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

[Caliph]

[quote name='AirMe' date='09 March 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1268193309' post='2220478']
Translation: We raided SBA for the 3rd time because we know Echelon doesn't have the political capital to back it up. Especially when our allies turn a blind eye to our lack of intelligence.
[/quote]
Cute.

It really doesn't matter at this point. The discrepency has been rectified, nobody will make the same mistake on SBA (at least while the WIKI is maintained). The raid is over, and all that is preventing us all from moving on are Echelon threats of war if they do not get reps from PC.

PC is not paying Echelon. So the ball is back in Echelons court. Is Echelon going to go to war with PC, or is Echelon going to do nothing and we can all get back to what we were previously doing?

[cookavich]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='09 March 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1268186611' post='2220229']
PC already stated that they did not violate their charter.[/quote]Just because they stated they did not violate their charter does not mean they did not violate their charter. I can shout from the tree tops that I'm not ruggedly handsome all day long, but that doesn't make me not ruggedly handsome.

[quote]Echelon did not fix the errors on their wiki until someone saw it and came to the reasonable conclusion that the AA was not an official alliance with any ties and was free to raid. Echelon didn't act until the damage was already done and so they are partly to blame.[/quote]Probably because they had no idea there was an issue. I have no idea what protectorate treaties are up on the Polar wiki page because I frankly don't care, and if someone decided to raid one of our protectorates based on wiki information you can be damn sure that I wouldn't just brush it off as [i]my [/i]fault.

[quote]As much as you may scoff at it, the wiki is something people do use as a source of information and alliances that realize that keep them reasonably up to date. A treaty missing I might see, but a giant (false) merger notice staying up there for so long? Seems pretty ridiculous to me.[/quote]Doesn't seem ridiculous to me at all. I hardly check Polar's wiki page let alone our protectorates. I imagine many people are the same.

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Caliph' date='09 March 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1268194391' post='2220507']
The raid is over, and all that is preventing us all from moving on are Echelon threats of war if they do not get reps from PC.

PC is not paying Echelon. [/quote]
We don't want PC to pay Echelon. How many times do I need to say that? We want PC to compensate the raided SBA nations.

At least pay them back the looted money and tech that was gained. That wouldn't be too difficult, would it?

[Caliph]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='09 March 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1268194619' post='2220512']
We don't want PC to pay Echelon. How many times do I need to say that? We want PC to compensate the raided SBA nations.

At least pay them back the looted money and tech that was gained. That wouldn't be too difficult, would it?
[/quote]
My mistake, I had not worded that comment sufficiently.

What I meant to say is that PC is not going to be paying reperatations for their attacks on SBA.
That discussion was had, PC and SBA were both told "no" from PC. You have gotten your point across that SBA is an Echelon protectorate so that most everyone who pays attention to these forums will know that.

That is the best you will get, unless Echelon pushes for war. I garauntee you PC does not stand alone, so I really do not think you want to go down that route.
Take a hint, war will only make this situation worse. You have gotten the message that SBA is an active alliance that is an Echelon protoctorate. Take that as a victory and drop it.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

Edit: fixed a typo,added the last line.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Caliph

[Mamazlilmistake]

[quote name='AirMe' date='10 March 2010 - 03:49 AM' timestamp='1268193309' post='2220478']
Translation: We raided SBA for the 3rd time because we know Echelon doesn't have the political capital to back it up. Especially when our allies turn a blind eye to our lack of intelligence.
[/quote]

If i recall you do not support raiding of any kind. I am quite sure you once told me it is barbaric. As such, is your opinion not bias on this topic??? Echelon could have just as well not tried to pull one over on us, and your little kitty cat would still be all sandy.

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Caliph' date='10 March 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1268190893' post='2220406']
The facts are this: PC raided someone they thought was a disbanded alliance. Echelon has evidence supporting they not, indeed, a disbanded alliance.

The mistake for this is Echelon's.
[/quote]

You just pointed out that mistake is PC's.

[quote]
I think PC did a sufficient amount to check up on their raid. The wiki is the most accessible source of information (OOC: and to those of you who are making the comment about wikipedia being unreliable, recall that the CN wiki is CN's only historical . . . thingy). It's a little bit ridiculous to suggest that PC should have checked Echelon's boards if they were unaware that Echelon was SBA's protector.[/quote]

Like the point that's been brought up before, VE's new protectorate does not have a Wiki yet; go raid it and then expect not to pay reps? Furthermore, SBA's wiki did show they had a protectorate with Echelon. It was just that it appeared that SBA was disbanded. That was up for a month while Echelon was distracted with this recent war we just had, it's extremely reasonable to double check on a disbandment that happened not so far back. And SBA's NS graph that had a good amount of growth (signifying that people weren't leaving en mass) should have raised some alarm bells.

And again, Echelon recognizes the problems that can come with an incorrect wiki, which is why they were willing to go with not just 50% of the damages (which I think is extremely reasonable) but 25% of the damages (which is as you say: token reps): 50 mil.

Edits: blarg, grammar

Edited March 10, 2010 by FreddieMercury

[President Obama]

[quote name='Caliph' date='10 March 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1268190893' post='2220406']
The facts are this: PC raided someone they thought was a disbanded alliance. Echelon has evidence supporting they not, indeed, a disbanded alliance.

The mistake for this is Echelon's.
[/quote]
From what you said in the above statement the mistake seems to have been made by PC, not Echelon.

Edited March 10, 2010 by President Obama

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='MaGneT' date='09 March 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1268193377' post='2220480']
Now, while I love war, and if this does lead to war, I plan on fighting, I truly hope it doesn't. We've had plenty of stupid wars for stupid reasons lately. Let's not have another.

If this does go to war, though, I'll be seeing you on the other side of the battlefield, Echelon.
[/quote]

If a person acknowledges that their ally is wrong on a level, and knows a war is stupid, and that person goes to war in support of their ally's actions anyway, then what does that make that person?

Edited March 10, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Caliph' date='09 March 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1268190893' post='2220406']
The facts are this: PC raided someone they thought was a disbanded alliance. Echelon has evidence supporting they not, indeed, a disbanded alliance.

The mistake for this is Echelon's. [/quote]
Logic fail. You just made an argument for why PC owes reps.

According to your own charter:
[quote]Poison Clan Raid Rules
8.) In the event that a person raids a protected or treatied alliance by mistake, they will lose their raid privileges for the next thirty (30) days, and will pay reparations to compensate for the damage done.[/quote]

[Mamazlilmistake]

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='10 March 2010 - 04:22 AM' timestamp='1268195260' post='2220525']
You just pointed out that mistake is PC's.



Like the point that's been brought up before, VE's new protectorate does not have a Wiki yet; go raid it and then expect not to pay reps? Furthermore, SBA's wiki did show they had a protectorate with Echelon. It was just that it appeared that SBA was disbanded. That was up for a month while Echelon was distracted with this recent war we just had, it's extremely reasonable to double check on a disbandment that happened not so far back. And SBA's NS graph that had a good amount of growth (signifying that people weren't leaving en mass) should have raised some alarm bells.

And again, Echelon recognizes the problems that can come with an incorrect wiki, which is why they were willing to go with not just 50% of the damages (which I think is extremely reasonable) but 25% of the damages (which is as you say: token reps): 50 mil.

Edits: blarg, grammar
[/quote]

The post was 4 months old... And the wikia clearly stated that the alliance had dissolved and merged into someone. When an alliance merges into another, there are always nations who stay behind... These are the dead weight nations who dont read the pms and or sign on, or are diehards. In any event, we were under the assumption they were as a hole, no more. The problem is that Echelon then went and switched everything and tried to pull one over on us. Thankfully our tech/dork caught the date up the updates. We called them on the shenanigans, and here we are now.



[quote name='Schattenmann' date='10 March 2010 - 04:24 AM' timestamp='1268195395' post='2220531']
If a person acknowledges that their ally is wrong on a level, and knows a war is stupid, and that person goes to war in support of their ally's actions anyway, then what does that make that person?
[/quote]

An ally to NpO?

[Fireandthepassion]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='09 March 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1268178745' post='2219878']
I'll settle this.

Corp will offer SBA a protectorate, in our experience that is enough to stop raids.



Ensuring your wiki is up to date (it wasn't), and ensuring your protectorate actually KNOWS they are being protected is a much more efficient and less time consuming way to overcome this than your suggestions.
[/quote]

Did you miss where PC asked a former member of SBA and not a current member?

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='09 March 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1268195395' post='2220531']
If a person acknowledges that their ally is wrong on a level, and knows a war is stupid, and that person goes to war in support of their ally's actions anyway, then what does that make that person?
[/quote]
Touché, Schattenmann.

I don't believe what PC did was completely wrong, I think that both sides share the blame here. I also think that a war over something this stupid will be the dumbest thing since last month.
But, IMO, what PC did was in no way egregious (I'm pro-raiding). An honest mistake, as I see it. If it comes to war, an honest mistake would be no reason not to support a close ally.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='MaGneT' date='09 March 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1268195936' post='2220539']
Touché, Schattenmann.

I don't believe what PC did was completely wrong, I think that both sides share the blame here. I also think that a war over something this stupid will be the dumbest thing since last month.
But, IMO, what PC did was in no way egregious (I'm pro-raiding). An honest mistake, as I see it. If it comes to war, an honest mistake would be no reason not to support a close ally.
[/quote]

Exactly. And when a reasonable person makes an honest mistake, they make it right ASAP; for example, every time that CoJ has been raided and we've contacted the gov of the raider, they peace out ASAP and they send the money. Instead, PC made the same honest mistake more than once. It's not honest. A person's personal stance on raiding hasn't got any bearing on the situation's egregiousness, either.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='MaGneT' date='09 March 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1268195936' post='2220539']
Touché, Schattenmann.

I don't believe what PC did was completely wrong, I think that both sides share the blame here. I also think that a war over something this stupid will be the dumbest thing since last month.
But, IMO, what PC did was in no way egregious (I'm pro-raiding). An honest mistake, as I see it. If it comes to war, an honest mistake would be no reason not to support a close ally.
[/quote]
Just how many honest mistakes will it take for PC to lose its supporters?

Fact is, PC likes to "raid" protectorates of people it doesn't like. Remember California?

[Caffine]

[quote name='Mamazlilmistake' date='09 March 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1268195803' post='2220536']
The post was 4 months old... And the wikia clearly stated that the alliance had dissolved and merged into someone. When an alliance merges into another, there are always nations who stay behind... These are the dead weight nations who dont read the pms and or sign on, or are diehards. In any event, we were under the assumption they were as a hole, no more. The problem is that Echelon then went and switched everything and tried to pull one over on us. Thankfully our tech/dork caught the date up the updates. We called them on the shenanigans, and here we are now.





An ally to NpO?
[/quote]

Nobody was ever trying to hide anything. Anybody can look up the wiki edit histories. Try reading the OP.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Caffine1

[Mamazlilmistake]

[quote name='Fireandthepassion' date='10 March 2010 - 04:33 AM' timestamp='1268195902' post='2220537']
Did you miss where PC asked a former member of SBA and not a current member?
[/quote]

Wikia said dissolved and merged, as such would the PAST member not know best? Since the current floaters clearly missed the memo.

EDIT, adding-

[quote]Nobody was ever trying to hide anything. Anybody can look up the wiki edit histories. Try reading the OP. [/quote]

Minus the part where you guys tried to pull one over on us. But, we had screenies to back up our claims of attempting to check up on a target. I read the OP and i am trying to show the TRUE portion of the story to which you are so clearly trying to fog.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Mamazlilmistake

[Stilgar]

[quote name='Mamazlilmistake' date='09 March 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1268196451' post='2220553']
Wikia said dissolved and merged, as such would the PAST member not know best? Since the current floaters clearly missed the memo.
[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong (chances are I probably am ) but I believe the former member indicated that SBA was no longer under protectorate status, not that SBA had disbanded. If so, then you cannot use his statement to bolster the claim that they've disbanded.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Stilgar

[Caliph]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='09 March 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1268195598' post='2220535']
Logic fail. You just made an argument for why PC owes reps.

According to your own charter:
[/quote]

[quote name='Freddie Mercury']You just pointed out that mistake is PC's.
[/quote]

[quote name='President Obama' date='09 March 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1268195366' post='2220529']
From what you said in the above statement the mistake seems to have been made by PC, not Echelon.
[/quote]
This is what I get for posting tired.

At the time of the raid, evidence supported PC's version of events.
After/during the raid, evidence was presented to support an alternative version.

Echelon/SBA made the mistake of not keeping their information current in acceptable media here. Therefore it is Echelon who did not perform as expected, and did not sufficiently let the world know of the SBA status as protectorate. That situation has since been rectified, but I view it as a mistake by Echelon, not PC.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say earlier.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Mamazlilmistake' date='09 March 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1268194996' post='2220517']
If i recall you do not support raiding of any kind. I am quite sure you once told me it is barbaric. As such, is your opinion not bias on this topic??? Echelon could have just as well not tried to pull one over on us, and your little kitty cat would still be all sandy.
[/quote]

I personally do not raid but I do believe in raiding in an extremely controlled environment for training and activity purposes. Echelon didn't try to pull one over on you, this is PC exploiting another situation to your advantage. Just like you did with California. The only reason you get away with the crap that you do is because of your friends. Sadly, I think some maybe right when they say some alliances are turning into the new Hegemony. The one thing that bothered me about WUT and the Toilet Seat is how there was no accountability. That is the same thing I see going on here every time you guys fail to use common sense.

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Mamazlilmistake' date='10 March 2010 - 04:31 AM' timestamp='1268195803' post='2220536']
The post was 4 months old... And the wikia clearly stated that the alliance had dissolved and merged into someone. When an alliance merges into another, there are always nations who stay behind... These are the dead weight nations who dont read the pms and or sign on, or are diehards. In any event, we were under the assumption they were as a hole, no more. The problem is that Echelon then went and switched everything and tried to pull one over on us. Thankfully our tech/dork caught the date up the updates. We called them on the shenanigans, and here we are now.
[/quote]

Quoting the OP: [quote]On February 6, 2010, the user "Lol pie" took information that had already been edited out of the wiki 5 hours after it was put up in October of 2009 and decided that SBA no longer existed.[/quote]

That's about a month.

If you're not sure they're dead weight, do a quick IRC query, viola: issue resolved. Also, the accusation that Echelon tried to pull one over you is laughable, you can clearly see in the logs that they acknowledge that the change was to correct the issue.

[Merrie Melodies]

Out of curiosity, when this war kicks off you are you sure you won't be violating your recent surrender terms?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='09 March 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1268197182' post='2220568']
Out of curiosity, when this war kicks off you are you sure you won't be violating your recent surrender terms?
[/quote]
Is Echelon's protectorate involved in the war? If not, guessing no.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='10 March 2010 - 04:59 AM' timestamp='1268197472' post='2220571']
Is Echelon's protectorate involved in the war? If not, guessing no.
[/quote]
It would seem that Echelon is soon to be, and did they not recently surrender?

[Czar Aleksander]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='09 March 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1268197182' post='2220568']
Out of curiosity, when this war kicks off you are you sure you won't be violating your recent surrender terms?
[/quote]

Speaking of surrender terms, isn't caffiene supposed to stay out of the government?

[Newhotness]

dont feel like looking for the post, but someone said that one of our flaws was asking a previous member about the treaty instead of a current member. But if the research we did suggested that SBA is a dead alliance, then the only thing that would be left, in our eyes, is ex-members. because you cant have current members of something that doesnt exist

And as for doing this because Echelon isnt prepared to take us on militarily atm. Echelon decided to let Caffine do gov work again, even though peace terms said he couldnt, because the alliances who issued those terms were militarily occupied at the time and couldnt do anything about it. hypocrite much?

Edited March 10, 2010 by Newhotness