Advertisement
by Fotar » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:18 pm
by Travancore-Cochin » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:18 pm
Fotar wrote:Doesn't that go against this from the FAQ's:WA proposals cannot address the rules or mechanics of the game, nor can they ask for new features.
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:26 pm
Travancore-Cochin wrote:This resolution was written the way it was to get around that rule. There was no way in hell anyone could write up a resolution that demanded Pyth and [violet] to split the voting queues. The argument was raised in Technical, and the initial attitude was dismissive. When Glen-Rhodes asked that question in the same thread, Unibot took the cue from him and wrote up the resolution in question. That resolution only Liberated The Security Council (hence not a GM violation), but the text made clear the symbolic meaning, which was that the WA SC had to be split from the WA GA, and given its own voting queue.
I know people who aren't even involved with the GA or the SC or the NS forums, who still got the idea. All they did was that they read the text.
by The Republic of Lanos » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:32 pm
A mean old man wrote:Travancore-Cochin wrote:This resolution was written the way it was to get around that rule. There was no way in hell anyone could write up a resolution that demanded Pyth and [violet] to split the voting queues. The argument was raised in Technical, and the initial attitude was dismissive. When Glen-Rhodes asked that question in the same thread, Unibot took the cue from him and wrote up the resolution in question. That resolution only Liberated The Security Council (hence not a GM violation), but the text made clear the symbolic meaning, which was that the WA SC had to be split from the WA GA, and given its own voting queue.
I know people who aren't even involved with the GA or the SC or the NS forums, who still got the idea. All they did was that they read the text.
So the resolution was made to support the GA-SC split but nothing about this split was said in the resolution?
That's stupid.
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:32 pm
A mean old man wrote:So the resolution was made to support the GA-SC split but nothing about this split was said in the resolution?
That's stupid.
by Travancore-Cochin » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:35 pm
A mean old man wrote:So the resolution was made to support the GA-SC split but nothing about this split was said in the resolution?
That's stupid.
Hereby, in the name of dedication to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, liberates the Security Council.
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:36 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:A mean old man wrote:Travancore-Cochin wrote:This resolution was written the way it was to get around that rule. There was no way in hell anyone could write up a resolution that demanded Pyth and [violet] to split the voting queues. The argument was raised in Technical, and the initial attitude was dismissive. When Glen-Rhodes asked that question in the same thread, Unibot took the cue from him and wrote up the resolution in question. That resolution only Liberated The Security Council (hence not a GM violation), but the text made clear the symbolic meaning, which was that the WA SC had to be split from the WA GA, and given its own voting queue.
I know people who aren't even involved with the GA or the SC or the NS forums, who still got the idea. All they did was that they read the text.
So the resolution was made to support the GA-SC split but nothing about this split was said in the resolution?
That's stupid.
Game mechanics violations
besides, didn't you once support the idea?
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:36 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:besides, didn't you once support the idea?
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:37 pm
Travancore-Cochin wrote:It was put subtly here:Hereby, in the name of dedication to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, liberates the Security Council.
And there was (and still is) only one category, the resolutions of which could have such a clause.
Nothing about the "split" could be said, because that would have been illegal (reference to the real real world).
by The Republic of Lanos » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:37 pm
Sedgistan wrote:The Republic of Lanos wrote:besides, didn't you once support the idea?
The poll on his region's forum finished 2 for, 0 against - so I presume that can be read as him supporting it. Even more evidence that this repeal is just an attempt to annoy Unibot.
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:39 pm
A mean old man wrote:Travancore-Cochin wrote:It was put subtly here:Hereby, in the name of dedication to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, liberates the Security Council.
And there was (and still is) only one category, the resolutions of which could have such a clause.
Nothing about the "split" could be said, because that would have been illegal (reference to the real real world).
Or that could be liberating the region...
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:40 pm
by Travancore-Cochin » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:43 pm
A mean old man wrote:Or that could be liberating the region...
by Satan In the Flesh » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:46 pm
A mean old man wrote:Just FYI, I happened to be busy that week and abstained from voting both on the resolution itself and in my forum's poll. I put the poll up for others to vote on, and ignored the rest of the voting-on of that resolution. Stop trying to set me up, as you're so fond of doing - it's silly, and you're not even debating the content actual repeal any more. Perhaps the content is impossible for you to debate against, and that is why you must resort to pettiness?
by Joshuahood » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:56 pm
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:59 pm
Joshuahood wrote:I'm gonna side with AMOM and the Repeal. I never got the whole "symbolic meaning" of liberating a region to represent the split from the GA and SC. It kinda makes sense, but to me it was a big waste of time and trouble to go through. I went so far as to submit a repeal myself, but then requested it be taken out to avoid a big arguement.
What really tipped me over the edge on this one was that Unibot was willing to go so far as to BRIBE me to betray my region to vote for Liberate Land of the Liberals. I refused.
If it reached quorum, I MAY have abstained from voting unless presented with a good arguement for either side, but this screwed things up for Unibot
by Topid » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:00 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Joshuahood wrote:I'm gonna side with AMOM and the Repeal. I never got the whole "symbolic meaning" of liberating a region to represent the split from the GA and SC. It kinda makes sense, but to me it was a big waste of time and trouble to go through. I went so far as to submit a repeal myself, but then requested it be taken out to avoid a big arguement.
What really tipped me over the edge on this one was that Unibot was willing to go so far as to BRIBE me to betray my region to vote for Liberate Land of the Liberals. I refused.
If it reached quorum, I MAY have abstained from voting unless presented with a good arguement for either side, but this screwed things up for Unibot
It was a cookie for gods' sake. Take the cookie!
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:02 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:It was a cookie for gods' sake. Take the cookie!
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:03 pm
Topid wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Joshuahood wrote:I'm gonna side with AMOM and the Repeal. I never got the whole "symbolic meaning" of liberating a region to represent the split from the GA and SC. It kinda makes sense, but to me it was a big waste of time and trouble to go through. I went so far as to submit a repeal myself, but then requested it be taken out to avoid a big arguement.
What really tipped me over the edge on this one was that Unibot was willing to go so far as to BRIBE me to betray my region to vote for Liberate Land of the Liberals. I refused.
If it reached quorum, I MAY have abstained from voting unless presented with a good arguement for either side, but this screwed things up for Unibot
It was a cookie for gods' sake. Take the cookie!
You offered cookies?
EDIT: Hey wait a minute, I wasn't offered a cookie for my approval!
by Joshuahood » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:05 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Joshuahood wrote:I'm gonna side with AMOM and the Repeal. I never got the whole "symbolic meaning" of liberating a region to represent the split from the GA and SC. It kinda makes sense, but to me it was a big waste of time and trouble to go through. I went so far as to submit a repeal myself, but then requested it be taken out to avoid a big arguement.
What really tipped me over the edge on this one was that Unibot was willing to go so far as to BRIBE me to betray my region to vote for Liberate Land of the Liberals. I refused.
If it reached quorum, I MAY have abstained from voting unless presented with a good arguement for either side, but this screwed things up for Unibot
It was a cookie for gods' sake. Take the cookie!
by Joshuahood » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:06 pm
by Topid » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:08 pm
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:09 pm
by Topid » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:09 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Topid wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Joshuahood wrote:I'm gonna side with AMOM and the Repeal. I never got the whole "symbolic meaning" of liberating a region to represent the split from the GA and SC. It kinda makes sense, but to me it was a big waste of time and trouble to go through. I went so far as to submit a repeal myself, but then requested it be taken out to avoid a big arguement.
What really tipped me over the edge on this one was that Unibot was willing to go so far as to BRIBE me to betray my region to vote for Liberate Land of the Liberals. I refused.
If it reached quorum, I MAY have abstained from voting unless presented with a good arguement for either side, but this screwed things up for Unibot
It was a cookie for gods' sake. Take the cookie!
You offered cookies?
EDIT: Hey wait a minute, I wasn't offered a cookie for my approval!
*hands Topid a cookie privately*
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement