Announcement From The Echelon

[NoFish]

p.s this is not for pr or to look good

I think I could tell. Your comment about how you decided to stop fighting midwar already made it pretty obvious you don't care about looking good.

[Seerow]

So the terms were okay, and NPO was right to give them?

-Bama

Well for one, to be clear I wasn't in MK at that point in time. I was currently sitting at ZI as a result of the Pacifican ZI list, where I was until about 2 months ago.

That said, the terms offered to MK were harsh, but as was stated MK didn't expect to receive terms, when terms were put on the table, MK accepted them almost immediately. So the anology doesn't really work here.

Now, if MK, after being given those terms from the NPO to pay the 90k tech or whatever it was decided to keep fighting for another 2-3 months, and as a result were brought to the point where they only had 100k tech total, and were in a state where they would have significant difficulty paying them, then yes, I would say it was wholly MK's fault for refusing to accept terms when they were first given.

However that is not how it played out. MK paid off their reparations with ease, ahead of schedule, while rebuilding their own members. MK did exactly what I am advocating that Echelon should have done.

[Caliph]

So the terms were okay, and NPO was right to give them?

-Bama

Cripes, you are still moaning about this?

You had your chance to whine about harsh reps when you were in TOOL watching the Hemony do what they wanted and issue whatever terms they wanted.

You didn't take your chance then, so why all of a sudden when its the Hegemonies tern to reap what they have sown do you suddenly grow a pair and voice displeasure?

The terms NPO gave to MK directly led to MK holding a grudge against the NPO, but it was more than just terms, the NPO effectively help MK in diplomat isolation for the better part of a year. Only a few alliances braved the wrath of One Vision and treatied MK. Those alliances were told by the NPO and friends to either fabricate a CB or they will be hit when MK gets it.

MK had every right to hold a grudge against NPO.

MK signed the terms (because frankly it let them live and continue as MK, which they weren't expecting), and they didn't complain. They gave their word, and honored it, and fully fulfilled the pact. NPO, to their credit, honored their side of the agreement (in not hitting MK a week before terms ended).

What you fail to understand is there is a difference in being the first to offer harsh terms, and having harsh terms imposed on the alliances who imposed harsh terms in the past. One is showing off how cruel you can be, the other is giving out karmic justice.

I'll let you figure out which is which.

MK didn't complain about the terms, others did it for them.

Echelon accepted the terms, and thus has no right to complain about them. Sure they won't be easy to pay off, but they were told the terms would not lessen over time. Perhaps now when people are told terms aren't going to lessen over time they'll believe it.

[BamaBuc]

Well for one, to be clear I wasn't in MK at that point in time. I was currently sitting at ZI as a result of the Pacifican ZI list, where I was until about 2 months ago.

That said, the terms offered to MK were harsh, but as was stated MK didn't expect to receive terms, when terms were put on the table, MK accepted them almost immediately. So the anology doesn't really work here.

Now, if MK, after being given those terms from the NPO to pay the 90k tech or whatever it was decided to keep fighting for another 2-3 months, and as a result were brought to the point where they only had 100k tech total, and were in a state where they would have significant difficulty paying them, then yes, I would say it was wholly MK's fault for refusing to accept terms when they were first given.

However that is not how it played out. MK paid off their reparations with ease, ahead of schedule, while rebuilding their own members. MK did exactly what I am advocating that Echelon should have done.

I agree that it's a different situation, but you said that this is okay because Echelon agreed to it. By that logic, every harsh term in history was okay because the defeated parties accepted them. I contend that that logic is flawed. Just because Echelon accepted the terms doesn't mean they're fine and dandy. And just because Echelon agreed to admitting that they started the war (lol) doesn't mean they started the war.

-Bama

[Caliph]

I agree that it's a different situation, but you said that this is okay because Echelon agreed to it. By that logic, every harsh term in history was okay because the defeated parties accepted them. I contend that that logic is flawed. Just because Echelon accepted the terms doesn't mean they're fine and dandy. And just because Echelon agreed to admitting that they started the war (lol) doesn't mean they started the war.

-Bama

Somewhat right.

It is wrong to punish the innocent.

It is just to punish the unjust.

It is karma to deliver a punishment on the defeated similar to the punishments they have delivered to their defeated enemies.

I do agree that just saying something doesn't make it true, but it is karma when Echelon and NPO receive harsh terms for all the actions they've done against others over their time at the top of the food chain, and the way they've treated others who were down.

[Gn0xious Jr]

And just because Echelon agreed to admitting that they started the war (lol) doesn't mean they started the war.

-Bama

I'll agree with that... :goonface: noCB war :goonface:

[Zombie Glaucon]

I agree that it's a different situation, but you said that this is okay because Echelon agreed to it. By that logic, every harsh term in history was okay because the defeated parties accepted them. I contend that that logic is flawed. Just because Echelon accepted the terms doesn't mean they're fine and dandy. And just because Echelon agreed to admitting that they started the war (lol) doesn't mean they started the war.

-Bama

Here you're taking a really simplified version of his argument and then showing how it's foolish. There's a term for that, you know.

[thisperson]

EDIT: You know, I really wish some of you (GOD/MA) would take a step back and realize how arrogant you are acting right now. This is all going to come back and bite you, yet you don't even seem to realize it.

Repercussions. We seem to hold differing opinions of what constitutes bad and good outcomes.

[Nizzle]

Repercussions. We seem to hold differing opinions of what constitutes bad and good outcomes.

That's definitely accurate

[BamaBuc]

Cripes, you are still moaning about this?

You had your chance to whine about harsh reps when you were in TOOL watching the Hemony do what they wanted and issue whatever terms they wanted.

You didn't take your chance then, so why all of a sudden when its the Hegemonies tern to reap what they have sown do you suddenly grow a pair and voice displeasure?

The terms NPO gave to MK directly led to MK holding a grudge against the NPO, but it was more than just terms, the NPO effectively help MK in diplomat isolation for the better part of a year. Only a few alliances braved the wrath of One Vision and treatied MK. Those alliances were told by the NPO and friends to either fabricate a CB or they will be hit when MK gets it.

MK had every right to hold a grudge against NPO.

MK signed the terms (because frankly it let them live and continue as MK, which they weren't expecting), and they didn't complain. They gave their word, and honored it, and fully fulfilled the pact. NPO, to their credit, honored their side of the agreement (in not hitting MK a week before terms ended).

What you fail to understand is there is a difference in being the first to offer harsh terms, and having harsh terms imposed on the alliances who imposed harsh terms in the past. One is showing off how cruel you can be, the other is giving out karmic justice.

I'll let you figure out which is which.

MK didn't complain about the terms, others did it for them.

Echelon accepted the terms, and thus has no right to complain about them. Sure they won't be easy to pay off, but they were told the terms would not lessen over time. Perhaps now when people are told terms aren't going to lessen over time they'll believe it.

Better late than never, no? I was wrong to sit there and watch my friends and their friends and their friends' friends do those things. Not only was I wrong, I was being a crappy friend by not talking to my friends when they did things I didn't agree with. I'd say I got a rather explosive wake-up call.

Diplomaic isolation? You think it's gonna be politically popular to snuggle up with Echelon?

Indeed they did. And now Echelon has every right to hold a grudge too. The cycle goes on. I hope Echelon breaks it even after their foes did not.

And I'm sure Echelon will honor these terms as well. Except the admitting to starting the war part and the gov-ban part... I hope they renounce those as soon as they can.

You're right, there is a difference. One began the cycle, one perpetuated it. Neither one is right.

I haven't read every page, but in what I have read I haven't seen a lot of Echelon complaining. Others are doing it for them.

And there is where we disagree. Echelon paid a good portion of their reps in blood in the weeks since the terms came out.

-Bama

[CptGodzilla]

Better late than never, no? I was wrong to sit there and watch my friends and their friends and their friends' friends do those things. Not only was I wrong, I was being a crappy friend by not talking to my friends when they did things I didn't agree with. I'd say I got a rather explosive wake-up call.

Diplomaic isolation? You think it's gonna be politically popular to snuggle up with Echelon?

Indeed they did. And now Echelon has every right to hold a grudge too. The cycle goes on. I hope Echelon breaks it even after their foes did not.

And I'm sure Echelon will honor these terms as well. Except the admitting to starting the war part and the gov-ban part... I hope they renounce those as soon as they can.

You're right, there is a difference. One began the cycle, one perpetuated it. Neither one is right.

I haven't read every page, but in what I have read I haven't seen a lot of Echelon complaining. Others are doing it for them.

And there is where we disagree. Echelon paid a good portion of their reps in blood in the weeks since the terms came out.

-Bama

No amount of public opinion can sway the minds of these alliances. They don't play to make CN happy, they play to make themselves happy.

GOD for example, I don't think they have had a thread in the past year that didn't go past 30 pages.

[BamaBuc]

No amount of public opinion can sway the minds of these alliances. They don't play to make CN happy, they play to make themselves happy.

GOD for example, I don't think they have had a thread in the past year that didn't go past 30 pages.

Okay. If they want to delude themselves that Echelon somehow started the Karma War, fine by me. But don't expect anyone to believe it, and certainly don't expect Echelon to "confess" any longer than they have to.

-Bama

[R&R-Viking]

Okay. If they want to delude themselves that Echelon somehow started the Karma War, fine by me. But don't expect anyone to believe it, and certainly don't expect Echelon to "confess" any longer than they have to.

-Bama

They started the Echelon front of this war offensively, the alliances they fought reacted defensively.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Viking

[CptGodzilla]

Okay. If they want to delude themselves that Echelon somehow started the Karma War, fine by me. But don't expect anyone to believe it, and certainly don't expect Echelon to "confess" any longer than they have to.

-Bama

Ok lets take a look at the facts of chainlinking treaties.

