(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

So you're saying that it was innocent, but you had absolutely no reason to say it. You haven't told me why you said it.

Europe and Asia wrote:So you're saying that it was innocent, but you had absolutely no reason to say it. You haven't told me why you said it.

I already mentioned I have naught but speculation, since the context is now far in the past.

You, likewise, have absolutely no reason to suggest that it was said in reply to Ivania. You are merely alluding to it.

I do not buy the whole "elicit a response" thing but I also do not buy your "illness remark" Albion

But it is very convenient that you say it right after he says he is Jewish.

Lonbonia wrote:I would like to give a question for Albion and Longueville.

My hopes are it is answered in the most calm way possible.

Indeed.

Lonbonia wrote:1. You have insulted many nations, and the region itself, why do you even want to return back to the region, when none meets your standards?

The foundation of this question is erroneous. I do not recall insulting the region. I hold the region in very high regard.

Lonbonia wrote:2. You insulted half of the World Alliance, you were told to stop multiple times, you ignored. Do you want to return back so that you could insult the remaining other half? Why do you even both bother showing up at the Court of Justice? You are free to come, although i'm not sure why.

I believe "half" to be a very hyperbolic number. I insulted 63 people? Who? I never ignored a warning. I responded accordingly each and every time.

I want to return back because I feel that a few spoiled eggs ought not to ruin the batch.

Lonbonia wrote:3. You argued with almost every opinion one nation makes. You used Sexual posts, like the time when you called me a Sodomy. Do you want to return so you can basically add more sexual posts to upset the World Alliance?

I ask that you substantiate this claim.

Lonbonia wrote:4. You've been arguing for MONTHS with the World Alliance, yet, you are banned and wish to go back, care to explain?

I never argued with the World Alliance. I only argued (albeit, successfully) with a number of members of World Alliance.

Lonbonia wrote:5. Frankly, you even insulted people's grammar, and yet, you want to return, is it the fact that you want to insult people's grammar even more?

It seems most of your questions are redundant and founded on erroneous opinions. It seems that you want me to remain calm when you struggle with remaining calm.

To answer the question, no.

Lonbonia wrote:And boy, i have all the evidents [SIC], and it's all on you, you saw it, you post it, and sometimes, you attempt to forget it to "un-smartly" [SIC] win the argument.

I think you forget something, lad. You forget you repeatedly insulted Albion by calling him "Rotten Pepper Spray". Isn't that vicious? Isn't that crude? You also called me "Knowy", but I take no offense to that.

Lonbonia wrote:NOTE : If you are going to say that question 5 is not a reason for banjecting, it is, Because honestly, that upsets the people. Thus, more people wish that you are banjected.

So where does the Constitution come in to play?

Schorr wrote:I do not buy the whole "elicit a response" thing but I also do not buy your "illness remark" Albion

It was speculation. I have absolutely no idea why I said it, because I am no longer in the same state of mind as I was then. I can assure you, however, that it was not anti-Semitic, and no evidence has been provided to suggest that it was. Thus, we find ourselves with shapeless clay, which my opponents are trying to shape into a transgression. This is erroneously and pointless.

But it is very convenient that you say it right after he says he is Jewish.

If I'd said "Eugh, I've got a headache", would you think it was him saying he was Jewish that gave me the headache? I could have been discussing Israel/Palestine, which would have meant him saying he was Jewish reminded me, hence "Eugh, don't remind me about that".

Either way, correlation does not mean causation.

It's already in play. I've made my argument regarding the constitution, and why banjection was valid. You, however, haven't used the constitution in your arguments.

And Albion, that's all well and good, but you didn't. You made it seem like you where exasperated that he was Jewish, and you're now grasping at straws to cover this.

Europe and Asia wrote:
And Albion, that's all well and good, but you didn't. You made it seem like you where exasperated that he was Jewish, and you're now grasping at straws to cover this.

I made it seem like it? To whom? To you?

You have no proof that there was any anti-Semitic connotations behind that remark; you never questioned me about that at the time, so you mustn't have thought it then; you have no reason to suggest that I had any anti-Semitic intentions; so now, you are simply grasping at straws trying to suggest, without ANY proof WHATSOEVER, that I was insulting his religion.

This is exactly the sort of extreme conclusion from zero evidence that has marred this trial.

Then what where you doing?

Europe and Asia wrote:Then what where you doing?

Please see all of my previous responses.

Europe and Asia wrote:Europe and Asia moves on Eurussia's behalf.

Naturally.

Europe and Asia wrote:Article I of the constitution states that: "The WA Government shall maintain peace, justice, freedom, security, stability in the region." I move that Albion and Longueville's argumentative nature and general misconduct jeopardized the peace and stability of the WA, by causing general chaos due to arguing on the Regional Message Board. I also move that justice was jeopardized by their prolonged beratement of many sovereign nations in the WA, evidence of which was provided by New Zealand.

Finally, a constitutional argument. Again, E&A, this is why I like you. On to the refutation.

I completely agree that the government ought to maintain peace, justice, and stability of the region. Now, your emphasis of the aforementioned three is duly noted. What also is duly noted is your lack of emphasis on freedom; as if that was not an issue. I'll speak on the three emphasized first.

Peace is a broad virtue. To what length should peace be protected? If there is a war? Then why was Farshonia not prosecuted? Is it just when the government see's fit? I find that since the wording of that particular article of the Constitution is vague, it ought to be re examined.

Justice? Is it just to ban two nations because the mob so wills it? Was it just to lynch an "uppity colored" man in Selma Alabama just because much of the town wanted it? The answer to both is a resounding and unequivocal: No.

One dares to go so far as say that I threatened stability? How?

Now to Freedom. This entire issue is about freedom and how little it is recognized. Since when, I reiterate, is conversing a crime? Why is debate a damnable offense? Answer that.

Europe and Asia wrote:Article VII of the constitution states: Banning and ejection are the ultimate punishment accorded by the World Alliance Government to any member state committing serious offenses either jointly or separately determined by the exercising authorities such as the Court of Justice through its decisions, the Security Council for emergency situations, and the Founder for extreme cases.

This Article works on our behalf, not yours. On this Article alone, I win this case. You realize, the COJ was not asked for advice. They were not the acting party, nay, the acting party was the same party who has others put forth arguments: Eurussia.

Europe and Asia wrote:I move that because regional Peace, Justice, and Stability was jeprodized [SIC], It could be considered an extreme case, and including that popular opinion was against them, cause for the Founder to exercise his emergency powers and ban and eject them from the WA.

Neither three were jeopardized. Popular opinion was not definitely against us, nor were any public polls in place to measure it as such. Even so, there are no caveats that apply for "extreme cases" in the Constitution.

Europe and Asia wrote:I therefore also move that Longueville's defense of his telegrams, saying "They have substance", is not a proper argument in court and therefor not admissible as a defense.

If that is not admissible than how can "nonsense" be admissible? Who are you kidding? Stop it with the bias.

Europe and Asia wrote:In Response to Longueville:

On the Motion presented by us earlier, debate is not considered misconduct, but through evidence provided by New Zealand, move that Albion and Longueville made specific comments with the intent to provoke a heated response, and they made comments with the purpose of angering other members of the WA.

Those points screenshots were taken out of context, furthermore, and should be reexamined by the court before consideration.

By the way, thanks for waiting for my rebuttal to NZ's posts before accepting them.

Lonbonia wrote:The only slanderous nations are you and your Longueville friend, I will explain.

Does "Rotten Pepper Spray" ring a bell? Plus, NZ called us retards as Albion showed.

Lonbonia wrote:First of all, the only debates you could come up with are aggressive, Frequently, you also used ad hominem attacks, directed and indirectedly [SIC] to well-known members of the WA.

That isn't true. Substantiate it.

Lonbonia wrote:The only nation in the World Alliance who meets your standards is Longueville, nobody else meets your standards.

He actually noted that he enjoys the company of E&A and finds NZ to have potential.

Lonbonia wrote:And to be honest, you do NOT need to point out grammar mistakes to every single mistake you find in one post, it discourages the poster, and his grammar is worse, Don't forget about Articmainia, you simply pissed off the kid too much, and you both should feel bad for making yourself hated ntions [SIC] in the WA.

See previous responses on this subject.

Lonbonia wrote:And where should i begin on your terrible posts? Both of your posts during the time when you were in the WA were simply annoying, your posts were slanderous, a discouragement, and your debates are used on light-minded opinions so that you can easily "debate it" in a "non-slanderous" way.

Okay, how about you show us some examples?

Up to now we have seen dozens upon dozens of examples of comments made by Albion and Longueville which many believe should lead to their banjection. HOWEVER, I am unable to find the section of the Regional Constitution (the only legal document in the region that I am aware of at present) which allows to member nations to be banjected for expressing an unpopular view. In fact, in what may very well be a shortcoming of the constitution, there is no section what-so-ever regarding what might elicit a banjection. There is however, in Article IV, a section which protects a nation's "Right to Express Opinions." So, as a result, according this region's very own constitution, we have no legal right to banject Albion or Longueville simply because they express unpopular views in a way which may or may not aggravate other members of the region.

I believe that banjecting Albion and Longueville, while it would please many of us, would not only be illegal (see above) but immoral, as it would be a massive abuse of the power by the majority to remove an unpopular minority for no other reason than that they are not liked by the same majority. While I am loath to make this comparison, this is not unlike a certain series of events which took place in the 1940's across central Europe in which a those with power (in this case a military state) used this power to attempt to dispose of another group whom they had a dislike of. I imagine everyone present knows what I am talking about here, and before you all cry "How dare you compare this to one of the largest genocides in the history of the world!?!?!?" I ask you this: are there no similarities between the basic facts of what occurred there (stated above) and what is now occurring here? Here, we see a group with power (in this case the power of majority rather than arms) attempting to remove a party which they have a personal dislike of, for no other reason than they have a dislike of them. While I am concerned that I am able to make this comparison, I am absolutely disgusted that I am able to type two almost identical sentences for what occurred there and what is occurring here.

I know I am taking an unpopular position, and I ask you to believe me when I say that I feel no differently on this issue than any of you. However, unlike many of you, I am not willing to overlook the massive injustice we are doing simply because I personally would be happier as a result. I know that I, for one, have committed many of the same deeds that we now try to evict two others for. We overlook our own misdeeds, yet attempt to accuse others of the very same thing! My conscious demands that I speak out against this injustice, and I refuse to simply ignore it.

I have never seen eye to eye with Novo Canuckia, which makes it all the more admirable that they are willing to take a stand such of this. Consequently, I accept that I was far too harsh with my past opposition to them, - and for that I apologise, - and further would like it to be made clear to all that Novo Canuckia's defence of the rights of Grand Longueville and myself does not correlate to an endorsement of our views, for I would hate for the perfidy and slander levelled against us to be transferred by association.

I believe Loungeville and Albion should be not be banjected for their actions but instead just punished. Yes, they have hurt many of us and yes, they have said some very unpleasing things, however, I personally do not feel that banjection is necessary and so I would like to offer Albion and Loungeville a "plea deal" so to speak. They will admit their wrongdoings and will apologize to all those who have been offended by their actions with no "buts" so to speak. They will be forbidden from any future name calling or offensive actions (The Court of Justice will decide what is or is not offensive without a trial) If the Court rules that they have been offensive, they will be banjected immediately and without question. I would like to clarify that their debate is welcomed, but the degrading of others and the condescending, mean-spirited way of sometimes debating is most certainly not appreciated.

I cannot in good conscience accept your offer, Schorr. I do not believe plea bargaining to be an ethical system. So whilst Grand Longueville and I have apologised for everything we feel we have done wrong (Grand Longueville for the overly harsh treatment of Artic, myself for my overly heated reaction towards New Zealand's rude anti-intellectualism, and for my hasty opposition towards Novo Canuckia), I cannot apologise for a transgression I feel I have not committed. To do so would be evil, and a slight against my honour.

So, those that have taken our attitudes the wrong way, for example, I find, deserve no apology, for it was not our intention to offend them; we sought to discuss politics together, and to raise the standard of the WA - any "grief" that arose out of this was not intended. Furthermore, I do not recognise having been guilty of namecalling or any other such offensive actions, and I greatly object that our style is branded "mean-spirited".

I should note that we have apologised for mistakes we feel we have made, yet apologies from those who have slighted us are not forthcoming. New Zealand in particular has not accepted any responsibility for his slander and perfidy.

Schorr wrote:I believe Loungeville and Albion should be not be banjected for their actions but instead just punished. Yes, they have hurt many of us and yes, they have said some very unpleasing things, however, I personally do not feel that banjection is necessary and so I would like to offer Albion and Loungeville a "plea deal" so to speak. They will admit their wrongdoings and will apologize to all those who have been offended by their actions with no "buts" so to speak. They will be forbidden from any future name calling or offensive actions (The Court of Justice will decide what is or is not offensive without a trial) If the Court rules that they have been offensive, they will be banjected immediately and without question. I would like to clarify that their debate is welcomed, but the degrading of others and the condescending, mean-spirited way of sometimes debating is most certainly not appreciated.

Schorr this deal utterly unthinkable. Ponder, a moment, the ramifications of an apology. In order to apologize honestly, I would first have to accept that I intended to offend anyone. I never did. Furthermore, I would have to accept that this is the only path for redemption, for admittance; I reject that notion completely. Naturally, I am not surprised that you have called for our apology and not the apology from anyone else including Lonbonia for calling Albion "Rotten Pepper Spray" (I guess that it is okay since he said it, not one of us), or for NZ to apologize for calling us retarded (it's okay, he's president), or for Lonbonia to apologize for calling us stupid, or for NZ to apologize for crafting a song with offensive lyrics?

Any apology from myself that can be made has already been made and, by the way, thoroughly ignored.

In short, I refuse the deal on the grounds of it being plainly unacceptable to any honest gentleman.

I expected one sided bias from some other individuals. Et tu, Schorr?

Loungeville and Albion, you may not have meant to hurt some people but you did. I will not therefore call some of your acts evil, but slight insensitivity toward others. That does not mean you should not apologize for any hurt you have caused unintentionally. If a person steps on another's foot on accident, shouldn't the person doing the stepping apologize for the accidental pain? As for your one-sides bias allegation. I wanted to stay focoused on the matter at hand which is the trial of Albion and Loungeville. However, I condemn all name-calling or offensive things said no matter who said them. As further proof of my neutrality, I have defended you from banjection and have not let myself be caught up in the mob mentality of banjection. Instead I have made an offer I personally see as fair to both sides. Also I applaud your allusion to Julius Caeser even though you are incorrect in calling me biased.

If I accidentally stood onto somebodies foot, I would apologise for two reasons: One, for my clumsiness, and two, to let them know that the act was not deliberate.

But here, what have I to apologise for? I have spoke my mind honestly, defended my views rationally, and refused to let insults go unanswered - there has been little clumsiness, but what has arisen has been addressed with an apology; I can make no apologies beyond that.

And, if I was to apologise since the offence was not deliberate, just think what I'd be saying in this case: It wouldn't be "I regret that a circumstance transpired which caused you harm", it would be "I regret that your nature is such that you took offence" - I would be apologising for their character! I have no right to do that; it would be degrading for both parties.

Schorr wrote:Loungeville and Albion, you may not have meant to hurt some people but you did. I will not therefore call some of your acts evil, but slight insensitivity toward others. That does not mean you should not apologize for any hurt you have caused unintentionally. If a person steps on another's foot on accident, shouldn't the person doing the stepping apologize for the accidental pain? As for your one-sides bias allegation. I wanted to stay focoused on the matter at hand which is the trial of Albion and Loungeville. However, I condemn all name-calling or offensive things said no matter who said them. As further proof of my neutrality, I have defended you from banjection and have not let myself be caught up in the mob mentality of banjection. Instead I have made an offer I personally see as fair to both sides. Also I applaud your allusion to Julius Caeser even though you are incorrect in calling me biased.

As I said in one of my "nonsense telegram[s]", I thank you for your neutrality.

You must understand, however, that in all matters, honor is important. It would be dishonorable for me to allow such a compromise to come about.

Which comments do you think were insensitive on my part?

If that is your decision then so be it. I have simply come up with a possible compromise but if you two have no interest in it then fair enough. Loungeville, honor certainly is important and that is why I did not join in on the banjection bandwagon. However, it is also the reason why you two should apologize, because while it was perhaps unknowingly and unintentionally, you have caused harm to others. Don't let both of your prides blind you ("pride cometh before the fall") you are too intelligent for that. Good luck to both parties involved in the trial.

We have apologised for what we have done wrong, the rest is not our responsibility. What other people think and feel is not our business, and hence we cannot apologise for it. It is not a matter of pride, but of honour and integrity.

Royalist Albion wrote:We have apologised for what we have done wrong, the rest is not our responsibility. What other people think and feel is not our business, and hence we cannot apologise for it. It is not a matter of pride, but of honour and integrity.

Hear hear.

With the arguments presented by several nations of our great region against the unacceptable attitude showed by Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville, as the Founder, Eurussia has exercised its powers and duties under Article 7 and Article 1 respectively ensuring stability and peace by exercising discretionary banjection under the circumstances of extreme cases.

These two nations have indeed have high standards that they always instigate to other nations where the intention may be good yet it has become obvious that they have become unaware of the negative implications of their actions that made several nations uncomfortable with them. It has also been proven there are long list of reasons that brought their banjection and still they persistently refute everything even if its already obvious.

With repeated demands to stop and control their behavior, they continue to be insensitive that forced the Founder to act swiftly and maintain the stability of the region. Hence, here we are. The banjection was welcomed by many yet refuted by few still the banjection was never enforced with finality but with the considerable and humanitarian condition of requesting the concerned nations to ask the Court to overturn our decision provided that they will show that they realky care for the World Alliance, in which until now, is yet to be addressed by the Court. Hence, here we are.

As the Founder, Eurussia believes that all the arguments have been presented and is enough already that both nations have indeed committed insensitivity towards other nations. And the banjection was necessary to teach these nations a lesson and forced them to show their sincerity and desire for the good of the World Alliance in which Eurussia believes have been working.

Hence, the punishment may be harsh yet it has worked. And as the Founder, Eurussia believes that Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville must issue a separate and sincere public apology to all the nations of the World Alliance for them to be given another chance in our great and humble region, the World Alliance.

But as prescribed by the WA Constitution, the Founder, respectfully submits the conclusion of this case to the honourable Court of Justice in the belief that they will consider our official argument and position in their decision for the sole welfare and good of the World Alliance.