Dragonaspect Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Forgive me, I was referring to the vacancies in the rest of the High Council. Given that High Chancellors serve for life, I thought it was pretty much implied that Sam and Celt would have to resign first in order to hold immediate elections for their position. I was going off of Gopherbashi's post: "For the next several weeks, the MCXA will be governed by a Transition Council until elections are held." It appeared as if most of the previous High Council, elected at the end of January, did not finish their two month term. Looking through their recent elections announcement here, I compiled a mental list of MCXA government members who left the alliance this month. February-March High Council who joined The Sweet Oblivion Sam Celt SleepIB Skingrad Enimecnegnev Cadie Jesse James Dragonaspect Lakie February-March High Council who left MCXA Gonefishin February-March High Council who remained in MCXA Dr. Fresh Gopherbashi I'm really sorry if I offended you with my ignorance, watchman, but it appeared to me that a good portion of MCXA's current elected officials were no longer in the MCXA. I'm willing to retract my hasty statements. When were the most recent MCXA High Council elections? Sorry, I must have missed the announcement of them. There are some mistakes in that list, for example I was appointed, not elected, for another Skingrad did not run for High Council this term afaik. I did offer whoever would be the next MoFA help, if he asked for it, and my HC position is replaced by the new Co-Chancellors anyways (as is Lakies, the second appointee's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 One could wonder if anyone actively took advantage by leeching during the turmoil. Whether the new MCXA cares or not is another question . I hear USN posted some hearty gains during that time. I also hear that is bloody awesome to see someone else making drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linden16 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Wait... wait... Sam is no longer in MCXA?!?!?! WHAT THE $%&@? Who am I suppose to troll senselessly now? You can troll me if you want. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) There are some mistakes in that list, for example I was appointed, not elected, for another Skingrad did not run for High Council this term afaik.I did offer whoever would be the next MoFA help, if he asked for it, and my HC position is replaced by the new Co-Chancellors anyways (as is Lakies, the second appointee's) That's actually a very kind offer and I think highly of you because of it. I do my research and don't like being called ignorant and accusatory by Watchman when I am not being either. Edited February 24, 2009 by Penguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 MCXA just had regular elections. In those elections, Gopher and Fresh were elected as Chancellor. Sam and Celt left when their terms were up. An ignorant accusation of dereliction is uncalled for, in my opinion. Go ask first. #tso The problems began more than two weeks before the elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 There are some mistakes in that list, for example I was appointed, not elected, for another Skingrad did not run for High Council this term afaik. I fail to see how the manner of accession to the High Council is in any way conflicting with what Penguin has said. I assume you held the same rights and responsibilities as any other member of that body so his point still stands. The problems began more than two weeks before the elections. The TFS-nc1701 thing was indicative of much bigger issues and tells me that the leadership at MCXA were more into settling political scores than governing justly. Hopefully the new crowd will change the tone there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Wait... wait... Sam is no longer in MCXA?!?!?! WHAT THE $%&@? Who am I suppose to troll senselessly now? This pretty much sums up my thoughts on this thread. My reality has been shaken. also what Bigwoody said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuromancer7 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Sweet Oblivion is SWEET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvengerNL Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 [19:54] <AvengerNL[FOK]> ORANJE BOVEN [19:55] <sam[mcxa]> o/ ORANJE o/ Sam, our German traitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Something that i have been wondering...... MCXA's govt left the alliance owing to differences between the membership and the government. This issue came about because of the democratic system that they follow.....which more or less gave the government less room to maneuver. Then how come TSO has almost the same democratic process. Only difference i see is that the two chancellors are replaced by three commanders and the high council / council is replaced by a security council. Arent you guys setting the stage for the same thing to repeat again ? In an alliance with a democratic structure, it's not so much about what the government wants, but what its members want. If both clash and one has to leave in order to both exist, I do think that it's preferable that the minority leaves rather than kicking out the majority... I dont get it, where does "clash" come into the picture when its the ELECTED governments DUTY to deliver what the membership wants ?? If they felt the membership's views did not match their own....why contest in the first place, they could have let someone else contest in the elections ?? Wait... wait... Sam is no longer in MCXA?!?!?! WHAT THE $%&@? Who am I suppose to troll senselessly now? he only changed AA's....he didnt disappear from CN....as yet :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 The best comparison I can think of here is if myself, choop, Thick, and KungFuGeek all left TORN to start a new alliance because we didn't like how things were going.If, as LEADERS of your alliance, you couldn't make your alliance a place you wanted to stay, that doesn't bode well. You guys built the MCXA into what it is, so leaving it because you don't like it's direction is more a reflection on yourselves than on anyone else. And now that I've vented my piece, best of luck to all. After reading Archon's comment about bigwoody, I went back to read it, and I have to whole heartedly agree. Having been in leadership of a democracy for over two years, I understand very well the desire to break away and start fresh when the general membership seems to be on an entirely different page. In fact, I've almost succumbed to the temptation a couple times in the past. Initially the only thing that stopped me was a refusal on my part to leave the alliance until I had made sure that I had found a replacement. As time progressed, though, I realized I had all the raw materials already constructed into an alliance. If I couldn't form what I had into an alliance I really wanted to be a part of, what does that say about me? It takes a lot to be a leader in a democracy, but it seems like a lot of people forget what the word leader actually means. Yes, you are beholden to the will of your members, but it's still your job to lead them. If you can't get them to respect you enough to listen to your views and take them seriously, to convince them you are right, that doesn't say much for your leadership skill. Yes, it's long and difficult work to bring large numbers of opinionated people around to your point of view. But it's always going to be. Every alliance in CN is at base a democracy. If you can't get your members to agree with you, they will eventually vote with their feet and leave. I've seen it happen enough times. What I don't generally see is a government, especially a high government, jumping ship and going on to a bright new future. It's possible that TSO will accomplish it, but all I see here is either a lack of ability to lead, or a a desire for instant gratification. Neither of which is a great thing in a leadership. Maybe I'm way off base, but as someone who has fought the uphill battle to mold a democratic alliance into something I'm truly happy with, I can definitely say I'm much more pleased with the results than I could have been by breaking away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Something that i have been wondering......MCXA's govt left the alliance owing to differences between the membership and the government. This issue came about because of the democratic system that they follow.....which more or less gave the government less room to maneuver. Then how come TSO has almost the same democratic process. Only difference i see is that the two chancellors are replaced by three commanders and the high council / council is replaced by a security council. Arent you guys setting the stage for the same thing to repeat again ? I dont get it, where does "clash" come into the picture when its the ELECTED governments DUTY to deliver what the membership wants ?? If they felt the membership's views did not match their own....why contest in the first place, they could have let someone else contest in the elections ?? he only changed AA's....he didnt disappear from CN....as yet :lol: A more concrete structure on who gets in does wonders for a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 A more concrete structure on who gets in does wonders for a democracy. Sounds like CNs version of the Bilderburg Group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchh Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) A more concrete structure on who gets in does wonders for a democracy. This is pretty funny coming from one of the least productive gov members ever to exist in CN I hope we can work closely with both MCXA and TSO to ensure both of them prosper. @freelancer: Yes. TOP is actively working towards controlling Bob by inviting many large players from other alliances to secret conferences. Our next meeting is at Buller's house. Edited February 23, 2009 by mitchh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I dont get it, where does "clash" come into the picture when its the ELECTED governments DUTY to deliver what the membership wants ?? If they felt the membership's views did not match their own....why contest in the first place, they could have let someone else contest in the elections ?? Well, keep in mind that the government are also members. In the end it would go down to the nature of the internal issues mentioned. It could be, instead of a difference of views, a difference of opinion in regards to methods. In that case the views would actually match, they would clash on the way of doing things. But I am speculating, there are plenty of ways clashes could happen not related to views, or related to a single view Eitherway, in a democratic regime, everyone has the right to run for their ideas and objectives.. it's up to the membership to judge them. I fail to see how they not running would have made any difference besides making the people leaving not being government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) Well, keep in mind that the government are also members. In the end it would go down to the nature of the internal issues mentioned. It could be, instead of a difference of views, a difference of opinion in regards to methods. In that case the views would actually match, they would clash on the way of doing things. But I am speculating, there are plenty of ways clashes could happen not related to views, or related to a single view Eitherway, in a democratic regime, everyone has the right to run for their ideas and objectives.. it's up to the membership to judge them. I fail to see how they not running would have made any difference besides making the people leaving not being government That is a HUGE difference.....cos when they did leave, the new government would have settled in....instead of being forced to form a transitional government to fill the void. On hindsight, if the views didnt match, how does one get elected in a democratic process ?? Edited February 23, 2009 by raasaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 On hindsight, if the views didnt match, how does one get elected in a democratic process ?? A pretty face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 A pretty face. Or promises of favors/bribery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 A pretty face. Only in CN i guess.......George Bush is an exception to that in RL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Still around and moving forward.Every day is a school day or so they say. By moving forward he means that he's setting new records for getting followers killed by Ragnarok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 A pretty face. This is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 That is a HUGE difference.....cos when they did leave, the new government would have settled in....instead of being forced to form a transitional government to fill the void.On hindsight, if the views didnt match, how does one get elected in a democratic process ?? How do you know that views didn't match though? (I recognize MCXA and TSO are probably having a laugh at our costs for discussing something only they know :lol:) Anyway, we do not know the details in particular, but I am pretty sure they did the best they could with the situation they had. I seriously doubt that most MCXA government would try to damage on their way out an alliance they dedicated years to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 @freelancer: Yes. TOP is actively working towards controlling Bob by inviting many large players from other alliances to secret conferences. Our next meeting is at Buller's house. I anxiously await my new global overlords, I'm always in search of new faces to dictate how I should live my life here and abroad, OCC, curious though, who plays Alex Jones ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jaym Il Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 A more concrete structure on who gets in does wonders for a democracy. Doesn't controlling who can be elected defeat the purpose of a democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Doesn't controlling who can be elected defeat the purpose of a democracy? Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts