The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='12 April 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1271109925' post='2257777']
Yeah, in this thread I have made about 8 arguments. What you are doing is following: You are singling one argument out, and then take one sentence, an assumption after the conclusion, and try to argue it. Yet you skipped the other points. This is very smart.

But back to the sentence. Yes, it might look a little stupid now, but we'll see what happens and talk again in 6 months, maybe a year. [/quote]
I wasn't being sarcastic; sorry if I was unclear. I really did think that last sentence of yours not only hit the nail on the head but drive it all the way through the board.




[quote]If they can recover that quick, and continue to fight, why do you ask them to disarm their military in first place?[/quote]
Matt Miller and I have already addressed this.


[quote]In 4 years (?) of Cybernations that wasn't needed. Why do Grämlins need it now? [/quote]
New ideas and paradigms are unwelcome in the cyberverse?

[quote]When it comes to negotiations you are in a perfect position, unless you want to give them some idiotic terms, then again, of course you need a better position. You aren't fooling anyone here.[/quote]

According to IRON/DAWN, we're in a very poor position.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Heft' date='12 April 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1271110216' post='2257781']
I would actually contend that it's not a strategic benefit, but a tactical benefit.

A semantical difference, to be sure, but since semantics is all Gramlins seem to have left I thought you would appreciate it.

Strategically, it would seem to be proving detrimental.
[/quote]
Perhaps you and I are aiming for different targets....

[Crymson]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='12 April 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1271109428' post='2257772']
Why don't you go ahead and explain to me how exactly that poor excuse for a response is 'well-played'. To me it all it said is that that he had no good answer to give and had to resort to that time old avoidance technique of deliberately missing the point.

I understand that you are enjoying the role of mindless cheerleader here, but at least put some thought into your replies, please.
[/quote]

It appears I mistakenly quoted a response by Longbowe that was not directed towards MatthewPK. Apologies. That said, sensitive much?

[Crymson]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1271110607' post='2257793']
Perhaps you and I are aiming for different targets....
[/quote]

So you and your alliance are aiming for suicide, assisted or otherwise. Ah. That explains much about your behavior in this situation.

[Joe32320]

[quote]According to IRON/DAWN, we're in a very poor position. [/quote]

Getting worse as well if you keep this up

[Heft]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1271110607' post='2257793']
Perhaps you and I are aiming for different targets....
[/quote]
Yea, I generally try and improve my alliance's position, but I suppose self-harm can be considered a legitimate target, if you're in to that.

[shilo]

[quote name='Carlton the Great' date='13 April 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1271109694' post='2257775']
I love this sig, I hope no one objects to me using it
[/quote]
Please do, thank ironchef for making them

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Edit: Nevermind, not bothering to worry about this trainwreck.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 April 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1271110509' post='2257790']


New ideas and paradigms are unwelcome in the cyberverse?

[/quote]

Well, this "new idea" is a problem for most people in this thread because

[list][*]it takes the sovereignty of DAWN and IRON[*]no one understands why a "Let's hide our intentions" strategy in surrender talks is necessary[*]the chance is great that you will extort both alliances[*]you have threatened with eternal war (or at least mentioned it) which is blackmailing.[/list]You cannot deny that gRAMlins lose a lot of credibility, due to this drama. Now, why do you think it's worth losing that much credibility for not telling two alliances what they can expect when they surrender?
Because you are Grämlins your ego is boosted and you are proud to be different than the rest of the world? I don't buy that.

I have been away the past few weeks, so I haven't seen a whole lot of the surrender talks between us and CnG, however I know that after some weeks of discussions (with open cards) we came to a solution that suited both, and a fair solution I must say.
Grämlins attacked without a treaty obligation, which is your sovereign right, your CB was to defend your friends. I respect that, I think there is no better CB, no matter whether you fight defensive or aggressive wars. However, as soon as your friends declare peace, your CB expires, and that's exactly what happened.

Instead of trying to find a reasonable solution for all involved parties (this is how Grämlins worked) you try your "new strategy" in order to get an improved position on the negotiation table. On one hand side you argue, that they can rebuy their military, so that in fact, it's not as bad as everyone thinks, and on the other hand side you say that it'll give you an improved position.

But this doesn't make sense, since you can only have an advantage when their side has a disadvantage, and you advantage is only as big as their disadvantage.

If you are interested in fair terms you play with open cards. It makes no sense hiding your intentions, since you search a solution that is mutually acceptable. Hiding the terms and your intentions obviously creates distrust, because the assumption, that the terms aren't acceptable for both parties isn't far from real.

I know Grämlins signed a document after the Polar - War, that they'd never pay reparations in a defensive war. It's up for discussion whether the war was offensive or defensive when you started it, but at the moment, it's definitely an aggressive war against IRON / DAWN, because your CB expired, and because you were given the chance to peace out, and request fair terms. You currently, according your own DoW, have no justification for this war.

Why have your standards changed? Why do you suddenly want reps for an aggressive war?

[Alterego]

[quote]III. On Peace Terms

Peace terms shall not be used to humiliate the opponent or to cripple him economically beyond the need to remove the current and immediate threat to the alliance. No terms shall be offered which The Grämlins would not consider acceptable if the sides were switched. The terms shall reflect the opponents' behaviour during battle[/quote]

If the whole point of this course of action is, [u]as stated[/u] to "remove the current and immediate threat to the alliance" then it has failed. The removal of the "current and immediate threat to the alliance" by means of an already negotiated peace agreement with their war allies was on the table and rejected. The immediate threat was removed but has been kept in place by insisting on this course of actions.

As an alliance that was defeated in battle, prepared to surrender and pay reparations, IRON would not have been a threat to Gramlins or their "allies" for the foreseeable future. IRON ant their allies have been badly beaten and as a result of reparations would continue to fall behind Gramlins and their allies in rebuilding therefore reducing the potential future threat to Gramlins and their allies.

The war produced two clear and separate entities. On one side TOP/IRON &CO are in the minority. The supercomplaints side of the war was twice the size of the TOP/IRON side. Unless there was a sudden and seismic shift in global politics IRON would be in no position to threaten Gramlins without a massive force being brought to bear against them again.

The truth of the matter is Gramlins twice attacked IRON. During the Karma war they used their [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55210"]OPTIONAL AGGRESSION[/url] treaty with FARK to engage IRON. This was not a defensive war for them, they chose to offensively hit IRON. During the ongoing war they took it one step further and attacked IRON [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79461"]OFFENSIVELY[/url]with an imaginary treaty. Twice Gramlins have aggressively attacked IRON, twice Gramlins have shown themselves to be an immediate and dangerous threat to IRON.

Its simply preposterous for Gramlins to claim that IRON are a threat to them of any kind. A defeated alliance, heavily indebted, isolated and heavily outnumbered when allies are compared to that of the Supercomplaints allies is not a threat to Gramlins. The biggest threat to Gramlins is Gramlins. They have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and have put themselves in a genuinely dangerous position compared to the one they would have been in before they took this unilateral decision. Whatever their real motive is to keep IRON at war its not because IRON is an immediate threat to them or will be a threat to them in the near future. They have tried to deceive the world, they have used their once great reputation to push this lie and have been exposed for the alliance they are today. They may wear the Gramlins name but they are not the Gramlins alliance that you know. Dont confuse the two, see them for what they are and act accordingly.

Long live a strong and free IRON o/

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1271102902' post='2257612']
Of course not, and I'd never expect anybody else to do so either.
"Unconditionally surrender" and "willing to accept whatever peace terms they give you" are two different, and separable, things.[/quote]


No. The fact that they are surrendering with no conditions (unconditional surrender) means that they then have to accept whatever terms you give them. Only a fool would do that, and you know it.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1271103762' post='2257632']
What I stated was that I would never "accept whatever terms were offered"
If terms are eventually offered and IRON does not accept them that is their prerogative. Certainly after demilitarizing it may place them in a different position as the "bargaining table" if you will and it opens them up to a different risk.
But there is no reason why IRON couldn't retrain soldiers, tanks, aircraft, CM etc very quickly should they find terms unacceptable.
[/quote]

Nonsense. If tomorrow you found them with minimum soldier levels, no tanks, no nukes, no aircraft, and every nation out of peace mode, then you could pound on them and give your next set of instructions. Which would almost certainly be to decom military improvements.

And once they decom military improvements, they cant just buy them back, since they've got so many nations with negative improvement slots.

You know this, and everyone else knows it. If they go along with your "unconditional surrender" then after that, they are your slaves, and have to do whatever you want, because they already surrendered and got rid of their ability to fight back.

Then you can start telling them your real terms - what wonders they have to get rid of, how often they have to kiss your butt, how much tech you want them to send, and anything else Gramlins comes up with. And they have to do that forever, until you, out of the goodness of your heart, release them.

Nobody is going to accept those terms.

[quote name='Heft' date='12 April 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1271110216' post='2257781']
I would actually contend that it's not a strategic benefit, but a tactical benefit.

A semantical difference, to be sure, but since semantics is all Gramlins seem to have left I thought you would appreciate it.

Strategically, it would seem to be proving detrimental.
[/quote]

I was going to point out the same thing. Tactics are short term, strategy is long term.

Tactically, if IRON/DAWN were to play along, Gramlins would gain a huge advantage. They aren't going to get that advantage, though, because it is based on IRON/DAWN deciding to agree to unconditional surrender, which amounts to slavery. It's not going to happen.

Strategically, this is a disaster. It's not often that you find pretty much everyone in CN agreeing. Even Gramlins allies are expressing disagreement - not just with words, but with actions. They left Gramlins on the field, and to me, that was a pretty solid move that shows they don't agree with Gramlins stance.

I agree that everyone selling tech to Gramlins should find other buyers - and possibly be considered as targets for attack if they continue selling to Gramlins. After all, selling to an alliance at war has always been considered as getting involved with the war.

Gramlins isn't in a position to defend their tech sellers - their only advantage is at the top, where they need to buy, not sell. Gramlins nations who get very small are going to get trounced - the numbers on the low end are all on the IRON/DAWN side.

Currently IRON and DAWN are growing in NS, while Gramlins is losing NS. The smaller Gramlins nations that get jumped by IRON end up getting beaten down, fighting 3-1 battles. IRON can cycle people in that range out, keep beating that nation down, and Gramlins can't replace him. Sure, Gramlins says "We'll rebuild them post war", and I'm sure that a whole lot of infra can be replaced fairly quickly - but not all of it. And tech can't be replaced all that quickly once it's been nuked away.

Plus Gramlins has to worry about attrition. I doubt that every nation in Gramlins like being part of the circus Gramlins has turned into, so some will likely leave. In the meantime, it seems unlikely that many experience rulers are going to want to join Gramlins under the current circumstances, and it's impossible for Gramlins to recruit new nations and build them up due to the IRON/DAWN nations that would immediately jump any small nation flying the Gramlin name.

Strategically, Gramlins has pissed off most of Planet Bob and left themselves no good way out. At some point, Gramlins is going to pretty much own the top level, TOP/DAWN will own the low and mid level. IRON/DAWN will be able to put a few nations in peace mode, send enough money/tech to get that nation in range of the lowest Gramlins nation (funded by other IRON/DAWN nations) and attack 3 vs 1. Those 3 will take a lot of damage - but that one Gramlins nation will get knocked down lower, to a range where more of the IRON side can hit it. Rinse and repeat, and that Gramlins nation ends up out of the picture for all practical purposes.

And what happens to the Gramlins nations in that situation when they get beat down? Well, that's up to IRON/DAWN. But under the circumstances, I'd expect terms to let that individual nation go free would be pretty tough. At the very least, I'd expect them to have to decom all military improvements/wonders with the exception of the MP which can't be decommissioned.

After that happens to a few nations, the rest of the Gramlins might start thinking "I don't want to be in that position". And then they might choose to come to a reasonable agreement as an alliance, or they might decide to come to individual agreements with IRON so that they can leave Gramlins without having to pay the huge price.

And all of this assumes that nobody ever comes to the aid of IRON/DAWN. Sure, they are pretty much on their own right now - a week or so after the "unconditional surrender or war forever!" stuff started. But will that last forever? I doubt it.

If this goes on for months and Gramlins continues to fall bit by bit, they aren't going to be in a position to give out any terms - and IRON, if they ever end up on top, are going to be in a position to demand incredibly harsh terms and still get support from pretty much all of CN.

Strategically, this is horrible for Gramlins. It's sad to see an alliance that was once highly respected throwing it all away and spitting on everyone they see.

[NLights]

i love when my generally unfounded hate becomes validated with something real.

thanks ram!

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

I note that, in addition to Synth leaving, Chill has also left Gre to apply over at Umbrella. Fascinating behaviour for someone who posted this [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=480&p=2245324&#entry2245324"]gem[/url] just a little over a week ago.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1271103762' post='2257632']What I stated was that I would never "accept whatever terms were offered"
If terms are eventually offered and IRON does not accept them that is their prerogative. Certainly after demilitarizing it may place them in a different position as the "bargaining table" if you will and it opens them up to a different risk.
But there is no reason why IRON couldn't retrain soldiers, tanks, aircraft, CM etc very quickly should they find terms unacceptable.[/quote]
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1271103888' post='2257636']So your contention is that once you have dismissed military that you are permanently helpless? It is amazing then, to me, that when people are hit by nukes which destroy most of their soldiers and planes that they can ever recover to continue fighting![/quote]
That's not what unconditional surrender is. If your definition of "unconditional surrender", which is different than everywhere else in the world, is only decomming soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and CM's, and has nothing to do with decomming nukes or coming out of peace mode, would the Ramlins also cease attacking while this is going on?


Do you require IRON's nations to come out of peace mode and decom their nukes? If so, will you attack them?

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='12 April 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1271109925' post='2257777']If they can recover that quick, and continue to fight, why do you ask them to disarm their military in first place?

I mean, you claim that it gives you a better position on the negotiation table. But if they can rebuy all their military quickly, this point is moot. And why don't you reveal your terms of surrender, why do you keep them in the dark? Because they are just? HAHA![/quote]
Great question. Please answer.

[President Hardin]

i also see this as deplorable. i think we'd all agree that the diplomatic process is in place to assure that all sides, once terms are agreed upon, can return to a state of normalcy and begin to allow their alliances to heal. it is of my opinion, that once an agreement is reached, it is done and over with. there is no rescinding or adding stipulations AFTER both sides have given the okay (especially when the initiator of said agreement is the one re-nigging on the deal AFTER their demands were accepted the first time)

tsk tsk.

[Tran Hung Dao]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='12 April 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1271122458' post='2258057']



Great question. Please answer.
[/quote]

My dear Aeternos Astramora, clearly you do not understand politics on the same level as an elite alliance such as the Little Green Evil Yoda folk do. Why on earth would you release fair terms that would be universally respected and increase the community standing of your alliance, when you could enjoy a long and drawn out discussion on how the founders of your alliance have left, give many of them a platform to voice their digust at how far you have strayed from your respecting principles and of course allow the community as a whole to work itself in a rage over the conduct of your government?

Cleary the Evil Yoda folk have fair terms, terms that shall impress us all, but once does not simply release such terms, one milks as much political capital as possible from these terms as they are doing here. That is why they are elite and others are not.

As a side note, in this discussion various Yoda types have boasted about the power of their Central Bank, their ability to rebuild any nations that go to war and so on and so forth. If this is the case, why do they need money from weaker and poorer parties? One would think they would simply seek a token amount as proof of victory and move on, as opposed to rooting through the couch cushions at the IRON Presidential Palace in search of change.

Edit: Horrible, horrible spelling here and there.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Tran Hung Dao

[kerschbs]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='12 April 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1271106039' post='2257692']
Every day that this stretches out it makes me personally want to defend IRON more and more. What has the world come to.
[/quote]

Too true goldie. I never thought I would be agreeing with IRON over gramlins in any situation.

[Coursca]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='12 April 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1271121496' post='2258021']
I note that, in addition to Synth leaving, Chill has also left Gre to apply over at Umbrella. Fascinating behaviour for someone who posted this [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=480&p=2245324&#entry2245324"]gem[/url] just a little over a week ago.
[/quote]

This is classic. Simply classic.

What shall will we see next from The gRAMlins?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1271105870' post='2257686']
All this talk of terms!
How many times does it need to be said that there are no terms on the table?
[/quote]

actually that is just false. there are no [i]surrender[/i] terms sure, but there are most assuredly terms on the table. unconditional surrender and demilitarization are certainly terms though. so just please stop with this illogical statement about how there are no terms. your mistaken belief in the definition of unconditional surrender is already mind-boggling as it is.

[quote name='goldielax25' date='12 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1271106039' post='2257692']
Every day that this stretches out it makes me personally want to defend IRON more and more. What has the world come to.
[/quote]

you and me both buddy. quite possibly once i build up a decent warchest again.

[The Big Bad]

You know I have had about enough of this. If Gramlins has not settled this by the end of this week I am going to become active again with one goal in mind. I do not think many people have any idea what I do but, I assure you, when I am done you will. I expect no response or perhaps even some giggles, as what could little ole me do after all. And I assure that will just give me the motivation to have some real fun again.

[Methax]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='12 April 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1271127812' post='2258241']
you and me both buddy. quite possibly once i build up a decent warchest again.
[/quote]

i'll join too

[The Warrior]

I look forward to what you all have in mind.

[ironchef]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='12 April 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1271128270' post='2258247']
You know I have had about enough of this. If Gramlins has not settled this by the end of this week I am going to become active again with one goal in mind. I do not think many people have any idea what I do but, I assure you, when I am done you will. I expect no response or perhaps even some giggles, as what could little ole me do after all. And I assure that will just give me the motivation to have some real fun again.
[/quote]
Oh you have gone and done it now gRAMlins. You done pissed off TBB. I will be there with you TBB to put boot to $@! If they dont stop this vendetta driven crusade they are on.

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='12 April 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1271128270' post='2258247']
You know I have had about enough of this. If Gramlins has not settled this by the end of this week I am going to become active again with one goal in mind. I do not think many people have any idea what I do but, I assure you, when I am done you will. I expect no response or perhaps even some giggles, as what could little ole me do after all. And I assure that will just give me the motivation to have some real fun again.
[/quote]
rofl. As much as I disagree with what the Grämlins are doing, I don't think that you can scare them into doing anything.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='13 April 2010 - 06:02 AM' timestamp='1271134923' post='2258359']
rofl. As much as I disagree with what the Grämlins are doing, I don't think that you can scare them into doing anything.
[/quote]
When decency, logic & common sense arguments fail its all thats left. There is a growing number of people strongly considering leaving their alliance to join the fight against Gramlins, that is a real and credible threat to what's left of Shamlins. The longer this goes on the more it looks like the alliance has gone rogue or its being taken that way by a rogue element at the top that wants to go out in a blaze of infamy. Nothing else about the situation makes any sense. The blowback from this is gathering pace and could hit Shamlins like a hurricane.