The New Grämlins

[Heft]

[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]
Woah, wow. What. You're just saying this to make your "Unconditional Surrender doesn't actually mean unconditional surrender" claims seem reasonable in comparison, aren't you?

It's telling that this whole morality and justice parade has only come up fairly recently in this discussion. Since you've begun to lose your material advantage you have tried to claim the moral advantage, casting yourself as crusaders for justice.

But this has never been about justice. It's about surrender and supplication. You want for them to prostrate at your feet and give themselves over to your control and mercy. The terms may not be that harsh, comparatively speaking, because it isn't about the terms or the punishment or the restitution. It's just that an ego as bloated and insecure as Gramlins' currently is can't handle anything other than absolute control and compliance. You would rather burn down the entire kingdom than admit any dialogue. And you're certainly incapable of admitting a mistake. Hubris never ends well.

The moralistic pandering and sophistry would be entertaining if it weren't such a blatant perversion of what Gramlins used to subscribe to. I was never a fan of what I considered their idealism and moral elitism, but I could at least respect what they were trying to do, and recognize the internal logic and values of how they operated.

Now you just use all of this high-flying rhetoric and twisting of dictionaries to try and paint your insecure, playground bully antics as some high-minded social justice.

[Zangmonkey]

[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.

Perhaps you should worry about your own sins.
[/quote]


The easy way out is for IRON to turn themselves in.
It's not difficult.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1273460613' post='2293114']
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.
[/quote]


Whether they trust me or not is irrelevant.
I have simply stated that we have no precedent for presenting harsh terms. If you have a disproving counter-example I'm all ears.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1273461446' post='2293128']
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?
[/quote]

Or, they won't surrender because they don't think you have any right to force anything on them as they've already made their peace with the aggrieved parties and you bandwagoned into a war that didn't involve you.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1273460516' post='2293112']
I don't expect you to agree with what I am saying, Ertyy. I expect you to fail.
[/quote]
Well played if that was intentional.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Heft' date='09 May 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1273461681' post='2293135']And you're certainly incapable of admitting a mistake.
[/quote]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1273460231' post='2293106']
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.
[/quote]

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Heft' date='09 May 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1273461681' post='2293135']
Woah, wow. What. You're just saying this to make your "Unconditional Surrender doesn't actually mean unconditional surrender" claims seem reasonable in comparison, aren't you?[/quote]

Our demand that they unconditional surrender is the proper course of action.

[quote]It's telling that this whole morality and justice parade has only come up fairly recently in this discussion. Since you've begun to lose your material advantage you have tried to claim the moral advantage, casting yourself as crusaders for justice. [/quote]

You're wrong. We've been explaining our moral position since this issue began. If you were privvy to our discussions with our allies (and I'm sure there are leaks somewhere) then you would know this.


[quote]But this has never been about justice. It's about surrender and supplication. You want for them to prostrate at your feet and give themselves over to your control and mercy. The terms may not be that harsh, comparatively speaking, because it isn't about the terms or the punishment or the restitution. It's just that an ego as bloated and insecure as Gramlins' currently is can't handle anything other than absolute control and compliance. You would rather burn down the entire kingdom than admit any dialogue. And you're certainly incapable of admitting a mistake. Hubris never ends well.[/quote]

I'm not incapable of admitting a mistake. In fact, I have done so for my lack of clarity multiple times in this thread.
However, in this circumstance, it would undermine any and all morality to compromise with IRON. They have not earned the right to negotiate this matter; they are clearly culpable for wrongdoing.
And I don't what then to prostrate and be at my mercy. We will give them terms, and they have the [b]choice[/b] to accept them or return to war.

If they believe, as they have stated, that GRE cannot affect them and they have an interest in ending the war then this opportunity seems quite rationale.

[quote]The moralistic pandering and sophistry would be entertaining if it weren't such a blatant perversion of what Gramlins used to subscribe to. I was never a fan of what I considered their idealism and moral elitism, but I could at least respect what they were trying to do, and recognize the internal logic and values of how they operated.[/quote]

Our idealism extends that we do not negotiate with those as clearly culpable as IRON.
Here we are, facing the world, and refusing the compromise with our moral obligations. That is precisely the elite morality that Gremlins has always purported.

[quote]Now you just use all of this high-flying rhetoric and twisting of dictionaries to try and paint your insecure, playground bully antics as some high-minded social justice.
[/quote]

It's not my problem that you subscribe to different definitions than I do.
I don't really care that you think your definition is correct. I have outlined precisely what is intended by the term; and thus precisely what process Gremlins will carry out.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1270083515' post='2242706'][quote name='Lord Brendan' date='31 March 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1270083445' post='2242703']
What is your justification for demanding unconditional surrender?
[/quote]
Discussions should proceed between a victor and a defeated party.
[/quote]

To

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1273454462' post='2292998']
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]

Interesting how your opinions have slowly changed over the course of this thread. Along with your definitions.

Just admit it. This is Ram's fault. You can change your opinions and definitions because they aren't important.

Admit it.

Admit it. It's not that hard, really.

We can see it.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='09 May 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1273461819' post='2293139']
Or, they won't surrender because they don't think you have any right to force anything on them as they've already made their peace with the aggrieved parties and you bandwagoned into a war that didn't involve you.
[/quote]


That's certainly their prerogative; but I ask you: what are we forcing on them?

I contend that we defended against their clearly unwarranted aggressive attack.
If they are permitted to walk away without an allocution then the entire cyberverse is aggrieved.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1273462461' post='2293148']
I contend that we defended against their clearly unwarranted aggressive attack.
If they are permitted to walk away without an allocution then the entire cyberverse is aggrieved.
[/quote]

The cyberverse [i]doesn't care[/i]. It hasn't cared for weeks.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='09 May 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1273462414' post='2293147']
To



Interesting how your opinions have slowly changed over the course of this thread. Along with your definitions.

Just admit it. This is Ram's fault. You can change your opinions and definitions because they aren't important.

Admit it.

Admit it. It's not that hard, really.

We can see it.
[/quote]

What you can see is that I've had to use drawn out, repeated, and more description explanations of what should be a simple concept (the right thing) because you don't seem to "get it".


What we're after hasn't changed, even if somewhere in this 120+ page thread you dig up some post which is coincidentally more ambiguous than some other I've made.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1273460516' post='2293112']
I don't expect you to agree with what I am saying, Ertyy. I expect you to fail.
[/quote]

Your one-liner would be a lot cooler if you weren't actually harping on our sins Why does someone who doesn't care really feel the need?

Edited May 10, 2010 by Ertyy

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1273462461' post='2293148']
That's certainly their prerogative; but I ask you: what are we forcing on them?

I contend that we defended against their clearly unwarranted aggressive attack.
If they are permitted to walk away without an allocution then the entire cyberverse is aggrieved.
[/quote]
But they aren't being permitted to walk away. The Easter Sunday Accords happened about a month ago in which they were punished as was seen fit by those they had wronged.

[Dochartaigh]

[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]

your version of "right"=/= what is actually right. what you are doing is attempting to play like a wanna-be CN moral police without stating as much. you are attempting to force what you believe is right onto other people which, from this last war, seems to be something that most do not like. luckily enough for you, those that stood up to Polaris for attempting to do the same thing are basically on your side from the last war. though that seems like it could very well change.

also, if the ESA did somehow submit that what IRON did was "morally" wrong, it would kind of defeat the whole reason why most on that side fought against Polaris or tried to get Polaris to stop its actions against \m/.



[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]

well those 5 members felt that your actions were morally wrong as does most of CN. so the flip side is, just because you do not think your action is morally wrong does not make that true.


[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]

honestly you are correct. their offer of white peace is totally unacceptable. Gremlins are culpable for their actions and should have to pay for it. in my opinion, Gremlins should be made to have to pay all of IRON's and DAWN's reps to every alliance that is owed reps as well as have to pay reps to IRON and DAWN. This war is based on Gremlin's stupidity, vanity, and selfishness and tolerating this unconditional surrender without allocution would be an injustice against the entire cyberverse. This should be non-negotiable.

[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]

unfortunately,Ram's plan was stupid and backfired enormously. by the time you realize that you are incapable of doing anything on the scale with which you want to do it, you will no longer be in any position to stop the war without (hopefully) begging for mercy.

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1273460231' post='2293106']
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]

you forget one thing, your friends have almost always consistently allied themselves against IRON. this kinda makes it inevitable that they would end up on the opposite field as IRON. much like your friends, IRON has been a stalwart and loyal ally to their friends, something which honestly should be admired given how some alliances flake to and fro whoever is currently in power. and that admiration should come regardless of who their friends are.

as for the danger after the last war ended, unless ya'll have a prophet amongst you, you have no clue whatsoever whether your friends were actually in danger. The history is as it is not only because of IRON. your friends, as stated before, have almost consistently allied themselves against IRON. thus, to state that IRON "preyed" on them is ridiculous.

MK has been anti-NPO/co almost since their conception. at least since the UjW which IRON fought on the other side of. Ever since then, MK has basically ensured they were against IRON by being against NPO. so the blame for the past skirmishes lies squarely on both shoulders. Only in this recent war could the blame lie on IRON's shoulders squarely for the preemptive strike.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']
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]

the problem for you is that the ESA was the restitution. so this is nothing more than a sham and Ram's massive ego in play.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1273461446' post='2293128']
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.[/quote]

false. no one is scared of Gremlins nor what terms you may have in store.

[quote]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.[/quote]

what the? who is making the "might makes right" argument? i do believe that IRON/DAWN/most others feel that it is Gremlins in the wrong thus, just because IRON/DAWN will not surrender due to the fact that Gremlins simply can't make them surrender, has nothing to do with "might makes right". it does however have everything to do with withstanding an injustice that should never have been perpetrated at all.

[quote]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.[/quote]

again with the what the? yes, everyone outside of Gre considers your definition wrong, absurd, and plain stupid. your definition actually matters little since it will never proceed to that point anyways.


[quote]So, which is it?
[/quote]

how about none of the above.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1273462672' post='2293153']
Your one-liner would be a lot cooler if you weren't actually harping on our sins Why does someone who doesn't care really feel the need?
[/quote]
Technically speaking, that would be two lines.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='09 May 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1273462560' post='2293150']
The cyberverse [i]doesn't care[/i]. It hasn't cared for weeks.
[/quote]

Irrelevant.
Would you release the murderer just because the aggrieved party was dead and didn't care anymore?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1273462893' post='2293160']
Irrelevant.
Would you release the murderer just because the aggrieved party was dead and didn't care anymore?
[/quote]

this analogy fails due to the fact that even according to you, no one can actually "murder" anyone and thus, the aggrieved party cannot be dead.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1273462893' post='2293160']
Irrelevant.
Would you release the murderer just because the aggrieved party was dead and didn't care anymore?
[/quote]
Except they aren't dead and have already resolved the issue themselves. Also, Grämlins aren't the police.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='09 May 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1273462745' post='2293154']
But they aren't being permitted to walk away. The Easter Sunday Accords happened about a month ago in which they were punished as was seen fit by those they had wronged.
[/quote]

I wish those signatories of the ESA hadn't let them off without any admission of culpability; but alas! without automobiles and asphalt I cannot get my Delorean to 88 miles per hour....

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='09 May 2010 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1273462745' post='2293154']
But they aren't being permitted to walk away. The Easter Sunday Accords happened about a month ago in which they were punished as was seen fit by those they had wronged.
[/quote]
But an unconnected third party has an inalienable right to interfere in the affairs of another alliance! Especially when it is only a front for one massively bloated ego.

The Easter Sunday accords ended it. There was no reason for Grems to keep fighting. No moral crusade, no 'paperless is the new black', nothing at all. Only an ego.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Gamemaster1

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='09 May 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1273463077' post='2293163']
Except they aren't dead and have already resolved the issue themselves. Also, Grämlins aren't the police.
[/quote]

If IRON is permitted to escape their clear wrongdoing with nothing but token reps then the entire cyberverse is wronged.
That is the entire basis of moral absolutes.

It's a shame that Gremlins are the only ones willing to put themselves are risk for this important endeavor. I with everybody would fulfill their moral obligation to stand against IRON's clear aggression.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1273462788' post='2293157']
unfortunately,Ram's plan was stupid and backfired enormously. by the time you realize that you are incapable of doing anything on the scale with which you want to do it, you will no longer be in any position to stop the war without (hopefully) begging for mercy.
[/quote]

Haha, I just get through saying how we don't think it matters whether or not the plan backfires or is stupid, and you respond by continuing on with the same irrelevant point. Good stuff.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1273462893' post='2293160']
Irrelevant.
Would you release the murderer just because the aggrieved party was dead and didn't care anymore?
[/quote]
They aren't dead. They don't care. And you don't have a right if they don't care. This isn't your battle, it was CnG's battle. Who are you, the Polar police force?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='09 May 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1273463095' post='2293167']
But an unconnected third party has an inalienable right to interfere in the affairs of another alliance! Especially when it is only a front for one massively bloated ego.

The Easter Sunday accords ended it. There was no reason for Grems to keep fighting. No moral crusade, no 'paperless is the new black', nothing at all. Only an ego.
[/quote]


Every single person in the cyberverse has an inalienable right to oppose injustice like that perpetrated by IRON.
What more, they have an obligation to do so.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1273463085' post='2293165']
I wish those signatories of the ESA hadn't let them off without any admission of culpability; but alas! without automobiles and asphalt I cannot get my Delorean to 88 miles per hour....
[/quote]
But the fact is they did. As you were never the aggrieved party, how can you think you have the right to dictate their punishment. MK is content with the punishment from the Easter Sunday Accords, what right do you have to push for more? You haven't been wronged.