The New Grämlins

[Eric Cantona]

Imma let you finish but... wait, no. I'm not going to let you finish. But I'll give you a dea: you stay on topic and quit the spam or I warn you.

[Derantol]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' date='15 June 2010 - 10:04 AM' 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]

While we do control the battlefield at this time, there are certainly things we could do to relinquish our ability to do so, and taking our top tier out of peace mode to begin funding tech is one of those things. Gre still has a formidable group up there, and if they all struck at once, they'd do considerable damage.

Add that to the time limit that we'll have once we start paying reps; we don't want to screw anything up in that regard. Once Gre is truly no longer a threat, whether by peace or by enough destruction, we'll start paying reps. Believe me, I wanted to start paying reps to you guys a little while ago; but I'd forgotten about the time constraint.

[amad123]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' date='15 June 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1276620606' post='2338344']
So I take it you're ready to start reparation payments as well?
[/quote]
I'm not in a position to determine when reps will be paid. You need a Government statement and we'd probably have to vote on it.

It is my own opinion that it is in our best interests to wait until the war is over to pay reps. That's what the ESA provide. If the war lasts a year perhaps longer so be it. It does bring up a couple of interesting possibilities. What if Gramlins never surrender and the last Gramlin nation hides in peace mode or stays bill locked at a level too low for us to engage. Technically we'd still be at war and wouldn't need to start paying reps until that last nation surrendered.

What if the last Gre nation deletes without surrendering? You could say the war is over if the last nation deletes, but what if they re-roll a few days later and use Gramlins as their AA.

So I anticipate a long time before reps will begin being paid. With nations deleting and new nations joining those paying reps and receiving reps may not even have been in existence during the war.

The matter would be further complicated if the alliances due to receive reps are at war. Gramlins are srewing with IRON's plans to rebuild, they're screwing CnG out of timely reps but mostly they are screwing themselves. Gotta luv their dedication to insanity.

[Gobb]

[quote name='Derantol' date='15 June 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1276625508' post='2338441']
While we do control the battlefield at this time, there are certainly things we could do to relinquish our ability to do so, and taking our top tier out of peace mode to begin funding tech is one of those things. Gre still has a formidable group up there, and if they all struck at once, they'd do considerable damage.

Add that to the time limit that we'll have once we start paying reps; we don't want to screw anything up in that regard. Once Gre is truly no longer a threat, whether by peace or by enough destruction, we'll start paying reps. Believe me, I wanted to start paying reps to you guys a little while ago; but I'd forgotten about the time constraint.
[/quote]
You do have about 60 nations at or above 4k infra who are not top tier or in peace mode.

But do as you may, dear! I hold nothing against you!

[BlkAK47_002]

[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]
I don't agree with all of Bobs posts but he actually seem unbiased and not afraid to tell off people whether they be allies or enemies. Does the fact that he might not share a strictly Pro-SG view upset you?

Edited June 15, 2010 by BlkAK47002

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' date='15 June 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1276629483' post='2338521']
You do have about 60 nations at or above 4k infra who are not top tier or in peace mode.

But do as you may, dear! I hold nothing against you!
[/quote]
Stop the posturing. I'd rather not have a time clock started on reps without the full ability of IRON to begin paying those reps. It's just easier that way. Gremlins are the only thing that is keeping us from allowing our entire alliance to pay reps. They go away, and reps begin.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Would you care to explain exactly why any of Gramlins allies should refuse to defend them from any opportunistic attackers?[/quote]
Because to 'defend' them (only MHA could actually claim that legitimately) is to support their position. Isn't that why you signed a separate peace in the first place?

Nice straw man, AB. I'm used to it from you, though.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='13 June 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1276484250' post='2336680']
You attacked two, citing the reason for your attack as 'they are guilty and should surrender to us'. You leave the others.

Now, I will ask my question [b][i]again[/i][/b]. Try to respond without attempting to reduce my ethos.
[size="4"][b]
Why [u]specifically[/u] IRON and DAWN? [/b][/size]
[/quote]
Since you ignored my question again (again, again, again, again), I underlined it, bolded it, and made it larger for your convenience. Try and notice it this time. Maybe even try and respond to it.

[Voytek]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='16 June 2010 - 05:28 AM' timestamp='1276630086' post='2338532']
I don't agree with all of Bobs posts but he actually seem unbiased and not afraid to tell off people whether they be allies or enemies. Does the fact that he might not share a strictly Pro-SG view upset you?
[/quote]
There's not having a pro-SF/CnG view and then there's not having a pro-SF/CnG view. Bob, unfortunately, is one of the people who find it difficult to express criticism of us without devolving into paranoia and tinfoil hattery.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='15 June 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1276630086' post='2338532']
I don't agree with all of Bobs posts but he actually seem unbiased and not afraid to tell off people whether they be allies or enemies. Does the fact that he might not share a strictly Pro-SG view upset you?
[/quote]

Wow, after all these pages this keeps on yeilding gems. Where were you during the last war? (isnt this a new one bob? lol) Janova unbiased is pretty god dam funny. I like Bob though, he is a very smart guy and a loyal one too.

Thanks for the laugh bro.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Thorgrum

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='RustyNail' date='15 June 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1276623135' post='2338392']
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.
[/quote]

Remember 10-10-10, Rusty? None of us can afford to do anything about this. We have another party to get ready for.

[Clash]

[url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=115876"]Christian Trojans[/url] has returned to IRON.
Also a lovely fellow named [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=137177"]SheerAscended[/url] has joined.
Things are getting entertaining!

It really only takes a few more battle-happy people to make Gre completely moot. Gre only has about 11 big nations left to war with anyways. If just a few more bigger nations wander over to IRON, then perhaps IRON can finally just ignore Gre completely and come out of peace mode en masse. Then get on with paying off reps. Gre becomes as inconsequential in reality as they are politically, and can either walk the walk and fight, or give peace - or do nothing I guess. They do seem to be good at that last part so far.

[Zangmonkey]

[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]

Perhaps your should pose your question to our leadership circa January.
I can't answer as to what circumstances put as at war with IRON and not any other of the members of your list.

Though I stand by what I told gamemaster: we don't need to stand in front of a train to stand for something.

It is possible to oppose moral wrong without simultaneously going to war with all those who have done wrong (and this is [b]your[/b] premise not mine, that those groups are equally culpable)

If, in fact, those alliances are as culpable as you imply they are then I should hope that IRON demonstrating some accountability would be a great motivator for all alliances on the planet.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='15 June 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1276657563' post='2338998']
Though I stand by what I told gamemaster: we don't need to stand in front of a train to stand for something.
[/quote]
But... you are. Granted, it's a really slow moving train right now, but what would be the difference, really? Except that TOP could actually do real damage to you rather quickly.

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='15 June 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1276657563' post='2338998']It is possible to oppose moral wrong without simultaneously going to war with all those who have done wrong (and this is [b]your[/b] premise not mine, that those groups are equally culpable)[/quote]
Stupid moral posturing is stupid.

This "we're better people than you" crap is just that, subjective crap. Everyone has an opinion, that's yours, and mine says y'all are of an inferior moral fiber. See how that works? My opinion matters just as much as yours. It seems most people posting in this thread - and most likely the knowledgeable ones around CN in general - think your morality is lower than that of IRON's. Standing on a pedestal and shouting your moral superiority often tends to rub raw like that - especially when you're wrong on it. Their opinions matter as much as yours does as well, and there do seem to be a lot more of them. So please knock that stupid crap right off k? It fails.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='15 June 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1276657563' post='2338998']
(and this is [b]your[/b] premise not mine, that those groups are equally culpable)
[/quote]

As culpable as DAWN right? It is in fact your premise that engaging in a preemptive strike is what they are guilty of. Unless there's something else driving this that you're not telling us?

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 June 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1276657563' post='2338998']
<snip>
[/quote]
So how goes your crusade, Matthew? Anywhere closer to the result that you're after yet?

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='15 June 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1276637956' post='2338674']
Because to 'defend' them (only MHA could actually claim that legitimately) is to support their position. Isn't that why you signed a separate peace in the first place?

Nice straw man, AB. I'm used to it from you, though.
[/quote]

How is it a strawman? You [b]literally[/b] state that the Mushroom Kingdom is to blame for anyone who attacks or plans to attack us.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='15 June 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1276657563' post='2338998']
Perhaps your should pose your question to our leadership circa January.
I can't answer as to what circumstances put as at war with IRON and not any other of the members of your list.

Though I stand by what I told gamemaster: we don't need to stand in front of a train to stand for something.

It is possible to oppose moral wrong without simultaneously going to war with all those who have done wrong (and this is [b]your[/b] premise not mine, that those groups are equally culpable)

If, in fact, those alliances are as culpable as you imply they are then I should hope that IRON demonstrating some accountability would be a great motivator for all alliances on the planet.
[/quote]

You have missed the point yet again. Why IRON? Why DAWN? There were 6 alliances, why those two? Why not TSO [i]instead[/i] of DAWN?

Is there any other way to ask these questions? Seriously?

[The Warrior]

Perhaps a clarification for you Matthew:

Gamemaster simply wants to know how you settled on (IRON and DAWN) and not (TSO and TORN) for instance.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='15 June 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1276630086' post='2338532']
I don't agree with all of Bobs posts but he actually seem unbiased and not afraid to tell off people whether they be allies or enemies. Does the fact that he might not share a strictly Pro-SG view upset you?
[/quote]
Hahaha your uninformed posts just keep getting better and better, you keep on entertaining buddy

Edited June 16, 2010 by Cataduanes

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 June 2010 - 04:56 AM' timestamp='1276660544' post='2339076']
As culpable as DAWN right? It is in fact your premise that engaging in a preemptive strike is what they are guilty of. Unless there's something else driving this that you're not telling us?
[/quote]
The way DAWN came into the war with Gre is what irked most of us who were there,
At a time when we might have appeared vulnerable, vulnerable enough to have our official opponents enquiring as to weather we would be interested in surrendering, to have a scuzzy little alliance piling in without a by your leave or even the courtesy of any 1:1 communication at an official level at any stage during the war was more than a little irksome, even tho in the end they simply provided targets for nations that would otherwise have had none,

Had Gre not gone off the deep end then DAWN would have been the only alliance from the last war that would have ended up paying reps to GRE purely because of there conduct

One of the most irritating things from this whole mess other than the collapse of an alliance I loved is that DAWN have gained far more prominence and sympathy than they deserve

[Stetson76]

Okay, so I can see that. I don't agree with it, but I can understand that feeling.

Perhaps you can give us some insight as to the target selection at the beginning of the war? Why IRON and not the other preemptive strikers, since they all basically did what you were so irked at DAWN for doing. Or, is Matthew really just coming up with this faux outrage at IRON/DAWN now that the gamble to get unconditional surrender has failed?

To put it more succinctly was GRE morally outraged at the preemption, or just defending their allies when this all kicked off?

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 June 2010 - 08:31 AM' timestamp='1276673474' post='2339250']
Okay, so I can see that. I don't agree with it, but I can understand that feeling.

Perhaps you can give us some insight as to the target selection at the beginning of the war? Why IRON and not the other preemptive strikers, since they all basically did what you were so irked at DAWN for doing. Or, is Matthew really just coming up with this faux outrage at IRON/DAWN now that the gamble to get unconditional surrender has failed?

To put it more succinctly was GRE morally outraged at the preemption, or just defending their allies when this all kicked off?
[/quote]
I think I've said many times that what is occuring now has nothing at all to do with the start of the war

At the start of this Gre had said that we would stand by our freinds, it was definatly against our interests both in relationships and stratigicaly to allow CnG/SF to take a big hit without involving ourselves. We had made plain that we would defend any of our freinds who were attacked unjustly, and that we were getting fed up with certain people using any crisis on the far side of the treaty web to attempt to chain into a crusade against certain of our freinds.
When the crisis erupted, given that Gre could not take on TOP, there were too many old freindships between members for either alliance to consider declaring open hositilities, IRON was the logical target, they had the most nations in our fighting range and hving Gre take apart there top tier whilst MHA dealt with the rest pretty much took them out of the war

IRON/TOP were the only ones that mattered in that little coilition the rest were pretty irrelavent,
DAWN chose to become involved with Gre in the way they did, had they acted with the decency of OG and Zenith then there would have been little problem with them

As for whats occuring now, it's up to whats left of Gre to justify there own actions but they have nothing to do with the original DoW back in Jan

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='15 June 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1276662434' post='2339109']
How is it a strawman? You [b]literally[/b] state that the Mushroom Kingdom is to blame for anyone who attacks or plans to attack us.
[/quote]

Really? Do you have a quote for that? Or do you not know what "literally" means?

Follow the chain of conversation back to Kalasin. When Janova says "You're trying to goad NPO into a war and it's no prettier coming from you than it was from them.", the "You" he's referring to is Kalasin (member of ODN), not MK.