TNP vs. Fulhead Discussion

As a general, non specific comment!! NS is a game, the laws of this region apply to member nations of this region!!

Trying a "player" in a role-play court is preposterous!! Charges squared against a member nation would need to be supported by evidence of wrongdoing by that member nation!!

Now, I'll stop before actually mentioning specifics of a certain case!! Because that would be naughty!! Only certain people are allowed to try and influence a jury by posting things that the people they talk about are not allowed to respond to!! ;)
 
I will transfer all of my TNP Dollars evenly to the members of the jury if they give a verdict of "Heft is Secksi!!"

:noangel:
 
For all Polts posturing about TNP holding a kangaroo court, would you take a look at what he just sent hopping in.

The notion that there are really two Fulhead Lands is preposterous. It's a spurious defence drummed up in an effort to give him a leg to stand on. If the court allows this kind of shallow sleight of hand, it will be impossible to try any nation for anything. How easy would it be to dodge every piece of evidence by simply saying "Oh, that wasn't the Delegate, Great Bights Mum who said it, it was the GBM who controls Puppet X of Puppetland." Poppycock!
Click to expand...

What about Gracius Maximus/The Minister/Pierconium? He does/did so quite succesfuly
 
The fact that the TNP Constitution addresses membership in terms of a player that controls a nation, rather than just a nation, rebuts that contention. GM/Periconium/Moldavi may feel that he did so successfully, but that is not a universal perception. As far as I am concerned, they were all the same player, albeit with a puppet in every region.
 
Fulhead Land:
For all Polts posturing about TNP holding a kangaroo court, would you take a look at what he just sent hopping in.

The notion that there are really two Fulhead Lands is preposterous. It's a spurious defence drummed up in an effort to give him a leg to stand on. If the court allows this kind of shallow sleight of hand, it will be impossible to try any nation for anything. How easy would it be to dodge every piece of evidence by simply saying "Oh, that wasn't the Delegate, Great Bights Mum who said it, it was the GBM who controls Puppet X of Puppetland." Poppycock!
Click to expand...

What about Gracius Maximus/The Minister/Pierconium? He does/did so quite succesfuly
Click to expand...
He had different names! He didn't say there were two GMs. It wasn't like in one post he was GM and in the next he was a different GM. In a court of law, he would not be trying to deny GM's words by saying they were really the words of a different GM. That would be silly.

So is saying there are really 2 Fulhead Lands. Rubbish! If it looks like a cabbage, smells like a cabbage, and shreds nicely into a fine coleslaw, it's cabbage!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The fact that the TNP Constitution addresses membership in terms of a player that controls a nation, rather than just a nation, rebuts that contention. GM/Periconium/Moldavi may feel that he did so successfully, but that is not a universal perception. As far as I am concerned, they were all the same player, albeit with a puppet in every region.
Click to expand...
That's because the TNP Constitution is no longer limited by the boundaries of the game it was created for. Polts point is correct, and Ivan did quite successfully manage to have different nations. The issue here is whether Fulhead has been legitimately playing different roles, or if he has simply been hiding behind a loose definition of duality.
 
You really can't even compare GM to Fulhead - the two played the game completely differently.

GM/Pierc/The Minister/Ivan not only had a different nations involved in each region, he had a different name for each, different forum accounts for each, and had to some extent developed a separate personality for each. If you really think about it, it would probably be very difficult for a new nation to realize that Pierconium and Gracius Maximus were in fact the same person. This is duality.

Fulhead Land and Lexiconhead (who apparently is also called Fulhead Land - already we're slipping here) are blatatly controlled by the same person - Fulhead Land (TNP) clearly advertises his ties with the Lexicon; Lexiconhead uses Fulhead Land (TNP)'s forum account to post in The North Pacific; Lexiconhead's forum account in The Lexicon is also called Fulhead Land. This is maybe duality, but only in the very loosest sense.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The fact that the TNP Constitution addresses membership in terms of a player that controls a nation, rather than just a nation, rebuts that contention. GM/Periconium/Moldavi may feel that he did so successfully, but that is not a universal perception. As far as I am concerned, they were all the same player, albeit with a puppet in every region.
Click to expand...
TNP Constitution refers to "member nation" not player!!
 
