The New Grämlins

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 April 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1270081498' post='2242647']

Edit: If you want to claim you are not part of the same war, IRON's MDP partners at the time of your attack – which include R&R I believe – should hit you in their defence.
[/quote]

I think some words should be very carefully picked around here starting at this post.

[Chimaera]

Why do horrible Gre moves always coincide with Ramirus Maximus in power?

[Lennox]

[quote name='Chimaera' date='31 March 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1270082728' post='2242681']
Why do horrible Gre moves always coincide with Ramirus Maximus in power?
[/quote]

I can tell you why

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1270082409' post='2242672']
If that is your analysis then you should not be surprised that we may have different ideas about IRON's surrender.
[/quote]

Well given your demands breach numerous articles of your own codex it is somewhat surprising to see Gremlins advocating such demands, with that said if your analysis differs from the majority view you should not be surprised at widespread outrage to your demands which are completely untenable.

[Chimaera]

[quote name='Lennox' date='31 March 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1270082834' post='2242683']
I can tell you why
[/quote]
So can everyone else on Planet Bob, except apparently for Gre's members.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='31 March 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1270082575' post='2242676']
Matthew, i can't believe you are speaking this load of bs. you darn well know what it means to demand "unconditional surrender". yes, you have offered no actual terms other than full military decom, admit defeat, and unconditional surrender. those are actually 3 terms that were offered. and other than admitting defeat, i highly doubt Gremlins would ever accept the other two. ever. thus, one way you are already violating your Codex.

second, you offered terms weeks ago but instead of taking them off the table before they were accepted, you waited until they were accepted and then took them off the table, not once but twice? seriously, ya'll's gov has just gotten horrible then.



The Codex is quite simple to interpret. specifically the article that states that Gremlins will never offer terms they would not accept. so unless Ram and your gov is stating that Gremlins, if beaten down and on the losing side of a war, would accept "unconditional surrender", then do not even attempt the whole "your interpretation is different from mine" bs because that is simply untrue unless you are so frantically attempting to twist the Codex into a shriveled up, charred, and broken version of what it is supposed to be.

actually, since you joined the war because MK was hit does not automatically make you a defensive party. you joined via an aggressive clause with MHA i believe or just no actual treaty at all. That would be like FAN stating they hit IRON due to MK and thus are a defending party. ain't happening. you may have entered to defend MK but since ya'll dropped that treaty, you either had to enter via the aggressive clause in the Harmlin accords or without a treaty. thus the only actual options available are:

Gremlins are an aggressive party that are helping MK, or
Gremlins are bandwagoners who entered without a treaty to help MK out.

that is it. your two options are simply invalid. you cannot state that Gremlins are uninvolved when it is obvious that CnG will not accept peace without Gremlins.
[/quote]


I'm not arguing the basis of aggressive versus defensive. I merely highlighted the folly of presuming a non-treaty-bound third party must be bound to the same surrender process and structure of the initial party.


On the codex: I hold myself to a standard which I consider higher than the codex.
Despite that, I don't see a humiliating term nor a term I would not accept.

On the other hand; if when IRON surrenders, GRE.gov demands things I find unacceptable then GRE will no longer have my nukes behind them. You know I mean that.

GRE hasn't made "humiliating" demands or demanded things I would not accept. Any claims to the contrary are merely speculation about what GRE *might* do.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 01:53 AM' timestamp='1270083188' post='2242694']

On the other hand; if when IRON surrenders, GRE.gov demands things I find unacceptable then GRE will no longer have my nukes behind them. You know I mean that.


[/quote]

IRON will cease to exist before it accepts unconditional surrender you have my word on that.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 March 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1270081498' post='2242647']
Edit: If you want to claim you are not part of the same war, IRON's MDP partners at the time of your attack – which include R&R I believe – should hit you in their defence.
[/quote]

GRE has been hit by a number of IRON's treaty partners citing defensive clauses. I don't see what your point has to do with me?
Perhaps you should take it up with R&R?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='MCRABT' date='31 March 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1270083317' post='2242697']
IRON will cease to exist before it accepts unconditional surrender you have my word on that.
[/quote]


An unfortunate impasse

[Lord Brendan]

What is your justification for demanding unconditional surrender?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='31 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1270083445' post='2242703']
What is your justification for demanding unconditional surrender?
[/quote]

Discussions should proceed between a victor and a defeated party.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1270083387' post='2242702']
An unfortunate impasse
[/quote]

You needn't worry, judging by the current state of Gremlins government you will have faded into the history books long before that comes to pass.

[Delta1212]

Well, see, the only way I can possibly understand an "unconditional surrender" as working is if you decom all of your military [i]before[/i] working out terms of surrender. Anyone who would agree to that is either a fool or has nothing left to lose.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='MCRABT' date='01 April 2010 - 01:55 AM' timestamp='1270083317' post='2242697']
IRON will cease to exist before it accepts unconditional surrender you have my word on that.
[/quote]

Honestly, every alliance that even considers this proposal, shows a severe lack of spine.

Demanding unconditional surrender in is just idiotic. No self respecting alliance would ever accept it.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

So let's be clear what you mean then. What do you mean by disarmament and unconditional surrender? Do you mean decommissioning of military to a point where IRON's nations are in anarchy? Do you mean destruction of military improvements and wonders? Do you mean that IRON's nations in peace mode must exit peace mode? Is there a ceasefire applicable or will these nations be targets for war until peace is agreed?

Until you can explain exactly what you mean when you talk about disarmament and unconditional surrender, anything that you say about your motives is a load of steaming horse!@#$, tbqh.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='31 March 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1270072582' post='2242479']
No.

Shut up.
[/quote]

And this is why I love and always will love ES, in all my past, present, and future CN incarnations

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1270079949' post='2242612']
Is IRON afraid?
That's the big question here.

To those of you criticizing "terms": No terms have been offered. It it IRON's decision whether or not to demonstrate their defeat. A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode.

[b]None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.
[/b]
The terms in question were offered weeks ago and IRON refused. Instead they kept us, and our friends, in a state of warfare.
The terms were withdrawn.

None of you should question this premise: old terms are no longer valid after a following extended period of war.
[/quote]


Bolded for emphasis. You've essentially given IRON two options, fight war forever, or MYSTERY BOX. Mystery Box can either contain complete unconditional white peace at one end of the spectrum, or the utter destruction and PZI of all IRON nations. Yeah, if I were IRON I'd take fight forever thank you very much. The argument that you haven't given any harsh terms is BEYOND specious. The fact of the matter is that you haven't stated what terms you will mandate once IRON has unconditionally surrendered to you, and while theoretically its just as likely that you let them off the hook vs you destroying them, the fact that you won't state what your intentions are tips the odds precipitously in favor of something ridiculous that IRON would under no other circumstances accept. The only reason to do this is either to satiate your own ego and desire for power/ destroy IRON. If you give IRON reasonable terms once they have unconditionally surrendered to you then it makes no sense that you wouldn't give them now when IRON is ready and willing to accept them


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1270080406' post='2242624']
During my brief period as Praetor I thought I was very clear to everybody that GRE's involvement and everybody else's involvement were not inherently linked.
Just because one alliance exits the conflict doesn't mean GRE does nor vice versa.

My high horse?
This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact.
[/quote]

So according to this post Gramlins entrance and involvement is not linked to anyone elses, and Gramlins essentially entered the conflict because it could and felt like trashing IRON. Either you can go with that answer, or you can claim that IRON pre-empted C&G and although you don't have any treaties with C&G you felt obligated to defend old friends and declared war on IRON, a perfectly reasonable case in my opinion. HOWEVER, if that is the case then you have absolutely no right and no reason to continue the conflict when the aggrieved party is saying "We're done, peace out guys". So either Gramlins are bandwagoning opportunistic greedy and manipulative fools, or you're greedy, manipulative, selfish and oppressive "friends" who are more than willing to utilize the misfortune of their friends in C&G for their own personal gains. You sicken me. I disagree with what NPO and most of the Hegemony stood for prior to the Karma War and had I been around for several months prior to the war instead of returning to the game and getting immediately dragged into the conflict without being able to fully assess the sides, I would have vehemently fought against the Hegemony by Gramlins side, and yet, now here you are the same evil which you decried and deposed. I am saddened by this turn of events, one can only hope that cooler heads may prevail and that Gramlins is guided upon a new and better path.

Stand strong IRON and TOP. You are hardpressed on everyside, yet not crushed, perplexed but not in despair, persecuted, but not forsaken, struck down, but not destroyed. You will endure, and you will overcome.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin

[flak attack]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='31 March 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1270079264' post='2242598']
which resulted in the disbandment of GDI, something I don't think IRON wants
[/quote]
Actually, that was a result of VE's war, at which point GDI basically reformed under a different name.

[quote name='Topside the Hun' date='31 March 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1270080307' post='2242622']
They are not Gramlin allies, Gramlins doesn’t hold a treaty with anyone but MHA
[/quote]
MK is an ally of Gramlins. Don't let the lack of a treaty make you think otherwise.

[quote name='Topside the Hun' date='31 March 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1270080307' post='2242622']
Finally, should Gramlins ever find that Harmilns accord canceled I suspect you will see the quickest beat down of any alliance in the entire history of CN and no one will shed a tear.
[/quote]
Harmlins can't be cancelled.

[GoddessOfLinn]

Would be nice to know what MHA thinks of the current GRE offer!

[MTTezla]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1270083515' post='2242706']
Discussions should proceed between a victor and a defeated party.
[/quote]

There is no justification for this statement that has been provided. There is no basis in CN history for why this should be the case, nor any instance where it has been the case. You are knowingly prolonging the war, but have completely disengaged. Why should anyone stand by you, now or in the future, when you deliberately cause them harm?

[dvdcchn]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' date='31 March 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1270083586' post='2242709']
Honestly, every alliance that even considers this proposal, shows a severe lack of spine.

Demanding unconditional surrender in is just idiotic. No self respecting alliance would ever accept it.
[/quote]

agreed

[wickedj]

[quote name='Carlton the Great' date='31 March 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1270069601' post='2242387']
Given that you have 1 wonder to my 24 I have to suspect the gulf was quite wide pre-war as well
[/quote]
Stats are all its about, mirite?

[Grumpdogg]

Hang on, back it up. The Grämlins are actually at war? I just assumed Anvil was a rogue...

An alliance that has for all intents and purposes peaced out already, has no right to hold up the peace negotiations for the entire war.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='31 March 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1270083619' post='2242710']
So let's be clear what you mean then. What do you mean by disarmament and unconditional surrender? Do you mean decommissioning of military to a point where IRON's nations are in anarchy? Do you mean destruction of military improvements and wonders? Do you mean that IRON's nations in peace mode must exit peace mode? Is there a ceasefire applicable or will these nations be targets for war until peace is agreed?

Until you can explain exactly what you mean when you talk about disarmament and unconditional surrender, anything that you say about your motives is a load of steaming horse!@#$, tbqh.
[/quote]

I agree! What constitutes "unconditional surrender" should be specifically outlined.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='flak attack' date='31 March 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1270083650' post='2242712']
Harmlins can't be cancelled.
[/quote]

And the MHA-NPO MDoAP took a year to cancel, right?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1270083188' post='2242694']
I'm not arguing the basis of aggressive versus defensive. I merely highlighted the folly of presuming a non-treaty-bound third party must be bound to the same surrender process and structure of the initial party.


On the codex: I hold myself to a standard which I consider higher than the codex.
Despite that, I don't see a humiliating term nor a term I would not accept.

On the other hand; if when IRON surrenders, GRE.gov demands things I find unacceptable then GRE will no longer have my nukes behind them. You know I mean that.

GRE hasn't made "humiliating" demands or demanded things I would not accept. Any claims to the contrary are merely speculation about what GRE *might* do.
[/quote]

so in the DoW from Gremlins you bound yourself to the CnG side but now in peace you state you are no longer bound? that is simply ridiculous.

if you hold yourself to a higher standard than the codex and you do not find the terms offered to IRON to be humiliating, then your standard is actually much lower than the codex. like i said, i doubt Gre would ever accept terms like the ones being offered. you keep stating that there is negotiations involved in unconditional surrenders. you obviously have no understanding of what unconditional surrender is then. unconditional surrender means that the party accepting it has no say whatsoever in what terms they are given. there is no negotiation between victor and defeated only dictation. if IRON were to comply with unconditional surrender, Gre will be capable of doing anything they wish to IRON and IRON can do nothing. if IRON chooses to reneg on the deal, the fact that they are disarmed will make them easy prey to Gremlins.

so how exactly is that no humiliating? you wish to take the very sovereignty of IRON from them and wrest it fully into the hands of Gre. in fact, should IRON comply with Gre's demands, then Gre can very well tell IRON they have to break all other peace agreements between IRON and CnG/Allies.

then there is the fact that you have not even offered any actual terms. again this breaks the Codex given the Codex demands that Gremlins go in with pretty much set terms for surrender. those terms were given, then taken off the table and thus that also breaks the Codex.

The Codex is nothing more than a shattered memorial to the Gremlins who once was. a shadow of a document from the Gremlins i was once part of. much like Gremlins itself. there are still many good members in Gre and it saddens me that they are allowing Ramirus to destroy everything that Gre once held dear. the fact that you, who i once held in high regard, is trying to defend these actions is saddening.