House of Lords surrenders

[erikz]

[quote name='Otherworld' date='11 February 2010 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1265883486' post='2174446']
No.. I said we didn't notify because we were keeping it secret that we were entering. We didn't tell our whole membership until on the day that we were going to war. Add the fact that we didn't know exactly who we would be declaring on or how involved we would be up until two days before and you have a decent reason for not telling them.

I added the agression clause arguement because if we had one we would have to tell them as they could be directly involved at the start and therefore we would need to tell them. With only a defensive clause they would not be involved for a day at the very minimum (turned out to be 5 days) so by not telling them we were mainting the secrecy in the declaration of war and still give them some notice that they may be required to enter the war.

It's not ideal but if you want to attack somebody without the whole world knowing about it, certain measures need to be taken.
[/quote]
I still disagree > you obviously don't trust your allies to keep a secret for you; hence > why are you allied to them? You could have vented your intention to attack, no matter who or what the target was going to be. That way HoL and other allies would be able to prepare themselves for battle.

[Otherworld]

It's not that we don;t trust them. But word gets around accidentally. It's like we still trust our members despite not telling them about it. We don't assume they would deliberately tell others, but things slip. The less people that know about something the easier it is to keep secret.

And as for giving them time to prepare, would two days more preparation have made that much difference? The thing they were missing were military wonders, which you can't get in 2 days.

[Death666Angel]

Sorry to see you surrender to FOK, HoL, but at least those are decent terms.
And OWF threads never solved anything, half the people posting don't know what went on when, the other half thinks they know it and the third half is just missing the point . If both sides are open to discuss this and resolve any issues (maybe even for a restart of this once good relationship), we should let this thread die and continue talks on IRC and in our respective embassies.
From my part (since I was Director when the first HoL treaty was signed), I didn't pay attention to a couple of allies, as they were Tela's baby and she seemed to handle them quite well (including HoL). Can't say when or if the ball was dropped and whose fault it was. But I know/think that communication just prior to your DoW was not that well, as most people in gov't wanted to let you sit this one out and help us after the war. That probably wasn't communicate.

Anyway, o/ HoL
o/ FOK (give us peace too, please? I has cheezburgrs!)

Edited February 11, 2010 by Death666Angel

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='El Hefe' date='11 February 2010 - 04:24 AM' timestamp='1265862246' post='2173889']
You guys have a bone to pick with me, either do something about it or kindly back off.[/quote]

Yes, please Echelon, do something about it

[quote name='x Tela x' date='11 February 2010 - 04:33 AM' timestamp='1265862780' post='2173905']
Isn't RoK at war? About time to jump ship, isn't it?
[/quote]

For your information, El Hefe has been one of the most active and aggressive chaps of all our soldiers in this war. He has throughout my time in Ragnarok shown that he is very reliable and an all around great guy.

So kindly, back off and go back to your laughable attempts to actually influence this war in any way.

Echelon, you disgust me

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Otherworld' date='11 February 2010 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1265886774' post='2174490']
It's not that we don;t trust them. But word gets around accidentally. It's like we still trust our members despite not telling them about it. We don't assume they would deliberately tell others, but things slip. The less people that know about something the easier it is to keep secret.

And as for giving them time to prepare, would two days more preparation have made that much difference? The thing they were missing were military wonders, which you can't get in 2 days.
[/quote]


I can appreciate your paranoia, especially with tactically sensitive information like engagement plans, but you've over looked some common sense.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'Need to Know' (usually followed by "and you don't need to know!") in several movies and TV shows, this phrase applies here quite nicely.

For the oblivious, Need to Know refers to a classification of restricted information, and depending on who you ask, it's probably the strictest in terms of security. Its application is simple, like the name suggests, only the people who need to know are made aware of the information.

Now here's the bit you missed.

Your direct treaty partners, the ones you expect to back you on the field of battle, they need to know if/when you are going to war.

The level of disrespect inherent in not telling your allies you are going to war is through the roof, its the kind of over the top jerk factor that gets treaties canceled, but you may have noticed that bit already.

[Death666Angel]

Like I said, half the people don't know what happened, so please don't try to argue here.
[quote name='TypoNinja' date='11 February 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1265890151' post='2174542']
Now here's the bit you missed.

Your direct treaty partners, the ones you expect to back you on the field of battle, they need to know if/when you are going to war.

The level of disrespect inherent in not telling your allies you are going to war is through the roof, its the kind of over the top jerk factor that gets treaties canceled, but you may have noticed that bit already.
[/quote]
They were told that we are 99% sure to enter this conflict before we entered. And we never expected any of our allies to actually join this war, because we were sure that it wouldn't actually make a difference and they would serve us much better with post-war aid. But like both sides have stated here, communications just prior to war (and prior to the surrender) were not the best. But they were not as lacking as you are making them out to be. So yeah, kindly don't try to post anymore here?

Also, lolhefe.

[Madine]

Heyo HoL! I am a vegetarian so Harry is making me a salad. You can have my portion of kebab

o/ HoL
o/ FOK

[Locke]

[quote name='x Tela x' date='10 February 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1265864232' post='2173942']
They were notified. I don't know what would make you think they weren't. We didn't have any real information to share until 1 day before we entered the conflict. We knew we'd be entering on behalf of NADC or IRON (and since the \m/ front peaced out, it turned out to be IRON by default), but we didn't have anything to share until we saw how everything dropped. Again, you don't have a clue what's going on, so stop posting.
[/quote]
They didn't seem to think they were notified:
[quote name='SilvioArjunza' date='07 February 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1265585654' post='2167620']
[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Echelon, our allies whom have stood with us through thick and thin, no longer hold any faith in us. After all this time, we have never fought in their defense. I cannot blame them for their lack of faith. I... I am a stubborn man, and we... we are an honourable people. Echelon does not know our tanks and our men are coming to their aid. [i][b]They have told us nothing, in regards to this war, and we have returned the favor.[/b][/i] We have grown apart, after all these years, and so while we march now, our men and theirs, fighting as friends against an overwhelming foe, let them know, that this is the last time. They may consider our treaty cancelled, and we will go our seperate way. Our honor bids that we stand with them, and stand we will.[/font]
[/quote]
If you have evidence to contrary, please share. If not, well, you can keep blowing out hot air, I guess.

[quote name='EvilCam' date='11 February 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1265865880' post='2174016']
I never and I always and if you ever blah blah blah blah...
[/quote]
If you're not even going to bother comprehending what I say, I'll stop bothering talking to you. Starting now.

[EvilCam]

[quote name='erikz' date='11 February 2010 - 08:06 AM' timestamp='1265875588' post='2174311']
You have the right to feel that way about them, but tbh, they were actually able to dent us a bit - something you haven't really been able to do, neither did/does MCXA.

I still think it was a good show by them to enter the war after cancelling the treaty, and really putting in some effort: this was not some sort of half-assed attempt or simple war slot filling by HoL.
[/quote]


Just curious, how many nukes were exchanged in this war?

[Voytek]

Echelon, crying about treaty obligations?

Oh my.

[Tromp]

[quote name='EvilCam' date='11 February 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1265906917' post='2174923']
Just curious, how many nukes were exchanged in this war?
[/quote]
Emperor Tiberius of MCXA knows all about our nuke policy.

[MadScotII]

FFS, people should get of their backs. They came in and were over awed by the sheer power they came up against. It happens, at least they came in.

Good luck in the future HoL.

[EvilCam]

[quote name='Blinky969' date='11 February 2010 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1265880148' post='2174382']
I feel obliged to comment, since that's my name on the treaty. That's my seal at the bottom of this post, and those are my soldiers who stood on the line, so if you have a problem with something, you can address it to me, or you can head by our forum where we'd be happy to talk at length about anything (and nothing, if you'd prefer).

First, thank you to those that do respect our decision, including our adversaries and the few members of Echelon who understand our position. I wish the situation was different.

Now the main purpose of my visit, aside from keeping Silvio from having a panic attack from all the vitriol... to everyone who's complaining about HoL's actions, I will state it quite clearly; HoL did not back out of this war to save it's infrastructure any more than it entered this war to save it's face. To accuse us of cowardice is at best drivel and at worst a bald faced lie, and if you really think we don't have the balls to stand up for our principles, I have plenty of infra to burn proving you wrong. We entered this war out of respect for Echelon and the alliance we have had for longer than some of you have been playing the game, and in spite of the fact that, over the past year, and perhaps beyond, that respect has been largely one-sided. Adding to that, we were honoring a treaty re-ratified, post-Karma, under false pretenses. It was different than the original and, trusting our longtime allies, we didn't catch a minor, important error. I will assume, in good faith, this was not a deliberate bait and switch. Had our relationship with Echelon been better, perhaps we would have joined the fray without needing a treaty clause, but with an altered document and an ally who didn't even bother telling us they were going to war? What exactly did you want us to do, fight it out to the end like good old boys? We were supposed to be your comrades, not your patsies. You'll have to find newer, stupider recruits for that job. This isn't really just about us 'drifting apart' or 'feeling slighted' by Echelon, there were flaws with the agreement that got us into the war in the first place, once we might have worked through if you had gave a damn.

History lesson: HoL had been allies with Echelon since when Khyber ran things, when most of you people complaining right now were all excited about your shiny new airplanes. Khyber and HoL had one VERY important agreement; we're generally pacifists. We don't like war, and especially not wars where everyone's basically jumping into a giant dog pile. Khyber understood that, so we signed a non-chaining treaty - we would have each other's backs, if some alliance showed up to take you down, but if it was one of those situations (A attacks B, B calls on C, C attacks A, A calls on D, etc.) our treaty would downgrade to optional, because Great Wars are waged by people who think war is fun, and we, frankly, don't. So we agreed that if you want to play nuke hockey with all the big boys, that would be fine, and we would wish you well, and maybe throw you some aid after the fact, and some tech deals, but you were on your own.

Anyway, Khyber's gone now, and since he's been gone, we really haven't heard from you guys much. At all, really, aside from the occasional hello, and when you guys want us to fight someone (That was just about the only time I remember El Hefe speaking directly to us, although I'm not Silvio, maybe you two chatted). After Karma, when you had to drop your treaties, according to surrender terms, we remained cordial. Then, in July or August, I think, when you sent us back the resign treaty, it wasn't the same. It was chaining. You guys had been our allies for over two years at this point, and honestly, we didn't read it that carefully. 'They're Echelon, they wouldn't d*ck us over.' I'll assume you guys didn't check and make sure it was the same treaty, you probably just ctrl+c-ed one offline (McKinnon was the one who posted it).

That said, we should have double-checked it, so when the call came for war this time, and we realized the situation, we said, 'well !@#$, I guess we're going to war' and we went. This was in spite of a treaty that, frankly, was wrong, and the fact that you guys never even told us you were going to war. Silvio found out when he looked at the global wars for the day. So honestly, for all the smack some of you want to talk, you really can't back a whole lot of it up, because we could have just ripped the treaty up and spat on it, and it would have been about as respectful as the way some of you have acted towards us.

If our assistance was really all that important to you, you probably should have said something, or anything, about it. Instead you wanna cry and moan that we didn't help you more? I personally took three nukes for you guys, and you know what, yeah, I could have taken four. Five. Seven. Twelve. How many would have made you happy? Considering that I didn't have to take any of them, and, considering that, when we realized the treaty was altered, I, Silvio, and Vorak were pretty much the only three in the alliance willing to go to bat for you guys anyway, I think three was a decent favor on my part.

So, Ding Dong, we don't want to come off as heroic or honorable, despite the fact that we did as honorable of a thing as we felt we should, under the circumstances. You wanted us to give more, you wanted me to order my soldiers to ZI themselves for you, considering the circumstances? Tough sh*t. The only thing we wanted were allies who acted like they once did, with respect, for themselves and others, and who didn't condescend to us for not leaping at their beck and call. We didn't get our way either.

Despite my harsh words, I really don't dislike many people in your alliances, I really can't say I know many of you. You're embassy has more cobwebs than a spook walk and the ones with the loudest voices seem to be decrying the fact that we aren't your b*tch, so tell me what we're supposed to think? How is HoL supposed to perceive Echelon, their longtime ally and alleged friend, now? I really hope you guys go back to the way you were when 'I' knew you, when HoL knew you... I hope you realize that the few, quiet voices in your alliance that are speaking rationally are doing so for a reason, and that honor is not something you pay for with a casualty count. It's a little more precious than that.

If things had been different, we would still be fighting, and we wouldn't have cared less. You think we care about our infra scores? Send another nuke my way, f*ck it. I won't even respond. Proving the valor of my house is worth any digital price, I've been with some of these guys since before CN was started. But standing blindly alongside a fight we shouldn't even be in, that we might have DECIDED to join under different circumstances, but were COERCED into joining under these circumstances? That I will not do, and I will not require that the nations I am responsible for to do it either.

My name is Blinky969, and if you have any doubts with the way the HoL conducts its business, or the integrity with which our military operates, I would happily settle them, with words, or by whatever other mode you wish to use. I am proud of every man and woman under my command, and if it takes my blood, sweat, and/or infrastructure to defend them from the slanders some of you here perpetuate, say the word. I'm down.

Maybe the next time we talk we can give that 'respect' thing a new go,

His Stateliness, The Honourable Blinky969, Field Marshal, 1st Viscount of the House of Lords
[img]http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab234/blinky969/BlinkySeal.jpg[/img]
[/quote]



So to paraphrase:
HoL shirked its treatied duties and entered the war late and got out early because:
1) Echelon stopped calling us!
2) Echelon tricked us!
3) We hate a guy who got court-martialed out of Echelon a year ago for being a traitor.
4) We are super macho and will war with anyone who disagrees except that we're pacifists.

[EvilCam]

[quote name='Tromp' date='11 February 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1265907282' post='2174937']
Emperor Tiberius of MCXA knows all about our nuke policy.
[/quote]

When is he going to show up and explain it to us?

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Blinky969' date='11 February 2010 - 01:22 AM' timestamp='1265880148' post='2174382']You guys had been our allies for over two years at this point, and honestly, we didn't read it that carefully. 'They're Echelon, they wouldn't d*ck us over.' I'll assume you guys didn't check and make sure it was the same treaty, you probably just ctrl+c-ed one offline (McKinnon was the one who posted it).[/quote]
<Ruggerdawg[Echelon]> hmm.. the OWF version and your forum version are VERY different.
<Salvatore[HoL]> The one on our forums is the original.
<Salvatore[HoL]> I don't think we read it before signing it. XD
<Ruggerdawg[Echelon]> Then what the hell was posted?
<Salvatore[HoL]> I mean that we didn't read the new one.

I promise you that no one meant to "d*ck you over" but it is [i][b]ALWAYS[/b][/i] a good idea to read what is being posted. In this case, there were [i][b]MAJOR[/b][/i] discrepancies which would have been immediately identified.

[quote name='Blinky969' date='11 February 2010 - 01:22 AM' timestamp='1265880148' post='2174382']You're embassy has more cobwebs than a spook walk[/quote]
Everyone on Planet Bob: I am always on IRC in #echelon. If I'm away, I'm marked as Dawg-gone[Echelon] and you can leave a message. Additionally, there's almost always another Gov member in our channel. If not, either leave me a message or leave a message with another Echelon member.

HoL, you're active on IRC. I've already apologized that we haven't talked. But if you were feeling like there were issues, come on over and let us know. Passive aggressiveness is fail.

[erikz]

[quote name='EvilCam' date='11 February 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1265906917' post='2174923']
Just curious, how many nukes were exchanged in this war?
[/quote]At least one each way every day.

I dont see how this is relevant, unless you are sinking so low that u are accusing me and my HoL opponents of war slot filling.

I'll tell you one thing: those nukes werent coming from the ill prepared MCXA nations I'm engaging.

[matasumouri]

Awww nuts... I was hoping to sit back and see some more squabbling between who has a worse record... RoK or Echelon... guess I'll just congratulate HoL for finding themselves some fair surrender terms.

o/ HoL
o/ FOK

[Xiao Weng]

I believe it may bear mentioning that "We're 99% sure we're going to war" does not constitute the forewarning as "We're 99% sure we're going to war on Tuesday" does. Two words can make a world of difference.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='11 February 2010 - 05:57 AM' timestamp='1265889453' post='2174529']
Yes, please Echelon, do something about it

For your information, El Hefe has been one of the most active and aggressive chaps of all our soldiers in this war. He has throughout my time in Ragnarok shown that he is very reliable and an all around great guy.[/quote]

Yeah, just wait until your on the losing end of a war or he runs out of money.

[quote]Echelon, you disgust me[/quote]

I can't say I think real highly of you either.

As for the HoL thing, I'm disappointed by a whole lot of people who know nothing about it insulting either party (I'm glaring pretty hard at some fellow Echelonians) I'd like to say just a few things to clear up my perspective.

This treaty was on shaky ground before this war ever happened. The basic facts was that none of HoL knew any of Echelon's government, and vice versa. For a long time I had personally been managing communications between the two alliances, however when I left, I could no longer perform that duty.

The reasons Echelon didn't tell HoL much about this war are few in number. Primarily, it was our stance that we'd be entering a war that we knew we'd be on the losing side of. A war that we would obviously be heavily beaten, and as a result, a decision was made in advance that we would not ask allies to enter on our behalf. Echelon entered the war because of our treaty with IRON, We didn't feel that our other allies needed to take a bullet for us when we were obviously entering into a poor situation. Past that, as HoL had never entered a war before, we never expected them to enter this one. As for "no communication", I personally told Salvatore on January 29th that I was 99% positive that we'd be entering the conflict. I really don't see what we should have been telling them. In Echelon, the members alone didn't even know the target until an hour before our DoW, and we never asked HoL of anything, so really I can't think of any information necessary to prepare them for anything.

I still have alot of respect for HoL, I would say more, but somethings need to be kept in private venues, and while I sad to see this treaty come to a close, I recognize that the circumstances had been cultivating this result for a long long time. I'd kindly ask that my fellow Echelonians refrain from saying anything else on the situation, because ultimately there are very few people in Echelon with the understanding of HoL and their actions to judge.

Edited February 11, 2010 by memoryproblems

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Xiao Weng' date='11 February 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1265911747' post='2175118']
I believe it may bear mentioning that "We're 99% sure we're going to war" does not constitute the forewarning as "We're 99% sure we're going to war on Tuesday" does. Two words can make a world of difference.
[/quote]

Why would they have needed to know that? We never asked that they activate the optional aggression and hit on Tuesday with us. More-over the fact is the fact that Echelon's leadership didn't really have a solid date until shortly before, and even regular members of Echelon such as myself weren't given the full story until about an hour before we actually declared.

[Xiao Weng]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='11 February 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1265912494' post='2175152']
Why would they have needed to know that? We never asked that they activate the optional aggression and hit on Tuesday with us. More-over the fact is the fact that Echelon's leadership didn't really have a solid date until shortly before, and even regular members of Echelon such as myself weren't given the full story until about an hour before we actually declared.
[/quote]

From what I've been gathering of the treaty itself, it wasn't optional. Might you have a link to it so I can see for myself?

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Xiao Weng' date='11 February 2010 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1265913097' post='2175184']
From what I've been gathering of the treaty itself, it wasn't optional. Might you have a link to it so I can see for myself?
[/quote]
This is the one posted on OWF: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=72950

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Xiao Weng' date='11 February 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1265913097' post='2175184']
From what I've been gathering of the treaty itself, it wasn't optional. Might you have a link to it so I can see for myself?
[/quote]

It was mutual defense and optional aggression. The main thing is that in the aftermath of Echelon's surrender terms from the Karma war, we had to resign all our treaties. Somehow, the treaty that was sent to HoL was different then the one we had, and appearantly they didn't read it, I don't think we in the Echelon government read it, we all took for granted that it was the old treaty, when obviously it wasn't. Previously our treaty was a non-chaining MDoAP, but somehow the treaty we signed most recently had no non-chaining provisions, not because we were trying to be covert. I still don't understand how it happened, a former MoFA of Echelon's sent the treaty over and the rest was basically voting without reading.

So the treaty as is was chaining on defense, but I highly doubt that Echelon would have really made HoL do anything that they really didn't want to do. Really, doing things like that are bad for everything.

[Xiao Weng]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='11 February 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1265913644' post='2175207']
It was mutual defense and optional aggression. The main thing is that in the aftermath of Echelon's surrender terms from the Karma war, we had to resign all our treaties. Somehow, the treaty that was sent to HoL was different then the one we had, and appearantly they didn't read it, I don't think we in the Echelon government read it, we all took for granted that it was the old treaty, when obviously it wasn't. Previously our treaty was a non-chaining MDoAP, but somehow the treaty we signed most recently had no non-chaining provisions, not because we were trying to be covert. I still don't understand how it happened, a former MoFA of Echelon's sent the treaty over and the rest was basically voting without reading.

So the treaty as is was chaining on defense, but I highly doubt that Echelon would have really made HoL do anything that they really didn't want to do. Really, doing things like that are bad for everything.
[/quote]


Bear with me.

[b]Echelon[/b] thought it was the same treaty, [i]and[/i] [b]HoL[/b] thought it was the same treaty?

And it wasn't?

...Words cannot describe my confusion and disbelief to this whole chain of events.

I think it would be best for all involved parties if you both sat down in private and had a cask of wine and a long talk.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Xiao Weng' date='11 February 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1265914135' post='2175225']
Bear with me.

[b]Echelon[/b] thought it was the same treaty, [i]and[/i] [b]HoL[/b] thought it was the same treaty?

And it wasn't?

...Words cannot describe my confusion and disbelief to this whole chain of events.

I think it would be best for all involved parties if you both sat down in private and had a cask of wine and a long talk.
[/quote]

Well, it was a former MoFA who passed the treaty to HoL, he has since left Echelon, he would be the only one that would know exactly. In the aftermath of our surrender terms, we were somewhat scurrying to get treaties resigned. I don't know what was going on there, all I know is that 1) our MoFA passed the treaty to HoL 2) I was told that it was in our embassy on the HoL boards signed, 3) I posted it to the Echelon government and we signed it. I think we believed that it was the old treaty on both sides, but that our MoFA either 1) sent the wrong treaty to them or 2) forgot to tell anybody it wasn't the original.