The New Grämlins

[Gamemaster1]

Remember, when an IRON nation is in his range he will declare.

We look forward to you backing up your words. I even reposted what you said earlier.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='ironchef' date='14 June 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1276562908' post='2337749']
I found this back on Page 5. So the Karma was was the first time this asinine idea of unconditional surrender was used.

The idea of telling an alliance they must surrender and disarm before they can be told what the terms of their surrender will be was an idea started by the forces of Karma.

For the love of admin who was the r-tard to come up with this. If any of you have logs showing the first time this idea was let out of Pandora’s box I’m sure we would all love to see it.

Knowing this idea had been tried before makes perfect sense why Ram tried it now. I’m sure he felt he could accomplish with IRON what the rest of Karma could not with NPO, he was dead wrong.

It’s time to man up Ram and say ok I didn’t have what it took to make IRON bend to my will any more than the forces of Karma could make NPO bend to theirs. No harm no foul. You gave it your best shot and it didn’t work out. Time to take what is left of your alliance and leave the field of battle.
[/quote]

There is a difference in usage I think. Using an opening offer of unconditional surrender to provoke a counter offer from your opponent without giving away any of your own position is a negotiation tacit that has some merit. It allows one to gain information (namely a baseline value you know your opponent is willing to pay without leaning on them further) without giving away similar information to your opponent (A minimum value you are willing to accept). If negotiations are opened with a high ball from one side and a low ball from the other, Unconditional surrender is about as high ball as it gets.

It would of course be idiotic to maintain unconditional surrender as an actual long term position, it is at face value a term designed to be turned down, or negotiated from, not a serious debating position.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Ironchef' date='15 June 2010 - 06:31 AM' timestamp='127600565478' post='233007774']
I found this back on Page 5. So the Karma was was the first time this asinine idea of unconditional surrender was used.

[/quote]

and a subset of those obvious elements support and enable it at the present.

Edited June 15, 2010 by shahenshah

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Shan Revan' date='14 June 2010 - 06:45 AM' timestamp='1276519536' post='2337121']
IRON does not want or need Pacifica to fight our battle for us. This gramlins war is not preventing a treaty between us. We have good relations absolutely, I consider them friends, certainly, but there are other reasons for no treaty. Now and after this war. Will there be a treaty in the future? Perhaps, however there are still obstacles unrelated to this conflict for such.


Many of our allies have attemtped to get involved in this war, have gone and asked the appropriate people, and whilst some alliances are willing to let them free, our allies have been consistantly blocked by others. Also see above.
EDIT: Even if they did there are still others holding a gun to the head of whoever might enter.
[/quote]

Okay, so you don’t want your friends to enter for you. What does it matter then whether C&G allow them to enter or not? Loads of people have complained about that in this thread and elsewhere.

(best of luck to IRON by the way. Not that you need it, by the look of things. )

[quote name='Brenann' date='14 June 2010 - 11:31 AM' timestamp='1276536698' post='2337310']
So let me get this straight, the peanut gallery, which usually has no clue what it is talking about says that IRON and NPO will "likely" enter into a high level treaty and based on that "likely" assumption we, the NPO have a moral obligation to get involved in something that we have not had anything to do with since it all started. This makes absolutely no sense.

This is not our war, we have not been asked to help out at this time. Why should we get involved uninvited? If IRON would like our help in this matter then they know where to find us. Until then there is no use in speculating about our involvement.

As for the this treaty everyone is talking about, if IRON and the NPO get together we will be sure to broadcast it for the Peanut Gallery to scream and bawww over.
[/quote]

What we’re saying is that if IRON needs help, and you simply intend to wait until after the war to ratify a treaty, then that’s pretty poor show. If IRON doesn’t want help, then there’s no need for anyone to complain anymore about C&G’s stance on the issue, whether or not they actually intend to attack IRON’s friends in the event that they helped IRON out.

[quote name='Baldr' date='14 June 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1276551786' post='2337565']
You make it sound like Pacifica, for sake of friendship and a nonexistent but possible future treaty, should declare on Gramlins whether IRON likes it or not.

IRON knows that they are currently winning, and that something like that would certainly bring in other parties, which could change it their position into a losing war. If *any* alliance entered on IRON's side, that's a risk. If NPO enters, it's a certainty.

Since IRON isn't asking anyone to enter, then screaming about how "NPO should defend their friends no matter what!" is pretty darn stupid.
[/quote]

See my responses to the posts above.

[quote name='Arcades057' date='14 June 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1276553930' post='2337606']
So then, may we have a written statement from C&G leadership that they will not intervene in any way should an alliance declare war on Gramlins? Or are you just taunting people behind feigned neutrality? One may murder someone to silence their voice; it doesn't mean one won't be thrown in jail for doing so.
[/quote]

Actually, that’s exactly what I proposed to Joracy yesterday in query. I don’t make the decisions, though.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1276474961' post='2336517']
Behold: amad123 of the Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations!
The just and honorable harbiner of peace!
Go forth and smite the putrid and tyrannical Gremlins![/quote]

More like putrid and suffering a Napoleon complex, but there's not many people left who disagree with his sentiments, either publicly or privately.

[quote]It's absolutely adorable how you think that your prowess had anything to do with it![/quote]

Do you really think it's a good idea to be criticizing anyone else's military prowess given your current position? Really?

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1276456695' post='2336320']
As I stated before, we are not at war with TOP, TORN or any other alliances you listed.
We are at war only with IRON. Therefore, we are discussing the surrender process for IRON.
[/quote]

To quote a noted philosopher "Reading comprehension". I'm asking you why [b]you are not at war with TOP or TORN?[/b], not whether you are or not you are.

Here is it again:

[quote]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. [b]Why would you in defense of an absolute principle in which you were obligated to act for the sake of the Cyberverse not declare war on TOP or TORN?[/b]

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.[/quote]

I agree it's old news at this point, but germane to your repeatedly stated position that you're only destroying yourselves because you believe SO strongly in what you're doing, yet you failed at the first step of your moral crusade and that was in holding everyone to the same standards you're now trying to enforce on IRON. Inconsistent application of principles will not win you the morality debate.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='ironchef' date='15 June 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1276562908' post='2337749']
I found this back on Page 5. So the Karma was was the first time this asinine idea of unconditional surrender was used.

The idea of telling an alliance they must surrender and disarm before they can be told what the terms of their surrender will be was an idea started by the forces of Karma.

For the love of admin who was the r-tard to come up with this. If any of you have logs showing the first time this idea was let out of Pandora’s box I’m sure we would all love to see it.

Knowing this idea had been tried before makes perfect sense why Ram tried it now. I’m sure he felt he could accomplish with IRON what the rest of Karma could not with NPO, he was dead wrong.

It’s time to man up Ram and say ok I didn’t have what it took to make IRON bend to my will any more than the forces of Karma could make NPO bend to theirs. No harm no foul. You gave it your best shot and it didn’t work out. Time to take what is left of your alliance and leave the field of battle.
[/quote]

That was not the first offer the NPO, or included in any offer at all.

The first offer was the two weeks of war without peace mode thing as a precursor to the terms that would later be accepted (mostly, except for the restriction on who can send tech if I remember correctly). The second was that which ended up being accepted. There were only two. Not sure where Balder got that from, but it's false.

[Balder]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='15 June 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1276587144' post='2338049']
That was not the first offer the NPO, or included in any offer at all.

The first offer was the two weeks of war without peace mode thing as a precursor to the terms that would later be accepted (mostly, except for the restriction on who can send tech if I remember correctly). The second was that which ended up being accepted. There were only two. Not sure where Balder got that from, but it's false.
[/quote]

Baldr not Balder.

[ironchef]

[quote name='Stetson' date='14 June 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1276584362' post='2338024']
To quote a noted philosopher "Reading comprehension". I'm asking you why [b]you are not at war with TOP or TORN?[/b], not whether you are or not you are.

Here is it again:



I agree it's old news at this point, but germane to your repeatedly stated position that you're only destroying yourselves because you believe SO strongly in what you're doing, yet you failed at the first step of your moral crusade and that was in holding everyone to the same standards you're now trying to enforce on IRON. Inconsistent application of principles will not win you the morality debate.
[/quote]

You bring up a good point here Stetson. I would like to know as well. You do need to remember through its not just IRON but DAWN as well that is part of this moral crusade Gre is on. BAWN of all alliances should not have been a part of this sick joke. But here they are with a front row seat to a freak show with no end. We all know how strong the man love is that Gre has for IRON. But this obsession they have with DAWN I just don’t get that part at all. It’s time to pack up the big top Ram, you have sent in the clowns and the show is now over. If we have to watch the dancing bears one more time just to feed your sense of self importance, they may have to use the straight jacket set aside for you on me.

[amad123]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='15 June 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1276582382' post='2338008']
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1276474961' post='2336517']
It's absolutely adorable how you think that your prowess had anything to do with it!
[/quote]
Do you really think it's a good idea to be criticizing anyone else's military prowess given your current position? Really?
[/quote]

Actually we need very little prowess at all to take Gre down. They seem to be very inept at war. Further proof of this is they think we are incapable of taking down their upper tier. We've just started hitting nations in the 80k range, our safe zone continues to grow larger with each passing round of war. IRON has just surpassed the 5mil total NS mark, tech and aid deals are flowing freely. Gramlins aid slots are now filled with moving internal aid to those nations at war. Very few tech deals are being done by Gramlin's upper tier. I'll be the first to admit that we could be far more effective on the battlefield, fortunately we only need only to put in a half hearted effort to control the battlefield.



Gramlins have the nerve to call me a threat to peace. lol This is the first sign that Gre may actually be considering surrendering, if they are worried about my calls for war until they are all bill locked.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1276474961' post='2336517']
Behold: amad123 of the Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations! The just and honorable harbiner of peace! Go forth and smite the putrid and tyrannical Gremlins!
[/quote]
Gramlins are the only threat to peace. They refuse to accept White Peace, refuse to negotiate peace terms. If they want war then war they shall have it. I just think they should have enough of it that they can't pull this same stupid stunt on another alliance in the future. Gramlins have made their bed now they want to complain that they have to lie in it.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Kalasin' date='15 June 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1276581837' post='2338003']
Okay, so you don’t want your friends to enter for you. What does it matter then whether C&G allow them to enter or not? Loads of people have complained about that in this thread and elsewhere. [/quote]
IRON doesn't want their allies in unless we can get in without being counter declared.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='14 June 2010 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1276562534' post='2337742']
Banksy you better step off lest you provoke the wrath of "BlkAK47002"
[/quote]
Nonsense! I am a humble pacifist.

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='14 June 2010 - 06:54 AM' timestamp='1276516472' post='2337099']
While C&G (and MHA and Fark and Umbrella and whoever else has 'paperless treaties' with these clowns) is carefully not saying that it wouldn't protect Grämlins, then you [i]are[/i] preventing any (non-suicidal) alliances from helping. And let's not kid ourselves, if NPO came in to help IRON, C&G would be first on the bandwagon to roll them again. You're trying to goad NPO into a war and it's no prettier coming from you than it was from them.
[/quote]

I don't believe we hold any treaty, paper or paperless, with Gremlins. Umbrella has actual treaties, not some vague agreement that basically amounts to a verbal ODP.

[Bob Janova]

Fair enough, I will take Umbrella off my list of enablers

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='14 June 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1276516472' post='2337099']
While C&G (and MHA and Fark and Umbrella and whoever else has 'paperless treaties' with these clowns) is carefully not saying that it wouldn't protect Grämlins, then you [i]are[/i] preventing any (non-suicidal) alliances from helping. And let's not kid ourselves, if NPO came in to help IRON, C&G would be first on the bandwagon to roll them again. You're trying to goad NPO into a war and it's no prettier coming from you than it was from them.
[/quote]

Sir, our plot to set up NPO has FAILED

[Shan Revan]

[quote name='Kalasin' date='15 June 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1276581837' post='2338003']
Okay, so you don’t want your friends to enter for you. What does it matter then whether C&G allow them to enter or not? Loads of people have complained about that in this thread and elsewhere.

(best of luck to IRON by the way. Not that you need it, by the look of things. )
[/quote]

We don't need the help of our allies at this point (I think its rather abundantly clear), although they certainly could be useful. We'd rather our friends remain safe however than needlessly sacrifice themselves for us.

The main point of the post was to point out NPO are unrelated to this event and should be left out of it. They're just as obligated to defend us as anyone else here, including yourself. I presume that to be not at all. Speculating about future obligations is kind of pointless and doesn't really justify criticising unrelated parties. Especially when such speculations are based on false assumptions as previously mentioned.
(oh and thanks )

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='14 June 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1276516472' post='2337099']
While C&G (and MHA and Fark and Umbrella and whoever else has 'paperless treaties' with these clowns) is carefully not saying that it wouldn't protect Grämlins, then you [i]are[/i] preventing any (non-suicidal) alliances from helping. And let's not kid ourselves, if NPO came in to help IRON, C&G would be first on the bandwagon to roll them again. You're trying to goad NPO into a war and it's no prettier coming from you than it was from them.
[/quote]


Oh god Janova, what happened to you? The TOP war seems to have turned you into a conspiracy nut. The Mushroom Kingdom goads everyone into declaring war on them and then destroys them, oh what horrible creatures we are.


Really? Is this something you're just saying or do you literally believe this conspiracy theory?

[Gobb]

[quote name='amad123' date='15 June 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1276605635' post='2338157']
Actually we need very little prowess at all to take Gre down. They seem to be very inept at war. Further proof of this is they think we are incapable of taking down their upper tier. We've just started hitting nations in the 80k range, our safe zone continues to grow larger with each passing round of war. IRON has just surpassed the 5mil total NS mark, tech and aid deals are flowing freely. Gramlins aid slots are now filled with moving internal aid to those nations at war. Very few tech deals are being done by Gramlin's upper tier. I'll be the first to admit that we could be far more effective on the battlefield, fortunately we only need only to put in a half hearted effort to control the battlefield.
[/quote]So I take it you're ready to start reparation payments as well?

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' date='15 June 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1276620606' post='2338344']
So I take it you're ready to start reparation payments as well?
[/quote]

Not until your friends in Gremlins are ready for peace.

[Gobb]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='15 June 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1276621141' post='2338354']
Not until your friends in Gremlins are ready for peace.
[/quote]
Oh okay!
I just thought they'd be ready after what amad said and seeing IRON taking part of TOP's indirect reps.
Our reps do need extra concentration though, so I don't blame them!

Thanks silentkiller, you're lovely!

[AVFC1]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='15 June 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1276616511' post='2338277']
Fair enough, I will take Umbrella off my list of enablers
[/quote]

Would you care to explain exactly why any of Gramlins allies should refuse to defend them from any opportunistic attackers? It's not as if IRON is overstrectched by their 20 or so wars against a smaller alliance.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' date='15 June 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1276621430' post='2338359']
Oh okay!
I just thought they'd be ready after what amad said and seeing IRON taking part of TOP's indirect reps.
Our reps do need extra concentration though, so I don't blame them!

Thanks silentkiller, you're lovely!
[/quote]

Always happy to help!!!

Edited June 15, 2010 by silentkiller

[caligula]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='15 June 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1276620593' post='2338343']
Oh god Janova, what happened to you? The TOP war seems to have turned you into a conspiracy nut. The Mushroom Kingdom goads everyone into declaring war on them and then destroys them, oh what horrible creatures we are.


Really? Is this something you're just saying or do you literally believe this conspiracy theory?
[/quote]

Don't be coy, the OWF sees right through your intentions.

[shilo]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='15 June 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1276621593' post='2338366']
Always happy to help!!!
[/quote]
Thank you for making him happy, we wouldn't wanna have it any other way

[RustyNail]

[quote name='AVFC1' date='15 June 2010 - 11:04 AM' timestamp='1276621476' post='2338364']
Would you care to explain exactly why any of Gramlins allies should refuse to defend them from any opportunistic attackers? It's not as if IRON is overstrectched by their 20 or so wars against a smaller alliance.
[/quote]


Gre has no allies, they are paperless remember? Also, I'd say that anyone that came in to attack Gre at this time would not be opportunistic for the most part, but doing the humane thing instead. I'd like to see it happen just so we could all get on with our lives and get back to important business like hating the NPO and wondering who MK is going to goad into attacking next This drama has gotten stale, WE NEED NEW DRAMA.