Advertisement
by Attancia » Thu May 21, 2020 2:27 pm
by Logon » Thu May 21, 2020 2:27 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Logon wrote:
OOC: You don't know about being nonbiased now do you?
I said it once, I'll say it again. Resign.
"Hey hey ho ho Sep Peoples has got to go!"
Ooc: please point to a situation where I, while acting in an official capacity, behaved in a biased fashion. Spoiler alert: none of my actions in this thread have been acting in an official capacity.
by The New California Republic » Thu May 21, 2020 2:29 pm
Logon wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: please point to a situation where I, while acting in an official capacity, behaved in a biased fashion. Spoiler alert: none of my actions in this thread have been acting in an official capacity.
The fact you're showing clear bias in this thread calls into question your entire legitimacy. How do we know you don't rule legal on anything that we might dislike just to spite us? See my concerns?
by Logon » Thu May 21, 2020 2:30 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Logon wrote:
The fact you're showing clear bias in this thread calls into question your entire legitimacy. How do we know you don't rule legal on anything that we might dislike just to spite us? See my concerns?
Using baseless accusations of impropriety as a weapon in a debate is just low. If you have genuine concerns then report it, instead of shamelessly using it here.
by Tinhampton » Thu May 21, 2020 2:31 pm
Logon wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Using baseless accusations of impropriety as a weapon in a debate is just low. If you have genuine concerns then report it, instead of shamelessly using it here.
I will in fact report it! But it's not baseless. If a judge for your trail openly said "I hate anyone who calls themself 'New California'" wouldn't you get worried?
It is easy to say bias doesn't exist when it's bias you agree with.
by Logon » Thu May 21, 2020 2:32 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Logon wrote:
I will in fact report it! But it's not baseless. If a judge for your trail openly said "I hate anyone who calls themself 'New California'" wouldn't you get worried?
It is easy to say bias doesn't exist when it's bias you agree with.
Where has Separatist Peoples ever said in this thread that "I hate anyone who calls himself Logon?"
by The New California Republic » Thu May 21, 2020 2:32 pm
Logon wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Using baseless accusations of impropriety as a weapon in a debate is just low. If you have genuine concerns then report it, instead of shamelessly using it here.
I will in fact report it! But it's not baseless. If a judge for your trail openly said "I hate anyone who calls themself 'New California'" wouldn't you get worried?
It is easy to say bias doesn't exist when it's bias you agree with.
by Wallenburg » Thu May 21, 2020 2:33 pm
Logon wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: please point to a situation where I, while acting in an official capacity, behaved in a biased fashion. Spoiler alert: none of my actions in this thread have been acting in an official capacity.
The fact you're showing clear bias in this thread calls into question your entire legitimacy. How do we know you don't rule legal on anything that we might dislike just to spite us? See my concerns?
"Hey hey ho ho Seps Peoples has got to go!"
by Attancia » Thu May 21, 2020 2:36 pm
by United Massachusetts » Thu May 21, 2020 2:40 pm
by Auralia » Thu May 21, 2020 2:42 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Auralia wrote:The fact that someone from GenSec would openly admit this tells us pretty much all we need to know about GA culture nowadays.
Ooc: if you feel I abused my position, you are absolutely welcome to file a report. However, since you and I both know that members of gensec are allowed to play the game as players, I doubt you'll get anywhere. Not a bad way to subtly cast aspersions on my character, but not a very effective argument. Par for the course.
by The New California Republic » Thu May 21, 2020 2:43 pm
Attancia wrote:Logon wrote:
He didn't, but he said he supported this resolution purely out of spite for pro-lifers. Worrisome, no?
Worrisome indeed. If a member of the Secretariat is showing clear bias purely because they have actively said they have a bias against a certain group, then they honestly shouldn't be a part of the body that approve resolutions. He may be entitled to retain his views, but to actively state them like this? Nah. Normally you'd never say something like this, but because he has the backing of the LibLeft (By that I mean, most of the Assembly), he's totally free.
by Kenmoria » Thu May 21, 2020 2:46 pm
by United Massachusetts » Thu May 21, 2020 2:47 pm
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: This is a very minor point, but the category should be called ‘health’ rather than ‘healthcare’, in the opening post.)
by Separatist Peoples » Thu May 21, 2020 2:51 pm
Auralia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: if you feel I abused my position, you are absolutely welcome to file a report. However, since you and I both know that members of gensec are allowed to play the game as players, I doubt you'll get anywhere. Not a bad way to subtly cast aspersions on my character, but not a very effective argument. Par for the course.
Spite is objectively a bad reason to support a proposal and toxic to a game centred around collaborative authorship of legislation. It's even worse when it comes from a player in a position of authority and who serves as an example to others. Whether it technically violates a rule is irrelevant.
But of course, this can all be disregarded because of my stance on non-compliance, my misdeeds from six years ago, etc. So please, carry on.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu May 21, 2020 3:00 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:the sinister intent behind it.
by Marxist Germany » Thu May 21, 2020 3:03 pm
by The New California Republic » Thu May 21, 2020 3:09 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:"I am glad to see how much backlash this proposal has received. I've also enjoyed using copies of this as toilet paper for the past few days."
by Astrobolt » Thu May 21, 2020 3:12 pm
by United Massachusetts » Thu May 21, 2020 3:29 pm
Astrobolt wrote:OOC: I think we would all appreciate it if the criticisms of the proposal were about the actual text of the proposal rather than implying some GenSec conspiracy or using an ad hominem fallacy.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu May 21, 2020 4:11 pm
by Astrobolt » Thu May 21, 2020 5:37 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu May 21, 2020 5:38 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement