NG's Not Only Reasonable, but Kind Offer

[Jason8]

10 hours ago, kerschbs said:

The RFD coalition has been the most unified and enjoyable one I’ve participated in during my 15 year tenure on Bob. When CLAWS and NATO started the peace talk process there was a simple decision on our end, white peace would be the goal and we weren’t leaving any participant behind. We knew the enemy coalition would start with demands that OBR/OG/CRAP be left behind to be raided by Dooms upper tier, and that Oculus would want free reign to pound on Polar because their feelings were hurt by Sponge. Low and behold that’s exactly the response we received, the enemy wants the war treated as three separate fronts to be negotiated independently.

C'mon, kerschbs, I thought you had more respect for yourself than to twist what happened that bad.  I believe it was an RFD government member, someone originally slated to be an RFD representative even, that recommended different end dates for different fronts.  

 

So why the twist?  Is it because your coalition government is keeping their respective memberships in the dark about what really happened?  Or is it just a way for you guys to prolong the war?  Sounds like a good strategy if the peace talks were held in bad faith... recommend a possible solution and blame the other side for being unreasonable when it's brought up.

[firingline]

48 minutes ago, Jason8 said:

C'mon, kerschbs, I thought you had more respect for yourself than to twist what happened that bad.  I believe it was an RFD government member, someone originally slated to be an RFD representative even, that recommended different end dates for different fronts.  

 

So why the twist?  Is it because your coalition government is keeping their respective memberships in the dark about what really happened?  Or is it just a way for you guys to prolong the war?  Sounds like a good strategy if the peace talks were held in bad faith... recommend a possible solution and blame the other side for being unreasonable when it's brought up.

 

Any commentary on this general topic from PGS gov seems pretty silly.

 

NG has made it clear they won't abandon their allies on the battlefield. Unlike PGS, who arranged their own peace and left a war with no notice, abandoning the alliances who had been fighting beside them.

[kerschbs]

1 hour ago, Jason8 said:

C'mon, kerschbs, I thought you had more respect for yourself than to twist what happened that bad.  I believe it was an RFD government member, someone originally slated to be an RFD representative even, that recommended different end dates for different fronts.  

 

So why the twist?  Is it because your coalition government is keeping their respective memberships in the dark about what really happened?  Or is it just a way for you guys to prolong the war?  Sounds like a good strategy if the peace talks were held in bad faith... recommend a possible solution and blame the other side for being unreasonable when it's brought up.

That “suggestion” was posted  as an off the cuff comment outside of the official peace talk channel. You have access to both. Once official talks started in the two person capacity our position has been abundantly clear, which you know and is easily verifiable by logs. Not all of RFD had even weighed in at that point. 
 

Lyanna and Devo posted our official position multiple times. It’s pretty straightforward and you’re smart enough to know that.

[HeroofTime55]

2 hours ago, kerschbs said:

and you’re smart enough to know that.

this is a pretty big claim ngl

[Sarkin]

1 hour ago, kerschbs said:

That “suggestion” was posted  as an off the cuff comment outside of the official peace talk channel. You have access to both. Once official talks started in the two person capacity our position has been abundantly clear, which you know and is easily verifiable by logs. Not all of RFD had even weighed in at that point. 
 

Lyanna and Devo posted our official position multiple times. It’s pretty straightforward and you’re smart enough to know that.

 

Timeline:

 

- Before the official peace talks began, a prominent alliance leader in your coalition made that proposal. They were clear that it wasn't their preferred approach compared to what would ultimately become your coalition's proposal, but they called it a logical alternative if both parties weren't amenable to global white peace.

- Your coalition then promptly selected that person as a representative.

- They ended up not being available for it, and as you said, their replacement in Lyanna and Devo stated your coalition's position (these are different fronts of one war and only global white peace is acceptable). 

- I stated my coalition's position (there are three different wars and white peace is acceptable for the big one, but we want to hold separate-but-concurrent negotiations for the other two). 

- We each restated our position a few times, and the talks ended at an impasse. 

 

I think Jason's point is that there's a lot of hyperbole in this thread about how insane and terrible we are for believing that our counteroffer would ever even be considered as a possibility, when it had been floated the day before as a logical possibility by someone who appeared from our external perspective to be in your coalition's mainstream of thought, given you selected them as a coalition representative. 

