Event Cards (removed from the event)

[Sir Valimont]

As for civil rights, it could not be less appropriate to talk about Rosa Parks when talking about Elements War event cards. I'm pretty sure if you think about it you will agree with this obvious view.

The level of an example doesn't necessarily negate the point of the example. To say boycotting agasint an established aurthority is wrong is a statement, that in order to be accepted, must be applied to all examples it applies to. You saying that people boycotting in a game against a rule people felt was unbalanced is the same as saying Rosa Parks was wrong for boycotting an estblished rule by authority that blacks had to sit in an estblished area on a bus. Seperating the instances in both examples leaves the same result. You argue that it is wrong to boycott authority. We disagree.

Maybe I should be clearer.

Boycotting authority is only right if there is a significant, serious breach of human rights that is so severe that it is more important than the considerations of causing social unrest. Of course that was the case with Rosa Parks and also of course that is not the case here. Creating a parallel between the two diminishes the importance of Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement and shows that you all continue to think of yourselves as righteous ... which is not the case.

[Kuross]

Never has it been said that boycotting in contingent on human right violations. Having been involved in human right awareness and activities, I can assure you of that.

Great example of a boycott that had no human rights connection, but was in every way right. A local nurses union was close to a walkout of local hospitals because those with authority were essntially taking advantage of the need to have nurses. The nurses were left with the choice of continuing to get less pay than their worth and really bad working hours or boycott and strike. They boycotted and came close to a strike but settled at the last second. Point is, it is completely acceptible to boycott something if people feel it is worthty to boycott and does not need to be some earth shattering condition to do so.

And I didn't create the parallel with your stance and rosa Parks. Someone simply applied a very specific stance you took and compared it wih another situation with the exact parameters. The question now seems to be, at what point to do you, personall, allow people to boycott something, assuming you have the power and authority to do such a thing? In my opinion, the very nature of boycotting goes against authority and thus no one person can have a say in whether on not a boycott is valid. If a boycott doesn't have merit they generally fall apart on their own accord. But if it does have merit, change is a natural result and it's usually those that suffered a perceived loss from the change that usually speak out the most that a boycott was bad.

[Sir Valimont]

Never has it been said that boycotting in contingent on human right violations. Having been involved in human right awareness and activities, I can assure you of that.

Great example of a boycott that had no human rights connection, but was in every way right. A local nurses union was close to a walkout of local hospitals because those with authority were essntially taking advantage of the need to have nurses. The nurses were left with the choice of continuing to get less pay than their worth and really bad working hours or boycott and strike. They boycotted and came close to a strike but settled at the last second. Point is, it is completely acceptible to boycott something if people feel it is worthty to boycott and does not need to be some earth shattering condition to do so.

And I didn't create the parallel with your stance and rosa Parks. Someone simply applied a very specific stance you took and compared it wih another situation with the exact parameters. The question now seems to be, at what point to do you, personally, allow people to boycott something, assuming you have the power and authority to do such a thing? In my opinion, the very nature of boycotting goes against authority and thus no one person can have a say in whether on not a boycott is valid. If a boycott doesn't have merit they generally fall apart on their own accord. But if it does have merit, change is a natural result and it's usually those that suffered a perceived loss from the change that usually speak out the most that a boycott was bad.

Hmm ... well this is a really intelligent post. Interesting stuff about the nurses' boycott.

I guess my perspective is that I don't really think the community gave discussion a chance and that the boycott was therefore not a fair representation of the situation. It was a form of escalation without the appropriate quorum on how bad the card really was and whether another solution was possible.

[Xinef]

From my observations, Scaredgirl removed Event Cards from the event after a a few pages of heated discussion in "War - Round 2" thread, a poll in General Section and a few unorganized discussions in other places happened. I've also seen signs that a discussion in chat took place, though I've not seen it myself.

An organized, official discussion might have been better, but on the other hand it would take a lot more time and during organized events like this one sometimes decisions need to be taken quickly. And this is what SG did.

[Malduk]

At one point this thread tried to be constructive. Can I ask you Valimont to take your drama to that other thread you made specifically for fueling more fire to the whole thing?

[miniwally]

Valimont stop double posting. It seems to be when you want to use more than one quote and that's what the multi quote button is for, just so you know.

[Amilir]

I R SAD EVENT CARDS ARE GONE 

One of the more productive posts in this thread.  Lets take the question of whether the community acted right or not and shove it.  What's done is done.  From here, we should find out if and what event cards to use next war.

[Kuross]

I R SAD EVENT CARDS ARE GONE 

One of the more productive posts in this thread.  Lets take the question of whether the community acted right or not and shove it.  What's done is done.  From here, we should find out if and what event cards to use next war.

Fantastic idea! Would it be too early to start a new thread with just that intent?

[Sir Valimont]

Fantastic idea! Would it be too early to start a new thread with just that intent?

As ScaredGirl has already pointed out that discussion is not relevant until after War #2 (Essence already asked about it).

[XYTWO]

I R SAD EVENT CARDS ARE GONE 

One of the more productive posts in this thread.  Lets take the question of whether the community acted right or not and shove it.  What's done is done.  From here, we should find out if and what event cards to use next war.

I simply post im bummed, i didnt bitch about it and express a great deal of concern, but thats no reason for you to a freaking douche bag.    im simply upping my post count. 

DO YOU HAVE TO WORK AT BEING ASSHAT OR DOES IT COME NATURAL??

If you want to up your post count, go everywhere and post the letter A. It's more efficient and just as productive to the community! /sarcasm

[Essence]

Boycotting authority is only right if there is a significant, serious breach of human rights that is so severe that it is more important than the considerations of causing social unrest.

Valimont, have you actually read MrBlonde's post?  Because it seems like you're objecting to something that never happened.  MrBlonde didn't "boycott authority" -- he said his team (only) was going to NOT USE the effects of the Event card.  That's not boycotting authority any more than it is for someone to tell the government that they're going to not use their income tax return because the tax money came from rich people who were taxed unfairly by the country's progressive taxation system.  It's a statement, but it literally didn't interfere with a damn thing.  To condemn someone for making a statement like that isn't just not fair, it's simply tyrranical.  You're literally harshing on a guy for saying "I refuse to take advantage of this rule which would unfairly benefit me, but I'll still participate and contribute in any other way."  I have no idea how you could see that as something worthy of removal from the event, much less the community.

[TimerClock14]

lol this whole debate is so much funnier with the "don't let Sarah Palin win the election" ads at the bottom