by Free Azell » Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:44 pm
by Kaboomlandia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:10 pm
by Borovan entered the region as he » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:15 pm
by Kuriko » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:22 pm
by Solariia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:34 pm
by Kuriko » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:01 pm
Solariia wrote:Whether Vandy has a condemn or not is not the point. I'd simply like to have this draft checked for consistency with the rules and rather or not it meets them. I do not care if some of you are against the proposal, it will be submitted again either way and when it is, I'd like for it to remain legal because it meets the rules of posting to the WA.
by Bormiar » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:27 pm
Solariia wrote:Whether Vandy has a condemn or not is not the point. I'd simply like to have this draft checked for consistency with the rules and rather or not it meets them. I do not care if some of you are against the proposal, it will be submitted again either way and when it is, I'd like for it to remain legal because it meets the rules of posting to the WA.
by Tinhampton » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:42 pm
Bormiar wrote:...Looks legal except for (potentially) the usage of tag-raiding. It's not a game-provided term and doesn't apply to real world nations (e.g. Ransium wouldn't let me use "endo-tarting" in one of my resolutions), so it will probably fall foul of rule 4.
by Solariia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:44 pm
Bormiar wrote:If you aren't even confident with making a legal proposal, you shouldn't be so confident with making a good draft. In its current state, this proposal won't pass (Don't worry. Proposals don't really pass without forum drafting), but you obviously don't care about that, or perhaps find yourself to be the best possible source of feedback for your own draft. Note, regardless of what you say, this thread doubles as a debate thread, so people will say what they wish about the draft.
I, and several others, can otherwise provide feedback.
Looks legal except for (potentially) the usage of tag-raiding. It's not a game-provided term and doesn't apply to real world nations (e.g. Ransium wouldn't let me use "endo-tarting" in one of my resolutions), so it will probably fall foul of rule 4.
by Solariia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:46 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Bormiar wrote:...Looks legal except for (potentially) the usage of tag-raiding. It's not a game-provided term and doesn't apply to real world nations (e.g. Ransium wouldn't let me use "endo-tarting" in one of my resolutions), so it will probably fall foul of rule 4.
Speaking only as a player with some experience of proposal submission, I was never dinged by the moderators for making reference to "tag raiding" in my ill-fated repeal of SC#52. Note also that six resolutions, all passed in the Rule 4 era, have made reference to tag raiding.
For future reference, I am opposed to this proposal and have an InstaRepeal lined up if this somehow passes in its current state.
by Eidolons » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:49 pm
Solariia wrote:Do not assume what I do and don't care about or insult me by claiming I believe myself to be both writer and reviewer
by Kuriko » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:54 pm
by Free Azell » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:58 pm
by Vando0sa » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:01 pm
by Bormiar » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:31 pm
Solariia wrote:(1) If I didn't care about making a good draft then I wouldn't have listened to the advice of Kuriko and told Free Azell to have it submitted here for review.
Solariia wrote:Whether you support or not and have an insta-repeal ready or whatnot is not of my concern.
Solariia wrote:(2) I don't have confidence in making a good draft which is why I have others examine my work before publishing. Previously we had Ransium's blessing on the first proposal and the draft was checked by Free Azell, one other in Autropolis and others in the URA voting bloc. Do not assume what I do and don't care about or insult me by claiming I believe myself to be both writer and reviewer.
Solariia wrote:(3) Because it seems there is some confusion on what I expected from this type of forum, I will therefore tell you exactly what I expected:
(3a) I expected to have the draft criticized to meet the criteria.
(3b) I expected opinions to be based on the writing, not whether people would support the legislation or not.
(4) Therefore, I came here expecting criticism on what is written which is why it was posted here. I don't want to know or care who supports it. What I want is for the draft to be criticized to meet the WA's criteria so it will be declared and remain legal so as to have the potential to enter quorum.
by Solariia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:46 pm
If the general consensus is that Vandoosa's already got a condemn and this doesn't really address anything different, then you really should consider that.
You need to be very open to input in order to consolidate enough feedback to make a solid draft. Your tone is, as Eidolons said, off-putting and suggests a certain level of unjustified confidence.
1) I expect an open mind and a willingness to consider all feedback, concerns, and opinions, regardless of whether you like the player or their comment.
2) I expect that you request clarification and elaboration when you do not understand why someone feels a certain way about your draft.
3) I expect that you reply to all relevant feedback, concerns, and opinions which don't agree with you, and that you debate these comments honestly and to the best of your ability for the merits of your own resolution rather than your own lazy disregard for other's opinions.
4) I expect that you maintain a reasonable level of humility when choosing to draft on these forums.
5) I expect that you recognize that this thread is used for a variety of things, including debate and suggestions not regarding the legality of proposals. If you can't deal with that, go somewhere else.
by East Meranopirus » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:29 pm
by Free Azell » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:36 pm
by Solariia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:39 pm
East Meranopirus wrote:Your disregard for the opinions of SC regulars is mindblowing. Don't overestimate your ability to gather support if you can't get any support here.
by Kaboomlandia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:40 pm
Free Azell wrote:In his defense we put this on here to make serenity was legal and get input. The tone of some seems very intimidating to non regulars. We really are just trying to follow protocol to make this have a shot at passage.
by Solariia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:44 pm
Kaboomlandia wrote:Free Azell wrote:In his defense we put this on here to make serenity was legal and get input. The tone of some seems very intimidating to non regulars. We really are just trying to follow protocol to make this have a shot at passage.
The opposition here isn't unrealistic or over the top. Even if this proposal is legal, it doesn't make it good. Vandoosa has already been condemned by the SC for doing pretty much the exact same stuff described here (and now I'm curious, does duplication apply if the player, but not the nation, has a badge?), and it's such a generic proposal that you could apply it to a lot of raiders by just swapping the names.
by Funeral » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:57 pm
Solariia wrote:Then what is it about other condemnations that makes them unique from one another? Are they not all aiming to accomplish the same thing? If condemning a raider for doing something bad is just 'generic' then what is the purpose of the whole condemnation other than for other RP's that 1000's of other nations would need to participate to understand the context behind their support or disapproval of non-defender-raider gameplay?
by Solariia » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:00 pm
Funeral wrote:Solariia wrote:Then what is it about other condemnations that makes them unique from one another? Are they not all aiming to accomplish the same thing? If condemning a raider for doing something bad is just 'generic' then what is the purpose of the whole condemnation other than for other RP's that 1000's of other nations would need to participate to understand the context behind their support or disapproval of non-defender-raider gameplay?
The idea is that a condemnation would be for going above and beyond what any old raider would do. I don't know the target, but I believe that was the implication being made -- not that the condemnation was generic like all of the other condemnations, but that the activities described in your proposal could as easily be applied to other non-condemned raiders.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Elite
Advertisement