(02-17-2016, 10:16 AM)Cormac Wrote:

(02-17-2016, 08:12 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: I urge the citizens of TSP to avoid voting for RON during the voting period, in order to avoid further delay of the Great Council, and more potential toxic campaigning. We have already lost several members during this election period, and I would hate to see what would happen if we had to sit through another.

I take it, then, you are comfortable having someone on the Cabinet who voted against overturning a security threat designation despite not believing the person to be a security threat, and will not commit to casting a different vote once elected to the Cabinet? That is the practical effect of your suggestion. If Resentine is joined by enough others who will continue to vote against overturning the security threat designation, like Farengeto and Henn, the Cabinet will be unable to overturn the security threat designation and we will have yet more contentious voting on it in the Assembly.

There are more ways than elections to lose more members. I've been patient and understanding, and have defended Tsunamy's choice not to use the legal power he has to overturn Belschaft's security threat designation, but if the South Pacific continues to exclude Belschaft from citizenship for the sake of expediency and pacifying a few problem citizens, I'm out of here and I'll be taking my constitutional draft with me.

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.

(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.

(02-17-2016, 10:16 AM)Cormac Wrote:

(02-17-2016, 08:12 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: I urge the citizens of TSP to avoid voting for RON during the voting period, in order to avoid further delay of the Great Council, and more potential toxic campaigning. We have already lost several members during this election period, and I would hate to see what would happen if we had to sit through another.

I take it, then, you are comfortable having someone on the Cabinet who voted against overturning a security threat designation despite not believing the person to be a security threat, and will not commit to casting a different vote once elected to the Cabinet? That is the practical effect of your suggestion. If Resentine is joined by enough others who will continue to vote against overturning the security threat designation, like Farengeto and Henn, the Cabinet will be unable to overturn the security threat designation and we will have yet more contentious voting on it in the Assembly.

This is funny, because I defiantly recall telling you that I'd change my vote a second time around in my campaign thread, but, of course, maybe I'm going blind in my rather young age.

(02-17-2016, 10:36 AM)Resentine Wrote: This is funny, because I defiantly recall telling you that I'd change my vote a second time around in my campaign thread, but, of course, maybe I'm going blind in my rather young age.

Pretty sure you said you would consider changing your vote, not that you would definitely change it. Regardless, considering that you were voting for overturning the security threat designation, then abruptly voted against it right before the vote -- and nominations in your election -- closed, I don't think we can take your word for it.

(02-17-2016, 10:35 AM)Cormac Wrote:

(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.

I am not ok with Bel being excluded, and the matter will be addressed when the cabinet is elected, if it isn't done by the assembly with a new voting threshold.
Instead of being negative toward certain people, maybe you should try being a positive force to help make changes.

(02-17-2016, 10:49 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: I am not ok with Bel being excluded, and the matter will be addressed when the cabinet is elected, if it isn't done by the assembly with a new voting threshold.
Instead of being negative toward certain people, maybe you should try being a positive force to help make changes.

I'm not sure how you can say "the matter will be addressed when the cabinet is elected" when it is entirely possible a majority will be elected to the Cabinet who will vote against overturning Belschaft's security threat designation, punting it back to the Assembly. You're basically sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting to avoid considering that possibility. We're talking about the possibility of electing a Cabinet majority that were part of the same minority who blocked Belschaft's citizenship in the Assembly.

Please don't even pull that "don't be negative, do something positive" crap on me. I spent days on my constitutional draft to do something positive, and I'm planning to post it during the Great Council if I'm not run out of the region first. But I'm not going to be okay with electing a majority to the Cabinet who might continue to exclude Bel for the sake of "positivity."

(02-17-2016, 10:40 AM)Cormac Wrote:

(02-17-2016, 10:36 AM)Resentine Wrote: This is funny, because I defiantly recall telling you that I'd change my vote a second time around in my campaign thread, but, of course, maybe I'm going blind in my rather young age.

Pretty sure you said you would consider changing your vote, not that you would definitely change it. Regardless, considering that you were voting for overturning the security threat designation, then abruptly voted against it right before the vote -- and nominations in your election -- closed, I don't think we can take your word for it.

Well, fun thing is, me changing it at the "last minute" (I removed my vote from the pool 10 hours before; changed it 5 hours before the vote closed) was because I was talking to people on both sides of the argument, and informing myself. But, of course, you would know that, if you had read the answers that I gave you in my campaign thread.

And while I understand you caution due to my "timing", I can assure you that it was purely coincidental, because I was discussing my decision up to the last minute. I am committed to voting my vote, whether you believe it or not.

Sorry for taking up space here, Tsu and DM! Won't thread jack here anymore!

(02-17-2016, 10:54 AM)Cormac Wrote:

(02-17-2016, 10:49 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: I am not ok with Bel being excluded, and the matter will be addressed when the cabinet is elected, if it isn't done by the assembly with a new voting threshold.
Instead of being negative toward certain people, maybe you should try being a positive force to help make changes.

I'm not sure how you can say "the matter will be addressed when the cabinet is elected" when it is entirely possible a majority will be elected to the Cabinet who will vote against overturning Belschaft's security threat designation, punting it back to the Assembly. You're basically sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting to avoid considering that possibility. We're talking about the possibility of electing a Cabinet majority that were part of the same minority who blocked Belschaft's citizenship in the Assembly.

Please don't even pull that "don't be negative, do something positive" crap on me. I spent days on my constitutional draft to do something positive, and I'm planning to post it during the Great Council if I'm not run out of the region first. But I'm not going to be okay with electing a majority to the Cabinet who might continue to exclude Bel for the sake of "positivity."

Your literally the only person right now who is making this a bigger deal than it is.
The voting threshold is being changed as we speak, and then the proposal will be revoted on, and likely pass.
Instead of waiting for that, you are holding people to the fire for voting how they saw fit, which I say again is their constitutional right.

(02-17-2016, 11:11 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: Your literally the only person right now who is making this a bigger deal than it is.
The voting threshold is being changed as we speak, and then the proposal will be revoted on, and likely pass.
Instead of waiting for that, you are holding people to the fire for voting how they saw fit, which I say again is their constitutional right.

I've acknowledged this entire time that it was their right to vote the way they did, but it is also my right, and others' right, to question and criticize that vote, to make it an issue in their campaigns for Cabinet since the Cabinet can issue and rescind security threat designations, and to campaign to re-open nominations.

But if I'm going to be made the bad guy now, which is always a popular choice to bring a community together, I will drop my campaign and folks can go ahead and vote Resentine. I will not run if nominations are re-opened. Nor will I be posting my constitutional draft during the Great Council. Congratulations on another member leaving.

(02-17-2016, 11:34 AM)Cormac Wrote:

(02-17-2016, 11:11 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: Your literally the only person right now who is making this a bigger deal than it is.
The voting threshold is being changed as we speak, and then the proposal will be revoted on, and likely pass.
Instead of waiting for that, you are holding people to the fire for voting how they saw fit, which I say again is their constitutional right.

I've acknowledged this entire time that it was their right to vote the way they did, but it is also my right, and others' right, to question and criticize that vote, to make it an issue in their campaigns for Cabinet since the Cabinet can issue and rescind security threat designations, and to campaign to re-open nominations.

But if I'm going to be made the bad guy now, which is always a popular choice to bring a community together, I will drop my campaign and folks can go ahead and vote Resentine. I will not run if nominations are re-opened. Nor will I be posting my constitutional draft during the Great Council. Congratulations on another member leaving.

We should have voted in the original amendment to have a temp cabinet to get through the GC. Regardless of if we really open nominations, we will still have another election coming on the 15th of March.
If people keep leaving because their opinion isn't the popular one, then the region another forum will be empty.
We have anotherndlmost 6000 people in the region that want to see change, while 20 people on the forum squabble all day and do nothing.