I've been waiting a long time for this.

Only insofar as it is appropriate for you to interject pointless drivel and flame simply because you have a personal issue with my position on the other forum. Very professional. Is your brand of hospitality what all newcomers to this forum get?
 
It's actually a theme, Imhotep.

See, Khark here never misses the opportunity to put me down, sometimes on a personal level. It's just what he does. Most likely to make himself feel better.

You'll learn to live with it.

And Khark, don't you worry, it's coming.
 
Imhotep:
Lewis and Clark became Delegate by having the most endorsements in the region, not because of an oath to an offsite constitution. Failure to uphold said constitution does not negate the fact that he is the Delegate. It is a logical fallacy to claim so.
Click to expand...
The failure to mention how he gained the most endorsements is quite an oversight. Had I not stopped endorsing new nations I would still be the Delegate. I made a choice to stand down because I believed Lewis and Clark would be a man of his word. It is because he chose not to honor his word that we have this war. It is because he tried to sweep us all away - his words - that we have chosen to stand and fight.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Wow, I never expected an "Enforcer" to be playing the victim. Since when did hatchetmen get so thin-skinned?
Click to expand...
If that's the best you can do, I'm sorry. If you read what I said, you would know I am not playing the victim, but merely warning Imhotep to your childish means to elevate yourself.

But nice try trying to break me down.
 
I don't need to feel better about myself.

I just like ripping you apart because you marched in here like the new sheriff in town and have yet to make good on any of your threats. Its just too easy.
 
Eluvatar:
Imhotep, would you be here supporting Great Bights Mum if she earlier chose not to step down to Lewis and Clark?
Click to expand...
Yes. If GBM was the Delegate and another group was attempting a revolt my support would be here. I support the sitting Delegate and that Delegate's right to determine the form of governance for the region.
 
Yes. If GBM was the Delegate and another group was attempting a revolt my support would be here. I support the sitting Delegate and that Delegate's right to determine the form of governance for the region.
Click to expand...

So... once GBM regains the delegacy from LAC, you'll switch to our side? She'll be the sitting delegate. I'll remind you of that promise when the time comes. ;)

And by your own rationale, it won't even matter that by "rebelling" we are currently breaking LAC's rules - because those rules will cease to exist the moment GBM becomes delegate like the constitution ceased to exist the moment LAC invalidated it.
 
Well, no. There's the matter of that pesky oath L&C has. You know, the one that asks you to bow down to a man? That ain't happening, honey. I cannot in good conscience swear to something I do not believe in. And I certainly don't intend to abandon my integrity at the whim of every tin pot dictator who comes along.

Now I must ask, why would you?
 
Your integrity shouldn't be measured by the actions of another. If it is then you should re-examine your definition of integrity, in my opinion.

For me, I simply recognize the sitting Delegate as the head of the region, with the rights and privileges that are implied by such. If the sitting Delegate wishes to change the government system then he or she has the right to do so and we can either choose to go along with that change or find another place to live.
 
TNP - Love It or Leave It?

I give you "Dialogue" by Chicago:

Are you optimistic bout the way things are going?
No, I never ever think of it at all

Dont you ever worry
When you see whats going down?

No, I try to mind my business, that is, no business at all

When its time to function as a feeling human being
Will your bachelor of arts help you get by?

I hope to study further, a few more years or so
I also hope to keep a steady high

Will you try to change things
Use the power that you have, the power of a million new ideas?

What is this power you speak of and this need for things to change?
I always thought that everything was fine

Dont you feel repression just closing in around?
No, the campus here is very, very free

Dont it make you angry the way war is dragging on?
Well, I hope the president knows what hes into, I dont know

Dont you ever see the starvation in the city where you live
All the needless hunger all the needless pain?

I havent been there lately, the country is so fine
But my neighbors dont seem hungry cause they havent got the time

Thank you for the talk, you know you really eased my mind
I was troubled by the shapes of things to come

Well, if you had my outlook your feelings would be numb
Youd always think that everything was fine
 
Imhotep, there is another fundamental flaw in your "logic." L&C was designated as Delegate under a constitutional system under which he took an oath to preserve and defend that constitutional system. He also took a similar oath as a member of the regional assembly.

His conduct violated the oath(s) that he took. Under the system we recognize here, violation of the oath(s) are criminal offenses, and withdraw the legal claim of the oath-taker to any office they might hold under the system.

By your "logic" the rule of law could not exist, since your "logic" allows some to ignore their solemnly given word when it is convenient for them. Maybe you agree with such a course, but many of us here do not. In our view, Lewis and Clark is an outlaw, not deserving of our respect nor our support, and we'll keep at seeking to restore the proper place of the rule of law over the menipulations of a rogue delegate and his self-serving allies from outside the region.
 
Sorry... it's the flashbacks!

In the US in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a great deal of civil unrest. Those who complained and protested the government's policies were labeled "anti-establishment." There were signs and bumper stickers with patriotic emblems proclaiming, "America - Love It or Leave It." It was the catchphrase for the political hawks. The message was that if you don't choose to agree or go along with what the President's policies are, you should get out.

In TNP terms, your statement that "you can either choose to go along... or find another place to live," smacks very strongly of that "Love it or leave it" sentiment. Now, I'm not about to go along with some farce of a monarchy, and I am certainly not leaving TNP!

As for the Chicago lyrics, it was one of my favorite protest songs back then. Don't know if you can download it, but it is sure worth a listen. :D
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Imhotep, there is another fundamental flaw in your "logic." L&C was designated as Delegate under a constitutional system under which he took an oath to preserve and defend that constitutional system. He also took a similar oath as a member of the regional assembly.

His conduct violated the oath(s) that he took. Under the system we recognize here, violation of the oath(s) are criminal offenses, and withdraw the legal claim of the oath-taker to any office they might hold under the system.

By your "logic" the rule of law could not exist, since your "logic" allows someto ignore their solemnly given word when it is convenient for them. Maybe you agree with such a course, but many of us here do not. In our view, Lewis and Clark is an outloaw, not deserving of our respect nor our support, and we'll keep at seeking to restore the proper place of the rule of law over the menipulations of a rgue delegate and his self-serving allies from outside the region.
Click to expand...
Then it was an error on your part to place faith in something that can be changed on a whim by the sitting Delegate. The only "power" your system of government held was because it was backed by the Delegate, once that backing ceased to be in force then your system no longer worked thereby making any oaths or agreements within it null and void.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Sorry... it's the flashbacks!

In the US in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a great deal of civil unrest. Those who complained and protested the government's policies were labeled "anti-establishment." There were signs and bumper stickers with patriotic emblems proclaiming, "America - Love It or Leave It." It was the catchphrase for the political hawks. The message was that if you don't choose to agree or go along with what the President's policies are, you should get out.

In TNP terms, your statement that "you can either choose to go along... or find another place to live," smacks very strongly of that "Love it or leave it" sentiment. Now, I'm not about to go along with some farce of a monarchy, and I am certainly not leaving TNP!

As for the Chicago lyrics, it was one of my favorite protest songs back then. Don't know if you can download it, but it is sure worth a listen. :D
Click to expand...
I disagree with your ultimate assessment. I am free to disagree with the Delegate and have done so with him, or his selected representatives, on a number of occasions. But I do so within the confines of the system that he has established.

Your example only works with relation to the current situation if those people in the 60s and 70s decided to set up a separate governing body for the United States and pushed for their form of government to be predominant over the one supported by the President. (That, of course, is a stretch in that the President does not have all encompassing powers like the Delegate does in NS.)
 
And it's also a stretch because the President didn't openly do away with the constitution.

Imhotep:
Of course.  Can your side agree to the same rational thought?
Click to expand...
Does your side agree to the Constitution?

And I'd be perfectly fine with knowing that de facto GBM could dissolve the government and set up alternate forums as delegate (just as any delegate can, through the WFE and ban button), because I know that she wouldn't do it and even if she did, it would be possible to replace her just like we replace LAC.
 
Then it was an error on your part to place faith in something that can be changed on a whim by the sitting Delegate. The only "power" your system of government held was because it was backed by the Delegate, once that backing ceased to be in force then your system no longer worked thereby making any oaths or agreements within it null and void.
Click to expand...

You overlook the fact that we've had nine consecutive elected Delegate under our system before Lewis and Clark with successful handoffs of power. We also had safeguards thatfairly protected our system.

The only mustake we made was in disassembling that system on the complaints of those that it promoted too much stability. After what I've seen for the past six months, that system is still preferable to what we have now, IMHO.
 
No!!

The Monte Ozarka Constitution is very much preferable to the old Constitution!!

What Lewis and Clark was equally illegal under both. The new Constitution however allows for greater flexibility in normal times.
 
Imhotep:
I disagree with your ultimate assessment. I am free to disagree with the Delegate and have done so with him, or his selected representatives, on a number of occasions. But I do so within the confines of the system that he has established.
Click to expand...
Could you explain what you mean by disagreeing "within the confines of the system?" What would constitute disagreement outside the confines of the system? Perhaps some examples would help.
 
Sure. If I disagree with the Delegate I send him a PM or address the issue in the House of Lords. If I disagree with the Court, where I am primarily active there, I express it in the courtroom.

Some, like yourself, choose to act on your disagreements outside those confines but taking part in unendo campaigns, spamming the RMB, etc.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Then it was an error on your part to place faith in something that can be changed on a whim by the sitting Delegate. The only "power" your system of government held was because it was backed by the Delegate, once that backing ceased to be in force then your system no longer worked thereby making any oaths or agreements within it null and void.
Click to expand...

You overlook the fact that we've had nine consecutive elected Delegate under our system before Lewis and Clark with successful handoffs of power. We also had safeguards thatfairly protected our system.

The only mustake we made was in disassembling that system on the complaints of those that it promoted too much stability. After what I've seen for the past six months, that system is still preferable to what we have now, IMHO.
Click to expand...
No.

We are not going back to that system. It may have benefited those who don't like any change whatsoever, but its not good for the region.
 
Grosseschnauzer, what changes are you proposing as the cause for the recent spate of rogue delegates? I have doubts that it is a fault in the constitution, since all rogue delegates have as their first step suspended that same constitution anyway...
 
Imhotep:
Sure. If I disagree with the Delegate I send him a PM or address the issue in the House of Lords. If I disagree with the Court, where I am primarily active there, I express it in the courtroom.

Some, like yourself, choose to act on your disagreements outside those confines but taking part in unendo campaigns, spamming the RMB, etc.
Click to expand...
It's nice to know I can count on your support when I become delegate. Hopefully, you'll continue to be an active and involved member. I look forward to your PMs. :D
 
We tend not to archive welcome threads, since they are quite useful (and interesting) to look back later and see how people introduced themselves to the community here.

my own welcome thread is still there on s2. I looked at it the other day.

However, since this one was a bit ... unusual, I will defer to the MOEA on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top