Hyperbad

[quote name='Vladisvok Destino' timestamp='1311792303' post='2765435'] I really like the people who say "I haven't seen the logs" and still think they can comment, please go read them then come back (I won't criticise if you read them, then come back and say it's stupid, that's up to you.) [/quote] Where can I find them?

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311735765' post='2764668'] They gave him peace, he rebought nukes and re-declared on them. That's rather rogueish, isn't it? [/quote] It's not really a new development how when you see yourself at war with an organization but individual wars expire or peace out you restock and redeclare.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311734291' post='2764641'] Also, Hyperbad, glad to see you are a true bleeding heart. [/quote] I'm actually really not. I don't give two !@#$% about Sin getting raided. I just find the double speak curious and this will make them display their actual beliefs. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311734499' post='2764645'] Your desire to "make a point" is cute, but seriously?[/quote] If you look at my slot usage it's not like I really give a !@#$ anyway so why not? [quote]Good for you. [/quote] Yes, now if only my post was challenging the outcome. To clarify on my previous post: "Sleep deprivation for several days can make one do marvelously stupid things. What CoJ wishes to do about my making a point is up to them. I'll be extraordinarily pissed though if they try to diffuse a situation which needs none." I don't want CoJ's help in a fight either if Valhalla does decide to. [b]ughhhhh I forgot to add my reply to chefjoe[/b] [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311734018' post='2764637'] You are right, it is odd for us to not persecute the whole alliance(if when they reach that point) and not flatly declare anyone and everyone involved at that point a rogue. Guess im getting soft in my old age.....but there ya have it. Decency. [/quote] I sincerely don't understand what you're saying here. Please rephrase :-\

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311733886' post='2764634'] You keep forgetting the fact Sin purposely and knowing went to no AA in order to lure people in. He knows how raiding in CN works, he is an old nation. So he baited his trap and layed in wait for someone to come by so he could get revenge. It would be like if pick pocketing someone who has fallen asleep at the bus station with their wallet out is acceptable in society and then when Sin lays down on the bench with his wallet hanging out and it happens, he then takes out the machette and not only wants to hack up the pickpocket but their entire family. [/quote] It doesn't matter why he went to his chosen AA. What I'm disputing is your considering him a nuclear rogue with no alliance and then elsewhere considering his AA to effectively be an alliance through action - assuming they will all take part in Sin's actions together. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth as convenient. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311733900' post='2764635'] I would hope so..I rather like CoJ and a move of that much stupidity from a member of theirs would be disheartening. Yawoo <3[/quote] Sleep deprivation for several days can make one do marvelously stupid things. What CoJ wishes to do about my making a point is up to them. I'll be extraordinarily pissed though if they try to diffuse a situation which needs none. I'm just sitting on the AA quietly which a "non-alliance nuclear rogue" also happens to be on. We'll see what happens. [quote]Same outcome either way, sanctions are acceptable. [/quote] That's not the topic in dispute with me. I'm also a personal proponent of sanctions being used in alliance wars. It doesn't phase me the list bit way.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311733341' post='2764626'] I think you are pushing it a bit in terms of the hypotheticals. You are different from a casual person being recruited to a rogue's cause, because you know better and have been warned.[/quote] Do I? [quote]AA's can go rogue as well..see the AA GOONS is currently attacking for a prime example. [/quote] That AA's can go rogue as well is not indispute. What has been disputed by myself is their claiming he's a rogue non-alliance nation and that's why they sanctioned him. They then go on to try and treat his AA as an alliance. Either he's a rogue non-alliance nation or he's a rogue alliance nation. It doesn't matter to me either way what he is considered, just make the arguments follow each other and not clash. [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311733498' post='2764629'] His AA is not an alliance. When he gets above the 10 person minimum(I could be wrong on the number in our charter, might be 15, and im too lazy to look right now), his AA will become an alliance and be treated as such. Very simple really. [/quote] Yet you're treating the AA as an alliance - a group of nations with a common purpose.

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311732361' post='2764608'] Welp since it is a 1 man AA that has decided to declare nuclear war on my alliance(not just the people that raided him) it puts Valhalla in a deFacto state of war with whomever is on that AA. So if you would like to wear that AA after being informed of that fact then you will be formally choosing to also be in that same state of war. tl;dr- Yes [/quote] If this is a war with another alliance/AA -- read because of your specifying AA there as opposed to his individual nation and your willingness to expand it to others who might merely reside on the AA -- why did you earlier justify your sanction against this man by saying "...sanctions are used on rogue actions of non alliance nations....like you. Valhalla has fought in a majority of wars here on Bob and have never used a sanction in alliance v alliance combat?" The two positions appear contradictory. [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311733092' post='2764621'] Id agree with you, up until the point we learn the 'victim' had this plan all along. Entrapment is a crime, especially when done with the foreplanning of bodily harm and injury. Thats called 1st degree murder at the worst, aggravated planned assault at the least... Sin is far far from a 'victim' in this. [/quote] Entrapment is a crime because that's the term used for police blackmailing people into committing crimes. If standing up for yourself against a group you feel has committed an act of war against you is "entrapment" and to be punished then every alliance in the game should receive a punishment.

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311724306' post='2764495'] You certainly can do that, just keep in mind that anyone recruited will be in an immediate state of war with Valhalla until this is over. [/quote] So if I swap over to his AA Valhalla will attack me?

CBs still come just as quickly. The only difference now from the past is with what's considered sufficient reason for war has changed to a higher standard.

meh, this thread had potential but was lost. Sin is an idiot for holding a grudge and carrying his cause through in such a manner without having prepared sufficient support for it in the event it would be brought here. The grudge thing I can't say is anything spectacular though as the majority of players and alliances are stupid enough to hold them. Valhalla are idiots for endorsing/condoning raids which brought them to their present predicament and making a few statements or arguments which could be turned right back around on them. IRON are idiots for either not being capable of or simply being unwilling to practice independent thought. We're all idiots for posting IC thoughts of an IG issue in an OOC forum. Did I miss anyone? [quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1311570589' post='2763221'] Even so, he is no rogue. The sanctions should never have been placed. Where do people get this idea that the one who starts the war gets to decide when it's over? You attacked him and now you are at war until he is satisfied. Deal with it. [/quote] [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311571114' post='2763224'] Actually, he is. A tech raid is limited to individual attackers, without support from their alliance most of the time. When you choose to attack an alliance, you have now entered a different realm then if you attack the people attacking you. You have become a rogue. The sanctions are justified if you believe sanctions should be used on a nuclear rogue. That being said, Valhalla has offered him a way out, and I have offered to help him pursue that way out. I don't see the problem with their actions here. [/quote] [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1311609345' post='2763430'] Joking aside, Oh for christssakes, it's a tech raid target turned nuclear rogue, get over it. The fact of the matter is that unaligned are not sovereign, individual nations are not (typically) sovereign. They are not even so much as permitted to keep their tech. It is only by forming and alliances that we gain sovereignty. The individual nation is essentially nothing. Consequentially, the unaligned have no rights, and any action against them by an aligned party is justified. Valhalla, though not my favorite alliance, have done nothing wrong. They used the tools at their disposal to deal with an unaligned nonperson who was asking for trouble. [/quote] He's not a rogue Yes he is No he isn't Yes he is No he isn't Is to Is not IS TO! IS NOT! That's pretty much what your semantics arguments are boiling down to. If you want to end the discussion just skip the use of the overly politicized term 'rogue'. Some call it a rogue, some do not. It doesn't !@#$@#$ matter either way what the label is. /me slips back into his comatose state

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1308367166' post='2733560'] While there is an over-saturation of alliances, the bigger issue is that too many of the alliances have massive amounts of treaties, and further expand those with numerous heavily interconnected blocs. [/quote] Couple that with the negative PR to letting a friend stand or fall on their own according to the situation and others doing treaty grabs then you get a sense of why this cycle has continued. The division of members and NS into smaller alliances has however contributed to it in one way outside of treaties. Gradually players are feeling less passive and more willing to go out there for matters of principle which even if treaty ties were done away with, you'd have an unknown quantity of how many would be passive and how many would become involved. [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1308369347' post='2733614'] I'm more inclined to say that we are in The Age of Blocs, IIRC never we had so many(relevants) blocs: PB, DH, CnG, SF, XX, Vikings, Duckroll... in fact I was going to create a thread to start a discussion about this when saw this thread. [/quote] I'd agree with this. Blocs have taken the role mega-alliances used to have/play.

My favorite is the one pretending to be an FBI agent where the money has connections to Nigeria. I get that spam multiple times per week and it's always my last chance to claim it.

Novocaine sucks. They always give me too much in one spot so when ever it wears off I feel pain from the pressure and !@#$. Get vicodine, far better.

[quote name='Simon De Montfort' timestamp='1305752246' post='2714485'] I think the last several pages only prove that the TOP vs NpO rivalry is the greatest. [/quote] Greatest ongoing at least. Most grudges as others have alluded to nowadays don't give that vibe of open hostility and intensity any more. This is a rarity and I must say that I rather enjoy it. I just wish I had popcorn.

[quote name='Ernesto Che Guevara' timestamp='1305699759' post='2714216'] You know, I'm actually glad to see somebody use the "5" as a neutral and not an insult for once. It is refreshing when somebody that doesn't know about another alliance says they don't. [/quote] I find in the long run every alliance will gravitate towards the middle, a 5, as they occasionally do things I approve of and occasionally do things I don't. There have only been three exceptions to this: FAN, NPO, and the GOONS. With time they may to be given a 5 depending upon their actions. For the time being past acts still resonate from them.

With 5 being no real opinion. Gradations either way of course. I'll start with a personal view. [u][b]Alliances Included in First List:[/b][/u] Mostly Harmless Alliance 5 Green Protection Agency 5 Fark 5 Independent Republic Of Orange Nations 5 Sparta 5 World Task Force 5 Orange Defense Network 5 The Order Of The Paradox 5 Umbrella 5 New Pacific Order 4 Global Alliance And Treaty Organization 5 Viridian Entente 4 The Democratic Order 5 New Polar Order 4 FOK 5 R&R 5 Mushroom Kingdom 4 Nordreich 5 LoSS 5 Nusantara Elite Warriors 4 The Legion 5 Valhalla 5 Multicolored Cross-X Alliance 5 Nueva Vida 5 The Foreign Division 5 Federation Of Armed Nations 4 NATO 5 Global Order of Darkness 5 The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons 5 Legacy 5 The Templar Knights 5 The Order Of Light 5 Asgaard 5 iFOK 5 Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations 5 Athens 4 World Federation 5 Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism 4 Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics 5 Global Democratic Alliance 5 Argent 5 Guru Order 5 Christian Coalition Of Countries 5 Ragnarok 5 The Phoenix Federation 5 Random Insanity Alliance 6 [u][b]Alliances Added to List:[/b][/u] Siberian Tiger Alliance 5 The Prolific Empire 5 Olympus 5 Poison Clan 5 Colossus 5 Greenland Republic 5 United Purple Nations 5 Hydra 5 Carpe Diem 5 Créole 6 =LOST= 5 Europa 5 Dark Templar 5 Imperial Assault Alliance 5 The Order of Righteous Nations 5 Phoenix Rising 5 Seaworthy Liberian Carboard Boxes 5 Invicta 5 New Sith Order 5 North Atlantic Defense Coalition 5 The Imperial Order 5 United Blue Directorate 5 Gotham 5 SOS Brigade 5 Nebula-X 5 The Sweet Oblivion 5 Union of Integrated National Entities 5 Exodus 5 Molon Labe 5 \m/ 5 Atlantic Sphere Union 5 OMFG 5 [u][b]Blocs:[/b][/u] Complaints and Grievances Union 5 Superfriends 5 Synergy 5 Doomhouse Accords 4 Pandora's Box 4 AZTEC 5 Blood For Friends 5 Chestnut Accords 5 Terra Cotta Pact 5 Checkmate 5 Kel-Morian Combine 5 Poseidon 5 Victory Not Vengeance 5 Alliances I feel a draw and want to like but just can't for some reason: MHA, Fark, MK, TOP Now on what I think of an alliance's capabilities. Same use of numbers as above [u][b]Alliances Included in First List:[/b][/u] Mostly Harmless Alliance 5 Green Protection Agency 6 Fark 6 Independent Republic Of Orange Nations 5 Sparta 5 World Task Force 5 Orange Defense Network 5 The Order Of The Paradox 7 Umbrella 7 New Pacific Order 6 Global Alliance And Treaty Organization 5 Viridian Entente 5 The Democratic Order 5 New Polar Order 6 FOK 5 R&R 5 Mushroom Kingdom 7 Nordreich 5 LoSS 5 Nusantara Elite Warriors 6 The Legion 5 Valhalla 5 Multicolored Cross-X Alliance 5 Nueva Vida 5 The Foreign Division 5 Federation Of Armed Nations 6 NATO 5 Global Order of Darkness 5 The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons 5 Legacy 5 The Templar Knights 5 The Order Of Light 5 Asgaard 5 iFOK 5 Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations 5 Athens 5 World Federation 5 Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism 6 Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics 5 Global Democratic Alliance 5 Argent 5 Guru Order 5 Christian Coalition Of Countries 5 Ragnarok 5 The Phoenix Federation 5 Random Insanity Alliance 5 [u][b]Alliances Added to List:[/b][/u] Siberian Tiger Alliance 5 The Prolific Empire 5 Olympus 5 Poison Clan 6 Colossus 5 Greenland Republic 5 United Purple Nations 4 Hydra 5 Carpe Diem 5 Créole 7 =LOST= 5 Europa 5 Dark Templar 5 Imperial Assault Alliance 5 The Order of Righteous Nations 5 Phoenix Rising 5 Seaworthy Liberian Carboard Boxes 5 Invicta 5 New Sith Order 5 North Atlantic Defense Coalition 5 The Imperial Order 5 United Blue Directorate 5 Gotham 5 SOS Brigade 5 Nebula-X 5 The Sweet Oblivion 5 Union of Integrated National Entities 5 Exodus 5 Molon Labe 5 \m/ 4 Atlantic Sphere Union 5 OMFG 5 [u][b]Blocs:[/b][/u] Complaints and Grievances Union 5 Superfriends 5 Synergy 5 Doomhouse Accords 7 Pandora's Box 5 AZTEC 5 Blood For Friends 5 Chestnut Accords 5 Terra Cotta Pact 5 Checkmate 5 Kel-Morian Combine 5 Poseidon 5 Victory Not Vengeance 5

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1305669639' post='2713852'] If any other alliance is so insecure about their support [i]within their own AA[/i] that they would realistically worry about this sort of thing happening to them, then they are not really much of an alliance in the first place.[/quote] There are many ways with which one might either seek to destabilize another or profit at their expense. To absorb the actions of others and consider how they were done along with how they might be performed in the future is merely prudence. Many of the things in our society have formed through such means, albeit it largely because of clear examples where a failure to consider things led to significant if not distastrous results of a negative sort. In the eyes of many individuals some examples might be finding ways to secure protection against raiders or to dissuade others from launching assaults on ones alliance by means of obtaning military treaties. Further still might be establishing the means with which one might catch a spy. Should one wait until further examples of a course of action are seen to consider possible recourse leaves you open to rash reactionary responses and thus reduces ones capacity to deal effectively with a perceived threat. Personally I would charge that anyone who hasn't made such considerations on any action taken by others is a reckless fool in thinking such a thing could never happen to them. It increases the chances something damaging could happen to you with greater effect than if you had already contemplated said situation previously. I personally have seen and taken part in this sort of thing more brutish attitudes elsewhere and am fully aware of how destructive it can be if it should snowball. [quote]One reason why this would never have been viable last year is that there was still a Ramlins that was actually an alliance then, and your objections would have been valid – it is the choice of the membership to take that path and we made our choice to leave when we had done as much as we could to prevent it. [b]But what was left was not an alliance.[/b] It was ten or so inactive nations – two of whom are now on our side of the fence anyway. I mean, really, there isn't even any sort of statement from Ramlins contesting our assertion of ownership.[/quote] My view is that they are an alliance while yours is they are not. We're not going to convince each other. Let's not get into semantics here if we might avoid it. We'll move on from my calling them an alliance and your dispute of it and say "your cluster of nations will effectively be declaring war on another cluster of nations who..." with the rest being filled in by what else I had previously stated. [quote]But the position was fairly clear. He couldn't be kicked under the charter, he had enough support to win elections (somehow – I still don't understand that, but he has a way of talking to different people in different ways to make each one think he is on their side) and disbanding the alliance would have been unfair to all the other members. There really was no legal thing that could have been done. [/quote] I hadn't asserted change would be easy to come by but perhaps one requires time and new opportunities in order to convince others. [quote]And an illegal way would surely have been as 'bad' to you as this revival?[/quote] I suppose I should clarify that legality or illegality don't really form my view around matters. A legal act could still be heinous to be if for example our nations were feudal states where we had annexed others then given our lords first rights with brides willingly or by forcible compulsion I would find that appalling and worthy of condemnation despite being legal. On the other hand I'm not quite certain where I stand on illegal means to achieve what I might view a favorable end. I certainly would not like that illegal means were used and would in fact find it to undermine any effort I might have otherwise supported. On the other hand I suppose there are such things I might be less opposed to. I suppose I don't have a clear answer excepting a personal preference to avoid any illegal means. [quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1305672013' post='2713866'] I am still only a human, and quite honestly tired of getting judged by you. Im gonna rescind to my position that you have not a single lonely clue what you are talking about. (If i was god, i could have prevented it. If i was me, i couldnt. Do you want to find the exact point between those two where ability matches possibility? You wont find it.) [/quote] Should you wish to end that line of the discussion we may do that. If you wish for a clearer answer of where I stand on it feel free to expand on the question asked where my concern with is rests. [quote]Time is deciding factor. I wasnt going to wait until all people who pledge support to our cause went into catatonic inactivity again.[/quote] From what I have read it hasn't been definite at any point that this was the only means to achieve what you all want. It's certainly understandable that some options aren't appealing to a point one wishes not to either look into or act in that manner. There were other options besides the joining of Gramlins which you had mentioned. [quote]You apparently cant go straight, so you back up and go back to where we were ten pages ago. All my comments were under the assumption of a reformation happening. We all had left and we were about to make a reformation... why leave our name to Ramlins? [/quote] I apologize for I had actually phrased that portion of my post poorly and it really didn't convey what I was thinking or intending to say. What you had quoted was actually meant to be the lead up to a point I had forgot to edit in before submitting and I should have left out anyway as the more I thought about where I was going the more I realized it was touched on briefly already by yourselves. What time frame are you talking when you say you were about to make a reformation? At the time where people were trickling out you all had an idea the reformation would occur or do you mean something else?

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1305664553' post='2713803'] I'd say i exhausted all my possibilities within the range of my personal abilities. You can't ask for more, can you?[/quote] I suppose that depends upon how one defines personal abilities. Going outside of what one is comfortable with or attempting what one believes themself to not be capable of and experimenting is certainly something to consider what all other obvious options have failed. The issue here would largely be because one hasn't typically done such things they might not be familiar with all of the opportunities said methods present. So really I can't rightly say just yet whether more can be asked, assuming you mean reasonably so. [quote]Which other options would there have been? Of course we could have all joined the Ramlins and try to change it from within, but our application would have been at the mercy of Ramirus. Who, of course, would have denied us entry, or at least powerful positions within the alliance.[/quote] I'm not one capable of seeing everything so at this moment am limited to seeing negotiations or waiting for a proper disbandment. Those two options off the top of my head might leave a bad taste in your mouth or even be viewed as impossible in the case of the former, maybe it was even attempted but they nonetheless are options. I'm sure we could come up with other options or different ways of proceeding given time. Instead the chosen course of action was to set up a separate alliance under the same name and essentially threaten an alliance war should they fail to either join you or leave. Detaching yourself from this, might you see why others are a bit concerned over it being not only effectively accomplished but with significant backing in political and military strength. Despite any subtle nuances one might differentiate this with other incident past or future can you see how the actions taken might make others feel a bit uneasy outside of any questions one has from any other perspective? People tend to try and emulate the accomplishments of their predecessors modifying it towards their aims. [quote]We could have created a different alliance. But we didnt want to abandon our name and our reputation to a lunatic.[/quote] You already did when you all left. How you feel about that fact is another matter entirely though and I think is what you mean to

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1305628887' post='2713582'] Dont you think it's pretentious for you to say there were a number of things possible when you actually have no clue what its like to argue with him and never were in Gremlins, therefor having no knowledge about the possibilities of the charter?[/quote] Yes it is pretentious. Would you though say I'm wrong in the assertion and that you tried literally everything possible to achieve change? Keep in mind that my post covered not only the possibility of using different methods but also different styles within those same methods. [quote]I dont say there weren't any possibilities left. Maybe i just didnt see them, but when you have been fighting something for about a year and the general consensus appears to say you are wrong, you just give up after some time. I left and went to TOP to let Gremlins go their merry way, which they did by going paperless and declaring eternal war on IRON (lol). It's not like there weren't many people convinced Rams way was the right one.[/quote] I'm not judging this group of Gramlins for quitting. We've all striven for causes at some point in our lives where we made the conscious decision to just move on our of a momentary belief any effort will see no fruit. I've only judged the means chosen to return and effect change.

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1305590895' post='2713260'] Tell me what else we could have done to try to stop him. I called for alliance disbandment and it was rejected.[/quote] You could have hung in there and kept up the campaigns against him changing tactics if necessary as necessary. It could be as simple as changing the way one posts, picking ones battles more selectively, adopting a similar platform but with any self-destructive parts removed to capitalize on the support he apparently had. There are a number of things which were possible. Some times our persosnal involvement clouds that. [quote]edit: Also, arent we exactly "doing something about it" with this? I know it's way too late to change facts, but the possibility to revive an alliance doesnt only depend on how much the former incarnation sucks... [/quote] This is only a guess but I believe the above argument comes from a "in leaving any [lack of a proper term or phrase] was thereby surrendered." I wouldn't personally say right because that's always been so loosely defined by everyone that no one any more really shares a definition. Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. People cherry pick that going both ways.

[quote name='LiquidMercury' timestamp='1305505230' post='2712479'] Syz was a former member/founder. Hyperbad, you'll come to realize when dealing with us that we've never really been ones to go out and tell everyone what we're doing or explain everything we do. What we do, we do because we feel it is right and in line with our principals. You asked what the older Gre members would feel about this and I'd say this statement, that is from old members, members that were here from the beginning, is truly what we feel. We feel as though our home was destroyed and invaded. An infestation if you will. We are simply taking our home back. Sometimes you can't pass judgement from a single moment and you'll need to simply weigh an alliances measure over time. We will hold to the principals of old, ones of honorable intent, and let our merits and actions dictate the cyberverse' opinion of us. Again I know it's vague, but you're question really comes down to "are you guys going to suck or are you going to be cool?" All of our opinions are going to be biased of course in that we believe we will suck and be overlording tyrants of the world that none have ever seen. If you're interested in finding out who we are, feel free to come chat with us in our channel as that median is a bit more productive. If you're looking for a specific answer to "what are your principals" go look up our previous codex as that is about the most definitive answer you'll have on the question of "what was Grämlins, what did they stand for?" [/quote] I wish to apologize as there's apparently a miscommunication on my part. When I had asked about what the Gramlins of old would feel or think I wasn't refering to the old members per se but the organization a time prior to all of the challenges within the organization up to the present date in time as there generally are shifts in ones perspective over time where even if small might build up or individually be significant despite the number of said changes or how specific they are. That type of difference was also what I was thinking of in my inquiry about the policies of this version of the Gramlins. I suppose you're right though in that time is largely what tells and this venue isn't generally the best to get the sort of answers sought. Perhaps I'll make the inquiries elsewhere - as stated, I haven't been very active here as of late. I still disagree with the chosen course of action though and think it's ill-advised (even a bit of a dick move) but if it really doesn't go against your collective ideals then there really isn't much more for me to post on.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1305502952' post='2712446'] I have reason to suspect suspect hypocracy isn't the word. Or any sort of word for that matter. [/quote] I'd be glad to hear that. All that's left is for me to hear how everything fits (or doesn't). [quote name='tobbogon' timestamp='1305503176' post='2712453'] We actually spoke to Syzygy about this, and he wished us luck. He said Eve takes up too much of his time to help us though. [/quote] Intriguing but how telling is it to speak with someone a year+ later as it is to consider the stances taken or espoused during a time prior to trouble arising? I also don't know Syzygy nor ever spoken with him so from this perspective it's also possible they have an emotional draw to this as a matter of personal interest as opposed to what others were doing. [quote name='LiquidMercury' timestamp='1305503393' post='2712459'] We are The Grämlins of old. Many in this group were here from the beginning, and are the ones often associated with what name "The Grämlins" truly represents. We will continue our policies of old. [/quote] Perhaps but that's a vague statement and really doesn't do much in addressing the questions I raised for someone asking them from a position of ignorance such as myself.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1305501903' post='2712405'] And if you think that Ramlins had not already tainted the name then I'm not sure what to tell you.[/quote] Whether I think Ramirus has done so himself would appear to be moot. The premise here as I understand it is you're all attempting to set up a different Gramlins organization from that which Ramirus had run, believing him to have caused significant damage to the organization and its image. Could the method chosen in doing this be doing you a disservice. Putting aside the emotional attachment to the issue how does this fit in with Gramlins ethics or do they not touch on anything here? If I'm reading something wrong or from a different philosophical perspective school me in your collective school of thought. [quote]We wanted our home back. We have planted a flag in the ground, rebuilt our house and those who clung to the tattered remains of the old alliance can apply to join the real thing, or move on.[/quote] In what way is this version of the Gramlins more real than the one which was already in existence? [quote]It's not a coup, we are just asserting our rights to the AA.[/quote] What rights do you all have to the AA when it appears (again, correct me if I'm wrong) you all chose to left instead of collectively enact change? [quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1305501917' post='2712408'] It's quite simple. If they win, it is theirs. [/quote] Should the losers refuse to concede defeat, what then? [quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1305502024' post='2712410'] Why should we apply the principles of morality to those who seek to destroy it? [/quote] This is a curious question because it raises others in my mind out of personal ignorance. How would the Gramlins of old feel about this should they not be involved? How will this version of the Gramlins' future policy be established or carried out? Is consistency in action be sought or hypocracy the word?

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1305501593' post='2712402'] What you pointed out is more or less how it's going down. We're taking over the AA. I sure am not happy so many people stayed so unreasonably long at Rams side while he was going crazy. We are taking back what is ours, not taking over a foreign entity. [/quote] If you left then how is it yours to take back?

[quote name='Omas Nams' timestamp='1305499882' post='2712388'] Anyone currently on the AA is free to do as they wish. We will only be enforcing our sovereignty after the 7 day period. [/quote] How much sovereignty does an alliance have which claims the name of one which has existed for years? I've seen some hopes displayed of a Gramlins with its former glory restored and similar well wishing but I really don't see how this act or even creating a parallel entity in such a manner accomplishes that. If anything it would seem to taint the Gramlin name and image. 'Tis not a good thing but a shame. That isn't to say I doubt there's some sense of enjoyment for you all in acting in this manner - I'm sure many will relish the opportunity to take down the man widely blamed for the down fall of the Gramlins. There's probably better ways though. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1305500070' post='2712391'] No, it's a coup, by former members, something that is long overdue. If Ram refuses to acknowledge the new leadership, he should be dealt with as they see fit. [/quote] A coup happens from within. How many of those listed in the DoE had not left but stuck it out until this point? Once more, it is a serious question as with a ponderance of what their position in this version of the Gramlins will be. It will help shape my view as I'm still lacking a definitive position.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1305498180' post='2712365'] There are the Grämlins and then there are the RAMlins. [/quote] So... that's a yes? Don't mistake me, it's a srious question. I'm rather confused by a few things here.