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

[auto98]

As far as i can see, PCs charter does not say "we can't attack someone with a protectorate if we know they are a protectorate" - it says that they cannot raid someone who is a protectorate.

In fact, their charter even specifies "In the event that a person raids a protected or treatied alliance by mistake, they will lose their raid privileges for the next thirty (30) days, and will pay reparations to compensate for the damage done."

So, the only way that part of their charter can be gotten round is if they were attacking that alliance [b]knowing that it was not a mistake[/b].

So, if you did not know they were protected, your charter says you must pay reps.

[Peregrine]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='11 March 2010 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1268297720' post='2221996']
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.
[/quote]

Okay, I can answer that as well I think. Well, at least to the point where I left.

Months ago, SBA had been debating the future. The options were, disbanding, continuing or merging into another alliance.

Whilst the debate was ongoing with no vote taken and no decision reached, one person, without agreement from everyone else, decided to present an offer of merger to Echelon. As you can imagine, this caused some confusion as to what was happening. It was sorted out, and the merger never took place. At no time did SBA ever cease to be.

I can state categorically that there was never a vote to disband or merge. There was never even a consensus to do so.

During and after these events a few people did leave SBA to join Echelon, and some left to join other alliances. However, the majority stayed on under the SBA flag. Some who left also returned to SBA later.

The protectorate was announced officially on the OWF, and never rescinded officially on the OWF (afaik).

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Peregrine' date='11 March 2010 - 04:21 AM' timestamp='1268299632' post='2222002']
Okay, I can answer that as well I think. Well, at least to the point where I left.

Months ago, SBA had been debating the future. The options were, disbanding, continuing or merging into another alliance.

Whilst the debate was ongoing with no vote taken and no decision reached, one person, without agreement from everyone else, decided to present an offer of merger to Echelon. As you can imagine, this caused some confusion as to what was happening. It was sorted out, and the merger never took place. At no time did SBA ever cease to be.

I can state categorically that there was never a vote to disband or merge. There was never even a consensus to do so.

During and after these events a few people did leave SBA to join Echelon, and some left to join other alliances. However, the majority stayed on under the SBA flag. Some who left also returned to SBA later.

The protectorate was announced officially on the OWF, and never rescinded officially on the OWF (afaik).
[/quote]

My problem with this answer is...it does not match what you appear to have said to Citizenkane of PC in an ingame PM..unless you can tell me he faked this....

This is what you said to him...word for word..unless you can tell me it is faked...

I was in SBA, and I guess you could call me one of the leaders, although we never had a formal structure. The alliance kind of disbanded. Some went to Echelon. Some went elsewhere(ie me here), and some are still flying the SBA AA.

^^^^^ is that message faked? Because I have a screenshot of this message from you to CK. And what that message says, is not the same thing that you said in your previous post. Look man, I am not looking to confront you, if you said something to CK, that you probably shouldnt have said, and it was an honest mistake, then just say you said it. Did you, or did you not send the above message?

[auto98]

I don't understand what the controversy is - whether PC knew or not at the time of the raid is irrelevant - they know now, they know that it was against their charter, the charter even makes provision for an attack made without knowing that it was against a protectorate, what is the hold up on reps?

Edited March 11, 2010 by auto98

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='auto98' date='11 March 2010 - 04:52 AM' timestamp='1268301496' post='2222016']
I don't understand what the controversy is - whether PC knew or not at the time of the raid is irrelevant - they know now, they know that it was against their charter, the charter even makes provision for an attack made without knowing that it was against a protectorate, what is the hold up on reps?
[/quote]

I was not away that interpretation of PCs charter rested with you. I would argue that since PCs knowledge was that SBA was a disbanded alliance, hence it can be treated the same as NONE. There was no violation of the charter for raiding the same alliance because once an alliance disbands, it ceases to be an alliance. But thanks for your totally unbiased input.

[Peregrine]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='11 March 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1268300305' post='2222005']
My problem with this answer is...it does not match what you appear to have said to Citizenkane of PC in an ingame PM..unless you can tell me he faked this....

This is what you said to him...word for word..unless you can tell me it is faked...

I was in SBA, and I guess you could call me one of the leaders, although we never had a formal structure. The alliance kind of disbanded. Some went to Echelon. Some went elsewhere(ie me here), and some are still flying the SBA AA.

^^^^^ is that message faked? Because I have a screenshot of this message from you to CK. And what that message says, is not the same thing that you said in your previous post. Look man, I am not looking to confront you, if you said something to CK, that you probably shouldnt have said, and it was an honest mistake, then just say you said it. Did you, or did you not send the above message?
[/quote]

No, not faked. Just a different way of saying the same thing. I said "kind of" you'll note. That was in reference to what I said earlier about some people leaving to go to Echelon, and some leaving to go to other alliances. However, the majority stayed under the SBA flag.

Let me say again, and once and for all, so there is no mistake....

THERE WAS NEVER A FORMAL DECISION TO DISBAND. SBA DID NOT DISBAND.

My comments to CK were just offhand comments for my part. I did not know that people were going to try and pick apart my every word to e-lawyer a CB. If I had, I would have been more careful with my language. So let me put my hand up now and admit my exact wording was wrong in the mail.

SBA did not end, and you can prove that quite simply by looking at the alliance seniority in the SBA members. The Puppets (3/4/2007 2:14:51 AM (1,103 Days), New Drakithistan (12/23/2008 6:15:59 PM (443 Days)). In fact, all but four members are over 120 days.

I cant help feeling that the facts are quite clear, and that people are simply trying to muddy the issues. SBA say they never disbanded. I agree. The game stats agree. Echelon agrees. That really should be the end of it.

[Editted for typo - I really wish I could type ]

Edited March 11, 2010 by Peregrine

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='Starfox101' date='11 March 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1268289811' post='2221920']
Hope they have a better plan than you did.
[/quote]

My plan is working rather well I would have thought.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='11 March 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1268302177' post='2222020']
My plan is working rather well I would have thought.
[/quote]
I guess you have a strange way of measuring success.

[Cormalek]

[quote]8) In the event that a person raids a protected or treatied alliance by mistake, they will lose their raid privileges for the next thirty (30) days, and will pay reparations to compensate for the damage done.
a. Failure to pay the reparations that have been asked for will result in further punishment at the discretion of the Poison Clan government.
b. Failure to follow through on the thirty (30) day raid ban by a member will result in their raiding privileges being revoked permanently, and that member will be discussed for expulsion from the Poison Clan.
c. Government officials who do not follow through on the thirty (30) day raid ban will be removed from their position, and discussed for expulsion from the Poison Clan.[/quote]

What [b]is[/b] there to be interpreted, Rush Sykes? The one and only rule which would prevent this to be enforced is:
[quote]1) Alliances of 20 members and under, if they have no protectorate agreements or outside treaties (NAPs don’t count), are acceptable to be raided.
a. Alliances over 20 members who have no protectorate agreements or outside treaties (NAPs don’t count) [b]may only be raided after permission has been given by the leader or the second in command [/b]of the Poison Clan. If the leader and second in command are not available, authorization may be given jointly by two government members.[/quote]

But the Poison Clan says they did not know it was a protectorate. OK. Then the raider pays reps. Full compensation for the damage done is [b]guaranteed by their charter[/b], I might add; while Echelon asks for 25% of that (from their own words, I did not check the numbers).
I really fail to see the controversy here, this subject seems to be as interesting as curling is.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Peregrine' date='11 March 2010 - 05:03 AM' timestamp='1268302104' post='2222019']
No, not faked. Just a different way of saying the same thing. I said "kind of" you'll note. That was in reference to what I said earlier about some people leaving to go to Echelon, and some leaving to go to other alliances. However, the majority stayed under the SBA flag.

Let me say again, and once and for all, so there is no mistake....

THERE WAS NEVER A FORMAL DECISION TO DISBAND. SBA DID NOT DISBAND.

My comments to CK were just offhand comments for my part. I did not know that people were going to try and pick apart my every word to e-lawyer a CB. If I had, I would have been more careful with my language. So let me put my hand up now and admit my exact wording was wrong in the mail.

SBA did not end, and you can prove that quite simply by looking at the alliance seniority in the SBA members. The Puppets (3/4/2007 2:14:51 AM (1,103 Days), New Drakithistan (12/23/2008 6:15:59 PM (443 Days)). In fact, all but four members are over 120 days.

I cant help feeling that the facts are quite clear, and that people are simply trying to muddy the issues. SBA say they never disbanded. I agree. The game stats agree. Echelon agrees. That really should be the end of it.

[Editted for typo - I really wish I could type ]
[/quote]

This is not about people picking apart every word. You said the word disband. You made a conscious choice to use the word, presumably with reason. The only legitimate reason to use the word disband, would be if you actually felt they had disbanded. If you made a horrible choice of words...so be it. But they were YOUR words. And if I am PC...and the guy who signed the Echelon protectorate on behlaf of SBA, tells me that SBA "kind of disbanded", I give that considerable weight. Couple that then with the fact that the wiki said it had merged/disbanded...The echelon commonwealth wiki had the signatures stricken from it.... then I am 1000000% behind PC feeling as though they owe no reps.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='11 March 2010 - 05:12 AM' timestamp='1268302692' post='2222026']
What [b]is[/b] there to be interpreted, Rush Sykes? The one and only rule which would prevent this to be enforced is:


But the Poison Clan says they did not know it was a protectorate. OK. Then the raider pays reps. Full compensation for the damage done is [b]guaranteed by their charter[/b], I might add; while Echelon asks for 25% of that (from their own words, I did not check the numbers).
I really fail to see the controversy here, this subject seems to be as interesting as curling is.
[/quote]

There is alot left to interpretation to be honest. You have your mind made up, so trying to change it would waste both of our time.

[Peregrine]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='11 March 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1268303243' post='2222029']
This is not about people picking apart every word. You said the word disband.[/quote]

Again you missed the "kind of" words again. That is picking the word you want, and ignoring the context. You did that originally by focusing on the "disband" word, and ignoring the fact that I also said "some" left, but those that did not are "STILL FLYING THE SBA FLAG".

You can keep focusing on my word mistake if you wish, but I made it quite clear that SBA was still going in that mail.

[quote]
You made a conscious choice to use the word, presumably with reason.
[/quote]

Again, I said in the previous mail that it was an off the cuff comment. Again I cant help but feel you are deliberately ignoring what I am saying, or trying to put words in my mouth by saying I must have made a conscious decision to use that word. As I said before, it was an off the cuff comment, that I have now corrected. Please let us now put that aside.

[quote]
The only legitimate reason to use the word disband, would be if you actually felt they had disbanded. If you made a horrible choice of words...so be it.
[/quote]

And I agreed the word was incorrect in my last post. I say so again in this one. Please let us now put that aside.

Since I have now have the opportunity to correct my use of that word. Will that make any difference to this debate? Will that make you or PC change their position. I admitted I was wrong with that word. Will anyone else now admit that changes their position? I suspect not.

I dont think you really are looking for the truth, just something to support your chosen position. If you were interested in the truth, then my posts here would have made it very clear what happened, and that SBA did not disband.

[quote]
But they were YOUR words. And if I am PC...and the guy who signed the Echelon protectorate on behlaf of SBA, tells me that SBA "kind of disbanded", I give that considerable weight. Couple that then with the fact that the wiki said it had merged/disbanded...The echelon commonwealth wiki had the signatures stricken from it.... then I am 1000000% behind PC feeling as though they owe no reps.
[/quote]

I'm not even in SBA now. Did PC not consider that the SBA and Echelon members saying the treaty is valid might have more wieght that someone who left months ago?

The facts again:
1) SBA say they didn't disband.
2) The game stats show they did not disband and most members are hundreds of days old.
3) I have admitted my wording in the mail was wrong. I have clearly stated that SBA did not disband.
4) SBA say the protectorate is current and valid.
5) Echelon say the protectorate is current and valid.
6) SBA nations referenced the treaty in their about section.

Now, I've said all I am going to say on this. The facts are all in my posts above. If you dont want to believe them, that's your choice.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Peregrine' date='11 March 2010 - 05:42 AM' timestamp='1268304494' post='2222037']
Again you missed the "kind of" words again. That is picking the word you want, and ignoring the context. You did that originally by focusing on the "disband" word, and ignoring the fact that I also said "some" left, but those that did not are "STILL FLYING THE SBA FLAG".

You can keep focusing on my word mistake if you wish, but I made it quite clear that SBA was still going in that mail.



Again, I said in the previous mail that it was an off the cuff comment. Again I cant help but feel you are deliberately ignoring what I am saying, or trying to put words in my mouth by saying I must have made a conscious decision to use that word. As I said before, it was an off the cuff comment, that I have now corrected. Please let us now put that aside.



And I agreed the word was incorrect in my last post. I say so again in this one. Please let us now put that aside.

Since I have now have the opportunity to correct my use of that word. Will that make any difference to this debate? Will that make you or PC change their position. I admitted I was wrong with that word. Will anyone else now admit that changes their position? I suspect not.

I dont think you really are looking for the truth, just something to support your chosen position. If you were interested in the truth, then my posts here would have made it very clear what happened, and that SBA did not disband.



I'm not even in SBA now. Did PC not consider that the SBA and Echelon members saying the treaty is valid might have more wieght that someone who left months ago?

The facts again:
1) SBA say they didn't disband.
2) The game stats show they did not disband and most members are hundreds of days old.
3) I have admitted my wording in the mail was wrong. I have clearly stated that SBA did not disband.
4) SBA say the protectorate is current and valid.
5) Echelon say the protectorate is current and valid.
6) SBA nations referenced the treaty in their about section.

Now, I've said all I am going to say on this. The facts are all in my posts above. If you dont want to believe them, that's your choice.
[/quote]

The real irony of this situation, is that #1 through 6 above are also all things that you should have considered before sending your message to CK. Just sayin'.

I believe I pointed out in my 1st post to you, that it probably was true that you used a poor choice of words. The truth is though...if you believe now, and you always believed...that SBA did not disband...then there is no reason at all that the word disband would come up. The prefix of the words "Kind of" before the word "disbanded"... is completely irrelevant. The question to you is...at the time you sent that message to CK...did you believe SBA to have disbanded? If yes...then PC, too, had every reason to believe as such. If you did not believe them to have disbanded, then your answer should have been "I left SBA." Like it or not, your words played a role in how this situation unraveled. I advise you, in the future, to not offer up conjecture, but stick to facts.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='11 March 2010 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1268303395' post='2222032']
There is alot left to interpretation to be honest. You have your mind made up, so trying to change it would waste both of our time.
[/quote]

Oh, far from it. I'm at a "what the..." phase. I honestly don't see how this could be interpreted in other ways short of intentionally teasing Echelon.

To answer implied question: I do know what cognitive dissonance is, and I am aware of rationalization mechanism. But note that I have no personal interest in this subject (one way or the other). I voiced (what I hoped for) unbiased question that is probably on a lot of lurkers minds. If you think that you can give a meritorious answer to my question + have overabundance of time (as I'm nowhere near influential within my alliance+it's not MHA's business anyhow), please, do.
I hope that it'd be in fact more fruitful and helpful for this subject, than a quarrel over semantics.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='10 March 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1268275063' post='2221661']
I don't think there is any amount of time at war or destruction that will cure this hatred.
[/quote]
I would have to disagree my friend, once I nuked Xiphosis a couple of times, my hatred towards him disappeared.

[quote name='Earogema' date='11 March 2010 - 01:19 AM' 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]
It took 3 years I agree, but it will happen again to those who believe this is the right thing or acceptable to do in a post Heg-world. I'm also glad to hear \m/ are going to follow through with your charter, so we don't have crap like this happen again. Maybe you should go talk with your allies in PC.


[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='11 March 2010 - 05:24 AM' timestamp='1268303395' post='2222032']
There is alot left to interpretation to be honest. You have your mind made up, so trying to change it would waste both of our time.
[/quote]
Hold on. You just said that the message sent from Peregrine to CK about the state of SBA wasn't open for interpretation and is absolute. (From a former member nonetheless) And then you come and say this bull about PC's charter is up for interpretation? Is that just convenient for you?

[Solidus117]

Yes, I did watch curling. Put that rock in the house!

I must present the following argument, because to refuse its merit is the stuff of pure hilarity: why would Echelon, weakened from two successive wars and enjoying the fruits of a poor relationship with most of the world, stick up for a 15-nation alliance against a much larger alliance if not because of a long-lived existing friendship? Echelon has nothing to gain by advocating for SBA. We never asked for reparations for our ourselves, we merely asked for SBA to be remunerated (not punitively) for their losses (even at a significant reduction!).


I just.. where did logic go? Everyone is so wrapped-up in their little wars of vitriolic hyperbole that logic is never applied. These days, it's all about finding someone who has wronged you in the past and giving them a verbal what-for. I remember when this world had a soul mannn, now I just don't believe in nuttin'.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Starfox101' date='11 March 2010 - 01:30 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.


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]

Its is a threat. A very real one. I of course support it, although I am retired and not a part of it. If you are asking me to take a more active role in it then I shall consider your request. I don't think I need to though. Your alliance and PC seem hell bent on killing themselves. I swear you all are doing there work for them. Maybe you all did not notice when the war was between Polar and \m/ and PC most of the people on your side did not like you but, simply wanted to honor treaties. What little use your alliances had to other alliances has been wrecked by turning everyday members against. But, please feel free to ignore me I am never right about these things now am I?

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

uhh, its The Bad..

/me goes hides someplace safe.

I for one am anti-raiding, do not see the point of raiding, but i have had more than enough of this debate topic. Those that want to raid, will do so regardless of the hue and cry that keeps on getting raised about the practice.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='kevin32891' date='11 March 2010 - 07:18 AM' timestamp='1268310234' post='2222060']
I would have to disagree my friend, once I nuked Xiphosis a couple of times, my hatred towards him disappeared.


It took 3 years I agree, but it will happen again to those who believe this is the right thing or acceptable to do in a post Heg-world. I'm also glad to hear \m/ are going to follow through with your charter, so we don't have crap like this happen again. Maybe you should go talk with your allies in PC.



Hold on. You just said that the message sent from Peregrine to CK about the state of SBA wasn't open for interpretation and is absolute. (From a former member nonetheless) And then you come and say this bull about PC's charter is up for interpretation? Is that just convenient for you?
[/quote]


Edit: I struck this entire post because although I know WHAT I want to say, I am having difficulty finding the words to express it properly. I will give it more thought.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Rush Sykes

[StevieG]

All they had to do was go to SBAs forums. I mean they found the guy that signed the treaty on SBAs side and cause he said they were kind of disbanded after not being in the alliance for months that was the que to attack? Why not also find out the Echelon guys who signed the treaty and were still in Echelon? Seems to me that they were trying to find a reason to attack and not actually looking for a raid target that was trully not protected.

[auto98]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='11 March 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1268301670' post='2222017']
I was not away that interpretation of PCs charter rested with you. I would argue that since PCs knowledge was that SBA was a disbanded alliance, hence it can be treated the same as NONE. There was no violation of the charter for raiding the same alliance because once an alliance disbands, it ceases to be an alliance. But thanks for your totally unbiased input.
[/quote]

That would be correct if not for the fact that the charter says that if a mistake is made then reps are payable.

Nice try.

edit: or are you claiming that no mistake was made, that PC attacked knowing there was a protectorate treaty in place?

Edited March 11, 2010 by auto98

[Bordiga]

Disgusting actions by a disgusting alliance. I've little doubt that the brave and valorous tech raiders who so casually deride Echelon for standing up for their allies would be on their knees and begging forgiveness if they weren't so certain of their military supremacy. I hope that SBA and Echelon are able to achieve a just resolution to this unprovoked and senseless assault. I also hope that Echelon do not allow Poison Clan to escape with their loot unscathed should the cowards refuse to pay what they owe to SBA.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='11 March 2010 - 04:22 AM' timestamp='1268303243' post='2222029']
This is not about people picking apart every word. You said the word disband. You made a conscious choice to use the word, presumably with reason. The only legitimate reason to use the word disband, would be if you actually felt they had disbanded. If you made a horrible choice of words...so be it. But they were YOUR words. And if I am PC...and the guy who signed the Echelon protectorate on behlaf of SBA, tells me that SBA "kind of disbanded", I give that considerable weight. Couple that then with the fact that the wiki said it had merged/disbanded...The echelon commonwealth wiki had the signatures stricken from it.... then I am 1000000% behind PC feeling as though they owe no reps.
[/quote]

yes, you are right. maybe if PC picked apart every word instead of salivating over the word disband, they would not have raided. since the two words in front of disband seem to make it questionable instead of a sure thing. if it is questionable that SBA disbanded, then seeking out a [b]current[/b] member of SBA would have been the smart thing to do or even seeking out Echelon who was their last known ally and friend.

but instead, a wiki- which since anyone can edit including some rank and file members who may not know any better and a former member who did not know the current state of things within SBA were the sole two sources, yeah, PC was just wanting to hit SBA again. They did just enough research to confirm they could hit and left it at that. the single 2 [b]best[/b] sources were not even contacted. regardless of wiki, why contact a former member. the moment you saw Peregrine flying the TOP AA, PC should have gone "Gee guys, this guy is not an SBAer, but there are guys flying the SBA AA that have 1k days seniority. maybe we should ask one of them..."

so yeah, stating PC did any actual research is ignorant. they did barely any research and neglected the two best sources of info on SBA, that being current members and Echelon. cuz i would think, Echelon would know if another alliance merged into them...

i honestly think PC did not ask either of those two alliances simply because they wanted to raid and get away with it. as is evidenced by the pathetic argument they brought to justify their raid.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 March 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1268320003' post='2222132']
yes, you are right. maybe if PC picked apart every word instead of salivating over the word disband, they would not have raided. since the two words in front of disband seem to make it questionable instead of a sure thing. if it is questionable that SBA disbanded, then seeking out a [b]current[/b] member of SBA would have been the smart thing to do or even seeking out Echelon who was their last known ally and friend.

but instead, a wiki- which since anyone can edit including some rank and file members who may not know any better and a former member who did not know the current state of things within SBA were the sole two sources, yeah, PC was just wanting to hit SBA again. They did just enough research to confirm they could hit and left it at that. the single 2 [b]best[/b] sources were not even contacted. regardless of wiki, why contact a former member. the moment you saw Peregrine flying the TOP AA, PC should have gone "Gee guys, this guy is not an SBAer, but there are guys flying the SBA AA that have 1k days seniority. maybe we should ask one of them..."

so yeah, stating PC did any actual research is ignorant. they did barely any research and neglected the two best sources of info on SBA, that being current members and Echelon. cuz i would think, Echelon would know if another alliance merged into them...

i honestly think PC did not ask either of those two alliances simply because they wanted to raid and get away with it. as is evidenced by the pathetic argument they brought to justify their raid.
[/quote]

I generally have no desire to trade barbs with an ally. As such, I will leave it at : I completely disagree with almost your entire assessment.

[auto98]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 March 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1268320003' post='2222132']
yes, you are right. maybe if PC picked apart every word instead of salivating over the word disband, they would not have raided. since the two words in front of disband seem to make it questionable instead of a sure thing. if it is questionable that SBA disbanded, then seeking out a [b]current[/b] member of SBA would have been the smart thing to do or even seeking out Echelon who was their last known ally and friend.

but instead, a wiki- which since anyone can edit including some rank and file members who may not know any better and a former member who did not know the current state of things within SBA were the sole two sources, yeah, PC was just wanting to hit SBA again. They did just enough research to confirm they could hit and left it at that. the single 2 [b]best[/b] sources were not even contacted. regardless of wiki, why contact a former member. the moment you saw Peregrine flying the TOP AA, PC should have gone "Gee guys, this guy is not an SBAer, but there are guys flying the SBA AA that have 1k days seniority. maybe we should ask one of them..."

so yeah, stating PC did any actual research is ignorant. they did barely any research and neglected the two best sources of info on SBA, that being current members and Echelon. cuz i would think, Echelon would know if another alliance merged into them...

i honestly think PC did not ask either of those two alliances simply because they wanted to raid and get away with it. as is evidenced by the pathetic argument they brought to justify their raid.
[/quote]

While I agree in principle, I'm not sure the best course of action for a tech raiding alliance is to warn the people they are going to raid. That said, once they discover that a mistake has been made, they should rectify that mistake, as per their charter.

If PC were to be attacked by echelon over this, I wonder which way it would be seen - would PC be the aggressors, or echelon? The reality of course would be that PC are the aggressors, but I wonder if this obvious fact would get through the skulls of some of the people in this thread.