amad123

Actually why not just allow everyone the opportunity to create a second nation in CN. Two nations allowed per IP address instead of 1. Everyone would get to start a new nation, they could join another alliance (think of the spying, lol), or admin could create a visible link between nations (must use the same ruler name?). That would increase the playing opportunity without increasing the work load in maintaining alliances. More trading partners, more tech dealing opportunities, all the advantages and more of generating CN2 without the extra work.

[quote name='SynthFG' date='16 June 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1276693466' post='2339402'] Lol wut,you chose to attack gre, we had no interest in DAWN whatsoever until our war screens revealed a couple of your big nations hitting us, You chose not to issue a dow or an explanation and the timing of your attack coupled with your allies thinking we were vulnerable enough to be interested in peace terms smacks of the worst kind of oportunism, the lack of the courtesy of an explanation of why you had suddenly attacked us or an outline of your aims shows at best disrespect Well there's a reason that you are now fighting at the 20kns range or lower, during the war propper your biggest nations paid a high price for the mistakes of your gov when they became little more than extra targets to entertain gre larger nations once IRON and OG slots were filledYou may be able to pick off the inactive gre banks and the unprepared and un warned FH nations in that range now, but don't even think of counting it as a victory [/quote] Get your facts straight. Gre attacked IRON first, DAWN counter attacked only those nations that attacked our MDoAP partner. If you thought we wouldn't defend our treaty obligations you are sorely mistaken. It's obvious Gre underestimated the value of treaties, going paperless doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware that others will honour their treaties. Whether we thought we would win when we first attacked Gre is immaterial, we are winning now and if Gre continues to remain at war we will eventually emerge victorious. We may be little but we obviously inflicted (and continue to inflict) considerable pain to Gre. On a side note has I have just noticed that MPK and Ramirus no longer fly the Gramlin flag in their nations. Has this always been the case? Is this a sign of things to come? Surely the leader of an alliance and their PR wiz should be proud to fly their alliance flag. Perhaps things are not all roses and honey in their alliance at the moment.

[quote name='SynthFG' date='16 June 2010 - 03:18 AM' timestamp='1276672703' post='2339239'] The way DAWN came into the war with Gre is what irked most of us who were there,At a time when we might have appeared vulnerable, vulnerable enough to have our official opponents enquiring as to weather we would be interested in surrendering, to have a scuzzy little alliance piling in without a by your leave or even the courtesy of any 1:1 communication at an official level at any stage during the war was more than a little irksome, even tho in the end they simply provided targets for nations that would otherwise have had none, Had Gre not gone off the deep end then DAWN would have been the only alliance from the last war that would have ended up paying reps to GRE purely because of there conduct One of the most irritating things from this whole mess other than the collapse of an alliance I loved is that DAWN have gained far more prominence and sympathy than they deserve [/quote] [quote name='SynthFG' date='16 June 2010 - 04:41 AM' timestamp='1276677646' post='2339286'] DAWN chose to become involved with Gre in the way they did, had they acted with the decency of OG and Zenith then there would have been little problem with themAs for whats occuring now, it's up to whats left of Gre to justify there own actions but they have nothing to do with the original DoW back in Jan [/quote] Just because you didn't bother to read our MDoAP with IRON you get all pissy because we upheld the Mutual Defense clause? Let me repeat it here for you. [quote]Article I: Mutual Defense Any declaration of war upon a member of either signatory is considered an act of aggression to the undersigned signatories.[/quote] See it's very clear you declare on IRON you have declared on DAWN. If you have declared on DAWN we are not going to bother issuing a DoW for your pleasure. Let's face it last war DAWN would have to issue more DoW's than we had members. To further put things in perspective DAWN did issue a pre-emptive joint DoW with IRON. DAWN did not attack any nation offensively during the first week of war. All nations DAWN declared on attacked IRON first, and DAWN entered during the second week. By week three we were fighting only defensive wars. We still have our treaty with IRON. You attack them you are at war with us, no question about it. I will offer my opinion on why IRON and DAWN and not TOP or the others. Gramlin's picked IRON because they thought their upper tear would send IRON to their knees quickly and they could achieve a PR victory as well as a military one. They choose DAWN because after the war all of our nations were at about 20k NS or lower, none of us opted to sit out the war in peace mode. So again militarily we were of little real threat to their "sacred" top tier nations. We also were able to do massive damage to the Gramlin nations we attacked during the war (we still are, lol) so they thought we'd quickly agree to their "Unconditional Surrender" farce. Gramlins considered us of little consequence, an alliance too small to deserve any respect. I don't think it will be too long before DAWN has more Nation Strength than Gramlins. Karma anyone?

