NationStates

In future, report rules violations in the Moderation forum. In this case, don't bother. It's not actionable.

Lychgate wrote:Eliminate the "recognizing DEN as the most powerful military in the world" sentence. That turns your condemnation into a badge for them, and takes away from the "express shock or dismay" effect. I don't exactly see how that sentence helps your proposal, but maybe that's just me.

Maybe 'cause author wants to make sure everyone realizes DEN is the most powerful military in the world.

ChingisOtchigin wrote:

Lychgate wrote:Eliminate the "recognizing DEN as the most powerful military in the world" sentence. That turns your condemnation into a badge for them, and takes away from the "express shock or dismay" effect. I don't exactly see how that sentence helps your proposal, but maybe that's just me.

Maybe 'cause author wants to make sure everyone realizes DEN is the most powerful military in the world.

Except they're not. The conglomeration of different defender regions/organizations and anti-raider natives still trumps them. If I'm wrong, go ahead and pile into TRR right now and let's see if DEN has the most powerful military in the world.

I'm a raider, I love raiding, but TBR used to boast its ass off in a similar fashion, and when it came time to back it up, they got their face kicked in. What makes DEN any different?

Ridersyl wrote:

ChingisOtchigin wrote:
Maybe 'cause author wants to make sure everyone realizes DEN is the most powerful military in the world.

Except they're not. The conglomeration of different defender regions/organizations and anti-raider natives still trumps them. If I'm wrong, go ahead and pile into TRR right now and let's see if DEN has the most powerful military in the world.

I'm a raider, I love raiding, but TBR used to boast its ass off in a similar fashion, and when it came time to back it up, they got their face kicked in. What makes DEN any different?

You're using "piling ability" as a point of comparison for the most powerful military in the world? And you're pitting one organization against a "conglomeration of different defender regions/organizations and anti-raider natives." Doesn't seem fair, really.

Der Angreifer wrote:

Ridersyl wrote:
Except they're not. The conglomeration of different defender regions/organizations and anti-raider natives still trumps them. If I'm wrong, go ahead and pile into TRR right now and let's see if DEN has the most powerful military in the world.

I'm a raider, I love raiding, but TBR used to boast its ass off in a similar fashion, and when it came time to back it up, they got their face kicked in. What makes DEN any different?

You're using "piling ability" as a point of comparison for the most powerful military in the world? And you're pitting one organization against a "conglomeration of different defender regions/organizations and anti-raider natives." Doesn't seem fair, really.

That conglomeration is their enemy, and as seen with the invasion of the founderless TBR, they are formidable when they smell blood in the water. As for using "piling ability" as a point of comparison for the most powerful military in the world... what else is there to use when their self-declared enemies are defenders and natives?

It's like if I say I'm the best athlete in my local park, and the only other people in the park that day can only play croquet.


"Alright, I've played croquet before, and it's the only fair way to prove my boasting, because these guys don't know any other sport."

The Silver Sentinel wrote:

Alagaeia wrote:UM The Kingdom of Great Britain is not a raider region guys! This is offensive, we are definitely Imperialist. Can we at least be labelled correctly if we must be labelled?

Nah, you guys are raiders. But at least you are raiders that have a clear objective.

We raid sure, we are not raiders... Its kinda the definition of Imperialist really..

Alagaeia wrote:We raid sure, we are not raiders... Its kinda the definition of Imperialist really..

That's like saying I study at a university, but am not a student.

Alagaeia wrote:

The Silver Sentinel wrote:Nah, you guys are raiders. But at least you are raiders that have a clear objective.

We raid sure, we are not raiders... Its kinda the definition of Imperialist really..

Really? I am an imperialist myself and The North American Union doesn't raid. You can be an imperialist without raiding, it just takes time.

New draft: Let's see... I reworded the part on the old DEN, updated the occupations to include Portugal, and reworded the list of partnerships. I took out the word "raider", and upon request removed LKE from the list. If anyone else wants their region removed (or added if I forgot you), please have a regional official telegram me.

In regards to the "most powerful military" debate going on, I was using powerful as a synonym for 'effective'. Would people be happy if I changed it to "one of the most..."?

Aww why nkt name the nice things they do? Helped us out in a war for nothing and we are he smallest most insignificant spec you can find.

1) Any plans to include the rule breaking history that lead to this DEN's formation?

2) Any plans to include a note about the issues Predator has brought up - if that concludes the way it's currently being hinted at?

The old wildlife pen pal wrote:1) Any plans to include the rule breaking history that lead to this DEN's formation?

2) Any plans to include a note about the issues Predator has brought up - if that concludes the way it's currently being hinted at?

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809#p291887

I really doubt he has any plans to make his condemnation violate R4.

R4(c) I take it?

"Noting that DEN was established by nations from the region The Black Riders;
Acknowledging that this move was caused by a forced governmental collapse in The Black Riders' founding nations"

Or whatever. Those rules aren't new, and players have been edging around them for years. You can include pretty much anything if you try hard enough

The old wildlife pen pal wrote:R4(c) I take it?

"Noting that DEN was established by nations from the region The Black Riders;
Acknowledging that this move was caused by a forced governmental collapse in The Black Riders' founding nations"

Or whatever. Those rules aren't new, and players have been edging around them for years. You can include pretty much anything if you try hard enough

Fair enough, but how in the hell would you include the Predator situation while edging both R4(a) and R4(c)?

Perhaps something like "illegal procurement of documents". But that depends on how the situation pans out.

The old wildlife pen pal wrote:1) Any plans to include the rule breaking history that lead to this DEN's formation?

2) Any plans to include a note about the issues Predator has brought up - if that concludes the way it's currently being hinted at?

1) Nah, I didn't think it was necessary. Technically speaking, there was no rule breaking involved in the formation of DEN, just in the destruction of The Black Riders. Also, TBH, I can't think of a way of phrasing it that fully expresses what happened during the incident. I mean, "forced governmental collapse", to someone who doesn't know the details of the TBR incident, sounds like something another player did, or some sort of incomprehensible gameplay jargon. I figured it was best to simply avoid confusion.
2) I can't imagine a way of not breaking rules in bringing that up. Also, Predator has nothing to do with DEN: ELITE is the perfectly legal tool that we distribute to our members. Any DEN members who did use Predator did not receive it from the DEN HC, which means it shouldn't be DEN's problem. You want to condemn someone for that mess, as far as I know Cimmeria still exists, despite it's founderless status.

---

Oh right, I still plan on pursuing this. TBH, I'm glad the current condemnation is passing. There's no way it's staying for long, and it gives me plenty of time to iron out any issues with this one.

So, to begin, I have changed my mind from the statement above this. Trying to treat this issue as one of personal responsibility instead of organizational oversight is exactly what is going to allow something like this to happen again.

So... Predator. Several people, across multiple threads on multiple proposals, have voiced complaints that none of them make any mention of what is happening with Predator. However, as is noted here, mentioning that Predator is a script is a breach of Rule 4c, making it near impossible to correctly word what exactly happened, and mentioning that the incident surrounding it was cheating is a breach of Rule 2c, because SC proposals cannot condemn a nation/region for rules violations. I've been wracking my brain all night, and all morning for a way to get around this, and this is what I came up with. It stretches the rules a bit, which is why I need a moderator's opinion on its legality.

Plan:
I have founded a region called The Predator Scandal. At some point in the next few days, I will have some DEN guys tag raid it. One of them, or myself if I am involved in the raid, will post on the rmb a brief confession/apology for their involvement in the use of Predator. I am then going to pin a dispatch that details exactly what happened, and why it is such a big deal.

The following clause, or a slightly reworded version of it will then be added to my condemnation:

Disturbed by DEN's actions in The Predator Scandal, which constituted the ultimate betrayal of not only the trust afforded to DEN by natives and defenders, but of the trust that the Secretariat afforded to DEN as well.

To defend the legality of this clause, I will point readers to the established precedent regarding Symbolic Resolutions and Factual Inaccuracies. Now, to anyone reading this clause who understands the situation with Predator, this clause should make sense, and to anyone uniformed on the subject, they can click on the region and have easy access to an explanation, and will then become a member of the first group.

However, what the clause actually says is that DEN invaded the region The Predator Scandal, and their actions there (confessing to rulebreaking isn't rulebreaking) caused a ton of problems. Despite the fact that that last part is not factually correct, "unless clearly demonstrated in NS public records (and even then it's not guaranteed), factual inaccuracies will not get a proposal deleted. " Whether or not something caused an outrage cannot be demonstrated in public records, as it is impossible to tell how a player actually feels about something. Therefore, this clause is within the rules of the SC as it is not referring to the rule breaking behavior of DEN, but instead is referring to the soon to happen invasion of The Predator Scandal.

Thoughts?

Speaking as a player... this is hilarious. You should do this.

That said, take a look at Sedge's post here regarding Predator and R2c/R4c violations, if you haven't seen it already.

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Speaking as a player... this is hilarious. You should do this.

That said, take a look at Sedge's post here regarding Predator and R2c/R4c violations, if you haven't seen it already.

I think it would be legal at this point. A ruling has already been made on Predator.

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Speaking as a player... this is hilarious. You should do this.

That said, take a look at Sedge's post here regarding Predator and R2c/R4c violations, if you haven't seen it already.

I have seen it, and as far as I'm aware, by Sedge's explanation this should be legal. It is Rule 4 compliant, and even if a mod decides that this breach of cite rules cannot be cited, I still think it would be legal.

Could be legal. You will need to request an official ruling on that, and we won't be willing to entertain one until we've properly addressed the Predator situation (which remains likely to be at least a few days away, given the scale of the cheating). That applies to any attempt at a Symbolic Resolution on the topic as well.

Sedgistan wrote:Could be legal. You will need to request an official ruling on that, and we won't be willing to entertain one until we've properly addressed the Predator situation (which remains likely to be at least a few days away, given the scale of the cheating). That applies to any attempt at a Symbolic Resolution on the topic as well.

Thank you Sedge. I'm in no hurry to submit this, so I can wait a few days.