New Athens Speech Policy

[SirWilliam]

Doch, yeah, it's pretty much the freedom of speech that MK members are afforded (and which members of most alliances are afforded). Members are entitled to their own opinions and sentiments and may express them freely (within reason of course).

Edited November 15, 2009 by SirWilliam

[astronaut jones]

Indeed. If I didn't know the founders of CSN from another universe, I'd think you're all jerkoffs the way you act on these forums.

Good for you.

If you want, you can go bother the CSN government type people. I said I'd make things more fun for them, so go on and have a talk with them, I don't mind one bit.

[Dochartaigh]

This thing called free speech. Some alliances allow it among members.

EDIT: Last bit wasn't thought through.

i know about free speech. and not sure what you talking bout in your edit....

It still violates your treaty with them.

how so? i stated it was anti-Athens simply because i know others will see it as such. i simply see it as the truth of what Athens is.

respect is earned and if Athens has truly learned from its mistakes then i will be more than willing to give them respect. until then, i will watch them. calling them out for their actions is not disrespect in my opinion. if i did something wrong and someone called me out on it, i would not consider it disrespectful. but that is just me.

[Style #386]

how so?

From your treaty...

we must agree to always show respect towards each other in all public domains

[Dochartaigh]

From your treaty...

yes, and Athens aggressively attacking KofN without talking to IAA is also disrespectful (breaking of 1 section), shows they are not communicating with IAA as they should be (breaking of a second section), and since they did not discuss this action with IAA, it put IAA in the position of possibly having to defend Athens should some other alliance declare on Athens for their actions. this put IAA in an unsafe and unstable position (breaking of a third section).

thus, Athens broke 3 sections of our treaty. sorry, if you think i feel that the spirit of this treaty is still in tact.

[Style #386]

yes, and Athens aggressively attacking KofN without talking to IAA is also disrespectful (breaking of 1 section), shows they are not communicating with IAA as they should be (breaking of a second section), and since they did not discuss this action with IAA, it put IAA in the position of possibly having to defend Athens should some other alliance declare on Athens for their actions. this put IAA in an unsafe and unstable position (breaking of a third section).

thus, Athens broke 3 sections of our treaty. sorry, if you think i feel that the spirit of this treaty is still in tact.

That was such a mind-numbingly piss poor argument that I don't even know how to respond to it. I'll go with "Hey mom, my friend jumped off a bridge, can I jump off a bridge too?"

I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy.

[SirWilliam]

Perhaps I'm old school - ok, I'll admit it, in these regards I'm old school - but when you have a problem with an ally you take it through the appropriate private channels (directly to the ally or to your government first depending on what is expected within one's alliance), rather than publicly slinging the mud. Otherwise, and I don't mean to single anyone out or be overly critical here, it's simply uncouth.

[astronaut jones]

That was such a mind-numbingly piss poor argument that I don't even know how to respond to it. I'll go with "Hey mom, my friend jumped off a bridge, can I jump off a bridge too?"

I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy.

Putting an alliance in a compromising position in the manner that Athens did, could be argued that that in itself is not showing respect for IAA. Blatantly aggressive behaviour for the sole purpose of obtaining cash, tech, and land, while showing no respect at all, and in fact disdain towards those who brought their behaviour to light, could be argued to be disrespectful towards IAA. It put them in a highly awkward position, at the very, very least.

[Style #386]

Putting an alliance in a compromising position in the manner that Athens did, could be argued that that in itself is not showing respect for IAA. Blatantly aggressive behaviour for the sole purpose of obtaining cash, tech, and land, while showing no respect at all, and in fact disdain towards those who brought their behaviour to light, could be argued to be disrespectful towards IAA. It put them in a highly awkward position, at the very, very least.

For once, I'm generally agreeing with you. Yes, Athens put its allies in a bad spot. However, I don't feel that that justifies Dochartaigh's signature.

[SirWilliam]

Putting an alliance in a compromising position in the manner that Athens did, could be argued that that in itself is not showing respect for IAA. Blatantly aggressive behaviour for the sole purpose of obtaining cash, tech, and land, while showing no respect at all, and in fact disdain towards those who brought their behaviour to light, could be argued to be disrespectful towards IAA. It put them in a highly awkward position, at the very, very least.

I don't think this is being disputed as much as the public reaction to said perceived slights displayed by some is being criticized.

Harming the spirit of a treaty in response to the perceived harm to said treaty on the other party's behalf doesn't make things any better.

That's just my perspective though - I know my opinion means little to you, seeing as how you'd like nothing more than for MK to disband.

Edited November 15, 2009 by SirWilliam

[Logan]

It seems like these days people are more concerned about arguing about history then the present anyways. It pretty much seems like if someone doesn't like you they will bring up anything they can to some how cite something that's not relevant to the present, just to drag your name through the mud. There's only so much reason you can afford people before you tell someone to do something about it. Sometimes you just have to realize that you fundamentally disagree on something and let it be.

[Dochartaigh]

That was such a mind-numbingly piss poor argument that I don't even know how to respond to it. I'll go with "Hey mom, my friend jumped off a bridge, can I jump off a bridge too?"

I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy.

wait what? lawlz. point to where it was piss poor argument? i stated that Athens broke 3 sections of the treaty you pointed out i was breaking and then you bring up something bout jumping off a bridge?

From Archon: "Has Athens screwed up rather badly? Clearly, that goes beyond doubt."

gee, that is basically what i said. and honestly, we can talk semantics all you want but i am paying Athens as much respect as they have given IAA. that includes the tag since they allow their allies, including MK, to wear such tags despite Athens and IAA being allied.

yes, the old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right" is typically true but i really really don't like Athens.

[astronaut jones]

For once, I'm generally agreeing with you. Yes, Athens put its allies in a bad spot. However, I don't feel that that justifies Dochartaigh's signature.

Well, if it represents how IAA generally feels about the matter, then perhaps it is justified. It's a matter for IAA and Athens to work out though.

[Style #386]

wait what? lawlz. point to where it was piss poor argument? i stated that Athens broke 3 sections of the treaty you pointed out i was breaking and then you bring up something bout jumping off a bridge?

From Archon: "Has Athens screwed up rather badly? Clearly, that goes beyond doubt."

gee, that is basically what i said. and honestly, we can talk semantics all you want but i am paying Athens as much respect as they have given IAA. that includes the tag since they allow their allies, including MK, to wear such tags despite Athens and IAA being allied.

yes, the old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right" is typically true but i really really don't like Athens.

Actually, you said it better than I did. Two wrongs don't make a right. That is why it was and continues to be a piss poor argument.

Well, if it represents how IAA generally feels about the matter, then perhaps it is justified. It's a matter for IAA and Athens to work out though.

Can't argue with that.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Style #386

[astronaut jones]

I don't think this is being disputed as much as the public reaction to said perceived slights displayed by some is being criticized.

Harming the spirit of a treaty in response to the perceived harm to said treaty on the other party's behalf doesn't make things any better.

That's just my perspective though - I know my opinion means little to you, seeing as how you'd like nothing more than for MK to disband.

I would like nothing more than for MK to disband? That's news to me.

And, it really depends on how you viewed the actions of athens. I'm of the mind that, simply because they may be an ally, does not mean they're safe from harsh criticism, both in public and in private. True allies would never put you in a compromising situation for what appeared to have been !@#$s and giggles, so if that means taking a bit of harsh criticism from your allies for what you've done, so be it.

[Atticus]

The policy is nice and all, but this would appear to be an internal issue between the government and your membership. Unless of course this is just a political move, but I know the good folks in Athens are above that.

[Dochartaigh]

Actually, you said it better than I did. Two wrongs don't make a right. That is why it was and continues to be a piss poor argument.

and yet, in my opinion, i really don't wanna be allied to Athens. (no shock i know) but i am not gonna leave IAA simply because they wish to stay allied to an alliance i despise. my loyalty is to IAA first and foremost, then to IAA's allies.

Perhaps I'm old school - ok, I'll admit it, in these regards I'm old school - but when you have a problem with an ally you take it through the appropriate private channels (directly to the ally or to your government first depending on what is expected within one's alliance), rather than publicly slinging the mud. Otherwise, and I don't mean to single anyone out or be overly critical here, it's simply uncouth.

Doch, yeah, it's pretty much the freedom of speech that MK members are afforded (and which members of most alliances are afforded). Members are entitled to their own opinions and sentiments and may express them freely (within reason of course).

so i take it, that according to you, it is ok for MK members to disrespect an ally of Athens, =LOST=, and GR with their sigs since according to you they are entitled to state they want to kill an ally of Athens, =LOST=, and GR.

but it is not ok for me to state that Athens is a bully? which one is more disrespectful to Athens? which one for that matter is more disrespectful to =LOST= and GR? the one in which MK is supporting attacking an ally and causing Athens, =LOST=, and GR to have to choose between upholding a defensive clause with IAA or supporting CnG in attacking an ally? or the one in which i point out that Athens are bullies for their recent actions?

[SirWilliam]

that includes the tag since they allow their allies, including MK, to wear such tags despite Athens and IAA being allied.

If MK doesn't encroach on the freedom of speech and expression that is afforded our membership, why would Athens or any of our allies?

I would like nothing more than for MK to disband? That's news to me.

And, it really depends on how you viewed the actions of athens. I'm of the mind that, simply because they may be an ally, does not mean they're safe from harsh criticism, both in public and in private. True allies would never put you in a compromising situation for what appeared to have been !@#$s and giggles, so if that means taking a bit of harsh criticism from your allies for what you've done, so be it.

Sorry. I mistook one of your earlier posts wanting Athens to disband as being directed towards MK (since I posted before that post).

Anyhow, on the same token, a good ally doesn't publicly sling mud and drag one's name and credibility through the dirt and back when they could be constructively addressing their issues with that ally in private.

[SirWilliam]

so i take it, that according to you, it is ok for MK members to disrespect an ally of Athens, =LOST=, and GR with their sigs since according to you they are entitled to state they want to kill an ally of Athens, =LOST=, and GR.

but it is not ok for me to state that Athens is a bully? which one is more disrespectful to Athens? which one for that matter is more disrespectful to =LOST= and GR? the one in which MK is supporting attacking an ally and causing Athens, =LOST=, and GR to have to choose between upholding a defensive clause with IAA or supporting CnG in attacking an ally? or the one in which i point out that Athens are bullies for their recent actions?

It is ok for MK members to publicly express themselves, yes (within reason). IAA is not an ally of ours, so the "within reason" bit doesn't change that. If they were expressing themselves by being disrespectful towards allies, then we'd have an issue.

I never said it is not ok for you to state that you believe Athens to be a bully. It is uncouth though to publicly be slinging the mud, as I've said, when you could be constructively addressing the issues you have with your ally.

[astronaut jones]

If MK doesn't encroach on the freedom of speech and expression that is afforded our membership, why would Athens or any of our allies?

Sorry. I mistook one of your earlier posts wanting Athens to disband as being directed towards MK (since I posted before that post).

Anyhow, on the same token, a good ally doesn't publicly sling mud and drag one's name and credibility through the dirt and back when they could be constructively addressing their issues with that ally in private.

You're right, they don't, but it all goes back to who started it, and who perceived the slight, the wrong, whatever you want to call it in the first place. If that's IAA, and they felt that the actions of Athens were highly suspect (that's me being nice) then, what do you do? Do you blame IAA or a member of IAA for acting the way they did if they felt wronged, or do you blame Athens for doing what they did in the first place?

