Personally I would make it the third clause, so you've mentioned the regions involvement before you get into the detail of what's been accomplished by it.
Advertisement
by Aclion » Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:51 pm
by The Rouge Christmas State » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:13 am
by Abhichandra » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:14 am
who have in their time of writing issues have authored issues focusing on the environment such as
by The Rouge Christmas State » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:03 pm
Abhichandra wrote:who have in their time of writing issues have authored issues focusing on the environment such as
Do you need to say: "who have in their time of writing issues" ? I would just change this to:who have in their time of writing issueshave authored issues focusing on the environment such as
by The Stalker » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:26 am
by The Rouge Christmas State » Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:33 pm
The Stalker wrote:Strong support for this, Forest is a really great region with a good group very much deserving of a Commendation.
by United Massachusetts » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:04 pm
by The Stalker » Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:31 pm
The Rouge Christmas State wrote:Further Impressed with the Forest’s dedication to their allies such as Philosophy 115, Hippy Heaven, and Yggdrasil, further strengthening their friendship through international photo contest,
by The Rouge Christmas State » Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:59 pm
The Stalker wrote:The Rouge Christmas State wrote:Further Impressed with the Forest’s dedication to their allies such as Philosophy 115, Hippy Heaven, and Yggdrasil, further strengthening their friendship through international photo contest,
Oh hey I just noticed it says Heaven in the OP, it's Hippy Haven. A common mistake which kinda became a nickname for the place, in retrospect would have been fitting.
Though UM's post had it correct.
by The Rouge Christmas State » Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:07 am
Gnejs wrote:Mount Seymour's issue is called A Clear-Cut Conundrum. It'd be sad to have the wrong name enshrined in the WA-books, should this pass.
by The Rouge Christmas State » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:46 pm
by Abhichandra » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:04 pm
The Rouge Christmas State wrote:I've submitted the proposal, it can be found here. https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1490848946
by The Rouge Christmas State » Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:29 pm
by Leutria » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:12 am
The Rouge Christmas State wrote:I received a message from the NS Logistics people saying, "Your SC proposal has been removed from the queue due to it violating Rule 1 -- as per recent rulings, citing of any issues-related activity by Issues Editors is not allowed." So I guess I can't put Ransium or Zwangzug in the proposal because of this.
by Tinhampton » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:13 am
The Rouge Christmas State wrote:I received a message from the NS Logistics people saying, "Your SC proposal has been removed from the queue due to it violating Rule 1 -- as per recent rulings, citing of any issues-related activity by Issues Editors is not allowed." So I guess I can't put Ransium or Zwangzug in the proposal because of this.
by Leutria » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:27 am
Tinhampton wrote:The Rouge Christmas State wrote:I received a message from the NS Logistics people saying, "Your SC proposal has been removed from the queue due to it violating Rule 1 -- as per recent rulings, citing of any issues-related activity by Issues Editors is not allowed." So I guess I can't put Ransium or Zwangzug in the proposal because of this.
I'd imagine that it would be pulled regardless for talking about nations that have "contributed to NationStates"
by Drasnia » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:37 am
by Leutria » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:49 am
Drasnia wrote:I don't get how this violates R1. It it is specifically referencing issues added before Ransium and Zwang became editors. The only thing I can see could be problematic (but I disagree violates R1) is the Further Noting clause. However, even that specifically refers to things authors can do " help, inspire, and critique one another in their authorship, bringing forth a creative and intelligent environment for progress,"
Yeah, I'm not seeing how this violates R1. I'd like a clarification from one of the SC mods.
by Bhang Bhang Duc » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:12 am
Leutria wrote:Drasnia wrote:I don't get how this violates R1. It it is specifically referencing issues added before Ransium and Zwang became editors. The only thing I can see could be problematic (but I disagree violates R1) is the Further Noting clause. However, even that specifically refers to things authors can do " help, inspire, and critique one another in their authorship, bringing forth a creative and intelligent environment for progress,"
Yeah, I'm not seeing how this violates R1. I'd like a clarification from one of the SC mods.
Not a mod of course, but the explanation for Rule 1 was recently edited to include following after Commend Candlewhisper Archive happened: "Given the expanded role of Issues Editors, Rule 1 covers any issues related actions carried out by Issues Editors, even if a regular player could have done them, and even if some of the actions were done when not an Issues Editor."
So even if I don't think that is a logical conclusion to take from Rule 1, it is what the Compendium of Mod Rulings & General Advice within the SC says about it :/
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 The Rouge Christmas State » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:49 am
Tinhampton wrote:The Rouge Christmas State wrote:I received a message from the NS Logistics people saying, "Your SC proposal has been removed from the queue due to it violating Rule 1 -- as per recent rulings, citing of any issues-related activity by Issues Editors is not allowed." So I guess I can't put Ransium or Zwangzug in the proposal because of this.
And even if you said diddly about Zwangzug or Ransium, I'd imagine that it would be pulled regardless for talking about nations that have "contributed to NationStates" - on the one hand, it could be seen as stating NationStates as a game; on the other hand, it could refer to individual states.
Have you considered talking about the sporting achievements of Forest? You know, Errinundera and Zwangzug (again)?
Leutria wrote:Drasnia wrote:I don't get how this violates R1. It it is specifically referencing issues added before Ransium and Zwang became editors. The only thing I can see could be problematic (but I disagree violates R1) is the Further Noting clause. However, even that specifically refers to things authors can do " help, inspire, and critique one another in their authorship, bringing forth a creative and intelligent environment for progress,"
Yeah, I'm not seeing how this violates R1. I'd like a clarification from one of the SC mods.
Not a mod of course, but the explanation for Rule 1 was recently edited to include following after Commend Candlewhisper Archive happened: "Given the expanded role of Issues Editors, Rule 1 covers any issues related actions carried out by Issues Editors, even if a regular player could have done them, and even if some of the actions were done when not an Issues Editor."
So even if I don't think that is a logical conclusion to take from Rule 1, it is what the Compendium of Mod Rulings & General Advice within the SC says about it :/
by Tinhampton » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:55 am
The Rouge Christmas State wrote:Tinhampton wrote:And even if you said diddly about Zwangzug or Ransium, I'd imagine that it would be pulled regardless for talking about nations that have "contributed to NationStates" - on the one hand, it could be seen as stating NationStates as a game; on the other hand, it could refer to individual states.
Have you considered talking about the sporting achievements of Forest? You know, Errinundera and Zwangzug (again)?
I did consider putting the sporting achievements, but they way I understand rule 4 it would fall under roleplay.
by The Rouge Christmas State » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:02 am
Tinhampton wrote:The Rouge Christmas State wrote:I did consider putting the sporting achievements, but they way I understand rule 4 it would fall under roleplay.
AFAIK, so as long as you're keeping to the rules, especially R4c - this means not calling roleplay "roleplay" in a proposal - you're free to mention sports in SC proposals.
by The Rouge Christmas State » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:16 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement