Otherworld Posted June 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Please, somebody show me where Echelon have demanded anything like these amount of reps? instead of just saying you disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 For the last time..I am not in Echelon o.oAnd once again...you just completely missed the point of this topic...and even highlighted it. You have given white peace to alliances that have asked for extortionate amount of reps...while giving Echelon huge amounts of reps without them personally doing much wrong. As far as the different "fronts" go with Karma having no collective responsibility...how come it has been said that individual peace will not be negotiated for Echelon and collective peace has to be? And considering Echelon is at war with most of the alliances other alliances have been...which have had little to no reps..why do Echelon get the huge rep amounts? I wasn't replying to your post so I don't know why you assume I'm directing my statement to you. Perhaps look at who I'm addressing first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otherworld Posted June 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 (edited) [sarcasm]Wow...I'm sorry I assumed a post in a thread on Echelon...was about Echelon.[/sarcasm] There are hundreds of topics about NPO...go post there if you want to talk about NPO or somebody else. Edited June 20, 2009 by Otherworld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Please, somebody show me where Echelon have demanded anything like these amount of reps? instead of just saying you disagree. again, it may not be about the reps they demanded, but what they have done in the past (NoCB war). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Wow...I'm sorry I assumed a post in a thread on Echelon...was about Echelon. There are hundreds of topics about NPO...go post there if you want to talk about NPO or somebody else. I was responding to someone who posted in this thread. In fact, their situation is little different from Echelon in terms of past and current conduct. So, you can probably take it as applying to Echelon's situation in a way. Anyways, are you really trying to blame me for the fact you can't actually read my post including the quote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Well when you say in regards to the reps...makes it seem like they are the final reps decided.Please tell me where Echelon have asked for extortionate amount of reps to this level? And the high reps IS NOT what this is about. I am asking why Echelon have high reps IN COMPARISON to other alliances that surrendered. Tell me where Echelon didn't bail on BLEU to join the other side and request 10k in reps from MK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Oh dear God...within a week we'll have "TPF Reps?", "64Digits Reps", and "Avalon Reps" threads. Get over it! Stop whining! You're not going to change the terms by throwing yourself on the ground and screaming "Echelon and NPO have harsh terms! I wanna give em different terms!" What's done is done. The reps that the governments of each alliance accepts are the reps that the defeated will pay! Good sir, i dont know you but i wish to buy you one of Farkistans finest beers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 The rest of it ...well, its harsh, but Echelon did either stand by or actively participate in a lot of what we blame NPO for. That is a terrible line of argument. How many members in Karma stood by while the NPO did what you blame them for? How about the alliances that got white peace? Did they step in and stop it. Claiming they are at fault because they didn't step in against the NPO makes just about 80% (Pulled this out of thin air) of CN guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 That is a terrible line of argument. How many members in Karma stood by while the NPO did what you blame them for? How about the alliances that got white peace? Did they step in and stop it. Claiming they are at fault because they didn't step in against the NPO makes just about 80% (Pulled this out of thin air) of CN guilty. How many stood up and got rolled for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Having a MADP forcing you into an unjust war of aggression is different from defending allies who are the target of an unjust war of aggression. If you don't want to be responsible for an alliance's aggressive wars, don't hold a MADP with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidus117 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Tell me where Echelon didn't bail on BLEU to join the other side and request 10k in reps from MK? As I recall, MK was not a member of BLEU? If this war has taught us anything, it's that all alliances have multiple allegiances. That said, Echelon will either accept the terms or not. Whether they are harsh is a subjective matter, and if they are deemed harsh then so be it. It is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Heh, this topic is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Putting maths aside for the minute...we can all agree these are harsh reps to say the least...right? Is this some kind of a joke? but what have Echelon done that is so bad? Why don't you learn2history before bringing up silly discussions like these. To encourage alliances to just drop treaties at the first sign of trouble? Because that is what it seems like for me. You don't have to drop a treaty in order to surrender. Indeed, many alliances dropped their treaties at the onset of the war (Echelon included) without any encouragement from Karma at all. This however did not affect their participation in the war, so I feel your point is flawed - which reflects your lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation. Basically put, in a more coherent way, the aim of Karma was to basically right the wrongs of the NPO regime, right? Echelon have done nothing wrong but honour their treaties...I am not saying they should get white peace (although as other alliances did, perhaps they should) but these terms are much too harsh...especially from a coalition set up because these stupidly high reps were occurring. It makes sense that NPO were given huge reps, but was has Echelon done that is so bad? I'm really getting sick and tired of this crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 In the logs they said it was meant to make sure "the people in charge of this mess, the gov't and the older members pay the reps and not the mindless drone who just followed orders.", which hilariously it completely fails to accomplish . To me, it's a "cripple Echelon's military ability" term. Nothing more or less, but despicable enough to not accept the terms because of it. This is a bit of a delayed response I'm afraid, but what I actually says was something like, "If you really wanted I could spew some BS about punishing the leaders instead of the mindless drones but we'd both know it wasn't true." We all know it's a "cripple Echelon's military ability" term. Given how many alliances Echelon has strong-armed over the years, I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to deliver a good blow to their military ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Disappointing to see Echelon getting terms like these; but then again, it's disappointing to see people publically whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Echelon deserves these terms more than most. I applaud those who set them down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Echelon deserves these terms more than most. I applaud those who set them down. Especially after how they treated MK. I know it's been a battered topic, but why would you ever demand reps from a treaty partner's treaty partner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Especially after how they treated MK. I know it's been a battered topic, but why would you ever demand reps from a treaty partner's treaty partner? They're real jerks. If not for that these reps would be a third lower, hindsight is 20/20 eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 They're real jerks. If not for that these reps would be a third lower, hindsight is 20/20 eh? I love hindsight. It makes me regret so much, but lets me know that I did some things as well as I could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 This war is rapidly approaching the two month mark, and Echelon has suffered tremendous hits throughout this war. We've lost over 50 members and have dropped from 5.2 million to barely above 1 million alliance strength. We've suffered our own share of internal problems, and the fact that Echelon is alive at all today is nothing short of a miracle. When these terms were first presented to us, it was obvious to us that they were unreasonable and were deliberately designed to cripple Echelon. In the weeks since Echelon was originally presented these terms, our leaders have worked dilligently to try to find common ground and compromise on terms that were more feasible, however Karma (certian alliances in particular, who know who they are) have been absolutely unwilling to budge what-so-ever. Additionally, regarding the 1k tech clause, I had understood the terms in the manner that you couldn't send any reps out if your under 1k tech, and furthermore, if you fall below that sending reps, i was under the impression that you couldn't send any more until you rise above 1k again. Obviously we would appreciate further clarifacation on this clause. Either way, the clause would make it very difficult for Echelon to pay off these reparations, as we have just 27 members who would be eligible to pay off these reparations, excluding more than half of our current government (including myself). Sure, Echelon has done its fair share of wrong-doings and we've made a (large) handful of mistakes, but i'd appreciate it if you could point me to any alliance who's been around for any considerable amount time and hasn't done something less than commendable or made a mistake. I try not to dwell too much in Echelon's past but more in the present and the future. I think if you look at Echelon's current government, you'll see numerous fresh faces that had no part what-so-ever in many of those deeds you despise so much. Echelon entered this war knowing exactly what we were getting into, and while we certianly haven't enjoyed the thrashing we have received, if we had to repeat the past three months all over again, we would likely end up right back where we're at now. We entered this war to defend NPO, one of our best friends in this game and our longest standing ally. Regardless of Echelon's actions in the past, I will never doubt that entering this war and honoring our treaty with Pacifica was the right thing to do, regardless of how hard Karma tries to say it wasn't. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Echelon deserves white peace, nor are we asking for it. We fully expected to have reparations demanded of us, and we're certainly not against paying some. What we are opposed to are the numerous provisions in the terms which were unreasonable, devoid of all logic, and generally unfair. We've tried to work with our opponents to resolve at least a few of these issues, however our opponents (with the exception of a small handful of them) have shown a lack of desire to entertain any compromise, and appear to be focused on one thing, overseeing the full destruction of Echelon. If I'm mistaken and Karma would like to acheive peace in this conflict, the leaders of Echelon have been and still are open to working on a mutually agreeable agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 makes it seem like they are the final reps decided Use your common sense. The reps that the governments of each alliance accepts are the reps that the defeated will pay! You see, I would have worded it differently if I thought they'd already accepted them "The reps that the government each alliance accepted are the reps that the defeated are going to pay!" ^ Is what I would say if they'd been accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 1 technology to R&R I would advise R&R to drop this, anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStroke Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Sure, Echelon has done its fair share of wrong-doings and we've made a (large) handful of mistakes, but i'd appreciate it if you could point me to any alliance who's been around for any considerable amount time and hasn't done something less than commendable or made a mistake. Christian Coalition of Countries (11th oldest alliance in the game) the Gray Council (the true benchmark of Neutrality, so much so that people forget them) That is two, does that suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 All I can say is that I will be fully expecting to see a disbandment notice for Echelon in the next month or two when they can not make the payments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 That the argument? That because you have been here so long you get to @#$% up and get away with it? We need better whining. Christian Coalition of Countries (11th oldest alliance in the game)the Gray Council (the true benchmark of Neutrality, so much so that people forget them) That is two, does that suffice? GPA, TDO, WTF TTK, CSN, FEAR, MK, GR, STA, and thats only people before you guys were founded. Idk, didnt include peeps who were tied to hegemony because someone would have whined about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.