NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Latrovia wrote:Gentlemen, I am sorry that you see it in that way. But we changed what we thought that it needed to be changed. Of course, as you understand, too many cooks spoil a soup. And as you are aware, unfortunately, we can not implement everyone's ideas on the Acts, but we can revise and select a few of them. If you have any suggestions about the wording, please provide your own examples. It'd be a tone of help, instead of sending us back and forth, thinking again and again what we should change now, in order to please the crowds.

Thank you in advance!

OOC: I put it to you again: how can we comment on something that has not been posted here in the form of a draft, and how exactly can any suggestions be put into a proposal that has already been submitted?

Please listen, instead of constantly using these cut-and-paste platitude statements...

Would you like me to post it so you can revise it with your time?

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Latrovia wrote:Gentlemen, I am sorry that you see it in that way. But we changed what we thought that it needed to be changed. Of course, as you understand, too many cooks spoil a soup. And as you are aware, unfortunately, we can not implement everyone's ideas on the Acts, but we can revise and select a few of them. If you have any suggestions about the wording, please provide your own examples. It'd be a tone of help, instead of sending us back and forth, thinking again and again what we should change now, in order to please the crowds.

Thank you in advance!

OOC:
So you will pull the submitted proposals and redraft?

I am afraid that we will have to wait for the results of our proposals before we do that. But we will be happy to start working alongside you in between.

Latrovia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: I put it to you again: how can we comment on something that has not been posted here in the form of a draft, and how exactly can any suggestions be put into a proposal that has already been submitted?

Please listen, instead of constantly using these cut-and-paste platitude statements...

Would you like me to post it so you can revise it with your time?

OOC: What, post a draft of a proposal that has already been submitted? It is a bit late to offer posting a draft now...

The New California Republic wrote:

United Republic Empire wrote:
We wouldn't have to defend it so much if NCR would drop the subject of drafting here instead of mentioning it every chance they get. There is no need to mention "draft here" multiple times, just say it once or twice and be done with it. In the event we choose not to then that's our choice no need to keep trying to force us to.

OOC: It isn't just me that is highlighting the problem with a lack of drafts. And believe me, it is a problem...

You're absolutely right....you are not the only one to mention it, but you are the only one to say it in each reply. What you're doing is spamming draft here draft here draft here. Like really there is no need to consistently reply about that. Can you not drop the subject and leave it be ?

The New California Republic wrote:

Latrovia wrote:
Would you like me to post it so you can revise it with your time?

OOC: What, post a draft of a proposal that has already been submitted? It is a bit late to offer posting a draft now...

Would you like me to re-quote myself from what I just said above, so you can take some extra time to comprehend what I meant?

United Republic Empire wrote:We wouldn't have to defend it so much if NCR would drop the subject of drafting here instead of mentioning it every chance they get.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The reason it keeps coming up isn't because of NCR, it's because you and your co-author consistently disregard suggestions to fix problems, discuss alternatives, or do anything at all to make this something the WA might pass.

United Republic Empire wrote: In the event we choose not to then that's our choice no need to keep trying to force us to.

You understand that this is International Law you're proposing, right? Don't you think that the people who are going to be impacted have the right to contribute to its language?

Latrovia wrote:Of course, as you understand, too many cooks spoil a soup.

You're not making soup, you're making law. This idiotic platitude doesn't apply. You need all the eyes and ideas you can get to make good law.

Latrovia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: What, post a draft of a proposal that has already been submitted? It is a bit late to offer posting a draft now...

Would you like me to re-quote myself from what I just said above, so you can take some extra time to comprehend what I meant?

You mean waiting until it fails to reach quorum and gets posted here for drafting? Yeah I could do that, absolutely.

Frisbeeteria wrote:Sorry, but you're wrong. The reason it keeps coming up isn't because of NCR, it's because you and your co-author consistently disregard suggestions to fix problems, discuss alternatives, or do anything at all to make this something the WA might pass.

1) That's a lie. We are just extremely picky about what we will fix, change or even implement within the architecture of our written law.

Frisbeeteria wrote:You understand that this is International Law you're proposing, right? Don't you think that the people who are going to be impacted have the right to contribute to its language?

2) I agree but most importantly I disagree. While I do agree that the nations of the WA have the right to contribute with their ideas within our Acts (since its going to affect them - as you said). These two proposed bills are (as anyone else could say) our Bills. And as you can quite understand from that, as Authors, it is our responsibility to make any necessary changes that we deem fit for our Acts. In case that we are violating any International Law, the Sec Gens, or even the WA nations are welcome to vote against the bills or even better repeal them. Leading both acts towards their own doom.

Frisbeeteria wrote:You're not making soup, you're making law. This idiotic platitude doesn't apply. You need all the eyes and ideas you can get to make good law.

3) I believe that, in my statements, I get to tell what applies and what does not. And yes, I am quite honored and I take great credit for those idiotic platitudes as you said. What we truly need are people that do fewer words and take more action. If you got what we are looking for, welcome to the team.

The New California Republic wrote:

Latrovia wrote:
Would you like me to re-quote myself from what I just said above, so you can take some extra time to comprehend what I meant?

You mean waiting until it fails to reach quorum and gets posted here for drafting? Yeah I could do that, absolutely.

No, Mr. Californian Dude <3
Work never ceases for us. We start right away!

Latrovia wrote:

Frisbeeteria wrote:Sorry, but you're wrong. The reason it keeps coming up isn't because of NCR, it's because you and your co-author consistently disregard suggestions to fix problems, discuss alternatives, or do anything at all to make this something the WA might pass.

1) That's a lie. We are just extremely picky about what we will fix, change or even implement within the architecture of our written law.

OOC: Yup, accuse a senior mod of lying, that is a good way to get them on your side! Also, you basically just said that you aren't disregarding feedback, but you really are. Bit of a contradiction there, eh?

3) I believe that, in my statements, I get to tell what applies and what does not. And yes, I am quite honored and I take great credit for those idiotic platitudes as you said. What we truly need are people that do fewer words and take more action. If you got what we are looking for, welcome to the team.

OOC: You can’t take credit for idiotic platitudes- you weren’t the one who invented them.

Your fewer words and more action attitude is what leads to the insta-repeal cycle. Which, incidentally, is an intensely-annoying phenomenon that can only be fixed by not passing garbage.

Essu Beti wrote:

3) I believe that, in my statements, I get to tell what applies and what does not. And yes, I am quite honored and I take great credit for those idiotic platitudes as you said. What we truly need are people that do fewer words and take more action. If you got what we are looking for, welcome to the team.

OOC: You can’t take credit for idiotic platitudes- you weren’t the one who invented them.

Your fewer words and more action attitude is what leads to the insta-repeal cycle. Which, incidentally, is an intensely-annoying phenomenon that can only be fixed by not passing garbage.

One person's trash is another person's treasure.

OOC: You used that platitude wrong. That applies to recycling, or to thrift shops where people pick and choose what they want. It also only works for trash that could actually has some value to someone- I dare you to find someone who would be happy to stumble across a fetid pile of dog poop.

Resolutions apply to everyone in the WA, whether they think it’s a good idea or not. Throwing a bag of garbage on someone’s porch isn’t something that will make people happy, whether or not you yell that platitude at them or not.

Essu Beti wrote:OOC: You used that platitude wrong. That applies to recycling, or to thrift shops where people pick and choose what they want. It also only works for trash that could actually has some value to someone- I dare you to find someone who would be happy to stumble across a fetid pile of dog poop.

Resolutions apply to everyone in the WA, whether they think it’s a good idea or not. Throwing a bag of garbage on someone’s porch isn’t something that will make people happy, whether or not you yell that platitude at them or not.

Apparently 62 people would disagree with you.

OOC: Anyone running a delegate campaign can get 62 approvals. Why do you think I mentioned the insta-repeal phenomenon? Because it is an actual thing where absolute garbage reaches quorum, gets passed, and then is immediately and successfully repealed. It is annoying as all hell, and it happens because authors don’t listen when people bring up problems with their proposals.

The New California Republic wrote:

Latrovia wrote:

1) That's a lie. We are just extremely picky about what we will fix, change or even implement within the architecture of our written law.

OOC: Yup, accuse a senior mod of lying, that is a good way to get them on your side! Also, you basically just said that you aren't disregarding feedback, but you really are. Bit of a contradiction there, eh?

Senior Mods don't lie? As for the second part of what you just said:

Latrovia wrote:We are just extremely picky about what we will fix, change or even implement within the architecture of our written law.

Essu Beti wrote:OOC: Anyone running a delegate campaign can get 62 approvals. Why do you think I mentioned the insta-repeal phenomenon? Because it is an actual thing where absolute garbage reaches quorum, gets passed, and then is immediately and successfully repealed. It is annoying as all hell, and it happens because authors don’t listen when people bring up problems with their proposals.

thanks for the criticism with no suggestions of improvement. If the only suggestion is "draft here" then you're behind on the conversation.

Essu Beti wrote:

3) I believe that, in my statements, I get to tell what applies and what does not. And yes, I am quite honored and I take great credit for those idiotic platitudes as you said. What we truly need are people that do fewer words and take more action. If you got what we are looking for, welcome to the team.

OOC: You can’t take credit for idiotic platitudes- you weren’t the one who invented them.

Your fewer words and more action attitude is what leads to the insta-repeal cycle. Which, incidentally, is an intensely-annoying phenomenon that can only be fixed by not passing garbage.

Mr. Senior Mod I am not sure what you are debating upon? Whether it is your wish to debate for the sake of debate or not. I already have explained to you in my own way, that everyone is entitled to their own boundaries. Your feedback will go straight up to a point, where we will decide whether it meets our criteria or not.

Latrovia wrote:Mr. Senior Mod I am not sure what you are debating upon? Whether it is your wish to debate for the sake of debate or not. I already have explained to you in my own way, that everyone is entitled to their own boundaries. Your feedback will go straight up to a point, where we will decide whether it meets our criteria or not.

OOC: I’m not a senior mod. I’m a player. _{I’m also female, not male, but there’s no way you could have known that.}

Also I’m saying this because there’s a tendency here for you two to just flat-out ignore everything that doesn’t just immediately agree with you.

United Republic Empire wrote:thanks for the criticism with no suggestions of improvement. If the only suggestion is "draft here" then you're behind on the conversation

OOC: Are you actually going to respond to critique now, then? Then answer this:

Why are you singling out escorts specifically as needing access to better education, safety standards, and healthcare? What makes them special? Why not instead make an overarching health and safety bill that would include everyone?

Did you intend for your definition of escort to include tour guides, neighborhood kids who offer to escort old ladies across the street for a quarter, or bodyguards?

Why does your education bill only require the ability to apply for higher education and financial aid? This is an incredibly weak effect, and would effectively do nothing whatsoever in nations which already allow everyone to do such.

Why do your proposals have numerous grammar and capitalization errors that could have very easily been fixed before submission?

Intern Deusnonestus stepped to the podium, filling in for Legatum Iulia once more while she was enjoying Saturnalia with her husbands. Devout atheist he was, even he was tempted to pray to Minerva on behalf the delegations of Latrovia and and the United Republic Empire. He had been told to expect a higher than usual percentage of fringe proposals to show up during the period, as evidenced by the ridiculous "Let Criminals Vote" and "Jobs for Predators" proposals circulating, but this was ridiculous.

"With all due, and frankly quite a ridiculous amount of undue, respect to the proponents, what in the name of Circe's sagging teats is going on in your heads? My government has instructed me to not actually care in the slightest if you somehow pass this because, and I quote, 'given the so-called operative clauses recite empty left-wing pie-in-the-sky type aspirations, we are required to do absolutely [redacted] nothing.'" He paused for a moment. "Perhaps the proponents should try listening to delegations far older, wiser, and accomplished than they and actually revise their proposals. Considering there is currently no mandate or metric in the proposal by which to judge compliance with the resolution, we urge non-approval and tabling of this nonsense."

