Arnhelm: A Sacred Cow City

[Peeps]

HEM, thank you for writing this. As someone who loves Arnhelm and wants the best for it and the region, it is disheartening on how many times I have been on the other side of the sacred cow. No Europeian institution is sacred (heck I believed that back in 2017 when I was an idiot with SC abolition ).

To answer to Siph re: City in 2in, I released a statement saying that I still believe in it but I am taking it out because of the backlash. To expand on that, I believe it is the best case for people that also want the CA back but also still like Arnhlem, as then there is a space for both without added overhead and much additional effort. I am all for disagreement and debate, but it does seem like any substantive proposal to change Arnhelm results in an instant your idea is stupid and so are you sentiment.

While I have the grandstand, I would like to address one specific person who really needs to stop talking out of every side of their mouth.

As one of Arnhelm's biggest supporters and vocal one at that, let me just say that HEM is absolutely right. As much as we'd like for Arnhelm to be left independent, it isn't. It exists at the pleasure of the Senate. It is open to oversight just as any IC thing is in our region and we have to trust our elected Senators and take them at their word that they have its best interests in mind. As I said in private this evening to now former Mayor Sopo, I believe that Arnhelm is in the position where it doesn't know exactly what it wants to be and I'm not sure if that's because it was legislated that way or we've tried to make it into something that it isn't or wasn't designed to be and are worried that our "thing" is going to be taken by people who aren't even involved so we make off the cuff decisions, etc.

I'm not in Eurochat so I can't speak for what went down there, but I think its time that those of us who have Arnhelm's best interests at heart step aside a little, open her up to the light of day and give the people of Europeia a chance to help and offer suggestions and new ideas.

OD. You have been arguably the largest proponent of the sacred cow nonsense since the AIC. You put in your profile "I fully intend to carry out my threat to recall any sitting Senator who votes to go along with a bogus and bias committee on Arnhelm." In discord you made comments such as "All this committee is is one person who hates Arnhelm trying to drag 3 or 4 other people to their point of view while the rest of us just stare.", "Any Senator who stands for this committee who doesn't even have the time nor the gall to actually join Arnhelm and participate before forming a committee to "find facts" are literally not serving the people.", and "We fought incredibly hard to keep Arnhelm independent, not to be a CA."

Quite frankly for a while I was content letting your complete bs go unanswered, but you have to get off of your ridiculous high horse. I am quite aware that whatever hope of you letting go of your petty grudge you hold against me is gone now, but I am done appeasing you and just hoping that one day you will change. Ever since the Papal Farce you have treated me as if I am some sort of arch-nemesis, I've apologized multiple times and you really should have stopped that by now, for a while I was content with you feeling that way and letting you be. But every time I see you talk out of 11 sides of your mount for brownie points it really does irk me. I fully expect you to either ignore this or make ruthless fun of me, either way, stop it, bud.

 

[Olde Delaware]

As one of Arnhelm's biggest supporters and vocal one at that, let me just say that HEM is absolutely right. As much as we'd like for Arnhelm to be left independent, it isn't. It exists at the pleasure of the Senate. It is open to oversight just as any IC thing is in our region and we have to trust our elected Senators and take them at their word that they have its best interests in mind. As I said in private this evening to now former Mayor Sopo, I believe that Arnhelm is in the position where it doesn't know exactly what it wants to be and I'm not sure if that's because it was legislated that way or we've tried to make it into something that it isn't or wasn't designed to be and are worried that our "thing" is going to be taken by people who aren't even involved so we make off the cuff decisions, etc.

I'm not in Eurochat so I can't speak for what went down there, but I think its time that those of us who have Arnhelm's best interests at heart step aside a little, open her up to the light of day and give the people of Europeia a chance to help and offer suggestions and new ideas.

So...like this?

 

[Kuramia]

So I was confused and looked up the context of what you referenced. I failed to remember directly addressing Grav. Thanks to Siph's link to his article, I can see my response in reply. I'm going to pushback that I directed either of these comments to Grav specifically. Was I hot and heavy? Sure I was. Was it unwarranted? I didn't believe so at the time with the amount of pushback that was received. I had been against the proposal since it was mentioned in Dark's platform.

Now you can certainly argue that I responded heatedly to Calvin. You cannot argue that either of the quoted statements were directed to GraVandius himself though.

@GraVandius, if that's your perception, from what I can recall of events, they were not directed to you. I definitely don't hold any hostility towards you right now.

Will I, in the future, temper my response? I have no problem saying I will do my utmost. Can I guarantee my responses will always be tempered? Of course not. You want to call me out on it, feel free. I expect that of you, @HEM . That's why you're needed in the region.

I do not like either the way the Senate has been vilified in Arnhelm nor the way we have lost Sopo, who could have provided us with the RP content we've been wanting. So yes, HEM, bring attention to it. Call us out. @ people if you want. The only way you can get some people to get involved is by rocking the boat. (I mean, it worked with me, right?)

 

[HEM]

Okay, let me first say that I can plainly tell that people have made some very thoughtful posts here. I want to read them all carefully and respond where I have thoughts to add, but first I want to say this:

It's come to my attention that some folks are sad//irritated//upset//miffed about my post in this thread "calling people out." I said what I said there because I was a little miffed ( ) that there was clearly a conversation to be had here, and while folks had been very gung-ho to talk Arnhelm only hours before, suddenly it seemed like there was nobody in sight.

The conversation that has resulted, has to me, proven that there is some air that needs clearing here and that "bumping" the topic in a slightly aggressive way was needed. However, I want to say, it was never my intention to spread any negative feelings to anyone.

It's not a crime to oppose the AIC, or defend Arnhelm, or believe Senate influence should be minimal! But, as I make the case in the article, I feel the forces that demanded no dialogue around Arnhelm — and fostered conspiracy theories — needed to be addressed because it was starting to impact people negatively, and in fact, disincentive innovative thinking. I felt some people went too far, and said so.

But I want to underscore that making a mistake (and again, it's in MY opinion that mistakes were made) does not negative anyone's work or worth in Europeia. We all make mistakes. In fact, looking back, I think I made one earlier in this thread:

Needless to say, the silence here has certainly impacted the political regard I have for some people, and if this toxic behavior manifests again, I will call it out on the spot.

I actually don't think that this needed to be said, and may have played a part in making folks feel boxed in a corner, or if they had done some irreparably wrong. I am sorry for saying that. I was clearly on a fiery streak in my post and wanted to end in a crescendo, but my whole goal here was to have a conversation, not to castigate people's political careers.

ANYWAY, I will read through everything here and hopefully respond more on the individual posts after I step away and eat dinner. But just wanted to say all this first!!!!

 

[Kuramia]

Needless to say, the silence here has certainly impacted the political regard I have for some people, and if this toxic behavior manifests again, I will call it out on the spot.

I actually don't think that this needed to be said, and may have played a part in making folks feel boxed in a corner, or if they had done some irreparably wrong. I am sorry for saying that. I was clearly on a fiery streak in my post and wanted to end in a crescendo, but my whole goal here was to have a conversation, not to castigate people's political careers.

ANYWAY, I will read through everything here and hopefully respond more on the individual posts after I step away and eat dinner. But just wanted to say all this first!!!!

S'not like anyone in this thread can say you can't get as heated as the rest of us did.

 

[Olde Delaware]

Hold that thought HEM, trying to dig my career out of its crater

 

[Forilian]

-snip-

I actually had a response typed up to this, but I really did not like it and have put off responding to it until now.

------------------------------------------
Given that no one wants to read a long-winded rant, I'll try and shorten this.

Some parts of the article were clearly aimed at me, with this quote:

Questioning Arnhelm is a "scandal." This isn't just Calvin, but long-time participants in Arnhelm like GraVandius as well.

This is a complete mis-characterisation of my words.

Not regarding those, unpopular policy stances can still hurt your popularity in general. There’s a reason why I would never be elected should I ever run on a platform of bringing back the FM and CoS. I wasn’t saying that the Senate shouldn’t elect these people as Speaker because of their stances, but rather that Lloen would be a safer pick just simply because of how much less controversial and more popular he is.

The explanation above sums up what I really wanted to say.

I fear this move will jumpstart those ideas with this referendum used as evidence for the current system being a joke or not working. Arnhelm is a serious institution; I will not stand to see it devolve into a playground or needless controversy.

I don't think I'm overreacting here when there have been attempts to investigate Arnhelm? Most of the time, Arnhelm is a peaceful, productive RP; events like the referendum, which Rotasu himself characterised as "[n]eedless controversy," divert from that truth. Although this wasn't cited in the AIC, there was actually a joke proposal by, coincidentally, another Deputy Mayor on the day of the AIC. These things stack up, and they together tarnish the good that Arnhelm actually is.

I have also never said that Arnhelm should never come under scrutiny. In a June 2020 op-ed that managed to be overlooked by everyone, even when during the AIC crisis during which it was all of 10 days old, I said this:

While I think there should definitely be a review into Arnhelm, the time is not now. Arnhelm hasn’t existed for even a year right now, and we’re already launching an investigation into it? Arnhelm has not had the time to prove itself, nor had the chance to become a fully-developed system. I say we give Arnhelm a few more months: if we see that activity is consistently low, perhaps we should consider something else. And if we see that activity goes up and down in a pattern?

And this quote of mine is still in discord:

A lot of this article is built upon misconceptions and miscontruing what people are saying. It's a reality of talking online through forum boards, and a problem that I think we should definitely address because it has been at the root of many such arguments over the span of time that I've been here.

I did have more to say, but this is, for now at least, </rant>

 

[Rotasu]

I honestly have trouble grasping what I did in hindsight, I can't rationalize it as normal or proper behavior but I will say this and echo OD in what he said about me in his platform: At the time I did what I thought was right; was it right? Hell no.

During the discussion, I think a lot of my side of the argument was trying to defend something I hadn't thought through but felt obligated to fight for anyway. It took longer than it should've for me to admit I was in the wrong.

I think this stems from such a broader issue, whether in Arnhelm or Europeia as a whole there is this rampant sense of self-righteousness and individualism. I am guilty of it as well. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions at the end of the day, and our own sense of "this is right, and this is wrong", but where do we draw the line? This region is built on our collective work despite our disagreement on virtually every topic concerning the region, however, disagreement without common decency just rips people apart.

How does that relate to the issue at hand? Well either side of the AIC took on their own self-righteous views and ran with them. In support viewed it as a benevolent force to help Arnhelm and those against viewed it as an invasion of Arnhelm's autonomy and that it would be detrimental to the City. My point is that none of us will be infallible, but we have to see through the veil of pettier disagreement. I think no one should have to justify any stance they may or may not have held nearly 6-7 months ago. In a larger sense, I hope this discussion can give people a sense of clarity as to the emotions of the people involved in this discussion. There are my two cents

 

[McEntire]

I honestly have trouble grasping what I did in hindsight, I can't rationalize it as normal or proper behavior but I will say this and echo OD in what he said about me in his platform: At the time I did what I thought was right; was it right? Hell no.

During the discussion, I think a lot of my side of the argument was trying to defend something I hadn't thought through but felt obligated to fight for anyway. It took longer than it should've for me to admit I was in the wrong.

I think this stems from such a broader issue, whether in Arnhelm or Europeia as a whole there is this rampant sense of self-righteousness and individualism. I am guilty of it as well. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions at the end of the day, and our own sense of "this is right, and this is wrong", but where do we draw the line? This region is built on our collective work despite our disagreement on virtually every topic concerning the region, however, disagreement without common decency just rips people apart.

How does that relate to the issue at hand? Well either side of the AIC took on their own self-righteous views and ran with them. In support viewed it as a benevolent force to help Arnhelm and those against viewed it as an invasion of Arnhelm's autonomy and that it would be detrimental to the City. My point is that none of us will be infallible, but we have to see through the veil of pettier disagreement. I think no one should have to justify any stance they may or may not have held nearly 6-7 months ago. In a larger sense, I hope this discussion can give people a sense of clarity as to the emotions of the people involved in this discussion. There are my two cents

One could argue that this article and the ensuing discussion is more of an escalation of the self-righteousness arms race than an antidote to it...

 

[HEM]

snip

I genuinely wasn't sure if you were referring to me or not because while I don't participate in Arnhelm much, I was involved with the AIC fiasco. So, I'll share my thoughts on the matter. I do want to apologize for some of my behavior in the AIC debate because while I still genuinely believe that the AIC was not needed and there were numerous misconceptions in the rollout, I did use inflammatory language. I compared the AIC to a "death panel" in an op-ed at the time which was not needed. I also snapped at Lime the other day in #eurochat when the AIC was brought up again. I since apologized personally to him for the insults. That kind of behavior was not remotely needed in that debate.

