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

[Earogema]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='09 March 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1268179567' post='2219910']
Looks like one big accident imo.

To be fair I honestly believe in this case PC looked at the wiki and saw the 'info' and took it at face value that SBA was open season. Should they have dug further?(I generaly have my people get at least 2 sources of confirmation on !@#$ like that but I hate these situations and try to avoid them) Maybe they could/should have but hindsight is 20/20. Honest mistake probably, !@#$ happens.


That being said im just wondering 2 things

1. Since when did a 'wiki' become the only or even (a) 'source' for an alliances official stance and info? I would have thought an alliances forum would be better for that since it is much more secure.

2.What is PC's reply as to their charter issue covering these kinds of circumstances and the claim that they are breaking said charter item?


Other then those 2 questions I think I pretty much have a picture of things.
[/quote]

Well...

1. I usually personally rely on the wiki since they're almost never been wrong for me, however I will say that until recently the \m/ wiki was incorrect regarding our current gov and I fixed that. But yes, forums are more secure.

However, observing the link Tela posted on page 2 (the link to the treaties on their forums) there is no link to Echelon's forum announcement yet the OP clearly links it. I'm not trying to imply this means there was no protectorate btw (there are numerous other reasons for that) however it just seems odd to me.

2. I think a reraid means raiding ASAP after a raid, or like maybe 1 month. Tbh, I don't remember any of my raid targets from way back when (I haven't raided in a Loooooooooong while), and I figure I wouldn't remember one from a small alliance like SBA. Months passed since the reraid. While it's technically a reraid, I hardly think the charter meant that long of a time period. That's what I figure anyway.

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='09 March 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1268179628' post='2219917']
I have checked and studied the echelon treaties during the war to anticipate possible counters on FOK but I haven't seen a treaty or protectorate with SBA. The wiki page from SBA also showed that SBA disbanded before Echelon members edited the page.
[/quote]


[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='09 March 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1268179708' post='2219921']
I'd be interested to hear Echelon's response to this. Specifically Rugger, Tela or Solidus.
[/quote]
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.

[Biazt]

I haven't laughed so hard at an OP on the OWF in a long time. Complete with a table of contents, screenshots, arrows pointing all over the place, highlighted/quoted parts of charters and righteous indignation. Thanks Echelon, you never disappoint.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Biazt

[Prime minister Johns]

All the rules about tech raiding effectively boil down to this.

Rule 1: There are no rules.

Rules get broken so often that there are effectively no rules.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Choader' date='09 March 2010 - 05:35 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]

According to this, PC had been informed, and then continued to raid.

[quote]SouthernComfort of Poison Clan raided SBA in July 2009. Echelon notified Poison Clan that SBA was protected. The raided nation was asked to provide battle reports and failed to respond, so reps were not calculated. Poison Clan agreed to cease attacks and the issue was resolved without incident.

SouthernComfort re-raided SBA on February 28, 2010 and has continued with numerous attacks. This is a clear violation of Poison Clan's tech raiding policy.
[/quote]

If that's all true, then PC is clearly not following their own charter, and is continuing to raid SBA even after being informed.

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 March 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1268178172' post='2219845']
What you should have said to PC is something along the lines of 'hey, we are protecting this alliance, contrary to what our wiki says, so please stop your attacks'. PC would have stopped, and that would have been the end of it. Instead you guys decide that PC should pay for your mistake and ignorance, and that is 'unbelievable' rationale.
[/quote]

Looks like they did inform PC, and the raids did not stop.

Of course, I'd have more sympathy for SBA and Echelon if they didn't do tech raids themselves. But they do, and they don't pay reps when they raid, so I figure they have little room to complain.

[Tromp]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='10 March 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1268177426' post='2219818']
The fact is the treaty was listed as canceled on the wiki when PC attacked, and then after this all happened you edited it back into your wiki.

Why should PC be financially liable for your errors?
[/quote]
Oh dear, Goldie nails it.
Has that ever happened before?

[Jyrinx]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='09 March 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1268178297' post='2219856']
And for the record, I did spend the last few weeks watching curling.
[/quote]

OOC: Curling is the worst sport to have ever been invented by man. I can't believe they let that god awful event into the Olympics. I would rather watch cricket than curling, and that's saying something.

Since alliances have never really had an obligation to keep their wikis up to date, I think this is a pretty cut and dry case of a protected alliance being raided. Doubly so if the treaties were posted on their forums, Echelon's forums, and members' nation bios. Not going to change the fact that PC are just going to be jerks about it and not pay you reps though.

[quote name='Sakura' date='09 March 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1268178885' post='2219883']
In other words, while Echelon had a linkless mention of a protectorate of "Spacebattles.com Alliance" *on their own forums*, the AA "SBA" is not "Spacebattles.com Alliance", because of NPO and NpO.

The protectorate agreement linked to from the Spacebattles.com Alliance article points to an agreement that only mentions SBA -- not Spacebattles.com Alliance -- even once.
[/quote]

Next thing you're going to tell me is that the in-game AA of "FCC" isn't the Fifth Column Confederation I think you're better off using the reasoning of you just raided them because you could.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Jyrinx

[Banslam]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='09 March 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1268180152' post='2219933']
Not speaking for my allies, but I will take a stab at #2. The charter prohibits raiding an alliance once it has already been raided. Going on the belief, as all the evidence pointed to...that SBA disbanded in October, it is completely reasonable to view anyone on a 6 month disbanded AA, as no different than being on NONE.
[/quote]5-7 are just copied from Green's Raid Commandments. They were merely recommended suggestions when they were in a separate document and they still are despite being combined with the raid rules document.

[Vhalen]

[quote name='Aeternalis' date='09 March 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1268178269' post='2219851']
and what happens if they don't pay?
[/quote]
Hopefully it'll establish a precedent where someone can just go edit a wiki then treat it as fact. That'll be fun, won't it?

What if PC suddenly discovers its protectorates are no longer protectorates, or maybe some treaties suddenly disappear. As long as you have a wik screenshot taken around the time of the attacks, it shouldn't be a problem, right? Certainly PC wouldn't want reps for their "protectorate."

Look, I'm not saying anyone's absolutely, perfectly in the right here, but I'd be surprised if anyone who's bothering to argue that an outdated wiki entry justifies attacks can do it with a straight face. As the attacker, it's YOUR BUSINESS to know what you're going into. If you don't, you typically get bad results. Ask NPO. Ask TOP.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourselves.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Banslam' date='09 March 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1268180419' post='2219944']
5-7 are just copied from Green's Raid Commandments. They were merely recommended suggestions when they were in a separate document and they still are despite being combined with the raid rules document.
[/quote]
I still like my answer better!

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Kryievla' date='09 March 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1268178233' post='2219847']
Why not?
[/quote]

Because calling out someone on the OWF for not doing what you want them to/disagreeing with you has almost never helped resolve the issue in their favor as far as I've seen.


Anyway, this should be a fun thread.

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1268180159' post='2219934']
2. I think a reraid means raiding ASAP after a raid, or like maybe 1 month. Tbh, I don't remember any of my raid targets from way back when (I haven't raided in a Loooooooooong while), and I figure I wouldn't remember one from a small alliance like SBA. Months passed since the reraid. While it's technically a reraid, I hardly think the charter meant that long of a time period. That's what I figure anyway.
[/quote]
If their don't re-raid policy means don't re-raid within a month, then it should say that. In the absense of a time limiting declaration, it reads as an indefinite "do not re-raid." Until such time that the scope of this statement is narrowed, we must take it for face value.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='09 March 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1268180152' post='2219933']
Not speaking for my allies, but I will take a stab at #2. The charter prohibits raiding an alliance once it has already been raided. Going on the belief, as all the evidence pointed to...that SBA disbanded in October, it is completely reasonable to view anyone on a 6 month disbanded AA, as no different than being on NONE.
[/quote]
For an AA that supposedly disbanded 6 months ago, they're holding strong numbers. 13 members on the AA, with a third of them having "Protected by Echelon" in their bio sounds like a stable, non-disbanded alliance to me.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Ruggerdawg

[Earogema]

[quote name='Jyrinx' date='09 March 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1268180323' post='2219942']
Since alliances have never really had an obligation to keep their wikis up to date, I think this is a pretty cut and dry case of a protected alliance being raided. Doubly so if the treaties were posted on their forums, Echelon's forums, and members' nation bios. Not going to change the fact that PC are just going to be jerks about it and not pay you reps though.
[/quote]
Of that same token, 1 member of a 13 member AA told them they weren't protected.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='09 March 2010 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1268180032' post='2219929']
This is quite interesting. If a different alliance was charged of dishonorable conduct, I have little doubt the public reaction would differ as well.
[/quote]

I also bet that if a different alliance were the ones charging another alliance, that the OWF would be reacting quite differently as well. I think what it shows are the "your side, my side" mentality that has persisted recently on these forums. That, and active forum squads are useful.

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1268180597' post='2219955']
Of that same token, 1 member of a 13 member AA told them they weren't protected.
[/quote]

Former member...


That's like saying for us to contact Hal if we need to talk to \m/ government.

[Timmmehhh]

[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]
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.

[Duckz3]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='09 March 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1268179567' post='2219910']
Looks like one big accident imo.

To be fair I honestly believe in this case PC looked at the wiki and saw the 'info' and took it at face value that SBA was open season. Should they have dug further?(I generaly have my people get at least 2 sources of confirmation on !@#$ like that but I hate these situations and try to avoid them) Maybe they could/should have but hindsight is 20/20. Honest mistake probably, !@#$ happens.


That being said im just wondering 2 things

1. Since when did a 'wiki' become the only or even (a) 'source' for an alliances official stance and info? I would have thought an alliances forum would be better for that since it is much more secure.

2.What is PC's reply as to their charter issue covering these kinds of circumstances and the claim that they are breaking said charter item?


Other then those 2 questions I think I pretty much have a picture of things.
[/quote]

I will answer your first question. The charter was not broken. Those are Green Acres 10 Commandments on tech raiding. They are not part of our charter more or less guidelines. Their was no breach of the Poison Clan Charter.

Josshill-

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='09 March 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1268177040' post='2219802']
I. Issue Statement
II. Poison Clan's Raiding Rules
III. The SBA Wiki Issue
IV. Damages


[size="5"]I. Issue Statement[/size]

On February 28, 2010 several Poison Clan nations raided 3 members of the Spacebattles.com Alliance, also known as SBA. [b]This most recent attack is the third such attack by Poison Clan on SBA.[/b]

SBA's wiki has been edited several times. For more on this, see below. Claims have been made that SBA merged into Echelon. This is not the case. Information regarding the protection of SBA by Echelon can be found in the following locations:

[i]pictures[/i]

Any errors or inconsistencies found on the SBA wiki would quickly be addressed by seeking information from the four remaining sources.

Poison Clan claims they were unable to locate current information on the status of the Echelon-SBA Protectorate Agreement on either the Echelon forums or the SBA forums. The forums for both SBA and Echelon have maintained current and correct information since the inception of this treaty. Treaties for both alliances are also available in public areas which do not require registered nicknames to view (click the links for the respective forums, found above).

[hr]

[size="5"]II. Poison Clan's Raiding Rules[/size]

Poison Clan clearly state their rules regarding tech raiding. These rules can be found on their [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Poison_Clan#Section_II_-_Raiding]alliance wiki[/url], or on their [url=http://poisonclan.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1047]forums[/url].
[i]pictures[/i]


According to Poison Clan's tech raiding policy, protected alliances are not allowed to be raided. SBA is, and always has been, protected by Echelon.

Poison Clan states they contacted a former SBA member to discuss the status of this protectorate. That former SBA member gave Poison Clan incorrect information. There may be several reasons for this - perhaps s/he was a disgruntled member and has a grudge against SBA, or perhaps they simply did not know - either way, the information was inaccurate.


SouthernComfort of Poison Clan raided SBA in July 2009. Echelon notified Poison Clan that SBA was protected. The raided nation was asked to provide battle reports and failed to respond, so reps were not calculated. Poison Clan agreed to cease attacks and the issue was resolved without incident.

SouthernComfort [b]re-raided[/b] SBA on February 28, 2010 and has continued with numerous attacks. This is a clear violation of Poison Clan's tech raiding policy.


Fact 1 - PC nations attacked a protected alliance.
Fact 2 - PC nations have re-raided an alliance.
Fact 3 - Both 1 & 2 are violations of PC Raiding Rules.
Fact 4 - Violation of PC Raiding Rules results in the payment of reps.
Conclusion - PC is required to pay reps to SBA.

Finally, I offer this:


[hr]

[size="5"]III. The SBA Wiki Issue[/size]

In September of 2008, Echelon [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=35323&st=0]publically announced their protection of SBA[/url] (as a result of an attack on SBA by Dark Templar and Poison Clan).

As of 3:11PM EST March 9, 2010, no change has been made to Echelon's wiki since January of 2010.
[i]pictures[/i]
Echelon's announcement of protection was added to the wiki more than a year prior to this event.

As of February 17, 2009, SBA added the Commonwealth of Echelon box on the bottom of their wiki. They were listed as active members from that day through today, no change was made.

In October 2008, a merger between Echelon and SBA was [b][i]discussed[/i][/b]. Several members of SBA left to join Echelon, but those not interested in the merger remained. DrStrangelove, one of those that joined Echelon, edited the wiki to indicate the two alliances merged.pictureThis information is inaccurate and was corrected [i]within five hours[/i]. picture

On February 6, 2010, the user "Lol pie" took information that had already been edited out of the wiki 5 hours after it was put up in October of 2009 and decided that SBA no longer existed. ([b]Note the lack of links to anything with either Echelon or SBA signatures on it stating this as factual.[/b])

While we generally try to keep our own wiki updated, and occasionally check up on the wikis of our allies, please note the date that Lol pie made the change - February 6. On February 6, Echelon was engaged in war which lasted until February 18. Poison Clan attacked SBA on February 28, 10 days later. During those 10 days, Echelon was consumed with assessing war damages, rebuilding, and transitioning from a state of war to a state of rearmament.

[b]On March 1, when SBA informed Echelon that they were being raided by PC, an Echelon member visited the SBA wiki and noticed several inaccuracies (most notably the Lol pie change). Is Echelon expected to leave the mistake up so that other alliances could attack? There is no dispute of this, the change was a matter of public record (anybody can see edits on a wiki). When Poison Clan was approached, we approached them with the knowledge that when they checked, this was the version of the wiki they had seen.[/b]
picture

(Note: The entire wiki issue has been diagramed in one large image, but was broken down into smaller parts for the sake of simplicity. In order to view the larger image, please see this http://www.cn-sanitarium.com/PCWiki.jpg (warning, it's big - 6998px × 3432px).)

On February 25 of 2010, Poison Clan announced its [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81709&st=0&p=2204416&#entry2204416]protection of The Gentlemen's Club[/url]. However, they failed to note it in their wiki until March 1st. picture
Poison Clan is guilty of the same thing we are, not being up to date on their wikis. Had somebody attacked The Gentlement's Club in between those dates, we can say without doubt that Poison Clan would have demanded reps from the attackers.

[hr]

[size="5"]IV. Damages[/size]

Echelon has calculated the amount of damages sustained to SBA raiding victims by compiling information from the provided battle reports. This information can be viewed in picture
The damages for infrastructure and land were calculated utilizing the [url=http://www.cn-utilities.com/]CN-Utilities calculator[/url] for each nation based on their current resources, land and infrastructure levels, wonders, and 5 Factories. The total amount of damages (without the cost of soldiers and tanks) is $212,774,461.85. If this number seems extreme, it should be noted that these are nations with ~6,000 (+/- 500) infrastructure.

Echelon and SBA are not seeking punitive damages and instead are only focused on repayment of the [b]actual[/b] damage done to SBA. An offer to settle for $100 million has been offered and rejected. In an effort to be reasonable, we offered to settle for $50 million. That offer was also rejected.

Echelon is not seeking to extort Poison Clan and is only trying to act in accordance with the current SBA-protectorate agreement.

Edit: bbcode tags
[/quote]

(I recognize this format )

Nice brief, however:

Table of contents and topic heading format is off. Deduction of 10.

You cite to no mandatory or persuasive authority on the issue. Deduction of 10.

You failed to cite to or formulate a distinct rule on the issue. Deduction of 15

Following from the above, your argument contains no supportive illustrations. Deduction of 10.

Finally, your argument practically is based upon conclusory statements, and as we all know, an inference based upon an inference does not support a conclusion. As a suggestion, you would have been far better off arguing your case based on traditional notions of fair play and equity. Deduction of 20.

Raw Score 85/150 = [b]F[/b]

Edited March 10, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Duckz3' date='09 March 2010 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1268180748' post='2219960']
I will answer your first question. The charter was not broken. Those are Green Acres 10 Commandments on tech raiding. They are not part of our charter more or less guidelines. Their was no breach of the Poison Clan Charter.

Josshill-
[/quote]

Those are indeed simply guidelines. I believe we actually recommend that our own members follow those very guidelines, but they aren't official rules.

Edited March 10, 2010 by LegendoftheSkies

[Jyrinx]

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1268180597' post='2219955']
Of that same token, 1 member of a 13 member AA told them they weren't protected.
[/quote]

The onus is still on a raiding alliance to make sure they're not raiding a protected alliance . Heaven knows we have enough, how shall we say, noobs in this game that members can be completely oblivious to a bunch of stuff (shockingly so as I've seen sometimes).

Hey, if PC honestly didn't know then they didn't know. I find that a tad bit unbelievable, but ok. That doesn't change that they raided a protected alliance. I don't think they'll pay reps mind you, since they're PC and that's how they roll, but I think they should.

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='09 March 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1268180740' post='2219959']House of Lords are cancelled, but are still on the list. [/quote]
Specifically, it says "treaty pending review" and there are those within Echelon that are hoping to re-kindle relations with HoL. At this moment, if HoL came to us seeking assistance, we'd offer our support to them.

[Goldie]

[quote name='KainIIIC' date='09 March 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1268180669' post='2219957']
I also bet that if a different alliance were the ones charging another alliance, that the OWF would be reacting quite differently as well. I think what it shows are the "your side, my side" mentality that has persisted recently on these forums. That, and active forum squads are useful.
[/quote]

I disagree with that. There are plenty of rational people on these boards who don't care much for either alliance who can see this for what it is, an attempt to drum up something when there really should be nothing. I was appalled by Athens/FoB last fall, and was appalled by PC/m/GOONS this winter, but the fact that I am not by this action shows how it actually isn't as bad as some want to make it out to be.

Fact is, is that while PC was definitely wrong in raiding the alliance in my eyes (I think it wrong to tech raid period), that the outcry on Echelon's part should be directed as much at themselves as it is toward PC, for allowing the world to think that SBA wasn't protected.

[Earogema]

[quote name='x Tela x' date='09 March 2010 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1268180692' post='2219958']
Former member...


That's like saying for us to contact Hal if we need to talk to \m/ government.
[/quote]
Ah, I missed that. My mistake.

Still, even a former members should have known whether or not there was a protectorate.

Only 3 out of 13 official members have something relating of Echelon's protection in their bios as well. Still if my standard of one former member was sufficient for proving that they had no treaty, then 3 would be enough to prove they had the treaty.

Anyway- Does SBA have any forums of their own?

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1268181050' post='2219974']
Anyway- Does SBA have any forums of their own?
[/quote]
Yes, and a link to their forums, and their treaties, was provided in the OP.

http://sba.egzodus.com/forum/index.php?topic=7.0

[Earogema]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='09 March 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1268181209' post='2219979']
Yes, and a link to their forums, and their treaties, was provided in the OP.

http://sba.egzodus.com/forum/index.php?topic=7.0
[/quote]
Ah I skipped over the links. Thanks.