[PASSED] Renewable Research Commitment

by **Gantilgrim** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:59 pm

I have been informed, that my nation will be ignoring this policy, wheather it passes or not.

And no we are not resigning from WA in any case.

by **Krevantas** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:39 pm

@Discoveria - If what you gained from being involved in the site alerts you to the fact that I may not be a good judge of you being egotistical; though the evidence supports my claim; then the same amount of what you gained should also have alerted you to the fact that I have a tendency to piss off whomever I please; according to certain sources.

What they fail to realize, though, is that I tend to reply in kind. I gave you and the others the replies worthy of their posts. Had they given something of substance, I would have replied with substance. I had argued against your actual argument in another post before that one, on HenryVonHoffman. Not directly, because a few others had made similar points. I addressed a lot of points, with my counterpoints, without naming who I was responding to.

I won't repeat myself, like you seem fond of doing.

I will add, however, that the bill will have an effect. You don't think it will because it doesn't speak to you, but there are thousand of people who will act on good faith and do something in line with what this bill intends. There will be those that disregard it and still those that make the very-most minimal effort, but that comes with the territory. This bill will make a very large difference very subtly and almost unnoticeably.

by **Delegate Vinage** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:44 am

Oh wonderful - it has passed with a large majority.

Thank you those who voted aye and, well, let's hope this doesn't destroy everybody's economy and turn us all into potato-sack wearing citizens

#obvioussarcasticjoke

by **Bears Armed** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:33 am

Flibbleites wrote:
Heistrein wrote:Hmmmm... I agree with the intentions of the proposal, but I am not a huge fan of the actual wording. However, since it is a very mild proposal that doesn't do much to nations against it, I will have to rank intention over the wording.
Heistrein shall vote in favor of this proposal, but if a future proposal wants to replace this with a proposal with stronger/better wording, we will vote to repeal this to make way for the new one.

It may be written to be mild, but with it submitted under Environmental, All Businesses, the effects will be anything but.

OOC: In OOC terms, yes, but there's no real reason why that should be the case IC too is there?

by **Discoveria** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:51 am

Krevantas wrote:@Discoveria - If what you gained from being involved in the site alerts you to the fact that I may not be a good judge of you being egotistical; though the evidence supports my claim; then the same amount of what you gained should also have alerted you to the fact that I have a tendency to piss off whomever I please; according to certain sources.

I see you've moved on from personal comments to baseless accusations. What evidence?

You can piss off whomever you like if you want, but really it is bad practice in a debate.

Krevantas wrote:What they fail to realize, though, is that I tend to reply in kind. I gave you and the others the replies worthy of their posts. Had they given something of substance, I would have replied with substance. I had argued against your actual argument in another post before that one, on HenryVonHoffman. Not directly, because a few others had made similar points. I addressed a lot of points, with my counterpoints, without naming who I was responding to.

Also bad practice. If you don't address people specifically how are we supposed to respond to your objections?

You cannot simply dismiss an argument on the basis that it "lacks substance". You need to show where it is invalid or unsound. You have not done this for the arguments I made in my first post in this debate.

Krevantas wrote:I won't repeat myself, like you seem fond of doing.

Baseless accusation. Please show where I have repeated myself.

Krevantas wrote:I will add, however, that the bill will have an effect. You don't think it will because it doesn't speak to you, but there are thousand of people who will act on good faith and do something in line with what this bill intends. There will be those that disregard it and still those that make the very-most minimal effort, but that comes with the territory. This bill will make a very large difference very subtly and almost unnoticeably.

We disagree, and I think my analysis of the likely (non)effect of this bill is more accurate than yours.

If you really want to continue then I can review the entire debate and show you exactly where your arguments fail to address mine - but I don't think either of us will benefit from this and the debate is over (for now) since the resolution passed.

by **Krevantas** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:08 pm

You're arguing this because you want to be right. You're not. You're egotistical and can not accept the fact that you're wrong. I can. In fact, I admit when I'm wrong a lot. Ask anyone that knows me on NS. The furthering of this conversation is pointless and only serves to inflate your ego further, as you argue why I'm wrong simply because I made a simple deduction of your arrogance and ego, which you continue to support with your actions.

You really should take the time to reflect on who you are as opposed to who you imagine yourself to be. As for me, this is the last thing I'm going to say in this thread.

by **Discoveria** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:08 pm

@Krevantas

I'm arguing because I think that I am right and you have so far failed to convince me that I am not. That is all. If you think that is the same thing as egotism, then you are deluded.

I have reflected on the outcome of this discussion, and concluded that I am right and you are wrong. It is that simple.

Best wishes

by **Discoveria** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:38 pm

@Krevantas - apologies but there is a little more to point out. It is possible that you wrote a post that never got posted because (on review of the argument) you claimed to have answered my post in one of your posts, but the post you claim to have made cannot be found. This is about clarifying a potential misunderstanding, not about debating you further.

by **PleaseStaySafeOP** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:16 pm

Our economy has become incredibly weak since this resolution passed and tax rates have skyrocketed. We will be ignoring the resolution and don't intend to leave the WA. Thank you.

by **Aetrina** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

PleaseStaySafeOP wrote:Our economy has become incredibly weak since this resolution passed and tax rates have skyrocketed. We will be ignoring the resolution and don't intend to leave the WA. Thank you.

Hmm...well technically you can't it's factored into your Nations "stats" I agree with you on principle and voted against this resolution. There is a discussion of a repeal that you might be interested in.

by **PleaseStaySafeOP** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:44 pm

Aetrina wrote:
PleaseStaySafeOP wrote:Our economy has become incredibly weak since this resolution passed and tax rates have skyrocketed. We will be ignoring the resolution and don't intend to leave the WA. Thank you.

Hmm...well technically you can't it's factored into your Nations "stats" I agree with you on principle and voted against this resolution. There is a discussion of a repeal that you might be interested in.

Which might explain why my economy became "weak" after it was passed. I am in full support of the repeal. We are environmentally conscious but the language of the resolution was shady.

[PASSED] Renewable Research Commitment

Who is online