Jump to content

Ramirus: Scourge of the Grämlins


Recommended Posts

I've learned a few things but big questions still loom. My position on the whole thing is largely unchanged though: Gramlins has made plenty of foolish decisions and paid dearly for it, taking heavy damage in all ways I can really think of. On the other hand, IRON and their friends can hardly claim that they are a victim when they are the ones who started it in the first place. While I first sympathized with IRON in rejecting the demands of Gre, it didn't take before I became disgusted with the transparent use of the Gramlins as a podium to prove an alliance's dedication to justice or morals or whatever horse!@#$ they expect the OWF to believe they stand for. After 200 pages of babble from the IRON side and several logs and interviews from the Gre side, my opinion still lies right where it started. Right smack in the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Alterego' date='30 June 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1277877129' post='2354942']
Why are you trying to give Gramlins a PR victory schatt? MK forcing through his appointment was funny, Gramlins did indeed die a long time ago if the loser of an election gets appointed by foreign powers.
[/quote]
Sometimes it's like you live in some sort of alternative reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]We're seeking an explanation of why the war was fought, an assignment of blame, and an apology from those held responsible.[/quote]

I find this absolutely hilarious in light of poor MattPK telling us for 20 pages you were not seeking an apology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard for me--as a man who is only mostly, but not completely, illiterate--to see a person talk so sternly about morals and standing up for something, then to have that same man express a desire for things to be more "Machiavellian."

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='30 June 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1277877129' post='2354942']
Why are you trying to give Gramlins a PR victory schatt? MK forcing through his appointment was funny, Gramlins did indeed die a long time ago if the loser of an election gets appointed by foreign powers.
[/quote]
Alterego, that was a joke. Archon is a rank in Grämlins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Diomede' date='29 June 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1277864622' post='2354725']
So the Grämlins never broke the Lux Aeterna... right, ok. lol.
So the Grämlins is a democracy when the vote of one can count as the vote of several. Ok, again. lol.

I'm sensing a slight disconnect from reality, but an interesting interview none the less.
[/quote]

I am kind of tired of hearing that since they definitely weren't the only alliance to fudge with the Lux rules, yet they get crucified for it at every opportunity. Do I need to remind you who Umbrella held treaties with and when the Lux was dissolved? If Gremlins breaking Lux was justification for other members of the bloc to break it again, then the rest need to !@#$@#$ drop the issue already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' date='30 June 2010 - 07:25 AM' timestamp='1277897113' post='2355064']
Alterego, that was a joke. Archon is a rank in Grämlins.
[/quote]
Shhh. Jokes are more fun when there's one guy who takes them seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='30 June 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1277900677' post='2355084']
I am kind of tired of hearing that since they definitely weren't the only alliance to fudge with the Lux rules, yet they get crucified for it at every opportunity.
[/quote]
You're forgetting that Ram brought it up in the OP, dude. I think it's fair play if he's gonna bloody well peddle lies about it in public. I say $%&@ him and the horse he rode in on, he's a facetious two-faced !@#$.

Edited by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='30 June 2010 - 07:24 AM' timestamp='1277900677' post='2355084']
I am kind of tired of hearing that since they definitely weren't the only alliance to fudge with the Lux rules, yet they get crucified for it at every opportunity. Do I need to remind you who Umbrella held treaties with and when the Lux was dissolved? If Gremlins breaking Lux was justification for other members of the bloc to break it again, then the rest need to !@#$@#$ drop the issue already.
[/quote]


He doesn't bring it up, no one mentions it. ALMOST everyone...broke it at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='flak attack' date='30 June 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1277903564' post='2355105']
Shhh. Jokes are more fun when there's one guy who takes them seriously.
[/quote]
Sorry, my bad. Actually they're more fun when there's a whole alliance taking them seriously :awesome:

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='30 June 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1277900677' post='2355084']
I am kind of tired of hearing that since they definitely weren't the only alliance to fudge with the Lux rules, yet they get crucified for it at every opportunity. Do I need to remind you who Umbrella held treaties with and when the Lux was dissolved? If Gremlins breaking Lux was justification for other members of the bloc to break it again, then the rest need to !@#$@#$ drop the issue already.
[/quote]
The point over here isn't the fact that they should have been the only one to break Lux, which they definitely weren't, but that Ram said they didn't break Lux, which is a straight out lie. The fact something is commited by many people doesn't make it not happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Vladimir on this one - I don't think there's really a consistent train of thought through this. Beyond that, it certainly doesn't mesh with the behavior of either the leadership or the alliance at the heart of the subject. The interview itself is rather good from a technical standpoint but I don't really see what the expected dividends were when it's all a little transparent on the part of Ram.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good move Ram, good move. Must have taken some effort to speak to the masses.

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='30 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1277903699' post='2355107']
You're forgetting that Ram brought it up in the OP, dude. I think it's fair play if he's gonna bloody well peddle lies about it in public. I say $%&@ him and the horse he rode in on, he's a facetious two-faced !@#$.
[/quote]

No.

Ram from the begging has believed that Gre never broke the Lux. His logic is fairly simple, you can e-lawyer it as much as you want but it wont change its validity.
NPO started an aggressive war (which by my own logic is arguable) and IRON supported that war by entering on NPO's side. Thus IRON was clearly on the aggressive side. Once Fark was drawn in (following Ram's logic) Gre had no choice but to assist its friend against an aggressor. Again by the same logic there is no valid argument against [b]doing the right thing[/b] by helping your friends against an aggressor.

The logic for those in charge at Gre at the time might have been different but almost all of us agreed that engaging IRON was the right thing to do no matter what because it was the only way to ensure our side's victory. There was never any doubt in my mind about that and i didnt feel conflicted about it at all although i understood perfectly how hard it was on TOP given we were about to crater one of their closest allies (independent of whether it was a good or bad choice on their part).

Some in TOP understood our actions (just like i understood their ties to IRON and NPO) while others are still butthurt to this day.

(This mess was also one of the main reasons i was a big supporter of the paperless policy)


As for the old "honorable" gremlins that Hal keeps referring to and having them come back and rebuild gre, well, you can stop dreaming. Not gonna happen. The current gremllins are as honorable as the old ones (although Ram would disagree) they just have different values.
Ram paints them one way i see them another. Syz did have an ideology of honor and justice i have no doubt about that but he also used realpolitik to get to his goals. Unlike Ram i dont see anything wrong with it. Hell, id say thats pretty machivelian. On an average PB member level Syz was an amazing leader. He had the charisma to get an entire alliance behind an ideal (or a set of) while at the same time working behind the scenes to make it happen. Bob was always the resident idealist. Everyone else was fairly pargmatic and mostly incapble or uninterested in being invovled on that level or cultural and political leadership (excluding maybe Hell Angel and Zere).

Once the old regime started going inactive Ram stepped up and made his play for a Gre that he (and some of us thought) would be a new interesting path. Unfortunately despite being as smart as he is, Ram is/was nowhere near close to being able to coalece the group as well as Syz did (nor does he want to really since he is happy to be rid of anyone who isnt "smart enough" understand his ideas).

I should also mention that there is more to Ram's simmingly inconsistent view of how PB geo-politics should work. If you ask him for the entire outlook it will make more sense. Although cant guarantee you will like it.


P.S. Wicked J that hard on that you have had for me since karma must be starting to be pretty uncomfortable eh. Maybe you and Gen Lee can get together and help each other.

Edited by King Chill I
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='King Chill I' date='30 June 2010 - 08:02 AM' timestamp='1277910127' post='2355176']

I should also mention that there is more to Ram's simmingly inconsistent view of how PB geo-politics should work. If you ask him for the entire outlook it will make more sense. Although cant guarantee you will like it.
[/quote]
Nope, Ive tried, but it still seems pretty weird when he argues that Morality is something which expands ones options rather than limits them. I consider that either a logical inconsistency on his part, or an outright intellectual failure.

Machiavellian and Morality don't go together, because Morality is a very narrow-minded, subjective worldview. Morality, as a limited approach, will inherently bias and limit decision making in a manner which renders Machiavellian principles impossible to utilize consistently.

Now thats all well and good to misunderstand, but the earlier part still stands, either Ramirus doesn't understand how morality works (and even points out it doesn't matter when confronted about this), or he's just using it as a front to justify whatever he does, whenever his actions seem to backfire on him logically. Im leaning towards the latter.

Edited by Chron
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='30 June 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1277871476' post='2354838']
Save for one thing I've made clear fairly early on in the proceedings:

I want to see Gramlins brought back at some point in the near future by former members and those willing to live under what used to pass for Gramlins code of honor. Clearly the new Gramlins would need to make some sensible charter reforms--like eliminating the weighted voting structure--but there are enough former Gramlins out there who still remember what was that they should be able to rebuild the alliance to something resembling its former glory.

My interest in the continuing IRON-Gramlins conflict has much more to do with wanting to close the books on a long war the right way than anything IRON or Gramlins may or may not have done to each other in the past. Yes, Valhalla is a loyal ally of IRON. But even if we weren't, my view on the issue would not change. You issue "unconditional surrender" decrees when you wish to humiliate and/or totally subjugate your opponent. I don't care which is in play here, it's wrong. Future "potential threat" be damned.
[/quote]
As far as I know, the weighted voting system has been part of Gre since day one. Rather than working the system they created, Gre old guard have abandoned the alliance to what they view as a usurper. If they won't stay and work to restore Gre, then why would they come back like some mystical white knights of old? I dare say they could join again [i]tomorrow[/i] and do what you're proposing. But, again, members vote with the ballot and with their feet--we must all also remember that Digiterra is not a museum, alliances [i]will[/i] come and go no matter how much we hate to see it.

The idea of unconditional surrender was a silly move in my opinion; however, it has been removed. According to Ramirus, Gre is no longer seeking anything called "unconditional surrender". I even had to edit the interview to bring it in line with the present (honestly, it had been on my desk for almost a month).

[quote name='Alterego' date='30 June 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1277877129' post='2354942']
Why are you trying to give Gramlins a PR victory schatt? MK forcing through his appointment was funny, Gramlins did indeed die a long time ago if the loser of an election gets appointed by foreign powers.
[/quote]
Yeeeaaahhhhhh . . .

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='01 July 2010 - 01:41 AM' timestamp='1277912495' post='2355207']
The idea of unconditional surrender was a silly move in my opinion; however, it has been removed. According to Ramirus, Gre is no longer seeking anything called "unconditional surrender". I even had to edit the interview to bring it in line with the present (honestly, it had been on my desk for almost a month).
[/quote]Wasn't it removed shortly after Ramirus was attacked? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='30 June 2010 - 08:41 AM' timestamp='1277912495' post='2355207']


The idea of unconditional surrender was a silly move in my opinion; however, it has been removed. According to Ramirus, Gre is no longer seeking anything called "unconditional surrender". I even had to edit the interview to bring it in line with the present (honestly, it had been on my desk for almost a month).

[/quote]
Yeah, now its just:
[quote]
Whereas the undersigned alliances recognize that initiating a unwarranted global conflict by committing a blatant attack on another alliance without cause or provokation and with malice aforethought is such an action as to be considered abhorrant to internationally recognized standards of conduct and decency.

Whereas the collected nations of the alliances, TOP, IRON, TORN, FEAR, DAWN, TSO, Carthage and TMF are considered guilty of a breach of the above standards.[/quote]

Which itself is funny for a lot of reasons which Ive already outlined earlier.

Either way, good interview, Schatt.

Edit: Forgot to exclude Fark's alleged oversight.

Edited by Chron
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chron' date='30 June 2010 - 07:50 AM' timestamp='1277912996' post='2355222']Yeah, now its just:[/quote]
Funny that you posted this after our conversation. There's a word for intentionally misrepresenting. It's "lying".

Link to post
Share on other sites

first ---- why would any of the alliances whom already have peace sign such a statement.

second -- that statement would be a lie as it has been stated they had cause to attack.
That would be intel if they entered they would be countered and decided to attack first.
seems like as good a reason as any to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='30 June 2010 - 08:41 AM' timestamp='1277912495' post='2355207']
As far as I know, the weighted voting system has been part of Gre since day one. Rather than working the system they created, Gre old guard have abandoned the alliance to what they view as a usurper. If they won't stay and work to restore Gre, then why would they come back like some mystical white knights of old? I dare say they could join again [i]tomorrow[/i] and do what you're proposing. But, again, members vote with the ballot and with their feet--we must all also remember that Digiterra is not a museum, alliances [i]will[/i] come and go no matter how much we hate to see it.

The idea of unconditional surrender was a silly move in my opinion; however, it has been removed. According to Ramirus, Gre is no longer seeking anything called "unconditional surrender". I even had to edit the interview to bring it in line with the present (honestly, it had been on my desk for almost a month).


Yeeeaaahhhhhh . . .
[/quote]

iirc, in one of his backseat driving episodes, bob mentioned that Gre initially had straight-up democracy, but it was changed when the members thought it was getting to be too unwieldy for the size of the alliance. It's probably true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...