MAD members split from Echelon

[Stonewall14]

I don't really wish to engage in the trolling here, but I'd like to note that if nothing else, this wasn't about saving pixels. This switch was made so that we could fight AGAINST NPO. We fully intend to do that.

Trolls only see what they WANT to see and when they get in a pack they get into a feeding frenzy without even looking at the FACTS...I applaud your decision and wish you Godspeed in battle in the Jihad to overthrow the tyrants who have ran this game and 1,00s of good players out of the game....Everyone should remember they ONLY want war when the odds are 10 - 1 in their favor and the taste of defeat is what they fear most in life and are now tasting it's stench as we speak...o/ MAD

[Bleh32]

I think this bears repeating:

I want to note that we talked about this with the GR leadership before the war started and before Echelon jumped in.

[Adrian LaCroix]

Except for everyone in Echelon. It's like slavery was a done and legitimate deal, except no one bothered to ask the slaves. O_o

Umm... Say what?

In any case, if this was actually settled on before hostilities broke out, then it's not a bad move at all. If done afterwards, well... Desertion isn't good.

[Mjolnir]

AYB, I've got huge amounts of respect for you, but it is actually YOUR quote that is out of context.

Hefe wanted me to let people know that Echelon was neutral before telling them to hop sides. Not that he wanted us to fight a fight that DID NOT EXIST before leaving.

I'm sorry that Echelon didn't have its foreign affairs figured out last night. It is not my fault that you made a treaty, canceled that treaty, found out there was a backlash to that cancellation and so turned around and honored it. I have logs of people last night telling me we were done with NPO and that they would be kicked out of 1V in the coming days. Is that still true? I don't really care. I think you all need to be careful about posting in this thread, since clearly none of you can speak for your alliance individually.

It was plain and simple for a week.

A week.

Did you notice the advisory defcon levels dropping? Did you notice the messages going out telling people to become more active? When that happens, that doesn't mean "Count our numbers, count their numbers, do the math, and if it's not alright, then don't fight." That's what happened. It's sad to think that you could slip by on one guy that represents 1/3rd of the overall executive branch.

[shayde]

Just to be clear, the treaty with NPO and joining 1v was NEVER discussed with the membership of Echelon until after the fact.

So any idea that such a treaty was entered into with the blessing of more than maybe 8 people is unfounded.

Just sayin'... to clarify some presuppositions here.

[Solidus117]

Just to be clear, the treaty with NPO and joining 1v was NEVER discussed with the membership of Echelon until after the fact.

So any idea that such a treaty was entered into with the blessing of more than maybe 8 people is unfounded.

Just sayin'... to clarify some presuppositions here.

The Pacifica treaty was in fact carried over from the TSH/GAT-ITEC/RLMMO merger, and no-one from the leadership of those three alliances objected to carrying it over.

The One Vision pact was (by the time it was signed) superfluous to existing arrangements. By that time, we had held MDoAP+ treaties will all signatories in One Vision, so membership was accepted on the basis that it merely a strengthened our bonds with the other signatories.

Just sayin'.

[x Tela x]

Once upon a time I had a great amount of respect for Cirrus and MAD as one of (the only?) truly neutral alliance. After this, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. You're all scared to lose a few pixels. That's the weakest !@#$ I've seen in awhile, to be honest. You were well aware of Echelon's treaties and obligations. You disagreed with one of them, because it was going to result in the loss of massive amounts of infra. Boo hoo. That's not how treaties work, and Echelon is better off without you lot infesting their ranks.

Congratulations, Echelon.

[King Boris]

I remember you MAD guys, you are cool and you helped me out a lot when I started. Dont listen to the haters.

[fupresti]

Don't worry, any comments from Echelon about abandoning allies should be considered a comedic act. Echelon and MCXA are the poster child for tucking tail and running away when things get dicey, so take all this blabber for the grain of salt it is.

[shayde]

Once upon a time I had a great amount of respect for Cirrus and MAD as one of (the only?) truly neutral alliance. After this, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. You're all scared to lose a few pixels. That's the weakest !@#$ I've seen in awhile, to be honest. You were well aware of Echelon's treaties and obligations. You disagreed with one of them, because it was going to result in the loss of massive amounts of infra. Boo hoo. That's not how treaties work, and Echelon is better off without you lot infesting their ranks.

Congratulations, Echelon.

Hey Tela.. Nice to see you back from the dead.

[shayde]

The Pacifica treaty was in fact carried over from the TSH/GAT-ITEC/RLMMO merger, and no-one from the leadership of those three alliances objected to carrying it over.

The One Vision pact was (by the time it was signed) superfluous to existing arrangements. By that time, we had held MDoAP+ treaties will all signatories in One Vision, so membership was accepted on the basis that it merely a strengthened our bonds with the other signatories.

Just sayin'.

So if the whole joining 1V was "superfluous", then why was it so damn important to betray BLEU?

You're trying to downplay Echelon's joining 1v as something that was only a minor act, but in doing so betraying our staunchest allies, ones we had just taken up arms to defend?

It was a major shift in where Echelon hung their hat, akin to someone in NATO suddenly joining the Warsaw Pact and saying "But we're all still friends, right?" You knew from that point that 1v was important, and anyone BLEU was just lip service.

But that still doesn't address my point of the joining of 1v not AT ALL being discussed with the members of Echelon until after the fact... much like MAD's departure and subsequent painting as cowards. Well at least THEY didn't get sold out to tech raiders before they were cut loose.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Shayde

[Mjolnir]

So if the whole joining 1V was "superfluous", then why was it so damn important to betray BLEU?

You're trying to downplay Echelon's joining 1v as something that was only a minor act, but in doing so betraying our staunchest allies, ones we had just taken up arms to defend?

It was a major shift in where Echelon hung their hat, akin to someone in NATO suddenly joining the Warsaw Pact and saying "But we're all still friends, right?" You knew from that point that 1v was important, and anyone BLEU was just lip service.

But that still doesn't address my point of the joining of 1v not AT ALL being discussed with the members of Echelon until after the fact... much like MAD's departure and subsequent painting as cowards. Well at least THEY didn't get sold out to tech raiders before they were cut loose.

Your understanding of mutualism (aka friendship) is a parasitic interaction, one where one alliance feeds off another and aims to further themselves through the harm of others just because they have something in "common." Use people for their protection and then talk smack about them behind their backs? You're surprised we cut you loose? I'm surprised we tried to fix our relationship for so long while you kept insulting our ways, alliance, and membership. Believe me when I say you got off easy.

[SilentFury]

abandomnet/desertion is not good might as well just fight it out good luck though

[Squiggers]

I personally find this greatly amusing.

[suffusion]

Once upon a time I had a great amount of respect for Cirrus and MAD as one of (the only?) truly neutral alliance. After this, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. You're all scared to lose a few pixels. That's the weakest !@#$ I've seen in awhile, to be honest. You were well aware of Echelon's treaties and obligations. You disagreed with one of them, because it was going to result in the loss of massive amounts of infra. Boo hoo. That's not how treaties work, and Echelon is better off without you lot infesting their ranks.

Congratulations, Echelon.

Once again, I'd like to point out that this wasn't about saving pixels or being afraid of war. We left when Echelon declared itself neutral because Echelon didn't want to uphold it's treaties with NPO because they would be utterly steamrollered. That they changed their mind is merely an indication that the court of public opinion scared them more than damage to their nations. I'd also like to point out that six days after the outbreak of hostilities, over 45% (at the time of this posting) of Echelon nations are still in peace-mode.

I had said I did not want to engage with the trolls. Call me a traitor or a backstabber or whatever foul name you want to put to it. But don't call me a coward when you are comparing me to Echelon.

[Tick1]

What's the difference? Surrender or abandon they're the same thing.

[JTrapp8473]

Once again, I'd like to point out that this wasn't about saving pixels or being afraid of war. We left when Echelon declared itself neutral because Echelon didn't want to uphold it's treaties with NPO because they would be utterly steamrollered. That they changed their mind is merely an indication that the court of public opinion scared them more than damage to their nations.

When did Echelon declare itself neutral?

And if our goal was to avoid going to war, why didn't we withdraw from One Vision?

Your argument fails...

I'd also like to point out that six days after the outbreak of hostilities, over 45% (at the time of this posting) of Echelon nations are still in peace-mode.

It takes 5 days to come out of peace mode once you enter it.

Edited to add: We declared war on the 22nd, your a tad off.

Edited April 26, 2009 by JTrapp8473

[Mongrel]

I have a feeling Greenland Republic will not accept you, for they have too much honor for cowards like you. I may not be the biggest fan of the NPO, but I hate cowards like you much more then I hate them.

Kind of cute coming from a guy whose alliance has just encouraged this exact type of behavior.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55209

In case you missed it:

Prospective freedom fighters are free to fly our AA at their leisure. Those in alliances already opposing NPO and their hangers-on are advised not to abandon their alliances for eternal glory with Vox Populi.

[lordtyrion]

this thread failed so miserably

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

From what i can see, in the discussion so far, they asked the Echelon government to move away quietly and were allowed to do so. Whether the government member overstepped his/her authority in allowing them, or if he/she were stressed out is what would be called an internal management issue. As such it ought not impact bodies/entities external to Echelon. The fact remains that they did ask and they were granted permission to move away from Echelon.

It also does not seem to me that their desire to leave had anything to do with their love for infra. As they have on numerous occasions expressed their wish to fight the NPO and weather any storms that such an action would bring with it.

Seems to me that they just got caught up in circumstances not of their making. Tried to do things the right way and inspite of that, ended up painted the bad guys.

[Mjolnir]

Once again, I'd like to point out that this wasn't about saving pixels or being afraid of war. We left when Echelon declared itself neutral because Echelon didn't want to uphold it's treaties with NPO because they would be utterly steamrollered. That they changed their mind is merely an indication that the court of public opinion scared them more than damage to their nations. I'd also like to point out that six days after the outbreak of hostilities, over 45% (at the time of this posting) of Echelon nations are still in peace-mode.

I had said I did not want to engage with the trolls. Call me a traitor or a backstabber or whatever foul name you want to put to it. But don't call me a coward when you are comparing me to Echelon.

Point 1: I missed the Echelon declaration of neutrality. Hell, I missed the convo when it was even being debated. Mind linking me to any shred of proof of what you just said?

Point 2: The reason why 45% of Echelon nations are in peace is the same reason why any other alliance declares war and then jumps into peace - tactics. Don't worry, those 45% of Echelon nations will come out soon enough.

Point 3: You insult Echelon's loyalty to her allies hinting that you wanted the complete opposite - war, patriotism, and to protect Echelon's allies, which is exactly why you attacked Echelon's allies: http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.as...&Extended=1 Whatever the case, you should not, I repeat, not bail on Echelon in times of war or when you are put on alert which is EXACTLY what you did.

Did I miss anything?

Edited April 26, 2009 by AllYourBase

[x Tela x]

Point 1: I missed the Echelon declaration of neutrality. Hell, I missed the convo when it was even being debated. Mind linking me to any shred of proof of what you just said?

Point 2: The reason why 45% of Echelon nations are in peace is the same reason why any other alliance declares war and then jumps into peace - tactics. Don't worry, those 45% of Echelon nations will come out soon enough.

Point 3: You insult Echelon's loyalty to her allies hinting that you wanted the complete opposite - war, patriotism, and to protect Echelon's allies, which is exactly why you attacked Echelon's allies: http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.as...&Extended=1 Whatever the case, you should not, I repeat, not bail on Echelon in times of war or when you are put on alert which is EXACTLY what you did.

Did I miss anything?

Well said. I'd just like to add, that any of those that choose to remain in peace mode are most likely not truly Echelon. Or won't be for long. (Unless a lot has changed) The vast majority that are in peace mode are sitting on enough cash to send out the maximum when they come out of peace mode.

[shayde]

Your understanding of mutualism (aka friendship) is a parasitic interaction, one where one alliance feeds off another and aims to further themselves through the harm of others just because they have something in "common." Use people for their protection and then talk smack about them behind their backs? You're surprised we cut you loose? I'm surprised we tried to fix our relationship for so long while you kept insulting our ways, alliance, and membership. Believe me when I say you got off easy.

Wow... can delusions of grandeur be projected?

How could there have been attempts to "fix" a relationship when there was no communication to RLMMO even after we were released as a protectorate?

We found out after we were raided by looking on the forums and learning that, first of all, there was talk of dissolution but it was enacted without any warning.

But hey.. why let the facts get in the way of y'all feeling justified by screwing one of the stripes in the Echelon flag? That, and I'd love to see even one example of "talking smack behind backs". We said everything on the forums. We all left Echelon and re-formed RLMMO as was our right when we merged to form Echelon. Keep blaming us and you owe us our stripe back.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Shayde

[Dracule Mihawk1]

Point 1: I missed the Echelon declaration of neutrality. Hell, I missed the convo when it was even being debated. Mind linking me to any shred of proof of what you just said?

Point 2: The reason why 45% of Echelon nations are in peace is the same reason why any other alliance declares war and then jumps into peace - tactics. Don't worry, those 45% of Echelon nations will come out soon enough.

Point 3: You insult Echelon's loyalty to her allies hinting that you wanted the complete opposite - war, patriotism, and to protect Echelon's allies, which is exactly why you attacked Echelon's allies: http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.as...&Extended=1 Whatever the case, you should not, I repeat, not bail on Echelon in times of war or when you are put on alert which is EXACTLY what you did.

Did I miss anything?

1. You're correct in saying you guys never posted a DoN. You did, however, cancel a high level treaty with NPO during a crucial time for them, which is a clear indicator of FA stance (unless it was just a tactic, but see #2 for my thoughts on that). Try to spin it however you want, but I'm just going to keep laughing at you.

2. Valid enough, not even sure why it's being debated apart from its connection to #1. Even so I don't really understand...I never thought an attempt to gain as much bad PR as possible was a goal. At least, it's not one I'd aim for.

3. Ummm...they never hinted at anything. And they didn't want to defend Echelon's allies either. They looked at what those erstwhile allies did and decided to do as their consciences suggested and oppose them for it. Thus they left and attacked those (now former, for them) allies.

As for the last bit...dude, read the thread next time. They had legitimate permission from one of your leaders to leave, and had decided to do so before Echelon ever got into the war. And as has been pointed out, your leaders don't seem to feel the need to confer with others before making decisions (see the very good point about no 1V discussion prior to signing). Why should this be different? If you think it should be... Hegemony hypocrisy ftw!

-Drac

Edited April 27, 2009 by Dracule Mihawk

[Reachwind]

Well said. I'd just like to add, that any of those that choose to remain in peace mode are most likely not truly Echelon. Or won't be for long. (Unless a lot has changed) The vast majority that are in peace mode are sitting on enough cash to send out the maximum when they come out of peace mode.

LMAO, has Filip ever fought a war for Echelon?