NationStates

Kavagrad wrote:Jumping back a second, if I may, Gagium has stated that the only open Fascist in FCN has been gone for a long time.

Irou 3 seems pretty open.

All I'm saying is, before you make those broad statements, have a quick check.

That should have no bearing on if a region deserves such a blatant and pathetic infringement upon its sovereignty.

For example, like the FCN, despite our region being widely opposed to both fascism and communism, they are allowed to reside if they abide by our laws and customs. They probably won't get too far, but we don't ban them on sight. And there should be nothing wrong with that.

Quebecshire wrote:

Kavagrad wrote:Jumping back a second, if I may, Gagium has stated that the only open Fascist in FCN has been gone for a long time.

Irou 3 seems pretty open.

All I'm saying is, before you make those broad statements, have a quick check.

That should have no bearing on if a region deserves such a blatant and pathetic infringement upon its sovereignty.

For example, like the FCN, despite our region being widely opposed to both fascism and communism, they are allowed to reside if they abide by our laws and customs. They probably won't get too far, but we don't ban them on sight. And there should be nothing wrong with that.

If your region's Discord isn't chock full to the brim with racial slurs, open advocacy of rate hate, homophobia, genocide and racially motivated killing, I think you'll be fine.

Cedoria wrote:

Quebecshire wrote:That should have no bearing on if a region deserves such a blatant and pathetic infringement upon its sovereignty.

For example, like the FCN, despite our region being widely opposed to both fascism and communism, they are allowed to reside if they abide by our laws and customs. They probably won't get too far, but we don't ban them on sight. And there should be nothing wrong with that.

If your region's Discord isn't chock full to the brim with racial slurs, open advocacy of rate hate, homophobia, genocide and racially motivated killing, I think you'll be fine.

Those are reasonably open to interpretation (with the exception of the last two), and can easily be mistaken for serious even if not intended so.

Quebecshire wrote:

Cedoria wrote:
If your region's Discord isn't chock full to the brim with racial slurs, open advocacy of rate hate, homophobia, genocide and racially motivated killing, I think you'll be fine.

Those are reasonably open to interpretation (with the exception of the last two), and can easily be mistaken for serious even if not intended so.

They're not open to interpretation in this case. If you haven't already, I'd suggest telegramming Kavagrad and getting him to show you the collected evidence. It's impossible to argue that there was anything other then clear and plain intention once you've seen those logs.

Cedoria wrote:

Quebecshire wrote:Those are reasonably open to interpretation (with the exception of the last two), and can easily be mistaken for serious even if not intended so.

They're not open to interpretation in this case. If you haven't already, I'd suggest telegramming Kavagrad and getting him to show you the collected evidence. It's impossible to argue that there was anything other then clear and plain intention once you've seen those logs.

He already did. And it leads me to believe that if the FCN wants to act immaturely they should be ignored and left to do so, we shouldn't go on a self righteous crusade to give them attention on the front page of NS through a liberation if they are truly such a problem.

Quebecshire wrote:

Cedoria wrote:
They're not open to interpretation in this case. If you haven't already, I'd suggest telegramming Kavagrad and getting him to show you the collected evidence. It's impossible to argue that there was anything other then clear and plain intention once you've seen those logs.

He already did. And it leads me to believe that if the FCN wants to act immaturely they should be ignored and left to do so, we shouldn't go on a self righteous crusade to give them attention on the front page of NS through a liberation if they are truly such a problem.

On the contrary, them being such a problem is precisely the reason a resolution is warranted in this case.


We are giving them attention, the bad kind, the wrong kind, the kind no person should want themselves and their name associated with, and rightly so, in this instance. I fail to see that as a counter-argument for the resolution.

Cedoria wrote:

Quebecshire wrote:He already did. And it leads me to believe that if the FCN wants to act immaturely they should be ignored and left to do so, we shouldn't go on a self righteous crusade to give them attention on the front page of NS through a liberation if they are truly such a problem.

On the contrary, them being such a problem is precisely the reason a resolution is warranted in this case.


We are giving them attention, the bad kind, the wrong kind, the kind no person should want themselves and their name associated with, and rightly so, in this instance. I fail to see that as a counter-argument for the resolution.

You're just going to fuel people who are Anti-WA or don't mind that sort of immature "comedy" to support them.

Also, worth noting, isn't at least one of the people mentioned in the evidence banned from the FCN regardless?

Quebecshire wrote:

Cedoria wrote:On the contrary, them being such a problem is precisely the reason a resolution is warranted in this case.


We are giving them attention, the bad kind, the wrong kind, the kind no person should want themselves and their name associated with, and rightly so, in this instance. I fail to see that as a counter-argument for the resolution.

You're just going to fuel people who are Anti-WA or don't mind that sort of immature "comedy" to support them.

Also, worth noting, isn't at least one of the people mentioned in the evidence banned from the FCN regardless?

Some of those people include the region's Founder and other senior members, most of whom are still there. The person you speak of was not banned for any reasons related to the appalling material in FCN, and even Gagium has acknowledged. None of that changes


What other personal motives concerning a feud between FCN and some of its former members that may apply to some who support this resolution don't concerns me. What does concern me is the absolute cesspit that FCN's conversation consisted of for some time, and that many of those responsible are, contrary to disingenuous claims to the contrary, still very much active and participating members of FCN and this site. Those are the reasons why this resolution should be backed. If someone else is a former member and has a vendetta against FCN for unrelated reasons and wants to support the resolution, I don't really care. I doubt FCN does either, they're just bringing it up as a bit of disingenuous deflection.

Fuelling anti-WA people is an idiotic term. Anti-WA people will spread their nonsense regardless of what anyone does. Even if the entire WA stood stock still and never did anything for fear of annoying those opposed to it, they'd still oppose it.

Cedoria wrote:

Quebecshire wrote:You're just going to fuel people who are Anti-WA or don't mind that sort of immature "comedy" to support them.

Also, worth noting, isn't at least one of the people mentioned in the evidence banned from the FCN regardless?

Some of those people include the region's Founder and other senior members, most of whom are still there. The person you speak of was not banned for any reasons related to the appalling material in FCN, and even Gagium has acknowledged. None of that changes


What other personal motives concerning a feud between FCN and some of its former members that may apply to some who support this resolution don't concerns me. What does concern me is the absolute cesspit that FCN's conversation consisted of for some time, and that many of those responsible are, contrary to disingenuous claims to the contrary, still very much active and participating members of FCN and this site. Those are the reasons why this resolution should be backed. If someone else is a former member and has a vendetta against FCN for unrelated reasons and wants to support the resolution, I don't really care. I doubt FCN does either, they're just bringing it up as a bit of disingenuous deflection.

Fuelling anti-WA people is an idiotic term. Anti-WA people will spread their nonsense regardless of what anyone does. Even if the entire WA stood stock still and never did anything for fear of annoying those opposed to it, they'd still oppose it.

"Anti-WA people will spread their nonsense regardless of what anyone does."

Every time the WA does something stupid where it targets an innocent region, makes a blunder, or wastes time, or further faults what it should server as, it makes those comments less nonsensical.

Being a communist from a conservative region that has already had to deal with this garbage, I'd like to ask-

Is it okay to ignore the context that this bill is in? I mean, it's some no-name shady as hell puppet that posted it after being founded about four days ago. It's pretty clear that it's a smear by the UCS, a break off faction of the FCN, and it doesn't reflect well on the UCS's discord that after they've made this bureaucratic push on the FCN and now on its discord, they've either deleted their post history or made it completely impossible to check their channels as a newcomer.
Makes you wonder.

Also, I can vouch for Gagium's character, that's not something I can do for the... certain people (COUGH COUGH) who may or may not have been the puppeteers behind this bill. Indeed, it's very interesting that "Andrew Breitbart" is a Discord account used by none other than San Carlos Islands.

Why are we here to liberate the region that hosted this person rather than the region that San Carlos (at least in part) runs? Oh yeah, because that's the UCS.
Anyhow, if you've just shown up to this party and you get a whole bunch of screenshots with some definitely racist comments, it would be easy to say that this is a quick and easy liberation.

But that would just skip like 75% of the context!

Spode Humbled Minions wrote:Being a communist from a conservative region that has already had to deal with this garbage, I'd like to ask-

Is it okay to ignore the context that this bill is in? I mean, it's some no-name shady as hell puppet that posted it after being founded about four days ago. It's pretty clear that it's a smear by the UCS, a break off faction of the FCN, and it doesn't reflect well on the UCS's discord that after they've made this bureaucratic push on the FCN and now on its discord, they've either deleted their post history or made it completely impossible to check their channels as a newcomer.
Makes you wonder.

Also, I can vouch for Gagium's character, that's not something I can do for the... certain people (COUGH COUGH) who may or may not have been the puppeteers behind this bill. Indeed, it's very interesting that "Andrew Breitbart" is a Discord account used by none other than San Carlos Islands.

Why are we here to liberate the region that hosted this person rather than the region that San Carlos (at least in part) runs? Oh yeah, because that's the UCS.
Anyhow, if you've just shown up to this party and you get a whole bunch of screenshots with some definitely racist comments, it would be easy to say that this is a quick and easy liberation.

But that would just skip like 75% of the context!

None of which is even remotely relevant to the fact that FCN is indeed still responsible for exactly the things the Resolution accuses them of.

If you have evidence that UCS is responsible for same, then please, share it, and I for one would adamantly favour a similar resolution in future.
But I'm guessing you don't, and even if you do and that puts UCS on a future Resolution, it STILL doesn't justify any of the apologetics and intellectual gymnastics that FCN and co are using now to deflect from some of the appalling behavior.

Quebecshire wrote:

Cedoria wrote:
Some of those people include the region's Founder and other senior members, most of whom are still there. The person you speak of was not banned for any reasons related to the appalling material in FCN, and even Gagium has acknowledged. None of that changes


What other personal motives concerning a feud between FCN and some of its former members that may apply to some who support this resolution don't concerns me. What does concern me is the absolute cesspit that FCN's conversation consisted of for some time, and that many of those responsible are, contrary to disingenuous claims to the contrary, still very much active and participating members of FCN and this site. Those are the reasons why this resolution should be backed. If someone else is a former member and has a vendetta against FCN for unrelated reasons and wants to support the resolution, I don't really care. I doubt FCN does either, they're just bringing it up as a bit of disingenuous deflection.

Fuelling anti-WA people is an idiotic term. Anti-WA people will spread their nonsense regardless of what anyone does. Even if the entire WA stood stock still and never did anything for fear of annoying those opposed to it, they'd still oppose it.

"Anti-WA people will spread their nonsense regardless of what anyone does."

Every time the WA does something stupid where it targets an innocent region, makes a blunder, or wastes time, or further faults what it should server as, it makes those comments less nonsensical.

We're not targeting an innocent region. The Resolution targets a region that is undeniably responsible for exactly the things it's accused of, as anyone who read the relevant evidence can confirm.

I fail to see how this sort of behavior faults something the WA should serve. Interregional peace and goodwill is most definitely NOT served by permitting this behavior to remain unchallenged.

Of course, someone with agreeance with FCN's views probably wouldn't feel that way, but I'm not interested in that.

If you want nonsensical commentary, you need only examine your own posts on this very thread.

Spode Humbled Minions wrote:Also, I can vouch for Gagium's character

See the thing is, that means absolutely nothing.

Consular wrote:

Spode Humbled Minions wrote:Also, I can vouch for Gagium's character

See the thing is, that means absolutely nothing.

Indeed, it depends on the kind of character being vouched for.

Against.

Undrafted, offensive liberation that clearly makes its destructive desires known? There's no acceptable reason to vote for this.

I haven't seen the evidence to support these accusations, but I have no trouble believing them. 99 times out of 100 bigots will deny their support for bigoted views, people, and ideologies when communicating with the general public and non-bigots. I put my good faith into this resolution, and hereby declare my full support.

Boisonia wrote:99 times out of 100 bigots will deny their support for bigoted views, people, and ideologies when communicating with the general public and non-bigots.

So if I say you're a bigot and you deny it does that mean there's a 99% chance you're a bigot? Logic's flawed.

On another note if I could see the evidence that'd be great!

Wait, the WA is targeting conservatives now as well? I knew this was a left-leaning organization, but this is getting out of hand...

While I'm usually a huge supporter of the newfound use for Liberation proposals, I don't think it's effective in discouraging horrible offsite behavior. Blacklisting, proscribing, and diplomatic pressuring are the correct methodologies for dealing with a situation like this.

Plus, passing a preemptive liberation using evidence that can't be publically shared on-site is a nearly impossible task. Combine that with the lack of a draft stage on the SC forum, and you're looking at a bill that's dead-on-arrival.

To the claims at hand...
They'd need proof. Proof is not hard to come by. Look at the KREICH liberation. If proof is not forthcoming then claims of bigotry cannot really be substantiated based off of "he said, he said."

Further? While I support the use of offensive liberations against regions that subscribe and promote murderous ideologies such as fascism and communism I cannot in good conscience support one against a conservative region. Conservatism is not equivalent to fascism, regardless of how badly some people want it to be.

Again, if proof exists that FCN is a fascist region using the conservative label as a cove? Produce said proof. Until then? Prydania remains AGIANST this resolution.

Radimostan wrote:Wait, the WA is targeting conservatives now as well? I knew this was a left-leaning organization, but this is getting out of hand...

Considering the way the vote is going? No. The WA is not targeting conservative nations.

Radimostan wrote:Wait, the WA is targeting conservatives now as well? I knew this was a left-leaning organization, but this is getting out of hand...

They're not conservatives, despite the name. Contact Kavagrad, who has posted on this thread, if you wish to be telegrammed the evidence.

Boisonia wrote:I haven't seen the evidence to support these accusations, but I have no trouble believing them. 99 times out of 100 bigots will deny their support for bigoted views, people, and ideologies when communicating with the general public and non-bigots. I put my good faith into this resolution, and hereby declare my full support.

Thanks for the support, but ditto for you as well if you do want to see the evidence. Having seen it myself, I'm confident you'll see you made the correct decision.

Prydania wrote:To the claims at hand...
They'd need proof. Proof is not hard to come by. Look at the KREICH liberation. If proof is not forthcoming then claims of bigotry cannot really be substantiated based off of "he said, he said."

Further? While I support the use of offensive liberations against regions that subscribe and promote murderous ideologies such as fascism and communism I cannot in good conscience support one against a conservative region. Conservatism is not equivalent to fascism, regardless of how badly some people want it to be.

Again, if proof exists that FCN is a fascist region using the conservative label as a cove? Produce said proof. Until then? Prydania remains AGIANST this resolution...

Contact Kavagrad for proof if you want to see the logs for yourself. It demonstrates pretty convincing that this is not just a conservative region, whom I would agree we shouldn't subject to liberation.

Cedoria wrote:Contact Kavagrad, who has posted on this thread, if you wish to be telegrammed the evidence.

Why can't the evidence be produced here? The Liberate KREICH thread had the evidence shared publicly.

Prydania wrote:

Cedoria wrote:Contact Kavagrad, who has posted on this thread, if you wish to be telegrammed the evidence.

Why can't the evidence be produced here? The Liberate KREICH thread had the evidence shared publicly.

It’s my understanding that a lot of the evidence on the KReich thread ended up getting heavily cut down by the mods. That’s my recollection, anyway. TG coming your way.

I appreciate the screen shots. Those are very troubling, and very disturbing. I'm waiting to hear back from some other people. As someone who rushed to defend KREICH before those screenshots came to light? I want to cross all my t's and dot all my i's on this one.