[quote name='Lord Gobb' date='15 June 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1276620606' post='2338344'] So I take it you're ready to start reparation payments as well? [/quote] I'm not in a position to determine when reps will be paid. You need a Government statement and we'd probably have to vote on it. It is my own opinion that it is in our best interests to wait until the war is over to pay reps. That's what the ESA provide. If the war lasts a year perhaps longer so be it. It does bring up a couple of interesting possibilities. What if Gramlins never surrender and the last Gramlin nation hides in peace mode or stays bill locked at a level too low for us to engage. Technically we'd still be at war and wouldn't need to start paying reps until that last nation surrendered. What if the last Gre nation deletes without surrendering? You could say the war is over if the last nation deletes, but what if they re-roll a few days later and use Gramlins as their AA. So I anticipate a long time before reps will begin being paid. With nations deleting and new nations joining those paying reps and receiving reps may not even have been in existence during the war. The matter would be further complicated if the alliances due to receive reps are at war. Gramlins are srewing with IRON's plans to rebuild, they're screwing CnG out of timely reps but mostly they are screwing themselves. Gotta luv their dedication to insanity.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='15 June 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1276582382' post='2338008'] [quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1276474961' post='2336517'] It's absolutely adorable how you think that your prowess had anything to do with it! [/quote] Do you really think it's a good idea to be criticizing anyone else's military prowess given your current position? Really? [/quote] Actually we need very little prowess at all to take Gre down. They seem to be very inept at war. Further proof of this is they think we are incapable of taking down their upper tier. We've just started hitting nations in the 80k range, our safe zone continues to grow larger with each passing round of war. IRON has just surpassed the 5mil total NS mark, tech and aid deals are flowing freely. Gramlins aid slots are now filled with moving internal aid to those nations at war. Very few tech deals are being done by Gramlin's upper tier. I'll be the first to admit that we could be far more effective on the battlefield, fortunately we only need only to put in a half hearted effort to control the battlefield. Gramlins have the nerve to call me a threat to peace. lol This is the first sign that Gre may actually be considering surrendering, if they are worried about my calls for war until they are all bill locked. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1276474961' post='2336517'] Behold: amad123 of the Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations! The just and honorable harbiner of peace! Go forth and smite the putrid and tyrannical Gremlins! [/quote] Gramlins are the only threat to peace. They refuse to accept White Peace, refuse to negotiate peace terms. If they want war then war they shall have it. I just think they should have enough of it that they can't pull this same stupid stunt on another alliance in the future. Gramlins have made their bed now they want to complain that they have to lie in it.

