Declaration From The Independent Republic of Orange Nations

[Beauty]

U talk allot out of ur azz dont u? :v

Yeah umm, you're a nit lucky to have IRON. I would count my blessings because no one else will/is going to sign a treaty with you. You guys sealed your fate long ago. Your own government left and didn't want to touch that plane as if flew to the ground. NG still lacks several minister positions to be filled. Sometimes you make mistakes and it's better to admit to them and go out so you can find closure. It's ok to fuck up every now and then.':P

Edit: Since most of my haters are very predictable and very corny I'm going to go ahead and call it that someone is going to use a "ya u r a fuck up Rotavele" or "ya but not fuck up all the time like u lol" Edited November 17, 2013 by Rotavele

[Goldie]

You have been lied to by your government. Not surprising. There was only one set of talks. LoSS offered whit peace on the condition that LoSS won't re-enter against NG and NG won't attack LoSS. NG countered with no LoSS re-entry against NG's allies. LoSS told NG to fuck off. That's the end of the story. Neither NG nor their allies including NPO have been involved in any second set of talks. 

No, LoSS offered white peace. NG wanted terms, which would not be accepted. The counter was, if you want a term from LoSS, NG would have to accept the same term. There was no way that NG's approach would work with regard to terms, as they were in the early stages of getting rolled, regardless of if LoSS was there or not. LoSS absolutely did not tell anyone to fuck off, in fact they were very cordial throughout the entire negotiation, even as Buscemi spent the entire negotiation insulting and trolling them.

 

Regardless, those "negotiations" consisted of NG making a lot of demands, getting their buddies in there to "log" things properly for them (not to bully LoSS at all), to insult the LoSS representative (Buscemi: "Sorry it doesn't work like that. I have to bring it to my gov." Three minutes later: "Wait, you aren't the leader of LoSS? Why are we even talking here then?"). IRON asked LoSS to walk away from the war, and they presented an offer to do just that, with the only term being that neither LoSS nor NG would attack each other for the duration of the war.

 

NG wanted silly punitive terms, including admission of wrongdoing, no re-entry, and reparations. Buscemi kept throwing around phrases that he doesn't actually understand the meaning of, like negotiating in good faith. He accused LoSS of not doing that on many occasions, yet it was LoSS who was there to make sure that IRON's, and supposedly, NG's wish of ending the war happened. Buscemi knew that there was no way his terms would be accepted, and that it would be a way to force IRON in to the war.

 

LoSS's goal in the peace negotiations was peace. NG's goal in the peace negotiations was dragging IRON in on their side. That is the definition of negotiating in bad faith.

[Steve Buscemi]

NG still lacks several minister positions to be filled.

Would you like to be our Minister of Douche Baggery?  I think you'd fit the role nicely.

[Varianz]

LoSS's goal in the peace negotiations was peace. NG's goal in the peace negotiations was dragging IRON in on their side. That is the definition of negotiating in bad faith.

Not true. The coalition was aware of negotiations, and we would have been fine with LoSS peacing out with no re-entry at all. LoSS didn't agree to that, so no peace occured. Would we have preferred IRON fight for us? Sure. But they'd made it quite clear by then that it was never going to happen.

[Rayvon]

IRON asked LoSS to walk away from the war, and they presented an offer to do just that, with the only term being that neither LoSS nor NG would attack each other for the duration of the war.

Careful now, you're negating the whole 'two negotiations and LoSS offered a full no-redeclare all around' story that they're trying hard to present.

[the rebel]

1) NG declined the LoSS peace offer precisely because LoSS was refusing to agree to not re-enter the war against NG allies, so get your bullshit straight

2) I've known you for at least 3-4 years

3) Don't patronise me with shit kid shit I'm older than you 

 

1) Didn't see any of that in the other thread, if true then maybe it was drowned out in the tears of bullshit coming from across the fence?

2) I don't know you from Adam, you may of seen my posts once in a blue moon in here, I spend most of my time elsewhere in the forums.

3) Shouldn't patronise me then, hello Kettle meet pot.

[Steve Buscemi]

Goldie, you really are just trying to spin things.  I wanted clarification on if they admitted wrongdoing just so I could understand why they were even talking white peace with us.  We were presented with terms that sold out our allies.  We said no.  Plain and simple.

 

VE wouldn't have accepted those terms if offered to you and you know it.

 

We offered white peace no-reentry for the entire war for LoSS, and LoSS refused.  The only reason they were there is to get a silly deal to make NG look even worse.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Steve Buscemi

[Beauty]

1) NG declined the LoSS peace offer precisely because LoSS was refusing to agree to not re-enter the war against NG allies, so get your bullshit straight
2) I've known you for at least 3-4 years
3) Don't patronise me with shit kid shit I'm older than you

2 and 3 are great reasons for why you should be the credible one in the situation.

[Goldie]

Goldie, you really are just trying to spin things.  NG never offered or demanded any terms.  I wanted clarification on if they admitted wrongdoing just so I could understand why they were even talking white peace with us.  We were presented with terms that sold out our allies.  We said no.  Plain and simple.

 

VE wouldn't have accepted those terms if offered to you and you know it.

Saying you wanted clarification on if they would admit wrongdoing and beating them over the head with the question of 'will you admit wrongdoing' five times over the course of the negotiation are two different things. Yourselves/NPO brought up the subject of reps from LoSS, and kept demanding that they agree to not re-enter the war on any front. Had you been negotiating from a position of strength, that demand would have been acceptable, but you were not, so it was not something LoSS would agree to.

 

Steve, here is your mistake.

 

[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=115036]We [b]have[/b] accepted those terms.[/url]

[Sunny Side King]

Saying you wanted clarification on if they would admit wrongdoing and beating them over the head with the question of 'will you admit wrongdoing' five times over the course of the negotiation are two different things. Yourselves/NPO brought up the subject of reps from LoSS, and kept demanding that they agree to not re-enter the war on any front. Had you been negotiating from a position of strength, that demand would have been acceptable, but you were not, so it was not something LoSS would agree to.

 

Steve, here is your mistake.

 

We have accepted those terms.

 

With IRON in the same room you'd think LoSS would be more inclined to negotiate, you know since at that point IRON was obligated to activate our treaty against LoSS. Obviously LoSS knew IRON wasn't going to do anything which is why they weren't willing to negotiate.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sunny Side King

[Krzyzewskiville]

NPO brought up the subject of reps from LoSS, and kept demanding that they agree to not re-enter the war on any front.

We requested reparations? I've read the entirety of the talks and I barely remember seeing Farrin speaking throughout (given that it was between LoSS and NG), let alone demanding reparations.

[Steve Buscemi]

Saying you wanted clarification on if they would admit wrongdoing and beating them over the head with the question of 'will you admit wrongdoing' five times over the course of the negotiation are two different things. Yourselves/NPO brought up the subject of reps from LoSS, and kept demanding that they agree to not re-enter the war on any front. Had you been negotiating from a position of strength, that demand would have been acceptable, but you were not, so it was not something LoSS would agree to.

I didn't beat him over the head, I kept asking because he kept dodging the question for some odd reason.  He finally did answer it and we moved on as it's important point, not for terms, but just to see where he was coming from.  NG never asked for anything but this:

 

[21:39]    legion-x[LoSS]    the only no reentry clause im offering is on you
[21:39]    legion-x[LoSS]    *NG
[21:40]    legion-x[LoSS]    i just answered
[21:41]    Steve_Buscemi[NG]    Okay, so you are rejected terms of no reentry for the entire war on anyone?
[21:41]    Steve_Buscemi[NG]    *rejecting

 

I realize I wasn't in a position to get them to accept anything. They knew this and that's why they offered me "terms" which were nothing more than a free blitz and a hit on our allies.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Steve Buscemi

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Peace negotiations are best brokered by a neutral party of some kind. That way, there's someone who can monitor the negotiations that can provide a clearer and more balanced approach to discussions and counter and spin and propaganda with the facts. I'm sure there are people in GPF or something that would be able to help with that in the future.

 

EDIT: Especially seeing as those who were brokering the arrangement had their minds set about exactly which party they would rather support.

Edited November 17, 2013 by RevolutionaryRebel

[Auctor]

Being at talks mediated by GPF sounds more humiliating than taking terms without negotiating.

[Letum]

LoSS's goal in the peace negotiations was peace.

LoSS's goal was to "undo" their mistake of entering the war through a silly avenue and be able to instead get a second chance at doing their entry in a less controversial way on another front. Let's not pretend that LoSS was somehow being the "nice guys" who just "wanted peace"...LoSS would have kept on fighting against whoever they were assigned to, NG would have kept on fighting against whoever replaced LoSS. The net military impact would be absolutely zero.

The point of a negotiation is one that gives something to both parties. LoSS and IRON would have gained from such an agreement PR-wise, but NG would have had absolutely zero benefit or help from this. The idea that trying to get them to accept something like this is somehow "helping an ally" is not what I would look for in any ally of mine.

[Goldie]

We requested reparations? I've read the entirety of the talks and I barely remember seeing Farrin speaking throughout (given that it was between LoSS and NG), let alone demanding reparations.

Re-read the talks then, because its there.

 

I didn't beat him over the head, I kept asking because he kept dodging the question for some odd reason.  He finally did answer it and we moved on as it's important point, not for terms, but just to see where he was coming from.  NG never asked for anything but this:

 

 

I realize I wasn't in a position to get them to accept anything. They knew this and that's why they offered me "terms" which were nothing more than a free blitz and a hit on our allies.

That's the thing though. LoSS went in because they wanted war, and NG wanted peace from that war. The compromise, all things being equal, is to meet exactly in the middle with a white peace, i.e., no one accepts terms that don't apply to the others as well, which is objectively the most fair and equitable way to end the front, and that is what IRON agreed with. When you introduced that you wanted LoSS to not re-enter the war in any way, you added weight to your side of the deal without anything being added to LoSS's side, so it was a non-starter. LoSS was compromising by virtue of just offering peace, you guys wanted more, and didn't get it.

 

Again, VE was in a very similar position in the past war, and we let the people who made the mistake walk away.

[Goldie]

LoSS's goal was to "undo" their mistake of entering the war through a silly avenue and be able to instead get a second chance at doing their entry in a less controversial way on another front. Let's not pretend that LoSS was somehow being the "nice guys" who just "wanted peace"...LoSS would have kept on fighting against whoever they were assigned to, NG would have kept on fighting against whoever replaced LoSS. The net military impact would be absolutely zero.

The point of a negotiation is one that gives something to both parties. LoSS and IRON would have gained from such an agreement PR-wise, but NG would have had absolutely zero benefit or help from this. The idea that trying to get them to accept something like this is somehow "helping an ally" is not what I would look for in any ally of mine.

Exactly. LoSS wanted to fight. By virtue of them going to NG for peace, LoSS was making a compromise on what they wanted, which was war with NG, in order to put the mess behind both LoSS and NG.

[Steve Buscemi]

Re-read the talks then, because its there.

 

That's the thing though. LoSS went in because they wanted war, and NG wanted peace from that war. The compromise, all things being equal, is to meet exactly in the middle with a white peace, i.e., no one accepts terms that don't apply to the others as well, which is objectively the most fair and equitable way to end the front, and that is what IRON agreed with. When you introduced that you wanted LoSS to not re-enter the war in any way, you added weight to your side of the deal without anything being added to LoSS's side, so it was a non-starter. LoSS was compromising by virtue of just offering peace, you guys wanted more, and didn't get it.

 

Again, VE was in a very similar position in the past war, and we let the people who made the mistake walk away.

It's not there though.  We never asked for them for anything but white peace no re-entry for the war, standard terms.  They refused of course because they wanted a free blitz and were going to re-enter right away.  You are just spinning a passing comment about what LoSS wasn't offering.  Stop the spin, it's beneath you Goldie.

[TurnipCruncher]

So IRON tried to get NG to look as bad as they are by selling out an MD partner? Nice move if you can pull it off.

[Letum]

Exactly. LoSS wanted to fight. By virtue of them going to NG for peace, LoSS was making a compromise on what they wanted, which was war with NG, in order to put the mess behind both LoSS and NG.

A situation that benefits only LoSS at the expense of another party can't be called a "compromise". Edited November 17, 2013 by Letum

[Hereno]

Wait... so let me get this straight.

 

 

TLR is tied to two of your allies.

 

TLR is *defending* your ally.  Something you should be doing.  TLR is actively declaring war to do the obligation you arent.

 

 

And you hit them?

 

 

Its not even like they hit your treaty partner.  You are oAing on someone oAing in order to hit your allies ally who is doing what you yourselves should be...

 

Im... yeah.  I dont know what to say.

 

Os hit the nail on the head on the second page of this thread. Not going to bother to read the other 13 pages. From looking down and seeing that Goldie is the one who has been posting, I feel as though this was an excellent choice on my part.
 

[Goldie]

It's not there though.  We never asked for them for anything but white peace no re-entry for the war, standard terms.  They refused of course because they wanted a free blitz and were going to re-enter right away.  You are just spinning a passing comment about what LoSS wasn't offering.  Stop the spin, it's beneath you Goldie.

Why should LoSS offer you something beyond a simple peace? That is the key question. LoSS went half way by offering you peace when they wanted to be at war. The other half way was for you to accept their peace and give up any other strings.

 

A situation that benefits only LoSS at the expense of another party can't be called a "compromise".

The situation that benefits LoSS is being at war with NG, as that's what they want. The compromise in getting LoSS to do something they feel is not beneficial to their desires, was to come the other half way on NG's part, and just accept the peace offer and be done with it.

[Letum]

The situation that benefits LoSS is being at war with NG, as that's what they want. The compromise in getting LoSS to do something they feel is not beneficial to their desires, was to come the other half way on NG's part, and just accept the peace offer and be done with it.

Except peace *would* be beneficial to LoSS, as it allows them to undo their mistake, whilst not being beneficial to NG, because they end up being dog-piled by just as many people anyway.

[Rush Sykes]

Exactly. LoSS wanted to fight. By virtue of them going to NG for peace, LoSS was making a compromise on what they wanted, which was war with NG, in order to put the mess behind both LoSS and NG.

 

stop me when we get to the point where NG was in any "mess" from LoSS... Militarily they are little more than an annoyance (diplomatically too, to be  honest). It was ONLY in LoSS's interest to put that debacle behind them. There was 0  gain for NG. Why negotiate something that gains you nothing? This has been asked of you multiple times. Each time, you ignore that facet of the question. NG SHOULD have 0 interest in helping LoSS save any sort of face, without having LoSS give something in return. You somehow think that NG gains something by getting a militarily incompetent alliance to vacate their slots, so someone more competent can pick them up. 

 

Look, I know you are trying to be a good soldier. But seriously man, you are smarter than this. NG got ZERO net benefit from helping LoSS save face. What you accepted from GPF is an apple. It does not mean a thing to this orange. GPF were , according to your own thread , only in the war through a misunderstanding. At that point, you be a nice guy and say "mistakes happen." 

 

LoSS were simply here , on a made up treaty.. so they could be on the winning side. It was no mistake. It was no unfortunate incident. It was a path they gleefully admitted they chose to take. And now you want to condemn NG for not letting a crap move like that be swept under the rug to save face for an alliance with 0 global respect? 

Edited November 17, 2013 by Rush Sykes

[Goldie]

Not at all Rush, what I'm saying is, if NG wanted peace, the offer to walk away from LoSS was on the table. It was said that VE wouldn't have accepted it, and I'd agree that we probably wouldn't have, we'd have probably shifted all of our NS to hitting that alliance. But we're vindictive bastards, not everyone else is. But if peace was my overriding goal, I'd have taken the one on the table just to be done with it.