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

[Supa_Troop3r]

[quote name='Mannatech' date='10 March 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1268237824' post='2220971']
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.
[/quote]
They do now.
The fact is the wiki said SBA had merged. Your ex-Leader said you merged. You had nothing in your bios. PC did their research.
Then SBA does get raided, the wiki is updated, your nations have their bios updated.
I would not be paying reparations if we were in this situation due to the fact SBA seemed unprotected.

[Mannatech]

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1268180597' post='2219955']
Of that same token, 1 member of a 13 member AA told them they weren't protected.
[/quote]


Which one was that? The lowest one? That makes sense I guess. Because anyone with a brainstem would ask the lowest one on the totem pole and not the top one.

[Mannatech]

[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' date='10 March 2010 - 08:20 AM' timestamp='1268238326' post='2220978']
They do now.
The fact is the wiki said SBA had merged. Your ex-Leader said you merged. You had nothing in your bios. PC did their research.
Then SBA does get raided, the wiki is updated, your nations have their bios updated.
I would not be paying reparations if we were in this situation due to the fact SBA seemed unprotected.
[/quote]


Just because we seemed unprotected does not give anyone the right to attack us. PC knows that we are under Echelon protection. They have attacked us in the past. There is no miscommunication.

[Supa_Troop3r]

[quote name='Mannatech' date='10 March 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1268238528' post='2220982']
Just because we seemed unprotected does not give anyone the right to attack us. PC knows that we are under Echelon protection. They have attacked us in the past. There is no miscommunication.
[/quote]
There is no miscommunication? This is a 19 page thread, obv there was some sort of miscommunication. But good luck with your quest.

[Kevin McDonald]

This thread has really run its course... each argument has been brought up and re-hashed at least twice.

Echelon, what outcome are you expecting from this, because it has never been clearly stated. If the outcome you expect is reps, you have your answer. If the outcome you expect is moral support, well, you've got your answer as well. If it's military support, I think you have your answer there as well (hence the need for this thread.)

So, I ask again, what outcome are you expecting? Someone needs to define this, or this thread is just going to continue to be people going in circles for 20 more pages.

Thank you, Echelon, for answering these questions honestly when you have a moment to.

Kevin

[Neo Anglia]

My offer as an Echelon Director stands. If they take me up on it and want to settle this in a gentlemanly fashion, cool.

[Master-Debater]

So here we have another instance of PC raiding someone they shouldn’t raid. And once again they don’t care at all. It’s pretty clear that there were mistakes going on and they should offer some sort of reparations and work so this doesn’t happen again but, once again, they will keep their head in a certain place and not care.

Since when is a Wiki the final determination for an alliances dealings? If that’s the case I’m going to go edit the BTA Wiki to say that people owe us 5k tech. Not everyone sits around all day making sure that a Wiki is updated every 30 seconds. PC should have noticed the Bios and asked Echelon if they were the protectors. That’s not that hard of a thing. I do it all the time if a smaller nation wants to raid a person but they have “Protected by XXXXX” in their bios, it’s not exactly constructing the Great Wall. Time for PC to “man up” to the fact that they screwed up and try to make things right for once.

You can all bet your @#$% that if different alliances were involved then the moral outrage would be huge. If this were, say, IRON raiding a group of nations protected by, oh say, Sparta then everyone here would be calling for blood. It’s pretty easy to see the blatant hypocrisy going on here. What if Athens were the protector? MK? A simple change in the alliances would result in the moralist neo-hegemony demanding blood.

If there is one constant in this entire thing it is that it doesn’t matter who’s in power. They will say that might makes right and will abuse their power. That’s the one constant on Bob that will never change.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' date='10 March 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1268238326' post='2220978']
They do now.
The fact is the wiki said SBA had merged. Your ex-Leader said you merged. You had nothing in your bios. PC did their research.
Then SBA does get raided, the wiki is updated, your nations have their bios updated.
I would not be paying reparations if we were in this situation due to the fact SBA seemed unprotected.
[/quote]

A few facts:
13 nations remain on the SBA Alliance Affiliation, thats a pretty significant amount for an alliance that was at 20 at their prime. Three of 13 nations on the SBA have alliance seniority that began after the October 17th date the SBA wiki previously (falsely) stated that they merged into Echelon. When you couple this with the fact that PC has raided SBA before, they should have known, and red flags should have been visible for anybody who was looking. When your raiding people on an alliance affiliation, special care should be taken to ensure that everything is clean, and unfortunately that level of care was not taken in regards to these attacks.

[Poyplemonkeys]

So Poison Clan made the mistake of raiding a protected alliance under the impression it was disbanded/no longer protected. Echelon/SBA, at a stretch, made the mistake of not keeping an unofficial source of information up to date. Acknowledging said error, Echelon agreed to compromise and meet in the middle and not request full damages. Poison Clan refuses to acknowledge their error, refuses to compromise and refuses to pay any reparations full stop.

Damn, I like a lot of PC's individual members but you deserve to pay for your actions against SBA, whether that comes through reparations or war.

Some of the arguments on behalf of PC here are quite frankly ludicrous. Claiming SBA aren't SpaceBattles.com Alliance for one, brilliant. Claiming that an ex-member of the alliance is a legitimate source of information given the other sources available, also brilliant. Disappointing that each of PC's allies feels the need to enable such a disgusting attitude when it comes to righting the wrongs they have committed.

[quote name='daggarz' date='10 March 2010 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1268216205' post='2220815']
And NOIR, man we huge and we baaaaadass.
[/quote]

How exactly is an ODP going to be activated here?

Edited March 10, 2010 by Poyplemonkeys

[SnowCrash]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='10 March 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1268234922' post='2220940']
The last [b][i]public[/i][/b] link is dated October. If you had a member mask, you'd see more recent posts.
[/quote]

Maybe you should take 5 mins and update the public list? I mean your members took the time to update the wiki after the raids occurred.

It is no secret that raiding alliances use the wiki, the OWF and alliance forums to figure out who is protected and who isn't. Nation bios have never been considered a credible source and to argue it is, is ludicrous. It is Echelon's fault for not keeping their Wiki and the public treaty list up to date, as a result of your failures, you should be culpable for any damages to your protectorate.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='SnowCrash' date='10 March 2010 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1268240949' post='2221003']
Nation bios have never been considered a credible source and to argue it is, is ludicrous. It is Echelon's fault for not keeping their Wiki and the public treaty list up to date, as a result of your failures, you should be culpable for any damages to your protectorate.
[/quote]

No, bios aren't always accurate, but it should have raised a flag that provoked further investigation. As for Echelon, our wiki and our own public treaty list on our own forums have been consistently up-to-date as far as our protection of SBA goes.

Edited March 10, 2010 by memoryproblems

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='SnowCrash' date='10 March 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1268240949' post='2221003']
Maybe you should take 5 mins and update the public list? I mean your members took the time to update the wiki after the raids occurred.

It is no secret that raiding alliances use the wiki, the OWF and alliance forums to figure out who is protected and who isn't. Nation bios have never been considered a credible source and to argue it is, is ludicrous. It is Echelon's fault for not keeping their Wiki and the public treaty list up to date, as a result of your failures, you should be culpable for any damages to your protectorate.
[/quote]

Echelon's public treaty list was up to date. Echelon's wikipedia was up to date. There was no OWF posting of SBA's disbandment. There was no OWF posting of an SBA merge into Echelon. There was no OWF posting of a protectorate cancellation between Echelon and SBA.

The only sources they had were the wiki of SBA, which can and will be edited by anyone. Hell I just checked Nemesis' because last I checked it was horrendously out of date. Someone has updated it, no idea who. Locke has updated Nemesis' wiki in the past (a flag update iirc) and he has nothing to do with Nemesis and never has. Anyone claiming the wikipedia should be a valid source of information rather than a reference point before you go on to look at various other far more reliable sources is talking out of their arse.

That and the testimony of an ex-SBA member. If anyone has any questions about 1 Touch Football policies feel free to contact me. Cheers. I'm pretty sure AZTEC is cancelled btw.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Lukapaka' date='10 March 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1268208632' post='2220773']
This entire affair seems silly. Why can't you guys just get along?
[/quote]

Because tech raiders want to attack people who are smaller than them, and tech raiders don't have any intention of paying reps when they do it. This should be obvious.

All of PC's talk about "we didn't know, so it's your fault" gets nowhere with me due to the fact that PC had raided SBA twice before this incident, and had been contacted by Echelon. They raided SBA again anyway.

And to me, that's the most important point of this thread. If PC decides to raid SBA again, they won't be able to use the "We didn't know, so it's OK" excuse.

Echelon only asked for 1/4 of the damages. (Less, technically.) PC refuses to pay so much as $3M as a token payment. This isn't surprising - tech raiders can't afford to pay reps every time they tech raid anyone.

[quote name='Mannatech' date='10 March 2010 - 10:09 AM' timestamp='1268237694' post='2220969']
This is not true. SBA has a NO RAID POLICY!!!!!!
[/quote]

I don't know SBA, and had never heard of them prior to this. However, according to the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=35323&st=0"]Echelon protectorate agreement[/url] with SBA, "Article V: SBA agrees to follow tech raiding rules, as outlined by Echelon". That's where I came up with that.

[Mannatech]

[quote name='bzelger' date='09 March 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1268188075' post='2220289']
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?



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.
[/quote]

Thank you.

[Kevin McDonald]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='10 March 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1268239063' post='2220991']
My offer as an Echelon Director stands. If they take me up on it and want to settle this in a gentlemanly fashion, cool.
[/quote]

And that was? (If you were refering to my post, if not, then don't worry.)

[Mannatech]

[quote name='Sir Keshav IV' date='10 March 2010 - 06:45 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]

I hereby vouch for the screenshot. Valvation's bio is accurate.

[Mannatech]

[quote name='StevieG' date='10 March 2010 - 07:15 AM' timestamp='1268234471' post='2220936']
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.
[/quote]


Our merger did not include all of our people. Only half of our alliance went to Echelon. The rest remained.

[Mannatech]

[quote name='Baldr' date='10 March 2010 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1268241329' post='2221011']
Because tech raiders want to attack people who are smaller than them, and tech raiders don't have any intention of paying reps when they do it. This should be obvious.

All of PC's talk about "we didn't know, so it's your fault" gets nowhere with me due to the fact that PC had raided SBA twice before this incident, and had been contacted by Echelon. They raided SBA again anyway.

And to me, that's the most important point of this thread. If PC decides to raid SBA again, they won't be able to use the "We didn't know, so it's OK" excuse.

Echelon only asked for 1/4 of the damages. (Less, technically.) PC refuses to pay so much as $3M as a token payment. This isn't surprising - tech raiders can't afford to pay reps every time they tech raid anyone.



I don't know SBA, and had never heard of them prior to this. However, according to the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=35323&st=0"]Echelon protectorate agreement[/url] with SBA, "Article V: SBA agrees to follow tech raiding rules, as outlined by Echelon". That's where I came up with that.
[/quote]

Alright. SBA Charter article 4d states: At this time, SBA members are not permitted to raid other nations.

[SnowCrash]

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='10 March 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1268241297' post='2221009']
Echelon's public treaty list was up to date. Echelon's wikipedia was up to date. There was no OWF posting of SBA's disbandment. There was no OWF posting of an SBA merge into Echelon. There was no OWF posting of a protectorate cancellation between Echelon and SBA.

The only sources they had were the wiki of SBA, which can and will be edited by anyone. Hell I just checked Nemesis' because last I checked it was horrendously out of date. Someone has updated it, no idea who. Locke has updated Nemesis' wiki in the past (a flag update iirc) and he has nothing to do with Nemesis and never has. Anyone claiming the wikipedia should be a valid source of information rather than a reference point before you go on to look at various other far more reliable sources is talking out of their arse.
[/quote]

Uhuh, you know these were up to date because you checked them before the raid took place right? PC has been around the block a few times, this isn't their first rodeo. They know what to do and how to do it. The wiki is a valid reference point, however it has already been made clear that PC took additional steps to find out the disposition of SBA's situation. They came to the conclusion that SBA had disbanded and they were a legitimate raid target.

What this boils down to is Echelon doesn't want to accept the responsibility of keeping things up to date. They knowingly tried to cover up their mistakes by editing the wiki and erasing SBA's disbandment. They failed as a protector. I would feel the same way, if Athens did not update our wiki or public treaty list, letting the world know who we were protecting.

This affair should be a lesson to everyone who maintains protectorates to keep their wiki & public treaty lists current. It is no great feat of effort to do these simple things, which would help to mitigate circumstances such as these.

Edit: spelling is my friend.

Edited March 10, 2010 by SnowCrash

[Legend]

Guess what dude, the Wiki is not the most official and credible information source. Just imagine if I am to erase NADC and RE's wiki, does it mean PC or any other tech raiding alliance is allowed to raid our protectorate, RE?

[SnowCrash]

[quote name='Legend' date='10 March 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1268243616' post='2221053']
Guess what dude, the Wiki is not the most official and credible information source. Just imagine if I am to erase NADC and RE's wiki, does it mean PC or any other tech raiding alliance is allowed to raid our protectorate, RE?
[/quote]

If you erased it and erased it from your public treaty list, you just created a case of entrapment. Which would nullify any potential compensation.


Edit: reading comprehension ftw.

Edited March 10, 2010 by SnowCrash

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='SnowCrash' date='10 March 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1268243465' post='2221049']
Uhuh, you know these were up to date because you checked them before the raid took place right? PC has been around the block a few times, this isn't their first rodeo. They know what to do and how to do it. The wiki is a valid reference point, however it has already been made clear that PC took additional steps to find out the disposition of SBA's situation. They came to the conclusion that SBA had disbanded and they were a legitimate raid target.

What this boils down to is Echelon doesn't want to accept the responsibility of keeping things up to date. They knowingly tried to cover up their mistakes by editing the wiki and erasing SBA's disbandment. They failed as a protector. I would feel the same way, if Athens did not update our wiki or public treaty list, letting the world know who we were protecting.

This affair should be a lesson to everyone who maintains protectorates to keep their wiki & public treaty lists current. It is no great feat of effort to do these simple things, which would help to mitigate circumstances such as these.

Edit: spelling is my friend.
[/quote]

You can check Echelon's wiki entry and look at the edit history to see that the SBA protectorate was there for the duration. I can affirm to you that it was also on our treaty list on our forums, because I clearly remember putting it there. The only thing that was not accurate was SBA's wiki page, which showed them as disbanded, that was the only inaccurate piece of this, and the edit that had been added regarding their merging was not made by a representative of SBA or Echelon.. There was plenty of other evidence that contradicted this, and considering what seems obvious, the inaccuracy of the SBA wiki entry is no reason to justify not looking at the other evidence. Spelling is your friend, but so are facts.

Edited March 10, 2010 by memoryproblems

[Legend]

RE, my friend. RE is our protectorate.

I am just saying that the CN wiki is in no way the most fair and credible source of information. You cannot just base your research on the wiki.

I am sure if PC did their so called "research" properly by looking up Echelon's or SBA's forums, this crisis would have been averted. Its so obvious PC jumped the gun THREE TIMES. I have no idea how many times it takes something to get into their heads, but if NADC were to do such a thing and Athens was in Echelons' shoes, this would be a vastly different situation.

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='10 March 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1268241692' post='2221016']
And that was? (If you were refering to my post, if not, then don't worry.)
[/quote]
[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='10 March 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1268233195' post='2220924']
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.
[/quote]
This one. It got buried quick. I haven't yet received and PM's, which I would welcome.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='SnowCrash' date='10 March 2010 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1268243465' post='2221049']
Uhuh, you know these were up to date because you checked them before the raid took place right? PC has been around the block a few times, this isn't their first rodeo. They know what to do and how to do it. The wiki is a valid reference point, however it has already been made clear that PC took additional steps to find out the disposition of SBA's situation. They came to the conclusion that SBA had disbanded and they were a legitimate raid target.[/quote]

The wiki is not a valid source of information. Sure if you see something on the wiki it might encourage you to check more valid sources of information but you cannot use what a wiki says as evidence by their very nature. They can be edited by anyone, to say anything. I am government in Nemesis and I have no idea who is keeping our wikipedia up to date. Could be the tooth fairy for all I care, if you act on information on our wiki without consulting our government first to verify the contents it's your problem. The additional steps they took were checking nation bios, something you said is not a valid source of information, and asking an ex-member of SBA. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? It's the equivalent of expecting me to know the current situation regarding all of 1 Touch Football's protectorates. I don't, I don't even know if they have any.

You also completely ignored the issue of the absolute lack of evidence on a far more credible source, the OWF, regarding any disbandment, merger or cancellations. Not surprising as it doesn't support your party line.

[QUOTE]What this boils down to is Echelon doesn't want to accept the responsibility of keeping things up to date. They knowingly tried to cover up their mistakes by editing the wiki and erasing SBA's disbandment. They failed as a protector. I would feel the same way, if Athens did not update our wiki or public treaty list, letting the world know who we were protecting.[/quote]

What it boils down to is insufficient research done on the raid target. If PC had researched further they would have found out that SBA is protected. You can say they did X, Y and Z but the information was available on SBA's forums and Echelon's forums. You say can I prove it was there before the raid, no, who could? Do you regularly take screenshots of your forums just in case? Even Poison Clan's ally FOK (Tromp specifically I think, there might be more than one with that avatar) has said they could be mistaken and have overlooked the treaty when they were on Echelon's forums. Hardly the steadfast support you'd expect if PC were 100% in the right.

[i]Edit: As said above too you can check the edit history of Echelon's wiki page to show whether the protectorate was stated there prior to PC's raid.[/i]

You continue to ascertain that a wikipedia is a valid source, and I've been through that above.

[QUOTE]This affair should be a lesson to everyone who maintains protectorates to keep their wiki & public treaty lists current. It is no great feat of effort to do these simple things, which would help to mitigate circumstances such as these.[/quote]

This affair should be a lesson to everyone that tech raids to look before they jump. It is no great feat of effort to do this simple thing which would help to mitigate circumstances such as these. See wut I did thar? How is what you've said more valid than what I just said. I would in fact contest that it is less so considering that not maintaining an [b]unofficial [/b]source of information does far less harm than failing to do proper research and attacking an alliance, not for the first time, causing over $200mil in damage.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Poyplemonkeys