|
Post by Supernal Peace on Mar 21, 2004 21:16:34 GMT -5
Get over it, dude. The NPO works best under Franco's system. Hail Franco! Ave the NPO! Hail stability and discipline! I think you have no idea of the evils of the chaos that existed before El Caudillo.
|
|
|
Post by DandF on Mar 22, 2004 0:48:31 GMT -5
Get over it, dude. The NPO works best under Franco's system. Hail Franco! Ave the NPO! Hail stability and discipline! I think you have no idea of the evils of the chaos that existed before El Caudillo. I have no idea what you are talking about. @ Old Slack bladder: My point was about endorsement swapping...which not democratic...bt if you didnt endorsement swap...it would be. 'Democracy' isn't a dirty word, Blackadder. 'Crevice' is a dirty word, but 'democracy' isn't.
|
|
Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Mar 22, 2004 0:58:58 GMT -5
The intentions of the senate are clear, and the intensions of the populace are clear. Here, all is out in the open. We don't sulk behind facades of democracy like other regions. News Flash: Democracy doesn't exist. Take the North Pacific. They have "free and open elections, and they banned Nootroughsis and Domocolees because they were "endorsement swapping." Heaven forbid someone outside the current established government make a run for the delegacy. Then, Wilkshire wants a "true contender" for the delegacy, so he hand picks Blackshear to run against him. Welcome to the real world DandF.
|
|
|
Post by DandF on Mar 22, 2004 1:23:52 GMT -5
I couldn't give two Turkish turnips what is going on in other regions, Mr. Paul sir, and am far more concerned with the fact that no-one can get above 40 endorsemets without buying themselves a one way ticket to the rejected realms. Now, I'm not a major in politics, but my instincts tell me that's pretty damn undemocratic. Let's not get too philosophical.
|
|
Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Mar 22, 2004 2:59:25 GMT -5
I think that those who have posted in this thread with respect to your complaint, DandF, have demonstrated rather clearly the necessity, practicality, and benifit of the rules and outlines for the Pacific set forth through the Civil Code, among other institutions of the region. Despite your having read their many replies, you fail not only to see that the benefits of current policy far outweigh any supposed ideological gains of the alterations your propose, but that your concept of "democracy" itself within the confines of NationStates is flawed. Mindless endorsement trading is not the exercising of democratic right; it is the exploitation of ignorance and gullibility to achieve personally motivated and selfish ends (namely the usurpation of a popular establishment through underhanded means) (although there are those who may argue that that is the definition of modern RW democracy anyway).
I should note at this point that your insulting name-calling at Black Adder is a violation of a section of the Civil Code which you yourself praised earlier in this thread. I'd thank you to remain civil, even if the argument may not seem to be going in the direction you would prefer.
I should at this time point out that I notice a number of suspicious elements surrounding your behavior both previously in the Pacific and currently on this forum. You, from the time of creation of your nation, issued endorsements en masse to your neighbors. This, as you claim, was a declaration of support to those who answered their issues in a manner concurrent with your RL political ideals. Yet to do this for so many nations over such a length of time strikes me as odd, especially if you managed to accrue over 40 without ever requesting return endorsement, as you claim.
I also noticed that in the two or three weeks you had been in the Pacific, not a word was heard from you until you were ejected -- specifically less than 90 minutes after said ejection. For someone who was so ignorant of the workings and order of the Pacific and the NPO, you were proficient and knowledgeable of what had happened to you and what to do on the forum, to an extent.
Peculiarity in behavior is further evidenced by your insistance not on gaining vindication or amnesty, but rather in your relentless assailment of the policies of the Pacific and the NPO itself, with no constructive goal in sight. While allowing endorsement swapping to run rampant may appear a theoretical manifestation of democracy or freedom at first glance, it is just this which could most easily lead to an abolition of all the rights, freedoms, and entitlements nations carry. You claim not to be an anarchist, but it is anarchy you advocate.
That said, Democracy and Freedoms, you are either the most clueless noob I have encountered in my nearly seven months as Delegate of the Pacific (which is saying a lot), or you are the worst spy whom I have encountered (which likewise says a lot.)
I'm not sure whether to leave the final word on your case up to the High Judge, as you seem less interested in lodging an appeal as you are in simply agitating and instigating. You may want to clarify your true goal here before continuing to attempt to tear down all that we have built.
|
|
|
Post by DandF on Mar 22, 2004 3:25:20 GMT -5
I think that those who have posted in this thread with respect to your complaint, DandF, have demonstrated rather clearly the necessity, practicality, and benifit of the rules and outlines for the Pacific set forth through the Civil Code, among other institutions of the region. Despite your having read their many replies, you fail not only to see that the benefits of current policy far outweigh any supposed ideological gains of the alterations your propose, but that your concept of "democracy" itself within the confines of NationStates is flawed. Mindless endorsement trading is not the exercising of democratic right; it is the exploitation of ignorance and gullibility to achieve personally motivated and selfish ends (namely the usurpation of a popular establishment through underhanded means) (although there are those who may argue that that is the definition of modern RW democracy anyway). I should note at this point that your insulting name-calling at Black Adder is a violation of a section of the Civil Code which you yourself praised earlier in this thread. I'd thank you to remain civil, even if the argument may not seem to be going in the direction you would prefer. I should at this time point out that I notice a number of suspicious elements surrounding your behavior both previously in the Pacific and currently on this forum. You, from the time of creation of your nation, issued endorsements en masse to your neighbors. This, as you claim, was a declaration of support to those who answered their issues in a manner concurrent with your RL political ideals. Yet to do this for so many nations over such a length of time strikes me as odd, especially if you managed to accrue over 40 without ever requesting return endorsement, as you claim. I also noticed that in the two or three weeks you had been in the Pacific, not a word was heard from you until you were ejected -- specifically less than 90 minutes after said ejection. For someone who was so ignorant of the workings and order of the Pacific and the NPO, you were proficient and knowledgeable of what had happened to you and what to do on the forum, to an extent. Peculiarity in behavior is further evidenced by your insistance not on gaining vindication or amnesty, but rather in your relentless assailment of the policies of the Pacific and the NPO itself, with no constructive goal in sight. While allowing endorsement swapping to run rampant may appear a theoretical manifestation of democracy or freedom at first glance, it is just this which could most easily lead to an abolition of all the rights, freedoms, and entitlements nations carry. You claim not to be an anarchist, but it is anarchy you advocate. That said, Democracy and Freedoms, you are either the most clueless noob I have encountered in my nearly seven months as Delegate of the Pacific (which is saying a lot), or you are the worst spy whom I have encountered (which likewise says a lot.) I'm not sure whether to leave the final word on your case up to the High Judge, as you seem less interested in lodging an appeal as you are in simply agitating and instigating. You may want to clarify your true goal here before continuing to attempt to tear down all that we have built. Wow, insults from Caesar. Where to start? Insulted Blackadder? If you watched the show, you'd know where I was coming from...Lord Flasheart? Name ring a bell to you? Second, ask anybody I endorsed if I asked for a return endorsement. Third, get off your high horse. Typing and hitting the 'reply button' is not rocket science, one need not have prolific knowledge in anything. Fourth, if you'd actually read anything of what I've posted in detail, which you obviously have not, you'd see that I did not condone 'mindless endorsement swapping'. READ.Fifth, I was recommeded to the NationStates game from an unrelated forum having been intregued by the premise of a 'nation simulation' game. The fact that you seem to believe me to be deliberately trying to bring about disorder says more about you than me, I think. Sixth, it's not order - it's a dictatorship. Or one-party system to be pendantic. You have built up a network of beurocratic rules to keep yourself in power and ensure who are dissatisfied with your regime are drowned out. If you ban me because I have said this, it will only prove my point. Last of all, General Franco was an awful,awful man who is responsible for the troubles in the Basque region of Spain today. Get yourself a better role model.
|
|
Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Mar 22, 2004 3:32:59 GMT -5
Your tone flirts with negative repercussions, DandF. That your dissent is being heard and discussed as it is should speak volumes to the freedom and openness of the Pacific, but if your arguments degenerate to insults and deliberate disrespect, they will be brought to an end. Consider this a warning.
|
|
|
Post by DandF on Mar 22, 2004 3:35:08 GMT -5
Your tone flirts with negative repercussions, DandF. That your dissent is being heard and discussed as it is should speak volumes to the freedom and openness of the Pacific, but if your arguments degenerate to insults and deliberate disrespect, they will be brought to an end. Consider this a warning. I am speaking my mind. If you consider it to be insulting, it is no fault of mine.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Mar 22, 2004 9:54:51 GMT -5
I am speaking my mind. If you consider it to be insulting, it is no fault of mine. I respectfully disagree. We are responsible for our words, and for the emotions they illicit in others. I would not tell my mother that she is fat, even though that would be speaking my mind and not an attempt to insult her - why? Because she would perceive it as insulting. I suggested you post here in a respectful, polite tone, asking for an explanation of your ejection; instead you post attacks and critiques of our civil code and state your mind in an insulting manner and then claim that it should not be insulting. Civil discourse is an exchange of ideas and statements with the intent of intelligent progress towards a communicated end - your statements are not civil, nor are they an attempt at an exchange. You insult, whether you believe you do or not, and I ask you to reconsider the way you present your arguments so that you take into consideration the way people will respond to your words. That consideration is a cornerstone of civil discourse. That being said: It is clear that you have numerous problems with the Pacific government. I would suggest saving those complaints for another day, and another thread, and in doing so make those complaints in an appropriate and respectful tone and with polite language. This thread is for the appeal of cases to the highcourt. I suggest, if that is your intent, than make your appeal. Do not turn this thread into a soapbox for your arguments against our government. This thread is for appeals to the government. Show respect to that government so that it might show respect to you. If you choose to criticize, do so, but do so in an appropriate place and with the understanding that you are offering suggestions to people that enjoy the way they live, not attemping to convict us of your perceived wrongdoings. Do not judge us, but rather, discuss with us your perceptions. Best regards, Abysseria
|
|
|
Post by Pierconium on Mar 22, 2004 11:07:29 GMT -5
The fact that our glorious leader, Francos Spain, has tolerated your subversive and rebellious statements here in the forum is more than enough to put all your arguements regarding political freedom in The Pacific to rest.
Might I suggest that you take a moment to "step back" and take a look at this thread and this forum before replying further. You will see that you have been mistaken, we are free here with Francos Spain as our protector.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Mar 22, 2004 11:31:32 GMT -5
Thank you for your aid Comrade Franco however DandF is using a quote from the BlackAdder series. I was wondering when someone would get around to it when describing me. Point remains whether its used in jest and respect or indeed an insult. No matter, I am a big boy.
DandF, unless you haven't seen it yet we have very real and fundamental differences here on a very basic level. Given that I fail to see why you wish to come back so badly. Perhaps now would be the time where we part ways as amicably as possible and pursue our separate paths. We can't make it clearer in polite terms our stance, you can't sway us with yours. This is an impasse, it remains to be seen whether you break off and leave as a gentleman or you force your point and get banned. I'd prefer civility and gentility if you would. Again I wish you best of luck.
|
|
|
Post by DandF on Mar 22, 2004 11:43:12 GMT -5
Rebellious.... I fail to see how I am rebelious seeing as I never pledged my allegiance to Francos Spain. I also do not think I have been insulting. I could have posted "OMG ur lam0rz" and such. Instead, I chose to argue against parts of the civil code. Is that so wrong? I have tried to refrain from harsh words as much as possible. It adds nothing. Black Adder; I assure you, the comment was purely in jest. Hence the smilie at the end. If another topic is required, by all means, I will start another for discussing the finer points of the civil code...but I was directed to put my arguement here in the first place! And I will say again: I have no issues with the way the government is handling the Pacific. My beef is purely with aspects of the civil code.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Mar 22, 2004 11:56:26 GMT -5
DandF. Here is the very point you are missing. The Pacific is run so well BECAUSE of the civil code. Were it not for the provisions therein we would be subjected to the anarchy that was the Pacific before the NPO took power.
Here is the defining point of the argument, the Civil code is the Pacific. The Pacific is because of the Civil Code. This is not an arguable thing. We have debated this with countless nations before you and it has not been altered. The code is structured precisely to allow the order that the Pacific enjoys. To begin changing it to suit those who find issue benefits a few and not the majority. It certainly doesn't benefit the NPO nor the Pacific.
Understand this, the Pacific as it is today is because of the Civil Code. The Civil Code will not be changed. Ever. If you cannot understand or accept this fundamental truth then really this has transcended an appeal from you for reinstatement into a harangue against the NPO.
|
|
|
Post by DandF on Mar 22, 2004 13:06:17 GMT -5
Why? What is so great about it? All it does is ban nations that speak out against the government. Don't seem like a natural order, seems enforced to me.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Mar 22, 2004 13:28:41 GMT -5
Why? What is so great about it? All it does is ban nations that speak out against the government. Don't seem like a natural order, seems enforced to me. That is poor form, DandF. We do far more than that, and you know it. I suggest we call this discussion to an end and await the jurisdiction of the Senate on this matter. BTW, Black Adder, it is good to have you back
|
|