NationStates

Yokiria wrote:

Jocospor wrote:That's a very reasonable assumption. We responded to it in our initial telegram to delegates. Here's what we said on the matter:

"Another issue is that many will accuse this proposal as being along the lines of an eye for any eye. We will speak honestly. Certainly, if we hadn't have had a history with I.A., we probably wouldn't find ourselves writing this proposal. That said, most authors commending and condemning have a history with their subjects, and we also hope that the points raised within the proposal can be seen as going beyond some sort of protracted feud."

An apt response overall, with an exception I'll get to later. The points raised within the proposal are hit-and-miss, in my opinion. Some are objectively good rebukes of the material in the Commendation, others are questionable. With a well-written proposal overall, that houses a few questionable rebukes of key materials in Commendation, outside factors are what will push me off the fence and into a stronger stance.

Now-confirmed suspicion that you came up with this repeal idea based on a personal grudge, and the failure of your "most authors have a history with their subjects" line to convince me of the harmlessness of such intentions, pushes me off the fence and against this proposal.

If these other authors that commend and condemn based on personal animosity were also as obvious about it as you are, Jocospor, I would not support their bills either.
_{Unless we had similar motives, of course. IA has never crossed me, though, so that doesn't apply here.}

It does not look like we shall sway you on this matter. Hopefully others believe us. We thank you for your input on this matter, it's appreciated.

I hope my input proves helpful in your future proposals. It is always a treat reading your proposals, no matter the intent, because of your literary prowess.

Kuriko wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:If the author writes a good resolution (like his present GA draft), we should get behind it. This blacklisting of authors is at best immature. People can change.

Pppphhhhtttttttt.... Jocospor? Change? HAHAHAHAHA. He changes the least. Just look at all his forum posts and the fact his region is still trying to commend itself. No, Jocospor and through extension CCD won't change.

People can change Kuri! I was a pretty despicable fellow at the turn of 2018, but the situations thrust upon me in the last couple months have really changed me. But then again, as an adolescent, I still have a lot of situations to go through. Who knows what lies ahead of me on my path? The same applies for Joscopor - more could lie ahead on his path that could change him, or maybe, the situations that will are being thrust upon him as I type.

OOC: I entirely believe that this repeal attempt is motivated by revenge for perceived slights, as well as a wider attempt at badge hunting. Against.

Did you really have to send 3 TGs for this? urgh

Blood Wine wrote:Did you really have to send 3 TGs for this? urgh

OOC: I block campaign telegrams.

The New California Republic wrote:

Blood Wine wrote:Did you really have to send 3 TGs for this? urgh

OOC: I block campaign telegrams.

Me too, region mate got them

Blood Wine wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: I block campaign telegrams.

Me too, region mate got them

OOC: I'm not really sure what's wrong with sending the three telegrams I did. I'm completely within the parameters of the game to do so. It's not "spam" - by your definition perhaps, but not the game's. And that anyone could call three telegrams spam really does frustrate me. Maybe your region mate (who I'll assume is the Delegate of Gay, otherwise he wouldn't have received a single telegram from me) gets a lot of telegrams each day. Tough. A perks of being the delegate of a large region. What about the delegates and nations of the smaller regions, the regions which predominantly make up the game? For them, heated WA discussions can sometimes be an event that they embrace, and they like receiving telegrams.

I'd rather incline myself to offering these regions something to do rather than worry about whether I'm pissing off some big delegate. And, as you've already said, completely defeating the point of your whining, block my telegrams if you don't want them. Easy. As. That.

Please, let's keep this thread on the discussion of the proposal itself. Jakker and Wrapper, have you had a chance to look over it since I've fixed it up?

Jocospor wrote:

Blood Wine wrote:
Me too, region mate got them

OOC: I'm not really sure what's wrong with sending the three telegrams I did. I'm completely within the parameters of the game to do so. It's not "spam" - by your definition perhaps, but not the game's. And that anyone could call three telegrams spam really does frustrate me. Maybe your region mate (who I'll assume is the Delegate of Gay, otherwise he wouldn't have received a single telegram from me) gets a lot of telegrams each day. Tough. A perks of being the delegate of a large region. What about the delegates and nations of the smaller regions, the regions which predominantly make up the game? For them, heated WA discussions can sometimes be an event that they embrace, and they like receiving telegrams.

I'd rather incline myself to offering these regions something to do rather than worry about whether I'm pissing off some big delegate. And, as you've already said, completely defeating the point of your whining, block my telegrams if you don't want them. Easy. As. That.

Please, let's keep this thread on the discussion of the proposal itself. Jakker and Wrapper, have you had a chance to look over it since I've fixed it up?

IIRC the rule is that you get to send out one approval campaign TG and one voting campaign TG, not three. I'll wait for a mod to confirm or deny though.

Kaboomlandia wrote:

Jocospor wrote:OOC: I'm not really sure what's wrong with sending the three telegrams I did. I'm completely within the parameters of the game to do so. It's not "spam" - by your definition perhaps, but not the game's. And that anyone could call three telegrams spam really does frustrate me. Maybe your region mate (who I'll assume is the Delegate of Gay, otherwise he wouldn't have received a single telegram from me) gets a lot of telegrams each day. Tough. A perks of being the delegate of a large region. What about the delegates and nations of the smaller regions, the regions which predominantly make up the game? For them, heated WA discussions can sometimes be an event that they embrace, and they like receiving telegrams.

I'd rather incline myself to offering these regions something to do rather than worry about whether I'm pissing off some big delegate. And, as you've already said, completely defeating the point of your whining, block my telegrams if you don't want them. Easy. As. That.

Please, let's keep this thread on the discussion of the proposal itself. Jakker and Wrapper, have you had a chance to look over it since I've fixed it up?

IIRC the rule is that you get to send out one approval campaign TG and one voting campaign TG, not three. I'll wait for a mod to confirm or deny though.

OOC: You're more than welcome to wait, but I can set you straight right now if you like. I set one approval telegram per proposal. That would have been two, since the proposal had to be submitted twice. Then I would have sent two other telegrams to delegates (so there you go, I sent four in total, wowie someone shoot me) offering them explanation as to why I took down the proposal, and assuring them that it would return when it was legal.

I've had enough conversations with the mods to know about telegrams, trust me. But thanks for your concern, nonetheless.

Our WA Delegate often mentions getting multiple to endorse a certain proposal, which he usually gleefully ignores.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Our WA Delegate often mentions getting multiple to endorse a certain proposal, which he usually gleefully ignores.

OOC: No harm in that.

Not really liked the submitter, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so voting FOR should it come to a vote.

Jocospor wrote:

Blood Wine wrote:
Me too, region mate got them

OOC: I'm not really sure what's wrong with sending the three telegrams I did. I'm completely within the parameters of the game to do so. It's not "spam" - by your definition perhaps, but not the game's. And that anyone could call three telegrams spam really does frustrate me. Maybe your region mate (who I'll assume is the Delegate of Gay, otherwise he wouldn't have received a single telegram from me) gets a lot of telegrams each day. Tough. A perks of being the delegate of a large region. What about the delegates and nations of the smaller regions, the regions which predominantly make up the game? For them, heated WA discussions can sometimes be an event that they embrace, and they like receiving telegrams.

I'd rather incline myself to offering these regions something to do rather than worry about whether I'm pissing off some big delegate. And, as you've already said, completely defeating the point of your whining, block my telegrams if you don't want them. Easy. As. That.

OOC: It should tell you something when you and your region are getting notorious for telegram bombardment.

Jocospor wrote:I'm completely within the parameters of the game to do so. It's not "spam" - by your definition perhaps, but not the game's.

I've had enough conversations with the mods to know about telegrams, trust me.

Jocospor is correct that the recent pile of telegrams are not technically illegal under the rules. That's not to say that they're not spam, just not actionable spam. There is always someone looking for a way to abuse any exploit in the rules. Jocospor has been fairly successful at telegram rule abuse. IMO, that's a strange thing to be proud about.

Yokiria wrote:I hope my input proves helpful in your future proposals. It is always a treat reading your proposals, no matter the intent, because of your literary prowess.

Ahhh, I, too, am made speechless by Jocospor's way with words sometimes.

Frisbeeteria wrote:Jocospor is correct that the recent pile of telegrams are not technically illegal under the rules. That's not to say that they're not spam, just not actionable spam. There is always someone looking for a way to abuse any exploit in the rules. Jocospor has been fairly successful at telegram rule abuse. IMO, that's a strange thing to be proud about.

Fix the loopholes then

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Jocospor wrote:I'm completely within the parameters of the game to do so. It's not "spam" - by your definition perhaps, but not the game's.

I've had enough conversations with the mods to know about telegrams, trust me.

Jocospor is correct that the recent pile of telegrams are not technically illegal under the rules. That's not to say that they're not spam, just not actionable spam. There is always someone looking for a way to abuse any exploit in the rules. Jocospor has been fairly successful at telegram rule abuse. IMO, that's a strange thing to be proud about.

OOC: Fris, you can mark SC proposals legal/illegal, can't you? Does this all look legal to you?

It looks like you’ve made some other changes, ones that violate rule 4(d). A proposal has to be written by the point of view of the WA/SC. The WA/SC isn’t going to warn nor urge itself to do anything.

Wrapper wrote:It looks like you’ve made some other changes, ones that violate rule 4(d). A proposal has to be written by the point of view of the WA/SC. The WA/SC isn’t going to warn nor urge itself to do anything.

OOC: I can take that out now, but I have to say that it's simply hilarious that this is coming up now. That clause has always been there and in my initial post of this thread I asked if it was legal. It's not in the OG post now since I was led to believe that it was because no one said anything, but a later post I made to Caracasus confirms it was:

Jocospor wrote:

Caracasus wrote:Lol no.

Is that utterance regarding the legality of the second last clause?

And again, this is something that has never been pinged before in any of the other assessments of the proposal's legality. Honestly, I'm pretty astounded.

Thanks for looking at it though, Wrapper, I really appreciate it. Is there anything else that isn't legal?

Full support if it's legal.

You still have the SC warning/reminding itself of things in previous clauses.

Wrapper wrote:You still have the SC warning/reminding itself of things in previous clauses.

OOC: Yep, I see. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realise that those were also in question. That should all be better now. Anything else illegal?

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Jocospor wrote:I'm completely within the parameters of the game to do so. It's not "spam" - by your definition perhaps, but not the game's.

I've had enough conversations with the mods to know about telegrams, trust me.

Jocospor is correct that the recent pile of telegrams are not technically illegal under the rules. That's not to say that they're not spam, just not actionable spam. There is always someone looking for a way to abuse any exploit in the rules. Jocospor has been fairly successful at telegram rule abuse. IMO, that's a strange thing to be proud about.

OOC: I'll just quickly respond to this too, actually. It's spam in your opinion. The only factual definition of spam as far as NationStates is concerned is what's written in the rules. I'm completely within my rights to play the game as I want, and for the times that I have made mistakes I've been corrected. I don't think it's necessarily fair to chip me when I haven't broken any rules.

And besides, Max Barry gets heaps of lunch money from the Confederation's generous donations.

Jocospor wrote:

Frisbeeteria wrote:Jocospor is correct that the recent pile of telegrams are not technically illegal under the rules. That's not to say that they're not spam, just not actionable spam. There is always someone looking for a way to abuse any exploit in the rules. Jocospor has been fairly successful at telegram rule abuse. IMO, that's a strange thing to be proud about.

OOC: I'll just quickly respond to this too, actually. It's spam in your opinion. The only factual definition of spam as far as NationStates is concerned is what's written in the rules.

Historically, "that's just your opinion" is a poor response to NS moderators.