Grämlins and DBDC Joint Announcement

[Gizmo]

Class acts who triple-team nations half their size to bully them and rob their nations. Is this really what Gramlins stands for now?

 

^^^^ Is that whining?  ^^^^  DBDC didn't do any of that.

 

* -We didn't either.

Edited March 11, 2014 by masterbake

[Auctor]

 

Yes we attacked DBDC in the Equilibrium war in support of our allies.  It was our only engagement.  Nukes flew, houses were looted and burned.  I think I saw an Angel cry.

 

I feel like the text of this treaty shoulda been that nuke report on Bob Janova where he thwarted a nuke and gained infra from it.

[Gizmo]

 

I feel like the text of this treaty shoulda been that nuke report on Bob Janova where he thwarted a nuke and gained infra from it.

 

Bob Janova does know the finer points and mechanics of Cybernations.  

[TBRaiders]

From issuing The Codex to this.

 

The Codex is the rules of war.  I can't see a single rule in the Codex that doesn't jive with how DBDC rolls.  Of course, five of us in DBDC are past members of Gremlins and some of us were there and gave our input when it was written:

 

The Ten Commandments of War

 

I. On Foreign Demands

The Grämlins shall not change the Charter or one of the Addendums, nor shall they expel a member, cancel a treaty or accept a Viceroy or similar interference to the government of the Alliance on foreign demand.

 

II. On Reparations

The Grämlins shall not pay reparations for defensive wars and shall not demand reparations for offensive wars.

 

III. On Peace Terms

Peace terms shall not be used to humilate the opponent or to cripple him economically beyond the need to remove the current and immediate threat to the alliance. No terms shall be offered which The Grämlins would not consider acceptable if the sides were switched. The terms shall reflect the opponents' behavior during battle.

 

IV. On Bandwagoning

Alliances who fight us to uphold a treaty shall receive leniency.  Bandwagoners shall receive punishment.  Article III shall not apply for bandwagoners.

 

V. On Treaty Chaining

No mutual defense agreement shall chain with other agreements not signed by The Grämlins.

 

VI. On Joint Offensive Operations

The Grämlins shall only participate in joint operations if the full evidence and proof for the CB has been shared, the exact goal of the war has been defined, rough peace term demands have been discussed and the other participants have been named.

 

VII On Withdrawal

The Grämlins shall withdraw from joint operations if the behavior of one or more participants of a joint operation is considered unacceptable by our government.

 

VIII On Punishment

Perma ZI, Eternal ZI and ZI shall always be applied on an individual case-to-case basis, never as group punishment.

 

IX On Grudges

Nations or alliances which have fulfilled their peace terms are considered guilt-free from that moment on and past actions shall not be held against them in future relations.

 

X On Violation and Betrayal

Nations or alliances abusing our leniency and our offer to end a military conflict honorably and in a civilized manner shall receive no mercy. None of these commandments shall apply to anyone who re-enters a war or seeks and plans a war of retribution for the sake of taking revenge later on.

 

 

To recap:
1) Neither of us will capitulate to foreign demands to become less than what we are.
2) Neither of us will pay reps on anyone else's terms.  If we do something bad and want to play nice we could concede some reps.
3) We both give people peace when they want peace/when the war is over.  For DBDC we never have more than one term: peace our friend/accept the peace offer.
4) GRE is a bit tougher on bandwagoners.  We look at it as an opportunity to gain more land and casualties and have a future CB in our back pocket.
5) Both of us have individual treaties that have their own requirements.  We are not obligated to our allies treaty obligations. For DBDC there is a 100% chance that if our ally is in a war and they are fighting someone with nations in our range that are not also our ally, regardless of the treaty level, we will be along shortly.
6) We both want to know who we are fighting, why, and what the end state will be.
7) Great clause.  If we join your war and you are a clown, we will finish up and be on our way.
8) Neither of us believe in PZI/EZI, but we leave the option open for extreme cases where it may be warranted.  If you fight DBDC for a week, you are probably going to be ZI unless you have enormous amounts of infra.  It's not a punishment, just a reality.
9) Both of us agree that tomorrow is a new day.  Today's opponents may be tomorrow's allies.
10) This is a statement to recognize that unexpected situations may require a unique response.  You can have the best intentions with guidelines/rules and somebody will eventually try to find a way to use them against you.  This clause says nope, not happening.

Edited March 11, 2014 by TBRaiders

[The Zigur]

Interesting, DBDC supports EZI.

[TBRaiders]

Interesting, DBDC supports EZI.

You did some cherry picking if that is all you got out of the recap.

8) Neither of us believe in PZI/EZI, but we leave the option open for extreme cases where it may be warranted.

The Codex leaves room for someone to be EZI for something very extreme, but neither alliance supports EZI.

[The Zigur]

You did some cherry picking if that is all you got out of the recap.
The Codex leaves room for someone to be EZI for something very extreme, but neither alliance supports EZI.

