(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Eurussia supports and thanks the arguments presented by New Zealand and Lonbonia.

I think that the banjection was not necessary. I myself have had numerous debates with both Albion and Longueville since I joined the region and although it challenged my personal ideas I never took it to heart. In fact I enjoyed finding out how they thought and it even made me adjust my own ideas, isn't that what the internet is all about, greater communication? As for the "bullying" of Articmania if it was really upsetting him why didn't he just ignore them and delete the Telegrams? He may be 13 but that doesn't mean he can't take initiative. Also in my opinion some of the grammatical and spelling errors are so outrageous that it comes across as if he is doing it on purpose. It also isn't very hard to use spell check, he's 13 not a baby.

Europe and Asia moves on Eurussia's behalf.

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.

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.

I move that because regional Peace, Justice, and Stability was jeprodized, 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.

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.

Eurussia supports Europe & Asia's strong and valuable argument.

If it pleases the Court, I would like to point something out.

At this point in the case, the only issue being discussed is whether Eurussia's banjection of Grand Longueville and Royalist Albion was unconstitutional and illegal. Once this issue has been resolved by the Court, the discussion will turn to the issue of whether a lawful banjection is warranted in the situation.

Novo Canuckia's claim is that Grand Longueville and Royalist Albion (referred to hereafter as the "defendants") have a constitutional right to due process of the law. It is his belief that the defendants were denied that constitutional right when they were banjected without trial. Because Novo Canuckia is the one bringing charges before this Court, it behooves the defense (whoever that might be) to refute that claim.

I applaud New Zealand's opening arguments as well thought out and well formatted, but I disagree fundamentally with the first charge. As I stated previously on the RMB, this Court does not have jurisdiction over determining whether the defendants' actions broke the rules of Nationstates. The only group who does have jurisdiction are the site mods and admins. If anyone believes that the site rules have been violated, they should immediately contact the mods via the "Getting Help" Page on Nationstates itself. If the rules have been broken, the mods will take care of the issue swiftly.

As I see it, the first portion of the case hinges on whether or not the Court finds that the defendants' constitutional right to due process has been violated by the summary banjection. Eurussia and/or the defense must justify the banjection within the context of the laws and constitution of this region.

Once that issue has been cleared up, the Court must then determine if a banjection is warranted. In the absence of a written standard of behavior, the Court must determine a balance between a nation's constitutional right to "express opinions" and "peace" and "stability in the region".

Whether or not we like the defendants, they are given a constitutional right to a fair trial. I hope that the conclusion of these cases are reached through an application of regional law and not just 'popular opinion'.

As of now this case should simple focus on "Should Longueville and Albion be banjected or not?"

As of now E&A, Eurussia, Lonbonia, Articmania and I say yes they should be banjected.
Albion, Longueville and Chatham say no.

They're presence in the WA has been thoroughly detrimental to the peace and serenity of the WA Community

I contest this point. We have repeatedly attempted to raise the standards of the WA, only to be shot down whenever we made the attempt.

have caused countless arguments

If by arguments you mean "debates" then yes, we have initiated such, and see no problem with that. Rational discourse, we hold, is a good thing. If, however, you mean "disputes", then please provide an example of a dispute which didn't start when somebody else insulted us. You yourself have slandered us on numerous occasions, starting arguments, only to then seize the moral high ground and attempt to shift the blame.

led many personal attacks

See previous.

and continuously ignored requests from Me (President and Delgate), Eurussia (Founder) and multiple other WA members.

Requests are not binding. If we are slandered, we deserve a right to reply - that you request we abstain ought not to prohibit us.

To me the most disturbing aspect of their presence, was their foul and disgusting treatment of Articmania.

This is simply slanderous. We have said, we may have been harsh with our standards on grammar, but this was not as bad as the personal attacks against him made by numerous other members of the WA, such as yourself.

Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people

Which we never did. We simply enjoy debating, which is the purpose of NationStates. Point and case was the most recent dispute where I attempted to initiate a conversation about income equality, only to have my character insulted. If you call the defence of myself that followed "griefing", then you are terribly misguided.

They have been presented with warnings

That warning was to all participants in a conversation, and was obeyed. This cannot be held against us.

Many other WA members have pleaded with them to stop

Again, as I said in relation to requests, we have a right to reply to slander; we were not breaching any rules, so their pleading was not binding.

They initiate argements[sic] either directly or indirectly when the other party is unwilling

Interesting example. Grand Longueville made a joke; Planita didn't get the irony of the joke; I pointed out that it was a joke... and you call that starting an argument?

Almost every WA member wants them gone

That is the real crux of your argument. You are simply playing on personal dislike to overturn constitutional right.

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?

We have not insulted many nations. We have simply highlighted the perfidy of those who insulted us first. When we arrived at the WA, we made constant attempts to raise the standards of RP and conversation, only to be insulted at every opportunity.

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?

Am I supposed to provide an answer for such a slanderous question?

Why do you even both bother showing up at the Court of Justice?

Because we wish to see our names cleared against the slander and abuse of power that has occurred.

You argued with almost every opinion one nation makes.

And? It's called debate.

Do you want to return so you can basically add more sexual posts to upset the World Alliance?

Again, are you really expecting me to answer slanderous questions such as that?

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

This is getting repetitive. We argue, as in - debate, because we enjoy it, and think it's productive. We do not see how this is a problem.

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?

Must you consistently phrase questions so slanderously? We have highlighted grammatical errors, yes; but likewise, our own writing has been criticised frequently by others for "using long words". We see no criminal offence, here.

Eurussia supports and thanks the arguments presented by New Zealand and Lonbonia

Eurussia has yet to justify his own case, despite being the one responsible for the power abuse.

I myself have had numerous debates with both Albion and Longueville since I joined the region and although it challenged my personal ideas I never took it to heart. In fact I enjoyed finding out how they thought and it even made me adjust my own ideas, isn't that what the internet is all about, greater communication?

I salute The Catham Islands for their honesty and integrity, and note this as a reflection of our intention: To initiate engaging and productive discourse. That others reacted differently is, as such, a reflection on their character, rather than our intention.

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 contend that arguments on the RBM on a site dedicated to arguing over politics can never be considered misconduct.

I move that because regional Peace, Justice, and Stability was jeprodized, It could be considered an extreme case

If debate is extreme, I ask: What is mild? Missing a capital letter? Perhaps not agreeing in an enthusiastic enough manner?

including that popular opinion was against them

I ask that all arguments from popular opinion be struck from the record, as that has no bearing on our constitutional rights.

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.

Longueville already moved that his telegrams were not relevant to the court, for telegramming someone in no way constitute a transgression.

The Court of Justice is hoping to have this solved by Saturday.

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.

Europe and Asia wrote: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.

This is pure conjecture. Again, we defended ourselves against slanderous ad homimens, which does not constitute an effort from us to provoke others; rather, there are many cases of others trying to provoke us. We have numerous times in arguments pointed out ad hominem attacks, and attempts to provoke - why were the culprits of such transgressions not reprimanded? This is an attempt to shift all the blame onto our good selves.

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

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

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

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 in the WA.


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.


Any more criticism, feel free to give me the criticism, i'm just being against the case.

Frequently, you also used ad hominem attacks, directed and indirectedly[sic] to well-known members of the WA.

Please substantiate this claim.

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

Firstly, can you substantiate this? And secondly, even if that conjecture were true, what does that matter?

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[sic] worse

This is a difference of opinion. I find that highlighting errors allows a person to see where they are going wrong, which allows them to improve. That Artic took offense to this is not my concern.

And where should I[sic] 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.

Whether one is annoyed by intellectual discussion is dependant upon the individual reader; we have made no slanderous posts, we have merely replied to insults by pointing out the perfidy of the aggressor; and we in no way discouraged debate, since we proved to be the two most enthusiastic debaters present.

Once again, the case against us boils down to "I don't like them". I'm sorry, but this is effectively a defence of bullying as the basis for law - as if enough people don't like something, it is ok that they are denied their constitutional right to due process?

Royalist Albion wrote:

Europe and Asia wrote: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.

This is pure conjecture. Again, we defended ourselves against slanderous ad homimens, which does not constitute an effort from us to provoke others; rather, there are many cases of others trying to provoke us. We have numerous times in arguments pointed out ad hominem attacks, and attempts to provoke - why were the culprits of such transgressions not reprimanded? This is an attempt to shift all the blame onto our good selves.

In several instances you admit to using Ad Hominem attacks.

Europe and Asia wrote:
In several instances you admit to using Ad Hominem attacks.

Care to back this up with some evidence?

Also, here is an example of the unwarranted verbal attacks which we are supposedly guilty of:

I wrote:

Spoiler:

Which it is clear is a calm and rational disagreement.
New Zealand responded with this:

Look, I'm not even going to bother answering or reading that post. Everybody else is able to understand this perfectly fine, so either they're all geniuses or you're a clinical retard.

I am calm and rational, and yet I am called a clinical retard for my efforts? It is clear that I am not the guilty party, here; rather, the slander is initiated without warrant by those which stand against us today.

Royalist Albion wrote:

Frequently, you also used ad hominem attacks, directed and indirectedly[sic] to well-known members of the WA.

Please substantiate this claim.

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

Firstly, can you substantiate this? And secondly, even if that conjecture were true, what does that matter?

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[sic] worse

This is a difference of opinion. I find that highlighting errors allows a person to see where they are going wrong, which allows them to improve. That Artic took offense to this is not my concern.

And where should I[sic] 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.

Whether one is annoyed by intellectual discussion is dependant upon the individual reader; we have made no slanderous posts, we have merely replied to insults by pointing out the perfidy of the aggressor; and we in no way discouraged debate, since we proved to be the two most enthusiastic debaters present.

Once again, the case against us boils down to "I don't like them". I'm sorry, but this is effectively a defence of bullying as the basis for law - as if enough people don't like something, it is ok that they are denied their constitutional right to due process?

Oh i can prove to you thousands of proofs.

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

4 days ago

My opinion of you has lowered, NZ. And you were already at the level of 'Goddamn Commie'.

If you still don't believe me, go to Forum View on the RMB message board, then type in 471, and look at it yourself.

Lets see this, oh!

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

8 days ago

Only stupid people need education. Y'see, I didn't go to university to learn; I went to get a piece of paper telling me that I'm learned.

Page 465, it's nice to see somebody ink that we will believe him in a millisecond.


Lets see more, shall we?

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

15 days ago

Take note: When someone uses a word you don't understand, it's probably your f*cking fault for being ignorant. 'Archetypical' is not difficult. Grow up.

Page 450

Seriously? Now you're calling this "Defense"

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

18 days ago

Indeed. We've gone a day with little in the way of sloppy roleplay, or moronic social activism.

Page 441


Ahem, would you look at that?


You want more? i'll give you more, and i'll do it within a heartbeat.

I believe, Albion, that Lonbonia has provided you with the evidence you want.

My opinion of you has lowered, NZ. And you were already at the level of 'Goddamn Commie'.

I'm clearly being facetious. Note how E&A joined in on the joke, to see how it wasn't simply me being slanderous. I was jokingly mocking NZ for watching Fast and Furious films - as NZ was aware.

Only stupid people need education. Y'see, I didn't go to university to learn; I went to get a piece of paper telling me that I'm learned.

Once again, I'm being facetious. And tell me, who on Earth do you think I'm insulting through that?

Take note: When someone uses a word you don't understand, it's probably your f*cking fault for being ignorant. 'Archetypical' is not difficult. Grow up.

There is some substance to that one. I was annoyed at the anti-intellectual tendencies of people dismissing an argument simply because they didn't know, and were unwilling to use a dictionary to discover, a single word. I apologise if I overreacted, but that is a minor transgression at best.

Indeed. We've gone a day with little in the way of sloppy roleplay, or moronic social activism.

Are you really this oversensitive?

These are incredibly petty criticisms.

Europe and Asia wrote:I believe, Albion, that Lonbonia has provided you with the evidence you want.

Perhaps you would care to provide some of your own, instead of commenting from the sidelines? You are the one accused of power abuse, here, after all.

And you posted 34 Days ago :
"Hush up Artic, you fail troll. Artic is a fine example of America's failed education system."

New-Zealand wrote:And you posted 34 Days ago :
"Hush up Artic, you fail troll. Artic is a fine example of America's failed education system."

I have no recollection of saying that, or the context in which it was said.

I believe that has not convinced you.

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

22 days ago

Don't be a pussy, NZ; make the swap to Classics.

Page 427

What do you call that? Being facetious? Oh please, spare me the "I DIDNT DO IT" posts.

Don't be a pussy, NZ; make the swap to Classics.

That is not an ad hominem; that is being informal.

Lonbonia wrote:
What do you call that? Being facetious? Oh please, spare me the "I DIDNT DO IT" posts.

Please stop writing your posts in such a smug and antagonistic manner. We are trying to discuss this seriously, and your baiting is counterproductive. Although, it is indicative of the biased manner which led to this trial.

You were insulting America and Artic said to stop talking about his country like that. You then replied with "Hush up Artic..."

P.S. The "hush up Artic..." was said by Longueville

P.S.S. I will post photo proof of this incident in 6 hours, when I get home, I have no access to a computer right now..

New-Zealand wrote:You were insulting America and Artic said to stop talking about his country like that. You then replied with "Hush up Artic..."

P.S. The "hush up Artic..." was said by Longueville

Ah, so I was correct: I didn't say that. Please be clearer with your accusations.

And are you trying to use a dislike of America, and Artic's zealous reaction to that, as an example of a transgression?

Also, you have yet to respond to your calling me a "clinical retard" as a clear example of your slanderous and unwarranted attacks.