The New Grämlins

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Crymson' date='18 April 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1271626573' post='2265338']
I've dealt with Ramirus more than enough to believe that he did write the above.
[/quote]
It might very well be him. I wouldn't doubt an internal statement of some kind being made. I'm just reluctant to believe something posted anonymously from a community which has shown the capacity and willingness to fake logs, screen shots and just otherwise do things in a lulzy manner particularly for controversial issues.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Hyperbad' date='18 April 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1271626920' post='2265347']
It might very well be him. I wouldn't doubt an internal statement of some kind being made. I'm just reluctant to believe something posted anonymously from a community which has shown the capacity and willingness to fake logs, screen shots and just otherwise do things in a lulzy manner particularly for controversial issues.
[/quote]

I find it believable simply because it fits with the Gramlins public words and actions.

[bakamitai]

Even if it's faked, it's a pretty good fake, and that's good enough for me. I really don't have much to say else about this leak, other than

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='18 April 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1271625772' post='2265316']
At the VERY least, the notion that IRONs war was a rogue or criminal act, is debatable. It is not outwardly false. Their war against CnG was NOT in any way, shape, or form, a defense of, or an assistance to, NSO. That entire notion is patently absurd. On planet Bob, the definition of criminal is always evolving. There is no widely prevailing definition. Support what they are doing, or not, they are fully entitled to view IRONs acts as criminal in relationship to accepted standards on Bob (much like the world rallied to paint Athens raid on Ni! as criminal due to the standards of the planet) for entry into wars. IRON faced no imminent threat, held no treaty obligating them to attack GRE's friends. Yet they did.

It is fine to not support their war. I too, would like to see them just let it end. It is not, however, wrong for them to view the act as criminal, and for them to determine what they themselves deem to be a just punishment. It is, in fact, blatant hypocrisy on MANY of IRONs allies to now claim that GRE has no place to dole out whatever punishment they see fit to IRON, because the aggrieved parties (CnG) have already agreed to a satisfactory end. It was not that long ago, that you all posted your declarations of war, based partly on tacitly "supporting NpO's war on \m/ in defense of community standards, stemming MOSTLY from the \m/, GOONs, and PC raids. Despite the fact that aggrieved party in THAT case(FOA, I believe it was?) had already been afforded acceptable compensation. I suppose its yet another double-standard played in the political arena, to further your cause.
[/quote]

Rush, I am missing the difference between Grämlins and IRON's actions. Grämlins, with their paperless warring (I have said before, I don't want to argue whether they entered aggressive or defensive, because I see both sides, it's depending on your definition of the two terms.) have reasoned their military interference with helping out their friends.

I know that this was also our reason to go to war and as far as I know that was IRONs, too. Now, you could call that a rogue act, I call it a sovereign and legit move of an alliance, and if Grämlins say that IRON and DAWN are terrorists for entering the conflict, by this logic, they have to consider themselves as criminals and terrorists as well.

[shilo]

I have enjoyed this read. Now it has been clearly confirmed ram is insane, and also either lies to his own membership in a already comic way, or lost touch with reality completely. Either way, he will have to make up stories for a long time, cause he isn't gonna get what he wants.

[Bob Janova]

That speech does have the feel of a genuine Ramirus address ... and, to be honest, it's too ludicrous for someone to have made up. It has the deranged rationality of a banana republic – self-consistent but completely divorced from reality, and persuasive enough to keep even intelligent, active members hoodwinked as long as they're getting most of their information internally.

I don't like the term 'criminal' as that implies international law and as we know that doesn't exist, but Rush, this part of your justification is not correct: [i]"IRON faced no imminent threat"[/i]. I don't want to derail this thread onto that point which was argued repeatedly earlier in this front, but IRON and TOP did face an imminent threat from C&G if they joined the war on Polar/NSO's side 'by the book'.

However, [i]even if you consider their action to be 'immoral'[/i] (or 'criminal'), unconditional surrender is still ridiculous. Even NPO in Karma weren't required to do that. And considering they entered the fight [i]against[/i] the people who were supporting community standards, trying to take the role of the policeman in 'arresting' IRON is self-evidently duplicitous.

[ZeTyon]

Kudos Grämlins! Kudos!


This conflict is so wonderful!

[Believland]

Ram, I love you. Don't ever change.

Ramlins, you guys are good too. Make them accept your ways

[Elendil old]

[quote]The Easter Sunday Accords
We did not sign them, because we cannot due to our paperless foreign policy.[/quote]
Unless I'm reading this wrong, assuming IRON did surrender, what guarantees would there be that Gramlins wouldn't just continue hitting them seeing as they can't sign any terms due to their "paperless foreign policy"?

[Qazzian]

[quote]
The Easter Sunday Accords
We did not sign them, because we cannot due to our paperless foreign policy.
[/quote]

Now, assuming that this is a legit leak, am I reading this right in that GRE does not sign peace treaties because they're a paperless alliance now?

[The Warrior]

[quote]IRON will surrender[/quote]

No. No we won't.

[quote]Basically, we’re not gonna spell out everything we’ll do post-surrender for the world for the same reason you don’t show your poker opponent your hand before he makes a bet, it just wouldn’t make sense to concede the advantage.[/quote]

It's like I said earlier in this thread. You don't want to show us that 7-2 off suit you have laying face down in front of you. What you are really saying here is that you don't want everyone on Planet Bob to see what you are going to do after a surrender for fear of what will come of it.

[quote]IRON needs to fear us and know that we truly will dominate them regardless of what anyone thinks or says in order for them to unconditionally surrender to us and our radio silence policy is going to do just that. [/quote]

The word dominate really isn't working for you here. Especially since you are using it to claim that you will "dominate" us.

About your radio silence policy, how's that working for you? I'll tell you, it sure is bringing people to your side.

[quote]Our intelligence efforts, as well as covert diplomatic pressure, lead us to believe they will crack soon. They have already offered to lie and SAY they surrendered unconditionally, if we tell them the terms of peace before hand.[/quote]

It appears as though your intelligence efforts carry no more weight than the mindless banter and utter crap that has been protruding from your collective mouths since this fiasco began.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='18 April 2010 - 09:34 AM' 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]
That post right there's quite revealing as to how Gre gov operates. No consultation with membership outside of elections? Open, participative and transparent governance right there

[Ejayrazz]

A few things come to mind. Like many others, I also disagree with Rush's assertions; but that has been covered. Gremlins, as an alliance, would never accept unconditional surrender if it was offered to them; it's proven in their history. Some may e-lawyer this, but Gremlins simply wouldn't allow for it. In the Codex, they're not to offer terms they themselves wouldn't accept. They are losing people because old gremlins who are still there do not agree with these decisions. Ultimately, the only ones who are left will be those supporting these terms; talking sense to Gremlins will have no effect. It's their decision to make.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='18 April 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1271638917' post='2265558']
A few things come to mind. Like many others, I also disagree with Rush's assertions; but that has been covered. Gremlins, as an alliance, would never accept unconditional surrender if it was offered to them; it's proven in their history. Some may e-lawyer this, but Gremlins simply wouldn't allow for it. In the Codex, they're not to offer terms they themselves wouldn't accept.
[/quote]
The problem with this concept at the moment Ejay is that the Gramlins don't consider unconditional surrender to be a peace term. They are hiding behind this just as they hide behind the Codex when convenient while violating it when not. They violated the OTP clause of the Citadel treaty when it suited their needs. They claim they can't sign a peace agreement due to their "paperless" foreign policy yet they still hold a treaty with MHA because it's convenient. Many applauded them when they had the wherewithal to go paperless but I see that as an act of cowardice. It allows them to avoid losing wars and bandwagon into winning ones. They are clearly proving themselves to be a self-serving bunch that has time and time again talked out of both sides of their mouths all the while projecting a false image of honor and class. I can't be the only one that see it this way.

[pd73bassman]

[quote]They are clearly proving themselves to be a self-serving bunch that has time and time again talked out of both sides of their mouths all the while projecting a false image of honor and class[/quote]

You are just now realizing this?

Edited April 19, 2010 by pd73bassman

[Gamemaster1]

[quote]IRON will surrender[/quote]
No we won't.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='18 April 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1271627891' post='2265358']
Rush, I am missing the difference between Grämlins and IRON's actions. Grämlins, with their paperless warring (I have said before, I don't want to argue whether they entered aggressive or defensive, because I see both sides, it's depending on your definition of the two terms.) have reasoned their military interference with helping out their friends.

I know that this was also our reason to go to war and as far as I know that was IRONs, too. Now, you could call that a rogue act, I call it a sovereign and legit move of an alliance, and if Grämlins say that IRON and DAWN are terrorists for entering the conflict, by this logic, they have to consider themselves as criminals and terrorists as well.
[/quote]


Your play on words... rogue vs sovereign... is kind of my point. As to GRE's reasonings for not really caring about the peace reached between IRON and everyone else. Their perspective is that IRON committed a rogue criminal act. You may disagree with it. 24000 out of 25000 nations on Bob might disagree with it. That alone, does not make it fact. You cited that IRON entered to assist NSO, of all the facts that have gone up between our 2 posts, that is the only patently falsse, and patently absurd fact. Everything else, is debatable, which was my point. Everyone condemns GRE as if their own opinions were fact, and anything not in agreement with them, is false. Its simply not the way things work. It is a fact the IRON declared on alliances that they had no treaty obligation to declare on, and who they had no real reason to want to fight. Everything that happens AFTER that fact, is left to the interpretation of those who defended. GREs interpretation differs greatly from ours, it does not however, make their beliefs wrong.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 April 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1271628415' post='2265374']


I don't like the term 'criminal' as that implies international law and as we know that doesn't exist, but Rush, this part of your justification is not correct: [i]"IRON faced no imminent threat"[/i]. I don't want to derail this thread onto that point which was argued repeatedly earlier in this front, but IRON and TOP did face an imminent threat from C&G if they joined the war on Polar/NSO's side 'by the book'.

[/quote]

I love how you continue to try to speak for myself, and for my allies. You must enjoy trotting out that nonsense. Its factually quite simple. Had IRON not attacked a defensive partner of CnG, IRON would not have been attacked. More to the point, NSO had entered that war in defense of the aggressors, IRON had zero obligation to hit anyone. There is a reason their treaty was oA and and MADP. Presumable its to keep IRON out of a war that shouldnt be fought, and was only being fought because of massive egos on the side of the aggressors. That IRON decided to issue a blanket DoW on a group of alliances whos defensive treaties encompass 65% of the planet, speaks to either temporary insanity, or a death wish. Your constant postulating that CnG was headed in a beeline towards IRON, sir, is quite simply not true.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='18 April 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1271643509' post='2265692']
Your constant postulating that CnG was headed in a beeline towards IRON, sir, is quite simply not true.
[/quote]
Winners write history, so you can say that now, but others have admitted already that CnG was coming in. That's rather beside the main point though.

[flak attack]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='18 April 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1271646658' post='2265753']
Winners write history, so you can say that now, but others have admitted already that CnG was coming in. That's rather beside the main point though.
[/quote]
FoB's exodus to PC says otherwise.

[Sandwich Controversy]

Bigwoody, how do you respond to recent comparisons of you to Haflinger?

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='18 April 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1271647783' post='2265777']
Bigwoody, how do you respond to recent comparisons of you to Haflinger?
[/quote]
Please don't tell me it's time to subtly steer this trainwreck of a thread completely off the tracks. I thought this thread was about the Gramlins.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='18 April 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1271647783' post='2265777']
Bigwoody, how do you respond to recent comparisons of you to Haflinger?
[/quote]
Hilariously unrelated to the topic matter.

[Sandwich Controversy]

I don't know man I wasn't the one who tried to make it about the "was cng involved or not!!" argument that's been done a million times

[Trace]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='19 April 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1271650146' post='2265839']
I don't know man I wasn't the one who tried to make it about the "was cng involved or not!!" argument that's been done a million times
[/quote]

Sandwich Controversy, how do you respond to recent allegations that you did indeed try to make it about that argument?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Trace