Imperial Assault Alliance Announcement

[Unko Kalaikz]

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.

I capitulated? lol. I placed three polls, and acted after hearing the consensus of the alliance. I thought the senate voted for disbandment and it was not my power? Now it was just me after all? You guys need to get your stories straight.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva

[MercyFallout]

That I "folded the alliance under pressure."

@mercyfallout: Why don't you show exactly how I am not right.

1. When every single IAA member who was there pre-disbandment says that Chimaera was their emperor and he left because if he didn't IAA wouldn't ever possibly get peace terms and you say the opposite, I'm inclined to believe the majority. Because they aren't power-thirsty fools who want nothing more than to stick their hooks into a growing alliance and try to illegitimize (yes, I realize that isn't a word) it.

2. Government =/= alliance. Never IC, never OOC. NEVER does the government = the alliance (with the exception of a few such as LSF...though I think LSF has some resemblance of a formal government now). The government is simply the mouthpiece of the alliance. The face of the community. The community, as basically everyone but you can realize, is the alliance. Because if there is no community, who the heck are you going to lead? Yourself. And that would probably be it.

3. "Not legal". There is no IC or OOC law that says you cannot reform an alliance. Thus, there is absolutely NO legal basis in which you can say that the IAA of today is not the continuation of the IAA of yesterday. Precedent, in fact, isn't on your side either. VE reformed claiming the same name and to be the same alliance that disbanded under foreign threat (hmm, in a manner very similar to IAA) and that is accepted as fact. Because it is fact. The community returned to share the same alliance name and same charter. The alliance lives again. It doesn't matter who was leading it, if the same people (at least in part...and in IAA's case the vast majority of former IAA'ers have returned) then the alliance continues on.

4. Whether you honor treaties or not is a very vital part of foreign affairs policy. In fact, it would be the breaking point. If you don't honor your treaties, regardless of your political status, who the heck is going to sign a treaty with you or be close to you? Not many.

[Starfox101]

I capitulated? lol. I placed three polls, and acted after hearing the consensus of the alliance. I thought the senate voted for disbandment and it was not my power? Now it was just me after all? You guys need to get your stories straight.

The Emperor sets the tone of the alliance. When he loses morale, the alliance doesn't have much to go. You pushed for disbandment and went around saying we've been denied terms because of you and that we'll never get peace, and put up polls for disbandment. You pushed for it, thinking disbanding would get you a free pass from being put on EZI. Well, you were wrong and got it anyway.

You're an incredibly selfish leader.

I've said no other story but this one, and I don't care what anyone else said, because what I said is what happened. So don't use what others say against me and use what I say against me, if you can.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Starfox101

[Unko Kalaikz]

Government =/= alliance. Never IC, never OOC. NEVER does the government = the alliance (with the exception of a few such as LSF...though I think LSF has some resemblance of a formal government now). The government is simply the mouthpiece of the alliance. The face of the community. The community, as basically everyone but you can realize, is the alliance. Because if there is no community, who the heck are you going to lead? Yourself. And that would probably be it.

Go read my essay and comment there.

3. "Not legal". There is no IC or OOC law that says you cannot reform an alliance. Thus, there is absolutely NO legal basis in which you can say that the IAA of today is not the continuation of the IAA of yesterday. Precedent, in fact, isn't on your side either. VE reformed claiming the same name and to be the same alliance that disbanded under foreign threat (hmm, in a manner very similar to IAA) and that is accepted as fact. Because it is fact. The community returned to share the same alliance name and same charter. The alliance lives again. It doesn't matter who was leading it, if the same people (at least in part...and in IAA's case the vast majority of former IAA'ers have returned) then the alliance continues on.

1) Explain the legal link between the old IAA and new one. There is none.

2) Both versions of VE are recognized to be different alliances, and furthermore, your IAA does not have the same charter, making your argument even weaker.

4. Whether you honor treaties or not is a very vital part of foreign affairs policy. In fact, it would be the breaking point. If you don't honor your treaties, regardless of your political status, who the heck is going to sign a treaty with you or be close to you? Not many.

strawman

[MercyFallout]

Go read my essay and comment there.

1) Explain the legal link between the old IAA and new one. There is none.

2) Both versions of VE are recognized to be different alliances, and furthermore, your IAA does not have the same charter, making your argument even weaker.

strawman

1. Read your essay. Agree with Starfox.

2. Legal Link? Go read what I wrote again. There isn't one and there doesn't need to be one. If the community decides it wants to get back together (or in this case, get back from the Unknown Regions formally), then they can do it.

3. They recognize that they are a new incarnation but they never denied being the successors or the continuation of VE.

4. Strawman? Your entire "refute" to my point was talking about me babbling on about some nonsensical thing that didn't relate to FA policy.

[Unko Kalaikz]

The Emperor sets the tone of the alliance. When he loses morale, the alliance doesn't have much to go. You pushed for disbandment and went around saying we've been denied terms because of you and that we'll never get peace, and put up polls for disbandment. You pushed for it, thinking disbanding would get you a free pass from being put on EZI. Well, you were wrong and got it anyway.

Absolute !@#$%^&*. I wasn't aware you were in possession of a mind reading device. As I stated earlier in this thread, I felt and explained that subjecting our alliance as a WHOLE (not just myself) to humiliation, confessing to a false crime, and probable crippling reps and viceroy terms (if even that, because there was no garrauntee of negotiation) was not worth continuing our existence as an alliance.

I promoted exactly what the NPO did NOT want me to do, the IAA expired as heroes, rather than lived a shamed existence. Our disbandment denied NPO their total victory, PR and otherwise and the abject destruction of everything we fought for. I advocated disbandment knowing that it would most likely result in pissing off NPO and my EZI. A month or two later I asked to be let off of EZI and Moo was STILL pissed at how I turned what was supposed to be an easy side campaign into a PR thorn in the $@!.

It absolutely pisses me off that what was a move designed to protect Imperial honor and deny the enemy total victory is instead historically revised to be a "selfish" move by myself to save myself from PZI. If I was worried about PZI I would have done what Chimaera did and deserted during (or before) wartime, but no, somehow Chim's abandonment is remembered as heroic?

This angers and pains me far more than anything else in CN ever has. All my work and effort, for a bunch of ingrates, revisionists, and incompetent officers.

You are all the equivalent of a bunch of whiney revisionist spartans who believe that Leonidas should have accepted Xerxes offer instead of throwing that spear.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Darth Volcaniz]

This forum has become a pissing contest of who and what were the causes of the original IAA. BUT the forum is really about the IAA being 3 years old. NOW, if the IAA wants to prove that it is the same alliance, and thus proving this thread's legitimacy, I request the link to 1 nation that has an alliance seniority to IAA with 650 days, or more

Edited July 23, 2009 by Darth Volcaniz

[Chimaera]

This forum has become a pissing contest of who and what were the causes of the original IAA. BUT the forum is really about the IAA being 3 years old. NOW, if the IAA wants to prove that it is the same alliance, and thus proving this thread's legitimacy, I request the link to 1 nation that has an alliance seniority to IAA with 650 days, or more

I don't understand the point of this. Alliance seniority doesn't define whether we're the same or not. It's the same people (minus a couple we're glad to be rid of), the same forums, the same name, the same theme, and the same leaders (again, minus a couple we're glad to be rid of). Just because Junka/Count/whatever he's called this week challenges our legitimacy doesn't mean that 99.99% of Planet Bob does, as well. I'm pretty sure if you took a poll of 100 people and asked who was the rightful Emperor of IAA, 99 would say me.

Also, do you really think 650 days is three years?

[Darth Volcaniz]

I don't understand the point of this. Alliance seniority doesn't define whether we're the same or not. It's the same people (minus a couple we're glad to be rid of), the same forums, the same name, the same theme, and the same leaders (again, minus a couple we're glad to be rid of). Just because Junka/Count/whatever he's called this week challenges our legitimacy doesn't mean that 99.99% of Planet Bob does, as well. I'm pretty sure if you took a poll of 100 people and asked who was the rightful Emperor of IAA, 99 would say me.

Also, do you really think 650 days is three years?

Im NOT questioning your sovereignty, nor your right to rule. As i said earlier, community does not equal the alliance. 650 days is not 3 years, true, but it is also far longer than the 14ish months that IAA was disbanded. . . IF someone were to have that seniority, then it can be justified that you are the same alliance, reborn from a single cell, much like a star fish. HOWEVER, if you do not have this seniority, then i am lead to believe that you are a clone of the old, ALMOST identical, but still different (think the dinosaurs of "Jurrasic Park")

Also, let me put it a different way: the egypt we know today is not the egypt we knew some 5000 years ago. . . when the slaves of egypt got up and left into exile, egypt effectively got "disbanded" and had to "reform" to survive.

ALSO, i was thinking, if you are the SAME alliance you were before, why hasn't NPO resumed hostilities? as far as i know, know peace treaty was ever signed between IAA and NPO. . NPO disbanded to prevent this, and now has reformed? i see a little scape-goat here. ..

[Darth Volcaniz]

my request for an seniority of 650 days or more was a response to:

Furthermore several members never left the AA "Imperial Assault Alliance" which was our AA before disbandment, and is our AA now.

I should have mentioned that. ..

[Chimaera]

ALSO, i was thinking, if you are the SAME alliance you were before, why hasn't NPO resumed hostilities? as far as i know, know peace treaty was ever signed between IAA and NPO. . NPO disbanded to prevent this, and now has reformed? i see a little scape-goat here. ..

1) NPO is in no state to attack anyone.

2) Their peace terms state that all alliances they were at war with forever (IAA, NAAC, etc) are peaced out.

3) If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, then it's a duck. There is nothing different about the reformed IAA except there is a different Emperor from the one who disbanded it.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Just because Junka/Count/whatever he's called this week challenges our legitimacy doesn't mean that 99.99% of Planet Bob does, as well. I'm pretty sure if you took a poll of 100 people and asked who was the rightful Emperor of IAA, 99 would say me.

Wow, so opinion polls determine legal legitimacy or rational arguments now?

Lets say a poll was taken in planet bob and more than 50% voted for me. Would you step down?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Darth Volcaniz]

3) If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, then it's a duck. There is nothing different about the reformed IAA except there is a different Emperor from the one who disbanded it.

so i can blow you up, rebuild you(with a different head) and and say your the exact same thing? WOW, i never realized the simplicity of the logic

[Chimaera]

so i can blow you up, rebuild you(with a different head) and and say your the exact same thing? WOW, i never realized the simplicity of the logic

You really don't know anything about IAA, do you? I was Emperor of IAA for 18 of its 21 months of existence. I kept it alive through other worlds and through its community for 11 months of disbandment. If anyone had a right to reform IAA, it was me. Please, learn to read up on history before deciding to just go around unsuccessfully debating us in every thread we make.

[General Argent Doom]

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"

If a band were to disband, their manager dies and then say 12 months or so later they reform, do they lose the right to call themselves by the name they used 12 months prior? Do they lose the right to promote themselves under the name they previously used? Will people refuse to accept them under the name they previously used?

No, because the manager was simply the guy that ran the band, the band itself is what will forever be remembered.

Fact of the matter is this; your arguments are going to fail no matter how much history you throw in, no matter how much facts you throw in, no matter how many people you get championing your arguments for the simple fact that you are not Junkalunka. Junkalunka, like the manager in the above analogy, is dead.

Should Junkalunka ever miraculously return, then and only then would his point of view be worth listening to.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Fact of the matter is this; your arguments are going to fail no matter how much history you throw in, no matter how much facts you throw in, no matter how many people you get championing your arguments for the simple fact that you are not Junkalunka. Junkalunka, like the manager in the above analogy, is dead.

Should Junkalunka ever miraculously return, then and only then would his point of view be worth listening to.

So an argument involving a historical figure is not valid unless the historical figure himself is arguing?

[General Argent Doom]

So an argument involving a historical figure is not valid unless the historical figure himself is arguing?

Not at all son, but in this post...

Absolute !@#$%^&*. I wasn't aware you were in possession of a mind reading device. As I stated earlier in this thread, I felt and explained that subjecting our alliance as a WHOLE (not just myself) to humiliation, confessing to a false crime, and probable crippling reps and viceroy terms (if even that, because there was no garrauntee of negotiation) was not worth continuing our existence as an alliance.

I promoted exactly what the NPO did NOT want me to do, the IAA expired as heroes, rather than lived a shamed existence. Our disbandment denied NPO their total victory, PR and otherwise and the abject destruction of everything we fought for. I advocated disbandment knowing that it would most likely result in pissing off NPO and my EZI. A month or two later I asked to be let off of EZI and Moo was STILL pissed at how I turned what was supposed to be an easy side campaign into a PR thorn in the $@!.

It absolutely pisses me off that what was a move designed to protect Imperial honor and deny the enemy total victory is instead historically revised to be a "selfish" move by myself to save myself from PZI. If I was worried about PZI I would have done what Chimaera did and deserted during (or before) wartime, but no, somehow Chim's abandonment is remembered as heroic?

This angers and pains me far more than anything else in CN ever has. All my work and effort, for a bunch of ingrates, revisionists, and incompetent officers.

You are all the equivalent of a bunch of whiney revisionist spartans who believe that Leonidas should have accepted Xerxes offer instead of throwing that spear.

...you used the word I/myself quite a lot. You are not Junkalunka. Junkalunka is dead. You are an impostor to the name.

[Mathias]

so i can blow you up, rebuild you(with a different head) and and say your the exact same thing? WOW, i never realized the simplicity of the logic

Can you actually make an attempt to comprehend the situation before arguing?

Thanks.

[James Wilson]

Nice to see everyone getting along so well

[Darth Volcaniz]

Can you actually make an attempt to comprehend the situation before arguing?

Thanks.

lol you obviously dont comprehend the situation::

its simple, 1 person says that IAA is not 3 years old, another says it is.

the facts:

1) IAA disbanded

2) the core memebers (as well as, in theory, other members) maintained communication and association outside of cybernations

3) after 11.5 months of being disbanded, the leadership behind the disbanded IAA decides to get back together and after a few months declare the 3 year anniversary of its original inception

4) " If anyone had a right to reform IAA, it was me. Please, learn to read up on history before deciding to just go around unsuccessfully debating us in every thread we make." - chimaera Reforming an alliance is not the same as revitalizing an alliance. Reforming IAA is what you did, you took a dead and disbanded alliance's membership and brought them all back into a new alliance with the same alliance name. Revitalizing an alliance is taking an alliance which had, in the past, a large membership (such as the old IAA) and for whatever reason the bulk of the membership left and coming to it and getting all its old, or new, members and replenishing its deminished ranks.

Unless you can show me that there were members of the old IAA that kept the IAA flag and aa after the disband, then i CAN NOT believe that the 2 IAAs are 1 and the same.

P.S.

Please do not misconstrue my opinions as hostility, i have the utmost respect and love for my imperial counterparts

[Scipio Africanus]

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.

I never responded to this line earlier. When you came into power we had a new gov't and new charter so by your standards when that happened we were no longer the IAA then. Is this acceptable to you?

[Simon De Montfort]

I interrupt the flame war to congratulate the IAA. I have always like you guys. I remember how you stood by the Legion summer of 2007 and GATO in 2008. I respect those that stand by their friends especially when facing overwhelming odds.

Here is to another 3 years!