RyanK Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Disband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 51 minutes ago, Kevanovia said: I absolutely understand why they decided to peace out and I respect it. tl;dr? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HARPER.txt Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Just now, Micchan said: tl;dr? #Sphinxmanbad 2 Quote -SAXON- -Warband Leader of the Nordic Sea Raiders- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT Jag Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 Post threads erryday 5 Quote ONE WORLD OR NONE CyberNations veteran, Co-Pilot Emeritus Hambassidor (Head Ambassador (Minister of Foreign Affairs)), Head of the Ministry of Log Dumping, GOONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhantomThiefB Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Good luck to all those moving forward. Glad to see a quick and satisfying resolution to those involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace". That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else. Coalition A has: Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith Always been willing to peace under reasonable terms Meanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace". That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else. Coalition A has: Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith Always been willing to peace under reasonable terms Meanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress. Scarf still the king of managing to turn every discussion into being about himself, I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 25 minutes ago, Archibald said: Scarf still the king of managing to turn every discussion into being about himself, I see. Maybe my reading comprehension is poor here, but where is he talking about himself? 2 4 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemna Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace". That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else. Coalition A has: Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith Always been willing to peace under reasonable terms Meanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress. Naw we dont show mercy or nothing ... dam I agree with u these peace terms for these menaces are way to harsh. As what these terms stand for is giving the little guy a break that got sucked in by ur own gaslighting to use them instead of respecting them. Hmmm actually I hope the leaders of my side when they do discuss peace for u include reps for these people u used and insulted. Edited January 18, 2020 by brucemna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Daniel Storm Posted January 18, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace". That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else. Coalition A has: Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith Always been willing to peace under reasonable terms Meanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress. I'm in a good mood today so I'll acknowledge your cry for attention. Schrutesphere and Memesphere came to a mutual understanding and negotiated a mutually agreeable peace. This happened because both sides had something to offer the other that they wanted. Schrutesphere had a large number of members who could cause trouble for Memesphere and prevent us from keeping Coalition A firmly underfoot, and Memesphere had a a well oiled war machine with 7 months of constant fighting experience that could severely damage Schrutesphere beyond what they were willing to sacrifice for "friends" that lied to their faces while denigrating them in private. Coalition A on the other hand wants to obtain a peace that enables them to consolidate their new additions and start farming high infra builds again. And the reciprocal benefit they offer to the power that has utterly defeated them is absolutely nothing without reps. Coalition B largely run resource based mid-low infra builds that aren't nearly as affected by wartime. Coalition A wants us to sacrifice our comparative advantage over them following a war we dominated them in. To get that something needs to be offered to balance the scales and bring forth a mutual understanding. That thing is reps to both make us whole for beating you in your own aggressive war and to offset the comparative economic advantage your side would gain from peace. Leave all the false moralizing at the door and consider, if I ask you to do something that only benefits me when you have leverage over me, why would you ever do it? Edited January 18, 2020 by Pop 4 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 4 minutes ago, Pop said: Leave all the false moralizing at the door and consider, if I ask you to do something that only benefits me when you have leverage over me, why would you ever do it? BuT tHe GaMe iS dYiNG!!1!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 16 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said: BuT tHe GaMe iS dYiNG!!1!!! Nah its just being hacked. so we get a roll back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 hours ago, Unwanted said: #Sphinxmanbad less tl;dr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace". That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else. Coalition A has: Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith Always been willing to peace under reasonable terms Meanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress. I find that wars end quicker (and are more enjoyable) when winning. The strategy your coalition has been taking is losing, which is a poor strategy for a war. Try winning more, that's what we do and it works for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemna Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, John Q Listener said: I find that wars end quicker (and are more enjoyable) when winning. The strategy your coalition has been taking is losing, which is a poor strategy for a war. Try winning more, that's what we do and it works for us. Shhhhh ... that's to easy .. it gotta be more complicated and dramatic for some to understand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace". That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else. Coalition A has: Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith Always been willing to peace under reasonable terms Meanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress. why would we let you up underfoot when your plan is to buy back all your military and attack us again. The reps is to give us a reason to let you rebuild and attack us again. We're not just gonna let y'all rebuild to attack us for free. Edited January 19, 2020 by Leonard J Crabs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace". That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else. Coalition A has: Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith Always been willing to peace under reasonable terms Meanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress. It's really quite disappointing that you feel like that's the case. My thoughts are with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 This war just keeps on giving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrachime Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Leonard J Crabs said: why would we let you up underfoot when your plan is to buy back all your military and attack us again. The reps is to give us a reason to let you rebuild and attack us again. We're not just gonna let y'all rebuild to attack us for free. You really think after 7 months of continuous, destructive war (that is hurting the game regardless of what anyone says) that Coal A would take the opportunity just to buy back our military so we can strike you guys again shortly down the road? Are you truly so paranoid of our ranks that you don't think we are capable of honoring a real, honest agreement and instead need damaging terms placed on us just to ensure your safety? Look, I get that from your perspective, you feel like Coal A is portraying Coal B as the bad guy in this game that needs to be eliminated. While I'll admit that the toxicity has shaped that opinion to a degree, it's you guys that have, and continue to do this to yourself. You guys have dragged out a pointless war for for months on end without even attempting to engage in any real, sincere peace talks. This in spite of the fact that your side claimed repeatedly that we could have peace at any time so long as we agreed to your non-negotiable surrender (which we did MONTHS ago I might add.) And when said peace talks occur, they move at the slowest of paces while offering ridiculous demands that you know full well will be hard, if not impossible to meet. Also consider the fact that various leaks have shown some on your side have pushed for the continuation of the war to push Coal A into disbanding/Deleting. And the cherry on top, you turn on any ally that would DARE leave the war on your side before a full peace has established viewing them as 'weak' when in actuality they are probably just simple human beings who, like everyone else, gets tired of things after a while... Is it any wonder why a great portion of the game is at war with you right now? Coal A hasn't had to do anything to give you guys the public image and reputation Coal B has obtained. You guys have earned all of this by yourself with your actions in this war because of not just how you treated your enemy, but allies as well. Yeah, you guys might be 'winning' this war right now, but your victory could very well come at the cost of everything post war. Crippling war reps on your enemy and fear-bashing your allies into submission isn't going to earn you a long-term victory when the entire game with all their differences can find common ground to view you as the enemy. I recall you guys wanted to strike Coal A to change the reputation Coal B had prior to the war starting, and you've successfully done that. How so depends on your perspective, but the current state of affairs seems to paint an obvious picture... Even more so if your paranoia leads you to believe that we need to be crippled just so you'll be safe. I get that not everyone in Coal B is bad and some want this war to end. I've seen some respectable posts from some in your ranks that show there are good people that don't deserve what they are going through just for their extremists leaders. I honestly feel sorry for those in Camelot, Arcadia, and any of the others alliances that have to fight against the entire game (or a good portion of it) because of the decisions the leaders of NPO, BK, and GOONS have made. We've all suffered in this war and contrary to popular belief, the war is hurting the game. I'm not neccesarily advocating for peace, nor am I on the train of a permanent war of attrition that sees one side totally destroyed. It's clear that some on both sides are viewing the extremes though, and it needs to stop. We need to get back to seeing each other as what we are, human beings with different point of views and respect those views. In the end, this is just a game... Is the toxicity and inevitable mutual destruction this is leading to really worth it in the end? You have to be the one to decide that... Edited January 19, 2020 by Syrachime 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HARPER.txt Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Get this self pity/brainwashed crap "Co A vs Co B" propaganda out of our peace thread, I'm trying to enjoy these martinis pls and ty ❤️ bless~ Quote -SAXON- -Warband Leader of the Nordic Sea Raiders- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Pop said: I'm in a good mood today so I'll acknowledge your cry for attention. Schrutesphere and Memesphere came to a mutual understanding and negotiated a mutually agreeable peace. This happened because both sides had something to offer the other that they wanted. Schrutesphere had a large number of members who could cause trouble for Memesphere and prevent us from keeping Coalition A firmly underfoot, and Memesphere had a a well oiled war machine with 7 months of constant fighting experience that could severely damage Schrutesphere beyond what they were willing to sacrifice for "friends" that lied to their faces while denigrating them in private. Coalition A on the other hand wants to obtain a peace that enables them to consolidate their new additions and start farming high infra builds again. And the reciprocal benefit they offer to the power that has utterly defeated them is absolutely nothing without reps. Coalition B largely run resource based mid-low infra builds that aren't nearly as affected by wartime. Coalition A wants us to sacrifice our comparative advantage over them following a war we dominated them in. To get that something needs to be offered to balance the scales and bring forth a mutual understanding. That thing is reps to both make us whole for beating you in your own aggressive war and to offset the comparative economic advantage your side would gain from peace. Leave all the false moralizing at the door and consider, if I ask you to do something that only benefits me when you have leverage over me, why would you ever do it? The benefit is living in a world where wars aren't long tedious grinding affairs and where you shake hands at the end of a war rather than trying to extort people. Unfortunately it seems that it's impossible for NPO to care about anything but its own power. No concern for fair play or honor or the health of the overall community we are a part of. Edited January 19, 2020 by Azaghul 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Storm Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 58 minutes ago, Azaghul said: The benefit is living in a world where wars aren't long tedious grinding affairs and where you shake hands at the end of a war rather than trying to extort people. Unfortunately it seems that it's impossible for NPO to care about anything but its own power. No concern for fair play or honor or the health of the overall community we are a part of. You must have missed the part where I said leave the false moralizing at the door. No amount of pontification is going to make us hand you a favorable outcome on a silver platter after you lost horribly. Until Coalition A grasps that concept the war will continue. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menhera Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Thank you for the time you fought alongside us and the effort you put in against Coalition B Good luck on your rebuild ^.^ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) I don't know much about the political dealings of this world, but I do know one thing, and that is this: When any world is visited by the cancer that is the New Pacific Order, they arrive with one singular goal in mind: To be the sole dominant force in the world, at any cost, at any effort. Reps are for one reason only, in furtherance of that goal. Once they achieve an irrevocable dominance, it spells the end of that realm, much like the old world I've arrived from, which is now nothing but a dead husk thanks to the efforts of the very same individual NPO leaders. NPO will spin their demands however they see fit, but do not ever forget their singular goal, which is nothing less than the total and irreversible subjugation of the entire world. They've done it multiple times before, and it would be foolish to expect that they're here for any different purpose. Edited January 19, 2020 by HeroofTime55 1 4 Quote Worst Poster Ever (2011) 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.