NationStates

Against.

Prydania wrote:Against.

What's your reasoning?

Fauxia wrote:

Prydania wrote:Against.

What's your reasoning?

His attempt at self-commendation doesn’t sit well with me. Further? His non-compliance issues are a problem for me. If you want a say in how the WA operates? You ought to abide by the WA. I know a number of people consider non-compliance a viable method of play, but I’m not sure I agree.
To me? The WA is but one aspect of NS. You don’t need to join it to play this game. If you opt in? You shouldn’t ben allowed to discard what you personally don’t like. It’s an entirely voluntary organization, and so I see non-compliant members as, well, not serving much purpose.

Prydania wrote:

Fauxia wrote:What's your reasoning?

His attempt at self-commendation doesn’t sit well with me. Further? His non-compliance issues are a problem for me. If you want a say in how the WA operates? You ought to abide by the WA. I know a number of people consider non-compliance a viable method of play, but I’m not sure I agree.
To me? The WA is but one aspect of NS. You don’t need to join it to play this game. If you opt in? You shouldn’t ben allowed to discard what you personally don’t like. It’s an entirely voluntary organization, and so I see non-compliant members as, well, not serving much purpose.

Roleplay is roleplay is roleplay, imo. I don't care whether you abide by all, none, or some GA resolutions, your choice. Authoring them is a different story. Writing resolutions can cost a combination of time, effort, and money. Being highly productive in that category is worthy of commendation.

As for the self-commend thing, it's bad, but that is why we have the one line in there for that purpose. You can commend most of the behaviors of a person while not all of them. We've commended/condemned people who have broken rules before.

Fauxia wrote:As for the self-commend thing, it's bad, but that is why we have the one line in there for that purpose. You can commend most of the behaviors of a person while not all of them. We've commended/condemned people who have broken rules before.

This isn't a thread about those other people. It's a thread about Auralia.

As far as that line acknowledging the self-commendation attempt? Meh. It doesn't sway me. It's like when a bad movie has a self-referential line that pokes fun at a plot point that doesn't make much sense. The movie doesn't suck any less just because the script acknowledges it.

Prydania wrote:His attempt at self-commendation doesn’t sit well with me. Further? His non-compliance issues are a problem for me. If you want a say in how the WA operates? You ought to abide by the WA. I know a number of people consider non-compliance a viable method of play, but I’m not sure I agree.
To me? The WA is but one aspect of NS. You don’t need to join it to play this game. If you opt in? You shouldn’t ben allowed to discard what you personally don’t like. It’s an entirely voluntary organization, and so I see non-compliant members as, well, not serving much purpose.

Roleplay is roleplay is roleplay, imo. I don't care whether you abide by all, none, or some GA resolutions, your choice. Authoring them is a different story. Writing resolutions can cost a combination of time, effort, and money. Being highly productive in that category is worthy of commendation.

I love RP. I'm actually a RP mod over on the TNP forums.
And there's something that we like to keep in mind regarding RP. The line between OOC and IC. Of course some people will pour some of their RL personalities or beliefs into the nations or characters, but we insist that our RPers keep in mind that they as players are not their countries or characters. It's vital for everyone to understand that if I criticize the actions of a government or character that's all I'm doing. I'm not criticizing the person who I'm RPing with. This requires that our players keep that OOC and IC divide in mind; that all though personal beliefs and characteristics may bleed over, they are not their governments or characters.

Auralia has, in my opinion, utterly failed in that regard. He's not RPing non-compliance for the sake of telling a story. Or the sake of fleshing out an IC character or group of characters he's looking to develop. Him RPing non-compliance is 100% reflective of his real-world views. And therefore it's not really proper, healthy RP.

You should be able to come to TNP Forum RP, join, and criticize King Tobias III of Prydania and do so knowing I won't take it personally.
That's impossible with Auralia as far as WA RP goes, because his actions are so tied up with his RL beliefs. It makes criticizing his actions incredibly hard to do and still stay clearly on the proper side of the IC/OOC line.

And of course none of this changes my opinion that if you voluntarily join the WA? You ought to engage with your fellow WA members in good faith. That is to abide by the resolutions the WA has passed, even if you yourself do not support them.
Otherwise you're demanding a say in how the WA conducts itself, while refusing to actually acknowledge its authority.

TL;DR? I get where you're coming from, but I disagree. I will still plan on voting against this Resolution should it come to vote.

Fauxia wrote:

Prydania wrote:His attempt at self-commendation doesn’t sit well with me. Further? His non-compliance issues are a problem for me. If you want a say in how the WA operates? You ought to abide by the WA. I know a number of people consider non-compliance a viable method of play, but I’m not sure I agree.
To me? The WA is but one aspect of NS. You don’t need to join it to play this game. If you opt in? You shouldn’t ben allowed to discard what you personally don’t like. It’s an entirely voluntary organization, and so I see non-compliant members as, well, not serving much purpose.

Roleplay is roleplay is roleplay, imo. I don't care whether you abide by all, none, or some GA resolutions, your choice. Authoring them is a different story. Writing resolutions can cost a combination of time, effort, and money. Being highly productive in that category is worthy of commendation.

As for the self-commend thing, it's bad, but that is why we have the one line in there for that purpose. You can commend most of the behaviors of a person while not all of them. We've commended/condemned people who have broken rules before.

You really aren't offering any justification for commending the nominee. You are offering justification for not ostracizing the player. Yes, you certainly don't have to outcast a member of the community for serious errors in judgement and continuing failure to recognize the laws of the WA, but it makes no sense for the WA to commend a nation that has violated its rules to the extent that it has been banned once from the WA, and that continues to explicitly and very proudly display its noncompliance with WA resolutions.

Wallenburg wrote:

Fauxia wrote:Roleplay is roleplay is roleplay, imo. I don't care whether you abide by all, none, or some GA resolutions, your choice. Authoring them is a different story. Writing resolutions can cost a combination of time, effort, and money. Being highly productive in that category is worthy of commendation.

As for the self-commend thing, it's bad, but that is why we have the one line in there for that purpose. You can commend most of the behaviors of a person while not all of them. We've commended/condemned people who have broken rules before.

You really aren't offering any justification for commending the nominee. You are offering justification for not ostracizing the player. Yes, you certainly don't have to outcast a member of the community for serious errors in judgement and continuing failure to recognize the laws of the WA, but it makes no sense for the WA to commend a nation that has violated its rules to the extent that it has been banned once from the WA, and that continues to explicitly and very proudly display its noncompliance with WA resolutions.

There is precedent on commending/condemning nations in each of those cases

Fauxia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:You really aren't offering any justification for commending the nominee. You are offering justification for not ostracizing the player. Yes, you certainly don't have to outcast a member of the community for serious errors in judgement and continuing failure to recognize the laws of the WA, but it makes no sense for the WA to commend a nation that has violated its rules to the extent that it has been banned once from the WA, and that continues to explicitly and very proudly display its noncompliance with WA resolutions.

There is precedent on commending/condemning nations in each of those cases

Regardless of my personal beliefs, citing 'there's precedent' by itself as an argument isn't the best argument one can make. Precedent is both mutable and non-binding. Citing the specific cases and why they apply in this one however, is much better,

Lord Dominator wrote:

Fauxia wrote:There is precedent on commending/condemning nations in each of those cases

Regardless of my personal beliefs, citing 'there's precedent' by itself as an argument isn't the best argument one can make. Precedent is both mutable and non-binding. Citing the specific cases and why they apply in this one however, is much better,

All I want is for people to be consistent. Does non-compliance negate authoring resolutions? Silly, but, fine, as long as you will support repealing commendations of others (I think Sciongrad mentioned Glen-Rhodes as an example). You think WA bans negate recognition? Fine, but I hope you support the repeal of the badges of former predator users and other sorts (not sure how many off the top of my head, but at least one I can think of).

Fauxia wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Regardless of my personal beliefs, citing 'there's precedent' by itself as an argument isn't the best argument one can make. Precedent is both mutable and non-binding. Citing the specific cases and why they apply in this one however, is much better,

All I want is for people to be consistent. Does non-compliance negate authoring resolutions? Silly, but, fine, as long as you will support repealing commendations of others (I think Sciongrad mentioned Glen-Rhodes as an example). You think WA bans negate recognition? Fine, but I hope you support the repeal of the badges of former predator users and other sorts (not sure how many off the top of my head, but at least one I can think of).

I mean sure. Start those repeals up.

This is the thread about Auralia, however. And so he's who I'm going to focus on.

I'm tempted to vote against just because I find UM mildly annoying tbh.

No strong objection to commending Auralia though. I've more or less gotten over my partisan opposition to the idea.

Consular wrote:I'm tempted to vote against just because I find UM mildly annoying tbh.

