> Rin wrote:

> mod enforced nap isnt a rule and shouldnt exist in the first place.

As per what I stated above, if moderators signed onto the accord, then for the purposes of that small instance, it was a rule, unless prior procedures have been established to determine whether something was or was not a rule.

Did I miss anything else that you said above, or did you just quote everything I said, then make that one sentence?

Random two cents!  Full disclosure: I don't normally play Imperial Conflict.  I'm a Politics forum guy.  Take this as you will. 

I'm with Noir on this one.

Nobody has disputed that a NAP did exist, and that both parties agreed that they were willing to be subject to a moderator's punishment.  As a result, normal assumptions of what is "normal" in Imperial Conflict should be disregarded because they assume a framework in which parties are not willing to enter into moderator-enforced agreements.  In effect, what occurred here is that the players, and two moderators, agreed to a NAP, and a third party entirely decided to void the terms of the NAP, despite two equally ranked individuals agreeing to the terms.  There is no legal system on the planet which would define this as a stable legal system of any form.

All the moderators are supposed to exist as equals to one another.  It says so in the forums.  It says so in the FAQ.  The moderators have not officially disclosed, or agreed upon, any hierarchy system.  As a result, there was no way that Noir, Torqez, KT, or anyone could have known what would happen once it was asked to enforce the terms of the NAP.

1: Rin, if, by what you said, the mods looked at the NAP break and determined it didn't justify a deletion, at what point would a deletion exist?  Stated punishments for rules exist with the understanding that such an action has a threshold at which it could be used.  So, what would have been the threshold under which a deletion would have occurred, and why would the threshold you set from this be any different from what happened in the round?

2: "i d rather lose credibility and not stand by my words then sticking with a bad decision.

next?"

This is an absurd statement.  As players, we assume that certain preconditions exist when playing the game.  Just as you drive on the road with the assumption that people will follow the rules, we ideally would like to play the game with an inherent trust in the rules surrounding the game.  Most moderators did their best to ensure that we know what is coming: they enforce the rules which do exist, and attempt to work within the rules.  At the point where a majority of those moderators who expressed their view on this issue expressed support for a mod-enforced NAP, this NAP became law within Imperial Conflict.

Rin, you have two jobs as a moderator: to maintain technical aspects of Imperial Conflict, such as setting up galaxies, and to enforce the stated rules of the forum.  Whether you disagree with the rules is unimportant, unless you go through proper channels to rescind those rules, your opinion doesn't mean shit.

As part of your role, however, you are also a public relations manager.  Representing the interests of Stefan, Adoross, and the Imperial Conflict governance, your job also includes the area of ensuring stable relations between yourself and the community.  Here, we trust the moderators to abide by their word.  Nothing can hurt those relations more than a moderator abusing their power, breaking the word of the moderator community as a whole, just because he disagrees with it.

As it stands, none of the rules mean anything if the moderators aren't willing to enforce them.  While we know that moderators such as KT and Torqez are willing to enforce the rules, Rin has blatantly created a system in which he is unwilling to enforce said rules.  As such, as long as he is around and pushing the other moderators around, the Imperial Conflict rules do not exist, and have been replaced with a simple notion that whatever Rin says goes.  If you agree with Noir and myself, and don't like what this means, then it's time to take a stand.

There is one other thing to note here: Rin's place within the galaxy in which this took place.  There used to be an unwritten rule in IC in which the moderators agreed not to enforce rules that existed within their own galaxies.  Otherwise, if two moderators banned someone, it could be interpreted that the justification behind the ban was in order to help themselves within the game, as opposed to enforcing the rules.  Recently, as I understood it, that rule has needed to be rolled back somewhat, due to a number of issues.  However, it is preferred when possible.

[EDIT: A correction: Rin is NOT playing in the ICC.  My mistake.  I apologize.]

But that's not what happened.  An undisciplined moderator has instead vetoed the majority of moderators, instead asserting his personal view in contrast to the law of Imperial Conflict.  If this were a real legislative body, this is a coup by every definition.