[quote name='Schmoo' date='13 June 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1276435715' post='2336112'] I don't feel one shred of remorse or guilt, nor will I ever. Did we make a huge strategic blunder? Absolutely. Are we a group of morally bankrupt people? Absolutely not. Gre, you will see no surrender, allocution, contrition, amends, remorse, guilt, shame, apology or w/e from IRON. There is no need to argue this anymore. Personally, I think we should take the offer of white peace off the table. Not to make demands for reps, but to completely destroy you. You arrogant pricks. [/quote] I fully support this statement. Morally/ethically Gramlins can be whatever they want to be. It’s a game and we can play it anyway we want to. It’s obvious we don’t care about your moral high ground. You can’t force it on us and you appear to be very weak at persuasion. Might doesn’t make right, but might will win the war. I also believe the white peace offer should be taken off the table. I’m looking forward to nuking Ram and Matt when they drop within range. I would be outraged if they accepted white peace days before I could declare on either of them. It’s not that I want reps. I want Gre to be totally destroyed, every nation to be bill locked and ZI’d. Only then will I be prepared to rebuild and prepare for the next war. With white peace on the table gramlins has the ability to control when the war ends. I don’t want them to have that power. I want IRON/DAWN to decide when the war ends. Let’s take the offer off the table. [quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='13 June 2010 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1276435832' post='2336115'] Unless I'm mistaken, not ALL alliances are tied to surrender terms, thus they have a choice to defend iron, They just fear the repercussions from other alliances. I see that as slightly different to "NOT ALLOWED", they have a choice, they just fear the outcome of involving other allies. [/quote] Any alliance can do anything they want as long as they are willing to face the consequences of their actions. IRON/Dawn control the battlefield now. If any other alliance joined in, it would greatly increase the scope of the war. Right now it’s easily manageable and takes minimal effort on our part. It would be a grave mistake on our part to bring anyone else into this war. A few of us like to nuke Gramlins from time to time, the rest of us get to rebuild without having to pay reps. We are safe from attack from our old enemies, we have a good thing going right now, why mess that up by bringing in help that could jeopardize a sure thing? [quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1276456695' post='2336320'] As I stated before, we are not at war with TOP, TORN or any other alliances you listed. We are at war only with IRON. Therefore, we are discussing the surrender process for IRON. [/quote] No you are not discussing the surrender process for IRON. All you have discussed so far is your definition for “Unconditional Surrender” which in case you haven’t noticed we have no interest in. In fact we have no interest in the terms that would follow it either. The best thing for Gremlins is that they be destroyed so no one ever finds out what your terms were. If the alliances on Planet Bob ever found out what you were holding out for, Gramlins would be the laughing stock of all alliances. You just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole and your only hope is that it will collapse and bury you. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1276465797' post='2336409'] I've fought Matt Miller before, multiple times. He's a great guy to go to war with. Classy and capable. Right now he's not in my range. I suspect that eventually he will build up and declare war on me. [/quote] Actually all you need to do is dump some infra and you would be able to engage him now. You’re going to lose it anyway, why wait? The fact that you think we will build up to hit you shows how little you understand what is happening. No one needs to build up to hit you. You will be brought down to Matt Miller’s range and then he will hit you if it suits our purpose.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1276385772' post='2335511'] I am pretty sure this has been outlined before... but since [b]you[/b] asked, TB, and this is a long thread... I figured I'd reiterate.War > Surrender > Terms > Restitution > Peace [/quote] Your dreaming Matthew. Here is how it will go. War > Gramlins Die a slow and painful death > Peace Remember you Matt are # 3 on the hit list, Ram is up next, enjoy your summer.

As the official spokesperson for Gre, Matthew would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to how you think this war will conclude? I think it is pretty clear to most competent rulers on Planet Bob how this will end, I just wonder if your fearless leader has accepted your fate or whether the prevailing thought is still that IRON will eventually surrender. Let's face it they aren't going to, and it must be very depressing to see all that you've worked for be destroyed. Perhaps your leader may come to his senses after he has been a war for several rounds. He is next on the hit list, I was hoping Matt Miller would hit him and fill his third slot but I suppose Ram will get special attention. After Ram there are only two nations between him and you so I predict you will be at war before the end of the summer. I do hope the war lasts long enough and that I am privileged enough to obtain a slot on both of you as you pass through my strength range.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='31 May 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1275329649' post='2317971'] White peace is a moot point while Ramirus is leading Gramlins. He initiated a pm dialogue with me the day I joined IRON and every attempt at civility was met with insults and arrogance. [/quote] You wouldn't by chance have logs of that conversation would you? I'm sure everyone would learn a lot by reading them if you were able to publish them. If they are not confidential I urge you to post them so that all can see who and what we are dealing with.

[quote name='caligula' date='31 May 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1275289642' post='2317582'] Point(s) taken.I don't think either side can claim the other "started it." I did some reading...The DoW's were within 2 hours, and the Gramlins believed they were in the right to defend their allies. I call that a wash, because if we got into technicalities then people would ignore the greater message. [/quote] The fact that Gramlins and many other alliances were able to counter declare on IRON within hours clearly indicates that every major alliance knew what was about to happen before it did and that every major alliance had already decided to go to war before IRON declared. Gramlins and others would have needed a Government vote or decision and that I guarantee happened before IRON issued their DoW. Major wars like this don't happen spontaneously. Both sides line up their allies and decide whether they can win days if not weeks in advance then they decide to declare or not, all they need is the triggering event. In this case it was IRON & TOP declaring war. The war was bound to happen, everyone wanted it, however IRON & TOP miscalculated the strength of the other side or they guessed wrongly who was on the other side. But make no mistake, the fact that G&G and friends counter declared immediately shows that they were prepared and ready to attack IRON at a moment's notice. So by my call, a pre-emptive strike may have been the only chance of gaining an advantage in a war that was well underway before the first declaration occurred. If NpO had of advised IRON of their plans to surrender before IRON declared no doubt IRON would have not gone forward. That would not have prevented the war, only delayed it by a few weeks or months. It was inevitable, just like the next war will happen when people have rebuilt enough and get bored enough. The lines are being drawn for the next war and sides are being chosen, however since in all likelihood IRON and DAWN will still be at war with the Gramlins, we will probably sit the next major war on the sidelines, much like NPO did for this one. As far as reparations go if and when our war with Gramlin's ends and if the alliances we owe reps to are not involved in a major war at that time and if they still exist, then reps will be paid. Of course the reps will go to the alliances and who's to say that anyone that fought and is expecting reps will still be in the alliances that receive them. The way people move from alliance to alliance, the people sending and receiving reps may never even have fought in the war. Then again, if the war with Gramlins never ends the possibility that rep's may never be sent increases and GRamlins could do no bigger favour to IRON and DAWN then never surrendering. My thanks to the new Gramlins, I can look forward to a round of war every month or so for the foreseeable future, that is far more interesting then collecting taxes and paying bills for the next year waiting for the next war to begin. Personally I'd like to see us take the "White Peace" offer off the table. This war with Gramlins is invaluable for training, I hope we drag it out for years to come. My nation won't exist forever but I have no intention of letting it be deleted while Gramlins exist. Without them I would not be having nearly as much fun, in fact I'm actually starting to like them in a unnatural sort of way. With "White Peace" on the table that could disappear at anytime, I really would like to see them send a Government Rep to IRON asking if it is still available. So IRON please consider withdrawing the standing offer, let Gramlins come and ask if it is still available.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1275097663' post='2315156'] I contend that The Gremlins have been clear about the process of what we want.[/quote] Yes you have and I think IRON/DAWN have been clear we won’t accept your process and are quite [s]content[/s] happy to continue to wage war on Gre for as long as it takes. We wouldn’t accept your process when there were 71 Gramlin nations, now there are only 29. The process we might have accepted when there were 71 of you was, you tell us your terms, and we tell you we surrender or go take a flying leap. Now I’m not even sure we would bother listening to your secret terms other than for entertainment value. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1275097663' post='2315156'] the only reasons for a thread about it are that people don't understand the process or rationale, (snip). Our terms are absolute, black and white. You just don't know what they are[/quote] You could tell us, but then you would have to undergo all of planet Bob face-palming over how idiotic you destroyed your alliance over such terms. Don’t think we don’t know what the terms are and I can tell you it’s not the terms we have an issue over, it’s [size="4"][b]"Your Process"[/b][/size] that prevented them being accepted back on April 4, 2010. Yeah I added the year ‘cause we could still be at this next year at this time. Some of your members have decent warchests and it will take awhile to eliminate them. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1275097663' post='2315156'] Except GRE has made it clear that a surrendered opponent is quartered. That is, they are not attacked. They are granted quarter immediately following a surrender; this has been stated many times.[/quote] Yeah and if we were interested we would enter into a “Ceasefire” with you but we don’t seem to be interested, funny how that is. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1275097663' post='2315156'] What's more hilarious is that you actually seem to believe that IRON cannot go back to fighting if they refuse our terms. (snip) Quarter doesn't mean that later IRON can't say "I don't like this, we're going back to war". Any assertion to the contrary is fantasy. It's not as if GRE officials enter the offices of IRON officials and disable their "Declare War" buttons. [/quote] Again you are correct in saying that anyone can do anything they want. You just have to accept the consequences of your actions. IRON/DAWN are obviously not willing to accept the consequences of surrendering unconditionally. Gramlins are not willing to negotiate anything so the consequences are we are still at war and your alliance is slowly being destroyed. As far as consequences go, I like that one. Keep up the good work Gre!

