Jump to content

An Official Statement from The Aquatic Brotherhood


Recommended Posts

And we care what you have to say why?

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

Whenever your alliance makes an announcement here, you open yourselves up to public criticism. If you didn't want the public involved and issuing opinions, you should not have made this issue public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me just be the first to say....

wait... what hasn't been said?

I didn't read past the first post, and this thread is 4 pages too long.

Anyway, The ownership of a alliance name that is not currently being used by anyone is purely based on the ignorance of the alliance claiming ownership. If you want it, use it. If not, get to stepping. If they want the name, let them war it out and see who wins. Bob is full of tyranny... what's a little more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Some would apparently say you also wrecked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of you in here are being silly. Here's how I see things:

1. A founder does not have any sort of right to an alliance just because he founded it. If the founder leaves then they will need to regain power through that alliance's normal processes. Just stating "I founded this alliance!" is not enough and really only gives you the right to a place in the wiki.

2. Anyone can form an alliance with any name they want as long as the name isn't already in use. You should however be careful about the name you pick. Some names will have been used in the past and may carry historical or personal baggage with them. If you pick a name with baggage you have to deal with the fallout.

3. Existing alliances should not use force (military or otherwise) to hold onto names they aren't using. If you give up the name guess what? You gave up the name. Don't go around telling people not to use the name you used to use. It's not classy. If you liked the old name so much you should have stuck with it.

4. Reforming a dead alliance is generally not a good idea and if you are doing so you'd better have a very good reason. What's more it will help your position greatly if you and the people helping you reform the alliance have a strong association / link to the old alliance. Being the original founder of the alliance would certainly count as that link.

Edited by Ragashingo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try not being lazy?

Just for you, I went ahead and read it all. And I'm still failing to see how TAB is entitled to the name. TAB is no longer called BTA and while that may have been their previous alliance's name, it was also MD's previous alliance name. As such, they both have the same claim to the name, which is assuming you can even have claim to a name which is assuming a pretty ridiculous thing anyway.

From where I stand, TAB is not "entitled" to anything which and as such my previous questions stands.

Huh, go figure. Reading all that pointless banter really didn't help. Shocker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Zimbabwe would be upset if I went and started a country called Rhodesia without their permission.

I believe TAB have the same claim. As many of you know, the TAB changed its name from BTA - for all intents and purposes, the BTA still exists under the name TAB. The BTA is central to the alliance history and culture of TAB and they have a close and substantial connection.

For instance:

btame.jpg - The TAB service sigbar for BTA members.

BTA Members (for TABbies who also served in our predecessor alliance, the Blue Turtle Alliance)

And the original surrender terms and not DoE, because BTA/TAB already existed:

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=62076

From the wiki:

The Aquatic Brotherhood (TAB) was founded by +Zeke+, Count Rupert, and Fatt Sorum on April 16, 2007, under the guidance of the Confederacy of Independent States (CIS); though, TAB's predecessor alliance, Blue Turtle Alliance (BTA), was founded by Master-Debater and Voronov on October 21, 2006.

If TAB was a new and separate entity, why bother even talking about BTA at all?

And more compelling, opponent destroying evidence (Alfred, forgive me)

The problem with that logic is that the membership of BTA, by accepting the shift to TAB, were essentially validating the change. It's been nearly a year since CIS ceased to exist (the new version notwithstanding), and yet TAB never chose to revert to the original name, or invite the old leadership back. While TAB honors its past and remembers its time as the BTA with pride, it's also built a number of relationships and established history as TAB as well.

And in the aftermath of the debacle in question, the BTA members freely admitted that MD was the one responsible for the alliance's problems, and thus, forfeited any real right he had. In the same way the NPO rejected Ivan, or the GGA cast Prodigal Chieftain out, it's long-since established in CN that no alliance founder necessarily has carte blanche to control or own the identity of any alliance in perpetuity - especially if their actions directly harm that alliance.

When multiple members of TAB who have been with the alliance since the BTA era - along with former BTA members who are now in various other alliances - all state that TAB is BTA, and that MD is wrong for what he's doing, perhaps that says a great deal about the validity of such things.

Even objectively (and not from an ex-BTA member who was also a Triumvir of TAB) the MHA supports the TAB's claim in this instance. Besides, why would an alliance want to call itself the Blue Turtle Alliance if it resides on the Black team?

Edited by Crushtania
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people are pathetic and I hope this blows up in all your faces. It wasn't enough to turn your back on your leader and face the shame of changing your alliances name but now you have to carry 2 year old grudges onto someone trying to build a community because of a name?

Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people are pathetic and I hope this blows up in all your faces. It wasn't enough to turn your back on your leader and face the shame of changing your alliances name but now you have to carry 2 year old grudges onto someone trying to build a community because of a name?

Grow up.

Pretty much this.

He reformed an old alliance. He used your old name. Unless he plans on taking your members and acting on your behalf, what's the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much this.

He reformed an old alliance. He used your old name. Unless he plans on taking your members and acting on your behalf, what's the problem?

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Have you seen the NSO flag?

Did NPO ever agree to change thier name because they weren't willing to fight for it?

No on both count's, why is TAB so willing to fight for a name that they weren't willing to fight to keep? Is it because now they have the muscle to do it?

TAB are cowards and MHA are enablers.

Edited by KingSrqt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...