The New Grämlins

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
We are at war with you. We, and only we, can absolve you of your actions which caused our entrance.
Who else would possibly have the authority to absolve you in the eyes of The Gremlins.
Sometimes such absolution may accompany disengagement from our friends; there is no reason that it must.
In this case, we're after some very simple and specific things.
[/quote]
Nothing caused your entrance but your free choice to do so. You were not attacked. No treaty partner of yours was attacked. You chose to get involved in a conflict for your own reasons, nothing but your free will was the cause. Your argument would have some merit were you in any way forced into this conflict. But you simply weren't. Saying you were friends with MK is your right to proclaim, still getting involved in their business will always be your choice.

Which is why I formulated the question in the first place. Absolution of sins is something that requires a sinner, and a higher authority. May this be Admin, or at least if it is the case, an existing victim of said sin.
Since you yourself said that you are not such a moral authority ("We don't seek to be any such moral authority for the planet."), you must be the victim. As it is clear that you are not the victims either, since you involved yourself voluntarily without any obligation but your own choice, I still ask you to point out to me what put you in the position of being able to absolve of us sins.
Right now, you simply say felt insulted by our attack on CnG, and thus believe yourself to be in the position to absolve us from our sins. By any comparison, that puts you in the angry-uninvolved mob position, nothing else.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
Surrender [b]typically[/b] follows defeat but it doesn't always indicate such. As I've stated before, surrendering is a functional equivalent of submitting yourself in response to your wrongdoing.
Just because a party *can* escape restitution for their actions doesn't make it the right thing to do.
If I were to shoplift and I made it out of the store the odds of my being "caught" are quite low; but that doesn't mean it isn't right to acknowledge my wrongdoing.
[/quote] Hey, I agreed with you. I just named the two conditions for which a surrender is the solution. We both agree that it is military defeat (I wrote so in the portion of text you quoted), so it must be for moral reasons.
But as you acknowledge not to be a higher moral authority, and facts make it clear that your involvevement is indirect and that of free choice, you also are not the victims.
This leave another option, one where you are the last man standing so to speak, the only voice able to demand restitution and remembrance of the sin occurred.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']Gremlins play the part in this situation because nobody else is left to demand that you honorably make yourself accountable.
This is circumstantial.[/quote]
This indeed would be valid, except for that little thing called reality: you are not the last one standing to demand such, all the victims of the attack still exist, rather successfully, as the winner of the last conflict, after having settled it with a peace treaty. So your statement saying you are the last one who [b]can[/b] demand restitution is simply not true. The correct statement would be: you are the only alliance which [u][b]wants[/b][/u] to demand restitution


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
Surely you must see the folly in depending on the sincerity of an apology offered under duress?
Especially considering so many IRON and DAWN members here have made it clear that you are not "sorry"
[/quote]Like above, I wrote so in the text you quoted, we agree.






[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
The Gremlins don't seek to be a moral police for the world. We merely seek for you to submit [b]because your behavior in this particular instance[/b] was wrong [b]and impacted us and our friends directly[/b].[/quote]
But this is the problem: it didn't involve you directly!
Were you attacked by us? No, you were not. And you had no treaties connecting you to the victims either. So your involved was 1) indirect and 2) voluntary

It is exactly for that reason why your actions are wrong in every shape or form. You chose to fight a conflict of your choice, for your reasons, without being forced to do so, and then you even continued to fight it even after aggressor and victim found a for both sides acceptable solution and ended the conflict. You are fighting a moral crusade without casus belli and without being a moral authority.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
That said, please don't try to spin this as if the war was fought over "tech raiding." That's the same tripe we all heard during the Unjust War. [/quote]
Then name me for what it was fought.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
Many of those who took the time to actually understand the process and the motivation are no longer outraged.
This thread has been dominantly driven by people claiming things that GRE never said and never did.
Even if you disagree with our actions after all this discussion you surely must acknowledge that a significant amount of the jabs in this thread are opportunistic and/or delivered by people who haven't put forth the effort to understand [b]either[/b] of our positions.
[/quote] I think the number of people who are outraged grew and grows with every post you or your leader made/makes.
And I have yet to see any facts named here to be proven wrong, except those coming from you of course. There we had and continue to have trouble connecting your facts with reality.
And the reason why people don't want to try to understand what you are doing is because it cannot be understood using logic, not even using the same language and dictionary as a matter of fact.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
Your disarm orders will be delivered following your surrender and when you are quartered. The terms will be delivered and you will [b]choose[[/b] to accept or decline them.
This has always been the case since day one.
[/quote]Are you officially rescinding the demand of your leader to first disarm and then surrender? Or is this one of those instances where your facts collide with reality?





[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
As stated above: this is specifically related to how your actions affected our friends and us.
Furthermore, our friends discussed with us alternatives to our demands and we presented one in the form of an ESA amendment.
We've made it clear your white peace is unacceptable; any bright ideas?
[/quote] One problem: you were not affected - you chose to be affected.
You make it sound like you were forced or lacked a choice. Sadly enough, this entire sad attempt of a moral crusade has been of your choosing since day one, in every way it played out

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
Non Sequitor.

Our actions of the last 4 months, in fact, demonstrate our principles and our convictions. That we have not compromised, even when facing "the world" (as you claim) should demonstrate this quite adequately to you.
I still affirm that we are not, and never have been, demanding anything unjust, immoral, insidious or tyrannical.
[/quote] By all means, I hope you are at least doing it for whatever reasons you may have. I actually think at least at the current end stage of your alliance and this conflict, it's mostly because your leader could end this only by acknowledging your wrong in all of this, and due to pride and ego, you rather want to get destroyed keeping up the illusion of having been misunderstood but right. Maybe this is the only way you can keep a shrink of sanity, I don't know.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252']
Our path to peace is justified, appropriate and honorable given the circumstances.
[/quote]
What path to peace? You started a war of your choice, refused to end it with your friends, and are on the path of self-destruction. You are so far off peace no GPS in the world could get you back on track.
Justified? If you can justify the self-destruction of your alliance due to a mixture of delusion, arrogant pride, failed strategic planning, have fun with that.
Appropriate? That takes two parties two agree, and currently, you and reality disagree on it being appropriate.
Honorable? The last honorable thing you did is fight for a friend, even though it was of your choice as you were not involved. I actually applaud that. But everything you did since then has been everything but honorable.



[quote name='flak attack' date='16 July 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1279284979' post='2374380']
Since you must have missed it: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79442

That looks like a CB to me.
[/quote]
I don't see any mention of gRAMlins or of their treaty partner in there, and last I checked, gRAMlins are neither now nor were they at the time of the DoW part of CnG. So I think you should try a bit harder next time.
Speaking in terms of EU3, there simply was none. Without a GoI, alliance, or unless you were gRAMlins' vassals or had a personal union, part of their sphere of influence, you and gRAMlins having the same religion and gRAMlins being the Defender of the Faith ( ), there is no CB either.

Edited July 16, 2010 by shilo

[Bilrow]

[url=http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=The%20Gr%E4mlins]And gRAMlins are down to 17 members[/url]. Hail the infinite wisdom of Ramirus. It looks like he'll achieve what I couldn't in 2007. Thanks!

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Bilrow' date='16 July 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1279292112' post='2374483']
[url=http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=The%20Gr%E4mlins]And gRAMlins are down to 17 members[/url]. Hail the infinite wisdom of Ramirus. It looks like he'll achieve what I couldn't in 2007. Thanks!
[/quote]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=357&showentry=1752"]Blog has been updated[/url], thanks.

[quote name='flak attack' date='16 July 2010 - 08:56 AM' timestamp='1279284979' post='2374380']
Since you must have missed it: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79442

That looks like a CB to me.
[/quote]

Given that MHA is not part of C&G, actually no, it is not...in a world where no treaty = no right to declare war.

I freely admit that I have mixed feelings about the idea of alliances going "treatyless" (or "paperless"), and relying on a network of friendly alliances and understandings to get by. To me the strategy is so different that it is difficult to do an "apples to apples" comparison between, for example, FAN (noted for being paperless) and ODN (noted for having substantial numbers of treaties) in terms of foreign policy. There is a tendency for those who rely on treaties to think of "paperless" alliances as mercenaries, available to the side that look's like it has the best chance of winning or worse, glorified tech raiders. Whereas "paperless" alliances tend to view treaty bound alliances as either cowards wrapping themselves in the protection of paper, or letting words on paper decide who their friends are going to be.

Ultimately I see treaties as something that will always be part of Planet Bob. "Treatyless" alliances will over time increase and decrease in number, as it is inevitable that at some point one of them (large enough to get noticed on the world stage) is going to get backstabbed severely and cause other similar alliances to rethink the strategy.

[flak attack]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='16 July 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1279295510' post='2374539']
Given that MHA is not part of C&G, actually no, it is not...in a world where no treaty = no right to declare war.
[/quote]
http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Aqua_Interalliance_Cooperation_%26_Economic_Treaty

The lack of citation does not mean one does not exist.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='16 July 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1279295510' post='2374539']
in a world where no treaty = no right to declare war.[/quote]

Equating pieces of paper with "the right to declare war" is pathetic and cowardly. Just as much as using them to escape would be.

As before, I'll point you to the second Moldavi doctrine which outlines such.
What's more, the document itself explains that it will cease to apply when people [b]realize[/b] that its contents are [b]not granted by the document[/b] but are inherent.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='flak attack' date='16 July 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1279296773' post='2374564']
http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Aqua_Interalliance_Cooperation_%26_Economic_Treaty

The lack of citation does not mean one does not exist.
[/quote]

I was addressing your specific statement. I also remember AQUA as being something of a minor joke at one time while I was at Ragnarok, but that doesn't mean that alliances didn't actually start to treat it seriously at a later date.

But let's examine this...

[i]Article 2: Defense: No signatory of this treaty is obligated to come to the defense of another signatory of this treaty. However, should a signatory alliance request defensive military assistance, the other signatory alliances are encouraged to consider it and may use this treaty as legal justification for entering a conflict at another signatory's defense. [/i]

Fair enough. Is there evidence that the AQUA members involved in C&G actually requested said help at the time of the attack? If so, the point is conceded, though it pretty much kills any discussion of Gramlins being a "paperless" alliance. If not, then once again we're substantially back to "given that MHA is not part of C&G, actually no, it is not...in a world where no treaty = no right to declare war."


EDIT: Just noticed this: [i]Grämlins withdrew from Aqua ICE on the 22nd of November 2009.[/i] That was before the IRON/DAWN DoW.

Edited July 16, 2010 by ChairmanHal

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1279297393' post='2374580']
Equating pieces of paper with "the right to declare war" is pathetic and cowardly. Just as much as using them to escape would be.

As before, I'll point you to the second Moldavi doctrine which outlines such.
What's more, the document itself explains that it will cease to apply when people [b]realize[/b] that its contents are [b]not granted by the document[/b] but are inherent.
[/quote]

Notice how I worded my statement. My personal belief is that any alliance may at its discretion declare war on any other alliance for any reason at any time. The corollary to that belief is if you plan on declaring aggressive wars, you damn well better win, because the penalties for not winning may be up to and including the destruction of your alliance.

All that said, when you get into a [i]legal[/i] argument over the justification for war in a world that recognizes a substantial web of treaties, declaring a war without a piece of paper or a reasonable, valid, and timely CB to justify it makes you an "aggressor" alliance, and technically not entitled to the same considerations granted alliances that declared war for reasons of treaty or CB.

Sure enough, Gramlins was "friendly" with members of C&G, even had an ODP that could have been evoked with some of them, but absent the evoking of that ODP, "friendly" isn't a legal justification given the above constraints.

The ironic part of all this is that given that Gramlins would technically be an "aggressor" alliance meant nothing in practical application, right up to the point that Gramlins decided that the terms given IRON and DAWN to end the war weren't good/harsh/whatever enough. Gramlins with left in an aggressive war with no legal justification fighting what over time would prove to be a superior foe.

[trance addict]

[quote name='flak attack' date='16 July 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1279296773' post='2374564']
http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Aqua_Interalliance_Cooperation_%26_Economic_Treaty

The lack of citation does not mean one does not exist.
[/quote]


Grämlins withdrew from Aqua ICE on the 22nd of November 2009

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='16 July 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1279296773' post='2374564']
http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Aqua_Interalliance_Cooperation_%26_Economic_Treaty

The lack of citation does not mean one does not exist.
[/quote]

that treaty would matter if it was MHA that was brought in, then Gremlins. But it was Gremlins who brought in MHA not the other way around. Gremlins, aka, the alliance with no treaties. There was no mention of ICE in the DoW made by Gremlins and MHA.

Therefore, Gremlins entered aggressively, not defensively no matter what ya'll say.

[shilo]

To be clear: I think gRAMlins have the right to get involved in any conflict, and I never doubted that they went in to help out friends. What I think they do is lack guts: what is so difficult to admit that you entered aggressively, it doesn't lessen for why you did it one bit?
Of course the consequences may be different in this world where we simply view having treaties and treaty less as different, but especially considering in gRAMlins case, who by their proclamation don't mind destruction if it means fighting for what they believe in, I do wonder why they then still insist to use even the most outrageous definitions of what they did to call it defensive.

We are not in a world where not having a treaty means you cannot declare war. We just are in a world where having whatever reasons and no matter how good those may look for yourself, it's simply not enough to call it defensive. Alliances as sovereign entities can do as they please, they just shouldn't try to avoid consequences for actions they freely committed.

[flak attack]

[quote name='trance addict' date='16 July 2010 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1279299543' post='2374633']
Grämlins withdrew from Aqua ICE on the 22nd of November 2009
[/quote]
Full Member Alliances
Athens
League Of Shadows Treaty
Mostly Harmless Alliance
The Aquatic Brotherhood

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='16 July 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1279301169' post='2374681']
that treaty would matter if it was MHA that was brought in, then Gremlins. But it was Gremlins who brought in MHA not the other way around. Gremlins, aka, the alliance with no treaties. There was no mention of ICE in the DoW made by Gremlins and MHA.

Therefore, Gremlins entered aggressively, not defensively no matter what ya'll say.
[/quote]
[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='29 January 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1264745590' post='2139526']
IRON and their minions have brought untoward aggression against our friends and the Harmlins shall see our way in to protect them.
[/quote]

Funny, the DoW doesn't say one way or another. I'll note that even your alliance didn't mention a treaty: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79720

Does that make IAA's entry aggressive?

[Crymson]

[quote name='Bilrow' date='16 July 2010 - 08:55 AM' timestamp='1279292112' post='2374483']
[url=http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=The%20Gr%E4mlins]And gRAMlins are down to 17 members[/url]. Hail the infinite wisdom of Ramirus. It looks like he'll achieve what I couldn't in 2007. Thanks!
[/quote]

I'm sure that some sort of convoluted thinking on the situation is allowing him to think he's still winning.

That said, it's absolute comedic gold that the Gramlins still think they can get IRON and DAWN to surrender. Newflash, MPK: IRON and DAWN aren't waiting on the edge of its seat for terms. I think they're more than content to simply plug away at your alliance until it withers and dies (Blackdigital excepted, as he's far out of range). At this rate, that may not be too far off.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='16 July 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1279310200' post='2374896']
Full Member Alliances
Athens
League Of Shadows Treaty
Mostly Harmless Alliance
The Aquatic Brotherhood




Funny, the DoW doesn't say one way or another. I'll note that even your alliance didn't mention a treaty: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79720

Does that make IAA's entry aggressive?
[/quote]

From what has been posted, it was Gremlins who brought in MHA, not the other way around. Thus, the lack of mentioning this treaty or the use of it to be brought in, is what makes it aggressive. IAA has treaties with mandatory defensive clauses in them to defend Athens, LOST, and GR. MHA has an optional defense clause to defend Athens and LOST and Gremlins have nothing at all but their word.

there is a clear difference between what IAA did and what Gre did.

[Bob Janova]

Oh god you did [i]not[/i] just use ICE as a defence justification

[Believland]

A lot of alliances use ODP/Econ treaties as a way for war.

[shilo]

Of course, and it would be valid, were gRAMlins a member of ICE. It's a nice try of flak attack to try to find a treaty by which gRAMlins entered, but no matter his commendable attempts, he won't find any. gRAMlins entered aggressively, without a treaty, there is no way getting around that fact. gRAMlins are paperless except their MHA treaty, so by all means, no matter what ICE says, it doesn't apply.

This on the other hand has nothing to do with the motive by which gRAMlins entered. That may have been defensive (I believe so) but that still doesn't make the entrance of gRAMlins in the war defensive.
Unless of course you agree that the motive alone defines how an alliance entered. In that case however, I hope everyone tries to be honest and will accept that then pretty much every alliance in every war entered defensively in some way.

[SynthFG]

Aqua Ice was never a consideration in the DoW
The only considerations were that
1) It was not in our interests to allow CnG to be crushed by the ex hegemony forces
2) MK were our friends and it was our duty to go to their aid

By our own measure (which is the only one that matters) our actions were defensive

anyone who cries about the lack of paper about a war less than 2 weeks after we declared paperless and that we would defend our former treaty partners even without a treaty is a sad !@#$%*

[Haflinger]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='16 July 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1279323374' post='2375185']
By our own measure (which is the only one that matters)
[/quote]
Wow, I thought I was arrogant.

The opinions of other people do in fact matter.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 July 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1279323568' post='2375188']
Wow, I thought I was arrogant.

The opinions of other people do in fact matter.
[/quote]

Not when you're the Ramlins; and if you hadn't noticed, it's currently ruining them

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='17 July 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1279323568' post='2375188']
Wow, I thought I was arrogant.

The opinions of other people do in fact matter.
[/quote]

Both points you are correct, so is synth. It was a defensive decleration for GRE, something you didnt bother to rebuttal him on, very humble of you Haf.

[shilo]

Once again, motive alone doesn't make a declaration of war defensive, especially not when you refuse to accept motive in general, rather prefer to apply it either to only your own alliance, or only to your allies. The risk is that others may then also start using motive to redefine their actions.

Now in gRAMlins case, I do however wonder about their motive and consistency: if they entered defensively by motive, why would they require a forced admission by DAWN that they entered defensively?
Since by Synth's definition, only their opinion matters, why did they required a coerced statement that ratifies that opinion?

Edited July 17, 2010 by shilo

[Bilrow]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='16 July 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1279323374' post='2375185']
Aqua Ice was never a consideration in the DoW
The only considerations were that
1) It was not in our interests to allow CnG to be crushed by the ex hegemony forces
[/quote]

From the mouth of an alliance that is itself ex-hegemony. Irony or double standard much?

[Derantol]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='16 July 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1279323374' post='2375185']
By our own measure (which is the only one that matters) our actions were defensive
[/quote]

Okay, this really isn't the case. It's academic, I think, as the fact remains that we are at war, but it certainly matters what other people think about defensive or aggressive actions. As far as justification of war is concerned, there are plenty of treaties that have articles that depend on whether or not an act was committed aggressively or defensively. If I were to be the head of a "paperless" alliance, I'd want to know whether an action was committed aggressively or defensively; I'm going to guess I'm not alone on that. To assume that only your opinion matters in this case is, as Haflinger says, arrogant, and to a certain degree it's naive.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Crymson' date='16 July 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1279324521' post='2375201']
Not when you're the Ramlins; and if you hadn't noticed, it's currently ruining them
[/quote]
I'm having quite the chuckle, especially now that I'm seeing what some current Gramlins think of Ram.

*Matt points to his sig quote.

Apparently running some tech imports allows you some leeway in the lunacy department.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Matt Miller