The New Grämlins

[Solaris]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='06 May 2010 - 04:48 AM' timestamp='1273110493' post='2288468']
So you say and everyone else disagrees. Of course the fact that everyone esle would disagree is something that should have been easly to predict. So again, I ask. What is the point? I assume your goal was something other than destroying your reputation, your friendships and your alliance. So its safe to assume you have failed at reaching your goal. What is the point of pursuing this fools fally? Will you see your alliance die over this mystery goal? And how could anybody have failed to see that this course would lead to anything other than failure?
[/quote]Sometimes the cognitive bias known as sunk cost, can do miracles to people.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='06 May 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1273160562' post='2289055']
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?
[/quote]
My guess is worse actually.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU6m5UqLx9M"]Maybe about as well as this one.[/url]

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='05 May 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1273110839' post='2288485']
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]

In my opinion they do not deserve to negotiate the terms of their surrender. I don't see the need to compromise with them given the nature of and reason for the conflict.

Their reps via the ESA do [b]not[/b] outline or explicitly define culpability. The comments in many threads indicate that they do not, in fact, agree to wrongdoing on their part. In reality, they paid to be released; paid to make the war "go away", if you will. Admission of defeat was meaningless in the ESA because it was obvious to all that IRON was defeated. Give the nature of IRON's actions they did not deserve to negotiate anything.
Our friends were ok with the "tradition" of "pay reps, end war" but we're not. They are free to make their own decisions and run their alliances how see fit... but I don't have to agree and that doesn't make the way GRE wants to do things inherently wrong.

EDIT: Also, Umar, here's another post highlighting my point:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2289141

Edited May 6, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='06 May 2010 - 07:51 AM' timestamp='1273157460' post='2289005']

You said several times that us not accepting unconditional surrender makes us cowards.[/quote]
I didn't say you were afraid of us. In fact, I've said multiple times that you're irrationally afraid of the unknown.

[quote]I first laid out generally why unconditional surrender is the worst term ever to be demanded (which you did not understand).[/quote]
And I refuted your position and explained mine. Authority is not harsh, [b]abusing[/b] authority can be.
[quote]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).[/quote]

And, again, I've outlined why you cannot possibly, by the rules of engagement, [OOC] game mechanics [/OOC] "hand over your sovereignty".

[quote]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.[/quote]

This is your disconnect.
I have made the accusation that you are afraid of the unknown. You cannot rebut that on the basis that continuing war is brave. You should outline either why it is acceptable for you to be afraid of this unknown or why it is not unknown.



[quote]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.[/quote]

The chats with Von Droz hardly constitute a negotiation.



[quote]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.
[/quote]

You don't need to refute the source to refute a logical progression.
What I explained about how IRON/DAWN could never be forced to follow harsh terms is not an issue dependent on the source. You cannot refute the logic by assuming I am a liar.

[andrew734]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']
In my opinion they do not deserve to negotiate the terms of their surrender. I don't see the need to compromise with them given the nature of and reason for the conflict.

Their reps via the ESA do [b]not[/b] outline or explicitly define culpability. The comments in many threads indicate that they do not, in fact, agree to wrongdoing on their part. In reality, they paid to be released; paid to make the war "go away", if you will. Admission of defeat was meaningless in the ESA because it was obvious to all that IRON was defeated. Give the nature of IRON's actions they did not deserve to negotiate anything.
Our friends were ok with the "tradition" of "pay reps, end war" but we're not. They are free to make their own decisions and run their alliances how see fit... but I don't have to agree and that doesn't make the way GRE wants to do things inherently wrong.
[/quote]

So you are trying to get us to say that we were wrong in declaring on CnG by doing what? sitting there and waiting till its your turn to take the trip on the train to ZI like the rest of your alliance is experiencing?

You are no closer to getting your wish of having us "unconditionally surrender" than you were when we signed the easter sunday accords.

[cristoir]

If i remember correctly (and theres so much in this thread that i might be mistaken) it was mentioned somewhere that GRE were supposed to have elections yesterday.

If so anybody know how they went?
I mean you never know they might have even elected a Conclave thats sick of this fiasco but i doubt it.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='cristoir' date='06 May 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1273167240' post='2289141']
If i remember correctly (and theres so much in this thread that i might be mistaken) it was mentioned somewhere that GRE were supposed to have elections yesterday.

If so anybody know how they went?
I mean you never know they might have even elected a Conclave thats sick of this fiasco but i doubt it.
[/quote]

Vote is not closed yet.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='cristoir' date='06 May 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1273167240' post='2289141']
If i remember correctly (and theres so much in this thread that i might be mistaken) it was mentioned somewhere that GRE were supposed to have elections yesterday.

If so anybody know how they went?
I mean you never know they might have even elected a Conclave thats sick of this fiasco but i doubt it.
[/quote]

elections end today

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='andrew734' date='06 May 2010 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1273166836' post='2289131']
So you are trying to get us to say that we were wrong in declaring on CnG by doing what? sitting there and waiting till its your turn to take the trip on the train to ZI like the rest of your alliance is experiencing?

You are no closer to getting your wish of having us "unconditionally surrender" than you were when we signed the easter sunday accords.
[/quote]


Now then, who was saying that IRON surrendering and signing the ESA was an allocution and them admitting culpability?

Edited May 6, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 11:24 PM' 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]

ya'll did so at least once. The terms were offered originally and was a legitimate gov decision. Then when IRON/DAWN accepted the first time, ya'll withdrew them. Stating that a different gov was in place at that time means nothing. the offer was on the table and was a legitimate gov offer. if ya'll did not like it, ya'll should have withdrew that offer long before ya'll did. as for the second one, i would have to find the logs again before i comment on it.

[Yggdrazil]

Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn covenant indicate a plot.- Sun Tsu
From your semantic obfuscation we can discern there is more here than is being disclosed.Your continued sophistry with the language indicates a more insidious stink permeates all that GRE does now.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1273166253' post='2289126']
And, again, I've outlined why you cannot possibly, by the rules of engagement, [OOC] game mechanics [/OOC] "hand over your sovereignty".
[/quote]

i am kinda getting tired of this argument. it simply makes me feel that nothing NPO/Heg did could have been nearly as bad as CnG, SF, or anyone else has said it was. Viceroys- well, as you stated, it is impossible for Viceroys to actually have any control over the alliances they were supposed to control. Forced disbandments- impossible. so, if you are stating that there is no way for IRON/DAWN to hand over their sovereignty, then it is a safe bet, that nothing NPO did was not without full consent of those they did it to. gotcha.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1273166253' post='2289126']
I didn't say you were afraid of us. In fact, I've said multiple times that you're irrationally afraid of the unknown.
[/quote]

Here is what you said:
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
[u][b]We are resolute and they are unreasonably cowardly in this circumstance.[/b][/u]
The notion of "slavery" is ill-placed in this situation because there is no possible way, by any means, that we could [b]force[/b] them to do anything.
[/quote]
You are saying we are being cowards by not caving in to your demands, that is exactly what you said in your own words. I explained to you why we are not afraid of you, rather because it is so explicitly clear who you are, and how you roll, that we for this reason will not hand over our sovereignty to you.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1273166253' post='2289126']
And I refuted your position and explained mine. Authority is not harsh, [b]abusing[/b] authority can be.
[/quote]
And I made it clear that by offering the worst surrender term in history, you are already abusing authority beyond what has ever been done before, hence why since you insist on unconditional surrender, logic dictates as you do not consider this abusing authority in the first place. And when you cannot see this as abusing authority, I have to assume, in a very unemotional and non-fearful logic that many thing everyone else too would consider as abusing authority, you have absolutely no problem with either.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1273166253' post='2289126']
And, again, I've outlined why you cannot possibly, by the rules of engagement, [OOC] game mechanics [/OOC] "hand over your sovereignty".[/quote]
The only rule touching this is giving you access to our halls, someone made a nice list of things that are very much possible by what you consider acceptable (since you do it yourself) and what is possible by the ultimate law as well.
So you have not outlined any limits, rather you attempt to avoid the facts of the situation by picking the one and only limitation to what you can do.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1273166253' post='2289126']
This is your disconnect.
I have made the accusation that you are afraid of the unknown. You cannot rebut that on the basis that continuing war is brave. You should outline either why it is acceptable for you to be afraid of this unknown or why it is not unknown.
[/quote]
I explained above why there is no fear involved, rather because of your track record as an alliance in the current conflict: gRAMlins consider the worst and strictest surrender in history (in your own words:) as "not abusing authority", that considers our alliances as "criminal", an alliance that proved that it doesn't even honor its own legislation with the excuse of "our internal interpretation says otherwise and is the only one that counts", an alliance where you cannot even trust negotiations with their leaders, an alliance that has ruined its name faster than pretty much any alliance with such a previously good name, an alliance that in a conflict where it has lost more than 10 members, a million NS, from a position of being the victor and demanding reps, still does not even realize their own position.
You are an alliance so completely, 100% insane, made of failure and incompetent, and because of that, because we [b][u]know[/u][/b] that, because we can [u][b]see[/b][/u] who you are, exactly because of that do we expect nothing short of you at best continuing to behave as absurdly and incredibly irrational and incompetent as you do now, and thus logically - completely non-fearfully - expect your terms to be on par with all of this as well.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1273166253' post='2289126']
The chats with Von Droz hardly constitute a negotiation.
[/quote]
You weren't there, others were, among those myself. It was a negotiation, it was never stated by him being anything but that, no way your pitiful attempts to redefine and spin absolutely clear facts will work. Don't even try it, please, it's not gonna help you, your alliance, rather it will help to sink the image of your alliance to an even lower low, and make you look nothing but foolish.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1273166253' post='2289126']
You don't need to refute the source to refute a logical progression.
What I explained about how IRON/DAWN could never be forced to follow harsh terms is not an issue dependent on the source. You cannot refute the logic by assuming I am a liar.
[/quote]
I made it clear that nothing coming from your government will be trusted, simply because whenever something might come from them and other parts of your government or the alliance itself doesn't like what has been said, I have to expect that the next day the content is no longer valid. In short, your own actions which you pitifully attempt to spin away above contributed to the complete devaluation of any word coming from your alliance.
You (gRAMlins) are not even one bit trustworthy.

