Jump to content

Ok, admit it, you spent the last few weeks watching Olympic Curling


Recommended Posts

I. Issue Statement
II. Poison Clan's Raiding Rules
III. The SBA Wiki Issue
IV. Damages


[size="5"]I. Issue Statement[/size]

On February 28, 2010 several Poison Clan nations raided 3 members of the Spacebattles.com Alliance, also known as SBA. [b]This most recent attack is the third such attack by Poison Clan on SBA.[/b]

SBA's wiki has been edited several times. For more on this, see below. Claims have been made that SBA merged into Echelon. This is not the case. Information regarding the protection of SBA by Echelon can be found in the following locations:

[list][*][url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Spacebattles.com_Alliance]SBA's wiki[/url]
[*][url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Echelon]Echelon's wiki - Echelon Treaties[/url]
[*][url=http://sba.egzodus.com/forum/index.php?topic=7.0][b]SBA Forums - SBA Treaty List[/b][/url]
[*][url=http://www.cn-echelon.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12526][b]Echelon Forums - Echelon's Treaties[/b][/url]
[*]The bios of several SBA nations.[/list]

Any errors or inconsistencies found on the SBA wiki would quickly be addressed by seeking information from the four remaining sources.

Poison Clan claims they were unable to locate current information on the status of the Echelon-SBA Protectorate Agreement on either the Echelon forums or the SBA forums. The forums for both SBA and Echelon have maintained current and correct information since the inception of this treaty. Treaties for both alliances are also available in public areas which do not require registered nicknames to view (click the links for the respective forums, found above).

[hr]

[size="5"]II. Poison Clan's Raiding Rules[/size]

Poison Clan clearly state their rules regarding tech raiding. These rules can be found on their [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Poison_Clan#Section_II_-_Raiding]alliance wiki[/url], or on their [url=http://poisonclan.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1047]forums[/url].
[center][img]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4599/31075091.jpg[/img][/center]

[quote]Poison Clan Raid Rules
1) Alliances of 20 members and under, if they have no protectorate agreements or outside treaties (NAPs don’t count), are acceptable to be raided.[/quote]
According to Poison Clan's tech raiding policy, protected alliances are not allowed to be raided. SBA is, and always has been, protected by Echelon.

Poison Clan states they contacted a former SBA member to discuss the status of this protectorate. That former SBA member gave Poison Clan incorrect information. There may be several reasons for this - perhaps s/he was a disgruntled member and has a grudge against SBA, or perhaps they simply did not know - either way, the information was inaccurate.

[quote]Poison Clan Raid Rules
6) Don't re-raid. If you or another member of Poison Clan have raided them in the past or if they just finished getting raided by another alliance, leave them alone.[/quote]
SouthernComfort of Poison Clan raided SBA in July 2009. Echelon notified Poison Clan that SBA was protected. The raided nation was asked to provide battle reports and failed to respond, so reps were not calculated. Poison Clan agreed to cease attacks and the issue was resolved without incident.

SouthernComfort [b]re-raided[/b] SBA on February 28, 2010 and has continued with numerous attacks. This is a clear violation of Poison Clan's tech raiding policy.

[quote]Poison Clan Raid Rules
8.) In the event that a person raids a protected or treatied alliance by mistake, they will lose their raid privileges for the next thirty (30) days, and will pay reparations to compensate for the damage done.[/quote]
Fact 1 - PC nations attacked a protected alliance.
Fact 2 - PC nations have re-raided an alliance.
Fact 3 - Both 1 & 2 are violations of PC Raiding Rules.
Fact 4 - Violation of PC Raiding Rules results in the payment of reps.
Conclusion - PC is required to pay reps to SBA.

Finally, I offer this:
[quote]Poison Clan Raid Rules
7) If you bite off more than you can chew, don't !@#$%* and complain. You knew the risks involved in raiding. Sometimes karma dishes it out; just take it, lick your wounds, and move on. Don't call in back up to have them beat down the opponent. If you get to the point where you can't handle it, maybe you shouldn't be raiding anymore.[/quote]

[hr]

[size="5"]III. The SBA Wiki Issue[/size]

In September of 2008, Echelon [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=35323&st=0]publically announced their protection of SBA[/url] (as a result of an attack on SBA by Dark Templar and Poison Clan).

As of 3:11PM EST March 9, 2010, no change has been made to Echelon's wiki since January of 2010. ([url="http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/4662/snapper1268165490809.jpg"]Image[/url])
So the Echelon page has appeared as such since January.
[center][img]http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6544/47948580.jpg[/img][/center]
Echelon's announcement of protection was added to the wiki more than a year prior to this event.

As of February 17, 2009, SBA added the Commonwealth of Echelon box on the bottom of their wiki. They were listed as active members from that day through today, no change was made.

