Jump to content

A Call to Arms


Lord Tyrion
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Robert Jordan said:

lol how did GOONS become experts on Orbis geopolitics after joining like 4 days ago

I've been playing longer than you and at a higher level, go away.

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

1. It was quite obvious that Sphinx had every intent of harming the war effort of Coalition B, meaning they were at best helping you via proxy and at worst joining outright.

2. This isn't our problem, if you want peace, come negotiate.

3. Oh, we're pro-log dumping now? I guess your former comments to me in private apologizing for Partisan posting screens from our conversation and how "I don't condone that sort of thing" isn't factual. Duly Noted.

4. Sphinx is irrelevant to the KT issue, merely countering them isn't enough to make us consider separating them from the rest of Coalition A.

5. This has been debunked multiple times. Also, you're now fighting with the person who orchestrated the entire thing, so quit feigning outrage.

6. You tied your fate to a sinking ship, and instead of being a good leader and recognizing this, your ego is so large you would rather watch your community and your allies' communities burn to a crisp.  

1. Why is your coalition's disposition to turning your allies against you our issue?

2. We were willing to. Your coalition wasn't.

3. I didn't say that. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that, to my knowledge, Sphinx/TCW are the only ones with access to that server. And your coalition is just as guilty of log dumping as anyone.

4. As previously stated, countering for KT wasn't the only offer we made. We made others, some of which your coalition appeared to be interested in before walking it all back and then going back to refusing to talk to us until KT returned.

5. This has not been debunked. NPO's involvement has not been proven but it was abundantly clear that BKsphere intended to hit us and that plan didn't end with KETOGG hitting us. It was also clear they intended to include KETOGG if they could. I highly doubt Sphinx was the sole person orchestrating that event.

6. Yes, indeed. It's my ego keeping TKR in the war and no other consideration or concern for the wellbeing or future success of my alliance. Carry on, nothing to see here.

  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Princess Adrienne said:

1. Why is your coalition's disposition to turning your allies against you our issue?

2. We were willing to. Your coalition wasn't.

3. I didn't say that. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that, to my knowledge, Sphinx/TCW are the only ones with access to that server. And your coalition is just as guilty of log dumping as anyone.

4. As previously stated, countering for KT wasn't the only offer we made. We made others, some of which your coalition appeared to be interested in before walking it all back and then going back to refusing to talk to us until KT returned.

5. This has not been debunked. NPO's involvement has not been proven but it was abundantly clear that BKsphere intended to hit us and that plan didn't end with KETOGG hitting us. It was also clear they intended to include KETOGG if they could. I highly doubt Sphinx was the sole person orchestrating that event.

6. Yes, indeed. It's my ego keeping TKR in the war and no other consideration or concern for the wellbeing or future success of my alliance. Carry on, nothing to see here.

1. It's not, we're more than happy to hold down F1 ad nauseam as well.

2. The fact that a peace talk server existed, and that I personally offered concessions to both Syndisphere and KETOG/Chaos that were accepted by BOTH parties proves that this is demonstrably false. 

3. Unfortunately I no longer have my old account and can't log dump that conversation, however, take this since it's related:
RBdEE5y.png

4. You couldn't provide the assurances we would need to negotiate w/o KT present.

5. I've stated previously in private to Kev that these plans were put on hold during Surfs Up. Remember, I was 2IC of AK at the time and was told that the war was going to be put off for at least 6 months in light of Surf's Up, if not indefinitely due to wanting to see where the treaty web would shift.

6. You tried to befriend us when we came here, there are other viable alternatives to continuing to double down on chudsphere. I PERSONALLY HAVE TRIED TO YANK TKR AND SOUP KITCHEN FROM THE THROES OF DEATH. It was met with a spit in the face, and TKR aligning to people who ideologically are incompatible on a core level with GOONS. There is very little chance of reconciliation with me/GOONS at this point. 

5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

That's not my server friend, it's tCW's server. I am but a humble guest in it, much like I am a humble guest in about 7 other servers. I also have 3 servers of my own.

You will never have complete information based on logs, for I designed this impossibly and unneccessarily complicated structure with the explicit purpose of denying you your covert victory.

This is a semantic argument, as I was obviously not referring to "your" as your personal ownership but as the vast array of alliances on Coalition A with leaking/opsec issues.

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

You are just as bad as me now. Leaking negotiation logs. How dare you. Keshav will be in touch.

This is from a DM, Adrienne attempted to go around the designated reps as your side was explicitly told not to do.

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

This is from a DM, Adrienne attempted to go around the designated reps as your side was explicitly told not to do.

You're not a designated rep?

I dunno man- it seems to me like adri has been trying to find compromises.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Like 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

You're not a designated rep?

I am the rep for GOONS, I am not a memesphere rep, I merely voiced my opinion to help move the talks along, and both times they were accepted by all parties present. The fact that I am a better negotiator for your side than anyone on your side speaks volumes.

  • Upvote 1

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

1. It's not, we're more than happy to hold down F1 ad nauseam as well.

2. The fact that a peace talk server existed, and that I personally offered concessions to both Syndisphere and KETOG/Chaos that were accepted by BOTH parties proves that this is demonstrably false. 

3. Unfortunately I no longer have my old account and can't log dump that conversation, however, take this since it's related:

4. You couldn't provide the assurances we would need to negotiate w/o KT present.

5. I've stated previously in private to Kev that these plans were put on hold during Surfs Up. Remember, I was 2IC of AK at the time and was told that the war was going to be put off for at least 6 months in light of Surf's Up, if not indefinitely due to wanting to see where the treaty web would shift.

6. You tried to befriend us when we came here, there are other viable alternatives to continuing to double down on chudsphere. I PERSONALLY HAVE TRIED TO YANK TKR AND SOUP KITCHEN FROM THE THROES OF DEATH. It was met with a spit in the face, and TKR aligning to people who ideologically are incompatible on a core level with GOONS. There is very little chance of reconciliation with me/GOONS at this point. 

This is a semantic argument, as I was obviously not referring to "your" as your personal ownership but as the vast array of alliances on Coalition A with leaking/opsec issues.

2. Hence why I said "your coalition" and not you specifically. But most recently, yes, it was your coalition refusing to negotiate.

3. Yes, I made that offer, back at the beginning of the negotiations. We also made subsequent offers when your coalition expressed that wasn't enough, such as offering to compensate for damages if they did hit alliances on your side and trying to come up with means of dealing with the reps demands you had for them that they'd leave behind. Despite all these offers and seeming interest in them, it was all walked back a few hours later and your coalition's stance returned to "no KT, no peace".

4. See above.

5. They were postponed until our rebuild. Hooray.

6. I appreciate your efforts but they came after you deeply entrenched yourself with people we are ideologically incompatible with and who have done nothing besides repeatedly spread lies and commit hostile acts against us. And actually aligned, not just wartime aligned. So...

5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

You're not a designated rep?

Apparently Leo the Great isn't either.

29 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

I've stated multiple times I am the reasonable one in the peace talks.

I concur. But you've also told me you don't have much pull.

Edited by Princess Adrienne
  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

I am the rep for GOONS, I am not a memesphere rep, I merely voiced my opinion to help move the talks along, and both times they were accepted by all parties present. The fact that I am a better negotiator for your side than anyone on your side speaks volumes.

I don't think i've hidden my belief that you and select other more moderate voices would be far easier to work with than the hardliners we were made to negotiate with. The times you brought up compromises they were accepted fairly quickly. Perhaps your side's choice of "designated reps" speaks volumes of the willingness to peace of some elements, if not all.

  • Upvote 6

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:

2. Hence why I said "your coalition" and not you specifically. But most recently, yes, it was your coalition refusing to negotiate.

3. Yes, I made that offer, back at the beginning of the negotiations. We also made subsequent offers when your coalition expressed that wasn't enough, such as offering to compensate for damages if they did hit alliances on your side and trying to come up with means of dealing with the reps demands you had for them that they'd leave behind. Despite all these offers and seeming interest in them, it was all walked back a few hours later and your coalition's stance returned to "no KT, no peace".

4. See above.

5. They were postponed until our rebuild. Hooray.

6. I appreciate your efforts but they came after you deeply entrenched yourself with people we are ideologically incompatible with and who have done nothing besides . And actually aligned, not just wartime aligned. So, 

Apparently Leo the Great isn't either.

2. And, like you, I won't leave my coalition out to dry.

3. I believe that we discussed that we would need oversight to prove that your side was not funding hits by KT on Coalition B alliances, which is something your side would not accept.

4. See above.

5. Sorry let me highlight the key word for you: Indefinitely
6. I tried to get both Soup and TKR out long before GOONS was "entrenched". Pre-OD, Pre-BK treaty Soup and GOONS were planning ties post war, and were hoping for a speedy end, this was around the same time I tried to yank you both out, you declined and have burned for it. 

4 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I don't think i've hidden my belief that you and select other more moderate voices would be far easier to work with than the hardliners we were made to negotiate with. The times you brought up compromises they were accepted fairly quickly. Perhaps your side's choice of "designated reps" speaks volumes of the willingness to peace of some elements, if not all.

Meanwhile, in reality: Each compromise I offered was a result of a semantic argument because your side cares more about words than ending the war. 

"Malicious Intent" changed to "Maleficent"

&

"Invalid" to "Unfounded"

E: Also your side should invest in bookmarking this: https://www.thesaurus.com/

Edited by Jazz R Oppenheimer

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sisyphus said:

It seems pointless to have this argument with Jazz. 

Because it involves publicly being shown up since I have much less restraint than the other members of my coalition? Or less aversion to appearing hostile (even though I'm being factual?)

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

2. And, like you, I won't leave my coalition out to dry.

3. I believe that we discussed that we would need oversight to prove that your side was not funding hits by KT on Coalition B alliances, which is something your side would not accept.

4. See above.

5. Sorry let me highlight the key word for you: Indefinitely
6. I tried to get both Soup and TKR out long before GOONS was "entrenched". Pre-OD, Pre-BK treaty Soup and GOONS were planning ties post war, and were hoping for a speedy end, this was around the same time I tried to yank you both out, you declined and have burned for it. 

2. I'm not asking you to.

3/4. We didn't decline that. We also made offers not to reaccept any members that left for KT and/or rogued you guys. We also repeatedly stated we did not believe this would happen to you and offered to reimburse you for hits if it did. Not sure what else we could have offered to illustrate we wouldn't be funding KT.

5. You can say indefinitely but the only proof I've been given very clearly shows otherwise and no one's contradicted that in any forum I've had access to.

Screenshot_20191117-162830_Discord.jpg&k

6. You signed your blocs on 14 and 17 November. The only offers made to me, to my knowledge/recollection, came after that, starting on 26 November.

 

5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I don't think i've hidden my belief that you and select other more moderate voices would be far easier to work with than the hardliners we were made to negotiate with. The times you brought up compromises they were accepted fairly quickly. Perhaps your side's choice of "designated reps" speaks volumes of the willingness to peace of some elements, if not all.

Wholeheartedly agree with this.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

Because it involves publicly being shown up since I have much less restraint than the other members of my coalition? Or less aversion to appearing hostile (even though I'm being factual?)

Pragmatically speaking, I meant it's because it's a waste of both our time and your efforts.

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

 

Meanwhile, in reality: Each compromise I offered was a result of a semantic argument because your side cares more about words than ending the war. 

"Malicious Intent" changed to "Maleficent"

&

"Invalid" to "Unfounded"

E: Also your side should invest in bookmarking this: https://www.thesaurus.com/

The rewordings mattered because after backstabbing their ex-allies, your allies forced false admissions of guilt upon them. The least we could do as negotiators was ensure those false admissions of guilt were *somewhat* aligned with reality, rather than manipulative concoctions.

 

That's without mentioning the large probability of your allies leveraging said false admissions to postfacto justify the enforcement of extremely punitive terms. We've been over this at the time. 

4 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

Because it involves publicly being shown up since I have much less restraint than the other members of my coalition? Or less aversion to appearing hostile (even though I'm being factual?)

This is a silly post because you are showing more restraint than other members of your coalition. Have you seen their posts? 

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

1. It's not, we're more than happy to hold down F1 ad nauseam as well.

2. The fact that a peace talk server existed, and that I personally offered concessions to both Syndisphere and KETOG/Chaos that were accepted by BOTH parties proves that this is demonstrably false. 

3. Unfortunately I no longer have my old account and can't log dump that conversation, however, take this since it's related:
RBdEE5y.png

4. You couldn't provide the assurances we would need to negotiate w/o KT present.

5. I've stated previously in private to Kev that these plans were put on hold during Surfs Up. Remember, I was 2IC of AK at the time and was told that the war was going to be put off for at least 6 months in light of Surf's Up, if not indefinitely due to wanting to see where the treaty web would shift.

6. You tried to befriend us when we came here, there are other viable alternatives to continuing to double down on chudsphere. I PERSONALLY HAVE TRIED TO YANK TKR AND SOUP KITCHEN FROM THE THROES OF DEATH. It was met with a spit in the face, and TKR aligning to people who ideologically are incompatible on a core level with GOONS. There is very little chance of reconciliation with me/GOONS at this point. 

This is a semantic argument, as I was obviously not referring to "your" as your personal ownership but as the vast array of alliances on Coalition A with leaking/opsec issues.

6. I can’t speak for TKR, but I would hardly calling it “spitting in your face”. We’ve maintained friendly communication.

 

20 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

2. And, like you, I won't leave my coalition out to dry.

3. I believe that we discussed that we would need oversight to prove that your side was not funding hits by KT on Coalition B alliances, which is something your side would not accept.

4. See above.

5. Sorry let me highlight the key word for you: Indefinitely
6. I tried to get both Soup and TKR out long before GOONS was "entrenched". Pre-OD, Pre-BK treaty Soup and GOONS were planning ties post war, and were hoping for a speedy end, this was around the same time I tried to yank you both out, you declined and have burned for it. 

Meanwhile, in reality: Each compromise I offered was a result of a semantic argument because your side cares more about words than ending the war. 

"Malicious Intent" changed to "Maleficent"

&

"Invalid" to "Unfounded"

E: Also your side should invest in bookmarking this: https://www.thesaurus.com/


6. Bro. OPSEC.

Side note: I’m enjoying these bullet point debates.

  • Upvote 2

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:

2. I'm not asking you to.

3/4. We didn't decline that. We also made offers not to reaccept any members that left for KT and/or rogued you guys. We also repeatedly stated we did not believe this would happen to you and offered to reimburse you for hits if it did. Not sure what else we could have offered to illustrate we wouldn't be funding KT.

5. You can say indefinitely but the only proof I've been given very clearly shows otherwise and no one's contradicted that in any forum I've had access to.

Screenshot_20191117-162830_Discord.jpg&k

6. You signed your blocs on 14 and 17 November. The only offers made to me, to my knowledge/recollection, came after that, starting on 26 November.

3/4. Bank access and @Prefonteen booting all the KT members he's pulled into Syndicate.

5. We all know Sphinx is a good source of information. [/sarcasm]

6. This was the first formal offer, We had previously made offers to you regarding this and I had privately told Kev that I could get Soup out as far back as September. 

3 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

 

The rewordings mattered because after backstabbing their ex-allies, your allies forced false admissions of guilt upon them. The least we could do as negotiators was ensure those false admissions of guilt were *somewhat* aligned with reality, rather than manipulative concoctions.

 

That's without mentioning the large probability of your allies leveraging said false admissions to postfacto justify the enforcement of extremely punitive terms. We've been over this at the time. 

This is a silly post because you are showing more restraint than other members of your coalition. Have you seen their posts? 

I don't read bad posts.

1 minute ago, Kevanovia said:

6. I can’t speak for TKR, but I would hardly calling it “spitting in your face”. We’ve maintained friendly communication.

 


6. Bro. OPSEC.

Side note: I’m enjoying these bullet point debates.

6. We're friendly, yeah, TKR's signing of certain alliances make them Non-Grata to GOONS. I had spoken with you previously about wanting to pull both Soup and TKR towards GOONS and away from KETOG, something that is unlikely to happen now.

6. As it is unlikely to happen now, OPSEC does not apply imo. 

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sisyphus said:

That's not very pragmatic of you. 

GOONS isn't NPO, I don't need to be pragmatic. 

 

Just now, Prefonteen said:

Wait what now?

 

Did I miss something?

 

Great job.

There are (ex)KT members now residing in Syndicate. You are aware of that, please do not feign ignorance. 

Queen of Chaos

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.