The New Grämlins

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='25 April 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1272236370' post='2274961']
Perhaps we're interested in more than victory.
[/quote]

You know, it'd be a darn shame if a group of high NS nations...say...50-60 or so, decided to leave their current alliances and formed a new one, made a few treaties to guarantee their safety from raiders and such, then started ZIing you one at a time. Then once you've all been forced into bill lock or permanent PM, disbanded the alliance and went back to wince they came.

Not that I'm trying to give anyone any ideas mind you...but let's just say I would look upon such an endeavor favorably.

[amad123]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='28 April 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1272506239' post='2279184']
You know, it'd be a darn shame if a group of high NS nations...say...50-60 or so, decided to leave their current alliances and formed a new one, made a few treaties to guarantee their safety from raiders and such, then started ZIing you one at a time. Then once you've all been forced into bill lock or permanent PM, disbanded the alliance and went back to wince they came.Not that I'm trying to give anyone any ideas mind you...but let's just say I would look upon such an endeavor favorably.
[/quote]

Actually Hal I don't even think those nations would need to form a "New Alliance" they could join IRON and/or DAWN. We already have treaties to protect us from raiders and more specifically we have signed a peace agreement with everyone from the last war except Gramlins. So unless I am mistaken if they joined IRON and/or DAWN and anyone attacks us other than Gramlins that would be the start of a new war and all our treaty partners would be free to counter if we asked them too.

Not sure IRON or DAWN would be ready to take in 60 or so new members just yet as we are still building up our strength below 20k, which is where most Gramlins end up after a round or two of war, but that would certainly speed up the conclusion of this war and we could all go back to doing whatever it was we did before the war started. I think that was just paying bills and collecting taxes.

Edit: Oh and after a week or two of war if those nations found they didn't really fit in I suppose they could go back to their old alliance. I know DAWN has no issue with members leaving during war we don't go all apecrap over it like some alliances do and call them deserters. DAWN members respect freedom of choice and voice. IRON may or may not take a similar stance. Perhaps they will comment.

Edited April 29, 2010 by amad123

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='28 April 2010 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1272506239' post='2279184']
You know, it'd be a darn shame if a group of high NS nations...say...50-60 or so, decided to leave their current alliances and formed a new one, made a few treaties to guarantee their safety from raiders and such, then started ZIing you one at a time. Then once you've all been forced into bill lock or permanent PM, disbanded the alliance and went back to wince they came.

Not that I'm trying to give anyone any ideas mind you...but let's just say I would look upon such an endeavor favorably.
[/quote]

Is that irony, hypocrisy or both?

[Voytek]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1272507872' post='2279225']
Is that irony, hypocrisy or both?
[/quote]
Is that chagrin, bitterness or both?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Voytek' date='28 April 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1272509483' post='2279261']
Is that chagrin, bitterness or both?
[/quote]

Neither. I am clearly accepting consequences of my actions.

I'm simply highlighting Hal's desire to get us all ZI'd and perma-PM'd because he thinks we're being "too harsh"

Edited April 29, 2010 by Matthew PK

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 April 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1272510060' post='2279271']
Neither. I am clearly accepting consequences of my actions.I'm simply highlighting Hal's desire to get us all ZI'd and perma-PM'd because he thinks we're being "too harsh"
[/quote]

Now I don't think Chairman Hal's objective was to ZI all of you or have you in perma PM. I understood him to want to bring this conflict to a conclusion as quickly as possible with the only method that Gramlins might understand.

As for being "too harsh" how would anyone know that? You have yet to present all your terms for peace.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='28 April 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1272511312' post='2279289']As for being "too harsh" how would anyone know that? You have yet to present all your terms for peace.
[/quote]

I agree.

I was commenting on what I perceived Hal's position to be.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 06:28 AM' timestamp='1272511671' post='2279292']
I agree.

I was commenting on what I perceived Hal's position to be.
[/quote]
Not harsher than what you plan to do with us, so since you would by your always followed Codex never demand anything you wouldn't accept your self for peace, forcing on your nations a very long period of peace mode and/or complete destruction is just out of your own playbook.
Maybe the fact that you don't consider this fun or acceptable should tell you why we don't consider it acceptable either.

I guess the realization of what your demands on others would mean for yourself is the first step back to mental clarity for you guys.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='29 April 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1272566182' post='2280084']
Not harsher than what you plan to do with us, so since you would by your always followed Codex never demand anything you wouldn't accept your self for peace, forcing on your nations a very long period of peace mode and/or complete destruction is just out of your own playbook.
Maybe the fact that you don't consider this fun or acceptable should tell you why we don't consider it acceptable either.

I guess the realization of what your demands on others would mean for yourself is the first step back to mental clarity for you guys.
[/quote]

Your extended period in peace mode is not a peace term, it's a consequence of the ongoing war. And I don't know where you're coming from with "complete destruction," but I'd guess it just more of the same misinformation and speculation that's been the norm among the herd here.

Our codex does indeed forbid terms that we would not, ourselves, accept. And when terms are made (after your surrender) I'm certain they will conform to that requirement.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1272570298' post='2280176']
And I don't know where you're coming from with "complete destruction," but I'd guess it just more of the same misinformation and speculation that's been the norm among the herd here.
[/quote]

Its probably coming from the position that most people believe that offering terms designed to be rejected is just a transparent attempt to save face while really saying "we want to nuke you some more"

[quote]
Our codex does indeed forbid terms that we would not, ourselves, accept. And when terms are made (after your surrender) I'm certain they will conform to that requirement.
[/quote]

Splitting that hair mighty fine aren't you? I think most people here are of the opinion that unconditional surrender counts as the 'term' not whatever you've got hidden behind door number 3.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='29 April 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1272571785' post='2280213']
Its probably coming from the position that most people believe that offering terms designed to be rejected is just a transparent attempt to save face while really saying "we want to nuke you some more" [/quote]

Considering the repeatedly posted stats about GRE declared wars I think this theory is out of the water.
Even if there [b]were[/b] an excess of GRE declared wars the request for a surrender is not designed to be rejected. It has been trumped up to a tyrannical ideal by the mob here rather than anything that GRE has actually done or said.


[quote]Splitting that hair mighty fine aren't you? I think most people here are of the opinion that unconditional surrender counts as the 'term' not whatever you've got hidden behind door number 3.
[/quote]

Not splitting hairs at all.
Terms of a peace are not on the table. GRE requires a surrender.

Requiring a surrender is not a term, in fact "unconditional" mean "without conditions" which demonstrates that terms have not been put on the table.
I suspect that what you mean by "hidden behind door number 3" is what the terms will be when terms are actually offered. If so, then there is no violation of the codex. Whatever's "hidden behind door number 3" will need to be something that we, ourselves, would be willing to accept.

It's not my problems that people are afraid to open doors.

[Screwball]

[quote]Not splitting hairs at all.
Terms of a peace are not on the table. GRE requires a surrender.

Requiring a surrender is not a term, in fact "unconditional" mean "without conditions" which demonstrates that terms have not been put on the table.
I suspect that what you mean by "hidden behind door number 3" is what the terms will be when terms are actually offered. If so, then there is no violation of the codex. Whatever's "hidden behind door number 3" will need to be something that we, ourselves, would be willing to accept.

It's not my problems that people are afraid to open doors.[/quote]

Why not just, y'know, tell them what the surrender terms will be, rather than adding a pointless layer of obfuscation and putting yourselves on the losing side of a war that you had actually won? IRON and DAWN aren't being unreasonable; they're just not going to accept your terms until you tell them what the terms [I]are[/I]. There's also absolutely nothing you can do to force them to accept your demands either, so you might as well just give up trying now and save yourself some grief.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Screwball' date='29 April 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1272573293' post='2280236']
Why not just, y'know, tell them what the surrender terms will be, rather than adding a pointless layer of obfuscation and putting yourselves on the losing side of a war that you had actually won? IRON and DAWN aren't being unreasonable; they're just not going to accept your terms until you tell them what the terms [I]are[/I]. There's also absolutely nothing you can do to force them to accept your demands either, so you might as well just give up trying now and save yourself some grief.
[/quote]


Nobody can [b]force[/b] anybody in the cyberverse to do [b]anything[/b]
We never told them to accept our terms, we told them to surrender.

[Deatvert]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1272573504' post='2280238']
Nobody can [b]force[/b] anybody in the cyberverse to do [b]anything[/b]
We never told them to accept our terms, we told them to surrender.
[/quote]
Unconditional surrender means they would be bound to follow any terms you put forth after that surrender. You are telling them to accept your terms without knowing what those terms are. Unless, of course, you are using a definition of unconditional surrender that has never been used before.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Avenger' date='29 April 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1272573659' post='2280242']
Unconditional surrender means they would be bound to follow any terms you put forth after that surrender. You are telling them to accept your terms without knowing what those terms are. Unless, of course, you are using a definition of unconditional surrender that has never been used before.
[/quote]

If you want to further your line of reasoning you could give me some historical context to discuss....

On the other hand; if, when we give them terms, they say "screw you" what happens? Hostilities resume.

Spare me the pretense that IRON and DAWN are afraid to "dishonor" the Gramlins.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1272572215' post='2280220']
Whatever's "hidden behind door number 3" will need to be something that we, ourselves, would be willing to accept.It's not my problems that people are afraid to open doors.
[/quote]

Go ahead open the door and show the world what is behind it or are you too afraid it will bring Gramlins even more bad PR. (As if that was even possible.)

[Screwball]

[quote]
Nobody can force anybody in the cyberverse to do anything
We never told them to accept our terms, we told them to surrender.[/quote]

Yeah, and they told you to sod off.

If you'd actually told them what your terms [I]were[/I], and if those terms were/are as reasonable as you say they are, then they'd have accepted them, just like they accepted those offered by everybody else. So, I ask again; why not just tell them what your terms are if they're so reasonable?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='29 April 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1272574097' post='2280250']
Go ahead open the door and show the world what is behind it or are you too afraid it will bring Gramlins even more bad PR. (As if that was even possible.)
[/quote]


Obviously, bad PR is the biggest of GRE and my concerns.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1272574401' post='2280258']
Obviously, bad PR is the biggest of GRE and my concerns.
[/quote]

It shouldn't be. It should be the fact that your alliance is slowly being destroyed because you think you can achieve your goal. At one time there were 71 of you who thought that. Now there are only 51 of you left. You've dug yourself a really big hole and all you need to do to get out of it is place acceptable "Peace Terms" on the table. Yet you seem to be unable to grasp a concept so simple that every other alliance on the Planet understands it. Perhaps you should ask for a Viceroy to come in and help you out.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='29 April 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1272574970' post='2280273']
It shouldn't be. It should be the fact that your alliance is slowly being destroyed because you think you can achieve your goal. At one time there were 71 of you who thought that. Now there are only 51 of you left. You've dug yourself a really big hole and all you need to do to get out of it is place acceptable "Peace Terms" on the table. Yet you seem to be unable to grasp a concept so simple that every other alliance on the Planet understands it. Perhaps you should ask for a Viceroy to come in and help you out.
[/quote]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was being sarcastic.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Spare me the pretense that IRON and DAWN are afraid to "dishonor" the Gramlins. [/quote]
I don't think anyone cares about you at this point, but I'm sure IRON and DAWN don't want to be put in a position where they would have to break their word or submit to unknown terms. It's a ridiculous thing to demand, after all. And yes, 'surrender unconditionally' is a peace term, because it's something that you are demanding before peace, even if it's not the only term, just the first of an unknown number.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1272575743' post='2280289']
I don't think anyone cares about you at this point, but I'm sure IRON and DAWN don't want to be put in a position where they would have to break their word or submit to unknown terms. It's a ridiculous thing to demand, after all. And yes, 'surrender unconditionally' is a peace term, because it's something that you are demanding before peace, even if it's not the only term, just the first of an unknown number.
[/quote]

There is nothing intrisnsicaly wrong with the idea of demanding unconditional surrender and it made for an interesting idea in game play
The problem is that Gre came into this war in support of MK and has no right to demand terms beyond those demanded by the partner they originally came in in support of

Had MK and the other allies demanded uc surrender of there opponents then GRE could and should have continued in there support however once the others decided against this and moved to end the war Gre should have followed

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1272575743' post='2280289']
I don't think anyone cares about you at this point, but I'm sure IRON and DAWN don't want to be put in a position where they would have to break their word or submit to unknown terms. It's a ridiculous thing to demand, after all. And yes, 'surrender unconditionally' is a peace term, because it's something that you are demanding before peace, even if it's not the only term, just the first of an unknown number.
[/quote]

We can disagree forever about this, Bob, and it won't make a difference to the outcome.

The nature of "unconditional" is, by definition, without pre-existing terms or conditions.

You, in fact, oppose the idea of a surrender where one party doesn't know what happens next. It's the uncertainty that makes you uneasy; not any current "terms."

[shilo]

Surrendering first, and then getting terms stuffed down our throat means we accepted anything coming to us at that point. There is no going back as you implied, since any unconditional surrender means (and I know I am running against a brick wall with my head here) simply we do accept what you give us, and above all things, don't go back on our word since we accepted in advance no matter what terms you give us.
Since there is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever to trust you even one bit on what you want to offer us, since if it were anything nice, you would either have said it longs since already instead of ruining your reputation, or you would have accepted the original terms, we will not open that door...

So, because we don't trust you, and because there is no reason to trust you, we will fight until you change your mind. If you are smart, take the offer of white peace now, it's a clean and easy solution, and it requires nothing but a handshake from our respective governments.


Go through gate 1: hint it says white peace

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='29 April 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1272577923' post='2280336']
Surrendering first, and then getting terms stuffed down our throat means we accepted anything coming to us at that point. There is no going back as you implied, since any unconditional surrender means (and I know I am running against a brick wall with my head here) simply we do accept what you give us, and above all things, don't go back on our word since we accepted in advance no matter what terms you give us.
Since there is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever to trust you even one bit on what you want to offer us, since if it were anything nice, you would either have said it longs since already instead of ruining your reputation, or you would have accepted the original terms, we will not open that door...

So, because we don't trust you, and because there is no reason to trust you, we will fight until you change your mind. If you are smart, take the offer of white peace now, it's a clean and easy solution, and it requires nothing but a handshake from our respective governments.


Go through gate 1: hint it says white peace
[/quote]

When you take in POWs, and you tell them to switch to "[ENTER ALLIANCE HERE] POW", not re-enter the conflict and to await further instruction... if you then told them "Ok, now dismantle your wonders!", and they said "no" would they be "going back on their word" and be considered dishonorable?

Of course not. Hostilities would resume, just like what [b]always[/b] happens when one party breaches or refuses a term.
You're inventing pattern which has never existed.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Matthew PK