Declaration of Reexistance

[HellAngel]

Theres a lot that went wrong with Gre, and it wasnt only Ram. We had a Kronos splinter and we had constant infighting without a clear figurehead (after Syz was gone). We were losing ground because people did not consider Citadel their first priority anymore. However, it was Ram who started (or continued, for that matter) a pointless war with IRON. It was Ram because of whom many ex members left. Heck, ender even told me the Kronos splinter happened partly because of Ram as well. We all know he cant control the universe and all of it's aspects, so by default there had to be plenty more reasons.

Still, would i have to choose one thing to remove from history to completely change all it's course, it would have to be vetoeing Ram when he applied.

Now MPK, you can apply for membership at the reformed alliance and we can see how things work out in the application. If you dont like it, you can withdraw. If we dont like you anymore, we will veto. But as Commandante of the Grämlins army i need to have a decision here. Currently you are ghosting our AA and i can't tolerate that. You now know how things are and are able to react to them. Please finally make a decision.

[Sniper Joe]

My god...the old, competent government of Gre is seizing the reigns from an idiot. I don't care if it's a coup or whatever you want to call it. It will be much better for the alliance and Planet Bob as a whole. Everyone should stop complaining and go home, it's ridiculous at this point. Gre is making a comeback, deal with it.

[Bob Ilyani]

Grämlins: united in hatred of Ram

The argument in this thread is so dumb I won't even begin to get into it.

[Feanor Noldorin]

A wild Matthew PK has appeared. Kill it! Kill it with fire!

Edited May 30, 2011 by Feanor Noldorin

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Sniper Joe' timestamp='1306713308' post='2720291']
My god...the old, competent government of Gre is seizing the reigns from an idiot. [/quote]

These are some of the same people who allowed things to become as they were; good or bad. Most were Archons with 5x vote weights. Then, as I mentioned, they abandoned the AA one by one.
So far I see a lot of good people with a lot of good intentions. That's what GRE was anyhow. Call Ram whatever name you like... don't ignore the fact that we (including these people) [b]volunteered authority to him.[/b]

[quote]I don't care if it's a coup or whatever you want to call it. It will be much better for the alliance and Planet Bob as a whole.[/quote]

It's a hostile takeover by a foreign force. Coups and revolutions come from within.

[quote] Everyone should stop complaining and go home, it's ridiculous at this point. Gre is making a comeback, deal with it.
[/quote]

I'm glad to see them back, working together and trying to build something. They're all capable people. What I'm contesting is their authority to order all members out of a sovereign AA without any diplomacy.
HellAngel simply says they don't care.
Frankly, I'm surprised that so many of you are tolerating this precedent solely because you hate some nation which has left the planet.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Matthew PK

[Artigo]

How does it feel Matthew? Being in position of no power where you are either forced to submit to their terms of reapplying (unconditionally surrendering if you will), leaving all together, or being destroyed?

[Bob]

I can't say I agree with someone having to apply to join the alliance that they were already in that you refounded around them.

Sad to see someone like Matthew PK being treated unfairly, but I can understand the reasoning behind the decision.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Penlugue Solaris

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Artigo' timestamp='1306721880' post='2720379']
How does it feel Matthew? Being in position of no power where you are either forced to submit to their terms of reapplying (unconditionally surrendering if you will), leaving all together, or being destroyed?
[/quote]

It feels fine. I know these people, I trust them.
I'm not afraid of them because I understand their intent.
Whether they'll have me or I abandon the flag I've fought under for three years isn't really the point.

I'm solely interested in discussing the validity of an outside group of nations claiming the right to an AA they left and demanding all those wearing it vacate.


[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1306723200' post='2720386']
I can't say I agree with someone having to apply to join the alliance that they were already in that you refounded around them.

Sad to see someone like Matthew PK being treated unfairly, but I can understand the reasoning behind the decision.
[/quote]


Precisely my point.
These people are claiming sovereignty over [b]me[/b] and asserting that I have no legitimate right to wear an AA they [i]chose[/i] to abandon. Remember that I've been through the rigorous admission process already; even under the auspices of the same individuals now reforming.
Many of them formed another alliance together already; they've already rebuilt a community.

But now they come into a house [b]they renounced[/b] and call [b]me[/b] a trespasser.
I don't understand it. It's an interesting precedent and it's even more peculiar that Digiterra is accepting of this policy....

