Imperial Assault Alliance Announcement

[Facade]

Looks like the implicit point of this was to link the original IAA to the new one and claim that they're the same entity. Congrats to three months of existence anyway.

Oh, look. Someone just looking to start an argument. It's a shame our announcements are always filled with deadbeats like these.

Although, I can understand how someone who isn't a member of the greatest alliance in cybernations could be jealous, but, there's nothing I can do about that.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Oh, look. Someone just looking to start an argument. It's a shame our announcements are always filled with deadbeats like these.

They are the same, stop complaining because we cut out the dead weight, i.e. you.

Goodness gracious! Such strong reactions! I had merely remarked upon what I sensed to be the implied meaning behind this announcement, and ended upon a congratulatory note.

Obviously the OP is much too sensible to openly claim that both alliances are the same entity, after all, and I applaud such meticulously careful language. With such precision I can see how certain historical revisions advertised amongst imperial masses were possible. Perhaps certain officers are less ingenious, but every alliance has its, shall we say, dim lightbulbs?

Edited July 19, 2009 by Count da Silva

[BamaBuc]

Looks like the implicit point of this was to link the original IAA to the new one and claim that they're the same entity. Congrats to three months of existence anyway.

Will you ever stop being bitter?

-Bama

[Unko Kalaikz]

Will you ever stop being bitter?

-Bama

Bitter? Of course not, dear friend! I wish all the best success to this IAA, and pray for their success. But I am also obligated to the truth, as always, and merely offer a helping hand in correcting any unfortunate oversights or historical revisions (no doubt accidental) that are reiterated publicly away from the warm, monitored bossom of imperial government controlled forums.

[The Last Imperial]

Bitter? Of course not, dear friend! I wish all the best success to this IAA, and pray for their success. But I am also obligated to the truth, as always, and merely offer a helping hand in correcting any unfortunate oversights or historical revisions (no doubt accidental) that are reiterated publicly away from the warm, monitored bossom of imperial government controlled forums.

What truth, all you keep doing is trying to push the way you like to think about your self on other people in our threads, that big heads getting to you Junky, and here a couple things for you about how you think

1. you didn't disband us (the Senate did to save you, and those that went hippy)

2. the community never died, even when the IAA was outlawed on Bob as you well know your self

3. THE SENATE reformed the IAA, because it had the power to kill, and the power of life

4. the Senate loves Chim, and highly dislikes you ATM for twisting the truth

Junk majority of us in the IAA now fought along side you in that war, and now you dare say we, the Senate, has no power on weather the IAA lives or stayed dead.... how is that, the IAA was not 1 man, it was the Senate that controlled everything, we voted war, gov, and even our disbandment... so get this thought of "I disbanded the IAA" out of your mind, all you did was post it on the OWF and thats all

Edited July 20, 2009 by The Last Imperial

[Asriel Belacqua]

Weren't you guys dead for like a year and couple months? Technically you would be about 1 year and 10 months old...

So, technically there's no point to this. Congrats on whatever the point of this is.

I can't wait to see you buried again.

I'll point you to what Chimaera's response to RV was: "Three years ago to this day, the Imperial Assault Alliance was born. And yet nearly two years later, on May 28th, 2008, the Empire dispersed throughout the Galaxy, broken. So while we have risen from the ashes reborn, there was a time of darkness. Thus, it would be a lie to say that the Alliance has existed for three straight years."

Thanks for letting us kill your infra though. It's been fun watching our lower ranking nations gain experience in the art of war.

Looks like the implicit point of this was to link the original IAA to the new one and claim that they're the same entity. Congrats to three months of existence anyway.

Need I remind you, Count, that it is the MEMBERS that make an alliance, not a former leader who lead the alliance for a WEEK. <- over-exaggeration, but you get my point.

The community stayed alive through backchannels and secret underground tunnels (OOC: other games) and thus the community of the alliance never died, even if the official outward appearance was that it did.

Hail us. Onwards to 3 more years.

[infinite desire]

only feels like last week i heard of IAA for the fir- oh wai

congrats guys. three years of existance is a pretty good feat considering most find a sad demise.

o7 IAA, i'll see u at the party in a sec

EDIT: spelling is not my friend

Edited July 20, 2009 by The Fallen

[Vanadrin Failing]

You folks have been treating us rather kindly since your resurgence. I wish you well in your future endeavours. ^^d

[Unko Kalaikz]

Need I remind you, Count, that it is the MEMBERS that make an alliance, not a former leader who lead the alliance for a WEEK. <- over-exaggeration, but you get my point.

Ah, an unfortunate misconception regarding alliances. That is actually a topic in which I somewhat specialize, having studied and issued treatises in the subject over the past year. I will try to correct it.

An alliance is not a community, but is rather a political entity consisting of nations which surrender their sovereignty to a central government. Although it is true an alliance cannot exist without a membership, it is equally true that an alliance (in our world's political context) cannot exist without a government. When the government of the original Imperial Assault Alliance disbanded via internal legal processes, the alliance ceased to exist... whatever ooc community may have continued to exist furtively. The head of government and author of the legal charter that was the binding document of the IAA was myself, at the time of disbandment.

Despite the presence of several of the same officers, the new IAA is a different alliance with a different charter and different government... an entirely different political entity. As noted, whatever ooc community existed or didn't exist is not relevant... especially in these IC alliance announcement forums. The alliance government is what sets apart an alliance from a rabble of nations on the same AA.

The current IAA certainly has a legitimate government and political entity, but it is preposterous to consider it the same as the old IAA politically or legally, or an extension of the old alliance. It is in fact nothing more than a clone or copy using the same name. I am pleased that the OP does not directly try to make that claim, but also noted that it implies it is still the same entity by using the existence of an OOC community, so I thoughtfully pointed it out.

EDIT -- to further demonstrate what I am saying, it is sort of like when NPO used to call itself several years older than CN itself, discussing its OOC history off-planet. Such an existence of a community was irrelevant especially on the IC political forums of the time, because alliance affairs should only concern political alliances and not their ooc communities or histories. I was critical of the NPO at the time as well.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Count da Silva

[BamaBuc]

Ah, an unfortunate misconception regarding alliances. That is actually a topic in which I somewhat specialize, having studied and issued treatises in the subject over the past year. I will try to correct it.

An alliance is not a community, but is rather a political entity consisting of nations which surrender their sovereignty to a central government. Although it is true an alliance cannot exist without a membership, it is equally true that an alliance (in our world's political context) cannot exist without a government. When the government of the original Imperial Assault Alliance disbanded via internal legal processes, the alliance ceased to exist... whatever ooc community may have continued to exist furtively. The head of government and author of the legal charter that was the binding document of the IAA was myself, at the time of disbandment.

Despite the presence of several of the same officers, the new IAA is a different alliance with a different charter and different government... an entirely different political entity. As noted, whatever ooc community existed or didn't exist is not relevant... especially in these IC alliance announcement forums. The alliance government is what sets apart an alliance from a rabble of nations on the same AA.

The current IAA certainly has a legitimate government and political entity, but it is preposterous to consider it the same as the old IAA politically or legally, or an extension of the old alliance. It is in fact nothing more than a clone or copy using the same name. I am pleased that the OP does not directly try to make that claim, but also noted that it implies it is still the same entity by using the existence of an OOC community, so I thoughtfully pointed it out.

EDIT -- to further demonstrate what I am saying, it is sort of like when NPO used to call itself several years older than CN itself, discussing it's OOC history off-planet. Such an existence of a community was irrelevant especially on the IC political forums of the time, because alliance affairs should only concern political alliances and not their ooc communities or histories. I was critical of the NPO at the time as well.

In my experience, the community very much is the alliance. You can simplify it however you please, but a supposedly living alliance with no sense of community is far more dead than a disbanded alliance whose members have kept their bonds intact. The community, not the government, makes the alliance. I know that sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I've always observed it to be true. Sometimes academics are so impersonal they fail to grasp the truth.

-Bama

[Mathias]

Junkalunka, the main mistake you made here is assuming we need your approval.

[Unko Kalaikz]

In my experience, the community very much is the alliance. You can simplify it however you please, but a supposedly living alliance with no sense of community is far more dead than a disbanded alliance whose members have kept their bonds intact. The community, not the government, makes the alliance. I know that sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I've always observed it to be true. Sometimes academics are so impersonal they fail to grasp the truth.

-Bama

I was never a warm and fuzzy sort of leader, I prefer dealing in hard facts and political reality. Perhaps that makes me somewhat unpopular. :v

A community strengthens an alliance and the bonds of loyalty within it, but it is itself not an alliance, politically speaking. Of course, you can define an alliance differently I suppose, but logically the definition I adopted holds the most logical water. If you like I can reference you to arguments and papers that discuss the concept of the political alliance.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Junkalunka, the main mistake you made here is assuming we need your approval.

I never asked for it, did I? I merely discuss and comment, and correct inaccuracies and perhaps fabrications. I know you do not need the truth, perhaps, or facts, but I will deal it anyway.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Count da Silva

[MercyFallout]

You know, the last time I checked, Count da Silva was trying with everything in his power to remove his current IC character from his old one.

I guess this defeats all of his past arguments.

Also, I love your nice miniessay. The leader is never the alliance. The leader is simply the one chosen by the community to represent the alliance (regardless of it being a democratic alliance or not). The community has always been the alliance. I'd love to see you try to run an alliance without a community. As Bama said, "a supposedly living alliance with no sense of community is far more dead than a disbanded alliance whose members have kept their bonds intact".

Edited July 20, 2009 by MercyFallout

[Lavo]

*Insert fancy wording and text here*

Junka, with your large wall of text and numerous arguments you are forgetting one key fact, one small spec that overrides everything you are flaunting and claiming. That bit is the raison d'être of the IAA and why it was founded. The IAA was created to be a community for people to have fun, make new friendships, and bicker over Star Wars and wait for the never coming Imperial Assault 2 Mod for SW:EaW. Not as a government, and not even so much for Cyber Nations itself. Thus, for that and due to it's survival in the underground (OOC: Other games, and bonds between friends.) it has indeed been around for three years, as the community, the core of the IAA, has never been extinguished.

[fanofall]

I was never a warm and fuzzy sort of leader, I prefer dealing in hard facts and political reality. Perhaps that makes me somewhat unpopular.

I'm not sure that's what makes you unpopular. But you're free to presume or speculate as to why people don't like you.

If you like I can reference you to arguments and papers that discuss the concept of the political alliance.

You can, but I'm certain they're not worth the paper that they're written on. For fun, I googled "alliance" and discovered the wiki definition (1st def--didn't want to be accused of cherry-picking) of an alliance is simply: "An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."

I believe what we have here fits the definition. I'm not going to bore you with the details, but you know full well that what you see is not always what you get. What I do note, however is the lack of requirement in the above-captioned definition to disband a legal charter and I certainly don't see any requirement of your approval for an alliance to exist. As one of the original Senators who voted to disband (to save your hide) during the war (and was brought to ZI and had to reroll), I was also one of the available Senators who decided to participate in our glorious reformation several months ago, so I full well understand the happenings of past and present--so I support our Emperor, past and present, Chimmy.

I can't help you feel you failed in your short stint as IAA's Emperor; your efforts to assume responsibility by admitting your failures at this late date are understandable, but at the same time are unnecessary and juvenile at this point. The best you can hope for now is to simply remain hidden and isolated in the bowels of IAA's history, much like you have for the past year, and know that your past failures have not been forgotten. Perhaps one day you will understand the mechanisms of your failures, for time and a certain reflection on the past encourages enlightenment.

On that note, Happy Birthday, IAA.

[Starfox101]

I was never a warm and fuzzy sort of leader, I prefer dealing in hard facts and political reality. Perhaps that makes me somewhat unpopular. :v

You never really even did anything as a leader, except capitulate.

[Mathias]

You never really even did anything as a leader, except capitulate.

He couldn't even manage that.

Edited July 20, 2009 by The Mathias

[Darth Andrew]

Obviously the OP is much too sensible to openly claim that both alliances are the same entity, after all, and I applaud such meticulously careful language.

To the contrary. The IAA in 2006 is the same as the IAA in 2009. If they were entirely different, this occasion would not be marked in the first place. What this announcement celebrates is the founding of the IAA in 2006, though as it states, the alliance as a legal entity in and of itself is not three years old. What is that old, however, is the people, which also make up the alliance.

The current IAA certainly has a legitimate government and political entity, but it is preposterous to consider it the same as the old IAA politically or legally, or an extension of the old alliance. It is in fact nothing more than a clone or copy using the same name. I am pleased that the OP does not directly try to make that claim, but also noted that it implies it is still the same entity by using the existence of an OOC community, so I thoughtfully pointed it out.

See above.

[James Wilson]

I thought this was supposed to be a HAPPY THREAD?!?!?! Instead, all I see are hater's and counter haters (Which I have no problem with them...). This makes me sad

Sad JW is sad.

[Thierra]

Was it really three straight years? Are you sure?

Congrats either way.

[MercyFallout]

Was it really three straight years? Are you sure?

Congrats either way.

/me facepalms.

Please, read the OP and half of the thread.

[rtellez06]

/o IAA

Congrats on 3 YEARS

[Thierra]

/me facepalms.

Please, read the OP and half of the thread.

I didn't post that because it had already been said six or seven times. It wasn't a joke either. You're also really pretty.

Which one of these three things is the lie?

[Lord Swampy]

Hurray for IAA. Three more years, this time uninterrupted!