The New Grämlins

[Baldr]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='20 June 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1277073831' post='2344191']
You'd be very wrong FH never backed ram
[/quote]

They fought for him. They put their NS, their soldiers, their tech, their infra, and their warchests behind him.

They could have moved on. Instead, they choose to support him and his "unconditional surrender" plan.

I felt bad for them too, early on. But they could have left long ago, and they didn't.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='19 June 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1276966837' post='2342978']
I see someone is still using the NPO definition of bandwagoning.
[/quote]

lawlz. how about you tell MPK that as well since that is the very definition he is trying to use against DAWN.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 June 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1276908027' post='2342371']
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.
[/quote]

Fair enough. But I think Matthew is having trouble keeping his story straight regarding giving terms, not giving terms, etc. Its hard to keep irrational arguments straight in a thread that has lasted as long as this so I suppose his performance is somewhat understandable.

Edited June 21, 2010 by crazy canuck

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='20 June 2010 - 06:07 AM' timestamp='1277039235' post='2343696']
Why would he,
He's so far gone now that he might as well see it through to the end
When you have reduced his nation to 0 infra 0 tech and Gre are down to just him he'll probably still be demanding your unconditional surrender
[/quote]




I think, even then people like Matthew will come up with some twisted logic explaining that this is the "new way" of the future to achieve success in CN.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='19 June 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1277002597' post='2343344']
If you were to give out the terms now, when it's clear you are losing, I'm sure they would look like light, simple terms that anyone would agree with.

However, if you had offered light simple terms that anyone would have agreed with several months ago, then IRON would have accepted and the war would have ended back then.

The only logical reason for you to demand unconditional surrender and demilitarization prior to giving out terms would be that the terms included one or more items that IRON would not have agreed to.

I'm with Shilo. You've lied and twisted words time and time again in this thread. If you post "These would have been the terms" at this point, I probably wouldn't believe you. I certainly wouldn't if they were light terms.[/quote]

So there you have it... there is absolutely no reason for me to disclose the terms.

[quote]Ertty said, some time back, that the goal was to cripple IRON. Light terms wouldn't do that.
[/quote]

I disagree.
Our terms and procedure are quite significant without being harsh.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='20 June 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1277093655' post='2344659']
So there you have it... there is absolutely no reason for me to disclose the terms.
[/quote]

Oh, I think the humor value would make it worthwhile.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='20 June 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1277092164' post='2344602']


I think, even then people like Matthew will come up with some twisted logic explaining that this is the "new way" of the future to achieve success in CN.
[/quote]


It looks bleak, that doesn't mean that we were unjust.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Derantol' date='18 June 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1276850240' post='2341723']
How does IRON accept accountability for our actions? The rest of our opponents thought reps; apparently you don't think so. I don't understand how your terms will do that. You've stated that you can't make us feel sorry, but that that isn't what you want. You want us to be held accountable? Do we need to make an announcement that informs everyone that we are, in fact, aware that we caused a big war?[/quote]

The first step is surrendering, unconditionally; which is the functional equivalent of turning yourself in for your actions.
This important step demonstrates that you acknowledge your culpability and wish to be accountable.
One being accountable does not negotiate around their actions.

[quote]The only argument I've seen against any of that is that we can't be sincere if we don't surrender to you unconditionally. We can be. We understand that through our actions, a big war was triggered. We understand that we attacked, not CnG. We've accepted accountability in the only way that Planet Bob has considered acceptable; reparation payments. You've stated many times that reparations are a bribe, that they aren't acceptable. What is?[/quote]

Of course it's *possible* to be sincere without this surrender process. But this surrender process is the best way to ascertain your sincerity "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Reparations payment are not sufficient restitution.
That isn't to say they aren't acceptable ever, but in this case they are not sufficient. In my opinion, this is specifically because they don't include any "beyond reasonable doubt" sincerity or allocution.

[quote]Tell me what it is you're thinking, and maybe I'll play along; maybe I'll give your suggestion some consideration. If you can do that, then maybe I can explain what you're trying to do in terms that everyone will understand more easily. I've done my best to try to decipher what you guys want from us, and I can't figure it out. So maybe just asking you directly, so you can explain it to me directly, will work the best.
[/quote]


A surrender, without you trying to set conditions to bargain your way through it, is the best way to demonstrate that you are willing to be completely accountable for your actions.

That doesn't mean you agree to comply with any subsequent terms. However, as I have said this entire time, the terms are fitting and compliant with our values set forth in our codex. They are not harsh, and are not intended or designed to be refused.
Even if you thought they were harsh (which I honestly don't know how you could come to that conclusion) you will have, at this time, made no agreement to comply with them and could return to war.

Of course, since I do not think the terms are harsh, I honestly do not believe you would want to refuse them.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='21 June 2010 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1277094562' post='2344684']
It looks bleak, that doesn't mean that we were unjust.
[/quote]

Could you do me a favour? Just so your position doesn't look so ridiculous, could your alliance perhaps declare some offensive wars rather than sitting there and taking the beating from IRON/DAWN?

Do you have any idea how silly it looks for an alliance with no outgoing wars to be demanding terms from somebody?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='20 June 2010 - 09:42 PM' timestamp='1277095305' post='2344718']
Could you do me a favour? Just so your position doesn't look so ridiculous, could your alliance perhaps declare some offensive wars rather than sitting there and taking the beating from IRON/DAWN?

Do you have any idea how silly it looks for an alliance with no outgoing wars to be demanding terms from somebody?
[/quote]


Try and convince my Executor.

[Rebel Virginia]

[color="#0000FF"]I haven't been following this much, so might someone be so kind as to update me? How does Gremlin's war effort go? Are they any closer to victory?[/color]

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='21 June 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1277095456' post='2344725']
Try and convince my Executor.
[/quote]

If you load a pistol, put the barrel of a gun in your mouth and plead with someone to pull the trigger, are they executing you, or is it an assisted suicide?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='21 June 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1277095640' post='2344737']
I haven't been following this much, so might someone be so kind as to update me? How does Gremlin's war effort go? Are they any closer to victory?
[/quote]

Down to 23 nations and about 1.4 mill of NS. Mission nearing accomplishment.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='Schad' date='20 June 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1277072202' post='2344163']
It was mentioned (probably 150 pages ago) that he actually lost the popular vote, but with their weighting system he got enough of the votes that really counted to win.
[/quote]

...what.

[Booter]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='20 June 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1277095225' post='2344714']

The first step is surrendering, unconditionally; which is the functional equivalent of turning yourself in for your actions.
This important step demonstrates that you acknowledge your culpability and wish to be accountable.
[b]One being accountable does not negotiate around their actions.[/b]


A surrender, without you trying to set conditions to bargain your way through it, is the best way to demonstrate [b]that you are willing to be completely accountable for your actions.[/b]

[b]That doesn't mean you agree to comply with any subsequent terms.[/b] However, as I have said this entire time, the terms are fitting and compliant with our values set forth in our codex. They are not harsh, and are not intended or designed to be refused.
Even if you thought they were harsh (which I honestly don't know how you could come to that conclusion) you will have, at this time, [b]made no agreement to comply with them and could return to war.[/b]

Of course, since I do not think the terms are harsh, I honestly do not believe you would want to refuse them.
[/quote]

So you say unconditional surrender means we wish to be held accountable but doesn't negotiate our actions. You then say that we don't have to agree with any subsequent terms and can return to war cause we made no agreement to comply. This is after the unconditional surrender which you mentioned we can't negotiate our actions. Refusing terms and returning to war is an action.

So no, we still won't surrender unconditionally. It's also funny to hear that Ram *NOW* wants to talk with us himself to negotiate peace terms seeing how he's next on the chopping block.

[Booter]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='21 June 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1277097367' post='2344797']
...what.
[/quote]

I think their government (Conclave?) can overturn the GA vote if they want to or their votes count for 66% the weight of the vote. Something like that.

[Schad]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='21 June 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1277097367' post='2344797']
...what.
[/quote]

From their charter:

[quote]Standard voting Procedure For subjects put to an alliance vote, members will have votes depending on their rank:

* Recruit: 0 votes
* Zealot: 1 vote
* Templar: 3 votes
* Archon: 5 votes [/quote]

The majority didn't vote for him, but he got the majority of the votes under the weighted system.

[Geoffron X]

That is moronic. I'm not in a democratic alliance, but if I were, I'd make sure that the voting process isn't idiotic.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='21 June 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1277102680' post='2344941']
That is moronic. I'm not in a democratic alliance, but if I were, I'd make sure that the voting process isn't idiotic.
[/quote]

Our doors are always open!

[ironchef]

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=46929
This is sad to see^^^^^^^^^

Ruler: roblll
Nation Name: Eisenbach
Last Activity: 5/27/2010 12:43:15 PM (25 Days Inactive)
Nation Created: 9/20/2006 4:48:06 PM (1,370 days old)
Technology: 5,354.01
Infrastructure: 11,510.00
Nation Strength: 84,088.121

Another long time member of PB gone with the wind. RIP roblll

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Schad' date='21 June 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1277100342' post='2344893']
From their charter:



The majority didn't vote for him, but he got the majority of the votes under the weighted system.
[/quote]

Looks like a system that just drives to sustain a certain clique in power, perhaps that was the goal..to maintain a stable government with some sort of democracy.

The system didnt fail IMO, it was Ramirus. Lets be v. honest here, Ramirus in leadership would drive any alliance into the deep end of lunacy regardless of the system of govt. He's a genius in that field, everyone has there specialty, Ram tends to destroy things from within, Was it FCC or something? Cit, then Gre.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='ironchef' date='21 June 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1277109268' post='2345011']
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=46929
This is sad to see^^^^^^^^^

Ruler: roblll
Nation Name: Eisenbach
Last Activity: 5/27/2010 12:43:15 PM (25 Days Inactive)
Nation Created: 9/20/2006 4:48:06 PM (1,370 days old)
Technology: 5,354.01
Infrastructure: 11,510.00
Nation Strength: 84,088.121

Another long time member of PB gone with the wind. RIP roblll
[/quote]
You are missing a good piece of intel from him:

[quote]Last Bill Payment: 3/3/2010 2:33:23 PM[/quote]

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='21 June 2010 - 05:58 AM' timestamp='1277114271' post='2345040']
Looks like a system that just drives to sustain a certain clique in power, perhaps that was the goal..to maintain a stable government with some sort of democracy.

The system didnt fail IMO, it was Ramirus. Lets be v. honest here, Ramirus in leadership would drive any alliance into the deep end of lunacy regardless of the system of govt. He's a genius in that field, everyone has there specialty, Ram tends to destroy things from within, Was it FCC or something? Cit, then Gre.
[/quote]

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Definitely an oligarchy.

As for Ramirus, he fails at one of the most important points of basic leadership.

To a basic alliance member we all generally stress:

Alliance > Other Members > YOU

For leadership that order is reversed somewhat:

Your Members > Alliance > YOU

All the power you receive as a result of your charter is derived from the people that make up your alliance. Without them you have no alliance, no charter, no power. Beyond that, you as someone in charge have as your top priority the protection of membership, for they are encouraged to put everything above themselves.

Ramirus, and what's left of Gramlins leadership, should have long ago ended this war. Instead they are allowing membership to die for their stubbornness. Good members will be there until the bitter end with you. It's up to leadership to act honorably and ensure that members never see the bitter end as a nation and live to fight another day.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Booter' date='20 June 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1277099591' post='2344873']
So you say unconditional surrender means we wish to be held accountable but doesn't negotiate our actions. You then say that we don't have to agree with any subsequent terms and can return to war cause we made no agreement to comply. This is after the unconditional surrender which you mentioned we can't negotiate our actions. Refusing terms and returning to war is an action.

So no, we still won't surrender unconditionally. It's also funny to hear that Ram *NOW* wants to talk with us himself to negotiate peace terms seeing how he's next on the chopping block.
[/quote]


You bargaining terms of your surrender is not the same as refusing to comply with draconian terms.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Schad' date='20 June 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1277100342' post='2344893']
From their charter:



The majority didn't vote for him, but he got the majority of the votes under the weighted system.
[/quote]


Your post is correct, but misleading by omission.
Ram got exactly half the popular vote minus one.
In [b]any[/b] weighted voting system he would have won. The Gremlins are not a democracy and have never claimed to be.

EDIT: Sorry, dbl post.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Matthew PK