Ramirus: Scourge of the Grämlins

[dvdcchn]

[quote name='Tromp' date='02 July 2010 - 08:09 AM' timestamp='1278076163' post='2357637']
I don't really see why anyone is complaining about the proposed amendment.
An apology was offered before, according to these people: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=3840&p=2333982&#entry2333982]1[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=3840&p=2333008&#entry2333008]2[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=3800&p=2330024&#entry2330024]3[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=3760&p=2329321&#entry2329321]4[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2341778]5[/url].

Most all of us have stated they want this war to end, yet now that this is a possibility it is being rejected.
Then again, there are people like [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2333239]amad[/url] and [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2336112]Schmoo[/url] who apparently never felt that way, even go so far to state they desire utter destruction of Gre.
[/quote]

Oh Tromp, your “unjust” views of IRON are still showing. We also had a chance at peace from day one, do not forget that as well, I think it is unfortunate that GRE has refused it, and now GRE lay in ruins, and they still refuse the peace offer we have given.

Weeks, roughly, Schatenmann posted this to help Ram with some desperately needed PR, we had rejected this. Why should history be rewritten to allow one man’s ego to be exonerated? TOP TORN TSO and NSO are not involved in this campaign, they have made peace, and how is it acceptable we ask them to re surrender to grace an alliances aggression.

So we ask, why should this war continue, we have given the offer of white peace, and much to my surprise I find myself agreeing with MPK, they will not accept white peace as equals, but from the charity IRON will afford them, a charity we continue to show them. GRE has overestimated us, and have failed, these rouges will fail as well if they do not except peace.

Also Tromp, it was kind of you to single out two members of a group that numbers around four hundred. As a member of IRON gov, I have shown nothing but respect for GRE, and this war. A consideration they have not returned.

it is both sad and frustrating to see the path this war has gone, on the bright note though, we have started coordination and talks to start paying our reps to ODN FARK and Sparta to start rep payments while at war.

i would like to thank the alliances of Aircastle, Aloha, Christian Coalition of Countries, FOK, Global Alliance And Treaty Organization, League of Small Superpowers, Mostly Harmless Alliance, New Polar Order, Prism Protection Front, Siberian Tiger Alliance, The Brigade, The Jedi Order, Umbrella, Athens, Federation of Buccaneers, Greenland Republic, League Of Shadows Treaty, Orange Defense Network, and Mushroom Kingdom, Blatantly Awesome Coalition of Nations, Dark Fist, Federation of Armed Nations, Farkistan, Genesis, Imperial Assault Alliance, Nemesis, Open Source Alliance, Ronin, Sparta, and The Resistance, as well as our allies TOP, TORN, and TSO, who have already found peace for their continued patience in this ongoing war. It is sad that these are the names needed as well as NSO for GRE to accept peace.

Edited July 3, 2010 by dvdcchn

[Tromp]

[quote name='Chron' date='02 July 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1278077417' post='2357641']
I think the major problem is the fact that Ramirus is changing his tune, while also saying that the initial offer was blatantly insincere, and thus unacceptable.

And so the question becomes not why they won't accept the proposed changes now (aside from the actual text being ridiculous and something of a lie), but why Ramirus is suddenly willing to settle for something that was offered in the first place. Something, which, ostensibly, he doesn't even want right now.

But, at least based on this interview, it becomes apparent that Ramirus already seems to use contradictory arguments, so that may be the reason.
[/quote]
It is not important why Gremlins is (supposedly?) changing its tune, the very fact that their position should be quite acceptable to IRON&co is.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 July 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1278079833' post='2357672']
Because once again Ram is trying to get too much. It isn't just an apology, it's a statement that their whole pre-war thinking and decision making was unjustifiable, and that they started a war which they only entered. It is trying to force IRON to 'admit' to things that [b]they don't believe are true[/b]. If Grämlins just asked for an apology for [i]this[/i] pre-emptive attack (which is what was offered before) I'm sure they could have it.
[/quote]
Hold it right there.
Why would they have offered an apology back in the day then?
[quote]
There's also the point of principle Chron mentions, that going back and amending a peace treaty (particularly one from which some alliances have already come out of terms) is not something that should be done lightly, and when Grämlins opted to pursue their own ends and not participate in the ESA, they ceded any right to be a part of that treaty. (Let's look at what is actually being asked here: a [i]non-signatory[/i] to a treaty is asking for an amendment to it, when all the initial combatants were satisfied with the ESA as it stands).
[/quote]
I don't entirely disagree, but do I want to point out that there's also nothing wrong with amending it should all parties agree to it.
To my knowledge, it was on this condition that my alliance agreed to it.

The details of this process are not for me to make public, so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
[quote]
And on a material note, the size of reps taken from IRON and TOP was largely because of this 'wrongdoing'. If you now want to amend the peace treaty to give those alliances an additional non-material cost (saying that everything they did was wrong, permanently on the record [b]even if it's not true[/b]), it's reasonable to expect that they are given some material benefit, otherwise they're giving you something for nothing, and there's really no reason to expect that there is any goodwill towards Grämlins (or towards C&G and friends either, considering how you kept the ESA signatories at war for so long and then took so much from them) that would incline them to give you something for nothing.
[/quote]
Your entire argument is based on this, yet the "perpetrators" disagree with you.
I find that a tad ironic.

[quote name='dvdcchn' date='03 July 2010 - 02:17 AM' timestamp='1278116243' post='2358225'][...] how is it acceptable we ask them to re surrender to grace an alliances aggression.
[...]
[/quote]
You don't have to, it's a formality since your official stance was (is?) that you were prepared to apologize.
Which was the point...
[quote]
Also Tromp, it was kind of you to single out two members of a group that numbers around four hundred. As a member of IRON gov, I have shown nothing but respect for GRE, and this war. A consideration they have not returned.
[...]
[/quote]
I know you would (and will be) be respectful, I trust you on that since I have had the honor of working with you in the past and getting to know you a bit.

Also, I picked random statements from people of different alliances for a reason, it wasn't to single IRON out at all.

[Pomiel]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='02 July 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1278074280' post='2357628']
Hmmm, let's see. As usual the truth is somewhere in between what the two sides are claiming.

[snip]

For a normal alliance, this would be a dire situation. It's still fairly bad, even considering Grämlins back-collect heavily, as there's no way any nation in war mode should be more than 10 days inactive when it's not at war, and there are three nations with empty trade slots as well.
[/quote]

I never claim that Gramlins is in their prime. I'm just saying that claiming that most are nearing deletion is false.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 July 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1278115048' post='2358211']
Chron: it happens . Us agreeing ought to be a sign to everyone just how universal that side of the argument is though, heh.

[/quote]
We don't agree, we're just behind some completely unrelated fences, both of which Ramirus happens to be on the opposite side of.


[quote name='Tromp' date='02 July 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1278124355' post='2358319']
It is not important why Gremlins is (supposedly?) changing its tune, the very fact that their position should be quite acceptable to IRON&co is.[/quote] Sometimes people's patience just runs out. I would wager that sometime in the past 3 months that happened with IRON with regards to Ramirus.

That much would be a given, but what's interesting is the fact that Ramirus is now interested in doing something which he previously considered utterly unacceptable and contrary to his faux-morals.

So why does he all of a sudden consider this to be anything but a betrayal of what he's had Gramlins burn over these past few months? Has he seen the light, or what? Thats what's important, not the limits of IRON's desires to appear penitent.
[quote]
Hold it right there.
Why would they have offered an apology back in the day then?[/quote] Regardless of what Janova claims, Im guessing it was in large part due to them not anticipating that the present circumstances would bode so well for them, and them just wanting to get reps done and over with. Put simply; pragmatism.
[quote]
I don't entirely disagree, but do I want to point out that there's also nothing wrong with amending it should all parties agree to it.
To my knowledge, it was on this condition that my alliance agreed to it.[/quote]No, there isn't.

But why should IRON agree to it? Because Supercomplaints will beat them down again, or what? The ones in violation of the ESA would be the folks attacking IRON, in that case, as Gramlins went to great lengths to emphasize that they are not a party to that treaty, and are at war entirely for "moral and or personal" reasons.

[quote]
You don't have to, it's a formality since your official stance was (is?) that you were prepared to apologize.
Which was the point...[/quote] The formality was Gramlins signing the ESA and making peace with IRON. Everything after that was thrown out the window is a different story. After all, Gramlins wasn't a part of those negotiations, and they refused to even discuss anything aside from unconditional surrender for several months.

Its not that IRON was prepared to do so, its that the offer was rejected out of hand by Gramlins when it was first offered. IRON seems to have made it clear that an apology is not currently on the table.

That being said, each time I review this interview, it keeps revealing more and more nuances of the interviewed. Fascinating.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Chron

[Heft]

[quote name='Tromp' date='02 July 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1278124355' post='2358319']
It is not important why Gremlins is (supposedly?) changing its tune, the very fact that their position should be quite acceptable to IRON&co is.


Hold it right there.
Why would they have offered an apology back in the day then?
[/quote]
There is a marked difference between what they may have been willing to offer an apology for and what this amendment would claim. There's also the point that they have never had any reason to apologize to Gramlins or at Gramlins behest, and that hasn't changed.

Finally, there is the point that any peace agreement at this point would be a magnanimous and materially unnecessary move on the part of IRON and DAWN, thus leaving them with no incentive to help assuage the bruised ego of a sad man.

[StevieG]

Um, maybe looking for admission of guilt, etc, that you are looking to get amended into the ESA, should have instead been brought for discussion some three months ago as opposed to looking for unconditional surrender. I cant say for certain that it would have been accepted, but maybe what the most of the world has been harping on at you about was right. You should have actually asked for what you wanted in a Peace agreement instead of looking for silly conditions such as the demilitarization of IRON prior to you accepting their unconditional surrender. And no further explanation!

Its just so simple really.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='StevieG' date='03 July 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1278141248' post='2358552']
Um, maybe looking for admission of guilt, etc, that you are looking to get amended into the ESA, should have instead been brought for discussion some three months ago as opposed to looking for unconditional surrender.[/quote]
Nailed it.

A few months to late, Ram.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Tromp' date='02 July 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1278076163' post='2357637']
I don't really see why anyone is complaining about the proposed amendment.
An apology was offered before, according to these people: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=3840&p=2333982&#entry2333982]1[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=3840&p=2333008&#entry2333008]2[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=3800&p=2330024&#entry2330024]3[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&st=3760&p=2329321&#entry2329321]4[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2341778]5[/url].

Most all of us have stated they want this war to end, yet now that this is a possibility it is being rejected.
Then again, there are people like [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2333239]amad[/url] and [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2336112]Schmoo[/url] who apparently never felt that way, even go so far to state they desire utter destruction of Gre.
[/quote]

Oh pls, when someone attempts to put you in a war with no end by throwing unacceptable conditions, there is bound to be varying degree of reaction. What Gre has done and what its been offered in return is more than generous. Our official position remains that of WHITE PEACE. You cherry picked 2 posts, perhaps you should pick out posts where Gre has been urged to accept white peace, but that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Apology was offered in context of what happened several months ago. Since alot has happened and changed and for that if an apology is going to be forthcoming, it should IMO come from Ramirus.

We had offered it to, it wasnt taken and that was that.
Since then Gre has held up our reps and slowed down our reconstruction and aid flow from top tier nations, have been "privately" congratulated by Gre's friends for keeping us down as claimed by Gre themselves, they have in effect extended our reps period by 3 months, we will spend entire 2010 under obligations of reps due to Gre. There should be no apology in light of what Gre has done nor on Gre's behest and if certain signatories are accepting the ways of Gre to extract an apology, then it only adds up to the reasons why no apology needs to be offered. If you wanted apology, why did you wait for 3 months, 3 months that has had huge cost for us and even bigger opportunity cost. Sorry if I say I dont buy any of it.

Edited July 3, 2010 by shahenshah

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Hold it right there.
Why would they have offered an apology back in the day then?[/quote]
Read the whole paragraph you quoted instead of looking for things to pick out as debating points and you'll see. What Ram is asking is not just an apology, it's a statement that everything IRON (and others) did is wrong. IRON and TOP realised that the pre-emptive attack was a mistake once Polar peaced out, and could reasonably have been apologising for what turned out to be needless escalation, without 'admitting' that they were responsible for starting the war and other untruths that are in the proposed amendment. But you'd have to ask an IRON representative to be sure.

[quote]Your entire argument is based on this, yet the "perpetrators" disagree with you.[/quote]
Do they? I've been getting the impression that IRON don't think they started the war ('initiating a unwarranted global conflict') or entered the war 'without cause or provokation and with malice aforethought'. If you can point me to where IRON representatives agree with the content of the proposed amendment then I'll give you that point, but that wasn't the impression I was getting from their posts. (It would be strange if they did since the first is demonstrably untrue and the second is unlikely to be how they think, considering if they thought they had no cause they wouldn't have declared war in the first place.)

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 July 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1278115048' post='2358211']
Some-Guy: Wait, you mean Grämlins are trying to push an amendment to ESA and still aren't planning on signing it? How does that make any sense at all? Surely they can just put the clause in question into the peace treaty with IRON and DAWN? IRON are still perfectly entitled not to sign such a revisionist 'admission' clause though (although everyone knows that apologies and admissions of responsiblity in peace terms mean nothing).
[/quote]

As I understand it, Gramlins will be added to the 'collective forces' as listed in section two of the ESA, the "preamble" will be added (even though none of the signatories desire it) but Gramlins will not be added to the list signatories.

It still remains a mystery to me why TOP should entertain this third party request. IRON and DAWN do not wish for it and none of original signatories seem to be bothered to come and petition us to otherwise consider our position. Even the Gramlins aren't assisting us in making our decision in their favour as they have yet to even suggest what the separate conditions for an IRON and DAWN peace might be.

I am having a hard time believing that this is an honest effort for peace.

[Altheus]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='02 July 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1278079528' post='2357668']
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that TOP did a number of things wrong. More accurately, let me rephrase that to read "There were many things wrong with TOP."
[list=1]

[*]TOP allowed both of the blocs in which they held membership to trample on one another to the point that neither were sustainable. This served to weaken TOP's protection and make us susceptible to attack.
[*]TOP allowed pragmatism to evolve into indecision. Indecisiveness bred internal frustration and caused our perspective to become skewed.
[*]TOP's skewed perspective became calcified, and we were thus unable to appreciate the perspective of others.
[*]After the fall of both the Continuum and the Citadel, TOP became isolated.
[*]TOP was unable to free itself from the fetters of an ex-Hegemony reputation and methodology in a post-Karma world.
[*]Without a comforting defensive bloc, and simultaneously holding the #1 rank, TOP became a focal point of political speculation distorting our already skewed perspective into paranoia.
[/list]

There were many things wrong with TOP.[/quote]

Just want to say that I completely agree with your analysis and came to the same conclusions myself. It's a shame though that if TOP realises the above, that outwardly they tried to spin a different tale during the conflict. Even going as far as to try and pin their ills as the fault of others.
The pre-empt was very surprising at the time, but perhaps (given TOP's paranoia) it shouldn't have been. Either way glad to see a TOP member trying not to shift the blame.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='03 July 2010 - 12:05 AM' timestamp='1278079528' post='2357668']
In response to "IRON/TOP still haven't admitted that what they did was WRONG":

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that TOP did a number of things wrong. More accurately, let me rephrase that to read "There were many things wrong with TOP."
[list=1][*]TOP allowed both of the blocs in which they held membership to trample on one another to the point that neither were sustainable. This served to weaken TOP's protection and make us susceptible to attack.[*]TOP allowed pragmatism to evolve into indecision. Indecisiveness bred internal frustration and caused our perspective to become skewed.[*]TOP's skewed perspective became calcified, and we were thus unable to appreciate the perspective of others.[*]After the fall of both the Continuum and the Citadel, TOP became isolated.[*]TOP was unable to free itself from the fetters of an ex-Hegemony reputation and methodology in a post-Karma world.[*]Without a comforting defensive bloc, and simultaneously holding the #1 rank, TOP became a focal point of political speculation distorting our already skewed perspective into paranoia.[/list]

There were many things wrong with TOP. [/quote]

You manage to come up with quite a sizeable list without even touching on the point, quite impressive [i]Herr Spindoktor[/i].

Admitting to structural failures is simply a contrivance to avoid acknowledging moral ones. You mention the fall of the Continuum and the Citadel as if these were simply random events and even as you attempt to acknowledge some 'wrong' you cannot bring yourself to even use the active voice! "TOP became isolated." Passive voice, it's not something TOP did, it's something some un-named force did to TOP. If this werent on your list of 'wrongs' no one would guess it belongs there.





[quote]The pre-emptive strike was merely the obvious external manifestation of a warped internal perspective and nightmarish political position. I won't call that wrong. If anything, the pre-emptive strike has given us the opportunity to reground ourselves and objectively re-evaluate our position. Suffering our first loss and possessing the mental discipline to honestly examine what brought that loss about is possibly the most beneficial thing that has happened to us since we allied with NPO after GW1. [/quote]

Again, completely missing the point. When your critics say you were 'wrong' they dont mean you were in a less-than-ideal political situation, or that your internal perspective was warped (though the latter is at least an obliquely related discussion) but that your actions were wrong! The very concept seems to be incomprehensible to you?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='01 July 2010 - 08:57 AM' timestamp='1277989022' post='2356542']
Have to agree with AvT on this one. Of course such a diplomatic tact requires discrete conversations and the willingness of those you chose to speak with not to simply point an laugh or worse proceed to tell everyone else what you are up to and poison the well.



He would actually do much of anything he isn't already doing. If he manages to convince C&G and in particular MHA to reopen the treaty, they would provide the required leverage.

Note that requires he be able to manipulate his own allies, or former allies, and that they would be gullible enough to fall for it or still bare that much grudge against IRON.

I don't see a point in going back there, tbh. It would be just plain silly.
[/quote]

It'd be pretty silly of them to go along with it, just as there are those of us who don't like the idea of setting precedent on something like unconditional surrender, setting the precedent that terms can be added to after they are signed is also something nobody sane wants let out of the bag.

Even aside from that the offer of an amendment to the ESA is both stupid and insulting. Its stupid because gre has a self professed paperless FA, yet want a documented changed to suit their desires, har har.

Its insulting because the offer acts like Gre has a bargaining position at all. A month ago it might not have been as obvious but its clear as day now, clear enough that even Ram admits it. Gre is dieing. They aren't just losing this war its killing them. The status quo will result in the annihilation of his alliance through his own ego. Ram shouldn't be demanding terms, he should be asking what they are.

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 July 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1278078851' post='2357658']
Is cancellation of reps not an amendment of the terms already?
[/quote]

An alliance owed reps can forgive them without modifying the treaty, if the treaty establishes a "debt" the owed group can simply forgive said debt, adding to a surrender term after the fact is a far different proposition, worse what if everybody but the defeated party likes a new change, they agreed to surrender terms already and now they are going to change? Is it ok to go back to war to force an amendment on them? who would ever surrender under anything other than white peace if they could not be sure the terms wouldn't change on them? It opens a can of worms nobody should want to deal with. Its another attempt by Ram to introduce ridiculous political maneuvering with no thought what so ever on how it might affect anything other than what hes looking at right now.

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='03 July 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1278175679' post='2358739']
You manage to come up with quite a sizeable list without even touching on the point, quite impressive [i]Herr Spindoktor[/i].

Admitting to structural failures is simply a contrivance to avoid acknowledging moral ones. You mention the fall of the Continuum and the Citadel as if these were simply random events and even as you attempt to acknowledge some 'wrong' you cannot bring yourself to even use the active voice! "TOP became isolated." Passive voice, it's not something TOP did, it's something some un-named force did to TOP. If this werent on your list of 'wrongs' no one would guess it belongs there.

Again, completely missing the point. When your critics say you were 'wrong' they dont mean you were in a less-than-ideal political situation, or that your internal perspective was warped (though the latter is at least an obliquely related discussion) but that your actions were wrong! The very concept seems to be incomprehensible to you?
[/quote]

It would be hard to respond to this subject without moving further off the topic, which would be a disservice to many, would you like Walker and I to discuss this issue further in private missive?

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 July 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1278181800' post='2358794']
It'd be pretty silly of them to go along with it, just as there are those of us who don't like the idea of setting precedent on something like unconditional surrender, setting the precedent that terms can be added to after they are signed is also something nobody sane wants let out of the bag.

Even aside from that the offer of an amendment to the ESA is both stupid and insulting. Its stupid because gre has a self professed paperless FA, yet want a documented changed to suit their desires, har har.

Its insulting because the offer acts like Gre has a bargaining position at all. A month ago it might not have been as obvious but its clear as day now, clear enough that even Ram admits it. Gre is dieing. They aren't just losing this war its killing them. The status quo will result in the annihilation of his alliance through his own ego. Ram shouldn't be demanding terms, he should be asking what they are.



An alliance owed reps can forgive them without modifying the treaty, if the treaty establishes a "debt" the owed group can simply forgive said debt, adding to a surrender term after the fact is a far different proposition, worse what if everybody but the defeated party likes a new change, they agreed to surrender terms already and now they are going to change? Is it ok to go back to war to force an amendment on them? who would ever surrender under anything other than white peace if they could not be sure the terms wouldn't change on them? It opens a can of worms nobody should want to deal with. Its another attempt by Ram to introduce ridiculous political maneuvering with no thought what so ever on how it might affect anything other than what hes looking at right now.
[/quote]

This is a very good summary of why Ram's current idea isn't going to happen whether he likes it or not. It is also Day 91 of IRON/DAWN offering White Peace to the Gramlins.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 July 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1278181800' post='2358794']
It'd be pretty silly of them to go along with it, just as there are those of us who don't like the idea of setting precedent on something like unconditional surrender, setting the precedent that terms can be added to after they are signed is also something nobody sane wants let out of the bag.

Even aside from that the offer of an amendment to the ESA is both stupid and insulting. Its stupid because gre has a self professed paperless FA, yet want a documented changed to suit their desires, har har.

Its insulting because the offer acts like Gre has a bargaining position at all. A month ago it might not have been as obvious but its clear as day now, clear enough that even Ram admits it. Gre is dieing. They aren't just losing this war its killing them. The status quo will result in the annihilation of his alliance through his own ego. Ram shouldn't be demanding terms, he should be asking what they are.



An alliance owed reps can forgive them without modifying the treaty, if the treaty establishes a "debt" the owed group can simply forgive said debt, adding to a surrender term after the fact is a far different proposition, worse what if everybody but the defeated party likes a new change, they agreed to surrender terms already and now they are going to change? Is it ok to go back to war to force an amendment on them? who would ever surrender under anything other than white peace if they could not be sure the terms wouldn't change on them? It opens a can of worms nobody should want to deal with. Its another attempt by Ram to introduce ridiculous political maneuvering with no thought what so ever on how it might affect anything other than what hes looking at right now.
[/quote]

you know what i find amusing.... Every single alliance that claimed that they could not support changing the ESA to allow alliances under terms to be able to fight for IRON/DAWN, are now trying to change the entire treaty...

sorry, but that is just ridiculous. if the victors were unable to change it to allow alliances to fight for IRON/DAWN against Gremlins because they did not want to set a "precedent", then what is different now? there is not a damn thing different, except it is an ally of the victors that proposed a change, instead of the defeated. sorry, but that don't cut it.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 July 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1278194442' post='2359011']
you know what i find amusing.... Every single alliance that claimed that they could not support changing the ESA to allow alliances under terms to be able to fight for IRON/DAWN, are now trying to change the entire treaty...

sorry, but that is just ridiculous. if the victors were unable to change it to allow alliances to fight for IRON/DAWN against Gremlins because they did not want to set a "precedent", then what is different now? there is not a damn thing different, except it is an ally of the victors that proposed a change, instead of the defeated. sorry, but that don't cut it.
[/quote]

Snarking at the wrong people there matey, we released Argent from terms long ago.

Edited July 3, 2010 by TypoNinja

[janax]

True story. Nothing but love for VE and how they handled things

[wenwillthisend]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 July 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1278115048' post='2358211']


Some-Guy: Wait, you mean Grämlins are trying to push an amendment to ESA and still aren't planning on signing it? How does that make any sense at all? Surely they can just put the clause in question into the peace treaty with IRON and DAWN? IRON are still perfectly entitled not to sign such a revisionist 'admission' clause though (although everyone knows that apologies and admissions of responsiblity in peace terms mean nothing).
[/quote]

That can't work Bob, Ram has said on many occassions that Gre DOES NOT sign treaties, that's why according to him he never signed the ESA cause it's a treaty.

[Ramirus Maximus]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='03 July 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1278145174' post='2358572']If you wanted apology, why did you wait for 3 months, 3 months that has had huge cost for us and even bigger opportunity cost.[/quote]
Maybe you should've surrendered on March 27th. You would've been been out of terms and had full peace in under a week.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='04 July 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1278227691' post='2359350']
Maybe you should've surrendered on March 27th. You would've been been out of terms and had full peace in under a week.
[/quote]

And maybe you should have been reasonable instead of throwing a tantrum and yelling "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!!!!". That way, you would still have an alliance with more than 20 people.

In about a week, Gramlins be under 1 million NS.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='03 July 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1278198281' post='2359061']
Snarking at the wrong people there matey, we released Argent from terms long ago.
[/quote]

i never mentioned VE did i? i quoted you because you were talking about modifying surrender terms/treaties, and i agreed with your post. i just added on the hypocrisy i saw from so many of the alliances on the victor's side of the ESA, are now more than willing to modify the treaty whereas before it was going to be this horrible precedent that would have been set. iirc, VE was willing to discuss the releasing of terms in private and did not state anything about it being a horrible precedent.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='04 July 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1278227691' post='2359350']
Maybe you should've surrendered on March 27th. You would've been been out of terms and had full peace in under a week.
[/quote]

maybe you should've negotiated in good faith and given IRON/DAWN the terms you desired from them, instead of being ridiculous and doing what you did. you would've have not crushed Gremlins, driven many members away, and basically destroyed your own alliance.

[amad123]

[quote name='dvdcchn' date='02 July 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1278116243' post='2358225']
on the bright note though, we have started coordination and talks to start paying our reps to ODN FARK and Sparta to start rep payments while at war. [/quote]
Strategically this could be a huge mistake. If IRON should finish paying reps while still at war with Gramlins, and by that I mean Gramlins hasn’t agreed to sign a peace treaty, then any and all of the signatories of the ESA would be free to DOW IRON for continuing to wage war with Gramlins. Specifically MHA would be bound to re-enter first and then various treaties would draw everyone else in. The only way reps should be paid would be to get agreement from all alliances that once the reps are completed they would not declare war in support of the Gramlins.

Ramirus has about a $900mil warchest, others have between $4billion and $5billion so if they don’t sign a peace treaty this war will last far longer than the time it will take IRON to pay reps.

Paying reps without an agreement of “Non Support for Gramlins” is setting IRON up for a war once reps are finished and knowingly doing so. It is a very risky move to take unless the risks are mitigated beforehand.

For those who find my aggressive stance of continued war against Gramlins until they are all bill locked, offensive, too bad, I stand by it, and I stand by it for these reasons.

1) Gramlins will not negotiate peace. Therefore if allowed to survive they will undoubtedly pull this same stunt next war, who needs to see this again.
2) Gramlins needs to be eliminated as a threat to DAWN. Since we are a small alliance Gramlins needs to be much smaller to be rendered threat less.
3) My nation is and always has been one that prefers war over peace, we are now in a war in which we can win, why would I want to stop before achieving complete victory and eliminating a threat.
4) If Gramlins could be eliminated as a threat to DAWN by negotiation then fine, give peace a chance, but I see no effort on their part to be reasonable or attempt to negotiate.

By my reckoning a $5bil warchest will take about 200 or so days to eliminate, so at most the war will last another year. I have patience, we have set about a task that will take time, one does not abandon a task just because it will take a long time.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='04 July 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1278227691' post='2359350']
Maybe you should've surrendered on March 27th. You would've been been out of terms and had full peace in under a week.
[/quote]


This best represents best why it is that the Gramlins position is so, what is the word... idiotic.

Here we are with a once respected alliance ground into dust; losing so many members it barely qualifies as an actualy alliance; and the megolomaniac who lead them to this is telling others they should have surrendered!