NationStates

Lord Dominator wrote:

Praeceps wrote:Is there any way we could, like, I don't know, not do this again?

This draft by UM hasn't been submitted before to my knowledge, and Auralia's self-attempt was years ago.

Edit: correction, it was once before.

We just repeated the whole "Commend TRR" proposal, we're going to repeat "Commend Auralia"? Couldn't we get a break or something before revisiting history?

C&Cs usually cover history, not sure what else they would cover.

There's a lot of emphasis on the attempted self-commendation through a multi being a singular mistake. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like there would be more than one mistake to arrive at self-commendation with a multi.

There'd be up to 2, depending on how one qualifies a self-commend, seeing as it is not strictly illegal or normally done by people who could otherwise warrant one.

The reference to history was about the SC revisiting old proposals recently.

I think Auralia would be well aware of the stigma against self-commendations. Why else would they have created a puppet to commend themselves? Regardless, I do believe the proposal minimizes Auralia's actions; the deceit took the course of several days where his puppet defended him while pretending to be someone else.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I object, then. Now you can't submit it!

I object to your objection!

I object to your objection of the objection!

The idea that someone should be barred from a commendation based on one incident 4 years ago, when they have given so much to the game, is truly pathetic moralising in my eyes.

Move on

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The idea that someone should be barred from a commendation based on one incident 4 years ago, when they have given so much to the game, is truly pathetic moralising in my eyes.

Move on

Tough. They’re a cheat and therefore completely undeserving of any recognition by the SC.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The idea that someone should be barred from a commendation based on one incident 4 years ago, when they have given so much to the game, is truly pathetic moralising in my eyes.

Move on

Tough. They’re a cheat and therefore completely undeserving of any recognition by the SC.

And they've since apologised quite profusely and gone on to do even greater things.

If we can't forgive the most talented people on this game for things that happened four years ago, I'm a little disappointed.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Tough. They’re a cheat and therefore completely undeserving of any recognition by the SC.

And they've since apologised quite profusely and gone on to do even greater things.

If we can't forgive the most talented people on this game for things that happened four years ago, I'm a little disappointed.

Talented at cheating certainly. Actually not that talented - they got caught.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:And they've since apologised quite profusely and gone on to do even greater things.

If we can't forgive the most talented people on this game for things that happened four years ago, I'm a little disappointed.

Talented at cheating certainly. Actually not that talented - they got caught.

So... Auralia still only ever made one mistake?

Regardless of whether you believe the WA multiing for a puppet self-commendation is a singular mistake or not, that is not extent of his rule breaking.

If Auralia receives a Commendation then it immediately cheapens the C&Cs awarded to nations who didn’t cheat.

I can just imagine the outrage if someone tried to Commend a nation previously involved in the Predator scandal.

“Oh but it happened x years ago, and they apologised and look at all the good stuff they’ve done since.”

Bollocks.

Still a nope from me, dog.

Praeceps wrote:So... Auralia still only ever made one mistake?

Regardless of whether you believe the WA multiing for a puppet self-commendation is a singular mistake or not, that is not extent of his rule breaking.

Er. That is the extent of his rulebreaking, and all rulebreaking has been mentioned.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:If Auralia receives a Commendation then it immediately cheapens the C&Cs awarded to nations who didn’t cheat.

I can just imagine the outrage if someone tried to Commend a nation previously involved in the Predator scandal.

“Oh but it happened x years ago, and they apologised and look at all the good stuff they’ve done since.”

Bollocks.

I'd argue, actually, that it's an example of a person who did a bad thing, paid a price, acknowledged their fault, continued to live with that price, and still did immense good for the community. And if this community is going to hold against someone something they did more than four years ago, maybe the outrage is the problem. Not the nominee.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The idea that someone should be barred from a commendation based on one incident 4 years ago, when they have given so much to the game, is truly pathetic moralising in my eyes.

Move on

Tough. They’re a cheat and therefore completely undeserving of any recognition by the SC.

It was something that happened literally over a thousand days ago.

2015 was the year that Force Awakens was released and everyone was all excited. Now everyone I know is saying how bad all the new Star Wars movies were.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:If Auralia receives a Commendation then it immediately cheapens the C&Cs awarded to nations who didn’t cheat.

I can just imagine the outrage if someone tried to Commend a nation previously involved in the Predator scandal.

“Oh but it happened x years ago, and they apologised and look at all the good stuff they’ve done since.”

Bollocks.

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.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Praeceps wrote:So... Auralia still only ever made one mistake?

Regardless of whether you believe the WA multiing for a puppet self-commendation is a singular mistake or not, that is not extent of his rule breaking.

Er. That is the extent of his rulebreaking, and all rulebreaking has been mentioned.

I expected minimization of it, similar as to minimizing his previous rulebreaking but to just deny it altogether?

Yikes.

Praeceps wrote:I expected minimization of it, similar as to minimizing his previous rulebreaking but to just deny it altogether?

Yikes.

Yall gonna drop any facts or just make nebulous accusations?'

Praeceps wrote: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.

edit:

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.

Aclion wrote:

Praeceps wrote:I expected minimization of it, similar as to minimizing his previous rulebreaking but to just deny it altogether?

Yikes.

Yall gonna drop any facts or just make nebulous accusations?'

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.

Tim-Opolis wrote:

Praeceps wrote: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.

Good memory. I had forgotten about their involvement then. I wasn't too active back then so am not quite aware of all the details. Mind elaborating on the situation both for my benefit and that of others?

Well that all seems like it's gonna be a "no" from me...

Tim-Opolis wrote:

Praeceps wrote: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

Texasa was never a resident of Catholic. He was a resident of Right to Life, and the two are different regions. Auralia, while tangentially a citizen of Right to Life, was a resident of Catholic. Auralia was not involved in the Texasa case.

Praeceps wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:If Auralia receives a Commendation then it immediately cheapens the C&Cs awarded to nations who didn’t cheat.

I can just imagine the outrage if someone tried to Commend a nation previously involved in the Predator scandal.

“Oh but it happened x years ago, and they apologised and look at all the good stuff they’ve done since.”

Bollocks.

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.

United Massachusetts wrote:Er. That is the extent of his rulebreaking, and all rulebreaking has been mentioned.

I expected minimization of it, similar as to minimizing his previous rulebreaking but to just deny it altogether?

Yikes.

Ah. I see what you're saying. My bad -- I messed up on my proofreading. My response, frankly, is that we're all aware of the case, and at this point, after submission, I'm not terribly sure we need to lay it out. You would be against with or without the mention.

Praeceps wrote:

Aclion wrote:Yall gonna drop any facts or just make nebulous accusations?'

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 know he self-commended by proxy. I did not intentionally leave out that it was by proxy. Dear God, y'all. The point is almost certainly moot, either way -- the incident is referenced, and we all know what it is.

Tim-Opolis wrote: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.

Tim-Opolis wrote: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.

United Massachusetts wrote:Texasa was never a resident of Catholic. He was a resident of Right to Life, and the two are different regions. Auralia, when tangentially a citizen of Right to Life, was a resident of Catholic. Auralia was not involved in the Texasa case.

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

Eumaeus wrote:

Tim-Opolis wrote: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.

United Massachusetts wrote:Texasa was never a resident of Catholic. He was a resident of Right to Life, and the two are different regions. Auralia, when tangentially a citizen of Right to Life, was a resident of Catholic. Auralia was not involved in the Texasa case.

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 am the reason the Texasa incident went neglected. Looking back, I'm genuinely ashamed of my carelessness in that, and I think a formal apology is long overdue. I'm really, really sorry; it's my biggest regret on NationStates. I'm not expecting any forgiveness: I neglected something I should have done to help an innocent player, and I did not do it.

But please -- for the love of God, or whatever you believe in -- don't pin this on Auralia or CD or anyone else. Please.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Tim-Opolis wrote: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

Texasa was never a resident of Catholic. He was a resident of Right to Life, and the two are different regions. Auralia, while tangentially a citizen of Right to Life, was a resident of Catholic. Auralia was not involved in the Texasa case.

Right, I'm not seeing it on this one.

Praeceps wrote: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.

I expected minimization of it, similar as to minimizing his previous rulebreaking but to just deny it altogether?

Yikes.

Ah. I see what you're saying. My bad -- I messed up on my proofreading. My response, frankly, is that we're all aware of the case, and at this point, after submission, I'm not terribly sure we need to lay it out. You would be against with or without the mention.

Praeceps wrote: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 know he self-commended by proxy. I did not intentionally leave out that it was by proxy. Dear God, y'all. The point is almost certainly moot, either way -- the incident is referenced, and we all know what it is.

What? That's not at all what I'm raising. And we most definitely do not all know what the incident is given Aclion asking what the additional rulebreaking is or that I didn't see a single mention of the other incident in the thread previously. I am sure if people knew about if they would have brought it up.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Tim-Opolis wrote: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.

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

@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.

Praeceps wrote:

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

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.

United Massachusetts wrote:I am the reason the Texasa incident went neglected. Looking back, I'm genuinely ashamed of my carelessness in that, and I think a formal apology is long overdue. I'm really, really sorry; it's my biggest regret on NationStates. I'm not expecting any forgiveness: I neglected something I should have done to help an innocent player, and I did not do it.

But please -- for the love of God, or whatever you believe in -- don't pin this on Auralia or CD or anyone else. Please.

The link supplied by Eumaeus to the original Predator punishment thread more than clarifies that situation. I remember the Texasa situation but certainly couldn’t remember any involvement by Auralia - the thread confirms that there wasn’t any.

Praeceps wrote: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:

Auralia wrote:...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...