An Echelon Announcement

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='NoFish' date='31 January 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1264974616' post='2148377']
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.
[/quote]

I'm not arguing about any specific terms, just terms in general. Banned seemed to think that Echelon was not to be trusted in the future since they stopped following terms. I'm saying that no alliance is willing to follow terms unless that alliance is compelled to do so by the threat of force. That is the nature of terms. Don't be surprised when an alliance stops following terms when they no longer face a threat of force. You can make an argument that Echelon was being opportunistic or that the execution was distasteful. I've seen others claim that Echelon is trying to look tough by doing this. I won't argue with that since I have little knowledge about the negotiations. However, don't assume that Echelon is untrustworthy. Any alliance would do that if the threat of force is gone.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='flak attack' date='31 January 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1264975175' post='2148406']
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.
[/quote]
If they were more intelligent than petulent they'd go ahead and go all in right now since their reasoning factors that no one will stop them while the war is on.

[Sephiroth]

[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]
Echelons terms were impossible for them to complete, as they were written to keep them under terms forever. A contract needs to be doable to be valid, you can't trick or force someone into signing that they'll do something that can't be completed and expect to own them forever. Also I said nothing of another planet.

[Matthew Conrad]

It certainly be interesting what Echelon will be subject to if/when they are negotiating their surrender in the future. I know I certainly wouldn't be inclined to believe they would hold to terms.

[Mathias]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1264975410' post='2148415']
Echelons terms were impossible for them to complete, as they were written to keep them under terms forever. A contract needs to be doable to be valid, you can't trick or force someone into signing that they'll do something that can't be completed and expect to own them forever. Also I said nothing of another planet.
[/quote]

I am confused by this, because the OP itself references Echelon completing its surrender terms.

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='31 January 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1264974581' post='2148374']
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.
[/quote]

Periphery to the thread, but I'll just go ahead and state that Lady Gaga was around just before the Karma war, up until about 12 days ago. [ooc: Re-rolled twice, as lead+sugar makes me vomit]

[Smooth]

Cool I guess? I like how you try to look all tough about it but had you any balls you'd have done this a long time ago.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Smooth

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1264975410' post='2148415']
Echelons terms were impossible for them to complete, as they were written to keep them under terms forever. A contract needs to be doable to be valid, you can't trick or force someone into signing that they'll do something that can't be completed and expect to own them forever. Also I said nothing of another planet.
[/quote]
They are 100% completable. It's harder to put Caffine in gov than to not put him in gov. All they have to do is never elect or appoint him.

Caffine hasn't even been in Echelon all that long. His AA seniority is 83 days, that's less than 3 months. The minute he rejoined Echelon, he started trying to join gov again--as he has admitted by saying he asked for the term to be rescinded "several months ago". Echelon has not even made an attempt to follow the terms. And that's why the term is necessary. Boom, Caffine waits til the coast is clear, then biggity-bam he's back in Echelon and he's back in gov being Caffine again.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1264975410' post='2148415']
Echelons terms were impossible for them to complete, as they were written to keep them under terms forever. A contract needs to be doable to be valid, you can't trick or force someone into signing that they'll do something that can't be completed and expect to own them forever. Also I said nothing of another planet.
[/quote]
It is perfectly possible for Echelon to keep Caffine1 out of government until the end of time. But, let's go with that for a moment. By your logic if, instead of having it be an indefinite term, we had said that Caffine1 couldn't rejoin Echelon government for the next ten years you'd be okay with it? Because I'm pretty sure if Echelon had pushed for that distinction, during the surrender negotiations or after, we would have granted it.

Edited January 31, 2010 by NoFish

[EvilCam]

[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]

This makes only 100% sense.

[Caffine]

Just need to point out a few inconsistencies in what people are saying here.

[quote name='NoFish' date='07 August 2009 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1249654439' post='1753017']
Sup. Thanks for the shout-out. Yes, I consider it a perfectly reasonable term to ban someone from the government of an alliance. It's a way of saying so-and-so was responsible for a lot of the things your alliance did that we didn't like - if you just promise to keep him out we won't punish you so harshly. In this case it's a particularly lenient banning as not only was the former-leader in question no longer in government; he was no longer in the alliance at all.
[/quote]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='07 August 2009 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1249661337' post='1753198']
Originally, the term was that Caffine would have to put "I spent the whole Karma War hiding in peace mode" in his bio if he ever returned to Echelon (he had stated he would be leaving at that point). This was later negotiated to the government ban instead. I never really found out why, because from the bits I heard it sounded vaguely like it was Echelon's idea, which makes very little sense.

[b]Oddly enough, Xiphosis didn't seem to know exactly how that term came about either. He must have gotten amnesia after putting it there.[/b]


Edit: And for Alterego's benefit, I didn't put the term there, but I still signed it and fully admit doing so, because quite frankly, it was't that important to me. He wasn't even in the alliance, I never heard Echelon complain about that particular term and it had taken several weeks to get a set of terms that everyone would sign. I wasn't exactly jumping at the chance to keep an alliance that wanted to surrender at war for another week or two in order to "help" them by working for lighter terms they weren't requesting.

I'm very evil.
[/quote]

[b]So just to be clear, the term was negotiated.[/b]
[quote name='Delta1212' date='11 October 2009 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1255278406' post='1897698']
As for why Karma failed in its ethical objectives, simply asking the question demonstrates a fundamental misconception. Karma wasn't fighting for an ethical code. A significant and extremely vocal subset was, but not a majority. Mostly, Karma was fighting to win a war, regardless of what other reasons people had. This mostly didn't impact any other considerations, except in the case of NPO. Most people, especially those actually on the Pacifican front, didn't believe the war would be won if NPO was left intact as it was and so they got terms, which I might remind you didn't include things like forced removal of leadership or members. In fact, your only example of that, Caffine, isn't actually true. Caffine wasn't in Echelon government and had actually left the alliance by the time they finally surrendered. Furthermore, the original term that Xiphosis wanted was that if Caffine ever rejoined Echelon, he'd have to put "I spent the entire Karma War hiding in peace mode" in his bio. Apparently Echelon gov didn't want that term so they renegotiated with KaitlinK to the term that if he ever rejoined, he couldn't a government position. If you want to know why, ask them because I really don't know.


[/quote]
[b]And remember, at this point, mamaduck was the Archein[/b]
[quote]
Session Start: Sun Nov 01 12:04:36 2009
Session Ident: mamaduck
01[12:07] <Caffine[Ronin]> Out of strict personal curiousity and nothing else, does MA still care about the Echelon peace term of no Caffine's in gov?
[12:08] <mamaduck> At this point I would say yes
01[12:08] <Caffine[Ronin]> Alright
[12:08] <mamaduck> Thank you for asking though
01[12:09] <Caffine[Ronin]> anytime
01[12:14] <Caffine[Ronin]> Again, that was just my own personal curiousity, Echelon has nothing to do with that inquiry
01[12:14] <Caffine[Ronin]> heh
[12:14] <mamaduck> lol k[/quote]

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='09 November 2009 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1257808648' post='1957984']
MA: 4: Never had any affection for you guys, and after going around to most alliances on the front (all of them except yours I think), you're the only one who cares about keeping the term barring Caffine from Echelon gov't. You may not like Echelon and you may not like Caffine, but I hate terms that impose themselves in such fashion as influencing who may serve in gov't.
[/quote]

Edited January 31, 2010 by Caffine1

[Fantastico]

[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]

Think about this type of excuse and reflect on how it used to anger you. If it was brought up several times and no one cared to do anything about it, this announcement does not seem quite so inappropriate any more.

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='31 January 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1264973799' post='2148346']
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.
[/quote]

An angel loses its wings every time I agree with The Big Bad, please fix this madness.

[Locke]

Why are people complaining about the timing anyways? CB's take months to age properly, right? Hit them when you're done killing TOP and co.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1264976402' post='2148447']
Just need to point out a few inconsistencies in what people are saying here.






[b]And remember, at this point, mamaduck was the Archein[/b]
[/quote]
I don't see any inconsistencies. In those posts I said Xiphosis didn't come up with the term, and I didn't care about the term. In my posts in this thread, I've said that Xiphosis didn't put the term there and no one currently in goverment in any of the alliances you surrendered to care about it. Mamaduck is no longer the Archein of MA and in fact is not even currently in that alliance.

The person you say blocked the term from being dropped is not in a position to do it now and hasn't been for some time now. You could have gotten it dropped by asking.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Fantastico' date='31 January 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1264976466' post='2148450']
Think about this type of excuse and reflect on how it used to anger you. If it was brought up several times and no one cared to do anything about it, this announcement does not seem quite so inappropriate any more.
[/quote]
No one cared because Echelon didn't ask us. If they wanted it dropped, we could have managed it fairly easily.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1264976402' post='2148447']
Just need to point out a few inconsistencies in what people are saying here.
[/quote]
Sup. Thanks for the shout-out. I don't really see what I'm being inconsistent about here. It seems to me I was saying that if Echelon really cared that much about that term then we probably could have reached an agreement involving higher reps? That seems pretty much in-line with what I'm saying here.

[quote]
[b]And remember, at this point, mamaduck was the Archein[/b]
[/quote]
And if she was the hang-up, maybe you should have considered asking CptGodzilla, now that he's the Archein? Are you seriously defending your position of not talking to them on the basis that you'd talked to someone else three months ago?

[Augusta Antonia]

I find it amusing how everyone says the condition could have been dropped at any given time, as I highly doubt that is the case. If it could have been dropped so easily by "just asking" it wouldn't have been put in place to begin with. Granted, as has been stated, many of those who negotiated the surrender terms are no longer in gov, I still doubt that their respective alliances would have wanted to bend on said terms so quickly and easily given the enforcement of previous terms through the ages on Planet Bob. Maybe I am mistaken, as things do not ALWAYS follow traditional and predictable courses, but usually they do...

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1264977252' post='2148480']
I find it amusing how everyone says the condition could have been dropped at any given time, as I highly doubt that is the case. If it could have been dropped so easily by "just asking" it wouldn't have been put in place to begin with. Granted, as has been stated, many of those who negotiated the surrender terms are no longer in gov, I still doubt that their respective alliances would have wanted to bend on said terms so quickly and easily given the enforcement of previous terms through the ages on Planet Bob. Maybe I am mistaken, as things do not ALWAYS follow traditional and predictable courses, but usually they do...
[/quote]
You are mistaken.

[Mussolandia]

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Echelon.

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1264977321' post='2148483']
You are mistaken.
[/quote]

Way to elaborate!

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1264977481' post='2148486']
Way to elaborate!
[/quote]
No one that wrote that term is still in their positions. No one left cares. Some surrender terms have been enforced rather rigidly historically. Many if not most undergo some level of renegotiation later. In this instance, with the primary concerned parties gone, we have no reason to deny a request to remove the term.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1264975880' post='2148436']
They are 100% completable. It's harder to put Caffine in gov than to not put him in gov. All they have to do is never elect or appoint him.
[/quote]
Completable means at some point they are no longer under terms and free, just because they could of stayed under terms forever doesn't make them completable.

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1264977717' post='2148494']
No one that wrote that term is still in their positions. No one left cares. Some surrender terms have been enforced rather rigidly historically. Many if not most undergo some level of renegotiation later. In this instance, with the primary concerned parties gone, we have no reason to deny a request to remove the term.
[/quote]

Again refer to my previous post "things do not ALWAYS follow traditional and predictable courses, but usually they do..." Also, if no one left cares then why bother posting on this at all? Just let it go...

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1264977481' post='2148486']
Way to elaborate!
[/quote]

What is there really to elaborate on. He was in a position of know and says the terms would have been dropped if Echelon tried to work with them. Unless you've got any groundbreaking evidence to the contrary, there's nothing else to say but to say you're incorrect.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1264977252' post='2148480']
I find it amusing how everyone says the condition could have been dropped at any given time, as I highly doubt that is the case. If it could have been dropped so easily by "just asking" it wouldn't have been put in place to begin with. Granted, as has been stated, many of those who negotiated the surrender terms are no longer in gov, I still doubt that their respective alliances would have wanted to bend on said terms so quickly and easily given the enforcement of previous terms through the ages on Planet Bob. Maybe I am mistaken, as things do not ALWAYS follow traditional and predictable courses, but usually they do...
[/quote]
Your major misconception is that you expect it to be dropped without Echelon making any concessions in return. The agreement was reached which all parties found mutually acceptable - if the agreement is shifted in Echelon's favor, obviously the people on the other side would be expecting something in exchange. Echelon never wanted to "negotiate" the term, they were just going to keep it as long wasn't inconvenient, then cast it aside along with their signed word. As far as I am aware (and my memory isn't very sharp) all Echelon or Caffine1 did is "Hey, do you wanna drop that term?" "No, not really." "Oh, alright, have a nice day." There wasn't any "What if we paid a token amount of tech or cash?" or "What if we apologized for most of those things you hate us for, like supporting that coup of MA?"

Edit: Also, yes, what Delta said. At this point there's no one left who cares.

Edited January 31, 2010 by NoFish