Since my discussion here I will say that they have been very cordial on their forum. We're making good progress.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Matthew PK

[Bob Ilyani]

It's hard for there to be a hostile takeover when theres nothing left to defend.

[Bob]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1306723643' post='2720388']
Precisely my point.
These people are claiming sovereignty over [b]me[/b] and asserting that I have no legitimate right to wear an AA they [i]chose[/i] to abandon. Remember that I've been through the rigorous admission process already; even under the auspices of the same individuals now reforming.
Many of them formed another alliance together already; they've already rebuilt a community.

But now they come into a house [b]they renounced[/b] and call [b]me[/b] a trespasser.
I don't understand it. It's an interesting precedent and it's even more peculiar that Digiterra is accepting of this policy....

Since my discussion here I will say that they have been very cordial on their forum. We're making good progress.
[/quote]
I'd have to say the precedent is only allowed to be established because of the alliance it is, not because it is acceptable. Gremlins is considered to have fallen into terrible times under the rule of Ramirus, and the way in which the alliance operates would not have allowed them to join and make the changes necessary to return their former alliance to glory. They are doing what they believe is the best thing for the alliance, and what people who remember the Gremlins of old will of course support. I don't claim this is wrong or right, because I believe its both. They do what is best for the world, though the precedent established is not one that is the best.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1306723643' post='2720388']I'm solely interested in discussing the validity of an outside group of nations claiming the right to an AA they left and demanding all those wearing it vacate.[/quote]
I have no sympathy for the "Ramlins", but despite the personal attacks on Matthew PK (whether deserved or otherwise), this seems like a broader issue which has not yet been sufficiently addressed.

At what point does some kind of "moral authority", or perceived lack of activity, supersede the legal rights of members of an existing alliance? Who decides that an existing alliance does not meet this new standard for determining whether an alliance deserves to exist, or be reconstituted, if not for its existing members?

In this situation, it seems that a key criterion is that the alliance in question must be friendless, and therefore unable to defend its right to exist, given that the same moral justification could (or should?) have been used against it when it was still powerful. (Again, I'm not interested in defending it, but am interested in the broader implications.)

Edit: Clarification.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[Crymson]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1306723643' post='2720388']
But now they come into a house [b]they renounced[/b] and call [b]me[/b] a trespasser.
I don't understand it. It's an interesting precedent and it's even more peculiar that Digiterra is accepting of this policy....
[/quote]

Do something about it.

[Cataduanes]

nvm

Edited May 30, 2011 by Cataduanes

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1306723643' post='2720388']
It feels fine. I know these people, I trust them.
I'm not afraid of them because I understand their intent.
Whether they'll have me or I abandon the flag I've fought under for three years isn't really the point.

I'm solely interested in discussing the validity of an outside group of nations claiming the right to an AA they left and demanding all those wearing it vacate.





Precisely my point.
These people are claiming sovereignty over [b]me[/b] and asserting that I have no legitimate right to wear an AA they [i]chose[/i] to abandon. Remember that I've been through the rigorous admission process already; even under the auspices of the same individuals now reforming.
Many of them formed another alliance together already; they've already rebuilt a community.

But now they come into a house [b]they renounced[/b] and call [b]me[/b] a trespasser.
I don't understand it. It's an interesting precedent and it's even more peculiar that Digiterra is accepting of this policy....

Since my discussion here I will say that they have been very cordial on their forum. We're making good progress.
[/quote]

We had to make a decision and we're also not really sure you would fit into the new alliance. You were one of the main agitators in Rams powerstructure and you are partly at fault for what has happened (as many people are). We just remember you being a really long time member and there was a time when you were different and had a head to think with. The only real issue is trust here. We had the feeling you might sabotage the operation when being told beforehand. And we're not forcing you off the AA (yet).

We dont really want to look back all that much though. The future is what counts now.

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1306727720' post='2720420']
I have no sympathy for the "Ramlins", but despite the attacks on Matthew PK (whether deserved or otherwise), this seems like a broader issue which has not yet been sufficiently addressed.

At what point does some kind of "moral authority", or perceived lack of activity, supersede the legal rights of members of an existing alliance? Who decides that an existing alliance does not meet this new standard for determining whether an alliance deserves to exist, or be reconstituted, if not for its existing members?

In this situation, it seems that a key criterion is that the alliance in question must be friendless, and therefore unable to defend its right to exist, given that the same moral justification could (or should?) have been used against it when it was still powerful. (Again, I'm not interested in defending it, but am interested in the broader implications.)
[/quote]

MPK hasnt been attacked. Yet.

[Cobalt]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1306727720' post='2720420']
legal rights
[/quote]

There are no laws here. What we have is a loose set of generally accepted mores and behavioral standards.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1306741848' post='2720487']
Do something about it.
[/quote]

I am.

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1306746388' post='2720498']
We had to make a decision and we're also not really sure you would fit into the new alliance. You were one of the main agitators in Rams powerstructure and you are partly at fault for what has happened (as many people are). We just remember you being a really long time member and there was a time when you were different and had a head to think with. The only real issue is trust here. We had the feeling you might sabotage the operation when being told beforehand. And we're not forcing you off the AA (yet).[/quote]

Just because we disagreed doesn't mean I wasn't thinking.
I understand your desire to keep your intentions quiet; but I'm willing to bet that none of you can name a time I leaked information or lied to you... trust isn't an issue.

[quote]We dont really want to look back all that much though. The future is what counts now.[/quote]

This is what I'm trying to get at on your forum.
When I joined The Gremlins years ago I knew who you were and where you intended to go. Where do you intend to take it this time?

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1306769582' post='2720620']
I am.



Just because we disagreed doesn't mean I wasn't thinking.
I understand your desire to keep your intentions quiet; but I'm willing to bet that none of you can name a time I leaked information or lied to you... trust isn't an issue.



This is what I'm trying to get at on your forum.
When I joined The Gremlins years ago I knew who you were and where you intended to go. Where do you intend to take it this time?
[/quote]

Well i didnt want to say you werent thinking, you just made some... false decisions in my opinion. Sorry for that.
Anyway, I cant really comment on our plans for the future in the public. This is probably why an application would be the way to go. Even if it turns out we dont fit.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1306686084' post='2720036']
No. What gives us that right is that [b]everybody[/b] considers Ramlins 'dysfunctional', in most cases to the point of no longer considering it to really be an alliance, and supports our assertion to own the AA over yours.[/quote]

Hi Bob. I meant to reply to you earlier.
This is probably the only valid case presented here so far: that you do not consider GRE an alliance anymore... I don't see anything in your charter which outlines how you define an alliance. What makes GRE less an alliance than 64Digits? (Sorry HoT, nothing against you... you're just the first that came to mind )
As for ownership: I don't "own" it anymore than you do.


[quote]That doesn't really help your cause, because the resistance of the Archons to him was something which delayed Ram's ascension – one major reason, I suspect, why he wanted to get rid of it. We recognised the danger he posed and worked to limit it through the legal avenues available – refusing to promote him. He, and you, wanted to remove that limit – and look what happened when he managed to persuade enough people to pull him to the other side of the fence![/quote]

The archons at that time had been reluctant to promote anybody outside the original "clique" thereby making the ranking system defunct. Promotion was [b]never[/b] a weighted vote by subordinate ranks and you know that. Whether zealots and archons had identical vote-weights is irrelevant to the promotion procedure.

[i]I[/i] wanted to squash weights because they made us dependent on votes from inactive members and banks to get anything done. Weighted votes or not: you and others could have done something about Ramirus [b]if only you had the initiative[/b]. You may even remember that there was an election that he won [i]solely[/i] because of vote weights.
I'm not excusing my support for him in certain roles; I stand by my assertion that he was the only person at the time who demonstrated ability to organize and run internal programs when most other top-ranks were inactive. We can discuss it ad nauseum but nobody here cares. I'd be happy to discuss it on your forum if you're interested.


[quote]Quite. Zero is a number. [/quote]
Zing!
I'll give you one: an activity-based policy for tech distribution in project AI and a more enticing purchasing offer to our providers.


[quote]If I knew what manipulation techniques Ram was using on the electorate, I'm sure I could win a lot more elections myself. It is one of the abiding mysteries of the fall of the alliance how he could get people to consistently vote for him despite the clear damage he was doing.[/quote]
He was active while others were stagnant. He proposed new ideas while others clung to the old ones (which many viewed as contributory to slowed progression).
Obviously you will contend that the ideas he [i]did[/i] present were terrible; but that's not really my point.

[quote] (His other mental game, aggravating opponents to the point they gave up and left, was less opaque.)[/quote]
Granted.

[quote]What it shows, more than anything else, is that faith in democracy and the democratic process is misplaced, because one person with knowledge of psychology and the amoral mind to exploit it can subvert the whole process. The fact that thirty of us are here now explicitly disavowing any support of his policies – which were put in place with far less than a thirty vote majority – should demonstrate that.[/quote]

You may recall when I first applied to GRE years ago that I said I didn't believe democracies could function effectively in Digiterra. If you want to blame the people and their votes then you should focus squarely on the top-ranks who could have drawn up expulsion or rejected promotion or even [b]bothered to vote[/b] such that their weights and influence might have made a difference. Inactivity and apathy of our founders [i]initially [/i] put Ramirus in power.


[quote]Yes, we did. In fact you can lay the blame for that at my feet: I was on the Dark Council and said that I would not vote for a disbandment, because it would be unfair on those who wished to remain. In retrospect that was perhaps a mistake, I gave people too much credit in terms of them being able to see what was happening and work against it. But can you imagine the reaction that disbanding what was still a 5 million NS alliance over a supposed deviation from the true path would have got? I don't think I would be a popular man in CN after that.[/quote]

Lost popularity isn't an excuse for dereliction of duty. I appreciate your acknowledgement of this fact.
This was the primary function of the Dark Council: to identify a rotten heart before it pumps poison to the body's extremities.
If [b]you[/b] felt that way [b]you[/b] should have acted. You were entrusted, empowered and obligated to do so.

[quote]I hope that you can see the light, Matthew. From your early days in Grämlins, I know that you are a good man, and I hope that you can come out from under the spell of Ramirus which you have been trapped in for well over a year now. The man is gone, hopefully his influence over you and others is too. But you will not win an argument on our assertion to control the AA, particularly not two weeks after we asserted it.
[/quote]

I know you have reflected on what you see as failures of "Ramlins". It would be a mistake for you to disavow each and every policy he enacted without due consideration. Do not let your distastes for one man who has left the planet solely guide the policies you set at your foundation.
As for timing: it's unfortunate that I had been away and can only address it now.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Matthew PK

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Cobalt' timestamp='1306768281' post='2720610']
There are no laws here. What we have is a loose set of generally accepted mores and behavioral standards.
[/quote]
In essence this,
Might makes right, always has always will,

Matt
Nobody is forcing you to quit your nation or attacking you without reason,
But, we have taken back what was ours by throwing the gauntlet down,
you have now some choices
You can accept our offers and walk away,
you can apply to join
or you can pit your own might and that of your allies against us to push us off the AA
Note not even ram was mad enough to try the latter

After watching you go beyond all logic for months in your defence of the mad unconditional surrender demand, debate is pointless, you've already lost, now make your choice

[Azaghul]

MatthewPK, think of it as a revolution where you are forced to "apply" as a condition of continued membership in the alliance, or otherwise lose your membership.

Von Droz has, I hope you will as well.

[Yggdrazil]

You cannot say Matthew PK was not loyal, his defense of his alliance's position during the IRON "unconditonal surrender" debate was filled with sophist rhetoric that strained and distorted English beyond recognition. That's loyalty.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Yggdrazil

[Heft]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1306723643' post='2720388']
But now they come into a house [b]they renounced[/b] and call [b]me[/b] a trespasser.
I don't understand it. It's an interesting precedent and it's even more peculiar that Digiterra is accepting of this policy....
[/quote]
I think it's more accurate to say that most of us just don't care either way. Even TR's "reformation" or whatever it is now is getting more opposition, despite being probably on firmer ground than this. It's clearly, uh, "extra-legal" but none of us are in any hurry to defend a dead alliance. I'm pretty sure no one is taking this as a precedent, though - it's just a one-off thing.

[quote name='Yggdrazil' timestamp='1306807122' post='2720966']
You cannot say Matthew PK was not loyal, his defense of his alliance's position during the IRON "unconditonal surrender" debate was filled with sohist rhetoric that strained and distorted English beyond recognition. That's loyalty.
[/quote]
Yes, MPK's dedication in those arguments was as impressive as it was mind-melting.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1306825633' post='2721244']
Yes, MPK's dedication in those arguments was as impressive as it was mind-melting.
[/quote]

Mind-melting can be a pretty useful tool, do not forget!