The New Grämlins

[Derantol]

[quote name='The Reccesion' date='14 April 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1271276296' post='2260391']
I got a question. Let's say IRON and DAWN were helped out by a couple of alliances, and MHA needed support fighting for Gre, would you request it? I mean they aren't exactly attacking you, so would you activate aggression clauses and have your allies fight for Gre? This doesn't need to be answered as a yes or no. Just some thoughts on it?
[/quote]

Well, it doesn't really pertain to the discussion at hand, really. And there's not much point in asking what if questions when MHA has already made it clear that what they do will depend on the situation. I guarantee you that you'll only be answered with questions, as it's foolish to make statements regarding situations like the one you proposed on the off chance that it actually happens. EDIT: Statements that will be brought up later and dragged through the OWF like they were pieces of the holy scripture that Admin himself put to paper, and therefore must be adhered to.

That being said, it has seemed very clear to me that IRON and DAWN aren't asking for any help. Grämlins have made an offer (we demilitarize and surrender unconditionally and let them tell us what they want, at great risk to us), and we've decided that we don't like it. Our counter-offer, since we can't actually effectively communicate with them at the moment, is that we're going to keep fighting them until they'll talk to us and we can come to some common ground.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Derantol

[Crymson]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='14 April 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1271279048' post='2260449']
Nice backpedal attempt, but I see right through it, what you said was that MHA, do not control there own alliance and RAMlins make all there decisions, this is factually incorrect,
[/quote]

I suspect you're taking his comment far, far, far too literally.

[franciscus]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='14 April 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1271256912' post='2260122']
well hell put it out there , what would you find acceptable?
[/quote]

A shrubbery

Seriously though, we've negotiated some terms initially with VonDroz and we'd've stuck to them. Now, I'd go for white peace and let them be.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Crymson' date='14 April 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1271279692' post='2260462']
I suspect you're taking his comment far, far, far too literally.
[/quote]


I suspect he was talking out his $@! as usual. In any context, what he said was and is wrong Gramlins have absolutly no control over what MHA do, other than what treaties they are obligated to act on.

[Yggdrazil]

MHA's response is moot anyway. C&G would, I'm guessing, come to aid an alliance that entered a war to aid them; even given the intransigence displayed thus far by the Grämlins over Peace.
The only military option that seems permissible from those wanting to aid Iron/Dawn is to join those two alliances.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' date='14 April 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1271280661' post='2260485']
MHA's response is moot anyway. C&G would, I'm guessing, come to aid an alliance that entered a war to aid them; even given the intransigence displayed thus far by the Grämlins over Peace.
The only military option that seems permissible from those wanting to aid Iron/Dawn is to join those two alliances.
[/quote]
C&G managed to convince several alliances into paying them large amount of reps after a very damaging war as they're currently rebuilding, now Gremlins are endangering all that and killing whatever support for continuing the war that CnG had going while involved. Somehow I doubt CnG would re-enter potentially ending up in a situation with no reps while they are still rebuilding.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Methrage

[Crymson]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='14 April 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1271279932' post='2260469']
I suspect he was talking out his $@! as usual. In any context, what he said was and is wrong Gramlins have absolutly no control over what MHA do, other than what treaties they are obligated to act on.
[/quote]

I think you're missing the point.

[shilo]

CnG, like MHA, are victims of the gRAMlins insanity. After all, due to the gRAMlins, CnG won't be getting their reps from us now but likely much later, and MHA has the problem of an enternal treaty with an alliance that went nuts. So I do have sympathies for their position in all of this, definitely all but an easy one.

Of course I would hope they cancel their treaty with the gRAMlins, but I also would never suggest this to be an easy decision.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Crymson' date='14 April 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1271281357' post='2260498']
I think you're missing the point.
[/quote]


No! I think he was having a petty snipe, but ohh almighty one, please enlighten me to what he was meaning?

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='scutterbug' date='14 April 2010 - 05:29 AM' timestamp='1271240935' post='2259935']
Makes you a bandwagoner then?

Are you even seriously trying to argue that. Nobody really gives a monkeys about a one person crusade for "justice"
[/quote]
FFS, YOU CAN'T BANDWAGON ON THE LOSING SIDE!

[quote name='President Hardin' date='14 April 2010 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1271245419' post='2259984']
i agree with this 100% and I have taken one step extra by placing GDA tech sanctions against Gramlins. Our members will not buy or sell tech to Gramlins until they come to their senses. I firmly believe this has a potentially game-changing effect on the way peace deals are struck in the future. If one alliance is allowed to go back on their word eventually other alliances will take this as status quo and repeat the same offense without thought.
[/quote]
Great move. We would do the same, except it's quite pointless since we are a tech hog.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1271263136' post='2260201']
How many times have I said that demilitarization and surrender does not imply that you can't return to a state of war from the table?
I suppose at least you're being consistent....[/quote]
Yes, you can return to a state of war after surrendering... if you break rsurrender terms and your own word, a terrible thing to do. It's similar to how you can not defend a MDP partner who was aggressively attacked for no CB... if you break your treaty and your word.

[quote]Furthermore, I think the process of "demilitarization" is adequately outlined. You can correct me if I am wrong.[/quote]
Do nations need to come out of peace mode? Do improvements, wonders, navies, and nukes need to be decommed? Will the gRAMlins still attack while IRON is demilitarizing/demilitarized?

You are corrected. I studiously note that if we correct you in your false opinion that "demilitarization" has been adequately outlined, you did not promise us to explain what you actually meant.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='15 April 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1271284037' post='2260529']
Do nations need to come out of peace mode? Do improvements, wonders, navies, and nukes need to be decommed? Will the gRAMlins still attack while IRON is demilitarizing/demilitarized?

