Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Caffine1' date='11 March 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1268354229' post='2222646']
Regardless of how people outside of PC feel about nuking in techraiding, PC seems to be forbidden from doing so.



It just seems a little ridiculous.
[/quote]
Why let pesky rules get in the way now? ;)

[quote name='Rey the Great' date='11 March 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1268358938' post='2222754']
I guess if nobody redacts his policies within months.


It should tell you something when your alliance hasn't had a very successful negotiation/foreign affairs (from some people's perspective) history. Not everyone who opposes you can be wrong, you know.

Get new, decent negotiators with more tact.
[/quote]
It should tell you something when your alliance's position is almost universally considered embarrassing. Not everyone who opposes you can be wrong, you know.

Get new, decent posters with more tact. :P

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

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='12 March 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1268361550' post='2222799']
I could have sworn that Grub's CB was accepted as legit?
[/quote]

I am happy to accept that it was... does that count? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience this is just PC. They will break their own rules and not worry about it, hoping an "oops sorry, my bad" will make it all go away which historically seems to have worked in the past. The ball is in Echelon's court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 March 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1268361381' post='2222796']
so now we come to the crux of the argument. Vox needed to fight in order to back up their war of words as well as the ideals they were espousing. if Echelon fights, it does what exactly? gets them destroyed even more as they would not only face PC, but FOK and others who would back up PC despite PC being the aggressors which is quite interesting given this current war. not only that, but Echelon's allies may end up helping Echelon out and that will do what? get them destroyed. thus, a physical fight accomplishes nothing but gets a bunch of alliances destroyed and most likely paying more reps given the fact that Echelon and their allies are most likely under surrender terms of some sort.

so in the end, Echelon is in even less of a position to protect their protectorates and Echelon's allies get destroyed and overall they end up in a worse position than they are now. so not every war of words requires a physical fight and sometimes, it is better to avoid the physical fight due to the known outcome of it. because if Echelon defends SBA physically, i doubt PC would not demand reps.
[/quote]
That is all unfortunately true. You are completely correct. Vox worked because we had little to lose.

Welp I guess they'll just have to work really hard on their FA and propaganda in the future. This action may have been the first strike, but it's hardly the final blow needed. I don't know if they're up to that. The OP was a good start though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='11 March 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1268360396' post='2222780']
Its akin to walking up, punching someone in the nose and then saying, "we don't want a fight, lets be reasonable and negotiate something"
[/quote]

Wow. Now you are outright lying about who punched who. I mean, I know you aren't honest, I know you have no morals and no ethics. But you are lying about things that *everyone* knows and seem to think that people will believe you.

PC attacked SBA. Echelon didn't attack anyone. You know it, and everyone here knows it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='neneko' date='11 March 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1268353781' post='2222634']
Sort of amusing to see which people are claiming 100% reps is the only right thing when someone gets attacked for no reason. I wonder if there's any other similar situations where that could be applied.
[/quote]
AirMe's fighting TOP, if that's what you mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='10 March 2010 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1268180169' post='2219936']
Timehhh, you probably should have looked harder. It has [b][i]always[/i][/b] been there.

I estimate that if you were looking at Echelon's treaties to "anticipate possible counters" you probably didn't spend a lot of time looking over our protectorates. And even if you did, SBA and UD are pretty small. I'd actually be impressed if you did remember them. Protectorates do not typically contribute significantly in major wars, so why would you have invested much?

Instead, you probably focused more of your attention on IRON, NADC, RDD, etc.
[/quote]


[quote name='Timmehhh' date='10 March 2010 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1268180740' post='2219959']
This might certainly be true, I might have overlooked it, but I have a good memory though. Still doesn't change the fact that the their wiki said they disbanded. Also the treatylist on your own forums is out of date so it isn't really a credible source. For example the treaties with GGA and House of Lords are cancelled, but are still on the list. It could very well be possible that SBA was already disbanded but still needed to be removed from the list from PC's point of view.
[/quote]

You didn't overlook it, like you i also have a pretty good memory and during my time as a diplomat to AiD I looked into their treaties to see if a treaty suggestion would be an option. AiD was at that time part of the commonwealth of echelon a.k.a an echelon protectorate, SBA, was not, they where listed at disbanded.

But apart from that.. this whole joint raiding is stupid. It's just starting a war without CB because there is noone to retaliate..

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='EgoFreaky' date='13 March 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1268501031' post='2224398']
You didn't overlook it, like you i also have a pretty good memory and during my time as a diplomat to AiD I looked into their treaties to see if a treaty suggestion would be an option. AiD was at that time part of the commonwealth of echelon a.k.a an echelon protectorate, SBA, was not, they where listed at disbanded.
[/quote]

Funny enough, the Wiki says otherwise.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/index.php?title=Echelon&diff=194313&oldid=194312

That is the edit AS OF April 2nd, 2009. If you care to scroll [b]all the way[/b] to the bottom, you would see this. So your memory is obviously flawed. As of that date in time, SBA was the sole remaining alliance as a participant of the Commonwealth of Echelon (protectorate-status bloc of sorts), as you mention. No other edits were made, at all, up until May 28th following that edit on April 2nd, 2009 (mind you that the presence of the SBA's title in the Commonwealth of Echelon extended [b]BEFORE[/b] this date).

Upon looking through the rest of the edit logs, never once was SBA [b]ever[/b] removed from their protectorate list save for one edit which seemed to have deleted the protectorate log (formatting error, not an explicit destruction of the protectorate list), though that could be part of my computer's slowness at the current moment.

[b]Also Echelon,[/b]

And don't take this the wrong way, but while we are are talking about the wikis... you didn't receive white peace, you surrendered (in reference to the TOP/CnG War). You had stipulations which did not pull your opposition out of the war, thus making terms one-sided, thus rendering you to surrender. White peace would signify both parties part ways without terms being enacted, thus both leaving the war. Just wanted to put that out there.

So really folks, Echelon has had SBA in their wiki extended [b]beyond[/b] April 2, 2009. Get your facts straight.

EDIT: SBA was listed as a protectorate under Echelon as far back as [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/index.php?title=Echelon&diff=160193&oldid=158999"]October 1, 2008[/url]. That is when it was added.

Edited by SpacingOutMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Baldr' date='11 March 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1268364939' post='2222868']
Wow. Now you are outright lying about who punched who. I mean, I know you aren't honest, I know you have no morals and no ethics. But you are lying about things that *everyone* knows and seem to think that people will believe you.

PC attacked SBA. Echelon didn't attack anyone. You know it, and everyone here knows it.
[/quote]
Echelon used Caffeine to attack foreign affairs departments across Bob. That's arguably worse than the tech raid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='13 March 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1268503639' post='2224443']
You forgot the smug face.
[/quote]

I feel like someone should make a [OOC: Civil War] smug face for you... ;) But the issue of SBA receiving reps is a non-issue now because of PC's other thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='13 March 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1268503770' post='2224445']
Echelon used Caffeine to attack foreign affairs departments across Bob. That's arguably worse than the tech raid.
[/quote]

I admit I wasn't all that nice in the past. Although I can say with certainty that if you read the logs, you'll see that I actually was very diplomatic during this incident.

Moral relativism makes the issue of looking back into the past and judging difficult. However I can say that Back in my "prime" as you could call it, I handled issues far too aggressively. One of my fellow alliance members said it best "[i]to be able to strike up a good deal with somebody who has a weaker hand is the true test of diplomacy[/i]." I could not agree more with this statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing new. The Poison Clan broke their own rules and raided a TPF protectorate during the Karma War as well.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58325

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Caffine1' date='13 March 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1268519441' post='2224734']
I admit I wasn't all that nice in the past. Although I can say with certainty that if you read the logs, you'll see that I actually was very diplomatic during this incident.

Moral relativism makes the issue of looking back into the past and judging difficult. However I can say that Back in my "prime" as you could call it, I handled issues far too aggressively. One of my fellow alliance members said it best "[i]to be able to strike up a good deal with somebody who has a weaker hand is the true test of diplomacy[/i]." I could not agree more with this statement.
[/quote]
The true test of the diplomat is gaining yourself a favorable outcome with a weaker hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[size="5"]I want this to be perfectly clear so I am going to use big letters. The incident between SBA and Poison Clan is over and no more needs to be said about it. We in the SBA have grown respect for Poison Clan and wish no more vendetta's started over this incident for anybody. Please stop posting in this thread and leave them alone. [/size]

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

×
×
  • Create New...