Solidus117 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augusta Antonia Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 o/ Echelon! Good show indeed! Solidus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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 This was a ridiculous term and I am glad it has been given the axe. Hi Sol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkonesMickLoud Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) [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 January 31, 2010 by memoryproblems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddog241 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 i never was a fan of forced removals. anyway good luck echelon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combat Pope Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 good show guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 They did it because everyone is busy and no one cares about them anymore. Hurrah and stuff I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodoei123 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Very nice to see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otherworld Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Probably as we had been at war for the last *insert how many months here* with *insert however many alliances here* and needed to get out of it. Add the fact that caffine was no longer a member at the time.. it wasn't really a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 TBH I'm ashamed of whichever jackasses enforced such a term, even if Caffine1 was being a public spectacle. People should know better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warbuck Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 I'm glad that Echelon is exercising their right to their own sovereignty. Good show! o/ Echelon I'm about to go give you some beers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Mockingbird Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 The long term results of electing Caffine to a government position would be more entertaining than enforcing the term anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 [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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fallin Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Congrats guys! Sovereignty is the right of every alliance,great to see this happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 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'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.