Twins of Hearts wrote:Against, A couper, especially of GCR's like Osiris, that thrives on NS drama should not receive a Commend.
Your opinion I suppose. I am sure your one whole vote will make all the difference though.
Advertisement
by WayNeacTia » Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:11 pm
Twins of Hearts wrote:Against, A couper, especially of GCR's like Osiris, that thrives on NS drama should not receive a Commend.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Numero Capitan » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:33 pm
Jakker City wrote:The proposal has been updated in the OP. As the proposals become more developed, it becomes clear to see that Cormac has done a ton of commendable things and if you see the condemnations as a means to praise significant work that is IC condemnable, they do not cancel each other out. We have had a nation before (Sedge) hold a commendation and condemnation at the same time before.
by Fauxia » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:38 pm
by Bormiar » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:44 pm
by Jakker City » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:56 pm
Bormiar wrote:I agree with NuCa, and am a little disappointed that I gave you that advice and you didn’t take most of it without saying why.
Edit: nvm I see the changes. I’ll provide more suggestions later
by Bears Armed » Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:45 am
Bormiar wrote:Edit 2: Ransium said my reference to “endo-tarting” was illegal, so detagging probably is too. Also, it’s not a game-provided term and doesn’t refer to a real life nation
by Kuriko » Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:26 am
Bears Armed wrote:Bormiar wrote:Edit 2: Ransium said my reference to “endo-tarting” was illegal, so detagging probably is too. Also, it’s not a game-provided term and doesn’t refer to a real life nation
I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.
by Bormiar » Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:49 am
Bears Armed wrote:Bormiar wrote:Edit 2: Ransium said my reference to “endo-tarting” was illegal, so detagging probably is too. Also, it’s not a game-provided term and doesn’t refer to a real life nation
I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.
Kuriko wrote:Bears Armed wrote:I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.
Yes, "tag" and "tagging" are legal terms. Likewise, "detag" and "detagging" are legal terms because it's the opposite and its a term within the game. Lily was condemned for tagging at least. But these are just my opinion, I'm not a mod.
by Kuriko » Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:17 am
Bormiar wrote:Bears Armed wrote:I know that "tags" is a legal term, because I questioned it in another proposal's thread and the Mods declared it to be okay.Kuriko wrote:Yes, "tag" and "tagging" are legal terms. Likewise, "detag" and "detagging" are legal terms because it's the opposite and its a term within the game. Lily was condemned for tagging at least. But these are just my opinion, I'm not a mod.
My concern is that “tags” refers to the in-game feature which somewhat makes sense as a “World Census descriptor” or whatever. “Tagging” or “detagging”, is a player-given term which doesn’t actually make inherent sense for a nation (for example, forums is legal only in certain contexts). However, it could be considered as an extension of the R/D game which is built-in to the IC NationStates world, but that would probably include “switcher” and “endo-tarting” then.
It’s an easy fix though: “removes foreign branding on invaded regions”.
by Bormiar » Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:26 am
Kuriko wrote:Edit: Example of "detag" being used: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2
by Yokiria » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:45 pm
by Antonio deOliveira Salazar » Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:54 am
by Sedgistan » Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:25 am
Yokiria wrote:It's been legal in the past, but don't put it past the mods to rule it as a R4 violation now. I'd advise rephrasing just to avoid finding out, since it's always been a borderline case anyway.
by Numero Capitan » Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:21 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Yokiria wrote:It's been legal in the past, but don't put it past the mods to rule it as a R4 violation now. I'd advise rephrasing just to avoid finding out, since it's always been a borderline case anyway.
Pff, we don't just change our minds like that!
"Tag", "tagging", "detagging" etc. when referring to the raiding/defending practices are fine.
by Jakker City » Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:50 am
by Kuriko » Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:11 pm
Jakker City wrote:I've cleaned up the proposal a bit with feedback here and am looking to submit this within the next week. Free to share any last thoughts in the meantime. My hope is to have this up for vote first before the condemnation.
by Jakker City » Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:48 pm
Kuriko wrote:Jakker City wrote:I've cleaned up the proposal a bit with feedback here and am looking to submit this within the next week. Free to share any last thoughts in the meantime. My hope is to have this up for vote first before the condemnation.
I honestly wouldn't submit the Commend and Condemn so close together, as that's likely to confuse people voting on the resolutions. You should probably leave a week or two between submissions.
by Bormiar » Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:55 pm
Bormiar wrote:Commend because, no matter how the SC spins it, we are incapable of shaking the enormous impact Cormac has had on the regions they've joined. Cormac has unforgettably intertwined themselves in the history of at least one GCR. That said, characterologically I don't think this one should label Cormac as "compassionate" or a "kingmaker", rather the R4 equivalent of a dedicated, skilled player.
by Yokiria » Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:13 pm
Bormiar wrote:Cormac is known for taking every side imaginable because they feel it benefits them in NationStates to do so (not that that's not an invalid play style), and have been on the "wrong" side in the WA's perspective in incalculable number of times. Everything ideological with Cormac (when speaking generally, like your first clause is/should be) should be condemned.
by Jakker City » Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:16 pm
Bormiar wrote:Bormiar wrote:Commend because, no matter how the SC spins it, we are incapable of shaking the enormous impact Cormac has had on the regions they've joined. Cormac has unforgettably intertwined themselves in the history of at least one GCR. That said, characterologically I don't think this one should label Cormac as "compassionate" or a "kingmaker", rather the R4 equivalent of a dedicated, skilled player.
This is in-character. I've said this lightly, but I think I should repeat this before I go further into giving advice. The premise of this resolution, that Cormac has been compassionate and shown morals that always do the right thing (or consistently and prevalently enough for commendation; perfection is not required), breaks both of your proposals. It simply is not true because it cannot be true. Cormac is known for taking every side imaginable because they feel it benefits them in NationStates to do so (not that that's not an invalid play style), and have been on the "wrong" side in the WA's perspective in incalculable number of times. Everything ideological with Cormac (when speaking generally, like your first clause is/should be) should be condemned.
I am against before this change.
by Bormiar » Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:54 pm
Jakker City wrote:Bormiar wrote:This is in-character. I've said this lightly, but I think I should repeat this before I go further into giving advice. The premise of this resolution, that Cormac has been compassionate and shown morals that always do the right thing (or consistently and prevalently enough for commendation; perfection is not required), breaks both of your proposals. It simply is not true because it cannot be true. Cormac is known for taking every side imaginable because they feel it benefits them in NationStates to do so (not that that's not an invalid play style), and have been on the "wrong" side in the WA's perspective in incalculable number of times. Everything ideological with Cormac (when speaking generally, like your first clause is/should be) should be condemned.
I am against before this change.
For one, I do not say that Cormac always does what is right nor do I imply any type of perfection. I'm not sure where you are getting that.
Jakker City wrote:Furthermore, everything listed in the proposal, in my mind, seems to clearly articulate actions that seek to support those in need. Therefore, language like compassion and advocating for what is right seems to fit. As to whether that language "breaks my other proposal," I don't really see that, but I edited some language in the beginning and end.
by Jakker City » Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:00 pm
by Bormiar » Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:47 pm
Jakker City wrote:Trust me, I am not upset I think I get what you are trying to say and have edited it again to focus more on the authorship component.
by Jakker City » Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:23 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement