The New Grämlins

[Byron Orpheus]

That's pretty much what I gathered, and it seems such a waste to lead an alliance into what could eventually be disbanding simply because one has some sort of delusional image of one's place in the world.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='12 June 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1276400397' post='2335779']
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.
[/quote]

No.
Not only because I personally don't care about an apology but also because it's eliminates the purpose of unconditional surrender for them to simply get an easy harms/benefits analysis to decide what to do.

Even if you think IRON is "winning" the war; don't delude yourself into think that IRON thinks it will be easy.
They are not stupid. They know that engaging our upper tier will likely be a strenuous campaign (even if they do think they will win in the long-run)


[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='12 June 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1276400394' post='2335778']
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.
[/quote]


All the past we leave behind,
We debouch upon a newer mightier world, varied world,
Fresh and strong the world we seize, world of labor and the march


I choose not to live by the princible you claim to.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 10:36 PM' 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]


If you won't accept white peace then you should be attacking, right? Or am I missing something? I have been out of war mode for almost a month. Force is the only leverage you have to demand unconditional surrender and it makes no sense for you not to use it and dismiss offers of white peace.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='12 June 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1276402956' post='2335843']
If you won't accept white peace then you should be attacking, right? Or am I missing something? I have been out of war mode for almost a month. Force is the only leverage you have to demand unconditional surrender and it makes no sense for you not to use it and dismiss offers of white peace.
[/quote]


Are you goading?



I leverage my demand for unconditional surrender on virtue: that it is the right thing to do for IRON to turn themselves in for their transgression.

In fact, a primary basis for my position is (by my own admission multiple times) that GRE cannot "force" IRON do to anything; nor do we want to. Might does not make right.

For me to claim IRON should surrender because I am stronger (if it were so) is just as pathetic as those people in this very thread saying that IRON should [b]not[/b] surrender because they are stronger.
After 200 pages you honestly haven't understood this from me?


Spend more time reading what I write rather than waiting impatiently by your "declare war" button.

[Wabooz]

How can you put unconditional surrender and virtue in the same sentence? I'm not buying it. I think you and the others left in Gre could care less and you're toying with folks here.

[The Warrior]

[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"

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]


We demilitarize, you show terms, we don't like terms, you send us aid to re-buy military to return to a state of war as a sign of good faith, we return to war after re-arming.

Sound like a plan MPK?



[quote]
I choose not to live by the princible you claim to.
[/quote]

This is probably true now.. but was it when the ESA were signed?

Edited June 13, 2010 by The Warrior

[bakamitai]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='10 June 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1276206743' post='2332149']
I can do this for months on end.

You act as if the two I'm currently fighting will actually drop me out of range of the others. This is about patience.
[/quote]

[quote name='brickyard' date='11 June 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1276301375' post='2334061']
Instead of white peace, I say we offer them more nooks.

And a second helping of Matt Miller
[/quote]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='11 June 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1276305596' post='2334160']
Matt Miller is destroying the Gramlins. It's beautiful.
[/quote]

Matt Miller is genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of all life on [s]Arrakis[/s] Gremlins.

Here is a nickel's worth of free advice to whomever remains in Gremlins: surrender now, and by whatever means necessary. The small loss of dignity that would entail pales in comparison to wasting your once-great alliance away to nothing as you are inexorably picked off, one by one, and sent to ZI. While IRON appears willing to give you white peace, at this point they have no incentive to do so other than impatience. However, I think your vexatious rhetoric and general poor sportsmanship throughout the duration of this debacle, not to mention your stubborn and unfathomable refusal to back down from your ridiculous demands, has likely only damaged their willingness to actually award you with so generous a resolution. For the sake of your alliance, I hope the damage is not irreparable.

Your willingness to fight for principle is admirable. Your willingness to be completely destroyed for it has been amply demonstrated. However, at this point, you've proven your point -- there is no need to actually fall on your swords. You must choose your battles, and if you are eradicated now, the singularity of purpose, fierce tenacity, and dedication to a just cause that your members have shown will be forever lost, scattered to the four winds along with them. Is all of this really worth paying that high of a price?

[Stetson76]

I guess I really enjoy being ignored since I'm going to try this for a fourth time...

[quote][quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273768082' post='2297005']
The Gremlins declared war to defend against IRON's unwarranted attack.

On the other hand, like I asked of Gamemaster, find me [b]specific[/b] examples and I'll be happy to read them.
[/quote]

Okay, I'm going to try again. Matthew, please look at the quotes up above, and notice the missing words in the first line: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]TOP[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79444&st=0&p=2138894&hl=declare&fromsearch=1&#entry2138894]TORN[/url] declared war in the same manner and at the same time IRON/DAWN did. In fact, TOP declared first. (Not to discount FEAR and TSO who are pretty universally added to this list, their DOW's came much later.) I've also conveniently added the links to their DOW's to satisfy your request for specific examples so you can "read them."

Not only do I not need to dig through ancient history to come up with examples for you, this points out that your "defense of MK/friends" line is nothing but a bold faced lie. If you were indeed standing on an absolute principle you would have at minimum declared on these other two alliances.

So, yes, let's stop bandying about definitions of unconditional surrender or terms or any of the other things we've been discussing, and answer the question that many others have been asking. Why would you in defense of an [b]absolute[/b] principle in which you were [b]obligated[/b] to act for the sake of the Cyberverse not declare war on TOP or TORN?

The entire argument that you are making without any cute turns of phrase or reference to a dictionary falls on this single point. You've selectively applied your principles and are in no position to make a moral judgment at this late date.

I've watched you through this entire thread use logic as your cornerstone (despite disagreeing with your conclusions) and have come to respect your loyalty and dogged adherence to principle so please, apply that logic and recognize that your stance is incompatible with your alliance's actions.

Just to make it clear, I'm not asking you to declare on these people now, I'm asking you to explain to everyone (but especially yourself) how GRE can engage in a moral crusade that is so clearly prejudiced and narrow minded.[/quote]

And if it's not to much to ask Matthew, could you please explain to me how turning yourself in is not giving up all freedom to make decisions for yourself? Oh, right, generally when a criminal (which is how I believe you guys refer to IRON) turn themselves in if they don't like the sentence they can just walk away. Got it!

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1276403497' post='2335855']
Are you goading?



I leverage my demand for unconditional surrender on virtue: that it is the right thing to do for IRON to turn themselves in for their transgression.

In fact, a primary basis for my position is (by my own admission multiple times) that GRE cannot "force" IRON do to anything; nor do we want to. Might does not make right.

For me to claim IRON should surrender because I am stronger (if it were so) is just as pathetic as those people in this very thread saying that IRON should [b]not[/b] surrender because they are stronger.
After 200 pages you honestly haven't understood this from me?


Spend more time reading what I write rather than waiting impatiently by your "declare war" button.
[/quote]

I'm not goading, Matt. There is a banner of war which Gramlins refuses to lift. This is not pre or postwar posturing. Usually when an alliance refuses offers of peace they attack.

IRON and DAWN refuse to surrender unconditionally and the only way you can make them is if you are stronger. I'm sorry Matthew but this is just the way it is.

If you force a combatant to continue fighting against their will eventually they will realize that to get peace they will have to go through you to get it.

[Williambonney]

197 pages of semantics and still going is there a tl;dr coming sometime soon or are gremlins just suiciding?

[Gamemaster1]

Oooh, this line of reasoning again.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1276403497' post='2335855']
I leverage my demand for unconditional surrender on virtue: that it is the right thing to do for IRON to turn themselves in for their transgression.[/quote]
...and the rest of the coalition? TOP? TSO? FEAR? Oh right, they are innocent.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1276403497' post='2335855']
In fact, a primary basis for my position is (by my own admission multiple times) that GRE cannot "force" IRON do to anything; nor do we want to. Might does not make right.[/quote]
You couldn't force the coalition to do anything either.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1276403497' post='2335855']
Spend more time reading what I write rather than waiting impatiently by your "declare war" button.
[/quote]

And you should do the opposite. Put your pen down and back up all the crap you say. And no, you are not doing anything by sitting there. You will be in range. And you will get attacked.

[i][b]Acta non verba. [/b][/i]But you never will.


EDIT: [quote name='Stetson' date='13 June 2010 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1276404695' post='2335879']
I guess I really enjoy being ignored since I'm going to try this for a fourth time...



And if it's not to much to ask Matthew, could you please explain to me how turning yourself in is not giving up all freedom to make decisions for yourself? Oh, right, generally when a criminal (which is how I believe you guys refer to IRON) turn themselves in if they don't like the sentence they can just walk away. Got it!
[/quote] Good luck. I posted the same thing, albiet a bit less wordy. It's been ignored no matter how many times I repost it or a variation of it. Like above.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Gamemaster1

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1276398962' post='2335738']
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"
[/quote]

Ok, lets cherry pick.

[quote]The ESA simply cannot accomplish a concrete admission of guilt. Normal CN peace treaties are inadequate for the task.[/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]

[quote]Actually IRON holds itself in war. Our main peace term is designed such that their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]

Now, since were so deep into semantics here, lets be clear on exactly what "guilt" is

# the state of having committed an offense
# remorse caused by feeling responsible for some offense

Keeping in line with spelling out everything very carefully for our special ed friends in the Gramlins, we can now conclude that Gre desiring a statement of guilt amounts to a moral judgment, since we have no criminal code to enforce.

Further, Ramirus' instance of establishing sincerity further demonstrates a moral judgment, since a statement of fact would not require elaboration. If you merely wanted IRON to acknowledge they preformed a preemptive strike their own posted DoW does that well enough. This requires no statment from IRON to verify.

And finally your own terminology demonstrates you are seeking a statement of contrition from IRON, and leaked internal documents from Gre shows your own view on IRON to be that they are criminals, and again since we have no criminal code here you are attempting to enforce a moral judgment, your moral judgment upon IRON. For this to succeed you would have to convince IRON to share your moral views, which would then make them regret their actions.

Absent a Codified body of laws to give us a non moral basis for guilt you can only be seeking an apology. Back pedaling every time something happens to further illustrate your own foolhardy nature does not change the basis of our language and the means by which we use it to communicate.

[quote name='claphamsa' date='12 June 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1276399251' post='2335750']
has anyone actually read 197 pages of this horse !@#$?
[/quote]
I have in fact, for those just joining us I provide this public service.

Tl;dr

Gre is now losing a war they could have won due to their own arrogance at attempting to inflict a bastardized version of a peace process on IRON. Their actions have gutted a once proud alliance of most of its members, even more NS, and all of its public respect.

[quote name='Byron Orpheus' date='12 June 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1276399487' post='2335754']
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]

Quick somebody check the temperature in hell, VE and GGA gov are agreeing on something!

Seriously, Byron has made the one point Gre refuses to address. Even were you in the right your utter failure of an attempt to persue this agend is killing your alliance. You accomplish nothing by failing miserably. Any sane individual would have recognized a lost cause and got out while the getting was good.

[TypoNinja]

Ran out of quotes again! can we get more?


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 11:36 PM' 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]

This should get cross posted into the leadership failure thread. Its the hall mark of terrible leaders. Its not about what you want, its about what you can get.


[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]

Yes you could offer terms, but in case you forgot this whole thing started over your refusal to actually tell IRON what those terms might be.

And despite the fact that Gre has yet to actually state that you would stop attacking (not that it matters, last I checked all of Gre's wars were incoming) I have assumed you would on the simple basis of sanity.


[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]

Its not about fear, though nice try deflecting. Its about responsible leadership. Why should IRON voluntarily hand Gre a position of strength for no gain?

[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.
[/quote]

Oddly enough, the usual process usually doesn't see shooting stop during negotiations here on Bob. Ceasefires during talks tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Probably as a means to insure talks don't drag out to no real purpose.

[quote]
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]

This is where you keep putting your foot in it, nobody is going to disarm before agreeing to terms. Its that straight forward. This is politics, not the Monty Hall show.

[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]

We already did, remember it has its roots from 'quartering' (housing) captured prisoners,so no quarter indicates a desire to not take any prisoners, its usage has evolved into modern parlance as the indication that one simply desires the eradication of the opposing forces so declines any negotiation.

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

You misunderstand, so in the words of somebody whom quoting will make me look old "hey what gives you the right"

Had this been an internal process your views would be the only ones that matter, however you are through force of arms attempting to enforce your own standards upon another sovereign entity. You have no legal authority to do such, and you lack the moral standing in the communities eyes to act as an arbitrator of justice upon others.

[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.
[b]I think you are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying in order to muddy the waters because it better suits your position.[/b]
[/quote]

Funny that's the position I've held for you!

[bigwoody]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='12 June 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1276404915' post='2335886']
I'm not goading, Matt. There is a banner of war which Gramlins refuses to lift. This is not pre or postwar posturing. Usually when an alliance refuses offers of peace they attack.

IRON and DAWN refuse to surrender unconditionally and the only way you can make them is if you are stronger. I'm sorry Matthew but this is just the way it is.

If you force a combatant to continue fighting against their will eventually they will realize that to get peace they will have to go through you to get it.
[/quote]
Perhaps the Gramlins are attempting to bore IRON to death by making them sit there.

Watching this unfold is surreal, I cannot imagine how any sort of logic would lead us here.

[RustyNail]

I equate this attitude to the following:

Lonely guy goes out and finds a woman he wants to love him, he imprisons her and tells her that he will not let her free until she tells him she loves him and wants to be with him and MEANS IT SINCERELY.


yah.....not gonna happen and I'm fairly certain what the mental diagnosis of said individual would be. He may think he is fully justified and perfectly in the right, however, as a menace to society and someone that infringes on the rights and freedoms of others (whether HE thinks it's ok or not).....morality and society will disagree and he will be dealt with.

No matter if anyone in Gre actually thinks what they are doing is right or not, that is far from relevant at this point.

Edited June 13, 2010 by RustyNail

[Vhalen]

So, I glance at this topic tonight, and am astonished to see it's 197 pages long.

I reflect on my comment (ages ago, it seems) that if this drags out, IRON will be at a distinct advantage (a comment, by the way, that shahenshah pretty aggressively disagreed with).

I come to two conclusions:

1) shah probably ought to admit I was right.
2) I'm amazed IRON is still keeping white peace on the table. At this point, it's pretty clear Gre isn't interested in that offer. Might as well start making demands. I know it sounds silly, but if you're not demanding anything, there's nothing you can give up during negotiations.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='RustyNail' date='13 June 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1276407546' post='2335943']
I equate this attitude to the following:

Lonely guy goes out and finds a woman he wants to love him, he imprisons her and tells her that he will not let her free until she tells him she loves him and wants to be with him and MEANS IT SINCERELY.


yah.....not gonna happen and I'm fairly certain what the mental diagnosis of said individual would be. He may think he is fully justified and perfectly in the right, however, as a menace to society and someone that infringes on the rights and freedoms of others (whether HE thinks it's ok or not).....morality and society will disagree and he will be dealt with.
[/quote]

In point of fact, this is actually fairly common in cases of mental illness, most don't believe they are ill and everything they've done makes perfect sense to them. Confusion on how anybody else could fail to comprehend is usually prevalent. Surprisingly nobody ever clues in without prompting to the little fact that's its only them.

A crazy man will look at 100 sane people who don't understand him and assume they are deficient in some way and not him.

[TrotskysRevenge]

This unconditional surrender thing.....how is that working for you?

IRON is growing and doing well. Gramlins, on the other hand, keeps bleeding nations.

Seems to me your completely ridiculous demand of unconditional surrender is going to be the death of you. Would you mind speeding it up?

[Banksy]

[quote name='TrotskysRevenge' date='13 June 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1276409733' post='2335986']


This unconditional surrender thing.....how is that working for you?

IRON is growing and doing well. Gramlins, on the other hand, keeps bleeding nations.

Seems to me your completely ridiculous demand of unconditional surrender is going to be the death of you. Would you mind speeding it up?
[/quote]
You could always help IRON out if you want it to end so badly.

[TrotskysRevenge]

The only one who can end it is Gramlins, either by being reasonable or finally having so few nations that the war just ends. IRON needs no help and is doing just fine on their own. Edited June 13, 2010 by TrotskysRevenge

[Banksy]

[quote name='TrotskysRevenge' date='13 June 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1276410467' post='2335996']
I have no desire to be involved in this debacle.[/quote]
I wondered why that MDP with IRON was taking so long to come out.

[Kalasin]

There's little to be said that hasn't already been said. Gramlins' actions are morally abhorrent.

[OOC] Lol, too late to edit your post now, Moo. [/OOC]

[R3nowned]

Nearly 200 pages...

Anyway, I find it absolutely LOLS that Gramlins still think IRON will surrender at this rate. I look forward to watching Ramirus getting beaten down and ZIed.

[Qazzian]

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1276410526' post='2335997']
I wondered why that MDP with IRON was taking so long to come out.
[/quote]

What would that have to do with anything? Have you ever heard of a retroactive treaty?

Gramlins and IRON are the two parties who need to end this. IRON has an offer sitting on the table that will accomplish that immediately, Gramlins has a partial offer on the table that will stall the war but makes no guarantee since there are more terms to be offered at a later time. Any other alliance becoming directly (ie, militarily) involved would only serve to bring in more alliances against them, and is not going to help end the war any sooner. It will accomplish the exact opposite.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='13 June 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1276432612' post='2336096']
Nearly 200 pages...

Anyway, I find it absolutely LOLS that Gramlins still think IRON will surrender at this rate. I look forward to watching Ramirus getting beaten down and ZIed.
[/quote]


If IRON/DAWN surrendered now, that would prove just how remorseful (or whatever Gre are demanding they feel this week) they really are!