The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='11 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1273608161' post='2295041']
Matthew PK, you have conveniently (for you) missed replying to all my points [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2294923"]Here[/url] Please address these.
[/quote]

Sorry, I'm trying to keep up with a lot of people here.

EDIT: Also, please don't lower yourself to cheap shots. I think I've made it obvious that I'm extending myself above-and-beyond normal posting availability to try and engage all progressive dialogue.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='11 May 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1273604286' post='2294923']
Da what? I've read this three times, I can't extract any context from it at all.[/quote]

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I was outlining the premise of a compelled confession.
Since The Gremlins cannot "stomp" IRON in the sense that the cyberverse understands (that is widespread and longterm ZI etc etc) that means that an admission of moral failing to us rather than to CnG (who, through IRON's war, had their boot to IRON's throat) has a more significantly implied sincerity.


[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]

I suppose you're correct about "tradition" but the reality seems to be that IRON would rather stay at war than turn themselves in. Since I am not going to compromise with them I'll leave the predictions to you.



[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.
[/quote]

We are, in no way, saying that IRON should do what we say just because we're stronger.
I can't simplify the "might makes right" premise any more than that.
Could you give me a concise definition of your adherence?

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Derantol' date='11 May 2010 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1273608447' post='2295047']
Actually, I think I understand the first piece of that one. He's saying that if we admit that we're wrong, to a power that can't defeat us, it's more sincere than if we admit that we're wrong to a person holding a gun to our head. I'd disagree, on the basis that it can be just as sincere, even under stressful circumstances. The difference is that it is *definitely* sincere in the first case, while it might not be in the second.
[/quote]


I'll get to your longer post in a bit (and I appreciate it, thanks) but I wanted to hit this first.

You are spot on.

But there's a little further to go...
Certainly, as you claim, one could be sincere in either circumstance; but we live in a world of doubt.
Creating a situation which thus minimizes (of course it can never be completely eliminated) [b]all doubts of your sincerity[/b] is preferential in asserting the veracity of your allocution.

One could make the argument that at some point in the future it will be said "Well, we didn't mean it because it was compelled under duress" but the best we can do is mitigate all circumstances to which one would make this claim.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Calderone' date='11 May 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1273609483' post='2295069']
That which you are doing is obstructing IRON from fulfilling their reps to those you "claim" as allies. Please continue on your embarrassing path cause at this point it only serves to help IRON.
[/quote]

My mailbox is always open to my friends wanting to complain that persistence is delaying their reps.

Thus far it's been crickets.

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='11 May 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1273608879' post='2295057']
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. At this point, Gramlins is not winning the war. As such, the only reason that IRON would ever agree to any terms at all would be because they want to make amends. As such, the bit about unconditional surrender is unnecessary as a gesture to show genuine contrition, agreeing to any terms at all would show said contrition.
[/quote]


Not so. Not requiring the surrender would increase the possibility of insincerity by simplifying their ability to weigh terms versus the "annoyance" of remaining at war.

No, the surrender as a functional equivalent to turning themselves in is completely necessary.


[quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='11 May 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1273609022' post='2295059']
Either way it could be insincere.[/quote]
As I already addressed....

[quote]I disagree with his stance though. I think admitting you were wrong to the victims would always be more meaningful than doing so to a 3rd party.
[/quote]

Irrelevant. IRON did not admit they were morally wrong to those who you contend were the victims.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Andre27]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 09:03 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]

That is exactly the question at hand.

Gremlins entered the conflict without treaties. Gremlins continue to draw out an already extensive conflict.
The only explanation can be you're blinded by your grudges against IRON.

You're acting on a danger perceived by you and you alone. I believe that is called [url="http://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc2415.htm"]Paranoid Schizophrenia[/url].

With the loss of sanity, or at the very least the apparent loss of sanity & reason that remains the only conclusion.

Even if IRON could recover more swiftly that it's opponents while under reps, then the fact remains that even in the unlikely event that old Hegemony treaties were restored the balance of power has shifted in favor of C&G/SF and I'm not even counting Sparta + MHA who are closely tied to C&G/SF.

Now try to get a moment of sanity and see that there is no danger and further continuation of the conflict is pointless. Accept the white peace or prepare to be ridiculed by friend and foe alike for considerable time to come.

The old Gremlins were a proud alliance, show some of that previous grandeur.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1273605933' post='2294970']
Let's start to argue about the definition of "Compelled Confession"
[/quote]

You would not accept IRON/DAWN's admission of guilt, because it was forced from them? "Agree you were wrong, or we'll keep stomping you". I believe that that is what you are saying here.

How, apart from the fact that Gremlins is being stomped on, is that any different to you and IRON/DAWN? "Agree you were wrong or [s]you'll keep stomping us[/s] we'll keep you in war"

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1273605933' post='2294970']
Let's start to argue about the definition of "Compelled Confession"
[/quote]
As opposed to what you are triyng to do which is to compel IRON to admit they were wrong. Unconditional surrender doesn't remove the compulsion, it just alters the cost-benefit analysis that goes into deciding whether to submit.

If IRON believes the cost of surrendering to you is too high, they will not even if they think they were in the wrong.
If IRON thinks the benefit of surrendering would be higher, they will do so even if they don't think they were wrong.

All you've done is raised the cost to make it less likely that they'll surrender. You haven't actually removed the threat of force that would make any confession suspect, and saying "surrendering unconditionally is a sign that they admit they were wrong" makes as much sense as saying "agreeing to pay reps is a sign they admit they were wrong" which you have consistently claimed is false. They may know they were wrong but deem the risk of bowing to your demands too high, just as a thief may regret his actions but not turn himself in if the punishment is execution. They may equally think they were in the right and decide you won't do anything bad to them and so turn themselves in, just as an unrepentant murderer might turn himself in if he believes he'll only serve a year or two of jail time and be released.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1273609904' post='2295080']
Sorry, I'm trying to keep up with a lot of people here.

EDIT: Also, please don't lower yourself to cheap shots. I think I've made it obvious that I'm extending myself above-and-beyond normal posting availability to try and engage all progressive dialogue.
[/quote]

Wasn't meant to be a cheap shot unless you really did skip out on answering deliberately, if you didn't no foul.

[quote]
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I was outlining the premise of a compelled confession.
Since The Gremlins cannot "stomp" IRON in the sense that the cyberverse understands (that is widespread and longterm ZI etc etc) that means that an admission of moral failing to us rather than to CnG (who, through IRON's war, had their boot to IRON's throat) has a more significantly implied sincerity.
[/quote]

Ahhh thank you for the clarity.

[quote]
I suppose you're correct about "tradition" but the reality seems to be that IRON would rather stay at war than turn themselves in. Since I am not going to compromise with them I'll leave the predictions to you.
[/quote]

"turn themselves in" For what crime? More importantly, who made you the arbiters of justice in my CN? Also really, IRON would rather stay at war? You are reaching with this one man. Why do we not say that Gre would rather stay at war than to admit ego brought them to an indefensible political position?

[quote]
We are, in no way, saying that IRON should do what we say just because we're stronger.
[/quote]

Then why remain at war? If you do not seek a might makes right policy clearly peace and some discussions would be the more mature option, surely Gramlins winning personality and impeccable reasoning skills will convince IRON of the error of their ways without the threat of more nuclear devastation hanging over their heads.

[quote]
I can't simplify the "might makes right" premise any more than that.
[/quote]

Actions speak louder than words, you are holding them in war until they accede to your demands, I can't think of a more concise summary for a might makes right position. you are using military power to attempt to further an agenda you know would fail miserably without the threat of force behind it.

[quote]
Could you give me a concise definition of your adherence?
[/quote]

Adherence to what?

Edited May 11, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Lord Rune]

Wasn't the whole cause of this Ramirus wanting to "try something new"? (I'm sure there was a quote umptyteen pages ago to this effect)
At what stage will he decide that "something new" isn't worth the loss of membership and the public standing of Gremlins in Planet Bob's eyes?

[DogeWilliam]

So, I just noticed gramlins is not in the sanction race anymore...

Ramirus and the current leaders of gramlins are either the worst strategists ever or were intentionally trying to destroy that old and legacy marked alliance.

[Manwe]

Once again, stop with the double and triple posting. The edit button exists for a reason.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Manwe' date='11 May 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1273614780' post='2295214']
Once again, stop with the double and triple posting. The edit button exists for a reason.
[/quote]
Just for my clarity:
Sometimes I slip up and double-post.
Is it your preference that I snip the second post and copy it into the first post?

[Owned-You]

Matthew, I'm curious; do you believe that Gramlins are justified in attempting to "bring in" IRON for past deeds?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='11 May 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1273614998' post='2295221']
Matthew, I'm curious; do you believe that Gramlins are justified in attempting to "bring in" IRON for past deeds?
[/quote]


We're only attempting to "bring them in" for the deed which instigated the war in which we are currently engaged.
In that, yes we are justified.

[Owned-You]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1273615095' post='2295222']
We're only attempting to "bring them in" for the deed which instigated the war in which we are currently engaged.
In that, yes we are justified.
[/quote]

Pardon my ignorance, but would this be the preemptive strike correct? If so, by what justification would you motion as your reasoning; from a legal standpoint you hold no treaties to C&G, so why would it matter to Gramlins that they initiated a war, by whatever means they were preemptive or not to alliances not tied to Gramlins?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='11 May 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1273615275' post='2295223']
Pardon my ignorance, but would this be the preemptive strike correct? If so, by what justification would you motion as your reasoning; from a legal standpoint you hold no treaties to C&G, so why would it matter to Gramlins that they initiated a war, by whatever means they were preemptive or not to alliances not tied to Gramlins?
[/quote]

Not having a piece of paper does not invalidate your ability to do the right thing.
We opposed, and still oppose, IRON's asserting their right and exercising their ability to attack another alliance with no valid reason.
There was nothing pre-emptive about our declaration. We immediately responded to IRON's unwarranted attack.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='12 May 2010 - 08:01 AM' timestamp='1273615275' post='2295223']
Pardon my ignorance, but would this be the preemptive strike correct? If so, by what justification would you motion as your reasoning; from a legal standpoint you hold no treaties to C&G, so why would it matter to Gramlins that they initiated a war, by whatever means they were preemptive or not to alliances not tied to Gramlins?
[/quote]

As has been argued many times here in the past, every alliance has a sovereign right to respond to aggression against any target. You could call this the good samaritan clause, or you could refer back to the second Moldavi doctrine, or however you want to do it.

Furthermore, this isnt a case of a wholly uninvolved good samaritan intervening against a criminal attack on general principles - in fact, the Grämlins had on several occasions made it extremely clear that they consider MK their good buddies and would respond with overpowering firepower to any attack on them. Even if your perspective is that alliances have some obligation to give would-be aggressors notice before they attack, those statements were made unambiguously and very publicly and served that purpose just as well as most treaties (and better than some) have.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Owned-You]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1273616055' post='2295244']
Not having a piece of paper does not invalidate your ability to do the right thing.
We opposed, and still oppose, IRON's asserting their right and exercising their ability to attack another alliance with no valid reason.
There was nothing pre-emptive about our declaration. We immediately responded to IRON's unwarranted attack.
[/quote]

No it doesn't by any technical means, but from a realistic political perspective. It greatly effects ones ability to make moves in CN, sure it's awesome to defy norms; but they often times lead to negative consequences or in this case PR. It's by that notion the very reason I've been forced into actions I've disliked as well as forced out of actions I'd love. It's a common theme in CN politics, so what make you sure your immune to it? Now, did you know that back in the No CB War; when IRON attacked NV with a preemptive strike among MHA, RoK, and others Gramlins also attacked NV nations without a formal DoW. There was no valid reason for that either, other then our tie to NpO or more specifically Electron Sponge; who often threatened you all with death. Hence, I cannot in any reasonable fashion see how you could claim IRON to be in the wrong when your very alliance participated in Hegemony actions, Citadel actions, and attacked without a valid reason my own alliance during the No CB War.

So, with those notions in mind. Where was your sense of right and wrong in those times?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='11 May 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1273616683' post='2295254']
No it doesn't by any technical means, but from a realistic political perspective. It greatly effects ones ability to make moves in CN, sure it's awesome to defy norms; but they often times lead to negative consequences or in this case PR. It's by that notion the very reason I've been forced into actions I've disliked as well as forced out of actions I'd love. It's a common theme in CN politics, so what make you sure your immune to it? Now, did you know that back in the No CB War; when IRON attacked NV with a preemptive strike among MHA, RoK, and others Gramlins also attacked NV nations without a formal DoW. There was no valid reason for that either, other then our tie to NpO or more specifically Electron Sponge; who often threatened you all with death. Hence, I cannot in any reasonable fashion see how you could claim IRON to be in the wrong when your very alliance participated in Hegemony actions, Citadel actions, and attacked without a valid reason my own alliance during the No CB War.

So, with those notions in mind. Where was your sense of right and wrong in those times?
[/quote]


I'd have to actually revisit and study up on my Bob history to comment on the specific issue you've brought up; but The Gremlins are far from perfect.
I, myself, explained to Bob Janova that an appeal to "the old Gremlins" as a detraction from this current policy was ill-placed given many of the morally deficient things perpetrated under this flag in the past.

[The AUT]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='11 May 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1273616226' post='2295247']
As has been argued many times here in the past, every alliance has a sovereign right to respond to aggression against any target. You could call this the good samaritan clause, or you could refer back to the second Moldavi doctrine, or however you want to do it.

Furthermore, this isnt a case of a wholly uninvolved good samaritan intervening against a criminal attack on general principles - in fact, the Grämlins had on several occasions made it extremely clear that they consider MK their good buddies and would respond with overpowering firepower to any attack on them. Even if your perspective is that alliances have some obligation to give would-be aggressors notice before they attack, those statements were made unambiguously and very publicly and served that purpose just as well as most treaties (and better than some) have.
[/quote]

Your posts have nothing to do with anything. Your logic is because Gremlins are justified in their war against IRON fighting out against injustice and they love MK so much, they've the right to pursue this type of unconditional surrender. Well let me ask, are you aware MK left Gremlins due to Gremlins unreasonable demands?

This has nothing to do with MK or Gremlins being a good ally, at least not anymore.

Edited May 11, 2010 by The AUT

[Owned-You]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1273616970' post='2295262']
I'd have to actually revisit and study up on my Bob history to comment on the specific issue you've brought up; but The Gremlins are far from perfect.
I, myself, explained to Bob Janova that an appeal to "the old Gremlins" as a detraction from this current policy was ill-placed given many of the morally deficient things perpetrated under this flag in the past.
[/quote]

Well, I'd reckon in order to attempt to bring anyone into justice. Your slate must be perfect, and anything else is inviting to negative results such as the comments generated in this thread and many others. Now, when people speak of the Old Gramlins they generally think of honorable actions; this current form not as much due to this debacle. With that said, you really don't have any moral standing in my eyes to try and bring IRON into justice for wrongdoings for the very reason that you all perpetuated this very notion in the No CB War.

That being said, history is a powerful thing. And the history of Gramlins is wrapped in plenty of wrong-doings to warrant being brought to justice in your terms. So why, again do you feel justified in your actions...would you support an unwarranted aggression upon Gramlins due too someone believing it to be the right thing to do? If we operate by your precedent, I'd assume yes; but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1273616055' post='2295244']
We opposed, and still oppose, IRON's asserting their right and exercising their ability to attack another alliance with no valid reason.
[/quote]

As I recall, the lead up to all of this war an unwarranted attack by GOONS, \m/ and PC.

You fought on the side that wanted to defend them for that attack.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Baldr' date='11 May 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1273618546' post='2295280']
As I recall, the lead up to all of this war an unwarranted attack by GOONS, \m/ and PC.

You fought on the side that wanted to defend them for that attack.
[/quote]
Gre entered the fighting as a result of an unwarranted attack on MK.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='11 May 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1273617893' post='2295270']
Well, I'd reckon in order to attempt to bring anyone into justice. Your slate must be perfect, and anything else is inviting to negative results such as the comments generated in this thread and many others. Now, when people speak of the Old Gramlins they generally think of honorable actions; this current form not as much due to this debacle. With that said, you really don't have any moral standing in my eyes to try and bring IRON into justice for wrongdoings for the very reason that you all perpetuated this very notion in the No CB War.[/quote]

The beginnings of the opposition to this policy was the accusation that our terms must be atrocious for us not to parade them.
On the topic of slates; I'm sure you know very well that The Gremlins have a pretty good record of issuing appropriate terms. I'd contend that there are hardly any other alliances more suited to the task of appropriately handling a surrendering party.



[quote]That being said, history is a powerful thing. And the history of Gramlins is wrapped in plenty of wrong-doings to warrant being brought to justice in your terms. So why, again do you feel justified in your actions...would you support an unwarranted aggression upon Gramlins due too someone believing it to be the right thing to do? If we operate by your precedent, I'd assume yes; but correct me if I'm wrong.
[/quote]

As I have said multiple times in this thread: if The Gremlins were to commit and atrocity such as outrageous terms (thus validating the claim that we intend to keep IRON in an eternal war) then that would validate and obligate others to attack The Gremlins.
However, in the case of this policy, I have met and answered the vast majority of questions about *why we're here* and *what we want*
For the most part, I think that people have run low on things to complain about.
We're left with a few points of contention to which I think we'll just need to agree to disagree; but I'm happy to explain the rationale for anything I've said or done.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='11 May 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1273616683' post='2295254']
Now, did you know that back in the No CB War; when IRON attacked NV with a preemptive strike among MHA, RoK, and others Gramlins also attacked NV nations without a formal DoW. There was no valid reason for that either, other then our tie to NpO or more specifically Electron Sponge; who often threatened you all with death. Hence, I cannot in any reasonable fashion see how you could claim IRON to be in the wrong when your very alliance participated in Hegemony actions, Citadel actions, and attacked without a valid reason my own alliance during the No CB War.

So, with those notions in mind. Where was your sense of right and wrong in those times?
[/quote]

I'm glad someone finally pointed out the hypocrisy in the Gramlins current PR line here. Not surprisingly it was followed by the standard deflection by Matthew. I wonder if Gramlins will now require the unconditional surrender of the Gramlin leadership from back in the summer of '08.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='11 May 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1273619057' post='2295291']
I'm glad someone finally pointed out the hypocrisy in the Gramlins current PR line here. Not surprisingly it was followed by the standard deflection by Matthew. I wonder if Gramlins will now require the unconditional surrender of the Gramlin leadership from back in the summer of '08.
[/quote]


Do you remember how this thread was at one time postured on the idea that "The New Gremlins" were soiling the good name of "The Old Gremlins" who were some shining beacon on a hill of truth, justice and the Digiterrian way?

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK