An Official Statement from The Aquatic Brotherhood

[VashS]

Ho-ly crap.

As a former original member of both alliances...I find this sickening.

Fighting over a name?

Jeez.

MD has been talking about reforming BTA for a looooooooooong time.

Many of you knew that in TAB.

Now you bring this up?

Question - How many original BTA members still exist in TAB...that would actually care?

My guess is nearly none.

[My words are my own and don't reflect the opinions of my alliance, DOOM.]

Good luck to both sides.

I'll always be a Blue Turtle and a Brother to you guys.

o/

[Tarikmo]

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.

Regarding this, I have a question.

If Alliance XYZ and ABC merged to from QRS, and ABC reformed while QRS was still existant, would the reformed ABC have the right to hold it's name?

[fluffyewunga]

I really think some people in TAB need to grow up.

To whine about a name that they no longer use is well childish.

TAB u lost any rights or say to the name Blue Turtel Alliance the moment the last of your members left the AA. From then on the name came up for grabs for any1 and every1 to use.

Edited June 28, 2009 by fluffy ewunga

[Voodoo Nova]

Same goes for the BTA... BTA never went anywhere; they just changed their name.

Well, none of the founders of TAB were founders of BTA. If the founders of TAB were also the founders of BTA, then I could see where BTA just changed it's name.

[Sylar]

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.

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.

The Aquatic Brotherhood does not recognize the sovereignty of The Blue Turtle Alliance and hereby issues a request to discontinue the use of the name Blue Turtle Alliance, BTA, and any images or references to the Blue Turtle Alliance. 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.

what are you talking about?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Sylar

[PhysicsJunky]

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.

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.

Seeing as it was TAB that bore the repercussions and reparations of MD's shameful actions it's hard to blame them for being touchy. Asking him to not rub salt in the issue (is Black Turtle Alliance such a bad name?) is a rather measured response in comparison to similar situations in CN history. Then again most of CN history is full of over the top situations so that doesn't necessarily mean it was well-handled.

Edit: misspelling

Edited June 28, 2009 by PhysicsJunky

[deth2munkies]

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.

And none of them share these circumstances. Here are the unique ones:

1) BTA was forced to give up their name as a surrender term.

2) BTA was forced to change their entire government (including expelling its founder) as a surrender term.

So I ask you this: What is an alliance's identity? I would posit that it is the leaders, name, and community that make an alliance what it is. All 3 immediately changed on the shift from BTA to TAB. TAB is a different alliance and an acknowledged (by them and I think by you in one of your posts) as a "fresh start" rather than direct continuation.

Add to it that, at this time, there are few to no former members of BTA in TAB and this entire thing is being driven out of spite and feigned outrage rather than a legitimate point.

Edited June 28, 2009 by deth2munkies

[Haflinger]

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.

[Master-Debater]

The views expressed by TAB are unfortunate but not unexpected.

The BTA has no intentions of stopping our growth or alliance as a whole. We will remain the BTA and the rightful successors to the name BTA.

In the eyes of the BTA the first formation of BTA was disbanded at the end of GW3. TAB is simply a collection of former BTA members who wished to stay in the same alliance. If they wanted to be BTA then they should have not changed their name, forums, or government. They can celebrate any history that they want but they are not the BTA.

The Blue Turtle Alliance is here and it is here to stay no amount of huffing and puffing will change that.

[Gruthenia]

Hopefully some sort of solution to this can be reached without this situation escalating. Personally, I'm not terribly sympathetic to everybody and their mother bringing back any dead alliances they think they can get away with at this point in time

[PhysicsJunky]

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.

The name change was part of the surrender terms. You can argue from there whether they would have done it anyways to clear the air but at least start from the correct facts.

[Sandwich Controversy]

BTA was a really terrible alliance back in the day so I don't know why anyone would want to fight over their namesake. Oh well.

[Alekhine]

I'd like to apologize to whoever first said (essentially) that "an open AA is a free AA" for not quoting you directly, but I couldn't find the post again. That sums up my feelings directly. As an alliance, you have ONE name, and ONE Alliance Affiliation (I'm excluding Applicant AA's here, but if, for any reason, someone wants to make an alliance called "Vanguard Applicant", you won't hear any !@#$ from me) and you don't get to run around claiming other names "belong" to you. Its silly to make an issue out of something like this. Instead, simply ignoring them and refusing to have official diplomatic relations would be a perfectly legitimate way to go about this, rather than making a stink that makes you look foolish.

EDIT: Clarified why I was apologizing.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Alekhine

[fluffyewunga]

The name change was part of the surrender terms. You can argue from there whether they would have done it anyways to clear the air but at least start from the correct facts.

Ok if they care this much and to change was part of terms set by CIS then y didn't they change back when CIS disbanded?

[kulomascovia]

The name change was part of the surrender terms. You can argue from there whether they would have done it anyways to clear the air but at least start from the correct facts.

It's not the government of TAB that's trying to recreate BTA. So I don't think the surrender terms are violated. However, I am a bit inexperienced about these issues so please inform me of any mistakes.

[Commander Cato]

Poor show TAB, MD is the original founder of BTA and this isnt the first time TAB has gone after people for flying an AA similar to theirs.

[Starfox101]

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.

Seeing as it was TAB that bore the repercussions and reparations of MD's shameful actions it's hard to blame them for being touchy. Asking him to not rub salt in the issue (is Black Turtle Alliance such a bad name?) is a rather measured response in comparison to similar situations in CN history. Then again most of CN history is full of over the top situations so that doesn't necessarily mean it was well-handled.

Edit: misspelling

The PIAT was real. Now, there's no doubt why it was signed, but the treaty existed. We as a bloc were all Anti-NPO and all of us except NCAAbbs gladly jumped to war. It was only when the hammer fell on us that the Sphere began searching for a scapegoat. MD and myself took the blame, and not entirely unfairly as we pushed for war. However, it was not only our fault and nobody in the bloc who declared was against it.

Also, thank you, deth2munkies as you've said what I wanted to.

[PhysicsJunky]

Ok if they care this much and to change was part of terms set by CIS then y didn't they change back when CIS disbanded?

Like I said, you can argue they would have switched the name anyways. As for why they didn't switch back I don't know, though I imagine it was some mix of reasons among which was re-creating forums, masks, embassies and whatnot once again.

It's not the government of TAB that's trying to recreate BTA. So I don't think the surrender terms are violated. However, I am a bit inexperienced about these issues so please inform me of any mistakes.

I don't think MD recreating the alliance now violates surrender terms, at least those that regarded TAB, and the old CIS isn't around to enforce them. I was just pointing out them switching originally had nothing to do with TAB itself wanting to be clear of the name, it was the terms. I actually couldn't really care if BTA pops up again under that name, it's just my opinion that TAB has a right to be upset with MD in general now that he's back.

[RandomInterrupt]

Well, none of the founders of TAB were founders of BTA. If the founders of TAB were also the founders of BTA, then I could see where BTA just changed it's name.

Why does it matter who is a founder and who isn't? Founding an alliance is easy. You write/copy a charter, make a thread, and done. It's the folks who run it afterwards and take it from a tiny fledgling alliance to a stable successful one that matter.

[Starfox101]

Why does it matter who is a founder and who isn't? Founding an alliance is easy. You write/copy a charter, make a thread, and done. It's the folks who run it afterwards and take it from a tiny fledgling alliance to a stable successful one that matter.

Only problem, without the founder those people would have never gotten the chance to run it. TAB wouldn't even exist were it not for MD. Perhaps they should thank him rather than try and bully him.

Although I guess, to be a bully you have to scare people, and nobody here is scared by TAB.

[enderland]

This thread seems too be a really bad idea, posting what is a really bad idea on a public forum.

Is that understanding incorrect?

[Master-Debater]

Why does it matter who is a founder and who isn't? Founding an alliance is easy. You write/copy a charter, make a thread, and done. It's the folks who run it afterwards and take it from a tiny fledgling alliance to a stable successful one that matter.

I’m curious who it is you think formed the first BTA. Recruited members to it. Aided those members. And worked to make it grow from nothing to what it was when it disbanded.

I’ll give you a big hint. That person is going to do it again, but this time in a much faster and better way.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Master-Debater

[Sandwich Controversy]

As the Official Pollmaster of the Mushroom Kingdom, I've decided to put this issue up to a vote. Given the large amount of foreigners that visit our forums, I believe this will be a fair and unbiased poll. We will have this all settled once and for all in 24 hours' time. Please be patient.

http://thecastlehall.com/boards/index.php?topic=19273.0

[Frankdolf]

Good luck MD and Starfox, fight the powah.

[D34th]

Man this is so simple, if TAB really wanted BTA name to not be used they would be using it.

Using the example of NpO, if someone changes it to Polaris and after that Ivan found again NpO, Polaris has no right of be upset because if they really wanted this name they shouldn't change it.

Get over it, this is childish.