lonewolfe2015

You can't log into other people's nations, that's why you were flagged, it's like having multiple nations. You should have her delete her nation asap.

Bumpalicious

Here's to another three Valhalla, such an awesome theme deserves immortality in my books!

[quote name='890765' date='11 March 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1268344627' post='2222469'] I still don't understand the arguments here. PC stopped the raids, and put the AA on a no raid list. Why is anything more needed? [/quote] Unless something changed since I last read this thread, it's pretty simple. If PC doesn't pay reps (which I doubt they will) then it's basically a statement that anyone can attack a protectorate so long as they have the backing behind them to survive any potential fallout, they get away without harm done and just say they helped out by making sure the wiki is now up to date and it won't happen again. So they get the benefits of raiding someone without the repercussions of retaliation since likely those nations were ordered to peace PC and await reps payments from Echelon's gov.

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1268187715' post='2220275'] They did ask. They asked the very same person who signed the protectorate with Echelon. For some, this might not seem sufficient since he answered incorrectly. I understand that. Also, the most logical approach would have not been to threaten PC, or to not take protectorates they can't defend. [/quote] I agree threatening PC was bad, but it appears they tried it right the first time. AND the protectorate was taken at a time they could handle protection (I know this, I was a leader of ACF when Rok and Echelon protected us.. my how times change) so that second part falls on deaf ears unless you believe protectorates should change protectors if their protector takes a beating a couple of times standing by their allies. Now, they did ask you say, to the old SBA person. But he was no longer SBA nor was Echelon, it's possible he was the only active person in SBA and further complicated things. But fact remains that his testimonial and the merger notice only leads to a "Well, I think we can hit them, but they are still listed and hold in game references, let's make sure we can before anything bad happens" Again, this is what I think should have been done first to avoid this type of situation. Echelon posted it, but PC could have avoided this happening so both alliances are at fault for this post and surely you can't place blame on Echelon solely in this matter when they and SBA kept up plenty of protection evidence and if anything only had some areas they were unaware of that mudied things.

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1268187258' post='2220260'] Yes, however their "Diplomatic Relations" subsection also has their merger date as October 17. [/quote] But, the Commonwealth still had them listed and was kept to up date, so if things were THIS confusing, shouldn't the logical approach had been to ask them of their protected status? I know I've done the same in the past for this kind of scenario.

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1268187120' post='2220254'] Only 3 have it in their bios (of 13) and the SBA protectorate wasn't on the SBA page. I know there are other sources. Just sayin'. [/quote] 3 is enough to have to question it, and on the wiki was the Commonwealth protectorate agreement with them not crossed out.

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='09 March 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1268186611' post='2220229'] PC already stated that they did not violate their charter. Echelon did not fix the errors on their wiki until someone saw it and came to the reasonable conclusion that the AA was not an official alliance with any ties and was free to raid. They didn't act until the damage was already done and so they are partly to blame. As much as you may scoff at it, the wiki is something people do use as a source of information and alliances that realize that keep them reasonably up to date. A treaty missing I might see, but a giant (false) merger notice staying up there for so long? Seems pretty ridiculous to me. [/quote] The wiki was still accurate to the dot with their Commonwealth though, if the alliance was disbanded as of like 2 months or however long it was, wouldn't the Commonwealth therefore have been updated too at the sametime? It was updated for all 3 other alliances.

[quote name='Alekhine' date='09 March 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1268185440' post='2220183'] [b]Its not just[/b], it just is. Its not about what is just, its about what happens, and this is what happens. [/quote] This is what I'm hoping is the majority opinion around here in that raiding smaller alliances with protectors is not going to become more common and using minor loopholes to get out of it or shear alliance size compared to the protector. If someone attacked America Reborn 2.0, my protectorate because they had no wiki to which showed protection by us, would that be right? We had them listed on our wiki, our forums, these forums, their forums and their nations, which is similar to the situation Spacebattles/Echelon found themselves in. PC, while I usually agree it is at least half responsible for the protector/protectee to make it known they are protected, there was more than enough evidence for someone to pick it up or to directly ask Echelon first.

[quote name='Alekhine' date='09 March 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1268184406' post='2220134'] If you aren't in a position to back up your protection, that's tough. That's the way things have been, its the way things will continue to be. Dislike it if you will, doesn't change the facts that if you can't actually protect who you say you will, that people may not respect it. [/quote] Trouble is, that protectorate agreement was signed back when Echelon had the strength to do something about it. So in this case, do you change protectors because your protector took a couple of beatings and you're friends with them so the politics aren't what bothers you? I'm still interested in this response though, and that if a larger alliance openly raids a protectorate and the protector can't defend against that large of an alliance, is it considered just? Because barring the wiki problem found here, that's what went on. I'd like to know if anyone in SBA had marked protection from Echelon prior to the raids, I know my guys took screenshots to verify it was never there before doing a raid in the past that had poorly marked protectorate status.

Alright... let's just make one thing clear. You did know they were a former protectorate of Echelon, and that their members still existed in game to some standard. You could have contacted Echelon directly about this matter first rather than have this happen. On the flip side of things the wiki was wrong somehow which is an issue unto itself that could change the way raiding is conducted or require more extensive upkeep of the wiki. E: Wanted to ask a question. [quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='09 March 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1268181490' post='2219994'] Echelon already gave PC an ultimatum of war or reps. PC responded by telling them to bugger off, and this thread is Echelon's response. They might as well of just said, "We do not have the backbone to attack PC on our own, but we will if the OWF can rally some support for us." [/quote] Thomas, by this judgment would you then say that it is fair for a sanctioned alliance to raid a protectorate of someone much smaller than them and simply say tough luck? Because they are so much bigger that the Protector couldn't very well handle them militarily. Just seems like that is what you meant to say.

A bump for glory!

[quote name='Burning Glory' date='08 March 2010 - 08:06 PM' timestamp='1268097087' post='2218633'] I Think this is honorable, not to mention it sounds like an acceptance to a duel of skill and whit Anything else would have made MI look like a weak and pathetic bunch, and I know this is not the old MI group I once knew Elb you know I like you, but you got this all wrong. I have no play what so ever in this and in fact didn't even know they planned it...Heck for that matter I didn't even know they declined the protectorate they have always had with TPF since like round 4 or 5. For the record I was one of the few who wanted to see the old MI back, and declined a few offers (none with our allies)to hit you guys. All I can say is PS is a good group of guys, they are honorable and great worriors...But they take no orders from me or anyone else, they do how ever keep their word-friendship and fear no one (taking after my own heart).They have not asked for any asistance, but yes my aggressive stance should be noted as i'm serious as I've ever been. They are our friends who have stood by TPF for many rounds, even with out a protectorate WE HAVE THEIR BACKS. But since you/ MI has taken the honorable stance I knew you would against a 28 member AA it really doesn't mater. GL to both of you BG. [/quote] You act like you're the only one in the world who would defend them... never cease to amaze me.

Good luck guys, but you won't need it. Elb, let's see what you're made of, Pork Shrimp is a good test.

A bump for great justice!

Couple things of note: I very much doubt the correct passwords are being hashed everytime someone cracks a forum. Not a lot of people are dumb enough to use abc123 or WordWord or 123456 unless it's a mundane forum they don't care about. Second, if you use the automatic log in features or a big password repository, don't forget your passwords then... you have to record them somewhere. And when you use services to request new passwords, or store the passwords somewhere, make sure your e-mail or the giant password database have passwords you can easily remember, are different than anything else, and you rotate the passwords often. CHANGE your passwords every so often. Some places go so far as to give you an automatic password kill now so you are forced to use a new password.

[quote name='Fireandthepassion' date='03 March 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1267670591' post='2213247'] Tech yes, but those deals are beneficial for both parties. Just ask the people selling that tech and the people buying. Mergers? For Sparta maybe. Polaris, Paradoxia, and Pacifica are 3 alliances that I can think of off the top of my head that hasn't benefited from a merger in recent history, if ever. [/quote] You completely missed why I brought it up. Large alliances can disguise tech deals as mutually beneficial, but if you're only in it for the economic aspect and not to be a good friend then it's pointless in trying to disguise it. Many a times it is to gain tech, not friends that anyone does large scale tech deals, heck, once the tech goes away those alliances are discarded. So in essence, Polaris, Paradoxi and Pacifica have all used alliances to such ends.

Not bad guys. I miss Cookie

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='02 March 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1267579161' post='2212007'] It was extremely easy to see who was going to win that war. Let's see, all of CnG and SF and all of their allies versus ex-Heg + some Citadel is an obvious victory for CnG and SF and friends. It didn't look even at all. It looked like it might have been even if the other front hadn't peaced out. Unfortunately for my side, the other front dissolved. It dissolved before Sparta became involved as well. [/quote] Ok, there's something to look at then. NpO peaced out the night TOP hit CnG, at that time there were a lot of other alliances ready to support them directly (I loved the command central story I was told) Until you saw the way things played out you could have never anticipated the sides being this advantageous against TOP. Many people could have been either side, people like UPN stayed out, and alliances like NpO who reingaged hit both sides. Don't tell me your crystal ball foretold a beat down because it took a few days for everyone to see just how well everything would come together against TOP.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='02 March 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1267506217' post='2210848'] I would blame my government if they just chose the stronger side because they were too afraid to be in a losing war. [/quote] Can you explain this please? How can anyone know which side is stronger in a war that early on? There is no crystal ball foretelling everyone will side with CnG. Sparta jumped to defend their allies regardless of who hit them. Even if all of Citadel was united against them rather than breaking, they would defend their allies. Before the war, this looked like an even fight not an uneven one. The numbers looked like TOP's side would destroy upper nations and CnG's side would wreck mid-tier and lower. Well how could anyone tell that after most of the aftermath it would turn out more in CnG's favor (after heavy, heavy losses) than in TOP's?

[quote name='Believland' date='01 March 2010 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1267494083' post='2210605'] No, they signed a PIAT with FARK. [/quote] My mistake, thought it was optional defense for some reason.

[quote name='Shovel' date='01 March 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1267488413' post='2210473'] It is not much of an achievement when the only way you can achieve it is by letting your friends burn in a fire. [/quote] So... do you feel the same way about WTF being sanctioned even though they are allied to Fark? I mean, they didn't fight right? If UPN fought they'd have to fight for two sides, if they fought for ODN they'd fight their friends, if they fought for Invicta they'd be picking one ally over another after saying they couldn't enter. Not to mention it takes achievement to get so far as the sanction race and then to become sanctioned means they had to of put a lot of effort into things. Just don't think it's right to be fretting over this so much.

Timoteo and Omni are in gov! Now that's a rocking bunch right there.

Funny people... blame Sparta as if they were the only one who canceled on anyone before the Karma War started. Face is, before wars come around you find yourself heavily weighing treaties, I don't care who you are. If you have a treaty you've pushed aside for a little while with bigger things to worry about and then all of a sudden war starts creeping up you're going to [i]seriously[/i] weigh in on that treaty. Then you're going to see where your best friends are in the war. If you draw up that the treaty was not worth the effort, but you didn't take the time to consider it before the war, then it's happenstance that the war made you see the real reason to cancel that treaty. We've seen plenty of alliances on both sides cancel for the simple fact that communication was tough and they were on the opposite side of the political sphere. So if you go around blaming Sparta, stick to your guns and blame every alliance who has done that. Interesting note by our very own wiki: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hegemony_%28Power_Sphere%29 Funny how we like to draw up sides when things are never that simple. But anyways, let's see everyone argue how horrible each and every single alliance that "changed sides" really is. Because I bet you can't, because you know people in those alliances who really aren't bad people. And if they aren't bad people and they happen to be friends of other alliances that changed sides... then that would lead the logical person to consider the other person isn't so bad either. In this case, Sparta was friends and allies of many of the people who changed sides, and they picked which ideal they believed in. It's a lot more than many of you have ever done who blindly follow an ally into battle without ever considering the ramifications of your actions. "Well George, he went off to war so I suppose I'll go too!" No, you talk to your allies and make it known they are being eggheads. People blame Sparta for taking reps on Legion, yet Legion was among the coordinators of this whole war and by nature an aggressive alliance when you look at in that light. People blame Sparta for taking reps on TOOL, when they declared on Sparta and lost, they weren't significant reps if other alliances involved hadn't taken reps as well and Sparta can't control other sovereign alliances, so take it up with the other alliances. People blame Sparta for not even having taken reps yet from TOP/IRON, why don't you wait to see what happens before condemning them? People blame Sparta saying their FA guy sucks, but I see someone passionate about his alliance not willing to commit to arguing over a lame excuse for a post started by the OP. He even stated he'd debate if this was put into the proper context, which is called [i]compromise[/i], something no one here seems to ever do. So, if you caught up yet, people keep blaming Sparta for pisspoor reasons and aren't even noticing all of the other things around them they should be taking into account. "Let's dogpile Sparta, that's the new cool thing to do since NPO and TOP got taken out of the picture."

Wow, Bob has gone haywire. We can't give congrats to an alliance for achieving something just because you hold a grudge they didn't fight when you did? Everyone wants to complain about something I suppose. Well done UPN, this was gonna happen eventually with the rate you guys have been working on growth, let's see if you can maintain it post war as well.