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

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1268325190' post='2222180']
Actually I think all alliances should be required to use their actually name rather than acronyms. =LOST= Also falls in this category.

AA = Alliance Affiliation

AA =/= Alliance Acronym Affiliation
[/quote]

I'm so sick of you morality-police types, telling everyone what to do.

[Shurukian]

[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.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. 50 Million in reps are outrageous? Excuse me? Are they even a drop in the bucket to you guys? TSI is a fourth of your size, and we just sent over 85 Million in rebuilding aid to NADC [i]voluntarily[/i]. It hasn't affected us at all.

If 50 Million will seriously cripple your alliance, then you seriously don't deserve to be an alliance.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Shurukian

[Shurukian]

[quote name='Choader' date='09 March 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1268178055' post='2219840']
That's not true. At the time there was no publicly viewable SBA protection agreement on Echelon's forums.
[/quote]

I also proved this statement wrong to Citizenkane about two weeks ago. The treaty list on Echelon's website hadn't been edited since the beginning of February, and the SBA protection agreement was listed and viewable. I still have the screenshot I sent to Citizenkane.

[Otherworld]

[quote]I think it is important to note that these are Raid Rules and are not part of the PC Charter.[/quote]

So it is completely fine to ignore the alliance rules now.. just because its not in the charter?

[Hydro]

If Poison clan isn't willing to send aid offers to compensate for the losses of SBA, perhaps they ought to just let one or more of their nations be raided by SBA until 200 million in damages have been accomplished. Seems like a fair compromise to me.

[Cormalek]

[quote]I think it is important to note that these are Raid Rules and are not part of the PC Charter.[/quote]
The charter enforces them though.


[b][quote]Article 3: WAR![/b]


[b]Section II - Raiding[/b]
Acceptable raiding shall be determined at the discretion of the Master and is subject to constant scrutiny, review, and alteration. The regulations for acceptable tech raiding within Poison Clan shall be distributed on an alliance wide scale each time they are updated by the Master. As the raiding policy is adjusted, the new policies shall be posted for public viewing on the poison clan forums, for all interested parties.[/quote]

As rules regarding raiding might change, and the charter is not to be changed often, it says who and how is to say what is acceptable, and how can he change those rules. Presently, charter redirects this to Poison Clan Raids rules.

This is not an uncommon practice. Pfft, what do I say. Every single important document, that ever existed since creating modern law[ooc: Roman Empire. "Modern" is a relative term], uses similar ways to redirect it's power. If those rules would contradict other laws from charter, well, then you might have an argument. I still hope, that RS* will elaborate on this.


*[size="1"]@RS.: I hope that you don't mind me using the acronym for your name. I have some trouble remembering it, and would rather avoid making a typo. I will work on this.[/size]

[edit: open tag[

Edited March 11, 2010 by Cormalek

[Merrie Melodies]

[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]
Let see if I understood this properly. You are saying in the middle of a flair up over attacking a small alliance with a treaty, other alliances are planning to do the same thing post war?

Edited March 11, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Hymenbreach]

Come on PC. It's obvious the argument has been lost, on oh about six fronts. Pay the damn fine and go back to doing whatever the hell it is you do.

[Mussolandia]

I see Poison Clan under pressure. That's good.

[Vhalen]

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1268326275' post='2222193']
AirMe, I'm not stating SBA isn't an alliance. I'm clearly saying that SBA is 'SBA' and not Spacebattle Alliance. Poison Clan did raid the alliance SBA, but Poison Clan didn't raid Echelon's treaty partner Spacebattle Alliance. Whether or not people will agree with me doesn't matter the fact is AA doesn't stand for Alliance Acronym Affiliation.
[/quote]
You know, it really says something about PC's collective intelligence if your best argument is that you were unable to figure out that Spacebattle.com Alliance and SBA were the same thing.

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='11 March 2010 - 12:24 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]
And, in any case, it would be foolish to check with the protector, if you believed that to be the case.

[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' date='11 March 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1268329330' post='2222247']
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.
[/quote]
It's only slander if it's not true, you know.

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='11 March 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1268330464' post='2222263']
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]
Clearly the affected nations were plants in a 3-year-plus plot to trick PC when they raided, in order to extort about 25% of damages. The masterstroke was how they knew a former member would be contacted, and instructed him to be vague in his answers. An absolutely brilliant plan...and it would've worked too, if it weren't for those meddling kids.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='11 March 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1268334470' post='2222328']
Let see if I understood this properly. You are saying in the middle of a flair up over attacking a small alliance with a treaty, other alliances are planning to do the same thing post war?
[/quote]
Frankly, if I were running an alliance with a mutual defense treaty with PC, seeing this sort of thing again would be enough to make me seriously rethink it. I wouldn't want to be obligated to step in when they do something even stupider and get called on it. (Which appears to be only a matter of time, given past history and their current thoughts in this matter.)

On that note, such plans wouldn't surprise me at all. It would surprise me if the planners didn't put the writing on the wall far enough in advance for displeased treaty partners (those who found themselves reluctantly obligated to defend people who seem hellbent on getting themselves rolled) to disentangle themselves ahead of time, without dishonor.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Vhalen

[Earogema]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 March 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1268289085' post='2221908']
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.
[/quote]
People seem to forget this, but we actually you know DID SOMETHING for 10 months. It was suicidal, but we didn't only post on the forums you know, we were also at war. Yes, we fought against might makes right- Which is what I say Echelon should do. That is declare a symbolic war, since they seem to have the PR to do so.

That is really the only possible course. PC will just raid them again if they don't. (According to the PC is doing this on purpose theory).

If they don't believe PC is doing it on purpose, then no war is required. However if they're going to wear tin foil hats, and honestly think this was all on purpose, then war is the only option.

[quote name='Vhalen' date='11 March 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1268289482' post='2221915']
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.
[/quote]
I agree with this. However, Echelon's FA is terrible. No really. This is the reason WHY their enemies are posting for them. They still don't support them, just in this instance (which is what Polar does when it sees an injustice, go figure). Echelon in my opinion, does not have the ability to win a war of words. PC may screw up again, but I highly doubt Echelon will still have mustered enough support to take them down. I figure if anybody is going to defeat PC it's going to have to be them losing their allies.

Tbh, I would support PC a lot of the times even in the wrong, because I knew they would do the same for me. They would have to abuse my friendship one too many times for me to ever consider canceling on them for what they did for us when Polar declared. I realize that perhaps this reeks of the old Hegemony defense- They are really our friends, that's why we fight 12 to 1! However, they fought for us when it when we were outnumbered. They are true friends.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Earogema

[ktarthan]

I am pleased that this thread was brought before the fair and unbias forum community so that it may pass judgement on PC for its crimes. Surely now that it has been ruled they are in the wrong they will apologize and pay reps!

[Wargarden]

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1268325190' post='2222180']
Actually I think all alliances should be required to use their actually name rather than acronyms. =LOST= Also falls in this category.

AA = Alliance Affiliation

AA =/= Alliance Acronym Affiliation
[/quote]


The reson we did that was because we were getting into issues with LOSS and LOTS...especially LOTS (League of the Shadows...yeh we about started a war over that one.), because people were mistaking us for therm. It became practical not to write the words 'league', 'shadow' or 'treaty' in our AA as blips were appearing to people searching for any one of those alliances.

Also, the OP deserves $100mil simply for the extensive cyebr-law case he's built against PC.

[890765]

I still don't understand the arguments here. PC stopped the raids, and put the AA on a no raid list. Why is anything more needed?

[aboooe]

[quote name='890765' date='11 March 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1268344627' post='2222469']
I still don't understand the arguments here. PC stopped the raids, and put the AA on a no raid list. Why is anything more needed?
[/quote]
As they clearly don't even read there own no raid list, and because of the excess damage done.

Edited March 11, 2010 by aboooe

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='890765' date='11 March 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1268344627' post='2222469']
I still don't understand the arguments here. PC stopped the raids, and put the AA on a no raid list. Why is anything more needed?
[/quote]

Unless something changed since I last read this thread, it's pretty simple.

If PC doesn't pay reps (which I doubt they will) then it's basically a statement that anyone can attack a protectorate so long as they have the backing behind them to survive any potential fallout, they get away without harm done and just say they helped out by making sure the wiki is now up to date and it won't happen again. So they get the benefits of raiding someone without the repercussions of retaliation since likely those nations were ordered to peace PC and await reps payments from Echelon's gov.

[GoddessOfLinn]

[quote name='890765' date='11 March 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1268344627' post='2222469']
I still don't understand the arguments here. PC stopped the raids, and put the AA on a no raid list. Why is anything more needed?
[/quote]

Because the did damage for over 200 mill. and they should pay for that! To bad OP only ask for 50 mill.

[Sakura]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='11 March 2010 - 10:07 AM' timestamp='1268331139' post='2222272']
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.
[/quote]

In absence of anything stating otherwise, there is no post-merger protection. Even if one were to argue there were, I doubt many would argue that it extends to, or even past four months.

[quote name='AirMe' date='11 March 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1268331969' post='2222286']
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.
[/quote]

[OOC]Actually, bulls in China shops tend to cause little relative damage -- as they avoid the shelves[/OOC]

It *is* extortion when a member of Echelon is the one that made the merger edit in the first place.

[quote name='Wargarden' date='11 March 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1268344561' post='2222468']
The reson we did that was because we were getting into issues with LOSS and LOTS...especially LOTS (League of the Shadows...yeh we about started a war over that one.), because people were mistaking us for therm. It became practical not to write the words 'league', 'shadow' or 'treaty' in our AA as blips were appearing to people searching for any one of those alliances.

Also, the OP deserves $100mil simply for the extensive cyebr-law case he's built against PC.
[/quote]

"Extensive"? Their case is built on fallacies and half-truths, at best. And flat out falsehoods at worst.

Simply put -- their entire case that PC owes reps is built on "alliances are responsible for their members' actions" -- and yet, they claim no responsibility for the *most important* edit to SBA's Wikia article. The one that was made *by* a current member of Echelon. Unless, of course, Echelon is saying that they've let DrStrangelove1977 ghost them for over four months.

What's more, DrStrangelove1977 was (according to my research), previously in SBA. An alliance with, by their own definition no formal structure -- wherein current members decide anything and everything by vote. So, if they hadn't voted to merge, at the time he performed his edit, then he is responsible for that. By extension, Echelon, which he changed his AA to at about the same time.

Additionally, its been close to a month, and yet, Echelon's own forums still list GGA and HoL as treaty partners -- yet, as far as I'm aware, both have been canceled.

[Caffine]

[quote name='Sakura' date='11 March 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1268347270' post='2222502']
In absence of anything stating otherwise, there is no post-merger protection. Even if one were to argue there were, I doubt many would argue that it extends to, or even past four months.



[OOC]Actually, bulls in China shops tend to cause little relative damage -- as they avoid the shelves[/OOC]

It *is* extortion when a member of Echelon is the one that made the merger edit in the first place.



"Extensive"? Their case is built on fallacies and half-truths, at best. And flat out falsehoods at worst.

Simply put -- their entire case that PC owes reps is built on "alliances are responsible for their members' actions" -- and yet, they claim no responsibility for the *most important* edit to SBA's Wikia article. The one that was made *by* a current member of Echelon. Unless, of course, Echelon is saying that they've let DrStrangelove1977 ghost them for over four months.

What's more, DrStrangelove1977 was (according to my research), previously in SBA. An alliance with, by their own definition no formal structure -- wherein current members decide anything and everything by vote. So, if they hadn't voted to merge, at the time he performed his edit, then he is responsible for that. By extension, Echelon, which he changed his AA to at about the same time.

Additionally, its been close to a month, and yet, Echelon's own forums still list GGA and HoL as treaty partners -- yet, as far as I'm aware, both have been canceled.
[/quote]


I'd direct you to the OP to address these questions, as they cover them quite thoroughly. As for the issue of our forums, why is it that you couldn't seem to find them when you were doing your research? They're clearly dated BEFORE this incident occurred, and SBA was clearly listed. Just face facts, you, as in Poison Clan, have targetted an Echelon protectorate twice within 8 months. In both situations, Echelon was less than 2 weeks out of a war (12 days out of Karma, 10 days out of this last one), and had to deal with Poison Clan attacking our Protectorate SBA. Pair that with other incidents, such as the California incident, and we have a concrete pattern of behavior.

Somebody was kind enough to put up a Twitter following Poison Clan's Raids.
[url="http://twitter.com/PC_Raids"]http://twitter.com/PC_Raids[/url]
Yesterday alone, two of Poison Clan's tech raid targets were first strike nuked.


Just stop playing games and come out and say it already. You do what you want, when you want. We get it, you're [i]edgy[/i].

EDIT: It appears the Twitter is gone.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Caffine1

[Mannatech]

[quote name='Schad' date='11 March 2010 - 09:09 AM' 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]

Oh really. They can expect possible raid then.

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='11 March 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1268347951' post='2222519']Yesterday alone, two of Poison Clan's tech raid targets were first strike nuked.[/quote]

Since when did tech raids involve nuking? I can't wait to see the justification from PC and their *friends*. Should be an interesting story...I'd wager akin to one starting off "Come and listen to a story 'bout a man named Jed..."

[Otherworld]

[quote]The one that was made *by* a current member of Echelon. Unless, of course, Echelon is saying that they've let DrStrangelove1977 ghost them for over four months.[/quote]

He is a member... but only a member. Since the last time I checked.. regular members do not do the decision making for echelon regarding the status of treaties/allies.

[Schad]

[quote name='Mannatech' date='11 March 2010 - 04:50 PM' timestamp='1268348127' post='2222522']
Oh really. They can expect possible raid then.
[/quote]

I was going for the "incomplete information with protectorates isn't uncommon, nor particularly damning" angle, not offering them up for a retributive raid.

[Mannatech]

[quote name='Schad' date='11 March 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1268348889' post='2222539']
I was going for the "incomplete information with protectorates isn't uncommon, nor particularly damning" angle, not offering them up for a retributive raid.
[/quote]

Come on now. SBA has a no raid policy. I was just joking.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='11 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1268348568' post='2222530']
I can't wait to see the justification from PC and their *friends*.
[/quote]
I double !@#$@#$ dog dare you to try a move on PC.


Also, I doubt it's actually anything authorized by gov (they've already put the people who did it on raiding bans I think)

Edited March 11, 2010 by Rey the Great