[DEFEATED] Commend Auralia

[Eumaeus]

For the sake of those following along at home, the incident being discussed can be found here.

Since you have all the links, it should be immediately obvious after reading them that this doesn’t have anything to do with Auralia or the resolution.

I remembered the incident being discussed, and neither remembered nor found any evidence of involvement by Auralia. I wasn’t sure if there was off-site involvement I was unaware of, which is why I did not outright say that Auralia was not involved. Instead I linked to the relevant thread so that others could examine the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

[United Massachusetts]

Since you have all the links, it should be immediately obvious after reading them that this doesn’t have anything to do with Auralia or the resolution.

I remembered the incident being discussed, and neither remembered nor found any evidence of involvement by Auralia. I wasn’t sure if there was off-site involvement I was unaware of, which is why I did not outright say that Auralia was not involved. Instead I linked to the relevant thread so that others could examine the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Thank you for doing so.

[Praeceps]

@Praeceps

Ah. I see. I misunderstood again. I remember that incident, but it's worth remembering that the question of legality was absolutely under dispute until the moderators weighed in. It's not that Auralia believed himself to be genuinely breaking the rules; it's that a ruling was made on a question that was quite controversial. We can critique the political move, but it's not really intentional rulebreaking.

I hope you're not saying that my additional information is drivel?

No, no, no. Tim's points are. Thank you, Praetor -- I do appreciate your input, though I wish you had been a little less cryptic.

Sure, and I mentioned myself that that sort of rulebreaking isn't necessarily that big of a deal in most situations, I've replied to Auralia below why I think it matters more here.

I posted the links to the other threads here, I don't know how I could have possibly been less cryptic.

I really shouldn't have to be presenting information the author should have. Whether this information was not included out of not doing sufficient research on the nominee or willfully ignoring it, I don't know. This particular scenario is rather indicative of the nominee's character, especially when taken into account with their other actions.

I can imagine some supporters of Auralia will attempt to minimize this (or ignore it as was previously done) but saying that it was only a minor issue, rules for resolutions aren't always followed. That's certainly true and were that to be the extent of the case (such as referring to a nation as a person in the SC or a honest mistake in the GA), it wouldn't be a huge issue. The context here is important: a misrepresentation of the authorship. Wrapper back then pointed out why it was problematic so I will link you to their post.

This just further shows how Auralia has attempted to deceive others for their own benefit.

I really don't want to post in this thread, but you're accusing me of rulebreaking via "misrepresentation" so I feel I have to respond.

(a) The repeal you are referencing was found illegal for violating the "branding" rule, which is to prevent advertising regions or groups. It has nothing to do with misrepresentation -- quite the opposite, actually.

(b) The mods had actually ruled that the proposal did not violate the branding rule prior to it going to vote. They reversed their ruling a few days later.

(c) The repeal was not found illegal for "misrepresentation" (i.e. using the name and flag of the World Assembly). This practice was and continues to be legal.

(d) As I have already said:

...Glen-Rhodes and I will both attest to the fact that our intent in creating the "World Assembly Charter Working Group" nation was so that no one nation would "own" (so to speak) the GAR #2 repeal and replacement, not because we wanted to disguise the level of support for the proposal. I decided to use the WA logo because it seemed appropriate given the nation's purpose, not because I wanted to imply official status.

I will certainly concede that using the Working Group nation was a mistake, given the confusion it caused and the fact that submitting proposals under that nation turned out to be illegal under the branding rule. But I assure you we were acting in good faith...

I apologize if I came off as accusing you as "misrepresentation" that wasn't my intent, to respond to your point in (a) now.

I think there are once again two separate issues with this incident; my apologies if I conflated them.

1. The rule breaking of (b), this in of itself isn't that objectionable as I previously mentioned, I know it is a relatively frequent occurrence for rules to be broken accidentally whether that is, once again, a honest mistake in the GA or referring to a nation as a person in the SC. However, do note the violation was not in the resolution written but in the author's name.

2. What is the more objectionable part, is why the rule was broken. In most cases, the author is just trying to write a resolution and it is during this process that the rules are broken. In this case, the resolution was submitted under a different nation to give off some sort of perception. Now, I'm not going to make any judgements as to your motivations here for the name you chose. However, it is concerning that the chosen name would have given off the perception of the nation was more official than it really was.

I was not around during that resolution but I did read several of the pages. This is the first I've heard of GR being involved, I've seen in several places that you acted alone in creating the "group" nation.

[Aclion]

2. What is the more objectionable part, is why the rule was broken. In most cases, the author is just trying to write a resolution and it is during this process that the rules are broken. In this case, the resolution was submitted under a different nation to give off some sort of perception. Now, I'm not going to make any judgements as to your motivations here for the name you chose. However, it is concerning that the chosen name would have given off the perception of the nation was more official than it really was.

I don't see how it is any different from the WA mission puppets used by numerous other authors.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Commending yourself with a puppet? Or pretending to be some official entity?

[Praeceps]

2. What is the more objectionable part, is why the rule was broken. In most cases, the author is just trying to write a resolution and it is during this process that the rules are broken. In this case, the resolution was submitted under a different nation to give off some sort of perception. Now, I'm not going to make any judgements as to your motivations here for the name you chose. However, it is concerning that the chosen name would have given off the perception of the nation was more official than it really was.

I don't see how it is any different from the WA mission puppets used by numerous other authors.

Really? A WA Mission puppet clearly shows who the puppet belongs to, hardly the case here.

[United Massachusetts]

I don't see how it is any different from the WA mission puppets used by numerous other authors.

Really? A WA Mission puppet clearly shows who the puppet belongs to, hardly the case here.

I agree with Praeceps on this point, actually. The cases are different, but Auralia's response remains right -- there was little indication it was illegal.

[Armaros]

Additionally, let's not forget at Auralia's attempt at a UCR-based coup of the Game-Created Region Lazarus, him desiring to instill a theocratic region in one of the GCRs. Ain't keen on commending someone like that, man.

Also, "coup a GCR"? Lazarus was in anarchy, and no successor government had been announced. Also drivel.

Opportunists attempting to seize control over a divided GCR, still destabilised after the Khanate, are considered commendable now?

[Fauxia]

Also, "coup a GCR"? Lazarus was in anarchy, and no successor government had been announced. Also drivel.

Opportunists attempting to seize control over a divided GCR, still destabilised after the Khanate, are considered commendable now?

Considering that Lazarus declared itself an anarchy and encouraged such behavior, seems okay to me.

It was also not that serious of an attempt.

[Fulford]

Auralia had used a puppet account to create and forge a commendation within the security council of the World Assembly many years ago, despite their efforts to apologize for their actions this still goes against the world assemblies rules and regulations (OOC: along with nationstates). We at Fulford hereby vote Against this resolution despite the good Auralia has given to the community going against rules and regulations has tarnished your reputation.

[Armaros]

Opportunists attempting to seize control over a divided GCR, still destabilised after the Khanate, are considered commendable now?

Considering that Lazarus declared itself an anarchy and encouraged such behavior, seems okay to me.

It was also not that serious of an attempt.

So you're saying that "Lazarus is in anarchy... okay let me seize control of it and establish a Christian government" is perfectly fine?

And this is, for the record, at vote.

[Aclion]

I don't see how it is any different from the WA mission puppets used by numerous other authors.

Really? A WA Mission puppet clearly shows who the puppet belongs to, hardly the case here.

In this case the puppet was representative of a group so WA working group is a reasonable description.

Considering that Lazarus declared itself an anarchy and encouraged such behavior, seems okay to me.

It was also not that serious of an attempt.

So you're saying that "Lazarus is in anarchy... okay let me seize control of it and establish a Christian government" is perfectly fine?

And this is, for the record, at vote.

Lazaruses whole deal in that period was that this WAS fine, in the hope that it would result in the formation of an organic government. You can argue all day over whether or not that was a good idea, but what Auralia was doing cannot reasonably be called a coup.

[Eumaeus]

Auralia had used a puppet account to create and forge a commendation within the security council of the World Assembly many years ago, despite their efforts to apologize for their actions this still goes against the world assemblies rules and regulations (OOC: along with nationstates). We at Fulford hereby vote Against this resolution despite the good Auralia has given to the community going against rules and regulations has tarnished your reputation.

Just to clarify, it is neither against the rules to commend yourself nor to submit a proposal using a puppet; both are, however, breaches of widely accepted (and stringently enforced) Security Council etiquette.

[Praeceps]

Really? A WA Mission puppet clearly shows who the puppet belongs to, hardly the case here.

In this case the puppet was representative of a group so WA working group is a reasonable description.

I'm not sure what your point is. We weren't discussing whether the name of the puppet was a reasonable description. It was the difference between WA Mission puppets and the one the nominee used. If you think that from the name of the puppet used, you can tell that Auralia is behind it, you're welcome to explain that to me.

[Fauxia]

Considering that Lazarus declared itself an anarchy and encouraged such behavior, seems okay to me.

It was also not that serious of an attempt.

So you're saying that "Lazarus is in anarchy... okay let me seize control of it and establish a Christian government" is perfectly fine?

And this is, for the record, at vote.

What Aclion said. I don’t think you saw the “declared itself” part.

Here is the WFE from April 24, right after Imkiville became Delegate, when Auralia started doing this.

[United Massachusetts]

Considering that Lazarus declared itself an anarchy and encouraged such behavior, seems okay to me.

It was also not that serious of an attempt.

So you're saying that "Lazarus is in anarchy... okay let me seize control of it and establish a Christian government" is perfectly fine?

And this is, for the record, at vote.

Also, it's worth noting that while the planned government was to have a Christian/ancient Judean theme, it was not planning on having a theocratic government.

[Armaros]

So you're saying that "Lazarus is in anarchy... okay let me seize control of it and establish a Christian government" is perfectly fine?

And this is, for the record, at vote.

Also, it's worth noting that while the planned government was to have a Christian/ancient Judean theme, it was not planning on having a theocratic government.

Yet Auralia tried to argue that they would help the process by basically votestacking Lazarus with Christians.

As for “Lazarus did it to themselves!”, foreign subversives seeking to claim Lazarus for themselves because Lazarus proclaimed themselves an anarchy... does not make foreign subversives trying to claim Lazarus for themselves any less subversive or foreign.

[Fauxia]

Also, it's worth noting that while the planned government was to have a Christian/ancient Judean theme, it was not planning on having a theocratic government.

Yet Auralia tried to argue that they would help the process by basically votestacking Lazarus with Christians.

As for “Lazarus did it to themselves!”, foreign subversives seeking to claim Lazarus for themselves because Lazarus proclaimed themselves an anarchy... does not make foreign subversives trying to claim Lazarus for themselves any less subversive or foreign.

There was no government, pretty much every competitor was foreign, until the failed Constitutional Convention was begun (which Auralia did contribute to). And it was hardly subversive, considering you just linked to a public post discussing the idea.

[Lord Dominator]

Whatever designs Auralia & co had on Lazarus at the time were more-or-less encouraged by Imki (the aggregate of people just starting and spouting off about trying to take the region) and weren't any more bad than any of the other stuff floating around at the time (except in the actual idea).

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Also, it's worth noting that while the planned government was to have a Christian/ancient Judean theme, it was not planning on having a theocratic government.

Yet Auralia tried to argue that they would help the process by basically votestacking Lazarus with Christians.

As for “Lazarus did it to themselves!”, foreign subversives seeking to claim Lazarus for themselves because Lazarus proclaimed themselves an anarchy... does not make foreign subversives trying to claim Lazarus for themselves any less subversive or foreign.

