It wasn't for self-education, it was to make a point. You say a ton of things about other parties having the full capability to assume power if they disagree with your rule. But. These parties don't exist.

Right.

But you can't have it both ways. Either you have elections and can use it as a valid point, or you don't have elections and can't use that to justify the name.

There are many more fictional people in between when you were the monarch of Zormite and when you were the first selected dictator of the Zormite Republic?

All I can say is that you must be remembering incorrectly. If it ever happened it was by accident and corrected within a minute. I was one of the most vocal advocates against such things - in fact, I punished and removed those who went on tag with their account name. "Set a proper nickname" was the warning.

The two people who I remember doing that frequently were Larrien and MarkB. Perhaps you're thinking of them, I don't know.

But they didn't work? So that's kinda moot?

Granted.

I have no problem with it, except when it's contradictory as I already noted.

Never said they should enjoy personal freedoms. Just said the name was inappropriate.

My imagination isn't limited. See two points above.

Nope.


I'm glad, as that'd be nonproductive.

Indeed. I feel the name is inappropriate.



I could not agree more.

It's a form of government, like I said it was...?

What?

There's a difference between a name and a form of government.

Someone doesn't understand our government's structure.

Might be VT.

*g*

If a Kingdom's name makes reference to a government structure, is it not unreasonable to expect the structure of the kingdom to follow its name?



I never claimed to be the majority. I merely claimed to be correct.

No, listen, they don't. The amount of people that believe a statement to be true does not affect the truth of the statement.

So what? Perhaps you should be. Some of you are bothered enough to hotly debate this with me, when I am making one simple point.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, man. It's a matter of an inaccurate name.

Okay? Your loss, buddy.

Hey, it's not like there was a minority who had the right idea about the shape of the world, or about astronomy. Oh wai...

Too long to put them all in one, so:

1) No. I'll restate it in case you don't want to read my earlier explanation of this: The amount of people who believe a statement to be true does not affect the truth of that statement.

I'm not whining. I'm pointing out an inaccurate name. I am not complaining.

Information is irrelevant because information is irrelevant, man. It doesn't matter if other countries have inaccurate names. That has no bearing on whether or not the name 'Zormite Republic' is inaccurate for this kingdom.

You have trouble with the whole "burdon of proof" thing. If you make a claim, back it up. Don't shift the burdon of proof - that's a fallacy.

Instead of debating about my attitude, why not debate the points? Stop the ad hominem, okay?

A dictionary is a reference.

An example of another country with an inaccurate name is just that. You have yet to demonstrate how it is relevant to this case.

Demonstrate the relevance, fool.


Okay, so you can show me another debate. Kindly establish the relevance...?

I've disagreed with him in the past, but he's perfectly aware that there is no grudge. Yaknow, someone doesn't have to have a grudge against someone to disagree with them, otherwise I should perhaps claim that you must have a grudge against me to be arguing so vehemently over such a simple statement of mine.

This isn't a matter of 'thinking' someone is right or wrong. Again, see the part where I explained that whether or not people believe a statement to be right or wrong does not actually influence the truth of that statement.

Except you condemn it throughout this thread. Hypocrite.

Where have I said that it did? Stop putting words in my mouth. It's getting old.

If the debate is so irrelevent, why in the world do you keep posting?

Except that I am being objective here, dude. You failed to demonstrate relevance. It's irrelevant.

I never said that my indications of where your statements were irrelevant had any effect on the relevance of the statement. They were irrelevant, plain and simple.

It's a very simple point, but people just don't seem to understand it. They keep thinking that I am trying to debate something which I am not, and answering to that. At this point, I note such and try to explain where their mistake is.

Since when does debating a topic in the past precludes any further debate about it...?

Also, what does it matter what the people of Zormite believe? Again, that doesn't affect the accuracy/inaccuracy of the name.

"Pull a Matlock"? I'm unfamiliar with this term.

There's a difference between a parodical statement and a 'defense'. I'd suggest learning it.

Listen. A dictionary is a reference. I cited it to back up my claim that the name is inaccurate. Pointing out another inconsistent country in no way affects either its accuracy or the accuracy of the name "Zormite Republic."

Except that I am debating each relevant, cohesive point that is given, and noting where the others are not so.

---

I would also like to thank you all for acknowledging my status as the wind god.

I've been a Zormite for years. I don't like the name "Zormite Republic." The last time I looked, it was run more like a dictatorship. Plain "Zormite" sounds better and makes more sense. I haven't rejoined after the leadership/name change because it has become a cesspool.

