The Rejected Times

[Christian Democrats]

the application of the rules should be based solely on MT-human standards

I concur.

[The Stalker]

Regarding Gruen's article... I always had a policy of ignoring the arguments of players who didn't conform to MT-human standards. I also normally ignored players who acted unrealistically, like saying they'd engage in total warfare over some minor incident. It was my way of building some standards.

I'm of the opinion that there should be standards, and those standards should be MT-human. Sorry Bears Armed and whoever has sapient talking plants. Also I remember some player who had a hive mind nation. You all can feel free to role play to your heart's extent, but the application of the rules should be based solely on MT-human standards. We shouldn't be writing proposals to satisfy your unique snowflakeness, even if you're just trying to have fun,

That always rubbed people the wrong way. But I managed to pass resolutions without them anyways!

Meh... I'm going to have to partially agree with Glen here. The Bears I can deal with, but the talking plants, and star empires not so much.

Yea, I too agree with the points made here. I was working on an art WA resolution some time back and this talking plant player kept giving me a hard time lol. Arguing over the definitions of things to fit his "plant grown art".

On another note, really loved the immigration flow chart thing, i'd like to see more charts like that in future issues.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Yea, I too agree with the points made here. I was working on an art WA resolution some time back and this talking plant player kept giving me a hard time lol. Arguing over the definitions of things to fit his "plant grown art".

Ha! That was one of the exact examples I was thinking of when writing the article.

On another note, really loved the immigration flow chart thing, i'd like to see more charts like that in future issues.

Agreed, Starrie's data visualisations are very interesting.

[Valrifell]

the application of the rules should be based solely on MT-human standards

I concur.

But the WA Building exists at the center of the Multiverse, where all universes converge. Perhaps the rules are being abused to deny unfavorable proposals, but that's no reason to deny the oodles of sentient plants! I mean, relaistically, carbon should exist in every universe for there even to be life.

is anyone else tired of the WA making its way into GP (well, only TRT) newspapers, I could understand the SC, but the WA and GP are separate and I, for one would love for these threadjacks to end. Go to the WA forum to debate WA rules, if you'd kindly.

[The Dark Star Republic]

is anyone else tired of the WA making its way into GP (well, only TRT) newspapers, I could understand the SC, but the WA and GP are separate and I, for one would love for these threadjacks to end. Go to the WA forum to debate WA rules, if you'd kindly.

It's not a "threadjack": we're discussing an article written in a regional newspaper.

Not all TRT articles are on Gameplaying, and that's fine - the focus of the paper is still on GP matters. When non-GP articles are posted, it is okay to have some discussion of them here, despite it being the GP forum.

[Valrifell]

is anyone else tired of the WA making its way into GP (well, only TRT) newspapers, I could understand the SC, but the WA and GP are separate and I, for one would love for these threadjacks to end. Go to the WA forum to debate WA rules, if you'd kindly.

It's not a "threadjack": we're discussing an article written in a regional newspaper.

Not all TRT articles are on Gameplaying, and that's fine - the focus of the paper is still on GP matters. When non-GP articles are posted, it is okay to have some discussion of them here, despite it being the GP forum.

*grumbles*

[RiderSyl]

is anyone else tired of the WA making its way into GP (well, only TRT) newspapers, I could understand the SC, but the WA and GP are separate and I, for one would love for these threadjacks to end. Go to the WA forum to debate WA rules, if you'd kindly.

It's not a "threadjack": we're discussing an article written in a regional newspaper.

Not all TRT articles are on Gameplaying, and that's fine - the focus of the paper is still on GP matters. When non-GP articles are posted, it is okay to have some discussion of them here, despite it being the GP forum.

Funny how you only quote the part of Sedge's statement that supports you, and leave out the part that supports what Val said....

However, lengthy discussions on non-GP matters are best held elsewhere - and I think it's in your best interests to have them elsewhere, as it'll get more attention from the right audience. So when something has gone beyond discussing the article to discussing wider issues, I would suggest moving it elsewhere.

There we go. Full context.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

is anyone else tired of the WA making its way into GP (well, only TRT) newspapers, I could understand the SC, but the WA and GP are separate and I, for one would love for these threadjacks to end. Go to the WA forum to debate WA rules, if you'd kindly.

I would say the WA is just as much a part of GP as anything. Remember, if we didn't have the WA, you guys wouldn't have a game to play.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yo we have this argument every time a WA article is written. Get over it. Nobody's forcing you to read the comments.

[Valrifell]

Yo we have this argument every time a WA article is written. Get over it. Nobody's forcing you to read the comments.

This argument doesn't come up every time a WA article is written, the argument comes up when most of the comments are about the GA and do not pertain to Gameplay in any way, shape, and/or form.

[RiderSyl]

Yo we have this argument every time a WA article is written.

It only happens when WA-centric people start making some greater statement using the article and it starts filling page after page.

Get over it. Nobody's forcing you to read the comments.

Very diplomatic of you, Mr. Rhodes. If memory serves, "nobody forcing us to read the comments" didn't apply the last time TRT turned into a WA topic and the mods had to remind y'all your topic is in the Gameplay forum.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Yo we have this argument every time a WA article is written. Get over it. Nobody's forcing you to read the comments.

This argument doesn't come up every time a WA article is written, the argument comes up when most of the comments are about the GA and do not pertain to Gameplay in any way, shape, and/or form.

Once again. No one is forcing you to read the damn comments. Get over it.

[Great Brigantia]

I would personally rather read debates about the WA than debates about whether debates about the WA should be here, for what it's worth.

I'm not entirely sure how anyone can determine that the WA isn't part of gameplay anyway -- just because there is a separate forum for the actual proposal drafts doesn't mean there is no relationship between the WA and gameplay. They're obviously very intertwined when one remembers that gameplay does not mean R/D. Gameplay is anything that involves playing the game through its actual mechanics rather than through roleplay, and the WA is the game's core mechanic.

[RiderSyl]

@ Glen and Jean

Guess what? This topic is in the Gameplay forum. You guys are going way in-depth into World Assembly issues. Some discussion over it is fine when there's an article based on it, but when you guys start turning the whole damn topic into a WA debate festival then you're approaching threadjacking. Both DLN and Sedge ruled that way the LAST time you guys were doing this exact same fucking thing.
You can keep it up, it's your choice. You can keep flipping us off with "Nobody's forcing you to read the comments, get over it!" and other immature internet stock phrases.
Just don't be surprised if you get warned for threadjacking later on down the line.

I would personally rather read debates about the WA than debates about whether debates about the WA should be here, for what it's worth.

Great! There's an entirely different forum section dedicated to that.

I'm not entirely sure how anyone can determine that the WA isn't part of gameplay anyway -- just because there is a separate forum for the actual proposal drafts doesn't mean there is no relationship between the WA and gameplay.

I never argued that the WA isn't part of gameplay. There's just a point at which these discussions of the World Assembly fit more in the WA forum than it does in a Gameplay topic. Like when Unibot is talking about the state of WA moderation and how far behind the WA is on climate change proposals. That shit really doesn't belong in any topic on this forum. It belongs in the WA forum.

Basically, what Sedge said the last time this became an issue; "lengthy discussions on non-GP matters are best held elsewhere".

[Sedgistan]

the application of the rules should be based solely on MT-human standards

Are there rules/rulings that require authors to take into account the talking plants, star empires, and flying sapient pigs?

[Unibot III]

the application of the rules should be based solely on MT-human standards

Are there rules/rulings that require authors to take into account the talking plants, star empires, and flying sapient pigs?

It's just a cultural thing. People feel they have to obey.

[Bears Armed]

Are there rules/rulings that require authors to take into account the talking plants, star empires, and flying sapient pigs?

It's just a cultural thing. People feel they have to obey.

Well, that and the possibility that if they don't take such concepts into account then the nations based around such concepts might swing enough votes 'against' to make a difference to the proposals' chances of passing?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Well, that and the possibility that if they don't take such concepts into account then the nations based around such concepts might swing enough votes 'against' to make a difference to the proposals' chances of passing?

What happens on the forums doesn't have anything to do with how a vote turns out.

the application of the rules should be based solely on MT-human standards

Are there rules/rulings that require authors to take into account the talking plants, star empires, and flying sapient pigs?

Rules, no. Isolated rulings, yes, absolutely. The article mentions the example of an author trying to write a proposal about abortion who was told his proposal was illegal for not taking account of "sapient macropods".

But it's mostly something that rests on the arguments made by players.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

the application of the rules should be based solely on MT-human standards

Are there rules/rulings that require authors to take into account the talking plants, star empires, and flying sapient pigs?

No. In fact, Reasonable Nation principles used to state that authors shouldn't have to worry about RP outliers if it was too hard to accommodate them in legislative language. I really don't know what happened with that.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

@ Glen and Jean

Guess what? This topic is in the Gameplay forum. You guys are going way in-depth into World Assembly issues. Some discussion over it is fine when there's an article based on it, but when you guys start turning the whole damn topic into a WA debate festival then you're approaching threadjacking. Both DLN and Sedge ruled that way the LAST time you guys were doing this exact same fucking thing.
You can keep it up, it's your choice. You can keep flipping us off with "Nobody's forcing you to read the comments, get over it!" and other immature internet stock phrases.
Just don't be surprised if you get warned for threadjacking later on down the line.

Great, then report this in the mod forum, and let them handle it.

Your continual whining here only festers the supposed threadjack.

[Zaolat]

@ Glen and Jean

Guess what? This topic is in the Gameplay forum. You guys are going way in-depth into World Assembly issues. Some discussion over it is fine when there's an article based on it, but when you guys start turning the whole damn topic into a WA debate festival then you're approaching threadjacking. Both DLN and Sedge ruled that way the LAST time you guys were doing this exact same fucking thing.
You can keep it up, it's your choice. You can keep flipping us off with "Nobody's forcing you to read the comments, get over it!" and other immature internet stock phrases.
Just don't be surprised if you get warned for threadjacking later on down the line.

Great, then report this in the mod forum, and let them handle it.

Your continual whining here only festers the supposed threadjack.

I agree with Kenny, seriously Syl take a chill pill.

[Valrifell]

Can someone just give me a reason why authors can't simply add in more clauses dictating that, say, an environmental reform proposal only applies to nations that the emissions produced by the species of any nation is a considerable threat to the species itself and the surrounding wildlife? I know that I have literally no experience with the GA (Which still doesn't relate to GP in any way, but whatever), but I fail to see what's stopping anyone from including clauses that acknowledge the existence of extra-dimensional beings other than the argument "Realism!"

[Christian Democrats]

Can someone just give me a reason why authors can't simply add in more clauses dictating that, say, an environmental reform proposal only applies to nations that...

The GA Rules answer this question, and there's even a Q&A thread in the GA forum.

For somebody so puritanical about the content of posts in this forum, this question is really off base.

[Valrifell]

Can someone just give me a reason why authors can't simply add in more clauses dictating that, say, an environmental reform proposal only applies to nations that...

The GA Rules answer this question, and there's even a Q&A thread in the GA forum.

For somebody so puritanical about the content of posts in this forum, this question is really off base.

Hey, it's not my fault this topic started and my inexperience led me to make the conclusion that people were arguing a non-issue.

[RiderSyl]

Great, then report this in the mod forum, and let them handle it.

Your continual whining here only festers the supposed threadjack.

I agree with Kenny, seriously Syl take a chill pill.

Oh yes, I better take that chill pill before I whine myself into a coma. Y'all are great, making me out to be some raging 4th-grader.

I'm not the one that called this a threadjack. I'm not the one that brought up Sedgistan's statement on it. But, for responding to a couple of people saying "We're not forcing you to read, GTFO", somehow I'm in the wrong.

Whatever. I'm not in the "cool kids club" when the topic turns to WA matters, so I'll return when we're on another topic. Peace.