Announcement From The Echelon

[King Srqt]

Names for wars on the wiki should not be taken as "official" in any way. The wiki attempts to document current common usage and help people find the information they're looking for. However, it's just based on actual usage; the names aren't set in stone.

I agree with you but the only way to really argue the point of which name is official is to argue from the point of view that they can be.

edit: that link in your sig is fantastic.

Edited July 6, 2009 by KingSrqt

[Sir Paul]

[OOC]Question to Karma. Who deleted all the DoWs from wiki today and what are you trying to hide?

[ooc]That reminds me, I need to update the wiki to reflect the fact that Echelon started the war.[/ooc]

Did you know that Echelon was the one who spied on the Order and gave it to OV? They also wispered honeyed words into ears of TORN.

[King Srqt]

[ooc]That reminds me, I need to update the wiki to reflect the fact that Echelon started the war.[/ooc]

Did you know that Echelon was the one who spied on the Order and gave it to OV? They also wispered honeyed words into ears of TORN.

did they also spy on OV and give it to the order?

[Nizzle]

While I agree that reparations cannot be fully justified by the damage taken in war, I do believe that it is for the victors and losers to negotiate what is acceptable. And I do believe that if someone opts to fight longer rather than accept terms that they can expect the terms they finally do accept to be more harsh than those originally offered.

It's really not surprising to find an alliance with Sparta's background in Continuum justifying what are, at the base of it, draconian and childish terms. I wish you guys wouldn't attempt to defend this, as I think highly of you, but it definitely displays the level to which you were corrupted by association.

Further, stating that the victors and losers negotiate reps is living in the "dream world" where the rest of us exist. You know, in a fair environment. It has been clearly displayed here that the losers had little to no say in the reps, and I'm sure we will see GOD and MA come along to justify why.

Finally, keeping terms the same throughout the war defeats the argument that terms are to penalize an alliance. Terms are higher the earlier in a war as the losing alliance has not been sufficiently defeated, and they tend to follow a sliding scale the longer an alliance gets their $@! handed to them.

At least, that's the way it should be and the way many alliances now arguing in favor of harsh reps have claimed it should have been in the past. Just my 0.02.

[TECUMSEH]

Predictable terms. Further erosion of all Karma pretense. And it's been about 12 pages, so it's almost worth quoting Grub once again. I won't, though he won the thread.

[NoFish]

Further, stating that the victors and losers negotiate reps is living in the "dream world" where the rest of us exist. You know, in a fair environment. It has been clearly displayed here that the losers had little to no say in the reps, and I'm sure we will see GOD and MA come along to justify why.

Finally, keeping terms the same throughout the war defeats the argument that terms are to penalize an alliance. Terms are higher the earlier in a war as the losing alliance has not been sufficiently defeated, and they tend to follow a sliding scale the longer an alliance gets their $@! handed to them.

At least, that's the way it should be and the way many alliances now arguing in favor of harsh reps have claimed it should have been in the past. Just my 0.02.

Well, I'd hate to disappoint. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would think that the losers would have much of a say in the rep amount, maybe I misinterpreted that line.

Making the terms more lenient after an extended war will only encourage alliances to fight longer and inflict more damage. If we make a firm showing now that it doesn't matter how long you drag the war out for, we're not gonna budge on the terms as long as you can still pay them, then in any future wars we find themselves in other alliances will be disinclined to make the same choice. Hell, I can think of one alliance right now we might want to make that notion abundantly clear to.

[SynthFG]

Congratulations R&R and Athens,

At least some remember what this fight was about

[astronaut jones]

Congratulations R&R and Athens,

At least some remember what this fight was about

The fight was about karma coming around to bite them in the $@!.

r&r and athens forgot that, everyone else remembered.

[Drostan]

It's really not surprising to find an alliance with Sparta's background in Continuum justifying what are, at the base of it, draconian and childish terms. I wish you guys wouldn't attempt to defend this, as I think highly of you, but it definitely displays the level to which you were corrupted by association.

Further, stating that the victors and losers negotiate reps is living in the "dream world" where the rest of us exist. You know, in a fair environment. It has been clearly displayed here that the losers had little to no say in the reps, and I'm sure we will see GOD and MA come along to justify why.

Finally, keeping terms the same throughout the war defeats the argument that terms are to penalize an alliance. Terms are higher the earlier in a war as the losing alliance has not been sufficiently defeated, and they tend to follow a sliding scale the longer an alliance gets their $@! handed to them.

At least, that's the way it should be and the way many alliances now arguing in favor of harsh reps have claimed it should have been in the past. Just my 0.02.

