JimKongIl's Blog

Sucks to know the facts only after you've already made a decision, huh?

I'm not sure how IRON is supposed to know how many people actually voted on the terms offered to them but regardless that was not the basis of my decision. My decision is due to Gramlins trying to humiliate defeated opponents. I hold no ill will towards Gramins and if you guys accept peace tomorrow I will embrace it and not hold any grudges. But I think you will never drop the demands. I don't intend to attack any Gramlins who are not attacking IRON or attacking me. I feel compelled to tell you that more high NS nations are coming to stand with IRON. If you decide you are willing to even negotiate or just sit down and talk with IRON and an unbiased mediator I think it would help a lot. I respect the position you guys are in and if there is an option that will allow both parties to save face I am all for it. If you would just rather burn IRON and Gramlins to the ground thats ok, too I guess. Hopefully we can reduce the venomous nature of the rhetoric on both sides.

I'm not sure how IRON is supposed to know how many people actually voted on the terms offered to them

What does it matter if they know or not? They approached Matthew in MID-FEBRUARY to ask "what he thought our terms might be like". He told them "I dunno, I guess something like 15k Tech". They said: "Well that's unacceptable". They are trying to call that an official offer of terms, and trying to say that when they changed their minds and tried to accept them, SIX WEEKS LATER, that we "reneged". That's !@#$%^&* man, no matter how they try to spin it.

My decision is due to Gramlins trying to humiliate defeated opponents.

We're not trying to humiliate them man...-sigh-. This is about culpability. IRON was just flat wrong for attacking our friends, and the Easter Sunday Accords does nothing to address that. We weren't involved in those meetings AT ALL, by the way, so their claim that they tried to put in an admission of guilt and we rejected it is a flat-out lie. If they DID try to put that in, it was someone else who rejected it...MK or Athens or someone, but it WAS NOT US. If there had been a term in the ESA of IRON admitting wrongdoing and apologizing, it would've been just them paying lip service anyway. CN only looks at things like Tech Reps and improvement decoms and things like that; they ignore admissions of guilt and apologies. So it would've gotten lost, and wouldn't have mattered anyway.However, with unconditional surrender, it's kind of like turning yourself in to the police. You're saying: "Yeah, I did it. I deserve punishment". A "normal" CN peace treaty is more like a bribe. It says: "Let me go and I'll give you tech!" Our peace terms are fair, just, and in keeping with the principles of the Preamble to our Charter, and our Codex of War. They are not designed to destroy IRON, or humiliate them, or even hinder their ability to rebuild or pay off their ESA reparations. When they complete our terms, they'll be granted peace and be considered guilt-free by official Grämlins policy.

I feel compelled to tell you that more high NS nations are coming to stand with IRON.

Might makes right, of course. IRON absolutely know that they were wrong, and they know that all we want is a real admission; something that they can't lie about later on. They're just trying to weasel out of it, and yeah, they're probably going to get away with it because they only understand force and we lack the ability to project force.

If you decide you are willing to even negotiate or just sit down and talk with IRON and an unbiased mediator I think it would help a lot.

I've already offered to show an unbiased third party our peace terms to verify that there is nothing wrong with them (there isn't). IRON just doesn't want to face their own misdeeds is all. You've seen on the OWF how they STILL maintain that they were provoked, or that C&G would've attacked them anyway. They'll say -anything- to justify attacking our friends.

I respect the position you guys are in and if there is an option that will allow both parties to save face I am all for it.

Heh. You must know by now that -saving face- is something we care very little about. This is not an ego trip for us. When's the last time you heard anyone praising the Grämlins?

If you would just rather burn IRON and Gramlins to the ground thats ok, too I guess.

We do not, and have not ever. IRON has already (as of April 26th, I believe) done more economic damage to themselves via unpaid bills in peacemode than our terms would've had they surrendered on Easter when we first asked them to.

Hopefully we can reduce the venomous nature of the rhetoric on both sides.

Matthew and Ertyy love to chatter on the OWF; I personally don't care because the OWF is a meaningless construct. But when have either of them been "venomous"? I'm genuinely asking because I haven't seen it. I'm not saying it's impossible, especially with Ertyy, heh.

I remember that but I also remember Matthew insisting that unconditional surrender in this context is not a peace term, it is a precondition for terms to be laid out. I would appreciate it if they could clarify this by stating yes or no.

Unconditional surrender is not a peace term, no. Article III of our Codex specifically refers to peace terms. Unconditional surrender is no different than any other war tactic. It does NOT mean "ZOMG COMPLETE HANDOVER OF SOVEREIGNTY" like people seem to think. In fact, we've outlined pretty much exactly what it means and why we're doing it. IRON isn't as dumb as they're pretending to be; they know what's up.

I appreciate your position and the time you have taken to discuss this. Perhaps venomous is a strong word for me to use. I think the problem with your request of unconditional surrender is that it is an admission of absolute defeat. I'm afraid that most alliances would rather fight eternally than to admit they were annihilated in battle and they unconditionally surrender. It doesn't help that TOP is already sanctioned again and IRON is stuck holding the bag. Everyday someone is subjugated in CN, just look at what PC, \m/ or Goons do to the un or weakly aligned. Is that really any less egregious? Anyway if you want me to help negotiate peace let me know. If you will settle for an admission of guilt I think that is reachable. If you choose to continue on this path I understand and no hard feelings.

I think the problem with your request of unconditional surrender is that it is an admission of absolute defeat. I'm afraid that most alliances would rather fight eternally than to admit they were annihilated in battle and they unconditionally surrender.

My response to this has three parts:1] Unconditional surrender, since it is OUR demand, is whatever WE say it is, not what IRON or anyone else thinks it is.2] Admissions of defeat are meaningless, and we could care less about them. IRON could claim victory on the OWF all day and we wouldn't give a crap.3] IRON -was-, in fact, absolutely annihilated. Their nations in peacemode are really all they have left, and even some of them are gone from their unpaid bills. But again, who gives a crap about "admissions of defeat"? That's quite possibly the dumbest term CN's ever done. I understand why they did it; someone cared about retconning history after GW1. That's a silly thing to care about in our opinion.

It doesn't help that TOP is already sanctioned again and IRON is stuck holding the bag.

IRON could've ended it the day TOP did with a simple surrender at discretion. They've chosen to drag it out instead. They've lost far more from the economic problems associated with peacemode and unpaid bills than our terms would've imposed. As for TOP; well again, TOP got let off w/o an establishment of their culpability. They are just as criminal as IRON, and it's sad that they're getting away with it. While we may only have a small chance of bringing IRON to justice through force of arms, we had no chance of doing so with TOP. Unfortunately, force is all these people understand.

Everyday someone is subjugated in CN, just look at what PC, \m/ or Goons do to the un or weakly aligned.

None of those people attacked our friends. We're not the CN Moral Police, heh. We just don't like people attacking our friends and when they do, we want them to be held accountable.

Anyway if you want me to help negotiate peace let me know. If you will settle for an admission of guilt I think that is reachable. If you choose to continue on this path I understand and no hard feelings.

An admission of guilt is meaningless if they can just lie about it. Unconditional surrender gives them no spin-control. Feel free to explain it to them.

Fair enough. It sounds like you are resolute in your position and it appears the remaining Gramlins are firmly behind you. If you decide you guys want to negotiate or there is ever anything you wish to discuss my door is always open. (I'd like to clarify I am far from anything resembling IRON government)

If you decide you guys want to negotiate

A large part of the reason we're doing this is because our main peace term is meaningless if it is negotiated or bargained for. To allow IRON to "wheel and deal" their way to an easy peace is not within the bounds of our principles. We would be giving them the chance to just lie and SAY they're sorry. Obviously there's no foolproof way to guarantee sincere contrition, but we feel that our position here is the best way to do so beyond reasonable doubt, and that's good enough for us. If they courageously and honorably surrender to us, and complete our terms, THEN they will be given peace and be considered guilt-free by official Grämlins policy.

