The Easter Sunday Accords

[flak attack]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 April 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1270567923' post='2250376']
They clearly involve the building of FACs to send the secret reps
[/quote]
I knew I should have bought that FAC instead of a WRC a while back.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='06 April 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1270572863' post='2250447']
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.
[/quote]

Your trying to hard to hard to take issue with what I said (out of habit I would guess) and, as a result, have missed the point. Obviously they don't apply to this situation, they apply to future situations which would cite this one as justification. When it comes to such a core term of warfare, the easy way would be capriciously releasing alliances without any consideration for the future implications of the action. I do nothing the easy way.

I would stick with what Haflinger said, as that line of thought will produce the best results. While we may disagree on many things now a days Mr. Woody, I think we can both say it would be nice to see some results here.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1270573304' post='2250450']
Your trying to hard to hard to take issue with what I said (out of habit I would guess) and, as a result, have missed the point. Obviously they don't apply to this situation, they apply to future situations which would cite this one as justification. When it comes to such a core term of warfare, the easy way would be capriciously releasing alliances without any consideration for the future implications of the action. I do nothing the easy way.

I would stick with what Haflinger said, as that line of thought will produce the best results. While we may disagree on many things now a days Mr. Woody, I think we can both say it would be nice to see some results here.
[/quote]
I don't give the groupthink side of this community much credit, but I don't think people would stand for surrender terms being used in that way. Nor would any alliance that isn't Polar agree to switch sides to get a better deal.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='06 April 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1270573468' post='2250454']
I don't give the groupthink side of this community much credit, but I don't think people would stand for surrender terms being used in that way. Nor would any alliance that isn't Polar agree to switch sides to get a better deal.
[/quote]

Well I guess you just have more faith in people's "good nature" then I do...

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1270573538' post='2250456']
Well I guess you just have more faith in people's "good nature" then I do...
[/quote]
Perhaps so. After all, most of the community is enabling Ramlins as we speak. A few alliances may yet prove me wrong though.

Edited April 6, 2010 by bigwoody

[Alterego]

[quote name='flak attack' date='06 April 2010 - 07:27 AM' timestamp='1270535235' post='2250138']
Perhaps you missed this:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79442

That looks like a reason to hit them to me.
[/quote]
When did Gramlins join C&G are they that deranged that they dont know who they are allied to? Why are C&G defending Gramlins eternal war against IRON with the threat of force and where did all your moral whingers disappear to?

Airme, Archon, stumpy and the rest of you have zero credibility and are unmasked as hypocrites and tyrants. Laugh it up lads, when the tables are turned you will receive no mercy. It might take 3 years but your time will come and your crimes and outrages will all come back to haunt you just like they did with NPO.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Alterego

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1270574063' post='2250463']
When did Gramlins join C&G are they that deranged that they dont know who they are allied to? Why are C&G defending Gramlins eternal war against IRON with the threat of force and where did all your moral whingers disappear to?

Airme, Archon, stumpy and the rest of you have zero credibility and are unmasked as hypocrites and tyrants. Laugh it up lads, when the tables are turned you will receive no mercy. It might take 3 years but your time will come and your crimes and outrages will all come back to haunt you just like they did with NPO.
[/quote]
What'd I do? o_O

[AirMe]

[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1270574063' post='2250463']
When did Gramlins join C&G are they that deranged that they dont know who they are allied to? Why are C&G defending Gramlins eternal war against IRON with the threat of force and where did all your moral whingers disappear to?

Airme, Archon, stumpy and the rest of you have zero credibility and are unmasked as hypocrites and tyrants. Laugh it up lads, when the tables are turned you will receive no mercy. It might take 3 years but your time will come and your crimes and outrages will all come back to haunt you just like they did with NPO.
[/quote]

What are you on about?

If it happens it happens. I spent 3 years under the boot and while I don't desire to go back there, I do understand how things work and it would be part of the cycle if I do. As for calling me a hypocrite, that's funny because I have been condemning the Gremlins since they started pulling these stunts. I have advocated white peace for those not involved in the initial preemption. In fact you can dig back through my history and see I pretty much hold everyone to the same standards and don't waffle.

Tyrants? What? Seriously, I understand the part you are trying to play but man...seriously lay off the sauce. I have shown more mercy than you ever have. Why haven't you ever gone after Valhalla like this? You know, the alliance that kept you in internal war, forced you to move colors and cause all but the most loyal BAPS membership to leave? If you applied your values equally like I try to, you would be as much against their "tyranny" as you are in your crusade against MK.

I get it, your angry that 2 years ago MK didn't/couldn't honor their treaty with BAPS. I totally get it. But man, seriously use your head and read what you are saying sometimes. If anything you are the biggest hypocrite here because you don't apply the same rules to everyone.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='06 April 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1270574745' post='2250471']
What'd I do? o_O
[/quote]

You exist.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 April 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1270574841' post='2250474']
You exist.
[/quote]
Yeah, Im not entirely sure I even posted in this topic. Definitely haven't posted anything about what hes going on about. I always find my way into his posts though, I think its cause Im so dreamy.

[Alterego]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 April 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1270574765' post='2250472']
snip
[/quote]
I dont give a toss about any of that crap. Im actually talking about the situation we are in now and how you and your comrads come out with hollow statements but still threaten to attack anyone who gets in Gramlins way. You and your friends are as responsible as Gramlins.

[Heft]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1270573304' post='2250450']
Your trying to hard to hard to take issue with what I said (out of habit I would guess) and, as a result, have missed the point. Obviously they don't apply to this situation, they apply to future situations which would cite this one as justification. When it comes to such a core term of warfare, the easy way would be capriciously releasing alliances without any consideration for the future implications of the action. I do nothing the easy way.

I would stick with what Haflinger said, as that line of thought will produce the best results. While we may disagree on many things now a days Mr. Woody, I think we can both say it would be nice to see some results here.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure slippery-slope arguments constitute some sort "fallacy" or something.

Your argument seems to be that "we will allow something bad to happen now because to stop might enable something bad to happen later." That is a very strange argument.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1270575152' post='2250483']
I dont give a toss about any of that crap. Im actually talking about the situation we are in now and how you and your comrads come out with hollow statements but still threaten to attack anyone who gets in Gramlins way. You and your friends are as responsible as Gramlins.
[/quote]

Point me to a statement that I made that said I would attack anyone who gets in the Gremlins way. I will pay you 250 tech if you can find such a post from me here in this thread.

Let me lay it out for you: I WANT GREMLINS TO BE ATTACKED! Ram has ruined that alliance and he held peace up for 5 days before they were left on the battlefield. In no way do I support or condone his actions. And I fully think that any of IRON and DAWN's allies who come to help them should not be countered.

Go ahead Alterego, twist those words to fit your agenda. Because I cannot be more clear of where I stand on this issue.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Heft' date='06 April 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1270575250' post='2250484']
I'm pretty sure slippery-slope arguments constitute some sort "fallacy" or something.

Your argument seems to be that "we will allow something bad to happen now because to stop might enable something bad to happen later." That is a very strange argument.
[/quote]

They are no fallacy, and are actually the factor which many important policy decisions hinge upon. Granted, there is something unseemly about such considerations, but they are a fact of life and must be accounted for, as unfortunate as it may be. There are situations where similar policy considerations have been ignored, but only where (1) no other avenue for righting the wrong happening in the present exists; and (2) allowing the wrong happening in the present to continue fails a simple balancing test when weighed agienst the existence of the possibility that a like wrong will be perpetrated in the future; and this case fails both elements of what would be needed for such an exception.

[Bob Janova]

There are quite enough alliances who could make a moral stand who aren't currently bound by surrender talks. R&R (with their MDP with IRON) or NpO (with their recent precedent of acting on moral issues) would be two obvious examples. C&G could even jump on them themselves for causing them to eat five more days of nukes, and for holding up their reps.

I actually agree with Impero that to release alliances from a surrender term so they can do some dirty work for you would set a bad precedent for the future, and that there are enough other people who could do something about it that it isn't necessary.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 April 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1270576805' post='2250510']
There are quite enough alliances who could make a moral stand who aren't currently bound by surrender talks. R&R (with their MDP with IRON) or NpO (with their recent precedent of acting on moral issues) would be two obvious examples. C&G could even jump on them themselves for causing them to eat five more days of nukes, and for holding up their reps.

I actually agree with Impero that to release alliances from a surrender term so they can do some dirty work for you would set a bad precedent for the future, and that there are enough other people who could do something about it that it isn't necessary.
[/quote]

I love when me and you get to agree on things!

[flak attack]

[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1270574063' post='2250463']
When did Gramlins join C&G are they that deranged that they dont know who they are allied to?
[/quote]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=78553

[quote]Please note that The Grämlins sees no shift in its allies based on these cancellations. If you were our friend yesterday then you are still our friend today.[/quote]Gre knows exactly who their allies are.



[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1270574063' post='2250463']
Why are C&G defending Gramlins eternal war against IRON with the threat of force and where did all your moral whingers disappear to?
[/quote]
We are holding alliances to their surrender terms. Nothing more, nothing less. Those alliances that surrendered signed away their right to reenter when they surrendered.



[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1270574063' post='2250463']
Airme, Archon, stumpy and the rest of you have zero credibility and are unmasked as hypocrites and tyrants. Laugh it up lads, when the tables are turned you will receive no mercy. It might take 3 years but your time will come and your crimes and outrages will all come back to haunt you just like they did with NPO.
[/quote]
Oh God! The end is nigh! Repent! Repent!

Edited April 6, 2010 by flak attack

[King MyLife]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 April 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1270575309' post='2250487']
Point me to a statement that I made that said I would attack anyone who gets in the Gremlins way. I will pay you 250 tech if you can find such a post from me here in this thread.

Let me lay it out for you: I WANT GREMLINS TO BE ATTACKED! Ram has ruined that alliance and he held peace up for 5 days before they were left on the battlefield. In no way do I support or condone his actions. And I fully think that any of IRON and DAWN's allies who come to help them should not be countered.

Go ahead Alterego, twist those words to fit your agenda. Because I cannot be more clear of where I stand on this issue.
[/quote]

indeed a good point..

[NLights]

Cheers folks.

Props to MK & ODN who were fun opponents.

At any rate, glad it's over and good luck rebuilding to all so that we may do it all again!

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='06 April 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1270562081' post='2250319']
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?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]"We would love for someone to attack Gre over this, but we can't allow that for such and such a reason....." Bah. I've heard all this nonsense before. Because you won't tolerate anything more than empty rhetoric you are condoning Gre's actions.

Also, I do find it interesting to note that Gre has claimed this as a seperate conflict. Tell me, would people really be reentering if Gre does not believe that this is the same conflict?[/color]

[The Crimson King]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 12:21 PM' 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]


While I can empathize with some of the concerns mentioned in this response, I believe you are missing the point of what Woody was asking you in the first place.

The question here is not one of whether or not you (or any other alliance on "your side" of this war) views the Gre/IRON conflict as a "new war", but rather whether or not you feel that the TOP/CnG war is over.

Considering that peace has been secured for the parties everyone on your side entered to defend, and an agreement has been struck to compensate the aggrieved parties in this matter, most rational people would consider that to constitute and "end" to that war.

If that is the case would it not also be standard to then release any parties whose only terms were non re-entry [b] until the END of the conflict[/b] from those sets of terms?


Now of course you are free to hold the opinion that the TOP/CnG war is in fact not over. But being that this was, as your side has stated numerous times, a defensive war, it would raise the question of who exactly is Gre defending [b]at this point?[/b]

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='06 April 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1270578716' post='2250537']
[color="#0000FF"]"We would love for someone to attack Gre over this, but we can't allow that for such and such a reason....." Bah. I've heard all this nonsense before. Because you won't tolerate anything more than empty rhetoric you are condoning Gre's actions.

Also, I do find it interesting to note that Gre has claimed this as a seperate conflict. Tell me, would people really be reentering if Gre does not believe that this is the same conflict?[/color]
[/quote]

See my response a little bit after that which you quoted please, as well as those afterwords in my exchange with bigwoody.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1270579146' post='2250542']
See my response a little bit after that which you quoted please, as well as those afterwords in my exchange with bigwoody.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]You don't get it do you? You admitted it yourself, anyone who will do something can't due to the no-entry term. So all we got are people like you sitting on the sidelines talking about how horrible it is. How about you do something? You don't like this anymore than anyone else. How about instead of sitting by and doing nothing, setting the precedent that this sort of behavior from gRAMlins is acceptable, make a stand and get it through our friends' heads that this will not be tolerated? Would that really be so hard to do?

Of course it would. This is VE we're talking about. We can't really expect y'all to grow a backbone overnight now can we?[/color]

[Haflinger]

R&R is not the only IRON treaty partner with the ability to declare on Grämlins in defense of IRON. I count at least three ODPs that they have that are not limited by surrender terms, including at least one that directly chains to both C&G and the Polars (although it's optional chaining in both cases).

That would, as they say, be highly fun.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='06 April 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1270581000' post='2250569']
[color="#0000FF"]You don't get it do you? You admitted it yourself, anyone who will do something can't due to the no-entry term. So all we got are people like you sitting on the sidelines talking about how horrible it is. How about you do something? You don't like this anymore than anyone else. How about instead of sitting by and doing nothing, setting the precedent that this sort of behavior from gRAMlins is acceptable, make a stand and get it through our friends' heads that this will not be tolerated? Would that really be so hard to do?

Of course it would. This is VE we're talking about. We can't really expect y'all to grow a backbone overnight now can we?[/color]
[/quote]

News flash: The big bad Ramlins only have 4 declared wars on IRON. Conversely, IRON and DAWN have declared quite a few on them. Before you're willing to paint people on this side a certain color for not doing anything, first ask yourself does anything need to be done immediately? Or do you think that maybe there are those who think the best course of action here is to let this play itself out for a little while before deciding what course of action to take.

I'd rather postpone any intervention than set the precedent that the no re-entry terms that we took very seriously in this past war are going to not be taken seriously in the future. IRON is under no duress right now, and as more people get an actual chance to talk to the sides and see what is really going on, I believe we will get closer to a resolution.