Imperial Assault Alliance Announcement

[Mozaffar]

As said before congratulations on the 3 year anniversary of the first incarnation of the IAA, and holy bejesus those are some amazing graphics.

[Unko Kalaikz]

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.

Which is, as I had pointed out, completely irrelevant in an IC alliance affairs forum. I similarly criticized NPO's thread exhibiting their ooc histories and community.

[Unko Kalaikz]

You can, but I'm certain they're not worth the paper that they're written on.

You are certain without understanding the arguments behind them?

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.

However, the ooc definition of an alliance does not fit the criterion for an IC alliance. The term alliance in cybernation is (I think unfortunately) used to describe an organization with a central government-like authority (although due to the principle of voluntary membership CN alliances are closer to RL corporations or non-profits than governments). As such the standard ooc definition cannot be used in CN for alliance any more than the definition of a cruise missile can.

I think it's unfortunate that multinational organizations are called "alliances" but since the term is popular we must work with that despite the confusion it may cause.

As one of the original Senators who voted to disband (to save your hide)

That is a falsehood perpetrated amongst certain discontent officers who wish to pin all the blame upon myself for all the bad that ever happened. The reason I favored disbandment was because peace would require a crippling of my, and by extension, the IAA's reputation, which I had carefully built throughout the war. My resignation was never stipulated as a requirement for peace terms, merely we had to reverse the PR damage we had caused them before any peace could be discussed. After that, peace terms might be possible.

Essentially, NPO wanted me to lie and take the blame for the logs situation, destroy the carefully built PR effort in the war and our credibility and honor, which would be crucial in a long term FA rebuilding effort. Had I capitulated in this manner, NPO might have opened negotiations which would likely be as bad or worse than GATOs, with all capable leadership removed, such as there was. It was a checkmate, but it seems your officers wish to erase this inconvenient truth and spread stories about me trying to "save myself from PZI" while Chimaeras wartime desertion was a "noble move to save IAA."

Those same officers that criticize me now, including Mathias, favored disbandment and knew most of these facts. They were clearly stated in the disbandment threads, which are now conveniently deleted by your leadership with yourself and myself deprived of access. And I am somehow a terrible leader for opting with disbandment and not playing into NPO's hands. I guess I was the only one in IAA govt who wasn't a tool, and indeed I was the only IAA govt member EZI'd personally by Moo for several months because of my wartime service in IAA.

Please, are you all really that dense?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, on reflection, maybe I did get played. Everyone knows I was the serious politician in IAA, I was not interested so much in community as I was in the alliance. So Chimaera deserts in the midst of hopeless war to leave me in command, hoping and expecting I would fail? Then, post disbandment, scoup up the IAA community and rewrite history with me as the villain? You know, I always thought I was IAA's Palpatine trying to use war for reform, but maybe after all Chimaera was Palpatine and I was the Jedi, and the player got played. :v

If that is truly the case, then my respect just shot way up for chim.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Heyman]

That banner is amazing. Props to your graphics department.

[MercyFallout]

However, the ooc definition of an alliance does not fit the criterion for an IC alliance. The term alliance in cybernation is (I think unfortunately) used to describe an organization with a central government-like authority (although due to the principle of voluntary membership CN alliances are closer to RL corporations or non-profits than governments). As such the standard ooc definition cannot be used in CN for alliance any more than the definition of a cruise missile can.

Uh, no.

Also, whatever keeps your e-malebodypart going.

[Chimaera]

You know, on reflection, maybe I did get played. Everyone knows I was the serious politician in IAA, I was not interested so much in community as I was in the alliance. So Chimaera deserts in the midst of hopeless war to leave me in command, hoping and expecting I would fail? Then, post disbandment, scoup up the IAA community and rewrite history with me as the villain? You know, I always thought I was IAA's Palpatine trying to use war for reform, but maybe after all Chimaera was Palpatine and I was the Jedi, and the player got played. :v

If that is truly the case, then my respect just shot way up for chim.

Well, there's no doubt you're wrong, but in hindsight I probably should have thought of that myself. You know as well as I do that every alliance accepts information I left to try to save IAA because I doubted there would have been terms given at all while I was Emperor. And, as a matter of fact, they refused to speak to me or negotiate with me for a full nine months, attempting to EZI me and run me off Planet Bob.

