Killerustan wrote:I've already proved it with resolution number 23. Furthermore, you are manipulating by stretching the requiring of WA member states to perform certain actions as metagaming and saying to make member states follow certain rules is the same as passing legislation on non-wa countries. It is not. We pass legislation on member states requiring actions all the time. The words you are reading about affecting non-member states only prevent a resolution that would for example say something along the lines of "non-member states are required to do x, y, and z" This is simple english and its wording is easily understood. it doesn't prevent us saying a member state can't give biological weapons to other states...some of which would obviously be non-member states. And I could show in numerous resolution similar restrictions on member states activities.
it doesn't prevent this:
Section 10. Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions
And that is the same thing I want to do with the addition that I want to specify an arms embargo and cut of military assistance.
Now that I've had plenty of time to calm down and let a lost temper cool, I can respond to this with a less emotionally-charged argument.
For you, this is not a good thing. "Less emotionally charged" does not necessarily mean "nicer," nor does it mean that I will let go the items I had asked you to prove. The issue of their proof was independent of the mod ruling on the rules; as such, I shall try to be careful on the issue of the rules themselves and address only the arguments that apply.
When someone like me asks for proof, they want actual evidence. It's always better to provide it even if they don't want it and are just calling your bluff; that way, you have the ability to say that you did, indeed, prove it. The problem here is that evidence is a lot more than just a simple reposting of a bit of a resolution, especially when most of the charges you made had nothing to do with the resolution itself. That brings up a particular problem: As far as I can tell, of the four things I asked you to prove, you only appear to have addressed one and did not even provide any actual evidence to back your claim that you had proved it. You have not, as was specifically made clear by posts that followed. Just because I do not speak that plainly or use less complex thought, to the point that even I have to admit I have to cut it short and simplify it for the needs of basic communication, does not mean I was at any time attempting to twist words. Nor is it an indication of fallaciousness within an argument, an ulterior motive, or my opposition to it going beyond the rules. As Ardchoille rightly pointed out, I would not have argued this long on something I actually opposed extremely; I would have simply told you it's illegal, listed categories, and left the topic to decay naturally. I do think you have the basis of a good idea, but that your idea needs work... and, first, it was getting you to recognize the illegalities within the proposal.
I admit my approach was a little more hostile than normal. For one thing, try to ignore the hostility of Velnayanis; even I, the person who RPs her, have called her an, as I put it, "uppity bitch." That's because her personality is unpleasant to the point that not even I like her. However, she is good for the plot I have in mind elsewhere, if I ever get done writing it... In any case, my hostility itself not necessarily a good thing. On the other hand, my temper itself was not truly lost until you made those charges. At that point is when I decided to let you have it and back you into a corner. And, while my temper is calmed, we still have to deal with the fact there will be consequences from what was said. Nothing can avoid the fact that such consequences will come, even if we would rather they not.
Ultimately, if the entire thing had been IC, your making of the charges could be excused. Characters are just characters and can, as I have demonstrated, be very different from the people playing them. And politicians within the real world have proven repeatedly that they are fully capable of being adults with massive responsibilities and yet still act like a mixture two year olds and horny teenagers. The amount of petty bickering, temper tantrums, and libido-pleasing that goes on within realworld politics is enough to drive a sane man to chug barrels of vodka while snorting cocaine off the backs of puppies. It is no wonder that roleplayed politicians would be no different.
However, at that point, we were not roleplaying. We had descended into OOCness for quite some time. The fact I have been posting without quotation marks, despite the fact you normally see them everywhere within my posts in the World Assembly, is a sign it is the player speaking and not the character. You may have also noticed some differences in how I am choosing to present my argument, in that I drop the less simple style that I force upon myself for Velnayanis and instead choose to write as I speak. And I can see honesty in accusing my argument of being fallacious and myself of manipulating words. However, I cannot see any honest reasoning behind the charges of an ulterior motive and of my reason being far more than just rules violations. And that leaves me with the problem where I am forced to ask myself questions about if I trust not only that the proposal can be written within the rules, but the intentions and motivations of the author as well. The moment I find myself in a position where I am questioning whether or not you can be an honest person in this is the moment I know I cannot ever truly support it, as at that point my reasoning behind any position I take is shadowed by the questions of your own morality. I do not mean to cast aspirations at your character, but to present my own logic in this.
I am left within a difficult position. I do not oppose this being rewritten to be within the rules and legal. I do, however, oppose you doing the writing. Since at this point it is me the player taking an opinion and not my character, as usual, I find that this also ultimately presents a problem wherein the normal barriers of RP, which serve to keep my own person separate from the issues and actions of the character, have been broken down and left in a state where I am unsure if I can make a post in relation to this topic any further in an IC aspect without that IC aspect being colored by OOC opinion. Since the World Assembly is, to myself as the player, normally nothing more than something I can attach to for RP purposes and which serves no purpose I should OOCly care about, this presents a serious problem in that I do, as the player, actually have a stance on an issue within it for once. And, as you have seen, I usually can be quite intractable when I actually take a stance. I have been told I am as slow to move as a mountain; and just as difficult to get out of the way once I have moved.
I could try to end this by claiming none of this is personal, but that would be a fallacy. Once you have gotten myself as the player to care about something, it's no longer the impersonal mask of persona or roleplayed character. So, yes, this is personal.
Ardchoille, I apologize for continuing along with the conflict despite your efforts to put an end to it. I am going to try to divorce myself from this thread for a few hours now, since it is impossible for any comments made ICly on the subject to be honestly said to be based only on IC opinion at this point. Maybe in a few hours, the prroblem itself can be rectified in a way that separates my OOC opposition to both the topic and the player from any IC opinion Velnayanis takes. I do not hold hope for such a thing, but might as well try. There is no IC reason as to why Velnayanis would not comment on future drafts of this; all of the problems, after all, exist on the player side for this issue, when normally they should not involve the player at all.
