The New Grämlins

[Bob Janova]

Well MHA don't seem to be very happy and that's all they have left

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='lebubu' date='19 April 2010 - 08:14 AM' timestamp='1271679227' post='2266175']
Do tell us more about Grämlins' allies. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/gush.gif[/img]
[/quote]
I can tell you about their members...who are leaving because of this.

Also, good morning baby cakes.

[shilo]

[quote name='lebubu' date='19 April 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1271679227' post='2266175']
Do tell us more about Grämlins' allies. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/gush.gif[/img]
[/quote]
They only have one ally, and by far most of the members there are quite unhappy about the conduct of gRAMlins. But I am sure you have lots of input regarding the "friends" of gRAMlins, those making sure they aren't disturbed by anyone with their little fun game.

[Bob Janova]

IRON now have an NS advantage (3,1m to 3,0) over Grämlins, as well as a huge member count advantage. Having their top tier in PM is going to stall their recovery a little but with just a few people willing to take a week of war to drag each Grämlin in turn down into 'melee range' with nukes, IRON can actually win without taking much more damage.

[Fallen Fool]

Gramlins at war: Old news.
Gramlins losing members: Older news.
Gramlins doing what they want: Oldest news.

How does this merit 76 pages?

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Crymson' date='18 April 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1271622546' post='2265242']
It seems someone recently leaked [url=http://pastebay.com/93958]this gem[/url] from the Gramlins onto Pastebin. Enclosed are what appear to be messages from the Gramlins government to their membership; the messages relate to the current situation.

Wow @ the second one. Just wow. Certainly worth a read.
[/quote]

My favorite part:

[quote][i]Standing up for a principle is something this alliance rarely if
ever did in the past, and though people believed we used to be honorable and now are
not, the fact is - the reverse is true.[/i][/quote]

Nice way to spit in the face of all those people who made Gramlins one of the most respected alliances.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='19 April 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1271657400' post='2265998']
Is it your view that it is acceptable to declare war without a treaty link (aka to help friends), or do you believe it's wrong to declare war without a treaty link?
[/quote]


My view is irrelevant. Like I said, when GRE went paperless, they were very specific as to how they would engage in defensive wars. You can continue to ignore the fact they told the whole world, but it does not change the fact. Comparing IRON and GRE'd declarations is flawed. GRE declared in defense, IRON declared an aggressive war. In that context, no GRE was not wrong to declare their war. It was in line with their relationship level with those they defended. If Athens were to declare a treaty-less war without 1st having properly established a policy, then yes, we would be wrong, unless we had a valid CB. Regardless, my opinion is of little consequence to anyone. This situation is about GRE's interpretation of a criminal act. And, as I have said repeatedly, it is a debatable stance, not a clear-cut absurdity as so many ran here to claim.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='19 April 2010 - 05:07 AM' timestamp='1271668025' post='2266111']
Can we all kindly not feed the tangents.



So Rush Sykes, what is Athens position regarding this present conflict between Gramlins and IRON? I can attest to the fact that Londo in good faith has tried to reason with Ramirus, moving beyond the talks and negotiations with Gramlins that have continually failed over last few weeks, do you think Athens would intervene to counter any possible military deterrence and/or action against Gramlins aimed towards ending the conflict in white peace for all involved parties?
Clearly the talks have not produced one positive result in last few weeks dont you think?
Can you perhaps also inform us of CnG's position regarding the above points that have been raised by several posters?

Anyone got any specific on-topic points to ask while we have a CnG members here in the thread?
[/quote]

It is not my place, nor my charge to set Athens policy on this matter. You would have to seek Londo, or one of the regents out for this.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Fallen_Fool' date='19 April 2010 - 08:40 AM' timestamp='1271680818' post='2266198']
Gramlins at war: Old news.
Gramlins losing members: Older news.
Gramlins doing what they want: Oldest news.

How does this merit 76 pages?
[/quote]
Because people just don't know when to quit.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='19 April 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1271684695' post='2266233']
It is not my place, nor my charge to set Athens policy on this matter. You would have to seek Londo, or one of the regents out for this.
[/quote]

Fair enough, the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=2266111"]questions[/url] remain open to friends of Gramlins.

[Bob Janova]

When the only court they can claim 'criminality' in is the 'court of public opinion', and public opinion is so clearly against them, to use the word 'criminal' is fairly absurd, to be honest.

[quote]Nice way to spit in the face of all those people who made Gramlins one of the most respected alliances. [/quote]
Quite. And, like much of that piece, it's not accurate, either. Grämlins entered what was apparently a losing war (GW3) for principle, offered to help VE during the Viridicide, helped TOP to keep GATO and -AiD- off FOK in the Unjust War, pushed for the restoration of a free and open Green team and did their part in deposing the old Hegemony in Karma. The only times that Grämlins didn't 'stand up' in action would be times when it would be a pointless martyrdom, mostly during the Continuum era, but even then they (we) were doing far more standing up for principle than there is involved in jumping into a winning war with no treaty and then keeping the defeated alliances down until they concede to a ridiculous demand.

What you are 'standing up for' now is not principle, but some twisted view of the world where your internal pseudo-legal obsessions about paperless FA (which you haven't even done fully with ordinary treaties) is being put above the actual principles of the alliance as expressed in the preamble of the charter:
[quote]The Grämlins is an independent and peaceful alliance. This union of nations is created to uphold mature values of honor, fairness, honesty, excellence, goodness and benevolence.[/quote]

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Crymson' date='18 April 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1271622546' post='2265242']
It seems someone recently leaked [url=http://pastebay.com/93958]this gem[/url] from the Gramlins onto Pastebin. Enclosed are what appear to be messages from the Gramlins government to their membership; the messages relate to the current situation.

Wow @ the second one. Just wow. Certainly worth a read.
[/quote]
Wow this is remarkably hilarious.

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='16 April 2010']
The Easter Sunday Accords
We did not sign them, because we cannot due to our paperless foreign policy.
[/quote]
You just can't make this stuff up.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='18 April 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1271622868' post='2265256']
Gold. This needs to be sent everywhere before some clown can delete this comedy goldmine.
[/quote]
Don't worry bigwoody. I've got 'em in my pastebin collection.

Oh yeah, if it does get deleted, anyone who wants it should query me.

Sandwich Controversy, you should probably note that I was one of the loudest critics of the joint declaration on C&G. I thought it was completely idiotic. But that doesn't really have much to do with Grämlins.

[Germanium]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='19 April 2010 - 06:05 AM' timestamp='1271653504' post='2265919']
First of all, I am not arguing that IRONs DoW was a criminal act. I am , in fact, arguing, that it at least has some basis in fact, and therein, it is debatable, as I said earlier. I categorically feel that GRE is making a huge mistake at present. At the same time, I caregorically oppose those who want to paint GRE's view of IRONs DoW as a criminal act, to be matter-of-factly a lie, an absurdity, and a falsehood. The facts do not support that. It is cause for debate, but it not clear-cut one way or another.

To your second point, it IS completely wrong, beyond any matter of debate, that GREs relationship with MK was at a HIGH treaty-type level. GRE was VERY clear when they made their announcement going paperless. Their friendships and bonds would determine their military course in conflicts. Anyone who doubted the level of the relationship between those two prior to this war, is either willfully ignorant or specifically in denial of facts.
[/quote]
i have a good feeling this isnt going to be understoodbut i will take a swing at it anyway. gre joined this war because of its allies; to protect them. that is fine, what isnt fine is when your allies leave and you continue a moral crusade and asking for an unconditional surrender even when your allies didn't request for them. when your allies are satisified, you should be as you came in WITH them, you should leave with them.

i have a feeling as well that someone will argue, "well sometimes people request for reps and dont get em,' but requesting reps and requesting an unconditional surrender are completely different. yes one could argue iron are idiots for their actions, but gremlins are beginning to trump them by far. and because you're so understanding of everyone's opinions, you also should understand how gre shouldn't demand an unconditional surrender if their allies did not even do it; gre are not 'victims here,' their allies were. yes, they were drawn in defensively, but it isn't worth an uncondtional surrender. i am sure you will argue this, but you'll waste your breath; the world has seen them for this and apparently more are leaving because of their stubborness. gre are not united in this decision, their ns falling and falling proves that. their internal drama announcements trying to prevent more from leaving also shows their uneasiness. their friends are tellign them they are acting dumb and they continue to do it anyways. yes the power to them but if friends are friends..they wont noly defend you in a war..they will also listen to you.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Germanium

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 April 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1271680572' post='2266196']
IRON now have an NS advantage (3,1m to 3,0) over Grämlins, as well as a huge member count advantage. Having their top tier in PM is going to stall their recovery a little but with just a few people willing to take a week of war to drag each Grämlin in turn down into 'melee range' with nukes, IRON can actually win without taking much more damage.
[/quote]

Excellent news and analysis bob ! That should stop the whinning promptly! You see that was always the answer you just happened to be the first person ive seen to touch on it, this whole discussion about terms, Ramlins and side show foolishness can easily be dispursed by Iron defeating Gre. Loosing members, bad PR and now NS advantage its going to be a long slog but now a viable solution has presented itself. I have no doubt that the pillars of intellect we are blessed to have will continue to rail against the evil ramlins (your helping to defeat them, dont stop now), all Iron has to do is continue to fight on, the attrition rate is on thier side.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Thorgrum

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 April 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1271685576' post='2266247']
When the only court they can claim 'criminality' in is the 'court of public opinion', and public opinion is so clearly against them, to use the word 'criminal' is fairly absurd, to be honest.


Quite. And, like much of that piece, it's not accurate, either. Grämlins entered what was apparently a losing war (GW3) for principle, offered to help VE during the Viridicide, helped TOP to keep GATO and -AiD- off FOK in the Unjust War, pushed for the restoration of a free and open Green team and did their part in deposing the old Hegemony in Karma. The only times that Grämlins didn't 'stand up' in action would be times when it would be a pointless martyrdom, mostly during the Continuum era, but even then they (we) were doing far more standing up for principle than there is involved in jumping into a winning war with no treaty and then keeping the defeated alliances down until they concede to a ridiculous demand.

What you are 'standing up for' now is not principle, but some twisted view of the world where your internal pseudo-legal obsessions about paperless FA (which you haven't even done fully with ordinary treaties) is being put above the actual principles of the alliance as expressed in the preamble of the charter:
[/quote]

There was nothing wrong with gre's entery into this war,
It was a continuation of the foreign policy the alliance had followed for over a year,
TOP viering firmly away from us/MHA/FOK and into the arms of IRON was there decision, there determination to find any excuse to stike at MK the straw that broke the camels back in that relationship

Our objectives in entering were to
1) Respond to IRON/TOP's unwarented agression in striking at our freinds in MK,
2) To prevent our freinds in MK, FoK, FARK etc from taking the extra damage they would have done had we not entered with MHA and tied up IRON

To suggest that the outcome was certain on that first morning is to rewrite history, there was no formal coilition on our side, and the other had a significant advantage at the top end of the NS range,

It is also certain that TOP/IRON had the option to persue peace in the first day of the war, when they saw what was moving against them and before the nukes started flying, they chose to ignore that last chance,

Now how this has ended is wrong, it was always TOP/IRON vs MK that was Gre's primary concern, whilst MK were still in the fight then it is right that Gre stood with them, as soon as MK decided it was right to peace out then Gre should have followed them off the field,

oh and for those wondering, the codex can be read all ways but my interpretation is that Gre cannot demand reps of of IRON,

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 April 2010 - 08:36 AM' timestamp='1271680572' post='2266196']
IRON now have an NS advantage (3,1m to 3,0) over Grämlins, as well as a huge member count advantage. Having their top tier in PM is going to stall their recovery a little but with just a few people willing to take a week of war to drag each Grämlin in turn down into 'melee range' with nukes, IRON can actually win without taking much more damage.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I'd give it a bit longer. They won't drag Gremlins down easily. Wait for the rest of the sane people to leave first. IRON should then be able to destroy them.[/color]

[The Warrior]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='19 April 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1271691243' post='2266311']
oh and for those wondering, the codex can be read all ways but my interpretation is that Gre cannot demand reps of of IRON,
[/quote]

Well its interesting that everyone appears to have that same understanding of the codex, including the writers and signatories, however it seems the only ones who have no idea what the codex says is the current gramlins government.

If I am not mistaken the gramlins will also not demand something of another alliance that they themselves would not accept. Irregardless of what the gramlins intend to do after an 'unconditional surrender', the fact stands that the gramlins would most likely NOT accept an unconditional surrender in the first place were the tides turned. Therefore, this demand is a direct violation of their codex and the gramlin membership is being fed blatant lies.

[silentkiller]

[quote]It is also certain that TOP/IRON had the option to persue peace in the first day of the war, when they saw what was moving against them and before the nukes started flying, they chose to ignore that last chance,[/quote]

You arent serious are you?

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='19 April 2010 - 04:50 PM' timestamp='1271692199' post='2266328']
Well its interesting that everyone appears to have that same understanding of the codex, including the writers and signatories, however it seems the only ones who have no idea what the codex says is the current gramlins government.

If I am not mistaken the gramlins will also not demand something of another alliance that they themselves would not accept. Irregardless of what the gramlins intend to do after an 'unconditional surrender', the fact stands that the gramlins would most likely NOT accept an unconditional surrender in the first place were the tides turned. Therefore, this demand is a direct violation of their codex and the gramlin membership is being fed blatant lies.
[/quote]

Your first sentence dosent jive with your last paragraph at all, if they have no idea what the codex says how could they lie about it? The rhetoric is expected but its now starting to sound silly.... The codex as some measure of how the gramlins will act or react is a fallacy the executive powers section of thier charter always trumped it. This foolishness about the codex has gone on for a long, long time and while its been entertaining to read, as a recently departed member of the Gramlins I assure you that its use as a defining document has long since past.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='19 April 2010 - 07:20 AM' timestamp='1271683241' post='2266218']
Nice way to spit in the face of all those people who made Gramlins one of the most respected alliances.
[/quote]

This is a hallmark of Ramirus's CN psyche. He detests the way that the alliance was run before he came to power, and he borderline-hates those who were in charge back then. One of his favorite catchphrases when speaking with members of TOP was something along the lines of, "The old Gramlins may have let you get away with this, but we won't!"

[quote name='SynthFG' date='19 April 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1271691243' post='2266311']
There was nothing wrong with gre's entery into this war,
It was a continuation of the foreign policy the alliance had followed for over a year,
[/quote]

Uhh... no. Just because you say this doesn't mean that it's true. In other words, it's not true; it's nonsense, just like the other pieces of unintended hilarity that you've injected into this thread thus far.

[quote]
TOP viering firmly away from us/MHA/FOK and into the arms of IRON was there decision, there determination to find any excuse to stike at MK the straw that broke the camels back in that relationship
[/quote]

Oh, wow. That is fantastically untrue. Do you really expect people to believe it? Do YOU actually believe it? If so, were you basing it off of information from anyone whose name was NOT Ramirus?

[quote]
It is also certain that TOP/IRON had the option to persue peace in the first day of the war, when they saw what was moving against them and before the nukes started flying, they chose to ignore that last chance,
[/quote]

Here's #3 on the "not true" list for this post (I won't bother going through the remainder of the drivel in your post; in other words, you've been wrong on all counts. What I'm not sure of is if you've been willfully lying or if you're just oblivious, naive and chock-full of nonsense fed to you by Ramirus and Co. Probably it's a bit of both.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Crymson

[Crymson]

Double post

Edited April 19, 2010 by Crymson

[Atanatar]

[quote name='MNNorthStars' date='19 April 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1271657379' post='2265997']
Well if they were to sign with IRON and be obligated to hit GRE...
[/quote]

So you think it's a good idea to sign a treaty with an alliance already at war, and then use that treaty to enter that war? That worked out exceedingly well for Fark and LUE in The Great War 2

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Crymson' date='19 April 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1271694756' post='2266368']
Uhh... no. Just because you say this doesn't mean that it's true. In other words, it's not true; it's nonsense, just like the other pieces of unintended hilarity that you've injected into this thread thus far. [/quote]

Well Synth is a funny guy I think he fully intended on being hilarious. That being said I dont know about the direction of the FA for a year but as a grunt in the gramlins we were all told and it was made clear we were going in to defend MK, and there were cheers. Now what happened behind closed doors on IRC couldnt tell you, but Templar and below were very comfortable with how we went in. At least I didnt see a rash of voices crying foul and I did pay attention at the time.


[quote]Oh, wow. Do you really expect people to believe this? Do YOU actually believe it? If so, were you taking your information from anyone whose name was NOT Ramirus? [/quote]

They should believe it, its the truth anyone who paid any attention at all to the theories in Citadel could have deduced you all's paranoia over getting hit was ramping upward not down. The whole TPF fiasco was pretty good evidence, IRON might have been treatied to go in but it was TOP screaming for support, and woe unto the alliances who didnt give it. Ramirus didnt doctor all the logs crymson....


[quote]Here's #3 on the "not true" list for this post. [/quote]

Yes, I believe this isnt true either. Once NpO stabbed you guys in the back it was pretty clear the direction this was heading I certainly dont believe peace was on the table day 1, my orders were to nuke, and keep nuking and plan on being at war for at least 30 days.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='19 April 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1271691243' post='2266311']
There was nothing wrong with gre's entery into this war[/quote]
Well, declaring without a treaty makes it aggressive, but no, I agree, there wasn't anything particularly wrong with joining C&G's side. (Though I heard Ramirus did plenty of 'wrong' in the back channels even back at the start of this front.)

[quote]To suggest that the outcome was certain on that first morning is to rewrite history, there was no formal coilition on our side, and the other had a significant advantage at the top end of the NS range, [/quote]
The first part of that is just not true. There certainly was a coalition, and from the moment Grämlins and MHA committed to joining it, and NpO and the other alliances in the Polar coalition peaced out, the NS was well over 3:1. The outcome was certain at that point.

[quote]It is also certain that TOP/IRON had the option to persue peace in the first day of the war, when they saw what was moving against them and before the nukes started flying, they chose to ignore that last chance,[/quote]
I'm 99% certain that this isn't true, and that TOP/IRON did in fact try to sue for peace as soon as they saw that they'd been betrayed by the coalition they were trying to help, and weren't allowed to.

[quote]Now how this has ended is wrong, it was always TOP/IRON vs MK that was Gre's primary concern, whilst MK were still in the fight then it is right that Gre stood with them, as soon as MK decided it was right to peace out then Gre should have followed them off the field,[/quote]
It certainly should have been their primary concern, though considering their extension of the war it appears that it wasn't (and keeping IRON down was actually more of a concern).

[Crymson]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='19 April 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1271695285' post='2266379']
They should believe it, its the truth anyone who paid any attention at all to the theories in Citadel could have deduced you all's paranoia over getting hit was ramping upward not down. The whole TPF fiasco was pretty good evidence, IRON might have been treatied to go in but it was TOP screaming for support, and woe unto the alliances who didnt give it. Ramirus didnt doctor all the logs crymson....
[/quote]

Ramirus and his close compatriots had been strangling the relationship between TOP and the Gramlins for a long before that. Ramirus was also the one most directly responsible for the internal decline of the Citadel. He was astonishingly hostile to almost all involved, creating an atmosphere of significant tension; worse, many of the rest of us were certain that he was leaking information from Citadel government areas whenever it suited his purposes. This spawned an atmosphere of complete distrust; the other Citadel governments stopped sharing classified information within the Citadel, as none trusted Ramirus and the Gramlins to keep that information in trust.

Etc. etc. etc.

Trust me---that relationship was headed downwards waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before the TPF war. We tried our best to keep it strong. Unfortunately, Ramirus and the giant exodus of everyone we'd worked with (an exodus due in significant part to him) really torpedoed any chance of that. It was more the former than the latter.

Also, "woe unto the alliances who didn't give [support]"? ...??? Yeah, I've no doubt that Ramirus didn't fake the logs... and I've also no doubt that he carefully selected the snippets of logs he [b]did[/b] present---taking care [b]not[/b] to include certain segments---in such a way as to present the situational image that he wanted others to see. But wait... you're telling me that you actually believed without reservation anything the guy told you? Haha... hahahahaha... hahahaha. Did this happen routinely? Hahahaha....

Edited April 19, 2010 by Crymson