Attention.. ALL MODS!

[Omygodtheykilledkenny]

In the WA, you said we couldn't condemn people because of ideology; yet you won't remove "Condemn NAZI EUROPE". Why is this?

Also, I demand that if you want to make sure the rules are followed, remove the resolution please.

This is a public service announcement. Thank you.

[Anemos Major]

It's because they performed invasions.

[Omygodtheykilledkenny]

It's because they performed invasions.

No, they didn't. Read the condemnation closely, and you will see it was because of ideology and not invasions.

[Anemos Major]

Fair enough. But that was the choice of the community at large, and if it passed with a margin that large, they must have a point.

Besides, I voted for this.

[Kryozerkia]

I believe the answer is right here:

Ideology:
Proposals that simply condemn/commend nations/regions because of their (Communist, Nazi, Christian, Atheist, homophobic, homophilic, sexist, racist, whatever) views will be deleted.

To write a successful ideology C&C, you must show (a) what the nation’s ideology is, in NS terms –- ie, prove that they hold it; (b) what actions they took in NationStates under the influence of that ideology that are to be condemned or commended.

Taken from Why Did My C&C Get Chucked Out of the Queue?. (Thanks Ard! I love being able to look up the rules and quote 'em).

A quick review of the resolution to Condamn NAZI EUROPE suggests both part (a) and (b) were satisfied. At least to the community's most basic standards.

(a) is covered with "RECOGNIZING the Nazi ideology as one of hate", and (b) with "ASSERTING that any region condoning and encouraging such beliefs is a danger to a large range of minorities and cultures," and "messages of hate or intolerance" or so my understanding of this is. The rest appears to fit within. Granted, it is written in general terms, but as it stands, appears to be within the rules. An action does not have to be physical, i.e.: war, invading; it could be through other means.

A second mod's opinion on this would be good. Especially if I missed anything.

[Scarsaw]

I believe the answer is right here:

Ideology:
Proposals that simply condemn/commend nations/regions because of their (Communist, Nazi, Christian, Atheist, homophobic, homophilic, sexist, racist, whatever) views will be deleted.

To write a successful ideology C&C, you must show (a) what the nation’s ideology is, in NS terms –- ie, prove that they hold it; (b) what actions they took in NationStates under the influence of that ideology that are to be condemned or commended.

Taken from Why Did My C&C Get Chucked Out of the Queue?. (Thanks Ard! I love being able to look up the rules and quote 'em).

A quick review of the resolution to Condamn NAZI EUROPE suggests both part (a) and (b) were satisfied. At least to the community's most basic standards.

(a) is covered with "RECOGNIZING the Nazi ideology as one of hate", and (b) with "ASSERTING that any region condoning and encouraging such beliefs is a danger to a large range of minorities and cultures," and "messages of hate or intolerance" or so my understanding of this is. The rest appears to fit within. Granted, it is written in general terms, but as it stands, appears to be within the rules. An action does not have to be physical, i.e.: war, invading; it could be through other means.

A second mod's opinion on this would be good. Especially if I missed anything.

Sorry to but in, but I wanted to add that point a is not entirely correct nor does it show what the ideology is in NS terms. There are some nations that are nazi yet replace RL minority groups with creatures such as zombies and humans (in a nation that was entirely made up of bears), so in NS terms the ideology is not one strictly promoting discrimination of other minority groups. Also, saying that the entire ideology is of hate and not describing how it is promoting hate poorly written. It's like me saying that capitalism is an ideology of greed, and leaving it at that.

Also point b does not say how NE is a danger to a large of minorities and cultures. If they added or included 'are a danger by invading other regions and forcing them to convert to nazism' would be something substantial in their favour. Yet they didn't. They stated simply that the region is a threat to all because they are a message of hate. Going back to the fact that there are nazi-like nations that hold zombies in their camps, they are not a danger of the cultures of the world and are in fact SAVING the cultures of the world from zombie threats.

So, in my opinion, we should not be forcing the square peg into the round hole and saying it's in the rules. The recognition is off and not based in NS. In NS nazism has been altered for several nations in that region to include a less racist version as there are quite a few members of NS who like the ideology and militarism of nazism yet disagree with the racist grounds. The condemnation should not be legal and a better one, one that better addresses and explains the how instead of making generalizations of a RL ideology, should be made if you REALLY want the region condemned.

[Georgetpwn]

If the mods say it's ok, then it's ok.

*can't we drop this shitstorm already?*

[The Grand World Order]

It's not like getting condemned by the WA does anything, anyways. I actually would most likely enjoy getting condemned.

[Weylara]

It's not like getting condemned by the WA does anything, anyways. I actually would most likely enjoy getting condemned.

Yes, as it has no real effects on gameplay. The only disadvantage of being condemned that I can think of is that newer players will see the symbol and think "not to be trusted". And vice versa for being commended.

[Ardchoille]

Omygodtheykilledkenny, do not use this puppet when commenting on or querying WA matters or when submitting proposals or replying to WA threads.

Using it in those circumstances creates confusion with Omigodtheykilledkenny, a long-time player who has been actively involved with the WA since 2005 and has considerable experience and knowledge of the organisation, plus several successful resolutions, on which to base his comments.

I am aware that the similarity of your names has been discussed elsewhere and you have been allowed to continue using it with a flag different from OmIgodtheykilledkenny's and not bearing the cartoon character's image.

However, in the WA the likelihood of confusion is too great and potentially too damaging to the original player. In such cases, preference is traditionally given to the nation which had the name first. I realise you cannot comply with this on the repeal currently under discussion, as that has been submitted in the Omy(etc) name, but please take note in future WA-related posts.

On the Condemn Nazi Europe question, when the original resolution passed I raised the possibility of admins removing it. The reply was that they preferred to wait for the decision of the SC. That body voted against repealing the resolution; therefore it stands, unless a later repeal succeeds.

[Scarsaw]

It's not like getting condemned by the WA does anything, anyways. I actually would most likely enjoy getting condemned.

It wouldn't be a problem except it promotes spammers, trolls and invasion on the region, who think it's okay to attack our RMB because we are 'condemned and deserve it.' The other day a spammer was taunting us that we were condemned and that they 'cast the winning vote.' So, although it doesn't officially do anything to the region, it has caused an increase of behaviours we rather not have.

[Ballotonia]

On the Condemn Nazi Europe question, when the original resolution passed I raised the possibility of admins removing it. The reply was that they preferred to wait for the decision of the SC. That body voted against repealing the resolution; therefore it stands, unless a later repeal succeeds.

I'd interpret "wait for the decision" to mean that after the decision is made by the WA, the mods look into it again with the knowledge of that decision. Not automatically do nothing, because then the response should've been something like "we'll leave it in the WA's hands regardless of what its decision will be."

Ballotonia

[Anemos Major]

I actually would most likely enjoy getting condemned.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are... no offense intended, of course.

[Ardchoille]

I'd interpret "wait for the decision" to mean that after the decision is made by the WA, the mods look into it again with the knowledge of that decision. Not automatically do nothing, because then the response should've been something like "we'll leave it in the WA's hands regardless of what its decision will be."

Ballotonia

Well, since there's another repeal coming up, it becomes moot once again. But the message I'm now getting very clearly from Max and the admins leans more to the "regardless" end than to "mods look into it again" end.

As I currently understand it, mods should not try to prevent the SC from being corrupt, free and easy or plain motherless dumb, if that's delegates' choice. If the SC would prefer to be a model of integrity, uncorruptible and unbiased in all its carefully worded decisions, that, too, is their choice. The way it expresses those choices is through the type of proposal its delegates approve for voting and the way they vote when it's on the floor.

What that means, in practice, is that if you don't want a certain proposal to reach quorum for any reason, including bad spelling, C&Cing solely on ideology, C&Cing a raider just because they're a raider, etc, then you'd better get out there and actively campaign against it, whether it involves you directly or not and whether you approve of the nation being C&Cd or not. Twist arms, call in allies, politick to an extent that would make the crassest machine politicians blush. Because if it makes quorum, the delegates have said they want it to be discussed, and if they vote for it that way, that's the way they want proposals to be.

[Euroslavia]

It violates a fucking law. It needs deletion.

Your attitude sure isn't helping your case. Personally, if anyone didn't treat me with some sort of respect when it comes to a question or query, I'd feel less inclined to respond to them and help them out (We're all human, right?). Of course, I still end up doing my job whether that happens or not, but thankfully, I don't really deal with the World Assembly. If you want respect, you need to respect those with whom you're searching for when it comes to your situation, rather than dictating what absolutely should be done, with no exceptions. Demanding isn't the best way to approach this.

[Ardchoille]

I have just deleted a post that was made under the puppet name that I have asked not be used on WA matters. I have left the text in Euro's reply but removed the puppet name.

I can only hope the poster gets the message:

For WA matters, you must use another puppet.

In accordance with an earlier ruling, you may continue to use the cultural-icon name when not discussing WA matters.

[Fasdia]

and (b) with "ASSERTING that any region condoning and encouraging such beliefs is a danger to a large range of minorities and cultures," and "messages of hate or intolerance" or so my understanding of this is. The rest appears to fit within. Granted, it is written in general terms, but as it stands, appears to be within the rules. An action does not have to be physical, i.e.: war, invading; it could be through other means.

A second mod's opinion on this would be good. Especially if I missed anything.

I'm confused. They pose a danger by spreading messages of hate and intolerance? But that's their belief, and I believe they have a right to spread it. So doesn't that completely contradict the rule of not condemning people because of their beliefs?

If they directly performed, sponsored, or supported an actual harmful action, such as an invasion, then they would certainly be worthy of condemnation. But as of now, as far as I can tell, Nazi Europe hasn't caused any actual harm and is protected from condemnation because of their beliefs, as vicious as they may be.

[Ardchoille]

They're not protected from condemnation because of their beliefs because the SC has voted once to condemn them because of their beliefs, and has also voted not to overturn this decision.

The rules for SC proposals are still developing -- indeed, I rewrote the C&C sticky last night to better reflect the importance of the delegates' votes, both in getting proposals to quorum and in voting on them. The admins are most reluctant to overturn SC decisions.

If you, personally, believe nations should not be condemned solely because of their beliefs, then you should go to the SC and vote, or get your delegate to vote, on the second attempt to repeal Condemn Nazi Europe.

That's also the place to debate the topic. Moderation is for mod responses to players' queries. Since there are several responses, and the original query's been answered, iLock.