The New Grämlins

[TehChron]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 June 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']
I don't necessarily personally agree with the ESA amendment, but there is absolutely no reason why all of the signatories couldn't agree to amend it.
[/quote]Because said amendment was based upon a lie?

It's just ironic that something which was meant to act as some kind of testament to your guys' honor and such wound up being testament to how ridiculously out of touch you were with what actually happened in the past war.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']
I don't necessarily personally agree with the ESA amendment, but there is absolutely no reason why all of the signatories couldn't agree to amend it.





I agree.
We have all endorsed this policy by supporting and electing our leaders.
All of those "blaming" this policy on Ram's ego are looking for a convenient way out. Kindly stop wasting your time; it should be obvious by now that we endorse the policy.
[/quote]




Is your entire plan to build a case to plead insanity when the smoke clears or something?
I think you might want to put a bit more thought into your posts before actually posting them.

[franciscus]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']
I don't necessarily personally agree with the ESA amendment, but there is absolutely no reason why all of the signatories couldn't agree to amend it.[/quote]
I admit it'd've been a pleasure to watch RAM trying to convince TOP/TORN/TSO/Carthage and whomever else was on that written proposal to sign it. I actually enjoyed the thought of going through with it just for that. Then I woke up.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']I agree.
We have all endorsed this policy by supporting and electing our leaders.
All of those "blaming" this policy on Ram's ego are looking for a convenient way out. Kindly stop wasting your time; it should be obvious by now that we endorse the policy.
[/quote]
I disagree. It's well known that a charismatic leader can determine its people to do idiotic things. I actually want to bet that, 1 or 2 years from now you'll look back and think "WTF was I thinking?" And you won't be alone. If there's one thing to be said about RAM it's that he is active, charismatic, a good orator and has a ginormous ego. Y'all feel compelled to stick by his side because you care about your alliance and your friends, mostly, and you feel you have no other honourable way out, secondly. The second part is due only to your personal ego and your inability to admit you've been manipulated, but whatever.

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 06:27 AM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']
I don't necessarily personally agree with the ESA amendment, but there is absolutely no reason why all of the signatories couldn't agree to amend it.
[/quote]
Sorry for the sarcasm, but would you tell us what we should agree to before we were demanded to do that?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']
I don't necessarily personally agree with the ESA amendment, but there is absolutely no reason why all of the signatories couldn't agree to amend it.[/quote]

It's amusing that you say that like you or anyone left using your AA (I would hesitate to call it an alliance anymore) are actually [i]entitled[/i] to something other than ridicule.

[quote]We have all endorsed this policy by supporting and electing our leaders.
All of those "blaming" this policy on Ram's ego are looking for a convenient way out. Kindly stop wasting your time; it should be obvious by now that we endorse the policy.[/quote]

Read it again and hopefully you get it:

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='21 June 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1277128467' post='2345151']
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.
[/quote]

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='franciscus' date='28 June 2010 - 06:27 AM' timestamp='1277724407' post='2352593']
I admit it'd've been a pleasure to watch RAM trying to convince TOP/TORN/TSO/Carthage and whomever else was on that written proposal to sign it. I actually enjoyed the thought of going through with it just for that. Then I woke up.




I disagree. It's well known that a charismatic leader can determine its people to do idiotic things. I actually want to bet that, 1 or 2 years from now you'll look back and think "WTF was I thinking?" And you won't be alone. If there's one thing to be said about RAM it's that he is active, charismatic, a good orator and has a ginormous ego. Y'all feel compelled to stick by his side because you care about your alliance and your friends, mostly, and you feel you have no other honourable way out, secondly. The second part is due only to your personal ego and your inability to admit you've been manipulated, but whatever.
[/quote]

have you actually talked to Ram yet? he is active, a decent orator, and far from charismatic. he is mostly abrasive, abusive, and snide. his ego is far to huge for him to contain, especially whenever he opens his mouth. he was abrasive, abusive, and snide all throughout my time in Gremlins to anyone he spoke with. never once could i ever describe Ram as being in any way charismatic.

[Charles the Great]

I hope this amendment does not get added. This would be a truly stupid turn of events.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 June 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']
I don't necessarily personally agree with the ESA amendment, but there is absolutely no reason why all of the signatories couldn't agree to amend it.
[/quote]


When the Gramlins and TOP were still very close it was a mystery to me why anyone in the gramlins was giving Ram the time of day. The rest of you seemed like such intelligent logical types and then every now and then Ram would post something that made everyone go .

Matthew, I have got to believe that you see the logical problem with this position. If that is so I have got to wonder why you are dumbing down to suit the policies of Ram and why you people have let him lead you to disaster. These are more or less the same questions I had for you before the great schism between our alliances as Ram was taking over.

I hope one day, when this is all over and you dont feel any pressure to be loyal to Ram, you will give me an answer.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 June 2010 - 06:55 AM' timestamp='1277733307' post='2352666']
have you actually talked to Ram yet? he is active, a decent orator, and far from charismatic. he is mostly abrasive, abusive, and snide. his ego is far to huge for him to contain, especially whenever he opens his mouth. he was abrasive, abusive, and snide all throughout my time in Gremlins to anyone he spoke with. never once could i ever describe Ram as being in any way charismatic.
[/quote]


I agree with your analysis. That is why it is truly one of the great mysteries to me that Gramlins, with all its fail safes build into its constitution allowed him to ever take over the alliance. When comparing Ram to the rest of the Gramlins (before he took over) it was like the old Seasame Street song - "One of these things just doesnt belong".

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='franciscus' date='28 June 2010 - 07:27 AM' timestamp='1277724407' post='2352593']
I admit it'd've been a pleasure to watch RAM trying to convince TOP/TORN/TSO/Carthage and whomever else was on that written proposal to sign it. I actually enjoyed the thought of going through with it just for that. Then I woke up.
[/quote]

TORN has not yet been graced with any emissaries from the once great Gre. If they want to change the ESA, I’d love to have a discussion with one of them as to why that is necessary. We have already fulfilled our obligations under the ESA and have been released from terms. I’ll be hard pressed to understand why I need to submit my alliance to an additional requirement.

We gain nothing from such an amendment. TORN does not need, nor do we seek moral absolution from Gre. We have no desire to be absolved for our supposed sins by an alliance which is as morally bankrupt as the rest of us “warmongers.” There is nothing inherently sanctimonious about Gre or its leaders that puts it in a position to lecture TORN, IRON, DAWN, TOP, or TSO about “justice.” You’re as “flawed” as the rest of us.

If you want to renegotiate the ESA, fine, let’s renegotiate. But if my tech shipments were but a “bribe” (Ram’s words), TORN feels extorted. I was under the impression that the deal cut was X amount of tech in exchange for reinstatement to the community of alliances as a full member. Now, Ram tells me this is not the case and that in order to be a member in good standing I must submit my alliance to some vague amendment. Fine, but the terms of the deal are being changed, so let’s renegotiate. In exchange for your forgiveness (which I consider to be detrimental) I will waive any pay back of tech to TORN, and will instead ask for our tech discount be applied to IRON and DAWN. You guys want a seat at the negotiating table? You want to renegotiate the deal? Fine, let’s deal.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']
I don't necessarily personally agree with the ESA amendment, but there is absolutely no reason why all of the signatories couldn't agree to amend it.
[/quote]
Really? You actually believe that all the signatories that spent weeks negotiating (yes everyone but Gre negotiated in good faith) the ESA would now agree that the ESA is flawed and needs to be amended to suit Gramlins. Everyone that signed that document considers it a done deal and put to bed. You really think any of them will let you tamper with that document let alone all of them? The signatories will only agree to an amendment if it provides something of value to them. Since there are two sides in the agreement I find it hard to believe that Gremlins can come up with anything that would provide value to both sides.

MPK you have to start seeing things from everyone else's perspective and not Gramlins. Gramlins perspective is severely warped and until you realize that just because you want something to happen it won't necessarily come to be. You have to sell your idea and to do that you have to negotiate and compromise, something the Gramlins appear to do very poorly.

Absolutely no reason they shouldn't ammend? Turn that around and provide each signatory with a reason how they will benefit if they agree to an amendment. Then you may see the folly of your statement.


.

[Vespassianus]

I really dunno what GRE doing, IRON is hunting their bigger nations one by one. Now Ram and Ertyy. Looks like IRON isn't running for a fast victory, they wanna minimalize their losses. I guess if they would attack GRE's but inactive top nation with their fresh big guys i think they would win, but the high tech+wrc nukes would hurt them. I guess killing them one by one is better for them, because bigger IRON nations don't really need peace mode as some months earlier when GRE totally dominated high tiers.

I would rather see a big battle rather then a slow agony, but looks like the "let Matt Miller kill them" strategy works well.

[Lackistan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 June 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1277733307' post='2352666']
have you actually talked to Ram yet? he is active, a decent orator, and far from charismatic. he is mostly abrasive, abusive, and snide. his ego is far to huge for him to contain, especially whenever he opens his mouth. he was abrasive, abusive, and snide all throughout my time in Gremlins to anyone he spoke with. never once could i ever describe Ram as being in any way charismatic.
[/quote]
Ram is intelligent, that is really the only reason he was kept around. You are absolutely accurate in everything else you stated.

[quote]
I agree.
We have all endorsed this policy by supporting and electing our leaders.
All of those "blaming" this policy on Ram's ego are looking for a convenient way out. Kindly stop wasting your time; it should be obvious by now that we endorse the policy.[/quote]

I hope your endorsing this policy is worth all the members that have left.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Lackistan

[Matt Miller]

I just love the irony in the fact that a supposedly paperless alliance has now turned toward wanting a host of alliances to not create and sign a piece of e-paper but to alter one that is already in place. So which is it, are you paperless or not? Also, trying to use the "we're not signing it, you are" argument will not hold water should that be the next item on your talking point list.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1277699235' post='2352454']
I don't necessarily personally agree with the ESA amendment, but there is absolutely no reason why all of the signatories couldn't agree to amend it.
[/quote]
There is absolutely no reason Gramlins should have dragged this war out when everyone else agreed to peace out. You are not in a position to make demands anymore. Now taste your own medicine and choke on it.

[flak attack]

Honestly, I don't really see what the big deal is about amending the ES accords (assuming it doesn't change anything between any of the current non-participants). I see no practical difference between amending that and IRON-Gre agreeing to a separate peace. People add signatories onto blocs from time to time. I see no reason it can't be done on a peace treaty as well.

Edited June 28, 2010 by flak attack

[Alterego]

[quote name='flak attack' date='28 June 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1277749711' post='2352937']
Honestly, I don't really see what the big deal is about amending the ES accords (assuming it doesn't change anything between any of the current non-participants). I see no practical difference between amending that and IRON-Gre agreeing to a separate peace. People add signatories onto blocs from time to time. I see no reason it can't be done on a peace treaty as well.
[/quote]
People are free to leave a bloc anytime they like, they are nothing alike. I see no practical reason IRON would do anything Gramlins told them to do while IRON continue taking Gramlins to pieces. Gramlins are free to surrender unconditionally to IRON.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Alterego

[Lord Curzon]

[quote]Honestly, I don't really see what the big deal is about amending the ES accords (assuming it doesn't change anything between any of the current non-participants). I see no practical difference between amending that and IRON-Gre agreeing to a separate peace. People add signatories onto blocs from time to time. I see no reason it can't be done on a peace treaty as well.
[/quote]

It isn’t that it can’t be done; it is that an amendment adds an additional stipulation that was not previously agreed to. We all agreed to the ESA based on an extended negotiating period during which each alliance holistically assessed the peace treaty from cost-benefit perspective. If an addendum is added, that throws off the cost- benefit analysis.

I’m not arguing the treaty can’t be amended, it certainly can and Gre’s sigs can be added in. But if something more is demanded than something else must be given. The agreement was X amount of tech for peace. You can’t retroactively go into an agreement and demand an addition to the “cost” side of things, without giving us something on the “benefit” side. That is reneging on an agreement. You want to negotiate the amendment, fine, but I find it absurd to believe that this is something that should be added for free. Contrary to some individuals’ beliefs, being “absolved of guilt” in the eyes of a broken and morally bankrupt alliance isn’t really worth anything to me, and I would hazard a guess that it isn’t worth anything to the other defeated parties. Gre isn’t [i]entitled[/i] to any amendment, I don’t care how much they think we benefit from it. [b]Their[/b] opinion of [b]our[/b] cost-benefit analysis does not matter. If they want something, they should offer something. How about helping DAWN pay off its indirect reps, or financing some of IRON’s?

Edit: added what I was replying to

Edited June 28, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='27 June 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1277701369' post='2352477']
I think it's funny that Gramlins, a self proclaimed Paperless Alliance, is trying to force everyone to retroactively change an agreement made months ago, which Gramlins refused to sign.

The logic doesn't hold up. Partly because you are losing, and so in no position to force anyone to do anything. But mostly because of the "retroactively changing" nonsense. If NPO were to win a major war, would they be able to re-write their surrender terms from Karma? That would be nonsense.

What happened, happened. If you want an agreement to end the current conflict, then make a proposal, but quit pretending you can change the past.

For myself, your hypocrisy has gone on long enough. I've signed up with DAWN, and I'm looking forward to getting involved.
[/quote]


Are you actually suggesting that if all parties to a document agree that they cannot amend it?


GRE doesn't want to force anybody to do anything. If they are inclined, they will accept the amendment. If not, they will not.

I fail to see why this is conceptually difficult or malicious.


[quote name='crazy canuck' date='28 June 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1277740985' post='2352744']
When the Gramlins and TOP were still very close it was a mystery to me why anyone in the gramlins was giving Ram the time of day. The rest of you seemed like such intelligent logical types and then every now and then Ram would post something that made everyone go .

Matthew, I have got to believe that you see the logical problem with this position. If that is so I have got to wonder why you are dumbing down to suit the policies of Ram and why you people have let him lead you to disaster. These are more or less the same questions I had for you before the great schism between our alliances as Ram was taking over.

I hope one day, when this is all over and you dont feel any pressure to be loyal to Ram, you will give me an answer.
[/quote]


You may or may not recall that the "final" breakdown of our relationship was among my posts outlining that regardless of the outcome that I would not attack my friends in TOP. I can't recall who exactly was in my .gov at the time but I quite literally told them to go ahead and draft up the court-martial documents for my to sign if there was an intended war.
Despite my devotion to our relationship I was met with accusations of being a back-stabber, a coward and a puppet. Note that these accusations did not specifically come from you, but by a collective lack of defense I (and others) perceived them to be endorsed.
Even so, at the onset of this war I discussed it with KG again at length.

Now, I still have a great affection for many friends in TOP and a great respect for some people in IRON (in fact, I have praised MM in this very thread) but that is quite irrelevant to the nature of our demands here.

I feel no pressure to be loyal to any idea I consider unjust; oath or not. Those that know me understand this.
Those that assert the opposite either don't know me or are simply taking jabs.

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm dumbing anything down. I'm happy to be very descriptive if you're interested in discussion.
I feel that I've demonstrated that dedication.
However, to paraphrase Ertyy, if any of you want to actually discuss this matter progressively you will stop the accusations that Ram does my thinking for me.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='franciscus' date='28 June 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1277724407' post='2352593']
I admit it'd've been a pleasure to watch RAM trying to convince TOP/TORN/TSO/Carthage and whomever else was on that written proposal to sign it. I actually enjoyed the thought of going through with it just for that. Then I woke up.
[/quote]

I rather think TOP would be more than happy to listen to any reasonable discussion, should we be approached. So long as our friends at IRON are happy. Sure, it's an odd way to go around things rather than just agreeing to a separate peace... but whatever. We'll listen.

[trance addict]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1277754848' post='2353050']
Are you actually suggesting that if all parties to a document agree that they cannot amend it?


GRE doesn't want to force anybody to do anything. If they are inclined, they will accept the amendment. If not, they will not.

I fail to see why this is conceptually difficult or malicious.
[/quote]

You have also failed to attack an IRON nation within your attack range while being out of peacemode, it does seem that lately you have many failings.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='28 June 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1277745740' post='2352837']
I just love the irony in the fact that a supposedly paperless alliance has now turned toward wanting a host of alliances to not create and sign a piece of e-paper but to alter one that is already in place. So which is it, are you paperless or not? Also, trying to use the "we're not signing it, you are" argument will not hold water should that be the next item on your talking point list.
[/quote]


Our goal, from the very beginning, has been to obtain a very specific thing from IRON.
If it is the prerogative of the cyberverse to put in on paper then why should that matter to me?

I think it's quite silly that many others refuse to recognize anything outside of some "official" paper. Yet that is apparently the widespread case!

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1277754848' post='2353050']
Are you actually suggesting that if all parties to a document agree that they cannot amend it?


GRE doesn't want to force anybody to do anything. If they are inclined, they will accept the amendment. If not, they will not.

I fail to see why this is conceptually difficult or malicious.
[/quote]

You’re right, you are certainly within your rights to submit an amendment to a document, but I think you need to concede the fact that by submitting this amendment you are in essence reopening negotiations between all the parties to this agreement. My point being is if you want to add a term to people who have already been granted peace, you should be offering something to entice those them. Unlike IRON and DAWN, you can’t offer TORN, TOP, and TSO a cessation of hostilities because we are already in a state of peace, and in our case we are already readmitted to the community of alliances. I am simply suggesting that if you want something from us (an acceptance of your narrative of the war’s origins), you should also offer something to us which a benefit, and no, your “forgiveness” won’t cut it. If you’re not going to do that perhaps you should focus on concluding a separate peace with IRON, a separate peace which has always been on the table.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='28 June 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1277755454' post='2353063']
I rather think TOP would be more than happy to listen to any reasonable discussion, should we be approached. So long as our friends at IRON are happy. Sure, it's an odd way to go around things rather than just agreeing to a separate peace... but whatever. We'll listen.
[/quote]

I will add my name to this sentiment.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]GRE doesn't want to force anybody to do anything. If they are inclined, they will accept the amendment. If not, they will not.[/quote]
The point is that there is absolutely no incentive for any of the alliances to be inclined to do that, and it only takes one to say they don't want it or try to get a concession from you in exchange for it to scupper the plan. Like any treaty or bloc, if you want 'entry' to the ESA you need to offer something that the current signatories would want.

[quote]Our goal, from the very beginning, has been to obtain a very specific thing from IRON.[/quote]
Yeah, the trouble is that that specific thing – 'surrender' (sensu Matthew PK, not sensu CN) and demilitarisation before seeing terms – is so ridiculous that IRON quite rightly won't give you it. Until you change your mind on that specific thing, you're not going to get anywhere. That's like saying in Karma 'Our goal is to obtain a very specific thing: disbandment of NPO' and wondering why you weren't getting anywhere. Fortunately, none of the alliances in Karma was that dumb.