NationStates Jolt Archive

As a player, I am getting tired of seeing ongoing techwank and puppetwank in UN threads. The UN forum should be about UN related discussions that affect most or all UN nations. Going on and on about how your nation is unaffected because you're ZOMG! Majik! or Spacedy! or Keeblery Elvish! doesn't add to the overall enjoyment for most of the rest of us.

As a moderator, I'm getting really tired of the continuing trend of topic hijacking of proposal discussions that turn into tech and/or war threads. While there is the barest of connections between the resolution and the topic, it really belongs in its own thread in International Incidents or NationStates. It's fine to mention it as a one-off comment, but if you're going to expound at length, ask for a thread split or just link to your own new thread.

You folks know who you are. I would appreciate your cooperation as a courtesy to the other readers of UN threads. Thank you in advance.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Mod

Actually, in some cases I think the posts can be helpful. It was one of those posts that lead to a revealing of the biggest problem of the ICJ, that being it cannot enforce any of its decisions without breaking game rules and becomming illegal and showing how easily nations can simply ignore the results of the legal process.

Sometimes, knowing why someone is unaffected by something is helpful for the next time you draft a proposal. If you are trying to limit the most dangerous types of WMDs in UN nations, it does help to know whether or not those nukes you have even are the most dangerous types or whether you have to redraft to take into consideration the ingenuity of what people can do given some random science theory article and a good imagination. Among weapons more dangerous than nukes are viral weapons, railguns, more types of FT weaponry than you can shake a Star Wars novel at, certain chemical weapons, many natural disasters, and the ability of people in general to get creative when working on new ways to kill people in massive numbers.

Now, if the information turns out to be irrelevant to you, there's no guarantee someone cannot use it to their benefit or that you cannot craft a new proposal that takes it into account as an expansion of the list of banned and restricted weapons.

I find most of the tech arguements result from single posts intended to be forgotten by the poster that are pounced on anymore.

I am instructed to inform you that this thread does not affect Bahgum, the mother in law already dissaproves of wanking of any type.......

(sorry couldn't resist)

As a player, I am getting tired of seeing ongoing techwank and puppetwank in UN threads. The UN forum should be about UN related discussions that affect most or all UN nations. Going on and on about how your nation is unaffected because you're ZOMG! Majik! or Spacedy! or Keeblery Elvish! doesn't add to the overall enjoyment for most of the rest of us.

As a moderator, I'm getting really tired of the continuing trend of topic hijacking of proposal discussions that turn into tech and/or war threads. While there is the barest of connections between the resolution and the topic, it really belongs in its own thread in International Incidents or NationStates. It's fine to mention it as a one-off comment, but if you're going to expound at length, ask for a thread split or just link to your own new thread.

You folks know who you are. I would appreciate your cooperation as a courtesy to the other readers of UN threads. Thank you in advance.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Mod

This thread just got FIVE STARS from me. I completely agree with this, and techwanking really has dimensished my desire to really participate in this forum. :(

I have a question on puppetwank ettiquette.

I find it interesting that when I read this thread and posted (minutes ago) that there were no votes. I vote, and within minutes there are other votes.

I've not used my puppets to vote on threads, but what is the general attitude on doing that? Does jolt allow the same email / player to use their puppets to stack a vote? What about polls? I've always felt that the star ratings are player based (not country based) stats / feedback, so one per player is appropriate (i.e. puppets should avoid double votes), but I've felt that polls are designed to represent the stats from countries when the polls are written and presented in a "roleplaying" context, meaning that if I were to conduct a poll on domestic transportation issues (an example), then puppets would be invited to cast votes too.

What are other people's thoughts ... since this does have some impact on UN play and puppets?

Personally, I mostly leave the star ratings alone. I have more important things to do in the topic than to just rate it.

But, if a system of rules governing it is to be devised, I agree with Mik. But I just use my main nation and ignore my puppets for voting in polls.

I pay zero attention to the ratings (had to think for a moment what 'five stars' was in reference to) and hope everyone else does likewise. It's a useless, untrackable popularity poll.

I have a question on puppetwank ettiquette.

I find it interesting that when I read this thread and posted (minutes ago) that there were no votes. I vote, and within minutes there are other votes.

I've not used my puppets to vote on threads, but what is the general attitude on doing that? Does jolt allow the same email / player to use their puppets to stack a vote? What about polls? I've always felt that the star ratings are player based (not country based) stats / feedback, so one per player is appropriate (i.e. puppets should avoid double votes), but I've felt that polls are designed to represent the stats from countries when the polls are written and presented in a "roleplaying" context, meaning that if I were to conduct a poll on domestic transportation issues (an example), then puppets would be invited to cast votes too.

What are other people's thoughts ... since this does have some impact on UN play and puppets?

I am disinclined to puppetwank in polls (and yes, I have puppets, 3 of them). The stickies in II make it relatively clear that puppetwanking to inflate power in an RP is a big no-no; I would assume the same logic applies to voting in polls, be they IC or OOC.

I pay zero attention to the ratings (had to think for a moment what 'five stars' was in reference to) and hope everyone else does likewise. It's a useless, untrackable popularity poll.

If I could put college coeds in tight tees on the sides of some threads, you'd better believe I would!

The only other two options I feel included to use when fishing are silly gold stars or the smiley faces. Well, those and starting a thread with a poll.

We might not pay attention to the bells and whistles, but when I was away at the beginning of this month for a few days, when I did my back search I simply looked over the threads with higher view counts. I'm guessing low or high stars will attract some attention.

n.p. sleepwalk :: earthquake

I was wondering what puppetwanking could possibly be.

I was getting these nightmare visuals of kukla, fran and ollie...

As a player, I am getting tired of seeing ongoing techwank and puppetwank in UN threads. The UN forum should be about UN related discussions that affect most or all UN nations. Going on and on about how your nation is unaffected because you're ZOMG! Majik! or Spacedy! or Keeblery Elvish! doesn't add to the overall enjoyment for most of the rest of us.

As a moderator, I'm getting really tired of the continuing trend of topic hijacking of proposal discussions that turn into tech and/or war threads. While there is the barest of connections between the resolution and the topic, it really belongs in its own thread in International Incidents or NationStates. It's fine to mention it as a one-off comment, but if you're going to expound at length, ask for a thread split or just link to your own new thread.

You folks know who you are. I would appreciate your cooperation as a courtesy to the other readers of UN threads. Thank you in advance.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Mod

Puppetwanking in the UN should be a dismissable offense. There's our opinion on that topic. I don't mean bounced from the UN, I mean DEATed.

However, the question of technology - relative technology, racial differences, spacial differences, technological type differences - is part of the flavor of the game, though there is certainly a difference between:


Like, this can't affect us because, like, I've got a shield of +5 resistance to the UN

and


I'm sorry, we can't support a measure to ban habitation of the poles because we live at one.

It was one of the latter sort of discussions which lead to several resolutions, not least among them #81 (yes, that was shameless self-promotery). And as we are in a game which recognizes magic, gargoyles, demons, space empires, talking penguins and Squirrel armies throwing acorns at passersby, the United Nations should have to take some of this into account.

Will it change the verbiage of resolutions? Yes. But such is the game, such are the conditions, and it does open ones eyes when someone goes "BAN ALL NOOKS!" and someone else can go "Sure, do that. I'll just be dropping antimatter bombs on you."

So, there's a line. Methinks there's a grand difference between "Disruptive Trollery" and "Serious Role Playing". And it becomes readilly obvious where one as per that line.

Puppetwanking in the UN should be a dismissable offense. There's our opinion on that topic. I don't mean bounced from the UN, I mean DEATed.
Vastiva, I'm not sure if we're speaking of the same thing here. UN multiing through puppets is an ejection or DEAT (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/DEAT) offense already. Did you plan to expand the definition?

When I refer to puppetwanking, I'm referring to the practice of using a puppet to do things or enhance things that you otherwise don't want to do with your main nation. I'm guilty of it myself - when I lost my UN delegacy in a dying region, I transferred my vote to a puppet, but speak here in their name.

The NSwiki article on Wank (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wank#Puppet_Wank) includes this description as well: "[A] form of Puppet Wank exists when players use puppet nations to try to surreptitiously give the appearance of vocal support for a poster's viewpoint(s). If discovered (or 'outed' by the mods), this strategy can backfire rather dramatically." In the UN, puppetwankers sometimes 'out' themselves, which makes the backfile less dramatic, but no less wank.

Another worthwhile and possibly relevant article in the wiki is Wank-power theorem (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wank-power_theorem). Some interesting links in both articles for those who aren't all that familiar with the term Wank in this context.

I had a long and interesting discussion, but a forum error caused me to lose it. Damn Jolt.

Anyway, the gist of what I said: Some of the cases where a long tech discussion starts is when someone doesn't like that someone else has dared go outside their version of reality in a post and chooses to openly attack it. More than one discussion of a variety of topics on here have resulted from that, and not just involving one person. These get long, get windy, and then turn around and get back to the topic after they are done with. The latest one is not actually the worst topic hijacking we've had on here, being as it is still quite short. I still remember one topic hijacking that lasted about a dozen pages or so.

Now, for the war threads: If we wish to be at least semirealistic in RP on here, such discussions will occasionally happen. One nation, usually an aggressive one, will get annoyed by another and the usual dance of threats happens. In most cases, these are quite short and stay on the topic. In cases where the topic itself has been done to death a hundred times and always resulted in the same conclusion, it may not be unusual for these to be a bit longer than norm. However, the recent one was the worst I know of, so maybe the longer ones need to be separated out from the topic. Personally, I was quite surprised that it lasted as long as it did.

Puppetwanking in the UN should be a dismissable offense. There's our opinion on that topic. I don't mean bounced from the UN, I mean DEATed.

Vastiva, I'm not sure if we're speaking of the same thing here. UN multiing through puppets is an ejection or DEAT (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/DEAT) offense already. Did you plan to expand the definition?

When I refer to puppetwanking, I'm referring to the practice of using a puppet to do things or enhance things that you otherwise don't want to do with your main nation. I'm guilty of it myself - when I lost my UN delegacy in a dying region, I transferred my vote to a puppet, but speak here in their name.

The NSwiki article on Wank (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wank#Puppet_Wank) includes this description as well: "[A] form of Puppet Wank exists when players use puppet nations to try to surreptitiously give the appearance of vocal support for a poster's viewpoint(s). If discovered (or 'outed' by the mods), this strategy can backfire rather dramatically." In the UN, puppetwankers sometimes 'out' themselves, which makes the backfile less dramatic, but no less wank.

Another worthwhile and possibly relevant article in the wiki is Wank-power theorem (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wank-power_theorem). Some interesting links in both articles for those who aren't all that familiar with the term Wank in this context.


Quite bluntly, the highlighted offense should result in instant DEAT of all nations owned by that player, involved or not. That's our opinion. It's a form of multi-voice nonsense, in our opinion.

We really don't care if the non-UN nation talks, or if you use a non-I AM MODERATOR FEAR ME! alt to talk or drive in a point. However, using multiple accounts to drum up support - nope, zap, next?

Occasionally my UN nation and my (single) puppet disagree on a poll. When that happens, they both vote. (Yes, I do realise that they cancel each other out; my maths isn't that bad.)

I post in General wearing both hats when the thread asks something both will respond to differently, such as the Where Did You Get Your Nation Name? ones.

On the other hand, I don't have the least compunction about roleplaying with, or against, my puppet (as Strangers' Bar regulars have no doubt guessed).

So I'm not comfortable with a "DEAT 'em all" approach. You'd be asking the Mods to decide in each case whether the offender was merely trying to drum up support or whether he was simply madly-truly-deeply In Character for each nation. (If you had no sense of irony, you might say it's a bit like the "giving drugs for pain relief/for euthanasia" dilemma.)

It's not that the Mods couldn't decide, eventually; it's just that I think they've got enough obvious stuff to bother about without handing them borderline decisions on a daily basis.

I agree with Fris.

( But wait, there's more ... :rolleyes: )

The " tech-wanking " took me a moment to get, because I, or some one else, was once accused here of " tech-wanking " because we kept on trying to point out why a resolution was illegal, and it seems it is not a nice thing to point out to some people that they are violating Game Mechanics * Rules * with their resolution, yeah. Even when you do it for their own good, and I admit, so the U.N. isn't tarnished by more crappy wording.

( Fuck'em, I say. I can just report your proposal once you submit it. Then you'll get warned. Think of it as a reason to be polite and take the time to learn what the fuck your actually doing and the effect on other people it'll have before you try to fob some one off with petty character attacks. Yeah, I'm all " rawr " n'shit with this, heh )

But yes, the " tech-wanking " is a bit of an old problem, but its more like " dodging a bullet ", so to speak. Ever since serious U.N. Debate came to be, people have been popping up and saying " 0MFG, M3 4N M4H P4L T00L4 D0NT HAV3 T0 HAV3 GH3Y RIGHTS IN 4HHH C0UNTRI3S, C4US3 W3 D0N'T L3T N0 H0M0S IN ! L0L0L0L ! "

( Yes, its dramatic effect, and yes, I chose " tool-a " for a reason ... )

Mind you, in the Old Days, half the fun was slapping such people down with logical arguments, mod reports, or random smacks of cast iron frying pans ...

( But I doubt many of the Old Hands are still around to remember it, eh ? )

* I'll go further into this in relation to RP below, as often these " BUT I AM A NATION OF TREE EATES, HOW CAN YOU BAN LOGGING ???? " things are all RP and not reflected in your stats, which might I add is the meat an potatoes the U.N. usually works with ...

Yes, it gets annoying, and yes, its always going to be there. We'll have to put up with it, but it is nice to see a Forum Mod taking an interest at keeping such things at the lowest flow rate possible.

Now for puppet wanking.

I wasn't aware that puppet wanking was such a big problem here, I thought that was only something we'd be see-ing in NS/II, Gen forums. And maybe Moderation ...

In fact, I oly ever recall it being an issue in General and II, though I do recall I may have once seen one seen it discovered in the U.N. Forum, ages ago.

Quite frankly, if people need to boost support with their ideas with puppets I pray to heck they stop before they start, becuse if the only " yes men " you can get for your idea is yourself duplicated 5 + times over, then both you, and your idea, suck, and shouldn't be wasting our time.

Finally, the what I see as bane of the U.N. Forum.

All this RP shit.

I'm going to give a brief history lesson here, and while I'll try to be polite, fair warning, I'm also ging to be honest.

First, don't get me wrong. While I'm not al that big on RP, I have tried my hand at it. I'm involved in the Planet Mars off-site forum to a mild degree, and in the next few weeks hope to write an epic history peice to set up my Post-Modern, border Future Tech nation with some detail. But there isa place for that, and it is not here.

( Who knows ? One day I could work my way into Yut or the NDA. Scary, eh ? and not, I'm not using Komokom for it. if this account had any RP detail, it'd be floating in a grey, misty cloud of evasion wank over the U.N. building to avoid any return of that IRC stalker who kept declaring war on me for god knows why, I don't )

So, you wan't to RP diplomacy ? The kind of thing this U.N. tends to deal in ?

Great !

Go to the top of the first page, find the sticky thread " The U.N. Strangers Bar ". There you go. Go have a glass of @@NATION@@ Sherry at the incredible + import duty cost of @@CURRENCY@@ and discuss things. How politics in your nation get you down, how much these heels hurt, or duck from the now and again bar fights I hear might still be going on.

You want to have a war or discuss how you'll turn all your banned bio weapons into Soylent Green and under-arm deoderant and market it off at profit ?

then you take that shit to II or NS. Thats right, fuck that off of here now.

The N.S.U.N. has always been for :

" Where UN members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time. "

Its on the fricking forum description. If you can't read it, then your certainly not going to be much use here, are you ? Fine print is a lot of what all this is about. Deal with your ignorance in the next sixty seconds with that, the F.A.Q. and the stickies or find your own way out.

Now, for too long I've seen so called, self assumed " progressive " nations try to " breathe life back into the U.N. " well that shit can be taken out too.

This forum is for promoting, discussing, brain-storming and editing of proposals and now, repeals. It is not for you and a cluster fuck of II posters to go crazy with their Panel of War so nations can come here and clog up the front of the forum with " ME AND MY BOSSOM BUDDY WANT TO DECLARE WAR ON BAD-GUY @@NAME@@ BECAUSE HE GENOCIDES N SHIT ! ".

That is for II and NS, not here. If you want to bastardise this forum, go ahead, but don't expect people who know what this forum was for to stand for it or like it.

The U.N. cannot be used to add war to the game. and recently it came dangerously close to trying it. Which reminds me, I'm needing to go look at my repeal targets for the year. Just because I don't like them, doesn't mean I won't use them as Gods Very Own Sized Eraser on Crappy Legislation.

Finally, want RP ? Well unless you like our very narrow range of products, you can take your business else-where.

" Word "

( My, that does feel better ! :p )

While a nice rant, Komokom, I find it ignores an essential point of the UN.

The UN is, in its entirety, an RP organization. Without roleplaying, all of this discussion we are having would be pointless. The resolutions might as well be copies of the same random jumble of letters and animal sounds with only a number after the title and the category to differentiate them for all they would matter. A lot of the roleplaying on here has evolved from the simple fact you cannot remove roleplaying from the UN without removing the point of the UN. The two are inseparable by the vary nature of how the UN was set up.

Yes, this is mostly arguing for rping. However, the beginning RPs seen on here are a natural evolution of the UN resolutions. Without it, the Eon Convention becomes worthless words that isn't even fit for blowing your nose in. I'm not that big of a fan of it myself, but the evolution is still happening and still something you must deal with or move on from. Whether or not the evolution continues or is stopped is something for the future to say, but considering the RP I got approved for here weeks ago, it is likely to continue at this time.

*ducks under frying pan*

Ahem. Yes. I suppose it's "express my opinion" time again. :cool:

So here's the deal.

Bad: "I have puppetz0rs j00 will be pwned!!!!!11!"

Also Bad:

Main Nation: "What do you think of my proposal?"

Puppet 1: "That's great, mate!"

Puppet 2: "Jolly good show, old boy!"

Puppet 3: "That's a mighty good-looking proposal you got there, pardner."

Do I really have to go into why that's bad? I hope not.

Good: "Oh well. I'll just store my nukes in a puppet nation."

I probably should go into why this is good...well...acceptable, anyway. It's realistic. Sometimes nations have puppet governments. Just ask the the former Soviet Union. :) What that sort of commentary does is point out the problematic nature of "ban nukes" proposals, which I see as useful, personally.

As far as the techwanking goes...I actually think it serves as a useful introduction to RP for newbies and spices up the discussion for the oldies (well...me.) :p

"There's a story about a C-124 and an F-4 on intersecting taxiways at Rhein-Main long ago. The F-4 driver asked Ground what the Globe-master's intentions were. It is said that the C-124 pilot opened the clamshell doors in the nose and announced, 'I'm going to eat you.'"

On that note - Komokom, you might not like the role playing going on, but it's part of the "products" the Nation States United Nations has going for it. You may not like it, others do. Chinese Smorgasbord.

You don't have to like everything going on, but my "nice" Vastivan Caliph is going to go right on being himself, knowing full well he has a harem which includes intelligent penguins and not a few furries; that most of his personal fortune was made off owning "houses of ill-repute"; that one of Vastiva's political allies is a spacefaring nation so far out we'll probably never visit; that disorderly representatives occasionally get "accidentally on purpose" tossed down the elevator-less elevator shaft with... stuff down there.

In short, that's the flavor of the place and the person. That business gets done at all in the UN is amazing - and a tribute to those there.

Now, you can choose to ignore it all - up to you. I really don't care. However, choosing to tell me what I can and can not do here - well nyah on you too pbbbbbtttttthhhhhh! and deal with it.

Do what you like, leave the rest of everyone alone, play nice in the sandbox and things go along swimmingly. That's really the sum of it.

While I admit it was a rant ( Well * derrr * ) and while I admit I didn't phrase it in the best fashion ( My points in case where the kind of ones it'd take some of us with more experiance of he place to remember being the big " 4 threads of this a week " kind of fiasco's )

I suggest you read my freeking post again before you even try to equate my mentallity with a 5 year old, thanks. I do kind of remember being just that little bit more polite to some of you in the past if we came to disagree.

I did not advocate the removal of all RP from the U.N.

( I went out of my way to express how good RP is and that I do it too, you know. )

I did not say all RP was bad.

( Quite the contrary, I pointed out the U.N. has a place for it and a history with it although only minor in its extent. )

I did not tell you all what to do.

( That is what U.N. resolutions are for, :p )

...

( And yes, the " all's " are qualifiers, I know, but for good reason, because I am entitled to my opinion too, thanks, even if it seems to contradict yours at first glance, or maybe all-over, as far as I know. As I said, I'm sure we can at least try to attack the points of our disagreement then tag on po shots at the ends of our posts, thanks very much. )

So before I get cast in this drama as the demon prince I want to get some things sorted out.While a nice rant, Komokom, I find it ignores an essential point of the UN.A point big enough for two, read'em, two paragraphs, so I must be in trouble here, :D The UN is, in its entirety, an RP organization. Without roleplaying, all of this discussion we are having would be pointless.Not quite. For a long time, the focus of the U.N. has been on debate of issues for nations rather then straight out role play of why these are issues the nations might take offence to or even supportthe resolution of. RP was if at all, just a slight sprinkle of flavour to more serious things.The resolutions might as well be copies of the same random jumble of letters and animal sounds with only a number after the title and the category to differentiate them for all they would matter.Actually, if you look closely you might find some of them are ... or may as well be :rolleyes:

Ahem, actually, there is more to N.S. then role-play, you know. In fact, I'm sure you do know that, but I'm trying to better illustrate that concept, because the way some of you have reacted, it is painting a picture, that to some of us, looks like you, do not. Okay ?

As I said, there was a time that the focus was one the debate of the isues, the provocation of though. think of it as General Forum, ( No, not heresy, let me explain ) where we could actually debate for the most part with-out flame wars or spam, and actually get to the roots of issues, then to some extent better incorporate our points of view as both players * and * nations into the game itself via resolutions.A lot of the roleplaying on here has evolved from the simple fact you cannot remove roleplaying from the UN without removing the point of the UN.Of course not, RP as diplomacy was always there, and the U.N. Mod Enodia always tried to foster that. a lot of us did. It was the entire concept back then of being polite when we debated and it didn't hurT to mention " The Representative Elect of @@NATION@@ condems the arguments made against gay rights for the following reasons presented : " but it is not the be all and end all of the U.N Forum and I get annoyed when it gets advertised as the One Feature to Rule Them All of the N.S.U.N. It was a ingredient of the desert, not the Main Course, and still is when all the buffoonery ceases.

Mind you, feel free to get in ouch with Max and ask just what the main point of the U.N. is as he sees it now. I'd be much obliged.The two are inseparable by the vary nature of how the UN was set up.Indeed ? then just where is the inherent need of RP in a game feature and a sub-forum, who express description was that is was for the debate of U.N. resolutions ( + proposals and now repeals ) rather then as I have said in the past,

" making sure that while in our posts to say we raised the pinky finger ( If we even have one ) when we sipped tea and debated why @@NATION@@ needs a jolly good invasion " while in the U.N. Forum ?

The idea is to debate the issues.

Not the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Nor the history of the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Nor why Ambassador Glogg is dripping green goo all over the place while debating history of the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Or the explaination of Ambassador Glogg's biochemistry which is making him drip green goo all over the place as they debate the history of ... I'm sure that blatant a way of putting it will let you all catch my drift.

Yes, this is mostly arguing for rping. However, the beginning RPs seen on here are a natural evolution of the UN resolutions.Okay, that'd be a good point if not for a few things.

1) Evolution always involves a lot of failures and only a few success stories.

2) We seem to have done okay with-out them in the past. To make it clearer, RP id for II and NS. I don't recal this being another exclusive RP forum where we can request the DEAT / ret-con of the threads we start but don't like how they end up.

I never said RP should be exlusively removed, but you seem pretty hell bent on making it out that this place is RP exclusive.Without it, the Eon Convention becomes worthless words that isn't even fit for blowing your nose in.Really ? I suppose it makes the Gay Rights, no, wait, every other resolution a waste of time too ? Right ? That is what your saying, that with-out Praise Be to @@DEITY@@ RP its all a waste of time.

Good, will the last person to leave please turn off the lights ?

If you've not noticed the U.N. Forum was never " big " into RP except be a small few recently, and that pretty much means this place should have been moth balled as soon as it began, uh-huh ?I'm not that big of a fan of it myself, but the evolution is still happening and still something you must deal with or move on from.I already covered this, so I'll just point out " pssst, your alienating the Creationists ! " :p Whether or not the evolution continues or is stopped is something for the future to say, but considering the RP I got approved for here weeks ago, it is likely to continue at this time.Oh dear. Please be aware that one precedent is not going to be the universal decider in Moderator decisions. I'll also point out since you had to get permission, surely you demonstrate your own knowledge then of the fact straight RP is a ( or should be a in my view ) rare beast here and not always welcome around these parts.

Also, it is a one off, so far, isn't it ?

Egads, now, just for Texan Hotrodders, :p

* Psychological Slavery waves, :D

Hee. Now, moving on to Vastiva. You know, if I'd seen this much over-reaction to my post coming I'd not have bothered.

"There's a story about a C-124 and an F-4 on intersecting taxiways at Rhein-Main long ago. The F-4 driver asked Ground what the Globe-master's intentions were. It is said that the C-124 pilot opened the clamshell doors in the nose and announced, 'I'm going to eat you.'"

On that note - Komokom,Well from hear it sounds like a note of irrelevance, but as I've been shown up so far, what do I know ?you might not like the role playing going on,Your right for the most part I don't.but it's part of the "products" the Nation States United Nations has going for it. You may not like it, others do.Of course, since you've decided to carry my commercial theme, I'd like to remind you that some things do go out of production, you do realise. And the demand may never be as big for it as you think. But then again, if your selling it, thats hardly your concern I guess ...Chinese Smorgasbord.See, I like to think I am at least a bit of an erudite individual, but there is that note of irrelevance in my ears again.You don't have to like everything going on, but my "nice" Vastivan Caliph is going to go right on being himself, knowing full well he has a harem which includes intelligent penguins and not a few furries; that most of his personal fortune was made off owning "houses of ill-repute"; that one of Vastiva's political allies is a spacefaring nation so far out we'll probably never visit; that disorderly representatives occasionally get "accidentally on purpose" tossed down the elevator-less elevator shaft with... stuff down there.

In short, that's the flavor of the place and the person. That business gets done at all in the UN is amazing - and a tribute to those there.Thats nice dear.

Because I never said there was anything wrong with it. I just don't want to see the front page of this sub-forum stuck under a morass of the stuff in relation to nothing but war declarations or R.P.'s abou what goes on in said houses of il repute. Which is whsat I was originally worried about.

I never said I'd want all your " flavour " taken away. I just figured maybe some of you should try something else from the self serve buffet now and again rather then make your self, and the rest of the U.N. Forum, sick on on particular kind of chocolate cake, no matter how fancy the icing is on it.

Mind you, I never actually addressed this to a particular person, so I'm a little surprised at the under-currents of agression here, :eek:

Then again, to adress that last line above again,

" That business gets done at all in the UN is amazing - and a tribute to those there "

Actually, while a lot of it is amazing, quite a lot of that is amazing because it is such a load of crap. Further more, because of which a lot of it is less then a tribute to every-one else who puts up with it. Especially when if some one speaks up they get burried in it as a reward.

Talking of which,Now, you can choose to ignore it all - up to you. I really don't care. However, choosing to tell me what I can and can not do here - well nyah on you too pbbbbbtttttthhhhhh! and deal with it.If your really being honest, I'd have thought this post demonstrates caring. But I guess not.

And I fail to see the Big Fucking Badge of NS Moderation that makes my word law when it comes to telling you what to do and actually being able to do it. If you can't respect alternate views of other people here civily and without childish antics I'd be questioning your presence if the greatest altitude of your rebuttle is going to be " well nyah on you too pbbbbbtttttthhhhhh! and deal with it. " ... :rolleyes: Do what you like, leave the rest of everyone alone, play nice in the sandbox and things go along swimmingly. That's really the sum of it.Now, if only you were able to master your urge of lashing out with your little plastic shovel when some one else refuses to let you use the bucket, hmmm ?

OOC: I've only been on NS for about seven weeks now, but I have to admit that puppetwanking drives me nuts. What's even more obnoxious is that it's almost impossible to call it out, since one can never be sure. An example would be on some of the discussions on the ICJ resolution, where I felt like I was being swarmed by nations who had fewer than twenty posts on Jolt. Now my issue is that I don't know whether I was discussing something with five people or one. I guess it's more that I don't mind people disagreeing with me or even combatting my arguments pointedly so long as they do so honestly. In situations like the above, where posting style, length, and especially rudeness align among several posters in quick succession, I really don't know whether I'm dealing with one person and four "me-too" (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm) types or whether I'm just dealing with this type (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/impostor.htm) of (single) poster.

With regard to technology, I'm avowedly FT. I don't bend the rules if an MT nation wants to declare war. I try to avoid those, of course, but my tech is what it is. I figure I should RP the thing well and in as many circumstances as I can, or not at all. So the "ban nukes" resolutions really don't have an affect on my nation, except to hurt exports. I say so. I figure that if I've done it on NS or II, I can do it here too - it's not like I pull technology out of my ass in the UN forum just to bitch someone out. I can do a lot better by skipping the tech part if that's my goal.

I'm here to RP. That's what NS forums are for, after all. So when the "ban all gays" resolutions show up, I roleplay Krioval's gay Commander, who is rightly incensed to hear such things. When nations discuss making space "public property", as a spacefaring and colonizing nation, I naturally object. Perhaps if some posters didn't fixate on real-life situations on (actual) Earth instead of bothering to get to know the RP community first, we might not have proposals to restrict activity at the poles, "start" a space initiative, or transform every desert into a lush forest, regardless of what that desert was to begin with. I'll be civilized when dealing with someone who's obviously new to the forums, but after about a week or two, either one has bothered to learn the underlying principles of the NSUN (if on this forum), or they're still blathering about how "the UN is to help people, not restrict national sovereignty" while touting their latest proposal to promote free speech, not realizing that it's already been done.

So, in closing, I guess I agree with DLE completely, disagree with Komokom almost completely (on this particular issue), and am ambivalent about the suggestions of others. But then, I'm a January 2005 nation, so take my opinion in light of that as well.

Oh for fucks sake, I said that I'm fine with " flavour " RP

( The kind of minor RP things just like what you've said, Krioval )

, but I get pissed off at U.N. resolutions being made the excuse for all-out War threads or Trade Threads or Character Dev. Threads, etc on the U.N. Forum when its here for U.N. proposals, resolutions and repeals. Not for those " all-out etc " threads for which U.N. matters are just a pre-text. Which is exactly what we were in danger with with the Pretoria Panel, etc before it diffused by becoming a flash in the pan, for now.

( In fact, I get even more annoyed with new proposals written as an excuse from first go for such " all-out " 's. as it just so happens. Its a lot more insidious then just trying to make the usual " We Should Add War " classed effort in the U.N. )

Jesus. Is any-one actually reading these or am I on some kind of Universal Ignore now ?

IF ANY ONE CAN HERE THIS ?

ROLE PLAY IS GOOD. OKAY ?

BUT YOU CAN HAVE TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING

WHICH IS WHAT I AM AFRAID OF !

AND NO ONE SO FAR HAS BEEN SEEN AS WILLING TO LISTEN !

There, I've pretty much CAPS'ed in my pants in trying to get that across, now. I hope people will ACTUALLY READ that now.

Hee. Now, moving on to Vastiva. You know, if I'd seen this much over-reaction to my post coming I'd not have bothered.

Oooooh! Fun!

Truth be told, this post you're responding to was more of a "flow of conciousness" then anything thought out. Comes with the after-dinner respite.



"There's a story about a C-124 and an F-4 on intersecting taxiways at Rhein-Main long ago. The F-4 driver asked Ground what the Globe-master's intentions were. It is said that the C-124 pilot opened the clamshell doors in the nose and announced, 'I'm going to eat you.'"

On that note - Komokom,

Well from hear it sounds like a note of irrelevance, but as I've been shown up so far, what do I know ?

Actually, it's a note of "this is meant lightheartedly".



you might not like the role playing going on,

Your right for the most part I don't.

Ok, I do. I play a real person all day at work. I'd rather not play one here. Chinese Smorgasbord - take what you want, leave the rest. Wait - I think I'm supposed to explain that one later.... ;)



but it's part of the "products" the Nation States United Nations has going for it. You may not like it, others do.

Of course, since you've decided to carry my commercial theme, I'd like to remind you that some things do go out of production, you do realise. And the demand may never be as big for it as you think. But then again, if your selling it, thats hardly your concern I guess ...

Yep. And we're Capitalists, so whatever sells, we're there. Want more, no problem sir, here's the keys, enjoy your spin and don't worry about those little words at the end of the contract.... ;)



Chinese Smorgasbord.

See, I like to think I am at least a bit of an erudite individual, but there is that note of irrelevance in my ears again.

It's not irrelevance - it's the way things are in NS, particularly the NSUN. Everybody can sample everything, take what they want from it, leave the rest. It means “There’s plenty here for everyone, every taste”.

Then again, my family is just weird enough to serve sushi and lefse, so there.



You don't have to like everything going on, but my "nice" Vastivan Caliph is going to go right on being himself, knowing full well he has a harem which includes intelligent penguins and not a few furries; that most of his personal fortune was made off owning "houses of ill-repute"; that one of Vastiva's political allies is a spacefaring nation so far out we'll probably never visit; that disorderly representatives occasionally get "accidentally on purpose" tossed down the elevator-less elevator shaft with... stuff down there.

In short, that's the flavor of the place and the person. That business gets done at all in the UN is amazing - and a tribute to those there.

Thats nice dear.

Because I never said there was anything wrong with it. I just don't want to see the front page of this sub-forum stuck under a morass of the stuff in relation to nothing but war declarations or R.P.'s abou what goes on in said houses of il repute. Which is whsat I was originally worried about.

In this, we entirely agree. Too much of anything is too much, and the NSUN does have a point in existing, which some appear to forget.



I never said I'd want all your " flavour " taken away. I just figured maybe some of you should try something else from the self serve buffet now and again rather then make your self, and the rest of the U.N. Forum, sick on on particular kind of chocolate cake, no matter how fancy the icing is on it.

Eh, but I play a real person all day. Here’s where the hair gets let down. Much less serious.


[quote=Vastiva]
Mind you, I never actually addressed this to a particular person, so I'm a little surprised at the under-currents of agression here,

Ain’t a one, Komokom. Promise on that.



Then again, to adress that last line above again,

[quote=Vastiva]" That business gets done at all in the UN is amazing - and a tribute to those there "

Actually, while a lot of it is amazing, quite a lot of that is amazing because it is such a load of crap. Further more, because of which a lot of it is less then a tribute to every-one else who puts up with it. Especially when if some one speaks up they get burried in it as a reward.

If you have the perseverance to slog through, you certainly can handle politics. And diplomacy. And if you have the perseverance and insight to see who is completely off their rocker, who is “role playing but interested”, and who is playing what game in your proposal, you’re doing very well.

As I’ve been bought off to vote for six different proposals, it can get interesting around here.



Talking of which,

Now, you can choose to ignore it all - up to you. I really don't care. However, choosing to tell me what I can and can not do here - well nyah on you too pbbbbbtttttthhhhhh! and deal with it.

If your really being honest, I'd have thought this post demonstrates caring. But I guess not.

Well, I care about your opinion. But if you choose to discard all the RPing, well, that’s your bag, but it won’t interfere with my fun. Max’s sandbox, we can all play.



And I fail to see the Big Fucking Badge of NS Moderation that makes my word law when it comes to telling you what to do and actually being able to do it.

Slow down there, chief. Replying like an eight year old should have been a cue to you. It’s about that serious – which is to say, not very. More like frippery. Put the hackles back in their place.


If you can't respect alternate views of other people here civily and without childish antics I'd be questioning your presence if the greatest altitude of your rebuttle is going to be " well nyah on you too pbbbbbtttttthhhhhh! and deal with it. " ...

Gee, are we feeling aggressive today?



Do what you like, leave the rest of everyone alone, play nice in the sandbox and things go along swimmingly. That's really the sum of it.

Now, if only you were able to master your urge of lashing out with your little plastic shovel when some one else refuses to let you use the bucket, hmmm?

Nah, I just get the hose. ;)

For the record, I’ve played it “straight and serious” when the proposal – and the proposer – appears to be wanting and headed for that. I’ve played it “IC” when those concerns came up. And I’ve been silly when it’s obvious nothing is going to happen.

I’ve also kept my snark out of proposal discussions which were ultra-serious, which I didn’t figure I could comment on (over my head, or out of my interest). Which should demonstrate adequately about the “little plastic shovel and bucket”, Komokom?

Thank you.

Now, finally, as you added this:


, but I get pissed off at U.N. resolutions being made the excuse for all-out War threads or Trade Threads or Character Dev. Threads, etc on the U.N. Forum when its here for U.N. proposals, resolutions and repeals. Not for those " all-out etc " threads for which U.N. matters are just a pre-text. Which is exactly what we were in danger with with the Pretoria Panel, etc before it diffused by becoming a flash in the pan, for now.

We’re in agreement – the hackover shouldn’t have taken place in the UN forum, though a link would be appropriate. And we agree the UN forum is for UN business foremost – though we see nothing wrong with the thread about the various UN representatives.

Fair enough? Now calm down.

Oh for fucks sake, I said that I'm fine with " flavour " RP

( The kind of minor RP things just like what you've said, Krioval )

, but I get pissed off at U.N. resolutions being made the excuse for all-out War threads or Trade Threads or Character Dev. Threads, etc on the U.N. Forum when its here for U.N. proposals, resolutions and repeals. Not for those " all-out etc " threads for which U.N. matters are just a pre-text. Which is exactly what we were in danger with with the Pretoria Panel, etc before it diffused by becoming a flash in the pan, for now.

( In fact, I get even more annoyed with new proposals written as an excuse from first go for such " all-out " 's. as it just so happens. Its a lot more insidious then just trying to make the usual " We Should Add War " classed effort in the U.N. )

Jesus. Is any-one actually reading these or am I on some kind of Universal Ignore now ?

IF ANY ONE CAN HERE THIS ?

ROLE PLAY IS GOOD. OKAY ?

BUT YOU CAN HAVE TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING

WHICH IS WHAT I AM AFRAID OF !

AND NO ONE SO FAR HAS BEEN SEEN AS WILLING TO LISTEN !

There, I've pretty much CAPS'ed in my pants in trying to get that across, now. I hope people will ACTUALLY READ that now.

Stop your bloody shouting, Kommers. ;) We've got it.

Oooooh! Fun!

Truth be told, this post you're responding to was more of a "flow of conciousness" then anything thought out. Comes with the after-dinner respite.Yes, well, because of the entire " when its dark on one side of the planet, it might just be lighter on the other " thing, this got in the way of mine, :p Actually, it's a note of "this is meant lightheartedly".Then I respect-fully advise your consumer complaints division to have very clear disclaimer on the side, heh. Ok, I do. I play a real person all day at work. I'd rather not play one here. Chinese Smorgasbord - take what you want, leave the rest. Wait - I think I'm supposed to explain that one later.... ;) 1) Pfffrt, clearly you've not been introduced into the joy-ful wonders of living in an constant identity dellusion, :p

2) Yes. You were. Yes, you will, hee.Yep. And we're Capitalists, so whatever sells, we're there. Want more, no problem sir, here's the keys, enjoy your spin and don't worry about those little words at the end of the contract.... ;) Oh great, I just remembered yet again I'm still on my L plates, argh. It's not irrelevance - it's the way things are in NS, particularly the NSUN. Everybody can sample everything, take what they want from it, leave the rest. It means “There’s plenty here for everyone, every taste”.Hmmm. Of course, there are still certain places for certain things, so while I might agree in principle, I disagree with how simple you've made it out to be.Then again, my family is just weird enough to serve sushi and lefse, so there.Mine's still weird, just with what seems to be a fear of raw fish, ;) In this, we entirely agree. Too much of anything is too much, and the NSUN does have a point in existing, which some appear to forget.Egads, some one actual read something I said an got my point. Maybe I - did - pass Adv English in my senior year after all ... horror !Eh, but I play a real person all day. Here’s where the hair gets let down. Much less serious.Yes well, the problem here is that there are still limits. You can of course " let your hair down " but you've also got to make sure that you don't end up " stepping on any toes ", heh.Ain’t a one, Komokom. Promise on that.Okay, but if you turn up tomorrow with an " I (Heart) Kom " tattoo I reserve the right to get freek'ed out by it, :p If you have the perseverance to slog through, you certainly can handle politics. And diplomacy. And if you have the perseverance and insight to see who is completely off their rocker, who is “role playing but interested”, and who is playing what game in your proposal, you’re doing very well.Of course, there are several more common, and less glamours camps I think you missed, heh.As I’ve been bought off to vote for six different proposals, it can get interesting around here.I won't believe it till I see your corruption ranking, ha.Well, I care about your opinion. But if you choose to discard all the RPing, well, that’s your bag, but it won’t interfere with my fun. Max’s sandbox, we can all play.Grrr. Argh.

For the last time. I am not saying discard all the bloody RP already, Jeez. I've been saying that there is a point where we have to much of a good thing, and that this place has - never - had so much RP as it does now, it didn't need it in the past, and if we do end up with " too much ", that is RP for personal reasons or for RP sake, and not the U.N.'s sake, its going to cause real problems for every-one.

In fact, its the fucking opposite of what I've been saying, and I'm really starting to get sick of people un-intentionally, I'm sure, twisting my words into something else for the 3rd or 4th time now.

I'm all for the fucking RP all-ready, but only so much as some would force on us.Slow down there, chief. Replying like an eight year old should have been a cue to you. It’s about that serious – which is to say, not very. More like frippery. Put the hackles back in their place.Not really. Its that " serious " to you. You seem to forget that not every-one is Vastiva, just like not every-one is Komokom. We, that is, every-one not Vastiva, might feel different. Also, them, those not komokom, might agree, i know.

And if you can't at least be decent enough to be serious when you reply to some-ones concerns, maybe you should not have replied at all.

If the reply has to be " like an 8 year old " ( And I know I pegged it lower then that ) then might I point out there is letting your hair down, and then there is acting like a jack-ass for no good reason to others, :p Gee, are we feeling aggressive today?Well, when I've been spoken to in a manner less then half my age and people seem to keep sticking the entire fact I agree with them to a point under the carpet, and soldier on as though I'm the Anti-Christ of all RP kind, is it any wonder, silly ? Nah, I just get the hose.Meep !For the record, I’ve played it “straight and serious” when the proposal – and the proposer – appears to be wanting and headed for that. I’ve played it “IC” when those concerns came up. And I’ve been silly when it’s obvious nothing is going to happen.Well that's good, that is what I do. So of course I agree with that. I've given up by now on the point I was making, as no one seemed willing to actually read what I said, not what they seem to have wanted me to say.I’ve also kept my snark out of proposal discussions which were ultra-serious, which I didn’t figure I could comment on (over my head, or out of my interest).Snark. I like that word. I seem to be see-ing it more, too. All-over the place.Which should demonstrate adequately about the “little plastic shovel and bucket”, Komokom?How about you actually demonstrate about your reading where I point out I'm all for IC / RP stuff, to a degree like we have now, but not RP for RP sake in the U.N. Forum when the actual R.P. has very little to do with the U.N. at all ? That was wht I tried to say originally but in the mean-time its been snow-balled by others out of all sanityThank you.My pleasure, eventually.We’re in agreement – the hackover shouldn’t have taken place in the UN forum, though a link would be appropriate. And we agree the UN forum is for UN business foremost – though we see nothing wrong with the thread about the various UN representatives.1) Thank god.

2) I never said there was. If I recall, The Black New World was running one of those. In fact, I posted in it early on. so I guess you could say that comes under my " there are some IC RP things that do suit the U.N. " :) Fair enough? Now calm down.I only do so when I think I can do so with-out being walked on all over again, heh.

( Which I might just do now, as you have once or twice actually addressed this to an extent where I think you might actually have gotten some of what I said as it was said, not as it may have looked amid all the other " OMG HERETIC ! " reactions I got in response. )

Stop your bloody shouting, Kommers. We've got it.Yes, well, I wasn't shouting at you, was I ;)

Stop your bloody shouting, Kommers. ;) We've got it.

Ah, but I think I understand his frustration.

It was crystal clear to anybody who has been reading the UN forums EXACTLY what type of behavior Frisbeeteria (a moderator) was politely warning against. Fris was kind enough to not use real examples.



There is nothing wrong with pretending to be technologically superior to everybody else ... but the UN forum and UN resolutions are constrained by the same limitations (via the current Enodian rules) as the daily issues. The bottom line is, like it or not, UN resolutions have to be somewhat realistic ... which means proposal authors really can't *write* resolutions accounting for Death Stars or Time Warps, without falling to a very close review of the moderation staff. So to essentially post MULTIPLE times a day just to talk about your nation in a thread in which a new UN player is looking for feedback on his or her proposal is extremely frustrating, not only for that player (whom wants to be polite and would love constructive advice ... and maybe a political ally), but also to people who come to the UN forum to discuss general issues without getting into the __degree__ of roleplaying that traditionally has taken place in the International Incidents and Nation States forums.

I honestly to understand what Fris is concerned about, and I also agree with what I felt was Komokom's main point as well. While I think it is great that people are talking in more details, but after re-reading the first, I don't think this thread was really intended to turn into that huge of a discussion, but that one of the main ideas was just to really flag something that could be easily taken to other forums.

If I had to sum it up in three easy words to remember:
Folks, Be Nice

Not every UN thread needs to be about a specific proposal. There's room for more than that.
So to essentially post MULTIPLE times a day just to talk about your nation in a thread in which a new UN player is looking for feedback on his or her proposal is extremely frustrating, not only for that player (whom wants to be polite and would love constructive advice ... and maybe a political ally), but also to people who come to the UN forum to discuss general issues without getting into the __degree__ of roleplaying that traditionally has taken place in the International Incidents and Nation States forums.
That's a decent summary. I'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with some threads being 100% roleplay, concerning issues that affect the UN and international law. If it escalates to an actual war, it belongs in International Incidents. If it turns into a character roleplay (like Sophista and my own Great Dodgeball War (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361434) </selfpromotion>), it needs to be played out in NationStates. If it's a technological argument of how your tech and my tech clash to form an obstacle to international law, then it belongs here. UN based roleplays, such as the various TPP topics, should be welcome here.

That said, every thread about specific proposals needs to stay roughly on topic and on tangent. Let those who want to critique the language and phrasing of a proposal have a place to work. Interjecting a single post about how the proposal will have some specific negative or positive effect on your country is fine. Getting into an extended argument about it needs to be split off.

In short, if you think you've spawned another tangent, dammit, create a new topic. It's only a few extra clicks to copy your response into a new thread, and the rest of us can keep on topic.

I don't think this thread was really intended to turn into that huge of a discussion
Yeah, well that's how things go here. I for one welcome the debate. Let's get it out in the open.

So before I get cast in this drama as the demon prince I want to get some things sorted out.

That's my job, and I'll defend it to the warning.

A point big enough for two, read'em, two paragraphs, so I must be in trouble here, :D

Nah. Trouble is when I exceed the word limit of posts six times while pointing out how you are wrong and pointing you to sources, down to the placement of commas, and then exceed it another four times with new and creative ways of calling you an idiot that require multiple dictionaries for three separate languages and all of their past incarnations.

That's why I try to control my temper on here. I'd link you to the post I'm referencing, but that is generally frowned upon on most websites.

Not quite. For a long time, the focus of the U.N. has been on debate of issues for nations rather then straight out role play of why these are issues the nations might take offence to or even supportthe resolution of. RP was if at all, just a slight sprinkle of flavour to more serious things.

That's why I come here. However, thanks to a certain piece of crap resolution and the inevitable results of it, RP is gaining more of a precedence on here. Oh, and you entirely missed the point of the comment you replied to.

Actually, if you look closely you might find some of them are ... or may as well be :rolleyes:

I know. I oppose them at every opportunity.

Ahem, actually, there is more to N.S. then role-play, you know. In fact, I'm sure you do know that, but I'm trying to better illustrate that concept, because the way some of you have reacted, it is painting a picture, that to some of us, looks like you, do not. Okay ?

And what relevance does this have in this discussion? If it is just to point out something that is irrelevant to the discussion of RP in the UN forum, then it is a waste of space, and I put up enough with that from the newbies to be nice to someone with your experience when they do it.

As I said, there was a time that the focus was one the debate of the isues, the provocation of though. think of it as General Forum, ( No, not heresy, let me explain ) where we could actually debate for the most part with-out flame wars or spam, and actually get to the roots of issues, then to some extent better incorporate our points of view as both players * and * nations into the game itself via resolutions.

And we still do it, even though sometimes someone will take the fact another dared bring up something outside their limited view of the NS reality and attack it (which is what happened on the thread that inspired this). If you check the multiple discussions of attempts to create the ICJ and revise it, you should notice the fact the majority of discussion is about problems the proposal has, not about individual country differences. The days you knew are not over, just not the same.

Of course not, RP as diplomacy was always there, and the U.N. Mod Enodia always tried to foster that. a lot of us did. It was the entire concept back then of being polite when we debated and it didn't hurT to mention " The Representative Elect of @@NATION@@ condems the arguments made against gay rights for the following reasons presented : " but it is not the be all and end all of the U.N Forum and I get annoyed when it gets advertised as the One Feature to Rule Them All of the N.S.U.N. It was a ingredient of the desert, not the Main Course, and still is when all the buffoonery ceases.

You would have a point if it wasn't for a particular sticky at the top. As it is, I see this as frustration with game rules, and therefore not relevant.

Mind you, feel free to get in ouch with Max and ask just what the main point of the U.N. is as he sees it now. I'd be much obliged.

He already laid out his vision of it, and you don't need to get in touch with him to find out what it is. I shouldn't have to point this out.

Indeed ? then just where is the inherent need of RP in a game feature and a sub-forum, who express description was that is was for the debate of U.N. resolutions ( + proposals and now repeals ) rather then as I have said in the past,

" making sure that while in our posts to say we raised the pinky finger ( If we even have one ) when we sipped tea and debated why @@NATION@@ needs a jolly good invasion " while in the U.N. Forum ?

The idea is to debate the issues.

Not the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Nor the history of the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Nor why Ambassador Glogg is dripping green goo all over the place while debating history of the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Or the explaination of Ambassador Glogg's biochemistry which is making him drip green goo all over the place as they debate the history of ... I'm sure that blatant a way of putting it will let you all catch my drift.

You are, once again, either missing or purposefully miscontruing the point. I'm beginning to think the second one, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

A good portion of the discussion of resolutions has always been related to RP issues. Take the dozens of discussions on Gay Rights. Yes, a lot was brought in from outside the UN, but in the end the main issue was always "How does this affect my nation in an RP manner and do I want this?" With he exception of a few that are basically duplicates of others, that has been pretty much the main focus of the majority of discussion in resolutions. The first Global Library itself was a discussion of what is feasible in a role playing situation in it.

I hate to say it, but I think you really need to do some reading on here before you attempt to continue this arguement. I see several points that speak towards being out of touch with the UN itself.

Okay, that'd be a good point if not for a few things.

1) Evolution always involves a lot of failures and only a few success stories.

2) We seem to have done okay with-out them in the past. To make it clearer, RP id for II and NS. I don't recal this being another exclusive RP forum where we can request the DEAT / ret-con of the threads we start but don't like how they end up.

I never said RP should be exlusively removed, but you seem pretty hell bent on making it out that this place is RP exclusive.

And you seem hell-bent on miscontruing what I say by taking it out of context and replying as though it is a completely separate point from anything else in the paragraph. That is a tactic I attribute to trolls for a good reason. Either take what I say in context, or don't be surprised when I treat you like a newbie. I will not tolerate from you what I don't tolerate from newbies just because of how long you have been around.

The context is explaining how certain resolutions, namely the Humanitarian Intervention, have led to roleplaying on the UN forum increasing. They have because, thanks to those, the roleplaying involved is related to UN resolutions and the discussion of them. The relationship is loose, but it's tight enough that no one has gotten in trouble for it from the mods and the RPs stay unmoved. You don't like it, take it up with the mods.

Really ? I suppose it makes the Gay Rights, no, wait, every other resolution a waste of time too ? Right ? That is what your saying, that with-out Praise Be to @@DEITY@@ RP its all a waste of time.

Good, will the last person to leave please turn off the lights ?

Once again, purposefully taking something out of context, as by this point it must be on purpose. See above for the context.

Really, Komokom, you're pulling tactics I expect from those new to the forum, not those that have been around for awhile. If it wasn't for that, you wouldn't be getting me as evil as I am. I shouldn't have t explain the context of someone to someone who has been on this forum as long as you have.

If you've not noticed the U.N. Forum was never " big " into RP except be a small few recently, and that pretty much means this place should have been moth balled as soon as it began, uh-huh ?

Once again, purposefully misconstruing what I said. This comes from taking things out of context. Go back, read the quote you were responding to in context, think about the context for awhile, and then feel free to apologize for wasting my time like this.

I already covered this, so I'll just point out " pssst, your alienating the Creationists ! " :p

My IC opinion of religion should be well known by now.

Oh dear. Please be aware that one precedent is not going to be the universal decider in Moderator decisions. I'll also point out since you had to get permission, surely you demonstrate your own knowledge then of the fact straight RP is a ( or should be a in my view ) rare beast here and not always welcome around these parts.

The permission was an act of courtesy and to find out if it would be moved if I posted it. And, yes, precedents do often influence mod decisions. If one mod said it was okay, the other mods have a choice of contradicting that mod (sometimes they do) or enforcing it. For example, the idea of saying "All Republicans who like Bush are idiots!!!11!!11!111" as being flamebait is a precedent based on a ruling of what is and what isn't flamebait. In fact, most of the rules about what is and what isn't allowable in proposals are precedents that became rules.

Also, it is a one off, so far, isn't it ?

One off? We've had one RP topic on here so far that was semi-successful and another semi-RP topic that is far from dead. So, really, it's a case of being able to point out that it is allowed right now and isn't just one topic. Oh, check the following mod ruling that is based on precedents:

If it's a technological argument of how your tech and my tech clash to form an obstacle to international law, then it belongs here. UN based roleplays, such as the various TPP topics, should be welcome here.

Despite whether or not that was intended as a mod ruling, it is likely to be quoted in future arguements. And, being as it came from a mod, it carries enough weight to be evidence enough of what is and what isn't allowed.

Mind you, I never actually addressed this to a particular person, so I'm a little surprised at the under-currents of agression here, :eek:

Well, I'm certainly "guilty" of everything you've ranted about. Not feeling guilty about it. Nope.

Yes, I have in the past seen a hateful proposal and decided the appropriate response was to post about sending assassins after the delegate who proposed it. Yes, I have in the past threatened (or posted about) massive nuclear attacks against the person who proposed something not worthy of serious debate and highly insulting to me. And yes, I will continue to remind people their proposals could start a war. It defies logic to think that in the real UN someone could come in and make a proposal that seriously threatens other member states and that no one would consider it a casus belli.

Yes, I frequently recommend people change their wording to take into account that there are space empires and magical elven kingdoms in the UN. Those suggestions don't kill a proposal; they make it stronger. The UN has no business citing specific ages in resolutions anyway; it is appropriate for the UN to declare that nationstates have to set some appropriate minimum age, but the nationstates should have some flexibility in deciding what's appropriate for them. And don't get me started on all the "ban the nukes!" proposals that ignore every other form of WMD. They are never serious - if they were, one of those proposers, one day, would take the advice and change the wording to WMD's instead of nukes.

Yes, I started the original abusive TPP hearing. I screamed myself hoarse before the vote on Humanitarian Intervention about how the thing could be abused, and nobody was listening. It took up all of 1 thread and lasted, what, an hour? And out of it came:
(1) a thread devoted to amending and enhancing TPP to prevent future abuse of that sort, and
(b) gwenstefani's TPP RP forum over at UNO.
Both of those are good things. You say take it to I-I or NS? Gwenstefani's done one better than that. What, you object to people still occasionally post in the TPP Revisted thread to advertise that they're starting a new UN-related RP? There are still 29 threads on the page I see talking about new resolution proposals. A very small corner of the sandbox, I'd call that.

Yes, I recently tried to salvage ICJ by making it clearly designed for RP, not a tool of some ominous illuminati bent on world government. Frankly, I thought it was the only way it stood a chance of passing. DLE has dissuaded me from pursuing it, but I think it could have spun off its own UNO forum and one more thread in the UN forum. Again, a small corner of the sandbox, and a lot of people could have had fun with it. It could add a whole new law and order dimension to the I-I and NS forums. Which would be a welcome change imnsho - I find all the RP's about royal marriages and whatnot incredibly boring.

Yes, I speculated about the player's motivations behind proposing a world cheese fair. I thought the proposal was written in jest, and the only way I could think of it having an effect was to trigger an easter egg issue. One silly deserves another. Yes, I speculated on the effects of the wealth redistribution proposed in the nuclear tax farce. That was pure RP, and was also a valid criticism of the proposal. You're wrong in saying that should be off limits.

Yes, I participated in an inappropriate RP in the UN Strangers Bar when I first got here. Actually, now that I'm more familiar with the UN, I do feel a bit guilty about that one.

Yes, I recently 90573> 4 j0|<3 about l337 #4xx02 skillz. But my name's YGSM now, not tool-a.

I see everything about this forum as RP. Writing a proposal is in character. Debating it in the forum is in character. Telegram campaigns are in character. The only part that's not about RP is the game effects the gnomes apply to members when a resolution is passed. You object to resolutions designed to create RP after they're passed? Fine. You're in good company, if I understood Hack's new guidelines.

If it's a technological argument of how your tech and my tech clash to form an obstacle to international law, then it belongs here. UN based roleplays, such as the various TPP topics, should be welcome here.Despite whether or not that was intended as a mod ruling, it is likely to be quoted in future arguements. And, being as it came from a mod, it carries enough weight to be evidence enough of what is and what isn't allowed.
It's not a mod ruling, it's my opinion. If it carries more weight because of my position, I'm fine with that. Just be sure to quote the whole thing in context, and create new threads to carry on your discussion.

"Why 'Gay Rights' is meaningless to a FutureTech robotic race" would make a fine title for one of those tech-based threads, and it would mark it as something for me to not bother with. It's a matter of forum courtesy not to intemingle it with all the other "gays are icky" repeals.

I was the second-most enthusiastic about seeing how far the Humanitarian Intervention and TPP resolutions could be stretched. In fact, I laugh even now at how mind-bogglingly easy that was. Yet it was 100% in character to do that. It also spurred IC roleplay-adopted changes to prevent the simulated catastrophe wreaked on another nation.

As for RP on the UN forum, my thoughts, a bit better refined now, are that it's acceptable if it's UN-centric. Namely, if the reason I'm going to war with someone (or threatening it) has to do primarily with UN policy, my intended audience would be posters on the UN forum, not everybody and their siblings over on International Incidents. Granted, when I encounter a UN nation that's RPing a violation of UN policy, I deal with it in that thread, not here. I mean, if the SSM debate can be ongoing in several major forums (General, II, UN), why is a tech or war thread looked upon by some with such disdain, especially when it's relevant to the UN topic under discussion? If anything, I wish people would spend more time cultivating RPable diplomats or national leaders when posting on proposals or resolutions under consideration. It would at least get rid of the "this proposal sucks" or "OMFG the UN is taking away my government! DIE!" one-liners. And maybe we could do without so many "this resolution's illegal" posts on resolutions specifically cleared by moderators.

In closing, I guess the whole issue's a matter of personal taste.

It's not a mod ruling, it's my opinion. If it carries more weight because of my position, I'm fine with that. Just be sure to quote the whole thing in context, and create new threads to carry on your discussion.

"Why 'Gay Rights' is meaningless to a FutureTech robotic race" would make a fine title for one of those tech-based threads, and it would mark it as something for me to not bother with. It's a matter of forum courtesy not to intemingle it with all the other "gays are icky" repeals.
You started this thread with your official mod signature.

If I knew how to contact you privately I would, but I don't so I'll make the suggestion here: why don't you create a puppet Frisbacteria or something and use that to make your player arguments? I know you're not trying to be confusing, but it's confusing when you post as Frisbeeteria and then say it's a player's opinion and not a mod ruling.

You started this thread with your official mod signature.That I did. The request to not hijack topics was official. The rest ... ehh, you've got a point. It's just such a pain to login and logout all the time. I'll try to remember to use Gnomewatchers for opinion posts, but no promises.If I knew how to contact you privately I wouldEver heard of telegrams? :D

My email address is on my NSwiki user page and in the How to be a Moderator thread. It's public. Link's in my sig. Don't flood it too bad, please, and no promises of replies. I like public communication better.

That I did. The request to not hijack topics was official. The rest ... ehh, you've got a point. It's just such a pain to login and logout all the time. I'll try to remember to use Gnomewatchers for opinion posts, but no promises.Ever heard of telegrams? :D

My email address is on my NSwiki user page and in the How to be a Moderator thread. It's public. Link's in my sig. Don't flood it too bad, please, and no promises of replies. I like public communication better.

Bah, Hack states just his opinions as the Most Glorious Hack or the UN Gnomes, I don't see why you can't as well.

Nothing you've said here sounds remotely like a hard fast rule, but as a forum moderator, if you saw somebody puppet or techwanking to the point that you felt it was distruptive, you can easily politely ask again in a more official capacity.

Besides, your original opinion is something it seems that a number of us share, and I'd say the words, "Folks, Be Nice" still have some bearing here.

When new players come here, they probably love seeing in character roleplay, but if they make a proposal, they probably aren't interested in hearing about how many light years away your flying dragon and elf fleet is.

Ah, but I think I understand his frustration.

I was just yanking Kommers' chain, Mik. I wasn't being serious. :)

So before I get cast in this drama as the demon prince I want to get some things sorted out.That's my job, and I'll defend it to the warning.That's nice, charmed your way into some of those yet ? A point big enough for two, read'em, two paragraphs, so I must be in trouble here,Nah. Trouble is when I exceed the word limit of posts six times while pointing out how you are wrong and pointing you to sources, down to the placement of commas, and then exceed it another four times with new and creative ways of calling you an idiot that require multiple dictionaries for three separate languages and all of their past incarnations.Hate it when that happens, not so much that I've gone and done it, but that I've got to edit it down. A - real - pain if there are quote boxes involved, too. I amlost always tend to drop a tag and need an edit later ...That's why I try to control my temper on here. I'd link you to the post I'm referencing, but that is generally frowned upon on most websites.Me personally, these days I go in for the " Well if you screw me around, then you can expect the honest response ". And unless you feel the need to actually link this mysterious post you speak of to me, then you need not mention it, do you.Not quite. For a long time, the focus of the U.N. has been on debate of issues for nations rather then straight out role play of why these are issues the nations might take offence to or even supportthe resolution of. RP was if at all, just a slight sprinkle of flavour to more serious things.That's why I come here. However, thanks to a certain piece of crap resolution and the inevitable results of it, RP is gaining more of a precedence on here. Oh, and you entirely missed the point of the comment you replied to.1) Just because of said " crap resolution ", doesn't mean we need to put up with it, nor does it make it set in stone, and nor does it make it right for this forum.

N.S. Resolutions do not let us create new rules for the game itself, nor can they let us make new rules on the forum. I would have thought that there-fore, nor can they create and force real changes on the forum, especialy when they are a " crap resolution " to boot. And even more especially when this forum still has that single and original purpose as out-lined in the sub-forum description, as it has for over 2 years now.

2) If by " entirely missed the point " you mean I didn't nod my head and mutter " yessir " with my eyes averted in a humble fashion, then I guess your right. If by " entirely missed the point " you mean I disagreed with what you said, made my own opinion ( Or so I thought ) clear on the matter and out-lined some history to support my opinion to others, then I guess your right again.

So when we are considering that I didn't like actually your point in the first place and replied as such, I suppose there is bound to be a consequent degree of " missing it " because which, eh ?

Maybe next time you want to fob off my comments, you could put some effort into it to demonstrate just why you think you'll get away with doing so with that one oh so tempting " you've missed " line of yours. because as of right now you seem to be missing the point of which is the fact I can respond with-out the afore-mentioned " yessir " ing and while you don't have to like it you could at least grant the fact some respect. Actually, if you look closely you might find some of them are ... or may as well beI know. I oppose them at every opportunity.Well good for you, I say.Ahem, actually, there is more to N.S. then role-play, you know. In fact, I'm sure you do know that, but I'm trying to better illustrate that concept, because the way some of you have reacted, it is painting a picture, that to some of us, looks like you, do not. Okay ?And what relevance does this have in this discussion? If it is just to point out something that is irrelevant to the discussion of RP in the UN forum, then it is a waste of space, and I put up enough with that from the newbies to be nice to someone with your experience when they do it.Well really, before your so quick to label part of my post a " waste of space ", just maybe you should question my own generosity at replying to some of yours, hmmm ?

My point there was that R.P. is not the Holy Foundation of the N.S.U.N or the U.N. Forum in the past. I also tried to make it clear that while I was with the hope you finally under-stood I was saying this, I could not actually tell because of all the reactionary posts I'd met with so far from people, your-self I thought, one of them.

Oh, and if you can't at least try to be polite to some-one " of my experiance " after they've voiced concern that they think y'all walking right over what I've tried to say, just to push frantic pro-RP Dogma, then clearly it'll be quite a while before you do acquire " my experiance ", as you've put it.As I said, there was a time that the focus was one the debate of the isues, the provocation of thought. Think of it as General Forum, ( No, not heresy, let me explain ) where we could actually debate for the most part with-out flame wars or spam, and actually get to the roots of issues, then to some extent better incorporate our points of view as both players * and * nations into the game itself via resolutions.And we still do it, even though sometimes someone will take the fact another dared bring up something outside their limited view of the NS reality and attack it (which is what happened on the thread that inspired this). If you check the multiple discussions of attempts to create the ICJ and revise it, you should notice the fact the majority of discussion is about problems the proposal has, not about individual country differences. The days you knew are not over, just not the same.1) that so called " attacking " you mention came up in almost every thread, every second day, usually more often though. Mind you, in at least some regards it is a bit better these days in-so-far as that goes.

2) I still think " the days I knew " are still here, its just there are a dedicated few people setting out to install a new calendar a few months early, is all.You would have a point if it wasn't for a particular sticky at the top. As it is, I see this as frustration with game rules, and therefore not relevant.Good, until you're bothered to point out just which sticky, for once I can validly pass off one of your own points as " irrelevant " ... He already laid out his vision of it, and you don't need to get in touch with him to find out what it is. I shouldn't have to point this out.You think you shouldn't, but I thought you should, mainly because of what you were spouting. If you don't want to, then its up to you, but, I did recommend it for your own god in this debate.

The two are inseparable by the vary nature of how the UN was set up.Indeed ? then just where is the inherent need of RP in a game feature and a sub-forum, who express description was that is was for the debate of U.N. resolutions ( + proposals and now repeals ) rather then, as I have said in the past,

" making sure that while in our posts to say we raised the pinky finger ( If we even have one ) when we sipped tea and debated why @@NATION@@ needs a jolly good invasion " while in the U.N. Forum ?

The idea is to debate the issues.

Not the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Nor the history of the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Nor why Ambassador Glogg is dripping green goo all over the place while debating history of the motives of the nation trying to debate the issues. Or the explaination of Ambassador Glogg's biochemistry which is making him drip green goo all over the place as they debate the history of ... I'm sure that blatant a way of putting it will let you all catch my drift.You are, once again, either missing or purposefully miscontruing the point. I'm beginning to think the second one, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.How kind of you. I'm not quite sure if I can be reciprocal in that, though. Most of my points got bent six ways from sunday once I posted and most of my posting since then had to be nothing but damage control, most of which was point-less because some people were not arsed quick enough to actually read it, though I'm glad to say some have made the effort now.A good portion of the discussion of resolutions has always been related to RP issues. Take the dozens of discussions on Gay Rights. Yes, a lot was brought in from outside the UN, but in the end the main issue was always "How does this affect my nation in an RP manner and do I want this?"Actually, at its core it usually has to do with the " OOC " opinions of the player behind the account, rather then anything else, such as " IC ". Believe it all not, not all RP'ers are so creative as to base their nation on anything other then which as they would run one. the concept of Nation States first and fore-most seems to be " Run a country as you would " not " as you would not ". There-fore the bulk of the " gay rights in my country " stuff alone has been " brought in from outside " as you've coined it. Yes, it is terrible or true, people do make decisions OOC on thing here, and have done so in the majority here for a long time.With he exception of a few that are basically duplicates of others, that has been pretty much the main focus of the majority of discussion in resolutions. The first Global Library itself was a discussion of what is feasible in a role playing situation in it.If only as far back as the first " Global Library " is going to be the totality of your perspective in this discussion, then your point-of-view in it and thus your arguments too for that matter, is going to be flawed. Because from what I recall, the majority of resolutions, and especally in the " better " ones, have focused on OOC debate, OOC concerns, and OOC raising of some IC matters of individual nations.I hate to say it, but I think you really need to do some reading on here before you attempt to continue this arguement. I see several points that speak towards being out of touch with the UN itself." Irrelevant. ", as you say.

Its not just how pompuous your being while doing it, but the fact your actually trying to fob me off and away instead of putting in any effort into an actual response to what I've commented on as what seems to be your attitude.

But it is your call to say so and it'll speak more of you then I, I'll warrant ... Okay, that'd be a good point if not for a few things.

1) Evolution always involves a lot of failures and only a few success stories.

2) We seem to have done okay with-out them in the past. To make it clearer, RP id for II and NS. I don't recal this being another exclusive RP forum where we can request the DEAT / ret-con of the threads we start but don't like how they end up.

I never said RP should be exlusively removed, but you seem pretty hell bent on making it out that this place is RP exclusive.And you seem hell-bent on miscontruing what I say by taking it out of context and replying as though it is a completely separate point from anything else in the paragraph.Un-intentional, I can assure you, but maybe you'll have an inkling of just what I've put up with for the majority of this thread, thank you very much in no small part to yourself.That is a tactic I attribute to trolls for a good reason.And what you've just done is one that I call flame-bait. If you've a problem with my time tested method of analysis and response, you can take it up with me out of debate rather then trying to use it to dodge bullets here.Either take what I say in context, or don't be surprised when I treat you like a newbie.Ditto, and if you want to judge people here by " time served " then recall your own place, if that is how you want it to work.I will not tolerate from you what I don't tolerate from newbies just because of how long you have been around.And I will not tolerate from you what I will tolerate from no one, which I had thought should have been clear by now, but since you so desperately wish to draw lines, and daggers, then I'll play too.The context is explaining how certain resolutions, namely the Humanitarian Intervention, have led to roleplaying on the UN forum increasing. They have because, thanks to those, the roleplaying involved is related to UN resolutions and the discussion of them. The relationship is loose, but it's tight enough that no one has gotten in trouble for it from the mods and the RPs stay unmoved.And you know what ? Since these RP's of fairly strong relation to the U.N. were not even in my original arguments, its kind of funny that for all your talk of me and " context " you've managed to drag things the hell away from mine.You don't like it, take it up with the mods.Actually, I have done. It was a while back now and I never managed to chase it more because of extreme family illness, but because that was sorted recently, I might get round to it again.[DemonLordEnigma]Once again, purposefully taking something out of context, as by this point it must be on purpose. See above for the context.[/quote]Try to refute it before you dispute it. If you can't handle the lack of godly perfection in your opponents then I don't quite comprehend what your still doing here.Really, Komokom, you're pulling tactics I expect from those new to the forum, not those that have been around for awhile. If it wasn't for that, you wouldn't be getting me as evil as I am.And your " pulling tactics " like those of a noob intent on pissing folks off. No more clear so when you define your response practices on being " evil " or not " evil ". Pretty amature, is what that looks like.I shouldn't have to explain the context of someone to someone who has been on this forum as long as you have.Well I shouldn't need to explain to you my posting method considering you seem to think yourself someone who's been around long enough to cast stones at the character of some one whose been around as you say I have been.

But just to re-cap, I take the post, and quote what I see and individual points of note. If you can't handle it, the sorry, but I do it to make sure I get everything down, and that other people aside from us can read it.Once again, purposefully misconstruing what I said.If your calling me aliar, then I'll point to you out that bit above about " flamebait ". If you don't like my response it doesn't mean your allowed to call names. To take a page out of your own book, maybe you should think about sitting this one out until you know a bit more about how things go on here.This comes from taking things out of context. Go back, read the quote you were responding to in context, think about the context for awhile, and then feel free to apologize for wasting my time like this.I can't quite tell if your being petty again or just plain rude.My IC opinion of religion should be well known by now.Then I should inform you now OOC that I was OOC making an OOC joke.

And see, See, this is just another issue. If your so hell bent again on casting U.N. matters into the sole realm of IC RP business posting, your going to make real communication problems for yourself and every-one who crosses your path in the future.

but, if you'd like me to explain the use of OOC on the U.N. Forum so much that people don't need to say " OOC " with everything they post then we can do that on IRC I think.Oh dear. Please be aware that one precedent is not going to be the universal decider in Moderator decisions. I'll also point out since you had to get permission, surely you demonstrate your own knowledge then of the fact straight RP is a ( or should be a in my view ) rare beast here and not always welcome around these parts.The permission was an act of courtesy and to find out if it would be moved if I posted it.Actually, the permission would have been an act of legality and covering ones own ass for safety sake when it boils down to common sense. If there was any courtesy which resulted, it was making sure your not accidentally making work for the Moderator Team.And, yes, precedents do often influence mod decisions.Yes DLE, thank you for that pearl of wisdom. I am aware of precedents guiding future decisions, that was what I was in some degree alluding too. Of course, my point was that they are not the Ultimate Decider for the future and that it takes more then one more often then not.If one mod said it was okay, the other mods have a choice of contradicting that mod (sometimes they do) or enforcing it. For example, the idea of saying "All Republicans who like Bush are idiots!!!11!!11!111" as being flamebait is a precedent based on a ruling of what is and what isn't flamebait.Aside from thanking you for revision of basic moding 101, I'd just like to point out I've learned not to state things as simple as I have in the hope I won't get the next level down in simplicity in return.In fact, most of the rules about what is and what isn't allowable in proposals are precedents that became rules.Yes DLE, but it usually takes more then one lone precedent to make a rule that is set in stone and not likely to change.One off? We've had one RP topic on here so far that was semi-successful and another semi-RP topic that is far from dead. So, really, it's a case of being able to point out that it is allowed right now and isn't just one topic. Oh, check the following mod ruling that is based on precedents:1) Jesus. Fucking. Wept.

For the last god-awful time I draw the thread readers AND DemonLordEnigma to the fact I have said again and again now that there is nothing wrong with semi-RP threads in the U.N. as long as they are related to the U.N. This is exactly the same kind of blind arrogance in failure to actually pay attention to my posts that has gotten my goat for the majority of this sorry episode that this thread has become for me. Do I now make myself clear, so help me god ?

2) Yes, I am aware of several semiU.N. RP's here, I was commenting on the one you raised that you made a request for a ruling on. Maybe you should look harder when you read rather then typing at other people to do soDespite whether or not that was intended as a mod ruling, it is likely to be quoted in future arguements. And, being as it came from a mod, it carries enough weight to be evidence enough of what is and what isn't allowed.As with the very last part of that quote above this one, I see Fris has already covered that to a fair degree.

Right. I'm too ill with stomach cramps to reply to some other points of interest that have popped up in this thread, so I'll get to those later, I guess.

Ok - RP on UN-based material, to further the UN, good.

Got that.

RP based on blather bad.

Got that - think I said that too.

RP based on UN schtick - but intended to disrupt, or not germaine - bad and/or should be moved to another forum.

Ok.

Where's the mess?

So far, we're in agreement, except our RPing is higher then you want it to be, but you'll deal. So... where's the beef?

Oh, dear. Not again. Guys, try and assume that snarky comments are made in jest, as they often are. If it becomes clear later on that the original comment was genuinely aggressive, then take offence. I've seen so may debates descend into vitriol simply because of initial misunderstandings. You can't see someone's face and hear the tone of their voice when they write something; that's a big problem with net communication.

Anyway, spot on, Fris.

How kind of you. I'm not quite sure if I can be reciprocal in that, though. Most of my points got bent six ways from sunday once I posted and most of my posting since then had to be nothing but damage control, most of which was point-less because some people were not arsed quick enough to actually read it, though I'm glad to say some have made the effort now.Actually, at its core it usually has to do with the " OOC " opinions of the player behind the account, rather then anything else, such as " IC ". Believe it all not, not all RP'ers are so creative as to base their nation on anything other then which as they would run one. the concept of Nation States first and fore-most seems to be " Run a country as you would " not " as you would not ". There-fore the bulk of the " gay rights in my country " stuff alone has been " brought in from outside " as you've coined it. Yes, it is terrible or true, people do make decisions OOC on thing here, and have done so in the majority here for a long time.If only as far back as the first " Global Library " is going to be the totality of your perspective in this discussion, then your point-of-view in it and thus your arguments too for that matter, is going to be flawed. Because from what I recall, the majority of resolutions, and especally in the " better " ones, have focused on OOC debate, OOC concerns, and OOC raising of some IC matters of individual nations." Irrelevant. ", as you say.

Its not just how pompuous your being while doing it, but the fact your actually trying to fob me off and away instead of putting in any effort into an actual response to what I've commented on as what seems to be your attitude.


Again, I find myself mostly agreeing with Komokom here, but I wanted to add something about the resolutions that have passed with the largest majorities ... they've been fairly specific (long or short in length) and the debates on them have in fact included many real life examples.

I could list some of these, but others actually predate most of our time here. Goober's Outlaw Pedophilia is one of the highest supported resolutions. It was short, but it was pretty crystal clear. Goober might be able to tell us how much of the debate centered on RP and how many times players/nations cited some real world examples. Tracking Near Earth Objects wasn't the highest supported, but it still pulled in at 79% ... its debate was entirely grounded in very real world physics, probabilities, costs, and limitiations. Generally I've found that people who paid attention to the debate here, actually appreciated the resolution.

I could go on with many more examples, but I think Komokom's point that players are considering non-IC things here in the UN with respect to UN resolutions is dead-on right. And that is why responding to over 10 or so different posts a day to talk about your awesome country, be it Harry Potter or Star Wars, is ignoring what proposal authors are looking for. They want suggestions on their text and wording that will appeal to 10,000 to 30,000 players.

That's nice, charmed your way into some of those yet ?

Nope. One of the better parts of my internet experience is the ability to ascertain when I'm about to go too far. That's why I innitially post on a separate forum from this and edit it there for the longer posts.

Gotta love multitasking.

Hate it when that happens, not so much that I've gone and done it, but that I've got to edit it down. A - real - pain if there are quote boxes involved, too. I amlost always tend to drop a tag and need an edit later ...

Yes, that is a frustration. I've given up on editting the spelling mistakes that sometimes slip through. Too much effort.

Me personally, these days I go in for the " Well if you screw me around, then you can expect the honest response ". And unless you feel the need to actually link this mysterious post you speak of to me, then you need not mention it, do you.

No. But it's fun to see others figure out whether I'm joking or being serious.

1) Just because of said " crap resolution ", doesn't mean we need to put up with it, nor does it make it set in stone, and nor does it make it right for this forum.

N.S. Resolutions do not let us create new rules for the game itself, nor can they let us make new rules on the forum. I would have thought that there-fore, nor can they create and force real changes on the forum, especialy when they are a " crap resolution " to boot. And even more especially when this forum still has that single and original purpose as out-lined in the sub-forum description, as it has for over 2 years now.

Unfortunately, the mods disagree. Going by their official policy towards RPs on here and the fact an RP for exploring the UN's basements was given permission for, it's beginning to look like we have to put up with certain RPs. Fris was speaking based on precedents when he made his comment about what is and what isn't legal, and those precedents preceed his modhood. I got permission for that RP before Fris was a mod, so this isn't anything new.

2) If by " entirely missed the point " you mean I didn't nod my head and mutter " yessir " with my eyes averted in a humble fashion, then I guess your right. If by " entirely missed the point " you mean I disagreed with what you said, made my own opinion ( Or so I thought ) clear on the matter and out-lined some history to support my opinion to others, then I guess your right again.

No, by "missed the point" I mean "didn't even get what the point you are responding to correct." It's not that you didn't respond correctly to it, but that you got what you were responding to wrong. Thus, "missing the point."

So when we are considering that I didn't like actually your point in the first place and replied as such, I suppose there is bound to be a consequent degree of " missing it " because which, eh ?

See above for the answer to this.

Maybe next time you want to fob off my comments, you could put some effort into it to demonstrate just why you think you'll get away with doing so with that one oh so tempting " you've missed " line of yours. because as of right now you seem to be missing the point of which is the fact I can respond with-out the afore-mentioned " yessir " ing and while you don't have to like it you could at least grant the fact some respect.

Considering you broke up two paragraphs, ignored obvious wording cues, and took quite a bit out of context, I'm not surprised you totally missed the point of several items. You see, the one problem you have is a failure of separation. You are failing to recognize the separation of the UN and the UN forum. The two are not the same thing, and that has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past.

Until you think of them as separate, you will never be able to get the point correct and will never understand what it was I was talking about. This is not meant as an attack, just a simple statement of observation.

Well really, before your so quick to label part of my post a " waste of space ", just maybe you should question my own generosity at replying to some of yours, hmmm ?

You're replying because if you don't, it'll look like I made a point you cannot refute. I've played the game of online arguing for quite a long time and I've had more than enough time to become familiar with how it works. It's a game of ego and facts, and in the end it's the person with the biggest ego who typically wins. Those who do not have he required ego typically retreat quickly, not wanting to take on people so aggressive. The only thing that makes it civilized is the fear of punishment and knowing when to check your ego. The excuses vary from person to person, but in the end I find that basic setup can be applied to anyone who argues online.

So, no, I have no reason to question why you are replying beyond to hear how you justify it to yourself.

Ask a sarcastic question, get a sarcastic answer.

My point there was that R.P. is not the Holy Foundation of the N.S.U.N or the U.N. Forum in the past. I also tried to make it clear that while I was with the hope you finally under-stood I was saying this, I could not actually tell because of all the reactionary posts I'd met with so far from people, your-self I thought, one of them.

The first thing anyone learns about my mentality is that all of my responses, unless I let my emotions get active, are calculated. You can tell when I get emotional by mme using certain words I don't use all of that much, certain words not accepted in polite society.

While you are correct about the UN forum, I find you are incorrect about the NSUN. If RP isn't so much apart of the NSUN, then you have to explain why we debate so much about flavor text, why even a mod says it is okay for people to bring up areas in which the resolution may need to be fixed by using their own nations as examples, and why it is that the TPP is allowed to operate on this board and in the past has actually held a trial here. You also have to explain why it is so many people are complaining about Hack's idea of limiting committees as being a limitation on the roleplaying possibilities of nations. You have to explain why there is such of a big deal being constantly made about resolutions, such as Gay Rights, that make certain items or activities legal. Finally, you have to explain why there are so many rules about what you can put into the flavor text of a resolution, and while doing so you must account that some of those rules have no sense if taken from the view that RP is not important to the UN.

Postulate whatever theories you wish, but in the end you still cannot account for too many things for your theory to be correct.

Oh, and if you can't at least try to be polite to some-one " of my experiance " after they've voiced concern that they think y'all walking right over what I've tried to say, just to push frantic pro-RP Dogma, then clearly it'll be quite a while before you do acquire " my experiance ", as you've put it.

And now you're bringing up a conspiracy theory. If you want to be respected, this is the easiest way to lose that possibility. And my politeness went out the moment I saw it was a waste of time and effort, which your taking things out of context and now this conspiracy theory have more than informed me of that being the right decision. I'm working off the impression I am getting from your posts, and that impression is quite unfavorable towards you.

And, there are plenty here of your experience and even more that disagree with you. While you may think your experience is enough, I must point out your lack of activity on this forum since I started using this alt. To be honest, right now I find that YGSM has more experience in how the forum really is right now than you do. By your experience, I was refering to how long you have been in the UN and on this forum, though I am mentally revising it due to your limited activity. That would put my experience as more than yours, which gives me the voice of senority in this issue and makes it so that your statement about acquiring your experience is something I can just laugh at by being more experienced.

Why was all of that previous paragraph relevant? It wasn't. But it's the response I feel like giving to a comment that is rediculous and just ego stroking.

1) that so called " attacking " you mention came up in almost every thread, every second day, usually more often though. Mind you, in at least some regards it is a bit better these days in-so-far as that goes.

2) I still think " the days I knew " are still here, its just there are a dedicated few people setting out to install a new calendar a few months early, is all.

You're referring to increased RP activity? That's something the mods themselves are allowing, and the headaches of it are probably why Hack is trying to ban committees (that, or he's gotten tired of my complaints about them). And the attacking itself is only an annoyance when the attack is continued, derailing a thread. The attacks are not just limited to new members either, as I'm willing to bet quite a few of us are guilty at one time or another.

Good, until you're bothered to point out just which sticky, for once I can validly pass off one of your own points as " irrelevant " ...

Personally, I thought the "game rules" comment was hint enough.

It's in the topic that says to read it or you'll get ejected from the UN.

You think you shouldn't, but I thought you should, mainly because of what you were spouting. If you don't want to, then its up to you, but, I did recommend it for your own god in this debate.

Why should I bug him, only to potentially find out the same stuff as in the FAQ? If he really dislikes how the UN is, he does have the power to change it.

How kind of you. I'm not quite sure if I can be reciprocal in that, though. Most of my points got bent six ways from sunday once I posted and most of my posting since then had to be nothing but damage control, most of which was point-less because some people were not arsed quick enough to actually read it, though I'm glad to say some have made the effort now.

Sarcasm doesn't work too well in this arguement. I reserve the right to take anything you say literally at any time, and have reserved that right for months now. If that wasn't sarcastic, then I've really misinterpreted the meaning of it.

Yes, a lot of your points have gotten bent. That's due to the problem of interpretation, as people can interpret what you mean in different ways.

Actually, at its core it usually has to do with the " OOC " opinions of the player behind the account, rather then anything else, such as " IC ". Believe it all not, not all RP'ers are so creative as to base their nation on anything other then which as they would run one. the concept of Nation States first and fore-most seems to be " Run a country as you would " not " as you would not ". There-fore the bulk of the " gay rights in my country " stuff alone has been " brought in from outside " as you've coined it. Yes, it is terrible or true, people do make decisions OOC on thing here, and have done so in the majority here for a long time.

It's a personal annoyance of mine, and I find many people are surprised when they find out I'm a devout Catholic running an atheist country that believes in science first and considers marriage purely a tax-related institution. But my views of people as a whole pretty much match what Agent K told a certain rookie on a park bench in New York.

[/quote]If only as far back as the first " Global Library " is going to be the totality of your perspective in this discussion, then your point-of-view in it and thus your arguments too for that matter, is going to be flawed. Because from what I recall, the majority of resolutions, and especally in the " better " ones, have focused on OOC debate, OOC concerns, and OOC raising of some IC matters of individual nations." Irrelevant. ", as you say.[/quote]

Which would be nice, except so many of them are also IC concerns, some of them plaguing NS. But you're also forgetting about the BioRights resolution, which is protecting the rights of clones and not an issue faced in reality. Now, except for the test resolution, I want you to name one that cannot be justified as resulting from an IC concern a nation had over practices in another nation or problem that is plaguing their RPs that they wish the UN to address.

Its not just how pompuous your being while doing it, but the fact your actually trying to fob me off and away instead of putting in any effort into an actual response to what I've commented on as what seems to be your attitude.

My attitude is one of arrogance and of my own self-worth. The fact I'm backed by what, by all of the evidence I have, is the truth of the matter only makes it worse. I feel I can fob you off because, to be frank, I don't see you as having a leg to stand on.

But it is your call to say so and it'll speak more of you then I, I'll warrant ...Un-intentional, I can assure you, but maybe you'll have an inkling of just what I've put up with for the majority of this thread, thank you very much in no small part to yourself.

You've put up with it because a lot of the posters who have been posting frequently and are willing to weigh in on this issue know you to be wrong. Your arguement is one I've seen, and shot down, before, and I am not alone in that.

And what you've just done is one that I call flame-bait. If you've a problem with my time tested method of analysis and response, you can take it up with me out of debate rather then trying to use it to dodge bullets here.

When it is relevant to debate, it comes into the debate. What I see your reply as is a case of you don't like the fact I called you on it. And if you've ever bothered to pay attention to how I argue, you would know I have that opinion and that your post isn't going to change it or prevent me from saying it. And, yes, it is a common tactic utilized by trolls on a variety of sites.

Ditto, and if you want to judge people here by " time served " then recall your own place, if that is how you want it to work.

My own place is as a May 2003 person who left for awhile, lurked for several months, and then came back. But I'm not one who has relied on the fact I've been here since 2003 to gain respect. I've argued, been in the trenches, and made it a point to know my facts and the UN. And, yes, I've even admitted when I'm wrong.

So if you wish to use that arguement, know you are talking to your elder.

And I will not tolerate from you what I will tolerate from no one, which I had thought should have been clear by now, but since you so desperately wish to draw lines, and daggers, then I'll play too.

I'm only drawing such because in this case I see it is necessary.

And you know what ? Since these RP's of fairly strong relation to the U.N. were not even in my original arguments, its kind of funny that for all your talk of me and " context " you've managed to drag things the hell away from mine.

If you even knew what the context of what you have been arguing about was, you would realize the lines have not moved since my first post. Of course, you so conveniently broke up two paragraphs instead of taking what they were saying as a whole, so it's no wonder you have no clue what the context is.

Actually, I have done. It was a while back now and I never managed to chase it more because of extreme family illness, but because that was sorted recently, I might get round to it again.

Have fun. Let me know if you get any results. The last time I've seen something like that tried, it ended up going nowhere and leaving the pursuer frustrated.

Try to refute it before you dispute it. If you can't handle the lack of godly perfection in your opponents then I don't quite comprehend what your still doing here.

Refuting comments in reply to something taken out of context is pointless, as the context must be considered and often the reply to what is taken out of context is made worthless by the context. Any experienced debater knows that.

And your " pulling tactics " like those of a noob intent on pissing folks off. No more clear so when you define your response practices on being " evil " or not " evil ". Pretty amature, is what that looks like.

You comment about flamebait, and then turn around and post some. Interesting.

If I'm so intent on "pissing people off," then why have I lasted this long on the forum? Tell me who is the one who posted a long and heavily emotional rant on here and included the words then you take that shit to II or NS. Thats right, fuck that off of here now. And the words It is not for you and a cluster fuck of II posters to go crazy with their Panel of War so nations can come here and clog up the front of the forum with " ME AND MY BOSSOM BUDDY WANT TO DECLARE WAR ON BAD-GUY @@NAME@@ BECAUSE HE GENOCIDES N SHIT ! ".

How do you justify being able to make that accusation with a clear concious when you were clearly doing the same thing yourself in your first post on here? By the tone of your own words, you were trying to "piss people off." So don't complain when someone does something similar in an arguement about that. It is, as you say, Pretty amature, is what that looks like.

If you don't like it, tough.

Well I shouldn't need to explain to you my posting method considering you seem to think yourself someone who's been around long enough to cast stones at the character of some one whose been around as you say I have been.

I cast at those I see as guilty. Experience doesn't matter, as even the wisest man makes mistakes. And, sometimes, they really screw something up. I don't cast stones unless I see them as worthy of being cast.

But just to re-cap, I take the post, and quote what I see and individual points of note. If you can't handle it, the sorry, but I do it to make sure I get everything down, and that other people aside from us can read it.

The important thing of dealing with a post is to also get the context correct. If you get that wrong, everything you say in reply to a point is worthless. In dividual points are good, but you must keep in mind how they work with the whole and keep your goal clear in your mind. Letting emotions get in the way only clouds the goal.

[/quote]If your calling me aliar, then I'll point to you out that bit above about " flamebait ". If you don't like my response it doesn't mean your allowed to call names. To take a page out of your own book, maybe you should think about sitting this one out until you know a bit more about how things go on here.[/quote]

If I wanted to call you a liar, I'd make it perfectly obvious I think you are one. Miscontruing is a form of bending the truth. Lying is going for the opposite of it.

I should let you know I do treat almost everyone equally. Elder or not, the time comes I think you're making a mistake, I'll call you on it. Mods get preferential treatment due to the fact they're not powerhungry tyrants that ban for the fun of it.

I can't quite tell if your being petty again or just plain rude.

Rude. Petty is when I call you on flamebait, flamebait you in turn, delete the post flamebaiting you, and then turn you in. I've seen that happen as well.

Then I should inform you now OOC that I was OOC making an OOC joke.

That was also a joke. But, sadly, I forgot the social context in which I was posting it. On another forum I frequent, people would be howling in laughter. But that's due to something too complex to waste time explaining, and isn't relevant anyway.

And see, See, this is just another issue. If your so hell bent again on casting U.N. matters into the sole realm of IC RP business posting, your going to make real communication problems for yourself and every-one who crosses your path in the future.

Which would be nice if I hadn't been doing it for the entire time I've been on the forum, and the majority of my posts are on this forum. And yet, I've managed to hold my own in more than one arguement that has resulted and included quite a bit of proof from reality.

but, if you'd like me to explain the use of OOC on the U.N. Forum so much that people don't need to say " OOC " with everything they post then we can do that on IRC I think.

Free IRC time ran out, and I'm too lazy to register.

If you think that is necessary, you really are out of touch with the UN forum as it is now. Look up some of the arguements on hydrogen power and read my posts on them. I'd post links, but the search engine and my internet hate each other. I wish I was joking on that.

Actually, the permission would have been an act of legality and covering ones own ass for safety sake when it boils down to common sense. If there was any courtesy which resulted, it was making sure your not accidentally making work for the Moderator Team.

It was purely the courtesy reason. If it wasn't for that, I would have posted it. The only thing keeping me from still posting it is how often I've been forced off for days at a time and I'm not willing to commit to it at this point.

Yes DLE, thank you for that pearl of wisdom. I am aware of precedents guiding future decisions, that was what I was in some degree alluding too. Of course, my point was that they are not the Ultimate Decider for the future and that it takes more then one more often then not.

You're welcome for the pearl of wisdom. Feel free to come to me anytime you need more.

On this one, I'll conceed the point. Can't refute it.

Aside from thanking you for revision of basic moding 101, I'd just like to point out I've learned not to state things as simple as I have in the hope I won't get the next level down in simplicity in return.

I prefer simplicity. It saves time. It's the arguements and tactics I take issue with.

Yes DLE, but it usually takes more then one lone precedent to make a rule that is set in stone and not likely to change.

Precedent: Nazi flags are not allowed.

Rule: Nazi flags are not allowed.

The second came from the first, IIRC, and it's only one precedent. Hmm.

1) Jesus. Fucking. Wept.

For the last god-awful time I draw the thread readers AND DemonLordEnigma to the fact I have said again and again now that there is nothing wrong with semi-RP threads in the U.N. as long as they are related to the U.N. This is exactly the same kind of blind arrogance in failure to actually pay attention to my posts that has gotten my goat for the majority of this sorry episode that this thread has become for me. Do I now make myself clear, so help me god ?

I was giving you an opening through which to make a point. I don't believe an arguement should be just one-sided and it's a tactic I pull quite often to keep both sides capable of continuing.

And I have not been ignoring your arguements, just failing to see how some of them have any relevance to mine.

2) Yes, I am aware of several semiU.N. RP's here, I was commenting on the one you raised that you made a request for a ruling on. Maybe you should look harder when you read rather then typing at other people to do so

Actually, the TPP case Asshelmetta pulled before being banned was pure RP, intended to show the weaknesses of the TPP. It was not only allowed, but has remained as am example on this forum.

[/quote]As with the very last part of that quote above this one, I see Fris has already covered that to a fair degree.[/quote]

Yes, and I'll deal with it next.

Right. I'm too ill with stomach cramps to reply to some other points of interest that have popped up in this thread, so I'll get to those later, I guess.

Good luck with those. Wouldn't want this to end on account of disease.

It's not a mod ruling, it's my opinion. If it carries more weight because of my position, I'm fine with that. Just be sure to quote the whole thing in context, and create new threads to carry on your discussion.

I know. I was just pointing out how that comment is likely to become the deciding factor in many future arguements on this subject.

Bah, Hack states just his opinions as the Most Glorious Hack or the UN Gnomes, I don't see why you can't as well.

Please excuse if I spelled your name wrong again.

Whenever Hack posts his opinion as Hack, people treat it far differently than they do the Gnomes. The title he has automatically causes people to react differently just because he is in authority. It may not be something he prefers, but it does happen. Authority is something that changes reactions.

I am a ‘newbie’ on this forum, of a class often insulted and rarely redeemed, and sin of all sins I have written less than five thousand posts, I haven’t even reached a 100! I am not a newbie to RPing on NSUN, because that would mean I was sufficiently interested in it at the moment to make an effort. Nor am I new to debates and the issues discussed here. That’s exactly the point I’m making, on my own behalf, and whoever should choose to agree with me.

My posts reflect my real life perspective on important issues; yes, I do speak through the ‘voice’ of my nation, but I consider my nation separate from the views that I present in the debates that in which I have participated. I do not think I am the only one to do this. If NS was all about how my nation fared I think I would have lost interest months ago, the game just isn’t complex enough as a government simulation to keep me keen. Maybe that is the fault of my lacking imagination and commitment but so be it. But the debates ARE complex – many of them are highly intelligent, mixing various academic disciplines on a level worthy of many a graduate seminar group. A lot of the time the people writing haven’t even finished high school – THAT is impressive.

I did not come to the NSUN for the role-playing, I came here for the debate, because some of it is quite good. If the debate includes a minimum of role-playing (ie ‘As most Cherished High Representative of the Fiefdom of JoeBloggsistan I think this resolution is pants... for the following REALISTIC reasons, etc’) that is fine, but from where I stand, that does not extend to someone crying havoc and letting slip the giant anti-matter fuelled RoboPigs of war. Granted, an extreme example, but you get the point. I come to a NSUN debate to apply real-life principles and beliefs, but when a thread gets hijacked by people hell-bent on comparing the relative sizes of their planet-destroying space guns and why the existence of those guns means that the resolution can’t work I’m kind of left thinking.... why am I even bothering?

My admittedly (to some) small-minded and undoubtedly somewhat unpopular view of RP’ing aside... the value of the UN forum to me is engaging the people on it in sensible debate on issues that matter to them – how many issues that are brought up do you think exist independently of the real world? I see a resolution on ‘right to die’, and we all know where that comes from, but at the moment I don’t see a resolution on the criminal liability of wizards for turning unicorns into centaurs (although that would no doubt fall under the ‘national sovereignty’ umbrella). If the issue is real and relevant, why should we accept any and all (and often irrelevant) fictional devices used in argument?

My view is an extreme one, based on my own fairly entrenched negative view of RP’ing of the type seen on this forum in a context like this, but to a greater or lesser extent I do believe it reflects the views of quite a few people on here. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between people like me and the people more keen on RP’ing their nation than I am on this forum – it is obvious to anyone who’s followed this current discussion that there are legitimate views and that they vary greatly.

I’ll raise the call for clearer boundaries as to what is and what is not sensible RP on the NSUN forum, but it will remain to be seen if it will be heeded. Until then, I’ll choose to ignore the bright sparks who claim some resolution won’t affect them because fairies don’t possess legal personalities in their ‘nation’, and continue the debate on realistic premises. These are the words of a ‘newbie’.

PS I won’t be able to engage in much major point-by-point private slanging matches... a holiday dial-up in the countryside isn’t exactly conducive to frequent responses.

Well, I'm also a newbie. And my opinion, which I've alluded to earlier, remains. Krioval wasn't originally intended to be a future tech nation. But when the plan is to be NFT, involve telepathy, and somehow avoid the hornets' nest stirred up on day three in II, things happen. So I'm FT, have several planets under my control, and the whole thing's led by Raijin (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8359896&postcount=11), who isn't exactly this year's nominee for "Most Stable Sentient". Kriovalian society isn't quite like anything IRL, and for me, that's the whole point. I play (notice the word "play) NS to pull myself away from all the RL stuff for a few minutes. If I wanted to wade through statistics on real-world AIDS deaths, nuclear arms stockpiles, or greenhouse emissions, I'd do that on a forum specifically designed for those discussions. From the POV of Krioval, these issues aren't sufficient to warrant a binding international agreement.

Granted, the personalities of Krioval's government's leaders are similar to mine, and I give credit to those who can RP well characteristics totally unlike theirs without reducing it to a caricature. But while the personalities may be similar, the concerns they'd likely have don't match with mine. If nothing else, the fact that Raijin Dekker is said to control between one and five percent of Krioval's GDP and that he directly commands a strong military force gives him the slight edge in world affairs compared to me. So for me, the debate and the RP are inseparable. Some issues, like prostitution, are effectively timeless, and in such cases, one will seldom hear about my tech level. In issues dealing with nuclear nonproliferation, on the other hand, that I know for a fact I'm not the only FT nation in the UN leads me to point tech differences out. Hell, if for nothing else, the fact that several FT nations are active in the UN forum should give us the right to RP our tech level to our fullest (when relevant). If MT nations want to pass nuclear bans, for example, get enough of them on the forum to push for it, sufficient delegates to approve it, and pass the thing. Just don't expect me to be dismantling my non-nuclear but still stronger weapons. Is this really too much to ask?

If I wanted to wade through statistics on real-world AIDS deaths, nuclear arms stockpiles, or greenhouse emissions, I'd do that on a forum specifically designed for those discussions. From the POV of Krioval, these issues aren't sufficient to warrant a binding international agreement.


I don't think that was the original point though ...

I don't think anybody is advocating that we need to inject more real world debate, but rather avoid the following, "Why your idea is completely foolish! On the Death Fleets of the Hyperbadierian Collective we've already solved this problem. Now please read the damn FAQ and move along like a good newbie!"

I think we can all agree that most players who come here with a draft proposal (not a resolution on the floor) are sincerely hoping to find a bit of advice and maybe a few allies (or NS friends). If they didn't want advice or help, they'd simply not come here. But talking about how many billions of light years your empire of magical goblin-skeletons spans isn't constructive ... it just gets old after about the 6th post in a single day.

I'd like to point out something Fris said somewhere along the way ... he reminded us that when our posts begin to really take over a proposal or resolution discussion that we should not be afraid of splitting off a topic and starting a new thread. At least I think that was the main point he was making. :)

I am a ‘newbie’ on this forum, of a class often insulted and rarely redeemed, and sin of all sins I have written less than five thousand posts, I haven’t even reached a 100! I am not a newbie to RPing on NSUN, because that would mean I was sufficiently interested in it at the moment to make an effort. Nor am I new to debates and the issues discussed here. That’s exactly the point I’m making, on my own behalf, and whoever should choose to agree with me.

My posts reflect my real life perspective on important issues; yes, I do speak through the ‘voice’ of my nation, but I consider my nation separate from the views that I present in the debates that in which I have participated. I do not think I am the only one to do this. If NS was all about how my nation fared I think I would have lost interest months ago, the game just isn’t complex enough as a government simulation to keep me keen. Maybe that is the fault of my lacking imagination and commitment but so be it. But the debates ARE complex – many of them are highly intelligent, mixing various academic disciplines on a level worthy of many a graduate seminar group. A lot of the time the people writing haven’t even finished high school – THAT is impressive.

I did not come to the NSUN for the role-playing, I came here for the debate, because some of it is quite good. If the debate includes a minimum of role-playing (ie ‘As most Cherished High Representative of the Fiefdom of JoeBloggsistan I think this resolution is pants... for the following REALISTIC reasons, etc’) that is fine, but from where I stand, that does not extend to someone crying havoc and letting slip the giant anti-matter fuelled RoboPigs of war. Granted, an extreme example, but you get the point. I come to a NSUN debate to apply real-life principles and beliefs, but when a thread gets hijacked by people hell-bent on comparing the relative sizes of their planet-destroying space guns and why the existence of those guns means that the resolution can’t work I’m kind of left thinking.... why am I even bothering?

My admittedly (to some) small-minded and undoubtedly somewhat unpopular view of RP’ing aside... the value of the UN forum to me is engaging the people on it in sensible debate on issues that matter to them – how many issues that are brought up do you think exist independently of the real world? I see a resolution on ‘right to die’, and we all know where that comes from, but at the moment I don’t see a resolution on the criminal liability of wizards for turning unicorns into centaurs (although that would no doubt fall under the ‘national sovereignty’ umbrella). If the issue is real and relevant, why should we accept any and all (and often irrelevant) fictional devices used in argument?

My view is an extreme one, based on my own fairly entrenched negative view of RP’ing of the type seen on this forum in a context like this, but to a greater or lesser extent I do believe it reflects the views of quite a few people on here. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between people like me and the people more keen on RP’ing their nation than I am on this forum – it is obvious to anyone who’s followed this current discussion that there are legitimate views and that they vary greatly.

I’ll raise the call for clearer boundaries as to what is and what is not sensible RP on the NSUN forum, but it will remain to be seen if it will be heeded. Until then, I’ll choose to ignore the bright sparks who claim some resolution won’t affect them because fairies don’t possess legal personalities in their ‘nation’, and continue the debate on realistic premises. These are the words of a ‘newbie’.

PS I won’t be able to engage in much major point-by-point private slanging matches... a holiday dial-up in the countryside isn’t exactly conducive to frequent responses.

To save you effort, I'm not going to do a normal point-by-point and will try to keep this as short as possible.

A debate on what is realistic is moot. If you go by reality, then it's purely MT, but you still have to explain why the idea of a species barrier was included in the Definition of Marriage without resorting to beastiality and why there is a concentrated effort to deal with how the passed resolutions affect nonhumans. If you go by realistic and use the reality of NS to justify, then you have to accept that some people use dragons instead of airplanes and some of us are able to actually go to star systems we are interested in. Earth itself is a hub of space activity, the orbit around it being full of everything from satellites to mine-surrounded colonies and entire warfleets. And that's ignoring the StarGates, orbital platforms, construction yards, and just about everything else you can imagine. While the real Earth has literal rings of spacejunk from human activity, the main NS Earth has entire nations and almost a micro solar system.

Yes, a topic getting hijacked for war purposes was annoying and uncalled for, and the participation in that is something that shouldn't have happened. However, that one hijack is extremely rare and on a topic that has been done to death anyway. Pointing out that a nation has more powerful weapons than nukes is potentially helpful. If you are trying to restrict the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction, do you want to limit it to just nations of your technology level, or do you want to get them all? In some cases, the goal is just to restrict a certain type, and in others it is to restrict them all. We cannot judge which is which just by a resolution.

The reason you don't see anything involving Magic Nations is the simple fact of how rare they are. The majority of them are a combination of Magic and a different tech level, such as FT. Pure Magic Nations are simply too rare in most cases to be given a voice. And yet certain elements of magic, such as vampires and elves, are more than common. When it comes to tech levels, most nations are MT with FT running a distant, but increasingly less so, second. And those of us who are FT try to be as loud as we can because some proposals outright ignore us and impose standards that are impossible for our tech level, while others simply don't take us into consideration. It's a case of the second-largest tech group making it a point to stop being silent on issues.

I don't think anybody is advocating that we need to inject more real world debate, but rather avoid the following, "Why your idea is completely foolish! On the Death Fleets of the Hyperbadierian Collective we've already solved this problem. Now please read the damn FAQ and move along like a good newbie!"

Stating it cannot affect you for a certain reason is also helpful. It lets the author know what unexpected limitations are in place. It's just like how a resolution to restrict logging won't affect Vastiva, who happens to be in a region where there are no trees. Also, the information is sometimes used to get allowances in resolutions for cases where nations do not have the problem the resolution is addressing and that would force them to address. A resolution to prevent the clearing away of rainforests, in particular, does affect me because of how many of them I have in my territory, and in that case national concerns over the rainforests goes up against national concerns over limiting 1/3 of my useable land just because other nations are having problems with it. And trying to force all nations to the same code of electrical setups is impossible with all of the varying technology the UN encompasses.

I think we can all agree that most players who come here with a draft proposal (not a resolution on the floor) are sincerely hoping to find a bit of advice and maybe a few allies (or NS friends). If they didn't want advice or help, they'd simply not come here. But talking about how many billions of light years your empire of magical goblin-skeletons spans isn't constructive ... it just gets old after about the 6th post in a single day.

Actually, I find quite a few come here simply to advertise their proposal and gain votes. They don't know that there is another tactic that will actually work. The advice and revisions and arguements we give them are not what that type came for. An example is the most recent attempt to repeal Gay Rights. And if there isn't a need or a possibility the information would be useful, I'm sure the posting of it would drop.

On a side not, I'm well on my way to gypsying this forum.

Are there any rules against that, or should I just go for it?

On a side not, I'm well on my way to gypsying this forum.

Are there any rules against that, or should I just go for it?

You mean leaving it? No rules against it at all. Just go for it.

I ask you to stay around because I enjoy our chats, but I won't prevent you from doing what you must. And this time, we may actually allow your delegate to leave alive... NOT!

You mean leaving it? No rules against it at all. Just go for it.

I ask you to stay around because I enjoy our chats, but I won't prevent you from doing what you must. And this time, we may actually allow your delegate to leave alive... NOT!
no, gypsying a forum is getting your name on every thread on the first page.

trust me, you don't want to know - it's not pretty.
it was a comment on my having done a bunch of posting tonight and no one else seeming to be around.

thanks for the nice words, though.

no, gypsying a forum is getting your name on every thread on the first page.

Oh, that? Not a problem. It happens from time to time. I've done it quite a few times myself.

trust me, you don't want to know - it's not pretty.
it was a comment on my having done a bunch of posting tonight and no one else seeming to be around.

thanks for the nice words, though.

You're welcome. :D

no, gypsying a forum is getting your name on every thread on the first page.

trust me, you don't want to know - it's not pretty.
it was a comment on my having done a bunch of posting tonight and no one else seeming to be around.

thanks for the nice words, though.

I didn't realize that was the name for it, but I honestly don't have a problem with that when it is done out of an interest in all the threads / discussions. :)

For me (can't speak for others), frequency of posts only because annoying when it is distruptive. I know that "distruptive" is a relative thing, but ultimately this is the type of thing we rely upon our moderators to judge.

As for being super active ... many of are guilty of the same. Have at it!

OOC: We're guilty of a "SuperGypsy" - Vastiva was the poster of the first posts of NationStates, International Incidents, Gameplay, United Nations, Technical, Moderation, Got Issues, General, NationStates 2, and Jennifer Government. So we had our name (almost) all the way down (nothing we could do about "Archive"). Yes, we were bored, it was a holiday, and we laugh ourselves sick every so often at the screenshot.

Nope. One of the better parts of my internet experience is the ability to ascertain when I'm about to go too far. That's why I innitially post on a separate forum from this and edit it there for the longer posts.

Gotta love multitasking.If the computer is being tempramental I've just gotten used to MS Word and saving it now and again, if its big enough to be bothered doing so with. Mind you, now I'm using Mozilla Firefox, I have to learn to stop getting lost in the N th tabs and posting in the wrong windows ...Yes, that is a frustration. I've given up on editting the spelling mistakes that sometimes slip through. Too much effort.Aye, I tend to just look for BB code errors when I proof read it, again, if it is big enough to warrant it, as in I can't see all the post in one glance. Mind you, BB code errors do tend to stand out more which is why I rather try to nail'em if anything.No. But it's fun to see others figure out whether I'm joking or being serious.How about being direct ? :p Unfortunately, the mods disagree. Going by their official policy towards RPs on here and the fact an RP for exploring the UN's basements was given permission for, it's beginning to look like we have to put up with certain RPs. Fris was speaking based on precedents when he made his comment about what is and what isn't legal, and those precedents preceed his modhood. I got permission for that RP before Fris was a mod, so this isn't anything new.It was one RP, DLE. One. And yes, we are all aware now that you got permission for it. But it is not a universal ruling on RP's here. It is - one - event that could go to build a case for RP here. And yes, I am aware of how it was ruled before Fris was a mod. And as I'm off-line as I type this I'm going to have to come back to " official mod policy " on the U.N. Forum later.No, by "missed the point" I mean "didn't even get what the point you are responding to correct." It's not that you didn't respond correctly to it, but that you got what you were responding to wrong. Thus, "missing the point."Okay, I'm now going to give you the benefit of the doubt just like you did for me, by assuming your not acting like a pompous ass to me on purpose here, because it looks to me like your dictating to me what I'm meant to say in response to you. If you don't think I under-stood your " point ", then maybe its because there is more then one interpretation to what you've said.Considering you broke up two paragraphs, ignored obvious wording cues, and took quite a bit out of context, I'm not surprised you totally missed the point of several items.And just perhaps because I have in your eyes " broken up two paragraphs, ( Heaven forbid I respond in a fashion that makes it easier to draw attention to what I'm responding to for others ), " ignored " your " obvious wording cues ", ( Maybe not that obvious ? Never assume others ignorance until you've ruled out your own human failure ), and finally, the sin of not comprehending your " context ", ( I call'em as I see'em. Just because it is not how you see'em doesn't mean I'm at total fault, I would have thought ... ),

Does it make it any wonder there is a possibility some one could miss the point ? And until we finally remove individuality from the global population ( By militant pedantics at this rate it feels ) we are going to run into these problems. Of course, if its easier for you to discourse on the problems rather then refute what was raised in the " flawed response " as it seems to have been painted then, what-ever ...


You see, the one problem you have is a failure of separation. You are failing to recognize the separation of the UN and the UN forum. The two are not the same thing, and that has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past.Great, while we're pointing out what we reckon are each others flaws, how about one day if we see each other on IRC we sort them out then ?

Now, what you seem to fail is recognition of the N.S.U.N. and the U.N. Forum are actually the same thing ... well, apart from the obvious one being a forum, the other being game coding and an interface with some basic democracy tossed in for spice ...

In both cases people decide things on an OOC basis, and to some extent no doubt an IC basis. But the majority decide things on an OOC basis, because most of them, if they do decide IC, have their IC shaped by what their OOC feelings on the matter are. Because in case you didn't notice, not every-one is as creative as yourself when it comes to RP and making your IC nation factors differ from your OOC opinions.

As I'm sure I had said, in NS, people tend to try to run the world, or at least a nation, they way they'd like to see it done. I doubt people turn up in flocks to run things different to how they'd like them to be.

This means not only will they vote with their nations with OOC input, but also post on the U.N. Forum with an OOC mind-set to their opinions. Not every-one, but I feel safe to say the majority have done so and will continue to do so until we give IC - RP as much time in senior high as we do for mathematics and physical education.

Mind you, considering this is meant to be about U.N. Forum posting, etc, I'm a bit annoyed I've had to drag off on a tangent like this just to explain that both are at their core values the same thing, if not cosmetically or in individual operation.Until you think of them as separate, you will never be able to get the point correct and will never understand what it was I was talking about. This is not meant as an attack, just a simple statement of observation.And until you can be assed to refute the post with a solid argument or at the very least explain in clear terms just how they are " seperate " as you think of them, your observations are going to look like attacks and remain flawed for lack of effort.You're replying because if you don't, it'll look like I made a point you cannot refute.Nope, I'm replying because there is something I feel I need to say. Trust me, if I thought you were actually saying something relevant I could not refute, because we actually both agreed, by now I'd be floating up little balloons and letting of enough fire-works to put 4th of July celebrations to shame.I've played the game of online arguing for quite a long time and I've had more than enough time to become familiar with how it works.Just because you can argue doesn't always make you right though. Its easy to rack up experiance in arguements, another thing to rack up experiance in actually being correct, and even harder to rack up experiance in graceful acceptance that you might be off on your claims, I'm starting to think.It's a game of ego and facts, and in the end it's the person with the biggest ego who typically wins.Maybe in II or NS, or dare I say it, General Forum.

In case you haven't noticed, when it comes to the game, the only " facts " and indeed, factors are the hard coded rules, and case by case Moderator decisions. The ones with the biggest ego's usually get called vain or any one or many of kinds of " wank " artist and earn minimal admiration and almost universal scorn. and thanks to the variety of " wanks " available, they can be called a wanker for all sorts of indiscretions.

Might I also point out, it was Max who said that you can't really " win " at anything when playing on N.S. but we have now digressed enough I think.Those who do not have he required ego typically retreat quickly, not wanting to take on people so aggressive. The only thing that makes it civilized is the fear of punishment and knowing when to check your ego.You seem to be saying that " He Who Talks Loudest, Talks Longest, Until Some-One Bigger Then He Tells Him To Shut Up ".

See, I tend to think " He Who Talks Loudest, Is Wanking, And No One Is Really Listening Anyway ".

Mind you, sometimes I think one should " yell " with bold or CAPS just so people stop for a moment in shock value and actually listen to what he is trying to say over all the clutter around him.The excuses vary from person to person, but in the end I find that basic setup can be applied to anyone who argues online.I disagree. The entire on-line world does not totally consist of jack-assess and drama queens.Well really, before your so quick to label part of my post a " waste of space ", just maybe you should question my own generosity at replying to some of yours, hmmm ?]So, no, I have no reason to question why you are replying beyond to hear how you justify it to yourself.Kind of ironic you say this after quoting my post, because when it comes to replying to you, I am starting to justify the use of my time on it, if nothing else.Ask a sarcastic question, get a sarcastic answer.And in my wildest hopes leave you to suddenly wonder why you got sarcasm the last time.The first thing anyone learns about my mentality is that all of my responses, unless I let my emotions get active, are calculated. You can tell when I get emotional by mme using certain words I don't use all of that much, certain words not accepted in polite society.And until I see the " All About The Amazing DemonLordEnigma " sticky on top of one of the forums, your just going to have to put up with not having a history as the center of the NS Multiverse, resulting in the fact that not all of us take the time to study your history of whims and posting mentality.

While you are correct about the UN forum, I find you are incorrect about the NSUN. If RP isn't so much apart of the NSUN, then you have to explain why we debate so much about flavor text,Because sometimes, sometimes it makes a resolution " look nicer on the eye ". It won't always contribute anything worth-while.why even a mod says it is okay for people to bring up areas in which the resolution may need to be fixed by using their own nations as examples,Something once much frowned on because individual accounts have this habit of up and being DEAT by rule violations or > 28/60 days log-in time-out, and there is no iron-clad promise there will be any nation to suit after-wards. Mind you, since you've chosen not to give an example, I admit I can hardly put together a more solid response just yet.and why it is that the TPP is allowed to operate on this board and in the past has actually held a trial here.Because as mentioned before I've not been able to build a case for having it

A) Removed to II

B) Deleted for Proposal Rule Violations

( Very difficult. The reply these days on IRC tends to be " Meh, repeal it " instead ... Which I can understand, gets us plebians off our butts I guess, heh. Also the basis for the rule violations I proposed was too shady for out-right marking for kill-death as I wasn't with enough time on my hands right then to dig out all the relevant data. )

C) Repeal it or put things in motion to do so. Again, lack of time, mainly because of family ill-ness, and my own, also TAFE/College getting in the way.You also have to explain why it is so many people are complaining about Hack's idea of limiting committees as being a limitation on the roleplaying possibilities of nations.Since the times of Enodia, Committees have been " non-grata " concepts for the U.N. because amoung other things, we ( Longer Players from Way Back Then ) didn't want them spawning all over the front page of the forum, or all the bickering potential, and a whole host of other factors that I admit I'm for once not assed to dreddge up. Its not quite Hack's idea. Hack is likely also operating because of Moderator history with the U.N. and especially the Forum.

Also, just because these people are complaining doesn't make them right.

If they don't like the rules, they can fob them-selves off to II or NS. With two RP forums already, they're not exactly strapped for choice.You have to explain why there is such of a big deal being constantly made about resolutions, such as Gay Rights, that make certain items or activities legal.Because a lot of IC actions are based only on nothing else but OOC belief and bigotry. as much as you might like RP, don't forget you can't have IC with-out OOC, and a lot of OOC is going to impact on the IC more often then not.Finally, you have to explain why there are so many rules about what you can put into the flavor text of a resolution, and while doing so you must account that some of those rules have no sense if taken from the view that RP is not important to the UN.Because the entire resolution is flavour text around one-time only ( Unless there is a repeal, of course ) coding. And because a U.N. resolution can only do so much in the game there have to be limits on what the U.N. says it can do.

And for the last time, I am asking you to drop the " if taken from the view that RP is not important to the UN. " crap. I never said there was no place for RP in the U.N. , at any time. I simply said I would like to promote better, solid, guide-lines on just what extents of " pure " RP there was, to preserve the use of this forum AND REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE for actual proposal / resolution / repeal discussion.

For some one who claims their posts are all calculated material, you seem to be trying to provoke me on purpose in a manner contrary to the rules. Especially with these misdirecting implications of things that I've never actually said.

Of which I am getting really sick of now.Postulate whatever theories you wish, but in the end you still cannot account for too many things for your theory to be correct.I don't have theories, DLE. I have observations made on long term study of the games operation and the interactions of the players with the players, and the playes with the game, + vice versa. If you don't agree with them, I suggest it is then you who is postulating the " theories " here.And now you're bringing up a conspiracy theory.No, DLE, you are. In fact id anything its just a symptom of your trying to claw for hard space beyond my arguments until yuo can actually build a relevant response.If you want to be respected, this is the easiest way to lose that possibility.We'll if your so eager to push me onto that course with your provocations resulting from the method you've demonstrated as I stated above, then be aware you'll be taken, blow for blow, with me by consequence.And my politeness went out the moment I saw it was a waste of time and effort, which your taking things out of context and now this conspiracy theory have more than informed me of that being the right decision.Conspiracy crap aside, I'm glad you've demonstrated your complete lack of ability in diplomacy in the one forum that should mandate it. I can only hope the once un-informed readers of this thread will now be warned in advance of your attitude towards them should they dare to disagree.I'm working off the impression I am getting from your posts, and that impression is quite unfavorable towards you.Because no doubt the sky would cave in if you actually bothered to read them rather then vent the angsts of your soul upon them instead..

And, there are plenty here of your experience and even more that disagree with you. While you may think your experience is enough, I must point out your lack of activity on this forum since I started using this alt. To be honest, right now I find that YGSM has more experience in how the forum really is right now than you do.1) Just because I don't post here as frequently as I once did, doesn't mean I don't read here as frequently as I always have. That is your first error.

2) The second error you've made is in your failure to eliminate the bias in your selection of " alternative experiance ". The concept of experiance tends to be based on how often AND how long you've been doing something. I would hope my near constant interest ( If not member-ship ) in the N.S.U.N since the times before the Gay Rights resolution would still count for something.By your experience, I was refering to how long you have been in the UN and on this forum, though I am mentally revising it due to your limited activity.Good for you. Revise away, but don't think your border-line personal attack is going to support your arguments any better then your now regular mis-directions.That would put my experience as more than yours, which gives me the voice of senority in this issue and makes it so that your statement about acquiring your experience is something I can just laugh at by being more experienced.Well this is kind of scary.

You seem to be doing some sick variation on " pop-wank " on the U.N. Forum, of all places.

You just keep on adding those billions, what ever helps you feel better is fine by me.Why was all of that previous paragraph relevant? It wasn't. But it's the response I feel like giving to a comment that is rediculous and just ego stroking.In the vain hope you'd listen, apparently. Silly me. If I can't get you to be polite, and get " why is that even relevant " in response then I really am barking up the wrong tree for that request ...You're referring to increased RP activity?In part, yes.That's something the mods themselves are allowing,But not completely, and again, don't assume it to be for an eternity.and the headaches of it are probably why Hack is trying to ban committees (that, or he's gotten tired of my complaints about them).As I said, committees have been banned for a long time, ( But since they've never come up too much in actual passed resolutions it hasn't been too much of a problem o the forum if he proposals get it cut from them, or totally cut, in time ) both in Proposals/Resolutions/Repeals and for the most part on this forum.And the attacking itself is only an annoyance when the attack is continued, derailing a thread. The attacks are not just limited to new members either, as I'm willing to bet quite a few of us are guilty at one time or another.Well, the attacking I should point out was more targetting people and ideas at once, as well as more often then not failing to seperate the two, and not so much derailing the thread, but slowing it down. Variety of factors contributed to it, really.Personally, I thought the "game rules" comment was hint enough.

It's in the topic that says to read it or you'll get ejected from the UN.Congrats, you've pointed out your own initial error but actuually managed to solve it too.

" Game Rules " are not lumped in one single location. Maybe now you'll be more exact next time round.Why should I bug him, only to potentially find out the same stuff as in the FAQ? If he really dislikes how the UN is, he does have the power to change it.Because maybe it'd show you what you think the U.N. Forum / N.S.U.N is is different to what its creator thinks it is, and maybe then you'd realise there are reasons why some of us disagree with you rather then just for arguments sake. Your ideas certainly sound completely different to what the object of the U.N. was initially.Sarcasm doesn't work too well in this arguement. I reserve the right to take anything you say literally at any time, and have reserved that right for months now. If that wasn't sarcastic, then I've really misinterpreted the meaning of it.Yes, you certainly have. I really could cry in frustration now. It wasn't sarcasm. It was exactly what I have had to put up with because of one innocent rant that some have decided to spring board off to vent at me when I sure as hell never mentioned them.Yes, a lot of your points have gotten bent. That's due to the problem of interpretation, as people can interpret what you mean in different ways.For some one so eager to harp on at me about not getting the point, I'd shout at the hypocrisy here if you didn't seem so ignorant of your own behaviour.It's a personal annoyance of mine, and I find many people are surprised when they find out I'm a devout Catholic running an atheist country that believes in science first and considers marriage purely a tax-related institution. But my views of people as a whole pretty much match what Agent K told a certain rookie on a park bench in New York.1) Thank you for proving my point, and

2) Sorry, the Agent K bit escapes me now, I guess I'm not as erudite as I once thought.Which would be nice, except so many of them are also IC concerns, some of them plaguing NS. But you're also forgetting about the BioRights resolution, which is protecting the rights of clones and not an issue faced in reality. Now, except for the test resolution, I want you to name one that cannot be justified as resulting from an IC concern a nation had over practices in another nation or problem that is plaguing their RPs that they wish the UN to address.1) An issue not faced by society yet. But I'm not going to hit a tangent by explaining to you that " FT " ( Future Tech ) is the kind of stuff Humanity may one day create since we can certainly recognise it as a possibility.

2) I can't give you one, DLE. Because all of them can be applied to the reasoning that such " IC " concerns are always introduced by OOC realities and concerns of the players behind the accounts, though some more so then others.

Again, DLE, you can't have your IC with-out your OOC.My attitude is one of arrogance and of my own self-worth.While I'm sure we' all should have a good sense of self worth, its your abundance of arrogance that I think is passing you off as being a rude prick for no reason to me jucst because you don't like what I've said counter to what you've said, and its your primary weapon in countering my posts, as agains any actual argumentive ability. You seem to assume you are right more often then you actually are and what makes it bad is you don't care, because like aproblem gambler you seem to keep rolling the dice no matter the previous out-come.The fact I'm backed by what, by all of the evidence I have,Which you seem miserly in actually presenting,is the truth of the matter only makes it worse. I feel I can fob you off because, to be frank, I don't see you as having a leg to stand on.And you is your majoy malfunction. You think yuo can get away with screeching " BAD MAN, BAD MAN " instead of actually staying on the topic by refuting my or other posts.

Its funny you say I don't have a leg to stand on, when I'm sure all I can see here is a large mouth with an opposable thumb prop'ed up in front of a key-board to all our dtriments, an observation I would be sure of by now as reality, if I didn't know human anatomy, because of your deplorable behaviour. You've put up with it because a lot of the posters who have been posting frequently and are willing to weigh in on this issue know you to be wrong. Your arguement is one I've seen, and shot down, before, and I am not alone in that.1) Until you actually refute my posts, don't assume I am wrong. Well, I should say, don't say I'm wrong when all you have are your inadequate off-topic replies, rather then the evidence of any actual refutes to my posts based them-selves on solid reality rather then fantasy and what looks like " calculated " mis-interpretaion.

2) I've seen very few " weigh in " yet in your direct defence and those that have usually base their arguments on your own flawed concepts of the realities of the U.N. / and long term history of the U.N. Forum.

3) Considering you've been dodging my posts like bullets here in such a fashion as to put the entire cast of the Martix trilogy to shame ( Their being IC of course ) don't try to claim you've shot anything down.

Finally, don't assume to know why I've put up with any of this, aside from the fact that more often then not I've been trying to clear my name after you've twisted my constant pro-R.P. ( To. A. Degree. ) claims into anything but. I can see now you've not an inkling at all.When it is relevant to debate, it comes into the debate. What I see your reply as is a case of you don't like the fact I called you on it.Of course not. Considering your one of less then five people in over 2000 posts in over 1 and a half years whose ever had a problem with it, so of course I have a problem with it, because other people seem to be able to take the time to concentrate and paste the post together in their minds to reply in a calm and relevant fashion, and find that by taking each line, at times, seperate, they can better under-stand what I am thinking.And if you've ever bothered to pay attention to how I argue, you would know I have that opinion and that your post isn't going to change it or prevent me from saying it.I don't care so much that that you say it, we do have a fair degree of free speech after-all. Its the fact your so opposed to change no matter what that is sad.And, yes, it is a common tactic utilized by trolls on a variety of sites.Good, I'm siure you'll remember its consequences too.My own place is as a May 2003 person who left for awhile, lurked for several months, and then came back.That is nice. Now was that time on NS or time involved in the N.S.U.N. ? Because I was talking about the more crucial kind of contact, with the U.N. + Forum.But I'm not one who has relied on the fact I've been here since 2003 to gain respect. I've argued, been in the trenches, and made it a point to know my facts and the UN. And, yes, I've even admitted when I'm wrong.Why, me too. Why, when you put it like that, you could say we're twins.So if you wish to use that arguement, know you are talking to your elder.Considering you raised it, I'd say you've gone back on your claim not to be the " one who has relied on the fact I've been here since 2003 to gain respect " quite quickly, haven't you.

And considering you've not specified time in regards to U.N. activity, I can hardly care a whit for your claims. For all your own now more frequent, and desperate, in lack of any actual solid arguments, claims of experiance, this mysterious " few months " of being away kind of rules out your having a complete perspective anyway. Let alone your self-confirmed bad behaviour again removing any reason to give you anything other then the most basic public respect as to any other player here.one who has relied on the fact I've been here since 2003 to gain respectI'm only drawing such because in this case I see it is necessary.[/quote]Then your concept of " necessary " is fatally flawed. If you don't see constant civility here as necessary, then again I don't understand while your still here.If you even knew what the context of what you have been arguing about was, you would realize the lines have not moved since my first post.I know, since you've done nothing but mis-direct my attention and make me scramble to defence against implied and baseless attacks on my character, I've not had a chance to move anything at all. And as long as you continue to use the same tactics, conditions will remain the same. And considering your initial response was flawed ( " calculated " as you put it, we can now assume ) and forcing me to respond in my own personal defence, how could I ?Of course, you so conveniently broke up two paragraphs instead of taking what they were saying as a whole, so it's no wonder you have no clue what the context is.Of course, since all you do now is come back to mourn the same paragraph over, and over again, its no wonder, as you've said I was unable to " moce " anything.Have fun. Let me know if you get any results. The last time I've seen something like that tried, it ended up going nowhere and leaving the pursuer frustrated.Meh. If I try and fail, I fail, but not for lack of trying, and the results will be on the U.N.'s community's future more then mine I reckon ...Refuting comments in reply to something taken out of context is pointless, as the context must be considered and often the reply to what is taken out of context is made worthless by the context. Any experienced debater knows that.Then in your world debater's are gods who walk with men, I suppose. Or talk I should say. Aside from demonstrating that communication with you when there is disagreement is point-less, I say again, it wouldn't kill you to actually try to respond instead of ducking out again, and again, and again, rather then risk being wrong, no matter what you think of what your expected to refute.You comment about flamebait, and then turn around and post some. Interesting.No point, but nice try, I think.

If you really are going to try to side with the angels this late on, especially after the bulk of your posts when read together, ( And especially when you want to go this far off topic I'll remind you that I commented on your practices here, not your person. Oddly enough, practices you freely admitted to. Especially the provocative ones like the afore-mentioned " evil " - ness, just for a taste. Never mind the "calculated nature " of it all.If I'm so intent on "pissing people off," then why have I lasted this long on the forum? Tell me who is the one who posted a long and heavily emotional rant on here and included the words <snip,see in quoted post> And the words <snip, same again > How do you justify being able to make that accusation with a clear concious when you were clearly doing the same thing yourself in your first post on here? By the tone of your own words, you were trying to "piss people off."Wrong on a few counts there, DLE.

1) I don't know how you've lasted this long, looking over this thread. If its anything to do with your tactics, its likely the skill you employ with them not to get them noticed. Maybe you can ask yourself that one.

2) Yes, the rant was emotional. But it was a rant, they usually are.

3) Considering you were never mentioned, and I certainly wassn't thinking of nor named anyone in particular that I am aware of in the rant, I fail to see why you've decided to respond to it, and more so to me, with such constant vitriol.So don't complain when someone does something similar in an arguement about that. It is, as you say,<same snip>Your right. Just because some one else decided to take offence a something never meant to involve them doesn't make their reaction worth being bothered about when it also is above and beyond reason and lacking the required and expected civility of any-one claiming to originate from civilised society, and little else then a smear campaign in many instances by out-right lying in relation to what I said.If you don't like it, tough.
Oh, I'm awre of that. You've not tried to be niice yet, so your more then allowed to say I don't expect any change in the future.I cast at those I see as guilty. Experience doesn't matter, as even the wisest man makes mistakes. And, sometimes, they really screw something up. I don't cast stones unless I see them as worthy of being cast.I suggest then you stop trying to say I'm against RP's in the U.N. as often as you have already done, if you can manage to do so at all, and then re-evaluate your mineral casting economics. The important thing of dealing with a post is to also get the context correct. If you get that wrong, everything you say in reply to a point is worthless. In dividual points are good, but you must keep in mind how they work with the whole and keep your goal clear in your mind.Let us then hope people will one-day turn from bowing at the feet of the idol of the All Powerful Context and actually respond to each other then " I don't think your listening, so I'm not going to listen to you. Its kind of a bit like some one commiting a crime by accident, only to face " eye for an eye " value justice.Letting emotions get in the way only clouds the goal.And having honed your skills at provocation so well I can see you must have an awful lot of success in getting your own points home, no matter how blunt such points may be.If I wanted to call you a liar, I'd make it perfectly obvious I think you are one. Miscontruing is a form of bending the truth. Lying is going for the opposite of it.Heaven knows though you've gone to the special effort of both just for me ...

( Oh, if you've not already seen it, you used the closing quote tag at the start of your quoting me. I dragged this off NS early this after-noon Au time, so you could have fixed by now, but if not, just so you know. It stuffs up the flow, and I know I always kick myself when I come back later and see it ) I should let you know I do treat almost everyone equally. Elder or not, the time comes I think you're making a mistake, I'll call you on it.!) Then may the fates have mecry on us all because of equality.

2) Of course, whether or not we actually make a mistake ...Mods get preferential treatment due to the fact they're not powerhungry tyrants that ban for the fun of it.If I didn't know better, I'd normally be think " kiss-ass much ? " at that, but I do at least know you for being one of the blessed rational people in regards to that, :) heh.Rude. Petty is when I call you on flamebait, flamebait you in turn, delete the post flamebaiting you, and then turn you in. I've seen that happen as well.Well, it had to be one of the two. I was distracted enough not to be able to tell. And yes, that does happen more often then is nice to think about on forums. Thank-fully, I think deleted posts can be recovered, which is good. Well, I think they can be.That was also a joke. But, sadly, I forgot the social context in which I was posting it. On another forum I frequent, people would be howling in laughter. But that's due to something too complex to waste time explaining, and isn't relevant anyway.Oh, well sorry. And I'm glad you didn't go on too long into irrelevancy this time in pointing out just why it is irrelevant. I guess your not as closed to change as I first thought, ;) Which would be nice if I hadn't been doing it for the entire time I've been on the forum, and the majority of my posts are on this forum. And yet, I've managed to hold my own in more than one arguement that has resulted and included quite a bit of proof from reality.Well then I'm glad for you that I was wrong.Free IRC time ran out, and I'm too lazy to register. ...

Errr ...

In the event you were using MIRC, you, uh, don't really have to register it. It greys out the connect button for about 20-30 seeconds, then re-activates it again so you can connect. I know it annoyed the hell out of me when it first happened, then I looked up and realised what was going on and thought " Argh ! " at thinking I wouldn't be able to use it again, :) If you think that is necessary, you really are out of touch with the UN forum as it is now. Look up some of the arguements on hydrogen power and read my posts on them. I'd post links, but the search engine and my internet hate each other. I wish I was joking on that.Thank-fully, I was joking. Just annoyed at the pushing of IC / RP when so much is actually OOC or not RP at all to be frank. And wow, who is your ISP and boy do they suck. Any particular search engine ?

* I feel your pain. My old ISP used recharge cards, they said the d/c / session time of something like 2 hours ( Ha, yeah. Right ) then d/c'd me every 10 minutes or so, at 15 cents a re-connect. And if I wasn't careful, they'd re-direct the call to an out of local area switch-board.It was purely the courtesy reason. If it wasn't for that, I would have posted it. The only thing keeping me from still posting it is how often I've been forced off for days at a time and I'm not willing to commit to it at this point.Yes, but I was pointing out it was also the smart thing to do rules wise, ;)

Also, yes, connection issues of all sorts suck, especially if you've developed an internet habit like I have.You're welcome for the pearl of wisdom. Feel free to come to me anytime you need more.

On this one, I'll conceed the point. Can't refute it.Can't - words. Brain - shock, :p I prefer simplicity. It saves time. It's the arguements and tactics I take issue with.

...

Ahhh ... haaa ... 'k.

...

I am starting to see some other small reasons for our great conflicts here, I tend to be the other way around. I like to ensure things are done in enough detail to ensure every-one under-stands, hence post breaking up into points. Normally I don't mind too much about tactics as I usually on principle maintain a facade of gross diplomacy. But when some one fudges up what I'm saying, and then I don' t like the tactics one bit, well ... yeah.Precedent: Nazi flags are not allowed.

Rule: Nazi flags are not allowed.

The second came from the first, IIRC, and it's only one precedent. Hmm.Hmmm indeed. I recall Max deciding it, then [violet] bringing it to the massess, and then the masses having to adapt. Maybe the first punish-ment or flag-change by Moderator would be a precedent, but only a precedent of he rule actually being carried out, rather then making the rule from it.I was giving you an opening through which to make a point. I don't believe an arguement should be just one-sided and it's a tactic I pull quite often to keep both sides capable of continuing.Well I failed to agree with you opening, in fact it looks like I might have taken offence to some of it.

I should hope you know that many people debate in order to come to and agree on, at least in some part if not toally, an conclusion.And I have not been ignoring your arguements, just failing to see how some of them have any relevance to mine.Yet where-ever you claim they are irrelevant, you ignored any possibility they could have been, and took to beating the life out of them with nothing else but repeating they were irrelevant. Leading to me getting more and more pissed off that my posts were getting taken not only off topic but into the realms of un-reality at the cost ofthe rest of the thread.Actually, the TPP case Asshelmetta pulled before being banned was pure RP, intended to show the weaknesses of the TPP. It was not only allowed, but has remained as am example on this forum.But because it was allowed because it demonstrated the weak-ness then surely it fits in with my points that not all R.P. is bad at all, of which I have gone blue in the face saying when you try to refute my agreement with you with proof of my points, as if my points were the opposite to which I said.Yes, and I'll deal with it next.Ah, again if you missed it, you used the close quote tag where you need the open quote tag when you quoted me again. I must say, it has been puting me on my guard with my own this time, :p Good luck with those. Wouldn't want this to end on account of disease.You'll pry my key-board from my cold, dead hands. And a reek of suplhur from the bath-room at the back of the house, or so I thought yesterday, yech. Hell doesn' have levels, it has fou close together walls and needs a fresh lick of paint.

Thank-fully, I am feeling a little better today, and thanks for your concern, :)

______________________________

Mind you, I think by now if I'm not well enough to keep up with this ( I sure as hell don't really feel it ), I might as well drop out.

The least I can ask is that y'all remember I am not against all RP, just certain styles of RP we already have two forums for, and still think that this forum is still for talking about and working on proposals / resolutions/ repeals, only, and the bulk of which will always be " OOC " style things. this was never a place over-large on RP and people need to remember that at the end of the day, the resolutions are likely to last far longer then your accounts and perspectives on game-play.

And I fully agree with Fris's post/s.

Oh, and what-ever Mikitivity has said, by the looks of it.

DemonLordEnigma and Komokom, thank you both for proving my point about topic hijacking so effectively. Your personal diatribes against each other in excessively lengthy posts have not added materially to the discussion, and any valid UN points you may have been trying to make are most likely lost in the morass of quote boxes and bitterness that you've both been spewing. I know I can't follow them, and I've tried.

Frankly, if you can't make your point in a couple of paragraphs, you haven't thoought it out very well. And if you're trying to make 20 or 30 points per posts, you're most certainly losing me in the process. If have have to scroll up and down twenty times while reading your post to cross-reference previous mentions of something or other, you're not doing a very good job in your presentation. Point-by-point linear responses aren't working, not for either of you.

Rejoin the discussion concisely if you wish. If you prefer to continue in the same uber-massive one-on-one posts to each other, I'm just going to split the whole damn Komo-DLE conversation off to Spam.

Ummm. Yeah. I see what you mean, Fris. And I am very sorry for it, now that I take the time to reflect on my actions. At the risk of removing such great proof of your point, you can wipe my posts here right out, come to think of it, including the original rant of mine which seems to have set off so much damage here. If that is acceptable to you, naturally. S'your job as well as your thread, after-all, and I apologise for forgetting that for a moment and just why this thread is actually here.

I think for myself that DLE and I should agree to disagree from now on, and I'm more then willing to apologise to them, and you as well as any other readers, for not doing so myself far earlier, when I should have done.

Fris, feel free to remove all of my posts of the arguement. I don't see why we should delete Komokom's innitial post, as it does lay out a lot of frustrations felt lately by many people.

Komokom- No need to apologize to me. Nor would I accept it. I figure that if you have a need to apologize, it's serious. A minor thing as an internet arguement isn't, to me, something worthy of it. If I can't take what you've said, then I need to grow thicker skin.

You will find that we agree on most items. The only difference is that I see the growing RP amount as an inevitable result of the UN's actions with committees, which is why I support Hack's outright ban on them (plus, without them actually being RPed, they are worthless wastes of text that could be used for something better).

As for your innitial post: Yes, it will enrage a few. No names need to be mentioned, no fingers need be pointed. And, in two days, most of them will have moved on and completely forgotten about it. Then, if you want to be an ass, you can post something else that will enrage them on a new topic. This arguement was more vicious than most, but at the end of the day it isn't something that should be important enough to have that much of an affect.

um, I just accidentally posted as a puppet, because of a computer problem, which made it impossible to post as myself, and I didn't check who I was logged in as. Is this a problem?

Not at all. It happens.