An Echelon Announcement

[JackSkellington]

You lot have forced me to agree with KaitlinK for the first time in years. I will never forgive you...

[KaitlinK]

[quote name='JackSkellington' date='31 January 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1264966997' post='2148096']
You lot have forced me to agree with KaitlinK for the first time in years. I will never forgive you...
[/quote]

This [b]is[/b] bad... Nitemare

[Neo Anglia]

Oh my God, I see the ghost of Garner himself!

[The Corrupt Teacher]

Necessary move Echelon, although I'd be beating a dead horse saying you went about it with terrible terrible timing. None the less good job finally standing up for your rights.

[Neo Anglia]

Well really, was there ever going to be a [i]good[/i] time to say it? :lol:

[AirMe]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1264968267' post='2148123']
Well really, was there ever going to be a [i]good[/i] time to say it? :lol:
[/quote]

No one has an issue with you saying it. People have an issue with you not clearing it with the people who issued the term first.

[Mathias]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1264968267' post='2148123']
Well really, was there ever going to be a [i]good[/i] time to say it? :lol:
[/quote]

Well, had you done this when those enforcing the terms were not at war, this move would be pretty ballsy and impressive.

[Heft]

[quote name='AirMe' date='31 January 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1264968337' post='2148127']
No one has an issue with you saying it. People have an issue with you not clearing it with the people who issued the term first.
[/quote]
There is no reason to "clear" this with anyone. Echelon did not need anyone's permission to drop this term.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Heft' date='31 January 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1264969027' post='2148143']
There is no reason to "clear" this with anyone. Echelon did not need anyone's permission to drop this term.
[/quote]

And the circle begins....again.

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='hizzy' date='31 January 2010 - 06:52 AM' timestamp='1264942364' post='2147424']
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]

True. It's ironic because I remember a lot of people giving TOP grief for trying to stop this sort of thing during the Karma peace resolutions. I guess hate is not moral.

Edited January 31, 2010 by DogeWilliam

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Mathias' date='31 January 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1264968416' post='2148128']
Well, had you done this when those enforcing the terms were not at war, this move would be pretty ballsy and impressive.
[/quote]

Yes, because they're in a war that's more than a 2:1 advantage in NS, and certainly can't spare the bodies to enforce their terms.

If you guys want to enforce the terms, you obviously have the ability to do so, even while fighting your current wars. It's not as if Echelon is some hulking giant, just ready to turn the tide of a war where the sides are separated by 60 million NS.

There hasn't really been any indication that the more aggressive alliances that signed the terms as the victors would change their tune. It's irrelevant, anyway. It was a unanimous vote. If we need to, we'll go to war again to defend our decision, so do what you have to do.

[juslen]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1264961579' post='2147912']
You pretty much could have just asked. It's been brought up several times and the only reason it hasn't been removed already is that no one caredd enough to go around and get everyone to sign off at once. Instead, you did this.
[/quote]

Exactly.. I personally don't believe in such terms but my alliance signed off on them. Probably because peace was the ultimate goal in the end for both sides. But maybe I just missed the memo, because I don't believe Echelon has ever attempted to discuss the terms with any member of R&R government or non government.

Its amazing what diplomacy can accomplish, not saying that all alliances would sign off on this in the end but simply throwing out the terms now in the middle of a war is opportunistic. Cowardly.. I can't say.. Echelon came to the defense of NPO during the Karma war, I respect that.

[Sephiroth]

If people are going to force terms violating their sovereignty [b]forever[/b], don't be surprised when they get rid of it whenever they get the chance. They shouldn't of been kept at war so long in order to force silly terms like these.

[Shafer]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='31 January 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1264960815' post='2147876']
You seem to have a far better understanding situation then those of us who we're actually there. Sarcasm aside, the person who made the decision to cancel the NPO treaty is no longer with us, and the person who posted this announcement was the very person who posted our declaration of war not three hours after the cancellation. When you consider that we were the first alliance to declare in defense of NPO (well, excluding a one-man alliance) and among the very last to leave, I think your time would be better spent making arguments that actually make sense.

edit: acronym fail.
[/quote]
I have been playing this game since March 2006...so yes I was actually there. And I hardly believe that Echelon was going to jump in until they saw how pissed everyone was. How coincidental that all of NPO's allies did that at the same time.

As for the topic at hand, I think Echelon simply should have asked the alliances who imposed the term. Being a stupid term I hardly think it would have been refused.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Shafer

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1264963927' post='2147997']
So wait, [i]we're[/i] being aggressive and generally "not nice" because we choose to invoke our own full sovereignty? If we said and oh by the way so and so is an a**hat for putting it in there, I'd agree. We [i]never[/i] said that. All we are doing is reclaiming our full sovereignty as an alliance. Only the usual suspects are crying foul over it.
[/quote]
Who are the "usual suspects?" People that understand how signatures on a document work or the relationship between a defeated, surrendered alliance and the people that defeated it? Put me in the lineup, then. While sovereignty is the vocab word of the week for Echelon--who apparently put it in their charter but didn't figure out what it means until 3 years later--this isn't a question of sovereignty, it's a question of an aggressive act of war: Breaking terms.

In addition, Echelon's cute little spit-in-your-eye subtitle for this thread "petulence itt" is a clear indicator that the people you elected knew exactly how this would go.

[quote name='Nobody Expects' date='31 January 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1264965303' post='2148036']
Alterego is not the international face of BAPS, we afford all members freedom of speech on the OWF, the vast majority think its a pointless cesspool and don't bother.
[/quote]
Whether you like it or not, Alterego is the public face of BAPS. If you ask anyone to name one member of BAPS, you're going to get a response of "Alterego" in the 90% range. That's what freedom of speech does for an alliance.

[quote name='Mathias' date='31 January 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1264968416' post='2148128']
Well, had you done this when those enforcing the terms were not at war, this move would be pretty ballsy and impressive.
[/quote]
Two adjectives never associated with Echelon at the same time.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Shafer' date='31 January 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1264970481' post='2148192']
I have been playing this game since March 2006...so yes I was actually there.
[/quote]

By actually there, I mean as in able to see the people who made that decision at work. Its easy for you to jump to conclusions, however its foolish of you to call out Echelon for something when you obviously don't have the insight to understand it.

Edited January 31, 2010 by memoryproblems

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1264970544' post='2148196']
Who are the "usual suspects?" People that understand how signatures on a document work or the relationship between a defeated, surrendered alliance and the people that defeated it? Put me in the lineup, then. While sovereignty is the vocab word of the week for Echelon--who apparently put it in their charter but didn't figure out what it means until 3 years later--this isn't a question of sovereignty, it's a question of an aggressive act of war: Breaking terms.
[/quote]
Its also an issue of fairness and common sense, they were pretty much forced to sign or face eternal war. Also in a contract such a term would not be valid and signatories would not be bound to follow it, there is a reason for that.

[Banned]

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?

[Aurion]

[quote name='JackSkellington' date='31 January 2010 - 10:21 AM' timestamp='1264951318' post='2147569']
I see this as opportunistic, as everyone else as stated. And quite frankly, you agreed to the terms set by the alliances you had been at war with. If you didn't want to have that term, you should have never accepted such a term. You should have went to the alliances you surrendered to and actually discussed this matter with them, not just simply release yourself from the term YOU agreed to.[b] Quite frankly, if I was GOD or any other alliance on that list, I'd be pretty angry right now.[/b]
[/quote]

I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I'm more amused than anything else.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Aurion

[Rush Sykes]

This is all really just another logical step in the history of EcheLOLn.

However, if Caffine is truly not the same allied-power wielding nut he was back then, I say give him a shot to prove it. Either he will be different, and maybe Echelon can be something other than a comic footnote on CN history, or the nonsense will resume and we can all have fun rolling them again.

All of that being said, it really would have been as simple as it is being suggested to have had this term lifted without trying to start out your "new image" with a facepalm incident.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='31 January 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1264971925' post='2148253']
All of that being said, it really would have been as simple as it is being suggested to have had this term lifted without trying to start out your "new image" with a facepalm incident.
[/quote]
I disagree that it was a facepalm incident, boldly reclaiming their sovereignty I think is more impressive than asking permission to get it back.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Banned' date='31 January 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1264971413' post='2148228']
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]
This sums up my feelings pretty well. If the term was so distasteful for you, you could have tried to negotiate it. You didn't. The only negotiations I recall were you trying to get rid of the term specifying who the reps could come from, and your trying to lower the actual rep amount - anyone on that front can agree with me, it was the tech that concerned you guys, not anything else.

But, alright, you made a mistake, everyone makes mistakes. Caffine1 wasn't even in your alliance, I can understand not thinking it through too much when you signed it and regretting it later. You could have talked to us before renouncing the term. Hell, you could have come to us just, like, yesterday and said "Our government voted to stop following the Caffine1 term - we'd like a magnanimous release from the term, but we're willing to push it to war if we have to."

But no. You wanted to publicly slap us in the face over it. You wanted to rub our noses in the fact that you were breaking your word the moment we looked away. Pray you don't get into war with us again, because you'll have a hell of a time convincing us you'll stand by anything you sign. As the saying goes, fool me once...

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='NoFish' date='31 January 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1264972716' post='2148289']
This sums up my feelings pretty well. If the term was so distasteful for you, you could have tried to negotiate it. You didn't. The only negotiations I recall were you trying to get rid of the term specifying who the reps could come from, and your trying to lower the actual rep amount - anyone on that front can agree with me, it was the tech that concerned you guys, not anything else.

But, alright, you made a mistake, everyone makes mistakes. Caffine1 wasn't even in your alliance, I can understand not thinking it through too much when you signed it and regretting it later. You could have talked to us before renouncing the term. Hell, you could have come to us just, like, yesterday and said "Our government voted to stop following the Caffine1 term - we'd like a magnanimous release from the term, but we're willing to push it to war if we have to."

But no. You wanted to publicly slap us in the face over it. You wanted to rub our noses in the fact that you were breaking your word the moment we looked away. Pray you don't get into war with us again, because you'll have a hell of a time convincing us you'll stand by anything you sign. As the saying goes, fool me once...
[/quote]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.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Neo Anglia

[Sephiroth]

TOP took a lot of flak for it at the time, but I'm glad they white peaced Echelon rather than sign terms like these.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 04:22 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.
[/quote]
You didn't try arguing it was a violation of sovereignty. The only argument we ever heard was over the rep payments.