[PASSED] Commend Tim-Opolis

[Quebecshire]

I don't want to engage with this but there's a part of it I'm not going to led stand unaddressed.

My region and I were damn near blacklisted because of my region's old problems, and Tim had every reason to hate me and us indefinitely for it. When we fixed our shit up a number of months later and expressed interest in defending, instead of telling us to pound sand like he easily and justifiably could have, he took a chance on my region and I, argued for us, and it is because of that and the hard work that my regionmates and I have put in that one of the largest defender militaries in the game exists right now.

In the time since he, and others either on their own or as a result of his advocacy for us, have put immense faith and trust in my region and me specifically. I've seen him do this with others too, if he believes in your potential he'll go to bat for you and die on your hill. I've met very few people who are better hype-men, and he is within a small group of gameplayers I would say I consider friends and mentors.

I've been on this site since 2016 through a lot of shit times and a lot of good times. I will not be told that I am a manipulated pawn by someone who is being bitter and can't let things go.

I will continue drafting my proposal with intent to pass it, of my own volition, because I want to and because I asked Tim if I could write this. End of discussion.

By going over your history with Tim, you've done an excellent job of laying out exactly what makes you so easily manipulated by him, in actuality. Talking about this, I speak not only from personal experience, but from my experience knowing others in NS that fell prey to the way Tim plays this damned political sim. You're still useful, Q, and that's the difference.

As for me being "bitter" and being unable to "let things go"... You're close on that one. I'm justifiably bitter, and I chose not to let this one go. Someone needed to post what I posted about Tim, so even if it's not widely believed, it's at least out there and known how unworthy of a Commend he actually is. Better that than the narrative that was being built in this thread of him just being a bit of a jerk sometimes.

FYI, I've no future in this part of the game anymore. I decided months ago that I'm going just to answer issues, make cute nations, and run an auto-login script. So I don't care how NSGP remembers me. I don't care that I'm hurting my reputation by calling Tim out like this. I'm fine calling a spade a spade.

I measure my success in this game based on community building, not my political usefulness. Don’t get me wrong, Tim is a friend and a mentor, but if your fictional reality came true and he tossed me to the curb, I’d still have everything I’ve built in The League’s community.

Thankfully, it won’t come true because it’s based in vindictiveness. You can say you don’t have a part in the game anymore, but if you literally can’t resist coming here to fling this sort of rhetoric at people, I’m not so sure about that.

But what does little ol manipulated me know?

[Emodea]

As a puppet of Tim I suppor

As someone who has been inflicted with Tim's mind controlling nanites, I too support this.

I, as an obvious puppet of Tim, also support this.

[Free Algerstonia]

On a scale of Tinhampton to Sylh Alanor, I'd say I'm sitting at a solid Luca level of support.

[Unibot III]

You can say you don’t have a part in the game anymore, but if you literally can’t resist coming here to fling this sort of rhetoric at people, I’m not so sure about that.

So you see, Yossarian, if they do speak out, they’re obsessed because they still care enough to speak out, and if they don’t speak out, they’ve not bothered enough to speak out…

[The North Polish Union]

I would say that its interesting that an experienced author doesn't want to engage with any criticism of the potential commendee, since that tactic is usually used by novice authors interested only in trying to squeeze out a badge. Unfortunately in this case it is neither interesting nor surprising. Carry on in any case!

[Hulldom]

On the contrary, authors aren't obliged to listen to anyone or anything.

[Quebecshire]

I would say that its interesting that an experienced author doesn't want to engage with any criticism of the potential commendee, since that tactic is usually used by novice authors interested only in trying to squeeze out a badge. Unfortunately in this case it is neither interesting nor surprising. Carry on in any case!

I am (and have been) open to considering any and all feedback (and I usually implement it, since most regulars here engage in good faith and provide helpful ideas), especially when it comes to improving the narrative and writing (including from people I don't usually agree with in gameplay). (1) (2) (3) (4)

Though, as Hulldom said, I am not obligated to listen to anything. Bad-faith attempts at character assassination and invoking the names of blacklisted individuals to attempt to make a point, and including the weird and insulting implication that I'm a "victim of manipulation" by the nominee, do not fall into the grouping of things I am inclined to listen to in drafting.

[The Church of Satan]

I would say that its interesting that an experienced author doesn't want to engage with any criticism of the potential commendee, since that tactic is usually used by novice authors interested only in trying to squeeze out a badge. Unfortunately in this case it is neither interesting nor surprising. Carry on in any case!

Look, Tim is a bastard at the best of times, but he's earned a commendation ten times over. I say this with absolutely no doubt. I don't mean to sound insulting. I'm just trying to illustrate how little his attitude means compared to all that he has accomplished.

[Kanglia]

I would say that its interesting that an experienced author doesn't want to engage with any criticism of the potential commendee, since that tactic is usually used by novice authors interested only in trying to squeeze out a badge. Unfortunately in this case it is neither interesting nor surprising. Carry on in any case!

Probably because most of the criticism is mostly bad-faith arguments and attempts to belittle the character of Tim as opposed to providing any gameplay-involved arguments as to why he doesn't deserve the commendation. Overall it is mostly criticism for political purposes as opposed to disagreements over the writing in of itself.

[Minskiev]

I would say that its interesting that an experienced author doesn't want to engage with any criticism of the potential commendee, since that tactic is usually used by novice authors interested only in trying to squeeze out a badge. Unfortunately in this case it is neither interesting nor surprising. Carry on in any case!

The truly uninteresting and unsurprising thing here is yet another of your thinly-veiled attempts at genuine feedback. Though we both know you're only here to support tirades against <insert defender here>. Numero finds Wayneactia to be the dust of gameplay, and you somehow manage to be a less interesting Wayneactia. You are GP's dross. Please continue whining about your 10-year, unfounded grudge against Karp; that provided actual entertainment.

Quebec has engaged in criticism plenty, anyway, so your jab here doesn't even land.

[Queen Yuno]

I would say that its interesting that an experienced author doesn't want to engage with any criticism of the potential commendee, since that tactic is usually used by novice authors interested only in trying to squeeze out a badge. Unfortunately in this case it is neither interesting nor surprising. Carry on in any case!

Probably because most of the criticism is mostly bad-faith arguments and attempts to belittle the character of Tim as opposed to providing any gameplay-involved arguments as to why he doesn't deserve the commendation. Overall it is mostly criticism for political purposes as opposed to disagreements over the writing in of itself.

The issue isthat it's not actually bad faith. Remember when he got a 1 year regional-ban from your own GCR region (TSP) for piss-poor toxic behavior? Yeah.

I'm laughing my ass off if, after witnessing all that happen with him in your own region, you still think it's just politics.

[Free Algerstonia]

On the contrary, authors aren't obliged to listen to anyone or anything.

Now can you say this whenever a new author gets dogpiled for "not listening to concerns" by pompous security council regulars?

[One Small Island]

On the contrary, authors aren't obliged to listen to anyone or anything.

Now can you say this whenever a new author gets dogpiled for "not listening to concerns" by pompous security council regulars?

There is a distinct difference between a new author refusing to listen to a critique of the content of their resolution, and an experienced author refusing to listen to a critique of the subject of their resolution.

[Free Algerstonia]

Now can you say this whenever a new author gets dogpiled for "not listening to concerns" by pompous security council regulars?

There is a distinct difference between a new author refusing to listen to a critique of the content of their resolution, and an experienced author refusing to listen to a critique of the subject of their resolution.

No, there is not. It's egotistical to demand that authors, regardless of experience, agree and comply with all of their criticisms. The double standards shown towards newer authors when they decline the criticism is even more so. And dislike of someone, while it's something that I personally ignore and don't let affect my vote, is perfectly fine especially given the mixture of in-character and out-of-character that occurs everywhere in the Security Council.

[Comfed]

There is a distinct difference between a new author refusing to listen to a critique of the content of their resolution, and an experienced author refusing to listen to a critique of the subject of their resolution.

No, there is not. It's egotistical to demand that authors, regardless of experience, agree and comply with all of their criticisms. The double standards shown towards newer authors when they decline the criticism is even more so. And dislike of someone, while it's something that I personally ignore and don't let affect my vote, is perfectly fine especially given the mixture of in-character and out-of-character that occurs everywhere in the Security Council.

It is not the case that authors refusing to listen to basic criticisms about standards for proposals and authors not engaging with opposition on principle to the subject of the resolution are the same thing or indistinguishable.

[Quebecshire]

I'm obviously not a mod and have no authority to make this happen, but this thread has been enough of a rollercoaster with all of the mudslinging, I would personally appreciate it if we could keep things on the topic of the resolution and its drafting. Is there a discussion to be had about SC decorum? Sure, but I'd prefer it be had somewhere where it can actually get focus and be productively had.

[Free Algerstonia]

I'm obviously not a mod and have no authority to make this happen, but this thread has been enough of a rollercoaster with all of the mudslinging, I would personally appreciate it if we could keep things on the topic of the resolution and its drafting. Is there a discussion to be had about SC decorum? Sure, but I'd prefer it be had somewhere where it can actually get focus and be productively had.

I'll drop it.

[RiderSyl]

Now can you say this whenever a new author gets dogpiled for "not listening to concerns" by pompous security council regulars?

There is a distinct difference between a new author refusing to listen to a critique of the content of their resolution, and an experienced author refusing to listen to a critique of the subject of their resolution.

No, there is not. It's egotistical to demand that authors, regardless of experience, agree and comply with all of their criticisms. The double standards shown towards newer authors when they decline the criticism is even more so. And dislike of someone, while it's something that I personally ignore and don't let affect my vote, is perfectly fine especially given the mixture of in-character and out-of-character that occurs everywhere in the Security Council.

It is not the case that authors refusing to listen to basic criticisms about standards for proposals and authors not engaging with opposition on principle to the subject of the resolution are the same thing or indistinguishable.

Ya, I agree with these posts. Quebec not listening to me here in this instance isn't comparable to new authors stubbornly refusing feedback.

You can say you don’t have a part in the game anymore, but if you literally can’t resist coming here to fling this sort of rhetoric at people, I’m not so sure about that.

So you see, Yossarian, if they do speak out, they’re obsessed because they still care enough to speak out, and if they don’t speak out, they’ve not bothered enough to speak out…

Probably because most of the criticism is mostly bad-faith arguments and attempts to belittle the character of Tim as opposed to providing any gameplay-involved arguments as to why he doesn't deserve the commendation. Overall it is mostly criticism for political purposes as opposed to disagreements over the writing in of itself.

The issue isthat it's not actually bad faith. Remember when he got a 1 year regional-ban from your own GCR region (TSP) for piss-poor toxic behavior? Yeah.

I'm laughing my ass off if, after witnessing all that happen with him in your own region, you still think it's just politics.

Unibot and Yuno making good counterpoints.

I would say that its interesting that an experienced author doesn't want to engage with any criticism of the potential commendee, since that tactic is usually used by novice authors interested only in trying to squeeze out a badge. Unfortunately in this case it is neither interesting nor surprising. Carry on in any case!

The truly uninteresting and unsurprising thing here is yet another of your thinly-veiled attempts at genuine feedback. Though we both know you're only here to support tirades against <insert defender here>. Numero finds Wayneactia to be the dust of gameplay, and you somehow manage to be a less interesting Wayneactia. You are GP's dross. Please continue whining about your 10-year, unfounded grudge against Karp; that provided actual entertainment.

Quebec has engaged in criticism plenty, anyway, so your jab here doesn't even land.

Hello, police? I just witnessed a Walrus murder a man.

[Unibot III]

I will note, despite my jab, I remain supportive of the proposal and I will outline my thinking in an attempt to appeal to those that have expressed their reservations here in this thread towards Tim. Tim and I have hardly gotten along, but I recognize that he has played a big role in NationStates, especially in helping to build up the Grey Wardens. Certainly we’ve had our run-ins, I’ve found him high-handed and catty at times. But also, so what? Nobody is ever going to like everyone.

It’s my belief that the WA Security Council is confronted with a choice as an institution regarding WA Commendations: it can treat it as a recognition of excellence and contribution, or it can treat it as a popularity contest. It can’t do both. This institution is at risk of becoming a place that gives badges out to “good people,” and black marks to “bad people,” but the world in which it exists isn’t that convenient or straightforward. The people who accomplish remarkable things in our own communities aren’t always the most affable people, and the people who are beloved by everyone for being so affable and discreet often maintain that reputation by avoiding the essential decisions that must be made. I’m not convinced that the WA Security Council can reject “some” nominees (i.e., the ones I don’t like) for personality conflicts but maintain its present precedent of valuing contributions first and foremost overall.

[Hulldom]

I will note, despite my jab, I remain supportive of the proposal and I will outline my thinking in an attempt to appeal to those that have expressed their reservations here in this thread towards Tim. Tim and I have hardly gotten along, but I recognize that he has played a big role in NationStates, especially in helping to build up the Grey Wardens. Certainly we’ve had our run-ins, I’ve found him high-handed and catty at times. But also, so what? Nobody is ever going to like everyone.

It’s my belief that the WA Security Council is confronted with a choice as an institution regarding WA Commendations: it can treat it as a recognition of excellence and contribution, or it can treat it as a popularity contest. It can’t do both. This institution is at risk of becoming a place that gives badges out to “good people,” and black marks to “bad people,” but the world in which it exists isn’t that convenient or straightforward. The people who accomplish remarkable things in our own communities aren’t always the most affable people, and the people who are beloved by everyone for being so affable and discreet often maintain that reputation by avoiding the essential decisions that must be made. I’m not convinced that the WA Security Council can reject “some” nominees (i.e., the ones I don’t like) for personality conflicts but maintain its present precedent of valuing contributions first and foremost overall.

I have no opinion on the first paragraph, but wholeheartedly agree on the main point you're making in the second. If someone has made a positive big mark on the game (imo Tim has), they ought to be commended.

Merits over morals people, except when the moral stance you'd have to make is horrendous.

[Quebecshire]

Bumping this for any further feedback.

[Quebecshire]

This has been moved to last call, but is still open for feedback! I touched up some wording and added the following clause,

Warmed by the radioactive proficiency of the Potato Alliance, a nuclear coalition led in part by Tim through Spiritus, its founding region. The Potato Alliance has existed in some form during every nuclear apocalypse, and made substantial tactical combats in the fifth and seventh conflicts, Tim’s strategy and dedication being a substantial factor in those resurgences.

[Fachumonn]

This has been moved to last call, but is still open for feedback! I touched up some wording and added the following clause,

Warmed by the radioactive proficiency of the Potato Alliance, a nuclear coalition led in part by Tim through Spiritus, its founding region. The Potato Alliance has existed in some form during every nuclear apocalypse, and made substantial tactical combats in the fifth and seventh conflicts, Tim’s strategy and dedication being a substantial factor in those resurgences.

Are we seriously still commending because of N-Day? How does this improve their case for commendation? It seems to me this was just added in based on it being an "accomplishment" that Tim has, but it doesn't actually improve his case for commendation and is a pretty useless clause.
Otherwise, Support.

[Quebecshire]

This has been moved to last call, but is still open for feedback! I touched up some wording and added the following clause,

Are we seriously still commending because of N-Day? How does this improve their case for commendation? It seems to me this was just added in based on it being an "accomplishment" that Tim has, but it doesn't actually improve his case for commendation and is a pretty useless clause.

Having a part in building a prominent N-Day alliance that has existed for every N-Day and had several major comebacks isn't commendable? Can you elaborate on what the issue is for me? I'm not necessarily opposed to omitting it, but if anything, a lot of people have told me what the draft needs is some level of a note of Tim's N-Day exploits. It's in Salaxalans' commendation, and it should be in Tim's too, in my opinion.

[Platoon of Peace]

This has been moved to last call, but is still open for feedback! I touched up some wording and added the following clause,

Warmed by the radioactive proficiency of the Potato Alliance, a nuclear coalition led in part by Tim through Spiritus, its founding region. The Potato Alliance has existed in some form during every nuclear apocalypse, and made substantial tactical combats in the fifth and seventh conflicts, Tim’s strategy and dedication being a substantial factor in those resurgences.

Hasn't there been stuff in the past about how N-Day is a stupid reason to commend/condemn? not certain but I can fairly confidently say I've read something about how that's not a commendable reason.