The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='05 May 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1273110249' post='2288462']
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.
[/quote]


Fair enough; but this time it actually was a fair "reading comprehension" call considering I explicitly stated my authority right before your post.

I can point you to our charter for further clarification.
I am a member of the council or archons. I have a vote to request the Dark Council to remove a member of the conclave (which is the government, and the body on which Ram serves).
I don't make policy (which is what I said).

As for the exact terms: no I do not specifically know them. I do, however, know the general plan and if it doesn't proceed to my liking I'll oppose it.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 09:26 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]

So you say and everyone else disagrees. Of course the fact that everyone esle would disagree is something that should have been easly to predict. So again, I ask. What is the point? I assume your goal was something other than destroying your reputation, your friendships and your alliance. So its safe to assume you have failed at reaching your goal. What is the point of pursuing this fools fally? Will you see your alliance die over this mystery goal? And how could anybody have failed to see that this course would lead to anything other than failure?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='05 May 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1273110337' post='2288463']
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.[/quote]

I'm sorry that your information isn't correct. We can discuss the facts if you're interested.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 09:41 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]
That's MCRABT, IRON's Minister of Defense.

Wait, wait, wait, hold on.

[quote]IRON Councilor, Minister of Defense[/quote] (From MCRABT's sig)

Reading comprehension?

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1273110528' post='2288471']
I'm sorry that your information isn't correct. We can discuss the facts if you're interested.
[/quote]
You mean your [i]personal opinion[/i] on the facts.

[Schad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1273109919' post='2288450']
Personally, I don't mind the precedent that the clearly culpable party does not get to negotiate their terms.[/quote]

Except that with this precedent set 'clearly culpable' will be revised and reworked as necessary by whichever group has the power to do so. The defeated party is almost always forced in some manner to admit guilt for beginning the war...even the most naked exercise of power hides behind righteousness.

[quote]
A white peace is unacceptable to me because it disengages the warring parties as equals without any allocution or consequence of culpability.
[/quote]

The primary combatants have already disengaged, with culpability for the conflict acknowledged by virtue of their surrender and the reparations that they will be paying.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1273109919' post='2288450']
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.
[/quote]
So you're stating that the reason for the demand for unconditional surrender and your refusal to negotiate (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that because IRON and DAWN were the aggressive parties in the CnG-IRON war and that, as a result, they have forfeited their ability to talk to you about how to resolve that conflict? Why are you taking such an uncompromising position? What is the rationale for it?

With regard to the other question, ta for your answer. Here's a second question - do you believe that IRON and DAWN (as a result of the Easter Sunday accords) have demonstrated their culpability for the war and will pay for it as a result? I mean, given that your friends that you went in to bat for are OK with the concept that the guilty parties have surrendered, admitted their guilt and will pay for it, why aren't you OK with that too?

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

[Jesse End]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='05 May 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1273110493' post='2288468']
So you say and everyone else disagrees. Of course the fact that everyone esle would disagree is something that should have been easly to predict. So again, I ask. What is the point? I assume your goal was something other than destroying your reputation, your friendships and your alliance. So its safe to assume you have failed at reaching your goal. What is the point of pursuing this fools fally? Will you see your alliance die over this mystery goal? And how could anybody have failed to see that this course would lead to anything other than failure?
[/quote]

Since some other alliances have implied that they will defend Gramlins (defense of friends through a paperless 'treaty') if they are attacked by anyone else over this fiasco, it's starting to look like it's supported by the other alliances that IRON signed terms with. This would keep IRON down and under their boot for a longer period of time, while blaming it on only Gramlins, who doesn't have anything to lose anymore.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='05 May 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1273111287' post='2288497']
Since some other alliances have implied that they will defend Gramlins (defense of friends through a paperless 'treaty') if they are attacked by anyone else over this fiasco, it's starting to look like it's supported by the other alliances that IRON signed terms with. This would keep IRON down and under their boot for a longer period of time, while blaming it on only Gramlins, who doesn't have anything to lose anymore.
[/quote]
Friends don't always have to agree in order for protection. Friends are friends through thick and thin.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='05 May 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1273111411' post='2288502']
Friends don't always have to agree in order for protection. Friends are friends through thick and thin.
[/quote]
Yes, but friendship has long been used by many in this world as a reason to get what they want while pretending they don't want it all the while oozing self-righteous indignation.

