Our "moral" support does no one any good. Even Pengu and Wintermoot admitted that they would much rather have engaged in military activity were they able during the NPO/NLO crisis, but since Wintreath on its own couldn't, and since the situation was so extreme, and since the actions were as despicable as they were, we took a course of action that at the very least provided moral support.
If we do that with any other such situations with other regions, they aren't going to care. They'll probably say: "Um... thanks?"
The grey area is very real, and ignoring it and being too idealistic could really cause more harm than good.
And as to the revocation bill, it most definitely was not a waste of time, you have to admit. 
Although it must have felt that way since it was centered around you, it highlighted all the shortcomings that led us to consider adapting our laws in so many places with regards to UH procedure, as well as consider judicial reform, new progressive warning systems, private Storting forums and so forth. That's not even considering that many other members of the Storting also stated the bill was not unwarranted, although the course of action was a bit extreme at that stage.
Colberius X, for example, stated that if a similar situation would occur again, the bill would receive his full support. You have to realise that the ice underneath you really was that thin, and use this chance you've been given to its fullest. We were not conducting a witch hunt, and the vast majority of us have no grudge against or animosity towards you personally.
Wintermoot and Pengu did engage in military action. Providing diplomatic moral support means we're siding with them but we aren't able to militarily deploy to help them out. It would at least show where our stance was.
There is no grey area to me. Coups are not legitimate in any circumstance, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
Yes the revocation bill was a waste, and all those shortcomings could have been investigated through other means, rather than humiliate me and embarass me, and insult me. The blame was shifted entirely onto me instead of on Pengu, when Pengu himselff also rightfully deserved some blame as well.
I will be responding to the rest of this matter, as it concerns you and I ,
@Laurentus, in our PM discussion.
How do you define a "horrible bill" and determine a bill to be a "complete waste of time"?
A horrible bill would a bill that was made out of a rash judgment and not worth debating on. Instead of the horribly designed revocation bill, the Skrifas could have worked on the judicial system or other improvements to Wintreath law that have been lacking.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk
If this is the revocation of your citizenship we're talking about here, given the facts presented, I do believe it was rightfully written and not a waste of time. I also didn't see anything wrong with the written part itself, so it wasn't horribly written. Like most bills, once discussed, it was voted against and tossed into the abyss of failed bills. There was a very good reason why it was voted against, and here you are running for office.
If we didn't write bills because the statistics say that it probably wouldn't be passed, no bill would be ever written and therefore no law would ever be in effect. We write bills to have everyone discuss them and then determine whether they're worth passing into law or not. Disagreeing with a bill doesn't automatically make it a "horrible bill" and a "waste of everyone's time". Yes, they could have been working on the judicial system, but I feel that bill should have been there too.
@Aragonn, even Pengu himself stated he wasn't 100% certain and he voted against his own bill, which shows how poorly written a bill it was. It wasn't a matter of statistics.
If anything, Weissreich's response to the bill
http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2296.msg34228#msg34228 show how wrong and flawed this bill was. It was an extreme, and alternatives could have been taken. Also, any issues that arose, should have been worked on. They should have continued with their attempts to bring judicial reform and worked off of what Weissreich initially had for his judicial proposal, or the one I had proposed a few months ago.
Our "moral" support does no one any good. Even Pengu and Wintermoot admitted that they would much rather have engaged in military activity were they able during the NPO/NLO crisis,
Actually...Wintermoot and I did engage in military activity a bit during the NPO/NLO crisis.
Not initially, as far as I could tell. If you mean after it was liberated, well, so have I, Aragonn, Colby and Tau too, although we did it for New Hyperion. We're still active there, actually.
No, we both took part in liberation attempts as well.
I feel betrayed, man!
(Not really)
It really just happened by coincidence, since I happened to be in the room a couple of times when an operation was about to go down, and Mooty asked active people in the room to take part. It wasn't until the last one that he made an all-call in the forums to try to get everyone involved.
Anyways, I'm steering off topic here. This is Gov's campaign.
Although on that note, I will ask a question myself.
Gov: You called me out several times in your thread. You're not understanding the entire process that went down, so I'll lay out how things went and then end with a question:
1) The Complaint thread was created, and the choices that were given were: Trial, or Revocation. The latter which seemed a bit extreme, but the former in which was said to death was completely imperfect and not a good guarantee to go off of. It wasn't until later that Weiss chimed in and created the guide to the Judicial system, when the revocation process had already started.
2) The Underhusen and Overhusen met in PM to discuss the best course of action. I was asked to abstain from taking part in any type of voting(but I was okay to discuss and propose) due to my personal stake, which I more than willingly obliged until I decided to vote against my own bill.
3) It was stated multiple times that I had enough evidence to go through with whatever the best course of action was. After discussing with the storting, the Revocation had seemed like the best course of action to take since, while it wouldn't ban you completely, it would revoke your citizenship and you would have a chance to appeal your case during the process and make an appeal afterwards and plead your case.
4)I didn't even introduce the bill into a proposal/UH discussion/Platform discussion. I had wrote the bill, yes. But I introduced it into the PM strictly and allowed all UH/OH members to discuss it, the legitimacy, whether they would/wouldn't support it, and whether it was something they wanted to go through in the first place.
4) In the discussion thread and UH discussion (which we left open for enough time for you to appeal), I had stated that regardless of my personal feelings, I wanted to go through the process in which would be the most fair to you, which was why when a better option was presented (thanks to Tatte's questioning about it in the discussion, I backed out of supporting the bill that I had created.
5) Despite having shit thrown at me from both sides (both from those who supported the bill and not you, and those who didn't support the bill and support you), I have continued to be fair to you in both the terms of attempting to find a better middle ground, and supporting your having your deserved interview in the upcoming Orendi.
Even throughout that entire process, I acted as professionally as I felt I could (outside of expressing my personal feelings in discussion outside of the UH). I didn't make any motions to expedite to take away your time (and even stated that there should be a law so the speaker can't do that in revocations), and in the case of your particular case (since the law isn't around yet), even asked the rest of the UH if they wanted to expedite, despite the fact that I could have made the motion quite easily and Laurentus or someone else could have seconded it, cutting out your time for appeal.
And despite the fact that you were quite venomous to me even some time after, I've done nothing but continue to act professionally about it and likewise still support you if I feel like a process hasn't been fair to you.
So I'll ask you, Gov. If you had a member that you had felt was harassing you or another member to the point where you felt like enough was enough (and had repeatedly asked them to stop/leave you alone) and you were essentially given the green light to take action, what would you have done differently?
If you were thrown into my position to where you made a choice you thought was the most fair choice and it turned out to not be the best, how would you have handled it?
Part of being in the Underhusen is that you're not always going to make choices that everyone agrees with, and you'll have to deal with the consequences of some of those choices, especially if you choose to run for Speaker. As I said, a revocation had seemed like the best option at the time, and I still stand behind my decision to make it since it had seemed like the fairest option given to me out of the current two choices.
But obviously I wasn't prepared for the consequences, as your venom towards me despite how I've been trying to act towards you (despite my personal feelings), and the subtle venom I've been getting from others about it has drained me to the point to where I feel like I need a break from Wintreath to get away from it.
If you're elected and you do something that not everyone agrees with to that point, are you ready to face up and deal with it like I wasn't able to? If you make a decision that has people trying to drag your name into the mud and has people slinging it at you, are you prepared to deal with it in the most professional way as according to your position?
Ok
@Pengu here are a few things to respond to your post:
1. You didn't have two choices. You had at least three. The third one was being direct and communicated with me that you didn't do, and because of your inability to communicate, you chose the extreme overreaction. All you had to do was be direct and state that you acknowledged I messaged you, but you were not in the right mindset to speak with me now, and could have told me to speak to someone else, or that we would speak later. That was the rational choice, and you did not behave rationally. That is
your fault and you should have handled it better and should be held responsible for it2. No you really didn't. Other people pointed out things that you ignored. See Weissreich's post I linked above, and my post in the revocation thread here. Read it repeatedly and understand it, because so far you have failed to realise there were other options. My response is here:
http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2280.msg34158#msg341583. No you didn't present a better option. You know how communication works with me, in how I value direct communication, and you willfully ignored that. Your fault, not mine.
