The KiwiTaicho Let's Make The North Pacific a Raider Region Amendment

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
Since KiwiTaicho claimed that I 'lied' to the RA in my intents of writing up a bill in response to my first raider/defender poll in keeping with the results of the first poll, I will present the following bill for a Constitutional Amendment for informal discussion.

Flemingovia God and Cheese God forbid that I not do exactly as advertised in the original poll and upset little KiwiTaicho unto the point of having a hissy fit.

This is an informal poll, and not an actual vote on a bill.

QUESTION:

In keeping with my promise to write up legislation to promote the position of the results of the first joke Raider/Defender poll, should The KiwiTaicho Let's Make The North Pacific a Raider Region Act be opened for formal discussion in the Regional Assembly and the following piece of legislation be moved for a vote after formal discussion:

The KiwiTaicho Let's Make The North Pacific a Raider Region Act.

A Bill to make The North Pacific a Raider Region

Whereas,

A poll was made in a humorous vein to decide whether or not The North Pacific shall be all raider or all defender, and,

KiwiTaicho has accused a certain individual of 'lying' to the Regional Assembly of having no intent of writing up legislation to make the region either all Raider or All Defender, which this Bill clearly shows that KiwiTaicho has leveled a false accusation, and,

Since it would be 'undemocractic' for this Bill not to be drafted as promised in the first bill, and,

Since a KiwiTaicho and others clearly think that a Majority of The North Pacific according to a non binding poll that was designed to bring up civil discussion on the issue move to actual drafting of a Bill, either way, which Romanoffia promised to do in such poll, and,

To prove to KiwiTaicho that I was not 'lying' to the Regional Assembly as to my intent to write up such Legislation as a result of an informal poll,

Therefore,

Amendment to the Constitution of The North Pacific, to wit:

The North Pacific shall amend its Legal Code and Constitution to reflect that The North Pacific shall be forever and hereafter a Raider Region.

God help us all, God help The North Pacific.
 
I voted no, for two reasons:

1. I think TNP should be a neutral region, not a raider region.
2. If TNP is going to become a raider region, it should be the result of a deliberative process and not petty squabbling.

I hope if this receives an overwhelming no vote it's not manipulated interpreted to mean that TNP is overwhelmingly opposed to raiding. It will simply mean that TNP is overwhelmingly opposed to childish bickering.
 
You're completely missing the point. I do not want this legislation, I take issue with you making untrue statements which you know.
 
KiwiTaicho:
You're completely missing the point. I do not want this legislation, I take issue with you making untrue statements which you know.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, Kiwi:

You openly accused me in two threads of attempting to 'deceive the RA' by never intending to write up legislation promoting the results of my initial poll on Raider/Defender regardless of how the poll results went. You even called me a 'liar'.

So, you in essence force me to do exactly as I intended (and was in the process of doing) by calling me a 'liar'. Your defacto support of this legislation by demanding I write it up or be deemed a liar is why I named this legislation in your honor.

You forgot the Rules of Roman: Roman always does what Roman promises to do. Roman is always good to his word. Roman finds slights to his honor and integrity extremely distasteful and will make offenders eat their own words. And Roman has an unmovable and usually unforgiving sense of personal honor.

Now, eat your cheesecake and be happy about it. It was made just for you.

[addendum on Edit]

I voted against this bill because:

1.) of the extreme distaste of having anything that is unfettered or even smacking of mob rule.

2.) this argument must be settled once and for all

3.) a recognition that raiders and defenders can indeed work together for the benefit of TNP and do so without raiding or defending willy-nilly with no real defined restrictions

4.) I don't like being called a liar or deceiver and that I always do what I promise to do as a point of personal honor.

5.) I like making Kiwi put his money where his mouth is especially making him think twice of leveling false accusations against anyone, and I mean anyone.

6.) And to teach a little lesson concerning Realpolitik and why one should never call someone's hand after an issue has been settled.

7.) What Cormack says: "If TNP is going to become a raider region, it should be the result of a deliberative process and not petty squabbling." Thank you Cormack, I couldn't have said it better.
 
Oh, Roman, get off your high horse. And both of you, sit on the couch and hold hands. Mum is having none of this pointless bickering.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Oh, Roman, get off your high horse. And both of you, sit on the couch and hold hands. Mum is having none of this pointless bickering.
Click to expand...
The point I am showing is that the whole issue is indeed pointless.

And everyone with any military experience involving cavalry knows you never get off your horse, never. Why? Have you ever seen a dead cavalryman? Of course not because once a cavalryman is off his horse, he's infantry. :P

Point being, I see no purpose of sitting back and getting bashed by someone who clearly has a hidden agenda. What that agenda is, is not so difficult. It's like trying to figure out what something is in the dark. You poke and prod at it from all possible directions until you get a clear idea of what you are up against.

At any rate, let's see what the poll results are, and then if the discussion results in a bill being actually presented, then there will be a regular vote where people cannot hide behind a shroud of anonymity.

And that way, we see exactly who is who and what they stand for.

As for me, I was one of the people to put forth the proposition that TNP could accommodate both Defenders and Raiders, but Kiwi's BS has shown that this issue will forever be a thorn in the side of this region unless a solution can be made.

Again, I have a distaste for raiding, but I can make an exception to that rule if Raiding (and defending) can be applied for constructive means that benefit this region by applying raiding in a constructive direction. But I have no real like of unfettered defending or raiding for the sake of defending or raiding. That is a neutral stance.

It has to be a neutral stance because the Raider/Defender issue must be satisfactorily put to bed or it will result in TNP becoming yet again a victim to battles between two apparently diametrically opposed (and it need not be) paradigms.

Part of the solution is for more executive authority to be asserted over a very specific executive function of this government.

But the issue has to be solved in a very practical, yet accommodating way otherwise a power struggle between Defenders and Raiders will result in a very real civil war and some major instability in terms of government. And the habitual abstainers in voting on hot-button issues will not be exempt from the the consequences of a reality they choose to ignore.
 
Romanoffia:
Great Bights Mum:
Oh, Roman, get off your high horse. And both of you, sit on the couch and hold hands. Mum is having none of this pointless bickering.
Click to expand...
The point I am showing is that the whole issue is indeed pointless.

And everyone with any military experience involving cavalry knows you never get off your horse, never. Why? Have you ever seen a dead cavalryman? Of course not because once a cavalryman is off his horse, he's infantry. :P

Point being, I see no purpose of sitting back and getting bashed by someone who clearly has a hidden agenda. What that agenda is, is not so difficult. It's like trying to figure out what something is in the dark. You poke and prod at it from all possible directions until you get a clear idea of what you are up against.

At any rate, let's see what the poll results are, and then if the discussion results in a bill being actually presented, then there will be a regular vote where people cannot hide behind a shroud of anonymity.

And that way, we see exactly who is who and what they stand for.

As for me, I was one of the people to put forth the proposition that TNP could accommodate both Defenders and Raiders, but Kiwi's BS has shown that this issue will forever be a thorn in the side of this region unless a solution can be made.

Again, I have a distaste for raiding, but I can make an exception to that rule if Raiding (and defending) can be applied for constructive means that benefit this region by applying raiding in a constructive direction. But I have no real like of unfettered defending or raiding for the sake of defending or raiding. That is a neutral stance.

It has to be a neutral stance because the Raider/Defender issue must be satisfactorily put to bed or it will result in TNP becoming yet again a victim to battles between two apparently diametrically opposed (and it need not be) paradigms.

Part of the solution is for more executive authority to be asserted over a very specific executive function of this government.

But the issue has to be solved in a very practical, yet accommodating way otherwise a power struggle between Defenders and Raiders will result in a very real civil war and some major instability in terms of government. And the habitual abstainers in voting on hot-button issues will not be exempt from the the consequences of a reality they choose to ignore.
Click to expand...
:agree: you make a very good point. I feel myself that this this division has gotten way out of hand. I personally believe whatever the majority of the Ra decides in regards to raiding or defending is the only democratic way of going about it. I'm also greatly concerned that what ever side looses the debate (raider or defender) may take extreme action that could lead to a civil war, which well only leave the region greatly vulnerable to an attack by an outside power.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I wonder if Roman knows that KiwiTaicho is not a raider or has realized that not everyone who disagrees with him is, in fact, a raider either?
Click to expand...
You're a raider even if you've never raided if you are deemed to be a raider. It is known. *nodnodnod*
 
Blue Wolf II:
I wonder if Roman knows that KiwiTaicho is not a raider or has realized that not everyone who disagrees with him is, in fact, a raider either?
Click to expand...
Kiwi seems to spend an awful lot of time supporting raider points of view. Just sayin'.
 
peoples empire:
:agree: you make a very good point. I feel myself that this this division has gotten way out of hand. I personally believe whatever the majority of the Ra decides in regards to raiding or defending is the only democratic way of going about it. I'm also greatly concerned that what ever side looses the debate (raider or defender) may take extreme action that could lead to a civil war, which well only leave the region greatly vulnerable to an attack by an outside power.
Click to expand...
Yes, all this partisan bickering is bad so long as it is not bashing a political party.
 
Seriously Roman, this is getting out of hand. Let it go, sit in the corner with Kiwi, and eat some pie. This is getting stupidly childish.
 
Not until I receive a formal apology and retraction of all accusations leveled by KiwiTaicho. Such reprehensible actions by Kiwi cannot and shall not go unanswered.

Let it also be known that should KiwiTaicho not respond with an acceptable apology and retraction in this matter, 48 hours from this time a Formal State of War shall exist between Novare Res (Romanoffia) and KiwiTaicho, as per this formal condemnation located here:

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6945857/1/
 
Romanoffia:
Let it also be known that should KiwiTaicho not respond with an acceptable apology and retraction in this matter, 48 hours from this time a Formal State of War shall exist between Novare Res (Romanoffia) and KiwiTaicho, as per this formal condemnation located here:
Click to expand...
This is just getting weird now.
 
Blue Wolf II:
He's rather loud for someone resorting to that tactic.
Click to expand...
You are a wise ass. But I am an older, more experienced, bigger and more skilled wise ass. :P

And, the topic here is about finding out how many people want TNP to be a raider region. Please stick to the subject at hand otherwise your wanderings may cause you to become uncivil and unconstructive. :cheese:


And, as of the time of this post, by a 2:1 margin, exactly, it would seem that the vast majority of the RA appears to not want us to become a raider region.

What is even more astonishing is the fact that there are no abstentions (of course now there will be because I just mentioned that fact :P . There's always one in every crows).
 
It also seems the vast majority of TNP doesn't want us to become a Defender region either, which is seeming your own personal goal as well as the stated goal of the Reform Party.

No one has suggested making TNP a raider region except, ironically, those who are seeking to make it a Defender region, presumably because they want "conclusive date" that will suggest their viewpoint is correct.
 
You know, someone could just introduce a motion to make the TNP defender/raider and we can have a final, perfectly clear up or down vote on the matter.
 
Blue Wolf II:
It also seems the vast majority of TNP doesn't want us to become a Defender region either, which is seeming your own personal goal as well as the stated goal of the Reform Party.

No one has suggested making TNP a raider region except, ironically, those who are seeking to make it a Defender region, presumably because they want "conclusive date" that will suggest their viewpoint is correct.
Click to expand...
True, but that element of the Reform Party's platform will probably change in the next few days. I've been talking to a number of people about a new policy regarding raiding/defending, how to integrate it into the general defense of the region, *and* an acceptable way for both raiders and defenders to keep themselves busy while preserving their 'pursuit of happiness' in terms of raiding and defending.

It's a rather ingenious solution, one which I think you will actually like. Actually, it's a fiendishly delightful solution to the problem. Gulliver will even like it. Keep tuned in - I'll be posting something very interesting. I promise. :shifty: :D
 
Great Bights Mum:
What little list?
Click to expand...
It's his little list of people who ought to be recalled but who cannot be recalled because 1) they do not hold any office and 2) they have not done anything wrong.

Don't try to get your head around this - it is complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top