The New Grämlins

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1272578731' post='2280350']
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.
[/quote]

So your saying all you expect IRON and DAWN to do is stop fighting and then present them with terms? If they don't like the terms they can go back to fighting? That would be called a ceasefire. That is not unconditional surrender. Could this entire disaster have occured because no one in Grems owns a dictionary? If you do not expect an alliance to honor an unconditional surrender then why bother asking for it?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='29 April 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1272580516' post='2280386']
So your saying all you expect IRON and DAWN to do is stop fighting and then present them with terms? If they don't like the terms they can go back to fighting? That would be called a ceasefire. That is not unconditional surrender. Could this entire disaster have occured because no one in Grems owns a dictionary? If you do not expect an alliance to honor an unconditional surrender then why bother asking for it?
[/quote]


A surrender implies admission of defeat; a cease-fire does not.
Who doesn't own a dictionary?

Edited April 29, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1272580889' post='2280391']
A surrender implies admission of defeat; a cease-fire does not.
Who doesn't own a dictionary?
[/quote]
But you're ok with them then declaring, "Nevermind, we're not defeated anymore" if they don't like the terms?

[SynthFG]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='29 April 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1272580516' post='2280386']
So your saying all you expect IRON and DAWN to do is stop fighting and then present them with terms? If they don't like the terms they can go back to fighting? That would be called a ceasefire. That is not unconditional surrender. Could this entire disaster have occured because no one in Grems owns a dictionary? If you do not expect an alliance to honor an unconditional surrender then why bother asking for it?
[/quote]
Technically it would be an Armistice

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1272572215' post='2280220']
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]


Ahh you are not incompetent, just ignorant. You sir are misusing the term "unconditional surrender". A surrender without conditions imposed is called white peace. The war just ends. You could, I suspect secure that in seconds should you so desire.

Unconditional Surrender is the term, the only term. Because if you can get it its all you need.

Unconditional surrender as a political concession is where by the defeated party gives surrender with no guarantees from the victor as to the nature of their treatment.

Conditions on a surrender, are counter-intuitively enough placed there to protect the surrendering party. They may then secure such things as protection from third parties should they be required to disarm, guarantees of conduct for their surrendered troops(who would surrendered if they are all just going to get executed as war criminals?), and most importantly a formal document that limits what the victor may demand from them.

Unconditional terms would require IRON and DAWN to completely surrender their sovereignty to you, and further requires them to agree to whatever terms you may come up with, before being told what they are, and giving those possible terms no limitations.

To give a worst case scenario you could call for their disbandment and they would have already agreed before hand to follow your terms, or if you wanted to get imaginative you could make them your vassal state.

Unconditional surrender is quite literally the harshest term one can offer.

Edit for clarity: Unconditional is the term, the one your codex would be looking at, it is the circumstances under which the conflict ends.

Punitive measures imposed upon the defeated after that are no longer surrender terms, they are to be blunt, "because I can" terms. The term under which you gained surrender lets you ex-post facto extract whatever concessions you desire without gainsay from the defeated party.

Edited April 29, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='29 April 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1272581036' post='2280399']
But you're ok with them then declaring, "Nevermind, we're not defeated anymore" if they don't like the terms?
[/quote]

The OWF is proof that they can say whatever they want. I expect people to mean what they say, but I can't always get what I want.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='29 April 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1272581063' post='2280401']
Unconditional surrender is quite literally the harshest term one can offer.

Edit for clarity: Unconditional is the term, the one your codex would be looking at, it is the circumstances under which the conflict ends.

Punitive measures imposed upon the defeated after that are no longer surrender terms, they are to be blunt, "because I can" terms. The term under which you gained surrender lets you ex-post facto extract whatever concessions you desire without gainsay from the defeated party.
[/quote]

Harshness is based on what restitution is demanded. "Unconditional" may by the most uncertain but it cannot be considered the harshest.

And what our codex would be looking at would be restitution or terms to be met for peace.
Let us examine something like disbandment: GRE could not possibly demand it because the codex requires us to only offer items we would accept. Yet the conclave, which is in charge of terms, literally could not accept that term because they do not have the authority to disband the alliance.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1272580889' post='2280391']
A surrender implies admission of defeat; a cease-fire does not.
Who doesn't own a dictionary?
[/quote]

You it seems, because you better look up the word defeat. That would require you to be winning and clearly you are not. Or do mean back when your allies defeated them and you wanted to humilate them by admitting defeat to your pathetic alliance who had nothing to do with it?

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='30 April 2010 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1272582150' post='2280434']
Harshness is based on what restitution is demanded. "Unconditional" may by the most uncertain but it cannot be considered the harshest.

And what our codex would be looking at would be restitution or terms to be met for peace.
Let us examine something like disbandment: GRE could not possibly demand it because the codex requires us to only offer items we would accept. Yet the conclave, which is in charge of terms, literally could not accept that term because they do not have the authority to disband the alliance.
[/quote]
Your post is based on one huge issue: anyone relying on the rationality of gRAMlins, and truly hilarious - its leadership

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1272582150' post='2280434']
Harshness is based on what restitution is demanded. "Unconditional" may by the most uncertain but it cannot be considered the harshest.

And what our codex would be looking at would be restitution or terms to be met for peace.
Let us examine something like disbandment: GRE could not possibly demand it because the codex requires us to only offer items we would accept. Yet the conclave, which is in charge of terms, literally could not accept that term because they do not have the authority to disband the alliance.
[/quote]

Again you miss the distinction, and possible the definition of the phrase you are using.

Unconditional is the term.

Whatever comes after is just that, [i]after[/i] the surrender.

Unconditonal surrender is you stating you want the ability to pull extra concessions out your $@! after the conflict has already been resolved, also;

[quote name='shilo' date='29 April 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1272582873' post='2280452']
Your post is based on one huge issue: anyone relying on the rationality of gRAMlins, and truly hilarious - its leadership
[/quote]

Dude has got you cold with that one.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1272575474' post='2280283']
I was being sarcastic.
[/quote]

You do know that sarcasm is a sign of contempt. The more you post the clearer, the picture becomes of the "New Gramlins". What I see so far is arrogance and contempt for not only IRON and DAWN but for all alliances on the planet. You keep stating over and over again that you want “Unconditional Surrender”. The definition of “Insane” is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome. So you are making it very clear that your alliance is inherently “Insane”. I’m sure others that are following this thread could identify numerous adjectives that could be used to describe Gramlin’s behaviour. I would like to see some posted, it may help me to form a clearer picture of the Gramlin alliance.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1272580889' post='2280391']
A surrender implies admission of defeat; a cease-fire does not.
[/quote]

Okay then, you don't have to agree to a cease fire, Gramlins can just surrender.

Note: That is not sarcasm, I'm being totally serious.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='29 April 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1272583637' post='2280477']
You do know that sarcasm is a sign of contempt. The more you post the clearer, the picture becomes of the "New Gramlins". What I see so far is arrogance and contempt for not only IRON and DAWN but for all alliances on the planet. You keep stating over and over again that you want “Unconditional Surrender”. The definition of “Insane” is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome. So you are making it very clear that your alliance is inherently “Insane”. I’m sure others that are following this thread could identify numerous adjectives that could be used to describe Gramlin’s behaviour. I would like to see some posted, it may help me to form a clearer picture of the Gramlin alliance.



Okay then, you don't have to agree to a cease fire, Gramlins can just surrender.

Note: That is not sarcasm, I'm being totally serious.
[/quote]

Even if I accepted your definition of "insane" that would depend on the circumstances being the same.
In reality, the situation changes every day. You may think it changes more and more against GRE; but you must admit it changes nonetheless.

And my sarcasm wasn't contemptuous; so I apologize if it came off that way.
Your post above implies that you're not that familiar with GRE so I'll be more direct: We're not really at all concerned with PR.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1272583989' post='2280484']
Your post above implies that you're not that familiar with GRE so I'll be more direct: We're not really at all concerned with PR.
[/quote]

A fine soundbite, but a foolish policy. In case you forgot bad PR is what got the old hegemonic powers rolled.

Granted any alliance will always have some detractors, and if the complaints and praise are firmly divided along the expected political lines you've got little to worry about, however. When people who are usually politically opposed both tell you the same thing, its time to consider that you may have made a serious error on this one.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1272583989' post='2280484']
We're not really at all concerned with PR.
[/quote]

The only way to succeed in CN (and in life) is to care a great deal about PR. PR is the key to having allies and friends that you can count on. If you don't care about public relations, having allies and friends, then delete your nation and go play "Civilization IV" against your computer, you'd have a better chance at winning. Right now you're just wasting hundreds of player's time.

However, I do enjoy your posts. I think I've tripled my post count since Gramlins started this.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1272583989' post='2280484']
In reality, the situation changes every day. You may think it changes more and more against GRE; but you must admit it changes nonetheless.
[/quote]

The situation is getting worse for Gramlins every day I will grant you that, but I'm going to go with Newtons first law of motion and say that the downward trend Gramlin's is experiencing is a motion that will continue unless acted upon by an outside force. Therefore in the absence of an outside force and since your alliance continues to deteriorate daily I'm thinking there is no real day to day change. Therefore, your alliance is by definition insane in expecting a different outcome to your demand of "Unconditional Surrender"

[franciscus]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='30 April 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1272582150' post='2280434']
Harshness is based on what restitution is demanded. "Unconditional" may by the most uncertain but it cannot be considered the harshest.

And what our codex would be looking at would be restitution or terms to be met for peace.
Let us examine something like disbandment: GRE could not possibly demand it because the codex requires us to only offer items we would accept. Yet the conclave, which is in charge of terms, literally could not accept that term because they do not have the authority to disband the alliance.
[/quote]
What guarantees us that you won't ask us to disband or be a perma tech farm before offering the real terms? I mean, you say that asking for unconditional surrender is not a surrender term per se. If we'd agree on it, what guarantees us that your lovely Mr. Ramirus wouldn't just say "Now, you'll be our own tech farm till Hell freezes over, and after that we'll give you your terms"? I mean, if he can arbitrarily decide what is and isn't a surrender term, what's stopping him from doing whatever he wants, without breaking the Codex, before actually giving surrender terms?

I know I exaggerated with the above example. But maybe this will make you understand our position. [i]You[/i] don't get to redefine terms, even if you start talking about WWII and your leader's coloured wet dreams. Unconditional surrender [b]is[/b] a surrender term, whether you like it or not. The sky is also blue, whether you like it or not. You're breaking your own Codex, whether you like it or not. No, we won't unconditionally surrender, whether you like it or not.

Edited April 30, 2010 by franciscus

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='29 April 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1272585057' post='2280512']
A fine soundbite, but a foolish policy. In case you forgot bad PR is what got the old hegemonic powers rolled.

Granted any alliance will always have some detractors, and if the complaints and praise are firmly divided along the expected political lines you've got little to worry about, however. When people who are usually politically opposed both tell you the same thing, its time to consider that you may have made a serious error on this one.
[/quote]


PR is a result of actions; and the old hegemony's actions were certainly valid justification for what happened. If I get rolled for doing what I think is right then so be it.

[Heft]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1272572215' post='2280220']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]
This is one of the most pathetic things I have seen here in quite awhile. Remarkable in its inanity.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='30 April 2010 - 03:29 AM' timestamp='1272587378' post='2280561']
PR is a result of actions; and the old hegemony's actions were certainly valid justification for what happened. If I get rolled for doing what I think is right then so be it.
[/quote]
The old hegemony got rolled because they were bad, you guys are the last true believers in the cause, and we just don't get you, so you will die a martyr's death?

Holy crap, I wanna know how the group psyche is over at your place, this can serve to gain an understanding for the phenomenon of mass insanity profoundly better than any scientific study could ever achieve.

[Crymson]

MatthewPK: You mentioned awhile back in the thread, after arguing for some time, that you had been speaking personally and did not know exactly what your government's intentions were in their demand for unconditional surrender. Are you at this stage actually speaking from an informed standpoint, or do you still have no clear idea of what your government intends here?

Edited April 30, 2010 by Crymson

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Crymson' date='29 April 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1272601210' post='2280995']
MatthewPK: You mentioned awhile back in the thread, after arguing for some time, that you had been speaking personally and did not know exactly what your government's intentions were in their demand for unconditional surrender. Are you at this stage actually speaking from an informed standpoint, or do you still have no clear idea of what your government intends here?
[/quote]

I always speak personally.

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='30 April 2010 - 06:42 AM' timestamp='1272602508' post='2281029']
I always speak personally.
[/quote]
In other words... what you are telling us about that unconditional surrender, is just what you think it could be, without knowing if also Ramirus sees it like this? So, if Mr Ramirus after that surrender says "Disband!" it was only you who thought RAMlins didn't do such things?

However, it is becoming to get quite amusing how long and what it takes to make understand an alliance a thing the whole world has already seen for 2 (?) months now: that this your behavior (RAMlins in this issue, not your, PK's in this thread) is a gigantic peace of bullsh*t. I just am absolutely unable to understand why you don't go the shorter, better and cheaper way: put your terms on table, include the admission of defeat in those terms and end this war. According to your statements in this thread, these terms wouldn't be of a sort that IRON / DAWN wouldn't accept - so why this strange strategy? I mean, going this way you imply that your terms wouldn't be of a sort any alliance could accept if not in a totally demilitarized status, without nukes, without navy. If they can keep nukes & navy, the whole thing gets even more creepy. Then the whole thing of this is that you demand admission of defeat BEFORE having terms accepted, where having terms agreed however is the only stance to end a war.

But I think RAMlins will never understand this. They will just wait until the last good member has gone and the whole alliance will be made of Ramirus + some people who prefer to follow his words to the last letter instead of thinking about those actions for their own.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='30 April 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1272610470' post='2281161']However, it is becoming to get quite amusing how long and what it takes to make understand an alliance a thing the whole world has already seen for 2 (?) months now: that this your behavior (RAMlins in this issue, not your, PK's in this thread) is a gigantic peace of bullsh*t. I just am absolutely unable to understand why you don't go the shorter, better and cheaper way: put your terms on table, include the admission of defeat in those terms and end this war.[/quote]

Personally, I'm beginning to think that the Gramlins aren't really trying to achieve unconditional surrender at all. What they seem to be seeking is quite the opposite which is a continued state of warfare to keep us from rebuilding at full speed. They don't seem to want to declare any offensive wars as that would force them to take on further damage, what they seek is a drawn out conflict while taking on the least damage possible. They know we won't accept unconditional surrender and they can just sit back and keep spouting the same lines over and over again about the terms not being that bad. My only question is how long do they expect their behavior to go unpunished and end in white peace? We are being very patient, but there's only so much sand in that hourglass.

[Charles the Great]

what I dont understand is the statements. Unconditionally surrender and decom the military.........then we will talk about peace, if you dont like the terms you can resume fighting.

How the hell would they be able to resume fighting if they already decommed their military.

Stupid statement is just stupid.

o/ IRON
o/ DAWN

If/When you try and get enough large nations to join you to roll the loons let me know. I have had about enough of this.

o/ ORANGE

Thank you,
CtG

[Crymson]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 April 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1272602508' post='2281029']
I always speak personally.
[/quote]

In that event, what qualifies you to denounce IRON and DAWN for being 'unreasonable'? You don't even know what it is that your government wants from them.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Crymson

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Crymson' date='30 April 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1272648009' post='2281424']
In that event, what qualifies you to denounce IRON and DAWN for being 'unreasonable'? You don't even know what it is that your government wants from them.
[/quote]

I know what has been asked of IRON and DAWN.
I also have a personal conception of what [b]I think[/b] GRE wants from them; and I think my assessment has more basis in fact and precedent than the fearmongering notions here.

Regardless, I have corrected the false claims that we are requesting tyrannical things like wonder decoms. I have also outlined how GRE cannot demand things like disbandment. Such claims are ridiculous. GRE has no incentive to demand any such things.