by New Rockport » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:49 pm
by The Emmerian Unions » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:54 pm
>>Respectfully submitted,
David Corrigan, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport
Ifreann wrote:"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."
by Sirocco » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:32 pm
by Erastide » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:42 pm
Sirocco wrote:I think it'd be a hassle if we had to go fact-checking every proposal on the floor. Sometimes that would be impossible anyway.
It's up to the WA to keep facts accurate, not the mods.
by King Alphaks » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:46 pm
by StCharles West Apts » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:25 pm
by Sirocco » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:55 pm
by King Alphaks » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:21 pm
by Todd McCloud » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:24 pm
Sirocco wrote:We need to figure out the rules in co-operation with the players - if anyone has an idea as to how things should work then make an argument for it and we'll listen.
by Martyrdoom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:59 am
by Bears Armed » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:23 am
So we're back to "Every region should have to play the invader/defender game", are we? Can you and your fellow wreckers NOT get it into your heads that a LOT of players aren't at all interested in that side of the game, simply want to be left alone by it, and should be left alone by it?Martyrdoom wrote:Seriously though, liberations offer regions who don't take their defence seriously in the first place an even better reason to become more lackadaisical. It's rewarding true defending failure, while penalising true raiding success.
by Erastide » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:31 am
by Todd McCloud » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:33 am
Erastide wrote:Kay, time to cut the discussion. I will note that there is not any current rule (I was wrong) about liberation proposals needing to be factually correct. So unless another Game Mod speaks up, the discussion needs to stop.
by Erastide » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:11 am
by King Alphaks » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:15 am
Erastide wrote:The discussion about invading/defending and the morality of such needs to stop. And honestly, discussing whether the correctness of a proposal should even be moderated should go in theRules Thread
by West-Flanders » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:20 pm
by Erastide » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:23 pm
by King Alphaks » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:43 pm
Erastide wrote:What I said is that discussing invading vs. defending should not happen here. You should discuss the matters of this specific complaint, but right now, there is no rule on whether the statements in a Liberation proposal need to be factually accurate. If you think it should be defeated on that basis, I suggest you start a campaign to get delegates to unendorse it so that it is no longer in quorum.
Go ahead and email admin@nationstates.net and ask [violet]'s opinion, that's your right.
by Ardchoille » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:01 am
by Of crazed » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:09 am
by Kryozerkia » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:20 am
by New Rockport » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:50 am
Ardchoille wrote:But what New Rockport is asking here is not a ruling on a technicality, based on the wording of the proposal; it's the other sort of ruling, the one mods've been specifically told not to give.
Ardchoille wrote:I can. however, give you some technical advice. You say that "after the proposal was submitted, it came to our attention that the clause appears to be inaccurate". You also say "the apparently inaccurate clause is immaterial to the issue that the liberation proposal seeks to resolve".
If you let it go to vote with a clause you know to be inaccurate, you are almost guaranteeing that that's where the discussion will centre.
by Erastide » Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:23 am
Of crazed wrote:How can a fact error be allowed for something as serious as a liberation proposal? First of all the proposal might get more votes because they exaggerate a claim. There has to be some kind of system of review.
by Ardchoille » Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:31 am
New Rockport wrote:You are probably right, and if we re-submit the proposal now, it won't lose its place in the queue. Please go ahead and delete the current proposal.
Thank you to all of the moderators for all of your hard work. I apologize that my mistake took up so much of your time.
by Of crazed » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:41 am
Kryozerkia wrote: They want their region back, and you don't want to give up your control. It's obvious what your motive is here regarding the factual error. Any tiny loophole to avoid having those whose region you took get it back legally.
The mods are human. We can only review everything so much.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: The New French State
Advertisement