The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='02 May 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1272858325' post='2284666']
If IRON disarms and surrenders and doesn't even get peace, what's the incentive?
Edit: Keep in mind, attacking people who have surrendered would be a war crime, and this is exactly what you are saying you will do.
[/quote]


Nobody in GRE said that. RV said that; and beside the point that RV doesn't speak for GRE I can't believe that you would take anything he says at face value (even if he is talking about teh ebil gRAMlins)

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1272901162' post='2285021']
Why would GRE continue to attack IRON after IRON surrenders? And where has anybody in GRE said we would?
[/quote]
Why not? After having demilitarized and surrendered without any conditions, you could attack every nation in IRON and DAWN for as long as you want to, order us to fire back one CM max every day so that it's not warslot filling. By having us surrender without conditions, we would hand you over the right to do anything to us for as long as you want, only you would be able to determine when and if there ever is peace for us in sight.

And seeing as you guys are 130% banana, and are led by someone 10000% banana, have gone back on your word twice in negotiations, yes, I can definitely see you doing pretty much everything imaginable and unimaginable limited only by what can technically be done. No need to say it, if it is completely nuts, then add twice the insanity and we got you guys.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='03 May 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1272879624' post='2284887']
Now, while I appreciate being condescended to as much as the next guy, I'll just let you know that I've read every word of this tragi-comedy (Admin help me). Which is the very reason that I decided to jump into the fray. It seems that the request being made of IRON/DAWN by GRE has changed. To refresh your memory, not that I'm sure you need it as you said these things:







And my personal favorite:





Speaking of consistent...




So, please keep telling me what I don't know and how foolish everyone else is but kindly refrain from hating me when all I am trying to do is inform IRON/DAWN that demilitarization is no longer a precondition of being "allowed a seat at the table".
[/quote]


Demilitarization was never a term of surrender. GRE has never asked them to demilitarize before they can surrender. Not ever.

*After* they surrender, I *suspect* they will be told to demilitarize. And, as I have stated repeatedly, I am speaking from my opinion and personally rather than from any position of authority.

If they refuse to accept the terms that we give them; literally, how [b]could[/b] we stop them from re-engaging the same wars with our lower tier? As Matt Miller has repeated; we're apparently not even fighting back... so will our "inactive" lower tier suddenly become active and crush the 3:1 IRON opponents? Hell, in the sub 30K range what percentage of IRON players would even have a nuclear stockpile to decomission?

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1272902004' post='2285037']
Demilitarization was never a term of surrender. GRE has never asked them to demilitarize before they can surrender. Not ever.

*After* they surrender, I *suspect* they will be told to demilitarize. And, as I have stated repeatedly, I am speaking from my opinion and personally rather than from any position of authority.

If they refuse to accept the terms that we give them; literally, how [b]could[/b] we stop them from re-engaging the same wars with our lower tier? As Matt Miller has repeated; we're apparently not even fighting back... so will our "inactive" lower tier suddenly become active and crush the 3:1 IRON opponents? Hell, in the sub 30K range what percentage of IRON players would even have a nuclear stockpile to decomission?
[/quote]
Haha, now you for some reason left out the mid and top tier, why is that?

It's been clear for quite a while now that you don't give a damn about your lower tier you acquired via your merger with Filipino Heroes. What demilitarization and unconditional surrender would deliver you for free is what you have been after since you insanity trip began: IRON's top tier
You would get a top tier without nukes and out of peace mode, to do with as you please. Don't attempt to paint your insane demands as anything but this very goal.

[amad123]

Unless you have been following this thread closely some of you may not have noticed the softening of Gramlins position. At first they were calling for "Unconditional Surrender" then they would tell us their terms.

Lately it has just been "Surrender" and we will show you the terms. I've also seen "Surrender and if you don't like the terms you can resume attacks" which by anyone else's definition is a "Cease Fire"

So they have progressed from "Unconditional Surrender" to "Surrender" to let's have a "Cease Fire".

While it may all sound well and good none of these offers are official, even their official offers get rescinded after you accept them. There is no point in even talking to them until they post their terms in the OWF for all to see. How else could anyone trust them, they have lost all credibility.

What this apparent softening does indicate is that there are some members within Gramlins that understand they need a way out of this war and they are starting to blurr the lines between "Unconditional Surrender", "Surrender" and "Cease Fire". Those of you that have been following this thread will know Gamlins typically use their own interpretation of terms, not necessarily the conventional definition. Therefore by starting to mix terms and definitions they hope to save some face.

Of course if the "Cease Fire" lasts long enough it evolves into "White Peace". Which is where I think the Gramlins would like to be right now, however, by the time they get there that offer may be withdrawn in favour of something more appealing to IRON and DAWN.

It is clear however that changes are happening within Gramlins and new members are beginning to post and previous active members seem to have been muzzled. They talk of elections and I would assume a new government would form, as they'd have to be insane to re-elect the old one. That would lead me to believe they are setting the stage for a "new government" to try and get them out of this war.

I predict that no progress will be made until Gramlins members posting in this thread start to discuss what their interpretation of "White Peace" is. That's the only option open to them at the moment and that could be withdrawn (with proper notice I'm sure) at any time.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='03 May 2010 - 03:01 AM' timestamp='1272880861' post='2284893']
Ehm... what??? So, what has IRON to do to surrender? Just say "We surrender"? Strange they did do that to anyone excepted Grämlins when they surrendered to C&G...

It seems that IRON is in a very tough situation... they have to surrender, but nobody knows what that surrender actually should be. They have to accept terms afterwards, but nobody knows what those terms actually should be - neither the government of RAMlins knows about those terms, because they don't care about those terms. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN TERMS! Well, now I begin to understand RAMlins a little bit... they've become insane...

I mean it's not very surprising that you don't convince anyone about this your poor strategy. The way you are thinking can't be understood, because it's just insane:

You offer terms, and when they are going to be signed you withdraw them because they weren't official - well official enough to make them signed by 30+ alliances. But... when you have to withdraw them, why did you offer them? Did you ever hear about being coherent with your own actions? Then you come up with this strange surrender thing, where nobody knows what it actually is, and obviously RAMlins do everything to make this quite misterious. Only for asking reps that will be more than reasonable because otherwise RAMlins will break their own principles. But, do RAMlins actually care about their own principles? I mean, they don't care about their own terms, why should they care about their principles?

And a last word about not caring at these terms: What happens if IRON and DAWN surrender tomorrow? You don't even have terms to offer to them. So, how can they even consider to surrender? And please don't come on with "We have, only I don't know them because I didn't ask". There might be somewhere in the government section, if they existed - a thing I seriously doubt after having read these last pages.
[/quote]


Who said we don't have terms to offer them?
GRE [b]does[/b] have terms to offer them; it's just that neither myself nor Ertyy know exactly what they are. Both of us have stated that we are not government officials. On the other hand, I have stated that I am certain the terms offered will be congruent with our codex. If they aren't, then all of this bawwwing about how evil we are will actually have some merit. Since we stand on principles and that we will not offer terms which we, ourselves, would not accept (and I have already outlined how we could not possibly ask for something like disbandment) the "terms" point should be a non-issue.

Now, people can go back and forth all day fear-mongering about how the evil gRAMlins want to murder IRON; but you are smart enough to see through that rhetoric.

At the end of the day, the only real contention is that we are demanding unconditional surrender; because that's all we have officially demanded. Anything else; such as the notion that we'll keep attacking them after they surrender, or that we'll demand they become a permanent tech farm is a lie, speculation, posturing or all three.

You have no reason to believe that we have no terms.
The process has been the same since the beginning of this ordeal:
IRON/DAWN surrender unconditionally > GRE tells them the terms of their surrender
Next, one of two things will happen:
IRON/DAWN will comply and the war will be over
-or-
IRON/DAWN will refuse and decide to re-enter the state of war.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='03 May 2010 - 03:49 AM' timestamp='1272883739' post='2284902']
As has been said before; a policy change? But then there's no point asking you anything, because everything you say is opinion and not official policy.
[/quote]


No, the official policy is, and has been, that IRON needs to unconditionally surrender.

They have not been told to demilitarize; especially not [b]before[/b] they can surrender.

I [b]suspect[/b], as I stated every time it was asked me, that they will have to demilitarize as part of the surrender terms.
For some reason the talking-boxes here spun that into "OMG IRON HAS TO DEMILITARIZE BEFORE THEY CAN SURRENDER AND GRE WILL JUST KEEP HITTING THEM!" and for some even more ridiculous reason people actually believe that.

[MTTezla]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1272902931' post='2285060']
No, the official policy is, and has been, that IRON needs to unconditionally surrender.

They have not been told to demilitarize; especially not [b]before[/b] they can surrender.

I [b]suspect[/b], as I stated every time it was asked me, that they will have to demilitarize as part of the surrender terms.
For some reason the talking-boxes here spun that into "OMG IRON HAS TO DEMILITARIZE BEFORE THEY CAN SURRENDER AND GRE WILL JUST KEEP HITTING THEM!" and for some even more ridiculous reason people actually believe that.
[/quote]

No, what we're saying is "OMG IRON HAS TO SURRENDER BEFORE THEY KNOW WHAT THE TERMS ARE, AND THAT GIVES GRE FAR TOO MUCH POWER OVER THEM!" Kind of funny that you haven't picked that up in 100 pages.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='MTTezla' date='03 May 2010 - 09:11 AM' timestamp='1272903067' post='2285062']
No, what we're saying is "OMG IRON HAS TO SURRENDER BEFORE THEY KNOW WHAT THE TERMS ARE, AND THAT GIVES GRE FAR TOO MUCH POWER OVER THEM!" Kind of funny that you haven't picked that up in 100 pages.
[/quote]


No, I picked that up.
Unconditional surrender does give GRE the authority to state the terms. That's the whole point.
Furthering that point is the fact that GRE cannot impose terms we would not accept because of our codex.

I'm simply responding to the lies that GRE has demanded things like wonder decoms or that we require them to demilitarize before they surrender.

I guess I give the OWF the benefit of the doubt a lot and just assume that people have poor reading comprehension rather than that they are liars, fools or both.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='03 May 2010 - 09:01 AM' timestamp='1272902501' post='2285051']
Unless you have been following this thread closely some of you may not have noticed the softening of Gramlins position. At first they were calling for "Unconditional Surrender" then they would tell us their terms.

Lately it has just been "Surrender" and we will show you the terms. I've also seen "Surrender and if you don't like the terms you can resume attacks" which by anyone else's definition is a "Cease Fire"

So they have progressed from "Unconditional Surrender" to "Surrender" to let's have a "Cease Fire".

While it may all sound well and good none of these offers are official, even their official offers get rescinded after you accept them. There is no point in even talking to them until they post their terms in the OWF for all to see. How else could anyone trust them, they have lost all credibility.

What this apparent softening does indicate is that there are some members within Gramlins that understand they need a way out of this war and they are starting to blurr the lines between "Unconditional Surrender", "Surrender" and "Cease Fire". Those of you that have been following this thread will know Gamlins typically use their own interpretation of terms, not necessarily the conventional definition. Therefore by starting to mix terms and definitions they hope to save some face.

Of course if the "Cease Fire" lasts long enough it evolves into "White Peace". Which is where I think the Gramlins would like to be right now, however, by the time they get there that offer may be withdrawn in favour of something more appealing to IRON and DAWN.

It is clear however that changes are happening within Gramlins and new members are beginning to post and previous active members seem to have been muzzled. They talk of elections and I would assume a new government would form, as they'd have to be insane to re-elect the old one. That would lead me to believe they are setting the stage for a "new government" to try and get them out of this war.

I predict that no progress will be made until Gramlins members posting in this thread start to discuss what their interpretation of "White Peace" is. That's the only option open to them at the moment and that could be withdrawn (with proper notice I'm sure) at any time.
[/quote]

Reading comprehension.

GRE has only demanded unconditional surrender from the start of this issue.
Nothing else.
That is, in fact, what we still demand.

The position has not changed, flip-flopped, softened, slid, metamorphized or any other method of change.

Furthermore, the reality of the situation has always been (and always will be in the cyberverse) that if an alliance is given terms and [b]chooses[/b] not to comply to them there is no other possible avenue [OOC]Simply by game dynamics, it's not as if anybody can demand your username and PW[/OOC] except that the war resumes.
There is no other possibility.
None.

If IRON is given their terms; and they say "no"...
You tell me what happens... or is it your contention that IRON would be too ashamed to tell the Gremlins "no" ?

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1272902931' post='2285060']
No, the official policy is, and has been, that IRON needs to unconditionally surrender.

They have not been told to demilitarize; especially not [b]before[/b] they can surrender.

I [b]suspect[/b], as I stated every time it was asked me, that they will have to demilitarize as part of the surrender terms.

[/quote]
Please make up your mind!

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1271265153' post='2260238']
'The table' is the place at which the terms to end the war will be discussed.
Our position is that we will not meet at said table until IRON/DAWN [b]demilitarize[/b] and surrender.


[/quote] (my bolding in the 2nd quote)

[Gn0xious Jr]

why isn't GRE just asking for a ceasefire during negotiations? It seems that, from the past couple of pages, what they want... I don't think it is reasonable to expect someone to surrender, then offer terms.

[Alekhine]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='03 May 2010 - 08:28 AM' timestamp='1272889693' post='2284928']
[i]Acta non verba.[/i]

It's a good idea, you should try it sometime. Your actions matter.
[/quote]

Well, at the moment, I consider running against Ramirus in the current elections to be sufficient action. We'll see how it moves on from there.

