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

[Kevin McDonald]

[quote name='Kilkenny' date='10 March 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1268278950' post='2221730']
Then stop mindlessly justifying their actions. The fact is PC screwed up, you have yet to come out and say that. You seem to figure pointing out Echelon's mistakes will cover up PC's mistake, not once, not twice but three times. Either everyone on Planet Bob is supposed to believe that PC is that stupid (doubt that very seriously) or is doing it on purpose because they can get away with it.
[/quote]

Listen, I understand you weren't meaning to say "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong", but if you read your post again, especially the first two sentences, you will see you said that.

I genuinely believe PC did everything they thought they needed to to secure the right target. I also genuinely believe that all this wiki talk does point to failures of both parties. That is where I stand, take it for what you will.

[StevieG]

[quote name='MaGneT' date='11 March 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1268279771' post='2221741']
I concur, actually. Let's hope this gets settled.
I'm just frustrated by the people who are insinuating that PC does this maliciously, ya know?
[/quote]

Ya fair enough. I can understand the mindset of looking for raid targets.

All is well that ends well. So just make it end well for SBA.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='MaGneT' date='10 March 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1268279771' post='2221741']
I concur, actually. Let's hope this gets settled.
I'm just frustrated by the people who are insinuating that PC does this maliciously, ya know?
[/quote]
Nobody else makes these "mistakes." And the PC guys don't strike me as stupid.

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='10 March 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1268281847' post='2221783']
Nobody else makes these "mistakes." And the PC guys don't strike me as stupid.
[/quote]
I know I've made mistakes like this in my own history. Normally it gets cleared up before anyone hears about it.
Not in this case.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='11 March 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1268280773' post='2221765']
I genuinely believe PC did everything they thought they needed to to secure the right target. I also genuinely believe that all this wiki talk does point to failures of both parties. That is where I stand, take it for what you will.
[/quote]
Do you not think they should have searched out the SBA boards and investigate the reaty that is stated there?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='AirMe' date='10 March 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1268266777' post='2221478']
This is the dumbest post I have ever seen. The alliance clearly existed for over 1000 days. Just because an out of date wiki and a former member say one thing doesn't make it fact. Should probably be checking with current members.

The interesting thing to point out is I believe the last time PC raided SBA, was right when Echelon was 2 weeks removed from the Karma war and weren't in a position to defend. And now they raid SBA as Echelon is about 2 weeks out of TOP conflict.......I see a pattern here and everything else is just a smoke screen. PC is being opportunistic, and taking a chance that Echelon can't defend SBA and has no back up.

All this crap about wiki and nation bios is a smoke screen to fool you people into thinking this wasn't pre-meditated.
[/quote]

now you are seeing what many of us disillusioned Karma folks are seeing with CnG/SF being more dominant than others. this is not something that is likely to end while CnG/SF are around much like similar !@#$ happened with Heg was around. the only difference is Heglite are smart enough not to full on stomp others and just "raid" whenever they can without apology. it will only get worse.

[quote name='Choader' date='10 March 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1268268965' post='2221543']
There you have it. Despite the relative wealth of mid-range raid targets we enjoy in the aftermath of war, SBA was singled out specifically because Echelon isn't in a position to properly protect them. It's all out in open now so feel free to claim credit for exposing the plot.
[/quote]

the fact that this is the second time that SBA was raided within a couple of weeks of Echelon being demolished in a war, i would say that is quite damning evidence. this is not the first time it happened, and just as you said, despite of all the mid-range raid targets PC had, SBA just "happened" to be chosen a second time... come on now, we ain't that dumb. while you may have been sarcastic in your post, it was pretty spot on mate.

[quote name='MaGneT' date='10 March 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1268270504' post='2221577']
The way I see it, people are siding against PC because they dislike PC, and others are siding against Echelon because they dislike Echelon. Very few are actually speaking from principle or fact.

I think we need to accept this is a misunderstanding by both parties. PC did more research than most raiders do, so people should stop pretending that they jumped on SBA without checking. Echelon seems to have been pretty reasonable, so let's stop pretending they're extorting anyone.

Everyone needs to stop parroting the party lines and examine the true issues behind this: two alliances that are unpopular with their enemies and principles regarding tech raiding.
[/quote]

honestly i hate both alliances, though i dislike Echelon slightly more due to my Polar past. yet, i side with Echelon because PC's sole evidence they did nothing wrong is Wiki and a former member, which is the most ridiculous argument i have ever seen and considering some of the arguments on these forums, that is saying a lot.

[quote name='MaGneT' date='10 March 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1268275551' post='2221667']
Read what you're saying!
Why would anyone hunt down the forums of alliance they believe to be disbanded?

OOC:
The CN wiki shouldn't be treated like schools treat Wikipedia. It is the only central and unbiased source of information we have of CN history. People should take the time to maintain their pages.
[/quote]

ooc: are you kidding me? it is most certainly biased and far from central source of info. it is a decent start for info much like schools treat it. but to state that people should solely rely on Wiki is ridiculous. as for SBA, fine, don't look for SBA's forums. how about Echelon who is well established and obviously not disbanded? that would have not taken much time and would have cleared this whole mess up. so the wiki argument is quite done with as it is just simply ridiculous.

[quote name='MaGneT' date='10 March 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1268282654' post='2221798']
I know I've made mistakes like this in my own history. Normally it gets cleared up before anyone hears about it.
Not in this case.
[/quote]

frankly, this is what happens when you give your alliance a history of raiding willy-nilly (yes i know it is strict or some such, but PC can essentially raid anyone including alliances on almost a whim and with what is obviously very little effort put into finding out if an alliance has a protectorate or not). thus, you make a "mistake" and it is liable to be painted worse (though i honestly feel that given the evidence that this is the second time PC has raided SBA within 2 weeks of Echelon being demolished in a war is far from coincidence, not to mention PC has raided a protectorate while the protector was at war, thus giving us a trend that PC don't really care so much if an alliance has a protector if the protector is unable to fulfill their duty). so in my opinion given PC's history, yes i would honestly say this was done with malicious intent. IF PC honestly made a mistake, why wouldn't they pay reps? why would they sit there and blame Echelon/SBA? sorry, but if PC had owned up to it and paid reps, i would agree that this was a mistake. since they aren't owning up to anything and not paying reps, i have to go with malice.

[x Tela x]

I'm not going to run around in circles anymore here, but I would like to point out one thing.


When old Polars come in this thread (And also Schattenmann) and come down on the side of Echelon, it should be a pretty big signal. The only people defending PC here are friends of PC. Most of the people defending Echelon here are people that have absolutely no reason to care about Echelon, or to like Echelon.

[Caffine]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 March 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1268284912' post='2221832']
now you are seeing what many of us disillusioned Karma folks are seeing with CnG/SF being more dominant than others. this is not something that is likely to end while CnG/SF are around much like similar !@#$ happened with Heg was around. the only difference is Heglite are smart enough not to full on stomp others and just "raid" whenever they can without apology. it will only get worse.



the fact that this is the second time that SBA was raided within a couple of weeks of Echelon being demolished in a war, i would say that is quite damning evidence. this is not the first time it happened, and just as you said, despite of all the mid-range raid targets PC had, SBA just "happened" to be chosen a second time... come on now, we ain't that dumb. while you may have been sarcastic in your post, it was pretty spot on mate.



honestly i hate both alliances, though i dislike Echelon slightly more due to my Polar past. yet, i side with Echelon because PC's sole evidence they did nothing wrong is Wiki and a former member, which is the most ridiculous argument i have ever seen and considering some of the arguments on these forums, that is saying a lot.



ooc: are you kidding me? it is most certainly biased and far from central source of info. it is a decent start for info much like schools treat it. but to state that people should solely rely on Wiki is ridiculous. as for SBA, fine, don't look for SBA's forums. how about Echelon who is well established and obviously not disbanded? that would have not taken much time and would have cleared this whole mess up. so the wiki argument is quite done with as it is just simply ridiculous.



frankly, this is what happens when you give your alliance a history of raiding willy-nilly (yes i know it is strict or some such, but PC can essentially raid anyone including alliances on almost a whim and with what is obviously very little effort put into finding out if an alliance has a protectorate or not). thus, you make a "mistake" and it is liable to be painted worse (though i honestly feel that given the evidence that this is the second time PC has raided SBA within 2 weeks of Echelon being demolished in a war is far from coincidence, not to mention PC has raided a protectorate while the protector was at war, thus giving us a trend that PC don't really care so much if an alliance has a protector if the protector is unable to fulfill their duty). so in my opinion given PC's history, yes i would honestly say this was done with malicious intent. IF PC honestly made a mistake, why wouldn't they pay reps? why would they sit there and blame Echelon/SBA? sorry, but if PC had owned up to it and paid reps, i would agree that this was a mistake. since they aren't owning up to anything and not paying reps, i have to go with malice.
[/quote]

Very well said. Between the two SBA raids, and the raid on California, the only only reasonable conclusion is that Poison Clan is doing this on purpose.

[Baldr]

[quote name='MaGneT' date='10 March 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1268278759' post='2221725']
In this situation, I genuinely believe that PC made an honest mistake.
[/quote]

I don't, because PC had raided SBA previously, and Echelon had told PC at that time that SBA was protected. All of the "but the wiki was misleading" stuff doesn't matter when Echelon has already approached PC and told them "SBA is our protectorate".

But I could be wrong. So lets assume you are correct, and it was an honest mistake.

If you make an honest mistake, and you have any sense of honor at all, the very *least* you can do is to apologize for the mistake, which PC refuses to do. Echelon/SBA isn't asking for punitive reps, they are asking for $50M, less than 25% of the damages.

PC got what they wanted. They raided. They walked away with tech, land, money. SBA didn't fight back. That's exactly what tech raiders want in a raid. And PC won't even say "Sorry, we shouldn't have done that". Much less pay token reps.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='10 March 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1268286222' post='2221851']
Very well said. Between the two SBA raids, and the raid on California, the only only reasonable conclusion is that Poison Clan is doing this on purpose.
[/quote]
Then I shall simply repeat what I've said earlier in the thread.

The only logical course is for you to commit to action. Words on the OWF aren't bad, but none of PC's allies seem to have canceled on them. In fact, they seem to have shown quite well that they will support PC in the attack. Either you dig up more incriminating evidence or you attack.

The only other option is to stew away angrily and hope that eventually you get enough treaties or the PC cancels on them, but tbh, I doubt Echelon will ever in itself be a threat to PC. Besides, it would only be hypocritical to mock the 6 month Athens CB and then attack on a older CB yourselves.

If there are any other possible solutions, you are welcome to try them. Diplomacy seems to be the last measure, and the threat you gave to PC pretty much threw that out of the window.

All I can say is that basically this will just ferment until the next global war. Echelon will not act. It is obvious. I'll see you when some protectorate starts a global war for no real reason.

Also once again- I'm not saying that this is just or right, simply that it is the only logical course.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Earogema' date='11 March 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1268288129' post='2221887']
The only other option is to stew away angrily and hope that eventually you get enough treaties or the PC cancels on them, but tbh, I doubt Echelon will ever in itself be a threat to PC. Besides, it would only be hypocritical to mock the 6 month Athens CB and then attack on a older CB yourselves.
[/quote]

I doubt it would need a six month old CB. Lets say that over the next six months, several alliances get together and decide "We don't like the way these alliances keep raiding small alliances, we're going to do something about it". If that happens, they certainly won't need to declare over this specific incident. Because PC and \m/ and Athens are going to keep doing the same tech raiding BS that they've always done. All they'll have to do when they are ready is to wait a week or two for one of you to do it again.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Baldr' date='11 March 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1268288448' post='2221895']
I doubt it would need a six month old CB. Lets say that over the next six months, several alliances get together and decide "We don't like the way these alliances keep raiding small alliances, we're going to do something about it". If that happens, they certainly won't need to declare over this specific incident. Because PC and \m/ and Athens are going to keep doing the same tech raiding BS that they've always done. All they'll have to do when they are ready is to wait a week or two for one of you to do it again.
[/quote]
Took 3 years for that to happen last time. Though tbh if they do finally stand up, then I guess Bob could be a lot more interesting.

Also we've already agreed to follow our charter as per our war with Polar, so you shouldn't see these instances (from us) again, just like how it hasn't happened with Athens again.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Earogema

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Earogema' date='11 March 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1268288129' post='2221887']
Then I shall simply repeat what I've said earlier in the thread.

The only logical course is for you to commit to action. Words on the OWF aren't bad, but none of PC's allies seem to have canceled on them. In fact, they seem to have shown quite well that they will support PC in the attack. Either you dig up more incriminating evidence or you attack.

The only other option is to stew away angrily and hope that eventually you get enough treaties or the PC cancels on them, but tbh, I doubt Echelon will ever in itself be a threat to PC. Besides, it would only be hypocritical to mock the 6 month Athens CB and then attack on a older CB yourselves.

If there are any other possible solutions, you are welcome to try them. Diplomacy seems to be the last measure, and the threat you gave to PC pretty much threw that out of the window.

All I can say is that basically this will just ferment until the next global war. Echelon will not act. It is obvious. I'll see you when some protectorate starts a global war for no real reason.

Also once again- I'm not saying that this is just or right, simply that it is the only logical course.
[/quote]

honestly, i remember a time when some small group of nations fought against the "might makes right" and "do something about it" mentalities. i wonder whatever happened to that group...

as for the only logical course- honestly, this statement here seems to only confirm the fact that PC hit SBA on purpose. simply because if Echelon did attempt to do something about it, Echelon will be dragged back into a war, as would their allies. thus giving PC/allies another round to demolish them some more.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='11 March 2010 - 03:17 AM' timestamp='1268277743' post='2221712']
I don't care to go though this entire thing beyond the 1st page but I have to ask, who in the heck is running PC now? Where is Twist or someone who knows what they are doing? When people give you rope you don't use it to hang yourselves. I know people on both sides of this war already have plans post war for a couple other alliances that do stuff like this, are you looking to add yourselves to the list? Oh well kill yourselves if you want, just thought you were smarter than this.
[/quote]
Sounds like a threat. I await this miracle TSI-MK alliance that is here to destroy PC, as they've united the game in hatred apparently.

Please, MK, don't betray PC!

I dare you to make a move on PC, TBB.

[quote name='x Tela x' date='11 March 2010 - 05:16 AM' timestamp='1268284917' post='2221833']
I'm not going to run around in circles anymore here, but I would like to point out one thing.


When old Polars come in this thread (And also Schattenmann) and come down on the side of Echelon, it should be a pretty big signal. The only people defending PC here are friends of PC. Most of the people defending Echelon here are people that have absolutely no reason to care about Echelon, or to like Echelon.
[/quote]
Polar has been anti-techraiding for a while now, and just started a war over it, and fought PC in said war. If you're surprised they are supporting you, and think that legitimizes Echelon's argument, you are solely mistaken.

[Vhalen]

[quote name='Earogema' date='11 March 2010 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1268288129' post='2221887']
Then I shall simply repeat what I've said earlier in the thread.

The only logical course is for you to commit to action. Words on the OWF aren't bad, but none of PC's allies seem to have canceled on them. In fact, they seem to have shown quite well that they will support PC in the attack. Either you dig up more incriminating evidence or you attack.

The only other option is to stew away angrily and hope that eventually you get enough treaties or the PC cancels on them, but tbh, I doubt Echelon will ever in itself be a threat to PC. Besides, it would only be hypocritical to mock the 6 month Athens CB and then attack on a older CB yourselves.

If there are any other possible solutions, you are welcome to try them. Diplomacy seems to be the last measure, and the threat you gave to PC pretty much threw that out of the window.

All I can say is that basically this will just ferment until the next global war. Echelon will not act. It is obvious. I'll see you when some protectorate starts a global war for no real reason.

Also once again- I'm not saying that this is just or right, simply that it is the only logical course.
[/quote]
It's certainly A logical course...but not the only one. If you think wars are won and lost on the battlefield, you're sorely out of touch with the reality of CN. The "words on the OWF" that you so quickly dismiss are far more important than you seem to believe. They change opinion, opinion changes alliance relationships, and wars are won and lost. (Besides, constantly looking like an arrogant jack@#$ in public certainly doesn't IMPROVE foreign affairs. Ask NPO.)

Look, at best, PC looks careless and sloppy; at worst, malicious, duplicitous, trigger-happy, and arrogant. The former sounds like the kind of alliance that needs to address some leadership issues, and the latter sounds like the sort of ally who eventually gets their friends rolled. If you guys believe it'll ferment until the next global war, all the more reason to settle it with the pittance asked. I mean, you already have Echelon's political opponents arguing for them. Embarrassing.

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='Earogema' date='11 March 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1268288665' post='2221899']
Took 3 years for that to happen last time. Though tbh if they do finally stand up, then I guess Bob could be a lot more interesting.

Also we've already agreed to follow our charter as per our war with Polar, so you shouldn't see these instances (from us) again, just like how it hasn't happened with Athens again.
[/quote]

I think if everyone was reasonable, tech raided within the ranks of the unaligned and left it at that, we would all be much happier. The reality is not that alliances are raided, but that the raiding parties seem to take delight in refusing to take any sort of responsibility for it.

I will have the greatest respect for \m/ if they behave responsibly, raiding freely but making amends when things go wrong. I will not respect anyone who continues with the ''well what are you going to do about it'' line of defense. Fortunately for PC no one is going to assist Echelon because everyone is kind of busy elsewhere, but this arrogant attitude regarding the trampling of other people's alliances without possible consequence will be called to account one day by someone... I personally wont ever bother again but I am sure someone will.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='11 March 2010 - 06:34 AM' timestamp='1268289604' post='2221917']
I think if everyone was reasonable, tech raided within the ranks of the unaligned and left it at that, we would all be much happier. The reality is not that alliances are raided, but that the raiding parties seem to take delight in refusing to take any sort of responsibility for it.

I will have the greatest respect for \m/ if they behave responsibly, raiding freely but making amends when things go wrong. I will not respect anyone who continues with the ''well what are you going to do about it'' line of defense. Fortunately for PC no one is going to assist Echelon because everyone is kind of busy elsewhere, but this arrogant attitude regarding the trampling of other people's alliances without possible consequence will be called to account one day by someone... I personally wont ever bother again but I am sure someone will.
[/quote]
Hope they have a better plan than you did.

[Vhalen]

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='11 March 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1268289604' post='2221917']
I think [b]if everyone was reasonable,[/b] tech raided within the ranks of the unaligned and left it at that, we would all be much happier. The reality is not that alliances are raided, but that the raiding parties seem to take delight in refusing to take any sort of responsibility for it.

I will have the greatest respect for \m/ if they behave responsibly, raiding freely but making amends when things go wrong. I will not respect anyone who continues with the ''well what are you going to do about it'' line of defense. Fortunately for PC no one is going to assist Echelon because everyone is kind of busy elsewhere, but this arrogant attitude regarding the trampling of other people's alliances without possible consequence will be called to account one day by someone... I personally wont ever bother again but I am sure someone will.
[/quote]
Bolded the part where your theory completely falls apart.

[Drai]

Um, yes I did. I've watched curling a decent amount since elementary school D:

Also Canada

Except that double mess-up by our women's team in the gold medal match

[SonOfHoward]

I'd raid you guys just for dissing curling.

EDit: Go Canada! (Silver is OK. See you in Sochi Sweden.)

Edited March 11, 2010 by SonOfHoward

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Starfox101' date='11 March 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1268289367' post='2221913']
Sounds like a threat. I await this miracle TSI-MK alliance that is here to destroy PC, as they've united the game in hatred apparently.

Please, MK, don't betray PC!

I dare you to make a move on PC, TBB.
[/quote]

It warms my heart to see you playing Thorne junior.

[quote name='Starfox101' date='11 March 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1268289367' post='2221913']
Polar has been anti-techraiding for a while now, and just started a war over it, and fought PC in said war. If you're surprised they are supporting you, and think that legitimizes Echelon's argument, you are solely mistaken.
[/quote]

Nope, it cuts to the quick to see myself in a thread on the side of Echelon. But you'd have to have been dropped on your head as a child to think PC has anything close to a legit argument here.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='11 March 2010 - 07:12 AM' timestamp='1268291851' post='2221956']
It warms my heart to see you playing Thorne junior.



Nope, it cuts to the quick to see myself in a thread on the side of Echelon. But you'd have to have been dropped on your head as a child to think PC has anything close to a legit argument here.
[/quote]
Thorne Junior? My friend, I was around long before him.

Really, stop pretending you're unbiased here. I understand the history of you two, but PC is a modern enemy, and Polar just got stopped in their tracks in a crusade against techraiding, including being declared on by PC. To pretend to be an unbiased source here is stupid.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 March 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1268263259' post='2221387']
so essentially you are stating because Echelon did this, now it is time for it to be done to Echelon? how quaint. i don't have much love at all for Echelon, but even i feel that regardless of Echelon, SBA deserves better than this kind of treatment. Echelon be damned, what did SBA do to be treated this way? can anyone honestly say?


/me waits for the "SBA chose Echelon as protectors" replies...
[/quote]

I am essentially stating that your past is always a part of you. My alliance at present, lives with this very same reality. We expect to receive no quarter in the realm of FA, and we do not. It simply is the reality that you place yourself in with your actions.

[Peregrine]

[quote name='Earogema' date='10 March 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1268181765' post='2220009']
Upon further inspection of the SBA forums-

The treaty is signed by only one person from SBA (as noted by the post on the forums by William Bonney) and that person is no longer a member of SBA. I think it is very important to note- Was Peregrine, the only signatory to the Echelon treaty, AND the only person who has posted anything regarding SBA treaties to date, the person that PC asked about the protectorate?
[/quote]

Hi everyone. I've been contacted and asked to respond to this specific post. I was not aware of this issue before (have not read the OWF for a whole), and I dont have time to go through the whole 25+ pages at the moment, so apologies if this has already been covered.

I am Peregrine of Yalaria, and I signed the treaty with Echelon on behalf of SBA. I am no longer in SBA, I left to join TOP about four months ago.

When I was in SBA, we were a true democracy. Everyone had a say in the decisions on our forums. However, when talking directly to other alliances we tended to have one person doing the contact, since its confusing to have 20-25 people all trying to talk to another alliance at the same time.

I discussed the protectorate with Echelon and agreed a set to terms. I then took those terms back to SBA for approval. After discussion, we accepted the terms unchanged. Echelon turned out to be good friends and helped us out a number of times. During that period, I was the main point of contact with them.

There certainly was never any suggestion that this protectorate was dependent upon me being in SBA, or that it was some kind of personal protectorate. As far as I'm concerned, the protectorate was between SBA and Echelon. I just happened to be the person that signed, and the fact that the person who actually signed on behalf of the alliance then left should make no difference. I've never previously heard of any suggestion that treaties become void if the signing member leaves an alliance. I wonder how many treaties would still be valid if that odd interpretation was applied across the board.

The bottom line is that if SBA and Echelon both agree that the treaty is current and valid, then it is. Hope that helps clarify the situation.

[Edited for typo]

Edited March 11, 2010 by Peregrine

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Peregrine' date='11 March 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1268294574' post='2221988']
Hi everyone. I've been contacted and asked to respond to this specific post. I was not aware of this issue before (have not read the OWF for a whole), and I dont have time to go through the whole 25+ pages at the moment, so apologies if this has already been covered.

I am Peregrine of Yalaria, and I signed the treaty with Echelon on behalf of SBA. I am no longer in SBA, I left to join TOP about four months ago.

When I was in SBA, we were a true democracy. Everyone had a say in the decisions on our forums. However, when talking directly to other alliances we tended to have one person doing the contact, since its confusing to have 20-25 people all trying to talk to another alliance at the same time.

I discussed the protectorate with Echelon and agreed a set to terms. I then took those terms back to SBA for approval. After discussion, we accepted the terms unchanged. Echelon turned out to be good friends and helped us out a number of times. During that period, I was the main point of contact with them.

There certainly was never any suggestion that this protectorate was dependent upon me being in SBA, or that it was some kind of personal protectorate. As far as I'm concerned, the protectorate was between SBA and Echelon. I just happened to be the person that signed, and the fact that the person who actually signed on behalf of the alliance then left should make no difference. I've never previously heard of any suggestion that treaties become void if the signing member leaves an alliance. I wonder how many treaties would still be valid if that odd interpretation was applied across the board.

The bottom line is that if SBA and Echelon both agree that the treaty is current and valid, then it is. Hope that helps clarify the situation.

[Edited for typo]
[/quote]

While I both respect, and understand your post, there has never been a suggestion that because you left SBA, the treaty was voided. That premise is simply non-existent. What is the crux of the situation is...did SBA, as you said, a democracy, vote at one point to disband and merge into Echelon. If they made this decision, in any capacity, then at the moment the results of the vote became official, the SBA ceased to exist an an internally governed entity. If this did not happen, then the protectorate treaty is still valid. To those claiming that if the merger did indeed happen on October 17, then Echelon could still be protecting the AA. While I admit it is plausible, I would have to call that preposterous. The protection time usually only exists to cover the transition period. we are now 6 months from the date of the "merger." It is their right to recognize to protection in whatever means they determine, but I cannot remember any such time that protection after a merger extended 6 months.

Do I wish my allies had not conducted this raid? Yes. Do I believe that my allies did so with any malicious intent? No. The fact that it was a select few members, who raided a total of 3 nations... blows up the whole "targeting Echelon" nonsense theory of Airme and Doch and anyone else who has subscribed to that. In the military position of things, the raid would have been full scale, all 13 targets would have been hit, and many more PC members would have been involved. Anyone who thinks PC would do anything half-heartedly, has clearly not paid attention.

Should PC pay reps? Maybe. But, it is their decision not to, and I can fully appreciate their reasoning, and if that is their intended course, I support them.

Does Echelon hold any blame? Yes. Sorry, but they do. Part of protecting an alliance is keeping an eye out for them. If being at war diminishes this capability, then you probably ought not to enter into such agreements. Is Echelon, or even SBA themselves...responsible for the day to to day content of their wikis? No, it is too easy to vandalize. I get that. However, in these wiki errors were in existence for a LONG period of time. Part of FA, and IA, should include the maintenance of such things, if for no other reason, than to correct possible vandalism. Without knowing who it is, I would suggest that the identity of LOLPie(the wiki user who set up Echelons Commonwealth page) is relevant. If he was a member of Echelon at the time of the page's creation, then like it or not, that makes that page Echelon's responsibility.

It also appears as though SBAs signatures were stricken off the Commonwealth page on January 18 of this year by Azu-nyan (whos own page says he is Locke, whom I assume is Locke from SOS Brigade)... So perhaps Locke would have something insightful to add to this. I reach the conclusion that it was Azu-nyan's edit that struck SBA as a signatory because clicking on the edit prior to it, still has SBA not stricken, although, admittedly, I know little of Wikis, so Im assuming that means it was him. So, my next question is ..if it is Locke from SOS Brigade... why did you strike SBA from the Commonwealth signatories? If I am wrong about my wiki investigating, I apologize, and retract this whole paragraph.