Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate Pidgeon Island Members of the Committee TBA World Assembly Delegate Angusp (aka Bodegraven) High General of the GRADF Joe Bobs |
| Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums! Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register. Join our Community Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system. I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way. Getting Started If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| Questions | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 30 2010, 02:20 AM (627 Views) | |
| Jivdom | Jun 2 2010, 07:43 AM Post #61 |
|
Resident Insomniac
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I hope I would be considered a fair candidate for oversight given the nature of the job. The whole point would be to appoint someone who isn't implicated in the intel service or the army but is trustable. I've been involved in neither since before the revolution - which is rare for someone who has been about as much as I have. Plus - though you may not like my interpretation of law - my record on transparency is as good as anyone's. |
![]() |
|
| Old Zertaxia | Jun 2 2010, 08:45 AM Post #62 |
![]()
The Ex-Speaker
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, I won't be supporting you. You're much too willing to order threads open when it is unnecessary, and could potentially harm ongoing intelligence operations. |
![]() |
|
| Uropa | Jun 2 2010, 09:04 AM Post #63 |
![]()
Render unto Caesar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
surely ongoing intelligence operations will be fine, as long as they remain within the law, non? this sounds like a case of, 'we want a democratic oversight, because we're confident we'll never have to actually have one'. seriouslyz - rhetoric meets reality. |
![]() |
|
| Lower Bowmania | Jun 2 2010, 12:37 PM Post #64 |
![]()
Simply ravishing...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I fail to see how someone who was recently a party leader, then resigned for political reasons, who has also expressed interest in opening intel threads could possibly considered the best candidate. BW, on the other hand, makes sense to me. Perfect candidate? Probably not...but surely the best option we have at the moment. |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Jun 2 2010, 03:27 PM Post #65 |
|
Stale
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is why I'd oppose Jivdom as oversight. Bad Writers already contacted me to see if I'd support him as oversight, and the answer again was no. He's not been around long enough, or involved enough, and has not been trusted with intel access anywhere that I know of before. I would not support him. Really, the only people who are around that I would support are Old Z, NC, and LB. I think its also likely that Uropa would oppose each of them. This is why I suggested that law in the PA about admins being made officially responsible for oversight. Its what we have now, and its not going to change, so we might as well formalise it. Edited by sedge, Jun 2 2010, 03:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lower Bowmania | Jun 2 2010, 03:40 PM Post #66 |
![]()
Simply ravishing...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I could support that, but the law would have to make the admins accountable to the citizens in that regard, rather than just accept that there is an implied trust. Edited by Lower Bowmania, Jun 2 2010, 03:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| sedge | Jun 2 2010, 03:48 PM Post #67 |
|
Stale
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The law says:
I think that should cover your concerns. |
![]() |
|
| Lower Bowmania | Jun 2 2010, 03:56 PM Post #68 |
![]()
Simply ravishing...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Change "expected" to "required", and I suppose it would. |
![]() |
|
| Uropa | Jun 2 2010, 03:59 PM Post #69 |
![]()
Render unto Caesar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As opposed to three admins who are all members of the same hysterical, 'pro-security/anti-enemy' bloc policing themselves? Come'on. |
![]() |
|
| Lower Bowmania | Jun 2 2010, 04:04 PM Post #70 |
![]()
Simply ravishing...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So if you are opposed to the current admins due to their partisan nature, surely you withdraw your support for Jiv for the same reasons? Or not, because Jiv happens to be on your side in this particular argument? |
![]() |
|
| Chin-Chillas | Jun 2 2010, 04:08 PM Post #71 |
|
Vanguard Country Club
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh shut the fuck up. Ed: not LB. Edited by Chin-Chillas, Jun 2 2010, 04:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Uropa | Jun 2 2010, 04:10 PM Post #72 |
![]()
Render unto Caesar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
if you can't see the point, then it's not worth me repeating it. |
![]() |
|
| Northern Chittowa | Jun 2 2010, 04:11 PM Post #73 |
|
The Grand Old Duke
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Go on, repeat it for me, just so i fully understand your position
|
![]() |
|
| Uropa | Jun 2 2010, 04:14 PM Post #74 |
![]()
Render unto Caesar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
the point: that membership/leadership of a political group is not grounds for discriminating over who would make a good democratic oversight/admin oversight or whatever sedge is proposing, given that, gee wiz, we're all members of political parties. it really wasn't that hard. |
![]() |
|
| Lower Bowmania | Jun 2 2010, 04:32 PM Post #75 |
![]()
Simply ravishing...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok...if that's the case, then what makes someone with an "open intel" mind frame any more qualified than an "protected intel" (or hysterical, as you prefer) mind frame? Personal opinions on the nature of intel threads shouldn't be involved in the determination of what is or isn't legal. In any event, "illegal" actions occurring in private threads would need to be reported to the appropriate authority (CJ?) regardless of the "watcher's" disposition. So, by your own rationale, personal beliefs and affiliations must be ruled out. How then, is Jiv any better suited than the admins? Again, my guess is it's that despite your bellowing about this being about open government and fairness, it's really just about your disdain for Sedge and anyone who happens to agree with him. |
![]() |
|
| Uropa | Jun 2 2010, 04:37 PM Post #76 |
![]()
Render unto Caesar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
From a previous post.
|
![]() |
|
| Lower Bowmania | Jun 2 2010, 04:45 PM Post #77 |
![]()
Simply ravishing...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So this then:
was meant to serve what purpose? Other than to contradict your own suggestion that beliefs and affiliations aren't important, and support the argument that this has little to do with an accurate assessment of qualifications and much more to do with you're little anti-Sedge campaign? Edit: Mind you, if you legitimately feel that opinions and affiliations are unimportant, I'll give you that Jiv is a perfectly suitable candidate based on those conditions. But, at the same time, it would imply that a number of others - who are oppose - are equally legit. Edited by Lower Bowmania, Jun 2 2010, 04:47 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Uropa | Jun 2 2010, 10:46 PM Post #78 |
![]()
Render unto Caesar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
yes, now you get it. given that one of my conditions is that they're independent, that leaves how many long-term, reliable, trusted regional members who have had keys to the family secrets before and have never abused their power...? it really is jivdom. although i could also accept BW as he's too old and sage to play the bullshit games that we do. |
![]() |
|
| Lower Bowmania | Jun 2 2010, 11:08 PM Post #79 |
![]()
Simply ravishing...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But my point is that Jiv ISNT independent. He may have left a party, but he's still as biased as anyone else. |
![]() |
|
| Uropa | Jun 2 2010, 11:26 PM Post #80 |
![]()
Render unto Caesar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
okay - in the intersubjective, post-cartesian dualist sense, yes, jivdom is as 'biased' as everybody else. but i'm not sure this is really a discussion about the human condition. this is a discussion about trust and reliability and frankly, after five years of being annoyingly, consistently liberal about things, and never leaking...well...i really struggle to think of anybody else who rates as highly on the trust/reliability scale. i say again: the dude is a member of the founder committee. if he wanted to destroy the region he could have done it quite a few times over by now. and if being a member on the FC isn't good enough, well, i think it should be pointed out that our current two intel heads or whatever are not trusted enough with access to the founder... edit - vomit Edited by Uropa, Jun 2 2010, 11:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Vanguard Bloc · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/63/36/0/p14794/pip_r.png)







8:28 PM Jul 11