Eretz Yisrael Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 We give you a chance and you blow it, and then instead of leaving gracefully, you throw a tantrum? Bravo Francesca. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 It IS a general rule if it can be applied specifically. That means you could apply it to anyone at a whim. It makes IRC privilages nothing but a privilage that you feel you have the right to give and take away from your members. That is the truth of it. If you would be open about that with your members and then they still stayed then there would be nothing for anyone to talk about as that is your sovereign right. You lie about it though right here and try to spin it into an existance that it would only happen with Francesca and no one else. The fact is it Could happen with someone else if you deemed such necessary and only you at the top of NPO get to decide what is "necessary" for such. Anything can be a general rule -- the Emperor could dictate that I wear my pants on my head tomorrow if he so desired. This is quite openly stated in the Charter where it notes that the Emperor is sovereign -- something fiercely pushed under the nose of every applicant, and a concept that is fiercely put to cadets in the Academy. But regardless, it isn't a general rule, and something being physically possible doesn't make it a general rule -- you are criticising us for what we don't do. I'm not sure where all this concern for our internal politics keeps coming from. We're not a public institution: STA taxes aren't paying the binmen of Francograd. Nor are Pacificans held in place by unbreakable chains. Your complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Pacifican politics notwithstanding, members can leave at any point if they don't think those politics suit them. But that we have over 600 members despite being under crippling terms should suggest something to you. We are an organisation with rules and norms that you explicitly accept when you join. You break the rules and you might get your membership of the organisation revoked, same as any alliance. You don't like our rules and norms just as I don't like your rules and norms -- that's why I'm not in your alliance and you're not in mine. There is no qualitative difference between us in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup4l33t3ki11a Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Anything can be a general rule -- the Emperor could dictate that I wear my pants on my head tomorrow if he so desired. This is quite openly stated in the Charter where it notes that the Emperor is sovereign -- something fiercely pushed under the nose of every applicant, and a concept that is fiercely put to cadets in the Academy. But regardless, it isn't a general rule, and something being physically possible doesn't make it a general rule -- you are criticising us for what we don't do.I'm not sure where all this concern for our internal politics keeps coming from. We're not a public institution: STA taxes aren't paying the binmen of Francograd. Nor are Pacificans held in place by unbreakable chains. Your complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Pacifican politics notwithstanding, members can leave at any point if they don't think those politics suit them. But that we have over 600 members despite being under crippling terms should suggest something to you. We are an organisation with rules and norms that you explicitly accept when you join. You break the rules and you might get your membership of the organisation revoked, same as any alliance. You don't like our rules and norms just as I don't like your rules and norms -- that's why I'm not in your alliance and you're not in mine. There is no qualitative difference between us in this regard. What does any of this have to do with the STA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eretz Yisrael Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 What does any of this have to do with the STA? Finally, someone gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 What does any of this have to do with the STA? I consider their members to be oppressed, and am going to spend 12 pages informing them of such against their claims to the contrary. Why can't they see what I see! Why can't they recognise that my privileged position, being able to pick up passing-third-hand-accounts from the propaganda-forum, provides me with far better information than their living experiences ever could! Must be brainwashed. No other explanation. Couldn't possibly be because I have no idea what I'm talking about. Also because HeinousOne, who I was replying to, is a member of STA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 There seems to be some confusion here. The ruling on social channels was Francesca-specific and a direct reaction to numerous concerns about her conduct. It is not a general rule. Vladimir is correct. The wisdom of a government such as ours is that it permits flexibility. A member violates rules regarding channels, including impersonating members of other alliances, using IRC bouncers, attempts to invade other groups' IRC rooms, brings up private matters in public channels, and then, perhaps related to being an OP in another alliance's channel, attempts to insert the New Pacific Order in the middle of another alliance's internal conflict and persists in bringing up the issue publicly and privately. So what do we do with that member? Rather than create a blanket rule to highly regulate the IRC conduct of all members, we create a rule to highly regulate the IRC conduct of that one member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup4l33t3ki11a Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I consider their members to be oppressed, and am going to spend 12 pages informing them of such against their claims to the contrary. Why can't they see what I see! Why can't they recognise that my privileged position, being able to pick up passing-third-hand-accounts from the propaganda-forum, provides me with far better information than their living experiences ever could! Must be brainwashed. No other explanation. Couldn't possibly be because I have no idea what I'm talking about.Also because HeinousOne, who I was replying to, is a member of STA. Rawr. Get back into peace mode you evil person! You will never discover our cloaked corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I am having trouble seeing the big deal here. Like so many others have said, if you dislike the Alliance (their rules, their way of doing things, any and all reasons), then you just leave and find one that suits you better. If you instead stay and cause problems, then the Alliance has every right to kick you out or punish you as the charter says. And despite what I or any one else thinks, any Alliance can do what they want internally, because it is their Alliance after all; if the members do not like it, then leave. You already knew at least most of these things as you applied/joined because it is pretty public knowledge. Of course, this is Francesca we are dealing with here so... well... The only thing that makes me angry about this thread is that all you people on the first half-dozen pages are too lazy to quote the OP -- when will you learn that in cases like this the person always Deletes the OP? Come on, work with me here dammit! I need my entertainment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eye Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 The OP is deleted, most of the material is IC and off topic anyway ... this thread has gone far enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts