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

[Omas Nams]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 March 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1268178172' post='2219845']
Instead you guys decide that PC should pay for your mistake and ignorance, and that is 'unbelievable' rationale.
[/quote]

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.

[Kevin McDonald]

[quote name='x Tela x' date='09 March 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1268178431' post='2219864']
Our forums and our wiki have both always stated that we are protecting SBA. PC knows they raided a protected alliance - it's not like it's the first time they've done it, they just don't care.
[/quote]

Possibly a fair comment.

That said, how have you allowed SBA to be raided 3 times? As protectors, shouldn't you have taken steps after the first time to ensure it didn't happen again? If I was SBA I'd be none too pleased.

[Banslam]

I lol'd.
[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='09 March 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1268177040' post='2219802']
On February 25 of 2010, Poison Clan announced its [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81709&st=0&p=2204416&#entry2204416]protection of The Gentlemen's Club[/url]. However, they failed to note it in their wiki until March 1st. ([url="http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4346/snapper1268164662578.jpg"]Image[/url])

Poison Clan is guilty of the same thing we are, not being up to date on their wikis. Had somebody attacked The Gentlement's Club in between those dates, we can say without doubt that Poison Clan would have demanded reps from the attackers.[/quote]Not having the wiki updated until couple days later ≠ not having a wiki updated until several months later.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Banslam

[Earogema]

The Gentlemen's Club argument is stupid. They are a RECENT protectorate, and had their protectorate announced on these forums just this year. An attack on them now would be dealt with for [i]that[/i] reason.

SBA's wiki had been edited AFTER Echelon's own, and then you argue that the lack of a editing on the Echelon wiki is sufficient proof of the protectorate being intact? Of course not. In addition, why would a member of a small alliance like SBA lie about the protectorate? He didn't know. Well if SBA didn't even know how in the hell would PC know? Just look at the "Diplomatic relations" subsection. It still has the merger date, and no updates post that date.

In addition, you've all basically angered Rok for no real reason. There is no possible way you're going to generate anything but some possible negative PR (though you've got plenty of that on your own from this matter).

There will be no reps. \m/ will stand by PC just like they stood by us. I'm not one for chest puffing either. It's just the cold fact.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Earogema

[Vilien]

[quote name='Banslam' date='09 March 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1268178638' post='2219871']
Not having the wiki updated until couple days later ≠ not having a wiki updated until several months later.
[/quote]
Because, even if this were true, an alliance has to have clearly labeled protection on the wiki to expect to not be attacked by raiders.

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='09 March 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1268178587' post='2219869']
Possibly a fair comment.

That said, how have you allowed SBA to be raided 3 times? As protectors, shouldn't you have taken steps after the first time to ensure it didn't happen again? If I was SBA I'd be none too pleased.
[/quote]

Honestly, we thought we had. They have many nations with "Protected by Echelon" in their bios, and we spoke with PC about their previous attacks, so they were aware that SBA was protected. Not sure what else we can do, unless you'd expect us to post a weekly report on the OWF listing our treaties, just in case someone feels like tech raiding a sovereign alliance.

[Kevin McDonald]

I'll settle this.

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

[quote name='x Tela x' date='09 March 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1268178710' post='2219877']
Honestly, we thought we had. They have many nations with "Protected by Echelon" in their bios, and we spoke with PC about their previous attacks, so they were aware that SBA was protected. Not sure what else we can do, unless you'd expect us to post a weekly report on the OWF listing our treaties, just in case someone feels like tech raiding a sovereign alliance.
[/quote]

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.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Kevin McDonald

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='09 March 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1268178587' post='2219869']
That said, how have you allowed SBA to be raided 3 times? As protectors, shouldn't you have taken steps after the first time to ensure it didn't happen again? If I was SBA I'd be none too pleased.
[/quote]

If you have eyes you can see that the attacks all took place at around the same time. :durr:

[Earogema]

[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.
[/quote]
Enough to stop raids, but not global wars. D:

[Sakura]

Spacebattles.com Alliance's wikia article was edited by *a current Echelon member* to show the merger notice in October.

It was edited by Memeoryproblem's sockpuppet whom I'll call "Mr 66" on March 1st *after* the raids had occurred.

Also -- [quote]4-13-2007
ONOS and GOLD have been added as sanctioned alliances in-game. Cyber Nations does not use acronyms in-game so ONOS will need to change their AA to Organized Nations Of Superiority and GOLD will need to change their AA to Global Organization for Liberty and Defense. Blame your NPO and NpO buddies for the reason why [b]CN does not use acronyms[/b]. [/quote] (Bolding mine)

In other words, while Echelon had a linkless mention of a protectorate of "Spacebattles.com Alliance" *on their own forums*, the AA "SBA" is not "Spacebattles.com Alliance", because of NPO and NpO.

The protectorate agreement linked to from the Spacebattles.com Alliance article points to an agreement that only mentions SBA -- not Spacebattles.com Alliance -- even once.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Sakura

[Duckz3]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 March 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1268177426' post='2219818']
The fact is the treaty was listed as canceled on the wiki when PC attacked, and then after this all happened you edited it back into your wiki.

Why should PC be financially liable for your errors?
[/quote]
It wasnt even this, SBA's wiki also stated that they had merged into Echelon. A member of echelon (Former member of SBA) told us that SBA had merged into echelon a while back ago. The Editor was an Echelon member for Christ sake. Echelon is attempting to Extort money from Poison clan. We are not as stupid as they hope we are.

Josshill

[Thomas Jackson]

I believe Poison Clan has already told you they're not going to pay you for your own errors. Do you really think posting this on the OWF is going to suddenly make them change their minds?

I look forward to seeing if your nations possess better military prowess than logic.

EDIT: Grammar fail.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Thomas Jackson

[RePePe]

Why do I feel like there will be 10+ pages of debate yet no reps from PC...?

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='RePePe' date='09 March 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1268179085' post='2219892']
Why do I feel like there will be 10+ pages of debate yet no reps from PC...?
[/quote]

Because you are dead on the money, what a waste of my time.

[Goldie]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='09 March 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1268178272' post='2219852']
Since when did it become the responsibility of the raided alliance to inform the raiders if they are protected or not?
Blaming the victim seems to be the new trend around here.
[/quote]

I am not blaming the victim, I am saying this was a miscommunication on Echelon's part that led to people not knowing that SBA was protected or not.

If I announce a protectorate and don't put it in the wiki until tomorrow, that is one thing.
If I announce a protectorate and put it in the wiki, and then some time later put it down as canceled in the wiki, that is something totally different.

[chefjoe]

Looks like one big accident imo.

To be fair I honestly believe in this case PC looked at the wiki and saw the 'info' and took it at face value that SBA was open season. Should they have dug further?(I generaly have my people get at least 2 sources of confirmation on !@#$ like that but I hate these situations and try to avoid them) Maybe they could/should have but hindsight is 20/20. Honest mistake probably, !@#$ happens.


That being said im just wondering 2 things

1. Since when did a 'wiki' become the only or even (a) 'source' for an alliances official stance and info? I would have thought an alliances forum would be better for that since it is much more secure.

2.What is PC's reply as to their charter issue covering these kinds of circumstances and the claim that they are breaking said charter item?


Other then those 2 questions I think I pretty much have a picture of things.

[Omniscient1]

So Athens raids an alliance whose only treaty (with MASH) was hidden. A RIA member at the time makes a thread about it and the whole world goes crazy. PC raids an alliance whose only treaty (with echelon) was only sort of hidden. Echelon tells the world about it and the world says quit crying. Is it just me or is there a double standard here?

Edited March 10, 2010 by Omniscient1

[Timmmehhh]

I have checked and studied the echelon treaties during the war to anticipate possible counters on FOK but I haven't seen a treaty or protectorate with SBA. The wiki page from SBA also showed that SBA disbanded before Echelon members edited the page.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Druss the Legend]

Echelon, are you really this desperate, that you bring this into the OWF? At least issue an ultimatum so that i can be more entertained.

[Kevin McDonald]

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='09 March 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1268179628' post='2219917']
I have checked and studied the echelon treaties during the war to anticipate possible counters on FOK but I haven't see a treaty or protectorate with SBA. The wiki page from SBA also showed that SBA disbanded before Echelon members edited the page.
[/quote]

I'd be interested to hear Echelon's response to this. Specifically Rugger, Tela or Solidus.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='09 March 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1268179626' post='2219916']
So Athens raids an alliance whose only treaty (with MASH) was hidden. A RIA member at the time makes a thread about it and the whole world goes crazy. PC raids an alliance whose only treaty (with echelon) was only sort of hidden. Echelon tells the world about it and the world says quit crying. Is it just me or is there a double standard here?
[/quote]
Might be because just prior to this thread, they antagonized the hell out of a couple of alliances for no reason.

Also, you already know where \m/ is going to stand on this obviously.

[wickedj]

Today is a good day. awesome weather, im eating bacon and im reading an Echelon thread.

Life. is. good

[Stonewall Jaxon]

This is quite interesting. If a different alliance was charged of dishonorable conduct, I have little doubt the public reaction would differ as well.

[Lusitan]

Right, since when have Wikis been considered 100% reliable sources of information?

Second, even if it was, Wiki is a mere indicative of what exists. The raiding alliance should always check. For example, FOK, who is a classy alliance, has the nice habit of checking with former protectors if the nations they intend to raid are under protection or not. This, as you might imagine, is probably why you don't see threads about FOK being dumb doing tech raids on the OWF every two weeks. Because they are actually smart.

Seriously, if your argument is that Echelon is at fault because an unauthorized person edited the wiki page without knowledge of Echelon's government (and as far as I know, having a wiki page is not a condition for treaties to exist, only their announcement on the OWF), then I don't know what to say.

EDIT: Or at least that has been my experience with FOK, my apologies if I am generalizing.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Lusitan

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='09 March 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1268179567' post='2219910']
Looks like one big accident imo.

To be fair I honestly believe in this case PC looked at the wiki and saw the 'info' and took it at face value that SBA was open season. Should they have dug further?(I generaly have my people get at least 2 sources of confirmation on !@#$ like that but I hate these situations and try to avoid them) Maybe they could/should have but hindsight is 20/20. Honest mistake probably, !@#$ happens.


That being said im just wondering 2 things

1. Since when did a 'wiki' become the only or even (a) 'source' for an alliances official stance and info? I would have thought an alliances forum would be better for that since it is much more secure.

2.What is PC's reply as to their charter issue covering these kinds of circumstances and the claim that they are breaking said charter item?


Other then those 2 questions I think I pretty much have a picture of things.
[/quote]

Not speaking for my allies, but I will take a stab at #2. The charter prohibits raiding an alliance once it has already been raided. Going on the belief, as all the evidence pointed to...that SBA disbanded in October, it is completely reasonable to view anyone on a 6 month disbanded AA, as no different than being on NONE.