The New Grämlins

[Owned-You]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1273619008' post='2295287']
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.





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.
[/quote]

Whilst your alliance has had a historical character of good-intentions; the building-blocks of that reputation have departed for more reasonable waters months ago. You cannot expect anyone with an inkling of sense to surrender based on historical precedents of good-intentions...especially considering I've pointed out an episode that completely contradicts the notion of a just Gramlins. That said, I do not care for that debate in the slightest so I'll leave it at that. However, you confuse my questioning with complaints. I couldn't care less about the actual principles of your actions, who it's against, or for what reason. I simply cannot in good faith, act as if it's justified. Hence my posting to expose, the rather skewed sense of logic your camp has pressed into the hearts and minds of some.

Honestly, it almost feels like your doing this to gain acceptance within the new power structure of Bob...almost as an atonement or means of having us forget your wrong-doings and support of Hegemony and Citadel actions. Evidently, I have not and neither have plenty of others. However, I've said my piece and made my point; I'll be leaving this topic in question unless it's relevant for me to to respond to future posts.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1273619293' post='2295299']
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?
[/quote]

No one is perfect but compared to this version of Gramlins the old was a shining beacon.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 06:14 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[i] as a sovereign alliance[/i].
[/quote]

I felt compelled to fix that for you.

Lost in your holier than thou was fact that other alliances during the war engaged in aggressive war, without treaty or even precedent, and yet Gramlins felt in no way compelled to act against them--and no, I do not speak of DAWN or TOP.

Oh and...you're down to 41 nations now and 2.1 million NS give or take--Valhalla will be passing you soon in NS as we continue our gains...you also appear to be running out of 'Filipino Heroes' in the lower ranks.

Your alliance needs to cut the charade of moralism and do what's best for its members. End the war. That is truly the moral thing to do.

[Hyperbad]

I just wish to thank all of the participants for this astoundingly long thread where the discussion is reminiscint of the time when Clark Griswold was stuck in the loop of Lambeth Bridge's traffic circle. It's been quite entertaining. I'm just curious, does any one here feel actual progress has been made through the discussion? Speaking as someone who has not participated in this thread, its participants largely (though not all of them) are reading the others posts for what they want rather than what the case is and instead of arguing based on the latter are winding up into these endless tangents which run in a circle. There are a handful of good posts in this thread but largely the honest discussion stops with them and this thread appears to have outlived its usefulness. Perhaps it might be helpful to start over from square one in an honest and non-demeaning manner, clearly phrasing ones position using a different angle then has been used thus far?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 06:14 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]

Soo uhh due to your extreme moral outrage at IRON having the incredible bad taste to attack someone without the benefit of a treaty to justify it, you decided you should attack IRON without the benefit of a treaty to justify it? What am I missing here?

PS, you again missed my last post.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1273619002' post='2295286']
Gre entered the fighting as a result of an unwarranted attack on MK.
[/quote]
I just had to address this. First it was Pre-Emptive, now it's unwarranted? Make up your mind.

Also Gramlins you're losing alot of weight, and IRON as much as I wish you could... you can't touch their top tier. So if this $%#@ storm actually does become an "Eternal War" Gramlins will never be able to recruit except for the very rare high NS nation that is dumb enough to wander into their ranks. Also their bad PR will remain. MHA will be yelled at for not keeping their buddies in line, CnG will also take heat and eventually people will enter the war on the side of IRON/DAWN

On IRON's side, they will never be able to build past a certain NS unless they have 50 nations ready to break that barrier all at once. Their growth will depend on new lower tier recruits until this is over, not to mention the crushing amount of reps they will still have to pay. CnG and CO's fault IMO.

So as long as this goes on both sides are screwed.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='11 May 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1273623916' post='2295373']
I just had to address this. First it was Pre-Emptive, now it's unwarranted? Make up your mind.
[/quote]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

IRON perceived a threat and acted upon it by launching a preemptive strike. They were misguided in doing so, which makes the attack unwarranted as well.

[janax]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='11 May 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1273623916' post='2295373']

On IRON's side, they will never be able to build past a certain NS unless they have 50 nations ready to break that barrier all at once. Their growth will depend on new lower tier recruits until this is over, not to mention the crushing amount of reps they will still have to pay. CnG and CO's fault IMO.

[/quote]

They don't need 50. They need a few to slowly tear the Gremlins down 1 nation at a time. It's unlikely just IRON will be able to touch the 100K nations anytime soon, but they will be able to whittle down the 60-80K nations one at a time until all that's left is the 8 or so 100K+ Gremlin nations, and 30 zero infra Gremlins. IRON and DAWN then just cycle nations one after another keeping them at or near 0.

[bigwoody]

Not to mention the attrition Gre suffers by continuing this war of choice.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273595298' post='2294779']
How could Gremlins possibly benefit from a long attrition war?

A plan for peace does exist; it has existed; and it is not designed to be rejected.
I honestly think you still don't get it (and I'd rather believe that you don't get it because the alternative is that you have no interest in understanding)
[/quote]

He doesn't get it because forcing an opponent defeated on the battlefield into humiliating admissions before you release the boot heel off their neck is unjust and unnecessary. That's the kind of thing the victors declared they stood against in the Karma war. Since you first held that superior position your lack of PR cost you enough advantage that you're really not in a position to make demands anymore but you would rather drive Grämlins into the ground than back off your unattainable position. I think this war will last a very long time and eventually the political pressures will cave Grämlins from within. The sad part is you guys could stop it anytime you want to, but you won't.

Edited May 12, 2010 by JimKongIl

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='11 May 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1273626801' post='2295451']
The two are not mutually exclusive.

IRON perceived a threat and acted upon it by launching a preemptive strike. They were misguided in doing so, which makes the attack unwarranted as well.
[/quote]
Yes yes, The same old come back. It's okay, we get it. They launched a pre-emptive strike. but I think what really works people's nerves is when you lie and say it was unwarranted or unprovoked.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1273605702' post='2294967']
No, we're not. We standing in the doorway.
The Gremlins isn't capable of "killing" you (nor would we want to) in the sense of keeping your alliance at ZI or something similar.
[/quote]

If IRON/DAWN never surrenders unconditionally and Grämlins never drops their demands for unconditional surrender eventually someone will get ZI'd won't they?

[lebubu]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='12 May 2010 - 04:19 AM' timestamp='1273630750' post='2295552']
It's okay, we get it.
[/quote]

You better, because debating it every other post is getting tiring.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
All nations on the planet have a right to stand up for what is morally right. What's more, they have an [b]obligation[/b] to do so.[/quote]

so you are now stating you have an obligation to attack TOP, TSO, and TORN. awesome, can't wait to see ya'll declare on them ASAP.


[quote]IRON are "criminals" because they assert the right, and exercise the ability, to attack with no valid reason.

Since my friends exist in the cyberverse, by helping the cyberverse I help them.
Which, funny as it is, include IRON who will have a basis for moral righteousness should they ever be attacked for no valid reason in the future.[/quote]

so you went from the goal being to help your friends, to the goal being to help the entire cyberverse... again why? what changed that made you change from the original goal to this new and lofty goal? also, what gives you the right to act as the moral police since it is obvious to all that your friends do not like moral police. though, from the lack of righteous indignation from many of them, it seems they do not like moral police who police their action but do not care if moral police police the action of their enemies. well that clears up one thing for me at least.


[quote]I don't believe, and will not claim, that my actions are morally wrong.
On the contrary, I contend there is little doubt about the moral failings of IRON's actions.[/quote]

and i contend quite the opposite of you on this whole bit. IRON's actions were stupid for sure. but preemptive attacks are simply a strategy. the preemptive attack themselves are not right or wrong. the reason unconditional surrender can actually be considered morally wrong is that it forces the surrendering alliance to hand over their entire sovereignty which is a lot more than what even viceroys could do back in the day. and yes, i know you will give you little spiel about your false and ignorant definition of unconditional surrender, but well read the descriptors and you will catch my drift.


[quote]Please try to keep up. It has been repeated ad nauseum that surrendering and paying reps are not the same and do not inherently imply and admission of moral failings; merely an admission of strategic failings.
Righteous parties lose wars and pay reps all the time. The fact that they lost a was does not mean they were morally wrong.[/quote]

and you please keep up, this was good enough for the aggrieved party and you as a third party has no say otherwise.




[quote]You have misunderstood me.
A surrender is [b]not[/b] equal to an allocution. In fact, that has been the basis of many of my claims.
That they surrendered does not mean they admitted moral failure.
Surrendering is functionally equivalent to turning themselves in.
An alloctuion is a subsequent action.[/quote]

no, that is how [i]you[/i] think it should be. the rest of the cyberverse obviously thinks differently since this is the first time what you are trying to do is being done.



[quote]I'm not suggesting the capability of negotiating.
You have misunderstood.

The Gremlins have explicitly explained that Unconditional Surrender [b]does not imply agreement to subsequently delivered terms.[/b] In fact, I have asserted that it cannot possibly.

Er go, for me to say that I would have no problem surrendering via this same procedure is not "negotiating"; it is, in fact, [b]precisely reversing the roles[/b][/quote]

no you misunderstood. there is no precisely reversing the roles. according to Gremlins, it is up to the "morally right" party to be able to dictate [b]exactly[/b] how the process goes. thus, if Alliance Z wants to force an alliance to surrender unconditionally, it is Alliance Z's moral obligation to do it as they see fit. this does not equate to it having to be precisely as Gremlins is doing it, otherwise it is obvious that Alliance Z does not have the moral right to even consider demanding unconditional surrender.

Gremlins have explained what they feel the process for unconditional surrender is, but since you tie it so strongly with moral righteousness and moral failings, each moral righteous action and each morally bankrupt action differ and thus, this example of unconditional surrender cannot possibly fit the magnitude of every single crime.

thus, if Gremlins were to end up committing a morally bankrupt action, then the style of unconditional surrender would have to fit the magnitude of that specific morally bankrupt action. thus, you stating you will only accept unconditional surrender, regardless of the magnitude of your crime, that fits this precise procedure is actually demanding (going way beyond negotiation, so you are correct in that i was wrong in stating it was negotiating) the morally righteous alliance act the same as you have.

so, unless Gremlins preemptively attack a group of alliances that are not militarily involved in a war, but are politically and possibly helping to plan the war, and have a third party jump in to defend them that had previous ties to at least one of the alliances that got attacked, then unconditional surrender you are doing now could very well not be the style warranted.



[quote]I speak to what is a moral absolute. TBB claimed to speak to what they all think.
Haven't I made it obvious that I don't believe those two are always mutually inclusive?

That our ancient ancestors on planet Bob predominantly thought Bob was flat does not invalidate the fact that he is round.
[/quote]

you speak what you [b]think[/b] is a moral absolute. TBB and everyone else in this thread, has claimed differently. the fact that no one has spoken in defense of your actions, joined Gremlins to help fight the ebil IRON/DAWN, or done anything anywhere close to what they have done (which for most is little more than talk) against you, goes to show that your are [i]absolute[/i]ly wrong.

a moral absolute can only be a moral absolute if it is established as such by every single person. if even 1 person says otherwise, it is not an absolute. if only a small portion says it is, it most assuredly is not.

if i was a nazi and i stated all jewish nations on Planet Bob had to be destroyed. it is a moral absolute, and i got a bunch of other idiots who thought the same way, would that make me right and every single other person wrong?

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1273607046' post='2295001']
The entire cyberverse is victimized if IRON is permitted peace without an allocution.
That The Gremlins are the only ones putting themselves at risk to demonstrate this is circumstantial.
[/quote]

You keep using the word allocution. What you are referring to in the context?

from Merriam Webster

Main Entry: al·lo·cu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌa-lə-ˈkyü-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin allocution-, allocutio, from alloqui to speak to, from ad- + loqui to speak
Date: 1615

: a formal speech; especially : an authoritative or hortatory address

Edited May 12, 2010 by JimKongIl

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='11 May 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1273631696' post='2295578']
You keep using the word allocution. What you are referring to in the context?

from Merriam Webster

Main Entry: al·lo·cu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌa-lə-ˈkyü-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin allocution-, allocutio, from alloqui to speak to, from ad- + loqui to speak
Date: 1615

: a formal speech; especially : an authoritative or hortatory address
[/quote]

Hes aiming at the "formal speech/declaration" As in their publicly admitting culpability for committing the same crime Gre did when they DoW'd IRON. Awesome eh?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1273619002' post='2295286']
Gre entered the fighting as a result of an unwarranted attack on MK.
[/quote]

true, but according to Matt, Gremlins are fighting IRON because they committed the crime of attacking without a valid reason. Why then, did Gremlins not declare war on GOONS, PC, and \m/ who did the exact same crime? this lack of consistency shows that Gremlins have no honor left and has no right to claim any kind of moral righteousness. fact is, this is simply to feed the egos of Ram and Gre and nothing more. if this was about moral absolutism, then Gremlins should have attacked \m/, GOONS, and PC long before Polaris did.

yet, we saw what they did during that war. nothing. thus, if this action is such a moral absolute, none of those nations would have stayed in Gre when Gremlins committed the same crime against BLEU alliances, and Gremlins would have hit the three alliances above.

so, regardless of why Gremlins entered, it means little since what Matt is stating is basically a lie given what is stated above.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='11 May 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1273631696' post='2295578']
You keep using the word allocution. What you are referring to in the context?

from Merriam Webster

Main Entry: al·lo·cu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌa-lə-ˈkyü-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin allocution-, allocutio, from alloqui to speak to, from ad- + loqui to speak
Date: 1615

: a formal speech; especially : an authoritative or hortatory address
[/quote]
In this context it's a legal term, referring to a description of a particular crime that is given by the defendant. It's usually part of a plea-bargain agreement in which the defendant admits his guilt and fully describes his crime in return for a reduced sentence.

This is the part that cracks me up, though:

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1273607046' post='2295001']The entire cyberverse is victimized if IRON is permitted peace without an allocution.[/quote]

Gramlins is dying to save us from IRON.

Sweet Walford H. Christ, that's hilarious....

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='11 May 2010 - 06:04 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]

no, there is of course some kind of grandfather clause that excludes anyone who committed the crime of attacking another alliance for no reason other than IRON and DAWN. this of course includes those alliances who committed the crime at the exact same time as IRON and DAWN. come on, get on board the crazy train and wade through the sea of delirium with me.

[Gamemaster1]

Since you conveniently ignored [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2295065"]this[/url] post, would you mind answering it?

You are ignoring it like you are ignoring the rest of the coalition.

[flak attack]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='11 May 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1273630750' post='2295552']
Yes yes, The same old come back. It's okay, we get it. They launched a pre-emptive strike. but I think what really works people's nerves is when you lie and say it was unwarranted or unprovoked.
[/quote]
I'm not lying pal. It was both unwarranted and unprovoked.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1273632684' post='2295598']
true, but according to Matt, Gremlins are fighting IRON because they committed the crime of attacking without a valid reason. Why then, did Gremlins not declare war on GOONS, PC, and \m/ who did the exact same crime? this lack of consistency shows that Gremlins have no honor left and has no right to claim any kind of moral righteousness. fact is, this is simply to feed the egos of Ram and Gre and nothing more. if this was about moral absolutism, then Gremlins should have attacked \m/, GOONS, and PC long before Polaris did.
[/quote]
Because they were willing to man up, pay for damages and resolve the issue, something IRON was never willing to do.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1273634689' post='2295645']
I'm not lying pal. It was both unwarranted and unprovoked.


Because they were willing to man up, pay for damages and resolve the issue, something IRON was never willing to do.
[/quote]

wait, when did \m/, GOONS, or PC ever man up and state they were wrong and pay the damages they did to FOA? oh wait, they didn't. they simply stated they would stop raiding FoA. that is not the same and in fact, none of them have yet to state they did anything wrong to do this day. so, next utterly ridiculous revision to history you wish to make?

[flak attack]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1273635010' post='2295649']
wait, when did \m/, GOONS, or PC ever man up and state they were wrong and pay the damages they did to FOA? oh wait, they didn't. they simply stated they would stop raiding FoA. that is not the same and in fact, none of them have yet to state they did anything wrong to do this day. so, next utterly ridiculous revision to history you wish to make?
[/quote]
You never heard about anything that happened because it didn't concern you and was resolved well before NpO got involved, back before anyone cared.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='flak attack' date='11 May 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1273634689' post='2295645']
I'm not lying pal. It was both unwarranted and unprovoked.


Because they were willing to man up, pay for damages and resolve the issue, something IRON was never willing to do.
[/quote]

Didn't IRON accept the first terms and reps offered in this conflict before Gramlins withdrew them? How can you say that with a straight face?

[flak attack]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='12 May 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1273637417' post='2295708']
Didn't IRON accept the first terms and reps offered in this conflict before Gramlins withdrew them? How can you say that with a straight face?
[/quote]
IRON accepted those terms several weeks into the war. I'm talking about the first few days. Also, IRON, TOP and co refused the first set of terms offered. There are several blog posts with the details around a month into the war IIRC if you want to dig them up.

Edited May 12, 2010 by flak attack