Ramirus: Scourge of the Grämlins

[Lord Rune]

It makes no difference what anyone from Gre says, everyone will make their own opinion. If what they say is true, their timing is lousy.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Ketther' date='01 July 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1278003847' post='2356784']
I thought people were talking about being right not about losing stats. Try to attack his reasons. Those pictures are not helping anyone.

People burned before Ramirus. Some of them did for a just cause.

Kett
[/quote]
Thats highly subjective, and not really debatable.

"I want to appear magnanimous and look good by making my rival concede absolute defeat to me" is nothing more than petty vanity. What else is Unconditional surrender, anyway, except a way to feed the ego of the (supposedly) victorious party?

At any rate, Ramirus has personally never really given concrete reasons for his actions, just vague hints and dodges. The only person who's consistently made up reasons to defend Gre's actions has been MatthewPK, and not only have his reasons been consistently defeated by others, but Ramirus doesn't even consider them at all valid.

The point is, you can't really rebutt an argument that is only hinted at, not actually made.
[quote]
I believe most of the signatories have pretty much said they are fine with the amendment if Gre and IRON are fine with it.[/quote] I really doubt that IRON is going to be fine with it, at least in regards to how the text currently stands.

Either way, if Ramirus wants the war with IRON to end, hes going to have to do a bit more than try and telepgraph playing revisionist when all is said and done. You all haven't forgiven Ivan and Vladimir for their interpretation of how the GPW went down, so I would at least expect some even-handedness in your doling out of facepalms and foul-crying.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Chron

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 July 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1277997130' post='2356633']
In light of that, it is *not* humiliating to admit when you've done something wrong. It should be, in fact, empowering and honorable.
[/quote]

If you really believed that, you would drop your "Unconditional Surrender or War Forever" nonsense, admit that it was a stupid idea, and accept white peace.

But you don't believe it, it's just more BS.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Baldr

[ironchef]

[quote name='flak attack' date='01 July 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1278013530' post='2356951']
I believe most of the signatories have pretty much said they are fine with the amendment if Gre and IRON are fine with it.

[/quote]

Did you just really say that? I believe most of what you just said is pretty much crap.
Let’s try it again

I [s]believe[/s]know most of the signatories have [s]pretty much[/s] said they are [b]NOT[/b] fine with the amendment if Gre and IRON are fine with it.

There is fact and then there is wishing things to be true. The fact is none of the members of the ESA that did not fight on the side of Gre wish to sign that joke of an amendment and IRON has to much honor to ever ask its friends to sign such a pile of tripe.

If you guys want this war to end stop supporting Gre when they come up with more bad ideas like this. If you are a real friend you will tell them to do this.

<Insert flags here>
The Grämlins, Independent Republic of Orange Nations, and Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations by signing this document hereby end all hostilities thus ending the War of the Words aka WoW.
<Insert sigs here>

edit: quote tags

Edited July 2, 2010 by ironchef

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='02 July 2010 - 06:07 AM' timestamp='1278011246' post='2356914']
I first suggested the idea to amend the ESA months ago in response to a suggestion by Umar. This interview was actually taken over a month ago as well.
[/quote]
I went and checked a PM exchange between Ram and I on 10 May and here's what he had to say about my suggestion at the time:

[quote]No, an amendment to that silly peice [sic] of paper would be even more of a mockery, because IRON would only be paying lip service. There is no way, of course, to guarantee they actually mean it when they apologize. Unconditional surrender however establishes a formal and concrete admission that they deserve to at least have their allocution compelled.[/quote]
So why the change of heart? Why was it a mockery back then but not now?

Edited July 2, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='01 July 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1278013530' post='2356951']
I believe most of the signatories have pretty much said they are fine with the amendment if Gre and IRON are fine with it.
[/quote]

actually, i would say only one side said they were fine with it. Others have yet to even be properly approached about it. you forget, this document was signed by more than SG's side of the war and as such, those alliance's surrendering would need to give their consent to this as well.

so to state that most would be fine with adding on an additional term is false since only one side is actually okay with that. Some have actually finished their terms and are no longer bound by the treaty, but as signatories, they would still have to be approached and give their sign off on it. why would they wish to have to undergo another term, even if it is just saying they are guilty unless they have incentive of their own?

i do believe Curzon said it best really. so this whole stating that most are fine is not true since many alliances have not been approached and i know at least 3 alliances who are not fine with that amendment.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='01 July 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1278034598' post='2357260']
I went and checked a PM exchange between Ram and I on 10 May and here's what he had to say about my suggestion at the time:

[quote]No, an amendment to that silly peice [sic] of paper would be even more of a mockery, because IRON would only be paying lip service. There is no way, of course, to guarantee they actually mean it when they apologize. Unconditional surrender however establishes a formal and concrete admission that they deserve to at least have their allocution compelled.[/quote]

So why the change of heart? Why was it a mockery back then but not now?
[/quote]

Why doesn't that laughable piece of backtracking surprise me in the least? Pathetic.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

There is a possibility of course that the voice of reason from friends has finally registered with the Gremlins and hence the slight change from the previously stated position. Whatever an individual nation's stats chart may look like.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='01 July 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1278041313' post='2357353']
There is a possibility of course that the voice of reason from friends has finally registered with the Gremlins and hence the slight change from the previously stated position. Whatever an individual nation's stats chart may look like.
[/quote]
I wasn't implying that my war with Ramirus had anything to do with this whatsoever. Perhaps the voices of reason should talk to him about a complete cessation of hostilities without any sort of amendment. That would actually be productive and bring this war to an end.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='02 July 2010 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1278041953' post='2357364']
I wasn't implying that my war with Ramirus had anything to do with this whatsoever. Perhaps the voices of reason should talk to him about a complete cessation of hostilities without any sort of amendment. That would actually be productive and bring this war to an end.
[/quote]

I did not mean you, specifically. It was more of a comment regarding the direction the discussion had taken. Also, baby steps, I think. Yes a complete cessation of hostilities as soon as possible would be the most logical thing to do, no arguments from me on that.

[Sooner]

I think people should start checking their calenders for the apocalypse because I'm not only agreeing with shahenshah on this, I'm echoing it! While I'm not VE government (I'm just our board admin), I can guess that most of our members have been thinking this as well.

[quote name='shahenshah' date='01 July 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1278008298' post='2356866']
1. Are you backing off from the unconditional surrender? If yes, what made you change your mind?
2. Why did Gre not forward what it proposes now for ESA during a long deliberation period? What is the reason for doing it now?
3. Seeing so far you have achieved nothing in your exercise, have you considered resigning? If you think otherwise, what have you achieved?
[/quote]


And, shahenshah:

I can probably answer those for you....

1. Gre/Ram will never back off because even if they did, it's too late for them to do anything, let alone save face.
2. Gre/Ram didn't go forward with what it now proposes for the ESA because to do so would not only be a slap in the face to their membership but prove that Gre/Ram measured with the wrong kind of ruler. The reason why they are doing it now is because they know they have failed, we know they have failed, and you know they have failed. In the end, the only winner here in IRON through shear toughness.
3. Ram would never resign because his own self-pride prevents him from saving face and saving his alliance from his destruction.


Gramlins will probably be gone by the end of the month, namely due to deletions.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Sooner, that last line in your post is a major downer. I hope it does not come down to that.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='02 July 2010 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1278043628' post='2357398']
Sooner, that last line in your post is a major downer. I hope it does not come down to that.
[/quote]
It is but I see no reason for them to go on. Their membership has been decimated, Their reputation has been shot, It would seem that they are in violation of their own charter, IRON is slowly inching toward their top tier nations, and last but not least, thier leader is an egomaniac.

If all of the so called "honorable" Gremlins are long gone then they really don't have a leg left to stand on.

This is quite possibly the worst case of self destruction Ive ever seen.

[Sooner]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='01 July 2010 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1278043628' post='2357398']
Sooner, that last line in your post is a major downer. I hope it does not come down to that.
[/quote]

Why? It will probably be the truth. 19 nations, 5% active. Most nearing 20 or 24 of not logging in or collecting

[Pomiel]

[quote name='Sooner' date='02 July 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1278050811' post='2357504']
Why? It will probably be the truth. 19 nations, 5% active. Most nearing 20 or 24 of not logging in or collecting
[/quote]

two is not most

[Derantol]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='01 July 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1278043628' post='2357398']
Sooner, that last line in your post is a major downer. I hope it does not come down to that.
[/quote]

You're not the only one. I'd much rather see this war over, reps paid, and for everyone to be done with this whole mess.

[Marneus Calgar]

[quote name='Derantol' date='02 July 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1278054953' post='2357539']
You're not the only one. I'd much rather see this war over, reps paid, and for everyone to be done with this whole mess.
[/quote]
I hope that's not insinuating we pay reps to GRE, Derantol.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Sooner' date='02 July 2010 - 08:55 AM' timestamp='1278042926' post='2357380']
I think people should start checking their calenders for the apocalypse because I'm not only agreeing with shahenshah on this, I'm echoing it!
[/quote]

Did you really dislike me so much


Anyway,
Ramirus Maximus:
[b]"No, an amendment to that silly peice [sic] of paper would be even more of a mockery, because IRON would only be paying lip service. There is no way, of course, to guarantee they actually mean it when they apologize. Unconditional surrender however establishes a formal and concrete admission that they deserve to at least have their allocution compelled."[/b]

Q: Do you now consider that ESA is no more a silly peace of paper? What made you change your mind?
Q: What makes you think an apology now will be sincere after you have attempted to do?

The one that was put on the table before...it was offered by us, not *demanded* by your side, nor it was *required*, where were you then? We'd have no problem admitting that it was not *extracted* from us in anyway, frankly because it wasn't. Your actions have changed the context greatly, ESA signatories in opposition did not take one. Gre doesnt deserve one directly or indirectly. Agreements were made, GL HF were said and [i]thats that.[/i] It will be considered now attempt to humiliate IRON and DAWN right now and to its allies and friends, at-least to me personally.

We offered an apology because we had one to offer, because it existed, and it existed without the pressure to extract one from us. Your implication that there has been none from our side is a factual lie. Your attempts at revisionism and hiding behind weak lines of arguments are weak like the performance of your leadership.

Alot has happened since it was offered, and we will not justify or grace your actions with an apology now. What you'd get will be something extracted through force and threat of arms or sufficient bribing for us or and allies. That'll be sincere now.

Take the white peace.

Edited July 2, 2010 by shahenshah

[Ramirus Maximus]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='01 July 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1278056756' post='2357546']Q: Do you now consider that ESA is no more a silly peace of paper?

Q: What makes you think an apology now will be sincere after you have attempted to do?
[/quote]
The ESA is still a silly piece of paper, so I haven't changed my mind. However, though our own foreign policy is paperless that doesn't mean everyone else's isn't (unfortunately...the game would be a lot more fun). I don't think your apology will be any more sincere before, but I don't think you'd just be "paying lip service" either. I think that since almost everyone involved now agrees with us that the the overall thoughts about this war require some additional points not addressed in their original ending of it, amending the ESA makes sense. I think that IRON now has the chance to show that they are actually a strong alliance in more ways than simply military force, namely strength of character. Did you chop down that cherry tree or not, George?

[quote]The one that was put on the table before...it was offered by us, not *demanded* by your side, nor it was *required*, where were you then?[/quote][quote]We offered an apology because we had one to offer, because it existed, and it existed without the pressure to extract one from us.[/quote]

As has been said before, Chill violated our charter and abdicated our authority in any negotiations that occurred. Also, I thought it was DAWN who offered to apologize, not IRON? In any case, this isn't just about you. Pretty much everyone now understands that having the war end without so much as a mention of its causes was a travesty, a sham, and a mockery. A traveshamockery! That's why pretty much everyone is now backing the idea that we should all go back and fix that part of it. I have a question for you though: [b]Why[/b] did you offer an apology before?

Edited July 2, 2010 by Ramirus Maximus

[franciscus]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='02 July 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1278060016' post='2357560']
The ESA is still a silly piece of paper, so I haven't changed my mind. However, though our own foreign policy is paperless that doesn't mean everyone else's isn't (unfortunately...the game would be a lot more fun). I don't think your apology will be any more sincere before, but I don't think you'd just be "paying lip service" either. I think that since almost everyone involved now agrees with us that the the overall thoughts about this war require some additional points not addressed in their original ending of it, amending the ESA makes sense. I think that IRON now has the chance to show that they are actually a strong alliance in more ways than simply military force, namely strength of character. Did you chop down that cherry tree or not, George?[/quote] Really, George, you're a lazy ...
How's that strength of character going for you, RAM? I mean, you've made the wrong decision for your alliance (considering your mockery of small alliances, I suspect you'd've wanted some numbers and ANS for yourselves, but there you go losing both of those due to your silly decisions and stubbornness - very un-Machiavellian of you, isn't it?) and yet here you are, still claiming... what are you claiming, really? Moral superiority? I don't see it, really. Not in your actions, not in your alliance history. many people pointed that out already. And negating/rewriting/reinterpreting your history instead of assuming it is a sign of weakness, did you know that? Any good diplomat knows that.
Pity? If you want our pity, just say so. I promise I'll work my butt off to convince the IRON Council as well as my own to sign that ESA amendment. I promise you I'll do it for you, but you have to ask me to have pity on you and your alliance. If not, we'll just carry on with business as usual, but stop this silly argument. [i]OOC: you're playing a military RPG game, get over it. If you want some other RPG games with less military elements, try SimCity[/i]. Yes, might makes right, it's how Good Admin made things happen in our world. It's why one side wins and the other loses, regardless of their reasons, moral superiority or attempts at serving divine justice.
Also, the "almost everyone" thing misses out a lot of alliances who have no motivation to sign your silly piece of paper and haven't even been approached about it. Basically, an entire "side". That's not almost everyone, that's just half of everyone.



[quote]As has been said before, Chill violated our charter and abdicated our authority in any negotiations that occurred. Also, I thought it was DAWN who offered to apologize, not IRON? In any case, this isn't just about you. Pretty much everyone now understands that having the war end without so much as a mention of its causes was a travesty, a sham, and a mockery. A traveshamockery! That's why pretty much everyone is now backing the idea that we should all go back and fix that part of it. I have a question for you though: [b]Why[/b] did you offer an apology before?
[/quote]
DAWN offered to publicly apologize along our allies and friends we've fought with to CnG (we were known as TIFDTT back then). They didn't accept it, need it or felt compelled to inform you about it, apparently. DAWN was asked by the Gre negotiator an apology, before you went back on your predecessors' words and retracted your terms.
Also, that "pretty much everyone" argument again! You'd say someone of your self-claimed status and experience would know how to choose their words better. How did you put it? <<There's a word for intentionally misrepresenting. It's "lying">> I tend to disagree with this specific affirmation, but hey, it's your words, not mine. Consistence!

Edited July 2, 2010 by franciscus

[Cortath]

Ramirus: I thought IRON showed their "strength of character" by beating the crap out of your alliance in the face of your self-defeating demands. But that's just me.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Davian Thule' date='02 July 2010 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1278055586' post='2357542']
I hope that's not insinuating we pay reps to GRE, Derantol.
[/quote]

I think he meant the war as a whole, not the IRON/DAWN vs. Gramlins front.

Though I'm fairly certain that there are individuals who actually believe that IRON owes Gramlins reparations at this point...a very amusing notion.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='02 July 2010 - 03:40 AM' timestamp='1278060016' post='2357560']
The ESA is still a silly piece of paper, so I haven't changed my mind. However, though our own foreign policy is paperless that doesn't mean everyone else's isn't (unfortunately...the game would be a lot more fun). I don't think your apology will be any more sincere before, but I don't think you'd just be "paying lip service" either. I think that since almost everyone involved now agrees with us that the the overall thoughts about this war require some additional points not addressed in their original ending of it, amending the ESA makes sense. I think that IRON now has the chance to show that they are actually a strong alliance in more ways than simply military force, namely strength of character. Did you chop down that cherry tree or not, George?[/quote]

so, when they offered to apologize on their own, without coercion it would not have been sincere... but now that you have attempted to coerce them, and are now making it mandatory for them to apologize, it will be sincere? seriously, that is your actual thought process on that? and we are the unintelligent little kids?

[quote]As has been said before, Chill violated our charter and abdicated our authority in any negotiations that occurred. Also, I thought it was DAWN who offered to apologize, not IRON? In any case, this isn't just about you. Pretty much everyone now understands that having the war end without so much as a mention of its causes was a travesty, a sham, and a mockery. A traveshamockery! That's why pretty much everyone is now backing the idea that we should all go back and fix that part of it. I have a question for you though: [b]Why[/b] did you offer an apology before?
[/quote]

actually,you and Grämlins are now the mockery. and most actually think that to have this war end on your terms, no matter what they are, will be the travesty. Your allies may be backing you and other alliances may have given consent, but i doubt most actually see any just cause and mostly just want this war over with since you are too arrogant to take white peace.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Pomiel' date='02 July 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1278054141' post='2357531']
two is not most
[/quote]
Hmmm, let's see. As usual the truth is somewhere in between what the two sides are claiming.

Torino - 0 days
Folkminister - 2 days
AepfeL - 4 days
Temptation Island - 5 days
Vengeance - 5 days
Octantis - 5 days
Mikeville - 6 days
Reginmund - 7 days; 1 missing trade
Nova Prussia - 10 days
Guttland - 10 days; 2 missing trades
Commonwealth of LoL - 10 days; 1 missing trade
Anthraxia - 11 days
Ralaria - 11 days
Republic of Chivu - 12 days
Clexane - 12 days
Penile Island - 13 days
Citadel of Adun - 13 days
Sierra Leone - 14 days
Sipaway - 21 days; 4 missing trades
ETLC Computer Lab - 23 days

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.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='02 July 2010 - 08:37 AM' timestamp='1278074204' post='2357625']
actually,you and Grämlins are now the mockery. and most actually think that to have this war end on your terms, no matter what they are, will be the travesty. Your allies may be backing you and other alliances may have given consent, but i doubt most actually see any just cause and mostly just want this war over with since you are too arrogant to take white peace.
[/quote]

It is universally agreed that [s]Han[/s] IRON shot first. If there is any disagreement at all, it is over [b]why[/b] IRON shot first.

The alliances still backing Gramlins, if any could be said to be truly backing them at this point (especially privately where no doubt eyes are rolling whenever the subject comes up), having nothing to lose in allowing this to continue. However, most everyone else is looking at their watch and wanting to wrap this.

With all due respect to those upset over the possibility that Gramlins will cease to exist: they're dead already. Until the shell of an alliance that still bares the name is gone, a new Gramlins that lives by the old codes cannot rise in its place. You too should be looking at your watch.