The New Grämlins

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1273089089' post='2287909']
Reading comprehension.
People are irrationally afraid of the unknown element, not of GRE.
[/quote]
People are rationally concluding that an unknown element is unnecessary and counterproductive toward conflict resolution.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1273087859' post='2287877']
I do get it.
But this thread has primarily been about the "evils" of the concept and the fearmongering about what GRE might do with an unconditional surrender; and I can oppose that ridiculous tripe forever because it's nonsense.[/quote]

Ertty [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2283810"]stated[/url] that the reason Gramlins wanted unconditional surrender was because you've fought against IRON two wars in a row, and you want to make sure that they wouldn't be able to fight another war against you next year.

That sure sounds like you were planning to demand some pretty harsh terms. Terms that would keep a fairly large alliance down for at least a year.

If you wanted reasonable terms, you wouldn't have had any reason to demand unconditional surrender. You only demanded it because you knew that if you actually gave them the harsh terms you wanted outright, they would be refused. You hoped they would surrender, agree to do whatever you wanted, and then be in no position to go back on their word and return to a state of war.

Your plan has failed.

You've lost over 1M NS, over 1/4 of your alliance strength, in the past 30 days. Your alliance, once widely respected, has lost all credibility. And you are still digging your own grave as fast as you can.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='05 May 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1273091667' post='2287980']
Ertty [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2283810"]stated[/url] that the reason Gramlins wanted unconditional surrender was because you've fought against IRON two wars in a row, and you want to make sure that they wouldn't be able to fight another war against you next year.

That sure sounds like you were planning to demand some pretty harsh terms. Terms that would keep a fairly large alliance down for at least a year.

If you wanted reasonable terms, you wouldn't have had any reason to demand unconditional surrender. You only demanded it because you knew that if you actually gave them the harsh terms you wanted outright, they would be refused. You hoped they would surrender, agree to do whatever you wanted, and then be in no position to go back on their word and return to a state of war.

Your plan has failed.

You've lost over 1M NS, over 1/4 of your alliance strength, in the past 30 days. Your alliance, once widely respected, has lost all credibility. And you are still digging your own grave as fast as you can.
[/quote]

Here's Ertyy's post:
[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 08:57 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]

Ertyy said "we do not negotiate with criminal alliances"
and he said that we don't plan on having to fight the same ware next year.

That doesn't mean we want to suppress the alliance so they cannot fight; it means we don't want to fight the same war. That is: a war against an alliance with no regard for their own aggression.

A negotiation gives them the opportunity to act as equals. In fact, they are not equals in this regard and it's disingenuous to behave as if they were (and that itself set a precedent [b]I oppose[/b])
Perhaps this is less applicable to DAWN, but it certainly applies to IRON. IRON does not deserve the same equal negotiating ground as would an alliance that "just happened" to be in a war because that isn't the case here.
IRON directly initiated a war quite literally with no reason at all.


And again with this "they would be afraid to go back on their word."
Give me a break. If they did, in fact, surrender and we made such harsh terms like disbandment then they would be pathetic to follow through. There would be no dishonor in them re-engaging hostilities; in fact it would be most dishonorable [b]not[/b] to continue the war at that point.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1273084795' post='2287822']
So you admit that you are afraid of what we [b]might[/b] do as opposed to anything we have actually done?

I have also stated numerous times that if GRE actually demanded you do anything of those things you would tell us to pound sand and you'd be right to do so.
On top of that, the entire cyberverse would have an actual reason to roll us (instead of the speculation presently). It's not like we're in the same position as NPO (and I'm not talking about morally, I'm talking numerically) so we couldn't [b]force[/b] you to do anything of those things. Everybody would attack us and nobody is obligated by treaty to defend us.
So you tell me, who risks more?
[/quote]

