The New Grämlins

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1273107557' post='2288347']
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.
[/quote]

Your original terms weren't unacceptable, but you withdrew those (edit: twice), so the logical progression is the new ones are worse. If the new ones are acceptable, then why not tell them what the terms are before requiring them to demilitarize?

I've seen that asked a bunch of times, but haven't seen an answer yet.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Jesse End

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1273104005' post='2288247']
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]

IRON attempted to surrender. You wouldn't accept.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='05 May 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1273107815' post='2288359']
IRON attempted to surrender. You wouldn't accept.
[/quote]

That's because the conditions on which they wanted to surrender were unacceptable to us.

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1273107987' post='2288367']
That's because the conditions on which they wanted to surrender were unacceptable to us.
[/quote]

Exactly:

[quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1273107803' post='2288358']
Your original terms weren't unacceptable, but you withdrew those (edit: twice), so the logical progression is the new ones are worse. If the new ones are acceptable, then why not tell them what the terms are before requiring them to demilitarize?

I've seen that asked a bunch of times, but haven't seen an answer yet.
[/quote]

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1273107557' post='2288347']
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.
[/quote]
You say that like it's just some easy and alright thing to do.

If we surrender, we surrender. You don't go back on your word. Maybe some alliances don't have that kind of honor. Fine. But we do. And we will not surrender if we do not believe we will comply.

You even think that we won't comply, and try time and time again to give us an "excuse" to break our surrender. It isn't going to happen.

I won't surrender if I won't honor the terms. IRON will not surrender if we will not honor the terms. I guess you won't understand that.

Unconditional surrender. Will. Not. Happen.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1273107803' post='2288358']
Your original terms weren't unacceptable, but you withdrew those (edit: twice), so the logical progression is the new ones are worse. If the new ones are acceptable, then why not tell them what the terms are before requiring them to demilitarize?

I've seen that asked a bunch of times, but haven't seen an answer yet.
[/quote]

If you haven't seen an answer it's because you either lack reading comprehension or have no desire to understand.

Official terms were not offered then withdrawn. A Gremlin cannot simply offer terms to be accepted without a conclave vote. Since no vote was held, "The Gremlins" did not offer official terms. If a member of NPO were to to make an offer of terms without the authority to do so, would NPO be bound to it?

They are being told to surrender. Demilitarization is a logical and typical procession from surrender as it demonstrates good faith (among other things). I have made a number of posts outlining that GRE has no basis for harsh terms and IRON would have no basis to comply if they were demanded. It's not as if we can [b]force[/b] them to obey our terms once they surrender.

Unconditional Surrender is our offered alternative to war. We are not negotiating with them. When they surrender it will be on our terms, not theirs.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:25 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 wait, your government now?

[Dom Zak]

[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]

Actually, I have never seen anything like that. Whenever I am asked to surrender, or I ask someone to surrender, both parties know the terms of the surrender. heck, some alliances even post the terms for individual surrenders on the OWF. I'd say that the POW knows the terms ahead of time.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1273108501' post='2288389']
Unconditional Surrender is our offered alternative to war. We are not negotiating with them. When they surrender it will be on our terms, not theirs.
[/quote]
If you continue with this stance, you will be the ones surrendering. It may take a while, but you will.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='05 May 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1273108444' post='2288386']
You say that like it's just some easy and alright thing to do.

If we surrender, we surrender. You don't go back on your word. Maybe some alliances don't have that kind of honor. Fine. But we do. And we will not surrender if we do not believe we will comply.

You even think that we won't comply, and try time and time again to give us an "excuse" to break our surrender. It isn't going to happen.

I won't surrender if I won't honor the terms. IRON will not surrender if we will not honor the terms. I guess you won't understand that.

Unconditional surrender. Will. Not. Happen.
[/quote]


If you surrender, and you're told to disband, and you feel obligated to follow-through with it then you're dishonorable, a fool and a coward.

Submitting to harsh terms is as dishonorable as it comes (just as bad as the tyrants who would demand them) because it grants credence and validity to the nature of the demands.

If you surrender and then are given no quarter then there is [b]absolutely no dishonor[/b] in refusing to comply. I doubt anybody would disagree with this.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='05 May 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1273108520' post='2288391']
So wait, your government now?
[/quote]

No; reading comprehension.
I am 1/3 of a body which can request the removal of government.

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1273108501' post='2288389']
If you haven't seen an answer it's because you either lack reading comprehension or have no desire to understand.

Official terms were not offered then withdrawn. A Gremlin cannot simply offer terms to be accepted without a conclave vote. Since no vote was held, "The Gremlins" did not offer official terms. If a member of NPO were to to make an offer of terms without the authority to do so, would NPO be bound to it?

They are being told to surrender. Demilitarization is a logical and typical procession from surrender as it demonstrates good faith (among other things). I have made a number of posts outlining that GRE has no basis for harsh terms and IRON would have no basis to comply if they were demanded. It's not as if we can [b]force[/b] them to obey our terms once they surrender.

Unconditional Surrender is our offered alternative to war. We are not negotiating with them. When they surrender it will be on our terms, not theirs.
[/quote]

hahaha, after these actions, Gramlins doesn't have any good faith left.

"We are not negotiating with them." You aren't in a position to demand anything anymore, so if you aren't willing to negotiate, you must want eternal war.

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1273108817' post='2288402']Submitting to harsh terms is as dishonorable as it comes (just as bad as the tyrants who would demand them) because it grants credence and validity to the nature of the demands. [/quote]

That's exactly why they aren't bending over for Gramlins, it would grant credence and validity to your demand of unconditional surrender.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1273109021' post='2288413']
That's exactly why they aren't bending over for Gramlins, it would grant credence and validity to your demand of unconditional surrender.
[/quote]

That's their prerogative; but it does not make the demand of "Unconditional Surrender" inherently unjust, outrageous or tyrannical.

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1273109160' post='2288420']
That's their prerogative; but it does not make the demand of "Unconditional Surrender" inherently unjust, outrageous or tyrannical.
[/quote]

The demand itself does that.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273108501' post='2288389']
Unconditional Surrender is our offered alternative to war. We are not negotiating with them. When they surrender it will be on our terms, not theirs.
[/quote]
Just to clarify:

1. You are asking for unconditional surrender and "demilitarisation", then a mystery box of terms which you claim are not harsh.

2. They refuse to give this surrender to you.

3. You are refusing to negotiate anything else.

4. They are willing to negotiate for a white peace deal, as far as I'm aware (allowing room for some form of compromise).

It appears that there's no room for compromise on your part but I don't see why there isn't. For what purpose are you taking this position? To make an example of these alliances? To set some sort of moral precedent? I don't understand what the underlying intentions are to your position - can you clarify? Can you also answer my previous question as to why a white peace is unacceptable to you? Thanks.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1273109298' post='2288427']
The demand itself does that.
[/quote]

No it doesn't.


Hey look, I can do that too

[Alekhine]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='05 May 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1273109499' post='2288434']
4. They are willing to negotiate a conditional surrender.

[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they have stated recently that this is not the case.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1273108817' post='2288402']
If you surrender, and you're told to disband, and you feel obligated to follow-through with it then you're dishonorable, a fool and a coward.

Submitting to harsh terms is as dishonorable as it comes (just as bad as the tyrants who would demand them) because it grants credence and validity to the nature of the demands.

If you surrender and then are given no quarter then there is [b]absolutely no dishonor[/b] in refusing to comply. I doubt anybody would disagree with this.
[/quote]
Then they will have disarmed themselves and made fighting back far harder.

I know for damn sure I would accept no such terms.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Alekhine' date='06 May 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1273109584' post='2288436']
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they have stated recently that this is not the case.
[/quote]
I might be wrong sorry, the last post I read from the IRON president was an offer of white peace. This thread moves damn quick!

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Alekhine' date='06 May 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1273109584' post='2288436']
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they have stated recently that this is not the case.
[/quote]

You are correct, white peace is still on the table however, how long it will stay there for is another matter.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='05 May 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1273109499' post='2288434']
Just to clarify:

1. You are asking for unconditional surrender and "demilitarisation", then a mystery box of terms which you claim are not harsh.

2. They refuse to give this surrender to you.

3. You are refusing to negotiate anything else.

4. They are willing to negotiate a conditional surrender.

It appears that there's no room for compromise on your part but I don't see why there isn't. For what purpose are you taking this position? To make an example of these alliances? To set some sort of moral precedent? I don't understand what the underlying intentions are to your position - can you clarify? Can you also answer my previous question as to why a white peace is unacceptable to you? Thanks.
[/quote]

Personally, I don't mind the precedent that the clearly culpable party does not get to negotiate their terms.
A white peace is unacceptable to me because it disengages the warring parties as equals without any allocution or consequence of culpability.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='MCRABT' date='05 May 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1273109750' post='2288445']
You are correct, white peace is still on the table however, how long it will stay there for is another matter.
[/quote]

Are you implying that I can't take the unofficial remarks of IRON and DAWN members in this thread as official terms and then try to accept them a month later as if they were valid?

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1273108884' post='2288404']
No; reading comprehension.
I am 1/3 of a body which can request the removal of government.
[/quote]

Again, you question my reading comprehension.

When you state that you are one of 3 people in an alliance of 50 who can request the removal of government, that indicates that you are a in a position of privilege which in most alliances would be considered government even if you are not actively dictating policy. You continuously state that you don't know the specifics of the terms, but are mandated with watching over the government and making judgments on it's operation? Makes your job kinda tough if they won't tell you what they're doing doesn't it?

So, let me apologize for not being able to understand GRE's unique definitions of basically every term used in inter-alliance communication within this game let alone how you internally define yourselves. That is why I ask for clarification.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1273110053' post='2288453']
Are you implying that I can't take the unofficial remarks of IRON and DAWN members in this thread as official terms and then try to accept them a month later as if they were valid?
[/quote]
I am pretty damn sure that isn't how it went down. Right up near the end you guys were putting terms up and pulling them back at least a couple times.

But fine, you don't want to give terms. I guess the war will continue, but now it looks like it will either be white peace or you guys surrendering, though the war may go on for months to years for this to occur.