Mixoux

Perhaps we ripped it out a little too violently.

Coming from you, who just recently brought up a conflict from 2007 to troll an alliance? Cute.

Yes.

..You mean the rest haven't been already? Oh, my. Do I feel quite shameful now.

Congrats guys.

He was just agreeing with what Xiph said.

Steadfast dedication to the tech corps. Bravo!

Also, it's not as if SF's goal from its formation was to inevitably take down all opposition and rise as the next superpower* (no pun intended ). *Pun edit: Though if it was, we'd probably want heat vision.

This. 35K tech is the total between all the alliances asking for reps. I think the highest asked by a single alliance is 10K.

Right ventricle shutting down, heart attack imminent

Hey now, you're not in Citadel! You wouldn't know whether they're right or wrong because you don't know them!!!!

Just so this doesn't get lost in the sea of posts.

Your choice of words was still fairly threatening, though. (Not that I care in the least mind you) I mean, here we've just been trolling and flaming each other without any real foreshadowing, and you go and make a comment on where we'll end up! Quite the prediction for an person not directly involved in this particular drama, don't you think? edit: grammar

The thing is that we did. Everyone was consulted prior, and everyone was present at the meeting (including TOP and TSO).

Oh please. Some of us are already getting attacked quite hard for what we've proposed as terms. If there really was such a craving for disbandment, alliances would up and say it. This is hardly about PR, it's about closure.

Heh, alright.

Naturally, otherwise they might have just decided to revoke that 1V offer!

The reality that alliances conduct their peace negotiations in a myriad of different ways is shocking for some, I guess.

I lolled over the rest of the post, but this is what really got me. Where has GOD ever mentioned that we've been opposed to reps or didn't factor in grudges? I don't think we've ever made it unclear as to how we conduct our warfare.

The problem I have with their arguments on that is that they act as if the rest of Echelon was in disagreement of those actions. These leaders were chosen to lead Echelon for a reason, and I don't remember seeing them removed because of differences of opinion. No; the majority of the alliance went with it and continued putting their trust and faith in them. By trying to disassociate yourselves with past actions of your former leaders, all you're really doing is turning them into the scapegoat, so that you may distance yourselves from your past that you so created yourselves.

Which of our allies were we ignoring, exactly? Everyone at the talks (with the exception of TOP/TSO who aren't our allies anyway) seemed to be in agreeance with the terms presented. Our membership feels the same way.

Knew this would have to happen as CON has been a ghost town for a long time unfortunately.

You sure about that? I just ran the numbers up, it comes out to 74,702 tech, which would reduce them to an avg. 1,240 tech. 668 for the entire alliance. Could be much worse.

Wasn't directed to you, more so along the lines of what you were talking about in your post.

Hardly. 35K tech can be regained within a few months, if that. That's 700 aid packages / 85 members = 8 deals per member. That can be accomplished in, what, a few cycles? You act like we're asking for something you couldn't possibly handle. Sounds to me like you're underestimating your alliance a little.