The Easter Sunday Accords

[Azrael Alexander]

[quote name='Dragonaspect' date='06 April 2010 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1270594268' post='2250825']
Resorting to attacks against other nations and alliances who are calling you and your alliance out reeks of denial.

If you consider us "!@#$e" then so be it, however your comment was neither neither overly productive nor necessary.

The Grämlins I knew would be ashamed of this kind of conduct, apparently since I was last active a lot changed.

Edit: Don't try to spell when tired.
[/quote]

I was attempting to be humorous, but it seems gRAMlins as your calling us is fair and the use of a muslim sect, which is part of the largest schism in Islam is not. I apologise if I offended anyone. My bad.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Shamshir

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='KingEd' date='06 April 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1270583511' post='2250614']
It doesn't need to be said that this situation is completely unacceptable. However, there's little if anything that can be done for IRON from both sides. Like it or not, we all know Gremlins rule the field, and even if we wanted too, there's nothing we can do. As much as it sucks to be IRON right now, it sucks much more to be everyone else since all of our hands seem to be [i]tied[/i] and the realization that we're obviously nothing compared to Ram.
[/quote]
RnR could jump in to defend their treaty partner from these idiotic demands the gRAMlins are making. You think members of CnG or MHA will touch a member of SF and LEO? I highly doubt it.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 April 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1270570721' post='2250418']
IRON does have some treaty partners that are not currently limited from declaring war.
[/quote]

Ultimately, nobody is restricted from doing what they want

Edited April 6, 2010 by Lennox

[Baldr]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='06 April 2010 - 11:21 AM' 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]

Gramlins entered to defend allies - and their allies are no longer at war. That war ended.

IMO, anyone entering this war to support IRON is in a different war.

I don' think that matters, though, because the Gramlins Allies are going to be their allies no matter whether you call it "same war" or "different war". They are going to continue to enable Gramlins, and aren't going to allow someone else to get involved on the IRON side.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Shamshir' date='06 April 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1270592211' post='2250778']
be nice we don't call your alliance The Shiite Oblivion do we?

IRON and DAWN can end the war at any moment
[/quote]

No, the ball is in your court.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]it seems gRAMlins as your calling us is fair and the use of a muslim sect, which is part of the largest schism in Islam is not[/quote]
Well that's because Grämlins appears to have been taken over by Ram, whereas as far as I'm aware there is nothing Shiite about how TSO is run.

[dvdcchn]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 April 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1270598344' post='2250900']
Well that's because Grämlins appears to have been taken over by Ram, whereas as far as I'm aware there is nothing Shiite about how TSO is run.
[/quote]

oh, i see what you did thar...

[Azrael Alexander]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='07 April 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1270598344' post='2250900']
Well that's because Grämlins appears to have been taken over by Ram, whereas as far as I'm aware there is nothing Shiite about how TSO is run.
[/quote]

Yeah it was supposed to be an overt referance to the MCXA-TSO split that was pretty Shiite

and i c what ya did thar

Edited April 7, 2010 by Shamshir

[steodonn]

Come there has to be someone in Grämlins thats sees how !@#$@#$ stupid and unreasonable your being

[Vilien]

[quote name='steodonn' date='06 April 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1270599329' post='2250927']
Come there has to be someone in Grämlins thats sees how !@#$@#$ stupid and unreasonable your being
[/quote]
They left the alliance a long time ago.

[Fate]

Enough with the almost-homophone to a censored word. It's completely off topic, among other things.

[Baldr]

[quote name='steodonn' date='06 April 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1270599329' post='2250927']
Come there has to be someone in Grämlins thats sees how !@#$@#$ stupid and unreasonable your being
[/quote]

I expect when nukes start flying their way, they may have a change of heart.

Give some time for the IRON/DAWN nations who were in anarchy to reset, then see what happens.

I'm hoping IRON requires Gramlins to surrender unconditionally. Several Gramlins have already said that they aren't asking anything from IRON that they wouldn't agree to if it were their alliance - I'd like to see just how true that is.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Baldr

[Nizzle]

No one else finds it absolutely HILARIOUS that gRAMlins are violating their codex? Or that they entered to SUPPORT an ally, who is now free of war, and yet are demanding unconditional surrender while EVERYONE else has peaced out?

