Jump to content

An Echelon Announcement


Solidus117
 Share

Recommended Posts

[center][img]http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd42/KittenMilitia/Ducky/Echelonflag2.jpg[/img]
[size="6"]An Announcement from Echelon[/size]
Declaration of Surrender Term Repeal
[/center]

On July the 7th, 2009, Echelon surrendered under terms to the forces arrayed against her in the Karma War. Stripped bare of technology, infrastructure and a significant portion of her original membership, these forces withdrew after receiving their pound of flesh and Echelon re-emerged into the world as her own self-governing state, with the exception of one:

[quote]10. Should Caffine1 rejoin Echelon he is permanently banned from holding any government position within the alliance.[/quote]

To quote the Echelon Constitution, Section I, Article A: Alliance Sovereignty:

[quote][b]i.[/b] We, the members of Echelon, do hereby affirm our status as a Sovereign, Autonomous and Independent State of the world, and thus outline our system of governance in this constitution, ratified by general referendum on the 29th of January, 2009.
[b]ii.[/b] In all matters, both foreign and domestic, Echelon will determine it's own courses of action. Should any actor, foreign or domestic, impinge upon this ideal then all actions available to the Echelon will be used to maintain this belief.[/quote]

In accordance with the standards, regulations and procedures outlined in Echelon's Constitution, and with with the full concordance of Echelon's Government, Echelon hereby repeals this outstanding relic of the Karma War from the Alliance Legislature.

Let it be known that our sovereignty will never again be so egregiously impinged upon, for we are the ones who determine who will serve and who will not.

Signed on behalf of Echelon,
Solidus117, Director
Neo Anglia, Director

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Starcraftmazter' date='31 January 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1264940554' post='2147394']
I support this move. Nobody has the right to permanently place legislative restrictions on another alliance, and I would fight an eternity to defend my alliance's sovereign rights.
[/quote]
I cannot believe I am agreeing with you :unsure:

This was a ridiculous term and I am glad it has been given the axe.

Hi Sol :awesome:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Solidus117' date='31 January 2010 - 07:18 AM' timestamp='1264940325' post='2147385']
Let it be known that our sovereignty will never again be so egregiously impinged upon, for we are the ones who determine who will serve and who will not.
[/quote]

Until you surrender to someone again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SkonesMickLoud' date='31 January 2010 - 06:27 AM' timestamp='1264940842' post='2147402']
Until you surrender to someone again.
[/quote]

No. Others may destroy our infrastructure, but we will never again allow them to limit our sovereignty.

Edited by memoryproblems
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SkonesMickLoud' date='31 January 2010 - 07:27 AM' timestamp='1264940842' post='2147402']
Until you surrender to someone again.
[/quote]

Perhaps. I think at the time, they felt they had very few options. It was either take it, or spend eternity in PM / ZI.

I suppose those that wrote the term still have the ability to "do something about it", but I guaran-damn-tee it will hurt, as we go down fighting for not an ideal or another alliance or a CB, but for our own right to exist and govern our own alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Neo Anglia, one of the current directors, signed the surrender terms document, along with the rest of the Echelon Govt at that time....

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=62524

So why the change now...did u wake up today morning and suddenly realize that your charter had an alliance sovereignty clause in it ??

You could have opposed it and had it removed from the surrender terms...you could have made this change a long time back....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='raasaa' date='31 January 2010 - 07:32 AM' timestamp='1264941125' post='2147411']
I believe that Neo Anglia, one of the current directors, signed the surrender terms document, along with the rest of the Echelon Govt at that time....

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=62524

So why the change now...did u wake up today morning and suddenly realize that your charter had an alliance sovereignty clause in it ??

You could have opposed it and had it removed from the surrender terms...you could have made this change a long time back....
[/quote]

Do you really think they didn't try to get some of the sillier terms removed? There's a reason Echelon was at war for so long.

We just got tired of having that hanging over our heads. It's a ridiculous term. If someone really wants to enforce it at this point, I guess that's their prerogative. I don't see the benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='x Tela x' date='31 January 2010 - 07:40 AM' timestamp='1264941635' post='2147416']
Do you really think they didn't try to get some of the sillier terms removed? There's a reason Echelon was at war for so long.

We just got tired of having that hanging over our heads. It's a ridiculous term. If someone really wants to enforce it at this point, I guess that's their prerogative. I don't see the benefit.
[/quote]
The primary argument was over the 1k tech term. The term banning caffine1 from gov't wasn't even in the initial offer at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NoFish' date='31 January 2010 - 07:03 AM' timestamp='1264943016' post='2147433']
The primary argument was over the 1k tech term. The term banning caffine1 from gov't wasn't even in the initial offer at all.
[/quote]

I believe the original term was:

[quote]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[/quote]

And it was changed from that to the ban not as a result of any petition on our behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' date='31 January 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1264943340' post='2147436']
I never was a fan of clauses that infringed sovereignity of alliances, and while Echelon passively supported such things while being part of the hegemony, i hope they now realized the pain of it and applaud them for their move.
[/quote]

All of you large alliances did passively support the enforcing of such terms at your time serving in Hegemony, from TOP to NV. The problem is the idiots who still do it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lusitan' date='31 January 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1264943550' post='2147441']
All of you large alliances did passively support the enforcing of such terms at your time serving in Hegemony, from TOP to NV. The problem is the idiots who still do it now.
[/quote]

I was not saying we didnt. Why do people always conclude from a personal opinion to an alliances hypocrisy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' date='31 January 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1264943882' post='2147447']
I was not saying we didnt. Why do people always conclude from a personal opinion to an alliances hypocrisy?
[/quote]

I wasn't taking that leap, you're reading too deep into my simple statement, because it was a simple statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dpn't alliances usually get attacked for this? I mean, I remember you being in support of rolling GATO for breaking a similar term, and LUE got pushed to disbandment after they threw off their surrender terms. If you didn't want the term, you shouldn't have signed it – particularly in exchange for some economic pain, which I believe was the deal.

I don't like the term and I would support diplomatic negotiations with the alliances you surrendered to to remove it. But you can't just say 'Well actually, we signed these terms but we don't believe in them any more'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...