The New Grämlins

[eejack]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 09:06 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.
[/quote]

Simply put - the norm, the 'common law' as it were, is to put treaties on paper for most to see. Since grämlins do not follow 'common law' they simply have no justification that is commonly accepted to attack anyone. Therefore any attack grämlins make is aggressive.

You may feel that grämlins are above this common law, but obviously, based on this discussion, the commons do not agree.

EEjack

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='EEjack' date='06 July 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1278470471' post='2362005']
Simply put - the norm, the 'common law' as it were, is to put treaties on paper for most to see. Since grämlins do not follow 'common law' they simply have no justification that is commonly accepted to attack anyone. Therefore any attack grämlins make is aggressive.

You may feel that grämlins are above this common law, but obviously, based on this discussion, the commons do not agree.

EEjack
[/quote]

Common law is actually based on precedent rather than any form of vox populi, this stands in contrasts to legislative or statute law where the actual written law is more important than the courts past decisions.

Lacking any enumerated codes CN international law defaults to common law since we have no statutes or legislative branch to establish anything else.

The issue is muddied because a group will frequently equate preforming an action with receiving acceptance for an action when the two are not always the same, one may through force of arms inflict a decision on others against their will for example.

The precedents established here by Gramlins are two fold, first and foremost, Unconditional Surrender is a Bad Idea. Through their demand for it they've killed off most of their alliance, and turned their public image so sour that the group that started as the bad guys (IRON) are now the sympathetic figure while Gre looks the part of the villain. CN has rarely seen such complete disasters.

Second, the foolishness of a paperless approach. We live on a brutal political landscape where mistakes can be swiftly fatal. One's shield from this brutal arena are ones connections. Without them one is simply a target waiting to happen. Even the GPA is not paperless, they possess documents and doctrines to shield them. Multilateral treaties recognizing their neutrality, commitments to a standard of behavior. Even a group who does its best to stay out of the politics recognizes that there are rules to every system and one must work with in them. Spurn the system and the system will eat you alive.

[JimKongIl]

To: <Gramlins Top Tier> From: JimKongIl Date: 7/6/2010 1:03:22 AM

Subject: lets end this

Message: what needs to happen for this to end? Can this be solved diplomatically or do the top tiers need to engage? Whatever happens it needs to happen quickly or else we should prepare for destruction.



----------------------------------------------------

I sent this message to all of Gramlins top tier and I declared on the nations that once again ignored my message. I am tired of patience being mistaken for weakness.

There are offers of peace outstanding if they choose to accept them.

Edited July 7, 2010 by JimKongIl

[flak attack]

[quote name='EEjack' date='06 July 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1278470471' post='2362005']
Simply put - the norm, the 'common law' as it were, is to put treaties on paper for most to see. Since grämlins do not follow 'common law' they simply have no justification that is commonly accepted to attack anyone. Therefore any attack grämlins make is aggressive.

You may feel that grämlins are above this common law, but obviously, based on this discussion, the commons do not agree.

EEjack
[/quote]
"Because Grey Council doesn't have a Declaration of Neutrality like all the other neutrals, they aren't neutral" -EEjack, July 6, 2010

[shilo]

I don't think neutral alliances fit into the category, but for all those wanting and being involved in foreign affairs, treaties are part of this so called common law standard, and it's there where most of us base their definition of aggressive, defensive, chaining and non-chanining and bandwagoning on.

A treatyless non-isolationist alliance like gRAMlins has no visible differentiation for a declaration of war, but only what they call it to be. Obviously, people will then either start redefining their actions in war based on what they felt they were, not on how they looked, or we simply have to apply the same standards to the treatyless alliances then to those with treaties, and by that definition, gRAMlins have a very narrow field of what they can do defensively, anything else is at best simply aggressive, I will kindly not go so far and call actions purely opportunistic by labeling them bandwagoners for their attack against IRON.

So in all fairness, their attack was aggressive, like any other attack on an alliance not provoked by activation of a defensive clause or by direct attack was.

[eejack]

[quote name='flak attack' date='07 July 2010 - 09:00 AM' timestamp='1278507639' post='2362370']
"Because Grey Council doesn't have a Declaration of Neutrality like all the other neutrals, they aren't neutral" -EEjack, July 6, 2010
[/quote]

It depends...is it commonly accepted, or is it like grämlins paperless treaties and not commonly accepted?

( don't know anything about neutrals since...well, they are neutrals. it is kinda of like being the waterboy at a football game. )

EEjack

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='flak attack' date='07 July 2010 - 08:00 AM' timestamp='1278507639' post='2362370']
"Because Grey Council doesn't have a Declaration of Neutrality like all the other neutrals, they aren't neutral" -EEjack, July 6, 2010
[/quote]

Seems like it's easy for everyone to agree on an oral contract that has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON ANYONE.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='06 July 2010 - 07:19 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]

Did I miss something? These terms weren't ever publicised, were they?
And what form would an "almost a white peace" have taken?

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='07 July 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1278536984' post='2362710']
Did I miss something? These terms weren't ever publicised, were they?
And what form would an "almost a white peace" have taken?
[/quote]
simply a public acknowledgement that they considered our paperless intervention as legitimate

and no I don't think they ever were fully made public,
they were however what was being hammered out before Ram was appointed to a Gre conclave position to replace Chill and took over the negotiations

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='07 July 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1278539369' post='2362762']
simply a public acknowledgement that they considered our paperless intervention as legitimate
[/quote]

I'd have refused.


First as a matter of honor I'd tell anybody attacking me and trying to force me to lend legitimacy to their farce to shove it.

Second, It is only the most despicable behaviors to declare war on another party and then try to force them through threat of destruction to publicly announce that they found such actions acceptable.

War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left. Trying to equate military victory with a moral judgment is a fallacy at best.

[iMatt]

http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=144512&Extended=1

And here we go.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='07 July 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1278536984' post='2362710']
Did I miss something? These terms weren't ever publicised, were they?
And what form would an "almost a white peace" have taken?
[/quote]
Synth was in Gre until a couple of days after ESA was signed. Presumably he knew that from then.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='07 July 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1278539369' post='2362762']
simply a public acknowledgement that they considered our paperless intervention as legitimate

and no I don't think they ever were fully made public,
they were however what was being hammered out before Ram was appointed to a Gre conclave position to replace Chill and took over the negotiations
[/quote]

i have to agree with Typo on this one. if you need legitimacy added on by force, then your intervention was not legitimate.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='flak attack' date='07 July 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1278541747' post='2362806']
Synth was in Gre until a couple of days after ESA was signed. Presumably he knew that from then.
[/quote]
I was on the conclave of Gre in the Executor (MoD) Seat between December and a day or 2 after ESA, and was the only continuous member of the Gre gov between the Athens Pirates thing, Through the withdrawal from cit and the Full Retard war

And it was never going to be a force IRON to say paperless is wonderful,
merely that they recognised that our actions were taken in defence of MK and that they recognised our right to take such action,

And it wasn't so much to add legitimacy for ourselves, but to give us something to slap the peanut gallery with that this was being included

I wasn't involved in the discussions with IRON but I understood that this would have been acceptable to them

Edited July 8, 2010 by SynthFG

[shilo]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='08 July 2010 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1278573039' post='2363257']
I was on the conclave of Gre in the Executor (MoD) Seat between December and a day or 2 after ESA, and was the only continuous member of the Gre gov between the Athens Pirates thing, Through the withdrawal from cit and the Full Retard war

And it was never going to be a force IRON to say paperless is wonderful,
merely that they recognised that our actions were taken in defence of MK and that they recognised our right to take such action,

And it wasn't so much to add legitimacy for ourselves, but to give us something to slap the peanut gallery with that this was being included

I wasn't involved in the discussions with IRON but I understood that this would have been acceptable to them
[/quote]
Of course it would have been acceptable, when you negotiate a peace and someone tells you to consider their aggressive attack on your alliance to have been defensive in nature or else you won't get peace, you have that "gun to your head" motivation thingy that might make it acceptable to you.
It doesn't mean it's true, acceptable for real or that such a statement would have been honest or heartfelt.

It speaks quite loudly for gRAMlins that the "might makes right" approach that MPK says we are using was in fact used by gRAMlins to extort justification for their actions by the defeated party they attacked, and further to even extort a large amount of tech and more false promises from us for having responded to your aggressive attack.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='08 July 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1278573039' post='2363257']
And it was never going to be a force IRON to say paperless is wonderful,
merely that they recognised that our actions were taken in defence of MK and that they recognised our right to take such action,

And it wasn't so much to add legitimacy for ourselves, but to give us something to slap the peanut gallery with that this was being included
[/quote]

you contradict yourself. you wanted IRON to legitimize your attack on them in order to give you ammunition against the peanut gallery. thus, it is false to state it was to not add legitimacy, when the whole point of having your enemy "recognize that your actions were taken in defense of MK and that they recognized your [i]right[/i] to take such action..." solely means that you wanted IRON to legitimize your attack.

did you get your definition of legitimize from Ram perhaps?

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='08 July 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1278573039' post='2363257']And it was never going to be a force IRON to say paperless is wonderful,
merely that they recognised that our actions were taken in defence of MK and that they recognised our right to take such action,

And it wasn't so much to add legitimacy for ourselves, but to give us something to slap the peanut gallery with that this was being included[/quote]
So you [i]did[/i] attempt to gain legitimacy through force.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='07 July 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1278539813' post='2362769']
I'd have refused.


First as a matter of honor I'd tell anybody attacking me and trying to force me to lend legitimacy to their farce to shove it.

Second, It is only the most despicable behaviors to declare war on another party and then try to force them through threat of destruction to publicly announce that they found such actions acceptable.

[b]War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left. Trying to equate military victory with a moral judgment is a fallacy at best.[/b]
[/quote]
Emphasis mine.

I find your post incredibly ironic considering I have been saying for quite some time now that we believe it's possible to support a cause without having the might to force the results via military victory.


Furthermore, as I explained repeatedly, our terms were not a part of the ESA in large part because of precisely what you have stated here: forcing you to lend legitimacy is inherently doubtful given it's delivery under duress.

Yet when I outline that IRON's surrender is meritorious in this case precisely because we haven't the might to "force" them, the "common" retort has been to call me delusional.

If they believe they did something wrong, then they should surrender [b]without being forced to do so[/b].
If they do not, then they should not... again, that's really the point here.

It amazes me that you either don't get it or that you deliberately ignore it.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='08 July 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1278573039' post='2363257']
I was on the conclave of Gre in the Executor (MoD) Seat between December and a day or 2 after ESA, and was the only continuous member of the Gre gov between the Athens Pirates thing, Through the withdrawal from cit and the Full Retard war

And it was never going to be a force IRON to say paperless is wonderful,
merely that they recognised that our actions were taken in defence of MK and that they recognised our right to take such action,

And it wasn't so much to add legitimacy for ourselves, but to give us something to slap the peanut gallery with that this was being included

I wasn't involved in the discussions with IRON but I understood that this would have been acceptable to them
[/quote]


I was Praetor during much of this period and I don't recall every having terms for IRON to have them acknowledge our right to intervene.

I *do* remember this being tossed around for terms from OG/Zenith; it was never requested from them because, quite frankly, we don't need to OWF's approval to know that we have the inherent right to defend [b]anybody[/b] against their assailants.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 July 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1278608173' post='2363535']
Emphasis mine.

I find your post incredibly ironic considering I have been saying for quite some time now that we believe it's possible to support a cause without having the might to force the results via military victory.


Furthermore, as I explained repeatedly, our terms were not a part of the ESA in large part because of precisely what you have stated here: forcing you to lend legitimacy is inherently doubtful given it's delivery under duress.

Yet when I outline that IRON's surrender is meritorious in this case precisely because we haven't the might to "force" them, the "common" retort has been to call me delusional.

If they believe they did something wrong, then they should surrender [b]without being forced to do so[/b].
If they do not, then they should not... again, that's really the point here.

It amazes me that you either don't get it or that you deliberately ignore it.
[/quote]
What amazes me is that you don't get is that we both have surrendered already - to the parties concerned.


You guys are completely irrelevant, and besides your own declaration of self-importance and as Planet Bobs self-proclaimed police station where supposed criminals have to turn themselves into, there is no reason why anyone, much less IRON and DAWN, should surrender to you.
The only reason that could theoretically exist, is that you guys defeated us in war and we have no other chance but.

Other than that, and I do hope you realize that militarily this isn't the case, there simply is no reason. Even if we wanted to be nice, despite winning, there is no reason to why we should surrender to you, as your alliance attacked IRON. Meaning you guys are the aggressors here, so morally speaking, you are the only party that should have to surrender. Speaking in strategical terms, you definitely should surrender cause you are getting owned badly.


That is the whole problem with you guys. You want us to do something for which we have absolutely no reason to - morally and strategically.
And until you realize that fact, your alliance will continue to be destroyed and slowly implode. Not because we want to destroy you, no, we even despite your complete stupidity, delusion and arrogance, still offer to let you go although you by no means deserve it. No, you are being destroyed by choice. It's what you want. Reasons for that will likely allude us ignorant criminal peanut gallery terrorists until the last of you has deleted.


[quote]I was Praetor during much of this period and I don't recall every having terms for IRON to have them acknowledge our right to intervene.

I *do* remember this being tossed around for terms from OG/Zenith; it was never requested from them because, quite frankly, we don't need to OWF's approval to know that we have the inherent right to defend anybody against their assailants.[/quote]
Edit: I was Councilor at the time, and I was the one who received terms demanding technology, an apology, and an acknowledgement of your attack on IRON having been defensive. So maybe Synth only mixed up alliances, but at least concerning DAWN, you did demand exactly that.

Edited July 8, 2010 by shilo

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 July 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1278608173' post='2363535']If they believe they did something wrong, then they should surrender [b]without being forced to do so[/b].
If they do not, then they should not... again, that's really the point here.[/quote]
How does that follow? If you committed a crime, let's say you got in a bar fight, would you give yourself up to police when they want to execute you for it? I know you'll say you're not trying to kill IRON, but the point remains. Just because you recognize something you did is wrong does not mean you should surrender. If the terms of your surrender are too harsh, then you shouldn't surrender. Since IRON does not know the terms of their surrender, they are perfectly right in not doing so.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Aeternos Astramora

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 July 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1278608570' post='2363543']
we don't need to OWF's approval to know that we have the inherent right to defend [b]anybody[/b] against their assailants.
[/quote]

I love that statement. Let me put it in proper context.


[quote]DAWN doesn't need to Gramlin's approval to know that we have the inherent right to defend [b]IRON[/b] against their assailants.[/quote]

Somehow Gramlins has very twisted sense of reality. You seem to say "It's okay if we do it, but it's not okay for anyone else to do it." Your hypocrisy makes it very easy to rationalize sending you nukes. Keep up the good work!


.

Edited July 8, 2010 by amad123

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='08 July 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1278613243' post='2363603']
Somehow Gramlins has very twisted sense of reality. You seem to say "It's okay if we do it, but it's not okay for anyone else to do it." Your hypocrisy makes it very easy to rationalize sending you nukes. Keep up the good work!
[/quote]

Sorry?

Where did I say that it's not OK for DAWN?

You may not have noticed that Synth is not in GRE.

I think I made it clear 20 pages ago that I don't really care about DAWN's involvement here; I consider it peripheral.


[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='08 July 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1278612699' post='2363594']
How does that follow? If you committed a crime, let's say you got in a bar fight, would you give yourself up to police when they want to execute you for it? I know you'll say you're not trying to kill IRON, but the point remains. Just because you recognize something you did is wrong does not mean you should surrender. If the terms of your surrender are too harsh, then you shouldn't surrender. Since IRON does not know the terms of their surrender, they are perfectly right in not doing so.
[/quote]


Because, as GRE has stated dozens of times, we do not consider IRON's surrender as an inherent agreement to comply with peace terms.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Matthew PK

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 July 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1278615233' post='2363653']
Sorry?Where did I say that it's not OK for DAWN?
[/quote]

Let me re-fresh your memory. Gramlins position is that DAWN was not granted peace because we attacked Gramlin nations that were at war with IRON nations. Is there another reason you have not offered to accept peace? Not that we would actually accept until IRON receives peace too. Don't give me any of that you offered "Unconditional Surrender" crap. The peace terms you did offer that we accepted you withdrew. Another nice play by Gramlins.

So it is okay for you to defend anyone you desire with or without treaties, but not okay for DAWN to defend IRON from your attacks even though we have a treaty which by your own statement you were well aware of when you attacked IRON. But you weren't worried because DAWN is just an alliance of little importance.

Keep it up and we will have more members and more NS than you. Then I assume Gramlins will be of little importance. Soon MPK, soon, you are next on the list.

.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 July 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1278608173' post='2363535']
Yet when I outline that IRON's surrender is meritorious in this case precisely because we haven't the might to "force" them, the "common" retort has been to call me delusional.
[/quote]

Back when the ESA was signed, you thought you had the might to force IRON. You posted several things to say so. Only later, when that was proven wrong, did you start saying "We don't have the might to force them".