[PASSED] Commend Sedgistan

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

If only much of that could have been included in this resolution.

But thats the point of these threads! AMOM! Since the first C&C voted on in the Security Council, its been accepted that many of the points, and 'evidence' should be included in threads instead of stuffing it into a proposal -- resolutions shouldn't read like blogs.

[A mean old man]

If only much of that could have been included in this resolution.

But thats the point of these threads! AMOM! Since the first C&C voted on in the Security Council, its been accepted that many of the points, and 'evidence' should be included in threads instead of stuffing it into a proposal -- resolutions shouldn't read like blogs.

So the reasons for him being commended are to be listed in the forums, which many people in the world do not even take the time to read and which you seem to have no problem with discarding as unnecessary anyway (considering your attitude towards drafting and discussing offsite and your decision here and in the past to just avoid a drafting thread altogether)? No! Hell, I could understand not making a "blog" in a resolution, I guess, but not even taking the time to compile and at least briefly summarize or describe as many of Sedge's contributions as possible with the space you have...

It's just lazy.

[Founder of Mongolia]

I'm inclined to agree with A Mean Old Man on this one...not everything he says mind I don't think your THAT lazy.

I wouldn't have even noticed this resolution until it came up for vote, had it not been for someone linking it to me and mainly for Gov's comments, I very rarely read the debate as to why a player is being commended or condemned and just look at the actual resolution.

Besides there is now 5 pages of debate, I very much doubt in a few weeks time when a new nation comes across Sedgistan he's going to sit down and read all the debates, instead he will look at the actual resolution. As I imagine a lot of older nations that saw this resolution slip by.

I think a lot more could be said about Sedge's achievements as I have already alluded to in an early post and it is those achievements amongst his countless others which should be taking precedence in this resolution. As many of them should be added in as possible showing that Sedge truly deserves this commendation.

[Old Zertaxia]

Govindia, aren't you just too cute! The things you say, simply priceless!

It is almost as if you think people pay attention to what you say!

I think it is rather ridiculous to debate whether or not sedge actually deserves a (note the indefinite article) commendation. I mean, really. The mean old dude is right. Sedge deserves a better commendation.

If the WA community at large insists on continuing with the silly nonsense of Commend/Condemn resolutions, I really can't see how people can say he doesn't deserve one, after all he has done for NS.

[Todd McCloud]

*Edit: Topid. You said you were commending one from each side, I hope Todd wasn't the raider side, because that's just weak. He hasn't been an active raider in ages, and, no disrespect to him, but Fox Rite didn't exactly revolutionize raiding, so.... I'm guessing you're still writing that one, or just laying smogwork.

I agree with the first point - I was a raider, but I've long retired from that side of the game, even though I tend to take the sides of raiders in debates. But, for what it's worth, Fox Rite was pretty good in a time when raiding was on the decline.

That's all I have to add to this thread, I believe.

[Topid]

*Edit: Topid. You said you were commending one from each side, I hope Todd wasn't the raider side, because that's just weak. He hasn't been an active raider in ages, and, no disrespect to him, but Fox Rite didn't exactly revolutionize raiding, so.... I'm guessing you're still writing that one, or just laying smogwork.

I agree with the first point - I was a raider, but I've long retired from that side of the game, even though I tend to take the sides of raiders in debates. But, for what it's worth, Fox Rite was pretty good in a time when raiding was on the decline.

That's all I have to add to this thread, I believe.

Well the first quote is a bit of a misquote of me. I said I thought the best of the best on each side deserve commendations, not that I personally would be the best person to go about commending raiders. I knew Todd, and I knew Sedge. I don't know many active raiders.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yet another worthy candidate felled by a superficial commendation. Yes, yes, he's done a lot of good defender work; presumably he already has been given a number of commendations from the FRA and the various defender organizations he's worked with, not to mention the many regions he's helped liberate. Why would he need another? You could have tried listing other reasons for his commendation...at the very least it would prevented this thread from deteriorating into another Liberation-style raider-versus-defender flamefest.

Against.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Yet another worthy candidate felled by a superficial commendation. Yes, yes, he's done a lot of good defender work; presumably he already has been given a number of commendations from the FRA and the various defender organizations he's worked with, not to mention the many regions he's helped liberate. Why would he need another? You could have tried listing other reasons for his commendation...at the very least it would prevented this thread from deteriorating into another Liberation-style raider-versus-defender flamefest.

Against.

Why shouldn't defenders be commended for their contributions to defending?

We certaintly wouldn't ask roleplayers do anything outside of roleplaying... this call for 'neutrality' is actually just a discrimative attack against recognizing the works of defenders.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"Discrimination" against the group that controls the SC and has sponsored most of its resolutions? Yeah, that makes sense. My point is, after going through the motions of so many defender-oriented resolutions, by now you might be sick of the constant raider-vs.-defender drama and thus willing to move on to other topics. But hey, if the whole circular-motion thing works for you, who am I to begrudge for it?

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

"Discrimination" against the group that controls the SC and has sponsored most of its resolutions? Yeah, that makes sense.

Reverse Discrimination.

[Oh my Days]

"Discrimination" against the group that controls the SC and has sponsored most of its resolutions? Yeah, that makes sense.

Reverse Discrimination.

Hmm, possibly, although I don't think that it is deliberate. I think that a lot of raiders feel that they have been persistently attacked by the SC, and have now failed to realise when a resolution comes up that is actually a celebration of one individual's achievements. I won't comment on whose fault this is, although I can sympathise with both sides.

So:
1) Does Sedge deserve a Commendation?
Yes. If he doesn't, who does?
2) Does this resolution set an anti-raider precedent, which would be a reason to oppose it for large chunks of the WA?
I've already gone and through why I think that it doesn't.
3) Does Sedge deserve a "better" Commendation?
Apart from Commend Todd McCloud, all OOC Commendations have been fairly short and sweet. The point is that generally it can be briefly explained why a player has made a fantastic contribution to the game, detailed accounts of their achievements could be kept elsewhere. Maybe we should do that, write up an extended history of every Commended player, although I expect that they will mostly have similar accounts on NSwiki and the like. The resolution could be longer, but I think that it definitely explains why Sedge has made an outstanding contribution to the game.

[Agaralia]

I voted for but my only peoblem is that I dont agree with Sedgistan's policies really but their efforts are commendable.

And the one who posted first, is he like your brother or something?

[Topid]

I voted for but my only peoblem is that I dont agree with Sedgistan's policies really but their efforts are commendable.

And the one who posted first, is he like your brother or something?

By 'posted first' do you mean me? I am not Sedge's brother, just a buddy.

"Discrimination" against the group that controls the SC and has sponsored most of its resolutions? Yeah, that makes sense.

Reverse Discrimination.

Hmm, possibly, although I don't think that it is deliberate. I think that a lot of raiders feel that they have been persistently attacked by the SC, and have now failed to realise when a resolution comes up that is actually a celebration of one individual's achievements. I won't comment on whose fault this is, although I can sympathise with both sides.

So:
1) Does Sedge deserve a Commendation?
Yes. If he doesn't, who does?
2) Does this resolution set an anti-raider precedent, which would be a reason to oppose it for large chunks of the WA?
I've already gone and through why I think that it doesn't.
3) Does Sedge deserve a "better" Commendation?
Apart from Commend Todd McCloud, all OOC Commendations have been fairly short and sweet. The point is that generally it can be briefly explained why a player has made a fantastic contribution to the game, detailed accounts of their achievements could be kept elsewhere. Maybe we should do that, write up an extended history of every Commended player, although I expect that they will mostly have similar accounts on NSwiki and the like. The resolution could be longer, but I think that it definitely explains why Sedge has made an outstanding contribution to the game.

*shocked at agreement with Oh my Days*
In fact I seem to remember people telling me I should have left parts out of Commend Todd McCloud.

[A mean old man]

I voted for but my only peoblem is that I dont agree with Sedgistan's policies really but their efforts are commendable.

And the one who posted first, is he like your brother or something?

By 'posted first' do you mean me? I am not Sedge's brother, just a buddy.

And would this buddy mind not keeping the drafting of his pal's commendation all to himself and his other buddies and be considerate enough to involve the rest of the WA in it?

I'd like a response to what I've said here, and I'll keep pressing my points until I get one.

I've given you a possible solution, as well.

[Oh my Days]

*shocked at agreement with Oh my Days*
In fact I seem to remember people telling me I should have left parts out of Commend Todd McCloud.

Then you might have a heart attack if you see what I'm planning

[Topid]

And would this buddy mind not keeping the drafting of his pal's commendation all to himself and his other buddies and be considerate enough to involve the rest of the WA in it?

As said many times before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with drafting off the NS forums. I have always drafted on the forums, until now, but each time the process is actually moot because no one does anymore than skim drafts in the SC and GA anymore. This has been the case time and time again when I and other authors have left the draft thread on the forums for weeks and hardly anyone shows up to draft, or even better, applauding the resolution at draft stage before turning on it when it was submitted, as I recall another someone doing to Commend Todd McCloud.

Do I have specific plans to draft anymore commendations outside of the NS forums? No. Do I think there is anything wrong with doing so? No. Do I think had I posted this draft on the forums, would the resolution at vote be dramatically better? No, because they haven't been in the past, GA or SC, only minor changes are ever suggested until submission is made.

You know as well as I drafting on forums rarely if ever changes anything, as it is almost always read for legality not quality.

[A mean old man]

As said many times before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with drafting off the NS forums. I have always drafted on the forums, until now, but each time the process is actually moot because no one does anymore than skim drafts in the SC and GA anymore. This has been the case time and time again when I and other authors have left the draft thread on the forums for weeks and hardly anyone shows up to draft, or even better, applauding the resolution at draft stage before turning on it when it was submitted, as I recall another someone doing to Commend Todd McCloud.

So saying "good work, I'll take a look at this later" is now "applauding."

Do I have specific plans to draft anymore commendations outside of the NS forums? No. Do I think there is anything wrong with doing so? No. Do I think had I posted this draft on the forums, would the resolution at vote be dramatically better? No, because they haven't been in the past, GA or SC, only minor changes are ever suggested until submission is made.

You know as well as I drafting on forums rarely if ever changes anything, as it is almost always read for legality not quality.

And you know as well as I that there are many people who have worked with Sedge in the past who were not notified of this resolution's drafting and were not able to participate in it. Now, for my post:

Well. As posts here in these forums are often conveniently ignored or left behind, I’m going to bring a few back that I would like you to give your thoughts on. I really don’t think I’m being unreasonable here. Then again, maybe some people just don’t want to consider what I’m saying because they’re still sore about a “blog” I wrote, or are just too stubborn to look outside of themselves and consider that, perhaps, the opinions of others who don’t necessarily agree with them or their way of doing things might actually be of value.

“This quote has been edited slightly, as it was sent in a personal telegram. Apologies for posting a private message in the public forums, as I know some have had bad experiences with me on those lines in the past, however this argument isn't anything particularly private or incriminating. It's a well-formulated argument that I don't want to waste time re-writing.”

The thing about [a small group of] defenders with the same ideology all building a resolution on their own is that there is no one to play devil's advocate, no one to question their use of words or quality of information. It is also very possible that [one] will miss details that could strengthen and perfect the writing, as has happened with this lame commendation. Everyone is going easy on each other in [this] system. While [one] might enjoy that environment, [one needs] to recognize that the opinions and ideologies of others are important for the construction of well-rounded proposals (actually, they’re important for the construction of nearly everything that involves the coming together of people of different ideologies) No, I'm not saying this only because I want a say in the drafting of the proposal; there are plenty of proposals drafted in the NSWA forums that I don't get involved in the drafting of that I will still support. Others have done the work already, and multiple ideologies have usually clashed, have come to some sort of agreements, and have improved the quality of their work. I know [some might not] think that the opinions of [certain] raiders are of any use and think that [some raiders] will oppose it simply because it’s a defender being commended, however I beg to differ. Look at Oh my Days, for example. There are still raiders out there (and people who aren’t raiders [...]) who will support something and try to help with something if it’s well justified. And a commendation of Sedge is very well justified, but this resolution barely shows that.

