Unko Kalaikz

The authority of reason. Alliance law is simply contract agreement enforced by the alliance government. Since there is no world government to enforce contract, alliances do so internally. For alliance law to exist requires there be a governing mechanism (a sovereign institution) to enforce it. By extension, a group of nations who agree to defend one another but do not surrender individual sovereignty cannot be considered a legal alliance, because there is no legal enforcement mechanism (they would be closer to the pacts and treaties we see between alliances). Same goes for a community.

here you go. Typical starfox style refuting argument. You write a detailed argument, and he will reply with "no." EDIT -- hey I called it right, someone did say "e-lawyer!"

What is not an alliance I have seen some confusion from some fellow nation rulers regarding what an alliance is, or what alliance law is, so in the interests of a more educated world I will attempt to shed light on this issue. A grasp of political theory, even if only political theory calibrated for an online game, will certainly give many advantages and insights to the intelligent alliance officer. First, lets begin by discussing what is not an alliance. An alliance is not a community, a forum, a chat room, an in-game alliance affiliation, or a charter/constitution. With the exception of a community, all of these things are simply tools for an alliance that enhances communication, alliance governance, and coherency. A community is simply an OOC network of individuals that either is based on the alliance, or the alliance is based on. Even all these things together do not make an alliance. Why are alliances needed? An alliance is a legal pact between a group of nations whose primary purpose is the reduction of the state of nature between said nations as well as external threats. The state of nature is a state of absolute freedom for the individual nation. Why is the state of nature undesirable? In the state of nature, nations must fend for themselves and are in a state of heightened conflict. They are vulnerable to raids and other forms of conflict. Thus they must dedicate most of their thought and resources to defense, or sit in impenetrable peace mode which stunts growth and restricts economic opportunities. In practice we see the vast majority of nations not belonging to an alliance are much smaller than the average nation belonging in a sanctioned alliance (or most larger alliances for that matter). This brings into play the concept of freedom of potential vs. absolute freedom. A nation in the state of nature (i.e. absolute freedom) languishes in constant conflict. It is in the interests of the nation to enter a state of heightened freedom of potential. Freedom of potential means that some freedoms are given up in exchange for the ability to thrive in a situation of decreased conflict. In layman's terms it is trading a level of freedom for security. Levels of alliance evolution An alliance reduces the state of nature first by reducing the level of conflict between its members. This begins with a nonaggression pact but is best accomplished by instituting a sovereign institution (popularly called the alliance government) that can resolve disputes between member nations. This basic action alone can eliminate most or all military conflict between nations, allowing for civil discourse and the implementation of measures to provide for a common defense against external military threats (usually a defense or war department). Some alliances stop at this point. Although nations in this alliance will certainly do much better than nonaligned nations, they could do better. The next level of alliance evolution involves reducing non-military conflict between members. Conflict can take many forms, war is simply one form. To reduce other forms of conflict, nations may choose to surrender other freedoms to the sovereign institution, such as free speech, or declare war, or the ability to commit fraud. Each of these things result in less internal conflict for the alliance, and potentially less external conflict as well depending upon the caliber of leadership. If alliances continue to evolve, they will seek to reduce internal and external conflict even further. This can be done by instituting operational security procedures... limiting information to a need-to-know basis. Treaties might be signed with external entities. The concept of unity of command may also be implemented (the best way to reduce conflict at the top). Democratic policy votes may replace consensus, Elected officials might replace democratic policy votes, and finally appointed officers might replace elected officers. All these steps can lead to further reduced internal conflict if done correctly. At the apex of alliance evolution is the authoritarian alliance, in which organization is arranged as a chain of command, which is the ultimate expression of unity of command theory. The alliance is designed for efficiency, reduced internal conflict, and growth. At this point the alliance may have reduced internal conflict to the point of allowing for directed conflict, that is war against external enemies for the advancement of the alliances self interests. Assuming capable leadership this alliance is always the best at promoting freedom of potential. The alliance and you Now that you are familiar with the basics of political theory, it is my hope that you may use this to adjust your mindset to advancing the interests of your comrades and constituent nations to their fullest.

Appearances can be deceiving. Who knows when he might return like Ivan did from Imhotep? That does not negate the fact they are not legally the same alliance anyway.

1) There is no legal document that can legitimize your claim. The alliances are not the same, it is that simple. Even if you used the same charter, they would not politically be the same. For them to be the same, there would need to be a political mechanism for the disbandment to be negated. Because the disbandment resulted in the dissolution of all political mechanisms it most likely would not be possible. Unless the individual who was Emperor at the time who had placed a disbandment vote utilizing his executive authority worked with the individual who was Imperial chancellor at the time to nullify the disbandment proceedings on constitutional grounds. Or maybe simply repealed his own executive act authorizing the vote. I haven't looked into the matter. That would result in the same Emperor coming back to power, which happens to be Junkalunka. Otherwise there would be no legal way to resurrect the original alliance (unless you find something that allows it in the charter I wrote). EDIT -- in before cries of "e-lawyer"

There's absolutely no basis to your claim that you are the same alliance. It's as if you ignored everything I wrote and continue to spout this rubbish. You are not legally or politically the same alliance. There is absolutely no connection between the two with the exception of community and forums. How can you say both those contrary bolded statements with a straight face? If the previous alliance disbanded, and a new alliance was established later, they are not the same alliance because they have the same name. That is like saying the original Vox Populi and second Vox Populi were the same. All you are doing is demonstrating your utter ignorance of CN political theory and desire to propagate your views with whatever claims you can, whether they be based in fact or not. Community =/= Alliance Forums =/= Alliance AA =/= Alliance It appears I have work to do and need to publish another essay after a six month hiatus.

Whatever the reason for the existence of the alliance, the alliance is never merely an alliances community. It involves a sovereign authority with some level of government and a number of nations, all IC in nature. That is what makes an alliance different from a club, and that is why treating an alliance like a club leads to stagnation and failure. Not sure how that is pointless semantics. Wasnt gonna continue but Lavo asked me to so there.

Sure, but when people make incorrect statements about history I like to correct them. I will desist in this thread from now however.

It was not your place to "honor" that treaty. The treaty was a pact between the IAA and FPI, not your nation and FPI. It was furthermore merely a friendship treaty with an optional defense clause. I never liked FPI anyway (I never liked \m/), our alliances were never close, and I placed our membership high above a bunch of lowlife \m/ rerolls. It was a terrible treaty that only got us distanced us from Polar. Probably one of the worst treaties we ever had. Even then, as Regent I did not rule out military action... I stated our position was a wait and see, because I predicted they would be asshats about it (It's called thinking two steps ahead). Within the first couple days FPI was trolling us and began using nuclear weapons and declared support for GOONS without our consultation. At that point we cut them loose and I packaged the thread strongly to justify it. Even you admitted I was right afterwards, kevanovia. Thread is here. I winced when Chim said that. It was terrible judgment, the statement itself was harmless but people took advantage of it. Thats when I scolded Chim and told him to allow me to handle our FA since I am Regent. He flipped out and threw tantrums in our public channel while I was busy trying to repair the damage from both the FPI treaty and Chim's statement. Then I had to repair the damage to our image of stability caused by that, and had to quickly manufacture a new charter so I could make an announcement that gave the appearance of me taking power. That was one of my worst weeks as a government officer anywhere. As I stated before, he is a great community leader, popular with the masses, but a rather incompetent politician and strategist. Perhaps it is his sense of right and looking after friends that results in both. He is a smart individual but would have been better off if he was more like a symbolic Head of State managing the alliance internally, than a president who deals with foreign affairs.

What are you babbling about? I was not talking about defending treaties, I was talking about the treaties themselves and the conduct and attitude of the alliance in regards to diplomacy. Just during the time I was there... a few months... IAA exhibited a number of poor decisions, including unnecessary treaties with alliances at odds with the hegemony (such as Freebooting Pirates Insurgency), antagonism and rivalry with NPO, valhalla and others, acceptance of hated leaders like starfox, and poorly worded statements such as Chimaera calling Kevanovia an "honorary Imperial" after he went rogue. A big chunk of these decisions motivated more by teenage hormones than calculated logic. All of these poor decisions resulting in humiliation, weakness, and an inability to accomplish our FA goals. Just imagine all that stuff that happened in a few months expanded over two years of history. Is it any wonder NPO hated IAA so bad? That is what I desperately wanted to fix, being someone focused on IC politics. I guess we have different definitions of what a leader is supposed to do. I feel more tears than spit. The IAA already had a strong community, I sought to improve it's IC state of affairs. You cannot seriously be stating that there was no community when I was Regent and Emperor? Let me spin that around: What is the point of making an alliance out of a community if it lacks officers who are dedicated to IC advancement?

I would have been more ruthless in IAA after entering govt, might have saved the alliance.

Thats fine and dandy, but this is an IC forums about alliance affairs and not ooc communities. Just as my focus was on IC affairs and not on community.

Again, an incorrect viewpoint. First of all, two of the three polls posted by myself were just polls asking for direction, and designed to add an aura of legitimacy to whatever decision would be made for PR purposes... the power never lay with the senate to do any of those things. The authority was mine alone. The only actual legal vote was the disbandment vote, the other two were policy polls. You might recall the poll which you refer to as the "turn-over" option. That was a poll which asked senators whether they felt I should resign from the IAA. The poll held no legal weight, so you need to get over the idea that the Senate really had a say in the matter. I gave our members a say, so that the senators could have a chance to opine about the future of their alliance. Even in terms of disbandment, the charter did not directly discuss, so that became an issue of executive authority (backed by the Chancellor FlowingFire). I know this because I wrote the charter. You need to reexamine what actually happened, old friend. You seem angry about something that never even happened. I still have love for the rank and file IAAers, however Chimaera, Mathias and others have apparently twisted history for their own purposes, against myself, so I cannot call myself their friend IC wise at least. I was never gentle in my administration either as Regent or Emperor, and because of this it rubbed the egos of some officers the wrong way. I was actually Emperor for nearly a month, and after I became Regent you would be surprised how much reputation was attached to me, since I handled our foreign affairs March onwards. The reputation I induced was generally positive, unlike that of other senior officers. Reputation is a valuable asset, and I wanted to replace the negative reputation associated with IAA and it's terrible foreign policy with a new era and a new face. For IAA to have any hope to survive and thrive would require this. Thus I tied my reputation to a plan for IAA's future. Was I ambitious and political? Certainly, I do not deny I desired to exit the war with a more authoritarian alliance under my direction. But my ambition extended to the success of the entire alliance. I was less concerned with community and more concerned with IC advancement of the alliance.

I get the sense that a bunch of you now think We should have admitted to things we did not do, just to beg for a slave-like peace, and that going to war to honor our treaty obligations was something you would not do this time around. What happened to the old IAA spirit I knew?

If you wanted to save IAA you picked a rather late date to leave it (could of left a month before when you threw your kevanovia histrionics all over IRC and the OWF). If that was your reason for leaving, in any case, you should have at least waited for the negotiations to roll around... not dig out in the first week of combat. Theres no reason why you couldn't continue to assist us even after resigning... I sent you a PM mid-May asking for your input, help and advice and you never responded. You were still masked anyway as an IAA member/admin, and we never made a PR play out of your resignation to get peace. It's pretty absurd that the guy who dug out from the war is remembered as a hero while the one who stuck with IAA until the end becomes a self absorbed villain. I never cared at the time and wouldn't, except that it seems my name has been dragged through the mud over the last year. I guess thats revisionism at it's finest. Oh, and to no one in particular, the disbandment thread. Note what Horde of Doom says: "This announcement has been long in the making; since GW III, in fact." Yup, so maybe I had nothing to do with IAAs death after all?

Harsh terms. I have in most of my history had a negative relationship with the NPO, and been repressed by them, but I do feel they deserve a hail, so o/ NPO Here's to your future, and also o/ Karma for a brave new world.

