NationStates

Yokiria wrote:Historically, "that's just your opinion" is a poor response to NS moderators.

But it's accurate in this case. It IS just my opinion as a player who follows the WA. I've already pointed out that Jocospor stays within the letter of the law. I don't think he stays within the Spirit of the law, but we don't usually enforce spiritual rules.

Professionally (in my role as Game Moderator), I don't like being put in the position of answering player complaints and defending a practice that I personally despise. We usually advise players to add the sender to their Ignore List in those circumstances. In that sense, the mass spam is counterproductive, as many readers remove themselves from the feed. It's also worth pointing out that player complaints are quite often the impetus for rule changes. We might yet be inspired to close the loopholes that Jocospor is exploiting.

Jocospor wrote:Max Barry gets heaps of lunch money from the Confederation's generous donations.

No one has ever changed my mind by throwing a wallet in front of my face. Nor Max's, for that matter. Neither of us is financially driven when it comes to this game.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Yokiria wrote:Historically, "that's just your opinion" is a poor response to NS moderators.

But it's accurate in this case. It IS just my opinion as a player who follows the WA. I've already pointed out that Jocospor stays within the letter of the law. I don't think he stays within the Spirit of the law, but we don't usually enforce spiritual rules.

Professionally (in my role as Game Moderator), I don't like being put in the position of answering player complaints and defending a practice that I personally despise. We usually advise players to add the sender to their Ignore List in those circumstances. In that sense, the mass spam is counterproductive, as many readers remove themselves from the feed. It's also worth pointing out that player complaints are quite often the impetus for rule changes. We might yet be inspired to close the loopholes that Jocospor is exploiting.

Jocospor wrote:Max Barry gets heaps of lunch money from the Confederation's generous donations.

No one has ever changed my mind by throwing a wallet in front of my face. Nor Max's, for that matter. Neither of us is financially driven when it comes to this game.

OOC: I thank you for your fairness. Of course, if the game rules change then I will abide by them, as will my region.

Sorry if you didn't have a giggle at that common Confederation joke - we take great pride in affording Max Barry an extra shot of coffee each week. It wasn't my intention to imply he's financially driven.

Anyway, back to the task at hand: if legal, say aye.

Jocospor wrote:

Frisbeeteria wrote:But it's accurate in this case. It IS just my opinion as a player who follows the WA. I've already pointed out that Jocospor stays within the letter of the law. I don't think he stays within the Spirit of the law, but we don't usually enforce spiritual rules.

Professionally (in my role as Game Moderator), I don't like being put in the position of answering player complaints and defending a practice that I personally despise. We usually advise players to add the sender to their Ignore List in those circumstances. In that sense, the mass spam is counterproductive, as many readers remove themselves from the feed. It's also worth pointing out that player complaints are quite often the impetus for rule changes. We might yet be inspired to close the loopholes that Jocospor is exploiting.


No one has ever changed my mind by throwing a wallet in front of my face. Nor Max's, for that matter. Neither of us is financially driven when it comes to this game.

OOC: I thank you for your fairness. Of course, if the game rules change then I will abide by them, as will my region.

Sorry if you didn't have a giggle at that common Confederation joke - we take great pride in affording Max Barry an extra shot of coffee each week. It wasn't my intention to imply he's financially driven.

Anyway, back to the task at hand: if legal, say aye.

OOC: No definitive response from mods for some time. Huh. I'll take that as a resounding "It's legal."

For anyone who was wondering, it's my intention to come back to this early on in the new year. This will definitely be going ahead. Until then, merry Christmas and happy New Year from all my end.

Jocospor wrote:OOC: No definitive response from mods for some time. Huh. I'll take that as a resounding "It's legal."

For anyone who was wondering, it's my intention to come back to this early on in the new year. This will definitely be going ahead. Until then, merry Christmas and happy New Year from all my end.

Actually, it's very likely the lack of response means indifference:

99% of the time when we don’t respond we’re just not paying attention. I [Ransium] just happened to stumble across this discussion.

A Merry Christmas to you too.

Jar Wattinree wrote:

Jocospor wrote:OOC: No definitive response from mods for some time. Huh. I'll take that as a resounding "It's legal."

For anyone who was wondering, it's my intention to come back to this early on in the new year. This will definitely be going ahead. Until then, merry Christmas and happy New Year from all my end.

Actually, it's very likely the lack of response means indifference:

99% of the time when we don’t respond we’re just not paying attention. I [Ransium] just happened to stumble across this discussion.

A Merry Christmas to you too.

OOC: Weird thing to be indifferent about; that is, a player asking a question. Doesn't matter though, mods have been helpful enough throughout this, particularly Ransium. If there is indifference there, I'll still take it to mean legality.

No matter though. For now, merry Christmas to all, and a happy New Year filled with much joy.

Jocospor wrote:Believing that maintaining an index such as ‘Passed General Assembly Resolutions’ is unremarkable; affirmed in this belief by this very Security Council, which has not previously commended nations maintaining similar indexes, such as The Dourian Embassy or Tim-Opolis;

Right...

You go ahead and ask either one of those two, along with I.A., about how they feel about undertaking that burden in hindsight. To you, and perhaps only you, it’s “unremarkable”. The fact of the matter remains, the point here is moot that the Security Council hasn’t commended nations such as Tim-Opolis and the Dourian Embassy when as stated in the actual clause you wrote out that’s never been a key point of emphasis for why we commend in the first place.

If you can go back and look at I.A.’s commendation and tell me where it says the Security Council is commending him for indexing passed General Assembly resolutions then I’ll let you have this one. Oh, and before you quote this, I’ve got you covered:

“Acknowledging that Imperium Anglorum maintains the ‘Passed General Assembly Resolutions’ index and has recorded 44 resolutions at this time, which helps aspiring General Assembly authors write drafts, and give them ideas for new resolutions,”

^^^ That’s an acknowledgement, and yes it is one of the clauses in the currently-standing commend you’re attempting to repeal. For that, you have the right idea about the whole “repeals attack the material of what it’s repealing” and staying on the topic of why the original resolution isn’t needed.

Except, this isn’t the case. You simply can’t look at a proposal line by line and make no connection between the lines. Point remains, I.A. was commended off of irrefutable proof of his World Assembly track record. At the time of that having passed, he had fourteen General Assembly resolutions passed. That’s... a lot, for any nation.

In fact, that number has only climbed as in your draft you cite twenty-six once-passed proposals as being the total at present. While resolutions to both the General Assembly and the Security Council must remain strictly in-character, the voters themselves still have out-of-character opinions that can be made known about the nominee in any case.

What that means is that, essentially, I.A. was awarded a commendation off of merit; I’d think. People saw the work he was doing, the work he does, and the work he’ll continue to do. In other words, this commendation is just the way of nations to thank him, because honestly putting through twenty-six resolutions, even combined between both bodies, is a feat in itself.

“Recognizing that Imperium Anglorum has provided helpful and constructive feedback on many General Assembly and Security Council drafts,”

^^^ From what I gather, it’s about recognition. By commending I.A. In the first place, it’s as if the World Assembly was saying “Hey, we see you over there. Keep up the good work!”. You wish to take that recognition away, and for that I do not support this.

Lastly, just something I do want to touch upon:

“Contesting that I.A.’s “helpful and constructive feedback” as suggested by SCR#223 is reserved for a select few; namely, those who serve a political interest.” - From your repeal proposal.

Ask yourself, are you going to be able to convince thousands of nations that?! Because... judging from the comments of others in this thread, I don’t think as such. I am not going to hazard to say “Well, maybe he’s right or maybe he’s wrong.”. At the end of the day, SCR#223, his commendation, which was passed, mentioned his otherwise insightful take on World Assembly affairs and his giving of constructive feedback on proposals.

For that reasoning alone, I don’t see this reaching quorum. Not to diss on your writing or anything of that nature, but this seems to be a bit more personal than I’d like for my taste. It has a flavor of... I.A. vs. you, and not I.A.’s accomplishments vs. here’s why they’re not worthy of a commendation. Who knows, that may be because you’re the author. Perhaps a repeal is needed, I don’t know, but if I saw a proposal as such from a different author I’d weigh it on quality of that proposal. In my mind, this one falls flat. It fails to see why the initial resolution was passed in the first place, and the clauses of why we should repeal it are too up in the air.

If he have constructive criticism and helped people then who cares why he did it? That’s how I see it, because irregardless he did it, and prior to this repeal proposal existing the World Assembly, as in thousands of nations, observed this and were convinced enough in this to vote “For” on it passing.

This isn’t a knock on you so much as it is that I don’t see this getting too far. I.A.’s commend was off of merit, because of the extensive amount of work he’s put in that has helped the world at large. For the betterment of all nations, that’s what the World Assembly is about. This commendation was nations’ way of giving him that recognition, so once again I stand against because I feel this repeal is misguided in its understanding of the resolution it seeks to repeal.

I’m not particularly a fan of Imperium Anglorum, nor their ideals, but I respect their contributions to the game as a fellow member of the community.

Against.

Kostrorleauny wrote:

Jocospor wrote:Believing that maintaining an index such as ‘Passed General Assembly Resolutions’ is unremarkable; affirmed in this belief by this very Security Council, which has not previously commended nations maintaining similar indexes, such as The Dourian Embassy or Tim-Opolis;

Right...

You go ahead and ask either one of those two, along with I.A., about how they feel about undertaking that burden in hindsight. To you, and perhaps only you, it’s “unremarkable”. The fact of the matter remains, the point here is moot that the Security Council hasn’t commended nations such as Tim-Opolis and the Dourian Embassy when as stated in the actual clause you wrote out that’s never been a key point of emphasis for why we commend in the first place.

If you can go back and look at I.A.’s commendation and tell me where it says the Security Council is commending him for indexing passed General Assembly resolutions then I’ll let you have this one. Oh, and before you quote this, I’ve got you covered:

“Acknowledging that Imperium Anglorum maintains the ‘Passed General Assembly Resolutions’ index and has recorded 44 resolutions at this time, which helps aspiring General Assembly authors write drafts, and give them ideas for new resolutions,”

^^^ That’s an acknowledgement, and yes it is one of the clauses in the currently-standing commend you’re attempting to repeal. For that, you have the right idea about the whole “repeals attack the material of what it’s repealing” and staying on the topic of why the original resolution isn’t needed.

Except, this isn’t the case. You simply can’t look at a proposal line by line and make no connection between the lines. Point remains, I.A. was commended off of irrefutable proof of his World Assembly track record. At the time of that having passed, he had fourteen General Assembly resolutions passed. That’s... a lot, for any nation.

In fact, that number has only climbed as in your draft you cite twenty-six once-passed proposals as being the total at present. While resolutions to both the General Assembly and the Security Council must remain strictly in-character, the voters themselves still have out-of-character opinions that can be made known about the nominee in any case.

What that means is that, essentially, I.A. was awarded a commendation off of merit; I’d think. People saw the work he was doing, the work he does, and the work he’ll continue to do. In other words, this commendation is just the way of nations to thank him, because honestly putting through twenty-six resolutions, even combined between both bodies, is a feat in itself.

“Recognizing that Imperium Anglorum has provided helpful and constructive feedback on many General Assembly and Security Council drafts,”

^^^ From what I gather, it’s about recognition. By commending I.A. In the first place, it’s as if the World Assembly was saying “Hey, we see you over there. Keep up the good work!”. You wish to take that recognition away, and for that I do not support this.

Lastly, just something I do want to touch upon:

“Contesting that I.A.’s “helpful and constructive feedback” as suggested by SCR#223 is reserved for a select few; namely, those who serve a political interest.” - From your repeal proposal.

Ask yourself, are you going to be able to convince thousands of nations that?! Because... judging from the comments of others in this thread, I don’t think as such. I am not going to hazard to say “Well, maybe he’s right or maybe he’s wrong.”. At the end of the day, SCR#223, his commendation, which was passed, mentioned his otherwise insightful take on World Assembly affairs and his giving of constructive feedback on proposals.

For that reasoning alone, I don’t see this reaching quorum. Not to diss on your writing or anything of that nature, but this seems to be a bit more personal than I’d like for my taste. It has a flavor of... I.A. vs. you, and not I.A.’s accomplishments vs. here’s why they’re not worthy of a commendation. Who knows, that may be because you’re the author. Perhaps a repeal is needed, I don’t know, but if I saw a proposal as such from a different author I’d weigh it on quality of that proposal. In my mind, this one falls flat. It fails to see why the initial resolution was passed in the first place, and the clauses of why we should repeal it are too up in the air.

If he have constructive criticism and helped people then who cares why he did it? That’s how I see it, because irregardless he did it, and prior to this repeal proposal existing the World Assembly, as in thousands of nations, observed this and were convinced enough in this to vote “For” on it passing.

This isn’t a knock on you so much as it is that I don’t see this getting too far. I.A.’s commend was off of merit, because of the extensive amount of work he’s put in that has helped the world at large. For the betterment of all nations, that’s what the World Assembly is about. This commendation was nations’ way of giving him that recognition, so once again I stand against because I feel this repeal is misguided in its understanding of the resolution it seeks to repeal.

OOC: I'll be getting back to all this in the New Year. Until then.

I support. Given that Myrth is the founder of Europe, and both Feux and Jenesia are former delegates of Europe, and both NPO members, and given the close relations IA has with the now disgraced former Queen of Balder, it is clear that IA is nothing more than an NPO sycophant who truly does not deserve the recognition of bestowed upon them.

Mr Bubbly wrote: ... it is clear that IA is nothing more than an NPO sycophant who truly does not deserve the recognition of bestowed upon them.

This is not true.

Aexnidaral wrote:

Mr Bubbly wrote: ... it is clear that IA is nothing more than an NPO sycophant who truly does not deserve the recognition of bestowed upon them.

This is not true.

Don't bother. That little sock puppet appears to have been the DoS Chester Pearson, and there's no reasoning with him when it comes to... well, anything.

As an update, this is currently being redrafted with assistance from external parties.

I've been thinking this through for a couple of weeks now, and I've changed my mind. I'm not going to further one nation's actual agenda merely to oppose the purported agenda of another nation I don't like or trust that has actually contributed positively to the NS community in more ways than one. I'm not some chess piece to be moved around, and I will not be so easily swayed or manipulated.

Formerly ABSTAIN. Now AGAINST if this goes to vote.

Against. IA has contributed immensely to the GA and the region of Europe. Despite some not always liking his drafting style, the commendation was still well deserved.

Insulted that SCR#223 would commend I.A. for “their hard work and commitment” when many hardworking and committed nations will forever go unnoticed by this World Assembly;

Can you give any examples of these nations? Even if others deserve a commendation, that does not affect IA's own worthiness.

Believing that maintaining an index such as ‘Passed General Assembly Resolutions’ is unremarkable; affirmed in this belief by this very Security Council, which has not previously commended nations maintaining similar indexes, such as The Dourian Embassy or Tim-Opolis;

It was a mistake the TDE and TO were not commended for their indexes, which were remarkable.

Exposing the author of SCR#223 to be, during their time and at the time of this resolution's writing, a nation with which I.A. had close relations, with the latter assisting very much in the running of the former’s region, the now-terminated The Honorary Allied Nation States;

There is nothing wrong with this at all.

Jocospor wrote:

Frisbeeteria wrote:Jocospor is correct that the recent pile of telegrams are not technically illegal under the rules. That's not to say that they're not spam, just not actionable spam. There is always someone looking for a way to abuse any exploit in the rules. Jocospor has been fairly successful at telegram rule abuse. IMO, that's a strange thing to be proud about.

OOC: I'll just quickly respond to this too, actually. It's spam in your opinion. The only factual definition of spam as far as NationStates is concerned is what's written in the rules. I'm completely within my rights to play the game as I want, and for the times that I have made mistakes I've been corrected. I don't think it's necessarily fair to chip me when I haven't broken any rules.

