitted and there are claims we "forced" the opening of the term, when we were following the operating procedure we outlined. Term 1 is agreed, term 2 is opened and so on/so forth. 

As the person who made the suggestion that coalition A agreed to, this is not only factual but proves a far bigger point: Coalition B had to negotiate with itself to get Coalition A any closer to peace.

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said:

What I'm struggling to understand, personally - and I don't speak for John in this, or anyone else for that matter - is that even granting full and unconditional benefit of the doubt, by which I mean taking your words entirely at face value... did you honestly think the 'public approach' was going to help peace happen faster? Honestly?

Like, okay, even if I accept the premise that 'Coalition A wants peace, but Coalition B is deliberately stalling peace talks in an attempt to roll some Coalition A members so hard that they either disband or quit playing,' which honestly under normal circumstances I would struggle with but we're playing the 'for sake of argument' game here, even if I accept that premise I struggle to understand how the conclusion that public accusations, leaks, and otherwise making a spectacle of the process on these forums in any way brings peace closer - which, recall, is at least in theory the goal of Coalition A.

The whole thrust of my admittedly realpolitik-tinged discussions of peace and diplomacy and war and the like throughout this thread can be likened, essentially, to a street fight. One person, Coalition B in this example, is winning the fight and has the other person, Coalition A, knocked down and is roundly kicking him about the midsection, probably hoping for a kidney shot, right? So if Coalition A wants the fight to stop - if they want to stop being kicked - does calling the guy doing the kicking names make that more likely to happen, or less?

I just... don't get it. This is the part I can't wrap my head around. Every representative of Coalition A I've read a forum message from repeats, again and again, that they want peace. But these actions don't make peace any easier to achieve. They don't make it more likely that Coalition B is going to offer better terms, or negotiate in a manner more to Coalition A's liking. All they do is make it more likely that Coalition B members are gonna say something roughly analogous to "hey screw you, pal, don't you call us liars" and resume the bombing campaigns. It poisons the well, to mix a metaphor.

Now, if the announcements and leaks were instead saying "Coalition A has determined that peace is unobtainable at this time so we're burning all our diplomatic bridges in an attempt to point out to the rest of Orbis how vile and wicked we think Coalition B is, and we hope those entities not involved in the war might decide to weigh in," then sure, I could see that. That'd be a perfectly valid and reasonable approach. It could even work. But saying "guys we really want peace" while taking actions that make peace harder to achieve - even if peace was really hard to achieve in the first place, even if Coalition B's leadership is being exactly as intransigent as you suggest - just... boggles my mind.

If you really and truly want peace, find something Coalition B wants more than it wants to keep kicking you. But this? These past few weeks of forum activity? That isn't gonna fit the bill. Peace isn't something you demand. It's something you buy, and I don't think your present course of action is lowering the price. I think it's doing precisely the opposite.

Hey, thanks for the response- it's at least pleasantly written.

I'm going to try to answer this by continuing your analogy because it seems fun.

Let's say B has us floored and is kicking us repeatedly looking for that kidney shot. We started off by telling B we surrender, and asked B what he wants in exchange for an end to the kicking. Those kicks hurt. B, rather than giving us his demands, yells some obscenities and continues kicking. He then looks at bystanders and tells them:

"A keeps continuing the fight even though i'm trying to walk away".

B then tells us:
"I will keep kicking you. If you tell anyone anything about what's going on, I will keep kicking you even longer".

At that point, A realizes that it no longer matters what he does. B will keep kicking. By speaking up, A can at the very least clear his own name. He will probably still get his kidney kicked, but since that was going to happen anyway, he has no reason not to speak up.

That's roughly where we are at: The victor does get to dictate, but FA decisions always carry intangible costs and risks. In this case, coalition B is/was in position to enforce demands on us, but by going about it in the way they have, they have given coalition A the impression that there is no way out and therefore coalition A no longer believes it has anything to lose. A failure to provide future perspective can quickly turn a complete victory into a tainted one as diminishing returns kick in and grudges are borne.

 

That's the prelude to where we are at now. Our public statement is a rectification after we determined that apparently, we're fricked either way.

  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

Weren't the terms leaked?? Do you have the terms or not? The terms seem to exist and not exist depending on what's convenient at the time.

Firstly, the only terms given to us from that list was that the war ended, and that there was a NAP, both of which are no brainers since it's a peace treaty. No other terms had been given to us at that point in time. Those leaks were rather from an internal IQ leadership channel that Coalition A was not privy to. Since then, IQ has deemed it fit to refuse to confirm those terms or issue terms to us in the stead of the leaked terms. As well, IQ has repeatedly told us that there are ten terms in total, of which only 6 were mentioned in the leak. So no, we don't have terms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
35 minutes ago, Quichwe10 said:

Firstly, the only terms given to us from that list was that the war ended, and that there was a NAP, both of which are no brainers since it's a peace treaty. No other terms had been given to us at that point in time. Those leaks were rather from an internal IQ leadership channel that Coalition A was not privy to. Since then, IQ has deemed it fit to refuse to confirm those terms or issue terms to us in the stead of the leaked terms. As well, IQ has repeatedly told us that there are ten terms in total, of which only 6 were mentioned in the leak. So no, we don't have terms. 

I believe that it is normal to agree to each term sequentially, so this is not unreasonable.

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.