Admit Oscland into Bastion

[Harvey]

k, I propose we don't. We'll see what the others think.

[Emir of Raspur]

I'm afraid the precedent has been set, and decency holds it to be binding, lest the whole affair be run in accordance with the prejudices of a minority. While I would personally welcome Oscland's membership of Bastion it would count as a slight against those nations which have been subjected to the full rigour of a contentious vote, for the nation after them to be let in on a nod and a wink. As such it is fair, reasonable and equitable for Oscland to be allowed in on the basis of a majority vote in favour by the current member nations.

[Hesam Jayatar]

Babkha and Antica were voted in, Oscland should be voted in. Otherwise the first states in Bastion look like even more prejudiced.

[Octavius]

Lawyered.

No, wait. Someone go get Farzan.

[Farzan Shahanshah]

Farzan is on holiday.

I'm in favour of their admission, and do not particularly mind by what means we do it. There are certainly advantages to having a vote, but if nobody's opposed I don't see the point in having one for its own sake.

[Andreas the Wise]

You guys are forgetting the first-first state to be admitted to Bastion, after first three. The first first state was Natopia, who was admitted by consensus, because everyone was happy. With Antica and Babkha, there was more concern and controversy and so a vote was brought forth. With Oscland, everyone seems happy to admit them (just not all happy to admit them by consensus). My preferred position for all Bastion decisions, and the precedent I believe is set by the full history of joining, is that decisions are made by consensus first and foremost; and where that is not possible (ie where there is some disagreement) then we use a vote as the back up option*. I'd hate to just be voting for voting's sake - that seems against the whole informal spirit upon which Bastion was founded.

Besides, if we look at this thread, I count Gralus (Andreas), Nelaga (Harvey/Andreas), Shireroth (the Kaiser at least) and Natopia (Nathan) in favour; and individual Anticans and Babkhans in favour (I'm not confident to put any of those as "speaking for their whole country"). So we already know that a vote would pass.

(though the irony is, by that principle we should take a vote to see if we want to vote by default on all new nations )

[Harvey]

Very good point on Natopia, sir.

I don't think there's any doubt that the national votes would approve Oscland. The only question is of procedure, and the only argument for doing national votes that I have seen proposed is precedent. I have two problems with this. 1) if we start doing things by precedent, it begins to set up an unofficial set of laws on how Bastion works, which feels like the beginning of the formation of a pan-national government as well as begins to constrain our ability to have free action and 2) I kinda feel like this is just Babkha and Antica saying "if we had to go through that BS, then everyone does!" irregardless of the total lack of objection to Oscland, which feels sorta petty.

[Emir of Raspur]

Yes Harvey we had to go through an inordinate amount of bullshit because you are a cunt.

[Harvey]

D:

[Hesam Jayatar]

Yes Harvey we had to go through an inordinate amount of bullshit because you are a cunt.

Seconded, and we're voting anyway so who fucking cares.

[Octavius]

It feels petty to say that different standards for different folks sucks?

[Harvey]

Exactly the same standards. Same initial question; different responses.

Natopia and Oscland:
"Does anyone object to these guys joining?"
"Nope"
"k let's do it"

Antica and Babkha:
"Does anyone object to these guys joining?"
"Yes"
"Can we try to talk it out?"
"Not really"
"Ooookay... so I guess we'll just force a vote and deal with our deep-rooted issues later then"
"k"

[Octavius]

That's certainly one view of it.

[Nathan]

I think there is a minor difference between Natopia and Oscland joining. Natopia jumped in while the idea was still forming. We heard our friends at school talking about a slumber party tonight and asked if we could come too, so we scooted our desks together and continued planning things for the party. Antica and Babkha came in after things were settled, and by coincidence, had certain residents that some people didn't want to sleep over with (like coming in after midnight, in the middle of a pillow fight). Now, Oscland want to sleep over, and everyone wants Oscland to join the pillow fights and talking about boys we like. But if we let Oscland in without making them say the password, it'll upset Antica and Babkha. And since we're all stuck in the same house we should make sure one of the guests doesn't get sad and have their mom come pick them up or lock themselves in the bathroom.

Hehehe

[Harvey]

... that's certainly another view of it.

[Malliki]

I think we all would be better off if Harvey and Andreas didn't try to set the standard for how we do business here. You want us to work by consensus, fine, but apparently some people around here are more equal than others. If you want for Shireroth to just say "mmmkay", that's your prerogative. I want us to vote on admission, even if it's just a formality, and that's what I'm pushing for in the nations I'm a part of. Incidentally, Antica, Babkha, Natopia and Shireroth are all holding votes. That looks like a majority.

Edit: Oh, and Nelaga are holding a "vote".

[Harvey]

You're not even trying anymore to make a strong argument. I am allowed to have my views, much as yours, and you are trying no less (indeed; quite a bit more) to impose your views than I am. Singling people out for having views while pushing your agenda is a contradiction that I don't believe even you are unable of seeing. The fact that every vote is affirmative just makes your whole stance look even the sillier.

Is it just your time of the month? You feel like you haven't pissed off your quota of people lately and so you've desperately clung to this simply because it can affect people that otherwise don't particularly want to associate with you? Cuz this is pretty hilarious.

Nelaga is holding a DISCUSSION in the interest of compromise, a word that you, sadly, have no concept of and try to douchebag around, and in the interest of keeping things moving. We could easily hold up everything by not doing so - the "majority" you bring up doesn't matter, because there is no charter that establishes a majority requirement and everything has to operate on consensus. We could move to block that consensus, as could Gralus, indefinitely. But that is not in any of our best interests and so we will not. There is absolutely no reason Oscland should be affected by your trifles.

Our only hope to keep the Union functioning is civility. You would do well to remember that you have no particular rights or privileges within this body or within Bastion at all, as there are no documents protecting them, and that your only reaction against poor treatment is a threat to leave - a threat that would be accompanied by fireworks and a dancing parade.

[Malliki]

I have not tried to impose my views on Nelaga, Shireroth or Gralus. I withheld my consent to this consensus because I feel that new members should be treated equally, even if the votes turn out to be formalities. The only thing I hear from you or Andreas is "consensus", and when a few people withhold their consent, I see complaints.

I don't think you've noticed, but I've voted yes to the admission of Oscland. I think they should join. I want a vote for the principle. If Antica and Babkha have to be voted in, I think Oscland should too. Even you should have been able to understand that from my posts. After all, your native language is English.

You may call what you are doing in Nelaga a discussion, but the replies you are getting are along the lines of "I approve of them joining", which is a vote in everything but formality. The majority I brought up was for illustration, and you should be able to understand that too. The logical conclusion would be though, if a consensus cannot be reached, that a majority is needed, although that is not stated anywhere. I am also quite confident that any Osclandian representative understands that my wish for a vote is not aimed at them, but is rather my wish for us to continue the precedent set when Antica and Babkha joined.

The lack of rights go both ways, Harvey. Nelaga has so far been a tranquil haven, but who knows what may happen in the future? I know that you dislike me, Harvey, and I assure you that the feeling is mutual.

[Andreas the Wise]

Note: This reply was constructed to Malliki's sentence "I think we all would be better off if Harvey and Andreas didn't try to set the standard for how we do business here." Malliki and Harvey have continued the discussion in a different direction since then, but since my reply to the original point is now written, I'd still like to post it. Also to clarify, the first paragraph is directed at Malliki but the rest is to everyone in general.

If the majority of Bastionados want all new members to be admitted by vote, we can do it that way. I've expressed my preferences for how to handle this (and the historical precedent of Natopia, when that matter was brought up), just like you, Malliki, have expressed your opinion. It happens that those opinions are strongly felt and opposing, and neither of us look likely to be convinced by the other.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Consensus decision making doesn't mean we all have to hold identical positions. It just requires a modicum of maturity - compromise, where possible; and where that fails, for us to know when we're in the minority and let the matter pass if it is not crucial. [Where both of those fail we can't make the decision by consensus and then we go to voting]. So in this matter, for example, I'd like it if most people agreed with me that without controversy regarding the nation in question, a vote was unnecessary and we just let the nation in. But if most people support voting on new members, then of course I'll let a vote happen and assume that from now on we always vote on new nations [Did anyone seriously expect me to do anything other than that? ]. And I would hope that everyone else would do the same in similar situations, should they find themselves in the minority.

I'd also like to take this moment to complement Bastion in general for keeping this discussion generally quite civil and friendly, which is excellent. See, we can all get along if we try!

[Harvey]

Quaint that you lecture me on Nelagan politics. In Nelaga, there is a fairly big divide between a discussion topic and an official vote. If a vote turns into a discussion, it is common for a bill's sponsor to abort the voting procedure and return the bill for open discussion before voting again. Discussions are freeform and are designed to handle conflicting opinions; votes, at least the ones that conclude, are almost always unanimous in favor, because it's unlikely the issue would have gotten that far along the process if not everyone agreed. I'm certain you don't care, but you brought it up.

Back on topic, I maintain once again that "cuz we did it that way in the past" isn't much of a reason at all, and smacks of the formation of a pan-Bastion government with policies that we cannot break because, though not written down or inscribed in any documents we signed, they are official enough to carry weight. I was under the impression that this was generally considered to be a subject of worry. What happened to all of the rampant fear of the Bastion nations falling under an overhead governmental body? Because this is, oddly enough, the first real sign of it I've seen - that people are just okay with following procedure under the idea of precedence.