NationStates Jolt Archive

Original thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71669

In the recent incident involving an accidental strike on Trailer's shipyards, the Gallactic Alliance has bastardized their own constitution to support Trailers. Recently, the Empire went to war with Tilsitsin. It was admitted that the pilots of 3 fighter wings recieved incorrect coordinates, and struck Trailers shipyards, thought to be Tilsitsinian assets. The Empire admitted it was wrong, but Trailers declared war on the us.

The GA's article 7 in thier constitution states: Article 7:
If a member is in trouble, not caused by his/her doing, all other members are required to pledge any support they can.

And as you see, Trailers is at fault for declaring war instead of demanding compensation for repairing his shipyards, something which the Empire was fully prepared to do, and in fact, offered to help repair it personally.

The GA claims that they now must get involved, and I say that by doing so, they make their own constitution illegitimate, for they are now openly backing a warmongerer. Trailers has yet to stand down and accept the Empire's compensation, and war is most likely about to happen for sure.


Let it be known that the GA supports warmongerers, and I urge all nations to cease interaction with this hypocritical organization.

If you will read the thread where that took place, you will see that the GA constitution has been modified so that we no longer have to back Trailers. Hell, we even wished you well! (Well, I did. The GA as a whole didn't vote on that)

That no longer applies.

And nowhere does it say that you can't be a wormonger and be in the GA. There are probably dozens of warmongers currently in there (I don't have time to read everybodys RP's)

By changing it yourself, you bastardize your Constitution again.

Article 10:
Any member may propose a change to the Articles, and may propose a new law at any time. These shall come into effect immediately upon the ratification by all member nations.

I didn't change it. I modified the wording. It means the exact same thing that it was supposed to, and as everybody has always interpreted it as.

And I have been voted the powers to adjust the wording as long as the meaning is the same. (It's in the original GA thread)

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I didn't change it. I modified the wording. It means the exact same thing that it was supposed to, and as everybody has always interpreted it as.

And I have been voted the powers to adjust the wording as long as the meaning is the same. (It's in the original GA thread)

By adjusting the wording, you can completely change the meaning of an Article.

I still see this as tampering.

And I have been voted the powers to adjust the wording as long as the meaning is the same. (It's in the original GA thread)

We agree with Automagfreek.

This hypocritical organization is a joke, and Klonor has bastardized it twice. Changing the wording of an article is as good as changing the article itself.

And I have been voted the powers to adjust the wording as long as the meaning is the same. (It's in the original GA thread)

And I have been voted the powers to adjust the wording as long as the meaning is the same. (It's in the original GA thread)

So....Article 10 is totally worthless, because you can change existing articles at will to suit your needs?

The GA Constitution needs checks and balances...this is rather sad, and ridiculous.

And I have been voted the powers to adjust the wording as long as the meaning is the same. (It's in the original GA thread)

So....Article 10 is totally worthless, because you can change existing articles at will to suit your needs?

Just to make his followers happy...hmm...sounds familiar...

Only the wording. Only as long as the meaning is still the same.

The meaning is still the same here. It means that if a nation is not responsible for whatever problems it's having the GA musts support it.

It meant the same thing before.

i never voted on you having article changing power.............

The reason I do it is because I started the thread and made the post, only I can edit it. If any nation, GA member or not, announced a problem with the wording I would change it. It's not only I that has the power.

Only the wording. Only as long as the meaning is still the same.

The meaning is still the same here. It means that if a nation is not responsible for whatever problems it's having the GA musts support it.

It meant the same thing before.

But in the other thread, you said that the article could have double meaning, which could be interpreted as saying that it meant something other than what you meant it to.

You just changed an article of your own Constitution, without seeking approval or holding a vote. If I were in the GA, I'd be pretty upset with you right now..

Only the wording. Only as long as the meaning is still the same.

The meaning is still the same here. It means that if a nation is not responsible for whatever problems it's having the GA musts support it.

It meant the same thing before.

So....if an article says "No felons can carry guns", and you "reword" it to say "No citizens can carry guns", is that not entirely changing the article?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Only the wording. Only as long as the meaning is still the same.

The meaning is still the same here. It means that if a nation is not responsible for whatever problems it's having the GA musts support it.

It meant the same thing before.

So....if an article says "No felons can carry guns", and you "reword" it to say "No citizens can carry guns", is that not entirely changing the article?

The article no longer has the same meaning. So yes, in that situtation it is changing the article.

Only the wording. Only as long as the meaning is still the same.

The meaning is still the same here. It means that if a nation is not responsible for whatever problems it's having the GA musts support it.

It meant the same thing before.

So....if an article says "No felons can carry guns", and you "reword" it to say "No citizens can carry guns", is that not entirely changing the article?

The article no longer has the same meaning. So yes, in that situtation it is changing the article.

A felon is still a citizen.. :wink:

That don't make no lick bit o` sense. The constitution thang er whatever is right bout worthless, with you changin` that wordin' all tha tamm. Y'all done screwed up, twace.

:? Uh...well stated :lol:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The GA has no control over the government of individual systems, so that article couldn't exist in the first place.

A felon is still a citizen.. :wink:

But a criminal, who does not have his rights. You knew what I was getting at.

That don't make no lick bit o` sense. The constitution thang er whatever is right bout worthless, with you changin` that wordin' all tha tamm. Y'all done screwed up, twace.

:? Uh...well stated :lol:

Very well stated! Cheers, you have now been granted Southern U.S. status. :D I'm from Louisiana so I can do this. But if I need to change the level, I won't consult anyone else. I'm better than the rest of my people.

*Cough* Analogy *Cough*

The insectoid Vzxlackians watching the dispute in their outpost found these ape-things to be sadly petty. Some mused that the invasion of this other edge of the galaxy that their Empire was planning in the distant future would be welcomed in putting these pathetic entities out of their misery. After all, if it suffers, why allow it to live in agony?

But, as usual, they would continue to watch, learning all they could about this strange, backwater ape-culture.

IdP, throw Klonor a moldy tuna melt.

Nah, rotten eggs is better.

AH! Rotten eggs in the tuna! :D

If you'll check the history, I have changed the wording of the constitution only twice.

Once after a full GA vote, and once right now when people were arguing and interpreting the constitution to fit their own personal agendas.

The insectoid Vzxlackians watching the dispute in their outpost found these ape-things to be sadly petty. Some mused that the invasion of this other edge of the galaxy that their Empire was planning in the distant future would be welcomed in putting these pathetic entities out of their misery. After all, if it suffers, why allow it to live in agony?

But, as usual, they would continue to watch, learning all they could about this strange, backwater ape-culture.

What the HELL are you talking about? :lol:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The insectoid Vzxlackians watching the dispute in their outpost found these ape-things to be sadly petty. Some mused that the invasion of this other edge of the galaxy that their Empire was planning in the distant future would be welcomed in putting these pathetic entities out of their misery. After all, if it suffers, why allow it to live in agony?

But, as usual, they would continue to watch, learning all they could about this strange, backwater ape-culture.
who you calling apes? my people arent even human.....

and once right now when people were arguing and interpreting the constitution to fit their own personal agendas.

Like you?

I have never changed the meaning of an article except to make it less general in meaning.

Once after a full GA vote, and once right now when people were arguing and interpreting the constitution to fit their own personal agendas.

But did you not just change your Constitution to suit your needs? As a GA member said a few psots back, he never voted on you having the power to change the Constitution at will.

and once right now when people were arguing and interpreting the constitution to fit their own personal agendas.

Like you?

How am I interpreting the Constituion for myself?

The insectiod Vzxlackians had best watch it unless they want to end up like Jupiter.

and once right now when people were arguing and interpreting the constitution to fit their own personal agendas.

Like you?

How am I interpreting the Constituion for myself?

To keep yourself safe from AMF.

and once right now when people were arguing and interpreting the constitution to fit their own personal agendas.

Like you?

How am I interpreting the Constituion for myself?

You changed the meaning of it..fitting your own personal agenda of how the Constitution should be. :wink:

And perhaps Comdidia missed the vote. I have missed many GA votes. Other have also missed votes. Perhaps Comdidia was on vacation. Perhaps the internet was down, perhaps it was during a server crash and never check backed once it came back on.

To keep yourself safe from AMF.

No offense to AMF, but I really don't give a damn what they do.

To keep yourself safe from AMF.

No offense to AMF, but I really don't give a damn what they do.

So why are you modifying your Constitution all of a sudden?

You changed the meaning of it..fitting your own personal agenda of how the Constitution should be. :wink:

I only changed the wording to be what everybody has been interpreting it as. It has been explained as the way it was changed to, and everybody has always agreed to it that way. The word adjustment changed it to be what it's already used as.

To keep yourself safe from AMF.

No offense to AMF, but I really don't give a damn what they do.

Well obviously you do care what AMF does, or we wouldn't be arguing over this right now.

To keep yourself safe from AMF.

No offense to AMF, but I really don't give a damn what they do.

So why are you modifying your Constitution all of a sudden?

Because the GA was being dragged into a war that it had no purpose being in. I don't want a war, very few of the other members did, and those that did were supporting AMF.

I changed it to avoid a civil war, and to avoid a war in general.

To keep yourself safe from AMF.

No offense to AMF, but I really don't give a damn what they do.

Well obviously you do care what AMF does, or we wouldn't be arguing over this right now.

I meant war-wise. They can attack and kill whoever they please as long as it doesn't drag the GA into it.

Because the GA was being dragged into a war that it had no purpose being in. I don't want a war, very few of the other members did, and those that did were supporting AMF.

I changed it to avoid a civil war, and to avoid a war in general.

You were not being dragged into anything. You were the one saying that if I took Trailers down for declaring war, the GA would get involved. You were the one exerting yourself. Don't patronize me.

who you calling apes? my people arent even human.....

OOC: Well, frankly, you're in the minority. The aliens described in my post mostly just see the humans debating and debating amongst themselves.

The insectiod Vzxlackians had best watch it unless they want to end up like Jupiter.

OOC: Considering that the aliens are watching this from across the galaxy and you have no knowledge of their existence, I find that a little hard to swallow. If you want to kill some bugs, further the story in this thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72339).

I'm not. I was stating the opinions and arguments of others who were to much of a pansy to post because they didn't want AMF to kill them next. They told me everything that I posted how the situation could be interpreted as not being Trailers fault, and thuse needing GA involvement.

And don't ask me who, I've already forgotten who it was. (I have a very bad memory)

I'm not. I was stating the opinions and arguments of others who were to much of a pansy to post because they didn't want AMF to kill them next. They told me everything that I posted how the situation could be interpreted as not being Trailers fault, and thuse needing GA involvement.

Point being, you were the one preaching about GA involvement in the other thread. You shold have just let Trailers go, seeing as he was NOT covered under your Article 7.

I was relaying a message. Do you want me to go back and modify every post I made saying "An anonymous GA member says: .....".

They were making a case, I have no rank over them, so I had to present it.

And don't ask me who, I've already forgotten who it was. (I have a very bad memory)

Sounds a bit fishy. I think you're bluffing. Why didn't you say that before all of this?

And don't ask me who, I've already forgotten who it was. (I have a very bad memory)

Sounds a bit fishy. I think you're bluffing. Why didn't you say that before all of this?

Because it was not convenient for him at the time.

I said it in those posts in the other thread (I think)

I said that some nations were (or could, I can't quite remember) making this case

The insectiod Vzxlackians had best watch it unless they want to end up like Jupiter.

OOC: Considering that the aliens are watching this from across the galaxy and you have no knowledge of their existence, I find that a little hard to swallow. If you want to kill some bugs, further the story in this thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72339).

You assume that my sesnor range does not cover the entire galaxy, to correct you:
I have eight Watcher class command ships in various partrol paterns, together their sensor range excedes the size of the galaxy, we know you are there, we make it our buisness to know things, your outpost leaks all sorts of interesting signals and particles, especialy into D level hyperspace, tell me, are your people really THAT interested in human women?

Okay, I did not specifically state that other nations were saying that stuff, but I did say that "it could be argued........" (I found the posts that I made)

tell me, are your people really THAT interested in human women?

OOC: Nah... the apes look too weird to them. :wink:

Okay, I did not specifically state that other nations were saying that stuff, but I did say that "it could be argued........" (I found the posts that I made)

which ultimately means it was you and you alone who wished to re-write the constitution at the time.

The constitution still means the same thing! The word change helps AMF! It avoided a major inter-galactic war!

And it still means the same thing! I only eliminated a chance for irritating and incorrect interpretation.

Here's the bottom line Klonor:

Your arguments are flawed, your statements are modifeid to suit your needs (IE: You rabble on to try and talk your way out of this), you have forsaken your alliance by bastardizing it's Constitution TWICE, and you throw the name GA around and try to act all tough, but when faced with accusations like this, you break down.

I believe that all GA members shouls reconsider their membership to such a questionable alliance lead by such a questionable leader.

It avoided a major inter-galactic war!


You almost made one, by forcing your will upon me, even though Article 7 covered my ass from GA involvement, and you made that painfully clear in the Trailers thread.

I am not the leader, I am just the only person who does anything with the GA. Nobody else has it doing anything, so I seem to be the leader. if you'll read the GA thread (all 100+ pages) you will see dozens of times where my ideas were overruled.

How does this change suit my needs?

How has it been bastardized twice (even if you count this one as bastardizing it, the only other time it was changed was when the GA voted on it)

And I try to act tough by myself, (check back before I started the GA, I made an even bigger a** of myself then). I have a very large ego and superior view of my own space fleet and ability to fight my own wars (although the GA thing does give me a very large extra boost)

It avoided a major inter-galactic war!


You almost made one, by forcing your will upon me, even though Article 7 covered my ass from GA involvement, and you made that painfully clear in the Trailers thread.

IT WASN'T ME SAYING THOSE THINGS, I WAS RELAYING THE MESSAGES!

And I was asking Trailers to back down! I was supporting you!

I am not the leader, I am just the only person who does anything with the GA. Nobody else has it doing anything, so I seem to be the leader. if you'll read the GA thread (all 100+ pages) you will see dozens of times where my ideas were overruled.

How does this change suit my needs?

How has it been bastardized twice (even if you count this one as bastardizing it, the only other time it was changed was when the GA voted on it)

And I try to act tough by myself, (check back before I started the GA, I made an even bigger a** of myself then). I have a very large ego and superior view of my own space fleet and ability to fight my own wars (although the GA thing does give me a very large extra boost)

At any rate, you've made your alliance seem questionable, which I'm sure other GA members won't appreciate. You have put them inot this position by not only modifying the Constitution of your alliance to suit your needs, you also nearly dragged them inot a war by ramming Article 7 down my throat, of which could not be invoked due to a GA member instigating the war.

Again, I urge all GA memebers to look at this and see what kind of repuatation they are earning.

How does this change suit my needs?

IIRC, you were the one who brought up the fact that the GA would have to help Trailers in the event of a war, but when the GA weren't showing up to back you or Trailers up, you re-wrote it, to keep you out of a war that would mean certain destruction.

IT WASN'T ME SAYING THOSE THINGS, I WAS RELAYING THE MESSAGES!

I don't buy that for a second. You were the only one saying such things.

I WAS AGAINST THE WAR

Do you not understand this? I was asking Trailers to back down, I was saying how the GA being dragged into the war (because of what the people WHO WERE NOT ME were saying), and how does this modification of the Constitution suit my needs?

Nobody has yet said how modifying it has suited my needs.

IT WASN'T ME SAYING THOSE THINGS, I WAS RELAYING THE MESSAGES!

I don't buy that for a second. You were the only one saying such things.

Okay, I don't mean to be rude, BUT I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU BUY. The fact was that nations were sending me messages and I was relaying them. Whether you buy that or not doesn't effect the fact that it's true.

Nobody has yet said how modifying it has suited my needs.

Because you said so yourself. You said you modified it to keep the GA out of war.

The word change helps AMF! It avoided a major inter-galactic war!

You said it, not me.

How does this change suit my needs?

IIRC, you were the one who brought up the fact that the GA would have to help Trailers in the event of a war, but when the GA weren't showing up to back you or Trailers up, you re-wrote it, to keep you out of a war that would mean certain destruction.

Yes I brought it up because those other nations didn't want to say it. And when did I re-write it? I never re-wrote any of my posts.

And why would I care if I got into a war that meant my certain destruction? This is a game, as long as it's a good RP and is fun you can conquer all my planets and kill every citizen for all I care.

This is a game

OOC: Hence why my leader is ripping you a new one.

How does this change suit my needs?

IIRC, you were the one who brought up the fact that the GA would have to help Trailers in the event of a war, but when the GA weren't showing up to back you or Trailers up, you re-wrote it, to keep you out of a war that would mean certain destruction.

Yes I brought it up because those other nations didn't want to say it. And when did I re-write it? I never re-wrote any of my posts.

I don't see why these 'nations' didn't want to say it, I mean, the GA is filled with over 50 nations, many of which Dec/Jan/Feb nations, right? Would they not be safe from Auto's wrath if the GA got involved?

And I didn't mean your posts, I meant the articles.

Tell me something. Even if I was the person saying all those things, even I was the one going to great lengths to interpret article 7 for Trailers benefit (which I wasn't), how does that make the constitution bastardized? it still means the same thing. The GA is under no more, no less, and no different obligations. Where is the bastardization?

I don't know why. Maybe they were Sept. nations who didn't yet have a military. Maybe they were RP'ing as nations formerly conquered by AMF and were still scared of him. maybe they're just pathetic little people who don't want to get on anybodys bad side. They didn't want to post, so I relayed their messages.

And the article still means the exact same thing.

The word change has changed nothing except the fact that people can no longer interpret it to mean things other than what it actually means.

Okay, I did not specifically state that other nations were saying that stuff, but I did say that "it could be argued........" (I found the posts that I made)

What relevance does that have?

What revelance did it have? That shows us that you've been contradicting yourself for the past 2 pages!

Where is the bastardization?

By altering the document that GA memebrs are bound by, you make it illegitimate. How can a document be legit if it can be modified at the "leaders" discretion?

How have I been contradicting myself?

In my posts on the subject I did not specifically state that I was relaying a message in my posts. That does not effect the fact that I was.

Where is the bastardization?

By altering the document that GA memebrs are bound by, you make it illegitimate. How can a document be legit if it can be modified at the "leaders" discretion?

The constitution means the exact same thing!

I'm sorry, you just don't seem to get this. The constitution has the exact same meaning. Only the wording is different. it means the exact same.

Why do you not understand this?

The constitution means the exact same thing!

I'm sorry, you just don't seem to get this. The constitution has the exact same meaning. Only the wording is different. it means the exact same.

Why do you not understand this?

You are the one missing the point. You altered the Con. yourself to suit your needs. Enough said.

And for the last time, I'm not the leader! I'm just the guy who posted it, so unless we have a moderator as a member I'm the only guy who can modify it when the GA votes on it. If you had originally posted the constituion you would have the same requests for change submitted to you that I've had submitted to me.

The constitution means the exact same thing!

I'm sorry, you just don't seem to get this. The constitution has the exact same meaning. Only the wording is different. it means the exact same.

Why do you not understand this?

You are the one missing the point. You altered the Con. yourself to suit your needs. Enough said.

HOW DOES IT SUIT ME NEEDS? HOW? Answer me that!

And for the last time, I'm not the leader! I'm just the guy who posted it, so unless we have a moderator as a member I'm the only guy who can modify it when the GA votes on it. If you had originally posted the constituion you would have the same requests for change submitted to you that I've had submitted to me.

Show me where you voted on the altering then. Show me.

How have I been contradicting myself?

In my posts on the subject I did not specifically state that I was relaying a message in my posts. That does not effect the fact that I was.

Well you could of cleared up alot of confusion if you did. Many questions are left without a valid answer. Why didn't they post it themselves? Why did we not hear about this until you started to lose the arguement?

