The Republic Of Liberty - Feedback and Reminder Thread

[Reeves]

So the tldr is that you're not willing to acknowledge the role you played in making this system necessary and owning up to it with dignity.

Gotcha.

---

[Czechmate]

send an FR5 to staff against the entire first armada based on this.

objectively wrong, it was just towards your character.
not that FR5s matter since you can just replace your super mega admiral with another name
your character van leer was the one getting bureaucracy'd, not you.
separate roleplay from reality please.
it gets on everyones nerves when you cant perceive them as different things

also id like to see any of this bullying you claim there to be

Gov members tried to FR5 1st for my char going 12-21 score in a respawn event, following canon character orders to the letter, outside of house space where there can't be RP consequences by house lawfuls. I mean - is any of that wrong? Is any of that in roleplay to you? When no in roleplay evidence was even used, even if it could be for non house stuff?

What you don't get is that this "rp" was all done for oorp reasons, oorp dislike and disagreement, without any in-roleplay evidence or justification. And this is why staff oversight is actually needed, sadly.

[SnakThree]

So the tldr is that you're not willing to acknowledge the role you played in making this system necessary and owning up to it with dignity.

Gotcha.

What role. By making voting system for dozen of people to have ability to voice their opinions where singular opinion cannot be decisive factor? I'll own it up with dignity.

Do you understand, that when 14 people can collectively decide on things it's better than 4 people having ability to do it?

And in such cases where my opinion differs from majority of LibGov, the system takes care of it because vote goes through. That's what I achieved. If such system is bad and need supervision, then I truly don't understand what you want. Now it will be smaller number of players deciding it and staff will need to supervise it. Tell me how that is different but better.

Or are you so hell bent on having your precious independent worlds untouched that you tunnel vision and blame it on one person who voiced different opinion to yours?

---

[Saronsen]

Gov members tried to FR5 1st

kage is wrong, it was only your character

What you don't get is that this "rp" was all done for oorp reasons, oorp dislike, without any in-roleplay evidence or justification. And this is why staff oversight is actually needed, sadly.

and they already did their oversight by denying the request
unfortunately we did a year archiving voting channels instead of taking screens and realized that was a bad idea, and 2022 just isnt in the archive
but im sure i could ask an admin to dig up the request for me

correction:
as far as an admin searching the records can tell: your name, your characters name, 1st, libgov, and members of navy factions, across several request subforums, NEVER had an FR5 request put on your character, or the 1st.
your character was literally shamed in an RP post once and that was it
the navy factions never even made the request in the first place lmfao
actually spent a year and a half trying to gaslight people into thinking you were this victim that even i believed that the navy factions actually did their jobs
hilarious

i hope he didnt miss anything in his search and others go looking, thatd be even funnier.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=202684
Time left: (Permanent)

[Reeves]

Or are you so hell bent on having your precious independent worlds untouched that you tunnel vision and blame it on one person who voiced different opinion to yours?

I'm just waiting for you to recognise the irony of saying that LibGov values input immensely while juxtaposed with the track record of stonewalling people for one reason or another. Surely you can recognise these two things as not going together.

---

[Saronsen]

I'm just waiting for you to recognise the irony of saying that LibGov values input immensely while juxtaposed with the track record of stonewalling people for one reason or another. Surely you can recognise these two things as not going together.

stonewalling who and what?
im still waiting for evidence of anything people claim that isnt just snak3 being noisy or lemons gaslighting

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=202684
Time left: (Permanent)

[SnakThree]

Or are you so hell bent on having your precious independent worlds untouched that you tunnel vision and blame it on one person who voiced different opinion to yours?

I'm just waiting for you to recognise the irony of saying that LibGov values input immensely while juxtaposed with the track record of stonewalling people for one reason or another. Surely you can recognise these two things as not going together.

Again, if this is about IC when they did not want to be counted as Liberty faction and went same route as OSC now, I explained my view and the fact that voting system would take into account the majority of votes, not just mine. So the voting process would work even if couple of people didn't agree with it. You have failed to provide substantial evidence to this and are stil barking up the wrong tree. And as I see it, no amount of evidence from our side would change your view because you don't look to be flexible and have ability to change your opinion when presented with facts

---

[Reeves]

Or are you so hell bent on having your precious independent worlds untouched that you tunnel vision and blame it on one person who voiced different opinion to yours?

I'm just waiting for you to recognise the irony of saying that LibGov values input immensely while juxtaposed with the track record of stonewalling people for one reason or another. Surely you can recognise these two things as not going together.

Again, if this is about IC when they did not want to be counted as Liberty faction and went same route as OSC now, I explained my view and the fact that voting system would take into account the majority of votes, not just mine. So the voting process would work even if couple of people didn't agree with it. You have failed to provide substantial evidence to this and are stil barking up the wrong tree. And as I see it, no amount of evidence from our side would change your view because you don't look to be flexible and have ability to change your opinion when presented with facts

Seeing as you would consider any potential criticism a low effort attempt to slander your reputation, I'm going to have to cite hypocrisy in response to this. If you're immediately defensive at the threshold it really does say enough, pot's calling the kettle black in short.

---

[Saronsen]

egotist arguing with egotist

please leave my thread if youre not going to provide any evidence to anything youve claimed libgov does, and your only intent is to argue with snak3
no one wants to see you two making out

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=202684
Time left: (Permanent)

[SnakThree]

Or are you so hell bent on having your precious independent worlds untouched that you tunnel vision and blame it on one person who voiced different opinion to yours?

I'm just waiting for you to recognise the irony of saying that LibGov values input immensely while juxtaposed with the track record of stonewalling people for one reason or another. Surely you can recognise these two things as not going together.

Again, if this is about IC when they did not want to be counted as Liberty faction and went same route as OSC now, I explained my view and the fact that voting system would take into account the majority of votes, not just mine. So the voting process would work even if couple of people didn't agree with it. You have failed to provide substantial evidence to this and are stil barking up the wrong tree. And as I see it, no amount of evidence from our side would change your view because you don't look to be flexible and have ability to change your opinion when presented with facts

Seeing as you would consider any potential criticism a low effort attempt to slander your reputation, I'm going to have to cite hypocrisy in response to this. If you're immediately defensive at the threshold it really does say enough, pot's calling the kettle black in short.

That's because your feedback is factually incorrect. People who provide feedback how to improve LibGov and laws have been heard and some changes were implemented. Yours is unfounded accusations that haven't been done in reality. You talk about stonewalling someone but it's not true and you haven't provided evidence to the contrary. If you would, then I would take responsibility if it was my personal fault.

---