The New Grämlins

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='trance addict' date='27 May 2010 - 08:43 AM' timestamp='1274967767' post='2313468']
At some point it would be fitting for IRON/DAWN to pull their offer of white peace (maybe when gRAMlins accept it?) and inturn set out a new list of demands to achieve peace. Maybe in the range of 150K Tech (roughly the amount they owe in REPS to CnG/Superfriends)?
[/quote]

This would be a grave mistake and one i doubt IRON/DAWN will pull. By maintaining the offer of white peace, they show themselves to much more honorable than Gremlins have currently. This gesture would (or at least should) be appreciated by the rest of CN as it shows that IRON/DAWN can rise above the pettiness that reps have become. Reps have rarely ever been used as simple tools of punishment and have almost always been used as a means to cripple your enemy. It has not changed yet. IRON/DAWN can pay the reps themselves, it will hurt them but they can always rebuild.

[Clash]

[quote name='Clash' date='26 May 2010 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1274856786' post='2312200']
My personal terms for Gremlims' surrender involve them sniffing my armpits, for at least 2 collection cycles, immediately after an hour of me maxing out on the stairmaster. Then, my draconian reparations shall include beer and burgers at a tavern of my choosing.[/quote]
I find these terms strict, yet fair and appropriate.
Since my pits remain unsniffed, IRON shall continue this war.

You shall rue the day, Gremlins!

[Qazzian]

[quote name='Calderone' date='27 May 2010 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1274970527' post='2313500']
Which it is not.
[/quote]

I never said it was. I was simply responding to the hypothetical change in stand put forward in the previous post.

I'm well aware that IRON would not be pulling a move like that, and apologize if it came across as if I was saying they would. The part about "our friends in IRON" was to drive home that fact that I don't think this is a term that should be supported, regardless of who's side is giving it.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='25 May 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1274852728' post='2312161']
Unconditional surrender in of itself is a crippling term. That's what you don't seem to get.
[/quote]


"Unconditional Surrender" as you want to define it could be considered a crippling process but your definition does not align itself with the current reality nor what we have explained is meant by "Unconditional Surrender"

The all-important disconnect here is that your and our definitions differ.

We have explained repeatedly that Unconditional Surrender is not what you say it is.
I have even gone so far as to ask what people would like to call the process as we intend to carry it out.

[quote name='The Warrior' date='26 May 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1274888313' post='2312380']
Oh yes of course its only about this war. Actually wait.. I think I heard somewhere about 150 pages back, that we had 'aligned' ourselves against you twice now in back-to-back global conflicts and so now we are being held at war because of it.[/quote]

Please locate me saying that the surrender process for this war has anything to do with your pre-karma actions. I contend that I have, in fact, claimed the opposite.



[quote]Is Matthew PK claiming to know the terms now? Has your lunatic of a leader let you into his inner circle? Please enlighten us with these terms.[/quote]

This is very old news. You should try to keep up... but that would require you to read in order to comprehend rather than to make jabs.

[quote name='Grimm Reaper' date='26 May 2010 - 08:43 AM' timestamp='1274888589' post='2312383']
Truer words have never been spoken, Matthew.

Mostly because you're not really in a position to offer terms.
[/quote]

No; mostly because we haven't offered you any peace terms.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Broncos98]

Matt, you are awesome. As Rome burns, you keep shredding away on that fiddle...

At what point does the Grem situation deteriorate enough to where even you cannot come here and pretend to have a leg to stand on? 25 nations? 15 nations?

We wait with baited breath!!

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Broncos98' date='27 May 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1274989991' post='2313765']
Matt, you are awesome. As Rome burns, you keep shredding away on that fiddle...

At what point does the Grem situation deteriorate enough to where even you cannot come here and pretend to have a leg to stand on? 25 nations? 15 nations?

We wait with baited breath!!
[/quote]

Here's the problem:

People have assumed the following progression:
GRE members are leaving => GRE's actions are tyrannical

I contend that a more logical progression is:
GRE members are leaving => some GRE members don't want to participate in this endeavor



Even if GRE shrinks to 1 nation, it will not change the [b]fact[/b] that GRE is not making any tyrannical demands.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Bob Janova]

Well, it seems we're at square one again, but here's why (whatever you call it) there is a problem with your process.

What you want is: 'surrender' (not really clear what that means – is it just IRON/DAWN saying 'I surrender'?), demilitarisation, then showing them the terms. This is a clear abuse of the position of power (let's just imagine you were still in a position to dictate how the war ended for the sake of argument), and, again whatever words you use, nobody wants to see the idea of demilitarisation before terms being introduced.

Also, you need to come up with a better word for what you want, because (and again we've been over this) 'surrender' means agreeing to terms to end the conflict. [i]OOC: I don't care what dictionary you use, we're talking CN usage here ... like how 'white peace' means something different IRL.[/i] And therefore, as long as you use the term 'surrender', you [i]are[/i] asking IRON to agree to terms they have not yet seen. What you seem to be after is a ceasefire and a statement of accepting wrongdoing, not a surrender.

Since you say you won't sign a peace treaty, and you also won't take white peace (which is still there apparently), it's hard to see how you're going to get yourselves out of this until you wise up.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 May 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1274990275' post='2313768']
Here's the problem:

People have assumed the following progression:
GRE members are leaving => GRE's actions are tyrannical

I contend that a more logical progression is:
GRE members are leaving => some GRE members feel this action GRE is taking is wrong, like the rest of the world[/quote]

Fixed that for you.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 May 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1274990275' post='2313768']
Even if GRE shrinks to 1 nation, it will not change the [b]fact[/b] that GRE is not making any tyrannical demands.
[/quote]
It won't change the fact because there has never been a fact to change.

[hilowe]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 May 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1274988275' post='2313748']
This is very old news. You should try to keep up... but that would require you to read in order to comprehend rather than to make jabs.
[/quote]

Wait, so are you saying that you do know what the terms that would be offered to IRON and DAWN are now?? I've never seen you claim differently.

And, as an FYI, I have been following this thread and feel that I have pretty good reading comprehension.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 May 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1274988275' post='2313748']
"Unconditional Surrender" as you want to define it could be considered a crippling process but your definition does not align itself with the current reality nor what we have explained is meant by "Unconditional Surrender"

The all-important disconnect here is that your and our definitions differ.
[/quote]

No the all important disconnect here is that your position and reality differ. You are either genuinely ignorant (unlikely since it's been spelled out for you several times) or are attempting to run some ill conceived matter of PR attempt here. Either way, knock it off. In case that was too many words let me sum it up.

You are wrong.

That is, your attempted usage of the phrase is flat out incorrect.

[quote]
We have explained repeatedly that Unconditional Surrender is not what you say it is.
[/quote]

For the 30th time, you don't get to magically decide words and phrases have new meanings, words and phrases exist prior to your using them and already have established meaning. You can click your heels together and wish as much as you want, it still does not change the nature of the English language.

[quote]
I have even gone so far as to ask what people would like to call the process as we intend to carry it out.
[/quote]

We've told you, of course aside from some educated guesses, its kind of hard since Gre won't actually say what it wants. All we've been able to establish is your inconsistency.

[quote]
Please locate me saying that the surrender process for this war has anything to do with your pre-karma actions. I contend that I have, in fact, claimed the opposite.
[/quote]

No way in hell am I wading back through this monstrosity, but I believe we heard some justification along the lines of "pattern of behavior" at some point.

[Deezznutts]

Hey heres an idea how about you guys STFU and just fight it out.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Deezznutts

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 May 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1274990275' post='2313768']
Here's the problem:

People have assumed the following progression:
GRE members are leaving => GRE's actions are tyrannical

I contend that a more logical progression is:
GRE members are leaving => some GRE members don't want to participate in this endeavor



Even if GRE shrinks to 1 nation, it will not change the [b]fact[/b] that GRE is not making any tyrannical demands.
[/quote]

Here's the problem:

An alliance is made up of members. They are the foundational building blocks of the power all leaders wield. Losing these members as a result of a betrayal of your ideals is nothing short of a shame. Regardless of if you want to call something tyrannical, your leadership has failed your membership. That's the only conclusion I draw from your dwindling numbers. End of story.

[James Maximus]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='27 May 2010 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1275004854' post='2314004']
No way in hell am I wading back through this monstrosity, but I believe we heard some justification along the lines of "pattern of behavior" at some point.
[/quote]
It was something along the lines of "We've been at war with IRON 2 times in 'x amount of time' and want to make sure we won't be next year" IIRC.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Broncos98' date='28 May 2010 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1274989991' post='2313765']
Matt, you are awesome. As Rome burns, you keep shredding away on that fiddle...

[/quote]
But Rome is rebuilding comrade , its the Gaul that burns

Take white peace Gre, no questions asked, there is frankly nothing more that can be offered, take what you still can.


[quote name='James Maximus' date='28 May 2010 - 05:46 AM' timestamp='1275007557' post='2314047']
It was something along the lines of "We've been at war with IRON 2 times in 'x amount of time' and want to make sure we won't be next year" IIRC.
[/quote]

They simply dont have to violate treaties or bandwagon/hit aggressively without any chains.

Edited May 28, 2010 by shahenshah

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='James Maximus' date='27 May 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1275007557' post='2314047']
It was something along the lines of "We've been at war with IRON 2 times in 'x amount of time' and want to make sure we won't be next year" IIRC.
[/quote]

Aside from the hilarity of it being Gre attacking IRON both times, Gre has already achieved their goal!

Gre has crippled it self to the point where if it takes part in the next war it'll be on the outskirts with the rest of the smaller alliances that lack the military power to stand at the center of conflict.

[BlkAK47_002]

You've had white peace on the table for awhile now. Maybe if you pulled white peace from the table they would take you a little more seriously.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='hilowe' date='27 May 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1274991014' post='2313780']
Wait, so are you saying that you do know what the terms that would be offered to IRON and DAWN are now?? I've never seen you claim differently.

And, as an FYI, I have been following this thread and feel that I have pretty good reading comprehension.
[/quote]


Yes, I am pretty sure this was 80 pages ago.
I'd really have to look.

[quote name='James Maximus' date='27 May 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1275007557' post='2314047']
It was something along the lines of "We've been at war with IRON 2 times in 'x amount of time' and want to make sure we won't be next year" IIRC.
[/quote]

I recall something like that being said, but not by me (in fact I think it was from one of our 'resigned' members)

Edited May 28, 2010 by Matthew PK

[wenwillthisend]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 05:58 AM' timestamp='1274990275' post='2313768']
Here's the problem:

People have assumed the following progression:
GRE members are leaving => GRE's actions are tyrannical

I contend that a more logical progression is:
GRE members are leaving => some GRE members don't want to participate in this endeavor



Even if GRE shrinks to 1 nation, it will not change the [b]fact[/b] that GRE is not making any tyrannical demands.
[/quote]


I know for a fact the reason half the members have left sine the easter sunday accords were signed. And it's not what you are spouting.
Matt I know what Gre wants and I know how far Ram is willing to go to get it. I know you are just crapping on with nonsense for nonsens sake.

But don't worry I am sure it will end soon enough

[Kim Jaym Il]

I think this is the quote that's being mentioned?

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1272815821' post='2283810']
Years of enabling all manner of shens. Rejecting the fresh start they were given in karma. We do not negotiate with criminal alliances. That mistake was made last year and here we are fighting the same war again this year. We don't plan on having to fight it again next year.
[/quote]

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Jaymjaym' date='28 May 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1275027749' post='2314378']
I think this is the quote that's being mentioned?
[/quote]

The plan seems to be working

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='wenwillthisend' date='27 May 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1275026079' post='2314352']
I know for a fact the reason half the members have left sine the easter sunday accords were signed. And it's not what you are spouting.
Matt I know what Gre wants and I know how far Ram is willing to go to get it. I know you are just crapping on with nonsense for nonsens sake.

But don't worry I am sure it will end soon enough
[/quote]


Wen, go ahead and tell everybody what you "know"

I have never once said that nobody left as a result of this policy; in fact I specifically said that many have.

You apparently don't understand what we're after; and you also apparently don't understand the reality in what I have been saying.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='27 May 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1275004854' post='2314004']
No the all important disconnect here is that your position and reality differ. You are either genuinely ignorant (unlikely since it's been spelled out for you several times) or are attempting to run some ill conceived matter of PR attempt here. Either way, knock it off. In case that was too many words let me sum it up.

You are wrong.

That is, your attempted usage of the phrase is flat out incorrect.


For the 30th time, you don't get to magically decide words and phrases have new meanings, words and phrases exist prior to your using them and already have established meaning. You can click your heels together and wish as much as you want, it still does not change the nature of the English language.[/quote]

So you're arguing about the definition of a word rather than what GRE is actually doing.
Gotcha.




[quote]We've told you, of course aside from some educated guesses, its kind of hard since Gre won't actually say what it wants. All we've been able to establish is your inconsistency.[/quote]

What inconsistency is that?
And GRE has been explicit about what it wants, how IRON should proceed, and the fact that we will divulge terms following a surrender.
It's your own fault that you can't separate the idea of "Surrender and quarter" from "Agree to terms for restitution"

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1275075132' post='2314815']
So you're arguing about the definition of a word rather than what GRE is actually doing.
Gotcha.






What inconsistency is that?
And GRE has been explicit about what it wants, how IRON should proceed, and the fact that we will divulge terms following a surrender.
It's your own fault that you can't separate the idea of "Surrender and quarter" from "Agree to terms for restitution"
[/quote]

you don't seem to understand that most do not trust Gremlins word at all. since no one trusts ya'll, then we are not going to believe what you say about what the terms will or will not be. as such, we cannot trust your definition of unconditional surrender either. if Gremlins were as honorable and trustworthy as they once were, this would not be an issue, but it seems that you are no longer found to be as honorable or trustworthy. your actions have lead to this falling.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 May 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1275075507' post='2314826']
you don't seem to understand that most do not trust Gremlins word at all. since no one trusts ya'll, then we are not going to believe what you say about what the terms will or will not be. as such, we cannot trust your definition of unconditional surrender either. if Gremlins were as honorable and trustworthy as they once were, this would not be an issue, but it seems that you are no longer found to be as honorable or trustworthy. your actions have lead to this falling.
[/quote]


That is the silliest argument in this entire thread and you should re-read what you wrote.


You actually think that the problem here is that people think GRE is "lying" about how we want IRON to surrender?
Good Admin, you are actually worried that if IRON surrenders we will say "psyche!" and attack them?
Come on, Doch, you are much smarter than that.

Every alliance on Bob would swarm GRE, and they'd be right to do so.

In fact, it would seem like if you [b]actually believe that we'd do that[/b] that you'd [b]want[/b] IRON to comply so that GRE would get steamrolled by everyone and we'd be done with this.


Furthermore, the basis for people calling us "untrustworthy" is strictly because we have demanded something of which they don't approve.
So the consequently say "You don't actually want what you're saying you want, because the fact that you say you want it is evidence that you're a liar!" is circular and asinine.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Charles the Great]

Matthew we all get what Gre is doing ........ they are trying to humiliate IRON/DAWN "PERIOD".

This is unacceptable on so many levels. I will not even try to state the reasons again as so many others have and you are being purposefully obtuse.

Gremlins reasoning is flawed, IMHO, as they are the ones who have consistently declared war on IRON. What makes you guys think you can or should punish them. As far as I can see no one asked or wants you to take up the cross for them.

Have a nice day,
CtG