If you decree your region to be an anarchy, don't be surprised when people want to take advantage of it. It's only the same as the anarchy that existed in the new sinkers when they were founded.

[Christian Democrats]

For, obviously. Auralia has made greater contributions to this game than 99.99% of players.

I think in some cases the Predator situation would be different for some nations depending on the extent of their knowledge of the situation. Granted, most of them would probably be more likely due for a condemnation.

Damn straight. The big boys of Catholic more or less pressured an innocent noob into claiming he used Predator without him knowing what it was, and then basically acted like it wasn't their problem following that, continuously putting resolution of the matter off with claims that they're working on it and such. Here's the thing, it could have been solved in about an hour's time. Many of us literally told them what to do, with pretty fucking precise instructions.

It was, to be frank, some woefully embarrassing conduct from that crew.

Tim, you have no idea what you're talking about.

First, Texasa had nothing to do with Catholic. He was a Right to Life resident.

Second, Texasa falsely confessed to using Predator in order to gain "street cred." He wanted to build a reputation.

Third, after I convinced him to rescind his confession and after I wrote his appeal, the moderators lifted the ban.

Fourth, he thanked me by trying to hack several of my accounts on-site and off-site. At the time, I had an official position on this site, so the moderators decided to perma-ban Texasa. He tried circumventing the perma-ban, and his new nations were quickly deleted.

Texasa isn't an "innocent noob." He's a self-promoter and hacker who's been permanently banned from this site.

[Jocospor]

OOC: If Auralia's attempt to self-commend is the only thing holding back everyone from voting for, give him the bloody badge. The player tried to do something that wasn't popular (a long time ago) - okay, sure. But look what the player has done during their time in NationStates.

It's already been said, but I want to echo this sentiment: there are plenty who've behaved worse than Auralia, and of those plenty many are respected by the NationStates community, only because they hide behind a false guise. (And I'm talking about OOC actions taken against players, not harmless IC self-commends). At least Auralia has a certain honest quality about them. I can respect that, and I think we all should too.

[Armaros]

OOC: If Auralia's attempt to self-commend is the only thing holding back everyone from voting for, give him the bloody badge. The player tried to do something that wasn't popular (a long time ago) - okay, sure. But look what the player has done during their time in NationStates.

It's already been said, but I want to echo this sentiment: there are plenty who've behaved worse than Auralia, and of those plenty many are respected by the NationStates community, only because they hide behind a false guise. (And I'm talking about OOC actions taken against players, not harmless IC self-commends). At least Auralia has a certain honest quality about them. I can respect that, and I think we all should too.

Bold claim. Mind backing it up?

You seem to ignore the rulebreaking entirely.

[Roavin]

OOC: If Auralia's attempt to self-commend is the only thing holding back everyone from voting for, give him the bloody badge. The player tried to do something that wasn't popular (a long time ago) - okay, sure. But look what the player has done during their time in NationStates.

Hate to agree with Jocospor but ... I agree with Jocospor. One thing 4 years ago that was unpopular (and against site rules) shouldn't drown out the immense GA work as well as a myriad of tools that are open source and available for the entire community to use.

[Jocospor]

OOC: If Auralia's attempt to self-commend is the only thing holding back everyone from voting for, give him the bloody badge. The player tried to do something that wasn't popular (a long time ago) - okay, sure. But look what the player has done during their time in NationStates.

It's already been said, but I want to echo this sentiment: there are plenty who've behaved worse than Auralia, and of those plenty many are respected by the NationStates community, only because they hide behind a false guise. (And I'm talking about OOC actions taken against players, not harmless IC self-commends). At least Auralia has a certain honest quality about them. I can respect that, and I think we all should too.

Bold claim. Mind backing it up?

You seem to ignore the rulebreaking entirely.

OOC: What claim would you like backed up? If it's Auralia's fulfilment for a commendation, see the proposal. If it's something else, this isn't the place for it. Slights against me aren't relevant here either.