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

[Caffine]

[quote name='fant0m' date='10 March 2010 - 08:36 AM' timestamp='1268228523' post='2220875']
What exactly are we "lying" about? Echelon can keep saying 'oh anyone can edit the wiki so it isn't legit' as many times as they want but the fact is it wasn't just anyone who edited the wiki. It was 2 members of Echelon.

The raiders who hit SBA are experienced raiders and I also don't believe for half a second one of the nations they hit had "Protected by Echelon" in their bios. It's the very first thing we check before anything else and to say this would have been overlooked before even proceeding to the wiki is laughable.

Mistakes have been made on both sides but they were honest mistakes and I don't see why we should be made to pay reps over this.
[/quote]
I wish that, just once, a member of Poison Clan would read the OP before talking about "Echelon editting the wiki". The fact that you can't be bothered really shows that you don't care, and are trying to justify what ultimately amounts to "Might Makes Right."

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='09 March 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1268190180' post='2220372']
Of course, by the same token, the SBA is stricken out of the commonwealth on the commonwealth wiki. This is why you should keep your own house in order. Its what IA people are for, to prevent nonsense like this.

If SBA was protected, fine. PC however, with the SBA page saying they merged. A former SBA member saying they had disbanded, the SBA forums being a vast collection of tumbleweeds, and [b]Echelons own Commonwealth wiki having them stricken out[/b]..... I can see where they reached their realization. The question is...how far should someone go to verify. There are 2 answers to this.... if you side against the raider...they never went far enough. If you side with the raider, they adequately covered their bases. Everyone is free to make their own decisions, but to suggest that Echelons protection of SBA was CLEAR based on the complete Wiki picture, is patently false.
[/quote]The Commonwealth is separate from our treaties and always has been. So that bit good sir is a null argument.


[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='09 March 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1268190728' post='2220399']
I was pretty sure someone mentioned it earlier.

Maybe not though.
[/quote]You win. Here's a cookie. You're still reading this thread so you are obviously not allergic to nuts

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='10 March 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1268229120' post='2220879']
....you don't care, and are trying to justify what ultimately amounts to "Might Makes Right."
[/quote]
You're one of the last folks I would ever expect to trot this out in a negative way. If the situation were reversed and you were among Echelon's leadership, you'd bring a few PC leaders into a private IRC channel, ask a hundred loaded questions and then declare war anyway.


Unless I'm mis-reading, PC has said they're not interested in paying. This leaves Echelon with two options. I wish they had exercised one of those rather than issuing this (admittedly nicely-put-together) statement on the matter. In a world where discussions about war inevitably lead to arguments over math, we really don't need yet another debate that goes nowhere.

[Uranus]

Well poison clan I can't say I'm impressed. It seems you knew better and did it anyway or at least didn't correct it after the fact. Of course now you're in a position to ignore Echelons requests and as an alliance you have that right. I can't say that choice sits well with me, but you'll do what you'll do.

Considering Echelon has threatened to crater my alliance more then once in the past, its not like I would usualy support them in anything, but the situation as presented speaks for itself.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Mamazlilmistake' date='10 March 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1268191046' post='2220412']
Here is how it is... A few pc nations found a small alliance to raid, its what we do. The first thing a raider ever checks is a nation's bios. While I might not have been a part of the raid, my brethren who did participate in the raid are experienced raiders and I would not doubt whatsoever that the first thing they did before checking the Wikia or any other sources was every bio. I would say with the utmost certainty that there was no mention of protection in any bio until the raids occurred. As offered in the many screenies provided, the wikia also lacked all connection to Echelon. UNTIL after the raids (changed by a Echelon minion) < which is SHENANIGANS


If Echelon has any problems with this... boom boom party starter!
[/quote]


[quote name='MaGneT' date='10 March 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1268193377' post='2220480']
What a stupid misunderstanding.

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. It's also a bit ridiculous to demand any more than symbolic token reps, because tying up aid slots at 5-6k infra does little more than damage tech input. Even with a mere 4.3k infra right now, having 18M dropped on me wouldn't do much at all.
I also think that Echelon's display of brinkmanship is nothing but foolish, because the mantra of "do something about it", though I do find it to be mindless chest-thumping, does have real meaning in this world. It's little but a display of weakness to threaten war then go ahead with an announcement.


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

I can sympethize with the raiders initial actions a little. But both SBAs and Echelons Forums(which should be taken as official rather than the wiki) show that there is indead a treaty there.

Also it seems that Echelon tried to make every attempt at first to be diplomatic about this issue. I mean come on, 50 mil? Thats hardly going to break the bank.

Echelon cant really do anything militarily about it so I guess might makes right, and refusing to pay reps is more a political statement than anything else. From the logs ive seen in this thread it seems to me that in the initial conversations PC seemed apologetic and halted raids, gave raiding bans etc and seemed to be open to negotiation. Then someone realised "hang on, we dont need to give them stuff all".

[Legend]

[quote name='fant0m' date='10 March 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1268228523' post='2220875']
What exactly are we "lying" about? Echelon can keep saying 'oh anyone can edit the wiki so it isn't legit' as many times as they want but the fact is it wasn't just anyone who edited the wiki. It was 2 members of Echelon.

The raiders who hit SBA are experienced raiders and I also don't believe for half a second one of the nations they hit had "Protected by Echelon" in their bios. It's the very first thing we check before anything else and to say this would have been overlooked before even proceeding to the wiki is laughable.

Mistakes have been made on both sides but they were honest mistakes and I don't see why we should be made to pay reps over this.
[/quote]

A mistake is a mistake, whether its honest or not, you're still guilty of it.

So what do you do when you're guilty of something? Own up to it like a man and take the deserved punishment, which in this case is 25% of the damage done.

I am sure PC isn't THAT poor that they can't even cough up 50mil. Maybe its the "might is right" syndrome that is currently plaguing many alliances that emerged victorious in the last conflict.

And to those people who constantly said that PC is not at fault here cuz the wiki displayed the wrong info, you guys are just beating the dead horse. The wiki has NEVER been the MOST accurate source of information. I can easily go and edit PC's wiki to show that all their treaties have been canceled and they've disbanded. Does it mean that I can attack you without fear of repercussion?

The conclusion I've come up with by reading all 18 pages of this thread is that PC is just out looking for trouble. You guys could had paid off the 50mil which is a fair amount, but you chose to stir up a hornets' nest. Really [i]commendable[/i] behaviour, PC.

Karma will come back and bite you in the $@!, PC. Sounds familiar?

[StevieG]

[quote name='fant0m' date='11 March 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1268228523' post='2220875']
Mistakes have been made on both sides but they were honest mistakes and I don't see why we should be made to pay reps over this.
[/quote]

SBAs and Echelons mistakes did not damage your nations. Your mistakes did damage theirs, and that is why you should pay reps. You did not dig deep enough to realise that there was an existing treaty, and the reps negotiated down are hardly anything really.

Or just say "You are getting no reps, attack us in defence of your protectorate at your own peril". That seems to be the in thing to do now.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='fant0m' date='10 March 2010 - 07:36 AM' timestamp='1268228523' post='2220875']
The raiders who hit SBA are experienced raiders and I also don't believe for half a second one of the nations they hit had "Protected by Echelon" in their bios. It's the very first thing we check before anything else and to say this would have been overlooked before even proceeding to the wiki is laughable.
[/quote]

I think this says otherwise.

[img]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/2749/proofj.png[/img]

I checked and saw the exact same thing when it first came to my attention, and nothing has changed.

Edited March 10, 2010 by memoryproblems

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='10 March 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1268232118' post='2220907']
I think this says otherwise.

[img]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/2749/proofj.png[/img]

I checked and saw the exact same thing when it first came to my attention, and nothing has changed.
[/quote]
i am not taking sides here, but a screenshot of a page with a timestamp, where the timestamp is cut out doesn't really prove anything.
Regardless good luck in getting this sorted out, though i have my doubts if this was the right approach to achieve anything since PC most likely will dig in their heels now...

[Sir Keshav IV]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='10 March 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1268232118' post='2220907']
I think this says otherwise.

[img]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/2749/proofj.png[/img]

I checked and saw the exact same thing when it first came to my attention, and nothing has changed.
[/quote]

That screenshot was taken today, the war was started on the 28th of Feb, between 28th of Feb and today there have been what 12 days? Within those 12 days he could have edited his nation bio and addded in: Protected by Echelon. Seeing as he is one day inactive currently, that could have very well happened and by that extension, giving this screenshot as an argument in invalid.

But I do agree, Poison Clan is in the wrong here. Poison Clan should pay reps for this raid, at least 25% of the damages occured and forget about it and move on.

[Ashoka the Great]

So if I understand where this argument is now headed....

Wiki: Not trustworthy.

Nation Bio: Completely trustworthy.

/me goes to add 'protected by Echelon' in his nation bio

[extraduty]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='09 March 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1268181209' post='2219979']
Yes, and a link to their forums, and their treaties, was provided in the OP.

http://sba.egzodus.com/forum/index.php?topic=7.0
[/quote]

And the last post on that forum was in October.

I can provide links to old forums of disbanded alliances too that have treaties listed. That doesn't prove anything.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='extraduty' date='10 March 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1268232855' post='2220916']
And the last post on that forum was in October.

I can provide links to old forums of disbanded alliances too that have treaties listed. That doesn't prove anything.
[/quote]

And a Wiki page does? No. PC should have used the brains God gave them and asked Echelon about it.

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='MaGneT' date='09 March 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1268193377' post='2220480']
What a stupid misunderstanding.

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. It's also a bit ridiculous to demand any more than symbolic token reps, because tying up aid slots at 5-6k infra does little more than damage tech input. Even with a mere 4.3k infra right now, having 18M dropped on me wouldn't do much at all.
I also think that Echelon's display of brinkmanship is nothing but foolish, because the mantra of "do something about it", though I do find it to be mindless chest-thumping, does have real meaning in this world. It's little but a display of weakness to threaten war then go ahead with an announcement.

That being said, my allies at PC ought to learn already that attacking an AA, disbanded or not, hasn't been a great course of action as of late. Assuming that Echelon is telling the truth, and many of the bios said that they were a protectorate, PC could have easily gone into Echelon's channel and asked a quick question.

This, like everything that seems to have happened on Bob in these past few months, is a result of a situation that could have been avoided. Echelon, realize that you truly cannot afford a war with PC and try to find a reasonable end. PC, realize that Echelon can't exactly budge much at this point without losing a lot of face, and let's face the facts, they don't have much political capital to begin with. 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]Here's the thing. I was always a raider. As Tela can attest, sometimes I frigged up and did the same thing they did. At times spectacularly. Guess who had to pay? Not my alliance or my AA's allies, ME. Now this isn't to say for a second I wasn't backed by my alliance in negotiation but it was always left on the individual(s) to pay the tab if they goofed their research on a raid. That is why we [i]have[/i] raid rules folks. Here is what I am going to set forth here. Set this bull aside. Let the individuals responsible come to me directly along with their alliance leader, and we'll work out an arrangement. No haymaking, no chest-thumping, no politics, no BS. If you [i]are[/i] interested, drop me a PM and we'll set it up.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='11 March 2010 - 02:48 AM' timestamp='1268232804' post='2220915']
So if I understand where this argument is now headed....

Wiki: Not trustworthy.

Nation Bio: Completely trustworthy.

/me goes to add 'protected by Echelon' in his nation bio
[/quote]

You missed the most trustworthy: Alliance Home Forums

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Sir Keshav IV' date='10 March 2010 - 08:45 AM' timestamp='1268232672' post='2220913']
That screenshot was taken today, the war was started on the 28th of Feb, between 28th of Feb and today there have been what 12 days? Within those 12 days he could have edited his nation bio and addded in: Protected by Echelon. Seeing as he is one day inactive currently, that could have very well happened and by that extension, giving this screenshot as an argument in invalid.

But I do agree, Poison Clan is in the wrong here. Poison Clan should pay reps for this raid, at least 25% of the damages occured and forget about it and move on.
[/quote]

Perhaps, its always possible. I personally saw his bio exactly as it is represented in the image when it was first brought to my attention in the early A.M. on the 29th, Unless somebody has evidence to the contrary, I'm personally inclined to believe that it was there prior to the raids.

[StevieG]

[quote name='extraduty' date='11 March 2010 - 02:48 AM' timestamp='1268232855' post='2220916']
And the last post on that forum was in October.

I can provide links to old forums of disbanded alliances too that have treaties listed. That doesn't prove anything.
[/quote]

So they are a rather inactive alliance, big deal. They are active enough to keep 13 nations running and have a treaty listed on their forums for outsiders to see. How they comunicate with each other wether by way of in game PM, irc, or msn is none of your business really(no offense meant). Is that not enough for you?

[extraduty]

[quote name='StevieG' date='10 March 2010 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1268233576' post='2220929']
So they are a rather inactive alliance, big deal. They are active enough to keep 13 nations running and have a treaty listed on their forums for outsiders to see. How they comunicate with each other wether by way of in game PM, irc, or msn is none of your business really(no offense meant). Is that not enough for you?
[/quote]

No offense taken. But you miss my point. I am stating that just because their forums are still "turned on" doesn't mean that the alliance is not merged. I still have admin on some older forums of merged alliances. I know these alliances are merged, because I helped merge them. But the forums are still active and the alliances are not.

[StevieG]

[quote name='extraduty' date='11 March 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1268233853' post='2220932']
No offense taken. But you miss my point. I am stating that just because their forums are still "turned on" doesn't mean that the alliance is not merged. I still have admin on some older forums of merged alliances. I know these alliances are merged, because I helped merge them. But the forums are still active and the alliances are not.
[/quote]

Was there ever a thread stating that they had merged or disbanded?(as far as i can tell there was talk of a merger that fell through) Im pretty sure there was a DoE and even an OWF post about their treaty when it was signed. No more info here on the OWF tends to lead to the assumption that everything is status quo no?

Your argument surely cannot be "but the wiki says so". The very least you could have done was aproach Echelon about the issue at hand no? Or maybe the raiders didnt want to realise that their prime raiding target may not be legit and would miss out if they researched fully.

[Germanium]

i think echelon should stop making empty threats. i understand you feel as though u need to protect your protectorate (if thats the case) but to be fair u have made the situation worse by all of this nonsense. this should have been posted in a dow. i mean really if you are going to do something about please dont come on these forums and talk about it just do it. if u are so baffled by the situation then honestly you need to raise your weapons and fight for it. your name wont be as disgraced if you fight for what u believe in but if your going to come on these forums and cry and moan and complain about the injustice but fail to do anything, the idea of losing and saving ur stats are apparently more important than what you stand for.

please dont turn into a blue gga or whatever color you are. i honestly hope you find what you are looking for and these threats made dont come out to be empty.

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='extraduty' date='10 March 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1268232855' post='2220916']
And the last post on that forum was in October.

I can provide links to old forums of disbanded alliances too that have treaties listed. That doesn't prove anything.
[/quote]
The last [b][i]public[/i][/b] link is dated October. If you had a member mask, you'd see more recent posts.

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='cookavich' date='09 March 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1268194522' post='2220510']
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.

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.

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.
[/quote]

Meh, fair enough.

Even if Echelon isn't at fault though, I feel like PC did everything that could have been reasonably expected to research their target considering the evidence that was immediately in front of them. A lot of that evidence pointed to the fact that SBA no longer existed. Merger notice on the wiki, inactive forums, and the ex-leader confirming the merger (which would be a reliable source if it was believed that the alliance had in fact merged).

PC feels this way as well and so they don't believe they need to pay reps. Whether or not what the raiders did is a violation of their own laws is to be determined by PC gov and handled by PC gov. If an outsider interprets their law in a different way then the people who actually wrote it then that's unfortunate, but the writers and enforcers of that law get to make the call there.

Echelon isn't necessarily wrong for trying to get compensation for their protectorate if they feel it's warranted, but waving PC's own charter in their face isn't an effective argument as they only have outside knowledge of PC law and policies. It will not get SBA their reps.

Fact of the matter is, this thread as a whole goes nowhere towards getting Echelon what they want and neither does all of this debate.

In fact, I'm going to try and pry myself away from this and go back to spectator's corner. Being involved in an argument going nowhere just gives me a headache. Much more fun to watch.

Edited March 10, 2010 by LegendoftheSkies

[Mannatech]

[quote name='Baldr' date='09 March 2010 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1268180266' post='2219940']
According to this, PC had been informed, and then continued to raid.



If that's all true, then PC is clearly not following their own charter, and is continuing to raid SBA even after being informed.



Looks like they did inform PC, and the raids did not stop.

Of course, I'd have more sympathy for SBA and Echelon if they didn't do tech raids themselves. But they do, and they don't pay reps when they raid, so I figure they have little room to complain.
[/quote]

This is not true. SBA has a NO RAID POLICY!!!!!!

[Mannatech]

[quote name='fant0m' date='10 March 2010 - 05:36 AM' timestamp='1268228523' post='2220875']
What exactly are we "lying" about? Echelon can keep saying 'oh anyone can edit the wiki so it isn't legit' as many times as they want but the fact is it wasn't just anyone who edited the wiki. It was 2 members of Echelon.

The raiders who hit SBA are experienced raiders and I also don't believe for half a second one of the nations they hit had "Protected by Echelon" in their bios. It's the very first thing we check before anything else and to say this would have been overlooked before even proceeding to the wiki is laughable.

Mistakes have been made on both sides but they were honest mistakes and I don't see why we should be made to pay reps over this.
[/quote]

So it's essential for us to put that in our BIOS to not get attacked now???? Even if this is true you should look at the top SBA members because they all have protection by echelon in their BIOS. This is absurd.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Mannatech

[LetsHunt]

19 pages of trollin' awesome.

Good luck to our friends over at Echelon though with this issue.