The New Grämlins

[Cormalek]

Oh Lord. Let's get back to Make-Sense town, should we?

Matthew, please stop teasing people. Your posts might be understandable to [b]you[/b], but can you please accept, that they are often [i]very[/i] hard to comprehend without knowing what you base them on? You keep accusing people of poor reading comprehension. It might be an outbreak of some cyber-virus clouding people's mind, or, [i]maybe[/i] you keep making unclear communicates.
[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='06 May 2010 - 03:50 AM' timestamp='1273110615' post='2288475']
You mean your [i]personal opinion[/i] on the facts.[/quote]

Nope, actual facts. Probably with a side of interpretation, but that's how is works.

I think that will not count as leaking information. Matthew - you don't seem fond of using too many words when you can understand your own statement. But can we get a Yay/Ney on those?:

Gramlin-IRON Peace terms facts examples:
- Gramlins were not present at peace talks (as in actual peace talks, IRC channel, all that jazz)
- IRON approached Matthew a month before peace talks to ask him what terms might be and he gave his opinion. Matthew is a part of overseeing body, and cannot [b]make[/b] any policies. The body that can, requires a vote on each.
- The Chill thing is another issue on which Matthew might give you some [i]facts[/i] on.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 05:21 AM' timestamp='1273116073' post='2288610']
Oh, I see.
So in IRON the post of one person constitutes an official stance? And that stance is still valid if I want to abide by it a month later? Sorry for being unfamiliar with your governmental structure.
GRE's doesn't work that way.[/quote]

McRabt was providing you information. You said that IRON no longer proposes white peace. A gov member informed you that white peace is still on the table. It doesn't mean you can treat this as official stance. But if you'd really [b]want[/b] the white peace, you could've acted on this information, and approach IRON through diplomatic channel.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1273116015' post='2288608']
No, I mean the facts.
[/quote]You are either lied to or lie to the readers of this thread.
You could expect that things said by a representative of an alliance on the negotiations table will actually represent that alliance's position. I would understand it if after reaching an agreement, that would require the approval of other bodies of Gramlins (the conclave, Ram, whatever). But to say that what is said by the guy representing you in the talks is meaningless is either wrong or means that there is no way to make any meaningful dealing with you.
But I guess that since it's Gramlins, normal reasoning does not apply here.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 06:29 AM' timestamp='1273116550' post='2288623']Absolutely.
And, as I said to some friends earlier today, sometimes a friend's duty is to let their friend take a little punishment to see the error of their ways.[/quote]This is exactly what I would expect MK to do.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='05 May 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1273120033' post='2288679']
I bet you can't even see if they did vote on it and are going completely by what your gov is feeding you.
[/quote]
I was in government during part of the war; and I have unrestricted forum access where they take votes.

[King Chill I]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='06 May 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1273120526' post='2288688']
- The Chill thing is another issue on which Matthew might give you some [i]facts[/i] on.
[/quote]

Umm hi, what?

You know you can ask Chill for Chill related facts (even though i have no idea how im involved in this).

[Golan 1st]

Oh, there is another thing, MPK
You use the phrase "reading comprehension" a lot. Have you ever considered the possibility that what you say and/or the way you say it makes you uncomprehended??

Edited May 6, 2010 by Golan 1st

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='05 May 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1273120254' post='2288680']
Reading comprehension 101: neither did I
I said I don't want to hand over the fate of my alliance and that of my ally over to an alliance that is currently self-destructing, and led by incompetent people[/quote]

Here's what you said (emphasis mine)
[quote name='shilo' date='05 May 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1273101970' post='2288202']
[b]Not because I fear you, believe me, I don't know anyone in IRON or DAWN who fears you guys[/b], you make me chuckle (you personally as well as your alliance) and sometimes facepalm real hard.
I just don't care to give you control over my alliance (which unconditional surrender is, I know you will not be able to comprehend this, still...) because... who wants to give control over his alliance to a bunch of incompetent nutjobs, so incompetent they managed to pretty much destroy their own alliance? Maybe you can understand my reluctance to hand over the fate of my alliance to any foreign power, much less you guys.
[/quote]

You're the only person talking about IRON/DAWN fearing GRE.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='05 May 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1273121128' post='2288698']
Oh, there is another thing, MPK
You use the phrase "reading comprehension" a lot. Have you ever considered the possibility that what you say and/or the way you say it makes you uncomprehended??
[/quote]

I think the more likely situation is that people aren't listening, they're waiting to talk.
There are many explanations in this thread for commonly repeated questions/points of contention.

