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

[Proko]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='09 March 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1268184149' post='2220122']
I bet if someone really did that, it wouldn't take PC several months to fix it.
[/quote]

The ever-vigilant Poison Clan Wiki department. It's true, Polaris maintains several qualified journalists to update our Wiki [i]daily[/i].

By that, I mean I have no idea who wrote our Wiki, who maintains it, who updates our treaties and bloc information, or the last time it was updated. Our charter stipulates absolutely nothing about the Cybernations Wiki, Wikipedia, or any other independent online database. We are not responsible for maintaining it. Unless Echelon has expressed some sort of responsibility for their Wiki page, then they aren't responsible for theirs either.

[AirMe]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='09 March 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1268184575' post='2220143']
Using flawed analogies to cover up Echelon's $%&@ up, eh?
[/quote]

Echelon didn't screw up bub. PC did.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Vilien' date='09 March 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1268184692' post='2220149']
I never argued that Echelon was a competent alliance. I wouldn't even dream of saying something that ridiculous. However, attacking a protected alliance and refusing to pay reparations is pretty tasteless whether or not their protectors are incompetent.
[/quote]
Well that's the problem then. How are they going to threaten an entity like PC if they can't:

1. Use their FA to lobby defense.
2. Defend SBA.

[Thomas Jackson]

[quote name='AirMe' date='09 March 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1268184747' post='2220152']
Ignorance has never been a valid excuse on this planet and never will.
[/quote]
Seems to be Echelon's excuse here.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='09 March 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1268183799' post='2220107']
Then allow this to be the SIXTH reference that SBA is a protectorate of Echelon.

Information regarding the protection of SBA by Echelon can be found in the following locations:

[list][*][url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Spacebattles.com_Alliance]SBA's wiki[/url]
[*][url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Echelon]Echelon's wiki - Echelon Treaties[/url]
[*][url=http://sba.egzodus.com/forum/index.php?topic=7.0][b]SBA Forums - SBA Treaty List[/b][/url]
[*][url=http://www.cn-echelon.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12526][b]Echelon Forums - Echelon's Treaties[/b][/url]
[*]The bios of several SBA nations.
[*]THIS POST. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=82415&view=findpost&p=2220107[/list]



Edit: link
[/quote]

Oh lovely! Except you're about a week or two late. At least.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='09 March 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1268184895' post='2220161']
Seems to be Echelon's excuse here.
[/quote]

Are we reading the same thing? That is PC's whole argument! Durrrr their wiki wasn't updated durrrrrrr.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Virillus' date='09 March 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1268184495' post='2220138']
Sure, that's fair, even understandable.

At the end of the day though, most people would say that even if you're confused, you're still liable for the mistakes you made. Ignorance and confusion do not make excuses.

But then again, if people can get away with bullying, then they'll do it: it's a shame.
[/quote]
They do make excuses if even the person who was part the treaty was confused as to the existence of said treaty.

[Virillus]

[quote name='AirMe' date='09 March 2010 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1268184747' post='2220152']
Ignorance has never been a valid excuse on this planet and never will.
[/quote]

I sincerely hope that is the case.

[quote name='Earogema']They do make excuses if even the person who was part the treaty was confused as to the existence of said treaty. [/quote]

When your policy is "we won't beat people up for no reason if they have a scary big brother," then excusing yourself because you [i]didn't know[/i] they had a scary big brother isn't commendable.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Virillus

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1268184840' post='2220158']
2. Defend SBA.
[/quote]

They're trying to. They've asked for reps, you've (and I mean PC) have !@#$ in their face. Let's see what happens from here.

[Proko]

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='09 March 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1268184895' post='2220161']
Seems to be Echelon's excuse here.
[/quote]

They're not responsible for their Wiki unless their charter, or some sort of official decree, says otherwise. [OOC] The Wiki is not a part of this game, as far as I understand it[/OOC]. It's an independent reference. If it is out-of-date, it is the responsibility of the Wiki admins, not the alliances themselves.

If the Wikipedia article on "Bread" has a factual error, then it is not Bread's responsibility to fix that error. It is the responsibility of the Administrators.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Proko

[Ruggerdawg]

[quote name='Vilien' date='09 March 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1268184288' post='2220127']
Their reason for not paying reps boils down to Echelon being poorly connected. That's complete !@#$%^&*. Switch this with, say, a RoK protectorate getting raided and you can sure as hell bet we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
[/quote]
[quote name='Gerald Meane' date='09 March 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1268184351' post='2220131']That being said regardless of the outcome we here at \m/ will be supporting our allies if it comes down to war.[/quote]
Yes, if this were not Echelon, but say RoK, and all of the remaining facts were the same, there would be no standoff. So essentially, these protectorates only apply when you have the might to back them up. That's unfortunate, but I suppose that's the way of things. As mentioned, Echelon had the might to to back this up when the protectorate was signed.

It doesn't change the fact that PC still raided a protected alliance and should have known better.

[quote name='Rey the Great' date='09 March 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1268184696' post='2220150']When you say you only want 50 million, is that before or after the demand of 210 million or war?[/quote]
Echelon only wants restitution for the nations that were raided. We also would liked this to resolve quickly so we can all go about our usual business. Logistically, getting $50mil to 3 nations is easier and quicker than getting $200mil to the same 3 nations.

[bigwoody]

Shame on you Echelon. Asking a better connected alliance to pay reps for attacking your protectorate? Preposterous, know your place. Poison Clan's allies stand ready to take out your allies if you stick your neck up, and get the rep stocks ready because you'll need it.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='09 March 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1268185104' post='2220174']
Echelon only wants restitution for the nations that were raided. We also would liked this to resolve quickly so we can all go about our usual business. Logistically, getting $50mil to 3 nations is easier and quicker than getting $200mil to the same 3 nations.
[/quote]
That's not quite what I asked.

[Alekhine]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='09 March 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1268184604' post='2220144']
Trouble is, that protectorate agreement was signed back when Echelon had the strength to do something about it. So in this case, do you change protectors because your protector took a couple of beatings and you're friends with them so the politics aren't what bothers you?

I'm still interested in this response though, and that if a larger alliance openly raids a protectorate and the protector can't defend against that large of an alliance, is it considered just? Because barring the wiki problem found here, that's what went on. I'd like to know if anyone in SBA had marked protection from Echelon prior to the raids, I know my guys took screenshots to verify it was never there before doing a raid in the past that had poorly marked protectorate status.
[/quote]

Its not just, it just is. Its not about what is just, its about what happens, and this is what happens.

[quote name='Jaymjaym' date='09 March 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1268184654' post='2220146']
That doesn't justify it however, and if it were the case, we could all just attack the alliances that had just peaced out of the last war simply because they weren't connected enough, right?
[/quote]

I'm not justifying, as merely making an observation. Personally, I don't like it when things like this happen. Doesn't change that they do and will continue to.

[AirMe]

The fact that some of the SBA guys have been on the AA for over 1000 days should have set flags off for PC too that they might want to check with Echelon. They even still have Protected by Echelon in their bios.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 March 2010 - 06:25 PM' 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]
In all fairness, Wiki is never accurate half the time

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Alekhine' date='09 March 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1268185440' post='2220183']
[b]Its not just[/b], it just is. Its not about what is just, its about what happens, and this is what happens.
[/quote]

This is what I'm hoping is the majority opinion around here in that raiding smaller alliances with protectors is not going to become more common and using minor loopholes to get out of it or shear alliance size compared to the protector.

If someone attacked America Reborn 2.0, my protectorate because they had no wiki to which showed protection by us, would that be right? We had them listed on our wiki, our forums, these forums, their forums and their nations, which is similar to the situation Spacebattles/Echelon found themselves in.

PC, while I usually agree it is at least half responsible for the protector/protectee to make it known they are protected, there was more than enough evidence for someone to pick it up or to directly ask Echelon first.

[Lord Curzon]

Gotta say, I think most of this looks like a simple misunderstanding. Finding raids is tough and you tend to jump at what appears to be an opportunity.

I have just one question, why did PC not ask Echelon government directly? If you are going to go to the trouble of asking someone if this alliance is disbanded, you might as well go to the former protectors. I mean for all you guys knew Echelon might have had a year long protection of the AA while they found new homes. Why go to a former member? Just seems odd.

[Omniscient1]

Just to throw this in here: it appears PC also is violating their own raiding rules by not paying reps? I think this is one of the most important claims. Does this mean PC's charter is now void? If so I declare myself emperor of PC. I have always wanted to be in the same alliance as Choader

[cookavich]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='09 March 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1268184575' post='2220143']
Using flawed analogies to cover up Echelon's $%&@ up, eh?
[/quote]It's not flawed. PC is pawning off their mistakes on Echelon. They're blaming Echelon for the fact that they (are) violated (ing) their own charter. Where's the flaw in that?

Edited March 10, 2010 by cookavich

[AirMe]

[quote name='cookavich' date='09 March 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1268185867' post='2220194']
It's not flawed. PC is pawning off their mistakes on Echelon. They're blaming Echelon for the fact that they (are) violated (ing) their own charter. Where's the flaw in that?
[/quote]

Using logic and reason will get you no where in this world my friend.

[FreddieMercury]

Yeah, Shame on you Echelon. We all know how logical it is to place the burden upon the protector. Raiders should never have to strain their eyes to click on a couple of more links/talk to a person face to face to confirm the information on a Wiki which is publically editable.


I think a bust a gut everything you other guys try to argue for PC's position which can't even handle the weight of a straw. It is reasonable to keep the Wiki at least marginally updated, people use it all the time to learn about alliances/etc. But it still ultimately is upon the raider to make sure all the holes are plugged, SBA's protectorate could have been confirmed easily in other areas. Echelon understands that mistakes are made, especially in the case of a wiki error, which is why they agreed to 50% and [b]even 25%[/b] of the damage caused. U mad PC?

[Czar Aleksander]

Hey Echelon, I'm glad you finally decided to bring this to light, instead of slinking around to every alliance and their mother to complain to them. If you are going to do anything other than cry about it, better do it now before everyone forgets how well you've been presenting yourselves.

[Gerald Meanĕ]

[quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='10 March 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1268185104' post='2220174']
It doesn't change the fact that PC still raided a protected alliance and should have known better.
[/quote]

It also doesn't change the fact that you came to pc, and immediately threatened war. Seems like in terms of getting a good solution to this situation you should have known better.

[Yggdrazil]

nvm

Edited March 10, 2010 by Yggdrazil