Is the war over or are the terms eternal?

[Tromp]

It's not blind faith in Gre, it's simply logical if you look at how their alliance works.

I think what will happen if IRON decides to surrender, is that they have to demilitarize and admit wrongdoing. Look at their Codex for reference.
Crux of the matter is that you have to apply that thing only after IRON surrenders, not before.

[Bob Janova]

It's pretty funny to say 'Look at the Codex, you'll be fine!' when by any reasonable view they've already broken it several times in this episode. (Check out Goldie's blog for the details.) Unconditional surrender is completely unreasonable and IRON/DAWN are completely in the right to reject it. As Shah says there is a good argument that this is actually a [i]worse[/i] situation than VietFAN.

Now, regarding the OP: It seems the misuse of 'eternal' to mean 'indefinite' has been carried over into the new era. Yes, it was incorrect in some cases when used against the Hegemony too – though EZI really was eternal until explicitly released, and some peace terms (like GPA's or MK's) were too. Leaving that aside, the only thing that surrendered alliances are being held to indefinitely is the no-reentry clause as far as I'm aware. While that was not the intent of including that clause, as Grämlins' actions couldn't reasonably be forseen at the time that those surrenders were drawn up, it is hardly a major imposition. If you wanted to stick around in the war to help IRON and DAWN then you shouldn't have surrendered; you made that choice (quite correctly in most cases) that your use in the war was no longer sufficient to justify the damage you were taking and sued for peace. Not re-entering the conflict should be expected as a standard clause of leaving the battlefield!

And yes, it's clearly the same war. There isn't even room for e-lawyering in this case: the war between these alliances was declared as a direct response to the TOP/IRON-C&G front being opened, and has continued uninterrupted throughout. It's definitely the same conflict and therefore no-reentry clauses apply.

There are, however, plenty of alliances not bound by that. A better target of your outrage is those members of C&G who say they will jump in for Grämlins if anyone hits them, even if they are not bound by surrender terms.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='25 April 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1272192725' post='2274202']
First off, the only terms we are holding on anyone are the "no re-entry" ones. We didn't even get the "you've won" thingie in the peace treaty.[/quote]
Neutrality means more than not re-entering this continuing war. Everything that involves aid, treaties & OWF arguements are affected by being neutral, not to mention forcing neutrality on us for as long as you and your buddies in Shamlins see fit goes against the charters of most alliances. Its one thing to sit out a war but quite another to be at the whim of people who can easily tell us neutrality means we are to cut all treaties and stop all aid to anyone who was on either side of the war until they decide to tell Shamlins that its long enough. Maybe a couple of months from now after NPO has been taken care of while we are forced to sit and watch under threat of destruction the forced neutrality will be lifted or maybe you will just come back for seconds when the reps start to run out.

edit: In before the "that will never happen" boys to remind peoples of MKs famous end of draconian terms statement.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Alterego

[Tromp]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 April 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1272197949' post='2274231']
It's pretty funny to say 'Look at the Codex, you'll be fine!' when by any reasonable view they've already broken it several times in this episode. (Check out Goldie's blog for the details.)[/quote]
I disagree, since what Goldie is doing is nothing more than speaking for Gremlins where he has no say in it. He's not being objective and is searching for ways to explain the situation so it is in line with his argument.
[quote]Unconditional surrender is completely unreasonable and IRON/DAWN are completely in the right to reject it.[/quote]
Every alliance is in their right to reject any terms, I see no reason to make a distinction for what Gre has offered.
[quote]As Shah says there is a good argument that this is actually a [i]worse[/i] situation than VietFAN.[/quote]
I doubt it. All it takes for IRON to do is get a bit of a spine. It is their own fear, and lack of 'thinking out of the box', that keeps them in this position.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Tromp' date='25 April 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1272199214' post='2274239']
I disagree, since what Goldie is doing is nothing more than speaking for Gremlins where he has no say in it. He's not being objective and is searching for ways to explain the situation so it is in line with his argument.[/quote]
Just for a clarification here...are you speaking for your friends in Gremlins?

[quote] Look at their Codex for reference.[/quote]
Yea right, you see thats a step backwards.

[quote]If you had a little bit of interest in the whole situation you'd be able to figure out what would happen should Peron say to Gre that IRON surrenders. It's nothing close to what you so fear.[/quote]
[quote]I doubt it. All it takes for IRON to do is get a bit of a spine. It is their own fear, and lack of 'thinking out of the box', that keeps them in this position.[/quote]
Seems like you're in the know Tromp, so why dont you tell us the terms..?, I'm sure there is [i]nothing[/i] to hide or [i]fear.[/i]

Also, good to see FOK indicate its position in this matter.

Edited April 25, 2010 by shahenshah

[Tromp]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='25 April 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1272199816' post='2274240']
Just for a clarification here...are you speaking for your friends in Gremlins?
[/quote]
What a silly question.
Let me ask you a question like yours in return: who do you think you're talking to?
[quote]
Yea right, you see thats a step backwards.
[/quote]
Care to elaborate?
[quote]
Seems like you're in the know Tromp, so why dont you tell us the terms..?, I'm sure there is nothing to hide or [i]fear.[/i]
[/quote]
I have already said what I think the terms will be. Read up.
[quote]
Also, good to see FOK clarify its position in this matter.
[/quote]
Also, good to see you haven't changed from being ignorant in all matters.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Tromp

[Centurius]

Yes technically any alliance that signed a no-reentry clause will be bound to it until the end of the war. However I am certain if an alliance makes a valid plea to the ones enforcing their terms they will find it not impossible to get out of them.

[Hiro Nakara]

Same content, same arguements, same people argueing. Did I say same content? Yes, thats right I did, different topic title though.

I hope IRON/DAWN get the peace they want, I really do, seeing the same threads get posted up, saps my will to even care now.

I think Alterego should put on an IRON/DAWN tag and begin fighting for IRON, he seems to feel pretty disgusted with the situation, so it makes sense.

[Haflinger]

Listen.

It doesn't matter what IRON does or does not do. This is about the sovereignty of surrendered alliances. We don't have the right to declare war on [i]anyone[/i] until IRON and Grämlins peace out.

Now, I'm not sure all of us would respect that restriction. But that's in the agreement.

(And yes, I hate no re-entry terms for precisely this reason. You are agreeing to enforce surrender terms indefinitely based on what some other alliance decides to do.)

[Denial]

[quote name='Alterego' date='25 April 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1272187973' post='2274175']
This is not about attacking Gramlins it is about many alliances under terms that potentially could last years and dictate how alliances do some of their business. It doesnt matter what the terms are it just matters that many of alliances are under restrictions as long as your side continue to pretend that Gramlins are stopping you lot from ending these terms, who controls your alliances, your leaders or Gramlins?
[/quote]
So, I'll ask again, what other restrictions are currently upon these "many alliances"? How exactly does the inability to re-enter a war they initiated and surrendered from, to assist an alliance that has a better chance of winning the war without said assistance, "dictate" how those alliances do their business? The only other surrender terms you have made mention of are those with specific durations, which quite clearly cannot "last years".

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Tromp' date='25 April 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1272200312' post='2274244']
What a silly question.
Let me ask you a question like yours: who do you think you're talking to?
[/quote]
I'll assume you were only speaking on your behalf then.

[quote]
Care to elaborate?[/quote]
There are some blogs and a huge thread that covers the codex in good detail. They're still open for discussion.

[quote]
I have already said what I [u]think[/u] the terms will be. Read up.[/quote]
I did, Thanks for the concern, I guess we're still all running on assumptions and speculations.

[quote]
Also, good to see you haven't changed from being ignorant in all matters.
[/quote]
Thanks for the personal jibe , completely derailed the stuff about FOK's position and all tho . I'll drop you a PM, maybe I'm ignorant about FOK's position.

Edited April 25, 2010 by shahenshah

[Denial]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='25 April 2010 - 11:36 PM' timestamp='1272200751' post='2274247']
It doesn't matter what IRON does or does not do. This is about the sovereignty of surrendered alliances. We don't have the right to declare war on [i]anyone[/i] until IRON and Grämlins peace out.
[/quote]
Uh, no. Every surrender agreement I have seen only forbids re-entry into the war. In other words, aiding IRON in any way would be the only violation of that clause. At the current time, that means surrendered parties are restricted from declaring war on a grand total of one alliance.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Tromp' date='25 April 2010 - 06:17 AM' timestamp='1272190625' post='2274194']
*Yawn*

If you had a little bit of interest in the whole situation you'd be able to figure out what would happen should Peron say to Gre that IRON surrenders. It's nothing close to what you so fear.
[/quote]

Why would they? Gre is going to get the piss kicked out of them.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lennox' date='25 April 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1272201046' post='2274252']
Why would they? Gre is going to get the piss kicked out of them.
[/quote]
I'm not saying they should.

[Denial]

[quote name='Lennox' date='25 April 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1272201046' post='2274252']
Why would they? Gre is going to get the piss kicked out of them.
[/quote]
Which is one of the prime reasons why this faux-indignation is hilarious.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Denial' date='25 April 2010 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1272201029' post='2274251']
Uh, no. Every surrender agreement I have seen only forbids re-entry into the war. In other words, aiding IRON in any way would be the only violation of that clause. At the current time, that means surrendered parties are restricted from declaring war on a grand total of one alliance.
[/quote]
Then you haven't been reading the surrender agreements.

[quote name='ClashCityRocker' date='05 February 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1265422685' post='2162562']
The Immortals agree to [b]remain neutral for the remainder of the ongoing conflict.[/b][/quote]
[quote name='jadoo1989' date='07 February 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1265520980' post='2166114']
TUF must peace out with all nations and/or alliances they are currently engaging and [b]remain neutral for the duration of the war.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='Tromp' date='10 February 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1265844362' post='2173364']
House of Lords surrenders to FOK, shall not re-enter the current global war and [b]stays completely neutral for the remainder of the conflict.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='jadoo1989' date='14 February 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1266191901' post='2181536']
GGA must stay out of the war on any front and [b]remain neutral for the duration of the conflict.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='Kindom of Goon' date='15 February 2010 - 07:27 AM' timestamp='1266233224' post='2182749']
The FCC agree to [b]remain neutral for the remainder of the current conflict. This includes not warring[/b][/quote]
[quote name='Style #386' date='15 February 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1266284356' post='2183871']
Carthage shall not [b]provide military or financial assistance to any party for the duration of the conflict.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='jadoo1989' date='19 February 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1266554075' post='2191409']
NADC, Echelon, and MCXA do not rejoin the conflict and [b]remain neutral throughout the duration of the war.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='Goose' date='19 February 2010 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1266553183' post='2191353']
GDA, UBD, and ICB will remain neutral for the remainder of this war.
[/quote]

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Stetson' date='21 February 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1266779057' post='2195258']
SNAFU hereby agrees to surrender with the only stipulation that we [b]remain neutral for the duration of the conflict[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='The Pansy' date='25 February 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1267133321' post='2203486']
BAPS, Olympus, Valhalla, Invicta, Avalon, Molon Labe and DOOM agree to remain neutral for the duration of this conflict[/quote]

From a casual reading of these peace terms, it would appear that while IRON and the Grämlins remain stubborn, the ranks of the neutral alliances have expanded well past the GPA, TDO, and WTF, and now include the following:
[list=1]
[*]The Immortals
[*]TUF
[*]House of Lords
[*]GGA
[*]FCC
[*]Carthage
[*]NADC
[*]Echelon
[*]MCXA
[*]GDA
[*]UBD
[*]ICB
[*]SNAFU
[*]BAPS
[*]Olympus
[*]Valhalla
[*]Invicta
[*]Avalon
[*]Molon Labe
[*]DOOM
[/list]

[Alterego]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='25 April 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1272203097' post='2274268']
From a casual reading of these peace terms, it would appear that while IRON and the Grämlins remain stubborn, the ranks of the neutral alliances have expanded well past the GPA, TDO, and WTF, and now include the following:
[/quote]
Exactly my point a long list of alliances have been forced into the position that GPA have chosen and as long as the so called stale mate (engineered situation) continues or the other alliances on the winning side pretend there is nothing they can do then neutrality can mean as little or as much as they like and can at any time pull the breaking surrender terms card for virtually anything that is considered not being neutral. If anyone knew Gramlins & friends had planned this and the rest of the victors would sit back and laugh the terms as they are written would not have been signed. But who knew how low they would go.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Alterego

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='25 April 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1272203097' post='2274268']
From a casual reading of these peace terms, it would appear that while IRON and the Grämlins remain stubborn, the ranks of the neutral alliances have expanded well past the GPA, TDO, and WTF, and now include the following:
[list=1]
[*]The Immortals
[*]TUF
[*]House of Lords
[*]GGA
[*]FCC
[*]Carthage
[*]NADC
[*]Echelon
[*]MCXA
[*]GDA
[*]UBD
[*]ICB
[*]SNAFU
[*]BAPS
[*]Olympus
[*]Valhalla
[*]Invicta
[*]Avalon
[*]Molon Labe
[*]DOOM
[/list]
[/quote]

And which of these surrendered under the Easter Sunday Accords that are being paraded in the OP?

... Yeah. See you can argue that a lot of alliances might be kept under neutrality terms, but you're on the wrong side of town barking up the entirely wrong tree.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='25 April 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1272204876' post='2274276']
And which of these surrendered under the Easter Sunday Accords that are being paraded in the OP?

... Yeah. See you can argue that a lot of alliances might be kept under neutrality terms, but you're on the wrong side of town barking up the entirely wrong tree.
[/quote]
As what should have been the last surrender you (MK) say the war is over but not over. Your refusal to end it properly is why MK is quoted.

[Lord Brendan]

It is of course up to the individual alliances to interpret their own terms, but most/all of those I would interpret as meaning "remain neutral in regards to the war", not as "mimic the GPA". I'll ask Goose what his interpretation of the GDA/UBD/NADC terms are.

On a slightly unrelated note, I think I just realized why GDA was pretending they were neutral in their embargo announcement.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='25 April 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1272205356' post='2274281']
It is of course up to the individual alliances to interpret their own terms, but most/all of those I would interpret as meaning "remain neutral in regards to the war", not as "mimic the GPA". I'll ask Goose what his interpretation of the GDA/UBD/NADC terms are.

On a slightly unrelated note, I think I just realized why GDA was pretending they were neutral in their embargo announcement.
[/quote]
Their neutrality isnt kept in place with the threat of force. All people can do is say I thought you lot were neutral, we on the other hand can be crushed for not being neutral from now on.

[Lord Brendan]

Or you could talk to the people you surrendered to, and ask them to clarify the terms. If it turns out that they did mean "be totally neutral in every way" (which I do not believe is the case), then you could ask them to lift the terms. If they say no, [i]then[/i] you'll have something legitimate to complain about.

[Centurius]

As far as I can read the terms they are in regards to the current conflict, so you are only banned from helping IRON, DAWN or Grämlins. Nice try turning words around guys.

[Denial]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='26 April 2010 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1272202961' post='2274267']
Then you haven't been reading the surrender agreements.
[/quote]
... You do realise that the stipulation that those parties remain neutral is in relation to the conflict they surrender from, right? Again, at the current time, that means surrendered parties are restricted from declaring war on a grand total of one alliance.