Ramirus: Scourge of the Grämlins

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='04 July 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1278250021' post='2359430']
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.
[/quote]

Sorry thought you were aiming it at us since you quoted me, my bad. That's what I get for not reading slower, read the words, miss the context

[quote]iirc, VE was willing to discuss the releasing of terms in private and did not state anything about it being a horrible precedent.[/quote]

Ending of terms, is a far different ballgame than adding to terms after the fact, especially when the "Terms" in questions were a simple "don't jump back into the war". At the point we released Argent the BiPolar war was long over, it had been reduced to a retarded side show by Gre offering an abject lesson in how not to run an alliance.

So yea, I think its horrible precedent to change(read add to) terms after the fact, but I make a distinction between ex post facto additions and the more straight forward proposition of forgiving/ending terms.

If terms say an alliance owes us 10k tech, it has simply set up a debt. We can then say we are waiving some or all of that payment without a change in terms. Much like if I buy you a 20 dollar steak dinner and then when you attempt to pay me back I say don't worry about it.

Its a thin line, but an important one I think.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='04 July 2010 - 08:15 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 man up, bow down, accept you and Grämlins are morally bankrupt and meditate on Machiaveli's words [i]De contemptu et odio fugiendo[/i] and how they can be adapted to an Alliance ruler.

[chefjoe]

[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]

Is this what you would like IRON to carve into the Gremlins headstone?

Seems like an appropriate epitath to me tbh.

Edited July 4, 2010 by chefjoe

[HellAngel]

Gre is still around?

Funny, i thought i smelled the stench of death ages ago.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='04 July 2010 - 08:15 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]
If a surrender is such an insignificant thing, seemingly an after thought to you. Why not surrender to IRON and DAWN. Its nothing really, just something that can be put behind you in a week.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Alterego

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='amad123' date='04 July 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1278251848' post='2359435']
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.
[/quote]

Well said amad. Your perseverance is a testament to yourself and your alliance.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='04 July 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1278271078' post='2359582']
Sorry thought you were aiming it at us since you quoted me, my bad. That's what I get for not reading slower, read the words, miss the context [/quote]

no problems. i should have made a clearer distinction since i did quote you.



[quote]Ending of terms, is a far different ballgame than adding to terms after the fact, especially when the "Terms" in questions were a simple "don't jump back into the war". At the point we released Argent the BiPolar war was long over, it had been reduced to a retarded side show by Gre offering an abject lesson in how not to run an alliance.

So yea, I think its horrible precedent to change(read add to) terms after the fact, but I make a distinction between ex post facto additions and the more straight forward proposition of forgiving/ending terms.

If terms say an alliance owes us 10k tech, it has simply set up a debt. We can then say we are waiving some or all of that payment without a change in terms. Much like if I buy you a 20 dollar steak dinner and then when you attempt to pay me back I say don't worry about it.

Its a thin line, but an important one I think.
[/quote]

i agree that there is a difference between ending/forgiving of terms and adding in new terms to a surrender treaty. but many on the victor's side, seem to think that the ending/forgiving of terms is something worse than adding on a new term several months after the treaty was signed, and even after at least one if not more of the defeated alliances have been released from said treaty.

to me it is not a thin line between forgiveness and trying to add more punishment. in fact, there is such a wide chasm it is unfathomable to bridge. Forgiving a term or the entire treaty (as is the case with releasing an alliance early) is something that is done usually in an attempt of kindness and a step forward in relations. adding more punishment is the complete opposite and is simply something that should not be allowed to happen.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='04 July 2010 - 03:15 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]
Does this count as a response? Because I'm kinda tired of talking.

[img]http://uploads.mibbit.com/3VpfDg.png[/img]

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='04 July 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1278278880' post='2359657']
Does this count as a response? Because I'm kinda tired of talking.

[img]http://uploads.mibbit.com/3VpfDg.png[/img]
[/quote]

With so much hot air flying around, its nice to see some people putting their money where their mouth is.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='29 June 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1277851554' post='2354457']
[b]Essentially all of the allies you initially fought the war with have now made peace with IRON, why is it that the Grämlins have opted to continue?[/b]
Because, as you can check for yourself, there is no mention of the war beyond a military abstract made in the Easter Sunday Accords. There is nothing that shows IRON/TOP/etc did anything "wrong", and indeed they still claim innocence. Their only mistake, in their view, is losing the war. Military losses aside, this wasn't acceptable to the Grämlins. Currently, the ESA is essentially nothing more than a bribe to stop the beating. Our entry into the war was in defense of MK, primarily. Our intention was to make sure their attackers were dealt with. The ESA doesn't accomplish that in any way, not even just a little bit. The idea that tech reps implies admission of guilt is objectionable to anyone with a sense of common decency. Of course, it's also true that in the original publication of the ESA, having just a line in there where IRON/TOP/etc said: "Hurhur, we're sorry" would be meaningless as well, since the smooth-brained Digiterran community skips right over details like that, eyes hungrily searching for the tech rep numbers. Because that's all anyone gives a !@#$ about is reps. If the only reason you go to war is so you can greedily suck down some tech reps that you extorted off the losers of the war, then you're no better than they are.

We are seeking an amendment to make the ESA work as a statement of principle, rather than merely a bill-of-sale. So far, all of C&G as well as MHA, FOK, STA, NpO, Umbrella, BACoN, DF, IAA, Nemesis, Ronin, Sparta, and tR have all given their official support of our amendment. That's almost everyone who originally signed the ESA. The rest are either deliberating, or haven't been asked yet. I'd say that's a fair indicator of world opinion.
[/quote]

For the record (and I may be late on this one), the only person from MK who could officially support such a statement at this point in time - that being me - did not. I've yet to even be approached about such a possibility (although I have heard about it from others in passing).

That said, the victorious assemblage of alliances could have required an admission of guilt and culpability from the surrendering parties as part of their terms, but the inherent lack of sincerity - after all, they'd essentially be doing it with a gun to their heads - makes it a largely pointless endeavor.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='04 July 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1278295214' post='2359870']
For the record (and I may be late on this one), the only person from MK who could officially support such a statement at this point in time - that being me - did not. I've yet to even be approached about such a possibility (although I have heard about it from others in passing).

That said, the victorious assemblage of alliances could have required an admission of guilt and culpability from the surrendering parties as part of their terms, but the inherent lack of sincerity - after all, they'd essentially be doing it with a gun to their heads - makes it a largely pointless endeavor.
[/quote]

SW, thank you for confirming yet another lie from the mouth of Ramirus when he said that [b]all[/b] of CnG had given their official support of their proposed amendment to the ESA. I'm left wondering who if any have actually given their support.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Matt Miller

[StevieG]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='05 July 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1278295676' post='2359883']
SW, thank you for confirming yet another lie from the mouth of Ramirus when he said that [b]all[/b] of CnG had given their official support of their proposed amendment to the ESA. I'm left wondering who if any have actually given their support.
[/quote]

Its beyond a joke really.

[janax]

That's awesome.

Thank you for that gem to add to the situation

[Alterego]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='05 July 2010 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1278295214' post='2359870']
For the record (and I may be late on this one), the only person from MK who could officially support such a statement at this point in time - that being me - did not. I've yet to even be approached about such a possibility (although I have heard about it from others in passing).
[/quote]

You arent the only person whos late on this one.

Whats next for Gramlins:

[b]A.[/b] Claim it was a misunderstanding or communication error
[b]B.[/b] Log dump
[b]C.[/b] Further denials from other "late" arrivals
[b]D.[/b] Gramlins are put back in their box and it ends
[b]E.[/b] Ignore this latest revelation carry on regardless
[b]F.[/b] Other
[b]G.[/b] All of the above

[shahenshah]

This whole PR stunt seems to have backfired and exposed Gre to more dimensions of criticism. I thought I'd never say this...but well done Schatt.

[Sooner]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='05 July 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1278314043' post='2360133']
This whole PR stunt seems to have backfired and exposed Gre to more dimensions of criticism. I thought I'd never say this...but well done Schatt.
[/quote]

Hear Hear!!

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='04 July 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1278295214' post='2359870']
That said, the victorious assemblage of alliances could have required an admission of guilt and culpability from the surrendering parties as part of their terms, but the inherent lack of sincerity - after all, they'd essentially be doing it with a gun to their heads - makes it a largely pointless endeavor.
[/quote]

... which is pretty much precisely what I said in the "New Gremlins" thread.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1278339995' post='2360235']
... which is pretty much precisely what I said in the "New Gremlins" thread.
[/quote]
Well I would say your current course of action is an equally pointless endeavor. MPK, do you have any additional information about Ramirus' claim that all of CnG has given their official support to the proposed ESA amendment?

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1278339995' post='2360235']
... which is pretty much precisely what I said in the "New Gremlins" thread.
[/quote]

The only thing you are doing now is trying to make a martyr out of yourself and Gre. The problem with that course of action is that people have to care about the cause for which the martyr gives their pixels. But nobody cares about this and the more you and Ram try to spin this the more ridiculous your position becomes. Indeed, the more upset your paperless relationships may become as untruths are said about them.

Face facts. You were wrong to demand an unconditional surrender. You are wrong to demand an amendment to a peace agreement that has been made and which is well on the way to being performed. You need to face reality and grasp the olive branch extended by IRON.

Can you give one sane reason why Ram will not do that?

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='D34th' date='30 June 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1277857998' post='2354575']
I'll repeat here what I said to Ramirus in our forums: While I doesn't agree with your point of views I understand and respect them.

Also Ramirus, doesn't forget our bet
[/quote]
The grammar is killing me...

But really, this joke has gone on long enough already. On bob, if you don't have the power to back up your words, or the means to attain power through friends, then you will change nothing. At the moment you have neither.

[D34th]

[quote name='Jens of the desert' date='05 July 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1278374958' post='2360582']
The grammar is killing me...

But really, this joke has gone on long enough already. On bob, if you don't have the power to back up your words, or the means to attain power through friends, then you will change nothing. At the moment you have neither.
[/quote]

My work is kill people and grammar is one of the tools that I use.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='05 July 2010 - 08:45 AM' timestamp='1278344720' post='2360282']
Well I would say your current course of action is an equally pointless endeavor. MPK, do you have any additional information about Ramirus' claim that all of CnG has given their official support to the proposed ESA amendment?
[/quote]


I have no desire/information to share with you regarding who has/hasn't agreed to what. Sorry.


[quote name='crazy canuck' date='05 July 2010 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1278370259' post='2360531']
The only thing you are doing now is trying to make a martyr out of yourself and Gre. The problem with that course of action is that people have to care about the cause for which the martyr gives their pixels. But nobody cares about this and the more you and Ram try to spin this the more ridiculous your position becomes. Indeed, the more upset your paperless relationships may become as untruths are said about them.[/quote]

I haven't seen much proof that Ram has lied about our friends. All issues thus far (excepting SW's) have been well enough explained. That said, I'll be quite upset should I find that Ram deliberately lied about our friends; though I don't believe that to be the case. Don't latch onto one side of the story without knowing all the facts just because you wish it to be true. (cue everybody telling me I'm calling the kettle black )


[quote]Face facts. You were wrong to demand an unconditional surrender. You are wrong to demand an amendment to a peace agreement that has been made and which is well on the way to being performed. You need to face reality and grasp the olive branch extended by IRON.[/quote]

It is not wrong to demand IRON surrender unconditionally for their actions.
It is not wrong to *propose* an amendment as an alternative to a method our friends find unpalatable.

I have no interest in accepting white peace from IRON. This issue is dominantly about their deliberate and malicious action instigating the war. They are in no position to offer white peace.

[quote]Can you give one sane reason why Ram will not do that?
[/quote]

Go ask him. I can only give you my reasons.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1278380751' post='2360672']
They (IRON) are in no position to offer white peace.
[/quote]
You're right, we're in a position to demand reps. But we aren't.

[FlogYou]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='04 July 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1278295214' post='2359870']
For the record (and I may be late on this one), the only person from MK who could officially support such a statement at this point in time - that being me - did not. I've yet to even be approached about such a possibility (although I have heard about it from others in passing).

That said, the victorious assemblage of alliances could have required an admission of guilt and culpability from the surrendering parties as part of their terms, but the inherent lack of sincerity - after all, they'd essentially be doing it with a gun to their heads - makes it a largely pointless endeavor.
[/quote]


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 July 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1278380751' post='2360672']
I have no desire/information to share with you regarding who has/hasn't agreed to what. Sorry.




I haven't seen much proof that Ram has lied about our friends. All issues thus far (excepting SW's) have been well enough explained. That said, I'll be quite upset should I find that Ram deliberately lied about our friends; though I don't believe that to be the case. Don't latch onto one side of the story without knowing all the facts just because you wish it to be true. (cue everybody telling me I'm calling the kettle black )




It is not wrong to demand IRON surrender unconditionally for their actions.
It is not wrong to *propose* an amendment as an alternative to a method our friends find unpalatable.

I have no interest in accepting white peace from IRON. This issue is dominantly about their deliberate and malicious action instigating the war. They are in no position to offer white peace.



Go ask him. I can only give you my reasons.
[/quote]

So many priceless retorts, where do I begin?

1. Thank admin for multiquotes.

2. The IRONing is so delicious.

3. The "Baghdad Bob" position with gRAMlins has been filled.

4. deliberately and maliciously you are in no position to accept any peace other than white peace, because that is what is being graciously offered to you. The choice seems quite crystal clear, or shall we invite TOLYWYN in here to settle this and all further disputes which befall planet BOB. Are you so naive to think that if your first offer couldn't get the job done, your counter offer to white peace would be anything other than lolramlins?

5. They are designed as a series of concentric circles drawing your eyes towards them. They have the same layout as a target symbol.


I submit to you no poultry was harmed in the formation of these rebuttal points

Edited July 6, 2010 by FlogYou

[Gamemaster1]

Claiming bragging rights: I just ZI'd Ramirus. It's about damn time.