[PASSED] Repeal "Commend Mikeswill"

[Metania]

But alas, the choir of dismay from Mikeswill's loyal followers could not remove 5,000 votes...

[A mean old man]

I find that the reason for repeal is such hogwash and unworthy of AMOM. My esteem of amom went down a few notches while reading this.

AMOM waves hands in air.

Oh no!

Note: I'm still here. If I get a minute, I'll respond to some of the tl;dr-variety posts in here, though I currently don't have a minute and I am fully aware that no matter what I say, the same people will still continue to say the same things. So I'll humor you all later with a long but utterly futile statement on the posts defending Mikeswill's commendation.

[Punk Reloaded]

AMOM, my intent was not to say something requiring your response, merely to state an adjustment of my esteem for your actions/ability. I make alo of opinion statements people may or may not care about. I don't care if they do or not, I just have opinions. If you'd like to reply...shrugs.

This will pass and my estimation of my fellow security council members falls further below the level it previously stood...which wasnt too high.

The WA and SC have, in general, made me question the thoroughness people in RL use to make political decisions. Were this measure objectively weighed the votes would be much different, methinks. unfortunately people read something nicely worded and in the absence of a counter argument or investigating the veracity of the stated argument vote one way or the other - mostly in the direction of the biggest delegate vote at the beginning of the voting period.

completely throws the concept of merit out the window.

/rant

[A mean old man]

I stand by each of the aforementioned comments regarding the error of the Security Council and it's infringement upon Regional sovereignty. For the record: I did not seek the Commendation nor did I have the choice to accept or reject the Commendation.

I don't see how that is the case. You could have asked the person submitting it to pull it from the queue or you could have publicly declared your opposition to the idea of being commended by the WASC. Saying that you didn't have a choice in the matter is absurd.

My ego, which is a tad smaller than my righteous adversaries, appreciated the recognition given to me and the NationStates region for years of hard work. The conflict with my previous stance warranted a redress and subsequent alteration in policy which sought to appreciate the Commendation process while continuing to stand against the Liberation authority which is at the crux of my fundamental disagreement with this body.

...which is a pretty way of saying you went back on your word - word that you had made very clear and acted very decisively upon ... until doing so would have refused you a WASC commendation. And an attempt to take a shot at me and failing due to a goofy grammatical error.

The fact remains, however, that this body will not tolerate differences of opinion which is a precept of democracy. Where this body could have embraced achievement and individuality, the fear of such tolerance returned this institution toward cronyism. I care not to be a member of such hypocrisy.

It's not a matter of oppressing "differences of opinion," it's a matter of your sudden change of strongly established ideals when the circumstances best suited your personal interests, and the world's change of opinion regarding your status as commended when the world is made aware of the situation. I also find it ironic that you attack the WASC for its supposed "hypocrisy" when it was your own hypocritical act that birthed this motion.

"Differences of opinion" are not being oppressed via this motion, but are rather being expressed. It rarely strikes people that perhaps their ideals are widely contested. Other people don't have opinions, they're just attacking mine! I can't stand that attitude.

Just to keep the facts straight: on or about September 10, 2010 TITO defended NationStates Region on their own volition thereby keeping the status quo of Mikeswill as WA Delegate over an Invasion by the combined forces of The Black Hawks, Unkown, and The New Inquisition. Neither of these raiders care about the alleged relationship between myself and The Highlander 1. They are Raiders and they raid. On that night it was my duty to defend the region and I failed. The fact that TITO rescued the region from demolition was part of the game play they chose to partake in without any request or approval by me. Had the Raiders won (and should they in the future) then I would have to choose to either accept their rule or move over to the Nation States region and focus my efforts their without the burden of founderless status. Such is the reality of the Jennifer Government Land which I agreed to upon my birth on October 28, 2003.

Evidently those three invader organizations were aware of TH1's obsolescence. It is ironic that TITO bailed you out, though it proves that they could overlook your idiosyncratic faults in-game and rather come to the aid of the populace of your region. This commendation was not about your region, though, as you often make it seem - it was a commendation of you, about you, and it acts as if you alone somehow managed to keep your region under control while omitting the many extraneous yet important factors that allowed you to do this.

The nation of The Highlander 1 was created by Mikeswill over seven years ago to infiltrate the raider community and better the intelligence network of the NationStates region in defense of potential raids. The NationStates region had been ravaged by the Invader-Defender wars of 2003 and Mikeswill~Mikes Hope was beginning to bring security to the namesake region of the game. Unfortunately, unlike Texas or 10000 Islands, we were a founderless region without the security of founder powers. Every day we were at the mercy of the native nations we served. Unfortunately, without WA status, The Highlander 1 was not able to infiltrate into the inner workings of most Raider organizations. However, he was able to get a different perspective of the high-handed and hypocritical game play of the righteous.

Over the course of time rules continued to constrain the game play of Invaders while Defenders resorted to the same activities with impunity. In time, the Security Council was created to include the power of restricting the password controls of the WA Delegate. Under the guise of “Liberation” this act left any region at risk to the whims of those who controlled the Security Council thereby destroying true regional sovereignty. At this point Mikeswill stood firm against such usurpation of the rules of play and The Highlander 1 became a more aggressive voice of dissent against the Security Council. Nevertheless, raiders who agreed with the dissent gave no quarter or security to the NationStates region. Proof of same culminated in September 2010 when Mikeswill was nearly ousted as WA Delegate by members of the three largest raider groups in play.

It is the position of Mikeswill that the dynamics of the Jennifer Government Land includes raiders and defenders ~ that the NationStates region remains subject of invasion by both parties as proven in 2010. The irony that the Invader camp has far greater respect for my out-spoken disdain toward the Security Council than do the defenders is amusing as they readily would jump at the opportunity to unseat the longest standing delegate in the game. More ironical is the defender actions of 2010 which secured my position as delegate yet knowing my position toward the Security Council.

Ah, well, such are games and this next chapter shall prove most interesting indeed.

Not quite getting this. People here are ranting about how you're deserving of a commendation because you played "smart" and got raiders on your side, yet you state that TH1 was essentially a useless enterprise but for providing you with a new perspective? Considering SB's statement here, my gut is telling me that this is horse shit. You had invaders on your side, especially those from DEN, and your dependence upon these invaders helped you control your region while regions just like yours were torn apart by the same people you relied on. As I've said, that isn't an anti-raider argument - more of an anti-you argument.

TH1 may be obsolete nowadays, but it wasn't always so.

Anyway, if I took all this dialogue, put it into a blender, I'd come up with the following:

"Mikeswill is really Highlander, a supporter of NS raiding groups and so he's a raider even if he never raided, and while Mikeswill is the longest-standing delegate in NS, he's really a jerk because he doesn't allow elections and says nasty things about the WA. So we should take away the gold star we gave him."

That's cute. I hope you can get your blender fixed soon.

Indeed, as we're also well understood to be against what the WASC does, we still agree that Mike deserved the recognition, even if he never sought it.

Oh, but he did, and that is the problem. The recognition should never have been worth anything to him, but he decided to ignore what were supposedly his own standards and contradict everything he had ever said about WASC C&Cs by supporting those praising himself.

His anti-WASC stance is called hypocritical in view of the proposal citing him for being a supporter of the WA. Again, since when and where has it been written you have to agree with a group to be part of it? The only mechanism Mike can control his region is via the DG chair, therefore he belongs to the WA. Accusing him of duplicity and hypocrisy as rationale for repeal is equally invalid on the same grounds: Whereas before this body was singing his praises for his region to lobby FOR the previous proposal, those words are now loaded-up into the cannons and fired back at him -- you're undermining your own credibility by dismissing as irrelevant all said before in acclimation. I guess you really didn't mean it then. All this is a perfect example of why many vocally oppose and roll their eyes at what this group does. It's a wonder you lot don't get collective ethical whiplash.

I'm always amused by the posts that treat the SC as a "group" rather than an "institution." Sure, I guess you could say that the WASC is a group, but only if you then acknowledge that it is a group comprised of everyone in the WA. You act as if I wrote or supported the original commendation, when Going Postal wrote it and most of the world supported it without knowing all the facts. I voted against it. Those that knew the facts and felt as I did voted against it. Most did not know.

I consider it my duty to make them know the truth and then allow them to come to their own conclusions, and I don't give a flying fuck if I take flak from the people like you and the people like Mikeswill who harbor (or perhaps feign) such an incredibly narrow understanding of how this body works. If the world felt differently about the facts presented to them, this motion wouldn't be winning by over 5,000 votes.

So the authors of the original proposal didn't understand whom Highlander was, proposed a commendation for an alter ego they were impressed with, and now wished they hadn't.

I have a feeling that Going Postal is aware of some of Mikeswill's other personas.

You do realize if you had just let this little thing sit in the bottom of one of your many disused file cabinets, nobody would've even remembered...

That is absolutely disgusting and I shouldn't even have to explain why.

and that bringing it all back-up, you make an issue out of something that isn't going to reflect particularly well on this group's image. Assuming the ludicrous for a moment, that Mike is as you suggest, a raider in rainbow clothing, then you've done what everyone in here said would never happen -- you possibly honored a raider. Aww snap. Wouldn't you rather that little bit of WASC history just lie fallow and undisturbed?

It's not the fact that he is a raider (he isn't; he is a raider sympathizer and has been dependent on raiders' help to hold onto his position) that warrants the removal of his commendation, it's the fact that he took such a distasteful approach to securing his home region.

This is more to correct the backers' public mistake, than to punish Mike -- despite being a successful NS gamer and contributor -- because of his guilt-by-association with the raiding community.

Hey, this statement is actually somewhat right. This is more about correcting a mistake made by the WASC than about punishing Mikeswill.

All this adds-up to an embarrassing bit of legislation, but it's not legitimate: your problem is with Highlander, not Mikeswill who has the commendation.

...and they're the same person. I'm not going to explain again why this argument is stupid.

Unlike the Nations that leisure in the forums to look in the mirror after every post of rhetoric, I am engaged in a real scenario where I serve a Region that has empowered me to protect it from threats.

That's really fucking obnoxious, Mike.

In the past 8 years we have been attacked on at least 6 occasions. Prior to my entry the region was devastated by raids and wars reducing the population to 4 nations at one point. I arrived as the 23rd nation and twice grew the region to over 600 nations in the days when 100 were enormous. As a founderless region we have but one game created mechanism to protect the region in play called, password protection. My continued disagreement with The Security Council is their usurpation of the rules to remove from a Delegate the right to password a region.

Fantastic. Actually, I think it's appropriate that you beat your chest and rant self-righteously about your grand accomplishments in this thread, because it speaks as to exactly why this repeal is on the floor. I'm also finding the repeated statements regarding your longevity to be really tiresome. Did you know that I've been around since 2003 as well? Probably not. Do you know why you didn't know? Because I never was the guy who marched up to the stage and hopped into the spotlight. I worked in small regions assuming the roles that nobody else wanted to take under personas which changed constantly over the years. Only until 2008 did I actually begin to assume a larger role in the "world politics" of the game, yet even then and even now I manage positions in regions which do not present me as the #1 guy or put me in charge of everything but are instead very necessary roles which someone has to fill and manage properly in order for the region to function.

...and that's enough about me, because I'm not comfortable advertising my achievements in the same way you are.

The continued prattle of why I do not deserve a Commendation is now moot on a number of planes: a) the vote is done; b) I do not want the Commendation based upon the current oligarchy of fear mongers and hypocrites; c) I have received sufficient Commendation within the game that a paper medal can never match.

I'd be all for allowing this to be over and allowing the vote to continue in silence. I won't, however, stop defending myself, and you don't seem to be inclined to stop defending yourself, so I doubt that this debate will end just yet.

However, I do appreciate that this process has once again exposed the excesses of The Security Council. We had hoped for better but again you failed us.

Who has failed who, Mikeswill? Have the thousands of people who, based on evidence now brought to light, feel differently about your commendation failed you and your supporters?

...or have you failed them?

[New Rogernomics]

Abstaining as I usually do, and since this is likely to pass, my vote makes little difference to this anyway. Mikeswill isn't really improving his/her image in this thread either.

[Warzone Codger]

The voting is nearly finished and all one way, so there is nothing to do but to rise rhetoric.

I believe the Player, literally the guy behind the computer screen, has a right to play Nationstates, the computer game, in any way it he chooses without any questions unless he did something to induce, directly or indirectly, the connection between them. Whether the connection is induced depends on whether the reasonable person should believe there is a connection between them

Note I am using 'reasonable person' in the legal sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person), (which contrasts against 'actual knowledge') and my use of 'should'. Things for determining 'should' includes areas of the game played, and whether there is significant overlap such that there should be a connection.

Whether someone passes the test is my difference between it being a legitimate in-game concern and someone being necessarily stalkish against the Player playing a computer game.

(Gosh, I sound like a TNPer if all these legal mumbo jumbo).

[A mean old man]

(Gosh, I sound like a TNPer if all these legal mumbo jumbo).

Hence why I am unable to understand what you've just said.

[Mikeswill]

In two hours I shall be free from this particular circus.
Meanwhile I shall dance.
Gentlemen and Ladies I bid you goodnight and good playing.

[Connopolis]

I have one question; what did Mikeswill do to warrant the repeal of his commendation? That's a bit confusing, considering his "SUPAH EVILZ RAIDAR" - an inactive, non-WA puppet - is one of the only compelling components of the proposal. That, and obvious personal distaste.

[Metania]

"the extensive length of time that Mikeswill has spent as delegate of the region called "Nationstates" is due in part to the fact that the delegate of the region has never been democratically elected" is confusing?

"[Mikeswill] generally put down the Security Council itself" is confusing?

"based on this knowledge, Mikeswill might not be the best candidate for a commendation which praises the nation's alleged "dedicated service to the World Assembly,"" is confusing?

[Connopolis]

"the extensive length of time that Mikeswill has spent as delegate of the region called "Nationstates" is due in part to the fact that the delegate of the region has never been democratically elected" is confusing?

"[Mikeswill] generally put down the Security Council itself" is confusing?

"based on this knowledge, Mikeswill might not be the best candidate for a commendation which praises the nation's alleged "dedicated service to the World Assembly,"" is confusing?

The natives of Mikeswill are obviously content, considering no established native has ever asked elections to the best of my knowledge. And does that necessarily matter if he dislikes the Security Council? That amounts to little more than "we're repealing his commendation because he doesn't like us!" The last line is pure rhetoric considering your first two points are unjustified.

[Metania]

Large as your region is, it is not all of Nationstates. Those of us outside your region couldn't care less what the natives think. Instead, we care about things that effect us, like someone calling us names, or a commendation which appears to be praising undemocratic region control practices.

Rhetoric is what politics is about. If you dislike that, you should probably avoid politics.

[Connopolis]

Large as your region is, it is not all of Nationstates. Those of us outside your region couldn't care less what the natives think. Instead, we care about things that effect us, like someone calling us names, or a commendation which appears to be praising undemocratic region control practices.

Rhetoric is what politics is about. If you dislike that, you should probably avoid politics.

That's not the point though. Why should all of nationstates get to decide who the delegate of the region is? Should the natives ask for a new delegate, I'm nearly positive Mike would implement a democratic election. Compounded with that, I can name about three other commended nations that are rude or blunt in nearly every IC post, one of which I authored the commendation of. Rudeness doesn't warrant a repeal.

And rhetoric's nice, but it's not an argument.

[Caras Way]

As one who has been directly involved w/Mikeswill/Highlander/ Editor etc; (and for a fact they are one in the same) I hardly think NS should be commending his type of behavior...

Suffice to say though he is unable to actively raid, he supports them whenever possible, is a founder of a raider region (ile de France) and is a Delegate of a puppet region) Nationstates..Though he preaches peace, love etc; if you make any attempt to voice your own opinion you will be thrown from his region...

CW

[Metania]

Large as your region is, it is not all of Nationstates. Those of us outside your region couldn't care less what the natives think. Instead, we care about things that effect us, like someone calling us names, or a commendation which appears to be praising undemocratic region control practices.

Rhetoric is what politics is about. If you dislike that, you should probably avoid politics.

That's not the point though. Why should all of nationstates get to decide who the delegate of the region is? Should the natives ask for a new delegate, I'm nearly positive Mike would implement a democratic election. Compounded with that, I can name about three other commended nations that are rude or blunt in nearly every IC post, one of which I authored the commendation of. Rudeness doesn't warrant a repeal.

And rhetoric's nice, but it's not an argument.

We don't specify what delegate each region has, but we reserve the right to commend, condemn, or neither based upon what we think of how a region has been run.

Saying an argument isn't an argument isn't an effective way to argue, IMHO.

[A mean old man]

Repeal "Commend Mikeswill" was passed 7,536 votes to 2,341.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

good job AMOM

[A mean old man]

good job AMOM

Thank you.
I'll respond to Connopolis's posts tomorrow.

[Punk Reloaded]

another sad day in this mob called, Security Council.

[Weed]

another sad day in this mob called, Security Council.

Someone who did not want commendations handed out at all got what he wanted.
Who lost? Who is sad?

[Drop Your Pants]

another sad day in this mob called, Security Council.

We could repeal your condemn next if you want

[Punk Reloaded]

another sad day in this mob called, Security Council.

We could repeal your condemn next if you want

No one said that the mob can't giveth and then taketh away.

Someone who did not want commendations handed out at all got what he wanted.
Who lost? Who is sad?

It being sad and a person being sad are not the same. The flimsiness of what Mikeswill did 'wrong' and that the mob approved it are what is sad. I actually do not care if he wanted or did not want the commendation. The 'mob' probably approved it. Point is the Security Council, in this guy's opinion, makes poor decisions without much thought.

And that is sad.

[Weed]

Someone who did not want commendations handed out at all got what he wanted.
Who lost? Who is sad?

It being sad and a person being sad are not the same. The flimsiness of what Mikeswill did 'wrong' and that the mob approved it are what is sad. I actually do not care if he wanted or did not want the commendation. The 'mob' probably approved it. Point is the Security Council, in this guy's opinion, makes poor decisions without much thought.

And that is sad.[/quote]That he did something wrong is just one of the arguements. I would assume most people who took the time to read this resolution voted exactly the way I did, for it because he does not like commendations himself, disregarding all other reasons because that one is good enough. I wouldn't necessarily assume its passing to be a comment on his wrong doings. His opposition to commendations was a much stronger argument.

[Punk Reloaded]

i assume he was against commendations when he was...well...commended. Seems silly to pass a commendation and then repeal it because the recipient remains against commendations in general, no?

[Swarmlandia]

It being sad and a person being sad are not the same. The flimsiness of what Mikeswill did 'wrong' and that the mob approved it are what is sad. I actually do not care if he wanted or did not want the commendation. The 'mob' probably approved it. Point is the Security Council, in this guy's opinion, makes poor decisions without much thought.

And that is sad.

Agreed. Obviously a majority of the "mob" voted FOR considering the original "weak" resolution was Votes For: 6,017 Votes Against: 3,549. Then a few months down the road they find out he controls a puppet nation that is affiliated with raiders and the repeal begins. Just because he didn't approve of Commends/Condemns doesn't mean he wasn't worthy of a Commend. Honestly lets break it down.


BELIEVING that the extensive length of time that Mikeswill has spent as delegate of the region called "Nationstates" is due in part to the fact that the delegate of the region has never been democratically elected, is thanks to the key role which defenders played in preventing the invasion of the region on September 10, 2010, and is partly due to Mikeswill's long-held invader ties,

Firstly. None of the natives ever attempted to turn the region into a democratic region. So it shouldn't of been an argument. Secondly. Like any smart Delegate of a founderless region. Wouldn't you think it's wise to dig into those who would do you harm? So what is wrong with befriending raiders if it is going to make his own region safer? I believe that saying "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer." would come in here.

IDENTIFYING "The Highlander 1" as a nation which was secretly controlled by the administration of Mikeswill and further identifying The Highlander 1 as a member of the notorious invader group DEN and as the founder of the invader hideout Ile de France,

Well this has nothing to do with the original resolution. It's just the defender part of this repeal that says raiders shouldn't have a commend. I recall defenders trying to repeal Todd McCloud's commend because he was affiliated with raiders in the past.

NOTING the strong position against the World Assembly Security Council which Mikeswill maintained for many years, and noting the nation's constant appearances in the WASC forums not to debate or to aid others, but to place a previously prepared message within the discussion on the resolution at vote which did not address the topic of the debate but rather advertised the nation's region, criticized what the nation believed to be defenders' "cowardice" for resorting to liberations when a region was captured by raiders, and which generally put down the Security Council itself,

Vague, very vague. I'm guessing this was pointed towards liberation resolutions because it refers to defenders in the same clause. So again... he just protested against defenders.

FURTHER NOTING that, while the nation of Mikeswill has supposedly stood against every function of the Security Council since the council was established as a legitimate division of the World Assembly, the nation has not had the modesty to refrain from approving various proposals to commend itself over the years, and believing this choice to be rather hypocritical and distasteful,

This is a lie. When I was writing the proposal under my nation Going Postal, he told me he did not want a commend and told me his stances against the security council.

DETERMINING that, based on this knowledge, Mikeswill might not be the best candidate for a commendation which praises the nation's alleged "dedicated service to the World Assembly,"

7 years of service. Enough said.

FURTHER BELIEVING that calling Mikeswill "one of the most dedicated nations in the world" is a nice gesture, but when such a grand claim is barely backed up by a resolution's text the World Assembly must disregard the claim and not allow such vague ideas to influence the WA's collective opinion,

This is just a filler clause to push the repeal into making him look bad.


Honestly. It already passed, so no point in arguing but I figured I'd let you know.