Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:38 pm
The "Festering Snakepit" claims yet another victim. We don't have to be assholes to change the game. I hope someone will eventually figure that out.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Nierr wrote:Mundiferrum wrote:Wait, since the founder of Capitalist Paradise is still active, if he imposed a password on the region right now, would this proposal suddenly run afoul of rule 3? [ viewtopic.php?f=24&t=79106 ] Or would that be sort of akin to ex post facto (or something)?
Nope to both. You can still propose Liberations of founder passworded regions (as Liberations also prevent delegate imposed passwords).
I did this before with Liberate The Greater German Reich.
The "tit for tat" ruling only applies to proposals that have no substantial argument other than commending/condemning/liberating/whatevering in direct response to another proposal/resolution. Since the proposal in question contains other arguments, it doesn't fall foul of the tit for tat ruling.
Shadow Afforess wrote:Now that tit for tat rules have been clarified...
Shadow Afforess wrote:If the author here wants to play with fire, let's play with real fire: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p20886642
I promise never to release or distribute aforementioned tool if the author withdraws his proposal and does not propose new submissions regarding Liberating Capitalist Paradise.
Nierr wrote:Shadow Afforess wrote:If the author here wants to play with fire, let's play with real fire: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=304114#p20886642
I promise never to release or distribute aforementioned tool if the author withdraws his proposal and does not propose new submissions regarding Liberating Capitalist Paradise.
I don't take kindly to threats Afforess.
You wanna fight fire with fire?
Then let's play.
Shadow Afforess wrote:If the author here wants to play with fire, let's play with real fire: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p20886642
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=304114.
Really, all this level of hypocrisy is doing is two things:
1. First, it's setting the precedent for resolutions like "Liberate Haven", the very thing the current supporters of "Lib. Capitalist Paradise" do not in fact support. You're adding to the arguments of your opponents by doing this kind of thing, something which would definitely open a Pandora's box for future proposals like this.
2. Second, it's showing everyone that the SC is not really following the general spirit of its purpose. Destroying a region for supporting a controversial piece of legislation? That's not "spreading goodwill", that's being petty and exclusive! You're demeaning the very purpose of the SC by supporting such a resolution, something which I am sure you'd actually care about!
Yes, Capitalist Paradise's actions with regards to Liberate Haven were (at least, to you) fairly despicable, but to work by their own means in order to destroy them? That's more despicable than their own! And the fact that their work on Liberate Haven didn't amount to anything but flak, is that not something that you're open to?
Shadow Afforess wrote:If the author here wants to play with fire, let's play with real fire: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p20886642
I promise never to release or distribute aforementioned tool if the author withdraws his proposal and does not propose new submissions regarding Liberating Capitalist Paradise.