Some things I feel like should be said but... |
(03-08-2016, 04:12 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:It's not secret that I detest Glen, just as it's no secret that Glen detests me. If he was to leave TSP I would shed exactly zero tears, and would possibly even host a small party. But, and this is the all important but, I'm not suggesting, calling for, or voting for that. I don't like Glen; I can, however, live with him. The reason why I don't think that the Crisis/Coup was "such a big deal", or in anyway comparable to Milograd's actions, can be explained in a series of relatively simple points; 1. Just Cause: There was genuine cause for the cabinets actions in regards to the forum move, something that is near unanimously recognized, though we all agree that in dissolving the Coalition and ban-jecting people they went too far. 2. Limited Action: The Cabinet ejected three people, attempted to minimize damage and disruption, brought in no foreign troops, and stood down unconditionally once the region made it's opposition clear. None of these are true about Milograd. 3. Cause and Effect: The Cabinets decision to escalate the Crisis, whilst wrong, was directly caused by Farengeto's decision to refuse to recuse himself from the Court case. There was something which can be genuinely identified as having caused their actions, and led to their response. Milograd couped out of nowhere, with no prior warning or reasons. As such, the comparison to Milograd just can't be realistically made. I can understand why you, Glen and Far feel angry and hurt over what happened, but objectively speaking the Crisis was a relatively minor incident. In regards to compromise, I agree entirely that this is a difficult topic. There is such a thing as unreconcilable differences; the CSS is an obvious case. You, Glen and Far don't want Sam as a CSS member - I do want him as a CSS member. There's no middle ground there. But have you considered that it's possible that I might not want you or Glen on the CSS, and have simply not been brining the topic up as I know it would be pointless, divisive and lead to nothing but arguments? To my mind you, Glen and Sam all being on the CSS is a compromise. I've suggested to Tsu that he nominate a couple of new CSS members to make the membership broader and less divided - I've even given him a couple of names, people I think no one would object to and everyone would support. Similarly, I haven't brought the issue of you and Glen remaining admins up, despite the fact that I think such is completely untenable; again, I don't think it would do any damn good. I have every intention of raising the issue during the Great Council, because it can't be avoided for ever, but I've intentionally not started that fight to avoid that fight. There are always going to be areas where we can't agree, and one side or the other is going to go home unhappy, but in most areas we can find a compromise, or won't have to as we do agree. How about focussing on those areas, and building some basis of good faith, rather than engaging in histrionics like Glen has been in this thread? To list just a few areas where I think agreement and progress are possible, which I also intend to deal with during the Great Council; 1. Electoral Reform 2. Separation of powers 3. Reduction/simplification in the security apparatus 4. Better codification of executive powers 5. Better forum moderation 6. Judicial reform 7. Increasing gameside powers/participation 8. De-politicisation of the Delegacy The only genuine areas where I don't think me and you could compromise is how to deal with the Cabinet members imnvolved in the Crisis, as you wan't a more severe punishment than I believe is justified, and forum administration, as I doubt you would agree with me that you are Glen need to step down as admins. Even that old pain in the arse issue of Military Alignment isn't a problem anymore, as Unibot was the only one insane enough to insist on resurrecting it every single month in the hopes that this time, if he was annoying enough, people would agree to become defenders if only to make him shut up about it. Addendum; Don't be facetious re; the declaration that I was a security threat. Stripping me of citizenship most definitely constituted forcing me out of TSP, especially with you and/or Glen (I never did know which one of you was doing it) changing the posting/viewing permissions in various parts of the forums to limit it to citizens only. Even if being locked out of politics, the legislature, elections, etc etc - quite literally, in that I could neither see nor post in 75% of those areas - wasn't enough, the fact that someone on the admin team was abusing their power by locking residents out of everywhere they could kinda made it even more the case. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![]()
(03-08-2016, 02:23 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: What moderate center has been driven out? The bulk of TSP has been, for many years, the types of players you're saying are driving people away. Yes, people have left the region, and those people tend to have been involved in some scandal or left because they lost at politics. But they decided to engage in it in the first place, so it's not like they're the chill apolitical people that are allegedly being driven away. Glen — you lost the vote on Sam. You want to "duke it out"? You lost. Deal with it. This is another example of reading the situation to your liking. You don't get to keep voting on something until you get the outcome you like. I never claimed to be "superior," I've just been outlining away around the crap you keep bringing the region into. However, as with everything else, you don't want to listen to or even partly accept any other thoughts. Instead, you keep slamming me for not buying into your way thinking while summarily dismissing what I'm trying to say. I'm done "tsk-tsking" as you've called it.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Long reply to Belschaft.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I read this thread, and I realized why I never want to get back into TSP politics.
No, seriously, who would put up with this crap when they could just roleplay or go chill on the RMB? (rhetorical question)
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
There's plenty of people here, Darkstrait.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(03-08-2016, 06:20 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Glen — you lost the vote on Sam. You want to "duke it out"? You lost. Deal with it. When Belschaft lost the vote to restore his citizenship, you weren't there telling him he lost and to deal with it. You were upset about it and thought the whole thing was absurd. Then we changed the voting threshold and voted again. The same thing happens with Sam, and now I'm toxic and divisive and annoying for thinking the vote was absurd and that we need to do it again. The difference is that you thought Bel should be given citizenship. You think Sam shouldn't be recalled, now that the Cabinet has declared a "compromise." So these are the "reasonable" positions to hold, and if you don't hold them, you're the problem. That's how the "moderation" you want tends to work. It's not that any real compromise is reached that tries to please both parties. It's that a position is held, it's just called a compromise, and disagreement with that position is deeply frowned upon and gets the ire of the Reasonable People. That's why I'm dismissive of your arguments right now: because I've experienced our regional politics under "moderation" and it's never ended well. Literally all I'm saying is for you and everybody else to just stop forcing people to get along or else. Let people dislike each other and have disagreements. It's not a radical thing to say. Don't interject and try to force a compromise nobody's asking for, only to treat those who don't like the chosen compromise as childish and intransigent. I'm not saying everybody needs to start fighting to death over every issue. I'm saying every issue doesn't need to be "solved" by an ironclad consensus. @Bel: I resigned from the CSS 2 days ago. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(03-09-2016, 06:47 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: There's plenty of people here, Darkstrait. Right, I just don't understand why. What makes the sort of stress and pain that this sort of situation causes worth it? (not rhetorical)
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
(03-09-2016, 09:56 PM)Darkstrait Wrote: What makes the sort of stress and pain that this sort of situation causes worth it? It isn't. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
(03-09-2016, 09:56 PM)Darkstrait Wrote:(03-09-2016, 06:47 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: There's plenty of people here, Darkstrait. I don't find it painful. Maybe you're just not the kind of person who likes this stuff, and that's fine. You don't have to involve yourself in it. I've never understood people who sign up for a political online game and then get upset when people argue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I suppose it depends on the kind of arguments and the particular reason why you joined the game. NationStates is a political game, but there are many different ways of playing it. Some like the fierce arguments you get in regional governments. Some prefer to debate about real life politics. Some prefer to manage their nations. Some prefer to roleplay and create entire worlds. You have arguments in all those aspects, but the tone in each is different, and government arguments are by far much more toxic to many.
To use myself as an example. I really enjoy politics, and for a very long time I enjoyed getting involved in regional politics, as opposed to roleplaying. But recently I've found it more difficult to separate the real person from the regional politician, and that means I'm the toxicity in certain arguments affects me much more nowadays. I still get involved when I feel strongly about an issue, but regional politics is no longer the main reason for my continued involvement in the region. I know this is a political game, but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing the kind of arguments we sometimes see in the Assembly. Basically, people know this is a political game, but they don't necessarily come with the same kind of politics in mind, and many find it discouraging to see people debating so fiercely. They can choose to ignore that aspect, but regional politics being so omnipresent, they sometimes can't avoid feeling dragged into it, and for those not hardened by constant political involvement, it can be nasty. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |