NationStates

Kazmr wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Oh, it's okay, don't go out of your way to find proof of that. We'll just take your word for it.

Why should the onus be on TSP to 'prove' the accusations that they deliberately favored one ally over another? It should be up to the accuser do to that. But no... Imperialists never reveal their 'sources'.

My 'sources' are all revealed. As I expressly indicated above, they are all drawn from Europeia's public statement.

Please, by all means ignore the South Pacific's public statement.

Do me a favour and admit you are just supporting Europeia because you have to. That way we can drop any pretense of you defending the truth.

Europeia were involved too. Onder's said he's derived his facts from their statement, so he's already sourced his claims to their testimony. Now, what facts have they said which you dispute or is it, as Onder said above, differing interpretations?

Kringalia wrote:Please, by all means ignore the South Pacific's public statement.

I have read it. It does not dispute Europeia's facts. It merely gives the reasons why it TSP is refusing to adhere to Europeia's request.

Any argument should therefore be based on assessing whether those reasons are correct. It is a matter of judgement (though in my view not a close call).

Glen-Rhodes has accused me of 'lying through [my] teeth', without caring to provide any elaboration.

That is not a criticism of my assessment of the situation. It is accusing me of deliberately telling untruths. That is completely unjustified.

Kringalia wrote:Do me a favour and admit you are just supporting Europeia because you have to. That way we can drop any pretense of you defending the truth.

No, I am not under any obligation to support Europeia. I have a senior judicial position there and I also participate in their navy, but I do not hold any executive position. The judiciary of Europeia is entirely independent of the government and has no role in determining questions of foreign policy.

Lol @ Christopher saying I haven't given details. We published the entire IRC log!

Also, it's funny that Europeia's statement is somehow evidence, but TSP's is not worth anything at all. How predictable.

I have now clarified what the amendment actually means for the South Pacific, which is just a slight change in terminology, but not in our actual policies or behaviour. If anyone needs any further clarification or information, they should feel free to send me a telegram.

I'll be taking my leave now.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Lol @ Christopher saying I haven't given details. We published the entire IRC log!

Which log are you referring to?

Moreover, which specific segment of whatever log this is are you alleging that I am lying about?

I'm referring to the log we published. The log of the only conversation that occurred between TSP and Europeia. I'm not sure why I need to specify, except I guess it would be because you're making your own reality, so you're forgetting what actually happened.

You are lying about the entire thing, Onder. Your entire description of the event is a lie crafted to ensure that Europeia has no blame and the evil defenders in TSP are wholly and exclusively responsible. You are lying because you are nothing by a well-worded hack.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Lol @ Christopher saying I haven't given details. We published the entire IRC log!

Also, it's funny that Europeia's statement is somehow evidence, but TSP's is not worth anything at all. How predictable.

If you're going to rely on evidence, at least cite it.

I'm confident in your ability to search the forums, Christopher Bishop. You'd have an easier time finding it than I would on my phone.

That's because Onder is a machine, he simply retrieves information from his database.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:You are lying about the entire thing, Onder. Your entire description of the event is a lie crafted to ensure that Europeia has no blame and the evil defenders in TSP are wholly and exclusively responsible. You are lying because you are nothing by a well-worded hack.

My description of the event was 'TSP was offered the chance host it by Europeia but then prioritised another conference'.

I assume you are not denying that TSP was offered the chance to host it by Europeia.

TSP's own statement is clear (therefore in no factual dispute with Europeia's statement, as I have said) that Europeia advised TSP that attending the Lazarus conference, despite having been invited first to host the Independence Convention, would harm the latter. TSP's statement further made clear TSP's Cabinet decided to go through with attending the Lazarus conference. Thus TSP priortiised the Lazarus conference over the Independence Convention's interests.

It can be argued as to whether refusing to withdraw from the Lazarus conference, despite the damage Europeia alleged it would cause for the hosts of the Independence Convention to be attending the Lazarus conference in that period, constituted prioritising another conference, but that's a matter of opinion.

A liar is someone is someone who deliberately makes factually inaccurate statements. That does not mean disagreeing with TSP's interpretation is a lie.

There are no factual issues in contention here. Yet you have accused of me lying about the whole thing, which is patently not the case.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I'm referring to the log we published. The log of the only conversation that occurred between TSP and Europeia. I'm not sure why I need to specify, except I guess it would be because you're making your own reality, so you're forgetting what actually happened.

As Kringalia has pointed out, I was not present for the government discussions. Therefore I do not know all the conversation logs involved.

There is no question about the 'reality' of the matter whatsoever. You have yet to specify factual differences from Europeia's account. The only question is whether the stated facts amount to what Europeia has said, namely that TSP prioritised another conference.

I say it does. You say it does not. That does not mean that the one who is incorrect is a liar, yet you have stooped to this allegation.

Riddle me this Onder: Is it fair for an ally to ask you to prioritize them over another ally?

TSP received two invitations within a couple of days. They accepted both after coming to the conclusion as a region that that they could give both the necessary attention. The fully intended to attend the two, but Europeia was adamant that the conference held by Lazarus, a treatied ally of TSP, would undermine their own. We voiced no such objections going the other way.

Why is the onus on TSP to make accommodations towards one ally at the expense of another that is not asking for similar accommodations to be made?

Why should Europeia not respect the decision of TSP who, in the spirit of 'independence' made the determination that it was in their interests foreign-affairs wise to attend two conferences, and instead force them to chose?

And, going to the root of the issue, how on earth would attending the Reg Sov conference undermine that on Independence?

Kazmr wrote:Riddle me this Onder: Is it fair for an ally to ask you to prioritize them over another ally?

TSP received two invitations within a couple of days. They accepted both after coming to the conclusion as a region that that they could give both the necessary attention. The fully intended to attend the two, but Europeia was adamant that the conference held by Lazarus, a treatied ally of TSP, would undermine their own. We voiced no such objections going the other way. Why is the onus on TSP to make accommodations towards one ally at the expense of another that is not asking for similar accommodations to be made? Why should Europeia not respect the decision of TSP who, in the spirit of 'independence' made the determination that it was in their interests foreign-affairs wise to attend two conferences, and instead force them to chose?

First, I do not wish to get extensively into the question of fairness here, because this is not the direct topic of discussion on the present article and has only arisen on accuracy, not fairness. Glen-Rhodes has accused me of lying. Regardless of a person's answer to your question, I have not told any untruths.

If a region was asked first to co-host a major conference, it is reasonable to expect that they do not then agree to attend another major conference likely to cover similar issues within the same period, thereby reducing the significance and curtailing the agenda of the conference they are meant to be hosting.

Onderkelkia wrote:If a region was asked first to co-host a major conference, it is reasonable to expect that they do not then agree to attend another major conference likely to cover similar issues within the same period, thereby reducing the significance and curtailing the agenda of the conference they are meant to be hosting.

Then we're at an impasse, and a fundamental disagreement on this point Frankly, I first of all don't see how the conferences were covering the same issues. Those who chose to attend our conference represented a significantly different group of regions than those who would have received an invitation to the Independent conference (I can't imagine Lazarus, for instance, receiving an invite because we don't fit into what your definition of 'independence). Our conference was about discussing what exactly regional sovereignty might be, and if there even was a cohesive definition. I doubt that same thing would have taken place elsewhere.

And further, if TSP were truly participating in planning and co-hosting this conference, they would have been in the best position to decide if one would have undermined the other, and they stated clearly that they did not find that to be the case. That Europeia felt differently is their own fault.

Kazmr wrote:

Onderkelkia wrote:If a region was asked first to co-host a major conference, it is reasonable to expect that they do not then agree to attend another major conference likely to cover similar issues within the same period, thereby reducing the significance and curtailing the agenda of the conference they are meant to be hosting.

