My appologies for saying Jo and Iain were married. I was assuming something that I should not have based on them having the same IP address. Sorry, it was an honest mistake.
I am also sorry for participating in any domestic strife.
I never claimed to have been a perfect member of WGC. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. There are many times when I was in WGC and I got into dissagreements. Sometimes, I said bad things about people that I regret. Othertimes I felt strongly about a possition on an issue, and maybe let it get too personal. My appologies to the many people who I was unfair to in one way or another. That list includes, not only current members, but several former members.
My appologies to Brutus, EC, and Kaymen, Dale, Jo, Iain.... and every other member and forumer for my own failings.
Just a few months ago, I think I called Kaymen every name in the book because I dissagreed with a few provisions in a bill he proposed. I was wrong about that too. Got emotional over some proposed rules.
That was wrong, but it doesn't mean that I betrayed anyone when I was in WGC. Nor did I knowingly break a single rule when I was a member. Plus, I was -- until Friday -- a member in good standing.
For all that I was unfair to Kaymen, I still was a good enough ally to stand with him when he was attacked. In my book -- while I may have been imperfect in how I treated Kaymen before -- the point of the alliance is not to always be nice. it is to defend eachother in war. When he was in war, I fought with him.
Jo continues to say that nuclear weapons had not yet been authorized. However, if I recall correctly, 4 of the 6 people who can vote on authorizing the weapons posted their support or lack of objection to the proposal....therefore it had the majority of the votes needed to pass. Furthermore, it was proposed by the Minister of Defense, who has the authroity to allow the use of nukes unilaterally.
I do not believe I ever said WGC was corrupt and tyranical. I did post in the WGC forum that I thought Iain was acting in that way with his proposal to give Wendy aid, but then his request that people vote against it. Jo objected to the word corrupt, and I appologiesed for using the word and clarified that what I ment by corrupt was "using something for the purposes other than what it was intended for." The security council aid was intended for noobs who need help. Not for people with 15 countries.
As to my sending the message to Wendy, it was NOT against any WGC rule. The only rule it is against is the one Jo imagines is true. Either way, I'm not going to debate it; that is part of why I left WGC.
As to the whole "would have been forgiven" thing; Jo; you fail to see the facts they way I do. The way I see it, I was tried, convicted, and exicuted without a trial. My access to the forum was taken away without even first knowing why.
I log in, and can't see the forum. I didn't see Iain's message for 5 minutes. I almost e-mailed and asked if the forum was broken.
I was in a war, about to post that I took a country, and couldn't log in because Iain -- an unelected person -- took my access away at his own choice. Then, there is some secret discussion, I guess, by council members (not including me, I guess) where they decided I made a mistake and should remain a member....still my access gone....
That is why I left. I am the first to say I make many mistakes. I made MANY MANY mistakes BEFORE I was elected minister of economics. I made continue to make mistakes all the time. I don't claim to be perfect.
However, I was tried, convicted, and excuted for a war crime when I was fighting my best in a war. Then, to later be told, oh, we'll have you back now...
No thanks. Instead follow the rules you claim to have. Hold the trial FIRST, then exicute someone. Don't find me guilty of treason, and then, afterwards, tell me the charges and have the council talk about it.
To clarify. I am not perfect. I am sorry to those people who my mistakes hurt. I'm happy to list them out for you, if you care that much. In summary:
-EC and Brutus - I'm sorry for both the incidents regarding the raid requests. When you two left WGC, I offered Dale my resignation as Minister of Economics. I felt, and still feel horrible about how I handled that. Sorry. I'm also sorry about how I was in the discussion about nationalization of corporations.
-Dale - Sorry about my attidute, what I said about you and others during the whole consitution debate. I was made because I wanted a vote on each of the issues. I should have said why I wanted the vote one time, and let it pass when you decided otherwise.
-Kaymen - I'm sorry about the consitution stuff, the comments I said when you got rid of the academy, my objection to determining that member as inactive, and how I treated you in general for a couple weeks or so.
-Jo - I am sorry for saying you were married to Iain. I am also sorry for Rile Up the Foreign Minister Days (weeks, and months)
-Iain -- I am sorry for saying you were married to Jo.
If anyone else needs me to appologize about anything else, let me know. I clearly am not perfect.
That does not mean, however, that I'm going to remain in a fed where I am sentanced guilty for treason by an unelected person with no trial, no accusation, and no reason. I was a member of WGC for over a year, and never once did anything with the intention to hurt WGC in any way. I may have made mistakes in trying to help the purpose that made things worse, but never on purpose.
I will not remain where I am found guilty of treason, when I did not do so, and where only later it is decided it was a mistake....
In the consitution that Kaymen and Dale and most of our members had supported, as well as in the old consitution, any member could ONLY be removed after the council voted on it. At the most, the CHAIR could suspend someone. NEVER could the unelected Iain, take away someone's account access unilaterally.
Anway, and if you read one thing, read this. I don't consider myself leaving on bad terms (for my part). WGC can consider me leaving on good terms or bad terms. Each member, or has a whole. For me, however, I think well of WGC and its members.
However, I can no longer follow its rules as Jo thinks the rules are. I can't be in a war, without forum access, unallowed to try to make peace, and unallowed to post on the SC forum.
I thought it would be wrong to take Wendy's country without trying for peace first. I am NOT going to attack someone when I can find a way for peace, and not going to attack someone without trying for it. That would be wrong.
When I was recruited to WGC by BEO, I asked if I'd have to fight. He said I would never have to fight in a war I did not want to. That is why I joined. I don't want to gang-up on weak players.
That is what it started looking like with Wendy. She offered No resistance when I took her country. It took less than 15 minutes; less than 1 game day.
It was very easy for Kaymen also.
I thought then, and I think now that there is no reason why peace could not be reached quickly. I posted those thoughts.
Anyway, this is rambling.
I will humbly request that WGC people please consider the following:
1- If you need an appology, let me know. I'm not perfect, and willing to admit it. It won't change anything, but I'll admit it.
2- I, for my part, am leaving on good terms. I have no desire to argue or fuss about it. I feel betrayed in one way, but I was very honored to be a WGC member and feel well about my time there, as well as the membership. I hold a grudge with no-one.
3- I know I posted more mean things about some people, that doesn't mean I think poorly of them. I wouldn't trust Iain again, but I think he is mostly a decent guy to me. This is a game, he is just playing it.
4- I wish everyone the best; I really do. That includes those in this message and those not.
5- WGC is just not right for me. It isn't the right federation. Jo said as much when she said, "Chrysostom has found it difficult for a long time to understand WGC ethos."
I agree, I think I've spelled out in this thread where I dissagree with WGC ethos...such as convicted a person by a never-elected person with no trial counter to what the rules say. Such as not allowing a member to post on the forum or talk with someone he is at war at to try to make peace. These are both NEW rules just instituted this week, both unilaterally, by Jo. Those changes, I don't like, so I'm leaving.
If it were any other member who was treated like I am now, I would have left also due to that. I'm not leaving because it happend to me. I'm leaving because of the injustice in kicking out an elected minister -- done by an unelected member -- unilaterally, and without any basis in the WGC rules. Done at a time of war, when he is one of the most active people fighting. Done at the absurd accusition that he is helping the "enemy" that he is fighting.
Sorry that this rambles, but I'm ticked that Jo is not being fully clear in her post.
I will agree, as I have told Jo that I am simple, and don't understand the "interplanitary mindgames" that she plays. The word "interplanitary mindgames" is part of what she calls it...though I can't remember the entire phrase.
I don't play interplanitary mindgames. I don't understand the complex politics of people who want to have power and control over other people.
I goof all-the-time. I only sometimes accuse people of corruption.
Finaly, I'd like to point out to Jo, specifically, I think it is best for everyone to move on from this thread.
As to the WGC council debating what to do about me, I hope they choose to live in peace and let me be. I don't care if they accept my resignation from membership, or if they want to kick me out. Either way, I'm not a member
If I desired to be a member, I wouldn't have posted on this forum in the first place. That would have been against Jo's rule. The only I followed by stopping my postings.
Before I posted, I sent my resignation to Dale, I also would not have done that if I desired to remain a member of WGC.
I don't think it is clear. I'm not leaving because I'm mad and I want to make a point. I'm leaving because WGC is not right for me. I don't understand an ethos where elections are meaningless. Where an unelected person can ban an elected minister from the forum unilaterally. The reason: because I tried to seek peace before attacking someone.
The result WGC would have had would be for me to be at war defending a WGC member, but having no access to coordinate that war? I've never heard of an alliance kicking someone out while fighting on its side in a war. That is an ethos I cannot live under.
I'm willing to appologize when I am wrong, but not when I have been wronged. In this case, I was the one wronged. I don't see JO appologizing. I see her saying a bunch of 1/2 truths about me.
"His sole concern was the 'rules' of WGC, although he never quite understood them. That didn't stop him misquoting them, or claiming that 'there is no rule against it' as justification every time he did something that went against our ethos or the wishes of the majority of the membership. "
Notice words like "NEVER" and "EVERY TIME" -- that is not 100% true. Most honest would be "in a few cases" or "some of the time" not "NEVER" and "EVERY TIME" My goodness, it would sound like in over a year's time that Jo was wrong ALOT. Since some of the time when I said there was "no rule against" something, JO agreed.
I guess I NEVER played as part of a team...well, no, actually, I did sometimes play as part of a team.
Jo's generalities are technically wrong.
There were 3 people running to be Minister of Economics when I was elected by a vote of the entire membership. if what Jo says is true, and I was ALWAYS horrible in EVERY way, WGC members must really have problems to have voted for me. See, I had been a member then for like 9 months or so before I was elected.
In reality, I have many flaws, but also some good qualities. Jo's description of me is not fully honest. I'm imperfect, but what she wrote is political and, on its face, taken literally, is not true.
