Nizzle Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 doesn't matter whether either side respects the other. Athens/Co gave TPF the white peace they wanted and TPF rejected it due to CC. it is a delaying tactic regardless of whether fighting is going on or not. TPF willingly sacrificed their nations in order to delay Athens/Co. essentially they lied about wanting white peace since once they got it, they rejected it. White peace was never actually rejected, FWIW. Negotiations were to continue the next day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincongrad Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) doesn't matter whether either side respects the other. Athens/Co gave TPF the white peace they wanted and TPF rejected it due to CC. You seem to be arguing a point that I'm not arguing. Yes. TPF think they have the advantage now, and they see no reason not to press it. Again, this is my point. EDIT: it is a delaying tactic regardless of whether fighting is going on or not. TPF willingly sacrificed their nations in order to delay Athens/Co. essentially they lied about wanting white peace since once they got it, they rejected it. What, exactly, did they delay? Edited January 2, 2010 by Lincongrad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 White peace was never actually rejected, FWIW. Negotiations were to continue the next day. He's talking about tonight when we all agreed that we would give TPF white peace, but they were gone 5 minutes after they told us that was all they would accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 definitely last post One day before Athens and co offered white peace with admission of guilt, which I am sure you know would not have been acceptable to TPF, or their allies. Right, because the next logical step after an almost agreeable situation is worked out, isn't to try to find a solution that is agreeable, it is to declare war! Obviously because the parties were willing to present a white peace today, it means if negotiations were continued, the white peace offer would have been made. Instead, TPFs allies made the decision that they did not want white peace, that they wanted war. They certainly did not do this because they wished to protect TPF, far from it. If their allies wanted TPF to be protected, they would have kept them at the negotiating table and pushed for both sides to accept the white peace. Instead, their allies realized that TPF has already been demolished (cept their leader, he remains unscathed!) and figured what the hell, why not jump in ourselves and have some fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) I lied. One more then I go to bed. Goodnight. Nothing to do with the point I made except try to deflect it. Peace talks should go on during a war, and they were apparently moving along nicely. White peace was offered, TPF had achieved what it wanted. Then it kinda... Bails. I guess one side was talking peace, while the other was stalling. White peace was never turned down, right? TPF stated peace negotiations would continue tomorrow, right? There were not hundreds of wars declared, right? GM Pro-Tip Number 4: Attempting to make the other side look bad scared by stating they ran when a coalition was formed is silly. Both sides knew almost immediately what the lines were. It did not take 6 days for people to go "Welp, I guess I read this here first thread enough times with these certain alliances for and then certain alliances against it." Takes a glance at the web and a glance at public opinion. Add that onto leaked logs and we have lines being drawn being obvious after about the second day. Anything else? I like these tips. The presentation of full white peace, immediately prior to the update where your opponents allies would enter, should strike anyone uninvolved as being suspicious. Edited January 2, 2010 by Nizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 White peace was never actually rejected, FWIW. Negotiations were to continue the next day. actually TPF stated the "talks are going nowhere" right after getting the white peace they wanted. that is pretty much a rejection since obviously the talks went exactly where TPF supposedly wanted it. if white peace was what TPF was actually after, they would have said "we accept" not "talks are going nowhere". i understand that you have a hard time grasping simple matters like this but i am unsure how to exactly break it down any further. should i get that purple dinosaur named Barney in here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatmagnus Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 White peace was never actually rejected, FWIW. Negotiations were to continue the next day. fff I am such a liar. One... More... Being offered white peace and then stating the talks are getting nowhere is rejecting it. It means white peace is not good enough, or they simply do not want peace. No way around it. Had it been worded differently or under different circumstances yes (or no? fff English), it might not have been considered a rejection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 He's talking about tonight when we all agreed that we would give TPF white peace, but they were gone 5 minutes after they told us that was all they would accept. ....there was a full 24 hour period in which no one from the attacking party could contact anyone in TPF's government or any of their allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 "White peace & you admit you were guilty and absolutely deserved your war." That's not what was on the table, because that's not white peace. See the part after the &? That's a term. I'm not sure you've yet grasped what white peace is, but don't worry. I have faith that one day you will be able to build the necessary wonders to tell the goddamn truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 So now we are crying, because those who attacked without a reason (from TPF:s perspective) were GRACIOUSLY willing to give peace, and TPF rejected when they realized they might have a fighting change? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincongrad Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) Being offered white peace and then stating the talks are getting nowhere is rejecting it. It means white peace is not good enough, or they simply do not want peace. No way around it. Had it been worded differently or under different circumstances yes (or no? fff English), it might not have been considered a rejection. This is correct. They wanted white peace when they were getting pounded, and now that the prospect of pounding has gone down they want revenge. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. My question is why they should TPF accept white peace? They viewed the CB as unjustified and now they intend to beat that into their opponents' heads. EDIT: Clarification Edited January 2, 2010 by Lincongrad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juslen Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 doesn't matter whether either side respects the other. Athens/Co gave TPF the white peace they wanted and TPF rejected it due to CC. it is a delaying tactic regardless of whether fighting is going on or not. TPF willingly sacrificed their nations in order to delay Athens/Co. essentially they lied about wanting white peace since once they got it, they rejected it. This is exactly the impression that I have been given by reading through all the information at hand. 5 days to negotiate peace, but once TPF's allies could finally be rallied TPF was like "ohhhhhhhh yeah...... we still want peace" SORRY GOTTA GO BYE! lol Well now everyone gets the war they wanted. The only problem is.. this war has been a complete and utter mess. Nothing but delays and speculation and alliances on both sides knowing they get to watch both friends and foes pixels burn. Hooray! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 fff I am such a liar. One... More...Being offered white peace and then stating the talks are getting nowhere is rejecting it. It means white peace is not good enough, or they simply do not want peace. No way around it. Had it been worded differently or under different circumstances yes (or no? fff English), it might not have been considered a rejection. GO TO SLEEP. Take a step back. Consider the situation. Think about it. React. A long standing term was TPF accepting blame. In the midst of a conversation, immediately prior to update, where white peace was in the process of being unanimously offered VanHoo mentions the validity of the CB. actually TPF stated the "talks are going nowhere" right after getting the white peace they wanted. that is pretty much a rejection since obviously the talks went exactly where TPF supposedly wanted it. if white peace was what TPF was actually after, they would have said "we accept" not "talks are going nowhere". See above. i understand that you have a hard time grasping simple matters like this but i am unsure how to exactly break it down any further. should i get that purple dinosaur named Barney in here? Your side, always with the personal insults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 The presentation of full white peace, immediately prior to the update where your opponents allies would enter, should strike anyone uninvolved as being suspicious. Actually what happened was, after lengthy peace talks, concessions were being made by 'Suplercomplaints' (hereafter called The Beatles). Desperado said white peace or nothing, then the entire TPF delegation walked out save for him. The Beatles were agreeing to white peace, at which point Desperado said things were going nowhere and also walked out. Really the only parallel is what happened during the early negotiations of the last war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 So now we are crying, because those who attacked without a reason (from TPF:s perspective) were GRACIOUSLY willing to give peace, and TPF rejected when they realized they might have a fighting change? Really? Attacking during productive peace negotiations ruins your "fighting chance". It hasn't even been a year and we've already forgotten this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson76 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I thought the day would never come when I would agree publicly with WCR, but alas, it has. The opportunity to take a superior moral stance was presented and shamefully squandered. One can only assume this was because that which was proffered, peace, was never actually desired by those to whom the admittedly long overdue olive branch was extended. Nolissar, I'm only responding to you out of all of these posts because of my respect for you. The "peace" offered to TPF include the following "and we want an admission of wrongdoing and validation of the war". Even should that line be struck from the agreement, TPF taking even one round of damage and just walking away is a tacit admission that the CB was valid. That all being said, the superior moral stance presented would have left TPF to take on the entire blame for this war. What it all comes down to is the entire Coincidence Coalition is committed to defending TPF and as such, will respect whatever terms they are willing to accept, our desires are clearly secondary. So while there are certainly alliances on both sides that want a global conflict, once TPF gets terms they are happy with, SNAFU (and I believe the rest of the Coalition) will be perfectly happy to end this war under those terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 ....there was a full 24 hour period in which no one from the attacking party could contact anyone in TPF's government or any of their allies? There was a 2 hour discussion tonight starting around 10:30 PM EST. 15 minutes in we all got the impression that TPF was stonewalling and they proved it when they told us the only thing they would accept was full white peace with 8 minutes to go before the DoWs. In the interest of preventing a spread of the war, Rok, GOD, \m/, and Athens all decided "yes". Unfortunately, after 2 hours of discussion, they literally could not wait 4 minutes for Athens to discuss it internally after I asked them to "Hold". We check back after the usual private chan discussion only to see that TPF had decided to leave after Rok, GOD, and \m/ had all agreed to white peace with Athens about to post our agreement too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pasquali Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Ha. If you can't see or haven't heard that TOP wants SF and CnG dead, then you are both deaf and blind. Also, past month? That's interesting considering Athens found out about ZH's true purpose on the 24th... so unless you are on a different definition of a "month" than the rest of us, this hasn't been some great master plan that has been planned for months. You give us far too much credit if you think we have these grand master schemes. You are giving ANYONE in CN too much credit if you think they have grand master schemes... because usually, in the case of TPF, they fail horribly. TOP is understandably wary of both SF and CnG, much the same as you'd be wary of someone who loves guns and who states multiple times he wants desperately to kill you. I started telling OUR members to be alert because war was on the horizon in early December. And I'm not in any circles at all - it's a matter of reading the OWF and having half a brain. As I said, it was being carefully contrived for quite awhile. I don't neccessarily dispute that Athens learned about ZH on the 24th. I also don't quite buy it that Athens said, "WHAT? WE KILL NOW!!!11" without first consulting some very specific people who did some very specific calculations and then said "DO IT!!!" with huge grins on their faces. And more than likely gave some very specific "suggestions" as to how to go about doing it for maximum effect considering the then current global situation. If this situation hadn't come up, something else would have, and it probably would have taken another week at most. Maybe something like RoK's own spy du jour had been trying to set up, hmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Attacking during productive peace negotiations ruins your "fighting chance". It hasn't even been a year and we've already forgotten this one? Did Athens side stop all the attacks when the negotiation started? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 White Peace is a straight peace without terms. An admission of guilt on TPF's part is a surrender TERM. So do a little Find and Replace and turn "White Peace" into "Terms we Believe to be Light" and lets move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 My question is why they should TPF accept white peace? They viewed the CB as unjustified and now they intend to beat that into their opponents' heads. How about because: [00:21] <Desperado`> Its pretty simple: White peace, thats it. [00:22] <Desperado`> Final Offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 White peace was never turned down, right? TPF stated peace negotiations would continue tomorrow, right? There were not hundreds of wars declared, right? The lack of wars only proves how unnecessary it was for the Coalition to declare at all, whether goaded to by others or not. In such a situation, it is always preferably to walk softly and carry a big stick. Actually attacking has managed to diminish the perceived influence of this Coalition. This isn't punishment, it's a laughing stock. It would have been far more influential to get all those alliances together to force a resolution - which was more than readily available. Heck, that way they would have gotten even more alliances to work towards peace, if that was really their goal. Instead, they sent TPF to "negotiate" and we got this. I don't really blame TPF, I guess it doesn't surprise me, but I am shaking my head at the myriad of alliances who actually went through with this stupidity. What the OP presented this Coalition to be, and what they have actually done, are two entirely different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Did Athens side stop all the attacks when the negotiation started? I have no idea and fail to see what that has to do with anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincongrad Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Attacking during productive peace negotiations ruins your "fighting chance". It hasn't even been a year and we've already forgotten this one? The peace negotiations were unlikely to bring the end that TPF desired, EG compensation for their time at war. Therefore, the peace negotiations were not productive in TPF's eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Did Athens side stop all the attacks when the negotiation started? No ceasefire was ever agreed to. We were, however, ready to message all our nations and instruct them not to attack after this past update, but to send peace instead. 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.