Denial

This may be the best topic I've seen in months.

That is not true. What Vladimir has presented here is a line of thinking that has existed within the Cyberverse since at least mid 2007, in the midst of the post-Great War era dominance of The Initiative. Predominantly, it was created in order to display the inherent weaknesses of the Initiative-focused hegemony of that time, and highlight the capacity for the ruling parties to turn on themselves and end their own reign. Admittedly, the theory also emerged partly as a calculated response to the popularly-perceived military and political insurmountability of The Initiative at the time; if the theory held true, there was hope for those on the receiving end of regular injustice, whereas if the theory was false, all hope was lost. The fact that the theory did not catch on as pervasively then as it has now is down to two primary reasons. Firstly, it was in the interests of the ruling parties of the time to deny such a cycle in Cyberverse affairs, as its acceptance would have served as an admission of the possibility of disunity, divergent ambitions, and an ensuing 'civil war'. As anyone that was present in the '07 Cyberverse would remember, The Initiative was denying the possibility of any fractures in its hegemony all the way up until the declarations of war were issued in the Unjust War. The consistent denial of even the possibility of discord was crucial for the maintenance of The Initiative's power. Perpetuating the image and reputation of invincibility has been important for all ruling groups, but none more so than The Initiative. Secondly, and rather simply, there now exists more evidence to support the theory. With the downfall of the CoaLUEtion/League, The Initiative, and Continuum, it is now difficult not to accept the cyclical nature of Cyberverse ascendancy (I exclude the downfall of Karma, as mentioned in the original piece, due to reasons that Bob Janova has already asserted). This is despite the fact that this theory provides hope, motivation and ammunition for those that have been defeated in the past one or two global conflicts and are building towards an eventual attempt towards revenge. The propensity for the theory to be utilised as a political tool for the subordinated 'side' of can be demonstrated by this very article. All one must do to discover the motivations for such a piece is take a casual glance at the title and the concluding paragraph. However, I must note that the efficacy of this theory as a weapon against a 'hegemony' is determined by whether or not the perceived enemies of the wielder actually constitute a real hegemony or not. In essence, this is what I was speaking of in my previous paragraph. It is quite clear that some groups may attempt to exploit this theory as a political tool against the alleged 'hegemony' of Super Friends, Complaints & Grievances, and associated alliances. Such methods will quickly be renedered ineffective, as the perpetrators are fighting an invisible enemy; there is no such thing as a 'Super Complaints'/'Super Grievances' hegemony. The aforementioned two blocs may currently be militarily and politically eminent, yet there is a world of difference between the power gap that separates 'Super Grievances' and its alleged opponents, and the power gap that existed between The Initiative or The Continuum and its detractors. Interestingly, there is a bit of confusion emerging between the budding writings on the supposed evils of the 'Super Grievances' informal partnership. As previously mentioned, Vladimir's rather impotent call to arms aimed at 'second tier' alliances within the dominant group relies on the existence of a true hegemony. In contrast, other critiques of, and rallying calls against, 'Super Grievances' have been based upon the argument that the currently dominant group is in fact not a true hegemony and is not in any way insurmountable or invincible. For any that are curious, despite sitting inside what many call the core of Super Grievances, I lean more towards the latter. The idea that there is a true hegemonic force in the Cyberverse is ludicrous. All that it would take for any group to retake the throne is time and some creative leadership. There is plenty of the former, but our opponents seem sorely lacking in the latter.

I came for the unnecessary use of capital letters. I stayed for Sir Sci. Congratulations, GATO.

No rogue clomes close to the majesty and glory of IF2 and GKC.

As an honorary member of the Grand Global Alliance since 2006 (seriously, look it up), this disbandment deeply saddens me. Best of luck to all former GGA members.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='04 May 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1272947548' post='2286071'] So, what you are saying is they are only capable of signing treaties should they get a unanimous vote from several alliances? [/quote] That's what the surrender terms say, yes. The capacity has been there for the New Pacific Order to sign treaties. While I was still serving in government roles, there was only one occasion where the New Pacific Order applied for permission to sign a treaty. It was denied due to a small handful of parties exercising their veto power. I imagine the lack of desire on behalf of Pacifica to sign meaningful, defence-related treaties has been due to the fact that throwing themselves in to defend idiocy while they are under surrender terms (meaning they cannot attack those they have surrendered to), demilitarised, low on technology, paying reparations, and focusing on reconstruction, would be entirely counterproductive. Pacifica is a lot of things, but they are not irrational (most of the time). Even if they were entirely free to sign treaties over the past few months, I doubt they would be too willing to do so, get involved in a ridiculous war, and set themselves back another six months.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1272945695' post='2286008'] These forums aren't diplomatic? No. What you mean is they didn't talk to FOK on IRC. But it's just straight up not true to say that no approach has been made, and it's really plainly evident considering the approach was made in public. Then again, considering I'm quoting one of your other lies in my signature at the moment, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. [/quote] If you consider a smear campaign that is nothing more than a piss-poor attempt at milking some PR points to be diplomatic, then it explains why Invicta is so frequently surrendering. As Tromp, Impero, Typo, myself, and others have stated, all that it would take for many alliances to hear out the apparent plight of surrendered parties is for them to drop the rhetoric and baseless accusations, and to actually conduct themselves in a somewhat diplomatic and professional manner. The forums have never been a place for negotiating or renegotiating surrender terms, or discussing sensitive issues, both due to the fact that entirely uninvolved parties can derail the process, and simply because other venues are far more practical. As for your comment regarding your signature, what I stated there is incontrovertible fact. The New Pacific Order has been able to sign treaties throughout its time spent under surrender terms; it is not my fault that, on the very few occasions they have sought permission to sign treaties (the fact that they have been able to seek permission to sign treaties is concrete proof that they are capable of signing them), there has been a minority of parties exercising their veto.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1272944244' post='2285963'] His precise quote is "There are none." Everything else there is fabricated. Really, I'm not quite sure why you're arguing something which is visible in public. [/quote] Um, yeah, that was his reply to "... but does anyone know if any of the alliances that wish to help out IRON/DAWN have gone to the alliance(s) that have them under terms, and discussed their release from the "no re-entry" clause?" You know, that thing he quoted and bolded. Then directly replied to. He said "there are none" because there have not been any surrendered alliances approaching the appropriate parties, in a diplomatic manner, in order to renegotiate their surrender terms. Goddamn, Haflinger, I really wonder about you sometimes.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1272940351' post='2285827'] Accepting this paragraph requires that you accept the belief that C&G and Superfriends did not conspire with \m/ to lure TOP and IRON into one of the most destructive wars in history, and are not currently providing under the table support to keep the war going on - for well over three months now. This has been a matter of some dispute. [/quote] Sure, in the same way that whether the Earth is spherical or flat is a matter of dispute. Hint: It's not flat.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1272940864' post='2285849'] He claimed that there was no discussion at all. It's pretty evident if you read the thread that there was in fact a discussion of precisely the topic he was claiming there was no discussion of. [/quote] No, that's not what Tromp said. He stated that there have been zero surrendered alliances that have approached FOK (and the same goes for VE, MK, and every other victorious party) and attempted to regnotiate their surrender terms in order to attack Gremlins. What Tromp stated is fact. Nor, as far as I know, have there been any parties not restricted by no-reentry terms approaching FOK, VE, C&G, etc. and stating their desire to attack Gremlins.

I, too, like trumpets Congratulations on the formation.

Wow, I am a fantastic writer.

Congratulations to Impero and the Viridian Entente.

Congratulations, GATO. [quote name='KainIIIC' date='01 May 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1272691431' post='2282374'] [img]http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/467/nsosmugsmall.png[/img] [/quote] what the christ is that abomination

Glad to see we're back on track.

Clearly the first step towards ODN abandoning Complaints & Grievances.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] So it's only unjust if you actually manage to force it through?[/quote] Uh, yeah, pretty much. Really, what in the hell kind of question was that? [quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] I'm not sure it's true, yet, that Grämlins are losing, but at the very least they are holding IRON and DAWN back for (potentially) a long time because of their demand.[/quote] Just take a glance at the statistics. I know you are not exactly on friendly terms with fact or logic, but anyone can quite clearly see that IRON and DAWN are growing rapidly while Gremlins are falling apart. Sure, perhaps IRON and DAWN's reconstruction would advance even more swiftly without the ongoing conflict, but then, you must realise for the sake of a handful of national wars (currently 23 for IRON, 4 for DAWN), they have been allowed to suspend their reparations payments. It's easily arguable that they may have a better chance of redevelopment whilst in a war with a crippled Gremlins than while paying compensation for the war of aggression they initiated. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] Nice ad hom there, but that was more to do with how you were acting than the fact you were winning. If IRON and DAWN use the upper hand they might well get eventually to act in an unjust fashion then I will criticise them for it. Since you seem intent on bringing it up, the reason you were being criticised was for (i) the terms you were trying to push (record reps and a no aid clause) and (ii) the admission in Archon's thread starter that you pushed up pressure on the other fronts in order to trap TOP/IRON into the war, and then claimed you had nothing to do with it. So far all IRON/DAWN have done to deserve criticism is to make the pre-emptive attack, and I think that's been adequately covered – and they've agreed to terms to put that behind them.[/quote] As I mentioned previously, IRON and DAWN quite clearly have the upper hand in the current war. When do they plan on ending the war? Do they have a plan for peace? Or are they planning to keep Gremlins in an eternal war? Gremlins may be pursuing an idiotic plan for peace, but IRON and DAWN do not even possess one. In terms of the C&G peace settlement, reparations, by very definition, were in order. We were subject to a nuclear war of aggression. Not just a war of aggression declared on one bloc member, but the entirety of the bloc in one great attack. Whether you choose to accept it or not, Complaints & Grievances were militarily and politically uninvolved in any prior conflict when war was brought to us. All other things left aside, the nature and result of both the Karma War and Bipolar War demanded high reparations; for once, the aggressors were the party having reparations extracted from. In the era of the Hegemony, wars were manufactured and the victims of aggression not only faced complete destruction, and occasionally prolonged occupation, but then on top of that, had to pay substantial reparations. The last two major wars mark a turning point in the Cyberverse, where the extraction of reparations actually matches the definition of 'reparations'. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] Not being able to enforce them doesn't stop them being ridiculous. And like I say, that is from the rumour mill, though Ironchef (who I believe is more likely to know about it than you or I, being allied to the alliances who are being 'offered' the terms) strongly alluded to it in the other thread.[/quote] Oh, surprise, surprise, you are basing your arguments of off rumour rather than fact. Yes, the pursuit of unconditional surrender by Gremlins is ridiculous. There is no question of that, and the fact that the entirety of the C&G coalition holds this sentiment is clearly displayed by the fact that Gremlins are fighting alone. However, whether or not their peace policy is ridiculous is not what we are debating. You claimed that the Cyberverse had moved back into an era worse than that of the Hegemony, marked by Wonder and Improvement decommissions, among other things. That is worse than pathetic hyperbole, it is just an outright falsehood. So, I will reiterate. Have Gremlins' ridiculous terms been enforced? No. Have you got any substantial evidence that military Wonder decommission is part of those terms? No, you admit that yourself. Thus, we have not moved back into a Hegemony-like practice of Wonder & Improvement decommission. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] Translation: We didn't provoke them, we only provoked them![/quote] So, you support declaring on entire blocs of alliances purely because of comments made on the forum by regular members? My, Bob, your participation in the Continuum is quite clearly evident here. Hell, if you just find yourself a time machine, I am quite certain Pacifica or GOONS circa 2007 would be quite happy to accept your application for membership. You'd fit in well. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] And you and I both know that some members of C&G were in coalition planning channels and managing coalition aid during the first phase of the war, but I fully expect you to keep lying about that.[/quote] Where is your proof, exactly? Time and time again, as your conspiracy theories have been torn apart by myself and others, you have been asked to provide proof to substantiate your accusations. You have consistently failed. Relying on rumours again, are we? You seem to be making a habit of that. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] TOP and IRON did not attack you for the provocation on the forums, though since you recognise that that [i]did[/i] happen I hope you'll stop claiming 'without provocation' from now on...[/quote] So, they did not attack us for comments on the forums, but at the same time, our comments on the forums were provocation for war? Nice doublethink there, Bob. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] ... they attacked you because you were going to end up at war with them if they entered in a 'textbook' fashion (on Fark) and they perceived (wrongly) that it would be to their strategic advantage to open that front on their own terms instead of when SF had them in nuclear anarchy.[/quote] You know, for someone that likes to treat the TOP Declaration of War as if its the holy scripture, often quoting from it in feeble attempts to prove more rational members of the community 'wrong', you sure do forget its content whenever convenient. The declaration explicitly stated they were declaring war on us for comments by regular members in the public arena. Further, if TOP & co's motivation did expand to what you wrote, you are only proving my point that it was an entirely unjustified war. There was no evidence that Mushroom Kingdom would end up in the war; rather, there was a mountain of proof that displayed we would likely remain neutral (from extensive diplomatic efforts to firstly avoid and then conclude the war, to the mass exodus of FoB government to Poison Clan). [quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824'] That's nice, but completely irrelevant to what you quoted. The way in which C&G is enabling Grämlins' demands is by being at best ambiguous (some of you have strongly implied you would 'defend') about whether you would go to war for Grämlins if someone [i]not bound by surrender agreements[/i] came in to support IRON/DAWN. MHA can be put in this category as well. This is a different (although related) question to the one about releasing alliances from terms. The position on alliances under terms is quite clear, even if it's not what some people would like. (And as Typo says, we are open to discussion from the alliances who surrendered to us; I'm sure the other Supergrievances alliances are too.) C&G are maintaining a position of deliberate ambiguity so they can keep people from helping IRON/DAWN while being able to claim that they're not doing anything. Unless you'd like to break the ambiguity of course, and answer the question: would C&G go to war for Grämlins if someone not bound by terms hit them in support of IRON/DAWN? [/quote] I would like to state my amusement how you brush off the fact that your own alliance has far more influence over who can and cannot assist IRON and DAWN in their now successful war with Gremlins. Again, this is not an attack on Viridia, as I agree with the stance of Viridian government. But of course, it all comes down to those damn C&G tyrants! Really, Bob, your constant criticism of our bloc never had much credibility from the get-go, but you have quickly become an embarrassment to yourself and your alliance. If you had a clue, and would cease frothing at the mouth whilst hurling baseless accusations, you would find that Mushroom Kingdom, and Complaints & Grievances as a whole, has the[i]exact same policy as your own alliance[/i]. If any alliance seriously wishes to become involved in the conflict in some way, all that is required is that they actually participate in some form of diplomacy, and present their case. Now, I am not in a position to determine what would and would not be accepted, but what you must realise, is that each time you attempt to drag C&G through the mud, you are doing the exact same to your own alliance. It appears you possess a higher level of allegiance to IRON, DAWN and TOP than you do your alliance and its allies. You are a laughing stock of the Cyberverse, Bob. You are now on par with the Alteregos, the Shahenshahs and the PrideAssassins. When you unite Haflinger, your own government, and C&G members in making comments that shine a potent spotlight of rationality upon the cesspool of falsehoods that are your arguments, surely that, if nothing else, would provoke an inner realisation that you have delved so deep into your own world of delusion that you could now be an ideal spokesperson for the very enemies you fought against just months ago.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='28 April 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1272460916' post='2278454'] <snip> [/quote] Congratulations, you quoted a long line of conflicts where Mushroom Kingdom acted defensively, honouring treaty agreements, or participated in 'aggressive' wars with a limited and specified duration, ending with very lenient terms. So, pretty much exactly what fits into the criteria I originally listed, thus only proving my point. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1272462754' post='2278469'] You might want to check which thread you're in there. (The second bolded part is referring to the rumours of what Grämlins mean by 'demilitarise', no-one's officially confirmed or denied that it includes military wonders that I've seen.)[/quote] Firstly, if Gremlins were actually winning the conflict, you might have some semblance of a point. What is happening here is an ongoing conflict where IRON & DAWN have obtained the upper hand. If you are to keep any consistency, I expect to see you valiantly supporting Gremlins a week from now, as it becomes clear that IRON & DAWN will be the victors. After all, the moment C&G turned the tide of battle and began defending ourselves effectively against TOP & co was the instant we became the focus of every Bob Janova Conspiracy Theory for the Occupation of Innocents (who initiate wars and then lose them). Secondly, have Gremlins' ridiculous terms been enforced? No. Have you got any substantial evidence that military Wonder decommission is part of those terms? No, you admit that yourself. Thus, we have not moved back into a Hegemony-like practice of Wonder & Improvement decommission. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1272462754' post='2278469'] It's still not true, it won't be true if you keep saying it from now until 2020. You have quite enough rhetorical ammunition without resorting to that untruth. The pre-emptive attack was a bad decision, not sufficiently justified in my opinion, but it was certainly not 'without provocation'.[/quote] And you saying that C&G in any way provoked TOP will not be true no matter how many deluded attempts you make to argue that point. The only 'provocation' they could point to is criticism on the forums. Gee, attacking alliances for criticising them on the forums. Sounds awfully Hegemony-like, Bob! [quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1272462754' post='2278469'] I imagine he's referring to what Grämlins are doing, and the C&G front is not related to that. The consequences for that – near-record reps but no other 'harsh terms' – can be used as political points for either side of the 'the world is better now' argument, but what Grämlins are doing to IRON/DAWN – with indirect C&G support (direct if your people follow through with their threats to aid Grämlins) – is worse than anything the Hegemony tried. [/quote] You do realise C&G are not signatories to any of the peace agreements that contain the no-entry clauses that people are complaining about, right? As has been mentioned, the only alliances we are demanding neutrality in the current conflict from are those that directly surrendered to us (TOP & co). Your own alliance has more control over which alliances could potentially renegotiate their surrender terms than the entirety of our bloc does. This is not a hit against VE - the Viridian government have handled themselves well - but a mere statement of the facts. But no, everything is C&G's fault. [quote name='Haflinger' date='29 April 2010 - 02:28 AM' timestamp='1272470311' post='2278538'] With all due respect Bob, C&G are also not taking the lead on this count either. They're keeping TOP out of helping IRON, but TOP did agree to reparations payments, and probably wouldn't want to help IRON while paying reps. It's more alliances like you guys' ally FOK who are keeping alliances who don't owe any reps out of the war, unable to help IRON if they so choose. [/quote] It's an amusing scenario when even Haflinger has to say something in support of C&G against Janova's conspiracy theories.

[quote name='shilo' date='28 April 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1272454214' post='2278413'] Oh my, you make me want to cry Seriously, the last conflict simply doesn't serve as yet another example on how you guys were poor victims. That said, no, in my naive hopes, I expected more than just a name change. [/quote] Looking at things as objectively as possible, I can see how perhaps Mushroom Kingdom (along with just about every alliance) may like to remind people of the past injustices we have faced fairly regularly, but if being attacked - along with our entire bloc - without jusification or provocation is not a valid reason to be seriously aggrieved for a substantial amount of time, I don't know what is. As for your second line, I realise that the "you're just as bad as them!" line is popular amongst the anti-C&G or anti-'Super Grievances' rhetoric, but seriously, if you cannot notice the substantial improvements that have been made to the Cyberverse, than quite frankly, you are either blind or being intentionally ignorant. Perhaps the state of the Cyberverse has not quite transformed enough, but you must recall where we were at during the peak of the Hegemony. It's an ongoing process. To move from an era of indefinite or eternal wars, viceroys, crippling Wonder and Improvement destruction (decommissioning factories, anyone?), [i]real[/i] permanent restrictions on foreign and military policy, and the entirely manufactured wars that these terms originated from, to an era where such practices are unheard of, is quite an accomplishment. Also recall that the reign of the Hegemony was marked with the extraction of reparations from, and the enforcement of harsh terms upon, alliances that [i]they[/i] attacked. Wars just prior to and following the Karma War have been largely defensive, others have had clearly defined timelines and have been resolved with either white peace or lenient terms.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='26 April 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1272280674' post='2275867'] That's a nice opinion. It's not actually based on the text of any of the surrender terms that I quoted though. In other words, it's a matter of interpretation. If they said stuff like "neutral with respect to the current conflict for the duration of the current conflict," then you'd be right. Instead they say stuff like "completely neutral" - one went so far as to explicitly ban warring. [/quote] I guarantee that if you speak to any alliance you signed the agreement with, they will say the exact same thing as what I have told you. Your 'interpretation' of what is in the surrender agreement is false, mine is correct. It is as simple as that. I have already outlined why your take is, quite frankly, idiotic. I am seriously beginning to believe that your only goal here is to embarrass your own alliance, and after all the effort that went into that name change! Now, be honest, when signing the surrender agreements, do you think any of the surrendering parties believed they were to become wholly neutral alliances, in the style of GPA? And if they did, then it looks as if it's time for our coalition to redeclare, as possessing treaties would be flagrantly disregarding said neutrality clause. Either I am correct, or Invicta best start dissolving each and every one of its treaties lest it be in violation of its peace terms. Take your pick.

[quote name='Mushroom Man' date='26 April 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1272258125' post='2275692'] Did you ever think, ChairmanHal, (what, never? har har har) that maybe this is a far greater C&G plot than you ever imagined? C&G nations are already choka-blok full of incoming reparations and in the interests of efficiency maybe this is the first attempt at 'staggering' reparations payments by ending certain fronts at more convenient times. I'm willing to put money on the fact that once the first alliances begin finishing their reparations and exiting terms that Gremlins will end the war and IRON will begin paying reparations. Now, I know some might say that as other alliances exit terms more pressure is put on Gremlins to end the war as their opponents mass, but these people are wrong and stupid. [/quote] This man gets it

[quote name='Sir Paul' date='26 April 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1272244168' post='2275172'] If there's one thing I've learned during my year of penance, it is that it is not the letter of the surrender terms, or even the spirit... All that matters is how the more powerful party interprets them.[/quote] I imagine you would have learned that back when you were the one enforcing the surrender terms, with your almost daily 'clarifications' of what the terms required.

[quote name='silentkiller' date='26 April 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1272243389' post='2275156'] And why is that? Are you saying C&G is going to be supporting Gremlins if they come under attack by anyone other than Iron/DAWN? [/quote] I can't speak for C&G, just as I can't speak for any other group of alliances. The way I see the current situation is that there are only two methods through which surrendered alliances can attack Gremlins: i) They break their surrender terms and attack, opening themselves to a reopening of hostilities between them and those they were defeated by, or ii) They attack Gremlins under the guise of a 'new' conflict and open themselves to attacks by any who feel obliged to defend Gremlins. With that said, if it were solely up to me, I would be privately informing Gremlins of a timeline for peace. If they did not secure peace before that time was up, I would allow previously surrendered parties with defence obligations to IRON/DAWN to re-negotiate their peace agreements in order for them to defend IRON/DAWN without repercussion.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='26 April 2010 - 03:38 AM' timestamp='1272215287' post='2274445'] By your argument - three, actually. (Some of those surrender terms were from alliances on your side.) Since your alliance did not sign any of the terms in question, your interpretation of them isn't really very relevant. [/quote] That's not my interpretation of the terms, that is just what they say. It is incontrovertible fact. And yes if, if you wish to be unnecessarily pedantic about the matter, then those surrendered alliances are also incapable of attacking IRON/DAWN, but considering the lengthy diatribes regarding the aforementioned's plight, I sincerely doubt attacking IRON/DAWN was a concern of alliances like BAPS. Let's summarise what we've learned: 1. Meaningful restrictions or punitive measures in the surrender terms have time durations, and thus cannot be eternal. 2. The re-entry clauses in surrender terms demand neutrality in the context of the war those alliances surrendered from. That currently takes the form of an inability to attack Gramlins, or IRON/DAWN, yet we have already explained why your mention of that was more to be a pedantic pain in the $@! than anything else. 3. The surrender terms have not transformed the involved parties into the new GPA. If the surrender terms intended to force overall neutrality upon the surrendering parties, they would have stipulated such an obligation, and such a clause would have been accompanied by a dissolution of treaties. After all, all surrendering alliances have been allowed to maintain their treaties, and I don't see GPA running around with 7 different MDOAPs with UPN, such as Invicta possesses. 4. There is no doubt about it, Gremlins will lose this war if it stays in its current state. What people on your side must realise (because there haven't been any official requests to alter surrender terms to allow military support for IRON) is that IRON/DAWN have a higher chance of triumph if you all stay out and avoid conflict escalation. 5. Yes, what Gremlins are doing is wrong, which is why they stand alone on the battlefield (which, ironically enough, is what everyone on your side wanted. My, how things change when there's something to fake outrage over!). Threads like this are as pathetic as they are transparent, and are only counterproductive towards gaining any credibility or political momentum for the ex-Hegemony 'side'. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/eng101.gif[/img]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='26 April 2010 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1272202961' post='2274267'] Then you haven't been reading the surrender agreements. [/quote] ... You do realise that the stipulation that those parties remain neutral is in relation to the conflict they surrender from, right? Again, at the current time, that means surrendered parties are restricted from declaring war on a grand total of one alliance.