And when I respond to people's questions and get quips or responses which clearly do not incorporate any of the fruits of the existent points in the thread; it's pretty obvious that people either haven't read or haven't understood what's been said.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='05 May 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1273120526' post='2288688']
Nope, actual facts. Probably with a side of interpretation, but that's how is works.

I think that will not count as leaking information. Matthew - you don't seem fond of using too many words when you can understand your own statement. But can we get a Yay/Ney on those?:

Gramlin-IRON Peace terms facts examples:
- Gramlins were not present at peace talks (as in actual peace talks, IRC channel, all that jazz)
- IRON approached Matthew a month before peace talks to ask him what terms might be and he gave his opinion. Matthew is a part of overseeing body, and cannot [b]make[/b] any policies. The body that can, requires a vote on each.
- The Chill thing is another issue on which Matthew might give you some [i]facts[/i] on.
[/quote]

You're not entirely accurate.
At the time I was asked what I thought reps might be, I was actually in the conclave. I am not anymore, now I'm on the council. (Don't blame me for the confusing redundancy in GRE government)
We were present, at one time, at some sort of preliminary talk. What was discussed in those talks was not voted on to be made official because we had no indication that IRON was interested. They were forgotten about following weeks of more war.
Even if it were voted on, IRON tried to "accept" them a month later despite that nothing was formally presented.
Then another GRE member said he thought it would be fine (again, without consulting the conclave for a vote).

Having a conclave vote on peace terms is not a new policy, and confusion over terms is not unique to this war or Gremlins government.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1273119520' post='2288665']
Official government policy is made with votes.
GRE has [b]always[/b] been this way and GRE has [b]always[/b] had to deal with people not understanding the difference between talking and official policy.
You'll have to forgive us all for forgetting to say "This is not official unless voted on" every other sentence.
[/quote]

Why would IRON/DAWN assume that a government member bringing them terms was not official i.e. had already been voted on? Unless you change your policy of not having anything writing, there's no way to believe that what they are being told is official.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 07:19 AM' timestamp='1273123166' post='2288736']
You're not entirely accurate.
At the time I was asked what I thought reps might be, I was actually in the conclave. I am not anymore, now I'm on the council. (Don't blame me for the confusing redundancy in GRE government)
We were present, at one time, at some sort of preliminary talk. What was discussed in those talks was not voted on to be made official because we had no indication that IRON was interested. They were forgotten about following weeks of more war.
Even if it were voted on, IRON tried to "accept" them a month later despite that nothing was formally presented.
Then another GRE member said he thought it would be fine (again, without consulting the conclave for a vote).

Having a conclave vote on peace terms is not a new policy, and confusion over terms is not unique to this war or Gremlins government.
[/quote]

See what I meant yesterday? Compare this post to those cryptic ones with simple "we didn't withdraw terms" - it might've taken longer to write, but a)you get your communicate across (um, or rather "you have a better chance of doing so ;-) ) b) it is much harder to successfully use the bewared "No U" reply

[lanceman1972]

Am I the only one who is losing interest in this conflict? Perhaps I'll start offering odds on when and how this whole thing ends. That might spark some more interest. Before anyone takes this too seriously, realize that I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just having a bit of fun with this. I think this thread was getting a bit too serious.
[b]
Current Odds of the Conflict Ending[/b]
- Week ending 5/8 (15 to 1)
- Week ending 5/15 (8 to 1)
- Week ending 5/22 (3 to 1)
- Week ending 5/29 (4 to 1)
[b]
Exotic bets[/b]
Gramlins pay reps (100 to 1)
White Peace (15 to 1)
Gramlins unconditionally surrenders (200 to 1)
IRON unconditionally surrenders (1000 to 1)
All nations on Planet Bob stop tech dealing with Gramlins (50 to 1)
New MDoAP between IRON and Gramlins (15 million to 1)
Gramlins issues a public apology to IRON on the OWF (3 to 1)

[Cataduanes]

Hell yeah! i am willing to put money on 'White Peace' at 15 to 1 odds ..

EDIT: Undecided on the end date however.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Cataduanes

[Schmoo]

I'll take the 100 to 1 on Grams paying reps, although I imagine it won't be much of a long shot in a few months.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1273116015' post='2288608']
snip
[/quote]
Hello there. I had a couple more questions, which you might have missed? Sorry to bug you about them but it'd be very kind of you to answer them for me, ta.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2288485"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2288485[/url]

[quote]So you're stating that the reason for the demand for unconditional surrender and your refusal to negotiate (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that because IRON and DAWN were the aggressive parties in the CnG-IRON war and that, as a result, they have forfeited their ability to talk to you about how to resolve that conflict? Why are you taking such an uncompromising position? What is the rationale for it?

With regard to the other question, ta for your answer. Here's a second question - do you believe that IRON and DAWN (as a result of the Easter Sunday accords) have demonstrated their culpability for the war and will pay for it as a result? I mean, given that your friends that you went in to bat for are OK with the concept that the guilty parties have surrendered, admitted their guilt and will pay for it, why aren't you OK with that too?
[/quote]

Edited May 6, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[nikko]

[quote name='lanceman1972' date='06 May 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1273128195' post='2288786']

[b]Exotic bets[/b]
Gramlins pay reps (100 to 1)

[/quote]

The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if gRAMlins end up paying IRON/DAWN's reps (or part of) to CnG.

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Stetson' date='05 May 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1273123669' post='2288743']
Why would IRON/DAWN assume that a government member bringing them terms was not official i.e. had already been voted on? Unless you change your policy of not having anything writing, there's no way to believe that what they are being told is official.
[/quote]

I think I know a reason for that: It was convenient for Gramlins have one member of high-gov offer what appeared to be an official policy (terms) in a show of cooperation, then when IRON actually agreed to it, which Gramlins didn't expect, Gramlins backed out using their technicality of exclaiming that it wasn't official, consequently continuing on with their indefinite war while attempting to blame it on IRON.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='06 May 2010 - 04:13 AM' timestamp='1273137195' post='2288845']
I think I know a reason for that: It was convenient for Gramlins have one member of high-gov offer what appeared to be an official policy (terms) in a show of cooperation, then when IRON actually agreed to it, which Gramlins didn't expect, Gramlins backed out using their technicality of exclaiming that it wasn't official, consequently continuing on with their indefinite war while attempting to blame it on IRON.
[/quote]

I agree that, that is the most likely scenario, but I'm just can't help myself in pointing out Matthew's inconsistencies! LOL

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='lanceman1972' date='06 May 2010 - 07:43 AM' timestamp='1273128195' post='2288786']
Am I the only one who is losing interest in this conflict? Perhaps I'll start offering odds on when and how this whole thing ends. That might spark some more interest. Before anyone takes this too seriously, realize that I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just having a bit of fun with this. I think this thread was getting a bit too serious.
[b]
Current Odds of the Conflict Ending[/b]
- Week ending 5/8 (15 to 1)
- Week ending 5/15 (8 to 1)
- Week ending 5/22 (3 to 1)
- Week ending 5/29 (4 to 1)
[b]
Exotic bets[/b]
Gramlins pay reps (100 to 1)
White Peace (15 to 1)
Gramlins unconditionally surrenders (200 to 1)
IRON unconditionally surrenders (1000 to 1)
All nations on Planet Bob stop tech dealing with Gramlins (50 to 1)
New MDoAP between IRON and Gramlins (15 million to 1)
Gramlins issues a public apology to IRON on the OWF (3 to 1)
[/quote]

Gramlins wont pay reps, the codex wont allow for it.

[Dom Zak]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='06 May 2010 - 06:10 AM' timestamp='1273140620' post='2288861']
Gramlins wont pay reps, the codex wont allow for it.
[/quote]

Oh, they still follow that thing?

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1273110053' post='2288453']
Are you implying that I can't take the unofficial remarks of IRON and DAWN members in this thread as official terms and then try to accept them a month later as if they were valid?
[/quote]
When DAWN sends a Government member to sit and negotiate with another alliance whether it be peace terms or a treaty that member was given the authority to offer terms that we all have voted on. If they offer something that we have not agreed upon then the honourable thing to do is keep your word and agreement and in private give that government member a stern talking too.

I will give you and example. IRON and DAWN will accept Gramlins "Unconditional Surrender" I don't have any authority to issue that statement but why don't you offer your " Unconditional Surrender"? I will take the stern talking to, it would be worth it.




[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1273116454' post='2288622']
There would be more dignity in your position if you didn't try to paint GRE as chicken little. It's not like I'm here complaining about the ongoing war.
[/quote]
Of course you are not complaining we haven't attacked you yet. You think you are safe , you think you have enough of a warchest to rebuild, you live in an altered reality. If you ever come to realize that you need a new plan to replace Ram's "They will Unconditionally Surrender, trust me, they will." Then I expect to see Gramlins start complaining about the injustice of the on-going war. But I don't expect to see you complaining when you don't understand the position you are in.




[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1273119520' post='2288665']
Official government policy is made with votes.GRE has [b]always[/b] been this way and GRE has [b]always[/b] had to deal with people not understanding the difference between talking and official policy.You'll have to forgive us all for forgetting to say "This is not official unless voted on" every other sentence.
[/quote]
Hint: Vote first, then talk. Solves the problem.




[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1273119832' post='2288672']
No, I don't have / can't give facts about what the terms will be after IRON surrenders.I do have facts about the accusation that we offered then went back on any terms.
[/quote]
Well my reading comprehension is just fine. No one can provide the facts about what the terms will be after IRON surrenders since they have no intention of surrendering. What you could provide are the "Terms you have right now, before IRON surrenders." Who knows, if you offer them enough reps they might just do it.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='06 May 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1273140620' post='2288861']
Gramlins wont pay reps, the codex wont allow for it.
[/quote]
It won't allow it for defensive wars, which this is not. I'd take that bet too, I think it's very likely that when Grämlins finally get sick of their semantic games DAWN and IRON require them to pay off some of their reps. The war will certainly either end with white peace or Grämlins paying reps so I don't think you should have the odds of those so profitable . (3 million on each of them from me is a guaranteed win of at least 39m!)

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1273121287' post='2288708']
Here's what you said (emphasis mine)


You're the only person talking about IRON/DAWN fearing GRE.
[/quote]

You said several times that us not accepting unconditional surrender makes us cowards.
I first laid out generally why unconditional surrender is the worst term ever to be demanded (which you did not understand).
I then laid out further why handing over the sovereignty of two alliance to your alliance (which unconditional surrender is, I know you don't understand, let's just assume you do and go along with the argument) an alliance completely incompetent, irrational and self-destructive is a more than a clear cut no-no (not to mention that fact that handing over the sovereignty to any alliance is generally not good).

It's thus no cowardice to refuse to let another alliance not even capable of running itself imply the harshest surrender terms in history on your own alliance, rather, it's smart and brave to fight a war with no end in sight for the foreseeable future with the costs associated to it.



Regarding your "terms that were never officially offered and then accepted a month later BS": when any gov official of an alliance goes to offer and agree to surrender terms in a negotiation, it's the duty of this official to point out a) that those terms are not official b) this person cannot speak on behalf of the alliance
Otherwise, anyone can rightly so assume that a member of government is speaking on behalf of the alliance.

I'll give you an example: I negotiated most of DAWN's surrender terms for DAWN. Since we are a democracy, I could not accept them on behalf of DAWN. So I said: "alright, I think those terms are ok, but we first have to vote on them, I will get back to you with the vote"
Since this clearly was never mentioned (and believe me, I do respect the fact that an alliance votes on things first...) all that occurred is that you guys messed up, badly. Though in line of all the other countless messups, I can see why this is the norm for you guys.

All this did though is that I don't trust a word of what comes from you guys, and short of an announcement on the OWF signed by everyone in gRAMlins, will be considered a lie by me.

[Ejayrazz]

Codex says not to offer terms they themselves wouldn't consider; GRE wouldn't accept unconditional surrender and anyone saying otherwise is a complete fool. Matthew PK isn't an idiot, but he is defending an alliance which is because, well, it is partially his duty. Matthew, you're an old Gremlin, them not telling you what their plans are is in itself redundant; apparently they have no trust in you. Dancing around this fact will get you no where, but you're arguing blindly for an alliance which its leaders puts themselves before the rest of the alliance. "We want to try something new," shouldn't outweigh bleeding members.

[Bilrow]

It's time for Gremlins friends to sit down and have an intervention before they end up hurting themselves too much.

Course that could be the problem, they don't have any friends left who care enough to tell them they are !@#$@#$ up.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Bilrow' date='06 May 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1273160423' post='2289053']
It's time for Gremlins friends to sit down and have an intervention before they end up hurting themselves too much.

Course that could be the problem, they don't have any friends left who care enough to tell them they are !@#$@#$ up.
[/quote]

I've heard, but have no first-hand accounts, that there have been some gentle attempts to talk to them.

I suppose those conversations have gone about as well as this has?