Announcement From The Echelon

[x Tela x]

You're making excuses for forcing an alliance to expel a member for OOC reasons? Really?

No, not really. He was under fire for entirely valid IC reasons. I posted sections of a VERY big log, that showed his true nature. I only pasted the mild stuff, though.

Well it's nice to know that you were mindless puppets without the ability to think for yourself and make your own decisions.

I won't refute the fact that there is a large amount of truth in this statement, but the very same can be said for all of Q and many other alliances that have flown the "Karma Banner". It's not so much that people didn't think for themselves, it's that there was very little to gain in going against big brother.

So because you didn't impose high reps every time, that cancels out the fact that you did so at other times? I am inclined to disagree.

Not other times. One time.

[Starcraftmazter]

No, not really. He was under fire for entirely valid IC reasons. I posted sections of a VERY big log, that showed his true nature. I only pasted the mild stuff, though.

Like what - did he nuke rogue Echelon? Did he plant a nation in your alliance for spying purposes? Did he scam your alliance for millions of dollars? I don't understand.

I won't refute the fact that there is a large amount of truth in this statement, but the very same can be said for all of Q and many other alliances that have flown the "Karma Banner". It's not so much that people didn't think for themselves, it's that there was very little to gain in going against big brother.

It's not always about "what is there to gain", it should also be about "what is the right thing to do".

Not other times. One time.

Unfortunately for Echelon that one time was not that long ago, and hence is the best reflection of Echelon's reparation policies.

[Phoebe]

Fail terms KARMA!

Edited July 10, 2009 by Tithan

[NoFish]

Edit - That was pretty off-topic, there's enough threads to discuss the NPO terms already.

Edited July 10, 2009 by NoFish

[loannes]

Nice to see peace. I respect Echelon for holding out so long.

o/ Echelon

o/ Karma

[Daikos]

Like what - did he nuke rogue Echelon? Did he plant a nation in your alliance for spying purposes? Did he scam your alliance for millions of dollars? I don't understand.

I think the exact reason was that Fringe associated the Orders with a certain group of National Socialists, something that I do believe I've already stated in this thread while also stating that it was a dumb $@! thing to do.

My entire point, which your log dump seems to verify, is that the entire "diplomatic" handling of the situation consisted of both .gov and regular members from Polar, Pacifica and Echelon flooding into our channel in an attempt to bully our members and government. There is no way to spin that, it's what happened. Did this receive with a poor reception from Fringe and members of Darkfall at the time? You better god damn believe it. Nobody enjoys the experience of being talked down to and bullied in their own community channel. You can dump all the logs you'd like showing Darkfall members acting like asses (and I'm sure there are an abundance of them) but that doesn't change the fact that you invaded OUR channel to threaten OUR members.

I'm not claiming to be a master of the political sciences (primarily because I want a job upon graduation) but I believe this would have been one of those examples where "private channels 4tw" should have prevailed. But what do I know? Continue with your log dumps until your heart is content.

p.s. The one and only time my name shows up in a log dump and it's after I get back from the bar? Are you trying to make me look like an alcoholic?

[neneko]

First of all honoring a agression clause towards the alliance that started the war means you're joining in on the agressing side. You're not 'just defending an ally' you're joining your ally in a agressive war. In other words yes Echelon was one of the parties that started this war.

I don't like the banning caffeine from gov or the dissolving of the treaties though. It'd been better with just suspending imo. I don't think the winners should walk further into the other alliances soverigenity than necesary for enforcing peace.

I also find it ammusing to see the exact same people that were bashing us in umbrella for being too lenient to valhalla now whine about these terms being too harsh. Sal was spot on with his essay. No matter what the terms are you can always complain to show your moral superiority.

To the valhalla posters claiming that this shows 'karma is just as bad as the hegemony'. We in umbrella are part of karma and we gave you close to white peace. If you have a problem with certain alliances imposing too harsh terms aim it at them. I don't think it's very nice to call out a group we're part of when we got you off easy.

Lastly it seems that in all this complaining most people have missed that the super evil RoK isn't taking any reps at all. Not that I expect anyone to focus on this the next time they rant about them being evil but I just thought I'd point it out.

Edited July 10, 2009 by neneko

[VIdiot the Great]

you're right, and I've said this already, but karma was different things to all people, it was a means to an end. There were two distinct factions within karma, those who genuinely wanted to change the world, and those who genuinely wanted to punish the crimes of the past. The unfortunate part of that is, neither side could come to a general consensus of what should happen, or how alliances were to be dealt with, so you had a rash of white peace which infuriated some, or extremely light peace terms which infuriated even more. And now that you're starting to get into the harsher terms, those of karma who wanted to "change the world" are infuriated, and, no offense to all of them since it's not all the case, but they've sent out their self-righteous brigades in order to demean the other faction of karma as somehow barbaric.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. The basis for my disagreement can be found here.

Both sides of karma were correct, and there may have been other sides of karma, smaller factions, whatever though. Both sides were right, but because now they're at each other's throats, it's a complete lost cause, and they've accomplished nothing. It's failed, and all because they couldn't come to a common ground. They've changed nothing, they've punished no one.

Lose-lose for everybody.

I think it's way too soon to say that Karma failed. If Karma's goal was to defeat the hegemony, then it would appear that they were very successful. Ultimately, I don't think Karma answered my question posed in the post referenced above, either internally or externally.

And without an answer to that specific question, you can't really judge whether it was a win or a loss.

VI

[Brotherington]

Wrap it up karmailures.

[R&R-Viking]

Wrap it up karmailures.

You really had to cram this one together for it to make sense, huh. Good job I guess.

[TypoNinja]

Wrap it up karmailures.

Sounds like a fancy chocolate.

[KingSuck]

First of all honoring a agression clause towards the alliance that started the war means you're joining in on the agressing side. You're not 'just defending an ally' you're joining your ally in a agressive war. In other words yes Echelon was one of the parties that started this war.

They didn't honour an agression clause though, they honoured a defensive clause:

4.1 Should any signatory come under attack, it is mandatory all signatories come to the assistance of the attacked.

To the valhalla posters claiming that this shows 'karma is just as bad as the hegemony'. We in umbrella are part of karma and we gave you close to white peace. If you have a problem with certain alliances imposing too harsh terms aim it at them. I don't think it's very nice to call out a group we're part of when we got you off easy.

Sorry but what? I just did a quick skim of the thread and only 4 Valhallans have posted and not one of them said anything close to that.

[x Tela x]

SCM - The guy had nothing to do with Echelon. We just showed up to support our allies at the time. Daikos is right, we all invaded their channel to bully them, as was our right at the time, when insults were being thrown towards our allies in a public forum. So we took it to their public channel.

neneko - I know you really don't buy that reasoning. You can't be that simpleminded. While it's true that NPO was an aggressor, Echelon defended them against the counter-attacks. If we were to buy into your reasoning, every single major war in CN has been about 99% aggressive wars. Defensive clauses CAN chain, and quite often do. Just because it's technically not required in some treaties doesn't mean it's not required in all treaties. The 1V treaty was very clear, with zero wiggle room in this regard. Echelon made a statement that they absolutely disagreed with Pacifica's actions, but had no recourse but to honor their standing 1V treaty. The statement was the cancellation of the separate MADP.

I suppose it could be argued that, since NPO violated 1V by not informing everyone of their intent to war OV, that the clause was invalid, but I honestly don't even know if that's the case - I assume that it is, but I don't know. I don't know if there's an "out" for such an act, either. I doubt it.

[Starcraftmazter]

SCM - The guy had nothing to do with Echelon. We just showed up to support our allies at the time. Daikos is right, we all invaded their channel to bully them, as was our right at the time, when insults were being thrown towards our allies in a public forum. So we took it to their public channel.

And what, me not having anything to do with Echelon means I can't criticise it?

Supporting your allies by bullying others...yeh. I don't think I really need to say that's bad.

[kingzog]

I suppose it could be argued that, since NPO violated 1V by not informing everyone of their intent to war OV, that the clause was invalid, but I honestly don't even know if that's the case - I assume that it is, but I don't know. I don't know if there's an "out" for such an act, either. I doubt it.

I've just read the 1V treaty and....I don't know, either.

As to there being an 'out'.

If I understand correctly, the NPO pretty clearly violated Article 4.3 requiring 72-hours notice in the case of offensive war.

If my alliance had been put in that position as a result of a treaty violation, I would have considered the treaty void owing to a gross violation of both its spirit and letter. Then I'd let the CN 'legal experts' talk amongst themselves while I ignored them.

But maybe that's just me.

[twodivine]

I suppose it could be argued that, since NPO violated 1V by not informing everyone of their intent to war OV, that the clause was invalid, but I honestly don't even know if that's the case - I assume that it is, but I don't know. I don't know if there's an "out" for such an act, either. I doubt it.

Then 1V should of taken the steps of voting NPO out of 1V and it would of removed any action needed to be taken by fellow signatories. Signatories of 1V had time and the proper reasons to do so, but instead continued to go to war to support an action you say you "didn't" support.

And it wouldn't of been a new one for anyone to do since the logic had been used before on Polar.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Myworld

[twodivine]

I've just read the 1V treaty and....I don't know, either.

As to there being an 'out'.

If I understand correctly, the NPO pretty clearly violated Article 4.3 requiring 72-hours notice in the case of offensive war.

If my alliance had been put in that position as a result of a treaty violation, I would have considered the treaty void owing to a gross violation of both its spirit and letter. Then I'd let the CN 'legal experts' talk amongst themselves while I ignored them.

But maybe that's just me.

You're correct they did have that out, but clearly they didn't take it.

[Haflinger]

If I understand correctly, the NPO pretty clearly violated Article 4.3 requiring 72-hours notice in the case of offensive war.

No, they didn't. Well - not clearly anyway.

The Article stated:

4.3 Notice of all of offensive military actions shall be given no less than 3 days (72 hours) in advance of action.

4.3.1 This time period shall be used for consideration of whether or not to support the offensive action.

The NPO gave notice of more than 72 hours that they were considering an attack on Ordo Verde. Significantly more; this went on for a while. In order to argue that they violated 4.3, you'd need to say that 4.3 requires NPO to give specific notice as to when the war will start, and it doesn't clearly state that.

[twodivine]

No, they didn't. Well - not clearly anyway.

The Article stated:

4.3 Notice of all of offensive military actions shall be given no less than 3 days (72 hours) in advance of action.

4.3.1 This time period shall be used for consideration of whether or not to support the offensive action.

The NPO gave notice of more than 72 hours that they were considering an attack on Ordo Verde. Significantly more; this went on for a while. In order to argue that they violated 4.3, you'd need to say that 4.3 requires NPO to give specific notice as to when the war will start, and it doesn't clearly state that.

4.3.1 Clearly states that it will consider to support or not of the offensive action. If they didn't get a chance to discuss it then yes it's a violation. If they did discuss it and they went to war which they clearly did then they supported the aggressive war that NPO start thus making their war aggressive in nature and not in defense.

[x Tela x]

And what, me not having anything to do with Echelon means I can't criticise it?

Supporting your allies by bullying others...yeh. I don't think I really need to say that's bad.

Actually, I'm not really sure why Daikos even brought this up. Echelon's voice in those talks was almost nonexistent. We had a presence, and nothing more, same as NV, OCuK and a couple others. The discussion was between NPO, NpO and Darkfall. To say that Echelon bullied Darkfall in that situation is ridiculous, though. Looking over the enormous log, there weren't even many lines from Echelon. It's about 70% Fringe going off on a tangent about beating people up IRL, and 29% everyone else laughing at him, because it was evident after about 3 minutes of talking to Fringe that he didn't care about his alliance or his nation.

Regardless, there was nothing wrong with actions taken by anyone in that case. It was a direct result of Fringe's actions. Again, if you want to blame anyone for Fringe's (IC) death, you can blame Fringe, or if you're really silly, go ahead and blame both orders, since they had the audacity to protect their own interests at the time.