The New Grämlins

[mike717]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 01:28 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]


Most people don't. Most people do find your offer of unconditional surrender and demilitirazation before terms are given to be morally despicable though.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1273516085' post='2293777']
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]
I would like to emphasize that above all things, I don't give a damn about your terms.

You had your chance during the peace talks to make a case for whatever those terms would have been. Now you are simply attempting to make the self-destruction of your alliance look like martyrdom.

Hate to brake it to you, but no one believes the act.

[Horatio Longworth]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1273511823' post='2293700']

Translation: might makes right?[/QUOTE]
(My)Translation: might(ier) enforces what it believes to be right(over the less "mighty").
Even if you are morally correct, you will not be the enforcer this time; IRON would appear to be in the position of power as of this moment.

[quote]
They should turn themselves in.
[/quote]
I'm trying to be as objective as possible, and I honestly believe that is not going to happen. Right now, if you want the best for your alliance, you're going to have to consider some uncomfortable options.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='10 May 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1273515912' post='2293775']
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]

Apparently!



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

In my personal opinion no, and I think this was the basis for my claim that that KofN warranted defending.

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

In my personal opinion no.

[quote]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. [/quote]

I'm a little tied up right now dealing with IRON.

[quote]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
[/quote]

I personally don't give a lick about DAWN. I'm sorry you chose your company. You aligned yourself with IRON who dragged you into this situation.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='mike717' date='10 May 2010 - 11:31 AM' timestamp='1273516289' post='2293780']
Most people don't. Most people do find your offer of unconditional surrender and demilitirazation before terms are given to be morally despicable though.
[/quote]


I, of course, disagree that it is morally despicable.
Their surrender is a necessary first step to being given terms.
Demil is a relevant term pursuant to good faith to proceed. Again, for all you know the demil orders are token.

You cannot apply these blanket labels like "despicable" because the process cannot be despicable.
I mean, sure you [b]can[/b] apply blanket labels but that doesn't make it valid.

If the offered terms are harsh then please label appropriately.
Of course, this seems irrelevant now because shilo doesn't care whether the terms are harsh or not; his "side" is strong enough that they don't need to.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='10 May 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1273515908' post='2293774']
Something which is a foreign concept to Matthew PK and the current Gramlins government: competency.
[/quote]
Matthew is merely trying to defend his alliance. Its hard for him to do that when his leaders are acting like idiots. Matthew is clearly stating Gremlins wouldn't ask for anything harsh, which might be true, but their actions are still redundant by requesting unconditional surrender only for the purposes of "trying something new," even if it partially violates their codex in some eyes.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1273516418' post='2293785']
I'm a little tied up right now dealing with IRON.
[/quote]
Excellent: the first step towards reality
Don't worry now, do one slowly after another, and soon you will make the next step, and that will be realizing you will never be accepting our surrender.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1273516418' post='2293785']
I personally don't give a lick about DAWN. I'm sorry you chose your company. You aligned yourself with IRON who dragged you into this situation.
[/quote]
Well, were you guys not insane, we both could part ways now and continue not giving a damn about each other. Sadly though we likely will part ways only just before you guys announce your voluntary disbandment.

We aligned ourselves with IRON, and opposed to you guys, they are a cool, rational and a friendly bunch. I'd chose them over you guys every day all over again. As well as defending them against your attack.

Edited May 10, 2010 by shilo

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' date='10 May 2010 - 11:33 AM' timestamp='1273516404' post='2293783']
I'm trying to be as objective as possible, and I honestly believe that is not going to happen. Right now, if you want the best for your alliance, you're going to have to consider some uncomfortable options.
[/quote]

That you think our demands are unlikely to be met does not make them morally wrong or inherently despicable.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='10 May 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1273516760' post='2293788']
Matthew is merely trying to defend his alliance. Its hard for him to do that when his leaders are acting like idiots. Matthew is clearly stating Gremlins wouldn't ask for anything harsh, which might be true, but their actions are still redundant by requesting unconditional surrender only for the purposes of "trying something new," even if it partially violates their codex in some eyes.
[/quote]


Ejay, don't say anything at all which could be construed to them that you think I'm sane or not evil.

I'd hate to see the torches and pitchforks turned to you (even if I do think I'm right and you're wrong )

Edited May 10, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='10 May 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1273515539' post='2293770']No one ever believes the demands they make are unjust or they wouldn't be making them.[/quote]
I've made unjust demands in the past. I regret having done so and would never do it again, but I [i]have[/i] done it.

I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in that regard. In fact, I know I'm not.

EDIT: And no, not trying to de-rail or anything. I just have this 'thing' about sweeping statements.

FAKEEDIT2: I'll shut up now.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Ashoka the Great

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1273516863' post='2293790']
That you think our demands are unlikely to be met does not make them morally wrong or inherently despicable.
[/quote]
And that fact does not make your demands any less morally wrong or inherently despicable.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='10 May 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1273517014' post='2293793']
And that fact does not make your demands any less morally wrong or inherently despicable.
[/quote]

Touche.

What makes my demands not morally wrong and not inherently despicable is that they are not harsh. (Square one, here we come )

[Heyman]

So I saw this thread at it's birthing, and haven't checked on it until presently.

Looks like the shoe's on the other foot.

Good publicity stunt, Grämlins. Everybody's rooting for you!

[RustyNail]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1273516863' post='2293790']
That you think our demands are unlikely to be met does not make them morally wrong or inherently despicable.
[/quote]

That you think they are not is not at all relevant to this discussion. Yours is not the only opinion that matters, unfortunately for you.


I once valued Gre as a trusted and valued ally and I held the highest respect for them, from my days in MHA to founding Argent and joining Citadel.

I weep for my lost comrades.

[shilo]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='10 May 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1273516760' post='2293788']
Matthew is merely trying to defend his alliance. Its hard for him to do that when his leaders are acting like idiots. Matthew is clearly stating Gremlins wouldn't ask for anything harsh, which might be true, but their actions are still redundant by requesting unconditional surrender only for the purposes of "trying something new," even if it partially violates their codex in some eyes.
[/quote]
Amazing if loyalty allows someone to defend such an absolute wrong for so long. Makes one question though whether the moral compass of that person is still working.
I admit I couldn't defend a moral wrong for over 130 pages in a row.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='10 May 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1273516760' post='2293788']
Matthew is merely trying to defend his alliance. Its hard for him to do that when his leaders are acting like idiots. Matthew is clearly stating Gremlins wouldn't ask for anything harsh, which might be true, but their actions are still redundant by requesting unconditional surrender only for the purposes of "trying something new," even if it partially violates their codex in some eyes.
[/quote]

Derp. For some reason I misconstrued him as government.

[Solaris]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1273509239' post='2293650']
Emphasis mine.
No it unequivocally does not.
[/quote]You've got it all misunderstood. If you are to have a say about the terms (whether to accept or not) you will have to be in either of the following mind. Either you negotiate a surrender, or you continue to fight until you get to negotiate a surrender. An unconditional surrender can not be done in a position where fighting is possible, because that negates the part unconditional. What you are saying, is that you want them to [i]surrender[/i], and then have them go through your sin absolving "unconditional trust" ritual?

Just take your head out of there, you cannot possibly ask for an unconditional surrender for exactly what an unconditional surrender means. You're simply crying for a surrender, calling it an unconditional one to make a nonsense point, and just being quite rather obnoxiously uncompromizingly agressive and monominded. Just cut it out, and this can end.

[Gamemaster1]

So I'm still waiting on Matthew's answer to the question about attacking others who pre-emptively declared.

Because he's slowly changed his reasoning from 'they attacked out allies and we won't let them do it again' to 'they are inherently wrong and deserve to be punished'. I believe that the entire TIDTT party signed the Easter Sunday Accords, and [i]none[/i] of them admitted they were wrong. Going to attack them now, PK? Your moral outrage meter in the red? I'm sure there are nations in the coalition that you can hit if you [i]truly[/i] feel that way.

Otherwise, you're just worthlessly posturing. Acta non verba, right?

[Artigo]

You have people from both sides of the previous war, a former Grämlin, and people who really don't care about us one way or the other telling you, that your 'cause' is a wrong one. Who are you waiting for to tell you are wrong before you realize the truth?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Artigo' date='10 May 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1273521590' post='2293839']
You have people from both sides of the previous war, a former Grämlin, and people who really don't care about us one way or the other telling you, that your 'cause' is a wrong one. Who are you waiting for to tell you are wrong before you realize the truth?
[/quote]

the only one who will never actually admit it to be wrong of course. Ramirus.

[Bob Janova]

[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 cannot appeal to older "real" Gremlins as any beacon of morality in an argument of contrast for me.[/quote]
Yes, yes I can. There's a world of difference between failing to stop an injustice (as you well know, if we'd tried to stop what the Hegemony did we'd just have been rolled for no purpose) and actively committing one. As you point out yourself we noted that they were in fact injustices, lobbied against them in private (and on occasion public) channels, refused to participate and tried to argue other Continuum members around to our side.

Just because we didn't martyr ourselves to take a futile swing at the NPO doesn't mean we can't make a judgement about whether you are violating the principles upon which the alliance was run. Those principles never included unnecessary martyrdom. You can argue that we were wrong to join Continuum (I wouldn't necessarily disagree) but you cannot argue that failing to stop the excesses of the Hegemony is at all comparable to what you are [i]actively[/i] doing right now.

[Horatio Longworth]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1273516863' post='2293790']
That you think our demands are unlikely to be met does not make them morally wrong or inherently despicable.
[/quote]
I have not called them morally wrong or inherently despicable. I [i]will[/i] attest to the fact that your terms are political suicide for your alliance. Your alliance as a whole may need a new political strategy.

*fixing italics

Edited May 10, 2010 by Horatio Longworth

[Derantol]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 May 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1273524793' post='2293883']
Yes, yes I can. There's a world of difference between failing to stop an injustice (as you well know, if we'd tried to stop what the Hegemony did we'd just have been rolled for no purpose) and actively committing one. As you point out yourself we noted that they were in fact injustices, lobbied against them in private (and on occasion public) channels, refused to participate and tried to argue other Continuum members around to our side.

Just because we didn't martyr ourselves to take a futile swing at the NPO doesn't mean we can't make a judgement about whether you are violating the principles upon which the alliance was run. Those principles never included unnecessary martyrdom. You can argue that we were wrong to join Continuum (I wouldn't necessarily disagree) but you cannot argue that failing to stop the excesses of the Hegemony is at all comparable to what you are [i]actively[/i] doing right now.
[/quote]

To emphasize this, I believe that Grämlins was right (for their own sake, not necessarily for mine) in biding their time until Karma, and then taking a key part in the war; contributing LM to the cause and knocking down our (IRON's) top tier. Morality isn't just about blind courage, it's also about prudence, and knowing what you *can* do and what you *should* do. Those don't always line up, but for most of CN's history, Grämlins has done an excellent job of walking that line and fighting for what they thought was right without compromising their ability to continue doing so.

What I see happening right now is a blind plunge into trying to do what's right. I understand what you're trying to do, and on a certain level, it's commendable, but you're martyring yourself for a relatively unpopular cause. Why do that when you can back off now and fight another day? In addition, your methodology doesn't jive with us or anyone else posting here, and I imagine with a large number of people who can't be bothered to follow this thread. God knows why I'm still following this thing... In any case, whether you're right or wrong, what you're doing isn't working. Perhaps I'm not privy to information about my own alliance; then again, apparently IRON is "about to break," am I right?

EDIT: I'm addressing MPK in the second paragraph, if it wasn't clear.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Derantol

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 May 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1273524793' post='2293883']
but you cannot argue that failing to stop the excesses of the Hegemony is at all comparable to what you are [i]actively[/i] doing right now.
[/quote]

I am [i]actively[/i] working to stop the excesses of the Hegemony.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 May 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1273523237' post='2293863']
the only one who will never actually admit it to be wrong of course. Ramirus.
[/quote]


There would be more dignity in your position if you didn't presume that everybody is blindly waiting for Ramirus to tell us which was is up.