I also fought against that coup and was a primary reason for a number of RPers not joining it and a number of RPers leaving it.
You did, yes. And then you yourself denounced that legacy, by saying that you regretted not supporting Milograd instead. And when asked to address that comment, you said you stood by it.
This is a huge stretch and just shows how desperate you are to paint me as some kind of risk to our allies. I'm not, and it's frankly disgraceful that this is a way you've chosen to act. I've said publicly that I'm committed to our alliances and working with our allies, as anyone who attended my voice chat events can attest you. If you bothered to be around more, you'd have known that.
If on one day you say you are committed to supporting our allies as the leader of TNP, and on another day you say you regret helping an ally of a region you used to lead in their time of need, then this only serves to call your stated commitments into question. In our allies' eyes, you are sending mixed messages.
Also, our allies, like me, are unlikely to be in your voice chats. Where they
are sure to be is in the NSGP server. And what they will see there, is the leader of TNP, posting publicly to say that he once opposed a coup against an ally, it wasn't fun, and now he regrets not joining with the coupers instead. And this would be a cause for justified concern on their end.
I chose not to answer your smears because I don't believe you have a valid point. You've been twisting my words in a disgusting attempt to make me seem uncommitted to our alliances, when I have a history of being committed to our allies, as borne out by my statements in this topic, on Discord and throughout my time on NationStates.
As I said above: Yes, you have a history of being committed to our allies. And then you chose to cast doubt on that history, on your own, by saying that you regretted helping an ally. That's the problem.
I did not post any smears, twist any words, or make any attempts (disgusting or otherwise) to misportray you. I pointed out that you have made public statements contradicting your declared commitment to assisting our allies, and asked you whether you regretted doing that. I offered you an opportunity to take the comment back and admit you should not have made those statements in public. Yet, you stood by them, and went on to make additional statements directly
suggesting you would support future coups because it is fun. This suggestion is not a logical leap or a smear. It is a reasonable inference any ally reading your comments would make and be concerned about.
You seizing on the word 'fun' is such a desperate leap and intentionally ignoring the context of me saying that - in comparison to the stress of fighting that coup at the time, which you'll note I did fight that coup at the time, it probably would've been more fun to have been on Milograd's side.
First of all, you chose the word "fun", not I. I am not making any "desperate leaps" here, I am simply using your own words.
Second, OK, so by "fun" you meant "easy". How is that more reassuring for our allies? You are effectively saying that you regret opposing a coup because it was hard work, and you would have rather joined with the coupers because that would have been easier. And what are our allies to infer from this? That in their time in need, when they expect TNP's leader to put in the hard work to help them, you will ignore them. This is just as bad as any other definition of "fun" you may have meant.
Actions speak louder that words r3n and out of the two of us, I've never been involved in a coup of a GCR.
Are you accusing me of being involved in a coup of a GCR? Because that would be a lie.
And since you're so well informed about the things I say in the gameplay server, why not also bring up how I've been the leading critic of Souls's actions against TSP in that very server, or would that not fit the narrative?
I acknowledged that in my first post, by explicitly choosing to quote your mention of your criticism of Souls. My whole first question was in response to that.
The problem, yet again, is that you are casting doubt on your stance, by contradicting it with statements you made in the same server, just a few days prior.
About the minimum we expect from TNP Delegates, as far as foreign affairs go, is to say they will stand by our allies when they are couped. The
minimum. A candidate saying that they will indeed support our allies is not really very remarkable. It's the least they can say about foreign affairs in a campaign, and the default position they are expected to take to even qualify as a legitimate candidate.
What
is remarkable is when a candidate makes statements contradicting this minimum expectation. You did. You were then asked about those statements in your campaign. And instead of recognizing the problem and retracting the statements, or at the very least explaining them away, you made matters worse. You stood by the statements, and even went on to provide an "explanation" that creates reasonable concerns about your commitment to opposing future coups of allies.
I make three observations in this thread. First, that you either cannot recognize, or you refuse to acknowledge, that it was a mistake to publicly state you regret opposing a coup of an ally. Second, when asked about those comments, you responded with another ill-advised statement that made matters worse, by making it look like on coups you will go with the side that has it easier. And third, when confronted about this second statement, you responded with ad hominems, by angrily accusing a resident of running "disgusting" smear campaigns against you.
None of the above are behaviors I would expect from someone who aspires to lead our region. Your responses unfortunately create a picture of someone who is not fit to lead the diplomatic affairs of our region. I will not be supporting your candidacy, and I hope others will not either.
) So, I presume I'd be in a good position to express my feelings about this.
