Announcement From The Echelon

[Matthew Conrad]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same terms that were presented before that little "incident"?

[Neo Uruk]

Learn to search before insulting an alliance.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/One_Vision

I didn't see an insult there, only mention of Echelon not coming in by treaties, which they openly asked for someone to correct them if wrong.

[Caliph]

I am loving the 10k tech to MK part of these terms.

The rest ...eh, they're surrender terms all right.

Congrats to peace guys

[Deadshot]

Without checking the math involved (I hate math), I have to say I am not a fan of "must remain a cute demeanor" nor "admitting they started the war". They should acknowledge defeat for sure, but the rest is just dressing.

Also, banning a member from ever being government? I don't agree with that at all. That said, I wish Echelon the best in committing to terms and their eventual rebuild.

[delendum]

Judging by the way some of them have been treated, they may well befriend those that defeated them. Terms like these merely set the stage for them to seek out their old allies, and I'm surprised no one has thought of that.

This wasn't a curb stomp? I think it was. Some of these alliances were smashed to way less than half their former size. You wouldn't call that a curbstomp when their attackers are, by comparison, unscathed?

This is what I'm trying to get at: By allowing terms like these to be signed, you ended the war. You know what else, though? Today is the first day Echelon begins to plan the very comeback you are worried about and wanted to prevent. Terms like these cause revenge to happen. Think about what spurred Karma into action.

It wasn't a curb stomp, the fact that it later became one has nothing to do with it. That their side has folded quickly is another story, but nobody knew how this would play before the cancellations started rolling. It was a global conflict. White peace was handed out for tactical reasons, not because of excessive mercy. Those alliances that got out during the first days are still on the same side Echelon was.

Your theory is not invalid, but it involves an amount of trust for the defeated. I don't trust them to be cool with the whole thing and lay off any plans of revenge, no matter the terms they are offered. Defeat is defeat, no matter how you put it. If you see a chance to rise again, you will take it, regardless of how nice those that defeated you were.

[Rafael Nadal]

Without checking the math involved (I hate math), I have to say I am not a fan of "must remain a cute demeanor" nor "admitting they started the war". They should acknowledge defeat for sure, but the rest is just dressing.

Also, banning a member from ever being government? I don't agree with that at all. That said, I wish Echelon the best in committing to terms and their eventual rebuild.

That is a joke term. Somebody from Echelon gov't, Caffine I think, used it in some discussion involving one of the alliances on it's front, in the past.

[delendum]

I am loving the 10k tech to MK part of these terms.

The rest ...eh, they're surrender terms all right.

Congrats to peace guys

That tech is on behalf of GR. Basically, GR is offering us their reparations. Instead of them getting it, we are. MK has asked for nothing, we were offered that tech from our ally. I hope I managed to put this as clearly as possible.

[Taget]

Wish you had gotten better terms but congrats on peace nonetheless.

[Nizzle]

It wasn't a curb stomp, the fact that it later became one has nothing to do with it. That their side has folded quickly is another story, but nobody knew how this would play before the cancellations started rolling. It was a global conflict. White peace was handed out for tactical reasons, not because of excessive mercy. Those alliances that got out during the first days are still on the same side Echelon was.

It didn't rain this morning, but later that night it flooded and we are going to ignore why.

The alliances defeated are less than a shell of their former selves, but still you saddle them with enormous reps that strip their nations bare. All of this is to protect the world against their return, because no one is able to check their power. Well, except for the ones that defeated them.

Your theory is not invalid, but it involves an amount of trust for the defeated. I don't trust them to be cool with the whole thing and lay off any plans of revenge, no matter the terms they are offered. Defeat is defeat, no matter how you put it. If you see a chance to rise again, you will take it, regardless of how nice those that defeated you were.

Yeah, but they won't come after the ones who were nice to them. It seems like you are saying "If we defeat them, they might come back at us. So, let's just kick them while they are down and make sure they will come back to get us." Is that right?

EDIT:

That is a joke term. Somebody from Echelon gov't, Caffine I think, used it in some discussion involving one of the alliances on it's front, in the past.

As it isn't marked as a "joke term" and basically says that Echelon voice any sort of opinion which upsets the victors...well, I just hope it isn't really used.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Nizzle

[Neo Uruk]

That is a joke term. Somebody from Echelon gov't, Caffine I think, used it in some discussion involving one of the alliances on it's front, in the past.

Actually he used it in a threat of war.

[Rafael Nadal]

It wasn't a curb stomp, the fact that it later became one has nothing to do with it. That their side has folded quickly is another story, but nobody knew how this would play before the cancellations started rolling. It was a global conflict. White peace was handed out for tactical reasons, not because of excessive mercy. Those alliances that got out during the first days are still on the same side Echelon was.

Your theory is not invalid, but it involves an amount of trust for the defeated. I don't trust them to be cool with the whole thing and lay off any plans of revenge, no matter the terms they are offered. Defeat is defeat, no matter how you put it. If you see a chance to rise again, you will take it, regardless of how nice those that defeated you were.

You're plain wrong regarding white peace. I won't tell you that there was no strategy in handing out white peace, but there was definitely a major role for the moral side of it, saving real terms for alliances who deserved them more, rather than having every alliance in war pay reps just because.

[Lennox]

Congrats on peace.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Lennox

[Caliph]

That tech is on behalf of GR. Basically, GR is offering us their reparations. Instead of them getting it, we are. MK has asked for nothing, we were offered that tech from our ally. I hope I managed to put this as clearly as possible.

I am aware of that, and the reason why I love that term is because that, more than anything else in the list of terms, speaks of Karma. Echelon got 10k tech from MK in the No CB war, and thus MK, on behalf of GR, is getting 10k from Echelon. That is karma my friend.

Some of these terms, like "retaining a cute demanour", not sure what to take on that term. The reps are to be expected. Acknowledging defeat is one thing, but having Echelon admit they "started this war"? I don't believe Echelon did start the war, NPO and TORN did.

But hey, I didn't write these terms. I just pointed out my favorite term of this war so far.

[Rafael Nadal]

Actually he used it in a threat of war.

I'm aware of that. That doesn't change anything, it's still a joke term.

[Neo Uruk]

I'm aware of that. That doesn't change anything, it's still a joke term.

Eh, I saw an error in your wording. Sorry

[Innerspeaker]

There was a war, and these are the surrender terms. I don't understand the complaining that constantly gets posted in these threads. The winners won, and have imposed terms that they saw fit. Deal with it as every alliance in history has dealt with it. Never in my time in CN have I seen so much !@#$%*ing about the terms imposed, especially by the alliances recieving the terms.

Terms wise, being in Polaris has made me immune to what others see as "harsh terms". I simply view these as terms, to which you must now pay. In fact, I don't get out of bed unless the terms are 75,000 tech to be paid by the top 30 members of the alliance, of whom are limited to only sending out reps (no inner alliance aiding), and of whose members several government officials must endure secret terms. Oh wai-...

[KingAdam]

Wow these terms are sickening. Talk about trying to bleed an alliance dry. Good luck Echelon.

Classy move R&R.

[Chickenzilla]

Guys - let's try to keep this about Echelon and let's keep it respectful

Was that directed at NIzzle, if so, I agree.

[delendum]

It didn't rain this morning, but later that night it flooded and we are going to ignore why.

The alliances defeated are less than a shell of their former selves, but still you saddle them with enormous reps that strip their nations bare. All of this is to protect the world against their return, because no one is able to check their power. Well, except for the ones that defeated them.

Yeah, but they won't come after the ones who were nice to them. It seems like you are saying "If we defeat them, they might come back at us. So, let's just kick them while they are down and make sure they will come back to get us." Is that right?

Take a look at IRON and how fast they're growing. They are a shell now, they won't be a shell in a few months. What I'm saying is Karma is only a war-time coalition, it's not a unified force. If they rise too big, too fast, there will be nobody there to stop them.

What I don't want is them being in a position of power similar to where they were pre-war. Either they get there by defeating me in the future, or by growing peacefully on their own, I don't want it to happen for obvious reasons. That is why we should make sure it won't.

You're plain wrong regarding white peace. I won't tell you that there was no strategy in handing out white peace, but there was definitely a major role for the moral side of it, saving real terms for alliances who deserved them more, rather than having every alliance in war pay reps just because.

Yes, it's called "tactics".

[Joe Kremlin]

Congrats on peace.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Joe Kremlin

[Valerius]

Keep cute Echelon.

[AirMe]

Too harsh. Only 26 nations allowed to pay 34k tech? These terms are some of the harshest I have ever seen..... Also banning Caffine from gov is stupid. I think I will send him a recruitment message right now.

Edited July 6, 2009 by AirMe

[Caliph]

There was a war, and these are the surrender terms. I don't understand the complaining that constantly gets posted in these threads. The winners won, and have imposed terms that they saw fit. Deal with it as every alliance in history has dealt with it. Never in my time in CN have I seen so much !@#$%*ing about the terms imposed, especially by the alliances recieving the terms.

Terms wise, being in Polaris has made me immune to what others see as "harsh terms". I simply view these as terms, to which you must now pay. In fact, I don't get out of bed unless the terms are 75,000 tech to be paid by the top 30 members of the alliance, of whom are limited to only sending out reps (no inner alliance aiding), and of whose members several government officials must endure secret terms. Oh wai-...

Exactly. Its funny to see all these people crying out "harsh terms" for these alliances that have given out harsh terms in the past. Its like issueing harsh terms in the past gives you an automatic white peace in a war about Karma. oh wait ...

[Lord Philip]

o/ Echelon

Condolences to Caffine.

[Nizzle]

Take a look at IRON and how fast they're growing. They are a shell now, they won't be a shell in a few months. What I'm saying is Karma is only a war-time coalition, it's not a unified force. If they rise too big, too fast, there will be nobody there to stop them.

That premise relies on the incorrect assumption that the victors of the war will not grow at all.

What I don't want is them being in a position of power similar to where they were pre-war. Either they get there by defeating me in the future, or by growing peacefully on their own, I don't want it to happen for obvious reasons. That is why we should make sure it won't.

Harsh terms only slow them down a little bit and give them more of an incentive to strike back. So, as a result of these absurd terms, they will be working harder to get back to where they were and strike you down.

Exactly. Its funny to see all these people crying out "harsh terms" for these alliances that have given out harsh terms in the past. Its like issueing harsh terms in the past gives you an automatic white peace in a war about Karma. oh wait ...

Or it could have something to do with Karma Announcements, made by the "voice of karma", stating that things will change and there won't be draconian terms and we won't be mean and evil...

Then again, I guess that was just propaganda needed to enlist people to the Karma side.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Nizzle