alyster Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'm not sure anymore what NPO is trying to accomplish here. Are you trying to force us to explain these things to you in such detail that you yourself would love these terms? You don't like them - we don't care. You don't think they're justified - some people in the coalition that's at war with you thinks they are justified. What can you do about it - nothing. Just don't make me read tens of pages of discussion on meaning of reps and numbers on NPO nations that didn't get to PM on time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Now I've seen it all; Rey wants people to be objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 What can you do about it - nothing.user alyster doesn't understand negotiations; billions shocked. Now I've seen it all; Rey wants people to be objective.Dude. not even I can handle all this shitposting and general fuckery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Pacifica will, as a result of this war, put together a coalition of revenge, and when they have sufficient numbers, they will prosecute their purpose without flinching and Admin help whoever is in their sights at that time. Given that it will be more likely than not to be Polaris and their allies in their sights, What can you do about it - nothing. Guess we'll see what happens down the road.Till someone decides to try and break the cycle rather than one-up the previous. Edited January 30, 2014 by Rayvon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 So why the double standard? If NoR's hiding in PM clearly they have to have punitive terms placed on them as well by your logic. Hypocrisy at it's best! Oh and by your #s 72.9% of NoR is in PM while the nations your coalition are whining about are only 10.95% of our members. SO they should be punished even more by your logic! Actually yes, yes they should. I have stated several times that every alliance on your side of the war should have the same terms (original terms that is) levied against them and that instead of negotiating in a downward spiral to a middle ground, every time your side attempted to negotiate, the terms should get worse. Either accept or the next set of terms will be an increase of the terms before. Cycling in and out of PM is a legitimate, and when massively outnumbered, sensible course of action. But of course you know that. Your side seem to hit PM when you have a huge numerical advantage in order to let the meat shields do the heavy lifting. You probably also know that NoR is not allied to or treatied to NPO in any way except through NG. Unless you are deliberately tarding it up in here, go and do some homework before spouting crap. Yes, 8 out of your top 10 have been in PM for most of the war or all of the war mate. That is not cycling in and out. Nice attempt at an ad hominem but if you are talking about my caps lock statement that was in "..." then you should really learn sarcasm. Yes I realize that NoR is only allied to NG. I actually quite like NoR, having been allied to them from their original form, defending them as NoV, and being allied to them at one point in their second NoR incarnation. But you are quite right, I have absolutely no idea who NoR are, what they are about, or any such jazz mate. I would suggest you take that last line directed at me, and apply it to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 i think i beleive the day differential was longer at that time .. i recall the numbers at some point being something 1.5 days or there abouts which still worked out to 3 months given it still a 45 day or more difference ..it may have changed and i am sure i will get corrected. As well us members do not care how long we fight as you know we have the drive after Karma and of course the DH war to not be taken down as we were them two wars. I mean we don't mind a good ass kicking but there comes a time when we have to stand and say hey you asked us to change with the times which we did but then some turn around and still hold issues from 3 or more years ago and use them to keep trying to put us putting us down. No, it wasn't. Your emperor walked out of negotiations because of an 8 day differential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 No, it wasn't. Your emperor walked out of negotiations because of an 8 day differential.This is the entire and whole truth and there is no perspective or underlying elements slash reasons for Farrin to leave that could possibly be added to this statement to add to its veracity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 This is the entire and whole truth and there is no perspective or underlying elements slash reasons for Farrin to leave that could possibly be added to this statement to add to its veracity. Literally, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Literally, man.I thought about adding a couple "literally"s but ultimately decided against it. Wouldn't want my post to come across as sarcastic, y'know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) This is the entire and whole truth and there is no perspective or underlying elements slash reasons for Farrin to leave that could possibly be added to this statement to add to its veracity. I don't understand why Farrin would walk out of talks with only an 8 day differential in terms during ongoing negotiations. Only he can answer that. I was there. Considering the amount of progress made in the talks before he walked out -- it did seem trivial that he would decide to walk out at that juncture. However he does have to answer to that. If not to me, to the allies remaining doing the bulk of the fighting after much of the hyperbolic rhetoric without a foot to stand on. He can continue to float junk to see if it'll hold water, but at the end of the day -- peace was within sight and the NPO walked out. Edited January 30, 2014 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I thought about adding a couple "literally"s but ultimately decided against it. Wouldn't want my post to come across as sarcastic, y'know? oh snap you caught me you thug you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I don't understand why Farrin would walk out of talks with only an 8 day differential in terms during ongoing negotiations. Only he can answer that. I was there. Considering the amount of progress made in the talks before he walked out -- it did seem trivial that he would decide to walk out at that juncture. However he does have to answer to that. If not to me, to the allies remaining doing the bulk of the fighting after much of the hyperbolic rhetoric without a foot to stand on. He can continue to float junk to see if it'll hold water, but at the end of the day -- peace was within sight and the NPO walked out. Again Rey, if you can answer that I'm sure there's many alliances on your side of the fence who would love to hear why this happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Again Rey, if you can answer that I'm sure there's many alliances on your side of the fence who would love to hear why this happened.I was more implying that his "ragequit" may have been the fact that he actually had better things to do than sit there and hear "no" for fifty more minutes or however long until you all agreed that you wouldn't agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) I don't understand why Farrin would walk out of talks with only an 8 day differential in terms during ongoing negotiations. Only he can answer that. I was there. Considering the amount of progress made in the talks before he walked out -- it did seem trivial that he would decide to walk out at that juncture. However he does have to answer to that. If not to me, to the allies remaining doing the bulk of the fighting after much of the hyperbolic rhetoric without a foot to stand on. He can continue to float junk to see if it'll hold water, but at the end of the day -- peace was within sight and the NPO walked out. what was the rest of the terms .. is it not possible there was something in the other parts he did not like ..? what i am asking is your terms are for no slot use for them nations ? and our counter to that might of been at least let them nations send aid to them that were fighting at least ? I am thinking your centralizing on one part of the terms and not the whole process or terms were there maybe other factors in disagreement ? Edited January 30, 2014 by brucemania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Again Rey, if you can answer that I'm sure there's many alliances on your side of the fence who would love to hear why this happened. You talk like NPO hasn't shared everything with us, or the logs in their entirety. How daft do you think our general memberships are that they'd believe that we their governments aren't working in full disclosure with each other? A couple of us would have walked out at the exact same point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 what was the rest of the terms .. is it not possible there was something in the other parts he did not like ..? No. The only difference between the offer we presented and the one he presented was eight days. Verbatim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) You talk like NPO hasn't shared everything with us, or the logs in their entirety. How daft do you think our general memberships are that they'd believe that we their governments aren't working in full disclosure with each other? A couple of us would have walked out at the exact same point. It appears that bruce didn't know. I think many people on your side of the fence are being misled about just how far apart terms have been, and certainly with the amount of grandstanding being done in negotiations and even here you would think we were much farther apart. I think it has to be asked again -- why would the NPO emperor decide to drag his allies through several days and potentially weeks-months of more fighting over a difference of 8 days? Given he has subjected his coalition and his own alliance to three more days voluntarily, at the very least -- it wouldn't seem to be worth fighting over from my perspective. Why would he walk out of negotiations where both sides had merely 8 days between our positions? Further, why the continued act here as if he considers them so unacceptable -- given that isn't true when he offered the same terms sans 8 days? Again, I think some alliances on your side of the fence deserve to know. I am curious. Edited January 30, 2014 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I think it has to be asked again -- why would the NPO emperor decide to drag his allies through several days and potentially weeks-months of more fighting over a difference of 8 days? He likes reading this thread and all the whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 It appears that bruce didn't know. I think many people on your side of the fence are being misled about just how far apart terms have been, and certainly with the amount of grandstanding being done in negotiations and even here you would think we were much farther apart. I think it has to be asked again -- why would the NPO emperor decide to drag his allies through several days and potentially weeks-months of more fighting over a difference of 8 days? Further, why the continued act here as if he considers them so unacceptable -- given that isn't true when he offered the same terms sans 8 days? Again, I think some alliances on your side of the fence deserve to know. I am curious. umm i asked you the question i think ? what were the total terms with the 8 days the Polar side offered since you were there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 He likes reading this thread and all the whining. He must like to read his own writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 umm i asked you the question i think ? what were the total terms with the 8 days the Polar side offered since you were there ? Does it matter? If Farrin personally offered the same exact terms with the only difference being 8 days between the two, why would he storm out of negotiations as they were ongoing over an 8 day difference between his offer and the coalitions position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Does it matter? If Farrin personally offered the same exact terms with the only difference being 8 days between the two, why would he storm out of negotiations as they were ongoing over an 8 day difference between his offer and the coalitions position?Is it really that difficult to just entertain his question if you're sure it doesn't matter? Edited January 30, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Is it really that difficult to just entertain his question if you're sure it doesn't matter? There's nothing difficult about it. Farrin stormed out of negotiations over a difference in 8 days between what he proposed to be acceptable peace terms and what the coalition countered him with. What do the terms matter if Farrin found them acceptable enough to offer (albeit, I guess from this giant WoT rhetorical OP he made you would never know otherwise,) them to the opposing coalition? If the only difference was 8 days, and it's three days later, NPO is the one dragging this war out with garbage offers after coming within 8 days of peace. Edited January 30, 2014 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) The terms you guys offered actually do "something" to the people that fought, in that they deny them a portion of their aid. The terms we counter-offered allow you to deny the nations in PM tech over a *longer* period of time, without punishing the rest. I am curious as to why your coalition wants the former (which punishes fighting nations) rather than the latter (which punishes only PM nations). Yes it does matter cause i do know that the original terms we of our nations could not use no slots for any reason at all ... for the length of time of the terms .. i know our counter was for a certain period of time but with the stipulation that the nations could send aid to them nations that fought which this quote is only from 2 or 3 hours ago long after Farrin left the talks. Meaning maybe you offered a difference in time but the rest of the terms are also in question .. so your spinning of using one point does not jive. Edited January 30, 2014 by brucemania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Yes it does matter cause i do know that the original terms we of our nations could not use no slots for any reason at all ... for the length of time of the terms .. i know our counter was for a certain period of time but with the stipulation that the nations could send aid to them nations that fought which this quote is only from 2 or 3 hours ago long after Farrin left the talks. Meaning maybe you offered a difference in time but the rest of the terms are also in question .. so your spinning of using one point does not jive. If Farrin found them acceptable enough to offer them to us, why are you blaming us for his refusal to accept the counter we made of his exact terms with a difference of a mere 8 days? More importantly -- for his refusal to consider negotiating further when the two sides were so close? Three days later, the answer apparently hasn't reached everyone. Edited January 30, 2014 by IYIyTh Quote 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.