If IAA believe that athens violated the wording of the treaty, then IAA believes athens is to blame. If Athens believes their actions were not in violation, then IAA is to blame.

It's a he said, she said thing.

[Bob]

Anyhow, on the same token, a good ally doesn't publicly sling mud and drag one's name and credibility through the dirt and back when they could be constructively addressing their issues with that ally in private.

Of course, well said. We obviously have talked with Londo and I personally have heard what he has to say and considered it resolved. Londo is a good man. <3

-my opinion as a government member of iaa etc-

[Dochartaigh]

It is ok for MK members to publicly express themselves, yes (within reason). IAA is not an ally of ours, so the "within reason" bit doesn't change that. If they were expressing themselves by being disrespectful towards allies, then we'd have an issue.

I never said it is not ok for you to state that you believe Athens to be a bully. It is uncouth though to publicly be slinging the mud, as I've said, when you could be constructively addressing the issues you have with your ally.

are you kidding me? MK members are publicly disrespecting Athens by having those sigs. you realize that those threats are threats on an ally of Athens? you cannot convince me one bit that the overtly hostile threats to IAA is respectful in any way, shape, or form to Athens considering Athens holds a treaty that has a defensive clause in it with IAA....

also, me calling out Athens for their poor actions and mistakes is now disrespectful? what, i am supposed to mindlessly hail and support any action they take? no. and i will not compromise my beliefs for any ally. and this includes keeping my criticisms from public light.

[SirWilliam]

are you kidding me? MK members are publicly disrespecting Athens by having those sigs. you realize that those threats are threats on an ally of Athens? you cannot convince me one bit that the overtly hostile threats to IAA is respectful in any way, shape, or form to Athens considering Athens holds a treaty that has a defensive clause in it with IAA....

also, me calling out Athens for their poor actions and mistakes is now disrespectful? what, i am supposed to mindlessly hail and support any action they take? no. and i will not compromise my beliefs for any ally. and this includes keeping my criticisms from public light.

Are you kidding me Doch? You really don't see how publicly, disrespectfully slinging the mud at an ally when you could be privately, constructively addressing the issue (like your capable leaders did) is uncouth?

And no, I'm not kidding you, MK members expressing themselves in regards to IAA is not disrespectful to Athens. To go full circle here, no one sporting those sigs has any authority or ability to do anything to IAA. They're not serious threats, they're empty jabs, and jabs aimed at IAA, not Athens.

[Bob]

I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy.

And MK wearing sigs that they voted to roll IAA is Classy as well, right? Totally backing up three of their allies *rolls eyes* (On a note here, I don't think there's anything wrong with MK wearing those sigs or his posts, both are disrespectful but both are allowed.)

Honestly, I don't agree with what hes doing because Athens is an alliance near and dear to my heart, but he has the right to do it.

To state this, IAA supports our allies in Athens. Period. We may disagree with their actions at times, but we back them. That's what friends are for.

<3

The policy is nice and all, but this would appear to be an internal issue between the government and your membership. Unless of course this is just a political move, but I know the good folks in Athens are above that.

It actually isn't. They are saying that if you have an issue with something someone in Athens says and it is similar to what the OP says, then you may bring it to Londo and he will do something about it. He's stating a policy that the OWF has to help police if they want it to stop, is my view on it. Every OWF post is a political move, but this has meaning to it as well.

I'd edit my grammar, but its readable and im tired :<

Edited November 15, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[SirWilliam]

And MK wearing sigs that they voted to roll IAA is Classy as well, right? Totally backing up three of their allies *rolls eyes* (On a note here, I don't think there's anything wrong with MK wearing those sigs or his posts, both are disrespectful but both are allowed.)

Honestly, I don't agree with what hes doing because Athens is an alliance near and dear to my heart, but he has the right to do it.

By the way, I'm not denying that the sigs are unclassy. Just that the unclassiness is aimed at IAA, not Athens.

Your take on things is rather spot on though.