The South PacificBoard

Curlyhoward wrote:

But I don't lie about it. Not that thing I do in the attic either that might disturb those in the middle of the bell curve.

I should run for delegate! Free face pies and chandeliers for everyone!!!

I’d say go for it, the only ones who could tell your closet skeletons are old timers, and no one listens to us

Nothing interesting to see here, it seems.
*Whistles, then meanders away*

Agalaesia wrote:

Nothing interesting to see here, it seems.
*Whistles, then meanders away*

I see your Scottish like flag!

Spaceania wrote:

I am sorry if whatever I have said may have offended you. Please take this 60 gallons of maple syrup as an apology gift

Lol that was just a test! ;)
You passed!

Spaceania wrote:

I knew it was a test I am sorry for pretending I didn't know it was a test.

:D

Roavin wrote:

- snip -

First of all - I'd like to correct the record here. I don't believe I was "campaigning against you" in the MoMA election. Maybe my memory's hazy (and if I'm wrong, please do correct me!), but all I remember is asking this question in your campaign, which involved a portion about the group chat incident: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-6509-post-176215.html#pid176215

Now to the actual matter:

1. Both Roavin and Islands are stretching or omitting parts of the events to make things look better for them. I'm not satisfied with either of their explanations.

2. Islands' whole thing about Roavin trying to get people to vote him into the Legislator Committee in Islands's absence is both untrue and irrelevant. Roavin's pretty much right on what he's said about that - him being on LegComm had been discussed long before the group chat.

3. Here's my addition to what others have already said: Roavin created the group chat as he mentioned, including the Cabinet plus himself (I was already a little uncomfortable with this, because it seems a bit... shady? to have a personal channel just for you alone to talk with the Cabinet). I'll admit I didn't mention this though. Then, when Islands was elected as Minister of Regional Affairs, Roavin said something to the effect of "Islands isn't ever going to get in here" in the group chat. Even though the chat was a private channel and Roavin was perfectly within his legal rights to exclude the fourth member of the Cabinet, I really didn't think it was an okay thing to do. After a bit, I added Islands to the group chat myself in the interests of transparency and giving Roavin a taste of reality.

Roavin later told people that the reason he didn't add Islands to the chat was because he was concerned that Islands might be a security risk..... but he told no one else in the chat about those suspicions, instead deciding to keep them to himself and make the decision without explaining anything. Combined with the gloating-like posts, I was definitely under the impression that he was just refusing to add Islands out of spite (they had already had an ongoing feud by that point).

So IMO this is quite an astute question:

Spaceania wrote:

Well, I wasn't here for any of the events but assuming what I heard is true which it may very well not be you didn't really tell anyone else why you didn't invite him. If I am wrong here then my apologies.

And that's what I think the message is, if anything, to take from "groupchatgate". Not that Roavin is corrupt, or tried to get himself onto LegComm, or anything like that. But I think USoVietnam put it well:

United States of Vietnam wrote:

Roavin’s handling of the issue was poor (the same thing which added to the Timscade initially). If there is anything that teaches us, Roavin is a poor communicator when it comes to critical matters. Considering the delegacy is not a position which deals with critical matter, it doesnt impact his eligibility for the delegacy very much. I voted for Somy because he has a campaign more in view with me.

I still believe that Roavin made a very poor decision in the group chat, and I think shows that he does have trouble with real transparency -- letting people know about things that are relevant for them but he thinks could be better done without consultation, just by him alone. That's not something new; it's a part of who he is that I've seen in multiple places while working with him. That said, it's not such a bombshell as Islands is portraying it to be and it's way too beaten to death at this point. I don't think it should have been brought up, and it's certainly not something I would campaign on.

4. I really, really wish Islands had not chosen to campaign this way. I don't want smear campaigning or stretching the truth to be part of this election or any election, and especially not part of my campaign. I don't endorse any defamation, smearing, or campaigning that's about framing the other guy negatively. I'd much rather have an election that's about who can serve better as delegate, and I hope we can return to that in the last couple hours.

Curlyhoward wrote:

And the elders love me.

Just to name a paltry few:
Fudgetopia

Everytime you're the most recent person to post you make the whole rmb a sandwich between the first post (which was yours) and the most recent post of yours

Thought that was cool

Tsrill and Partaaaaay.

Polkstreet

Rebeltopia

And so many many more!!!

Idk how to fix this, I put the message I wanted in the quote somehow

Aumeltopia wrote:

First of all - I'd like to correct the record here. I don't believe I was "campaigning against you" in the MoMA election. Maybe my memory's hazy (and if I'm wrong, please do correct me!), but all I remember is asking this question in your campaign, which involved a portion about the group chat incident: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-6509-post-176215.html#pid176215

Now to the actual matter:

1. Both Roavin and Islands are stretching or omitting parts of the events to make things look better for them. I'm not satisfied with either of their explanations.

2. Islands' whole thing about Roavin trying to get people to vote him into the Legislator Committee in Islands's absence is both untrue and irrelevant. Roavin's pretty much right on what he's said about that - him being on LegComm had been discussed long before the group chat.

3. Here's my addition to what others have already said: Roavin created the group chat as he mentioned, including the Cabinet plus himself (I was already a little uncomfortable with this, because it seems a bit... shady? to have a personal channel just for you alone to talk with the Cabinet). I'll admit I didn't mention this though. Then, when Islands was elected as Minister of Regional Affairs, Roavin said something to the effect of "Islands isn't ever going to get in here" in the group chat. Even though the chat was a private channel and Roavin was perfectly within his legal rights to exclude the fourth member of the Cabinet, I really didn't think it was an okay thing to do. After a bit, I added Islands to the group chat myself in the interests of transparency and giving Roavin a taste of reality.

Roavin later told people that the reason he didn't add Islands to the chat was because he was concerned that Islands might be a security risk..... but he told no one else in the chat about those suspicions, instead deciding to keep them to himself and make the decision without explaining anything. Combined with the gloating-like posts, I was definitely under the impression that he was just refusing to add Islands out of spite (they had already had an ongoing feud by that point).

So IMO this is quite an astute question:
And that's what I think the message is, if anything, to take from "groupchatgate". Not that Roavin is corrupt, or tried to get himself onto LegComm, or anything like that. But I think USoVietnam put it well:

I still believe that Roavin made a very poor decision in the group chat, and I think shows that he does have trouble with real transparency -- letting people know about things that are relevant for them but he thinks could be better done without consultation, just by him alone. That's not something new; it's a part of who he is that I've seen in multiple places while working with him. That said, it's not such a bombshell as Islands is portraying it to be and it's way too beaten to death at this point. I don't think it should have been brought up, and it's certainly not something I would campaign on.

4. I really, really wish Islands had not chosen to campaign this way. I don't want smear campaigning or stretching the truth to be part of this election or any election, and especially not part of my campaign. I don't endorse any defamation, smearing, or campaigning that's about framing the other guy negatively. I'd much rather have an election that's about who can serve better as delegate, and I hope we can return to that in the last couple hours.

Very respectful, I’m glad you’re staying out of the fray. It’s rather sad that personal issues between two members is clouding our election, they should both know better. This is what happens when you don’t come to the rmb regularly and have your pomposity punctured on a constant basis.

Drystar wrote:

Very respectful, I’m glad you’re staying out of the fray. It’s rather sad that personal issues between two members is clouding our election, they should both know better. This is what happens when you don’t come to the rmb regularly and have your pomposity punctured on a constant basis.

In reality, the whole election has been tarnished. I'm shocked with the proceedings today, and I really hope this won't influence the elections too much. I see that both parties have responded with their characteristic aplomb. Roavin has decided to smear campaign, and this will damage him politically, and Islands has also decided to smear campaign. Trust me, none of you will get of Scot free.

Agalaesia wrote:

In reality, the whole election has been tarnished. I'm shocked with the proceedings today, and I really hope this won't influence the elections too much. I see that both parties have responded with their characteristic aplomb. Roavin has decided to smear campaign, and this will damage him politically, and Islands has also decided to smear campaign. Trust me, none of you will get of Scot free.

Well, I already voted, and I don’t plan on flipping my vote just because... now if you can prove one of them is Milograd in disguise, then yes I’d change. Otherwise it’s not a big deal with me.

Spaceania wrote:

Oh did I say pizza? I meant Pisa sorry for the mistake here is the property rights to the entire city of Pisa.

Sad

Spaceania wrote:

Same

It's all WA endorsements. I'm probably just gonna leave (the WA) once the voting ends, although I probably won't end up voting anyway.