That Called the Vlagh
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by That Called the Vlagh
-
-
AMOM does not represent The Pacific (or Lazarus) based upon my sources.
Rhetoric is often just that, rhetoric. Some spout it better than others but at the end of the day it all amounts to the same thing, just words. I know that his words have caused some concern here, and they have caused concern elsewhere as well, but ultimately AMOM is not Emperor and traditionally as far as the NPO is concerned that is the ultimate authority regardless of what any of their individual members say.
-
-
It has been stated unequivically that the Delegate did not reach out to the NPO. But rather that the PRL was already a planned part of the NPO's insurgence. He was placed in the seat by the NPO. So, the shambles that were left by the previous Community government was simply the planned dismantling of it. This is not a viable POV for me, since "Stoic Stu" is not now and never was a participatory member of the community culture. This is a completely understandable thing, if you take in to account that Krull is the actual leader there and Stu is a placeholder. As I stated, I don't see anything wrong with that really.
I don't know if there is a recoverable cultural identity in Lazarus any longer. They have been first mislead and then wiped away. And it will take a long time for them to find themselves an identity that isn't either NPO or Fake NPO (PRL). It won't be easy.
While I do have it on good authority that the PRL was indeed a construct of NPO supporters, it was the governmental actions of Funkadelia and some others that led to the current course of action, which is evident in their own blundering to establish a foothold on the community. The PRL, while potentially heavily associated with the NPO, was its own entity. Stu has simply righted the course for the nations within the region that do not align themselves with those that attempted to steer the PRL offtrack.
The fact that the boards are online and not being used by the 'government-in-exile' underscores this dilemma and further outlines the failings of the PRL.
I do not agree that the culture of Lazarus has been lost. It has changed over time to what exists today. It isn't a supplanting of something from the past, it is an evolutionary step towards what has been developed in the present.
-
Unfortuantely in this instance, the forum community that Lazarus had previously linked to it's in-game component was shut down. That effectively killed the culture. Yes, they can and hopefully will, build another community forum, but as we have seen, that has as yet been unsucessful (not counting the weird pseudo community run by cormac et al). The longer it takes to re-establish a singular identity, the more difficult it will become. And Lazarus will become the same as TP, even sharing it's forum.
The fact that the owner of the previous forum is the one that shut it down, is the only thing that keeps it from being a COPS violation. But it certainly was a violation of the spirit of COPS.
I can see your point in regards to the forum shutdown, being subject to such activity myself on occasion 'elsewhere', but the resilience of the community should not be measured in the functionality of the boards, in my opinion.
For example, TNP, which is not what I would typically utilize as an example of stability in regards to Delegacy, has maintained a stable offsite community for over a decade even though the Twoslit Experiment summarily shut down their original forum with no warning. They also preserved through another forum based community usurpation during ALSO and the NPD and in the multitude of 'rogue' Delegacies over the last ten years. The boards themselves were never the issue.
To lay blame for the disruption of the community on the owner of the boards, who was acting well within his own legal rights, ignores the core issue with the PRL to begin with. If those in opposition to the Delegate can't even get their sh*t together to form a cohesive offsite community in the face of adversity, how do they ever hope to form a legitimate opposition to that Delegate?
In my opinion, we can not blame the Delegate of Lazarus for reaching out to the NPO. You acknowledge yourself that it is a stable and established culture and community. The nations of Lazarus deserve an example of a stable culture considering the shambles with which the outgoing government has made of it.
-
I must respectfully disagree with some of the conclusions you have reached, madam Delegate. Of course, this means nothing as I firmly support your rule in TWP without question as the sitting Delegate.
But, if an offsite community, which is often a vast minority of the total populace, is displaced, then they are always free to set up a new forum and a new community and/or ingame region that maintains their cultural identity. The imposition of the Delegate upon the community is specific to the region, not the nations within the region.
While I support the idea that TWP maintains a separation between the ingame power of the Delegate and the offsite community that does not make it any better or worse than the NPO (or TNP or TSP or whatever) system of governance. It is simply different.
That the Delegate of Lazarus as decided to align his region with the NPO does not invalidate the offsite community that existed before. It simply invalidates its right to govern the onsite Delegate seat.
-
Long story short: The NPO couped Lazarus and is working with 94 Block, a forum destroyer.
Yeah, that. That is what I was asking about because I have it on very good authority that no such collaboration is taking place.
As for the rest, it would appear that the legally selected Delegate of Lazarus has opted to work with The Pacific. I am not certain it can be stated definitively that The Pacific somehow couped Lazarus, which was a very close ally to begin with.
-
-
So, having been on holiday and just now coming back online - can someone give me a quick rundown of what has happened in the last week to cause all this?
I have never supported the idea of aligning with forum destroyers in any situation or any realm and have caused major wars and lost position because of it in the past so I would very much like a candid description of what has happened privately or otherwise.
Thanks.
-
-
I thought I posted here, my apologies for missing this. My in-laws are over from the US and taking up a lot of my time. They leave on the 9th but then I leave on the 10th and will be gone until the 21st with little to no internet connectivity.
-
-
No excuses. no apologies
An assertive campaign to liberate permanently regions being dominated by raider, defender, Francoist and imperialist elements.
Exporting TWP Liberty to the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the abandoned
Welcoming the outcast with no prejudice as long as they give their fealty to TWP
I am fairly certain the ruling parties in TWP are not anti-Francoist.
Also, aren't you campaigning for action against some of our allies?
-
I believe the authority stems from the gameplay mechanics that indicate the Delegate as leader of TWP. The Guardians likely had some input on the treaties as their influence is also a factor. To be fair, the Delegate doesn't ever need to consider our input on any issue. If the forum community gets unruly, it can be displaced.
That said, the forum based government has shifted away from game-side interactions and is designated as the government of those deciding to take part on the forum, not as a representative body of the region as a whole. Therefore extra-regional treaties would not influence us here directly.
Likewise, barring recent legislative endeavors, the military has maintained its structure separate from the HGA and while it utilizes these same forums for organization it is not (again, unless recent legislation has been approved by the Delegate making it so) beholden to the HGA directly.
The intelligence gathering aspect of TWP is wholly outside of the HGA I believe.
You may have a point in regards to the cultural components, but those generally involve mundane activities like joint celebrations, which are hardly impactful on our ability to maintain our own internal cultural identity and therefore not likely to require HGA approval.
-
Whatever you say, buddy. I don't think I need to waste more words running in circles with you. We've made our stances clear enough. If other assembly members would like to provide any commentary, I'd welcome them to do so.
Indeed.
My position is that you have some valid points and that I believe before we throw away the entire methodology of internal HGA enforcement of our law that at least some alternatives are presented. Your position is that no alternative is needed, lets just throw it out.
Yes, I too would appreciate other commentary.
-
I'm not sure what I've done to merit your generally hostile tone Vlagh. You seem to be making a lot of almost personal attacks, and I've no idea why. This was not a kneejerk reaction, I've thought the civil code has no purpose for a while now, and only just got to trying to repeal it. I'm also not sure what you're grounding your wild accusations of personal bias on. Who am I biased against? How it is 'bias' for me to dislike a piece of legislation. You're dogmatically focusing on point 3 of my argument, which as I've already stated was but an aside. The simple fact is I feel everything in the code is always covered by the long established Bill of Rights and Obligations. I'm also not the only one who thinks this. I feel like you've just become oddly hostile because I suggested we shouldn't copy the Pacific, as if I was somehow insulting the Pacific when I said that, which I actually was not. You also took the opportunity to snipe at me in the Speaker's proposed announcement thread over the same issue, which imo was rather immature. So maybe, you know, calm the farm and be less of a jerk bro. I also didn't misunderstand WW, I was just saying that how he said it could be construed as clashing was indeed how I saw it, though I may have expressed myself poorly there. I'm also not sure what's stopping the Judiciary from enforcing the Bill of Obligations. It appropriately reflects the authority of the Delegate to enforce regional order. What other laws do we need in a code of laws that aren't covered by it?
I am a jerk, ask around.
Regardless, I have addressed your other points and stand by my comments. When I initially stated that the origins were immaterial you made a point to clarify that you believe they are very relevant, therefore I called you a hypocrite in the Speaker discussion thread. Sorry if that was not clear. To make certain it is, I think you are a hypocrite. The end. Your initial comments on the matter state all that need to be stated on my perception of bias. You are flippant and sarcastic in your initial post, making your 'bias' clear to me. You also note that you didn't vote on the matter. Well, honestly, tough shit. You should have been more vocal in the discussion, that is how democratic processes work.
But, it really has nothing to do with your evident bias. You claim that such does not exist, which is fine, but it seems to fly in the face of the aforementioned hypocrisy, just saying. It has to do with your point that our law should not come from somewhere else and your point that you disagree with the political accountability section of the Civil Code. I therefore suggested that instead of just throwing the whole thing out you (since this is your proposal) provide an alternative or even consider an amendment to the objectionable section(s).
The Judiciary has not been led. It has not had a proper amount of time to see if this sort of system could even work. Your primary arguments are that one section may (although that isn't for you or I to decide individually) conflict with the Bill of Rights and that it is conceivably copied from elsewhere. I think the second point should be moot, because frankly, who gives a damn if it is copied from elsewhere? As I have said, lots of laws in lots of regions are based upon other regions. And I have acknowledged that your first point may have merit but that your response to it is over the top. There is no logical reason to remove the entire Civil Code because of a possible conflict within one section when it could be amended.
My apologies if you believe I have been attacking you personally. I have not. I do not believe anything I have stated is a personal attack outside of what you yourself have displayed. If you do one thing in this thread and then don't hold the same standard elsewhere then you are a hypocrite. That is the definition.
This is completely and absolutely correct. We need a Civil Code. Without one, there's nothing for our Judiciary to do, and we would not be able to punish anybody without having violated the principle of nulla poena sine lege, no penalty without a law.
However, I don't think our law code does a good job. There's some glaring holes; e.g., there's no law preventing coups from taking place if a guardian does it because they haven't violated the endo cap, "Subversive organizations" are not defined, and treason can be construed to include a wide variety of acts such as constructive criticism of the government.
As such, I would propose repealing this and replacing it with something more up-to-date, specific, and generally improved upon compared to the old code.
My only objection is that a proposal for the replacement should be discussed and ready to be put into place prior to the repeal.
-
The origins are relevant, imo. That point was not made out of any bias against the Pacific, merely a thought that we should be able to come up with our own approach, rather than blanket copying someone elses. And indeed, we have our own approach; which is the Bill of Rights and Obligations. TWP may be very close to TP, but they are fundamentally different communities and have different atmospheres. Regardless, this was not the primary argument for repeal, more of a footnote.
As Westwind pointed out, it is in fact against the spirit of TWP. That section could be construed very widely, in the sense that anything not supporting the Delegate is a crime. Traditionally, at least in the past couple years, not agreeing with the Delegate has not been a crime here. Indeed, the Bill of Rights protects such. You can save the patronising eye rolls, buddy.
Actually, I believe you misunderstood WW's point. He was stating that it could be argued in such a fashion but that the mechanics of a system (like the Civil Code) are necessary for the enforcement of the law of the HGA. Again, it seems that you have allowed personal bias to cloud your judgement on this issue for whatever reason. The origins are not relevant in that they are just basic laws that countless regions have manipulated to their own needs over the past 11+ years. The Civil Code for TWP isn't even the same as the current Civil Code for The Pacific. They have common origins but that is true for a lot of regions and a lot of law structures.
It would be better to allow the Judiciary the opportunity to function within the existent law than repeal the law and start over with nothing. A baby and bathwater analogy comes to mind.
Wouldn't it be simpler to seek an adjustment of the existing law (if you feel so strongly about the political accountability section) instead of a repeal altogether? Or to at least provide an alternative that is grounded in more of an enforcement category for the Judiciary relying on the Bill of Rights and Obligations?
My patronizing is aimed at what I see as a blanket knee-jerk reaction to someone popping in spouting about 'values' and 'spirit' while not actually contributing to the debates and conversations that led to this point. It isn't aimed at you as an individual, just what I believe to be a reactionary mentality that could better serve the community by seeking more than 'we don't want to be like TP so lets remove X'.
-
The primary impetus for the Civil Code here in the west was to give the Judicial branch something to do, and to assist the Delegate with these matters, even if she already has discretion for dealing with them.
But, seeing as the Judicial branch has sat inactive since the passing of this as the current government could not or would not appoint someone to oversee and organize it, I can see how it may not be useful.
That said, the Delegate supported the passing of this legislation but if it is not beneficial to her operation of the region then I have no objection to its repeal. The origins are not particularly relevant to this discussion and any nation's personal bias towards another region seems to be unnecessary (and also 'completely against the spirit of The West Pacific' *rollseyes*). One could also state that the 'spirit' of TWP is a fluid thing that is dependent upon the leanings of the Delegate nation. There have been several governmental entities within this region (the current one included) that are very similar to that within The Pacific.
-
-
This is too funny.
-
Certainly, if the sovereignty of Lazarus is being placed into jeopardy by the actions of Osiris then it is wholly topical to discuss this within a conference designed and expressed as a means of securing said sovereignty?
Claiming that the besieged party should not utilize the platforms available to them to speak out against what is truly a comical display by Osiris seems a bit absurd. But, that is par for the course it seems these days.
-
I am not a fan of rule #2.
Also, I believe it is your place as Delegate to impose your will on this community. Therefore I propose that Darkesia serve as Prime Minister.
-
Yes, since the elevator music seems to cycle the soundtrack to 'Risky Business' it seems that it would be appropriate.
-
I welcome any and all high-influence nation's passwords in any feeder. Just saying.
Preferably after the next two weeks, when I will be away.
-
We should have known he was unstable when he suddenly accepted Vlagh's participation in regional affairs without so much as a single curse word.
Well, he didn't offer me the nation's password so at least we can be thankful for that.
On Lazarus: The discomfort factor
in Office of The Delegate
Posted
First, be very clear, I have played NS the same way for longer than most here have been in the game. While I may have 'sources' in The Pacific I maintained very different policies in TWP, even if I always support Delegate's rights. I know many disagree with that method of play but when I started it was standard practise and I am nothing if not consistent.
What I can say is that you are correct in that some of the core ideas are yours, but you are incorrect in assuming that the application of those ideas were not being discussed elsewhere behind closed doors from the onset.
As far as AMOM is concerned, simply being the first person to point out a thing does not necessarily give you ownership or authority over that thing. In my opinion, as a citizen of TWP, it looks to me like he spoke out of turn and forced the hand of others that may have preferred a more subtle approach. Just an opinion mind you.