by West DEN And East Invaders » Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:15 am
by Marxist Germany » Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:36 am
by ArenaC » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:16 am
by Alanis Star » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:18 am
• Valentine Z's first ever puppet.
• I really want to carry a kitten and pet it.
• A perfect balance between urban and nature.
• Ruled by a magical android from another dimension, always cheerful and smiling.
•Northern Ateria wrote:"Aww, you [Clarissa] purr just like a little kitten..." - President Adamaris LeahHarleyMustang
Sapporo Hyperspace Riftgate Laboratory wrote:
> literally all NS nations that controlled the entire Earth ever, said in every place in NS possible, in every second since Max Barry created NationStates
by Bhang Bhang Duc » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:33 am
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 Raionitu » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:42 am
Really? Not for a long timeWest DEN And East Invaders wrote:INVADING regions,
HAHAHAHAHA, oh, that's a good one, you ever considered a job as a comedian?NOTING that Gest is Best,
Don't think anyone has the power to veto a resolution, much less you guysVETOING liberation proposals,
Would require you to actually raidATTACKING every region that exists,
See aboveDESTROYING those regions,
See above x2ERADICATING defenders,
I mean, I guess technically they can't defend if you don't raid. This one seems accurate.RUINING the defenders' attempts to defend,
Koth wrote:you guys are cool, like lately ive been watching the overal state of the raider world and been like,"ew", but you guys are very not ew
Reppy wrote:Swearing is just fucking fine on this goddamn fucking forum.
Aguaria Major wrote:The Black Hawks is essentially a regional equivalent of Heath Ledger's Joker: they just want to watch the world burn
Frisbeeteria wrote:Please stop.Please.
Souls wrote:Hi, I'm Souls. Have you embraced our lord and savior , Piling yet?
Souls wrote:Note to self: Watch out for Rai in my bedroom
Altinsane wrote:Me, about every suspiciously helpful newb I meet: "It's probably Rai."
Lord Dominator wrote:Koth is a drunken alternate personality of yours
by West DEN And East Invaders » Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:21 am
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Illegal R3. Can’t commend in the name of raiding.
by Eumaeus » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
The action that a resolution does... does not have to be attributed to any body - however, if it is, it must be attributed to an appropriate authority - ie. the World Assembly or The Security Council...
Raiding History | Security Council | Dear Natives | TWP Raid |
by Lenlyvit » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:08 am
by West DEN And East Invaders » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:18 am
Eumaeus wrote:West DEN And East Invaders wrote:I read the rules. Rule 3 only says it "must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does", which it does.
From the compendium of mod rulings, specifically the section on Rule 3:The action that a resolution does... does not have to be attributed to any body - however, if it is, it must be attributed to an appropriate authority - ie. the World Assembly or The Security Council...
Emphasis mine^
by Eumaeus » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:46 am
West DEN And East Invaders wrote:
There have been non-illegal proposals doing stuff in the name of something that is not the WA or SC before which have passed. What is different here?
The rule says that I can't write "I commend it".
Raiding History | Security Council | Dear Natives | TWP Raid |
by Bhang Bhang Duc » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:58 am
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 Tinhampton » Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:38 am
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Illegal R3. Can’t commend in the name of raiding.
Eumaeus wrote:Ransium also wrote "Acrostic", which a rule 2 violation listed under branding.
by Wrapper » Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:53 pm
by Ransium » Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:02 pm
Wrapper wrote:I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).
by Wallenburg » Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:45 pm
Wrapper wrote:I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).
by Wrapper » Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:40 pm
Additionally, attempts to spell out your name with bolded letters, or other such silliness, will likely be deemed illegal under Rule 2 (use your common sense).
by Wallenburg » Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:56 pm
Wrapper wrote:Wallenburg wrote:How is the acrostic illegal?
From the rulings compendium:Additionally, attempts to spell out your name with bolded letters, or other such silliness, will likely be deemed illegal under Rule 2 (use your common sense).
Acrostics in and of themselves are not necessarily illegal. In this case, I see this as a spammy advertisement for invaders. That fits the “other such silliness” criteria in my mind.
Sedge wrote:The other "Liberate St Abbaddon" was removed for duplicating the arguments of the one that just passed. The removal had to be done just before update, in case the voting changed and the other one failed.
A GHR had been submitted on the "Liberate St Abbaddon" just removed re. the "DEN" acrostic. That part was considered borderline, but just about tolerable, as DEN was directly relevant to the content of the proposal. The same would apply to "Repeal "Condemn the Greater German Reich"". I don't recall noticing the SPECTRE in "Repeal "Liberate Congress of Armed Proletarian States""; I'm not sure what that refers to. It's not immediately obvious as an RL reference or branding of something unrelated to the proposal.
Sedge wrote:Misley wrote:Thanks for the explanation. Could this be added to the thread on mod rulings? The "SPECTRE" in Liberate CAPS referred to the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto: "A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism." Not the Bond film. I take it that if it had been noticed, that proposal would've been discarded?
Nope, in the same way that if it had the acrostic "haunting" and was referring to that word in the sentence you've quoted, it would have been fine. If it was a proper noun (e.g. 'Europe') that would've been more of a problem - though that one is clouded by 'Europe' existing within NS too.
I will update the Compendium with this, but will wait until this discussion is over before doing so, in case any further clarification is needed.
by Felt Karpit » Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:14 pm
by Jakker » Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:15 pm
Ransium wrote:Wrapper wrote:I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).
Yeah maybe R4d is the better way to call it illegal, it’s just happening in the active clause. Regardless, we’re both saying it’s illegal for the same set of words.
The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.
by Definitely Evil Nation » Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:41 pm
Ransium wrote:Wrapper wrote:I must disagree with Jakker and Ransium, I don’t see how this violates R3. However, not only is it illegal for the acrostic, it’s written from the point of view of “Invading regions”, thus I’ve also marked it illegal under 4(d).
Yeah maybe R4d is the better way to call it illegal, it’s just happening in the active clause. Regardless, we’re both saying it’s illegal for the same set of words.
by Vanquaria » Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:46 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Outer Sparta, Ramlethal
Advertisement