The New California Republic wrote:OOC: That isn't a new badge though. Can't hunt for a badge that he already has. Methinks you are picking at straws to somehow make your statement accurate, but it's failing miserably I'm afraid.
If you truly believe that having authored one WA resolution is the same as having authored near thirty, (which is exactly what you're implying, don't argue), then you've a more warped understanding of badge-hunting than anyone.
OOC: IA can't hunt for a badge that he already has. This isn't difficult ffs. So no, that isn't what I was implying at all. Resorting to facetiously interpreting my statements speaks volumes.
Jocospor wrote:And curb your tongue, sir. It's bad enough listening to your arguments without the profanities.
Jocospor wrote: If you truly believe that having authored one WA resolution is the same as having authored near thirty, (which is exactly what you're implying, don't argue), then you've a more warped understanding of badge-hunting than anyone.
OOC: IA can't hunt for a badge that he already has. This isn't difficult ffs. So no, that isn't what I was implying at all. Resorting to facetiously interpreting my statements speaks volumes.
Jocospor wrote:And curb your tongue, sir. It's bad enough listening to your arguments without the profanities.
OOC: Not going to do that I'm afraid.
Oh well. It's a poor sorry fellow who can't make his point without swearing.
We refer you here, since we've already typed it out once:
Wallenburg wrote:It's fucking delicious watching people accuse IA of "badge-hunting" when he's already passed 24 GA resolutions. Newsflash, you don't get additional badges for passing more resolutions in the same chamber.
OOC: And it's fucking unbelievable that anyone could believe that "badge" = "only the little pixels on my screen owo". Newsflash, this is absolutely a case of one trying to pass a resolution for the sake of it. You might only get one literal badge, but you can still flaunt your verbal badges - as you did, Wallenburg, when you declared "[I.A.'s] already passed 24 General Assembly resolutions[!]"
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:27 pm
by The New California Republic
Jocospor wrote:Oh well. It's a poor sorry fellow who can't make his point without swearing.
OOC: It is far worse to feel the need to nitpick bad language to score a point.
Jocospor wrote:We refer you here, since we've already typed it out once:
Jocospor wrote:OOC: And it's fucking unbelievable that anyone could believe that "badge" = "only the little pixels on my screen owo". Newsflash, this is absolutely a case of one trying to pass a resolution for the sake of it. You might only get one literal badge, but you can still flaunt your verbal badges - as you did, Wallenburg, when you declared "[I.A.'s] already passed 24 General Assembly resolutions[!]"
OOC: You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Just because you try to smokescreen your badge hunting behind some asinine babble doesn't mean that it isn't badge hunting; nor does it mean that IA is badge hunting for a badge they already have. The fact that you resort to using some bizarre alternate definition of the meaning of badge hunting doesn't change a damn thing.
Jocospor wrote:Oh well. It's a poor sorry fellow who can't make his point without swearing.
OOC: It is far worse to feel the need to nitpick bad language to score a point.
Jocospor wrote:We refer you here, since we've already typed it out once:
OOC: You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Just because you try to smokescreen your badge hunting behind some asinine babble doesn't mean that it isn't badge hunting; nor does it mean that IA is badge hunting for a badge they already have. The fact that you resort to using some bizarre alternate definition of the meaning of badge hunting doesn't change a damn thing.
OOC: Huh, I was right. You do have a warped understanding of badge-hunting.
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Just because you try to smokescreen your badge hunting behind some asinine babble doesn't mean that it isn't badge hunting; nor does it mean that IA is badge hunting for a badge they already have. The fact that you resort to using some bizarre alternate definition of the meaning of badge hunting doesn't change a damn thing.
OOC: Huh, I was right. You do have a warped understanding of badge-hunting.
OOC: TIL having the normal understanding of badge hunting = having a warped understanding of badge hunting. Just fucking lol.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:46 pm
by Prydania
New Bremerton wrote:Repeal PtEoI, with its deliberately confusing and misleading language, and a more recent GA proposal written entirely in financial jargon, are specifically designed to further some sort of hidden agenda. Such deceptive and underhanded tactics should not be tolerated, let alone commended. If IA has made NS a better place for everyone over many years, then some of his recent proposals appear to buck the trend. If IA cannot bring himself to draft proposals using plain, easy-to-understand English 100% of the time, instead opting to disrespect the vast majority of NS players by labeling them as "anti-intellectual" simply for not having a Ph.D. in economics, then he cannot be trusted. This is no way to engender good will.
You complain about being labeled with the “anti-intellectual” label but if the label is accurate? *shrugs*
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:50 pm
by Borovan3
New Bremerton wrote:Repeal PtEoI, with its deliberately confusing and misleading language, and a more recent GA proposal written entirely in financial jargon, are specifically designed to further some sort of hidden agenda. Such deceptive and underhanded tactics should not be tolerated, let alone commended. If IA has made NS a better place for everyone over many years, then some of his recent proposals appear to buck the trend. If IA cannot bring himself to draft proposals using plain, easy-to-understand English 100% of the time, instead opting to disrespect the vast majority of NS players by labeling them as "anti-intellectual" simply for not having a Ph.D. in economics, then he cannot be trusted. This is no way to engender good will.
Well we are ambassadors. Isn't it our job to consult our business attaché who specialize in such a thing? Besides a general economics course is suffice to understand the gist of it.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:51 pm
by Kaboomlandia
The fact that this is near quorum is proof that through the power of persistence and throwing shitloads of money at the game, anything is possible.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:05 pm
by Jocospor
Kaboomlandia wrote:The fact that this is near quorum is proof that through the power of persistence and throwing shitloads of money at the game, anything is possible.
The fact that this is near quorum is proof that the World Assembly still has a conscience. Or, you could completely insult everyone who's approved this proposal like you did, that works as well.
Kaboomlandia wrote:The fact that this is near quorum is proof that through the power of persistence and throwing shitloads of money at the game, anything is possible.
The fact that this is near quorum is proof that the World Assembly still has a conscience. Or, you could completely insult everyone who's approved this proposal like you did, that works as well.
OOC: Don't see how that is insulting the delegates that approved this, but alright.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:25 pm
by Greater vakolicci haven
I support this proposal.
IA has made a mockery of the GA by their recent actions, and regularly uses their voting bloc in order to promote their own goals.
Jocospor wrote:The fact that this is near quorum is proof that the World Assembly still has a conscience. Or, you could completely insult everyone who's approved this proposal like you did, that works as well.
OOC: Don't see how that is insulting the delegates that approved this, but alright.
OOC: Blind? Kaboomlandia insinuates that people have only voted for this because I've "thrown shitloads of money" into NationStates. No, they've voted for it because they believe in it.
Really, that argument is pretty stupid, if you think about it (which, I'm sure my accusers haven't). It costs approximately $1.30 to send a telegram to all regional delegates. I must have sent, what, no more than 20 telegrams to that category in my playing of NationStates. So that brings the sum up to $26.00. You'd spend more on a nice lunch than I have over 3 years. But wait, there's more. A lot of the Confederation's telegram stamps are donated by its nations, and the load is spread evenly amongst our government. So, if that's the case, that cumulative $26.00 becomes $4.33 for each Supreme Council nation.
If anyone truly believes that $4.33 is "shitloads of money", I've no idea how you're affording your ISP to play NationStates.
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: Don't see how that is insulting the delegates that approved this, but alright.
OOC: Blind? Kaboomlandia insinuates that people have only voted for this because I've "thrown shitloads of money" into NationStates. No, they've voted for it because they believe in it.
OOC: Again that isn't an insult directed at them.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:56 pm
by Kaboomlandia
My choice of words centred on the fact that this proposal just isn’t good (the entire reasoning is flawed and based on your personal grudge) and I also sat through the entire Bitely saga where a player pushed several very, very bad proposals to quorum by spending hundreds of dollars on stamp campaigns and forum ads.
Also, approvals don’t mean support. I look forward to seeing this get roflstomped at vote so it can be put to bed.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:19 pm
by Jocospor
Kaboomlandia wrote:My choice of words centred on the fact that this proposal just isn’t good (the entire reasoning is flawed and based on your personal grudge) and I also sat through the entire Bitely saga where a player pushed several very, very bad proposals to quorum by spending hundreds of dollars on stamp campaigns and forum ads.
Also, approvals don’t mean support. I look forward to seeing this get roflstomped at vote so it can be put to bed.
OOC: As I've just proven, I haven't spent hundreds of dollars on stamp campaigns. I don't even know how to set up a forum ad either. There's some differences to this Bitely, who was before my time.
Kaboomlandia wrote:My choice of words centred on the fact that this proposal just isn’t good (the entire reasoning is flawed and based on your personal grudge) and I also sat through the entire Bitely saga where a player pushed several very, very bad proposals to quorum by spending hundreds of dollars on stamp campaigns and forum ads.
Also, approvals don’t mean support. I look forward to seeing this get roflstomped at vote so it can be put to bed.
OOC: As I've just proven, I haven't spent hundreds of dollars on stamp campaigns.
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: Kaboomlandia never said that you did...
OOC: It was implied. You need to stop, thanks. Please keep things relevant to the topic of this thread, not these pointless antics.
OOC: It wasn't even implied. At no point did Kaboomlandia say implicitly or explicitly that you had spent hundreds of dollars on stamp campaigns; that was just made-up nonsense on your part. But cool. Back to the topic at hand.
Jocospor wrote:OOC: It was implied. You need to stop, thanks. Please keep things relevant to the topic of this thread, not these pointless antics.
OOC: It wasn't even implied. At no point did Kaboomlandia say implicitly or explicitly that you had spent hundreds of dollars on stamp campaigns; that was just made-up nonsense on your part.
OOC: So stating that one of the reasons 'this' ('this' being, the subject at hand) is approaching quorum as the ability to 'throw shitloads of money at the game' isn't somehow implicit?
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:56 pm
by The New California Republic
Gawdzendia wrote:OOC: So stating that one of the reasons 'this' ('this' being, the subject at hand) is approaching quorum as the ability to 'throw shitloads of money at the game' isn't somehow implicit?
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: Back to the topic at hand.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:58 pm
by The Tri State Area and Maine
Considering recent events in the GA, this actually isn't the worst proposal in the world.
I might get on board with this, although the imminent WALL stomp is inevitable.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:02 pm
by Jocospor
The Tri State Area and Maine wrote:Considering recent events in the GA, this actually isn't the worst proposal in the world.
I might get on board with this, although the imminent WALL stomp is inevitable.
It's likely inevitable, yes. Can you see WALL allowing one of its own to lose it's widdle Commendation?
The Tri State Area and Maine wrote:Considering recent events in the GA, this actually isn't the worst proposal in the world.
I might get on board with this, although the imminent WALL stomp is inevitable.
It's likely inevitable, yes. Can you see WALL allowing one of its own to lose it's widdle Commendation?
This was pointed out to you once before. People like IA get stuff done in this game because they network with people and are willing to compromise with people to build communities like WALL. You and your region’s antagonistic approach to...well...everything will always leave you with less influence then those who don’t go out of their way to be antagonistic players. So rather than mock people you’re angry at and stomp your feet like a child who absconded with mom’s credit card? You could try to actually reach out and built networks with people. Like IA has done.
Jocospor wrote:It's likely inevitable, yes. Can you see WALL allowing one of its own to lose it's widdle Commendation?
This was pointed out to you once before. People like IA get stuff done in this game because they network with people and are willing to compromise with people to build communities like WALL. You and your region’s antagonistic approach to...well...everything will always leave you with less influence then those who don’t go out of their way to be antagonistic players. So rather than mock people you’re angry at and stomp your feet like a child who absconded with mom’s credit card? You could try to actually reach out and built networks with people. Like IA has done.
OOC: I, along with my government, have built a community: the Confederation. That might not be a community you're in, or want to be a part of, but it's still a community, and the residents of the Confederation will tell you that they're very happy to be where they are. We've plenty of embassies with region's that the GCRs and I.A.'s Europe wouldn't waste their time with. We're dedicated to role-play across a wide variety of platforms.
If our approach is epitomised by this resolution, then we've been led to such an approach as a last resort. We've seen the problems, and now we think it's time to propose fixes. Do you imagine that one day the Confederation just magically woke up and decided it would target I.A. for no apparent reason?
There is living proof in the General Assembly's voting flaws as to why this resolution is more relevant now than ever.
Really, that argument is pretty stupid, if you think about it (which, I'm sure my accusers haven't). It costs approximately $1.30 to send a telegram to all regional delegates. I must have sent, what, no more than 20 telegrams to that category in my playing of NationStates. So that brings the sum up to $26.00. You'd spend more on a nice lunch than I have over 3 years. But wait, there's more. A lot of the Confederation's telegram stamps are donated by its nations, and the load is spread evenly amongst our government. So, if that's the case, that cumulative $26.00 becomes $4.33 for each Supreme Council nation.
If anyone truly believes that $4.33 is "shitloads of money", I've no idea how you're affording your ISP to play NationStates.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:04 pm
by Lord Dominator
Uh huh. I was pretty sure Kaboom's point was that anything legal can get to quorum with the requisite $1.30 or so and that it thus doesn't indicate any measure of quality or support, but whatever.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:59 pm
