| Resolution to Call for a Special Election |
(03-25-2015, 04:09 PM)The Salaxalans Wrote: Everyone always complains about how toothless the Courts are, how ineffective they are, etc etc. Yet every time something comes up where the Courts are the logical place to turn to, everyone seems to suddenly decide the Courts shouldn't be the ones to decide. It's like designing a test so someone will fail and then using that failure as a basis for why the test-taker is a failure. How about we just let them do their job? I would be more than happy to handle this through the courts. I approached the assembly because it was becoming very likely that Hileville would manipulate our laws into disallowing the courts to actually reach a decision. Additionally, the courts have been slow to act and there is no guarantee that they'll reach a decision in time. I understand they have difficulties with being in different time zones. This whole situation could have been avoided if the original legal question posed to them was answered in time, as well. But that turned out to be impossible. Another irregularity that has made this election the most questionable in recent history. (03-25-2015, 05:38 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:(03-25-2015, 04:09 PM)The Salaxalans Wrote: Everyone always complains about how toothless the Courts are, how ineffective they are, etc etc. Yet every time something comes up where the Courts are the logical place to turn to, everyone seems to suddenly decide the Courts shouldn't be the ones to decide. It's like designing a test so someone will fail and then using that failure as a basis for why the test-taker is a failure. How about we just let them do their job? I've learned that people who make claims about opposite parties are usually willing to engage in the behavior they attempt to fearmonger against. Hopefully that isn't true of you, Glen, but the tactic itself exposes you to suspicion, especially in light of having just lost an election. @MallRiva: Pants are like defenders: they stifle all the fun and no one actually wants them around at a party.
<@Zeorus> Xoriet is my favorite fendascum <3
(03-25-2015, 05:41 PM)Xoriet Wrote: I've learned that people who make claims about opposite parties are usually willing to engage in the behavior they attempt to fearmonger against. Hopefully that isn't true of you, Glen, but the tactic itself exposes you to suspicion, especially in light of having just lost an election. I am the one who has brought these questions to the court, whereas Hileville is the one who purposefully side stepped the court in order to get his way. I have not withdrawn my legal question. I realize people find it strange that I am being a vocal critic here. However, I am the injured party. Why should I not be vocal? (03-25-2015, 05:45 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:(03-25-2015, 05:41 PM)Xoriet Wrote: I've learned that people who make claims about opposite parties are usually willing to engage in the behavior they attempt to fearmonger against. Hopefully that isn't true of you, Glen, but the tactic itself exposes you to suspicion, especially in light of having just lost an election. Because being a certified and valid critic and being a deliberate fearmongerer are two vastly different things. @MallRiva: Pants are like defenders: they stifle all the fun and no one actually wants them around at a party.
<@Zeorus> Xoriet is my favorite fendascum <3
And what makes me a "deliberate fearmonger"? Criticizing Hileville? Questioning the legality of what he did?
I am not running around crazy screaming fraud and infiltration and silent coup. I am not accusing Wolf of any impropriety. I am questioning incredibly unorthodox actions by Hileville as EC. Nobody here can rightfully say that what happened in this election is par for the course. (03-25-2015, 05:49 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: And what makes me a "deliberate fearmonger"? Criticizing Hileville? Questioning the legality of what he did? Your brand of questioning, which may seem fair to you, to me seems like a criticism on Hileville's integrity and person rather than a criticism of his actions. Fearmongering is personally attacking the character of someone to win support against them. Criticizing fairly and validly implies taking the more honorable path of not trying to demonize your opponent's reputation for personal gain. Whether or not this was your intent, you should be aware how it comes across, and in light of the situation, hurts you rather than helps you. @MallRiva: Pants are like defenders: they stifle all the fun and no one actually wants them around at a party.
<@Zeorus> Xoriet is my favorite fendascum <3
Hileville committed what I believe to be illegal actions that are basically corruption. He took authority he did not explicitly have, after already admitting that it was an issue the courts needed to resolve. He did this after an IRC conversation where his legal arguments were heavily criticized, and after saying that if people kept pressuring him, he would certify results and "[we] wouldn't be happy with them."
How am I to level these accusations in a way that doesn't cast aspersions onto him? Perhaps we should be more concerned with the law and the merits of the arguments being put forth, and less concerned about what somebody says and how that impacts another's personal reputation. If I am muzzled from saying anything negative about Hileville, I will not be able to make any argument that what he did was illegal and against all standard and orthodox practice. (03-25-2015, 06:03 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Hileville committed what I believe to be illegal actions that are basically corruption. He took authority he did not explicitly have, after already admitting that it was an issue the courts needed to resolve. He did this after an IRC conversation where his legal arguments were heavily criticized, and after saying that if people kept pressuring him, he would certify results and "[we] wouldn't be happy with them." The solution is fairly simple. "I believe that Hileville's actions are against the law and should be questioned. Please consider these facts," not "I approached the assembly because it was becoming very likely that Hileville would manipulate our laws into disallowing the courts to actually reach a decision." I understand you are upset, as are others, and are trying to express it so that those who do not might understand it, but it needs to be considered by everyone who has willfully engaged in this recently that it is the wrong way to deal with things. With statements of perceived "corruption" and stating that it is "very likely that Hileville will manipulate our laws," you are potentially divulging into the world of attacking the character of Hileville himself. State what he has done wrong in simple terms, not in a torrent of attacks adorned with words that are typically in politics used to stir fear against a person. Clean politics are something I am accustomed to, and these elections have been quite dirty. If you wish a cleaner TSP, you might start by making an attempt to state what was done wrong without dramatic paraphernalia. Edit: This applies to everyone, and is not necessarily calling out Glen specifically, but warning him against tactics that typically hurt people. Keep in mind that very few individuals have been an innocent recently. @MallRiva: Pants are like defenders: they stifle all the fun and no one actually wants them around at a party.
<@Zeorus> Xoriet is my favorite fendascum <3
Xoriet, could avoid sizing your posts in big bold things. There's no need to shout.
I think Glen has more of a point than you're giving him credit for, Xoriet: Hileville removed his open legal question of whether or not his actions were legal after he went ahead and did it, so ... that's a thing. That's not the kind of behavior we'd expect of an EC, or you know, a law-abiding citizen. A question of a behavior's legality is just as important after you do said behavior; it doesn't just become unimportant. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |