An Echelon Announcement

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='31 January 2010 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1264987968' post='2148863']

Abolutes? Sith?
[/quote]and maybe Professor Snape

[Bob Janova]

Well, all I can say is that if I were at war with Echelon in future, I'd know that they wouldn't stick to their surrender terms and therefore I wouldn't give them any. [i]That[/i] is why you don't just decide that you're not going to stick to your terms; the next time you get rolled (and considering the personalities you're putting back at the top, it will be sooner rather than later) you might well not get any, because you can't be trusted to keep them.

[Heft]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1264988331' post='2148904']
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin
[/quote]
I'm aware of what round robin means. And that it provides a convenient smokescreen to hide how the term originally got on the document.


[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='31 January 2010 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1264988349' post='2148906']
Heft, how do you figure surrender terms aren't a legal agreement?
[/quote]
Surrender terms are signed quite literally at gun point, and are practically the definition of coercive, and the surrendering party has very little to no recourse or equity or anything. They are signed and enforced by force of arms, nothing else. When that force of arms is no longer present, they are no longer enforceable, and thus become meaningless and void.

The alternative is that the surrendering party will enforce an inequitable and undesired agreement upon itself without any external reason to do so, which is just silly and absurd.

[Prime minister Johns]

o/ for alliance sovereignty

[Neo Anglia]

You don't like Capt. McKinnon and Ruggerdawg?

[Heft]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1264988786' post='2148951']
Well, all I can say is that if I were at war with Echelon in future, I'd know that they wouldn't stick to their surrender terms and therefore I wouldn't give them any. [i]That[/i] is why you don't just decide that you're not going to stick to your terms; the next time you get rolled (and considering the personalities you're putting back at the top, it will be sooner rather than later) you might well not get any, because you can't be trusted to keep them.
[/quote]
Alternatively, don't issue surrender terms that you either aren't willing or able to enforce.

Echelon complied with their terms and fulfilled every agreement, as far as I'm aware. All of their reparations were paid and this is (again, as far as I'm aware - no one seems to be raising any other complaints here) the first time they have not stuck to the terms. It is not the fault of the surrendering party if the enforcer is no longer able or willing to enforce terms.

[Bob Janova]

It will be very interesting if the signatories do decide to enforce the terms. Your argument seems to be entirely based on what is happening in the military sphere and not really tied to whether it's right or wrong to break eternal terms. (I believe you supported the GATO stomping for breaking their GW3 surrender terms, didn't you?)

[Caffine]

EDIT: Never mind, he was talking to Heft.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Caffine1

[Heft]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1264989144' post='2149002']
It will be very interesting if the signatories do decide to enforce the terms. Your argument seems to be entirely based on what is happening in the military sphere and not really tied to whether it's right or wrong to break eternal terms. (I believe you supported the GATO stomping for breaking their GW3 surrender terms, didn't you?)
[/quote]
I was part of the party enforcing the terms, yes.

I don't generally get into discussion of "right or wrong" but I can't see how anyone could justify upholding any sort of eternal term as right.

[Sephiroth]

I find it interesting how many have stated they'll keep Echelon in eternal war if they ever end up at war, yet the alliances they surrendered to claim not to care about this.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I can't see how anyone could justify upholding any sort of eternal term as right. [/quote]
Well, as I said in my first post here, I don't like the term and I'd support Echelon going around to all the alliances and asking to remove it. From the responses from RIA, GOD and VE in this thread, I doubt that there'd have been any problem with that. Really, a term like that should never have been applied in the first place. But it [i]was[/i], it was signed up to by Echelon, and unilaterally unsigning or modifying a peace accord is something which just shouldn't be done.

[Kochers]

[quote name='Banned' date='31 January 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1264971413' post='2148228']
Personally, I hope that the Superfriends make Echelon eat their arrogance.

Let it be known to anybody who ever has Echelon's arm twisted in the future. Don't even offer Echelon surrender terms. Keep them down until they are disbanded. Their signatures on surrender terms mean nothing.

So what is being done to the government members of Echelon that signed a document that allowed foreign entities to infringe upon the sovereignty of Echelon in what is clearly being determined now many months later as a violation of your charter?
[/quote]
So the other how many terms they completed mean nothing? Good to know...


[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='31 January 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1264973419' post='2148326']
[color="#0000FF"]What's this I'm seeing? An ODN member talking tough and advocating the forciful disbanding of Echelon over this? What happened to you guys? Do you not remember the time when you were even afraid act because you might have had a boot stepping on your face for the rest of eternity? But who am I kidding? You are allied with CnG, who is in power now along with SF? Forget the fact that all of you had at one time been given the short end of the stick. You have power and can do anything with it and face no consequences. Who cares if that is what Karma was supposedly fought over?[/color]
[/quote]
[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='31 January 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1264973586' post='2148334']
[color="#0000FF"]You know, collectively you ex-Karma fellows are reminding me of the old NPO more and more everyday. I guess you know what that means.[/color]
[/quote]
My thoughts too RV, my thoughts too.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' date='31 January 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1264973728' post='2148342']
I keep seeing that said, but it doesn't make any sense. Echelon was willing to continue fighting over tech reps, but not over this issue. Not once did they object nor did they care about that term at the time. They suddenly care enough now to "make a stand"? No, this is pathetic no matter how you try and spin it. Step out of your anti-SF suit and actually look at the issue.

Note: That last line was not meant for you directly, kulomascovia. I have no idea if you are anti-SF or not.
[/quote]
I think Tela disagrees with you.

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 04:37 PM' timestamp='1264973822' post='2148347']
Thanks for Some-other-planet Contracts 101, unfortunately, we reside on Planet Bob. Echelon accepted X in exhange for Y, knowing the full implications. Lots of alliances have gone permawar over things they feel strongly about. For example, TPF stewed in crap rather than sign terms they didn't like, and again in the Athens-TPF war they continued fighting rather than admit wrongdoing.


What's bold about it? Would it be bold for NPO to jump terms tomorrow? No. Because what's anyone going to do about it right now? Nothing. It's a cowardly, petulent, prissy act.


All. Surrender. Terms. Are. A. Violation. Of. Sovereignty. I know Echelon only ever fought one real war and wasn't used to talking around a bootheel on their chin (which is different than talking between big bro's legs), but this is elementary stuff, really.
You exchanged some sovereignty for peace. When you decide to sweep that agreement aside, you forego the exchanged item--peace.
[/quote]
So I should assume CoJ will be declaring war on Echelon shortly?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1264991179' post='2149135']
Well, as I said in my first post here, I don't like the term and I'd support Echelon going around to all the alliances and asking to remove it. From the responses from RIA, GOD and VE in this thread, I doubt that there'd have been any problem with that. Really, a term like that should never have been applied in the first place. But it [i]was[/i], it was signed up to by Echelon, and unilaterally unsigning or modifying a peace accord is something which just shouldn't be done.
[/quote]
They were told they had been released from surrender terms, this would imply they are free from any terms they accepted for peace.

I haven't seen anyone deny this.
[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='31 January 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1264987789' post='2148844']
Once we finished paying our reps, we were released from our terms. As the Minister of Finance and the one responsible for coordinating all rep payments, I went to each alliance and finalized the payments. Each alliance agreed that we had been released from our terms, unilaterally, without indicating that the Caffine-ban was eternal. So in reality, there was nothing to ask for.
[/quote]

If they meant Echelon was released from all terms except that one they should of said so.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1264981607' post='2148628']
As was said in multiple posts, all we are saying is we'll choose our own leaders now, even if you may not like them thxbai. He had [i]no say[/i] in the decision whatsoever, [i]nor is he being appointed to any ministries[/i]. Asking anyone to make exceptions based of the prejudices of members of other alliances under the threat of violence is tantamount to forcing them to serve as your viceroy, which at last check is not allowed here.
[/quote]
Your interpretation of Admin's Law is entirely incorrect. Extortion beyond Digiterra is verbotten; an alliance cannot continue or begin Digiterran actions due to extra-Digiterran demands. Your surrender terms and your government are not protected.

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 08:06 PM' timestamp='1264986378' post='2148771']
We shouldn't have to play "mother may I" with whoever to fill any posts we have open in our alliance. We declared our sovereignty in 2007. If you had a problem with it you should have spoken up then.
[/quote]
You keep throwing the word "sovereignty" around like you're throwing down some sort of magical gauntlet. Again, if you're so concerned about the sovereignty clause in your charter 3 years ago, why'd it take you 3 yeras to assert it? Don't worry, you don't have to actually answer.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='31 January 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1264987370' post='2148816']
Just because you like the word sovereignty does not mean you couldn't have said "hey, lets revisit this aspect of the terms", the definition of the word does not stop you in any way from doing that. So in reality, "asserting your sovereignty" really means "breaking surrender terms while its enforcers are at war".


Also, I am so incredibly sick of seeing the word sovereignty thrown around every two seconds like its an infallible force or unimpeachable argument. It's really getting annoying.
[/quote]
The thing of it is that your average ruler hasn't got a clue what sovereignty means, they think it's a spell that you utter and everything turns out your way, and even when they're forced to go look it up they can't really grasp it.

[quote name='Heft' date='31 January 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1264987807' post='2148846']
"Violating" surrender terms is much, much different than violating a treaty.
[/quote]
Yeah, when you violate a treaty you get flamed, when you violate surrender terms you get attacked.

[quote name='Heft' date='31 January 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1264989687' post='2149049']
I don't generally get into discussion of "right or wrong" but I can't see how anyone could justify upholding any sort of eternal term as right.
[/quote]
Echelon and its former officers have shown themselves incapable of peaceful co-existence with the wider community (pardon me for quoting Grub) and as such the permanent de-Caffination of Echelon is a wonderful trade-off to allow this bumbling little bully to live while removing one of the pillars of its former aggression.

