The New Grämlins

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='29 May 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1275180213' post='2315983']
It's too late for Gre to accept white peace. They would have to go back on 180 pages of their word. They have too much pride for that.
[/quote]

Pride cometh before a fall.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Bilrow' date='29 May 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1275182495' post='2316011']
Pride cometh before a fall.
[/quote]

It also apparently exists before during and after the fall.

[kerschbs]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='26 May 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1274855636' post='2312187']
Your alliance, its word, its codex, and its reputation are all worth a fart in a vac suit at this point - that is all.

Seriously, I wouldn't trust you with a sippy cup at this point, nobody is going to take your word for anything.



Quantity of discourse is not the problem, rather it underscores the point.

NPO's surrender terms in Karma generated a lesser outpouring, this is indicative of how out of touch with reality Gre has become.
[/quote]

Fantastic post Typo

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 May 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1275157872' post='2315732']
You're not breaking anything. By surrendering you have [b]not agreed to any subsequent terms[/b]

This concept is really not that difficult to comprehend.
[/quote]
I am [b]not[/b] rehashing this debate over surrender again.

Stop butchering my language and use words that mean what you think they mean.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='franciscus' date='29 May 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1275167616' post='2315865']
Unfortunately, going on with our daily business will give them a [i]carte blanche[/i] against us in the next war. And while I'm aware of the fact that they could bandwagon anyway as they've proven already, I'd rather take away their fire power now than allow them to pick their targets later, when we'd probably be busier.
[/quote]

Gramlins lack the strength to force IRON and DAWN to surrender unconditionally but to be honest, IRON/DAWN are not presently in a position to "take away their firepower" either.

Personally, I am wearing the IRON AA solely for the reason of helping IRON/DAWN get peace. I saw two alliances that desired peace but they were being denied until they agreed to surrender unconditionally. I see this as wrong so I decided I was willing to stand with IRON against Gramlin attacks so that they could pursue peace. I would never surrender unconditionally and I don't think anyone should be required to do so as a prerequisite to peace.

The moment that the war dynamic changes so that IRON/DAWN takes white peace off the table or no longer desires peace from Gramlins I must say respectfully that my work here is done and I wish you guys the best of luck. I have no grudge against Gramlins outside of their demand for unconditional surrender. If they choose to enforce that demand through attacks on IRON I will defend now and in the future.

Simply put, it is my belief that if you truly want peace all you have to do is walk away and you will have it, regardless of whatever Gramlins says publicly. Gramlin's aren't really DoWing on you guys in non defensive wars it seems. If you decide you want to continue the war then I wish you luck.

[quote name='ironchef' date='29 May 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1275169513' post='2315884']
TBH why should IRON/DAWN stop attacks on Gramlins? There is a lot of tech and land to be had and I think they should take all they can get. If Gramlins wants to end this war all they have to do is take the white peace that has been offered to them. Until then I say keep attacking and enjoy the bounty of your harvest.
o/ IRON
o/ DAWN
[/quote]

I think my post above addresses my thoughts on this but I will add that I think a lot more damage is being done to IRON by having their top tier in peace mode than the lower nations are receiving in tech/land. IRON would grow a lot faster if they dropped the bulk of their military, starting boosting their lower ranks and sold mass amounts of tech to their high NS nations.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='29 May 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1275156743' post='2315706']
29 nations remain since the Easter Day Accords. 43 nations have left since that day. 96 nations have left since Karma.

And that's the nonsense facts assuming they didn't gain any members since then, like the Filipino Heroes. That means probably only ~10 nations remain from the Karma Gre.[/quote]
Roughly half - 14 - of those who were members during Karma are still present. Of the 14 approximately 9 had them joined 420+ days ago. What relevance that last figure has I have no idea. I just thought it might be something some may wish to note.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='29 May 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1275157586' post='2315724']
At present the only Gramlin's DoWs on IRON/DAWN appear to be defensive.

