Users browsing this thread:

~~Cormac~~ · 02-08-2016, 10:24 PM

I've decided to hold this proposal until after the Great Council starts.

(This post was last modified: 02-10-2016, 05:50 PM by Cormac. Edit Reason: Saving it for the Great Council. )

***sandaoguo*** · 02-09-2016, 10:28 AM

Again, the GC doesn't start until a week after the special election.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

~~Cormac~~ · 02-10-2016, 06:55 AM

Summary also reserved for the Great Council.

(This post was last modified: 02-10-2016, 05:51 PM by Cormac.)

ProfessorHenn · 02-10-2016, 08:48 AM

You are forcing National Sovereignty on all residents of TSP. While I acknowledge that some nations want to make that choice, it should not be codified in law lest we be seen as taking a side in that debate which few of us want to get it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

Rach · 02-10-2016, 10:12 AM

(02-10-2016, 08:48 AM)Cathalea Wrote: You are forcing National Sovereignty on all residents of TSP. While I acknowledge that some nations want to make that choice, it should not be codified in law lest we be seen as taking a side in that debate which few of us want to get it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um, are you GR?

ProfessorHenn · 02-10-2016, 10:14 AM

No, I'm not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

**Belschaft** · 02-10-2016, 10:39 AM

I liked the Stalinist subtext Sad

We even used the KGB logo at one point...

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

ProfessorHenn · 02-10-2016, 10:57 AM

[sarcasm] Reddit's /r/socialism and /r/communism would definitely join us with that subtext! Activity! And edginess. [/sarcasm]a

I enjoy the Stalinist subtext as well, and I would prefer to keep it around. It gives it character and makes it scarier, ya know?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

(This post was last modified: 02-10-2016, 10:58 AM by ProfessorHenn.)

***sandaoguo*** · 02-10-2016, 11:54 AM

(02-10-2016, 06:55 AM)Cormac Wrote:
(02-09-2016, 10:28 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Again, the GC doesn't start until a week after the special election.

I'm aware of that, and I sympathize with your argument that all of this should wait until then, but with Tsu encouraging constitutional discussions and with one other draft already posted, I would prefer not to wait and have support coalesce around a different draft in the meantime, before anyone has even seen this one.

That's exactly why you shouldn't, jfc. Tsu, in all his well-intentioned soul, wants broad discussions on what the convention is supposed to address. What you guys are doing is just jumping out of the gate early, to build political support for your own drafts. You've already set the stage for political jockeying people's individual agendas. This GC is already shaping up to be an absolute mess.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

~~Cormac~~ · 02-10-2016, 02:30 PM

(02-10-2016, 08:48 AM)Cathalea Wrote: You are forcing National Sovereignty on all residents of TSP. While I acknowledge that some nations want to make that choice, it should not be codified in law lest we be seen as taking a side in that debate which few of us want to get it.

I think you're misunderstanding national sovereignty in this context. It means the freedom to manage their nations without interference from the regional government; it has nothing to do with the national sovereigntist ideology in the WA General Assembly.

(02-10-2016, 10:39 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I liked the Stalinist subtext

We even used the KGB logo at one point...

We can preserve the name Committee for State Security if people would prefer, I don't have strong feelings about it.

(02-10-2016, 11:54 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: That's exactly why you shouldn't, jfc. Tsu, in all his well-intentioned soul, wants broad discussions on what the convention is supposed to address. What you guys are doing is just jumping out of the gate early, to build political support for your own drafts. You've already set the stage for political jockeying people's individual agendas. This GC is already shaping up to be an absolute mess.

Are you ever not pessimistic? Do you ever not attack people and assume the worst motives? Look, I agree with you that this should have waited. It didn't. I'm not going to hold back my own draft while others are posting theirs. I spent a lot of time on it and I'm not interested in seeing people decide to support a different draft before they've even seen this draft I spent a lot of time working on. And no, the draft does not contain my individual agenda -- if it did, many things about the draft would be different. It was drafted with the thoughts and suggestions of many others in mind, including suggestions from the past that I went back and looked for in past amendment and Great Council discussions. I had very firmly in mind that I was trying to create a draft based on consensus, not my own views, and I resent your fact-free accusation that I'm pursuing an individual agenda.

Honestly, Glen, if you can't be more civil toward people than this, over the tiniest things, I'm just going to start ignoring your posts and pretending you don't exist. You really don't have to take a giant dump all over someone else's hard work just because it didn't fit your preferred timetable. Everything is not about you and what you want.

(This post was last modified: 02-10-2016, 03:03 PM by Cormac.)