Who's Tech Dealing With The Gramlins

[pezstar]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='21 April 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1271888862' post='2269698']
Yes
[/quote]

Hey, at least you're willing to call a spade a spade. I can respect that.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='21 April 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1271887962' post='2269669']
!@#$%^&*. They are not the same thing.

TOP/IRON should be deterred from declaring war on C&G like because of the damage that would have been caused to their nations and their PR but that obviously didn't prevent them from doing so.
[/quote]
And they got rolled for it. Also, they were 25 million NS and believed they were entering as part of a coalition that stood a chance of winning, so the deterrence was a lot less than it would be for any alliance thinking of helping IRON/DAWN now. Deterrence is the closest you can get to prevention (you can never truly prevent anything, there's always the nuke rogue on grey team), and what the TOP-C&G front showed is that your deterrence was insufficient to prevent an attack, not that a deterrent is not intended to be the same as a political prevention.

I don't even know what your point is really but in order not to let the basic point here get buried under a pile of dumb semantics: it is MK's [i]intention[/i] to prevent anyone from helping IRON/DAWN through the threat of being rolled by C&G. Your stance is, by design, greatly reducing the chance of anyone from helping them, and therefore you are enabling Grämlins' ridiculous policy.

I don't think people should be aiding IRON or DAWN either, but when one alliance is straying so far outside the norms, people feel the need to do likewise to help the people they're keeping down.

[SirWilliam]

Hypocrisy is acceptable if you're convinced you're in the right. Got it.

[Mushroom Man]

[quote name='Alterego' date='22 April 2010 - 07:24 AM' timestamp='1271885035' post='2269563']
Your day will come again and you will pay for your crimes.
[/quote]
You're not going to break the cycle either!?!?! Curses. Oh well, better make sure you NEVER GET BACK IN POWER AGAIN.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='21 April 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1271889609' post='2269719']
Hypocrisy is acceptable if you're convinced you're in the right. Got it.
[/quote]

Sorry, but I believe your definition of hypocrisy is wrong, that's the problem.

We would be hypocrites if next year IRON held Gre in a war where Gre had to decomm everything and agree to mystery reps before they get peace, and kept dealing tech to Gre.

[pezstar]

[quote name='Mushroom Man' date='21 April 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1271889719' post='2269725']
You're not going to break the cycle either!?!?! Curses. Oh well, better make sure you NEVER GET BACK IN POWER AGAIN.
[/quote]

I'm disappointed that it wasn't a threat.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='pezstar' date='21 April 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1271888755' post='2269694']
So what you're saying is that it's fine for folks to aid IRON, but not to aid Gre?
[/quote]

I think it's obvious that aiding IRON and aiding Gramlins is not the same thing. Where these moralist-come-latelys draw the distinction is that what Gramlins is doing (forcing IRON to win this war) is wrong and what IRON is doing (insisting on losing) is right.

[Tautology]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='21 April 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1271889777' post='2269726']
Sorry, but I believe your definition of hypocrisy is wrong, that's the problem.[/quote]
That's funny when you think about it.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='21 April 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1271889609' post='2269719']
Hypocrisy is acceptable if you're convinced you're in the right. Got it.
[/quote]
There's no hypocrisy, just a different set of rules. It's only hypocrisy if these people have supported sending aid to people who've required someone to unconditionally surrender in the past – and as we know that's unprecedented, it can't possibly have happened.

I'm not sure hypocrisy is even the word you want, I think you want double standards, but either way it's not accurate here, because helping Grämlins – the oppressor trying to push unreasonable terms – and helping DAWN/IRON – the victims of said oppression – are not equivalent to each other. It may be hard to grasp from within C&G, as you might still be feeling like the victims from the way that front opened, but morally at least [i]Grämlins are the alliance acting aggressively now[/i], not IRON/DAWN.

It's not hypocritical to have a moral code of 'help the downtrodden' that you place over and above the normal 'don't aid alliances at war'.

[SirWilliam]

No, hypocrisy was the word I was looking for. Thanks though.

I can't make anyone see it, but as evidenced by this thread, some of us do.

[Bob Janova]

Well then you need to explain what here you think is hypocritical, and from whom it is coming, because I don't see any (possibly apart from seeing C&Gers supporting a clearly unjust ally after complaining about the NPO and other Hegemony alliances propping up the likes of Valhalla and TPF in the old days, but I'm sure that's not what you mean!).

(e: used the wrong word )

Edited April 21, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 April 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1271890237' post='2269734']
There's no hypocrisy, just a different set of rules. It's only hypocrisy if these people have supported sending aid to people who've required someone to unconditionally surrender in the past – and as we know that's unprecedented, it can't possibly have happened.

I'm not sure hypocrisy is even the word you want, I think you want double standards, but either way it's not accurate here, because helping Grämlins – the oppressor trying to push unreasonable terms – and helping DAWN/IRON – the victims of said oppression – are not equivalent to each other. It may be hard to grasp from within C&G, as you might still be feeling like the victims from the way that front opened, but morally at least [i]Grämlins are the alliance acting aggressively now[/i], not IRON/DAWN.

It's not hypocritical to have a moral code of 'help the downtrodden' that you place over and above the normal 'don't aid alliances at war'.
[/quote]

This is only true if you believe DAWN/IRON are victims and will end up loosing the war. Thats no longer a given Bob, GRE is loosing through attrition, PR and well there lower ranks are getting hit hard. Thus they may be the victim here, not of IRON/DAWN of course but poor leadership. The circumstances of the war have changed and while others might be enabling GRE to conduct the war of thier choosing they certainly dont seem to be lining up to stagger in fresh dow's.

Im not sold DAWN and IRON are going to loose, things might not be rosey for them but I imagine the knee slapping, fun loving times on the gramlins homefront(you remember those right?) is peetering out as well.

[the masheen]

Everyone keeps talking about this eternal war, but fail to acknowledge the IDEA of IRON actually surrendering. In your heart, or whatever heart you have left, do you really believe that if IRON surrenders they will be rolled? In your brain, whatever brain you have left, do you really believe that the rest of planet bob will just stand around and let that happen? Make whatever jokes you want, but I have a little faith in Bob here.

This whole thread isn't even about tech dealing with Gremlins, helping IRON, or what ever it's original intent was supposed to be. It has become about winning an argument. Honestly, do you guys really think that your nagging will finally get to MK to the point where they say, "Yeah, you're right. Our bad, just go ahead and roll our friend." No. There's no way either side is giving in. The best we could do, and if you really cared about IRON and not yourself, you should encourage some sort of compromise. Here's mine:

IRON unconditionally surrenders to GRE
Gre gives them terms
Mushroom Kingdom must agree with the terms that our given
If they don't agree with the terms, Mushroom Kingdom will agree to not come to the aid of Gremlins (then you can all stomp them if you actually meant it and weren't just being punks)

Maybe I'm being way too optomistic, but it's quite apparent that it's either eternal war or compromise. I really don't care that much since it doesn't effect me. So if you want to continue to argue 70 more pages of nonsense; GO FOR IT.

[Bob Janova]

Right, I should probably have put 'victims of said attempted oppression' or something. The fact that Grämlins aren't big enough to actually force this through is a nice change from the Hegemony era, and to give C&G the credit they deserve, they are not jumping in to stop IRON/DAWN from inching forward towards that slow victory.

That doesn't really change the moral position though.

Edit: Masheen, a 'compromise' which requires IRON to surrender unconditionally – the single thing which is the most ridiculous and started this whole public anger against Grämlins – is nothing of the sort. The way for it to get sorted quickly is for C&G to allow material support for IRON/DAWN, but with the proviso that they will only stay out while Grämlins are in the wrong; hanging the threat of their entry over the IRON side will make sure they don't push too far (for example trying to get reps from Grämlins, which might well happen at the moment when it's just IRON/DAWN, as C&G can't re-engage them without breaking the peace agreement), and hanging the threat of staying out over Grämlins should stop them being ridiculous, too. Either that or they keep being ridiculous and receive a justified rolling for it.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Bob Janova

[northstars]

We are bob's moral compass.

[shilo]

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 April 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1271888767' post='2269696']
heh- in addition to the aid- there is R&R seemingly harbouring top tier IRON nations :s
[/quote]
To quote SC: Hahah, don't even bother with this.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1271890584' post='2269744']
Well then you need to explain what here you think is hypocritical, and from whom it is coming, because I don't see any (possibly apart from seeing C&Gers supporting a clearly unjust ally after complaining about the NPO and other Hegemony alliances propping up the likes of Valhalla and TPF in the old days, but I'm sure that's not what you mean!).

(e: used the wrong word )
[/quote]
You're not supposed to point out this little error in their logic, remember, only when bad stuff happens to them is it bad, otherwise it's Friends>Infra

[Banksy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1271891109' post='2269755']
and to give C&G the credit they deserve, they are not jumping in to stop IRON/DAWN from inching forward towards that slow victory.[/quote]
We're not Bob's moral police.

[Pearl]

[quote name='the masheen' date='21 April 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1271891033' post='2269753']
Everyone keeps talking about this eternal war, but fail to acknowledge the IDEA of IRON actually surrendering. In your heart, or whatever heart you have left, do you really believe that if IRON surrenders they will be rolled? In your brain, whatever brain you have left, do you really believe that the rest of planet bob will just stand around and let that happen? Make whatever jokes you want, but I have a little faith in Bob here.

This whole thread isn't even about tech dealing with Gremlins, helping IRON, or what ever it's original intent was supposed to be. It has become about winning an argument. Honestly, do you guys really think that your nagging will finally get to MK to the point where they say, "Yeah, you're right. Our bad, just go ahead and roll our friend." No. There's no way either side is giving in. The best we could do, and if you really cared about IRON and not yourself, you should encourage some sort of compromise. Here's mine:

IRON unconditionally surrenders to GRE
Gre gives them terms
Mushroom Kingdom must agree with the terms that our given
If they don't agree with the terms, Mushroom Kingdom will agree to not come to the aid of Gremlins (then you can all stomp them if you actually meant it and weren't just being punks)

Maybe I'm being way too optomistic, but it's quite apparent that it's either eternal war or compromise. I really don't care that much since it doesn't effect me. So if you want to continue to argue 70 more pages of nonsense; GO FOR IT.
[/quote]
Don't use logic here. This is the OWF.

[steodonn]

This wont go on much longer. If anyone thinks C&G is propping up Grämlins they have very big definition of the word. Remember IRONs reps are on hold until this is over so the C&G has a vest interest in seeing this war end. Plus Grämlins seeming to be falling apart the longer this war goes on. I can see IRON winning ( well white peace ) if they want to go the distance but that really helps no one

[SirWilliam]

That would be a tad more logical/reasonable if:

1. IRON would even be open to unconditionally surrendering (to my understanding they would be under no circumstances).
2. MK was the only, or even the main, alliance one should be concerned with with regards to supporting Grämlins.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='20 April 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1271830559' post='2268908']
Yes, you are.
[/quote]

And the "No U" responses begin!

[quote name='ironchef' date='21 April 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1271876737' post='2269370']
Well this is a great PM. I think this makes it clear that aid to gRAMlins is a big no no and IRON and DAWN have a CB on any alliance that feels a need to keep sending aid to gRAM. Best part is because of Athens they can sit on it for 6 months and use it when they are good and ready to do so.
[/quote]

They have a gigantic CB against us. We're aiding an alliance they're fighting. And I wouldn't really care if they came back six months from now and attacked us for it.

However, that does not mean we support what they're doing.

I did a few tech deals with FOK last war even though they weren't on my side. Why did I do that? Because I needed the money and they were providing it.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='21 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271883669' post='2269525']
If one of your allies did something you didn't like would you let a third party roll them?
[/quote]
If one of my allies did something unprecedented in the history of Planet Bob that I fundamentally objected to, yes indeed.

[shilo]

[quote name='steodonn' date='22 April 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1271891870' post='2269773']
This wont go on much longer. If anyone thinks C&G is propping up Grämlins they have very big definition of the word. Remember IRONs reps are on hold until this is over so the C&G has a vest interest in seeing this war end. Plus Grämlins seeming to be falling apart the longer this war goes on. I can see IRON winning ( well white peace ) if they want to go the distance but that really helps no one
[/quote]
No matter how long we have to fight, what happens to us, if at some point we do reach the peace, we will pay as much reps to them as if we had had the chance to rebuild after the war ended like everyone else. And since CnG cares a lot for ramlins, and really not at all for us, the bonus is us getting beaten down even more - free of charge so to speak. So I think CnG won't mind if two alliances they dislike a lot are kept down for as long as possible, knowing they won't lose one dime of their reps no matter what.

It is why CnG is so happily enabling gRAMlins - there is no reason for them to stop gRAMlins.

[Banksy]

[quote name='shilo' date='22 April 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1271892213' post='2269781']
No matter how long we have to fight, what happens to us, if at some point we do reach the peace, we will pay as much reps to them as if we had had the chance to rebuild after the war ended like everyone else. And since CnG cares a lot for ramlins, and really not at all for us, the bonus is us getting beaten down even more - free of charge so to speak. So I think CnG won't mind if two alliances they dislike a lot are kept down for as long as possible, knowing they won't lose one dime of their reps no matter what.

It is why CnG is so happily enabling gRAMlins - there is no reason for them to stop gRAMlins.
[/quote]
Why would we want to beat down those we're receiving tech from, Shilo. Besides that, IRON are in, what, 0 defensive wars with the gremlins? Not particularly crippling

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 April 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1271888010' post='2269672']
Oh please- using that line of reasoning, all wars are eternal, when they begin. All wars continue indefinitely until one party surrenders. Gremlins might be in the wrong here, but that is a pathetic argument.
[/quote]
Actually, NSO have fought prearranged wars with a set timeline before. But yeah, if you change "all" to "most" then the pattern holds.

Why wars always have to end in surrender of one side is a bit odd though. But that's another discussion.

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 April 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1271888300' post='2269680']
TOP said they would never set terms in their recent war with C&G.
[/quote]
lolwut

Find a quote that actually says that.

[quote name='pezstar' date='21 April 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1271888755' post='2269694']
So what you're saying is that it's fine for folks to aid IRON, but not to aid Gre?
[/quote]
Actually, I would agree with that at this point. What the two alliances are doing is different. Your argument appears to be that aiding alliances at war is fundamentally immoral. I don't agree with that at all, having participated in Invicta's aidfall to Crimson Guard that significantly defused a potential powderkeg situation. War aid has to be considered on its own merits, and aiding IRON at this point is not going to result in any terrible outcomes, but the result of a Grämlins victory would leave an extremely uncertain future for Planet Bob - and the secondary possibility of creating a FAN scenario for IRON is really not desirable either.