[Shelved] Liberate Arcem (SCUT)

[Morriband]

There's no drama. There's no misunderstanding. I'm not in TEP and am not a delegate. Using only public knowledge from this thread, you pretended to represent a feeder to get your proposal moving. You got fired for falsely claiming to represent TEP (which is not a lie, it's at the top of the page). That's the facts.

Yuno's approval means nothing. Approvals are essentially meaningless on an individual level in NationStates IMHO; in my view it only matters if it got to quorum or not, not who specifically approved which proposal. As I said before, it's plausible that they wanted this to get to quorum merely to crush it. Who knows.

Getting 102 approvals on this proposal, given the circumstances, is as good as it will get for this proposal.

See the reply to Bede's quote regarding TEP. As for 102 approvals being "as good as it will get," your doctoring at this point is hilarious.

It's not ad hominem. The argument can be summarized as "You're unable to represent TEP anymore as you've been dimissed from the WA ministry, therefore your support will decrease", there is no personal attack involved.

However, using such as an attempt to decrease my authenticity is a personal attack. Therefore, ad hominem.

It's truly ironic that you think I'm strawmanning you, when you're calling us fascists. As for the points you made about approvals and support, I will say it nice and clearly: Approval of a submission does not mean that it is supported. It only means that it's approved to go to the floor, to be voted on. The support comes after it reaches quorum. Got it? Also, your Yuno reference is meaningless. If your logic applies, she wanted to condemn herself.

Ambiguity fallacy. Approval means support for the proposal.

1) What are we "doctoring" exactly? Every single thing we've provided as evidence has been linked with context, whether directly provided or explained. We have not edited anything. We have an open invite to our discord, and I've personally promised to answer any questions that third-parties may have. How do you get to the conclusion that I'm "doctoring evidence" (to quote your original version of the post) when I'm being this transparent?
2) Using facts to point out that you are no longer a legitimate representative of TEP is not a personal attack. It's a statement of fact. Don't be offended because you lost a key point of leverage.
3) It. Is. Not. A. Fallacy. Just because you don't know something doesn't make me wrong. It's a custom in the WA that approvals and support are not one and the same.

[La Navasse]

See the reply to Bede's quote regarding TEP. As for 102 approvals being "as good as it will get," your doctoring at this point is hilarious.

My points still stand: you no longer have any benefit you got from your fake representation of TEP, delegates are going to start blocking your spam-o-grams, and the ones that didn't probably have read this thread by now. All of which will contribute to a decreasing approval total.

However, using such as an attempt to decrease my authenticity is a personal attack. Therefore, ad hominem.

I made no attempt to decrease your credibility. I merely restated the exact post at the top of Page 17. It was in the public record. I can cite it all I like. That is not an ad hominem.

Also, by your logic of approval = support, nothing should ever fail at vote. Yet it does. Lots of times.

Please read the definition:

Ad hominem: Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

You may cite it all you like, but it makes no difference and only points out your inability to actually engage with the argument.

Furthermore, it is much more likely that Delegates begin blocking the three countercampaigns sent out by your opposition. I only sent out 2.5, as my third was cut short, though mine were towards the end of the approval period while yours were literally spam.

Finally, this thread is only showing how your personal dislike is fueling your illogical arguments, such as the use of ad hominem attacks, against mine. Your assumptions, though you may dream for them to be true, are not reality.

Morriband, you have used the ad hominem and ambiguity fallacy, as well as utilizing the strawman to aid your doctoring of my fundamental points. I refuse to even see a scripted, for-public server that is designed to show SCUT's innocence - KR didn't get that opportunity, and look what was found.

[Kaboomlandia]

I've personally seen the countercampaign. It's unbiased, completely open, provides all of the evidence given in this thread, invites Delegates to look all that unedited evidence over for themselves, provides an open invitation to ask questions, and more. Couldn't have written it better if I tried. The only people who I can see blocking it are Delegates who don't like any SC communication whatsoever.

You appear to be confusing ad hominem with having your argument disproven. If I called you a nasty so-and-so, that would be an ad hominem. What I did - mentioning something that is in the public record in this thread as a reply to your point - is not a personal attack.

There is no conspiracy against your proposal. It's just not that good.

And if I said what I wanted to say regarding your last point, I'd probably get banned. So no comment.

[La Navasse]

I've personally seen the countercampaign. It's unbiased, completely open, provides all of the evidence given in this thread, invites Delegates to look all that unedited evidence over for themselves, provides an open invitation to ask questions, and more. Couldn't have written it better if I tried. The only people who I can see blocking it are Delegates who don't like any SC communication whatsoever.

You appear to be confusing ad hominem with having your argument disproven. If I called you a nasty so-and-so, that would be an ad hominem. What I did - mentioning something that is in the public record in this thread as a reply to your point - is not a personal attack.

There is no conspiracy against your proposal. It's just not that good.

And if I said what I wanted to say regarding your last point, I'd probably get banned. So no comment.

Of course your countercampaign was perfect, why, it was your opposition, not mine. Especially considering that the sender for two of those countercampaigns was The City-State of Bastion, who was the author of several dispatches that resulted in this proposal.

You haven't disproved my argument by trying to attack my personal legitimacy by subtly attempting to inflate a simple misunderstanding. Kaboom, whatever TEP did does not mean anything for my argument - my points still stand, and my audience - those against fascism - are still there.

Consistently accusing me of believing in some sort of conspiracy is belly-aching. It's a disorganized jumble of characters, that's what the opposition is.

[Kaboomlandia]

- I had never seen the counter-campaign before twenty minutes ago. I had no reason to be biased towards it. Ir's well-written. I can appreciate good writing without bias.

- You're not defending your points. You're saying "my points stand because they're my points" and refusing to accept anything the other side says because they're the other side. And your apology in this thread after the TEP firing also reeks of "sorry I got caught," especially after you continued to falsely represent TEP after being asked to cease and desist. And I would say that TEP's involvement in this thread is relevant - there are likely some delegates that thought this was a legitimate effort by a feeder region, and slapped down an approval for it.

[Morriband]

My points still stand: you no longer have any benefit you got from your fake representation of TEP, delegates are going to start blocking your spam-o-grams, and the ones that didn't probably have read this thread by now. All of which will contribute to a decreasing approval total.

I made no attempt to decrease your credibility. I merely restated the exact post at the top of Page 17. It was in the public record. I can cite it all I like. That is not an ad hominem.

Also, by your logic of approval = support, nothing should ever fail at vote. Yet it does. Lots of times.

Please read the definition:

Ad hominem: Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

You may cite it all you like, but it makes no difference and only points out your inability to actually engage with the argument.

Furthermore, it is much more likely that Delegates begin blocking the three countercampaigns sent out by your opposition. I only sent out 2.5, as my third was cut short, though mine were towards the end of the approval period while yours were literally spam.

Finally, this thread is only showing how your personal dislike is fueling your illogical arguments, such as the use of ad hominem attacks, against mine. Your assumptions, though you may dream for them to be true, are not reality.

Morriband, you have used the ad hominem and ambiguity fallacy, as well as utilizing the strawman to aid your doctoring of my fundamental points. I refuse to even see a scripted, for-public server that is designed to show SCUT's innocence - KR didn't get that opportunity, and look what was found.

You were falsely representing TEP to advance your proposal. I am pointing out that you can no longer validly do that. There is no attack there, it is a statement of fact. The issue of spamming telegrams doesn't matter at this point the submission failed (again), and has been covered by others. Again, facts are not attacks. I have not used any fallacies. I have laid out my points and backed them up with evidence, which you have yet to do. The irony of all of this is that you are the one using the ad hominem and strawman fallacies (not to mention circular reasoning), since you haven't provided any evidence in days, and what little "evidence" you provided was debunked at near light-speed, and yet you're trying to delegitimize us by saying we have no evidence, when we clearly do, and calling us fascists/sympathizers (both points are a combination of both fallacies in use).

"It's a disorganized jumble of characters, that's what the opposition is" <-- Ad hominem right there.

Also: you really think our server is scripted? Seriously? That's a concerning level of paranoia and shows how far in the sand you have your head. You blatantly refuse any evidence contrary to your beliefs. Maybe if you didn't block me on discord, you would know. You were on our server once back in December. It wasn't scripted then and it isn't scripted now.

[Devi Vytherin]

Morriband, you have used the ad hominem and ambiguity fallacy, as well as utilizing the strawman to aid your doctoring of my fundamental points. I refuse to even see a scripted, for-public server that is designed to show SCUT's innocence - KR didn't get that opportunity, and look what was found.

If we're doing this;
Fallacy Fallacy. An argument containing a logical fallacy doesn't mean that the propositions it has been built off have no merit.

[La Navasse]

- I had never seen the counter-campaign before twenty minutes ago. I had no reason to be biased towards it. Ir's well-written. I can appreciate good writing without bias.

- You're not defending your points. You're saying "my points stand because they're my points." And your apology in this thread after the TEP firing also reeks of "sorry I got caught," especially after you continued to falsely represent TEP after being asked to cease and desist. And I would say that TEP's involvement in this thread is relevant - there are likely some delegates that thought this was a legitimate effort by a feeder region, and slapped down an approval for it.

1. You have reason to be biased towards your counter-campaign regardless, as not doing so would strip your opposition of the little unity it has left.
2. I'm not defending my points, because you're not attacking my points now. Currently, you're engaged to trying to furiously hammer that saying that I was a Staffer of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs at The East Pacific was a fraud, that I purposely falsely represented TEP, and that furthermore, I didn't care for my region. Trying to point out negative attributes of the arguer does not attack their argument, not that any of your arbitrary misconceptions have any solid backing.

Morriband, you have used an increasing amount of fallacies over your arguments, and they aren't helping your argument at all. Trying to blanket all of my points as fallacies in another tu quoque fallacy, not that any of your points are true, is ridiculous, and your opposition is quite literally a disorganized jumble of characters - saying otherwise would be false. I haven't used that to cast doubt upon your arguments, but repeatedly trying to slam "fraud" and "falsely representing TEP to advance your proposal" is attempting to cast doubt.

Devi Vytherin: An argument containing a logical fallacy doesn't mean that the propositions built off of it have no merit, however, they can be, and in this case, they are.

[Kaboomlandia]

On 2, I'm not attacking you at all. I used a public post in this thread, from an official source, to debate with you. Yes, it wasn't flattering to you. That does not make it a personal attack.

saying that I was a Staffer of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs at The East Pacific was a fraud

Nowhere did I say this.

that I purposely falsely represented TEP

Which you did, I have talked to very reliable sources, and you got caught and dismissed, in public, in this thread. I did not violate ethics or lie in any way.

and that furthermore, I didn't care for my region.

Nowhere did I say this.

It is hilariously ironic that the fallacies you are accusing your opposition of employing are the exact same ones you're using. That is all.

[Morriband]

- I had never seen the counter-campaign before twenty minutes ago. I had no reason to be biased towards it. Ir's well-written. I can appreciate good writing without bias.

- You're not defending your points. You're saying "my points stand because they're my points." And your apology in this thread after the TEP firing also reeks of "sorry I got caught," especially after you continued to falsely represent TEP after being asked to cease and desist. And I would say that TEP's involvement in this thread is relevant - there are likely some delegates that thought this was a legitimate effort by a feeder region, and slapped down an approval for it.

1. You have reason to be biased towards your counter-campaign regardless, as not doing so would strip your opposition of the little unity it has left.
2. I'm not defending my points, because you're not attacking my points now. Currently, you're engaged to trying to furiously hammer that saying that I was a Staffer of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs at The East Pacific was a fraud, that I purposely falsely represented TEP, and that furthermore, I didn't care for my region. Trying to point out negative attributes of the arguer does not attack their argument, not that any of your arbitrary misconceptions have any solid backing.

Morriband, you have used an increasing amount of fallacies over your arguments, and they aren't helping your argument at all. Trying to blanket all of my points as fallacies in another tu quoque fallacy, not that any of your points are true, is ridiculous, and your opposition is quite literally a disorganized jumble of characters - saying otherwise would be false. I haven't used that to cast doubt upon your arguments, but repeatedly trying to slam "fraud" and "falsely representing TEP to advance your proposal" is attempting to cast doubt.

Devi Vytherin: An argument containing a logical fallacy doesn't mean that the propositions built off of it have no merit, however, they can be, and in this case, they are.

All that you're saying I'm doing is using fallacies. I'm not going to go back and forth any more on that because it's quite clear who the real culprit is. Just go back through the thread.

I have one very simple task for you. Provide evidence that you have against us. And don't say anything to the effect of "I've already proven it" or "it's in the thread". Present it here and now.

Edit: as for me saying you were fraudulently representing TEP, that is accurate. The legal definition of fraud is "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury." You were falsely representing TEP. Whether you hold that office or not isn't the question. You were presenting the proposal as a matter of official affairs from TEP, which it was not. That is legally fraud.

[La Navasse]

On 2, I'm not attacking you at all. I used a public post in this thread, from an official source, to debate with you. Yes, it wasn't flattering to you. That does not make it a personal attack.

saying that I was a Staffer of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs at The East Pacific was a fraud

Nowhere did I say this.

that I purposely falsely represented TEP

Which you did, I have talked to very reliable sources, and you got caught and dismissed, in public, in this thread. I did not violate ethics or lie in any way.

and that furthermore, I didn't care for my region.

Nowhere did I say this.

It is hilariously ironic that the fallacies you are accusing your opposition of employing are the exact same ones you're using. That is all.

You don't understand the context of what TEP discussed if you aren't connecting "Staffer of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs at The East Pacific" on my telegrams to the accidental false representation of TEP on my telegrams that was not addressed on my part, and does not deserve to be made into a full-blown reality show, except that of course you've "talked to very reliable sources."

As I've said, the opposition is comprised of a disorganized jumble of characters, especially considering this was previously posted for the opposition to cease posting:

That's unrealistically optimistic. It's failed multiple times and isn't close to reaching quorum.

Here's an idea, instead of stroking La Navasse's ego anymore how about we all stop posting in the thread? Let him rant all he wants, his arguments have been debunked again and again. Still no support from me, as FGGR and SCUT are not fascist/Nazi/sympathizers. We could all agree on KREICH and NE, but on this one its his opinion against all the rest of us.

[Bedetopia]

Since fallacies are involved and this seems to keep cycling, here's an interesting page.

Anyway, my point still stands that whether or not SCUT is fascist or communist or whatever, an offensive liberation based on ideology is never appropriate. I'm trying to steer the debate back into something more rational.

[Kaboomlandia]

As I've said, the opposition is comprised of a disorganized jumble of characters, especially considering this was previously posted for the opposition to cease posting:

Here's an idea, instead of stroking La Navasse's ego anymore how about we all stop posting in the thread? Let him rant all he wants, his arguments have been debunked again and again. Still no support from me, as FGGR and SCUT are not fascist/Nazi/sympathizers. We could all agree on KREICH and NE, but on this one its his opinion against all the rest of us.

Lenlyvit didn't say that to support you, for what it's worth.

[La Navasse]

Since fallacies are involved and this seems to keep cycling, here's an interesting page.

Anyway, my point still stands that whether or not SCUT is fascist or communist or whatever, an offensive liberation based on ideology is never appropriate. I'm trying to steer the debate back into something more rational.

Haha. Chewbacca Defense.

What I can talk about, in detail, is what deserves Neoliberations.

[Kaboomlandia]

Since fallacies are involved and this seems to keep cycling, here's an interesting page.

Anyway, my point still stands that whether or not SCUT is fascist or communist or whatever, an offensive liberation based on ideology is never appropriate. I'm trying to steer the debate back into something more rational.

Haha. Chewbacca Defense.

What I can talk about, in detail, is what deserves Neoliberations.

The answer to that question is absolutely nothing, and you know why.

[Morriband]

On 2, I'm not attacking you at all. I used a public post in this thread, from an official source, to debate with you. Yes, it wasn't flattering to you. That does not make it a personal attack.

Nowhere did I say this.

Which you did, I have talked to very reliable sources, and you got caught and dismissed, in public, in this thread. I did not violate ethics or lie in any way.

Nowhere did I say this.

It is hilariously ironic that the fallacies you are accusing your opposition of employing are the exact same ones you're using. That is all.

You don't understand the context of what TEP discussed if you aren't connecting "Staffer of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs at The East Pacific" on my telegrams to the accidental false representation of TEP on my telegrams that was not addressed on my part, and does not deserve to be made into a full-blown reality show, except that of course you've "talked to very reliable sources."

As I've said, the opposition is comprised of a disorganized jumble of characters, especially considering this was previously posted for the opposition to cease posting:

Here's an idea, instead of stroking La Navasse's ego anymore how about we all stop posting in the thread? Let him rant all he wants, his arguments have been debunked again and again. Still no support from me, as FGGR and SCUT are not fascist/Nazi/sympathizers. We could all agree on KREICH and NE, but on this one its his opinion against all the rest of us.

Accidentally or not, fraud is fraud. People can be (and often are) held legally accountable for oversights and accidents. This isn't grade school where you can say "it was an accident" and walk off spot-free. There's another legal term for that: Negligence.

[La Navasse]

Haha. Chewbacca Defense.

What I can talk about, in detail, is what deserves Neoliberations.

The answer to that question is absolutely nothing, and you know why.

I believe that there are three very specific instances where regions should be Neoliberated:

• Nazi
• Fascist
• Associates

The only region I'd consider redeemable is the last, primarily as ties can be cut.

You don't understand the context of what TEP discussed if you aren't connecting "Staffer of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs at The East Pacific" on my telegrams to the accidental false representation of TEP on my telegrams that was not addressed on my part, and does not deserve to be made into a full-blown reality show, except that of course you've "talked to very reliable sources."

As I've said, the opposition is comprised of a disorganized jumble of characters, especially considering this was previously posted for the opposition to cease posting:

Accidentally or not, fraud is fraud. People can be (and often are) held legally accountable for oversights and accidents. This isn't grade school where you can say "it was an accident" and walk off spot-free. There's another legal term for that: Negligence.

This wasn't a case of Negligence, this is some sort of horrid dramatization of a simple misunderstanding that honestly has little to no real meaning. Being a part of TEP does not imply speaking on its behalf.

[Hemuraile]

The answer to that question is absolutely nothing, and you know why.

I believe that there are three very specific instances where regions should be Neoliberated:

• Nazi
• Fascist
• Associates

The only region I'd consider redeemable is the last, primarily as ties can be cut.

>Associates

Now ain't that a fallacy too?

[Kaboomlandia]

The answer to that question is absolutely nothing, and you know why.

I believe that there are three very specific instances where regions should be liberated:

• Nazi
• Fascist
• Associates

The only region I'd consider redeemable is the last, primarily as ties can be cut.

I'm not denying that those regions are bad. The way you're going about trying to do it is. There's a difference.

Accidentally or not, fraud is fraud. People can be (and often are) held legally accountable for oversights and accidents. This isn't grade school where you can say "it was an accident" and walk off spot-free. There's another legal term for that: Negligence.

This wasn't a case of Negligence, this is some sort of horrid dramatization of a simple misunderstanding that honestly has little to no real meaning. Being a part of TEP does not imply speaking on its behalf.

I have seen the telegrams, again through reliable sources. The issue was the same "Staffer of TEP" blurb that you have in your signature. That there implies that TEP somehow has something to do with the campaign. Even if it was by accident, you did not cease and desist when asked, and were thus dismissed. It was a misunderstanding at first. When they asked you to stop with that blurb (I'm assuming that was the issue) and you didn't, that is when it stopped being a misunderstanding.

[Morriband]

The answer to that question is absolutely nothing, and you know why.

I believe that there are three very specific instances where regions should be Neoliberated:

• Nazi
• Fascist
• Associates

The only region I'd consider redeemable is the last, primarily as ties can be cut.

Accidentally or not, fraud is fraud. People can be (and often are) held legally accountable for oversights and accidents. This isn't grade school where you can say "it was an accident" and walk off spot-free. There's another legal term for that: Negligence.

This wasn't a case of Negligence, this is some sort of horrid dramatization of a simple misunderstanding that honestly has little to no real meaning. Being a part of TEP does not imply speaking on its behalf.

When you sign it as an official of TEP that is exactly what it implies.

[La Navasse]

I believe that there are three very specific instances where regions should be liberated:

• Nazi
• Fascist
• Associates

The only region I'd consider redeemable is the last, primarily as ties can be cut.

I'm not denying that those regions are bad. The way you're going about trying to do it is. There's a difference.

This wasn't a case of Negligence, this is some sort of horrid dramatization of a simple misunderstanding that honestly has little to no real meaning. Being a part of TEP does not imply speaking on its behalf.

I have seen the telegrams, again through reliable sources. The issue was the same "Staffer of TEP" blurb that you have in your signature. That there implies that TEP somehow has something to do with the campaign. Even if it was by accident, you did not cease and desist when asked, and were thus dismissed. It was a misunderstanding at first. When they asked you to stop with that blurb (I'm assuming that was the issue) and you didn't, that is when it stopped being a misunderstanding.

I believe in taking action against those regions by Neoliberation. Interregional orgs commonly fall apart, and leaving the regions alone only lets them thrive. The Neoliberation can be propagated by an individual with API campaigning - how is it not a good way to go about punishing such regions?

It was always a misunderstanding for the entire time. I didn't regard the objections immediately, nor was I aware that I was doing anything wrong in inserting that I was a "Staffer of TEP." Correlation does not imply causation - I may have been a Staffer at TEP's WA Ministry, but that does not imply that TEP supported, or caused, my proposals.

I believe that there are three very specific instances where regions should be Neoliberated:

• Nazi
• Fascist
• Associates

The only region I'd consider redeemable is the last, primarily as ties can be cut.

>Associates

Now ain't that a fallacy too?

Not by association, but regions actively aiding, defending, and protecting their relations with Nazis and fascists - SCUT has two treaties with two fascist regions. A region named "Reich" doesn't deserve to be liberated unless it was the third.

[Kaboomlandia]

I'm not denying that those regions are bad. The way you're going about trying to do it is. There's a difference.


I have seen the telegrams, again through reliable sources. The issue was the same "Staffer of TEP" blurb that you have in your signature. That there implies that TEP somehow has something to do with the campaign. Even if it was by accident, you did not cease and desist when asked, and were thus dismissed. It was a misunderstanding at first. When they asked you to stop with that blurb (I'm assuming that was the issue) and you didn't, that is when it stopped being a misunderstanding.

I believe in taking action against those regions by Neoliberation. Interregional orgs commonly fall apart, and leaving the regions alone only lets them thrive. The Neoliberation can be propagated by an individual with API campaigning - how is it not a good way to go about punishing such regions?

Because it gives them free publicity, provides an incentive to the founder to not CTE, and nobody other than you is going to try and raid a region with a founder. Your other liberation against UCR is even worse for this because that region also has a 160-endorsement delegate.

It was always a misunderstanding for the entire time. I didn't regard the objections immediately, nor was I aware that I was doing anything wrong in inserting that I was a "Staffer of TEP." Correlation does not imply causation - I may have been a Staffer at TEP's WA Ministry, but that does not imply that TEP supported, or caused, my proposals.

The reader doesn't know this by looking at the telegram. They see a guy signing his name with "Staffer at TEP" and think it's from them.

>Associates

Now ain't that a fallacy too?

Not by association, but regions actively aiding, defending, and protecting their relations with Nazis and fascists - SCUT has two treaties with two fascist regions. A region named "Reich" doesn't deserve to be liberated unless it was the third.

This has been conclusively debunked so many times that I'm not even going to bother saying it again.

[La Navasse]

I believe in taking action against those regions by Neoliberation. Interregional orgs commonly fall apart, and leaving the regions alone only lets them thrive. The Neoliberation can be propagated by an individual with API campaigning - how is it not a good way to go about punishing such regions?

Because it gives them free publicity, provides an incentive to the founder to not CTE, and nobody other than you is going to try and raid a region with a founder. Your other liberation against UCR is even worse for this because that region also has a 160-endorsement delegate.

It was always a misunderstanding for the entire time. I didn't regard the objections immediately, nor was I aware that I was doing anything wrong in inserting that I was a "Staffer of TEP." Correlation does not imply causation - I may have been a Staffer at TEP's WA Ministry, but that does not imply that TEP supported, or caused, my proposals.

You are directly implying that fact by putting your signature in the telegram as a staffer of TEP. The reader does not know your intent. You need to make that clear.

Not by association, but regions actively aiding, defending, and protecting their relations with Nazis and fascists - SCUT has two treaties with two fascist regions. A region named "Reich" doesn't deserve to be liberated unless it was the third.

This has been conclusively debunked so many times that I'm not even going to bother saying it again.

I believe that Neoliberations aren't necessarily a good solution, but are the better of the two evils - the other being the "badge of honor" called the Condemnation.

My signature, which indicates my association with TEP, does not mean I'm speaking on its behalf, which I have never done. Therefore, why does a "Staffer" make any difference?

The only point that you've brought up mainly was FGGR, and I've already disproven that with the Propaganda posters (those two anti-Communist posters actually referred to Anti-Komintern, a literal Nazi department during Nazi Germany) and with their main list of dispatches, which along with other fascist elements, includes dispatches of The Holy Bunicken Alliance and Femdom Empire as well.

My point is, Neoliberations in my view are a necessary evil with the current SC infrastructure that we have. By all means, if SCUT cut ties with those two offending regions, my other grievances should be rendered moot. However, it does not appear to be that it's willing to do such at this time.

[Bedetopia]

I believe that Neoliberations aren't necessarily a good solution, but are the better of the two evils - the other being the "badge of honor" called the Condemnation.

Take a third option: Stop putting on a show for them in the WA.

[Kaboomlandia]

Because it gives them free publicity, provides an incentive to the founder to not CTE, and nobody other than you is going to try and raid a region with a founder. Your other liberation against UCR is even worse for this because that region also has a 160-endorsement delegate.

You are directly implying that fact by putting your signature in the telegram as a staffer of TEP. The reader does not know your intent. You need to make that clear.
This has been conclusively debunked so many times that I'm not even going to bother saying it again.

I believe that Neoliberations aren't necessarily a good solution, but are the better of the two evils - the other being the "badge of honor" called the Condemnation.

My signature, which indicates my association with TEP, does not mean I'm speaking on its behalf, which I have never done. Therefore, why does a "Staffer" make any difference?

The only point that you've brought up mainly was FGGR, and I've already disproven that with the Propaganda posters (those two anti-Communist posters actually referred to Anti-Komintern, a literal Nazi department during Nazi Germany) and with their main list of dispatches, which along with other fascist elements, includes dispatches of The Holy Bunicken Alliance and Femdom Empire as well.

My point is, Neoliberations in my view are a necessary evil with the current SC infrastructure that we have. By all means, if SCUT cut ties with those two offending regions, my other grievances should be rendered moot. However, it does not appear to be that it's willing to do such at this time.

1. There is a third solution, called "doing absolutely nothing". Seems to work just fine, ever thought of that?
2. Again, think of this from the reader's perspective, getting that telegram. They don't know what your intent is by signing your telegram as Staffer of TEP, and a rational person will assume it's in an official capacity.
3. Arcem doesn't even work with FGGR so this doesn't mean anything.