In a quieter undertone he added, "And given that I cannot determine what the author means by 'escort equipment' perhaps I need to speak to a physician. I was not aware that my "equipment" was manufactured or purchased....I have been labouring under the impression that what I got was the result of genetic and environmental factors..."

Essu Beti wrote:

Latrovia wrote:Mr. Senior Mod I am not sure what you are debating upon? Whether it is your wish to debate for the sake of debate or not. I already have explained to you in my own way, that everyone is entitled to their own boundaries. Your feedback will go straight up to a point, where we will decide whether it meets our criteria or not.

OOC: I’m not a senior mod. I’m a player. _{I’m also female, not male, but there’s no way you could have known that.}

Also I’m saying this because there’s a tendency here for you two to just flat-out ignore everything that doesn’t just immediately agree with you.

United Republic Empire wrote:thanks for the criticism with no suggestions of improvement. If the only suggestion is "draft here" then you're behind on the conversation

OOC: Are you actually going to respond to critique now, then? Then answer this:

Why are you singling out escorts specifically as needing access to better education, safety standards, and healthcare? What makes them special? Why not instead make an overarching health and safety bill that would include everyone?

Did you intend for your definition of escort to include tour guides, neighborhood kids who offer to escort old ladies across the street for a quarter, or bodyguards?

Why does your education bill only require the ability to apply for higher education and financial aid? This is an incredibly weak effect, and would effectively do nothing whatsoever in nations which already allow everyone to do such.

Why do your proposals have numerous grammar and capitalization errors that could have very easily been fixed before submission?

Q1 - Answer: Nothing makes them special nor have we stated anywhere within the proposal that they would be. Why not make an over arching one - so that other nations can have a piece of the pie as well.

Q2 - Answer: Not at first but I like the idea from Sierra so it stuck.

Q3 - Answer: Then it won't be a problem for member states if it is a weak effect that wouldn't cause them problems.

Note: you never did offer up improvements or suggestions only criticism.

OOC: Then here’s the suggestion implicit in the critique: fix all of that.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Intern Deusnonestus stepped to the podium, filling in for Legatum Iulia once more while she was enjoying Saturnalia with her husbands. Devout atheist he was, even he was tempted to pray to Minerva on behalf the delegations of Latrovia and and the United Republic Empire. He had been told to expect a higher than usual percentage of fringe proposals to show up during the period, as evidenced by the ridiculous "Let Criminals Vote" and "Jobs for Predators" proposals circulating, but this was ridiculous.

"With all due, and frankly quite a ridiculous amount of undue, respect to the proponents, what in the name of Circe's sagging teats is going on in your heads? My government has instructed me to not actually care in the slightest if you somehow pass this because, and I quote, 'given the so-called operative clauses recite empty left-wing pie-in-the-sky type aspirations, we are required to do absolutely [redacted] nothing.'" He paused for a moment. "Perhaps the proponents should try listening to delegations far older, wiser, and accomplished than they and actually revise their proposals. Considering there is currently no mandate or metric in the proposal by which to judge compliance with the resolution, we urge non-approval and tabling of this nonsense."

In a quieter undertone he added, "And given that I cannot determine what the author means by 'escort equipment' perhaps I need to speak to a physician. I was not aware that my "equipment" was manufactured or purchased....I have been labouring under the impression that what I got was the result of genetic and environmental factors..."

The equipment is what they need to complete their jobs effectively - Ex: a security escort may need body armour to prevent any injury from bullets.

Essu Beti wrote:OOC: Then here’s the suggestion implicit in the critique: fix all of that.

you've yet to provide any suggestions for improvement. X could be written better this way, Y could possibly be wrote that way.

United Republic Empire wrote:Note: you never did offer up improvements or suggestions only criticism.

OOC: You're supposed to use the criticism to do improvements. Not everybody is going to point out the obvious and say "Hey there's an error here, fix it." They'll tell it to you in a different way each time, sometimes in not so explicit ways.