 

Y'all had a right to make your offer; we had a right to refuse it. We had a right to make a counteroffer; y'all had a right to refuse it. The global war continues because both sides continue to have something they feel is worth fighting for.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OOC: I believe most of us have a shared goal of a more active and engaging game/community. 

 

Obviously there's disagreement about how the game got to this point and whether it was an inevitable decline due to consumer interest changes and lack of design changes + feature updates, or if it's moreso the fault of raiding alliances for driving people away or blocs like Oculus for creating a less dynamic diplomatic environment. My personal belief is that the former is the biggest factor by far, and I remember hearing "this thing is gonna be dead in a year" doomer talk frequently years before Doom or Oculus even existed. However, if you disagree about how to apportion the blame, I won't argue with you; we lack the data to know for certain one way or another. 

 

Despite my beliefs about the cause of this place's decline, I also believe that we still have enough folks here to have fun and make things happen, and maybe to bounce back if we can do that well enough. I even went to our embassy in the NG Discord a few months ago and thanked them for their contributions to making this war, which I think has been highly competitive and interesting compared to past global wars, happen. I would extend the same note to others who were involved. 

 

We can all see that the current conflicts contain the vast, vast majority of the active playerbase. I understand IC debate, and I understand that people are going to cheer their side and boo their opponent. We have all been here long enough to see those things happen in a fun and entertaining manner that spurs further activity and engagement. 

 

What I don't understand is the amount of verbal abuse being thrown around that seems very OOC at its root and that really just amounts to people saying "shut up" or even "quit." It's lame from an IC perspective and counterproductive from an OOC perspective given our shared goal.

 

To be clear, this OOC note is not directed toward kerschbs, and I don't think it's something that only applies to one group. It's a general observation about this thread and the OWF in general over the past few months. 

 

Now, before y'all say it: "shut up" / "just quit already" / "tl;dr" 

[KameraadLenin]

4 minutes ago, Sarkin said:

 

Timeline:

 

- Before the official peace talks began, a prominent alliance leader in your coalition made that proposal. They were clear that it wasn't their preferred approach compared to what would ultimately become your coalition's proposal, but they called it a logical alternative if both parties weren't amenable to global white peace.

- Your coalition then promptly selected that person as a representative.

- They ended up not being available for it, and as you said, their replacement in Lyanna and Devo stated your coalition's position (these are different fronts of one war and only global white peace is acceptable). 

- I stated my coalition's position (there are three different wars and white peace is acceptable for the big one, but we want to hold separate-but-concurrent negotiations for the other two). 

- We each restated our position a few times, and the talks ended at an impasse. 

 

I think Jason's point is that there's a lot of hyperbole in this thread about how insane and terrible we are for believing that our counteroffer would ever even be considered as a possibility, when it had been floated the day before as a logical possibility by someone who appeared from our external perspective to be in your coalition's mainstream of thought, given you selected them as a coalition representative. 

 

Y'all had a right to make your offer; we had a right to refuse it. We had a right to make a counteroffer; y'all had a right to refuse it. The global war continues because both sides continue to have something they feel is worth fighting for.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OOC: I believe most of us have a shared goal of a more active and engaging game/community. 

 

Obviously there's disagreement about how the game got to this point and whether it was an inevitable decline due to consumer interest changes and lack of design changes + feature updates, or if it's moreso the fault of raiding alliances for driving people away or blocs like Oculus for creating a less dynamic diplomatic environment. My personal belief is that the former is the biggest factor by far, and I remember hearing "this thing is gonna be dead in a year" doomer talk frequently years before Doom or Oculus even existed. However, if you disagree about how to apportion the blame, I won't argue with you; we lack the data to know for certain one way or another. 

 

Despite my beliefs about the cause of this place's decline, I also believe that we still have enough folks here to have fun and make things happen, and maybe to bounce back if we can do that well enough. I even went to our embassy in the NG Discord a few months ago and thanked them for their contributions to making this war, which I think has been highly competitive and interesting compared to past global wars, happen. I would extend the same note to others who were involved. 

 

We can all see that the current conflicts contain the vast, vast majority of the active playerbase. I understand IC debate, and I understand that people are going to cheer their side and boo their opponent. We have all been here long enough to see those things happen in a fun and entertaining manner that spurs further activity and engagement. 

 

What I don't understand is the amount of verbal abuse being thrown around that seems very OOC at its root and that really just amounts to people saying "shut up" or even "quit." It's lame from an IC perspective and counterproductive from an OOC perspective given our shared goal.

 

To be clear, this OOC note is not directed toward kerschbs, and I don't think it's something that only applies to one group. It's a general observation about this thread and the OWF in general over the past few months. 

 

Now, before y'all say it: "shut up" / "just quit already" / "tl;dr" 

your offer was not only reasonable, it was kind.

[jerdge]

11 hours ago, TheBigBad said:

And I thought I had a big ego and tended to ramble on about nonsense.

Only apparently the former, only at times the latter.

 

8 hours ago, Master Hakai said:

That’s what everybody is usin it for

You aged well.

 

OOC Whoa @Sarkin! Well put. ❤️

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by jerdge
Sarkin's ooc comment

[MasterChief]

3 hours ago, Sarkin said:

 

Timeline:

 

- Before the official peace talks began, a prominent alliance leader in your coalition made that proposal. They were clear that it wasn't their preferred approach compared to what would ultimately become your coalition's proposal, but they called it a logical alternative if both parties weren't amenable to global white peace.

- Your coalition then promptly selected that person as a representative.

- They ended up not being available for it, and as you said, their replacement in Lyanna and Devo stated your coalition's position (these are different fronts of one war and only global white peace is acceptable). 

- I stated my coalition's position (there are three different wars and white peace is acceptable for the big one, but we want to hold separate-but-concurrent negotiations for the other two). 

- We each restated our position a few times, and the talks ended at an impasse. 

 

I think Jason's point is that there's a lot of hyperbole in this thread about how insane and terrible we are for believing that our counteroffer would ever even be considered as a possibility, when it had been floated the day before as a logical possibility by someone who appeared from our external perspective to be in your coalition's mainstream of thought, given you selected them as a coalition representative. 

 

Y'all had a right to make your offer; we had a right to refuse it. We had a right to make a counteroffer; y'all had a right to refuse it. The global war continues because both sides continue to have something they feel is worth fighting for.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OOC: I believe most of us have a shared goal of a more active and engaging game/community. 

 

Obviously there's disagreement about how the game got to this point and whether it was an inevitable decline due to consumer interest changes and lack of design changes + feature updates, or if it's moreso the fault of raiding alliances for driving people away or blocs like Oculus for creating a less dynamic diplomatic environment. My personal belief is that the former is the biggest factor by far, and I remember hearing "this thing is gonna be dead in a year" doomer talk frequently years before Doom or Oculus even existed. However, if you disagree about how to apportion the blame, I won't argue with you; we lack the data to know for certain one way or another. 

 

Despite my beliefs about the cause of this place's decline, I also believe that we still have enough folks here to have fun and make things happen, and maybe to bounce back if we can do that well enough. I even went to our embassy in the NG Discord a few months ago and thanked them for their contributions to making this war, which I think has been highly competitive and interesting compared to past global wars, happen. I would extend the same note to others who were involved. 

 

We can all see that the current conflicts contain the vast, vast majority of the active playerbase. I understand IC debate, and I understand that people are going to cheer their side and boo their opponent. We have all been here long enough to see those things happen in a fun and entertaining manner that spurs further activity and engagement. 

 

What I don't understand is the amount of verbal abuse being thrown around that seems very OOC at its root and that really just amounts to people saying "shut up" or even "quit." It's lame from an IC perspective and counterproductive from an OOC perspective given our shared goal.

 

To be clear, this OOC note is not directed toward kerschbs, and I don't think it's something that only applies to one group. It's a general observation about this thread and the OWF in general over the past few months. 

 

Now, before y'all say it: "shut up" / "just quit already" / "tl;dr" 

At the end of the day, the war won't end until there is global white peace. So you take it or leave it 😆, chaos will easily ensue again if any aggression comes post war. So, we can make this VietFAN and keep destroying your nations (we don't care about our pixels). 

 

To be clear, I am not in government. However, I do assure you that this is the general consensus as said fifty other times on the OWF. Sooooooooooooooooo let's talk until our faces go blue. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by MasterChief

[Electron Sponge]

2 minutes ago, MasterChief said:

we can make this VietFAN

I think you are giving them a lot more credit than they deserve. They are not FAN.

[MasterChief]

1 minute ago, Electron Sponge said:

I think you are giving them a lot more credit than they deserve. They are not FAN.

I was speaking of the longevity that we can make this war. It's funny to watch them scrambling to get more tech to avoid being dragged down into oblivion. 

[Electron Sponge]

5 hours ago, Sarkin said:

What I don't understand is the amount of verbal abuse being thrown around that seems very OOC at its root and that really just amounts to people saying "shut up" or even "quit." It's lame from an IC perspective and counterproductive from an OOC perspective given our shared goal.

 

You should understand it, it is the core of what Oculus is.

[Thrash]

5 hours ago, Sarkin said:

 

 We each restated our position a few times, and the talks ended at an impasse. 

 

This is what happens when you expect people to leave others out to dry. 

[Hob Dobson]

6 hours ago, MasterChief said:

I was speaking of the longevity that we can make this war. It's funny to watch them scrambling to get more tech to avoid being dragged down into oblivion. 

 

I like to think of it as the Happy Fun Zone.

[dev0win]

11 hours ago, Sarkin said:

 

Timeline:

 

- Before the official peace talks began, a prominent alliance leader in your coalition made that proposal. They were clear that it wasn't their preferred approach compared to what would ultimately become your coalition's proposal, but they called it a logical alternative if both parties weren't amenable to global white peace.

A logical alternative to what? You are clearly starting in the middle of the timeline as a desperate attempt to make a point. Time to move on.

[TheBigBad]

14 hours ago, jerdge said:

Only apparently the former, only at times the latter.

 

You aged well.

 

OOC Whoa @Sarkin! Well put. ❤️

 

 

Perhaps you have forgotten just how amazing I am.   I am so amazing that I pay who knows how much more money to live two miles from a beach that I never go to.  I thought the dogs would love it, they do not.  I thought I can get up in the morning, get a coffee and watch the sunrise I do not.  Maybe my wife and I will volunteer to help monitor the sea turtle nests when they lay eggs, we do not.  In fact, the only time I see the beach is when I eat at an overpriced seafood place on the beach because its close and I do not have to fight traffic during busy season.  I do not even like the beach.  I grew up at the beach and even in High School would skip class and go the beach on occasion.   And then you have the hurricanes, crazy insurance prices, flooding, tourists, traffic, sand, sharks, and salt water.  All this and when we travel along the coast my wife always wants a room on the beach...   Hmmmm what we're talking about?  Oh yeah I am great and something about rambling.  

[Electron Sponge]

28 minutes ago, TheBigBad said:

 

Perhaps you have forgotten just how amazing I am.   I am so amazing that I pay who knows how much more money to live two miles from a beach that I never go to.  I thought the dogs would love it, they do not.  I thought I can get up in the morning, get a coffee and watch the sunrise I do not.  Maybe my wife and I will volunteer to help monitor the sea turtle nests when they lay eggs, we do not.  In fact, the only time I see the beach is when I eat at an overpriced seafood place on the beach because its close and I do not have to fight traffic during busy season.  I do not even like the beach.  I grew up at the beach and even in High School would skip class and go the beach on occasion.   And then you have the hurricanes, crazy insurance prices, flooding, tourists, traffic, sand, sharks, and salt water.  All this and when we travel along the coast my wife always wants a room on the beach...   Hmmmm what we're talking about?  Oh yeah I am great and something about rambling.  

You are the best of us

[Jason8]

4 hours ago, dev0win said:

A logical alternative to what? You are clearly starting in the middle of the timeline as a desperate attempt to make a point. Time to move on.

...you quoted the alternative.

 

[Sauron]

20 hours ago, Jason8 said:

C'mon, kerschbs, I thought you had more respect for yourself than to twist what happened that bad.  I believe it was an RFD government member, someone originally slated to be an RFD representative even, that recommended different end dates for different fronts.  

 

So why the twist?  Is it because your coalition government is keeping their respective memberships in the dark about what really happened?  Or is it just a way for you guys to prolong the war?  Sounds like a good strategy if the peace talks were held in bad faith... recommend a possible solution and blame the other side for being unreasonable when it's brought up.

As much as I loathe the OWF sometimes someone says something so utterly incorrect, twists things more than Chubby Checker could dream to twist, that I feel compelled to walk these halls and render my input.  Congratulations you are the next contestant.

As the very person you are referencing, let's go through exactly what I said line by line for those who lack the comprehension skills necessary.  For those not involved the comment I made they are referencing predates both the actual peace talks and the genuine offer our side collectively agreed to offer.

"I won't be home from work for another hour but wanted to add a quick thought."
Quick thought clearly means we as a coalition make this offer /s

White peace across the board is the easiest to agree on.
It really is a no brainer

"I don't for example see Doomsphere peacing while Oculus fights on or CLAWS accepting peace while NPO continues to fight on. Likewise on our side I don't see FTW accepting peace while our allies remained at war"
Even though I was driving, and doing voice to text when the road is clear, I had enough forethought to preface this "quick thought" that neither side would be willing to leave their allies behind

"The alternative to white peace across the board, which I feel would be the more complex approach, would be to agree to set exit points so specific parties could continue fighting with an agreed upon end date in stone. That'd be more complicated for everyone to hammer out, but if certain parties want to continue to war on that is the only other logical approach to pursuing peace. I much prefer the former of everyone accepting peace at a specific date, but with many fronts opening throughout the war at various times figured that suggestion might be a decent logical alternative. That's all I have time for at the moment"

Sarkin was chose as a representative for the opposing side.  At first people thought it made sense for Devo and myself to represent our side, but frankly I don't have a lot of time nor  do I really want to deal with this sort of childish nitpicking and twisting.  To avoid confusion a new room was made where only the reps would talk to avoid which statements represent the coalition, which ones are personal thoughts/opinions (like I stated above when I stated I prefer everyone to peace at once (something our coalition as a whole unanimously agrees on).

The only statements I made, as an official rep for our coalition:
"I will try to shoot for that time. Work and commute home can be unpredictable but I am usually home around that time"
"We technically only need one person talking on our side and I'm a bit tied up at the moment so feel free to go on without me, I'll read up and post when I can."

Nowhere in either of those statements during official peace talks did I render my musings or personal opinions.  The will of the coalition is to not leave our mates behind.  Some seem to think we are a loose rag tag group of alliances not unified by friendship and common goals.  Either everyone gets peace or no one gets peace.  The ball has been in your court since the offer on November 16th was made, and our offer of white peace still stands.  We'll continue fighting until you all are ready to end.  Talks began in good faith because we heard several elements on your side were interested in peace.  We aren't interested in driving anyone away, we've had fun and continue to do so.  When you all are ready to discuss an actual end date and not expect some of us to accept peace while others fight #santa's-great-hall remains open.  Until then we will continue to see you all on the battlefield.

[HeroofTime55]

So, it was floated, in passing, "certain parties entered later than others and maybe wanna fight for a bit longer so it would be possible but complicated to set several different specific dates for different fronts to peace out if those parties want to keep fighting, any thoughts guys?"

And this somehow this passing comment was interpreted a hard offer from our side that we would abandon allies to indefinite war?

Amazing stuff.  Thank you for shedding light on this, @Sauron

[Rebel Virginia]

Separate dates for separate fronts? Sounds like like we're too much for Oculus to handle all at once. Wouldn't it be much simpler if they could just beat us up one at a time and circle back around every once in a while to make sure none of us ever get too uppity again in the future?

[jerdge]

6 hours ago, TheBigBad said:

 

Perhaps you have forgotten just how amazing I am.   I am so amazing that I pay who knows how much more money to live two miles from a beach that I never go to.  I thought the dogs would love it, they do not.  I thought I can get up in the morning, get a coffee and watch the sunrise I do not.  Maybe my wife and I will volunteer to help monitor the sea turtle nests when they lay eggs, we do not.  In fact, the only time I see the beach is when I eat at an overpriced seafood place on the beach because its close and I do not have to fight traffic during busy season.  I do not even like the beach.  I grew up at the beach and even in High School would skip class and go the beach on occasion.   And then you have the hurricanes, crazy insurance prices, flooding, tourists, traffic, sand, sharks, and salt water.  All this and when we travel along the coast my wife always wants a room on the beach...   Hmmmm what we're talking about?  Oh yeah I am great and something about rambling.  

Eh eh thanks. ❤️

[Sarkin]

Sauron, I'd like to ask a favor: read my post again. Like, actually read it, don't just get the blood-haze in your eyes because MY ENEMY POSTED SOMETHING GRRRRRR NOW I GOTTA YELL AT 'EM ABOUT IT! 😠😠😠

 

If you do, you'll see that...

• I did not say that your note was an official offer by your coalition. I was clear that it was from before the official peace talks began and before you were selected as a coalition rep.
• I did not say that you preferred a front-specific peace negotiation. I was clear that your preference was for the global white peace that your coalition ultimately proposed during the official talks, but that you had raised the possibility of front-specific peace negotiations as a "logical alternative" if global white peace was not amenable to all parties. 

So, we're not actually in disagreement about any detail of what happened. I believe you when you say that it was an off-the-cuff comment, that you were distracted when you said it, and that you had no intention of trying to make an official offer or even the authority to do so in that moment. 

 

Here's the thing: we also entered the peace negotiations in good faith. Like you, we met internally before the official talks started and made some decisions about what we wanted the conclusion of these wars to look like. We knew that your personal statement was not an official offer, but given that it had just been made and that you were then selected as a coalition rep, we figured that our counteroffer could work for both parties, and so we moved forward with the talks. 

 

I can't see inside your head, heart, or internal coalition channels. Consequently, both of us entered the negotiations with extensive information about what our side as a whole wanted and limited information about what the other side as a whole wanted. It turned out that we wanted different things. That's... not really surprising given that we've been at war for months, right? The failure of the initial peace negotiation does not necessarily mean that either party was acting maliciously or was not taking it seriously; we're just not in the same place yet. We'll get there someday, and as you said, we'll all have fun on the journey together. 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

OOC: Sauron, if the basis for your annoyance was that I did not include your full quote, fair enough. There's a lot of kinda/sorta leaks happening here across various parties, but I did not want to post someone else's actual logs. It's because I didn't post your full statement that I was so careful to include the caveats about your preferences and the timeline of events in the first place. It's the same reason why I didn't name you as the person who made the statement. 

[Jason8]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

<snip>

It wasn't stated "on the record" per se, but it seemed like a solid idea, so it was investigated.  It got shot down.  The war rages on.  Your coalition isn't ready to end the conflict and our coalition isn't ready to end the conflict.  Seems pretty cut and dry as far as what happened.
 

30 minutes ago, Rebel Virginia said:

Separate dates for separate fronts? Sounds like like we're too much for Oculus to handle all at once. Wouldn't it be much simpler if they could just beat us up one at a time and circle back around every once in a while to make sure none of us ever get too uppity again in the future?

There was zero talk about indefinite war.  Hell, it may have worked out to be peace for 2/3 fronts immediately and peace for the main front a week later.  We'll never know, though, because it was never discussed.

[HeroofTime55]

5 minutes ago, Sarkin said:

 

...you had raised the possibility of front-specific peace negotiations as a "logical alternative" if global white peace was not amenable to all parties. ...
 

...So, we're not actually in disagreement about any detail of what happened. ...

 

...we figured that our counteroffer could work for both parties...

 

Yeah, we are not in agreement at all.  As Sauron posted, the idea that was floated was that separate but FIRM dates could be negotiated for different fronts, IF AND ONLY IF those alliances wanted to agree to fight for a bit longer.  The proposal was NEVER to split the coalition, have separate negotiations entirely, or leave allies on the battlefield indefinitely.

Whether you jumped to a hasty conclusion or are willfully misinterpreting, I don't know.  But we are very much in disagreement.

Let this whole moment serve as notice that our "party" consists of Every. Single. Alliance. On this side. Period. That's Polar, that's OBR, that's OG, that's CRAP, and that's everyone else who is fighting.  Our "party" is not some subset of alliances to be split apart.  Next time you come to the table, bear that in mind.

[HeroofTime55]

4 minutes ago, Jason8 said:

There was zero talk about indefinite war.  Hell, it may have worked out to be peace for 2/3 fronts immediately and peace for the main front a week later.  We'll never know, though, because it was never discussed.

NPO has quite clearly expressed their desire to punish Polaris for having a mind of their own. The idea that the "Polar front" was going to peace out ahead of the "primary front" (I use these terms VERY loosely, as we are all in this fight together, but from your perspective, apparently), and that's what our side misunderstood?  That's one of the most absurd and insane theories in this whole thread. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by HeroofTime55