Is the war over or are the terms eternal?

[Haflinger]

Frankly, the truth is I'd just like to see R&R honour their MDP. They have no conflicting treaty agreements preventing them from doing so now. Hmmm, I think I feel a blog coming on...

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='04 May 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1272977658' post='2286327']


C&G and its allies know how to end the war. They are simply unwilling to do it. If that makes them guilty of a crime, then so be it.
[/quote]

What are you talking about, your not making sense. It was literally just said that no one has asked to be released from terms.

Stop alteregoing, you strike me as smarter then that.

[BlkAK47_002]

I dont understand what everyone is waiting on

Edited May 4, 2010 by BlkAK47002

[shilo]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='04 May 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1272986523' post='2286404']
What are you talking about, your not making sense. It was literally just said that no one has asked to be released from terms.

Stop alteregoing, you strike me as smarter then that.
[/quote]
The problem is that alliances get attacked by gRAMlins friends after having been released from terms if they chose to help.

[ktarthan]

In response to a number of posts - I find it hard to consider posting about something in an OWF thread "approaching" an alliance. [b]Maybe[/b] the OP could be considered as such, but it doesn't specifically name any alliances and is more formed as an open letter and question to the community. There's absolutely no way to be sure that any of the alliances that should see this will, and no way to be sure that the right members of those alliances will view and respond.

In response to "But if anyone does anything they'll get stomped anyways":
1) Have any alliances specifically mentioned that this is a factor holding them back from taking action?
2) If so, have any of these alliances attempted to negotiate directly at all?

The point I am trying to make is that this thread is going to accomplish very little.

It may serve as a venue for discussion on the topic, but I can tell you with near certainty that such discussion is not the thing that will change the things it wants to change.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='shilo' date='04 May 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1272991724' post='2286488']
The problem is that alliances get attacked by gRAMlins friends after having been released from terms if they chose to help.
[/quote]


No, that's a made up problem that there is zero evidence to support. It's been used as a soap box line here to try and smear CnG, and nothing has been said that would actually lead one to that conclusion.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[shilo]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='04 May 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1272999023' post='2286575']
Did you mean they will get attacked by someone [i]other [/i]then Gre if they choose to help?
[/quote]
If it were gRAMlins, I don't think anyone would be concerned when helping us against them is the goal, wouldn't you say?

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='shilo' date='04 May 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1272999129' post='2286578']
If it were gRAMlins, I don't think anyone would be concerned when helping us against them is the goal, wouldn't you say?
[/quote]

Something was blocking the word "friends" on my screen :x I edited above.

[shilo]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='04 May 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1272999297' post='2286579']
Something was blocking the word "friends" on my screen :x I edited above.
[/quote]


[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='04 May 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1272999023' post='2286575']
No, that's a made up problem that there is zero evidence to support. It's been used as a soap box line here to try and smear CnG, and nothing has been said that would actually lead one to that conclusion.
[/quote]
Personally, I have developed quite some respect for more than one guy from the other side, among which is SW for how he conducted peace negotiations. I'd be glad to leave CnG (and others, one of your SF allies as well) doing there thing and have started paying our reps, and that would be it for me concerning them.

But we do have the issue that some alliance have made sublime commentary making it clear that the road doesn't end with alliances being released from terms (such as those alliances currently under terms by you guys) rather that gRAMlins are being supported in their paperless route, and can count on military support not only from MHA, who still are allied to gRAMlins, but others without any treaty ties to gRAMlins.
Since supporting gRAMlins without being bound by treaty in what they doing now is more than just being allied to asshats, but explicitly supporting their actions without having to, it implies a direct support of gRAMlins and what they are doing now.

So why would any alliance waste the time to hope to negotiate a release of terms from let's say VE, when and if that has been achieved, MHA as direct ally, and many other "friends" of gRAMlins will crush them if they do anything to help us?

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='shilo' date='04 May 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1272999832' post='2286583']



Personally, I have developed quite some respect for more than one guy from the other side, among which is SW for how he conducted peace negotiations. I'd be glad to leave CnG (and others, one of your SF allies as well) doing there thing and have started paying our reps, and that would be it for me concerning them.

But we do have the issue that some alliance have made sublime commentary making it clear that the road doesn't end with alliances being released from terms (such as those alliances currently under terms by you guys) rather that gRAMlins are being supported in their paperless route, and can count on military support not only from MHA, who still are allied to gRAMlins, but others without any treaty ties to gRAMlins.
Since supporting gRAMlins without being bound by treaty in what they doing now is more than just being allied to asshats, but explicitly supporting their actions without having to, it implies a direct support of gRAMlins and what they are doing now.

So why would any alliance waste the time to hope to negotiate a release of terms from let's say VE, when and if that has been achieved, MHA as direct ally, and many other "friends" of gRAMlins will crush them if they do anything to help us?
[/quote]

Once again, I've seen this said, but I have not seen it. I asked once before where to find such commentary and was told that there was none but the conclusion was being drawn from the lack of commentary indicating the opposite...and that's just stupid.

[Bob]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='30 April 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1272658299' post='2281544']
I'm sorry, what do you want us to do? Make an announcement titled "F. Gre up, boys!" ?

OWF is not the place to reveal, much less discuss delicate matters like this. More importantly, beside all the whining, there seem to be little, to no actual will among IRON allies to do something about this situation. Has anyone from governments bonded by no re-entry clause in peace with MHA actually approached our gov? Has anyone asked if we think the situation changed enough to void this clause?
No.
Because, frankly - no one seems interested in helping IRON militarily, they just milk it for PR purposes.
[/quote]
Did you expect differently? I hope not D:

[Bob Janova]

Shilo, have MHA or C&G actually said that to you? From what I've seen they are carefully not stating their position, whereas your post implies it is a certainty that people helping you will be attacked. I've not seen anything more than a few oblique hints about that. I agree that they should clarify the position and have refused to do so, but I haven't seen anything which says they would definitely intervene.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='shilo' date='04 May 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1272999832' post='2286583']
So why would any alliance waste the time to hope to negotiate a release of terms from let's say VE, when and if that has been achieved, MHA as direct ally, and many other "friends" of gRAMlins will crush them if they do anything to help us?[/quote]
Because they might be encouraged by fairly obvious hints given over [b]and over[/b] again by VE. Furthermore, they might believe that being released by one alliance might be used as an argument/leverage in talks with others. If they believe that aforementioned ally and unnamed friends can be reasoned with, and* that they could build a strong case [size="1"](as in argumentation)[/size] to present, then [b]why[/b] the hell [b]not even try?[/b] (Or rather "¿" ;-) ). Seems like you are more afraid of a positive answer.
[i]
"You won't brake down a wall with your head. But if everything other failed - you might as well try."[/i]

[sup]*[/sup][size="1"] [sub]in common, non M-PK definition of word "and"

[edits: uh, bad reference with[/sub][/size] [size="1"]¿[sub] had to be mended.]
[/sub][/size]

Edited May 4, 2010 by Cormalek

[Charles the Great]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='04 May 2010 - 04:50 PM' timestamp='1272999023' post='2286575']
No, that's a made up problem that there is zero evidence to support. It's been used as a soap box line here to try and smear CnG, and nothing has been said that would actually lead one to that conclusion.
[/quote]


[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='04 May 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1273000893' post='2286601']
Once again, I've seen this said, but I have not seen it. I asked once before where to find such commentary and was told that there was none but the conclusion was being drawn from the lack of commentary indicating the opposite...and that's just stupid.
[/quote]

Someone from MHA or MK I forget who, stated in one of these threads that anyone who attacked gRAMlins would be attacked..............I am not searching through all this mess to find it.

Thank you,
CtG

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Charles the Great' date='05 May 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1273089110' post='2287911']
Someone from MHA or MK I forget who, stated in one of these threads that anyone who attacked gRAMlins would be attacked..............I am not searching through all this mess to find it.

Thank you,
CtG
[/quote]
"Someone" is usually not a reliable source. Don't believe what random member xyz says. Believe people with a track record of knowing what they are talking about and government.

[Baldr]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='05 May 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1273089510' post='2287923']
"Someone" is usually not a reliable source. Don't believe what random member xyz says. Believe people with a track record of knowing what they are talking about and government.
[/quote]

If MK or MHA government wanted to come out and say that they wouldn't defend Gramlins, they would. It's been stated (perhaps not officially) that they will defend Gramlins, and they haven't done anything to deny that.

I don't blame them for sticking by their allies. That makes sense to me. All of the "we haven't officially said it, so go ahead and try (heh heh heh)" stuff is silly. Everyone knows where they stand.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Baldr' date='05 May 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1273091832' post='2287984']
If MK or MHA government wanted to come out and say that they wouldn't defend Gramlins, they would. It's been stated (perhaps not officially) that they will defend Gramlins, and they haven't done anything to deny that.

I don't blame them for sticking by their allies. That makes sense to me. All of the "we haven't officially said it, so go ahead and try (heh heh heh)" stuff is silly. Everyone knows where they stand.
[/quote]

Hehe, yeah, right. Why would we go out and say "get at them boys!" ? It is the people who want to fight them who have to seek us to get our position on this, not the other way around.

The only gov official (that I'm aware of) that took the hint and came to talk to MHA gov through appropriate diplomatic channels was Golan1st, and he is from DAWN. As for now, it seems that no alliance allied to IRON or DAWN wants to get involved, and they use the argument about VE, CnG and MHA as an excuse, so they can eat the pie and still have it "Oh, we would [i]so[/i] want to enter. But they won't let us!" "Did you ask them?" "Hell no! You're mad? What if they'd agree? But they didn't say we [i]can[/i]!".

Next you will be complaining that we don't declare on them for you.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Baldr' date='05 May 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1273091832' post='2287984']
If MK or MHA government wanted to come out and say that they wouldn't defend Gramlins, they would. It's been stated (perhaps not officially) that they will defend Gramlins, and they haven't done anything to deny that.

I don't blame them for sticking by their allies. That makes sense to me. All of the "we haven't officially said it, so go ahead and try (heh heh heh)" stuff is silly. Everyone knows where they stand.
[/quote]

MK is not allied to Gre, and I just plain have not seen any statement, official or unofficial, saying they will defend them. Same goes for MHA, though I believe there was something like 2 posts where MHA members said something semi threatening, however even then the great weight of opinion has been agienst what their fellow harmlins are doing.

There is no reason for me to tell you that I'm not an elephant, as I'm obviously not an elephant. There is no reason for MK to tell you they wont be defending Gre, because they obviously have no treaty with Gre and have made zero indication that they will defend them. It's as simple as that. As for MHA, that's a bit more of a toss up but I would hope they could see why it would be prudent to not interfere in this type of situation. I don't think they want to be the ones who try and turn this into a curb stomp in defense of unconditional surrender, as they could very well end up being the ones who get rolled in that case, or, att the absolute least, think of the PR mess that would happen if they got involved...it would be like setting themselves up to get rolled a few months from now. It just wouldn't be rational for them to enter on Gre's behalf.

You have a clear path to try and get justice for your friends in IRON and DOWN, and all you have to do is ask the relevant parties and see what happens. Even if you think MHA would defend Gre, you can still get released and have a nice chat with all the relevant parties in an attempt to come to an accord before hitting Gre and putting MHA in the hot seat.

So, all of you who are vocal here, you have to ask yourselves why are you concerned with this? Is it because of the bad precedent it sets and the fact that it radiates injustice? Or is it because you want a chance to throw mud at the guy on the other side of the fence? If your doing the latter, its visibly obvious, it makes you look absolutely ridiculous, your doing far more to hurt your case then help it, and your reminding everyone why your on the other side of the fence in the first place.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='05 May 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1273093488' post='2288016']
So, all of you who are vocal here, you have to ask yourselves why are you concerned with this? Is it because of the bad precedent it sets and the fact that it radiates injustice? Or is it because you want a chance to throw mud at the guy on the other side of the fence? If your doing the latter, its visibly obvious, it makes you look absolutely ridiculous, your doing far more to hurt your case then help it, and your reminding everyone why your on the other side of the fence in the first place.
[/quote]
I've been trying to figure out a good way of saying this for the past 5 or so pages. Thanks for putting it far more eloquently than I ever could.

Edit: spellling

Edited May 5, 2010 by ktarthan

[Biff Webster]

Someone should just admit Jarlaxle to their alliance and open a new war.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='05 May 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1273093229' post='2288011']
Next you will be complaining that we don't declare on them for you.
[/quote]

I think you are misunderstanding me. If I wanted to get involved, I'd just join IRON or DAWN for the duration of the war. I'm not a member of any government, and have been moving around alliance to alliance for a bit anyway, so I in no way speak for anyone but me. My help wouldn't do a lot, though - the NS line between Gramlins/IRON is at around 50k NS, and I'm smaller than that.

And as I stated, I have no problem with allies of Gramlins saying "Hey, we're their allies, we won't sit by while someone from outside comes in to roll them." To me, that's pretty natural. I don't see the need for all the "we won't tell you our stance" stuff is all I'm saying.

I don't have any close ties to IRON or DAWN, and I thought TOP/IRON did stupid stuff the way they entered the war that led to this situation. Like many, I previously thought fairly well of Gramlins - something that has changed with their actions. The only reason I care about the issue at all is that I very strongly dislike the idea that an alliance can require unconditional surrender and whatever terms they want to come up with afterwards.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Baldr' date='05 May 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1273095078' post='2288055']
I think you are misunderstanding me. If I wanted to get involved, I'd just join IRON or DAWN for the duration of the war. I'm not a member of any government, and have been moving around alliance to alliance for a bit anyway, so I in no way speak for anyone but me. My help wouldn't do a lot, though - the NS line between Gramlins/IRON is at around 50k NS, and I'm smaller than that.

And as I stated, I have no problem with allies of Gramlins saying "Hey, we're their allies, we won't sit by while someone from outside comes in to roll them." To me, that's pretty natural. I don't see the need for all the "we won't tell you our stance" stuff is all I'm saying.

I don't have any close ties to IRON or DAWN, and I thought TOP/IRON did stupid stuff the way they entered the war that led to this situation. Like many, I previously thought fairly well of Gramlins - something that has changed with their actions. The only reason I care about the issue at all is that I very strongly dislike the idea that an alliance can require unconditional surrender and whatever terms they want to come up with afterwards.
[/quote]

dude, i am 15k and left IAA to join DAWN. any help is better than none, especially since there will be more Gre nations below 50k NS soon enough.

[Cortath]

[quote name='Denial' date='04 May 2010 - 12:14 AM' timestamp='1272946435' post='2286032']
If you consider a smear campaign that is nothing more than a piss-poor attempt at milking some PR points to be diplomatic, then it explains why Invicta is so frequently surrendering. As Tromp, Impero, Typo, myself, and others have stated, all that it would take for many alliances to hear out the apparent plight of surrendered parties is for them to drop the rhetoric and baseless accusations, and to actually conduct themselves in a somewhat diplomatic and professional manner. The forums have never been a place for negotiating or renegotiating surrender terms, or discussing sensitive issues, both due to the fact that entirely uninvolved parties can derail the process, and simply because other venues are far more practical.

As for your comment regarding your signature, what I stated there is incontrovertible fact. The New Pacific Order has been able to sign treaties throughout its time spent under surrender terms; it is not my fault that, on the very few occasions they have sought permission to sign treaties (the fact that they have been able to seek permission to sign treaties is concrete proof that they are capable of signing them), there has been a minority of parties exercising their veto.
[/quote]

That's a ludicrously stupid argument. Really. I'm impressed.

We also have the "capacity" to militarize and become a sovereign alliance, but we'd break our terms and be beat down again. But I guess we always had that "capacity" so these terms aren't really all that bad, eh?

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='05 May 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1273093488' post='2288016']
So, all of you who are vocal here, you have to ask yourselves why are you concerned with this? Is it because of the bad precedent it sets and the fact that it radiates injustice? Or is it because you want a chance to throw mud at the guy on the other side of the fence? If your doing the latter, its visibly obvious, it makes you look absolutely ridiculous, your doing far more to hurt your case then help it, and your reminding everyone why your on the other side of the fence in the first place.
[/quote]
Well the same can be said for your side,

Alterego posted a simple topic asking "Is the war over or are the terms eternal". Most likely trying to get a feel for where some people and alliances stand. Some people on your side of the fence saw this as an invitation to intiate mud-slinging which they did and manged to effectivley blow this thread out of proportion and take this debate in a new direction which it wasn't originally intended.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='06 May 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1273204226' post='2289785']
Well the same can be said for your side,

Alterego posted a simple topic asking "Is the war over or are the terms eternal". Most likely trying to get a feel for where some people and alliances stand. Some people on your side of the fence saw this as an invitation to intiate mud-slinging which they did and manged to effectivley blow this thread out of proportion and take this debate in a new direction which it wasn't originally intended.
[/quote]

And our answer for the last dozen pages has been "if you are concerned about your terms come talk to us"

Guess what? No one seems to care enough, because nobodies contacted us.