This version of Wittenberg is now the legal national forum for Talossa! Feel free to explore it, and to check out the threads for feedback, requests and criticisms to make sure Wittenberg is tailored to you.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Either way, I have High Hopes we might get some more votes on the final before the deadline.
I see what you did there...and I like it!
I dont remember ever raising any objection to you becoming CpI justice.Yeah, AD can be annoying, and an obvious troll sometimes. I wish he said what he meant more often.
You all knew that when you asked him to be a CpI judge.
More recently I've mostly seen government members explode when he voiced concerns about the government or the state of Talossa. Sometimes valid, sometimes less so, but either gets the same reaction.
The wiki edit was somewhat petty, but also rather benign. It's a very weak excuse.
What worries me most is how groupthink in Talossa has become almost as bad, if not worse, than in the pre-reunision RUMP days. Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.
What I find particularly weak is the different standards to which you hold people. I was put through the ringer, and likely still have some watching, to ensure that I behaved when I was only nominated. I can only imagine the outrage you and others would have put forth if I even remotely suggested doing something like the so-called benign wiki changes.
AD was not put through an extensive vetting process. His was, much like your post, weak sauce compared to what I went through.
I’ve kept my promise to stay out of politics, but I made no promise to stay out of Wittenberg. I would like to see Talossa, and people like you, Glüc, apply the same standard across the board. AD has not changed an iota of behavior knowing that he may sit on the CpI.
In fact, he has doubled down his efforts to annoy and harass. His antics with the Wiki imply heavily that he would use his position on the Cort to embarrass the FreeDems or any party sitting opposite his political allies given the opportunity. The fact that you blithely ignore this speaks to your own weakness. You think you're being clever by using words like groupthink, but I outwardly question if you know what that is, or something you just learned last week in your sociology 101 course.
Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.
That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.