New Western AtlanticBoard

Molestein wrote:

It would seem that the Atlantic is on the decline. Most disappointing. We remember well the days in which the Atlantic towered over the Confederation.

Nothing truly lasts forever, it seems.

Hail the Confederation!

Imperial Communications
Confederation of Corrupt Dictators

Cool

Amazing Grace! how sweet the sound, that saved, a wretch like meeeeeee, i once was lost but now am found, was blind but now i see!
{Tears of solitude for region}

Nightonicia wrote:

I'm a little confused. Whats going on

You mean the move? We're all relocating to the New Western Empire. UDR abdicated.

O-broki wrote:

I can officially declare the NWA 100% Bennisia free!

God bless

Kycker wrote:

God bless

You too my friend. God is good!

The evile empire wrote:

I'm sorry, you're beyond help at this point.

Does anyone else think it is strange this was the last post right before UDR abdicated

Ognitia wrote:

Jew

huh?

Anglo slumania wrote:

UDR will abdicate soon....

God Save the King and God save us all

I was looking through old posts and found this a few days before UDR's abdication. How did you know?

Bergonnia wrote:

You didn’t label us as that? Tell that to these two

There’s no reason to bring up LGBTQ unless you were implying that that had a relationship to the event, which it had zero influence.

I have asked multiple times to see the information. But when I was directed the person told me they couldn’t remember where they fit the information from. You all condemn us but can’t verify a source. I’m afraid this incident and the secrecy you all have had in keeping information from us confuses me greatly

To respect the wishes of my community, I'm moving this discussion here.

First off, to claim that the act of outing has nothing to do with LGBTQ is completely bogus:

Novian self-defence forces wrote:

For those that don't know what outing is:

"Outing, an occasion when it is made public that a famous person is gay when he or she wanted to keep this information private." -Cambridge Dictionary

I think you misunderstand, the concern was not (at least not directly) your treatment of LGBTQ persons overall, but of the specific incident and how correspondence with us was handled. As I've perhaps already stated, the things you claim about LGBTQ in regard to the initial post, have never been explicitly stated by us but you interpret it as such, which is most unfortunate.

You should already be aware of this, but I'll state it anyway; the G in LGBTQ stands for Gay as in the homosexual sense. As for the two posts you quoted, for the first I've no idea of what mental gymnastics you could possibly have done to end up with the conclusion you did, if the first was enough to draw a conclusion that is. For the second, you have to take into account the alleged inaction of your government as inaction is also action in itself, thus, "those" would not be referring to the whole community but just the government and the outing individual. Furthermore, I would like to restate the following:

Novian self-defence forces wrote:

I'm personally very much aware of the presence of several LGBTQ members here, as I've been a resident (and then a guest) previously, though that's beside the point. I don't know how you can have interpret it to insinuate that you're anti-LGBT, it was most certainly not the intention. However, you don't need to be anti-LGBTQ to discriminate (or ignore discrimination) against LGBTQ members.
...

Bergonnia wrote:

So be it. Y’all want to be in denial about how horrendously you all handled things then I won’t waste anymore time. I just really hope y’all treat the next region fairly, something that was not given to us. Goodbye

Well your side hasn't exactly handled things very well either so this is rich coming from you. Even worse is that you've yet to show any signs of own reflections on your actions in this ordeal. Like is it really necessary to, for example, throw insults?

Bergonnia wrote:

You didn’t label us as that? Tell that to these two

There’s no reason to bring up LGBTQ unless you were implying that that had a relationship to the event, which it had zero influence.

I have asked multiple times to see the information. But when I was directed the person told me they couldn’t remember where they fit the information from. You all condemn us but can’t verify a source. I’m afraid this incident and the secrecy you all have had in keeping information from us confuses me greatly

To respect the wishes of my community, I'm moving this discussion here.

First off, to claim that the act of outing has nothing to do with LGBTQ is completely bogus:

Novian self-defence forces wrote:

For those that don't know what outing is:

"Outing, an occasion when it is made public that a famous person is gay when he or she wanted to keep this information private." -Cambridge Dictionary

I think you misunderstand, the concern was not (at least not directly) your treatment of LGBTQ persons overall, but of the specific incident and how correspondence with us was handled. As I've perhaps already stated, the things you claim about LGBTQ in regard to the initial post, have never been explicitly stated by us but you interpret it as such, which is most unfortunate.

You should already be aware of this, but I'll state it anyway; the G in LGBTQ stands for Gay as in the homosexual sense. As for the two posts you quoted, for the first I've no idea of what mental gymnastics you could possibly have done to end up with the conclusion you did, if the first was enough to draw a conclusion that is. For the second, you have to take into account the alleged inaction of your government as inaction is also action in itself, thus, "those" would not be referring to the whole community but just the government and the outing individual. Furthermore, I would like to restate the following:

Novian self-defence forces wrote:

I'm personally very much aware of the presence of several LGBTQ members here, as I've been a resident (and then a guest) previously, though that's beside the point. I don't know how you can have interpret it to insinuate that you're anti-LGBT, it was most certainly not the intention. However, you don't need to be anti-LGBTQ to discriminate (or ignore discrimination) against LGBTQ members.
...

Bergonnia wrote:

So be it. Y’all want to be in denial about how horrendously you all handled things then I won’t waste anymore time. I just really hope y’all treat the next region fairly, something that was not given to us. Goodbye

Well your side hasn't exactly handled things very well either so this is rich coming from you. Even worse is that you've yet to show any signs of own reflections on your actions in this ordeal. Like is it really necessary to, for example, throw insults?

EDIT: You may have noticed that I've refrained from addressing the third paragraph, which is simply because I have nothing to say about it.

Bergonnia wrote:

Click to show...

No. It had nothing to do with LGBTQ. After hunting down information you all refused to provide I realized what event it was. The information gathered by you all from your “source” (which no one even remembers who it was) is nonsense. I’m telling you flat out, it had nothing to do with anyone’s sexuality. I was in leadership of the region when it happened. The PM your leader talked to wasnt even in the region at the time as far as I am aware. Just because your leader said it doesn’t mean it’s true.

Show me the evidence that it was about that. Show me the lies so I can point it out direct. You all are asserting the claim that it was about that. YOU and you alone have the burden to PROVE that it was about that. You have made baseless accusations. You can’t be surprised that the region took it poorly

What fault is there to admit? You all accuse us of not protecting LGBTQ rights and then get upset when we get defensive? Come on now...

The dispute itself between the Duke and Siege may never have had to do with LGBTQ, however, it doesn't change that Siege was effectively outed, as established in the Duke's telegram: https://i.imgur.com/vAvs5Cq.png This is obviously where we disagree, as you've previously denied that an outing took place and/or that it constituted as an outing.

For your information, it is getting a tad bit annoying that you keep insisting that we've done things that we have not, again, we have never explicitly stated what you claim. It is quite concerning that despite numerous clarifications, you still end up perpetuating the same incorrect conclusion. Honestly, it's quite tiring to have to address the same argument over and over again, and I rather not do it again.

EDIT: Image replaced with one with red underlines.

Yo can we not

Lets not drown the RMB of a retired region with modern bickerings