[Mathias]

The reason I favored disbandment was because peace would require a crippling of my reputation

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And I never favored disbandment.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Well, there's no doubt you're wrong, but in hindsight I probably should have thought of that myself. You know as well as I do that every alliance accepts information I left to try to save IAA because I doubted there would have been terms given at all while I was Emperor. And, as a matter of fact, they refused to speak to me or negotiate with me for a full nine months, attempting to EZI me and run me off Planet Bob.

If you wanted to save IAA you picked a rather late date to leave it (could of left a month before when you threw your kevanovia histrionics all over IRC and the OWF). If that was your reason for leaving, in any case, you should have at least waited for the negotiations to roll around... not dig out in the first week of combat. Theres no reason why you couldn't continue to assist us even after resigning... I sent you a PM mid-May asking for your input, help and advice and you never responded. You were still masked anyway as an IAA member/admin, and we never made a PR play out of your resignation to get peace.

It's pretty absurd that the guy who dug out from the war is remembered as a hero while the one who stuck with IAA until the end becomes a self absorbed villain. I never cared at the time and wouldn't, except that it seems my name has been dragged through the mud over the last year. I guess thats revisionism at it's finest.

Oh, and to no one in particular, the disbandment thread.

Note what Horde of Doom says: "This announcement has been long in the making; since GW III, in fact." Yup, so maybe I had nothing to do with IAAs death after all?

Edited July 20, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Unko Kalaikz]

I get the sense that a bunch of you now think We should have admitted to things we did not do, just to beg for a slave-like peace, and that going to war to honor our treaty obligations was something you would not do this time around. What happened to the old IAA spirit I knew?

Edited July 20, 2009 by Count da Silva

[The Last Imperial]

I get the sense that a bunch of you now think We should have admitted to things we did not do, just to beg for a slave-like peace, and that going to war to honor our treaty obligations was something you would not do this time around. What happened to the old IAA spirit I knew?

no we honor our treaties, and we would have entered.... and we would of probably disbanded anyway because we didn't want to be slaves like you said. but yes 1 thing did change for me. As one of those nations that went down until we disbanded, who was one of the only active people during that time, and some1 that was about to quite CN over that war. But I didn't, and now that I know your true colors, I would of voted to turn you over, you did NOT deserve us to give our selves up for you, you keep proving that over and over again in this thread.

you keep talking how this new IAA is nothing like the old 1, what about those nations that stayed till we disbanded, most of them have rejoined, or have posted how proud they are to see the IAA back, but you, because of your past, want to put down the only allies that put there nations and alliance down to save you. I use to defend the actions you did then, but those days are over my old friend.

Hope you have fun with Mathias and the rest of the IAAer that your ticking off

[MercyFallout]

The reason I favored disbandment was because peace would require a crippling of my, and by extension, the IAA's reputation, which I had carefully built throughout the war.

You were Emperor for just around a week. I daresay that IAA's reputation was never based on you. Also thank you for proving once more why IAA has disowned you: all you care about is your own reputation and your own doings. You have no care for the community nor honor nor anything else.

[Lavo]

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.

Junka, I'm still waiting for a reply to this.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

You know, on reflection, maybe I did get played. Everyone knows I was the serious politician in IAA, I was not interested so much in community as I was in the alliance. So Chimaera deserts in the midst of hopeless war to leave me in command, hoping and expecting I would fail? Then, post disbandment, scoup up the IAA community and rewrite history with me as the villain? You know, I always thought I was IAA's Palpatine trying to use war for reform, but maybe after all Chimaera was Palpatine and I was the Jedi, and the player got played. :v

If that is truly the case, then my respect just shot way up for chim.

You weren't rewritten as the villain. The only reason we no longer respect you is for what you are doing now - not recognizing the IAA for what it is: the best damn community on CN. Disbandment could have never destroyed that.

[Unko Kalaikz]

no we honor our treaties, and we would have entered.... and we would of probably disbanded anyway because we didn't want to be slaves like you said. but yes 1 thing did change for me. As one of those nations that went down until we disbanded, who was one of the only active people during that time, and some1 that was about to quite CN over that war. But I didn't, and now that I know your true colors, I would of voted to turn you over, you did NOT deserve us to give our selves up for you, you keep proving that over and over again in this thread.

Again, an incorrect viewpoint. First of all, two of the three polls posted by myself were just polls asking for direction, and designed to add an aura of legitimacy to whatever decision would be made for PR purposes... the power never lay with the senate to do any of those things. The authority was mine alone. The only actual legal vote was the disbandment vote, the other two were policy polls.

You might recall the poll which you refer to as the "turn-over" option. That was a poll which asked senators whether they felt I should resign from the IAA. The poll held no legal weight, so you need to get over the idea that the Senate really had a say in the matter.

I gave our members a say, so that the senators could have a chance to opine about the future of their alliance. Even in terms of disbandment, the charter did not directly discuss, so that became an issue of executive authority (backed by the Chancellor FlowingFire). I know this because I wrote the charter.

You need to reexamine what actually happened, old friend. You seem angry about something that never even happened.

you keep talking how this new IAA is nothing like the old 1, what about those nations that stayed till we disbanded, most of them have rejoined, or have posted how proud they are to see the IAA back, but you, because of your past, want to put down the only allies that put there nations and alliance down to save you. I use to defend the actions you did then, but those days are over my old friend.

Hope you have fun with Mathias and the rest of the IAAer that your ticking off

I still have love for the rank and file IAAers, however Chimaera, Mathias and others have apparently twisted history for their own purposes, against myself, so I cannot call myself their friend IC wise at least.

I was never gentle in my administration either as Regent or Emperor, and because of this it rubbed the egos of some officers the wrong way.

You were Emperor for just around a week. I daresay that IAA's reputation was never based on you. Also thank you for proving once more why IAA has disowned you: all you care about is your own reputation and your own doings. You have no care for the community nor honor nor anything else.

I was actually Emperor for nearly a month, and after I became Regent you would be surprised how much reputation was attached to me, since I handled our foreign affairs March onwards. The reputation I induced was generally positive, unlike that of other senior officers. Reputation is a valuable asset, and I wanted to replace the negative reputation associated with IAA and it's terrible foreign policy with a new era and a new face. For IAA to have any hope to survive and thrive would require this.

Thus I tied my reputation to a plan for IAA's future. Was I ambitious and political? Certainly, I do not deny I desired to exit the war with a more authoritarian alliance under my direction. But my ambition extended to the success of the entire alliance. I was less concerned with community and more concerned with IC advancement of the alliance.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Unko Kalaikz]

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.

Thats fine and dandy, but this is an IC forums about alliance affairs and not ooc communities. Just as my focus was on IC affairs and not on community.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Count da Silva

[MercyFallout]

I was actually Emperor for nearly a month, and after I became Regent you would be surprised how much reputation was attached to me, since I handled our foreign affairs March onwards. The reputation I induced was generally positive, unlike that of other senior officers. Reputation is a valuable asset, and I wanted to replace the negative reputation associated with IAA and it's terrible foreign policy with a new era and a new face. For IAA to have any hope to survive and thrive would require this.

Thus I tied my reputation to a plan for IAA's future. Was I ambitious and political? Certainly, I do not deny I desired to exit the war with a more authoritarian alliance under my direction. But my ambition extended to the success of the entire alliance. I was less concerned with community and more concerned with IC advancement of the alliance.

1. IAA's horrible foreign policy? You mean the foreign policy of honoring our treaties to the very last letter? Are you mad? That is IAA's biggest saving grace. BECAUSE we are willing to die for our allies regardless of what they did, BECAUSE we are willing to march our armies into the lowest pits of hell for each other, and BECAUSE we aim for the honorable path IAA was able to reform without a hitch and become stronger than ever before.

2. You tied your reputation to a plan for IAA's future. Sounds dandy. Then why the bloody hell are you a leader? You seem to fail to realize that the LEADER is the one who is supposed to epitomize the qualities the alliance/community exudes, the LEADER is the one that is supposed to take the fall. You sir, are no leader. You are simply a ball of hubris wrapped in flesh who wishes to be called one. I spit on your name.

3. What the HELL is the point of IC advancement of an alliance if there is no community to back it up? I can give you a point of reference. MCXA. The community died because its leaders were so bloody concerned about their stats and their position. Merger after merger after merger and power plays with larger alliances made it a power in CN but its community died. If you really wanted success, you would have looked at NPO. Sure they're evil and whatever, but they know how to build a successful alliance. They emphasize the community of Pacifica and from it spawns forth the loyal legions of Pacifica that create its success.

