The New Grämlins

[TypoNinja]

You aren't even trying anymore Matt, flat contradictions with no justification, Outright ignoring the thorny questions, answering with a regurgitation of the party line rather than addressing the point, Overly large letters.

Maybe you should take a few to step back and restock, you are getting worse as this goes on.

[FlogYou]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1276825093' post='2341314']
Ironic isn't it?
This futility....
You personally favor a plan to derive an obviously insincere statement from Ram?
[/quote]


And you refuse to attack an IRON nation after asking to be present with one in your range.

Shocking I say!

[andrew734]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1276825063' post='2341313']
Are you confused about which alliance I am in? None of my leaders are in PM
[/quote]



TO use your own words READING COMPREHENSION personal message

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='andrew734' date='17 June 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1276828721' post='2341383']
TO use your own words READING COMPREHENSION personal message
[/quote]



Oops, thanks for the head up.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Matthew PK

[bakamitai]

[quote name='Methrage' date='17 June 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1276756437' post='2340428']
Gremlins growing bored of this war are welcome to join Kerberos Nexus or merge the entire alliance into Kerberos Nexus, although I would still get to be King, but I could let you guys do your stat collecting and economic programs. Join the Dark Side...
[/quote]
Post wins the thread. In before someone tech raids Gremlins because "our charter allows it".

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1276825063' post='2341313']
Yeah?
Maybe DAWN should ask Matt Miller (or anybody in OG who we fought) how to fight a war with class.
[/quote]

Maybe Von Droz should take a lesson from Matt_Miller too.

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1276825093' post='2341314']
The Gremlins want few things more than an end to this war.
"White Peace" is unacceptable. The Gremlins will not allow IRON to "just walk away"
The unfortunate but necessary course of action is a continued war.
[/quote]

So Matthew, the Gremlins have offered unconditional surrender as their path to peace. IRON has offered white peace. The reason that the Gramlins are seen to be keeping IRON in a state of war and not vice versa, is because IRON and DAWN are willing to negotiate an end to this war.

Ramirus and you have stated that no negotiation can occur until IRON surrenders and lays down their arms. How can you possibly claim that IRON/DAWN is keeping themselves or the Gramlins at war when it is on record that we want to negotiate and have offered one defined term?

The party 'holding the other party in war' is not the one who is open to negotiate an end to the conflict. It is the party who ISN'T willing to negotiate at all.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='17 June 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1276833479' post='2341493']
So Matthew, the Gremlins have offered unconditional surrender as their path to peace. IRON has offered white peace. The reason that the Gramlins are seen to be keeping IRON in a state of war and not vice versa, is because IRON and DAWN are willing to negotiate an end to this war.

Ramirus and you have stated that no negotiation can occur until IRON surrenders and lays down their arms. How can you possibly claim that IRON/DAWN is keeping themselves or the Gramlins at war when it is on record that we want to negotiate and have offered one defined term?

The party 'holding the other party in war' is not the one who is open to negotiate an end to the conflict. It is the party who ISN'T willing to negotiate at all.
[/quote]

"Unwilling to negotiate" and "Desiring perpetual war" are not the same thing, even in some cases when one may lead to the other.

[ironchef]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 June 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1276809760' post='2341004']
Unacceptable because they don’t know what they are. No alliance will ever surrender just to be given terms that will be revealed to them after the fact. What part of that do you guys not understand? If gre would surrender under such demands, then you are the only alliance on PB that would put its members in such a position. No alliance leader worth a dam would put their alliance in such a vulnerable position and any that would are not fit to lead. IRON and DAWN have told you thier terms are white peace for all Gre members. You still insist on keeping yours a big secret.
[/quote]


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1276825093' post='2341314']

We have [b]never[/b] demanded IRON accept terms without knowing them.
Not once.
Yet you continue to claim such... Are you deliberately being dishonest or have you not been comprehending what you're reading?
[/quote]

And I [b]never[/b] said you demanded anything of IRON “Reading Comprehension” I never claimed any such thing,
Are you deliberately being dishonest or have you not been comprehending what you're reading?

I did say "No alliance will ever surrender just to be given terms that will be revealed to them after the fact." [u]What part of that do you guys not understand?[/u]

You didn’t answer my question so I put a little line under it

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 June 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1276834037' post='2341504']
And I [b]never[/b] said you demanded anything of IRON “Reading Comprehension” I never claimed any such thing,
Are you deliberately being dishonest or have you not been comprehending what you're reading?

I did say "No alliance will ever surrender just to be given terms that will be revealed to them after the fact." [u]What part of that do you guys not understand?[/u]

You didn’t answer my question so I put a little line under it
[/quote]


Sorry, I got so used to reading that old lie being repeated by so many that I imagined it in your post.

What I don't understand is what a group like IRON has/had to fear from it.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Matthew PK

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 05:06 AM' timestamp='1276833998' post='2341503']
"Unwilling to negotiate" and "Desiring perpetual war" are not the same thing, even in some cases when one may lead to the other.
[/quote]

I did say that you were unwilling to negotiate. I did not say that you are desiring perpetual war. I am asking you: [u]how it can be claimed that IRON is holding itself in a state of war when we ARE willing to negotiate an end?[/u]

I would quote your famous phrase here, but I don't want to sound crass.

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1276825093' post='2341314']The Gremlins want few things more than an end to this war.
"White Peace" is unacceptable. The Gremlins will not allow IRON to "just walk away"
The unfortunate but necessary course of action is a continued war.[/quote]
In past posts, you've taken things out of context in order to support your opinions as being inarguable facts. This is merely another example of it. You are not telling the whole truth, just the part of it that's self-serving.

IRON is not getting white peace from EVERYONE. They have agreed to terms and reps with several alliances, and attempting to paint it differently is a lie by omission. IRON is not going to "just walk away." Claiming such is an outright lie. IRON is offering white peace to GRE, and Gre only. You are NOT speaking for every other alliance IRON was at war with - you are speaking for one and one alone, Gre. Do not attempt to phrase it as such - and YES, you did.

Every other alliance has settled with IRON and agreed to terms. You are the only ones left. You are not defending anyone else, and barely even yourselves. This is sort of the point. You seem to think you deserve MORE than white peace, and no one else agrees with you. Certainly IRON doesn't. Once again: You attacked IRON. You are continuing to war without anyone to defend. Without defense, the only thing left is offense.

You have denied attempts to permawar IRON in the past.
I think this part of your post says very differently.
Perhaps this is why your "terms" are so ridiculously unreasonable?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='17 June 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1276834924' post='2341531']
I did say that you were unwilling to negotiate. I did not say that you are desiring perpetual war. I am asking you: [u]how it can be claimed that IRON is holding itself in a state of war when we ARE willing to negotiate an end?[/u]

I would quote your famous phrase here, but I don't want to sound crass.
[/quote]

You implied GRE was holding you in a war.

I claim we are both making choices to stay in war.

[quote name='Clash' date='17 June 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1276835116' post='2341539']
In past posts, you've taken things out of context in order to support your opinions as being inarguable facts. This is merely another example of it. You are not telling the whole truth, just the part of it that's self-serving.

IRON is not getting white peace from EVERYONE. They have agreed to terms and reps with several alliances, and attempting to paint it differently is a lie by omission. IRON is not going to "just walk away." Claiming such is an outright lie. IRON is offering white peace to GRE, and Gre only. You are NOT speaking for every other alliance IRON was at war with - you are speaking for one and one alone, Gre. Do not attempt to phrase it as such - and YES, you did.

Every other alliance has settled with IRON and agreed to terms. You are the only ones left. You are not defending anyone else, and barely even yourselves. This is sort of the point. You seem to think you deserve MORE than white peace, and no one else agrees with you. Certainly IRON doesn't. Once again: You attacked IRON. You are continuing to war without anyone to defend. Without defense, the only thing left is offense.

You have denied attempts to permawar IRON in the past.
I think this part of your post says very differently.
Perhaps this is why your "terms" are so ridiculously unreasonable?
[/quote]


I have stated multiple times that the bribes paid to other alliance for your release are insufficient.
IRON's offer of white peace to GRE is unacceptable.
IRON is "just walking away" by our perspective *because* the tradition of "pay reps, walk away" is insufficient. It accomplishes nothing.

I don't think GRE "deserves" anything.
This isn't about what GRE "deserves" but what should be required of IRON.

There is nothing unreasonable about our terms. I implore you to prove otherwise.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Matthew PK

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1276835212' post='2341540']
You implied GRE was holding you in a war.
[/quote]

No, I didn't. Obligatory: "Reading Comprehension".
I simply asked you how it could be [i]claimed[/i] that IRON is holding itself in war. I am merely wondering what the method is behind such a claim.

[quote name= 'Matthew PK' date= '18 June 2010 - 02:38 AM']
The Gremlins want few things more than an end to this war.
[/quote]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1276835212' post='2341540']
I claim we are both making choices to stay in war.
[/quote]

I thought that was interesting.

Edited June 18, 2010 by The Warrior

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1276835212' post='2341540']
I claim we are both making choices to stay in war.
[/quote]
I claim Gre's presented options to avoid war are incredible unreasonable and stupid.
The only reasonable option left is war.

By comparison, IRON's option to end war between IRON and Gre - notice that important point, not everyone else, just those two alliances - are entirely reasonable. Since all other sides of the war are settled agreeably, and this is the only war left, this context is important to keep in mind.

Between IRON and Gre, white peace is entirely reasonable.
Gre deserves no more - and arguably much less.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1276804487' post='2340901']
No.
IRON was unequivocally [b]not[/b] made accountable for their actions.
[/quote]
The people who they attacked disagree.

I get the feeling you think IRON violated the categorical imperative. Are you a disciple of Immanuel Kant by any chance?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='17 June 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1276812157' post='2341052']
Certainly victorious parties have declined it before, but this is gotta be the first time the loser in a war didn't want it.
[/quote]
OcUK declined it in WotC as well, citing Ragnarok's preemptive attack as a reason to keep fighting.

Oh the irony.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='17 June 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1276835796' post='2341552']
No, I didn't. Obligatory: "Reading Comprehension".
I simply asked you how it could be [i]claimed[/i] that IRON is holding itself in war. I am merely wondering what the method is behind such a claim. [/quote]

[quote name='you']
The party 'holding the other party in war' is not the one who is open to negotiate an end to the conflict. It is the party who ISN'T willing to negotiate at all. [/quote]

You clearly imply that the party not willing to negotiate is "holding the other party in war"



[quote]
I thought that was interesting.
[/quote]

Of course we are both choosing to stay in war.
This is a fact because each of us has offered a clear path to peace and the other is choosing not to take it.

That doesn't mean that we desire war anymore than it means you desire war.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='17 June 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1276836033' post='2341561']
The people who they attacked disagree.

I get the feeling you think IRON violated the categorical imperative. Are you a disciple of Immanuel Kant by any chance?
[/quote]

I stated early on in the thread that [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=242160"]This leader[/url] was more interesting and relevant..... then of course people got all mad at me for trying to "involve The Legion"

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1276837498' post='2341582']
I stated early on in the thread that [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=242160"]This leader[/url] was more interesting and relevant..... then of course people got all mad at me for trying to "involve The Legion"
[/quote]
Camus ... well I have my issues with him, but one thing he never stood for was the kind of moral absolutism you guys are going for here. This is the land of Mill, Bentham and Kant.

[ironchef]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1276834309' post='2341512']
Sorry, I got so used to reading that old lie being repeated by so many that I imagined it in your post.

What I don't understand is what a group like IRON has/had to fear from it.
[/quote]

Fare enough we have all misread one or two posts in this monster of a thread.

To answer your question I will give my outside perspective.
My time as an alliance leader I would have not unconditionally surrendered without knowing terms simply for the fear of the unknown. When you have 400+ nations looking to you for guidance and protection and you function as a family unit, every decision you make has to be weighed. 1) What are the odds? 2) Could this decision cause my members more harm than good? 3) Is there an alternative to the option before me? The fear of the unknown is a powerful thing Matt.

Lets look at this from IRON/DAWN’S point of view.

First the odds. At best they are 50/50 those odds are not good enough to face the unknown. Therefore a decision to take the unconditional surrender offered without first knowing the terns of surrender could cause more harm than good to the members of those alliances.

Is there an alternative to the option before me? Yes there was, they had the option to say no and fight Gre. This option when weighed had a much more favorable outcome for the members of IRON and DAWN.

This war will continue as long as the option of war with Gre is more favorable than what you have offered to end it.
At no point will unconditional surrender with unknown terms ever be a reasonable option for any alliance to take.

I ask that you think about what I have said here Matt. You don’t have to agree with me, all I ask is that you try to see another point of view.

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1276835212' post='2341540']1. I have stated multiple times that the bribes paid to other alliance for your release are insufficient.
IRON's offer of white peace to GRE is unacceptable.
IRON is "just walking away" by our perspective *because* the tradition of "pay reps, walk away" is insufficient. It accomplishes nothing.

I don't think GRE "deserves" anything.
This isn't about what GRE "deserves" but what should be required of IRON.

2. There is nothing unreasonable about our terms. I implore you to prove otherwise.
[/quote]
1. What bribes? Are you referring to the reps? Again, you speak for YOURSELF.
The alliances who have agreed to terms with IRON think very differently.
YOU. DO. NOT. SPEAK. FOR. THEM.
ONLY yourself.

The middle statement is therefore the most damning of all. And the biggest misrepresentation of the truth. This is what YOU think should be required of IRON, this is an important distinction and one you continually and purposely misrepresnt. It's ONLY YOU.

2. See, you're the one asking for a bunch for stuff from IRON, IRON isn't asking for anything from Gre - that's what white means of course. We both walk away. In logical arguments, I don't have to prove IRON does NOT owe anything to Gre. YOU have to prove IRON DOES. You certainly have done no such thing. As of course, for the 27th time - you are ONLY speaking for Gre. No one else, they speak - and HAVE spoken - for themselves as far as IRON goes.

So. Why does IRON owe Gre squat?

You're losing Matty.
Everyone see it - and I think even YOU do, too.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1276833998' post='2341503']
"Unwilling to negotiate" and "Desiring perpetual war" are not the same thing, even in some cases when one may lead to the other.
[/quote]

Your attempts at word games aside, this has been covered before, in other wars even.

Offering ridiculous terms that are designed to be rejected and then claiming its the other side continuing the war doesn't fly.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 June 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1276837823' post='2341590']
To answer your question I will give my outside perspective.
My time as an alliance leader I would have not unconditionally surrendered without knowing terms simply for the fear of the unknown. When you have 400+ nations looking to you for guidance and protection and you function as a family unit, every decision you make has to be weighed. 1) What are the odds? 2) Could this decision cause my members more harm than good? 3) Is there an alternative to the option before me? The fear of the unknown is a powerful thing Matt.[/quote]
Of course fear of the unknown is a powerful motivator. I addressed this (to repeated replies of "lol IRON isn't afraid of you") in the first few scores of pages.

However in this case there is very little to fear... which is why it's less understandable.
GRE cannot possibly offer harsh terms.
Not only because our codex forbids it (cue: "lol codex") but also because we (thankfully!) exist in a world which is ruled both by mechanics of possibility *and* a limited tolerance of citizens. Nobody would stand for GRE giving IRON harsh terms.

Finally, GRE (despite everybody's posturing nonsense that we're "insane") isn't stupid. We have no incentive to, at the point of actually getting what we've fought for, throwing it away with some stupid nonsense terms.

You and I both know that [b]nobody[/b] who understand [b]anything[/b] actually thinks GRE ever intended to force some crippling terms on IRON.
People can resist the premise of our demanding unconditional surrender.... they can tell us we'll never get it and that we're crazy for being so persistent...
But nobody but trolls (the kinds who live under bridges and eat goats) truly believes our aim is some atrocious crippling list of surrender terms.

[quote] Lets look at this from IRON/DAWN’S point of view.

First the odds. At best they are 50/50 those odds are not good enough to face the unknown. Therefore a decision to take the unconditional surrender offered without first knowing the terns of surrender could cause more harm than good to the members of those alliances.[/quote]

I, for one, think some accountability would do them good... it would do a lot of people some good.
50/50? Between what and what?

[quote]Is there an alternative to the option before me? Yes there was, they had the option to say no and fight Gre. This option when weighed had a much more favorable outcome for the members of IRON and DAWN. [/quote]

There is always a choice in Planet Bob.
Always.
Even if GRE had everything and IRON had nothing they would still have a choice.
They are choosing to fight the war.... ok... whatever.
I think they have made this choice because they see a window to slip away without any accountability; not because GRE's path to peace is "dangerous."

[quote]This war will continue as long as the option of war with Gre is more favorable than what you have offered to end it. [/quote]

Our offer to end it shouldn't be viewed as anything more than IRON accepting accountability for their actions to initiate this conflict.
You are speaking as if this were an issue to be decided by scales which measure nothing but potential infra loss.
There is great honor in accepting responsibility for your actions when you don't have to. I hope IRON will see this eventually.

[quote]At no point will unconditional surrender with unknown terms ever be a reasonable option for any alliance to take. [/quote]

It won't if you presume that surrendering is some pre-signed agreement to comply with all subsequent unknown terms.


[quote]I ask that you think about what I have said here Matt. You don’t have to agree with me, all I ask is that you try to see another point of view.
[/quote]

I appreciate the discussion
It's a great relief from the more common nonsense of the thread.




[quote name='TypoNinja' date='17 June 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1276838538' post='2341601']
Your attempts at word games aside, this has been covered before, in other wars even.

Offering ridiculous terms that are designed to be rejected and then claiming its the other side continuing the war doesn't fly.
[/quote]

You have made the assumption that the terms are designed to be rejected.
Since that is false your point is invalid.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1276839596' post='2341621']
You have made the assumption that the terms are designed to be rejected.
Since that is false your point is invalid.
[/quote]
...but your terms are incredibly silly, and of course, they are YOUR terms, no one else's.
They can therefore only be rejected. His point is VERY valid.

Many pages back I claimed Gre owes me a pony as terms for their surrender. I notice you didn't accept them.
That's because my terms literally have the exact same legitimacy as yours.

There is no reason in the world of Bob for IRON to accept any terms other than white peace where YOU are concerned, not a one. IRON has already accepted terms from others, everything else has already been settled to satisfaction - except between IRON and Gre. Very arguably, you owe IRON reps for your continued aggression. IRON is being more than reasonable by offering white peace, considering seeking terms for your surrender is a very valid course of action.

Prove IRON owes Gre anything.