The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='11 May 2010 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1273601365' post='2294857']
What you fail to understand, Matthew, is that the losing side is the one who surrenders and right now it's not us.
[/quote]


What you fail to understand is that you are not correct just because you think you are stronger.



[quote name='ktarthan' date='11 May 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1273601697' post='2294865']
I really am very curious - what exactly does "surrender" mean to The Gramlins then, aside from admitting defeat? It seems you are using something removed from the general accepted usage of the term. It seems the only difference in your eyes is that they must say "We surrender" instead of "We admit defeat" - is there anything else to it?
[/quote]


War > Surrender > Terms > Restitution > Peace

Just as I said, surrender is the procedural submission to begin quarter and presentation of terms.
I am not responsible for the appeal to "tradition" that terms must be given simultaneously with surrender or the completely silly notion that a surrender inherently must mean agreement to subsequently offered terms.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1273602451' post='2294882']
No, I'm saying that to predicate you unwillingness to surrender on the notion that your opponent cannot force you is "might makes right"
Now, if they predicated on the notion that their moral position is superior (as a few actually have) then this would not apply.




We'll have to agree to disagree



I did not say Gremlins was [b]the[/b] victim; I said we are all victims if IRON is allowed to be relased without allocution.







Not true.
Very few people are opposing the process Gremlins has stated will occur pursuant to IRON's unconditional surrender.

In fact, most people are opposing their own creation rather than any reality.
[/quote]

Would Gramlins accept uncondional surrender? No. Nobody would. That is the reality. Period. You can dance around what comes after and it means zero. It is uncondional surrender that is universaly opposed. It will not be allowed. Your actions are seen as the threat to Planet Bob. I do not care that the few people left in Gramlins do not agree with the rest of the world. You can go on thinking whatever you want but, unonditional surrender is not acceptable to IRON, DAWN or the rest of Planet Bob. Think what you wish but, that is the reality. So perhaps it would be in your best interest to beging dealing with the reality of the situation.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1273602451' post='2294882']
No, I'm saying that to predicate you unwillingness to surrender on the notion that your opponent cannot force you is "might makes right"
Now, if they predicated on the notion that their moral position is superior (as a few actually have) then this would not apply.[/quote]I can tell you, as the head of DAWN's government, that our moral position is superior from the moment you refused to accept the peace agreed upon by the rest of the alliances on your side and insisted on keeping us in a state of war.
Oh, and you can say that we will have to agree to disagree all you want. The support we get in this thread and other similar threads from alliances which are naturally closer to you than to us shows how morally distorted your position is.


[quote]I did not say Gremlins was [b]the[/b] victim; I said we are all victims if IRON is allowed to be relased without allocution.[/quote][b]We[/b] proposed that in the negotiations for the peace terms. It was rejected by your side.
Also, you are the last who can set the moral standard for the CN community.

[quote]Not true.
Very few people are opposing the process Gremlins has stated will occur pursuant to IRON's unconditional surrender.[/quote]Clearly most people who bothered themselves to reply to this thread disagree with the first stage of the process.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Golan 1st

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='11 May 2010 - 11:38 AM' timestamp='1273603063' post='2294893']
Would Gramlins accept uncondional surrender? No. Nobody would. That is the reality. Period. You can dance around what comes after and it means zero. It is uncondional surrender that is universaly opposed. It will not be allowed. Your actions are seen as the threat to Planet Bob. I do not care that the few people left in Gramlins do not agree with the rest of the world. You can go on thinking whatever you want but, unonditional surrender is not acceptable to IRON, DAWN or the rest of Planet Bob. Think what you wish but, that is the reality. So perhaps it would be in your best interest to beging dealing with the reality of the situation.
[/quote]

You're hardly in a position to tell me what Gremlins would and would not do.

I would have no issue accepting unconditional surrender (pursuant to the procedure Gremlins has clearly outlined) were I as clearly culpable for wrongdoing as is IRON.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1273602451' post='2294882']
No, I'm saying that to predicate you unwillingness to surrender on the notion that your opponent cannot force you is "might makes right"
Now, if they predicated on the notion that their moral position is superior (as a few actually have) then this would not apply.

[/quote]

Umm no, actually, by refusing to surrender they are opposing your attempt at might makes right.

Surrendering ones sovereignty, even small portions of it, is a large concession, one no one would willingly give up. To attempt to extract that from an alliance you must posses the means to compel them to do so, this typically takes the form of victory on the field of battle. A classic example of might makes right. Incidentally, victory on the field of battle is something you pissed away when you opted out of the ESA, and you lack the ability to claim it individually. Thanks to NS distribution it certainly appears IRON can't establish that same supremacy on the field of battle either. But just as you are not winning, they are not losing. That brings us to how this farce has been able to be perpetuated for so long.

Sadly, you've also managed to piss away the moral high ground as well, you went from a very popular and well liked alliance, jumping on an unpopular alliance who had declared war without the benefit of a treaty. A superior PR position to be sure. You have through your massive arrogance, and completely unjustified superiority complex, managed to actually transform the people who committed a preemptive strike into a sympathetic group.

So yes, IRON has both the military ability to resist your ridiculous demands, and the moral high ground in resisting those same unconscionable demands. Thanks to your own bloated sense of self importance. Had you dropped the ego fest that is unconditional surrender, you probably could have gotten anything you pleased added to the ESA. Instead, here we are 140 pages later.

You are down 2 million, half your NS, in the last 30 days alone, and down to 41 members. If you had a plan, it failed. Spectacularly.

Edited May 11, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='11 May 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1273603165' post='2294895']
I can tell you, as the head of DAWN's government, that our moral position is superior from the moment you refused to accept the peace agreed upon by the rest of the alliances on your side and insisted on keeping us in a state of war.
Oh, and you can say that we will have to agree to disagree all you want. The support we get in this thread and other similar threads from alliances which are naturally closer to you than to us shows how morally distorted your position is.[/quote]

So your claim is that we're wrong because we didn't accept their peace agreement as out own?


[quote][b]We[/b] proposed that in the negotiations for the peace terms. It was rejected by your side.
Also, you are the last who can set the moral standard for the CN community.[/quote]

I have no idea nor so I care what you proposed to the other alliances on "my side."
Your making an admission to them "with a gun to your head" is far less valid than it is following your token release by them.

I am not setting the moral standard. The moral standard is [b]absolute[/b] and will apply whether I am here or not. The Gremlins standing in opposition to what IRON did is not what makes their actions wrong.

[quote]Clearly most people who bothered themselves to reply to this thread disagree with the first stage of the process.
[/quote]

Not true.
Most people have objected to some notion of unconditional surrender which necessitates your agreeing to comply with subsequent terms without seeing them.

Since that is not the reality of what is being demanded my contention that they do not inherently oppose The Gremlins' actions is validated.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1273602451' post='2294882']
No, I'm saying that to predicate you unwillingness to surrender on the notion that your opponent cannot force you is "might makes right"
Now, if they predicated on the notion that their moral position is superior (as a few actually have) then this would not apply.[/quote]

ummm... that is as it has always been. the winning side never decides to go "hey guys, we are beating the crap out of the enemy, but if we don't surrender, we will be telling the losing side 'might makes right'..."

CnG did not go "gee guys, we have the superior moral position therefore we won't surrender." they went, "gee guys, we are beating the crap out of TOP/IRON/co so do we really need to surrender?"


[quote]I did not say Gremlins was [b]the[/b] victim; I said we are all victims if IRON is allowed to be relased without allocution.[/quote]

victim of what exactly? and who are you to think you can judge something better than the actual victim?



[quote]Not true.
Very few people are opposing the process Gremlins has stated will occur pursuant to IRON's unconditional surrender.

In fact, most people are opposing their own creation rather than any reality.
[/quote]

most are opposing the unconditional surrender which is opposing the process Gremlins have stated they will use. in fact many have also opposed the demilitarization prior to hearing the terms as well.

but i have no clue what this statement has to do with the fact that i stated has nothing to do with what people oppose or don't oppose. i stated that Gremlins putting in the unconditional surrender term shows that the entire plan was meant to be rejected.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1273603645' post='2294907']

Not true.
Most people have objected to some notion of unconditional surrender which necessitates your agreeing to comply with subsequent terms without seeing them.

Since that is not the reality of what is being demanded my contention that they do not inherently oppose The Gremlins' actions is validated.
[/quote]

No, you are demanding unconditional surrender, elaboration on your part has demonstrated only that Gre is ignorant of what that term actually represents, not that you are not demanding it.

Had you desired contrary to that demand it would have been clarified by government and amended so that the demand actually reflected your desires.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='11 May 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1273603415' post='2294901']
Umm no, actually, by refusing to surrender they are opposing your attempt at might makes right.
[/quote]


False.
Their submission given the circumstances in which The Gremlins cannot "stomp them under boot" to extract an allocution is granted as much sincerity as possible in the cyberverse.

The Gremlins has never, in any way shape or form, contended that IRON should surrender because we're stronger than them.
Not ever.
On the contrary, others have contended that IRON should not surrender because The Gremlins is not stronger than them.

Are we now going to clutter this thread with arguments over the definition of "might makes right?"
Let's not.


[quote name='TypoNinja' date='11 May 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1273603791' post='2294911']
No, you are demanding unconditional surrender, elaboration on your part has demonstrated only that Gre is ignorant of what that term actually represents, not that you are not demanding it.

Had you desired contrary to that demand it would have been clarified by government and amended so that the demand actually reflected your desires.
[/quote]


Good Admin.....
I have clearly stated that we will do A, B, and C in that order and that Surrender is step A, which is followed by our delivery of terms.
Unconditional Surrender does not, and cannot, mean they pre-emptively agree to comply with subsequent unknown terms.
Ad Absurdum: what if a term were to join the polka-dot team?
Your assertion that an Uncindotional Surrender necessitates acceptance to comply with unknown terms is paradoxical in nature.

I don't care if you disagree with The Gremlins' definition.
The procedure it very clearly outlined.
The opposition says "But that's called ABC not XYZ!"

[b]I. Don't. Care.[/b]


I have told you ad nauseum, and will continue to repeat if required, that [b]surrender does not and cannot inherently necessitate agreement to unknown future terms[/b]

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Delta1212]

You forgot to answer this:
[quote name='Delta1212' date='10 May 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1273532284' post='2294047']
Why is it important? Why doesn't an admission of wrongdoing accomplish your goal of getting them to admit they were wrong?
[/quote]

[Andre27]

For the sake of argument let's indeed continue on that.

Gremlings are stronger in the upper tiers which is also where the nations are located which IRON needs the most to make reparations.

You don't care about your lower tier, but simply want a shot at the high tier of IRON to cripple them for a longer period than it would take them to pay reps.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1273603931' post='2294913']
False.
Their submission given the circumstances in which The Gremlins cannot "stomp them under boot" to extract an allocution is granted as much sincerity as possible in the cyberverse.
[/quote]

Da what? I've read this three times, I can't extract any context from it at all.

[quote]
The Gremlins has never, in any way shape or form, contended that IRON should surrender because we're stronger than them.
Not ever.
[/quote]

Then why the hell are you still at war? That's how the system works, when demanding surrender, and terms, the alternative is continued war. When terms are more appealing that continued war, surrenders happen.

[quote]
Are we now going to clutter this thread with arguments over the definition of "might makes right?"
Let's not.
[/quote]

Apparently we have to since you don't know that any more than you did the last set of political and military terms you started throwing around. You are holding IRON in war and refusing to negotiate with them until they accede to your arbitrary demands, demands they do not want to meet.

This is at its core an iconic example of might makes right. You are telling them "Do what we want or we keep hurting you".

Your very refusal to negotiate with them means this can be nothing but might makes right. You are no better than a 6th grader stealing a 3rd graders lunch money.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='11 May 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1273604037' post='2294915']
You forgot to answer this:
[/quote]


I thought I had answered that?
Surrendering is the functional equivalent of turning themselves in.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1273603368' post='2294900']
You're hardly in a position to tell me what Gremlins would and would not do.

I would have no issue accepting unconditional surrender (pursuant to the procedure Gremlins has clearly outlined) were I as clearly culpable for wrongdoing as is IRON.
[/quote]

You see IRON as culpable for some wrong doing beyond what eveyone else sees. Planet Bob sees you as culpable of a terrible wrong doing beyond what you see. So Gramlins will accept uncondional surrender based on how most of Planet Bob sees them as culpable? No, I did not think so. And yet you expect IRON and DAWN to do the same based on what a few people in a dying alliance think? Reality, welcome to it.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1273604469' post='2294927']
I thought I had answered that?
Surrendering is the functional equivalent of turning themselves in.
[/quote]
Why should they turn themselves in to you? That's like saying that a criminal has to accept moral responsibility for his actions by turning himself in to the nearest hunting lodge.

You aren't the police.


Edit: That also doesn't answer why an admission of wrongdoing is not sufficient on its own.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Delta1212

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Andre27' date='11 May 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1273604259' post='2294921']
For the sake of argument let's indeed continue on that.

Gremlings are stronger in the upper tiers which is also where the nations are located which IRON needs the most to make reparations.

You don't care about your lower tier, but simply want a shot at the high tier of IRON to cripple them for a longer period than it would take them to pay reps.
[/quote]


Why would The Gremlins want to cripple IRON for longer than it would take them to pay reps?
Why would The Gremlins want to delay IRON's payment of reps.


[quote name='Delta1212' date='11 May 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1273604599' post='2294933']
Why should they turn themselves in to you? That's like saying that a criminal has to accept moral responsibility for his actions by turning himself in to the nearest hunting lodge.

You aren't the police.
[/quote]

There are no police on planet Bob; that doesn't eliminate a moral responsibility to turn yourself in to pay restitution for your wrongs.
I don't care if they turn themselves in to me or not; The Gremlins are the only ones standing to oppose them; and any other alliance to join would open themselves up to tremendous risk akin to that that The Gremlins have; I can understand why they wouldn't want to do that.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[deathcat]

The only Gramlin that needs to be in here.. is RAM.. the end.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1273604606' post='2294934']
Why would The Gremlins want to cripple IRON for longer than it would take them to pay reps?
Why would The Gremlins want to delay IRON's payment of reps.




There are no police on planet Bob; that doesn't eliminate a moral responsibility to turn yourself in to pay restitution for your wrongs.
I don't care if they turn themselves in to me or not; The Gremlins are the only ones standing to oppose them; and any other alliance to join would open themselves up to tremendous risk akin to that that The Gremlins have; I can understand why they wouldn't want to do that.
[/quote]
They turned themselves in and paid restitution to the people they wronged. You are only the only ones standing to oppose them because everyone else [i]already did[/i] and accomplished their goal of [i]getting IRON to pay restitution[/i]. You are not martyrs.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='11 May 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1273604581' post='2294930']
You see IRON as culpable for some wrong doing beyond what eveyone else sees. Planet Bob sees you as culpable of a terrible wrong doing beyond what you see. So Gramlins will accept uncondional surrender based on how most of Planet Bob sees them as culpable? No, I did not think so. And yet you expect IRON and DAWN to do the same based on what a few people in a dying alliance think? Reality, welcome to it.
[/quote]


If IRON doesn't see themselves and culpable for any wrongdoing then you have completely validated my rationale for being at war.

I do not believe that nobody else thinks they are culpable. I think few others will put themselves to such risk.


[quote name='Delta1212' date='11 May 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1273604905' post='2294947']
They turned themselves in and paid restitution to the people they wronged. You are only the only ones standing to oppose them because everyone else [i]already did[/i] and accomplished their goal of [i]getting IRON to pay restitution[/i]. You are not martyrs.
[/quote]


Their reparations were insufficient to serve as an admission of wrongdoing; as would an extracted allocution under the proverbial boot of a vastly superior force.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1273604921' post='2294948']
If IRON doesn't seem themselves and culpable for any wrongdoing then you have completely validated my rationale for being at war.

I do not believe that nobody else thinks they are culpable. I think few others will put themselves to such risk.
[/quote]
I think everyone else sees IRON as culpable but already having been beaten and agreed to proper punishment.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='11 May 2010 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1273604996' post='2294952']
[b]I think everyone else sees IRON as culpable[/b] but already having been beaten and agreed to proper punishment.
[/quote]


We agree on the bolded part.

I contend that reparations without an allocution is insufficient restitution.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1273603645' post='2294907']
So your claim is that we're wrong because we didn't accept their peace agreement as out own?[/quote]You got it right. Your insistence to unnecessarily keep us in a state of war is wrong.
[quote]I have no idea nor so I care what you proposed to the other alliances on "my side."
Your making an admission to them "with a gun to your head" is far less valid than it is following your token release by them.[/quote]And you are not pointing a gun (if jammed) to our head?

[quote]I am not setting the moral standard. The moral standard is [b]absolute[/b] and will apply whether I am here or not. The Gremlins standing in opposition to what IRON did is not what makes their actions wrong.[/quote]Again, you are in no position to say what the moral standard is.

[quote]Not true.
Most people have objected to some notion of unconditional surrender which necessitates your agreeing to comply with subsequent terms without seeing them.

Since that is not the reality of what is being demanded my contention that they do not inherently oppose The Gremlins' actions is validated.
[/quote]Let's see if I get it right. Since they use the commonly accepted definition of "unconditional surrender" they agree with you?

This is really irrelvant anymore. We are not going to surrender to you, with or without conditions.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1273605175' post='2294956']
We agree on the bolded part.

I contend that reparations without an allocution is insufficient restitution.
[/quote]
Since apparently IRON offered to admit their actions were wrong as part of the ESA and were turned down, I think the victims disagree with you. And in light of that, your complaint is pretty much groundless.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1273604606' post='2294934']
Why would The Gremlins want to cripple IRON for longer than it would take them to pay reps?
Why would The Gremlins want to delay IRON's payment of reps.[/quote]

honestly i don't know but the true question then is why are you(as in Gremlins) doing just that?


[quote]There are no police on planet Bob; that doesn't eliminate a moral responsibility to turn yourself in to pay restitution for your wrongs.
I don't care if they turn themselves in to me or not; The Gremlins are the only ones standing to oppose them; and any other alliance to join would open themselves up to tremendous risk akin to that that The Gremlins have; I can understand why they wouldn't want to do that.
[/quote]

and yet you still do not get it. IRON did just that when they signed the ESA. just because you do not agree with the sentence given to them by CnG does not mean you can extract your own payment. again, since you like to use the term criminal, what you are doing is called double jeopardy. you are attempting to make IRON/DAWN pay restitution twice.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:08 PM' timestamp='1273604921' post='2294948']
If IRON doesn't see themselves and culpable for any wrongdoing then you have completely validated my rationale for being at war.

I do not believe that nobody else thinks they are culpable. I think few others will put themselves to such risk.

Their reparations were insufficient to serve as an admission of wrongdoing; as would an extracted allocution under the proverbial boot of a vastly superior force.
[/quote]

actually IRON did see themselves as culpable for wrongdoing, hence their surrender and payment of reparations already. this was good enough for CnG to serve as an admission of wrongdoing. you have yet to list Gremlins' credentials as to why they can do this. why is it that Gremlins can continue this war without any actual just cause?

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1273592914' post='2294765']
I asked you to show me some examples you thought were noteworthy and that I would consider them and let you know what I thought.
Unless I missed it, you haven't done that.
I also explained to you that I was a little busy right now opposing [b]IRON's[/b] injustice.
Also, like Impero said, war is not the sole means of opposition (as I'm sure many in this thread agree) so be sure you point me towards situations were all non-war avenues have been exhausted.
[/quote]
Dude, I did. [b]The other alliances in the TIDFTT coalition. They did the [u]exact[/u] [u]same[/u] thing.[/b] You can't oppose one without opposing all. [i]What makes IRON so special that your vendetta is against only them of the coalition?[/i] Unless there is anouther reason.

If it is such a gross injustice, there is no reason why you can't oppose all of us. Nation strength doesn't matter, right? It's doing that right thing that matters.

Your nation is in the range of many of nations formerly in the TIDFTT coalition. Back up your words that you are opposing injustice if you truly believe them. Start attacking people. You aren't busy with IRON, your alliance is. You haven't done anything personally.
[i]
Acta non verba.[/i]