The New Grämlins

[mike717]

i think the point is. why the hell do you get to decide what fair restitution is.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='10 May 2010 - 04:59 AM' timestamp='1273492754' post='2293473']


I think we agree that any kind of surrender concerns 3 parties at the moment: that would be the gRAMlins, and IRON and DAWN.
Since about the middle of general peace talks, you guys have shown a track record of extreme unreliability, irrationality to the degree of completely ruining your reputation and your alliance.

If you agree with me or not is not relevant here, but I can tell you this:
I don't trust you guys even a little. I think you are complete wackos who don't know any limits to what they are willing to do, I believe no agreement made with you guys can be trusted because whenever it suits you, you will brake it.

That is my viewpoint of your alliance, and so you can, taking that into consideration, probably understand why you asking us to trust you guys is about the last thing imaginable you can ask.



YOU are the ones wanting us to surrender, incase you forgot about that part. At first you tried with the might makes right argument by hoping your extreme superiority in the upper ranks would get us to cave in. Your attempt to force down an unconditional surrender down our throats is the perfect example for a failed attemp ot "might makes right".

I didn't know when a party couldn't be beaten down by the bully that they suddenly become the bully. But I guess I should have expect another one of the those intellectual gemstones from you...


Well, read the part about trusting you guys. There is no trust, absolutely none, so we will be going by the only existing definition of unconditional surrender, ie not yours.


I am not responsible for your amazing ability to withstand reality, no matter how often you try to, you won't be the one redefining clearly defined words for me. When I surrender, I intend to uphold that surrender. Just because you tell me how easy it is to break my word if I don't like it doesn't mean I intend to do it. So with that, you should realize that I will never agree to a surrender if I don't know that I can uphold it.


It's all about trust.

You point out to your track record when you say we are supposed to trust you. Yet your alliance currently is demanding the worst term in history. That is too part of your track record.
What also is part of your trackrecord is that one cannot trust the things said by you guys in official talks, and that you are rather willing to destroy your own alliance enforcing the worst surrender term in history then realize your wrong.

With such a track record, believe me, I wouldn't even really trust you guys to uphold a agreement of white peace.
[/quote]

So your issue of trust boils down to .... what?
That you think we'll give you terms, you'll accept them, you'll fulfill them and then we'll attack you again and pretend it never happened?

Because I've already explained to you that your surrender is not an implied contract to accept unknown terms. It cannot possibly be such

Trust is irrelevant in that case because everybody, and I mean everybody would have good reason to roll us (and I would personally tell them that)
And, on top of them having good reason, you know very well that a significant number of them actually would do it.


If GRE presented you terms, you agreed, you complied, then we ignored it an attacked you; do you really think an alliance like VE wouldn't step up to the plate? Do you really think an alliance like MHA would try to stop them?

Edited May 10, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 May 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1273512372' post='2293714']
so wait, Gremlins attacks IRON, ignores the peace agreement between CnG and IRON/DAWN, continues the war based on basically no reason, calls IRON criminals, and now states that somehow IRON is the alliance that attempted "might makes right"...

honestly, just because Gremlins has lost many members and NS to the point that you are no longer nearly as strategically capable of pounding on IRON's upper tier nations, does not somehow magically make IRON the aggressor or bully.

this is basically the same argument used against CnG when CnG's side turned more powerful than IRON's side. it made no sense then and does not make any sense now. the fact that you are attempting to use it though makes perfect sense.
[/quote]


Are you of the opinion that Gremlins *ever* could have defeated IRON alone even before the diaspora?
There is no magic needed to make IRON the aggressor; it's clear from how they began this war.
As for being a "bully"; your accusation would have merit if we were crushing them under boot and refusing them any opportunity to surrender. That isn't the case.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='mike717' date='10 May 2010 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1273512421' post='2293717']
i think the point is. why the hell do you get to decide what fair restitution is.
[/quote]

We'll present terms and they can decide if they think the terms are fair by either accepting or refusing them.
The cyberverse will then also know the terms and decide if they think they are fair or not.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1273512020' post='2293704']
Us having the Harmlin Accords (which cannot be canceled) does not invalidate the FACT that it's stupid to say that you can't be friends without a treaty.[/quote]

friends is one thing. not being rightfully called a bandwagoner due to you bandwagoning in without a treaty is another. and actually, it does INVALIDATE your entire paperless route. regardless of whether Harmlin Accords can be canceled or not, the fact that Gremlins still has a single piece of paper proves your entire theory that Gremlins is paperless as false.


[quote]Doch; there are a very select few who have outlined their opinions on the "wrong" of what Gremlins are actually doing.
You know this well.
The vast majority of posts in this thread are not about what we're doing but what people [b]think we're doing[/b][/quote]

actually the vast majority of posts in this thread are mostly telling you and Gremlins that you are dead wrong about your twisted definition of unconditional surrender. and actually several have stated that it is wrong of Gremlins to demand unconditional surrender. that is quite sufficient since your claim on what IRON has done wrong is essentially in the same style. "it was wrong of IRON to attack CnG for no reason." that is your entire claim for IRON doing wrong. thus, if that is all you need to state, then how come we have to outline our opinions?

so, actually you are again wrong in your point.


[quote]I know you are capable of arguing with substance. Please do us all the courtesy of checking the fluff at the door.
[/quote]

considering that is almost word for word what you posted except switching a couple of words around, then i would kindly ask you to do it first. but it is quite nice to finally see you admit that you are arguing without any substance and just filling this thread with fluff.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='10 May 2010 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1273512403' post='2293716']
No it isn't. No one made you the jury. Why should IRON or DAWN do ANYTHING just to placate your ego?
[/quote]


Your claim that it's only to "placate our ego" makes your question irrelevant.
They shouldn't do anything [b]just to placate our ego[/b] but that has nothing to do with the current situation.

Their unconditional surrender has nothing to do with our ego.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1273512473' post='2293720']
So your issue of trust boils down to .... what?
That you think we'll give you terms, you'll accept them, you'll fulfill them and then we'll attack you again and pretend it never happened?

Because I've already explained to you that your surrender is not an implied contract to accept unknown terms. It cannot possibly be such

Trust is irrelevant in that case because everybody, and I mean everybody would have good reason to roll us (and I would personally tell them that)
And, on top of them having good reason, you know very well that a significant number of them actually would do it.


If GRE presented you terms, you agreed, you complied, then we ignored it an attacked you; do you really think an alliance like VE wouldn't step up to the plate? Do you really think an alliance like MHA would try to stop them?
[/quote]
Who said anything about attacking? Unless of course you just slipped what plans you had for us.



And regardless how often you come up with some bogus definitions, unconditional surrender is exactly, and only, what I say it is, what you say it isn't, and what every dictionary there is says it is.


Stop with the silly arguments of others would roll you for your actions. Your actions now are despicable, and no one rolls you. Not to mention with the fact that you guys made it clear you don't give a damn about the world's opinion anyways, why do you suddenly call up the world as judge for your actions in the future when you refuse their judgment of your actions now?

The only thing I am concerned with at the moment is making sure we reduce you as quickly as possible to a degree where you cannot threaten anyone anymore, at which point we will simply ignore your sad ramblings as the mumblings of a bunch of rogues that you are.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1273512280' post='2293713']
It's the right thing to do for them to submit themselves to fair restitution for their actions.
[/quote]
Wow, this about shows how off you guys are from sanity, truly amazing.


You, you, a third party with no treaty ties to the parties we attacked dares to claim the right to make a restitution for those alliances?
Who do you think you are?

We signed a peace agreement with them, and we have to pay for restitution, as we agreed with those concerned.



What is even more amazing is the fact that you attacked IRON in the first place, and now dare to claim to be the moral police of the world enforcing restitutions for our attack.



Your moral bankruptcy is beyond comprehension. You guys are nothing but a sad, despicable collection of egomaniacs so far removed from reality, let's see what you have to do when you have to do restitution for your actions here.

Edited May 10, 2010 by shilo

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 May 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1273512836' post='2293729']
friends is one thing. not being rightfully called a bandwagoner due to you bandwagoning in without a treaty is another. and actually, it does INVALIDATE your entire paperless route. regardless of whether Harmlin Accords can be canceled or not, the fact that Gremlins still has a single piece of paper proves your entire theory that Gremlins is paperless as false. [/quote]

What I said was that it's retarded to think that "friendship" and "treaties" have to be mutually inclusive.
One can have friends without treaties, and one can have treaties without friends.
Your reply had nothing to do with this.




[quote]actually the vast majority of posts in this thread are mostly telling you and Gremlins that you are dead wrong about your twisted definition of unconditional surrender.[/quote]
Do you actually believe this thread is an argument about the definition of a word? Because if that's the case then we're all wasting our time. I'd like to think it's about what Gremlins is doing; not what dictionary anybody wants to use.

[quote] and actually several have stated that it is wrong of Gremlins to demand unconditional surrender.[/quote]
Very few have opposed the process that I explained Gremlins would follow. I could name the process "operation flower power" and the people would start arguing whether the lotus or the rose was the most beautiful.

[quote] that is quite sufficient since your claim on what IRON has done wrong is essentially in the same style. "it was wrong of IRON to attack CnG for no reason." that is your entire claim for IRON doing wrong. thus, if that is all you need to state, then how come we have to outline our opinions? [/quote]

If people want to object to my labeling IRON's actions as "wrong" then by all means do so; but hasn't been the basis of this thread thus far.





[quote]considering that is almost word for word what you posted except switching a couple of words around, then i would kindly ask you to do it first. but it is quite nice to finally see you admit that you are arguing without any substance and just filling this thread with fluff.
[/quote]


What would you like me to outline? I'll do my best to oblige.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1273512666' post='2293725']
Are you of the opinion that Gremlins *ever* could have defeated IRON alone even before the diaspora?
There is no magic needed to make IRON the aggressor; it's clear from how they began this war.
As for being a "bully"; your accusation would have merit if we were crushing them under boot and refusing them any opportunity to surrender. That isn't the case.
[/quote]

actually, Gremlins had a far better chance of defeating IRON, even alone simply due to the upper tier advantage. frankly, had IRON ever gotten tired of being in PM and made the stupid mistake to hit Gremlins while ya'll still had a 35/36 to 9/10 upper tier (in this case 50k+ NS nations) what could IRON have possibly done but go vietFAN style basically ensuring no nation ever gets in the range of a Gremlin 50k NS nation unless they went to PM mode basically permanently or until Gremlins finally caved in.

the fact that your upper tier advantage has dropped significantly by loss of nations for Gremlins and gaining of a few nations for IRON, means that you are far less capable of defeating IRON.

as for the whole surrender argument, \m/ could have surrendered to Polaris at any time during the UjW, FAN could have surrendered to NPO at any time. just because you have surrender available does not make it particularly easy to surrender. your terms as they are are completely unacceptable to the vast majority of CN, let alone IRON/DAWN. so, yes, IRON/DAWN could surrender at any time but despite the fact that you know this surrender is completely unacceptable, you continue with the same terms. that does mean you are refusing any opportunity to refuse this war.

and since your friends have already defined the aggressors to be the bullies, considering it was Gremlins who bandwagoned into the war, that makes you the aggressors initially. considering it was Gremlins who failed to reach peace when the aggrieved party agreed to it, means that you continued to be the aggressors. considering it is Gremlins who continues this war despite the offer of white peace being on the table, means that you continue to be the aggressors.

and since aggressors=bullies by the current definition, that means Gremlins are the bullies. it does not matter that Gremlins decided to go playground style and when the rest of the kids stopped kicking the crap out of the original bullies, ya'll decided to attempt to continue to kick two of the kids, while they were on the ground recovering. in order for you to stop kicking them, they would have to basically kneel at your feet, kiss them, place a crown of thorns on their head, and beg for your mercy. Those kids then got up, said $%&@ you and is now currently kicking your $@!.

[Qazzian]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1273512280' post='2293713']
It's the right thing to do for them to submit themselves to fair restitution for their actions.
[/quote]

Sorry if this was covered, but I'll ask instead of wading through almost 140 pages to find the answer: What actions? As far as I know, the alliances they attacked, which you came to defend, have accepted peace and come to a decision on reparations. If it's not the actions that have been resolved between the directly involved parties, then what actions?

[Bob Janova]

To be honest, you're just repeating the same old crap over and over. It'll still be crap if you keep stonewalling with it until 2020. If you had anything approaching a leg to stand on [b]your own coalition wouldn't have left you out to die[/b]. They did that because you are totally, 100%, unequivocally in the wrong, to the extent that the people you were fighting with all agreed to permit IRON's surrender even though you were holding out for your outrageous demands.

Some of your posts sound reasonable, except that none of them actually relate to what Grämlins is doing. If you just want IRON to admit to wrongdoing in pre-empting C&G's entrance into the war, you should have raised that point in the Easter Sunday peace talks; I'm sure IRON accept that the pre-empt was wrong and would have accepted such a clause being added to it. So that isn't really Grämlins' issue, since you refused to accept a normal surrender.

If you just want IRON to come to you for terms without having a say in what they are, then just tell them what the terms are, and they can decide to take it or leave it. This is in fact pretty much how all peace negotiations go, as you well know having been in peace talks (with IRON and DAWN no less!) already during this conflict. So that isn't really Grämlins' issue, since you did not tell IRON what their terms are.

The issue is that [b]you are demanding IRON 'surrender', and demilitarise, before seeing peace terms[/b], and that such a demand is [b]totally, 100%, unequivocally wrong[/b] and unacceptable in the eyes of the Cyberverse. The fact that you apparently don't know what words mean and the resulting semantic argument is an additional piece of idiocy, but it is essentially irrelevant. ('Surrendering' is the act of signing onto surrender terms and ending the conflict. 'Unconditional surrender' is essentially an oxymoron because you can't sign a peace deal without conditions. [OOC: I don't care what other sources you drag in, this is what 'surrender' means in CN.]) And the only reason to demand such a thing is for your own ego and to create a feeling of power and strength.

The fact that if IRON surrendered in advance (this is approximately what you are using 'unconditional surrender' to mean – agreeing to surrender before seeing terms) and then didn't like the terms they could break their surrender doesn't mean that it's right to demand that surrender in the first place. Breaking surrender terms is one of the few absolute wrongs that can be agreed on and placing an alliance in a position where it has to follow unknown terms or break surrender is therefore pretty clearly unreasonable.

You say you would tell everyone they'd be justified in rolling you if you committed a grave injustice. I say, this [b]is[/b] a grave injustice – if someone attacked you for it, would you ask MHA not to defend you? Since you bring up 'alliances like VE', do you think VE should be rolling you now?

On a different note, if you were really the last beacon of justice in a dark world and you were standing up for Grämlins' principles, you would not have had several [i]real[/i] Grämlins standing up in this thread and telling you that you are dead wrong. You are like a tyrannical 'Democratic Republic', using the slogans and documents of a principled past in a twisted and grim fashion to oppress, deceive and attempt to obscure your true nature. I, as a Grämlin for almost three years, tell you: you are not following our principles, you are following a mockery of them and if you continue to do so then you deserve to disband and not to wear our name.

[quote]We'll present terms and they can decide if they think the terms are fair by either accepting or refusing them.[/quote]
Do it now and end this idiocy before you end your alliance.

Edit: It's completely irrelevant to the current situation but yes, I believe Grämlins could have defeated IRON in a 1v1 in Karma with no difficulty. IRON's top tier folded in a week of war, apart from a few honourable exceptions, and while we'd have been fairly swamped in the mid tier, the advantage of fighting down on IRON's top nations the whole time would have rendered them effectively dead rather quickly. We'd have lost a lot of infra on our members at or under 8k but that is cheap to replace, and IRON would never have seen 50k NS until they signed peace. However, as I say, the strength argument has absolutely nothing to do with Grämlins being totally wrong here.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='10 May 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1273513225' post='2293733']
Who said anything about attacking? Unless of course you just slipped what plans you had for us.[/quote]

Clearly



[quote]And regardless how often you come up with some bogus definitions, unconditional surrender is exactly, and only, what I say it is, what you say it isn't, and what every dictionary there is says it is.[/quote]

Again you choose to make this about definitions.

I have said, multiple times, that Gremlins wants you to surrender without conditions on what terms we can offer.
Your surrender does not inherently mandate your agreement to comply with terms.
We will present you with orders; you will accept or refuse them.

What you call that process is irrelevant to me.


[quote]Stop with the silly arguments of others would roll you for your actions. Your actions now are despicable, and no one rolls you.[/quote] Because our actions are not despicable; you have presented an oppositon to [b]what you claim we are doing[/b] rather than what we are actually doing.

