The New Grämlins

[ironchef]

[quote name='peron' date='17 April 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1271569334' post='2264675']
IRON is no threat to the Gremlins if they don't want us to be. [u]We are ready to agree on white peace[/u] at this moment (speaking for IRON) if your gov would even consider TALKING to us in the first place. We are no threat to you. Your own alliance leadership is creating the threat to you by keeping us at war and not negotiating anything.
[/quote]

Well there you go. The President of IRON has said IRON will give white peace and this can be over now. It is Grämlins that want to drag this on and on.

[Lord Rune]

Gremlins, there have been a number of posters suggesting that their interpretation of the Codex is correct and yours isn't. Likewise you post the opposite. I've seen the parts quoted and have trouble understanding how your actions are in line with the Codex.
Could you explain please?.

[Bob Janova]

Zzz ... you deliberately landed us with Ramirus? I now officially hate you.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='17 April 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1271558843' post='2264547']
You know, Ramirus Maximus used to be part of ACDC... as that alliance came apart into two factions, neither of them wanted Ramirus. This time around, Ramirus has managed to retain some followers. He's improved as a leader, I'd say.

I do remember Grämlins asked me my opinion of Ramirus when they were first considering to bring him into government. Since Grämlins was part of The Continuum back then and NV had taken a beating during the NoCB War... I gave Ramirus an overall favorable recommendation.

Them's the breaks.
[/quote]
Everything bad is zzzptm's fault. You know it's true

Actually, I've been rereading the Codex. You know, I don't think they're breaking it, at least not as inarguably as Bob thinks.

[quote name='(DAC)Syzygy' date='23 November 2008 - 03:26 PM' post='1056510']
[b]III. On Peace Terms[/b]
Peace terms shall not be used to humilate 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' behavior during battle.

[b]IV. On Bandwagoning[/b]
Alliances who fight us to uphold a treaty shall receive leniency. Bandwagoners shall receive punishment. Article III shall not apply for bandwagoners.
[/quote]

Yes, the peace terms being offered to IRON are designed to humiliate the opponent, and there's no way that The Grämlins would consider them acceptable if the sides were switched. But that's OK, because IRON was a bandwagoner!

I remember objecting to Article IV, thinking it was a bad idea back then.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='23 November 2008 - 03:44 PM' post='1056598']
I agree with most of the principles stated above; a recent blog of mine will show where I may have some difficulties with Article IV.
[/quote]
Steelrat assured me it wouldn't be a problem.

[quote name='Steelrat' date='23 November 2008 - 03:47 PM' post='1056608']
Article IV reflects the orginally meaning of bandwagoning, jumping on the superior side just to gain some easy loot and more important mess up stagger.
[/quote]
I hate having foresight.

[shilo]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='12 April 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1271093151' post='2257461']
The real pity here is that it's distracting from what a detestable bunch DAWN are,
IRON are beaten and well beaten at that,
DAWN deserve nothing but the contempt and pain due to failed [b]bandwaggoners[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='SynthFG' date='14 April 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1271196997' post='2259202']
Trust me I have nothing but contempt for your scum sucking little alliance and what you tried to pull
You saw us entangled with IRON, OG and Zenith and thought you could help yourselves, and then attempted to do so without even an informal hello, yet alone a DoW, ok so FH were a little late but you guys never bothered at all

Your alliance is beneath my contempt and its a huge pity that the current clusterfrack is allowing you to get away scot free
[/quote]
[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 April 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1271590290' post='2264814']
I remember objecting to Article IV, thinking it was a bad idea back then.
[quote]I agree with most of the principles stated above; a recent blog of mine will show where I may have some difficulties with Article IV.[/quote]
Steelrat assured me it wouldn't be a problem.
[quote][u][b]Article IV reflects the orginally meaning of bandwagoning, jumping on the superior side just to gain some easy loot and more important mess up stagger.[/b][/u][/quote]
I hate having foresight.
[/quote]
What I like is how once again, gRAMlins are not just being contradicted by facts and reality, but also their own codex. Funny to consider Synth was part of the government that supported this course of action until he left for MK.

Edited April 18, 2010 by shilo

[Bob Janova]

There's no way you can use even the twisted logic that's already been used in this thread to claim that IRON is a bandwagoner against Grämlins.

[shilo]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 April 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1271592396' post='2264824']
There's no way you can use even the twisted logic that's already been used in this thread to claim that IRON is a bandwagoner against Grämlins.
[/quote]
Incase you are refering to my post, I was just contradicting a statement of Synth FG in which he called DAWN bandwagoners, not just with the fact that we in no way were bandwagoners anyways, but also with the definition of gRAMlins what constitutes a bandwagoner.

[amad123]

Gramlins has this misguided idea that DAWN declared war on them and didn’t issue a DoW. Well sorry if you live in your own paperless world. DAWN and IRON have an MDoAP treaty. It clearly states that any attack on either is considered an attack on both, so when Gramlin’s DoW’d IRON and attacked them we came to IRON’s defence as if we’d been attacked directly. So you can take your idiotic request for a DoW before defending oneself or one’s treatied partners and shred it in your paperless paper shredder. Before you DoW an alliance at least read up on their treaties and if you can’t be bothered, suffer the consequences. I’m proud that our defence of IRON rattled you so. You will notice we are still defending IRON and aiding them too, oh, and enjoying it immensely.

[R3nowned]

Gramlins are acting ridiculously here. These terms are not going to be accepted, and the mid-lower ranks of the Gramlins are going to be slowly worn away by those in IRON and DAWN cycling in and out of PM. It's a lose-lose situation, and yet Gramlins gov are being stubborn about it. Peron has already offered white peace, so it isn't IRON or DAWN that are being stubborn here.

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 April 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1271590290' post='2264814']
Yes, the peace terms being offered to IRON are designed to humiliate the opponent, and there's no way that The Grämlins would consider them acceptable if the sides were switched. But that's OK, because IRON was a bandwagoner!
[/quote]
According to the Grämlins peace terms aren't being offered, they come after the unconditional surrender is accepted. No peace terms offered, no opponent humiliated by peace terms.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Kowalski' date='18 April 2010 - 09:37 AM' timestamp='1271597846' post='2264854']
According to the Grämlins peace terms aren't being offered, they come after the unconditional surrender is accepted. No peace terms offered, no opponent humiliated by peace terms.
[/quote]
This seems like a fine piece of arguing semantics rather that actual facts. To claim that Gramlins aren't violating their beloved Codex because unconditional surrender is not a peace term is ludicrous. If Ramirus claimed the sky was purple with yellow polka dots, would that make it so? Although I'm sure in query he would attempt to explain it away with off-target references to WWII Japan, General de Montcalm, CN being run by little girls, or any other argument designed to distract from the actual facts at hand.

If the unconditional surrender of DAWN and IRON is [b]required[/b] in order to achieve peace, then it is by definition a peace term. It's amusing to see someone arguing that.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 April 2010 - 08:06 AM' timestamp='1271592396' post='2264824']
There's no way you can use even the twisted logic that's already been used in this thread to claim that IRON is a bandwagoner against Grämlins.
[/quote]
Article IV does not specify against Grämlins. Lots of people have claimed that IRON bandwagoned against C&G. I don't agree with that, but that's a matter of interpretation.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='18 April 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1271598366' post='2264858']
This seems like a fine piece of arguing semantics rather that actual facts. To claim that Gramlins aren't violating their beloved Codex because unconditional surrender is not a peace term is ludicrous. If Ramirus claimed the sky was purple with yellow polka dots, would that make it so? Although I'm sure in query he would attempt to explain it away with off-target references to WWII Japan, General de Montcalm, CN being run by little girls, or any other argument designed to distract from the actual facts at hand.

If the unconditional surrender of DAWN and IRON is [b]required[/b] in order to achieve peace, then it is by definition a peace term. It's amusing to see someone arguing that.
[/quote]

Right, it is a term for peace. Anything that comes after, is an additional term for peace.

[ironchef]

Oh look RAM&co another happy customer. You can keep your members there till the war is over but they are not going to fight for your crazy cause. I’m going to make a scrap book of all the PM’s I have got back from your members telling me how much they hate this little idea of yours.

[img]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u11/ironchef_GGA/gramMSG-1.jpg[/img]

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1271545624' post='2264336']
We [b]were[/b] defending C&G against IRON's aggression. Thus, it was defensive.[/quote]

Well, that's true. You [b]were[/b] defending them. (I mean, you can argue the paperless thing, I don't want to..) however, the war is over, CnG quit, [b]your.CB.EXPIRED. [/b]And since you now refuse any peace negotiations without an unconditional surrender, against the will of the people you were fighting for you started a completely new [b]aggressive conflict.[/b]



[quote]
Bring on the personal and irrelevant attacks.
[/quote]

I have had my disagreements with Janova in the past, (not so much nowdays, I miss the good old times...)I don't think he has ever acted unreasonable or insulting.

[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]

1. No assumption necessary. Unconditional surrender means that you can control a slave alliance, and do with the "slave" whatever you want. It is humiliating. Period.
2. It is a peace term, because it is a term that needs to be fullfilled in order to get peace. In my book, that [b]is a peace term.
[/b]3. I like his argument.
[quote]
You don't even know what the peace terms are. So what do you have to complain about?

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

1. NO U!
2. I think it has been mentioned before. He has been one of the biggest thinkers in Grämlins, and certainly was one of the authors of all of their main policies. I am a random poster, he is not.


[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1271546761' post='2264353']
How many times do I have to say this? You are not in the alliance.



Nah uh.



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.
[/quote]

How about you go and ask Ramirus for new arguments?


[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1271548694' post='2264390']
It was a little convoluted but I got "We are retarded because we are ridiculous." Or was it "we are ridiculous because we are retarted"? But it must be true because everyone agrees on it, amirite?



Because we are obviously just being opportunists right now. You guys better watch out because this unconditional surrender thing is about to launch us to world dominance.
[/quote]

If your terms aren't that bad, you can very well present them.


[quote name='Omas Nams' date='18 April 2010 - 03:42 AM' timestamp='1271554929' post='2264485']
Just a little bit I saw and thought I'd add in on. I've seen quite a few IRON members mention something about how they are winning and are doing more damage to us. I've even seen a quote floated about something along the lines that they will 'crush us'. So surely that could be seen as a threat to us if they are going to 'crush us'?
[/quote]

They see you as a threat because you don't want to give them peace. Of course you are a threat, I mean you are at war with them...can there be a greater threat for an alliance? What is your point?

Because we are at war with IRON; IRON is a threat, thus we need to keep them at war to eliminate the threat? Another possibility would be to end the war, that would eliminate the threat, too. You have enough enemies at it is, at the moment, don't worry.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='17 April 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1271561250' post='2264578']
Zzz iirc Ram was not gov in Gre until just recently. thus, he could not have been gov back then. and honestly, even if Ram was considered for gov back then, Gre would have damn sure not asked a soul outside of Gre about Ram. Gre (back when i was in and i am fairly confident they still do this) ran on a platform system (do not yell at me for making up legal terms or not labeling them correct, i am tired and not a lawyer ) in which all candidates post a platform and answer questions. most likely (i was in Polaris during the SPW but left for Gre in Nov of that year) Gre did this back during that war as well.
[/quote]

All I remember was that someone from Gre asked me about Ramirus about that time and it was right after the NoCB War. I know it wasn't to be in top level gov't at the time, but I knew that once the door was opened, he'd make it to the top. When Gre did that thing with TOP around April 1, 2009, I know Ramirus was involved. Then came Karma, etc...

@ Bob: Yes, I recommended Ramirus. Someone from Gre PMed me a few weeks ago with a sort of accusing "Were you the guy that recommended Ramirus?" I confirmed that I had. It's not my fault he's a dedicated worker with a single-minded ability to achieve his goals, or that he is a determined opponent that is slow to concede points in a debate. If your hate gets the better of you, consider joining NSO.

@ Haflinger: Yep, it's my fault, but I'm not writing up a big apology thread. Maybe we can nuke each other some more in the next big war. Sure was fun trading missiles with you back in February and, yes, you guys ruined my collection! Grrr!

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='17 April 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1271558843' post='2264547']I do remember Grämlins asked me my opinion of Ramirus when they were first considering to bring him into government. Since Grämlins was part of The Continuum back then and NV had taken a beating during the NoCB War... I gave Ramirus an overall favorable recommendation.[/quote]

Have I told you lately that I love you?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 April 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1271589875' post='2264810']
Zzz ... you deliberately landed us with Ramirus? I now officially hate you.
[/quote]
More effective than a 30,000 tech WRC Nuke!

[shilo]

Considering those new, and shocking revelations, I would consider this a valid CB of pretty much everyone against NV.

Basically, they, with intent, accomplished the same plans TPF gave up and was attacked for: destroy an entire alliance from within
And not only that, but they only planted on player there, not a small group.
Impressive, and at the same time truly outrageous

[Crymson]

[quote name='ironchef' date='17 April 2010 - 05:17 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]

They'll interpret things how they'd like, so long as it fits what they---Ramirus and cronies---would like to see happen. They did it in the war, they're doing it now, and I imagine they'll continue doing it until they implode or until someone finally tires of it and steps on them.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='17 April 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1271551948' post='2264438']
with no direct treaty ties that explicitly state that you are required to defend, your actions are aggressive.
[/quote]

Aye. They willfully canceled their treaties a few weeks before the war began. In doing this, they forfeited their right to enter on defensive obligations (excepting the scenario of an attack on MHA, as their treaty with that alliance remained). I believe that with the war at large ending, most who fought on the same side as the Gramlins are allowing themselves to drop any pretense that the declaration by MHA and the Gramlins on IRON was defensive and not aggressive.

Hilariously, MHA will probably continue regurgitating the notion that the Gramlins were honoring a defensive obligation, as only in this way can they hope to avoid the quite a bit worse---and also true---allegation that the Gramlins effectively made the decision for the both of them; I doubt MHA even argued it. On the night that they launched the attack, one of their numerous protestations to us was, "I'm not even sure yet what just happened!" Lulz.

Anyway, carry on. This thread has just kept on giving.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Crymson

[Crymson]

Double

Edited April 18, 2010 by Crymson

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Kowalski' date='18 April 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1271597846' post='2264854']
According to the Grämlins peace terms aren't being offered, they come after the unconditional surrender is accepted. No peace terms offered, no opponent humiliated by peace terms.
[/quote]

According to Gramlins, We would be still at war even after de-arming and unconditional surrender.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='17 April 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1271546980' post='2264357']
If your friends are getting attacked, is it not a defensive action to defend them?
[/quote]

Your friends are not getting attacked. They came to peace terms some time back.

The only reason this war is going on is because Gramlins is asking for unreasonable terms, terms that Gramlins would not accept if they were on the other end.

[Carlton the Great]

We have been having the exact same argument for weeks. The Grämlins will not be stopped until those protecting them give the go-ahead for the friends of IRON to come to her defense.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Carlton the Great

[Wes Walz Pants]

[quote name='Carlton the Great' date='18 April 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1271616398' post='2265128']
We have been having the exact same argument for weeks. [b] The Grämlins will not be stopped until those protecting them give the go-ahead for the friends of IRON to come to her defense.[/b]
[/quote]
Well you would think they'd want their reps at some point, but who knows just how their minds really operate.