The South PacificBoard

Briteannia wrote:


Fahrenheit or Celsius?

Celsius, definitely

Shangyuen wrote:

Celsius, definitely

What if it’s Kelvin? 0.0

And yay, I just cast my first vote for the OWL!
*coos happily*

Melicorium wrote:

What if it’s Kelvin? 0.0

And yay, I just cast my first vote for the OWL!
*coos happily*

Hey, so did I! But I technically didn't.

Drystar wrote:

I think it’s a little late to abort the WA, wouldn’t that fall under the definition of very late term?

If it can’t articulate a compelling reason not to be killed, it’s not too late.

Proctethia wrote:

Not most TSPers. Most TSPers don't visit OWL.

Normally around ~10. ~10 is nowhere near 8000<

Mist of us don’t give a rats hind end about WA votes, since it’s a never ending circle back and forth motion. Also a fine example of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as they slice things even finer to get a coveted award for authoring a resolution.

Drystar wrote:

Mist of us don’t give a rats hind end about WA votes, since it’s a never ending circle back and forth motion. Also a fine example of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as they slice things even finer to get a coveted award for authoring a resolution.

True but our endorsement numbers positions us as one of the most influential regions in NationStates — with the power to crush or pass resolutions (which do ultimately affect our stats) — so it would be a shame not to exploit this.

Amerion wrote:

True but our endorsement numbers positions us as one of the most influential regions in NationStates — with the power to crush or pass resolutions (which do ultimately affect our stats) — so it would be a shame not to exploit this.

You know how I love to exploit things - and how! I got a bit passionate in there, I must say. This is one matter I care quite a bit about, not only because it is the poor and women, some of the most systemically underprivileged groups in nearly every society.

Auphelia wrote:

You know how I love to exploit things - and how! I got a bit passionate in there, I must say. This is one matter I care quite a bit about, not only because it is the poor and women, some of the most systemically underprivileged groups in nearly every society.

It would be fascinating to see what would happen if OWL only gave its approval to proposals which advanced CALD interests. How many authors would bend themselves backwards for Auphelia's cane to get our vote?

Auphelia wrote:

You know how I love to exploit things - and how! I got a bit passionate in there, I must say. This is one matter I care quite a bit about, not only because it is the poor and women, some of the most systemically underprivileged groups in nearly every society.

And so do I - especially exploiting things.

Amerion wrote:

It would be fascinating to see what would happen if OWL only gave its approval to proposals which advanced CALD interests. How many authors would bend themselves backwards for Auphelia's cane to get our vote?

Yes! Dance for me, puppets!

I have already bent the SC to my will, and the GA shall be next!

An alternative point we could make would be to only vote for SC resolutions that explicitly go towards our 'defenderism ideals', Aumeltopia :P

Amerion wrote:

An alternative point we could make would be to only vote for SC resolutions that explicitly go towards our 'defenderism ideals', Aumeltopia :P

Oh goodness, you’re going to make TSP one of those people who go to Copenhagen once and suddenly everything is about how great it is there and they compare everything to it.

“You know, in Copenhagen they actually do it this way!”

“Well in Copenhagen, we prefer . . . “

Don’t be one of those people. Just because we are a defender region doesn’t mean we have to make everything about being defenders.

Auphelia wrote:

Oh goodness, you’re going to make TSP one of those people who go to Copenhagen once and suddenly everything is about how great it is there and they compare everything to it. 

“You know, in Copenhagen they actually do it this way!”

“Well in Copenhagen, we prefer . . . “

Don’t be one of those people.  Just because we are a defender region doesn’t mean we have to make everything about being defenders.

You'd prefer it if we made it about you

Auphelia wrote:

Oh goodness, you’re going to make TSP one of those people who go to Copenhagen once and suddenly everything is about how great it is there and they compare everything to it.

“You know, in Copenhagen they actually do it this way!”

“Well in Copenhagen, we prefer . . . “

Don’t be one of those people. Just because we are a defender region doesn’t mean we have to make everything about being defenders.

Perhaps, and Aume should feel free to chime in here, we should construe defenderism in not a purely R/D context but more so grossly liberal — although, we could, of course, appropriate another word to describe this.

Amerion wrote:

Perhaps, and Aume should feel free to chime in here, we should construe defenderism in not a purely R/D context but more so grossly liberal — although, we could, of course, appropriate another word to describe this.

I’d say progressive. We’re hardly liberal on some topics, and I find the term so inaccurate. Liberalism is anarchy, to remove all rules and restrictions. Progressivism is using rules and restrictions to create a better society by protecting the weak, borrowing strength from the strong, and allowing the lowest to stand among the highest with equanimity and pride.

Huh. I always heard that liberalism was for change and conservatism was against change, but it sounds like according to your definition that progressivism would fit the definition of "being for change" much better. Or perhaps both are different aspects of change, and you could group progressivism and liberalism under the "change" banner.

Legan johoustes wrote:

Huh. I always heard that liberalism was for change and conservatism was against change, but it sounds like according to your definition that progressivism would fit the definition of "being for change" much better. Or perhaps both are different aspects of change, and you could group progressivism and liberalism under the "change" banner.

Not particularly. The moral and political philosophy of liberalism has an emphasis on some things we agree with, like freedom of speech and the press, but also advocated for limited government and free markets.

Hmmm. Then "liberalism" and "liberals" as defined in current US political discourse must differ considerably from "liberalism" referring to the classical philosophy. On that matter, would the same apply to "conservatism"? As in the traditional conservative philosophy is much different from what conservatism now means in US discourse?

Auphelia wrote:

If it can’t articulate a compelling reason not to be killed, it’s not too late.

I’m surprised you let my other post slide by without a comment of some sort.

Drystar wrote:

I’m surprised you let my other post slide by without a comment of some sort.

Which one, pet?

You are so unusually active at the moment, your laconic demeanour made rather loquacious.

Drystar wrote:

We should film a documentary about such odd wildlife behavior.

I agree. Lets start.

Auphelia wrote:

Which one, pet?

You are so unusually active at the moment, your laconic demeanour made rather loquacious.

4 hours ago, you liked it. I’ll send you my initial response I wrote by telegram, it’s a bit to venomous to post, but I did feel a bit better after writing it. Thursday’s tend to do that to me.

Auphelia wrote:

I’d say progressive. We’re hardly liberal on some topics, and I find the term so inaccurate. Liberalism is anarchy, to remove all rules and restrictions. Progressivism is using rules and restrictions to create a better society by protecting the weak, borrowing strength from the strong, and allowing the lowest to stand among the highest with equanimity and pride.

Oh, yes. I do so agree.

Auphelia wrote:

Not particularly. The moral and political philosophy of liberalism has an emphasis on some things we agree with, like freedom of speech and the press, but also advocated for limited government and free markets.

Nothing wrong with limited government, you don’t want them prying into everything you do, do you? And the free market has advantages, let’s anyone make or sell things, you can’t blame it for humans natural proclivity to nepotism or corruption.

The freedom of the free market is pretty chill, but it is also true that people left to their own devices have a habit of making certain decisions in a short-sighted manner. Maximum freedom doesn't automatically equate to optimal decision-making, especially when it comes to issues like substance usage. There is a case to be made for saving people from their own decisions, especially when there is a huge base of evidence to show that people will make decisions that are bad for themselves and for others if not regulated.