Gosstoepia of the West Pacific
Guest
|
Post by Gosstoepia of the West Pacific on Feb 11, 2004 20:30:51 GMT -5
Where can I find this qoute by Max Barry?
To answer your question, Geomania. As much as I hate to admit it, besides using it as "South Pacific", I don't know what you mean in SP. I'm apart of the West Pacific government, and our policies are not totalitarian like the NPO. In fact I think the West Pacific should introduce more Progressive policies to promote democracy.
They choose the NPO because they have no another choice. And Emperor!? How come you worship like a demi-God. I think Franco is only a loser who has failed so many times in life he won't let anyone take this lone victory away from him.
In closing, I'm impressed on the many options Proboards21 prevides, I'll certainly suggest to the West Pacific to switch our offsite forum to this.
|
|
Warrior Thorin
Full fledged Reporter
Cross me, and you need not fear death
Posts: 48
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Feb 11, 2004 22:22:29 GMT -5
Did you see Franco's statements on the Pacific Forum......he tried to cover his own tracks by stating that he ejected SLR for the SP attack! Francos is completely deluded! This is absolute slander on your part. That is NOT what he said. Why don't you post the thread so people can see what Francos is talking about! |
|
Geomania
Lazy reporter
I'm not a reporter...-_-
Posts: 25
|
Post by Geomania on Feb 11, 2004 22:44:03 GMT -5
And how many endorsements does Kandarin have? Kandarin has 183- in a region that only has 2,000 inhabitants. The Pacific has over 7,000 members, yet FS has only 40 more endorsements. Once again, please notice the disparity, or lack thereof. |
|
|
|
Post by Unfree People on Feb 12, 2004 1:57:05 GMT -5
What's funny is a heck of a lot of his endorsements come from ex-Pacific nations. Where can I find this qoute by Max Barry? It was during a chat session with Max, you can find the transcript here, scroll down a bit and you'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by C O R I N T H E on Feb 12, 2004 8:32:01 GMT -5
Kandarin has 183- in a region that only has 2,000 inhabitants. The Pacific has over 7,000 members, yet FS has only 40 more endorsements. Once again, please notice the disparity, or lack thereof. Also Kandarin is elected most popular leader. Kandarin can't eject oponents, and yet is still undisputed leader of the RR. A little similarity you all seems to overlook in the Pacifics is that all leaders there eject oponents, when threatened through swapping. The only disparity is that Francos has many, and the others have few. Francos has to eject at least a handfull every day. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 12, 2004 9:56:44 GMT -5
[Note: I am posting this for Unlimited - ObjectiveReporter]
Well, I will not be posting on the NwR boards, since I know only too well what they are capable of, instead, I will post my comments here. If you want to copy/paste them over you are more than welcome.
While a great improvement on previous reports, both in terms of writing style and content, your report still suffered from some inaccuracies and bias.
For starters, in your first paragraph you state:
Quote:
illegal acts include badmouthing the government and collecting more than 15 endorsements. The NPO encourages its civilians to report Civil Code offenders. Civilians who report some number of offenders are given a title and thus prestige
You fail to mention that civilians are only rewarded for reporting nations that violate section 1008 of the civil code "offensive flag, name or motto". Instead you try to make it sound like a policed state, where no criticism is tolerated and there are spies on every corner. This is not true; if the criticism is well worded and constructive we have no problem with it at the NPO. It is when the criticism boils down to nothing more than hate, flaming and spamming that people are not tolerated, as is with every region.
Further down your report there are numerous mentions of the South Pacific, yet despite detailing what is rumoured to have happened there, you fail to state why it was done. You fail to state that the South Pacific has been one of the longest serving opponents of the NPO, not to mention one of the most militarily active, launching several attacks on The Pacific. This was merely retaliation, something we were quite entitled to do.
As for your Max Barry quote, you only state half of it, you fail to mention that Max Barry also called Franco the most interesting thing in NationStates.
I also notice that every single one of your sources is anti-NPO. Now, I know that you wanted to talk to the NPO and I know we refused; however, there was nothing to stop you from talking to NPO supporters, such as civilians on this board or the USSR.
I hope you will take things like this into consideration next time you do a report, and do not allow yourself to be swayed so readily by the spiteful propaganda, which is thrown around by so many.
-Unlimited-
|
|
|
|
Post by CC/SiswaiAman/Az on Feb 12, 2004 11:40:40 GMT -5
While Im by no means a Franco's supporter, Im not against him either and Im actually a little wary of posting my opinion here (being a reporter and all) I dont feel that the use of endorsemetn disparity is a fair one at the moment.
The Pacific was subject to a months long campaighn of political telegramming the result of which was the steady bleeding of Francos endorsements. Ive noticed since this political telegramming was stopped by these organisations, his endorsement count has been on the increase, and will presumably continue to increase.
The other Pacific delegates have in the main had an uninterupted peace in which to build their cache of endorsements. Where they have not as in the case of Lady Rebels and Two slit, you will notice they suffered a bleed while the controversy was happening.
I reckon thats whats happened to Franco simply on a more protracted level.
Gosstopeia, lets not bring Francos RL into this please, there is no reason for it, and theres no reason we shouldnt use the same rules here as apply to NS, ie political attracks = OK personal attacks = not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Objective Reporter on Feb 12, 2004 13:13:00 GMT -5
First, I want to thank those who have contributed to this thread so far. Joven, thanks for the correction about Savage.
Gosstoepia, regarding Savage's invasion of The West Pacific, I never found a direct link with that to the NPO, which is what the article was about.
The rest of this is in reply to Unlimited.
In an article of the size I was writing, I had to choose how much detail to include - too much and it becomes uninteresting or unreadable. In this case, going into specifics about the Civil Code is going to cause a lot of eyes to glaze over.
My intent with this article was to be unbiased - nowhere in this article have I made a judgement, good or bad, about the NPO, except to refer to it as 'controversial', which is undoubtedly true. Any criticism that does appear in the article does not come from me, and in every case I attempted to balance it with what I perceived the NPO position to be.
Perhaps I should have added that context, that The South Pacific has been an enemy region, with plenty of military history, but the fact that diplomatic relations were being pursued before the attack occurred changes that context substantially - that becomes the more important context.
I only brought up the quote to highlight the NPO's notoriety in the concluding paragraph. However, you make a good point, considering the sway Max is likely to have over others, and I should have at least included a link or footnote to the entire quote. Which, by the way, was:
Tell me, do you think that paints the NPO in any more of a favorable light to include the whole thing?
I actually did interview RedCommunist, but his knowledge of the NPO is limited. For example, he hadn't even heard of FS & SL's invasion of the SP and the propoganda campaign.
As for why I didn't interview NPO citizens, this was done out of respect for the boycott. Every step of the way, I let you and the rest of the NPO government know exactly what I was doing. There were no surprises. I didn't ask NPO citizens for their viewpoints because I didn't want to put any of them in the position of having to go against their own government's boycott of Network Radio. This was a conscious decision on my part borne of respect for the political reality belying our two institutions.
The bottom line is, I would like for NetworkRadio and the NPO to resume professional relations. And if I put the NPO citizens in that kind of position, you might be criticizing me much harder than you are right now, and it may well have jeopardized that possibility.
I thank you for your comments and criticisms. I hope you see that at all times I have been guided by my own desire to remain as objective and unbiased as possible, while balancing other factors germaine to the process of compiling information in a politically-charged environment, and writing a story that is enjoyable and readable.
Furthermore, I hope this encourages the NPO government to accept interviews in the future, so that we can work these kinds of misunderstandings out before they get to print.
Respectfully,
The Objective Reporter
|
|
Warrior Thorin
Full fledged Reporter
Cross me, and you need not fear death
Posts: 48
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Feb 12, 2004 15:21:49 GMT -5
While I read through your justifications, some of which I wondered about, I was left with an interesting thought. You talk about the boycott as if the citizens are not allowed to discuss things here on Network Radio. I have been fairly active on here for some time and I am an NPO Legion who has earned that title for helping our great leaders enforce the Civil Code.
I guess my only problem (and it is really a minor one) is that you did not ask either the Senate whether it would be proper to interview citizens. That being said, you did a wonderful thing by placing this reaction thread here because the citizens (most of whom will probably react on the NPO forum) would undoubtedly be happy to tell you about the Pacific.
I do appreciate your attempt at being objective, and I do not mean any ill-will toward you. Perhaps you might consider a follow-up story? Maybe you can interview the Centurions and Legions and find out what we do? Maybe you can ask some of our great citizens what they feel about the government? Maybe even take a poll? These are merely suggestions.
Again, Objective Reporter, I appreciate the work you and Sebastian have been doing lately.
|
|
Geomania
Lazy reporter
I'm not a reporter...-_-
Posts: 25
|
Post by Geomania on Feb 12, 2004 21:16:23 GMT -5
Thorin, one soldier is a legionnaire, a legion is 6,000 soldiers.
Who has LR wrongfully ejected? Who has Norion ejected? Twoslit?
|
|
Myrdinn
Full fledged Reporter
Founder, The Realm of Criminology
Posts: 47
|
Post by Myrdinn on Feb 12, 2004 22:23:57 GMT -5
Thorin has over 500 million in his nation's population!  |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 13, 2004 10:26:55 GMT -5
Thorin, one soldier is a legionnaire, a legion is 6,000 soldiers. Who has LR wrongfully ejected? Who has Norion ejected? Twoslit? I think that may be the point he's making. The others are not seen as worongfully ejecting people, so why is Francos? |
|
|
|
Post by Objective Reporter on Feb 13, 2004 13:06:24 GMT -5
While I read through your justifications, some of which I wondered about, I was left with an interesting thought. You talk about the boycott as if the citizens are not allowed to discuss things here on Network Radio. I have been fairly active on here for some time and I am an NPO Legion who has earned that title for helping our great leaders enforce the Civil Code. I have to admit, that's a pretty obvious thing I overlooked. I just assumed the NPO boycott was for everyone in the NPO. I regret not asking the NPO for permission to interview citizens, which as your presence here implies, would surely have been granted. Thanks for the suggestions Thorin. I will take them into consideration. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Stay tuned. |
|
Concerned WP Reader
Guest
|
Post by Concerned WP Reader on Feb 14, 2004 3:26:02 GMT -5
Try this newpacificorder.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=region&thread=1073544901&action=display&start=30Tar A, a big NPO groupie, says she got the news direct from FS that Savage turned in mid-Dec, about the time he started his attack in the WP. A couple of pages later Unlimited, a high ranking member of the NPO, confirms this. But of course you saw all this, seeing as the thread is titled South Pacific, on the very forum of the NPO regarding one of the most controverisal episodes in NS history. |
|
|
|
Post by Siggi on Feb 14, 2004 4:19:54 GMT -5
I think that may be the point he's making. The others are not seen as worongfully ejecting people, so why is Francos? Name another that ejects for 15 endorsements. I understand he has less endorsements than the other Pacific delegates since it is a bit harder to gain endorsements while booting half the UN population on a regular basis, but this seems a tad extreme. The fact that he can even come close to justiying his actions as "just what everyone else does" makes me cringe for those who are convinced of the validity of this argument. Proof positive that WC Fields had a point. |
|
