The New Grämlins

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='13 June 2010 - 01:55 AM' timestamp='1276376090' post='2335370']
So if IRON/DAWN were to say that they committed a pre-emptive attack, that would suffice?
[/quote]

The negotiations and discussions covered many various things with central concerned parties and those not so central. If Gre refused to call it a day, shake hands when its extend and instead carries daggers in those hands..and effectively delay our reps by 2 months, tl;dr: 10 months of reps, then I think we're more than humble enough to offer white peace in return. What [b]more[/b] can we offer them which carries a shred of honor and self-respect?

All our attempts to talk this through resulted in nothing but insults on our faces and behind our backs.....all this discussion has led to going round in circle with Gre teaching us there own version of English going back and forth with their own interpretation and leaving enough vagueness to stall any meaningful outcome. We are not asking for apologies or bragging rights of I > U over the terms and the extra damage and opportunity cost of delayed reps that has been piling on. We're offering them a v. simple way out of the hole they dug themselves in, i.e. [u]white peace.[/u] Personally speaking, there is nothing more to offer.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='12 June 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1276375443' post='2335359']
Semantics only work if you have a good grasp of the language, considering how often we've had to correct his understanding of the words and phrases he's employing I'd have to says its failed pretty solidly on Matt's part.

Edit to avoid double post:



It is very much semantics, you demand an 'allocution' instead of an apology then in the same breath say the allocution you are looking for is a statement of guilt. That's called an apology sparky.
[/quote]


Your "dictionary debate" is beginning to verge on stupidity, Typo.
Slow down and think out your replies.

Initially I laid out precisely what the "surrender process" entailed in GRE's position... your reply was akin to:
"That cannot be the process you are demanding because we don't accept the definition of the word you used."

Now I have explained that an "apology" and "allocution" are different because one implies remorse for an action and the other simply outlines the factual basis that an action was committed... your reply was akin to:
"To acknowledge your guilt [b]must[/b] imply sorrow and thus [b]must[/b] also be considered an apology."

There are no teeth to your debate about my vocabulary. It would be to your advantage to address the discourse rather than the dictionary.

[TBRaiders]

I can't believe you still post in here, Matt. Not once have you or anyone from GRE answered the simple question about what was required for peace. Sure, you've given vague hints and said an unconditional surrender could bring the end of war, but most people want to know what your definition of unconditional surrender is and the exact requirements they need to meet. You've even basically said they could just say they surrender, see what terms are, and then decide if they want to stay surrendered....lol, really? And no, I don't want to look through the pages of retarded replies and dig for quotes. I really don't care. I only stoped by because I saw Miller had 12 thwarted nukes today. Two hits for the price of 14. I had an opponent whose SDI had my number and used about 7 nukes for every actual hit, so I know what that feels like.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TBRaiders' date='12 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276384469' post='2335494']
I can't believe you still post in here, Matt. Not once have you or anyone from GRE answered the simple question about what was required for peace. Sure, you've given vague hints and said an unconditional surrender could bring the end of war, but most people want to know what your definition of unconditional surrender is and the exact requirements they need to meet. You've even basically said they could just say they surrender, see what terms are, and then decide if they want to stay surrendered....lol, really? And no, I don't want to look through the pages of retarded replies and dig for quotes. I really don't care. I only stoped by because I saw Miller had 12 thwarted nukes today. Two hits for the price of 14. I had an opponent whose SDI had my number and used about 7 nukes for every actual hit, so I know what that feels like.
[/quote]


What is required:

Step 1: IRON Surrender Unconditionally.
[b]What does this mean?[/b]

IRON will officially surrender and await further instructions.
They will do this without placing any conditions on the process or terms GRE may offer.
Their surrender does not at all imply that they are expected to accept or comply with subsequently offered terms.
Following their surrender, they are given quarter.


Step 2: IRON is given demilitarization orders.
[b]What does this mean?[/b]
GRE will tell IRON the requirements for proceeding to terms in this peace process.
IRON will choose to comply or return to a state of war. Declining the process and choosing to return to war is not a "violation" because surrendering does not imply agreement to subsequent terms for demilitarization

Step 3: GRE delivers sets of terms for restitution
[b]What does this mean?[/b]
GRE will give instruction to IRON on what steps to carry out to serve their restitution.
IRON will choose to comply or return to a state of war. Declining the process and choosing to return to war is not a "violation" because demilitarization does not imply agreement to subsequent terms for restitution



Then... hopefully.. IRON will serve restitution and we will be at peace.
They will be completely absolved from all responsbility to this incident; given a clean slate.


I am pretty sure this has been outlined before... but since [b]you[/b] asked, TB, and this is a long thread... I figured I'd reiterate.

War > Surrender > Terms > Restitution > Peace

Edited June 12, 2010 by Matthew PK

[deathcat]

How about a Cease Fire followed by the setting up of a DMZ between the two alliances and have this "Cease Fire" last for a period of not less than 55 yrs...

Just saying.. I don't think Gremlins want to "indefinitely war" anymore.. or maybe they do?

oo/

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1276385772' post='2335511']
I am pretty sure this has been outlined before... but since [b]you[/b] asked, TB, and this is a long thread... I figured I'd reiterate.War > Surrender > Terms > Restitution > Peace
[/quote]
Your dreaming Matthew. Here is how it will go.

War > Gramlins Die a slow and painful death > Peace

Remember you Matt are # 3 on the hit list, Ram is up next, enjoy your summer.

[Baldr]

According to the Matthew PK definition, "surrender" doesn't really mean anything at all. It doesn't mean you give up, that you won't continue fighting, that you will follow any orders given, that you will agree to reps or terms.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Baldr' date='12 June 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1276389687' post='2335556']
According to the Matthew PK definition, "surrender" doesn't really mean anything at all. It doesn't mean you give up, that you won't continue fighting, that you will follow any orders given, that you will agree to reps or terms.
[/quote]

I think what Gramlins is asking for is a state of complete submission then they will tell IRON/DAWN what their punishment is. Am I wrong, Matthew?

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1276380156' post='2335426']
Perhaps they should surrender and find out![/quote]
Why don't y'all surrender since you're losing?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='12 June 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1276390348' post='2335566']
I think what Gramlins is asking for is a state of complete submission then they will tell IRON/DAWN what their punishment is. Am I wrong, Matthew?
[/quote]

100 pages ago I explained that the act of surrendering is a funtional equivalent to "turning yourself in"
It does not mean you agree to comply with any or all terms.

It just so happens that CN "tradition" is that "Accept Terms" and "Surrender" are simultaneous. They don't have to be, it's ok to step outside of your traditions. The cyberverse won't explode.
For some reason beyond my grasp I'm met with tremendous resistance in the form of a claim that surrender [b]must[/b] mean "agree to accept and comply with all subsequent terms"
It's almost as if the masses are putting more emphasis on surrender than I am.

[quote name='Clash' date='12 June 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1276390978' post='2335578']
Why don't y'all surrender since you're losing?
[/quote]

Because we're right.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[RePePe]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1276391423' post='2335586']
100 pages ago I explained that the act of surrendering is a funtional equivalent to "turning yourself in"[/quote]

Proof of this?

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1276391423' post='2335586']
100 pages ago I explained that the act of surrendering is a funtional equivalent to "turning yourself in"
[/quote]

If IRON/DAWN were going to turn themselves in for a crime wouldn't it be more appropriate to turn themselves in to a global entity instead of an alliance on equal social and political footing? You can see why this gives at least the appearance that Gramlins is attempting to be the world police.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='12 June 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1276378826' post='2335411']
Because IRON is still at war.
[/quote]

You are an extremely generous person, I tip my hat to you sir

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1276381444' post='2335448']
Your "dictionary debate" is beginning to verge on stupidity, Typo.
Slow down and think out your replies.
[/quote]

What my insitance that you are abusing my language is getting on your nerves? I'm sorry. Use the language correctly and we wont have any issues.

[quote]
Initially I laid out precisely what the "surrender process" entailed in GRE's position... your reply was akin to:
"That cannot be the process you are demanding because we don't accept the definition of the word you used."
[/quote]

Actually the reply was "The process you are describing and the definition of the phrase you have chosen to employ are not the same thing." you then refused to specify which you actually preferred, the process you outlined or the phrase you used in error to describe it. The ambiguity lies in the fact that you have made an error in the usage of the language and never specified which processes you actually meant (though it seems you are a post below this one, I'll get to that then)

[quote]
Now I have explained that an "apology" and "allocution" are different because one implies remorse for an action and the other simply outlines the factual basis that an action was committed... your reply was akin to:
"To acknowledge your guilt [b]must[/b] imply sorrow and thus [b]must[/b] also be considered an apology."
[/quote]

We've been over this, when the statement you are seeking in an allocation is an apology then yes they are the same things. Because the word guilt itself implies wrong doing, since there is no international code of laws to CN beyond bi and multi lateral treaties there is no legal code for them to have broken, this leaves the only other option being a moral code.

Also, since you went there, here's your leader saying he wants an apology.

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='13 May 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1273782430']
And, even if there -were- an apology in the ESA, it would be ignored because no one cares about anything but Reps. Under normal surrender conditions, IRON could easily just pay lip service to an apology without meaning it. You'll notice that they still claim they were provoked, or that C&G would've attacked them anyway, or w/e. There is no contrition on their part, nor would there have been had they included such a term in the ESA. The ESA simply cannot accomplish a concrete admission of guilt. Normal CN peace treaties are inadequate for the task.[/quote]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='14 May 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1273814819']
Actually IRON holds [i]itself[/i] in war. Our main peace term is designed such that their guilt is established [i]beyond reasonable doubt[/i]. Of -course- this isn't the same as 100% certainty of their sincerity, but unless you have some mystic way of divining that, this is enough to satisfy us.[/quote]


[quote]
There are no teeth to your debate about my vocabulary. It would be to your advantage to address the discourse rather than the dictionary.
[/quote]

Simply stating something does not make it so, and its not just my issues with your misuse of the language, several of us have called you out on it.

[TypoNinja]

Double post because I ran out of quote blocks!

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1276385772' post='2335511']
What is required:

Step 1: IRON Surrender Unconditionally.
[b]What does this mean?[/b]

IRON will officially surrender and await further instructions.
They will do this without placing any conditions on the process or terms GRE may offer.
Their surrender does not at all imply that they are expected to accept or comply with subsequently offered terms.
Following their surrender, they are given quarter.
[/quote]

Almost, but not quite, its not technically unconditional surrender if you promise to give quarter. But its close enough for government work so I'll give you this one.

[quote]
Step 2: IRON is given demilitarization orders.
[b]What does this mean?[/b]
GRE will tell IRON the requirements for proceeding to terms in this peace process.
IRON will choose to comply or return to a state of war. Declining the process and choosing to return to war is not a "violation" because surrendering does not imply agreement to subsequent terms for demilitarization
[/quote]

This is where you put your foot in it, in more than one way.

First, and most realistic. Nobody would ever agree to disarm before knowing what terms are. You are asking IRON to voluntarily make them selves vulnerable with no incentive on their part to do so. Its an unlikely enough scenario before Gre proved how unstable you are. You are asking for trust from a group who is very justified in not trusting you at all.

Second, that "return to war is not a violation" is where you utterly break the process, and where it flat out stops being unconditional surrender. Granted I don't have a word for this bastardization of a peace process you've dreamed up, but unconditional surrender it most certainly is not.

[quote]
Step 3: GRE delivers sets of terms for restitution
[b]What does this mean?[/b]
GRE will give instruction to IRON on what steps to carry out to serve their restitution.
IRON will choose to comply or return to a state of war. Declining the process and choosing to return to war is not a "violation" because demilitarization does not imply agreement to subsequent terms for restitution
[/quote]

You've repeated yourself here, so I guess I'll repeat my self. You are dreaming if you think IRON (Or anybody else for that matter) Would ever agree to disarm before finding out what terms are. Also I noticed you never actually mentioned a ceasefire on Gre's part during any of this, I'm just assuming it would happen at the same time as IRON's disarmament since anything else would be simply stupid.

[quote]
Then... hopefully.. IRON will serve restitution and we will be at peace.
They will be completely absolved from all responsbility to this incident; given a clean slate.
[/quote]

Who are you to absolved anyone of anything? Gre doesn't even have Standing in this issue you are pressing. The wronged parties are all already at peace (and waiting for their restitution that your are holding up incidentally)

[quote]
I am pretty sure this has been outlined before... but since [b]you[/b] asked, TB, and this is a long thread... I figured I'd reiterate.

War > Surrender > Terms > Restitution > Peace
[/quote]

Actually, I've been reading the whole thread, this would be the first time its been explicitly laid out, previous to this there was just double talk and ambiguities.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1276391423' post='2335586']
100 pages ago I explained that the act of surrendering is a funtional equivalent to "turning yourself in"
It does not mean you agree to comply with any or all terms. [/quote]

Your definition goes against 4 years of warfare on Planet Bob (and thousands of years of warfare "elsewhere"). Put another way, you've got something in that pipe of yours besides tobacco.

That you would try to downplay your demands (as if you are actually still in a position to make demands) as a matter of semantics is just silly at this stage.

[quote]Because we're right.

[/quote]

Not really , but for sake of debate, let's say you are and then do everyone a favor and go ahead and die for your cause...yesterday.

[Haflinger]

Sovereign states don't turn themselves in, Matthew. That's something private citizens do.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='12 June 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1276397473' post='2335691']
What my insitance that you are abusing my language is getting on your nerves? I'm sorry. Use the language correctly and we wont have any issues.



Actually the reply was "The process you are describing and the definition of the phrase you have chosen to employ are not the same thing." you then refused to specify which you actually preferred, the process you outlined or the phrase you used in error to describe it. The ambiguity lies in the fact that you have made an error in the usage of the language and never specified which processes you actually meant (though it seems you are a post below this one, I'll get to that then)



We've been over this, when the statement you are seeking in an allocation is an apology then yes they are the same things. Because the word guilt itself implies wrong doing, since there is no international code of laws to CN beyond bi and multi lateral treaties there is no legal code for them to have broken, this leaves the only other option being a moral code.

Also, since you went there, here's your leader saying he wants an apology.








Simply stating something does not make it so, and its not just my issues with your misuse of the language, several of us have called you out on it.
[/quote]



Again, reading comprehension.

Please find [b]in the very quotes you posted[/b] where Ram said GRE wanted IRON to apologize.
In fact, it looks to me like all he's saying is they haven't showed any contrition (which they haven't)

He makes a specific reference to "admission of guilt" which, as I outlined for you, is not the same as "apologizing"

[claphamsa]

has anyone actually read 197 pages of this horse !@#$?

[Byron Orpheus]

The thing that most grabs my attention in this mammoth discussion is that Gramlins is making such demands in the first place-- there have been alliances in a much more tenable position than your current one that haven't gone nearly as far in their preace demands, so it seems to me to be a bit ridiculous for you to expect IRON to surrender to terms that will be determined after the fact, especially if what everyone says is true and IRON has much more NS than you all at the moment.

I'm not sure whether this has become some sort of Stalin-esque obsession with revenge, no matter how ridiculous it makes you appear, or if it is just plain stubborness wrapped within layers of willful ignorance, but you would think that, after 190 pages and counting of people telling you that your policies are just plain crazy, you would eventually accept the fact that what you are demanding not only will never be accepted, but also that it is ludicrous for you to assume that anyone ever would accept the terms.

You are taking what is, in my opinion, an unrivaled PR hit globally, yet you have decided to charge straight into the little perfect storm of insanity that you have concocted as if you had unanimous support for your actions.

[JimKongIl]

http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=The%20Gr%E4mlins&anyallexact=exact

What is the logic behind refusing offers of white peace and at the same time refusing to defend yourself?

Are there really 28 nations willing to martyr themselves in a battle they already won over IRON/DAWN's refusal to say "I surrender unconditionally" when there are white peace offers on the table?

MHA, if you want to protect your treaty partner I think now is the time for some sort of intervention.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='12 June 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1276399835' post='2335759']
http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=The%20Gr%E4mlins&anyallexact=exact

What is the logic behind refusing offers of white peace and at the same time refusing to defend yourself?

Are there really 28 nations willing to martyr themselves in a battle they already won over IRON/DAWN's refusal to say "I surrender unconditionally" when there are white peace offers on the table?

MHA, if you want to protect your treaty partner I think now is the time for some sort of intervention.
[/quote]


White peace is not acceptable to me. IRON does not hold a position on equally valid principles as I do.
Of course, this is relative... which is why I said "me" and not "GRE"


[quote name='TypoNinja' date='12 June 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1276397497' post='2335692']
Double post because I ran out of quote blocks!



Almost, but not quite, its not technically unconditional surrender if you promise to give quarter. But its close nough for government work so I'll give you this one.[/quote]

GRE can put on all the conditions we want. It's only IRON that doesn't get to stipulate.
Not to mention, the issue of quarter was brought up because somehow the absolutely idiotic lie that GRE would keep attacking IRON during the surrender process was introduced by OWF trolls.



[quote]This is where you put your foot in it, in more than one way.

First, and most realistic. Nobody would ever agree to disarm before knowing what terms are. You are asking IRON to voluntarily make them selves vulnerable with no incentive on their part to do so. Its an unlikely enough scenario before Gre proved how unstable you are. You are asking for trust from a group who is very justified in not trusting you at all.[/quote]

You give IRON less credit than I do, apparently. I don't think they are afraid of a little demilitarizing. Particularly, you have no idea what the orders are... so to call them unpalatable is disingenous.

[quote]Second, that "return to war is not a violation" is where you utterly break the process, and where it flat out stops being unconditional surrender. Granted I don't have a word for this bastardization of a peace process you've dreamed up, but unconditional surrender it most certainly is not.[/quote]

It is complete lunacy for you to claim that [b]any[/b] party could not return to war should they find the peace process undesirable.
Particularly in this sitution: I, nor IRON, really care whether or not [b]you[/b] think refusing some outrageous terms would be some sort of "violation"
I have stated many times that if GRE made some outrageous term like "destroy your wonders" or something that there would be absolutely no wrong in their refusal and then a return to war.
In fact, that you think a refusal [b]would[/b] be wrong is a bit telling.



[quote]You've repeated yourself here, so I guess I'll repeat my self. You are dreaming if you think IRON (Or anybody else for that matter) Would ever agree to disarm before finding out what terms are. Also I noticed you never actually mentioned a ceasefire on Gre's part during any of this, I'm just assuming it would happen at the same time as IRON's disarmament since anything else would be simply stupid.[/quote]

Shall we have an argument about the definition of the phrase "quarter" ?
Call me naive, but I don't think IRON is as afraid of a little arranged disarming as you seem to think they should be.



[quote]Who are you to absolved anyone of anything? Gre doesn't even have Standing in this issue you are pressing. The wronged parties are all already at peace (and waiting for their restitution that your are holding up incidentally)[/quote]

GRE's resolution is the [b]only one[/b] that matters when it comes to our absolving people in our eyes.



[quote]Actually, I've been reading the whole thread, this would be the first time its been explicitly laid out, previous to this there was just double talk and ambiguities.
[/quote]

I've been saying for a while that I apparently gave people too much credit in assuming they could understand things from a continued discussion rather than a step-by-step set of instructions.

However, even when I provided a simple set it seems like you had trouble following.

I don't think that's because you're unintelligent.
I think you are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying in order to muddy the waters because it better suits your position.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Byron Orpheus]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 04:36 AM' timestamp='1276400145' post='2335770']
White peace is not acceptable to me. IRON does not hold a position on equally valid principles as I do.
Of course, this is relative... which is why I said "me" and not "GRE"
[/quote]
At the end of the day, there is only one principle in this world-- might makes right.

Anything else is purely constructed on an individual/alliance basis, and the fact is that you lack the might to get what you want.

[Lord Brendan]

Matthew, what would you think of a simple apology at this point?

At this point any kind of apology would have to be sincere, since you don't have the strength to force them to do anything.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='12 June 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1276399487' post='2335754']
The thing that most grabs my attention in this mammoth discussion is that Gramlins is making such demands in the first place-- there have been alliances in a much more tenable position than your current one that haven't gone nearly as far in their preace demands, so it seems to me to be a bit ridiculous for you to expect IRON to surrender to terms that will be determined after the fact, especially if what everyone says is true and IRON has much more NS than you all at the moment.

I'm not sure whether this has become some sort of Stalin-esque obsession with revenge, no matter how ridiculous it makes you appear, or if it is just plain stubborness wrapped within layers of willful ignorance, but you would think that, after 190 pages and counting of people telling you that your policies are just plain crazy, you would eventually accept the fact that what you are demanding not only will never be accepted, but also that it is ludicrous for you to assume that anyone ever would accept the terms.

You are taking what is, in my opinion, an unrivaled PR hit globally, yet you have decided to charge straight into the little perfect storm of insanity that you have concocted as if you had unanimous support for your actions.
[/quote]
Short version?

-Gre oversteps their sway and makes an unreasonable demand, bad enough that their coalition makes a separate peace out of frustration.
-In the following days where Gre could have still gotten some sort of surrender and reps, they still ran with it.
-War turns against Gre.

At this point, Ramirus could either admit he screwed up and take IRON's offer of white peace (a damn generous offer at that), or he can march his whole alliance right to destruction. He would rather destroy his alliance than admit he was wrong. At ANY STAGE he can admit he screwed up to avert the slow death they are currently experiencing. Yet death is a better fate than admitting fault in his mind.

All that is in play here is ego.

Edited June 13, 2010 by bigwoody