Revisiting Citizenship Application Rejection

[Cormac]

Hello!

I would like to petition the Regional Assembly to revisit its decision to uphold the then-Vice Delegate's rejection of my citizenship application. It's my understanding that I can only request this and that a citizen of The North Pacific would then have to introduce a motion for it, but if that's incorrect and I can do that myself as a resident, someone feel free to correct me.

I am basing this petition on the decision by Vice Delegate Cretox State yesterday that Whole India, a fascist whom many people from many regions urged be banned from India and who has their own unfortunate history here, passed the Vice Delegate check. My argument is fairly simple: If Whole India, despite being a fascist finally banned from India and who has engaged in outrageous conduct of their own here, is not a security threat to The North Pacific who should be barred from citizenship, then I am also not a security threat to The North Pacific who should be barred from citizenship. Whatever my faults, I do like to think I'm not as bad as a fascist. I hope the Regional Assembly will agree.

Thank you to whomever may decide to submit this for formal consideration by the Regional Assembly, and to everyone else for your consideration.

 

[Sarah]

I motion this.

 

[Comfed]

I second.

 

[Dreadton]

@Comfed @Sarah
What motion are you bringing before the Regional Assembly?

 

[East Isles]

I motion this.

I second.

Acknowledged. I will open a thread for discussion in the Private Halls.

 

[Cormac]

As last time, if there are questions for me I'm happy to answer them.

 

[Comfed]

Your region (Entropy) has a foreign policy which includes fighting against independent manifesto regions, does it not?

 

[Cormac]

Your region (Entropy) has a foreign policy which includes fighting against independent manifesto regions, does it not?

It's not a formalized foreign policy doctrine, but it has been stated based on Manifesto regions and some non-Manifesto allies attempting to seize the Delegacy of Entropy in a military operation that we would work to liberate invasions undertaken by those regions. To be clear, it was a valid operation as the region was open for anyone to claim its Delegacy at the time, though I do believe the operation was undertaken because I was Delegate.

Statements that Entropy would liberate the invasions of Manifesto regions isn't really any different from having defender citizens who work to liberate the NPA's invasions. It should also be noted not every NPA invasion would be treated as equal. An invasion against a fascist region, an OOC problematic region, or an enemy of The North Pacific would not be an invasion Entropy would have any interest in working to liberate. A random region? Maybe. Again, that's not any different from having defenders as citizens here so I don't personally see it as an issue.

It should also be noted the military isn't a priority in Entropy at the moment, and by the time it is our military priorities may well have changed, and I'd personally be open to talking with officials from here or any of the other regions involved to smooth things over and create a clean slate. In any case, regardless of how things unfold we have no interest and no intention of broadening this to any fighting beyond liberations of NPA invasions; if we did, I wouldn't apply for citizenship here and swear an oath not to wage war against The North Pacific.

 

[Comfed]

It's not a formalized foreign policy doctrine, but it has been stated based on Manifesto regions and some non-Manifesto allies attempting to seize the Delegacy of Entropy in a military operation that we would work to liberate invasions undertaken by those regions. To be clear, it was a valid operation as the region was open for anyone to claim its Delegacy at the time, though I do believe the operation was undertaken because I was Delegate.

Statements that Entropy would liberate the invasions of Manifesto regions isn't really any different from having defender citizens who work to liberate the NPA's invasions. It should also be noted the military isn't a priority at the moment, and by the time it is our military priorities may well have changed, and I'd personally be open to talking with officials from here or any of the other regions involved to smooth things over and create a clean slate. In any case, regardless of how things unfold we have no interest and no intention of broadening this to any fighting beyond liberations of NPA invasions; if we did, I wouldn't apply for citizenship here and swear an oath not to wage war against The North Pacific.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Pallaith]

Cormac, the last time you asked the RA to consider your citizenship, I honestly believed that you and I were of similar mind. That is, we both said things to the effect of acknowledging that it was a bad idea for you to be a citizen here, given your history, given your reputation, and given the difficulty in getting along with many of the people here because of those things. As I recall there was also an element of stunt to the exercise, I think because you wee comparing yourself to Funk and Lamb getting passed by the VD. Now there's an element of stunt because of Whole India. Like last time I want to set that stuff aside, and get to the bottom of the important question: do you actually want to be here? Do you think it's worth the effort, and if you do get citizenship, will it be worth the uphill climb to prove yourself and overcome almost a decade of your unique brand of player, the Cormac brand?

There's a lot of bad blood with individual players, there's bad blood with the region as a whole. There's a lot to forgive, and it's even harder to forget it all. I will paraphrase myself from the last one of these discussions (I'm not sure if I can quote myself given it was in private halls), but every time you've been a citizen here it hasn't ended well. As far as I am concerned, that could be considered a reason for why letting you back in isn't the end of the world, because the past tells us you would get mad and leave given a big enough disagreement. And pointing out how distrusted you are and how unpleasant it will be for you to be around also suggests there's a limit to what you can do if you get citizenship. But...more importantly, I think those are reasons for why you personally wouldn't enjoy being here, and I don't think it's fun to play a game or be part of a community where that's the experience you have to look forward to. If you are serious about this return, what's changed in 2 years, for you and for your relationship with this community? How do we even begin to think about getting the trust back after everything that's happened?

 

[Cormac]

Cormac, the last time you asked the RA to consider your citizenship, I honestly believed that you and I were of similar mind. That is, we both said things to the effect of acknowledging that it was a bad idea for you to be a citizen here, given your history, given your reputation, and given the difficulty in getting along with many of the people here because of those things. As I recall there was also an element of stunt to the exercise, I think because you wee comparing yourself to Funk and Lamb getting passed by the VD. Now there's an element of stunt because of Whole India. Like last time I want to set that stuff aside, and get to the bottom of the important question: do you actually want to be here? Do you think it's worth the effort, and if you do get citizenship, will it be worth the uphill climb to prove yourself and overcome almost a decade of your unique brand of player, the Cormac brand?

There's a lot of bad blood with individual players, there's bad blood with the region as a whole. There's a lot to forgive, and it's even harder to forget it all. I will paraphrase myself from the last one of these discussions (I'm not sure if I can quote myself given it was in private halls), but every time you've been a citizen here it hasn't ended well. As far as I am concerned, that could be considered a reason for why letting you back in isn't the end of the world, because the past tells us you would get mad and leave given a big enough disagreement. And pointing out how distrusted you are and how unpleasant it will be for you to be around also suggests there's a limit to what you can do if you get citizenship. But...more importantly, I think those are reasons for why you personally wouldn't enjoy being here, and I don't think it's fun to play a game or be part of a community where that's the experience you have to look forward to. If you are serious about this return, what's changed in 2 years, for you and for your relationship with this community? How do we even begin to think about getting the trust back after everything that's happened?

Thanks for the questions. I'll do my best to comprehensively answer, though fair warning for everyone, this might get a bit long-winded.

First, I do want to say, transparently, that Whole India being admitted to citizenship here was the catalyst for me seeking to reapply and then seeking to have my previous rejection overturned. It does bother me to feel as though I'm being treated as being worse than a fascist.

That said, as last time, I am legitimately seeking to have my rejection overturned and this isn't just a stunt or to prove the point, as some have suggested, that I still won't be admitted to citizenship. I'm rather hoping I will be. So just to be clear, I am seeking to be a citizen here and to engage in positive participation in the community. I will be remaining in TNP and its Discord server as a resident and participating in community events regardless of whether the RA decides to overturn my previous citizenship rejection or not because I think it's important to show I can positively participate in the community here somehow.

As for what's changed, I think the biggest thing that's changed is me. As many of you know, I retired from the game for a while in 2020 and my exit wasn't pretty. I didn't intend to ever play NationStates again because I felt that the game was making me miserable anytime I engaged with it, and in fact I didn't return until late April/early May of this year -- a break of about a year, punctuated by occasional, brief visits. That break gave me time and perspective to understand that it wasn't the game that was the problem making me miserable, it was me treating the game in such a way that it was making me miserable. That was the problem. So when I returned this year I decided to make my best effort to play differently, because I've been playing NationStates for 9 1/2 years, I have friends here, and this game and its community matter to me enough to strive toward healthy involvement. Since returning, I've been trying to move forward by not making the personal political and vice versa, by trying not to completely overreact to things, by trying to be more amicable even with people who don't like me, and by trying to let go of past personal grudges.

Now, obviously, I'm not a different person -- I'm still me, and I'm still imperfect. I'm sure if anyone wanted to look they could find examples since I returned of me not living up to the standards I just mentioned, but on balance I think I'm doing better, and I think those who have seen me engaging in public spaces like the NSGP server might be able to attest that they've seen a difference. So, fundamentally that's what I think has changed the most. I also think TNP has changed in some positive ways, though that realization has been slower in coming. Specifically, seeing the way the community has dealt with this situation of Whole India being admitted to citizenship and the way you and others want to ensure it's corrected and doesn't happen in the future is encouraging. TNP seems more like a place I would want to be now than it did in the past. That's really only a realization I've come to over the past few days, watching how this situation has been dealt with and contrasting it with past incidents.

As to your other question, how to regain trust, I'm honestly not sure but I don't think it's possible at all if nobody tries. I don't regret dropping this and agreeing I should be on my way in 2019, because the player I was in 2019 wouldn't have worked out here, but I do think the thinking behind that decision was flawed. I don't know how I'm ever going to prove I'm a better player who can positively participate here without positively participating here, and I'm not sure how anyone can trust me to do that without seeing it in action. I know it's not going to happen overnight, that I might be denied from participation in most ministries if I tried right now (which is why I won't without invitation), etc. I'm willing to put in the time and effort to prove positive involvement here is possible for me and that I've changed over the course of my year long break from the game. I hope people will let me do that as a citizen, but if not I do intend to stick around as a resident, as I said, and as far as I'm concerned starting now I'm letting past acrimony with TNP go.

 

[QuietDad]

Been around way too long and even though I maybe old, I remember way too many times you've used citizenship in a region to leak information to another .There is no reason not to think your trying to get back into TNP for the same reason, AGAIN. You have used up more than a few second chances.

 

[Robespierre]

Should your rejection be overturned, what aspects of the community would you say you’re most interested in?

That is to say, hypothetically speaking, would you take an interest in roleplay? Service in the executive staff or in government? Membership to the Cards Guild? Running for political office? Etc.

Additionally, to those who are skeptical of your bid for a successful overturning of the previous rejection, what would you say to them?

The reason I ask is to better gauge how you plan to interact with the community going forward whether you’re a citizen again or not. So please think carefully and answer at your earliest convenience

 

[Cormac]

Been around way too long and even though I maybe old, I remember way too many times you've used citizenship in a region to leak information to another .There is no reason not to think your trying to get back into TNP for the same reason, AGAIN. You have used up more than a few second chances.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's an understandable stance to take. I will note, however, that there is no record of me ever leaking from private forums or chats of The North Pacific any of the times I've been involved here, and the reason there is no record of it is because I've never done it.

Should your rejection be overturned, what aspects of the community would you say you’re most interested in?

That is to say, hypothetically speaking, would you take an interest in roleplay? Service in the executive staff or in government? Membership to the Cards Guild? Running for political office? Etc.

Additionally, to those who are skeptical of your bid for a successful overturning of the previous rejection, what would you say to them?

The reason I ask is to better gauge how you plan to interact with the community going forward whether you’re a citizen again or not. So please think carefully and answer at your earliest convenience

It's a good question. I think a lot of it will depend on what I'm allowed to do.

I'm primarily interested in being socially involved, participating on the Discord server, in community events and activities like festivals and such. That's never been my focus before when I've been in TNP and I think as a result I haven't really gotten to know people or felt part of the community, so I think social involvement is important to a fresh start here. Aside from that, if I were allowed to be I think I'd do well involved in WA Affairs, Communications, or Home Affairs, maybe even Culture as long as what I'd be doing wouldn't be RP-related (I'm terrible at staying involved in RP). I would be active in the RA's legislative discussions. Those are all of the areas I tend to excel in and hold my interest.

Things I'm not so good at or otherwise shouldn't and thus wouldn't involve myself in: Foreign Affairs (too much of a diplomatic liability), Defense (no one would trust me there), RP (I always lose interest), Cards (not interested), and Radio (I rarely use voice chat). The judiciary is also not really my cup of tea.

As for holding office, I will never run for Delegate, Vice Delegate, or Justice. I have no plans to seek other offices, but I categorically will never seek those three offices. Some might not believe me, but at least you have me on record saying I won't do it, which would look very bad if I did.

Finally, as to what I would say to those who are skeptical of overturning my citizenship rejection, I would simply say I understand why they're hesitant, but I don't believe I am a threat to TNP's security and I hope they will give me a chance to prove it, and I appreciate their consideration.

 

[Robespierre]

I'm primarily interested in being socially involved, participating on the Discord server, in community events and activities like festivals and such. That's never been my focus before when I've been in TNP and I think as a result I haven't really gotten to know people or felt part of the community, so I think social involvement is important to a fresh start here. Aside from that, if I were allowed to be I think I'd do well involved in WA Affairs, Communications, or Home Affairs, maybe even Culture as long as what I'd be doing wouldn't be RP-related (I'm terrible at staying involved in RP). I would be active in the RA's legislative discussions. Those are all of the areas I tend to excel in and hold my interest.

Things I'm not so good at or otherwise shouldn't and thus wouldn't involve myself in: Foreign Affairs (too much of a diplomatic liability), Defense (no one would trust me there), RP (I always lose interest), Cards (not interested), and Radio (I rarely use voice chat). The judiciary is also not really my cup of tea.

As for holding office, I will never run for Delegate, Vice Delegate, or Justice. I have no plans to seek other offices, but I categorically will never seek those three offices. Some might not believe me, but at least you have me on record saying I won't do it, which would look very bad if I did.

Finally, as to what I would say to those who are skeptical of overturning my citizenship rejection, I would simply say I understand why they're hesitant, but I don't believe I am a threat to TNP's security and I hope they will give me a chance to prove it, and I appreciate their consideration.

Thank you for your answers.

If you wouldn’t mind, I have a couple of follow ups for you:

1.) Regarding your comment about “if you were allowed to be,” I’m wondering if you have any reason to believe that the current administration (or any future administration for that matter) would bar your from participating in the Executive Staff should your rejection be successfully overturned.

If so, why do you suspect that might be? Of course, while I fully understand that you can’t be expected to tell the future or anticipate what’ll happen with future administrations, I am curious if you would feel cheated by that if it were to happen that way (and I’m not saying it will btw, as this question has nothing to do with me being the Delegate).

2.) I noticed that you excluded the office of Speaker in the list of positions that you’re willing to go on record and say that you won’t run for. And yet, you also said that have no plans to run for any other office.

If you’ll indulge me, why is this?

 

[QuietDad]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's an understandable stance to take. I will note, however, that there is no record of me ever leaking from private forums or chats of The North Pacific any of the times I've been involved here, and the reason there is no record of it is because I've never done it.

Just because you may not have been caught in TNP, I KNOW you've done it in several places, even getting me caught up in it is TSP a few years back. You forget I was very active in TSP back in your time there. Sorry. You've used up the need to ever trust you again.

 

[Cormac]

Thank you for your answers.

If you wouldn’t mind, I have a couple of follow ups for you:

1.) Regarding your comment about “if you were allowed to be,” I’m wondering if you have any reason to believe that the current administration (or any future administration for that matter) would bar your from participating in the Executive Staff should your rejection be successfully overturned.

If so, why do you suspect that might be? Of course, while I fully understand that you can’t be expected to tell the future or anticipate what’ll happen with future administrations, I am curious if you would feel cheated by that if it were to happen that way (and I’m not saying it will btw, as this question has nothing to do with me being the Delegate).

2.) I noticed that you excluded the office of Speaker in the list of positions that you’re willing to go on record and say that you won’t run for. And yet, you also said that have no plans to run for any other office.

If you’ll indulge me, why is this?

1. I was basing that on Pallaith's mention of a potential limit to what I can do if I get citizenship, which I took to mean he thinks I may not be welcome in every ministry. I think that's a possibility, but of course I don't know for sure. I wouldn't feel cheated by it, though I do hope over time I would be trusted to be involved in some ministries, while understanding there are some (like Foreign Affairs and Defense) where I might never be welcome because the information they deal with is more sensitive. I think gaining trust will be a process and will require patience on my part and I'm willing to put in the effort though -- I wouldn't feel cheated because I recognize that going into it.

2. Yeah, I thought it would be helpful to list offices I would absolutely never run for, but I have no plans right now to seek any office. Essentially, I'm saying at some undetermined time in the distant future I might be interested in seeking an office, but I would never seek any of the three I mentioned (Delegate, Vice Delegate, or Justice). But as of now I have no plans to seek any office because that would be a fairly ridiculous endeavor, I think.

Just because you may not have been caught in TNP, I KNOW you've done it in several places, even getting me caught up in it is TSP a few years back. You forget I was very active in TSP back in your time there. Sorry. You've used up the need to ever trust you again.

I don't forget you were active in TSP during my time there, because you remind me of it nearly every time we cross paths. I have said numerous times and will say again that I did not do what you accused me of doing in TSP, and you have never once been able to prove I did (because I didn't). Regardless, this is not TSP, and I have never leaked from TNP any of my times here. You can believe that or not, you can hold onto this years long grudge if you want, but I'm moving on and will not be indulging it further. I think you've made your point abundantly clear.

 

[Dreadton]

The timing of this attempt shows me where your true intent lies. Its been roughly two years since we rejected you the first time. During that time you could have attempted to reapply. But, instead, you wait till we are dealing with this crap with Whole India. I see that as an attempt to maxamize the chaos and attempt to further harm the region. You motives, at least in my view, is not to better our community but to maximize your political capital at the expense of this region. I want you here as much as I want Whole India, Lala, Pixiedance, or Jocospor to be here.

 

[Cormac]

The timing of this attempt shows me where your true intent lies. Its been roughly two years since we rejected you the first time. During that time you could have attempted to reapply. But, instead, you wait till we are dealing with this crap with Whole India. I see that as an attempt to maxamize the chaos and attempt to further harm the region. You motives, at least in my view, is not to better our community but to maximize your political capital at the expense of this region. I want you here as much as I want Whole India, Lala, Pixiedance, or Jocospor to be here.

It should be noted for a year of that time I was retired from the game.

I don't appreciate being lumped in with Whole India or Jocospor (I barely know about the other two), so I won't be addressing this comment further.

 

[Sarah]

Putting myself in Cormac's position, I can honestly understand the timing. We can say it's IC or OOC or however and it's unrelated blah blah.

But at the end of the day, I can't imagine how livid I would be knowing I got citizenship denied somewhere but they let in a facsist.

Edit:

My point being, that perhaps he's not just trying to be a dick a cause chaos for funsies. Maybe he's being a human with feelings.

 

[Dreadton]

Putting myself in Cormac's position, I can honestly understand the timing. We can say it's IC or OOC or however and it's unrelated blah blah.

But at the end of the day, I can't imagine how livid I would be knowing I got citizenship denied somewhere but they let in a facsist.

Edit:

My point being, that perhaps he's not just trying to be a dick a cause chaos for funsies. Maybe he's being a human with feelings.

his history precludes such an interpretation

Edit: To Clarify, his history in causing chaos and capilaizing on such precludes a sole interpretation that he is attempting to gain citizenship because he is reformed or because he is better than so and so who has a worst history.

 

[Cormac]

Putting myself in Cormac's position, I can honestly understand the timing. We can say it's IC or OOC or however and it's unrelated blah blah.

But at the end of the day, I can't imagine how livid I would be knowing I got citizenship denied somewhere but they let in a facsist.

Edit:

My point being, that perhaps he's not just trying to be a dick a cause chaos for funsies. Maybe he's being a human with feelings.

This is exactly it. I've been open and transparent from the beginning that Whole India's admission to citizenship was the catalyst for me seeking to have my rejection overturned, but I'm not trying to cause chaos or antagonize anyone.

 

[Robespierre]

1. I was basing that on Pallaith's mention of a potential limit to what I can do if I get citizenship, which I took to mean he thinks I may not be welcome in every ministry. I think that's a possibility, but of course I don't know for sure. I wouldn't feel cheated by it, though I do hope over time I would be trusted to be involved in some ministries, while understanding there are some (like Foreign Affairs and Defense) where I might never be welcome because the information they deal with is more sensitive. I think gaining trust will be a process and will require patience on my part and I'm willing to put in the effort though -- I wouldn't feel cheated because I recognize that going into it.

2. Yeah, I thought it would be helpful to list offices I would absolutely never run for, but I have no plans right now to seek any office. Essentially, I'm saying at some undetermined time in the distant future I might be interested in seeking an office, but I would never seek any of the three I mentioned (Delegate, Vice Delegate, or Justice). But as of now I have no plans to seek any office because that would be a fairly ridiculous endeavor, I think.

Once again, thank you for your answers.

Despite the fact that I’ll almost certainly be voting against the motion to overturn your rejection, I can appreciate that you’re taking the time to respond to people’s questions and answer them openly and in full.

That being said: If your intention really is to become a positive and productive member of our community then I’d say your best bet is to prove to everyone that it’s not a matter of timing by continuing to be active and contribute to the best of your ability as a registered resident.

If you can do that, and if you can sustain your interest in our community for a longer period of time then just this, then maybe that criticism will be mitigated.

Just a thought though…

(EDIT: When I say a matter of timing, I’m referring to the criticism that you’re here to capitalize on chaos. Not the claim that WI was the catalyst for you seeking this overturn.)

 

[Cormac]

Once again, thank you for your answers.

Despite the fact that I’ll almost certainly be voting against the motion to overturn your rejection, I can appreciate that you’re taking the time to respond to people’s questions and answer them openly and in full.

That being said: If your intention really is to become a positive and productive member of our community then I’d say your best bet is to prove to everyone that it’s not a matter of timing by continuing to be active and contribute to the best of your ability as a registered resident.

If you can do that, and if you can sustain your interest in our community for a longer period of time then just this, then maybe that criticism will be mitigated.

Just a thought though…

(EDIT: When I say a matter of timing, I’m referring to the criticism that you’re here to capitalize on chaos. Not the claim that WI was the catalyst for you seeking this overturn.)

I think it's only appropriate that I open myself up to questions and comments if I'm asking for my rejection to be overturned.

I'm committed to sticking around as a resident and proving this isn't just a kneejerk reaction, that I do actually want to be involved here. For what it's worth, whatever I may have said or done in the past -- and I know there is a lot of history between me and TNP -- that has given anyone the impression they don't want me here as much as they don't want Whole India or Jocospor here as one person said earlier, I am sorry to have caused anyone to feel that way. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, I'm hoping to show people who don't really know me that I have other sides to me other than what they've heard over the years or the unclear picture they've gotten from specific incidents. I'm still responsible for all of that, but there is more to me, so if it takes a while of showing people that then so be it. If some really feel that strongly about me, showing another side of myself seems worth the effort.

I do appreciate everyone's consideration.

 

[Pallaith]

I want you here as much as I want Whole India, Lala, Pixiedance, or Jocospor to be here.

I wanted to take a moment to point this part of your comment out. I don't really think this is warranted, and it's certainly a way more aggressive take than I think is necessary given how Cormac has conducted himself in this thread. You named some pretty heinous people there, and it seems to me that when one of the arguments we're trying to make is that this isn't about comparing Cormac to fascists, and that he's not as bad or worse than one, you lumping him in with one like this muddies those particular waters. I assume you're not trying to draw an equivalence there, but that sort of seems like what you're doing. Lala (I think) isn't a fascist but is pretty bad for a different set of reasons. And Jocospor...Ironically I think the comparison to Pixiedance is actually the most favorable and harmless one in the bunch. I also feel that when a forum moderator draws this kind of comparison, that adds extra weight and implications. You should be mindful of that when you take on that extra OOC role. I think you went a bit far and you know better, so I hope you reflect on that in the future.

Cormac is human like the rest of us, and this does feel a bit like using him as a punching bag. I know that a lot of us rightfully have developed strong feelings about him, and about GP at large, and that it's been unpleasant and even toxic at times in years past. A lot of trust has been lost, and even more than that, respect. There is a version of this whole thing where we engage respectfully and politely with Cormac, even if it is to tell him that we need more time (years or decades though it may in fact be) to forgive and to trust him enough to welcome him into this community as a citizen. And in this version, though he doesn't get what he seeks, he appreciates why and can understand and respect our reasons, and we can continue to coexist without hard feelings. I am glad a lot of you are doing just that. Heck, many here are welcoming him into the community as a resident! I think that's a big shift from a couple of years ago. And he wants to stick around?! Honestly, we've made some major progress here. That's good, even if the vote doesn't go his way. But for those of you who want to see him prove his words, and to watch him like a hawk and let your individual trust meters fill up at their own pace, you have to actually give him a real chance to show you. Antagonizing someone who is trying to be better will only encourage the opposite. And those of you who will never trust him, and have long since given up on him, no one is expecting you to be buddies or his friend. I certainly understand where you're coming from more than some of the others who as far as I know have never said more than two words to the guy and have never been on the wrong side of Cormac in a conflict. But I think we can show by being civil and polite that we're not so bad either.

Cormac has come to symbolize a segment of GP that doesn't think highly of us and likes to pick on us, often more than just in a friendly way. That sucks and doesn't feel good, and I have struggled with it too. We shouldn't give it back, we should be better than it. And no, that doesn't mean being elitist either - it means we do our thing, we have fun, and we show people like Cormac that we have a great community that people should be proud and eager to join.

Cormac knows where I stand on this. I believe that much of what I said two years ago is still true. There's a lot of baggage and hard feelings, and this conversation started on the back of another controversy in GP where people took turns taking shots at us. Many of us happen to agree those shots were deserved, but it still felt icky that you started this in light of that. I get why, and I do take you at your word. For what it's worth, I believe you. But it's asking a lot with this context and the lack of compelling counter-evidence since your last failed attempt for this to just fall into place. It's going to take work and time for it to happen, but for the first time I think ever, I can kind of see how it might happen. I think that people have a lot of vague ideas of why Cormac is "bad" and shouldn't be here, and maybe it would be helpful if people were a bit more specific and articulated the grievances, as it were. Much easier to address them than an amorphous blob of evil. I get that in practice all that tuff may in fact form an amorphous blob, but I think a positive dialogue requires taking a bit more effort with these things. That's what I would like to see if this questioning continues. As an example:

@Cormac You and I had sort of argument a while back about WA in the WA discord regarding non-compliance, I think we even played with the concept of “godmoding,” which obviously recently came up in NSGP during your latest crusade against the GA people. TNP is a big WA region, we spend a lot of time on it, and even we get the stink eye from GA diehards because of the perception we just influence votes without putting in the right time or work into the WA resolution process. But we still don’t like to hear someone is going to blanket oppose their stuff, the way a major region like TWP does. You have lately made opposing the GA specifically a big part of your gameplay activity. Do you think that being involved in TNP would make that difference difficult for you? It's a big aspect of our culture, and a lot of our relationships with other regions come from our work there.

 

[Cormac]

@Cormac You and I had sort of argument a while back about WA in the WA discord regarding non-compliance, I think we even played with the concept of “godmoding,” which obviously recently came up in NSGP during your latest crusade against the GA people. TNP is a big WA region, we spend a lot of time on it, and even we get the stink eye from GA diehards because of the perception we just influence votes without putting in the right time or work into the WA resolution process. But we still don’t like to hear someone is going to blanket oppose their stuff, the way a major region like TWP does. You have lately made opposing the GA specifically a big part of your gameplay activity. Do you think that being involved in TNP would make that difference difficult for you? It's a big aspect of our culture, and a lot of our relationships with other regions come from our work there.

First, thank you for your overall post. I appreciate that you and several others have been very respectful of me.

I definitely do have very different views in regard to the GA, but they're also entirely in-character views. I don't feel strongly about them beyond being part of my gameplay and specifically the gameplay of Entropy, where I'm the Founder. I don't want to say I don't take Entropy's stance on it seriously, because of course I do as I'm the one who developed that stance in the first place, but what I mean is it's not something I can't put aside and respect differences of opinion, especially in another region which doesn't share this point of view.

Regions have different people and different cultures. For a region the size of TNP, with its standing in the game, with having GA authors in the community and in the communities of TNP's allies, etc., I think having a more open and cooperative approach to the GA makes sense. For a region like Entropy, a young and still relatively small user-created region that needs something to define its purpose and make it stand out for recruitment purposes, and that also happens to have a lot of residents who are anti-GA/national sovereigntist since before I took over, I think taking a more oppositional approach makes sense. The two things don't necessarily have to lead to conflict; Entropy has a healthy relationship with Tinhampton's region Sophia, for example, and Tinhampton and I get along well personally too but she is not anti-GA. She's a GA author and approves every proposal. We find opportunities to work together where we agree and otherwise we respect each other's differences. I'm confident I could do that in TNP as well, and I'm not going to try to pursue an anti-GA agenda here. I respect that TNP is more open to the GA and can agree to disagree, and still work together where we agree.

 

[Robespierre]

One thing that I’m somewhat surprised that nobody’s mentioned is this dispatch that features Cormac’s name stop the list of signatories.

For those unaware, this is a declaration of non-compliance with GA#122 and GA#440, among other things. This is pure disregard for the General Assembly and its mission.

@Cormac My latest question to you is this: How do you intend to be a positive and productive influence in The North Pacific’s Ministry of World Assembly Affairs should you A.) Regain citizenship and B.) Be allowed to participate in that area of the executive staff?

I’m sure you’ve received a fair bit of questioning, criticam, and/or backlash for this dispatch and declaration. You mention above that you “think you’d do well” in WA Affairs, but as you know — I’m sure — our Ministry leadership doesn’t exactly take kindly to non-compliance or approve of nation’s declaring themselves as non-compilers.

Anything to say in relation to this?

 

[Cormac]

One thing that I’m somewhat surprised that nobody’s mentioned is this dispatch that features Cormac’s name stop the list of signatories.

For those unaware, this is a declaration of non-compliance with GA#122 and GA#440, among other things. This is pure disregard for the General Assembly and its mission.

@Cormac My latest question to you is this: How do you intend to be a positive and productive influence in The North Pacific’s Ministry of World Assembly Affairs should you A.) Regain citizenship and B.) Be allowed to participate in that area of the executive staff?

I’m sure you’ve received a fair bit of questioning, criticam, and/or backlash for this dispatch and declaration. You mention above that you “think you’d do well” in WA Affairs, but as you know — I’m sure — our Ministry leadership doesn’t exactly take kindly to non-compliance or approve of nation’s declaring themselves as non-compilers.

Anything to say in relation to this?

I actually didn't know that your Minister of WA Affairs has a problem with non-compliance, as I don't know Cretox at all well.

I do think I could still positively contribute to the Ministry. That dispatch is mainly a joke protest against the Read the Resolution Act and isn't actually a serious attempt at non-compliance, though I can see why it would bother GA regulars and such. I can't say I read every GA proposal that goes to vote, but it's also not true that I never read them, so the joke dispatch isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's over the top RP rhetoric meant to mirror another non-compliance dispatch for comedic effect. Even though I tend to vote against most GA proposals except repeals, I could still critically analyze them for pros and cons in an objective way. I also read every SC proposal that goes to vote, so that would be another way I could contribute that has nothing to do with the GA.

But of course if that joke dispatch is too much of a problem, I could just not be involved in the Ministry of WA Affairs. I did mention several others I could be involved in besides WA Affairs and if the Ministry has a strict policy against non-compliance, that's fair enough.

 

[Robespierre]

I actually didn't know that your Minister of WA Affairs has a problem with non-compliance, as I don't know Cretox at all well.

I do think I could still positively contribute to the Ministry. That dispatch is mainly a joke protest against the Read the Resolution Act and isn't actually a serious attempt at non-compliance, though I can see why it would bother GA regulars and such. I can't say I read every GA proposal that goes to vote, but it's also not true that I never read them, so the joke dispatch isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's over the top RP rhetoric meant to mirror another non-compliance dispatch for comedic effect. Even though I tend to vote against most GA proposals except repeals, I could still critically analyze them for pros and cons in an objective way. I also read every SC proposal that goes to vote, so that would be another way I could contribute that has nothing to do with the GA.

But of course if that joke dispatch is too much of a problem, I could just not be involved in the Ministry of WA Affairs. I did mention several others I could be involved in besides WA Affairs and if the Ministry has a strict policy against non-compliance, that's fair enough.

Fair enough.

For clarification, this wasn’t a “gotcha!” or anything like that. I actually wasn’t aware that the dispatch was intended as a joke, nor am I familiar with the dispatch that it was attempting to mirror for comedic effect.

Also, while there’s no formal policy against non-compliance, there’s definitely a dislike for rhetoric that advocates non-compliance. Cretox would have to speak as to how own personal opinions, as I can’t articulate on them for him, but it’s always good to know that if you’re denied in one area you’ll still be motivated to seek out other areas where you can contribute

 

[Cormac]

Fair enough.

For clarification, this wasn’t a “gotcha!” or anything like that. I actually wasn’t aware that the dispatch was intended as a joke, nor am I familiar with the dispatch that it was attempting to mirror for comedic effect.

Also, while there’s no formal policy against non-compliance, there’s definitely a dislike for rhetoric that advocates non-compliance. Cretox would have to speak as to how own personal opinions, as I can’t articulate on them for him, but it’s always good to know that if you’re denied in one area you’ll still be motivated to seek out other areas where you can contribute

That's fair enough, it could easily be mistaken for not being a joke, especially by people who aren't aware of the dispatch it's mirroring.

I'd just like to say thank you to everyone who has asked me civil and respectful questions, including the Delegate, and that I appreciate the Regional Assembly's time and consideration. Whether my rejection is overturned or not I look forward to being involved here.

 

[Praetor]

I am unfortunately rather busy so I was not able to post in here as earlier as I would have wanted.

Nevertheless, I did want to comment in that I find your recent non-compliance to be a very strong reason to vote against in addition to any other reasons. To me, it demonstrates a willingness to disregard the rules or laws of an organization that you choose to join knowing what you are getting into whenever you don't get your way (in addition to your recent remarks on wanting private information such that you could display it publicly, which while I'd have no issue with the information being public, it does provide further evidence to what appears to be unwilling to follow the rules/laws of organizations).

 

[Comfed]

I am unfortunately rather busy so I was not able to post in here as earlier as I would have wanted.

Nevertheless, I did want to comment in that I find your recent non-compliance to be a very strong reason to vote against in addition to any other reasons. To me, it demonstrates a willingness to disregard the rules or laws of an organization that you choose to join knowing what you are getting into whenever you don't get your way (in addition to your recent remarks on wanting private information such that you could display it publicly, which while I'd have no issue with the information being public, it does provide further evidence to what appears to be unwilling to follow the rules/laws of organizations).

Non-compliance with the WA is very different from breaking our laws.

 

[Praetor]

Non-compliance with the WA is very different from breaking our laws.

As stated, there are similarities.

 

[Wonderess]

I naturally will objective to the non compliance (or as it is more cutely called, creative compliance) parallel. It turns out that law is not the highest order of truth nor good and so if one wishes to bring need change to an organization, they need not take part in the atrocities or evils that the law happens to enshrine for the moment. Regardless, the specific instances of noncompliance would have to be evaluated when trying to draw an analogy between the WA and TNP law.