In light of Gramlin's and IRON/DAWN's inability to find a common position, I think IRON/DAWN's best option is to declare the conflict over, stop DoWing on Gramlins not attacking IRON/DAWN and start paying CnG reps. If any Gramlin decides to attack they are swarmed with the tenacity of killer bees defending their queen against invaders.
[/quote]

That is a very high risk move. They would still technically be at war with us and who knows down the lane what they'd do, can only expect irrational choices from them.

Imagine we take out our top nations out of PM, stop DoWing, and start the reps...2 months down the road, Gre decides they've recovered enough firepower etc to initiate a blitz, that'll significantly screw our funds source of reps and mess things up, further, it'll become a headache for us and SC and bring us back to this day today, just 3 months later. I'd imagine that by now most of those who wanted to leave probably have left.

The probability of above with any saner alliance would be v. low, but its Gre and they've set up the irrational image and perception all by themselves. Cant have loose knots around, and its not like we're creating any bottleneck for it.

If significant Gre nations in Top-tier can provide some sort of guarantee or something they wont be pulling shens, then that is something that would need to be taken up with respective govts as its a new situation. While talking to one of FH member, they're pretty convinced, we DoW'd them and they'd be pushing Ramirus to impose reps on us :S and you've probably seen the hilarity that the internal memo was.

We *dont* want to kill Gre, they're doing it themselves, they have an offer of white peace from IRON. We're not putting any shenz terms like reviews or 1 tech or any other off-white peace, its as white as milk, we are not interested in humiliating them or make brag the i > u card. They've again managed to do it themselves. We want to end it in the simplest possible manner.

I'd be more than glad if this can finish right about now but you're suggesting leaves out a potential for a global drama few weeks or months from now and eventually leading back to this day here, it only moves towards a delaying of settlement and not towards it. We have an obligation of reps, and frankly we'd not be interested in having another obligation of where big nations are heavily .militralized to keep an eye out for Gre, i'd rather have all those extra millions in expenses goto reps or rebuilding.

Tho, I must say some of your points are definately worth serious pondering and however we've got to see the cost/benefit in short and long-term and the risk of the situation.

[u]There is white peace for them, clean & simple.[/u]

Edited May 30, 2010 by shahenshah

[Bob Janova]

In my opinion IRON's best move is to bring everyone out of PM and get rebuilding and aid rolled out, but not to declare an end to the war, so they can put off the reps – indefinitely considering that Grämlins apparently won't take a white peace even though they're clearly losing, so there's no particular reason that should stop.

With Grämlins' continued top tier losses, for them to actually engage IRON would result in their complete destruction (a week of war with Jim and CT would drag any of them except possibly BD down into the melee zone), so it's becoming fairly safe for IRON to come out.

Oh dear, Matthew is still labouring under the same delusions as on page 1. I've got a little time to waste so let's go through this again.

[quote]You're not breaking anything. By surrendering you have not agreed to any subsequent terms

This concept is really not that difficult to comprehend.[/quote]
Apparently it is for you, because you're still as wrong as you ever were. Surrender is the process of agreeing to terms and ending the war. So if you want someone to surrender before offering them the terms, you are making them agree to them in advance (or break surrender which is the ultimate no-no).

[quote]As for demilitarization, you don't even know what the orders are. You seem logical so I'd ask you to ponder a bit:
Why would GRE design terms intentionally to make IRON reject? What incentive could there possibly be for us to diligently push an agenda specifically to have it fail with terms intended to be rejected?
If it were our intention to perpetuate a war, why wouldn't we simply offer outrageous terms initially? Why go through the effort to secure a surrender first only to force a harder war? Do you really think I am so obsessed with IRON that I would push friends out of my alliance just to attack them? Please, get a hold of yourself.[/quote]
We have been asking that for 180 pages now. We are logical; you (Grämlins) seem not to be. You are requiring a term (unconditional surrender and demilitarisation before peace) designed to be rejected, you [i]are[/i] offering outrageous terms initially, and you [i]have[/i] been pushing friends out of the alliance in order to keep attacking IRON. Yes, this is entirely illogical, and it has been since you refused to sign the ESA, so I don't know why you think applying to logic in order to predict your future actions makes sense.

If your actions could be predicted logically, we wouldn't be where we are now.

[quote]It doesn't need further emphasis. Your point is clear: IRON doesn't need to comply because you think you are "winners".[/quote]
IRON doesn't need to subject itself to your ridiculous demands because you don't have the power to enforce anything any more, that's true. But the reason that IRON now have that power advantage is because your own allies, and most of your own members, have left you out there alone because you're in the wrong. Don't try to pin this on IRON as some hegemonic might-makes-right merchants; the only reason you thought you could try to pull your injustice is because you had more might than them and because you thought you could use the leverage of the rest of the coalition to increase that.

[Williambonney]

So now the tide has turned, and gremlins are on the losing side? What an IRONic turn of events. Give 'em %$@# guys

[Clash]

Historically, it's the losing alliance that has to agree to terms and/or pay reps.
In this case, that alliance is not IRON nor DAWN.

I don't see what's so confusing for Matty K.

[Derantol]

For Matt, the historical precedent doesn't matter. Neither do the numbers. He is convinced that by sheer "moral superiority", he will convince us to surrender. That is evidenced by his unwavering position, despite the shrinking platform upon which he makes them. It's admirable that he will stand up for something he believes in so fully, but that gets taken away as more and more members leave.

EDIT: Added quotes around "moral superiority". Not everyone agrees on the nature of morals here, so the claim can't be made without backing that part up.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Derantol

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='29 May 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1275157586' post='2315724']
At present the only Gramlin's DoWs on IRON/DAWN appear to be defensive.

In light of Gramlin's and IRON/DAWN's inability to find a common position, I think IRON/DAWN's best option is to declare the conflict over, stop DoWing on Gramlins not attacking IRON/DAWN and start paying CnG reps. If any Gramlin decides to attack they are swarmed with the tenacity of killer bees defending their queen against invaders.
[/quote]

Actually it is in IRON and DAWN's best interest to continue to reduce the threat until there is no possibility of a "banzai charge" that could do serious damage. Beyond that, the mere existence of a Gramlins threat, credible or otherwise, gives IRON and DAWN cover to rebuild significantly and reduce the burden the reparations payments will have on them once they do begin.

Of course if C&G is anxious for reparation payments to get underway, there is a simple solution: remove Gramlins from the board. This would prevent IRON and DAWN from using the ongoing conflict with Gramlins as an excuse for not starting reparations.

[lonewolfe2015]

Honestly guys, if no one is fighting now and Gremlins decided to start the conflict back up in a couple months, what have you got to lose? You'll have allies at that point out to help destroy Gremlins if you really needed it (which you shouldn't)

I think all of this complaining is making both sides look like children.

[caligula]

While I cannot defend the actions of Gramlins nor really understand how this whole situation has come to light being that I wasn't here, I am still nonetheless severely confused on several topics.

A. How the Gramlins could use the concept of Unconditional Surrender to take a moral high point with the rest of the game. They later recant and state that their definition of such is just merely the standard operating procedure used by other alliances, yet they wish to stake it all on the interpertation of how surrender should happen. Now, hopelessly outmaneuvered diplomatically, Gramlins still wishes to flip flop on this definition.

2. The belief that Gramlins are currently losing this war, or rather, IRON and DAWN are winning. Just look at the statistics. Sure, Iron and co have numbers, but Gramlins can still do more damage than one can think of with the amount of nations above 110k + ns...

and D. The thought that anyone else should bring the Gramlins to their senses. Why should MK and CnG have to secure their reps by forcing Gre to stop by their own hand, basically losing incentive gained from the reps? They're going to get them either way, why not wait it out for them? As for IRON and DAWN using that as the reason to end this ASAP and calling on the international community to, I look back to #2, where IRON and DAWN are claiming victory. If that is the case, they should begin paying reperations back immediately.

I just see a whole lot of bad maneuvering going on and can't help but hope this ends soon.

Edited May 30, 2010 by caligula

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Derantol' date='30 May 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1275236189' post='2316695']
For Matt, the historical precedent doesn't matter. Neither do the numbers. He is convinced that by sheer "moral superiority", he will convince us to surrender. That is evidenced by his unwavering position, despite the shrinking platform upon which he makes them. It's admirable that he will stand up for something he believes in so fully, but that gets taken away as more and more members leave.

EDIT: Added quotes around "moral superiority". Not everyone agrees on the nature of morals here, so the claim can't be made without backing that part up.
[/quote]

Well its even stupider because taking a moral stand only accomplishes anything if that stand is successful, when failing miserably is becomes nearly impossible to establish precedent.

[quote name='caligula' date='30 May 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1275240377' post='2316782']
While I cannot defend the actions of Gramlins nor really understand how this whole situation has come to light being that I wasn't here, I am still nonetheless severely confused on several topics.

A. How the Gramlins could use the concept of Unconditional Surrender to take a moral high point with the rest of the game. They later recant and state that their definition of such is just merely the standard operating procedure used by other alliances, yet they wish to stake it all on the interpertation of how surrender should happen. Now, hopelessly outmaneuvered diplomatically, Gramlins still wishes to flip flop on this definition.
[/quote]

No !@#$%^&*, Gre is straight up got a screw or two loose.

[quote]
2. The belief that Gramlins are currently losing this war, or rather, IRON and DAWN are winning. Just look at the statistics. Sure, Iron and co have numbers, but Gramlins can still do more damage than one can think of with the amount of nations above 110k + ns...
[/quote]

What else do you call going from a war you were winning to losing 2/3 of your membership a ton of NS and all your respect for the alliance? Gre sure as hell ain't winning. We've got what amounts to a stale mate really, though its hurting GRE far more than IRON. Those 100k+ nations (and there are alot less of them than there used to be) are indeed a large threat, the problem is that gre can't afford to commit them. The illusion of strength those nations provide is the only thing Gre has going for it. Yes they could do a lot of damage but if they get dragged down into range of the pack they'll just sit and ZI while getting their tech slowly blown away. Which is what IRON is currently doing to most of the Gre nations they are engaged too. Its a slow and tedious process, but its killing Gre.
[quote]
and D. The thought that anyone else should bring the Gramlins to their senses. Why should MK and CnG have to secure their reps by forcing Gre to stop by their own hand, basically losing incentive gained from the reps? They're going to get them either way, why not wait it out for them? As for IRON and DAWN using that as the reason to end this ASAP and calling on the international community to, I look back to #2, where IRON and DAWN are claiming victory. If that is the case, they should begin paying reparations back immediately.

Victory, or more specifically superiority on the battlefield must first be recognized by ones opponent before it can lead to peace. Its clear to anyone but Gre that Gre cannot hope to win this conflict as it is now. But then again, if Gre wasn't being delusional this would have ended on Easter Sunday.

[/quote]

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='caligula' date='30 May 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1275240377' post='2316782']
and D. The thought that anyone else should bring the Gramlins to their senses. Why should MK and CnG have to secure their reps by forcing Gre to stop by their own hand, basically losing incentive gained from the reps? They're going to get them either way, why not wait it out for them? As for IRON and DAWN using that as the reason to end this ASAP and calling on the international community to, I look back to #2, where IRON and DAWN are claiming victory. If that is the case, they should begin paying reperations back immediately.
[/quote]

Fair points.

The disconnect is between being able to look at the situation and say, "well clearly IRON and DAWN are going to win decisively now" and it actually being so--as you suggest, Gramlins still has nations in the field and a DoW in place. So longer as the latter is the case, it doesn't matter if a blind fool can see where this is going.

You are also correct in that C&G has an 'IOU' on the table from IRON and DAWN and hurrying things along will reduce the amount of recovery funds correspondingly. I guess it depends upon the aims of asking for reparations in the first place.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='caligula' date='30 May 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1275240377' post='2316782']
While I cannot defend the actions of Gramlins nor really understand how this whole situation has come to light being that I wasn't here, I am still nonetheless severely confused on several topics.

A. How the Gramlins could use the concept of Unconditional Surrender to take a moral high point with the rest of the game. They later recant and state that their definition of such is just merely the standard operating procedure used by other alliances, yet they wish to stake it all on the interpertation of how surrender should happen. Now, hopelessly outmaneuvered diplomatically, Gramlins still wishes to flip flop on this definition.

2. The belief that Gramlins are currently losing this war, or rather, IRON and DAWN are winning. Just look at the statistics. Sure, Iron and co have numbers, but Gramlins can still do more damage than one can think of with the amount of nations above 110k + ns...

and D. The thought that anyone else should bring the Gramlins to their senses. Why should MK and CnG have to secure their reps by forcing Gre to stop by their own hand, basically losing incentive gained from the reps? They're going to get them either way, why not wait it out for them? As for IRON and DAWN using that as the reason to end this ASAP and calling on the international community to, I look back to #2, where IRON and DAWN are claiming victory. If that is the case, they should begin paying reperations back immediately.

I just see a whole lot of bad maneuvering going on and can't help but hope this ends soon.
[/quote]
I'm a fan of your ordering system.

[Grimm Reaper]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='30 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1275271030' post='2317325']
I'm a fan of your ordering system.
[/quote]

As am I. Disappointed the Cyrillic Alphabet wasn't included, but this is still the best presented.

Even if I do disagree with his last two points. Yes, they are able to inflict massive damage upon us. However, that and emerging inevitably victorious are not mutually exclusive.

Let us take, for example, a hypothetical group of 10-15 nuclear rogues who want to see IRON destroyed that calls itself the IRON Minimilization Pact. While this pact, IMP, may each be individually stronger than any of our nations, it is impossible for them to emerge victorious in the end. For while they may deal more damage to our top nations than we can reciprocate, they will nevertheless be dragged down significantly in a nuclear war. And once an IMP nation is dragged below a certain threshold, the ratio is 3:1 all the way to ZI, which is a fight no IMP member will win.

Back in the 50%-200% strength range for war, it was virtually guaranteed that with 3 competent fighters, the nation at 200% strength would be defeated. With the recently narrowed 75%-133%, even the strongest nation will not survive a 3 on 1.

So while they may deal to us more damage than we give initially, that is a pace that IMP cannot take. Inevitably, IRON would defeat IMP.

This is why we are winning.

That said, however, unilaterally declaring peace is a bad idea, worse strategically than demilitarizing and then negotiating. GRE can attack us whenever they wish and be perfectly within their rights to do so, as they had never agreed to peace. Granted, it wouldn't be much different than current SOP, but at least random declarations have a diplomatic backlash. If we declared unilateral peace, the overwhelming response from the Cyberverse to us when GRE resumed hostilities would be, rightfully, "you *%&#ing idiots."

Would we win the war that followed? Yes. However, it would be a gigantic inconvenience because, when the war resumed, it wouldn't be on our terms. Unless we were permanently paranoid, holding full navies all the time, we wouldn't be ready for an attack. And if we were, our ability to pay reps and economically grow would be greatly hindered.

No, it is far better to have both sides agree to peace.

Edit: Boo, accidentally hitting 'Add Reply' button too soon.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Grimm Reaper

[Grayshadow]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='30 May 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1275192900' post='2316176']
Gramlins lack the strength to force IRON and DAWN to surrender unconditionally but to be honest, IRON/DAWN are not presently in a position to "take away their firepower" either.

Personally, I am wearing the IRON AA solely for the reason of helping IRON/DAWN get peace. I saw two alliances that desired peace but they were being denied until they agreed to surrender unconditionally. I see this as wrong so I decided I was willing to stand with IRON against Gramlin attacks so that they could pursue peace. I would never surrender unconditionally and I don't think anyone should be required to do so as a prerequisite to peace.

The moment that the war dynamic changes so that IRON/DAWN takes white peace off the table or no longer desires peace from Gramlins I must say respectfully that my work here is done and I wish you guys the best of luck. I have no grudge against Gramlins outside of their demand for unconditional surrender. If they choose to enforce that demand through attacks on IRON I will defend now and in the future.

Simply put, it is my belief that if you truly want peace all you have to do is walk away and you will have it, regardless of whatever Gramlins says publicly. Gramlin's aren't really DoWing on you guys in non defensive wars it seems. If you decide you want to continue the war then I wish you luck.



I think my post above addresses my thoughts on this but I will add that I think a lot more damage is being done to IRON by having their top tier in peace mode than the lower nations are receiving in tech/land. IRON would grow a lot faster if they dropped the bulk of their military, starting boosting their lower ranks and sold mass amounts of tech to their high NS nations.
[/quote]

The following is my opinion as just a member in IRON and is not meant to state any stance of the IRON council.

I believe IRON and DAWN have little choice in the matter. Grämlins declared war on IRON. Grämlins has stated it's terms to end the war (what ever definition you choose to use). IRON and DAWN find those terms unacceptable (whatever definition you choose to use). IRON and DAWN, even though we seem to be winning the war , have had a true white peace on the table for quite some time. Grämlins can accept it if they so choose. At present Grämlins finds white peace unacceptable. If Grämlins does not agree to white peace then I believe IRON and DAWN must continue to fight each and every Grämlins nation till they either do accept our offer, leave Grämlins or perish. Grämlins may be few in number but they are still formidable in strength and that strength deserves respect.

I believe that no alliance can afford to leave an unresolved war hanging in limbo. The chance for it to come back to haunt them is just too great for any government with it's members best interests in mind to take the risk. I may be paranoid but I see several ways in which it could create great problems in the future. Grämlins could get it's act back together and grow back into a power that has an unresolved war with IRON and DAWN. Some power that wanted to attack IRON and DAWN for any reason could make treaties with Grämlins and suddenly find "Oh Grämlins is at war with IRON and we must honor our treaty with them.” With Grämlin's paperless policy they would not even have to have a treaty with them, they only need to be "friends". There are most likely many other ways I haven't even thought of that an unresolved war could create huge future problems. These scenarios may seem far fetched but some very strange and far fetched things happen in this world. Would the opinion of the majority of the citizens of this planet prevent something like that from happening? I would like to think so but I personally would not take that chance when my alliance’s well being was at stake. Wars need to be brought to a complete resolution IMO. You can’t just walk away because the side that is losing refuses to negotiate.

I do not want to see Grämlins destroyed. The, to me, senseless destruction of a once great alliance is just terrible. I hate to see my alliance playing a part in it but I see no choice. Any requirement called "unconditional surrender" and/or disarmament before terms are given are just plain wrong to me and worse than the alternative of having to destroy a once great alliance because of their own inability to see beyond what they want.

[caligula]

Point(s) taken.

I don't think either side can claim the other "started it." I did some reading...The DoW's were within 2 hours, and the Gramlins believed they were in the right to defend their allies. I call that a wash, because if we got into technicalities then people would ignore the greater message.

I don't see Gramlins as really being the aggressor's, so much as just being really diplomatically inept in this situation. To stake an alliance's survival by going it alone on an issue that your allies already communicated that they disagreed with is really quite the head-scratcher.

But I also do not agree with the perception that somehow if peace was achieved IRON/Gre would be open to future attacks, as I believe the 180 page thread can vouch that any agressor will be seen as "the bad guy," and I've gathered some sort of moralism has spread over the forums that would pretty much isolate them. (Granted, it being 180+ pages may call into question if either side truly cares about being "the bad guy," if they're doing what they think is right, however, I'd like to think they wouldn't be willing to make the same mistake(s) twice.)

I think, then, that this now is more about how IRON would like to finish this. Through the scenario you've described with a slow knockout style affair, or pride is set aside and these two alliances who I've respected for quite some time reach an agreement that benefits them both without the aforementioned expensive process for either. I wish the latter, but as each day passes I'm beginning to think the former becomes more likely.


Anyway, these last couple pages have been helpful to me in at least better understanding what's going on.
Thank you all.

Edited May 31, 2010 by caligula

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='caligula' date='31 May 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1275289642' post='2317582']
Point(s) taken.

I don't think either side can claim the other "started it." I did some reading...The DoW's were within 2 hours, and the Gramlins believed they were in the right to defend their allies. I call that a wash, because if we got into technicalities then people would ignore the greater message.
[/quote]

Not really, Gre's moral stand is based largely on IRON's 'crimes' (gre's words) which include their preemptive strike, delcaring without treaty obligation. Gre did the same. While they could easily have spun it (and did) as a defensive actions to help C&G, after the ESA that evaporated in record time. They did start out defending C&G from attack, but their moral high ground vanished the second the ESA was signed and they've been sinking ever since.

[quote]
I don't see Gramlins as really being the aggressor's, so much as just being really diplomatically inept in this situation. To stake an alliance's survival by going it alone on an issue that your allies already communicated that they disagreed with is really quite the head-scratcher.
[/quote]

They are by all standards the aggressor, they were not attacked, they attacked. They've also strung this out far longer than necessary from any (sane) point of view. They didn't even have an MDP to follow to maintain even the slimmest claim on being the defender

[quote]
But I also do not agree with the perception that somehow if peace was achieved IRON/Gre would be open to future attacks, as I believe the 180 page thread can vouch that any agressor will be seen as "the bad guy," and I've gathered some sort of moralism has spread over the forums that would pretty much isolate them. (Granted, it being 180+ pages may call into question if either side truly cares about being "the bad guy," if they're doing what they think is right, however, I'd like to think they wouldn't be willing to make the same mistake(s) twice.)
[/quote]

Lack of peace is the problem, instead of going with any of the more established and sane practices Gre has opted to try this ridiculous mystery box grab bag approach to terms. IRON having not misplaced their testicles are unwilling to subject themselves to such a travesty of a diplomatic process (As would anyone else).

IRON meanwhile has had an offer of white peace up for some time now. Its Gre's insistance on some kind of twisted process that only makes sense to them that keeps this going. That and pure Ego from Ramirus

[quote]
I think, then, that this now is more about how IRON would like to finish this.
[/quote]

IRON's already detailed how they want to finish this. its Gre who has at this point in fact outright refused to even negotiate.


[quote]
Through the scenario you've described with a slow knockout style affair, or pride is set aside and these two alliances who I've respected for quite some time reach an agreement that benefits them both without the aforementioned expensive process for either. I wish the latter, but as each day passes I'm beginning to think the former becomes more likely.
[/quote]

I think it was clear 100+ pages ago that sanity would not be carrying the day (month(s)) here.

[Grimm Reaper]

[quote name='caligula' date='31 May 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1275289642' post='2317582']But I also do not agree with the perception that somehow if peace was achieved IRON/Gre would be open to future attacks, as I believe the 180 page thread can vouch that any agressor will be seen as "the bad guy," and I've gathered some sort of moralism has spread over the forums that would pretty much isolate them. (Granted, it being 180+ pages may call into question if either side truly cares about being "the bad guy," if they're doing what they think is right, however, I'd like to think they wouldn't be willing to make the same mistake(s) twice.)[/quote]

Agreed, if hostilities resumed, the aggressor would be diplomatically isolated. However, one can be diplomatically isolated and still not be at a strategic disadvantage, because if Gramlins will never have agreed to peace and we unilaterally declare it, it's not really a Declaration of War on us.

Yes, this is e-lawyering. However, further e-lawyering would most certainly occur if this situation comes to pass. Which is why GRE must agree to peace with us. Because they hate e-lawyers.

Or something.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Grimm Reaper

[SynthFG]

I think only an idiot with an agenda would try and link how this war started with the current situation

Effectively the war ended for Gre after 3 or 4 weeks of combat, when Zenith and OG were granted peace and IRON and DAWN's war mode nations fell below effective attack range,
For the latter half of the war Gre were restricted to blockading IRON's peace mode top end with little if any actual fighting occurring

The decision of Ram to continue the war beyond its formal end for his own purposes has nothing to do with why gre entered in the first place and as such can be considered separate to the main conflict

[shahenshah]

To: People indicating we should start the rep process or make a unilateral peace decision:
We simply cannot start the reps process as it would start the '6 month' timer - We'd still be at war, Gre would only need one blitz to seriously jeopardize and screw up the time-frame which can lead to a situation where our terms would be deemed broken by the hegemony sparking a one sided curbstomp, maybe even of global level.

We simply wont risk a curb-stomp, unilateral peace leaves alot of variables and loose knots that can swing in many directions, at the same time, Gre's actions in last few months only trend towards insanity, we can only expect those variables to go against us.

Caligula, you're suggesting us to take a leap of faith, that also on Gramlins and risk alot more, loose our strategic advantage in lower tiers and potentially lead things back to this day today. We're not demanding anything from Gramlins, nor we're holding them hostage to the situation, its more like the other way round. Also Caligula, Its ironic you talk of diplomatic isolation when only you hold a treaty with them, I understand what your defacto position is on this matter, I also understand the difficult situation you've been put through, however it still holds that symbol of support, its still a viable legal document that acts as a deterrent to some extent.

We should not take a leap of faith on Gre and we would not. They have a very clear and simple way out, why should we get in a legal-limbo sort of situation with them again. We already saw a legal glitch of bypassing a single chain becoming a main PR point of extracting high reps from us, so, no more room for legal glitches, lessons learned. War will end when Gre decides to end it, because we already decided to end it, the ball is not in our court, its in theirs.

o\ Operation Gizmo.

Edited May 31, 2010 by shahenshah

[shilo]

The ball is entirely in gRAMlin's court, and has been for a while.

There is still definitely a war going on, I fought a nuclear engagement with two gRAMlin nations just last week. Just because it's not a large scale conflict, mostly related to the fact that gRAMlins are shrinking daily in NS and membership, and because we only pick engagements that are to our advantage, not to that of our enemy (as opposed to many friends of gRAMlins suggesting we go all out, and our refusal to play dumb then being called cowardice or whatnot) it will continue to be a limited, but still very real conflict until the last gRAMlin has deleted.
And I am not saying that because I hope to see this happen, rather because I have long since given up expecting anything even somewhat resembling reason coming from them, so stubborness and pride will likely lead to this inevitable result.

MPK's attempts to spin gRAMlins collective suicide as anything but are cute, but still doesn't change the fact that the war is completely of gRAMlin's chosing, and the end to it also is completely up to them.
Every deleted gRAMlin, every lost piece of tech and infra, the reputation, every single loss is completely to be blamed on MPK personally (as one of the three Archons), ram, and every other gRAMlin who continues to support the current course of their alliance.
It's indeed a very rare, and were I not part of an alliance used as tool by gRAMlins to commit suicide, also fascinating event to watch an alliance kill itself with no part in it from other alliances.


Likely we will continue to be able to watch this death struggle for months to come, there can be no illusion that until the last of them is gone, it will take a very long time, but all the nonsense being spouted from MPK as gRAMlin's unofficial/official spokesperson suggests exactly that ending as intended or unintended result of their collective will. Either way, it cannot be blamed on anyone else, no matter the sad spinning attempts from him or third parties.