An Official Statement from The Aquatic Brotherhood

[kobiashiy]

If you guys wanted to be BTA so bad, why not just go join, and for those who don't give a !@#$ about BTA, stay in TAB

[Mathias]

If you guys wanted to be BTA so bad, why not just go join, and for those who don't give a !@#$ about BTA, stay in TAB

I assume that's what they're afraid of.

[kobiashiy]

I assume that's what they're afraid of.

ohh, you make me feel smart

[Nolissar]

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.

Now look what you've done you've actually made me register my full agreement with an kingzod post, I hope you're all very happy. I'll let you all get back to the mudslinging and drama.

[Näktergal]

Those examples are as useless as they are stupid. All of those alliances still exist.

And my point is, as expressed, is that BTA still exists as well, even if the name has changed.

Name alone is not the sum entirety of the identity of an alliance.

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

True, but if the content was something that a majority of people disagreed with (or indeed, even an active minority disagreed with), it would have been long-since edited to reflect an alternative interpretation.

The fact remains that TAB has always been considered to be the direct evolution of BTA, and no one really had an issue with that or somehow implied otherwise until MD attempted to reform something which didn't need to be reformed in the first place.

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.

I believe the logic was, since multiple attempts to discourage this in private were completely ignored, and the DoE was taken public, TAB should express its dissatisfaction with same publicly as well.

That in no way rules out further private discussions or agreements to address the problem.

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)

Sort of a flawed analogy, since TSO essentially broke off while MCXA still existed.

On the other hand, if TSO had formed while MCXA was "disbanding", and TSO retained the MCXA forums, and nearly all of the MCXA membership, and the current members of MCXA at the time directly acknowledged TSO as the direct inheritor of MCXA's identity, to the point where the entire transfer is essentially little more than a name-change, then yes, TSO would own the rights to MCXA's name.

As Random has sort of suggested, if the New Pacific Order changed their name to Nova Pacifica or something, but still considered themselves to be the direct inheritors of NPO tradition, history, and heritage, most people would freely admit that wouldn't somehow give Ivan the right to "re-found" the New Pacific Order.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Näktergal

[kobiashiy]

To Näktergal: You say that you guys are the same thing as BTA, and you guys have a majority of the members, you may have the members but you don't have the founder, and MD is the founder. He has the rights to do what he wants, even though you guys kicked him out. Also it doesn't matter if MD started BTA. What if i went out and started ANOTHER allaince, and used the same AA, and allaince name. Then would you guys have a different approach to this?

Edited June 28, 2009 by kobiashiy

[Random]

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.

Fair enough. I still don't think you'd be that bothered by it but as much as I want to be you I'm not.

[Mathias]

And my point is, as expressed, is that BTA still exists as well, even if the name has changed.

Name alone is not the sum entirety of the identity of an alliance.

BTA still exists? I must have just been confused since disbanding was a surrender term.

Their culture may exist in TAB (although that's debatable), but TAB =/= BTA.

Edited June 28, 2009 by The Mathias

[Starfox101]

If you sanction me, I'm going to attack you. I don't think this a very wise move. Rethink your actions and get over it.

There's a better solution.

[RandomInterrupt]

Fair enough. I still don't think you'd be that bothered by it but as much as I want to be you I'm not.

Seriously, ask any of my old comrades. They'll be able to tell you exactly how I'd react. Tyga would probably understand as well.

Also the fact that we are trading posts still messes with my mind. My poor visual mind can't take this stress.

If you sanction me, I'm going to attack you. I don't think this a very wise move. Rethink your actions and get over it.

There's a better solution.

And another one who can't seem to read. Surprising! No one from TAB has said anything about using the in-game tool of sanctioning against anyone.

[Random]

Seriously, ask any of my old comrades. They'll be able to tell you exactly how I'd react. Tyga would probably understand as well.

That was entirely meant to be a joke, not just the last part.

[Näktergal]

You say that you guys are the same thing as BTA, and you guys have a majority of the members, you may have the members but you don't have the founder, and MD is the founder.

So then you'd essentially be arguing that the founder of an alliance retains all rights, regardless of how much time has passed, how many other people have been members, or what events have occurred since that founding?