I am sorry, but your im smart attidtude is basically opposite of the truth for this matter. As has been said many times, you just ignore what you cant fight off or say it doesnt matter, i, as well as most other people believe: THAT IS WRONG!!! You have yet to successfully backup your side of the argument, and i doubt you can, since you are ont eh losing side, with little evidence avaialable to back up your position. Nothing you say, even if it makes sense, proves your point in the least biot, it just shows your stubbornness! Any example of a similar situation is relevant, no matter what the "Wind God" proclaims! people say you are basically using a you suck argument, but i disagree, a you suck argument would be better backed up ;).

How is an attitude false...?

Except that you're ignoring my points and responding with this incoherent blathering. Hypocrisy? I think so!

I have already, doofus. My argument is that the name is inaccurate. I provided supporting evidence and an explanation of why it is such. Other folks are introducing other irrelevant information and are misunderstanding my point. Some are confusing me with other people. I'm a patient guy, so it doesn't terribly bother me. Pointing out where people are making this mistake is growing annoying, though.

This is a pretty awesome statement right here. Care to explain?

Then can you please tell me just how is it relevant? That's all I'm asking. If you're so right, it should be relatively easy to explain. Otherwise, you're just slinging baseless statements.

You kinda need to work on that 'making sense' part.

It's not his job to make sure those parties do exist, and it isn't his job to make sure they don't, either. The reason they do not exist (even though such things do/have exist/ed, whether you personally know about them or not, lance) is purely because nobody has bothered to form one. The reason Zen added that into the constitution was probably to cover the possibility that such parties did arise, and so that there -was- a chance that power could change hands - that's why i'd add it in, anyway, don't know about Zen.


I never claimed that you claimed to be the majority, but i did claim that numbers do count, thus rendering whether you were correct or not...OMGZ0RS IRRELEVANT :O!


The people you refer to there lance, proved that they were right; you have failed to do so.


Time and time and time again. And then get proved wrong, time and time and time again. By doing that, you're bothering them enough to hotly debate it with you until you realise this.


Yeah. Sure it is. :rolleyes:



The relevance has clearly been shown, and you are the only one here failing to establish the relevance within your own head. Sorry, but that's your fault, not ours.

Well, it seems that the only reason this debate is still going is so that you can retain your image of "Lance the Wind God - The diety who is never ever ever ever ever ever wrong and never ever ever ever backs down until he's changed the minds of everyone who disagrees with him, or until he suddenly deems the thread lock-worthy Oneoneoneone."
Of course, if you'd like to show me otherwise by dropping the argument, leaving zormite alone, and letting us run our kingdom as we wish, and call it what we want, regardless of whether you think it is correct, then that would be great. Somehow i doubt you will though.

Oh btw, Kurenai Joukai is clearly not crimson, and it clearly does not resemble a heaven, so are you going to go and throw peanuts at them too now?

Edit: Omy, i just invented a new game. It's called "Count the number of times lance responds to something by either talking about irrelevancy, or putting simple sentences (one/two word answers come under this) which don't actually tackle the point raised."
Whoever gets to 30 first wins a free...uh...metre^3 of air?

Except that he's using the existence of these parties to justify other statements, and they do not exist. Herein lies a problem.

And I never claimed that you did claim that. I was pointing out that I never said I was representing the majority, so your original statement of whether I represent the majority or not is surprisingly the irrelevant thing!

Where is this proof? I've yet to see someone able to point to it, if it even exists. I don't think it does. However, if someone's able to prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

It's their choice, man. I don't control other people.

I've said this about five times now, but please show me this relevance.

1) I am right most of the time, not always.
2) Wren is the one who was going to close this thread when it did not warrant closing, not me.

I am letting you run your kingdom as you wish and calling it what you want. I'm just pointing out that it's inaccurate to do so.

First, I do not really like that name anyway. Secondly, their color is crimson, and they consider themselves a haven of sorts. They are not claiming to have some sort of governmental structure that they do not have. Subjectively, it may be accurate. However, again, that's not the issue. Sigh.

Lance, I am not going to quote the whole thing point by point or these back and forths will get waaaaay too long.


1) My primary point, is that if the real world accepts that the People's Republic of China is a Republic, then it is accurate, by default. Your claim that 'other people using the name wrong are irrelevant' would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that the dispute I have with you is whether the name is actually used wrong when used in reference to the People's Republic of China.

1 a) You cite it is used wrong by the Chinese government, the UN, every government body within the United States, and every other goverment throughout the world, as best as I can tell, because it is counter to your views. If you feel I am 'putting words in your mouth' then try to justify why all these nations and peoples are wrong, so we can use your words instead.


1 b) I cite that it is used correctly, as language is a human invention, and humans are using it to define the People's Republic of China as a Republic, then it is so. Dictionaries have long updated their definitions (such as 'computer' ) based on the contemporary use, and China has been a Republic for a long time now.

I want you to explain why you feel the world governments are wrong and you are right. All I have seen is you saying "Except that I am being objective here, dude. " and that doesn't cut it.


Point 2) In a game like this, even if you were correct on all your points, which I content you are not, it does not matter if Zormite adheres to the strict real world definitions of 'Republic' - which I still contend it does - because in a game (especially a game with flaming farts and horses in eggs and pirates with castles) there is no expectation of strict representational accuracy. You are allowed to play with things and you do not have to build a real world government to play a government in the game.

2 a) You act as if, if you were proven correct, that Zormite would somehow be embarrassed or wrong to use the name 'Zormite Republic'.

2 b) being as this debate was had before, and that the leaders of zormite considered everyone's arguments then, and chose to keep the name, that this would be considered a retired topic. This historical precidence also establishes that the name was accepted and has been quite fine for over a year, raising no concerns from Stefan or current members of Zormite.




As a side note, to 'Pull a Matlock' is a reference to the old TV show 'Matlock' in which a trial lawyer would formulaicly [sic] have a weak case until the last 5 minutes of the TV show at which point would produce some stunning evidence or discovery in favor of his client.


Lance, please think about these points and refute them, summerize whatever you feel your strongest points for your case in your favor is, and perhaps there will be a modicum of progress. Please do allow for the possibility that you may be wrong.

Ah crrap i just had a huge argument that it deleted for some reason, something about an invalid thread.....i geuss i have no choice but to remake it :'(


You were using an im smart attitude, im am saying that is wrong which implies you are dumb. Simple XD.


I don't. Your points are incomplete and you'd be better off saying "your wrong because im always right!" Basically you just say what a republic is, well Zormite has elected a leader at least once, so it is therefore a republic. Your points are disproved and thereby what i say is not blathering as you call it, but pointing out that you cannot sucessfully defend a point.


Ah, upgrading yourself to a you suck argument, ah well. As I just explained, the name is NOT inaccurate. None of the information is irrelevant, you just dont like it because it isnt the same exact thing.




of course, for any other people who cant comprehend simple things, you may also wanna read this:
Any points you make cannot POSSIBLY have sufficient evidence, unless you find a law that says "Lance is right and you must listen to him", whichj no one intheir right mind would make. Most things you say though are just repeats of what you just sed, all your threads are basically:
Name is wrong, your points are wrong, thats irrelevant.
I consider that to not make sense.

*Laughs and wonders how so much stupidityu ended up in one place*
Anyway, it is showing similar events that have been accepted by the masses, and showing ones that are even more against their names, and that thoise should be argued about before Zormite Republic is. Also the global warming thing, it is basically showing you, the 2% just saying is not over and over, also relevant. You cannot just throw things away and call them irrelevant because they show examples, actually that is the opposite of what any good lawyer/judge/anyone with an iq over room temp, would do.

As for me not making sense, no, you just cannot comprehend simple things for some odd reason i have yet to find! I am saying someone saying you suck has a better argument than you do, duh!

My primary point: No. It means that it's accepted, not that it's accurate.

Look, I'm just trying to say whether or not China's name is inaccurate has no bearing on whether or not Zormite Republic's is inaccurate.

Except I did not claim that these world governments are wrong...? I stated only that it doesn't matter if they are or not. I am growing frustrated that you are trying to lead this debate away from whether or not the name of Zormite Republic is accurate or not.

Hey, I'm just talking about the inaccuracy. It's on them what they do about it, if you folks manage to become convinced that I'm right.

Aside from that, I'll state the obvious: "Doesn't matter" does not equal "Shouldn't talk about".

Hey, how they feel is up to them, man. I offered a suggestion of a possibility, at best.

Well, apparently it is not retired, as people still wish to debate them.

As for Stefan - do you expect him to know both the name and how the kingdom is run in order to comment on it?

Ah, okay.

I always allow for that possibility, but when people present irrelevant stuff it just doesn't really help prove me wrong. In fact, I would like to be wrong, as it would be much nicer if the Zormite kingdom's name was accurate and I was the one mistaken. However, at this point in time I have no reason to believe that I am mistaken.

Correct. After the party legitimately gained control of the government, they sought to outlaw opposing political parties. The structure of government has not changed, and this is not to say that elections can no longer be held. Technically, those holding lower offices in government could theoretically be voted in and out. And also for national elections, those can still take place, but there is simply not many options on the ballot. ;)

I just mentioned that as a supporting detail explaining the problems of a truly representative people's government in the sparsely populated and poorly equipped Graal Kingdoms server.

