theprincessparisi wrote:Cindy,
apointed, nominated, whatever.....semantics
and of course the appeal is fine that is NOT the issue the leadership has, its fine to appeal appropriately, it is NOT however ok to build a wall around a plot becuase you dont agree with the two chancellor's decisions and it is also not ok to then tell me that other people were involved with that.. which i think they were not.
Sorry, Prin, but creative protest is definitely in the nature of democracy. Delia happened to be my "creative partner" in this discussion, but she wasn't the only one, just the immediate spark. In fact our creativity was sparked by the fact that Alex had already refused at least twice (once to me and once to someone else who can speak up if he/she chooses) to take action on what we thought was a clear violation of the Covenant. He told me afterwards that he just didn't think we were serious about wanting action. The intent of the wall was to draw attention to the fact that we were absolutely serious. Alex was not happy about the NATURE of our protest: the wall bothered him a lot. He suggested that we could have put out posters as a protest, but I pointed out that littering CDS with protest posters (and I had some dandy ideas for those!) would have been even more disconcerting than the wall. The wall was simple, made the point clearly to those who needed to see it, and at worst was "bad manners" rather than a violation of the Covenant. And of course it temporarily resolved the problem we perceived by placing the hot tub behind walls where the covenant stated it should be.
As for other people being involved....well, you know about Delia and Sonja who were directly involved. If others who knew about this and supported our action wish to speak about it, they will I'm sure. And if not...well, then, you can believe what you like. Nothing I or anyone else says is likely to change your mind if you have already made a decision.
theprincessparisi wrote:
its a pattern of behavior of disregard for rules that makes you unfit for nuCARE and unfit for the SC......sorry, but you have spoken a lot and not told the whole story my dear. there are many other instances that you have defyed this faction and its leadership in our opinion...
And if you had even asked about your concern on the covenent interpretation, or running for office, etc. etc. etc. first..maybe this wouldnt have happened. But it has and the leadership is unanymous in its decision and many of the NuCARE members have been in support of this decision as well.
Well, I do not consider a blast on the nuCARE forum here any kind of "official action" regarding my membership in nuCARE. If and when you decide to call a meeting, invite me to address any specific concerns, and call for a vote then I might decide to formally leave the group. In the meantime, I still think nuCARE's platform is the most coherent and practical of all the faction platforms. I support that platform and will continue to support nuCARE candidates as long as they continue to move the platform concerns along through the RA process.
theprincessparisi wrote:You asked me to not have NuCARE support you in your quest for the SC. You get your wish. We will not support a person who defys a chancellor and builds walls around a build they dont like in order to make their point without going through the democratic process.You are not fit for the SC in our opinion. And we do not welcome you in our faction.
That first statement is simply pure nonsense. The truth is that I told you that I did not need five signatures supporting my candidacy for SC since Claude was planning to nominate me. When the Dean of the SC nominates a candidate, no signatures are required. The signature process is for outside nominations: any citizen can gather five signatures and present them to the SC. The SC would then vote on whether or not to nominate that person. How you managed to twist that into a request from me that nuCARE not support my candidacy for SC eludes my understanding.
As for "welcoming me in the faction" you are not required to include me in the leadership of course. And I'll note that I have NOT been part of the leadership to date, just an informal advisor, so this is really no change. You can't stop me from supporting the nuCARE platform though. We DO have free speech in CDS, and I expect to continue to exercise that prerogative in support of nuCARE goals.
theprincessparisi wrote:Our guess is this was all staged to support your own faction anyway, if it is, and it may not be.. oh well, enjoy. And anyone who goes with you... Have fun!
Contrary to the rumors you've been trying to start, I have no intent to create a new faction. There are others that I could support, although their platforms don't fit quite as closely with my interests as nuCARE's platform does. And relative to the size of our community we have plenty of factions already, not to mention that Justice is in the process of creating another. I see no need for yet another.
theprincessparisi wrote:You are no longer welcome to treat us as you have.
Well, Prin, I suppose there are some who do not like someone who seeks out common ground, engages in vigorous discussion, and actively supports action that moves the group purpose forward. Of course those things go along with speaking out clearly when individuals within the group take action that is clearly detrimental to the stated group purpose and refusing to support tactics that disrupt the entire community. No one has to read this forum, and of course anyone who doesn't care what I have to say can also mute me so that their thoughts are not contaminated by my opinions. But that doesn't seem like a very fun way to participate in the CDS process. I expect that each of my friends who happens to be a member of nuCARE will decide for themselves what relationship they'd like to maintain with me. So far with the exception of your blasts I haven't seen much change, and I certainly don't intended to assume that there will be change just because you have said so here.
Cindy
