Wee-Tiddler

Sorry, it reads as if we both made the accusation. If that's not the case then fine but I wanted to clarify as statements like that paint a very false picture of me.

I'm not here to cause offence or even aggitate for the hell of it. I have a very strong political and moral beliefs but I also respect the views of others and their right to voice them which can make for some prickly conversations at times.

Gracius Maximus:

No, no tough talk would come from me at all. I would have them on their ass in the RR sending me hate TGs and declaring to the world that I am a monster and I would sleep just fine in that knowledge.

Click to expand...

Like I said, do it to them. I seriously didn't expect otherwise. Just don't talk smart to me now, mate. Any more attempts at patronization, which is how it came off, will earn you a split head. But I'm sure thats what you must want, so please continue.

Sniffles:

A set policy would do nothing but strangle our security apparatus. No threat or situation is ever the same and each requires the flexibility and creativity of those in the room.

Click to expand...

I can understand where you're coming from, but I'm not proposing this extreme. As much as I know politicians tend to slip into a state of color-blindness (at times myself included) - black-and-white is not the only reality. On one extreme, we let the Delegate do what he wants, to the point where he might scream at innocent citizens in caps, condemning them for "heretical" behavior. On the other extreme, we establish a system so inflexible that it does nothing but severely cripple our defense mechanisms.

Neither situation is desirable.

Middle ground can be found, where innocents are not bulldozed, but true threats are eliminated with all due speed. If you believe that this cannot be achieved without trampling the non-guilty, you need a second thought. All I want to see, is a bit more of a balance happening.

But thank you, Sniffles, for the sincere advice - I appreciate it.

The Security Apparatus is doing quite fine as it is.

As stated earlier, the current policy seems to be working quite well, and in my opinion, the possibility of allowing some of the "endotarting" nations to join the Security Council (if the new proposal is adopted) looks like a promising way to coopt them and bring them into the fold.

A "split head"?

That is the best you can do? Only morons resort to threats of physical violence in reasonable conversation, even with those that might be morally reprehensible.

If I wanted to be patronizing you wouldn't have to ask whether or not I intended it. I would have stated something more along the lines of Rhindon Blade, a nation that I have scarcely heard of at all, obviously has no practical understanding of what it means to protect a Feeder from invasion or outside subversion and illustrates that complete lack of intelligence on the issue by posting ridiculous tripe about playing nice and making sure we take the offenders personal feelings into account when addressing them for the 5th or 6th time over the same issue.

Of course that "high road" comes before the head splitting, right?

Idiot.

Gracius Maximus:

Gracius Maximus:

making sure we take the offenders personal feelings into account when addressing them for the 5th or 6th time over the same issue.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The only words it seems you've listened to are those two ones that have seem to have provoked an entire post from you.

Gracius:

If I wanted to be patronizing you wouldn't have to ask whether or not I intended it. I would have stated something more along the lines of Rhindon Blade, a nation that I have scarcely heard of at all, obviously has no practical understanding of what it means to protect a Feeder from invasion or outside subversion and illustrates that complete lack of intelligence on the issue by posting ridiculous tripe about playing nice and making sure we take the offenders personal feelings into account when addressing them for the 5th or 6th time over the same issue.

Click to expand...

Thank you for saying it directly...I prefer it when someone doesn't disguise his real thoughts.

I am just saddened that you have just contributed to this discussion by posting pretty snarky, emotionally charged responses to the matter at hand. This matter is not about one side proving the other wrong - and if you do think that, you've come to the wrong place.

The current system seems relatively forgiving to me. I don't see any real issue needing to be addressed.

No-one likes the internet tough guy act, RB, in any context.

The issue here has been discussed to death now I feel. Common consensus seems to be that the system is fine and works. Which has been proven in TNP's recent history.

While I would prefer it that the delegate is obligated to send some sort of 'friendly warning' before breaking out the 'halt, citizen', on reflection I believe it is, and should be, the delegates prerogative to deal with any threat as he/she feels is necessary.

Sydia:

No-one likes the internet tough guy act, RB, in any context.

Click to expand...

I apologize if it was taken as an OOC statement, as it certainly was not - and even though many disastrous things happen IC, I'm sure it would have been better had I just flicked Gracius' ear instead.

Just...be aware that one of the few things that really gets under my skin is blatant patronization.

Sydia:

While I would prefer it that the delegate is obligated to send some sort of 'friendly warning' before breaking out the 'halt, citizen', on reflection I believe it is, and should be, the delegates prerogative to deal with any threat as he/she feels is necessary.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree, Sydia...because where is the line drawn? When does a nation become a 'suspect', and when does 'threat-countering' become unnecessary abuse of power? Its a fine line that I would like to see made clearer, but if the majority does not concur, there is really zilch I can do about the matter.

Rhindon Blade:

Sydia:

No-one likes the internet tough guy act, RB, in any context.

Click to expand...

I apologize if it was taken as an OOC statement, as it certainly was not - and even though many disastrous things happen IC, I'm sure it would have been better had I just flicked Gracius' ear instead.

Just...be aware that one of the few things that really gets under my skin is blatant patronization.

Sydia:

While I would prefer it that the delegate is obligated to send some sort of 'friendly warning' before breaking out the 'halt, citizen', on reflection I believe it is, and should be, the delegates prerogative to deal with any threat as he/she feels is necessary.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree, Sydia...because where is the line drawn? When does a nation become a 'suspect', and when does 'threat-countering' become unnecessary abuse of power? Its a fine line that I would like to see made clearer, but if the majority does not concur, there is really zilch I can do about the matter.

Click to expand...

Mm, we can all get carried away. Although I'd take a step back if it got to the stage where I was threatening physical impairment, IC or otherwise.

As to where the line must be drawn; I think if after the delegate sends a friendly worded welcome message, explaining the election system and requesting a cease of endorsements, the nation in question is still endorsing, it should then be left to the delegate's judgment as to how to proceed.

In the old Security Council system under the last Constitution, that SC could, and did, speak out to the Delegate about endotarters who were coming close to the Vice Delegate's or even the Delegate endo levels. It also helped to get the Delegate to contact the endotarter de jour before action might be needed to induce cooperation and avoid ejection or banning.

We haven't had, and I don't want to see endo caps here, but monitoring endortarting behavior and responding to potential threats on a case-by-case basis has worked for us. It might be worthwhile to add something to Article VI that acjnowldges that the SC can bring endotarting concerns to the attention of the Delegate, and a check and balance to the Delegate's responsibility. If it reaches a critical mass, then the SC through the Vice Delegate can bring the need for emergency action to the attention of the CLO which can bring a proposal to an immediate RA vote, or go directly to the RA.