The New Grämlins

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1271534918' post='2264123']
Ertyy, I just don't believe that informed Grämlins members really believe that forcing an alliance to surrender unconditionally is 'right and justified', but if you actually do, then you have really lost your moral compass, and badly. This differs from the usual 'mob rule' because it's not just people on the 'other side' that are complaining about this, but from all over the web, and even from MHA. That should tell you something.

You shouldn't be turned from your path because of what people say, but hopefully what people say will help to make you realise that your path is not right nor justified.

However, it is disturbing to see both you and MPK – senior Grämlins who I know can see situations for what they are and think for yourselves – backing Ram up on this outrage. That makes me think that he has really 'converted' you and there is no hope for a return to a moral Grämlins, even if you manage to get rid of Ram.
[/quote]

I lol'ed. You know as well as I there is no immutable standard of morality, and if there was planet bob has not found it yet. This is pretty much a preachy way of saying that you wouldn't have done what we did. Well, good for you. As I have said, we are all entitled to have our own standards. But please don't complain because my moral compass isn't the same as your's. It's just stupid, and I have a feeling most people here would reject that argument if they weren't already so high on the blind hatred.

[Bob Janova]

Except that your moral compass, at least a small subset of it relating to warfare, is written down in the Codex. Requiring unconditional surrender is humiliating (not allowed), you wouldn't accept it if offered to you (not allowed – we might get to test this one the way the war is going though) and it punishes IRON beyond what is necessary to remove the immediate threat (not allowed).

Also, morality is inherently a social thing and when what you are doing is outraging everybody, then there isn't really much space for relativism. I don't believe that morality is entirely subjective (for example punching random people in the street isn't going to moral however many people do it) and it seems that most of the planet agrees with me that unconditional surrender is not within the grey area of individual morality ('I wouldn't do it that way'), but actually absolutely wrong.

If you think that the criticism – from ex-members, current allies and members of your coalition – is based on hatred, then you need to take off your Ramirus blinkers, because most people are not coming from a position of dislike for Grämlins; it is your actions and particularly the requirement for IRON to unconditionally surrender which is generating outrage, not preconceptions. I do not hate Grämlins, I don't believe any of the diaspora do, nor MHA.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1271536709' post='2264149']
I lol'ed. You know as well as I there is no immutable standard of morality, and if there was planet bob has not found it yet. This is pretty much a preachy way of saying that you wouldn't have done what we did. Well, good for you. As I have said, we are all entitled to have our own standards. But please don't complain because my moral compass isn't the same as your's. It's just stupid, and I have a feeling most people here would reject that argument if they weren't already so high on the blind hatred.
[/quote]
You do. The Codex. We've pointed this out multiple times, yet you guys seem to ignore it. Either get rid of the Codex or stop pretending you don't have one.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1271537452' post='2264166']
Except that your moral compass, at least a small subset of it relating to warfare, is written down in the Codex. Requiring unconditional surrender is humiliating (not allowed), you wouldn't accept it if offered to you (not allowed – we might get to test this one the way the war is going though) and it punishes IRON beyond what is necessary to remove the immediate threat (not allowed).[/quote]

1. I don't see it as any more humiliating than any other surrender IRON might take. And they still are at the inevitable surrender stage. So the real issue is we should be doing the surrendering?
2. How do you know what we would or wouldn't accept? I don't believe you are in the alliance.
3. Unconditional surrender means there are no conditions. So unless you have hacked our super sekrit forums, how do you know what the final terms are to know they are beyond what is necessary to remove the threat?

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1271537452' post='2264166']
Also, morality is inherently a social thing and when what you are doing is outraging everybody, then there isn't really much space for relativism. I don't believe that morality is entirely subjective (for example punching random people in the street isn't going to moral however many people do it) and it seems that most of the planet agrees with me that unconditional surrender is not within the grey area of individual morality ('I wouldn't do it that way'), but actually absolutely wrong.[/quote]

Ya, I'm not going with your peer pressure morality no matter how you try to dress it up.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1271537452' post='2264166']
If you think that the criticism – from ex-members, current allies and members of your coalition – is based on hatred, then you need to take off your Ramirus blinkers, because most people are not coming from a position of dislike for Grämlins; it is your actions and particularly the requirement for IRON to unconditionally surrender which is generating outrage, not preconceptions. I do not hate Grämlins, I don't believe any of the diaspora do, nor MHA.
[/quote]

I apologize if I was unclear but I wasn't referring to any ex-members or MHA when I said "blind hatred." As far as I remember, none of you have said anything to indicate that you feel that way.

