Is the war over or are the terms eternal?

[shilo]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='07 May 2010 - 08:06 AM' timestamp='1273208772' post='2289939']
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.
[/quote]
I think it has been established more than once that this isn't really the main concern, no matter how often you say this.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1273235882' post='2290173']
I think it has been established more than once that this isn't really the main concern, no matter how often you say this.[/quote]

I think it has been established more than once, that same goes for possible allies defending Grämlins, no matter how often you change the subject.

[shilo]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='07 May 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1273238379' post='2290188']
I think it has been established more than once, that same goes for possible allies defending Grämlins, no matter how often you change the subject.
[/quote]
I am not changing the subject, rather we have some people come in here, make at best vague statements, curiously always refering to non-public ways of communication so that we may ask for their stance on the subject, rather than giving a very simple and clear cut answer to a very simple question. Of course, the whole intention of this is to avoid giving an answer in the first place, rather continue dodging around the only relevant question, and to take this away from the public, and to ultimately keep a vague threat in the air.
You are the true master of this approach, obviously.

Tromp showed that it is infact very simple, very easy, to give a very simple and clear answer to the two relevant questions asked countlessly in this thread here in public. Of course, likely his alliance had no plan to keep up the unclear threats to protect a friend.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1273241088' post='2290208']
I am not changing the subject, rather we have some people come in here, make at best vague statements, curiously always refering to non-public ways of communication so that we may ask for their stance on the subject, rather than giving a very simple and clear cut answer to a very simple question. Of course, the whole intention of this is to avoid giving an answer in the first place, rather continue dodging around the only relevant question, and to take this away from the public, and to ultimately keep a vague threat in the air.
You are the true master of this approach, obviously.

Tromp showed that it is infact very simple, very easy, to give a very simple and clear answer to the two relevant questions asked countlessly in this thread here in public. Of course, likely his alliance had no plan to keep up the unclear threats to protect a friend.
[/quote]

Come to us, query one of triumvirs and ask. How can they dodge then? And you will be free to come back here and say "they disallowed our entry". Or "they said they will countered if we join". So how is that keeping anything from public opinion? But if we gave the answer "we will not interfere", well, that would take the ammo from people who's aim is to continue a smear campaign. Not only this, but it would mean certain commitment. And no one likes warfare on those levels, as it is not pretty No. They'd rather whine that no one answered they questions, when they very well know how we see OWF. Why try to join the fight, when they can get all the PR points they would get by joining? Hah, even more.
People often trashtalk in the public, because they know it does not cause any commitments. We do not answer to people who think that the ability to get on soap box and shout, gives them all the rights alliance governments have.


We will not discuss this on OWF, as we do not recognize it as proper diplomatic channel. In case someone is wondering: asking in prayers, baking the questions in fortune cookie, tattooing it on forehead or writing it on a wall is not proper diplomatic channel either [ooc: nor is pastebin for that matter]. It is a fact, it will not change. Asking here is as good as the options I just listed.

"[i]very simple, very easy, to give a very simple and clear answe[/i]r", heh. We did that too. "42".

Now get back to asking proper, simple and clear question - and ask proper people in proper place.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 07:05 AM' timestamp='1273241088' post='2290208']
I am not changing the subject, rather we have some people come in here, make at best vague statements, curiously always refering to non-public ways of communication so that we may ask for their stance on the subject, rather than giving a very simple and clear cut answer to a very simple question. Of course, the whole intention of this is to avoid giving an answer in the first place, rather continue dodging around the only relevant question, and to take this away from the public, and to ultimately keep a vague threat in the air.
You are the true master of this approach, obviously.

Tromp showed that it is infact very simple, very easy, to give a very simple and clear answer to the two relevant questions asked countlessly in this thread here in public. Of course, likely his alliance had no plan to keep up the unclear threats to protect a friend.
[/quote]
What is the opposite of rose tinted glasses? Maybe brown tinted?

I don't know how you can honestly believe that making an accusing thread on the OWF should have the same diplomatic weight as contacting an alliance directly. Yes, Tromp decided to give an answer here, but that's his own prerogative.

As I've stated before, this kind of open letter has no certainty that it will even reach its intended recipient. Those who have found it are likely rejecting it based on principal, because it is not even asked in earnest - it's an obvious PR smear.

Taking these discussions in a more direct approach may keep the discussions themselves out of public, but the same thing happens when discussing any number of things, such as the surrenders that put these "terms" on the alliances in the first place. If the discussion does happen, and the result is unsatisfactory, then there is far more reason to have a thread like this.

Edit: What Cormalek said.

Edited May 7, 2010 by ktarthan

[shilo]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='07 May 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1273244538' post='2290252']
Come to us, query one of triumvirs and ask. How can they dodge then? And you will be free to come back here and say "they disallowed our entry". Or "they said they will countered if we join". So how is that keeping anything from public opinion? But if we gave the answer "we will not interfere", well, that would take the ammo from people who's aim is to continue a smear campaign. Not only this, but it would mean certain commitment. And no one likes warfare on those levels, as it is not pretty No. They'd rather whine that no one answered they questions, when they very well know how we see OWF. Why try to join the fight, when they can get all the PR points they would get by joining? Hah, even more.
People often trashtalk in the public, because they know it does not cause any commitments. We do not answer to people who think that the ability to get on soap box and shout, gives them all the rights alliance governments have.


We will not discuss this on OWF, as we do not recognize it as proper diplomatic channel. In case someone is wondering: asking in prayers, baking the questions in fortune cookie, tattooing it on forehead or writing it on a wall is not proper diplomatic channel either [ooc: nor is pastebin for that matter]. It is a fact, it will not change. Asking here is as good as the options I just listed.

"[i]very simple, very easy, to give a very simple and clear answe[/i]r", heh. We did that too. "42".

Now get back to asking proper, simple and clear question - and ask proper people in proper place.
[/quote]
Your argument would have one bit of merit were I part of a third party just looking to take some cheap shots at alliances I dislike.
There are numerous reasons though why it has not one bit of merit, among those is:
-I am directly involved as my alliance is at war with the gRAMlins, smearing uninvolved parties doesn't help my situation one bit, at best it won't improve my situation
-my goal is to get my alliance and my ally to peace quicker, not smear alliances I don't really care about
[quote name='Cormalek' date='07 May 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1273244538' post='2290252']
Come to us, query one of triumvirs and ask. How can they dodge then? And you will be free to come back here and say "they disallowed our entry". Or "they said they will countered if we join". So how is that keeping anything from public opinion? But if we gave the answer "we will not interfere", well, that would take the ammo from people who's aim is to continue a smear campaign. Not only this, but it would mean certain commitment. And no one likes warfare on those levels, as it is not pretty No.[/quote]
This made me curious, it seems your argumentation for why you do not want to make a public state is that you don't want to stop giving people ammunition for a smear campaign, and above all, we could pin you on your position.

So you want to be smeared by people, and you want to make sure your position stays unclear.
Good, exactly what I said in my above post, except the masochistic part.

[quote name='Cormalek' date='07 May 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1273244538' post='2290252']
"[i]very simple, very easy, to give a very simple and clear answe[/i]r", heh. We did that too. "42".
[/quote]
I do acknowledge this answer, but I claim it's general irrelevance to the context at hand based on me not recognizing 42 as a valid answer. If you intend to give a valid answer, please send me a letter via a dove, it may not include cookies. And 42.

[King Srqt]

I think a big issue that people have with tis thread is how the title is worded. I am quite sure that war over and eternal terms are not the only options here. People can be talked to and reasoned with and I am confident that if people that are under terms that do not expire until the end of the war went and talked to the people they surrendered to in a calm, reasonable and diplomatic manner that something could be worked out to allow them to be released despite the Gramlins irrational course of action.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1273245270' post='2290260']
-I am directly involved as my alliance is at war with the gRAMlins, smearing uninvolved parties doesn't help my situation one bit, at best it won't improve my situation[/quote]
Which makes you, asking the question irrelevant. You are from alliance who is already in this conflict. Our answer cannot change if you are, or not involved. Or will it?
Heh, OK I'll do this this once, DAWN has MHA's blessing. DAWN can declare a war on Gramlins Can we go now?

So now, alliance that has no interest in declaring war on Gramlins has MHA's blessing. Given by a deputy minister of Bad Poetry. Do you see how silly this is? Irrelevant people getting irrelevant answers on irrelevant subjects from irrelevant people.

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1273245270' post='2290260']
This made me curious, it seems your argumentation for why you do not want to make a public state is that you don't want to stop giving people ammunition for a smear campaign
(...)
So you want to be smeared by people, and you want to make sure your position stays unclear.

Good, exactly what I said in my above post, except the masochistic part[/quote]
The fact that we don't treat people in this Place [ooc: Hyde Park] as government officials, does not mean we will start throwing them off their soap boxes. You have all rights to voice your opinions. But if you're into getting a diplomatic discourse with us, and some binding answers - this is not the place to do so.

Smear campaign? Meh, haters gonna hate. We don't really care one way or the other, you[sup]*[/sup] can throw all the dung you like - it is your hands that are getting dirty. And I doubt any of it will stick, as only the ones throwing it are under the illusion any of it reaches it's target - at least to us, as opposed to the glass in front of you. ;-)
But throwing it will not change the ways our diplomatic channels work.


[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1273245270' post='2290260']
I If you intend to give a valid answer, please send me a letter via a dove, it may not include cookies. And 42.[/quote]
And why would I intend to do anything, really? If someone intends to get the answer - he might ask. Not the other way around.

Heh, now that I think of it, OK. This probably will not end this thread, but it will make a good revision of do's and don't 's with the word word "and" ;-)
I'll send the dove right away. No cookies, only 42. ;-)

[sup]*[/sup]"you" as people doing so, not you, Shilo (or DAWN/IRON, for that matter [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif[/img])

[shilo]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='07 May 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1273248258' post='2290306']
Which makes you, asking the question irrelevant. You are from alliance who is already in this conflict. Our answer cannot change if you are, or not involved. Or will it?
Heh, OK I'll do this this once, DAWN has MHA's blessing. DAWN can declare a war on Gramlins Can we go now?

So now, alliance that has no interest in declaring war on Gramlins has MHA's blessing. Given by a deputy minister of Bad Poetry. Do you see how silly this is? Irrelevant people getting irrelevant answers on irrelevant subjects from irrelevant people.
[/quote]
And another dodge. No one asked whether MHA would interfere with DAWN/IRON declaring on gRAMlins. I see how it is a interesting tactic to answer questions no one asked, and dodge answers to those asked, but it is generally a bit too transparent to work for long.
[quote name='Cormalek' date='07 May 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1273248258' post='2290306']
The fact that we don't treat people in this Place [ooc: Hyde Park] as government officials, does not mean we will start throwing them off their soap boxes. You have all rights to voice your opinions. But if you're into getting a diplomatic discourse with us, and some binding answers - this is not the place to do so.[/quote]
Good to know.
[quote name='Cormalek' date='07 May 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1273248258' post='2290306']
Smear campaign? Meh, haters gonna hate. We don't really care one way or the other, you[sup]*[/sup] can throw all the dung you like - it is your hands that are getting dirty. And I doubt any of it will stick, as only the ones throwing it are under the illusion any of it reaches it's target - at least to us, as opposed to the glass in front of you. ;-)
But throwing it will not change the ways our diplomatic channels work.
[/quote]
As you acknowledge down below, there is a significant difference between someone from an alliance at war with gRAMlins wanting to know whether you will attack any other alliance that would interfere on our behalf and those not involved.
Yet you do however treat us all the same and act like I am out to smear MHA for whatever dubious reasons I supposedly have, knowing that my only interest in this is to end the madness being forced onto my alliance and on my ally by your good friends gRAMlins.

[quote name='Cormalek' date='07 May 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1273248258' post='2290306']
And why would I intend to do anything, really? If someone intends to get the answer - he might ask. Not the other way around.

Heh, now that I think of it, OK. This probably will not end this thread, but it will make a good revision of do's and don't 's with the word word "and" ;-)
I'll send the dove right away. No cookies, only 42. ;-)

[/quote]
The only intent I noticed in every single post is to not make any clear statements regarding the position of your own alliance. You do it in serious and in less serious ways, all the same nonetheless.

Also, I advised the commanders of my anti-air-defense-network to treat this dove as a hostile drone.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1273248890' post='2290319']
And another dodge. No one asked whether MHA would interfere with DAWN/IRON declaring on gRAMlins. I[b] see how it is a interesting tactic to answer questions no one asked[/b], and dodge answers to those asked, but it is generally a bit too transparent to work for long.[/quote]
You asked. You are from DAWN. So the question could involve only DAWN. While we're at it, shouldn't it be Junkahoolik[font="sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#000000"] who asks?[/color][/size][/font]
[font="sans-serif"][size="2"]I was trying to show that no, it in fact isn't interesting (or wise) to answer questions no one asked. Which is precisely why we do not do it.
[/size][/font]
[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1273248890' post='2290319']
As you acknowledge down below, there is a significant difference between someone from an alliance at war with gRAMlins wanting to know whether you will attack any other alliance that would interfere on our behalf and those not involved. [/quote]
What I acknowledge there, is that there is a significant difference between someone from an alliance already at war with gRAMlins, someone from alliance that want's to join this war, and someone from alliance that has no intention of joining whatsoever, but is enjoying the PR stunt.


[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1273248890' post='2290319']Yet you do however treat us all the same and act like I am out to smear MHA for whatever dubious reasons I supposedly have, knowing that my only interest in this is to end the madness being forced onto my alliance and on my ally by your good friends gRAMlins.[/quote]
Far from it, Shilo. I'm committing my time to give you, you personally, answers, and to explain some things as plainly as it is possible. As I stated: "[color="#1C2837"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"][sup]*[/sup][/size][/font][/color][color="#1C2837"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"]"you" as people doing so, not you, Shilo (or DAWN/IRON, for that matter[/size][/font][/color][color="#1C2837"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"] [/font][/color][color="#1C2837"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"][img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif[/img][/size][/font][/color][color="#1C2837"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"])[/size][/font][/color][color="#1C2837"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"] ".[/size][/font][/color] The dung-throwers get only shrugs. You deserve, (and get) more than that. I'm sorry if my best is not good enough.
[color="#1C2837"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1273248890' post='2290319']
The only intent I noticed in every single post is to not make any clear statements regarding the position of your own alliance. You do it in serious and in less serious ways, all the same nonetheless. [/quote]
I make very clear statements over, and over. I shall make it once again. OWF is not recognized as a proper diplomatic channel by MHA, it is a diplomatic tool which has it's uses, but which are limited. Whenever an alliance wishes to consult us on our policy and plans, whether it involves starting - or [b]ending[/b] a war (ie peace talks), they should do this by contacting our government either via embassies that we maintain, or in private IRC query.

Heh, imagine if I went on the streets and start approaching random women, or maybe just the ones who I exchange glances with, to inform them, that I, in fact will not be interested in sexual intercourse with them. Or maybe to save time, I'd announce it on the bus?
It is not the way, nor place to do this. A glance is a glance. If she was interested, we would be having a conversation first - at very least.


[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1273248890' post='2290319']Also, I advised the commanders of my anti-air-defense-network to treat this dove as a hostile drone.[/quote]
To be fair, the message was set to self-destruct after you've read it, so it's not like he'd be getting back.

[Rafael Nadal]

I've ignored this topic long enough. Let me make this very clear to everybody, I don't want to have to repeat myself:

THE TERMS ARE ETERNAL. GOOD DAY, PLANET BOB.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='07 May 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1273251485' post='2290356']
I've ignored this topic long enough. Let me make this very clear to everybody, I don't want to have to repeat myself:

THE TERMS ARE ETERNAL. GOOD DAY, PLANET BOB.
[/quote]
Whew. I'm glad that's cleared up now.

[Gobb]

I can finally stop holding my breath now.

[shilo]

I am glad that this thread helped improve the health of MK members.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='04 May 2010 - 11:22 AM' 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]

You strike me as being someone who step back from the rhetoric and see that the best people to end this mess aren't IRON, DAWN or any of their supporters. Sure we can sit back and watch as Gramlins slowly dissolves like a copper penny in a can of Coke, but the reality is that we both know that a half hour IRC meeting ends the war and I think you can figure out pretty quickly what needs to be said. Gramlins may be stubborn and got themselves in a bad situation, but they aren't stupid or suicidal.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='08 May 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1273283331' post='2290893']
You strike me as being someone who step back from the rhetoric and see that the best people to end this mess aren't IRON, DAWN or any of their supporters. Sure we can sit back and watch as Gramlins slowly dissolves like a copper penny in a can of Coke, but the reality is that we both know that a half hour IRC meeting ends the war and I think you can figure out pretty quickly what needs to be said. Gramlins may be stubborn and got themselves in a bad situation, but they aren't stupid or suicidal.
[/quote]

It's not suicidal until its clear that someone will hold them accountable.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1273235882' post='2290173']
I think it has been established more than once that this isn't really the main concern, no matter how often you say this.
[/quote]

Yeesh, you guys need it spelled out don't you. Open conflict is not the answer to the current situation, all its likely to do is escalate more, while MHA is sitting back letting Gre commit slow suicide currently, its a fair bet they'd take exception to new entrants wishing to dog pile Gre. So no you aren't looking for release from terms so you can go jump Gre.

What you are looking for is political leverage to attempt to force a resolution, the problem you are experiencing is that you have none.

You have none because most of your side of the web is still held under terms that would bring dozens of alliances breathing down your neck if you violated them, Gre is therefor happy to ignore any diplomatic overtures knowing that you really lack the ability to do anything but !@#$%*.

Getting the rest of your side freed from terms, gives you diplomatic and political options, it also sends messages, like that enough people dislike whats going on to free you, that you have gained (I say gained because you haven't displayed it yet) the maturity to actually conduct a civilized discourse through actual diplomatic channels to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement with other parties instead of a whine fest on the OWF. It starts actually defining support or lack there of that Gre may or may not have.

If all else fails, you might even be able to negotiate directly with HMA (and anybody else who may come to gre's defense) for permission to DoW Gre long enough to secure an end to the conflict by military means without triggering another faction wide war. God knows Gre has made it self unpopular enough that while that situation is unlikely it wouldn't shock me to see it happen.

These are the steps you could take, if you actually cared. These are the actions you could work on instead of simply moving for cheap PR moves. But it seems everybody is more interested in mud slinging than solutions. Of course you've made your own job that much harder, since you need goodwill to reach compromises, and you've pissed quite a bit away over the last dozen pages or so.

Lack of forethought like this is what brought you to this position in the first place. Not everything is a 'my way or the highway' situation, you don't need to be able to militarily crush someone to ask them for concessions or favors, This is how diplomacy is built, one side provides a favor, later it gets called in, later they ask for a favour, then that one gets called in.

It makes the world go round, favors going back and forth are what lets you keep minor issues from blowing up into major ones. !@#$%*ing on the OWF just gets you laughed at.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='07 May 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1273283870' post='2290901']
It's not suicidal until its clear that someone will hold them accountable.
[/quote]

You're not seeing the whole picture.
It is clear that people will hold us accountable. In fact, my analysis of the progression of this situation has been based predominantly on the notion that the entire cyberverse must hold us accountable.
Our disconnect is that I assert that [b]abusing[/b] power is wrong but the oppositon asserts that [b]having[/b] power is wrong.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1273287719' post='2290962']
Our disconnect is that I assert that [b]abusing[/b] power is wrong but the oppositon asserts that [b]having[/b] power is wrong.
[/quote]

Except that when [b]they[/b] had it, it wasnt wrong then.

One may reasonably infer they expect to have it in the future, and it wont be wrong then either.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='07 May 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1273289105' post='2290983']
Except that when [b]they[/b] had it, it wasnt wrong then.

One may reasonably infer they expect to have it in the future, and it wont be wrong then either.
[/quote]

Ah the nature of politics here on planet Bob.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1273287719' post='2290962']
You're not seeing the whole picture.
It is clear that people will hold us accountable. In fact, my analysis of the progression of this situation has been based predominantly on the notion that the entire cyberverse must hold us accountable.
[/quote]

Your misinterpreting, I was just making a general point to Mr. Hal.

[quote]
Our disconnect is that I assert that [b]abusing[/b] power is wrong but the oppositon asserts that [b]having[/b] power is wrong.
[/quote]

Not at all, our disconnect is I think you are abusing a power and you think you are not. There is nothing wrong with having power unless it is misused. Currently, your alliance is misusing the very little power you have left.

[Rafael Nadal]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='07 May 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1273283331' post='2290893']
You strike me as being someone who step back from the rhetoric and see that the best people to end this mess aren't IRON, DAWN or any of their supporters. Sure we can sit back and watch as Gramlins slowly dissolves like a copper penny in a can of Coke, [b]but the reality is that we both know that a half hour IRC meeting ends the war and I think you can figure out pretty quickly what needs to be said. Gramlins may be stubborn and got themselves in a bad situation, but they aren't stupid or suicidal.[/b]
[/quote]
At first when I was reading, I was like , then I got to the bolded and I was like .

How many meetings do you think have been held?

Edited May 8, 2010 by Rafael Nadal

[Solaris]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='08 May 2010 - 07:35 AM' timestamp='1273293326' post='2291065']
Not at all, our disconnect is I think you are abusing a power and you think you are not. There is nothing wrong with having power unless it is misused. Currently, your alliance is misusing the very little power you have left.
[/quote]To further extend: understanding that Grämlins do not consider demanding an unconditional surrender to be unjust, does not mean that the Viridian Entente considers it just.

We're on the same page on what you mean with unconditional surrender, Grämlins - there is no disparity on understanding terminology or concepts, but rather a disparity on opinions regarding your on-going actions.

Thinking you could pull an unconditional surrender without delivering a shock strong to make it happen is, in my opinion, foolish - and just because unconditional surrender doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] have to mean unthinkable actions nor terms, there isn't going to be acceptance of the precedent of an unconditional surrender, because the very concept of unconditional surrender is draconian and extreme. No spin, 'reasoning', or examples will change this disconnect of opinions.


The Grämlins logic has been measured, and found wanton.

[potato]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1273245270' post='2290260']
-my goal is to get my alliance and my ally to peace quicker, not smear alliances I don't really care about
[/quote]

So, how's that treating you?

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 May 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1273245270' post='2290260']
Your argument would have one bit of merit were I part of a third party just looking to take some cheap shots at alliances I dislike.
There are numerous reasons though why it has not one bit of merit, among those is:
-I am directly involved as my alliance is at war with the gRAMlins, smearing uninvolved parties doesn't help my situation one bit, at best it won't improve my situation
-my goal is to get my alliance and my ally to peace quicker, not smear alliances I don't really care about
[/quote]


So you think you can accomplish this goal by claiming MK is the new hegemonic ruler of the world and is directly helping Grämlins in their unjust eternal war against you. In addition to a general anti-CnG smear campaign?

Brilliant.


You see the more you try to smear us, the less sympathy you get from CnG membership. Which at first, after signing peace, was actually there. After this attempt at a smear campaign gone horribly wrong, I doubt you'll find many sympathetic ears in CnG. Your actions in this thread has not only been detrimental to your chances of getting diplomatic help, it has also turned people who simply did not care directly against you.

I know I'm one of those people. I didn't care one way or the other, but as you keep throwing wild unfounded accusations at us I find myself loathing you and your ilk more and more. I now hope that Grämlins miraculously manages to destroy you. Eradicate you. I hope their secret terms are disbandment following three years of tech farming. I now [b]wish[/b] we were just laying in wait to jump in and help Grämlins mop up if someone dared help.