(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

More proof.

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

28 days ago

New Zealand, I think you just might be the physical embodiment of the collapse of western civilization.

The Principality of Grand Longueville

28 days ago

And to think, Raisin, such uncivilized individuals could be of such a sordid reputation and infamy, and yet be held higher in society than we.

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

28 days ago

Quite right, Binky, quite right. 'Tis verily an era of sin and regress.

The Principality of Grand Longueville

28 days ago

Depraved individuals here, Raisin. This Region has disturbed me greatly by displaying such a vulgar and vice filled scandal.

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

28 days ago

It must be purged, indeed... only later... right now I must retire to my chambers; train to catch in the morn, after all!

All from page 400

Lonbonia wrote:More proof.

Spoiler:

All that proves is that you are clutching at straws, and scraping the bottom of the barrel to find any comment which might be misconstrued.

I am just being against the case that you both should return.

Lonbonia wrote:I am just being against the case that you both should return.

I would contend that you are, in fact, being belligerent; and that you are attempting to use a large amount of superficial criticisms, in the hope that leaky buckets may collectively hold water. They do not.

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

19 days ago

Well, not so much insane as inane.

(Said by Ivania) Woah, Marquette your Eastern Orthodox! Cool beans man, I was that before becoming Jewish.

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

20 days ago

Eugh...

page 433

(NZ)yea we have 4 terms, we have 3 sets on internal school exams (5 Exams Each), then I massive set of external camridge exams at the end of the year (15 Exams). The good thing is we get the whole of term 4 off from school as study leave. Term 4 is 8 weeks long, and I only have to go into school to sit the exams, then I come home again.

The Kingdom of Royalist Albion

22 days ago

"Study leave".

All of these seemed aimed at provoking a response.

Europe and Asia wrote:

Spoiler:

All of these seemed aimed at provoking a response.

Once again, you are clutching at straws.

And yes, they are aimed to elicit a response: When I say "Hello" I hope to elicit a response of "Hello" from you in return; likewise, when I indicate that "Study leave" typically does not involve much studying for students, I expect a remark in return about apathy towards revision, or whatever.

There is no evidence that I was being belligerent.

Well, Albion, this one isn't directed to you, but it proves both of your ignorance.

The Principality of Grand Longueville

33 days ago

I forgive you for being younger and inexperienced. I never had such an unfortunate state in life. I was born a fully intelligent and strong young adult.

Page 384, No one is born fully intelligent and as an young adult, I guess you both should type carefully before posting something funny.

Royalist Albion, you say that Lonbonia is looking for "superficial criticisms" and is "clutching at straws" yet, how else do we know you other than what you have written? It seems to me that Lonbonia has provided legitimate evidence and you do not have a response so you have dismissed his arguement. I am saying this as a neutral, observing moderator. Therefore if you have a defense to his claims than I would be glad to hear it. However, I find your dismissions to be a moot statement

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."

He also noted that you were the physical embodiment of the collapse of Western Civilisation.

Just because you say, I didn't mean it, doesn't make it invalid.

Lonbonia wrote:Well, Albion, this one isn't directed to you, but it proves both of your ignorance.

The Principality of Grand Longueville

33 days ago

I forgive you for being younger and inexperienced. I never had such an unfortunate state in life. I was born a fully intelligent and strong young adult.

Page 384, No one is born fully intelligent and as an young adult, I guess you both should type carefully before posting something funny.

This is a laughable criticism. Grand Longueville was obviously being facetious, and you are now taking a joke, - a joke which has no offensive connotations whatsoever, and you are using this to claim we are somehow being criminally ignorant?

Royalist Albion, you say that Lonbonia is looking for "superficial criticisms" and is "clutching at straws" yet, how else do we know you other than what you have written? It seems to me that Lonbonia has provided legitimate evidence and you do not have a response so you have dismissed his arguement. I am saying this as a neutral, observing moderator. Therefore if you have a defense to his claims than I would be glad to hear it. However, I find your dismissions to be a moot statement

I appreciate that we may only judge based on evidence, Schorr, and I have responded to several claims of me being belligerent, accepting responsibility that I overstepped the mark with one case; however, the most recent ones are incredibly inoffensive, and bereft of any antagonistic content. That they are being included is, as I said, an attempt to clutch at straws. This is a fact, not a dismissal.

It is comparable to me quoting you saying "I find your dismissals to be a moot statement" as evidence for you being argumentative; it carries no weight, for it's superficial evidence at best. I move for such evidence to be discarded as irrelevant. I mean, seriously: the phrase "Eugh" is being used as evidence of a breach of law? That's nonsensical.

Thats what i wrote. But you backed it up with an image, thanks.

[quote="Holy Patrician States"]

New-Zealand wrote:And you posted 34 Days ago :
He also noted that you were the physical embodiment of the collapse of Western Civilisation.

As in, I find New Zealand's views to be epitomising what I would argue are major problems with the world. This is a summary of disagreement, not an insult.

Oh really? If it was a disagreement, you would have just said "No" and that's it, it's clearly sn insult, and every time i bring up proof, like when you said the F word, and the others, you claimed they were facetious, I agree with Schorr, you simply dismiss my argument.

So you are saying that those specific claims are not enough to banject? I do agree that all of those in that specific section were not very offensive except the "eugh" comment about someone's religion. That is offensive

Lonbonia wrote:Oh really? If it was a disagreement, you would have just said "No" and that's it, it's clearly sn insult, and every time i bring up proof, like when you said the F word, and the others, you claimed they were facetious, I agree with Schorr, you simply dismiss my argument.

If New Zealand had presented his views, and I had simply said "No", you would claim I was being 'Belligerent and attempting to elicit a reaction'. Instead, I made a more joking expression of my disagreement.

And yes, I am disregarding your "proof", because the examples you provide have no substance to them. Just because you quote something does not make it automatically a mark against me. So, of course I'm going to dismiss your argument if it has no value. Please, make sure the examples you provide actually have some contention, so that I may provide an decent response, instead of these hollow examples you are providing, that have no offensive content, and hence cannot be grasped in this trial.

Schorr wrote:So you are saying that those specific claims are not enough to banject? I do agree that all of those in that specific section were not very offensive except the "eugh" comment about someone's religion. That is offensive

I'm saying from all the examples that have been provided, there has only been one case where I have overstepped the mark - and that alone is only enough to request an apology; it doesn't constitute a blackmark against me, and nowhere near warrants a banject.

Also, where is the indication that saying "Eugh" was directed towards someone's religion, other than that it followed it in sequence?

Care to explain what the eugh was referring to then?

Schorr wrote:Care to explain what the eugh was referring to then?

If I knew, I would inform you. However, you are asking me to explain something from a while ago; perhaps I was feeling ill? Perhaps it was a reference to something said previously? I know not. If someone had replied to my "Eugh" with a "What?" we would have an answer. Instead, without an understanding of the context, we are merely extrapolating conjectures.

Ivania stated that he was Eastern Methodist before converting to Jedaism, and Albion said "Eugh", which we took to mean he was attempting to elicit a response by commenting negatively on Ivania's religion.

New-Zealand wrote:I motion in support of their banjection. They're presence in the WA has been thoroughly detrimental to the peace and serenity of the WA Community. They have caused countless arguments, led many personal attacks and continuously ignored requests from Me (President and Delgate [SIC]), Eurussia (Founder) and multiple other WA members. To me the most disturbing aspect of their presence, was their foul and disgusting treatment of Articmania. He is only 13 and did not deserve such a level of insults from Longueville and Albion. I have no other term to describe them other than Cyber bullies.

"Peace and serenity", the dear President remarks, is quite nonexistent. Other examples of "peace and serenity" being accosted was the Zakiristan affair and the issue of NZ being NewAsia. Neither of these issues had Longuish involvement.

You keep bringing up the Artic issue, even though it has been resolved. I acknowledged that the criticisms were harsh, can we move on. I know your in favor of "progress", right? Let's progress then.

New-Zealand wrote:I'll present my case as follows :


1) They have broken Nationstates Rules :

I would like to direct your attention to the bits where it clearly states "prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people." and "you made a personal attack and your opponent didn't. No matter what the subject matter, if you don't conduct yourself in accordance with the rules of etiquette, you will get into trouble with the moderators."

Let's think for a moment. The good President says "griefing" is playing with the "primary aim of annoying...other people". This is a treacherous aim and a punishable one, at that. However, this was never the aim I had or have when playing NS. So that point ought to be moot.

Furthermore, this is not the issue here. Eurussia, in his notice of banjection did not cite a breach in gaming rules. He noted other issues.

New-Zealand wrote:2) They have been presented with warnings :

Incorrect. That was a universal warning given to EVERYONE.

New-Zealand wrote:3) Many other WA members have pleaded with them to stop :

The point of this is what? Noticing the bias in some individuals? The one sided close minded attitude of those same individuals? They have the mettle to tell us to stop, but what about the other party? Were they not at fault for doing the same thing we did? I expect an answer to that.

New-Zealand wrote:4) They initiate argements [SIC] either directly or indirectly when the other party is unwilling :

Lonbonia, in ironic rage, calls both myself and Albion "stupid", and implies that we are "freaks". Furthermore, Planita initiated that argument continuously pushing about the "motto". Which I still have no recollection about.

New-Zealand wrote:P.S. Those Three are from one string of comments, I couldnt fit them all in one screen shot.

5) They have continuously insulted Articmania about his grammar and spelling :

Care to say it a forth time?

New-Zealand wrote:I cannot present evidence right now, but Articmania and many other WA members will vouch for this.

6) Almost every WA member wants them gone :
Just ask around and you'll soon find out that the general consensus is for them to leave

Thanks be to God, the World Alliance has a Constitution for a reason.

Europe and Asia wrote:Ivania stated that he was Eastern Methodist before converting to Jedaism,[sic] and Albion said "Eugh", which we took to mean he was attempting to elicit a response by commenting negatively on Ivania's religion.

No, it means I said "Eugh" after Ivania said something to do with his religion. I wasn't saying it in reply to Ivania.

Lonbonia wrote:Well, Albion, this one isn't directed to you, but it proves both of your ignorance.

The Principality of Grand Longueville

33 days ago

I forgive you for being younger and inexperienced. I never had such an unfortunate state in life. I was born a fully intelligent and strong young adult.

Page 384, No one is born fully intelligent and as an young adult, I guess you both should type carefully before posting something funny.

I will get back to my rebuttal to previous points later.

My response about forgiving someone for being younger and inexperienced was actually me paraphrasing the late Ronald Reagan who responded to a question on his age.

Nothing more.

Then why'd you say it? Pure bordom? Sheer whimsy? Albion, not Longueville.

Europe and Asia wrote:Then why'd you say it? Pure bordom? Sheer whimsy? Albion, not Longueville.

Hells, I could have eaten an entire block of brie and be feeling nauseated. That would produce an "Eugh". Either way, the remark is innocent, and you cannot drum up a case of anti-Semitism, if that is what you're intending.