You are certain without understanding the arguments behind them? However, the ooc definition of an alliance does not fit the criterion for an IC alliance. The term alliance in cybernation is (I think unfortunately) used to describe an organization with a central government-like authority (although due to the principle of voluntary membership CN alliances are closer to RL corporations or non-profits than governments). As such the standard ooc definition cannot be used in CN for alliance any more than the definition of a cruise missile can. I think it's unfortunate that multinational organizations are called "alliances" but since the term is popular we must work with that despite the confusion it may cause. That is a falsehood perpetrated amongst certain discontent officers who wish to pin all the blame upon myself for all the bad that ever happened. The reason I favored disbandment was because peace would require a crippling of my, and by extension, the IAA's reputation, which I had carefully built throughout the war. My resignation was never stipulated as a requirement for peace terms, merely we had to reverse the PR damage we had caused them before any peace could be discussed. After that, peace terms might be possible. Essentially, NPO wanted me to lie and take the blame for the logs situation, destroy the carefully built PR effort in the war and our credibility and honor, which would be crucial in a long term FA rebuilding effort. Had I capitulated in this manner, NPO might have opened negotiations which would likely be as bad or worse than GATOs, with all capable leadership removed, such as there was. It was a checkmate, but it seems your officers wish to erase this inconvenient truth and spread stories about me trying to "save myself from PZI" while Chimaeras wartime desertion was a "noble move to save IAA." Those same officers that criticize me now, including Mathias, favored disbandment and knew most of these facts. They were clearly stated in the disbandment threads, which are now conveniently deleted by your leadership with yourself and myself deprived of access. And I am somehow a terrible leader for opting with disbandment and not playing into NPO's hands. I guess I was the only one in IAA govt who wasn't a tool, and indeed I was the only IAA govt member EZI'd personally by Moo for several months because of my wartime service in IAA. Please, are you all really that dense? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know, on reflection, maybe I did get played. Everyone knows I was the serious politician in IAA, I was not interested so much in community as I was in the alliance. So Chimaera deserts in the midst of hopeless war to leave me in command, hoping and expecting I would fail? Then, post disbandment, scoup up the IAA community and rewrite history with me as the villain? You know, I always thought I was IAA's Palpatine trying to use war for reform, but maybe after all Chimaera was Palpatine and I was the Jedi, and the player got played. :v If that is truly the case, then my respect just shot way up for chim.

Which is, as I had pointed out, completely irrelevant in an IC alliance affairs forum. I similarly criticized NPO's thread exhibiting their ooc histories and community.

I never asked for it, did I? I merely discuss and comment, and correct inaccuracies and perhaps fabrications. I know you do not need the truth, perhaps, or facts, but I will deal it anyway.

I was never a warm and fuzzy sort of leader, I prefer dealing in hard facts and political reality. Perhaps that makes me somewhat unpopular. :v A community strengthens an alliance and the bonds of loyalty within it, but it is itself not an alliance, politically speaking. Of course, you can define an alliance differently I suppose, but logically the definition I adopted holds the most logical water. If you like I can reference you to arguments and papers that discuss the concept of the political alliance.

Ah, an unfortunate misconception regarding alliances. That is actually a topic in which I somewhat specialize, having studied and issued treatises in the subject over the past year. I will try to correct it. An alliance is not a community, but is rather a political entity consisting of nations which surrender their sovereignty to a central government. Although it is true an alliance cannot exist without a membership, it is equally true that an alliance (in our world's political context) cannot exist without a government. When the government of the original Imperial Assault Alliance disbanded via internal legal processes, the alliance ceased to exist... whatever ooc community may have continued to exist furtively. The head of government and author of the legal charter that was the binding document of the IAA was myself, at the time of disbandment. Despite the presence of several of the same officers, the new IAA is a different alliance with a different charter and different government... an entirely different political entity. As noted, whatever ooc community existed or didn't exist is not relevant... especially in these IC alliance announcement forums. The alliance government is what sets apart an alliance from a rabble of nations on the same AA. The current IAA certainly has a legitimate government and political entity, but it is preposterous to consider it the same as the old IAA politically or legally, or an extension of the old alliance. It is in fact nothing more than a clone or copy using the same name. I am pleased that the OP does not directly try to make that claim, but also noted that it implies it is still the same entity by using the existence of an OOC community, so I thoughtfully pointed it out. EDIT -- to further demonstrate what I am saying, it is sort of like when NPO used to call itself several years older than CN itself, discussing its OOC history off-planet. Such an existence of a community was irrelevant especially on the IC political forums of the time, because alliance affairs should only concern political alliances and not their ooc communities or histories. I was critical of the NPO at the time as well.

Bitter? Of course not, dear friend! I wish all the best success to this IAA, and pray for their success. But I am also obligated to the truth, as always, and merely offer a helping hand in correcting any unfortunate oversights or historical revisions (no doubt accidental) that are reiterated publicly away from the warm, monitored bossom of imperial government controlled forums.

Goodness gracious! Such strong reactions! I had merely remarked upon what I sensed to be the implied meaning behind this announcement, and ended upon a congratulatory note. Obviously the OP is much too sensible to openly claim that both alliances are the same entity, after all, and I applaud such meticulously careful language. With such precision I can see how certain historical revisions advertised amongst imperial masses were possible. Perhaps certain officers are less ingenious, but every alliance has its, shall we say, dim lightbulbs?

Looks like the implicit point of this was to link the original IAA to the new one and claim that they're the same entity. Congrats to three months of existence anyway.

Excellent, good to see this.