Ramirus: Scourge of the Grämlins

[Tromp]

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.

[flak attack]

[quote name='ironchef' date='01 July 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1278030986' post='2357215']
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
[/quote]
In my discussions with TOP members they have said that if IRON wants it, they will go with it. I believe your gov has said similar things in this very thread, though it might have been the other one.

Considering that the amendment is a simple statement of wrongdoing and several members of the surrendering alliances have admitted that this was something they shouldn't have done, I fail to see why the amendment is a big deal.

Edited July 2, 2010 by flak attack

[TehChron]

[quote name='Tromp' date='02 July 2010 - 06:09 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]
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.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Chron

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 July 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1278077159' post='2357640']
Considering that the amendment is a simple statement of wrongdoing and several members of the surrendering alliances have admitted that this was something they shouldn't have done, I fail to see why the amendment is a big deal.
[/quote]

Because when a war is over, it's over--the signing of the peace treaty is its final act. You do not re-open a peace treaty. You may go back to war because provisions of the treaty were violated, but that is a separate issue.

Gramlins chose not to end their war and therefore made the conscious decision to seek a separate peace based on what we are told is principle.

But let's say you decide that re-opening the treaty is just that important. What is to stop future alliances who didn't get their way in the final treaty negotiations from continuing a war in hopes of getting the treaty amended later? Is that really a precedent you want to set?

[Marneus Calgar]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='02 July 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1278073640' post='2357623']
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.
[/quote]
At this rate, there'll be no more Grämlins to pay reps too.

[King Chill I]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='02 July 2010 - 04:40 AM' timestamp='1278060016' post='2357560']
As has been said before, Chill violated our charter and abdicated our authority in any negotiations that occurred.
[/quote]

How am i involved in this again? Can someone show me a log where i officially said anything to any IRON representative regarding anything peace related.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 July 2010 - 03:07 PM' 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.
Talks to amend the ESA began before Ram was attacked.

Events do not start and stop based upon when you first hear about them.
[/quote]


[quote name='crazy canuck' date='01 July 2010 - 04:09 PM' timestamp='1278014980' post='2356988']
Really? Does CnG really want to open up negotiations on the peace agreement and if so why?

@ matthew, so you are saying you have been thinking about this for a month but you are only now suggesting it. Do you really think that is helping your argument that this has nothing to do with Ram taking damage rather then just watching the rest of his alliance burn.
[/quote]

Confirming the timeframe. I have actually had this interview sitting on my desk for over a month, which is kinda shameful tbh. I actually had to get new answers to some of the questions and remove some other questions to meet present reality.

[flak attack]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='02 July 2010 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1278078156' post='2357646']
Because when a war is over, it's over--the signing of the peace treaty is its final act. You do not re-open a peace treaty. You may go back to war because provisions of the treaty were violated, but that is a separate issue.

Gramlins chose not to end their war and therefore made the conscious decision to seek a separate peace based on what we are told is principle.

But let's say you decide that re-opening the treaty is just that important. What is to stop future alliances who didn't get their way in the final treaty negotiations from continuing a war in hopes of getting the treaty amended later? Is that really a precedent you want to set?
[/quote]
Is cancellation of reps not an amendment of the terms already?

[franciscus]

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 July 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1278078851' post='2357658']
Is cancellation of reps not an amendment of the terms already?
[/quote]
It's an amendment of individual terms, not of an entire treaty. It's a separate deal between those two alliances involved, without asking for consent/acceptance/actual amending of the treaty by the rest of signatories. That treaty still stands, there's nothing wrong with it. Ulterior events lead to further development, in this particular case, waving reps.
If Gremlins would have proposed a separate peace treaty between the three alliances involved at the moment, we'd probably be in the back room, negotiating.

[WalkerNinja]

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.

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.

No doubt many in TOP will disagree with my analysis, so please take this as my own thoughts on the matter and not reflective of TOP's official policy unless it is actively endorsed by our elected officials.

EDIT: added the first sentence to establish context for the post.

Edited July 2, 2010 by WalkerNinja

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I don't really see why anyone is complaining about the proposed amendment.
An apology was offered before[/quote]
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 they don't believe are true. 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.

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).

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 even if it's not true), 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.

[magicninja]

I'm in no hurry to suggest GATO help Gremlins amend the ESA. For one Gremlins says they will seek a separate peace treaty. As far as I'm concerned they can add anything they wanted to go into the ESA to that and leave the rest of us out of it. Another thing that concerned me was that Ram said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that they would drop the unconditional surrender term so long as we agreed to amend the ESA. Seems like he's looking for a scapegoat so when someone says no they can pass the buck and say it was our fault that unconditional surrender is still on the table.

Pretty lame imo.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote]In my discussions with TOP members they have said that if IRON wants it, they will go with it.[/quote]
Some, yes. Others, not. Keep in mind that the opinion of certain members isn't necessarily reflective of our policy.

When something is presented to us formally, I'm sure our government will vote on it.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='02 July 2010 - 04:40 AM' timestamp='1278060016' post='2357560']
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.
[/quote]
You are wrong.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 July 2010 - 10:10 AM' 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 they don't believe are true. 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.

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 even if it's not true), 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]

You nailed it Bob. As I recall, the phrasing of the original apology was different than the one being currently sought. As you say, it referred to the preemptive strike it didn't say we started a new war.

On the second point you are again correct. I'll quote what I said in the other thread in the interest of clarity.

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='28 June 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1277741842' post='2352759']
TORN has not yet been graced with any emissaries from the once great Gre. If they want to change the ESA, I’d love to have a discussion with one of them as to why that is necessary. We have already fulfilled our obligations under the ESA and have been released from terms. I’ll be hard pressed to understand why I need to submit my alliance to an additional requirement.

We gain nothing from such an amendment. TORN does not need, nor do we seek moral absolution from Gre. We have no desire to be absolved for our supposed sins by an alliance which is as morally bankrupt as the rest of us “warmongers.” There is nothing inherently sanctimonious about Gre or its leaders that puts it in a position to lecture TORN, IRON, DAWN, TOP, or TSO about “justice.” You’re as “flawed” as the rest of us.

If you want to renegotiate the ESA, fine, let’s renegotiate. But if my tech shipments were but a “bribe” (Ram’s words), TORN feels extorted. I was under the impression that the deal cut was X amount of tech in exchange for reinstatement to the community of alliances as a full member. Now, Ram tells me this is not the case and that in order to be a member in good standing I must submit my alliance to some vague amendment. Fine, but the terms of the deal are being changed, so let’s renegotiate. In exchange for your forgiveness (which I consider to be detrimental) I will waive any pay back of tech to TORN, and will instead ask for our tech discount be applied to IRON and DAWN. You guys want a seat at the negotiating table? You want to renegotiate the deal? Fine, let’s deal.
[/quote]

And Flack

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 July 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1278077159' post='2357640']
In my discussions with TOP members they have said that if IRON wants it, they will go with it. I believe your gov has said similar things in this very thread, though it might have been the other one.

Considering that the amendment is a simple statement of wrongdoing and several members of the surrendering alliances have admitted that this was something they shouldn't have done, I fail to see why the amendment is a big deal.
[/quote]

Just to be clear this is what I said.

[quote][quote]Some-Guy, on 28 June 2010 - 04:04 PM, said:
I rather think TOP would be more than happy to listen to any reasonable discussion, should we be approached. So long as our friends at IRON are happy. Sure, it's an odd way to go around things rather than just agreeing to a separate peace... but whatever. We'll listen.[/quote]


I will add my name to this sentiment.[/quote]

I find it somewhat offensive that I still have not been approached. I'd love to listen to why we should subject ourselves to another term after having completed that which was asked of us. If the Gramlins would like to lecture me on how we are morally bankrupt individuals who should put our name to this amendment to atone for our supposed sins, I'd personally like to have some part in that discussion.

[Ramirus Maximus]

[quote name='King Chill I' date='02 July 2010 - 05:49 AM' timestamp='1278078550' post='2357650']Can someone show me a log where i officially said anything to any IRON representative regarding anything peace related.[/quote]
No, actually..no one can show such logs, because they don't exist. That's my point, thanks.

[size="2"][quote name='WalkerNinja' date='02 July 2010 - 06:05 AM' timestamp='1278079528' post='2357668']There were many things wrong with TOP.[/quote][/size]

[size="2"]While I agree with your bulleted analysis just about 100%, the conclusion I draw from it is that you're saying that you were "wrong" in the sense of 'incorrect'. Meaning that you made decisions that were bad for you in terms of material strength. When I say "wrong", I mean it in the sense of 'reprehensible'. Still though, that is quite an insightful perspective of your alliance, and I find it both refreshing and respectable. You should convince more of your alliances mates to think like you do.[/size]

[size="2"][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. [/quote][/size]

[size="2"]"That which does not kill us, makes us stronger." [/size]

[size="2"]Using "wrong" in the sense of 'incorrect', I agree with you 100%. It takes a strong character to learn from your mistakes and come out a better person (or alliance) because of it. I must say my conversations with your people recently are so much different than in the past, it's genuinely a pleasant experience. Some of you remember me railing on your forums about how you needed to boot your years-old leadership cabal (as we had done) and screw your heads on straight. While my language might've been rough, it appears to me that you have at least somewhat followed my recommendation, and I commend you for it.[/size]

[size="2"][size="2"][quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='02 July 2010 - 06:57 AM' timestamp='1278082609' post='2357691']When something is presented to us formally, I'm sure our government will vote on it.[/quote][/size][/size]

[size="2"] [size="2"]Well then that vote has probably been open for a couple days now. Again, I have to say that regardless of whether you eventually agree to support our peace efforts, talking to Berith and others in your .gov...actually holding a rational discourse....was a refreshing change.[/size] [/size]

Edited July 2, 2010 by Ramirus Maximus

[Roadie]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='29 June 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1277867305' post='2354774']
OOC - Machiavelli was a patriot and a bit of a dreamer. Combining him with idealism isn't as far off as some think. However it is clear that Ramirus is not really following the advice given in [i]The Prince.[/i]
[/quote]

What Machiavellian is defined as today is not the same as who Machiavelli was. Putting the n on it and combining it with idealism is as far off as people think.

[Heft]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='02 July 2010 - 03:40 AM' timestamp='1278060016' post='2357560']
... 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.....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....
[/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word"]Weasel words.[/url]

I'm consistently impressed by your ability to be both exceptionally arrogant and intellectually lazy.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='02 July 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1278082609' post='2357691']
Some, yes. Others, not. Keep in mind that the opinion of certain members isn't necessarily reflective of our policy.

When something is presented to us formally, I'm sure our government will [b]vote[/b] on it.
[/quote]

Excuse me, but I think you misspelled "Veto".

[img]http://im-smiley.com/imgs/laughing/laughing012.gif[/img]

[Bob Janova]

A new entry for the Grämlins Dictionary!

[i]Pretty much everyone[/i], n: Ramirus, and the people Ramirus can browbeat into agreeing with him.

(e: here we use BBcode, not HTML!)

Edited July 2, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 July 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1278077159' post='2357640']
In my discussions with TOP members they have said that if IRON wants it, they will go with it. I believe your gov has said similar things in this very thread, though it might have been the other one.

Considering that the amendment is a simple statement of wrongdoing and several members of the surrendering alliances have admitted that this was something they shouldn't have done, I fail to see why the amendment is a big deal.
[/quote]

While I do suspect (and as I have indicated before) that there is sentiment in TOP to accept the amendment, if IRON would desire it let us be quite clear - the amendment is pointless, meaningless and serves no end. The words of the amendment do not improve conditions for any alliance in any way that can not otherwise be achieved with the white peace on offer and as such we do not see why we should indulge one individual in a flight of fantasy.

The restitution for IRON's mistake in joining TOP in our folly has been agreed by those concerned - those that were attacked. IRON, as I understand it, offered a formal apology in the discussion of the terms and it was politely rejected by the victors as unneeded. We at TOP do not see why an outside party must interfere with those terms, we do not understand why we must acquiesce to a third party's demand that we must give an apology to you at C&G that you do not want or desire yourselves.

Further, given that Gramlins attacks are serving as little more than a collective irritant for IRON, I do not foresee our friends ever being in the position that they have to ask us to accept this hollow castigation. At worst, a handful of IRON nations need to dance for a few weeks longer until Gra falls in membership into tech raid, at which point I expect the situation to resolve itself.

I most certainly understand your frustration and empathise with you, Flak, the war was over a long time ago and I am certain that you never expected your salutatory exception to the start date of IRON reps to be abused by your buddies at Gramlins in such a ridiculous and disrespectful way. Like us at TOP I am sure you good folks at C&G would quite like to get along to rebuilding and restoring your nations in the most effective way possible. Most certainly the IRON reparations play a significant part of that process and it stands to reason that you folks are upset that needless disruption is occurring.

I would suggest to you that perhaps you should direct your scorn at those who insist on picking at the scabs over our wounds with inane posturing and invented community standards rather than those who offer a white peace.

I feel that TOP would be quite happy to eat a little humble pie for the sake of a friend. Can you say the same of your friends The Gramlins, Flak?

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='02 July 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1278079528' post='2357668']
-snip-
[/quote]

Dear Fine Gentleman WalkerNinja,

While I disagree with the phraseology of your first point I understand and agree with the underlying sentiment - That we should have listened and reflected on the inter-bloc issues and should have realized their incompatibility much earlier.

Otherwise, spot on.

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='02 July 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1278100935' post='2358001']
Well then that vote has probably been open for a couple days now.
[/quote]

We are awaiting more details from you before moving the matter to vote, specifically:

[quote][Jun.29|20:33:28] <RamirusMaximus|GRE> And third, a note saying that the Grämlins terms are to be presented to IRON outside the scope of the ESA, due to our not signing it (Everyone involved will be given the opportunity to see our terms beforehand).[/quote]

To my knowledge, TOP has not seen these additional, separate terms. I feel it stands to reason that our vote could be swayed by the fairness of your terms of peace for our friend.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Some-Guy

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 July 2010 - 03:10 AM' timestamp='1278079833' post='2357672']
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 even if it's not true), 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]

Ha. No.

The material benefit of peace terms is that you are no longer at war. If that benefit is not enough to make you sign the amendment, then don't.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='02 July 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1278112582' post='2358177']
Ha. No.

The material benefit of peace terms is that you are no longer at war. If that benefit is not enough to make you sign the amendment, then don't.
[/quote]
Oh I hate being on the same side of an argument as Bob Janova,

That being said, the issue here is that the material benefit of Peace terms is peace for [i]both sides[/i], not just the one. If peace were not a more efficient use of time than warfare, then there would be no point in securing peace terms to begin with.

Ergo, the problem is not so much whether or not TOP/IRON et. al. consider it worth continuing to fight over this stuff (they may likely may wind up doing so if it were to come to that), but whether or not the victorious parties consider it worth going to war again over that.

That being said, I don't think that this issue will progress to that stage, since chances are Gramlins will be in the single digit membership count and possess a collective infra level of below 1000 before this comes to pass.

Anyway, Im still waiting to hear some sort of proper response to the various inconsistencies displayed by Ramirus in the given Interview.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Chron' date='02 July 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1278113992' post='2358188']
Oh I hate being on the same side of an argument as Bob Janova,

That being said, the issue here is that the material benefit of Peace terms is peace for [i]both sides[/i], not just the one. If peace were not a more efficient use of time than warfare, then there would be no point in securing peace terms to begin with.

Ergo, the problem is not so much whether or not TOP/IRON et. al. consider it worth continuing to fight over this stuff (they may likely may wind up doing so if it were to come to that), but whether or not the victorious parties consider it worth going to war again over that.

That being said, I don't think that this issue will progress to that stage, since chances are Gramlins will be in the single digit membership count and possess a collective infra level of below 1000 before this comes to pass.

Anyway, Im still waiting to hear some sort of proper response to the various inconsistencies displayed by Ramirus in the given Interview.
[/quote]

and honestly, i hope people are smart enough to realize that Grämlins and their little crusade is not worth restarting this war, just because Ram wants to backpedal and put an amendment into the ESA that he should have negotiated in the first place. If some alliances do go back to war over this to back Ram and Grämlins, then hopefully the rest of CN will not support them. Hopefully it will bring about the same condemnation from the rest of CN, that has thus far been given to Grämlins.

[Bob Janova]

Chron: it happens . Us agreeing ought to be a sign to everyone just how universal that side of the argument is though, heh.

Ryu: The material benefit of signing the peace terms was peace, yes, and IRON and TOP had to pay quite heavily for that benefit. But, unless you're threatening to go back to war, that is not a benefit of the amendment – peace is already achieved, and signing the amendment or not signing it does not change that. (Apart from IRON's war with Grämlins, but IRON are actually getting a material benefit from that now if they do it right, because delaying reps should be helping them rebuild.) There is currently no material benefit for anyone to sign it, and a (non-material) penalty for the 'blamed' alliances, so to get them to sign it would require some benefit to be given to them.

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).