Now, I'll be honest, I am not entirely sure how I feel about Arnhelm. Compared to other institutions in Europeia like the Supreme Chancellery or Navy, Arnhelm's decisions only impact the people in Arnhelm. I am not talking about the drama in Arnhelm overflowing into our Senate elections, I am only talking about the decisions themselves. If the ERN does fenda, that impacts everyone. If the Supreme Chancellery is abolished, that impacts everyone. If Arnhelm decides to ban plastic bags, that only impact that has are on the roleplayers in Arnhelm. I think the main issue with Arnhelm is it was not an independently established roleplay, it was established by the Senate. I think that if Arnhelm was independently established, there would not be any of this drama.

So, I am not sure if the question is if Arnhelm needs to be abolished or changed or left alone, it is more of a question of how important of a roleplay is it? I mean, I don't think it is a fair comparison to the American Election Roleplay because most of the political roleplay we have had either revolved around the idea of nation-states conducting diplomacy and wars or it was about campaigning. Yes, Arnhelm does involve campaigning but it is mostly about legislation. There are so many discussions about if our legislation makes legal sense, if the budget works, mistakes that the Mayor makes, and more. It reminds me way more of Europeian politics than other roleplays I have seen. So, I think Arnhelm is a special roleplay of its own. I think for the average player who wants to do Europeian-style politics without all of the meta drama, it instead provokes roleplay drama. I genuinely find there to be an educational/training aspect to it.

So, personally, I see two solutions here. You either leave it as it is or....it goes into the Arts & Entertainment subforum. On the one hand, with the visibility it has, we are still gonna have this drama because again, it was established by the Senate. I don't think the Senate needs to examine Arnhelm but they're allowed to. They wrote the legislation that establishes it, they're within their rights to abolish or change it. I wouldn't agree with it but they can. On the other hand, it could go into the Arts & Entertainment subforum but there is the risk that it won't have as much visibility as it has now and folks could feel Arnhelm is so important itself that it deserves an elevated spot compared to the other roleplays.

I don't know. I think anybody would be lying if they said if they knew if what proposal would be best which are just having Arnhelm, a City in 2in, and only having the CA. In order, you got an institution where people are disputing the effectiveness of, a proposal that we have no idea how successful it will be, and then an institution that really had a deep decline toward the end and folks even today still dispute if it was an effective legislative body or not. I do agree this is a conversation we need to have. All I ask is that we do not rush toward a decision.

tl;dr: Yeah, I fucked up with the language I used toward people who supported the AIC, I think Arnhelm is more than just a "roleplay", and we need to figure out how we can resolve this drama especially with the multiple proposals on Arnhelm's fate.

I think your point about Arnhlem really only impacting Arnhelm is an interesting and valid one. And you've hit the nail on the head that what differentiates it from other independent projects is that it was established by the Senate.

And I remember at the very start of Arnhelm, I was supportive of it being enshrined into law. I wanted it to be a regional project, a community project, that did replace the Citizens' Assembly — at least in part — and also add a fun roleplay element.

Now, it seems to be in a difficult grey area where the folks putting the work in are understandably a little upset about the peanut gallery. But I'd argue that for so long as it's enshrined in law and given front-page status on the forum, we have to have regional consensus on its operation.

Lots to think about in your post. I'm still thinking.

I guess to bookend this...

Most people who have engaged in the "over-the-top" behavior regarding Arnhelm, which lead to this column being written, haven chosen to ignore this article. I find this disappointing.

I wrote this because, in my mind, a fairly unimportant part of our region had become disproportionately toxic, and was starting to have real implications for the more important institutions in Europeia.

I was hoping this article would either (1) help folks realize how things had gotten out of hand, or at least, (2) spark a discussion if people honestly think I'm wrong. With an exception or two, neither of these things happened, and I feel like I spent two hours writing 1.6k words for the people responsible for the temperature being dialed up to 1000 degrees to just move on and keep shooting the shit on #eurochat as always!

I think there should be accountability here, and have considered continuing to @ the relevant people, but if I've learned ANYTHING in NS, at some point you just have to move on and save accountability for another day. Needless to say, the silence here has certainly impacted the political regard I have for some people, and if this toxic behavior manifests again, I will call it out on the spot.

If this is perhaps directed at me, which I'm unsure of, I'd like to note you posted this just yesterday for me, so I've hardly had time to "ignore" it. I had actually written up a reply but I didn't like the draft, and so deleted it and decide to write a different piece when I had a clearer head the next day.

Regardless, it's been about 7 months since I wrote this Op-Ed on the AIC, and your article gave me the motivation to look back and reflect on the events it described.

It was, obviously, a hotly-worded piece on a hotly-debated topic. I wince a little at the tag-line, as there were no doubt better words I could've chosen, and it become super generalised, farther from my vent of frustration about some Senators' stances on the debate to a "no Senate should do this!" statement. To clarify the events a little in your recap, the original concept for the AIC explicitly included the possibility of "replacing Arnhelm," and though, yes, all Senators ended up rescinding that statement, that was only after the "mob" descended, as you've put it. Once that idea had taken hold, that's when the questions of what use the committee could have surfaced, which ultimately ended in the ending we all know about.

Looking back, it was a pretty poor debate, and it set precedents I now completely disagree with. It wasn't until this current fiasco in Arnhelm when I realised just how much people were jumping at shadows, as if the barest stretch of inactivity would bring an evil Senate down overhead. That multiple councilmembers were checking their every move in Arnhelm as if it might influence a movement to remove the city-state. It was, well, pretty shocking to me, someone who had gone about their normal Arnhelm life pretty soon after that thread was tabled, that such a culture was still thriving today, not just existing.

That might be a little surprising to some, considering I literally combed Senator platforms for mentions of Arnhelm, but I did do so after seeing that a Senator had brought up (he edited it out his platform after) the idea of creating an Arnhelm/CA hybrid, a move which would fundamentally change Arnhelm's current state, and had me worrying if we would see another "dogpile" here. At that point, the possibility of changes to Arnhelm had yet again become an important issue in the Senate election, getting added to multiple platforms, and I decided I wanted to know how our future Senators feel about such a debate.

I'm still not sure of where I stand on a potential Senate planning to make changes to Arnhelm. They clearly have a right as the CCA is part of our law, that is obvious, but I am majorly unsure of what change could come out of it; the CCA is incredibly relaxed, and almost the entire configuration of Arnhelm comes from within, its charter and ordinances. This would be, in my eyes, the best way to change it; a movement from within, sponsored or not from those not involved with the city-state. Meaningful changes to the CCA would also be very restrictive, so I am unsure of what a "good change," popular with the people, would look like, or an amendment which would not fundamentally change it, a preposition I have not subscribed to yet.

I would like to say though, having seen the city-state rise and fall through many of its phases, that I believe Arnhelm should be open to criticism, absolutely. I've been a critic of Arnhelm more than people outside of its chambers may expect, and it's clear we have work to do. It is not a perfect, finely-tuned simulation, and there are many merits in what people have brought up about pre-legislation in Europeia after the CCA. I'm definitely not in the "revive the CA!!" boat yet, but it is a topic we should discuss.

Ultimately though, I'm glad you wrote this article. It raises a topic people have been avoiding for quite a long time. Moreover, if those rumours you mentioned exist, I have lost even more faith in Arnhelm paired with all the alarmism that's been on the rage. Nor should peoples' reputation be dashed for just bringing it up. I hope to see what Prim has mentioned, a GH discussion on Arnhelm and legislation outside the Senate in general. And I hope to see what I called for in Sopo's resignation thread, a true introspective look by the people of Arnhelm, myself included, in what we really want the city-state to look like, and what its climate should be.

Hey, thanks for writing this very thoughtful reply.

I think there are some things that Arnhelm should settle within. For example, there's a discussion going on right now about how serious the body should be vs. how silly it should be. That's an area where I am less interested in what non-Arnhelm people think, unless of course, they are saying they would be interested in getting involved if it were a certain way.

On the big regional questions, and how Arnhelm fits into our overall Europeian ecosystem, I think it's a bigger conversation. Part of the problem I've been having in reading all these great replies and trying to followup is...I don't have a policy prescription. I'm not sure which way Arnhelm should go. I think that's what, looking back, made me miffed about the whole anti-AIC movement, because I think we do need an organized discussion, or focus group, or *shudders* committee.

That being said, the rollout of the committee was botched and there were legitimate reasons to oppose it. I think your article was good fwiw, though the quotes seemed to heavily focus on those against the committee

So I was confused and looked up the context of what you referenced. I failed to remember directly addressing Grav. Thanks to Siph's link to his article, I can see my response in reply. I'm going to pushback that I directed either of these comments to Grav specifically. Was I hot and heavy? Sure I was. Was it unwarranted? I didn't believe so at the time with the amount of pushback that was received. I had been against the proposal since it was mentioned in Dark's platform.

Now you can certainly argue that I responded heatedly to Calvin. You cannot argue that either of the quoted statements were directed to GraVandius himself though.

@GraVandius, if that's your perception, from what I can recall of events, they were not directed to you. I definitely don't hold any hostility towards you right now.

Will I, in the future, temper my response? I have no problem saying I will do my utmost. Can I guarantee my responses will always be tempered? Of course not. You want to call me out on it, feel free. I expect that of you, @HEM . That's why you're needed in the region.

I do not like either the way the Senate has been vilified in Arnhelm nor the way we have lost Sopo, who could have provided us with the RP content we've been wanting. So yes, HEM, bring attention to it. Call us out. @ people if you want. The only way you can get some people to get involved is by rocking the boat. (I mean, it worked with me, right?)

Hey Kuramia, thanks for this really self-reflective post. I called you out, in part, because I know you're never one to shy away from a little heated debate I hear you on those comments not being made directly to GraVandius, but I think a lot of these statements were directed at the Senators involved, and it's hard to not take that personally. Especially when these notions of being untrustworthy seem to endure long after the event itself!

-snip-

I actually had a response typed up to this, but I really did not like it and have put off responding to it until now.

------------------------------------------
Given that no one wants to read a long-winded rant, I'll try and shorten this.

Some parts of the article were clearly aimed at me, with this quote:

Questioning Arnhelm is a "scandal." This isn't just Calvin, but long-time participants in Arnhelm like GraVandius as well.

This is a complete mis-characterisation of my words.

Not regarding those, unpopular policy stances can still hurt your popularity in general. There’s a reason why I would never be elected should I ever run on a platform of bringing back the FM and CoS. I wasn’t saying that the Senate shouldn’t elect these people as Speaker because of their stances, but rather that Lloen would be a safer pick just simply because of how much less controversial and more popular he is.

The explanation above sums up what I really wanted to say.

I fear this move will jumpstart those ideas with this referendum used as evidence for the current system being a joke or not working. Arnhelm is a serious institution; I will not stand to see it devolve into a playground or needless controversy.

I don't think I'm overreacting here when there have been attempts to investigate Arnhelm? Most of the time, Arnhelm is a peaceful, productive RP; events like the referendum, which Rotasu himself characterised as "[n]eedless controversy," divert from that truth. Although this wasn't cited in the AIC, there was actually a joke proposal by, coincidentally, another Deputy Mayor on the day of the AIC. These things stack up, and they together tarnish the good that Arnhelm actually is.

I have also never said that Arnhelm should never come under scrutiny. In a June 2020 op-ed that managed to be overlooked by everyone, even when during the AIC crisis during which it was all of 10 days old, I said this:

While I think there should definitely be a review into Arnhelm, the time is not now. Arnhelm hasn’t existed for even a year right now, and we’re already launching an investigation into it? Arnhelm has not had the time to prove itself, nor had the chance to become a fully-developed system. I say we give Arnhelm a few more months: if we see that activity is consistently low, perhaps we should consider something else. And if we see that activity goes up and down in a pattern?

And this quote of mine is still in discord:

A lot of this article is built upon misconceptions and miscontruing what people are saying. It's a reality of talking online through forum boards, and a problem that I think we should definitely address because it has been at the root of many such arguments over the span of time that I've been here.

I did have more to say, but this is, for now at least, </rant>

I do not believe I mischaracterized your words. You clearly insinuated that you thought the Senate would pick Lloen to be Speaker because he was "scandal free" -- insinuating that his opponent, Calvin, had engaged in scandal.

You later clarified what you meant, but your clarification was not along the lines of what most people understand the word "scandal" to mean. I appreciate that there was a clarification, but my whole point was that people associate Arnhelm-oriented discussions with "scandal" and that was concerning to me.

I think suggesting that a lack of activity in Arnhelm would result in the Senate abolishing or other interfering with Arnhelm was jumping the gun, and conspiracy-minded. I did not see any signs that the new Senate would take that up immediately, and one of the most vocal Arnhelm Senators, Calvin, basically took a pledge to not meddle with Arnhelm to ensure he had a chance electorally.

I am sorry if you think this article is built on "misconceptions and misconstruing." I don't believe that's true, and a lot of people have said they feel similarly to me. I think a lot of Senators who, immediately upon being elected, were greeted with conspiracy theories that they were going to abolish Arnhelm because it was inactive feel that those notions were built upon "misconceptions and misconstruing" as well. At the very least I hope this article has helped people understand each other a little bit.

Finally! I know you're responding to the article as if everything I said is directly related to you. I promise this article is not about any one person. If I were writing about one person, I would name them, so they could respond fully. It is about a phenomenon I saw across the region.

I honestly have trouble grasping what I did in hindsight, I can't rationalize it as normal or proper behavior but I will say this and echo OD in what he said about me in his platform: At the time I did what I thought was right; was it right? Hell no.

During the discussion, I think a lot of my side of the argument was trying to defend something I hadn't thought through but felt obligated to fight for anyway. It took longer than it should've for me to admit I was in the wrong.

I think this stems from such a broader issue, whether in Arnhelm or Europeia as a whole there is this rampant sense of self-righteousness and individualism. I am guilty of it as well. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions at the end of the day, and our own sense of "this is right, and this is wrong", but where do we draw the line? This region is built on our collective work despite our disagreement on virtually every topic concerning the region, however, disagreement without common decency just rips people apart.

How does that relate to the issue at hand? Well either side of the AIC took on their own self-righteous views and ran with them. In support viewed it as a benevolent force to help Arnhelm and those against viewed it as an invasion of Arnhelm's autonomy and that it would be detrimental to the City. My point is that none of us will be infallible, but we have to see through the veil of pettier disagreement. I think no one should have to justify any stance they may or may not have held nearly 6-7 months ago. In a larger sense, I hope this discussion can give people a sense of clarity as to the emotions of the people involved in this discussion. There are my two cents

Thanks for posting this Rotasu, I think it's super self-aware and interesting. I disagree with you that folks shouldn't have to justify actions taken 6-7 months ago, when they've contributed to a certain regional culture that has endured. A narrative really started gaining momentum because of the AIC debate, that has snow-balled into something that I ID'ed as particularly problematic.

For what it's worth, and maybe I see this from a different vantage point, but I don't think this has ripped us apart. I think it's been truly interesting, and people have come to the table with their frank and honest views. Granted, I don't know what people are saying behind closed doors — I imagine I'm not a very popular person in certain circles — but that's ok. I think this discussion has been good, and I appreciate those who have contributed.

I honestly have trouble grasping what I did in hindsight, I can't rationalize it as normal or proper behavior but I will say this and echo OD in what he said about me in his platform: At the time I did what I thought was right; was it right? Hell no.

During the discussion, I think a lot of my side of the argument was trying to defend something I hadn't thought through but felt obligated to fight for anyway. It took longer than it should've for me to admit I was in the wrong.

I think this stems from such a broader issue, whether in Arnhelm or Europeia as a whole there is this rampant sense of self-righteousness and individualism. I am guilty of it as well. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions at the end of the day, and our own sense of "this is right, and this is wrong", but where do we draw the line? This region is built on our collective work despite our disagreement on virtually every topic concerning the region, however, disagreement without common decency just rips people apart.

How does that relate to the issue at hand? Well either side of the AIC took on their own self-righteous views and ran with them. In support viewed it as a benevolent force to help Arnhelm and those against viewed it as an invasion of Arnhelm's autonomy and that it would be detrimental to the City. My point is that none of us will be infallible, but we have to see through the veil of pettier disagreement. I think no one should have to justify any stance they may or may not have held nearly 6-7 months ago. In a larger sense, I hope this discussion can give people a sense of clarity as to the emotions of the people involved in this discussion. There are my two cents

One could argue that this article and the ensuing discussion is more of an escalation of the self-righteousness arms race than an antidote to it...

In the hours since making my "bookends" post, I've had second thoughts about it...because it centers me in this narrative, and my desire for a response. And really, it forces everyone to come out and say whether they think they were right or wrong, and places me as the arbiter of that. It feels a little weird, frankly, and idk if I would do it again.

But as I said before, if the alternative was the conversation going nowhere when there was clearly a pent up need to discuss this, then maybe it was for the best? Idk, maybe someone should write an article about me now and everyone who has gone after those who have gone after those who opine on Arnhlem

 

[Kuramia]

Hey Kuramia, thanks for this really self-reflective post. I called you out, in part, because I know you're never one to shy away from a little heated debate I hear you on those comments not being made directly to GraVandius, but I think a lot of these statements were directed at the Senators involved, and it's hard to not take that personally. Especially when these notions of being untrustworthy seem to endure long after the event itself!

You've got a good point there.

I will say, to those using my statements made to Senators for a specific action taken at a specific point in time: