Never-before-heard Grämlins tell-all itt

[LiquidMercury]

LM - That treaty was signed in the spirit of the times. Times when do define your friends you needed treaties and times again when in order to show that you were "blood brothers" you needed to hold treaties that could not be cancelled. As I pointed out in my post I said that I would have done the exact same as Gramlins in this position, but merely illustrated that the move would have been far more ground-breaking had the MHA tie been cut. The reasoning for not doing so is entirely beside the point, however the precedent being set is now weakened by that tie.

I'm well aware of when the treaty was signed and why....I was one of the strongest supporters of the treaty while in Gremlins and was also a holder of a Harmlin mask on MHA boards. If Gremlins could of canceled that treaty along with the rest, I fully believe they would of. They did not, because as I said, they were unable to. So saying that it would of been better if they had cut a tie that cannot be cut doesn't make much sense.

[Veneke]

LM - I mentioned nothing about their ability (or lack thereof) to cut the tie. I am not arguing with you on this, I accept that they would not cut the MHA tie. This, however, does not take from the fact that because the tie remains, this move is weaker than it could have been.

Edit: Typo fail: Got my "would"'s and "could"'s mixed up.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Veneke

[LiquidMercury]

LM - I mentioned nothing about their ability (or lack thereof) to cut the tie. I am not arguing with you on this, I accept that they could not cut the MHA tie. This, however, does not take from the fact that because the tie remains, this move is weaker than it could have been.

And the flaw is where you say "could" because since it could not be cut, it "could" not be any stronger of a move.

[Veneke]

LM - Quite the contrary. You presuppose that it was impossible to cut the tie. This is not the case (unless you are somehow saying that you are physically incapable of doing so). They tie "could" have been cut, it would have cost Gramlins significantly, but it could have been done. A simple call to MHA explaining the situation would likely have taken most of the hurt out of it, particularly when you explain the situation and your new direction to them. I'm not saying it would be the smartest move going, and as I've repeatedly said it would not be a move I'd have done in their position, but it is within the realm of possibility.

[Stetson76]

...Who cares if there is an outward sign of the relationship? If I'm planning on building a coalition and want to know if Gremlins is in or not, I'll just go ask them, same as anyone else could do.

So every time Athens wants to raid a small alliance they need to ask every alliance on Bob whether they're friends and will defend them?

...If Gremlins could of canceled that treaty along with the rest, I fully believe they would of. They did not, because as I said, they were unable to. So saying that it would of been better if they had cut a tie that cannot be cut doesn't make much sense.

Just because there is no cancellation clause, or indeed, a way to cancel the treaty means nothing in this new realm of arbitrary definitions.

Heck, what the MHA members have been saying is true regardless, according to this they can just unwrite the treaty as the only thing binding them is the "nature of these Accords" and the "ideals of these Accords".

"The nature of these Accords means they cannot be broken, so strong is our commitment to the Härmlin dream. We the undersigned Alliances have come forth in a show of complete brotherhood and unity, binding ourselves now and forevermore to the fate of the other and the ideals of these Accords. All Härmlin are One. "

They're not bound to the Accords themselves, just the ideals of them. Bam! You're welcome Gramlins, now you make a clean sweep.

<Also, someone should update their wiki as all of their treaties are still showing.>

[Bob Janova]

Any treaty can be amended, and therefore cancelled, by the mutual consent of all parties, so if MHA were to agree, the paper could be discarded. (The precedent for this is the OoO, which had fairly similar wording.)

So every time Athens wants to raid a small alliance they need to ask every alliance on Bob whether they're friends and will defend them?

If small alliances are not able to be attacked for no reason so easily, that will be some good to come out of this move.

Something that is highly ironic and amusing is that you've essentially stated you believe in war of sides. Initial CB is all that matters and everyone who joins side with initial defensive CB is defensive. This is ironic because I've been informed by Gremlins week ago that you do not believe in war of sides. That's it's "old Gremlins" that did that.

Sigrun is 'old Grämlins', so that isn't too surprising. While I agree with her in principle though it's almost a certainty that Grämlins will be accused of 'bandwagoning' and starting an 'offensive war' as soon as they enter any conflict.

[SynthFG]

Any treaty can be amended, and therefore cancelled, by the mutual consent of all parties, so if MHA were to agree, the paper could be discarded. (The precedent for this is the OoO, which had fairly similar wording.)

If small alliances are not able to be attacked for no reason so easily, that will be some good to come out of this move.

Sigrun is 'old Grämlins', so that isn't too surprising. While I agree with her in principle though it's almost a certainty that Grämlins will be accused of 'bandwagoning' and starting an 'offensive war' as soon as they enter any conflict.

Bob you of all people should know that Harmlins has always been more than a treaty and way more than the OofO ever was, the paper could be torn up at any time but the bond remain,

and again you know the codex limits the type of war we can involve ourselves with,

If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who is on the right side and who clearly needs our help, it's unlikely that any future war we enter could or would be considered bandwaggoning

[pigsticker]

why all the talk? put your words into action?

You could either attack Gre or attack MK/FoK/Argent/Umbrella/Fark and see what happens?

So every few months, you attack Gre or another alliance whom you believe Gre should be defending.

Then you will get to see their new FA in action.

Isn't that simple?

[Kowalski]

Good luck with this. We'll have to wait for the next war to see if things really are the same, I look forward to it.

[Ch33kY]

Congratulations (is it wrong for me to congratulate treaty cancelations?) and welcome to political ambiguity.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Ch33kY

[Saber]

Sigrun is 'old Grämlins', so that isn't too surprising. While I agree with her in principle though it's almost a certainty that Grämlins will be accused of 'bandwagoning' and starting an 'offensive war' as soon as they enter any conflict.

I quoted just Sigrun but one of current Gre members said the same thing.

[MrCyber]

If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who is on the right side and who clearly needs our help, it's unlikely that any future war we enter could or would be considered bandwaggoning

Which without a treaty would still be considered bandwaggoning by the rest of Planet Bob as the rest of Planet Bob doesn't care what you call it, they only care what they call it and since the beginning of Planet Bob the entrance of a war without a treaty has been called bandwaggoning. It's just as simple as that.

[Jtkode]

Show em ur not dead guys!

[Veneke]

MrCyber - No, quite simply no. I've never seen or heard any alliance decried as bandwaggoners if they moved in on the side that was outnumbered/outgunned. I should know, I was in one that did, and have been allied to more who have done the same. In each case, said alliances were lauded for their bravery.

[wenwillthisend]

Which without a treaty would still be considered bandwaggoning by the rest of Planet Bob as the rest of Planet Bob doesn't care what you call it, they only care what they call it and since the beginning of Planet Bob the entrance of a war without a treaty has been called bandwaggoning. It's just as simple as that.

If MK and C&G were to attack say GATO and GATO were getting curbstomped and we jumped in to help MK, yes then we would be bandwagoning.

If say NpO and co were slamming MK and C&G and NpO and co were the stronger side we would defend MK and would NOT be bandwagoning.

But, this is how simple it is. Attack our friends and we will defend them. Attack us, our friends will defends us.

[Doc Taco]

What an absolute load of rubbish.

Whilst it could be seen as noble or honourable you make this move. How many of your ex treaty partners do you expect to come to your aid in a time of war should you need it. Now they are no longer obligated to do so? Friendship is a rare thing to find on planet Bob and somehow I see this as only screwing yourself over.

Token answer to the haters in MHA that think i shouldn't post my views on the OWF, eat it.

MHA values free speech. The OWF is used to seeing the Grämlins bickering amongst themselves in public. I don't see why we should be any different.

[Boondock]

Which without a treaty would still be considered bandwaggoning by the rest of Planet Bob as the rest of Planet Bob doesn't care what you call it, they only care what they call it and since the beginning of Planet Bob the entrance of a war without a treaty has been called bandwaggoning. It's just as simple as that.

I'm pretty sure several people of "Planet Bob" have said that what you just defined as Bandwagoning is not, and by your logic any alliance that defends an alliance that is getting curb stomped is "bandwagoning"

Which is simply not true. It was defined pretty well earlier.

Also do people just skip over my posts? There have been so many statements about the MHA treaty in this thread. I'll put it simply.

1. It is uncancellable.

2. Even if it were canceled the exact same brotherhood would still be there, as if the treaty was still there.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Boondock

[Saber]

If MK and C&G were to attack say GATO and GATO were getting curbstomped and we jumped in to help MK, yes then we would be bandwagoning.

If say NpO and co were slamming MK and C&G and NpO and co were the stronger side we would defend MK and would NOT be bandwagoning.

But, this is how simple it is. Attack our friends and we will defend them. Attack us, our friends will defends us.

Call it bandwagonning or not vast majority of alliances would see declaration without defensive clause as offensive war. Be it on side that is being pummeled or not.

[Spaarlaamp]

MrCyber - No, quite simply no. I've never seen or heard any alliance decried as bandwaggoners if they moved in on the side that was outnumbered/outgunned. I should know, I was in one that did, and have been allied to more who have done the same. In each case, said alliances were lauded for their bravery.

So the Grämlins will only defend people in wars where they will be outnumbered/outgunned? Ok..

And which wars/alliances were that? I've never seen it.. (but that might be just me )

[kriekfreak]

Call it bandwagonning or not vast majority of alliances would see declaration without defensive clause as offensive war. Be it on side that is being pummeled or not.

I'd call those people or alliances silly. Like you need to have a treaty with someone to protect them. Even iFOK has stated it needed no doctrine (like the new Moldavi one) to protect alliances when we see fit.

[Azrael Alexander]

Personally I'd like to thank MOTU for freeing us just as he promised

I'd call those people or alliances silly. Like you need to have a treaty with someone to protect them. Even iFOK has stated it needed no doctrine (like the new Moldavi one) to protect alliances when we see fit.

Quite so.

[hizzy]

Call it bandwagonning or not vast majority of alliances would see declaration without defensive clause as offensive war. Be it on side that is being pummeled or not.

Well, when it comes time and they exercise their right to do whatever they damn well please then you can put in an official baseless complaint and the rest of us can promptly ignore it.

[Bilrow]

If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who is on the right side and who clearly needs our help, it's unlikely that any future war we enter could or would be considered bandwaggoning

In other words, "If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who we know won't lose a war and we won't have to sacrifice our precious nations".

[Ejayrazz]

"Bandwagoning"

People will complain about anything these days. If they feel the cause is right, go for it. I don't care about technical absurdity, I'll always stand up for what is right, so long as my alliance decides to follow my footsteps. Of course, this depends on certain mitigating circumstances and the current events present during that time, but regardless: DO what YOU feel is right.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Omas Nams]

In other words, "If we come in it will most likely be on behalf of a friend who we know won't lose a war and we won't have to sacrifice our precious nations".

We <3 you too Bilrow.

If we come in it will be because we believe that it's the right thing to do.