I want to stress this one issue once more.  The question of whether this was a good or bad NAP has nothing to do with the matter.  If you sign a contract with somebody, yet realize later that it was a terrible idea, you are still required to abide by that contract, because you gave your word.  In just this same way, the moderators gave their word that enforcement would take place if the NAP was violated.  This is a prior question.

[EDIT: Holding off what I said earlier... time for some independent investigation!]

I'm not sure if a US or UN attack on Iran would mobilize the people behind the government, as WFS said above.  However, an Israeli attack on Iran would definitely do exactly that.  While there may be mixed feelings in regard to Iranian feelings toward the US, the Israel issue is seen as a direct threat to Iranian existence.

That being said, this might be an effort to exert pressure on the US.  "Iran's going down one way or another.  Which of us is going to do it?"

No repeals.  A repeal would require the President's signature... Obama ain't repealing his own bill.  Otherwise, you would need to get 2/3 of both houses.  That's not even physically possible in the Senate.

Maybe in '12. 

Now I'm not an Obama fan, but I just want to note something:

It's inherent in US politics that candidates will be required to make a number of large, ambitious goals early on in their campaign, then fail in a good portion of them.  Unlike multiparty systems, the US system comprises of a huge number of people segmented into two primary parties which try to cover every issue from the economy to social issues.  Add to this the fact that the US manages a population 4 times the size of the largest democratic European nation, and you have a system where it takes months to push any individual policy.

That being said, I think Obama did take a bad direction in using his political capital.  Obama won a huge mandate, winning both houses of Congress and the Presidency by a good percentage.  After the stimulus package, the health care bill took almost a year to hammer out possibly one of the most controversial issues in the country.  After a huge fight for a watered down bill, it seems like Obama and the Democrats have run out of steam on large legislative issues.

While it's normal for a President to be unable to pass all their ideal legislation within their term, this term has been kind of ridiculous... one semi-bipartisan bill followed by one other bill, then nothing...

Source somewhere?

Or we could skip this dumb debate and actually see if we can find a primary source.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/after-first-family-tells-america-everyone-must-sacrifice-they-hold-white-house-party-every-3rd-day-in-first-year/

"Now we learn that the the Obama White House has held one party every three days in first year of Obama reign.
Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) reported:

    Let the good times roll

> V.Kemp wrote:

> If you can't call your position what it is, you know it's indefensible.

That's the key problem: You're using your own frame of reference to tell him what he should defend his position as.

If I thought your position was racist, and you said that was offensive to frame you as racist, I could just as easily say "If you can't call your position what it is, it's indefensible."  Why?  Because, from my frame of reference, your view would be racist.  I am forcing you to either defend racism, or I dismiss you outright, with no possibility of you saying "My position isn't racism."

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Zarf,

Race card played.  You can complain I didn't play it properly, but so what?  It's already played.

Um...

1: I'm indicting whether there's merit to your argument.
2: If I win my argument, it proves that you trivialize historic racial violence by using the tools that fight racial violence in irresponsible ways.  Your discourse if what gives people the justification to say "racism is dead, this is the best they can pull off as an example of racism today."
3: It proves you're an example of terribly unethical debate practice, and should be ignored by the community as a person more interested in inciting flame wars than actually discussing the merits of arguments.

Apologize, defend yourself, or consider yourself labeled within the community.

Edit: "Your self" should be "yourself." 

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> he was instrumental in fixing the stock market and helping th eglobal economy recover by rallying the heads-of-state to back the bail-out plan;

*cough*Greece!*cough*

> it was his sheer determination which got medicare passed;

It hasn't taken effect yet.  So you can't tell whether that's a good or bad thing yet. 

> signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia

Have you looked at that treaty?  No major cuts, no resolution on ABMs or space weapons, and no mention of tactical nukes.  At best, it's a modest improvement over the previous START treaty, which means it wasn't much of a step forward.

> and won a Nobel Peace Prize, all in like, what 6 months?

This has been discussed above.  No need to reiterate.

Obama is pwns.

How does your retort hold in a world where newspaper companies have been able to post their news articles online, posting the same articles which would be otherwise accessed via the newspaper, and being profitable anyway by charging people for the right to access the information and advertising on the website?

While the content of print media is good, the internet does not prevent it from existing.  It's only a question of whether putting said articles on paper is an efficient method.