The New Grämlins

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='31 March 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1270069312' post='2242381']
That alliance doesn't have any high NS nations currently at war with you folks, so it would seem you have nothing to worry about.
[/quote]

The amount of excrement in just one sentence here is amazing. Kudos to you, sir.

[Finch]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='31 March 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1270097503' post='2243101']
And Penguin and other govt of Polar all sat by (while proclaiming outrage in private) and did nothing.

That being said, I agree with you in the sense that I'll overlook your AA (though as a flip flop lame argument: any friend of TOP wouldn't be in Polar).

Back on topic though: This doesn't surprise me and I'm glad to see Steelrat deleted though I'd of preferred him to come join the fun with us over here.
[/quote]

I was in Gre and got to know many TOP people while I was in it. Even now while I fight TOP I still like them so your argument is invalid.

[Nobody Expects]

[quote name='Penkala' date='31 March 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1270063727' post='2242249']
...yes, it does change things. How difficult is this to comprehend? Sure, words can't be unspoken, but if I went to you today and said "10 BILLION IS THE REPS ALSO I DRUNK" and tomorrow said "my bad, bro. I was pretty drunk. $100,000,000 reps and we'll call it even." it certainly does change things. You can't say "OMG 10 BILLION EVILLLL" when it was retracted like 12 hours later and was clearly the alcohol talking. Is this so hard to comprehend? Because it seems to be flying over every NSO member's head.



Do this and I can pretty much guarantee you your reps to re-surrender will be 10x worse.
[/quote]

Simple maths 10 x 0 = 0

[jerdge]

Unfortunately, I am still waiting/hoping to learn what exactly was/is happening.
However, considering the (Grämlin) people involved, I seriously doubt that what is represented about them is the truth - yeah, [color="grey"][i][warning: shield your understatementmeter NOW or it might be damaged!][/i][/color] Ramirus isn't [i]exactly[/i] the most humble and accomodating of all people, and he is probably not the best FA guy one can think of... But The Grämlins are [b]not[/b] going to do anything nasty.
I find VonDroz's words to have been silly and the "alleged" confirmation of this new FA style of "The New Grämlins" to be dubious at best: everybody knows that The Grämlins don't have - by far - the firepower to oppress any significant party (although they certainly [i]do[/i] have the firepower to make anybody deeply regret an attack on them - but I digress).
Say anything you want about them, but The Grämlins are definitely not idiots: they know they couldn't pull anything like what they're accused of having attempted, because they'd lose much of their inte[b]r[/b]national support. That explanation for this situation is simply stupid and unlikely to be real.

So, what is the best rational explanation about this stuff?
My take is that "someone" showed an <unspecified> level of incompetency by adding some obscure clause to the discussion about IRON's surrender and "the other party", instead of remaining calm and trying to assess what (the heck) they were being demanded, saw an opportunity for a big PR stunt and spread the information among one/a few individuals that they [i]knew[/i] would have published it [i](no offence JB: I like you and all of that, but... *cough cough*)[/i].
I would invite everybody to defer their judgment to the moment in which we will know what The Grämlins think of, when they talk of "unconditional surrender". Everybody that is at the negotiating table should remain cool and sort this crap out: it [i]will[/i] turn out much better than what it seems now.



[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='01 April 2010' timestamp='1270094374' post='2243028'][i]En Vino Veritas[/i][/quote]
We have a few experts of that language here in Gaela, and they asked me to tell you that they believe that the correct spelling would be [i][b]I[/b][/i]n Vino Veritas.



[[b]Edit:[/b]typo]

Edited April 1, 2010 by jerdge

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 April 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1270111070' post='2243500']
I would invite everybody to defer their judgment to the moment in which we will know what The Grämlins think of, when they talk of "unconditional surrender". Everybody that is at the negotiating table should remain cool and sort this crap out: it [i]will[/i] turn out much better than what it seems now.
[/quote]
And in the meantime, while you're waiting for Gre to get their !@#$ together, those still at war can enjoy more nuclear detonations over their nations! Hooray!

Edit:

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='01 April 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1270101563' post='2243351']
that is not fair Umar. i knew what an unconditional surrender was.
[/quote]
Haha, I'm sure you think you do, but do you know what Mssr Maximus means when he asks for one?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Doitzel]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='01 April 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1270097503' post='2243101']
And Penguin and other govt of Polar all sat by (while proclaiming outrage in private) and did nothing.
[/quote]
As something of an expert on [i]coup d'etats[/i] in Polar, there was realistically very little they could have done.

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 April 2010 - 09:38 AM' timestamp='1270111070' post='2243500']
But The Grämlins are [b]not[/b] going to do anything nasty.
[/quote]
I'm afraid Grämlins are proving you wrong in this situation. I mean:

- they entered a war in an aggressive way (OK, we did too, so let's condone that)
- they offered peace terms with reparation (out of an aggressive war? well, OK, many people did, so nothing really to say)
- they waited until those peace terms were accepted WITHOUT changing them (and up to here nothing to complain
- when the peace terms were agreed by all involved alliances, they retired them (and here comes up something a bit nasty: why do you enter in peace talks between many many alliances if you retire your offer after having the opposing side agreeing on that? Is that lack of character, or did Grämlins simply forget about the talks? Or did they forget that there were some alliance more involved in these talks?)
- now they offered this strange unconditional surrender, which they don't seem to know what it actually is (at least none of Grämlins was able to explain it to us)

So, if you offer something you aren't even able to explain, could it be that it is an alibi offer? That you simply aren't interested in ending the war? Isn't this offer something you simply can't agree at? Who would expect reasonable terms offered after such a move?

Why shouldn't they retire the offer again once IRON is totally disarmed? I mean, Grämlins already set the precedent of retiring things already agreed upon.

What is Grämlins going to say to all those nations on CnG side who continue to eat nukes and loose both infra and tech because of them actually not knowing what they want? Honestly, in the last weeks of war I always felt bad nuking my opponents (actually all from ODN) who bravely declared on me to keep me in War Mode, without MP and in part even without SDI. Didn't they deserve something better than to be kept into nuclear fallout because of a sudden ego trip of exactly 1 (one) alliance? You sure they don't regret ever been supported by Grämlins?

[jerdge]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='01 April 2010' timestamp='1270112973' post='2243514']I'm afraid Grämlins are proving you wrong in this situation. I mean:

- they [color=grey][i]... <OA's version on what The Grämlins would have done> ...[/i][/color]

So, if you offer something you aren't even able to explain, could it be that it is an alibi offer? That you simply aren't interested in ending the war? Isn't this offer something you simply can't agree at? Who would expect reasonable terms offered after such a move?

Why shouldn't they retire the offer again once IRON is totally disarmed? I mean, Grämlins already set the precedent of retiring things already agreed upon.

What is Grämlins going to say to all those nations on CnG side who continue to eat nukes and loose both infra and tech because of them actually not knowing what they want? Honestly, in the last weeks of war I always felt bad nuking my opponents (actually all from ODN) who bravely declared on me to keep me in War Mode, without MP and in part even without SDI. Didn't they deserve something better than to be kept into nuclear fallout because of a sudden ego trip of exactly 1 (one) alliance? You sure they don't regret ever been supported by Grämlins?[/quote]
I contend that what you say happened, actually happened. You agree that The Grämlins' issue about that "unconditional surrender" has yet to be explained, thus I don't get why you're all that heated about it. I also think that the terms that were offered in the past, while obviously the necessary benchmark for the final agreement, can't be considered binding once a side explicitly rejected them [i](at the same time I think that - politically speaking - it's wise to basically keep them as they were, anyway...)[/i]

The Grämlins are part of the coalition that fought against IRON and they have the right to have their say about the end of this conflict. As another involved party I too wish that this war ends soon and I would too be disappointed if an ally kept me "at war" (I've not been actually fighting as of lately, anyway) without a real need; but that's just the usual relationship between allies, it doesn't mean that I want that The Grämlins bend to my will/needs nor that they don't have the right to their say.
Multi-lateral agreements take time, and as I wouldn't want to be "asked" to mantain the same identical position we had several weeks of war ago, I don't want to make a similar imposition on any of my allies.

More in general, most of the critics against The Grämlins in this thread are of the "they might do <this/that> then!" kind... I can't follow that line of thought, honestly: what's the point of bickering about what someone [i]might[/i] do?
If we were to start from something like "they should explain their position better", instead...

[Cataduanes]

Unconditional surrender?? really Grämlins?

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 April 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1270114474' post='2243525']
You agree that The Grämlins' issue about that "unconditional surrender" has yet to be explained, thus I don't get why you're all that heated about it.
[/quote]
Wouldn't it a wise idea, if you offer something, to be able to explain what you actually offer? How can you pretend your offer to be taken serious if you aren't even able to explain what you actually want?

[jerdge]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='01 April 2010' timestamp='1270115315' post='2243534']Wouldn't it a wise idea, if you offer something, to be able to explain what you actually offer?[/quote]
It would. I am not in the peace talks thus I don't know whether the offer wasn't actually explained to IRON. I'm saying that it hadn't been explained [i]here[/i] (aka: to us / "the public").

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='01 April 2010' timestamp='1270115315' post='2243534']How can you pretend your offer to be taken serious if you aren't even able to explain what you actually want?[/quote]
I doubt that The Grämlins aren't able to explain what they want, although I imagine that - in this instance - they might be responsible for a failure in their communication about what they want.
Nothing of this has much to do with "being taken seriously", anyway, as it's again still only speculation on my/our part.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

As far as I know, jerdge, there are no peace talks between IRON and The Grämlins as The Grämlins refuse to look at peace unless IRON unconditionally surrenders.

Now, since The Grämlins hasn't been keen on explaining to the World what the hell it meant with "unconditional surrender", we are forced to use the most common definition.

If you're asking why this discussion is heated, it's because:
1)No one has ever asked another alliance to do an unconditional surrender;
2)Everyone is being kept at war by this nonsense, despite having reached an agreement on hard reparations four days ago.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 April 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1270115854' post='2243537']
I am not in the peace talks thus I don't know whether the offer wasn't actually explained to IRON. I'm saying that it hadn't been explained [i]here[/i] (aka: to us / "the public").
[/quote]
Fair point. But if you read through this thread (OK... it's a bit long), neither Grämlins, nor IRON nor any of all the other involved alliances (and CnG IS involved in this, as they are waiting to peace out too) explained what this offer means - and specially in IRON's and CnG's case I tend to the assumption that they didn't explain because they simply don't know. And if neither you, as if you are a very close ally to Grämlins, seem to know what this means, could it be that they actually told it to.... nobody? So, how do you do to expect people to agree at something they aren't even explained what it could be?

Also... assuming that this unconditional surrender means what the majority of Planet Bob imagines it could be... how do you do to come up with such an offer at this level of peace talks? All the alliances already had the pens in hand to sign the peace. For me, clearly not a good time to come up with such unreasoned offers...

What reguards your point about that "they should" or "they should not"... why are we going to pay reps if not because of "we should not have attacked CnG"? Isn't big part of this game about what alliances should do or not do?

[Starfox101]

Well, I'd like to feel bad for IRON, but the sympathy is all gone, you guys deserve this.

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='Coursca' date='31 March 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1270094869' post='2243042']
"Sound like." Try "is" and you might be onto something.

I had an angry reply typed up in response to this...then I decided to say this much more censored comment instead: Any friend of mine would've ignored my ensign and colors and instead taken the comment for what it was intended to be -- a hope that cooler heads would prevail and that peace would be found, especially for TOP and IRON.[/quote]

Your ensign will be easier to ignore once the heady days of war are ended, and I no longer have to worry about the people I signed up to support keeping me out of peacemode so that my nation can be blown up more.


[quote name='Coursca' date='31 March 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1270094869' post='2243042']
Very disappointing.
[/quote]

I agree. On both our parts. Neither comment should have been made. In the context in which they were made, those comments could only hurt.

I'm sorry that I couldn't reign myself in.

[quote name='Coursca' date='31 March 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1270094869' post='2243042']
Also, Grub is no longer the Emperor here. Penguin is.
[/quote]

I always admired Penguin, but we in TOP have yet to see anything to differentiate him from Grub. While there has been a change in Emperor, we are unaware of any change in Imperial Policy. Since it is still Grub's decree that causes Polaris to march against us, I will give Penguin the benefit of the doubt and assert that they march under Grub's orders rather than Penguin's.

[Alterego]

If everyone is ready to peace out then why not peace out. Gramlins said they are going it alone so leave them to their fate. This, like the attack on C&G is a new war and as such the terms of the last war shouldn’t encompass this new war. It is a new war because they are not here because of the attack on C&G they are here for another reason separate from the C&G/TOP-IRON war. If Gramlins want to fight this new war alone then leave them to stand alone as they wish.

[Bob Janova]

I just want to address Matthew's point earlier that you supposedly need this before discussing peace because peace talks happen between a winner and a loser. That is pure crap, the acknowledgement of defeat will be in the surrender document, and what's more I know that [i]you[/i] know it's crap, since Grämlins has won two previous wars (Karma and BLEU) and not tried to pull this line (instead putting its name to 'standard' surrender terms as everyone else does).

What you are asking is unprecedented, cruel and unreasonable, and that's why you've got pretty much the entire political world condemning you for it.

As for changing the name, as a true Grämlin I would appreciate that, since you clearly no longer believe in the principles of the alliance

Tobbogon, you are a good man, one of a handful remaining. But it is entirely fair to 'lump you together' with the actions of your alliance and government. There is a process available for unseating bad or dangerous Conclave members. It is unfortunate that the remaining Archons seem to be Ram supporters – if anything kills the alliance, that will be it.

Regarding the Codex: It was not a PR exercise. It was a statement of the beliefs of the alliance as to how war should be conducted, and conditions on Grämlins' entry so they would never again be party to unfair or draconian peace terms, after we felt we were having our power abused by other members of the Continuum coalition in the BLEU war peace talks. That's why it's so sad that they're driving a coach and horses through it now in an attempt to abuse the power of their war partners to push unfair and draconian (and unprecedently so) peace terms.

[peron]

I would just like to say having been involved in the peace discussions, my thanks go out to CnG for working tirelessly to find a resolution to the matter at hand.

We await a swift resolution to the matter at hand, and in doing so, the current conflict.

[Baldr]

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 April 2010 - 03:38 AM' timestamp='1270111070' post='2243500']
can think of... But The Grämlins are [b]not[/b] going to do anything nasty.
[/quote]

For a lot of nations who would like the war to end, the fact that the Gramlins are the one thing that is keeping the war going means that they are already doing something nasty.

[shilo]

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 April 2010 - 09:38 AM' timestamp='1270111070' post='2243500']
So, what is the best rational explanation about this stuff?
My take is that "someone" showed an <unspecified> level of incompetency by adding some obscure clause to the discussion about IRON's surrender and "the other party", instead of remaining calm and trying to assess what (the heck) they were being demanded, saw an opportunity for a big PR stunt and spread the information among one/a few individuals that they [i]knew[/i] would have published it [i](no offence JB: I like you and all of that, but... *cough cough*)[/i].
I would invite everybody to defer their judgment to the moment in which we will know what The Grämlins think of, when they talk of "unconditional surrender". Everybody that is at the negotiating table should remain cool and sort this crap out: it [i]will[/i] turn out much better than what it seems now.
[/quote]
I understand the need to defend good friends, but you don't seem to be informed in detail.
1) Everyone here has been very patient. That includes the parties still being destroyed by an overwhelming fighting force instead of having gotten peace as all involved parties had agreed. That includes the parties still fighting a war, after having been attacked aggressively.
We all have been patiently trying to understand what Grämlins are trying to achieve, and what their official stance is. It's been a week now.

2) As you can see by the last line above, it wasn't any move for "PR", after "someone" made a stupid comment. No, it's clearly affirmed Grämlins policy, no error, no side comment taken out of context, that has held up several dozen alliances from declaring peace. And it only became public after everyone, from both sides, engaged in the negotiations, has been either trying to confirm for sure that Grämlins mean what they say, and tried to change their minds. To no avail.


So, with this information you seemed to have lacked, I am sure you will no longer call this a "PR" stunt from anyone, especially if you follow the posts of those in MK or aligned to them.

Also, considering the circumstances, and my personal experience during the various peace talks, we all have remained pretty cool so far

Edited April 1, 2010 by shilo

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='01 April 2010 - 03:54 AM' timestamp='1270112081' post='2243506']
Haha, I'm sure you think you do, but do you know what Mssr Maximus means when he asks for one?
[/quote]

true true, i don't know for sure what Ram means, but from what i remember he is a literal guy. which to me would mean he meant the literal definition of unconditional surrender and not whatever Matthew is trying to pass off as unconditional surrender. this would also mean that the terms that would come after would also not be white peace.

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 April 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1270114474' post='2243525']
I contend that what you say happened, actually happened. You agree that The Grämlins' issue about that "unconditional surrender" has yet to be explained, thus I don't get why you're all that heated about it. I also think that the terms that were offered in the past, while obviously the necessary benchmark for the final agreement, can't be considered binding once a side explicitly rejected them [i](at the same time I think that - politically speaking - it's wise to basically keep them as they were, anyway...)[/i]

[b]The Grämlins are part of the coalition that fought against IRON and they have the right to have their say about the end of this conflict[/b]. As another involved party I too wish that this war ends soon and I would too be disappointed if an ally kept me "at war" (I've not been actually fighting as of lately, anyway) without a real need; but that's just the usual relationship between allies, it doesn't mean that I want that The Grämlins bend to my will/needs nor that they don't have the right to their say.
Multi-lateral agreements take time, and as I wouldn't want to be "asked" to mantain the same identical position we had several weeks of war ago, I don't want to make a similar imposition on any of my allies.

More in general, most of the critics against The Grämlins in this thread are of the "they might do <this/that> then!" kind... I can't follow that line of thought, honestly: what's the point of bickering about what someone [i]might[/i] do?
If we were to start from something like "they should explain their position better", instead...
[/quote]

if they are soooo a part of this coalition, why is it every other alliance in that coalition getting hit a lot harder than Gremlins? if Gremlins were the ones being hit the hardest, then i could see them holding up the peace process. but this is simply not true. Gremlins are holding up the peace process while others suffer and not them. thus, what exactly do they have to complain about? the answer is simple: absolutely nothing. they have absolutely no reason to hold up the peace process.

[quote name='jerdge' date='01 April 2010 - 04:57 AM' timestamp='1270115854' post='2243537']
It would. I am not in the peace talks thus I don't know whether the offer wasn't actually explained to IRON. I'm saying that it hadn't been explained [i]here[/i] (aka: to us / "the public").


I doubt that The Grämlins aren't able to explain what they want, although I imagine that - in this instance - [b]they might be responsible for a failure in their communication about what they want[/b].
Nothing of this has much to do with "being taken seriously", anyway, as it's again still only speculation on my/our part.
[/quote]

there is no might. Gremlins are completely and totally responsible for all failure in communication about what Gremlins wants. this is absolute. there is no other alliance that could even remotely be responsible for Gremlins asking for unconditional surrender and military disarmament without actually explaining what those terms involve. so again, there is no might. this whole mess is solely Gremlins fault.

[quote name='Starfox101' date='01 April 2010 - 06:21 AM' timestamp='1270120863' post='2243562']
Well, I'd like to feel bad for IRON, but the sympathy is all gone, you guys deserve this.
[/quote]

coming from someone in \m/ and iirc the original one, this is quite surprising. when something similar happened to the last \m/ i remember the bawwing over it. if you think IRON deserves this but the old \m/ didn't, well that is just plain laughable.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='01 April 2010 - 05:12 AM' timestamp='1270116719' post='2243541']
If you're asking why this discussion is heated, it's because:
1)No one has ever asked another alliance to do an unconditional surrender;
2)Everyone is being kept at war by this nonsense, despite having reached an agreement on hard reparations four days ago.
[/quote]


In the Karma war, the Karma forces asked NPO for unconditional surrender. They didn't get it.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Baldr' date='01 April 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1270133796' post='2243735']
In the Karma war, the Karma forces asked NPO for unconditional surrender. They didn't get it.
[/quote]
Err, what?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Tromp

[Bob Janova]

That's the second time I've seen you make that claim. I'm going to have to ask you to provide sources for that, because being in the Karma coordination channels and forums I know that it was always the intention to offer NPO standard surrender terms (if ones with large numbers in), as was in fact done, and I suspect that you're responding either to a joke or to someone making a personal comment and not representing Karma. Certainly, the Karma coalition as a whole would not have supported such a thing and that can be seen from the fact that every alliance in Hegemony was, in the end, given standard surrender terms without an argument of this kind.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Starfox101' date='01 April 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1270120863' post='2243562']
Well, I'd like to feel bad for IRON, but the sympathy is all gone, you guys deserve this.
[/quote]

I'd be interested to see your rationale for this argument but I don't suppose you have one beyond pure personal hatred. I really don't care for sympathy it gets us no where, I would rather see a solution to the matter in hand. While I have never been a fan of \m/ I can't say that I would wish these demands upon anyone who may find themselves in a similar situation to IRON in the future. I would howevr like to congratulate you on confirming all that whining you did pre-karma about Continuum was nothing more than jealousy,