CDS chronicles continued

[Patroklus Murakami]

I understand what Delia is saying I agree, up to a point. We work better when we focus on issues and try to tackle those rather than attacking people. Where I differ is that I think it is legitimate to make ad hominem criticisms in some circumstances (the character of Ulrika, Ashcroft, ThePrincess Parisi and Michel Manen were relevant to criticism of their plans for the CDS for example).

Jamie, what I'm trying to get you to understand, is that *making war* on a section of our community was not a good idea. Sadly, this has been your project for a number of years now. You used the bully-pulpit of the Chancelry to condemn the CSDF and DPU factions. You used the merger as a battering ram, getting the new citizens riled about the evil factions and took factions out of the electoral process. But... despite all your many mean-spirited and personal attacks on us, we did not leave and continued to get elected to the Representative Assembly (which is why you now want to restrict election to the RA to those who pass your 'inworld attendance' test and are hinting at abolishing it altogether.)

Your split between debate and community is yet another false dichotomy. We can have both Political debate is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We need free and unrestricted speech in order to debate the issues and reach the right conclusions. We have a community. I think the distinction is between a closed society where certain topics are off limits, where the community maintains cohesion through repression, where, for example, people are 'discouraged' from free discussion on blogs and forums and told to 'keep it inworld'; and an open society where there are multiple sources of information, discussion and debate and freedom to say what you believe by the lights of your own conscience *even if that offends some people*. I think you favour a closed society, I think many other people in the CDS do. I favour the open society which the CDS was based on.

I'm at a loss to see how I can be 'gracious' except perhaps by keeping silent? If that's what you want, stop inviting me to comment!

[Jamie Palisades]

In my retirement, I do sometimes take breaks from the hard work of being a CDS politician.
It's hard to keep up with those who do it full time :)
Apologies to Danton for us colonizing his thread.
Apologies to Pat for taking so long to reply.
I rarely get to see a paragraph where every single world is actually wrong. This was sort of a new high. Or low. Whatever :)

Jamie, what I'm trying to get you to understand, is that *making war* on a section of our community was not a good idea.

No, Pat, I never made war. As a politician you were a bitter opponent of many people. Ask Manen. Invective galore. You see your opposition then as appropriate, but mine later as a war? C'mon, old socialist warrior. "Sauce for the goose."

Sadly, this has been your project for a number of years now. You used the bully-pulpit of the Chancelry to condemn the CSDF and DPU factions.

Trying to stir up debate? I have always liked DPU, actually. Lying to pick a fight does not become you. Everything we do is written: easy to verify factually. (I even love their Oktoberfest float .. and their outreach to AA citizens last year!) And CSDF also has always had many fine people. Justice, Arria, Moon and Yogiswara come immediately to mind. It was never CSDF. It was one or two really mean, fractious folks. Mean, fractious personal style -- not social policy.

You used the merger as a battering ram, getting the new citizens riled about the evil factions and took factions out of the electoral process.

Gosh, are you STILL whining about the merger, after you won, destroyed it, and drove people out? Better check the historical record -- I am looking forward to the blogger takes on this :) All newcomers to CDS make up their own minds about factions without my help. I got out of the biz, remember?

But... despite all your many mean-spirited and personal attacks on us, we did not leave and continued to get elected to the Representative Assembly ...

No, an election where 11 out of 12 or 13 candidates are elected is not a compelling voter mandate ... of anything ... and of course you did not leave. That was sort of my point. Unlike you, I retired. Unlike me, you guys are the unelected perma-government. All that remains is for Dear Leader Gwyn to pass along the Hereditary EO Seat to her youngest son, or something like that.

... (which is why you now want to restrict election to the RA to those who pass your 'inworld attendance' test and are hinting at abolishing it altogether.)

Sorry? I want nothing. I am a happy retired guy, knitting. The RA gets to decide laws, not me. I do think it would be amusing, and instructive, if only people who spend time in CDS were its qualified electorate. But that's not for me to say, and I have no idea how that would change voting outcomes.

[Danton Sideways]

I find it interesting, even gratifying, that this thread has been "colonized," as Jamie puts it.

Part of my purpose in writing up the RA meetings has been to try to present both sides of each debate. Naturally I sometimes express my bias towards one side or the other, but I often find myself authentically torn between two points of view. Thus I find myself in middle ground as the atmosphere degenerates - once again - into armed conflict. I'm personally saddened by the demerger - I very much wanted it to work. But I agree with those who say CDS will most likely survive; it may even thrive. The merger experience has been positive in many ways: it provided a healthy shakeup of the established order, drew in new members, generated excitement. In the end the experiment failed, and CDS undergoes one more of its periodic splits, another fiasco. One problem with democracy is that it is something that happens between human beings, with all of their individual and collective shortcomings.