Flag

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="560884" data-time="1456445086">Anyway fuckwits of the leftard community, here is your problem. 
 
I'm pro the change, but i'm not sure I cared enough to vote. But I do now. And I'll be voting against you and your utterly ridiculous infantile thoughts. 
 
I'm just one person, but I'm 100% positive there are thousands more in the same situation.</blockquote>
 
Might as well end the thread there. ( cheers and applause)

Mokey

Oh my god, MR. I feel infinitely more stupid having read those FB posts. Calling Richie a traitor along the lines of Coutts? That is crossing a giant fucking line. As for the moron claiming only those who voted in the first round will get sent papers, I can't even.
 
If anything, this debunks the whole survival of the fittest theory, because we seem to have a fuckton of fucktards running around.

JC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="560857" data-time="1456440554">
<div>
 
I would have inverted the process, vote do you want to change yes/no. If that got up then do your informal yet extensive market research to find out what components and colours we most favour in a flag, have a small but accountable committee come up with a handful of options behind close doors and the have the govt of the day pick whichever they desire (facing the political consequences if they pick a travesty).
 
</div>
</blockquote>
How would that have worked? If I had been asked "do you want to change the flag, yes/no" my immediate response would have been "why, what are you offering as an alternative?".
 
Without giving people an alternative up front voting yes to a change isn't making a choice, it's just rejecting the status quo. You'd have to have a real ideological dislike for the current flag to do that. While I'm open to the idea of a new flag if the right alternative is put before me I don't feel strongly enough to simply reject the existing one out of hand.
 
As far as I can see it had to be done this way round.

taniwharugby

it would also add to the suspicion that already exists that a flag has already been chosen if you are not given a choice.
 
It'd be like your boss saying you currently drive a KIA Sorrento for your company car, "do you want a new car or not?" Er, what will I get, well we have decided yet, it could be a Ford Fiesta, a Toyota Vitz or maybe a Ferrari....at which point you'd be thinking, like fuck they are getting me a Ferrari, I think I'll keep what I have!
 
haha not the best analogy, but works for me :)

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="560884" data-time="1456445086">
<div>
Anyway fuckwits of the leftard community, here is your problem.
 
I'm pro the change, but i'm not sure I cared enough to vote. But I do now. And I'll be voting against you and your utterly ridiculous infantile thoughts.
 
I'm just one person, but I'm 100% positive there are thousands more in the same situation.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'm exactly the same :)

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="560902" data-time="1456448173">I would vote for change, despite the fact I didn't get the choice I liked and I think the process was flawed ....</blockquote>
 
How was the process flawed? I think " the process was flawed" is to the flag as " the negotiations were done in secret" is to the TPPA . A red herring leftards have seized upon as a reason for not supporting it.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="560902" data-time="1456448173">
<div>
I would vote for change, despite the fact I didn't get the choice I liked and I think the process was flawed ....
</div>
</blockquote>
 
so you don't like the new option and you think the process is flawed...but if you liked the flag that was on offer, would you still think the process flawed or just dumb luck getting one you liked?

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="560941" data-time="1456455019">
<div>
so you don't like the new option and you think the process is flawed...but if you liked the flag that was on offer, would you still think the process flawed or just dumb luck getting one you liked?
</div>
</blockquote>
the only reason them leftists would ever like the alternative is if that bastard Key was influencing them with subliminal messaging through the puppet media. That's why Campbell had to be fired, he wouldn't let it happen on his show. 
 
The process is flawed!
 
They took our jerbs!

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="560941" data-time="1456455019">
<div>
so you don't like the new option and you think the process is flawed...but if you liked the flag that was on offer, would you still think the process flawed or just dumb luck getting one you liked?
</div>
</blockquote>
Yeah, the process was higgilty piggilty and still would have been if the right one (we all know what it is ;)) was added a la Red Peak - it would still be flawed.
 
I like the new option better than the old option.

Baron Silas Greenback

with the oe
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="560955" data-time="1456456037">
<div>
Yeah, the process was higgilty piggilty and still would have been if the right one (we all know what it is ;)) was added a la Red Peak - it would still be flawed.
 
I like the new option better than the old option.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
How was the process "higgilty pigglty'? 
I agree with the others saying that the lefties are just making shit up about the process as a pathetic excuse to bleat.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="560960" data-time="1456456730">
<div>
with the oe
 
How was the process "higgilty pigglty'? 
I agree with the others saying that the lefties are just making shit up about the process as a pathetic excuse to bleat.
</div>
</blockquote>
For a start, a flag not chosen by the team assigned to chose the flags was added (even if it was the one that some lefties wanted) due to media pressure.
 
The anti flag lefties/conservatives were going to bleat no matter what and there are pro flag change (even righties in this thread) people who have an issue with the process.

Rancid Schnitzel

If you're going to complain about something, I guess you could argue that there wasn't much desire for change and that starting up the process in the first place was a flawed decision. But I really don't see how anyone can complain about the process itself. I mean they even changed the rules to include Red Engineering Firm Flag. Can't get much more inclusive than that.
 
I wouldn't vote for a change because I don't like the alternative designs. That's just a matter of taste on my part and not the fault of John Key or anyone else.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="560965" data-time="1456457197">For a start, a flag not chosen by the team assigned to chose the flags was added (even if it was the one that some lefties wanted) due to media pressure. 
 
The anti flag lefties/conservatives were going to bleat no matter what and there are pro flag change (even righties in this thread) people who have an issue with the process.</blockquote>
 
I'm not following you here, the process was flawed because red peak was chosen after a social media campaign? 
Other people have said the process was flawed but like you they haven't elaboated as to why. 
red herring 
n.

A smoked herring having a reddish color.
Something that draws attention away from the matter being discussed or dealt with. 
[Sense 2, probably from the use of smoked herrings to lay scent trails for hounds to follow.] 
Word History: A red herring was originally a herring cured by smoking, a process that imparts a reddish color to its flesh. It is not known how red herring came to denote something that diverts the attention of observers or investigators, but the modern meaning may have arisen in connection with the sport of hunting. A clue to its origin is found in A Gentleman's Recreation, a guide to hounds, hawks, horses, and other hunting matters first published in 1674 by the Englishman Nicholas Cox. This enormously popular book went through many editions, and in it Cox describes a practice that may have given rise to the modern expression red herring. If the day's hunt has been uneventful and the huntsman's horse has been unable to work up a good sweat, Cox recommends having a dead cat or fox, or lacking these, a red herring, dragged over the countryside for about four miles, and then setting the hounds on the scent trail thus created. As a substitute for an animal carcass, a red herring would have been readily available in any English kitchen, and its pungent, fishy-smelling flesh would have left a scent that the hounds could track easily. By riding after the hounds as they followed the scent, the huntsman could ensure that his horse has received sufficient exercise. The modern meaning of the expression red herring was perhaps inspired by practices similar to this and developed from the notion of deliberately laying an artificial trail that could distract one's pursuers. However, the first known use of the term red herring in its modern sense, "something that distracts attention from an important issue," occurs in the 1800s, well after the publication of Cox's book. 
American HeritageÂ Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright Â 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Siam

Might be a dumb question but is the winning flag decided simply by which one got the highest votes or is there a threshold that must first be reached - i.e. like a reserve price in an auction. 
 
I mean is there a minimum number for voter turn out?
 
A silly example would be if only 10000 people voted would the decision be binding.
 
Rancid's case where he won't vote (neither will I) made me think that you could wake up with a new flag yet only 10% of NZ decided this
 
I'm guessing the rules of a referendum dictate that there's no minimum threshold for turn out
 
 
Edit: sorry Ranc, I misread your post and left off the "for a change"

JC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="560965" data-time="1456457197">
<div>
For a start, a flag not chosen by the team assigned to chose the flags was added (even if it was the one that some lefties wanted) due to media pressure.
 
The anti flag lefties/conservatives were going to bleat no matter what and there are pro flag change (even righties in this thread) people who have an issue with the process.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Actually I agree with this. The process was flawed. Not the one they outlined, that was fine, but the one they ended up using.
 
There was no need to cave in to the Red Peak fans, and in retrospect doing so just added some legitimacy to the arguments of those who've used the process as cover for scoring points.

booboo

What's the daying about getting the democracy you deserve. 
Participate or put up with it. 
I'm not voting as i cant having been out of the country for so long Im not on the roll. 
If i could ... 
Neps - interssting comment about using Red Peak's inclusion as an examole of the process being flawed as this only happened because people anti the perceived instigator wanted to compromise the process. It should never have been included.

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="560976" data-time="1456459952">
<div>
Might be a dumb question but is the winning flag decided simply by which one got the highest votes or is there a threshold that must first be reached - i.e. like a reserve price in an auction. 
 
I mean is there a minimum number for voter turn out?
 
A silly example would be if only 10000 people voted would the decision be binding.
 
Rancid's case where he won't vote (neither will I) made me think that you could wake up with a new flag yet only 10% of NZ decided this
 
I'm guessing the rules of a referendum dictate that there's no minimum threshold for turn out
 
 
Edit: sorry Ranc, I misread your post and left off the "for a change"
</div>
</blockquote>
 
All good. I won't be voting either (:
 
That is a very good question btw. Is a minimum number required to make the referendum valid?
 
A flawed process would have been if only Red Peak type people had been chosen to design and select the alternative flags. Now that would have been ridiculously undemocratic and would fly in the face of what most NZers actually wanted in a new flag. I don't even want to know what 4 designs they would have come up with.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="560969" data-time="1456457617">
<div>
I'm not following you here, the process was flawed because red peak was chosen after a social media campaign? 
Other people have said the process was flawed but like you they haven't elaboated as to why. 
red herring 

</div>
</blockquote>
I've deleted the babble so as not to clog up the page. ;)
 
You don't think adding a flag after the four adds a flaw to the process? If you're going to add Red Peak why not Silver Fern, Laser Kiwi, the 39 other Lockwood ferns? Why even have an 'expert' group come in and whittle down the list? Should have just put them all up to vote.
 
You don't think me explaining that adding Red Peak is an aspect of why I think it was flawed is elaborating? We have different definitions of elaborating I guess.
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="560981" data-time="1456461268">
<div>
 
Neps - interssting comment about using Red Peak's inclusion as an examole of the process being flawed as this only happened because people anti the perceived instigator wanted to compromise the process. It should never have been included.
</div>
</blockquote>
Of course it shouldn't have been included, just because some of the current whiners wanted it, it doesn't mean that it's not an example of a flawed in the process.

taniwharugby

pretty sure it is just first past the post! 
 
So I expect some of the real numpty lefthards who think the flag decision is already made will not bother voting, so they best hope it isnt close...

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="560985" data-time="1456461893">I've deleted the babble so as not to clog up the page. ;) 
 
You don't think adding a flag after the four adds a flaw to the process? If you're going to add Red Peak why not Silver Fern, Laser Kiwi, the 39 other Lockwood ferns? Why even have an 'expert' group come in and whittle down the list? Should have just put them all up to vote. 
 
You don't think me explaining that adding Red Peak is an aspect of why I think it was flawed is elaborating? We have different definitions of elaborating I guess. 
 
 
Of course it shouldn't have been included, just because some of the current whiners wanted it, it doesn't mean that it's not an example of a flawed in the process.</blockquote>
 
So you're cool with the original process but not including red peak ? Agree , they should have been told to fuck off. 
I was thinking you were on the side of the no vexilogists on the commitee people. Because I mean the obvious person to go to for design advice is a bearded middle aged virgin somewhere on the spectrum isn't it?

The Silver Fern

Flag