The New Grämlins

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='09 May 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1273428811' post='2292609']
Surrender terms.[/quote]

Your point? On an individual basis, you are not held compliant (granted some surrender terms may specify against this, so I can't say this is an accurate generalization) by the terms to remain in your alliance. You are more than welcome to leave your alliance and join IRON. Again, as I wrote parenthetically, this depends on if terms are applied on an individual basis.

A great example of this would be Vox. Many people defected their alliance to join Vox and were, indeed, added to an EZI list by Pacifica. Did they care they were doomed (for the time) for eternal ZI? No.

[quote]
How could anybody help IRON when they're getting re-crushed by SG?
[/quote]

See above (I suppose). I'm talking more so on individual accountability rather than generalized-alliance accountability.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='09 May 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1273429044' post='2292618']
I'll second that nut up or shut up bit. Rebuilt to a level high enough to take on some Gramlins, ready to kick some $@!. Any of the posturers care to follow my lead?
[/quote]

Off to cut off [s]Morgoth's[/s] Gremlins' foot?

You know you die at the end of this, right?

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='09 May 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1273429249' post='2292623']
Off to cut off [s]Morgoth's[/s] Gremlins' foot?

You know you die at the end of this, right?
[/quote]

Even if he loses his arms and legs, he can still bite their legs off!

[Penkala]

I laugh at you people still arguing as if you can persuade one another.

[amad123]

[quote name='Penkala' date='09 May 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1273432954' post='2292677']
I laugh at you people still arguing as if you can persuade one another.
[/quote]
Gramlins persuaded, probably not, but they are keeping to schedule with two more nations deleted in the lst 24hrs. Their cause is so lost that they rather delete than join another AA. But what choice do they really have? Who would want one of these Gramlins members in their alliance?

[Penkala]

[quote name='amad123' date='09 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1273434016' post='2292692']
Gramlins persuaded, probably not, but they are keeping to schedule with two more nations deleted in the lst 24hrs. Their cause is so lost that they rather delete than join another AA. But what choice do they really have? Who would want one of these Gramlins members in their alliance?
[/quote]

Most people would want a Gromlins nation in their alliance...

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='amad123' date='09 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1273434016' post='2292692']Who would want one of these Gramlins members in their alliance?[/quote]

We have a couple of ex-Gramlins in Nordreich. I'm sure we could handle as many as they'd like to throw at us.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='amad123' date='09 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1273434016' post='2292692']
Gramlins persuaded, probably not, but they are keeping to schedule with two more nations deleted in the lst 24hrs. [b]Their cause is so lost that they rather delete than join another AA.[/b] But what choice do they really have? Who would want one of these Gramlins members in their alliance?
[/quote]

lolWut?

I'm sorry, but the Darwin post of the day goes to you, good sir.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='amad123' date='09 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1273434016' post='2292692']
Gramlins persuaded, probably not, but they are keeping to schedule with two more nations deleted in the lst 24hrs. Their cause is so lost that they rather delete than join another AA. But what choice do they really have? Who would want one of these Gramlins members in their alliance?
[/quote]
The most recent loss left and joined a different AA.

[Schad]

[quote name='amad123' date='09 May 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1273434016' post='2292692']
Gramlins persuaded, probably not, but they are keeping to schedule with two more nations deleted in the lst 24hrs. Their cause is so lost that they rather delete than join another AA. But what choice do they really have? Who would want one of these Gramlins members in their alliance?
[/quote]

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the majority of Gramlins voted for candidates who are against unconditional surrender, but owing to the way their vote is structured, that wasn't enough. There really isn't anything gained by casting Gramlins' members as pariahs...between the vote and the stampede out the door, it's pretty clear that a good many aren't particularly happy with the situation.

[Bob Janova]

Yeah, I'd happily take any* Grämlins who left the alliance into VE if they wanted to apply. Our friends at the Ninjas have acted as a refuge for some of them already. The ex-FH members would also be welcome in MHA, since they have ties from their protectorate days I imagine. I'm sure these members who are deleting would be welcome in lots of places – but the destruction of the community they ran their nations in order to be a part of leaves them not [i]wanting[/i] to apply to another alliance.

[size=1]*: Almost any.[/size]

Edited May 9, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='09 May 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1273429249' post='2292623']
Off to cut off [s]Morgoth's[/s] Gremlins' foot?

You know you die at the end of this, right?
[/quote]

At least I go out with a bang eh? I need to find my copy of the Silmarillion

[Dom Zak]

I just asked my dad what unconditional surrender means, now keep in mind his first language is Portuguese not English, and he said that unconditional surrender means surrendering to an opponent and taking whatever [terms] they give you.

That is what unconditional surrender means, coming from a man that has only been in the United States for 20 years.

[Lusitan]

Yes, [i]unconditional surrender[/i] means exactly the same in portuguese that it does in english, I would know Just apparently not in the language Matthew PK speaks.

[Baldr]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='09 May 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1273428916' post='2292614']
Honestly, [OOC: we are talking about pixels here] people. Heaven forbid you leave your respective alliance for a bit if it offends you that much and fight for your own self-moral cause. Because as you talk more and more, and take less and less action, all credibility goes out the window and you begin to look like a shark without teeth.
[/quote]

I think you are missing the problem. The majority of CN has nations far below 50k NS. Nations below 50k NS don't do IRON a lot of good. Once they get a Gramlins nation down that low, they have plenty of help. I'm under 30k NS, and my ranking shows Ranked #5,232 of 24,893 Nations (21.02%)

I'm guessing you have to be in the top 10% or so before your nation is large enough to help drag Gramlins down to where IRON can deal with them. And that's just for the low end. Gramlins have quite a few nations with over 100k NS. Mathew PK, for instance, if just barely over 100k. He's the 8th largest Gramlin by NS. His ranking : Ranked #256 of 24,893 Nations (1.03%)

So in order to hit the largest 8 or so Gramlins, you have to be somewhere in the top 1% of all the nations on Planet Bob.

A mad rush of all the smaller nations to join IRON won't do much to change things.

[jstep]

[quote name='Baldr' date='09 May 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1273445259' post='2292877']
I think you are missing the problem. The majority of CN has nations far below 50k NS. Nations below 50k NS don't do IRON a lot of good. Once they get a Gramlins nation down that low, they have plenty of help. I'm under 30k NS, and my ranking shows Ranked #5,232 of 24,893 Nations (21.02%)

I'm guessing you have to be in the top 10% or so before your nation is large enough to help drag Gramlins down to where IRON can deal with them. And that's just for the low end. Gramlins have quite a few nations with over 100k NS. Mathew PK, for instance, if just barely over 100k. He's the 8th largest Gramlin by NS. His ranking : Ranked #256 of 24,893 Nations (1.03%)

So in order to hit the largest 8 or so Gramlins, you have to be somewhere in the top 1% of all the nations on Planet Bob.

A mad rush of all the smaller nations to join IRON won't do much to change things.
[/quote]

You underestimate the boost in morale new blood brings

[Axolotlia]

[quote name='jstep' date='09 May 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1273445499' post='2292879']
You underestimate the boost in morale new blood brings
[/quote]

What good does morale do if you cant even take a hit at them?

Edited May 9, 2010 by Axolotlia

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='09 May 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1273445259' post='2292877']
I think you are missing the problem. The majority of CN has nations far below 50k NS. Nations below 50k NS don't do IRON a lot of good. Once they get a Gramlins nation down that low, they have plenty of help. I'm under 30k NS, and my ranking shows Ranked #5,232 of 24,893 Nations (21.02%)

I'm guessing you have to be in the top 10% or so before your nation is large enough to help drag Gramlins down to where IRON can deal with them. And that's just for the low end. Gramlins have quite a few nations with over 100k NS. Mathew PK, for instance, if just barely over 100k. He's the 8th largest Gramlin by NS. His ranking : Ranked #256 of 24,893 Nations (1.03%)

So in order to hit the largest 8 or so Gramlins, you have to be somewhere in the top 1% of all the nations on Planet Bob.

A mad rush of all the smaller nations to join IRON won't do much to change things.
[/quote]

Morale? Tech and money transfer? This is the thing. Gramlins cannot win this war. Why? They have dominance in the upper tier, but have no way to mellow out in the middle or lower tiers. That is where they are going to lose this war. And if those middle IRON (et. al) nations can get a nice flow of tech and money for rebuilding purposes, they can (theoretically) assembly line some of the lower-upper tier nations into the middle and ground and pound them there. The highest nations won't get touched, that's a guarantee. The highest nations, however, are also incredibly useless. In fact, it would be almost careless to send a upper tier nation to spar off with someone like Mathew PK because that is not where the battle is being fought, or even have a slim hope of winning.

That type of strategy in winning the middle and lower tiers may not seem effective, but it is. That is partially the reason why NADC, GDA, and UBD threw CSN off guard for a moment. We dominated the upper tier, but didn't have the depth in the lower tier and we saw our members struggling. So unless Gramlins doesn't give two !@#$% about its membership, they will have to give eventually else they will see that a good size of their membership will be in a perpetual state of a losing war.

[quote name='jstep' date='09 May 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1273445499' post='2292879']
You underestimate the boost in morale new blood brings
[/quote]

It delineates the idea that 'one is alone'. Likewise, if you are seeing that you actually have a fighting chance in a war, [OOC: the likelihood of members quitting is decreased because, logically, they would have a chance to get back up instead of feeling like they would be permanently put down, therefore giving them no incentive to continue playing].

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='09 May 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1273446129' post='2292890']
Morale? Tech and money transfer? This is the thing. Gramlins cannot win this war. Why? They have dominance in the upper tier, but have no way to mellow out in the middle or lower tiers. That is where they are going to lose this war. And if those middle IRON (et. al) nations can get a nice flow of tech and money for rebuilding purposes, they can (theoretically) assembly line some of the lower-upper tier nations into the middle and ground and pound them there. The highest nations won't get touched, that's a guarantee. The highest nations, however, are also incredibly useless. In fact, it would be almost careless to send a upper tier nation to spar off with someone like Mathew PK because that is not where the battle is being fought, or even have a slim hope of winning.

That type of strategy in winning the middle and lower tiers may not seem effective, but it is. That is partially the reason why NADC, GDA, and UBD threw CSN off guard for a moment. We dominated the upper tier, but didn't have the depth in the lower tier and we saw our members struggling. So unless Gramlins doesn't give two !@#$% about its membership, they will have to give eventually else they will see that a good size of their membership will be in a perpetual state of a losing war.



It delineates the idea that 'one is alone'. Likewise, if you are seeing that you actually have a fighting chance in a war, [OOC: the likelihood of members quitting is decreased because, logically, they would have a chance to get back up instead of feeling like they would be permanently put down, therefore giving them no incentive to continue playing].
[/quote]

pretty much this. fact is, even smaller nations can help. yes IRON and DAWN have a plethora of mid to small tier nations. these nations though have been at war for how long now? so if ya'll <50k NS join IRON and DAWN you will allow them a chance to take a break and rebuild in somewhat peace and quiet. so stating that the only way you will be useful was if you were larger than 50k NS is ridiculous. there is no point for anyone around 30k NS to sit out the war if they truly wish to fight just to rebuild to 50k NS before hand. by that point, the new NS line could very well be at 70k NS and then what? you gonna say that you have to wait until 70k NS and then 80k NS and then 90k NS and so on and so forth?

[Baldr]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='09 May 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1273446129' post='2292890']
Morale? Tech and money transfer? This is the thing. Gramlins cannot win this war. [/quote]

I agree, assuming outside forces don't get involved. The NS line will continue to rise. The Gramlins at the lower end on the Gramlins side or the line will have to either grow to stay out of reach (which allows the line to rise) or will have to go to peace mode. If they don't, they will be beat down. Gramlins who are beat down and have enough money might be able to buy their way back into the upper tiers once or twice, maybe even three times with a big enough war chest - but they can't do it forever. Gramlins who can't get back to that side will be rolled to zero infra, zero tech, and they'll have to worry about bill lock.

IRON/DAWN nations can grow to the NS line with no worries, and probably a bit past it, since the Gramlins nations in range are likely to be nervous about attacking them. Once the attacks start, the Gramlins nations are likely to never get out of war again.

Without outside intervention, I don't think Gramlins can win. I do think it will take a long time for IRON to win.

[quote]It delineates the idea that 'one is alone'. Likewise, if you are seeing that you actually have a fighting chance in a war, [OOC: the likelihood of members quitting is decreased because, logically, they would have a chance to get back up instead of feeling like they would be permanently put down, therefore giving them no incentive to continue playing].[/quote]

IRON nations aren't at any risk of being "permanently put down" because IRON owns everything under 50k NS.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1273446896' post='2292899']
pretty much this. fact is, even smaller nations can help. yes IRON and DAWN have a plethora of mid to small tier nations. these nations though have been at war for how long now? so if ya'll <50k NS join IRON and DAWN you will allow them a chance to take a break and rebuild in somewhat peace and quiet. so stating that the only way you will be useful was if you were larger than 50k NS is ridiculous. there is no point for anyone around 30k NS to sit out the war if they truly wish to fight just to rebuild to 50k NS before hand. by that point, the new NS line could very well be at 70k NS and then what? you gonna say that you have to wait until 70k NS and then 80k NS and then 90k NS and so on and so forth?
[/quote]

If I joined IRON or DAWN right now, I'd be doing the same thing I'm doing anyway - building my nation up. Until my nation is at or above the NS line, I *can't* attack the Gramlins nations that need to be attacked anyway. Yes, I could be one of the many IRON/DAWN nations that attacks Gramlins who are already down, to keep them from recovering - but there are plenty of those already.

And yes, that may mean that I don't "do anything" until I'm 80kNS or whatever. The NS line is around 50k now, and I expect it to rise.

If you truly feel I'd be more useful by joining now, then have someone from DAWN talk to me on IRC, and they can try to convince me. I don't think it's likely that I'll join until I can hit nations over the NS line. I won't join just to sit around and grow my nation - no reason to leave my current alliance for that.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dom Zak' date='09 May 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1273441171' post='2292809']
I just asked my dad what unconditional surrender means, now keep in mind his first language is Portuguese not English, and he said that unconditional surrender means surrendering to an opponent and taking whatever [terms] they give you.

That is what unconditional surrender means, coming from a man that has only been in the United States for 20 years.
[/quote]


Unconditional Surrender is surrendering without conditions.
It means you do not get to place conditions on the terms of your surrender.
That means that Gremlins gives you terms, and your choices are either to accept them or return to war.

You do not get to place conditions such as "How about we do this instead?" or "We'll comply with everything except X"

When terms are delivered, they take it or leave it.
Accept it or return to war.
That is unconditional surrender, and that is what we have been saying.


Why you have chosen to make this an argument about a definition is beyond me.
I don't care if you call what I described above "tractor" because it carries the same meaning.

Surrender > Terms > Restitution > Peace

Without conditions, when terms are offered you either comply or return to war.
Argue with me on proper word-choice all day; what GRE wants is clearly outlined.

At their surrender we will not negotiate. We will deliver terms and they will either accept the term or they will refuse and return to a state of war.
Unconditional Surrender could not mean, and has never meant, anything else.

Now, if IRON won't surrender because "they don't have to" because "Gremlins can't force them" then that's their choice to make; but recognize that is the "might makes right" argument.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Bob Janova]

You're just being recalcitrant for no reason, honestly. What you described in your last post is exactly how peace negotiations go – look in your own government chambers for recent examples, or leaked examples like the aborted NPO ones from day 3 of Karma. The winning party lays down the terms, and the defeated alliance either accepts them and doesn't. I [i]know[/i] that your alliance has seen this in action because you were [i]in[/i] the negotiations for IRON's surrender.

Let's just go over that again. IRON [b]already did come to you and surrender[/b], as they did to all the rest of the C&G+ pseudo-bloc, during the talks for Easter Sunday.

The thing which you slipped from mentioning in your last post is that for some reason Grämlins would like IRON to demilitarise before seeing the terms – in CN terminology, demilitarise before surrendering.

Edit: And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, 'unconditional surrender' does not mean what you think it does. The meaning you are apparently trying to use that term for is something around 'ceasefire' and 'sue for peace'.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Bob Janova

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 06:55 PM' timestamp='1273449330' post='2292926']
Now, if IRON won't surrender because "they don't have to" because "Gremlins can't force them" then that's their choice to make; but recognize that is the "might makes right" argument.
[/quote]
Not really, more like standing up against evil, rather than giving in to it. You tried to turn the might of those fighting alongside you to your advantage, but tried to jump a little too high.

Cut your losses and drop it. You're losing members by the day. IRON and DAWN cannot compete in your upper tier...but every deletion and resignation cuts your advantage. Your alliance is a permanent fixture in the list of alliances losing the most NS each week. You are wrong, and most of your membership even recognizes it. Your alliance may literally die not from the actions of outsiders, but from member disgust.

As far as I know, IRON and DAWN have a standing offer of white peace available to you. Your best option would be to take it. Pride goeth before the fall, and Ramirus' ego will be your undoing.

Edited May 10, 2010 by bigwoody

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='09 May 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1273449677' post='2292935']
You're just being recalcitrant for no reason, honestly. What you described in your last post is exactly how peace negotiations go – look in your own government chambers for recent examples, or leaked examples like the aborted NPO ones from day 3 of Karma. The winning party lays down the terms, and the defeated alliance either accepts them and doesn't. I [i]know[/i] that your alliance has seen this in action because you were [i]in[/i] the negotiations for IRON's surrender.[/quote]

No, because those negotiations happened during a state of war.
We will not deliver terms until IRON has ended the state of war; and we are not negotiating.

[quote]Let's just go over that again. IRON [b]already did come to you and surrender[/b], as they did to all the rest of the C&G+ pseudo-bloc, during the talks for Easter Sunday.[/quote]

IRON came to try and surrender to us on invalid terms. To say they surrendered to us is incorrect. We did not accept their surrender, as the terms were unacceptable.
This is identical to them coming to us saying "the war is over by white peace" when that is unaccaptable

[quote]The thing which you slipped from mentioning in your last post is that for some reason Grämlins would like IRON to demilitarise before seeing the terms – in CN terminology, demilitarise before surrendering.[/quote]

No. not before surrendering.
"Seeing terms" is not the same as "surrendering"

Once they surrender we give them quarter, then they are given demilitarization orders (which, again they can REFUSE if the demililtarizion orders are unacceptable), upon compliance terms are delivered.
It is not my problem that the "traditional CN community" is accustomed to doing all of these steps at once.
Breaking tradition does not prove immorality.

There is no negotiation at any stage in this process. So calling is an armistice, cease fire, or discussion is disingenuous.
They will follow our instructions or they will resume a state of war.
Considering they haven't even gone so far in the process as to SEE the demil orders all the complaing about what *might* happen is ill-placed.

If they don't want to surrender because they "don't have to" then that hardly constitutes us being unjust and keeping them in "eternal war"

Tell me, Bob...
What term would you use to describe this process.
They acknowledge defeat and submit to our authority.
We tell them what to do (and they do not get to set any conditions)
They accept or refuse.



Edit: And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, 'unconditional surrender' does not mean what you think it does. The meaning you are apparently trying to use that term for is something around 'ceasefire' and 'sue for peace'.
[/quote]

Edited May 10, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1273451303' post='2292960']
Not really, more like standing up against evil, rather than giving in to it. You tried to turn the might of those fighting alongside you to your advantage, but tried to jump a little too high.[/quote]

I am not advocating "might makes right" I am advocating "right makes right"
They committed a clear moral wrong and turning themselves in is the right thing to do.
The ESA did *not* outline that they had done anything morally wrong; merely that they "lost" the war.
Losing and being wrong are not synonmous, despite what anybody might think.

[quote]Cut your losses and drop it. You're losing members by the day. IRON and DAWN cannot compete in your upper tier...but every deletion and resignation cuts your advantage. Your alliance is a permanent fixture in the list of alliances losing the most NS each week. You are wrong, and most of your membership even recognizes it. Your alliance may literally die not from the actions of outsiders, but from member disgust.[/quote]

You look like a fool speculating on why our membership are deleting or leaving. I have seen their resignations. I have spoken with them.
I know; you don't.
Inactive members deleting has been occurring for the better part of a year.
There have been a select few who left specifically because of the current course of action. By my count there are 5 who left for that reason; and their disagreement does not mean our course of action is morally wrong. Not to mention that at least one of those members was inactive and then left on a reaction without actually seeking to know anything (then later apologized for his reactionary behavior but still wanted to move on because of his low activity).


[quote]As far as I know, IRON and DAWN have a standing offer of white peace available to you. Your best option would be to take it. Pride goeth before the fall, and Ramirus' ego will be your undoing.
[/quote]

Their offer of white peace is unacceptable. They are culpable; and I will stand up as long as neccesary.
It's not an issue of pride, it's an issue of doing the right thing without compromise.
Gremlins war is based solely on IRON's wrongdoing; and tolerating their action without allocution would be an injustice against the entire cyberverse. This is non-negotiatble.