Jump to content
Guest John Q Listener

A plea to consider Co A line members

Recommended Posts

We really need a name for Coalition A and Coalition B

Share this post


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

We really need a name for Coalition A and Coalition B

Memesphere and Anti-Memesphere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
59 minutes ago, Micchan said:

We really need a name for Coalition A and Coalition B

 

59 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

Memesphere and Anti-Memesphere

'Memesphere' and 'PLEASE LET US SURRENDER OH GOD WHY WON'T YOU LET US SURRENDER YOU'RE KILLING THE GAME BY NOT LETTING US SURRENDER JUST LET US SURRENDER IT'S NOT FAIR THAT WE CAN'T SURRENDER PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP-sphere'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

Lmfao. Do something about it then. 

I find it interesting that it was only after things turned around that  you started posting. 

You're right I'm not in a position to do much more than call out your bs for what it is.  But if you think that NPO and BK dancing over the graveyard of this game is some sort of victory, I guarantee you will not be the one having the last laugh.  I doubt your members will enjoy a dead game.  

16 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

If I am as bad as you say I am you would think people would do something besides complain. 

I mean almost half of your original sphere thinks this and many members still in your coalition.  It's not an isolated attitude that encouraging disbandment and member attrition is unacceptable.  Maybe I am a purist for these sorts of ideologies, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Edited by Cooper_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I find it interesting that it was only after things turned around that  you started posting. 

You're right I'm not in a position to do much more than call out your bs for what it is.  But if you think that NPO and BK dancing over the graveyard of this game is some sort of victory, I guarantee you will not be the one having the last laugh.  I doubt your members will enjoy a dead game.  

My members are fine. I am sure if they had issues we’d hear about it. Ultimately I imagine they agree with me that I am not responsible for your failure to keep your members interested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I find it interesting that it was only after things turned around that  you started posting. 

You're right I'm not in a position to do much more than call out your bs for what it is.  But if you think that NPO and BK dancing over the graveyard of this game is some sort of victory, I guarantee you will not be the one having the last laugh.  I doubt your members will enjoy a dead game.  

I mean almost half of your original sphere thinks this and many members still in your coalition.  It's not an isolated attitude that encouraging disbandment and member attrition is unacceptable.  

tenor.gif?itemid=5552043

On the upside, if the game does end, think about how much free time we'll all have.  I plan to take up bird watching (by which I mean staring creepily at @TheNG)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Honestly Leo, I'm surprised you'd even show your face here.  There isn't a lot of tolerance for people who act and say as you do, but I guess whatever lets you sleep at night.   

I'm not too surprised honestly.  Have you seen the log dump and his talk there?  It's pretty enlightening (Not on him, it's his usual spiel.  The others though?  Woo...)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

My members are fine. I am sure if they had issues we’d hear about it. Ultimately I imagine they agree with me that I am not responsible for your failure to keep your members interested. 

TKR is quite fine.  We've been steady/slightly growing in members for a while now.  There really isn't too much shortcoming on that front because we have a strong community as I'm sure BK does too.  But for many alliances that isn't as true.  They don't have 4 years of war experience and the "great filter" of KF.  

Fledgling communities are being destroyed not because their govs can't keep them interesting but because y'all are actively trying to subject them to attrition and pressure them to disband.  Don't gaslight as to who is the cause here.  You've been caught red-handed.

 If your members agree with your statements, then I'd contend its either due to a lack of information or a culture that perpetuates attitudes that are destructive to game-health.  Go ask some of your players to play CN and ask them if they enjoy its stagnation and deadness because that's where we're heading.  

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

tenor.gif?itemid=5552043

On the upside, if the game does end, think about how much free time we'll all have.  I plan to take up bird watching (by which I mean staring creepily at @TheNG)

I get this is a joke, but it isn't funny.  We're just asking for a seat at the negotiating table.  You can find the time to make memes, but you can't find the term to compile a terms list and set real negotiations?  That's just bad faith.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

If your members agree with your statements, then I'd contend its either due to a lack of information or a culture that perpetuates attitudes that are destructive to game-health.  Go ask some of your players to play CN and ask them if they enjoy its stagnation and deadness because that's where we're heading.  

Your game =\= game health. 
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I get this is a joke, but it isn't funny.  We're just asking for a seat at the negotiating table.  You can find the time to make memes, but you can't find the term to compile a terms list and set real negotiations?  That's just bad faith.

There's not a "seat" at the table because it was their intention to dissolve/disband some of the AAs.  Dissolve KETOG, disband TKR, KT, and TGH were the most common things stated in their private chats.  There was a very clear indication that they wanted to stall or outright ignore the peace talks by giving Keegoz/Adrienne, then later Partisan - the run around so they can keep the war going and having our members leave/delete.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

they can keep the war going and having our members leave/delete.

Your failure to keep member interest is not our responsibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Micchan said:

We really need a name for Coalition A and Coalition B

Coalition A: The Initiative

Coalition B: Karma

Makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

On the upside, if the game does end, think about how much free time we'll all have.  I plan to take up bird watching (by which I mean staring creepily at @TheNG)

bJMaF0G.png

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I get this is a joke, but it isn't funny.  We're just asking for a seat at the negotiating table.  You can find the time to make memes, but you can't find the term to compile a terms list and set real negotiations?  That's just bad faith.

Histrionics aside (people have been claiming the game was dying/dead pretty much constantly during the 4 plus years I've been here), TKR did have a seat at the negotiating table - we started negotiations with Chaos/Rose/KETOG on November 5th and they walked away on the 13th over protests regarding the format/separate track for Syndi.  While that's your guys' prerogative, the request should be for another seat at the table, since one was already provided and then abandoned, at least as far as non Syndi AAs are concerned.

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

There's not a "seat" at the table because it was their intention to dissolve/disband some of the AAs.  Dissolve KETOG, disband TKR, KT, and TGH were the most common things stated in their private chats.  There was a very clear indication that they wanted to stall or outright ignore the peace talks by giving Keegoz/Adrienne, then later Partisan - the run around so they can keep the war going and having our members leave/delete.

That sounds like a you problem

1 hour ago, TheNG said:

bJMaF0G.png

giphy.gif

Edited by Curufinwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, at least the public rhetoric from Coalition B now matches the private discussions which were occurring in the logs. All sense of pretense has finally been dropped.

I suppose that's some form of progress moving forward.

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Oh well, at least the public rhetoric from Coalition B now matches the private discussions which were occurring in the logs. All sense of pretense has finally been dropped.

I suppose that's some form of progress moving forward.

The stakes of this war has always been one of survival for us. So can't help that you folks raised the heat around this war, and now aren't enjoying being burnt for it. If your Government's public disclosures were a sign, our private discussions reacting to the nature of the war is only natural. 

This war as I've posted in my WoT's through out has always been an end game for us thanks to the stakes KERTCHOGG raised it to publicly, so can't really fault us for rising up to that challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

And now we have moved to the logic chopping stage of the conversation, have we? I put forward my thesis in the OP and subsequent posts, none of which have been clearly addressed or refuted. All that has been put forward since is a lot of not-my-faultisms, and grr Co B. When will a Co A & Co leader come forward and take responsibility. I hope it's soon.

 

6 hours ago, Quichwe10 said:

Then so be it. Let us go over your thesis, and subsequent posts yet again. We start with your OP, in which you have asked us, the leaders of Coalition A, to "think of our members", and to peace out, rather than stroking our egos. You state then that it doesn't matter what IQ has done, but that it's all really just spin, and us putting off the blame to IQ. There are two major issues that have been raised with your OP. Firstly, that Coalition A has been able to surrender, and that IQ's very leadership outright saying that they plan to war us until we are either disbanded or have left the game entirely. 

These points were mentioned several times on the first page of the thread. First by Filmore, who stated that KERCHTOG had surrendered to Coalition B, and made reference to the leaked logs of internal IQ channels that showed leaders of Coalition B purposefully stalling peace negotiations in order to have more and more Coalition A members delete. This is the very fourth response to your OP in the thread. Charles the Tyrant also makes reference to said leaked logs several posts down, to which you respond as such:

We are indeed thinking of our membership right now because we are attempting to make peace with IQ. And yet, you decide to go, well, anything you say does not matter because you don't think we, Coalition A, is actually doing anything, and that any criticism of the current peace progress, where IQ refuses to speak to us whatsoever, is gaslighting you and shifting blame away from Co A. 

Partisan later comes into the thread and makes his own response, on how t$, a part of Coalition A, is unable to get peace, and makes reference to leaked logs that have IQ gov members continue to give us the runaround. 

The second page begins with multiple people attacking Partisan and blaming him for why t$ and its allies have not dropped out of the war. In response, Partisan points out that we are still trying to reach peace in private, that their doors are still open to IQ negotiators. He then makes reference to  logs showing that IQ leadership has stated that they wish to destroy and punish t$ aligned coalition members as to why they have not sought separate peace. 

You quickly then drop back into the thread with:

and:

Both of these show a complete lack of willingness to actually read a thing and understand what is happening. Rather, it is vastly more apparent that your only purpose here is to continually blame Coalition A for every issue that has happened in the peace process, contrary to your opening attempt to appear as if all you wish for is honest and open discussion. You do this again on the start of the third page of the thread, once again stating, "think of the membership!". 

Pausing here for a moment, and actually assuming that you had been in earnest, something that has been shown to be patently untrue in this thread, you ask us to peace out for the sake of our members. And, again, you give us no direction on how to do so. Peace through private channels and behind closed doors have been halted, turned away, or rejected. The very ways you keep telling us to go through for peace do not exist. Sardonic attempts to defend IQ by saying that he is sure that continued statements by IQ that they wish to see Coalition A rendered entirely defunct from the game itself mean absolutely nothing, and that we must persuade IQ negotiators to give us peace in order to do so, a defense you upvoted. 

This brings us to a new issue, in that, how do we persuade IQ's negotiators to come to the table with us? We are defeated, and we have admitted as such, meaning that we cannot apply the pressure to force negotiators to the table via sheer military force. Economic force is not present, as all major alliances have incredibly large reserves to keep themselves going in the war. Appealing to the goodness of their hearts did not work, and by the comments of their leadership when they are in closed quarters, will not work because they seek to inflict more war upon us. The avenue we were left with was to appeal to Coallition B's membership, that they perhaps may push IQ negotiators to speak with us at the peace table. And, that now appears to have put far too much stock in them, as we can see by this very thread.

Continuing on in the thread, you then post this: 

Again, you purposefully state, "think of the membership", and ask why we can't surrender. Much like sex, it takes two to tango here. Do you perhaps think that the victim of a serial killer is able to simply surrender to the serial killer, and the serial killer, who's just there to murder them, will actually agree? For peace to happen, both sides must agree to stop fighting the other. Coalition A wishes for the fighting to end. IQ evidently does not. That being said, I would predict that you would merely ignore this in totality, in order to continue to troll and shitpost. 

It is by page 4 then, that we begin to see you speak about the terms, and how they were leaked. 

As I explained to you, we had not been given the terms by IQ, so we did not know of them beforehand. After those had been leaked, IQ has refused to speak to us and give, confirm, or deny any further terms. DivineCoffeeBinge then comes in and tells Coalition A must give terms to IQ in order for peace to bring them to the table. Once again, we run into the issue of IQ refusing to speak to us, and a new issue in which, apparently, we're completely changing the original peace process. However, this is very easily explained by the logs that were leaked. That is, that IQ does not wish to peace with us. They would rather force us from the game entirely. Divine then comes in later that very page, and states that "the side that isn't winning doesn't get to set terms". Surprise surprise, this runs into the issue that, we're not setting terms. We're ready to receive them. It just so seems that IQ either does not have the terms, is not willing to give the terms, or just doesn't wish the war to end, the latter of wish would be supported by previously mentioned leaked logs. 

After that is where I step in, and attempt to explain once again my perspective on some things. @Edward I steps in with his portion on the infeasibility of minispheres. Unfortunately, I don't believe I'll be able to give you a response worthy of your own here, Edward, but with the concern of how to counteract too large groups, Rose's forward looking direction was to be a free agent that would be able to pick their own fights, and also to help keep the minisphere concept alive. This belief was a very large part of their joining of the current war, in order to prevent more people from making plans to attack other minispheres at their weakest or during a fight. I really only saw this war as an effort to be the first stress test of the system for how it would be enforced. Unfortunately, the IC/OOC and amnesia criticism was fully born out by NPO joining BK's side. But, before that, you had people who had previous working relations with each other fight each other for something that was all in fun and relative good cheer. And, this is where I'd probably chalk up so much anger stemming from here, because it was basically a time where defeat was seized from the looming jaws of victory. The system had had it's first war between people who'd known each other, the system had responded back to someone who attempted to abuse the system, and it had almost been working once again until NPO engaged on behalf of BK.

Heading back into @John Q Listener's shitpostings, page six more or less was a series of shitposts until you once again moan that no one is accepting blame, and I explain as others did before me the situation at hand. Your subsequent posts just kept ignoring every single thing that was said to you, and continuing to blame Coalition A for not peacing out. It's actually here that you start going, "lalalalalalala everything I don't like is Hitler spin!"

Coffee then comes in and goes, well, how does making it public help you, to which, our response is, well, nothing else worked, so why wouldn't we give it a shot, as well as explaining in more detail how it takes two to peace out.

After that, you return:

Once again, you refuse to listen to a thing that we have said, and continue to deflect and make your own assertion that it is Coalition A's fault for why no peace has been reached. Finally, I ask you to offer a rebuttal to the arguments that have been made, only to have you respond with faux offense, claiming that nothing you said was argued against, and that once again, Coalition A must take responsibility, while completely dodging my offer to actually discuss things honestly. So, with this, we have stated our issues, why they exist, and that we are unable to do as you so desperately wish us to do, only to be received by deaf ears.

@Supreme Master Joi, I'm afraid that my hopes of honest discussion grow exceptionally dimmer the more time I spend in these forums. 

Edit: 

I suppose this also gives us another issue on how we'd be able to think of the members.

John has a tendency to dip out of conversations whenever he sees a valid point. Easier to just run off and throw out a chippy line somewhere else.

4 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

IQ hasn't existed for months. The new blocs are not the same.  In case you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Amazing contribution to the conversation once again Milton. Thank you.

4 hours ago, Leo the Great said:

Lmfao. Do something about it then.

If I am as bad as you say I am you would think people would do something besides complain. 

 

4 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

 

'Memesphere' and 'PLEASE LET US SURRENDER OH GOD WHY WON'T YOU LET US SURRENDER YOU'RE KILLING THE GAME BY NOT LETTING US SURRENDER JUST LET US SURRENDER IT'S NOT FAIR THAT WE CAN'T SURRENDER PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP-sphere'

I'd expected a slightly more substantiated response from BK gov in its first public outing in a while.

3 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

Histrionics aside (people have been claiming the game was dying/dead pretty much constantly during the 4 plus years I've been here), TKR did have a seat at the negotiating table - we started negotiations with Chaos/Rose/KETOG on November 5th and they walked away on the 13th over protests regarding the format/separate track for Syndi.  While that's your guys' prerogative, the request should be for another seat at the table, since one was already provided and then abandoned, at least as far as non Syndi AAs are concerned.

That sounds like a you problem

giphy.gif

Ah. Here we go! The last time seats at the table were requested through your official point of contact/negotiator/whatever he is today according yo y'alls ever shifting definitions was a week ago. The last time seats at the table were requested through the leaders of major alliances on your side was only a couple of days ago.

58 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

The stakes of this war has always been one of survival for us. So can't help that you folks raised the heat around this war, and now aren't enjoying being burnt for it. If your Government's public disclosures were a sign, our private discussions reacting to the nature of the war is only natural. 

This war as I've posted in my WoT's through out has always been an end game for us thanks to the stakes KERTCHOGG raised it to publicly, so can't really fault us for rising up to that challenge. 

BK literally got caught planning a grudge war.

NPO literally entered offensively and could have sat out.

 

"survival"

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

I'd expected a slightly more substantiated response from BK gov in its first public outing in a while.

giphy.gif

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Ah. Here we go! The last time seats at the table were requested through your official point of contact/negotiator/whatever he is today according yo y'alls ever shifting definitions was a week ago. The last time seats at the table were requested through the leaders of major alliances on your side was only a couple of days ago.

3a7a213de5aefda8818bd82ae409af3c6d057398

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

The stakes of this war has always been one of survival for us. So can't help that you folks raised the heat around this war, and now aren't enjoying being burnt for it. If your Government's public disclosures were a sign, our private discussions reacting to the nature of the war is only natural. 

This war as I've posted in my WoT's through out has always been an end game for us thanks to the stakes KERTCHOGG raised it to publicly, so can't really fault us for rising up to that challenge. 

Nah, you don't feign appallment for the moral high ground and then come around it. You especially don't call out others on memes and then seriously pray for that to happen to AA's that were not part of said narrative.

t$ and it's allies being held to similar if not worse treatment in spite of having made no remarks of the likes is indicative that this is just a thinly veiled excuse.

So yah, no. Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

BK literally got caught planning a grudge war.

NPO literally entered offensively and could have sat out.

 

BK literally got caught planning a grudge war, that everyone else was also literally got caught planning. To state KETOGG or Chaos wasn't would be disingenuous at best.

NPO entered because it did have to do with our survival, yes. Sitting out was not an option otherwise we would have. 

18 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Nah, you don't feign appallment for the moral high ground and then come around it. You especially don't call out others on memes and then seriously pray for that to happen to AA's that were not part of said narrative.

 

Not feigning being appalled. Just pointing out that you raised the stakes with those call outs, so we are here answering it. Its nice of you try and claim Keegoz/Sketchy were just "memes" but it was not. You can't take back narratives that were pushed and set the tone of the war. Folks may attempt to walk back those sentiments but those two personally never did, and no one really cannot claim that sentiment just magically went away. 

So yeah, you raised the stakes, we're answering it. Welcome to the zero-sum stakes your side set up. 

21 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

t$ and it's allies being held to similar if not worse treatment in spite of having made no remarks of the likes is indicative that this is just a thinly veiled excuse.

CTO/OWR is an exception to that. They most definitely deserve to be rolled for a time longer than one month. 

So yah no, try again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually specifically referring to the Carthago meme. But yes, it was very much feigning. Especially given the behavior seen in private. 

>These two AA's that disprove such excuse are the exception.

So convenient isn't it? That doesn't explain t$ even if such were to be true (it's not). You'll probably spout something about being questionable allies, which would be rich coming from you.

Alas, I guess some lie, even if proven false the moment it's been written, out of compulsion.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Commas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Not feigning being appalled. Just pointing out that you raised the stakes with those call outs, so we are here answering it. Its nice of you try and claim Keegoz/Sketchy were just "memes" but it was not. You can't take back narratives that were pushed and set the tone of the war. Folks may attempt to walk back those sentiments but those two personally never did, and no one really cannot claim that sentiment just magically went away. 

So yeah, you raised the stakes, we're answering it. Welcome to the zero-sum stakes your side set up. 

You set it up. You chose to claim offense at two individuals whose opinion didn't represent that of the entire coalition and who others have clearly stated as much to you on here. That's on you.

44 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

CTO/OWR is an exception to that. They most definitely deserve to be rolled for a time longer than one month. 

So yah no, try again.

Kinda pathetic that you're so fixated on two alliances who you attacked after they rebuilt. That that's not enough damage for you already is a little ridiculous.

  • Upvote 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.