Never-before-heard Grämlins tell-all itt

[Veneke]

SynthFG -

I never expected you to share that information. The problem I have with this line

"For now simply accept that Harmlins represents a greater bond than any other in CN history, including OoO and that where it matters both alliances move as one"

Is that both of ye are saying that with or without the treaty the bond will be the same. This leads us to one of two conclusions

1. The bond between Gramlins and the alliances she cancelled on is no longer the same. If anyone has trouble seeing this merely apply the same reasons that they're keeping the MHA treaty to the ones they cancelled. The bond between Gramlins and MHA is the same with or without the treaty. However, they kept the treaty. The bond between Gramlins and her other allies is the same with or without the treaty. However, they kept none of these treaties.

2. The treaty is being kept for personal, private reasons, despite the fact that whether it exists or not the treaty is the same. This can only lead us to conclude that the MHA/Gramlins bond is not as strong as it may appear, and that the reason that it's being kept is because one side or the other doubts their ability (or the others ability) to maintain the relationship without a permanent treaty that cannot be cancelled.

Neither conclusion is very likely in my opinion, and in fact I really do think that it is the reasoning advanced in my prior post

You could argue, convincingly, that the departure this represents is not the one many think (a complete dissolution of all treaties for all alliances etc) but rather the more moderate version of what would have followed had Gramlins cancelled the MHA treaty. In short, a largely treatyless alliance. This holds considerable merit (though as I've stated earlier doesn't negate the fact that it weakens the move), but I have yet to see even a single Gramlins or MHA person (or anyone for that matter) advance this kind of thinking. It's certainly better than the "This treaty cannot be cancelled" line that's coming out.

Is the real reason. Though why Gramlins nor MHA is simply coming out and saying that I'm slightly confused about. Do you not wish to offend Gramlins ex-allies? Sure, it will represent no real difference than what you've done here and now anyway, so I don't follow that line of thinking (though I could be wrong, I have no idea how testy the alliances in question would be if they found out that this was the reason).

Short of being told otherwise, in a manner that makes sense (and so far none of your explanations make sense) this will be the conclusion I will have to draw from your actions here.

Edit: To clarify the person I'm addressing.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Veneke

[Veneke]

Jerdge - Your explanation (quoted below) is the best I've seen yet. We could have said ourselves a dozen pages of back and forth had you arrived sooner.

"I don't think that The Grämlins could ignore this simple fact when they decided to take this path, and this makes me think that they agree with us that the MHA and their freedom can't conflict (while their freedom and their bonds with their other former signatories most probably would never conflict). This is just my opinion on this matter, anyway."

[Ejayrazz]

Don't you think that's a bit conceited? "We're better friends than anyone else, ever"?

Order at the End of the Universe, remember that one?

Not really, cause he is right.

[jerdge]

Jerdge - Your explanation (quoted below) is the best I've seen yet. We could have said ourselves a dozen pages of back and forth had you arrived sooner.

I can't be always there to save your @#$%!

(throws hands, shakes head)

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Why did you cancel all the treaties then? I mean, if you have friends, and if you are willed to defend them, why not sign a treaty? And if nothing changed, why cancel all these treaties? To be independent?

Its pretty simple and uncomplicated. This frees them to act in what they believe is best for Gramlins. You wont see Gramlins taking part in any phony CB curbstomps because of treaty obligations or being unable to help a friend because of stupid wording in heartless pieces of paper. I, for one, applaud the move since treaties have become many and unimportant in this game.

[Lord Brendan]

Its pretty simple and uncomplicated. This frees them to act in what they believe is best for Gramlins. You wont see Gramlins taking part in any phony CB curbstomps because of treaty obligations or being unable to help a friend because of stupid wording in heartless pieces of paper. I, for one, applaud the move since treaties have become many and unimportant in this game.

Did they do that beforehand?

[Azrael Alexander]

When the discussions for going Independent were underway the MHA treaty was always the one that was going to cause us problems. Yes we could have cancelled on them as our relationship would have stayed the same. But I wonderhow many of you would be here now bashing my alliance for cancelling and uncancelable treaty. Probably about the same number of you saying we should have cancelled if we wanted to go independent.

So in the end being the writer of the Accord i demanded my government not to cancel it. Keeping it just to show the people of this world what the words of a gremlin means. And even thought the words were written on paper we keep it to honour the relationship we have and the promises we made to the MHA. We left a cancellation clause out for a reason and to me it would not send the right message out to the world if we just crossed it out and ignored it.

I'm guessing the archons must have listened but I may be wrong

[hizzy]

Did they do that beforehand?

Whether they did in the past is slightly subjective, but now that there's no legal treaty ties, they don't need to worry about anyone trying to squeeze them into a situation that they don't agree with.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[Lord Brendan]

Whether they did in the past is slightly subjective, but now that there's no legal treaty ties, they don't need to worry about anyone trying to squeeze them into a situation that they don't agree with.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Generally their treaties were pretty well written in terms of giving them flexibility, so that wasn't really an issue. As far as I know The Gremlins have never fought in a war they didn't agree with.

[King Chill I]

I resent the implication that the treaty i wrote for Fark/Gre was poorly written.

I accept scones and other assorted baked goods as appropriate means of apology.

That was a greatly written treaty. The preemptive defense was gold.

P.S. No such thing as bandwagoning. I dont give an airborne intercourse if its an established fact or not. We go to war whenever and however we want for our own reasons and not for the reasons others tell us to.

[Bob Janova]

Did they do that beforehand?

No, indeed not; Grämlins' treaties (including both Harmlins and Citadel) were well constructed and did not oblige any party to be dragged into aggressive wars, phony CBs or restrict any action on third parties (obviously they all mandated defence against direct aggression and forbade aggression between the friends, which is allegedly still the case without the paper). The exceptions to that are (i) the restriction in Härmlins about not helping an enemy of the other, and (ii) the similar clause in Citadel forbidding military action against OTPs (outside treaty partners) which was the cause of some debate after Karma.

It is certainly a good idea not to trap yourself with the treaties you sign. That is why I have always approved of carefully considering which treaties to sign and how they are worded, and Grämlins used to share that opinion and was not trapped by its treaties (certainly not since leaving Continuum, which had some fairly trapping clauses). This is an ideological decision in my opinion, as the practical circumstances before they cancelled everything allowed them the freedom to make decisions of conscience anyway (as they showed in Karma and the TPF incident).

It is good to see Harmlins preserved, as that is one of the most symbolic treaties ever to exist – and in my opinion certainly the most symbolic remaining in existence today. But I'm saddened that some of the other extremely symbolic ones – Citadel, MK and Fark in particular – do not (well Citadel does, but it will be difficult to keep its shine with TOP so dominant in NS).

[Zangmonkey]

Did they do that beforehand?

Whether or not it was done is secondary to whether or not it was asked of us.

[Kindom of Goon]

Great to see this finally happen, wish you did this when I was still there.

Good luck, hope this works out as well as it should.

[HeinousOne]

More alliances dare to do what Gramlins is doing then myself and perhaps many others may once again become more interested in the politics and maneuverings of this world. They are like training wheels.

Edit: Yes, I am talking about treaties.

Edited January 18, 2010 by HeinousOne

[Micheal Malone]

More alliances dare to do what Gramlins is doing then myself and perhaps many others may once again become more interested in the politics and maneuverings of this world. They are like training wheels.

If more people did this, there would be less politics and more boom.

Although, one could argue that this will result in less boom. The uncertain nature of who goes where (as people play before wars) then makes the risk greater for a war. Not knowing for certain that an enemy's allies will or will not follow them makes it harder to count if you're going to go into a winning or losing situation.

Either way, from all the back slapping and snide remarks it's entertaining to watch who will sink the knife first.

[HeinousOne]

If more people did this, there would be less politics and more boom.

Although, one could argue that this will result in less boom. The uncertain nature of who goes where (as people play before wars) then makes the risk greater for a war. Not knowing for certain that an enemy's allies will or will not follow them makes it harder to count if you're going to go into a winning or losing situation.

Either way, from all the back slapping and snide remarks it's entertaining to watch who will sink the knife first.

You are correct with every remark.

I really do not think that it is possible for there to be less politics in this world. It thrives on such. It would definately change the politics though. It would change it by not conveniently spelling out for you what will happen should anything happen. When you do that you only have two endings. Either everything happens exactly like you expect it to happen, which is boring, or something goes wrong and some folks dont follow their treaties which gets everyone irritated. Why not do away with the boredom and irritation?

Do away with treaties. Let the politics evolve.

Edited January 18, 2010 by HeinousOne

[Micheal Malone]

You are correct with every remark but it changes everything.

I really do not think that it is possible for there to be less politics in this world. It thrives on such. It would definately change the politics though. It would change it by not conveniently spelling out for you what will happen should anything happen. When you do that you only have two endings. Either everything happens exactly like you expect it to happen, which is boring, or something goes wrong and some folks dont follow their treaties which gets everyone irritated. Why not do away with the boredom and irritation?

