Grimm Reaper

[quote name='Tromp' date='16 June 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1276704541' post='2339528'] Offtopic: Invicta declared war on our LEO partner, so we retaliated since you technically declared war on us. [/quote] Which is exactly the same as the current situ... [quote]Which is, if I have followed correctly, the same thing that DAWN did when IRON was attacked. DAWN and IRON have a treaty, and therefore GRE technically attacked DAWN by the same logic. I don't think that post was a shot at FOK as much as at the people who are screaming bloody murder now, yet didn't make a sound when it happened with FOK/Invicta[/quote] Oh. You know, you're really killing my buzz right now.

The Battle of the Purple? Fabulous Friendly? BAPping it UP 'N' stuff? These are the day's questions.

Hi, there! Face here! I just wanted to wish [b]YOU[/b] CONGRATULATIONS on your new government! Coming up next is Blue's Clues, here on Nick Jr.! DOOT DOOT DOOOOO!

Not done in haiku, but still hailworthy. Hail is a form of precipitation. Rain is a form of precipitation. As it was said on the IRC, TORN makes it rain. BILLIONS. Looks like surrender terms... *sunglasses* just got torn.

[quote name='Dementual' date='03 June 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1275542968' post='2321787'] My windowless white van was very persuasive. [/quote] Please. With your left hand you would use Gondor as a shield against the Neutral Menace, and with your right you would seek to supplant them.

[quote name='Penkala' date='03 June 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1275620159' post='2322994'] This is completely hilarious. What an idiot! He must have no skill! [/quote] Well, hang on, I think that's a bit overrea... Wait a minute, you're being sarcastic, aren't you? My one-liner has been countered by your one-liner. Drat. Now we're going to need to debate him on his substantiative merits. I begrudgingly congratulate you on boxing me into a corner like this.

[img]http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s277/pancreaslol/thetimestheyareastayinthesame.jpg?t=1275614436[/img] Finally, an allegory less subtle than Avatar.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='03 June 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1275578460' post='2322121'] Indeed, in fact I had the Gramlins situation in mind when I created the example. Would not members of all variety of alliances who suggested that people leave Gramlins rather than be part of Ramius' last stand be guilty of poaching by the Vilien's definition? That's why I say poaching is a much more specific act. By me saying, "your alliance stinks, you should join another one", I'm merely expressing an opinion, not necessarily committing an overt act to recruit someone.[/quote] Essentially, the greater the recruitment threat is perceived, the greater the likelihood it will be considered a valid CB and/or induce a reaction from the alliance whose members are being recruited. Recruiting other alliances' members during wartime is a way to undermine an alliance's strength and fairly widely accepted as a legitimate strategy. Wet, raincoat, etc. Doing it during peacetime is also a way to undermine an alliance's strength, and can be a valid CB based on how serious the intent to undermine is. If it's a recruitment letter to your own alliance via CN PM during peacetime, it's probably poaching, as CN PM isn't usually a medium for light chit-chat and jokes (outside of war). Higher likelihood that the recruiter is serious. Saying the same thing via IRC and/or the OWF, however, is much less likely to be interpreted as a threat to an alliance, as they are considered less serious environments... perhaps not by OWF users, but by those smart enough to stay away from it. Yes, I'm aware I'm incriminating myself, but let's face it: very rarely does something substantial ever come from public channels, making it more acceptable. This is an entirely different matter from creating propaganda. Announcing that \m/ sucks and that all people should abdicate it always and forever is just another day on the forums, and short of Shark Week, no repercussions will come of it. This is *probably* because members that can be swayed by OWF propaganda are usually not members worth keeping. And then we're going to Washington D.C. to take back the White House.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='03 June 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1275573791' post='2322052']By your definition, everyone that ever sent out PMs to encourage people to surrender (thus leave their alliance's AA) during war time would be guilty of poaching. [/quote] Well, at that point, it's a matter of 'why wear a raincoat if you're already wet?' So it would be a valid CB were they not already *at* war.

[quote name='Baldr' date='02 June 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1275523406' post='2321238'] That would have been funnier if Cortath had said it. [/quote] With this, I would much prefer Carl Sagan over Cortath. Or Morgan Freeman.

Give me a few months to ponder it. I hope the ministry spots don't get taken while I'm thinking.

[quote name='Baldr' date='01 June 2010 - 02:48 AM' timestamp='1275374881' post='2318862']I think IRON would be better off to pay the reps at some point. They are still at war, and not required to pay those reps until the war ends, but they are under terms until they pay the reps. [b]If it were me, I wouldn't want to be under terms for any longer than necessary.[/b] The majority of IRON's membership doesn't have to worry much about Gramlins, being below range of the high-end Gramlins. The low end and mid-level Gramlins are pretty much in nuclear anarchy constantly, and therefore can't declare on anyone. So IRON could start moving reps, if they really wanted to.[/quote] I think there's some confusion here. The only terms of our surrender were to admit defeat and pay reparations. That's it. No inhibitions on foreign policy, no decommed military like the Karma War or, well, every war before that. They're really quite generous, given the circumstances. So it's not as if these terms are imposing a gigantic onus on us. Moreover, the risks of starting the timer too early and being unable to pay far outweigh the benefits of being out of surrender terms. Just cost/benefit analysis. EDIT: This is not to say, however, that we don't want to get reps out of the way. Not speaking for IRON Government, but I do want to get these reps out of the way so that we can actually rebuild. Also EDIT: While I imagine that CnG would show leniency if the terms were offered, relying on leniency is something I don't even want to think about. Not only is it bad form diplomatically, it could also come back to bite you if you expected it and did not receive it. That's a position I simply to not want to be put into. Still not speaking for IRON Government, by the way.

Face cannot publicly comment on this announcement, as his position with 'Nick Jr. from 1996' Inc. forbids him from publicly speaking about liquor. But, on a personal level, he probably approves of your devil juice.

This is sexy. I'm impressed by RnR's growth. Looks like clicking on those ads worked

[quote name='amad123' date='31 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1275334803' post='2318045'] 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] I do hope Chris Hansen reads them aloud.

[quote name='Mathias' date='31 May 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1275322990' post='2317854'] Flag would be good without the writing. Also, your continued existence is duly noted. [/quote] I agree. They need something less cliched. Like Papyrus.

[quote name='caligula' date='31 May 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1275289642' post='2317582']But I also do not agree with the perception that somehow if peace was achieved IRON/Gre would be open to future attacks, as I believe the 180 page thread can vouch that any agressor will be seen as "the bad guy," and I've gathered some sort of moralism has spread over the forums that would pretty much isolate them. (Granted, it being 180+ pages may call into question if either side truly cares about being "the bad guy," if they're doing what they think is right, however, I'd like to think they wouldn't be willing to make the same mistake(s) twice.)[/quote] Agreed, if hostilities resumed, the aggressor would be diplomatically isolated. However, one can be diplomatically isolated and still not be at a strategic disadvantage, because if Gramlins will never have agreed to peace and we unilaterally declare it, it's not really a Declaration of War on us. Yes, this is e-lawyering. However, further e-lawyering would most certainly occur if this situation comes to pass. Which is why GRE must agree to peace with us. Because they hate e-lawyers. Or something.

4D Face approves of Nuclear Proliferation.

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='30 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1275271030' post='2317325'] I'm a fan of your ordering system. [/quote] As am I. Disappointed the Cyrillic Alphabet wasn't included, but this is still the best presented. Even if I do disagree with his last two points. Yes, they are able to inflict massive damage upon us. However, that and emerging inevitably victorious are not mutually exclusive. Let us take, for example, a hypothetical group of 10-15 nuclear rogues who want to see IRON destroyed that calls itself the IRON Minimilization Pact. While this pact, IMP, may each be individually stronger than any of our nations, it is impossible for them to emerge victorious in the end. For while they may deal more damage to our top nations than we can reciprocate, they will nevertheless be dragged down significantly in a nuclear war. And once an IMP nation is dragged below a certain threshold, the ratio is 3:1 all the way to ZI, which is a fight no IMP member will win. Back in the 50%-200% strength range for war, it was virtually guaranteed that with 3 competent fighters, the nation at 200% strength would be defeated. With the recently narrowed 75%-133%, even the strongest nation will not survive a 3 on 1. So while they may deal to us more damage than we give initially, that is a pace that IMP cannot take. Inevitably, IRON would defeat IMP. This is why we are winning. That said, however, unilaterally declaring peace is a bad idea, worse strategically than demilitarizing and then negotiating. GRE can attack us whenever they wish and be perfectly within their rights to do so, as they had never agreed to peace. Granted, it wouldn't be much different than current SOP, but at least random declarations have a diplomatic backlash. If we declared unilateral peace, the overwhelming response from the Cyberverse to us when GRE resumed hostilities would be, rightfully, "you *%&#ing idiots." Would we win the war that followed? Yes. However, it would be a gigantic inconvenience because, when the war resumed, it wouldn't be on our terms. Unless we were permanently paranoid, holding full navies all the time, we wouldn't be ready for an attack. And if we were, our ability to pay reps and economically grow would be greatly hindered. No, it is far better to have both sides agree to peace. Edit: Boo, accidentally hitting 'Add Reply' button too soon.