You are corrected. I studiously note that if we correct you in your false opinion that "demilitarization" has been adequately outlined, you did not promise us to explain what you actually meant.
[/quote]
I wouldn't bother belabouring the point with Matthew on this matter (as I did much earlier in this thread). Personally, I've found him to be thoroughly evasive and a disingenous interlocutor with regard to the opinions he's shared with us all.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Kowalski]

Haters gonna hate. The same people urging MHA to cancel on the Grämlins or not to support them will no doubt be saying bad things them for yet another dishonourable move if they did just that. And you could probably write their names down before even reading the thread.

EDIT: For jerdge

Edited April 15, 2010 by Kowalski

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Kowalski' date='14 April 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1271286474' post='2260559']
Haters gonna hate. The same people urging MHA to cancel on the Grämlins or not to support them will no doubt be trolling them for yet another dishonourable move if they did just that. And you could probably write their names down before even reading the thread.
[/quote]
A lot of us are old supporters of MHA and Grämlins who are greatly saddened by this turn of events. Actually.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Kowalski' date='14 April 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1271286474' post='2260559']
Haters gonna hate. The same people urging MHA to cancel on the Grämlins or not to support them will no doubt be trolling them for yet another dishonourable move if they did just that. And you could probably write their names down before even reading the thread.
[/quote]
I think if they're going to not support Gremlins they should cancel, I think it would be more dishonorable to keep the treaty and not do anything with it than cancel if they aren't defending Gremlins so both are on the same page at least. If they keep the treaty they should be prepared to defend Gremlins. Whether they keep it or not should reflect the reality of the relationship is what I suggest.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Kowalski' date='15 April 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1271286474' post='2260559']
Haters gonna hate. The same people urging MHA to cancel on the Grämlins or not to support them will no doubt be trolling them for yet another dishonourable move if they did just that. And you could probably write their names down before even reading the thread.
[/quote]

Well, it's not like MHA's previous self-preserving actions didn't cause the situation you just mentioned, where people just hate MHA because they exist.

To a degree, just like ODN. Except ODN got relieved, at least for now, from their status after the attack they were [i]victims[/i] of.

[Nizzle]

Did Kowalski just saying standing by and doing nothing is more honorable than canceling a treaty?

Isn't that ironic.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='14 April 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1271282710' post='2260517']
No! I think he was having a petty snipe, but ohh almighty one, please enlighten me to what he was meaning?
[/quote]

I suggest you go back and read through the thread so that you may have the necessary context. If you do so but still cannot figure the matter out, then perhaps I will shower upon your undeserving soul some of my godly wisdom.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='14 April 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1271285503' post='2260549']
I wouldn't bother belabouring the point with Matthew on this matter (as I did much earlier in this thread). Personally, I've found him to be a thoroughly evasive and a disingenous interlocutor with regard to the opinions he's shared with us all.
[/quote]

Not his fault really he knows he has no ground to stand on so he is fighting a holding action. Really its the best anyone could do when put in this position by ones alliance. He wants to be loyal and defend them but, at he same time knows they are wrong. He is going with the only option he thinks he has.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='14 April 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1271285503' post='2260549']
I wouldn't bother belabouring the point with Matthew on this matter (as I did much earlier in this thread). Personally, I've found him to be a thoroughly evasive and a disingenous interlocutor with regard to the opinions he's shared with us all.
[/quote]
I just like showing how Matthew is BS'ing us.

[quote name='Kowalski' date='14 April 2010 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1271286474' post='2260559']Haters gonna hate. The same people urging MHA to cancel on the Grämlins or not to support them will no doubt be trolling them for yet another dishonourable move if they did just that. And you could probably write their names down before even reading the thread.[/quote]
I was fairly neutral about MHA. Not now.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='14 April 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1271285503' post='2260549']
I wouldn't bother belabouring the point with Matthew on this matter (as I did much earlier in this thread). Personally, I've found him to be a thoroughly evasive and a disingenous interlocutor with regard to the opinions he's shared with us all.
[/quote]

I think he's providing some wonderful entertainment.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='14 April 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1271285503' post='2260549']
I wouldn't bother belabouring the point with Matthew on this matter (as I did much earlier in this thread). Personally, I've found him to be a thoroughly evasive and a disingenous interlocutor with regard to the opinions he's shared with us all.
[/quote]

I've been pretty straight-forward with my opinions. Where I've been lacking substance is on anything about what my alliance thinks.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1271300803' post='2260827']
I've been pretty straight-forward with my opinions. Where I've been lacking substance is on anything about what my alliance thinks.
[/quote]

So you're defending a position you don't understand?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='14 April 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1271298714' post='2260786']
I just like showing how Matthew is BS'ing us.


I was fairly neutral about MHA. Not now.
[/quote]
That was an Umbrella member, although I'm not sure what he's advocating.

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='shilo' date='14 April 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1271274575' post='2260364']
For someone who has "Roller of the hard six" as member title, that's telling.
[/quote]
What? I don't say that every time I post at all.
Now if I went to every thread that talked about TPF and posted that in response to everything anyone on the other side of the argument said, that would make sense.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Shan Revan' date='14 April 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1271251890' post='2260061']
My best guess, Sam, is that he is implying that NPO made all of your decisions for MCXA during your reign. Generally though his arguments and attacks are so misinformed, outdated, illogical or just outright bigoted that it's much simpler to ignore his criticism and comments. Much like the way he does everyone else.
[/quote]
MCXA back in the day was no different than MHA now.

What is misinformed?

What is illogical?

What is outright bigoted?

Just because it's old doesn't mean it isn't a good point.