I do not want to search through over 100 pages to find where people asked me to modify it the first time, and the second time (that'd be now) was by T.G. because the people didn't want it to be known that they're the ones presenting it.

HOW DOES IT SUIT ME NEEDS? HOW? Answer me that!

Here:

The word change helps AMF! It avoided a major inter-galactic war!

That is suiting your needs.

How have I been contradicting myself?

In my posts on the subject I did not specifically state that I was relaying a message in my posts. That does not effect the fact that I was.

Well you could of cleared up alot of confusion if you did. Many questions are left without a valid answer. Why didn't they post it themselves? Why did we not hear about this until you started to lose the arguement?

yes, it would have stopped a lot of confusion. I apoligse for not saying it sooner (See, I can back down on some stuff)

And I don't know why they didn't post themselves. Tell you what, if you'll give me a few days I'll try to figure out who it was, but I CAN'T REMEMBER so aside from starting a topic saying "Who sent me this TG" (which they wouldn't post in because they don't want to be revealed) I don't know what to do on that one.

That's an aftereffect of changing it, it was not the main reason.

The reason was because people were interpreting it wildly, the fact that it stopped an inter-galactic war is a bonus. It was not the main reason. I did not change it for the purpose of stopping the war, I changed it to stop the wild interpretation (which, if I'm correct, is one thing that you were against)

Tell you what, I have an idea how to avoid this in the future.
(It will not, however, effect this argument)

I will TG a completely unmodified version of the GA constitution to a non GA member of complete neutrality. They will post it (this way I can't modify it) and if any other gross mis-interpretations come up the GA can petition that person as a whole to have the wording changed. That way you can't accuse me of changing it to suit my needs (since I wont be able to change it), yet the gross mis-interpretations can still be changed (otherwise people can have the GA doing anything they want with broad interpretations of the constitution)

Tell you what, I have an idea how to avoid this in the future.
(It will not, however, effect this argument)

I will TG a completely unmodified version of the GA constitution to a non GA member of complete neutrality. They will post it (this way I can't modify it) and if any other gross mis-interpretations come up the GA can petition that person as a whole to have the wording changed. That way you can't accuse me of changing it to suit my needs (since I wont be able to change it), yet the gross mis-interpretations can still be changed (otherwise people can have the GA doing anything they want with broad interpretations of the constitution)

That may be a bit much, but I find it rather convenient that this ratification happened exactly at the same time the Trailers thing went down.

The Trailers thing brought it to my attention. I didn't notice that problem (it hadn't even crossed my mine. I was in agreement with what you were saying) until people were informing me of GA obligations that resulted from very broad and incorrect interpretation of the constitution.

Completely Unrelated topic: I am noticing a very large similarity between this scenario and an occurance in a favorite book of mine.

Completely Unrelated topic: I am noticing a very large similarity between this scenario and an occurance in a favorite book of mine.

OOC:Which one? Also, I think we've beaten this topic to death enough for one night. :)

OOC: Yeah, pretty much.

Foundation & Empire by Isaac Asimov (Asimov kicks ass!)

There, after the Emperor puts down a rebellion he grants the Imperial Charter. His son is now Emperor and whenever something major happends there must be newer and broader interpretations of the Charter.

Ever read it?

Ever read it?

OOC: Nope

OOC: You really should, it's quite a fscinating read. Part of the Foundation Trilogy. Voted best Sci-Fi series of all time (seriosuly)

IC:

The constitution is exactly the same! I changed nothing! I have bastardized nothing! (Pretty much the exact same thing that I've been saying all night)

OOC: Is it just me, or have I just been repeating myself continuously, bringing in no new information throughout this entire 6 page thread? Kinda pointless when you come to think of it

Alright, I guess I'm going to have to interpret what Klonor has been saying. The reason he changed the wording was because it was too vague and needed to be more precise. Also, I can varify the fact that people, including myself, asked for the wording to be changed. AMF, none of us want a war with you and I fail to see why you're making a big deal out of internal GA policy. So please, go kick Trailers' ass but don't drag the rest of us into it.

Alright, I guess I'm going to have to interpret what Klonor has been saying. The reason he changed the wording was because it was too vague and needed to be more precise. Also, I can varify the fact that people, including myself, asked for the wording to be changed. AMF, none of us want a war with you and I fail to see why you're making a big deal out of internal GA policy. So please, go kick Trailers' ass but don't drag the rest of us into it.

On the contrary, I'm not dragging the GA into war! I'm questioning the rewording of the Constitution at a whim, which is wrong, and it not only dishonors the Alliance, but the members as well. Have you not read this entire thread?

I haven't, and hopefully never will, modifed the constitution on a whim. I modified it only after approached by nations who requested that it be done, and only after it was shown that the current wording was to vague and could be interpreted to mean things that force the GA into unwanted action.

I haven't, and hopefully never will, modifed the constitution on a whim. I modified it only after approached by nations who requested that it be done, and only after it was shown that the current wording was to vague and could be interpreted to mean things that force the GA into unwanted action.

This could be debated for hours, but if you'll excuse me, I have to kick Trailers ass now, seeing as he refused to respond to my final TM asking for his surrender.

Bleh. I've ignored the Galactic Alliance from day one.

Wow... I knew there was a good reason I left the GA...

Bleh. I've ignored the Galactic Alliance from day one.

For what reason? I can understand it if you have something against Klonor, but do you really want to be like Melkor who ignores everyone for the stupidest of reasons?

Bleh. I've ignored the Galactic Alliance from day one.

For what reason? I can understand it if you have something against Klonor, but do you really want to be like Melkor who ignores everyone for the stupidest of reasons?

For a variety of reasons, not least of which because as far as I am concerned ICly, there is so such thing as FTL. I therefore ignore all territorial claims of a nation outside the solar system unless it's a very out-of-touch colony founded by a generation ship, which would contribute essentially nil to what goes on here in any case. That's more than enough reason to ignore on its own, but it doesn't help that the GA is chock-full of godmoding, spacewanking n00bs.

(OOC: kitsylvania, its free-from RP, there can be space nations, and normal nations, but they don't have to interact.)

(OOC: kitsylvania, its free-from RP, there can be space nations, and normal nations, but they don't have to interact.)

Yes, that's one reason I ignore the GA, because it's free-form RP and their paradigm doesn't mesh with my own. No FTL. EVER. AT ALL. EVER.

However, I also ignore because it's just plain ridiculous that I, the oldest active RPer on NS, have just established a colony on Mars while people who made their nations in late August are claiming control over large swaths of the galaxy.

For the most part, I try to use relatively feasible stuff, like AI, and a "Jump Drive" for my FTL system, the basis of which is currently accepted by NASA as feasible, we just can't power it yet (as in RL earth) Fusion REactors and Plasma Enines are also feasible, along with Plasma Cannons, and Gauss Cannons... And I do not claim a large part of the galaxy, just a solar system, well really, just a planet.

For the most part, I try to use relatively feasible stuff, like AI, and a "Jump Drive" for my FTL system, the basis of which is currently accepted by NASA as feasible, we just can't power it yet (as in RL earth) Fusion REactors and Plasma Enines are also feasible, along with Plasma Cannons, and Gauss Cannons... And I do not claim a large part of the galaxy, just a solar system, well really, just a planet.

Pretty much the same here, although I don't use Plasma tech. I also only have eleven ships and it has taken me two and a half weeks to build them.

I will admit, I do godmod a bit, but I'm planning to change that with a "change in regime" soon.

I haven't, and hopefully never will, modifed the constitution on a whim. I modified it only after approached by nations who requested that it be done, and only after it was shown that the current wording was to vague and could be interpreted to mean things that force the GA into unwanted action.

This could be debated for hours, but if you'll excuse me, I have to kick Trailers ass now, seeing as he refused to respond to my final TM asking for his surrender.

Please do, since it was him declaring war that prompted people to TG me, which made me modify the constitution, and which has now caused two nations to withdraw and made myself look like an a**.

(I'm not saying that I'm not an a**, just not for my actions here)

And may I ask what could be debated?