The New Grämlins

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 06:55 PM' timestamp='1273449330' post='2292926']
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.[/quote]

I agree. That is what it means. They surrender, then do what you want. Slavery.

And that is exactly why people say "Gramlins could tell them to decom wonders. Gramlins could tell them to become a tech farm for years. Gramlins could do anything they want".

You are demanding the right to impose these kind of terms on them.

You claim that you wouldn't - but you won't make any official promise, they are supposed to take that on trust. And you clearly are not worthy of trust.

You expect them to surrender, and they will be told to demilitarize. Then you'll start giving out terms. And those terms can be anything at all. They will be in a weaker position than they are now, and they will have lunatics deciding their future.

Which is why they aren't going to agree.

So you'll keep doing what you're doing, while your alliance falls apart, and they'll keep fighting until Gramlins either dies or gets leadership who isn't completely whacko.

[Gamemaster1]

Oh give it a rest, PK. That's never been the point of this unconditional surrender.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1273454462' post='2292998']
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.
[/quote]
However, on the other hand, as per my questions to you that have gone unanswered (twice now), you haven't really explained the rationale for why you think you're doing the right thing or the reasoning for why you won't compromise. In doing so, I think that you do considerable harm to your cause. You've spent an enormous amount of time and effort in this thread but haven't bothered to address the key to your position, which could easily give rise to doubt about how honest you're being, I'm sorry to say.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Elendil old]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1273449330' post='2292926']
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.
[/quote]
Or, you could just say, "Here are the terms, take it our leave it", without going through this whole unconditional surrender definition stuff. Since apparently your definition of unconditional surrender are terms and one side saying take it or leave it, just present the terms and say that. How hard is it, honestly.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='09 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1273456616' post='2293033']
However, on the other hand, as per my questions to you that have gone unanswered (twice now), you haven't really explained the rationale for why you think you're doing the right thing or the reasoning for why you won't compromise. In doing so, I think that you do considerable harm to your cause. You've spent an enormous amount of time and effort in this thread but haven't bothered to address the key to your position, which could easily give rise to doubt about how honest you're being, I'm sorry to say.
[/quote]
He's not going to answer you, not openly and honestly anyway. This is ego-stroking dressed up as some sort of repentant trust fall. Ramirus is the egomaniac, Matthew is the under informed mouthpiece, and IRON is worst of all terrorists. Clearly we must be cowardly, or evil, or something yet to be invented by the Gramlin PR machine since we won't submit to people that have absolutely zero business passing moral judgment on us.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Elendil' date='09 May 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1273456939' post='2293039']
Or, you could just say, "Here are the terms, take it our leave it", without going through this whole unconditional surrender definition stuff. [/quote]

They can't do it now because they've spent the past month+ saying "Unconditional surrender or war forever!" and they aren't willing to admit that it was a mistake.

They couldn't give the terms out then and expect IRON to agree because the terms included stuff that they knew IRON wouldn't agree to. Hence the "surrender and demilitarize first" stuff.

[shilo]

[quote name='Elendil' date='10 May 2010 - 05:02 AM' timestamp='1273456939' post='2293039']
Or, you could just say, "Here are the terms, take it our leave it", without going through this whole unconditional surrender definition stuff. Since apparently your definition of unconditional surrender are terms and one side saying take it or leave it, just present the terms and say that. How hard is it, honestly.
[/quote]
Of course, but then we would know terms before we would have accepted them blindly, and before we have been weakened by demilitarization. When Mathew says we are criminals and have to be in the weaker position to earn a seat at the table (where we won't talk), he is being serious.
If terms were acceptable for us, they wouldn't be driving their alliance off the cliff trying to enforce their demand of unconditional surrender.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1273454462' post='2292998']
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]
No, I agree with you there. For example, your alliance specifically is wrong and were winning.

[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]
I know more than you think regarding a lot of these resignations. They're going to continue too.

[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.
[/quote]
Your war is based on your pride and ego. Standing up to you is the right thing to do. You [b]WILL[/b] fail.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='09 May 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1273457022' post='2293041']
He's not going to answer you, not openly and honestly anyway. This is ego-stroking dressed up as some sort of repentant trust fall. Ramirus is the egomaniac, Matthew is the under informed mouthpiece, and IRON is worst of all terrorists. Clearly we must be cowardly, or evil, or something yet to be invented by the Gramlin PR machine since we won't submit to people that have absolutely zero business passing moral judgment on us.
[/quote]

You are right. You are cowardly and evil. But we are going to burn it out of you, even if it is the last thing we attempt.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1273458480' post='2293068']
You are right. You are cowardly and evil. But we are going to burn it out of you, even if it is the last thing we attempt.
[/quote]
You're going to fail. Your plan was stupid on an epic scale and now it is backfiring.

I know this sounds self-serving coming from someone clearly opposed to your current actions, but anyone in their right mind would agree with me: Cut your losses.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 07:30 PM' timestamp='1273458625' post='2293071']
You're going to fail. Your plan was stupid on an epic scale and now it is backfiring.
[/quote]

This is not about plans being stupid, smart, or backfiring. We believe that anything short of a defeat that will induce them to surrender unconditionally is letting them off the hook for their sins. We will not allow that to happen while we have any chance of preventing it. We are doing what we believe is right. Thus, we will not stop.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1273459163' post='2293083']
This is not about plans being stupid, smart, or backfiring. We believe that anything short of a defeat that will induce them to surrender unconditionally is letting them off the hook for their sins. We will not allow that to happen while we have any chance of preventing it. We are doing what we believe is right. Thus, we will not stop.
[/quote]
Well then if your alliance falls, it has fallen for no good reason at all. Especially when there is an easy way out of it.

Perhaps you should worry about your own sins.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1273459163' post='2293083']
This is not about plans being stupid, smart, or backfiring. We believe that anything short of a defeat that will induce them to surrender unconditionally is letting them off the hook for their sins. We will not allow that to happen while we have any chance of preventing it. We are doing what we believe is right. Thus, we will not stop.
[/quote]

Whoa wait, were you not around for Karma or something? I'm pretty sure that's where we squared away the "cleansing of sins" process.

[Axolotlia]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1273459163' post='2293083']
This is not about plans being stupid, smart, or backfiring. We believe that anything short of a defeat that will induce them to surrender unconditionally is letting them off the hook for their sins. We will not allow that to happen while we have any chance of preventing it. We are doing what we believe is right. Thus, we will not stop.
[/quote]

But at what point do you surrender. You may want to keep your cause and your mindset, but why go out all at once? Live to fight another day?

[Ertyy]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1273459465' post='2293094']
Well then if your alliance falls, it has fallen for no good reason at all. Especially when there is an easy way out of it.
[/quote]

No good reason? Doing what you believe to be right is no good reason?

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1273459465' post='2293094']
Perhaps you should worry about your own sins.
[/quote]

Barring the fact that it is irrelevant to this conversation, we have. You need not concern yourself.

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='09 May 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1273459571' post='2293095']
Whoa wait, were you not around for Karma or something? I'm pretty sure that's where we squared away the "cleansing of sins" process.
[/quote]

As this war indicates, it would seem that the lesson was not learned.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Ertyy

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1273459163' post='2293083']
This is not about plans being stupid, smart, or backfiring. We believe that anything short of a defeat that will induce them to surrender unconditionally is letting them off the hook for their sins. We will not allow that to happen while we have any chance of preventing it. We are doing what we believe is right. Thus, we will not stop.
[/quote]
But who are you to punish them for their sins? Surely the alliances that were wronged are the only ones with the right to do that. What makes you think you know better than CnG whatIRON deserves for attacking CnG?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1273459877' post='2293101']
No good reason? Doing what you believe to be right is no good reason?[/quote]
You have a twisted definition of "right". If it is your downfall, that is little concern to me, but I figured I would give a little good faith advice.

[quote]Barring the fact that it is irrelevant to this conversation, we have. You need not concern yourself.
[/quote]
And yet you keep piling on to the list. An illogical lot, you are.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1273460020' post='2293105']
You have a twisted definition of "right". If it is your downfall, that is little concern to me, but I figured I would give a little good faith advice.


And yet you keep piling on to the list. An illogical lot, you are.
[/quote]

All of this is from your own point of view. You can certainly make a case for why you are right, but we are in no way obligated to accept your interpretation of things.

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='09 May 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1273459974' post='2293102']
But who are you to punish them for their sins? Surely the alliances that were wronged are the only ones with the right to do that. What makes you think you know better than CnG whatIRON deserves for attacking CnG?
[/quote]

We are friends of the people who IRON likes to prey on consistently. If they do not see the danger then w/e. We do, and we are going to do something about it.

[quote name='Axolotlia' date='09 May 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1273459589' post='2293096']
You may want to keep your cause and your mindset, but why go out all at once? Live to fight another day?
[/quote]

In some ways I am really glad you and bigwoody have brought this up. I can understand why some people are confused about our willingness to continue on despite the admittedly significant possibility that we could end up getting the smackdown, or being forced into going with a personally humiliating white peace.

Because despite our consistently fine talk about doing what's right and standing up on principle, we have not always done so. Awhile ago, in order to provide for our security, we made a deal with the devil (NPO). We bought into their hegemony with the rationalization that we could be a force for good in an otherwise !@#$%* system. Of course, the result was the we ended up participating in some wars of dubious legitimacy. Even worse (imo), we denied MK friendship when they could have used it the most. In retrospect, it was an entirely shameful performance. And it was what happened when standing policy was to take the easy way out.

No longer. Like it most often is, the easy way in this case is the wrong way.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Ertyy

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='09 May 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1273455977' post='2293020']
I agree. That is what it means. They surrender, then do what you want. Slavery.

And that is exactly why people say "Gramlins could tell them to decom wonders. Gramlins could tell them to become a tech farm for years. Gramlins could do anything they want".

You are demanding the right to impose these kind of terms on them.

You claim that you wouldn't - but you won't make any official promise, they are supposed to take that on trust. And you clearly are not worthy of trust.

You expect them to surrender, and they will be told to demilitarize. Then you'll start giving out terms. And those terms can be anything at all. They will be in a weaker position than they are now, and they will have lunatics deciding their future.

Which is why they aren't going to agree.

So you'll keep doing what you're doing, while your alliance falls apart, and they'll keep fighting until Gramlins either dies or gets leadership who isn't completely whacko.
[/quote]


We cannot give terms we would not, ourselves accept.

And, again, their unconditional surrender [b]does not[/b] necessitate or obligate them to accept the terms we offer.
So, even in the ridiculous event a term like "decom wonders" was offered; they would simply return to war.

And you can keep on about how they would be "weakened" which is equally silly given that you have no idea what their demil orders might be; plus I have already explained that if they choose not to comply they would return to war.
Plus I also showed you all actual calculations on how, even if they were told to decom all nukes, the odds of every single GRE members getting nuked every day is larger than 90%.

Furthermore, your accusation that we're not worthy of trust is unfounded.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1273460231' post='2293106']
All of this is from your own point of view. You can certainly make a case for why you are right, but we are in no way obligated to accept your interpretation of things.[/quote]
I don't expect you to agree with what I am saying, Ertyy. I expect you to fail.


[quote]We are friends of the people who IRON likes to prey on consistently. If they do not see the danger then w/e. We do, and we are going to do something about it.[/quote]
Oh cry my a river. Treaties fell a certain way twice in a row. Your friends certainly got more than their pound of flesh for it, your cause is childish.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1273460252' post='2293107']
Furthermore, your accusation that we're not worthy of trust is unfounded.
[/quote]
The hell its not. You've given no reason for IRON and DAWN to trust you with your antics at the end of the war.

Not that it matters anymore.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='06 May 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1273196447' post='2289571']
Why not? You still haven't explained the rationale behind your thinking here. There must be a reason as to why you believe what you do.[/quote]

IRON declared an aggressive war on CnG with literally no reason. This is unacceptable; not just to CnG. The entire cyberverse is an aggrieved party if this behavior is tolerated without restitution.


[quote]So would an amendment to the Accords be sufficient to satisfy you in this regard? A specific line outlining/defining culpability? I think that would be reasonable - I don't see why IRON wouldn't be amenable to this either.[/quote]

I would have no problem with that, personally; but it isn't my decision to make.


[quote]Irrelevant, I think. I mean, we can't take what you say in this thread as Gre policy, can we? Can we hold IRON to the same standard? Additionally, can you produce evidence that IRON's government have explicitly stated that IRON has committed no wrongdoing with respect to the war? I might have missed those posts but seeing you've asserted this, you should back it up.[/quote]

What I haven't seen is any official statement of wrongdoing. So, by your own definition, they have not done so.


[quote]That's your opinion, I don't know whether it's actually the case or not. The reparations can be also regarded as a [i]de facto[/i] admission of culpability, which is just as honest an interpretation as yours.[/quote]

No, reparations cannot be considered de facto admission of guilt. Are you contending that righteous parties never lose wars and never pay reparations.


[quote]So what you're looking for is an amendment specifically expressing war guilt. As above, surely it would be a relatively simple matter for the Accords to be amended in this regard?[/quote]

I would like that, personally. Whether or not it would settle the matter I'm unsure.


[quote]Why the heck not? As above, what is the reason for this? You keep harping on this point but you remain silent on the rationale for your stance.[/quote]

The facts are in evidence that they engaged in an aggressive war with no acceptable reason.
My stance is predicated on the moral position that IRON should turn themselves in and I compromise [b]myself[/b] by compromising with such a clear-cut aggressor in this case.


[quote]Why not?[/quote]

Ask them why they were ok with it.
I'm not ok with it because the "tradition" does not expressly require them to submit for their aggression.
In my perspective, this should have been the "tradition" from the beginning.
I cannot be held responsibly for the failings of Bob traditions.


[quote]Of course but it's a bit hard to understand the reasoning behind your behaviour if it's not clearly explained.

Edit: Which, as an afterthought, has been an ongoing problem in this discourse. It could easily be interpreted as a deliberate obfuscation on your part.
[/quote]


I contend the opposite: that I have explained my position extensively.
On the other hand, my opposition (which isn't limited to IRON/DAWN) on this point has based their position on misinformation, poor understandings, pathetic 'definition' debates, "make us!" mentalities, and outright lies.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Elendil' date='09 May 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1273456939' post='2293039']
Or, you could just say, "Here are the terms, take it our leave it", without going through this whole unconditional surrender definition stuff. Since apparently your definition of unconditional surrender are terms and one side saying take it or leave it, just present the terms and say that. How hard is it, honestly.
[/quote]


You're ignoring the rationale I have stated repeatedly; whether because you overlooked it or because you deliberately want to pretend I haven't said it.

Their surrender is am important act of submission for their wrongdoing (that is, turning themselves in)
Which they will not do to a force like GRE unless they are sincere in their submission; rather than just trying to be "let go"

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='09 May 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1273457022' post='2293041']
He's not going to answer you, not openly and honestly anyway. This is ego-stroking dressed up as some sort of repentant trust fall. Ramirus is the egomaniac, Matthew is the under informed mouthpiece, and IRON is worst of all terrorists. Clearly we must be cowardly, or evil, or something yet to be invented by the Gramlin PR machine since we won't submit to people that have absolutely zero business passing moral judgment on us.
[/quote]


I am far more informed than you; in fact by many meters I am completely informed.

If you will not surrender because you're scared of what we might do (despite my multiple valid explanations of why we can't do the things people are claiming) then yes: you are irrationally afraid of the unknown. I don't know why, that's your problem if it's the case.

If you will not surrender because "GRE can't make you" (which has been repeated by the chest-thumping IRON/DAWN members) then you must acknowledge that you are making the "might makes right" argument.

If you won't surrender because you and Gremlins disagree on the definition of "unconditional surrender" then you are foolishly ignoring what we have been saying about what it means. You can disagree with us on the definition but since WE are the ones who will be enacting the subsequent procedures it's our definition that counts.


So, which is it?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='09 May 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1273457825' post='2293059']
Of course, but then we would know terms before we would have accepted them blindly, and before we have been weakened by demilitarization. When Mathew says we are criminals and have to be in the weaker position to earn a seat at the table (where we won't talk), he is being serious.
If terms were acceptable for us, they wouldn't be driving their alliance off the cliff trying to enforce their demand of unconditional surrender.
[/quote]


As I said before, I am not responsible for your nickelodeon ideas about surrender.

Unconditional surrender does not at all imply that you accept the subsequent terms.
It means that your choice is between our orders or returning to war. You do not get to place conditions.