I fear that a terrible precedent has been set. Planet Bob will never be the same now that an "Unconditional Surrender" has be achieved. This is truly a sad sad day. What about the terms! Think of the children! Unconditional Surrender's will be everywhere. This is certainly the beginning of the end of honour among nations.

[quote name='Stetson' date='14 May 2010 - 03:48 AM' timestamp='1273823297' post='2297663'] Just to make it clear, I'm not asking you to declare on these people now, I'm asking you to explain to everyone (but especially yourself) how GRE can engage in a moral crusade that is so clearly prejudiced and narrow minded. [/quote] You are forgetting that Gramlins don't use conventional definitions of English words. They have said time and again it's their interpretation of the word, not ours, that conveys their true meaning. So when they say they abhor moral injustice it doesn't mean they abhor it across the board, only when it suits them and they think they can gain advantage from it. Otherwise they are quite fine with turning a blind eye on it. However, if they see the opportunity to bandwagon on an alliance they don't like, they jump on it without a treaty because they have an "obligation" to their friends. The rest of CN saw Gramlins declaration as a opportunity to give a beat down to IRON and so intense was their desire for IRON's destruction that even after all others had given IRON peace, Gramlins continued on their misguided crusade. So don't expect an explanation from them, even if you did get one it would take considerable work to determine if the words they use have the same meaning as defined in a dictionary or whether Gramlins has their own interpretation. [quote name='Krashnaia' date='14 May 2010 - 06:50 AM' timestamp='1273834237' post='2297704'] Look at where IRON was a year ago, and where is now. [/quote] Look where they were a month ago or even a week ago and where they are now. Like I have said before, misinformed enemies are the best kind to have.

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1273799240' post='2297390'] Having SOME nations at Peace Mode while OTHERS fight is indeed an strategy everyone uses.But, note the SOME nations. If you are putting ALL your nations in Peace Mode, then it's no longer strategy and just dodging the fight.As I had wrote, putting a Reserve in Dove is an strategy. Putting EVERYONE has another name.I hope you comply with your statements. [/quote] As noted IRON has 11.5% in PM, Gramlins 31.5%, DAWN 0%. All of CN believes wars are won by the top tier, we are about to prove them wrong. All of CN believes that if your warchest is big enough you can effortlessly re-build. We will prove that theory wrong. Gramlins believe we don't have the warchests needed for a long war. We will prove them wrong there too. We don't have the warchests needed, but we have the financial ablity to wage war anyway, and no I won't tell you how we will do it. lol The most important thing is that we will turn a defeat into a stunning victory and we will have learned how to fight and take on alliances that have much stronger upper tiers and defeat them. However you just go right on believing that because IRON has 17 nations in PM that they are cowards. The best enemy to fight is one that thrives on misinformation and is unable to see the reality of the situation.

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1273784172' post='2297183'] Yeah, that's why we win our wars and you lose yours.Isn't it funny how often all those uses of "strategy" that revolves around "keeping my arse safe in Peace Mode" tend to end, unsurprisingly, in crushing defeat? [/quote] When you are a little older perhaps you will read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. In chapter six you will find this advice: [quote name='Sun Tzu' date='600BC'] "Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."[/quote] When you are more experienced in war you will understand why "Peace Mode" is a tactic we use to control the battlefield. You can whine all you want about nations being in peace mode and call them "cowards". Your pitiful attempts to try and alter or move us to deviate from our battle plan are in vain. We control who we fight, when we fight and how many. Gramlins can do nothing other than react. This war will go according to our plan and Gramlins will continue to fail. It is gratifying to see that most (including the Gramlins) don’t understand what is happening to them and continue to believe they will be undefeated. We will pull the nations in peace mode out when the timing suits us, not you, not Gramlins. So sit back and enjoy, it will be a long drawn out war. Those in Peace Mode need great discipline to remain idle while we wage war. The time for their sacrifice may come or Gramlins may dissolve and fade away. So “cowards” hardly, their time has just not arrived.

[quote name='Delta1212' date='13 May 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1273724530' post='2296709'] He's still flying the Grämlins AA as far as I can see.Edit: Also of interest, IRON doesn't have anyone that can actually hit that nation. Which, conversely, means he can't hit anyone in IRON either. [/quote] You're are under the assumption that one can only attack a nation up 133% of your NS. You are forgetting that you can also attack any nation withing +/- 250 rankings of you nation. Sierra Leone is ranked number 7 so any nation ranked 257 or lower can engage them. It would not take a lot to boost nations to 257 or better ranking. I also guarantee that after a week of war Sierra Leone will not be anywhere near #7 in ranking.

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='12 May 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1273647936' post='2295853'] I don't see how IRON can even touch some of the big nations in Gre, let alone bring them down to where they can start pounding them in the mid to lower tiers. That's their chief tactical problem here. [/quote] You assume all IRON nations will leave PM and conduct a blitz attack. It is much easier to send in a nation with the lowest possible nation strength to attack two or three Gramlin nations at the top end of his declaration range. If they pick the three smallest nations not already at war or anarchy they can easily bring them down. Usually about 20k in 3 or 4 days. That's plenty for the rest of us to pile on and continue the beating. The nation doing the initial attack only has to fight for one week and then can rebuild. Then we get another volunteer to take on the next set of nations. So it will take time but it is quite easy to drag a nation down. The bigger they are the harder they fall so to speak. Consider all the Gramlin nations as swimmers in the ocean. IRON and DAWN nations are the sharks circling beneath them. Whenever we get hungry we send someone up to pick on the smallest and weakest swimmer. The shark drags them down and a feeding frenzy occurs. When were ready we pick another target we send up another shark. There is nothing the swimmers can do, once the sharks drag them under there are hundreds of sharks waiting to feed so they are doomed. [quote name='Broncos98' date='12 May 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1273677101' post='2296034'] 38 nations and counting...slip sliding away!!!Still sticking to those guns eh Ram? [/quote] I assume that once they get to below 15 nations they will be considered valid "Tech Raid" targets by some alliances. I'm looking forward to seeing who tech raids them. Could be lots of fun.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1273461446' post='2293128'] I am far more informed than you; in fact by many meters I am completely informed. [/quote] [quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1272902579' post='2285052'] Who said we don't have terms to offer them?GRE [b]does[/b] have terms to offer them; it's just that neither myself nor Ertyy know exactly what they are. [/quote] [quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1273461446' post='2293128'] I am far more informed than you; in fact by many meters I am completely informed. [/quote] [quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1273110469'] As for the exact terms: no I do not specifically know them. I do, however, know the general plan and if it doesn't proceed to my liking I'll oppose it. [/quote] [quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1273461446' post='2293128'] I am far more informed than you; in fact by many meters I am completely informed. [/quote] [quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1273119832' post='2288672'] No, I don't have / can't give facts about what the terms will be after IRON surrenders. [/quote] And that's how Gramlins roll. [quote name='Ertyy' date='10 May 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1273542009' post='2294271'] I have been told by ra...the conclave that I need to stop posting. So good luck, everyone. This is my last post in this thread. For Forever. [/quote] I for one am completly devastated that they are unable to post in this thread anymore. First they won't tell us the Surrender terms, then they won't negotiate, they can't sign "Peace Agreements", they won't accept "White Peace" and now they won't even talk. They really are leaving us only one option. What a waste of pixels.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121'] IRON declared an aggressive war on CnG with literally no reason.[/quote] Okay are you using you own definition of “literally” here, because your statement is entirely untrue? Literally IRON issued a CB, here let me quote it for you. "to further improve community standards, fight trolling, IRON and DAWN hereby declare war against CnG". Matt something isn't true or right just because you want it to be. You can't go around re-defining words. Words have definitions that are widely accepted. If you continue to redefine words to suit your own purpose then how will anyone be able to trust the Gramlins?. They can say one thing, and later say, ”No that’s not our interpretation of that, it doesn’t matter what everyone else thinks, our interpretation is correct.” You should also stop stating as fact, things that you make up. It is far too easy to call you on them. So whoever told you that IRON declared with no CB was wrong. You need to stop believing everything that Ram tells you and search out truth for yourself. Let me help you a little: 1) You are losing the war with IRON and DAWN. 2) If the war continues long enough and you stay a member of Gramlins you will be ZI’d. 3) If the war lasts long enough your warchest will be drained. 4) You are a highly respected member of the CN community. Okay one of the above four statements is not true, it is a test to see if you can actually tell when someone is feeding you a line that has no truth in it but sounds good and you really want to believe it. That still doesn’t make it true. So while IRON and DAWN did literally issue a CB, what you probably wanted to say was that it wasn’t a morally justifiable casus belli in your opinion. Which I would understand, with Gramlins holding such high morals.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1273449330' post='2292926'] Unconditional Surrender is surrendering without conditions.It means you do not get to place conditions on the terms of your surrender.That means that Gremlins gives you terms, and your choices are either to accept them or return to war. [/quote] So your terms are not negotiable, and we are free to return to war if we don't like the terms. Hey here’s an idea, let's keep fighting, you present your terms and we'll keep fighting. You see, we find your first term "Unconditionally Surrender" unacceptable and it really doesn't matter what you present after that, we will not accept them. [quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1273460231' post='2293106'] I can understand why some people are confused about our willingness to continue on despite the admittedly significant possibility that we could end up getting the smackdown, or being forced into going with a personally humiliating white peace. Because despite our consistently fine talk about doing what's right and standing up on principle, we have not always done so. [/quote] The first Gramlin to publicly acknowledge that they might lose the war. Perhaps after 130 pages reality is starting to sink in. But then Ertyy goes on to say that Gramlins stands up for principle and what is right. Okay then here's a question for you. Is it right for alliances to declare war on other nations for no other reason than they want to steal some tech? Is it right to declare war on other nations just because you outnumber them and they can't fight back? There are dozens if not hundreds of such wars going on at the moment and Gramlins isn't even objecting to them never mind doing something about it. No Gramlins only claims the high moral ground when they need to justify the continuation of a war you thought you could win but now realize you can't. I find it very hypocritical of Gramlins to claim to be standing up for what is right and the only issue they have is IRON and DAWN. Their issue with DAWN as far as I know was that we declared on a few Gramlin nations that attacked IRON nations without issuing a formal DOW in the OWF. Yes I dare say that defending one's allies is a highly criminal action, not. I know Gramlin reading comprehension is low (perhaps English is a second language) but did you read our Treaty with IRON? It plainly says you hit IRON you are at war with us. So you just go right ahead with your moral high ground platform. It should get about as much support as your irrational "Unconditional Surrender" demand. lol Gramlins lol

[quote name='Penkala' date='09 May 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1273432954' post='2292677'] I laugh at you people still arguing as if you can persuade one another. [/quote] Gramlins persuaded, probably not, but they are keeping to schedule with two more nations deleted in the lst 24hrs. Their cause is so lost that they rather delete than join another AA. But what choice do they really have? Who would want one of these Gramlins members in their alliance?

[quote name='Delta1212' date='08 May 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1273352827' post='2291683'] In your scenario, you could substitute requiring the statement "I am a fluffy pink bunny" before being allowed to see the terms and there would be absolutely no change to the situation whatsoever. [/quote] DAWN would never say “I am a fluffy pink bunny” It would have to be an “orange bunny” [quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1273353120' post='2291688'] IRON decisively and deliberately attacked CnG with no valid cause. [/quote] Well we sure have a cause now. To protect the rest of planet Bob from ever seeing the use of the terms “Unconditional Surrender” again. That term dies with your alliance. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1273353704' post='2291697'] For the 100th time, if a term is demanded in excess of what is tolerable then you all have a moral obligation to intervene. [/quote] Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work. For over the last 120 pages everyone has been telling you that “Unconditional Surrender” is intolerable and will not be allowed to happen. Yet you still don’t get it. You are forcing the only option left open to us. The destruction of your alliance. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1273355027' post='2291714'] No, I have told you that I want them to unconditionally surrender (because the act of submitting is significant). [/quote] Since you are unable to force anyone to submit you must motivate them to bend to your will. How’s that working for you so far? [quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1273355027' post='2291714'] I have told you that I don't believe that unconditional surrender means they inherently must comply with subsequent offered terms; the alternative is a return to a state of war. [/quote] There you go making up your own definition for “Unconditional Surrender” again. Not that it matters. Not only do we no longer care what your definition is, I doubt you could get anyone in DAWN or IRON to listen to you present your terms for any other reason than for our pure amusement at your folly. The fact is with Ramirus’s ego it isn’t hard for us to predict what your terms would have been. In all likelihood they would have been acceptable to us back on April 4th. It’s not your terms that are the problem; your terms have never been a problem. It’s all your insistence on “Unconditional Surrender”. But you guys just hang in there, I’m sure you will eventually get what you deserve. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1273355444' post='2291721'] Surrendering without conditions is an act of submission. [/quote] Sorry we don’t do act’s of submission. Acts of war is more our style. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1273358210' post='2291797'] Unconditional Surrender is the act of surrendering, unconditionally.They are then given quarter, given terms, and they either comply or do not comply.If they comply, restitution is served and the war is ended.If they do not comply, hostilities resume (because I think you concede there is no other possibility?) [/quote] We’ve already chosen to skip the whole “Surrender Unconditionally” part and have moved to resume hostilities, and yes we agree there was “No other possibility.” [quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1273360299' post='2291840'] Except they haven't been asked to pay anything; just surrender. [/quote] Yeah, we tried that twice and you didn’t accept. That offer is no longer on the table, pretty soon the “White peace” one will be off the table. In fact I would respectfully ask that it be officially withdrawn. The fact that Gramlins has lost 37% of their nations in the last month is just too good to ignore. Typically the defection rate increases as time goes by and it becomes clear that all is lost. Even assuming the defection/deletion rate remains at about the same we can expect another 15 nations to leave over the next month, 10 the following month, 6 the month after that. Now at 30% per month it never truly gets to zero but I predict at some point we will see 100% of Gramlin nations delete as the last standing member finally gives up.

This could be the turning point of the war. A new line has been drawn in the sand. Now we will see who lines up on which side. Will the moralists nations of Planet Bob line up beside TBB and show Gramlins that "Unconditional Surrender" will not be tolerated? Or will the friends of Gramlins (if they still have them) rally to their side and defend Gramlins evil demands. Edit: sp

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1273110053' post='2288453'] Are you implying that I can't take the unofficial remarks of IRON and DAWN members in this thread as official terms and then try to accept them a month later as if they were valid? [/quote] When DAWN sends a Government member to sit and negotiate with another alliance whether it be peace terms or a treaty that member was given the authority to offer terms that we all have voted on. If they offer something that we have not agreed upon then the honourable thing to do is keep your word and agreement and in private give that government member a stern talking too. I will give you and example. IRON and DAWN will accept Gramlins "Unconditional Surrender" I don't have any authority to issue that statement but why don't you offer your " Unconditional Surrender"? I will take the stern talking to, it would be worth it. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1273116454' post='2288622'] There would be more dignity in your position if you didn't try to paint GRE as chicken little. It's not like I'm here complaining about the ongoing war. [/quote] Of course you are not complaining we haven't attacked you yet. You think you are safe , you think you have enough of a warchest to rebuild, you live in an altered reality. If you ever come to realize that you need a new plan to replace Ram's "They will Unconditionally Surrender, trust me, they will." Then I expect to see Gramlins start complaining about the injustice of the on-going war. But I don't expect to see you complaining when you don't understand the position you are in. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1273119520' post='2288665'] Official government policy is made with votes.GRE has [b]always[/b] been this way and GRE has [b]always[/b] had to deal with people not understanding the difference between talking and official policy.You'll have to forgive us all for forgetting to say "This is not official unless voted on" every other sentence. [/quote] Hint: Vote first, then talk. Solves the problem. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1273119832' post='2288672'] No, I don't have / can't give facts about what the terms will be after IRON surrenders.I do have facts about the accusation that we offered then went back on any terms. [/quote] Well my reading comprehension is just fine. No one can provide the facts about what the terms will be after IRON surrenders since they have no intention of surrendering. What you could provide are the "Terms you have right now, before IRON surrenders." Who knows, if you offer them enough reps they might just do it.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1273084795' post='2287822'] So you admit that you are afraid of what we [b]might[/b] do as opposed to anything we have actually done? [/quote] No, you don't get it. You have to be in a position of power to create fear. Read this next part very carefully. We will not allow you to have an "Unconditional Surrender", fear is not involved. You don't get to play the game the way you want. We are withholding it from you. So now what are you going to do about it? The hole you have dug just gets deeper and deeper.