Citadel Announcement

[Denial]

You're talking about a concept, I'm talking about real things.

"Viceroys" are an idea. "This Week in Pacifica" is not.

Viceroys weren't "real things"? We all must have imagined the sovereignty of GATO being consistently infringed upon for months.

[Kindom of Goon]

What you are saying here is that it's fine for people to perform some action on people you are indifferent to, but when they do it to you, that's bad.

This is the definition of hypocrisy. If it's immoral to perform X action on one person, it's immoral for everyone.

I never said its fine or that I support certain people to perform a certain action, I said I have no reason to care or to oppose if its not on me or someone I like, there is a difference.

Secondly, I might have cared about being called a hypocrite if the word hadn't lost all meaning during the last war with folks firing the word at will towards anything with a pulse.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Kindom of Goon

[Haflinger]

Viceroys weren't "real things"? We all must have imagined the sovereignty of GATO being consistently infringed upon for months.

One individual viceroy.

You see, if you oppose all viceroys (as the person I was responding to claimed to), then you oppose not only Pacifica's viceroyship of GATO, but also Tyga being viceroy of NAAC, MyWorld being viceroy of BDC, Van Hoo being viceroy of Illuminati, and so on.

Maybe that's what he meant. Was it? Do we add Hoo, MyWorld, Tyga, Ivan, Dilber, Koona, Z'ha'dum, Vladimir, and anyone else I've forgotten to the List of Bad People? 'Cause if that's the argument, then OK, I agree, the analogy holds.

Except I don't think all those people were bad. So perhaps I do support viceroys after all. Shall we continue on down the list of things that I supposedly support to find out if I support them or not?

lol.

(FOR THE RECORD. I DO NOT ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE PERMANENT ZI. I DO NOT ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE VICEROYS. I DO NOT ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE RELEASING INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE IN POWER. I think that all these actions are justified in some circumstances, not justified in others. However I don't think the determining line for when they're right or wrong should be "they're only wrong when they affect me.")

[hizzy]

Actually, no. I don't imply that. I think that their supporting people who were praising it implies that they didn't oppose it.

This is really not very hard to grasp.

If I hated TWiP (which I didn't), I wouldn't then turn around and support people who loved it (which I have).

Actually, the stealing cars analogy I got from KoG.

As I said, you replied to Bob's claim that there arn't many people in Citadel praising TWiP with:

Perhaps, but you did give all of those people your military support in the war, and other than in the Reyne thread (hilarious now in light of OG-but-not-Reyne-leaving-Citadel: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=52222) there aren't any Citadel posters protesting TWiP.

This is an implication that they indirectly support it. You can cover your ears and yell as loud as you want, but that's what it is, and that's how it reads.

As to the car analogy... you basically took the only part of my post which didn't deduct points from you and credited it to KoG... so... I dunno what you want me to say to that.

[Haflinger]

Hizzy, you're just trying to make this whole argument about me. It's not. It's about whether or not Citadel opposed TWiP, and there's already been Blue Lightning supporting my original statement that they didn't in the thread.

[hizzy]

Hizzy, you're just trying to make this whole argument about me. It's not. It's about whether or not Citadel opposed TWiP, and there's already been Blue Lightning supporting my original statement that they didn't in the thread.

Well it's about you because you're the only one who proposed your 'side' of the issue. Nothing personal dude, you're a 1-man team s'all.

edit: "your side" being that Citadel supported (directly or indirectly) TWiP. Blue Lighting just said they had no position.

Edited June 28, 2009 by hizzy

[Trinite]

Hizzy, you're just trying to make this whole argument about me. It's not. It's about whether or not Citadel opposed TWiP, and there's already been Blue Lightning supporting my original statement that they didn't in the thread.

So that's the topic of this thread. I was wondering.

[Eden Taylor]

I just read twenty pages to catch up where I left off... and I'm kind of wondering what all this logic stuff about TWiP has to do with OG..?

[Haflinger]

So that's the topic of this thread. I was wondering.

Yes, obviously.

Well it's about you because you're the only one who proposed your 'side' of the issue. Nothing personal dude, you're a 1-man team s'all.

edit: "your side" being that Citadel supported (directly or indirectly) TWiP. Blue Lighting just said they had no position.

That's what you say my side is. I say it's not. And for some reason you refuse to, you know, take me at my word as to what I actually meant and instead of finding where I actually said what you thought I meant (which you can't because I didn't), you say that I implied what you thought I meant.

Ever hear of the strawman fallacy?

[hizzy]

So that's the topic of this thread. I was wondering.

It changes from time to time. We like to keep people on their toes.

Things covered so far;

-how to count votes

-Tyga's talents as a shepherd

-Haflinger's feelings on Grand Theft Auto

-Wizards of the Coast (which apparently I'm not geeky enough to know... so screw it)

-Whether or not a viceroy is the viceroy

-the noCB war

[Ejayrazz]

I liked Twip.

[SoxNation]

Well it's about you because you're the only one who proposed your 'side' of the issue. Nothing personal dude, you're a 1-man team s'all.

edit: "your side" being that Citadel supported (directly or indirectly) TWiP. Blue Lighting just said they had no position.

there were talks in Citadel about declaring war on Vox because of schatt's spying on Citadel. So can i say /end topic about this? Citadel as a whole did not support Twip, yes some of us personally enjoyed reading it, but the posting about Citadel was an act of war, the only reason we didn't was because Vox was already defeated and it would have been superfluous.

[Random]

It changes from time to time. We like to keep people on their toes.

Things covered so far;

-how to count votes

-Tyga's talents as a shepherd

-Haflinger's feelings on Grand Theft Auto

-Wizards of the Coast (which apparently I'm not geeky enough to know... so screw it)

-Whether or not a viceroy is the viceroy

-the noCB war

You forgot one.

-Random's talents on being Tyga's sheep

[Ejayrazz]

Your initial reply to my post took it entirely out of context which suggests you did not read the conversation at all. Also, I'm not saying my method is the only logical method of functioning. I was given a scenario that was used as a means to show why my alliance are a bunch of brainless morons as opposed to the mighty democracies of Citadel so discussed the issue using that example.

The key point the Umbrella nation was making when trying to point out the inferiority of my alliance and her members was that Citadel alliances vote in direct representation of their members' opinion when dealing with bloc votes which would mean going with the majority opinion if that were the case. If this is the case then the only way to really reflect that majority opinion is the method which I spoke about.

I never advocated direct democracy, I never said the method I mentioned was the only valid one. I said, under the scenario I was given, it best represented the majority opinion of alliance members. I never said alliance reps at bloc level could not use their own discretion to vote nor did I say government officials could not use the vote in a way they saw as more beneficial to the alliance.

All I ask is that my comments be used in the context they were offered rather than being erroneously used to portray me as supporting a certain process or method with regards to bloc voting.

I read the conversation, a 'majority', in terms of paper and not literal meaning, differs depending on the alliance. For example, some do not consider it a majority unless it is 67% of membership, therefore your insinuations of negating voting is moot. As I said, each alliance functions differently, nor did I state you were promoting a direct democracy. What I did say was I see another standpoint in justifcation for split voting, but apparently by saying this you automatically presume I didn't read the conversation - assumptions are funny sometimes. -.-'

You go on this rampage merely because you were insulted by one member and now resort taking it out on a collaborative bunch - nicely executed. But, it really doesn't represent yourself well by doing so. Just my opinion.

I do not agree with LJ's statements pertaining to your alliance, but where did I state you promote direct democracy? I didn't, you just ranted about something which has no barring with myself.

Though your logic makes sense, not every alliance is democratic and the leaders are there to make decisions based on their own methods, though I generally agree they should, I can see why some people would wish for a split.

If you are referring to this, by any chance, no, this isn't an insinuation of STA being democratic, cause I know you're not democratic. I was speaking in terms of Citadel - we are not all democratic. -.-'

Edited June 28, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Uhtred]

...it looked as if C&G, Super Friends and Viridian Entente would be defending Ordo Verde alone.

I apologise, it was an accidental omission - FOK and LEO have been reliable friends and war-time allies since the beginning. You guys likely didn't enter my mind immediately because the initial discussions I had regarding Ordo Verde were with that alliance's other direct allies and their respective blocs.

There were more than likely several alliances - such as FOK, CSN and other direct allies of C&G/SF/etc - that were ready to assist us from the very beginning

What have the Romans ever done for us?!

Sorry, Rev. Couldn't resist.

P.S. If you don't get the reference you should be ashamed of yourself.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Uhtred

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Tyga, sorry if I misunderstood you. No point to say more I think, that conversation has run its course. 

[Tygaland]

Tyga, sorry if I misunderstood you. No point to say more I think, that conversation has run its course.

No probs, it happens and yes, it has run its course. I guess you just posted when my tolerance of the misreading of my comments was at its lowest.

I apologise for biting your head off about it.

[Tygaland]

I read the conversation, a 'majority', in terms of paper and not literal meaning, differs depending on the alliance. For example, some do not consider it a majority unless it is 67% of membership, therefore your insinuations of negating voting is moot. As I said, each alliance functions differently, nor did I state you were promoting a direct democracy. What I did say was I see another standpoint in justifcation for split voting, but apparently by saying this you automatically presume I didn't read the conversation - assumptions are funny sometimes. -.-'

Your comments insinuated I was saying the method I mentioned was the only one or the only one I was advocating which showed you had not followed the conversation at all. If you begin to create the need for super majorities on a yay or nay issue then you are not reflecting the majority of the alliance opinion if you vote "nay" when 60% wish to vote "yay". But the topic was not to get into quibbling over what constitutes a majority, it was a response to the assertion that Citadel alliances always vote in accordance with the majority opinion of their member made by LJ Scott.

You go on this rampage merely because you were insulted by one member and now resort taking it out on a collaborative bunch - nicely executed. But, it really doesn't represent yourself well by doing so. Just my opinion.

I didn't go on a rampage at all. I responded to an attack on my alliance by a Citadel member. Other Citadel members then seized on my comments that folllowed in the conversation taking them out of context. So, the rest of my "ramapage" was correcting those misrepresentations. If people bothered to read the conversation before posting I wouldn't have had to explain the same thing 6 times.

I do not agree with LJ's statements pertaining to your alliance, but where did I state you promote direct democracy? I didn't, you just ranted about something which has no barring with myself.

You insinuated I was saying the method I mentioned in relation to a system LJ Scott raised was the only system that could be applied. You said that because you didn't read the entire conversation, you just jumped in half-way through.

If you are referring to this, by any chance, no, this isn't an insinuation of STA being democratic, cause I know you're not democratic. I was speaking in terms of Citadel - we are not all democratic. -.-'

As I said, it insinuates that I am saying the method mentioned is the only valid method which, if you really had read the full conversation, you would not have insinuated because all my comments were in response to a proposed system mentioned by LJ Scott. I didn't say you insinuated the STA was democratic, I said you were insinuating I was saying the only viable method was direct democracy which is clearly not true. I never said Citadel was entirely democratic either, LJ Scott did.

So, you either did not read the conversation from the beginning and assumed I was advocating the system I mentioned as the only viable system or you read the conversation and decided to tell me the bleeding obvious in light of my alliance's government system.

[Spock]

The evolution of this thread is fascinating.

(and locked)