The New Grämlins

[Baldr]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='05 July 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1278329030' post='2360187']
Going alone was beyond even the retardedness of TOP and IRON kicking off a global conflict with a pre-emptive strike
[/quote]

Major spin. What TOP/IRON did was stupid, but it wasn't "kicking off a global conflict". That was already happening.

What I find funny is that people seem to be forgetting NpO's part in this - switching sides as soon as TOP/IRON declared. Depending on how you look at it, either the \m/ and PC tech raiding alliances started the war with their raids and insults, or NpO started it with their attacks on the raiders. NpO switched sides along the way.

I completely disagree with people who think Gramlins had no right to enter. I don't like their unconditional surrender nonsense, and I believe they should have left the field when the ESA was signed (whether they signed it or not.) But when they entered the war, I didn't see anything wrong with that, and I think it's silly to argue they did something wrong.

Overall, I don't think that this is a good example of why paperless treaties are good/bad or why they will/won't work. If they hadn't started drolling out of their mouths while blubbering "unconditional surrender duh" when the ESA was signed, everybody would be looking at this different.

The signing of peace treaties is a problem with their paperless idea, IMO. Once you're at war, if there is no means to end the war, every war goes to the complete destruction of one side or the other? I don't see that as a good thing. And since nobody in their right mind is going to agree to unconditional surrender (which is apparently how Gramlins feels wars should end), that's a problem with the paperless model. At the end of a war, if you aren't willing to put terms down on paper that both sides can agree to, the war simply won't end until one side is destroyed.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 07:34 AM' timestamp='1278340476' post='2360240']
Have you failed to realize the ambiguity itself can serve as a war deterrent?
[/quote]

That's also a problem. This world needs more death and destruction. Not less.


And please, cut the crap about "THE ODDS WERE AGAINST US FROM THE START!!!!!!!11!". CnG had the war won right when TOP declared.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='05 July 2010 - 07:24 AM' timestamp='1278329030' post='2360187']
The experiment didn't fail tho
Paper or paperless has absolutly nothing to do with what Gre are trying to pull now,
The insane idea off demanding UC surrender when not one of the primary parties in the conflict was never going to work, especialy when the allies won't support it and you do not have the strenght to impose it yourself
[/quote]

Yes the experiment did fail, miserably, in every aspect. I know you desperately want to think it didn't but yes it did.

You forget that the first problem Gre's brick wall mentality ran into was the idiocy of demanding reps (more than those actually wronged) from an alliance they attacked without benefit of treaty, nor any other justification. Gre bandwagonded in and demanded reps. If you wanted to pretend Gre had any kind of foot to stand on at all they should have been out with ESA. Any pretensions of anything not reprehensible vanished when they didn't exit with the ESA signatories.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1278340476' post='2360240']
Have you failed to realize the ambiguity itself can serve as a war deterrent?
[/quote]

No, it doesn't. I just finished explaining why. Insane people like you, and your leaders, will always convince themselves they have a righteous cause and will always assume the uncertain elements will side with them. It doesnt server as a deterrant because megalomaniac's will never stop for some second to think they might be wrong.

200+ pages illustrate this, 200+ pages of the world shouting down Gre, and still you think its everybody else who is wrong and not you.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='05 July 2010 - 04:24 AM' timestamp='1278329030' post='2360187']
The experiment didn't fail tho
Paper or paperless has absolutly nothing to do with what Gre are trying to pull now,
The insane idea off demanding UC surrender when not one of the primary parties in the conflict was never going to work, especialy when the allies won't support it and you do not have the strenght to impose it yourself

It was an interesting idea, but it should have gone back into the draw as soon as MK rejected and never been suggested yet alone demanded of IRON,
[/quote]


This part you got right.

One thing I am interested in is why Ram didnt see the sense of your position. I assume you or people like you tried to explain this to him at the time.


@typoninja,

I think you and Synth may be saying the same thing. To go the paperless route you need to have exceptional leadership who can be trusted not to make stupid decision once they are free of formal public treaties and everything can be justified. Also, I would say that to be successful there has to be a very good external understanding of the position of the alliance. Otherwise there will be a great deal of distrust as to who they are making back deals with and who they are stabbing in the back

Gremlins certainly were not in that position. They have had leaders make terrible mistakes and they did this during a period of extreme change in their relationships with other alliances.

In the end it was a failure but because of how they did it. There come a time in CN history when someone can pull it off successfully. But I dont see that occuring anytime soon.

Edited July 5, 2010 by crazy canuck

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='05 July 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1278355596' post='2360407']
That's also a problem. This world needs more death and destruction. Not less.


And please, cut the crap about "THE ODDS WERE AGAINST US FROM THE START!!!!!!!11!". CnG had the war won right when TOP declared.
[/quote]

You are correct that once Gremlins decided to pile on the die was already cast. Gremlins went on this "moral crusade" with very little risk to themselves. That is until Ram et al decided it was a good idea to demand separate unreasonable terms of IRON and turned a certain victory into a certain defeat.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='EEjack' date='04 July 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1278290292' post='2359817']
That is because Zenith rocked. Though to be completely fair - everyone knew about the relationship between Old Guard and Zenith so Grämlins could predict what they would face. The inherently sneaky backroom only dealings of Grämlins meant Old Guard and Zenith had no idea what we were facing when we protected IRON from Grämlins' aggression.

The paperless treaty system means Grämlins is always the aggressor since they have no treaties that anyone else recognizes. It also means folks can reasonably surmise that Grämlins bought Fark's assistance against Zenith. A little bit of paper completely removes both of those thoughts.

EEjack

edit: werds are tough.
[/quote]


EEJack, I am pretty certain that you are smarter than this.

Why would you take the "not having treaties means you are always an aggressor" position?
It's demonstrably based on the "legality above all else" mentality.

It is, has been, and will continue to be possible to act defensively (and necessarily) without a piece of paper authorizing you to do so.

If you want to argue that GRE's entrance was somehow calculated solely for our gain then do that.
You can argue against GRE's actions without taking the ridiculous position that the act of "defending" is somehow necessarily tied to a piece of paper.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='05 July 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1278365273' post='2360497']
Yes the experiment did fail, miserably, in every aspect. I know you desperately want to think it didn't but yes it did.

You forget that the first problem Gre's brick wall mentality ran into was the idiocy of demanding reps (more than those actually wronged) from an alliance they attacked without benefit of treaty, nor any other justification. Gre bandwagonded in and demanded reps. If you wanted to pretend Gre had any kind of foot to stand on at all they should have been out with ESA. Any pretensions of anything not reprehensible vanished when they didn't exit with the ESA signatories.



No, it doesn't. I just finished explaining why. Insane people like you, and your leaders, will always convince themselves they have a righteous cause and will always assume the uncertain elements will side with them. It doesnt server as a deterrant because megalomaniac's will never stop for some second to think they might be wrong.

200+ pages illustrate this, 200+ pages of the world shouting down Gre, and still you think its everybody else who is wrong and not you.
[/quote]

I can refer you to a post of mine
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=78553&st=120&p=2110239&#entry2110239

I expect my friends to tell me when they think I'm wrong. Many have done so, and many have not. GRE is not, and has never been, interested in assuming our friends are "with us"
That is, in fact, a large motivator for going paperless. We mitigate our and others' ability to "force hands" by assuming cooperation with a treaty.

We never *assumed* that our friends in Fark would come to our aid against Zenith. The matter was discussed and Fark was happy to back us; with no obligation to do so. Why? because they endorsed our position... we didn't need a piece of paper.
It isn't about "owing" anybody anything.
In fact, I like to think GRE has been very clear that we don't want anybody's help solely because they feel like they "owe" us anything.
Debts, vendettas, unquestioned treaty obligations.... all of these things obstruct being motivated by what you think is right.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='05 July 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1278365514' post='2360498']
This part you got right.

One thing I am interested in is why Ram didnt see the sense of your position. I assume you or people like you tried to explain this to him at the time.


@typoninja,

I think you and Synth may be saying the same thing. To go the paperless route you need to have exceptional leadership who can be trusted not to make stupid decision once they are free of formal public treaties and everything can be justified. Also, I would say that to be successful there has to be a very good external understanding of the position of the alliance. Otherwise there will be a great deal of distrust as to who they are making back deals with and who they are stabbing in the back

Gremlins certainly were not in that position. They have had leaders make terrible mistakes and they did this during a period of extreme change in their relationships with other alliances.

In the end it was a failure but because of how they did it. There come a time in CN history when someone can pull it off successfully. But I dont see that occuring anytime soon.
[/quote]

No, I'm saying you can't go paperless without being rabidly isolationist as well. You can't take part in politics while trying to ignore the system its founded on. Its like saying you love swimming but hate getting wet, the two just don't work.

[Zangmonkey]

Your quotes are bolded to keep quote tags down.

[quote name='Baldr' date='29 June 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1277842962' post='2354287']
You thought differently earlier in the thread.

For example...
[b]This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact.[/b]
[/quote]
Finding one party the victor does not at all imply that I think GRE alone has the military might to force IRON to do anything. I honestly don't see how you could have come to this conclusion. There is more to winning than military might.

[quote]And another...
[b]I'm not afraid of sunk costs, I just haven't folded after the turn. Seems to me like IRON/DAWN is on the draw for the river.Naturally, they will think otherwise.[/b][/quote]
Again, nothing at all to do with military might and everything to do with handling the circumstances. IRON was waiting for that high-and-wild card such as your gullibility to their "plight" in order to make them, the warrantless instigators of this war, into the poor oppressed victim.

[quote]And another...
[b]I will repeat this again: based on the reports I have seen, IRON's upper tier has nothing. If they were to come out swinging right now, I doubt they could give a good showing for longer than a week at the most (and that is assuming all those people with a month or two of unpaid bills can actually pay that off). Meanwhile, we got a load of money left and can just buy right back up after IRON exhausts itself. You need actual nations that can fight to bring someone down. It's not going to happen just because our members are all sad because OWF doesn't like them.But, ya, keep touting alliance NS numbers as if those mean anything in this case. I'm sure you will win a lot of support with that line.Edit: Speaking clearly.[/b][/quote]

I'm pretty sure Ertyy is talking about the IRON "upper tier", many of which have heavy bills. That doesn't imply that he thinks GRE can militarily force them to do anything. Only about how their upper tier would fare coming out of PM. Though I could be wrong... I guess I'm speaking on his behalf... However I reaffirm my position that if Ertyy actually thought we could militarily force IRON to do anything then he is dumb. (Though in this case, I don't think he believed that)



[quote]And another...
[b]Well, I failed to make the distinction the segment of IRON that is currently in our range and the low-level nations that are pretty much not at war with anyone. When I say they have no money I refer to the people we would actually have a chance of fighting, the upper tier. So ya, a large portion of IRON may be growing unmolested, but I would still take our situation over their's.[/b][/quote]

Even today I would still take GRE's situation over IRON's because I know that even if IRON uses it's might to avoid accountability that I will have been correct.
Regardless, Ertyy is referring specifically to GRE's upper tier VS IRON's upper tier at the time. A minimal and localized war at the upper tier isn't a way to "force" anybody but cowards to do anything.

[quote]And another...
[b]It's real simple. Gre is currently winning because we have the money to continue the fight and IRON doesn't. That their overall infra/land/tech/mil is increasing is irrelevant because they don't have the money to pay for stuff. There is no arbitrary selection of numbers, or anything of that kind.[/b][/quote]

And again, a reference to localized war at the top, and not the might to force IRON to do anything. In fact, I think his statement here is pretty clear on the idea that he intends to outlast, not over-power.

[quote]There are lots of quotes from you and Ertyy, earlier in the war, where you claim you can win. Now you are changing your story, pretending you never said those things. None from Ramirusm who hasn't had the guts to post at all.[/quote]

I do not understand why you think that "winning" and "having the might to force" are the same thing.
I believed from the beginning that IRON would choose the simple way to peace by surrendering for their actions. It would be easy, fast, honorable and we'd be DONE.
If your myopia relies on the concept of "might" for this (which I have clearly claimed I felt was a principled rather than a might-makes-right position), then I understand why you have such a hard time digesting what's going on here.
Principles have NOTHING TO DO with military might.

[quote]
Oh, really?
[b]Years of enabling all manner of shens. Rejecting the fresh start they were given in karma. We do not negotiate with criminal alliances. That mistake was made last year and here we are fighting the same war again this year. We don't plan on having to fight it again next year.[/b]


Now, it's "We have never intended to crush, destroy, or mangle you". A couple of months ago, when you were claiming that winning was inevitable, the story was "We don't plan on having to fight you again in a year" with the implication that you planned to destroy them, either in war or via terms.
[/quote]


Ertyy is spot-on, and again it has nothing to do with might or "crush/destroy/mangle"
I think you're compartmentalizing this entire issue into who has the most "declare war" buttons.
We won't negotiate with them. We're fighting the same war (one in which their clear aggression is the cause and they have been released by the larger factions with no outlined culpability or genuine contrition)
Our demands are firmly based upon opposing this repetition. "War, reps, repeat"

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='05 July 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1278329030' post='2360187']
The experiment didn't fail tho
Paper or paperless has absolutly nothing to do with what Gre are trying to pull now,
The insane idea off demanding UC surrender when not one of the primary parties in the conflict was never going to work, especialy when the allies won't support it and you do not have the strenght to impose it yourself

It was an interesting idea, but it should have gone back into the draw as soon as MK rejected and never been suggested yet alone demanded of IRON,
Going alone was beyond even the retardedness of TOP and IRON kicking off a global conflict with a pre-emptive strike
[/quote]

you keep stating that the paperless idea has nothing to do with Gre pulling a UC, yet according to Ram, Gre could not sign a surrender treaty since it was paper. thus, them pulling a UC has everything to do with going paperless.

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='05 July 2010 - 07:56 AM' timestamp='1278334554' post='2360204']
You forgot to qualify your reply with "the issue [b]for me is[/b]" the problem is you along with some of your cohorts replying seem to apply absolute conditions to the entire system. Wonderful, but it dosent make it true. It could happen that way, it could open the way for "all bandwagoners to claim a paperless route" but it dosent mean it will.

You seem to spend a great deal of time worrying about the far reaching affect of a dying alliances FA choices and thier global impact. Who knows Doch, someone at some alliance right now might be rubbing thier hands together and plotting their next bandwagoning action based on Gramlins choice to defend an ally. They may even be ready to cancel treaties exclusively for this reason, I mean its not what the gramlins did, I know I was there but lets not let facts get in the way of silly supposition.

Because as we know before, if you had a paper treaty you were worried about having an open door to get in on a curbstomp. Cool story bro.
[/quote]

i never stated it would happen that way. i did not need any qualifiers since my whole post was simply a hypothesis and nothing in it was concrete. it is an absolute fact that it does give bandwagoners the opportunity to claim the paperless route. does it mean it will happen? no it does not. just because it may not happen in the future, does not mean that the option is not there now. you can attempt to spin it whatever way you want, but we all have seen how precedents are set in CN. it takes one action to occur and for others to repeat it. hence why so many people were against the UC demands of Gre to begin with. it was not all about whether IRON/DAWN were getting a raw deal as many against UC most likely did not care one bit about IRON or DAWN. what UC meant was a pathetic and horrible way to end the war.

and i have watched as alliances in this past war and in other past wars have ghost DoWed simply to allow their allies a chance to DoW on other alliances. So now we can simply skip the step of bothering with a ghost DoW as in a paperless route, you don't need to worry bout that.

sorry, if i can follow a progression of events down a possible logical path that you, as one of the Gre that was there for when this all started, does not like. you may even support the paperless route. honestly, that is all fine and dandy. does it make what i stated wrong? not in the least.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1278380579' post='2360665']


Finding one party the victor does not at all imply that I think GRE alone has the military might to force IRON to do anything. I honestly don't see how you could have come to this conclusion. There is more to winning than military might.


Again, nothing at all to do with military might and everything to do with handling the circumstances. IRON was waiting for that high-and-wild card such as your gullibility to their "plight" in order to make them, the warrantless instigators of this war, into the poor oppressed victim.
[/quote]

No, being the victor in a military conflict has everything to do with military might, you are just being delusional to claim other wise. IRON doesn't need any wild cards to win anymore, you've lost, horribly so, your own ego's are forcing you to pursue a sucidical conflict.

[quote]
I'm pretty sure Ertyy is talking about the IRON "upper tier", many of which have heavy bills. That doesn't imply that he thinks GRE can militarily force them to do anything. Only about how their upper tier would fare coming out of PM. Though I could be wrong... I guess I'm speaking on his behalf... However I reaffirm my position that if Ertyy actually thought we could militarily force IRON to do anything then he is dumb. (Though in this case, I don't think he believed that)
[/quote]

You can't militarily force IRON to do anything, which is kind of every bodies point. From a pure sanity point of view, when you can no longer gain anything from continued conflict you seek to end it.


[quote]
Even today I would still take GRE's situation over IRON's because I know that even if IRON uses it's might to avoid accountability that I will have been correct.
Regardless, Ertyy is referring specifically to GRE's upper tier VS IRON's upper tier at the time. A minimal and localized war at the upper tier isn't a way to "force" anybody but cowards to do anything.
[/quote]

You would take the same poisition? You only continue to display how delusional you are, both in your stance and the claim that they have avoided accountability. Or maybe you missed the ESA? that might explain your stupidity in declining to take part, did you not know it happened?

Further its hilarious that you say only a coward would accede to your demands but maintain that IRON is somehow doing wrong by not surrendering to you.


[quote]
And again, a reference to localized war at the top, and not the might to force IRON to do anything. In fact, I think his statement here is pretty clear on the idea that he intends to outlast, not over-power.
[/quote]

I don't know if you've noticed yet, but that "war at the top" (the one that involves no offensive wars from Gre) is all that's left of your alliance. its no isolated conflict, its the last dieing gasp of a defeated alliance doing the only thing its able to any more. Spew hot air.


[quote]
I do not understand why you think that "winning" and "having the might to force" are the same thing.
I believed from the beginning that IRON would choose the simple way to peace by surrendering for their actions. It would be easy, fast, honorable and we'd be DONE.
[/quote]

Because you are an imbecile? Really I don't see how else you could miss the connection between winning a war and military power. There just isn't any way around it

[quote]
If your myopia relies on the concept of "might" for this (which I have clearly claimed I felt was a principled rather than a might-makes-right position), then I understand why you have such a hard time digesting what's going on here.
[/quote]

On the same token if Gre were to abandon this ridiculous crusade which has resulted in the death of your entire alliance you could take white peace and be done with it. Funny how that works.

[quote]Principles have NOTHING TO DO with military might.[/quote]

Ahh but [i]your[/i] ability to [i]force[/i] someone else to accept your values does. You have failed to debate your way to an agreement with IRON, and you've failed to beat them into submission. In short, you have simply failed.

[quote]
Our demands are firmly based upon opposing this repetition. "War, reps, repeat"
[/quote]

You are in luck! You can get exactly what you want. Take the offer of white peace and you've broken the cycle. No reps. Also, the "repeat" part is also in your control, don't declare on IRON again and you are set!

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 08:06 PM' timestamp='1278378374' post='2360621']
EEJack, I am pretty certain that you are smarter than this.

Why would you take the "not having treaties means you are always an aggressor" position?
It's demonstrably based on the "legality above all else" mentality.

It is, has been, and will continue to be possible to act defensively (and necessarily) without a piece of paper authorizing you to do so.

If you want to argue that GRE's entrance was somehow calculated solely for our gain then do that.
You can argue against GRE's actions without taking the ridiculous position that the act of "defending" is somehow necessarily tied to a piece of paper.
[/quote]

well if this is the case, then the whole global conflict began when PC aggressively attacked Polaris. since if "legalities" do not matter, the only leg that Gre has to stand on is morality. Gre was morally obligated to "defend" their allies against the pre-emptive strike. Polaris found itself morally obligated to attack \m/ for various reasons and thus, since moral obligation does not automatically mean aggressor, it could be easy to see that Polaris was defending itself against slights made as well as FoA against the raids itself. thus, PC was the aggressor since they attacked Polaris.

now, that above, even i find pretty ridiculous. sorry, moral obligations are all fine and dandy, but you are the aggressor since you have no legal means of entry into the war. Gre had every right to defend their allies and they did so. that is commendable. they went about it in by aggressively attacking IRON. yes, you can aggressively attack someone in defense of another. in fact, anyone who has ever gotten into a fight to defend another person has done just this.

you aggressively attacked IRON and are now holding them in this war. sure, your allies [i]may[/i](i use this lightly) support your actions but that does not in any way make them right and does not in any way make you somehow the defender. you aggressively hit IRON and DAWN, legally and morally obligated, countered you. they, IRON/DAWN, are the defenders in this war not Gre.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1278380579' post='2360665']
I believed from the beginning that IRON would choose the simple way to peace by surrendering for their actions. It would be easy, fast, honorable and we'd be DONE.
[/quote]

It would have been easy, fast, and honorable to give reasonable peace terms when the ESA was signed, but you refused to do that. Even now, you could agree to white peace, and you refuse to do that. Believing that IRON would prostrate themselves before your awesomeness, kiss your butt, and agree to do whatever the heck you came up with next wasn't a very good plan, and if you had any sense at all you would have known that it would never happen.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your crap. You and Ertyy both claimed multiple times times that you were victors, that you would win, that IRON need some sort of wild luck to have a chance, and have now changed your story. You are a liar, and I can't see any sense in spending time talking with you. It's clear that your words mean nothing. You'll twist them around, claim that dictionary meanings and your meanings are different, tell outright lies. Talking to you is pointless.

[JimKongIl]

Is it ultimatum time? The impatience is reaching tidal wave proportions. It's time for this to end.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 July 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1278386116' post='2360734']
you keep stating that the paperless idea has nothing to do with Gre pulling a UC, yet according to Ram, Gre could not sign a surrender treaty since it was paper. thus, them pulling a UC has everything to do with going paperless.

[/quote]

According to Ram
He was the key factor in the victory of Karma
Gre should have withdrawn from the war in the first week because our side was going to loose
Gre remaining in the war was part of some super secret plan agreed with the allies (It wasn't)

Ram has a history of twisting facts to match his position and of ignoring advice and opinions he doesn't like

I'd take any Ram statement with a huge pinch of salt

Tho if he had suggested at the time of the ESA that Gre don't sign but do end the war I'd probably have gone along with it, just to watch certain heads explode

[HalfEmpty]

The relief thread failed evidently. Thread needs to be nuked into peace.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='06 July 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1278401484' post='2360966']
According to Ram
He was the key factor in the victory of Karma
Gre should have withdrawn from the war in the first week because our side was going to loose
Gre remaining in the war was part of some super secret plan agreed with the allies (It wasn't)

Ram has a history of twisting facts to match his position and of ignoring advice and opinions he doesn't like

I'd take any Ram statement with a huge pinch of salt

Tho if he had suggested at the time of the ESA that Gre don't sign but do end the war I'd probably have gone along with it, just to watch certain heads explode
[/quote]

ahhh, but unfortunately for you, he is the one still in Gre and has the backing of others in Gre who state the same as him. it was not just Ram but also MPK who stated this (i could be wrong, MPK has attempted defending Gre on many issues so i am not sure if he covered this one). either way, you may state one thing, but Gre itself states another.

and yes, i do agree. anything said by any member of Gremlins at this time should be taken with a rather nice pinch of salt not just Ram.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='05 July 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1278379951' post='2360650']
No, I'm saying you can't go paperless without being rabidly isolationist as well. You can't take part in politics while trying to ignore the system its founded on. Its like saying you love swimming but hate getting wet, the two just don't work.
[/quote]


In the current context I think you are right. It would take a dramatic paradigm shift for such a thing to work. Certainly Gramlins under Ram were not the ones to bring about such a paradigm shift.

[Bob Janova]

Most of the last two pages is going around in circles but there are two points that I want to address.

[quote]Have you failed to realize the ambiguity itself can serve as a war deterrent?[/quote]
Nobody cares where a 1 million NS micro-alliance might fall.

[quote]we joined immediately when the odds were against us, sought no spoils of war, and did not march off with our "side" as though we had earned the victory ourselves.[/quote]
The odds were only against you if you can't do arithmetic, even if you hit during the 45 minutes before Polar pulled out. And more importantly, in the leaked terms, and those that von Droz gave 'unofficially' to IRON around the start of this thread, you [i]were[/i] demanding reps ('spoils of war').

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 July 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1278437395' post='2361226']
Nobody cares where a 1 million NS micro-alliance might fall.
[/quote]
True, but the 5m NS alliance Gre were before the war, top loaded as we were represented significant uncertanty, even if you don't factor the effect of where gre might fall would have on the likes of MHA, MK, FARK and FOK
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 July 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1278437395' post='2361226']
The odds were only against you if you can't do arithmetic, even if you hit during the 45 minutes before Polar pulled out. And more importantly, in the leaked terms, and those that von Droz gave 'unofficially' to IRON around the start of this thread, you [i]were[/i] demanding reps ('spoils of war').
[/quote]

There was no time to do maths,
The Maths that was done showed a significant advantage for TOP/IRON at the upper NS ranges, and nobody knew how things would shake out,
Also if you go back and look at the war stat threads you will find that for the first couple of weeks things were alot closer than some would make out in terms of NS, close enough that activity levels, skill levels and generalship also played a factor


And as I recall the original terms were almost a white peace for IRON, simply a public acknowledgement that they considered our paperless intervention as legitimate, and a small token payment of tech from DAWN along with an apology for the way they entered into aggressive war against us

all completely within the codex

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='06 July 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1278440347' post='2361273']

Also if you go back and look at the war stat threads you will find that for the first couple of weeks things were alot closer than some would make out in terms of NS, close enough that activity levels, skill levels and generalship also played a factor
[/quote]


It was close on paper but the writing was always on the wall after the events of the night war was declared. You are right about the skill levels though. We put up a good fight but CnG was really very well coordinated and did some serious damage even early on. There were a couple of times when the citizens of CrazyCanuckistan thought someone would mess up with a stagger or a coordinated attack to allow our brave soldiers some breathing room to regroup and counter attack but it never happened. The CnG war effort was precise and devestating.

Almost like it had been planning it for some time.....

[FlogYou]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1278380579' post='2360665']
I believed from the beginning that IRON would choose the simple way to peace by surrendering for their actions. It would be easy, fast, honorable and we'd be DONE.
[/quote]


Are you forgetting something? I think so, because from the beginning you had stated that the path to peace only [u]started[/u] with IRON surrendering, then and only then would you lay out the terms which IRON would be subjected to. So it may have been an easy process for you (gRAMlins), but not easy for IRON. Furhtermore, by your own admission if the terms were not agreeable to IRON, well then they could reject them and re-ignite hostilities, so how could you assume to be DONE, without the other parties acceptance

If you wanted an easy, fast and honourable conclusion, then I submit to you that the easiest solution is WHITE PEACE; the fastest solution is WHITE PEACE and since both IRON and DAWN are 2 of the 3 combatants in this war and completely outclass you and are much more honourable then I submit that it would also be the most honourable solution to this situation YOU (gRAMlins) have caused.

However, me thinks someone may have slipped you a snack well after midnight and look at the mess you've made of the rug!

[Bob Janova]

[quote]And as I recall the original terms were almost a white peace for IRON, simply a public acknowledgement that they considered our paperless intervention as legitimate, and a small token payment of tech from DAWN along with an apology for the way they entered into aggressive war against us[/quote]
A 'small token payment' is still 'spoils of war'. And there's really no way you can justify calling DAWN's entry aggressive ... either it's legitimate to defend your friends from attacks with or without a treaty, in which case they can use the same argument as you did, or it isn't, in which case you were aggressive and triggered IRON's MDP.

And yes, a paperless FA does give you a degree of unpredictability, but unless you're joining what's clearly the bigger side (as you did here, even if you maintain the claim of ignorance regarding that at the time you entered), you're going to trigger MDPs and make the other side larger, almost certainly by more than your own NS.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 July 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1278454830' post='2361582']
A 'small token payment' is still 'spoils of war'. And there's really no way you can justify calling DAWN's entry aggressive ... either it's legitimate to defend your friends from attacks with or without a treaty, in which case they can use the same argument as you did, or it isn't, in which case you were aggressive and triggered IRON's MDP.

And yes, a paperless FA does give you a degree of unpredictability, but unless you're joining what's clearly the bigger side (as you did here, even if you maintain the claim of ignorance regarding that at the time you entered), you're going to trigger MDPs and make the other side larger, almost certainly by more than your own NS.
[/quote]

The Codex only specifies that Gre will not seek reparations for an aggressive war, without actually bothering to nail down the definition of an aggressive vs a defensive war

Its completely open to interpretation whilst sounding all noble and high, just as Syz and co wanted
In this case you argue that GRE's attack on IRON was aggressive, well then DAWN's attack on GRE was also aggressive, especially given as there was no official DOW or any attempt at communication as to a reason, therefore Gre would be quite correct in not accepting that this move was in defence of IRON, especially given what else was happening at the time, TBH it would have been very easy to invoke the bandwaggoning clause of the Codex

And you keep banging the old lie about choosing the larger side if you like, but here is the truth,
when Harmlins moved we had no idea of the eventual sides, or there relative sizes,
and with hindsight, whichever side Harmlins chose was going to have the advantage, how can you bandwaggon when you hold the ballance of power

[shilo]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='06 July 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1278440347' post='2361273']

And as I recall the original terms were almost a white peace for IRON, simply a public acknowledgement that they considered our paperless intervention as legitimate, and a small token payment of tech from DAWN along with an apology for the way they entered into aggressive war against us

all completely within the codex
[/quote]
And there you try again...

[quote name='SynthFG' date='07 July 2010 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1278455775' post='2361618']

Its completely open to interpretation whilst sounding all noble and high, just as Syz and co wanted
In this case you argue that GRE's attack on IRON was aggressive, well then DAWN's attack on GRE was also aggressive, especially given as there was no official DOW or any attempt at communication as to a reason, therefore Gre would be quite correct in not accepting that this move was in defence of IRON, especially given what else was happening at the time, TBH it would have been very easy to invoke the bandwaggoning clause of the Codex

And you keep banging the old lie about choosing the larger side if you like, but here is the truth,
when Harmlins moved we had no idea of the eventual sides, or there relative sizes,
and with hindsight, whichever side Harmlins chose was going to have the advantage, how can you bandwaggon when you hold the ballance of power
[/quote]

You attacked our ally, with no treaty obligations, no ally of yours was attacked, you weren't attack, out of the blue. That is called aggression. Hence why our MDP with IRON which was (as it is now) publicly available was activated. Which is why we attacked those nations attacking our ally (the latest there it could have been obvious to you guys that we were counterattacking your nations attacking IRON nations not because we accidentally stumbled upon them but because we are allies). We never were or are required to inform you that by attacking our ally, you have forced us to honor our defensive obligations with IRON. It is my take that when you plan to assault another alliance, you are at least smart enough to check out what allies might be defending that alliance. We simply assumed such a minimum amount of competence from you guys, but of course, with your leadership, and generally looking at the situation gRAMlins are in now, that was definitely too much and I apologize on behalf of DAWN.
In retro perspective, I think we should have pmed you a link to IRON's wiki, specifically pointed out to you the allies of IRON, highlighted that MDoAP they have with us, explained to you why you are aggressors, why you being aggressors activated our defensive treaty, explained a defensive treaty, and then counterattacked those nations attacking our ally.

Your attack on IRON was as aggressive as our attack on CnG. We both had reasons for doing them, I believe neither of us did it to conquer land, women or gold, still, when you attack someone without a treaty obligation, you are definitely the aggressor and should not be surprised to find allies of the attacked defending them against said attack.
This is what happened, trying to spout that falsehood for the umpteenth time won't make it more true, you should realize that alone by the amount of MPKs spinning attempts and the length of this thread.


Short for your comprehension:
you aggressively attacked IRON without any treaty obligations, without being attacked yourself --> aggressive attack-->triggers defensive treaties of IRON
DAWN is ally of IRON-->DAWN defens IRON against gRAMlin aggression-->defensive


gRAMlins were willing to extort money and tech from us for an aggressive war they started, and to go further, required our coerced approval of their aggressive attack on IRON to have been defensive


Yes, it is as hypocritical as it sounds. And yes, DAWN still did defend IRON against you guys, and no, we were not required to inform you that your attack activated our treaty, and this has no relevance on the fact that the attack was aggressive in nature anyways.

Edited July 7, 2010 by shilo