The New Grämlins

[wenwillthisend]

Pixels? you think we really care about our pixels? I have almost been to ZI twice this war. Means nothing to me cause I fight for my alliance.

I do love it when most of Bob will come together over something that does not concern them, I mean really do you have nothing better to do than whinge about the Evil Grämlins?
Is your CN life really that bad?

Move on people there is nothing to see here.

[Bob Janova]

Electing your leadership is a democracy. You're just flat wrong on that point. It is not a direct democracy (I think only LSF still does that these days) any more, but it certainly is a democracy. Perhaps your nation needs a new supply of dictionaries.

And no, the fact that the current leadership is ignoring the Codex doesn't mean it can be interpreted to justify your behaviour. Earlier in the war we had Grämlins demanding reparations for an aggressive war, so we already know you don't care about it.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1271542913' post='2264289']
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]

I am pretty sure that when your interpretation goes against what is de facto writen in your codex it's not called different interpretations, it's called outright ignoring the Codex. But to each his own.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1271543267' post='2264298']
Electing your leadership is a democracy. You're just flat wrong on that point. It is not a direct democracy (I think only LSF still does that these days) any more, but it certainly is a democracy. Perhaps your nation needs a new supply of dictionaries.
[/quote]

Whatever. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you over the definition of a word. The point is there is nothing that gives the general membership the prerogative to influence policy outside elections. Thus, their opinions are irrelevant outside this arena. The government will do what it believes to be right while it is the government. No Gre member should expect otherwise.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1271543267' post='2264298']
And no, the fact that the current leadership is ignoring the Codex doesn't mean it can be interpreted to justify your behaviour. Earlier in the war we had Grämlins demanding reparations for an aggressive war, so we already know you don't care about it.
[/quote]

Ya, ya, we don't believe this was an aggressive war. Dude, we're not going to take your word for it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Edit for sanity

Edited April 17, 2010 by Ertyy

[Elendil old]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1271543656' post='2264305']
The point is there is nothing that gives the general membership the prerogative to influence policy outside elections. Thus, their opinions are irrelevant outside this arena. The government will do what it believes to be right while it is the government. No Gre member should expect otherwise.
[/quote]
Nice of you to state that your members opinions are irrelevant.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1271543656' post='2264305']
Whatever. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you over the definition of a word. The point is there is nothing that gives the general membership the prerogative to influence policy outside elections. Thus, their opinions are irrelevant outside this arena. The government will do what it believes to be right while it is the government. No Gre member should expect otherwise.
[/quote]

That attitude for governing has to be the worst i've seen in all my time playing CN and [ooc] other computer games [/ooc]. I'm sure your general membership would love hearing those words, and looking from guys like EB, their reaction is completely predictably.

[shilo]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1271543656' post='2264305']
Whatever. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you over the definition of a word. The point is there is nothing that gives the general membership the prerogative to influence policy outside elections. Thus, their opinions are irrelevant outside this arena. The government will do what it believes to be right while it is the government. No Gre member should expect otherwise.
[/quote]
You know that is absolutely possible that at the end, only the gov will be left to follow its own policy? You at least acknowledge that is a theoretical possibility, right?

[Ertyy]

[quote name='shilo' date='17 April 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1271544039' post='2264311']
You know that is absolutely possible that at the end, only the gov will be left to follow its own policy? You at least acknowledge that is a theoretical possibility, right?
[/quote]

That very well could happen. And I hope it happens sooner rather than later if it does happen. I don't really plan to hang around in an alliance that systemically violates the spirit of its own charter.

[ironchef]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1271543656' post='2264305']
Whatever. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you over the definition of a word. The point is there is nothing that gives the general membership the prerogative to influence policy outside elections. Thus, their opinions are irrelevant outside this arena. The government will do what it believes to be right while it is the government. No Gre member should expect otherwise.



Ya, ya, we don't believe this was an aggressive war. Dude, we're not going to take your word for it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Edit for sanity
[/quote]

You attacked IRON they did not attack you. That would make your actions aggressive. If you can show me or tell me how Grämlins was defending itself by attacking IRON therefore, making your actions defensive then Dude, we will take your word for it. Till then preach on brother preach on.

[Bob Janova]

Who are you and what have you done with the Ertyy that wasn't a complete lunatic? It is, in the most literal sense, incredible to see what has happened to a good alliance and good people.

There just isn't any arguing with someone who won't see that unconditional surrender is humiliating or who thinks that declaring a war with no treaty ties is not aggressive. All I can say to those few good members left is: see what your leadership has come to, and get out of there while you can.

[quote]I do love it when most of Bob will come together over something that does not concern them[/quote]
This concerns everyone, as any major injustice does – if a precedent is set that it's okay to demand unconditional surrender now, who knows whether we or our friends may be subject to that in the future? Everyone ends up at the wrong end of a war or a hegemony at some point and if you manage to force this through then whoever is running that hegemony will use this same process to keep their enemies from ever regrowing. We fought Karma to make sure that wouldn't happen again, and we don't want to see new ways for it to happen in the future.

Edit:
[quote]I don't really plan to hang around in an alliance that systemically violates the spirit of its own charter. [/quote]
Wow, this takes the 'Unintentionally Ironic Post of the Day' award for sure.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Bob Janova

[shilo]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1271544326' post='2264315']
[quote name='shilo' date='18 April 2010 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1271544039' post='2264311']
You know that is absolutely possible that at the end, only the gov will be left to follow its own policy? You at least acknowledge that is a theoretical possibility, right?
[/quote]
That very well could happen. And I hope it happens sooner rather than later if it does happen. I don't really plan to hang around in an alliance that systemically violates the spirit of its own charter.
[/quote]
Wow, you realize what you posted, right?

[Ertyy]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 April 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1271544345' post='2264316']
You attacked IRON they did not attack you. That would make your actions aggressive. If you can show me or tell me how Grämlins was defending itself by attacking IRON therefore, making your actions defensive then Dude, we will take your word for it. Till then preach on brother preach on.
[/quote]

We were defending C&G against IRON's aggression. Thus, it was defensive.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1271544547' post='2264320']
Who are you and what have you done with the Ertyy that wasn't a complete lunatic? It is, in the most literal sense, incredible to see what has happened to a good alliance and good people.[/quote]

Bring on the personal and irrelevant attacks.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1271544547' post='2264320']
There just isn't any arguing with someone who won't see that unconditional surrender is humiliating or who thinks that declaring a war with no treaty ties is not aggressive. All I can say to those few good members left is: see what your leadership has come to, and get out of there while you can.
[/quote]

Ok, dude, let's just assume you are right. Unconditional surrender is super humiliating. We're trying to humiliate IRON worse than anyone has ever been humiliated before. There. Unconditional surrender is not a peace term. Peace (maybe) comes later. Thus, it doesn't even fall under the codex. It's like you aren't even paying attention. Find a new argument, please.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1271544547' post='2264320']
This concerns everyone, as any major injustice does – if a precedent is set that it's okay to demand unconditional surrender now, who knows whether we or our friends may be subject to that in the future? Everyone ends up at the wrong end of a war or a hegemony at some point and if you manage to force this through then whoever is running that hegemony will use this same process to keep their enemies from ever regrowing. We fought Karma to make sure that wouldn't happen again, and we don't want to see new ways for it to happen in the future.
[/quote]

You don't even know what the peace terms are. So what do you have to complain about?

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1271544547' post='2264320']

Wow, this takes the 'Unintentionally Ironic Post of the Day' award for sure.
[/quote]

Ya, assuming your (a random OWF'er) interpretation of the charter is more relevant than mine (DC). It sure is.

[ironchef]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1271545624' post='2264336']
We were defending C&G against IRON's aggression. Thus, it was defensive.

[/quote]

You are not an ally of CnG. You are not a member of the CnG block. So how would IRON's attack on CnG be an aggressive act towards you?

[Ertyy]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 April 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1271546252' post='2264342']
You are not an ally of CnG. You are not a member of the CnG block. So how would IRON's attack on CnG be an aggressive act towards you?
[/quote]

Are you acting uninformed on purpose? Do I need to link you to our paperless FA announcement?

[Bob Janova]

I'm a 'random OWFer'? Yeah, I certainly don't have anything to do with that charter or codex ... and the fact that you've got Hell and Syz in this thread as well means you've got three people who really know what the spirit of the charter means who don't agree with you.

[quote]Unconditional surrender is not a peace term.[/quote]
Yes it is. It is something which IRON have to do before you will give them peace. That's a peace term.

E: And your paperless announcement was quite clear. You cancelled all your treaties except Härmlins. That means you have no treaty ties, and are therefore not allied to anyone except MHA.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1271546428' post='2264347']
I'm a 'random OWFer'? Yeah, I certainly don't have anything to do with that charter or codex ... and the fact that you've got Hell and Syz in this thread as well means you've got three people who really know what the spirit of the charter means who don't agree with you.[/quote]

How many times do I have to say this? You are not in the alliance.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1271546428' post='2264347']
Yes it is. It is something which IRON have to do before you will give them peace. That's a peace term.
[/quote]

Nah uh.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 April 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1271546428' post='2264347']
E: And your paperless announcement was quite clear. You cancelled all your treaties except Härmlins. That means you have no treaty ties, and are therefore not allied to anyone except MHA.
[/quote]

And we still reserve the right to defend all of our friends.

At any rate, I'm growing tired of your e-lawyering. It's getting old. So this is my last response to you.

[ironchef]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 April 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1271546252' post='2264342']
You are not an ally of CnG. You are not a member of the CnG block. [color="#FF0000"][b][u]So how would IRON's attack on CnG be an aggressive act towards you?[/u][/b][/color]
[/quote]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1271546406' post='2264346']
Are you acting uninformed on purpose? Do I need to link you to our paperless FA announcement?
[/quote]

You didn’t answer my question. It’s now red, in bold, and underlined so you can see it.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 April 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1271546801' post='2264354']
You didn’t answer my question. It’s now red, in bold, and underlined so you can see it.
[/quote]

If your friends are getting attacked, is it not a defensive action to defend them?

[Drizuz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='17 April 2010 - 06:52 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]

You were saying that Jar was teaching Gremlins a lesson in your other post, so posting angry/frustrated post = a lesson(that new to me). Normally in CN "lessons" involve military not angry/frustrated posts, that's why i brought up who he attacked and why.
Also I would consider myself a expert, like Ejay said, Jarlaxle is my RL friend (go read Jarlaxle's application, i'm sure he mentions it there) and know exactly what/why he posted and what/why is intention were. All the info that you got/discussed with Ej and Eg , Matt, was obtained by me (Jarlaxle is quite buzy with Med School).

distant and unrelated? perhaps, but i consider it quite relevant to our experience to the New Gremlins prior to unconditional surrender. However if you'd like me to start a new thread about this, I'll be glad to.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1271544326' post='2264315']
I don't really plan to hang around in an alliance that systemically violates the spirit of its own charter.
[/quote]
Hahaha, wait, hold up. Say that again? Do you really mean that? Say it can't be so! I think you should consult Ramirus before you go around saying things like that.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 10:28 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]

No one is getting pissed off because you aren't letting popular opinion do interpretation for you in reference to your codex. People are getting pissed off because your alliance is acting absolutely ridiculous. The fact that your choosing to interpret a document in a certain way has no bearing on your alliance acting clearly retarded. Now, when people point out that your breaking your codex or something of the like, those are just supporting arguments (i.e. "Not only are you acting like idiots, but your [i]also [/i]breaking your own codex"). The first point, which is the core of the argument, is pretty much not at disputable at this point as it's almost universally agreed upon. As for the second one, sure you can dispute based on interpretation, but that really doesn't mean anything and certainly wont help your situation at all.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='17 April 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1271547286' post='2264362']
No one is getting pissed off because you aren't letting popular opinion do interpretation for you in reference to your codex. People are getting pissed off because your alliance is acting absolutely ridiculous. The fact that your choosing to interpret a document in a certain way has no bearing on your alliance acting clearly retarded. Now, when people point out that your breaking your codex or something of the like, those are just supporting arguments (i.e. "Not only are you acting like idiots, but your [i]also [/i]breaking your own codex"). The first point, which is the core of the argument, is pretty much not at disputable at this point as it's almost universally agreed upon. As for the second one, sure you can dispute based on interpretation, but that really doesn't mean anything and certainly wont help your situation at all.
[/quote]

Begging the question much?

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1271547415' post='2264363']
Begging the question much?
[/quote]

Come again?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Drizuz' date='17 April 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1271547161' post='2264359']
You were saying that Jar was teaching Gremlins a lesson in your other post, so posting angry/frustrated post = a lesson(that new to me). Normally in CN "lessons" involve military not angry/frustrated posts, that's why i brought up who he attacked and why.
Also I would consider myself a expert, like Ejay said, Jarlaxle is my RL friend (go read Jarlaxle's application, i'm sure he mentions it there) and know exactly what/why he posted and what/why is intention were. All the info that you got/discussed with Ej and Eg , Matt, was obtained by me (Jarlaxle is quite buzy with Med School).

distant and unrelated? perhaps, but i consider it quite relevant to our experience to the New Gremlins prior to unconditional surrender. However if you'd like me to start a new thread about this, I'll be glad to.
[/quote]
No, I mean he literally posted that he wanted to "teach us a lesson" by his actions (including by not limited to his desertion and his encouraging others to desert. This has been discussed ad nauseum and is, again, hardly relevant to this thread.
Jar was not part of this particular batch of resignations, nor could he be considered part of the "diaspora" in general because he had a specific reason for leaving (not "GRE isn't what it used to be!") which was and is completely unrelated to the IRON surrender.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='17 April 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1271547483' post='2264365']
Come again?
[/quote]

[ooc]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question[/ooc]