An Official Statement from The Aquatic Brotherhood

[RandomInterrupt]

Two things come to my mind when viewing the OP and subsequent comments.

1. While I don't particularly care about this incident, I can certainly understand why TAB would be upset. I tried to change Polar's name a few times. Had I succeeded I'd of been pretty upset to see Kernwaffen or Pius or some other original but long gone member reforming the The New Polar Order. By following the logic of most the replies here, it would be a valid thing to do though.

1.a If TAB is still the same alliance that changed its name from BTA, then it is still the BTA. Just renamed. You can't have two BTAs.

2. Sometimes alliances move beyond their original founder for good reasons. Master-Debater was a terrible leader, really. So to state that he has ownership of the BTA name when his only claim to fame was founding and failing it as opposed to TAB who is the successful heir... well it seems silly to me.

Like I said, I have no claim in this and don't really care all that much, but the critisizm I see being handed to TAB seems a bit weak and reminds me of a dog-pile.

[CptGodzilla]

Uh, no. CIS made them change the name. Wait, actually, if you read the announcement, it states that CIS disbanded the BTA. So, established alliances can now claim the rights to the names of long dead alliances? If that is the case, I now own all rights to the name ODS.

Eh, I knew they chose their name. 2 years of booze does something to your brain, don't really remember them being forced to (but just saw they did)

Either way, I just find this whole thing amusing

[Mamazlilmistake]

Asking for the sanction is, yes, slightly dramatic. But, when you make cyber-threats, you really need to hit the ground hard with some radical bargaining.

Let me attempt to play out how the rest of this conversation will go...

round 1

TAB- "Sanction BTA."

World- "Wawaweewa?"

round 2

TAB- "Okay, no sanction. BUT, name change."

round 3

TAB- "Okay, no name change, no sanction... BUT, we dont recognize BTA and will never work with them.

DONE AND DONE

And look at that, we didnt even have to respond for round 2 and 3.

(the voice of TAB in this prediction, might not be word for word.)

BTA remains,

I have spoken

[Rebel Virginia]

Well folks, I think we all know what's going on here. Those good 'ole boys at the TAB don't like us using the name "Blue Turtle Alliance." Reasons don't matter, it just upsets them. Now, I could make a day out of this, so I'll be brief. Since we at the BTA are the bigger men and aren't going to make a huge fuss out of something so small as a name, I, Rebel Virginia, with all the authority granted to be my the BTA, hereby change the name of the alliance to the "Blu Turtle Alliance."

Now, I don't know about you all, but I sure am glad that is out of the way and over with. TAB, I just want you all to know that we at the BTA really do respect you, value your opinions, and most importantly, we care about your feelings. This is our way of showing that.

-Rebel Virginia, #1

[Stormsend]

Well folks, I think we all know what's going on here. Those good 'ole boys at the TAB don't like us using the name "Blue Turtle Alliance." Reasons don't matter, it just upsets them. Now, I could make a day out of this, so I'll be brief. Since we at the BTA are the bigger men and aren't going to make a huge fuss out of something so small as a name, I, Rebel Virginia, with all the authority granted to be my the BTA, hereby change the name of the alliance to the "Blu Turtle Alliance."

Now, I don't know about you all, but I sure am glad that is out of the way and over with. TAB, I just want you all to know that we at the BTA really do respect you, value your opinions, and most importantly, we care about your feelings. This is our way of showing that.

-Rebel Virginia, #1

Thank god. Now we can all move on.

[St Jimmy]

Whether BTA entered the war with or without a PIAT I could care less, their prerogative. That MD lied about the PIAT to get not only BTA into the war, but the entire bloc BTA was in at the time, is not excusable. There is a good reason the BTA name is stained.

They did have a PIAT with GATO, and that was the treaty cited in the DoW.

For your reference:

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...c=59804&hl=

EDIT: Also, Rebel Virginia, have I told you lately how much I love you?

Edited June 28, 2009 by St Jimmy

[RandomInterrupt]

The Aquatic Brotherhood also requests that our allies place sanctions on the nations who choose to infringe on the rights of The Aquatic Brotherhood by not accepting or offering trades and financial aid to those nations.

Also to those who are freaking out about sanctions, it might pay off to actually read the OP carefully. It doesn't seem to ask for "sanctions" as in the in-game tool that jacks your nation up. It seems to ask that you not go out and trade or help build BTA nations. Quite a difference in terms of the affect on their nations. Still on odd request, but not that big a deal.

Must be a slow news day.

[Haflinger]

Next time can we please pick slightly less retarded drama?

Give it time, TAB is working on their rep as "The Guys Who Fight Alliance Wars Over Names."

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=28976

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=29764

[Mathias]

Give it time, TAB is working on their rep as "The Guys Who Fight Alliance Wars Over Names."

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=28976

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=29764

Wow TAB, please find something else to whine about.

[RandomInterrupt]

Give it time, TAB is working on their rep as "The Guys Who Fight Alliance Wars Over Names."

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=28976

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=29764

The alliance known as The Antarctican Brotherhood has not only chosen to continue ghosting our name but also to declare war on us.

Seems like Big-TAB just defended itself against little TAB. Is that bad?

[Chimaera]

Good God, those are some of the worst peace terms for an undeserving alliance I've ever seen. Who stuck a stick up TAB's metaphoric rear end?

[Random]

Two things come to my mind when viewing the OP and subsequent comments.

1. While I don't particularly care about this incident, I can certainly understand why TAB would be upset. I tried to change Polar's name a few times. Had I succeeded I'd of been pretty upset to see Kernwaffen or Pius or some other original but long gone member reforming the The New Polar Order. By following the logic of most the replies here, it would be a valid thing to do though.

1.a If TAB is still the same alliance that changed its name from BTA, then it is still the BTA. Just renamed. You can't have two BTAs.

2. Sometimes alliances move beyond their original founder for good reasons. Master-Debater was a terrible leader, really. So to state that he has ownership of the BTA name when his only claim to fame was founding and failing it as opposed to TAB who is the successful heir... well it seems silly to me.

Like I said, I have no claim in this and don't really care all that much, but the critisizm I see being handed to TAB seems a bit weak and reminds me of a dog-pile.

I have to say that your #1 was a terrible comparison, neither Kernwaffen or Pius are the founders of NpO, it's Ivan but you knew that. MB is the founder of BTA so the fair comparison would be to say that you wouldn't want Ivan to reform the NpO had you succeeded in changing the name and to be honest I doubt you'd be annoyed or angry with Ivan had that actually ever happened. 1.a is just..well silly. If they're alliance name is not BTA then they are no longer BTA I honestly don't see how you can try to argue otherwise.

Now for #2. I don't particularly care if MB was or wasn't a good leader but he founded BTA and if the alliance name isn't currently in use then why shouldn't he be able to remake BTA if he so chooses? TAB can't claim to be two alliances, that just doesn't work. They're either TAB or BTA and they clearly choose TAB, like others have said if they wanted to be BTA they would have changed their name back long ago.

[Heyman]

TL;DR - BTA, stop existing!

Edited June 28, 2009 by Heyman

[Näktergal]

I'm more of an advocate of founder's rights rather than an alliance who changed and scorned their old name

Out of curiosity, would you then say that the only thing that somehow invalidates the claim of an alliance's current membership over that of its founder is the name?

Because otherwise, it would seem that your argument is that someone like Prodigal Chieftain could come back and attempt to form a new GGA, and you'd assume he'd have more right to the name/identity than the alliance that has been using the name for the last 3 years. Or that Depraved should have exclusive rights to the concept of GATO. Or Ivan would have the right to reestablish a new New Pacific Order.

If you ARE suggesting that the only continuity an alliance retains is via the name, I'd have to ask, when the Coalition of Green States changed their name to the Coalition of Dark States, and then later to the Coalition of Defensive States, was that one alliance, or three? At the time, there wasn't a single person in CN who would have claimed they were different, and if someone attempted to do so, they'd be laughed at.

As I asked in the other thread, did the shift from "Cross Atlantic Treaty Organization" to "Global Alliance and Treaty Organization" somehow transform GATO into a different alliance? I suspect they'd say no. When attempts were made to "re-form" Total Fark, TPF reacted poorly. But why, if they didn't consider themselves to be the rightful continuation of the former alliance?

If the people who left MCXA to form TSO had called themselves the Multi Colored Coalition Force, would MCXA have just shrugged and went, "Ahh, well, it's not like we're using the name any more, who cares?"

The sum of an alliance's identity is more than just the name. And TAB has never made a secret of being the direct evolution of BTA. The Wiki flat-out describes TAB as BTA's direct successor. BTA's original forums will currently show up as TAB's old forums. TAB has medals that directly reflect membership in BTA.

In short, it's not just a question of the name, it's a question of tradition. A tradition which TAB has always honored, and which the "revival" of an alliance that never actually "died" is a direct attack upon.

Claiming to "reform" BTA is essentially denying the fact that TAB retains continuity from the BTA , and is more or less spitting in the face of TAB's right to its own heritage.

So... why WOULDN'T TAB object to that, or otherwise assert their displeasure?

From my understanding, Master Debater informed TAB as well as other parties relevant regarding his reforming of BTA.

...and was essentially informed, by everyone he asked, that it was a horrible idea, and he should reconsider.

Apparently, though, the fact that no one threatened to ZI him over it or otherwise completely overreact, and tried to deal with the situation calmly and politely, completely went over his head.

How much more would you suggest that TAB have done beforehand to discourage him? Sort of preemptively ZIing him or something else that would have been equally frowned upon?

[Mamazlilmistake]

TBH i didnt read all that. But, im sure i disagree.

BTA remains,

I have spoken

[RandomInterrupt]

I have to say that your #1 was a terrible comparison, neither Kernwaffen or Pius are the founders of NpO, it's Ivan but you knew that. MB is the founder of BTA so the fair comparison would be to say that you wouldn't want Ivan to reform the NpO had you succeeded in changing the name and to be honest I doubt you'd be annoyed or angry with Ivan had that actually ever happened. 1.a is just..well silly. If they're alliance name is not BTA then they are no longer BTA I honestly don't see how you can try to argue otherwise.

Now for #2. I don't particularly care if MB was or wasn't a good leader but he founded BTA and if the alliance name isn't currently in use then why shouldn't he be able to remake BTA if he so chooses? TAB can't claim to be two alliances, that just doesn't work. They're either TAB or BTA and they clearly choose TAB, like others have said if they wanted to be BTA they would have changed their name back long ago.

Had Ivan never worked with Polar again after stepping down as Emperor, and we later changed our name, then yes I would still be upset if Ivan came back later and tried to form The New Polar Order again. I poorly picked my names, but my argument is unchanged.

[Mathias]

Out of curiosity, would you then say that the only thing that somehow invalidates the claim of an alliance's current membership over that of its founder is the name?

Because otherwise, it would seem that your argument is that someone like Prodigal Chieftain could come back and attempt to form a new GGA, and you'd assume he'd have more right to the name/identity than the alliance that has been using the name for the last 3 years. Or that Depraved should have exclusive rights to the concept of GATO. Or Ivan would have the right to reestablish a new New Pacific Order.

Those examples are as useless as they are stupid. All of those alliances still exist. BTA, until it was reformed by its original founder, didn't. MD had every right to resurrect BTA, and just because TAB is a made in China version of BTA, doesn't mean you own the rights to the name.

[RandomInterrupt]

Those examples are as useless as they are stupid. All of those alliances still exist. BTA, until it was reformed by its original founder, didn't. MD had every right to resurrect BTA, and just because TAB is a made in China version of BTA, doesn't mean you own the rights to the name.

I like how there's no part of your argument that is anything but rude and insulting. Being factual would be a nice start to a proper argument, as would actually addressing the point instead of just lobbing insults.

[Ebony Wings]

I like how there's no part of your argument that is anything but rude and insulting. Being factual would be a nice start to a proper argument, as would actually addressing the point instead of just lobbing insults.

The words might've been harsh, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he did make an argument there. It might not fit into your mold of being proper and respectful, but there's still content to be addressed there.

[Mathias]

I like how there's no part of your argument that is anything but rude and insulting. Being factual would be a nice start to a proper argument, as would actually addressing the point instead of just lobbing insults.

You want me to argue a hypothetical example with facts?

[ddog241]

oh this is lulzy

for some reason i thing this is gonna end... lulzy

[Ada069]

I like how there's no part of your argument that is anything but rude and insulting. Being factual would be a nice start to a proper argument, as would actually addressing the point instead of just lobbing insults.

come on kiddies, time for bed, Let the Grownups handle the matter

I for one still, after reading alot of this, believe BTA is in the clear

i mean, Should Rapture have attacked City of Rapture because of our name Similarities. instead of embracing BTA, you shun it. instead of working together to form a bond worthy of Harmlins, you just fail it.

[kingzog]

Näktergal, you had me right up until...

[t]he Wiki flat-out describes TAB as BTA's direct successor.

No offense, but when it comes to alliance descriptions, the Wiki is propaganda. And poor propaganda at that.

More than anything else, I believe what people are objecting to is the ham-fisted way in which TAB is going about this.

Don't get me wrong. I like TAB. The one time I had to work with you guys was a pleasure. But you're coming across as bullies.

If someone were to attempt to re-create one of the alliances that merged to create NoR 1.0 or NoR 2.0, I wouldn't be terribly thrilled about it. However, I would try to work it out privately before taking the matter here.

[hizzy]

Ok so...

1) MD creates BTA.

2) BTA goes to war, gets disbanded by CIS

3) the members get back together and form TAB

So, how does that process disqualify MD from reforming BTA? I understand you all "came" from BTA, but that's like saying that TSO owns the rights to MCXA's name. (I know MCXA didn't disband.... yet... lol jk)

A group of people forming under one flag, no matter how much of their history is in common, does not give those people all the rights to every piece of history they shared.

[Näktergal]

TBH i didnt read all that. But, im sure i disagree.

Then wouldn't your opinion have absolutely no value, as you speak on subjects you freely admit you have no understanding of?