[REQUEST] Unlock Thread

[Stellonia]

I would like to have this thread unlocked: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=361190

When locking the thread, Frisbeeteria did not explain or provide any examples of how my ambassador was being a "naive idiot", as they have previously claimed. I would therefore greatly appreciate it if a moderator explained how she is being one.

By the way, even if I were depicting my ambassador as a "naive idiot", I fail to see how that would amount to trolling.

[The Flame Dawn]

I don't mean to barge in here, but I would liek to remind you that you've been explained why your "ambassador" is considered a Naive Idiot in various threads by moderators.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=360919
viewtopic.php?p=26681872#p26681872 - He quoted what your ambassador said in this post.

EDIT: On a side note, I personally agree with the mods ruling on this and recommend having your "ambassador" take a course in politics since most people in similar positions often have at least some experience in this field. AKA: Don't use that character until she stops acting like she has no experience in her field.

[Frisbeeteria]

This makes at least the third time that you've argued an entirely unreasonable position with your IC ambassador, then claimed "oh, it's not ME, it's my ambassador. I can't be held responsible for that."

It's no different than using puppets to back up or refute your own opinion. It's incredibly poor form, and you're using it to troll. As to this particular ambassador being an obstructionist rather than a "naive idiot", you don't get to simply come up with fifty different ways of doing exactly the same sort of trolling, then try to get out of it by saying "but this time it was a DIFFERENT sort of trolling ... almost". IC or OOC doesn't matter. You, the player behind Stellonia, are responsible for what gets posted by your nation. No amount of IC claims will change that.

I don't mean to barge in here

Then don't. This will be at least your second *** warning for spamming moderation ***. Don't have a third.

[Stellonia]

This makes at least the third time that you've argued an entirely unreasonable position with your IC ambassador, then claimed "oh, it's not ME, it's my ambassador. I can't be held responsible for that."

It's no different than using puppets to back up or refute your own opinion. It's incredibly poor form, and you're using it to troll. As to this particular ambassador being an obstructionist rather than a "naive idiot", you don't get to simply come up with fifty different ways of doing exactly the same sort of trolling, then try to get out of it by saying "but this time it was a DIFFERENT sort of trolling ... almost". IC or OOC doesn't matter. You, the player behind Stellonia, are responsible for what gets posted by your nation. No amount of IC claims will change that.

Firstly, never attempted to justify my actions through the Stelloni ambassador; I intended to defend Stellonia.

Secondly, I have no way of determining if the positions I argue are actually "entirely unreasonable", as you say they are.

Thirdly, I still fail to see how my ambassador is being either an "obstructionist" or a "naive idiot."

I would imagine, Fris, that all this stems from a misunderstanding that took place when you first warned me to stop roleplaying a "naive idiot"; I thought you were referring to her perceived cluelessness and stupidity, as opposed to her inexperience.

[Ularn]

This makes at least the third time that you've argued an entirely unreasonable position with your IC ambassador, then claimed "oh, it's not ME, it's my ambassador. I can't be held responsible for that."

It's no different than using puppets to back up or refute your own opinion. It's incredibly poor form, and you're using it to troll. As to this particular ambassador being an obstructionist rather than a "naive idiot", you don't get to simply come up with fifty different ways of doing exactly the same sort of trolling, then try to get out of it by saying "but this time it was a DIFFERENT sort of trolling ... almost". IC or OOC doesn't matter. You, the player behind Stellonia, are responsible for what gets posted by your nation. No amount of IC claims will change that.

Firstly, never attempted to justify my actions through the Stelloni ambassador; I intended to defend Stellonia.

Secondly, I have no way of determining if the positions I argue are actually "entirely unreasonable", as you say they are.

Thirdly, I still fail to see how my ambassador is being either an "obstructionist" or a "naive idiot."

I would imagine, Fris, that all this stems from a misunderstanding that took place when you first warned me to stop roleplaying a "naive idiot"; I thought you were referring to her perceived cluelessness and stupidity, as opposed to her inexperience.

I think what Fris is trying to say* is that, while the ambassador you use in your roleplay might be a clueless moron, you (the player behind the nation) know exactly what you are doing and are regarded as such by the moderation team. The WA subforums are not treated as in-character like the Nationstates subforums are; roleplaying is permitted but the effect is purely aesthetic and the characters basically are regarded as speaking directly for the player. You therefore can't engage in disruptive behaviour or whatever it was that got you dinged by the mods in the first place then come back and do the same thing again while expecting to get away with it by claiming it was a different character causing the disruption.

*Sorry for butting in, but from casually following this exchange for a while it looked like the explanation for why Stellonia's was punished was getting lost in translation so I tried to clarify. If I'm wrong and this isn't what Fris meant then please disregard.

[Frisbeeteria]

Sorry for butting in

No, you nailed it. I thought it was obvious, but sometimes it can't hurt to have things spelled out in great detail for people who miss the obvious.

[Stellonia]

Sorry for butting in

No, you nailed it. I thought it was obvious, but sometimes it can't hurt to have things spelled out in great detail for people who miss the obvious.

I'm still confused as to how my ambassador was being a "naive idiot."

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm still confused as to how my ambassador was being a "naive idiot."

And I'm still confused by your confusion. That was one instance. Nobody ever claimed you repeated it, ever. What you were being dinged for was your disingenuous use of an ambassador's IC persona to take a trolling position, whilst claiming it wasn't your nation's policy.

The WA subforums are not treated as in-character like the Nationstates subforums are; roleplaying is permitted but the effect is purely aesthetic and the characters basically are regarded as speaking directly for the player. You therefore can't engage in disruptive behaviour or whatever it was that got you dinged by the mods in the first place then come back and do the same thing again while expecting to get away with it by claiming it was a different character causing the disruption.

In all three cases, I dinged you not for being a "naive idiot" (though that was your situation in one of the three), but rather for your disruptive behavior. And I think you know that full well, and are even now trolling me.