Advertisement
by Aivintis » Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:45 am
Timiskrane wrote:The difference between what a view as a "good declaration" and this is that while neither have any mechanical effect, then can be used to present interesting arguments or novel ideas. Basically, some declarations (like SC#358, which you cite in this very proposal) have reasons to exist. Yours does not.
I can boil down your entire proposal to the TL;DR of: "Raid bad, pls don't".
Going back to SC#358, you will notice how it has a lead section that presents arguments as to why it is necessary before actually getting into provisions. Even if it's terrible neo-moralist arguments, I'd at least give us some meat to dig into here.
As an additional note, I will notice it encourages injuctions, liberations, and commendations of defenders, but crucially does not encourage the condemnation of raiders. Why not?
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Destructive raiding practices are condemned with the full diplomatic weight of the Security Council.
An SC condemnation is something specific, awarded to a nominated nation or region. This may be doing more than a Declaration can do and so may be illegal.
Apart from that no support.
Edit: if this is an illegality I’m sure you can find something equally sanctimonious to fit in with the holier-than-thou content of the rest of the draft.
British Arzelentaxmacone wrote:Many users and collective regions thoroughly enjoy the practice of raiding, so sanctioning that would definitely restrict some fundamental freedoms of NS. Also, by telling people to not raid, it is human nature to want to raid more.
Mlakhavia wrote:"The full diplomatic weight of the Security Council" is not as intimidating a phrase as the author would have us believe.
by Varanius » Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:43 am
Mlakhavia wrote:"The full diplomatic weight of the Security Council" is not as intimidating a phrase as the author would have us believe.
Angeloid Astraea wrote:I can't think of anyone that creates controversy out of nothing better than you!
Excidium Planetis wrote:Yeah, if you could enlighten me as to why you're such an asshole, that would be great.
Koth wrote:Vara is such a dedicated hater, it's impressive
Mlakhavia wrote:Vara isn't a gameplay personality, he's a concentrated ball of spite
by Mlakhavia » Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:33 am
Aivintis wrote:I can do "Destructive raiding practices are denounced by big scary lava monsters who eat everyone who opposes them" if you would rather I go for intimidating over precise and clear.
by Emagination » Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:40 pm
by Mlakhavia » Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:23 pm
Emagination wrote:Color me shocked to see raider tears on what is otherwise a good proposal. It's all a bunch of blah blah blah with these people.
by The Ambis » Sat Aug 19, 2023 6:44 am
by Unibot III » Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:20 am
Aivintis wrote:Unibot's gonna come in with a technicality if he sees this but that's not actually reflective of the overall sentiment of the region
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Mlakhavia » Mon Aug 21, 2023 11:54 pm
Aivintis wrote:it's only greifing, not raiding in general, that this resolution covers. In fact that's one of the reasons jo argued against it. In fact, there's an entire clause clarifying that the resolution makes no stance on raiding, because it's not my place to make a resolution about griefing specifically say anything about raiding in general [...] This is about empowering opposition to raider practices that even indies and unaligned regions disagree with, largely.
by Novelty Soda » Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:16 pm
Aivintis wrote:Nordheimrr wrote:Holy Jesus that is a lot to read.
Time to read it.
Edit: certainty well-written, but this would hurt one of the most fundamental parts of Nationstates gameplay, severely.
It costs raiders nothing to not grief.Tinhampton wrote:FUCK NO.
I don't know if the people in the back quite heard you, could you say it a little louder?
by Novelty Soda » Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:21 pm
Marchland wrote:Nordheimrr wrote:Holy Jesus that is a lot to read.
Time to read it.
Edit: certainty well-written, but this would hurt one of the most fundamental parts of Nationstates gameplay, severely.
Yea cause invading regions and destroying there embassy and banning native region mates is all in the name of fun and games…
by Vleerian » Sun Aug 27, 2023 10:19 am
Aivintis wrote:Security Council Commendations are encouraged for regions and nations who take a strong stance against destructive raiding practices in their military, foreign, and World Assembly policy with great effectiveness on the partial basis of that stance.
by Lerasi » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:21 pm
Vleerian wrote:Aivintis wrote:Security Council Commendations are encouraged for regions and nations who take a strong stance against destructive raiding practices in their military, foreign, and World Assembly policy with great effectiveness on the partial basis of that stance.
Telling, that commendations are encouraged for the good little beans that oppose the horrible act of kicking over sandcastles, but you wouldn't dare include a clause implying that the people doing the actual bad deeds should be condemned.
by Mlakhavia » Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:37 am
Lerasi wrote:Vleerian wrote:Telling, that commendations are encouraged for the good little beans that oppose the horrible act of kicking over sandcastles, but you wouldn't dare include a clause implying that the people doing the actual bad deeds should be condemned.
Telling that every raider who takes offense to this posts this without reading any of the thread where I give an explanation three times.
- Aiv
by Vleerian » Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:58 pm
Lerasi wrote:Telling that every raider who takes offense to this posts this without reading any of the thread where I give an explanation three times.
by Aivintis » Tue Aug 29, 2023 9:51 am
Mlakhavia wrote:If you acknowledge that extremist defenders are the problem, you should be fighting against their influence, not cowing to their whims. People who try and play within the status quo are those who inadvertently reinforce it.
Vleerian wrote:Oh, I read the explanations, I just find the excuse of brazenly caving to so-called "extremist defenders" unsatisfying, and worthy of repeatedly drawing attention to.
Excluding a clause calling for the condemnation of invaders is a very obvious exclusion when you explicitly call for the commendation of those who oppose invasions.
by Mlakhavia » Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:16 am
Aivintis wrote:What do you expect me to do? Change the minds of the most powerful and most extreme defender regions with the snap of my fingers and the click of my heels?
by Vleerian » Tue Aug 29, 2023 4:31 pm
Aivintis wrote:Rare that a BOM member thinks that it's not extreme for defenders to oppose raider condemnations.
Aivintis wrote:Additionally, it seems like you're trying to imply that I should remove the commendation encouragement clause, when I could have sworn raiders prided themselves on the high ground of "We don't oppose their resolutions, they shouldn't oppose ours."
by Aivintis » Fri Sep 01, 2023 7:20 am
Mlakhavia wrote:The people who have this attitude of individual helplessness do not understand their collective power.
Vleerian wrote:It is my personal opinion that faulting anyone for using game mechanics to their team's advantage is just a little silly.
Commends and Condemns are tools, just like libs and injuncts. Ineffectual tools too, if the continued existence and success of BoM is any indication.
Not at all. My preference would obviously be that you simply add the mirroring clause. There was no implication present, merely that the omission of a clause calling for the condemnation of individuals and regions that perpetrate "destructive raiding practices" sticks out like a sore thumb with the way your provisions are laid out.
by Chipoli » Sat Oct 07, 2023 6:33 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Nationalist Northumbria, Skiva
Advertisement