PASSED: Condemn NAZI EUROPE (TNEP - Part 1)

[Flemingovia]

I think the situation of SC#3 involves a conflict between two equally moderate sized groups of individuals who have been clashing on this issue for a long time, and the one group (the pro-SC#3) has had the upper-hand because it controls most of the voting power

I think your comment could be accused of being "unfair in it's rhetoric" too. If you look at the numbers of PLAYERS voting on the last repeal you would not see "two equally moderate sized groups", but one group overwhelmingly larger than the other.

my suspicion is however, that your duty is in fact just inclination. If it didn't make you feel good to continue chastising these poorly-identified-nazis, you'd probably stop once the warm-fuzzy feeling went away.

Wonderful. When you do it, it is duty, when I do it it is "just inclination." You do it for lofty principles, I do it for a "warm fuzzy feeling." And to think I was once accused of being on a high horse.

IF you knew anything of my history, my experiences or my background, THEN you would be in a position to comment about my motives.

[Laos Refugees]

So you admit that your region has taken a strictly non-communist position, and has a delegate that activity attacks communists via roleplay?

Just as regions have taken strict no-fascist or no-Nazi positions, that does not mean they warrant a condemnation, if you're thinking of giving one to me. Yes, I've attacked Communists in R.Ps, but that was just as a R.P, nothing I do in a R.P represents my character or N.E.

I don't see how your philosophy on moderation is relevant here.

Really? You don't see how having Communists and National Socialists arguing on a R.M.B , cursing each other out because the suck at debating, can be a problem? All it takes it one of my nations to go over the line, and then someone gets a moderator, who could easily ban/warn the member. I do not wish for my members to be banned because Communists decided to jump the fence just to argue.


So then we can safely assume that your region -- in general -- agrees with your polices, are else we'd be condemning you for oppressing the members of NAZI EUROPE, and laughing as all of the members of the region voted with their feet and left your region.

Sure? I can not read their minds, I am confident that they approve of my leadership.

[Unibot]

I think the situation of SC#3 involves a conflict between two equally moderate sized groups of individuals who have been clashing on this issue for a long time, and the one group (the pro-SC#3) has had the upper-hand because it controls most of the voting power

I think your comment could be accused of being "unfair in it's rhetoric" too. If you look at the numbers of PLAYERS voting on the last repeal you would not see "two equally moderate sized groups", but one group overwhelmingly larger than the other.

As of now. It wasn't always that way, Flem.

my suspicion is however, that your duty is in fact just inclination. If it didn't make you feel good to continue chastising these poorly-identified-nazis, you'd probably stop once the warm-fuzzy feeling went away.

Wonderful. When you do it, it is duty, when I do it it is "just inclination." You do it for lofty principles, I do it for a "warm fuzzy feeling." And to think I was once accused of being on a high horse.

IF you knew anything of my history, my experiences or my background, THEN you would be in a position to comment about my motives.

Exactly, you have motives, I have duty -- couldn't have said it better myself. I just had to remind you who is riding the high horse, and is dahm proud of it.

Just as regions have taken strict no-fascist or no-Nazi positions, that does not mean they warrant a condemnation, if you're thinking of giving one to me. Yes, I've attacked Communists in R.Ps, but that was just as a R.P, nothing I do in a R.P represents my character or N.E

We're in a Post-Rule IV world, Laos, one of the problems of Rule IV is that roleplay and character can get intertwined, and your personality as a player has to be left out of the equation. You seem like a nice person, your leadership in NAZI EUROPE seems superior, but your conduct on the roleplay forums makes your interregional leadership look shoddy.

So then we can safely assume that your region -- in general -- agrees with your polices, are else we'd be condemning you for oppressing the members of NAZI EUROPE, and laughing as all of the members of the region voted with their feet and left your region.

Sure? I can not read their minds, I am confident that they approve of my leadership.

They approve of your leadership, and they approve of your nation's conduct on the roleplay forums -- or at the very least, don't consider it enough to warrant your resignation. This is why the condemnation is focused on the region, and not just you. If they still wish to stick behind you, let them wear this badge as a badge of honor, like a stubborn prisoner who happily goes to jail to spit on the institution -- neither a criminal system nor the World Assembly would care.

[Wolf Howl]

The Rouge Nation of Wolf Howl will declare war on Nazi Europe but it needs Allies

[A mean old man]

The Rouge Nation of Wolf Howl will declare war on Nazi Europe but it needs Allies

This isn't the forum for that.

[Sedgistan]

The Rouge Nation of Wolf Howl will declare war on Nazi Europe but it needs Allies

You may find allies in the International Incidents forum if you want to RP a war against Nazi Europe, or in the Gameplay forum if you want to invade Nazi Europe.

However, all you'll find here is a mod telling you to stick to the topic - the proposal "Condemn Nazi Europe".

[The Republic of Lanos]

Isn't this a tad bit illegal?

Ah whatever, have at yourselves. I don't care about it.

[Metania]

IF you knew anything of my history, my experiences or my background, THEN you would be in a position to comment about my motives.

Why yes, I do. For example, you had little to do with the Security Council, until recently.

You come in here, then pretend to speak for a broad group of people--when the people who voted against the other repeals don't actually have much to do with you. They'd be there, whether or not you were here. You, in fact, insisted on that point, when I once claimed to the contrary.

Therefore it becomes clear that your motive is simply to shut down proposals that disgust you, regardless of whether they fit as far as people who have actually spent their time in the SC are concerned.

Unfortunately, for that same reason, your opinions are simply yours; you have spent little to no time actually gaining power in the SC, and therefore your word is merely an echo. You may echo what a large number of people are saying, but to try and claim superiority based on that is a fallacy. Those people could be swayed to vote for a repeal, and all you could do was talk about how principles you don't even understand (since you haven't BEEN here) are being violated.

So go on and tell people how they are deluded and don't know what they're doing; maybe it'll help distract them from your own... inexperience, in the SC, as it were.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*sniggers*

Sorry, there's just something comical about an admitted "wannabe delegate" questioning Flemingovia's experience with gameplay or the WA.

[Laos Refugees]

*sniggers*

Sorry, there's just something comical about an admitted "wannabe delegate" questioning Flemingovia's experience with gameplay or the WA.

Yes, it's funny because he actually has a point, imagine that.

[Metania]

Of course, the joke is I'm questioning his experience with the SC, not with the game or the WA General.

Unfortunately my signature was just too scintillating for Kenny to pry himself away from it and fully read my post.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Great then, why don't you tell me what your point is disregarding someone's opinions based on how much time they've spent on an Internet forum? What exactly are you trying to prove?

[Metania]

That's a loaded question, bucko--and I did not do what you said in it. You're going to have to try harder to trick me.

Naturally, you have come here to defend Flemingnovia, because he cannot excuse his inexperience. In a matter such as this bill, one has to have seen the millions of repeals in action and also witnessed the evolution of the SC to comprehend why we want to stop the unending repeals. Flemingnovia does not understand this; instead he assumes some pre-eminent, unstoppable majority has been crushing every repeal and that people have been futilely and stupidly bashing their heads on a wall.

But he wasn't paying attention when these repeals were made in the past. Several had a decent chance of passing, only to be crushed later on. The very rules of the chamber changed, and some of those changes were due to how unruly it once was. Flemingnovia, having missed that era, doesn't understand why we'd want to distance ourselves from it.

Instead, he sees the word 'Nazi' and responds 'Kill.' That's just fine for him to do, but some of us have a history in the SC, and see things a bit deeper than that. Indeed, many of us who want #3 repealed either hate or do not like Nazis--especially RL ones--but we also consider the fact that blanketly banning entire ideologies is, ironically, something the RL Nazis liked to do. So in our quest to not be Nazis, we repeal the Nazi-like ban on ideologies and replace it with a ban on behaviors which the SC considers to cause disquiet and chaos instead--I.E., Nazi-like behaviors.

Since those can be set up with evidence and tried for accuracy, while ideologies are not people/nations/regions and do not control the people under them absolutely. They are abstract concepts, which require literal events or people to occur.

Otherwise, we should condemn Gravity, because, you know. It kills people. Even though it has no sentience!

[Flemingovia]

Naturally, you have come here to defend Flemingnovia,

At least you could have the decency to spell my name correctly.

As for the rest ......
Frankly, 330 posts does not suggest great experience ... certainly not enough to be lecturing others.


PS. In my post earlier I was talking about my RL experience, not my experience in the SC.

[Metania]

So, Flemingovia, does that mean your 120 posts give you 1/3 the experience I have?

Well, by your own metric, I'm 'experienced' enough to lecture you, and that's fine enough.

To be serious though, it is not post count but rather demonstrated experience that matters. Considering your argument has been primarily 'Nazi=Vote No'... no experience has been demonstrated. Only shrill hatred for repealing a resolution that symbolizes the old, "Wild West" era of the SC--one you haven't spoken about at all recently, even though it has great bearing on why we'd ever repeal anything to do with condemning Nazis in the first place.

[Reseda Island]

I've said this many times, that I think the Security council is out of control and pointless with some of its actions, gotten in plenty of fights with Sedgistan, and I honestly think its getting worse as time passes, and I fear soon nations will be condemned just for disagreeing with the ruling majority of the sc.

[Punk Reloaded]

In my opinion, it's a pretty weak tactic to question someone's experience in order to debunk their argument. If Flem is on the side of the majority opinion, it would seem to me that those in the minority would want to listen to someone from the majority.

Why?

Because in order to get people to your side of the argument you're going to need to persuade others not in agreement. But, if Flem's lack of experience precludes him from conversating in these forums, then there are quite a number of people who shouldn't be speaking.

What's the post quota to be taken seriously by the SC? 100, 1000, 10,000 posts?

Back on topic, I voted against this resolution because I thought it was superfluous and the region did not need to be condemned again.

[Flemingovia]

Due to Punk Daddy's mere 20 posts please disregard his opinion. It does not count.

See? I am beginning to get the hang of the security council.

[Laos Refugees]

Due to Punk Daddy's mere 20 posts please disregard his opinion. It does not count.

See? I am beginning to get the hang of the security council.

You're far from it flem, you're only 1/14th as experienced as I.

[Metania]

In my opinion, it's a pretty weak tactic to question someone's experience in order to debunk their argument. If Flem is on the side of the majority opinion, it would seem to me that those in the minority would want to listen to someone from the majority.

Why?

Because in order to get people to your side of the argument you're going to need to persuade others not in agreement. But, if Flem's lack of experience precludes him from conversating in these forums, then there are quite a number of people who shouldn't be speaking.

What's the post quota to be taken seriously by the SC? 100, 1000, 10,000 posts?

Lack of experience in reading my post has caused you to veer off course, Punk. I was poking fun at and discrediting the idea that 'more posts = more experience.' Instead, what you have done is accidentally attacked Flemingovia instead--he was the one advancing the idea that more posts = more experience.

With friends like you, he doesn't seem to need enemies.

Furthermore, he does not represent the majority opinion, he only has an opinion which is on the same side as it. The former is not equal to the latter; the majority opinion may pick up its bags and move to some other position which he does not hold. Therefore listening to him as if he is the head of the majority is pointless, as the majority opinion may leave him in the dust, even if we were to do everything he said.

But he's still free to speak, of course, as his opinion remains an opinion, just like yours or mine.

[Flemingovia]

But he's still free to speak,

That is very gracious of you. Thank you for your consideration.

Lack of experience in reading my post has caused you to veer off course, Punk.

PS good to see Punk Daddy has lack of experience too. I am not alone!

[Ethel mermania]

Greetings from the Peoples republic of Ethel Mermania, a small country with a love of broadway musicals

The nameless drones of the ethel mermanian foreign service wish to state that we too voted against this proposal because we like the current one in place just fine, thank you very much.

If you want us, we will be at the bar getting our post count up so we too can come back and participate in this wonderful intellectual debate.

[Punk Reloaded]

Lack of experience in reading my post has caused you to veer off course, Punk.

So because I have not read posts of yours before I've veered off course. Couldn't I say the same of you? Or does it not work both ways?

Lack of experience doesn't negate opinions. And when you opine:

Furthermore, he does not represent the majority opinion, he only has an opinion which is on the same side as it. The former is not equal to the latter; the majority opinion may pick up its bags and move to some other position which he does not hold. Therefore listening to him as if he is the head of the majority is pointless, as the majority opinion may leave him in the dust, even if we were to do everything he said.

So let me ask, what is majority opinion on the subject? And if you know what it is, how do you know?

Seems to me, the majority of people are in agreement with condemning the region (again) for many of the same reasons they will/have shoot down a repeal of SC#3. And in my opinion, unless the voters change their thinking SC#3 is here for a while.

But please tell us what the majority think about the subject? I'm curious to hear your reply.

[Metania]

The nameless drones of the ethel mermanian foreign service wish to state that we too voted against this proposal because we like the current one in place just fine, thank you very much.

The Metanian Delegate dares the Ethel Mermanian foreign service to explain their position with more than one sentence.

Lack of experience in reading my post has caused you to veer off course, Punk.

So because I have not read posts of yours before I've veered off course. Couldn't I say the same of you?

That is another loaded question. When you assume what I'm meaning to be something than it isn't, your resulting post is doomed to be attacking the wrong person. Reread the post you responded to of mine, then try again.

Lack of experience doesn't negate opinions.

When did I say that? Nowhere.

So let me ask, what is majority opinion on the subject? And if you know what it is, how do you know?

But please tell us what the majority think about the subject? I'm curious to hear your reply.

Why is it my duty to know who the majority opinion is? And what bearing does that have on what I was saying?

Seems to me, the majority of people are in agreement with condemning the region (again) for many of the same reasons they will/have shoot down a repeal of SC#3. And in my opinion, unless the voters change their thinking SC#3 is here for a while.

Is there an echo in here? I thought you stated your opinion already.

[Warzone Codger]

1. The majority want a condemnation of Nazi Europe. They don't really care for the reason...

2. A significant part of the game (aka most of the WA/SC "regulars") may or may not "care" about NE, but don't SC 3 existing because it doesn't fit into the "style" of most resolutions. They don't like reasoning that refers to the real word, or ones based on ideology. They are more likely to support this one, because it fits into their "style"

3. Finally there is tiny part of the game that actually has a interest that "NE is good".

I don't like the people in 2. - I disagree with their emphasis on style, and their "ideology C&C are bad" arguments; I feel they can be appropriate and it is a right of the SC to vote just because of ideology if they feel like it. (Because if it's not right, they'll vote against it)).

However personally, I don't believe they are nazi sympathisers etc.