Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:53 pm
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:00 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I also don't think regions ought be considered metagaming.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:12 pm
Wayneactia wrote:You seem to have a very liberal interpretation of the rules. Perhaps instead of try to be cocky and see exactly what you can get away with, try following the rules as layed out instead? Trying to pass a two line blocker that is rife with metagaming and duplication issues isn't cute, and it isn't funny.
Edit: Further to that. Under your interpretation, I should be able to pass a resolution to force regions to uphold the terms of treaties and alliances then have made in good faith? That includes forcing regions to engage in game play, if they have a treaty that says they will.
Where exactly should the line be drawn?
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:18 pm
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:19 pm
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:31 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Define the fourth wall.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:56 pm
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:05 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yea, so I don't see any of that that can't be rationalised in an in-character manner.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:31 pm
Wayneactia wrote:I have far better things to do with my time, than bash my head off of an impervious brick wall thanks. You guys have it in your power to fix things yourselves. Whether you choose to do it or not is up to you.
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:41 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:
The rest of this discussion about Metagaming belongs in a Metagaming Rule discussion thread or in Technical, but not in a draft.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:47 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
The rest of this discussion about Metagaming belongs in a Metagaming Rule discussion thread or in Technical, but not in a draft.
Fine then. Is mentioning delegates in any way shape of form metagaming or not? It is relevant to the legality of this draft.
And I.A. I do apologize for jacking the thread here. It wasn't my intention to turn your drafting thread into a full blown conversation about metagaming.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:48 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Is mentioning delegates in any way shape of form metagaming or not? It is relevant to the legality of this draft.
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:55 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Wayneactia wrote:Is mentioning delegates in any way shape of form metagaming or not? It is relevant to the legality of this draft.
To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Aclion » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:01 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."
I can accept that. So why was it applied selectively then?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:58 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."
I can accept that. So why was it applied selectively then?
by WayNeacTia » Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:47 am
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Kenmoria » Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:53 am
Wayneactia wrote:
Sigh. Once again, can someone point out to me where the fucking word "bicameral" was used in that proposal? I noted Banana stated they marked it illegal at "Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:58 am", yet the OP was lasted edited at "Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:34 pm". Did it sit in he queue for 20 hours before it was dinged, or is it just supposition that "bicameral" was inferred? I have tried to check myself but The Wayback Machine doesn't have it archived.
If it was there and was edited out afterwards, that is fine and I am fully willing to drop any objections I have.
by WayNeacTia » Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:08 am
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Araraukar » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:07 am
Bananaistan wrote:"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by WayNeacTia » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:54 am
Araraukar wrote:Unless you accept what IA calls magical compliance and that member nations' laws do actually get changed upon the passing of resolutions, rather than the nation's own legislation needing to go through the process of changing them, which can take (many) years.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Araraukar » Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:04 am
Wayneactia wrote:It's not "magical compliance", it's the way the game works. The resolution passes, and if you are member nation, your stats change. Henceforth you are in compliance. Is it really that hard to comprehend this?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:31 am
Araraukar wrote:Wayneactia wrote:It's not "magical compliance", it's the way the game works. The resolution passes, and if you are member nation, your stats change. Henceforth you are in compliance. Is it really that hard to comprehend this?
OOC: That's what I keep saying!!!!!! But IA & co. argue that that's not how it works, and have created an IC method for a nation to be noncompliant via a resolution or two.
Which actually reminds me that if a nation is noncompliant, then the procedure would be legal there, even if banned by a WA resolution, and they wouldn't have to violate PRA, only this particular one (if it passed). Snip someone's balls off, and when compliance committee comes to complain at you, go "oh, so sorry, we'll obey it from now on". And rinse and repeat whenever the new committee doesn't make the decisions you want.
The whole "enforce" clause is also an empty threat, as there's no way for the WA to enforce anything, since the compliance committee resolution made noncompliance possible.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:00 am
by WayNeacTia » Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:19 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: That's what I keep saying!!!!!! But IA & co. argue that that's not how it works, and have created an IC method for a nation to be noncompliant via a resolution or two.
Which actually reminds me that if a nation is noncompliant, then the procedure would be legal there, even if banned by a WA resolution, and they wouldn't have to violate PRA, only this particular one (if it passed). Snip someone's balls off, and when compliance committee comes to complain at you, go "oh, so sorry, we'll obey it from now on". And rinse and repeat whenever the new committee doesn't make the decisions you want.
The whole "enforce" clause is also an empty threat, as there's no way for the WA to enforce anything, since the compliance committee resolution made noncompliance possible.
OOC: Magical enforcement is entirely unrealistic from an IC perspective. It literally doesn't exist anywhere irl, and it takes a great deal of challenge out of writing to ignore enforcement mechanisms.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:09 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
OOC: Magical enforcement is entirely unrealistic from an IC perspective. It literally doesn't exist anywhere irl, and it takes a great deal of challenge out of writing to ignore enforcement mechanisms.
Before the creation of the Compliance Commission,pretty much no resolution had any sort of enforcement mechanism and things weren't a problem. When did it start to become a problem?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement