[PASSED] Commend Almonaster Nuevo

[Makdon]

Turns out, I was wrong. Even aiding the community with such skill isn't commendable anymore. The SC has raised the bar massively with its most recent votes.

Those graphics for XKI aren't that impressive. As Yokiria noted, Imkiville's graphics were better and her commendation was rejected.

Against.

No matter how you want to slice it, Almonaster has provided an incredible of amount of graphics not just to 10KI, but to all of NS. I'm not going to argue with you about the quality of their work, because I doubt I'll be able to change your opinion on that. However, I would suggest that your thoughts on it are, well, wrong. Even if their work isn't up to your standards, the sheer amount they have given to the community is an accomplishment in itself. Moving on, I couldn't agree with Morover more on this. The fact that other C/Cs haven't passed in the past simply doesn't discount Almonaster's accomplishments.

[Yokiria]

Now, in an attempt to avoid being political about the whole situation, I do think it's unfair to vote based off of the SC's standard - you should vote based off of your own standard. If you think something is commend-worthy, vote for it.

I prefer to go by the SC's standard, rather than follow such an anarchic philosophy.

Who gives a shit if the other members of the organization think it's worthy. We get good, honest proposals when people vote based off of their own conscience, not when they vote based off of some preconceived notion over whether something is a good proposal or not.

In actuality, some of the biggest snubs in the Security Council's history are because feelings got in the way of a proposal's objective quality.

I for one think Almonaster is very deserving of recognition for their work, and hope to see this pass on the voting floor once it's ready

It's disappointing to see such a prolific SC author, one I look up to in fact, showing such inconsistency from one Commendation to the next. Perhaps TITO High Command will intervene once again.

[Kuriko]

Now, in an attempt to avoid being political about the whole situation, I do think it's unfair to vote based off of the SC's standard - you should vote based off of your own standard. If you think something is commend-worthy, vote for it.

I prefer to go by the SC's standard, rather than follow such an anarchic philosophy.

Who gives a shit if the other members of the organization think it's worthy. We get good, honest proposals when people vote based off of their own conscience, not when they vote based off of some preconceived notion over whether something is a good proposal or not.

In actuality, some of the biggest snubs in the Security Council's history are because feelings got in the way of a proposal's objective quality.

I for one think Almonaster is very deserving of recognition for their work, and hope to see this pass on the voting floor once it's ready

It's disappointing to see such a prolific SC author, one I look up to in fact, showing such inconsistency from one Commendation to the next. Perhaps TITO High Command will intervene once again.

I thought I was actually being pretty consistent?? I won't comment on the Cormac votes other than to say that my vote isn't my own, and that that should be taken into account when looking at how I vote. Almonaster has done a lot of work over the last 13 year's for a lot of players and regions. Good work, barring what some might think. He's as deserving as Imagey Nation of a commendation.

[Bormiar]

Why are we even talking about Cormac's commendation right now? The two parts of the game aren't in any way comparable, and any attempt to compare them (as proved in the recent Commend Kindjal) doesn't actually work.

Now, in an attempt to avoid being political about the whole situation, I do think it's unfair to vote based off of the SC's standard - you should vote based off of your own standard. If you think something is commend-worthy, vote for it.

I prefer to go by the SC's standard, rather than follow such an anarchic philosophy.

To the contrary, it's not in any way "anarchic" if each voter voted based on what they thought was worthy rather than what they thought the SC thought. We'd be much more democratic. It happens to give your vote to the big delegates to do otherwise.

[Yokiria]

Turns out, I was wrong. Even aiding the community with such skill isn't commendable anymore. The SC has raised the bar massively with its most recent votes.

In this, I'd only echo Morover's comment.

And I echo my response to Morover's comment.

Their helpfulness to other nations isn't unique and doesn't rise to the SC's standard for commendation,

By those standards, GP and RP and virtually everything bar minigames cannot be commended by the SC. These things only become unique when done with intensity and/or creativity greatly above the average, Almonaster having done well in both metrics.

Not well enough.

Their moderation of the NSWF, conducting a sole interview, and "assistance" pales in comparison to other contributions by players that the SC have already ruled as being unworthy of commendation,
Their region-building and service to Canada has also been easily eclipsed by multiple other players where the SC deemed the accomplishments unworthy of commendation,

There is proof, and there is evidence.

This is not intended to be proof in and of itself. It simply goes along with the other evidence, and it's the job of the writer to make it clear how they connect in the "introduction" and "conclusion" with a "thesis" of sorts, thus forming a cohesive picture of the nation. To take each piece of evidence separately, analyze them as though they were left alone, and then vote based on that, you would ultimately find no nation commendable.

I addressed each separate piece and then addressed the body of work as a whole. You conveniently left that part of my comment unquoted. Garbage move.

That leaves their flag-making, which is not unique either. In fact, Imkiville did better work in the flag-making realm, and Imkiville's Commendation draft was also scoffed at by the SC.

Those graphics for XKI aren't that impressive. As Yokiria noted, Imkiville's graphics were better and her commendation was rejected.

I think the easiest fallacy in the SC is to suggest that it is bounded by its previous votes.

The rules of writing proposals are not bound by previous votes. The standards by which we judge proposals, however, absolutely can be bound by previous votes, and it's not a fallacy to do so simply because you disagree.

No matter how you want to slice it, Almonaster has provided an incredible of amount of graphics not just to 10KI, but to all of NS. I'm not going to argue with you about the quality of their work, because I doubt I'll be able to change your opinion on that. However, I would suggest that your thoughts on it are, well, wrong. Even if their work isn't up to your standards, the sheer amount they have given to the community is an accomplishment in itself. Moving on, I couldn't agree with Morover more on this. The fact that other C/Cs haven't passed in the past simply doesn't discount Almonaster's accomplishments.

And Almonaster's incredible amount of graphics provided.... is not commend-worthy. It wasn't for Imki, and it's not for him. By the way, you're only fooling yourself if you believe other generous graphic artists being deemed unworthy of commendation by this august body doesn't discount this generous graphic artist. It absolutely does.

To the contrary, it's not in any way "anarchic" if each voter voted based on what they thought was worthy rather than what they thought the SC thought. We'd be much more democratic. It happens to give your vote to the big delegates to do otherwise.

Please explain how voting according to the standards of the Security Council gives one's vote to the major delegates. I really want to read that trash.

[Morover]

Now, in an attempt to avoid being political about the whole situation, I do think it's unfair to vote based off of the SC's standard - you should vote based off of your own standard. If you think something is commend-worthy, vote for it.

I prefer to go by the SC's standard, rather than follow such an anarchic philosophy.

Who gives a shit if the other members of the organization think it's worthy. We get good, honest proposals when people vote based off of their own conscience, not when they vote based off of some preconceived notion over whether something is a good proposal or not.

In actuality, some of the biggest snubs in the Security Council's history are because feelings got in the way of a proposal's objective quality.

While I disagree your assertion that such a philosophy is anarchic (especially in such a circumstance where personal gain is rarely achieved, and it is rather a notion of whether or not something is "deserved"), I can appreciate your preference for maintaining a relative balance of things, even as such balance goes against your own beliefs (as I assume they do, based off of your comments).

I also feel that continuing to validate what you apparently consider to be "some of the biggest snubs" just because it's happened before is not the way to go about it. Complicity seems to be the least valuable option in such a circumstance, but you are free to do as you please, of course. You obviously have your reasons.

Okay, rant v2.0 is done.

(and, for the record, I also believe that the candidate is worthy of a commendation. I may come back later on and give more comprehensive feedback.)

[Moon Panther]

It wasn't for Imki, and it's not for him.

Do you have a link for Imki's commendation attempt? Was it as focused on graphics work as this one was? I would imagine there were other circumstances involved there, as to why it may fail.

[Nouveau Quebecois]

One of the rare commendations that are actually deserved. Full support.

[Yokiria]

<snip>

Thank you for your understanding and your refreshingly neutral tone.

It wasn't for Imki, and it's not for him.

Do you have a link for Imki's commendation attempt? Was it as focused on graphics work as this one was? I would imagine there were other circumstances involved there, as to why it may fail.

Here you go: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=448617

One of the rare commendations that are actually deserved. Full support.

Ominous.

[Bormiar]

I addressed each separate piece and then addressed the body of work as a whole. You conveniently left that part of my comment unquoted. Garbage move.

Heh. No need to get heated.

I left out your conclusion because it was either a) happened to be derived from the comments that I already argued against, meaning my rebuttal would've already rebutted your conclusion; or b) the opinion was just a solitary assertion not based on your previous arguments, thus making it nothing more than your opinion, and needing no response.

I think the easiest fallacy in the SC is to suggest that it is bounded by its previous votes.

The rules of writing proposals are not bound by previous votes. The standards by which we judge proposals, however, absolutely can be bound by previous votes, and it's not a fallacy to do so simply because you disagree.

Here, I'll illustrate why it's a fallacy with an example:

Your Italian grandmother is making pizza and forgets the sauce! The grandkids don't like the pizza. Your Italian grandmother decides that the standards for making pizza has risen in recent generations, and never makes pizza again.

She's shocked when her grandkids tell her that pizza always needed the sauce, and that this one solitary screw-up shouldn't deter her from trying a new one with sauce.

To the contrary, it's not in any way "anarchic" if each voter voted based on what they thought was worthy rather than what they thought the SC thought. We'd be much more democratic. It happens to give your vote to the big delegates to do otherwise.

Please explain how voting according to the standards of the Security Council gives one's vote to the major delegates. I really want to read that trash.

Commend Cormac was stomped beyond anything a proposal could survive. The opinion (or region's opinion) of those big delegates became the results of the vote-- superdelegates were in control. Using the results of the vote to define your opinion, means, well...

---

As for Commend Imkiville, which might be somewhat relevant in predicting the results of this vote: the focus is clearly not on flags.

[Panther]

Here you go: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=448617

Thank you.

Reading through Imki's proposed commendation, it doesn't really feel like art was much of a focus. The one mention feels a bit like a throwaway at the end. There were many more controversial clauses supporting the proposal above.

Seems a bit disingenuous to use that failed attempt as the reason to not support this one. The two appear to be night and day.

[Yokiria]

Here, I'll illustrate why it's a fallacy with an example:

Your Italian grandmother is making pizza and forgets the sauce! The grandkids don't like the pizza. Your Italian grandmother decides that the standards for making pizza has risen in recent generations, and never makes pizza again.

She's shocked when her grandkids tell her the the pizza always need the sauce, and that this one solitary screw-up shouldn't deter her from trying a new one with sauce.

I like the analogy, let's keep it going.

Sadly her grandkid from the north keeps telling her she forgot the sauce every time she makes the pizza, even when she does make it with sauce, because her grandkid from the north is gaslighting her and actually despises her pizza.

[Makdon]

That leaves their flag-making, which is not unique either. In fact, Imkiville did better work in the flag-making realm, and Imkiville's Commendation draft was also scoffed at by the SC.

Looking back at imki's commendation proposal, it had only one clause about graphics work. The rest was entirely devoted to GP and region building, so I don't think they're at all comparable drafts. The only other proposal that was so centered around visual design was imagey nation's, which passed. So, when it comes to precedent, I would say it backs this up. While other recent proposals for GPers, who you believe have accomplished more, might not have passed, that really isn't applicable to this proposal, as they're of a completely different ilk.

[Makdon]

I like the analogy, let's keep it going.

Sadly her grandkid from the north keeps telling her she forgot the sauce every time she makes the pizza, even when she does make it with sauce, because her grandkid from the north is gaslighting her and actually despises her pizza.

Does that mean that you should tell her she doesn't have the sauce, even when she does? If you feel there's been gaslighting, is that really an excuse to continue it?

[Bormiar]

Here, I'll illustrate why it's a fallacy with an example:

Your Italian grandmother is making pizza and forgets the sauce! The grandkids don't like the pizza. Your Italian grandmother decides that the standards for making pizza has risen in recent generations, and never makes pizza again.

She's shocked when her grandkids tell her the the pizza always need the sauce, and that this one solitary screw-up shouldn't deter her from trying a new one with sauce.

I like the analogy, let's keep it going.

Sadly her grandkid from the north keeps telling her she forgot the sauce every time she makes the pizza, even when she does make it with sauce, because her grandkid from the north is gaslighting her and actually despises her pizza.

The grandkids from the north, west, east, and a few other places remind the grandmother that the grandkids don't like the concept the bread, and that next time she should try out a new, better type of bread.

Edit: the grandkid from the misnomer is reminded they have real work to do in another universe.

[Yokiria]

Edit: the grandkid from the misnomer is reminded they have real work to do in another universe.

While it was fun equating the Security Council to a pizza-making grandma with at least one inter-dimensional grandchild, I'd like to ground us back in reality by saying the following.

Almonaster Nuevo is as maybe half as worthy of Commendation as the last player to be voted on for Commendation was. For a fairer comparison, Almonaster Nuevo is about as worthy of Commendation as Imkiville is for the artistry. Rant and rave at me about how "This is different!", but it's the same august body, the same type of proposal, and the same kind of accomplishments. So, it shall be the same standard as well.

Go ahead and support based on your feelings, your hot takes, which way the wind is blowing, and however else you lot decide C&Cs now. I'll stick with the way that makes actual sense.

[Panther]

Almonaster Nuevo is as maybe half as worthy of Commendation as the last player to be voted on for Commendation was.

While I supported the proposal to commend Cormac, surely there were some complex and controversial factors involved there that contributed to it failing but which are absent here. Though Almonaster may not have done as much as Cormac, the argument for their commendation isn't as fraught, either.

[Bormiar]

Almonaster Nuevo is as maybe half as worthy of Commendation as the last player to be voted on for Commendation was. For a fairer comparison, Almonaster Nuevo is about as worthy of Commendation as Imkiville is for the artistry. Rant and rave at me about how "This is different!", but it's the same august body, the same type of proposal, and the same kind of accomplishments. So, it shall be the same standard as well.

Go ahead and support based on your feelings, your hot takes, which way the wind is blowing, and however else you lot decide C&Cs now. I'll stick with the way that makes actual sense.

Heh. I've seen this before. Circle through one round of debate, ditch the previous argument, and restate your opinion. I could rephrase this ("why don't you vote for Cormac and then vote on this based on your opinion on what should be worthy?"), but I think that requires a basic understanding of voting.

You're not going to hear reason in this thread, because your primary argument is only inserting your venting tirade about "Commend Cormactopia Prime" into whatever random commendation you can target-- despite the proposal's lack of applicability to gameplay. We get it: you don't like the results. How about we stop wallowing in how awful the SC is and actually consider these votes reasonably?

As such, this argument doesn't phase the other comments on Almonaster's successes, nor does it shake the argument made in this proposal (about Almonaster Nuevo).

[Yokiria]

Heh. I've seen this before. Circle through one round of debate, ditch the previous argument, and restate your opinion.

The previous argument turned into a bizarre analogy about pizza grandma. I ditched it for my sanity.
Also, I'm convinced that every time you go "Heh.", a puppy dies.

I could rephrase this ("why don't you vote for Cormac and then vote on this based on your opinion on what should be worthy?"), but I think that requires a basic understanding of voting.

This again. Bormiar, you disagreeing with the fact I vote according to SC standard does not mean voting according to that standard makes me "lack understanding". This is the second time you've gone with the "Because I disagree, you're dumb" tactic. It's amateurish. Do better.

You're not going to hear reason in this thread, because your primary argument is only inserting your venting tirade about "Commend Cormactopia Prime" into whatever random commendation you can target-- despite the proposal's lack of applicability to gameplay. We get it: you don't like the results. How about we stop wallowing in how awful the SC is and actually consider these votes reasonably?

I'm not hearing reason from you, naturally, but I have heard reason from the likes of Morover. Seems like my argument isn't the problem! Oh, and holding other Commendations to the same standard that Commend Cormac was held to isn't a "venting tirade". It's being consistent. You want me to be inconsistent, and I refuse.

As such, this argument doesn't phase the other comments on Almonaster's successes, nor does it shake the argument made in this proposal (about Almonaster Nuevo).

I've already argued how Almonaster's successes don't meet the new standard for commendability. You can read it here.

[Bormiar]

I could rephrase this ("why don't you vote for Cormac and then vote on this based on your opinion on what should be worthy?"), but I think that requires a basic understanding of voting.

This again. Bormiar, you disagreeing with the fact I vote according to SC standard does not mean voting according to that standard makes me "lack understanding". This is the second time you've gone with the "Because I disagree, you're dumb" tactic. It's amateurish. Do better.

Sure. Of course it's ridiculous to say that you're not understanding something because I disagree with you.

I have no idea why you can't understand this. Maybe you're just being stubborn in your support for "Commend Cormactopia Prime".

You're not going to hear reason in this thread, because your primary argument is only inserting your venting tirade about "Commend Cormactopia Prime" into whatever random commendation you can target-- despite the proposal's lack of applicability to gameplay. We get it: you don't like the results. How about we stop wallowing in how awful the SC is and actually consider these votes reasonably?

I'm not hearing reason from you, naturally, but I have heard reason from the likes of Morover. Seems like my argument isn't the problem! Oh, and holding other Commendations to the same standard that Commend Cormac was held to isn't a "venting tirade". It's being consistent. You want me to be inconsistent, and I refuse.

Morover was incredibly patient with you, and clearly yielded where he shouldn't have. It's not "anarchic" to vote based on your own personal opinion (what an abstruse concept!), and while I'm sure he didn't mean this to be the case, but agreeing with that postulation only validates your argument.

You are not the Security Council, nor are you the arbiter of results within it. All you can control is your own vote, so be consistent with it. If Commend Cormactopia Prime was enough for you, then this can be too. If you don't think that this is enough for commendation in your eyes of what commendations should be, then fine.

As such, this argument doesn't phase the other comments on Almonaster's successes, nor does it shake the argument made in this proposal (about Almonaster Nuevo).

I've already argued how Almonaster's successes don't meet the new standard for commendability. You can read it here.

What new standard? If you disagree with the results of the threads: well, no Security Council is perfect, so you can't draw conclusions on its expectations from two anecdotes. And even then, vote based on your own standards-- it's so remarkably obvious.

Edit: oh, if consistency’s what you value, why are you trying to commend Cormac?

[Yokiria]

Sure. Of course it's ridiculous to say that you're not understanding something because I disagree with you.

I have no idea why you can't understand this. Maybe you're just being stubborn in your support for "Commend Cormactopia Prime".

Your mistake is thinking I don't understand something. I understand everything fine. The SC decided that Cormac's contributions to the game are not worthy of commendable. I'm simply following the trend of what the SC finds commendable, as I have always tried to do.

I'm not hearing reason from you, naturally, but I have heard reason from the likes of Morover. Seems like my argument isn't the problem! Oh, and holding other Commendations to the same standard that Commend Cormac was held to isn't a "venting tirade". It's being consistent. You want me to be inconsistent, and I refuse.

Morover was incredibly patient with you, and clearly yielded where he shouldn't have.

You later say I'm not the arbiter of the Security Council. Well neither are you, Bormiar. While I'm sure you would have preferred that Morover kept arguing with me until his fingers fell off, you're in no position to even criticize the fact he didn't.

It's not "anarchic" to vote based on your own personal opinion (what an abstruse concept!), and while I'm sure he didn't mean this to be the case, but agreeing with that postulation only validates your argument.

I'm going to nickname myself "Queen of Abstruse". Thanks for the inspiration. As for your actual statement, it's anarchic to vote without regard for the standards for commendation. That will lead to more Commend Canterlot situations.

PS: It's weird that you're trying to twist the amicable conclusion that the exchange Morover and I came to into disagreement, by the way. You're "sure" Morover didn't mean that? Why's it so hard to believe someone might see my side of things? Because you can't? Come now.

You are not the Security Council, nor are you the arbiter of results within it. All you can control is your own vote, so be consistent with it.

Advice we should all be following.

If you don't think that this is enough for commendation in your eyes of what commendations should be, then fine.

I don't. I've said that multiple times now.

I've already argued how Almonaster's successes don't meet the new standard for commendability. You can read it here.

What new standard? If you disagree with the results of the threads: well, no Security Council is perfect, so you can't draw conclusions on its expectations from two anecdotes. And even then, vote based on your own standards-- it's so remarkably obvious.?

With very rare exception, I have always voted based on the standards of the Security Council when it comes to Commends and Condemns. Those standards evolve as the SC and its voters evolve. I can absolutely draw conclusions on its expectations from two votes on the worthiness of the most influential Gameplayer in the past decade, and you calling those two votes "anecdotes" is massively understating their importance.

Edit: oh, if consistency’s what you value, why are you trying to commend Cormac?

You have me confused with Jakker.

[Bormiar]

Alright, so I see the problem here. The SC does not evolve with one resolution.

So here’s my solution: everyone who agreed that the results of Commend Cormac make this proposal bad can vote against. Everyone who doesn’t think that can vote based on their opinion of what commendations should require.

If this proposal or any other proposal that Yokiria finds to be less than Commend Cormac passes, Yokiria will then be able to see that “the SC’s standards have changed” yet again, just like they have potentially hundreds of times over the last decade.

When the next vote comes, it may be more worthy than Commend Almon, so the standards will have raised, and Commend Almon will have become archaic.

[Yokiria]

If this proposal or any other proposal that Yokiria finds to be less than Commend Cormac passes, Yokiria will then be able to see that “the SC’s standards have changed” yet again, just like they have potentially hundreds of times over the last decade.

Exactly. The SC is a dynamic entity. Commend Cormac's failure to pass made what's considered commend-worthy skyrocket. If the next few voting periods for Commends find individuals worthy of commendation at levels that are closer to what they was before, I'll toss the Commend Cormac situation away as an outlier. Until then, though, no support.

By the way, I'm not the only one that supports and votes according to the SC standards for C&Cs. Maybe it's less popular to do it this way than it was 6 years ago, but it's still a method.

[Bormiar]

My point was that you can’t make a standard from one resolution. Think climate vs weather.

[Yokiria]

My point was that you can’t make a standard from one resolution. Think climate vs weather.

Oh no, I am not going on your analogy adventure again