Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1268326753' post='2222200']
How's the war going C&G and TOP? I heard it was over? Oh... wait... it isn't..... Sorry for being childish, but a raid doesn't deserve the amount of reparations they requested or any at all.
[/quote]

Seeing as how the damages incurred ranged upwards of 200 million... yes, 50 million is very reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 718
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1268326753' post='2222200']
Yes, AirMe they've taken a lot of time in private to get this matter resolved. The fact is Echelon has been doing the same thing as C&G and TOP, requesting outrageous terms. We've all seen how well doing that will get things done.

How's the war going C&G and TOP? I heard it was over? Oh... wait... it isn't..... Sorry for being childish, but a raid doesn't deserve the amount of reparations they requested or any at all.
[/quote]

Uh no. Not outrageous reps. They are asking for a lot less than what was destroyed. Pick an argument and stick with it. I will give you a hint, the OMG CRIPPLING REPS excuse is not going to work here. Especially since uninvolved parties have already volunteered to pick up 30 mill of the 100 mill that is currently on the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1268326753' post='2222200']
Sorry for being childish, but a raid doesn't deserve the amount of reparations they requested or any at all.
[/quote]
Well than I guess you have an alliance based on a really stupid charter that requires you to do things that people don't deserve. But why should we expect anyone to actually keep to the rules they set for themselves.

If you can't follow your own charter than your alliance is a joke and PC has proven quite resoundingly that that is exactly what they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1268325721' post='2222184']
PC is not an alliance, but Poison Clan is an alliance. When discussing about Poison Clan one may use PC as an acronym, but our alliance affiliation is still Poison Clan. As far as I'm concerned, using CSN Applicant as your AA means your alliance name is CSN Applicant. Seeing as I stated before AA stands for Alliance Affiliation not Alliance Acronym Affiliation. By my logic they are a separate alliance. Your just attempting to depict the loop-hole, even though you know it's a valid one. NpO applicant can then be considered NPO's applicant as well if you want to go into details. Seeing as they'd share the same alliance would they not?
.
NPO Applicant would be the same AA as NpO Applicant.

Yet as you stated NpO and NPO aren't the same alliance, but OOC: The games mechanics can't recognize the differencee between the upper case and lower case 'P,' /OOC Therefore it should be required to use your actual alliance name rather than acronyms.
[/quote]

I don't know what your guys argument are and I don't care but just to clarify we don't use "NpO Applicant" but "Polaris Applicant".

Edited by D34th
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='D34th' date='11 March 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1268327328' post='2222206']
I don't know what your guys argument are and I don't care but just to clarify we don't use "NpO Applicant" but "Polaris Applicant".
[/quote]

Exactly, you use Polaris Applicant, but if you where to have used NpO applicant how can any vary the difference between NPO and NpO? You can't which is why acronyms should not be used in Alliance Affiliations.

Anyhow pardon my ignorance, I didn't know that 50 million was offered and I didn't read the thread as I stated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1268325040' post='2222176']
Why should my opinion have any astounding change on how people view Poison Clan? I'm merely a member nothing more nothing less, but I do however find it to be a joke to state that they are allied to each other when acronyms aren't recognized by the admin. If you aren't recognized by the admin himself how can anyone else recognize them?
[/quote]
Tick, you claim that your opinions should be disregarded, yet you still voice them.

I quoted you for two main reasons:[list=1][*]PC has gone now from claiming they didn't know SBA was Echelon's protectorate trough some mystic unapparent way to interpret your own rules to this absurd fallacy of yours. If you do not want people to quote on you - don't speak up. If you do voice your opinions - don't whine that someone was listening.[*]At this point there are (IMO) 3 ways to interpret why PC is still refusing to pay reparations (amount demanded being 1/4 of what PC charter grants):[list][*] Your rules regarding raiding have other interpretation, unapparent to most observers [see - PC rules for raiding, pt 8][*] PC was intentionally teasing Echelon, as they knew it was battered after a war. This [see - PC rules for raiding, pt 1][*] PC raided Echelon's protectorate unintentionally, but recognize that they're stronger at this point, and choose to ignore own charter by using bad logic and distractions (ie - subject of how could they know SBA was Echelons protectorate, which is totally beside the point).[/list]As you might see - in case when one of the last two points is true - the only way we could see this is either if PC admits it, or one of it's members slips something he did not think trough. This is why you, voicing your private opinion, as a person who has access to PC forums and might know something we don't - can influence how people perceive this situation.
[/list]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, just noticed something...right now, there is a Poison Clan protectorate with no wiki, and with 8 of 11 nations (all of the nations without nukes, thus the ones most likely to be raided) claiming no protection. As best I can tell their forum features no indication that they maintain any treaty links, and looks to be pretty dead; five total members, a peak online of three set well over a month ago.

