Jump to content
  • entries
    7
  • comments
    158
  • views
    7,399

Gre, remember your Codex

Goldie

661 views

II. On Reparations

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

Yet here you are demanding 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.

Yet here you are humiliating an opponent and offering terms that you would not consider acceptable if the sides were switched.

V. On Treaty Chaining

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

If you want to make the argument for II that you are in a defensive war, then it is because you chained treaties.

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.

This is the most important one. You seem to be carrying out a grudge beyond the peace terms from the Karma War.

You are free to do whatever you want in this game, it just makes me sad to see this. When I started playing this game and watching how you handled yourselves and your performance in Karma, this is quite a departure to say the least.



71 Comments


Recommended Comments



whats more to say, there was an original offer from GRE, and then as everyone was finishing up talks, they then say the offer was never there, that the only thing exceptable is unconditional surreneder with full decom and disarm (no specifics given just full decom and disarm)

Share this comment


Link to comment

Then make all the information available so others can judge aswell. I'm quite annoyed about this "I know something and I'm gonna make snippy remarks about it, but I won't tell you what I know." crap.

Either you make everything public and discuss it publicly. Or you keep everything private, including those remarks.

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean other people don't know it. Get yourself informed, or don't judge.

Share this comment


Link to comment

whats more to say, there was an original offer from GRE, and then as everyone was finishing up talks, they then say the offer was never there, that the only thing exceptable is unconditional surreneder with full decom and disarm (no specifics given just full decom and disarm)

Well unconditional surrender doesn't sound that bad considering you guys were the aggressors and got your $@! beaten quite severely (albeit against lots of opponents). Is that something that needs to be argued or is it fact that no specifics were given that is causing this 'outrage'?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean other people don't know it. Get yourself informed, or don't judge.

Aww how cute, someone who is trying to show that he thinks he knows more than I do :awesome: . There are no announcements, the information is not available (I'm sure I could get it though, but that is not the point) publicly. I also can make announcements that no one else understands, that doesn't mean it is preferable to do so.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well unconditional surrender doesn't sound that bad considering you guys were the aggressors and got your $@! beaten quite severely (albeit against lots of opponents). Is that something that needs to be argued or is it fact that no specifics were given that is causing this 'outrage'?

Unconditional surrender isn't that bad? I suppose if you were in our shoes you would be skipping with Gremlins and knitting daisy chains in the grass. The fact is unconditional surrender leaves IRON open to any demand Gremlins may make, including disbandment, eternal tech farming, government members etc, in the event of such scenarios IRON would be much better off fighting forever. Any term that unconditionally limits the sovereignty of an alliance without any definite time period is of the highest degree odious and is from my point of view simply unacceptable. Judging by Gremlins codex this is a view they themselves once shared.

In this particular case IRON agreed to meet Gremlins original term, upon conclusion of talks with CnG Gremlins changed there demands and here we are. To see people once again defending the use of highly oppressive terms is saddening. Were they to be accepted they would mark a massive leap backwards for this community.

We were the aggressors so what? I remember back when "karma" supporters such as yourselves were using the argument that war is a part of this game, denying enjoyment to sizeable portions of this community is not. I'm sure you won't object to me recycling that argument.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Man, where was this neo-realist attitude when we were all in Continuum together? A little late to the !@#$%^& party guys, the world moved on.

Share this comment


Link to comment

To see people once again defending the use of highly oppressive terms is saddening.

Now to be fair, the prospect of demanding an "unconditional surrender" so that you may be subject to anything they wish to impose after said unconditional surrender is being almost universally condemned from both sides of the aisle. I personally think IRON is a massive joke and I even find the term ludicrous.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Aww how cute, someone who is trying to show that he thinks he knows more than I do :awesome: . There are no announcements, the information is not available (I'm sure I could get it though, but that is not the point) publicly. I also can make announcements that no one else understands, that doesn't mean it is preferable to do so.

Aww how cute, some one saying aww how cute to try to make it seem like they are right. I do know more than you my current position in Planet Bob entitles me to it. You on the other hand are complaining about not knowing, which shows you do don't know whats going on. Which is kinda sad, because if you just look at what the people who do know things, say Goldielax, who as MOD of VE one, of the most powerful alliances in the game, and treatied to many alliances still in the war, he knows what is going on, and so he is justified. The TOP and MK gov who outed Gramlins, they know whats going on. The gov of any alliance currently involved in this war know what's going on. People who listen to these people can get a good idea whats going on as well. People who stick their fingers in their ears and yell "I can't hear you!" ... well you know what you're doing. At this point no one wants to come out and publicly say Gramlins is doing this to so and so, about these set of terms/reasons because they don't want to be the one who dumps info they shouldn't, nor do they want to endanger the peace process any more.

Now to be fair, the prospect of demanding an "unconditional surrender" so that you may be subject to anything they wish to impose after said unconditional surrender is being almost universally condemned from both sides of the aisle. I personally think IRON is a massive joke and I even find the term ludicrous.

IRON is an awesome alliance. I expect great things in their future and some awesome rebuilding. Karma didn't keep them down, neither will this war.

Share this comment


Link to comment
The TOP and MK gov who outed Gramlins, they know whats going on.

You've said this a few times so I'll go ahead and correct you here. Nobody in MK mentioned gre. TOP mentioned the stale in the discussion was due to gre when discussing things with MK members in a owf thread, that doesn't mean MK had any part in 'outing' them.

The gov of many of any alliance currently involved in this war know whats going on. People who listen to these peopl can get a good idea whats going on as well. People who stick their fingers in their ears and yell "I can't hear you!" ... well you know what you're doing.

Nobody is sticking their fingers in their ears. Some people wish to withhold judgement until seeing the whole picture from both sides. The people that got the 'insider info' by reading the discussions here on owf only have a very select quote from the negotiations (two words) and the TOP/IRON interpretation of those words.

If gre truly want to force iron to sign a document that says gre is free to do whatever they want with them then naturally I'm opposed to that but I can't imagine why gre would do something like that so until the real facts are on the table and not just rumors and snippets from disgruntled negotiators I'm not going to join the pitchfork crew and scream at gre. If you want to call that sticking my fingers in my ears then I can't stop you but I prefer to see all the facts before I judge anyone.

Share this comment


Link to comment

GATOs Terms for TSO are the best. That being said, its getting annoying waiting on both sides to reach an agreement. And now that Gramlins pulls this....>_>

Share this comment


Link to comment

Now to be fair, the prospect of demanding an "unconditional surrender" so that you may be subject to anything they wish to impose after said unconditional surrender is being almost universally condemned from both sides of the aisle. I personally think IRON is a massive joke and I even find the term ludicrous.

Indeed and I wouldn't say otherwise for the vast majority of posters here, my reply was specific however to an individual post which was sympathetic to the idea. But then I think you knew that and just thought you would take my post out of context in order to make a snide remark about my alliance. I don't exactly think the world of you but I don't feel the need to express it at any given opportunity. Perhaps you should find a new hobby?

You've said this a few times so I'll go ahead and correct you here. Nobody in MK mentioned gre. TOP mentioned the stale in the discussion was due to gre when discussing things with MK members in a owf thread, that doesn't mean MK had any part in 'outing' them.

Your right no one from MK specifically mentioned Gremlins as the obstacle, however Archon did accuse TOP of being the obstacle to peace talks knowing that was not the case. Now I believe Archon to be a clever chap and I find it inconceivable that he didn't know what direction that topic was going to go once he floated that accusation out in the open. For the cynical among us it's almost like he wanted to out Gremlins or something :blink:

Share this comment


Link to comment

Your right no one from MK specifically mentioned Gremlins as the obstacle, however Archon did accuse TOP of being the obstacle to peace talks knowing that was not the case. Now I believe Archon to be a clever chap and I find it inconceivable that he didn't know what direction that topic was going to go once he floated that accusation out in the open. For the cynical among us it's almost like he wanted to out Gremlins or something :blink:

objection your honor!

speculation!

sustained!

:smug:

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well unconditional surrender doesn't sound that bad considering you guys were the aggressors and got your $@! beaten quite severely (albeit against lots of opponents). Is that something that needs to be argued or is it fact that no specifics were given that is causing this 'outrage'?

Unconditional surrender doesn't sound bad?

So if you lost a war, you would agree to stop fighting, decom military. drop all military improvements, etc, in the hopes that your enemies would not then take advantage? You would do that knowing that, since there was no agreement other than "You guys give up and stop fighting and we'll do whatever we want", the other side could continue to beat on you for however long they chose, and then make any demands they wanted? 500Bil in reps, plus tech? Decom all wonders with the exception of the Manhattan Projects (since they can't be decommed.) Never buy a wonder again, never have any military improvements again, forever? Never have a nation over 10,000 NS?

Sure, those are extreme terms, and unlikely. But since you have absolutely no agreement - just "we surrender unconditionally, we'll agree to anything you want", those are all possible terms you could be given - and you would just play along with it?

I sure wouldn't, and I can't imagine why anyone would.

And in this case, Gramlins was an aggressor. They didn't have to get involved with the war at all. Nobody attacked them. They chose to get in the war - and now they ask for unconditional surrender. That doesn't look good to me.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You've said this a few times so I'll go ahead and correct you here. Nobody in MK mentioned gre. TOP mentioned the stale in the discussion was due to gre when discussing things with MK members in a owf thread, that doesn't mean MK had any part in 'outing' them.

objection your honor!

speculation!

sustained!

:smug:

The two of you should stop posting and read this.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=82374&view=findpost&p=2241211

Its Archon saying that the negotiations are being held up by some one outside of CnG. This is the first time anyone hinted on the owf, that some one was holding up peace. Three posts later a TOP member gets annoyed and says that this alliance is Gramlins. Archon knew what he was doing, I might think he's a little long winded, and disagree with MK a lot, but I respect him, and know that he's a smart cookie.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think there is a lot of people with sound arguments here. The problem seems to be that we lack facts, or even inside perspectives. So I, like Neneko, am going to refrain from making judgment. But to be clear I do not believe that IRON should have to be submitted to 'unconditional surrender,' as the consequences could be horrifying. However we don't know for certain that Grämlins are pushing for the extremes mentioned in this thread such as disbandment, wonder decom, and the like. So rather than arguing hypothetical dilemmas and semantics, what exactly are Grämlins asking of IRON?

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think there is a lot of people with sound arguments here. The problem seems to be that we lack facts, or even inside perspectives. So I, like Neneko, am going to refrain from making judgment. But to be clear I do not believe that IRON should have to be submitted to 'unconditional surrender,' as the consequences could be horrifying. However we don't know for certain that Grämlins are pushing for the extremes mentioned in this thread such as disbandment, wonder decom, and the like. So rather than arguing hypothetical dilemmas and semantics, what exactly are Grämlins asking of IRON?

I think you are hitting the nail on the head. I don't think 'unconditional surrenders' are bad per se. It all depends on what you mean with unconditional surrenders. I thought it meant IRON would agree to surrender, unless there is some stupid !@#$ like disbandment or wonder decom added, and that the rest of the terms would be discussed later. I didn't know that disarming (dropping navy, nukes and coming out of PM) was a part of that unconditional surrender (the concept of unconditional surrender itself is quite difficult to understand when it's based on CN). I thought the disarming and decom was supposed to follow after 'the unconditional surrender'. So if I was wrong in thinking that, I need to revoke some of my posts.

Which get's me back to Logan's post. What is it exactly that Gremlins are asking of IRON?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...