A Taste of Skizz #17

The phrase "oral history" is sometimes used by historians to describe an account written from the standpoint of ordinary people, rather than decision makers. There are advantages and disadvantages to oral histories. One obvious disadvantage is that they lack the perspective that can only come from access to the deliberations of decision makers. The advantage is that oral histories are less prone to efforts by decision makers to shape history to their liking.

With the intent of creating an "oral history" of sorts, here is an alternate account of select events in the region over the past several months.

-- Europeia intervenes in The South Pacific on the side of the native government. Oliver, an Admiral in the Europeian Navy at the time, participates on the other side and urges other sailors to do likewise. (Ollie has publicly acknowledged this.) His exact motives are not known, but are likely related to his affiliation with The Rejected Realms, which was one of the key players on the invader side.

-- Around the same time, Ollie leaves the region, ostensibly because of an unrelated dispute over judicial politics that turned nasty. Earth leaves at the same time as Oliver, ostensibly beause of the same dispute. Earth was active in TRR then, but to my knowledge, she has not been publicly accused on these forums of participating on the invader side in TSP.

-- Some time later, Ollie returns to the region. Soon after returning, he stands for Senate. He is -- appropriately -- asked pointed questions about his role in TSP. He is elected. At about the same time, Earth returns and takes a more low-key role, but she eventually agrees to serve in Sopo's administration (first as a Cabinet minister, and later as VP). TSP doesn't come up in the Senate in connection with either of her two confirmation votes.

-- Some time later, there is a nasty dust-up over something that happened on an IRC channel -- something to do with Earth ejecting Seymour from the chat, and people saying mean things about other people, dogs and cats living togther, etc. -- a real s--t show. Earth leaves.

-- At about the same time as the IRC dust-up, it becomes clear that Ollie can't raise any kind of criticism of government without being personally attacked for the TSP thing. In response, I post my account of the TSP affair in the EBC, hoping to clear the air. This triggers an epic s--tstorm. Ollie posts once or twice in that thread, then disappears.

-- Carra, AC and Jusduckria leave at about the same time as Earth and Ollie. To my knowledge, none had any role in TSP. A few other citizens coincidentally disapppear at about this time, but have since returned.

-- A few months later, CSP notifies us that there has been a founder-led "coup" in Kodiak, and we are cutting off relations. On other forums, it is widely reported that the founder's intervention followed alleged admin abuse by the elected President. That elected President was Seymour, and he was specifically accused of banning Earth. (In fairness to Seymour, he has consistently maintained that Earth's banning was inadvertent, and I have no evidence to the contrary.) Maybe CSP knew only part of the story, but opinion in many quarters is not so kind to us -- there are people of good will who believe Seymour acted at Europeia's behest. Given the rhetoric that has come from his Foreign Minister of late, it is not hard to see why.

-- At about the same time, CSP announced that we were breaking treaty ties with Unknown. He cites the departure of Earth as a reason for Unknown's lack of interest in keeping ties with us, with a recent diplomatic dust-up as an ancillary issue. Of course, if you read the actual thread in Unknown (which CSP links in his announcement), it's clear that Unknown's problems had nothing to do with Earth and everything to do with that dust-up, which involved Rachel, NES, and me -- though no one was kind enough to tell me what was going on until after the fact. (Hmm ... maybe criticizing the DEIA makes people think you're disloyal ... )

This is an oral history. I don't claim to have unique truth-telling abilities. There are things I don't know. I do know that beneath the platitudes about "loyalty" that we hear so much, there is a little-discussed agenda being carried out. That lack of discussion may be driven by an understandable desire not to re-live the worst moments of the past year, but there is no way to avoid such re-living so long as our government continues to place those events at the center of its agenda.

Perhaps, after the next election, we can form a government worthy of our new citizens, who have no truck for these old arguments, and whose yeoman's work has provided the foundation for our recent successes. They deserve a vision for the region that isn't rooted in the worst events of the past year.

-----------

As a postscript, I would like to note that one could make some very unfair judgments about Seymour from the foregoing account. I debated whether to include the details concerning him, ultimately deciding that such details were crucial to understanding the story -- and particularly, how that story is viewed outside these forums.

Edit: fixed typo
 
This conversation reminds me of the article by HEM on NS and Europeia in general: http://z6.****************/Europeia/index....showtopic=26477.

I can be friends with someone, but that does not mean I will agree with them on everything they do. As a politician I am accountable for my actions, as seen by the Unknown incident. My closest friends in NS weren't afraid to hold me accountable for my part in that. That has nothing to do with me being friends with them, in fact I think it shows respect on their part that they are able to look at the situation objectively. It is something I greatly appreciate.

That's no different than in real life either. When I used to swim, our coach and our other teammates held each other accountable. It had nothing to do with being friends or not. So I think that it's a degree of both, loyalty to both your friends and to your region. Not blind to either, but making sure that you are looking at situations objectively and holding others accountable for their actions.
 
Oh my god, this is stupid. Everyone knows I'm not thrilled about the Library etc situation, but...today is today. Not yesterday.

Who likes ice cream?
I wholeheartedly agree -- but to do so, we first need leadership that does its job instead of obsessing over old conflicts.

In case I wasn't clear enough: do your job, NES. Write a foreign update. Make sure our President talk out of his ass in his areas of responsibility.

Whether your grudges are justified or not, they do not comprise a coherent foreign policy.
 
Oh my god, this is stupid. Everyone knows I'm not thrilled about the Library etc situation, but...today is today. Not yesterday.

Who likes ice cream?
I wholeheartedly agree -- but to do so, we first need leadership that does its job instead of obsessing over old conflicts.

In case I wasn't clear enough: do your job, NES. Write a foreign update. Make sure our President talk out of his ass in his areas of responsibility.

Whether your grudges are justified or not, they do not comprise a coherent foreign policy.
The so called "grudges" are nothing to do with Foreign Policy, except in your mind.

The Leadership isn't obsessing over old conflicts, it's you who is obsessing and trying to rewrite history with sheer nonsense.

You need to take a good hard look at whether it's worth keeping up these lies and delusions to justify that your friend Earth was a mere victim of circumstance.

You've lost that argument. Again, and again, and again. You've tried every trick in the book, and none of them have worked. And yet you still won't admit it. So now you're turning to attack the Government. Frankly it is pathetic.

Clamp your hands over your head. Shout out at the top of your voice, "It can't be true" - you are the evil guy. It -must- be NES' fault. But, it can't change anything, Skizz, it won't change what happenned... the Europeian people aren't stupid, they won't fall for your fantasy version of events... ;)
 
I'm not "turning" to anything -- both this thread and the last one were explicit criticisms of our foreign policy. Of course, you knew that.
 
I'm not "turning" to anything -- both this thread and the last one were explicit criticisms of our foreign policy. Of course, you knew that.

Veiled criticisms - disguised amongst fake history. Not explicit criticisms. If there was anything explicit that could be corrected, I would have done so. But its impossible to respond to mere insinuation and nonsense. If you have a valid point to make, then make it. If you have more crazy conspiracy theories about how every inconvenience and mishap must be due to my "agenda", not what obviously happenned, then I would just keep them to yourself in the future.
 
I recently got a PM from a new citizen, who had a question about our discussion in HEM's "year in review" thread. He wanted to know what all the talk about loyalty was about. I think I was reasonably even-handed in my response. On reflection, though, it became clear to me that your grudges were increasingly driving the region's policy. I decided to speak out.

If I was subtle at first in the prior thread, it was in an effort to keep us focused on issues, rather than personalities. You ensured that didn't last long. In this thread, I've dropped all pretense -- you and I have both philosophical and personal differences. If you thought my criticisms in this thread were "veiled" or "disguised," then a lot of people (including me) have overestimated your intelligence.
 
I recently got a PM from a new citizen, who had a question about our discussion in HEM's "year in review" thread. He wanted to know what all the talk about loyalty was about. I think I was reasonably even-handed in my response. On reflection, though, it became clear to me that your grudges were increasingly driving the region's policy. I decided to speak out.

Give me an example of my grudges driving regional policy.

If I was subtle at first in the prior thread, it was in an effort to keep us focused on issues, rather than personalities. You ensured that didn't last long. In this thread, I've dropped all pretense -- you and I have both philosophical and personal differences. If you thought my criticisms in this thread were "veiled" or "disguised," then a lot of people (including me) have overestimated your intelligence.

No, I dealt categorically with all your claims. And I asked you to back them up, and you failed.

If you think the gloves are off now, then that's fine. But I'm not going to punch back, I'm quite happy watching you trying to get somewhere and failing. You need to start being more specific if there is any merit to all your insinuations, and spell out exactly what your claims are based on, otherwise it just looks like the rants of someone desperate to prove a baseless point based on misinformation and misunderstanding.
 
I'm not "turning" to anything -- both this thread and the last one were explicit criticisms of our foreign policy. Of course, you knew that.

Veiled criticisms - disguised amongst fake history. Not explicit criticisms. If there was anything explicit that could be corrected, I would have done so. But its impossible to respond to mere insinuation and nonsense. If you have a valid point to make, then make it. If you have more crazy conspiracy theories about how every inconvenience and mishap must be due to my "agenda", not what obviously happenned, then I would just keep them to yourself in the future.
You want something explicit that could be corrected? Instead of trolling a dead forum for quotes to support an argument, write a f--king foreign update.

I have kept my concerns about your "leadership" to myself for too long. No more.
 
You want something explicit that could be corrected? Instead of trolling a dead forum for quotes to support an argument, write a f--king foreign update.

The word you're looking for is "trawling" not "trolling". You hardly want to be accusing me of trolling on no basis again do you? ;)

Now, look, you've written thousands of words to justify your "arguments" these past couple of days. And I chose to respond to them. I'll take it as admission that you have given up trying to propagate these falsities for the time being that you have given up with the debate and decided to start shouting about the Foreign Update. :lol:

I have kept my concerns about your "leadership" to myself for too long. No more.

Haha! I love it when people come up with this stuff out of the blue, as if this is a great revelation. What concerns? You haven't said any concerns. For instance, you're yet to show how my grudges are driving regional policy...

All I'm seeing so far is - I don't like you cause I don't like the fact you think people that defected are responsible for their own actions and the harm they inflicted on the region is their fault, because some of those people are my friends, and I find it inconvenient that they be blamed. :p




Oh and lmao. Monty Python = awesome :lol:
 
Nice dig on trolling/trawling there. From an engineer, no less. I am chastened. :p

I am willing to let the region judge whether our foreign policy is unduly
narrow and grudge-based.
 
I am willing to let the region judge whether our foreign policy is unduly
narrow and grudge-based.

Okay, so you can't back this up basically. You say it's grudge driven, but you can't come up with a single example of that being the case. There must be something! Go on, hit us with it. Just for our amusement if nothing else. :p
 
I have made the case that your entire push for a regional agenda based on loyalty is a ruse for nursing old grudges. And I have pointed out that you can't be bothered to do your f--king job. And you have accused me of not being specific in my accusations. :unsure:
 
The Skizzy f--k is not a argument reducing "fuck". It's a different beast entirely, rhetorically speaking (at least, that's how it is to me).
 
I'm in the KKK - UK branch. So the rumour has it*

[size=-3]*Note the rumour may just be Skizzy making stuff up on a whim. :eek:rly: [/size]
 
Back
Top