If you decide you guys want to negotiate

A large part of the reason we're doing this is because our main peace term is meaningless if it is negotiated or bargained for. To allow IRON to "wheel and deal" their way to an easy peace is not within the bounds of our principles. We would be giving them the chance to just lie and SAY they're sorry. Obviously there's no foolproof way to guarantee sincere contrition, but we feel that our position here is the best way to do so beyond reasonable doubt, and that's good enough for us. If they courageously and honorably surrender to us, and complete our terms, THEN they will be given peace and be considered guilt-free by official Grämlins policy.

Armistice or Modus vivendi perhaps? I don't want to see Gramlins whittled away for doing what they believe is right. I respect your convictions, but I think it is safe to say that IRON will never surrender unconditionally.

Armistice or Modus vivendi perhaps?

Both of those require negotiation, thus negating our reasoning for this course of action.

I don't want to see Gramlins whittled away for doing what they believe is right.

But you're willing to join those who are NOT acting on principle, but merely acting on military strategy. "Might makes right".

I respect your convictions, but I think it is safe to say that IRON will never surrender unconditionally.

If they don't, their reason for not doing so will be (as it is now) that "might makes right". They have NO convictions save those related to force of arms.That's the team you've decided to play for. I would caution you that when you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Armistice or Modus vivendi perhaps?

Both of those require negotiation, thus negating our reasoning for this course of action.

I don't want to see Gramlins whittled away for doing what they believe is right.

But you're willing to join those who are NOT acting on principle, but merely acting on military strategy. "Might makes right".

I respect your convictions, but I think it is safe to say that IRON will never surrender unconditionally.

If they don't, their reason for not doing so will be (as it is now) that "might makes right". They have NO convictions save those related to force of arms.That's the team you've decided to play for. I would caution you that when you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

I am acting on nothing but principle. I think it is wrong to defeat someone in battle then force them to humiliate themselves by surrendering unconditionally. No self respecting alliance would do that so it driving an alliance into the ground after they have been defeated. We see this differently so no need to argue the point, but that is my conviction. People get attacked every day and alliances handle it by attacking them back and moving on.When I joined TOP I was told that there was no greater bond than between TOP and Gramlins and we would fight to death to defend her. I believed that. I'm sure your account of things is very different but most of what I ever witnessed from Gramlins was disrespect to be perfectly honest. You guys pick and choose the friends you want to be loyal to. I'm guessing the "will come up with fleas" comment is some sort of threat. I will not hit Gramlins first out of principle believe it or not but when you guys inevitably come for me I will not shed one tear for lost infra and I will never surrender.You guys seem to forget this is a game and take it way too personally.

I think it is wrong to defeat someone in battle then force them to humiliate themselves by surrendering unconditionally.

You're right that we see this differently. If we were asking for unconditional surrender using the OWF's definition of it, then I would agree with you 100%. However, the Grämlins are asking for no such thing, and we've outlined it clearly.

When I joined TOP I was told that there was no greater bond than between TOP and Gramlins and we would fight to death to defend her. I believed that. I'm sure your account of things is very different but most of what I ever witnessed from Gramlins was disrespect to be perfectly honest. You guys pick and choose the friends you want to be loyal to.

At the membership level, we did in fact have quite a good friendship. However, both TOP and Grämlins were run by people who wear and are unprincipled thugs, who merely festooned themselves in the cloak of honor for political purposes. Talk about taking the game too seriously. When we kicked ours out, relations between us and TOP understandably became worse. We could not abide their position during Karma, and the next 4 "almost" conflicts just made everything terrible. We don't pick and choose our friends, man. TOP was stuck in their gutter-punk realpolitik mode and we had moved on, that's all.

I'm guessing the "will come up with fleas" comment is some sort of threat.

Not at all, haha. It's an old saying. Dogs have fleas. If you lay down with dogs, you'll get fleas too. It means that by associating with IRON and supporting their philosophy of "might makes right", you are abandoning the idea of being a principled player, and becoming like them.

I think it is wrong to defeat someone in battle then force them to humiliate themselves by surrendering unconditionally.

You're right that we see this differently. If we were asking for unconditional surrender using the OWF's definition of it, then I would agree with you 100%. However, the Grämlins are asking for no such thing, and we've outlined it clearly.

Then call it something different. Words mean what they mean.

Then call it something different. Words mean what they mean.

If you'd like me to explain the concept of unconditional surrender to you, I can do that. The OWF is taking a cursory 15-second scan of Wikipedia, then looking at what the United States did to Japan, and making that into the whole of what unconditional surrender is. I spent 20 years in US Intelligence, military and civilian. I've taught Constitutional Law, and I've have a library of literally hundreds of books on military history, each of which I've read at least once (it's my major hobby, and one of the reasons I started playing CN to begin with). I'm not boasting when I say that I can easily claim to have a better grasp of the concept than the average 18-year old punk on the internet.

Then call it something different. Words mean what they mean.

If you'd like me to explain the concept of unconditional surrender to you, I can do that. The OWF is taking a cursory 15-second scan of Wikipedia, then looking at what the United States did to Japan, and making that into the whole of what unconditional surrender is. I spent 20 years in US Intelligence, military and civilian. I've taught Constitutional Law, and I've have a library of literally hundreds of books on military history, each of which I've read at least once (it's my major hobby, and one of the reasons I started playing CN to begin with). I'm not boasting when I say that I can easily claim to have a better grasp of the concept than the average 18-year old punk on the internet.

You are certainly qualified but don't you agree that the popular opinion of unconditional surrender definition is relevant in this matter? The phrase may have alternate connotations but the words individually refer to an absolute and unlimited relinquishing of power and control in just about any English dictionary you can get your hands on.That being said, I would be interested in your interpretation of unconditional surrender.

You are certainly qualified but don't you agree that the popular opinion of unconditional surrender definition is relevant in this matter?

If it were VE who were demanding unconditional surrender, then VE's definition would be the one that matterered. If it were NPO who were demanding it, then NPO's definition would matter. Since it's the Grämlins, our definition is what matters. We've clearly defined it for everyone's convenience. Now, it just so happens that our definition is the right one.

The phrase may have alternate connotations but the words individually refer to an absolute and unlimited relinquishing of power and control in just about any English dictionary you can get your hands on.

No, that's not what it means in -any- English dictionary or similar source. It means the ones doing the surrender have no conditions. It doesn't mean they cannot later have conditions. It doesn't mean they, by virtue of the surrender, are agreeing to ANYTHING. It means: we aren't demanding anything as a condition of our surrender.In fact, in real world history, unconditional surrender is usually demanded as an ALTERNATIVE to complete destruction. For example: "Surrender without condition, or I'll kill you all". That sentence carries an implied agreement NOT to kill those who the speaker is requesting the unconditional surrender from. So you see that there is nothing inherent in the concept itself which has any relation to what comes next.

The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that you guys are preparing for a last stand. An alternative would be that you have help coming which would probably be politically untenable unless IRON gets substantial help. Don't get me wrong Gramlins is not in a position to lose this war but even you guys admit that you aren't really in a position to enforce an unpopular surrender against an unwilling opponent in these circumstances. The most likely scenario in my opinion is an protracted war with heavy losses on both sides. That being said, I respect your resolve and your will. It is a rare quality in CN. Best of luck to you and to Gramlins.

even you guys admit that you aren't really in a position to enforce an unpopular surrender against an unwilling opponent in these circumstances.

Again, you make the argument that we don't have the military might necessary to force IRON to do the right thing. This is probably true at this point. But does it matter? You've allied yourself with the side that thinks the biggest kid on the playground can do whatever they want. IRON responds only to force, and as the weaker kid, we are not able to project that force.This is the side you've chosen; the unprincipled side, the side that cares only whether they can or can't be militarily forced into admitting to and apologizing for their guilt. They don't care about the wrongdoing at all, and by supporting them, you are saying you don't don't care either.And the worst part is, this is a game. In real life, I can see taking the practical side, because otherwise you could get hurt, arrested, ruined economically, publically smeared, whatever. But this is a game. You risk nothing to be principled.And still, you personally not only can't do the right thing, but you've chosen to support those who don't even care. Perhaps you merely believe the propaganda, perhaps you're just a jerk like IRON. Either way is the same. You, like them, are resisting militarily, the simple act of admitting wrongdoing.Thanks for communicating with me, but I really don't see any further reason to do so. I hope you change your mind.

even you guys admit that you aren't really in a position to enforce an unpopular surrender against an unwilling opponent in these circumstances.

Again, you make the argument that we don't have the military might necessary to force IRON to do the right thing. This is probably true at this point. But does it matter? You've allied yourself with the side that thinks the biggest kid on the playground can do whatever they want. IRON responds only to force, and as the weaker kid, we are not able to project that force.This is the side you've chosen; the unprincipled side, the side that cares only whether they can or can't be militarily forced into admitting to and apologizing for their guilt. They don't care about the wrongdoing at all, and by supporting them, you are saying you don't don't care either.And the worst part is, this is a game. In real life, I can see taking the practical side, because otherwise you could get hurt, arrested, ruined economically, publically smeared, whatever. But this is a game. You risk nothing to be principled.And still, you personally not only can't do the right thing, but you've chosen to support those who don't even care. Perhaps you merely believe the propaganda, perhaps you're just a jerk like IRON. Either way is the same. You, like them, are resisting militarily, the simple act of admitting wrongdoing.Thanks for communicating with me, but I really don't see any further reason to do so. I hope you change your mind.

Ok, we can end the dialogue which you initiated, but first I would like to clear up a few things. What I oppose is you guys keeping IRON on battlefield after they are defeated and you are refusing their surrender because they are not blindly surrendering unconditionally, second Gramlins are not the weaker kids. That is a poor analogy... you know what, nevermind. We have discussed this enough and I have exhausted attempts to be civil. Simple enough we disagree what the "right thing" is and if telling yourself I am a jerk like the rest of them works for you, fine. I am resisting militarily, not attacking. The distinction is very clear in my mind. If Gramlins wants to take me to ZI for resisting, that is their privilege as they hold the top tier advantage. I will be coming out of peace mode soon.

I request permission from you to share this dialogue with others. If you refuse, I will respect your wishes.

Ok, we can end the dialogue which you initiated

I opened the dialogue on the hopes that you were simply fooled (like many) into believing the propaganda IRON is producing. They don't believe any of the things they're claiming in public about "what's right" or "what's wrong". They don't care about right and wrong, they care about winning and public image.

What I oppose is you guys keeping IRON on battlefield after they are defeated and you are refusing their surrender because they are not blindly surrendering unconditionally

We're not keeping them on the battlefield, they're keeping themselves there. Because we're not refusing their surrender at all and in fact they never offered one. All we're saying is that they don't get to see our terms beforehand. We don't wish to negotiate terms WITH them, because they would then say that they bargained with us for the terms they got. Like they did with C&G; they would simply "wheel and deal" their way into a bribe. Our terms are fair and just, and in keeping with the principles of our Preamble and Codex. There's nothing in them to fear, and although I thought at first that IRON merely feared the "mystery terms", as they stated on the OWF, that isn't their concern at all. All they care about is force, they respond only to force. Like a bully on a playground. We're not keeping them on the battlefield, they're keeping themselves there in order to keep up this public charade of their virtue. You've seen it yourself: they still feel that their attack on our friends was justified! Sorry, but you have to see this.

if telling yourself I am a jerk like the rest of them

Are you? Don't you see that you just admitted that they are jerks? I personally don't think you are, but the only other explanation is that they're using you. You may have joined them of your own volition, but if you're not a thug like IRON is, then you've simply been fooled into thinking that their position is the just one.

I am resisting militarily, not attacking. The distinction is very clear in my mind.

I understand the distinction, but what you're resisting is what IRON is resisting: paying for their wrongdoing. And I don't mean paying as in $$ or tech; that's the bribe they paid to stop the beating they were taking. I mean paying in the moral, honorable, "legal" sense: admitting and apologizing for what they did wrong, in a way that shows their sincerity beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Gramlins wants to take me to ZI for resisting, that is their privilege as they hold the top tier advantage.

