=/\=IDF DECEMBER 2003 NEWSLETTER; LETTER FROM STAR=/\=
**Note from the Admiralty**
IDF Members,
Enclosed is the letter that Former Admiral Star wrote for you all about his views on the removal from CinC. It is extremely long, and you can probably see how ridiculous it is once you get into it, however, the Former Admiral does make some very good points about fleet unity we hope you see. The portrayal of events expressed in the letter are not necessarily the same as the Admiralty's portrayal.
We would like to reassure everyone not to worry about anymore fleet politics. After this letter, it is over. There is going to be nothing but forward expansion and fun programs like those mentioned in the newsletter. We thank you all for simming with us! And we would also like to thank the Former Admiral Star for taking time out of his busy schedule to write about his experience.
* * * * * * * * * *
===========
Independence Fleet,
Today is quite a sad day for IDF. The rule of law is gone. Due process, correct procedure, and proper authority are no more in IDF. Whoever has the power can do what he, she, or they want. As you may or may not know, ADM James Danger West (Lee), VADM Felicity Dragonetti (Whit), RADM Krol (Greg), and RADM James Britanicus (Chris) have forced me out of the fleet, stolen the fleet website and admiralty email account, and have excluded me from the new CO yahoogroup. This was all done with the advice and good graces of Fleet Historian “George Wellesley” aka ex-VADM Robert J. Seldon (Jacob) – my supposed best friend.
Now, what exactly happened? On the morning of December 3rd, I received an email from the rest of “Admiralty” saying that I was being discharged by them (it was later learned that Jacob had advised them in planning their operation). I was never given a warning, not even a single IM or email saying that they weren’t happy with things. All I got was an all of the sudden “you’re gone and we’re taking over.” I think it was the next day that they informed you guys of my “discharge.” I was quite shocked to say the least. Their reasons for doing this included several lies, a few exaggerations, some differences of opinion, and one actual mistake on my part. Yes, one (failing to send them a single email a few weeks back). I find that part quite odd since Lee and Whit are both quite terrible at sending reports when asked for them. I fail to see why they would find such fault in that when they can never seem to get it right themselves.
Before I continue, I first want to say that the unity of the fleet is first and foremost. It is your duty to respect and honor the wishes of whoever is in charge of the fleet. You might not always agree with what is going on, but you have an obligation to respect those in your chain of command. Captains, the ship you serve is not yours. It is the IDF’s, it is everyones’. It is not yours to pull from the fleet over a disagreement. It is not yours to pull from the fleet when another may look more attractive. The ship was the fleet’s before you took command and it should be the fleet’s after you relinquish command. To try and remove a ship from the fleet not only disrespects the ship, but it disrespects all those who served aboard it before you took command. It insults their memory and their legacy. You were entrusted by the fleet to command one of its sims. Do not betray that trust for anything. When you betray that trust, what do you have? Your honor and the honor of the ship come first. Crewmembers, simply enjoy the game. You have, by far, the most fun job in the fleet. You don’t have to worry about recruiting, websites, politics, etc. You just get to play the game and have fun. Enjoy and keep posting.
Now, back to the matter at hand. I don’t recognize Lee’s, Whit’s, Greg’s, nor Chris’s authority to “discharge” me. They were all given their positions with the understanding that all authority to run the fleet ultimately goes back to me. Pretty simple. Lee agreed to this when he became the Chief of Operations. He was effectively running the fleet at this point since I had delegated that authority to him. However, he was still subject to my authority. A fleetmember who wishes to remain anonymous said it best...
“Ok you started the fleet with Seldon and West. West was booted so it was you and Seldon, Seldon quit so it was you. You left in June saying you would be back. You left West in charge till you returned, you returned...The fleet is yours. You created, your [sic] the last of the remaining three, I do not count Lee bc he was booted and not to mention he called you ‘evil IDF’ the whole time he was gone, which is beside the point. They do not have the authority to remove you. However, they do have the right to leave IDF if they choose not to listen to you. You own the name, the name is yours, the fleet is yours.”
I really don’t know how to say it any better. However, I don’t own the fleet, but I simply have the legal authority to run and maintain the fleet. When IDF was founded, the authority was shared between Lee, Jacob, and myself. Lee left and then Jacob eventually left as well, leaving me as the only person with that authority. For someone else to gain a part of that authority, I would have to give it to him or her (which would have happened somewhere around March-May when I was actually going to quit altogether). They were both hired back under that understanding and agreed to it. They do not have the legal authority to do what they did. Instead of waiting a few months and getting legitimacy behind their regime, they just had to have it now.
Before I go into that, I want to post two conversations:
Sargon2600 (2:17:02 PM): Whit... Mystakae (2:17:02 PM): h Mystakae (2:17:04 PM): hey Sargon2600 (2:17:14 PM): Is there any possibility that you guys made a mistake in your actions? Mystakae (2:17:29 PM): what makes you think that there was a possible mistake? Sargon2600 (2:17:41 PM): (Obviously I think there was) Mystakae (2:17:57 PM): No, we didn't make a mistake. Sargon2600 (2:18:00 PM): I'm asking you, is it possible that you guys made a mistake in taking the action you did? Sargon2600 (2:18:22 PM): I'm not asking if you think it was a mistake, is it at all possible that it could have been a mistake? Mystakae (2:18:30 PM): I don't think so. Mystakae (2:18:36 PM): inf act I know it wasn't a mistake Sargon2600 (2:18:48 PM): So, there's no chance you guys could be wrong at all? Sargon2600 (2:19:52 PM): ? Mystakae (2:20:00 PM): No, we did what is best Sargon2600 (2:20:21 PM): So, no chance that you could have been wrong? Mystakae (2:20:31 PM): No Sargon2600 (2:20:48 PM): And no matter what evidence you're presented with, you won't change your mind? Mystakae (2:20:59 PM): We won't change our mind. Sargon2600 (2:21:25 PM): Sorry, that wasn't worded very well... Sargon2600 (2:22:02 PM): No matter what evidence you are presented with, you won't change your mind as to whether it's possible you guys could have made a mistake? Mystakae (2:23:21 PM): No, our mind can't and won't be changed Sargon2600 (2:24:03 PM): No matter what evidence you see, there's no way you could have been wrong? (Sorry, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're saying. ) Mystakae (2:24:31 PM): No, there is no way we could have been wrong. Sargon2600 (2:24:36 PM): Okay... Sargon2600 (2:24:41 PM): Thank you. Sargon2600 (2:25:56 PM): Just for clarification... we were both talking about my "discharge," correct? Mystakae (2:26:14 PM): Yes. Sargon2600 (2:26:20 PM): Ok, good.
***
Sargon2600 (12:07:35 AM): Hello, Lee. Insidr524 (12:07:42 AM): Hello Insidr524 (12:07:50 AM): Burning the midnight oil? Sargon2600 (12:07:53 AM): Do you have a few minutes? Sargon2600 (12:07:59 AM): No oil here. Insidr524 (12:08:05 AM): A few Sargon2600 (12:08:19 AM): Mind if I ask you a few questions? Insidr524 (12:08:29 AM): Go ahead Sargon2600 (12:08:34 AM): ok... Sargon2600 (12:09:13 AM): Is it possible that you guys made a mistake in "discharging" me from the fleet and taking over? Insidr524 (12:09:31 AM): No Sargon2600 (12:09:57 AM): So, it's not possible for you guys to be in error here? Insidr524 (12:10:10 AM): No Sargon2600 (12:10:30 AM): Okay... Sargon2600 (12:10:55 AM): So no matter what evidence surfaces, there's no way you guys could be wrong? Insidr524 (12:11:11 AM): Evidence of what? Sargon2600 (12:11:51 AM): I'm just saying that with whatever evidence of what's happened, going to happen, etc (stuff you may not know), there's no way you guys could be wrong. Sargon2600 (12:11:55 AM): is that accurate? Sargon2600 (12:12:08 AM): let me rephrase Sargon2600 (12:12:10 AM): ... Sargon2600 (12:12:44 AM): No matter what evidence comes to light, there's still no way you guys could be wrong? Insidr524 (12:13:21 AM): Wrong about dismissing you or wrong about saying you were AWOL or what exactly? I don't understand. Sargon2600 (12:13:32 AM): wrong about dismissal Sargon2600 (12:14:09 AM): No matter what evidence comes to light, there's still no way you guys could be wrong in your actions? Insidr524 (12:14:51 AM): No, we're not wrong about deciding to dismiss you. Sargon2600 (12:15:20 AM): and it's not even possible that you were? Insidr524 (12:16:09 AM): The Amiralty all decided it was the best course of action to dismiss you. Sargon2600 (12:16:37 AM): I'm not asking you if you think it's a good decision... Sargon2600 (12:16:50 AM): I'm asking: Sargon2600 (12:17:10 AM): No matter what evidence surfaces, is it possible that you guys could have made a mistake in your actions? Insidr524 (12:18:25 AM): Do you mean a mistake in the way which we went about dismissing you? Sargon2600 (12:19:01 AM): that and in just the idea of dismissing, regardless of the way Sargon2600 (12:19:29 AM): ? Insidr524 (12:19:48 AM): No, no mistake Sargon2600 (12:20:22 AM): ok Sargon2600 (12:21:07 AM): So, you're saying that no matter what evidence surfaces, it's not even possible that you guys could be wrong? Insidr524 (12:22:14 AM): No, we're not wrong. Now if you are going to submit evidence I ask that you submit it to us directly and to Seldon. Also, what do you think about Chairman of the HoF? Sargon2600 (12:22:32 AM): Ok, thanks. that's all I wanted to know
***
Yes, you read those correctly. Lee and Whit both said that there’s absolutely no way they could be making a mistake. First, they admitted to believing that they are infallible. Then they both said that no matter what evidence surfaces, there’s no way it could change their minds. So secondly, they admitted that they are not objective and will do what they want regardless of the evidence. The sad thing is that these were not trick questions. I didn’t beat around the bush and try to trick them with semantics (like Jacob likes to do and has done with several of you). I straight up asked them if it was even possible that they could have made a mistake. I then asked them if they would examine new evidence if it came up. The answers for both and from both were no. That’s who just usurped the power in the fleet. Two people who believe they are infallible and admit to not being objective.
As far as the other two people go… Greg is basically Whit’s slaveboy. He’ll do anything she wants. She knows this well. And a couple of people _very_ close to Greg were able to confirm this as also. Chris, I just don’t know what to think about him yet. You just never can really tell.
Jacob, my supposed best friend advised the conspirators and encouraged this conspiracy (yes, it is really a conspiracy – look it up in the dictionary, lol). Here is a conversation between Jacob and Whit before they carried out their plans to take over the fleet:
Belgideon753 (6:07:16 PM): Good evening, Whitney. Mystakae (6:07:22 PM): hi Belgideon753 (6:07:28 PM): How are you doing? Mystakae (6:07:38 PM): decent Mystakae (6:07:40 PM): studying like crazy Belgideon753 (6:08:01 PM): Oh. Belgideon753 (6:08:15 PM): Has Alan responded to your message to him? Mystakae (6:08:24 PM): nope
[Side-Note – I never received an e-mail. In fact in defending her actions to me later, Whit said that she “didn’t have time” to send me an e-mail saying they were unhappy with things. Oddly enough, she did have enough time to pull all this off.]
Belgideon753 (6:08:42 PM): What step are you now going to take? Mystakae (6:10:41 PM): we are drafting up a large "case-ish" thing against him Belgideon753 (6:10:58 PM): What are you going to do with it? Mystakae (6:14:02 PM): present it to him Mystakae (6:14:12 PM): and say "this is what you said, this is what you havent' done" Mystakae (6:14:21 PM): therefore its probably int eh best interest of the fleet ifyou stepped down Belgideon753 (6:14:24 PM): And your next step? Mystakae (6:14:39 PM): finish my calculus homework Mystakae (6:14:41 PM): lol Belgideon753 (6:15:22 PM): What are you ever going to use that for? Belgideon753 (6:15:40 PM): You should take some good history courses. Belgideon753 (6:15:46 PM): Or maybe political science. Mystakae (6:16:11 PM): make a short lil blurb int eh enwsletter that he has been removed, jump into awards very quickly, do promotions, launch the new academy and start work on the new division Mystakae (6:16:29 PM): I'm taking "Modern Western Civilization" next semster Belgideon753 (6:17:11 PM): I wouldn't be too quick to announce to people that you've "removed" him. A "little blurb" in the newsletter is, I think, the most you'd want to do--and only if the newsletter is coming out at least a week after the fact. Mystakae (6:17:35 PM): it is Mystakae (6:17:37 PM): it comes out on the 15th Mystakae (6:17:45 PM): we plan to have this done by the end of this week at the latest Belgideon753 (6:18:01 PM): Nothing is really going to change when you officially take over--but people don't realize that. If you make a big thing about it, you'll only create a situation in which he can scare people into staying with him to prevent a Fleet split (or something like that) Belgideon753 (6:18:57 PM): But if Alan goes around to people saying "they kicked me out! This is awful! You need to support me to protect the rule of law! etc, etc, etc" he's going to look really silly when things have been going fine for all this time and there are no problems at all but the ones that he is creating. Belgideon753 (6:19:17 PM): What will be your official grounds for getting rid of him? Mystakae (6:19:29 PM): the case that we are writing up Mystakae (6:19:39 PM): his "wanting to help get the fleet going" yet he has done nothing Mystakae (6:19:49 PM): plus we took the list of orders that we drafted up WITH HIS APPROVAL before he left
[Side-Note – As I told Lee when they were making them, they could draft any rules they wanted for governing themselves, but that they couldn’t put restrictions on me.]
--Webmaster's Note: Star never said this to the Admiralty, and when he was presented with the write-ups that included a defined set for the CiC he said that they looked good and when he came back things could be changed if needed. He never stated he wanted to change them.--
Belgideon753 (6:19:49 PM): So, you're getting rid of him for lack of performance? Mystakae (6:20:00 PM): that is the duty of every upper level officer int eh fleet Mystakae (6:20:07 PM): that he agreed were good things for each officer Mystakae (6:20:15 PM): and saying when and why he has broken most of those Mystakae (6:20:16 PM): etc Belgideon753 (6:20:27 PM): So, he's violating the standards that he himself proposed? Mystakae (6:20:43 PM): yes, that he himself agreed to and helped write up Belgideon753 (6:20:55 PM): Interesting. Belgideon753 (6:22:19 PM): If I could make another suggestion (I know you haven't asked for any input here), you may want to think about taking no official action regarding the CinCship. You may not want to say you're abolishing it (but, then again, you may, depending on Fleet sentiment), but just not say anything about it, leave it vacant, and let people forget about it. Belgideon753 (6:22:33 PM): That could make what you're doing seem even less radical etc and even easier for people to accept, I think. Belgideon753 (6:23:03 PM): But you seem to have things thought through fairly thoroughly and I know that you have the best interests of the Fleet at heart. Mystakae (6:23:08 PM): yeah we don't plan on saying anythign about it Belgideon753 (6:23:23 PM): I think you're smart to take a low-key approach to all of this. Belgideon753 (6:24:17 PM): You should mention that you and West "will continue to be responsible for the Fleet" to emphasize how you're already doing everything. Mystakae (6:24:43 PM): yeah Belgideon753 (6:24:45 PM): You plan to have the change made within the week and a minor announcement about it in the newsletter on or about the 15th? Mystakae (6:36:21 PM): there are no definite plans Mystakae (6:36:26 PM): just thought processes Belgideon753 (6:36:49 PM): Don't wait too long.
Yes, you see my best friend conspiring behind my back with my ex-girlfriend (you can ask about these two relationships later). Jacob, as Fleet Historian “George Wellesley” aka ex-VADM Robert J. Seldon, is supposed to be a non-partisan observer. He’s not supposed to take sides and is just to be recording things and working on his “History of Independence Fleet.” However, he’s totally given up his objectivity here (not that he ever really had it). He created the new name so that people would consider him objective (he said this to me). He is advising and conspiring to accomplish his goal of re-creating a “triumvirate.” Everyone should immediately press for his resignation. He’s not a historian, but a political activist trying to impose his will for the fleet on you.
You could gain several more things from this conversation. Jacob, who sees himself as the ultimate judge of everything (which you will see later), gives some advice and good graces to their take-over. They pretty much followed his advice to the letter. What is important from this is that you can tell that Jacob doesn’t really respect any of you at all. Instead of being straight and honest, he’d be deceptive and make things seems as they are not to sway you. He’s more interested in putting up a front than being open (which I have always been with you). Whit’s just plain messed up.
While we’re on the topic of Jacob, I think you’ll find this conversation pretty interesting:
Sargon2600 (6:45:51 PM): so if I joined the BSM and got all the members to sing satanic songs during the service to the dismay of the lady or whoever is in charge of it, would that be okay? Sargon2600 (6:45:57 PM): we got everyone except her to agree to it Sargon2600 (6:46:04 PM): does that make it right? Sargon2600 (6:46:10 PM): give us the authority? Sargon2600 (6:46:17 PM): we have the power, yes Sargon2600 (6:46:24 PM): but does it give us the authority? Sargon2600 (6:46:25 PM): Hell no Sargon2600 (6:46:35 PM): you're saying that is the authority Belgideon753 (6:46:45 PM): You have the right to sing those songs. But you don't have the right to sing them at the BSM house. Sargon2600 (6:47:00 PM): precisely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sargon2600 (6:47:18 PM): you don't have a right to do what you're doing in IDF just because you get "everyone" to go along with it Sargon2600 (6:47:25 PM): there are still rules and procedures you have to follow
-- Webmaster's note: There were no rules or procedures in place, as of Jan. 1st some are being written to be submitted for the Admiralty's approval.--
Belgideon753 (6:47:45 PM): However, the purpose of BSM is not to make everyone happy. Belgideon753 (6:47:52 PM): The purpose of IDF is to make people happy. Sargon2600 (6:47:58 PM): purpose aside Sargon2600 (6:48:01 PM): it's the same damn thing Belgideon753 (6:48:12 PM): I don't think so. I think the difference is compelling. Sargon2600 (6:48:29 PM): so when the purpose of something is to make people happy -- that's when the mob rules? Sargon2600 (6:48:34 PM): but with nothing else? Belgideon753 (6:48:47 PM): I think I would make that argument. Sargon2600 (6:48:52 PM): what is the difference if its so compelling? Belgideon753 (6:49:38 PM): If IDF's job is to make people happy and it's not doing so, it's not doing it's job... Sargon2600 (6:49:52 PM): if I go join the youth basketball league and convince everyone to run around naked there, we may have the power to do it, but not the authority Belgideon753 (6:50:02 PM): IDF exists for the members. If it's not doing it's job, they can change it so it fulfills the role it's made to fill. Sargon2600 (6:50:07 PM): and the basketball league is there to make people happy Sargon2600 (6:50:25 PM): the ONLY people that aren;t happy with the leadership are you, whit, greg, lee, and chris Sargon2600 (6:50:28 PM): that's IT Belgideon753 (6:50:57 PM): And who is happy with a one-man dictatorship? Sargon2600 (6:51:02 PM): so when the purpose of an organization is to "make people happy" then the rules don;t apply, it's the mob? Sargon2600 (6:51:17 PM): Belgideon753 (6:50:58 PM): And who is happy with a one-man dictatorship? Sargon2600 (6:51:22 PM): the whole fleet minue the admiralty
-- Webmaster's note: Also not true. One public statement from a fleet member is on the forum for all to see. Other statements were made via IM or e-mail to various people.--
Sargon2600 (6:51:29 PM): Sargon2600 (6:51:03 PM): so when the purpose of an organization is to "make people happy" then the rules don;t apply, it's the mob? Belgideon753 (6:51:49 PM): The people make the rules and the people can change the rules. Sargon2600 (6:52:13 PM): without regard to the process for change? Belgideon753 (6:52:28 PM): You're saying that since Lee, Whit, Krol, Brit, and I are unhappy, we should leave, correct? Sargon2600 (6:52:40 PM): if you're that unhappy, yes Belgideon753 (6:52:54 PM): And would the 5 of us leaving make the Fleet happy? Sargon2600 (6:52:57 PM): and you should encourage everyone to stay in IDF on your way out Sargon2600 (6:53:06 PM): if you keep stirring up trouble, yes Sargon2600 (6:53:28 PM): Sargon2600 (6:51:30 PM): Sargon2600 (6:51:03 PM): so when the purpose of an organization is to "make people happy" then the rules don;t apply, it's the mob? Sargon2600 (6:52:15 PM): without regard to the process for change? Sargon2600 (6:53:42 PM): Sargon2600 (6:51:30 PM): Sargon2600 (6:51:03 PM): so when the purpose of an organization is to "make people happy" then the rules don;t apply, it's the mob? Belgideon753 (6:51:50 PM): The people make the rules and the people can change the rules. Sargon2600 (6:52:15 PM): without regard to the process for change? Belgideon753 (6:53:44 PM): The people make the process for change (which is just a type of rule) Belgideon753 (6:53:53 PM): Anything the people make they can unmake. Belgideon753 (6:53:59 PM): You believe that people would be glad to see most of the Fleet leadership leave? Sargon2600 (6:54:03 PM): no Sargon2600 (6:54:11 PM): they would like to see you shut the hell up Sargon2600 (6:54:15 PM): and stiopp bitching Sargon2600 (6:54:32 PM): but I'm the only one that has to do what makes everyone "happy" Sargon2600 (6:54:40 PM): nothing I do threatens the fleet here Sargon2600 (6:54:58 PM): it's you guiys creating problems that don't exist because you want a "triumvirate" Belgideon753 (6:55:30 PM): You know, it's not your power that you are exercising. It is the people's power. Sargon2600 (6:55:50 PM): so when effecting change in a "happy organization", they don't have to follow the due process for change? Sargon2600 (6:55:52 PM): yes or no? Belgideon753 (6:56:16 PM): Are you asking if a minority needs to follow the proceedures for change? Sargon2600 (6:56:24 PM): the majority Sargon2600 (6:56:28 PM): yes or no? Belgideon753 (6:57:16 PM): They should follow the established procedures (and almost always do) but they ultimately can unmake the rules that they made if they choose to take that step. Sargon2600 (6:58:32 PM): unmake them through the propper procedure, right? Sargon2600 (6:58:39 PM): proper Sargon2600 (6:58:44 PM): or however the hell it is Belgideon753 (6:59:15 PM): Usually. But when there is no procedure for change that is demanded... Sargon2600 (6:59:31 PM): ok, so they don;t? Sargon2600 (6:59:34 PM): yes or no? Sargon2600 (7:00:18 PM): when a "majority" effects change in a "happy" organization, do they have to follow the due process for change or not? yes or no? Belgideon753 (7:00:24 PM): If they disregard the procedures for making changes, they are essentially repudiating the body of laws they created and must begin to create a new organization ex nilo. Sargon2600 (7:00:38 PM): Sargon2600 (7:00:19 PM): when a "majority" effects change in a "happy" organization, do they have to follow the due process for change or not? yes or no? Belgideon753 (7:01:07 PM): It is possible in extreme circumstances that they could disregard those procedures and make an entirely new organization ex nilo. Belgideon753 (7:01:12 PM): So, yes. Belgideon753 (7:01:18 PM): (Before you post that again, lol) Sargon2600 (7:01:39 PM): so they can change the rules within the organization without following due process just because they have a majority? Sargon2600 (7:02:10 PM): yes or no? Belgideon753 (7:02:23 PM): A simple majority? I wouldn't think so. Sargon2600 (7:02:26 PM): just so I have this straight. it took you a long time to finally get that out Sargon2600 (7:02:30 PM): oh my god Sargon2600 (7:02:31 PM): gosh Sargon2600 (7:02:53 PM): you don';t even have a simple majority Sargon2600 (7:02:59 PM): almost everyone doesn't want to get involed! Belgideon753 (7:03:22 PM): No one has stood up to defend the dictatorship. Belgideon753 (7:03:37 PM): Of those who feel that this is important enough to get involved, none support dictatorship. Sargon2600 (7:03:37 PM): so... Sargon2600 (7:03:53 PM): Here's what it boild down to... Sargon2600 (7:04:02 PM): I believe that the due process should be followed in the fleet. Sargon2600 (7:04:13 PM): You believe it doesn't if you can get enough people behind it Belgideon753 (7:04:17 PM): But there is no due process for getting rid of a dictator. Sargon2600 (7:04:26 PM): so if I got 51% of the CO's to agree that I should stay, you would back down? Sargon2600 (7:05:04 PM): ? Belgideon753 (7:05:10 PM): That's a deal that I don't have the right to make, you'd have to ask the Admiralty. Belgideon753 (7:05:19 PM): If you agreed to play by the same rules, I think they'd agree to that. Sargon2600 (7:05:20 PM): hell no you wouldn't Sargon2600 (7:05:28 PM): would you stop your support of the conspiracy? Belgideon753 (7:05:30 PM): That is, if a majority wants a triumvirate, you'd have to go with that. Belgideon753 (7:05:37 PM): Yes. Belgideon753 (7:05:46 PM): Obviously. Sargon2600 (7:05:47 PM): I doubt that Belgideon753 (7:06:01 PM): If the people choose a dictatorship over the triumvirate I'd support their wishes. Sargon2600 (7:06:02 PM): last time 9 out of the 11 CO's decided that they should stay with me Sargon2600 (7:06:10 PM): yet you guys still continued to drag this out
--Webmaster's Note: That was actually 9 out of 11 decided Star should leave, in October of 2003, the CO's Declaration still exists in the CO's list archives. He refused. Which dragged "this" out.--
Sargon2600 (7:06:19 PM): and created the issue again Sargon2600 (7:06:33 PM): so the issue can keep getting tried until you are able to force me out and get what you want? Belgideon753 (7:06:57 PM): If the people voted for you, that would give you legitimacy. Belgideon753 (7:07:12 PM): As it is now, you claim legitimacy by accident, by default: everyone else left. Sargon2600 (7:07:14 PM): LOL Sargon2600 (7:07:27 PM): you're so full of crap Sargon2600 (7:07:39 PM): so... Sargon2600 (7:08:17 PM): how much of a majority would it take for people of a "happy" group to ignore the due process to make the changes they want? Sargon2600 (7:08:21 PM): exactly? Belgideon753 (7:08:26 PM): I don't know. Sargon2600 (7:08:34 PM): whatever you decide? Sargon2600 (7:08:46 PM): however many it takes to overpower the due process? Belgideon753 (7:08:47 PM): But I think the lack of opposition to us is significant. Sargon2600 (7:09:01 PM): so basically Sargon2600 (7:08:47 PM): however many it takes to overpower the due process? Sargon2600 (7:09:06 PM): right? Belgideon753 (7:09:14 PM): No, I don't know. Sargon2600 (7:09:19 PM): you better have an answer Belgideon753 (7:09:20 PM): But if there is no opposition... Sargon2600 (7:09:30 PM): that's the whole nexus of your argument Sargon2600 (7:09:40 PM): if you don't have an answer, your arguement is flawed Belgideon753 (7:09:51 PM): There's no opposition here. Sargon2600 (7:10:10 PM): so if one person said the dictatorship should stay, you guys should back down? Belgideon753 (7:10:10 PM): There is no one who wants to support the dictatorship. Belgideon753 (7:10:22 PM): That's not a question that we're faced with. Sargon2600 (7:10:28 PM): Suppose you were Sargon2600 (7:10:41 PM): suppose I get one person to say that they want me to stay, should you guys back down? Sargon2600 (7:10:52 PM): stay as CinC with sole power and authority Sargon2600 (7:10:58 PM): should you guys back down? Belgideon753 (7:11:02 PM): Are you saying that if there continues to be no opposition you'll stand down? Sargon2600 (7:11:09 PM): No. Sargon2600 (7:11:14 PM): this is your arguement not mine Sargon2600 (7:11:16 PM): answer the question Belgideon753 (7:11:22 PM): Hmm... Sargon2600 (7:12:47 PM): if I got one person (besides me) to say that I should stay as CinC and with sole authority to run the fleet, should the conspirators back down Sargon2600 (7:12:48 PM): yes or no Belgideon753 (7:13:22 PM): Well, not if it's just some ensign. Sargon2600 (7:14:20 PM): but if it were another person? Belgideon753 (7:14:25 PM): If it were someone like a CO, DivDir, or member of the Admiralty... Sargon2600 (7:14:46 PM): so, if one CO said that, you guys should back down? Sargon2600 (7:14:48 PM): One CO? Belgideon753 (7:14:51 PM): I suppose we'd have a split. With the people who would be happy under you going under you and being happy and the people who would be happy under the Admiralty going with them and being happy there. Belgideon753 (7:15:08 PM): That way, no one is forced into something that they don't support. Sargon2600 (7:15:13 PM): no.... Sargon2600 (7:15:17 PM): don't change the question... Sargon2600 (7:15:35 PM): if one "CO" said I should stay as is, should the conspirators back down? Belgideon753 (7:15:56 PM): No. That CO should go with you. If the Admiralty has the support of everyone else, everyone else should go with them. Belgideon753 (7:16:13 PM): That way, everyone is happy. Sargon2600 (7:16:16 PM): so you would support a split? Belgideon753 (7:16:26 PM): If necessary to keep everyone happy, yeah. Sargon2600 (7:16:34 PM): who would get the IDF name? Sargon2600 (7:16:48 PM): whatever would make the most people happy? Belgideon753 (7:17:03 PM): You would argue that you have a "right" to it, obviously. While everyone else would say that you don't own the Fleet name. Belgideon753 (7:17:09 PM): Hmm. Sargon2600 (7:17:32 PM): ? Sargon2600 (7:18:25 PM): (on a side note, you're "spinning" so badly, it's sad) but, please answer the question Belgideon753 (7:18:29 PM): I would hope that the one ship would allow the other 8 ships to keep the name. That's what I would hope, avoiding any debate. Sargon2600 (7:19:07 PM): who would have the authority to keep it, just whoever had the most people? Belgideon753 (7:19:44 PM): It would obviously be more useful to give it to the larger group. Sargon2600 (7:19:53 PM): Sargon2600 (7:19:08 PM): who would have the authority to keep it, just whoever had the most people? Belgideon753 (7:20:06 PM): Do you claim to own the Fleet or just to have a mandate to run it? Sargon2600 (7:20:14 PM): mandate to run it Belgideon753 (7:20:22 PM): Then it would go with the larger group. Belgideon753 (7:20:31 PM): Running something and owning it are two different things. Sargon2600 (7:20:47 PM): why would the larger group get it if I still have the authority for it? Belgideon753 (7:21:01 PM): The name is owned by the Fleet. Therefore, it would go where the most of the Fleet goes. Sargon2600 (7:21:06 PM): oh Sargon2600 (7:21:21 PM): back to the subject at hand... Sargon2600 (7:22:19 PM): you've established that in a "happy" organization, due process for change can be ignored if enough people are in the movement. you've said that a simply majority is not enough to do this, but just one person opposing not using due process is not enough to prevent it Sargon2600 (7:22:35 PM): where exactly is the break off where due process and authority can be ignored? Sargon2600 (7:22:49 PM): this is a group that people can freely joina nand leave of course Sargon2600 (7:24:27 PM): you can take the 5th Belgideon753 (7:24:45 PM): Well, give me a situation and I'll see how it applies to it. Sargon2600 (7:25:07 PM): you started this situation hypothetically, answet my question Sargon2600 (7:25:09 PM): r Belgideon753 (7:25:14 PM): Okay... Sargon2600 (7:25:29 PM): how big of a majority would it take? Belgideon753 (7:25:45 PM): The organization should split. It happens all the time to political parties (in other countries). That way, no one is under a regime that they can't support. Sargon2600 (7:26:33 PM): No, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process in change the organization? Belgideon753 (7:26:56 PM): What is IDF? Is it the people or is it you? Sargon2600 (7:27:09 PM): Sargon2600 (7:26:34 PM): No, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process in change the organization? Sargon2600 (7:27:21 PM): changing the organization Belgideon753 (7:27:46 PM): If the purpose of the organization is just to make the members happy, no one should be forced to be in a situation that makes them unhappy. Belgideon753 (7:28:15 PM): Therefore, the minority should probably leave to set up an organization more to their liking. Sargon2600 (7:28:35 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process in effecting change within the organization? Sargon2600 (7:28:53 PM): to ignore the due process and authority Belgideon753 (7:28:56 PM): What is the process for removing a CinC in IDF? Sargon2600 (7:29:20 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? Belgideon753 (7:29:23 PM): There is none. Therefore your hypothet is not directly applicable. Thus my difficulty in answering it. Sargon2600 (7:29:37 PM): Please answer my question before asking your own. I always give you that courtesy Sargon2600 (7:29:43 PM): Sargon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? Sargon2600 (7:29:50 PM): you created the hypotherical situation Belgideon753 (7:31:08 PM): If the law says a simple majority can make changes, then that is the procedure and a simple majority can make the change, obviously... Sargon2600 (7:31:17 PM): rgon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? Belgideon753 (7:31:48 PM): If the only purpose of the organization was to make it's members happy and it required, for instance, a 2/3 majority to make the changes that are needed to make a majority happy, that would be illogical. Belgideon753 (7:32:05 PM): And the majority (if less than 2/3) would probably leave to make their own, better organization. Sargon2600 (7:32:07 PM): rgon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? Belgideon753 (7:32:39 PM): What is the benefit of changing the organization as oppossed to making a new one? Sargon2600 (7:32:47 PM): I dunno, you tell me Sargon2600 (7:32:47 PM): rgon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? Belgideon753 (7:33:29 PM): I can't answer that because (1) it's not a question we're faced with and (2) you won't provide enough information to answer it. Sargon2600 (7:33:39 PM): Sargon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? You have established that a simply majority is not enough, but one person resisting is not enough to prevent it Sargon2600 (7:34:05 PM): you've already partially answered it, finish Sargon2600 (7:34:16 PM): you've set to limits that aren';t enough, what is enough Sargon2600 (7:34:17 PM): Sargon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? You have established that a simply majority is not enough, but one person resisting is not enough to prevent it Belgideon753 (7:34:29 PM): Is there a reason why the people wanting to make the change can't make a new organization? Belgideon753 (7:34:52 PM): That makes a difference, I think. Sargon2600 (7:34:52 PM): I don't know. Sargon2600 (7:34:53 PM): Sargon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? You have established that a simply majority is not enough, but one person resisting is not enough to prevent it Belgideon753 (7:35:00 PM): Then neither do I know the answer. Belgideon753 (7:35:23 PM): I will consider the question again when people in favor of dictatorship appear here. Sargon2600 (7:35:27 PM): say they can go create their own organization Sargon2600 (7:35:28 PM): Sargon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? You have established that a simply majority is not enough, but one person resisting is not enough to prevent it Belgideon753 (7:36:16 PM): So, creating their own organization is just as beneficial to the people wanting the change as modifying the existing institution against the wishes of a minority? (Please answer this without pasing large blocks of needless text, thank you) Belgideon753 (7:36:56 PM): If yes... Belgideon753 (7:37:16 PM): Then they should start their own organization and it would be illegitimate for them to force their will on the minority. Belgideon753 (7:37:38 PM): If not, then we have a more complex ball game. Sargon2600 (7:37:46 PM): so what % is the cut off point? Sargon2600 (7:39:05 PM): what is the % needed for it to be "right" to ignore the due process and change the organization instead of leaving and creating a new one Belgideon753 (7:39:32 PM): What is the due process? You'll have to define it before I can say answer the question. Belgideon753 (7:40:08 PM): Because in the Fleet, there is no due process. And you cannot have a situation where change is impossible. Sargon2600 (7:40:18 PM): in the rules for the organization that members are bound to follow. due process would be the method for effecting change in the rules Sargon2600 (7:40:25 PM): what %? Sargon2600 (7:40:38 PM): (more spin...) Belgideon753 (7:42:18 PM): If the only purpose of the organization is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, the procedure would be a simple majority. Therefore, a simple majority is all that is required. Belgideon753 (7:42:32 PM): The minority is free to leave to make their own organization. Sargon2600 (7:42:51 PM): before you said that a simple majority couldn't do it, did you change your mind? Belgideon753 (7:43:08 PM): If the procedure is that a simple majority can do it, a simple majority can do it. Sargon2600 (7:43:34 PM): no, the procedure is not there for a simple majority. again.... what % can disregard the due process Sargon2600 (7:43:38 PM): that's the issue here Sargon2600 (7:43:49 PM): I would say no matter what the % was, they would need to follow it Sargon2600 (7:43:54 PM): you say otherwise Sargon2600 (7:44:06 PM): it's somewhere between 50% and 99.999999% though.... Sargon2600 (7:44:20 PM): but you haven't narrowed it down Belgideon753 (7:46:02 PM): Why would a group that only cares about the happiness of members require more than a majority to make changes? (The reason for the procedurally required number makes a difference) Sargon2600 (7:46:33 PM): that's irrelevent. a lot of organizations are like that so decisions arent made on whims, it's harder to effect change Sargon2600 (7:46:43 PM): so... what % can the people ignore the due process? Belgideon753 (7:47:20 PM): Do you think that 100% of the people could ignore due process? Sargon2600 (7:47:55 PM): No, they should create a new organization. Sargon2600 (7:48:01 PM): so... what %? Sargon2600 (7:48:05 PM): would you say? Belgideon753 (7:48:14 PM): Could 100% of the people change the due process? Sargon2600 (7:48:17 PM): you've established somewhere between 50% and one person Sargon2600 (7:48:39 PM): Sargon2600 (7:47:55 PM): No, they should create a new organization. Belgideon753 (7:48:43 PM): And I need your help to clarify my thinking before I can directly tackle the question you propose. Belgideon753 (7:48:56 PM): Who made the due process rules? Sargon2600 (7:49:36 PM): Jacob, you;ve been "tackling" this exact same question for about 35 mins Sargon2600 (7:49:46 PM): the charter members Belgideon753 (7:49:49 PM): Yeah, we're making good progress. Sargon2600 (7:49:55 PM): you're sounding like a democrat Belgideon753 (7:50:05 PM): So, could 100% of the charter members change due process? Belgideon753 (7:50:19 PM): I am a democrat (but not a Democrat). Belgideon753 (7:50:32 PM): (Sorry, I know what you meant) Sargon2600 (7:50:55 PM): I would say no. I am asking you Sargon2600 (7:51:10 PM): what % can ignore the due process? Belgideon753 (7:51:19 PM): We'll get to that, hold on. Belgideon753 (7:51:41 PM): Rules are made not to hinder, but to help. So if everyone who made the rules finds it to be a hinderence, they can change it. Sargon2600 (7:52:22 PM): so... what %? Sargon2600 (7:53:16 PM): spin, spin Belgideon753 (7:53:27 PM): If the people agree that a certain limit is needed to make a change, they need to reach that limit to change the organization. Otherwise, those who want the change must either suck it up or leave. However, no one here agreed that only you could change the dictatorship. Sargon2600 (7:54:07 PM): whoa, whoa.... what that due process is is irrelevent Sargon2600 (7:54:16 PM): what % of poeple does it take to ignore it Sargon2600 (7:54:17 PM): ? Sargon2600 (7:55:35 PM): Sargon2600 (7:29:21 PM): In a "happy" organization, how big of a majority should it take to ignore the due process and established authority in effecting change within the organization? Keep in mind, you have established that a simple majority is not enough, but one person resisting is not enough to prevent it Belgideon753 (7:55:52 PM): Did the people consent to the due process requirements? Sargon2600 (7:56:18 PM): if they joined the organization, I would assume they would have to follow the rules, so yes. Belgideon753 (7:56:56 PM): And you'd agree that there is no due process in IDF for removing a dictator? Sargon2600 (7:57:18 PM): Yes there was... simply waiting a few months
--Webmaster's Note: That was not the process, Belgideon753 is right, there was no due process for removign a CiC. The waiting a few months was simply a whim of Sargon2600, saying he would leave by April 2004. He could have changed his mind and there was still no due process to stop him from doing so.--
Sargon2600 (7:57:23 PM): but please... answer the question... Belgideon753 (7:58:39 PM): Well, would you agree that the minority is always free to leave? Sargon2600 (7:58:52 PM): I would say that everyone is always free to leave Belgideon753 (8:01:12 PM): If you have an organization with 100 people in it, and 99 of them want a certain change and they have all the resources of that organization, they have a right to make the change that they want. The 100th person is kicked out (if he refuses to submit to the decision of the 99) and that 100th person has no right to claim that he is the lawful organization. Sargon2600 (8:01:49 PM): so, 99%? Belgideon753 (8:02:42 PM): 99% can do it. Now let us explore if a smaller number could.... Sargon2600 (8:02:47 PM): ok... Belgideon753 (8:06:06 PM): I find this conversation to be fascinating (but I wish we could have talks like this under less antagonistic circumstances) and this point is especially interesting, I think. But I do need to finish my 10 page paper and, though I'll be accused of dodging by you, must take some time to work on it. Belgideon753 (8:06:16 PM): This'll give me a night to think about your question. Sargon2600 (8:08:34 PM): oh my gosh Sargon2600 (8:09:07 PM): can you please email me this conversation, with timestamp upon signing off? Belgideon753 (8:09:15 PM): Sure. Belgideon753 (8:09:19 PM): (Don't you have it up?) Sargon2600 (8:09:21 PM): Yeah. Sargon2600 (8:09:36 PM): I accidently deleted the IM window early, I don't have all of it Sargon2600 (8:09:40 PM): but most of it Belgideon753 (8:09:42 PM): Okay. I think that I do. Sargon2600 (8:09:52 PM): exzcellent Belgideon753 (8:09:54 PM): Mine goes back to 3:17. Is that further than yours? Sargon2600 (8:10:03 PM): 3:17pm? Belgideon753 (8:10:07 PM): Yeah. Sargon2600 (8:10:07 PM): yeah. much further Belgideon753 (8:10:13 PM): This is one dang long convo. Sargon2600 (8:10:15 PM): yeah Sargon2600 (8:10:24 PM): hey, you better come up with a good answer tomorrow Sargon2600 (8:10:30 PM): or you are totally smoked Sargon2600 (8:10:55 PM): you're spinning so much it's almost crazy Sargon2600 (8:11:00 PM): lol Sargon2600 (8:11:16 PM): and this is going into the archive, correct??? Belgideon753 (8:11:23 PM): Yeah. Sargon2600 (8:11:27 PM): good Belgideon753 (8:11:45 PM): I'm sorry, but I can't make up my mind _before_ a discussion. I have to reach conclusions through the discussion. Belgideon753 (8:12:02 PM): So I hope you'll forgive me if every option I consider does not prove equally solid. Sargon2600 (8:12:18 PM): LOL Sargon2600 (8:12:31 PM): this one is proving like swiss cheeze Belgideon753 (8:13:18 PM): What is the purpose of a discussion? Is it to win or is it to enhance your understanding of the subject? Sargon2600 (8:13:37 PM): well, both in this situation obviously Belgideon753 (8:14:00 PM): Well, I don't really care about winning, so I'll be rooting for you when we pick this up. Sargon2600 (8:14:21 PM): yeah right Sargon2600 (8:14:26 PM): don't patronize me Belgideon753 (8:14:37 PM): Well, what would "winning" this conversation do for me? Sargon2600 (8:15:05 PM): it could prove that you have a right to do what you're doing Sargon2600 (8:15:18 PM): but right now, it seems to be going in the direction of showing that you're full of it Sargon2600 (8:15:35 PM): you avoided a question for almost an hour and then ah... you have to go work on something else Sargon2600 (8:15:36 PM): lol Sargon2600 (8:16:32 PM): your logic is unsound and your actions are based off of your personal feelings and not what is the right thing to do. your answer to the question will undoubtedly show that in due time (if you do indeed answer it, which may or may not happen ) Sargon2600 (8:18:06 PM): still there? Belgideon753 (8:18:26 PM): Yeah. Is there anything else you'd like to add before this is archived and sent off to you? Sargon2600 (8:18:45 PM): no, I have no more last minute incrimanting words Belgideon753 (8:18:56 PM): God bless you, Mr. Presley. Sargon2600 (8:18:59 PM): sign off totally before you archive Sargon2600 (8:19:08 PM): and God bless to you as well Belgideon753 (8:19:16 PM): Why should I sign off totally? Sargon2600 (8:19:41 PM): to make sure you have everything Sargon2600 (8:19:48 PM): that is said Belgideon753 (8:19:54 PM): I'll have it all. Sargon2600 (8:19:58 PM): are you sure? Belgideon753 (8:20:04 PM): Yeah. Sargon2600 (8:20:07 PM): this stuff counts too Sargon2600 (8:20:47 PM): geeze, you've been wasting time for 15 minutes that you could have been either thinking about the question or working on your paper
Okay, yeah I know. That was freakin long. If you did happen to read through it though, you’ll see that Jacob sees IDF as an organization with the purpose of “making people happy.” IDF’s main purpose is to provide a fun and growing simming environment. Being “happy” is simply a result of that. However, with that said, Jacob states that if the purpose of an organization is to “make people happy” then if you have enough people behind the cause, you can ignore due process, correct channels, and proper authority in effecting change within the organization. So, I boiled the whole situation at hand down to one thing posed to him the question: What % of people does it take to ignore due process, correct procedure, and proper authority when effecting change in a “happy organization.” This whole conversation is basically Jacob BSing his way through it, trying to twist the question and change the subject. I know I was a jerk during it, but at least I was straight. Anyway… Jacob says a simple majority is not enough to do it
--Webmaster's Note: In fact, Jacob did say a simple minority could do it, but not in cases where the organization has been set up with the specification that a simple majority can not.--
, but one person resisting it is not enough to prevent it (yeah, he just reasoned that out in his head – making himself the judge for every “happy organization” that exists; their rules don’t matter, his beliefs do). I pressed him for an exact % and he wasn’t able to do that. The reason he won’t answer it is because if he says no %, then he’s admitting that they have no right to overthrow me and their whole basis is bogus. If he does name a %, he’s making himself judge of what is right and wrong. Other rules don’t matter. When he joins a “happy organization,” he decides what’s right and wrong. It’s been about a week and a half since I first asked Jacob that question. At first he continued to BS as he did here – you know the changing of the subject and twisting the question around. Now he just flat out refuses to answer it. Why? Because he can’t. They have no legal basis to do what they did. They don’t have the authority to do it. However, because they had the power, they were going to do it anyway.
Okay, enough of all that crap. I know most of you probably don’t care and didn’t really read any of it. Sorry I don’t have time to edit this and make it “better.” I’m sure there are a lot of typos, misspelled words, and grammatical errors. Anyway, as long as people think there is power to be gotten, there will always be turmoil in the fleet. Things will continue as they have and there will be a fleet crisis every 3 to 4 months. One of my main goals was to make the fleet more stable before I left to help prevent that in the future. Unfortunately, it looks like I won’t be able to do that. Lee, Whit, Greg, Chris, and Jacob have no right to do what they did. It’s simply a matter of power. They had the power and they took it. Whenever you’re in the way, they’ll do the same to you.
Will I regret sending out this message? I honestly don’t know. However, for those of you that do want to know what’s really happening (however few it is), I think you deserve that. For the rest of you, just keep enjoying your sims and don’t let all this crap get to you. It’s not really worth it. I’ll still here to help out with recruiting if you need it, just drop me an email. Have fun with your sims and I’m still here to serve you guys no matter what anyone else may tell you. Good luck on your finals (for those of you that have them) and have a Merry Christmas!
Very Respectfully,
ADM Charles Star
Commander in Chief,
Independence Fleet
* * * * * * * * * *
===========
**Note from the Admiralty**
Charles Star is no longer officially the Commander in Chief, nor is he an Admiral.
* * * * * * * * * *
Jacob Holloway (aka Robert Seldon, aka George Wellesley) wants any interested Fleet members to know that his e-mail address is seldon11988@yahoo.com and that his AIM screen name is Belgideon753. He welcomes all communication.
* * * * * * * * * *
=/\=END TRANSMISSION=/\=
