lemonpledge

Aye

Hey, welcome to Nationstates and to The West Pacific! If you have any questions, feel free to ask here and we will be happy to help.

I'm happy with the new military section. Keep on rocking, Cormac.

Cormac, your argument about Arbiters is fair enough. I'd prefer a shorter voting time, but I do see where you're coming from. Also, the Forum Community has every right to set up it's own military, but it's the delegate's right to recognize whether this military is official. I like Dark's compromise.

Well, if the off-site community wants to form it's own military, a militia of sorts, it definitely can do so, getting together the people of the off-site community with WA nations ready to act in-game on the decisions made by the off-site community. At the same time, as can be said about the rest of the community, without the Delegate's approval, such a force couldn't be associated fully with TWP. Also, yeah, I love the terminology too.

I love the look of it so far, but I have an issue with the selection process for Arbiters. If they are elected on the same basis as the Advocate, wouldn't this mean that trials have to wait 8 days before being heard?

I'm with Resu on all of this, death to the judiciary!

Howdy, Lemonpledge is ready to bring it in the concon.

Just do it in the woods or something, maybe a basement. Btw do babies count when you say small mammals? D:

That Winston Churchill quote comes to mind, you probably know the one I mean.

I.. I'm not sure whether you were refuting or agreeing with me.

Well of course one side is invariably likely to get their way, I never said anything to the contrary. I'm not arguing against the concept of arguments, I'm arguing against institutionalized rudeness.

There's a distinct difference between a debate and bickering. I don't care if that's "what politics come down to". It's that exact enabling attitude that propagates this behavior! The fact that you dismiss it on the premise that it's what people do it awful, you're using an issue's existence to justify it. Also, I've seen the video before, I'm actually quite fond of CGP Grey.

Medio, when I quoted him in agreement, I meant I agreed with all the stuff about thread derailment, perhaps I should have trimmed down the quote a bit. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't have any issues with banter. Friendly conversation is the backbone of all NS communities. What I do have issues with? The constant bullying of certain nations because of several acts which to be honest, I don't see the severity of. I have an issue, with the complete derailment of every single political discussion on this forum, in order to discuss how terrible Llamas is. I have an issue with the fact that this community has become so suddenly toxic, on all sections of the forums and occasionally RMB. Possibly worst of all though, I have an issue with the fact that you think it's okay. It's not okay to bring all political discussions down to snide comments and bickering, it's not okay to allow a single argument to completely overtake all other discussion save the spam threads. I joined TWP because it looked like an interesting community to become part of, because I genuinely wanted to take part here. This whole debacle is giving me doubts.

Oh go away, this thread was for Cormac and his political party. You lot already insult Llamas in every other thread too, it's getting kinda monotonous.

Love what you're doing Arch, a single constitution could simplify things a whole lot. Also, no complaints about what's written so far, keep up the great work.

Dear lord, this above all things.

Takes a damn strong character to come back and say that, respect to you. I sincerely hope people start getting along, and I'm certain there are many contributions for you to make in time.

Finally someone who gets me

I'm not much of a writer but I'd love to get involved and help out! I think for the trial run, we should try it out here.

I just looked through, which law specifically dictates that votes can have no conditions? I probably just suck at skimming. Anyway, even though I couldn't find any example of a law banning conditions, that doesn't necessarily mean they're allowed, it's not that that I'm debating you on. My only issue is tat you could have been much more cordial in your response to Llamas' vote, especially seeing as he was trying to show respect to his opposing candidate. Also, good call on splitting threads, avoided derailing election.

Remember to stay ministerial you two. Though I agree with Llamas in that, while conditional votes may be not allowed, Llamas was trying to be respectful by it and there were much more orderly ways to inform him that conditions aren't allowed.

Llamas

Listen here, and you listen good. You're going to take your pleasant Citrus scent and you're going to like it! Also, I registered for the HGA.