And besides, Max Barry gets heaps of lunch money from the Confederation's generous donations.

I never accused you of rulebreaking, I accused you of repeatably sending telegrams to the point of annoyance, which is fully relevant to this thread

I'm surprised this has gone on this long - If you are opposed to it, then just don't comment on it, Attention is what Jocospor wants and he's getting it, Just ignore the thread entirely, 100% against

EDIT: If you're for it, feel free to comment, but there isn't gonna be many for it, It would be an extremely one-sided vote if it somehow got quorum, so I just wouldn't bother.

So you’re encouraging us to ignore Jocospor by...bumping up a thread that had gone five days without a reply?

Kaboomlandia wrote:So you’re encouraging us to ignore Jocospor by...bumping up a thread that had gone five days without a reply?

Jocospor wrote:OOC: I'll be getting back to all this in the New Year. Until then.

New Year, yes, but just taking a short break. I'll get back to all this soon.

OOC: Have gotten around to a new draft now, see the beginning of this thread. Looking forward to feedback.

EDIT:

Acknowledging that Imperium Anglorum (herein “I.A.”) has well contributed to the world, as outlined by SCR#223, specifically heading Europe’s World Assembly (herein “WA”) Delegacy and the authorship of near thirty WA resolutions;

Calling into question, in fact, the very sincerity of I.A.’s WA operations, which, though lauded by SCR#223, have of late caused mass controversy and disharmony among member nations of this WA;

Disappointed that I.A. outwardly uses its reputation and power amongst the international community to further its own interests;

Noting that, for example, I.A., along with a collective of other WA Delegates, consciously instigates and perpetuates the lemming effect during WA votes; that is, dishonourably dumping a large number of votes at the onset of the ballot, creating a majority for member nations to align with;

Appalled that I.A. would seek to undermine both the democratic process and fellow authors in such a deceptive fashion;

Convinced I.A. adopts an air of superiority when dealing with nations it does not consider to be worth its time;

Frustrated that some of I.A.’s more recent General Assembly resolutions are, put simply, seemingly incomprehensible to the vast majority of member nations;

Furthermore, alarmed that SCR#223 would falsify the import of the legislation I.A. repealed to mislead this WA:

• GAR#329 did not “[permit] national sub-groups to disregard and neglect nationwide laws”;
• GAR#350 did not “[stop] the World Assembly from passing any laws;” and
• GAR#396 did not “[slow] down the Internet;”

Hereby repeals SCR#223 “Commend Imperium Anglorum.”

How is voting on a proposal soon after it goes to vote a strike against someone? A good chunk of the proposal is just using a lot of words to accuse him of voting on things soon after they go to vote.

The Sherpa Empire wrote:How is voting on a proposal soon after it goes to vote a strike against someone? A good chunk of the proposal is just using a lot of words to accuse him of voting on things soon after they go to vote.

Precisely. Knowingly, Imperium Anglorum, along with a few other delegates, drops votes very quickly to create a strong majority. They encourage what's known as the lemming effect, which if you're unsure as to what that is, we suggest a quick search. They might achieve several hundred, maybe even thousand, votes by way of playing on member nations' minds like this.

How many member nations can truly say that they have never once just glanced over a resolution before siding with the vote's majority? Those nations themselves, we believe, are at less of a fault than those who would actively seek to create that majority.

This will be submitted within the next 12 hours.

Jocospor wrote:This will be submitted within the next 12 hours.

OOC: The new draft is extremely weak. It is mostly just filler with very little in the way of actual substance; nowhere near enough to warrant repealing the previous commend.

The New California Republic wrote:

Jocospor wrote:This will be submitted within the next 12 hours.

OOC: The new draft is extremely weak. It is mostly just filler with very little in the way of actual substance; nowhere near enough to warrant repealing the previous commend.

BUT IA VOTES ON THINGS SOON AFTER THEY REACH THE FLOOR!!!! Didn't you hear??? Oh, the horror!!!!

So you’re singling out IA for doing something that every other large WAD has been doing for years. That doesn’t really hold water as an argument.