The New Grämlins

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1277756104' post='2353072']
Our goal, from the very beginning, has been to obtain a very specific thing from IRON.
[/quote]

If, from the beginning, you had simply come out and said "This is what we want", then you may have gotten it. Maybe not, as I still can't figure out what it is you want.

Instead, you demanded unconditional surrender, you have been insulting and rude, you've twisted words and claimed that "the dictionary term doesn't mean anything, it means whatever I want it to mean". You've threatened to destroy IRON's banks if they leave peace mode. And you've refused to consider anything but "Unconditional Surrender! Do whatever we tell you to do dammit!" at all until the past few days - just as Ramirus was about to get hit, with the NS line coming up on you and Ertyy once he's out of the way.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1277754848' post='2353050']
Are you actually suggesting that if all parties to a document agree that they cannot amend it?
[/quote]

You are attempting to re-write history, add yourself to a treaty you were not involved with (by your own choice), and change terms agreed to months ago.

[quote]GRE doesn't want to force anybody to do anything. If they are inclined, they will accept the amendment. If not, they will not.[/quote]

GRE has been *trying* to force IRON to do something for months. It's not that you don't want to, it's that you're unable to.

[Heft]

It is odd that Gramlins new approach to peace with the one or two alliances they're actually at war with involves asking 9 or 10 times that number of alliances to agree to perform some action in order to end something they have no real involvement in.

Does fit with the whole not grasping reality thing though.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='28 June 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1277751840' post='2352989'][...] [b]The agreement was X amount of tech for peace.[/b] [...]
[/quote]It is funny to see this statement in light of the whole debate in this thread, since it was exactly what Gremlins was opposing: the fact that the ESA were nothing more then a bribe, certainly so in the eyes of IRON&co.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

This is hilarious. After months and months of holding a tough line on unconditional surrender, Gre suddenly turns around and tries to run a new line by adopting a suggestion I made in this thread months ago?

So how's your little crusade going now RM? MPK? You people are a !@#$@#$ joke. Grow the $%&@ up and take responsibility for your actions.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1277754848' post='2353050']
Are you actually suggesting that if all parties to a document agree that they cannot amend it?
[/quote]

When one of them is self proclaimed "paperless" then yes, you can't do that.

[quote]
GRE doesn't want to force anybody to do anything. If they are inclined, they will accept the amendment. If not, they will not.
[/quote]

Then why be at war? If you don't want to force anybody to do anything what exactly is the purpose of the (extended) military conflict?

[quote]
I fail to see why this is conceptually difficult or malicious.
[/quote]

Because you are just as out of touch with reality as your leaders.

Now follow closely here, we understand what you want, we just think you are crazy for asking. It won't happen.

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 June 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1277767494' post='2353328']
It is funny to see this statement in light of the whole debate in this thread, since it was exactly what Gremlins was opposing: the fact that the ESA were nothing more then a bribe, certainly so in the eyes of IRON&co.
[/quote]

Its interesting that some view it as a bribe. I view reps as a guarantee.

While my opponent pays reparations I am growing faster than he. My recovery from war is swifter, further I am gaining tech while my opponent loses tech widening the military gap between us making it less likely my opponent can threaten me in the future.

Edited June 28, 2010 by TypoNinja

[TypoNinja]

oops, doubled, my bad

Edited June 28, 2010 by TypoNinja

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1277754848' post='2353050']
You may or may not recall that the "final" breakdown of our relationship was among my posts outlining that regardless of the outcome that I would not attack my friends in TOP. I can't recall who exactly was in my .gov at the time but I quite literally told them to go ahead and draft up the court-martial documents for my to sign if there was an intended war.
Despite my devotion to our relationship I was met with accusations of being a back-stabber, a coward and a puppet. Note that these accusations did not specifically come from you, but by a collective lack of defense I (and others) perceived them to be endorsed.
Even so, at the onset of this war I discussed it with KG again at length.

Now, I still have a great affection for many friends in TOP and a great respect for some people in IRON (in fact, I have praised MM in this very thread) but that is quite irrelevant to the nature of our demands here.

I feel no pressure to be loyal to any idea I consider unjust; oath or not. Those that know me understand this.
Those that assert the opposite either don't know me or are simply taking jabs.

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm dumbing anything down. I'm happy to be very descriptive if you're interested in discussion.
I feel that I've demonstrated that dedication.
However, to paraphrase Ertyy, if any of you want to actually discuss this matter progressively you will stop the accusations that Ram does my thinking for me.
[/quote]


Matthew, I do remember the stance you took about not attacking TOP. I recall your posts as being very compelling. That is why I am confused that you would be a part of what is now going on. Rather more than a part. You have been the main spokesperson for trying to justify what Gre has been up to. I give the benefit of the doubt to you that all of this was not your idea but that you are defending a decision Ram made. I just can't square the circle of the memory of the poster in our forums that I remember and what has now come of you and Gre generally.

[Tromp]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='29 June 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1277767571' post='2353331']
Its interesting that some view it as a bribe. I view reps as a guarantee.

While my opponent pays reparations I am growing faster than he. My recovery from war is swifter, further I am gaining tech while my opponent loses tech widening the military gap between us making it less likely my opponent can threaten me in the future.
[/quote]
True, and I don't disagree.

The point was that apparently they don't think they did anything wrong still, even though some people in this thread have stated the opposite: that reps = admission of fault.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 12:54 AM' timestamp='1277754848' post='2353050']
GRE doesn't want to force anybody to do anything.
[/quote]
Oh pls, you tried, directly, via Gre's continuation of hostility and indirectly.

I see no reason why friends and allies of ours be subjected to some Gre drama that I view as an attempt to humiliate, and coming from an alliance like Gre, that just amplifies it. Unfortunately, there maybe a mark of IRONhammer left on the cover of the book unwillingly.

History will remember you as an alliance that fell after utter miscalculation and your last major deed shall be your band-wagoning on IRON, there is no reason or need to add anything resembling victory on the second last page of your book. History will remember Ramirus as the worst of leaders, one with no victory, only failure.

We do not seek to humiliate you, we do not seek even a shred of tech or $ to cover for the direct costs and 3 months lost where we would have grown and where we'd be couple or so months be out of terms. Our position is more than gracious, more than reasonable, there is nothing more to give to you. Take our white peace, perhaps people will not say you tried to impose war with no end, failed tho because of your own mistakes and failed because we fought out and most importantly, failed because most (not all) people of Bob rejected your ideas.

Your lunacy only will complete your defeat,[size="1"] true Dark lords join NSO, wannabes run around with animated masks of characters doing force-lightning in story books.[/size]

Edited June 29, 2010 by shahenshah

[Heft]

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 June 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1277768644' post='2353348']
True, and I don't disagree.

The point was that apparently they don't think they did anything wrong still, even though some people in this thread have stated the opposite: that reps = admission of fault.
[/quote]
There do seem to be plenty of people who aren't overly worked up about what IRON etc did. This may be because it happened almost six months ago and most people have moved on. Some of it is also because Gramlins ran it into the ground with their faux-moralist crusade thingamabobber and most people were all like "wtf"

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='28 June 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1277767528' post='2353330']
This is hilarious. After months and months of holding a tough line on unconditional surrender, Gre suddenly turns around and tries to run a new line by adopting a suggestion I made in this thread months ago?
[/quote]

That's because, in all likelihood, the remains of what used to be Gramlins are afraid people will stop referring to them as an alliance. Status as an alliance means that they would, as part of the "winning side", be entitled to some sort of payout in terms of cash/tech/some combo of cash and tech. If they were considered disbanded they would get nothing.

My suggestion to IRON would be to hold the line and continue doing a community service. If that sounds cruel, please note that I have on several occasions in this thread called for a new Gramlins to be built by former members and those who want to pick up the fallen banner...and make no mistake, the banner has indeed fallen.

[Baldr]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='28 June 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1277767571' post='2353331']
Now follow closely here, we understand what you want, we just think you are crazy for asking. It won't happen.[/quote]

I don't understand what they want. They've asked for unconditional surrender, followed by terms they will give out then. I have never believed that what they wanted was unconditional surrender - that's simply a tactic they used hoping to reach their actual goal. A tactic which has clearly failed.

What they actually want? I don't know know what that is. I doubt we'll ever know.

Anything they were to say now about what terms they would have given if IRON had accepted their "unconditional surrender" demand would be very untrustworthy.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='28 June 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1277749711' post='2352937']
Honestly, I don't really see what the big deal is about amending the ES accords (assuming it doesn't change anything between any of the current non-participants). I see no practical difference between amending that and IRON-Gre agreeing to a separate peace. People add signatories onto blocs from time to time. I see no reason it can't be done on a peace treaty as well.
[/quote]

why didn't Gre just do this to begin with? why did they drag on the war? why should those who have completed the terms have to resubmit themselves to it? frankly, you are renegotiating a treaty that is a couple of months old now. Gre needs to realize that what they did was wrong. either they continue to be brought down at the rate they are being brought down or they accept the white peace that IRON/DAWN have offered. they should have no say in what peace they get whatsoever. they are no longer the victors but the losers. their chance at winning this war ended long ago and thus, they should live by their own standards and have no place at the negotiating table.

also what Curzon said oh so beautifully.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='28 June 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1277767528' post='2353330']
This is hilarious. After months and months of holding a tough line on unconditional surrender, Gre suddenly turns around and tries to run a new line by adopting a suggestion I made in this thread months ago?

So how's your little crusade going now RM? MPK? You people are a !@#$@#$ joke. Grow the $%&@ up and take responsibility for your actions.
[/quote]


To be quite honest, your post was inspirational to me personally because it was possibly the only suggested alternative which could accomplish a remotely similar goal to our initial plan. That's why I brought it up quite some time ago.

What responsibility do you want me to take?
Here I stand.
Don't degrade yourself by resorting to the same tripe which has become commonplace here. You're not like the rest of the herd.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='28 June 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1277770004' post='2353370']
Oh pls, you tried, directly, via Gre's continuation of hostility and indirectly.[/quote]
At no point was GRE militarily capable of forcing IRON to do anything. You know this.
That is, in fact, partly *the point* of our demand.

[quote]I see no reason why friends and allies of ours be subjected to some Gre drama that I view as an attempt to humiliate, and coming from an alliance like Gre, that just amplifies it. Unfortunately, there maybe a mark of IRONhammer left on the cover of the book unwillingly. [/quote]

There is nothing humiliating about IRON making themselves accountable for their action.
Nothing at all.
We have provided you an honorable peace that both you and we could say was not motivated by tech bribes or a plea-bargain to be released but, for probably the first time in history, one alliance turning themselves in honorably to acknowledge their actions.

[quote]History will remember you as an alliance that fell after utter miscalculation and your last major deed shall be your band-wagoning on IRON, there is no reason or need to add anything resembling victory on the second last page of your book. History will remember Ramirus as the worst of leaders, one with no victory, only failure. [/quote]

I don't really care how you remember us. That being said, even though many people disagree with our current actions that will not make out initial entry aggressive or bandwagoning. That claim is, and will continue to be as stupid as it was on day one when we declare within minutes of your hostilities towards the Mushroom Kingdom.
We didn't need "points" with anybody and we certainly have demonstrated no desire for "spoils of war" as is evidenced by our actions regarding OG, Zenith or any number of the previous alliances we've had the war. When you feel you have a more fortified position in the discussion it would be wise for you to stick to the simplified opinions of the sheep you seek to impress rather than diverge into stupid tangents which only serve to degenerate your initial claims by introducing flimsy arguments.

[quote]We do not seek to humiliate you, we do not seek even a shred of tech or $ to cover for the direct costs and 3 months lost where we would have grown and where we'd be couple or so months be out of terms. Our position is more than gracious, more than reasonable, there is nothing more to give to you. Take our white peace, perhaps people will not say you tried to impose war with no end, failed tho because of your own mistakes and failed because we fought out and most importantly, failed because most (not all) people of Bob rejected your ideas. [/quote]

To this day I do not understand why you think we would demand reps or try to humiliate you.
That being said, to accept IRON's offer of white peace would be destructive. Your position is one of unwarranted aggression completely without contrition.
I will not accept a "white peace" as if you were on equal standings.


[quote]Your lunacy only will complete your defeat,[size="1"] true Dark lords join NSO, wannabes run around with animated masks of characters doing force-lightning in story books.[/size]
[/quote]

Ironic, isn't it? That we have asserted and acted on the very same rights which the NSO felt so important as to delineate in a document?
This is not about anything "dark"
Is has never been our intention to crush, destroy or mangle you.
Our actions have demonstrated the same.
I am bewildered, not angered, by the fact that you have refused our simple path to peace and refused to offer even a bit of contrition.

[SiCkO]

Face it Matt, you grand gamble failed and you are paying the price for refusing to back down, watching your alliance crumble and die

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='28 June 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1277791677' post='2353665']
Face it Matt, you grand gamble failed and you are paying the price for refusing to back down, watching your alliance crumble and die
[/quote]


I don't think I have once argued about whether or not our plan would work (that doesn't mean I don't think it will!)
I have only explained the nature of our demands and argued their justness.

If you're interested in an actual discussion then you should check your "lol u r failures" comments at the door.

[mythicknight]

lol u r failures

Oh, and come on Matt. You've surpassed even Janova-levels of !@#$posting. There is no dicussion in here; there's Gramlins fantasies, and then there's CN laughing at you.

Edited June 29, 2010 by mythicknight

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 June 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1277767494' post='2353328']
It is funny to see this statement in light of the whole debate in this thread, since it was exactly what Gremlins was opposing: the fact that the ESA were nothing more then a bribe, certainly so in the eyes of IRON&co.
[/quote]

As much as I agree with TypoNinja's analysis of the practical result of reps, I personally think they are much more than a bribe, they are the "fine" or penalty imposed by the victorious party. Now I wasn't in on the discussions, but if the losers showed up and said, "I'm offering you X amounts of tech/cash for peace", then yes, I guess my understanding of the terms is incorrect, but if the question was "what are your demands", then my point stands.

The major problem with the GRE stance is their desire to not disclose the requirements for peace beyond the unconditional surrender. What they failed to grasp is that giving a defeated foe an ultimatum is different from negotiating with them something Ramirus clearly understands as indicated by his quote here in the JimKongIl blog post:

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='25 June 2010 - 10:08 PM']
Ramirus: No, that's not what it means in -any- English dictionary or similar source. It means the ones doing the surrender have no conditions. It doesn't mean they cannot later have conditions. It doesn't mean they, by virtue of the surrender, are agreeing to ANYTHING. It means: we aren't demanding anything as a condition of our surrender.In fact, in real world history, unconditional surrender is usually demanded as an ALTERNATIVE to complete destruction. For example: "Surrender without condition, or I'll kill you all". That sentence carries an implied agreement NOT to kill those who the speaker is requesting the unconditional surrender from. So you see that there is nothing inherent in the concept itself which has any relation to what comes next.[/quote]

Using his own definition, unconditional surrender is usually an alternative to destruction. Now, I know that Matthew and Ramirus have both claimed that they never thought they could win this fight, but as with any request or demand there must be an alternative and seeing as there wasn't one laid out, so the alternative they were offering must have been GRE's demise. There are no other possible outcomes of this choose your own adventure other than A) IRON/DAWN unconditionally surrenders, B) GRE beats them into agreeing to unconditionally surrender (something they claim they never could have done, so this option can be ruled out) or C) GRE loses the war and is decimated. EVERY demand, request, suggestion has to have an alternative something Ramirus understands, but inexplicably didn't take into account.

[ojiras ajeridas]

Matthew, you have to admit the failure of Grämlins in this issue. If they contributed in a constructive way to ESA, they would have had the admission of defeat, the admission of being in the wrong by IRON. They would have had reps by IRON. Gre preferred to stay out of ESA, and this stance lead to the destruction of your alliance. Unfortunately Grämlins isn't in a position to demand anything. With 18 people left, 7 people over 70,000 NS, 4 people at ZI, another 3 people below 1,000 infra, actually you aren't a threat to anyone any more. So, the best thing you can do right now is to accept IRON's white peace offer, get rid of Ram and rebuild your once fine alliance to reach old glories. I am confident that you still have people able to do that. If you continue this way, it will last some more months in which you will be seen just as a pain in the $@! by most alliances, but at the end it will mean the complete disappearing of your alliance. Honestly, it will be a sad day when Planet Bob won't have any Grämlins any more.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='29 June 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1277796599' post='2353724']
Honestly, it will be a sad day when Planet Bob won't have any Grämlins any more.
[/quote]
I couldn't disagree more. How Gre is regarded with anything but contempt these days is beyond me. For years they proclaimed themselves as the moral beacon of Bob, yet when it came down to it they didn't stand by their lofty ideals at all. I will be quite glad to see their faux-moralism gone from the political scene.

[mrcalkin]

Exclusive video from inside The Grämlins underground bunker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1OoqHC6M-Y

[Booter]

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='29 June 2010 - 03:55 AM' timestamp='1277801688' post='2353758']
Exclusive video from inside The Grämlins underground bunker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1OoqHC6M-Y
[/quote]

Now that was funny!!

You win 2 internets!

[mrcalkin]

Unfortunately, I can't take credit for creating the video.