Darth Volcaniz Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 the only apology i will ever issue to a jedi is as follows: "Im sorry you were allowed to live. Let me rectify that" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementual Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) WOOIAA Fantastical event. Edited July 22, 2009 by Dementual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Volcaniz Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) I have read all the pages read all the PoVs, and i would like to point something out. The OP IMPLIES that the old IAA and the new IAA are 1 and the same, omitting the 14 months of disbandment. 14 months of disbandment, thats over a year that IAA DID NOT exist. also, while the new IAA may have been founded my much of the same members, the very fact that it's charter was not written by the same exact people, that it does not have the same exact leaders, and the same exact charter, it can not be called the same exact IAA, and therefor is not 3 years old. The core and essence of the old IAA may have survived, and may have comeback together under the same name with the same values and ideas, may even have the same principles, but it IS NOT the same. It is similar, almost identical, but it can never be the same. NOW, had 1 or 2 original members maintained and stayed in IAA, and been low-profile and rebuild the IAA, bringing in all the old members, THEN i could justify that its the same alliance. but 14 months of non-existence makes this new IAA, a new aa, and not an old aa. You can continue to argue that since its the same community its the same alliance, but the sad, un-sugared, truth is:: same community =/= same alliance Edited July 22, 2009 by Darth Volcaniz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I have read all the pages read all the PoVs, and i would like to point something out. The OP IMPLIES that the old IAA and the new IAA are 1 and the same, omitting the 14 months of disbandment. 14 months of disbandment, thats over a year that IAA DID NOT exist. also, while the new IAA may have been founded my much of the same members, the very fact that it's charter was not written by the same exact people, that it does not have the same exact leaders, and the same exact charter, it can not be called the same exact IAA, and therefor is not 3 years old. The core and essence of the old IAA may have survived, and may have comeback together under the same name with the same values and ideas, may even have the same principles, but it IS NOT the same. It is similar, almost identical, but it can never be the same. NOW, had 1 or 2 original members maintained and stayed in IAA, and been low-profile and rebuild the IAA, bringing in all the old members, THEN i could justify that its the same alliance. but 14 months of non-existence makes this new IAA, a new aa, and not an old aa.You can continue to argue that since its the same community its the same alliance, but the sad, un-sugared, truth is:: same community =/= same alliance First of all, it's under a year. May 28th, 2008 - May 12, 2009. Second of all, we are the same IAA that disbanded. Can an alliance not write a new charter or change leadership? I wasn't aware that we were bound to some legal contract demanding that all aspects of our alliance remain the same. Third, we did maintain the forums and the community throughout the course of our disbandment. We established a government and ratified the Charter on April 28th, 2009. Furthermore several members never left the AA "Imperial Assault Alliance" which was our AA before disbandment, and is our AA now. We are very much the same alliance, and while we may have dispersed throughout the Cyberverse (an experience I am quite grateful for, due to both the experience and friendships gained), we remain the same alliance that formally disbanded on May 28th of last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) First of all, it's under a year. May 28th, 2008 - May 12, 2009. Second of all, we are the same IAA that disbanded. Can an alliance not write a new charter or change leadership? I wasn't aware that we were bound to some legal contract demanding that all aspects of our alliance remain the same. There's absolutely no basis to your claim that you are the same alliance. It's as if you ignored everything I wrote and continue to spout this rubbish. You are not legally or politically the same alliance. There is absolutely no connection between the two with the exception of community and forums. Third, we did maintain the forums and the community throughout the course of our disbandment. We established a government and ratified the Charter on April 28th, 2009. Furthermore several members never left the AA "Imperial Assault Alliance" which was our AA before disbandment, and is our AA now. We are very much the same alliance, and while we may have dispersed throughout the Cyberverse (an experience I am quite grateful for, due to both the experience and friendships gained), we remain the same alliance that formally disbanded on May 28th of last year. How can you say both those contrary bolded statements with a straight face? If the previous alliance disbanded, and a new alliance was established later, they are not the same alliance because they have the same name. That is like saying the original Vox Populi and second Vox Populi were the same. All you are doing is demonstrating your utter ignorance of CN political theory and desire to propagate your views with whatever claims you can, whether they be based in fact or not. Community =/= Alliance Forums =/= Alliance AA =/= Alliance It appears I have work to do and need to publish another essay after a six month hiatus. Edited July 22, 2009 by Count da Silva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) There's absolutely no basis to your claim that you are the same alliance. It's as if you ignored everything I wrote and continue to spout this rubbish. You are not legally or politically the same alliance. There is absolutely no connection between the two with the exception of community and forums. Show me the legal document I would need to legitimize my claim. You've obssessed over the fact that we are not using the same charter, but last I checked the charter was the rule of law for an alliance, not what binds them to some obscure agreement to remain unchanged unless you have the approval of former members. How can you say both those contrary bolded statements with a straight face? If the previous alliance disbanded, and a new alliance was established later, they are not the same alliance because they have the same name. That is like saying the original Vox Populi and second Vox Populi were the same. Sorry, I must have forgot to use the word new. We established a new government and charter. It appears I have work to do and need to publish another essay after a six month hiatus. [OOC]It would probably be better if you just stopped posting. [/OOC] Edited July 22, 2009 by The Mathias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 There's absolutely no basis to your claim that you are the same alliance. It's as if you ignored everything I wrote and continue to spout this rubbish. You are not legally or politically the same alliance. There is absolutely no connection between the two with the exception of community and forums.How can you say both those contrary bolded statements with a straight face? If the previous alliance disbanded, and a new alliance was established later, they are not the same alliance because they have the same name. That is like saying the original Vox Populi and second Vox Populi were the same. All you are doing is demonstrating your utter ignorance of CN political theory and desire to propagate your views with whatever claims you can, whether they be based in fact or not. Community =/= Alliance Forums =/= Alliance AA =/= Alliance It appears I have work to do and need to publish another essay after a six month hiatus. Well, Vox essentially was the same alliance. We just abolished the charter, and government. It started as a vengeance run for an alliance killed by the Hegemon and evolved into much more. Myself, RV, and Kaiser Martens were all members, the original 3 members. And please, write this essay. The last time you got to writing essays you got bashed by BOTH sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Show me the legal document I would need to legitimize my claim. You've obssessed over the fact that we are not using the same charter, but last I checked the charter was the rule of law for an alliance, not what binds them to some obscure agreement to remain unchanged unless you have the approval of former members.[/OOC] 1) There is no legal document that can legitimize your claim. The alliances are not the same, it is that simple. Even if you used the same charter, they would not politically be the same. For them to be the same, there would need to be a political mechanism for the disbandment to be negated. Because the disbandment resulted in the dissolution of all political mechanisms it most likely would not be possible. Unless the individual who was Emperor at the time who had placed a disbandment vote utilizing his executive authority worked with the individual who was Imperial chancellor at the time to nullify the disbandment proceedings on constitutional grounds. Or maybe simply repealed his own executive act authorizing the vote. I haven't looked into the matter. That would result in the same Emperor coming back to power, which happens to be Junkalunka. Otherwise there would be no legal way to resurrect the original alliance (unless you find something that allows it in the charter I wrote). EDIT -- in before cries of "e-lawyer" Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) 1) There is no legal document that can legitimize your claim. The alliances are not the same, it is that simple. Even if you used the same charter, they would not politically be the same. For them to be the same, there would need to be a political mechanism for the disbandment to be negated. Because the disbandment resulted in the dissolution of all political mechanisms it most likely would not be possible. Unless the individual who was Emperor at the time who had placed a disbandment vote utilizing his executive authority worked with the individual who was Imperial chancellor at the time to nullify the disbandment proceedings on constitutional grounds. That would result in the same Emperor coming back to power, which happens to be Junkalunka. Otherwise there would be no legal way to resurrect the original alliance (unless you find something that allows it in the charter I wrote). EDIT -- in before cries of "e-lawyer" This Junkalunka fellow appears to be dead. How unfortunate. I guess we'll just have to make due with Chimaera. P.S. You're the new USBR. Edited July 23, 2009 by Starfox101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Appearances can be deceiving. Who knows when he might return like Ivan did from Imhotep? That does not negate the fact they are not legally the same alliance anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Appearances can be deceiving. Who knows when he might return like Ivan did from Imhotep?That does not negate the fact they are not legally the same alliance anyway. There is no binding alliance law, no matter how hard you try to e-lawyer to make one up. Now, either shutup, or go found the true "IAA" and show us who the real IAA is. It'll be as successful as your attempt to make Vox Populi Francoist. (Which by the way was a massive failure which resulted in him losing a Democratic election to Nintenderek.