The New Grämlins

[Jesse End]

[quote name='shilo' date='01 July 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1278030865' post='2357211']
Obviously, ignoring you when you point out one of his spinning attempts, and then asking me to show proof for one of his spinning attempts is a cunning strategy of deception.
If he does it often enough, who knows, maybe we forget?
[/quote]

I think it falls under #3 and #4 in the image I posted.

[JimKongIl]

Questions posed to me like "should Gramlins still consider you a threat" from Gramlins leadership makes me wonder if they realize the gravity of the current situation. There is a banner of war that is still in effect until you accept IRON offers of white peace. Continue to ignore that offer and sooner than you expect you will wake up to a top tier in disarray that will effectively end The Grämlins.

blackdigital, Apfelschorle, Omas Nams, Mad Mike, I have spoken with you personally and you really seem like cool guys. I hope you soon decide this is not worth throwing away everything you worked for in CN. Feel free to discuss anything with me in confidence I will not not share our discussions with anyone without your explicit permission.

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='01 July 2010 - 07:11 AM' timestamp='1277993494' post='2356586']
Isn't every treaty paperless unless you print it on a piece of paper?
[/quote]
If I recall correctly, two alliance leaders met on a different plane of existence (OOC: IRL) to sign a treaty. I can't remember who or when though.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1277839784' post='2354236']
I will admit some personal failings[/quote]
Passive-aggressive tongue in cheek response incoming!

[quote]I failed to foresee how many people would be swayed by the lies and misinformation opposing the realities of what we're demanding.[/quote]
Ever heard of a false premise? Hint: You saying something doesn't make it truth.

[quote]I failed to foresee that people would actually ignore my repeated explanations of the process we are demanding and pretend that their process was somehow more valid... and that so many people would actually be taken by it![/quote]
You presented unconditional surrender, which means what it means. Further, even your explained steps were not acceptable...the point it moot.

[quote]I failed to foresee how many GRE members would run away because they feared for their infra or got hurt by the OWF opinion (not all of them meet these criteria, but many do!)[/quote]
No, they left because their leaders failed them. I wonder if [OOC]Captain Ahab[/OOC], err, Ramirus, is going to get his [OOC]whale[/OOC], err, IRON...or if it will be the last thing he ever tries.

Edited July 3, 2010 by bigwoody

[Samus]

Meh, are we still at war with these guys? :S

[Alterego]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 July 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1278011712' post='2356922']
Yes, this was discussed pages ago.
I recanted my statements and apologized for my intemperance.

That being said; the point about IRON nations in my range was still valid afterwards in that many were still in PM.
Now... it is a recent development that there are IRON nations with some tenure out of PM in my range.

Thanks for letting me know there are IRON nations in my range. The comment you quoted wasn't at all in the context of "I promise to attack them!"
As for my accusations against GRE members who left: I stand by my statements. Some of them left to save their hides. Not all, but some.

You can hardly call my an infra-hugger for not declaring war. That's a thinly veiled bait attempt at best.

[/quote]
Its considered a traditional part of "war" to "fight" the people you are at war against. Is this another futuristic move from Gramlins? You declare war on someone then sit there doing nothing until your alliance dies of shame and boredom. People are calling you an infre hugger because you did declare "war" but dont have the guts to do any "fighting".

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 July 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1278011445' post='2356919']
Here's a novel idea:

If you want to know how we feel about certain alliances you should ask us... have a conversation.
[/quote]

Its a sad attempted to make sure you can always pick the winning side.

With no treaty obligations you just sit back till you are sure who's going to win and then join your "friends" on that side.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 July 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1278182139' post='2358798']
Its a sad attempted to make sure you can always pick the winning side.

With no treaty obligations you just sit back till you are sure who's going to win and then join your "friends" on that side.
[/quote]
Fail in all regards
Gre was one of the first alliances into the frey after IRON declared, a long time before the relative sizes of the sides (which on paper were pretty even in the early days) became apparent

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='03 July 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1278185260' post='2358859']
Fail in all regards
Gre was one of the first alliances into the frey after IRON declared, a long time before the relative sizes of the sides (which on paper were pretty even in the early days) became apparent
[/quote]

Maybe I had a more optimistic outlook, but I thought it was obvious the war was going our way the second they pre-empted and had a whole bloc + allies fall on their heads.

Even so I didn't mean specifically, I was characterizing Gre's behavior. After what they've shown us I have no respect for them or their motives. Yes its possible for there to be other motives behind paperless FA that might be less reprehensible, I just don't believe them coming from Gre.

Edited July 3, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='EEjack' date='02 July 2010 - 03:06 AM' timestamp='1278036398' post='2357288']
I wander away for a while and the grämlins I fought against who were straightforward and forthright, seem to have been replaced with a poorly built knockoff.

What a shame.

EEjack
[/quote]

A lot of Gramlins who fought early in the war have moved on. I was one of them, and as we know the victors write the history, this war as it drags on it will be remembered largely for how it ended. Within it were a lot of alliance to alliance stories. Old Guard and Zenith were competent warriors who threw themselves at higher tech nations to keep us pinned down so Iron could fight on against other opponents.

It was an honor fighting you when I was at GRE, hopefully in the annuals of Bob the historians will accurately portray the Gramlins from start to finish, although I find it unlikely.

cheers

[SynthFG]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 July 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1278185635' post='2358861']
Maybe I had a more optimistic outlook, but I thought it was obvious the war was going our way the second they pre-empted and had a whole bloc + allies fall on their heads.

Even so I didn't mean specifically, I was characterizing Gre's behavior. After what they've shown us I have no respect for them or their motives. Yes its possible for there to be other motives behind paperless FA that might be less reprehensible, I just don't believe them coming from Gre.
[/quote]

Again you'd be very wrong,
Going paperless was a way of doing something different and freeing ourselves of the retardedness that is the current treaty web
The collapse of Gre into the mess it is now and the idea yet alone demand for UC surrender actually happened very quickly over the 2 or 3 weeks prior to the signing of the ESA

[eejack]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='03 July 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1278186516' post='2358879']
A lot of Gramlins who fought early in the war have moved on. I was one of them, and as we know the victors write the history, this war as it drags on it will be remembered largely for how it ended. Within it were a lot of alliance to alliance stories. Old Guard and Zenith were competent warriors who threw themselves at higher tech nations to keep us pinned down so Iron could fight on against other opponents.

It was an honor fighting you when I was at GRE, hopefully in the annuals of Bob the historians will accurately portray the Gramlins from start to finish, although I find it unlikely.

cheers
[/quote]

Old Guard will remember the Thorgrums a lot longer than this 'new breed' of Grämlins. You guys fought hard and without malice and we felt every shot you guys took. Whoever got the grämlins that moved on got folks I would stand next to in a scrape, rather than go toe to toe with.

EEjack

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='03 July 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1278194597' post='2359015']
Again you'd be very wrong,
Going paperless was a way of doing something different and freeing ourselves of the retardedness that is the current treaty web
The collapse of Gre into the mess it is now and the idea yet alone demand for UC surrender actually happened very quickly over the 2 or 3 weeks prior to the signing of the ESA
[/quote]
They still have treaties though. They're just not on paper. How does that fix the problem?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='03 July 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1278197179' post='2359048']
They still have treaties though. They're just not on paper. How does that fix the problem?
[/quote]

It doesn't. It just injects an element of chaos into an already only marginally stable system. Paperless is a bad idea for that alone, world politics already have few enough rules and guidelines to aid order, deliberately stripping them away is just insane.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='03 July 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1278197179' post='2359048']
They still have treaties though. They're just not on paper. How does that fix the problem?
[/quote]

It was never given time to bed down before the retardedness that was the last war, so of course the relationships that were symbolised by the treaties done away with a week or 2 before were still strong

And the idea is more about relationships than treaties, for paperless to work those ties of friendship and common understanding have to be strong, going paperless forces an alliance to pay attention to those relationships

Another way of doing it might be to insist on an sunset period of 6 months to a year in every treaty an alliance signs, forcing both signatories to re examine the relationship every so often

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='03 July 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1278194597' post='2359015']
Going paperless was a way of doing something different and[b] freeing ourselves of the retardedness that is the current treaty web[/b]
[/quote]

The only thing you did was further complicate the treaty web.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='04 July 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1278200345' post='2359089']
The only thing you did was further complicate the treaty web.
[/quote]
I fail to see how

[Alterego]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='04 July 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1278200803' post='2359097']
I fail to see how
[/quote]
Anyone and everyone can be a "friend" without them having to tell the world in treaty form. They have an ODP with the world. The regular way people know your FA and allies, the paperless way is just a bandwagon policy.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='03 July 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1278200803' post='2359097']
I fail to see how
[/quote]

With actual codified relationships its actually possible to if not predict at least project. We get a form of enforced peace, or rather more like a cold war, that keeps us relatively stable. ((look at pre WWI Europe for a similar political landscape)) Dropping the formalized international relationships that treaties provide for us injects unnecessary chaos.

While the treaty web is what makes every war into a large one, its also what prevents many more smaller conflicts from breaking out. The knowledge that if a party pushes for armed conflict for their dispute resolution it'll trigger a major war is what gives a party incentive to find a reasonable compromise. Its the semi-rigid structure of the web that provides us our international stability, fragile though it may be.

Undermining it to the point where we lose that stability and inject more fundamentally unrestricted elements into it, gives us more potential for random outcomes which will encourage more ego-maniacal upstarts, like Ramirus, to push for stupid conflicts because they'll think they can win for what ever retarded reasons, convincing themselves they have a righteous cause, that others will follow.

Yes our system isn't prefect, it has its flaws, but it functions, and that is the most important point. Ditching it for outright chaos will just be a disaster.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='03 July 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1278200803' post='2359097']
I fail to see how
[/quote]

The treaty web becomes "retarded" when treaties conflict. Conflicting treaties cause uncertainty during war because it becomes difficult to predict sides. By not naming who you're going to defend (via treaty) and only labeling them as your "friends"; you (and by extension MHA) become variables in conflicts because no one knows who your friends are and if they might change.

And yes, a treaty that's not written down isn't a treaty so don't claim that your treaty partners are set in stone.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[Mirreille]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 July 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1278204201' post='2359145']
With actual codified relationships its actually possible to if not predict at least project. We get a form of enforced peace, or rather more like a cold war, that keeps us relatively stable. ((look at pre WWI Europe for a similar political landscape)) Dropping the formalized international relationships that treaties provide for us injects unnecessary chaos.

While the treaty web is what makes every war into a large one, its also what prevents many more smaller conflicts from breaking out. The knowledge that if a party pushes for armed conflict for their dispute resolution it'll trigger a major war is what gives a party incentive to find a reasonable compromise. Its the semi-rigid structure of the web that provides us our international stability, fragile though it may be.

Undermining it to the point where we lose that stability and inject more fundamentally unrestricted elements into it, gives us more potential for random outcomes which will encourage more ego-maniacal upstarts, like Ramirus, to push for stupid conflicts because they'll think they can win for what ever retarded reasons, convincing themselves they have a righteous cause, that others will follow.

Yes our system isn't prefect, it has its flaws, but it functions, and that is the most important point. Ditching it for outright chaos will just be a disaster.
[/quote]

You know it's funny, I agree with you on the idea that more people going paperless would add "unrestricted elements", but my conclusions as to how that will affect the big picture are completely opposite of yours. If enough AAs went paperless, the uncertainty factor would grow so large as to stifle conflict because people would not be able to predict sides. If my time here has taught me anything, it's that people don't want to lose any wars. The treaty web can handle a certain amount of freewheeling, but I think too many would definitely contribute to even more gridlock. No one will want to take the big risks.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Mirreille' date='03 July 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1278208161' post='2359170']
You know it's funny, I agree with you on the idea that more people going paperless would add "unrestricted elements", but my conclusions as to how that will affect the big picture are completely opposite of yours. If enough AAs went paperless, the uncertainty factor would grow so large as to stifle conflict because people would not be able to predict sides. If my time here has taught me anything, it's that people don't want to lose any wars. The treaty web can handle a certain amount of freewheeling, but I think too many would definitely contribute to even more gridlock. No one will want to take the big risks.
[/quote]

I love the Gramlins example for this, it took how many months and 4/5 of his alliance dieing off before we saw any positive action from Ramirus, and hes only [i]starting[/i] to act slightly more sane.

We'll always have a few morons who think "they can do it" when no, really they can't. You have to be able rub their faces into a sickeningly large amount of proof before they will even admit to the possibility they were wrong, the treaty web does that. We can point to treaties and say "this is why you don't want to pick a fight with alliance X because alliances A, B, C, D, E, will kick your face in for trying, and its X number of NS vs Y number of NS. We have examples to hold up to these people. Without those examples we'll have idiots like Ramirus standing up regularly convincing themselves "I have a righteous cause, people will support me!" and these people will keep doing stupid things like clock work.

Its a rather large failing of most of what Ramirus has been involved with lately, he comes up with ideas that look grand on paper, and fail miserably as soon as they are exposed to the real world.

Yes in a perfect world we could all exist peacefully with no treaties at all, and we wouldn't need military deterrent to depress conflicts over minor issues. But this isn't a perfect world, it has real people in it, not models or simulations. Ideally the simple expedient of keeping your nose out of other peoples business and a dash of common sense would be all we need.

But the reality is far from the ideal. the GPA got attacks for !@#$%* reasons because somebody felt like it, and those somebodies got away with it because GPA had no treaties. The GPA goes far far out of its way to avoid offending any and all. They still got attacked. So how long do you think our treaty-less utopia will last with those alliance who actually strongly speak out on issues?

There have to be some rules to The Great Game, some environment to maneuver for position. Politics is all about making the system work for you, but there has to be some system to game, without rules we've got no starting point.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Baldr]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 July 2010 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1278212536' post='2359214']
Without those examples we'll have idiots like Ramirus standing up regularly convincing themselves "I have a righteous cause, people will support me!" and these people will keep doing stupid things like clock work.[/quote]

I suspect that if he actually had a righteous cause, he would have seen more support. He doesn't have a righteous cause, and he tried to force IRON into slavery, which led to almost everyone disagreeing with him.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Baldr' date='03 July 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1278215977' post='2359252']
I suspect that if he actually had a righteous cause, he would have seen more support. He doesn't have a righteous cause, and he tried to force IRON into slavery, which led to almost everyone disagreeing with him.
[/quote]

My point is people will regularly delude themselves along similar lines, and we need objective reasons to feed them when trying to talk them out of their stupidity.

At its core most* diplomacy boils down to either a variation of the golden rule, or a simple balance statement. We either deal with somebody a certain way for the sake of sanity/wanting reciprocal treatment (as in the routine handling of ghosts and rogues). Or we work out a compromise to an issue because the alternative of not compromising is war. Just like peace terms are reached when the cost of surrender is less than the cost of continued war, diplomatic solutions are reached when the cost of compromise against the actual grievance isn't worth a war over. What the treaty web does is let us hold up objective bench marks of "this is the cost of war" when a leader examines that balance sheet. Even if they have what they feel to be a strong grievance if the cost of pushing too hard is too high they will choose not to provoke war over it.

*I say most, as in most diplomacy between adversaries, there are of course other considerations, but they tend to come up more often when dealing with friends and allies.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='04 July 2010 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1278204415' post='2359147']
The treaty web becomes "retarded" when treaties conflict. Conflicting treaties cause uncertainty during war because it becomes difficult to predict sides. By not naming who you're going to defend (via treaty) and only labeling them as your "friends"; you (and by extension MHA) become variables in conflicts because no one knows who your friends are and if they might change.

And yes, a treaty that's not written down isn't a treaty so don't claim that your treaty partners are set in stone.
[/quote]

I never claimed that non treaty partners were set in stone, just that there wasn't enough time between going paperless and the war kicking off for anything to change.
And the first paragraph accurately described why I agreed that we should go that route, predictability in the treaty web is what allows alliances to plot curb stomps, a large random element makes that so much harder,

It really pisses me off that thanks to the current retardedness, what was proving to be a successful experiment will be lumped in with the current mess and consigned to the dustbin of history