[quote name='Kochers' date='31 January 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1264991491' post='2149151']So I should assume CoJ will be declaring war on Echelon shortly?
[/quote]
There's really no one so annoying as a person less clever than one's self. Why don't you skeedaddle before you drown in my depth, Senator of the Cowed.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1264991020' post='2149127']
I find it interesting how many have stated they'll keep Echelon in eternal war if they ever end up at war, yet the alliances they surrendered to claim not to care about this.
[/quote]
My name will not be on another set of surrender terms for Echelon.

[Bob]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1264991020' post='2149127']
I find it interesting how many have stated they'll keep Echelon in eternal war if they ever end up at war, yet the alliances they surrendered to claim not to care about this.
[/quote]
There's a difference between caring about Caffine being back in government, and seeing that you cannot trust an alliance.

It is the principle of the matter.

Personally, I think this matter is ridiculous, and this is a terrible show from Echelon.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Kochers' date='31 January 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1264991491' post='2149151']I think Tela disagrees with you.[/quote]


She usually does.

[watchman]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1264988786' post='2148951']
Well, all I can say is that if I were at war with Echelon in future, I'd know that they wouldn't stick to their surrender terms and therefore I wouldn't give them any. [i]That[/i] is why you don't just decide that you're not going to stick to your terms; the next time you get rolled (and considering the personalities you're putting back at the top, it will be sooner rather than later) you might well not get any, because you can't be trusted to keep them.
[/quote]

[img]http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3391/wapropaganda.png[/img]

The negotiations were a joke. SF put a gun to Echelon's head, made unreasonable demands, and refused to budge. At least two alliances were so disgusted that they walked away from the negotiations and gave Ech white peace. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=62524&view=findpost&p=1668240"]Even Grub found the terms repulsive[/url]. Should Ech have signed those terms? No. Certainly not. It was a mistake to sign such a piece of tripe. However, such terms should not have been expected, in the first place. The fact is that SF/Karma was holding all the cards and they took advantage of their position of power to do something reprehensible.

If you're going to look down from your high moral perch in judgment and declare Echelon to be operating in bad faith, you should also acknowledge those who forced them to such a decision.

[Caffine]

[quote name='NoFish' date='31 January 2010 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1264992770' post='2149205']
My name will not be on another set of surrender terms for Echelon.
[/quote]

Once [b]again[/b] GOD showing it's true colors and adherence to draconian measures.

This whole thing is ridiculous. First you said that we didn't talk to anybody, then we show you that we did, then you say that we should have had to pay extra to get rid of the surrender term, then it comes back to us having not approached anybody again. Throw in the occasional attempt to attack somebody else's knowledge of sovereignty, and finally add on Schattenman acting as if he has anything to do with this.

Here are the facts:

1. Echelon approached MA about the terms in November and were told no.
2. Echelon decided that the time had come to throw off the shackles of the permanent peace term. Why did Echelon wait so long? Who cares?
3. We're trying to move forward now into the future.
4. Many of the involved parties have been spoken to in private since the creation of the OP.

[Bob]

[quote name='watchman' date='31 January 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1264993764' post='2149278']
(unimportant nonsense as always)
[/quote]
They signed them, and thus have to honor them. You do it, you must deal with the consequences. It is not the fault of SF that Echelon accepted the terms, REGARDLESS of how "ridiculous" they were. It is solely on Echelon's head.

Pathetic.

[Bob]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1264993811' post='2149279']
Once [b]again[/b] GOD showing it's true colors and adherence to draconian measures.

This whole thing is ridiculous. First you said that we didn't talk to anybody, then we show you that we did, then you say that we should have had to pay extra to get rid of the surrender term, then it comes back to us having not approached anybody again. Throw in the occasional attempt to attack somebody else's knowledge of sovereignty, and finally add on Schattenman acting as if he has anything to do with this.

Here are the facts:

1. Echelon approached MA about the terms in November and were told no.
2. Echelon decided that the time had come to throw off the shackles of the permanent peace term. Why did Echelon wait so long? Who cares?
3. We're trying to move forward now into the future.
4. Many of the involved parties have been spoken to in private since the creation of the OP.
[/quote]
So..basically you didn't check with them, and threw it in their faces while they were at war.

Awesome. Echelon is a trustable alliance. This move has not destroyed any credibility you had managed to rebuild after Karma among people who were on the other side.

[fastjohnl]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='31 January 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1264994111' post='2149311']
So..basically you didn't check with them, and threw it in their faces while they were at war.

Awesome. Echelon is a trustable alliance. This move has not destroyed any credibility you had managed to rebuild after Karma among people who were on the other side.
[/quote]

I didnt know we were looking for any of that from them.

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' date='31 January 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1264992904' post='2149211']
She usually does.
[/quote]
Yeah but that is why we all love her, it isn't just you

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='fastjohnl' date='31 January 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1264994710' post='2149346']
I didnt know we were looking for any of that from them.
[/quote]

You are not? Then you are exactly as stupid as the OP makes you look, right then.

Carry on.

Edited February 1, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1264993811' post='2149279']
Once [b]again[/b] GOD showing it's true colors and adherence to draconian measures.[/quote]


He's saying that there wouldn't be a point in negotiating terms should Echelon and GOD ever come to blows again if you're just going to "throw off the shackles (lol)" whenever you like.