It looks to me as if AcTi has ticked many of the same boxes as did SBA.

Edited by Schad
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Cormalek' date='11 March 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1268327578' post='2222210']
Tick, you claim that your opinions should be disregarded, yet you still voice them.

I quoted you for two main reasons:[list=1][*]PC has gone now from claiming they didn't know SBA was Echelon's protectorate trough some mystic unapparent way to interpret your own rules to this absurd fallacy of yours. If you do not want people to quote on you - don't speak up. If you do voice your opinions - don't whine that someone was listening.[*]At this point there are (IMO) 3 ways to interpret why PC is still refusing to pay reparations (amount demanded being 1/4 of what PC charter grants):[list][*] Your rules regarding raiding have other interpretation, unapparent to most observers [see - PC rules for raiding, pt 8][*] PC was intentionally teasing Echelon, as they knew it was battered after a war. This [see - PC rules for raiding, pt 1][*] PC raided Echelon's protectorate unintentionally, but recognize that they're stronger at this point, and choose to ignore own charter by using bad logic and distractions (ie - subject of how could they know SBA was Echelons protectorate, which is totally beside the point).[/list]As you might see - in case when one of the last two points is true - the only way we could see this is either if PC admits it, or one of it's members slips something he did not think trough. This is why you, voicing your private opinion, as a person who has access to PC forums and might know something we don't - can influence how people perceive this situation.
[/list]
[/quote]

No I claim that my opinions should not effect they way you think of Poison Clan, not that my opinions should be disregarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:05 AM' timestamp='1268327476' post='2222208']
Anyhow pardon my ignorance, I didn't know that 50 million was offered and I didn't read the thread as I stated.
[/quote]
Information regarding the offer of $50mil to settle was in the OP.

I realize the OP was rather lengthy, but if you aren't going to bother to read it, then [i][b]wtf[/b][/i] are you doing posting in this thread? You're PC, I get that you're going to support your alliance, but at least familiarize yourself with the facts and the history of this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schad' date='11 March 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1268327680' post='2222211']
Heh, just noticed something...right now, there is a Poison Clan protectorate with no wiki, and with 8 of 11 nations (all of the nations without nukes, thus the ones most likely to be raided) claiming no protection. As best I can tell their forum features no indication that they maintain any treaty links, and looks to be pretty dead; five total members, a peak online of three set well over a month ago.

It looks to me as if AcTi has ticked many of the same boxes as did SBA.
[/quote]

Yes, that may be so and you wont here any complaints from me if you raid them for that same loop-hole that I've been talking about, but like I said I'm merely a member.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='11 March 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1268327825' post='2222215']
Information regarding the offer of $50mil to settle was in the OP.

I realize the OP was rather lengthy, but if you aren't going to bother to read it, then [i][b]wtf[/b][/i] are you doing posting in this thread? You're PC, I get that you're going to support your alliance, but at least familiarize yourself with the facts and the history of this situation.
[/quote]

Ruggerdawg, in all honesty from chats that I've read in our IRC channel. Posion Clan literally thought that Spacebattle.com Alliance had merged. Then all of a sudden their wiki was updated the next day after you guys decided you'd request reparations. All existing treaties are considered null after an alliance merges into you, right? Now I'm not arguing a point right now, I'm just making a statement. Last I heard you guys wanted us to pay 100 million worth of reparations.

The main reason I'm here is to state that alliances using acronyms as an AA should not be considered that said alliances acronym.

Edited by Tick1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1268328085' post='2222219']All existing treaties are considered null after an alliance merges into you, right? [/quote]
Actually, what I know is that when alliances merge, the AAs are protected. So even if SBA did merge into alliance, the SBA AA would be under Echelon's protection. So again, PC raided a protected AA.

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1268328085' post='2222219']Anyhow in your OP didn't you state that Dark Templar and Poison Clan raided these nations?[/quote]
The OP did not mention DT, but it did mention that this is the [i][b]third[/b][/i] time PC raided that alliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1268328085' post='2222219']
. All existing treaties are considered null after an alliance merges into you, right?
[/quote]
actually in most if not all instances the old AA is protected by the alliance that was merged into.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='11 March 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1268328265' post='2222226']
Actually, what I know is that when alliances merge, the AAs are protected. So even if SBA did merge into alliance, the SBA AA would be under Echelon's protection. So again, PC raided a protected AA.


The OP did not mention DT, but it did mention that this is the [i][b]third[/b][/i] time PC raided that alliance.
[/quote]

That's generally not a true statement, said alliances are generally only protected for a short period of time when they merge. Which allows the previous alliance plenty of time to move all of their active members into the new alliance. They treaty is then null when the majority of members have moved into their new home

If it's the third time Poison Clan has raided Echelon then why are the just now requesting reparations?

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='11 March 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1268328607' post='2222235']
actually in most if not all instances the old AA is protected by the alliance that was merged into.
[/quote]

All the mergers that happened while I was in Federation of Buccaneers only protected the merging alliance for a brief period of time. Not for the eternity of the alliances life after the merger took place.

Edited by Tick1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1268328665' post='2222237']
That's generally not a true statement, said alliances are generally only protected for a short period of time when they merge. [/quote]
Every alliance handles this differently. But if an alliance wants to protect the AA for six months, fine. But, that's not really the point. SBA didn't merge. Though even if they had merged, the next thought in one's mind should be, "Oh, protected AA?" and then go talk to the alliance which remained post-merger (in this instance, that would be Echelon).

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1268328665' post='2222237']If it's the third time Poison Clan has raided Echelon then why are the just now requesting reparations?[/quote]
Again, this was addressed (not in the OP, but in the thread). The raided nation did not provide battle reports, so it was impossible to calculate damages. The raider (SouthernComfort) agreed he would not raid again. (And just to let you know, it was SouthernComfort that was involved in this most recent raid.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' date='11 March 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1268324799' post='2222170']
DT Probes is also not protected by this logic :v:
[/quote]
Not so much, due to DT probes in a rank within our charter and still a member.

Some what the same relationship blackwater and the order of the black rose share? From my understanding of that matter.

Side note:
I don't see what the point of this thread was. Poison clan already stated before this thread, reparations were not going to be paid.
So echelon government does what? Post a thread, whining about how ebil Poison Clan is? All this does is try to slander PC and make Echelon out to look like a bunch of cry babies. With that said though.

@tick1, your reasoning for the AA, is stretched too far thin. On that note, everyone have a good day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='11 March 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1268329001' post='2222244']
Every alliance handles this differently. But if an alliance wants to protect the AA for six months, fine. But, that's not really the point. SBA didn't merge. Though even if they had merged, the next thought in one's mind should be, "Oh, protected AA?" and then go talk to the alliance which remained post-merger (in this instance, that would be Echelon).


Again, this was addressed (not in the OP, but in the thread). The raided nation did not provide battle reports, so it was impossible to calculate damages. The raider (SouthernComfort) agreed he would not raid again. (And just to let you know, it was SouthernComfort that was involved in this most recent raid.)
[/quote]

Okay and under the fact that you state they didn't merge, I'll go off of my own prior knowledge that Poison Clan thinks you are using this as an attempt to extort money from them. They also believe that the merger did actually take place and Echelon is attempting to take advantage of previous treaties in order to force reparations. (Whether or not this is true doesn't matter, that's what they believe if I remember correctly.) If the merger didn't take place why would the Wiki have stated that it did take place?

Also when did the first raid take place? The one where SouthernComfort stated he'd not raid again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Wiki's a certified reliable source of information? NO. Would you use a wiki as a reference in a piece of intellectual work? NO.

The fact is that wiki's are not reliable and should anyone presume that the information there is gospel then that is their error. If your error causes damage to someone else then you should be obliged to compensate them for that error. Its a shame you do not have the decorum and civility to admit your error and man up. Simpletons laugh and ridicule, the astute however are humble and gracious, especially in error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1268328085' post='2222219']
Ruggerdawg, in all honesty from chats that I've read in our IRC channel.[/quote]
Do you see now why am I judging whole alliance by basing on your statements? You make statements that base on inside-info not available to us.

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1268328085' post='2222219']Posion Clan literally thought that Spacebattle.com Alliance had merged.(...)Last I heard you guys wanted us to pay 100 million worth of reparations. (...)[/quote]
Seeing how you don't bother to check facts before you speak-up, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't know your own charter.

[b][quote]Poison Clan Raid Rules[/b]
(...)
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]
Your own law says, that if you raid an alliance that you were not aware was protected (ie - it didn't say so on wiki), the raider is liable for 100% reimbursement. A quick look at losses will show, that this would be around 200 mil at this point.
Whether the raider knew it was Echelons protectorate is beside the point. If he knew that, rule 1 a) would be appropriate. But from the beginning you claim this was not the case. If anything you should be grateful to Echelon, were they to ask 100mil, half of the amount you're liable for [b]basing on your charter[/b]. However, they ask for 1/4 of this amount. At this point you might want to think about buying them a nice bouquet and some chocolates.

Honestly. What's the controversy here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1268329499' post='2222251']I'll go off of my own prior knowledge that Poison Clan thinks you are using this as an attempt to extort money from them.[/quote]
If Echelon were trying to extort PC, why would be asking for [i]less than the amount of damages[/i], and why would we be asking that the money only go to the [i][b]affected nations[/b][/i]? This is restitution, not extorting. Now, if the damages caused to SBA were $50mil and Echelon was demanding $200mil, that would be a little closer to extortion. But the damages are $212mil and Echelon is asking that SBA be compensated with $50mil.

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1268329499' post='2222251']If the merger didn't take place why would the Wiki have stated that it did take place?[/quote]
Anyone can edit a wiki and unfortunately that is what has happened here.

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1268329499' post='2222251']Also when did the first raid take place? The one where SouthernComfort stated he'd not raid again.[/quote]
Again, information found [i][b]in this thread[/b][/i]. SouthernComfort raided in July 2009. At that time, he said he would not raid again. He did raid again, February 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1268328665' post='2222237']
That's generally not a true statement, said alliances are generally only protected for a short period of time when they merge. Which allows the previous alliance plenty of time to move all of their active members into the new alliance. They treaty is then null when the majority of members have moved into their new home

If it's the third time Poison Clan has raided Echelon then why are the just now requesting reparations?



All the mergers that happened while I was in Federation of Buccaneers only protected the merging alliance for a brief period of time. Not for the eternity of the alliances life after the merger took place.
[/quote]
There have been mergers that have protected an AA for as long as it was worn, regardless it was on PC to check to see if the AA was still protected and you failed to do so and now you are refusing to pay the reps that your own charter mandates that you pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 08:53 AM' timestamp='1268326753' post='2222200']
Yes, AirMe they've taken a lot of time in private to get this matter resolved. The fact is Echelon has been doing the same thing as C&G and TOP, requesting outrageous terms. We've all seen how well doing that will get things done.

How's the war going C&G and TOP? I heard it was over? Oh... wait... it isn't..... Sorry for being childish, but a raid doesn't deserve the amount of reparations they requested or any at all.
[/quote]
How can PC guys go on and on about how using 75% of an alliance's slots for months to pay reps is "easy and reasonable", but paying ANY amount of reps to echelon's protectorate is outrageous? It's not like they are asking for several billion, they are asking for anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1268329499' post='2222251']
Okay and under the fact that you state they didn't merge, I'll go off of my own prior knowledge that Poison Clan thinks you are using this as an attempt to extort money from them. They also believe that the merger did actually take place and Echelon is attempting to take advantage of previous treaties in order to force reparations. (Whether or not this is true doesn't matter, that's what they believe if I remember correctly.) If the merger didn't take place why would the Wiki have stated that it did take place?

Also when did the first raid take place? The one where SouthernComfort stated he'd not raid again.
[/quote]

Echelon doesn't want reps for Echelon. They want reps for SBA, who you attacked. How is that Echelon extorting you? It's paying for damages caused. Extortion would be if Poison Clan went and asked Echelon for reps because they went public with this. Or if noWedge came a long and asked for 1000 tech because one of your members ACCEPTED aid from a nation one of his allies was at war.

This is not extortion. This is a request for you to pay the damages your bull caused while they were running through the china shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...