[franciscus]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1272902931' post='2285060']
No, the official policy is, and has been, that IRON needs to unconditionally surrender.

They have not been told to demilitarize; especially not [b]before[/b] they can surrender.

I [b]suspect[/b], as I stated every time it was asked me, that they will have to demilitarize as part of the surrender terms.
For some reason the talking-boxes here spun that into "OMG IRON HAS TO DEMILITARIZE BEFORE THEY CAN SURRENDER AND GRE WILL JUST KEEP HITTING THEM!" and for some even more ridiculous reason people actually believe that.
[/quote]
Matt, check back with your head honcho, please! He specifically told Peron that IRON has to agree to unconditional surrender and demilitarize before terms be put on the table on the table. The logs are also posted in this thread, somewhere. Yes, I couldn't be bothered to look for them.
And it's "OMG IRON HAS TO DEMILITARIZE BEFORE A PEACE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN AGREED UPON AND PUBLICIZED"
In case you didn't know, that's complete lunacy.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='03 May 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1272904465' post='2285081']
Please make up your mind!

(my bolding in the 2nd quote)
[/quote]


Reading comprehension.

Just as I said many times earlier in this thread; I suspect they will be asked to demilitarize.

The word "and" implies the conjunction and supplementation. If I had used the word "then", as in "demilitarize then surrender" you might have a point (but only to target my phrasing and not the actual demand)

Otherwise, all of the reps threads which state "X money and Y tech" would mean they had to fulfill the money first lest they be in violation.
You don't actually believe that. You don't need to pretend that you do for theatrics here.

[jer]

I've not visited this thread for almost a month and I am astounded (okay, not really) to see that in that time apparently nothing has changed and you are all stuck having the same arguments as you were weeks ago. The fact that this sordid little affair is still going is a shame on us all and well, it's really rather boring. My message is this: please sort this shambles out as soon as possible so we can move on with our lives, thanks.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='franciscus' date='03 May 2010 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1272909507' post='2285137']
Matt, check back with your head honcho, please! He specifically told Peron that IRON has to agree to unconditional surrender and demilitarize before terms be put on the table on the table. The logs are also posted in this thread, somewhere. Yes, I couldn't be bothered to look for them.
And it's "OMG IRON HAS TO DEMILITARIZE BEFORE A PEACE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN AGREED UPON AND PUBLICIZED"
In case you didn't know, that's complete lunacy.
[/quote]

Like I said, we demand the unconditional surrender. If the next step is demilitarization then so be it.
But that is in complete opposition to the idiotic claim of many OWF posters that we're demanding demilitarization before we accept the surrender but won't tell you how to do it ZOMG ETERNAL WARZ!

[amad123]

[quote name='Alekhine' date='03 May 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1272908668' post='2285127']
Well, at the moment, I consider running against Ramirus in the current elections to be sufficient action. We'll see how it moves on from there.
[/quote]

I assume you will have no problem winning. As much as I'd like to see what terms Ramirus had in mind when you oust him I would destroy all evidence of those terms. If the rest of CN ever found out what all this is about then we will never hear the end of it.

On the other hand I hope Ram does win, without him we may have surrendered to Gramlins way back when on Easter Sunday, with him in charge we can actually salvage a win. We owe him a lot.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1272909599' post='2285138']
Reading comprehension.

Just as I said many times earlier in this thread; I suspect they will be asked to demilitarize.

The word "and" implies the conjunction and supplementation. If I had used the word "then", as in "demilitarize then surrender" you might have a point (but only to target my phrasing and not the actual demand)

Otherwise, all of the reps threads which state "X money and Y tech" would mean they had to fulfill the money first lest they be in violation.
You don't actually believe that. You don't need to pretend that you do for theatrics here.
[/quote]

I can read and understand. How about you write things you mean and that can be clearly understood?

"And" means "together with", as it does in your example of tech and money, not "one then the other". Why does it not mean "together with" in the statement from you that I quoted?
My point stands.

[quote name='Matthew PK,' ]
'The table' is the place at which the terms to end the war will be discussed.
Our position is that we will not meet at said table until IRON/DAWN demilitarize and surrender.[/quote]

So now you are saying that IRON and DAWN need to surrender, then see what you offer them? Because that is not what you said above.
Also, what you have said in the quote is quite definite.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='03 May 2010 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1272910676' post='2285150']
I can read and understand. How about you write things you mean and that can be clearly understood?

"And" means "together with", as it does in your example of tech and money, not "one then the other". Why does it not mean "together with" in the statement from you that I quoted?
My point stands.



So now you are saying that IRON and DAWN need to surrender, then see what you offer them? Because that is not what you said above.
Also, what you have said in the quote is quite definite.
[/quote]


I apologize if my phrasing lead to a lack of clarity.
That quote is from a long line of dialogue and not some delineated list of terms, which (as I stated many times even before the post you have quotes) I would have no authority to give.

Again, here's the reality:

GRE is demanding unconditional surrender.
As everybody in this thread has stated many, many times, unconditional surrender means they surrender and we tell them what to do.
I suspect they will be told to demilitarize.
If they won't comply, I suspect that hostilities would resume.

If you see a hole there, please let me know.

[iMatt]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1272909599' post='2285138']
Reading comprehension.

Just as I said many times earlier in this thread; I suspect they will be asked to demilitarize.

The word "and" implies the conjunction and supplementation. If I had used the word "then", as in "demilitarize then surrender" you might have a point (but only to target my phrasing and not the actual demand)

Otherwise, all of the reps threads which state "X money and Y tech" would mean they had to fulfill the money first lest they be in violation.
You don't actually believe that. You don't need to pretend that you do for theatrics here.
[/quote]
I don't think you can attempt to make that out as anything except what it says.

Lord Rune is right, anyone reading that will read it exactly as intended, meaning the demilitarization and surrender comes before the table talking. Take the hypothetical that they surrender but don't demilitarize. Then as per what you wrote, discussion of terms will not occur.

X will not happen until Y and Z occur. Doesn't matter what order Y and Z occur, *both* have to happen before X occurs.

Edit: just read your post before this one, cool.

Edited May 3, 2010 by iMatt

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='iMatt' date='03 May 2010 - 11:31 AM' timestamp='1272911489' post='2285160']
I don't think you can attempt to make that out as anything except what it says.

Lord Rune is right, anyone reading that will read it exactly as intended, meaning the demilitarization and surrender comes before the table talking. Take the hypothetical that they surrender but don't demilitarize. Then as per what you wrote, discussion of terms will not occur.

X will not happen until Y and Z occur. Doesn't matter what order Y and Z occur, *both* have to happen before X occurs.
[/quote]

That's got nothing to do with the claims in this thread that GRE is demanding that IRON demilitarize while we keep hitting them because we won't allow them to surrender (oh, and we also apparently won't tell them what they need to do to demilitarize )

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1272911321' post='2285157']
I apologize if my phrasing lead to a lack of clarity.That quote is from a long line of dialogue and not some delineated list of terms, which (as I stated many times even before the post you have quotes) I would have no authority to give.Again, here's the reality:GRE is demanding unconditional surrender.As everybody in this thread has stated many, many times, unconditional surrender means they surrender and we tell them what to do.I suspect they will be told to demilitarize.If they won't comply, I suspect that hostilities would resume.If you see a hole there, please let me know.
[/quote]

So just to clarify, all IRON and DAWN have to do is say they "Surrender" and Gramlins will then advise them of all of the rest of the peace terms and if we don't like them we can resume hostilities?

We did say we "Surrendered" previously and you withdrew the terms. Why the sudden change of heart?

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1272901162' post='2285021']
According to everybody, there are plenty of things in thread thread for you to criticize GRE about, there's no reason for you to make things up.

Why would GRE continue to attack IRON after IRON surrenders? And where has anybody in GRE said we would?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I never said you would. I said that you simply could, using your own words of course. That IRON and DAWN must disarm and surrender before terms will even be considered. You never said you'd consider giving terms, or that you even would give terms, only that you were certain you would not so long as they were still fighting.

You see, in my experience I have learned that what is not said is often more important than what is. And it seems you fellows at Gremlins love not saying things. You love your technicalities. How else could Ram have ever gotten power if not for a twisted view of the world? And based on your recent actions, especially in regards to this matter, there is simply no reason to believe that what I have said will not occur.

Now in the past you could have made a good argument that an honorable alliance like Gremlins would have never done such a thing. Indeed, to this day there is no precedent of you doing such a thing. However, that is the past. The Gremlins of the past never would have done such nonsense as we see being done here right now. You are not that same alliance, and you have shown that you are not above such pettiness as continuing to beat an unarmed and surrendered foe.

As much as you protest otherwise your words will fall on deaf ears. No one believes anything you say anymore. Your alliance has lost all credibility.[/color]

[All the wright moves]

[quote name='Alekhine' date='02 May 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1272819950' post='2283884']
That is correct. I do not support the continuation of the war, but I will not leave the alliance simply because I disagree with a decision the leadership has made.
[/quote]

I read that u r running against Ram which is good, however, should u lose, signifying that Gramlins support what is being done will u still stay.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.- Edmund Burke