Ok I see you remain confused. The reason why no alliance on Planet Bob will allow you to get your way is not because of what you might do to IRON and DAWN after unconditional surrender but that you will set the that precedent opening the door for anyone to do the same. Now of course the fact you are demanding unconditional surrender so adamantly that your allies got sick of it and left you alone at war would have to make one wonder just what you could not get out of normal peace talks. If your demands were nothing above and beyond the norm then why the demand for unconditional surrender? If the terms are not beyond the norm then, why the extraordinary demand for unconditional surrender? So what people see is you must be making a demand for something beyond what would have been gained in the peace talks everyone else settled in. Or your alliance is so completely incompetent that they were unable to complete peace talks in a war that you were nothing but a minor side show in and in doing so destroyed its friendships, reputation and is bleeding your alliance dry. Why would you risk everything if you were just going to make basic demands in a war that had nothing to do with you other then you floated in to help out without a treaty? It makes zero sense. You were barely even in the war and yet here you are? Why?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='05 May 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1273097769' post='2288109']
Ok I see you remain confused. The reason why no alliance on Planet Bob will allow you to get your way is not because of what you might do to IRON and DAWN after unconditional surrender but that you will set the that precedent opening the door for anyone to do the same. Now of course the fact you are demanding unconditional surrender so adamantly that your allies got sick of it and left you alone at war would have to make one wonder just what you could not get out of normal peace talks. If your demands were nothing above and beyond the norm then why the demand for unconditional surrender? If the terms are not beyond the norm then, why the extraordinary demand for unconditional surrender? So what people see is you must be making a demand for something beyond what would have been gained in the peace talks everyone else settled in. Or your alliance is so completely incompetent that they were unable to complete peace talks in a war that you were nothing but a minor side show in and in doing so destroyed its friendships, reputation and is bleeding your alliance dry. Why would you risk everything if you were just going to make basic demands in a war that had nothing to do with you other then you floated in to help out without a treaty? It makes zero sense. You were barely even in the war and yet here you are? Why?
[/quote]


The precedent for unconditional surrender has existed long before now.
Take a look at POW's. Sometimes there are explicit individual surrender terms. Sometimes POW's are ordered to await further instruction.

But nobody gets up in arms about how POW's don't know all the terms ahead of time. Nobody makes 100+ page threads about the tragedy of not knowing the conditions.
That's because there is no legitimate moral problem with the unconditional procedure itself but [b]what people do with that authority[/b]

And in the future if somebody else gets an unconditional surrender and then they make outrageous and insidious demands then it is our responsibility to oppose [b]actual abuses of authority[/b]... otherwise we're all cowards.

If a POW was ordered to delete all of his wonders, [b]then[/b] moral outrage would be justified because the captor [b]abused[/b] their control over the captive.

The important part is that there are no negotiations. One person submits.

And our demands? I suspect they will [b]not[/b] be the norm; that is assuming when you say "the norm" you mean the typical tech/cash rep bribes. Your appeal to tradition as evidence of validity is a fallacy.
And our friends? They were told from the start that we would not be ending this war in the "traditional" way. Why? Because I am unsatisfied with the tradition.
And so? So we risk much; you don't have to "get it" (and clearly you don't) but that does not make us immoral tyrants it only means that you and I disagree. I'm sorry those two concepts are difficult for you to separate.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Lord Brendan]

I've never heard of an individual surrender where the POWs didn't know the terms they were agreeing to beforehand. Any examples?

Edited May 5, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 May 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1273099118' post='2288136']
I've never heard of an individual surrender where the POWs didn't know the terms they were agreeing to beforehand. Any examples?
[/quote]

You've never heard a POW's terms something to the effect of:
"Demilitarize, peace out of your wars, change your AA to 'alliance POW' and await further instructions" ?

You've really never seen anything like that?
In every single case where there is a POW there is a delineated list of all the terms? And POW's know exactly when they are released before they surrender?

PS: Why haven't I seen you in our embassy recently?

Edited May 5, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='04 May 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1273007733' post='2286735']
Paraphrasing from your Codex, Gremlins will not issue terms that Gremlins, themselves would not accept. Would it be too presumptuous to ask what terms Gremlins would find unacceptable?
Would Gremlins find demilitarisation acceptable or unacceptable? [b]Acceptable[/b]
What about Wonders being destroyed? [b]Unacceptable[/b]
Or navies, planes and nuclear weapons decommissioned? [b]Acceptable[/b]
Installment of a viceroy? [b]Unaccpetable[/b]
All future treaties to be agreed by the victorious alliance? [b]Unacceptable[/b]
(feel free to add others of your choosing)

I'd really like to know what you, as an alliance, would find unacceptable.

edit; good spelling is a marvelous thing.
[/quote]

^^^
I answered with [b]my opinion[/b]

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1273099701' post='2288149']
You've never heard a POW's terms something to the effect of:
"Demilitarize, peace out of your wars, change your AA to 'alliance POW' and await further instructions" ?

You've really never seen anything like that?
In every single case where there is a POW there is a delineated list of all the terms? And POW's know exactly when they are released before they surrender?

PS: Why haven't I seen you in our embassy recently?
[/quote]

The only thing that is ever unknown in individual surrenders is the duration that they'll have to be POWs for. Even that is relatively rare, usually the terms explicitly state how long a POW tag needs to be worn. Nations are agreeing to decommission their militaries and enter a POW camp in exchange for peace. Even the ones with undetermined time periods aren't open-ended, the victorious alliances couldn't declare "now you must pay us reps" without being in violation of the terms.

My activity has been a little lacking of late. I'll head over there right now.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1273096346' post='2288079']
IRON directly initiated a war quite literally with no reason at all.
[/quote]
So Athens is a criminal alliance for its attack on the Knights of Ni?

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 10:31 PM' timestamp='1273087859' post='2287877']
I do get it.
In fact, your post here makes perfect sense.
You can say that you won't allow us to have "unconditional surrender" and you are withholding it from us... there is no way I could refute that.

But this thread has primarily been about the "evils" of the concept and the fearmongering about what GRE might do with an unconditional surrender; and I can oppose that ridiculous tripe forever because it's nonsense.

You're a sovereign alliance and you can say "no" all day long to our demands, that's less relevant to me.
But you can look just a little higher in the thread and find Shilo himself talking about how terrible unconditional surrender is.
[/quote]
You don't quite understand how I view your alliance: I see your alliance as a bunch of irrational nutjobs, your attempts to redefine clearly defined words and other foolish (but often funny) statements add to this perception that you are also quite incompetent (let alone the fact how much damage you managed to do to your own alliance in this act).

So in short, you are incompetent and crazy. What do I expect from someone incompetent and crazy? Nothing rational, nothing on par with the norm, generally, nothing good. Not because I fear you, believe me, I don't know anyone in IRON or DAWN who fears you guys, you make me chuckle (you personally as well as your alliance) and sometimes facepalm real hard.
I just don't care to give you control over my alliance (which unconditional surrender is, I know you will not be able to comprehend this, still...) because... who wants to give control over his alliance to a bunch of incompetent nutjobs, so incompetent they managed to pretty much destroy their own alliance? Maybe you can understand my reluctance to hand over the fate of my alliance to any foreign power, much less you guys.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='04 May 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1273006116' post='2286708']
I thought unconditional surrender wasn't a term?
Except demilitarization, right?[/quote]

They are not being asked to demilitarize before they are allowed to surrender.



[quote]Because they're the new moral police? LOL[/quote]

We are all empowered to oppose tyranny.



[quote]It's not a goal, and no one has said it would be (I find quotes for you, find one for me) they are merely stating that it's possible given your stubbornness.[/quote]

This is a long thread. Here's one:
[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]

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='05 May 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1273101883' post='2288201']
So Athens is a criminal alliance for its attack on the Knights of Ni?
[/quote]


People stepped up to the plate to seek a fair resolution for KofN, didn't they?
EDIT: And if the attacks continued on KofN then some military interventon would have been warranted by parties not treatied to KofN

Edited May 5, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='05 May 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1273101970' post='2288202']
You don't quite understand how I view your alliance: I see your alliance as a bunch of irrational nutjobs, your attempts to redefine clearly defined words and other foolish (but often funny) statements add to this perception that you are also quite incompetent (let alone the fact how much damage you managed to do to your own alliance in this act).

So in short, you are incompetent and crazy. What do I expect from someone incompetent and crazy? Nothing rational, nothing on par with the norm, generally, nothing good. Not because I fear you, believe me, I don't know anyone in IRON or DAWN who fears you guys, you make me chuckle (you personally as well as your alliance) and sometimes facepalm real hard.
I just don't care to give you control over my alliance (which unconditional surrender is, I know you will not be able to comprehend this, still...) because... who wants to give control over his alliance to a bunch of incompetent nutjobs, so incompetent they managed to pretty much destroy their own alliance? Maybe you can understand my reluctance to hand over the fate of my alliance to any foreign power, much less you guys.
[/quote]


Reading comprehension.
I didn't say you were afraid of me.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1273102167' post='2288212']
They are not being asked to demilitarize before they are allowed to surrender.[/quote]

Okay, so since you're opposed to the use of the word "term", we'll call it a concurrent demand for peace...

[quote]This is a long thread. Here's one:
[/quote]

Again, you've established that opinion and hypotheticals are not in fact, something to concern ourselves with, and that statement is the definition of hypothetical and opinion based as it could. So why argue against it?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1273102295' post='2288217']
People stepped up to the plate to seek a fair resolution for KofN, didn't they?
[/quote]
Yes, they did.

People also stepped up to the plate to seek an end to the IRON-C&G conflict. Nobody except you guys decided to go off the deep end and label IRON as a criminal alliance, particularly citing as a justification exactly the same thing as what Athens did.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1273099012' post='2288134']
The precedent for unconditional surrender has existed long before now.
Take a look at POW's. Sometimes there are explicit individual surrender terms. Sometimes POW's are ordered to await further instruction.

But nobody gets up in arms about how POW's don't know all the terms ahead of time. Nobody makes 100+ page threads about the tragedy of not knowing the conditions.
That's because there is no legitimate moral problem with the unconditional procedure itself but [b]what people do with that authority[/b]

And in the future if somebody else gets an unconditional surrender and then they make outrageous and insidious demands then it is our responsibility to oppose [b]actual abuses of authority[/b]... otherwise we're all cowards.

If a POW was ordered to delete all of his wonders, [b]then[/b] moral outrage would be justified because the captor [b]abused[/b] their control over the captive.

The important part is that there are no negotiations. One person submits.

And our demands? I suspect they will [b]not[/b] be the norm; that is assuming when you say "the norm" you mean the typical tech/cash rep bribes. Your appeal to tradition as evidence of validity is a fallacy.
And our friends? They were told from the start that we would not be ending this war in the "traditional" way. Why? Because I am unsatisfied with the tradition.
And so? So we risk much; you don't have to "get it" (and clearly you don't) but that does not make us immoral tyrants it only means that you and I disagree. I'm sorry those two concepts are difficult for you to separate.
[/quote]

I do not know of any allance that offers unconditional surrender to nations. The terms are normally spelled out in private and often in public. Perhaps this has been they way you all did it in the past? That being said we are talking about alliance terms here. To compare the two is beyond foolish. Since you do not know the terms I do not know why you bother talking about them as is they will not be traditional because the fact is you have idea what they are. So you risked everything and it did not pay off. And you still do not know what you risked everything for do you? Your alliance has take one of the fastest greatest falls ever and none of you have any idea what you were trying to do. Well your right I don't get it.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='05 May 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1273103034' post='2288228']
Okay, so since you're opposed to the use of the word "term", we'll call it a concurrent demand for peace...
[/quote]

No, I'm opposed to the premise that we're demanding demilitarization before we allow them to surrender. Show me anywhere where Gremlins have declared that [i]no quarter[/i] will be given to IRON....



[quote]Again, you've established that opinion and hypotheticals are not in fact, something to concern ourselves with, and that statement is the definition of hypothetical and opinion based as it could. So why argue against it?
[/quote]

He's clearly stating a desired goal. It's hypothetical in the sense that he doesn't have to stones to follow through with it; but it's not my hypothesis that he has actually called for it; it's plain to see.

Contrastingly, it [b]is[/b] a hypothesis presented here (and a poor one at that) that GRE will demand harsh terms and enact some tyrannical punishment.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1273100090' post='2288159']
^^^
I answered with [b]my opinion[/b]
[/quote]

Which means what? Is your opinion the official Gramlins position for IRON and DAWN terms, or does everything you're saying here have no bearing whatsoever on what Gramlins will do?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1273105180' post='2288273']
Which means what? Is your opinion the official Gramlins position for IRON and DAWN terms, or does everything you're saying here have no bearing whatsoever on what Gramlins will do?
[/quote]

I don't make policy
but I am 1/3 of a body which can request the removal of a conclave member.

However, not that it's any consolation to people here, if the offered terms were among the "unacceptable" things I identified in that list you could add my name to the list of GRE resignations :shrug:

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1273105488' post='2288280']
I don't make policy
but I am 1/3 of a body which can request the removal of a conclave member.

However, not that it's any consolation to people here, if the offered terms were among the "unacceptable" things I identified in that list you could add my name to the list of GRE resignations :shrug:
[/quote]

Which begs the question; have you even seen the terms yet?

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1273105488' post='2288280']
I don't make policy
but I am 1/3 of a body which can request the removal of a conclave member.

However, not that it's any consolation to people here, if the offered terms were among the "unacceptable" things I identified in that list you could add my name to the list of GRE resignations :shrug:
[/quote]

So if Gramlins chooses to do any of those things, you would resign, and it wouldn't stop Gramlins from doing so. That's what I thought.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1273105899' post='2288295']
So if Gramlins chooses to do any of those things, you would resign, and it wouldn't stop Gramlins from doing so. That's what I thought.
[/quote]
Uh huh; I could also vote to remove the conclave. What else could you ask me to do but resign and oppose GRE?

EDIT: Not that it's really relevant.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1273106513' post='2288305']
Uh huh; I could also vote to remove the conclave. What else could you ask me to do but resign and oppose GRE?

EDIT: Not that it's really relevant.
[/quote]

You don't speak for Gramlins, so I doubt your personal and individual opinion gives IRON and DAWN any confidence that Gramlins intentions are to offer anything other than unacceptable terms.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1273107355' post='2288336']
You don't speak for Gramlins, so I doubt your personal and individual opinion gives IRON and DAWN any confidence that Gramlins intentions are to offer anything other than unacceptable terms.
[/quote]


Except for there is no logical progression one could propose which would end with IRON/DAWN complying with any harsh terms; even if GRE demanded them.

Give it a try.