Edit: Too many ex's.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Ertyy

[Bob Janova]

Well, we'll see about 2, but no other alliance would take that term (and it is a term, 'you must fulfil this condition before peace'), and I very much doubt you would, because it is idiotic to do so. As for 1, I expect Matt Miller or another IRONer to be in here shortly to correct you on that and tell you that it would be very humiliating for them to accept it. As for 3, simply forcing them to undergo the humiliation is more damaging than almost any material terms you could apply, not to mention that the only sane reason (and whatever one might say about Ram, his plan is almost certainly rational) to require demilitarisation is to ram hard terms down IRON's throat after putting them in a weakened position.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1271538359' post='2264183']
Well, we'll see about 2, but no other alliance would take that term (and it is a term, 'you must fulfil this condition before peace'), and I very much doubt you would, because it is idiotic to do so. As for 1, I expect Matt Miller or another IRONer to be in here shortly to correct you on that and tell you that it would be very humiliating for them to accept it. As for 3, simply forcing them to undergo the humiliation is more damaging than almost any material terms you could apply, not to mention that the only sane reason (and whatever one might say about Ram, his plan is almost certainly rational) to require demilitarisation is to ram hard terms down IRON's throat after putting them in a weakened position.
[/quote]

You do realize that Gre is going to use its own interpretation of the Codex when deciding what to do, right? I mean, does anyone actually think we are going to ask OWF what our Codex really means? For all you people in other alliances: would you come ask Gre to interpret your charter when you had some internal issue?

You people are killing me. This isn't hard stuff.

[King Louis the II]

I would [i]like to[/i] add something. How this course of action serves Gremlins?. I am not now discussing their right to do so, or the morality of that. My question is simpler. Is it a smart move? Whatever Gre thinks is gaining with this, does it worth the political capital wasted?

Edited April 17, 2010 by King Louis the II

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1271538628' post='2264187']
You do realize that Gre is going to use its own interpretation of the Codex when deciding what to do, right? I mean, does anyone actually think we are going to ask OWF what our Codex really means? For all you people in other alliances: would you come ask Gre to interpret your charter when you had some internal issue?

You people are killing me. This isn't hard stuff.
[/quote]

I believe Bob is one of the authors of the Codex, no? He's not exactly some random passerby with an ignorant opinion. Syzygy and HellAngel have also both condemned your actions in this thread, that's 75% of the remaining Codex signatures that disagree with your interpretation.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='17 April 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1271538972' post='2264195']
I believe Bob is one of the authors of the Codex, no? He's not exactly some random passerby with an ignorant opinion. Syzygy and HellAngel have also both condemned your actions in this thread, that's 75% of the remaining Codex signatures that disagree with your interpretation.
[/quote]

I just don't understand. No one with a lick of sense would let external entities have the final say on interpreting their charter and similar documents. And yet everyone is getting pissed off because we aren't letting popular opinion do the interpretation for us. Can someone explain to me how these two positions are not contradictory?

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1271528458' post='2264001']
I'm sorry if MHA does not feel the same as we do about this situation. And if they decide that we are currently going to a place that does not satisfy their own standards, then I will have to respect their decision not to follow along. However, Gre has settled on a course of action that it believes to be right and justified, and we will not be dissuaded. Not by this mob. Not by our friends. Not by anyone.
[/quote]

The reason why this "mob" exists, is because we don't understand your course of action. We don't understand why you refuse to give peace to IRON although your CB has expired. We don't understand, why you want them to surrender unconditionally before even presenting the terms, for us, it doesn't make sense that you don't play with open cards.

Maybe, there is a reasonable explanation that is perfectly logical and just, but so far, I haven't seen it. Why don't you enlighten us?
Why is Ramirus too shy to post in this thread?

And let's face it. You make it look like it's a decision supported by all Grämlins Members, and that is, definitely not the case, otherwise you wouldn't lose that many Members.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1271537906' post='2264178']
1. I don't see it as any more humiliating than any other surrender IRON might take. [b]And they still are at the inevitable surrender stage[/b]. So the real issue is we should be doing the surrendering?
2. How do you know what we would or wouldn't accept? I don't believe you are in the alliance.
3. Unconditional surrender means there are no conditions. So unless you have hacked our super sekrit forums, how do you know what the final terms are to know they are beyond what is necessary to remove the threat?



Ya, I'm not going with your peer pressure morality no matter how you try to dress it up.



I apologize if I was unclear but I wasn't referring to any ex-members or MHA when I said "blind hatred." As far as I remember, none of you have said anything to indicate that you feel that way.

Edit: Too many ex's.[/quote]Ah, OK
Not that the issue is [b]the terms[/b] for our surrender anymore, but I will go with you on this, for the sake of the discussion.
Since we cannot know what you are going to demand, we must assume the worst scenario. Therefore, our judgment is that accepting your demand is worse than the continuation of the war and there was never any chance that we (or anyone else, I believe) would accept it.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Golan 1st

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1271537906' post='2264178']
1. I don't see it as any more humiliating than any other surrender IRON might take. And they still are at the inevitable surrender stage. So the real issue is we should be doing the surrendering?
2. How do you know what we would or wouldn't accept? I don't believe you are in the alliance.
3. Unconditional surrender means there are no conditions. So unless you have hacked our super sekrit forums, how do you know what the final terms are to know they are beyond what is necessary to remove the threat?
[/quote]
1. It's more humiliating. There. Also, we are not at the ineveitable surrender stage. Especially to the likes of you.Have you looked at your member count or score recently? Or maybe the fact that all your nations in our range have been bleeding their guts out?
2. Do you [i]really[/i] want to test that claim? We all know what the answer is.
3. Finally, they send someone who actually [i]knows[/i] what unconditional surrender is. Do us a favor and tell Matthew_PK, he hasn't figured it out yet.

[Schad]

[quote name='King Louis the II' date='17 April 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1271538649' post='2264190']
I would [i]like to[/i] add something. How this course of action serves Gremlins?. I am not now discussing their right to do so, or the morality of that. My question is simpler. Is it a smart move? Whatever Gre thinks is gaining with this, does it worth the political capital wasted?
[/quote]

Beyond political capital, they've lost something like six members and 20% of their NS since the war writ large ended, which represents a large portion of their hard power. Granted, some of those may have been out the door regardless, but it's hard to see an endgame whereby they recoup any portion of that loss...backing down at this point will look more as if they're caving than a gesture of goodwill, but as you note, even if IRON were to surrender unconditionally, Gramlins gains nothing to offset the harm of the past couple weeks.

IMO, the political and structural damage done is a sunk cost to be written off...it's time to end the conflict, regroup and reorganize, because only one side is suffering lasting losses in this fight, and it isn't IRON/DAWN.

[ironchef]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1271539676' post='2264218']
I just don't understand. No one with a lick of sense would let external entities have the final say on interpreting their charter and similar documents. And yet everyone is getting pissed off because we aren't letting popular opinion do the interpretation for us. Can someone explain to me how these two positions are not contradictory?
[/quote]

Because you have lost 6 members in the past 5 days and more are on the way out the door. Those are not [i][u]external entities[/u][/i]but your own members that cant back what is being done. Its great you [u][i]aren't letting popular opinion[/i][/u] of your members save you from this path of destruction. All the smart ones are leaving and what will be left can die with this bad idea

Here is an example of what this great idea of 1) Giving terms then reseeding them,
2)Telling an alliance they must disarm and give unconditional surrender before peace talks can take place. 3)Not revealing what the terms of that peace will be till they have become helpless has made the members think.

[img]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u11/ironchef_GGA/nothappymember-1.jpg[/img]
Preach the word of Ramirus all you like but we all know the real truth will set you free

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Drizuz' date='17 April 2010 - 10:16 AM' timestamp='1271524581' post='2263963']
Wow, lol I always considered you a smart and honest individual, but your distorting and twisting Jaraxle's words. Of course he was disappointed/mad/frustrated with the gre tech program but he never attacked any gremlins because they didn't send them tech or he didn't receive tech. He defended a ex-Gre nation being unjustly attacked by Gremlins (and that ex-Gre never retaliated once, NOT ONCE to any of his ex-fellow gre attackers he had during that gremlin crusade. Many gremlins that i spoke to thought that crusade was idiotic). In result they became disenchanted by gremlins so called "brotherhood". Also Jarlaxle only attacked the individual that ordered that crusade, Synth, the executor at the time.(All other gre nations that attacked Jar were left alone, Jar never retaliated agasint them). If it was truly about tech Jarlaxle would of attacked Guns blaring at everyone and more specifically Ram , who changed they way the Tech program worked, but wait he didn't. Hummm interesting how your "stories" don't seem to hold together Matt.
[/quote]

I'm not talking about who he attacked, I'm talking about what he posted when he left.
Considering you weren't around, I'd hardly call you an expert.
Secondly, it's a big disingenuous of you to bring it to this thread considering Jar's actions have absolutely nothing to do with this particular issue. His concern wasn't even with Ram.

You have no idea how my "stories" about Jar hold together. I spoke with Ejay and Eg about it when it occurred and it was well before anything to do with this surrender surfaced.

I should think there would be enough ammunition in this thread and among the mob to spill your GRE-angst that you wouldn't need to introduce something distant and unrelated.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='17 April 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1271539935' post='2264225']
The reason why this "mob" exists, is because we don't understand your course of action. We don't understand why you refuse to give peace to IRON although your CB has expired. We don't understand, why you want them to surrender unconditionally before even presenting the terms, for us, it doesn't make sense that you don't play with open cards.

Maybe, there is a reasonable explanation that is perfectly logical and just, but so far, I haven't seen it. Why don't you enlighten us?
[/quote]

Because it isn't important that the random people of planet bob be informed. We are not responsible to you. Neither are you responsible to us. If there is some good reason for us to lay it all out for you (you, as in any given individual), I'm sure you can contact a member of the conclave.

As a second point, why bother? OWF has already demonstrated that they are going to cry every time we don't accept one of their presuppositions or interpretations. What do you think the end result is going to be if I explain everything?

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='17 April 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1271539935' post='2264225']
Why is Ramirus too shy to post in this thread?
[/quote]

I don't know. You should ask him.

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='17 April 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1271539935' post='2264225']
And let's face it. You make it look like it's a decision supported by all Grämlins Members, and that is, definitely not the case, otherwise you wouldn't lose that many Members.
[/quote]

Barring allowances for a referendum that I might have forgotten (I don't believe I have), Gre members have two options when they disagree with official policy. They can elect someone else to conclave, or they can leave. But until either of those two things occur, they abide by current Gre policy. Getting an unconditional surrender from IRON is Gre policy. So get accepted in time for the next elections? I don't really know what your point is.

[Nizzle]

gRAMlins:

Unconditional surrender is defined as:

"The surrender of a military force or nation without being able to set any limits on the subsequent actions of the victorious power."

Have a nice day.

[Goldie]

Good luck to any Ramlins who don't get 'permission' to leave, there is always a safe home for you in the Ninjas.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 April 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1271540902' post='2264258']
Because you have lost 6 members in the past 5 days and more are on the way out the door. Those are not [i][u]external entities[/u][/i]but your own members that cant back what is being done. Its great you [u][i]aren't letting popular opinion[/i][/u] of your members save you from this path of destruction. All the smart ones are leaving and what will be left can die with this bad idea
[/quote]

That would all be very persuasive were Gre a democracy. But it isn't.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 April 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1271541118' post='2264264']
I'm not talking about who he attacked, I'm talking about what he posted when he left.
Considering you weren't around, I'd hardly call you an expert.
Secondly, it's a big disingenuous of you to bring it to this thread considering Jar's actions have absolutely nothing to do with this particular issue. His concern wasn't even with Ram.

You have no idea how my "stories" about Jar hold together. I spoke with Ejay and Eg about it when it occurred and it was well before anything to do with this surrender surfaced.

I should think there would be enough ammunition in this thread and among the mob to spill your GRE-angst that you wouldn't need to introduce something distant and unrelated.
[/quote]
Members leaving were surfaced; Jar is relevant. I agree, its old news, but what happened to Jar and Sol was a disgrace over arguments which could have been handled better, especially since logs of government were released explaining "Since Sol wasn't active, he wasn't our priority". Sol didn't even retaliate and he was hung to dry; you're thirsty for blood, we get it, and with those logs, Sol was abandoned as a member before him and Jar left; which, Jar still fought for Gremlins under their AA NOT only in this war, but for the past 2 years.

I'll leave it at that, but Drizzy is RL friends with Jar; I would call him an expert.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Bob Janova]

Actually, you are wrong. Grämlins [i]is[/i], and has been since mid 2007, a representative democracy – it's as democratic as the alliances usually referred to in that way such as GATO or TOP. That's not even a matter of opinion, it's a fact – you elect your leadership.

The fact that you can get that wrong is not great for your credibility on other issues.

And the Codex really doesn't leave much room for interpretation (intentionally so, it is designed to not be readily e-lawyerable by subsequent administrations who attempt to subvert the alliance). IRON have now said that unconditional surrender is a humiliating term so you don't have any wiggle room there.

[quote]everyone is getting pissed off because we aren't letting popular opinion do the interpretation for us[/quote]
No they aren't. Everyone is outraged because what you are doing is outrageous. This isn't about words, it's about actions.

[Lusitan]

Despite the fact Matthew PK was already causing enough political damage to Grämlins by himself, you had to bring Ertyy to help out?

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1271541801' post='2264274']
That would all be very persuasive were Gre a democracy. But it isn't.
[/quote]

democracy or not, actions undertaken by the members of any regime say a lot about that regime and, mostly, about the feelings of the members of said regime. i for one doubt any alliance will stand for a long time if the leadership will give the general membership what they need (which can be and usually is different from what they want or think they want). but don't worry, you will change your mind about the war once your pixies are at stake, and not just some other peoples pixies

[shilo]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='17 April 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1271539980' post='2264228']
Ah, OK
Not that the issue is [b]the terms[/b] for our surrender anymore, but I will go with you on this, for the sake of the discussion.
Since we cannot know what you are going to demand, we must assume the worst scenario. Therefore, our judgment is that accepting your demand is worse than the continuation of the war and there was never any chance that we (or anyone else, I believe) would accept it.
[/quote]
I can confirm this, just not gonna happen, even if we are still fighting next year to change the minds of what then is left of gRAMlins.





[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1271541801' post='2264274']
[quote]Because you have lost 6 members in the past 5 days and more are on the way out the door. Those are not external entitiesbut your own members that cant back what is being done. Its great you aren't letting popular opinion of your members save you from this path of destruction. All the smart ones are leaving and what will be left can die with this bad idea[/quote]
That would all be very persuasive were Gre a democracy. But it isn't.
[/quote]
[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1271541267' post='2264267']
Barring allowances for a referendum that I might have forgotten (I don't believe I have), Gre members have two options when they disagree with official policy. [b]They can elect someone else to conclave[/b], or they can leave. But until either of those two things occur, they abide by current Gre policy. Getting an unconditional surrender from IRON is Gre policy. So get accepted in time for the next elections? I don't really know what your point is.
[/quote]

So, who errs exactly regarding gRAMlins form of government, you... or you

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1271542225' post='2264279']
Actually, you are wrong. Grämlins [i]is[/i], and has been since mid 2007, a representative democracy – it's as democratic as the alliances usually referred to in that way such as GATO or TOP. That's not even a matter of opinion, it's a fact – you elect your leadership.
[/quote]

Nowhere does it say the membership gets to decide stuff other than elections and applications. Thus, it is not a democracy. I know the realities of the charter never totally jived with your personal democratic tendencies, but that is the way it is.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1271542225' post='2264279']
The fact that you can get that wrong is not great for your credibility on other issues.
[/quote]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1271542225' post='2264279']
And the Codex really doesn't leave much room for interpretation (intentionally so, it is designed to not be readily e-lawyerable by subsequent administrations who attempt to subvert the alliance). IRON have now said that unconditional surrender is a humiliating term so you don't have any wiggle room there.[/quote]

The fact that the current conclave's interpretation does not meet your own is indisputable proof that the codex is interpretable. And if we really took IRON's word for it, I'm sure they would say anything but white peace was humiliating. Again, we get to interpret our own stuff.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1271542225' post='2264279']

No they aren't. Everyone is outraged because what you are doing is outrageous. This isn't about words, it's about actions.
[/quote]

lol. They are pissed off because we are asking for unconditional surrender and they think unconditional surrender is either wrong or inconsistent with what we believe. Thus, the anger is based on their interpretation of what is absolutely "wrong" or what constitutes inconsistency on our part.

But if you want to we can just say it is about actions. lol

Edit: inconsistent != consistent

Edited April 17, 2010 by Ertyy