crushtania Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 TAB are cowards and MHA are enablers. Cowards...how? For sticking up for their alliance history? Cowardly would be if they sat back and let this fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 I love how people are telling TAB to put up and shut up simply because this situation hasn't happened to them directly. I doubt if this happened to their own alliance they would be so unsympathetic. If I cared about the name I would not have changed it. If I changed it I would realize that I no longer had the rights to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Ivan Moldavi forms his own alliance. Calls it NSO. Awesome! Why? No connection to NPO - at all. If he called it the Pacific Order of Newness, would they have let it fly? Of course not. Did he get his blessing from NPO leadership to create NpO? Yes he did! Did these guys, despite the obvious connection? No! Incidentally, Ivan Moldavi was the Emperor of the NPO when he founded the New Polar Order, so that is entirely irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 An alliance is really whining about someone using their old name or a variation on their name? I haven't seen anything so pathetic since Fark complained about TF!. This is pathetic and an obvious attempt at bullying a smaller alliance into doing what we say or else. I think this move is disgusting and people should have the right to name their alliance whatever they want (within reason of course). Poor show TAB. No surprise you're missing the boat here, huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Cowards...how? For sticking up for their alliance history? Cowardly would be if they sat back and let this fly. They are cowards because they would not fight to keep the name in GW3 when you were losing but they will fight to protect it when they feel they have the upper hand. Edited June 29, 2009 by KingSrqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Incidentally, Ivan Moldavi was the Emperor of the NPO when he founded the New Polar Order, so that is entirely irrelevant. (OOC)That's like saying The Prime Minister of Australia can go and make a new country called New Australia because he can ask himself that its an "OK thing to do."(/OOC) IC: Just using a RL example to illustrate a point. Yep. Right. Edited June 29, 2009 by Crushtania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 No surprise you're missing the boat here, huh. It was pathetic. You went after one man who was having fun on his old AA. It wasn't his fault Fark still has its panties in a twist over something that happened years ago. It's as bad as this. TAB has been separate from that name for a long time and no [OOC]wiki article[OOC] is a link to that. It's their history and maybe TAB should focus on the future and not that past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) That's like saying The Prime Minister of Australia can go and make a new country called New Australia because he can ask himself that its an "OK thing to do."Yep. Right. If you have a problem with the fact that Ivan founded the New Polar Order whilst Emperor of the NPO, then there's probably better places to bring it up than this discussion here. My point was that one cannot compare the founding of the NpO and the founding of the 'new' BTA, because they are entirely different situations. Where BTA is being founded by a former leader of BTA/TAB (?), NpO was founded by the then-current leader of NPO. I'm not sure how Australia (whatever that is!) factors into this but there you have it. Edited June 29, 2009 by Moridin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 It was pathetic. You went after one man who was having fun on his old AA. It wasn't his fault Fark still has its panties in a twist over something that happened years ago. The fact that what happened "years ago" affected Fark's history, yeah, it's not pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Ivan Moldavi forms his own alliance. Calls it NSO. Awesome! Why? No connection to NPO - at all. If he called it the Pacific Order of Newness, would they have let it fly? Of course not. Did he get his blessing from NPO leadership to create NpO? Yes he did! Did these guys, despite the obvious connection? No! See where I'm going with this? No, not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 No, not really. I was going to say that. Also I like your battle stats you keep in your sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Well, I certainly hope you guys are willing to take this to the next step. This calling out seems to have been called out. This is of course not my agreement or disagreement with such. This is all very, very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebony Wings Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Even if Ivan Moldavi decided to create the Pacific Order of Newness, I think there would be a considerable amount of hesitation before anyone decided to raise arms against him. I also believe that his response in a situation like this would be something along the lines of...oh, how's it go again? "Do something about it." Yes, that's how it goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Let me summarize this thread.A. TAB changed its name because it was ashamed of being associated with Master-Debater, and it thought the old name was connected to Master-Debater, who it expelled. B. MD liked the old name that TAB didn't, and has founded an alliance using the old name that TAB associated with him. C. TAB is mad at MD for ... what? Having an alliance? Surely not for taking the name they didn't want. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that TAB are the ones who had to pay for MD's mistakes with BTA. That gives them the right to the course of action they have taken. If MD really wants BTA to exist, then he should refund TAB the reps they had to pay because of his poor decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) If MD really wants BTA to exist, then he should refund TAB the reps they had to pay because of his poor decision making. This is quite possibly one of the most nonsensical and borderline retarded things I've ever seen posted anywhere. Though I'm still waiting on someone to tell me how TAB is entitled (above and beyond the creator of BTA the first time around) to a name that is currently not their own. Edited June 29, 2009 by Captain Flinders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 What everyone seems to be forgetting is that TAB are the ones who had to pay for MD's mistakes with BTA. That gives them the right to the course of action they have taken. If MD really wants BTA to exist, then he should refund TAB the reps they had to pay because of his poor decision making. if BTA didn't like the way MD lead their alliance they should have either not been in the alliance or tried to make him not be the leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) if BTA didn't like the way MD lead their alliance they should have either not been in the alliance or tried to make him not be the leader. Or expelled him from their alliance? Because that looks to be what happened. The timeline looks like this: -Master-Debater is expelled from BTA. -BTA changes its name to TAB. -Master-Debater reforms BTA. -TAB is pissed. I think TAB handled this poorly but ultimately they have a good point. Edited June 29, 2009 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 What everyone seems to be forgetting is that TAB are the ones who had to pay for MD's mistakes with BTA. That gives them the right to the course of action they have taken. If MD really wants BTA to exist, then he should refund TAB the reps they had to pay because of his poor decision making. Wouldn't the reps have been CIS' fault? They were the ones who dictated the terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Or expelled him from their alliance? Yeah but I am thinking before the big war that got them killed would have been better timing. It seems to me they were fine with him as leader until they needed a scapegoat to get peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Yeah but I am thinking before the big war that got them killed would have been better timing. It seems to me they were fine with him as leader until they needed a scapegoat to get peace. Or it could be they were fine with his leadership when he was a good leader, and then he messed up badly and got them killed, so they expelled him. I wasn't around for GW3 so I won't argue the validity of his expulsion (maybe he was just a scapegoat) but he WAS expelled from the Blue Turtle Alliance, how can he reform an alliance he isn't allowed to be a member of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Or it could be they were fine with his leadership when he was a good leader, and then he messed up badly and got them killed, so they expelled him. I wasn't around for GW3 so I won't argue the validity of his expulsion (maybe he was just a scapegoat) but he WAS expelled from the Blue Turtle Alliance, how can he reform an alliance he isn't allowed to be a member of? BTA is not an allaince anymore, well they are now but I mean before MD re-created it. Nothing was in the AA of BTA, or no charter nobody was using it. So that allowed him to make it once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gofastleft Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 MD invented an imaginary PIAT with GATO and, citing its defense clause, used it to draw not only his alliance but the bloc BTA belonged to named The Sphere into the Third Great War with a surprise blitz on CIS, which wasn't even involved on the correct front of the war making it doubly shameful. CIS's surrender terms involved MD's expulsion and that BTA change its name in some effort to cleanse itself. I don't think either side is denying it, it's all over the old forums, but it gives you enough to help search if you're not inclined to believe me.Edit: misspelling Don't believe everything you read. As I see it, since the removal of the BTA name was part of the terms set forth by CIS, once CIS failed to exist that term ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Or it could be they were fine with his leadership when he was a good leader, and then he messed up badly and got them killed, so they expelled him. I wasn't around for GW3 so I won't argue the validity of his expulsion (maybe he was just a scapegoat) but he WAS expelled from the Blue Turtle Alliance, how can he reform an alliance he isn't allowed to be a member of? I was around and funnily enough was an ambassador to BTA for the GGA in the time leading up to GW3. IIRC (which I usually do) there were conflicting treaties held by BTA which made which side of the war they were going to join unclear. I also seem to remeber being told by multiple members of BTA after they joined teh side of Ageis that the decision was discussed with the alliance as a whole and that the vast majority favored joining the war against the Initiative. Seems like they threw him to the wolves to save their own asses and nothing more. Edit: I know for a fact that they did not need an imaginary treaty to join the war since I approached MD myself because we were curious as to where they were going due to the way their treaties were arranged. Edited June 29, 2009 by KingSrqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Even if Ivan Moldavi decided to create the Pacific Order of Newness, I think there would be a considerable amount of hesitation before anyone decided to raise arms against him. I also believe that his response in a situation like this would be something along the lines of...oh, how's it go again?"Do something about it." Yes, that's how it goes. TAB has "done something about it." If you disagree, it's now your turn to "do something about it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 TAB has "done something about it." If you disagree, it's now your turn to "do something about it." Which FIRE has.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.