 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigFree
If thats the case, then I volunteer for the job! |
While you are undoubtedly the hungriest of all "Hungry Men" around here, ambition alone will not suffice. The last time you held this job, you were nearly removed from office because of your performance of this aspect of the job. I think that if you were to run for the elective office you gave up and won, that would be a sufficient demonstration that people are again willing to trust you with this. If you can't, that would be a further demonstration that they would not trust you with it.
We have an election for the very seat you gave up only a week away.
You don't like Trip. You think you would do a better job than Trip. You've wanted to be a Consul so badly ever since you gave up the job that everyone can see you're bitter about not having the job anymore. You think you know what is best for the team, how to organize everything, and how the Consuls should behave.
I think it's time you put your money where your mouth is and run against Trip. May the best man win.
Last edited by Arnelos on 24-02-2004 at 01:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFree
|
 |
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arnelos
While you are undoubtedly the hungriest of all "Hungry Men" around here, ambition alone will not suffice. The last time you held this job, you were nearly removed from office because of your performance of this aspect of the job. I think that if you were to run for the elective office you gave up and won, that would be a sufficient demonstration that people are again willing to trust you with this. If you can't, that would be a further demonstration that they would not trust you with it.
We have an election for the very seat you gave up only a week away. |
Blah Blah Blah
Nearly smearly. It wasn't even an official poll so you have NO IDEA what would have happened. Talk about Hungry. You are the one who sends out personal PM's on the eve's of election just to try to assure yourself some votes. Why not rely on forum regulars?
I did not run again because of two reasons:
1. I held the spot for 6 months. I think that's long enough.
2. I do not have the time to dedicate to the position as a Consul that I once did.
I do feel, however, that I have both the time and the tools to serve as the UN Rep.
One little note for you Arnelos, it is not up to you or the Consuls to decide who the UN rep is since that power is not given to you via the Constituiton. But I guess you don't really worry yourself with such nonsense as the Constitution; you just do whatever you want.
The power to elect a UN rep lies with the Senate and the Senate alone.
I also see it as funny that you first say that the role of the UN rep is not a Diplomatic one; then you refer to my previous work, in which you clearly indicated, that I did not conduct myself in proper diplomatic fashion. So, which is it? Is this a spot for a Diplomat or not?
Perhaps we should an official poll for this as I will not stand for the Consuls to simply appoint themselves to this role.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
BigFree,
You were the de facto U.N. Representative of this team when you were Consul. People moved to remove you because they felt you messed up that job.
The point is that this is precisely what has made the system of assigning the U.N. representation to the Consuls a workable system. If a Consul, an elected official, messes up the U.N. job, they can be removed from office almost immediately.
The Consuls are willing to stand on that. Anyone on this team can start a CoC against any Consul at any time that they feel we have messed up this team's reputation in the U.N. forum or performed some other action there that angers the team.
This idea that you have that the Consuls are somehow above accountability to the team was proven wrong by the very CoC called against yourself while Consul.
With that covered, I'll say it again:
We have an election for the seat you gave up a week from now. You don't like Trip. You think you could do a better job than Trip. Hell, you think Trip is a power-hungry monster bent on controlling the entire team and that you stand for all that is right and just. You're bitter that Trip has your job. From my understanding of you, the only reason you wouldn't run is if you have somehow lost the the courage of your convictions.
Losing the courage of your convictions is not something people have come to expect from you.
Besides, a Trip -vs- BigFree Consular race would offer a very clear choice for the people of Apolyton to make. It would be a productive exercise of democracy for the team. You would have ample opportunity to make your case, Trip could make his, and the team could decide.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFree
|
|
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arnelos
BigFree,
You were the de facto U.N. Representative of this team when you were Consul. People moved to remove you because they felt you messed up that job.
|
Where in my previous posts is it not clear that I never appointed myself anything. Anyone could have posted at the UN. Simply becuase no one else did it does not mean squat. Actually, it means they were either complacent or happy with things at the time.
quote:
The point is that this is precisely what has made the system of assigning the U.N. representation to the Consuls a workable system. If a Consul, an elected official, messes up the U.N. job, they can be removed from office almost immediately.
|
Big deal. If the team doesn't like then they can CoC them. So what? That's not my point at all. This is a TEAM. It's about handing out duties to others than the "Hungry Men"! It about getting involvement from the mebers of the team and not creating a system where 3 people control the game more and more.
quote:
The Consuls are willing to stand on that. Anyone on this team can start a CoC against any Consul at any time that they feel we have messed up this team's reputation in the U.N. forum or performed some other action there that angers the team.
|
Like I said, not applicable to this situation.
quote:
This idea that you have that the Consuls are somehow above accountability to the team was proven wrong by the very CoC called against yourself while Consul.
|
I never said this is a problem. This is your attempt to redirect the argument in another direction
quote:
With that covered, I'll say it again:
We have an election for the seat you gave up a week from now. You don't like Trip. You think you could do a better job than Trip. Hell, you think Trip is a power-hungry monster bent on controlling the entire team and that you stand for all that is right and just. You're bitter that Trip has your job. From my understanding of you, the only reason you wouldn't run is if you have somehow lost the the courage of your convictions.
|
I guess I have to repeat myself as well...
I did not run again because of two reasons:
1. I held the spot for 6 months. I think that's long enough.
2. I do not have the time to dedicate to the position as a Consul that I once did.
I do feel, however, that I have both the time and the tools to serve as the UN Rep.
I'm not bitter about anything other than the current set of Consuls are tyring to aquire more power for themselves in this manner.
Why do you say I don't like Trip? Are you trying to start trouble? Practicing your trolling techniques perhaps?
I may not agree with Trip on every issue, but for you to try and turn it around and make it a 'hate fest' really says alot for your attitude.
Trip is not the power hungry monster. There's a certain Consul who has put the three in a circle to prop himself up.
quote:
Losing the courage of your convictions is not something people have come to expect from you.
|
Are you trying to incite contempt? My convictions have not changed one bit, though your attempt to steer this topic from what is really at stake is questionable.
quote:
Besides, a Trip -vs- BigFree Consular race would offer a very clear choice for the people of Apolyton to make. It would be a productive exercise of democracy for the team. You would have ample opportunity to make your case, Trip could make his, and the team could decide. |
Your attempt to change the face of what the real issue would be entertaining if not for the fact that it is sad. You are the one who's out for more power. I'm the one trying to limit it. You're the one who's bitter and resentful of my attempts at such.
Go troll another place if that's going to be your style.
BTW, if the team thinks that the Consuls should have more power, then so be it. I won't like it, but I'll live with it. I'm just voicing my opinion that I think it would not be a good idea for one basic reason:
This game should be about getting more people invloved and not about making our game play more "efficient." If we have to sacrafice some efficiency in order to make this a pleasurable experience for the team then thats what we should do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
 |
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:33
|
|
I typed up a huge rant on what we did wrong during the whole UN debacle.
But I then seriously lost interest when it looked like we were more concerned about CGN's interests than our own.
So I never posted it.
Anyway...one of our biggest mistakes, was our lack of representation on the UN.
And then whenever we did post, all we did was fight for CGN's cause and defend their position.
And when members were banned from posting on the UN, that’s when it went pear shaped.
GWT had a free reign on what to post. No one was responding. Their resolve strengthened, and then they backed off on the deal.
Had I and others been allowed to post while GWT was on line and waiting for answers, I think we might of been able to make GWT rethink their constantly changing position on the matter.
We are talking about putting in a policy that limits our members free speech on a public UN forum....in an attempt to gag 1-2 members with extremist views.
We would be better off...from a game perspective... to allow all members to post within an open UN thread.
If you want to make a special team official representative poster only thread.. then fine. That works well, because we can get a feel for every teams position on the matter.
But general discussion on game issues should not be gagged. Nor should members be forced to campaign their view in private forums for a week, before a consul or representative decides it worthy to post on the UN.
If the consuls/team have issues with 1 or 2 posters... then deal with them individually. Do not gag the whole team because of it.
I dont have an alternate solution really, but while the WW exploit remains and we make minimal attempts to get rid of it, I am fast losing interest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigFree
This game should be about getting more people invloved and not about making our game play more "efficient." If we have to sacrafice some efficiency in order to make this a pleasurable experience for the team then thats what we should do. |
Good, and like I said before, if involvment is so important to you, why are you limiting yourself to having a citizen as UN Rep a job you have openly stated you are interested in holding?
Why don't you propose deputy MoIs in charge of WF, Workers, a deputy MoW in charge of scouting and naval, a joint MoI-MoW commission involved with city builds and planning, hell, there's a million and one jobs we can think of to get every single person here doing something.
But nooo, you are only whining on the UN Rep issue because it is the job you want, and given that you were almost CoCed because of a UN incident I honestly don't see why you are the best man for this particular job.
What I see here is just a poor attempt at disguising self-interest by trying to look like a freedom fighter for "the people". 
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
 |
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I typed up a huge rant on what we did wrong during the whole UN debacle.
But I then seriously lost interest when it looked like we were more concerned about CGN's interests than our own.
So I never posted it.
Anyway...one of our biggest mistakes, was our lack of representation on the UN.
And then whenever we did post, all we did was fight for CGN's cause and defend their position.
And when members were banned from posting on the UN, that’s when it went pear shaped.
GWT had a free reign on what to post. No one was responding. Their resolve strengthened, and then they backed off on the deal.
Had I and others been allowed to post while GWT was on line and waiting for answers, I think we might of been able to make GWT rethink their constantly changing position on the matter.
We are talking about putting in a policy that limits our members free speech on a public UN forum....in an attempt to gag 1-2 members with extremist views.
We would be better off...from a game perspective... to allow all members to post within an open UN thread.
If you want to make a special team official representative poster only thread.. then fine. That works well, because we can get a feel for every teams position on the matter.
But general discussion on game issues should not be gagged. Nor should members be forced to campaign their view in private forums for a week, before a consul or representative decides it worthy to post on the UN.
If the consuls/team have issues with 1 or 2 posters... then deal with them individually. Do not gag the whole team because of it.
I dont have an alternate solution really, but while the WW exploit remains and we make minimal attempts to get rid of it, I am fast losing interest. |
I agree with H_E here a 100%.
In addition I think NOT doing one on one diplomacy with CGN and CFC screwed us as well.
But then again we need to revitalize the diplomatic core.
We were so close, so dam close to making this thing right.
Ill shut up now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
Anyway...one of our biggest mistakes, was our lack of representation on the UN.
And then whenever we did post, all we did was fight for CGN's cause and defend their position.
|
Because CGN's cause WAS our cause, at least regarding the teleportation issue. What went wrong IMO, is that we were slow to realize that replaying was infinitely better than having the game go on and thus immediately countered GWT's protest. Once we DID find out that replaying was better, CGN insisted in doing it waay to early, 390, instead of a far more optimal 410 for example. The problem is that by this time, GWT not being stupid, also realized that replaying was not in their best interests militarily and thus retired their protest.
The fact of the matter is that the whole debate was shaped by the in-game military considerations of the CGN-GWT war, not so much as by our morals and ethics. Positions were changed when each sized realized the inherent disadvantages of what they had origially called for. Don't ever forget that our original position had been NOT to replay, which is exactly what ended up happened.
quote:
And when members were banned from posting on the UN, that’s when it went pear shaped.
GWT had a free reign on what to post. No one was responding. Their resolve strengthened, and then they backed off on the deal.
|
Members were NOT banned from posting on the UN. Look at BF, he did it through all 8 pages. All we asked was that these things be discussed either in chat or in the forum before going off on one's own at the UN.
quote:
Had I and others been allowed to post while GWT was on line and waiting for answers, I think we might of been able to make GWT rethink their constantly changing position on the matter.
|
Again, I doubt it, since GWT was being guided by, first and foremost, their military interests, which were best served by withdrawing their protest. What we COULD have done was convince CGN to replay from a more acceptable turn, say 410 (which had been agreed by GWT actually), and in fact, this WAS done in their chat room but they refused and insisted it was 390 AD or nothing. Failure was theirs, not ours, and now they will pay for their blundering incompetence.
quote:
If the consuls/team have issues with 1 or 2 posters... then deal with them individually. Do not gag the whole team because of it.
|
We DID deal with them individually. We've been doing it for the past months to no avail. That person insists that he has a right to post anything he wants at the UN or in other chatrooms and be free of any consequences. With our current constitution, what can we Consuls do about it? Nothing! I asked at the beginning of this thread what the citizenry has done to stop this abuse and the answer is simple: absolutely nothing.
So why is it our sin to propose a change which will avoid these extrmists from ruining our diplomacy? What else can we do? Ban these people? We can't ban them since we can't do official polls... has any citizen stepped up to do this? Nope. Has any citizen even bothered to post their disapproval of these extremist views in the forum? Nope. Not even a slap in the wrist. With this attitude, it is no surprise to me why these people do what they do and feel that they cannot be held accountable. Because they can't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
This issue is important enough that it requires a poll.
It will simply not do to have the Consuls simply decide who should and should not speak at the UN, even if they all happen to agree.
I see sound arguments on both sides, now let's let the people decide.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
|
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
NOT doing one-on-one diplomacy with CGN? There was usually always a consul present in the CGN chatroom talking to miccofl, in fact it was US who convinced them that replaying was for the best. If you don't believe me, look at the Correspondance and CGN threads to see just how many chats took place with CGN during this whole UN debacle. |
Ok I stand corrected, my point was when the winds really started shifting late friday and saturday no one was talking to CGN.
Im not trying to point a finger at someone.
Im trying to point a finger at the fact that we did not have an ambassador to CGN who was dedicated to trying to work the issues.
So if I have an issue its with the senate because no one has come forward to help the diplo corps. (Until I got strong armed into it.) 
I still think on friday and early saturday if we had a massive diplomatic effort we may have saved it, but again that takes dedicated folks to work the issues.
You tried and so did Arnelos, thumbs up, but you both have a bunch of other stuff to do as well.
You dont have to agree, I had a relatively free weekend for a change and could watch what was going on at the UN friday and saturday, thats when I really saw the tides change.
And when CFC posted contrary to our position of going back, I had a feeling it was all over.
And yes I know CGN was being stubborn and yes I know GWT was being stubborn.
But as of firday night/ saturday morning I thought we had a chance.
But again this is just my opinion, you dont have to yell at me about it. 
*con goes to pout in the corner, and begins to wonder if there is something really going on with the "Hungry Men".........* 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
You forgot to define "representative". You also forgot to include the "No UN representative" option. That's the one that restricts our speech the least.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MZ
quote:
Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
Anyway...one of our biggest mistakes, was our lack of representation on the UN.
And then whenever we did post, all we did was fight for CGN's cause and defend their position.
|
Because CGN's cause WAS our cause, at least regarding the teleportation issue. What went wrong IMO, is that we were slow to realize that replaying was infinitely better than having the game go on and thus immediately countered GWT's protest. Once we DID find out that replaying was better, CGN insisted in doing it waay to early, 390, instead of a far more optimal 410 for example. The problem is that by this time, GWT not being stupid, also realized that replaying was not in their best interests militarily and thus retired their protest.
The fact of the matter is that the whole debate was shaped by the in-game military considerations of the CGN-GWT war, not so much as by our morals and ethics. Positions were changed when each sized realized the inherent disadvantages of what they had origially called for. Don't ever forget that our original position had been NOT to replay, which is exactly what ended up happened.
|
CGN got approval for everything they did. GWT’s protest was doomed from the start. That was clear to me. This UN then became something bigger & better, where we had the opportunity to remove exploiting from the game. ALL EXPLOITS. We were so busy running around trying to defend CGN’s position for them, when really we should have been looking for a global compromise to ban all exploits.
We were way too focused on teleporting and supporting CGN, and not getting rid of WW.
quote:
Originally posted by MZ
quote:
And when members were banned from posting on the UN, that’s when it went pear shaped.
GWT had a free reign on what to post. No one was responding. Their resolve strengthened, and then they backed off on the deal.
|
Members were NOT banned from posting on the UN. Look at BF, he did it through all 8 pages. All we asked was that these things be discussed either in chat or in the forum before going off on one's own at the UN.
|
Nope .. I am pretty sure Trip “requested” that no-one post on the UN forum.
I cant be bothered looking for it.
quote:
Originally posted by MZ
quote:
Had I and others been allowed to post while GWT was on line and waiting for answers, I think we might of been able to make GWT rethink their constantly changing position on the matter.
|
Again, I doubt it, since GWT was being guided by, first and foremost, their military interests, which were best served by withdrawing their protest. What we COULD have done was convince CGN to replay from a more acceptable turn, say 410 (which had been agreed by GWT actually), and in fact, this WAS done in their chat room but they refused and insisted it was 390 AD or nothing. Failure was theirs, not ours, and now they will pay for their blundering incompetence.
|
Point is… it could not of hurt. And by requesting that members not post in the UN, no timely counter-arguments were available.
quote:
Originally posted by MZ
quote:
If the consuls/team have issues with 1 or 2 posters... then deal with them individually. Do not gag the whole team because of it.
|
We DID deal with them individually. We've been doing it for the past months to no avail. That person insists that he has a right to post anything he wants at the UN or in other chatrooms and be free of any consequences. With our current constitution, what can we Consuls do about it? Nothing! I asked at the beginning of this thread what the citizenry has done to stop this abuse and the answer is simple: absolutely nothing.
So why is it our sin to propose a change which will avoid these extrmists from ruining our diplomacy? What else can we do? Ban these people? We can't ban them since we can't do official polls... has any citizen stepped up to do this? Nope. Has any citizen even bothered to post their disapproval of these extremist views in the forum? Nope. Not even a slap in the wrist. With this attitude, it is no surprise to me why these people do what they do and feel that they cannot be held accountable. Because they can't.
|
I would prefer you find a better solution than doing a blanket ban on all members in the UN.
I apologise for not offering an alternative. I do not have one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-02-2004 00:57
That's what happened, simple and true. They picked up on our lack of responses/the lull between them and turned it around on us.
|