Ramirus: Scourge of the Grämlins

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='30 June 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1277934842' post='2355791']
I agree for the most part. Although I would like to the think that education systems are a bit better than that so at least some people who invoke the name have actually read at least part of his work. Machiavelli and Adam Smith are similar in that their names are often invoked but usually for things the authors probably would never have agreed to.
[/quote]

I think getting Machiavelli & Smith in an state-run education system is unlikely (unless you specifically go for classes with them at the University level), but it's foolish to assume that a community populated by politics and economics nerds doesn't have a few members here or there that have bothered to read original, relevant works.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='30 June 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1277935291' post='2355807']
I think getting Machiavelli & Smith in an state-run education system is unlikely (unless you specifically go for classes with them at the University level), but it's foolish to assume that a community populated by politics and economics nerds doesn't have a few members here or there that have bothered to read original, relevant works.
[/quote]


I would hope so. But I have seen some highly educated politicians etc mangle the usage so I am not sure why we wouldnt expect that of highly educated CN politicians etc.

[Delta1212]

Does it count if I've read La Mandragola and not Il Principe?

[Bob Janova]

Flak, thanks for finding that link for me . As Archon himself says: "[i]We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we [C&G] would be honor bound to defend them[/i]". Considering the many treaty chains between SF (where IRON 'should' have entered) and C&G (the obvious one, considering the apparently still live despite cancellation MK-Grämlins treaty and the likely target of Fark, being Fark-Grä-MK, and also SF-GOD-MK), it's obvious where C&G would have been.

I'm not sure how you get from being 'honor bound' (sic ) to enter to not saying you were going to enter, but it isn't a correct conclusion . You may not have been going to enter if TOP and IRON had not entered at all, but that was never on the cards because an IRON ally was getting rolled by your friends' coalition already. Once they decided to enter to protect NSO, by Archon's own words C&G were always going to oppose them.

And yes, he also says he pressured the other fronts to peace out so he could trap TOP/IRON in the one remaining front, but that's not particularly relevant to this thread as the proposed amendment deals with their entry to the war and not how they were played afterwards.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 June 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1277939757' post='2355903']
Flak, thanks for finding that link for me . As Archon himself says: "[i]We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we [C&G] would be honor bound to defend them[/i]". Considering the many treaty chains between SF (where IRON 'should' have entered) and C&G (the obvious one, considering the apparently still live despite cancellation MK-Grämlins treaty and the likely target of Fark, being Fark-Grä-MK, and also SF-GOD-MK), it's obvious where C&G would have been.

I'm not sure how you get from being 'honor bound' (sic ) to enter to not saying you were going to enter, but it isn't a correct conclusion . You may not have been going to enter if TOP and IRON had not entered at all, but that was never on the cards because an IRON ally was getting rolled by your friends' coalition already. Once they decided to enter to protect NSO, by Archon's own words C&G were always going to oppose them.

And yes, he also says he pressured the other fronts to peace out so he could trap TOP/IRON in the one remaining front, but that's not particularly relevant to this thread as the proposed amendment deals with their entry to the war and not how they were played afterwards.
[/quote]
GOD and MK didn't have a treaty at the time, just FYI. The only direct SF-C&G tie was Rok-Vanguard.

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 July 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1277939757' post='2355903']
Flak, thanks for finding that link for me . As Archon himself says: "[i]We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we [C&G] would be honor bound to defend them[/i]". Considering the many treaty chains between SF (where IRON 'should' have entered) and C&G (the obvious one, considering the apparently still live despite cancellation MK-Grämlins treaty and the likely target of Fark, being Fark-Grä-MK, and also SF-GOD-MK), it's obvious where C&G would have been.

I'm not sure how you get from being 'honor bound' (sic ) to enter to not saying you were going to enter, but it isn't a correct conclusion . You may not have been going to enter if TOP and IRON had not entered at all, but that was never on the cards because an IRON ally was getting rolled by your friends' coalition already. Once they decided to enter to protect NSO, by Archon's own words C&G were always going to oppose them.

And yes, he also says he pressured the other fronts to peace out so he could trap TOP/IRON in the one remaining front, but that's not particularly relevant to this thread as the proposed amendment deals with their entry to the war and not how they were played afterwards.
[/quote]


I am still baffled by your logic. Using diplomacy to attain peace is setting up TOP for destruction. Potentially honoring our defensive treaties is an aggressive move. What sort of delusional fantasy world are you living in?

Seriously, if you and TOP had a pax paradoxia going the world as we know it would be in ruins. Forum posting would be valid casus belli. Having treaties would be valid casus belli. Basically anyone doing anything would mean TOP would roll them and you would cheer them on in their righteous fury.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='30 June 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1277938556' post='2355884']
Does it count if I've read [i]La Mandragola[/i] and not [i]Il Principe[/i]?[/quote]

[list]
[*]use cunning and deception [b][size="5"]√[/size] Check[/b]

[*]fraud is acceptable when it attains positive ends [b][size="5"]√[/size] Check[/b]

[*]si guarda al fine [b][size="5"]√[/size] Check[/b]
[/list]

I'll let it count.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='01 July 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1277940587' post='2355915']
I am still baffled by your logic. Using diplomacy to attain peace is setting up TOP for destruction. Potentially honoring our defensive treaties is an aggressive move. What sort of delusional fantasy world are you living in?

Seriously, if you and TOP had a pax paradoxia going the world as we know it would be in ruins. Forum posting would be valid casus belli. Having treaties would be valid casus belli. Basically anyone doing anything would mean TOP would roll them and you would cheer them on in their righteous fury.
[/quote]

Well Bob likely will be cheering them regardless of rightousness or fury, he isnt delusional he just sticks by his friends no matter what, which is honorable, even when they $%&@ up.

[Bob Janova]

Delta: oops, thanks. The fact that Archon is talking about 'defending allies' though makes it pretty clear that some people already militarily engaged (and therefore likely to be hit) were considered allies to C&G, though.

AB: Nice to see you show up, perhaps you can make it back two posts and see where I said (again, as I have since it happened) that I do not agree with pre-emptive attacks. However, preparing to enter through one of your treaties on the opposite side to TOP/IRON [i]is[/i] cause and provocation – perhaps not sufficient to justify military action, but that's not what's under discussion here. The proposed amendment claims the attack was without any cause, and that's demonstrably false, through Archon's own words there.

I'm not going to get dragged in to the 'entrapping TOP' discussion in here, feel free to start a thread about it or PM me if you want to do that again.

[Dom Zak]

is this going to turn into something like "The New Grämlins"?

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 July 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1277942244' post='2355946']
AB: Nice to see you show up, perhaps you can make it back two posts and see where I said (again, as I have since it happened) that I do not agree with pre-emptive attacks. However, preparing to enter through one of your treaties on the opposite side to TOP/IRON [i]is[/i] cause and provocation – perhaps not sufficient to justify military action, but that's not what's under discussion here. The proposed amendment claims the attack was without any cause, and that's demonstrably false, through Archon's own words there.
[/quote]

That is not cause and/or provocation. See what you're saying is that anyone that has a treaty is provoking and causing attacks on themselves. Alternatively they are poor allies who will not prepare to honor their treaties. We were not actively doing anything but seeking peace, how is that provocation? We were prepared to go to war as a last resort, how is that cause to attack?

I will call out your !@#$%^&* wherever I see it, I don't care what context you try to throw it into. It is no less wrong and frankly it's bordering on insanity.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I will call out your !@#$%^&* wherever I see it, I don't care what context you try to throw it into. It is no less wrong and frankly it's bordering on insanity. [/quote]
No u.

[quote]See what you're saying is that anyone that has a treaty is provoking and causing attacks on themselves.[/quote]
When you have treaties (or treaty chains which you intend to activate) with alliances already at war, and you say you will enter the war through them if other alliances enter on the other side, then yes, that is a cause for them to attack you, because you're going to end up at war with them anyway. I really don't understand why this is at all controversial. Now, by CN convention it is not [i]sufficient[/i] cause for them [i]actually[/i] to attack you immediately – but that is a different argument.

Maybe if I make it really simple ... C&G were saying to TOP/IRON 'If you hit SF in defence of NSO, we're going to attack you through our treaties'. That is clearly cause for TOP/IRON to attack C&G at the same time as SF, because they'll be in that war anyway. (It is not sufficient cause to actually do it, but again, that is not the point, we are discussing the proposed amendment to ESA which tries to claim that there is [i]no[/i] cause.)

As for provocation, C&G had been provoking IRON and to a lesser extent TOP since at least Karma, I hope that's not in question at this point. Well, except by Ram apparently.

Once again, before you miss the point again, I am [i]not[/i] saying that said cause for pre-emptive war and provocation was sufficient to justify the pre-emptive strike.

[Heft]

The ESA "amendment" is immaterial at this point, right? I mean, no one would actually sign that.

It's just, y'know, dumb.

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Dom Zak' date='30 June 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1277943111' post='2355959']
is this going to turn into something like "The New Grämlins"?
[/quote]

I'd be shocked if it didn't: another endless round of words which don't really amount to anything substantial changing.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='30 June 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1277917741' post='2355316']
And I just called MatthewPK crazy...that's hardly "throwing him under the bus" either. He -is- crazy, you know.
[/quote]

You say that like you aren't.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='30 June 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1277938556' post='2355884']
Does it count if I've read La Mandragola and not Il Principe?
[/quote]


Probably, if you can understand the meaning behind his satire you are definitely invited to the club.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='30 June 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1277941082' post='2355925']
[list]
[*]use cunning and deception [b][size="5"]√[/size] Check[/b]

[*]fraud is acceptable when it attains positive ends [b][size="5"]√[/size] Check[/b]

[*]si guarda al fine [b][size="5"]√[/size] Check[/b]
[/list]

I'll let it count.
[/quote]


Actually he was highly critical of fraud and corruption particularly in relation to the Church in that particular satire. In my view the lesson in the Prince is not power at any price - which is usually the interpretation given to it. It is how to be a good Prince and how to hold on to power for the good of the realm. A nuance which is often missed.

You have to remember the context in which he was writing. Politics in the Italian States in that period makes CN look downright civilized.

Edited July 1, 2010 by crazy canuck

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='30 June 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1277955317' post='2356189']
Actually he was highly critical of fraud and corruption particularly in relation to the Church in that particular satire. In my view the lesson in the Prince is not power at any price - which is usually the interpretation given to it. It is how to be a good Prince and how to hold on to power for the good of the realm. A nuance which is often missed.

You have to remember the context in which he was writing. Politics in the Italian States in that period makes CN look downright civilized.
[/quote]

I'm familiar. You are also correct in your analysis of The Prince for the most part. However, one should not downplay Machiavelli's belief that while one should avoid cruelty, there is a time and a place to be ruthless: "a prince may be perceived to be merciful, faithful, humane, frank, and religious, but he must only seem to have these qualities".

Put in the context of Planet Bob, Ramirus fails Machiavelli's tests in a number of ways. I'll not renumerate them here for a variety of reasons. Suffice to say that I would not have been above relieving him of his command had I been in Gramlins, using whatever IC means was necessary to accomplish the task. Fortunately, I already have a better home.

[Ramirus Maximus]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='30 June 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1277955317' post='2356189']In my view the lesson in the Prince is not power at any price - which is usually the interpretation given to it. It is how to be a good Prince and how to hold on to power for the good of the realm. A nuance which is often missed.[/quote]

Schatt, looks like someone actually DID read at least "The Prince" (unless this interpretation is in a Wiki article somewhere...that's where most of you get your information from).

Canuck, good start...PM me if you'd like a summer reading list to continue your studies.

[Grumpdogg]

I realise that one alliance government is an adult with a condescending mind, meagre humbleness, very little actual success in politics, trade, high-level negotiations, or inter-personal relations.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote]Canuck, good start...PM me if you'd like a summer reading list to continue your studies.[/quote]
You do know that some of us are actually adults with a little more knowledge than the average college kid you seem to mistake us for?

Since you did not answer my initial question, I have another. Why did you consult virtually no alliances on the losing side about your proposal to amend the surrender terms and, instead, wasted days (weeks?) consulting with the winning side?

It comes to reason that your former coalition partners wouldn't oppose an additional term meant to further humiliate us. What you needed for this term to ever see the day was exactly what you never attempted to get: our approval.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='01 July 2010 - 01:13 AM' timestamp='1277961186' post='2356304']
You do know that some of us are actually adults with a little more knowledge than the average college kid you seem to mistake us for?

Since you did not answer my initial question, I have another. Why did you consult virtually no alliances on the losing side about your proposal to amend the surrender terms and, instead, wasted days (weeks?) consulting with the winning side?

It comes to reason that your former coalition partners wouldn't oppose an additional term meant to further humiliate us. What you needed for this term to ever see the day was exactly what you never attempted to get: our approval.
[/quote]

Because that's how Ramirus works. He probably started working with those on his "side" that he felt closest with, once he gained their support he slowly worked on others. Now he'll start putting out feelers to people tied to but not actually part of the alliances on our "side" that he wishes to see sign. He'll hope to convince them slowly, in private query of course promising the whole world is behind his wishes (or at least the weight of certain large alliances). He'll continue pedaling his !@#$%^&* to anyone that will listen until finally he hopes to convince TOP then IRON/DAWN. Feel free to see if this is how things play out. I may be completely wrong, then again maybe not.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='01 July 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1277962256' post='2356325']
Because that's how Ramirus works. He probably started working with those on his "side" that he felt closest with, once he gained their support he slowly worked on others. Now he'll start putting out feelers to people tied to but not actually part of the alliances on our "side" that he wishes to see sign. He'll hope to convince them slowly, in private query of course promising the whole world is behind his wishes (or at least the weight of certain large alliances). He'll continue pedaling his !@#$%^&* to anyone that will listen until finally he hopes to convince TOP then IRON/DAWN. Feel free to see if this is how things play out. I may be completely wrong, then again maybe not.
[/quote]

That seems the right way to go about it if he wishes to hit his mark.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='01 July 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1277963877' post='2356359']
That seems the right way to go about it if he wishes to hit his mark.
[/quote]

Its still blindingly stupid, considering he still lacks the one thing that stopped his first idiot plan from working.

Cooperation of the people he can't beat into submission.

[Stetson76]

[quote="Ramirus"]You see, it's not about moral absolutes (as has been argued on the OWF), it's about our friends -vs- not our friends. We're not the world police; if IRON wants to go attack someone for no reason, hey...knock yourselves out. Just quit attacking the Grämlins' friends, okay?...[/quote]

Then why do you, or your text writer, present in the wording of the ESA amendment an "internationally recognized standard" and not just GRE's stance regarding attacking their friends? You can't say that you only care about what happens for to your friends and then attempt to set precedent for the entire world.

[quote=Ramirus]...[b]As I told Polar when they attacked \m/: "I don't see anything wrong with what \m/ did, but I don't see anything wrong with you attacking them for it either. Politics is a game after all."[/b] Now, if \m/ had been an ally of the Grämlins, it would be a different issue.[/quote]

[quote=Ramirus]Most people would rather see IRON establish the precedent that attacking people with no reason is fine as long as you win. It's ironic that the people championing them are the same people that usually raise such a ruckus about CBs. Good job you guys; you're well on your way to getting rid of CBs altogether.[/quote]

Emphasis mine. Wow, in the span of one interview you can't be consistent. You don't seen anything wrong with what \m/ did, but IRON's the one who's trying to establish precedent? And not only that but you're blaming others for trying to get rid of CB's which is something you specifically said you "don't see anything wrong with"?

I can understand that as a non-mouth breather with a supremely bumpy brain it's very easy for you to speak out of both sides of your mouth, but I guess that's the intrigue you're so hoping for. Just don't expect anyone, without a politically expedient reason to be your friend, to accept it for anything other than you being a hypocrite and disingenuous.