Lol
Advertisement
by The Dominion of Mankind » Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:57 am
by Pchelionia » Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:26 am
by Bhang Bhang Duc » Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:07 pm
Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.
RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.
Sedgistan wrote:The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy…..
by Refuge Isle » Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:16 pm
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Never really liked this proposal - always seemed to be an excuse to shoehorn as many possible items of low commend value into a proposal in order to compensate for not being able to find away around the old Rule 1 (new R3a).
by Daarwyrth » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:03 pm
by Neymarland » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:11 am
by Pchelionia » Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:14 am
by France and colonys » Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:18 pm
Sedgistan wrote:There's really two questions here:
1) Can you recognise N-G for developing the official Dark Theme?
and if not,
2) Can you recognise N-G for developing the original unofficial Dark Theme?
Question 1 is a simple no. N-G's work on the official Dark Theme is effectively that of a NationStates staff member. He might not have the badge / title / fancy colour of other staff members, but that's because there's no practical point in us setting up a role "Dark Theme Admin" given his work involves 1 thread and very occasional sending of updates to admin. His role is not something that's open to any player to do - it's a task solely and officially assigned to him.
Question 2 I appreciate is trickier as there's a different situation with Issues Editors (i.e. issues authored and added to the game before they join are okay to mention). I was at one point going to suggest Makdon draft a clause that only mentioned the original 2 months of the original Dark Theme add-on, to see what it would be like -- but decided against. The reality is that the unofficial Dark Theme add-on became the official NationStates Dark Theme. The development work done on the former was the development work for the latter. To Commend for creating the Dark Theme add-on is to Commend for creating the NationStates Dark Theme - they're inseparable. The IE ruling is different; issues authored and added to the game before a player joined the IE team are distinct from their later editing/authoring.
Sedgistan wrote:It's not - it's evidently about the dark theme. There's a difference between an occasional "dark" pun in clauses referring to other contributions and having an entire clause that is about dark themes.
Denethoria wrote:Northrop-Grumman has abused, in continuous and consistent fashion, their own citizens. For them to receive my vote, they will have to drastically increase their basic decency in a manner that I would consider to be just common sense.
Pchelionia wrote:Northrop-Grumman is a country of suffering, since people can be executed and corporally punished by the state. No such nation should ever be commended.
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Never really liked this proposal - always seemed to be an excuse to shoehorn as many possible items of low commend value into a proposal in order to compensate for not being able to find away around the old Rule 1 (new R3a).
Against and recommended an “Against” vote to my Delegate.
by Refuge Isle » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:00 pm
by Tinhampton » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:03 pm
by HumanSanity » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:46 pm
Tinhampton wrote:HumanSanity voteflopping twice
Sandaoguo wrote:HS is worth 100 times more than the insubstantial (to borderline non-existent) benefits the TNP-TSP “alliance” has created over the last several years.
by Makdon » Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:33 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement