The Federal Republic of Rheinland & The Republic of Aleutia v. The USNW Government

I stand against this, Nate and Tyler agreed to this, and now they want it repealed. It was part of the agreement, we let them in as long as they don't run for high office. If they can't even keep their part of the deal, I honestly don't really even want them to be full members. Sorry if this isn't anyone else's opinion, but it's what I think.

could somebody "explain" this 'History' to me please. So I know what position to take?

Escilnavia wrote:could somebody "explain" this 'History' to me please. So I know what position to take?

Nate was the leader of AIN, and COFR2, and UCOM (He left both AIN and COFR2 after arguments but UCOM merged with USNW which is when the original deal took place.)

Every USNW member has the right to know about his history before making a decision, and this is in no way biast.

Hmm I think I have an AIN wiki article somewhere around here. I can find it.

Thanks Smarts and Kurt

*cough*

http://aoin.eu/wiki/index.php?title=October_Crisis

*Cough*

I just protected the page, just in case... we had previous issues...

And I'm sorry if we ruined this case. I won't interfere anymore.

It's ok JITS, you have the legal right to view and comment here, as long as it isn't inflammatory (which you aren't)

I also apologize if I seem rude. I just want the trial to be far and for everyone to see what happened before.

We know, Smartbylaw; I'm not mad at you about this either, as this thing's not your fault, and you didn't come across as rude here as far as I can see.

Just to let everyone know, at the time Thomas made Dan an admin there wasn't a rule in AIN saying that executives automatically became admins. At this point you still had to apply to become an admin of AIN. We just woke up one morning to see Danspaceman in the admin group. That is why we took admin rights away during an investigation to see what was going on. With better communication between Thomas and the rest of the admins and this entire "October Crisis" may have been completely averted.

On another note, I don't understand why a grudge held by someone not even in this union should affect what is going on in our union. Can't you just drop it Daniel, it's been almost a year and a half and Nate and I haven't even done as much as even look at your forums so how come every time we try doing something here you guys are all over it like you're trying to protect everyone from Al Qaeda? It's getting old, if you guys were truly wanting to be mature you would just mind your own business and worry about running your union, not USNW.

Now that was rude.

Thanks for editing that post of yours, Kurt

I thought nonmembers weren't allowed in this section of the forums...

Only the International Assembly/Assembly of Nations/whateveryouwannacallit is barred from "Junior Members" (aka non-members); everything else, including the High Court, is allowed for them to visit and comment in.

Okay Thanks, now I understand everything. For argument sake, I'll have to remain neutral on this.

Would like to know what Observers are allowed to do here...


also, I agree that it was an agreed upon rule of the merger, and as such, shouldn't be changed.

Will

Observers can use the court in a similar fashion to full and ambassadorial members, I believe. (in other words, they can start a case proposal just like a full or ambassadorial could )

Daniel is right...

And we shouldn't be arguing. If you can't learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it. We can do better than this.

Kurt wrote:Remember, this is only the internet and it shouldn't be taken as more.

A bit of an ironic statement considering the whole reason for the argument. From what I've read, nothing stated was rude.

New Friscia supports Rheinland and Aleutia for reasons that should be quite obvious. These members have done more good to this union in the past months than harm. They contribute a substantial amount of activity that would not exist otherwise. They maintain a very active portion of the community (sports), which outperforms the rest of the forum by scale. These members actually contribute to the wiki, which I am disappointed to say is unlike members who have higher standing in the union. Regardless, I hope to see a new compromise be formed instead.

I have to admit it all seems very comical.

I am grateful for the AIN insight and opinions, but we have to respect the right that everyone can bring a proposal for a law change, and this is a good case in my opinion. I'd love to see how it moves forward.

I'd like to remind the AIN members that they are free to give their opinions and insights, but remember to keep it unbiased to not sway public opinion before the case is even heard.

Kurt, your passion is great and I'd love to see you sitting on the defence for this case and Tyler, thank you for your view as well.. as we all know, there are two sides to every story.

fox wrote:I have to admit it all seems very comical.

I am grateful for the AIN insight and opinions, but we have to respect the right that everyone can bring a proposal for a law change, and this is a good case in my opinion. I'd love to see how it moves forward.

I'd like to remind the AIN members that they are free to give their opinions and insights, but remember to keep it unbiased to not sway public opinion before the case is even heard.

Kurt, your passion is great and I'd love to see you sitting on the defence for this case and Tyler, thank you for your view as well.. as we all know, there are two sides to every story.

Um..... its going to be biased lol. You don't know what happened do you?

Just a fair words warning, please keep your explanation to a gross minimum and please keep it polite, if you even have to do it.

The Office of the Chancellor has decided to support the repeal of this law. We believe it is in the power of the people to chose the executives and I personally believe that the people will make the right choice when it comes to choosing our leaders. I originally didn't support this, but after some deep thinking I've decided to go with what I think is right. The Charter does say that all full members who have met the requirements have to right to run and take part in government, the law that was passed, that I proposed, is unconstitutional through that definition. I don't necessarily agree with Nate or Tyler being high officers of the union, but they have a right to run for the positions. Any change concerning this would have to be treated as a Charter Amendment.

Sincerely,
Charles Brown
Chancellor

Yes, I've read the wiki page and been informed by people both at AIN and USNW of their first hand account of the October crisis.

I requested people to be unbiased because we need to stay objective and leave our personal feelings at the door. We need to hear all the information from both sides so people can make their decisions.