Jump to content
Guest John Q Listener

A plea to consider Co A line members

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DivineCoffeeBinge said:

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.

And I have already said the log dumps are nothing more than us shitting on your lies. They have nothing to do with peace.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said:

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.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of cause and effect in your thorough analysis of the reason we are on the forums.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AntMan said:

And I have already said the log dumps are nothing more than us shitting on your lies. They have nothing to do with peace.

All you've "shit" on is any attempts to make yourself seem like the poor trod upon heroes in this war.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you not get about we tried to surrender but coal B admittedly(via confirmation on the owf and through numerous logs) will not let coal A surrender? We have been trying for over a month, and and are told we cannot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, James II said:

What do you not get about we tried to surrender but coal B admittedly(via confirmation on the owf and through numerous logs) will not let coal A surrender? We have been trying for over a month, and and are told we cannot.

This is an honest question because I'm bad at this type of information. Are you KECHOGG or syndicate bloc? (If syndicate is literally just syndicate, again, my apologies)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Archibald said:

This is an honest question because I'm bad at this type of information. Are you KECHOGG or syndicate bloc? (If syndicate is literally just syndicate, again, my apologies)

We are His Holiness Pontifex Atomicus, James II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James II said:

We are His Holiness Pontifex Atomicus, James II.

I mean that doesn't really help me but fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of cause and effect in your thorough analysis of the reason we are on the forums.

No, I get cause and effect just fine; my contention is that Coalition A's actions demonstrate a desire for peace on their terms. And the side that isn't winning doesn't get to set terms. If you genuinely believe that Coalition B 'does not desire peace,' well, then it is then incumbent upon you to make them desire it, either by making them regret how the war is going or by making them an offer they can't refuse - by giving them something they desire even more than they desire to continue winning the war. And what I see on the forums? Ain't that.

 

Now, again, I have to say that it appears to be doing wonders for the morale of Coalition A, as they can direct all of their emotional investment in the game towards a hatred of the 'vicious, insincere' Coalition B instead of taking their leadership to task for the way they've prosecuted the war, it absolutely achieves a positive goal for their side in that aspect, well done and good job. But it by no means brings anyone closer to peace, so let's not pretend otherwise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archibald said:

All you've "shit" on is any attempts to make yourself seem like the poor trod upon heroes in this war.

And you have lost the chance to make yourselves look like the glorious winners of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AntMan said:

And you have lost the chance to make yourselves look like the glorious winners of the war.

I feel like you're a very angry person. I really wish you'd stop disrespecting the fine art of my flag. True gentlepeople can agree, guns and fine art are truly life's greatest pleasures. Also something something coalition A B C, staying on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archibald said:

I mean that doesn't really help me but fair enough.

Always happy to help out a new player. Try the ingame search button - you’ll know who he is in no time. If you don’t know where the button is, ask your alliance. If your alliance can’t help you, join somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DivineCoffeeBinge said:

No, I get cause and effect just fine; my contention is that Coalition A's actions demonstrate a desire for peace on their terms. And the side that isn't winning doesn't get to set terms. If you genuinely believe that Coalition B 'does not desire peace,' well, then it is then incumbent upon you to make them desire it, either by making them regret how the war is going or by making them an offer they can't refuse - by giving them something they desire even more than they desire to continue winning the war. And what I see on the forums? Ain't that.

 

Now, again, I have to say that it appears to be doing wonders for the morale of Coalition A, as they can direct all of their emotional investment in the game towards a hatred of the 'vicious, insincere' Coalition B instead of taking their leadership to task for the way they've prosecuted the war, it absolutely achieves a positive goal for their side in that aspect, well done and good job. But it by no means brings anyone closer to peace, so let's not pretend otherwise.

Pardon if I'm fundamentally misunderstanding you, but you're basically telling us that Coalition A must make Coalition B want peace here, in a thread that is telling Coalition A to, "Think of your membership". You then tell us to offer our own terms for our surrender, to give Coalition B something they desire more than permanent war. May I ask then, what Coalition B desires more than war from Coalition A? Because we're waiting on that. And, because nothing has been given, we must assume then, that there is nothing that Coalition B desires more from Coalition A than permanent war, and based upon the logs that have been leaked, that Coalition A be more or less permanently destroyed as a presence in the game. 

Edited by Quichwe10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Quichwe10 said:

Pardon if I'm fundamentally misunderstanding you, but you're basically telling us that Coalition A must make Coalition B want peace here, in a thread that is telling Coalition A to, "Think of your membership". You then tell us to offer our own terms for our surrender, to give Coalition B something they desire more than permanent war. May I ask then, what Coalition B desires more than war from Coalition A? Because we're waiting on that. And, because nothing has been given, we must assume then, that there is nothing that Coalition B desires more from Coalition A than permanent war, and based upon the logs that have been leaked, that Coalition A be more or less permanently destroyed as a presence in the game. 

So, besides saying the word Coalition over and over...what did you just say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ham Dim Sum said:

So, besides saying the word Coalition over and over...what did you just say?

Us: What do you want from us?
IQ: ....War sounds good. 

Us: Welp.

DivineCoffee: Give IQ what they want.

Me: Looks like they want war.

You: TLDR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Quichwe10 said:

Us: What do you want from us?
IQ: ....War sounds good. 

Us: Welp.

DivineCoffee: Give IQ what they want.

Me: Looks like they want war.

You: TLDR

fair enough, though.  I don't know how this game is outside of war, but I can't imagine there's a shitload of clever banter like in CN.  At least people there knew how to present a character.  I've seen nothing but sour grapes from the opposition.  What happened to Schattenmann?  I actually miss the dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nippythefish said:

fair enough, though.  I don't know how this game is outside of war, but I can't imagine there's a shitload of clever banter like in CN.  At least people there knew how to present a character.  I've seen nothing but sour grapes from the opposition.  What happened to Schattenmann?  I actually miss the dude.

Eh, usually in peacetime it's fairly quiet, with most things happening in internal alliance discord channels, like what you'd see if you headed over the Guardian's discord. Some places like TKR or NPO do a lot of stuff with people across alliances though, and as a result, they have a lot more stuff in public that's visible. 

In regards characters and stuff.... I'd chalk that up to increasing amounts of bad blood from how the war started, the forum fight about that, and subsequent actions through it. Before the war, there was a hope in the general shift away from massive hegemonic coalitions, where smaller blocs of people would fight for shorter amounts of time, do less damage, and do so more often. KT/TGH's general belief in more fighting = more activity = more fun is an example of that belief. The actions that happened to cause the war, that BK's bloc planned to attack both KETOG and Chaos bloc as they were in the middle of Surf's Up and the defenses made for that hurt that hope in microspheres. NPO's later entry to defend BK, who they were not tied to and were in fact their own bloc more or less put the nail in that hope's grave. The defense made for that, that NPO believed that they were going to be next, and that the rest of Orbis had decided that IQ was their enemy was... less than convincing. I honestly was pretty disappointed at the time, even with TFP having joined the war alongside BK. Continued issues ever since then have helped little to the increasingly bad situation there.

As for Schattenmann, I don't believe I'm acquainted with him. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quichwe10 said:

In regards characters and stuff.... I'd chalk that up to increasing amounts of bad blood from how the war started, the forum fight about that, and subsequent actions through it. Before the war, there was a hope in the general shift away from massive hegemonic coalitions, where smaller blocs of people would fight for shorter amounts of time, do less damage, and do so more often. KT/TGH's general belief in more fighting = more activity = more fun is an example of that belief. The actions that happened to cause the war, that BK's bloc planned to attack both KETOG and Chaos bloc as they were in the middle of Surf's Up and the defenses made for that hurt that hope in microspheres. NPO's later entry to defend BK, who they were not tied to and were in fact their own bloc more or less put the nail in that hope's grave. The defense made for that, that NPO believed that they were going to be next, and that the rest of Orbis had decided that IQ was their enemy was... less than convincing. I honestly was pretty disappointed at the time, even with TFP having joined the war alongside BK. Continued issues ever since then have helped little to the increasingly bad situation there.

"Minispheres" were a half-baked concept with a half-baked implementation. Anyone who didn't think they were more likely to collapse than not was either blind, naive, or both.

They were a suboptimal strategic paradigm - alliances were asked to discard allies and working relationships and to not build coalitions to wage wars, which was never a stable equilibrium. The moment one set of actors broke that ill-defined, unenforced rule - "don't get too big" - their rivals would be forced to do the same or lose wars by default.

They were, as I just said, poorly constructed. There was never any real attempt to create a consensus definition of "too big" - how many nations and alliances, how much score - let alone a real plan to counteract groups that became "too big." It's notable that the only premeditated attempt (that I'm aware of) to do this, N$O's tacit agreement to act against power centers that coordinated with one another, fell apart internally and was condemned externally.

They depended on a huge amount of unaccountable amnesia. People tried to sweep 3-5 years of personal histories under the rug with predictable results.

They ran roughshod over whatever remained of the IC-OOC divide. Claiming that "fun" and "balance" for the sake of "game health" - all OOC concepts - were paramount concerns that outweighed IC motivations was more corrosive than any "hegemonic" or "stale" elements in foreign affairs prior to this year. It's again notable that the one major instance of framing anything along those lines in IC terms was N$O's ill-fated doctrine of intervening against other power centers that consolidated. By framing the possibility as a military threat rather than a "game health" issue, N$O at least attempted to prevent P&W from becoming a glorified battle simulator.

 

The central theme here isn't the supposed virtue of N$O (I've gone fully OOC for this post), but the apparent incapacity of most of the game's players to see how deeply flawed the whole project was from the start. The emotional investment in "minispheres" coupled with the lazy assumptions and unrealistic expectations that went into creating them are what made so many people so angry about how the war developed. If it's existentially important for foreign affairs to be conducted a certain way - never mind the messy details of actually making it happen - then anyone who is perceived to be against that paradigm is an existential threat. The collective refusal of so many people to either concede that minispheres weren't existentially important or to recognize that they needed do a better job in a second attempt at implementing them is what's fueled a lot of the rage over the past several months.

Lazy and inaccurate invocations of "hegemony" aside, I don't have a problem with bipolarity, although I can understand why other people might not like it. However, I have very little sympathy for the people who believed in minispheres but did little to nothing to address the problems I listed above, and I have no sympathy for the people whose motivations in pushing for them were cynical all along.

 

Quote

As for Schattenmann, I don't believe I'm acquainted with him. 

Put it this way: for the fifth anniversary of him creating a CN nation, he wrote and published an interview that was several thousand words long. He interviewed himself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deulos said:

 

The irony

yawn

you're not very good at argumentative posting, I've noticed.  All your comments have been something that couldn't be disputed because there's no substance.  You're literality the posting equivalent to ....absolutely nothing.   you're nothing, dude.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Edward I said:

-utterly hypocritical bull-

When IC motivations are dangerous to the game's health, then they need to be rethought.

When IC motivations are deliberately intended to be dangerous to the game's health, then they (by your own logic) are attacking an OOC concept, and are therefore OOC attacks.

When IC motivations are based on the OOC intentions of harming the gameplay of other players to the point of them quitting, rather than harming the IC resources of those players, then they are damn well OOC attacks and if you don't have a problem with that then you are in fact a terrible person OOC.

All this by your own logic.

Downvote me if you can :P

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.