The Easter Sunday Accords

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Dread' date='06 April 2010 - 06:54 AM' timestamp='1270551233' post='2250257']
If Polaris started the war on a [b]moralist[/b] stance... wouldn't it then follow that they would do the [b]moral[/b] thing and honor treaties with allies when those allies were aggressively attacked?

So sneaky those polars, never saw that 'honoring of the treaties' coming, they sure did trick everyone with that never before seen brilliant political move!
[/quote]

NpO's actions, if taken out of context, could all be pretty much rationalized away. Much the same way that NPO's actions during the 2007 GW IV could be rationalized to make it appear that they lived up to their treaties.

In context, both alliances know exactly what they did and why and it had little to do with being "honor bound" by treaties.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Shamshir' date='06 April 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1270553036' post='2250261']
I don't think it's the bottom half you need to be worried about but the nation of IRON. IRON have a way out and the longer they take to surrender the longer this war will draw out. While I can understand that many in CnG + some otherundeserving buggers may be annoyed by the fact they are not getting thier reps. The fact is that they have those reps in the bank. Regardless of what happens to the Grämlins they will get thier reps one way or another. It's how long IRON and DAWN wants to be paying these reps for that will determine when they surrender. If they do which I hope they will.
[/quote]
So what do IRON and DAWN have to do to (precisely) in order to comply with your government's request to "disarm" and "surrender unconditionally"?

[Goldie]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='06 April 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1270530459' post='2250054']
[color="#0000FF"]Yes, I really love all the protesting of how bad Gre is in their treatment of IRON from all these SF and associated alliances (I mean you VE). Yet when anyone suggests that they may attempt to do something about it they are reminded of how Gre has friends and how they will not tolerate people hitting their friends.[/color]
[/quote]

Don't misinterpret what I said. If Random Alliance XX that didn't leave the war with a clause saying they couldn't reenter it chose to attack Gre, then it would be up to MHA to defend. I'm not saying there is some invisible treaty to back Gre up, I think what they're doing is ridiculous and I hope an example is set so no one tries to do something like that again. What I am saying is if a surrendered alliance violates their terms to re-enter, it will be viewed as such.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='06 April 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1270530459' post='2250054']
[color="#0000FF"]Yes, this is what the NPO often did. When one of their dogs was out of line they would remind people that they did not always agree and they were on their own, but should someone interfere there would be hell to pay.[/color]
[/quote]

Gre are on their own, and VE has no intentions of defending Gre. What we would enter for, is if someone violated the terms they signed with us. Do you understand now?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='06 April 2010 - 09:44 AM' timestamp='1270561425' post='2250311']
So what do IRON and DAWN have to do to (precisely) in order to comply with your government's request to "disarm" and "surrender unconditionally"?
[/quote]

Does it honestly matter? They've already put conditions forth that IRON and DAWN would never accept before the details even are brought forth.

I don't see a rational conversation to be had about it. Indeed, if I'm IRON and DAWN, it is Gramlins that should be worried about what will happen when it is Gramlins that is forced to surrender unconditionally. What's good for the goose is good for the gander after all.

Edited April 6, 2010 by ChairmanHal

[AirMe]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='06 April 2010 - 05:15 AM' timestamp='1270545339' post='2250232']
I think all of CN knows...it isn't warring abilities so much as changing directions to save your hide. Kinda like going from a disbanded NAAC (when you were acting MOD for such alliance) to NpO who disbanded them the day it happened. Trust is a wonderful thing amigo...one item you will never have from me again. I don't care if you value it or not..jus saying.
[/quote]

I love how you revise history and ignore the facts to fit your agenda.

Grub led the NAAC when they disbanded. And it was the memberships doing, not Grubs. The Protector didn't have the power to disband the alliance. And in regards to the NpO, he worked his way up from a grunt to emperor. Sponge didn't even trust him at the start. What have you done? Grub accomplished more in his first 3 hours in the world than you have your entire life here. Might not always agree with him or his actions but you can't blame a guy for trying.

Give it up Chalaskan. If you used your brain occasionally you would realize the truth sometimes.

Edited April 6, 2010 by AirMe

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 April 2010 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1270554739' post='2250273']
It was a 180: in Karma, the Karma coalition was fighting for a moral position; in Bipolar, most of the alliances of Karma chose to fight [i]against[/i] a moral position.
[/quote]
It's almost like the latter group of alliances isn't the former, or that the situations are different.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 April 2010 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1270554739' post='2250273']
It was a 180: in Karma, the Karma coalition was fighting for a moral position; in Bipolar, most of the alliances of Karma chose to fight [i]against[/i] a moral position.
[/quote]

If you're talking about the Polar-\m/ War, then sure, the Raider coalition was fighting against "morality" in a certain sense. However in the TOP-C&G War, many of those fighting on C&G's side did so to fight against the precedent TOP was trying to set - that is, that declaring war on an someone because you think they might attack you if you attack their allies is justified.

[D34th]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 April 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1270564259' post='2250337']
I love how you revise history and ignore the facts to fit your agenda.

Grub led the NAAC when they disbanded. And it was the memberships doing, not Grubs. The Protector didn't have the power to disband the alliance. And in regards to the NpO, he worked his way up from a grunt to emperor. Sponge didn't even trust him at the start. What have you done? Grub accomplished more in his for 3 hours in the world than you have your entire life here. Might not always agree with him or his actions but you can't blame a guy for trying.

Give it up Chalaskan. If you used your brain occasionally you would realize the truth sometimes.
[/quote]

I totaly agree with AirMe here, “[i]It is infinitely easier to criticize than to create.[/i]”

[Grumpdogg]

Well fought everyone and congratulations to those we have agreed to 'white peace' with.

PS: I look forward to seeing TOP's community being split apart via the Secret Terms.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Grumpdogg' date='06 April 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1270567574' post='2250368']
PS: I look forward to seeing TOP's community being split apart via the Secret Terms.
[/quote]
in b4 halflinger or alterego takes the statement seriously.


Good fight everyone.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Grumpdogg' date='06 April 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1270567574' post='2250368']
Well fought everyone and congratulations to those we have agreed to 'white peace' with.

PS: I look forward to seeing TOP's community being split apart via the Secret Terms.
[/quote]

I doubt you know what the secret terms are.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='06 April 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1270567767' post='2250374']
I doubt you know what the secret terms are.
[/quote]
They clearly involve the building of FACs to send the secret reps

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 April 2010 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1270567923' post='2250376']
They clearly involve the building of FACs to send the secret reps
[/quote]

That would actually be pretty hilarious.

[Heft]

So as I understand it, some alliances would leave Gremlins to their fate, but enough others still see some reason to enable Gremlins behavior even as they supposedly disapprove.

Neither group appears to be taking any action whatsoever to actually end this farce, though.

But that's okay, when and while you're winning you do get to have your cake and eat it too.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='06 April 2010 - 06:07 AM' timestamp='1270530459' post='2250054']
[color="#0000FF"]Yes, I really love all the protesting of how bad Gre is in their treatment of IRON from all these SF and associated alliances (I mean you VE). Yet when anyone suggests that they may attempt to do something about it they are reminded of how Gre has friends and how they will not tolerate people hitting their friends. Yes, this is what the NPO often did. When one of their dogs was out of line they would remind people that they did not always agree and they were on their own, but should someone interfere there would be hell to pay. Great job on keeping that spirit alive Karma.[/color]
[/quote]

If anything, that just goes to show how ridiculous of a situation this is and on top of how bad it already looked for Gre, they also properly manipulated the timing in such a way that they can not only act completely irrational and despicable, but no appropriate party can do anything about it due to terms. Now, just because people may be bound to enforce the non-reentry term, that doesn't mean that they enjoy it in these circumstances, but the matter is one of a slippery slope which cannot be ignored. It's bad precedent to forgo such a common term for the withdrawal from warfare under certain circumstances because of the fact that people could use it as a tool to do wrong in the future. By stopping one wrong from happening, you open the door for a thousand others to be committed.

That being said, condoning insanity is equally as dangerous and is likewise a slippery slope with the same foreseeable effects as mentioned above. A middle ground between the two principals should be found if this continues to fester via some sort of intervention and imposition of consequences.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1270569664' post='2250402']
If anything, that just goes to show how ridiculous of a situation this is and on top of how bad it already looked for Gre, they also properly manipulated the timing in such a way that they can not only act completely irrational and despicable, but no appropriate party can do anything about it due to terms. Now, just because people may be bound to enforce the non-reentry term, that doesn't mean that they enjoy it in these circumstances, but the matter is one of a slippery slope which cannot be ignored. It's bad predicament to forgo such a common term for the withdrawal from warfare under certain circumstances because of the fact that people could use it as a tool to do wrong in the future. By stopping one wrong from happening, you open the door for a thousand others to be committed.

That being said, condoning insanity is equally as dangerous and is likewise a slippery slope with the same foreseeable effects as mentioned above. A middle ground between the two principals should be found if this continues to fester via some sort of intervention and imposition of consequences.
[/quote]
Nothing is stopping you from releasing alliances from terms. It is but an announcement away.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='06 April 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1270569802' post='2250404']
Nothing is stopping you from releasing alliances from terms. It is but an announcement away.
[/quote]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1270569664' post='2250402']
If anything, that just goes to show how ridiculous of a situation this is and on top of how bad it already looked for Gre, they also properly manipulated the timing in such a way that they can not only act completely irrational and despicable, but no appropriate party can do anything about it due to terms. Now, just because people may be bound to enforce the non-reentry term, that doesn't mean that they enjoy it in these circumstances,[b] but the matter is one of a slippery slope which cannot be ignored. It's bad precedent to forgo such a common term for the withdrawal from warfare under certain circumstances because of the fact that people could use it as a tool to do wrong in the future. By stopping one wrong from happening, you open the door for a thousand others to be committed. [/b]

That being said, condoning insanity is equally as dangerous and is likewise a slippery slope with the same foreseeable effects as mentioned above. A middle ground between the two principals should be found if this continues to fester via some sort of intervention and imposition of consequences.
[/quote]

There is something which stops that from being a desirable option, as I originally noted in bold above. However, also like I said above, I do believe that the same can be said for allowing this to continue and something, somehow, should be done.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1270570149' post='2250411']
There is something which stops that from being a desirable option, as I originally noted in bold above. However, also like I said above, I do believe that the same can be said for allowing this to continue and something, somehow, should be done.
[/quote]
Slippery slope how? I don't buy it. You are supporting the Ramlins or you're not. If you feel the war is over, there is no need to hold alliances that have surrendered to no-entry clauses.

[Haflinger]

IRON does have some treaty partners that are not currently limited from declaring war.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='06 April 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1270570290' post='2250412']
Slippery slope how? I don't buy it. You are supporting the Ramlins or you're not. If you feel the war is over, there is no need to hold alliances that have surrendered to no-entry clauses.
[/quote]

To suggest that this is a bright line matter of "you are supporting Ram's-Wacky-Fun-Playhouselins or your not" is ridiculous. Obviously there are very, very few who actually think what they are doing is right in any way shape or form, and there are quite a few such as myself who also think something should be done about it. However, the slippery slope comes in where there are foreseeable cases in which a victor releasing a surrendered alliance from the reentry term could be used to further oppressive ends. For example, an agreement is made between a victor and a surrenderee involving a reduction of reps if they agree to reenter the conflict on the victors side, or, more realistically, a threat from the victor that they will be subject to higher demands and stricter scrutiny if they do not agree to reenter on the victors side, amounting to pretty much post war extortion.

I've tried to come up with a good argument for why this can be considered a new conflict and as such the reentry term should not apply, but I just can't no matter how much I would like to; and frankly that's one of the disgustingly well played aspects of this by Funny-Farmlins.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 April 2010 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1270570721' post='2250418']
IRON does have some treaty partners that are not currently limited from declaring war.
[/quote]
I will wear an RnR sig for a month if they came in and helped IRON with Gramlins. It would be just glorious.

Edited April 6, 2010 by supercoolyellow

[Vhalen]

[quote name='Shamshir' date='06 April 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1270553036' post='2250261']
I don't think it's the bottom half you need to be worried about but the nation of IRON. IRON have a way out and the longer they take to surrender the longer this war will draw out. While I can understand that many in CnG + some otherundeserving buggers may be annoyed by the fact they are not getting thier reps. The fact is that they have those reps in the bank. Regardless of what happens to the Grämlins they will get thier reps one way or another. It's how long IRON and DAWN wants to be paying these reps for that will determine when they surrender. If they do which I hope they will.
[/quote]
Oh, you have it all wrong. I'm not worried about anyone, and would be perfectly content if both alliances ground each other into a fine powder. I was just pointing out that IRON still had military options, despite how their representative posters in this thread make it sound. I thought maybe we could hear a little less about how 60 people are oppressing 350, if I pointed out how easy it is to render much of Gramlins' effective strength useless, and play the numbers game in the middle ranks.

But I can see my comments fall on closed ears, so if it makes you feel better, forget I said anything. Feel free to embarrass yourselves at your leisure.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1270570901' post='2250425']
I've tried to come up with a good argument for why this can be considered a new conflict and as such the reentry term should not apply, but I just can't no matter how much I would like to; and frankly that's one of the disgustingly well played aspects of this by Funny-Farmlins.
[/quote]

Honor is more than semantics.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='06 April 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1270571874' post='2250436']
Honor is more than semantics.
[/quote]

Good sir, you know very well that I'm a slave to both semantics and honor :x

[quote]IRON does have some treaty partners that are not currently limited from declaring war.[/quote]

This is true, and the best argument for taking action.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1270570901' post='2250425']
To suggest that this is a bright line matter of "you are supporting Ram's-Wacky-Fun-Playhouselins or your not" is ridiculous. Obviously there are very, very few who actually think what they are doing is right in any way shape or form, and there are quite a few such as myself who also think something should be done about it. However, the slippery slope comes in where there are foreseeable cases in which a victor releasing a surrendered alliance from the reentry term could be used to further oppressive ends. For example, an agreement is made between a victor and a surrenderee involving a reduction of reps if they agree to reenter the conflict on the victors side, or, more realistically, a threat from the victor that they will be subject to higher demands and stricter scrutiny if they do not agree to reenter on the victors side, amounting to pretty much post war extortion.

I've tried to come up with a good argument for why this can be considered a new conflict and as such the reentry term should not apply, but I just can't no matter how much I would like to; and frankly that's one of the disgustingly well played aspects of this by Funny-Farmlins.
[/quote]
None of your "out there" options really apply to this situation. I think you're sticking to the easy, quiet way because standing up for what you claim to believe is right is hard. Not ever unexpected but always disappointing.

EDIT: If RnR activates their IRON treaty to come in on Ramlins, their respect goes through the roof, takes several slingshot orbits around the sun, and shoots off into outer space at 0.9998xC

Edited April 6, 2010 by bigwoody