Choader

One down, one to go. Happy trails NATO!

[quote name='Diomede' date='22 March 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1269305941' post='2233684'] Nice quip, but thanks for highlighting how it was a group failure, not one alliance in particular. [/quote] Of course it was a group failure, there's no question though that one alliance in particular was responsible for most of it's stress.

[quote name='Diomede' date='22 March 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1269305367' post='2233674'] You people discussing the break-up of Citadel should get back on topic. Not only that, but if you value what history you shared in that bloc you'd stfu about it in public. [/quote] Being in an already broken and crippled bloc for nine months doesn't make you the bearer of it's standard.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='21 March 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1269239400' post='2232979'] When your individual treaty with Athens was canceled we were told it was in part because you wanted to move in an FA direction away from them. I have never heard anything about your alliance wanting a treaty with MK. When your elected officials and I would discuss various alliances I don't remember them ever saying anything particularity good or even nice about any of those alliance. It was always "we want to move away from that direction." This is why I'm surprised to see you saying that we attacked your friends. From everything your alliance told mine, you didn't have friends in CnG. [/quote] Kind of a moot point now isn't it. Whatever you did or didn't know beforehand MHA found it necessary to defend people from an attack by their strongest (NS-wise) ally, that tells you something right there. It's more telling about TOP then anything that most of the allies you had a few months ago have decided you're not an alliance they want to follow. Also, before anyone claims they were just protecting their infra, if MHA/Gre/FOK/Umbrella/OBR/AO had decided to support you there would have been a different outcome to this war. Unfortunately that's what happens when you make it plain you hold one ally above all others.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1269144399' post='2231856'] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717[/url] If I'm not mistaken, didn't the treaty state that a declaration on one alliance is considered a declaration on both? If MHA had conditions that would cause them to consider the treaty null and void, they should have mentioned those conditions. In the modern era, many alliances include "non-chaining" clauses to make their contracts accurate and honest. [/quote] The link you provided shows Sparta declaring on TOP to defend their allies from TOP's aggression, that doesn't put TOP in a defensive war. However you want to look at it, they either started the war by attacking C&G, or joined the aggressive side by supporting NpO.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1269143932' post='2231845'] You're not giving away your sovereignty, but you are contractually agreeing to being drawn into an ally's defensive war whether you like it or not. Of course, this differs from a direct loss of sovereignty because, technically speaking, you still [b]can[/b] simply refuse to honor the treaty and your word, committing a horribly cowardly and dishonest act, also known as "pulling an MHA." [/quote] Since when is TOP in a defensive war?

iFOK doesn't role-play space wizards, so they have that going for them.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='18 March 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1268965980' post='2229832'] I can't count how many ppl I've recruited today, bring it poison clan [/quote] We can't count either, PC has never recruited.

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='18 March 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1268940710' post='2229459'] /me shrugs Do what you will. You're a smart man though, I would think you'd realize that its through comments like that that you are perpetuating the current state of affairs on Planet Bob, this "class warfare" that we've devolved into with Remnants vs SuperComplaints. Shouting obscenities at the Remnants only drives them further into the extremist NPO/kill all the SuperComplaints one day camp. "We" don't all hate "You, I was a Triumvir of the Coalition that fought you guys and I can even say that I respect Poison Clan for having balls of steel and MK for being tenacious and devious little !@#$%^&*, amongst other alliances. Many SuperComplaint-ees have complained (ha! a pun!) that Remnants/Ex-Heg have stayed in their little corner of Planet Bob with clearly harmful intentions against SuperComplaints since Karma and that they are a clear threat to you and are unwilling to change their stance and hence deserve to be rolled/destroyed/what have you, when in reality outside of a few hardliners, if "we" were actually approached, relations could probably be had. Don't complain that we don't like you or that some of us want to get revenge on you when you clearly attempt to antagonize us. You'll catch more bees with honey than with pithy insults and veiled threats. But anyways, if you're going to play the role of "EBIL MK HEGEMON!" I'll play the role of naive annoying oppressed Remnant... "MK LIKE TOTALLY WANTS TO KILL US! OUR REVENGE SHALL COME!" [/quote] Class warfare, I like that term and the implication behind it.

Fabulous treaty, may NSO and Invicta roll together forever.

Have fun lil' buddies.

You're all overestimating the value of your opinions.

[quote name='AirMe' date='12 March 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1268440641' post='2223774'] Londo commenting on PC's honor is as funny as Hitler saying Ghengis Khan was a stand up and respectable guy. [/quote] You know, Genghis Khan accomplished more in his lifetime then all but about a dozen people in history. I don't mind a comparison to him. Hitler on the other hand, Londo's more like a tin pot dictator.

Augusta, Poison Clan isn't an alliance that is concerned by the threats or opinion of historical enemies and moralists. Many people dislike us and time has shown that's not going to change no matter what we do. We're known for two things, raiding and fierce loyalty to our friends. Neither of those will be changing anytime soon. Regardless, we are decent people and this would probably already be resolved if we had dealt with SBA directly from the beginning without it being turned into a spectacle.

[quote name='AirMe' date='10 March 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1268268356' post='2221517'] I can't say either way. It is plausible but unlikely given the dynamic of the situation that was at hand at the time. [/quote] There you have it. Despite the relative wealth of mid-range raid targets we enjoy in the aftermath of war, SBA was singled out specifically because Echelon isn't in a position to properly protect them. It's all out in open now so feel free to claim credit for exposing the plot. [quote] Refer to my point of Echelon not really being in a good position to do something about it. Especially since Athens and FOK have already publicly said that they would support PC. All Echelon wants is some reps for its protectors. FFS, I will give 5 of my aid slots for that if PC is that hard up for slots. So there, I just offered to pay 15 mil of the 100 mil that was on the table. [/quote] If you want to aid SBA you don't need a go-ahead, just do it.

