PDA

View Full Version : A Time for Change


darkemporor
08-30-2004, 04:31 PM
After nearly a year of leading Zormite I have decided to pass the role of Dictatress to my eldest RP daughter, Akira Sagesun Archigos. This change will take place sometime this week. I will be supporting in the background, will remain somewhat active in the game, as well as continue to moderate Zormite forum during this transition.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the growth and development of Zormite during my rule. I sincerely hope our kingdom will continue to benefit from your leadership. Please support your new Dictatress with all your creativity and earnest.

To my Fedakahn, the idea man, my mentat, thank you for being the one and only who never failed my confidence, not once. Please stay and nurture and create.

To Zoe and Padren and Ana, comrades for life, my very strength, thank you for the support I counted on and still do. Your friendship has uplifted me and continues to do so.

To my Zanna, thanks for your sweetness, creativity, calm cheerfulness and support. Take your sister's hand in leadership and remember,... your role shall enlarge in months to come.

To my Akira, you have all my confidence and love both RP and real. I shall stand behind you, 'mother Wren's' hand at your back. Step forward, strong and sure in confidence. Enjoy the light that you have become to us all.

Wren Sagesun Archigos
Dictatress of the Zormite Republic

Crono
08-30-2004, 04:50 PM
Wait so you basically have female dictators?

LordZen
08-30-2004, 05:55 PM
Wow. x_x

Alright Wren, its been a good run I suppose. Has it really been near a year already though?

Well, if I can help somehow with the transition, let me know. I'd like to be involved to some degree so I know what traditions and beliefs are being passed down to the next administration.

Also, agh, right around the same time Padren and Zoe stepped down. All at once, my favorite 3 GK leaders (besides myself ^^) have passed on their rule to a new generation. Curses

GoZelda
08-30-2004, 06:59 PM
I guess I can start posting again now, without a remark being made for every post however good the intentions of it may have been.

Monkeyboy_McGee
08-30-2004, 07:02 PM
Omy ...

sage_scooby
08-30-2004, 07:02 PM
I never got to know you well wren but it is still sad to see you step down, yet joyous to see a new ruler get to try her hand. I do and will continue to enjoy my time as a zormite and will support her to the fullest.

Congrats to Akira.

Nappa
08-30-2004, 08:46 PM
I thought in a republic the leader was elected ? Doesn't that go against everything you guys have been preeching ? :: Waits until this post is deleted ::

Crono
08-30-2004, 08:52 PM
Akira = Aki?

Nappa
08-30-2004, 08:55 PM
Yes. I already know a few people quitting because of this, ahahaa (Quitting zormite, that is)

Crono
08-30-2004, 08:56 PM
Yes. I already know a few people quitting because of this, ahahaa (Quitting zormite, that is)

I was like WTF @ AKI

Nappa
08-30-2004, 09:00 PM
Still Waiting For Explanation Of How A Republic Has A Leader Who Was Passed Down The Crown From Her Mother


Edit: Damn you non-caps thingamabobber :(

busyrobot
08-30-2004, 09:43 PM
I thought in a republic the leader was elected ? Doesn't that go against everything you guys have been preeching ? :: Waits until this post is deleted ::
I am sure it was addressed in more than one thread you were involved in nappa, a republic is a form of government that can have a dictator, just like Rome did under Caesar and others.

Please read the Zormite Constitution thread and familiarize yourself with Zormite 2k2. It is all answered in there.


Still Waiting For Explanation Of How A Republic Has A Leader Who Was Passed Down The Crown From Her Mother


Edit: Damn you non-caps thingamabobber :(

Simple:
A dictator can give power to the person of their choice (having total powerful and all).
In this case, that choice is her daughter.

Vlad
08-30-2004, 09:58 PM
Congradulations to Aki.

Nappa
08-30-2004, 10:31 PM
I am sure it was addressed in more than one thread you were involved in nappa, a republic is a form of government that can have a dictator, just like Rome did under Caesar and others.

Please read the Zormite Constitution thread and familiarize yourself with Zormite 2k2. It is all answered in there.

Simple:
A dictator can give power to the person of their choice (having total powerful and all).
In this case, that choice is her daughter.


No, idiot. I understand how the first dictator was dictator - They were elected. However the original dictator is not the entire populous thus does not have the right to place another person to replace themself. The entire Zormite should vote on the new leader.

GoZelda
08-30-2004, 10:47 PM
No, idiot. I understand how the first dictator was dictator - They were elected. However the original dictator is not the entire populous thus does not have the right to place another person to replace themself. The entire Zormite should vote on the new leader.
At the point being, Dustari is more of a Republic then Zormite because there was some sort of voting involved when the new king/queen was chosen. Pretty pathetic.

Mousefuzz
08-30-2004, 11:03 PM
After nearly a year of leading Zormite I have decided to pass the role of Dictatress to my eldest RP daughter, Akira Sagesun Archigos. This change will take place sometime this week. I will be supporting in the background, will remain somewhat active in the game, as well as continue to moderate Zormite forum during this transition.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the growth and development of Zormite during my rule. I sincerely hope our kingdom will continue to benefit from your leadership. Please support your new Dictatress with all your creativity and earnest.

To my Fedakahn, the idea man, my mentat, thank you for being the one and only who never failed my confidence, not once. Please stay and nurture and create.

To Zoe and Padren, comrades for life, my very strength, thank you for the support I counted on and still do. Your friendship has uplifted me and continues to do so.

To my Zanna, thanks for your sweetness, creativity, calm cheerfulness and support. Take your sister's hand in leadership and remember,... your role shall enlarge in months to come.

To my Akira, you have all my confidence and love both RP and real. I shall stand behind you, 'mother Wren's' hand at your back. Step forward, strong and sure in confidence. Enjoy the light that you have become to us all.

Wren Sagesun Archigos
Dictatress of the Zormite Republic
Congratulations Aki <3 , Wren <3

GryffonDurime
08-30-2004, 11:30 PM
Hmm, at this rate the only Kingdom NOT ruled by a woman is Forest, right?

Anyway, congratulations Akira, and good luck Wren.

meishanli
08-31-2004, 12:04 AM
Thanks for all your positive and supportive comments :)
I will try my best, to run this kingdom well, and make it more intresting. (:

Thank you Wren.....I won't let you down.

Akira Sagesun Archigos

busyrobot
08-31-2004, 12:05 AM
No, idiot. I understand how the first dictator was dictator - They were elected. However the original dictator is not the entire populous thus does not have the right to place another person to replace themself. The entire Zormite should vote on the new leader.

I don't know what you prefer, an excuse to be rude or wasting people's time.

I told you to read the constitution.
http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44486

Article III. Terms of Office
Members of the ruling party maintain their positions in public office until the party loses power to another party recognized by the government. This rule is constant, except for in special circumstances.

1. Terminating Senior Officials
This member of the ruling political party is entrusted as knowing what actions are most in accordance with the ideology of the party. As such, he may not be voted out of power by other party members, and his actions are presumed to always be within party guidelines. If he begins to waiver, than he has deemed it nessisary for an alteration in the party's agenda. If the senior offical elects to resign, the office becomes hereditary, meaning only an offspring or other family member of the senior official (who is justly familiar with the goals of the party) may take office. The selection of a new senior official will additionaly take place whenever there is a change in power from one party to another, at which point the office is no longer hereditary.


Arguing once in a while is one thing but you cannot argue in every single thread and stray from the topic with every single post without it being considered disruptive. You have made your feelings about the nature of Zormite GK very very clear, in many previous threads. There is no reason for you to continue on with this hostility as the issues have been settled.
You don't like Zormite in GK. I don't like orcs in GK (bomies were invented for a reason) but I don't complain about it.

Stop spamming please.

At the point being, Dustari is more of a Republic then Zormite because there was some sort of voting involved when the new king/queen was chosen. Pretty pathetic.

a) Dustari did not vote, during times when leadership has been called into question, we have held votes to clarify what people want, out of character. Each kingdom is a group of people who RP, not a 'real republic' or a 'real monarchy' - which I am thankful for because I pay enough taxes irl.

b) The Zormite Republic has a Constitition that, as I stated above, is rather clear on how the resignation of an official is to be handled.

If the people [i]in[/b] Zormite are happy with the Republic (talking to both of you, GZ and Nappa) then that should be well enough.

GoZelda, back when you were in Zormite and Zen as Dictator, you were rather happy with the Constitition, which has remained unchanged since that time. Your complaining now really is just a way to attack Wren and her legacy on a personal level, and has nothing to do with the Republic.

GryffonDurime
08-31-2004, 12:31 AM
Dustari had a senate, at one time.

busyrobot
08-31-2004, 12:50 AM
Dustari had a senate, at one time.
Good times - I was a Senator then. :D
I was trying to lobby for lower fares for Dustarians using the ferry lol.
The Senate was dissolved at the end of Larrien's reign.

Wren, I am sorry to see you are retiring...I think you made a great choice in Aki she will do well.

The tradition of Zormite and Dustari's longstanding friendship was pervasive when I was first a soldier my very first day, it has persisted through our times, and will continue to be one of the great legacies that will carry on and be a source of pride for the future peoples of our two nations.


May the Republic always prosper, and her walls never fall.

foxyrain
08-31-2004, 01:55 AM
No, idiot. I understand how the first dictator was dictator - They were elected. However the original dictator is not the entire populous thus does not have the right to place another person to replace themself. The entire Zormite should vote on the new leader.

Zormite is not the real life world incase you haven't checked recently. However, it's constitution dictates what shall be.

One thing not to worry over, Nappa - You would never be elected. Only someone 'fool' enough to be your friend would make you a leader. :eek:

Zoe Sagesun

GryffonDurime
08-31-2004, 02:03 AM
Zormite is not the real life world incase you haven't checked recently. However, it's constitution dictates what shall be.

One thing not to worry over, Nappa - You would never be elected. Only someone 'fool' enough to be your friend would make you a leader. :eek:

Zoe Sagesun

I don't remember him suggesting himself for the Dictatorship...that's a pretty big leap to make.

foxyrain
08-31-2004, 02:10 AM
I don't remember him suggesting himself for the Dictatorship...that's a pretty big leap to make.

Sorry you missed the point Gryffon. Just standby - watch more and listen closer.

Zoe Sagesun

Nappa
08-31-2004, 02:41 AM
If in the constitution of zormite it's not a republic due to hereditary changes in leadership, take the stupid Republic out of the name. I don't care if "Graal isn't real life". You can't change what a republic is.

Lance
08-31-2004, 02:48 AM
You all are freaking retarded, aren't you ?

If in the constitution of zormite it's not a republic due to hereditary changes in leadership, take the stupid Republic out of the name. I don't care if "Graal isn't real life". You can't change what a republic is.

I've already stated my feelings on the matter of the name.

'Republic' is by definition not fitting.

You know, definition 1a of 'republic' from dictionary.com...

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.

GryffonDurime
08-31-2004, 02:57 AM
Anything's possible, I suppose

Nappa
08-31-2004, 03:36 AM
You are not privy to every conversation and thing that goes on.


Niether are you, huh ?

busyrobot
08-31-2004, 03:41 AM
I've already stated my feelings on the matter of the name.

'Republic' is by definition not fitting.

You know, definition 1a of 'republic' from dictionary.com...

This is the whole point 'already stated' being the operative part of the statement, it is not worth yet again rehashing.

Everyone who disliked the term basically took it up with Zen at the time the Constitition and whole Republic was born.

That was a very long time ago that debate started, and died.


If you don't like it, leave Zormite over it. Oh wait, you aren't in zormite.
Time to move on to other topics then. :)


NOTE: I deleted my 'not privy' post as it missquoted gryf after he changed his post, so if anyone is trying to find out where I said that, its on that deleted post.

GryffonDurime
08-31-2004, 03:51 AM
You are not privy to every conversation and thing that goes on.

That would be the concept of people not being omnipotent, one that I am both fully aware of and accept.

At the same time you are not privy to every conversation and thing that goes on. We both know things that the other dosen't, and this in itself is the greatest flaw with the entire logical concept of human communication:D

busyrobot
08-31-2004, 04:06 AM
We both know things that the other dosen't, and this in itself is the greatest flaw with the entire logical concept of human communication:D


That is like me saying 'I listend for 5 minutes, and I did hear a noise' and you saying 'I listend for 50 minutes earlier, and I heard none, I think you are mistaken'

All in all, it is yet one more tangent unrelated to this thread. :)

falco10291029
08-31-2004, 05:12 AM
Wow *ignores dumb sidetopic that brewed* Wren I didnt know you too long but I wil still miss you nonetheless and it will take me a little while to get used to this fact :-/ Sorry for the constant bugging and such i tended to do and thanks for working me through rping and getting me through my times as an immigrant.

Foitisian Cris Felko

Nappa
08-31-2004, 06:44 AM
[QUOTE=busyrobot]This is the whole point 'already stated' being the operative part of the statement, it is not worth yet again rehashing.

Everyone who disliked the term basically took it up with Zen at the time the Constitition and whole Republic was born.

That was a very long time ago that debate started, and died.


If you don't like it, leave Zormite over it. Oh wait, you aren't in zormite.
Time to move on to other topics then. :)QUOTE]

Basically you are saying anything that was debated before and ended should never be questioned, and if you are not in a kingdom, do not point out its flaws ? That's stupid.

busyrobot
08-31-2004, 07:41 AM
Basically you are saying anything that was debated before and ended should never be questioned, and if you are not in a kingdom, do not point out its flaws ? That's stupid.

Just not in every single thread :)

LordZen
08-31-2004, 07:43 AM
Did you know that in the United States, if no presidential candidate receives the required minimum of electoral votes, than the Senate gets to choose the winner of the presidential election?

Did you also know that whenever the Senate is split 50/50, the sitting Vice President gets to cast the tie breaking vote? So in effect, if the Vice President is running for President for the comming 4 years, he could vote himself into power?

No system is perfect.

Also if both the President and Vice President were unable to lead the country, be it death, resignation, or some sort of illness, isnt the 3rd in line the Speaker of the House? I'm probably wrong, but its either that or a Cabinet member.

The point is, none of those people under the President and Vice President were voted into that presidential position of leadership or ever expected to have to lead the country at some point...but there always has to be some sort of line of secession to insure that some one is designated to run the country if something ubruptly causes the nation's highest office to become vaccant between election periods.

A monarch is a sovereign who inherits their power by birth rite, and being of royal blood.

In the Zormite Republic's case, the senior official of the ruling party becomes the "Dictator" of the nation, governing through party ideology. It can be justly construed that the constitution preferably favors a direct offspring of the former leader to take their place because that individual would be least likely to have ulterior conflicting motives against the party or their own parent. This is also why it is left partially open ended, to include less direct family members if need be to avoid obvious issues. Also, the family member who inherits the office could just as quickly be replaced if the ruling party loses its supremacy.

Every nation who operates as a republic has their own flavor of it. No two governments are perfectly identical. This is simply how the early leaders of the Zormite Republic chose to handle the country's line of secession between election periods.

Additionally, it would probably make more sense to those who are unaware if they knew the story behind the beginnings of the Republic. Basically, the country fell into a sort of anarchy, from general fear of instability and revolution. There was so much panic caused by the fear of revolution, that the Emperor basically forfeited his right to rule the land and allowed for a new government to be structured from the ground up. A bloodless Revolution, I suppose.

But at any rate, the only visionaries that had their stuff together early on was a group of Loyalists, who supported the former royal bloodline. Infact, they named their political ideology after the royal family's last name: Archigos; and after becoming more ogranized formed the National Archist Party of Zormite, or NAPZ. And obviously, they had a hand in drafting the new constitution. Its that party's choice to want a member of the former royal family to be the leader of their party. So as long as NAPZ was able to remain the ruling party, through consent of the people, they in effect accomplish a secondary goal which was to preserve the monarchy in some form, but in a modernized, more stable architecture of government.

So NAPZ, a party supporting the former royal family, had a hand in influencing how the line of seccesion was to be played out according to the consitution, but understand that the same constitutional principle would apply even if another party managed to gain control of the country (with a senior official having no royal relations).

The government is wholy structured properly as a Republic, regardless of whether or not Zormite's is a common flavor in the real world.

GoZelda
08-31-2004, 11:35 AM
I've already stated my feelings on the matter of the name.

'Republic' is by definition not fitting.

You know, definition 1a of 'republic' from dictionary.com...
Synonym of Monarch; Dictator. I already explained that on this forum but the post was deleted.



a) Dustari did not vote, during times when leadership has been called into question, we have held votes to clarify what people want, out of character.
'Some sort of voting' != voting.


Each kingdom is a group of people who RP
'But that's the diff' - Quote from Ana on-tag. RP, you said? I guess not. The leader apparently can't follow the kingdom's own rules. And now you'll come up with some crap that she's the leader and stands above them

If the people in Zormite are happy with the Republic (talking to both of you, GZ and Nappa) then that should be well enough.
Which some are not.


GoZelda, back when you were in Zormite and Zen as Dictator, you were rather happy with the Constitition,
No I was not, but I trusted Zen.

Your complaining now really is just a way to attack Wren and her legacy on a personal level, and has nothing to do with the Republic.
Hell no it's not, but everytime I try to explain that my posts vanish in thin air.

Monkeyboy_McGee
08-31-2004, 02:10 PM
Omy, its just in one ear and out the other with you people.

darkemporor
08-31-2004, 05:35 PM
I think Zen has more than adequately explained here (and justified) why the political structure of Zormite can and is legitimately called a Republic. This time, last time and the various times before that. Thank you once again, Zen. We can now put that topic to rest in this, as in many other (hijacked) threads. At least SOME of us understand it. Others seem to have a need to have it explained again from time to time and Zen always does an excellent job of it.

Anyway, this thread was not intended to be a discussion about the political structure of Zormite, or whether kingdom leaders RP to your standards or not. This thread topic has an original theme. It's about Zormite, and an announcement about a change in personnel. Nappa, your habit of posting off topic, at best, is annoying. Many have expressed this. Gozelda, I plan to continue my moderation of the Zormite forum. You are duly informed.

Certain profoundly uncreative persons will always attempt to direct discussion by contributing remote (repetitive) tangents laced with as many personal insults as possible. Yet others are limited to whining about the behaviors and non-RP-ish statements of kingdom leaders they don't like. Its pathetic, but at least the rest of us have the satisfaction of predictability in both cases.

(Have you ever seen that Lamisil dermatophite commerical? Anyway...... yeah ;) )

Lance
08-31-2004, 06:42 PM
A monarch is a sovereign who inherits their power by birth rite, and being of royal blood.

Which as padren so adequately pointed out is what is occurring here.

In the Zormite Republic's case, the senior official of the ruling party becomes the "Dictator" of the nation, governing through party ideology. It can be justly construed that the constitution preferably favors a direct offspring of the former leader to take their place because that individual would be least likely to have ulterior conflicting motives against the party or their own parent. This is also why it is left partially open ended, to include less direct family members if need be to avoid obvious issues.

Except you just described a monarchy.

Also, the family member who inherits the office could just as quickly be replaced if the ruling party loses its supremacy.

But this never happens, right? That Dictator controls who joins the kingdom - they can never really be overpowered unless they let a bunch of people who are their rivals/enemies into the kingdom. I somehow doubt that Wren, for example, would have allowed Nappa and all of his followers in the kingdom.

Every nation who operates as a republic has their own flavor of it. No two governments are perfectly identical. This is simply how the early leaders of the Zormite Republic chose to handle the country's line of secession between election periods.

But when you convert to a monarchy, you cannot and should not call this a Republic. It wasn't one to begin with, really, and this has not changed. Zen picked Wren. Wren picked Aki. Continue cycle.

I'll further note that the phrase 'early leaders of the Zormite Republic' is humorous.

Additionally, it would probably make more sense to those who are unaware if they knew the story behind the beginnings of the Republic. Basically, the country fell into a sort of anarchy, from general fear of instability and revolution. There was so much panic caused by the fear of revolution, that the Emperor basically forfeited his right to rule the land and allowed for a new government to be structured from the ground up. A bloodless Revolution, I suppose.

A new government where the same Emperor who forfeited his right to rule the land suddenly became the Dictator...? Man, your argument is weaker when you're giving explanations now than it was when it just occurred without explanation.

But at any rate, the only visionaries that had their stuff together early on was a group of Loyalists, who supported the former royal bloodline. Infact, they named their political ideology after the royal family's last name: Archigos; and after becoming more ogranized formed the National Archist Party of Zormite, or NAPZ. And obviously, they had a hand in drafting the new constitution. Its that party's choice to want a member of the former royal family to be the leader of their party. So as long as NAPZ was able to remain the ruling party, through consent of the people, they in effect accomplish a secondary goal which was to preserve the monarchy in some form, but in a modernized, more stable architecture of government.

okay so you wrote a nice little paragraph about why you got to keep power wow that's so cool

it's just a story though, please refer to next point

So NAPZ, a party supporting the former royal family, had a hand in influencing how the line of seccesion was to be played out according to the consitution, but understand that the same constitutional principle would apply even if another party managed to gain control of the country (with a senior official having no royal relations).

Except that the conversion to the Zormite Republic with you as dictator happened instantaneously. I was online at the time.

The government is wholy structured properly as a Republic, regardless of whether or not Zormite's is a common flavor in the real world.

Unfortunately, calling a sheep's tail a leg does not make it one. Likewise, calling Zormite a Republic when it not only was never one but has degenerated to even less of one does not make it so.

I think Zen has more than adequately explained here (and justified) why the political structure of Zormite can and is legitimately called a Republic.

He's actually managed to do the exact opposite.

This time, last time and the various times before that. Thank you once again, Zen. We can now put that topic to rest in this, as in many other (hijacked) threads.

Legitimate discussion != hijacked thread.

At least SOME of us understand it. Others seem to have a need to have it explained again from time to time and Zen always does an excellent job of it.

An excellent job of it...? He just demonstrated that he has no idea what he's talking about. :whatever:

Anyway, this thread was not intended to be a discussion about the political structure of Zormite, or whether kingdom leaders RP to your standards or not. This thread topic has an original theme. It's about Zormite, and an announcement about a change in personnel. Nappa, your habit of posting off topic, at best, is annoying. Many have expressed this. Gozelda, I plan to continue my moderation of the Zormite forum. You are duly informed.

Off-topic posting is not against the rules, and neither should it be. We've been over this before. Legitimate topics spring up from other topics. The best suggestion I can make about them is that if it really bothers you, you should split the thread.

Crono
08-31-2004, 06:52 PM
-dances for lance-

My point is, this dictatorship is stupid. Where's the oppressiveness? Hell, I VOTE MOON GODDESS FOR DICTATOR OF ZORMITE. No seriously, she would atleast live up to her name.

On a more serious note, why call it a dictatorship when it's not?

darkemporor
08-31-2004, 07:39 PM
My point is, this dictatorship is stupid. Where's the oppressiveness?

There IS oppression. They just aren't allowed to talk about it. >:]

Off-topic posting is not against the rules, and neither should it be. We've been over this before... The best suggestion I can make about them is that if it really bothers you, you should split the thread.


It doesn't matter what ya'll don't like about Zormite. We've been over THIS before, too. I can only suggest if you don't like what's going on with Zormite, you split. :eek:

Wren

Dehitay
08-31-2004, 07:57 PM
A lot of people seem to be confusing a Republic with a Democracy
Just to clarify things
Republic - one person represents a group of people
Democracy - major issues are voted upon

It is true that Zen did a horrible job describing why Zormite is a Republic contrary to what Wren said
But if you look at it from the view that Aki is representing the Zormite Republic, then it could be said it's a Republic

busyrobot
08-31-2004, 08:08 PM
If Saddam Hussien can call himself a president who wins a popular vote in a Republic (even still from his trial no less), then I think Zormite can call itself whatever it wants.

All of you grumblers, please buy a plane ticket and go whine at that guy at his trial. That could actually be amusing.

GoZelda
08-31-2004, 08:12 PM
If Saddam Hussien can call himself a president who wins a popular vote in a Republic (even still from his trial no less), then I think Zormite can call itself whatever it wants.
Look what happened to him =) Besides, it isn't relevant for you because you said earlier that Graal can't be compared to real life :megaeek:

busyrobot
08-31-2004, 09:26 PM
Look what happened to him =) Besides, it isn't relevant for you because you said earlier that Graal can't be compared to real life :megaeek:

I stand by that, however as many others have made irl comparisions, I offered a relevant one that counters their points. As far as what happened to Saddam, I assure you if he called his regime by another other name, it would have had no effect on what happened to him - and has nothing to do with the topic.

My point is that the terminology is very subjective irl, and also quite flexible. The nit picky long winded complaints about zormite are as out of place as they are baseless. Its as annoying as spending a year and a half listening to people complaining about the color of the dustari wand or something.

Give it up already. Its a game. No one would even care IF you all had a point, the fact that you don't only adds to the irrelevance.

Crono
08-31-2004, 10:23 PM
There IS oppression. They just aren't allowed to talk about it. >:]


OPPRESSIVE FISH?! Woah, whats this world coming to?

All of you grumblers, please buy a plane ticket and go whine at that guy at his trial. That could actually be amusing.

you're so funny

falco10291029
08-31-2004, 10:32 PM
Republic - one person represents a group of people
Democracy - major issues are voted upon


Ok, want me to help fend off these people saying how we cant be called a republic? This quote will now be used to prove my point. A republic is a system where you vote for who you want to lead you. A democracy is one where everyone votes on the major issues. We at the US vote for our leaders do we not? That would make us a republic, yet we call ourselves a democracy. So why can't Zormite call themselves a republic when they are more like a monarchy? You should try talking to the leaders of the country if you wish to continue to support your ideas. Check and Mate.

Lance
08-31-2004, 11:06 PM
If Saddam Hussien can call himself a president who wins a popular vote in a Republic (even still from his trial no less), then I think Zormite can call itself whatever it wants.

I'm sorry, but I'm debating the accuracy of the name 'Zormite Republic'. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by providing me with an example of another inaccurate name.

We at the US vote for our leaders do we not? That would make us a republic, yet we call ourselves a democracy.

We're a republic. Specifically, we are a representative democracy. This is a type of democracy, but it is not pure democracy. People who call it a pure democracy do not really understand how our government works and sound quite foolish.

So why can't Zormite call themselves a republic when they are more like a monarchy?

Well, they most certainly can, if they want to sound as foolish as the folks I mentioned earlier.

You should try talking to the leaders of the country if you wish to continue to support your ideas.

I somehow don't think that a letter from the president would convince you folks if reason and logic can't.

Check and Mate.

If you say so.

GoZelda
08-31-2004, 11:12 PM
Ok, want me to help fend off these people saying how we cant be called a republic? This quote will now be used to prove my point. A republic is a system where you vote for who you want to lead you. A democracy is one where everyone votes on the major issues. We at the US vote for our leaders do we not? That would make us a republic, yet we call ourselves a democracy. So why can't Zormite call themselves a republic when they are more like a monarchy? You should try talking to the leaders of the country if you wish to continue to support your ideas. Check and Mate.
Wrong.

Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Majority rule.

falco10291029
09-01-2004, 01:51 AM
Pfft thats a laugh most times we are called a democracy, anything where you vote on a leader is eithet representative democracy or a republic, but not just democracy. It's no different then Zormite calling ourselves a republic. And I didnt say contact them to convince us, i said ud have to take the same argument to them concerning calling us just democracy!

busyrobot
09-01-2004, 04:14 AM
I'm sorry, but I'm debating the accuracy of the name 'Zormite Republic'. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by providing me with an example of another inaccurate name.

Come on lance, horses come from eggs around here, lighten up.

When you say 'another inaccurate name' you are referring to a name (the Republic of Iraq) that is on all the maps, recorded in the Library of Congress, cited in countless debates and speeches in the US Senate and Congress, and has been acknowledged by the UN, the EU, and just about every government body around the world. You have a lot of people to reach, they need you Lance.

If you want to debate the 'accuracy' of the name please give it a rest - no one cares enough for a deep philosophical exchange.

The only question on the table for debate is 'does zormite have the right to call itself a republic without being hounded by strangely obsessed people that want to debate every political government structure from the Roman era onward as it relates to the historical and idealogical context of the term republic and its use by zormite?'


Zormite is a Republic, even though they don't vote.

Dustari is a Monarchy, even though at least half of all the royal family members throughout its history have been adopted while still being related to twelve different families.

CP are pirates even though they have a castle and even have a special medival shield event item in their honor.

KJ is an ancient japanese society even though they use warhammers and mithril armor etc.

Forest is an elven kingdom even though....I don't even know what's happening with Forest.

Horses and monkeys come from eggs. People die of farts. You play a flute to make plants grow. Barbarians master wizardry in 30 seconds with 1.4k worth of scrolls.

Zormite has some decent distinction and has developed its own style, and if you think it is not perfect enough for your taste - look around and promptly get over it. Personally I am not convinced that a republic can only be called such one if voting is involved....but I actually don't care and it does not matter. All that matters is, is that Zormite is a decent enough Republic that if they want to be one, then so be it. They may, and may do so in peace without this being rehashed constantly.

This topic is dead, the only reason I am even posting is to try to convey, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to a handful of oddly obsessed people, that this old, retired, dead, trivial debate has been exhausted to the point of such lifelessness that it really doesn't ever need to be raised again.

Here lies 'The Republic Debate', raised from the dead for the umpteenth time but finally buried one last time here, fini, done, over.

darkemporor
09-01-2004, 04:31 AM
That topic is dead... and apparently so's this one.

*thread closed* or not. Why are my moderator rights removed?

Wren

falco10291029
09-01-2004, 04:32 AM
Come on lance, horses come from eggs around here, lighten up.

When you say 'another inaccurate name' you are referring to a name (the Republic of Iraq) that is on all the maps, recorded in the Library of Congress, cited in countless debates and speeches in the US Senate and Congress, and has been acknowledged by the UN, the EU, and just about every government body around the world. You have a lot of people to reach, they need you Lance.

If you want to debate the 'accuracy' of the name please give it a rest - no one cares enough for a deep philosophical exchange.

THANK YOU!

Also i just came up with a new idea that SHOULD shut most people up.


"Zormite Republic" can be just a name, i could call myself King Falco and it doesnt mean i rule over anyone ;)


EDIT: Oops sop sorry wren i think i must have tried posting after u but i was typing and didnt refresh and i bet that reopened the thread if u closed....oops

LordZen
09-01-2004, 04:58 AM
But when you convert to a monarchy, you cannot and should not call this a Republic. It wasn't one to begin with, really, and this has not changed. Zen picked Wren. Wren picked Aki. Continue cycle.
It did not convert to a monarchy. It converted to a Republic, from being a monarchy. My picking of Wren, and Wren picking of Aki was justified by the constitution. The office becomes heriditary only when the senior official of the ruling party steps down or dies (whatever) while that party is in power, because that creates a vaccant office in government which cannot be filled by the election of a new party (because the same party is in power). Wren was part of my family, and when I could no longer rule, she was my most direct relative, and was educated in my ideology. That doesnt mean its not a republic, because that only deals with leadership change within the same legitimately elected regeime, between election cycles.

I'll further note that the phrase 'early leaders of the Zormite Republic' is humorous.
Wow, man, I was describing to you the RP story behind the situation. When talking about how an entire kingdom's revolution, do think that story would only consist of the handful of players who were actually in the kingdom? No, obviously you would presume a nation to consist of millions apon millions of people. That is very shallow to presume I meant that strictly literally, and speaks well of you and your own ability to participate in such fictional invented roleplaying situations, "King *Tseng". :whatever:

A new government where the same Emperor who forfeited his right to rule the land suddenly became the Dictator...? Man, your argument is weaker when you're giving explanations now than it was when it just occurred without explanation.
He forfeited his divine sovereignty to appease the fears of the populace, and managed to regain the right to rule through popular consent. Dictator is just the title given to the supreme office of the land. It could just as well have been Prime Minister, or President, or First Regent, or whatever. Then your statement would not seem so far fetched and more plausible. Your using the term Dictator out of context, because as it applies to the Zormite Republic's government...Dictator is a legitimately attainable position through consent of the majority.

okay so you wrote a nice little paragraph about why you got to keep power wow that's so cool

it's just a story though
If you are so against the use of stories to describe situations in a roleplaying enviornment, then why did you even trouble yourself with getting involved with an RP Kingdom, or anything of the like?


Except that the conversion to the Zormite Republic with you as dictator happened instantaneously. I was online at the time.
Yea, thats about how long it takes to change the kingdom name and a title of a rank in the KGUI in-game.

falco10291029
09-01-2004, 05:06 AM
dang thems good arguing skills ;)

Nappa
09-01-2004, 06:59 AM
Their is too much to reply too, so little time. Plus I'm too lazy. Zen I'm pretty sure hereditary changes in government aren't voted upon - thus these people were never elected by anyone but the previous leader which isn't the populous.

LordZen
09-01-2004, 07:37 AM
Every member of the Supreme Court is appointed for life by a sitting President.

It is not nessisary for every person in office to be voted to that position. Also you are ignoring a large part of my argument, or didnt understand it fully.

You say that hereditary changes in government are not voted apon, this is true. But whenever a Vice President replaces a President between elections, that is not voted on, either. Neither would the 3rd in the line of seccession for President be voted on, and that individual wasnt even on the presidential ballot to begin with. As I have previously stated, a line of seccession is established as a backup in order to keep an important, normally elected office, occupied incase the current holder of that office for whatever reason can no longer occupy it during their term.

Glad you were civil about that, though. Thanks.

Lance
09-01-2004, 10:20 AM
Come on lance, horses come from eggs around here, lighten up.

When you say 'another inaccurate name' you are referring to a name (the Republic of Iraq) that is on all the maps, recorded in the Library of Congress, cited in countless debates and speeches in the US Senate and Congress, and has been acknowledged by the UN, the EU, and just about every government body around the world. You have a lot of people to reach, they need you Lance.

Iraq has new leadership now. Irrelevant, anyway.

If you want to debate the 'accuracy' of the name please give it a rest - no one cares enough for a deep philosophical exchange.

Apparently enough care to wish to discuss the topic. Apparently you care enough to reply. Apparently a few people are more than none.

The only question on the table for debate is 'does zormite have the right to call itself a republic without being hounded by strangely obsessed people that want to debate every political government structure from the Roman era onward as it relates to the historical and idealogical context of the term republic and its use by zormite?'

Wow, so you're telling me what I'm trying to debate? I am in awe of your omniscience. I'm saying the name is inaccurate. That is what I am debating. Stop trying to lead the issue elsewhere.

Zormite is a Republic, even though they don't vote.

Right-o. Let's have a republic, but instead of the people electing their representatives, we'll do it for them! It's brilliant!

No!

Dustari is a Monarchy, even though at least half of all the royal family members throughout its history have been adopted while still being related to twelve different families.

CP are pirates even though they have a castle and even have a special medival shield event item in their honor.

KJ is an ancient japanese society even though they use warhammers and mithril armor etc.

Forest is an elven kingdom even though....I don't even know what's happening with Forest.

Horses and monkeys come from eggs. People die of farts. You play a flute to make plants grow. Barbarians master wizardry in 30 seconds with 1.4k worth of scrolls.

That's nice, but I'm talking about Zormite, a kingdom which thinks itself awesome enough to defy the meaning of its own name.

Zormite has some decent distinction and has developed its own style, and if you think it is not perfect enough for your taste - look around and promptly get over it.

Or, alternatively, I could note where a name is inaccurately applied. I'm not doing this for my own benefit - Zormite is what looks foolish for the inaccuracy, not me.

Personally I am not convinced that a republic can only be called such one if voting is involved....but I actually don't care and it does not matter. All that matters is, is that Zormite is a decent enough Republic that if they want to be one, then so be it. They may, and may do so in peace without this being rehashed constantly.

Okay, then I hereby proclaim myself Lance the wind god. I am decent enough and I want to be one, then so be it. Now, you will have to respect my decision and only refer to me as Lance the wind god. Let me be the wind god in peace!

This topic is dead, the only reason I am even posting is to try to convey, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to a handful of oddly obsessed people, that this old, retired, dead, trivial debate has been exhausted to the point of such lifelessness that it really doesn't ever need to be raised again.

You are not the sole arbiter of whether or not topics are alive or dead.

Folks want to debate about a topic -> it is still very much alive. That's just common sense, man.

Here lies 'The Republic Debate', raised from the dead for the umpteenth time but finally buried one last time here, fini, done, over.

Except it's not buried unless it's resolved. That's another one of those by-definition things, but the trend seems to be to ignore them.

That topic is dead... and apparently so's this one.

*thread closed* or not. Why are my moderator rights removed?

Your modpowers rested on your leadership position in Zormite. That is gone, thus you no longer moderate this forum.

Also i just came up with a new idea that SHOULD shut most people up.

We've got...hiiigh hopes, we've got....hiiigh hopes...

"Zormite Republic" can be just a name, i could call myself King Falco and it doesnt mean i rule over anyone ;)

Surely you would not think it reasonable to expect everyone else to believe you are actually a king, though...?

EDIT: Oops sop sorry wren i think i must have tried posting after u but i was typing and didnt refresh and i bet that reopened the thread if u closed....oops

Uh, if a thread is closed, it doesn't allow any more replies, man.

It did not convert to a monarchy. It converted to a Republic, from being a monarchy. My picking of Wren, and Wren picking of Aki was justified by the constitution. The office becomes heriditary only when the senior official of the ruling party steps down or dies (whatever) while that party is in power, because that creates a vaccant office in government which cannot be filled by the election of a new party (because the same party is in power). Wren was part of my family, and when I could no longer rule, she was my most direct relative, and was educated in my ideology. That doesnt mean its not a republic, because that only deals with leadership change within the same legitimately elected regeime, between election cycles.

Would you please list the various parties that currently exist in Zormite, how many members belong to each, etc?

Wow, man, I was describing to you the RP story behind the situation. When talking about how an entire kingdom's revolution, do think that story would only consist of the handful of players who were actually in the kingdom? No, obviously you would presume a nation to consist of millions apon millions of people.

How much will you type before you try to actually understand what I'm saying and why I might be saying it? It's funny because you are the 'early leaders of the Zormite Republic', and I found it humorous that you were trying to explain something about the way you decided to make things by referring to yourself in the third person. Time doesn't quite flow like that, you know.

That is very shallow to presume I meant that strictly literally, and speaks well of you and your own ability to participate in such fictional invented roleplaying situations, "King *Tseng". :whatever:

That'd be nice, except for the problematic fact that I never went on a kingdom tag with my account as my nick...? Don't potshot my roleplaying skills. If anything, they're superior to yours. Still isn't the issue, though.

He forfeited his divine sovereignty to appease the fears of the populace, and managed to regain the right to rule through popular consent. Dictator is just the title given to the supreme office of the land. It could just as well have been Prime Minister, or President, or First Regent, or whatever. Then your statement would not seem so far fetched and more plausible. Your using the term Dictator out of context, because as it applies to the Zormite Republic's government...Dictator is a legitimately attainable position through consent of the majority.

Except that the way you explained the handing-down of the leadership didn't even bother mentioning the consent of the majority...?

If you are so against the use of stories to describe situations in a roleplaying enviornment, then why did you even trouble yourself with getting involved with an RP Kingdom, or anything of the like?

Don't put words in my mouth?

Yea, thats about how long it takes to change the kingdom name and a title of a rank in the KGUI in-game.

Mmmhm.

GoZelda
09-01-2004, 12:45 PM
Pfft thats a laugh most times we are called a democracy, anything where you vote on a leader is eithet representative democracy or a republic, but not just democracy. It's no different then Zormite calling ourselves a republic. And I didnt say contact them to convince us, i said ud have to take the same argument to them concerning calling us just democracy!
Wow dude you triple posted.

busyrobot
09-01-2004, 07:18 PM
Your modpowers rested on your leadership position in Zormite. That is gone, thus you no longer moderate this forum.


You don't have a clue regarding what you are talking about - if her mod rights were removed due to Aki's stepping in, then Aki would have been added - duh.




Regarding the rest of your rant Lance, the majority of the people here are not interested in debating the accuracy of the term 'Zormite Republic' as it pertains to historical Republics from the Roman age on. That majority includes the leaders of Zormite and a great deal of the members of Zormite.

The problem I am addressing is that while a thread going off topic once in a while is fine... the systematic use of old, worn out debates to derail every new thread's primary topic is not fine.

Many people have cited reasons why even by irl standards, Zormite would be allowed to call itself a republic. I mean hell - for crying out loud the "People's Republic of China" contains what, half of the world's population?

Don't give me that 'I am not talking about them I am talking about Zormite' crap either - if you don't want to 'talk about' anything that points out you are flat out wrong then you really are the Wind God, at least of Hot Air.


I know - lets debate Global Warming, 98% of the world's scientists can demonstrate the impact of pollution and you can take the other side and repeat the phrase 'is not' and thus ensure that a lively and on going debate till the end of time. Then, anytime anyone posts a new thread on any other topic, you can bring up global warming and keep repeating the 'is not' mantra and derail another 50 threads.

You usually have good forum manners lance, your petty grudges against Zen are kinda getting the better of you at this point though.


Do I have to say it again? People's Republic of China

And if you think graal, with its Pirate Castles, Horse Eggs and Flaming Farts somehow needs to be held to a higher standard than the freak'n United Nations then you really really really need relax and expand your range of hobbies.

I say this debate is dead for the following reasons:

1) instead of debating valid counter arguments you content "I am not talking about..." - all logic within this debate has become stale and 95% of the points are being ignored in favor of little quips over the most trivial elements.

2) The debate you are contenting, that the name 'Zormite Republic' should not be used, is irrelevant, as even if by some manipulation of the fabric of space and time you were correct, it does not matter as Zormite is not a Republic, but a group in a game that calls itself a republic, that has been allowed to call itself a republic, and unless Stefan chooses to reverse the allowance of this name that has persisted since about '04-25-2003' no amount of debating, complaining, whining, or crying is going to change it.

The important part is that the people currently IN Zormite can speak for themselves if they don't like it.

3) This is not the result of a happy 'lets have a debate' topic that just merrily popped up, essentially its more along the lines of 'we want you zormites to be forced to use fish head gfx' line, of attacking Zormite's right to use the name it has rightfully chosen to use. You do not have people happily engaging in an intelectual discourse with you but a '**** we can do this and you are wrong to say otherwise' defense of the GK nation they have chosen to build.

You will always find people will debate (ie disagree) with you if you use any variation of the 'you suck' argument as a basis for a 'debate'.

Since the start of this argument, you have been aptly flogged on every front of logic, and the only reason it is still going on is you find new ways of saying 'but what you are missing is my point that you still suck' without any basis.

You think you are 'selflessly saving the Zormite's from embarrassing themselves'? Excuse me? You need to look up the definitations of 'Altuism' and 'Egomaniac with a god complex' and rethink your stance here. If you want to save someone from embarassment, start with yourself.

Did I mention the People's Republic of China?

Lance
09-01-2004, 07:48 PM
You don't have a clue regarding what you are talking about - if her mod rights were removed due to Aki's stepping in, then Aki would have been added - duh.

Not really. The removal of ex-kingdom leaders does not necessitate the addition of the new ones.

Regarding the rest of your rant Lance, the majority of the people here are not interested in debating the accuracy of the term 'Zormite Republic' as it pertains to historical Republics from the Roman age on. That majority includes the leaders of Zormite and a great deal of the members of Zormite.

You're not the majority. Don't presume to speak for them. Speak for yourself. Besides, numbers don't particularly matter.

The problem I am addressing is that while a thread going off topic once in a while is fine... the systematic use of old, worn out debates to derail every new thread's primary topic is not fine.

Except every new thread hasn't been derailed. Some have, perhaps, but some is never equivalent to all.

Many people have cited reasons why even by irl standards, Zormite would be allowed to call itself a republic. I mean hell - for crying out loud the "People's Republic of China" contains what, half of the world's population?

Uh, no. No valid reasons have been presented. Again I'll note that numbers are irrelevant. That's a pretty basic one right there.

Don't give me that 'I am not talking about them I am talking about Zormite' crap either - if you don't want to 'talk about' anything that points out you are flat out wrong then you really are the Wind God, at least of Hot Air.

But it doesn't point out that I'm "flat out wrong." It points out that you can cite examples of other countries whose names may or may not be appropriate. That is wholly irrelevant to the current discussion.

I know - lets debate Global Warming, 98% of the world's scientists can demonstrate the impact of pollution and you can take the other side and repeat the phrase 'is not' and thus ensure that a lively and on going debate till the end of time. Then, anytime anyone posts a new thread on any other topic, you can bring up global warming and keep repeating the 'is not' mantra and derail another 50 threads.

We're not talking about global warming.

You usually have good forum manners lance, your petty grudges against Zen are kinda getting the better of you at this point though.

I have no grudge against Zen. He's a nice guy.

Do I have to say it again? People's Republic of China

Do I have to spell it out? I-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t.

And if you think graal, with its Pirate Castles, Horse Eggs and Flaming Farts somehow needs to be held to a higher standard than the freak'n United Nations then you really really really need relax and expand your range of hobbies.

So, if other things in graal are inaccurate, this can be inaccurate too? Doesn't matter - I'm not debating whether or not it should be changed. My original statement (and continued discussion since then) is that the name is inaccurate.

I say this debate is dead for the following reasons:

Look: This debate is not dead as long as it is being debated. This is a very simple concept, and I'm not sure why you can't get it.

1) instead of debating valid counter arguments you content "I am not talking about..." - all logic within this debate has become stale and 95% of the points are being ignored in favor of little quips over the most trivial elements.

Perhaps that's because 95% of the points used against me are invalid...? The only things I've ignored are:

a) Irrelevant
b) Stories in which time flows in a circle

2) The debate you are contenting, that the name 'Zormite Republic' should not be used, is irrelevant, as even if by some manipulation of the fabric of space and time you were correct, it does not matter as Zormite is not a Republic, but a group in a game that calls itself a republic, that has been allowed to call itself a republic, and unless Stefan chooses to reverse the allowance of this name that has persisted since about '04-25-2003' no amount of debating, complaining, whining, or crying is going to change it.

I said the name is inappropriate. Once it is recognized that the name is inappropriate, Zormite can decide whether or not it wishes to keep it, though it'd be kinda foolish to.

The important part is that the people currently IN Zormite can speak for themselves if they don't like it.

Uh, most people won't even notice it as they simply do not spend much time considering the kingdom's name.

3) This is not the result of a happy 'lets have a debate' topic that just merrily popped up, essentially its more along the lines of 'we want you zormites to be forced to use fish head gfx' line, of attacking Zormite's right to use the name it has rightfully chosen to use.

I'm really starting to get annoyed by this. Please don't tell me what I'm trying to debate. Others may be trying to debate that, but I am not.

You do not have people happily engaging in an intelectual discourse with you but a '**** we can do this and you are wrong to say otherwise' defense of the GK nation they have chosen to build.

Why paraphrase the defense of the kingdoms as '**** we can do this and you are wrong to say otherwise'...?

Aside from that, I am happily willing to engage in intellectual discourse with anyone who wishes to do so.

You will always find people will debate (ie disagree) with you if you use any variation of the 'you suck' argument as a basis for a 'debate'.

Except that pointing out flaws in people's logic is not equivalent to saying 'you suck', though I suppose saying they suck at making cohesive arguments wouldn't be too big of a stretch.

Since the start of this argument, you have been aptly flogged on every front of logic, and the only reason it is still going on is you find new ways of saying 'but what you are missing is my point that you still suck' without any basis.

By my count, there have been very few valid arguments used against me. I could be wrong, though, so feel free to show me some examples, please, of this awesome flogging by logic.

You think you are 'selflessly saving the Zormite's from embarrassing themselves'? Excuse me? You need to look up the definitations of 'Altuism' and 'Egomaniac with a god complex' and rethink your stance here. If you want to save someone from embarassment, start with yourself.

But I am! I am Lance, the wind god! Have you not paying attention?

Did I mention the People's Republic of China?

Did I mention irrelevant?

LordZen
09-01-2004, 08:06 PM
Would you please list the various parties that currently exist in Zormite, how many members belong to each, etc?
Have you read the Zormite Constitution recently? Maybe you should re-educate yourself. x_x
Amendment I. Party Legality (Added: 06-09-2003)
Only the National Archist Party of Zormite (NAPZ) shall be recognized by the government of the Zormite Republic, in that only members of that party will be considered valid candidates for public office. All other political parties are henceforth banned from participating in government of the Zormite state. This means that only one party will be considered legal, internally. The government may still actively work with and cooperate with political groups governing other nations, and political groups that are not specific to any one state (international organizations).
You see, I understood the limitations presented to me within the basic structure of the Kingdom system. It was designed to work strictly as a top down structure, a pyramid, where most power lies at the top with a few, and there is a king figure in charge of everything. Allowing 2 people with equal maxed rights without a parent rank poses a problem because then they are able to remove the other person if they get into an argument. I had always wished that the KGUI was updated so that there was an option screen, even if it was simply checkboxes, that would help to individualize how each of the kingdoms ran. So I wanted to change the form of government, to a Republic. But to have a republic under such a limited system designed for absolute monarchs, its obvious that a truly democratic republic would be impossible. Only a more repressive republic would be supported. If you really let the members vote on the new leader, how do you force that new leader to step down after their term is up? You cant, without staff intervention.

You know, we even tried elections a few times, tried to even schedule it for every 2 weeks I think, in the Archigos Assembly Hall. It didnt work.

It's funny because you are the 'early leaders of the Zormite Republic', and I found it humorous that you were trying to explain something about the way you decided to make things by referring to yourself in the third person. Time doesn't quite flow like that, you know.
You completely missed my point. I had just explained to you that I was not refering to actual members of the kingdom from that time period when I used the term "early leaders of the Zormite Republic". And no, I was not refering to myself in 3rd person. I was refering to the story, which involves many more fictional people then there are that even plays GraalOnline.



That'd be nice, except for the problematic fact that I never went on a kingdom tag with my account as my nick...? Don't potshot my roleplaying skills. If anything, they're superior to yours. Still isn't the issue, though.
Thats funny, I distinctly recall somebody going by "King *Tseng (Dustari)" for a time, and Zalinto Rahz believes *Tseng is what you almost always used as prince. I'm sure there are probably some other witnesses still around if they spoke up. *Shrug*

Except that the way you explained the handing-down of the leadership didn't even bother mentioning the consent of the majority...?

Strange, I recall mentioning "election periods" several times in my original post on the subject in this thread. I guess left you to assume too much there.

Oh wait, I also said this:
So as long as NAPZ was able to remain the ruling party, through consent of the people, they in effect accomplish a secondary goal which was to preserve the monarchy in some form, but in a modernized, more stable architecture of government.

Don't put words in my mouth?
True, I made an unfair generalization based on my assesment of how you've reacted to only one instance of somebody using a background story to explain current Roleplaying circumstances. And then I posed a question. I appologize. I will make it more direct and focused.

"What is your problem with my use of a Background story to explain current RP circumstances in Zormite? While others on GK get away with far less thought out and/or much more far fetched RP background stories, you choose to attack one which was detailed, documented, and attempted to have a semi-realistic basis. Consider that the modern day real world consists of very un-liberal, oppressive, and officially Republican states.

China (Officially 'The People's Republic of China')
North Korea (Officially 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea')

As long as it works a certain way on paper, legally, that is what defines it. Curroption and/or abuse of those laws does not mean the legal structure becomes void.

Just because a nation decides to describe itself as a Republic does not denote that its populace enjoys a large amount of personal freedoms, or any at all.

Furthermore, if your imagination is so limited that you cannot even accept a background RP story in a GAME which references to similar real life examples, why do you even bother wasting your time participating?"

Mmmhm.
What? You disagree with that assesment?



EDIT:

While writing this, everything from padren's last reply on was newly posted after I had last read the thread.

Just wanted to get across that I think Lance is a respectable global staff member. We've said good things about each other in the past, and we've worked together a couple of times regarding some PW issues. I dont know him super well on a personal level, but we get along perfectly fine on a professional level when it comes down to it.

I have no personal beef against you, either, Lance. We just dont agree on this subject, and I guess we both stand by our own convictions rather passionately.

protagonist
09-01-2004, 08:25 PM
Grrrrr. So much ill logic.

Lance, Republic is not a title. There is no universal title system for any set of countries or governments. Republic is part of the name, just like Crescent is/was part of Crescent Pirates. Does that mean people think "OMFG THEY CALL THEM CRESCENT PIRATES! THEY MUST BE SHAPED IN A CRESCENT MANNER OR WE ARE BEING MISLED!"? I hope not.

The United States of America. I don't see any reference to government structure. Does that mean that the government doesn't exist? Same with Canada or England or any other number of countries; including the government structure is not necessary. Conversely, including references to government structures does not make that reference true. It is the burden of other people to realize the government structure, not the burden of the government to make its structure known to everyone. Especially to people not in the kingdom.

Splke
09-01-2004, 08:34 PM
-blinks-...

Crono
09-01-2004, 08:38 PM
Zormite sucks, why even bother typing up so much argument text? It should be a bunch of fish running around with a dictator :p

Splke
09-01-2004, 08:45 PM
Zormites okay.. their leaders suck.

Crono
09-01-2004, 10:25 PM
Zormites okay.. their leaders suck.

Zormite should have like, half-zormite fish half human breeds, not humans. It's boring seeing 3 human kingdoms which in my opinion are all the same, then KJ who just stand out because of their clothing / building styles.

Splke
09-01-2004, 10:28 PM
Zormite should have like, half-zormite fish half human breeds, not humans. It's boring seeing 3 human kingdoms which in my opinion are all the same, then KJ who just stand out because of their scammers / ****s.

Zormite is cool, they've got good background, but their leaders suck. Dustari is good, but they haven't had a good leader for awhile.. (no offense Lance).

CP hasn't been good since Ghost, and it NEVER will be.

protagonist
09-01-2004, 10:29 PM
I have exclusive pictures of a real life Zormite guy:

http://www.cardmagnets.com/Monsters/74%20CREATURE%20BLACK%20LAGOON.JPG

Crono
09-01-2004, 10:30 PM
lawl @ VT, i thought posting pictures like that was illegal?

Splke
09-01-2004, 10:30 PM
I have exclusive pictures of a real life Zormite guy:

http://www.cardmagnets.com/Monsters/74%20CREATURE%20BLACK%20LAGOON.JPG

Ahaha.. yeah, he looks like a Zormite should.. not the fish1.png face.

GoZelda
09-01-2004, 10:43 PM
lawl @ VT, i thought posting pictures like that was illegal?
I wonder what more restrictions "they" can think of.

Monkeyboy_McGee
09-01-2004, 10:45 PM
You're not the majority. Don't presume to speak for them. Speak for yourself. Besides, numbers don't particularly matter.

Neither are you the majority, lance; and yes, numbers do particularly matter in this case. You claim that we look "EVER SO FEWLIHS OMGBBQ!111" yet we are not bothered by your claims. As padren said, the people currently in zormite will speak out if they disagree with it, and as you can clearly see, none of us do. The only people at all who disagree with it are nappa and yourself, and possibly cyrin, i'm not sure.

You say we look foolish, but I personally don't give a goddamned crap what you and your goon think I look like - I don't know about the others but i can probably guess. So, since it is only Lance the Wind God and his faithful skydog Nappa who share your feelings, there is no problem, and Zormite is absolutely fine the way it is. In this case, numbers do matter :)

GoZelda
09-01-2004, 10:47 PM
Neither are you the majority, lance; and yes, numbers do particularly matter in this case. You claim that we look "EVER SO FEWLIHS OMGBBQ!111" yet we are not bothered by your claims. As padren said, the people currently in zormite will speak out if they disagree with it, and as you can clearly see, none of us do. The only people at all who disagree with it are nappa and yourself, and possibly cyrin, i'm not sure.

You say we look foolish, but I personally don't give a goddamned crap what you and your goon think I look like - I don't know about the others but i can probably guess. So, since it is only Lance the Wind God and his faithful skydog Nappa who share your feelings, there is no problem, and Zormite is absolutely fine the way it is. In this case, numbers do matter :)
Can I ride on clouds? =(

busyrobot
09-01-2004, 11:48 PM
You're not the majority. Don't presume to speak for them. Speak for yourself. Besides, numbers don't particularly matter.

1) Numbers matter. It makes the difference between a merry debate, and an entire happy republic putting up with a few whiney people that seem to believe they are both one half of the debate and also the debate arbraters, able to determine what information is irrelevant and what is to the point, in an objective and rational manner...who never stop complaining.



Except every new thread hasn't been derailed. Some have, perhaps, but some is never equivalent to all.


Take a look around and start counting threads, and how many posts are on the original topic, and how many are on completely off beat tangents. Then look at who starts the majority of the tangents.


Uh, no. No valid reasons have been presented. Again I'll note that numbers are irrelevant. That's a pretty basic one right there.


I hope you never try your hand at becoming a trial lawyer, 'I think that is irrelevant' is a very very bad defense when you don't back it up with anything other than your 'trust me I am smart' attitude.


But it doesn't point out that I'm "flat out wrong." It points out that you can cite examples of other countries whose names may or may not be appropriate. That is wholly irrelevant to the current discussion.


If we cannot go by What the entire world uses in practical and actual sense demonstrated over long lengths of time and with millions upon millions of legal documents because one wind god thinks its 'irrelevant' yet quotes one website's dictionary as if it was holy sacred text - then this is not a debate.
It is you, the plaintiff and judge, trying to look smart by picking and choosing what you think applies and ignoring whatever you don't like.



We're not talking about global warming.


Stop playing dumb. You know no one alledged we were. The point that was clearly made was that global warming is a case in point where merely 'is not' is used as a counter argument to prolong a debate without actually citing any valid reasoning and where a debate is generally considered closed anyway, as this type of tactic is not widely respected.


I have no grudge against Zen. He's a nice guy.


I am not going to get into the private conversations you have had with me, but I could easily point out threads in which you did have some major problems with him.



So, if other things in graal are inaccurate, this can be inaccurate too? Doesn't matter - I'm not debating whether or not it should be changed. My original statement (and continued discussion since then) is that the name is inaccurate.

How about you continue to think you are right, we'll all continue to feel you are wrong, we all agree there is no problem with zormite keeping its name and that this topic, in regards to whether zormite should change its name, be retired permenantly and the people of zormite can choose to change it whenever they see fit, based on their own discussions.

That would be pleasant. :)

My point of graal 'inaccuracies' is that this game does not and has never claimed to hold to some great level of representation of the real world. While you may feel Zormite Republic is a bad name and others of us feel it is perfectly valid, and that a real world nation with a similar constitution could be recognized by the title 'Zormite Republic' by government bodies, the debate itself is irrelevant as the degree of accuracy/innaccuracy, if any, would still be well within the line of more accurate elements within the context of the game graal.


Look: This debate is not dead as long as it is being debated. This is a very simple concept, and I'm not sure why you can't get it.

Simply going on with cyclic ways of saying "is not" and then claiming that as if you were an objective third party all arguments made that show your wrong are 'irrelevant' does not constitute a 'continuing debate'.


Perhaps that's because 95% of the points used against me are invalid...? The only things I've ignored are:

a) Irrelevant
b) Stories in which time flows in a circle

Enough hot air there mr wind god, or we will have to bring global warming into this debate. As I said, you like to say 'Irrelevant' without anything to back it up. This doesn't make you right or your points magically valid.


I said the name is inappropriate. Once it is recognized that the name is inappropriate, Zormite can decide whether or not it wishes to keep it, though it'd be kinda foolish to.

Uh, most people won't even notice it as they simply do not spend much time considering the kingdom's name.

You have not made any new points regarding why you think the name is inappropriate in probably at least a day now, all you have done is called every other post 'irrelevant' and mentioned how you are getting annoyed and such.
News flash: People of Zormite long ago debating this topic...you made your feelings known in the past (as you stated yourelf in your opening comments) and decided long ago the name as appropriate.

If you are going to pull a Matlock do it already, you haven't made a case yet and haven't added anything fresh to your arguments in the last several posts. It looks like you may be wrong.



By my count, there have been very few valid arguments used against me. I could be wrong, though, so feel free to show me some examples, please, of this awesome flogging by logic.

First of all, when it is pointed out that in the real world, the People's Republic of China is considered a Republic, is called a Republic, and is recognized as a Republic, the best defense you have is


Did I mention irrelevant?

Somehow, if you quote a dictionary, it is sacred holy text, yet when it is pointed out that in the real world half of the world's population lives in a republic inconsistent with your ideas on the term, that is 'irrelevant'.

Sorry, until you can actually debate that point, and many others, without resorting to using your wind powers to determine relevance based on your own bais in the topic, you are not making a case, nor convincing anyone that the zormite republic is 'inappropriate', and not liable to strike a cord with those in the nation.

Lance
09-02-2004, 12:19 AM
Have you read the Zormite Constitution recently? Maybe you should re-educate yourself. x_x

It wasn't for self-education, it was to make a point. You say a ton of things about other parties having the full capability to assume power if they disagree with your rule. But. These parties don't exist.

You see, I understood the limitations presented to me within the basic structure of the Kingdom system. It was designed to work strictly as a top down structure, a pyramid, where most power lies at the top with a few, and there is a king figure in charge of everything. Allowing 2 people with equal maxed rights without a parent rank poses a problem because then they are able to remove the other person if they get into an argument. I had always wished that the KGUI was updated so that there was an option screen, even if it was simply checkboxes, that would help to individualize how each of the kingdoms ran. So I wanted to change the form of government, to a Republic. But to have a republic under such a limited system designed for absolute monarchs, its obvious that a truly democratic republic would be impossible. Only a more repressive republic would be supported. If you really let the members vote on the new leader, how do you force that new leader to step down after their term is up? You cant, without staff intervention.

Right.

You know, we even tried elections a few times, tried to even schedule it for every 2 weeks I think, in the Archigos Assembly Hall. It didnt work.

But you can't have it both ways. Either you have elections and can use it as a valid point, or you don't have elections and can't use that to justify the name.

You completely missed my point. I had just explained to you that I was not refering to actual members of the kingdom from that time period when I used the term "early leaders of the Zormite Republic". And no, I was not refering to myself in 3rd person. I was refering to the story, which involves many more fictional people then there are that even plays GraalOnline.

There are many more fictional people in between when you were the monarch of Zormite and when you were the first selected dictator of the Zormite Republic?

Thats funny, I distinctly recall somebody going by "King *Tseng (Dustari)" for a time, and Zalinto Rahz believes *Tseng is what you almost always used as prince. I'm sure there are probably some other witnesses still around if they spoke up. *Shrug*

All I can say is that you must be remembering incorrectly. If it ever happened it was by accident and corrected within a minute. I was one of the most vocal advocates against such things - in fact, I punished and removed those who went on tag with their account name. "Set a proper nickname" was the warning.

The two people who I remember doing that frequently were Larrien and MarkB. Perhaps you're thinking of them, I don't know.

Strange, I recall mentioning "election periods" several times in my original post on the subject in this thread. I guess left you to assume too much there.

But they didn't work? So that's kinda moot?

Oh wait, I also said this:

Granted.

True, I made an unfair generalization based on my assesment of how you've reacted to only one instance of somebody using a background story to explain current Roleplaying circumstances. And then I posed a question. I appologize. I will make it more direct and focused.

"What is your problem with my use of a Background story to explain current RP circumstances in Zormite? While others on GK get away with far less thought out and/or much more far fetched RP background stories, you choose to attack one which was detailed, documented, and attempted to have a semi-realistic basis. Consider that the modern day real world consists of very un-liberal, oppressive, and officially Republican states.

I have no problem with it, except when it's contradictory as I already noted.

China (Officially 'The People's Republic of China')
North Korea (Officially 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea')

As long as it works a certain way on paper, legally, that is what defines it. Curroption and/or abuse of those laws does not mean the legal structure becomes void.

Just because a nation decides to describe itself as a Republic does not denote that its populace enjoys a large amount of personal freedoms, or any at all.

Never said they should enjoy personal freedoms. Just said the name was inappropriate.

Furthermore, if your imagination is so limited that you cannot even accept a background RP story in a GAME which references to similar real life examples, why do you even bother wasting your time participating?"

My imagination isn't limited. See two points above.

What? You disagree with that assesment?

Nope.


I have no personal beef against you, either, Lance.

I'm glad, as that'd be nonproductive.

We just dont agree on this subject, and I guess we both stand by our own convictions rather passionately.

Indeed. I feel the name is inappropriate.



Grrrrr. So much ill logic.

I could not agree more.

Lance, Republic is not a title.

It's a form of government, like I said it was...?

There is no universal title system for any set of countries or governments.

What?

Republic is part of the name, just like Crescent is/was part of Crescent Pirates. Does that mean people think "OMFG THEY CALL THEM CRESCENT PIRATES! THEY MUST BE SHAPED IN A CRESCENT MANNER OR WE ARE BEING MISLED!"? I hope not.

There's a difference between a name and a form of government.

The United States of America. I don't see any reference to government structure.

Someone doesn't understand our government's structure.

Might be VT.

Does that mean that the government doesn't exist?

*g*

Same with Canada or England or any other number of countries; including the government structure is not necessary. Conversely, including references to government structures does not make that reference true. It is the burden of other people to realize the government structure, not the burden of the government to make its structure known to everyone. Especially to people not in the kingdom.

If a Kingdom's name makes reference to a government structure, is it not unreasonable to expect the structure of the kingdom to follow its name?



Neither are you the majority, lance;

I never claimed to be the majority. I merely claimed to be correct.

and yes, numbers do particularly matter in this case.

No, listen, they don't. The amount of people that believe a statement to be true does not affect the truth of the statement.

You claim that we look "EVER SO FEWLIHS OMGBBQ!111" yet we are not bothered by your claims.

So what? Perhaps you should be. Some of you are bothered enough to hotly debate this with me, when I am making one simple point.

As padren said, the people currently in zormite will speak out if they disagree with it, and as you can clearly see, none of us do. The only people at all who disagree with it are nappa and yourself, and possibly cyrin, i'm not sure.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, man. It's a matter of an inaccurate name.

You say we look foolish, but I personally don't give a goddamned crap what you and your goon think I look like

Okay? Your loss, buddy.

I don't know about the others but i can probably guess. So, since it is only Lance the Wind God and his faithful skydog Nappa who share your feelings, there is no problem, and Zormite is absolutely fine the way it is.

Hey, it's not like there was a minority who had the right idea about the shape of the world, or about astronomy. Oh wai...

Lance
09-02-2004, 12:20 AM
Too long to put them all in one, so:

1) Numbers matter.

1) No. I'll restate it in case you don't want to read my earlier explanation of this: The amount of people who believe a statement to be true does not affect the truth of that statement.

It makes the difference between a merry debate, and an entire happy republic putting up with a few whiney people that seem to believe they are both one half of the debate and also the debate arbraters, able to determine what information is irrelevant and what is to the point, in an objective and rational manner...who never stop complaining.

I'm not whining. I'm pointing out an inaccurate name. I am not complaining.

Information is irrelevant because information is irrelevant, man. It doesn't matter if other countries have inaccurate names. That has no bearing on whether or not the name 'Zormite Republic' is inaccurate for this kingdom.

Take a look around and start counting threads, and how many posts are on the original topic, and how many are on completely off beat tangents. Then look at who starts the majority of the tangents.

You have trouble with the whole "burdon of proof" thing. If you make a claim, back it up. Don't shift the burdon of proof - that's a fallacy.

I hope you never try your hand at becoming a trial lawyer, 'I think that is irrelevant' is a very very bad defense when you don't back it up with anything other than your 'trust me I am smart' attitude.

Instead of debating about my attitude, why not debate the points? Stop the ad hominem, okay?

If we cannot go by What the entire world uses in practical and actual sense demonstrated over long lengths of time and with millions upon millions of legal documents because one wind god thinks its 'irrelevant' yet quotes one website's dictionary as if it was holy sacred text - then this is not a debate.

A dictionary is a reference.

An example of another country with an inaccurate name is just that. You have yet to demonstrate how it is relevant to this case.

It is you, the plaintiff and judge, trying to look smart by picking and choosing what you think applies and ignoring whatever you don't like.

Demonstrate the relevance, fool.


Stop playing dumb. You know no one alledged we were. The point that was clearly made was that global warming is a case in point where merely 'is not' is used as a counter argument to prolong a debate without actually citing any valid reasoning and where a debate is generally considered closed anyway, as this type of tactic is not widely respected.

Okay, so you can show me another debate. Kindly establish the relevance...?

I am not going to get into the private conversations you have had with me, but I could easily point out threads in which you did have some major problems with him.

I've disagreed with him in the past, but he's perfectly aware that there is no grudge. Yaknow, someone doesn't have to have a grudge against someone to disagree with them, otherwise I should perhaps claim that you must have a grudge against me to be arguing so vehemently over such a simple statement of mine.

How about you continue to think you are right, we'll all continue to feel you are wrong, we all agree there is no problem with zormite keeping its name and that this topic, in regards to whether zormite should change its name, be retired permenantly and the people of zormite can choose to change it whenever they see fit, based on their own discussions.

This isn't a matter of 'thinking' someone is right or wrong. Again, see the part where I explained that whether or not people believe a statement to be right or wrong does not actually influence the truth of that statement.

That would be pleasant. :)

Except you condemn it throughout this thread. Hypocrite.

My point of graal 'inaccuracies' is that this game does not and has never claimed to hold to some great level of representation of the real world.

Where have I said that it did? Stop putting words in my mouth. It's getting old.

While you may feel Zormite Republic is a bad name and others of us feel it is perfectly valid, and that a real world nation with a similar constitution could be recognized by the title 'Zormite Republic' by government bodies, the debate itself is irrelevant as the degree of accuracy/innaccuracy, if any, would still be well within the line of more accurate elements within the context of the game graal.

If the debate is so irrelevent, why in the world do you keep posting?

Simply going on with cyclic ways of saying "is not" and then claiming that as if you were an objective third party all arguments made that show your wrong are 'irrelevant' does not constitute a 'continuing debate'.

Except that I am being objective here, dude. You failed to demonstrate relevance. It's irrelevant.

Enough hot air there mr wind god, or we will have to bring global warming into this debate. As I said, you like to say 'Irrelevant' without anything to back it up. This doesn't make you right or your points magically valid.

I never said that my indications of where your statements were irrelevant had any effect on the relevance of the statement. They were irrelevant, plain and simple.

You have not made any new points regarding why you think the name is inappropriate in probably at least a day now, all you have done is called every other post 'irrelevant' and mentioned how you are getting annoyed and such.

It's a very simple point, but people just don't seem to understand it. They keep thinking that I am trying to debate something which I am not, and answering to that. At this point, I note such and try to explain where their mistake is.

News flash: People of Zormite long ago debating this topic...you made your feelings known in the past (as you stated yourelf in your opening comments) and decided long ago the name as appropriate.

Since when does debating a topic in the past precludes any further debate about it...?

Also, what does it matter what the people of Zormite believe? Again, that doesn't affect the accuracy/inaccuracy of the name.

If you are going to pull a Matlock do it already, you haven't made a case yet and haven't added anything fresh to your arguments in the last several posts. It looks like you may be wrong.

"Pull a Matlock"? I'm unfamiliar with this term.

First of all, when it is pointed out that in the real world, the People's Republic of China is considered a Republic, is called a Republic, and is recognized as a Republic, the best defense you have is

There's a difference between a parodical statement and a 'defense'. I'd suggest learning it.

Somehow, if you quote a dictionary, it is sacred holy text, yet when it is pointed out that in the real world half of the world's population lives in a republic inconsistent with your ideas on the term, that is 'irrelevant'.

Listen. A dictionary is a reference. I cited it to back up my claim that the name is inaccurate. Pointing out another inconsistent country in no way affects either its accuracy or the accuracy of the name "Zormite Republic."

Sorry, until you can actually debate that point, and many others, without resorting to using your wind powers to determine relevance based on your own bais in the topic, you are not making a case, nor convincing anyone that the zormite republic is 'inappropriate', and not liable to strike a cord with those in the nation.

Except that I am debating each relevant, cohesive point that is given, and noting where the others are not so.

---

I would also like to thank you all for acknowledging my status as the wind god.

CheeToS2
09-02-2004, 12:32 AM
News flash: People of Zormite long ago debating this topic...you made your feelings known in the past (as you stated yourelf in your opening comments) and decided long ago the name as appropriate.
I've been a Zormite for years. I don't like the name "Zormite Republic." The last time I looked, it was run more like a dictatorship. Plain "Zormite" sounds better and makes more sense. I haven't rejoined after the leadership/name change because it has become a cesspool.

falco10291029
09-02-2004, 01:06 AM
But it doesn't point out that I'm "flat out wrong." It points out that you can cite examples of other countries whose names may or may not be appropriate. That is wholly irrelevant to the current discussion.




I am sorry, but your im smart attidtude is basically opposite of the truth for this matter. As has been said many times, you just ignore what you cant fight off or say it doesnt matter, i, as well as most other people believe: THAT IS WRONG!!! You have yet to successfully backup your side of the argument, and i doubt you can, since you are ont eh losing side, with little evidence avaialable to back up your position. Nothing you say, even if it makes sense, proves your point in the least biot, it just shows your stubbornness! Any example of a similar situation is relevant, no matter what the "Wind God" proclaims! people say you are basically using a you suck argument, but i disagree, a you suck argument would be better backed up ;).

Lance
09-02-2004, 01:12 AM
I am sorry, but your im smart attidtude is basically opposite of the truth for this matter.

How is an attitude false...?

As has been said many times, you just ignore what you cant fight off or say it doesnt matter, i, as well as most other people believe: THAT IS WRONG!!!

Except that you're ignoring my points and responding with this incoherent blathering. Hypocrisy? I think so!

You have yet to successfully backup your side of the argument, and i doubt you can, since you are ont eh losing side, with little evidence avaialable to back up your position.

I have already, doofus. My argument is that the name is inaccurate. I provided supporting evidence and an explanation of why it is such. Other folks are introducing other irrelevant information and are misunderstanding my point. Some are confusing me with other people. I'm a patient guy, so it doesn't terribly bother me. Pointing out where people are making this mistake is growing annoying, though.

Nothing you say, even if it makes sense, proves your point in the least biot, it just shows your stubbornness!

This is a pretty awesome statement right here. Care to explain?

Any example of a similar situation is relevant, no matter what the "Wind God" proclaims!

Then can you please tell me just how is it relevant? That's all I'm asking. If you're so right, it should be relatively easy to explain. Otherwise, you're just slinging baseless statements.

people say you are basically using a you suck argument, but i disagree, a you suck argument would be better backed up ;).

You kinda need to work on that 'making sense' part.

Monkeyboy_McGee
09-02-2004, 01:34 AM
But. These parties don't exist.

It's not his job to make sure those parties do exist, and it isn't his job to make sure they don't, either. The reason they do not exist (even though such things do/have exist/ed, whether you personally know about them or not, lance) is purely because nobody has bothered to form one. The reason Zen added that into the constitution was probably to cover the possibility that such parties did arise, and so that there -was- a chance that power could change hands - that's why i'd add it in, anyway, don't know about Zen.


I never claimed to be the majority. I merely claimed to be correct.

I never claimed that you claimed to be the majority, but i did claim that numbers do count, thus rendering whether you were correct or not...OMGZ0RS IRRELEVANT :O!


No, listen, they don't. The amount of people that believe a statement to be true does not affect the truth of the statement.

Hey, it's not like there was a minority who had the right idea about the shape of the world, or about astronomy. Oh wai...

The people you refer to there lance, proved that they were right; you have failed to do so.


Some of you are bothered enough to hotly debate this with me, when I am making one simple point.

Time and time and time again. And then get proved wrong, time and time and time again. By doing that, you're bothering them enough to hotly debate it with you until you realise this.


Okay? Your loss, buddy.

Yeah. Sure it is. :rolleyes:



A whole lot of crap about relevance, with this somewhere in the middle: Kindly establish the relevance...?

The relevance has clearly been shown, and you are the only one here failing to establish the relevance within your own head. Sorry, but that's your fault, not ours.

Instead of debating about my attitude, why not debate the points?

Well, it seems that the only reason this debate is still going is so that you can retain your image of "Lance the Wind God - The diety who is never ever ever ever ever ever wrong and never ever ever ever backs down until he's changed the minds of everyone who disagrees with him, or until he suddenly deems the thread lock-worthy Oneoneoneone."
Of course, if you'd like to show me otherwise by dropping the argument, leaving zormite alone, and letting us run our kingdom as we wish, and call it what we want, regardless of whether you think it is correct, then that would be great. Somehow i doubt you will though.

Oh btw, Kurenai Joukai is clearly not crimson, and it clearly does not resemble a heaven, so are you going to go and throw peanuts at them too now?

Edit: Omy, i just invented a new game. It's called "Count the number of times lance responds to something by either talking about irrelevancy, or putting simple sentences (one/two word answers come under this) which don't actually tackle the point raised."
Whoever gets to 30 first wins a free...uh...metre^3 of air?

Lance
09-02-2004, 01:48 AM
It's not his job to make sure those parties do exist, and it isn't his job to make sure they don't, either. The reason they do not exist (even though such things do/have exist/ed, whether you personally know about them or not, lance) is purely because nobody has bothered to form one. The reason Zen added that into the constitution was probably to cover the possibility that such parties did arise, and so that there -was- a chance that power could change hands - that's why i'd add it in, anyway, don't know about Zen.

Except that he's using the existence of these parties to justify other statements, and they do not exist. Herein lies a problem.

I never claimed that you claimed to be the majority, but i did claim that numbers do count, thus rendering whether you were correct or not...OMGZ0RS IRRELEVANT :O!

And I never claimed that you did claim that. I was pointing out that I never said I was representing the majority, so your original statement of whether I represent the majority or not is surprisingly the irrelevant thing!

The people you refer to there lance, proved that they were right; you have failed to do so.

Where is this proof? I've yet to see someone able to point to it, if it even exists. I don't think it does. However, if someone's able to prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

Time and time and time again. And then get proved wrong, time and time and time again. By doing that, you're bothering them enough to hotly debate it with you until you realise this.

It's their choice, man. I don't control other people.

The relevance has clearly been shown, and you are the only one here failing to establish the relevance within your own head. Sorry, but that's your fault, not ours.

I've said this about five times now, but please show me this relevance.

Well, it seems that the only reason this debate is still going is so that you can retain your image of "Lance the Wind God - The diety who is never ever ever ever ever ever wrong and never ever ever ever backs down until he's changed the minds of everyone who disagrees with him, or until he suddenly deems the thread lock-worthy Oneoneoneone."

1) I am right most of the time, not always.
2) Wren is the one who was going to close this thread when it did not warrant closing, not me.

Of course, if you'd like to show me otherwise by dropping the argument, leaving zormite alone, and letting us run our kingdom as we wish, and call it what we want, regardless of whether you think it is correct, then that would be great. Somehow i doubt you will though.

I am letting you run your kingdom as you wish and calling it what you want. I'm just pointing out that it's inaccurate to do so.

Oh btw, Kurenai Joukai is clearly not crimson, and it clearly does not resemble a heaven, so are you going to go and throw peanuts at them too now?

First, I do not really like that name anyway. Secondly, their color is crimson, and they consider themselves a haven of sorts. They are not claiming to have some sort of governmental structure that they do not have. Subjectively, it may be accurate. However, again, that's not the issue. Sigh.

busyrobot
09-02-2004, 01:48 AM
Lance, I am not going to quote the whole thing point by point or these back and forths will get waaaaay too long.


1) My primary point, is that if the real world accepts that the People's Republic of China is a Republic, then it is accurate, by default. Your claim that 'other people using the name wrong are irrelevant' would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that the dispute I have with you is whether the name is actually used wrong when used in reference to the People's Republic of China.

1 a) You cite it is used wrong by the Chinese government, the UN, every government body within the United States, and every other goverment throughout the world, as best as I can tell, because it is counter to your views. If you feel I am 'putting words in your mouth' then try to justify why all these nations and peoples are wrong, so we can use your words instead.


1 b) I cite that it is used correctly, as language is a human invention, and humans are using it to define the People's Republic of China as a Republic, then it is so. Dictionaries have long updated their definitions (such as 'computer' ) based on the contemporary use, and China has been a Republic for a long time now.

I want you to explain why you feel the world governments are wrong and you are right. All I have seen is you saying "Except that I am being objective here, dude. " and that doesn't cut it.


Point 2) In a game like this, even if you were correct on all your points, which I content you are not, it does not matter if Zormite adheres to the strict real world definitions of 'Republic' - which I still contend it does - because in a game (especially a game with flaming farts and horses in eggs and pirates with castles) there is no expectation of strict representational accuracy. You are allowed to play with things and you do not have to build a real world government to play a government in the game.

2 a) You act as if, if you were proven correct, that Zormite would somehow be embarrassed or wrong to use the name 'Zormite Republic'.

2 b) being as this debate was had before, and that the leaders of zormite considered everyone's arguments then, and chose to keep the name, that this would be considered a retired topic. This historical precidence also establishes that the name was accepted and has been quite fine for over a year, raising no concerns from Stefan or current members of Zormite.




As a side note, to 'Pull a Matlock' is a reference to the old TV show 'Matlock' in which a trial lawyer would formulaicly [sic] have a weak case until the last 5 minutes of the TV show at which point would produce some stunning evidence or discovery in favor of his client.


Lance, please think about these points and refute them, summerize whatever you feel your strongest points for your case in your favor is, and perhaps there will be a modicum of progress. Please do allow for the possibility that you may be wrong.

falco10291029
09-02-2004, 01:56 AM
Ah crrap i just had a huge argument that it deleted for some reason, something about an invalid thread.....i geuss i have no choice but to remake it :'(



How is an attitude false...?


You were using an im smart attitude, im am saying that is wrong which implies you are dumb. Simple XD.



Except that you're ignoring my points and responding with this incoherent blathering. Hypocrisy? I think so!


I don't. Your points are incomplete and you'd be better off saying "your wrong because im always right!" Basically you just say what a republic is, well Zormite has elected a leader at least once, so it is therefore a republic. Your points are disproved and thereby what i say is not blathering as you call it, but pointing out that you cannot sucessfully defend a point.



I have already, doofus. My argument is that the name is inaccurate. I provided supporting evidence and an explanation of why it is such. Other folks are introducing other irrelevant information and are misunderstanding my point. Some are confusing me with other people. I'm a patient guy, so it doesn't terribly bother me. Pointing out where people are making this mistake is growing annoying, though.

Ah, upgrading yourself to a you suck argument, ah well. As I just explained, the name is NOT inaccurate. None of the information is irrelevant, you just dont like it because it isnt the same exact thing.





This is a pretty awesome statement right here. Care to explain?


of course, for any other people who cant comprehend simple things, you may also wanna read this:
Any points you make cannot POSSIBLY have sufficient evidence, unless you find a law that says "Lance is right and you must listen to him", whichj no one intheir right mind would make. Most things you say though are just repeats of what you just sed, all your threads are basically:
Name is wrong, your points are wrong, thats irrelevant.
I consider that to not make sense.


Then can you please tell me just how is it relevant? That's all I'm asking. If you're so right, it should be relatively easy to explain. Otherwise, you're just slinging baseless statements.


*Laughs and wonders how so much stupidityu ended up in one place*
Anyway, it is showing similar events that have been accepted by the masses, and showing ones that are even more against their names, and that thoise should be argued about before Zormite Republic is. Also the global warming thing, it is basically showing you, the 2% just saying is not over and over, also relevant. You cannot just throw things away and call them irrelevant because they show examples, actually that is the opposite of what any good lawyer/judge/anyone with an iq over room temp, would do.


You kinda need to work on that 'making sense' part.



As for me not making sense, no, you just cannot comprehend simple things for some odd reason i have yet to find! I am saying someone saying you suck has a better argument than you do, duh!

Lance
09-02-2004, 02:09 AM
Lance, I am not going to quote the whole thing point by point or these back and forths will get waaaaay too long.


1) My primary point, is that if the real world accepts that the People's Republic of China is a Republic, then it is accurate, by default.

My primary point: No. It means that it's accepted, not that it's accurate.

Your claim that 'other people using the name wrong are irrelevant' would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that the dispute I have with you is whether the name is actually used wrong when used in reference to the People's Republic of China.

Look, I'm just trying to say whether or not China's name is inaccurate has no bearing on whether or not Zormite Republic's is inaccurate.

1 a) You cite it is used wrong by the Chinese government, the UN, every government body within the United States, and every other goverment throughout the world, as best as I can tell, because it is counter to your views. If you feel I am 'putting words in your mouth' then try to justify why all these nations and peoples are wrong, so we can use your words instead.


1 b) I cite that it is used correctly, as language is a human invention, and humans are using it to define the People's Republic of China as a Republic, then it is so. Dictionaries have long updated their definitions (such as 'computer' ) based on the contemporary use, and China has been a Republic for a long time now.

I want you to explain why you feel the world governments are wrong and you are right. All I have seen is you saying "Except that I am being objective here, dude. " and that doesn't cut it.

Except I did not claim that these world governments are wrong...? I stated only that it doesn't matter if they are or not. I am growing frustrated that you are trying to lead this debate away from whether or not the name of Zormite Republic is accurate or not.

Point 2) In a game like this, even if you were correct on all your points, which I content you are not, it does not matter if Zormite adheres to the strict real world definitions of 'Republic' - which I still contend it does - because in a game (especially a game with flaming farts and horses in eggs and pirates with castles) there is no expectation of strict representational accuracy. You are allowed to play with things and you do not have to build a real world government to play a government in the game.

Hey, I'm just talking about the inaccuracy. It's on them what they do about it, if you folks manage to become convinced that I'm right.

Aside from that, I'll state the obvious: "Doesn't matter" does not equal "Shouldn't talk about".

2 a) You act as if, if you were proven correct, that Zormite would somehow be embarrassed or wrong to use the name 'Zormite Republic'.

Hey, how they feel is up to them, man. I offered a suggestion of a possibility, at best.

2 b) being as this debate was had before, and that the leaders of zormite considered everyone's arguments then, and chose to keep the name, that this would be considered a retired topic. This historical precidence also establishes that the name was accepted and has been quite fine for over a year, raising no concerns from Stefan or current members of Zormite.

Well, apparently it is not retired, as people still wish to debate them.

As for Stefan - do you expect him to know both the name and how the kingdom is run in order to comment on it?

As a side note, to 'Pull a Matlock' is a reference to the old TV show 'Matlock' in which a trial lawyer would formulaicly [sic] have a weak case until the last 5 minutes of the TV show at which point would produce some stunning evidence or discovery in favor of his client.

Ah, okay.

Lance, please think about these points and refute them, summerize whatever you feel your strongest points for your case in your favor is, and perhaps there will be a modicum of progress. Please do allow for the possibility that you may be wrong.

I always allow for that possibility, but when people present irrelevant stuff it just doesn't really help prove me wrong. In fact, I would like to be wrong, as it would be much nicer if the Zormite kingdom's name was accurate and I was the one mistaken. However, at this point in time I have no reason to believe that I am mistaken.

LordZen
09-02-2004, 02:11 AM
It wasn't for self-education, it was to make a point. You say a ton of things about other parties having the full capability to assume power if they disagree with your rule. But. These parties don't exist.Correct. After the party legitimately gained control of the government, they sought to outlaw opposing political parties. The structure of government has not changed, and this is not to say that elections can no longer be held. Technically, those holding lower offices in government could theoretically be voted in and out. And also for national elections, those can still take place, but there is simply not many options on the ballot. ;)

But you can't have it both ways. Either you have elections and can use it as a valid point, or you don't have elections and can't use that to justify the name.
I just mentioned that as a supporting detail explaining the problems of a truly representative people's government in the sparsely populated and poorly equipped Graal Kingdoms server.

Just trying to show, that we had tried to make it more of an open democracy, but that it just was not very effecient. This is not to say that we cant claim elections are held regularly, because we can and do, but those voting periods are no longer actually played out in-game routinely because they had been proven to be ineffecient and ineffective after the 2nd or 3rd try.

There are many more fictional people in between when you were the monarch of Zormite and when you were the first selected dictator of the Zormite Republic?
Ok, listen, I am not saying early leaders of the Zormite Republic is refering to kings and emperors and the such. I was the last Emperor, and first Dictator. There was nobody inbetween in that respect. Early leaders was meant to be interpruted more as an equivalent of America's Founding Fathers. Just a group of educated loyalists (common citizens, not "leader" leaders) who took the initiative in helping to organize the new state.

I have no problem with it, except when it's contradictory as I already noted.
Alright, forget the title of the supreme office for a second. Pretend it was really President, all this time.

Could you buy into the concept that the Republican system of government as used in Zormite was meant to not be very democratic, but actually very authoritarian, or I guess secretive and controling is a better way of saying it? This is really what it was always meant to be from a roleplaying standpoint, even though its really more of a benevolent despotism I guess? That might not be an entirely accurate reference but you get the point.

It was kind of always my intention for Zormite to operate as a Republic, but for near autocratic power to remain in the hands of the supreme authority of the land (because, of course, there was really no other option of how to do things in GK using its system).

The idea of propoganda and control of the citizenry was evident from the near start, when I introduced the Ministry of Information and Ministry of Religion (which gives away ambitions of controling what news the people are given and the enforcement of a state ran religion).

So this made most sense originally if the government was well organized like most modern countries, and operated as a republic, and a similar situation as to in the Roman Republic transpired, in which the Senate (or other legislative body) actually gave the title of Dictator to Caesar and all of the powers associated with it. The senate was authorized to make that decision from a republican standpoint because they represented the people and made decisions for them.

At least I gave the subject alot of thought, and sought some sort of historical basis rather than just pulling my ideas out of thin air..

Lance
09-02-2004, 02:22 AM
ou were using an im smart attitude, im am saying that is wrong which implies you are dumb. Simple XD.

No, you said that my attitude "was the opposite of the truth". An attitude does not possess a truth value.

And, I am smart. Would you say otherwise?

I don't. Your points are incomplete and you'd be better off saying "your wrong because im always right!"

Can you point me in that direction? Else you're just spewing more baseless allegations.

Basically you just say what a republic is, well Zormite has elected a leader at least once, so it is therefore a republic.

Let's examine this statement.

Your statement rests on the premise that a government is a republic if a leader is elected at any point in time, regardless of what happens after that.

Do you see the problem here?

Your points are disproved and thereby what i say is not blathering as you call it, but pointing out that you cannot sucessfully defend a point.

That's nice, but you were blathering incoherently. You still haven't shown where my points were disproved, either. More of these baseless statements - you're good at that.

Ah, upgrading yourself to a you suck argument, ah well.

Not an argument, but a label. My point rests not on that label.

As I just explained, the name is NOT inaccurate.

And as I just explained, your reasoning is so horribly flawed that I will not even begin to comment on it.

None of the information is irrelevant, you just dont like it because it isnt the same exact thing.

Either demonstrate the relevance or stop making these unqualified cliams.

of course, for any other people who cant comprehend simple things, you may also wanna read this:
Any points you make cannot POSSIBLY have sufficient evidence, unless you find a law that says "Lance is right and you must listen to him", whichj no one intheir right mind would make.

So I cannot possibly be right, no matter what I do? Do you see the flaws in this reasoning?

Most things you say though are just repeats of what you just sed,

I really can't help it if some people are too slow to get it the first time.

all your threads are basically:
Name is wrong, your points are wrong, thats irrelevant.
I consider that to not make sense.

Uh, I've justified everything I've said that has been questioned. I cannot, however, say the same for you.

*Laughs and wonders how so much stupidityu ended up in one place*

I wonder, too.

Anyway, it is showing similar events that have been accepted by the masses, and showing ones that are even more against their names, and that thoise should be argued about before Zormite Republic is.

So because other people accepted a possibly inaccurate name, so too should I accept this one? I ask you again, do you see the flaws in this reasoning?

Also the global warming thing, it is basically showing you, the 2% just saying is not over and over,

What?

also relevant.

How?

You cannot just throw things away and call them irrelevant because they show examples, actually that is the opposite of what any good lawyer/judge/anyone with an iq over room temp, would do.

Man, I can call them irrelevant because they are. They're examples of other possibly inaccurate things or examples of other debates. Neither of these things have much of a bearing on the current debate, unless there's some thin connection that someone can actually get around to demonstrating.

As for me not making sense, no, you just cannot comprehend simple things for some odd reason i have yet to find!

No, you simply cannot phrase things in an eloquent manner. Your typing skills could use some work too, but this is just another 'YOU SUcK' argument too, right?

I am saying someone saying you suck has a better argument than you do, duh!

Sigh.

Lance
09-02-2004, 02:28 AM
Zen, I totally understand your reasoning for making it the way you did. I realize what you were trying to make, and how you went about making it. However, calling something a republic when it is just a disguised monarchy does not make it one. This is my point!

busyrobot
09-02-2004, 02:30 AM
My primary point: No. It means that it's accepted, not that it's accurate.


I disagree, I think that maybe the sum total of the entire world and its massive government bodies may actually be using the term correctly, and that perhaps you are incorrect.

Secondarily, the fact that even if by chance you are right and they are wrong - that if the world can accept 'The People's Republic of China' as a name (accurate or not) then there is absolutely no reason to have a debate as to whether Zormite should have Republic in its name.

If it is acceptable for China to, the world over, use the term Republic, then I think maybe Zormite can get away with it too in this video game.

I still say that your assertion that 'the world is using inaccurately' and that you possess the truth could be a little off......but I can't understand why even if you managed to turn out correct (the world will be so embarassed) then accepted use irl should be accepted use in game - no higher standards for RPGs than there are for The Real World, please.

Can you at least acknowledge that?

Lance
09-02-2004, 02:37 AM
I disagree, I think that maybe the sum total of the entire world and its massive government bodies may actually be using the term correctly, and that perhaps you are incorrect.

This is a question of an incorrect/misleading name. In the other parts of the world, they can select names that do not properly describe the government. These names can also be accepted by any number of people. That does not make the name correct.

Secondarily, the fact that even if by chance you are right and they are wrong - that if the world can accept 'The People's Republic of China' as a name (accurate or not) then there is absolutely no reason to have a debate as to whether Zormite should have Republic in its name.

But this isn't about accepting a name. I made a simple statement - the name is inaccurate.

If it is acceptable for China to, the world over, use the term Republic, then I think maybe Zormite can get away with it too in this video game.

This isn't about accepting a name's inaccuracy, man. It's about a name's accuracy. I recognize that it probably won't change as a result of my statement, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't have made my statement to begin with.

I still say that your assertion that 'the world is using inaccurately' and that you possess the truth could be a little off......

For the whateverth time, where did I make this assertion?

but I can't understand why even if you managed to turn out correct (the world will be so embarassed) then accepted use irl should be accepted use in game - no higher standards for RPGs than there are for The Real World, please. Can you at least acknowledge that?

If we have the capability to correct an error, and have (by assumption) identified it as such, then why in the world shouldn't we?

falco10291029
09-02-2004, 02:42 AM
As was done, im not gonna quopte, ill do with numbers, yay:

1) *sigh* i am saying that the content of how you are acting is wrong. An attitude can be wrong. If you are angry because you won some money, that would be considered wrong, just as i consider you thinking that you are smart wrong.

2)Read your posts. Anyone else on this side of the argument will agree with me, you cannot prove a point correctly.

3)No I do not see the problem. If we had a president elected and then all of a sudden congress decided he'd stay for life, it would still be a democracy/republic.

4)Your posts are disproved any thread where someone quotes your points. Just about everyone has proven a bunch of your points wrong.

5)How is that a label?

6)My reasoning is far from flawed. If anyone's is, it is yours, you do not have sufficient evidence for your bclaims, so please acting like I'M the idiot, we all know it is the other way around(expression, dont just get someone to quote they think you're smart....).

7)I demonstrated the relevance quite well, you just cant get it into your head, as was said earlier, not my fault.

8)No I dont, there is no evidence out there to correctly support you. This is quite right, unless you can prove potherwise, you, the accuser, has the burden of proof, not me.

9)Erm actually everyone gets the 1 non backed up point you have, you just repeat it because you have nothing else.

10) Far from it, it just opens more questions, like "How did he come up with such a non-backed argument?"

11)Wow even you wonder about your stupidity, funny. Try asking your parents.


12)Nope, it shows what should be accepted. Say there is a new kid in school. He acts a certain way and is accepted. Another new kid comes EXACTLY like the first one, and is turned down, making the others hypocrites and such. My point as you can see here is well backed with a good example. I cannot say the same for anything you have posted thus far.

13) you dont get it, not surprising. I am saying you are repeating the same nonbacked up argument over, and i keep having to say this to you! I wonder when you will finally get it....


14)I gave a fair explanation to it, I cannot explain firther, i have trouble explaining these things .........hmm the only other things i'd have trouble explaining this too is a rock.....


15)I demonstrated it. when you learn how to use scroll up you can look at that part of the post.

16)I phrase them just fine, I am sure most others get what i am saying. Also my typing, to quote "The Great God of Hot Air", is irrelevant. And it really is, unlike most other points you call irrelevant.

17) Couldnt come up with a witty comeback? I suppose youd first need wit to do this.

Lance
09-02-2004, 02:57 AM
As was done, im not gonna quopte, ill do with numbers, yay:

1) *sigh* i am saying that the content of how you are acting is wrong. An attitude can be wrong. If you are angry because you won some money, that would be considered wrong, just as i consider you thinking that you are smart wrong.

What's wrong with my attitude? I repeat: I am smart. So what?

2)Read your posts. Anyone else on this side of the argument will agree with me, you cannot prove a point correctly.

Except that you fail to provide me with even a bit of supporting evidence here.

3)No I do not see the problem. If we had a president elected and then all of a sudden congress decided he'd stay for life, it would still be a democracy/republic.

That logic also justifies this situation:

-Country A forms a republican government.
-Country A becomes a totalitarian government.
-Country A can safely call itself a Republic, because it was a republic at one point in time.

I will ask again, do you see the problem here?

4)Your posts are disproved any thread where someone quotes your points. Just about everyone has proven a bunch of your points wrong.

Yet you fail to identify even one. Isn't that sad?

5)How is that a label?

Look it up.

6)My reasoning is far from flawed. If anyone's is, it is yours, you do not have sufficient evidence for your bclaims, so please acting like I'M the idiot, we all know it is the other way around(expression, dont just get someone to quote they think you're smart....).

Examine my hypothetical situation for justification of my statement.

7)I demonstrated the relevance quite well, you just cant get it into your head, as was said earlier, not my fault.

Saying something is relevant isn't proving that it is, man.

8)No I dont, there is no evidence out there to correctly support you. This is quite right, unless you can prove potherwise, you, the accuser, has the burden of proof, not me.

No, pay attention. I said it was inaccurate, and I provided my proof in the form of supporting evidence. You said I was incorrect, but failed to provide proof of that.

9)Erm actually everyone gets the 1 non backed up point you have, you just repeat it because you have nothing else.

What?

10) Far from it, it just opens more questions, like "How did he come up with such a non-backed argument?"

Uh, you still haven't justified any of your allegations, man.

11)Wow even you wonder about your stupidity, funny. Try asking your parents.

Don't be childish.

12)Nope, it shows what should be accepted. Say there is a new kid in school. He acts a certain way and is accepted. Another new kid comes EXACTLY like the first one, and is turned down, making the others hypocrites and such. My point as you can see here is well backed with a good example. I cannot say the same for anything you have posted thus far.

In the first half of the second millenium, it was accepted that the earth was flat. So, then, would it be accurate to say that the earth was flat? What, it wouldn't? Oh, my goodness!

13) you dont get it, not surprising. I am saying you are repeating the same nonbacked up argument over, and i keep having to say this to you! I wonder when you will finally get it....

I will never 'get' what you are trying to say so long as it is incoherent and especially while it is incorrect. Kindly justify your statements, or back off.

14)I gave a fair explanation to it, I cannot explain firther, i have trouble explaining these things .........hmm the only other things i'd have trouble explaining this too is a rock.....

You provided no justification to your statements. Your arguments consist of "It's obvious'. Doesn't work!

15)I demonstrated it. when you learn how to use scroll up you can look at that part of the post.

See above!

16)I phrase them just fine, I am sure most others get what i am saying. Also my typing, to quote "The Great God of Hot Air", is irrelevant. And it really is, unlike most other points you call irrelevant.

Perhaps irrelevant, but oh so fun to point out! I'll direct you to every phrase I have labelled incoherent!

17) Couldnt come up with a witty comeback? I suppose youd first need wit to do this.

Another childish insult, congratulations! However, when one insults another's wit, it is generally required that they possess the capability to recognize wit when they see it!

falco10291029
09-02-2004, 03:16 AM
Uh huh. Im sorry. I give up. he's too dense and is WAY too set on what he thinks is right. May as well try to knock down a Concrete wall with a twig, it just wont happen no matter how accurate and strong your swings are, the wall just wont budge. Oh Lance, as for the insults, i always insult in arguments, dont take it personally.

busyrobot
09-02-2004, 03:29 AM
Why can't you accept that the fact that China is a republic and is known to be as such by the whole world over?

If the entire English speaking world considers China a republic, don't you think that just maybe......it is?

Secondarily, Zormite wants to be a Republic and as such, is not going to change its name because you think its inaccurate.

falco10291029
09-02-2004, 03:29 AM
Just leave him. Like 9i said he wont sway. Leave him be.

Python523
09-02-2004, 03:43 AM
This thread was meant to discuss the change in leadership, not the naming of the kingdom or whatever these pointless arguements are about.

Lance
09-02-2004, 04:53 AM
Uh huh. Im sorry. I give up. he's too dense and is WAY too set on what he thinks is right. May as well try to knock down a Concrete wall with a twig, it just wont happen no matter how accurate and strong your swings are, the wall just wont budge. Oh Lance, as for the insults, i always insult in arguments, dont take it personally.

Stop being childish. Respond to my points, or do not respond.



Why can't you accept that the fact that China is a republic and is known to be as such by the whole world over?

China is a communist country. Supposedly, the workers have representatives which choose the government somehow. By that logic, it's a republic.

If the entire English speaking world considers China a republic, don't you think that just maybe......it is?

Bad premise, good conclusion. It's a republic because it's a republic, not because people think it is one.

Secondarily, Zormite wants to be a Republic and as such, is not going to change its name because you think its inaccurate.

Okay. Padren. Fifth+ time. I did not ask them to change their name.



This thread was meant to discuss the change in leadership, not the naming of the kingdom or whatever these pointless arguements are about.

That's nice. This thread isn't breaking any rules, though, so I have reopened it.

Python523
09-02-2004, 06:04 AM
That's nice. This thread isn't breaking any rules, though, so I have reopened it.
Offtopic, in my opinion. The purpose is to discuss the change of powers, you are talking about the how appropriate the name "republic" and such is.

Lance
09-02-2004, 05:00 PM
Offtopic, in my opinion. The purpose is to discuss the change of powers, you are talking about the how appropriate the name "republic" and such is.

Need I request that you search for all of the posts wherein Kaimetsu explained that offtopic posting is not against the rules?

Darlene159
09-02-2004, 05:14 PM
If you guys want to argue about rules, do it in PM's please....and stop opening and closing the thread, if a mod closes it, leave it alone unless a forum admin says otherwise

TeRRi2k
09-02-2004, 05:41 PM
So shouldn't this stay closed then? (or was it just reopened? just read this thread today so I'm not sure)

Never got around to congratulate you Aki, so congrats. Like I said, I don't think I ever seriously considered YOU being in power...(=b because you're too silly) but I trust Wren's judgement and I personally think you'll make a good leader as well. :) Good luck!

Monkeyboy_McGee
09-02-2004, 06:32 PM
Except that he's using the existence of these parties to justify other statements
I'd love to know where you got that idea from, man.

I was pointing out that I never said I was representing the majority, so your original statement of whether I represent the majority or not is surprisingly the irrelevant thing!
Lol, not really ;)


Where is this proof? I've yet to see someone able to point to it, if it even exists. I don't think it does.
Lol, you seem to be a bit confused here. You're saying there is no proof that the world is not flat? Great, ok, right, i guess that means the place you live in must be floating out in space somewhere. Watch out for those meteors, lance!


I've said this about five times now, but please show me this relevance.
Whee, i count one! Anyway. Why don't you show me the irrelevance, lance? Because i can't see any :O!
There are plenty of people who can see the relevance quite clearly, and then there's you denying it. It's like saying:
"There's a kid who damages his eyes, and so everything to him appears blurred. He reasons that the many many people who see things as sharp, clear and detailed are the ones with bad eyesight and it is he alone who sees the real world - a blurry one." Go get some glasses, lance.


2) Wren is the one who was going to close this thread when it did not warrant closing, not me.
Lol.

their color is crimson
Zormite Republic
We are zormites.
and they consider themselves a haven of sorts.
Zormite Republic
We consider ourselves a Republic of sorts.

However, again, that's not the issue.
No, but it is an identical one. Why are you adressing this one and not that one?

Sigh.
Yawn.

Except I did not claim that these world governments are wrong...?
Yes you did, look:
My primary point: No. It means that it's accepted, not that it's accurate.
Lolz0rs. Your next move of course will probably be to trip me on technicalities, saying "that quote doesnt actually show me saying that it isn't accurate. Don't bother, you know full well that you've shown your disagreement with those governments.

I am growing frustrated that you are trying to lead this debate away from whether or not the name of Zormite Republic is accurate or not.
Poor you. Perhaps you should have taken into consideration whether WE would get frustrated if you tried to lead this thread away from its original topic. Or are we not important for lance the Wind God's consideration?

Hey, how they feel is up to them, man. I offered a suggestion of a possibility, at best.
And we have shown how we feel about your suggestion. That said, why are you still here?

falco10291029
09-02-2004, 09:16 PM
Whee, i count one! Anyway. Why don't you show me the irrelevance, lance? Because i can't see any :O!
There are plenty of people who can see the relevance quite clearly, and then there's you denying it. It's like saying:
"There's a kid who damages his eyes, and so everything to him appears blurred. He reasons that the many many people who see things as sharp, clear and detailed are the ones with bad eyesight and it is he alone who sees the real world - a blurry one." Go get some glasses, lance.


*claps* YAy he got the simile io couldnt come up with, but tried, as u can see. I geuss ill respond a bit.
You see Lance, you disagree with the name, but hardly anyone else does. This and the fact you are pointing it out leaves me this:

you constantly say show me the relevance, or show me the post, well since you are the accuser, you have the burden of proof, not the people defending it. You have yet to prove anything beyond the fact that you cannot argue well. Zormite is a repuyblic, and will keep the name as such (As far as i know). You stated that you didnt like it. You were told no one cares. Why are you still saying this then? It's like in Science class, they ask how u think the world started, you say "I think it always was there". "very nice" the teacher says. She goes on tecxhing "Well actu.." "I think it always was there", says the metaphor of Laqnce again. "We heard you". "Actuall..." "I think it always was there", says the metaphor once more. As you can see it gets quite annoying. This is relevant, dont say otherwise.

Python523
09-02-2004, 10:31 PM
Need I request that you search for all of the posts wherein Kaimetsu explained that offtopic posting is not against the rules?
I didn't know "Kaimetsu's Word" was a synonym for "the rules".

protagonist
09-02-2004, 10:57 PM
What's wrong with my attitude? I repeat: I am smart. So what?

How can someone who is self-allegedly so smart be defying various other moderators over something so ****ing stupid?


Except that you fail to provide me with even a bit of supporting evidence here.

Neither do you. All you have managed to do is start a bashfest, which has been closed several times by other moderators. Perhaps you should take a step back and look?


That logic also justifies this situation:

-Country A forms a republican government.
-Country A becomes a totalitarian government.
-Country A can safely call itself a Republic, because it was a republic at one point in time.

I will ask again, do you see the problem here?

I see a problem. You are still foolishly arguing the name of a country. There is a county in California called Orange county. Am I to assume that it is orange?


Yet you fail to identify even one. Isn't that sad?


[QUOTE=Lance]
Another childish insult, congratulations! However, when one insults another's wit, it is generally required that they possess the capability to recognize wit when they see it!
You seem to be lacking in that[the wit] department in this thread. You keep using the same tired argument which is still no more valid than opinion. You do not have a universal leg to stand on, it's simply a matter of your preference over theirs. I can see no reason for this other than you are bored and feel like stirring the pot.

falco10291029
09-03-2004, 12:18 AM
BAMORZ! his post there combined with my last one say we win *tries to close thread but realizes he has no mod powers*:'(

Nappa
09-03-2004, 03:01 AM
How can someone who is self-allegedly so smart be defying various other moderators over something so ****ing stupid?

Wow, you're right. YOU ARE THE SMART ONE!

Neither do you. All you have managed to do is start a bashfest, which has been closed several times by other moderators. Perhaps you should take a step back and look?

Lance didn't start anything - He merely argued the points. Their is nothing illegal with this thread, at all.

I see a problem. You are still foolishly arguing the name of a country. There is a county in California called Orange county. Am I to assume that it is orange?

The oranges that create my orange juice come from Orange County California. Find a better example.

You seem to be lacking in that[the wit] department in this thread. You keep using the same tired argument which is still no more valid than opinion. You do not have a universal leg to stand on, it's simply a matter of your preference over theirs. I can see no reason for this other than you are bored and feel like stirring the pot.

Not really.. How is telling someone something is not a republic an oppinion ? Facts aren't oppinions last I checked.

falco10291029
09-03-2004, 03:16 AM
Ive got a better example: I know of a sea, called the yellow sea. i looked, but oh it isnt yellow! nothing about it is yellow. better example.

protagonist
09-03-2004, 03:37 AM
Wow, you're right. YOU ARE THE SMART ONE!

Correct.


Lance didn't start anything - He merely argued the points. Their is nothing illegal with this thread, at all.


Other than it's unwanted by the kingdom leader. It's a kingdom forum, remember?

The oranges that create my orange juice come from Orange County California. Find a better example.

I've listed several.


Not really.. How is telling someone something is not a republic an oppinion ? Facts aren't oppinions last I checked.
He said it and now he's saying that they should change it because of that.

busyrobot
09-03-2004, 04:03 AM
Nappa, if you were at a city hall meeting, and an issue was brought up, you said your bit, your requests were considered inadquetely argued, and the meeting moved on....... if you badgered on about it would get you would be thrown out and possibly locked up.

There is a reason for that, based on laws that have been refined over a very long time to balance people's right to be heard vs the right of other people not even get a chance to have their voices heard because of another's whining on and on.

The spirit of the rules to every forum is based on that balance.



Regarding this tired and truly 'of the undead' topic, (having been closed by a moderator, and reopened by an arguer), I really really hope we find where to stick this freak'n wooden stake soon and be done with it.


from the Constitition:
2. Legislative
The Legislative branch shall be comprised of the rest of the political party which is in power at the time. These people have the power to propose treaties and draft laws which are acceptable under Constitutional standards. To do either of these things, a 2/3 majority vote must be reached in order for the law or treaty proposition can be officially enacted. The Legislative branch may be given additional rights if permitted by the senior official, and also retains the right to veto any action made by the Executive branch if a 3/4 majority vote is reached. However, because the Head of State is also the senior official of the party in power, this person is intrusted to know best the goals and ideology of the party, and is therefore entitled to overturn vetos and any official action made by the rest of the party.


This is the concept of a voting body making ruling decisions, period.

Now, from http://www.worldwidewebfind.com/encyclopedia/en/wikipedia/r/re/republic.html


Republic
A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people, as is the case in many of today's dictatorial or totalitarian states. The term is also broad enough to include many of today's advanced democracies.



Do you see the relevancy this time Lance?

A limited group of people in the Zormite Republic get to vote, just like they do in real world nations that are also defined as..... Republics.

It even stated the definition as being broad enough to include concepts so crazy as wacky totalitarian places like China could even accurately be called a Republic. Imagine that....wow, whooda thunk.

falco10291029
09-03-2004, 04:06 AM
*obviously sarcasm* Wow Lance, who woulda thought that the great wond god was wrong?!

if you say those things arent irreleveant, i will slap you....

GoZelda
09-03-2004, 02:57 PM
Republic
A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people, as is the case in many of today's dictatorial or totalitarian states. The term is also broad enough to include many of today's advanced democracies.

Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.

busyrobot
09-03-2004, 05:40 PM
Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.
How about you explain whatever you are thinking, as Zormite is ruled by a Dictator, not a Monarch.

Monkeyboy_McGee
09-03-2004, 06:24 PM
Oh look, lance's skydog has returned from his holiday in the slipstream.

The oranges that create my orange juice come from Orange County California. Find a better example.

The fish i had the other week came from the atlantic ocean. Shall we rename it "Fish ocean" instead? Nah, lets not :)


Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.
Yay, i get a turn to do it now!

IRRELEVANT!!1111.One

falco10291029
09-03-2004, 06:59 PM
lmao actually it is we proved that Zormite shapes up to a definition of a republic. And I looked up, and dictator is a synonym for Monacrch, but when we first learn what a synonym is, we learn that it means a word that has the same OR SIMILAR definition. Dictator is different than monarch, it is listed as a synonym because of a few similarities, but not enough to go against the definition of a republic.

GoZelda
09-03-2004, 07:53 PM
lmao actually it is we proved that Zormite shapes up to a definition of a republic. And I looked up, and dictator is a synonym for Monacrch, but when we first learn what a synonym is, we learn that it means a word that has the same OR SIMILAR definition. Dictator is different than monarch, it is listed as a synonym because of a few similarities, but not enough to go against the definition of a republic.
You posted 5 times in a row...?

falco10291029
09-03-2004, 08:00 PM
no i didnt, 5 times in a row would be 1 after another and such, its 1 post go back to preschool

GoZelda
09-03-2004, 08:10 PM
no i didnt, 5 times in a row would be 1 after another and such, its 1 post go back to preschool
Here, look at this. A bit odd due to saving.

busyrobot
09-03-2004, 09:08 PM
Here, look at this. A bit odd due to saving.

You are viewing the thread in the tree view mode, if you view it by time of post you'll see how it should read.


You are mislead by the fact that people often hit 'reply' or quote to a post part way instead of at the end. For those of us who view it in 'by date' mode it reads in proper order without 5 grouped replies.

GoZelda
09-03-2004, 09:18 PM
You are viewing the thread in the tree view mode, if you view it by time of post you'll see how it should read.


You are mislead by the fact that people often hit 'reply' or quote to a post part way instead of at the end. For those of us who view it in 'by date' mode it reads in proper order without 5 grouped replies.
Even still, he's the only one with whom it looks like that. There should be a rule against it =(

darkemporor
09-03-2004, 09:30 PM
Even still, he's the only one with whom it looks like that. There should be a rule against it =(

Oh please, no more rules! How silly, the posts on this page were made like...

falco, nappa, falco, protagonist, busyrobot, falco, gozelda, busyrobot, monkeyboy mcgee, falco, gozelda, falco, gozelda, busyrobot, gozelda...all sensibly ordered responses...

Falco did one more post than you, but it's a flaw in the tree mode display which has nothing to do with the way a user posts, so Im not sure how it could even be avoided.

Wren

busyrobot
09-03-2004, 09:31 PM
Even still, he's the only one with whom it looks like that. There should be a rule against it =(

ummm, I don't think he even realized he was doing it, if you took the time to check the dates of the post you'd see the chronology was staggered with the other posts in the thread.

GoZelda
09-03-2004, 09:41 PM
Falco did one more post than you, but it's a flaw in the tree mode display which has nothing to do with the way a user posts, so Im not sure how it could even be avoided.
Eh it does have something to do with the way the user posts.

ummm, I don't think he even realized he was doing it, if you took the time to check the dates of the post you'd see the chronology was staggered with the other posts in the thread.
Well no, because the time span in between was at most one hour, enough time for someone to think 'uhm I'm bored. *posts*'. One hour later:'still bored. *posts*'. And because there was no reference or anything at all, I thought he was just spamming.

darkemporor
09-03-2004, 10:22 PM
Eh it does have something to do with the way the user posts.


Well no, because the time span in between was at most one hour, enough time for someone to think 'uhm I'm bored. *posts*'. One hour later:'still bored. *posts*'. And because there was no reference or anything at all, I thought he was just spamming.

Not really.

Falco's last 4 posts:

Yesterday, 05:18 PM
Yesterday, 09:06 PM
Today, 11:59 AM
Today, 01:00 PM

All of them exceed three hours apart save one. Nothing wrong with his posting habits.

Wren

falco10291029
09-04-2004, 12:58 AM
Exactly, If i am online, i tend to reply to anything contradictory to what i say, so Lance and I were having aty it for a while, i was obviusly winning ;). I never do im bored posts, those i usually criticize when others do it. I also only double post when it is 2 different topics that quoting and editing dont work as well for, but i never doubled in this thread anyway, so kindly shut your trap :D

Dehitay
09-04-2004, 08:33 AM
OMG, have you bumbs really not figured it out yet?
Let me say this one more time
a Republic DOES NOT infer that the citizens vote on the respresenting leader
a Republic simply means that a person represents the people of the republic
in Zormite's case, their representative would be the dictator
It is a democracy that infers that the citizens vote
but a democracy does not infer that they have a person to represent them

Stop cross referrencing a Republic to the system the US uses
We uses a Democratic Republic
in which we vote (democracy) to elect somebody to represent us (republic)
We are neither a Democracy or a Republic

TeRRi2k
09-04-2004, 07:32 PM
I don't see why this argument is going on and on about what a republic is...etc. I thought the purpose of this thread is to say that Akira is the new Dictatress. I don't see arguing about this (all the above posts etc...) has much to do with this

falco10291029
09-04-2004, 09:41 PM
Thats what we have tried saying, i ahve tried a couple times to get back on topic though....

Lance
09-07-2004, 09:39 AM
I didn't know "Kaimetsu's Word" was a synonym for "the rules".

I didn't know "there not existing a valid rule to support your action" was a synonym for "Jagen". Then again, you deleted posts with the reason 'This person is a ****ing idiot', so I guess you're an expert in that department.

As for the remainder of the argument/discussion: I don't care anymore. I'm closing this thread, as both the main topic and the offtopic participants all agree on a close, which does happen to be permissible.