A Cancellation

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1348108379' post='3032058']
It can (and has) been spun either way. I think a lot of people are just amused that Int would rather support an aggressive MK action than their own ally. I know I am.
[/quote]

Or maybe they would rather support their bloc than some hairbrained half-OOC war on an alliance that was pretty much bothering nobody.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348121795' post='3032159']
Don't be stupid. I explained that membership gave up their decision making to congress. That is completely different as the AC or INTs commisar doesn't hold decision making power. You sir are either an idiot or don't know what you're talking about. If you want promises our congress is the only one's that can make it, not the AC or any minister. Same for INT's leader he doesn't have authority as a decison maker. That is reserved for the entire membership. So yes the GATO congress does represent GATO's official views, the AC or ministers can forward those views but in reality anything else is their personal opinion. The only opinion that matters is that of Congress. Now the same goes for INT except their congress actually is the entire membership
[/quote]

So you are saying that INT elected someone to speak for them and deal for them in matters which they choose not to know of and that same person they have elected is not responsible for his or her very own actions and statements? Well..Int's very own charter calls !@#$%^&* on that one.

In regards to delagates "Affiliate Delegates [u][b]represent[/b][/u] Affiliates in the International’s forums and other offsite venues." as per article 2, clause 1.

Every single member of INT represents the AA, including the General Commissar. That is unless you have a very different and incorrect understanding of the word "represent'. If so, feel free to use a dictionary.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1348112254' post='3032086']
Your argument is simplistic and silly. INT is not an anarchy, they elect someone to represent them, and that man made promises from his office in an official capacity whether or not a poll was going to be taken. His promises were not private, they were INT's.
[/quote]

That man made promises within a situation, that overreached his actual power. That you, or anyone else thinks it to be binding is ridiculous. Was it foolish? Yes. Did LSF (being a direct democracy themselves), have the capacity to understand that until the vote is posted and official, NOBODY IN INT CAN PROMISE ANYTHING WITH 100% CERTAINTY? Yep, they knew that too. There is a saying about counting chickens before they're hatched, or putting eggs in one basket. Cautionary, but wise advice.

[Charles Stuart]

Actually, judging from this topic, I am assuming MK will not be handing up one of their allies? That was the price of INT's inaction after all was it not?

Edited September 20, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1348113510' post='3032099']
Let's talk about how Polaris wasn't responsible for Dajobo's interactions with Lennox, or let's talk about how GPA wasn't responsible for CerealKiller's crazy, or let's talk about how GATO wasn't responsible for Barbula's harboring of Chris Kaos in violation of peace terms. Or, for that matter, why don't we talk about how Browncoats wasn't responsible for my actions while MoFA.

I appreciate your need to make INT look good, but you're instead making yourself look stupid. The International's chosen speaker spoke.
[/quote]


The complete irony of your statement here is, I agree, Polar got railroaded on a !@#$ CB, that seems to be the difference between you and me Schatt, see I can clearly point out where a sphere I was and am a part of , is wrong, and made, what I feel was a wrong move. You are so blinded by pushing the agenda that you want to see pushed, that you seem to fail to understand what everyone who has ever been in a democracy knows. Once the votes start being tabulated, everything is unpredictable. TLR elections a few months back, were a great example, I'd have bet my life Voodoo would win his trium re-election. I thought he had performed well, alienated nobody, and was a good representative. Not one of us in high gov gave even one thought to the chance of him losing. Then, he lost. You can bank, until you are blue in the face, on a promise made by any one person, that requires a mandatory democratic process to come to fruition. If the bank goes under, you have NOBODY to look in the mirror at and blame, save yourself.

[Vanilla Bapalm]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348128641' post='3032179']
INT didn't shirk anything. Trotsky apparently got ahead of himself and made promises he couldn't come through on and INT's decision making body chose not to activate an optional aggression clause. Everyone knows what I am saying is perfectly correct and logical. It depends on what side you are on whether you accept it or not.
[/quote]
Not really on a side here, quite frankly i think the entire thing is idiotic. I'm just bemused by the whole 'the definition of democracy is nothing anyone says matters' defense. Do you not see how ridiculous this is? It seems a few people figured that elected official translated to 'elected official' not 'guy who posts treaty announcements'. Perhaps you ought to inform your treaty partners to that effect before the lolcommies do more stupid things on a false pretense.

[berbers]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348111131' post='3032077']
Their choice was whether or not to hit NoR and they made it. When TLR and ODN went in for MK INT and us had no choice but to follow or else break the treaty. Which I guess is a choice butI don't think any of us would break CnG just to spite.

Not in a democracy where people who are not the leader make the actual decisions. You were in GATO. You know the AC can't make a promise congress isn't on board with.
[/quote]

LSF got attacked by NoR after speaking with 2 people in a direct democracy. LSF never voted on the war with NoR or even the terms originally offered. The people they talked with had as much authority to make those decisions as Trotsky did. So by your rationale C&G should have supported INT/LSF as NoR should have gotten rolled for attacking an entire AA over the comments of someone who doesn't make the actual decisions.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1348114251' post='3032102']
Yeah, I got it. Int chose not to back their ally, and instead ended up backing MK - willingly or not (though it seemed pretty willing!), despite at least as bad of reasons to war.

And um. Yeah man. Trotsky, much like the AC of GATO, is elected to represent the entire alliance.[b] What he says is the alliances word.[/b] Even if it's too much responsibility for him, there's no arguing that. He was elected for that purpose.
[/quote]


The bolded part is simply wrong. You know it, I know it, you cannot admit it because your entire rant implodes on itself. Anyone who has ever dealt with a democracy that has to vote such things, knows that you cannot count on a 100% outcome based on ANYONE'S word. The vote has to take place, and in the time of the vote taking place, people become more and more knowledgable, and may not make the "promised" decision. LSF could have chosen prudence, and waited four or 5 days for INT war council to officially vote, then there would have been no confusion. They instead accepted a promise that at the end of the day, they knew the person making it, really didnt have the power to make it. Did he have sway? Yes. Did he have absolute authority to promise the military in an alliance where such things are voted on (plain as day in the charter), no he did not. LSF ran forward like wide-eyed children on Christmas morning. They have since paid the price.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1348134315' post='3032196']
LSF got attacked by NoR after speaking with 2 people in a direct democracy. LSF never voted on the war with NoR or even the terms originally offered. The people they talked with had as much authority to make those decisions as Trotsky did. So by your rationale C&G should have supported INT/LSF as NoR should have gotten rolled for attacking an entire AA over the comments of someone who doesn't make the actual decisions.
[/quote]

That could have been his rationale, but keeping MK's cronies in CnG happy sounded like a better idea at the time.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Garion]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348133825' post='3032193']
Actually, judging from this topic, I am assuming MK will not be handing up one of their allies? That was the price of INT's inaction after all was it not?
[/quote]

Rush refuses to reply to that question, so I guess the party line is a "No comment".

You can refer to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113153&view=findpost&p=3032082"]this post[/url] for an honest reply about it, though.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1348116137' post='3032118']
Yes, yes, we're certain that INT's decision to let LSF burn after INT's promises to support LSF was very complicated.
[/quote]
Schatt you remind me of a pomeranian. I know this concept of voting is foreign to you, but it has been INTs way since its inception. If anyone chalks up the vote before it happens, not only are THEY the fools, but they deserve the folly that goes with being the fool.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Garion' timestamp='1348134695' post='3032199']
Rush refuses to reply to that question, so I guess the party line is a "No comment".

You can refer to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113153&view=findpost&p=3032082"]this post[/url] for an honest reply about it, though.
[/quote]

I am not surprised he refuses to answer it. No puppet intentionally tries to make the puppet master look bad after all

Wait, maybe MK's promise isn't valid because it was made to an elected official who wasn't able to represent INT?

Edited September 20, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Garion' timestamp='1348134695' post='3032199']
Rush refuses to reply to that question, so I guess the party line is a "No comment".

You can refer to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113153&view=findpost&p=3032082"]this post[/url] for an honest reply about it, though.
[/quote]

Why exactly would Rush, a retired gov member, comment on what MK may or may not do? Are you on crack?

[Princess Erix]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1348120731' post='3032152']
Thank you for the response. I can understand that. So did Trotsky get the boot or did he leave on his own?
[/quote]

He left.

It's highly humorous to see how some people seem to speculate about the lead up of events, haha.

[Mogar]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348135482' post='3032202']
Why exactly would Rush, a retired gov member, comment on what MK may or may not do? Are you on crack?
[/quote]
you and I both know you're a mouthpiece for your alliance, just as people seem to think I am for RIA.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1348137054' post='3032205']
you and I both know you're a mouthpiece for your alliance, just as people seem to think I am for RIA.
[/quote]

lol bro, I am so detached from CN politics, to view me as a mouthpiece is folly.

[potato]

No one thinks that.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1348138171' post='3032209']
No one thinks that.
[/quote]
No one here thinks.

[Avakael]

Hitting an ally of an ally instead of allowing CnG go through the (possibly unwanted?) curbstomp politically unscathed sounds like the kind of thing that would cause CnG to split from the fallout, or at least the thing that would get The International removed from the bloc. The fact that MK was in that chain seems irrelevant; if MK was replaced with a completely different alliance that didn't have all the influence that MK is supposed to have, I expect all the same pressure would have been there.

In the meantime, I hope NG has fun rebuilding Trotsky's warchest, so me and King Wally can bill lock him again next war.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348134902' post='3032201']
I am not surprised he refuses to answer it. No puppet intentionally tries to make the puppet master look bad after all

Wait, maybe MK's promise isn't valid because it was made to an elected official who wasn't able to represent INT?
[/quote]

I dont think they are a MK puppet. They hate MK.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Alterego

[D34th]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348132706' post='3032187']
The truth isn't damage control. Try arguing a point. At least Schatt tries.
[/quote]

I wont waste my time arguing with someone who says that the leader of the alliance doesn't speak for the alliance, but please ignore me and keep spinning, it's extremely amusing watch it.

Edited September 20, 2012 by D34th

[Sabcat]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1348113220' post='3032096']
No I can see why they did but they should have held off until everything was concrete anyway knowing that Trotsky had to swing the vote and convince CnG. Trotsky it seems was overconfident. I'm saying yes be pissed at Trotsky for not coming through but don't hold INT responsible for things he said.
[/quote]

On the 3rd of September I made a post in our embassy at Int. The title was "why some of us are pissed off". In that thread I posted the meat of the things Trotsky had said to us in the run up to the war.

The responses ranged from the kind of drivel we see here from Int members that think we're trying to blame them for the war to "Trotsky says different things to different people. Happens"

LSF was allied on paper to Int for a very long time, since the day Int existed. What is clear from this thread and the thread in the Int embassy is that we were not allies at all.

LSF were stupid for believing the words of our allies leader. That's the general opinion expressed. And it's dead right. We were stupid. We have ended that stupidity now.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1348139667' post='3032214']
On the 3rd of September I made a post in our embassy at Int. The title was "why some of us are pissed off". In that thread I posted the meat of the things Trotsky had said to us in the run up to the war.

The responses ranged from the kind of drivel we see here from Int members that think we're trying to blame them for the war to "Trotsky says different things to different people. Happens"

LSF was allied on paper to Int for a very long time, since the day Int existed. What is clear from this thread and the thread in the Int embassy is that we were not allies at all.

[b]LSF were stupid [/b]for believing the words of our allies leader. That's the general opinion expressed. And it's dead right. We were stupid. We have ended that stupidity now.
[/quote]

Your whole post could have been summed up with just the bolded part.

[D34th]

I agree with Rush, LSF is the only one to be blamed for believing in the word of the leader of their oldest ally. SHAME ON YOU LSF!

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348141466' post='3032217']
I agree with Rush, LSF is the only one to be blamed for believing in the word of the leader of their oldest ally. SHAME ON YOU LSF!
[/quote]

Show me where I will said LSF were solely to blame? I will wait, but it will be a long wait. I have very much condemned the actions Trotsky took, its cute of you to completely ignore it so you can keep barking like a good little poodle, but it is simply not the truth. LSF, however, from minute 1 of this ordeal, established their stupidity, then danced and paraded it around like it was a badge of honor.