NationStates

Twins of Hearts wrote:Against, A couper, especially of GCR's like Osiris, that thrives on NS drama should not receive a Commend.

Your opinion I suppose. I am sure your one whole vote will make all the difference though.

Jakker City wrote:The proposal has been updated in the OP. As the proposals become more developed, it becomes clear to see that Cormac has done a ton of commendable things and if you see the condemnations as a means to praise significant work that is IC condemnable, they do not cancel each other out. We have had a nation before (Sedge) hold a commendation and condemnation at the same time before.

Improvements, but there are plenty more that could be made. A number of things I picked up on:

- The first sentence is pretty clunky, I would focus on the actual point you are trying to make about Cormac, and then add the 'as evidenced by' any award they won on that basis (if you need to include those at all)
- Also, far too many references to personal characteristics in that clause (Rule 4) - more on this below
- Not sure about the use of the word 'paramount' in the Osiris section, another word would be better
- Pacificia still needs correcting to Pacifica on both occasions it has been used
- "governmental top leader"? Surely there are official titles for the roles he held in Pacifica?
- Reference to detagging - seems to be a Rule 4 issue, but I can't find a ruling on that?

Across the proposal it reads as a personal characteristic overload and needs to be more IC across the board so that the phrasing works correctly. Years of service, authoring constitutions, top leader (think 'leading nation'), refusing to step down, months of inactivity, 'the nominee’s efforts, across multiple nations', novice nations are all the wrong side of Rule 4. Most of those references could be easily corrected.

Oh nice to see someone’s finally doing both of these. Hope it works.

I agree with NuCa, and am a little disappointed that I gave you that advice and you didn’t take most of it without saying why.

Edit: nvm I see the changes. I’ll provide more suggestions later

Edit 2: Ransium said my reference to “endo-tarting” was illegal, so detagging probably is too. Also, it’s not a game-provided term and doesn’t refer to a real life nation

I'll take a look at it again later tonight. I think it would be ruled legal, but it sounds like there is desire to word it better.

Bormiar wrote:I agree with NuCa, and am a little disappointed that I gave you that advice and you didn’t take most of it without saying why.

Edit: nvm I see the changes. I’ll provide more suggestions later

Yes, I tried to incorporate as much as I could of what you said

Bormiar wrote:Edit 2: Ransium said my reference to “endo-tarting” was illegal, so detagging probably is too. Also, it’s not a game-provided term and doesn’t refer to a real life nation

I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.

Bears Armed wrote:

Bormiar wrote:Edit 2: Ransium said my reference to “endo-tarting” was illegal, so detagging probably is too. Also, it’s not a game-provided term and doesn’t refer to a real life nation

I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.

Yes, "tag" and "tagging" are legal terms. Likewise, "detag" and "detagging" are legal terms because it's the opposite and its a term within the game. Lily was condemned for tagging at least. But these are just my opinion, I'm not a mod.

Bears Armed wrote:

Bormiar wrote:Edit 2: Ransium said my reference to “endo-tarting” was illegal, so detagging probably is too. Also, it’s not a game-provided term and doesn’t refer to a real life nation

I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.

Kuriko wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.

Yes, "tag" and "tagging" are legal terms. Likewise, "detag" and "detagging" are legal terms because it's the opposite and its a term within the game. Lily was condemned for tagging at least. But these are just my opinion, I'm not a mod.

My concern is that “tags” refers to the in-game feature which somewhat makes sense as a “World Census descriptor” or whatever. “Tagging” or “detagging”, is a player-given term which doesn’t actually make inherent sense for a nation (for example, forums is legal only in certain contexts). However, it could be considered as an extension of the R/D game which is built-in to the IC NationStates world, but that would probably include “switcher” and “endo-tarting” then.

It’s an easy fix though: “removes foreign branding on invaded regions”.

Bormiar wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.

Kuriko wrote:Yes, "tag" and "tagging" are legal terms. Likewise, "detag" and "detagging" are legal terms because it's the opposite and its a term within the game. Lily was condemned for tagging at least. But these are just my opinion, I'm not a mod.

My concern is that “tags” refers to the in-game feature which somewhat makes sense as a “World Census descriptor” or whatever. “Tagging” or “detagging”, is a player-given term which doesn’t actually make inherent sense for a nation (for example, forums is legal only in certain contexts). However, it could be considered as an extension of the R/D game which is built-in to the IC NationStates world, but that would probably include “switcher” and “endo-tarting” then.

It’s an easy fix though: “removes foreign branding on invaded regions”.

When you have a nominee who's done so much over the years, and a character limit, you kind of want to go with the least amount of characters when describing something. "Tag", "tagging", "detag", and "detagging" are all legal terms within the R/D game that is the shortest possible way to describe it and calls them what they are.

Edit: Example of "detag" being used: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2

Kuriko wrote:Edit: Example of "detag" being used: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2

Guess it's fine then.

It's been legal in the past, but don't put it past the mods to rule it as a R4 violation now. I'd advise rephrasing just to avoid finding out, since it's always been a borderline case anyway.

I am for this! Cormactopia Prime's assistance in setting up region was most appreciated by us.

Yokiria wrote:It's been legal in the past, but don't put it past the mods to rule it as a R4 violation now. I'd advise rephrasing just to avoid finding out, since it's always been a borderline case anyway.

Pff, we don't just change our minds like that!

"Tag", "tagging", "detagging" etc. when referring to the raiding/defending practices are fine.

Sedgistan wrote:

Yokiria wrote:It's been legal in the past, but don't put it past the mods to rule it as a R4 violation now. I'd advise rephrasing just to avoid finding out, since it's always been a borderline case anyway.

Pff, we don't just change our minds like that!

"Tag", "tagging", "detagging" etc. when referring to the raiding/defending practices are fine.

Thanks sedge, any chance you could stick a link to that post here for the next time I forget this conversation - viewtopic.php?p=3755837#terms

Yep, done.

I've cleaned up the proposal a bit with feedback here and am looking to submit this within the next week. Free to share any last thoughts in the meantime. My hope is to have this up for vote first before the condemnation.

Jakker City wrote:I've cleaned up the proposal a bit with feedback here and am looking to submit this within the next week. Free to share any last thoughts in the meantime. My hope is to have this up for vote first before the condemnation.

I honestly wouldn't submit the Commend and Condemn so close together, as that's likely to confuse people voting on the resolutions. You should probably leave a week or two between submissions.

Kuriko wrote:

Jakker City wrote:I've cleaned up the proposal a bit with feedback here and am looking to submit this within the next week. Free to share any last thoughts in the meantime. My hope is to have this up for vote first before the condemnation.

I honestly wouldn't submit the Commend and Condemn so close together, as that's likely to confuse people voting on the resolutions. You should probably leave a week or two between submissions.

Yeah that's a fair point. I wanted to truly make a tag team, but I imagine it will be confusing for most.

Bormiar wrote:Commend because, no matter how the SC spins it, we are incapable of shaking the enormous impact Cormac has had on the regions they've joined. Cormac has unforgettably intertwined themselves in the history of at least one GCR. That said, characterologically I don't think this one should label Cormac as "compassionate" or a "kingmaker", rather the R4 equivalent of a dedicated, skilled player.

This is in-character. I've said this lightly, but I think I should repeat this before I go further into giving advice. The premise of this resolution, that Cormac has been compassionate and shown morals that always do the right thing (or consistently and prevalently enough for commendation; perfection is not required), breaks both of your proposals. It simply is not true because it cannot be true. Cormac is known for taking every side imaginable because they feel it benefits them in NationStates to do so (not that that's not an invalid play style), and have been on the "wrong" side in the WA's perspective in incalculable number of times. Everything ideological with Cormac (when speaking generally, like your first clause is/should be) should be condemned.

I am against before this change.

Bormiar wrote:Cormac is known for taking every side imaginable because they feel it benefits them in NationStates to do so (not that that's not an invalid play style), and have been on the "wrong" side in the WA's perspective in incalculable number of times. Everything ideological with Cormac (when speaking generally, like your first clause is/should be) should be condemned.

What are you basing these judgements of Cormac's character on?

I ask because the way you describe Cormac sounds like the reputation he's always had amongst those that never knew him.

Bormiar wrote:

Bormiar wrote:Commend because, no matter how the SC spins it, we are incapable of shaking the enormous impact Cormac has had on the regions they've joined. Cormac has unforgettably intertwined themselves in the history of at least one GCR. That said, characterologically I don't think this one should label Cormac as "compassionate" or a "kingmaker", rather the R4 equivalent of a dedicated, skilled player.

This is in-character. I've said this lightly, but I think I should repeat this before I go further into giving advice. The premise of this resolution, that Cormac has been compassionate and shown morals that always do the right thing (or consistently and prevalently enough for commendation; perfection is not required), breaks both of your proposals. It simply is not true because it cannot be true. Cormac is known for taking every side imaginable because they feel it benefits them in NationStates to do so (not that that's not an invalid play style), and have been on the "wrong" side in the WA's perspective in incalculable number of times. Everything ideological with Cormac (when speaking generally, like your first clause is/should be) should be condemned.

I am against before this change.

For one, I do not say that Cormac always does what is right nor do I imply any type of perfection. I'm not sure where you are getting that. Furthermore, everything listed in the proposal, in my mind, seems to clearly articulate actions that seek to support those in need. Therefore, language like compassion and advocating for what is right seems to fit. As to whether that language "breaks my other proposal," I don't really see that, but I edited some language in the beginning and end.

Jakker City wrote:

Bormiar wrote:This is in-character. I've said this lightly, but I think I should repeat this before I go further into giving advice. The premise of this resolution, that Cormac has been compassionate and shown morals that always do the right thing (or consistently and prevalently enough for commendation; perfection is not required), breaks both of your proposals. It simply is not true because it cannot be true. Cormac is known for taking every side imaginable because they feel it benefits them in NationStates to do so (not that that's not an invalid play style), and have been on the "wrong" side in the WA's perspective in incalculable number of times. Everything ideological with Cormac (when speaking generally, like your first clause is/should be) should be condemned.

I am against before this change.

For one, I do not say that Cormac always does what is right nor do I imply any type of perfection. I'm not sure where you are getting that.

Let me rephrase: I agreed that perfection is completely unnecessary and a ridiculous expectation to calm potential perspectives that I may be suggesting that perfection is necessary. I was merely maintaining that making generalizations about Cormacs proclivity to virtue and kindness is ridiculous if you simultaneous claim that they’re condemnable for some of their beliefs and actions.

Jakker City wrote:Furthermore, everything listed in the proposal, in my mind, seems to clearly articulate actions that seek to support those in need. Therefore, language like compassion and advocating for what is right seems to fit. As to whether that language "breaks my other proposal," I don't really see that, but I edited some language in the beginning and end.

You don’t have to get upset, because frankly, this is an easy fix. How it’s currently arguing in my eyes (that Cormac is generous and likes to help people in need; and implying helping them out of kindness rather than just as an additional plus to their other motives), whether or not your proposal supports it (and it somewhat does as a background clause in the clause about commending Gay and the campaign) is irrelevant because it will never fit the mountain of evidence against such a claim (including in the condemnation. This is were it “breaks”).

This really is an easy fix. Just say they’ve shown tenacity and determination and strong region-building skills. You don’t even lose the same rhetorical writing you have now, and it fits the draft much better. Benign motivation (“is one a crusader, or ruthless invader? It’s all in which label is able to persist” from Wicked comes to mind) is extremely hard to prove and isn’t proved in this proposal, but what is proved well is skill and resolve in region-building and such.

Trust me, I am not upset I think I get what you are trying to say and have edited it again to focus more on the authorship component.

Jakker City wrote:Trust me, I am not upset I think I get what you are trying to say and have edited it again to focus more on the authorship component.

Awesome. I like that a lot better.

I plan on submitting this in the next day or so. Feel free to share any last thoughts!