The New Grämlins

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' date='13 May 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1273728770' post='2296763']
Your link now points to Nuevo Cabezon.
[/quote]
I figured I coulda $%&@ed up twice but I just checked and the corrected link points to blackdigital's nation, Sierra Leone.

[Yggdrazil]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='13 May 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1273731859' post='2296797']
I figured I coulda $%&@ed up twice but I just checked and the corrected link points to blackdigital's nation, Sierra Leone.
[/quote]
Your correctly identified, I was clicking the one from where you were quoted. Sorry for the mix up.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='13 May 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1273729283' post='2296768']
Why do you say that? Because IRON is sitting in peace mode?

Don't you think it would be wise to be patient until this trend stabilizes?

Top 7 Day Biggest Alliance Gains
3) 407,041 Strength Change - Independent Republic Of Orange Nations

Top 7 Day Smallest Alliance Gains
3) -690,084 Strength Change - The Grämlins



I intend to only hit Gramlins who are actively attacking IRON but I could knock several of them down to the point where 3 nuclear capable IRON members could take over. I'm not quitting the game or anything but I can take heavy infra losses in this one and not have any regrets at all. I'm honestly tired of infra-hoarding. Also, I don't think I am the last nation large enough to hit their big guys that will be joining IRON. Gramlins could end this at any time if they cared enough but at this point I believe that is a very remote possibility.[/quote]
You are an awesome person.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='13 May 2010 - 07:41 AM' timestamp='1273729283' post='2296768']
Why do you say that? Because IRON is sitting in peace mode?

Don't you think it would be wise to be patient until this trend stabilizes?

Top 7 Day Biggest Alliance Gains
3) 407,041 Strength Change - Independent Republic Of Orange Nations

Top 7 Day Smallest Alliance Gains
3) -690,084 Strength Change - The Grämlins [/quote]

Taking into account the economic penalties for staying at Peace Mode (halved income after 5 days and increasing happines malus capped at -9 after two weeks), each day you stay Dove, is a day the warchests of Grämlins (and everyone else in planet Bob) grow stronger in relation to yours.

And all those lower-level IRON nations provinding free money and tech to your tops isn't gonna change this.

So... since Grämlins commited seppukku long ago.. I suppose they find keeping your tops in eternal Peace Mode is amusing enough to keep with the war.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Krashnaia

[amad123]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='13 May 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1273724530' post='2296709']
He's still flying the Grämlins AA as far as I can see.Edit: Also of interest, IRON doesn't have anyone that can actually hit that nation. Which, conversely, means he can't hit anyone in IRON either.
[/quote]
You're are under the assumption that one can only attack a nation up 133% of your NS. You are forgetting that you can also attack any nation withing +/- 250 rankings of you nation. Sierra Leone is ranked number 7 so any nation ranked 257 or lower can engage them. It would not take a lot to boost nations to 257 or better ranking. I also guarantee that after a week of war Sierra Leone will not be anywhere near #7 in ranking.

[Bob Janova]

Blackdigital recently went 23 days inactive, so I'm not sure he's fully engaged with Grämlins' master plan anyway. Yes, militarily defeating Grämlins would still be painful, though less painful each day (and I'm not sure how many of them would actually fight a dull war of attrition if IRON just send sacrificial nations to turtle-nuke them into the mid tier) ... but I don't think it will be necessary. There's only 8 of them in the top tier (100k+) now; IRON's top 3 could pull them down even if they all wanted to fight.

[SynthFG]

So far its taken people what a month and a half to consider the effectivness of a berzerker tactic against Gre,
Yet they are still getting it wrong,

Bar one notable exception IRON's top level is IRON's top level because they haven't been out of PM at all since the end of Jan, Being as by mid March even those who started with nothing had accrued big enough war chests to fight if they wanted to two possibilities suggest, they can't fight due to inactivity, or they won't fight as they value there Infra too much

To end this militarily in the suggested manner IRON need to get 3 or 4 of these guys commited to moving,
they need to find the right targets (not nessicarily the biggest)
and they need to fight in the right way

Also on a side note Matt Miller was sitting on at least 3Bn when he was allowed to slip into peace mode,

Edited May 13, 2010 by SynthFG

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='12 May 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1273709220' post='2296362']
But to make it work you need also to have heroes.

Which don't seems to be the case.
[/quote]
Grämlins' NS graph disagrees.

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='12 May 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1273721542' post='2296633']
Of course, but whatever you throw at nations like [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=100416"]Sierra Leone[/url] will be blown away. I just don't see it right now, but you're more than welcome to prove me wrong.
[/quote]
Correction: whatever they throw at Sierra Leone will lose a lot of infra.

That's a large part of what warchest is for though.

The problem for Grämlins is that IRON nations will largely spend warchest on replacing infra, where the Grämlins nations will need to have it to fight as they will be going to nuclear anarchy and staying there.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='13 May 2010 - 01:41 AM' timestamp='1273729283' post='2296768']
I intend to only hit Gramlins who are actively attacking IRON but I could knock several of them down to the point where 3 nuclear capable IRON members could take over.
[/quote]
Note that there are no Grämlins actively attacking IRON.

[The AUT]

Most of the Gremlins middle tier that's getting hit are the Fillipino Heroes. I don't know if they're brave or if they're completely oblivious to the fact they're being used by Ramirus. Either way they're going to be out of the picture, soon.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='12 May 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1273730130' post='2296776']
Matthew or Ram, if you are up to the question, would you tell us if Gramlins would ever surrender unconditionally?
[/quote]


I addressed this with Doch and I said that I would have no problem with it if Gremlins were as clearly culpable as IRON and if the procedure of unconditional surrender were as I outlined.

If your version of unconditional surrender is that we are obligated to accept all subsequent terms without knowing them, then no. (and that is not what is being demanded of IRON)

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1273765885' post='2296982']
If your version of unconditional surrender is that we are obligated to accept all subsequent terms without knowing them, then no. (and that is not what is being demanded of IRON)
[/quote]
And once again you demonstrate that you do not know what 'unconditional surrender' means.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='13 May 2010 - 08:54 AM' timestamp='1273766076' post='2296984']
And once again you demonstrate that you do not know what 'unconditional surrender' means.
[/quote]


And once again you want to make this about a dictionary instead of what we're actually doing.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1273765885' post='2296982']
I addressed this with Doch and I said that I would have no problem with it if Gremlins were as clearly culpable as IRON and if the procedure of unconditional surrender were as I outlined.

If your version of unconditional surrender is that we are obligated to accept all subsequent terms without knowing them, then no. (and that is not what is being demanded of IRON)
[/quote]
Oh please, that is a cop out, in more than one way.

So you simply never say you are "culpable", then you never have to accept terms! WOOO HOOO!!!

I guess we will find out soon enough what your alliance considers acceptable terms.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1273765885' post='2296982']
I addressed this with Doch and I said that I would have no problem with it if Gremlins were as clearly culpable as IRON and if the procedure of unconditional surrender were as I outlined.

If your version of unconditional surrender is that we are obligated to accept all subsequent terms without knowing them, then no. (and that is not what is being demanded of IRON)
[/quote]
You wouldn't be obligated to accept them. You could always choose to return to a state of indefinite war, the same choice IRON has.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Andre27' date='11 May 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1273611821' post='2295141']
That is exactly the question at hand.

Gremlins entered the conflict without treaties. Gremlins continue to draw out an already extensive conflict.
The only explanation can be you're blinded by your grudges against IRON. [/quote]

I propose an alternative explanation: that we want IRON to serve restitution.
It has nothing to do with grudges. After restitution is served they have a clean slate.

[quote]You're acting on a danger perceived by you and you alone. I believe that is called [url="http://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc2415.htm"]Paranoid Schizophrenia[/url].

