Join the new world

That's not really democracy if congress members are forced to vote in a given way.

Congress has voted on the concession treaty with overwhelming support. Congress can at any time cancel the treaty in the vote - but until then, the Congress and the government need to follow obligations stipulated in the treaty which they accepted. One of them is the obligation of sending money.

If Iran did not pay their concession rent, or if President decided he will not return money he is obliged to do, proper procedures would be started immediately. So is individual Congress Member following the same behavior above the law, while others are not?

Btw. if he is against concessions (and we know he is strongly against those), he can always vote NO on renewing of those concessions (which serve as renewal of concession treaties). That is acceptable behvaior. However when concession (or Training War, or something else, like a law or rule) is agreed upon, it needs to be followed.

Procedures have been started against me, because I dared to use colors in Finance Sheet. Breaking laws and rules seems slightly bigger offence to me 😉 .

janty f is well known for trying to silence the opposition.

there is nothing in our laws that forces people to vote according to his wishes.

Says the person, who just started a blacklist vote about innocent person for petty reason.

By your logic, odan, it is okay to break rules, laws and agreements accepted by Congress... but only if you and your party members do it. Otherwise you are extremely vigilant to throw law around, whenever you see a tiny opportunity. But you are not above the law. Nobody is. And when Congress makes a decision, we all need to follow it. Even your friend.

Taking the meta game to another level 😃

Be glad you do not see those private meta things 😅

I actually tried to go thru the eNL laws to find a way to accuse a particular person of treason against own country. Sadly I cant make a case of it (yet).
The society has had to live with the poisoned mind of just few persons who refuse to think the best of eNL but only the best of their own status. Well most of the countries in here have had this happening and you just try to live with them.
When these few citizens start to accuse people and wanting to blacklist them left and right, the situation gets more serious.
I hope we will eventually figure out how to get some sense into the followers and minions of these few poisonous minds.

Well, I wouldn't talk about treason (a treason would be something like the recent events in Serbian Congress a week ago, where CM is claimed ot be paid by Croatia to start bad NE laws, causing Serbia to get wiped, and the said CM to leave for Greece). Some people sadly want to be negative at all times, and there is not really much we can do about it, except using the right antidote (fun and activity) for the poison of silence and decay.

However these same negative people start accusations every time they feel someone is acting against the laws and procedures - unless one of them actually acts against the laws and procuders, in which case everything is magically okay, and you are evil for bringing it up. That is a pure hypocrisy, and if there is something I cannot stand, it is just that. We all need to follow our laws and rules - and not only the few selected ones, who happen to be the most active.

While I agree it’s a cut and clear case of self-destructive behaviour (and towards NL) out of spite, it is not illegal behaviour and the principle of not excluding anyone should be maintained. The behaviour in question shows character (and not a good one) which should be enough to judge one upon.

Well, not respecting decisions of Congress does not sound very legal to me - but it's true some people simply do not know how to behave, and no blacklist will change that. I just believe the real problems should be debated, instead of fake problems introduced in recent debate.

Following odan’s or most of I&W’s logic a blacklist is the only logic outcome indeed.
It’s similar to a soldier fighting against eNL or an alliance member which, according to them, always should lead to punnishment of the soldier (unless he’s odan or an I&W member).

It is however not the login of the majority of eNL so it won’t come to a blacklist.
It does however nicely show the rotten way of thinking from most of odan’s clan. Luckily nowadays, with the no longer secret in-game voting there are hardly any No voters left on these deals. Shame we can not see older votes. Would have been nice to have seen the 3-5 other No voters although it’s obvious who they were 🙁...

100% agree.

Not a fan of the blacklist law.

Blacklisting someone doesn't solve anything. Unless it is someone who continuously does the wrong thing/is a PTOr

One might argue some people here keep doing wrong things 😅

🙄🙄🙄

Figured out public also needs some drama, so Congress does not steal all the fun 😁

Yeah blacklist odan! Euh or that other one. 😉

But I disagree with the proposal. Everyone is free to vote no. That whats IW demostrates every now and then. Maybe not in a very constructive way, but it is allowed.
If you want to change that, feel free to get me again in the dictator position.

The rule of benevolent dictator? Hmm..
if only it did not cost so much money on daily basis... that would be hard to justify for Minister of Finances, of all the people 😶

At the moment I personally see no reason to blacklist someone because he does not agree with a deal we have with Iran.

If he is the only one who votes against it, it shows more character than that he is destructively engaged for the Dutch society.

Read the article again - I do not want to blacklist him, because he does not agree with a deal. That would be dumb, and undemocratic. If you think so, you have read the article wrong 🙂 .

I'm free to vote how I want. This isn't a dictatorship.

Oh, hello, I am glad you are able to speak. Unfortunately, you lack the ability of comprehensive reading, but we can work on that!

Now, can you explain to us, why do you disrespect treaties agreed upon by Congress? Of course, people are free to disagree with everything - however, when a law, or treaty, is signed by Congress, you need to agree with it and follow it. Even if you dislike it. That's how legal systems in democracy works.

So, can you explain to us here, why are you standing against democratic decisions of Congress, and why you disrespect the utmost democratic institution, while seeking punishments for those, who you believe do the same?

