The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='09 May 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1273466046' post='2293261']
Well, we can't pay for them with you standing in the way like that. All those reps that should be going rightfully to CnG are just sitting here in our hands while you play your little word games.
[/quote]


You apparently still don't get it.
Your reps are not adequate restitution for your actions; if they were then Gremlins and IRON would not be at war.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1273465775' post='2293253']
Your argumentum ad populum is irrelevant.[/quote]

how exactly is that possible? since you claim to speak for the entire cyberverse and i state that you are in fact not speaking for the entire cyberverse as most of the cyberverse is against you, how is it irrelevant?

[quote]Actually, I don't think I'm the only one who feels the way I do (even outside of GRE). I just think that others aren't as willing to put themselves at risk like I am.[/quote]

well considering i said [i]basically every single other[/i] means that you may not be the only one. though i wonder how many truly feel as you do or just think that allowing you to keep IRON at war is punishment enough.


[quote]Yet what most people here seem to think we're doing is not what we're going.
Also, what little faith you have in people that you think they will always blindly follow a precedent; pathetic.
[/quote]

again, it does not matter what you intend to do. the precedent will simply be that unconditional surrender is okay.

and yes, i have been around for a while and know many alliances that i feel who would love to have this precedent happen and be capable of taking full advantage of it. and given the fact that ya'll have turned Gremlins into the craphole of an alliance shows that even those i once highly respected can easily be turned into misplaced faith.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1273466122' post='2293264']
You apparently still don't get it.
Your reps are not adequate restitution for your actions; if they were then Gremlins and IRON would not be at war.
[/quote]
They were enough restitution. You are the only one who believes otherwise. You are wrong.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1273466252' post='2293268']
how exactly is that possible? since you claim to speak for the entire cyberverse and i state that you are in fact not speaking for the entire cyberverse as most of the cyberverse is against you, how is it irrelevant? [/quote]

I claim to be upholding morality.
Again, your argumentum ad populum is irrelevant.


[quote]again, it does not matter what you intend to do. the precedent will simply be that unconditional surrender is okay. [/quote]

If you think precedent will be set by whatever definition [b]you[/b] choose instead of the real definition and what we actually do; then there is no reason for you not to oppose [b]everything[/b] on the premise that somebody sometimes somehow will define it differently but the precedent will apply.

[quote]and yes, i have been around for a while and know many alliances that i feel who would love to have this precedent happen and be capable of taking full advantage of it. and given the fact that ya'll have turned Gremlins into the craphole of an alliance shows that even those i once highly respected can easily be turned into misplaced faith.
[/quote]


I've been around a long time too.
If somebody in the future decides to improperly define what we're doing, and claim they can do it too pursuant to their invalid opinion, you can expect me to oppose them.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1273466122' post='2293264']
You apparently still don't get it.
Your reps are not adequate restitution for your actions; if they were then Gremlins and IRON would not be at war.
[/quote]

and you still don't get it. that decision has never and will never be yours to make. that decision was solely CnG's decision to make. they made it much to your obvious dislike. the fact that they left you on the field of battle alone, shows that your way was not okay with them. so according to the actual aggrieved party, their reps is quite adequate.

to go along with your little criminal analogy, it would be simply this. there is no state vs IRON. CnG sat as the Judge, Jury, and Prosecutor. IRON was sentence by CnG to a jail term and a fine. just because the state does not like the decision matters not at all as CnG was the Judge, Jury, and Prosecutor.

now it is Gremlins who is acting as the criminal in this case since it is Gremlins who is obstructing justice by kidnapping IRON and ensuring they cannot serve their jail time as sentenced, as well as theft as Gremlins are keeping IRON from being capable of paying their fines as sentenced. Then there is the fact of attempting to commit double jeopardy since IRON was already convicted and sentenced as well as impersonation since Gremlins are not the police, judge, jury, or prosecutor in IRON's case.

so, going off of your criminal analogy, it is actually Gremlins who is now the criminal as IRON was already convicted and sentenced for their crimes against CnG by CnG.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='09 May 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1273466290' post='2293269']
They were enough restitution. You are the only one who believes otherwise. You are wrong.
[/quote]


Your argumentum ad populum is invalid.

Even so, I contend I am [b]not[/b] the only one who believes otherwise; it's a shame I'm the only one willing to put myself at risk for it.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1273465775' post='2293253']
Yet what most people here seem to think we're doing is not what we're going.
Also, what little faith you have in people that you think they will always blindly follow a precedent; pathetic.
[/quote]
I had a lot more faith in people before I started dealing with them regularly. I've found that "We can take this questionable action because there is no way it would ever give anyone worse the idea of doing something similar" to be a policy that will inevitably end in tears. And as for relying on the rest of the world to prevent injustice at every turn... there's a reason that "Fire" is a more successful cry than "Help" and it's because fires have a chance of spreading and harming other people if they're ignored. I prefer not to assume random bystanders will jump in to save the day if something bad happens, because they almost never do.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1273466680' post='2293275']
now it is Gremlins who is acting as the criminal in this case since it is Gremlins who is obstructing justice by kidnapping IRON and ensuring they cannot serve their jail time as sentenced, as well as theft as Gremlins are keeping IRON from being capable of paying their fines as sentenced. Then there is the fact of attempting to commit double jeopardy since IRON was already convicted and sentenced as well as impersonation since Gremlins are not the police, judge, jury, or prosecutor in IRON's case.

so, going off of your criminal analogy, it is actually Gremlins who is now the criminal as IRON was already convicted and sentenced for their crimes against CnG by CnG.
[/quote]


If CnG thinks Gremlins are criminal by delaying their reps then I trust they will discuss the matter with us seeking resolution.
(Hint: We have been talking with our friends the entire time)

But how could that be? TheBigBad asserts that we have no friends.... clearly I must be lying

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1273466613' post='2293274']
I claim to be upholding morality.
Again, your argumentum ad populum is irrelevant.[/quote]

so you are the world police then? actually, you are only upholding your version of morality. my argument is not irrelevant, since again you stated you spoke for the entire cyberverse. i proved you wrong and now the only thing you can say is my argument is irrelevant? seriously? weak.


[quote]If you think precedent will be set by whatever definition [b]you[/b] choose instead of the real definition and what we actually do; then there is no reason for you not to oppose [b]everything[/b] on the premise that somebody sometimes somehow will define it differently but the precedent will apply.[/quote]

actually, the definition we use is the [i][b]real[/i][/b] definition. the one you use is the made up and irrelevant definition. actually, i oppose a lot of things, ask around i am sure many will state that. but that is unimportant to these matters.

[quote]
I've been around a long time too.
If somebody in the future decides to improperly define what we're doing, and claim they can do it too pursuant to their invalid opinion, you can expect me to oppose them.
[/quote]

that is wonderful. luckily for you it will never get to that point since i will help ensure that Gremlins never set the precedent to begin with.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='09 May 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1273466732' post='2293280']
I had a lot more faith in people before I started dealing with them regularly. I've found that "We can take this questionable action because there is no way it would ever give anyone worse the idea of doing something similar" to be a policy that will inevitably end in tears. And as for relying on the rest of the world to prevent injustice at every turn... there's a reason that "Fire" is a more successful cry than "Help" and it's because fires have a chance of spreading and harming other people if they're ignored. I prefer not to assume random bystanders will jump in to save the day if something bad happens, because they almost never do.
[/quote]


Didn't the cyberverse rally behind KofN to support them?

Aren't you rallying behind IRON? Didn't Dochartagh join DAWN and literally march to war?

Both are examples of people actually standing up for what they think is right (even if I think you're misguided)

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1273466981' post='2293284']
If CnG thinks Gremlins are criminal by delaying their reps then I trust they will discuss the matter with us seeking resolution.
(Hint: We have been talking with our friends the entire time)

But how could that be? TheBigBad asserts that we have no friends.... clearly I must be lying
[/quote]

that is wonderful that you have been talking to your friends. as for TBB stating something, and? his argument has no bearing on mine whatsoever.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1273467113' post='2293286']
Didn't the cyberverse rally behind KofN to support them?

Aren't you rallying behind IRON? Didn't Dochartagh join DAWN and literally march to war?

Both are examples of people actually standing up for what they think is right (even if I think you're misguided)
[/quote]

the cyberverse rallied behind KofN much the way they have rallied behind IRON/DAWN. talk. hell, i will admit i was amongst the loudest and did nothing. though Athens showed they clearly had a better thought process than Gremlins (this is hard for me to admit since i honestly think that Londo is one of the worst leaders in CN history) currently have as they corrected the wrong, whereas Gremlins are under some delusional thought process where they think they have done no wrong.

as for me joining DAWN... i am but one person mate. honestly, the handful that have actually stood up, shown their balls, and actually done something is well just that, a handful.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1273467068' post='2293285']
actually, the definition we use is the [i][b]real[/i][/b] definition. the one you use is the made up and irrelevant definition. actually, i oppose a lot of things, ask around i am sure many will state that. but that is unimportant to these matters.
[/quote]


People have asserted that unconditional surrender implies that the surrendering party inherently agrees to all subsequent terms.
This is not the case; in reality the two have nothing to do with each other.

Their unconditional surrender means they do not get to place conditions on what terms we offer; that is: they do not get to negotiate.
They follow our terms or return to war.
It cannot possibly exist that they follow our terms or the universe undoes itself. This is because it is NOT POSSIBLE for their unconditional surrender to mean they inherently accept all subsequent terms. Reductio ad absurdum: what if we demand they join the Magenta team? Does admin explode?

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1273467113' post='2293286']
Didn't the cyberverse rally behind KofN to support them?

Aren't you rallying behind IRON? Didn't Dochartagh join DAWN and literally march to war?

Both are examples of people actually standing up for what they think is right (even if I think you're misguided)
[/quote]
I'm arguing with you. That's not really saving IRON. I mostly expect that to happen on its own by this point with the way you are going.

A public outcry is not "doing something about it." It will probably result in political damage, but if the person doing the wrong in question doen't care, then it won't do anything to help whoever is under the boot at the moment. People actually inconveniencing themselves to give tangible help is fleetingly rare to the point where, if you haven't noticed, enough people haven't joined IRON and DAWN to actually stop you.

If your definition of opposing future abuses is ranting about it on the OWF en mass, then I actually do have exactly as much faith in humanity as you. I just realize that it won't have much of an impact on anyone's actual ability to pull off abuses if the abuser doesn't care.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1273467473' post='2293297']
People have asserted that unconditional surrender implies that the surrendering party inherently agrees to all subsequent terms.
This is not the case; in reality the two have nothing to do with each other.

Their unconditional surrender means they do not get to place conditions on what terms we offer; that is: they do not get to negotiate.
They follow our terms or return to war.
It cannot possibly exist that they follow our terms or the universe undoes itself. This is because it is NOT POSSIBLE for their unconditional surrender to mean they inherently accept all subsequent terms. Reductio ad absurdum: what if we demand they join the Magenta team? Does admin explode?
[/quote]

actually you have been categorically proven wrong on this matter. [ooc]now, if you state that since this is a game, then the true and real definition of unconditional surrender cannot be applied as stated due to the fact that you cannot physically force any RL person to do anything, then you would be correct. but you are instead stating that the true and real definition of unconditional surrender is in fact not true and real and that is where you are wrong. at the same time, since this game is completely based on being a nation/political/war simulator the concept of unconditional surrender does not actually change regardless of game mechanics. the concept means exactly the same in game as it does in RL. that will not change just because you are actually incapable of forcing IRON/DAWN to actually submit due to game mechanics.[ooc]

so, your definition is false. just because you feel you are incapable of actually finishing an unconditional surrender by forcing IRON/DAWN to submit themselves to your will, does not actually change the definition of unconditional surrender.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1273467473' post='2293297']
People have asserted that unconditional surrender implies that the surrendering party inherently agrees to all subsequent terms.
This is not the case; in reality the two have nothing to do with each other.

Their unconditional surrender means they do not get to place conditions on what terms we offer; that is: they do not get to negotiate.
They follow our terms or return to war.
It cannot possibly exist that they follow our terms or the universe undoes itself. This is because it is NOT POSSIBLE for their unconditional surrender to mean they inherently accept all subsequent terms. Reductio ad absurdum: what if we demand they join the Magenta team? Does admin explode?
[/quote]
Signing a contract doesn't imply that the signatories actually have to subsequently follow through on the agreement.
In reality, the two have nothing to do with each other.

A contract means that you can choose to either follow the document or be found in breach of contract and incur penalties. You don't inherently have to choose to follow the contract. Reductio ad absurdum: What if I signed a contract to build a theme park on the surface of the sun?

You are effectively arguing that because no one can be forced to do anything, then no one can ever really agree to do anything because they can always choose not to afterward.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1273460252' post='2293107']
We cannot give terms we would not, ourselves accept.
[/quote]

Gramlins would accept demands of unconditional surrender? You guys have already stated you won't even accept white peace.

Also you keep saying IRON/DAWN should accept unconditional surrender then listen to the terms and decide whether they should return to the battlefield. Unconditional surrender implies there is no return to the battlefield.

Did you Grämlins really too stupid to read?

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1273464465' post='2293207']
As far as I can tell, you are opposing a precedent that we are not even trying to set.

No mater how often Baldr says that we're asking them to become our slaves; it will not be true.
[/quote]

You yourself have stated many times that their choices are to

1 : Continue with war
2 : Surrender unconditionally and accept any terms you give them, at the threat of returning to war.

The precedent people are arguing about is unconditional surrender. Having to give up and agree to whatever the other alliance comes up with, without knowing what the terms will be when you surrender.

That's exactly what you are doing. You've said it yourself many times.

Yes, I consider it slavery, and you don't. I can understand that you may not consider it slavery because you don't consider the terms you plan to give them to be unreasonable. The way I see it, even a master who treats his slaves well is still a master, and they are still slaves. You yourself have said that if they do not comply with you wishes, that the war will resume.

The basic precedent you are trying to set still remains "Unconditional Surrender or eternal war".

The fact that they could agree to surrender, then find out that the terms are unreasonable and go back to war doesn't change anything. Yes, they could go back on their word, take back their surrender, and return to war. But why should they surrender in the first place if that's where it leads? Why would any alliance agree to unknown terms?

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1273463204' post='2293171']
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.
[/quote]

You guys have wandered so far off the reservation you don't realize you are the ones threatening the cyberverse. You are willing to trash your whole alliance to protect the ego of your leader who miscalculated the situation and overplayed his hand when his opponents surrendered at his doorstep. Do Grämlins really feel that they are the only alliance with a functioning moral compass?

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1273463204' post='2293171']
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.
[/quote]

It is also a moral absolute that vigilantism is wrong. GRE has taken it upon their shoulders to decide that the punishment determined by the ONLY party entitled to make that determination i.e. C&G.

You do not speak for me nor do you speak for a majority of posters in this thread and as such your ability to claim to be acting for the benefit of everyone is nothing but empty rhetoric.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1273465453' post='2293242']
Ok, then in that case we will have to agree to disagree.
I am personally of the opinion that IRON demilitarizing doesn't significantly impact their ability to make war on GRE; this would be different is the military situation were different.
[/quote]

I thought weakening them in order to improve your negotiation position was the whole reason for demilitarization?

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1273463343' post='2293176']
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.
[/quote]

You haven't answered any of my previous questions so I don't expect you to do so now but would you please outline the injustices perpetrated by IRON that that the entire cyberverse is [b]obligated[/b] to oppose?

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Ah, now we're getting into the grist of the discussion

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']
IRON declared an aggressive war on CnG with literally no reason.[/quote]
I disagree with you on that score. There is a reason for the war clearly stated in their declaration:

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79442"]Offical Dispatch from the Independent Republic of Orange Nations[/url]

They cite an instance of a CnG leader trolling them and make the declaration of war to [i]"further improve community standards [and] fight trolling"[/i]. A weak reason for war perhaps, but each to their own.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']This is unacceptable; not just to CnG. The entire cyberverse is an aggrieved party if this behavior is tolerated without restitution.[/quote]
I'd say that seems to be a fair leap of logic. I'm quite sure that we've all seen many extremely weak (or non-existent) CB's used here the past and I'm positive that we'll keep seeing them in the future. To pick on this one and parade it around as being any more particularly heinous than any others that have come before seems to be a bit strange, to be honest.

Regardless of this, who says that there is some kind of rule that a formally stated reason for war is necessary? Why do you take the view that a weak or non-existent reason for a declaration of war is such a crime against the rest of Planet Bob?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']I would have no problem with that, personally; but it isn't my decision to make.[/quote]
So we might have hit upon a potential solution to this affair? I think perhaps it might be a little too late however, given the situation at present but that's by the by.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']What I haven't seen is any official statement of wrongdoing.[/quote]
No but that wasn't the point of my reply. You stated that, and I quote:

[i]"The comments in many threads indicate that they do not, in fact, agree to wrongdoing on their part."[/i]

An absence of a public statement of wrongdoing doesn't imply that there has therefore been a lack of an admission of culpability or contrition. If you're going to make a point about what the government of IRON and DAWN have been saying in public, you should back it up.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']No, reparations cannot be considered de facto admission of guilt.[/quote]
Why not? I posit that it's an equally as valid argument as to what they represent as your take on what the reparations constitute.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']Are you contending that righteous parties never lose wars and never pay reparations.[/quote]
Not at all. But it doesn't follow from that point that the reparations to be paid under the Easter Sunday Accords don’t serve to indicate war guilt.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']The facts are in evidence that they engaged in an aggressive war with no acceptable reason.[/quote]
Ah, you’ve shifted your ground slightly here. In the quote above, you say that:

[i]“IRON declared an aggressive war on CnG with literally no reason.”[/i]

Putting that aside for a moment, why is their DOW unacceptable to you? What is it about their anti-trolling/community standards CB that gets your blood up?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']My stance is predicated on the moral position that IRON should turn themselves in.[/quote]
What makes your position moral, precisely? One could easily make a merits-based argument in IRON’s favour that aggressively policing trolling and community standards is as moral as your uncompromising stance on unacceptable reasons for a war of aggression.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']I compromise [b]myself[/b] by compromising with such a clear-cut aggressor in this case.[/quote]
I don't really see how treating with an enemy would affect you in this manner. Negotiation and compromise, like aggression and conflict, is a part of everyday life and I don't agree that one has to surrender one's moral position to engage in such.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1273460925' post='2293121']I'm not ok with it because the "tradition" does not expressly require them to submit for their aggression.[/quote]
During the discussions preceding the Easter Sunday Accords, was this raised with your friends and put to the surrendering parties?

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

[Grumpdogg]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='10 May 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1273463256' post='2293173']
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?
[/quote]

To be fair, at least we peaced out with \m/.

[Shan Revan]

[quote name='Grumpdogg' date='10 May 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1273476212' post='2293395']
To be fair, at least we peaced out with \m/.
[/quote]
To be fair, that's why we're in this mess right now in the first place.

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='Grumpdogg' date='10 May 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1273476212' post='2293395']
To be fair, at least we peaced out with \m/.
[/quote]

As Minister of Peace you should re-read Polar's propaganda line...