Come on, we don't even want to ZI the alliance of thugs you're associating with. Our terms are not designed to destroy IRON, or humiliate them, or even hinder their ability to rebuild or pay their ESA reparations. It is antithetical to the very nature of our alliance. Once they complete their terms, they'll be granted peace and be considered guilt-free by official Grämlins policy. If they had even the barest shred of dignity, they'd surrender at discretion immediately.You may share this dialogue in whole or in part, but I expect you'll receive nothing but spin from IRON and their allies. All they respond to is force.

So since you think IRON and the Grämlins are both sincere in the principles we are standing up for, does that mean you'll leave the IRON AA and go back to being neutral?Nah, I didn't think so. Grämlins are standing up for our principles because we have principles to stand up for. Maybe IRON does to.Do you?

So since you think IRON and the Grämlins are both sincere in the principles we are standing up for, does that mean you'll leave the IRON AA and go back to being neutral?Nah, I didn't think so. Grämlins are standing up for our principles because we have principles to stand up for. Maybe IRON does to.Do you?

Just because Gramlins are sincere does not mean I agree with demand of unconditional surrender prior to delivery of terms. I think you would be hard pressed to find an alliance that would ever agree to this. I see it as Gramlins forcing their principles on IRON. If you have a problem with someone I think that defeating them in battle and demanding monetary reps should be sufficient. I think this conflict is getting way too personal and it is time for peace. That is the principle I am standing up for.I keep hearing Gramlins state that IRON believes in "might makes right" because they have a number and NS advantage. The truth is you guys have them absolutely dominated in the upper tier. I don't have it out for Gramlins I just think it is time for a cessation of hostilities.

I don't have it out for Gramlins I just think it is time for a cessation of hostilities.

Funny, that means you agree with us. In fact, the time for cessation was on Easter. IRON should've surrendered then, and they are the only ones keeping this war going.In fact, we have given them the ONLY power to end this war. They may choose the way in which to end it: either honorably, by surrendering (which they know is the right thing do), or dishonorably by continuing it until the Grämlins are no more.All the power lies with IRON, yet you still claim they are being oppressed. /shrug

I don't have it out for Gramlins I just think it is time for a cessation of hostilities.

Funny, that means you agree with us. In fact, the time for cessation was on Easter. IRON should've surrendered then, and they are the only ones keeping this war going.In fact, we have given them the ONLY power to end this war. They may choose the way in which to end it: either honorably, by surrendering (which they know is the right thing do), or dishonorably by continuing it until the Grämlins are no more.All the power lies with IRON, yet you still claim they are being oppressed. /shrug

Yet, Gramlins are the only combatant demanding unconditional surrender. Gramlins would not submit to this in my opinion, I would not, do you really expect IRON to do this? I believe the answer is no. I have no knowledge of anyone agreeing to this in a major CN conflict. I truly believe I cannot sway your opinion so I don't intend to force the issue in argument.

Yet, Gramlins are the only combatant demanding unconditional surrender.

IRON are the only combatants demanding to be given peace without sincerely (to the best determination we can muster) acknowledging their wrongdoing.

Gramlins would not submit to this in my opinion

If IRON had a Codex making it impossible for us to get unfair terms; if we had a major history of wrongdoing after wrongdoing, if we saw the numbers which showed that should we decide to return to war we could with very little loss of capability, then yes, I personally would vote for such an unconditional surrender and would argue to the other two Conclave that they also should vote yes. It's just a game, after all.

do you really expect IRON to do this? I believe the answer is no.

Um, yes that is what we expect, heh. Whether they will or not is up to them, of course.

Would you mind taking a brief moment to outline the crimes as Gramlins see it against IRON? Frankly I see AAs attacking each other every week. It seems like a part of the game. Perhaps its my time in TE that fosters a laissez faire attitude but I don't understand the degree of anger Gramlins has towards IRON. If you hold that standard do you not see guilty alliances everywhere?