 

Logically:

 

"Neither alliance supports EZI"

+

"The Codex leaves room for someone to be EZI for something very extreme"

=

"We don't support EZI, unless we determine there is a reason to"

[Gizmo]

 

Logically:

 

"Neither alliance supports EZI"

+

"The Codex leaves room for someone to be EZI for something very extreme"

=

"We don't support EZI, unless we determine there is a reason to"

 

Can you give one example of Grämlins using EZI?  I am aware of no Grämlin case in the 1,031 Days* since the reformation.  I also do not know of any in DBDC.  Should we reserve the option??  In extreme cases 'Hell Yes'.

 

*got that number from Bob Janova's alliance seniority

 

edit-  cleaned up formatting

Edited March 12, 2014 by masterbake

[Prodigal Moon]

 

The Codex is the rules of war.  I can't see a single rule in the Codex that doesn't jive with how DBDC rolls.  Of course, five of us in DBDC are past members of Gremlins and some of us were there and gave our input when it was written:

 

 

To recap:
1) Neither of us will capitulate to foreign demands to become less than what we are.
2) Neither of us will pay reps on anyone else's terms.  If we do something bad and want to play nice we could concede some reps.
3) We both give people peace when they want peace/when the war is over.  For DBDC we never have more than one term: peace our friend/accept the peace offer.
4) GRE is a bit tougher on bandwagoners.  We look at it as an opportunity to gain more land and casualties and have a future CB in our back pocket.
5) Both of us have individual treaties that have their own requirements.  We are not obligated to our allies treaty obligations. For DBDC there is a 100% chance that if our ally is in a war and they are fighting someone with nations in our range that are not also our ally, regardless of the treaty level, we will be along shortly.
6) We both want to know who we are fighting, why, and what the end state will be.
7) Great clause.  If we join your war and you are a clown, we will finish up and be on our way.
8) Neither of us believe in PZI/EZI, but we leave the option open for extreme cases where it may be warranted.  If you fight DBDC for a week, you are probably going to be ZI unless you have enormous amounts of infra.  It's not a punishment, just a reality.
9) Both of us agree that tomorrow is a new day.  Today's opponents may be tomorrow's allies.
10) This is a statement to recognize that unexpected situations may require a unique response.  You can have the best intentions with guidelines/rules and somebody will eventually try to find a way to use them against you.  This clause says nope, not happening.

 

I really do appreciate the serious response. But even if some of the points line up on paper, the similarities have little meaning in practice or in spirit. The Codex as a whole was clearly a attempt by Gremlins to ensure that their alliance acts in a just and ethical way in its military affairs. Some of these principles (like forgoing reps) were trailblazing at the time, and set a strong example for other alliances to aspire to.

 

DBDC, on the other hands, seems to follow a path of unchecked amorality and might-makes-right approach to power. Glossing over point 3 by saying "We both give people peace when they want peace/when the war is over" is comical when you take into consideration the fact that many of your wars take place completely unprovoked, purely for personal gain/enjoyment, and not due to any treaty obligations or immediate threat to your AA. So I'm not sure you can really say you "give people peace when they want it." Your raid targets already wanted peace before you attacked them; there is no war to graciously end with a handshake until you start it.

 

Similarly, point 6 isn't just about wanting to know the details of a war, but requiring a legitimate and honest CB. When you attack people at will, without even suggesting that there is a justification, this principle goes out the window.

 

So, I agree that you see eye to eye with Gremlins on the assertive, self-serving parts (e.g., never capitulating to foreign demands). But you completely missed out on the justice and accountability part.

[CubaQuerida]

 

I really do appreciate the serious response. But even if some of the points line up on paper, the similarities have little meaning in practice or in spirit. The Codex as a whole was clearly a attempt by Gremlins to ensure that their alliance acts in a just and ethical way in its military affairs. Some of these principles (like forgoing reps) were trailblazing at the time, and set a strong example for other alliances to aspire to.

 

DBDC, on the other hands, seems to follow a path of unchecked amorality and might-makes-right approach to power. Glossing over point 3 by saying "We both give people peace when they want peace/when the war is over" is comical when you take into consideration the fact that many of your wars take place completely unprovoked, purely for personal gain/enjoyment, and not due to any treaty obligations or immediate threat to your AA. So I'm not sure you can really say you "give people peace when they want it." Your raid targets already wanted peace before you attacked them; there is no war to graciously end with a handshake until you start it.

 

Similarly, point 6 isn't just about wanting to know the details of a war, but requiring a legitimate and honest CB. When you attack people at will, without even suggesting that there is a justification, this principle goes out the window.

 

So, I agree that you see eye to eye with Gremlins on the assertive, self-serving parts (e.g., never capitulating to foreign demands). But you completely missed out on the justice and accountability part.

Don't confuse raids, which are done almost exclusively on an individual basis with the intent of material gain, with war and allied support, where our declarations and ensuing destruction cause harm to our enemies and the enemies of our allies.

 

Absolutely everything on point 3 is in accordance with DBDC's beliefs.  We do not seek to impose terms upon any surrendering alliance that we ourselves would consider unjustified if the roles were reversed.  TBRaiders' statement is merely an affirmation that there usually aren't many scenarios where we actually need to invoke that principle.  Generally peace is given to all raids, and true wars expire with the enemy nation well out of war range.  We are not set up to hold alliances at war indefinitely, as many alliances are trying to do nowadays, so in effect we are more direct in damage-dealing and purposefully incapable of setting and imposing any kind of humiliation on an enemy alliance/coalition.

 

As for your comments regarding CB's and war details, you are missing the point.  DBDC has actually never been part of an attacking coalition.  We were formed during eQ, following a blitz on Umbrella, and our actions during this past Order war were almost exclusively in defense of our treaty partners in NG against the massive coalition brought against them.  Again please do not confuse raids with alliance war.  DBDC will tend to act a bit more unconventionally than any other alliance, especially during wartime.  This doesn't mean we aren't justifying all of our wars, rather it gives us MORE reason to not be involved with something we do not support.  

 

DBDC and Gramlins have a lot in common, and I see nothing in that codex that goes against what DBDC stands for, regardless of rudimentary criticism.  

[TBRaiders]

 

I really do appreciate the serious response. But even if some of the points line up on paper, the similarities have little meaning in practice or in spirit. The Codex as a whole was clearly a attempt by Gremlins to ensure that their alliance acts in a just and ethical way in its military affairs. Some of these principles (like forgoing reps) were trailblazing at the time, and set a strong example for other alliances to aspire to.

We actually came up with it because we ended up being lumped in with crap alliances (Valhalla and GGA) in the noCB war and they were demanding reps and keeping that war going after we had reached our goal for the war. We had many political ties at the time with alliances who didn't share our views and so we created a document that would prevent any confusion moving forward.  I appreciate you attempting to discern our reasoning behind the document, but I can tell you from first hand experience why it was created.  We allowed raiding when we created this document.  I don't know if the current Gremlins still allows raiding, but we liked all aspects of nation ruling, including war.  We just didn't want to be defined by the standards from other alliances.

 

You belonged to CoJ in EQ and joined in with a coalition of many to beat on a coalition of few.  I can appreciate you thinking you stand on the high ground, but it was a different view from those who opposed you.  I do recall several of our members crushing your upper tier during that war.  An offensive war your side started.

 

many of your wars take place completely unprovoked, purely for personal gain/enjoyment

 

It is true that some of our wars are raids and purely conquest in nature.  That is a part of this world, but to say "many of our wars" makes you sound like a bitter defeated foe or an uniformed OWF reader who has been solely reading our bad PR.  We just fought on the losing side of coalition and most of the nations we fought were hitting our allies or hitting those supporting our allies in their war effort.  There is no valid CB in this world.  Wars happen because people want to fight.

[The Zigur]

Can you give one example of Grämlins using EZI?  I am aware of no Grämlin case in the 1,031 Days*[/size] since the reformation.  I also do not know of any in DBDC.  Should we reserve the option??  In extreme cases 'Hell Yes'.
 
*got that number from Bob Janova's alliance seniority

Im not too worried about Gramlins. But should DBDC succeed in implementing their version of a hierarchical world I'd definitely be worried about being added to the blacklist. Happened to me before. Edited March 12, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[tobbogon]

Im not too worried about Gramlins. But should DBDC succeed in implementing their version of a hierarchical world I'd definitely be worried about being added to the blacklist. Happened to me before.

What DBDC is doing is simply revamping the way CN politics have been basically since its inception. The alliances with the most in-game warring power tend to have the most political power as well. Just because DBDC's way of gaining power (get a handful of extremely large nations) is the opposite of the traditional, large numbers, way of doing things does not mean they're "implementing their version of a hierarchical world". It simply means that they're attempting to reinvent the current hierarchy. And alliances with a high ANS have always been sway alliances in global wars. Again, they're simply doing it better than it has ever been done before.

Edited March 12, 2014 by tobbogon

[tobbogon]

edit; double post, my bad
 

Edited March 12, 2014 by tobbogon

[Saladjoe]

Two awesome high tier AAs, solid matchup. Shoutout to old school Gremlins like HA and steelrat too.. the good ol days. :P

[Finch]

Nice to see this, I was a member back in the days before fighting that big war just before that Ram guy tried to take over everything. Good luck to a prosperous future Grämlins

[Inferno]

Good, Karma 100/100 o/ Inferno of Ariana approve this message.

[HellAngel]

funny people are still bringing up the codex, i mean it's cool and all and in my mind i am still bound to it, but it's been released like 6 years ago in the first incarnation of the alliance. It's not exactly a recent document, other than that treaty we just signed.

[Syracuse]

Dead thread is dead.

 

iLock