Hereno Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340321550' post='2992238'] Is it not better to be ran by a de facto vanguard than to be led by no one at all? [/quote] We will have a vote right here in this thread. Everybody, put your hand in the air if you agree that having a socialist vanguard would be the way for LSF to go in the future. [url=http://postimage.org/][img]http://s15.postimage.org/arcy0ynob/b6a3w6pt8pvcp68a.jpg[/img][/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 All power to the soviets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1340321978' post='2992249'] We are led by no one. That is the entire point of us. We'd rather cease to exist than be led. The philosophical question is whether inactives can be considered to be being led or indeed really exist in a political sense at all. [/quote] Adjusting a time frame for the voting process to occur still allows for the existence of communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom Zak Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1340318035' post='2992178'] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=25337 LSF's voting process is 48 hours according to their charter. I got the above off of the LSF wiki, if anyone is wondering. A person has to follow a few links but it is doable. On the other hand, LSF if you have it someone public on your forum I couldn't find it. Also, after all this is done it might be a good time to reconsider some things in terms of what works for you and what does not, taking into account that it IS true that we total democracies have to figure out how to get a long in a world where most alliances are some form of monarchy/dictatorship or a representative democracy. [/quote] Once again I say this, it was not IRON's job to read LSF's charter and see how long they needed for a vote to occur. IRON gave them a deadline, and they could have then stated that their charter didn't allow for that, which in turn would force IRON to give them more time. Not hard... nonetheless they still ignored the time limit given and spat in our face with an alliance approved apology which was minutes late and not just coincidental. They made it late to prove a point that they don't care, which again was a F U. [quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1340321978' post='2992249'] We are led by no one. That is the entire point of us. We'd rather cease to exist than be led. [/quote] And that's why this whole situation blew up; it doesn't work for this political climate. Edited June 22, 2012 by Dom Zak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank4ever Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Dom Zak' timestamp='1340325177' post='2992296'] Once again I say this, it was not IRON's job to read LSF's charter and see how long they needed for a vote to occur. IRON gave them a deadline, and they could have then stated that their charter didn't allow for that, which in turn would force IRON to give them more time. Not hard... nonetheless they still ignored the time limit given and spat in our face with [b]an alliance approved apology[/b] which was minutes late and not just coincidental. They made it late to prove a point that they don't care, which again was a F U. [/quote] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111638&view=findpost&p=2989305 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111638&view=findpost&p=2989350 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111638&view=findpost&p=2990246 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111638&view=findpost&p=2990492 You were saying?? Thats 3 LSF members. Now put that with the statement earlier that the number of votes could have been counted on 1 hand with fingers to spare. And it doesnt look like anyone voted for this. Assumption yes, but the point is you cant honestly say this was the LSF's choice this with only ~5 of 40+ votes. [b]But you are right, its their fault for not requesting more time.[/b] Edited June 22, 2012 by Tank4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Tank4ever' timestamp='1340327339' post='2992309'] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111638&view=findpost&p=2989305 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111638&view=findpost&p=2989350 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111638&view=findpost&p=2990246 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111638&view=findpost&p=2990492 You were saying?? Thats 3 LSF members. Now put that with the statement earlier that the number of votes could have been counted on 1 hand with fingers to spare. And it doesnt look like anyone voted for this. Assumption yes, but the point is you cant honestly say this was the LSF's choice this with only ~5 of 40+ votes. [b]But you are right, its their fault for not requesting more time.[/b] [/quote] Why are you linking posts made in the apology thread? Did they ask on IRC? Did they ask in a direct message via forums or game? Yes, that is also their fault for not contacting government members from IRON to inform them the time needed to come to a conclusion through their government process. Edited June 22, 2012 by Tick1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340319884' post='2992205'] Anyhow, if you guys haven't had a 50% +1 turn out since the existence of LSF, maybe you should update your charter? To something more reasonable for an inactive alliance. [/quote] Stop making sense, you. The OWF is no place for your kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank4ever Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340327666' post='2992312'] Why are you linking posts made in the apology thread? Did they ask on IRC? Did they ask in a direct message via forums or game? Yes, that is also their fault for not contacting government members from IRON to inform them the time needed to come to a conclusion through their government process. [/quote] Keep up. I already conceded that to you. I was referring to your statement that the apology was "alliance approved". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Tank4ever' timestamp='1340329742' post='2992332'] Keep up. I already conceded that to you. I was referring to your statement that the apology was "alliance approved". [/quote] You have fun fishing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC123 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340330284' post='2992338'] You have fun fishing [/quote] "I have no counter-point so I'm just going to imply your point is invalid and wrong." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1340317239' post='2992167'] Implied homophobia is always hilarious. [/quote] Man, communists sure do love pop psych. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Pacifist Ninja' timestamp='1340320094' post='2992208'] Again, quorum requires 50%+1 of the entire alliance to agree and we have never, in the entire history of LSF, gotten that level of voter turnout. [OOC] Its just not possible to expect 50%+1 of an alliance to pay enough attention to an internet spreadsheet game to vote, esp. in a 3-12 hour time frame.[/OOC]. [/quote] Then requiring that kind of turnout for a particular thing to happen in your alliance is the stupidest decision ever. Be glad it hasn't bit you on the ass before now. Didn't this happen to GATO a few years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [15:46] <Pacifist_Ninja> Our fastest possible response is 24h, though the individual may choose to take action before then. LSF said 24 hours. If 48 hours is your quickest response time then that should have been stated, one can hardly expect a foreign alliance to know the inner workings of an alliance if he doesn't know them himself. Regardless the 24 hour deadline was allowed to expire, by the time INT contacted us we were actually beyond 36 hours and we let it slide and proceeded with diplomacy for a second time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1340355846' post='2992588'] "I have no counter-point so I'm just going to imply your point is invalid and wrong." [/quote] Why should I have to counter something I didn't say? Since he was implying I said it was 'alliance approved' he obviously is pulling my strings seeing as he himself even quoted the person that claimed it was alliance approved. He didn't quote me that's for sure. The only part I agree about that Dom Zak brought up is that LSF could have asked for more time instead of posting 'the first thing at hand.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Bromeini Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Can't we all just get along? I'm sure LSF feels bad about what it did. Now you two kiss and make up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Tank4ever' timestamp='1340329742' post='2992332'] Keep up. I already conceded that to you. I was referring to your statement that the apology was "alliance approved". [/quote] Shouldn't have posted or could have stated unavoidable reasons for delay. You're all anarchists and stuff, so its even more important you guys create some sound SOPs that you can vote on and so resolve matters in reasonable time when something comes up. Edited June 22, 2012 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Dom Zak' timestamp='1340325177' post='2992296'] Once again I say this, it was not IRON's job to read LSF's charter and see how long they needed for a vote to occur. IRON gave them a deadline, and they could have then stated that their charter didn't allow for that, which in turn would force IRON to give them more time. [/quote] Assuming it wasn't pointed out to IRON that their charter requires a 48 hour vote for something like this, someone from LSF should have done so and then LSF as a group could of just stuck to that and done what they need to do to get it worked out internally. On the other hand, if I (as an experienced diplomat) know that I'm dealing with a situation that may end in a war declaration I'm going to make sure I know everything I can about the other alliance - starting with their charter. I don't have too of course, but it helps my alliance in justifying a war declaration if one needs to be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1340377171' post='2992713'] Assuming it wasn't pointed out to IRON that their charter requires a 48 hour vote for something like this, someone from LSF should have done so and then LSF as a group could of just stuck to that and done what they need to do to get it worked out internally. On the other hand, if I (as an experienced diplomat) know that I'm dealing with a situation that may end in a war declaration I'm going to make sure I know everything I can about the other alliance - starting with their charter. I don't have too of course, but it helps my alliance in justifying a war declaration if one needs to be made. [/quote] We've already been over this, if you'd like to read previous comments made I'm pretty sure you can find your answer somewhere in-between this post and your last one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Wow people still follow charters too? Edited June 22, 2012 by Leet Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnipCruncher Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Just in case INT missed King Zog's question, are INT offering sanctuary for LSF members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1340377844' post='2992717'] Wow people still follow charters too? [/quote] It's funny, considering they are anarchists.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Miller Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340377976' post='2992719'] It's funny, considering they are anarchists.. [/quote] Yes, anarchy must have rules otherwise it would be anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Bromeini Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340377976' post='2992719'] It's funny, considering they are anarchists.. [/quote] I don't think anarchy means what you think it means [quote]Just in case INT missed King Zog's question, are INT offering sanctuary for LSF members? [/quote] We will accept any nation that's not at war or otherwise in bad standing with another alliance. If an LSF nation not at war wants to join us, I wouldn't be opposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC123 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1340372912' post='2992680'] Shouldn't have posted or could have stated unavoidable reasons for delay. You're all anarchists and stuff, so its even more important you guys create some sound SOPs that you can vote on and so resolve matters in reasonable time when something comes up. [/quote] Second time I've seen someone refer to Tank as an anarchist... He's not. He's not even in LSF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1340377844' post='2992717'] Wow people still follow charters too? [/quote] No these are still universally ignored everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.