The New Grämlins

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1273510042' post='2293671']
It's completely retarded for a standard to make "friendship" and "piece of paper" mutually inclusive.



If what Gremlins is doing were in any way insidious then you *might* have a leg to stand on. On the contrary, I have asserted many times that [b]we're not doing what you say we're doing[/b]
It doesn't matter to me how many times the masses say "Ya huh!"
[/quote]
Congratulations on cherry picking some quotes to attack. You still haven't answered my questions that I posed in my previous post.

You say that IRON are criminals for attacking CnG for no reason (they did, infact, have a reason - it just doesn't agree with you). I assert that YOU attacked THEM for no reason. Who are you to judge who is wrong and who is right? Isn't this up to the community? Isn't Planet Bob a community based [OOC:game]? Who are you to represent us? Who are you to threaten the existance of war on Planet Bob (through fear of surrender terms such as the one you're presenting. "Unconditional surrender" is a surrender term)?

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='10 May 2010 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1273543724' post='2294305']
I feel neglected again - you seem to respond to everyone else's posts but mine

Are my questions too difficult to answer?
[/quote]

I wouldn't feel bad my questions have mostly been ignored as well. I would take it as a compliment.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='10 May 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1273542009' post='2294271']
I have been told by ra...the conclave that I need to stop posting. So good luck, everyone. This is my last post in this thread. For Forever.
[/quote]

You guys should have considered damage control about 100 pages ago. Hell, even a year ago. Your extremely disrespectful posts as well as other high ranking Grämlins to the members of TOP on the TOP forum in a joint TOP-Gramlins subforum illuminated me to the radical change that has occurred within Grämlins and made my decision to join IRON and assist them with this injustice much, much easier. I think the chances of Grämlins getting unconditional surrender from IRON and DAWN are about 0%. [b]I will go to ZI before I kneel before Zod.[/b] You guys should take white peace while you still have a strong alliance. If you guys are just tired of the game and are wanting to go out with a bang that is fine too, but your remaining members should hold no illusions about what your demands for unconditional surrender will bring you. This situation is very close to the tipping point and momentum is not on your side.

Three years of playing this game next month and I have finally found a cause I am willing to fight to the death for.

Edit: [u]If you support opposition to true tyranny and you are a high NS nation disillusioned with the status quo now is the time to make a real difference. This is as good of a cause to fight as I have seen in 3 years of CN.[/u] Apply to IRON or appeal to your alliance leaders to increase the pressure on Grämlins.

Edited May 11, 2010 by JimKongIl

[aaannndddyyy]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='10 May 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1273557570' post='2294531']
Edit: [u]If you support opposition to true tyranny and you are a high NS nation disillusioned with the status quo now is the time to make a real difference. This is as good of a cause to fight as I have seen in 3 years of CN.[/u] Apply to IRON or appeal to your alliance leaders to increase the pressure on Grämlins.
[/quote]

I'd join if I hadn't just lost tons of pixels

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='aaannndddyyy' date='11 May 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1273559976' post='2294542']
I'd join if I hadn't just lost tons of pixels
[/quote]

Thanks for the vote of support, Andy. It is much appreciated. I know you would if you were able.

[R3nowned]

I just noticed that most of the questions are being ignored. Pity, I'd have liked to know what was going on in the mind of a Gramlin. Then again, maybe not.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='11 May 2010 - 03:24 AM' timestamp='1273530248' post='2293993']
And why couldn't you simply have made an admission of wrongdoing one of the terms?
[/quote]

It was put on the table from our side as a matter of fact, but Gre probably didnt notice as they were busy in their delusions of unconditional surrender. If anyone should be admitting wrongdoing at this point, it should be Gre. Probably they can get away with it if they take white peace, which is on the table for now.

Edited May 11, 2010 by shahenshah

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='11 May 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1273561769' post='2294557']
I just noticed that most of the questions are being ignored. Pity, I'd have liked to know what was going on in the mind of a Gramlin. Then again, maybe not.
[/quote]


I haven't been on this forum for a little under 24 hours. Up until then I wasn't ignoring anything.

You'll have to excuse me for being MIA for a day

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 May 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1273533726' post='2294084']
So wait, does this mean that [b]you will never sign peace terms[/b] with IRON/DAWN? And since you've already said you won't accept a white peace, that means that you really [i]are[/i] trying to hold them in an eternal war.

And having 'paperless' be an end unto itself – and therefore driving the alliance into a losing war from a winning position, and presumably, if you can't sign surrender terms from the losing end either, into disbandment or endless losing warfare – is a supreme level of idiocy that I thought was beyond even Ram.
[/quote]

It means we're not signing extra-alliance treaty documents such as collective accords.
It doesn't mean we can't make surrender and peace agreements.
Sorry for the confusion.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1273591971' post='2294749']
I haven't been on this forum for a little under 24 hours. Up until then I wasn't ignoring anything.

You'll have to excuse me for being MIA for a day
[/quote]
Take that as a compliment, you are the voice of [s]reason[/s] gRAMlins afterall

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='10 May 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1273537303' post='2294151']
Okay are you using you own definition of “literally” here, because your statement is entirely untrue? Literally IRON issued a CB, here let me quote it for you. "to further improve community standards, fight trolling, IRON and DAWN hereby declare war against CnG". Matt something isn't true or right just because you want it to be. You can't go around re-defining words. Words have definitions that are widely accepted. If you continue to redefine words to suit your own purpose then how will anyone be able to trust the Gramlins?. They can say one thing, and later say, ”No that’s not our interpretation of that, it doesn’t matter what everyone else thinks, our interpretation is correct.” You should also stop stating as fact, things that you make up. It is far too easy to call you on them. So whoever told you that IRON declared with no CB was wrong. You need to stop believing everything that Ram tells you and search out truth for yourself.[/quote]

This has already been addressed a few pages ago.
My word choice was a bit lacking. I clarified a few posts later by phrasing it properly.


[quote]So while IRON and DAWN did literally issue a CB, what you probably wanted to say was that it wasn’t a morally justifiable casus belli in your opinion. Which I would understand, with Gramlins holding such high morals.
[/quote]

I think the word I used later was "valid" but I"m not going to go back and check.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='10 May 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1273542548' post='2294280']
After Mathew made it clear that there never was a plan for peace anyways, I understand ram doesn't care for more slip ups.
[/quote]


There has always been a plan for peace.
That you don't "get it" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='10 May 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1273542980' post='2294292']
And that's how Gramlins roll.


I for one am completly devastated that they are unable to post in this thread anymore. First they won't tell us the Surrender terms, then they won't negotiate, they can't sign "Peace Agreements", they won't accept "White Peace" and now they won't even talk. They really are leaving us only one option. What a waste of pixels.
[/quote]

Go ahead and ignore all the information and facts I've given you because it helps you make a point.

The reality is that I have been answering your questions all along.

We're not going to tell you the surrender terms until you surrender.
We're not going to negotiate with you.
We wouldn't sign the ESA, I didn't say "peace agreements."
Your white peace offer is not acceptable to me.
Ertyy wasn't ordered not to talk he (and I) was basically told to stop feeding the trolls.... which is exactly what you're doing, btw, by ignoring what is actually being said and then proposing your own alternate reality to what I'm doing.


EDIT: Sorry about the triple post, I'm just not used to that multi-quote button.


[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='10 May 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1273543724' post='2294305']
I feel neglected again - you seem to respond to everyone else's posts but mine

Are my questions too difficult to answer?
[/quote]

No, I actually just lose track of your questions because they tend not to require me to restate something for the 100th time. Can you link me back to your questions? Thanks.


[quote name='Shodemofi' date='10 May 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1273547068' post='2294372']
If you were winning that war, then I suppose that would make sense. I'd still disagree with it, but it would make sense. However the fact is that you [i]aren't[/i] winning this war, so if IRON were to agree to any surrender terms at all, the only reason would be that they feel the need to make amends for their past.
[/quote]


You are saying they won't surrender because they're strong enough not to have to.
Fine; but I'm telling you that's the "might makes right" argument.

Then you also state (quite correctly!) that their surrender now would only happen if they felt they need ot make ammends for their past.
That has been my point (and stated multiple times) that they should surrender because it's the right thing to do to begin the restitution process for their actions.

I'm glad you and I are on the same page.


[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='10 May 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1273549462' post='2294423']
He hasn't responded to mine as well....

Well, PK?
[/quote]


I asked you to show me some examples you thought were noteworthy and that I would consider them and let you know what I thought.
Unless I missed it, you haven't done that.
I also explained to you that I was a little busy right now opposing [b]IRON's[/b] injustice.
Also, like Impero said, war is not the sole means of opposition (as I'm sure many in this thread agree) so be sure you point me towards situations were all non-war avenues have been exhausted.


[quote name='Louisa' date='10 May 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1273554660' post='2294492']
Well it is his habit after all. Plus he never replied to this:



...so I will take your silence as a admission of guilt, Matthew!
[/quote]

You will excuse me for missing a few in a 140 page thread
My argument is neither fallacious nor deliberately misleading.
The largest opposition to my argument has been that I'm using the "wrong" dictionary; to which I have responded with the exact procedure Gemlins will carry out.

Here I thought this argument was about more than which dictionary we use

[quote name='R3nowned' date='10 May 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1273555638' post='2294506']
Congratulations on cherry picking some quotes to attack. You still haven't answered my questions that I posed in my previous post.

You say that IRON are criminals for attacking CnG for no reason (they did, infact, have a reason - it just doesn't agree with you). I assert that YOU attacked THEM for no reason. Who are you to judge who is wrong and who is right? Isn't this up to the community? Isn't Planet Bob a community based [OOC:game]? Who are you to represent us? Who are you to threaten the existance of war on Planet Bob (through fear of surrender terms such as the one you're presenting. "Unconditional surrender" is a surrender term)?
[/quote]

I later stated their reason was invalid and unacceptable. If you want to debate that then I'm all ears.
Your assertion that Gremlins attacked IRON for no reason is equally poor. We clearly defended against their aggression and I claim that there are a significant amount of people who would agree with me.
On the other hand; to judge who is wrong and who is right is not up to me. I contend there are moral absolutes such as: it's morally right to turn yourself in for your wrongdoing.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1273592413' post='2294757']There has always been a plan for peace.
That you don't "get it" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.[/quote]It does not exist. It was given to be rejected, when you thought you could benefit from a long attrition war.
Unfortunately for you, it did not go well and a long war is not unlikely to end with Gramlins nonexistent.
You still talking about our surrender is not even that funny anymore. At this point, it's just boring and show how far you went from the simple reality of this war.
You know where to find us when you want to negotiate the terms for your surrender.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='11 May 2010 - 08:55 AM' timestamp='1273593337' post='2294768']
It does not exist. It was given to be rejected, when you thought you could benefit from a long attrition war.
Unfortunately for you, it did not go well and a long war is not unlikely to end with Gramlins nonexistent.
You still talking about our surrender is not even that funny anymore. At this point, it's just boring and show how far you went from the simple reality of this war.
You know where to find us when you want to negotiate the terms for your surrender.
[/quote]


How could Gremlins possibly benefit from a long attrition war?

A plan for peace does exist; it has existed; and it is not designed to be rejected.
I honestly think you still don't get it (and I'd rather believe that you don't get it because the alternative is that you have no interest in understanding)

[Horatio Longworth]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1273592914' post='2294765']


We're not going to tell you the surrender terms until you surrender.
We're not going to negotiate with you....[/quote]
In the interest of everyone, would you accept an admission of defeat (or something along those lines) as a surrender? Again, the way you word that appears to everyone else to be a signed blank check.

[quote]
Your white peace offer is not acceptable to me....


...You are saying they won't surrender because they're strong enough not to have to.
Fine; but I'm telling you that's the "might makes right" argument.
[/quote]
Regardless of whether the might makes right argument is valid or not, they still have the "might." This would appear to be a diplomatic impasse: IRON (and friends) will not accept rep payments, and you won't offer white peace anymore. I presume you will not offer to pay reps, and you won't accept their white peace deal. This means that no peace can be arranged under the present conditions. Something has to change for peace, and seeing that IRON has the upper hand, it will be easier for them to change things in their favor.

[quote]
That has been my point (and stated multiple times) that they should surrender because it's the right thing to do to begin the restitution process for their actions.
[/quote]
Do you realistically believe this will happen?



[quote]
Your assertion that Gremlins attacked IRON for no reason is equally poor. We clearly defended against their aggression and I claim that there are a significant amount of people who would agree with me.
On the other hand; to judge who is wrong and who is right is not up to me. I contend there are moral absolutes such as: it's morally right to turn yourself in for your wrongdoing.
[/quote]
I'm not trying to say whose position is more valid. However, IRON looks like it's winning, and there's no guarantee that they will hold to your moral standards.

Isn't there anyone else in Gremlins willin to discus this in OWF? You seem awfully outnumbered.

*Blasted subject-verb agreement

Edited May 11, 2010 by Horatio Longworth

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' date='11 May 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1273597531' post='2294799']
In the interest of everyone, would you accept an admission of defeat (or something along those lines) as a surrender? Again, the way you word that appears to everyone else to be a signed blank check.[/quote]

It's not up to me, but I would say that an "admission of defeat" is irrelevant.
I can't stress enough that we're not demanding they sign a "blank check"
Surrender does not and cannot imply agreement to subsequent terms. Terms are separate and either accepted or refused.
A surrender is not a de facto agreement to follow terms; which is why terms themselves constitute and agreement.
A surrender is the first step in the peace process during which the surrendering party is given quarter for the delivery of terms.
The dominant opposition to my method outlined above is that it's "tradition" to accept surrender and deliver terms simultaneously.


[quote]Regardless of whether the might makes right argument is valid or not, they still have the "might." This would appear to be a diplomatic impasse: IRON (and friends) will not accept rep payments, and you won't offer white peace anymore. I presume you will not offer to pay reps, and you won't accept their white peace deal. This means that no peace can be arranged under the present conditions. Something has to change for peace, and seeing that IRON has the upper hand, it will be easier for them to change things in their favor.[/quote]

GRE is involved only to oppose IRON's transgressions. A "white peace" is a mockery of that fact and is unacceptable.
Also, restitution does not inherently imply cash/tech reps. Of course, sometimes it does include those but it's not necessary.


[quote]Do you realistically believe this will happen?[/quote]

I believe it *can* happen but it is first necessary for people to understand that we are not demanding they "become our slaves" and for people to realize that it is ridiculous to think GRE will offer harsh terms. I believe people still don't "get it" because I am giving many people the benefit of the doubt. The alternative if that they have no desire to understand what I am saying; I want to give people more credit than that.
Otherwise there would be no purpose for my presence on these forums.




[quote]I'm not trying to say whose position is more valid. However, IRON looks like it's winning, and there's no guarantee that they will hold to your moral standards. [/quote]

They already are non-conforming.
Here is an example: IRON has a standing offer of "white peace" yet they diligently assert that Gremlins actions are evil, unjust, etc.
If they [b]actually[/b] believe what they are saying (that we are evil) then their offer of "white peace" to merely "let us go" is in itself a detraction to moral standards.

[quote]Isn't there anyone else in Gremlins willin to discus this in OWF? You seem awfully outnumbered.[/quote]

I like to think I'm more patient.
There's nothing stopping people from coming here.

[quote]*Blasted subject-verb agreement
[/quote]


Grammar Naziism is the sort of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 10:48 AM' timestamp='1273592914' post='2294765']
You are saying they won't surrender because they're strong enough not to have to.
Fine; but I'm telling you that's the "might makes right" argument.[/quote]

so by that standard, CnG should have surrendered otherwise they started making a "might makes right" argument? heh.

[quote]On the other hand; to judge who is wrong and who is right is not up to me. I contend there are moral absolutes such as: it's morally right to turn yourself in for your wrongdoing.
[/quote]

there are very few moral absolutes and preemptive attacks are not one of them. they may be frowned upon and are most certainly not a social CN norm, it is by no means a breach of a moral absolute to conduct a preemptive attack. it is a legitimate strategy.

then there is this whole argument on how you are not to judge but are in fact judging. if it was not up to you to judge, then how come you are in Gremlins who are in fact acting as if they are the judge? and then there is the fact that IRON/DAWN already did turn themselves in for their wrongdoing, hence the ESA. thus, there is no moral wrong being committed by IRON/DAWN for not turning themselves into an uninvolved third party just because ya'll are friends with MK. IRON did nothing to Gremlins. to continue with your little criminal analogy, had this been a street fight and IRON just came around a corner and punched your friend MK in the face, while MK was attempting to break up another fight, MK would be the victim not Gremlins. Even if Gremlins came rallying around to MK's defense, it would not matter. in no criminal court would you ever be considered a victim of a crime.

thus, this whole delusional thought process that somehow places Gremlins as the de facto victim is just inane and useless.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273595298' post='2294779']
How could Gremlins possibly benefit from a long attrition war?

A plan for peace does exist; it has existed; and it is not designed to be rejected.
I honestly think you still don't get it (and I'd rather believe that you don't get it because the alternative is that you have no interest in understanding)
[/quote]

actually the fact that your plan for peace includes unconditional surrender shows that it was planned to be rejected.

[Golan 1st]

What you fail to understand, Matthew, is that the losing side is the one who surrenders and right now it's not us.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1273601169' post='2294853']
actually the fact that your plan for peace includes unconditional surrender shows that it was planned to be rejected.
[/quote]

This. I find it hard to believe that anyone was foolish enough to think any alliance would take unconditional surrender. What I do not think they expected was the fact everyone would see those terms as what they truly are, a direct threat to every single alliance on Planet Bob. I also do not think they expect to have Gramlins fall apart. What they were expecting in all this is beyond me.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1273600754' post='2294844']
It's not up to me, but I would say that an "admission of defeat" is irrelevant.
I can't stress enough that we're not demanding they sign a "blank check"
Surrender does not and cannot imply agreement to subsequent terms. Terms are separate and either accepted or refused.
A surrender is not a de facto agreement to follow terms; which is why terms themselves constitute and agreement.
A surrender is the first step in the peace process during which the surrendering party is given quarter for the delivery of terms.
The dominant opposition to my method outlined above is that it's "tradition" to accept surrender and deliver terms simultaneously.
[/quote]
I really am very curious - what exactly does "surrender" mean to The Gramlins then, aside from admitting defeat? It seems you are using something removed from the general accepted usage of the term. It seems the only difference in your eyes is that they must say "We surrender" instead of "We admit defeat" - is there anything else to it?

[jimbacher]

Matthew I hope you guys are willing to unconditionally surrender to IRON/DAWN, because that would be the only appropriate punishment for you guys at this point.

Edited May 11, 2010 by jimbacher

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='11 May 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1273601697' post='2294865']
I really am very curious - what exactly does "surrender" mean to The Gramlins then, aside from admitting defeat? It seems you are using something removed from the general accepted usage of the term. It seems the only difference in your eyes is that they must say "We surrender" instead of "We admit defeat" - is there anything else to it?
[/quote]

i do believe Fark was actually the first to do this. well actually you could say Ivan was the first since he made the distinction after Fark asked him to surrender and he said he would admit defeat but Fark wanted only a surrender.

edit: stupid laptop enter button >.<

Edited May 11, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='jimbacher' date='11 May 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1273601704' post='2294866']
Matthew I hope you guys are willing to unconditionally surrender to IRON/DAWN, because that would be the only appropriate punishment for you guys at this point.[/quote]I don't know if you are serious.
Just to make sure, we will not demand anything of this kind from Gramlins. It will be childish and vindictive for the same reasons it is when Gramlins demand it.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1273601169' post='2294853']
so by that standard, CnG should have surrendered otherwise they started making a "might makes right" argument? heh. [/quote]

No, I'm saying that to predicate you unwillingness to surrender on the notion that your opponent cannot force you is "might makes right"
Now, if they predicated on the notion that their moral position is superior (as a few actually have) then this would not apply.


[quote]there are very few moral absolutes and preemptive attacks are not one of them. they may be frowned upon and are most certainly not a social CN norm, it is by no means a breach of a moral absolute to conduct a preemptive attack. it is a legitimate strategy. [/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree

[quote]then there is this whole argument on how you are not to judge but are in fact judging. if it was not up to you to judge, then how come you are in Gremlins who are in fact acting as if they are the judge? and then there is the fact that IRON/DAWN already did turn themselves in for their wrongdoing, hence the ESA. thus, there is no moral wrong being committed by IRON/DAWN for not turning themselves into an uninvolved third party just because ya'll are friends with MK. IRON did nothing to Gremlins. to continue with your little criminal analogy, had this been a street fight and IRON just came around a corner and punched your friend MK in the face, while MK was attempting to break up another fight, MK would be the victim not Gremlins. Even if Gremlins came rallying around to MK's defense, it would not matter. in no criminal court would you ever be considered a victim of a crime.

thus, this whole delusional thought process that somehow places Gremlins as the de facto victim is just inane and useless. [/quote]

I did not say Gremlins was [b]the[/b] victim; I said we are all victims if IRON is allowed to be relased without allocution.





[quote]actually the fact that your plan for peace includes unconditional surrender shows that it was planned to be rejected.
[/quote]

Not true.
Very few people are opposing the process Gremlins has stated will occur pursuant to IRON's unconditional surrender.

In fact, most people are opposing their own creation rather than any reality.