[quote name='Fernando12' date='28 May 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1275100393' post='2315196'] Then all of this drama from both sides is silly and pointless. Your steps to peace are pretty much what happens anyway. 1. FARK and NSO talk peace. 2. FARK sets the terms. 3. NSO rejects beer review. War continues. 1. FARK and NSO talk peace. 2. FARK sets the terms. 3. NSO does milk review. Peace process is officially complete. Both peace processes I gave are the same thing that Gramlins is asking for, just different language but the same process. Drama over nothing really. IRON wants peace then they can take a few steps and see if what's there and if Gramlins wants to set rediculous terms then its back to war. Edit: not saying IRON needs peace from Gramlins but if they want to end this so they can pay their reps to the other alliances maybe its something to consider. At this point no one will consider this a Gramlin victory anyways for what has happened to the Gramlins membership. IRON will still be the winner even if they technically surrender to Gramlins. [/quote] Not *quite* the same, as disarming would be necessary before negotiating per Ramirus: [quote][17:38] <RamirusMaximus|GRE> I have nothing to say to IRON until you surrender and lay down your arms.[/quote] Unless PK outranks Ramirus and disagrees with the above, disarmament appears to be the prerequisite to any 'negotiations.' Now, let's assume that what PK says is true about GRE's plan: 1) We disarm, they don't attack unless we reject terms 2) They reveal a preset group of terms which they'd kept secret up until now 3a) We accept their terms with no negotiation and end the war 3b) We reject their terms and are placed at a huge military disadvantage by the aforementioned disarmament 3a is completely untenable. Not only are IRON and DAWN the inevitably victorious alliances, GRE's inflated and misplaced sense of moral superiority would allow them to justify even the harshest terms. So, with that in mind, taking 3a would lead to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A 3b just puts us in a prone position. The advantages we currently have? Gone. There is infinite reason why GRE would want us to do this. For us? None. Moreover, for it cannot be emphasized enough, the losers of a war do not dictate the terms. GRE is most certainly the loser. From this conclusion, there are two options: you can accept this with no further losses to your alliance's strength, or you can sign the death warrant of Gramlins, an alliance that despite your government's idiocy is still considered a brother by some on Bob. I would prefer the former. I have no desire to witness a suicide.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 May 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1274988275' post='2313748']No; mostly because we haven't offered you any peace terms. [/quote] Is it time for the 'either-or' fallacy now? Why, it looks like it is. You haven't offered peace terms. This is true. However, in most diplomatic relationships, the dying alliance doesn't get to dictate terms. Unless you are under the impression that you are winning this fight.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='27 May 2010 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1274980059' post='2313634'] Ahh right, because joining there allies in a war with no valid CB is acting differently to gremlins attacking them directly without a valid CB, i understand now Sarge you need to jump off that clydesdale you're riding. [/quote] Oh, good. This thread is about CBs now and not conduct during war.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='27 May 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1274979126' post='2313619'] There is a healthy dose of Hypocrisy. [/quote] Is that my logical fallacy detector that's going off? Why, I believe it is! "Sergeant! What does the detector say about his fallacy level?" "IT'S OVER NINE-" "You are not to quote internet memes unless instructed!" "Yes, captain. It's a false equivalence." So, yes, you would be correct if the conducts of the two sides were exactly the same. They are not, however, the same, so it should not be pretended that they are. As you were, Sarge.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='26 May 2010 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1274908365' post='2312627'] Gre has the problem of having an advantage they can't risk. Their claim to relevance, the only thing separating them from the 101 other nameless micros out there is their top tier. If it gets mauled, even in a fight they win, they just become a stack of unpopular nobodies. Now ramirus is clearly on a fairly big ego trip at this point, do you think he wants to risk giving up that which makes him important? [/quote] He's going to be giving it up sooner or later eventually, anyway, whether by his own choice or not. At this point, they have little more than a slight edge in their top tiers and initiative. Which is kind of unfortunate, because First Strike is a *far* better weapon ability. /went there

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='26 May 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1274890753' post='2312399'] Not so. Gremlins nations are currently collecting taxes in war mode. IRON's upper tier is currently collecting taxes in peace mode. The only way time would be on your side is if the decline in Gremlins membership was maintained, but I don't think that will be the case. [/quote] The decline is over for the time being. This is conceded. It will continue once warfare resumes, however. I wonder, when the upper ranks are faced with the prospect of going to ZI over their government's refusal to accept white peace from a much larger force, how many will remain. I wonder how many believe that IRON should be subject to unconditional surrender so strongly that they are willing to go to ZI themselves. 90%? 50%? 75%? 100%? 5? The decline is in a sort of moratorium. It has not stopped. However, referring back to my original point, I was referring to our advancing middle ranks which are entirely in war mode. The 50-or-so nations between 20K and 40K strength. As that little bloc increases, the strength threshold that their upper ranks need to fall in order to get completely swarmed decreases. That is why time is on our side.