DRAFT: Condemn shitty proposal writing

[Slaytesics]

Everyone support this.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

OK I've read through it a couple of times now and don't see any glaring problems. It's still going to be very close to the character limit though, so if there's anything you see in there that's not absolutely necessary you might consider removing it. Or just see if you can submit it as is and if the game won't let you then start trimming.

[A mean old man]

So shall I submit this?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

You might want to ask for a mod ruling. They've been deleting things for condemning concepts rather than actual regions/nations. I imagine you'll have to put some derogatory comments about the region in there to make it legal.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I have been once tempted to condemn the WA vote timer, but C&Cs are intended, from our view, for regions and nations only, not concepts or writing style.

[Sedgistan]

I have been once tempted to condemn the WA vote timer, but C&Cs are intended, from our view, for regions and nations only, not concepts or writing style.

I pointed it out here, but Ard did suggest that those type of resolutions would be ok:

All the same, I think it would be simpler/you'd have more luck getting it to a vote as a C&C in the style Mad Sheep Railgun has been using for his joke proposals: create a nation or region named for the topic you want to discuss, then condemn it.

That's such an easy way of politicking I'm surprised it hasn't yet been used for serious purposes. I checked with the admins, and the creation of one-day (or short-term) use nations apparently doesn't clog up the servers or do anything dire. (It's also a fine old UN/WA/GA tradition, though for different purposes.) In this case, you've already got a region, as Topid volunteered.

[A mean old man]

Stll no ruling on this.

[Sedgistan]

Go bump your thread in Moderation.

[Topid]

Or maybe change name of thread to NEED RULING: Condemn....

[Ardchoille]

Sorry, I thought I'd replied. I was mixing it up with Condemn The Holocaust. Addressed.

Basically, it won't fly as it is, but there are a few more feathers you can stick on.

Preferably on another body, one labelled "Crappy Proposal Writing". It's a pain, and reduces the impact, but the WA is used by schools a fair bit.

[Binary Load Lifters]

It probably violates metagaming rules...

But if I were a delegate I would support this - particularly as there are usually millions of badly spelt "legalise drugs" proposals.

[Ardchoille]

The format of SC resolutions makes metagaming almost inapplicable in the SC (I say "almost", because if I say it's impossible, someone will be sure to come up with a way of applying it).

The SC deals with gameplay actions on individual nations or regions. Such things as "passwords", "griefing", WFEs and RMBs, are outside the ken of the nations' actual population. If we enforced metagaming to the depth it applies in GA proposals, the SC wouldn't have any proposals.

[Grays Harbor]

The format of SC resolutions makes metagaming almost inapplicable in the SC (I say "almost", because if I say it's impossible, someone will be sure to come up with a way of applying it).

The SC deals with gameplay actions on individual nations or regions. Such things as "passwords", "griefing", WFEs and RMBs, are outside the ken of the nations' actual population. If we enforced metagaming to the depth it applies in GA proposals, the SC wouldn't have any proposals.

And this would be a bad thing?

[Enn]

Well, it would certainly force a move to RPing C&Cs...

[Allrule]

The format of SC resolutions makes metagaming almost inapplicable in the SC (I say "almost", because if I say it's impossible, someone will be sure to come up with a way of applying it).

The SC deals with gameplay actions on individual nations or regions. Such things as "passwords", "griefing", WFEs and RMBs, are outside the ken of the nations' actual population. If we enforced metagaming to the depth it applies in GA proposals, the SC wouldn't have any proposals.

And this would be a bad thing?

Do you really want to give ammo to those who say that all GAers are mindless drones who only want to exterminate the SC?

[Grays Harbor]

The format of SC resolutions makes metagaming almost inapplicable in the SC (I say "almost", because if I say it's impossible, someone will be sure to come up with a way of applying it).

The SC deals with gameplay actions on individual nations or regions. Such things as "passwords", "griefing", WFEs and RMBs, are outside the ken of the nations' actual population. If we enforced metagaming to the depth it applies in GA proposals, the SC wouldn't have any proposals.

And this would be a bad thing?

Do you really want to give ammo to those who say that all GAers are mindless drones who only want to exterminate the SC?

Oh, we're sorry. We were unaware we had used up our quota of opinions this week already, and therefore not permitted to voice it until a new supply is issued us.

[Allrule]

The format of SC resolutions makes metagaming almost inapplicable in the SC (I say "almost", because if I say it's impossible, someone will be sure to come up with a way of applying it).

The SC deals with gameplay actions on individual nations or regions. Such things as "passwords", "griefing", WFEs and RMBs, are outside the ken of the nations' actual population. If we enforced metagaming to the depth it applies in GA proposals, the SC wouldn't have any proposals.

And this would be a bad thing?

Do you really want to give ammo to those who say that all GAers are mindless drones who only want to exterminate the SC?

Oh, we're sorry. We were unaware we had used up our quota of opinions this week already, and therefore not permitted to voice it until a new supply is issued us.

You emphasized a part of Ardy's post that talked about the SC having no proposals, and then questioned how it would be a bad thing. That sounds like wanting to exterminate the SC, alright.
Side note:Acting like a smartass is not going to get you on my good list.

[Grays Harbor]

The format of SC resolutions makes metagaming almost inapplicable in the SC (I say "almost", because if I say it's impossible, someone will be sure to come up with a way of applying it).

The SC deals with gameplay actions on individual nations or regions. Such things as "passwords", "griefing", WFEs and RMBs, are outside the ken of the nations' actual population. If we enforced metagaming to the depth it applies in GA proposals, the SC wouldn't have any proposals.

And this would be a bad thing?

Do you really want to give ammo to those who say that all GAers are mindless drones who only want to exterminate the SC?

Oh, we're sorry. We were unaware we had used up our quota of opinions this week already, and therefore not permitted to voice it until a new supply is issued us.

You emphasized a part of Ardy's post that talked about the SC having no proposals, and then questioned how it would be a bad thing. That sounds like wanting to exterminate the SC, alright.
Side note:Acting like a smartass is not going to get you on my good list.

read it again. the highlighted part says "If we enforced metagaming to the depth it applies in GA proposals, the SC wouldn't have any proposals". That says enforcing something to the same level as the GA; it says nothing about exterminating the SC. It is an argument about whether to enforce the same standards of metagaming for the SC as is already in pactice in the GA, and what effect that would have on the SC. Keep your own prejudices and paranoias out of it.

side note: I personally don't care if I get on your, or anybodies, "good list" when I voice an opinion to something. I state my opinion. You can agree, or not, as you choose. If you choose to dislike somebody based on an opinion voiced in a debate, that seems rather shallow and not a bit petty, especuially when the statement you are basing it upon (And this would be a bad thing?) and which you initially objected to and tried to quash was obviously intended in jest. Your objection to that got the response it deserved, in my opinion. So please, try and remain civil, eh?

[Ardchoille]

Oh, this SC/GA argument is sooo 2009!

Leave it there, please. My New Year's resolutions include not letting the GA players troll the SC, or the SC players troll the GA. So cut it out, before I get snarky*.




*(And it's very easy to get me snarky right now, because I'm all weighed down by those damn resolutions.)

[A mean old man]

Alright. Mod says remove the "shitty."

If that's all, I'll either submit this when I feel like it (and after I've made a new region), or have Grays do it, as he has offered to with the "it's me own region" thing in mind.

Or Grays could found "crappy proposal writing." Though I don't much like "crappy." What shall we use instead of "shitty?"

[Sedgistan]

Rubbish? Terrible?

[Crabulonia]

awful?

[Martyrdoom]

Disastrous? Horrendous? Calamitous? Tragic? Woeful? haha, ruinous?

And my personal favourite, 'condemn condemnable proposal writing'.

[A mean old man]

Well, for now it's going to have to be "condemn an uncondemn-able region" based on our moderator's elusive hints at that particular ruling.

(personal telegrams)

Uh, you did get the point about having some NS-based reason to condemn, didn't you? It's not just the "shitty". I thought I was dropping rather heavy hints, but just in case they didn't land: if you make a nation or region that(appears to be, from its WFE) strongly in favour of Bad Proposal Writing, that encourages others to write Bad Proposals, that posts on its RMB about how writing Bad Proposals is good, then you've got a victim worthy of condemnation.

On a wider level, it seems to me your proposal rates as a manifesto, and is an exploration of the possibilities of C&Cs, and that's why I'm not jumping on it. Maybe later mods will decide to ban this sort of thing, but we're all feeling our way right now.

It has been a tradition in the GA of writing mock-proposals that were never intended to go to vote, and some of them have had serious intent, though expressed lightly; but they couldn't, for various Proposal Rule reasons, be submitted, usually because they did nothing. A C&C does do something, so it seems fair enough to let this one try.

[Ardchoille]

Dammit, what's elusive about that? And didn't your mum ever tell you about not making personal correspondence public? (But at least you were gentleman enough to leave out the bit about my unrequited passions for various NSers. )

Trying again: there are two things you have to fix up to make this a "safe" proposal: the title, because of PG-11 (so no "shitty"; I took that one to the Hive Mind for comment); and the justification for the condemnation, because it has to be NS-related and based on more than the name of the region. So a WFE statement of evil intentions to encourage bad proposal writing would at least begin to indicate why the region deserves condemnation. Etcetera.

Of course, "safe" from mod annihilation doesn't mean safe from delegate rejection. If the SC delegates disapprove of this sort of finagling the purpose of C&Cs, or don't want to finagle in this particular case, well, it's done for, however valid I think it.