An Echelon Announcement

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Banned' date='31 January 2010 - 12:56 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]

As Heft said, Echelon was held under gunpoint when they signed the terms. So the argument "they signed away their own sovereignty" is somewhat silly. If you beat anyone to a pulp, chances are, they'll agree with whatever terms you give them. The signatures on surrender terms mean nothing unless the alliance enforcing the terms has the power to enforce them. I don't think any alliance signs terms that they think are fair. So, it is not surprising to see them revoke the terms when the threat of destruction is gone.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1264973085' post='2148313']
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.
[/quote]
I'm glad we didn't take part in that. The hate we took was worth it.

[Rebel Virginia]

[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]

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='31 January 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1264973129' post='2148315']
As Heft said, Echelon was held under gunpoint when they signed the terms. So the argument "they signed away their own sovereignty" is somewhat silly. If you beat anyone to a pulp, chances are, they'll agree with whatever terms you give them. The signatures on surrender terms mean nothing unless the alliance enforcing the terms has the power to enforce them. I don't think any alliance signs terms that they think are fair. So, it is not surprising to see them revoke the terms when the threat of destruction is gone.
[/quote]

You can guess what will happen when Echelon is getting beaten in a war right? I wouldn't even offer them terms.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='31 January 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1264973477' post='2148329']
You can guess what will happen when Echelon is getting beaten in a war right? I wouldn't even offer them terms.
[/quote]
[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]

[Dementual]

This announcement intrigues me.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='31 January 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1264973477' post='2148329']
You can guess what will happen when Echelon is getting beaten in a war right? I wouldn't even offer them terms.
[/quote]

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.

[Fokker Aeroplanbau]

[quote]You can guess what will happen when Echelon is getting beaten in a war right? I wouldn't even offer them terms. [/quote]

That seems a little extreme. The terms were there for some pecker pride, but now are worthless.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Fokker Aeroplanbau

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='31 January 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1264973129' post='2148315']
As Heft said, Echelon was held under gunpoint when they signed the terms ...
[/quote]

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.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Van Hoo III

[The Big Bad]

Suprised this was not done earlier after all in this new post Hegemony world no one would expect anyone to follow such terms and only real scum bag alliaces would even suggest such terms were ok. I am talking the lowest of the low.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1264971125' post='2148216']
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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1264972691' post='2148287']
I disagree that it was a facepalm incident, boldly reclaiming their sovereignty I think is more impressive than asking permission to get it back.
[/quote]
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.

[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. 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]
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.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' date='31 January 2010 - 01:35 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]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I'm arguing against the notion that Echelon is not trustworthy because they repealed the terms. I'm saying that it is not surprising to see any alliance repeal terms when the force enforcing the terms are gone because terms, by their nature, are valid because there is a force to make them valid. Some may consider Echelon's action to be cowardly, opportunistic, and/or dishonorable. That doesn't really matter to me. I'm not trying to "spin" anything.

EDIT: didn't see that last edit.

Edited January 31, 2010 by kulomascovia

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Fokker Aeroplanbau' date='31 January 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1264973702' post='2148340']
That seems a little extreme. The terms were there for some pecker pride, but now are worthless.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure this non-term would have dropped if they actually stopped being lazy, went to the alliances involved and asked normally.

Instead they decided to unilaterally drop this term to show planet Bob that they are all tough. Which clearly they are not. This is one of the lowest and asinine things you can do, it will not make your alliance very trustworthy. That's for sure.

[Caffine]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 01:12 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]
[quote name='kriekfreak' date='31 January 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1264974018' post='2148355']
I'm pretty sure this non-term would have dropped if they actually stopped being lazy, went to the alliances involved and asked normally.

Instead they decided to unilaterally drop this term to show planet Bob that they are all tough. Which clearly they are not. This is one of the lowest and asinine things you can do, it will not make your alliance very trustworthy. That's for sure.
[/quote]

Actually, I inquired about the removal of the terms several months ago in private and was told a flat out "No".

Edited January 31, 2010 by Caffine1

[Neo Anglia]

As I said Van Hoo. It was put to me as a "non-negotiable" term, as they saw Caffine as a threat. Tela's name was rolled into the conversation at one point as well even though she wasn't even playing during that part of the war (I think - I honestly never bothered to look when she started Lady Gaga) I told them straight out neither were even there but they assumed it was a ploy. It was what it was.

[NoFish]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='31 January 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1264973129' post='2148315']
As Heft said, Echelon was held under gunpoint when they signed the terms. So the argument "they signed away their own sovereignty" is somewhat silly. If you beat anyone to a pulp, chances are, they'll agree with whatever terms you give them. The signatures on surrender terms mean nothing unless the alliance enforcing the terms has the power to enforce them. I don't think any alliance signs terms that they think are fair. So, it is not surprising to see them revoke the terms when the threat of destruction is gone.
[/quote]
They fought for, what was it, a month? Two? to get lighter reps, but they didn't even [i]try[/i] to negotiate this term. It's not that they were forced into it without any choice, merely that they knew where their priorities were - or perhaps they were never planning to follow it from the start. I mean, int he short term they had no desire to break it, and they probably figured it was unenforceable in the long term, so why not just accept it then cast it aside when it's convenient... You know, provided your word and signature isn't worth anything.

Edited January 31, 2010 by NoFish

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1264974470' post='2148368']
Actually, I inquired about the removal of the terms several months ago in private and was told a flat out "No".
[/quote]
I don't know who you asked but we had this conversation last month because you were gov in all but name and no one cared.

[TypoNinja]

Gotta admit I wasn't a fan of a term limiting membership to begin with, but I'm even less of a fan of this announcement.

The timing for one, so very brave of you to wait till the world was already distracted elsewhere before deciding to publicly violate your surrender terms.

The lack of diplomacy is also great, you can frequently get concessions later that didn't appear when the terms were first created, VE has experience with this.

The lack of political intelligence really sticks sideways, I can hardly believe your government is that foolish. You just publicly called out every alliance you surrendered to AND handed them a rock solid CB, they don't even have to spin up the PR machine you announced you were breaking your surrender terms.

And the double whammy of political suicide comes in.

You broke your word. You have proven to be untrustworthy, that is inexcusable in this arena.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1264971125' post='2148216']
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.
[/quote]
I beg to differ. Accepting that surrender terms would not constitute contract by duress or adhesion (presumably by the theory that the mutual benefit involved is the end of hostilities for both parties and is sufficient consideration for a contract, albeit more beneficial for one then the other. However, the benefit conferred to the enforcing party by the surrendering party agreeing to not continue fighting them is not so disproportionate from the benefit conferred upon the surrendering party by the enforcing party agreeing not to do the same as to constitute nominal consideration. ), there is no reason such a term would be invalid. The promise in question can be seen as collateral in nature, but it is effectively treated as part of the broader surrender term contract due to the fact that the preamble of such agreements (i.e. Echelon agrees to the following for a cessation of hostilities or something of the like, I'm assuming the text says something along the same lines here) is actually constructed as a merger clause and can be treated as such. Therefore, while there may not be sufficient consideration for the promise itself, because there is sufficient consideration for the broader contract and the collateral promise is effectively encompassed by the merger clause, it would be valid and enforceable.


/massive e-lawyer

Edited January 31, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Chickenzilla]

For the best, but I still think it'd be a bad choice to have him in gov either way. :/

[mythicknight]

Good announcement.

[Matthew Conrad]

What a wonderful time it is to take a stand.

[EvilCam]

[quote name='Alterego' date='31 January 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1264953917' post='2147671']
I still dont hear a denial.
[/quote]

LOL. Watching Alterego argue with Astronut Jones is like watching an episode of "Life Goes On" where Becka tries to explain something to Corky.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1264973085' post='2148313']
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.
[/quote]
Yeah I hope the god-complex satisfaction TOP got by sewing dischord in the coalition is worth the crappy mess of revenge they're getting now.

[flak attack]

[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]
This right here is the best post in the thread.

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1264974470' post='2148368']
Actually, I inquired about the removal of the terms [b]several months ago[/b] in private and was told a flat out "No".
[/quote]
Key phrase here. I was in GPA when the terms were signed that banned having nukes beyond 13. We weren't happy about it, but we didn't sit around waiting for Karma to take down NPO to suddenly decide we didn't like the terms. Instead, we went to NPO and asked about it. They said no at first, but after a while, we were able to convince them to remove the term. That's how it's done correctly. You don't just decide you don't want to be held to surrender terms.


All that being said, Echelon hasn't yet violated the surrender terms. We'll see what happens when they decide to put Caffine in gov.