Re-read it, then. Because the Constitution clearly is describing the player controlling the nation (such as the provision against attempting to have more than one nation with voting rights, and the provision that recognizes that a player may have their UN nation in another region.
 
Hersfold:
GM/Pierc/The Minister/Ivan not only had a different nations involved in each region, he had a different name for each, different forum accounts for each, and had to some extent developed a separate personality for each. If you really think about it, it would probably be very difficult for a new nation to realize that Pierconium and Gracius Maximus were in fact the same person. This is duality.
Click to expand...
Yes, that one nation even asked Gracius Maximus to help him overthrow Pierconium.

The issue of whether or not Fulhead is truly practicing duality is up to the jury, which is why I haven't really commented too much on that particular issue.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Re-read it, then. Because the Constitution clearly is describing the player controlling the nation (such as the provision against attempting to have more than one nation with voting rights, and the provision that recognizes that a player may have their UN nation in another region.
Click to expand...
Hmmm..I'm re-reading and I see this:

ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.

ARTICLE II. Membership and Registration.

Section 1: Requirements.

In order to remain as legal members of The North Pacific, a Nation is expected to adhere to the following requirements:
1) Each member Nation will abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code enacted pursuant to Article IV of this Constitution.
2) Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.
3) Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

All referring to "member nation", no mention of player!!
 
I looked all the way through, it only mentions "member nation" and "nation"!! Perhaps you can quote the section that refers to "player" rather than "nation" or "member nation"?!
 
You'd better figure this out quick, Polts... I doubt DD's going to be too thrilled with you continuing to argue the point.
 
Here's a hint:
TNP Constitution Article II Section 2 oath language:
I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific.  I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region
Click to expand...

The only way this language can have a rational meaning is that the oath is taken by the player, and not by a particular nation. The quoted language clearly makes reference to a set of facts wherein a player has more than one nation. And the recent amendment reinforced this interpetation by carrying forward into the newly added sentences in the oath some of the exact same phrasology higlightd here. Not to mention that the "I" and "my" also has to refer to the player with the forum name, and not the nation name the player has chosen to use in registering.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Here's a hint:
TNP Constitution Article II Section 2 oath language:
I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific.  I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region
Click to expand...

The only way this language can have a rational meaning is that the oath is taken by the player, and not by a particular nation. The quoted language clearly makes reference to a set of facts wherein a player has more than one nation. And the recent amendment reinforced this interpetation by carrying forward into the newly added sentences in the oath some of the exact same phrasology higlightd here. Not to mention that the "I" and "my" also has to refer to the player with the forum name, and not the nation name the player has chosen to use in registering.
Click to expand...
The oath is in direct conflict with the entire Constitution as I pointed out!! The Constitution in an in-game, in-character document from start to finish barring this anomaly!!

The Constitution specifically refers to "member nation" and "nation" throughout!! The only reason this small section of the oath breaks from that is to cover for the registration of multiple nations by a player, which is understandable!!

It hardly renders the language of the rest of the Constitution invalid and without discussing specifics, I'm not sure if anyone currently is on trial for registering multiple nations in this region!!

We do have a trial whereby a member nation is accused of treason for the actions of a non-member nation!! I'm not quite sure I see where your reference to a small section of the oath makes non-member nations accountable to our regional laws!!

If this is the basis of any prosecution case then it would be a flimsy one at best!!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Here's a hint:
TNP Constitution Article II Section 2 oath language:
I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific.  I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region
Click to expand...

The only way this language can have a rational meaning is that the oath is taken by the player, and not by a particular nation. The quoted language clearly makes reference to a set of facts wherein a player has more than one nation. And the recent amendment reinforced this interpetation by carrying forward into the newly added sentences in the oath some of the exact same phrasology higlightd here. Not to mention that the "I" and "my" also has to refer to the player with the forum name, and not the nation name the player has chosen to use in registering.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Polts on this one. Plus, what you are reading is oath language in regards to voting nations. I could have 19 puppets in the TNP as long as only one of them takes the oath to vote, what wrong have I done? And besides, FL doesn't have multiple accounts in the TNP. This trial is about his member nation in the TNP and whether that nation committed acts of treason. Now the court may call into question his ability to play duality but from the case set forth by the prosecution, my understanding is that he is accused of treasonous acts by his member nation. Any evidence brought forth needs to be along those lines and FL(the defendent) should take the stand as his member nation NOT as the person who controls it. However, I think Polts needs to stop using so many exclamation marks and just let FL take the stand. FL's a smart guy and I don't think it will be that big of a deal as long as he remembers he's there as his TNP nation and doesn't get carried away.
 
Non-specific to any case, but allowing a witness to take the stand under the guise of the "person in control of Nation X and any related nations" kind of torpedoes the whole concept that only the member nation of TNP is on trial!! It would concede that every nation owned by that player is to be addressed as a single entity and imply that even non-member nations "owned" by a player who happens to "own" a TNP member nation are held accountable to TNP law even when the Constitution explicitly states otherwise!! A defence attorney would be remiss to concede something like this, not only in a certain case but also to set a precedent for future cases!!

As for the exclamation marks, its an old chestnut!! My character uses exclamation marks much to the delight of many!! I use caps if I'm yelling, promise!! ;)
 
The point you are missing is that, using kat's example. is that the 19 puppets have one player in common. The oath language itself is enforceable by either imediate ejection according to the terms of the oath, or by a prosecution based upon a violation of the oath as part of the Constitution.

the other point to be made is that nothing in the remainder of the Constitution contradicts the "one player" point of view reflected in the oath which makes viewing of the whole Constitution on this question quite consistent (and valid); Polts' point of view, simplistic as it is, is what creates a contradiction that otherwise does not exist.

Wishing for it to be a contradiction does not make it a contradiction.
 
From what I read, Southwest Asia called Fulhead Land to the stand. It was his attorney who then made a big fuss over which Fulhead Land was being called. As if there could be two different nations with the same name. Balderdash!

Suppose Great Bights Mum goes on a banning spree... oh no, not ME, but the Great Bights Mum who controls the RR nation of Sheepylegs. Yes, that evil Sheepylegs is going to wrest the password from Great Bights Mum and use it to wantonly eject all manner of TNP nations. By Polts' logic you couldn't impeach the Delegate GBM because it was all the doing of another nation: that vile and dastardly Sheepylegs who is controlled by a different GBM than the one who is Delegate.

See how absurd it is? If you buy that argument no one ever has to be responsible for any of his actions.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The point you are missing is that, using kat's example. is that the 19 puppets have one player in common. The oath language itself is enforceable by either imediate ejection according to the terms of the oath, or by a prosecution based upon a violation of the oath as part of the Constitution.

the other point to be made is that nothing in the remainder of the Constitution contradicts the "one player" point of view reflected in the oath which makes viewing of the whole Constitution on this question quite consistent (and valid); Polts' point of view, simplistic as it is, is what creates a contradiction that otherwise does not exist.

Wishing for it to be a contradiction does not make it a contradiction.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'm the one being wishful here, Mr. Prime Minister!!

The oath is taken by Person X, Leader of Nation X, so is taken in character and in-game!! The section of the oath you refer to not only conflicts with the entire Constitution, but also with the remainder of the oath as well!!

I am taking the Constitution on face value, it refers to "member nation" and "nation" throughout, something you have not denied!! Yet, you accuse me of being simplistic and seeking contradiction where there is none!! The contradiction is clear to those with an open mind!!

Your premise that the wording of one small section of the oath, that is in conflict with the wording of the remainder of that oath and the entire Constitution somehow overrides the wording of the entire Constitution is a weak one!! If this premise is the basis of the prosecution's case, then it is a weak case and entirely unlawful according to the Constitution!!

Then again, some people in this region never let the laws they wrote get in the way of a good witch hunt, so I'm not surprised at some of the comments here!!

Sure, I'll probably get smacked over the head with a gag order, but this process has serious flaws if people in the region are allowed to post here in an effort to influence the jury and others without the people they are criticising being allowed the opporunity of response without being warned or removed from the case!!
 
Great Bights Mum:
From what I read, Southwest Asia called Fulhead Land to the stand. It was his attorney who then made a big fuss over which Fulhead Land was being called. As if there could be two different nations with the same name. Balderdash!

Suppose Great Bights Mum goes on a banning spree... oh no, not ME, but the Great Bights Mum who controls the RR nation of Sheepylegs. Yes, that evil Sheepylegs is going to wrest the password from Great Bights Mum and use it to wantonly eject all manner of TNP nations. By Polts' logic you couldn't impeach the Delegate GBM because it was all the doing of another nation: that vile and dastardly Sheepylegs who is controlled by a different GBM than the one who is Delegate.

See how absurd it is? If you buy that argument no one ever has to be responsible for any of his actions.
Click to expand...
Actually, the prosecution called "the person that controls Fulhead Land and any nations related to Fulhead Land"!! Not that you would ever let facts get in the way of a good story, Ms. Delegate!! ;)

A considerable difference to just calling TNP member nation, Fulhead Land, to the stand!! But I'm quite sure you are well aware of this!! Keep beating that drum, however!!

Your example is idiotic, but does prove my point!! Non-member nations should not be held accountable to our laws!! Member nations of TNP should be held accountable to TNP laws!! Your example shows a case where a TNP member nation acted in a manner in breach of the law!! No problems with that nation being held accountable in a trial!! The non-specified case in which the actions of a non-member nation are being pinned on a member nation is a different scenario entirely!! A more accurate example would be wehere Sheepy Legs did something in breach of TNP law and GBM was brought to trial for it!!
 
The very first time SWA called FL he said:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at this time the prosecution calls Fulhead Land to the stand.
Click to expand...

It's the fourth post on page 8, so don't even think of accusing me of "the facts getting in the way of a good story."

In my example there are two GBMs. One is the Delegate. The other is a GBM that controls Sheepylegs of the RR. Delegate GBM did nothing wrong. It was the other GBM, the one that controls Sheepylegs, who got the password off the Delegate GBM and banned your butt.

"I didn't do it. I swear yer honor. It was that other GBM from the RR who did it." Asinine.
 
The Constitution is inherently fucked up as it blatantly breaks the barriers between IC and OOC, by referring to players.

Fulhead is grossly incompetent and abusing the very concept of Duality for the purpose of hiding behind a too-convoluted-for-its-own-good judicial system that wants to convict him and is trying everything it can and tying itself in knots to do so, but can't because, well, yea.

@DD: You cannot call a player to the stand of an in-game court. Wtf?

Fulhead is a tool, but he has not broken any laws.

Both sides in this shitfest are ridiculous, and should just sit down and shut up, declare the trial over and done with because it isn't accomplishing a damn thing, and just piss at each other some. Same result, but more honest.
 
@DD: You cannot call a player to the stand of an in-game court. Wtf?
Click to expand...

I am absolutely sick and tired of the Defense playing games and I have twice told them to stop messing around when it comes to summoning the next person to the stand. Southwest Asia clearly called Fulhead Land to the stand only to be met by first a request for clarification and second an objection to that requested clarification. And you are complaining about me trying to move things along after saying the Judicial system is convoluted? Keep complaining about things, that really helps solve the problems we have. Or better yet resign, saying that you are tired of the convolutedness while at the same time complaining about me trying to move things along! Bravo.

Both sides in this shitfest are ridiculous, and should just sit down and shut up, declare the trial over and done with because it isn't accomplishing a damn thing, and just piss at each other some. Same result, but more honest.
Click to expand...

You think I care about the outcome of this trial? I am wholly objective in that I don't care either way. My name was on the docket and here we are. Being dicked around by someone who is good at it, and complained at by someone of the same caliber!
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Both sides in this shitfest are ridiculous, and should just sit down and shut up, declare the trial over and done with because it isn't accomplishing a damn thing, and just piss at each other some. Same result, but more honest.
Click to expand...

You think I care about the outcome of this trial? I am wholly objective in that I don't care either way. My name was on the docket and here we are. Being dicked around by someone who is good at it, and complained at by someone of the same caliber!
Click to expand...
(I think we've touched a nerve)

I don't believe I was accusing you of caring about the outcome of the trial, though I find that a bit dubious as well.

Anyway, as to your first point, well, I can't be arsed except to say that, nope, I've never attempted to institute any reforms EVAR! I'm just a hypocritical bastard and should go die in a well.

Regardless, the point still stands: A Player cannot be called to an in-game construction. Of course, this premise assumes that we're actually playing the game anymore, which, well...
 
Well in that case let me just say that the player who controls the nation Fulhead Land is guilty as sin. Since they're two separate entities I can't be accused of having a bias. QED.

Anyway, as to your first point, well, I can't be arsed except to say that, nope, I've never attempted to institute any reforms EVAR! I'm just a hypocritical bastard and should go die in a well.
Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my mouth, perhaps you could just do all my talking for me in the future? It would save me some energy.

Regardless, the point still stands: A Player cannot be called to an in-game construction. Of course, this premise assumes that we're actually playing the game anymore, which, well...
Click to expand...

Right, sorry, I get it now. I can call a nation to the stand. So I guess I should go edit my statement and tell the nation Fulhead Land to come to Court but to leave behind that pesky out of character "player". Got it. Thanks.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Well in that case let me just say that the player who controls the nation Fulhead Land is guilty as sin. Since they're two separate entities I can't be accused of having a bias. QED.
Click to expand...
Indeed, he is. Irrelevant, though.

You took the words right out of my mouth, perhaps you could just do all my talking for me in the future? It would save me some energy.
Click to expand...

Heh, it would surely make for a more exciting trial.

Right, sorry, I get it now. I can call a nation to the stand. So I guess I should go edit my statement and tell the nation Fulhead Land to come to Court but to leave behind that pesky out of character "player". Got it. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Welcome.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
@DD: You cannot call a player to the stand of an in-game court. Wtf?
Click to expand...

I am absolutely sick and tired of the Defense playing games and I have twice told them to stop messing around when it comes to summoning the next person to the stand. Southwest Asia clearly called Fulhead Land to the stand only to be met by first a request for clarification and second an objection to that requested clarification. And you are complaining about me trying to move things along after saying the Judicial system is convoluted? Keep complaining about things, that really helps solve the problems we have. Or better yet resign, saying that you are tired of the convolutedness while at the same time complaining about me trying to move things along! Bravo.

Both sides in this shitfest are ridiculous, and should just sit down and shut up, declare the trial over and done with because it isn't accomplishing a damn thing, and just piss at each other some. Same result, but more honest.
Click to expand...

You think I care about the outcome of this trial? I am wholly objective in that I don't care either way. My name was on the docket and here we are. Being dicked around by someone who is good at it, and complained at by someone of the same caliber!
Click to expand...
Actually, I wanted it specified as to who he was referring to as Fulhead Land is a nation in TNP and Fulhead Land is the leader of the Lexiconian nation of LexiconHead!! I'm not playing games, I'm defending my client!! If you haven't realised it by now, the whole case from both sides kind of hinges on this!!

So while you throw a tantrum because it delays your inevitable guilty verdict, it is by no means a pointless exercise on my behalf!!

The moment I accept "whoever controls Fulhead Land and any other related nations" as a witness, the case is over!! I'd have thought you'd work this out by now!! By the same notion, if the prosecution differentiates between the two by calling Fulhead Land, TNP member nation to the stand specifically, then their case is over!!

We are at a standoff and I will not have the beligerence of the Judge force me to torpedo my client's case because he desires it to be so!!

A player cannot be called to the stand in a RP Court trial!! Heft is right!! Regardless of whether you believe Fulhead Land's "owner" has stretched duality to breaking point, my claims are wholly supported by the Constitution you are supposed to uphold!!

The clarification of who is being called to the stand is a pivotal point of the trial and I would rather be removed as defence council that betray my client in this trial!!

Oh, and so much for the gag order when the Judge posts what he did in here!! :w00t:
 
Great Bights Mum:
The very first time SWA called FL he said:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at this time the prosecution calls Fulhead Land to the stand.
Click to expand...

It's the fourth post on page 8, so don't even think of accusing me of "the facts getting in the way of a good story."
Click to expand...
And what did he post when I sought clarification as to whether he called TNP nation Fulhead Land or Fulhead Land, leader of LexiconHead?! Hence, my seeking clarification before diving head first into the morass!! ;)

In my example there are two GBMs. One is the Delegate. The other is a GBM that controls Sheepylegs of the RR. Delegate GBM did nothing wrong. It was the other GBM, the one that controls Sheepylegs, who got the password off the Delegate GBM and banned your butt.

"I didn't do it. I swear yer honor. It was that other GBM from the RR who did it." Asinine.
Click to expand...

Problem being, the actions that violated the Constitution, in your example, were perpetrated by your TNP nation!! No matter how you spin it, your example is still idiotic and way off the mark!!
In the unspecified case I am hypothetically discussing, no violation of the Constitution of TNP was perpetrated by a TNP member nation!! I'm sure in time you'll see the glaring difference between your example and my hypothetical!! Then again, maybe you won't!!
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Well in that case let me just say that the player who controls the nation Fulhead Land is guilty as sin. Since they're two separate entities I can't be accused of having a bias. QED.

Anyway, as to your first point, well, I can't be arsed except to say that, nope, I've never attempted to institute any reforms EVAR! I'm just a hypocritical bastard and should go die in a well.
Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my mouth, perhaps you could just do all my talking for me in the future? It would save me some energy.

Regardless, the point still stands: A Player cannot be called to an in-game construction. Of course, this premise assumes that we're actually playing the game anymore, which, well...
Click to expand...

Right, sorry, I get it now. I can call a nation to the stand. So I guess I should go edit my statement and tell the nation Fulhead Land to come to Court but to leave behind that pesky out of character "player". Got it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
And with that, if I were Polts, I would move for a mis-trial. :no:
 
:rofl: This has been going on since the summer.

Since the constitution crosses the IC/OOC line and the trial seems to be unending, I move that the constitution be further amended to account for what happens when people stop playing the game, die or otherwise forget that TNP exists.

I stopped reading two pages back, so if anything was actually said, I missed it. But it seems to me that there is a great push by a few to limit players in the game to belong exclusively to TNP or to force each player to have puppets that are loyal to TNP first before their own resident regions.

Good luck with that.

I'm sure JAL will be first in line to kick me out next. ;)
I take comfort in knowing that my trial should be over sometime in 2028.
 
Everyone needs to start calimg down now or this topic will be locked. To enforce the gag order, if not for actual moderation reasons.

Everyone needs to remember that this is a game. It's not something to be getting ridiculously angry over. Chill out or this topic will be closed.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Forum Administrator
 
So if it get's locked is the trial over? I agree that Polts should call for a mistrial or FL should take the stand with the express statement that FL the TNP nation is taking the stand. If the prosecution wants to hang themselves Polts, by all means please let them do so to get this fiasco over with. However, then I will have to find a new source of humor for me to read every day. I'm gonna sit on the fence and see what happens.
 
Great Bights Mum:
And with that, if I were Polts, I would move for a mis-trial.  :no:
Click to expand...
Not really, because that would be an admission that the player and the nation Fulhead Land are the same. That was the joke. :P

So while you throw a tantrum because it delays your inevitable guilty verdict, it is by no means a pointless exercise on my behalf!!
Click to expand...

Not my guilty verdict, the jury's. If they decide FL is quilty. :)

The moment I accept "whoever controls Fulhead Land and any other related nations" as a witness, the case is over!! I'd have thought you'd work this out by now!! By the same notion, if the prosecution differentiates between the two by calling Fulhead Land, TNP member nation to the stand specifically, then their case is over!!
Click to expand...

You could have accepted when they called the nation fulhead land to the stand! When you asked for a clarification you got what the Prosecution believes is the entity Fulhead Land and what they are trying to prove so that he is guilty. Then comes the endless arguing over something you started.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
You could have accepted when they called the nation fulhead land to the stand! When you asked for a clarification you got what the Prosecution believes is the entity Fulhead Land and what they are trying to prove so that he is guilty. Then comes the endless arguing over something you started.
Click to expand...
Heh, accepting a generalised description without clarifying would have left my case open to a redefining of who was on the stand while questioning was underway!! I'm not so naive as to leave something like that unspecified, especially as it is a crucial point for both the defense and the prosecution!! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top