Then we're at an impasse, and a fundamental disagreement on this point Frankly, I first of all don't see how the conferences were covering the same issues. Those who chose to attend our conference represented a significantly different group of regions than those who would have received an invitation to the Independent conference (I can't imagine Lazarus, for instance, receiving an invite because we don't fit into what your definition of 'independence). Our conference was about discussing what exactly regional sovereignty might be, and if there even was a cohesive definition. I doubt that same thing would have taken place elsewhere.

And further, if TSP were truly participating in planning and co-hosting this conference, they would have been in the best position to decide if one would have undermined the other, and they stated clearly that they did not find that to be the case. That Europeia felt differently is their own fault.

The concept under discussion and the regions in attendance may have been different (albeit with some overlap of regions of course), but that does not mean that the conferences were not partially at least addressing themselves to similar fundamental debates.

Europeia evidently felt, particularly as TSP did not consult them beforehand and the problems they list in their statement regarding the response to their concerns, that TSP had not seriously considered the potential impact.

In any case, it's not a question of the underlying facts being dispute, hence why I am puzzled by Glen-Rhodes calling me a liar.

Onderkelkia wrote:As Kringalia has pointed out, I was not present for the government discussions. Therefore I do not know all the conversation logs involved.

I'd be shocked if I went back and learned that you didn't participate at all in the Gameplay discussion we all had on these forums when that was all happening, given the subject matter. You've read the logs. But like I said, it's easy to forget what really happened when you make up your own version of history.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Onderkelkia wrote:As Kringalia has pointed out, I was not present for the government discussions. Therefore I do not know all the conversation logs involved.

I'd be shocked if I went back and learned that you didn't participate at all in the Gameplay discussion we all had on these forums when that was all happening, given the subject matter. You've read the logs. But like I said, it's easy to forget what really happened when you make up your own version of history.

My point is that I was not present in the private dialogue between the governments of TSP and Europeia, so did I not know what logs there were.

There may have only been one log, but I am not in a position to know that.

I was therefore seeking to clarify which log precisely you were referring to, given you did not bother to give further details on the matter.

---

I am not making up any version of history - I've been going off the statements given by the two governments, which are not in factual contention.

What precisely I have made up? All you are basically claiming is that my interpretation of it and the interpretation of it advanced by Europeia is wrong.

Even if that is so, which for the reasons I have stated I do not believe it is, that does not make me liar.

The last page or so of this thread could make an insomniac sleep like a baby.

Ridersyl wrote:The last page or so of this thread could make an insomniac sleep like a baby.

I need that

Solorni wrote:

Ridersyl wrote:The last page or so of this thread could make an insomniac sleep like a baby.

I need that

Just repeatedly read these exchanges. Your eyes will start drooping in no time.

Ridersyl wrote:

Solorni wrote:I need that

Just repeatedly read these exchanges. Your eyes will start drooping in no time.

One just has to look for any thread that both Onder and GR are posting in. The topic doesn't matter nor do the other participants. Hell I don't ever remember the articles that TRT write anymore because these two erase my memory over several pages of text and then I wake up at my desk the following morning too apathetic to even give the thread another look.

You would think that they could just link to previous walls of text...but no...they need to be retyped. Maybe alongside the Neutral Ground thread an Onder/GR/Uni/1otherimp thread could be made, and all these posts get moved to that thread. It would certainly clean up the rest of NSGP

As much as I sympathize with how incredibly boring this discussion is, you guys could always just not read it if you don't want to.

Tancerlo wrote:As much as I sympathize with how incredibly boring this discussion is, you guys could always just not read it if you don't want to.

I think everyone gives up once they notice that its beginning once more. I just don't think its fair for them to take over every thread with the exact same conversations and manage to get away with it because its like 5% on topic. If they want to keep on posting, they can deal with us bitching at them and making them feel unwelcomed.