I dont have high hopes that Ryan.Rodney.Reynolds will ever answer to this question.

People tend to avoid answering questions, when they know the truthful answer would harm them.

If he replies, I bet it will be another "dictatorship" rant, which I already anticipated in the article, and explaining why such a rant is wrong 🙂 .

Where are you from irl? Because it's clear you have no idea how a real democracy works.
Irl it is pretty common to see votes against stuff like that, even if a government or parts of congress agreed to something.

So, can you explain to us here, why you are so hell bent on forcing people to vote according to your wishes like you are the dictator supreme.

This reply was a complete fail in so many levels.

odan - as written three times in the article, and multiple times in the comments - I do not do neither of tthe things you express. It is all written above, you cannot distort the truth, because other people can read. I only want all of us to follow the law and respect decisions of Congress. Even if we might not like those decisions, like you do. I also do not like some portions of the law, but I still follow them. In your opinion though, I should not, and I should receive no punishment for uch an undemocratic behavior.

Easy example: Part of Congress voted for recent blacklist of innocent individual, however the blacklist was not accepted in the end. In your logic - does that mean you consider the blacklist active, because you voted YES, even though Congress voted NO? It seems you believe the democracy works that way. Which, as far as I am told, is wrong - even for real Netherlands 😉

Mentioning the real life Netherlands, now I can reply. 😉
Even when it is the law that says something has to go on (like the deal with Iran) all members of congress have the right to vote against it. It is like in the Westland that the majority of the members of the town council vote against a moslim school there that had the right to start the moslim school, they were allowed to do so. It is now the Dutch national government that will give the school board there rights, but the members of the town council that voted against it are still legal members of the town council (in fact the have still are the government of that town council).
All, the members of the Dutch parliament are allowed to vote against any law active in the Netherlands and are allowed to try to block anything they like. Face it, that is democracy. 🙂

I would not compare town councils and Congress, that is quite a stretch, as they are two different organizations - this game does not have multiple layers of bureaucracy (because City module was never implemented) - and if the City module was implemented, the cities could and would of course vote independently from Congress, and that would be perfectly logical.

However, when you have a legal obligation to do something, because Congress decided such obligation exists, you simply need to do it. Congress accepted the decision money need to be returned to Iran. So can the same Congress block laws, which are aimed at doing exactly that? Nope, because by doing so, it acts against its previously accepted decision. As example - we have legal obligation as CMs to pay Congress Tax. Even if you disagree with the concept of Congress Tax, which many do. If you do not do it, you will automatically get blacklisted. Which happened multiple times in the past. The situation I mention in the article works on similar basis - yet, for some reason, it is perfectly okay (for some people) to not get blacklisted in this specific situation, while the same people would blacklist you immediately in case of not paying a Congress Tax.

Double standards, and mentality of thinking you are above the law - this is, what is happening in case of Mr. Ryan 🙂 .

Only way is Ianty way!

Only way is the legal way. Wish you will learn that one day 🙂

And the legal way is how i'm voting.

We wouldn't have this debate, if it was true.

My point is that the state has the obligation to do the things that are in laws and treaties but Congress members are free to vote against any obligation the state has, however they are not above the law. Legal taxes will be collected even when such a member of Congress had voted against such law, but the votes are (and should be) free inside a real democracy. You can decide with your fellow members of Congress where the eDutch state stands between democracy and totalitarianism.

State obligations are also Congress obligations in this case. So you are saying Congress members can accept obligation, but then do not follow it, and act against it?
Whyy do we even vote for obligations then, if they do not need to be followed, when they are active? Sounds you describe anarchy, and not democracy. Because even democracy has some rules and obligations, which need to be followed.

Janty, just stop.

And why would I do so 😉 ?

1. You can have wise people in the congress and foolish, it is the voters that decide who will be in congress. Laws against foolish people in congress are foolish in my opinion.
2. State obligations are state obligations. Congress is independent (but of course you hope the majority acts wise). When congress acts against the state it will give a constitutional crisis. In many states you have a juridical process to solve it. eRepublik doesn't have, but it has the game rules.
3. In time the old majority of the congress can become a minority. The new majority wants the obligations from the old majority to be thrown away. You can see a political crisis on many places.

1. Well, people, who launch troll laws, and vote on troll laws, should be limited - but this is not the case... yet. Once he figures out, how to launch laws though... who knows.
2. State obligations are Congress obligations in this case, because both Congress and government (I do not know, what you mean by state, so I have to assume you mean government) are obliged to do something by the decision voted upon by Congress. When Congress accepts rental deal, it needs to follow obligations of that rental deal, unless the rental deal itself is ended via separate voting, meaning the obligations will end. However until that happens, obligations need to be followed.
3. Same as 2 - if someone wants obligations to be thrown away, he can debate and vote appropriate proposal for that. But until that happens, the obligations are still in place.

I know were I need to go to start a law proposal.

That doesn't change anything about my right to vote how I want on any proposal.

Good - so if you want to cancel concession with Canada (so you, as CM, no longer have obligation to return money back to them, which you stubbornly refuse to follow, because you just dislike following rules), you can start a proposal then 😉 .

I hope we will see it soon!

Oh well...

ripe for the taking

Oh boy.

Oh boy indeed, odan peeps acting illegal again :/ .