Jesse End

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1288515922' post='2497905'] I've never given them a clean slate because they frankly don't deserve it. A losing war does not a reformed alliance make. [/quote] We don't expect much else from those who define us as their enemies.

Congrats iamthey o/

[quote name='Louisa' timestamp='1283242718' post='2436854'] Well, I meant as your first response, the same day that he first attacks you. Since the offender just went rogue on your Alliance that day, he is at war and cannot go to Peace Mode. Then you put one attacker on him just before Update, and another just after Update. This way you control the staggers yourself. Did that make better sense of what I wanted to say? [/quote] When the stagger has been ruined, therefore all 3 wars expire at the same time, how do you plan on re-establishing a stagger by attacking just before update and again just after update without leaving any slots open for 24 hours? [quote name='Salmacis' timestamp='1283261172' post='2436988'] I disagree. Peace mode is only useful to resplenish a nuclear stockpile. Most nuclear rogues will prefer to spend their last dongs in nuking their foes than by staying idle in peace mode. Stagger does speed up the process, right, but I believe a rogue in P-ZI will get what he deserve eventually, whether he can escape to peace mode every now and then or if he's staggered. It is not my case, 'cause I'm stubborn, but a staggered rogue will delete more often than a rogue living with the hope to hit PM. In other words staggers are just as immoral as nuclear rogues, if not more. At least I never wanted Otter or NPO out of Planet Bob. [/quote] Rogue attacks alliance = just having fun Alliance retaliating with staggered DoWs = trying to force someone out of Planet Bob. Nice logic haha [Edit: IC]

[quote name='Ruler with Plan X' timestamp='1281330044' post='2406499'] Do not post clipped, out of context logs I seem to remember you lot doing the same thing last war and Jim had to come on here and dump all of his logs. Strange how this keeps happening... [/quote] "15[00:42] <ManwithplanX[FARK]> Next we have TENE claiming that the only people in the channel at the time when our member was impersonated were TENE members and the hostmask of the person banned is [b]similar[/b] to Sedricks. Sedrick was in the channel a couple of hours prior to that before his original ban 15[00:42] <ManwithplanX[FARK]> Both of those hostmasks [b]end in ok.ok.cox.net[/b]" I hope you don't actually think that living in the same state or city and using the same ISP proves it's the same person.

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1281325653' post='2406314']So you hate all of us now? That's convenient. Sounds like there's no good reason for us [i]not[/i] to disband you, huh? [/quote] Former Karma now supporting the disbandment of alliances through war? Shocking.

[quote name='shilo' date='01 July 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1278030865' post='2357211'] Obviously, ignoring you when you point out one of his spinning attempts, and then asking me to show proof for one of his spinning attempts is a cunning strategy of deception. If he does it often enough, who knows, maybe we forget? [/quote] I think it falls under #3 and #4 in the image I posted.

I think Gramlins (if not just Ram and MPK) have got almost all of these covered - http://www.gonrad.com/201006/internet_graphic1.jpg

To be fair Corinan, I agree with him, I also think many of the G15 were just sitting back and enjoying watching us get raided instead of fulfilling their obligation to the terms they signed. omg NPO agreeing with FAN

[quote name='Mark XIII' date='19 June 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1276990338' post='2343236'] [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=358743][color=red][s]061mozart123[/s][/color][/url] - Attacking NPO - 2 Rounds of war [b][color=red]Priority Target - All Battalions: [/b][/color][url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=89690][color=red][s]Sir.JK[/s][/color][/url] - Attacking NPO - ZI [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=300561][color=red][s]bleh32[/s][/color][/url] - Attacking NPO - 2 Rounds - Cobra [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=317294][color=red][s]Royal Janissary[/s][/color][/url] - Attacking NPO - One more round of war - Phoenix [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=291675][color=red][s]b tard[/s][/color][/url] - Attacking NPO - ZI - Kusanagi [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=262337][color=red][s]ltmadsen[/s][/color][/url] - Attacking NPO - 2 rounds - Kusanagi [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=374543][color=red][s]roninbaukki[/s][/color][/url] - Attacking NPO - 2 rounds - Cobra My records of completed punishment dealt to nations regarding the New Pacific Order since the time I was instated as Secretary of Defense. Luckily, or maybe not for you, I did keep records of such things, you know, as a good habit. Like I said previously apparently your alliance did not, considering your 0 then 2 !@#$%^&*. [/quote] Since you brought up specifics, I'll clarify them a bit more. [color=red]061mozart123 - Never attacked by VE[/color] [color=green]Sir.JK - Attacked by VE[/color] [color=red]bleh32 - Never attacked by VE[/color] [color=green]Royal Janissary - Attacked by VE[/color] [color=green]b tard - Attacked by VE[/color] [color=green]ltmadsen - Attacked by VE[/color] [color=red]roninbaukki - Never attacked by VE[/color] All of those are from December 2009, except for bleh32 in January 2010. We reported a total of 15 attackers in December 2009 alone. The TT clearly states "For the period of April 13, 2010 to May 20, 2010". Not December. Like I've been saying for a while already though, VE's record of protecting us was quite a bit better than any of the others.

Two well deserved promotions. Congrats Bilrow and Jasmine o/

Oh yeah Pacifica o/

[quote name='Stetson' date='05 May 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1273123669' post='2288743'] Why would IRON/DAWN assume that a government member bringing them terms was not official i.e. had already been voted on? Unless you change your policy of not having anything writing, there's no way to believe that what they are being told is official. [/quote] I think I know a reason for that: It was convenient for Gramlins have one member of high-gov offer what appeared to be an official policy (terms) in a show of cooperation, then when IRON actually agreed to it, which Gramlins didn't expect, Gramlins backed out using their technicality of exclaiming that it wasn't official, consequently continuing on with their indefinite war while attempting to blame it on IRON.

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='05 May 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1273111411' post='2288502'] Friends don't always have to agree in order for protection. Friends are friends through thick and thin. [/quote] That's my point. They're still supporting Gramlins with implied military force against anyone who takes action, therefore keeping IRON down and under their boot indefinitely.

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='05 May 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1273110493' post='2288468'] So you say and everyone else disagrees. Of course the fact that everyone esle would disagree is something that should have been easly to predict. So again, I ask. What is the point? I assume your goal was something other than destroying your reputation, your friendships and your alliance. So its safe to assume you have failed at reaching your goal. What is the point of pursuing this fools fally? Will you see your alliance die over this mystery goal? And how could anybody have failed to see that this course would lead to anything other than failure? [/quote] Since some other alliances have implied that they will defend Gramlins (defense of friends through a paperless 'treaty') if they are attacked by anyone else over this fiasco, it's starting to look like it's supported by the other alliances that IRON signed terms with. This would keep IRON down and under their boot for a longer period of time, while blaming it on only Gramlins, who doesn't have anything to lose anymore.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1273109160' post='2288420'] That's their prerogative; but it does not make the demand of "Unconditional Surrender" inherently unjust, outrageous or tyrannical. [/quote] The demand itself does that.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1273108817' post='2288402']Submitting to harsh terms is as dishonorable as it comes (just as bad as the tyrants who would demand them) because it grants credence and validity to the nature of the demands. [/quote] That's exactly why they aren't bending over for Gramlins, it would grant credence and validity to your demand of unconditional surrender.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1273108501' post='2288389'] If you haven't seen an answer it's because you either lack reading comprehension or have no desire to understand. Official terms were not offered then withdrawn. A Gremlin cannot simply offer terms to be accepted without a conclave vote. Since no vote was held, "The Gremlins" did not offer official terms. If a member of NPO were to to make an offer of terms without the authority to do so, would NPO be bound to it? They are being told to surrender. Demilitarization is a logical and typical procession from surrender as it demonstrates good faith (among other things). I have made a number of posts outlining that GRE has no basis for harsh terms and IRON would have no basis to comply if they were demanded. It's not as if we can [b]force[/b] them to obey our terms once they surrender. Unconditional Surrender is our offered alternative to war. We are not negotiating with them. When they surrender it will be on our terms, not theirs. [/quote] hahaha, after these actions, Gramlins doesn't have any good faith left. "We are not negotiating with them." You aren't in a position to demand anything anymore, so if you aren't willing to negotiate, you must want eternal war.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1273107987' post='2288367'] That's because the conditions on which they wanted to surrender were unacceptable to us. [/quote] Exactly: [quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1273107803' post='2288358'] Your original terms weren't unacceptable, but you withdrew those (edit: twice), so the logical progression is the new ones are worse. If the new ones are acceptable, then why not tell them what the terms are before requiring them to demilitarize? I've seen that asked a bunch of times, but haven't seen an answer yet. [/quote]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1273107557' post='2288347'] Except for there is no logical progression one could propose which would end with IRON/DAWN complying with any harsh terms; even if GRE demanded them. Give it a try. [/quote] Your original terms weren't unacceptable, but you withdrew those (edit: twice), so the logical progression is the new ones are worse. If the new ones are acceptable, then why not tell them what the terms are before requiring them to demilitarize? I've seen that asked a bunch of times, but haven't seen an answer yet.

[quote name='NationRuler' date='05 May 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1273107545' post='2288346'] Didn't you drop from like 90k NS to <30k? Cool story bro. [/quote] BREAKING NEWS: War is destructive!

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1273106513' post='2288305'] Uh huh; I could also vote to remove the conclave. What else could you ask me to do but resign and oppose GRE? EDIT: Not that it's really relevant. [/quote] You don't speak for Gramlins, so I doubt your personal and individual opinion gives IRON and DAWN any confidence that Gramlins intentions are to offer anything other than unacceptable terms.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1273105488' post='2288280'] I don't make policy but I am 1/3 of a body which can request the removal of a conclave member. However, not that it's any consolation to people here, if the offered terms were among the "unacceptable" things I identified in that list you could add my name to the list of GRE resignations :shrug: [/quote] So if Gramlins chooses to do any of those things, you would resign, and it wouldn't stop Gramlins from doing so. That's what I thought.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1273100090' post='2288159'] ^^^ I answered with [b]my opinion[/b] [/quote] Which means what? Is your opinion the official Gramlins position for IRON and DAWN terms, or does everything you're saying here have no bearing whatsoever on what Gramlins will do?

[quote name='Corinan' date='05 May 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1273101642' post='2288197'] Pretty sure he claimed he fought 5% of our nations or something like that. But yeah, he fought a handful of our weak, newer nations, so he's a good judge of our overall fighting prowess. [/quote] Well according to your alliance stats, you've got 163 right now, so 2%. Though 2 of those 4 don't exist anymore, so he might have an idea of the fighting ability of 1% of the low NS end of NSO, and one of those doesn't even have an MP to go up against Penkala's MP.

[quote name='Corinan' date='05 May 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1273100928' post='2288176'] I like how you're always insinuating that we suck at fighting after you fought "5%" of our nations. Perhaps you missed the 95% of us who kick $@! at war? You're at like 4 NS, man. Its nothing but rookies down at that level. Grow some and take me on. I'll hit you so hard your great grandchildren will glow green. [/quote] FYI: Penkala has only fought 4 NSO nations.