I can’t see what’s so wrong with that argument.

This was my proposed solution. Hey; it doesn’t even have to be me that would repeal it. You could find someone else if you like.

I have nothing against the idea of commending Sedge, however I would like for this motion to be defeated or repealed if it passes (preferably in a fashion that avoided accusations... actually, if the authors of this could agree to the repeal and agree to do another drafting in these forums, then put some time into it while considering the opinions of those here who would like to participate, that would be the best situation - though that might be a pipe dream). Most of you can figure out why from my previous posts. Unibot and I have had a chat and I believe he has a better understanding of my feelings towards this now, as well.

I'd be happy to work out a friendly repeal on this one with the authors and in these forums - note the word friendly. Nothing like my last... well, you get my point. That one wasn't pulled together with discretion in mind.

...resolutions shouldn't read like blogs.

Oh, and my restraint of my temper yesterday kept me from responding to this little snipe, but since Unibot has decided to bring this back into the discussions here in the WASC forums (something I have avoided doing out of consideration for him), I suppose I will have to speak on it.

I try to put as much detail, thought, and effort into my work here in the WA as I can, as far as resolutions, telegrams, replies, and explanations go. I see it as my duty. If it's below the character limit, I feel like there's still more to say; therefore, I say it. As far as I can tell, it has been appreciated by most of those who have commented on it. When it comes to resolutions, I write a lot for the sake of those who do not visit these forums, so as to provide a large and detailed explanation of why they should vote for what I am proposing. So don't criticize my way of writing and my choice to put more time and thought into my work if you're satisfied with lousy, incomplete, and, overall, weak work.

[Topid]

Well. As posts here in these forums are often conveniently ignored or left behind, I’m going to bring a few back that I would like you to give your thoughts on. I really don’t think I’m being unreasonable here. Then again, maybe some people just don’t want to consider what I’m saying because they’re still sore about a “blog” I wrote, or are just too stubborn to look outside of themselves and consider that, perhaps, the opinions of others who don’t necessarily agree with them or their way of doing things might actually be of value.

I do ignore many of your posts that I read as rude. I will continue to try to do so. Just like the above comment, you come of as terribly rude in many debates, and thus I do not respond. This is a policy I do not always follow as well as I should many times, as we both know. But I know I have a temper, so I should be wary of responding to posts I read as rude.

The thing about [a small group of] defenders with the same ideology all building a resolution on their own is that there is no one to play devil's advocate, no one to question their use of words or quality of information. It is also very possible that [one] will miss details that could strengthen and perfect the writing, as has happened with this lame commendation. Everyone is going easy on each other in [this] system. While [one] might enjoy that environment, [one needs] to recognize that the opinions and ideologies of others are important for the construction of well-rounded proposals (actually, they’re important for the construction of nearly everything that involves the coming together of people of different ideologies) No, I'm not saying this only because I want a say in the drafting of the proposal; there are plenty of proposals drafted in the NSWA forums that I don't get involved in the drafting of that I will still support. Others have done the work already, and multiple ideologies have usually clashed, have come to some sort of agreements, and have improved the quality of their work. I know [some might not] think that the opinions of [certain] raiders are of any use and think that [some raiders] will oppose it simply because it’s a defender being commended, however I beg to differ. Look at Oh my Days, for example. There are still raiders out there (and people who aren’t raiders [...]) who will support something and try to help with something if it’s well justified. And a commendation of Sedge is very well justified, but this resolution barely shows that.

I can’t see what’s so wrong with that argument.

Can you give me a specific example of what you think was left out of this resolution? I considered adding his regional contributions, but once again I remember an opinion that the arguments of SC proposals should stick to contributions that have helped the game as a whole, not just one region. I see some validity to these arguments, though I obviously feel that major contributions in major regions do have an impact on the world. So with that in mind, what critical information has been left out?

This was my proposed solution. Hey; it doesn’t even have to be me that would repeal it. You could find someone else if you like.

I have nothing against the idea of commending Sedge, however I would like for this motion to be defeated or repealed if it passes (preferably in a fashion that avoided accusations... actually, if the authors of this could agree to the repeal and agree to do another drafting in these forums, then put some time into it while considering the opinions of those here who would like to participate, that would be the best situation - though that might be a pipe dream). Most of you can figure out why from my previous posts. Unibot and I have had a chat and I believe he has a better understanding of my feelings towards this now, as well.

I'd be happy to work out a friendly repeal on this one with the authors and in these forums - note the word friendly. Nothing like my last... well, you get my point. That one wasn't pulled together with discretion in mind.

If Sedge asks for a repeal personally I will draft it, if Sedge supports a repeal personally I will support it. In all other situations, I will do neither.

EDIT: I actually greatly appreciate that last paragraph I quoted, and thought I should point that out.

[A mean old man]

Well. As posts here in these forums are often conveniently ignored or left behind, I’m going to bring a few back that I would like you to give your thoughts on. I really don’t think I’m being unreasonable here. Then again, maybe some people just don’t want to consider what I’m saying because they’re still sore about a “blog” I wrote, or are just too stubborn to look outside of themselves and consider that, perhaps, the opinions of others who don’t necessarily agree with them or their way of doing things might actually be of value.

I do ignore many of your posts that I read as rude. I will continue to try to do so. Just like the above comment, you come of as terribly rude in many debates, and thus I do not respond. This is a policy I do not always follow as well as I should many times, as we both know. But I know I have a temper, so I should be wary of responding to posts I read as rude.

Oh, it's because I'm rude!
I think I can come across as harsh sometimes, though not always rude. Yes, there are times I can unintentionally speak in a rude manner, especially when people bullshit me after I try to start things off nicely - which is what I usually do - start off as civil as possible, then, if I'm feeling bullshitted, start to get progressively harsher. Usually, I don’t initiate the disrespect myself, either. I guess the temper is a personal flaw, but it doesn't cancel out the points I'm making. An example of a situation like this would have been the old "Liberated Regions and their Liberators" debate.

So, please, explain to me how these posts are "rude" -

Post - initial response, trying to be as reserved as possible...

Post - a response to rudeness directed at myself, in fact.

Post - the proposed solution…

Post - bringing back my ideas…

Post – Though this was a bit accusatory in nature, I could hardly consider it “rude.”

So you avoid responding to “rude” posts. Yet how were any of these “rude?” It will be interesting to understand – please, enlighten me.

So, in response to what you claim to be “rudeness,” you simply do not reply. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was merely an excuse for attempting to brush me off and, not to wear the word out, belittle my opinions and involvement here. Like I said, everything seems peachy with Unibot and pals until I speak up in opposition of something. Then everything I say is suddenly not worth an ounce of anyone's precious consideration.
So, in response to my request for a reply, you call me “rude” and therefore deem that I am not worth replying to? How hypocritically rude is that? How can you say that and not expect it to make me angry and therefore act rude in return? Is that your idea of how to shut me down? You’re gravely mistaken.

If I’m so rude, you could have replied to the numerous other people who echoed my concerns – or are they now “rude” as well because they have agreed with me?

If you’re willing to return to civil conversation, I’ll gladly oblige. If not, we’re going to have problems - for the umpteenth time.

The thing about [a small group of] defenders with the same ideology all building a resolution on their own is that there is no one to play devil's advocate, no one to question their use of words or quality of information. It is also very possible that [one] will miss details that could strengthen and perfect the writing, as has happened with this lame commendation. Everyone is going easy on each other in [this] system. While [one] might enjoy that environment, [one needs] to recognize that the opinions and ideologies of others are important for the construction of well-rounded proposals (actually, they’re important for the construction of nearly everything that involves the coming together of people of different ideologies) No, I'm not saying this only because I want a say in the drafting of the proposal; there are plenty of proposals drafted in the NSWA forums that I don't get involved in the drafting of that I will still support. Others have done the work already, and multiple ideologies have usually clashed, have come to some sort of agreements, and have improved the quality of their work. I know [some might not] think that the opinions of [certain] raiders are of any use and think that [some raiders] will oppose it simply because it’s a defender being commended, however I beg to differ. Look at Oh my Days, for example. There are still raiders out there (and people who aren’t raiders [...]) who will support something and try to help with something if it’s well justified. And a commendation of Sedge is very well justified, but this resolution barely shows that.

I can’t see what’s so wrong with that argument.

Can you give me a specific example of what you think was left out of this resolution? I considered adding his regional contributions, but once again I remember an opinion that the arguments of SC proposals should stick to contributions that have helped the game as a whole, not just one region. I see some validity to these arguments, though I obviously feel that major contributions in major regions do have an impact on the world. So with that in mind, what critical information has been left out?

I’ve highlighted a few key details in this post:

His involvement in the SC has been of the highest standard, despite opposition, from certain quarters, he has shaped and pioneered the way in which the World Assembly (now the Security Council) operates.
…
Sedge's involvement in regions such as GRA has been exceptional to say the least. You only have to look at the regional population jump to see this. But recruiting isn't everything, it needs to be combined with being an all round statesmen and politician. Thankfully Sedge is equipped with such talent having held a plethora of jobs in multiple regions, showing he can work with just about anyone in just about any situation, throughout his time in NS. You'll have to find someone else to list them all it's too late for me to do that He has also been involved in a number of defensive organisations most notably the FRA, where he has held key roles throughout his time as a defender.
…
He has revolutionised the way in which the defender game operates and has been a key figure in our success. Whether you dislike the entire defender/raider game or not, it is irrelevant. It is a huge area of gameplay in nationstates and will hopefully remain here for another few years to come.

Though I don’t necessarily believe that Sedge has, exactly, created a model for the entire Security Council to run under, I do believe he has made quite a few contributions to it and has had a huge influence on liberation in particular, which he has set a bit of an unofficial precedent in (which I don't think he's really recognized for, actually). The resolution, while it acknowledged his many liberations and other WASC resolutions, did not say anything more than “Sedge wrote a lot of stuff and this is what it is.” How lame is that?

I am positive that there are more contributions of his and more that could be said about those already listed. He has been involved in countless regions and has helped them build through recruitment and involvement in politics, has surely contributed to the political and size-related development of the FRA (a contribution which could be described in words, rather than in Brownie points), helped numerous new nations with their various problems whether it would benefit him or not, and has undoubtedly done even more that could have been considered and included had this actually been drafted here and had you alerted some of Sedge’s other colleagues. I’m sure they would’ve stepped up and spoken here had you asked them to.

This was my proposed solution. Hey; it doesn’t even have to be me that would repeal it. You could find someone else if you like.

I have nothing against the idea of commending Sedge, however I would like for this motion to be defeated or repealed if it passes (preferably in a fashion that avoided accusations... actually, if the authors of this could agree to the repeal and agree to do another drafting in these forums, then put some time into it while considering the opinions of those here who would like to participate, that would be the best situation - though that might be a pipe dream). Most of you can figure out why from my previous posts. Unibot and I have had a chat and I believe he has a better understanding of my feelings towards this now, as well.

I'd be happy to work out a friendly repeal on this one with the authors and in these forums - note the word friendly. Nothing like my last... well, you get my point. That one wasn't pulled together with discretion in mind.

If Sedge asks for a repeal personally I will draft it, if Sedge supports a repeal personally I will support it. In all other situations, I will do neither.

I will talk with him about it, then, though you could try making a decision for yourself; after all, the precedent here is not to get involved in the processes of one’s own commendation.

EDIT: I actually greatly appreciate that last paragraph I quoted, and thought I should point that out.

Well, thanks for saying something positive, I suppose. Hopefully you can reply to this post without feeling the need to throw around more petty insults or accusations; despite what you may think of me, I'd actually prefer we be able to communicate in a civil manner. Yeah, I’ve said some things that might make you feel the need to respond with anger, particularly about the "rudeness" comment, but like I said – I don’t usually act “rude” without feeling I have been treated with rudeness in the first place.

[Topid]

I would classify extreme hyperbole and constant references to unidentified events you deem to be past evils to be snarky and rude, yes.

Once again, I feel like the WASC is being used as a tool.

How familiar a situation this is.

And I know it very possible you don't mean to come across rude and/or snarky. I would assume it is hard to go from cranky IC to polite OOC. And also I could be finding your posts rude because I perceive you as a rude person in SC debates and a completely different fellow outside of the SC, and I've just been reading your posts looking for rude. I'll try not to judge a post by it's author so much in the future. Anyway, it comes down to the fact that your posts almost always want to make me respond angrily, whether that is your intention or not. So I don't respond. That is a good general rule to follow at all times.

I used to enjoy the dramatics of these debates, I'm too tired to do that right now.

[Kalibarr]

your posts almost always want to make me respond angrily, whether that is your intention or not. So I don't respond. That is a good general rule to follow at all times.

I have to say, If I followed this, I would not be able to post in the SC.

[A mean old man]

I would classify extreme hyperbole and constant references to unidentified events you deem to be past evils to be snarky and rude, yes.

How familiar a situation this is.

That was actually in response to Unibot's sarcasm directed at myself, which he supposedly agreed to stop a long time ago.

And I know it very possible you don't mean to come across rude and/or snarky. I would assume it is hard to go from cranky IC to polite OOC. And also I could be finding your posts rude because I perceive you as a rude person in SC debates and a completely different fellow outside of the SC, and I've just been reading your posts looking for rude. I'll try not to judge a post by it's author so much in the future. Anyway, it comes down to the fact that your posts almost always want to make me respond angrily, whether that is your intention or not. So I don't respond. That is a good general rule to follow at all times.

I used to enjoy the dramatics of these debates, I'm too tired to do that right now.

Not to mention the dramatics are mocked extensively.

I'll avoid alluding to what I deem to have been a wrong in the past, particularly revolving around what I believe to have been misuse of the WASC, then. Though in the case of something obvious such as Unibot's sarcasm, which he himself recognized as wrong and disrespectful a while ago and had told me he would stop, I won't hesitate to make allusions or get very angry.

[Bears Armed]

Hmm, possibly, although I don't think that it is deliberate. I think that a lot of raiders feel that they have been persistently attacked by the SC, and have now failed to realise when a resolution comes up that is actually a celebration of one individual's achievements. I won't comment on whose fault this is, although I can sympathise with both sides.

OOC: And failed to realise that they could propose commendations of their people, too?

[Sir Lans]

So granted, I had no idea about this until I seen it come to vote. Never the less, I am compelled to post my 2 cents on this (and no, I did not read all these pages - I'm too lazy )

First of all, I believe this resolution should be mainly about Sedges' work in The SC. I'm also trying to figure out why being *co-author of Commend Todd McCloud* is even included in this resolution. Even though Todd McCloud/Cavask claims to be retired, the fact still remains that he not only raided regions, but destroyed some of them.
Now, I do respect Sedge as a defender and a friend, but I do believe that if he is going to recieve a commendation - the fact that he co-authored something that commends a raider should be left out....I see a repeal coming when this is passed

[Reseda Island]

defenders everywhere can celebrate I am out of the W.A., now they can not possibly say I'm invading some one or up to some horrible crimes.