[quote name='AirMe' date='10 March 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1268267887' post='2221501'] It isn't a preposterous theory, it is a pattern. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of what you want. [/quote] You can't prove the absence of a plot so I have nothing to convince you with. I guess you also believe TOP and IRON were lead into a trap?

[quote name='AirMe' date='10 March 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1268266777' post='2221478'] All this crap about wiki and nation bios is a smoke screen to fool you people into thinking this wasn't pre-meditated. [/quote] You don't have to like us, but don't let hatred fool you into believing preposterous theories. You're better then that.

The wiki is correct 95% of the time. Occasionally you see outdated info but very rarely do you see vandalism or just plain incorrect information.

Han's no longer alone in his absurd timezone. Congrats guys.

I left on page 2 and came back to 17, after reading the entire thread to this point Rush most represents my opinions here: [quote name='Rush Sykes' date='09 March 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1268190180' post='2220372'] Of course, by the same token, the SBA is stricken out of the commonwealth on the commonwealth wiki. This is why you should keep your own house in order. Its what IA people are for, to prevent nonsense like this. If SBA was protected, fine. PC however, with the SBA page saying they merged. A former SBA member saying they had disbanded, the SBA forums being a vast collection of tumbleweeds, and Echelons own Commonwealth wiki having them stricken out..... I can see where they reached their realization. The question is...how far should someone go to verify. There are 2 answers to this.... if you side against the raider...they never went far enough. If you side with the raider, they adequately covered their bases. Everyone is free to make their own decisions, but to suggest that Echelons protection of SBA was CLEAR based on the complete Wiki picture, is patently false. [/quote] I've heard a lot of unverifiable things but here's what I [i][b]know[/b][/i]: Experienced, honest, and long-standing members of PC who I trust completely initiated the raid on SBA. Not once has one of them mentioned references to Echelon in nation bios. That doesn't mean they weren't there but it is no stretch to imagine that the same Echelon members who belatedly changed the wiki also PM'ed SBA nations to add "Protected by Echelon" to their bios. By no means am I insinuating that's the case but with no hard proof and an admitted personal distrust of Echelon I'm not inclined to believe they were there in the first place. The wiki entry on SBA was checked and listed the alliance as disbanded and merged into Echelon. The Commonwealth wiki entry had SBA crossed out. Could Echelon gov have been checked with to verify? Yes. Did the researching PC members have reason to think Echelon would have been straightforward and give a go-ahead to raid their *former* protectorate? Probably not. A former member (The leader? Not sure about that.) of SBA residing in Echelon verified that there had been a merge. The Cybernations Forum was searched for a notice of protection and one was not found. All in all, the raiders involved here had done significant research before declaring on their targets and were satisfied that SBA was not a protected alliance. Yes, they undoubtedly could have been more thorough. You can always be. There's a line somewhere between blindly rushing in and obtaining written approval from the entire gov of every recognized alliance before raiding and the raiders had ample reason to believe they were on the correct side of it. With the shenanigans of MemoryProblems and Caffeine since the raid I'm honestly not convinced Echelon is fully acting in good faith on behalf of SBA, and that's not just parroting a party line. Whether or not SBA was truly protected pre-raid is not up to me to decide, but it's undeniable that both parties here could have done more to prevent this nonsense. The raiders from PC had done their research and were convinced it was thorough enough. Echelon had done a piss poor job of making public their protection and protecting their supposed protectorate from raids, assuming this isn't all a farce. Making an honest mistake does not absolve you from responsibility and this applies both ways, both and neither parties are at fault and should have shaken hands and walked away a week ago. Were it up to me I would have happily sent modest reparations to SBA nations had SBA or Echelon approached us in a calm and reasonable manner. Instead, SBA is still a mute ghost-town and Echelon rushed in with half-truths and belligerence. At this point it's obvious that no reps will ever be sent and if Echelon wants something they'll have to come get it the hard way. [quote name='Haflinger' date='09 March 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1268196223' post='2220543'] Just how many honest mistakes will it take for PC to lose its supporters? Fact is, PC likes to "raid" protectorates of people it doesn't like. Remember California? [/quote] Yes, PC has such a deep and hate-filled history with Echelon. You and your ilk will believe whatever you want, so go ahead and comfort yourself with the knowledge that SBA was raided to frustrate and set up Echelon. Just like how we set up TOP and IRON to get rolled by attacking NpO. [quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='09 March 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1268203258' post='2220692'] Your alliance is scum, and you know it and seem to be proud of it. Good for you, you know where I am if you want me. [/quote] Right back at ya buddy, just know that you and your alliance have unfinished business with my friends and I. Have no doubt that we'll be getting intimate again soon enough. Edit: I'd love to be in an alliance with Omniscient1 someday. Who knows, maybe the stars will align themselves.

[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.

Ahahaha, I can't believe you're going here. This will be fun.

NPO is no threat to anyone now, and won't be for quite some time. They have a horde of members and that's about it, there's no realistic scenario in which the old-hegemony/purple/NPO could overpower C&G/SF in the near future. I'd call it a year before the sides change enough to give them a fighting chance.

I really like these kinds of blog posts, I find it very interesting to hear others opinions of alliances and see if they line up with typical party lines. It's not just NoR, those same certain higher-ranking individuals have managed to destroy whatever goodwill there previously was with quite a few people. It's really quite a shame because were it not for the potshots and superiority there would be more people willing to fight for them instead of just being thrown on the same side by mutual friends.

There's no "higher reps" option.