Just trying to show, that we had tried to make it more of an open democracy, but that it just was not very effecient. This is not to say that we cant claim elections are held regularly, because we can and do, but those voting periods are no longer actually played out in-game routinely because they had been proven to be ineffecient and ineffective after the 2nd or 3rd try.

Ok, listen, I am not saying early leaders of the Zormite Republic is refering to kings and emperors and the such. I was the last Emperor, and first Dictator. There was nobody inbetween in that respect. Early leaders was meant to be interpruted more as an equivalent of America's Founding Fathers. Just a group of educated loyalists (common citizens, not "leader" leaders) who took the initiative in helping to organize the new state.

Alright, forget the title of the supreme office for a second. Pretend it was really President, all this time.

Could you buy into the concept that the Republican system of government as used in Zormite was meant to not be very democratic, but actually very authoritarian, or I guess secretive and controling is a better way of saying it? This is really what it was always meant to be from a roleplaying standpoint, even though its really more of a benevolent despotism I guess? That might not be an entirely accurate reference but you get the point.

It was kind of always my intention for Zormite to operate as a Republic, but for near autocratic power to remain in the hands of the supreme authority of the land (because, of course, there was really no other option of how to do things in GK using its system).

The idea of propoganda and control of the citizenry was evident from the near start, when I introduced the Ministry of Information and Ministry of Religion (which gives away ambitions of controling what news the people are given and the enforcement of a state ran religion).

So this made most sense originally if the government was well organized like most modern countries, and operated as a republic, and a similar situation as to in the Roman Republic transpired, in which the Senate (or other legislative body) actually gave the title of Dictator to Caesar and all of the powers associated with it. The senate was authorized to make that decision from a republican standpoint because they represented the people and made decisions for them.

At least I gave the subject alot of thought, and sought some sort of historical basis rather than just pulling my ideas out of thin air..

No, you said that my attitude "was the opposite of the truth". An attitude does not possess a truth value.

And, I am smart. Would you say otherwise?

Can you point me in that direction? Else you're just spewing more baseless allegations.

Let's examine this statement.

Your statement rests on the premise that a government is a republic if a leader is elected at any point in time, regardless of what happens after that.

Do you see the problem here?

That's nice, but you were blathering incoherently. You still haven't shown where my points were disproved, either. More of these baseless statements - you're good at that.

Not an argument, but a label. My point rests not on that label.

And as I just explained, your reasoning is so horribly flawed that I will not even begin to comment on it.

Either demonstrate the relevance or stop making these unqualified cliams.

So I cannot possibly be right, no matter what I do? Do you see the flaws in this reasoning?

I really can't help it if some people are too slow to get it the first time.

Uh, I've justified everything I've said that has been questioned. I cannot, however, say the same for you.

I wonder, too.

So because other people accepted a possibly inaccurate name, so too should I accept this one? I ask you again, do you see the flaws in this reasoning?

What?

How?

Man, I can call them irrelevant because they are. They're examples of other possibly inaccurate things or examples of other debates. Neither of these things have much of a bearing on the current debate, unless there's some thin connection that someone can actually get around to demonstrating.

No, you simply cannot phrase things in an eloquent manner. Your typing skills could use some work too, but this is just another 'YOU SUcK' argument too, right?

Sigh.

Zen, I totally understand your reasoning for making it the way you did. I realize what you were trying to make, and how you went about making it. However, calling something a republic when it is just a disguised monarchy does not make it one. This is my point!

I disagree, I think that maybe the sum total of the entire world and its massive government bodies may actually be using the term correctly, and that perhaps you are incorrect.

Secondarily, the fact that even if by chance you are right and they are wrong - that if the world can accept 'The People's Republic of China' as a name (accurate or not) then there is absolutely no reason to have a debate as to whether Zormite should have Republic in its name.

If it is acceptable for China to, the world over, use the term Republic, then I think maybe Zormite can get away with it too in this video game.

I still say that your assertion that 'the world is using inaccurately' and that you possess the truth could be a little off......but I can't understand why even if you managed to turn out correct (the world will be so embarassed) then accepted use irl should be accepted use in game - no higher standards for RPGs than there are for The Real World, please.

Can you at least acknowledge that?

This is a question of an incorrect/misleading name. In the other parts of the world, they can select names that do not properly describe the government. These names can also be accepted by any number of people. That does not make the name correct.

But this isn't about accepting a name. I made a simple statement - the name is inaccurate.

This isn't about accepting a name's inaccuracy, man. It's about a name's accuracy. I recognize that it probably won't change as a result of my statement, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't have made my statement to begin with.

For the whateverth time, where did I make this assertion?

If we have the capability to correct an error, and have (by assumption) identified it as such, then why in the world shouldn't we?