The New Grämlins

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1273638376' post='2295736']
IRON accepted those terms several weeks into the war. [B]I'm talking about the first few days.[/B] Also, IRON, TOP and co refused the first set of terms offered. There are several blog posts with the details around a month into the war IIRC if you want to dig them up.
[/quote]

Well you said IRON was [b]never[/b] willing to "man up, pay for damages and resolve the issue"

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1273634689' post='2295645']
I'm not lying pal. It was both unwarranted and unprovoked.


Because they were willing to man up, pay for damages and resolve the issue, something IRON was [b]never[/b] willing to do.
[/quote]

Edited May 12, 2010 by JimKongIl

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1273616055' post='2295244']
We opposed, and still oppose, IRON's asserting their right and exercising their ability to attack another [b]alliance[/b] with no valid reason.
[/quote]
Ah, but unaligned nations are fine eh?

The tragic logic of the "moral" raider.

[flak attack]

I'll also note that the reps being payed by IRON amount to less damage than they dealt. My statement stands.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='flak attack' date='12 May 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1273638828' post='2295749']
I'll also note that the reps being payed by IRON amount to less damage than they dealt. My statement stands.
[/quote]

Reps in major conflicts seldom? if ever have equaled the damages dealt. It was your decision to continue the war hence risk the damage after refusing the peace when \m/ peaced out. Nonetheless, you're side's still getting the highest reps in addition to continued reps from a war 1 year ago.

Edited May 12, 2010 by shahenshah

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1273636189' post='2295673']
You never heard about anything that happened because it didn't concern you and was resolved well before NpO got involved, back before anyone cared.
[/quote]

actually according to \m/ at least, no reps were ever paid to FoA. and iirc, no one saw aid sent from PC or GOONS either. not to mention, \m/ did not state they would not raid alliances (i.e. those 16+ member alliances) until peace was gained with Polaris. so, when Polaris hit, \m/ had not stated that they would not longer raid alliances. in fact, iirc, they were defiantly stating it was their sovereign right to do such a thing.

so, really, you don't have a leg to stand on. neither does Gremlins. just because MK may like PC, GOONS, and \m/ does not change anything.

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1273638376' post='2295736']
IRON accepted those terms several weeks into the war. I'm talking about the first few days. Also, IRON, TOP and co refused the first set of terms offered. There are several blog posts with the details around a month into the war IIRC if you want to dig them up.
[/quote]

actually i could have sworn that IRON and co signed the ESA which included your alliance. so, regardless of Gremlins, you are still lying since IRON, TOP, and co did sign a surrender treaty to pay reps and resolve the issue. the only alliance here that does not recognize this fact is Gremlins. Gremlins seem to think the issue is not resolved despite the fact that your alliance and the rest of CnG and their allies all consider the preemptive attack issue resolved.

you are worse than Matt at this. at least Matt can claim delusional and twisted definitions. you are just straight lying and revising.

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1273638828' post='2295749']
I'll also note that the reps being payed by IRON amount to less damage than they dealt. My statement stands.
[/quote]

are you serious? there has never been a major alliance war where the reps have ever equaled the damage dealt. it is ridiculous to even assume that that should ever be the case.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Calderone' date='12 May 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1273609483' post='2295069']
That which you are doing is obstructing IRON from fulfilling their reps to those you "claim" as allies. Please continue on your embarrassing path cause at this point it only serves to help IRON.
[/quote]

Personally speaking, he certainly has potential to help with indirect reps and thus help his freinds..you know Freinds > infra/tech/etc . As tempting as it is, White Peace still trumps, for now.

Also, do Filipino heroes now make majority of the members?

Edited May 12, 2010 by shahenshah

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
My existence as a formidable nation obstructing IRON [b]is[/b] doing something.[/quote]Just in case you are not kidding, you really overestimate yourself

Matthew, I actually agree, in principle, with some of your points and disagree with some of those who support our cause (though some of the things you say are complete nonsense).
The main problem in your position is proportionality. We feel that your demand is unacceptably harsh.
I, as the head of DAWN's government, have already voluntarily admitted guilt on several occasions. You cannot change my opinion that we aimed for a just cause, but it ended differently and we are fully responsible for that. If this is what you really wanted, you have it from DAWN. I don't think that IRON's position is very different, but you will probably want to hear that from them, which is understandable.
What's unacceptable is putting ourselves at your mercy. At this point, the level of distrust between us is so high that we have no reason to expect you to be reasonable in your demands for "restitution".
Your insistence on keeping us in the war on these grounds, after we accepted what we consider harsh punishment, in the form of very high reps to CnG and co., makes YOU the criminals at this point. Therefore, we will not surrender to you, we will not give you anything and we will keep punching you until you finally realize what position you placed yourself in and come to us to negotiate your surrender terms. I have no illusions. You convinced yourself (only) with your hollow propaganda and you won't surrender soon. We are patient. At some point reality will sink into what is left of your collective brain. You know where to find us.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Golan 1st

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='11 May 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1273620242' post='2295322']
No one is perfect but compared to this version of Gramlins the old was a shining beacon.
[/quote]

I agree. And more to the point who cares about morals. They were a successful lot while the ramlins...well...IRON should probably force unconditional surrender on you.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='DogeWilliam' date='12 May 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1273646747' post='2295841']
IRON should probably force unconditional surrender on you.
[/quote]
Why should they? We're here talking about how bad the concept is, after all.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='12 May 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1273647131' post='2295847']
Why should they? We're here talking about how bad the concept is, after all.
[/quote]

I just meant IRON will most likely be dictating the terms of surrender, as they will win if the current situation continues. Or it will be eternal with Gramlins being an 8 man alliance...if that.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='DogeWilliam' date='12 May 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1273647478' post='2295852']
I just meant IRON will most likely be dictating the terms of surrender, as they will win if the current situation continues. Or it will be eternal with Gramlins being an 8 man alliance...if that.
[/quote]
I don't see how IRON can even touch some of the big nations in Gre, let alone bring them down to where they can start pounding them in the mid to lower tiers. That's their chief tactical problem here.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='12 May 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1273647936' post='2295853']
I don't see how IRON can even touch some of the big nations in Gre, let alone bring them down to where they can start pounding them in the mid to lower tiers. That's their chief tactical problem here.
[/quote]It's a matter of time and we are not in a hurry

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 May 2010 - 05:43 AM' timestamp='1273603368' post='2294900']
You're hardly in a position to tell me what Gremlins would and would not do.

I would have no issue accepting unconditional surrender (pursuant to the procedure Gremlins has clearly outlined) were I as clearly culpable for wrongdoing as is IRON.
[/quote]
You keep saying that IRON are criminals or w/e.

Please, list their wrongdoing from the end of the Karma War to now. Please do. I assure you that there will be none - from my opinion anyway, since I disagree that pre-empting is a "crime" on Planet Bob.

I again assert that you attacked them for no reason. Your defence of your friends became aggression the moment you refused them surrender terms. You are the aggressor here. Apply your standards to yourself, please, and see how hypocritical you are.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='12 May 2010 - 02:52 AM' timestamp='1273647131' post='2295847']
Why should they? We're here talking about how bad the concept is, after all.
[/quote]

The main difference is that Gramlins specifically maintains a policy of never asking for terms they themselves would not accept. Hoisting them upon their own petard as is were.

Schadenfreude (that is to take pleasure in someone else's misfortune) would also apply greatly. Its always gratifying to feed some one their own medicine.

I agree that Unconditional surrender is a terrible concept, and something all of us have a vested interest in not seeing established as a precedent in CN. However that doesn't stop me from taking sadistic glee from imagining IRON demanding Gramlins surrender unconditionally at some point down the road after GRE becomes a dead alliance rather than the dying alliance it is now.

Just the idea is enough to get an evil little cackle out of me

Edit: vowel in following word means 'an' not 'a' >_>

Edited May 12, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='12 May 2010 - 08:10 AM' timestamp='1273648219' post='2295855']
You keep saying that IRON are criminals or w/e.

Please, list their wrongdoing from the end of the Karma War to now. Please do. I assure you that there will be none - from my opinion anyway, since I disagree that pre-empting is a "crime" on Planet Bob.

I again assert that you attacked them for no reason. Your defence of your friends became aggression the moment you refused them surrender terms. You are the aggressor here. Apply your standards to yourself, please, and see how hypocritical you are.
[/quote]

So you want a list of wrongdoings since Karma, assert Gramlins attacked for no reason and in the subsequent sentence proclaim they defended a friend. Then the last sentence you proclaim him being hypocritical? Your post encapsulates how absurd this has become on many levels. I'll grant you threw in the cavaet that you dont believe pre empting is a "crime" on planet bob, but I hadnt got the memo you got to determine what is or is not a crime. I suspect a lot of people would believe that attacking one of thier friends preemptively would be a crime in thier eyes but that would kind of throw a wrench into your logic wouldnt it?

I liked how you "assert" that they attacked for no reason, but then sentence afterward acknowledge they defended a friend. Clear contradiction, but lets not be too silly I mean since Karma Iron has been angels! To hell with the year or two before that right? About the only thing in your post that makes sense or holds any weight is gramlins mistake at not giving terms when MK did and even that dosent make thier war aggressive.

Might want to proof read before posting next time, silly contradicting points in subsequent sentences dont make you look like the best and brightest our planet has to offer, on the contrary you come off as another loud mouth yahoo who cant formulate a coherent opinion.

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='12 May 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1273658593' post='2295914']
So you want a list of wrongdoings since Karma, assert Gramlins attacked for no reason and in the subsequent sentence proclaim they defended a friend. Then the last sentence you proclaim him being hypocritical? Your post encapsulates how absurd this has become on many levels. I'll grant you threw in the cavaet that you dont believe pre empting is a "crime" on planet bob, but I hadnt got the memo you got to determine what is or is not a crime. I suspect a lot of people would believe that attacking one of thier friends preemptively would be a crime in thier eyes but that would kind of throw a wrench into your logic wouldnt it?

I liked how you "assert" that they attacked for no reason, but then sentence afterward acknowledge they defended a friend. Clear contradiction, but lets not be too silly I mean since Karma Iron has been angels! To hell with the year or two before that right? About the only thing in your post that makes sense or holds any weight is gramlins mistake at not giving terms when MK did and even that dosent make thier war aggressive.

Might want to proof read before posting next time, silly contradicting points in subsequent sentences dont make you look like the best and brightest our planet has to offer, on the contrary you come off as another loud mouth yahoo who cant formulate a coherent opinion.
[/quote]
Wasn't the Karma War when ex-hegemony alliance apparently repaid for their sins?

Yes, I probably should have put inverted commas around defence - "defence". I never saw it as that. I just saw it as pure aggression from the Gramlins, however, others disagree, which is why I mentioned defence in the first place.

If someone pre-empted my friends, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't call it a crime. I agree that I don't set the standards on Planet Bob, hence why I mentioned that it was my opinion.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I mean since Karma Iron has been angels! To hell with the year or two before that right?[/quote]
Yes, to hell with that – that's what Karma was fought for, you can't use it as justification to roll them again.

[quote][The alliances raiding FoA] were willing to man up, pay for damages and resolve the issue, something IRON was never willing to do.
...
I'll also note that the reps being payed by IRON amount to less damage than they dealt. My statement stands. [/quote]
You cannot be serious. Firstly, your (alliance at least) name is on a surrender document detailing just exactly how IRON manned up, paid for damages and resolved the issue – something that FoA never got, by the way. And secondly, if reps were supposed to pay for damage done, you'd still be paying reps from your nuclear spree in noCB. Supporting 100% reps is in fact supporting eternal terms, and you're intelligent enough to know that, so I'm going to assume that's just a propaganda line.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='12 May 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1273666758' post='2295964']
Yes, to hell with that – that's what Karma was fought for, you can't use it as justification to roll them again.
[/quote]
Don't be silly.
[quote]
You cannot be serious. Firstly, your (alliance at least) name is on a surrender document detailing just exactly how IRON manned up, paid for damages and resolved the issue – [b]something that FoA never got[/b], by the way. And secondly, if reps were supposed to pay for damage done, you'd still be paying reps from your nuclear spree in noCB. Supporting 100% reps is in fact supporting eternal terms, and you're intelligent enough to know that, so I'm going to assume that's just a propaganda line.
[/quote]
The FoA issue was resolved privately between involved parties.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Tromp' date='12 May 2010 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1273669394' post='2295981']
The FoA issue was resolved privately between involved parties.
[/quote]

so flak attack got one part out of his six parts correct. still a failure of 5/6ths. the issue was resolved as was IRON's attack on CnG (except for the delusional Gremlins). IRON manned up and will begin paying reps when this war is over with. FoA never saw reps, nor did any of the alliances actually feel then and most likely still feel, that they did nothing wrong.

so yes, the issue was resolved but the rest of the crap that flak posted is false, incorrect, untrue, and any other way you can state that he is utterly wrong.

[Broncos98]

38 nations and counting...slip sliding away!!!

Still sticking to those guns eh Ram?

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='12 May 2010 - 06:21 AM' timestamp='1273659653' post='2295922']
If someone pre-empted my friends, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't call it a crime. I agree that I don't set the standards on Planet Bob, hence why I mentioned that it was my opinion.
[/quote]
They are fighting on the defensive side as they came in for their friends, however in their codex it states never to give terms they themselves wouldn't accept. As I have informed Matthew, Gremlins wouldn't accept unconditional surrender and almost 3 years of its history supports that notion. I am sure a few of them would probably say, "How do you know we wouldn't," but Gremlins were formed BECAUSE we didn't fear being pulverized. Hence, they are essentially violating their codex, however everything boils down to "personal opinions," which really is nonsense in this case.

VE went in this war and The Ninjas followed them. We left the war when VE left because that is what allies do; they come in together and leave together, united, as one. Gremlins are too busy trying to prove a silly point which really has no point to it whatsoever. Gremlins pretend they are united, but more and more Gremlins are leaving their alliance. Why? Because many are outraged by their actions. Believe it or not, many are still in Gremlins because of the old virtues which established its name; sooner or later, the realization will force more and more to leave.

Normally I'd say "This is a stupid move," but this is more than that. This is outrageous. Why? Because certain individuals put themselves and their silly political games before everyone else, even at the expense of valuable members.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[amad123]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='12 May 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1273647936' post='2295853']
I don't see how IRON can even touch some of the big nations in Gre, let alone bring them down to where they can start pounding them in the mid to lower tiers. That's their chief tactical problem here.
[/quote]
You assume all IRON nations will leave PM and conduct a blitz attack. It is much easier to send in a nation with the lowest possible nation strength to attack two or three Gramlin nations at the top end of his declaration range. If they pick the three smallest nations not already at war or anarchy they can easily bring them down. Usually about 20k in 3 or 4 days. That's plenty for the rest of us to pile on and continue the beating. The nation doing the initial attack only has to fight for one week and then can rebuild. Then we get another volunteer to take on the next set of nations. So it will take time but it is quite easy to drag a nation down. The bigger they are the harder they fall so to speak.

Consider all the Gramlin nations as swimmers in the ocean. IRON and DAWN nations are the sharks circling beneath them. Whenever we get hungry we send someone up to pick on the smallest and weakest swimmer. The shark drags them down and a feeding frenzy occurs. When were ready we pick another target we send up another shark. There is nothing the swimmers can do, once the sharks drag them under there are hundreds of sharks waiting to feed so they are doomed.


[quote name='Broncos98' date='12 May 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1273677101' post='2296034']
38 nations and counting...slip sliding away!!!Still sticking to those guns eh Ram?
[/quote]
I assume that once they get to below 15 nations they will be considered valid "Tech Raid" targets by some alliances. I'm looking forward to seeing who tech raids them. Could be lots of fun.

Edited May 12, 2010 by amad123

[Mixoux]

[quote name='amad123' date='12 May 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1273687557' post='2296107']
I assume that once they get to below 15 nations they will be considered valid "Tech Raid" targets by some alliances. I'm looking forward to seeing who tech raids them. Could be lots of fun.
[/quote]

You know what, I never even considered that. Though they'd still have to deal with MHA.


EDIT: (maybe)

Edited May 12, 2010 by Mixoux

[Baldr]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='12 May 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1273640417' post='2295782']
actually according to \m/ at least, no reps were ever paid to FoA. and iirc, no one saw aid sent from PC or GOONS either. not to mention, \m/ did not state they would not raid alliances (i.e. those 16+ member alliances) until peace was gained with Polaris. so, when Polaris hit, \m/ had not stated that they would not longer raid alliances. in fact, iirc, they were defiantly stating it was their sovereign right to do such a thing. [/quote]

Also, note that the [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Poison_Clan"]Poison Clan wiki[/url] says :

[quote]A great victory for Poison Clan, proving that we can raid as we please without any consequences.
[/quote]

[ktarthan]

I'm glad we can finally get to the true root of this issue. [i]Tech raiding.[/i]