[quote]Not to mention with the fact that you guys made it clear you don't give a damn about the world's opinion anyways, why do you suddenly call up the world as judge for your actions in the future when you refuse their judgment of your actions now?[/quote]

True that I don't care about the "collective" opinion; but whether or not I care is irrelevant to the fact that they could roll me and irrelevant to my being right.
Again, I do not subscribe to "might makes right"; but it's apparent that many still do.

The only thing I am concerned with at the moment is making sure we reduce you as quickly as possible to a degree where you cannot threaten anyone anymore, at which point we will simply ignore your sad ramblings as the mumblings of a bunch of rogues that you are.




[quote]Wow, this about shows how off you guys are from sanity, truly amazing.[/quote]

Turning yourself in is wrong?
Or is it your assertion that you have done nothing wrong to warrant turning yourselves in?




[quote]Your moral bankruptcy is beyond comprehension. You guys are nothing but a sad, despicable collection of egomaniacs so far removed from reality, let's see what you have to do when you have to do restitution for your actions here.
[/quote]

Yeah, we'll see. I have a guess that your demands will be much harsher than ours.
But you'll apparently never know because you're strong enough compared to GRE that you shouldn't need to surrender... isn't that right?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1273513327' post='2293735']
What I said was that it's retarded to think that "friendship" and "treaties" have to be mutually inclusive.
One can have friends without treaties, and one can have treaties without friends.
Your reply had nothing to do with this.[/quote]

your reply was in regards to how Gremlins entered this war. thus is it quite relevant. it also shows that ya'lls beliefs are twisted and unreliable.



[quote]Do you actually believe this thread is an argument about the definition of a word? Because if that's the case then we're all wasting our time. I'd like to think it's about what Gremlins is doing; not what dictionary anybody wants to use.[/quote]

ya'll can state whatever you want. it means nothing, i have stated this before. you lost basically all trust that your word has any honor in it. so, yes, this entire thread is basically over your misconception over the meaning of unconditional surrender. those like Shilo, who honor their word (yes i know, they honor their word to the enemy, hard concept for the current Gremlins to understand) cannot accept unconditional surrender since it means that DAWN has to accept whatever terms Gremlins lay down. there is no way for DAWN to refuse, since by their honor code they have given their word to accept them regardless and thus will be honor bound not to refuse.

so you can continue to state that this is not the case, but frankly, you are wasting your breath. you trust is an issue and your honor holds little value.


[quote]Very few have opposed the process that I explained Gremlins would follow. I could name the process "operation flower power" and the people would start arguing whether the lotus or the rose was the most beautiful.[/quote]

you have outlined many processes and then stated that you had no clue what you were talking about. how can we trust you that you know now? simply because you say so? sorry matthew but i don't honestly trust your word all that much.



[quote]If people want to object to my labeling IRON's actions as "wrong" then by all means do so; but hasn't been the basis of this thread thus far.[/quote] actually again, many have stated that. they have stated that IRON has been forgiven by the aggrieved and that Gremlins are in no position to take retribution because they feel CnG was to kind.

are you honestly reading this thread at all? because, it seems that you skip over everything that damages your argument while repeating endlessly the same crap over and over again.


[quote]What would you like me to outline? I'll do my best to oblige.
[/quote]

i don't need anything outlined by you. i pretty much get the gist of what Gremlins are doing and why they are doing it. i don't honestly care about the terms anymore as Gremlins will never be capable of actually presenting those terms anymore. that possibility ceased to exist.

everything you state is nothing more than fluff, propaganda, misdirection, and basically useless. as stated before, most alliances, if not all alliances should no longer trust Gremlins. fact is, Ramirus told me himself that should any alliance use unconditional surrender to extract harsh terms from a defeated foe that Gremlins would be there, this included Athens and other allies of their friend, MK. (i will post that IRC discussion when i get on my home comp if asked)

so why should any alliance trust Gremlins, when it is obvious that despite your words, you care little for your friends. Others have quoted what Ram truly thinks of MHA for that matter. and since ya'll seem to be good little Ramdrones, i doubt anything would occur to change any of this.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 May 2010 - 10:46 AM' timestamp='1273513586' post='2293737']
as for the whole surrender argument, \m/ could have surrendered to Polaris at any time during the UjW, FAN could have surrendered to NPO at any time. just because you have surrender available does not make it particularly easy to surrender. your terms as they are are completely unacceptable to the vast majority of CN, let alone IRON/DAWN. so, yes, IRON/DAWN could surrender at any time but despite the fact that you know this surrender is completely unacceptable, you continue with the same terms. that does mean you are refusing any opportunity to refuse this war. [/quote]

Except that Polaris told \m/ that they needed to become a permanent tech farm.
\m/ refused that term, and decided not to return to war but to disband.

The two scenarios are incomparable because if IRON were to refuse our terms and return to war they would not be "under the boot" and feel compelled to disband.

[quote]and since your friends have already defined the aggressors to be the bullies, considering it was Gremlins who bandwagoned into the war, that makes you the aggressors initially. considering it was Gremlins who failed to reach peace when the aggrieved party agreed to it, means that you continued to be the aggressors. considering it is Gremlins who continues this war despite the offer of white peace being on the table, means that you continue to be the aggressors. [/quote]

That we reject IRON's terms cannot make us aggressors.
IRON could have offered CnG white peace as well; would CnG refusing white peace make them the aggressors?
Don't bother replying; we both know the answer is "no"

[quote]and since aggressors=bullies by the current definition, that means Gremlins are the bullies. it does not matter that Gremlins decided to go playground style and when the rest of the kids stopped kicking the crap out of the original bullies, ya'll decided to attempt to continue to kick two of the kids, while they were on the ground recovering. in order for you to stop kicking them, they would have to basically kneel at your feet, kiss them, place a crown of thorns on their head, and beg for your mercy. Those kids then got up, said $%&@ you and is now currently kicking your $@!.
[/quote]

I'm not complaining about them fighting back [b]in a war[/b].
And your analogy is misguided. Surrender is not the same as "kiss your feet and beg for mercy" and I am sorry that you align them as such.
I am not responsible for your feelings about surrender.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1273513964' post='2293743']
Yeah, we'll see. I have a guess that your demands will be much harsher than ours.
But you'll apparently never know because you're strong enough compared to GRE that you shouldn't need to surrender... isn't that right?
[/quote]
Personally, I am submitting that IRON and DAWN's surrender terms for you should be for you merely to admit this crusade of yours is wrong, and no more in tech than you had originally asked for, then withdrawn (6k or 10k, forgot which).

Making you admit you were wrong...to an alliance with megalomania such as your own, there can be no greater pain.

[shilo]

The rest isn't worth of my attention.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1273513964' post='2293743']
Turning yourself in is wrong?
Or is it your assertion that you have done nothing wrong to warrant turning yourselves in?
[/quote]
Again: who do you think you are
What went wrong with you guys that makes you think we have to turn ourselves in to [b]you[/b]?



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1273513964' post='2293743']
Yeah, we'll see. I have a guess that your demands will be much harsher than ours.
But you'll apparently never know because you're strong enough compared to GRE that you shouldn't need to surrender... isn't that right?
[/quote]
Haha. Are you irrationally afraid of the unknown Mathew? DAWN's track record clearly shows we don't demand harsh terms.


No, it's not. Even if it were DAWN's 13 members against your 68 at the beginning, refusing to participate in a such an obvious wrong is not at all related to strength, it's a principle.
But you are right, we will never find out what idiocy you had planned for us. We will never ask what they are, I won't believe if and when you publicize them that those were the terms, and we will not surrender to you.

Even if you had the strength to enforce those terms, we would still fight you with our last breath and then some.


You guys are not just criminals, because criminals act with some sort of rationale. You guys are bunch of criminal nutjobs. I refuse to negotiate or engage in agreements with criminal nutjobs.

Edited May 10, 2010 by shilo

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 May 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1273513865' post='2293741']
You say you would tell everyone they'd be justified in rolling you if you committed a grave injustice. I say, this [b]is[/b] a grave injustice – if someone attacked you for it, would you ask MHA not to defend you? Since you bring up 'alliances like VE', do you think VE should be rolling you now?[/quote]

Bob, I'll address the rest of your post in a a little while.
But I wanted to hit on this part.
If Gremlins made an unjust demand akin to "become our permanent tech farm" then yes: I would ask MHA not to defend us.
And if we make such an unjust demands then yes: VE should roll us.

However, since we have not made an unjustly harsh demand on any level then there is, at present, no reason.


[quote]On a different note, if you were really the last beacon of justice in a dark world and you were standing up for Grämlins' principles, you would not have had several [i]real[/i] Grämlins standing up in this thread and telling you that you are dead wrong. You are like a tyrannical 'Democratic Republic', using the slogans and documents of a principled past in a twisted and grim fashion to oppress, deceive and attempt to obscure your true nature. I, as a Grämlin for almost three years, tell you: you are not following our principles, you are following a mockery of them and if you continue to do so then you deserve to disband and not to wear our name.[/quote]

Bob, do you really think you can make this appeal? That "real" Gremlins standing against me makes me wrong?
Weren't these the same "real" gremlins that climbed into bed with NPO in the continuum? Weren't they the same "real" gremlins that stood by and did nothing to oppose many injustices that they themselves labeled as such on our forums.

You can claim that what I'm doing now is morally wrong; you and I can argue about that all day. But you [b]cannot[/b] appeal to older "real" Gremlins as any beacon of morality in an argument of contrast for me.

[quote]However, as I say, the strength argument has absolutely nothing to do with Grämlins being totally wrong here.
[/quote]

We agree. Comparative strength has nothing to do with being right or wrong; which is why all of the fools in this thread arguing against Gremlins actions on the basis that we're not strong enough to obtain them are just as pathetic as you [b]claim[/b] Gremlins are.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1273514383' post='2293752']
Except that Polaris told \m/ that they needed to become a permanent tech farm.
\m/ refused that term, and decided not to return to war but to disband.

The two scenarios are incomparable because if IRON were to refuse our terms and return to war they would not be "under the boot" and feel compelled to disband.[/quote]

what you continue to fail to realize is that the unconditional surrender is seen as being just as bad as those terms. thus, IRON/DAWN continue to fight. at the point \m/ was at compared to Polaris was quite different. \m/ had much more of a reason to disband whereas under the current situation, IRON/DAWN have far better reason to fight on.


[quote]That we reject IRON's terms cannot make us aggressors.
IRON could have offered CnG white peace as well; would CnG refusing white peace make them the aggressors?
Don't bother replying; we both know the answer is "no"[/quote]

IRON wronged CnG, not Gremlins. key difference there.


[quote]I'm not complaining about them fighting back [b]in a war[/b].
And your analogy is misguided. Surrender is not the same as "kiss your feet and beg for mercy" and I am sorry that you align them as such.
I am not responsible for your feelings about surrender.
[/quote]

what you want IRON/DAWN to do is exactly that. you stated that they have to do more for you than for the actual aggrieved party. you want them to unconditionally surrender, demilitarize themselves, and pray for decent terms. if they do not like the terms, then the war goes on with IRON/DAWN in a significantly reduced situation than prior to surrendering.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1273509142' post='2293648']
You erroneously presume that a surrender [b]is[/b] a contract to comply with subsequent terms simply because that's how things [b]tend to be done in the cyberverse[/b]. I am telling you that is not the case and it is not what The Gremlins is after.



If you signed such a contract you would be a liar; but no such contract is implied by surrendering. See my above point.



No, I am telling you that an unconditional surrender does not at all obligate them to agree to subsequent terms. There is no contract, your point is nil.
[/quote]
I'm not arguing that an unconditional surrender means signing a contract, I'm arguing that the exact reasoning you gave for [i]why[/i] unconditional surrender doesn't mean they have to follow subsequently given terms applies [i]exactly[/i] to saying that signing a contract doesn't mean you have to follow through on it. You didn't nothing to dispute this. Yes, you would be a liar, but if they say they surrender (an act of submission by your own definition) and then do not submit, then they would be liars. Your argument doesn't hold logical weight and you are attempting to sidestep acknowledging this by pretending that I'm claiming you want IRON/DAWN to sign a contract.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1273515028' post='2293764']
Bob, I'll address the rest of your post in a a little while.
But I wanted to hit on this part.
If Gremlins made an unjust demand akin to "become our permanent tech farm" then yes: I would ask MHA not to defend us.
And if we make such an unjust demands then yes: VE should roll us.

However, since we have not made an unjustly harsh demand on any level then there is, at present, no reason.
[/quote]
No one ever believes the demands they make are unjust or they wouldn't be making them. If we're basing our definition of just terms on the perception of the people making the demands, then no one should ever be prevented from levying any terms on anyone.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='10 May 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1273512152' post='2293708']
We were competant leaders who still lived by our values.
[/quote]

Something which is a foreign concept to Matthew PK and the current Gramlins government: competency.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 07:55 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]
So your terms are not negotiable, and we are free to return to war if we don't like the terms. Hey here’s an idea, let's keep fighting, you present your terms and we'll keep fighting. You see, we find your first term "Unconditionally Surrender" unacceptable and it really doesn't matter what you present after that, we will not accept them.


[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1273460231' post='2293106']
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. [/quote]
The first Gramlin to publicly acknowledge that they might lose the war. Perhaps after 130 pages reality is starting to sink in. But then Ertyy goes on to say that Gramlins stands up for principle and what is right.

Okay then here's a question for you.

Is it right for alliances to declare war on other nations for no other reason than they want to steal some tech?

Is it right to declare war on other nations just because you outnumber them and they can't fight back?

There are dozens if not hundreds of such wars going on at the moment and Gramlins isn't even objecting to them never mind doing something about it.

No Gramlins only claims the high moral ground when they need to justify the continuation of a war you thought you could win but now realize you can't. I find it very hypocritical of Gramlins to claim to be standing up for what is right and the only issue they have is IRON and DAWN. Their issue with DAWN as far as I know was that we declared on a few Gramlin nations that attacked IRON nations without issuing a formal DOW in the OWF. Yes I dare say that defending one's allies is a highly criminal action, not. I know Gramlin reading comprehension is low (perhaps English is a second language) but did you read our Treaty with IRON? It plainly says you hit IRON you are at war with us. So you just go right ahead with your moral high ground platform. It should get about as much support as your irrational "Unconditional Surrender" demand. lol Gramlins lol

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='10 May 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1273515539' post='2293770']
No one ever believes the demands they make are unjust or they wouldn't be making them. If we're basing our definition of just terms on the perception of the people making the demands, then no one should ever be prevented from levying any terms on anyone.
[/quote]


Except that whether or not an alliance [b]thinks[/b] that the demand of "become a permanent tech farm" is unjust is irrelevant to the moral absolute fact that it is.

The same could apply to the terms GRE offers. Because we [b]think[/b] they are just doesn't mean they are. But the proposed alternative claim that "they must be unjust because an unconditional surrender necessitates that you offer harsh terms" is equally invalid.

Shilo has stated that he will not believe that any terms we offer are real; so this is a moot point.
His assertion is that our "real" terms are harsh.
I really don't think very many people believe that.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1273516085' post='2293777']
Except that whether or not an alliance [b]thinks[/b] that the demand of "become a permanent tech farm" is unjust is irrelevant to the moral absolute fact that it is.

The same could apply to the terms GRE offers. Because we [b]think[/b] they are just doesn't mean they are. But the proposed alternative claim that "they must be unjust because an unconditional surrender necessitates that you offer harsh terms" is equally invalid.

Shilo has stated that he will not believe that any terms we offer are real; so this is a moot point.
His assertion is that our "real" terms are harsh.
I really don't think very many people believe that.
[/quote]
No one says that unconditional surrender necessitates that you offer harsh terms except the strawman arguments you keep throwing up about people's positions. [i]Unconditional surrender[/i] entirely [i]by itself[/i] is unjust, in absolute terms. You are morally wrong.

[RustyNail]

It is pointless to continue this discussion. The delusional will continue to think as they will and nothing will sway them. You cannot persuade the insane. The once proud Gramlins continues to bleed members as well as credibility and are no longer respected within the halls of digiterria. IRON is in no danger from them and everyone knows that so there is no reason for IRON to surrender to them in any way whatsoever.

I think that letting them fade into obscurity would be for the greater good of this community as their poison continues to infect the activity levels of this game. We are letting them hold us all hostage because the 'allies' of Gre refuse to A. do anything about them OR B. Release alliances from terms so that they can do something about it. Activity is at an all-time low and we continue to lose valued members of our community. We need a little excitement back in our lives...this ain't it folks.

We are the masters of our own destiny....but the fact that a 45 member alliance is holding most of the alliances on Bob hostage well...that's one heck of an ego trip now isn't it.

Isn't it time to take away the ?