Official IRON Announcement

[jraenar]

Any word from the Socialist Libertarian Front? Or the Federation of Libertarian Socialists?

[Baldr]

meh

Edited June 21, 2012 by Baldr

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Tank4ever' timestamp='1340313707' post='2992108']
Oh so you weren't being generous like previous stated by IRON members. It was basically "Do WHAT we say, WHEN we say do it, and HOW we want you to do it! Or we attack." [/quote]

Have you bothered to read the thread?

[quote]
Your representative agreeing our demands were [i][u]reasonable[/u][/i] but stating LSF would not comply. Regardless we gave you 24 hours to think about actually sanctioning this behaviour.
- During that time despite your representative labelling our terms [i][u]reasonable and acknowledging wrong doing[/u][/i], members of your alliance proceeded to continue with similar behaviour albeit this was just mocking and did not have any other motives.
- LSF then lets the [u]first 24 hour deadline fly by without response[/u], we took time to consider an appropriate response and INT contacted us to say that you had changed your mind well and[u] would accept the terms well after said deadline was given[/u]. We set about for the [u]second time proceeding with diplomatic action despite being spat on at the first attempt.[/u]
[/quote]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111667&st=240&p=2990580&#entry2990580

[quote]
So one "normal"(normal in the sense of, unless a vote is taken nobody has the authority to speak for the LSF as a whole) member with less than 5 days seniority, makes a mocking apology which he himself voted against. Next it was prematurely posted by an unaware second "normal" member when a 24hr deadline suddenly popped up. Finally the post is frowned upon by LSF members, one being the writer of the "apology". Yet all of this is showing LSF's intention of not owning up to another member's actions.[/quote]
If your internal governance sucks on simplest of tasks, its your problem. Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time.
Interestingly, LSF delivers when aid needs passing to rogues.

Its all innocent, fun and jokes until someone calls your bluff.

[Anarquista]

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1340315466' post='2992144']
Any word from the Socialist Libertarian Front? Or the Federation of Libertarian Socialists?
[/quote]
splitters

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Foose Babganoosh' timestamp='1340314278' post='2992124']
Things don't look so good for the Lesbian Socialist Front
[/quote]
Implied homophobia is always hilarious.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Hastein' timestamp='1340297125' post='2991910']
And the excuse of respecting your decision making processes, in this case, only seems a method of prolonging the situation. How long, exactly, were IRON supposed to give LSF?[/quote]

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.

[Tick1]

[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]
[quote][size="4"]Article XIV. : (The Amendment of the Charter and/or Constitution)[/size]

i. The minimum time period before a quorum can be enacted on a vote to amend the Charter or Constitution of the Libertarian Socialist Federation is 12 hours.[/quote]

There are loopholes in every charter, minimum time needed to accomplish an apology is twelve hours unless I'm reading this incorrectly.

[Tank4ever]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1340316379' post='2992155']
Have you bothered to read the thread?


http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111667&st=240&p=2990580&#entry2990580
[/quote]

Congrats it takes them ~48hrs just to accept your demands. Yet you give them 24hrs to make a decision on an appropriate apology, reps & expulsion of a member(including immediate forum demask apparently.) What happen to that reasonable nature you quoted about?

[quote]
If your internal governance sucks on simplest of tasks, its your problem. Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time.
Interestingly, LSF delivers when aid needs passing to rogues.

Its all innocent, fun and jokes until someone calls your bluff.
[/quote]

Havent they already stated that was planned from the beginning? In other words, they voted on & sanctioned that rogue attack on NoR. So the incidents have no relevance together other than them ending in war.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Edited for now, pending luldebate.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Tick1]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1340319324' post='2992197']
I don't think we are going to amend our constitution to include an apology to a foreign alliance, however. You should perhaps read again the amendment you quoted.
[/quote]

Why is that?

[quote]ii. The vote to amend the Charter or Constitution of the Libertarian Socialist Federation can run for a maximum time period of 120 hours.
iii. If the quorum is not reached for the amendment, there must be a supermajority (75% + 1) of votes in favour of the amendment(s).[/quote]

No minimum time is given after the quorum has been enacted, also why you would need a council to vote on something as simple as an apology is befuddling at best.

[Bob]

[quote name='Tank4ever' timestamp='1340318932' post='2992191']
Congrats it takes them ~48hrs just to accept your demands. Yet you give them 24hrs to make a decision on an appropriate apology, reps & expulsion of a member(including immediate forum demask apparently.) What happen to that reasonable nature you quoted about?
[/quote]
i. The minimum time period before a quorum can be enacted on a vote to amend the Charter or Constitution of the Libertarian Socialist Federation is 12 hours.


Thanks for playing~

Also, I don't think my alliance has followed our constitution in a while if ever to the letter. Everything can be expedited or moved up based on the situation.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Penlugue Solaris

[Pacifist Ninja]

Actually Tick1 is sort of right, but not really. Theoretically, we could accomplish something in 3 hours using quorum. However, 50%+1 of the entire alliance (not just voters) has to agree, and we have not had that voter turn out in the entire history of LSF.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1340319684' post='2992200']
i. The minimum time period before a quorum can be enacted on a vote to amend the Charter or Constitution of the Libertarian Socialist Federation is 12 hours.


Thanks for playing~
[/quote]

You know what a quorum is, right?

[Tick1]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1340319775' post='2992202']
You know what a quorum is, right?
[/quote]

No, he doesn't

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.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Tick1

[Auctor]

All I'm really hearing from LSF is they couldn't possibly avoid getting rolled. It's hard to disagree.

[Pacifist Ninja]

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].

Edited June 21, 2012 by Pacifist Ninja

[Anarquista]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340319556' post='2992198']

No minimum time is given after the quorum has been enacted, also why you would need a council to vote on something as simple as an apology is befuddling at best.
[/quote]
there is a minimum time,

and the reason we need to do a vote (and discussion) is because that is what is needed to act as "the LSF",
individuals can very well apologize and pay reps on their own for their own mistakes or get other people to pay if they are too poor,
but not as "the LSF" as many want to do, this is the big misunderstanding

[Tick1]

[quote name='Anarquista' timestamp='1340320474' post='2992213']
there is a minimum time,

and the reason we need to do a vote (and discussion) is because that is what is needed to act as "the LSF",
individuals can very well apologize and pay reps on their own for their own mistakes or get other people to pay if they are too poor,
but not as "the LSF" as many want to do, this is the big misunderstanding
[/quote]

No, there isn't a minimum time as clearly stated in your own charter. After the quorum has been enacted, if all of your members vote.
[quote]
Article III. : (The Voting Process)

i. Every member of the Libertarian Socialist Federation has the ability to propose votes which must be made in the Delegates Council.
ii. Members have the right to change their vote and/or abstain from voting.
iii. Votes will be conducted openly, with no secret ballots. “There is nothing to be ashamed of.”
iv. Voting on separate, unrelated [to the Charter or Constitution] policies, treaties, expulsions, nominations for co-ordinators and votes of no confidence will run for 48 hours, unless the result of a vote reaches the necessary quorum (see Article III), or unless the vote is “controversial” (see Article II. vii. [b:).
v. Voting on an amendment to the Charter or Constitution will run for 96 hours, unless the result of a vote reaches the necessary quorum, or unless the vote is “controversial”.
vi. Offensive war declarations must go through a discussion thread for a period of 24 hours before voting may proceed, at which point the vote will run for a further 48 hours, unless the result of a vote reaches the necessary quorum, or unless the vote is “controversial”.
vii. [a: For a vote to pass, it must reach a majority of 50% (+1) of the total votes.
vii. [b: “Controversial” votes can be called by any member of the Delegates Council during a voting process on any vote. If this occurs, a maximum extension of 24 hours is given.

Article IV. : (Quorums)

i. The quorum can only be enacted after voting has gone through a minimum time period of 3 hours in times of crises.
ii. The first qualification for a quorum to be reached is; a clear majority of 80% of the already given votes.
iii. The second qualification for a quorum to be reached is; if the vote reaches a 50% (+1) majority within the whole alliance. [/quote]

However the fact that you guys have failed to update your charter accordingly so your alliance can vote swiftly is your own fault. After four years as an alliance I can assure you this isn't the first time this issue has arising.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Tick1

[Tank4ever]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1340319684' post='2992200']
i. The minimum time period before a quorum can be enacted on a vote [b]to amend the Charter or Constitution of the Libertarian Socialist Federation[/b] is 12 hours.


Thanks for playing~

Also, I don't think my alliance has followed our constitution in a while if ever to the letter. Everything can be expedited or moved up based on the situation.
[/quote]


Idk what quorum is, but the part that keeps catching my attention is bolded. When did this become them needing time to amend their charter?


Again Idk what quorum is. I might better understand in context, but it clearly states that it is for changing their charter, not making alliance decisions

Edited June 21, 2012 by Tank4ever

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340319884' post='2992205']
No, he doesn't

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]

This one of many deeply philosophical questions being discussed by us now that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I don't want to bore you too much but this stuff is actually very important to us. It's more important than anything else. Is it possible, with the levels of activity that we and lets be honest, many other alliances face, to organise with these principles? If the answer is no, and it's arguable that this episode demonstrates that, is it possible for the LSF to exist at all in any meaningful sense?

If we reduce quorum to, lets say 25%, will it always be the same 25%? Does that mean that the alliance is run by a de facto vanguard?

Has this episode demonstrated that the LSF is already run by a (inept) vanguard that was present on irc the other night?

These questions are very important, because regardless of any other things going on right now, if the conclusion is that anarchy is not possible in a meaningful way for us we'll simply disband.

[Auctor]

[quote name='Tank4ever' timestamp='1340321218' post='2992229']
Idk what quorum is, but the part that keeps catching my attention is the bolded part. When did this become them needing time to amend their charter?
[/quote]
certainly wasn't necessary for them to move quickly if they were cool w/ being rolled.

I don't even understand why yall think this is a great argument anyway, all I gotta do is ratify a charter that says I can commit dickery and gotta be granted a 1-2 month delay in being held accountable by whomever I screw with and then everyone has to respect it? Of course not, that's stupid and so is this.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Tank4ever' timestamp='1340321218' post='2992229']
Idk what quorum is, but the part that keeps catching my attention is bolded. When did this become them needing time to amend their charter?


Again Idk what quorum is. I might better understand in context, but it clearly states that it is for changing their charter, not making alliance decisions
[/quote]


"the number (as a majority) of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business"

(OOC: Google is hard to use.)

[Tick1]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1340321407' post='2992232']
This one of many deeply philosophical questions being discussed by us now that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I don't want to bore you too much but this stuff is actually very important to us. It's more important than anything else. Is it possible, with the levels of activity that we and lets be honest, many other alliances face, to organise with these principles? If the answer is no, and it's arguable that this episode demonstrates that, is it possible for the LSF to exist at all in any meaningful sense?

If we reduce quorum to, lets say 25%, will it always be the same 25%? Does that mean that the alliance is run by a de facto vanguard?

Has this episode demonstrated that the LSF is already run by a (inept) vanguard that was present on irc the other night?

These questions are very important, because regardless of any other things going on right now, if the conclusion is that anarchy is not possible in a meaningful way for us we'll simply disband.
[/quote]

Is it not better to be ran by a de facto vanguard than to be led by no one at all?

[Pacifist Ninja]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1340320761' post='2992223']
However the fact that you guys have failed to update your charter accordingly so your alliance can vote swiftly is your own fault. After four years as an alliance I can assure you this isn't the first time this issue has arising.
[/quote]
As an old time LSFer (this is my second nation), I do not remember a single instance in which we really needed to get something done in that time frame.

[Sabcat]

[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 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.