There is no hilarity to be found in MHA/gRAMlins previously spouting that their alliances are "like one" but now MHA is all like "We aren't responsible for their actions"?

I mean, come on folks, stop making yourselves look foolish by claiming you can't do anything about this travesty (which is, of course, an outright lie coming from folks who point to practically invisible treaties as justification for helping gRAMlins) and laugh at the hypocrisy that you are supporting, endorsing even.

I mean, do you expect anyone to believe you are helpless to stop this when gRAMlins and yourselves support these unknown, infinite bonds of "friendship" that take the place of treaties? Seriously.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='07 April 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1270599991' post='2250943']
No one else finds it absolutely HILARIOUS that gRAMlins are violating their codex? Or that they entered to SUPPORT an ally, who is now free of war, and yet are demanding unconditional surrender while EVERYONE else has peaced out?

There is no hilarity to be found in MHA/gRAMlins previously spouting that their alliances are "like one" but now MHA is all like "We aren't responsible for their actions"?

I mean, come on folks, stop making yourselves look foolish by claiming you can't do anything about this travesty (which is, of course, an outright lie coming from folks who point to practically invisible treaties as justification for helping gRAMlins) and laugh at the hypocrisy that you are supporting, endorsing even.

I mean, do you expect anyone to believe you are helpless to stop this when gRAMlins and yourselves support these unknown, infinite bonds of "friendship" that take the place of treaties? Seriously.
[/quote]

Yes, I find it absolutely hilarious nizzle, along with the outrage. Im undecided though as to which is funnier, the flushing down the toilet of the last few nuggets of the honorable alliance gramlins used to be, or the bawwing of people here who cant believe this is happening.

Im just hopeful the toilet clogs and no one rushes in the plunge it, I mean now that the war is over, what else do we have?

[AirMe]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='06 April 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1270599991' post='2250943']
No one else finds it absolutely HILARIOUS that gRAMlins are violating their codex? Or that they entered to SUPPORT an ally, who is now free of war, and yet are demanding unconditional surrender while EVERYONE else has peaced out?

There is no hilarity to be found in MHA/gRAMlins previously spouting that their alliances are "like one" but now MHA is all like "We aren't responsible for their actions"?

I mean, come on folks, stop making yourselves look foolish by claiming you can't do anything about this travesty (which is, of course, an outright lie coming from folks who point to practically invisible treaties as justification for helping gRAMlins) and laugh at the hypocrisy that you are supporting, endorsing even.

I mean, do you expect anyone to believe you are helpless to stop this when gRAMlins and yourselves support these unknown, infinite bonds of "friendship" that take the place of treaties? Seriously.
[/quote]

2 weeks too late. We already had this discussion and the answer we all received was "our codex means what we want it to mean."

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='KainIIIC' date='06 April 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1270585735' post='2250653']
Matt Miller will take down gRamlins, all by himself! GO GO GADGET BUBBLER!
[/quote]
Matt Miller is outstanding, and IRON is fortunate to have him.
However, he's now in PM.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='06 April 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1270597887' post='2250891']
Gramlins entered to defend allies - and their allies are no longer at war. That war ended.

IMO, anyone entering this war to support IRON is in a different war.

I don' think that matters, though, because the Gramlins Allies are going to be their allies no matter whether you call it "same war" or "different war". They are going to continue to enable Gramlins, and aren't going to allow someone else to get involved on the IRON side.
[/quote]
According to IRON and DAWN, we entered aggressively as we had no treaty obligation to do so.

[Penkala]

[quote name='omfghi2u2' date='06 April 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1270531441' post='2250066']
I am still perplexed as to why Sparta is gaining tech from a offensive war on CnG/

-omfg
[/quote]

Because it's not an offensive war. It's a defensive one. It doesn't matter what mechanics of a treaty were activated. What matters is if Sparta declared to defend someone being attacked, or if they declared to attack or help attack an alliance. Sparta made a defensive declaration (helping DEFEND CnG from an AGGRESSIVE TOP). It doesn't matter if they utilized and ODP or OAP or no treaty at all. That does not change the nature of the declaration, and does not make it an aggressive maneuver.

Likewise, the entire old hegemony was aggressive in this war, no matter if they utilized the 'defense' portion of their treaties or not. For example, NpO attacked. NSO helped back their attack. NSO was not fighting a defensive war.

If you refuse to put in the effort to figure through things you probably shouldn't bother waving around the offensive or defensive label. The term in the treaty does not change what is an aggressive action and what is a defensive action. It's just the mechanics and legalese used to signal an entrance into the war.

@Yev, you're paying 100k tech to C&G and some other tech to other alliances (42k tech total), plus another 100+k tech in indirect payments. I was calculating your entire tech burden worth of direct tech, not just what you owe to CnG. And yeah, it's what matters, because you're only going to lose 30% of your tech, not 61%. That makes a massive difference.

[quote]All CnG alliances basically have a MADP with each other, but aggression doesn't matter when IRON and TOP attacked the CnG block, thus sparta acted in defense as if it were part of CnG. Thanks for the question, this has been brought up on several occasions publicly and in private. Stop by our IRC chan or our boards if you want further information. Thanks.[/quote]

They don't care about your position on things. They're just attempting character assassination of an alliance they see as a weak link because others were also vocal about your performance during the Karma war. They believe they can seize on some peoples' disappointment in your upper tier's performance to publicly bash you and lower your credibility. Good thing that just like everything else, they're terribly incompetent at it.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Penkala

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 April 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1270604677' post='2251032']
According to IRON and DAWN, we entered aggressively as we had no treaty obligation to do so.
[/quote]

Right... that is what "treaty less" means. If you have no binding treaties, it is impossible to have a treaty obligation. You can have a moral obligation, but that is very different than a "treaty obligation". Ultimately your belief that you have a moral obligation is a choice you make. Yours was a war of choice not of necessity.

[Lonely]

[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 11:14 AM' 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]

Several years too late. Archon and friends know all about what it’s like to lose wars. I’m no fan of LUE by any means, but you can’t ignore history. That’s not even to mention the No-CB war.

[quote name='Shamshir' date='06 April 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1270592211' post='2250778']
be nice we don't call your alliance The Shiite Oblivion do we?
[/quote]

Well actually.....

... enter King Penchuk!

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='06 April 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1270605182' post='2251044']
Right... that is what "treaty less" means. If you have no binding treaties, it is impossible to have a treaty obligation. You can have a moral obligation, but that is very different than a "treaty obligation". Ultimately your belief that you have a moral obligation is a choice you make. Yours was a war of choice not of necessity.
[/quote]

All wars are declared by choice. A treaty just means you are agreeing to fight ahead of time; you're still making the choice to fight.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='06 April 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1270605270' post='2251046']
All wars are declared by choice. A treaty just means you are agreeing to fight ahead of time; you're still making the choice to fight.
[/quote]

I don't disagree. My point is it is absurd to say "we were obligated by treaty to fight" when you have no treaty.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 April 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1270604421' post='2251027']
Matt Miller is outstanding, and IRON is fortunate to have him.
However, he's now in PM.
[/quote]
Matthew, thank you for the kind words, but I just can't let the PM bit slide. I posted on these very forums several times asking why Gramlins weren't taking my last defensive slot. You yourself promised to find someone to do something about it. I even sent ingame messages to some members of your alliance asking what was up with the lack of declarations. After several days of no response to my invitation to a spot on the carousel my wars ended and I took the opportunity to break a streak of 64 days straight of eating nukes. I'm sure I'll be back in the action at some point and look forward to seeing what Gramlins does in a war where they can't play the jackal pouncing on the already outnumbered prey.

[Kochers]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='06 April 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1270605270' post='2251046']
All wars are declared by choice. A treaty just means you are agreeing to fight ahead of time; you're still making the choice to fight.
[/quote]
Wise words my good sir; wise words indeed.

Obligatory o/ to peace

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Penkala' date='06 April 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1270604998' post='2251041']
Likewise, the entire old hegemony was aggressive in this war, no matter if they utilized the 'defense' portion of their treaties or not. For example, NpO attacked. NSO helped back their attack. NSO was not fighting a defensive war.
[/quote]

This is an irrelevant conclusion. Our war was activated via a defensive clause. You can make the argument that Polar was the aggressor in the first place and we were assisting their aggression, but that is an irrelevant conclusion nonetheless. The matter at hand is that we defended Polar, not whether or not Polar was the aggressor.

Same thing with Sparta: they defended CnG when they were attacked. It does not matter that CnG were not aggressors.