No strong objection to commending Auralia though. I've more or less gotten over my partisan opposition to the idea.

I'm tempted to sig that.

I'm submitting this tomorrow, barring further objections.

Further objections. Ha, now you can't submit it!

Support

Wallenburg wrote:Further objections. Ha, now you can't submit it!

Objection noted.

I know for a fact that people will oppose this, holding onto the notion that self-commendations are 'inexcusable'; however, Auralia's achievements and accomplishments far outweigh something he did four years ago. It's petty to subscribe to such philosophy that one event in the pass could negate everything a nation has done. I proudly support this measure, and I look forward to seeing it passed.

Full support. Auralia's self-commendation, which I wasn't around to witness, occurred four years ago. People need to just get over it. His accomplishments, his unreserved apology and his GA accomplishments far outstrip one serious mistake. Plus, he has been working very hard to repeal the confusing and misleading GA resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents for months now. He deserves a commendation for that too.

New Bremerton wrote:Full support. Auralia's self-commendation, which I wasn't around to witness, occurred four years ago. People need to just get over it. His accomplishments, his unreserved apology and his GA accomplishments far outstrip one serious mistake. Plus, he has been working very hard to repeal the confusing and misleading GA resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents for months now. He deserves a commendation for that too.

I supported this until his pro-death politics came to light. His repeal efforts directly challenge the official position of the church, which is that the death penalty is never admissible under any circumstance.

Sciongrad wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:Full support. Auralia's self-commendation, which I wasn't around to witness, occurred four years ago. People need to just get over it. His accomplishments, his unreserved apology and his GA accomplishments far outstrip one serious mistake. Plus, he has been working very hard to repeal the confusing and misleading GA resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents for months now. He deserves a commendation for that too.

I supported this until his pro-death politics came to light. His repeal efforts directly challenge the official position of the church, which is that the death penalty is never admissible under any circumstance.

I should note that the Church's position on capital punishment is not binding. Also, capital C on "Church."

Opposed. For this reason.

Prydania wrote:

Fauxia wrote:What's your reasoning?

His attempt at self-commendation doesn’t sit well with me.
Further? His non-compliance issues are a problem for me. If you want a say in how the WA operates? You ought to abide by the WA. I know a number of people consider non-compliance a viable method of play, but I’m not sure I agree.
To me? The WA is but one aspect of NS. You don’t need to join it to play this game. If you opt in? You shouldn’t ben allowed to discard what you personally don’t like. It’s an entirely voluntary organization, and so I see non-compliant members as, well, not serving much purpose.

Against, because you changed:

United Massachusetts wrote:Dissapproving of the Auralian attempt to self-commend

to:

United Massachusetts wrote:Regrettably acknowledging Auralia’s attempt to self-commend

I was willing to wholeheartedly support this if it was on record that the SC disapproves and not merely acknowledges Auralia's cheating.

Wrapper wrote:Against, because you changed:

United Massachusetts wrote:Dissapproving of the Auralian attempt to self-commend

to:

United Massachusetts wrote:Regrettably acknowledging Auralia’s attempt to self-commend

I was willing to wholeheartedly support this if it was on record that the SC disapproves and not merely acknowledges Auralia's cheating.

I'll fix this. I was just trying to make the whole resolution sound better.

Will fix, but I'm on mobile now.

Sciongrad wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:Full support. Auralia's self-commendation, which I wasn't around to witness, occurred four years ago. People need to just get over it. His accomplishments, his unreserved apology and his GA accomplishments far outstrip one serious mistake. Plus, he has been working very hard to repeal the confusing and misleading GA resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents for months now. He deserves a commendation for that too.

I supported this until his pro-death politics came to light. His repeal efforts directly challenge the official position of the church, which is that the death penalty is never admissible under any circumstance.

Whose church? Sciongrad's church, UM's church, Auralia's church or some RL church?

Sciongrad wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:Full support. Auralia's self-commendation, which I wasn't around to witness, occurred four years ago. People need to just get over it. His accomplishments, his unreserved apology and his GA accomplishments far outstrip one serious mistake. Plus, he has been working very hard to repeal the confusing and misleading GA resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents for months now. He deserves a commendation for that too.

I supported this until his pro-death politics came to light. His repeal efforts directly challenge the official position of the church, which is that the death penalty is never admissible under any circumstance.

I don't see what this has to do with literally anything.