In October 2008, a merger between Echelon and SBA was [b][i]discussed[/i][/b]. Several members of SBA left to join Echelon, but those not interested in the merger remained. DrStrangelove, one of those that joined Echelon, edited the wiki to indicate the two alliances merged. ([url="http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6746/29278459.jpg"]Image[/url]) This information is inaccurate and was corrected [i]within five hours[/i]. ([url="http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4688/snapper1268175734149.jpg"]Image[/url])

On February 6, 2010, the user "Lol pie" took information that had already been edited out of the wiki 5 hours after it was put up in October of 2009 and decided that SBA no longer existed. ([b]Note the lack of links to anything with either Echelon or SBA signatures on it stating this as factual.[/b])

While we generally try to keep our own wiki updated, and occasionally check up on the wikis of our allies, please note the date that Lol pie made the change - February 6. On February 6, Echelon was engaged in war which lasted until February 18. Poison Clan attacked SBA on February 28, 10 days later. During those 10 days, Echelon was consumed with assessing war damages, rebuilding, and transitioning from a state of war to a state of rearmament.

[b]On March 1, when SBA informed Echelon that they were being raided by PC, an Echelon member visited the SBA wiki and noticed several inaccuracies (most notably the Lol pie change). Is Echelon expected to leave the mistake up so that other alliances could attack? There is no dispute of this, the change was a matter of public record (anybody can see edits on a wiki). When Poison Clan was approached, we approached them with the knowledge that when they checked, this was the version of the wiki they had seen.[/b]
[center][img]http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6746/29278459.jpg[/img][/center]

(Note: The entire wiki issue has been diagramed in one large image, but was broken down into smaller parts for the sake of simplicity. In order to view the larger image, please see this http://www.cn-sanitarium.com/PCWiki.jpg (warning, it's big - 6998px × 3432px).)

On February 25 of 2010, Poison Clan announced its [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81709&st=0&p=2204416&#entry2204416]protection of The Gentlemen's Club[/url]. However, they failed to note it in their wiki until March 1st. ([url="http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4346/snapper1268164662578.jpg"]Image[/url])

Poison Clan is guilty of the same thing we are, not being up to date on their wikis. Had somebody attacked The Gentlement's Club in between those dates, we can say without doubt that Poison Clan would have demanded reps from the attackers.

[hr]

[size="5"]IV. Damages[/size]

Echelon has calculated the amount of damages sustained to SBA raiding victims by compiling information from the provided battle reports. This information can be viewed in [url=http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtDXRQoCa1g9dFNhUGFSbkViS2owQjVFUHlNNHlXN3c&hl=en]GoogleDoc spreadsheet[/url]
[center][img]http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5462/snapper1268166637390.jpg[/img][/center]
The damages for infrastructure and land were calculated utilizing the [url=http://www.cn-utilities.com/]CN-Utilities calculator[/url] for each nation based on their current resources, land and infrastructure levels, wonders, and 5 Factories. The total amount of damages (without the cost of soldiers and tanks) is $212,774,461.85. If this number seems extreme, it should be noted that these are nations with ~6,000 (+/- 500) infrastructure.

Echelon and SBA are not seeking punitive damages and instead are only focused on repayment of the [b]actual[/b] damage done to SBA. An offer to settle for $100 million has been offered and rejected. In an effort to be reasonable, we offered to settle for $50 million. That offer was also rejected.

Echelon is not seeking to extort Poison Clan and is only trying to act in accordance with the current SBA-protectorate agreement.

Edit: bbcode tags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 718
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The fact is the treaty was listed as canceled on the wiki when PC attacked, and then after this all happened you edited it back into your wiki.

Why should PC be financially liable for your errors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 March 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1268177426' post='2219818']
The fact is the treaty was listed as canceled on the wiki when PC attacked, and then after this all happened you edited it back into your wiki.

Why should PC be financially liable for your errors?
[/quote]

'The forums for both SBA and Echelon have maintained current and correct information since the inception of this treaty. Treaties for both alliances are also available in public areas which do not require registered nicknames to view (click the links for the respective forums, found above).'

Why should they have to put it into the wiki when it is clearly stated on their own forums ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 March 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1268177426' post='2219818']
The fact is the treaty was listed as canceled on the wiki when PC attacked, and then after this all happened you edited it back into your wiki.

Why should PC be financially liable for your errors?
[/quote]

The fact is that wikis can be edited by anyone. The rationale that PC is using is unbelievable. If I were to go and edit their wiki myself, and remove all their treaties, and someone attacked them, their allies would A) Not be required to assist and B) Would be bandwagoning.

Seriously. Take a look at the facts, and you'll realize how ridiculous PC's claims are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoy forty pages of the usual people strutting and bleating about how they're not going to pay reparations after they aggressively attack a sovereign alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Omas Nams' date='09 March 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1268177796' post='2219831']
'The forums for both SBA and Echelon have maintained current and correct information since the inception of this treaty. Treaties for both alliances are also available in public areas which do not require registered nicknames to view (click the links for the respective forums, found above).'

Why should they have to put it into the wiki when it is clearly stated on their own forums ?
[/quote]
That's not true. At the time there was no publicly viewable SBA protection agreement on Echelon's forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='09 March 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1268177883' post='2219835']
This certainly didn't need to go public.
[/quote]

PC entered into negotiations with absolutely no intention of paying reps for their unwarranted aggression. When one party is unwilling to bend even a little in private, a public forum is exactly where it should land.

The high damage totals, and Echelon was willing to accept a fraction of that, yet PC was unwilling to even admit their own fault in this matter, which is rather obvious, once you have read and understood the facts regarding this incident, and the previous incidents of PC raiding SBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Choader' date='09 March 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1268178055' post='2219840']
That's not true. At the time there was no publicly viewable SBA protection agreement on Echelon's forums.
[/quote]

I'm not sure why you're saying that, it's not true. Look at the links at the top of the page and look at the dates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='x Tela x' date='09 March 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1268177894' post='2219836']
The fact is that wikis can be edited by anyone. The rationale that PC is using is unbelievable. If I were to go and edit their wiki myself, and remove all their treaties, and someone attacked them, their allies would A) Not be required to assist and B) Would be bandwagoning.

Seriously. Take a look at the facts, and you'll realize how ridiculous PC's claims are here.
[/quote]

If you edit VE's page I would get an email saying what the edits were. If they were fraudulent I would report the user. That Echelon chose to ignore their wiki for two months, which was changed to show that SBA was no longer protected, is unfortunate.

What you should have said to PC is something along the lines of 'hey, we are protecting this alliance, contrary to what our wiki says, so please stop your attacks'. PC would have stopped, and that would have been the end of it. Instead you guys decide that PC should pay for your mistake and ignorance, and that is 'unbelievable' rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Choader' date='09 March 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1268178055' post='2219840']
That's not true. At the time there was no publicly viewable SBA protection agreement on Echelon's forums.
[/quote]

Well then I guess it's going to be a case of your word against theirs seeing as it's not visible if the post has been edited recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 March 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1268178172' post='2219845']
If you edit VE's page I would get an email saying what the edits were. If they were fraudulent I would report the user. That Echelon chose to ignore their wiki for two months, which was changed to show that SBA was no longer protected, is unfortunate.

What you should have said to PC is something along the lines of 'hey, we are protecting this alliance, contrary to what our wiki says, so please stop your attacks'. PC would have stopped, and that would have been the end of it. Instead you guys decide that PC should pay for your mistake and ignorance, and that is 'unbelievable' rationale.
[/quote]

Since when did it become the responsibility of the raided alliance to inform the raiders if they are protected or not?
Blaming the victim seems to be the new trend around here.

Edited by silentkiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Choader' date='09 March 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1268178055' post='2219840']
That's not true. At the time there was no publicly viewable SBA protection agreement on Echelon's forums.
[/quote]

Try this: http://www.cn-echelon.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12526

That post has remained exactly as is since February 9th, when it was changed to a table format.

Until that point, SBA was STILL listed on it, but in a list format instead of table. SBA has been listed on that thread linked since we started protecting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have read outside of this OP, neither the wiki nor Echelon's forums made it clear that SBA was protected.

I'd let it go, there's nothing doing here. Even if you hope to win a "moral" victory, I think you'll be out of luck. Those who like PC won't change their opinions over this (and will likely harden them), and those who don't like PC, well, they still won't like PC.

And for the record, I did spend the last few weeks watching curling.

Also, hi Rugger, my old friend. Hope you're well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 March 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1268178172' post='2219845']
What you should have said to PC is something along the lines of 'hey, we are protecting this alliance, contrary to what our wiki says, so please stop your attacks'. [/quote]
This is exactly what was said to PC in October 2009. According to PC's rules, they are not allowed to re-raid. Therefore, this current issue never should have occurred. (SouthernComfort was a party to the previous raid and therefore should have known.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='09 March 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1268178297' post='2219856']
From what I have read outside of this OP, neither the wiki nor Echelon's forums made it clear that SBA was protected.

I'd let it go, there's nothing doing here. Even if you hope to win a "moral" victory, I think you'll be out of luck. Those who like PC won't change their opinions over this (and will likely harden them), and those who don't like PC, well, they still won't like PC.

And for the record, I did spend the last few weeks watching curling.

Also, hi Rugger, my old friend. Hope you're well.
[/quote]

Our forums and our wiki have both always stated that we are protecting SBA. PC knows they raided a protected alliance - it's not like it's the first time they've done it, they just don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...