FreddieMercury
-
Posts
682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by FreddieMercury
-
-
[quote name='Newhotness' date='12 March 2010 - 04:19 AM' timestamp='1268367862' post='2222951']
we said we wouldnt pay reps to echelon. i dont think we said that we wouldnt work with SBA. just goin by memory tho, i dont remember everyones post
[/quote]
Lol wut, good luck trying to rewrite history on that one. -
Mmmm, sounds like all that blustering from random people saying that PC would absolutely not pay reps turned out to be true. D:
-
Well, I think I can guess which way NEW's FA direction will be heading. It'll suck being on the opposite side of NEW in the future
. The reason for canceling on TPF seems petty, old relationships die hard eh? -
[quote name='Mamazlilmistake' date='10 March 2010 - 04:31 AM' timestamp='1268195803' post='2220536']
The post was 4 months old... And the wikia clearly stated that the alliance had dissolved and merged into someone. When an alliance merges into another, there are always nations who stay behind... These are the dead weight nations who dont read the pms and or sign on, or are diehards. In any event, we were under the assumption they were as a hole, no more. The problem is that Echelon then went and switched everything and tried to pull one over on us. Thankfully our tech/dork caught the date up the updates. We called them on the shenanigans, and here we are now.
[/quote]
Quoting the OP: [quote]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.[/quote]
That's about a month.
If you're not sure they're dead weight, do a quick IRC query, viola: issue resolved. Also, the accusation that Echelon tried to pull one over you is laughable, you can clearly see in the logs that they acknowledge that the change was to correct the issue. -
[quote name='Caliph' date='10 March 2010 - 03:09 AM' 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]
You just pointed out that mistake is PC's.
[quote]
I think PC did a sufficient amount to check up on their raid. The wiki is the most accessible source of information (OOC: and to those of you who are making the comment about wikipedia being unreliable, recall that the CN wiki is CN's only historical . . . thingy). It's a little bit ridiculous to suggest that PC should have checked Echelon's boards if they were unaware that Echelon was SBA's protector.[/quote]
Like the point that's been brought up before, VE's new protectorate does not have a Wiki yet; go raid it and then expect not to pay reps? Furthermore, SBA's wiki did show they had a protectorate with Echelon. It was just that it appeared that SBA was disbanded. That was up for a month while Echelon was distracted with this recent war we just had, it's extremely reasonable to double check on a disbandment that happened not so far back. And SBA's NS graph that had a good amount of growth (signifying that people weren't leaving en mass) should have raised some alarm bells.
And again, Echelon recognizes the problems that can come with an incorrect wiki, which is why they were willing to go with not just 50% of the damages (which I think is extremely reasonable) but 25% of the damages (which is as you say: token reps): 50 mil.
Edits: blarg, grammar -
[quote name='Earogema' date='10 March 2010 - 02:36 AM' timestamp='1268188904' post='2220318']
They came into #rok for the sake of causing trouble. It was obvious and it was one of the most undiplomatic things to do.
[/quote]
Caffine amsg'ed the logs into many channels, nor is RoK the alliance Echelon is at issue with here, not even a direct ally. Hardly undiplomatic thing to do. -
[quote name='Earogema' date='10 March 2010 - 02:17 AM' timestamp='1268187788' post='2220277']
You act as if both sides weren't being ridiculous. Course, it was in #rok too.
[/quote]
Echelon made immature statements here and there, but unlike the people deriding them, was for the most part pretty civil in #rok. -
[quote name='Rampage3' date='10 March 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1268187403' post='2220265']
Seriously, Echelon's demeanor in our channel last night was ridiculous, and the way they attempted to threaten PC and by extension \m/, was not appreciated. THAT is why there is little patience for this, at least for my part.
[/quote]
LOL, I would post the logs but I'd have to censor so much of what you guys said it'd be a bit of a pain to read. Not to mention your love speaking in all caps. -
[quote name='Gerald Meane' date='10 March 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1268186147' post='2220205']
It also doesn't change the fact that you came to pc, and immediately threatened war.
[/quote]
You have no idea what you are talking about. -
Yeah, Shame on you Echelon. We all know how logical it is to place the burden upon the protector. Raiders should never have to strain their eyes to click on a couple of more links/talk to a person face to face to confirm the information on a Wiki which is publically editable.
I think a bust a gut everything you other guys try to argue for PC's position which can't even handle the weight of a straw. It is reasonable to keep the Wiki at least marginally updated, people use it all the time to learn about alliances/etc. But it still ultimately is upon the raider to make sure all the holes are plugged, SBA's protectorate could have been confirmed easily in other areas. Echelon understands that mistakes are made, especially in the case of a wiki error, which is why they agreed to 50% and [b]even 25%[/b] of the damage caused. U mad PC? -
[quote name='AirMe' date='02 March 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1267546344' post='2211353']
Oh look at that, the guy that tried to infiltrate MK is back in gov. How the hell are you guys still alive?
