The New Grämlins

[Kim Jaym Il]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1270080406' post='2242624']
During my brief period as Praetor I thought I was very clear to everybody that GRE's involvement and everybody else's involvement were not inherently linked.
Just because one alliance exits the conflict doesn't mean GRE does nor vice versa.

My high horse?
This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact.
[/quote]

If you were not involved because of the attack on C&G, what was your reason for entering?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='31 March 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1270080775' post='2242628']
He is, but mystique, legend and bravdo are hard things to ignore even for the most intelligent. Someone mentioned something about "ego's" think it was airme, you not only hit the nail on the head you drove it through the board.
[/quote]

Don't get ahead of yourself and confuse me with somebody else.
Say what you mean.
If you actually mean that I'm after "mystique, legend and bravado" then you clearly don't know my at all.
Hell, when I was in .gov nobody knew who I was and I liked it that way.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1270079949' post='2242612']
A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode.[/quote]
What does this mean, precisely? What does IRON have to do to comply? Spell it out for us. Be as clear as you can.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Bob Janova]

You should read Goldie's blog, that clearly states the sections of the Codex that you're violating. You are requiring an unconditional surrender, though, and there's no way you'd accept that, and you're only requiring that because of a grudge carried over from Karma or before, so there's two sections. Also, in the logs in the OP, it's clear that the offer you withdrew was requiring reps, as was the earlier draft leaked by Ejay a month ago.

Terms tend to expire because the size of the reps within them changes as the amount of damage done increases, and the size of the alliances decreases. I can't think of how a non-reparation term would no longer apply after two months of war when it had done so previously.

[quote]Have you any clairvoyance that when IRON surrenders we won't simply release them?[/quote]
If your intention was simply to release them then you would simply sign a peace agreement with no terms.

And you are an aggressive party, but within the wider war, and you entered nominally in order to help MK. There is no reason for you to prolong the war beyond the point at which MK is satisfied that its defence is completed.

Edit: If you want to claim you are not part of the same war, IRON's MDP partners at the time of your attack – which include R&R I believe – should hit you in their defence.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jaymjaym' date='31 March 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1270081360' post='2242643']
If you were not involved because of the attack on C&G, what was your reason for entering?
[/quote]


Read>Comprehend>Post

I didn't say *why* we were involved. Entrances and exits are different things.
I said that our exit and MK's exit are not inherently linked; nothing to do with our entrance.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1270079949' post='2242612']
Is IRON afraid?
That's the big question here.

To those of you criticizing "terms": No terms have been offered. It it IRON's decision whether or not to demonstrate their defeat. A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode.

None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.

The terms in question were offered weeks ago and IRON refused. Instead they kept us, and our friends, in a state of warfare.
The terms were withdrawn.

None of you should question this premise: old terms are no longer valid after a following extended period of war.
[/quote]

Oh dear where to even begin with this.

Right first of the act of surrendering is an admission of defeat, since we had agreed to your original terms that would constitute and admission of defeat. The amount of nations IRON has in peace mode is completely irrelevant, this is a tactic of war given the odds stacked against us. Are you seriously trying to use this the tactic as a justification for your demands that IRON hand its sovereignty over to Gremlins?

In terms of quantifiable value what you have asked for is unknown, you have made no explanation as to the intent behind your demands. Instead what you do ask for is the heart and soul of the alliance, this resides in a communities ability to self-regulate. Surrender terms in themselves involve a temporary transfer of some forms sovereignty however what Gremlins asks for is the complete transfer of IRON's sovereignty without any time-scale or indication of its timely return. In essence Gremlins asks for the one thing no respectable alliance will ever give away.

The terms currently on offer were offered to IRON by your intoxicated MOFA who later rescinded them and put the original offer back on the table, this has once again been removed and replaced with the drunk version of terms. What I see in your post is numerous false statements back up with no evidence or even rationale.

Is IRON scared of your massive contribution of 2 nations to the current conflict? I think not, if you want to play the hard man then you have to back it up with actions. The fact of the matter is this, Gremlins is a shell of what it once was and posts like yours only put the final nail in the coffin.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1270081300' post='2242641']
We agree there! In fact, it's a strategy which puts GRE at significant risk, especially given your point (bolded) below....




If that's, in fact, your position. Then you need not concern yourself with MK's position versus ours.
We can, and are, making separate demands from IRON than is MK. IRON is free to choose our terms, theirs, or both.
[/quote]

No. It does not put you at significant risk. If you had just went along with CnG negotiations, then you would've peaced out at the same time they would. Do you think that they'll surrender to just CnG and not you? The only thing you can possibly lose from this is a little bit of infrastructure.

If that's what you're talking about in terms of "significant risk", then you are far too materialistic.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='31 March 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1270081471' post='2242646']
What does this mean, precisely? What does IRON have to do to comply? Spell it out for us. Be as clear as you can.
[/quote]
It's not my decision. You'll have to ask GRE.gov

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='01 April 2010 - 05:24 AM' timestamp='1270063437' post='2242241']
A friendly bird by the name of pastebin flew down and landed on my shoulder and whispered them into my ear.
[/quote]
People still use that?
I would only use pastebin if I wanted something to [i]accidentally [/i]become public knowledge.

Anyhow I would of expected better diplomacy here, at this rate we will be fighting this same war next Christmas.

[Jake Liebenow]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1270081300' post='2242641']
We agree there! In fact, it's a strategy which puts GRE at significant risk, especially given your point (bolded) below....




If that's, in fact, your position. Then you need not concern yourself with MK's position versus ours.
[b]We can, and are, making separate demands from IRON than is MK. IRON is free to choose our terms, theirs, or both.[/b]
[/quote]

So let me get this straight.

Not only is GRE idiotically sending drunks to negotiate for them, but they're also giving out terms only a drunk man would give, and then freely admitting to it on OWF?

Right.

[Kim Jaym Il]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1270080406' post='2242624']
During my brief period as Praetor I thought I was very clear to everybody that [b]GRE's involvement and everybody else's involvement were not inherently linked.[/b]
Just because one alliance exits the conflict doesn't mean GRE does nor vice versa.

My high horse?
This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact.
[/quote]


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1270081518' post='2242648']
Read>Comprehend>Post

I didn't say *why* we were involved. Entrances and exits are different things.
I said that our exit and MK's exit are not inherently linked; nothing to do with our entrance.
[/quote]

I took involvement to mean, well, why you were involved. If that's not what you meant then my apologies.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1270081586' post='2242652']
It's not my decision. You'll have to ask GRE.gov
[/quote]
So you're asking us to believe what you're saying here but without providing any detail to support what you're saying?

[SiCkO]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1270081518' post='2242648']
Read>Comprehend>Post

I didn't say *why* we were involved. Entrances and exits are different things.
I said that our exit and MK's exit are not inherently linked; nothing to do with our entrance.
[/quote]

so you want to continue to pummel IRON into the ground indefinitely?

[Rebel Virginia]

[color="#0000FF"]Looks like I am going to have to put Gre on my list. Unfortunate, but it must be done. I cannot suffer the existence of any tyrant, and the world needs a hero to light the way. Justice must be satisfied. I have spoken, and soon I will act. Let this be a lesson to all of you that I shall not allow any evil deed to go unpunished.[/color]

[ajaxpenny]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1270080406' post='2242624']
During my brief period as Praetor I thought I was very clear to everybody that GRE's involvement and everybody else's involvement were not inherently linked.
Just because one alliance exits the conflict doesn't mean GRE does nor vice versa.
[/quote]

The following was posted in your DOW:

[quote]Ladies and Gentlemen of Bob,

It is time for the Harmlin to enter this fray. [b]IRON and their minions have brought untoward aggression against our friends [color="#FF0000"]and the Harmlins shall see our way in to protect them.[/color] We are prepared to stand and fight among our many friends as they stand and fight for theirs.[/b]

With that said, Harmlins have their towels ready and hereby declare war on IRON.[/quote]

You've all given TOP much to think about with regard to our CB for war and part and parcel of why we are paying reparations is related to our rationale and way in which we declared war.

So, if you claim, as in your DoW, to have entered the conflict to defend your friends, then you should exit when your friends deem the conflict over. If, on the other hand, as you suggest now, that this conflict of yours between Gre and IRON/DAWN is not inherently linked to the conflict which we are trying to bring to a close, then you will have to accept that you declared war due to a grudge and not to defend your friends.

Which one is it? Is it the latter or the former?

Whatever you're doing is much worse than what we did. We argued from Day 1 that we, if victorious, would only demand White Peace. You're basically arguing your CB might be the latter (A grudge) and you're demanding unconditional surrender.

I don't really consider many actions on our lovely planet to be irrational. Usually things make sense from one perspective or another. However, I really don't comprehend what you're trying to achieve as of recently.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1270081119' post='2242634']
IRON has insisted that GRE is an aggressive party and consequently it seems outside the MK peace discussions.
You can't have it both ways.
Either GRE is a defensive party, defending MK; or we are an aggressive party and are outside the peace discussions with MK.

[/quote]

For that to have any form of validity you would have to accept that your attack on IRON was completely unrelated to our attack on MK.

What we have claimed is that you attacked us aggressively. We have never denied a causation between the attack on CnG and your attack on IRON. It is quite evident that our attack on MK resulted in your counter attack unless you are attempting to claim otherwise here? You had no obligation to defend MK, you did so off your own prerogative and that my friend is widely regarded as offensive action.

[mitchh]

I wish IRON only the best in this situation. Hopefully both sides can reach an agreement to end the war.

Edited April 1, 2010 by mitchh

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jaymjaym' date='31 March 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1270081735' post='2242657']
I took involvement to mean, well, why you were involved. If that's not what you meant then my apologies.
[/quote]
Please excuse my unclear verbiage.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='MCRABT' date='31 March 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1270082076' post='2242667']
For that to have any form of validity you would have to accept that your attack on IRON was completely unrelated to our attack on MK.

What we have claimed is that you attacked us aggressively. We have never denied a causation between the attack on CnG and your attack on IRON. It is quite evident that our attack on MK resulted in your counter attack unless you are attempting to claim otherwise here? You had no obligation to defend MK, you did so off your own prerogative and that my friend is widely regarded as offensive action.
[/quote]

If that is your analysis then you should not be surprised that we may have different ideas about IRON's surrender.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='31 March 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1270081910' post='2242661']
so you want to continue to pummel IRON into the ground indefinitely?
[/quote]


Absolutely not.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='31 March 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1270081808' post='2242658']
So you're asking us to believe what you're saying here but without providing any detail to support what you're saying?
[/quote]
I'm stating my opinion, nothing more.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1270079949' post='2242612']
Is IRON afraid?
That's the big question here.

To those of you criticizing "terms": No terms have been offered. It it IRON's decision whether or not to demonstrate their defeat. A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode.

None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.

The terms in question were offered weeks ago and IRON refused. Instead they kept us, and our friends, in a state of warfare.
The terms were withdrawn.

None of you should question this premise: old terms are no longer valid after a following extended period of war.
[/quote]

Matthew, i can't believe you are speaking this load of bs. you darn well know what it means to demand "unconditional surrender". yes, you have offered no actual terms other than full military decom, admit defeat, and unconditional surrender. those are actually 3 terms that were offered. and other than admitting defeat, i highly doubt Gremlins would ever accept the other two. ever. thus, one way you are already violating your Codex.

second, you offered terms weeks ago but instead of taking them off the table before they were accepted, you waited until they were accepted and then took them off the table, not once but twice? seriously, ya'll's gov has just gotten horrible then.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1270081119' post='2242634']
Except that your interpretation of the codex apparently differs from mine. What reparations is GRE demanding?




We offered terms which IRON did not accept. Then, weeks later, they decided to take them as if they were still valid. Bob, you know better than to characterize terms in that way. All terms have a time limit; all of them. This is not new.

Disappointed in me? I've put my pixels where my mouth is.
It's you that's speculating. Have you any clairvoyance that when IRON surrenders we won't simply release them?

I am glad MK has found peace. IRON has insisted that GRE is an aggressive party and consequently it seems outside the MK peace discussions.
You can't have it both ways.
Either GRE is a defensive party, defending MK; or we are an aggressive party and are outside the peace discussions with MK.

Pick your poison.
I'm looking forward to a speedy end to hostilities.
[/quote]

The Codex is quite simple to interpret. specifically the article that states that Gremlins will never offer terms they would not accept. so unless Ram and your gov is stating that Gremlins, if beaten down and on the losing side of a war, would accept "unconditional surrender", then do not even attempt the whole "your interpretation is different from mine" bs because that is simply untrue unless you are so frantically attempting to twist the Codex into a shriveled up, charred, and broken version of what it is supposed to be.

actually, since you joined the war because MK was hit does not automatically make you a defensive party. you joined via an aggressive clause with MHA i believe or just no actual treaty at all. That would be like FAN stating they hit IRON due to MK and thus are a defending party. ain't happening. you may have entered to defend MK but since ya'll dropped that treaty, you either had to enter via the aggressive clause in the Harmlin accords or without a treaty. thus the only actual options available are:

Gremlins are an aggressive party that are helping MK, or
Gremlins are bandwagoners who entered without a treaty to help MK out.

that is it. your two options are simply invalid. you cannot state that Gremlins are uninvolved when it is obvious that CnG will not accept peace without Gremlins.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1270082409' post='2242672']
If that is your analysis then you should not be surprised that we may have different ideas about IRON's surrender.
[/quote]

Please, by all means, correct his analysis then. Here, I'll hand you a bigger shovel too.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='31 March 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1270081565' post='2242651']
No. It does not put you at significant risk. If you had just went along with CnG negotiations, then you would've peaced out at the same time they would. Do you think that they'll surrender to just CnG and not you? The only thing you can possibly lose from this is a little bit of infrastructure.

If that's what you're talking about in terms of "significant risk", then you are far too materialistic.
[/quote]
A little infrastructure? If that's all we risk then I find it hard to believe you think anybody else risks more.

"significant risk" refers to infrastructure, friendships, leaders, ideas... paradigms.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1270082539' post='2242675']
I'm stating my opinion, nothing more.
[/quote]
Your opinion is a load of !@#$ if you can't properly explain what you're trying to say.