The New Grämlins

[Derantol]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1276900219' post='2342279']
Since I apparently have trouble interpreting that.. maybe you can help!
[/quote]

What he's saying is that we suspect that the terms might be unreasonable based on the fact that you won't tell us what they are. He's also saying that you are telling us to prove that they are, in fact, unreasonable, while claiming that they aren't.

We have a suspicion.
You have a claim.

Sure, we can make efforts to prove our suspicion. But you have the means to prove your claim; it's up to you to take that step, or find a different one.

[franciscus]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 June 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1276878779' post='2341977']
I agree, and what I found funny was that you admitted that DAWN entered agressively contrary to shilo who made the opposite claim.[/quote]
You misinterpreted my post. I didn't admit we entered aggressively against Gre, I argued that even according to your logic and your interpretation of events we didn't absolutely need a DoW.

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 June 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1276878779' post='2341977']With this old fashioned way of thinking I disagree. It is not the way you enter that makes you the agressor, it is the reason why you go to war that makes the difference.
In this case, as we all knew, Gremlins had vowed to defend those who were close to them. In my opinion you don't need to put such a simple thing on paper, one's word should be enough. With the knowledge you had when you declared on MK when you did you can't say afterwards that you weren't aware Gremlins would defend them.[/quote]
Pardon an old lady, old fashion is my middle name If that's the case, does it matter if I say our preemptive strike was, in fact, to defend NSO? (I'm sure it doesn't and your side has already written the history that says it doesn't, but humor me) See, that's e-lawyering. What I do is not e-lawyering, is simply pointing out facts.
If Gre wouldn't have entered the war at all, you couldn't have said you're very surprised about it, either, what with their lack of treaties/obligations. If Gre were to defend TOP, you couldn't have been surprised either, since they say they still liked TOP at the time. See, that's why I like simple things in life. I can live with someone for how many years we like each other, but in the end we'll might need some written laws if we are to split our collective fortune accumulated over the years. Otherwise, one might not think the same as the other. And arguments like this arise.

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 June 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1276878779' post='2341977']I dislike e-lawyering, and what you're doing here is part of DAWNs attempts to paint Gremlins as the aggressors even though clearly they weren't in this conflict.
[/quote]
Yes, they were. You can argue against it all you like, imho they are aggressors. You may call me an e-lawyer all you like, but a treaty means a clear war engagement while not having a treaty can become anything the victors want.

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 June 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1276878779' post='2341977']To make a comparison, take the \m/ war and FOKs involvement. If someone attacks a good friend of mine, I'm not going to say to him "we don't have a treaty, I won't defend you". Nor would anyone expect me to since they knew we're good friends.[/quote]
You don't have to have a treaty to jump in fire for someone. You just have to have the balls to acknowledge the fact that you can be an independent aggressor while doing what you think is right. You suck it up and do your best on the battlefield. And if you really want them PR points, if your side wins, you don't act like the moral police and ask for unconditional surrender, give a quarter and guess what's behind door number 3. That's certainly gonna ruin the fun for you.

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 June 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1276878779' post='2341977']It's mostly because of shilos whining in this thread and others. He makes me get sympathy for Gremlins since he can't converse normally.[/quote]
I know, I feel like whipping him regularly too. He's not whining, that's just his voice.

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 June 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1276878779' post='2341977']
As for Gremlins, I think their actions are rational, but almost no one agrees with their rationale. So what you get is both sides making the same arguments all over each time since they cannot convince the other of their position. How many times have we gone circular in this thread by now?
[/quote]
We have nothing better to do.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1276899825' post='2342270']
Are you really making the statement that nobody has claimed our terms [b]are[/b] unreasonable?
[/quote]


I thought you were asserting that terms were not necessary. I could have sworn you made a post in the other thread arguing that you were breaking from the norm by not having any. Please try to keep some internal consistency within your arguments.

Edited June 19, 2010 by crazy canuck

[Tromp]

[quote name='franciscus' date='19 June 2010 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1276903279' post='2342302']
You misinterpreted my post. I didn't admit we entered aggressively against Gre, I argued that even according to your logic and your interpretation of events we didn't absolutely need a DoW.
[/quote]
But that was never in dispute to my knowledge.
[quote]
Pardon an old lady, old fashion is my middle name If that's the case, does it matter if I say our preemptive strike was, in fact, to defend NSO? (I'm sure it doesn't and your side has already written the history that says it doesn't, but humor me) See, that's e-lawyering. What I do is not e-lawyering, is simply pointing out facts.
If Gre wouldn't have entered the war at all, you couldn't have said you're very surprised about it, either, what with their lack of treaties/obligations. If Gre were to defend TOP, you couldn't have been surprised either, since they say they still liked TOP at the time. See, that's why I like simple things in life. I can live with someone for how many years we like each other, but in the end we'll might need some written laws if we are to split our collective fortune accumulated over the years. Otherwise, one might not think the same as the other. And arguments like this arise.
[/quote]
Well, it's a fact that CnG was not in any way involved in the \m/ conflict, so that argument falls flat on its face.

I'll agree that the paperless route causes a lot of headaches though, but mostly to those that are not informed as to the state of affairs of Gremlins in this case (even though the announcement they made was pretty clear to me).
[quote]
Yes, they were. You can argue against it all you like, imho they are aggressors. You may call me an e-lawyer all you like, but a treaty means a clear war engagement while not having a treaty can become anything [b]the victors[/b] want.
[/quote]
Indeed the victors write history, but that still doesn't mean that Gremlins position is/was automatically invalid.
[quote]
You don't have to have a treaty to jump in fire for someone. You just have to have the balls to acknowledge the fact that you can be an independent aggressor while doing what you think is right. You suck it up and do your best on the battlefield. And if you really want them PR points, if your side wins, you don't act like the moral police and ask for unconditional surrender, give a quarter and guess what's behind door number 3. That's certainly gonna ruin the fun for you.
[/quote]
It's not a fact that I'm an aggressor in that case, on the contrary. I'd argue I'm there to prevent an injustice against said friend, but my defense of him stops as soon as the threat has been dealt with and he's satisfied with the result.
[quote]
I know, I feel like whipping him regularly too. He's not whining, that's just his voice.


We have nothing better to do.
[/quote]
Possibly the best conclusion of this thread thus far.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 June 2010 - 09:33 AM' timestamp='1276878779' post='2341977']
As for Gremlins, I think their actions are rational, but almost no one agrees with their rationale. So what you get is both sides making the same arguments all over each time since they cannot convince the other of their position. How many times have we gone circular in this thread by now?
[/quote]


Circular is by defintion when you end up in the same place each time. It seems to me this thread has made some progress in showing just how irrational the Gremlins position is. As with all forms of irrational behaviour some of them may not yet realize the problem but I am sure the possibility of recognition is at least closer then it was before.

[Jakome]

Any chance you guys can just start doing a recap every 20 or so pages?

[Tromp]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='19 June 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1276907515' post='2342359']
Circular is by defintion when you end up in the same place each time. It seems to me this thread has made some progress in showing just how irrational the Gremlins position is. As with all forms of irrational behaviour some of them may not yet realize the problem but I am sure the possibility of recognition is at least closer then it was before.
[/quote]
I disagree, I think this thread just made Gremlins position clearer to the population of Bob even though we've seen the same arguments at least 5 times by now.
Whether the arguments made by MPK makes Gremlins position more or less irrational is for every individual present here to decide.

[amad123]

[quote name='franciscus' date='18 June 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1276903279' post='2342302']
I know, I feel like whipping him regularly too. He's not whining, that's just his voice. We have nothing better to do.
[/quote]
Actually every time Frannie brings out her whip Shilo gets a big smile on his face, and he's not the only one.


All this talk about the past and who should have done what and who did what is rather pointless. The past is done it can't be changed. All you can do is change what is happening right now and plan for the future. My orginal thoughts was that Gramlins might take a year or longer to take down. Now I'm thinking we are entering a significant phase in the war. Matt Miller has shown that it only takes about two rounds of war to bring a 80kNS nation down to 25kNS. At 25kNS there are about 50 of us (the meat grinders). I suspect in the next round the last 80kNS Gremlins will be fed to the meat grinders and then it's on to the 100kNS nations. I guess the question is will we continue to drag them down 2 or 3 at a time or will we suddenly blitz the remaining nations and have one big final dustup.

Either way it now looks like by the end of the summer all of the Gramlins could be fed through the meat grinder and then it's just a matter eating through their warchests. Perhaps we will have peace by Christmas, which is something all soldiers hope for.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Jakome' date='18 June 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1276907952' post='2342367']
Any chance you guys can just start doing a recap every 20 or so pages?
[/quote]
Why bother, it would always read the same.

[FlogYou]

[quote name='wickedj' date='18 June 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1276895982' post='2342226']
This thread is about 200 pages past when it stopped making sense and you all should feel bad
[/quote]

But that's what makes BOB as safe and warm security blanket. Feeling bad is a whole lot safer than a young prostitue and that's a more moral than claiming you'll hit an IRON nation within your range, then, well, let's just say someone is taking their sweet time.

[Jakome]

[quote name='Hyperbad' date='18 June 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1276913168' post='2342457']
Why bother, it would always read the same.
[/quote]
Because then I could throw in my uniformed opinion on topic

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1276899825' post='2342270']
Are you really making the statement that nobody has claimed our terms [b]are[/b] unreasonable?
[/quote]
Are you really even attempting to respond to my posts anymore?

Our very argument against unconditional surrender is that [u][b]we don't know what the terms are.[/b][/u] They could be unreasonable. They might not be.
But we don't trust you.

You, rather, claim that they [i][u][b]are[/b][/u][/i] reasonable. Prove it.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Jakome' date='18 June 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1276907952' post='2342367']
Any chance you guys can just start doing a recap every 20 or so pages?
[/quote]
They are.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Jakome' date='18 June 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1276907952' post='2342367']
Any chance you guys can just start doing a recap every 20 or so pages?
[/quote]

Hasnt changed much, only the details of whats being argued over.

Gre has put itself on a self destructive course that their own ego demands they maintain because to them admitting error is worse than killing their own alliance.

Multiple people take turns responding to MattPK, the sole voice defending Gre, we demolish him point for point. He continues on as if we'd said nothing.

Gre is desperately pursuing the Argumentum ad Nauseam debate strategy in hopes this all goes away and nobodoy will notice they never actually justified anything.

Repeat every 20 pages or so.

Edited June 19, 2010 by TypoNinja

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1276752063' post='2340365']
There are still no IRON nations out of PM in my range. Raidon, CT, UNROCK (or any other such ghosts) are not the IRON I went to war with and are not culpable for the motivation behind the present action.
[/quote]

I am IRON and I am no ghost. I applied and I was accepted. I was TOP before IRON so I am as culpable as anyone wearing the IRON AA in your eyes.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 June 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1276825093' post='2341314']
"White Peace" is unacceptable. The Gremlins will not allow IRON to "just walk away"
[/quote]

How will you "not allow them" without force?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='18 June 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1276879210' post='2341985']
Believing they will surrender and thinking we have the military force to make them surrender are different things.
Anybody who believed GRE alone had the strength to "force" IRON to surrender is an idiot, as I stated in my previous post.
[/quote]

So you know full well that you lack the force to make them surrender unconditionally yet you continue marching Gramlins towards destruction?

I have spoken with many Gramlins recently and one of the most common things I have heard from them is they don't support what their alliance is doing at present, but they have been with them so long that they are willing to go down with the ship. I was also surprised at the great amount of inactivity and the ones that asked questions like, "why are IRON attacking Gramlins?"

I would suggest to you, Matthew, Ertyy, Ramirus, and anyone else who believes in the current Gramlins path to actualize your commitment on the battlefield and stop letting inactive or unconvinced nations be your meatshields.

To anyone in Gramlins who does not support the current path, I would suggest you use your power of vote to remove those in power that do not hold your alliances best interests at heart.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='amad123' date='18 June 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1276878158' post='2341966']
Guess which alliance has only [size="6"][b]26 [/b][/size]members now?
[/quote]

I know, I had to update my [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=357&showentry=1752"]running blog entry[/url].

Maybe instead we should be talking about how far above the "raid line" Gramlins is at any given moment. Assuming we place that at 20, then they at +6. If you want to go with 15, then they are still at +11 and not really thinking about raiding just yet.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='19 June 2010 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1276929647' post='2342740']
I know, I had to update my [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=357&showentry=1752"]running blog entry[/url].

Maybe instead we should be talking about how far above the "raid line" Gramlins is at any given moment. Assuming we place that at 20, then they at +6. If you want to go with 15, then they are still at +11 and not really thinking about raiding just yet.
[/quote]

We've covered this before, just about any raiding alliance ever also makes a point of not targeting AA's with treaties. As long as Harmlins stands it doesn't matter how small Gre gets.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='19 June 2010 - 03:24 AM' timestamp='1276899825' post='2342270']
Are you really making the statement that nobody has claimed our terms [b]are[/b] unreasonable?
[/quote]

They certainly dont have the balls to take the official position here openly and clearly as they have privately to enable you.

Edited June 19, 2010 by shahenshah

[franciscus]

[quote name='Tromp' date='19 June 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1276907481' post='2342358']
But that was never in dispute to my knowledge.[/quote] It was what started the debate about DAWN. Ask SynthFG.

[quote name='Tromp' date='19 June 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1276907481' post='2342358']
Well, it's a fact that CnG was not in any way involved in the \m/ conflict, so that argument falls flat on its face. [/quote]
Not quite, that's what defines a preemptive strike. Kinda like what Japan did in Pearl Harbor in that other world we sometimes dream of. Whether it was the best course of action or not, is not debatable. The results show it wasn't.

[quote name='Tromp' date='19 June 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1276907481' post='2342358']
I'll agree that the paperless route causes a lot of headaches though, but mostly to those that are not informed as to the state of affairs of Gremlins in this case (even though the announcement they made was pretty clear to me).[/quote] Nobody should be obligated to stay up to date with another alliance's state of affairs, really. That shows, once more, if it was needed, their arrogance.

[quote name='Tromp' date='19 June 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1276907481' post='2342358']
Indeed the victors write history, but that still doesn't mean that Gremlins position is/was automatically invalid.[/quote]
I never said it was. What they did was validated by their own common sense and nobody should judge them for that. I simply said they should have the balls to admit they were aggressors in their war, even though their intention was to defend a friend. The fact that they, at one point, asked of us an acknowledgment that DAWN accepts that, despite Gre going treatyless, their DoW on IRON was essentially defensive in nature, further proves to me that there were at least some who doubted that. I mean, you don't need a public declaration from the defeated party that what you did is this or that unless you're looking to convince someone else of it. Do you?

[Owney OSullivan]

There sure is a lot of talking but no actual fighting from a particular Gramlin in this thread.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Owney OSullivan

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Well, it's a fact that CnG was not in any way involved in the \m/ conflict[/quote]
That won't become true just because people keep saying it. They were not (yet) [i]militarily[/i] involved and you can argue that that made the attack on them unjustified (I'd actually agree with that), but they were already in the coalition and preparing to counter the expected IRON entry point on SF.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 June 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1276952691' post='2342840']
That won't become true just because people keep saying it. They were not (yet) [i]militarily[/i] involved and you can argue that that made the attack on them unjustified (I'd actually agree with that), but they were already in the coalition and preparing to counter the expected IRON entry point on SF.
[/quote]

Apart from there was no coalition
there were some informal questions between blocks and alliances as to if a happens what will you do, but nothing was set in stone
There was never at any point a formal coalition or anything that can be described as a unified command structure

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='19 June 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1276954799' post='2342846']
Apart from there was no coalition
there were some informal questions between blocks and alliances as to if a happens what will you do, but nothing was set in stone
There was never at any point a formal coalition or anything that can be described as a unified command structure
[/quote]
Not having a unified command structure does not stop you from coming to their aid.

[Iosif]

Why this thread still exists?

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Iosif' date='19 June 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1276963518' post='2342929']
Why this thread still exists?
[/quote]
This thread still exists because DAWN and IRON refuse to surrender unconditionally to the Gramlins and the Gramlins refuse to accept white peace from DAWN and IRON. We are at an impasse thus the warring between our alliances continues.