1. NPO attacks OV
   
2. OV's allies (including GOD) acknowledge war with NPO due to their treaties
   
3. Echelon declares war on everyone attacking NPO.
   

In the situation above, you can see that Echelon is on the side of the aggressors in this war. No, they did not start the karma war, but they did stair their part of the war. The term was to stop echelon from saying "we were just defending our allies, we were not the aggressors." If you look at it, Echelon is on the aggressors side partaking in aggressive actions (declaring on everyone who attacked NPO)

That part of the term is so, again, Echelon admits their part of the war, on the side of the aggressors.

Edit, 35 pages is a lot, I think you need to read the terms again

8. Echelon admits that it started the war and that it was defeated soundly, and hereby surrenders to the collective might assembled.

In now way shape or form does it say that Echelon started the Karma war. It states that they started the war. They started the war between Echelon and the other signatories of this surrender.

Edited July 7, 2009 by CptGodzilla

[BamaBuc]

They started the Echelon front of this war offensively, the alliances they fought reacted defensively.

I still don't get how they started a war or a part of a war by defending an ally. I understand the "defending an aggressor" conundrum, but they were still treaty bound to fight when NPO came under attack.

Plus, "fronts" are subjective. The entire war was entertwined (still is, but the fronts are clearly defined now), which makes it impossible to say "this is where this front began and that front ended." Obviously fronts became clearly defined as the war wound down, but at the beginning, there was no clearly defined "Echelon front"... Just a mass of interconnecting wars.

-Bama

[NoFish]

And there is where we disagree. Echelon paid a good portion of their reps in blood in the weeks since the terms came out.

-Bama

So you think it's a good precedent to set for future wars that our opponents should expect lighter terms if they just stick with the fight and continue to damage us? For that matter, you think it's a good precedent for us to set for the NPO now that they should expect lighter terms if they continue to fight? So sorry our will was strong enough to carry out what we said we would do, but let no one say Echelon shouldn't have known what would happen when they rejected the terms to begin with.

Also, do you really find the need to sign your posts? I mean, you've already got your name listed next to it, along with your nation name, and a big graphic signature at the end of it. Putting "-Bama" at the end is pretty redundant, don't you agree?

[CptGodzilla]

I still don't get how they started a war or a part of a war by defending an ally. I understand the "defending an aggressor" conundrum, but they were still treaty bound to fight when NPO came under attack.

Plus, "fronts" are subjective. The entire war was entertwined (still is, but the fronts are clearly defined now), which makes it impossible to say "this is where this front began and that front ended." Obviously fronts became clearly defined as the war wound down, but at the beginning, there was no clearly defined "Echelon front"... Just a mass of interconnecting wars.

-Bama

By attacking someone who was just defending an ally.

By your logic, in the subwar, or front, of GOD vs. Echelon there was no aggressor. If there is no aggressor, how can their be a war?

1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.

2. The practice or habit of launching attacks.

3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

just to refresh your memory

Edited July 7, 2009 by CptGodzilla

[R&R-Viking]

I still don't get how they started a war or a part of a war by defending an ally.

Probably because most of us think that Echelon shouldn't have been merrily defending an alliance that attacked our ally. Who cares about their treaties?

I do know that GOD did not start this war, nor did any of the others that fought on our side.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Viking

[BamaBuc]

By attacking someone who was just defending an ally.

So it's wrong to attack people for just defending an ally? Huh?

-Bama

[CptGodzilla]

So it's wrong to attack people for just defending an ally? Huh?

-Bama

It's not wrong, it's just an aggressive action

[Great Lord Moth]

All hail the combatant from the Blue Team! Vanquished of the Blue Team, leave the Arena now and rest! You've earned it!

;>.> *couldn't resist*

[BamaBuc]

It's not wrong, it's just an aggressive action

Not if you're defending an ally as well. Unless you consider all war declarations to be aggressive... Which is true in a sense. But it's irrelevant, because the terms don't say "Echelon committed an aggressive action." They say "Echelon started the war." Which is a blatant falsehood, not a poor wording.

-Bama

[CptGodzilla]

Not if you're defending an ally as well. Unless you consider all war declarations to be aggressive... Which is true in a sense. But it's irrelevant, because the terms don't say "Echelon committed an aggressive action." They say "Echelon started the war." Which is a blatant falsehood, not a poor wording.

-Bama

But isn't starting a war an act of aggression?

How can you have a war with no aggression. Someone has to throw the first punch.

[BamaBuc]

But isn't starting a war an act of aggression?

How can you have a war with no aggression. Someone has to throw the first punch.

NPO and TORN threw the first punch, no? The "Echelon front" was an extension of that. This war was like a barfight... A couple guys threw punches and then everyone's friends just kinda jumped in. It was one big war, not a bunch of little fronts.

-Bama

[Aurion]

Not if you're defending an ally as well. Unless you consider all war declarations to be aggressive... Which is true in a sense. But it's irrelevant, because the terms don't say "Echelon committed an aggressive action." They say "Echelon started the war." Which is a blatant falsehood, not a poor wording.

-Bama

I suppose when all else is nil we can just argue in circles about semantics, yeah.

I do believe the spirit of it is that Ech made a conscious decision to enter this little tussle, and that they lost. But then what do I know, I'm just a member of one of the alliances this is relevant to.