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Congratulations IAA, well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) And please, write this essay. here you go. There is no binding alliance law, no matter how hard you try to e-lawyer to make one up.Now, either shutup, or go found the true "IAA" and show us who the real IAA is. Typical starfox style refuting argument. You write a detailed argument, and he will reply with "no." EDIT -- hey I called it right, someone did say "e-lawyer!" Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahlanRahl Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) here you go.Typical starfox style refuting argument. You write a detailed argument, and he will reply with "no." EDIT -- hey I called it right, someone did say "e-lawyer!" Well, he's got a point. Clearly all your e-lawyer political lingo and babble doesn't make any difference to anyone else... since you're the only one still bawwwing about it. So, just freakin' unhinge and loosen up. [ooc]It's just a game.[/ooc] EDIT: stupid grey line of OOC/IC... Edited July 23, 2009 by KahlanRahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Well, he's got a point. Clearly all your e-lawyer political lingo and babble doesn't make any difference to anyone else... since you're the only one still bawwwing about it. So, just freakin' unhinge and loosen up. [ooc]It's just a game.[/ooc] EDIT: stupid grey line of OOC/IC... So basically your new argument is "it doesnt matter if you are right, you are being more serious than me, stop being serious because I'm losing the argument." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 here you go.Typical starfox style refuting argument. You write a detailed argument, and he will reply with "no." EDIT -- hey I called it right, someone did say "e-lawyer!" It's pretty obvious why I said it, as you are being a US of Brians Room. The only reason you called it, is obviously because you know you are being one, otherwise you wouldn't mention it. Oh, and if you're wrong, I don't need to write a detailed essay about why you're wrong, a simple one liner can get a point across far easier. Especially when it's so easy to prove you wrong with a single line... "There is no binding alliance law." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "There is no binding alliance law." Actually, there is. Alliance law is binding if it is enforced by an alliance authority. So, if you as a member commit an illegal act, the law is binding so long as the alliance chooses to enforce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Actually, there is. Alliance law is binding if it is enforced by an alliance authority. So, if you as a member commit an illegal act, the law is binding so long as the alliance chooses to enforce it. What act here was illegal? Who is this alliance authority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 What act here was illegal?Who is this alliance authority? Go read what I said earlier. Nothing was "illegal," however it is not factual to state that the original IAA and this one are the same political alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Go read what I said earlier.Nothing was "illegal," however it is not factual to state that the original IAA and this one are the same political alliance. It isn't factual because you aren't in charge? You know what? Fine. Come join the IAA and we'll make you Emperor. Just don't be surprised when you get couped after 11 minutes. You've already shown all of us Imperials how unfit you are to lead when you folded the alliance under pressure. Or, again, you can just go found the true IAA. Either way they will both end in massive success for you. Edited July 23, 2009 by Starfox101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Its always amusing how you never diverge from your talking points even after their proven wrong. I guess you follow the strategy "telling a lie enough times makes it truth?" http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1705213 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1707674 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1708480 Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyFallout Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Its always amusing how you never diverge from your talking points even after their proven wrong. I guess you follow the strategy "telling a lie enough times makes it truth?"http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1705213 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1707674 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1708480 You know, just because you think you're right, doesn't make you right. But then again, I suppose you follow the "if I write enough stuff, people will be impressed, and bow down and worship my awesomeness and I shall thus increase the size of my e-malebodypart" doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Its always amusing how you never diverge from your talking points even after their proven wrong. I guess you follow the strategy "telling a lie enough times makes it truth?"http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1705213 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1707674 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1708480 What lie am I telling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 That I "folded the alliance under pressure." @mercyfallout: Why don't you show exactly how I am not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 That I "folded the alliance under pressure."@mercyfallout: Why don't you show exactly how I am not right. I was there. I saw it all. I was very privy to what went down during that time, because if you recall we were pretty close back then. I watched you capitulate and begin the disbandment. There's really no lie you can tell to change my mind, or change what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.