The Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Many thanks. However, the crux of the issue is that 2 days previous to the above meeting, Kaitlin presented the above terms to TOP at which point she was advised that govt would get back to her. At the above meeting, Crymson discovered that terms were being presented to Echelon, without our prior approval. How should we react to such an obvious snub?

An obvious snub? How long have you been on your AA that major political actions without prior notification, nevermind approval, matters at all to you?

[HeinousOne]

Gosh. Im genuinely surprised at your tone which is akin to that of someone who's lover has been slighted.

How have I acted as though I am superior to any within this thread? Please highlight this to me as it certainly was not my intention. Furthermore, I believe that I have shown the upmost respect to all within the thread; certainly to those that deserve it.

Or is this another chance to spew your much heralded anti-TOP rhetoric?

EDIT: If you seriously believe that Doitzels post was not antagonistic, then you are as barking mad as many of my fellow Paradoxians believe you to be.

Aww, how cute. A hate and insult filled response that is wrapped up with beautiful wrapping paper to make it look sensible.

Despite the fact of course that twice in this little response of yours you have displayed not just a personal attitude of judgement of others but also you have stated how your fellow Paradoxians sit back and judge everyone in such a smug way as to declare who is "barking mad" and who isn't. You guys still wondering why you are polarizing the world again?

Edited October 15, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Azaghul]

We saw very little possibility of the terms being amended. In the event, the terms Echelon eventually agreed to were the terms that were offered originally---terms that were offered without the consent of TOP and TSO, terms that we'd certainly not have ratified. Given our treatment during the process and given strong hints by others involved that we were deliberately not contacted for express approval of the surrender terms before they were presented to Echelon (which is absolutely standard procedure with joint terms, and takes all of 30 seconds) because they feared we'd not agree with the terms, we decided that we no longer had a place in the war.

In the event, Echelon was also happy to take white peace at the time it was given.

For information purposes regarding our affair in the terms process for Echelon during the war, note that the announcement on the subject versed our feelings on the subject. Seeking an alliance's approval for joint surrender terms before they are presented is very much common policy, and it requires only a tiny bit of common sense to figure that it's both the right thing to do and a necessary thing to do. We had excellent reasons to think that our consent had been deliberately not sought out---too, we had no idea that the terms were going to be presented until we were invited into a channel and watched it happen---and in any event there's absolutely no excuse for terms to be offered without prior consent and without prior notice.

This is where diplomacy comes into play, which sometimes takes time. If one leader appears to be stubborn you talk to others. Suggest compromises, learn the opinions of others among different alliances and different leaders within each alliance. The apparent unwillingness of one party to compromise can change, even within one alliance if you talk to other leaders in that alliance. Someone might not be willing to compromise at first but soften over time.

I know this because I was personally intricately involved with a similar, in fact probably even worse, situation with PC and TPF. Archon and I both spent a lot of time first resolving differences with PC, facing hard-line stubbornness at first but eventual compromise, and then the same with TPF. Coming up with a workable peace was not something that was easy or quick, it took weeks of often very frustrating talks.

There was potential with Echelon, maybe not with some, but with other alliances on that front that in the end took a softer line with Echelon on the application of the terms. Y'all don't know because you took your toys and went home rather than make any serious attempts at diplomacy.

[WalkerNinja]

This is where diplomacy comes into play, which sometimes takes time. If one leader appears to be stubborn you talk to others. Suggest compromises, learn the opinions of others among different alliances and different leaders within each alliance. The apparent unwillingness of one party to compromise can change, even within one alliance if you talk to other leaders in that alliance. Someone might not be willing to compromise at first but soften over time.

I know this because I was personally intricately involved with a similar, in fact probably even worse, situation with PC and TPF. Archon and I both spent a lot of time first resolving differences with PC, facing hard-line stubbornness at first but eventual compromise, and then the same with TPF. Coming up with a workable peace was not something that was easy or quick, it took weeks of often very frustrating talks.

There was potential with Echelon, maybe not with some, but with other alliances on that front that in the end took a softer line with Echelon on the application of the terms. Y'all don't know because you took your toys and went home rather than make any serious attempts at diplomacy.

