NationStates

Cormactopia Prime wrote:I'm just annoyed COE didn't get the commendation he deserves.

Then I would suggest you revisit page one and see there was/is a theoretical proposal covering the things that we can probably all agree are uncontroversially and unsubjectively worthy of commendation

Numero Capitan wrote:

Cormactopia Prime wrote:I'm just annoyed COE didn't get the commendation he deserves.

Then I would suggest you revisit page one and see there was/is a theoretical proposal covering the things that we can probably all agree are uncontroversially and unsubjectively worthy of commendation

And I would suggest you revisit my comments about what a disservice it would be to COE to omit commendable things he's done to appease you.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:And I would suggest you revisit my comments about what a disservice it would be to COE to omit commendable things he's done to appease you.

You're going to let this die for recognition of COE creating a pretty basic rank system and making sure their region doesn't break site rules? Give me a break, those aren't notable achievements.

Numero Capitan wrote:

Cormactopia Prime wrote:And I would suggest you revisit my comments about what a disservice it would be to COE to omit commendable things he's done to appease you.

You're going to let this die for recognition of COE creating a pretty basic rank system and making sure their region doesn't break site rules? Give me a break, those aren't notable achievements.

The former is specifically noted as having inspired other regions to do the same, the latter refers to making sure that all members and allies aren't breaking rules rather than just TBH (see our Script Rules).

Numero Capitan wrote:You're going to let this die for recognition of COE creating a pretty basic rank system and making sure their region doesn't break site rules? Give me a break, those aren't notable achievements.

They're not notable achievements to you, because you don't think anything regarding raiding is a notable achievement. They are, however, notable achievements to COE, and I'd like to see him get the commendation he deserves rather than the commendation you want.

Turning COE's commendation into a watered down list of only a few contributions, and a political victory for his opponents, would be a slap in the face.

Lord Dominator wrote:The former is specifically noted as having inspired other regions to do the same, the latter refers to making sure that all members and allies aren't breaking rules rather than just TBH (see our Script Rules).

Militaries have ranks and chains of commands, that isn't something COE invented or inspired.

Avoiding rule-breaking is obviously a good thing, commendable it is not. COE equally presided over a whole culture where rule-breaking amongst raiders was enabled on a wide scale, and accepted their own failings not to have done more at the time. We don't need to go over that again.

I'd like to see him get the commendation he deserves rather than the commendation you want.

Right back at you, except the one I want to see might actually pass

Numero Capitan wrote:

I'd like to see him get the commendation he deserves rather than the commendation you want.

Right back at you, except the one I want to see might actually pass

What would be the point in passing a commendation that omits huge chunks of his history in this game? He was playing NationStates and doing commendable things before he joined TNP, and his commendation shouldn't have to be limited only to what he's done in TNP in order to appease defenders. There's honestly no need for that; you folks will fall back asleep at the wheel eventually and let your endorsement counts and ability to coordinate with each other slide, or TWP will end up with a sensible Delegate again, and then the commendation he actually deserves can be passed.

In the meantime, passing your pro-defender, back-patting fluff commendations should get a lot more difficult for you from this point forward.

Numero Capitan wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:The former is specifically noted as having inspired other regions to do the same, the latter refers to making sure that all members and allies aren't breaking rules rather than just TBH (see our Script Rules).

Militaries have ranks and chains of commands, that isn't something COE invented or inspired.

Avoiding rule-breaking is obviously a good thing, commendable it is not. COE equally presided over a whole culture where rule-breaking amongst raiders was enabled on a wide scale, and accepted their own failings not to have done more at the time.

Last I checked, COE only ever presided over TBH, which did not have the same culture of rule-breaking.

Cormactopia assumes everyone is a raider or defender. I speak as somebody who wants the entire option of raiding removed from acceptance. All you do with raiding is wreck somebody’s work. It needs to stop. It’s a foolish waste of time at best and vandalism at worst. I am not a defender. All defenders do anyway is try to jump in and kick out people who basically spammed a region. He did good things before? Great for him. Then he chose to spend time helping others ruin the work of people who had no desire to participate in this waste of time “gameside” mechanic.

You say one day defenders will slip. One day moderators will realize how ridiculous raiding is and ban it outright.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:What would be the point in passing a commendation that omits huge chunks of his history in this game? He was playing NationStates and doing commendable things before he joined TNP, and his commendation shouldn't have to be limited only to what he's done in TNP in order to appease defenders. There's honestly no need for that; you folks will fall back asleep at the wheel eventually and let your endorsement counts and ability to coordinate with each other slide, or TWP will end up with a sensible Delegate again, and then the commendation he actually deserves can be passed.

In the meantime, passing your pro-defender, back-patting fluff commendations should get a lot more difficult for you from this point forward.

You folks? All I've done is offer polite suggestions for what proposal might get majority support. This may come as a surprise to you, but if you think you need to sneak it through when people aren't paying attention, it probably isn't a strong proposal.

If you'd like, I can make sure your commendation proposal includes the entire contents of your condemnation proposal just to make sure your point of principle is upheld?

Numero Capitan wrote:

Cormactopia Prime wrote:What would be the point in passing a commendation that omits huge chunks of his history in this game? He was playing NationStates and doing commendable things before he joined TNP, and his commendation shouldn't have to be limited only to what he's done in TNP in order to appease defenders. There's honestly no need for that; you folks will fall back asleep at the wheel eventually and let your endorsement counts and ability to coordinate with each other slide, or TWP will end up with a sensible Delegate again, and then the commendation he actually deserves can be passed.

In the meantime, passing your pro-defender, back-patting fluff commendations should get a lot more difficult for you from this point forward.

You folks? All I've done is offer polite suggestions for what proposal might get majority support. This may come as a surprise to you, but if you think you need to sneak it through when people aren't paying attention, it probably isn't a strong proposal.

If you'd like, I can make sure your commendation proposal includes the entire contents of your condemnation proposal just to make sure your point of principle is upheld?

If you consider some of your posts in this thread to be "polite," we must have really different standards for that. In regard to "sneaking it through when people aren't paying attention" -- not all people, just defenders. And given you're asleep at the wheel more often than not, it probably won't be a long wait.

Finally, regarding your last point, I think a separate proposal to condemn COE would be fine. But you know what doesn't belong in that proposal? Actual positive contributions he's made to the game, just because they happened to be made in a raider region. Those contributions belong in a commendation, because they are commendable. And they aren't any less commendable just because you and your ilk are moralistic extremists who think nothing associated with raiders or raider regions can ever be positive or commendable. We should totally reject that way of thinking about things.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:because you and your ilk are moralistic extremists who think nothing associated with raiders or raider regions can ever be positive or commendable. We should totally reject that way of thinking about things.

It's been very funny to me seeing how obsessed you are with the idea that I must be making suggestions for revisions because I am hellbent on a moralistic opposition to commending a member of TBH. COE doesn't share the same conviction.

You're the one trying to back-pat someone just for defending, not me.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Numero Capitan wrote:
You're going to let this die for recognition of COE creating a pretty basic rank system and making sure their region doesn't break site rules? Give me a break, those aren't notable achievements.

The former is specifically noted as having inspired other regions to do the same, the latter refers to making sure that all members and allies aren't breaking rules rather than just TBH (see our Script Rules).

Information like this would have been very much appreciated in elaboration to the clauses, however when asked, it was never given (not your fault but pointing out that there are some of us who wanted more information and did not receive it).

Praeceps wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:The former is specifically noted as having inspired other regions to do the same, the latter refers to making sure that all members and allies aren't breaking rules rather than just TBH (see our Script Rules).

Information like this would have been very much appreciated in elaboration to the clauses, however when asked, it was never given (not your fault but pointing out that there are some of us who wanted more information and did not receive it).

The former at least is directly in the clause, but the latter lacking clarification in-thread (or perhaps in-proposal, may need to think on that) is indeed not great

Numero Capitan wrote:Well I did warn you from the start but COE only has the author to blame for this failing to pass, I’d like to see a TNP only commend for General COE come forward.

And Mikeswill suddenly changing their Security Council voting as soon as a raider-related Commend reaches the floor is laughable, as if COE is any more notable than the existing Commendees. Stop feigning neutrality, everyone knows your allegiances.

Side note: people need to take on board comments made here, rather than just getting aggressive when they can’t bully a proposal commending their friend through the Security Council.

Gorundu wrote:I can't even count how many times I see hate against raiders from those who have no ideas what raiders even do.

Honestly, the bigger problem is that raiders generally have no idea what they do. We see the impact of occupations on native communities and the number of players who give up on the game because of them. And that 100% includes the occupations that the NPA takes part in where natives aren’t even getting ejected.

You have to commend the main nation, not the puppet.

I am honored by the praise I've received from some in this thread, especially from those who perceive my efforts to strengthen decorum and professionalism in the raiding world. Now that the voting is over, and most of the discussion has died down, I wanted to respond to a few narratives I saw in this thread that I had particularly strong reactions to.

As some have correctly assumed, I have no interest at all in a commendation that ignores the first 8 years of my NationStates life, to focus solely on the last 7. It implies that for the first half of my long NS career, I was wayward and misguided among the raiders, but now I've been redeemed through my long service to TNP. To separate my contributions to TNP from my contributions to TBH is a misinterpretation of everything I've done in this game. They are largely the same contributions, to include: a sincere effort to professionalize and organize their institutions, seek to identify bright and energetic new players, and provide incentives and guidance to those players to take on leadership roles. To me, these are things to be proud of regardless of where they are done. I cannot overstate how skewed an interpretation of my personal history it would be to propose a commendation that omits all of my service to TBH.

Also, the rank and promotion system that I created for The Black Hawks is not a throwaway clause, in my view. In fact, it is one of the things that I am proudest of over all my 16 years of play. I was among the first to think critically about the purpose and design of ranks and promotions. Before my system was introduced, typically a region either had no ranks at all, or they copied and pasted an entire wikipedia page worth of RL military insignia, with 20 or more ranks. Because little thought went into such a system, you couldn't really rely on a nation's rank to tell you anything meaningful. Thus, the ranks were just window dressing - the actual leadership structure and operational procedures were divorced entirely from rank.

I changed all of that. I redesigned the TBH rank system to revolve around three purposes. First and most important was the retention of active members - give someone a meaningful promotion and they feel proud of what they've accomplished and want to do more. This is why when you complete your very first successful operation, you are immediately promoted to the second rank. Second, recognition of skilled members - promotions send a message to everyone else that these are people who are doing it right. It signals that these are folks to be emulated, which can gradually increase the professionalism of your entire force. Third, to create meaningful standards by which we can decide how much power and trust to give someone. Under my system, you gain the privilege of leading your own operations at the fourth rank (or third, in some regions). You become an officer at the fifth rank, and eligible to be offered a seat on the leadership council. In TBH, you become a global moderator at the seventh rank, and forum admin at the 8th rank. The 9th and highest rank is reserved for the root admin. In other regions, you join the "high command" at the eighth rank. Standards vary between regions, but the bottom line is that I've created something that is useful to military leaders to make personnel decisions. It is the exact opposite of empty and meaningless, as some here have characterized it.

Lastly, obviously no one gets a cookie for following the rules of the game, but that is not what my work following the predator scandal was about. There is a long history of raiders getting in trouble with the rules - sometimes intentionally, but sometimes because the science of raiding is constantly changing, and new tactics come into play that the rules are not clear on. Plenty of things that raiders (and defenders) have invented have been legal until they aren't (magic endos, regional happenings spam, etc). This history had engendered a bunker mentality in some parts of the raider community that the rules are a weapon to be wielded against them by defenders. So when raiders are accused of rule breaking (or even caught!!), there's an urge among some to close ranks and stand by one another. It's tough to pierce that mentality, even when people know that they're in the wrong. When Predator went down, a lot of people got in trouble who had no idea that they'd broken the rules. So naturally, in the bunker, everyone thought that was a good excuse and rushed to say they had done nothing wrong. I worked hard after Predator to get the community at large to 1) Admit that everyone involved in predator had done something wrong, by associating with DOS players or using their software without knowing for sure it was legal; 2) Acknowledge that even those who never used Predator could have done more to prevent the large scale rule-breaking by their friends and region-mates; 3) Accept that punishments were deserved; and 4) Commit to doing better in the future, by insisting that scripts be checked for legality and open source whenever possible. I don't consider this work an unmitigated success, but I do think I was a positive influence on the rhetoric in the aftermath of predator, and gave voice to the better angels in the consciences of the raider world. I hope that I've contributed in some way to a future where rule-breaking on the scale of predator will never happen again. I hope I've helped pierce the bunker mentality, and promoted the idea that friends need to hold each other accountable.

On a side note, the player that created and promoted the use of Predator used to be heavily involved in The Black Hawks. In fact, he was the original founder (from 2005-2006 or so). Numero, you said that during my active years in TBH, we were not widely respected, and referred to that DOS player as someone who "drove change and made them [TBH] more sophisticated" but this is false. He was a bad apple, and held us back more than anything else. He was forced out of leadership there through a group effort that included me. Those who were a part of that effort are the reason that TBH isn't the region with a "Do Not Refound" order.

Crushing Our Enemies wrote:As some have correctly assumed, I have no interest at all in a commendation that ignores the first 8 years of my NationStates life, to focus solely on the last 7.

Would you be interested in a condemnation that had your first 8 years? Fact is, the raiding stuff isn't commendable. Most major delegates voted for but the individuals overpowered the delegates to prevent this passing, and similar resolutions trying the same thing are likely to have more, not less major delegates voting against. This leaves you with A) no resolution, B) a commendation of only your recent ns activities, or C) a condemnation that encompasses all.

Flanderlion wrote:

Crushing Our Enemies wrote:As some have correctly assumed, I have no interest at all in a commendation that ignores the first 8 years of my NationStates life, to focus solely on the last 7.

Would you be interested in a condemnation that had your first 8 years? Fact is, the raiding stuff isn't commendable. Most major delegates voted for but the individuals overpowered the delegates to prevent this passing, and similar resolutions trying the same thing are likely to have more, not less major delegates voting against. This leaves you with A) no resolution, B) a commendation of only your recent ns activities, or C) a condemnation that encompasses all.

Commendable actions such as the ones COE just described in detail don't belong in condemnations. They belong in commendations regardless of where they took place. There's no reason for him or anyone else to settle for the false choices being offered here; if you think a commendation like this one can never be passed, it's simply because you don't have a long view of NationStates history. It absolutely can be passed, when the time is right, and everyone should just wait for that instead of proposing a half-assed commendation or putting commendable actions in a condemnation to "compromise" with defenders.

Personally, I'll be against either a half-assed commendation or a condemnation that includes commendable actions. Full stop. COE deserves better, and for that matter this game and the Security Council as an institution deserve better than to have what is commendable and what isn't decided by the intellectually lazy, black and white worldview of 10000 Islands. There's absolutely no reason we should just surrender and let this extremist view of the game win because you and others say it can't be beaten. It has been beaten before, it will be beaten again. It's only a matter of time and effort.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:

Flanderlion wrote:Would you be interested in a condemnation that had your first 8 years? Fact is, the raiding stuff isn't commendable. Most major delegates voted for but the individuals overpowered the delegates to prevent this passing, and similar resolutions trying the same thing are likely to have more, not less major delegates voting against. This leaves you with A) no resolution, B) a commendation of only your recent ns activities, or C) a condemnation that encompasses all.

Commendable actions such as the ones COE just described in detail don't belong in condemnations. They belong in commendations regardless of where they took place. There's no reason for him or anyone else to settle for the false choices being offered here; if you think a commendation like this one can never be passed, it's simply because you don't have a long view of NationStates history. It absolutely can be passed, when the time is right, and everyone should just wait for that instead of proposing a half-assed commendation or putting commendable actions in a condemnation to "compromise" with defenders.

Personally, I'll be against either a half-assed commendation or a condemnation that includes commendable actions. Full stop. COE deserves better, and for that matter this game and the Security Council as an institution deserve better than to have what is commendable and what isn't decided by the intellectually lazy, black and white worldview of 10000 Islands. There's absolutely no reason we should just surrender and let this extremist view of the game win because you and others say it can't be beaten. It has been beaten before, it will be beaten again. It's only a matter of time and effort.

I agree.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:COE deserves better, and for that matter this game and the Security Council as an institution deserve better than to have what is commendable and what isn't decided by the intellectually lazy, black and white worldview of 10000 Islands. There's absolutely no reason we should just surrender and let this extremist view of the game win because you and others say it can't be beaten. It has been beaten before, it will be beaten again. It's only a matter of time and effort.

As much as you might think your view is more special than the thousands who voted against this proposal, when it comes to a vote it isn’t.

Your reaction to a handful of 10000 Islanders actively contributing towards the Security Council seems to be ranting about them at every opportunity. You need to come to terms with the fact that these forums will always be full of people who disagree with you and throwing your toys out of the pram over it every time they do isn’t very becoming.

Coming out of retirement just so you can have more votes behind your inflated opinion of your opinion won’t change that.

Flanderlion wrote:

Crushing Our Enemies wrote:As some have correctly assumed, I have no interest at all in a commendation that ignores the first 8 years of my NationStates life, to focus solely on the last 7.

Would you be interested in a condemnation that had your first 8 years? Fact is, the raiding stuff isn't commendable. Most major delegates voted for but the individuals overpowered the delegates to prevent this passing, and similar resolutions trying the same thing are likely to have more, not less major delegates voting against. This leaves you with A) no resolution, B) a commendation of only your recent ns activities, or C) a condemnation that encompasses all.

That's not a question that's mine alone to answer. Whether the WA chooses to pass a resolution about me, or what kind, is their concern. I simply wished to contradict in the strongest possible terms that I have been ill-served by the author of this proposal, and that everything would be fine as long as my character and accomplishments are filtered through a sieve that eliminates any and all things objectionable to defenders. I am who I am - commend me or don't. But if you do, don't pretend I am someone else. In January 2013, I was elected speaker of The North Pacific's regional assembly within a month of joining their forum because I had built up credibility and goodwill around the world while a member of The Black Hawks. It's asinine to think that nothing good can come out of someone while they are a raider.

I say this not to try to convince people to vote for a re-proposal of this - people have spoken. I'm simply objecting to the insulting idea that if I am to be commended, an arbitrary line should be drawn through my personal history, and everything to one side of that line should be hidden away.

The thing with trying to pass this in a quiet moment for your opponents is that the resolution remains highly vulnerable to repeal when they're in an active phase. It serves the target much better if you can pass something that has more widespread support (or at least not such vehement opposition).

Why not have a go at writing something that acknowledges both viewpoints? COE's a well-respected figure from both sides, and I reckon something could be written that'd get the approval of the reasonable majorities from both without significant compromises.

Crushing Our Enemies

It is very fair what you said. Just understand this fact. It wasn't just defenders who voted it down. Voters like me were not defenders. Many do not like the fact that people on this site wreck others' regions for sport. This is not political or some partisan thing where people just want their way. People do not like the mechanic. That was the result's backdrop. Many people here paint this as if defenders are just playing the game and trying to stop some mortal enemy from the past. In actuality, the majority of voters just voiced their viewpoint that regional vandalism is not acceptable. You say award the commendation or don't. That's what happened.

So maybe it is time to just accept this and move on. I have no idea what raids you've done or who you led or when you left. I do know that raiding is vandalism. That is not from a defender, but someone who actually uses regions and forums for what they were made for. Whether that's RP, worldbuilding or simple socialization. I'm sick of seeing people worried anytime a founder goes inactive. Why should they have to wonder whether people will come in with higher numbers and mess everything up? Why is that accepted or legal? Why do site moderators encourage vandalism? How many people have quit the game or abandoned regions because of raider organizations? Those are bigger concerns than whether or not some raider gets a profile badge.

Vote for one raider, soon more will get commended. It just legitimizes the entire thing even more.

Sedgistan wrote:The thing with trying to pass this in a quiet moment for your opponents is that the resolution remains highly vulnerable to repeal when they're in an active phase. It serves the target much better if you can pass something that has more widespread support (or at least not such vehement opposition).

Why not have a go at writing something that acknowledges both viewpoints? COE's a well-respected figure from both sides, and I reckon something could be written that'd get the approval of the reasonable majorities from both without significant compromises.

While both myself and other opponents of the resolution as written mentioned potential compromises (including Kuriko), unfortunately we were ignored. I would be willing to always discuss a compromise should Jakker be willing to revisit this resolution.

---

It's rather confusing that individuals are continuing to characterize certain actions of the former nominee as commendable for the SC despite it being quite clear that the SC just disagreed that those actions are worthy of commendation.

Now, if you're excuse me, I'll get back to reading the monthly defender propaganda sent to me by XKI.

Praeceps wrote:While both myself and other opponents of the resolution as written mentioned potential compromises (including Kuriko), unfortunately we were ignored. I would be willing to always discuss a compromise should Jakker be willing to revisit this resolution.

Your "compromise" was to omit everything he did before he was in TNP. That's absurd, and isn't a compromise. It's a surrender.

In regard to the constant drumbeat of "the Security Council has spoken," are we actually going to pretend the Security Council ever speaks with finality on anything? We just recently passed Commend Benevolent Thomas, which the Security Council resoundingly rejected on two prior occasions. It passed because circumstances were different this time than they were during the previous two attempts. Let's not pretend this proposal failing once means it or another like it will always fail, and always be subject to repeal if it passes. That's just not how the Security Council works or has ever worked.