Ok, admit it, you spent the last few weeks watching Olympic Curling

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Proko' date='09 March 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1268186824' post='2220241']
Why are you insisting Echelon's Wiki page is their responsibility? Unless their charter or some piece of policy of theirs says otherwise, they have no responsibility over the Wiki page. It is completely independent of the alliance Echelon, and maintained by the Wiki Admins, none of whom may be affiliated with Echelon. As I said before, if there is a factual error in the entry for "The Unjust War," it is not the responsibility of "The Unjust War" to fix the error. Similarly, it is not Echelon's responsibility.
[/quote]

Admins cannot be expected to keep up with everything.

As I stated it is a source people use to get info about your alliance. As such, it's something that effects you and everyone you have a responsibility to protect. Wouldn't it be a good idea to actually put some care into it then?


[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 March 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1268186782' post='2220237']
The "no u" defense? Really? REALLY?
[/quote]

Airme used it first technically.

I said Echelon screwed up wherein he responded it was the other way around.

Duckz just wanted to keep it going because this argument is so much fun. Quite a productive argument too I must say. I think PC is about to crack

Edited March 10, 2010 by LegendoftheSkies

[Earogema]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='09 March 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1268187402' post='2220264']
But, the Commonwealth still had them listed and was kept to up date, so if things were THIS confusing, shouldn't the logical approach had been to ask them of their protected status? I know I've done the same in the past for this kind of scenario.
[/quote]
They did ask. They asked the very same person who signed the protectorate with Echelon. For some, this might not seem sufficient since he answered incorrectly. I understand that.

Also, the most logical approach would have not been to threaten PC, or to not take protectorates they can't defend.

[Earogema]

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='09 March 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1268187605' post='2220271']
LOL, I would post the logs but I'd have to censor so much of what you guys said it'd be a bit of a pain to read. Not to mention your love speaking in all caps.
[/quote]
You act as if both sides weren't being ridiculous. Course, it was in #rok too.

[Vilien]

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1268187715' post='2220275']
They did ask. They asked the very same person who signed the protectorate with Echelon. For some, this might not seem sufficient since he answered incorrectly. I understand that.

Also, the most logical approach would have not been to threaten PC, or to not take protectorates they can't defend.
[/quote]
I'm going to take a leap here and say that you're implying that any non-SF or CnG alliance should not be taking protectorates.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Vilien

[Tromp]

All this blablabla.
Spare me your nonsense. It is pretty clear both parties could have avoided this situation. However Echelon fails to see where they were at fault and are not helping their case by taking it public. This clear attempt at taking a jab at PC has been noted. And let it be known that FOK backs PC in this matter.

[Ejayrazz]

It seems both are a little at fault here. No one is entirely innocent and the wiki idea is a little moot at hand in my opinion. But I can understand PC's point of view as well. I can't really speak too in-depth as I am not going to waste my time reading tears, but I think both need to chill out, step back, and say "woah..this !@#$ was pretty $%&@ed up...lets just call it even due to the extreme prevalent mitigating circumstances."

[Earogema]

[quote name='Vilien' date='09 March 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1268187817' post='2220278']
I'm going to take a leap here and say that you're implying that any non-SF or CnG alliance should not be taking protectorates.
[/quote]
No, just not an alliance beaten down by war.

As MoFA of \m/ I would take NO protectorates at this time, even with allies like PC. Tbh, I would only take temporary protectorates too.

[Proko]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='09 March 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1268187632' post='2220272']
Admins cannot be expected to keep up with everything.

As I stated it is a source people use to get info about your alliance. As such, it's something that effects you and everyone you have a responsibility to protect. Wouldn't it be a good idea to actually put some care into it then?
[/quote]

I did not say the Wiki Admins had to keep up with anything. Their job is to verify the veracity of the information on the Wiki. If there is false information, then they are not doing their jobs adequately. Not to criticize them, as they work for free and probably do a good job generally, but factually, if something is false, then they are failing to some degree.

The New Polar Order, as far as I have ever known, including in my capacity as Regent, has never taken any responsibility for what was said on our Wiki page. If you attempted to hold us accountable for its content, I would tell you what I am saying now, which is that we never took responsibility for the content of that page and what you did with the information there is your business, but not ours. It doesn't matter how many people use it or how they use it - Unless Echelon has explicitly claimed that the Wiki page is an accurate reflection of the state of their alliance and foreign affairs, then it should not be assumed that it is more accurate than [b]the Echelon forums[/b], which are the actual property of the Echelon alliance. The Wiki is independent, the Echelon forums are not.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Proko

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1268187715' post='2220275']
They did ask. They asked the very same person who signed the protectorate with Echelon. For some, this might not seem sufficient since he answered incorrectly. I understand that.

Also, the most logical approach would have not been to threaten PC, or to not take protectorates they can't defend.
[/quote]

I agree threatening PC was bad, but it appears they tried it right the first time. AND the protectorate was taken at a time they could handle protection (I know this, I was a leader of ACF when Rok and Echelon protected us.. my how times change) so that second part falls on deaf ears unless you believe protectorates should change protectors if their protector takes a beating a couple of times standing by their allies.

Now, they did ask you say, to the old SBA person. But he was no longer SBA nor was Echelon, it's possible he was the only active person in SBA and further complicated things. But fact remains that his testimonial and the merger notice only leads to a "Well, I think we can hit them, but they are still listed and hold in game references, let's make sure we can before anything bad happens"

Again, this is what I think should have been done first to avoid this type of situation. Echelon posted it, but PC could have avoided this happening so both alliances are at fault for this post and surely you can't place blame on Echelon solely in this matter when they and SBA kept up plenty of protection evidence and if anything only had some areas they were unaware of that mudied things.

[bzelger]

Hey Tela, remember that time PG-13 got raided and when their protector posted a (somewhat inept) thread in an effort to secure peace you valiantly rode in on the steed of justice to demand that [i]they pay you[/i] reps because he was overly aggressive in his defense of his protectorate?

[quote name='x Tela x' date='11 June 2008 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1268187032' post='664061']
And who are you to protect someone, retroactively?

Considering the fact that you've declared on one of my allies for the reason of "YOu attacked a protectorate", explain to me exactly why we should pursue diplomacy?

I'll be waiting for those reps to Vanguard. I'd say 9mil will cover your failures. And no, it doesn't matter that you haven't attacked.


Go.
[/quote]

If PC ever finds themselves alone and a bigger party takes a page out of their book and decides to rub their faces in the mud just because they like to see them squirming and gasping for air there will be quite a few of us who won't care much even if they would have taken umbrage in similar circumstances. By the same token you've waived your sympathy ticket by happily helping hoist the nerd on the flagpole in the days when your star was shining.



Best of luck to SBA. I hope you get your reps.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Tromp' date='09 March 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1268187870' post='2220279']
This clear attempt at taking a jab at PC has been noted. And let it be known that FOK backs PC in this matter.
[/quote]
Ooooooh! Its been "noted"!

NOTED!

THERE HAS BEEN A NOTE TAKEN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE SIRS!

Everything has changed.

Really everyone is just crossing their T's and dotting their I's hoping Echelon takes the plunge and they can get a few targets and maybe some blood money.

[Tromp]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='10 March 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1268188090' post='2220290']
Ooooooh! Its been "noted"!

NOTED!

THERE HAS BEEN A NOTE TAKEN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE SIRS!

Everything has changed.

Really everyone is just crossing their T's and dotting their I's hoping Echelon takes the plunge and they can get a few targets and maybe some blood money.
[/quote]
I see you are still looking for attention.

I thought it was you who was tired of the OWF because of this kind of needless posts?

[Earogema]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='09 March 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1268187991' post='2220285']
I agree threatening PC was bad, but it appears they tried it right the first time. AND the protectorate was taken at a time they could handle protection (I know this, I was a leader of ACF when Rok and Echelon protected us.. my how times change) so that second part falls on deaf ears unless you believe protectorates should change protectors if their protector takes a beating a couple of times standing by their allies.

Now, they did ask you say, to the old SBA person. But he was no longer SBA nor was Echelon, it's possible he was the only active person in SBA and further complicated things. But fact remains that his testimonial and the merger notice only leads to a "Well, I think we can hit them, but they are still listed and hold in game references, let's make sure we can before anything bad happens"

Again, this is what I think should have been done first to avoid this type of situation. Echelon posted it, but PC could have avoided this happening so both alliances are at fault for this post and surely you can't place blame on Echelon solely in this matter when they and SBA kept up plenty of protection evidence and if anything only had some areas they were unaware of that mudied things.
[/quote]
Well for one, I think if you eventually lack the power to protect, I'd drop the protection. This is why I don't like to sign protectorates, so that if that even comes to it, I can focus on my alliance/allies without having to baby sit after getting smacked around.

However, yes, I think both are at least, slightly wrong in this issue. But my MDoAP with PC is obligated defense. So be it.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Tromp' date='09 March 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1268188304' post='2220297']
I see you are still looking for attention.

I thought it was you who was tired of the OWF because of this kind of needless posts?
[/quote]
Huh?

I've always enjoyed poking fun at silly looking chest banging. What are you going to do, roll me over it?

[Koniac]

Everything's been said before, but Echelon's not responsible for their wiki, PC should have approached Echelon first, Echelon took SBA back in the day, etc. etc. etc., blah blah blah.

Question for PC:
...Disbanded or merged? I mean, either one is wrong but which wrong are you going to go with? It's mildly annoying that you can't seem to decide which one to go with.

[Schattenmann]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!@#$, you made me support Echeclon, damnit.

[Tromp]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='10 March 2010 - 03:28 AM' timestamp='1268188439' post='2220303']
Huh?

I've always enjoyed poking fun at silly looking chest banging. What are you going to do, roll me over it?
[/quote]
That's exactly what's happening now to you, isn't it?

So I'm just laughing at you for derailing this thread.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Koniac' date='09 March 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1268188443' post='2220304']
Everything's been said before, but Echelon's not responsible for their wiki, PC should have approached Echelon first, Echelon took SBA back in the day, etc. etc. etc., blah blah blah.

Question for PC:
...Disbanded or merged? I mean, either one is wrong but which wrong are you going to go with? It's mildly annoying that you can't seem to decide which one to go with.
[/quote]
If you merge, you disband that AA. The two aren't that hard to join together. I don't get why anybody would have issue with that.

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Earogema' date='10 March 2010 - 02:17 AM' timestamp='1268187788' post='2220277']
You act as if both sides weren't being ridiculous. Course, it was in #rok too.
[/quote]

Echelon made immature statements here and there, but unlike the people deriding them, was for the most part pretty civil in #rok.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Tromp' date='09 March 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1268188558' post='2220308']
That's exactly what's happening now to you, isn't it?

So I'm just laughing at you for derailing this thread.
[/quote]
It's pretty relevant. You're making silly threats. It isn't impressive. We get it, might makes right, you're hoping Echelon activates their protectorate so you can stake claim to some % of their tech, as they would be fighting a war they cannot win.

[tony2456]

[quote name='Omas Nams' date='09 March 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1268178507' post='2219866']
All depends whether you think it's down to Echelon to make sure everyone is aware they're protecting an alliance, or whether it's down to the attacker (PC) to make sure their raid target isn't protected. Imo it's unrealistic and wrong to expect someone go to every raiding alliance and point out that they're protecting someone, just to make sure they don't get hit. If you're going to raid someone then it's down to you to make sure they're not protected, even if that means checking with someone on IRC, so Echelon have every right to be asking for reps in my eyes.
[/quote]

This, and the wiki wasn't updated is a bit of flimsy excuse. If you're going to raid, be sure. I'm not convinced PC was.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Tromp' date='10 March 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1268187870' post='2220279']
All this blablabla.
Spare me your nonsense. It is pretty clear both parties could have avoided this situation. However Echelon fails to see where they were at fault and are not helping their case by taking it public. This clear attempt at taking a jab at PC has been noted. [b]And let it be known that FOK backs PC in this matter.[/b]
[/quote]

Does this mean that FOK, in your own words, supports wars of aggression launched by their allies?

[Earogema]

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='09 March 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1268188622' post='2220310']
Echelon made immature statements here and there, but unlike the people deriding them, was for the most part pretty civil in #rok.
[/quote]
They came into #rok for the sake of causing trouble. It was obvious and it was one of the most undiplomatic things to do.

[quote name='Lusitan' date='09 March 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1268188876' post='2220317']
Does this mean that FOK, in your own words, supports wars of aggression launched by their allies?
[/quote]
It means there is a treaty and it will be activated.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Earogema

[Tromp]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='10 March 2010 - 03:33 AM' timestamp='1268188715' post='2220313']
It's pretty relevant. You're making silly threats. It isn't impressive. We get it, might makes right, you're hoping Echelon activates their protectorate so you can stake claim to some % of their tech, as they would be fighting a war they cannot win.
[/quote]
Actually, your reply to my comment wasn't relevant at all.
You're reaching, so very, very far.

But fine, I think I can enjoy that villain image you're trying to portray me as. Even though FOK isn't demanding anything from TORN, am I a bad villain now? D:

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='10 March 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1268188876' post='2220317']
Does this mean that FOK, in your own words, supports wars of aggression launched by their allies?
[/quote]
Ofcourse I support them, I stated as much a few posts ago.