Edited May 6, 2010 by shilo

[lanceman1972]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='05 May 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1273128450' post='2288789']
Hell yeah! i am willing to put money on 'White Peace' at 15 to 1 odds ..

EDIT: Undecided on the end date however.
[/quote]

Yeah, 15 to 1 might be a bit too much, I was enjoying a nice dram of whisky when I wrote that. After sleeping on it, my guess is that all parties eventually come to a grudging acceptance of white peace.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 May 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1273168620' post='2289161']
ya'll did so at least once. The terms were offered originally and was a legitimate gov decision. Then when IRON/DAWN accepted the first time, ya'll withdrew them. Stating that a different gov was in place at that time means nothing. the offer was on the table and was a legitimate gov offer. if ya'll did not like it, ya'll should have withdrew that offer long before ya'll did. as for the second one, i would have to find the logs again before i comment on it.
[/quote]

During that discussion, there was no indication that IRON/DAWN was interested in terms. Consequently, no vote was held to ratify.
With no communication with GRE in the meantime, IRON came back a month after that discussion and said "oh we accept your offer!" as if any offer was official, standing and valid.
GRE is not responsible for their assumptions.
A different government being in place (I was in government at the time) is irrelevant.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 May 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1273169485' post='2289173']
i am kinda getting tired of this argument. it simply makes me feel that nothing NPO/Heg did could have been nearly as bad as CnG, SF, or anyone else has said it was. Viceroys- well, as you stated, it is impossible for Viceroys to actually have any control over the alliances they were supposed to control. Forced disbandments- impossible. so, if you are stating that there is no way for IRON/DAWN to hand over their sovereignty, then it is a safe bet, that nothing NPO did was not without full consent of those they did it to. gotcha.
[/quote]

GRE is not NPO. GRE doesn't have the muscle and ability to do anything NPO did.
Like I have said over and over again if GRE demanded a viceroy and IRON said "no" what could GRE do? You'd be a fool to assert that CnG would back us in any such endeavor.

The notion of forcing disbandment does depend on the consent of the alliance disbanding. I can't help that people complied with such demands or that NPO wielded the strength to make the alternative something like EZI. None of this applies to the current situation.
Even if GRE demanded IRON disband there is no backing force to implement a "worse" alternative. Again, CnG would never back us on such an endeavor.
And if IRON actually complied with such an outrageous term (and the cyberverse didn't stand behind them in opposition to the tyranny) then they would be the worst of cowards.

This thread is littered with people saying that GRE is in no position to force IRON to do anything. If you believe that, a surrender will not change the circumstance.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']
In my opinion they do not deserve to negotiate the terms of their surrender. I don't see the need to compromise with them given the nature of and reason for the conflict.
[/quote]

You had better hope they have more honor and less sanctimonious BS then your alliance does, now that you will be on the opposite sides of this surrender. You had better hope they will compromise and negotiate terms with your alliance that entered the war without a treaty and then tried to keep them in a state of war with the ludicrous demand of unconditional surrender long after the people you claimed to be defending found peace. Me? I do not expect they will demand much of you. After all you have done more damage to your alliance then any war ever could. I expect they will let you off easy and Gramlins will fade away into the dustin bin of history as a lesson to all on the folly of arrogance.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1273170314' post='2289189']
GRE is not NPO. GRE doesn't have the muscle and ability to do anything NPO did.

This thread is littered with people saying that GRE is in no position to force IRON to do anything. If you believe that, a surrender will not change the circumstance.
[/quote]

I find it curious that you will acknowledge these points, yet still somehow think attempting to wring unconditional surrender out of IRON is a wise, or even possible, course of action.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']
In my opinion they do not deserve to negotiate the terms of their surrender. I don't see the need to compromise with them given the nature of and reason for the conflict.[/quote]
Why not? You still haven't explained the rationale behind your thinking here. There must be a reason as to why you believe what you do.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']
Their reps via the ESA do [b]not[/b] outline or explicitly define culpability.[/quote]
So would an amendment to the Accords be sufficient to satisfy you in this regard? A specific line outlining/defining culpability? I think that would be reasonable - I don't see why IRON wouldn't be amenable to this either.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']The comments in many threads indicate that they do not, in fact, agree to wrongdoing on their part.[/quote]
Irrelevant, I think. I mean, we can't take what you say in this thread as Gre policy, can we? Can we hold IRON to the same standard? Additionally, can you produce evidence that IRON's government have explicitly stated that IRON has committed no wrongdoing with respect to the war? I might have missed those posts but seeing you've asserted this, you should back it up.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']In reality, they paid to be released; paid to make the war "go away", if you will.[/quote]
That's your opinion, I don't know whether it's actually the case or not. The reparations can be also regarded as a [i]de facto[/i] admission of culpability, which is just as honest an interpretation as yours.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']Admission of defeat was meaningless in the ESA because it was obvious to all that IRON was defeated.[/quote]
So what you're looking for is an amendment specifically expressing war guilt. As above, surely it would be a relatively simple matter for the Accords to be amended in this regard?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']Give the nature of IRON's actions they did not deserve to negotiate anything.[/quote]
Why the heck not? As above, what is the reason for this? You keep harping on this point but you remain silent on the rationale for your stance.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']Our friends were ok with the "tradition" of "pay reps, end war" but we're not.[/quote]
Why not?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1273165483' post='2289119']They are free to make their own decisions and run their alliances how see fit... but I don't have to agree and that doesn't make the way GRE wants to do things inherently wrong.[/quote]
Of course but it's a bit hard to understand the reasoning behind your behaviour if it's not clearly explained.

Edit: Which, as an afterthought, has been an ongoing problem in this discourse. It could easily be interpreted as a deliberate obfuscation on your part.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Aeternos Astramora]

Gre just lost a nation that was ~143K NS (or was it two nations totaling 143K NS?). Also, blackdigital of Sierra Leone is at 22 days inactive, who is 185K NS.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='06 May 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1273202045' post='2289703']
Gre just lost a nation that was ~143K NS (or was it two nations totaling 143K NS?). Also, blackdigital of Sierra Leone is at 22 days inactive, who is 185K NS.
[/quote]
I believe it was two. Earlier today they had 51 nations under their AA.

EDIT: (I think.)

Edited May 7, 2010 by Ashoka the Great

[Schad]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='06 May 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1273202045' post='2289703']
Gre just lost a nation that was ~143K NS (or was it two nations totaling 143K NS?). Also, blackdigital of Sierra Leone is at 22 days inactive, who is 185K NS.
[/quote]

[url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=72986]This nation, perhaps?[/url]. They've been sitting at 50 members for a day or two previously.

[andrew734]

[quote name='Schad' date='06 May 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1273202516' post='2289724']
[url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=72986]This nation, perhaps?[/url]. They've been sitting at 50 members for a day or two previously.
[/quote]


yes it was anti viet cong

[Delta1212]

And 242k NS is set to delete from two nations on Sunday. That would put them at just under 2.4 mil NS and 47 members. Just think, a little over a month ago, they had over 4 mil NS, 69 members and good PR.

This was a fantastic plan, I think.

[Yggdrazil]

Given the irrationally Gre has displayed, what if it was planned.All the upper members are long time players and may have reached the point they did not wish to play anymore. If that number was quite large, rather than disband the alliance the members chose an unorthodox method of leaving. Keeping Iron/Dawn engaged, delaying Iron/Dawn rep payments and just fading away until just a few are left under the AA and then disbanding. This is just speculation, yet it explains a lot.
If true; they are laughing.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Yggdrazil