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='05 May 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1273111411' post='2288502']
Friends don't always have to agree in order for protection. Friends are friends through thick and thin.
[/quote]

That's my point. They're still supporting Gramlins with implied military force against anyone who takes action, therefore keeping IRON down and under their boot indefinitely.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='06 May 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1273111673' post='2288514']
That's my point. They're still supporting Gramlins with implied military force against anyone who takes action, therefore keeping IRON down and under their boot indefinitely.
[/quote]

Keeping Iron unders who's boot exactly? Gramlins? I was there when we declared in support of MK and I dont know about you but looking over thier stats anyway, it isnt looking all rosey for Gre at this point. Iron being down and under the boot is funny to some of us out here in the peanut gallery, I mean Iron would know a bit about keeping people under the boot, just a smidge? That aside, this is all a bunch of foolishness at this point. Gramlins went in to defend MK and I am hopeful in back channels somewhere MK is working to get Gre light terms when Iron calls off the dogs.

Lets be honest, at this point its a war of attrition, one Iron can win.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1273108501' post='2288389']
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.[/quote]

Apparently you can't force them to agree to unconitional surrender, either.

Looks like you can't do squat except scream "OMG THOSE COWARDS WON'T DO WHAT WE WANT!"

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='05 May 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1273110615' post='2288475']
You mean your [i]personal opinion[/i] on the facts.
[/quote]
No, I mean the facts.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='05 May 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1273110531' post='2288472']
That's MCRABT, IRON's Minister of Defense.

Wait, wait, wait, hold on.

(From MCRABT's sig)

Reading comprehension?
[/quote]


Oh, I see.
So in IRON the post of one person constitutes an official stance? And that stance is still valid if I want to abide by it a month later? Sorry for being unfamiliar with your governmental structure.
GRE's doesn't work that way.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Schad' date='05 May 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1273110658' post='2288476']
Except that with this precedent set 'clearly culpable' will be revised and reworked as necessary by whichever group has the power to do so. The defeated party is almost always forced in some manner to admit guilt for beginning the war...even the most naked exercise of power hides behind righteousness.



The primary combatants have already disengaged, with culpability for the conflict acknowledged by virtue of their surrender and the reparations that they will be paying.
[/quote]

Surrender and reps do not make an allocution.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='05 May 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1273112705' post='2288545']
Apparently you can't force them to agree to unconitional surrender, either.[/quote]

Of course, we can't force anybody to do anything outside the rules of engagement [OOC]game mechanics[/OOC]

[quote]Looks like you can't do squat except scream "OMG THOSE COWARDS WON'T DO WHAT WE WANT!"
[/quote]
There would be more dignity in your position if you didn't try to paint GRE as chicken little. It's not like I'm here complaining about the ongoing war.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='05 May 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1273111411' post='2288502']
Friends don't always have to agree in order for protection. Friends are friends through thick and thin.
[/quote]

Absolutely.
And, as I said to some friends earlier today, sometimes a friend's duty is to let their friend take a little punishment to see the error of their ways.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1273116073' post='2288610']
Oh, I see.
So in IRON the post of one person constitutes an official stance? And that stance is still valid if I want to abide by it a month later? Sorry for being unfamiliar with your governmental structure.
GRE's doesn't work that way.
[/quote]
More then one person has said it. Peron said it too. DVD did as well. Every IRON offical that has posted on here has said the same thing: White peace. They've also said that the term very well might not last. I'm sure our gov will tell you exactly at what point white peace will no longer be an option. MCRABT clearly said it could change. Did your gov keep any constant communication up to let IRON know that the terms had changed? Nope. Pull up a time where he said it was liable for change if you feel like proving me wrong. Oh right, your government can't make up it's mind and whatever it says should only be taken as personal opinion.

If you missed his full remark, you might want to read it again.
[quote name='MCRABT' date='05 May 2010 - 09:36 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]

I'm sure you can check with him if you want an updated position of our gov on those terms. We actually stated it's liable for change, and we've done it here since Ram isn't one to talk. Did you guys?

Edited May 6, 2010 by Gamemaster1

[PumpkinFunk]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 10:21 PM' timestamp='1273116073' post='2288610']
Oh, I see.
So in IRON the post of one person constitutes an official stance? And that stance is still valid if I want to abide by it a month later? Sorry for being unfamiliar with your governmental structure.
GRE's doesn't work that way.
[/quote]

No, in GRE even a government member can say something and it's not the alliance's opinion, so nobody knows who the hell is saying the right or wrong thing. You are in a body of government but claim no authority role when it comes to your statements being policy. Ramirus has been known to do the same and he's in your top level of government. At least IRON has a governmental structure instead of what your alliance has become - somewhere where up one day is down the next, left is right, and morality and honor have been so fundamentally warped that you consider refusing to offer peace terms until they stop fighting back while you continue to do the same to them an honorable act. This, my friends, is the new Gram(irus)lins. Enjoy it. (Oh, and so you know, my statement is definitely not NPO policy, it's my way of once again showing how terrible you are after my painful time dealing with your alliance when I was in TOP)

Edited May 6, 2010 by PumpkinFunk

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='PumpkinFunk' date='05 May 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1273118875' post='2288649']
No, in GRE even a government member can say something and it's not the alliance's opinion, so nobody knows who the hell is saying the right or wrong thing. You are in a body of government but claim no authority role when it comes to your statements being policy. Ramirus has been known to do the same and he's in your top level of government. At least IRON has a governmental structure instead of what your alliance has become - somewhere where up one day is down the next, left is right, and morality and honor have been so fundamentally warped that you consider refusing to offer peace terms until they stop fighting back while you continue to do the same to them an honorable act. This, my friends, is the new Gram(irus)lins. Enjoy it. (Oh, and so you know, my statement is definitely not NPO policy, it's my way of once again showing how terrible you are after my painful time dealing with your alliance when I was in TOP)
[/quote]

Official government policy is made with votes.
GRE has [b]always[/b] been this way and GRE has [b]always[/b] had to deal with people not understanding the difference between talking and official policy.
You'll have to forgive us all for forgetting to say "This is not official unless voted on" every other sentence.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1273116015' post='2288608']
No, I mean the facts.
[/quote]
What facts? You keep trying to talk about all this facts you know, then you get called on it and claim it as only personal opinion.

Then 2 posts later you attempt to use what you say as facts again.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='05 May 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1273119619' post='2288667']
What facts? You keep trying to talk about all this facts you know, then you get called on it and claim it as only personal opinion.

Then 2 posts later you attempt to use what you say as facts again.
[/quote]
No, I don't have / can't give facts about what the terms will be after IRON surrenders.
I do have facts about the accusation that we offered then went back on any terms.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1273119832' post='2288672']
No, I don't have / can't give facts about what the terms will be after IRON surrenders.
I do have facts about the accusation that we offered then went back on any terms.
[/quote]
I bet you can't even see if they did vote on it and are going completely by what your gov is feeding you.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1273102395' post='2288218']
Reading comprehension.
I didn't say you were afraid of me.
[/quote]
Reading comprehension 101: neither did I
I said I don't want to hand over the fate of my alliance and that of my ally over to an alliance that is currently self-destructing, and led by incompetent people


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 May 2010 - 04:41 AM' 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 have seen numerous remarks of government members from both alliances (I for example am part of DAWN's government, MCRABT of IRON's). But I wouldn't wait to accept them in a month from now, not sure if we still accept white peace then.