I will first address your unprovoked attacks comments about Sparta: I am not justifying the terms I am simply saying that I am not at all surprised that fighting a longer war and causing more damage leads to an increase in terms despite the damage suffered by the defeated party. I am not a government member, but my impressions from membership in Sparta is that they do not support harsh reparations at all. But the point is that having not fought on that front we do not negotiate it. I can stop by and say that I think the terms were harsher than they should be but that's about it. I am certainly not going to resort to public slander as that is simply not the way Sparta would have me conduct myself.

It is not a matter of a dream world, it is a matter entirely of the reality. The losers are in a much worse position to negotiate... that's why we call it losing. But at the end of the day those two parties are who sign the surrender documents. The rest of us merely chime in with support or criticizms and make a mental note of it. It affects our impressions of certain alliances and that may become relevant down the road. What would you have happen? Karma as an entity to over-rule the terms given by those individual alliances that fought on the front? Karma does not have a government or the authority to do such a thing. Nor should it.

If terms get lighter the longer a war goes on then you punish a lack of diplomacy and voluntarily invite turtling and more damage to your lower ranks. It is illogical and an alliance's first duty is to protect its members. That just makes sense. I also fail to see why you would try to drag Sparta as an alliance into this as we are no more relevant to this discussion than Kronos. I presume Kronos didn't have much say in determining these terms and as such I do not hold them accountable.

Echelon fought well and stuck to their guns. Nobody would fault them for that. But you can't play the martyr and not get killed. I would not personally have sought such strong reparations from Echelon but Echelon's government had to know that this was a possibility when they declined initial terms. The community respects them for sticking to their guns and I think that is obvious. But beyond stating these facts openly, which has already been done, what more would you have done, Napoleon?

[Emperor Brutus]

The fight was about karma coming around to bite them in the $@!.

r&r and athens forgot that, everyone else remembered.

Lol

You don't cease to amuse me. RnR and Athens forgot nothing, they beleived in the new era which was supposed to happen, not seeking revenge but wanting to create a new era. They are set above the rest as they have more class and respect.

[Drostan]

Lol

You don't cease to amuse me. RnR and Athens forgot nothing, they beleived in the new era which was supposed to happen, not seeking revenge but wanting to create a new era. They are set above the rest as they have more class and respect.

That's just it. People notice these things and they get remembered.

[astronaut jones]

Lol

You don't cease to amuse me. RnR and Athens forgot nothing, they beleived in the new era which was supposed to happen, not seeking revenge but wanting to create a new era. They are set above the rest as they have more class and respect.

right, because r&r and athens never profited from any previous wars, so they have every right to claim the moral high ground, and are oh so much better and righteous and just than those lowly people who think that alliances deserve to actually be PUNISHED for the crimes of the past, and not merely have fists shaken at them and told to go along their merry way.

You're not even a good comedian.

[King DrunkWino]

That's just it. People notice these things and they get remembered.

Really? You sure about that? Cause I see alliances involved in this war that didn't ask for a dime in reparations, yet they get overlooked.

[Death666Angel]

Good to see Echelon be out of this war. I hope you guys pay off the reps soon, get to rebuilding and then kick some serious $@!. A list of alliances can be seen in the first post of this thread .

Good luck to NPO and TPF and the other alliance still fighting in this war.

[Emperor Brutus]

right, because r&r and athens never profited from any previous wars, so they have every right to claim the moral high ground, and are oh so much better and righteous and just than those lowly people who think that alliances deserve to actually be PUNISHED for the crimes of the past, and not merely have fists shaken at them and told to go along their merry way.

You're not even a good comedian.

The reason for this war was out with the old an in with the new, but some alliances cared to bring the old with them. By stepping up their game RnR and Athens did indeed claim the "moral high ground" and if you don't remember in the past it was Athens who was attacked during the "War of the Coalition" (please correct me if I am wrong), and them not demanding crazy reps only shows what a respectable alliance they truly are. As well as RnR who was also on the receiving end of some of NPOs harsher terms >_>

[Nizzle]

Well, I'd hate to disappoint. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would think that the losers would have much of a say in the rep amount, maybe I misinterpreted that line.

Losers whom have been defeated to the extent Echelon has should have just a bit more of a say. I'm certainly not advocating 100% involvement after a week of war, but after an alliance has been decimated...yeah. Obviously, this should only stand for curbstomps as opposed to fair wars, where the winner takes much more damage then in this case.

Making the terms more lenient after an extended war will only encourage alliances to fight longer and inflict more damage. If we make a firm showing now that it doesn't matter how long you drag the war out for, we're not gonna budge on the terms as long as you can still pay them, then in any future wars we find themselves in other alliances will be disinclined to make the same choice. Hell, I can think of one alliance right now we might want to make that notion abundantly clear to.

Any amount of reps are payable, it doesn't mean you should ask for them.

I will first address your unprovoked attacks comments about Sparta: I am not justifying the terms I am simply saying that I am not at all surprised that fighting a longer war and causing more damage leads to an increase in terms despite the damage suffered by the defeated party. I am not a government member, but my impressions from membership in Sparta is that they do not support harsh reparations at all. But the point is that having not fought on that front we do not negotiate it. I can stop by and say that I think the terms were harsher than they should be but that's about it. I am certainly not going to resort to public slander as that is simply not the way Sparta would have me conduct myself.

I find Sparta to be a stand up alliance, I was merely stating where you would formulate such an opinion concerning reps. Your time running with the big boys may have desensitized you to what reps are fair and necessary. That's all. Typically I take no issue with Sparta, but unfortunately this is one issue where I must disagree with you.

It does reassure me that Sparta is indeed against harsh terms, so perhaps I misunderstood your comment as a defense of them. Is that the case? If it is, then I am indeed sorry for it. If you were in fact defending the harsh terms, then I suppose my only disagreement is with you

It is not a matter of a dream world, it is a matter entirely of the reality. The losers are in a much worse position to negotiate... that's why we call it losing. But at the end of the day those two parties are who sign the surrender documents. The rest of us merely chime in with support or criticizms and make a mental note of it. It affects our impressions of certain alliances and that may become relevant down the road. What would you have happen? Karma as an entity to over-rule the terms given by those individual alliances that fought on the front? Karma does not have a government or the authority to do such a thing. Nor should it.

While I certainly agree with you about the limits of Karma, I have to ask you to pause. Since Karma was sold to us as a group of alliances seeking revenge, albeit working as independent alliances for peace terms, I'm sure you can understand why everyone points their finger to Karma. I hope this goes as a lesson to future generations: Do not label yourself as a unified front and promise things as such a front when in all reality you are not. A lot of this poor PR could have been avoided if the implication that Karma was a group was avoided.

If terms get lighter the longer a war goes on then you punish a lack of diplomacy and voluntarily invite turtling and more damage to your lower ranks. It is illogical and an alliance's first duty is to protect its members. That just makes sense. I also fail to see why you would try to drag Sparta as an alliance into this as we are no more relevant to this discussion than Kronos. I presume Kronos didn't have much say in determining these terms and as such I do not hold them accountable.

Turtling of an opponent does not equal more damage for the attacker. Turtling is a despised tactic because it limits the damage a defender can take. Lack of diplomacy? Not accepting terms does not indicate a lack of diplomacy. It either indicates the terms are too harsh or the defenders purpose in the war is not over. Maybe both. Lessening the terms the longer a war goes on is not necessarily a rule, but it certainly should be when an alliance is defeated and broken. The intent of war is to neuter your enemy, and I would find someone hard pressed to say that Echelon is still a potent force right now. Based on the excess damage to the alliance and nations, these reps have taken it too far. Some reps are perfectly fine, but certainly not in the fashion they were done here. Again, my implication of Sparta was you voicing your apparent support of these terms. You have indeed clarified Sparta as a whole is against harsh terms, so my disagreement was incorrectly directed.

Echelon fought well and stuck to their guns. Nobody would fault them for that. But you can't play the martyr and not get killed. I would not personally have sought such strong reparations from Echelon but Echelon's government had to know that this was a possibility when they declined initial terms. The community respects them for sticking to their guns and I think that is obvious. But beyond stating these facts openly, which has already been done, what more would you have done, Napoleon?

Well, I certainly wouldn't have issued such terms and that should be obvious by now. The terms didn't accomplish anything positive, as I had discussed earlier in the thread. Echelon now has cause to smell blood and work towards their revenge and the victors have negatively effected their relations with a good portion of alliances in the game. It's a lose-lose situation, which I had previously discussed in the thread. I personally may not have assessed monetary terms, but certainly would have enforced aid bans/restrictions and cancellation of treaties. At the very least. I certainly wouldn't be displaying myself as an arrogant victor and would have taken the victory and moved past it. Unfortunately, though, some are unable to do that. While I may understand their justifications for their actions, I certainly think they are incorrect and perhaps over complicating the situation a great deal. Of course, it is their displayed right to disagree with my assessment and state I am over simplifying things.

[astronaut jones]

Good to see Echelon be out of this war. I hope you guys pay off the reps soon, get to rebuilding and then kick some serious $@!. A list of alliances can be seen in the first post of this thread .

Good luck to NPO and TPF and the other alliance still fighting in this war.

I think one of the points of karma is to disuade these people from ever actually attempting such a thing again. So, saying to kick some $@! and use the people who imposed these terms on them as the list of asses to kick, just.. goes to show me that, if that's the attitude people are going to take, and if there's even the slightest chance that's the attitude echelon is going to adopt (I never said it was, so don't imply that's what I'm saying at all), then maybe the terms weren't harsh enough.

If it disuades them, however, then the terms are fine. Who are any of us to really be talking about such things, though? There is literally no alliance that can claim any moral high ground, those that are, are just opportunistic asses trying to cash in off the dirty work that needed to be done, yet they were too afraid to do themselves.

[Drostan]

Really? You sure about that? Cause I see alliances involved in this war that didn't ask for a dime in reparations, yet they get overlooked.

Well, some people notice and remember these things. I think more than people give credit. But that's the best you can ever hope for. I would hope that alliances who do the honorable thing have better reasons than hoping they will get noticed.

I am going to remove myself from this discussion as I think everyone knows where they stand and I think I have expressed my feelings on the matter. Some people seem to be getting upset and getting off-topic. Glad to see peace and I hope to see more of it. The terms have been discussed and those who feel they need to say more about them here will no doubt continue to.

I hope the spirit of alliances trying to do what is honorable, even when that is a difficult thing to determine, will live on.

Best of luck to all parties.

EDIT: I have always regretted the Karma moniker and have only been afforded more opportunity to regret it over time. And personally, I would never seek to enforce reparations of any kind on an alliance unless they had been the aggressor and had caused a significant amount of damage to my alliance. As such, I did not mean to defend the terms given necessarily so much as to cautiously state that it is the task of the diplomats of the warring nations to establish what constitutes a significant amount of damage. Each alliance likely has a different threshold for what qualifies for reparations. The rest of us merely comment and make mental notes.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Drostan

[Gizmore]

Good to see peace at last, most Echelon nations put up a good fight (those that didn't hide in peacemode), this was a though one, I'll be sure to get that SDI now, nukes hurts a lot!

o/

[Nizzle]

Well, some people notice and remember these things. I think more than people give credit. But that's the best you can ever hope for. I would hope that alliances who do the honorable thing have better reasons than hoping they will get noticed.

I am going to remove myself from this discussion as I think everyone knows where they stand and I think I have expressed my feelings on the matter. Some people seem to be getting upset and getting off-topic. Glad to see peace and I hope to see more of it. The terms have been discussed and those who feel they need to say more about them here will no doubt continue to.

I hope the spirit of alliances trying to do what is honorable, even when that is a difficult thing to determine, will live on.

Best of luck to all parties.

While I think I disagree about the alliances you are speaking about, this is a solid post. The substance is something I can definitely agree to and emphasize with. Well said.

[King Srqt]

right, because r&r and athens never profited from any previous wars, so they have every right to claim the moral high ground, and are oh so much better and righteous and just than those lowly people who think that alliances deserve to actually be PUNISHED for the crimes of the past, and not merely have fists shaken at them and told to go along their merry way.

You're not even a good comedian.

would it work if he congratulated RIA then since i dont believe they have ever taken reps in a war ever.

[Proxian Empire]

My only complaints with these terms are the personal ones against Caffine1. I don't personally know Caffine1 (but I am sure I have trolled him/her at some point), but never is there a circumstance where personal terms restricting someone's movements is acceptable.

After experiencing the crap secret terms from the No CB War where NPO/MCXA/TOP banished Random, Musso, and I from the New Polar Order, I can simply tell you it is not right. I would not wish such a thing even on someone I truly despise such as SAM.

[astronaut jones]

The reason for this war was out with the old an in with the new, but some alliances cared to bring the old with them. By stepping up their game RnR and Athens did indeed claim the "moral high ground" and if you don't remember in the past it was Athens who was attacked during the "War of the Coalition" (please correct me if I am wrong), and them not demanding crazy reps only shows what a respectable alliance they truly are. As well as RnR who was also on the receiving end of some of NPOs harsher terms >_>

Every alliance, even those that suffered at the hands of the "hegemony" also at one point profited from them. Every alliance sought out their protection, and took part in atleast one or two beatdowns by them, even legion (maybe not gato.. they may be the only ones), so no, they can't claim the moral high ground, to do so would be disengenuous.

The war from the outset was about punishment, or atleast should have been. During the early days of the war there was the whole hippie nonsense going about, about trying to change the world (which was complete and utter !@#$%^&* of the highest order) and there were people who shamelessly tried to cash in on PR (I won't name those alliances), and that resulted in others who felt they had to follow suit. There are even stories of alliances being pressured and threatened by other "karma" alliances into giving light/lenient terms or even white peace. So be it, what's done is done.

But that shifted focus away from punishment. You can change the world AND punish people for their crimes at the same time. It's not as though, just because these terms are harsh, they're going to continue once this war is done. There is no way for people to predict the future.

So, yeah, what moral high ground?

[astronaut jones]

would it work if he congratulated RIA then since i dont believe they have ever taken reps in a war ever.

Probably, yeah.

[the rebel]

Terms and reps should fall in line with what happend in the conflict, using an alliance's past as an excuse to inflate reps is just profiteering and greed on the victor's side.

Edited July 6, 2009 by the rebel