Advertisement
by Mallorea and Riva » Tue May 12, 2015 11:49 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue May 12, 2015 11:51 am
by Sciongrad » Tue May 12, 2015 12:57 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:I don't support getting rid of co-authors. The GA and SC function just fine while allowing them, it's just a question of slightly altering the rule itself to avoid annoying cases like players using the wrong tag etc.
by Mousebumples » Tue May 12, 2015 3:47 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue May 12, 2015 3:52 pm
by Knootoss » Tue May 12, 2015 4:09 pm
by Mousebumples » Tue May 12, 2015 4:09 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:5) Other
Specifically: eliminate coauthors from the text. Whether there's then some additional coauthor box implemented, maybe, maybe not, maybe don't care.
by Sciongrad » Tue May 12, 2015 4:14 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue May 12, 2015 4:17 pm
by Snefaldia » Tue May 12, 2015 6:18 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue May 12, 2015 7:22 pm
by Excidium Planetis » Tue May 12, 2015 7:26 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Kaboomlandia wrote:Happy to kick this off!
What I would suggest is a choice between:
- two co-authors, in short form
- one co-author, in long form - unless the signature is something of Mall/Mouse/Sedge length.
Why do you think this is superior to the current rule?
I am going to advocate doing away with the Branding rule in its entirety. If players want to waste characters listing ten coauthors I say we let the voters punish them for it. Alternatively it may allow for greater cooperation on proposals. Additionally if players wish to state their own name ten times in a proposal I think that such proposals will be weeded out at vote or in the queue.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed May 13, 2015 5:28 am
by Mallorea and Riva » Wed May 13, 2015 6:28 am
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed May 13, 2015 6:40 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.
by Mallorea and Riva » Wed May 13, 2015 6:48 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Mallorea and Riva wrote:I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.
So why isn't this same philosophy applied to NatSov repeal arguments, to proposal format and "blogposals"? Or is this all just a prelude to you removing whatever tatters remain of the Honest Mistake rule?
by Greater Louisistan » Wed May 13, 2015 7:16 am
by Tzorsland » Wed May 13, 2015 11:39 am
by Sciongrad » Wed May 13, 2015 11:50 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:4, and I'll go the extra mile and explain why. It works in the SC. There aren't lists of coauthors twenty pages long despite the concerns here in this thread. I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.
by Frisbeeteria » Wed May 13, 2015 11:54 am
by Excidium Planetis » Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Mallorea and Riva wrote:4, and I'll go the extra mile and explain why. It works in the SC. There aren't lists of coauthors twenty pages long despite the concerns here in this thread. I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.
The fear isn't that the list will be long. That, on its own, isn't really a bad thing. But including co-authors at all just reeks of ego inflating. And I don't think it works in the SC. While I certainly don't participate in the SC, I generally perceive it as a place that celebrates self-gratification. I don't think you'll convince anyone of the success of anything here by citing the SC. Again, there's no problem thanking people on the forums or anything, but it doesn't make any sense to include a plug in the text of the resolution itself.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Sciongrad » Wed May 13, 2015 1:22 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:How does having co-authors reek of ego inflating?
And more specifically, why do you not like a practice that is frequently carried out in real life legislatures?
Don't users have a right to know who authored a resolution?
Glen-Rhodes wrote: that suggestion should be summarily thrown out.
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed May 13, 2015 2:56 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Don't users have a right to know who authored a resolution?
by Defwa » Wed May 13, 2015 2:56 pm
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement