Jump to content

Ruggerdawg

Members
  • Posts

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ruggerdawg

  1. [quote name='peron' date='21 March 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1269231904' post='2232893']I officially declare war on the entity known as "Real Life." Whose with me?[/quote] In my time at both NADC and Echelon, I've attempted to fight off this vicious real world monster. I've yet to win and several of my friends have fallen victim. Godspeed. *grin* Congrats on your presidency. o7 IRON
  2. [quote name='Derwood1' date='11 March 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1268364483' post='2222858'] 1. We will be contacting SBA directly to work out Reparations to help them rebuild. [/quote] Good to hear. [quote name='Derwood1' date='11 March 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1268364483' post='2222858']3. ...The fact that it took several days for us to speak to real Echelon leadership is absolutely ridiculous.[/quote] It's unfortunate you didn't accept on face value my authority to negotiate on Echelon's behalf. As Prime Minister, it's perfectly within "my office." I was involved in the recent settlement with MHA in the las war. Just ask Pudge.
  3. [quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1268329499' post='2222251']I'll go off of my own prior knowledge that Poison Clan thinks you are using this as an attempt to extort money from them.[/quote] If Echelon were trying to extort PC, why would be asking for [i]less than the amount of damages[/i], and why would we be asking that the money only go to the [i][b]affected nations[/b][/i]? This is restitution, not extorting. Now, if the damages caused to SBA were $50mil and Echelon was demanding $200mil, that would be a little closer to extortion. But the damages are $212mil and Echelon is asking that SBA be compensated with $50mil. [quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1268329499' post='2222251']If the merger didn't take place why would the Wiki have stated that it did take place?[/quote] Anyone can edit a wiki and unfortunately that is what has happened here. [quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1268329499' post='2222251']Also when did the first raid take place? The one where SouthernComfort stated he'd not raid again.[/quote] Again, information found [i][b]in this thread[/b][/i]. SouthernComfort raided in July 2009. At that time, he said he would not raid again. He did raid again, February 2010.
  4. [quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1268328665' post='2222237'] That's generally not a true statement, said alliances are generally only protected for a short period of time when they merge. [/quote] Every alliance handles this differently. But if an alliance wants to protect the AA for six months, fine. But, that's not really the point. SBA didn't merge. Though even if they had merged, the next thought in one's mind should be, "Oh, protected AA?" and then go talk to the alliance which remained post-merger (in this instance, that would be Echelon). [quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1268328665' post='2222237']If it's the third time Poison Clan has raided Echelon then why are the just now requesting reparations?[/quote] Again, this was addressed (not in the OP, but in the thread). The raided nation did not provide battle reports, so it was impossible to calculate damages. The raider (SouthernComfort) agreed he would not raid again. (And just to let you know, it was SouthernComfort that was involved in this most recent raid.)
  5. [quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1268328085' post='2222219']All existing treaties are considered null after an alliance merges into you, right? [/quote] Actually, what I know is that when alliances merge, the AAs are protected. So even if SBA did merge into alliance, the SBA AA would be under Echelon's protection. So again, PC raided a protected AA. [quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1268328085' post='2222219']Anyhow in your OP didn't you state that Dark Templar and Poison Clan raided these nations?[/quote] The OP did not mention DT, but it did mention that this is the [i][b]third[/b][/i] time PC raided that alliance.
  6. [quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:05 AM' timestamp='1268327476' post='2222208'] Anyhow pardon my ignorance, I didn't know that 50 million was offered and I didn't read the thread as I stated. [/quote] Information regarding the offer of $50mil to settle was in the OP. I realize the OP was rather lengthy, but if you aren't going to bother to read it, then [i][b]wtf[/b][/i] are you doing posting in this thread? You're PC, I get that you're going to support your alliance, but at least familiarize yourself with the facts and the history of this situation.
  7. [quote name='extraduty' date='10 March 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1268232855' post='2220916'] And the last post on that forum was in October. I can provide links to old forums of disbanded alliances too that have treaties listed. That doesn't prove anything. [/quote] The last [b][i]public[/i][/b] link is dated October. If you had a member mask, you'd see more recent posts.
  8. [quote name='Stilgar' date='09 March 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1268207707' post='2220759'] Not necessarily. Alliances often, if not always, protect members who remain on the AA of the alliance merging into them. The duration of this protection is an arbitrary one, and it could be anywhere from one day to one decade (though it's usually around 1-3 weeks I think). It is not justifiable to assume that any remnant are open for raiding as they can still be under terms of protection [/quote] Had SBA merged into Echelon ([i]this is a hypothetical scenario[/i]), the SBA AA would have been protected. Some in CN say that AAs are not protected indefinitely, but there are no hard and fast rules against this. So, even if the information regarding the merger had been correct, it still should have triggered a conversation with Echelon. I'm sorry I keep repeating myself, but a quick, 60 second conversation with Echelon could have avoided this whole issue.
  9. [quote name='kriekfreak' date='09 March 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1268207414' post='2220754'] Although I think that PC could have invested a little more time to check if they were still protected by Echelon or not[/quote] The moment the topic came up with a former SBA member, "so...Echelon..." it should have been a clue to go to Echelon (specifically, #echelon and ask for Gov). The fact that they asked [i]someone[/i] is moving in the right direction. The key is they should have asked the [b][i]right[/i][/b] someone. Half effort for half information.
  10. [quote name='Caliph' date='09 March 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1268190893' post='2220406'] The facts are this: PC raided someone they thought was a disbanded alliance. Echelon has evidence supporting they not, indeed, a disbanded alliance. The mistake for this is Echelon's. [/quote] Logic fail. You just made an argument for why PC owes reps. According to your own charter: [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]
  11. [quote name='Caliph' date='09 March 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1268194391' post='2220507'] The raid is over, and all that is preventing us all from moving on are Echelon threats of war if they do not get reps from PC. PC is not paying Echelon. [/quote] We don't want PC to pay Echelon. How many times do I need to say that? We want PC to compensate the raided SBA nations. At least pay them back the looted money and tech that was gained. That wouldn't be too difficult, would it?
  12. [quote name='Vilien' date='09 March 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1268184288' post='2220127'] Their reason for not paying reps boils down to Echelon being poorly connected. That's complete !@#$%^&*. Switch this with, say, a RoK protectorate getting raided and you can sure as hell bet we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. [/quote] [quote name='Gerald Meane' date='09 March 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1268184351' post='2220131']That being said regardless of the outcome we here at \m/ will be supporting our allies if it comes down to war.[/quote] Yes, if this were not Echelon, but say RoK, and all of the remaining facts were the same, there would be no standoff. So essentially, these protectorates only apply when you have the might to back them up. That's unfortunate, but I suppose that's the way of things. As mentioned, Echelon had the might to to back this up when the protectorate was signed. It doesn't change the fact that PC still raided a protected alliance and should have known better. [quote name='Rey the Great' date='09 March 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1268184696' post='2220150']When you say you only want 50 million, is that before or after the demand of 210 million or war?[/quote] Echelon only wants restitution for the nations that were raided. We also would liked this to resolve quickly so we can all go about our usual business. Logistically, getting $50mil to 3 nations is easier and quicker than getting $200mil to the same 3 nations.
  13. [quote name='Emperor Marx' date='09 March 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1268183299' post='2220087'] After you realize that the wiki stated they merged into you. That's kind of your cue, you know, to go out and correct the mistake and prevent a situation like this from arising. [/quote] Then allow this to be the SIXTH reference that SBA is a protectorate of Echelon. 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. [*]THIS POST. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=82415&view=findpost&p=2220107[/list] Edit: link
  14. [quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='09 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1268182955' post='2220067'] Yes actually, fix the argument and repost. [/quote] There's nothing to fix. SBA never disbanded. A quick visit to their forum would provide all the evidence necessary for that conclusion. PC, did you ever visit their forum? If you had, you'd have seen that it was current and being used to conduct their official alliance business. Typically, alliances that no longer exist or disband do not maintain these forums.
  15. [quote name='Emperor Marx' date='09 March 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1268182398' post='2220029']You also failed to properly communicate to the world publicly that SBA was still under your protection and a sovereign alliance after the supposed merger. [/quote] How frequently ought an alliance re-announce their protectorate agreements? Monthly, weekly, daily? Because Echelon was once a protector and is currently a protector, and there is no change in status of SBA, there is nothing to announce. The SBA of today is still the SBA before the discussed merger. Albeit a little lighter of members. But still a sovereign alliance nonetheless. Echelon and/or SBA would have made an OWF post announcing a disbandment and/or merger, but since neither occurred, no announcement of any kind was warranted. FYI, United Domainers is a protectorate of Echelon. They always have been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Would you like me to re-post this declaration tomorrow? Edit: spelling
  16. [quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1268181050' post='2219974'] Anyway- Does SBA have any forums of their own? [/quote] Yes, and a link to their forums, and their treaties, was provided in the OP. http://sba.egzodus.com/forum/index.php?topic=7.0
  17. [quote name='Timmehhh' date='09 March 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1268180740' post='2219959']House of Lords are cancelled, but are still on the list. [/quote] Specifically, it says "treaty pending review" and there are those within Echelon that are hoping to re-kindle relations with HoL. At this moment, if HoL came to us seeking assistance, we'd offer our support to them.
  18. [quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1268180159' post='2219934'] 2. I think a reraid means raiding ASAP after a raid, or like maybe 1 month. Tbh, I don't remember any of my raid targets from way back when (I haven't raided in a Loooooooooong while), and I figure I wouldn't remember one from a small alliance like SBA. Months passed since the reraid. While it's technically a reraid, I hardly think the charter meant that long of a time period. That's what I figure anyway. [/quote] If their don't re-raid policy means don't re-raid within a month, then it should say that. In the absense of a time limiting declaration, it reads as an indefinite "do not re-raid." Until such time that the scope of this statement is narrowed, we must take it for face value. [quote name='Rush Sykes' date='09 March 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1268180152' post='2219933'] Not speaking for my allies, but I will take a stab at #2. The charter prohibits raiding an alliance once it has already been raided. Going on the belief, as all the evidence pointed to...that SBA disbanded in October, it is completely reasonable to view anyone on a 6 month disbanded AA, as no different than being on NONE. [/quote] For an AA that supposedly disbanded 6 months ago, they're holding strong numbers. 13 members on the AA, with a third of them having "Protected by Echelon" in their bio sounds like a stable, non-disbanded alliance to me.
  19. [quote name='Timmehhh' date='09 March 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1268179628' post='2219917'] I have checked and studied the echelon treaties during the war to anticipate possible counters on FOK but I haven't seen a treaty or protectorate with SBA. The wiki page from SBA also showed that SBA disbanded before Echelon members edited the page. [/quote] [quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='09 March 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1268179708' post='2219921'] I'd be interested to hear Echelon's response to this. Specifically Rugger, Tela or Solidus. [/quote] Timehhh, you probably should have looked harder. It has [b][i]always[/i][/b] been there. I estimate that if you were looking at Echelon's treaties to "anticipate possible counters" you probably didn't spend a lot of time looking over our protectorates. And even if you did, SBA and UD are pretty small. I'd actually be impressed if you did remember them. Protectorates do not typically contribute significantly in major wars, so why would you have invested much? Instead, you probably focused more of your attention on IRON, NADC, RDD, etc.
  20. [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.)
  21. 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
  22. [quote name='SilvioArjunza' date='11 February 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1265935353' post='2175939']A few good folk, whom live life a little slower on Planet Bob, or just a place to go to get hoards of free high-class liquor & classy serving girls.[/quote] And really, what more can you ask for?
  23. [quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='11 February 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1265917031' post='2175307'] lolechelon [/quote] Last I checked, the OP wasn't about Echelon surrendering in Karma. But that's for bringing that up. *sigh*
×
×
  • Create New...