(02-17-2016, 10:26 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: I refuse to hold someone's vote against them. It is their right afforded to them by the constitution.
If we preach that we need change in the region, and that change is to come from the Great Council, how can any of us as citizens expecting change, delay the Great Council any further by having another nomination period, campaign period, and voting period for another 9 days?
After that election cycle is over, we will have 2 weeks before we have to vote in new elections on March 15th.
As a member of this Region, a citizen of it's Constitutional Assembly, how can you think that we should yet again delay the "Change" that everyone is expecting?
What happened with Bel is sad, but it was everyone's right to vote how they saw fit. We can sit an argue on that all day, everyday, for the next month, but we will never change anything in The South Pacific if we do so.

So then, just to pin down a definite response: You are comfortable with the possibility that Belschaft will continue to be excluded from citizenship, for the sake of expediency and pacifying a few obstructionist citizens?

I'm not interested in helping the South Pacific change anything if the community is going to choose to sacrifice Bel to the egos of Glen-Rhodes, Kris, and Farengeto. Any "change" that happens under that culture will just be superficial legal change. The change that needs to happen is for these few people to stop constantly getting their way despite being a tiny minority, and for people to stop being excluded for petty reasons. Maybe Todd was right about the lack of leadership.