by Mousebumples » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:27 pm
by Sovreignry » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:31 pm
by Mallorea and Riva » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:33 pm
Sovreignry wrote:I'd say 2, especially since that's what we were told that's when the discard function should be used. I don't think minor branding violations would fall under that but I don't have a full idea on which rules would be sufficient under that.
by Sovreignry » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:38 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Sovreignry wrote:I'd say 2, especially since that's what we were told that's when the discard function should be used. I don't think minor branding violations would fall under that but I don't have a full idea on which rules would be sufficient under that.
Please ignore what we initially stated it should be used for and tell us what you want it used for independent of that.
by Kaboomlandia » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:38 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:39 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:52 pm
Kaboomlandia wrote:Only for nations found to be multiing (Auralia comes to mind) or "grossly offensive".
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:33 pm
by Mallorea and Riva » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:37 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:All illegalities. If we're going to use it, let there be no possible gray area to debate reasonableness of use or questioning personal feelings as a motivator. It would be better to never use it and just catch these violations before they make it to vote, but that seems to be increasingly improbable a solution.
by Ainocra » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:56 pm
by Phydios » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:58 pm
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:47 pm
by Unibot III » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:02 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:54 pm
by Jean Pierre Trudeau » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:54 pm
Unibot III wrote:I'm of the unpopular position of 4) , but I also think that in turn, players should be allowed to express if a proposal has violated the secretariat's rules, provided the language used doesn't break the fourth wall.
by Old Hope » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:05 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:It's my understanding that there is an order of proposal rule violations so severe that, rather than leading to the proposal being deleted and the submitter given one of three warnings, they lead to the proposal being deleted and the submitter immediately ejected, sometimes even given a gameside warning or even deleted. Those violations are:Those are the only violations for which a Discard should be invoked. If the mods miss that a proposal on collectivising agriculture has a line in the preamble about how Jews should be killed, if it turns out that a proposal on nuclear nonproliferation is stolen from someone else, if "The Republic of Fuck Gruenberg" manages to get a proposal into queue, then that's a violation egregious enough that a Discard could be justified.
- Grossly Offensive (either generic trolling or specifically flaming another player)
- plagiarism (we see nations submitting text plagiarised from other players or from RL sources being automatically ejected)
- trying to break the game code (I don't know if this has ever actually been done)
- using an offensive, illegal nation name
- that's it?
Anything less than that should not be Discarded. Doing so will turn at vote debates into protracted rules lawyering spats and will risk the appearance of inconsistency. This would include, from historical examples, The Law of the Sea, Max Barry Day, Commend Kandarin, Repeal Rights & Duties, and On Scientific Cooperation.
Personally, I'd rather Discards were never used. The NSUN/WA survived for ten+ years without a Discard. But I do recognise that given the tool exists it would be silly to allow a truly egregious violation pass.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Elke and Elba » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:36 am
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:46 am
Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:I agree. If it gets to vote, leave it there. We have had what, three instances when it has been used? Auralia's repeal was pulled (a political decision), Auralia's commendation was pulled and AD's commendation was pulled. Yet an illegal proposal was permitted to pass, even though the mods have access to this wonder tool?
by Grays Harbor » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:36 am
by Goddess Relief Office » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:58 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:All illegalities. If we're going to use it, let there be no possible gray area to debate reasonableness of use or questioning personal feelings as a motivator. It would be better to never use it and just catch these violations before they make it to vote, but that seems to be increasingly improbable a solution.
by Mousebumples » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:30 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:It's my understanding that there is an order of proposal rule violations so severe that, rather than leading to the proposal being deleted and the submitter given one of three warnings, they lead to the proposal being deleted and the submitter immediately ejected, sometimes even given a gameside warning or even deleted. Those violations are:
- Grossly Offensive (either generic trolling or specifically flaming another player)
- plagiarism (we see nations submitting text plagiarised from other players or from RL sources being automatically ejected)
- trying to break the game code (I don't know if this has ever actually been done)
- using an offensive, illegal nation name
- that's it?
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Anything less than that should not be Discarded. Doing so will turn at vote debates into protracted rules lawyering spats and will risk the appearance of inconsistency. This would include, from historical examples, The Law of the Sea, Max Barry Day, Commend Kandarin, Repeal Rights & Duties, and On Scientific Cooperation.
Personally, I'd rather Discards were never used. The NSUN/WA survived for ten+ years without a Discard. But I do recognise that given the tool exists it would be silly to allow a truly egregious violation pass.
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:43 am
Mousebumples wrote:The way in which I disagree with you, however, is when it comes to repeals. ... Urgench was around then and could have simply worked to repass his resolution had it been repealed with an illegal repeal text
by Losthaven » Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:12 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:I previously argued (with Mallorea, who has since rather conveniently completely changed his position) against this idea of repeals being held to a different standard than substantive resolutions. Repeals aren't held to a higher standard of legality before they go to vote, so they shouldn't be held to a higher standard after going to vote.Mousebumples wrote:The way in which I disagree with you, however, is when it comes to repeals. ... Urgench was around then and could have simply worked to repass his resolution had it been repealed with an illegal repeal text
Yes, he could. So what's the problem? If an illegal repeal passes, just resubmit the resolution. If the original author is CTE, other people can redraft it and resubmit it.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:17 am
by Mallorea and Riva » Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:18 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Repeals can't be repealed, but resolutions cannot be repealed based on their supposed illegalities, because they are de jure legal upon their success. Dealing with a passed illegal proposal is just as obnoxious as dealing with a passed illegal repeal. There's no reason to treat them differently.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0cala
Advertisement