An Echelon Announcement

[Aurion]

[quote]Sovereignty

[/quote]

Words cannot express how much I love CN's ability to suck all meaning from a term, leaving it a meaningless buzzword that people try to use as a [i]Get Out of Jail Free[/i] card.

[Haflinger]

Opportunism in the case of advancing the cause of alliance sovereignty is to be applauded.

Everyone is opportunistic; we try to have [i]successes[/i] pushing forward our causes, not failures.

[Leetopia II]

o/ Echelon

[img]http://www.cn-echelon.com/images/smilies/argh.gif[/img] @ the thought of Blitz back in a government position

Edited February 1, 2010 by Leetopia II

[Drai]

Why an alliance would go out of their way to do this for this particular person is beyond me. I'm sure the symbolism of "sovereignty" had a bit to do with it but regardless, it still baffles me.

[Leetopia II]

[quote name='Drai' date='31 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1264998913' post='2149589']
Why an alliance would go out of their way to do this for this particular person is beyond me. I'm sure the symbolism of "sovereignty" had a bit to do with it but regardless, it still baffles me.
[/quote]

Honestly I don't get it either, he was a big antagonist leading into the karma war which ended up netting the superfriends a ton of easy tech. You would think that they'd want him to stay in gov for him to just keep giving them reasons to go to war with Echelon.

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Drai' date='31 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1264998913' post='2149589']
Why an alliance would go out of their way to do this for this particular person is beyond me. I'm sure the symbolism of "sovereignty" had a bit to do with it but regardless, it still baffles me.
[/quote]

We didn't do it "for Caffine". We did it for Echelon.

Also, anyone that's talked with Caffine recently would probably agree that his attitude has drastically changed from the old days.

[KaitlinK]

While I understand Echelon's desire to assert what they are calling a matter of sovereignty I still believe this was the wrong way to go about it and nothing in these past 16 pages addresses the fundemental point. They agreed to a surrender term and have opted to publically state they have changed their minds, do something about it if you want but this is how its going to be.

There was better way to go about this Neo, you could have gone to each of the alliances that signed this agreement with you and simply asked that it be done away with. Evidently based on what I have seen the alliances involved would not have had an issue with it.

It seems that the only conversation that took place was some time ago with someone that isnt associated with MA now by Caffine while he was in another alliance. Time changes many things, feelings, personalities, hell leadership of an alliance but one thing that doesnt change is the importance of honoring your agreements. Its a fair point that needs to be addressed, god forbid your in a similar situation in the future Echelon how do you expect the CN community to have faith that you will honor any terms that you agree to?

Oh and Hi Tela, good to see you again.

[Leetopia II]

He came by our forum around Christmas and was heckled away again. That's all the recent talking to I need with Caffine

[Jinnai]

Good move Echelon. That term should never have been placed there to begin with.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='KaitlinK' date='31 January 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1265000473' post='2149636']
While I understand Echelon's desire to assert what they are calling a matter of sovereignty I still believe this was the wrong way to go about it and nothing in these past 16 pages addresses the fundemental point. They agreed to a surrender term and have opted to publically state they have changed their minds, do something about it if you want but this is how its going to be.

There was better way to go about this Neo, you could have gone to each of the alliances that signed this agreement with you and simply asked that it be done away with. Evidently based on what I have seen the alliances involved would not have had an issue with it.

It seems that the only conversation that took place was some time ago with someone that isnt associated with MA now by Caffine while he was in another alliance. Time changes many things, feelings, personalities, hell leadership of an alliance but one thing that doesnt change is the importance of honoring your agreements. Its a fair point that needs to be addressed, god forbid your in a similar situation in the future Echelon how do you expect the CN community to have faith that you will honor any terms that you agree to?

Oh and Hi Tela, good to see you again.
[/quote]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='31 January 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1264973685' post='2148339']
It's silly to assume that Echelon's decision is a special case. Terms, by their nature, are agreements made with the threat of force. They are valid because a force exists to make them valid. You can expect any alliance to stop following terms when that force is gone. Again, the signatures on any term mean nothing if the threat of force does not exist. Do you expect NPO to keep paying reps if all of the alliances that forced the terms upon them suddenly lose their military power? I don't. I wouldn't either.
[/quote]

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='31 January 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1264973685' post='2148339']
It's silly to assume that Echelon's decision is a special case. Terms, by their nature, are agreements made with the threat of force. They are valid because a force exists to make them valid. You can expect any alliance to stop following terms when that force is gone. Again, the signatures on any term mean nothing if the threat of force does not exist. Do you expect NPO to keep paying reps if all of the alliances that forced the terms upon them suddenly lose their military power? I don't. I wouldn't either.
[/quote]

So who exactly has lost their military power here?

SuperFriends is arguably in a better position now to enforce ridiculous terms than it was at the conclusion of the Karma War.

[NoFish]

We get it, kulomascovia. Your word is worth nothing and the only thing that matters to you is if the other party of an agreement still has the power to hold you to it. I really wonder what you're doing in WC's alliance with views like that. Regardless, the rest of the world doesn't think that way.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='31 January 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1265001110' post='2149663']
So who exactly has lost their military power here?

SuperFriends is arguably in a better position now to enforce ridiculous terms than it was at the conclusion of the Karma War.
[/quote]

Indeed that is correct. However, SF is at war right now and probably isn't going to go to war with Echelon afterward for breaking an unpopular term. This is a rather suitable time to announce this. I would have done it in a different way than Echelon did, I suppose.

However, that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the complaints that Echelon went back on its word without consulting the involved alliances and thus has done something dishonorable and despicable.

[quote name='NoFish' date='31 January 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1265001184' post='2149666']
We get it, kulomascovia. Your word is worth nothing and the only thing that matters to you is if the other party of an agreement still has the power to hold you to it. I really wonder what you're doing in WC's alliance with views like that. Regardless, the rest of the world doesn't think that way.
[/quote]

I help out with the bureaucracy here and there. What's wrong with my view? Is that not the basis of terms?

EDIT: term =/= time

Edited February 1, 2010 by kulomascovia

[kulomascovia]

Agh, double post. ^ look up there.

Edited February 1, 2010 by kulomascovia

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='31 January 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1265001110' post='2149663']
So who exactly has lost their military power here?

SuperFriends is arguably in a better position now to enforce ridiculous terms than it was at the conclusion of the Karma War.
[/quote]

Then do it and stop !@#$%*ing.

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='KaitlinK' date='01 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1265000473' post='2149636']
While I understand Echelon's desire to assert what they are calling a matter of sovereignty I still believe this was the wrong way to go about it and nothing in these past 16 pages addresses the fundemental point. They agreed to a surrender term and have opted to publically state they have changed their minds, do something about it if you want but this is how its going to be.

There was better way to go about this Neo, you could have gone to each of the alliances that signed this agreement with you and simply asked that it be done away with. Evidently based on what I have seen the alliances involved would not have had an issue with it.

It seems that the only conversation that took place was some time ago with someone that isnt associated with MA now by Caffine while he was in another alliance. Time changes many things, feelings, personalities, hell leadership of an alliance but one thing that doesnt change is the importance of honoring your agreements. Its a fair point that needs to be addressed, god forbid your in a similar situation in the future Echelon how do you expect the CN community to have faith that you will honor any terms that you agree to?

Oh and Hi Tela, good to see you again.
[/quote]Was going to go to bed, but one more here I guess then I'll go...
Truth told Kait, you know as I do trying to catch half these folks on IRC is pretty arduous at best. You had a hard enough time and you are [i]allied to them[/i]. Admittedly this is probably a bit "louder" a method than I personally prefer to conduct business. Well I think you already know that answer But remember I am not the sole leader of Echelon. So while this was probably not the method [i]I[/i] would have preferred, it's efficacy in getting everyone in one place is undeniable. But as I said earlier it as isn't contentious as it has been portrayed, merely blown out of proportion to make political hay. C'est la vie a la Planet Bob(Translation: CN - We have DRAMA!)

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='01 February 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1265001816' post='2149703']
Then do it and stop !@#$%*ing.
[/quote]

Not my call, although they are certainly asking for it.

However as I see it there are two options:
-either nobody cares enough that they've decided they aren't going to follow their terms, and they aren't attacked for it. In which case nobody feels strongly about it and would probably have agreed to remove the term if they'd asked nicely.
-somebody does care that they're breaking their word and attacks them, in which case this was pretty stupid

Either way this was stupid.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='CptGodzilla' date='31 January 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1264997054' post='2149494']
Or they will be lucky next time and get someone like me, who doesn't care about the general community and their faux moral standards.
[/quote]
I was responding to someone who presented just such a perspective as you. I merely pointed out other possibilities and what the potential consequences of such a perspective might be. I do concede the more likely outcome of the two presented thus far is what you propose. I'm sure there are many just as incapable as yourself of containing your emotions, your rage, and acting based upon objective reasoning. The most likely is that they'll be given terms no different then otherwise.


[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1264997592' post='2149521']
IT has been stated that part of the reasonign behind the term was that some feared Caffine had left Echelon simply to take heat off Echelon when terms negotiations came around. The fact that Caffine began inquiring about being able to be in gov the moment he rejoined Echelon is only proff that this was the case.[/quote]
It certainly proves his having an interest in being government. How does his expressed desire of wanting to jump right back into a government seat upon his return along with Caffine inquiring about the term in question prove that Echelon hasn't made an attempt to follow the term? It certainly allows for it to be a possibility but your entire argument right here is about Caffine and his actions and statements then the jump to Echelon making no effort. At the least to make it plausible (note that I haven commented to the effect they didn't break it prior to this) support the notion with something Echelon's government did to show it felt indifferent to the term before reaching (or stating) your conclusion.

[quote]Looky here, Caffine goes and spends a couple months in the Ronin Halfway House where he's magically reformed, tada, now he's back in Echelon and wants gov eventually, and kazam, here Echelon is saying they'll do just that.[/quote]
Yeah, this announcement is what, several months later and stating he'll have a minor seat some time in the near future? It certainly proves Echelon's intent never to follow the term up until now. There are far better arguments for your point posted in this thread you could use and I would be in agreement to a degree.


[quote]Silly. The body as a whole are surrender terms. No one talks about surrender term. It's a matter of jargon. The document as a whole is "surrender terms" and if one part of the document is violated then the whole thing is collectively trashed.[/quote]
Precisely why I was seeking the clarification, to see what kind of jargon you would be using here as the same way you and others phrase it the meaning could also be taken that there were more then one terms violated. The jargon can get confusing particularly with little to actually work with and put into context to figure out how you would differentiate the two. With such lacking I ask.


[quote]No it doesn't. The statement that "Caffine has been acting as gov in everythign but name, anyway" makes any argument about which of its titles Echelon defines as government or not, since they acknowledge that he has been government.
[/quote]
I've seen an RIA guy state that but I haven't seen anyone from Echelon say it. The RIA guy also said they knew about it and spoke with the other signatories to see if there were issues and they never brought it up with Echelon. Echelon apparently feels deputies aren't government members thus why would an advisor (something Caffine admitted to doing) be considered one? I'll check again later though to make sure I didn't miss an Echelon member say it.

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Hyperbad' date='01 February 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1265004118' post='2149910']I've seen an RIA guy state that but I haven't seen anyone from Echelon say it. The RIA guy also said they knew about it and spoke with the other signatories to see if there were issues and they never brought it up with Echelon. Echelon apparently feels deputies aren't government members thus why would an advisor (something Caffine admitted to doing) be considered one? I'll check again later though to make sure I didn't miss an Echelon member say it.
[/quote]

For the record, what we consider government:

Director x2
Prime Minister
Civil Council x3
Colonial Council x4 (Ministers - appointed by Directorate)

That's 10 spots. Everything else is deputy & adviser. (It's actually currently 9 spots, as Rugger is performing double duty as PM and MoF)

[Banned]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1264972961' post='2148304']
As I recall my reply from you guys when trying to argue that it was a violation of our sovereignty was "fine, then stay in eternal peace mode". That isn't an option. You knew it then and you know it now. It's like buying a s***box car that runs when you are broke and need to get to work. You don't do it because you like the car, but because you need to live. It also doesn't mean you shouldn't trade up when you get the chance.
[/quote]


Then stay in eternal war mode and everybody get ZI'd and go down with your dignity intact. It's just classless to make an agreement, sign something to get what you want, and then say "well now that you're busy..."

A contract is a contract, a deal is a deal, and a man is only as good as his word. Obviously, the collective men that make up Echelon have proved their worth.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1264961851' post='2147921']
Honestly, this thread already deliveres. Watchman, a NADC refugee displaced by the BLEU absolute $@!-stomping which demanded the removal of Charles, rushing to cheer on Echelon. Check. Alterego, international face of BAPS which signed an MADP and changed color spheres to vote for the Senator of the alliance that proclaimed them all PZI during a fabricated war taking this opportunity to Karma bash. Check. All this needs is ChairmanHal stopping by to offer his support to Echelon despite their nightly attempts to roll Browncoats and it'd be the best damn paradox ever.
[/quote]
You forgot schattenmann ranting about BAPS for no particular reason.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Alterego' date='01 February 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1265048915' post='2150784']
You forgot schattenmann ranting about BAPS for no particular reason.
[/quote]
You misunderstand. Schattenmann was talking about the assorted ironies (not paradoxes!) present in this thread. Schattenmann ranting about an alliance he doesn't like is anything but ironic.

[Alterego]

[quote name='NoFish' date='01 February 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1265049369' post='2150799']
You misunderstand. Schattenmann was talking about the assorted ironies (not paradoxes!) present in this thread. Schattenmann ranting about an alliance he doesn't like is anything but ironic.
[/quote]
I guess it would be ironic if I was there at the time and not somewhere else.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Alterego

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='01 February 2010 - 03:41 AM' timestamp='1264995707' post='2149423']
The fact remains, as was pointed out numerous times, that Echelon fulfilled the terms they were put under. When they were released from terms, as was also pointed out, it was not stipulated "all but one" (aka no Caffine in government). That being the case, what is the big deal? I have yet to see anyone who opposes Echelon's decision in this thread address those facts.
[/quote]
If Echelon really believed they'd been released from that term back when the rest of them expired, they wouldn't have posted this thread to 'throw it off', since it would have been gone anyway. Obviously that was not the case, they knew it if someone had made a vague attempt to contact MA a while back, and you are just pulling out this excuse now that Echelon have been called on blatantly breaking a term.

[quote]Truth told Kait, you know as I do trying to catch half these folks on IRC is pretty arduous at best. You had a hard enough time and you are allied to them. Admittedly this is probably a bit "louder" a method than I personally prefer to conduct business. [/quote]
If you really couldn't find them on IRC (and I find that hard to believe), all the alliances in question have forums. If even [i]that[/i] was too much for you, you could have posted a thread here asking representatives of each of those alliances to agree to dropping this term, although I'm sure you'd have got 'private channels ftw' as your answer to that. 'We just went ahead and did it without asking because we're too lazy to ask' is a very poor way to go about amending treaties.

[Fernando12]

You know what all these pages of arguments do not matter.

Echelon has canceled the term.

What is the response by those that proposed, signed, and enforced the term? (Yes, Echelon agreed now they don't thats the point of this topic).

So what happens now? Stop all this nonsense and just answer that simple question.

What will you the alliances that signed that instrument of surrender do or want from Echelon now? If you want nothing besides adding more and more pages of bickering then just shut up now.

Advice to Echelon: stop posting here and do not contact any of the alliances that imposed that term. If they have an issue with you canceling then let them visit you on #Echelon or your forums.