[draft] Condemn Durkadurkiranistan II again

[Flemingovia]

I would add that I have now made no fewer than fifteen edits or rewrites, almost all of which were trying to comply with Sedge's demands either in this thread or on IRC. As far as I am concerned my proposal did not break rule 4 from the outset. It was imaginative (which seems to be its major crime) in pushing the boundaries of Rule 4, but Sedge has failed to make his case that Rule 4 was broken. Rather, he made up his mind from the outset that this proposal was put forward to dodge Rule 4*, and every obstacle he has put in its way since has been blinkered by this prejudice.

I am convinced that the only way to get this past the mods is to change my name to Crazy Girl, and to make the object of this proposal Sedge himself or one of the inner coterie around whom this game, increasingly, seems to be geared.

I have worked hard to comply with every jot and tittle that SEdge has demanded. Now I am in the position that in doing so I do not have enough substance in the proposal to comply with rule 2b.

Put another way .. I honestly believe that if I had put in a reference to an offsite forum (pink or otherwise) I would have been clobbered for it.

Laugh? I nearly smiled.




* as stated in Sedge's post of Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:28 am

[Sedgistan]

In all honesty, did you look at the fun condemnation against you (that had recently passed) with such a discriminate eye? You don't have to answer that. As a matter of fact, it might be best if you did not.

I look at every proposal submitted to the Security Council, and each one posted here on the forums too. I pay particularly close attention to any that look like they're going to attain quorum. The answer to your question is yes, I read over Crazy Girl's resolution several times, and considered it to comply with the rules and rulings that apply to the Security Council.

It just seems to me that whatever Flem tries to write up here violates some particular rule in the SC. I really don't think his condemnation violates rule IV, personally, but that's up to opinion of course.

Well I'm not making these rules up - they're there, written down for anyone to see. Yes, the 'delusions' aspect is new, but it should be fairly obvious to anyone that it is covered under the 'no real world references' part of Rule 4 (d).

I really couldn't care less if this was allowed to be proposed or not, but dude, don't you remember how very frustrating it was to deal with this rule IV that seemed to be the vast gray area only one, now two people are privileged to make a judgment call on? So frustrating it caused many people to leave this body? This is not an argument about Rule IV; it's pretty clear it is here to stay.

Yes, I remember the frustration that people had dealing with it, and I know Rule 4 can be tricky for Gameplayers to understand, which is why I make an effort to help them comply with it. You're wrong about only two people being able to make a judgement call, though - I think you'll find that there's many mods besides myself and CG able to give rulings on it - Ard, Kryo, Nerv and Euro to name just a few.

Instead, maybe we're taking this approach the wrong way. Since you are now the final say, how would you write this condemnation out?

Well that is the wrong approach - I'm not here to write proposals for people. We have good resources in the Security Council - the rules thread, the Compendium, the SC guide, the list of passed resolutions - and numerous people prepared to give helpful advice. It shouldn't be too hard to get this proposal to comply with Rule 4 - and indeed, Flemingovia has managed it in quite a clever way. His proposal may have issues with another rule (again, that hasn't been ruled on - this is advice), and I've suggested that he can address that by adding in some additional reasons for condemning Durkadurkiranistan II. If he does this, his proposal should be fine.

[Todd McCloud]

I look at every proposal submitted to the Security Council, and each one posted here on the forums too. I pay particularly close attention to any that look like they're going to attain quorum. The answer to your question is yes, I read over Crazy Girl's resolution several times, and considered it to comply with the rules and rulings that apply to the Security Council.

That's the thing with those rules though, they're open to interpretation. To me it seems silly that billions of people could paint a forum pink. I understand others may think differently. That's kind of why the nation I live in has people put into place to interpret said laws - no matter how clear cut they may seem, there is still going to be gray areas.

Well I'm not making these rules up - they're there, written down for anyone to see. Yes, the 'delusions' aspect is new, but it should be fairly obvious to anyone that it is covered under the 'no real world references' part of Rule 4 (d).

I guess it's not obvious to me ^^ . I've explained why I think they don't violate Rule IV. I mean, there are perfectly acceptable reasons as to how a nation could do that ICly, for instance. My opinion doesn't really matter here from Adam, but the fact remains to one person it could mean something completely different than what it means to the next guy. The only difference is that you have red bolded text on your name. The rules are indeed up there, but they're open to interpretation, right?

Yes, I remember the frustration that people had dealing with it, and I know Rule 4 can be tricky for Gameplayers to understand, which is why I make an effort to help them comply with it. You're wrong about only two people being able to make a judgement call, though - I think you'll find that there's many mods besides myself and CG able to give rulings on it - Ard, Kryo, Nerv and Euro to name just a few.

How many of them deal with the SC, though? Yeah I know all mods can give rulings if they want, but generally Ard dealt with this before you did. Basically, in short it's whatever you say goes. You've made it clear in this thread you won't listen to others trying to express their own interpretations. I do believe that you bring things to the other mods to make judgment calls on, but I also believe that you tend to work a lot in the SC and therefore probably have more leverage on said judgment calls. I could be completely wrong though.

Well that is the wrong approach - I'm not here to write proposals for people. We have good resources in the Security Council - the rules thread, the Compendium, the SC guide, the list of passed resolutions - and numerous people prepared to give helpful advice. It shouldn't be too hard to get this proposal to comply with Rule 4 - and indeed, Flemingovia has managed it in quite a clever way. His proposal may have issues with another rule (again, that hasn't been ruled on - this is advice), and I've suggested that he can address that by adding in some additional reasons for condemning Durkadurkiranistan II. If he does this, his proposal should be fine.

I should hope so. I would feel bad if Flem couldn't get this off the ground, because I've read the thread and he's worked hard on this. But I've also read how many times he's been shot down. So that's why I asked you - rather than him working and you saying "mmm, no", maybe it'd be better to help him out, because no one else here is really saying "no". I guess we're all just a bit confused is all, and it's only Tuesday!

[Unibot II]

Unfortunately, you're now running into problems with Rule 2.b:

Of your proposal, the 'Recalling' and 'Further Recalling' clauses simply repeat what has been covered in the previous condemnation. The 'However, Noting' clause adds that no remorse has been shown for those actions, and the 'Further Noting' makes vague reference to a delusional head of state, with no further information provided on this.

Not a ruling here, but my advice would be to add in some more reasons to condemn the nominee, or you may fall foul of Rule 2.b.

You know, I wonder...

In all honesty, did you look at the fun condemnation against you (that had recently passed) with such a discriminate eye? You don't have to answer that. As a matter of fact, it might be best if you did not. It just seems to me that whatever Flem tries to write up here violates some particular rule in the SC. I really don't think his condemnation violates rule IV, personally, but that's up to opinion of course.

I really couldn't care less if this was allowed to be proposed or not, but dude, don't you remember how very frustrating it was to deal with this rule IV that seemed to be the vast gray area only one, now two people are privileged to make a judgment call on? So frustrating it caused many people to leave this body? This is not an argument about Rule IV; it's pretty clear it is here to stay. Instead, maybe we're taking this approach the wrong way. Since you are now the final say, how would you write this condemnation out?

Todd, the difference between these two instances is:

(1) Sedge's Condemnation is regarding a silly situation that is nearly implausible.

(2) Durk's Second Condemnations employs a loophole that could be used to invalidate any and every application of Rule IV, rendering it unable to do what the rule intends to do: (A) Keep commendations and condemnations fitting with the rest of the game site's nation simulation, (2) Design a equivocating language that doesn't put off gameplayers or make roleplayers feel as though they don't belong here.

Sedge is not suffering from a 'discriminating' eye (a.k.a unjust), he's discerning between two similar but not identical scenarios where Rule IV must be applied. It is in fact you who is suffering from the discriminating vision (or undiscriminating.. technically), for you are giving Flem's resolution way more leeway than other loopholes would be given, because this loophole is for a rule you don't like. Take for example, I write a resolution and say the author (an 'ambassador') is a deranged maniac and I write this...

Condemn Todd McCloud

Greetings World Assembly, I am an ammbassador who is currently serving my time in a mentaol insitution for thinking nations are people capalble of doing nasty things and I hear people's voices hwen they're not actually there.

TODD MCCCLUDOD IS THE BIGGEST FUCKIN TWIT <RAPING SONNNA OF A BITCH

HE FUCKING DOS IT WITH SHEERP ,, I'VE SEEN HIM DO it!

SHEEPFUCKER
SHEEPFUCKER!
LET'S CONDEMN HIM FOR BEASTALITY!

... personally, I wouldn't want a resolution up to vote that is blantly trolling me, flamebaiting and uses bad language, I dunno know about you? But if you say .. 'the author is deranged into thinking that the nation is a person and capable of sexual abusing sheep', clearly, it's in-character and show scrape by that rule. Well... no, we all know that's dumb, it's clearly an attempt to get around an important rule to prevent flamebaiting and whatnot, and to say it's 'in-character' is just a feeble attempt at trying to circumvent an important rule. Now look back at what you're defending for Flem, why treat dangerously effective loopholes for Rule II differently then Rule IV? Because.. you don't like that rule?

[Todd McCloud]

I don't really know what to say to that. I think that's flamebaiting, but I won't comment.

My point was not if you could say anything is IC (you really shouldn't, I think I alluded to that in a post), but instead my point was an entire nation could in fact be disillusioned to believe in something. If an entire nation can paint a forum pink, I just don't see how that's allowed and something like a nation being disillusioned or mind controlled by their leader is not. Guess that's why we have mods to educate us on such differences.

I see your point, but I think we're talking about two different things. You don't want people to just post whatever they want and just say it's IC. I agree with that - all I'm arguing is the validity of having a delusional nation.

Anyway, I've said my peace.

[Unibot II]

I don't really know what to say to that. I think that's flamebaiting, but I won't comment.

My point was not if you could say anything is IC (you really shouldn't, I think I eluded to that in a post), but instead my point was an entire nation could in fact be disillusioned to believe in something. If an entire nation can paint a forum pink, I just don't see how that's allowed and something like a nation being disillusioned or mind controlled by their leader is not. Guess that's why we have mods to educate us on such differences.

I see your point, but I think we're talking about two different things. You don't want people to just post whatever they want and just say it's IC. I agree with that - all I'm arguing is the validity of having a delusional nation.

Anyway, I've said my peace.

Sorry it wasn't an 'actual' flamebait, it was an example. I still wub you.

But I think I clearly outlined the difference between the two examples. You are correct, an entire nation could in fact be delued of something but that is inconsequential -- see my post for the reasons why it is illegal anyway from a humble (but not so humble) non-mod perspective.

[Flemingovia]

(2) Durk's Second Condemnations employs a loophole that could be used to invalidate any and every application of Rule IV, rendering it unable to do what the rule intends to do: (A) Keep commendations and condemnations fitting with the rest of the game site's nation simulation, (2) Design a equivocating language that doesn't put off gameplayers or make roleplayers feel as though they don't belong here.

If my proposal exploits a loophole (an assertion I do not accept, but will run with for now), then you are wrong to deny its progress. By definition a loophole is legal, and you ought to be congratulating my ingenuity in finding it first. THEN you mods ought to be looking at the wording of Rule 4 to make sure that the loophole is closed so that other people cannot exploit it.

If you want an analogy for the older players here, think of the "puppetmaster" liberation of The North Pacific.

[Sedgistan]

Flem, there is no loophole. Rule 4 reads:

4. Your proposal must be able to be read as being submitted by a Nation, and as targeting a Nation or Region, and therefore must use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

For example, you proposal cannot:

• (a) Refer directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.
• (b) Refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.
• (c) Read as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)
• (d) Reference the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community.
• (e) Contain reference to ideologies without explaining how they apply to NationStates in terms of actions, policies or attributes of nations/regions.

I've been telling you from the start that you included real-world references - illegal under part (d), and suggested that NationStates is an online game - illegal under part (b).

Again: no loophole. I'm upholding the rules as they exist.

Todd and others still talking about pink forums - see here.

[Flemingovia]

And I have been saying from the start that my proposal included no real world references.

It did include references to Durk's delusion of the real world - a world which my proposal asserts does not exist.

Most even handed observers are well able to make that distinction.

[Unibot II]

(2) Durk's Second Condemnations employs a loophole that could be used to invalidate any and every application of Rule IV, rendering it unable to do what the rule intends to do: (A) Keep commendations and condemnations fitting with the rest of the game site's nation simulation, (2) Design a equivocating language that doesn't put off gameplayers or make roleplayers feel as though they don't belong here.

If my proposal exploits a loophole (an assertion I do not accept, but will run with for now), then you are wrong to deny its progress. By definition a loophole is legal, and you ought to be congratulating my ingenuity in finding it first. THEN you mods ought to be looking at the wording of Rule 4 to make sure that the loophole is closed so that other people cannot exploit it.

If you want an analogy for the older players here, think of the "puppetmaster" liberation of The North Pacific.

Um... no. It's a circumvention that is invalid for another reason than the thing it is trying to circumvent. Besides if it is the word choice that has your knickers in a knot, substitute "loophole" for whatever word you wish to describe a silly attempt at undermining a rule that isn't being allowed for obvious reasons.

[Neo Nibu]

Ah, but his delusion is that it is outside the NS universe. That is the point. Montana does not exist, period. THat is the wonder of rule 4.

Not that it matters now but Montana does exist in NS universe.
http://www.nationstates.net/region=montana

[Flemingovia]

Ah, but his delusion is that it is outside the NS universe. That is the point. Montana does not exist, period. THat is the wonder of rule 4.

Not that it matters now but Montana does exist in NS universe.
http://www.nationstates.net/region=montana

PLease read the original resolution which addressed that issue.

Edit: this is frustrating enough without comments from people who have not even read the original motion.

[Flemingovia]

Well, no mod has declared the revised version of this resolution illegal, so I will submit it in the morning.

[Sedgistan]

Could you put the latest draft in the OP, please? Makes it easier for people to check.

EDIT: I see you haven't re-drafted since my advice about Rule 2.b. I strongly advise you do not submit this proposal until you have addressed that. There are unresolved legality issues, and if you wish to pursue the proposal as written, I will need to consult the other mods first, because there's a strong possibility that it violates Rule 2.b.

[The Holy Twig]

Has anyone asked Durkadurkiranistan's opinion on whether or not he wants to be condemned? Anyone? No? Well, that's exactly what I'm going to do.

[Flemingovia]

why should whether he wants to be condemned make any difference? Did anyone ask colonel Ghadaffi whether he wanted air strikes?

[Conservita Victoria]

why should whether he wants to be condemned make any difference? Did anyone ask colonel Ghadaffi whether he wanted air strikes?

True, true.

It wouldn't be the Imperial Legion without a condemned leader

[Flemingovia]

Besides which, if you contacted Durkadurkiranistan he would assume that this was a message from the "real world".

I tell you, he is nuttier than a fruit and nut bar without the fruit.

[Conservita Victoria]

Good show.

But that is why we love him

[The Holy Twig]

why should whether he wants to be condemned make any difference? Did anyone ask colonel Ghadaffi whether he wanted air strikes?

That would have been the considerate thing to do.

[Todd McCloud]

why should whether he wants to be condemned make any difference? Did anyone ask colonel Ghadaffi whether he wanted air strikes?

That would have been the considerate thing to do.

I know I said I've said my peace in this thread, but really? We need to ask the person if it's okay to condemn them first? It shouldn't matter if they don't want it or not. As a matter of fact, we should probably ensure they don't want it first, to make a true condemnation. Which reminds me of a certain very recent condemnation we voted on in which the nation who got it most decidedly wanted it in the first place...

[The Holy Twig]

That would have been the considerate thing to do.

I know I said I've said my peace in this thread, but really? We need to ask the person if it's okay to condemn them first? It shouldn't matter if they don't want it or not. As a matter of fact, we should probably ensure they don't want it first, to make a true condemnation. Which reminds me of a certain very recent condemnation we voted on in which the nation who got it most decidedly wanted it in the first place...

I never said we need to ask them, just that it's the polite thing to do.
For instance: would you prefer that someone walked over and stabbed you despite your protests, OR walked over and asked to stab you, and then didn't stab you when you asked them not to.

[Flemingovia]

a polite assailant? How quaint.

Twig, I think you basically misunderstand the meaning and intent of condemnations. They are not meant to be polite.

However in the interests of fair play, cricket and cucumber sandwiches:

AN OPEN LETTER TO DURKDURKIRANISTAN II


I say, Durka oid fruit,

I was wondering if you would mind awfully, old chap, if the jolly old security council passed one of their condemnation thingies concerning your nation? It's just that you have been making rather an ass of yourself in the NAtionstates world, what with you going on and on about Montana and those jolly brave stunt rider chappies and those naughty ladies who live in Montana and show more ankle than a decent chap ought to be seeing.

Point is, old chap, we would rather like to jolly well put another badge thingie on your nation, just to let everyone know what a rotter and a cad you are. So I Would be really grateful if you would not mind responding, just to let us know that you are tootly-pip with the whole idea, because some of us here are worrying that you might be a bit upset about the whole thingy.

There's a good chap,

Flemingovia.

I trust this will suffice?

[Conservita Victoria]

I think it would certainly lighten up my day if I got that in my inbox

But seriously, sending a request to condemn, although rather quaint and polite, defeats the point of a condemnation because if you turn up one day, go through the forum or security council and find a proposal to condemn you then it would be quite a shock.

[Todd McCloud]

Flem, I lol'd. Good start to a hopefully good day!