The New Grämlins

[Gamemaster1]

So...just to list the questions Matthew_PK has yet to answer. Maybe if they are all in one post he might see them easier. Or just ignore them easier, as he seems to have done earlier.

Why specifically IRON and DAWN?

Why are Gremlins justified in trying to force IRON and DAWN to do anything?

Why is a pre-emptive strike actually so terrible?

And more perhaps more importantly, why has Matthew_PK refused to back up his words with action?

He has also failed to prove that the terms behind his unconditional surrender are reasonable, instead resorting to harping about his codex and rhetorical insults.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='19 June 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1276964132' post='2342935']
So...just to list the questions Matthew_PK has yet to answer. Maybe if they are all in one post he might see them easier. Or just ignore them easier, as he seems to have done earlier.

Why specifically IRON and DAWN?

Why are Gremlins justified in trying to force IRON and DAWN to do anything?

Why is a pre-emptive strike actually so terrible?

And more perhaps more importantly, why has Matthew_PK refused to back up his words with action?

He has also failed to prove that the terms behind his unconditional surrender are reasonable, instead resorting to harping about his codex and rhetorical insults.
[/quote]

IRON because they are who Gre were fighting when Ram went off the deep end
the rest of your questions are irrelevant to anything

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='19 June 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1276964578' post='2342941']
IRON because they are who Gre were fighting when Ram went off the deep end
the rest of your questions are irrelevant to anything
[/quote]
True, they are irrelevant. Not because of inherent irrelevancy, but merely because the true reason behind this unconditional surrender attempt is Ram's ego. Everything PK has been saying in here has always been fluff.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Clash' date='18 June 2010 - 04:58 AM' timestamp='1276851464' post='2341729']
The claim that Gre is somehow acting in a defensive fashion is just one more lame and lying argument gone out the window. Let's just call it what it is. Gre figured they could take advantage of IRON's weakness and bandwagon on those alliances with legitimate claims, and issue extreme terms of their own, thinking IRON would have no choice but to go along with them. Their actions are offensive on more than one level.
[/quote]
I see someone is still using the NPO definition of bandwagoning.

[Gobb]

So IRON, God heard your prayers and you now got the two big nations you wanted!
Let the iron fist strike down the last grämlins!

[Booter]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' date='19 June 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1276969150' post='2343020']
So IRON, God heard your prayers and you now got the two big nations you wanted!
Let the iron fist strike down the last grämlins!
[/quote]

A couple of IRON nations have been in range for awhile now. Yet, Gramlins don't engage. Pardon IRON/DAWN for sticking to their plan.

[Chimaera]

Can't Gremlins just disband so we can finally be done with this?

[amad123]

Everyone seems to be in a big hurry for us to end the war. Really, have you got something else that needs doing but requires this war to be over. The only thing I can think of is paying off reps.

On that note here is probably the best argument why reps should not be paid early. By the Easter Sunday Accords all the parties that signed agreed to peace and therefore none of our previous attackers can declare war on IRON/DAWN or they viloate the ESA. If however we go ahead and pay off the reps then the ESA are terminated. That means all signatories could once again declare and attack us. If the war with Gramlins does not end before reps are finished then we could expect to be attacked by MHA and any other allinace that supports Gramlins, treaty or no treaty. By not paying reps we are extending the length of its agreement and therefore are preventing attacks by any of the signantories. While I doubt the risk of attack would be high, why subject oneself to that risk if we have guarantee.

So its not that we can't begin payments, it would be strategically risky to open oursleves up to attack while Gramlins continue to keep us at war.

The war is about to enter an interesting phase with us hitting larger 80kNS plus Gramlin nations. Ramirus is actually low man in the rankings and MPK is only 3rd in order of rank (not counting those in PM). So sit back enjoy our summer of war. We plan too.

[Tromp]

[quote name='franciscus' date='19 June 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1276950263' post='2342825']
It was what started the debate about DAWN. Ask SynthFG.
[/quote]
Seems silly to me, but okay.
[quote]
Not quite, that's what defines a preemptive strike. Kinda like what Japan did in Pearl Harbor in that other world we sometimes dream of. Whether it was the best course of action or not, is not debatable. The results show it wasn't.
[/quote]
I understand you disagree since you're one of the people who participated in the attack, but the judgement various other alliances made at the time speaks volumes about the legitimacy of this strike.
[quote]
Nobody should be obligated to stay up to date with another alliance's state of affairs, really. That shows, once more, if it was needed, their arrogance.
[/quote]
The other side of the medal is that one shouldn't be surprised to see anyone honoring a promise they made in public. It's ostrich policy to do so and possibly a reason to fire your FA guy.

[quote]
I never said it was. What they did was validated by their own common sense and nobody should judge them for that. I simply said they should have the balls to admit they were aggressors in their war, even though their intention was to defend a friend. The fact that they, at one point, asked of us an acknowledgment that DAWN accepts that, despite Gre going treatyless, their DoW on IRON was essentially defensive in nature, further proves to me that there were at least some who doubted that. I mean, you don't need a public declaration from the defeated party that what you did is this or that unless you're looking to convince someone else of it. Do you?
[/quote]
Well I don't think they entered the war aggressively, so I wouldn't expect Gremlins to make such a concession.

I don't know their reasons for asking an acknowledgement of DAWN that they did in fact enter defensively. We can speculate ofcourse, but that seems rather pointless.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 June 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1276952691' post='2342840']
That won't become true just because people keep saying it. They were not (yet) [i]militarily[/i] involved and you can argue that that made the attack on them unjustified (I'd actually agree with that), but they were already in the coalition and preparing to counter the expected IRON entry point on SF.
[/quote]
OK Bob, I'll admit: they were involved.

[spoiler]As negotiators seeking to end the conflict.[/spoiler]

[quote name='flak attack' date='19 June 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1276966837' post='2342978']
I see someone is still using the NPO definition of bandwagoning.
[/quote]
Oh I do wonder if the times of doublespeak will return.

I hope not.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='19 June 2010 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1276964821' post='2342944']
True, they are irrelevant. Not because of inherent irrelevancy, but merely because the true reason behind this unconditional surrender attempt is Ram's ego. Everything PK has been saying in here has always been fluff.
[/quote]

Has anyone other than Matt argued otherwise

Ram is doing whatever for his own reasons
the worrying thing is that matt and the rest are so into the !@#$e ram has been spouting that they still believe there is any way that this ends well for them

[mythicknight]

[quote name='Tromp' date='19 June 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1276987530' post='2343202']
Oh I do wonder if the times of doublespeak will return.
[/quote]

Remind me when they ended?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Derantol' date='18 June 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1276902324' post='2342294']
What he's saying is that we suspect that the terms might be unreasonable based on the fact that you won't tell us what they are. He's also saying that you are telling us to prove that they are, in fact, unreasonable, while claiming that they aren't.

We have a suspicion.
You have a claim.

Sure, we can make efforts to prove our suspicion. But you have the means to prove your claim; it's up to you to take that step, or find a different one.
[/quote]

Yes, I agree.
But my initial reply to his post was that many had previously claimed that they "are" or "must be" unreasonable.
I have no interest in telling you the terms to "prove" they are not unreasonable... in fact I recall Shilo already stating that even if the terms were disclosed he would not believe them.
I have, however, outlined sound logic as to why it is unreasonable for people to think they are harsh. And yet... I haven't really seen any arguments to those posts... just a few pages of waiting and ignoring and then the repeated claim that they must be harsh.


You see, I was highlighting the change from "are" to "might be"


Also, I am getting back to your question but I don't have a lot of time right now. To be continued!

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='18 June 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1276906952' post='2342352']
I thought you were asserting that terms were not necessary. I could have sworn you made a post in the other thread arguing that you were breaking from the norm by not having any. Please try to keep some internal consistency within your arguments.
[/quote]


That never happened.
Nobody has ever said GRE didn't have any terms.

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='18 June 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1276917431' post='2342534']
Are you really even attempting to respond to my posts anymore?

Our very argument against unconditional surrender is that [u][b]we don't know what the terms are.[/b][/u] They could be unreasonable. They might not be.
But we don't trust you.

You, rather, claim that they [i][u][b]are[/b][/u][/i] reasonable. Prove it.
[/quote]


Your argument is undermined by the fact that GRE has been very clear that we do not consider your surrender as an agreement to comply with any unknown terms.

I am not going to tell you the terms until you surrender.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1276879210' post='2341985']
Anybody who believed GRE alone had the strength to "force" IRON to surrender is an idiot, as I stated in my previous post.
[/quote]

I found that humorous, so I looked up a couple of posts.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1270080406' post='2242624']
This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact.[/quote]

A month and a half ago, you were calling yourselves victors, and calling IRON defeated. Now you are saying "Oh, only an idiot would think we could force them". You've been *trying* to force them for that month and a half. It seems you've changed your toon, and are trying to re-write history.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1271107358' post='2257735']
I'm not afraid of sunk costs, I just haven't folded after the turn. Seems to me like IRON/DAWN is on the draw for the river.Naturally, they will think otherwise.[/quote]

Again, there you are claiming you have the advantage, and that IRON is losing and hoping something changes to give them an advantage.

[quote name='Ertyy' date='01 May 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1272732142' post='2282739']
I will repeat this again: based on the reports I have seen, IRON's upper tier has nothing. If they were to come out swinging right now, I doubt they could give a good showing for longer than a week at the most (and that is assuming all those people with a month or two of unpaid bills can actually pay that off). Meanwhile, we got a load of money left and can just buy right back up after IRON exhausts itself. You need actual nations that can fight to bring someone down. It's not going to happen just because our members are all sad because OWF doesn't like them.But, ya, keep touting alliance NS numbers as if those mean anything in this case. I'm sure you will win a lot of support with that line.Edit: Speaking clearly.
[/quote]

Ertyy was pretty clear that Gramlins has all the power, IRON has nothing.

I do agree with you, though, you were idiots for thinking you could force this, and it's destroyed your alliance.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='19 June 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1277002092' post='2343339']
I have no interest in telling you the terms to "prove" they are not unreasonable... in fact I recall Shilo already stating that even if the terms were disclosed he would not believe them.
I have, however, outlined sound logic as to why it is unreasonable for people to think they are harsh. [/quote]

If you were to give out the terms now, when it's clear you are losing, I'm sure they would look like light, simple terms that anyone would agree with.

However, if you had offered light simple terms that anyone would have agreed with several months ago, then IRON would have accepted and the war would have ended back then.

The only logical reason for you to demand unconditional surrender and demilitarization prior to giving out terms would be that the terms included one or more items that IRON would not have agreed to.

I'm with Shilo. You've lied and twisted words time and time again in this thread. If you post "These would have been the terms" at this point, I probably wouldn't believe you. I certainly wouldn't if they were light terms.

Ertty said, some time back, that the goal was to cripple IRON. Light terms wouldn't do that.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='19 June 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1277002092' post='2343339']
I am not going to tell you the terms until you surrender.
[/quote]

And if you don't start playing the game my way I'm taking my ball and going home.

Can Gremlins get anymore childish?

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='20 June 2010 - 03:48 AM' timestamp='1277002092' post='2343339']
I am not going to tell you the terms until you surrender.
[/quote]

If you didn't want anyone to know the terms you could have just said, no need to have obliterated your alliance in the way there

[deathcat]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='19 June 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1277002092' post='2343339']

I am not going to tell you the terms until you surrender.
[/quote]


Well, at this rate, you won't be around as an alliance long enough for anyone to "HEAR" you tell them... let alone the fact that they have no reason to surrender to a "dead" alliance. You may occupy your nations but you definitely can't get them to surrender to Zombies. Grämlins demanding surrender (even just requesting at this point) is like TPF Applicant Alliance asking Mushroom Kingdom or NPO to hand over 100k tech. This continuation of war is actually pointless for Grämlins and, if I was the other alliances waiting for reps, a real reason for EVERYONE to roll you guys. This is beyond Stupid. Grämlins was known as having some of the best minds on Bob.. Now its known for Losing Its Mind! For every nation you lose.. you seem to lose more and more of your sanity or collective IQ. I mean, seriously, 24 nations?? What can you expect at this time? I can't see how anyone has any respect for the remaining membership/leader(less)ship of Grämlins at this point. No honor, no demands, no sticking-to-your "codex" will get you that back. I wish this thread to DIE but unfortunately, at the current rate of attrition, we will have to endure RAM continuing this indefinitely on for years to come on his OWN.

Please.. SOMEONE... PUT Grämlins out of their misery (even if they don't get it)

oo/

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='flak attack' date='19 June 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1276966837' post='2342978']
I see someone is still using the NPO definition of bandwagoning.
[/quote]
Attacking someone who's clearly already lost a war without citing a treaty. I wasn't aware there were any other definitions? What's the non-NPO definition?

[JimKongIl]

Matthew, is your codex and gov structure publicly available? I know Ramirus is the leader but he is not making any public statements at present. Are you relaying the official Gre position or just your personal one?

[Cataduanes]

I am seriously beginning to think that some of you are using this thread simply to raise your post counts

[Derantol]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='20 June 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1277019277' post='2343545']
I am seriously beginning to think that some of you are using this thread simply to raise your post counts
[/quote]

Curses, he's caught on! Quick, we need to find another thread to post in!

[Tromp]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='20 June 2010 - 07:34 AM' timestamp='1277012062' post='2343464']
Attacking someone [b]who's clearly already lost a war[/b] without citing a treaty. I wasn't aware there were any other definitions? What's the non-NPO definition?
[/quote]
Try tro prove that, then we'll talk.

[shahenshah]

2 more nations down, kindly update your blogs.

[magicninja]

Posting in epic thread. I can't believe peace has not been worked out yet.