4. If you were fair with me you would have admitted that you were in the wrong to not communicate with me, that it was inappropriate to ignore someone who was looking to someone they trusted for support, and should have communicated better.
5. To answer your question directly, I'll state this. Regardless of what was said before about what you asked me to to do in the past, it is a case by case basis. You were already aware I deal with people directly. That means, you do
not, ever, act passive aggressively towards me. If you have an issue with me, you deal with it to me directly, and privately, in a professional manner, which you failed to do. I came to you for support for something that upset me, which you still failed to speak about.
This is what you don't understand, when you claim to know that you understand my feelings, and how you seemingly only care about yours.
I TRUSTED YOU TO EMPHATHISE, AND TO LISTEN TO ME WHEN I CAME FOR YOU TO SUPPORT[/b].
You do not understand. Your actions hurt me. Your actions humiliated me. Your actions insulted me. Were I had the ability, I would have pushed for a revocation of your Jarlship, your Nobility title and barred you from holding office from six months, and demanded an apology. However, that won't happen. You claim to understood how I felt, but you keep defending your inappropriate actions and behaviour, and refused to apologise, which makes your claim hollow in my eyes.
You were the one that exacerbated this, and this revocation was not the most fair and professional thing to do. The most fair and professional thing to do would have been to 1. Accept my apology that I made to you. 2. Apologise and admitted that you were in the wrong for not communicating to me directly, for refusing to acknowledge why I was upset and how I was being upset and refusing to acknowledge that I was attempting to communicate with you. 3. Never pushed forth that waste and poor excuse of a bill in the first place. 4. Resigned your post as Jarl and your nobility and refused to hold office for six months and apologise for insulting and humiliating me.
If anything else, this revocation thread, and the fact that people are bringing it up, or even mocking about it, is harassment of me and completely disrespectful. If you claim to understand me, accept my feelings, and man up to the fact that you were in the wrong and handled the matter poorly as I explained above. That is fact. Understanding how I feel in this case means you have to admit you were in the wrong, because that's the fact. If you read my thread I linked above, you will understand that how best to deal with me is in private, in a direct matter at all times, and in a respectful manner, for
each and every situation, not passive aggressiveness, not ignoring me. That is how I was brought up with. You have not done that.
It just shows that you can't be trusted for someone to seek support from you, lest you feel "harassed" because someone thought you actually cared about them.
Yes that's how I feel. And yes, that's all I'll further say about the revocation topic regarding how I was treated. Any other responses regarding this matter, or regarding your interactions with you and I, need to be resolved over PM, directly. Thank you for finally understanding how I feel.
6. People have been dragging my name in the mud for years, in case you haven't noticed. Forum destroyers and spammers get a free pass but people will listen to people like Tim, Cormac, and Unibot and demonise me. I've been compared to child molestors, been compared to Michael Jackson-post 90s era, and in some cases, told that life in NS would be better off if I never existed.
I don't regret my attempts at judicial reform and my attempts to try to improve things in terms of government transparency and citizens' rights in my time in NS. I've had some success, and in others, I've failed. Where I've failed, I've been mocked at, but I continue and press on, because I did the best that I could. In some places, people didn't want to change, even if it was for the better and because I was trying to propose said change. In other places, it worked.
Yes while you serve those who elected you (and those who didn't vote for you but you serve nonetheless), you also should swim with the current on matters of of anything but principles. For principles, stand like a rock.
I hate to do this, for several reasons, but everyone is avoiding this question like the plague. That is why, although I usually object to questioning my opponents, much less on their campaign threads, I've decided to address the elephant in the thread. So Gov, I must pose this question to you.
The Underhusen is a place where debate is not uncommon. Given that it is no secret you are prone to, shall we say, fits of rage, how do you plan to avoid such outbursts and prevent them from interfering with legislative procedure?
Thank you for pointing out I'm a Republican, @The_Church_of_Satan
I can keep a cool head when engaging in debate in the Underhusen. I have done so before when I was last elected. I know how to keep civil and professional with everyone when in official chambers in discussion, and I have also served as a Speaker in at least two legislatures, so I know how to enforce the rules if necessary. I understand that as a professional I have to make sure not to let me irritation or anger show, and to restrain myself, and I am capable of doing that.
I hope that answers your question?
