The Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race

[Chalaskan]

That's for you to decide.

I just did. Glad to have helped bring you to where you are.

[Tromp]

I just did. Glad to have helped bring you to where you are.

Likewise.

[Some-Guy]

I'm assuming the 1 tech to R&R and the 'cute demeanor' clause? Because the former was hardly anything bad (I doubt R&R would have seriously demanded that 1 tech) and the latter wasn't meant to be seriously enforced. It was meant to be ironic.

I could understand you guys being upset with rep amounts, but those clauses being the source of outrage seems a little ridiculous.

We're pretty much entitled to ask that peace terms be serious and that terms be fully enforceable if they are going to require our name on them and our word that we'll re-enter a war if said terms are broken.

Here are some quotes from our private chambers about the Echelon terms.

KaitlinK queried me and Blue today about peace terms.

For reference, here are the updated Echelon terms:

1. The following reparations will be paid by Echelon for instigating the war and the damage caused thereafter:

10,000 technology to GOD

400 million and 15K technology to MA

10,000 technology to MK on behalf of GR

5,000 technology to STA on behalf of RIA

2,500 technology to Apocalypse

1,500 technology or money equivalent, at an exchange rate of 3 mil per 50 to TDE

5,000 technology to TTK

1 technology to R&R

1 mil to Gen lee of RoK

1a. No Echelon nation under 1,000 tech will be allowed to pay reparations.

2. No nuclear weapons or navy vessels will be held by Echelon nations for a period of three months. Echelon nations must destroy all Satellites, Missile defense, Dry docks, Naval academy, Naval Construction Yard, Shipyards, Barracks and GC's. Nations who have the SDI wonder may keep the required satellites and missile defense for that wonder.

2b. No Echelon nation may send or accept secret foreign aid.

3. No external aid will be accepted by Echelon nations until the technology is paid off.

4. No external treaties will be signed by Echelon until the three month disarmament period is up.

5. All Echelon treaties that mandate military or financial support are henceforth dissolved per this surrender.

6. If any member of Echelon changes their Alliance Affiliation to that of one that Karma is at war with, their nation will immediately be open to attack. If any member of Echelon's government changes their alliance affiliation to one at war with Karma, the alliance as a whole will be considered in violation.

7. Terms 2 must be fulfilled within a window of 72 hours from the posting of this surrender.

7a. During the 72 hours hours, wars along the front with Echelon will be in a state of cease-fire. If nations are not in compliance at the end of the grace period, hostilities with them will be reinstated until compliance. Notices will be sent to the nations in question informing them of their terms and the means to get peace.

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

9. Echelon will be under the protection of the Global Order of Darkness, Monos Archein, Greenland Republic, Random Insanity Alliance, Apocalypse, The Dark Evolution, The Templar Knights, RnR, Ragnarok, The Viridian Entente, The Order of the Paradox, The Sweet Oblivion, The Majestic Order of Orange Nations, Deck of International Card Experts, and the Global United Nations until their three month disarmament expires.

9a. If Echelon is found to be attempting to extort, strong-arm, or otherwise threaten any alliance without sound cause for the period of their disarmament it will be considered an abuse of term nine and they will be burned to the ground without mercy.

10. Caffine1 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.

11. Caffine1 must admit that KaitlinK[MA]'s demeanor is cute

12. Echelon must maintain a cute demeanor for the duration of these terms. Any change in demeanor from cute is grounds for the immediate resumption of hostilities.

13. Refusal to comply with the above terms on a mass scale will result in continued warfare.

TOP had issues with clauses 2b, 8, 10, 11 and 12. We thought the reps were high but felt it was up to Echelon and the specific alliances involved in reparations to negotiate those.

We voiced our objections as soon as the terms were submitted to us. Blue was our Minister of War at the time.

[12:01] <KaitlinK[MA]> Hello

[12:02] <Blue> Hi

[12:02] <Blue> How's it going?

[12:02] <KaitlinK[MA]> Good

[12:03] <KaitlinK[MA]> I need to drop off terms that have been written to this point for Echelon to see if you all had something you wanted to add to it

[12:03] <Blue> Ok

[12:04] <Blue> Would you like to PM me them in-game?

[12:04] <Blue> Are they long?

[12:04] <Blue> I mean on the forums*

[12:05] <KaitlinK[MA]> pm would probably work much better

[12:05] <KaitlinK[MA]> I queried them to brother kane

[12:05] <KaitlinK[MA]> and its a bit overwhelming

[12:05] <Blue> http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showuser=1214

[12:05] <Blue> Ah ok

[12:05] <Blue> I'll ask Burger King

[12:05] <KaitlinK[MA]> thank you

[12:05] <KaitlinK[MA]> I will send them to you promptly

[12:08] <Blue> Got em, thanks

[12:09] <Blue> They look rather excessive

[12:09] <Blue> And humiliating

[12:10] <KaitlinK[MA]> Humiliating? I wouldnt have thought that of them

[12:10] <Blue> 10. Caffine1 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.

[12:10] <Blue> 11. Caffine1 must admit that KaitlinK[MA]'s demeanor is cute

[12:10] <Blue> 12. Echelon must maintain a cute demeanor for the duration of these terms. Any change in demeanor from cute is grounds for the immediate resumption of hostilities.

[12:11] <KaitlinK[MA]> I will have you know my demeanor is damn cute and such statement would be more truthful than humilating

[12:12] <Blue> Right.

[12:12] <Blue> What is the purpose of these terms in specific then?

[12:13] <Blue> If not to humiliate...

[12:13] <KaitlinK[MA]> As I am not the orginal author I would speculate that these terms are for the surrender of Echelon to an alliance they attacked

[12:14] <Blue> Which alliance suggested that term, then?

[12:14] <KaitlinK[MA]> I believe it came from GOD

[12:15] <KaitlinK[MA]> Smile Blue... this isnt terrible and we arent killing puppies here

[12:15] <KaitlinK[MA]> It surrender terms and and a first go at that

[12:16] <Blue> I don't find those terms funny

[12:16] <Blue> I'll have to discuss them with the rest of TOP gov, but I'm fairly sure there is no way we are signing such terms

[12:17] <Blue> They are frankly ridiculous

[12:19] <KaitlinK[MA]> Well we wouldnt want to be ridiculous now would we

[12:20] <KaitlinK[MA]> Hon we will sit in a room and people far wiser than either of us will come to terms

[12:20] <KaitlinK[MA]> that both sides will agree to

[12:21] <Blue> Then what is the purpose of these preliminary terms?

[12:21] <Blue> Just !@#$s and giggles

[12:22] <Blue> Is such a meeting already scheduled?

[12:26] <KaitlinK[MA]> I havent recieved an invitation yet so I couldnt tell you

[12:26] <KaitlinK[MA]> May I ask you a question?

[12:27] <Blue> Sure

[12:27] <KaitlinK[MA]> Whats with the attitude... I dont believe you and I have ever spoken before?

[12:28] <KaitlinK[MA]> I am simply dropping off terms and you appear to be holding me personally responsible

[12:28] <Blue> I don't know what you mean

[12:28] <KaitlinK[MA]> yeah I think you do

[12:28] <KaitlinK[MA]> But meh whatever. Let me know if you wish to sign or not

[12:28] <Blue> Sorry, I mistook you for a representative of the terms

[12:29] <Blue> As you were handing them to me

[12:29] <Blue> If they are not your work and do not have your blessing then just forget I criticised them

[12:30] <KaitlinK[MA]> Oh make no mistake they have my blessing

[12:30] <KaitlinK[MA]> I just cant take the credit for the penmanship

[12:31] <Blue> Right, well I was just trying to work out how you can support them

[12:31] <Blue> but if you don't want to justify your position here, that's fine

[12:31] <Blue> Thanks for bringing them too me

[12:31] <Blue> to*

[12:33] <KaitlinK[MA]> My position is that these terms are both just with a mix of humor. I think they deserve far worse then what they are getting and I lack basic respect for them as an alliance.

