CelenAzrael

I can't argue against the first part. I think that if it is a personal issue, the matter would be 1 on 1. I don't think that people would just go along with any attacks made due to what came of it so any threats would be useless.

Do you assume that anyone is any better, any more capable of leading? I believe, at this point, that this has become an argument between MD and Sorum and probably best settled in private channels. I have not yet met anyone incapable of letting their emotions getting the better of them.

You are right, the alliance leaders speak for the alliance, but that doesn't make them the alliance incarnate. They are capable of personalities and emotion and cannot be held for those. If they say we support something, we support it; if they say we declare something, we do. At the same time, if they get in an argument with someone else, it is not the alliance that is getting in an argument. While I will stand behind my leaders, I am not going to assume they are infallible. In addition, this is going to hold for any alliance.

Then it would seem to me that any problems you have are with the leaders not with the alliance. It might be best to separate them because they are not the same.

My apologies, but you offer accusation without proof. I can only respond with the same. Without knowing what events you speak of, I cannot refute them. At the same time, I'm not convinced that your opinion on this matter is worth my time. If you are automatically biased against everything I stand for, what use is talking to you at all?

RV, out of curiosity, how many alliances have you been in now? Why do you keep leaving and running from alliance to alliance? Just wondering, do you know anything of things like loyalty and honor? Mundokiir, I have looked for logs from MD that support any of this, but I can't. I do not have concrete proof only circumstantial evidence. If things had gone strictly good for BTA where everyone MD talked to said that is fine, why would people be pissed? If House has taught you anything, it should be that people lie and people don't change for no reason. If the logs MD put down were true, what happened between then and now for Sorum to change. Why was TAB angry with MD? Everyone lies, it is true, but actions certainly indicate a lot.

Just within this thread, That seems like proof. Also, compare MHA's and TAB's declarations with FIRE's.

Besides that, TAB and MHA's MDoAP has existed for how long? And what about FIRE's declaration. The MoFA of FIRE didn't know about that until it was announced. That was rather shoddy work in itself.

I'm not part of TAB, I just don't agree with the flamefest that has been happening lately. I do not disagree with TAB's actions in this matter and am glad that this needn't end in violence. Aside from that, my only point was proving that TAB has a claim over BTA's name, which has been repeatedly denied over 3 threads. I don't see any argument with that now.

lol... you know absolutely nothing about me. I disagree with a lot, hate none. Ahh well, at least I don't make ad hominem. If TAB didn't exist, MD would have absolute right. As it is, this was an insult towards TAB, that they decided not to pursue this any further is good on their part, particularly given FIRE's actions. I am still involved because that is my choice. I do not like how all of the flamers have come out in full force now, particularly ones that act, as I feel, unjustly. Sorum is still involved because of the ongoing argument with MD, aside from that, no one else is involved to my knowledge. Also, I am in no way representative of my alliance, I am not .gov nor have I ever been. I would suggest separating the individual and the alliance. (I should have with the earlier remark about TJO, my apology to both of those members involved for that.)

Well, given the absence of courts, copyrights or anything else that would make that work, I would say that we are better off. Now we have arguments like this, but at least every acronym under the sun hasn't been copyrighted and taken. As is, I'm pretty sure they have perfect right to claim entitlement, though I'm glad that this was resolved peacefully.

TAB already pretty much has given up their right on it now in the interest of not causing undue conflict. I would say TAB has as much of a claim on BTA as MCXA has on CXA. I would say that the second action would not have occurred without the first. The laws of causation state that since MD commited the first hostile act, he is at least indirectly responsible for everything that happened afterwards.

Not at all. I am pretty sure that it is clear that since BTA became TAB due to the surrender terms for Great War III, they very well are entitled to the name. And BTA has most definitely been the aggressor, MD heard several times from TAB that they would not appreciate BTA reforming and MD refused to listen. I would call that a pretty aggressive act.

Of course, and they are entitled to use whatever power they have at their disposal to react to that. Also, you are entitled to disagree, but I'm going to point out every point at which your claiming injustice is fallacious. They said it was disbanded when it didn't exist. BTA became TAB at the point of time that the name changed. It did not disband then. It "disbanded" two weeks later, when Sorum said that it did, except by then there was no BTA, only TAB. Since TAB did not cease to exist at that time when it was still BTA, and no one is claiming that, I can only assume that it was either symbolic or a mistake by Sorum. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

The problem is that the time they said BTA disbanded was two weeks after BTA switched to being TAB. You seem to be saying they meant it retroactively, but generally, I assume when people are speaking, they are speaking the truth. Since there was no mention of BTA disbanding on the terms of surrender, I must assume that they meant no such thing. Lack of proof does not mean proof not. I can only go with what is said. Note that this does not say that the Blue Turtle Alliance disbanded two weeks ago. It says, "now", which under general connotations, means "now" and generally does not mean "two weeks ago".

Sort of, but given TAB existed as a continuation of BTA first, they have a right to be angry. MD has a claim, but that doesn't invalidate TAB's claim.

They are entitled to the name because that is the alliance they were. It is like TPF protecting the name TotalFark. Or if founding member of the Cross X Alliance recreated that and MCXA fought for that name. In addition, they didn't go above and beyond the terms of surrender. They changed their name. Once again, are you suggesting that when they said they disbanded BTA, TAB ceased to exist? Also: astronaut, I wouldn't have a problem with that, personally. Names do have power, though and do hold some sway over others. You may not find them all that important, but even if you find that foolish, I'm sure things you feel important others feel foolish.

They did not give up the name. They changed their name from the Blue Turtle Alliance to the Aquatic Brotherhood as per term 4 of their surrender terms. Unless you are suggesting that this did not happen or that their "renunciation" somehow changed TAB from being BTA to not, I'm pretty sure that should be satisfactory. The new name was The Aquatic Brotherhood. Where is the break?

Generally the time of death is recorded at the time of the body's death. I disagree with the argument because the language in the terms of surrender make it clear that it is a name change and nothing more. There may be government changes, but as part of the terms of surrender, BTA is TAB. Term 4 of the surrender terms makes this abundantly clear. Otherwise, TAB would not have to pay reps or have terms of surrender.

Not at the same time. There is the problem. I would be agreeing with you had both happened at the same time, but there are two separate events. This is saying that one event occurred at some point of time because of two things that happened at different times. What is the difference between TAB between April 2nd and 16th and TAB after the 16th? What were those two weeks, a fluke, something that didn't happen?

Obviously I'm not explaining it quite well enough. Let me put it as follows: April 2nd, 2007: BTA name changes to TAB. They must cancel all treaties and their government structure changes. Yet, BTA still exists as TAB. Nowhere within the surrender document does it mention disbandment. April 16th, 2007: BTA disbands. Except BTA is TAB at this point. So what happens to TAB? Do they cease to exist, as well? If that is the case, what happens, do they disband and immediately reform? I'm not convinced you would say the same thing under all circumstances. This is purely from an opinion standpoint for you and I can't really argue against that other than to say that I feel you are wrong because BTA wasn't just MD's pet. It involved far more people than just him and those people, particularly those having a vested interest in it being the successor to BTA, have as much of a right to be unhappy about it as anyone. I don't really care one way or another, I'm glad that BTA and TAB worked everything out, but that does not mitigate logical proof. My only goal here is to end the argument about TAB not being the successor to BTA. I would not prolong this thread any longer.

Always happy to help. 3rd point is definitely the problem. Changing government structure, name and severing diplomatic ties alone are not enough to adequately separate one alliance from another. As for the disbandment, as I attempted to show in my last post, there was nothing to disband at that point. I'm assuming that they didn't become TAB for two weeks (i.e. starting with the announcement of surrender) and then disband only to immediately reform. What you seem to be trying to state is that BTA disbanded two weeks before any announcement was made. I simply don't buy that.

You certainly are involved enough. What part does TJO play in this again? Keep in mind that both triums that have posted were former members of BTA and TAB, they are well entitled to being upset. My argument is that at the time of the disbandment there was nothing to disband. Thus any disbandment was symbolic at best and a mistake at worst. If the disbandment were true, TAB would have existed two weeks and then disbanded and reformed immediately. Kind of a worthless gesture in my opinion.

And yet, as I put earlier: Merely by carrying out the terms in the surrender document, TAB is the successor to BTA. And TAB most definitely did. At the point that TAB claimed BTA was disbanded, there was no BTA, having been supplanted by TAB around 2 weeks earlier. Similar how to immediately after CATO became GATO CATO ceased to exist as anything more than the alliance GATO had been, at the moment BTA "disbanded", it was only the alliance TAB had been, but it still had no subtance and likely no members. TAB is, for all intents and purposes, even by the surrender document itself, BTA.

I'm glad this is going to be such fun. I've already read both threads and there does appear to be a startling hole in your argument. Did those terms which lasted longer than BTA did magically disappear with BTA's "disbanding"? If so, that puts a major hole in your argument. If an alliance no longer exists, anything still under any terms invoked upon that alliance must, logically, be that alliance. I would be very surprised if TAB was not subject to those. In that case, my argument still stands.