[/quote]
He's been in gov for some time now, he's learned his lesson and he's kept out of trouble. I'm sure UBD appreciates the concern though.
[quote]
You do realize that wars have been started by alliances over the actions of 1 person?
No one, not even your allies disagreed with our course of action. You can cry about us being wrong all you want, but the truth is there.
Good Day.[/quote]
Wars are started over a variety of reasons, though the fact that they happen, doesn't mean they are right.
I had talked to MK just prior to the war, I didn't agree with the philosophy that a gov member absolutely represents the members at all instances, especially in this particular situation where several key people did the deed without the consent of others, and if I were in MK's shoes then, I would have handled the situation differently. That said, MK's alternative wasn't terrible, and really was probably the best anyone could have realistically hoped for during that time. Had the spying targeted the hegemony, who knows. -
I would make some witty comment about NATO leaving CDT again if I wasn't allied to them.
Ah hell: that was fast NATO.
-
Boo UBD, your evil hegemonic past will never be forgotten!
Also, o/ -
It will be interesting one day when Sparta makes the inevitable misstep and then all of a sudden all the former Vox people will be on the podium suddenly praising that the day of reckoning has finally come for Sparta. Funny how they are silent right now.
-
Not exactly unexpected on Sparta's part, hell, TOOL you didn't even have your average membership trash talk about them.
But really, kicking somebody this hard when they are down, lets just say I'm glad to see people with a sense of decency in this thread. -
[quote name='Fantastico' date='27 February 2010 - 07:19 AM' timestamp='1267255352' post='2206207']
20,000 tech from 75 nations, a great many of which are in pretty bad shape, is a lot to deliver in 120 days.
Good luck on that and congrats on the peace.
[/quote]
I know, real classy right? -
[quote name='Elyat' date='24 February 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1267036552' post='2201758']
No. What's sad is that you think your alliance is better -- and less complicit -- in the world we sought to dismantle along with the NPO than NPO is. We didn't need TOP to down the unchecked power of Pacific last time; we did so in spite of it. This war is nothing more and nothing less than judgment. The final curtain has come to call on the old world order and TOP is finally answering for their crimes, as should have happened a year ago.
[/quote]
Feeling like you always need some moral crusade, eh?
It's almost like a card you can play at any second, you bring up their past sucking up to the teet of the Hegemony the moment they lay on a side that isn't yours. It's a pretty handy card, as most people were sucking up to the teet of the hegemony during that time. -
[quote name='Roadie' date='24 February 2010 - 06:00 AM' timestamp='1266991425' post='2200713']
Way to support the allies that back you in a war, Polar.
[/quote]
This.
BiPolar war indeed. -
[quote name='flak attack' date='24 February 2010 - 05:19 AM' timestamp='1266988975' post='2200616']
I have high level intelligence stating that MK wasn't going to declare on TOP. Of course, what would I know? I'm only one of the guys that would have made a target list if we were planning to do it.
[/quote]
What LM said, I'm not saying you were planning to right that moment, but down the line, it's inconceivable that the wars would land any other way. -
[quote name='Xiphosis' date='24 February 2010 - 05:05 AM' timestamp='1266988116' post='2200594']
Like TOP did in Karma? Yeah, not happenin' FOK, like most of CN, is decent enough not to strong-arm their own side. Keep the baw taps open.
[/quote]
Doing something decent is strong arming their own side? Keep the stupid taps open. -
[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 04:55 AM' timestamp='1266987549' post='2200578']
If TOP were a true friend they wouldn't attack the direct treaty partners of their allies.
[/quote]
When it was for sure that that direct treaty partner was going to attack TOP?
I'd say it's pretty reasonable in this situation to give some leniency. -
[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 04:50 AM' timestamp='1266987218' post='2200562']
So they should just ignore that TOP attacked their direct treaty partner?
[/quote]
If they were a true friend to both, they would help out trying to secure peace. -
I think out of all the declarations that could have happened, this is probably the least expected and saddest one.
Really, you have TOP cornered and you just had to throw this one on there eh? -
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1266946629' post='2199194']
Hopefully that's the end of the petty insults that were characterising both sides of ADI debates in the last month or so. Good luck to the new administration and hopefully Aqua can be all friendly again.
[/quote]
lol, you spoke too early there.
ADI, that CB RoK has for you guys is about to mature, watch out.
Poison Clan Announcement
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Newhotness' date='12 March 2010 - 04:22 AM' timestamp='1268368077' post='2222953']
so much for reading what people say.
[/quote]
I just find it fascinating that you could possibly miss all of the blustering people did about absolutely refusing to pay reps. It was quite nauseating at times.