[Huggle]

Count da Silva, I have read through some of your post on this page, as well as some I have seen in other topics. My best advice for you is to shut your little $%&@in troll mouth. You think you're still Emperor of IAA? Fine, then actually try to take that position back if you think it is rightfully yours, we'll see how far you get. You have stated several times that "Count da Silva" is not a reincarnation of "Junkalunka", so even IF you were rightful Emperor, that wouldn't matter now, because you're not Junkalunka anymore. So, until you actually grow a **** and actually attempt the !@#$ that you have been trolling us about for who knows how long, you might as well shut up, because you look like one of the biggest idiots on CN with all of your posts to satisfy your giant ego.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Huggle

[Lavo]

Thats fine and dandy, but this is an IC forums about alliance affairs and not ooc communities. Just as my focus was on IC affairs and not on community.

Claiming an IC/OOC line breach is a weak retort, and you know that. That is besides the fact that what I outlined was the entire IC basis for the IAA's existance and founding. That is besides the fact that the community of an alliance is intertwined with the alliance, if it is not the alliance. This reinforces and brings back my previous post, that the IAA's community is the IAA alliance. As such, the IAA is indeed three years old as the alliance has not truly died. Unless of course you are going to keep on arguing pointless technicalities and worthless semantics.

[Thierra]

I think anyone low enough to derail a celebration thread and make it all about himself... and not even himself, but a past incarnation of himself... is not worth arguing with.

Perhaps we can return to the general frivolity of the (semi) three-year anniversary of the IAA? Perhaps with a public apology for Order 66?

Edited July 20, 2009 by Thierra

[Asriel Belacqua]

Again, an incorrect viewpoint. First of all, two of the three polls posted by myself were just polls asking for direction, and designed to add an aura of legitimacy to whatever decision would be made for PR purposes... the power never lay with the senate to do any of those things. The authority was mine alone. The only actual legal vote was the disbandment vote, the other two were policy polls.

You might recall the poll which you refer to as the "turn-over" option. That was a poll which asked senators whether they felt I should resign from the IAA. The poll held no legal weight, so you need to get over the idea that the Senate really had a say in the matter.

I gave our members a say, so that the senators could have a chance to opine about the future of their alliance. Even in terms of disbandment, the charter did not directly discuss, so that became an issue of executive authority (backed by the Chancellor FlowingFire). I know this because I wrote the charter.

The senate is basically most of the alliance, correct? ok, so, tell me, who can a leader lead, if all his followers tell him to get off the horse because "we ain't marching that way." ?

He can only lead himself. That's who. To tell AoD that his is an incorrect viewpoint and that the senate has no power, it actually has a lot of power, even if it's not explicitly given in the charter, they have the power of choice.

[MercyFallout]

Perhaps we can return to the general frivolity of the (semi) three-year anniversary of the IAA? Perhaps with a public apology for Order 66?

We're too used to getting our threads derailed by our detractors.

Also, the Jedi have nothing to fear from IAA. Chaos_Armed and I are both living proof of it. We're Jedi. And we're running the Imperial Fleet.

[Scipio Africanus]

Yeah its kind of odd that they lead the Imperial Fleet, but is it as odd as this?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think anyone low enough to derail a celebration thread and make it all about himself... and not even himself, but a past incarnation of himself... is not worth arguing with.

Perhaps we can return to the general frivolity of the (semi) three-year anniversary of the IAA? Perhaps with a public apology for Order 66?

I wish more people were like you.

[Facade]

I think anyone low enough to derail a celebration thread and make it all about himself... and not even himself, but a past incarnation of himself... is not worth arguing with.

Perhaps we can return to the general frivolity of the (semi) three-year anniversary of the IAA? Perhaps with a public apology for Order 66?

Excuse me kind sir, but you have just won the thread.

[James Wilson]

I think anyone low enough to derail a celebration thread and make it all about himself... and not even himself, but a past incarnation of himself... is not worth arguing with.

Perhaps we can return to the general frivolity of the (semi) three-year anniversary of the IAA? Perhaps with a public apology for Order 66?

I love you, I love you, I love you :wub:

/Thread