Aza, I want to say that I've really appreciated your contributions to this thread. Your comments have been fair-minded, thoughtful, and eqloquently put forth. I'm going to quote myself because I think that I said something earlier that applies to this post that you may have honestly missed:

Neither this post nor your log dump address the fact that the terms that were extended to Echelon in that chat were the exact same terms that we had been given by the co-belligerants on our front a days earlier or the fact that we objected to them at that time and our objections went unaddressed.

1. May 27 - The TOP Grand Assembly was briefed on terms for Echelon presented to us by Monos Archein
   
2. May 27- In the same chat in which KaitlinK gives our government the terms, our government objects to them. A long discussion ensues.
   
3. May 27- The TOP Grand Assembly reads over and discusses the terms. Discussion consists of "Y'know, I don't like Echelon, but these terms are ridiculous."
   
4. May 28-30- Members of the TOP government attempt to discuss changing the terms with our fellow co-belligerents. No substantive response.
   
5. May 31- the terms to which we had objected on the 27th (and every succeeding day thereafter) are presented to Echelon without consulting us. Since neither our concerns nor our participation is valued by our co-belligerants, we grant a separate and respectable peace, citing the reasons for doing so.
   

Neither your log dump nor your rhetoric address the 4 days of objections filed by TOP. Your version starts at Step 5 of a five step process that took several days to complete.

To insinuate that we walked into the channel, saw the terms, rejected them, and left is patently untrue.

Edited October 15, 2009 by WalkerNinja

[Delta1212]

Neither this post nor your log dump address the fact that the terms that were extended to Echelon in that chat were the exact same terms that we had been given by the co-belligerants on our front a days earlier or the fact that we objected to them at that time and our objections went unaddressed.

1. May 27 - The TOP Grand Assembly was briefed on terms for Echelon presented to us by Monos Archein
   
2. May 27- In the same chat in which KaitlinK gives our government the terms, our government objects to them. A long discussion ensues.
   
3. May 27- The TOP Grand Assembly reads over and discusses the terms. Discussion consists of "Y'know, I don't like Echelon, but these terms are ridiculous."
   
4. May 28-30- Members of the TOP government attempt to discuss changing the terms with our fellow co-belligerents. No substantive response.
   
5. May 31- the terms to which we had objected on the 27th (and every succeeding day thereafter) are presented to Echelon without consulting us. Since neither our concerns nor our participation is valued by our co-belligerants, we grant a separate and respectable peace, citing the reasons for doing so.
   

Neither your log dump nor your rhetoric address the 4 days of objections filed by TOP. Your version starts at Step 5 of a five step process that took several days to complete.

So, what you're saying, is that the Echelon front was horribly organized and this is somehow everyone's fault but TOP's and means that we excluded you all from negotiations in order to press a hard agenda you wouldn't support? Because, personally, I'd have just stopped at "The Echelon front was horribly organized" and found myself a pretty simple explanation for that entire list of problems you have there.

I believe just to correct WN on something, and I'm not 100% sure but I think I am correct is that TSO had previously for both TOP and TSO explained our objection to the proposed peace agrement. Reps were not the issue, the goverment restrictions on Caffine, and the joke restriction of acting cute were the major issues, and to a lesser extent where the tech would come from, but that was negotiable.

These were never addressed, and we were not called into a meeting to discuss terms but rather to present terms to Echelon instead. If Echelon agree with them we would be putting our names on something that we did not agree with, which included enforcing the terms. What would you have us do?

Actually, the term about Caffine not being allowed back in government if he rejoined Echelon wasn't in the terms when you left. At the time, the term read 10. Should Caffine1 ever rejoin Echelon, he must put and keep "I valued my infra so much I hid in peace mode for the entirety of the Karma War" in his nation bio indefinitely. This term will not apply to any rerolls of Caffine1. It was later renegotiated between Kait and Echelon because they preferred a government ban to that or something. I honestly don't know the details of why, just that that's where it came from.

I would have you peace out without accusing us of intentionally preventing TOP from participating in backroom negotiations in order to blindside you by presenting terms you didn't like. Since, you know, nobody was doing what you could realistically call organizing things beyond trying to herd everyone in the general direction of achieving peace, which results in all sorts of problems that I don't really enjoy having yelled at me on a monthly basis as if it was all some nefarious plot to bring down TOP instead of just a general cluster$%&@ like the entire rest of the Karma War.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Delta1212

[WalkerNinja]

For the sake of clarity, you're now changing your story from:

"TOP didn't like what they saw, made no comments or compromises, and left coalition of allies hanging."

to

"Okay, TOP probably didn't like it, and probably gave ample notice that they didn't like it and wanted to work on it, but we weren't very organized."

Did I get that right? Because that sounds a lot like an exoneration of most of what we've been accused of in regard to this incident.

[Some-Guy]

If you wanted peace for Echelon, you should have tried to get it instead of complaining that it hadn't happened sooner after the fact.

The very first person to raise Echelon peace terms was me on the Karma forums. The attempt was soundly ignored by everyone except TSO and Vanguard (who were a non-belligerent in that front).

When I enquired why my suggested terms were being ignored I was told that ROK was refusing to discuss terms due to some grudge with an alliance called AB.

So get off your high horse eh?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Some-Guy

[Delta1212]

For the sake of clarity, you're now changing your story from:

"TOP didn't like what they saw, made no comments or compromises, and left coalition of allies hanging."

to

"Okay, TOP probably didn't like it, and probably gave ample notice that they didn't like it and wanted to work on it, but we weren't very organized."

Did I get that right? Because that sounds a lot like an exoneration of most of what we've been accused of in regard to this incident.

No, "TOP walked away from peace talks because they didn't like what they saw and then accused all of us of lying to them and trying to pidgeonhole them into signing terms they didn't want to by intentionally excluding them from having any input and have been saying this for months despite the fact that it is wrong."

Glad I could clear that up for you.

[Some-Guy]

I would have you peace out without accusing us of intentionally preventing TOP from participating in backroom negotiations in order to blindside you by presenting terms you didn't like. Since, you know, nobody was doing what you could realistically call organizing things beyond trying to herd everyone in the general direction of achieving peace, which results in all sorts of problems that I don't really enjoy having yelled at me on a monthly basis as if it was all some nefarious plot to bring down TOP instead of just a general cluster$%&@ like the entire rest of the Karma War.

Fair enough, you won't see me blaming you for pushing people into a room to talk about the terms, in fact, well done to you.

If this matter simply came down to miscommunication then fair do's and TOP will shut up about it, I guess.

[Delta1212]

Fair enough, you won't see me blaming you for pushing people into a room to talk about the terms, in fact, well done to you.

If this matter simply came down to miscommunication then fair do's and TOP will shut up about it, I guess.

See, had Crymson taken this attitude at any point in the last four months, we wouldn't have had to have this conversation right now. If he'd started with that attitude, we wouldn't have ever had to have had this conversation.

[King Chill I]

Delta you gotta admit though that given the general attitude towards TOP and the specific situations with those involved, reaching the conclusion that TOP had been excluded (despite/because of previous objections) is not exactly paranoid or arrogant thinking. In fact, its a pretty straight rationale that anyone could have followed.

The positive side of this is that I think for a change something has been cleared up here and hopefully those involved can move from the common understanding of how things went wrong.

[Delta1212]

Delta you gotta admit though that given the general attitude towards TOP and the specific situations with those involved, reaching the conclusion that TOP had been excluded (despite/because of previous objections) is not exactly paranoid or arrogant thinking. In fact, its a pretty straight rationale that anyone could have followed.

The positive side of this is that I think for a change something has been cleared up here and hopefully those involved can move from the common understanding of how things went wrong.

It wouldn't be quite so problematic except that Crymson has been sticking to the "You all excluded us from talks and intentionally blocked any input from TOP in order to make us support an agenda we don't like" line for several months now despite the fact that this isn't the first time I've explained this let alone anyone else on the front.

[Sabioviejo]

It wouldn't be quite so problematic except that Crymson has been sticking to the "You all excluded us from talks and intentionally blocked any input from TOP in order to make us support an agenda we don't like" line for several months now despite the fact that this isn't the first time I've explained this let alone anyone else on the front.

On the other hand we have been slandered in multiple topics by a host of people about what happened there. They perceived it as some evil heinous act by TOP that was done on purpose to create a new world order that will put chlorine in your water, sign treaties with aliens and rule the world alone.

I just like to call it a chaos of communication from all the parties included in that front. And a lot of misunderstanding each other.

Next time we form a big coalition we need to get us some Google Wave like communication .

[Some-Guy]

See, had Crymson taken this attitude at any point in the last four months, we wouldn't have had to have this conversation right now. If he'd started with that attitude, we wouldn't have ever had to have had this conversation.

A long time ago, I came to accept that not everyone is as perfect as me.

[nutkase]

Same crap different day from Jack D

[Bob]

Gosh. Im genuinely surprised at your tone which is akin to that of someone who's lover has been slighted.

How have I acted as though I am superior to any within this thread? Please highlight this to me as it certainly was not my intention. Furthermore, I believe that I have shown the upmost respect to all within the thread; certainly to those that deserve it.

Or is this another chance to spew your much heralded anti-TOP rhetoric?

EDIT: If you seriously believe that Doitzels post was not antagonistic, then you are as barking mad as many of my fellow Paradoxians believe you to be.

This entire post stinks of superiority.

If you want to see how you are acting superior, just read anything you post.

[NoFish]

Hey, TOP.

Remember all of that work you guys put into setting up peace talks? 'cause what I remember was one meeting where you guys told me that everyone (emphasis yours) on the front wanted peace without even talking to more than half of the alliances involved and holding a meeting without them. Then, a few weeks later, you blame us for leaving you out when we have communications issues. If MA and RIA (among others!) reacted the same way as you guys did to this "obvious snub"... well, you get the picture.

Double-standard much?

[Some-Guy]

Hey, TOP.

Remember all of that work you guys put into setting up peace talks? 'cause what I remember was one meeting where you guys told me that everyone (emphasis yours) on the front wanted peace without even talking to more than half of the alliances involved and holding a meeting without them. Then, a few weeks later, you blame us for leaving you out when we have communications issues. If MA and RIA (among others!) reacted the same way as you guys did to this "obvious snub"... well, you get the picture.

Double-standard much?

You'll have to clue me in to what you're talking about here mate.

[NoFish]

You'll have to clue me in to what you're talking about here mate.

I believe DrDan was the one representing TOP at the meeting, feel free to ask him.

[astronaut jones]

Delta you gotta admit though that given the general attitude towards TOP and the specific situations with those involved, reaching the conclusion that TOP had been excluded (despite/because of previous objections) is not exactly paranoid or arrogant thinking. In fact, its a pretty straight rationale that anyone could have followed.

The positive side of this is that I think for a change something has been cleared up here and hopefully those involved can move from the common understanding of how things went wrong.

The general attitude towards TOP only came about due to how they acted during the karma war/peace process. Most people didn't care about TOP, or actually held some respect for them before then.

[Bob]

The general attitude towards TOP only came about due to how they acted during the karma war/peace process. Most people didn't care about TOP, or actually held some respect for them before then.

The above statement is very true, at least for myself.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[Essenia]

The general attitude towards TOP only came about due to how they acted during the karma war/peace process. Most people didn't care about TOP, or actually held some respect for them before then.

True for some, not for others. For Frostbite, the dislike stemmed from the Unjust War and was then greatly increased by the War of the Coalition. For Complaints and Grievances, it comes from TOP's roll in MK isolation as well as a general dislike of pretty much any alliance tied closely to NPO. For SF, you are largely correct, though TOP killing the hangout bloc dead also played a significant role in that.

[Xiphosis]

For SF, you are largely correct, though TOP killing the hangout bloc dead also played a significant role in that.

Someone who knows what he's talking about. ^ How much easier the Karma war would've been with a bloc in place is debatable, but I tend to think it would've been substantially so.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Xiphosis

[Bob Janova]

TOP didn't kill Hangout ... although they did perform a big apparent U-turn that was to do with someone (Dan I think) making a snap decision without being able to check it with everyone else. But the bloc could have gone ahead at any point, except people lost interest.

[Essenia]

TOP didn't kill Hangout ... although they did perform a big apparent U-turn that was to do with someone (Dan I think) making a snap decision without being able to check it with everyone else. But the bloc could have gone ahead at any point, except people lost interest.

Well, I wouldn't really say it died- the idea of bringing SF and Citadel together in a formal bloc to protect against possible NPO aggression was created in n more ad hoc fashion by individual MDPs between members of two the blocs or between close of allies of bloc members (except TOP).