Do away with treaties. What the politics evolve.

Doing so then changes the game less from being a political landscape that people can reference to the OWF for, and more to a climate of cliquish IRC chaps running around causing a ruckus. Not to say that's not the current political climate, however at this current juncture, people can at least still reference the OWF & Wiki to find out semi-relevant and up-to-date information about their enemies.

Personally, I'm for anything that causes more wars. If only the Tri's would take the chain off my neck....

[HeinousOne]

Doing so then changes the game less from being a political landscape that people can reference to the OWF for, and more to a climate of cliquish IRC chaps running around causing a ruckus. Not to say that's not the current political climate, however at this current juncture, people can at least still reference the OWF & Wiki to find out semi-relevant and up-to-date information about their enemies.

Personally, I'm for anything that causes more wars. If only the Tri's would take the chain off my neck....

Come on now, gotta take off the training wheels. What will happen is people will still take the time to comment on what is going on as something will always be going on. Only it will be chatter about who will join in with so and so if they live up to their threats and who will join in defending so and so if those threats are made good on. Without a script (treaties) you will have to actually *GASP* figure it out for yourselves while posting about it.

This doesn't mean that it will only be discussed in other channels (OOC: In IRC) but more people will come to places such as this to weigh the tide of public opinion as such will become more necessary to judge when a peace of paper doesn't tell you the script. It will Increase activity, not decrease it. More people will be needed to actually take part in such so an alliance maintains on the cusp of such Intelligence. The leaders won't have a cheat sheet in front of them so they cant ignore everyone else as those who complain about the backdoor discussions seem to think they do.

So really they will have to reference the OWF even more and the Wiki will just change what it addresses. Instead of showing the cheat sheets it will show summaries of actions and events and from such everyone will have to try and predict future events.

[Micheal Malone]

Come on now, gotta take off the training wheels. What will happen is people will still take the time to comment on what is going on as something will always be going on. Only it will be chatter about who will join in with so and so if they live up to their threats and who will join in defending so and so if those threats are made good on. Without a script (treaties) you will have to actually *GASP* figure it out for yourselves while posting about it.

This doesn't mean that it will only be discussed in other channels (OOC: In IRC) but more people will come to places such as this to weigh the tide of public opinion as such will become more necessary to judge when a peace of paper doesn't tell you the script. It will Increase activity, not decrease it. More people will be needed to actually take part in such so an alliance maintains on the cusp of such Intelligence. The leaders won't have a cheat sheet in front of them so they cant ignore everyone else as those who complain about the backdoor discussions seem to think they do.

So really they will have to reference the OWF even more and the Wiki will just change what it addresses. Instead of showing the cheat sheets it will show summaries of actions and events and from such everyone will have to try and predict future events.

I would like some of whatever you're taking However, I guess only time will tell on this one. I of course hope that your view is correct.. It is sad to see times when more and more "established" members are roguing out and quitting the game, or just deleting out of the blue due to boredom.

[HeinousOne]

I would like some of whatever you're taking However, I guess only time will tell on this one. I of course hope that your view is correct.. It is sad to see times when more and more "established" members are roguing out and quitting the game, or just deleting out of the blue due to boredom.

It is good stuff.

I too have begun my own final countdown so to speak. I hope what Gramlins has done catches on although they are in a position most others cannot boast. That being one in which is that they are pretty untouchable themselves in this world. There are a few that could go after them but it really is not feasible for them to do such. Thus the Gramlins are actually in a more secure state without these treaties while many others may not be.

I still hope others will look to this and see what it could mean for the world should it catch on.

[DogeWilliam]

Truly a bold new path. Good luck Gramlins.

[scutterbug]

I'm sure you would like to know what was said,

but I'm not going to tell you

We and MHA consult on anything that will impact the other and alot more besides, if you want to know more about how it works you could always apply for membership of either,

For now simply accept that Harmlins represents a greater bond than any other in CN history, including OoO and that where it matters both alliances move as one

LOL what bull, majority of our membership only became aware of this paperless move when omas was sent over to explain it. Seriously the last few months gre have shared hardly anything.

[Bob]

LOL what bull, majority of our membership only became aware of this paperless move when omas was sent over to explain it.

Is that the fault of GRE, or the fault of MHA government for not communicating it down?

[WorkingClassRuler]

The latter, though some non-Gov knew as well.

[Bob]

The latter, though some non-Gov knew as well.

I would have figured as much. It would be kinda weird if GRE was responsible for telling your members things