[Drafting] Commend United Gordonopia

[Cormactopia II]

You'll probably try to dispute that for your own obvious political reasons, but this is all somewhat tangential and I'd rather this thread didn't turn into another whining about the Lazarus purges thread.

Then you should edit the last clause of the proposal. You can't include such a controversial clause and expect that it isn't going to be the focus of discussion, as I already warned would happen.

[Onderkelkia]

I didn't even remotely imply the two organisations were similar, but thanks for that rather useless input.

The point was that Rachel's assertions are denied by members of the region itself, are seemingly fueled by personal grievances, and are really quite baseless. Much like the attacks on Balder.

You cannot assert that the claims are "quite baseless" without forming a view on the underlying facts about the FRA's role in Lazarus. If you assess the underlying facts in relation to both Lazarus and Balder, and make a judgement which draws an analogy, you are in fact claiming they are similar.

The relationship between Lazarus-FRA is much closer than the relationship between the UIAF and Balder ever was, so there is much more reason to suggest that the FRA exercises a hold over Lazarus, especially when we consider that defenders supported a coup of Lazarus to secure its membership in the FRA.

You'll probably try to dispute that for your own obvious political reasons, but this is all somewhat tangential and I'd rather this thread didn't turn into another whining about the Lazarus purges thread.

You believe that those who point out that Viktoria Gryfynn, North East Somerset and Charles Cerebella were purged illegitimately are merely "whining"?

In any case, a substantial portion of your resolution concerns Kazmr's period serving the People's Republic of Lazarus established following the purge.

The legitimacy of that regime and Kazmr's support for it are therefore entirely appropriate topics for discussion.

[Consular]

You'll probably try to dispute that for your own obvious political reasons, but this is all somewhat tangential and I'd rather this thread didn't turn into another whining about the Lazarus purges thread.

Then you should edit the last clause of the proposal. You can't include such a controversial clause and expect that it isn't going to be the focus of discussion, as I already warned would happen.

I really should have expected Onder would show up as soon as I typed "UIAF". He is very protective of his dead organisation.

However there is a pretty big disjoint here. Your issue is with the anti-NPO language used to add a bit of flare to Kazmr's actions during the NLO coup. Onder and Rachel's issue is with the clauses that celebrate Kazmr as delegate of Lazarus during its PRL phase. The last clause isn't the issue here and isn't what we're arguing about.

You believe that those who point out that Viktoria Gryfynn, North East Somerset and Charles Cerebella were purged illegitimately are merely "whining"?

Yes.

You cannot assert that the claims are "quite baseless" without forming a view on the underlying facts about the FRA's role in Lazarus. If you assess the underlying facts in relation to both Lazarus and Balder, and make a judgement which draws an analogy, you are in fact claiming they are similar.

The relationship between Lazarus-FRA is much closer than the relationship between the UIAF and Balder ever was, so there is much more reason to suggest that the FRA exercises a hold over Lazarus, especially when we consider that defenders supported a coup of Lazarus to secure its membership in the FRA.

Well yes, I suppose am "in fact claiming they are similar" in the sense that both regions have routinely suffered politically motivated and baseless slander. I have a different view of the presence of the FRA in Lazarus, probably because I don't have a ridiculously long standing personal grievance with that organisation. You can continue to throw out words claiming to illustrate that Lazarus was different because, in your mind, the FRA was controlling the place or whatever, but the folks from Lazarus don't agree with you and I don't either.

There's really no need to get all defensive about Balder's relationship with the UIAF. I've already said any claim of subversion in that case is utterly baseless.

In any case, a substantial portion of your resolution concerns Kazmr's period serving the People's Republic of Lazarus established following the purge.

The legitimacy of that regime and Kazmr's support for it are therefore entirely appropriate topics for discussion.

I can at least understand where you're coming from. I of course agree (and always have) that the PRL was illegitimate - in the sense that the purges that preceded its creation undermined its supposedly legal establishment. And more importantly in the sense that it was never much more than an NPO puppet state from the beginning - the groundwork that prepared the region for the eventual NLO fiasco.

I just don't agree that this compromises the achievements of UG, and think his delegacy of Lazarus, despite my own views of the government he led, is very much worth mentioning. I didn't support that regime but he led it well and it's worth mentioning in any overview of his successful career. His intentions matter - He certainly was not a part of the NPO's subtle (well, obvious to us at the time but apparently the defenders of Lazarus were willingly blind) manipulation of the PRL government and he actively opposed the NLO, eventually helping oversee Lazarus' transition to its current democratic form.

If you feel your politics mean you have to oppose this commendation then so be it. A rather petty approach in my opinion, but pettiness is pretty much a defining trait of NationStates "imperialism".

[Flanderlion]

I don't have anything particularly to add, I'm just curious, when do you intend to submit it, or do you at all?

Then you should edit the last clause of the proposal. You can't include such a controversial clause and expect that it isn't going to be the focus of discussion, as I already warned would happen.

The last clause isn't the issue here and isn't what we're arguing about.

I'd contend that is was a fairly big issue with the proposal.

pettiness is pretty much a defining trait of NationStates "imperialism".

I just had to fix that quote.

I think United Gordonopia has done some fairly good things in his NS career, but I can think of at least a few off the top of my head that are far more deserving. I think betraying your friends is a fairly shitty thing to do, but I guess if that's what the WA believes is commendable, I can't force my values on them.

I personally cannot support the nominee for a commendation, but I wouldn't support a commendation of Brutus for stabbing his mentor. I somehow think of his nation as a some sort of cross between Ephialtes and Judas (despite Judas bringing us Easter).

[Onderkelkia]

I really should have expected Onder would show up as soon as I typed "UIAF". He is very protective of his dead organisation.

I "turned up" to challenge the idea that there is any equivalence between the Lazarus-FRA and Balder-UIAF relationships. If you are going to assert that claiming that Lazarus is under FRA control is as baseless as claiming that Balder was UIAF control, you need to understand that the relationship Lazarus has with the FRA is much closer than anything that ever existed between the UIAF and Balder, when Balder's military was never a constituent of the UIAF.

Lazarus is only part of the FRA as a result of a coup which defenders openly admit to having supported to get it in the FRA and under their influence.

You believe that those who point out that Viktoria Gryfynn, North East Somerset and Charles Cerebella were purged illegitimately are merely "whining"?

Yes.

Then I think you are underestimating the gravity of being thrown out on false grounds to promote another faction's political agenda. This would particularly apply in the case of Griffin, the longest-serving Lazarus delegate in its recorded history, although Cerebella also provided a a fairly eloquent account.

Well yes, I suppose am "in fact claiming they are similar" in the sense that both regions have routinely suffered politically motivated and baseless slander. I have a different view of the presence of the FRA in Lazarus, probably because I don't have a ridiculously long standing personal grievance with that organisation. You can continue to throw out words claiming to illustrate that Lazarus was different because, in your mind, the FRA was controlling the place or whatever, but the folks from Lazarus don't agree with you and I don't either.

The "folks from Lazarus" now are effectively the defender political establishment's colonists, so of course they are reluctant to admit certain truths.

However, do all "the folks from Lazarus" disagree? Funkadelia is on-the-record stating that the FRA supported the purge so they had another trophy region.

As for my so-called "long standing personal grievance", what would that be? I have no personal issues with the FRA. Compared to Griffin, NES, Cerebella or other members of TNI, they have done little to me as a private individual. The LKE is engaged in hostilities with the FRA because it invaded our territory.

I can at least understand where you're coming from. I of course agree (and always have) that the PRL was illegitimate - in the sense that the purges that preceded its creation undermined its supposedly legal establishment. And more importantly in the sense that it was never much more than an NPO puppet state from the beginning - the groundwork that prepared the region for the eventual NLO fiasco.

It was "more than an NPO puppet state from the beginning" - because it was also a shared FRA puppet state. The defenders were entirely complicit. They might not have explicitly connived in Feux's own plot, but they supported the coup to secure the transformation of Lazarus into a defender regime.

There is no reason whatsoever to treat the NPO as a uniquely offending party here. The defender political establishment colluded in the situation in Lazarus and has managed to keep its claws in the region even after Feux and his party have departed (due to their own shambolic handling of the NLO fiasco).

He certainly was not a part of the NPO's subtle (well, obvious to us at the time but apparently the defenders of Lazarus were willingly blind)

The "defenders of Lazarus", including Kazmr, were "willingly blind" (as you put it) because they stood to profit from it (by making Lazarus defender).

That makes them every bit as culpable as Feux - they had different motivations to him, but their own reasons for backing the coup were equally perverse.

You would not write a commendation for Feux's actions in Lazarus. Why do the defender political establishment deserve special treatment?

If you feel your politics mean you have to oppose this commendation then so be it. A rather petty approach in my opinion, but pettiness is pretty much a defining trait of NationStates "imperialism".

The only pettiness in this thread is the resentment which you so obviously harbour towards the Imperialist sphere that you once served.

[Consular]

I don't have anything particularly to add, I'm just curious, when do you intend to submit it, or do you at all?

The draft as it stands isn't being submitted. This thread was started for feedback, and even where I'm being outright hostile or argumentative, I am still taking stuff into consideration and will rewrite accordingly. I move quite slowly with these things, sorry. It is very much being submitted eventually though, don't you worry.

I'd contend that is was a fairly big issue with the proposal.

Only for Cormac and other NPO sympathisers. I don't all too much care about those complaints. The concerns I take seriously are from the likes of Rachel and Onder, whose opinions I consider worth reading.

I think United Gordonopia has done some fairly good things in his NS career, but I can think of at least a few off the top of my head that are far more deserving. I think betraying your friends is a fairly shitty thing to do, but I guess if that's what the WA believes is commendable, I can't force my values on them.

I personally cannot support the nominee for a commendation, but I wouldn't support a commendation of Brutus for stabbing his mentor. I somehow think of his nation as a some sort of cross between Ephialtes and Judas (despite Judas bringing us Easter).

Yes he has done other things. They are also listed in the commendation, up there, above the clause you don't like (which also happens to be my favourite clause I think).

Your "values" are pretty hollow here. You try so hard to paint him as the traitor here. He didn't owe Milograd (presumably who you mean when you say his mentor) or the NPO anything, least of all a senseless and unquestioning loyalty which would have involved him allowing the total destruction of the region he loved and its assimilation into the NPO's tyranny. If your friends ask you to betray what you believe in, perhaps they aren't really your friends at all? The historical and biblical references make you sound eloquent but your point is still pretty weak, and a somewhat desperate attack on his character.

Never mind the irony of attacking his character for betraying Milo, who has a very long and illustrious record of betraying everyone around him.

[Consular]

@Onderkelkia

Yes well, you've said your piece and I acknowledged where you were coming from. As is often the case with you I have no idea what you hope to gain from continuing to repeat your (already well established) thoughts on the matter at me.

Then I think you are underestimating the gravity of being thrown out on false grounds to promote another faction's political agenda. This would particularly apply in the case of Griffin, the longest-serving Lazarus delegate in its recorded history, although Cerebella also provided a a fairly eloquent account.

You play the game. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose.

Lazarus was divided between two camps. One made a move. The other camp lost.

Some people manage to move on. That statement is great and all, but Charles actually no longer cares in the slightest.

they had different motivations to him, but their own reasons for backing the coup were equally perverse.

You would not write a commendation for Feux's actions in Lazarus. Why do the defender political establishment deserve special treatment?

Well, I suppose because I don't think it is particularly perverse for people to be defenders? I don't think it is particularly perverse to believe that players of this game shouldn't be subject to organised and moderation tolerated griefing? Now I don't really share that belief, but it is not a perverse belief, it is in fact quite noble I think, if often misguided. I am not a defender not even remotely inclined to defend really, but defending is not the same as the regime of control and oppression that the NPO has been for so many years, despite your attempts to paint it as somehow villainous.

The only pettiness in this thread is the resentment which you so obviously harbour towards the Imperialist sphere that you once served.

Maybe if you read this sentence back to yourself a few times, you might start to understand why the "imperialist sphere" has collapsed.

[Onderkelkia]

Yes well, you've said your piece and I acknowledged where you were coming from. As is often the case with you I have no idea what you hope to gain from continuing to repeat your (already well established) thoughts on the matter at me.

You acknowledged where I was coming from? On the contrary, you: 1. described my opening post as "rather useless", 2. derided my presence in the thread as merely being "very protective of [my] dead organisation" and 3. denounced all opposition to this resolution based on Kazmr's actions in Lazarus as "petty".

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about those claims, you have in fact done all you can to avoid treating my arguments as a legitimate contribution to this debate. This claim that you've "acknowledged where [I am] coming from" is but yet another maneuver to avoid engaging with my case.

You have no right to demand that the people who disagree with you simply shut up. I will accordingly continue to state my case.

Then I think you are underestimating the gravity of being thrown out on false
grounds to promote another faction's political agenda. This would particularly apply in the case of Griffin, the longest-serving Lazarus delegate in its recorded history, although Cerebella also provided a a fairly eloquent account.

You play the game. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose.

Lazarus was divided between two camps. One made a move. The other camp lost.

Some people manage to move on. That statement is great and all, but Charles actually no longer cares in the slightest.

It is hard to tell from the complete lack of specificity in your post, but your implication here is that the Imperialists and the Defender-NPO nexus were two rival factions engaged in a conflict for control of Lazarus, and the Defender-Francoist nexus won. That is utterly incorrect, as you would accept if you believed the accounts provided by Griffin and Cerebella. There were no TNI plan to gain control of Lazarus. If Griffin had wanted that, she had many opportunities to seize it. To the extent that there was a conflict before the purge, it was a reaction to Feux seeking to amass power for nefarious reasons.

There was no equivalence, nothing remotely like it, between the so-called "camps".

More generally, you appear to be saying here that the outcome of historical events does not matter and people should just "move on" rather than caring about what happened in the past. This is a certainly a novel approach. Yet if historical events are irrelevant, then why bother commending Kazmr for his role in ending the NLO coup? If we are going to adopt your attitude to previous events, why bother commending or condemning anyone for anything?

I would not expect Cerebella to remain invested in the matter, because he is no longer active in inter-regional affairs, but that does in any way not lessen the truth of what he wrote then. It was not a "great" statement because it is a masterpiece of oratory to be admired. It was and is the reality of the matter.

they had different motivations to him, but their own reasons for backing the coup were equally perverse.

You would not write a commendation for Feux's actions in Lazarus. Why do the defender political establishment deserve special treatment?

Well, I suppose because I don't think it is particularly perverse for people to be defenders? I don't think it is particularly perverse to believe that players of this game shouldn't be subject to organised and moderation tolerated griefing? Now I don't really share that belief, but it is not a perverse belief, it is in fact quite noble I think, if often misguided. I am not a defender not even remotely inclined to defend really, but defending is not the same as the regime of control and oppression that the NPO has been for so many years, despite your attempts to paint it as somehow villainous.

The issue is the culpability of the FRA and other political defenders in promoting a coup of Lazarus in order to bring it in the FRA under their influence.

That is what was being described as "perverse" in my post, as you well knew. The matter under discussion is not the general validity of defending, unless your argument is that the ends justify the means. Are you saying that that the defender political establishment's moralistic agenda means that they are entitled to be praised for seizing power in game-created regions when other organisations, such as the NPO, are condemned for the same behaviour?

The only pettiness in this thread is the resentment which you so obviously harbour towards the Imperialist sphere that you once served.

Maybe if you read this sentence back to yourself a few times, you might start to understand why the "imperialist sphere" has collapsed.

If you are making a genuine point here, rather than attempting yet another evasive maneuver, then please articulate it.

Imperialist regions today are as exactly strong as they were during 2005-2013. The third incarnation of the UIAF was a (relatively brief) exceptional period which came to end since March 2015, but Imperialist history did not begin then. Imperialist regions achieved a great deal in the period before the UIAF began. It demonstrates a complete lack of historical perspective to assume that the end of the UIAF era, now over a year ago, means that the sky is falling.