The New Grämlins

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 May 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1272826999' post='2283969']
Yes. You entered on MK's side, which was already clearly the winning side (once Polar bailed out on TOP/IRON), with no treaties. Whatever your motivation for doing so, that is pretty much the textbook definition of bandwagoning.
[/quote]

Sadly bob your text book ran askew with your choice to expend your personal capital defending TOP at every opportunity in the conflict. It was not bandwagoning, MK got hit hard by high end nations, gramlins defended to relieve the pressure from an ally (one we didnt have paper with). Your continued pontification of how you see the conflict, its start and whom was or wasnt the aggressor is begining to sound desperate. Sure youve got a good venue in this discussion GRE has literally no legs to stand on, but attempting to, [u][b]again[/b][/u] reassert your vision of how it went down and others intent (which you easily seem to dismiss with "whatever your motivation for doing so") simply wont work.

Iron declared offensively, gramlins went in to defend MK, that fact wont change no matter how many times you declare it invalid.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Thorgrum

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 May 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1272826999' post='2283969']

Yes. You entered on MK's side, which was already clearly the winning side (once Polar bailed out on TOP/IRON), with no treaties. Whatever your motivation for doing so, that is pretty much the textbook definition of bandwagoning.
[/quote]


Bob the forums crashed soon after polar announced,
At the time we declared we had heard a rumour that polar had peaced out with \m/ but we had no confirmation of that fact and no time to obtain clarification,
As for DAWN again rewriting history, CnG consisted of around 7 alliances, none of which were big enough to stand up to IRON alone, throw TOP into the mix and at the high levels TOP/IRON had a significant advantage

Fact is when Gre went in we had no idea how the sides would pan out and the numbers looked prety even for the first couple of days, even enough that TOP/IRON side had a chance of forcing a win,
fortunately a poor strategic decision to move on the then un-engaged CnG was backed up with some epic fail on the strategic and tactical pursuit of the war

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='02 May 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1272827552' post='2283973']
Sadly bob your text book ran askew with your choice to expend your personal capital defending TOP at every opportunity in the conflict. It was not bandwagoning, MK got hit hard by high end nations, gramlins defended to relieve the pressure from an ally (one we didnt have paper with). Your continued pontification of how you see the conflict, its start and whom was or wasnt the aggressor is begining to sound desperate. Sure youve got a good venue in this discussion GRE has literally no legs to stand on, but attempting to, [u][b]again[/b][/u] reassert your vision of how it went down and others intent (which you easily seem to dismiss with "whatever your motivation for doing so") simply wont work.

Iron declared offensively, gramlins went in to defend MK, that fact wont change no matter how many times you declare it invalid.
[/quote]

While at the beginning of the conflict I might have agreed with you, it was harder to judge their motives then, however now we see a much different picture.

At this point gre have made it clear with their actions that defending C&G was not their primary concern, if it was they'd have been on the Easter Sunday accords with that tech rep offer they later backed out of. If defending C&G was the only issue the war would have ended there when C&G got peace.

After all these shenanigans though, its clear Gre was more interested in simply taking shots at IRON, bogarting the surrender process for so long keeping C&G in longer than was necessary is more evidence, then Gre stuck around when the fighting was over, its literally just them now. They entered a conflict with no treaties and now are in in far longer than everybody else. Any dreams of justification are long gone.

Even if their actions did have the effect of helping C&G its perfectly clear that was a secondary consideration to them at this point.

So yea, Bandwagon.

Edited May 2, 2010 by TypoNinja

[SynthFG]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='02 May 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1272830255' post='2284021']
While at the beginning of the conflict I might have agreed with you, it was harder to judge their motives then, however now we see a much different picture.

At this point gre have made it clear with their actions that defending C&G was not their primary concern, if it was they'd have been on the Easter Sunday accords with that tech rep offer they later backed out of. If defending C&G was the only issue the war would have ended there when C&G got peace.

After all these shenanigans though, its clear Gre was more interested in simply taking shots at IRON, bogarting the surrender process for so long keeping C&G in longer than was necessary is more evidence, then Gre stuck around when the fighting was over, its literally just them now. They entered a conflict with no treaties and now are in in far longer than everybody else. Any dreams of justification are long gone.

Even if their actions did have the effect of helping C&G its perfectly clear that was a secondary consideration to them at this point.

So yea, Bandwagon.
[/quote]


What's happened at the end of the war has absolutely nothing to do with how it started,
I am proud of everything Gre did and achieved right up to the point where Ram took over the peace talks

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='02 May 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1272830653' post='2284033']
What's happened at the end of the war has absolutely nothing to do with how it started,
I am proud of everything Gre did and achieved right up to the point where Ram took over the peace talks
[/quote]

Well yes, thats kind of blindingly obvious, you know seeing as one event came after the other it'd be hard for the after to affect the before.

I'm saying their motives are easier to interpret now having seen their conduct currently than it was before we had witnessed their behavior.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1272815821' post='2283810']
Years of enabling all manner of shens. Rejecting the fresh start they were given in karma. We do not negotiate with criminal alliances. That mistake was made last year and here we are fighting the same war again this year. We don't plan on having to fight it again next year.
[/quote]

I know I had the list of founding Continuum alliances somewhere... I seem to have misplaced it. On another note, I'm pleased you've managed to memorize the Ramirus talking points concerning the evil that is IRON. It's a shame he won't let you in his clubhouse to see the "terms" he thinks he may someday be allowed to offer us. I would actually consider you a credible source to speak about the ending of this war from the Gramlin perspective. Until then I suppose you are stuck at the kids table with the rest of us bill-locked terrorists and criminals.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 May 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1272826999' post='2283969']
Yes. You entered on MK's side, which was already clearly the winning side (once Polar bailed out on TOP/IRON), with no treaties. Whatever your motivation for doing so, that is pretty much the textbook definition of bandwagoning.
[/quote]
For Gre to launch a blitz 20 minutes into a war, they obviously were ready to go on with it ahead of time (remember, it had repeatedly leaked that TOP and IRON were launching a preemptive strike against us) meaning that they agreed to take their course of action before Polar and \m/ agreed on peace.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='02 May 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1272831608' post='2284063']
Well yes, thats kind of blindingly obvious, you know seeing as one event came after the other it'd be hard for the after to affect the before.

I'm saying their motives are easier to interpret now having seen their conduct currently than it was before we had witnessed their behavior.
[/quote]
You're talking about two different governments here. You can't just say "You have these motives, so your predecessor must have had them too"

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1272815821' post='2283810']
Rejecting the fresh start they were given in karma.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I would just like to state that the term "fresh start" means joining the new SuperGrievances hegemony. You had your chance to join. I hope you now see the error of your way and the consequences of that action.[/color]

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 May 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1272749918' post='2283024']
As for "standard definition" of "unconditional surrender" I think we've driven that point into the ground. [b]We want you to surrender without any conditions. That is the definition.[/b]
[/quote]

If you want them to surrender without any conditions, then why are you placing disarmament as a condition of surrender?

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 May 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1272826999' post='2283969']
Those of you arguing with Ertyy should probably look back at this phrase:

That is, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Even though he's an Archon, the Conclave isn't even telling [i]him[/i] what's going on. Arguing with him is totally pointless because not only will he stonewall you with the same old nonsense that Matthew PK has been using, but he actually doesn't have any information behind the stone wall.
[/quote]

The only reason I don't know the terms is because I haven't asked and because I don't really care at this point. Secondly, everyone is crying about unconditional surrender, not the terms. Thus, I don't really feel that me knowing about them or not knowing about them is relevant. And before you or someone else tries making one of those oh-so-clever witticisms about unconditional surrender just being another peace term, I will point out that you made a distinction yourself in this post. I am only responding in kind.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Ertyy

[shilo]

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 May 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1272832794' post='2284090']
You're talking about two different governments here. You can't just say "You have these motives, so your predecessor must have had them too"
[/quote]
Not really, according to more than one gRAMlin in this thread, van Droz as part of their government had no authority to offer terms in the first place. We missed the part where ram became the only source of free will and influence within gRAMlins.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='01 May 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1272762257' post='2283262']
Its is real simple but, you are wrong. Why you ask? Because if IRON ever gets to the point they need money they will get it. It will be sent from dozens of alliances across Planet Bob and Gramlins can do nothing about it. Just as alliances now openly recruit your members and threaten your alliance and all you can do is wonder how you became so hated and so helpless. Also it is no secret at this point should IRON wish to open a front at a higher range they will have a large group of high range volunteers from across Planet Bob to call on. I do not know what garbage you are being fed at Gramlins but this war is lost. The only question is if you will ask for peace or disband first.
[/quote]
My bills are 10 mill dongs per day.
Even with the abundant help of my FAC, 4.5mil * 6 slots \ 10 days = 2.7 million per day. It would not get me out of bill lock.

[Bob Janova]

Shilo, to clarify that, no Grämlins major decisions (signing a treaty, with a surrender document counting under that, being one of them) can be made official until there's been a 2-1 Conclave vote on it. So it's not that von Droz couldn't move without Ramirus, it's that no Conclave member can offer something officially without having taken a vote on it.

Odin, like I said, it doesn't matter what your motivation was, the fact of the matter is you entered on the larger side without a treaty obligation. The matter of intent and whether it was the right thing to do or not is quite irrelevent to the question of whether you were bandwagoning. (I'm sure bandwagoners in all conflicts could make good arguments as to why they were right to enter and so on too.) What you are trying to argue is that Grämlins were right to join the conflict, something which (in this thread at least) I haven't touched on either way.

Bandwagoning is not a term defined by me, it has common currency through CN, and entering a conflict on the winning side without a treaty is pretty much what you'd get if you asked anyone. (Just out of interest, what's [i]your[/i] definition of 'bandwagoning'?)

Ertyy: You don't care about the terms that your own alliance wants to offer to end a war? Yet you still care enough to jump in on these boards? That seems strange. And yes, unconditional surrender is a term, one among many, but obviously you know about that one since it is out in the public domain.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1272838214' post='2284208']
The only reason I don't know the terms is because I haven't asked and because I don't really care at this point. Secondly, everyone is crying about unconditional surrender, not the terms. Thus, I don't really feel that me knowing about them or not knowing about them is relevant. And before you or someone else tries making one of those oh-so-clever witticisms about unconditional surrender just being another peace term, I will point out that you made a distinction yourself in this post. I am only responding in kind.
[/quote]

Unconditional surrender is the problem. If you were allowed to force an alliance to accept unconditional surrender it creates a precedent. That means in every additional war people can force others to accept unconditional surrender as well. The terms can be anything and they can say, well Gramlins was allowed to do it. Everyone loses wars and no one wants to be put under the gun of unconditional surrender. It is something one would only expect from an alliance with very bad intentions. To make it simple what you are doing is a direct threat to every single alliance on Planet Bob. That is why you will not be allowed to get away with it.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='02 May 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1272834961' post='2284149']
If you want them to surrender without any conditions, then why are you placing disarmament as a condition of surrender?
[/quote]


Disarmament is not a condition of surrender. IRON has been asked to surrender; nothing else.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='02 May 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1272827293' post='2283972']
I am guessing you have not bothered to keep track of things but you don't have any friends anymore. You entered a war without a treaty and then demanded unconditional surrender. You ignored your friends when the time for peace came. You angred them and made them look like fools until they got tired of dealing with you and moved on with peace without you. Now you are alone. Your alliance is collapsing. Mocked by alliances on all sides you have become the poster boy for crimminal alliances. The only thing you have seccured in all this is making IRON and DAWN look good, destroying your reputation, driving away your friends, losing nations and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If I did not know better I would bet Ram was working for IRON because he has done more harm to your alliance than anyone else ever could have.
[/quote]

If you are right, which I do doubt, then who cares? Besides you, of course.

If our friends can't be our friends because we have a different interpretation of the right action in this case, then I don't want them as friends. You don't hear us crying because MHA isn't right here with us. That is because they are following their own principles, and we respect that.

At any rate, you really ought to take that story and join NSO in their propaganda attempts. You might weed out any members who think as you do, and I would appreciate that.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 May 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1272839504' post='2284240']
Odin, like I said, it doesn't matter what your motivation was, the fact of the matter is you entered on the larger side without a treaty obligation. [u][b]The matter of intent and whether it was the right thing to do or not is quite irrelevent to the question of whether you were bandwagoning.[/b] [/u](I'm sure bandwagoners in all conflicts could make good arguments as to why they were right to enter and so on too.) What you are trying to argue is that Grämlins were right to join the conflict, something which (in this thread at least) I haven't touched on either way.

Bandwagoning is not a term defined by me, it has common currency through CN, and entering a conflict on the winning side without a treaty is pretty much what you'd get if you asked anyone. (Just out of interest, what's [i]your[/i] definition of 'bandwagoning'?)
[/quote]

The underlined and bolded part is about the best evidence anyone could provide as to the complete foolishness of your position. Yes bob intent is relevant, no matter how loud you scream it isnt, it is. There was no bandwagoning we went in straight away and there was little to no mention of Polar in any venue I was privvy to in the Gramlins realm. Ertty, Ramirus, Matthew, Chill, Synth, Omas, heck I thought I even saw madspartus too, all of them were espousing the same message "We need to use our high end to relieve the pressure off of MK" This was in the MK Embassy on the gre boards as I recall as well as private IRC channels.

You can define bandwagoning anyway you want to, I know what it is and I know this wasnt a case of it. Once the dog pile was clear, fine you wont get any argument from me it was a curbstomp but your attempting to portray the initial actions as something they clearly were not by waving away intent which is the key element to the action. Like I said, you picked a decent venue to do so I have no problem seeing gramlins crumble at this point, thier idiots. That being said the intent was to defend MK from an aggressive decleration no matter how many historical precedents, terms, definitions or paper you think you can cite to the contrary that was the intent, and that fact you simply cant change.

EDIT: Of course I do have enough humility to admit I am wrong, I know thats rare here in our realm but I can do it. You have evidence to support your claim other then your opinion of intent? If you got a log, dump it, I'll absolutely come back and eat crow.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Thorgrum

[Bob Janova]

[quote]You can define bandwagoning anyway you want to, I know what it is and I know this wasnt a case of it[/quote]
What is it then?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='02 May 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1272840738' post='2284263']
The underlined and bolded part is about the best evidence anyone could provide as to the complete foolishness of your position. Yes bob intent is relevant, no matter how loud you scream it isnt, it is. There was no bandwagoning we went in straight away and there was little to no mention of Polar in any venue I was privvy to in the Gramlins realm. Ertty, Ramirus, Matthew, Chill, Synth, Omas, heck I thought I even saw madspartus too, all of them were espousing the same message "We need to use our high end to relieve the pressure off of MK" This was in the MK Embassy on the gre boards as I recall as well as private IRC channels.

You can define bandwagoning anyway you want to, I know what it is and I know this wasnt a case of it. Once the dog pile was clear, fine you wont get any argument from me it was a curbstomp but your attempting to portray the initial actions as something they clearly were not by waving away intent which is the key element to the action. Like I said, you picked a decent venue to do so I have no problem seeing gramlins crumble at this point, thier idiots. That being said the intent was to defend MK from an aggressive decleration no matter how many historical precedents, terms, definitions or paper you think you can cite to the contrary that was the intent, and that fact you simply cant change.

EDIT: Of course I do have enough humility to admit I am wrong, I know thats rare here in our realm but I can do it. You have evidence to support your claim other then your opinion of intent? If you got a log, dump it, I'll absolutely come back and eat crow.
[/quote]

I didn't even know anything was going on with polar.
I was the CoA member filling in for the DoW at the time.

I was watching the OWF and I saw the IRON declaration.
I immediately contacted Ram [OOC]query on IRC[/OOC], then I sent a messenger [OOC]text message to his call phone in the UK[/OOC] to Synth.
As far as I know, that was the first either of them heard of anything and then the war declaration was pretty instant right after that.

The war was in motion.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Matthew PK

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1272840120' post='2284253']
If you are right, which I do doubt, then who cares? Besides you, of course.

If our friends can't be our friends because we have a different interpretation of the right action in this case, then I don't want them as friends. You don't hear us crying because MHA isn't right here with us. That is because they are following their own principles, and we respect that.

At any rate, you really ought to take that story and join NSO in their propaganda attempts. You might weed out any members who think as you do, and I would appreciate that.
[/quote]

Your friends can not be your friends because you have blown them off and act in a manner that harms them. To make it simple you stopped treating them like friends so they walked away. Its not propaganda when you are the ones destroying your alliance and your friendships. Do you know how bad your leadership has to be to unite Planet Bob against you? If one side says the sky is blue the other half will claim it is not. And yet on this they agree, you are in the wrong. Makes you think does it not?

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='02 May 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1272839939' post='2284249']
Disarmament is not a condition of surrender. IRON has been asked to surrender; nothing else.
[/quote]

So, they can just say we surrender and they'll learn the peace terms?

HEY EVERYONE, negotiations should be underway immediately as IRON/DAWN has stated at least twice by trying to accept surrender terms on the table that they indeed, do surrender.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='02 May 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1272842124' post='2284296']
So, they can just say we surrender and they'll learn the peace terms?

HEY EVERYONE, negotiations should be underway immediately as IRON/DAWN has stated at least twice by trying to accept surrender terms on the table that they indeed, do surrender.
[/quote]

When they surrender, they'll be told how to proceed to achieve peace.
You're a bit late to the thread. The issue of the "initial" terms is old hat; now everybody is up in arms about GRE demanding an unconditional surrender. Try to keep up with the reasons to hate us.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='02 May 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1272841809' post='2284289']
Your friends can not be your friends because you have blown them off and act in a manner that harms them. To make it simple you stopped treating them like friends so they walked away. Its not propaganda when you are the ones destroying your alliance and your friendships. Do you know how bad your leadership has to be to unite Planet Bob against you? If one side says the sky is blue the other half will claim it is not. And yet on this they agree, you are in the wrong. Makes you think does it not?
[/quote]

You do realize you can keep repeating your talking points without them being a response to me, right? I won't call you out on it. That way we can stop pretending like you were actually responding to anything I said.

As to your comment on the universality of condemnation: so? All that tells me is that we are doing something that hasn't been done before and CN doesn't like change. It's like you base all your arguments on the notion that we are going to cave to popular opinion. It's kind of insulting, really. So far I've seen it implied that we are infra huggers and sheeple who won't stand on principle.

My recommendation: get a PR consultant and get back to me.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1272848997' post='2284436']
My recommendation: get a PR consultant and get back to me.
[/quote]
I choked on my soda.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='02 May 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1272839939' post='2284249']
Disarmament is not a condition of surrender. IRON has been asked to surrender; nothing else.
[/quote]
So they [i]don't[/i] have to disarm before they surrender.

Of course, using Gre's Daily Changing Dictionary, surrendering won't actually mean you'll stop fighting them I'm guessing.