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

[Kevin McDonald]

[quote name='Neo Anglia' date='10 March 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1268244206' post='2221068']
This one. It got buried quick. I haven't yet received and PM's, which I would welcome.
[/quote]

Ah. Well that suggestion has already been de facto rejected by PC, since they, nor their members, will pay reps.

So, I ask again, what outcome do you hope to gain from this thread continuing?

I ask only to help ween people off the crack this thread has become. If they know there are no hits left, maybe, just maybe, they'll leave.

[Chief Savage Man]

Yeah, Kevin, I think this thread has run its course. Either Echelon backs down or pushes harder. Until then, nothing of import will come from this cyclical argument.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='10 March 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1268248192' post='2221136']
Ah. Well that suggestion has already been de facto rejected by PC, since they, nor their members, will pay reps.

So, I ask again, what outcome do you hope to gain from this thread continuing?

I ask only to help ween people off the crack this thread has become. If they know there are no hits left, maybe, just maybe, they'll leave.
[/quote]

I doubt it's in Echelon's hands to stop this thread, so what do you expect to gain from asking that question?

[Schad]

The onus in determining the treaty status of a potential raid target falls squarely on the raider. It's the reason that the PC nations which carried out the raid checked the wiki, tracked down former members, and checked the bios of at least some of the members. And I'm sure that they did it in good faith (a fair amount of effort to go to had they been set on raiding regardless), and came to the conclusion that the nations remaining under the SBA banner were remnants of a merger and no longer afforded protection.

However, that conclusion has been proven incorrect; SBA did have protection, albeit perhaps not advertised as well as it could have been. But that doesn't change the reality that the information was out there, that the protection remained, and thus the raiders made a mistake. Doesn't mean that there was any malicious intent, but it does mean that they acted with incomplete information. And given that, I don't think that token reparations (heck, even just a couple aid slots worth sent to each nation hit) as a good-faith gesture would be out of order.

I guess that you can make the argument that Echelon's conduct has been poor enough to forfeit the right to reps, but it's SBA that was hit, not Echelon...unless I've missed something, SBA itself doesn't seem to have done anything particularly nasty. Take Echelon out of the equation; denying SBA a small sum because their protectors went overboard is punishing the one party whose hands appear to be entirely clean in this mess.


Edit: removed words that aren't words.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Schad

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='10 March 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1268249764' post='2221152']
I doubt it's in Echelon's hands to stop this thread, so what do you expect to gain from asking that question?
[/quote]

They can either post saying they've decided to drop it or they can make a thread saying they've decided to attack. This thread would die as a result.

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='10 March 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1268248192' post='2221136']
Ah. Well that suggestion has already been de facto rejected by PC, since they, nor their members, will pay reps.

So, I ask again, what outcome do you hope to gain from this thread continuing?

I ask only to help ween people off the crack this thread has become. If they know there are no hits left, maybe, just maybe, they'll leave.
[/quote]
Assuming that is what I meant of course. If you assume, you make an $@! out of...

Point being the olive branch is there for the grabbing, but I never said I was holding my breath while waiting either.

Wean away.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='10 March 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1268250514' post='2221162']
They can either post saying they've decided to drop it or they can make a thread saying they've decided to attack. This thread would die as a result.
[/quote]


The contents of your post don't match up to the length of time you've been on the forums.

Post content suggests you're a noob.
Join Date suggests otherwise.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='10 March 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1268251104' post='2221170']
The contents of your post don't match up to the length of time you've been on the forums.

Post content suggests you're a noob.
Join Date suggests otherwise.
[/quote]

Cool story, bro. Anything of value to add or am I right about this thread?

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='10 March 2010 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1268251608' post='2221175']
Cool story, bro. Anything of value to add or am I right about this thread?
[/quote]

OK, I'll spell it out. If you seriously think that Echelon doing something about this situation one way or the other means that this thread will die, then you don't know the OWF very well.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='10 March 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1268251755' post='2221178']
OK, I'll spell it out. If you seriously think that Echelon doing something about this situation one way or the other means that this thread will die, then you don't know the OWF very well.
[/quote]

If they make a DoW thread, that thread would replace this one. If they post that they've abandoned their demands, the thread would fall off the first page in a few days. Until either happens, it will not die. I've read more than my share of these kinds of threads. I know how they work.

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='10 March 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1268250514' post='2221162']
They can either post saying they've decided to drop it or they can make a thread saying they've decided to attack. This thread would die as a result.
[/quote]

Logic would tell you that, but this is the OWF son.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='10 March 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1268251755' post='2221178']
OK, I'll spell it out. If you seriously think that Echelon doing something about this situation one way or the other means that this thread will die, then you don't know the OWF very well.
[/quote]
I am positive a DoW from Echelon would move all the hubbub from this thread to that one causing this tread to fade away.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='10 March 2010 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1268252011' post='2221184']
I am positive a DoW from Echelon would move all the hubbub from this thread to that one causing this tread to fade away.
[/quote]

I'm equally positive we'd have two hubbub-filled threads. I guess time will tell.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='10 March 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1268252189' post='2221188']
I'm equally positive we'd have two hubbub-filled threads. I guess time will tell.
[/quote]

The second hubbub-filled thread would be accompanied by bombing and violence. It'd be a major improvement imo.

[Merrie Melodies]

I am not going to delve into the finger pointing wiki/bio/editing/disband drama I am just going to say now and in the future whether their right, wrong, indifferent I will always support in all manners our friends in PC.

The next thing I would like to mention, in general, if your a very small alliance (5 to 20 members) you should take great care to make sure any and all protection you might have is highly visible, it would go a great distance in avoiding this kind of drama, once again not going into the right or wrongs just saying, it is the way the world is, help yourselves as much as possible, be visible.

@Echelon, hated you since the PG-13 affair, personally hope to launch some nukes at you.

[Vhalen]

[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' date='10 March 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1268238326' post='2220978']
They do now.
The fact is the wiki said SBA had merged. Your ex-Leader said you merged. [b]You had nothing in your bios.[/b] 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]
Bolded part is obviously, blatantly false. You CAN'T have nothing in your bio. Try it.

[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' date='10 March 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1268238659' post='2220983']
There is no miscommunication? This is a 19 page thread, obv there was some sort of miscommunication. But good luck with your quest.
[/quote]
At this point, it seems like it's intentional miscommunication.

[Vhalen]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='10 March 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1268253203' post='2221207']
I am not going to delve into the finger pointing wiki/bio/editing/disband drama I am just going to say now and in the future whether their right, wrong, indifferent I will always support in all manners our friends in PC.

The next thing I would like to mention, in general, if your a very small alliance (5 to 20 members) you should take great care to make sure any and all protection you might have is highly visible, it would go a great distance in avoiding this kind of drama, once again not going into the right or wrongs just saying, it is the way the world is, help yourselves as much as possible, be visible.

@Echelon, hated you since the PG-13 affair, personally hope to launch some nukes at you.
[/quote]
If I were a very small alliance (5 to 20 members), I think it'd be more fun to roll with the FAN treaty policy. That way you get a different, more exciting form of drama.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Vhalen' date='10 March 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1268253369' post='2221216']
If I were a very small alliance (5 to 20 members), I think it'd be more fun to roll with the FAN treaty policy. That way you get a different, more exciting form of drama.
[/quote]
Indeed, it would be quite fun I think, yet at the same time you would be seeking this drama not claiming butt hurt over the laundry list we have here.

[MaGneT]

[quote name='StevieG' date='10 March 2010 - 09:18 AM' timestamp='1268231021' post='2220895']
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".
[/quote]
It's a political statement, exactly. PC doesn't want to give reps because that would be an admission that what they did was wrong, and in their opinion, they did nothing wrong.
[quote name='StevieG' date='10 March 2010 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1268233292' post='2220926']
You missed the most trustworthy: Alliance Home Forums
[/quote]
Here's the rub. If you check the CN Wiki, Planet Bob's ONLY central data bank, and you see that an alliance is disbanded, generally, you stop there. Personally, I'd hit the declare button the moment I saw the "disbanded" logo. PC continued their research, and even found an ex-SBA member, who said the alliance no longer existed and that the treaty couldn't be valid if their was no alliance.

And if you're insinuating that they should have checked Echelon's forums, that's absolutely preposterous. Why would you waste time a disbanded alliance's ex-protector? In 99.999% of cases, you'd come up with "no, they disbanded". This just happens to be the stupid outlier.
[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' date='10 March 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1268238659' post='2220983']
There is no miscommunication? This is a 19 page thread, obv there was some sort of miscommunication. But good luck with your quest.
[/quote]
Does this mean I'm hired again?

[Baldr]

[quote name='Vhalen' date='10 March 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1268253237' post='2221209']
Bolded part is obviously, blatantly false. You CAN'T have nothing in your bio. Try it.
[/quote]

Wrong.

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=205313

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Baldr' date='10 March 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1268255102' post='2221237']
Wrong.

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=205313
[/quote]

Really irrelevant, but placing a hard space in your bio doesn't make it empty - it makes it have a hard space in it.

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='Master-Debater' date='10 March 2010 - 11:35 AM' timestamp='1268239269' post='2220993']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.[/quote]

Well said MD. You beat me to it, you hit the nail on the head. All the semantics that have been tossed about by the neo-hegemony side boils down to one thing (which btw several posters have outright stated): Hatred of Echelon. Plain and simple.

[Neo Anglia]

[quote name='Vhalen' date='10 March 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1268253237' post='2221209']
Bolded part is obviously, blatantly false. You CAN'T have nothing in your bio. Try it.


[b]At this point, it seems like it's intentional miscommunication.[/b]
[/quote]Totally agreed, but not on our part.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='10 March 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1268256290' post='2221258']
Well said MD. You beat me to it, you hit the nail on the head. All the semantics that have been tossed about by the neo-hegemony side boils down to one thing (which btw several posters have outright stated): Hatred of Echelon. Plain and simple.
[/quote]

Most of the very vocal supporters, the ones screaming "PC did nothing wrong, it's all Echelon's fault, and if it comes to war, we'll ride with PC" are people from Athens, \m/, FOK, The Corporation, etc. That is, alliances that tech raid, alliances that have tech raided other alliances.

Bottom line, they don't care. Their theory is that if you aren't big enough or well connected enough to stop them from tech raiding you, that they have the right to do what they want.

All of the "Echelon didn't make it clear that this was a protected alliance" stuff ignores the fact that PC raided that alliance twice before, and that Echelon has contacted PC before to say "Hey, you're raiding an alliance we are protecting". PC knew SBA was protected, they just didn't care.

And they aren't going to start caring unless significant military force lines up against them. Beating up on smaller nations/alliances is what they do.

Personally, I think the SBA nations who were attacked made a mistake in accepting peace. If you don't fight back, you give the tech raiders what they want.

[chefjoe]

Look, here is the bottom line.


We all need a few months to rebuild our warchests after this latest war.

Hence there isnt going to be a war regarding this issue(unless something drasticly changes in this situation).


Sooo can we just put this thread away for 60 days and revisit it when we all are more capable of blowing the !@#$ out of each other?

Thats my vote after seeing 22 pages that make my head hurt.

/me shrugs