Again, by that logic, what right to alliances like the NPO, GGA, or GATO have to their names and identities, now that their founders are no longer there?

And if you argue that the original founder has full claim over the name/identity of an alliance, unless the original alliance is still using the original name, then I ask again, why is it that the name alone holds that power, while every other consideration - like the beliefs of the members, the forums, the history, the continuity, etc - are meaningless?

And again, why did almost no one question TPF's right to be offended when someone tried to "reform" Total Fark, if they gave up all right to their own past when they changed their name?

BTA still exists? I must have just been confused since disbanding was a surrender term.

The actual terms of the surrender don't use the term "disband" anywhere in them.

In fact, the terms in question use the words "BTA chooses a new name", which is itself an implicit statement that the alliance itself has not changed, only the name.

The original acceptance terms were signed by the last official government that used the BTA name, which was also the first official government to use the TAB name. Mandated by outside sources or not, it's not as if BTA was completely disbanded and some of the survivors founded TAB, BTA became TAB.

TAB served out the surrender terms given to BTA by CIS, because TAB is BTA.

Perhaps, if MD wants to assert his rights to use the BTA name, he should be willing to pay TAB back the full amount of reparations that TAB paid to atone for his actions, in the name of BTA? After all, if TAB isn't BTA, and was never BTA, then it shouldn't have had to pay those reps, either.

[Delta1212]

You want me to argue a hypothetical example with facts?

No, he wants you to argue a hypothetical example with pixies and fairy dust. Of course you should argue with facts. Hypothetical examples use facts to create a potential situation that helps illustrate a point. You can use facts to pick out flaws in the premise of the example or the conclusion it is used to draw. That's called debating. It's something I like to think of as generally more productive than making wise-cracks and pretending that makes you intelligent.

[deth2munkies]

So then you'd essentially be arguing that the founder of an alliance retains all rights, regardless of how much time has passed, how many other people have been members, or what events have occurred since that founding?

Again, by that logic, what right to alliances like the NPO, GGA, or GATO have to their names and identities, now that their founders are no longer there?

And if you argue that the original founder has full claim over the name/identity of an alliance, unless the original alliance is still using the original name, then I ask again, why is it that the name alone holds that power, while every other consideration - like the beliefs of the members, the forums, the history, the continuity, etc - are meaningless?

And again, why did almost no one question TPF's right to be offended when someone tried to "reform" Total Fark, if they gave up all right to their own past when they changed their name?

Because they never disbanded and reformed under a completely new banner with a completely new government on a completely new color with a completely new place in world politics. In doing so, you expelled the original founder (while merited) thus severing any tie you had to the BTA name. Now, he wants to reform the alliance where he started, and you're denying him that right out of spite for something that happened years ago. It has nothing to do with the at best generalizations and at worst red herrings that you present in this post. This is about the BTA and TAB, not about TPF, NPO, or any other alliance that has no bearing to this specific situation.

[Kryievla]

Master Debator is exercising his sovereign right to reform the alliance he originally created. (Just as you have the sovereign right to dislike said alliance.) I can understand a bit of distressed nostalgia over his use of the name; I think I would feel the same way. Nonetheless, his use of it does not change your history or your heritage. As well, if anyone has the 'right' to recreate an alliance that no longer exists, I should think it would be the founder.

@ Starfox: the OP seems to be referring to sanctions in the sense of not trading with you or aiding you or doing nice things for you. Not sanctioning as in *forcibly* cutting off your trades, merely requesting/suggesting that people do so of their own free will.

[Mamazlilmistake]

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

Negative ghost rider. I didnt read it, because the rationality is beyond me.

BTA is back. Its going to say, deal with it.

I have spoken.

[RandomInterrupt]

No, he wants you to argue a hypothetical example with pixies and fairy dust. Of course you should argue with facts. Hypothetical examples use facts to create a potential situation that helps illustrate a point. You can use facts to pick out flaws in the premise of the example or the conclusion it is used to draw. That's called debating. It's something I like to think of as generally more productive than making wise-cracks and pretending that makes you intelligent.

Thank you. Very well said.

[deth2munkies]

@ Starfox: the OP seems to be referring to sanctions in the sense of not trading with you or aiding you or doing nice things for you. Not sanctioning as in *forcibly* cutting off your trades, merely requesting/suggesting that people do so of their own free will.

That is at best, almost as bad as a sanction and certainly a hostile action that would lead to war under normal circumstances, and at worst a useless gesture.

At best, they are basically attempting to prevent the trading between sovereign nations of a different team and different alliances. The actual mechanics of a sanction are more severe, but this is essentially a lighter form with the same results: Economic devastation of target nations. That is most assuredly a hostile action against the sovereignty of another alliance and thus an act of war, therefore BTA would be fully in its rights to declare on TAB.

At worst, lets look at the real world. Even if they had a mass PM campaign to the whole damn black team, there probably would be a significant amount of people that either wouldn't understand or care about it. Thus, it's a completely meaningless gesture that exists only to be misinterpreted and reflect badly on TAB.

[Emperor Impetus]

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

BTA remains,

I have spoken

And we care what you have to say why?

Disclaimer: my thoughts are mine alone, not necessarily that of my alliance.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Emperor Impetus

[astronaut jones]

I, astronaut jones, would like to hereby formally invite master-debater into the dynomite pact. My reasoning? Because I think TAB is being completely asinine in their dealings, and although I don't speak for the rest of my dynomite brothers, I think they'd agree with me that, this fight would be a fun one to be a part of.

That and it would be hilarious.

[Näktergal]

Because they never disbanded and reformed under a completely new banner with a completely new government on a completely new color with a completely new place in world politics.

Does that mean, since BTA never actually disbanded when it became TAB, never changed color (BTA was Aqua at the time of the name change, and remained Aqua), and the final government in place in BTA before the name change remained in place when it became TAB, that those facets of your reasoning can be dismissed?

I mean, that just leaves the new name and a different political outlook on the world. And since any number of alliances have changed their political viewpoint in the past without being accused of somehow forfeiting their entire identity (is the GGA of today the same as the one from July 2006? Is the Legion of today the same as the one from 2006?), we're back to the entire argument of identity riding on the name.

So again, I ask, does that mean CATO and GATO are different alliances? Does that mean CGS and the two different versions of CDS are different alliances? Does TPF have no real connection to Total Fark or COLD?

No alliance in the past which has changed its name but maintained every other facet of its existence has ever been assumed to have completely forfeited their former identity. In every such case, attempts to reform alliances which either changed their name or merged into another alliance are usually condemned, both by the original alliance, as well as the general public. This instance isn't different, and shouldn't be treated as such.

[Augustus Autumn]

Again, by that logic, what right to alliances like the NPO, GGA, or GATO have to their names and identities, now that their founders are no longer there?

Those alliances are still existent. The Blue Turtle Alliance, prior to its reformation, did not exist.

And again, why did almost no one question TPF's right to be offended when someone tried to "reform" Total Fark, if they gave up all right to their own past when they changed their name?

I don't recall seeing statements from The Phoenix Federation advocating for the informal sanction of Total Fark nations. If this is incorrect please feel free to provide examples of this occuring.

Perhaps, if MD wants to assert his rights to use the BTA name, he should be willing to pay TAB back the full amount of reparations that TAB paid to atone for his actions, in the name of BTA? After all, if TAB isn't BTA, and was never BTA, then it shouldn't have had to pay those reps, either.

This is, in effect, suggesting that a hostage situation take place over the name of an alliance? I'm not personally familiar with the entire incident (again, feel free to direct me to a place which contains the specifics so that I may educate myself) but it seems as if this boils down to past hurts and a lot of hard feelings being morphed into a call to arms against this alliance.

[cookavich]

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.

There wouldn't be anything to reform. If the NpO changed their name to Polaris, and Ivan decided to "reform" the NpO I would be incredibly annoyed. The NpO never went anywhere... it just changed its name. Same goes for the BTA... BTA never went anywhere; they just changed their name.

[kulomascovia]

Really, technically, MD can recreate the BTA if he wishes to do so, since TAB has given up the name. I don't really see why TAB should be so outraged at this. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think recreating BTA hurts TAB in any way.

[Sir Keshav IV]

Useless thread really. I do support BTA over TAB in this issue. You guys have made an issue out of nothing.