PASSED: Condemn Macedon

[Unibot]

So, let me get this straight. You think in-character laws on terrorism and refugees should be applied to out-of-character (sorry Naivetry) gameplay actions? Should we stop applying them to in-character actions as well, or are we now we going to prosecute both people and nations for terrorism? Is Belgium going to be huddled alongside Joan Scroggins in the refugee shelter?

Kuno stared blankly at the Qod Ambassador.

"Um......................................................................................................... "

So, let me get this straight. You think in-character laws on terrorism and refugees should be applied to out-of-character (sorry Naivetry) gameplay actions? Should we stop applying them to in-character actions as well, or are we now we going to prosecute both people and nations for terrorism? Is Belgium going to be huddled alongside Joan Scroggins in the refugee shelter?

Well the counterterrorism bill in question does makes reference to nations, (member-states), not just people, being condemned for using terrorism.

As stated below...

CONDEMNS the use of terrorism by any member state of the World Assembly

[Qumkent]

So, let me get this straight. You think in-character laws on terrorism and refugees should be applied to out-of-character (sorry Naivetry) gameplay actions? Should we stop applying them to in-character actions as well, or are we now we going to prosecute both people and nations for terrorism? Is Belgium going to be huddled alongside Joan Scroggins in the refugee shelter?

Kuno stared blankly at the Qod Ambassador.

"Um......................................................................................................... "

So, let me get this straight. You think in-character laws on terrorism and refugees should be applied to out-of-character (sorry Naivetry) gameplay actions? Should we stop applying them to in-character actions as well, or are we now we going to prosecute both people and nations for terrorism? Is Belgium going to be huddled alongside Joan Scroggins in the refugee shelter?

Well the counterterrorism bill in question does makes reference to nations, (member-states), not just people, being condemned for using terrorism.

As stated below...

CONDEMNS the use of terrorism by any member state of the World Assembly

It mentions in its definition of terrorism "non-state actors" by which is meant persons acting on their own without the direct support of a national policy of which they would be the executors of.

Acts of war liable to cause terror committed by a nation as part of the prosecution of a war are not covered in the WA statute in question.

Yours,

[Unibot]

It mentions in its definition of terrorism "non-state actors" by which is meant persons acting on their own without the direct support of a national policy of which they would be the executors of.

Acts of war liable to cause terror committed by a nation as part of the prosecution of a war are not covered in the WA statute in question.

As far as I know, the citizens of the Macedonian empire are not acting under obligations to their nation, but under the doctrine of a radical group (region) which is hellbent on conquering the world, and spreading Macedonism. Making them non-state actors.

As far as "Acts of War" not liable to cause terror, I see that to be a fair point. But what about the psychological warfare that comes with Macedonism - the obscene lines that are spoken by their members to put fear into the minds of the region natives. They seem to be causing terror, without even needing to launch a traditional attack on a region, they are spreading terror to the masses to help them gain their imperialistic gains quicker and easier. That's my interpretation of that clause of the resolution, anyway, and how it relates. But I'm open to debate.

[Qumkent]

It mentions in its definition of terrorism "non-state actors" by which is meant persons acting on their own without the direct support of a national policy of which they would be the executors of.

Acts of war liable to cause terror committed by a nation as part of the prosecution of a war are not covered in the WA statute in question.

As far as I know, the citizens of the Macedonian empire are not acting under obligations to their nation, but under the doctrine of a radical group (region) which is hellbent on conquering the world, and spreading Macedonism. Making them non-state actors.

As far as "Acts of War" not liable to cause terror, I see that to be a fair point. But what about the psychological warfare that comes with Macedonism - the obscene lines that are spoken by their members to put fear into the minds of the region natives. They seem to be causing terror, without even needing to launch a traditional attack on a region, they are spreading terror to the masses to help them gain their imperialistic gains quicker and easier. That's my interpretation of that clause of the resolution, anyway, and how it relates. But I'm open to debate.

These are nations, and the WA has no other option but to treat them as such.

As for the rest does your Excellency seriously consider anything you describe to be actual terrorism as defined by the law ? If so then we fear for your Excellency's ability to comprehend the written word.

Yours,

[Unibot]

The Counterterrorism act is a moot point, alas the Qumkent ambassador is correct. The Macedonian Empire surely cannot be defined as a terrorism organization with the current definition.

As for the rest does your Excellency seriously consider anything you describe to be actual terrorism as defined by the law ? If so then we fear for your Excellency's ability to comprehend the written word.

OOC: Fuck it, I'm tired. Macedon is bad. baddddd I say!

Some one needs to write a good "Ban Forced Emigration" in the GA. Maybe I'll get to it, but as many ambassadors know - my penmanship is, regrettably bad.

[Havensky]

The Skybound Republic of Havensky
Official Statement

The Skybound Republic of Havensky supports the Condemnation of the villainous greifer region Macedon in the strongest terms possible. The Skybound Republic finds the actions of Macedon's military completely despicable and runs amok of basic values of freedom and self-determination.

The fact is that Macedon has participated in numerous greifings where they have invaded a neutral region, taken over the delegate position by force, ejected native nations and prevented them from returning home. These facts are indisputable.

Yes, the Skybound Republic acknowledges that they may not have done anything illegal per se. Their actions may be within the laws of the universe (gameplay rules) and may not have broken any WA laws (as WA laws prior to this could not be passed regarding gameplay).

However, they have trampled on the rights of nations and regions without regard. The right of self-determination for both nations and regions is sacrosanct. Regions have the right to exists in the way they best see fit. At the national level, we regard this right as the right of National Sovereignty. We would argue that regions have the right to a degree of Sovereignty as well. Many regions have constitutions, popular elections, off-site communities, armed forces - they are almost nations within themselves. They have a right to govern themselves the way the see fit.

Invaders attack this right by seizing the delegate position. In some cases, the invaders leave without causing any permanent damage and life goes on.This does not justify these invasions, and as a Defender Nation we are bound to stop them whenever we can. However, what Macedon does is permanently destroy these communities. This leaves the natives without a home - and with no recourse to ever regain their homeland.

It's wrong. Pure and Simple.

While we acknowledge that this Resolution does nothing to resolve the plight of regions like Belgium and France - it does allow us to express anger at the actions of this scum. Until there is a day where we can take further action, the Skybound Republic will stand by resolutions such as this and continue to express our deepest anger for those who trample on the rights of others.

Freedom! Liberty! And the Pursuit of all who threaten it!

Sir Kristopher Windcharmer
Havensky Ambassador to the World Assembly
Skybound Republic of Havensky

[Jey]

if this organisation's actions are not informed directly by the laws it has passed then it's actions become arbitrary and bereft of logic, they become dictatorial and unjust ( in that they have no basis in legal justice ) and they are whimsical and pointless.

The need for a condemnation to be based on actual infractions of actual laws should be axiomatic or otherwise we descend in to a chaos of rule by a mob of nations.

The entire Jevian delegation rises and applauds wildly.

We thank you, representatives of Qumkent, for so cogently explaining the legal ramifications of this condemnation.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Representative

[Absolvability]

IC:

With no legal framework to define the actual transgression of Macedon, and with no evidence to prove all the numerous other accusation supporters of this action seem to wish to pile up endlessly how on earth is anyone to believe that this condemnation has any rational or legal basis ?

Well, I disagree that no legal framework exists to define the transgressions of Macedon. My arguement is admittedly abstract, so please give me some room to move here. First of all... lets ignore the fact that we're discussing matters of war. War occurs when two parties escalate grievances to a point that violence seems the only solution. Winner take all. It is an intentional circumvention of right or wrong... since right or wrong can not be agreed upon, and therefore the strongest wins. Personally, I do not agree with this approach. I feel it displays a lack of development on behalf of both parties involved... notwithstanding the occasions where a nation may simply be defending itself from an aggressor. War is a terrible thing but it is legal because banning any such practices would be impossible. So lets take the word 'war' away from war.

What are we left with? Murder. Good Ambassador, you don't even support the death penalty. There is no international law prohibiting it... but you call it murder. So how are you seriously defending murder in this instance? Or Macedon imposing such drastic cultural overhauls on native citizens and nations of a region that they might either die, be made slaves of, be exiled, or willfully become a refugee?

And who is Absolvability to decide the moral rectitude of Imperialism ? Indeed you seem to be using the term as an insult as though without your Excellency's own fatuous justifications such a policy is invalid, on what moral basis do you make that presumption honoured Ambassador ?

I do not find Imperialism in itself to be immoral. If I seemed to be insulting the practice I was only meaning to insult the methods used by Macedon to expand their empire. I wasn't very knowledgable of Macedon, but I've been paying attention to this debate and have done a little research into the matter within my region. I do not think I should be anybody's standard for morality, Ambassador, but I am quite confident that Macedon exhibits a condemnable lack of morality.

[Jey]

We would just like to remind the ambassador from Absolvability that legal jurisdictions almost unanimously agree with the right to self defense when posed with imminent threat of deadly force. If an individual kills another in self defense, it is not "murder," it is a killing. A battlefield in a war, surely, would include imminent threat of deadly force, yes? Our soldiers are not murderers.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Representative

[Qumkent]

IC:

With no legal framework to define the actual transgression of Macedon, and with no evidence to prove all the numerous other accusation supporters of this action seem to wish to pile up endlessly how on earth is anyone to believe that this condemnation has any rational or legal basis ?

Well, I disagree that no legal framework exists to define the transgressions of Macedon. My arguement is admittedly abstract, so please give me some room to move here. First of all... lets ignore the fact that we're discussing matters of war. War occurs when two parties escalate grievances to a point that violence seems the only solution. Winner take all. It is an intentional circumvention of right or wrong... since right or wrong can not be agreed upon, and therefore the strongest wins. Personally, I do not agree with this approach. I feel it displays a lack of development on behalf of both parties involved... notwithstanding the occasions where a nation may simply be defending itself from an aggressor. War is a terrible thing but it is legal because banning any such practices would be impossible. So lets take the word 'war' away from war.

What are we left with? Murder. Good Ambassador, you don't even support the death penalty. There is no international law prohibiting it... but you call it murder. So how are you seriously defending murder in this instance? Or Macedon imposing such drastic cultural overhauls on native citizens and nations of a region that they might either die, be made slaves of, be exiled, or willfully become a refugee?

And who is Absolvability to decide the moral rectitude of Imperialism ? Indeed you seem to be using the term as an insult as though without your Excellency's own fatuous justifications such a policy is invalid, on what moral basis do you make that presumption honoured Ambassador ?

I do not find Imperialism in itself to be immoral. If I seemed to be insulting the practice I was only meaning to insult the methods used by Macedon to expand their empire. I wasn't very knowledgable of Macedon, but I've been paying attention to this debate and have done a little research into the matter within my region. I do not think I should be anybody's standard for morality, Ambassador, but I am quite confident that Macedon exhibits a condemnable lack of morality.

Our entire argument would be obviated if the Security Council had seen fit to legislate in this area, if it had introduced laws or regulations which Macedon had defied then it would make perfect sense to condemn them in the strongest possible terms, indeed we might even have been persuaded of the right in doing so.

Now we don't imagine that such regulations would be enforceable in quite the same way as GA resolutions would be, but if conventions ratified by the SC and generally adhered to by most members were flagrantly ignored and insulted by any state or region then it would make perfect sense and indeed would be perfectly just to condemn such miscreants.

However in the absence of such regulations there is no criteria by which to judge the actions of Macedon, as far as they knew they were behaving in a perfectly lawful manner and indeed will be justified in continuing to think so.

The SC must provide a regulatory framework, even if it is not enforced by the World Assembly Compliance Commission, which will then inform future decisions of this sort.

Yours,

O.O.C. what I'm suggesting is a resolution outlining certain basic codes of player conduct, which because they cannot be enforced by game mechanics would be enforced by condemnations and commendations, without these then we're all in a legal no man's land because how the hell are we supposed to judge what is right conduct and what isn't ? This can't just be about condemning players because they happen to be irritating to a particularly large minority, there has to be a reasoning and a codified justification.

[Absolvability]

O.O.C. what I'm suggesting is a resolution outlining certain basic codes of player conduct, which because they cannot be enforced by game mechanics would be enforced by condemnations and commendations, without these then we're all in a legal no man's land because how the hell are we supposed to judge what is right conduct and what isn't ? This can't just be about condemning players because they happen to be irritating to a particularly large minority, there has to be a reasoning and a codified justification.

OOC: I'd support such a resolution, depending on what exactly it outlined. But until that day I (or my ambassador,) see no need to act as though I am lost in the dark without a codified set of guidelines. What is or isn't 'moral,' as it has been put, is hardly ever adequately defined by law. I think we all have some inner compass for such direction though. And while a single person shouldn't be given the steering wheel, a WA majority vote satisfies me. These C&Cs are addressing moral, not legal. There is a difference. And it is also the reason why, for now, these resolutions bring no game-effects to the table. Plus... and this isn't a jab, simply a fact of my opinion... I might consider your point a little more if you hadn't voted FOR the last condemnation which specified zero remotely illegal actions on Gatesville's behalf. At least this one comes close.

[Qumkent]

O.O.C. what I'm suggesting is a resolution outlining certain basic codes of player conduct, which because they cannot be enforced by game mechanics would be enforced by condemnations and commendations, without these then we're all in a legal no man's land because how the hell are we supposed to judge what is right conduct and what isn't ? This can't just be about condemning players because they happen to be irritating to a particularly large minority, there has to be a reasoning and a codified justification.

OOC: I'd support such a resolution, depending on what exactly it outlined. But until that day I (or my ambassador,) see no need to act as though I am lost in the dark without a codified set of guidelines. What is or isn't 'moral,' as it has been put, is hardly ever adequately defined by law. I think we all have some inner compass for such direction though. And while a single person shouldn't be given the steering wheel, a WA majority vote satisfies me. These C&Cs are addressing moral, not legal. There is a difference. And it is also the reason why, for now, these resolutions bring no game-effects to the table. Plus... and this isn't a jab, simply a fact of my opinion... I might consider your point a little more if you hadn't voted FOR the last condemnation which specified zero remotely illegal actions on Gatesville's behalf. At least this one comes close.

OOC to be a hundred percent honest with you until some one turns around and say we passed a set of conventions regarding how GPers play and the huge majority of us abide by them and this crowd haven't and are clearly contravening X convention and Y convention then I can't understand why anyone should take any of this seriously.

Moral compass blah blah blah, I'd find Macedon's activities extremely annoying out of character but morally wrong ? Are you serious ? In character the need for a structured approach to universally defining what is and what is not condemnable is vital if anyone is to believe that those for whom this part of the WA was built take it at all seriously and have any interest in using it to expand and augment the entire game and their aspect of it.

The WA makes and enforces international laws, it's not a chat show were the audience pushes buttons to vote on which skank on stage should go home with her man and which is Ho.

What we feel and what we think do not matter in an organisation like the WA unless those thought and feelings are backed by the law, or really there is absolutely no point at all in having a WA, period.

[Absolvability]

The WA makes and enforces international laws, it's not a chat show were the audience pushes buttons to vote on which skank on stage should go home with her man and which is Ho.

And the WA enforces this via mandatory compliance... via game-coding. The Security Council seems to be the RP side of it all. And I don't mean to say that this isn't probably amusing to GPers as well. But to people like us... who were perfectly content confining ourselves, for the most part, with legal matters... well, we should take this oppurtunity to express opinions on how GP actions can be reflected in the RP world. It's the only real way to reconcile any of this, isn't it?

We can't go by laws. If it were about laws then there would be no indescretions. Except RP. Perhaps Macedon doesn't 'RP.' I don't know. But it's the only 'world' that we all share. It's the only logical way to apply any of this. My character finds the actions of Macedon condemnable. I do not think this requires a lot of thought. And the OOC fact that they then lock the regions makes the case even more one-sided.

I just don't really see how you can deny any of this to be condemnable. You seem to want to alter the way C&C's work... that's fine, and I agree for the most part. But until that happens you might as well deal with the issues the best way you know how.

[Qumkent]

The WA makes and enforces international laws, it's not a chat show were the audience pushes buttons to vote on which skank on stage should go home with her man and which is Ho.

And the WA enforces this via mandatory compliance... via game-coding. The Security Council seems to be the RP side of it all. And I don't mean to say that this isn't probably amusing to GPers as well. But to people like us... who were perfectly content confining ourselves, for the most part, with legal matters... well, we should take this oppurtunity to express opinions on how GP actions can be reflected in the RP world. It's the only real way to reconcile any of this, isn't it?

We can't go by laws. If it were about laws then there would be no indescretions. Except RP. Perhaps Macedon doesn't 'RP.' I don't know. But it's the only 'world' that we all share. It's the only logical way to apply any of this. My character finds the actions of Macedon condemnable. I do not think this requires a lot of thought. And the OOC fact that they then lock the regions makes the case even more one-sided.

I just don't really see how you can deny any of this to be condemnable. You seem to want to alter the way C&C's work... that's fine, and I agree for the most part. But until that happens you might as well deal with the issues the best way you know how.

O.O.C.

Did you read what I wrote ? I've suggested that the SC formulate a set of voluntary and self enforced conventions regarding GP, since C&Cs have no actual game effects they would be perfect for making it clear when nations or regions have opted out of abiding by these conventions or when they have violated them while pretending to abide by them.

The point is that the game allows Macedon to do what they do and their are no game rules against it, there are also no GA laws which cover their actions therefore it is the responsibility of the SC to develop guidelines for the future by which we can all judge whether a nation or a region should be condemned or commended.

Otherwise this is all just speculative crap driven by the prejudices of who ever wrote the C or C and who ever shouts the loudest in the debate.

Give us all the conventions and then this process will become infinitely simpler and will remain in keeping with what the WA actually is rather than perverting it to the uses of those who want to use it to stigmatise and alienate those they just don't like or have some vague bad feeling about.

[Absolvability]

Did you read what I wrote ?

Of course. I read everything I reply to in its entirety. Did you read what I wrote?

I said I agree with all of that. I also said that, until such a time comes, we need not forsake what is presently upon us.

[Goobergunchia]

[OOC: How would one promulgate such regulations through the current World Assembly process? I don't see a way of doing this via existing WA categories. (Obviously, this could be remedied through the addition of future categories, but that's a bridge we haven't crossed yet.)]

[Super-Chechnya]

More evidence of the cleansing:

Hellenic Republic

[Havensky]

I would have loved to pass a resolution against greifing a long time ago - but it would have been deemed illegal the minute it hit the floor. Don't penalize the current resolution because we havn't been given the tools to set up policies regarding gameplay through the WA.

Furthermore, if you must look for precedent, take note that greifing was a major rule violation prior to influence. Clearly - if it was morally wrong then - then its still wrong.

The authors intent for influence was to have the game self-regulate (and prevent) greifing issues. In this case, the laws of unexpected consequnces have caused situations like France and Belgium to occur.

Which is why things are changing

[Qumkent]

OOC.

[OOC: How would one promulgate such regulations through the current World Assembly process? I don't see a way of doing this via existing WA categories. (Obviously, this could be remedied through the addition of future categories, but that's a bridge we haven't crossed yet.)]

OK so until some enterprising GPer bothers themselves to suggest the creation of a SC resolution category which would cover play conventions and standards of conduct we should all be delighted that the WA is being used to settle the scores of GPers in a way which precludes anyone not directly involved in the score settling from coming to an informed and justified decision on how to vote on a C or C ? If GPers want to use the powers of an organisation which formulates and enforces international laws then they have to hold how they use those powers up to proper scrutiny and allow all WA members to have at least some opportunity to decide whether or not they think the current use of powers is responsible or not.

I would have loved to pass a resolution against greifing a long time ago - but it would have been deemed illegal the minute it hit the floor. Don't penalize the current resolution because we havn't been given the tools to set up policies regarding gameplay through the WA.

Furthermore, if you must look for precedent, take note that greifing was a major rule violation prior to influence. Clearly - if it was morally wrong then - then its still wrong.

The authors intent for influence was to have the game self-regulate (and prevent) greifing issues. In this case, the laws of unexpected consequnces have caused situations like France and Belgium to occur.

Which is why things are changing

Right but what do GPers rush to do first ? Create conventions of behaviour which they will hold themselves to and condemn those who violate them ? Or simply set about using the institutions of the WA to settle scores with players they dislike and want to eradicate if they can ?

Let's be honest what Macedon does isn't actually morally wrong at all, stealing, beating someone up, being hateful, spiteful and nasty to people these kinds of things are morally wrong. What Macedon does is a right royal pain in the arse and it does upset some people ( though I don't think that's the motive actually ), so claiming OOC moral authority on this is just an attempt to cloud the issue.

The need for the WA to behave in ways which are capable of being held up to scrutiny, and the need for those who use its power to use it responsibly is paramount if the SC is to go on to unify all WA players and not just turn in to an arena for the settling of scores, ostracisation, alienation and the exercise of arbitrary personal prejudices.

[Absolvability]

Let's be honest what Macedon does isn't actually morally wrong at all, stealing, beating someone up, being hateful, spiteful and nasty to people these kinds of things are morally wrong. What Macedon does is a right royal pain in the arse and it does upset some people ( though I don't think that's the motive actually ), so claiming OOC moral authority on this is just an attempt to cloud the issue.

Well, that's debatable. I certainly wouldn't say it's on the same level as the rest of what you list, but still. They take advantage of regions that are open to being raided. Maybe they are just very careless and decided not to password protect their region. I find that to be unlikely. More likely, they do not want to deny themselves that aspect of the game. Hell, in a weird way, they might find being raided to be fun. On an RP level, or even a GP level. They give tacit consent to be raided. I believe other voices amoung us have said that raiding isn't the problem here. The problem is that Macedon comes in... takes advantage of these people... and then password protects the regions. I find this to be immoral. It's akin to cheating at a game. No big deal, but immoral just the same. They enter into a conflict by one set of rules and then, once they've won via raider blitzkrieg, they alter the rules and effectively end the game. Weak.

But really that's not what this is about. As I've said before, I always cast my vote ICly. If these GP actions reflect into the RP world we see war after war after war. How many people have died? How many more exiled from their native lands? This is immoral without question.

[Qumkent]

Let's be honest what Macedon does isn't actually morally wrong at all, stealing, beating someone up, being hateful, spiteful and nasty to people these kinds of things are morally wrong. What Macedon does is a right royal pain in the arse and it does upset some people ( though I don't think that's the motive actually ), so claiming OOC moral authority on this is just an attempt to cloud the issue.

Well, that's debatable. I certainly wouldn't say it's on the same level as the rest of what you list, but still. They take advantage of regions that are open to being raided. Maybe they are just very careless and decided not to password protect their region. I find that to be unlikely. More likely, they do not want to deny themselves that aspect of the game. Hell, in a weird way, they might find being raided to be fun. On an RP level, or even a GP level. They give tacit consent to be raided. I believe other voices amoung us have said that raiding isn't the problem here. The problem is that Macedon comes in... takes advantage of these people... and then password protects the regions. I find this to be immoral. It's akin to cheating at a game. No big deal, but immoral just the same. They enter into a conflict by one set of rules and then, once they've won via raider blitzkrieg, they alter the rules and effectively end the game. Weak.

But really that's not what this is about. As I've said before, I always cast my vote ICly. If these GP actions reflect into the RP world we see war after war after war. How many people have died? How many more exiled from their native lands? This is immoral without question.

Yeah you've proved my point, that this voting process is being driven by completely arbitrary personal prejudices, completely unjustifiable personal opinions and completely subjective reasoning.

If the "morality" of Macedon's actions could be proven by comparison to a code of conduct it would be enormously less debatable, if GP conventions existed we would have no reason to pretend that there were vast numbers of pretended war dead ( which are not mentioned in this condemnation by the way, and are therefore not really in contention ), if we all had a clear reasoning provided by a set of codes of conduct to make clear decisions about why someone or some group are being condemned or commended then we could all be confident that the WA was acting in the interests of its actual purpose and not just settling hash for this group or the other.

[Absolvability]

Yeah you've proved my point, that this voting process is being driven by completely arbitrary personal prejudices, completely unjustifiable personal opinions and completely subjective reasoning.

But aren't you being equally subjective? To say that personal opinions are arbitrary, when we can all clearly see what Macedon has done? To refer to these opinions as being prejudiced? The most important part of the word prejudice is the beginning. You might consider this condemnation to be postjudice. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Personally, I made it a point to investigate the matter. I do not find these opinions to be unjustifiable.

I think you fail to appreciate certain things. You might consider the very existance of C&Cs to be something of an appeasement to GPers/RPers. Similarly, the fact that C&Cs carry with them no game-effects is an appeasement to us. The reasons for these seems to be that this is not an exclusively IC category. So while I urge people like you to reconcile what is said OOCly with logical IC reflections, I do so for our peace of mind not to try and alter the way it works.

Since it is not exclusively an IC category I wonder what you think the conventions will do exactly? Surely not pass laws. We have a GA for that. Surely not to invite game-mechanics into the fray? We don't want that. These conventions you speak of will pretty much be a long unaimed list of C&Cs. Sure, that'll give us somethign to go by... but what's the difference?

Consider, if you will, that C&Cs ARE these conventions. That we're deciding right now what is right or wrong. Are you prepared to declare what Macedon does is right? OOCly? ICly? Consider that C&Cs will be a platform from which we take our next step. Liberation resolutions. Perhaps... and this just occurred to me... a Liberation resolution should only be able to be written for a region that has been condemned. Would this be a step towards satisfying you?

[Qumkent]

Yeah you've proved my point, that this voting process is being driven by completely arbitrary personal prejudices, completely unjustifiable personal opinions and completely subjective reasoning.

But aren't you being equally subjective? To say that personal opinions are arbitrary, when we can all clearly see what Macedon has done? To refer to these opinions as being prejudiced? The most important part of the word prejudice is the beginning. You might consider this condemnation to be postjudice. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Personally, I made it a point to investigate the matter. I do not find these opinions to be unjustifiable.

I think you fail to appreciate certain things. You might consider the very existance of C&Cs to be something of an appeasement to GPers/RPers. Similarly, the fact that C&Cs carry with them no game-effects is an appeasement to us. The reasons for these seems to be that this is not an exclusively IC category. So while I urge people like you to reconcile what is said OOCly with logical IC reflections, I do so for our peace of mind not to try and alter the way it works.

Since it is not exclusively an IC category I wonder what you think the conventions will do exactly? Surely not pass laws. We have a GA for that. Surely not to invite game-mechanics into the fray? We don't want that. These conventions you speak of will pretty much be a long unaimed list of C&Cs. Sure, that'll give us somethign to go by... but what's the difference?

Consider, if you will, that C&Cs ARE these conventions. That we're deciding right now what is right or wrong. Are you prepared to declare what Macedon does is right? OOCly? ICly? Consider that C&Cs will be a platform from which we take our next step. Liberation resolutions. Perhaps... and this just occurred to me... a Liberation resolution should only be able to be written for a region that has been condemned. Would this be a step towards satisfying you?

OK this is pointless it's like reading Proust to a hamster. Ignored from now on so I don't have to keep explaining myself over and over and over again


Ciao.

[Silar]

What Macedon is doing is just plain wrong!!! taking over regions like that shouldn't be permitted at all. I am the delegate of a small region and would hate to have the likes of them just come and remove me! I vote for.

[Absolvability]

OK this is pointless it's like reading Proust to a hamster. Ignored from now on so I don't have to keep explaining myself over and over and over again

All I did was ask you to consider some things from a different angle. I'm not even really trying to refute what you say. Hell, I was even being civil for a change. Qumkent, you're so pretentious it hurts my eyes. You seem to think that once you say something it is final and it is fact. Not open to debate. I'm sorry if you're so intolerant of different views that you can't entertain somebody else's opinion.

You have no common sense, man. You're obviously smart but you've had your nose in books for too many years. You're the engineer that doesn't know how to build shit with his hands. You can't put ideas together in your mind, and you can't logically apply anything. You lack realism.

Idealism is fine by me. But you don't want to hear anybody else's ideas. And the foundation you stand on is ever-shifting. First you vote in favor of Condemning Gatesville because "I like Kenny," and then you rally against this because C&C's are "too subjective."

You act like somehow my belligerence precipitates your impatience and then you show yourself to be a royal dick without provocation. I only write this because I suspect you're like myself. I suspect you haven't ignored me with both of your nations/accounts. You don't really want me to say anything behind your back. I don't want to say it behind your back either. I hope you read this, if only for some closure.

At any rate... if you actually plan to ignore me henceforward and forever, I suppose I'll reciprocate. If I can't respond to your bullshit then I certainly don't want to hear it.