Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Separatist Peoples]

Quit being incendiary.

I'm confused, is that a polite request, or an authoritative command?
(Also: "You can't tell players what they can't say."
"Stop saying that!")

You bloody well know which. I'm calling you out as a player, not with any kind of rank. You're being incendiary for the sake of pissing people off. Its helping nobody.

[Excidium Planetis]

I'm confused, is that a polite request, or an authoritative command?
(Also: "You can't tell players what they can't say."
"Stop saying that!")

You bloody well know which. I'm calling you out as a player, not with any kind of rank. You're being incendiary for the sake of pissing people off. Its helping nobody.

If you would like to make an accusation of flaming, I direct you to the moderation forum.

All I said was that the acquisition of power is worrying to those not in the ruling class. Damn.

[Separatist Peoples]

You bloody well know which. I'm calling you out as a player, not with any kind of rank. You're being incendiary for the sake of pissing people off. Its helping nobody.

If you would like to make an accusation of flaming, I direct you to the moderation forum.

All I said was that the acquisition of power is worrying to those not in the ruling class. Damn.

If it was flaming, I would have reported it. I didn't call it flaming.

You know full well what you were getting at. So does everybody else. It isn't helpful.

[Excidium Planetis]

If it was flaming, I would have reported it. I didn't call it flaming.

If you weren't, you shouldn't have used the word incendiary combined with the OSRS definition of flame baiting (which, I suppose, is not quite the same thing), which says "designed to provoke a response from another player".

[Separatist Peoples]

If it was flaming, I would have reported it. I didn't call it flaming.

If you weren't, you shouldn't have used the word incendiary combined with the OSRS definition of flame baiting (which, I suppose, is not quite the same thing), which says "designed to provoke a response from another player".

If I had meant flaming, I would have used the term specifically, it being a term of art. I didn't call it flaming. If you object to an expanded vocabulary, I can certainly simplify it for you in the future.

[Araraukar]

...not completely unrelated, a question popped to my mind: are the councilors allowed to add people to their Foe list? (To those who might not know, that stops you from seeing that person's posts, unless someone else quotes them.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...not completely unrelated, a question popped to my mind: are the councilors allowed to add people to their Foe list? (To those who might not know, that stops you from seeing that person's posts, unless someone else quotes them.)

My foes list has not been depopulated since becoming a Sec't member. The button to add isn't grayed out, so I assume I could if I wanted to. At this time I have no such desire.

(FYI there are only two nations on it, one of whom hasn't posted in the GA in almost two years, and the other of whom only shows one post this year. If either of them ever became relevant to the business of the Secretariat I would remove them from the list myself.)

[Sedgistan]

...not completely unrelated, a question popped to my mind: are the councilors allowed to add people to their Foe list? (To those who might not know, that stops you from seeing that person's posts, unless someone else quotes them.)

As far as I'm aware, everyone on the forums is able to add people to their Foe list. Mods certainly have always been able to. I've just checked, and there doesn't even appear to be a setting for it in the Admin CP.

[Flanderlion]

...not completely unrelated, a question popped to my mind: are the councilors allowed to add people to their Foe list? (To those who might not know, that stops you from seeing that person's posts, unless someone else quotes them.)

As far as I'm aware, everyone on the forums is able to add people to their Foe list. Mods certainly have always been able to. I've just checked, and there doesn't even appear to be a setting for it in the Admin CP.

"You cannot add administrators and moderators to your foes list." I've tried it with you guys a few times.

GenSec members on the other hand... Adding someone as a foe doesn't stop you from seeing their posts, it just makes their posts in a spoiler kind of thing.

[Sedgistan]

As far as I'm aware, everyone on the forums is able to add people to their Foe list. Mods certainly have always been able to. I've just checked, and there doesn't even appear to be a setting for it in the Admin CP.

"You cannot add administrators and moderators to your foes list." I've tried it with you guys a few times.

GenSec members on the other hand... Adding someone as a foe doesn't stop you from seeing their posts, it just makes their posts in a spoiler kind of thing.

The posts above are on whether Councillors can add people to their foes list, not on whether people can add Councillors to their foes lists. Slightly different points.

[Tzorsland]

Please do not refer to us as the "ruling class." We're players and we have an interest in improving the game for all of us. You're actually creating a very dangerous mentality by using charged rhetoric like that.

But you clearly have "class" and you clearly make "rulings." Or am I wrong about the "class" part? Because, we can drop the "cl" if that is what you really want.

"Charged rhetoric?"

...

"Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

[Glen-Rhodes]

Can we not call people asses here, no matter how clever we go about doing it?

There are many ways to have these discussions without this kind of behavior, guys. Come on.

[Old Tyrannia]

Please do not refer to us as the "ruling class." We're players and we have an interest in improving the game for all of us. You're actually creating a very dangerous mentality by using charged rhetoric like that.

But you clearly have "class" and you clearly make "rulings." Or am I wrong about the "class" part? Because, we can drop the "cl" if that is what you really want.

"Charged rhetoric?"

...

"Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

Tzorsland: *** Warned for flamebaiting. *** Cool down the tone or we're going to have more trouble.

[Tzorsland]

Tzorsland: *** Warned for flamebaiting. *** Cool down the tone or we're going to have more trouble.

OK, Whatever. (WALKS OUT THE DOOR ... I DON'T NEED TO BE AGGRAVATED OVER A GAME.)

[Bananaistan]

I'm not having a pop at anyone here but it's probably not unreasonable that the council should have a quorum in terms of how many they need to be present in order to act. We all know real life happens and people will be called away from any online activities, or at least be unable to devote any time other than a cursory browse of the forums. And some of these rulings require a lot of thought and consideration. And there is no doubt that at some stage in future someone will go offline without warning for whatever RL reason.

Should there be more councillors? Should four councillors being present and making their views known over, say, seven days, be sufficient for the council to proceed based only on those four opinions?

I note there has been reference to the council procedures in some of the challenges threads. Don't we all have a valid stake in what form these procedures are going to take and wouldn't it be worthwhile to discuss them here?

Also, perhaps we could get a closed and stickied thread outlining the current procedures. An index of rulings would also be handy!

[Christian Democrats]

Also, perhaps we could get a closed and stickied thread outlining the current procedures. An index of rulings would also be handy!

I second this sentiment (as a councilor).

[Bears Armed Mission]

Thirded.

[Wallenburg]

I agree with Banananistan.

[Araraukar]

What's the correct procedure for if you want to have a legality check on some bit of your own proposal? Used to be you'd post the review request on the moderation forum, but we now have the council, yet were told by a council member to not post "legality challenge"s on our own proposals.

[Sciongrad]

yet were told by a council member to not post "legality challenge"s on our own proposals.

? Where did we say that?

[Excidium Planetis]

yet were told by a council member to not post "legality challenge"s on our own proposals.

? Where did we say that?

Don't know what Ara is referring to, but I advised a player to do that, and then SP said not to do that because it would put you guys in a bind. But SP also said it was easier that way, so I was getting conflicting messages.

[Separatist Peoples]

? Where did we say that?

Don't know what Ara is referring to, but I advised a player to do that, and then SP said not to do that because it would put you guys in a bind. But SP also said it was easier that way, so I was getting conflicting messages.

I asked a player not to post a legality challenge on a repeal to clarify a point on a different proposal. We do not like weighing in on hypothetical. I asked Canton Empire not to create a repeal solely to force a legality response.

If Caton wants to file a legality challenge on his own proposal, great. No work-arounds, please.

[Canton Empire]

Don't know what Ara is referring to, but I advised a player to do that, and then SP said not to do that because it would put you guys in a bind. But SP also said it was easier that way, so I was getting conflicting messages.

I asked a player not to post a legality challenge on a repeal to clarify a point on a different proposal. We do not like weighing in on hypothetical. I asked Canton Empire not to create a repeal solely to force a legality response.

If Caton wants to file a legality challenge on his own proposal, great. No work-arounds, please.

I was not planning to do this.

[Araraukar]

Don't know what Ara is referring to, but I advised a player to do that, and then SP said not to do that because it would put you guys in a bind. But SP also said it was easier that way, so I was getting conflicting messages.

^That.

And while we're on the subject, what exactly are the council's parametres for bothering to deal with proposal legalities? Obviously just submitting isn't enough, and while my memory can be very faulty, I remember a council member saying something to the effect of them wanting to make rulings only on proposals likely to get to vote. If the council really has such predictive powers, there's something very weird going on behind the scenes.

[Separatist Peoples]

Don't know what Ara is referring to, but I advised a player to do that, and then SP said not to do that because it would put you guys in a bind. But SP also said it was easier that way, so I was getting conflicting messages.

^That.

And while we're on the subject, what exactly are the council's parametres for bothering to deal with proposal legalities? Obviously just submitting isn't enough, and while my memory can be very faulty, I remember a council member saying something to the effect of them wanting to make rulings only on proposals likely to get to vote. If the council really has such predictive powers, there's something very weird going on behind the scenes.

Its a judgment call. Generally, its easy enough to tell by looking. Obviously, its not a perfect system (WSA anybody?).