The Rejected Times

[Sacara]

I am Prime Minister of The Coalition of Democratic Nations; we have an embassy with Osiris. We are not sending militry aid, as we are neutral.

Do you now?

Embassies: The Commonwealth of Crowns, The Commonwealth of Kings, Wintreath, The United Regions Headquarters, The Great American Union, The Republic Nations, United Group, Commonwealth of Free Nations, Genuan Rebirth, St Abbaddon, Australia, Horses and Bayonets, Chinese Taipei, Atlantis, and Geopolity.

Construction of embassies with Commonwealth of Liberty has commenced. Completion expected in 2 days.

He sen't it; I have yet to accept it. :\

[Applebania]

I am Prime Minister of The Coalition of Democratic Nations; we have an embassy with Osiris. We are not sending militry aid, as we are neutral.

Do you now?

Forum embassy. I should know: I was the ambassador before I left Osiris!

[Fantome]

I'm still amazed by the effort that is put into TRT. It seems a little biased in some issues, but all in all great work.

[Parhe]

I heard the good news. There is a war? So that means more toys in TRR right?

[Alvalero]

Dont flatter yourself Uni, I did not read this work thoroughly.

I'd leave to hear some discussion from people who actually read the article.

I'd love to know how you define the bold, italicised and underlined word. At no point did I say I never read this and I clearly did read part of it seeing as I brought up a mistake. Seeing as your going to leave then we may as well leave the chronological faults from this article alone.

[Pergamon]

I heard the good news. There is a war? So that means more toys in TRR right?

You are a bit late on realizing that, hu?!? - And to more toys in TRR: It doesn't looks like that either way.

[Unibot III]

I'm still amazed by the effort that is put into TRT. It seems a little biased in some issues, but all in all great work.

Thanks Fantome.

[People United Together]

I'm disappointed by the article on the FRA elections. Instead of actually asking me about the election, the Times asked for a "soundbite." And instead of using the soundbite, it quoted a single word. If I had known the article would highlight my election, and not accurately portray the contentious discussion thereafter, I would not have responded. There was a lot that happened in that discussion, and the article did not do it justice.

When I ran for TEP delegate in June, I was asked if my position as representative of Atrigeas to the FRA would force me to ban TEP from raiding. That question was inane, since I was among the few voices who advised the Magisterium against turning TEP defender earlier this year, and was the only Magister to vote "nay." So, ignoring the motive of that question, I simply explained my position as a neutral. I stay out of R/D and therefore am not beholden to serve just raiders or just defenders. I have the privilege of treating everyone equally.

After losing the RLO election to me and SL, Tim questioned my ability to serve as RLO while a neutral. Besides the fact I have been a representative to the FRA on and off for two years, and served as RLO previously, I simply responded that the position of RLO does not actually defend and I currently hold no other office which conflicts with being RLO. Unsatisfied, Tim and Kogvuron debated SL and I, and they made themselves look silly. More importantly, a plethora of FRA veterans, including former AC Karp and Speaker Wibblefeet, defended me as a longstanding member of the Regional Assembly. Tim apologized to Wibblefeet for the raucous, but also promised to consider motioning for my impeachment in the RA.

In the future, I hope the editor(s) pay more attention to the depth of their content, instead of merely skimming the surface of thread. TRR is a member of the FRA, I would think they would care what is happening in the FRA.

/end_rant

[Evil Wolf]

I'm disappointed by the article on the FRA elections. Instead of actually asking me about the election, the Times asked for a "soundbite." And instead of using the soundbite, it quoted a single word.

They clearly didn't like your response, didn't fit the spin they were trying to put on the article. That tends to happen when one writes an account of events based upon an agenda rather than based upon the facts.

[People United Together]

The quote I gave is as follows, "This term is gonna be a homerun. The FRA will make a comeback."

The author apparently preferred to put my short quote into his/her own words...

I just take issue with the quality of reporting. NationStates is a website like any other. It needs new content to stay entertaining. My election offered a rare glimpse into the dynamics of the FRA's Regional Assembly. If I do well as RLO, I might affect the FRA's future, and the fate of defending in general. The Times should have recognized the importance of the Supreme Evil Overlord of NationStates stepping in to help the FRA.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't get what the problem is. That description isn't all that different than what was in the article.

When somebody talks to a reporter, they shouldn't expect a transcript to be printed. Your words weren't taken out of context. Journalists don't always quote directly.

... So what is there to be disappointed about?

[Consular]

I don't get what the problem is. That description isn't all that different than what was in the article.

When somebody talks to a reporter, they shouldn't expect a transcript to be printed. Your words weren't taken out of context. Journalists don't always quote directly.

... So what is there to be disappointed about?

I read that as "You shouldn't expect a reporter to be truthful or factual, so why be disappointed when they spin stories for their own agenda?"

[Ryno]

I'm disappointed by the article on the FRA elections. Instead of actually asking me about the election, the Times asked for a "soundbite." And instead of using the soundbite, it quoted a single word. If I had known the article would highlight my election, and not accurately portray the contentious discussion thereafter, I would not have responded. There was a lot that happened in that discussion, and the article did not do it justice.

When I ran for TEP delegate in June, I was asked if my position as representative of Atrigeas to the FRA would force me to ban TEP from raiding. That question was inane, since I was among the few voices who advised the Magisterium against turning TEP defender earlier this year, and was the only Magister to vote "nay." So, ignoring the motive of that question, I simply explained my position as a neutral. I stay out of R/D and therefore am not beholden to serve just raiders or just defenders. I have the privilege of treating everyone equally.

After losing the RLO election to me and SL, Tim questioned my ability to serve as RLO while a neutral. Besides the fact I have been a representative to the FRA on and off for two years, and served as RLO previously, I simply responded that the position of RLO does not actually defend and I currently hold no other office which conflicts with being RLO. Unsatisfied, Tim and Kogvuron debated SL and I, and they made themselves look silly. More importantly, a plethora of FRA veterans, including former AC Karp and Speaker Wibblefeet, defended me as a longstanding member of the Regional Assembly. Tim apologized to Wibblefeet for the raucous, but also promised to consider motioning for my impeachment in the RA.

In the future, I hope the editor(s) pay more attention to the depth of their content, instead of merely skimming the surface of thread. TRR is a member of the FRA, I would think they would care what is happening in the FRA.

/end_rant

I used the whole quote in my version of the article. It was just edited out. TBH I don't read my articles after I finish them and compare what I typed to what was edited. I'll do that a little later.

I liked your whole quote and I didn't want to get any comment from you about the after election stuff due to the fact that I thought I could run with the stuff from the FRA thread and figured you wouldn't really want to comment on it.

[Unibot III]

I don't get what the problem is. That description isn't all that different than what was in the article.

When somebody talks to a reporter, they shouldn't expect a transcript to be printed. Your words weren't taken out of context. Journalists don't always quote directly.

... So what is there to be disappointed about?

Exactly, the soundbite was largely removed from the final piece because it sounded a bit clunky with how it was phrased. There was no "spinning" going on. There wasn't much to the soundbite we clipped - it just said this was going to be a "homerun" of a term and a comeback.

[Ainin]

I don't get what the problem is. That description isn't all that different than what was in the article.

When somebody talks to a reporter, they shouldn't expect a transcript to be printed. Your words weren't taken out of context. Journalists don't always quote directly.

... So what is there to be disappointed about?

I read that as "You shouldn't expect a reporter to be truthful or factual, so why be disappointed when they spin stories for their own agenda?"

That's nonsense. Paraphrasing while maintaining the general context is a perfectly acceptable way to report on things.

This is just making mountains out of molehills.

[Upper Drizzilia]

Nothing of any importance is actually going to happen in this "war."

[Shizensky]

Nothing of any importance is actually going to happen in this "war."

I wouldn't say that. Jimmies will certainly be rustled.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't get what the problem is. That description isn't all that different than what was in the article.

When somebody talks to a reporter, they shouldn't expect a transcript to be printed. Your words weren't taken out of context. Journalists don't always quote directly.

... So what is there to be disappointed about?

I read that as "You shouldn't expect a reporter to be truthful or factual, so why be disappointed when they spin stories for their own agenda?"

Perhaps the average NS Gamplayer doesn't read real newspapers, then. "Quoting" in journalism does not always mean a direct transcription of the entirety of what somebody said. Citing the speaker for a partial quote in a sentence is done all the time. It's only a problem if the speaker's words are taken out of context, which almost never happens because the entire purpose of only using partial quotes is so the writer can create context that flows smoothly with the rest of the piece. Hell, some quotes in newspapers don't even use quotation marks.

But hey, let's hate on TRT for anything. Who cares if we make up reasons to be angry!

[Evil Wolf]

Citing the speaker for a partial quote in a sentence is done all the time. It's only a problem if the speaker's words are taken out of context, which almost never happens because the entire purpose of only using partial quotes is so the writer can create context that flows smoothly with the rest of the piece. Hell, some quotes in newspapers don't even use quotation marks.

When a reporter uses quotes in such a way as to frame the quote in a completely different light on a completely different subject than what the speaker was referring to, that's not journalistic editing, that's flat out misleading the reader.

[Tano]

Nothing of any importance is actually going to happen in this "war."

Welcome to NS Wars pumpkin'

[Unibot III]

Citing the speaker for a partial quote in a sentence is done all the time. It's only a problem if the speaker's words are taken out of context, which almost never happens because the entire purpose of only using partial quotes is so the writer can create context that flows smoothly with the rest of the piece. Hell, some quotes in newspapers don't even use quotation marks.

When a reporter uses quotes in such a way as to frame the quote in a completely different light on a completely different subject than what the speaker was referring to, that's not journalistic editing, that's flat out misleading the reader.

That was not done, however.

[Sciongrad]

Citing the speaker for a partial quote in a sentence is done all the time. It's only a problem if the speaker's words are taken out of context, which almost never happens because the entire purpose of only using partial quotes is so the writer can create context that flows smoothly with the rest of the piece. Hell, some quotes in newspapers don't even use quotation marks.

When a reporter uses quotes in such a way as to frame the quote in a completely different light on a completely different subject than what the speaker was referring to, that's not journalistic editing, that's flat out misleading the reader.

I agree entirely. It's not only unethical, but downright despicable to abuse a source's trust by using their quote in such a way that changes the original meaning to mislead readers. Thank goodness nothing of the sort has happened here.

[Evil Wolf]

Well, there was Unibot claiming that the RLA never destroyed forums, despite the RLA itself claiming responsibility for those forum that they totally destroyed and were pretty proud of at least three of those forum griefings, only backing away from claiming their fourth because the defenders in the ADN had a good relationship with the invader group that got hit and got pretty mad at the RLA.

The Proletariat Coalition, a historic leftist-defender region, has ties to the Red Liberty Alliance which is popularly regarded by some as responsible for the destruction of invader forums between 05-06. While this claim has been contested time and time again [...]

But I guess I'm just fishing, right?

[Unibot III]

Well, there was Unibot claiming that the RLA never destroyed forums, despite the RLA itself claiming responsibility for those forum that they totally destroyed and were pretty proud of at least three of those forum griefings, only backing away from claiming their fourth because the defenders in the ADN had a good relationship with the invader group that got hit and got pretty mad at the RLA.

The Proletariat Coalition, a historic leftist-defender region, has ties to the Red Liberty Alliance which is popularly regarded by some as responsible for the destruction of invader forums between 05-06. While this claim has been contested time and time again [...]

But I guess I'm just fishing, right?

TPC's ties to forum destruction via the RLA have been contested a lot. RLAI did authorize the destruction of several forums, DEN's and TBH's forum come to mind. It did not authorize the destruction of the "Invaders" forum, which involved two rogue intel agents. By 2006, RLAI had internal policies against forum destruction - reflecting changes in public opinion on forum destruction.

[Blood Wine]

TPC's ties to forum destruction via the RLA have been contested a lot. RLAI did authorize the destruction of several forums, DEN's and TBH's forum come to mind. It did not authorize the destruction of the "Invaders" forum, which involved two rogue intel agents. By 2006, RLAI had internal policies against forum destruction - reflecting changes in public opinion on forum destruction.

So what exactly made people think forum destruction WAS okay if it was a raider forum?