[12:33] <KaitlinK[MA]> However

[12:34] <KaitlinK[MA]> I fight with my allies and terms have been written and so they have my support.

[12:34] <KaitlinK[MA]> I am happy to negotiate with Echelon if its in my allies best interest

[12:37] <Blue> Ok, I don't think there's any use to discussing them further until I have spoken to the rest of my governmnet

[12:37] <Blue> government*

[12:37] <Blue> Who should we contact to talk further?

[12:39] <KaitlinK[MA]> Just come find me and I will be happy to assist you

[12:39] <Blue> Ok, cheers

I posted on the Karma forums about our objections, GOD was aware of this:

Session Start: Sun May 31 19:55:32 2009

Session Ident: NoFish[GOD]

01[19:55] <SomeGuy[sleep]> Help you mate?

[19:56] <NoFish[GOD]> Nah, Cryms took care of it.

01[19:56] <SomeGuy[sleep]> Sure?

[19:57] <NoFish[GOD]> Well, I was noticing in your post among the terms you listed was term 12.

[19:57] <NoFish[GOD]> Which is the part about resumption of hostilities if Echelon violated terms in mass.

[19:57] <NoFish[GOD]> And I was kind of going "wtf?" over that.

01[19:58] <SomeGuy[sleep]> That was term 13 in our draft given to us.

01[19:59] <SomeGuy[sleep]> Would you care for a copy?

[19:59] <NoFish[GOD]> Nah. If that's the case then I'll just not post.

01[20:00] <SomeGuy[sleep]> OK mate.

[20:01] <NoFish[GOD]> Thanks for sorting it out with me before I went and made an $@! of myself.

01[20:01] <SomeGuy[sleep]> Pleasure.

01[20:02] <SomeGuy[sleep]> Thanks for asking.

[20:02] <NoFish[GOD]> g'day

So... terms get presented to Echelon with the vast share of our objections still in them, no meeting occurs before this where we get to air our concerns but amendments are made and distributed without coming back to TOP, the terms are clearly presented to Echelon, with our name attached, with out our approval. We get up and walk out.

Me, I think that's pretty fair given the crap we've already put up with during the karma war, such as Emperor Revenge's class A idiocy and the Lux Aeterna being rather blatantly ignored and our allies knocking seven shades of excrement out of one another. That's add in the fact that Paradoxia tried to chair Echelon peace term discussions twice via Dr.Dan and myself and got shot down.

Yeah, no doubt we could have thrown on the breaks and gone "Ummm, excuse me folks? What's going on here please?" before walking out. Maybe we should have, fair argument.

But it also seems to me that we made it pretty clear we objected to these terms on several occasions and someone made the decision to press ahead and ignore our objections and hope we wouldn't cause a fuss. I think there's a rather clear incumbency on someone to check with us that it's ok to present the terms to Echelon with the objectionable content in order to use as bargaining chips...

"OK, we'll remove clause 11 but the reparations to MK stay at X"

Hell, I'm down for squarely placing blame on miscommunication, it happens. But it seems to me that folks ain't exactly choosing to believe this because it conflicts with their single minded hate of TOP. Seems to me that some of the decent folks of RIA and GOD could come out and support me on this rather than grinding axes on five month old issues with Crymson.

[Delta1212]

Hell, I'm down for squarely placing blame on miscommunication, it happens. But it seems to me that folks ain't exactly choosing to believe this because it conflicts with their single minded hate of TOP. Seems to me that some of the decent folks of RIA and GOD could come out and support me on this rather than grinding axes on five month old issues with Crymson.

I have spent the last four months telling you this entire mess was caused by terrible communication on that front and have been repeatedly told by Crymson and a number of others that it was intentional on our part. We've already said it was miscommunication that created the situation in the first place. Now, I've spoken to Dr. Dan, and am not really interested in carrying on this argument here in this thread, but I will if people keep bringing it. It's not RIA and GOD and whoever else that need to admit that it was miscommunication because that been our side of the damn argument. You want this to be over, get Crymson or whoever to admit we weren't trying to screw you over or at least to stop accusing us of it and then there won't be anything to argue about.

[Essenia]

Hell, I'm down for squarely placing blame on miscommunication, it happens. But it seems to me that folks ain't exactly choosing to believe this because it conflicts with their single minded hate of TOP. Seems to me that some of the decent folks of RIA and GOD could come out and support me on this rather than grinding axes on five month old issues with Crymson.

And therein lies the problem-- both sides feel the other is needlessly complaining about something happened five months ago and was clearly not handled entirely smoothly by other side and thus that the other is trying to smear and defame them.

[Some-Guy]

I have spent the last four months telling you this entire mess was caused by terrible communication on that front and have been repeatedly told by Crymson and a number of others that it was intentional on our part. We've already said it was miscommunication that created the situation in the first place. Now, I've spoken to Dr. Dan, and am not really interested in carrying on this argument here in this thread, but I will if people keep bringing it. It's not RIA and GOD and whoever else that need to admit that it was miscommunication because that been our side of the damn argument. You want this to be over, get Crymson or whoever to admit we weren't trying to screw you over or at least to stop accusing us of it and then there won't be anything to argue about.

*Shrug*

Ok fella, next time anyone comes around saying you guys did us over I'll tell them that they're flat out wrong.

Next time someone comes around saying we're cowards, betrayers and bus-thrower-under'ers, it would be might fine if you come out and remind folks that we all miscommunicated and that was hardly anyone's fault, including TOP's.

[Kiss Goodbye]

That solution works for me. Shall we lay this to rest now?

[Jgoods45]

What an amusing topic. :3

o/not censoring what our members say or post on the big boards etc etc.

[Matthew The Great]

im sure this has been mentioned Jack, but you should add more alliances to this

[Eden Taylor]

I'd love to see everyone in the Amazing Sanction Race in the Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race. I'd also like to see some history beyond the Karma War added, but I'm not going to hold my breathe for that. Just adding more alliances would be enough.

[Lord Brendan]

I'd love to see everyone in the Amazing Sanction Race in the Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race. I'd also like to see some history beyond the Karma War added, but I'm not going to hold my breathe for that. Just adding more alliances would be enough.

As a general rule smaller alliances tend to align themselves with one group in particular, unlike the massive treaty webs most big alliances build around themselves. There are exceptions of course, but I bet you wouldn't find many unactivated treaties further down the Sanction Race.

[Eden Taylor]

As a general rule smaller alliances tend to align themselves with one group in particular, unlike the massive treaty webs most big alliances build around themselves. There are exceptions of course, but I bet you wouldn't find many unactivated treaties further down the Sanction Race.

To be fair you don't find many here since the time line being used is so restrictively narrow. I get what you're saying, but if this isn't just a joke measurement then in the future when it is kept up to date not only the sanctioned alliances should be in on the fun.

[astronaut jones]

To be fair you don't find many here since the time line being used is so restrictively narrow. I get what you're saying, but if this isn't just a joke measurement then in the future when it is kept up to date not only the sanctioned alliances should be in on the fun.

I know you're looking to get more alliances into this, but it wouldn't make TOP look any better. It would make a lot of the alliances with 0 next to their names look a whole lot worse, what with all the wars they started and attributed it to other people's bad deeds (I don't think anyone will deny that, virtually every single war started in the last few years, was started out of boredom, with absolutely no legitimate reason for conflict.)

I'm not saying TOP is the worst, but they wouldn't look any better. But, people have their biases, some will point out the UjW and all that happened there, that war NpO was in because of sponge (even though he wasn't in NpO at the time, or atleast leading them.. still he gets the blame, just one of those wars that had too much planning put into it, that even the removal of all of the grievances against NpO wasn't enough to stop the attack.. just postponed it so they could update their CB), GW 3, the whole FAN thing..

It would actually be really interesting to see, come to think of it.

Edited October 18, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Eden Taylor]

I know you're looking to get more alliances into this, but it wouldn't make TOP look any better. It would make a lot of the alliances with 0 next to their names look a whole lot worse, what with all the wars they started and attributed it to other people's bad deeds (I don't think anyone will deny that, virtually every single war started in the last few years, was started out of boredom, with absolutely no legitimate reason for conflict.)

I'm not saying TOP is the worst, but they wouldn't look any better. But, people have their biases, some will point out the UjW and all that happened there, that war NpO was in because of sponge (even though he wasn't in NpO at the time, or atleast leading them.. still he gets the blame, just one of those wars that had too much planning put into it, that even the removal of all of the grievances against NpO wasn't enough to stop the attack.. just postponed it so they could update their CB), GW 3, the whole FAN thing..

It would actually be really interesting to see, come to think of it.

You start off misinterpreting my desire to see other alliances and previous conflicts added to this, get kind of off-topic as far as I can see, but finish by agreeing with my sentiment. Thank you.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Eden Taylor

[astronaut jones]

You start off misinterpreting my desire to see other alliances and previous conflicts added to this, get kind of off-topic as far as I can see, but finish by agreeing with my sentiment. Thank you.

Well, I was agreeing with you throughout the entire thing. The wars of the past had very flimsy CBs, most of them were manufactured, maybe one or two were legitimate in the sense that there was no stretching of the "truth" in order for the aggressors to get their way (their way being war) I was just mentioning other recent conflicts and how they had no reason for their wars, and thus you could add those alliances to list of alliances that dropped treaties at opportune times.

[HalfEmpty]

I know you're looking to get more alliances into this, but it wouldn't make TOP look any better. It would make a lot of the alliances with 0 next to their names look a whole lot worse, what with all the wars they started and attributed it to other people's bad deeds (I don't think anyone will deny that, virtually every single war started in the last few years, was started out of boredom, with absolutely no legitimate reason for conflict.)

I'm not saying TOP is the worst, but they wouldn't look any better. But, people have their biases, some will point out the UjW and all that happened there, that war NpO was in because of sponge (even though he wasn't in NpO at the time, or atleast leading them.. still he gets the blame, just one of those wars that had too much planning put into it, that even the removal of all of the grievances against NpO wasn't enough to stop the attack.. just postponed it so they could update their CB), GW 3, the whole FAN thing..

It would actually be really interesting to see, come to think of it.

Wrong war Greenie? ES was damn sure a leader in the UjW

[Bob Janova]

Those two clauses refer to two different wars where people showed their biases.

[Luis Quezada]

Lovely how people are still accusing each other of a mess they created in co-work. This thread is a nice example of what is wrong with people on planet bob. People feed from the drama, and every voice of reason is drowned in a sea of wild accusations and misinterpreted conclusions.

Well said, took the words out of my mouth

Edited October 18, 2009 by Luis Quezada

[erikz]

Rofl this topic twists the whole political thingy. Great to see this list of blatant "not supporting/cancelling" but of course reasons of betrayal etc. are not given.

[DogeWilliam]

Rofl this topic twists the whole political thingy. Great to see this list of blatant "not supporting/cancelling" but of course reasons of betrayal etc. are not given.

Yea, especially as its not even betrayal. No one ever answered my question on how 1 alliance can be on both sides of a war.

[NoFish]

Yea, especially as its not even betrayal. No one ever answered my question on how 1 alliance can be on both sides of a war.

You don't. The point is not trying to play both sides to begin with.

[DogeWilliam]

You don't. The point is not trying to play both sides to begin with.

Considering the fluidity of sides on planet bob I don't think it's fair to say we were 'playing' them.

[TehChron]

i spit on coward alliances from the iniative like top. The NAAC never backed down from a fight or fighting for what was right.

[Feanor Noldorin]

i spit on coward alliances from the iniative like top. The NAAC never backed down from a fight or fighting for what was right.

I'd spit on them too if they weren't holed up in those huge ivory towers.

[President Obama]

I'd spit on them too if they weren't holed up in those huge ivory towers.

Burn down the towers and then spit on the survivalists. And then burn them. And then spit on the towers.

Problem solved.

Edited October 19, 2009 by President Obama