Join the new world

Not including all of the message by jacen might be grounds for another monc.

Instead of devaluating what a Motion of No Confidence means, you could provide what those grounds are? 🙂

The actual monc by Jacen is like 200% more text. The CoC not
Including all of the text in a requested debate is just inexcusable

A big amount of blabbering is not usually considered a ''proposal'' to be presented in public in an official debate. You should know, as during your tenure / odans tenure as CoC it was occasionally refused a debate because they didn't occur in the right ''format''. The CoC Team is actually doing you a favour by giving you an extensive platform to have this procedure while the initial request was all but clear (which I agree on, as whenever Congress wants there should be a vote/debate!).

I thought it was a target against Mof lmao.

However tonthe point, I see this MonC as a complete waste and havent saw any rule infringement especially the fact Congress has voiced its opinion by a majority to change our blacklist laws for which the CC team has acted within line.

To summarize a tired debate in Congress PM while more important things are at stake (e.g. Black Friday Fund):

* There is no retroactivity, as the accepted law does not change the original law that sentenced people. It only adds provisions, just like the provision of Congress Tax Blacklist is considered ''legal'' and widely applied in the past by odan & co. This has been argued by everyone, including non-partisan people like Djirtsdew.

* Some people tried to fill in rationality for odan & co by suggesting that the law is a ''loophole'' to circumvent 2/3 requirement for removing people from the blacklist. Again it does not change anything in that regard, except removing people that have been on it for two years. If someone else were to be blacklisted today, there is nothing the supposed enemies of odan & co can do to circumvent the 2/3 requirement.

A.K.A we can just conclude that the argument for MoNC are based on falsities and are out of spite that the democratic procedures are not working in favour of some people 🙂. Sad that we have to endure this once again, while at the same time very important matters are at stake (e.g. Black Friday Fund). But do not be surprised, that is exactly the strategy that is being applied, because when it comes to in-game matters like our subsidies these individuals are nowhere to be seen - except to claim subsidy and argue they are against it in public.

Because congress is only able to debate 1 thing at a time.

Seems you are, as you in no way elaborate on this childish Motion of No Confidence that seems to take up most of your efforts 🙂

I contributed to the Black Friday debate. So your point invalidated.

Yeah you spit some text that shows you want to hide public money and are not aware of essential in-game mechanics. That is not serious input but simple bickering, just as much as the continuous no-votes on even the most primal issues like the transfer of org money is not. How do you expect to lead this country if you insist on doing that, as you are one of the big CP candidates?

Thats 1 thing but what about the past and previously 😉

supposed neutral coc puts his stuff in the debate opening. and doesn't; include all of the text of the debate requestor in there...

Hey Ryan, it is good to see you speak up!

The text was misquoted after the initial proposal in Congress PM so I doubt there is any ill intent. We have had seen worse cases when the tables were turned and proposals were just edited by the Chairman. Either that, or it was seen as a part of the Congress PM debate - you guys are after all selectively not interested that the numerous rebukes - that show the falsities of the claims in there are posted publicly here as well - (which might be intentional, tire out people by discussing it in PM first, but I digress).

This is the text, so we can return to WHY the current Chairman Team deserved to be impeached, instead of bickering over procedural issues and forgoing what the initial issue was: perhaps because there is barely an ''issue'', but maybe you guys can convince Congress otherwise.


''the only way to remove all the current ("😎" people off the blacklist is by using article 9.3 to start a vote on every individual person on the list.

even if i were to agree with his reading that the updated law should remove people that are currently on the blacklist, he also removed a blacklist that was on there with the specific condition (voted on by congress) that it remains there permanently (unless removed by procedure 9.3)

i agree that people that are put on the blacklist now that the update is in effect would be removed from the blacklist automatically after 2 years (with the exception of cases that are put there permanently if congress votes that way)''

I wonder why both you and blackpatje didn't just post the text for all to see.. But it is easier to argue over such matters and skipping on defending the MoNC that is IMO way out of line, built on several false claims (e.g. ''retroactivity'') and even targets unjustly the wrong people (The Chairman Team that complies with a legal Congress decision).

I&W showing their true and ugly side! They sure do their best to throw mud on people out here. When persons of their party acted childish as CoC team, they had no problem with it.
Keeping it short since they (I&W) dont deserve the attention.

so not including all of the text i included for the opening post.
adding your own opinion in the opening post.
i'll let it slide that it took you way too long to start the debate. (at first it looked like you even wanted to refuse to do it)

i see someone posted my text later in this debate but that does not excuse the total mishandling of the opening of the debate by the coc. especially since it could be missed by people that way easily.

all in all not a good showing for a CoC that should be neutral, especially in a monc debate hiding/not including all of the provided data. in and of itself another point in favor of the monc.

It took way too long = not even half a day. If you wanted it earlier, or you wanted your proposal to be different from what you provided to Congress, you could also use your legal rights to start debate. CoC team is not here 24/7, and neither are you, so stop with your baseless attacks. Your debate was opened, a counter-argument from CoC team has been also provided, so people can see both sides of your affair. Law was therefore fulfilled, just like with the blacklist. But you already know that, So no need to repeat myself.

you responded on it 9-10 hours before starting the debate. with a response that looked like a refusal.

yes i could have opened it in my personal paper, but for consistency i believe it's better to keep it contained to the official congress paper.

a counter argument in the opening post that doesn't include most of my message isn't satisfying the law. it's downright criminal.

I am not like some other (d)CoCs, who refused to open debates and votes, when they did not like them - I do my job, as the Law dictates.

Either way, your debate and proposal has been started. No matter how much you will claim otherwise, this article is a proof of it. And if you want debate on different topic, you still can contact CoC team (so far, you are only spouting acid and attacks in the public, but you have made no enquiries to CoC team, as to change the subject of the debate, even though you seem eager to do it). And the Law says nothing about the attacked side not being allowed to post counter-argument. Moreover - if you are so afraid of counter-argument being presented (calling it a "criminal act"), it only shows you know the counter-argument has more validity and truth in it than your own argument, because unlike yours, it is based on actual Laws.

Unless you will come up with some actual evidence, or you will request to start a vote, I see no reason to reply again to your weak attacks against my person. All in all, they only show you started the MoNC purely for reasons personal, and not legal.

give me an example of a (d)CoC refusing to allow legal debates/votes to start?

yes the debate was eventually started. and no i shouldn't have to contact the coc team to alter the text of the debate, it should have been complete from the start.

and no it does not allow you to add a counter argument to the article:
4. The article or first message will detail the reason for the debate.

the monc was started for legal reasons, and your behavior in it only further shows your disregard for our laws.

You forgot, when certain CoC refused to open a debate, and when majority of Congress asked him to do so, he then proceeded with starting a vote on different proposal, which was never debated in the first place, to block the original proposal being voted and to try to force his own agenda while confusing the Congress?

https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-congress-monc-against-coc-odan--2696176/1/20

Oh, but that was all perfectly legal, of course 😉 .

Your debate is complete. You asked for MoNC due to the reason you described, (no matter how invalid it is, as explained), and that has been done. You continuing your petty attacks despite that (CoC team refused to open the debate, CoC team opened it too late, CoC team did not put my proposal there, CoC team should get more MoNCs, once this one fails, etc., etc.) , as I stated earlier, only show that no matter what CoC team will do, you will always attack them with more and more MoNC accusations, because you simply do not like the people in charge. MoNC is not a tool to execute your personal vendettas though, that's not what the Law says.

All in all, this is all a waste of Congress time, which could be devoted to solve more important (and real) issues, not based on personal feelings towards each other.

Not going to read it, just vote no. Just another I&W program agains progress.

i remember when you had a backbone.

I remember when I was thinking you used just one account.