With the loss of sanity, or at the very least the apparent loss of sanity & reason that remains the only conclusion.[/quote]

I disagree that it is perceived by me alone. I contend that many people see the danger of allowing an alliance to "get away" with a clear wrongdoing without admitting their moral failing. They're just concerned about putting themselves at risk for it because alliances can't seem to get past the "paper" aspect of life.

[quote]Even if IRON could recover more swiftly that it's opponents while under reps, then the fact remains that even in the unlikely event that old Hegemony treaties were restored the balance of power has shifted in favor of C&G/SF and I'm not even counting Sparta + MHA who are closely tied to C&G/SF.

Now try to get a moment of sanity and see that there is no danger and further continuation of the conflict is pointless. Accept the white peace or prepare to be ridiculed by friend and foe alike for considerable time to come.[/quote]

They should not be allowed to escape this war without admitting their clear moral failing.

[quote]The old Gremlins were a proud alliance, show some of that previous grandeur.[/quote]

Here I stand, putting myself at risk for a principle in which I strongly believe. This is precisely the spirit the "old Gremlins" always talked about.



[quote name='Lord Rune' date='11 May 2010 - 02:08 PM' timestamp='1273612075' post='2295149']
You would not accept IRON/DAWN's admission of guilt, because it was forced from them? "Agree you were wrong, or we'll keep stomping you". I believe that that is what you are saying here.

How, apart from the fact that Gremlins is being stomped on, is that any different to you and IRON/DAWN? "Agree you were wrong or [s]you'll keep stomping us[/s] we'll keep you in war"
[/quote]

IRON admitted to a strategic failing, not a moral failing; so your point is irrelevant.

[quote name='Delta1212' date='11 May 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1273612403' post='2295159']
As opposed to what you are triyng to do which is to compel IRON to admit they were wrong. Unconditional surrender doesn't remove the compulsion, it just alters the cost-benefit analysis that goes into deciding whether to submit.

If IRON believes the cost of surrendering to you is too high, they will not even if they think they were in the wrong.
If IRON thinks the benefit of surrendering would be higher, they will do so even if they don't think they were wrong.

All you've done is raised the cost to make it less likely that they'll surrender. You haven't actually removed the threat of force that would make any confession suspect, and saying "surrendering unconditionally is a sign that they admit they were wrong" makes as much sense as saying "agreeing to pay reps is a sign they admit they were wrong" which you have consistently claimed is false. They may know they were wrong but deem the risk of bowing to your demands too high, just as a thief may regret his actions but not turn himself in if the punishment is execution. They may equally think they were in the right and decide you won't do anything bad to them and so turn themselves in, just as an unrepentant murderer might turn himself in if he believes he'll only serve a year or two of jail time and be released.
[/quote]

You are absolutely right that they [b]could[/b] still acknowledge wrongdoing just because it's "preferable" to a continued war. However, I contend that these circumstances significantly mitigate that possibility. Turning themselves in without a massively superior force bearing down on them is as good as it can get.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='11 May 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1273612504' post='2295162']
"turn themselves in" For what crime? More importantly, who made you the arbiters of justice in my CN? Also really, IRON would rather stay at war? You are reaching with this one man. Why do we not say that Gre would rather stay at war than to admit ego brought them to an indefensible political position?[/quote]

IRON is clearly culpable for their attacks on MK with no valid reason.
Gremlins are not the sole arbiters of justice; I've said as nauseum that [b]we are all[/b] obligated to uphold justice.
It is my belief that IRON recognizes their moral failing but thinks they can "slip by" with not admitting it because they are stronger.
I believe that because the alternative is that they don't actually see any moral failing in their actions (which would make them pathetic if true)



[quote]Then why remain at war? If you do not seek a might makes right policy clearly peace and some discussions would be the more mature option, surely Gramlins winning personality and impeccable reasoning skills will convince IRON of the error of their ways without the threat of more nuclear devastation hanging over their heads.[/quote]

We're standing in the doorway. This sort of intervention is the only sort permitted by the rules of engagement.
I'm not raining nukes on IRON; shouting them "comply or else"; I'm simply telling them they are not getting past me without a fight or an allocution.



[quote]Actions speak louder than words, you are holding them in war until they accede to your demands, I can't think of a more concise summary for a might makes right position. you are using military power to attempt to further an agenda you know would fail miserably without the threat of force behind it.[/quote]

Your definition cannot be valid. Otherwise any alliance rejecting terms would be supporting "might makes right".
"Might makes right" applies only to the practice of insisting your position is correct because you are stronger.


[quote]
Adherence to what?
[/quote]
I'm looking for your concise definition of "might makes right"

Edited May 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

This double post is because the forum wouldn't allow me to quote anymore in the previous post.


[quote name='Baldr' date='11 May 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1273618546' post='2295280']
As I recall, the lead up to all of this war an unwarranted attack by GOONS, \m/ and PC.

You fought on the side that wanted to defend them for that attack.
[/quote]

The Gremlins declared war to defend against IRON's unwarranted attack.

[quote name='Owned-You' date='11 May 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1273620201' post='2295320']
Whilst your alliance has had a historical character of good-intentions; the building-blocks of that reputation have departed for more reasonable waters months ago. You cannot expect anyone with an inkling of sense to surrender based on historical precedents of good-intentions...especially considering I've pointed out an episode that completely contradicts the notion of a just Gramlins. That said, I do not care for that debate in the slightest so I'll leave it at that. However, you confuse my questioning with complaints. I couldn't care less about the actual principles of your actions, who it's against, or for what reason. I simply cannot in good faith, act as if it's justified. Hence my posting to expose, the rather skewed sense of logic your camp has pressed into the hearts and minds of some.

Honestly, it almost feels like your doing this to gain acceptance within the new power structure of Bob...almost as an atonement or means of having us forget your wrong-doings and support of Hegemony and Citadel actions. Evidently, I have not and neither have plenty of others. However, I've said my piece and made my point; I'll be leaving this topic in question unless it's relevant for me to to respond to future posts.
[/quote]


How could it simultaneously be that we're seeking acceptance by the new power structure *and* that (as has been accused here) that our friends abandoned us due to our actions?

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='11 May 2010 - 04:37 PM' timestamp='1273621058' post='2295332']
I felt compelled to fix that for you.

Lost in your holier than thou was fact that other alliances during the war engaged in aggressive war, without treaty or even precedent, and yet Gramlins felt in no way compelled to act against them--and no, I do not speak of DAWN or TOP.

Oh and...you're down to 41 nations now and 2.1 million NS give or take--Valhalla will be passing you soon in NS as we continue our gains...you also appear to be running out of 'Filipino Heroes' in the lower ranks.

Your alliance needs to cut the charade of moralism and do what's best for its members. End the war. That is truly the moral thing to do.
[/quote]

Your contention is that an alliance has a sovereign right to attack with no valid reason; then the logical response is that my alliance has a sovereign right to oppose each and every such instance. Are you saying that nobody should be able to intervene with sovereign actions?

On the other hand, like I asked of Gamemaster, find me [b]specific[/b] examples and I'll be happy to read them.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='11 May 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1273621524' post='2295339']
Soo uhh due to your extreme moral outrage at IRON having the incredible bad taste to attack someone without the benefit of a treaty to justify it, you decided you should attack IRON without the benefit of a treaty to justify it? What am I missing here?

PS, you again missed my last post.
[/quote]

It has nothing at all to do with treaties.
Was this a serious post or were you just looking to get a jab in?

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='11 May 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1273628330' post='2295500']
He doesn't get it because forcing an opponent defeated on the battlefield into humiliating admissions before you release the boot heel off their neck is unjust and unnecessary. That's the kind of thing the victors declared they stood against in the Karma war. Since you first held that superior position your lack of PR cost you enough advantage that you're really not in a position to make demands anymore but you would rather drive Grämlins into the ground than back off your unattainable position. I think this war will last a very long time and eventually the political pressures will cave Grämlins from within. The sad part is you guys could stop it anytime you want to, but you won't.
[/quote]

Karma was about opposing "might makes right", the outrageously harsh terms such as viceroys and forced disbandment, and massive alliances stepping on smaller alliances to get their war.

Gremlins is hardly doing any of these things.
It's simply not possible for you to claim that Gremlins has a boot heel on IRON's neck.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='11 May 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1273631256' post='2295562']
If IRON/DAWN never surrenders unconditionally and Grämlins never drops their demands for unconditional surrender eventually someone will get ZI'd won't they?
[/quote]


Probably.
Who you think that's more likely to be?

Edited May 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273768082' post='2297005']
Probably.
Who you think that's more likely to be?
[/quote]
You. That is why you've started the pariah act already.

In my estimation, you tried to use the combined might of CnG and its coalition to impose unconditional surrender in the ESA negotiations. However, you pushed a bit too hard and they left you on the battlefield. Suddenly without the might backing you anymore, you still had decent odds with your upper tier dominance. However, your position is so abhorrent that your alliance is falling apart from the inside, and now you no longer have might, nor right.

For you to now claim it has always been this way is disingenuous, the simpler explanation that you tried to use others to get your way and failed spectacularly fits much better.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1273766678' post='2296987']
And once again you want to make this about a dictionary instead of what we're actually doing.
[/quote]
Words do not change their meaning because you want them to.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='13 May 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1273756350' post='2296926']
Grämlins' NS graph disagrees.[/quote]

That doesn't have anything to see with the fact that all the tops from IRON are too scared/value too much their pixels to get out of dove and fight.

[shilo]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1273769642' post='2297018']
That doesn't have anything to see with the fact that all the tops from IRON are too scared/value too much their pixels to get out of dove and fight.
[/quote]
A simply dumb attempt to paint those nations as cowards. Your second try, still not getting better.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1273631647' post='2295575']
so you are now stating you have an obligation to attack TOP, TSO, and TORN. awesome, can't wait to see ya'll declare on them ASAP.
[/quote]

Even if your examples were valid, I said obligation to oppose, not obligation to attack.
Furthermore, we engaged and declared this war with a specific purpose and we're fighting for that aim.
By our calculation, IRON was the primary driver in the unwarranted attack. We oppose the entire unwarranted attack by opposing a the primary perpetrator.
This is what I said previously, that I personally don't really care about DAWN.




[quote]so you went from the goal being to help your friends, to the goal being to help the entire cyberverse... again why? what changed that made you change from the original goal to this new and lofty goal? also, what gives you the right to act as the moral police since it is obvious to all that your friends do not like moral police. though, from the lack of righteous indignation from many of them, it seems they do not like moral police who police their action but do not care if moral police police the action of their enemies. well that clears up one thing for me at least. [/quote]

No, we declared war to defend our friends from an unwarranted attack. The military attack on our friends has ceased but the perpetrators have not acknowledged it was unwarranted; thus by our analysis the mission is not accomplished.




[quote]and i contend quite the opposite of you on this whole bit. IRON's actions were stupid for sure. but preemptive attacks are simply a strategy. the preemptive attack themselves are not right or wrong.[/quote]
I'm talking about unwarranted attacks... unless this argument is about a dictionary where unwarranted and pre-emptive mean the same thing....
[quote] the reason unconditional surrender can actually be considered morally wrong is that it forces the surrendering alliance to hand over their entire sovereignty which is a lot more than what even viceroys could do back in the day. and yes, i know you will give you little spiel about your false and ignorant definition of unconditional surrender, but well read the descriptors and you will catch my drift. [/quote]

An unconditional surrender cannot possibly necessitate agreement to subsequent unknown terms. There is no way around this and none of my opposition have successfully argued the opposite.
Turning yourself in is a preliminary step to getting a "plea". When a fugitive turns themselves in they are not inherently pleading guilty to all charges; only presenting themselves for their actions.



[quote]no, that is how [i]you[/i] think it should be. the rest of the cyberverse obviously thinks differently since this is the first time what you are trying to do is being done. [/quote]

Your argumentum ad antiquitatem is invalid.


[quote]no you misunderstood. there is no precisely reversing the roles. according to Gremlins, it is up to the "morally right" party to be able to dictate [b]exactly[/b] how the process goes. thus, if Alliance Z wants to force an alliance to surrender unconditionally, it is Alliance Z's moral obligation to do it as they see fit. this does not equate to it having to be precisely as Gremlins is doing it, otherwise it is obvious that Alliance Z does not have the moral right to even consider demanding unconditional surrender. [/quote]

I am saying that is no way is it possible for unconditional surrender to be construed into "accept all subsequently delivered terms."
The basis for unconditional surrender, as I have repeated over and over and over again is that one party turns themselves in.
Were the roles reversed and Gremlins as clearly culpable as IRON I would have no problems doing that.

Nowhere have I asserted that the morally right party gets to do whatever they want.
[b]Nowhere.[/b]
The morally deficient party turns themselves in. The Gremlins will quarter them and present terms; IRON will either agree and comply or reject them.


[quote]Gremlins have explained what they feel the process for unconditional surrender is, but since you tie it so strongly with moral righteousness and moral failings, each moral righteous action and each morally bankrupt action differ and thus, this example of unconditional surrender cannot possibly fit the magnitude of every single crime. [/quote]

The process of unconditional surrender has nothing to do with Gremlins. It has only to do with IRON, as a morally deficient party, turning themselves in. That The Gremlins are the only one standing and insisting that IRON do so is circumstantial.

[quote]thus, if Gremlins were to end up committing a morally bankrupt action, then the style of unconditional surrender would have to fit the magnitude of that specific morally bankrupt action. thus, you stating you will only accept unconditional surrender, regardless of the magnitude of your crime, that fits this precise procedure is actually demanding (going way beyond negotiation, so you are correct in that i was wrong in stating it was negotiating) the morally righteous alliance act the same as you have. [/quote]

Unconditional Surrender can only mean one thing: to surrender without conditions.
It cannot mean that the surrendering party inherently agrees to all subsequently offered terms.

Thus, if Gremlins were ever as clearly culpable for wrongdoing as IRON I would have no problem surrendering unconditionally.


[quote]so, unless Gremlins preemptively attack a group of alliances that are not militarily involved in a war, but are politically and possibly helping to plan the war, and have a third party jump in to defend them that had previous ties to at least one of the alliances that got attacked, then unconditional surrender you are doing now could very well not be the style warranted. [/quote]

I don't follow you here.

[Zangmonkey]

Double post due to quote max:


[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1273631647' post='2295575']a moral absolute can only be a moral absolute if it is established as such by every single person. if even 1 person says otherwise, it is not an absolute. if only a small portion says it is, it most assuredly is not. [/quote]

Complete nonsense.
I'll propose a hyperbole:
A man abusing an invalid.
EDIT: I ammended my hyperbole because some found it offensive.
Whether or not somebody somewhere (such as that man) thinks it's acceptable is completely irrelevant to the fact that he is committing an absolute moral atrocity.

[quote]if i was a nazi and i stated all jewish nations on Planet Bob had to be destroyed. it is a moral absolute, and i got a bunch of other idiots who thought the same way, would that make me right and every single other person wrong?
[/quote]

Of course not, that's an ad populum fallacy and I have opposed that sort of logic here repeatedly when people have said "everybody thinks Gremlins are wrong; therefore you are wrong."

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='11 May 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1273632609' post='2295596']
Hes aiming at the "formal speech/declaration" As in their publicly admitting culpability for committing the same crime Gre did when they DoW'd IRON. Awesome eh?
[/quote]


Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Treaties have nothing to do with this; absolutely nothing. That should be obvious.


[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='11 May 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1273609367' post='2295065']
You aren't doing anything about the rest of the equally guilty coalition.

Then you have an [b]obligation[/b] to do something about the rest of the coalition. [i]You aren't.[/i]

Then so is the rest of the coalition.
You aren't doing anything about the rest of the equally guilty coalition.

What about the 'moral failings' of the rest of the coalition? There is "little doubt" about them, too.
[/quote]

Are you saying you think Gremlins has a valid CB to DoW those alliances?
We were never at war with them. We are opposing the principle presently by seeking IRON's allocution.
In much the same way I do not, personally, hold DAWN to the same level as IRON for culpability.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='11 May 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1273637417' post='2295708']
Didn't IRON accept the first terms and reps offered in this conflict before Gramlins withdrew them? How can you say that with a straight face?
[/quote]


Your facts are wrong.
We can disagree all day on the definitions of words or whether or not IRON is morally wrong; there's some basis for disagreement there.
But to your apparent understanding of history: there is no gray area. Your facts are simply incorrect.
It has been discussed already in this thread.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='11 May 2010 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1273638618' post='2295743']
Well you said IRON was [b]never[/b] willing to "man up, pay for damages and resolve the issue"
[/quote]

To The Gremlins, a resolution to this issue requires an allocution.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='11 May 2010 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1273638779' post='2295745']
Ah, but unaligned nations are fine eh?

The tragic logic of the "moral" raider.
[/quote]

I have never raided a nation, ever.
And for raiders, there is an ensuing war where the raider may face consequences.
This is the case of an alliance forming policy (and thus the actions of their members) on an unacceptable basis.
In this case, The Gremlins are seeking that IRON face appropriate consequences.

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='11 May 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1273641870' post='2295805']
Just in case you are not kidding, you really overestimate yourself [/quote]

I am doing what is within my ability to do. By my calculation, it's the best use of my nation serving this purpose.
Of course, I am honored to stand with multiple other nations doing the same thing.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Not that I don't believe you but I haven't seen an official admission of moral failing from DAWN.
I'd like it very much if you'd link me.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273767318' post='2296996']
We're standing in the doorway. This sort of intervention is the only sort permitted by the rules of engagement.
I'm not raining nukes on IRON; shouting them "comply or else"; I'm simply telling them they are not getting past me without a fight or an allocution.
[/quote]

You are splitting hairs, and not answering the question, for reference, here it is again.

[quote]Then why remain at war? If you do not seek a might makes right policy clearly peace and some discussions would be the more mature option, surely Gramlins winning personality and impeccable reasoning skills will convince IRON of the error of their ways without the threat of more nuclear devastation hanging over their heads.[/quote]

Gre appears to be having this problem through the entirety of this conflict, you are attempting through either outright contradiction of the language we speak, simple ignorance, or impressive hairsplitting, trying to redefine your own actions and have forgotten that your actions speak for you no matter what the spokesman claims. You may claim you are baking a pizza as often as you want, but when that cake comes out of the oven we'll still call !@#$%^&*.

So I'll say it again, How do you claim to not hold a 'might makes right position' when you refuse to negotiate with someone you are at war with, and are attempting to force not only monetary reparations out of them for this military conflict you are extending by choice,(and its clearly all on Gre at this point, the ESA proved that) but you also wish force political/social statements out of them before you are willing to end the war.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

It is sort of confusing to me to see folks say that the Grämlins are holding IRON and DAWN in neverending war or are drawing out the conflict. Fact of the matter is, IRON could blitz them today and bring this to an end much faster than what time it would take for it to end by way of Grämlins recanting and saying "no mas".

IRON you certainly have more than enough friends to ensure that the rebuild from the blitz and subsequent curbstomp wont be too long drawn. There is also the famed billion dollar club. End it now. It would also be somewhat satisfying to you, to kick them to the roadside after they held you at war for so long.

What do you guys want here? An end to the war? Satisfaction? It is within reach, right? They are eroded, middle order smashed, fillipino heroes all but dead and the PR campaign is done and all credibility they had, shot. What??!! What are you doing here?

[Zangmonkey]

quote max reached



[quote name='R3nowned' date='12 May 2010 - 12:10 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.[/quote]

This isn't about "pre-emptive" it's about "unwarrented" and there is a significant difference.
This war is predicated on IRON's unwarranted attack. Anything else of their behavior going back to the end of karma is irrelevant to that end; just like this unwarranted attack will be irrelevant after they serve restitution.
After restitution and a return to peace, they have a clean slate.

[quote]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]

We are not refusing to allow them to surrender.
We are refusing to allow them to surrender on their own conditions.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='13 May 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1273772316' post='2297043']
Gre appears to be having this problem through the entirety of this conflict, you are attempting through either outright contradiction of the language we speak, simple ignorance, or impressive hairsplitting, trying to redefine your own actions and have forgotten that your actions speak for you no matter what the spokesman claims. You may claim you are baking a pizza as often as you want, but when that cake comes out of the oven we'll still call !@#$%^&*.[/quote]

We're kneading dough, telling you we're making a pizza.
If a cake comes out of the oven *then* you can call 'bull'
Our actions are nothing more than demanding that IRON should turn themselves in.

[quote]So I'll say it again, How do you claim to not hold a 'might makes right position' when you refuse to negotiate with someone you are at war with, and are attempting to force not only monetary reparations out of them for this military conflict you are extending by choice,(and its clearly all on Gre at this point, the ESA proved that) but you also wish force political/social statements out of them before you are willing to end the war.
[/quote]

You have no idea whether or not we're going to ask for monetary reparations.
Furthermore, I think I've demonstrated that we don't want to "force" anything out of them. Nor could we.
That, and only that, is the basis of unconditional surrender.
It is the dominant method to best ascertain sincerity of an allocution.

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='12 May 2010 - 03:03 AM' timestamp='1273658593' post='2295914']
So you want a list of wrongdoings since Karma, -snip - 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.
[/quote]

Odin, while I agree with much of your post I wanted to address this.
IRON has served restitution for the pre-karma actions. They were given a clean slate by Gremlins.
Additionally, once they serve restitution for this war they will have a clean slate.

This isn't a grudge match for their actions pre-karma, and there won't be a grudge match from Gremlins about this attack after this war.

War is an unfortunate means to the tabula rasa via restitution.
Their restitution will fully satisfy all accountability for this action.

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='12 May 2010 - 08:40 AM' timestamp='1273678793' post='2296044']
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.[/quote]

Ejay, much love but you, as a ninja, are in no position to tell me what The Gremlins would accept.
I have already stated that I would accept unconditional surrender were the roles reversed.
This is absolutely not about "fear of being pulverized" and I've not contended that IRON is. This is about a duty to turn themselves in and serve restitution.

[quote]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.[/quote]

We don't hold a treaty with MK. We didn't join because we were obligated by paper to help them. We joined to oppose IRON's unwarranted and unjust attack.
We defended MK in the process, and that goal was well served, but we are [b]still[/b] at war opposing IRON's unjust actions because they have given no admission that their actions were unjust.

[quote name='ktarthan' date='12 May 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1273694469' post='2296180']
I'm glad we can finally get to the true root of this issue. [i]Tech raiding.[/i]
[/quote]

It's always about tech raiding that the last bastion for people seeking to drum up support for their cause.
Don't you remember when they tried to spin the UJW as being about "ending tech raiding" ?

[quote name='bigwoody' date='13 May 2010 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1273766847' post='2296989']
Oh please, that is a cop out, in more than one way.

So you simply never say you are "culpable", then you never have to accept terms! WOOO HOOO!!!

I guess we will find out soon enough what your alliance considers acceptable terms.
[/quote]

You be sure to remind me next time The Gremlins declares war for no acceptable reason.

[quote name='Delta1212' date='13 May 2010 - 09:11 AM' timestamp='1273767070' post='2296993']
You wouldn't be obligated to accept them. You could always choose to return to a state of indefinite war, the same choice IRON has.
[/quote]


You've posed a false dilemma.
"war" and "indefinite war" are not the same thing.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Matthew PK