NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409505

------------------------------------------------



I find that course to be inaccurate for that usage due to it being broad. As anyone can tell you, the rules of how to deal with it change the moment it comes up for a vote. You suddenly have to deal with a lot more people and most of them are not going to stick around that long. It's an effort that requires a hand with some knowledge of how to fight and be able to suddenly provide evidence when called for it that is required in those cases, as taking even an hour to find evidence could potentially bury you in posts.

Hersfold has told you several times now that he and the Lemurians want the UN part to focus on the technical aspects ... not the "roleplaying". There is in fact another school for that, and if you really feel you should be teaching the course (and that is what I'm reading here), you should try approaching Erastide and Blackshear and selling your value there.

As it stands, let's just think about what Hersfold and others are really looking at:

How many views are in the most recent resolution debates?? Now look at how many of those posts are from people rebutting each other. If even 25% of the posts are rebuttals, that means the 1,000s of views are only 0.75 of that.

Now look at the number of votes cast on most resolutions (I've got the numbers up on the UNA Chronological summary). As of late we are having around 15,000 to 18,000 votes cast. Delegates can account for much of that, as they get an extra vote per endorsement.

Having campaigned actively (and the Chipmunks can share their vast campaigning experience), many of the votes being cast by delegates are coming from very small regions where the delegates have 3-4 votes.

While it is possible that regional boards and forums are mirroring these debates, where one player gives a damn about this board and reports back and they listen to ping-pong / tennis match, after ping-pong / tennis match post, the truth is, Hersfold knows as well as anybody else that a large percentage of getting a resolution to pass is dotting your i's and crossing your t's, and then visiting the regional forums for the larger regions: Pacifics, Canada, and others.

Every vote for you is one not being cast against you. So effectively votes count *twice*. They move you up one, and move the ability for the 18,000 to turn against you down at the same time.

It is a simple numbers game that the folks at the ACA and Texas forums alike have talked about ad nausium to anybody who is interested in listening to them. Listen to them. Seriously! They happen to have some of the most veteran and experienced players in the game (and ironically happen to ideologically be polar opposites). :)

Decision making in the UN forum itself is mostly likely to happen by providing CONSTRUCTIVE comments during the draft discussions. There are plenty of people who don't give a damn about anybody's roleplay when they have a proposal. Telling them how their idea won't work for a future tech or magic based players isn't going to make them realize their mistake and all them to get the small percentage of votes that even care about somebody else's roleplay.

While the roleplay associated with actual UN resolution __debate__ is fun (it is), people tend to have their minds made up long before they join those debates.

Now there are rare exceptions, like Great Agnostica, where a proponent or opponent to a resolution will change his/her opinion, but sadly most people are pretty closed minded. And since much of the debate that happens *after* a proposal is finished being drafted gets very confrontational, all it tends to do is place many people on the defensive.

If you want to disagree with me, by all means, find some actual EXAMPLES of where players have demonstrated either neutrality or a change in heart based on debate in a resolution thread. Find those, provide the actual links, and if you do ... you'll actually have done Hersfold and the University a great service, as we'll turn them into a course and talk about the finer points of roleplay.

I think they are important ... but not because they MEAN a damn thing. They don't! Nobody cares why my currency is Spice Melange, and nobody cares that you have ray guys and claim to be amongst the most powerful nation in the game. That stuff is fine, but not going to change a vote. The reason roleplay is important, is because it is fun. And a course of roleplaying fits in the Lemurian University in the roleplaying section (look at their setup).

Roleplaying is escapism. Anybody who thinks it makes a damn bit of difference in anybody else's mind is deluded.

You want to see three UN regulars whom I consider the best roleplayers:
- Goobergunchia (a centrist / liberal nation)
- Frisbeeteria (a corporate nation)
- Texan Hotrodders (a conservative / soverign rights nation)

These three guys do it for their own fun. They aren't trying to swing any votes their way. And their posts are interesting to read. They don't devolve into pointless ping-pong "tennis" matches, and people actually care about what they have to say.

And while each of them has added substanstive points to debates, they find ways to focus on the roleplay.

The Lemurian University is first and foremost for Lemurians. Second, they honestly want to nuture newbies. Most of the Lemurians are former North Pacific nations from the summer of 2004, (the Sir Paul / Great Bight Era). They came together and taught themselves a lot about the game. And being nations that formerly made a feeder their home, they felt pretty alienated by the moderators when everything they set up was taken away. After that, Thel D'Ran setup Lemuria while the Xtraordinary Gentlemen and I set up the International Democratic Union ... at the same time there was an Avengers Assemble region. Those are three of the main North Pacific splinter groups, with the West Pacific also having a large population of 2004 NPers.

Where the IDU took a very capitalistic / liberal slant, via a European model of development, Lemurian actually has a rich history of _regional roleplay_. In that history, they set up 5 houses, each focusing on a different aspect of NationStates mechanics and fun. One of those houses was about roleplaying in general. That house will be overseeing the roleplaying aspects of the university. Another of those houses was about UN mechanics ... not roleplaying in the UN, but the mechanics. That house is ideal for stat-wankers like myself, but it ain't designed to be a UN roleplay house.

This isn't a UN University. This isn't some UN Old Guard club either, where people are *invited* to the club and otherwise not privy to what goes on. This is a Lemurian University, and it does actually have a very "Pacific" centric feel. Remember, being feeders, the Pacifics are designed to deal with high turnover and many long time Pacific Delegates tend to take to nurturing and shaping newbies based on their own experiences.

While I know that UN roleplay is very important to you, the fact remains that UN roleplay isn't really changing the outcome of resolution votes. The numbers just aren't there to support that the roleplay is making it to the minds of the 1,000s of players that login once every few days and hit "CLICK".

And while I support the idea of the Lemurian University talking about the connection of roleplay to the UN, it still is a Lemurian University, and if they want their course to stay consistent with a series of "houses" that were created in late Fall 2004, I'm inclined mold myself to *their* vision. My advice, is before you engage in yet another boring as dirt PING-PONG multi-quote reply to me, that you first talk to the other Lemurian nations and just try things their way first.

Hersfold has told you several times now that he and the Lemurians want the UN part to focus on the technical aspects ... not the "roleplaying". There is in fact another school for that, and if you really feel you should be teaching the course (and that is what I'm reading here), you should try approaching Erastide and Blackshear and selling your value there.

Wow. You completely missed the entirety of what I said. Even the absolute basics.

I'm talking about the technical aspect of dealing with the arguements that spring up once a proposal has reached the stage of a resolution. It's entirely technical and the RP aspect doesn't always come into play.

As it stands, let's just think about what Hersfold and others are really looking at:

How many views are in the most recent resolution debates?? Now look at how many of those posts are from people rebutting each other. If even 25% of the posts are rebuttals, that means the 1,000s of views are only 0.75 of that.

Now look at the number of votes cast on most resolutions (I've got the numbers up on the UNA Chronological summary). As of late we are having around 15,000 to 18,000 votes cast. Delegates can account for much of that, as they get an extra vote per endorsement.

Having campaigned actively (and the Chipmunks can share their vast campaigning experience), many of the votes being cast by delegates are coming from very small regions where the delegates have 3-4 votes.

While it is possible that regional boards and forums are mirroring these debates, where one player gives a damn about this board and reports back and they listen to ping-pong / tennis match, after ping-pong / tennis match post, the truth is, Hersfold knows as well as anybody else that a large percentage of getting a resolution to pass is dotting your i's and crossing your t's, and then visiting the regional forums for the larger regions: Pacifics, Canada, and others.

While nice, it doesn't do any good if the proposal author cannot defend their piece of legislation once it reaches the stage of a resolution. It will make them look even worse if all they have is a thread of opposition they cannot refute.

Every vote for you is one not being cast against you. So effectively votes count *twice*. They move you up one, and move the ability for the 18,000 to turn against you down at the same time.

It is a simple numbers game that the folks at the ACA and Texas forums alike have talked about ad nausium to anybody who is interested in listening to them. Listen to them. Seriously! They happen to have some of the most veteran and experienced players in the game (and ironically happen to ideologically be polar opposites). :)

And if I wanted a condescending lecture on items I know too much about as it is from my own experiences, I would build a time machine and go talk to myself. Most of your post is wasted space that shouldn't be included and is, frankly, more infuriating to people than my own posts are.

Decision making in the UN forum itself is mostly likely to happen by providing CONSTRUCTIVE comments during the draft discussions. There are plenty of people who don't give a damn about anybody's roleplay when they have a proposal. Telling them how their idea won't work for a future tech or magic based players isn't going to make them realize their mistake and all them to get the small percentage of votes that even care about somebody else's roleplay.

And yet, Hack has said it is a valid statement to make in a topic. Mik, while you may not like it, you'll just have to suck it up and accept it as being part of the posts on the forum.

While the roleplay associated with actual UN resolution __debate__ is fun (it is), people tend to have their minds made up long before they join those debates.

And sometimes people switch sides. I was against the Eon Convention when I went in and I switched sides during the discussion, for example. I've observed it happen too often for me to discount it as you do.

Now there are rare exceptions, like Great Agnostica, where a proponent or opponent to a resolution will change his/her opinion, but sadly most people are pretty closed minded. And since much of the debate that happens *after* a proposal is finished being drafted gets very confrontational, all it tends to do is place many people on the defensive.

And here you totally miss the point of the discussions and demonstrate that maybe I should be the one lecturing you. The purpose of the debates is not to just be on the defensive. Most of that is for the fun of arguing, as those of us who are regulars know enough to not assume the debates serve to actually convince the community at large. They serve as testing grounds, allowing you to see what arguements were successful and what arguements failed. The debates are the perfect places to pick up ideas for attempting a repeal, as you can see what won't work and what has already worked while reading it. It would save the majority of repeal efforts a lot of wasted time and energy if they bothered to read the debates or at least debated it on here first.

If you want to disagree with me, by all means, find some actual EXAMPLES of where players have demonstrated either neutrality or a change in heart based on debate in a resolution thread. Find those, provide the actual links, and if you do ... you'll actually have done Hersfold and the University a great service, as we'll turn them into a course and talk about the finer points of roleplay.

I hate to have to do this, but I must.

Mik, it's best if you don't persue the evidence avenue right now. You don't want to know why. If Hersfold wants the evidence posted, I will. It's not exactly fair, but fairness isn't what I'm thinking of right now.

I think they are important ... but not because they MEAN a damn thing. They don't! Nobody cares why my currency is Spice Melange, and nobody cares that you have ray guys and claim to be amongst the most powerful nation in the game. That stuff is fine, but not going to change a vote. The reason roleplay is important, is because it is fun. And a course of roleplaying fits in the Lemurian University in the roleplaying section (look at their setup).

Actually, I find it may change a vote. I do know it has been quite successful in shooting down entire proposals before, and was what got the DoF to include the option of going across species barriers. To say it has no affect is to ignore how it has already affected the NSUN.

Roleplaying is escapism. Anybody who thinks it makes a damn bit of difference in anybody else's mind is deluded.

Uh-huh. Then explain the part in DoF about allowing marriages across species borders while still maintaining a requirement of sentience.

You want to see three UN regulars whom I consider the best roleplayers:
- Goobergunchia (a centrist / liberal nation)
- Frisbeeteria (a corporate nation)
- Texan Hotrodders (a conservative / soverign rights nation)

These three guys do it for their own fun. They aren't trying to swing any votes their way. And their posts are interesting to read. They don't devolve into pointless ping-pong "tennis" matches, and people actually care about what they have to say.

Goobergunchia is currently busy with various projects and has argued in the past, Fris is a mod and thus automatically ruled out, and TH happens to be someone who has backed me before and even used a few "ping-pong" arguements.

And while each of them has added substanstive points to debates, they find ways to focus on the roleplay.

Isn't this counter-productive to your earlier arguements? Where you were mentioning this as being for the details, not the roleplay?

The Lemurian University is first and foremost for Lemurians. Second, they honestly want to nuture newbies. Most of the Lemurians are former North Pacific nations from the summer of 2004, (the Sir Paul / Great Bight Era). They came together and taught themselves a lot about the game. And being nations that formerly made a feeder their home, they felt pretty alienated by the moderators when everything they set up was taken away. After that, Thel D'Ran setup Lemuria while the Xtraordinary Gentlemen and I set up the International Democratic Union ... at the same time there was an Avengers Assemble region. Those are three of the main North Pacific splinter groups, with the West Pacific also having a large population of 2004 NPers.

And what do you think I want to do? Beat up on them for the fun of it? If I can teach them how to deal with those arguements, maybe we'll get a flood of people who know how to argue and pay attention to the topic, saving us all some time, instead of the usual flood we get. To have a topic flooded by people who know what they are doing, how to handle themselves, and how to deal with every aspect of the arguement would make a huge difference on the forum and keep certain players (such as myself) from using a stereotype without having to alter it.

Where the IDU took a very capitalistic / liberal slant, via a European model of development, Lemurian actually has a rich history of _regional roleplay_. In that history, they set up 5 houses, each focusing on a different aspect of NationStates mechanics and fun. One of those houses was about roleplaying in general. That house will be overseeing the roleplaying aspects of the university. Another of those houses was about UN mechanics ... not roleplaying in the UN, but the mechanics. That house is ideal for stat-wankers like myself, but it ain't designed to be a UN roleplay house.

This isn't a UN University. This isn't some UN Old Guard club either, where people are *invited* to the club and otherwise not privy to what goes on. This is a Lemurian University, and it does actually have a very "Pacific" centric feel. Remember, being feeders, the Pacifics are designed to deal with high turnover and many long time Pacific Delegates tend to take to nurturing and shaping newbies based on their own experiences.

You're talking to someone who has a membership in the South Pacific forums (despite my not using it that much). I know exactly how they work. And I know what they deal with. I'm suggesting this as a focus because of the problems we have just about every resolution with newbies who come in, waste our time with a few posts, and leave. If we make them knowledgeable, we don't have to deal with it as much and those who do come in should have valid points worthy of dealing with. It would make all of our lives a bit easier.

While I know that UN roleplay is very important to you, the fact remains that UN roleplay isn't really changing the outcome of resolution votes. The numbers just aren't there to support that the roleplay is making it to the minds of the 1,000s of players that login once every few days and hit "CLICK".

Nor do the numbers support the idea that anything else on the forum has an affect on those players, including all of the arguements on here.

And while I support the idea of the Lemurian University talking about the connection of roleplay to the UN, it still is a Lemurian University, and if they want their course to stay consistent with a series of "houses" that were created in late Fall 2004, I'm inclined mold myself to *their* vision. My advice, is before you engage in yet another boring as dirt PING-PONG multi-quote reply to me, that you first talk to the other Lemurian nations and just try things their way first.

I'll let their way have a shot, but it doesn't mean I'm going to be nice to any Lemurian members just because of what group they are in. And as it stands, I still think they need a class that just focuses on that one topic.

My advice, is before you engage in yet another boring as dirt PING-PONG multi-quote reply to me, that you first talk to the other Lemurian nations and just try things their way first.

DemonLordEnigma,

I'm of the opinion, based on your long history of posts in this forum, that you'd like yourself to be recognized as some sort of roleplaying expert. That is the WRONG reason to roleplay, and this is the wrong place to be pushing that. Talk to Blackshear and Erastide on the Lemuria boards ... if they feel you have something to offer, perhaps they'll ask you to join them.

If you honestly feel that people give a damn about roleplaying when it comes to voting, do the Lemurian University a favour and point to actual historical examples where roleplaying has resulted in vote changes.

Seriously, please contact Erastide, Blackshear, Thel, and Hersfold on their forum, and ask them why they've set up things the way they have.

DemonLordEnigma,

I'm of the opinion, based on your long history of posts in this forum, that you'd like yourself to be recognized as some sort of roleplaying expert. That is the WRONG reason to roleplay, and this is the wrong place to be pushing that. Talk to Blackshear and Erastide on the Lemuria boards ... if they feel you have something to offer, perhaps they'll ask you to join them.

And you obviously have yet to read the post. I'm not talking about roleplay behind my suggestion. You're the one who brought it up.

If you honestly feel that people give a damn about roleplaying when it comes to voting, do the Lemurian University a favour and point to actual historical examples where roleplaying has resulted in vote changes.

I said, and I quote,

I'm talking about the technical aspect of dealing with the arguements that spring up once a proposal has reached the stage of a resolution. It's entirely technical and the RP aspect doesn't always come into play.

How you made the strange leap of logic that I was still intending entirely on dealing with roleplay to begin with. Hell, all I was doing was practicing a new form of how to represent DLE communications that is less annoying on the eyes in my first post.

Seriously, please contact Erastide, Blackshear, Thel, and Hersfold on their forum, and ask them why they've set up things the way they have.

Seriously, make sure you know your opponent's intentions and actually read their posts. To continue to make this mistake tells me you're not even bothering to do so.

I don't consider you my opponent. I'm replying to you, because you aren't listening to Hersfold. Now you are attempting to turn this into argument with me.

Simply breaking somebody's post into smaller quotes doesn't imply that you've listened to it.

Please, give it a rest.



Lemuria University is designed after the Lemurian model. They separate roleplaying from UN activities. Furthermore, there is NO evidence (which I've asked you to present links to and you have refused to do) to suggest that "roleplaying" in UN Debates makes a damn bit of difference. It does not make a significant difference. Period.

Now you can tell me that I'm wrong.
__whatever__

But if you are going to tell me I'm wrong, provide EVIDENCE to support your arguments. No more PING-PONG!

Mik, DLE, is it possible that you two can have a conversation instead of an argument? This is kind of getting silly.

Now, I asked this earlier and it was missed:

Can I ask what the role of the "Statecraft" Professor is?

I don't consider you my opponent. I'm replying to you, because you aren't listening to Hersfold. Now you are attempting to turn this into argument with me.

Actually, Mik, what I'm attempting to do is explain something to someone that isn't bothering to even read my posts. If you can't be bothered to read them, then don't waste my time by replying. And, by what I see in your first post, your last sentence there is completely false and potentially an outright lie.

The evidence for those of you interested:

Hersfold has told you several times now that he and the Lemurians want the UN part to focus on the technical aspects ... not the "roleplaying". There is in fact another school for that, and if you really feel you should be teaching the course (and that is what I'm reading here), you should try approaching Erastide and Blackshear and selling your value there.

Arguementative, completely false (Hersfold has said it only once), and an assumption.

Having campaigned actively (and the Chipmunks can share their vast campaigning experience), many of the votes being cast by delegates are coming from very small regions where the delegates have 3-4 votes.

Attempting to establish self as an authority for what they are talking about, plus part of a continuing arguement about voting in the UN. Anyone familiar with my posts will note this is actually plagiarized from an earlier comment I made in an arguement about whether or not the UN is a democracy. If you don't know it, look it up sometime. Mik is not allowed to ask for evidence on this one, for reasons stated in the numbered section.

It is a simple numbers game that the folks at the ACA and Texas forums alike have talked about ad nausium to anybody who is interested in listening to them. Listen to them. Seriously! They happen to have some of the most veteran and experienced players in the game (and ironically happen to ideologically be polar opposites).

Appeal to authority.

Decision making in the UN forum itself is mostly likely to happen by providing CONSTRUCTIVE comments during the draft discussions. There are plenty of people who don't give a damn about anybody's roleplay when they have a proposal. Telling them how their idea won't work for a future tech or magic based players isn't going to make them realize their mistake and all them to get the small percentage of votes that even care about somebody else's roleplay.

Arguementative. In this, he's trying to establish what he said as the truth. This is in relation to an earlier set of discussions we have had, in which he came out the loser through a mod ruling that such is acceptable.

While the roleplay associated with actual UN resolution __debate__ is fun (it is), people tend to have their minds made up long before they join those debates.

Now there are rare exceptions, like Great Agnostica, where a proponent or opponent to a resolution will change his/her opinion, but sadly most people are pretty closed minded. And since much of the debate that happens *after* a proposal is finished being drafted gets very confrontational, all it tends to do is place many people on the defensive.

Arguementative and trying to establish it as a fact. Note the lack of evidence as of yet.

If you want to disagree with me, by all means, find some actual EXAMPLES of where players have demonstrated either neutrality or a change in heart based on debate in a resolution thread. Find those, provide the actual links, and if you do ... you'll actually have done Hersfold and the University a great service, as we'll turn them into a course and talk about the finer points of roleplay.

Call for evidence, which is used in arguements entirely and establishes his post as arguementative.

I think they are important ... but not because they MEAN a damn thing. They don't! Nobody cares why my currency is Spice Melange, and nobody cares that you have ray guys and claim to be amongst the most powerful nation in the game. That stuff is fine, but not going to change a vote. The reason roleplay is important, is because it is fun. And a course of roleplaying fits in the Lemurian University in the roleplaying section (look at their setup).

Arguementative. Trying to establish what he is saying as a fact.

I doubt I need to go on. Back to replying to his last post.

Simply breaking somebody's post into smaller quotes doesn't imply that you've listened to it.

Please, give it a rest.

No, but does allow the person you are talking to to see exactly what you are replying to and provides a context. It's a clarity tactic.

Lemuria University is designed after the Lemurian model. They separate roleplaying from UN activities. Furthermore, there is NO evidence (which I've asked you to present links to and you have refused to do) to suggest that "roleplaying" in UN Debates makes a damn bit of difference. It does not make a significant difference. Period.

Okay, Mik, now you've asked for it.

1. I don't honestly give a damn. You are showing that you are missing the point of what I have said and are automatically assuming, with no basis for such, that my reasons for this deal with roleplay. Try paying attention to what I am saying instead of spewing your unrelated comments.

2. The reason I haven't posted links is because, due to recent events in another topic, I have taken the policy that I will not hold any call for evidence as valid from someone who has shown they cannot be trusted to supply evidence when asked. Yes, Mik, that includes you. Or have you forgotten the number of times I have asked you for evidence for your accusations and you have dodged them? And, Mik, I can provide links for that, as I saved them on my favorites list just in case I would ever need them.

3. Anyone who has bothered to read my posts on this topic knows that your comments about Lemurian university are absolutely worthless and a waste of my time. I've already stated what I am focusing on and even a first grader can find it in my posts.

4. I have no need to talk to Hersfold and the others about what they are trying to do because I know what they are trying to do. And I have my own idea about it.

5. For those of you who are have not earned my disdain and need to see Mik's lack of knowledge about UN proposals on this issue, try these two:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680061&postcount=82
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8303719&postcount=94

The conversations on them, in order:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=375415
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394023

39 pages of reading on two resolutions isn't really all that bad when you consider we have one that went over 60.

Now you can tell me that I'm wrong.
__whatever__

You're wrong. You're wrong in your statement, wrong in your assumptions, wrong in wasting everyone's time with these replies, wrong in persuing something when you were told you would not like the reason behind why the action was being taken, and wrong in continuing to post without reading the entirety of my posts. All in all, 150% wrong.

But if you are going to tell me I'm wrong, provide EVIDENCE to support your arguments. No more PING-PONG!

Mik, as far as I am concerned, right now you are not deserving of the right to call for evidence. And that's considering our past arguements with each other, the fact you have yet-again made accusations with no evidence in the thread to support them, the fact you have proven you are not reading my posts but just making it up as you go along in hopes people won't notice, and the fact that I warned you that you wouldn't like the reason and yet you still pressed anyway. Almost all of that is just in this thread alone.

Oh, and one final piece of advice: Drop the victim act. Everyone who knows you knows it's pure bullshit. There is no way in Heaven, on Earth, in Hell, or anywhere else you could have posted your first comment without knowing I would respond to it and that an arguement would result. Anyone who reads your post can see it's arguementative, as few people would bother trying to post something about RP having no effect in the way you did without intending to argue.

Mik, DLE, is it possible that you two can have a conversation instead of an argument? This is kind of getting silly.

Actually, no. Mik's pretty much earned this one. If someone tells you you're not going to like what happens if you press and you press anyway, you can't say you weren't warned or that you were entirely ignorant of the comming response.

Now, I asked this earlier and it was missed:

I would assume that is dealing with how to run a nation. Statecraft is, in the general usage I have seen, referring to government, specifically the operations of it.

Actually, no. Mik's pretty much earned this one. If someone tells you you're not going to like what happens if you press and you press anyway, you can't say you weren't warned or that you were entirely ignorant of the comming response.

Yeah, but I'm not sure how bickering back and forth helps either of your cases. You two may have great ideas but all everyone will see is the bickering and dismiss what you have to say. Is that good?

Now, DLE, looking upon what you've said I agree with you wholeheartedly- there *is* a role that RPing plays in the UN, and it's different than in II. More specifically it deals with the argument phase (I think) and the ability to construct a plausible argument without needed OOC references. That needs to be taught too.

I would assume that is dealing with how to run a nation. Statecraft is, in the general usage I have seen, referring to government, specifically the operations of it.

That's what I thought too, though I'm curious what the role entails with regards to the UN.

Mik, DLE, while it seems you two are beginning to wrap things up (I think), I must ask you to continue this conversation/debate/argument/whatever the hell it is elsewhere, preferably privately. This is not a debate topic, and you are clearly preventing those who want actual information about the University from asking about it. I'm not going to intrude in the debate, for fear of getting my own head cut off, but please take it outside.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Department Head of UN Affairs at The Lemurian University
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hersfold.jpg

Yeah, but I'm not sure how bickering back and forth helps either of your cases. You two may have great ideas but all everyone will see is the bickering and dismiss what you have to say. Is that good?

In this case, I really don't care. My topic was for Hersfold and Mik decided to jump in on something that is barely his business, post an arguement against what I was saying without paying that much attention to it, and then pretty much lie and say I started it. That second part annoyed me while the third part is childish.

Now, DLE, looking upon what you've said I agree with you wholeheartedly- there *is* a role that RPing plays in the UN, and it's different than in II. More specifically it deals with the argument phase (I think) and the ability to construct a plausible argument without needed OOC references. That needs to be taught too.

And here's what I said in my first reply to Mik: I don't care about the RP. I'm focusing on technical aspects of a particular portion of dealing with resolution discussions. I even said I was willing to go along with the system for now and he still had to argue. So, yes, I'm willing to pursue this one to the bitter end. And I must apologize to Hersfold for this, but at the same time I'm not going to let up on Mik.

That's what I thought too, though I'm curious what the role entails with regards to the UN.

Simple. You have to deal with how nations run their laws and interpretations of resolutions, while at the same time dealing with them trying to interact with each other. It's pretty much the center of the UN.

Yes.

B: No.


YES!

B: NO!


I'm right.

B: You're wrong.


You're right.

B: I'm wrong... er.

These 'debates' are fantastic. Whatever happened to sentences and paragraphs?

Mik, DLE, while it seems you two are beginning to wrap things up (I think), I must ask you to continue this conversation/debate/argument/whatever the hell it is elsewhere, preferably privately. This is not a debate topic, and you are clearly preventing those who want actual information about the University from asking about it. I'm not going to intrude in the debate, for fear of getting my own head cut off, but please take it outside.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Department Head of UN Affairs at The Lemurian University
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hersfold.jpg

You I don't have any problem with. I just wanted you to consider my arguement and make a final decision based off of what I said. All it required was Mik keeping his mouth shut and minding his own damn business for once and this would have been over after only two posts, one of them being your decision and the other one being my acceptance of it and support of your institution. I had pretty much planned it out before I posted my first post and had figured how you would react. I will now ask the mods for a topic split, so as to divide the arguement over this between Mik and myself out of the main topic.

As for wrapping up: He's getting close to being put on my ignore list for what I consider a form of trolling. Again.

These 'debates' are fantastic. Whatever happened to sentences and paragraphs?

The internet happened. With the pace at which arguements can potentially move, taking the time to write out long paragraphs can have the quote you are responding to up to a dozen or more pages behind the one you posted on. Plus, using those has been known to cause confusion because people are not entirely sure what you're replying to and in some cases the length alone will have people ignore you for being a pompous braggart that isn't deserving of the time it would take them to spit on you, let alone the effort, and many websites enforce this attitude through posting limits in the amount of content you can put in a post. Finally, it allows simplicity, which helps greatly in arguements, and in some cases for a person to carry on up to six different arguements with six different people in the same post.

Yes, I appreciate your point of view and also the paragraph! But I did know the internet happened or I'd have a hard time being here. Surprisingly.

Point is, pages and pages of (QUOTE=A) (/QUOTE) just screams 'two guys fighting' and is about as useful a contribution to the general debate as my last post. Not to mention it usually wouldn't be read, at least not by me. Just a butt-in from an often bored onlooker. And now it's bedtime.

Yes, I appreciate your point of view and also the paragraph! But I did know the internet happened or I'd have a hard time being here. Surprisingly.

Not quite. I've actually met people dumb enough they didn't realize this is the internet. You didn't strike me as the type, but neither did the last one.

Point is, pages and pages of (QUOTE=A) (/QUOTE) just screams 'two guys fighting' and is about as useful a contribution to the general debate as my last post. Not to mention it usually wouldn't be read, at least not by me. Just a butt-in from an often bored onlooker. And now it's bedtime.

It can be very useful, as you can follow the line of thought from post to post by just looking for the quote from the last one. It's pretty much how the majority of debating on NS is conducted.

As for wrapping up: He's getting close to being put on my ignore list for what I consider a form of trolling. Again.


That is a personal attack directed at me.


As for you links, you pointed to two resolutions:

The Great Library
Definition of Marriage

You've yet to describe *how* roleplaying in the course of the resolution debate *changed* the outcome of the vote. Proof isn't just about posting LINKS, but explaining *why* those links are relevant.

Think about this logically. How many *views* does a typical resolution debate have?

1) 1,000
2) 5,000
3) 8,000
4) 10,000

How many votes make up the difference in the two close resolutions?

1) 100
2) 200
3) 500
4) 1,000

Let's just assume that there are 10,000 views of a forum thread (very unlikely) and that the vote is 1,000 votes away from passing or failing (very likely).

Now let's look at those 10,000 views ... how many times has anybody here seen a nation start off debating "in character" (aka roleplaying) a resolution, and then _change_ their vote?

I've seen Great Agnostica do it, but even then he only agreed that the Great Library needed to be revised, not scrapped. I'll even assume that of those 10,000 views that maybe a handful of people do change their mind (granted they ain't going do it during a boring as dirt PING-PONG match). But enough to actually represent 1,000 shifts in votes, and all of those shifts in one direction?

The fact is, very few of the players voting on UN resolutions *visit* the NationStates UN forum and actually read the majority of the posts in a resolution debate. The chances of them actually seeing a roleplayed debate that causes them to _change_ their opinion of a resolution is extremely slim.

The way to get a resolution to pass really lies in focusing the proposal. A good proposal, can pass as a UN resolution with even a very modest debate. Now if you don't like my ballpark numbers, I can go and count out the number of thread views, posts, and unique posts in a debate and then correlate that number with the total votes cast and margin of votes for any resolution. That is statistics and very real.

These 'debates' are fantastic. Whatever happened to sentences and paragraphs?

*clapping*
This style of debate is what I call PING-PONG. And I agree, it is utterly useless.

It is a way of actually avoiding having to present an argument, by simply denying everything said and breaking things up and taking them out of context. No new information or ideas are presented, but it puts whomever you are attacking on the defensive.

Interestingly, in a roleplaying forum like "international incidents" posts tend to make use of a prose / paragraph structure that is more condusive to storytelling and conveying actual information. I honestly respect the way Goober, Fris, and others actually have mastered the art of responding to UN debates in a way consistent with roleplaying. :)

That is a personal attack directed at me.

And it's the truth in my case. I do consider what you are doing a form of trolling. It's managing to flamebait while trying to look civil.

As for you links, you pointed to two resolutions:

The Great Library
Definition of Marriage

You've yet to describe *how* roleplaying in the course of the resolution debate *changed* the outcome of the vote. Proof isn't just about posting LINKS, but explaining *why* those links are relevant.

Read the threads I posted links to. Then use logic. I'm not going to babystep you through this. If from someone else, I might go ahead and explain. But from you, I take it as just a case of you not wanting to read and as part of your continuing pattern in this discussion of only reading what you want and intentionally ignoring the rest.

Think about this logically. How many *views* does a typical resolution debate have?

1) 1,000
2) 5,000
3) 8,000
4) 10,000

How many votes make up the difference in the two close resolutions?

1) 100
2) 200
3) 500
4) 1,000

Let's just assume that there are 10,000 views of a forum thread (very unlikely) and that the vote is 1,000 votes away from passing or failing (very likely).

Now let's look at those 10,000 views ... how many times has anybody here seen a nation start off debating "in character" (aka roleplaying) a resolution, and then _change_ their vote?

I'm still failing to see what this has to do with my original point, as so far this is still your purposeful misinterpretation of my posts and you ignoring almost everything I have posted.

I've seen Great Agnostica do it, but even then he only agreed that the Great Library needed to be revised, not scrapped. I'll even assume that of those 10,000 views that maybe a handful of people do change their mind (granted they ain't going do it during a boring as dirt PING-PONG match). But enough to actually represent 1,000 shifts in votes, and all of those shifts in one direction?

Going along with your fallacious misinterpretation, I would say the vote changing doesn't all have to be in one direction for it to have affected the voting.

The fact is, very few of the players voting on UN resolutions *visit* the NationStates UN forum and actually read the majority of the posts in a resolution debate. The chances of them actually seeing a roleplayed debate that causes them to _change_ their opinion of a resolution is extremely slim.

Once again, a statement without any backing from anything resembling evidence. If you had it, I suspect you would have posted it by now, so I must assume you don't have it.

The way to get a resolution to pass really lies in focusing the proposal. A good proposal, can pass as a UN resolution with even a very modest debate. Now if you don't like my ballpark numbers, I can go and count out the number of thread views, posts, and unique posts in a debate and then correlate that number with the total votes cast and margin of votes for any resolution. That is statistics and very real.

And also a waste of time, as you are not actually dealing with what I have said and instead are making up the arguement as you go along. That is probably why you are not quoting me and trying to argue against the method of arguing I have.

*clapping*
This style of debate is what I call PING-PONG. And I agree, it is utterly useless.

Got proof of that?

It is a way of actually avoiding having to present an argument, by simply denying everything said and breaking things up and taking them out of context. No new information or ideas are presented, but it puts whomever you are attacking on the defensive.

Got proof of that? As I see it, the only one guilty of denying everything said is you, Mik. You have outright ignored my points to argue a topic you started and attributed to me, which is not backed up by any of the evidence presented, and are trying your best to discredit my style of arguing instead of discrediting what I am actually saying. In other words, you are trying to dodge my arguement and thinking it will fly. It won't, so get off your damned high horse and actually deal with what I have said instead of making up an entire arguement.

Interestingly, in a roleplaying forum like "international incidents" posts tend to make use of a prose / paragraph structure that is more condusive to storytelling and conveying actual information. I honestly respect the way Goober, Fris, and others actually have mastered the art of responding to UN debates in a way consistent with roleplaying. :)

And who was it that was just arguing that roleplaying has no affects in discussions? If it doesn't, then why do you respect it so much? I smell hypocrisy.

And it's the truth in my case. I do consider what you are doing a form of trolling. It's managing to flamebait while trying to look civil.

Read the threads I posted links to. Then use logic. I'm not going to babystep you through this. If from someone else, I might go ahead and explain. But from you, I take it as just a case of you not wanting to read and as part of your continuing pattern in this discussion of only reading what you want and intentionally ignoring the rest.



I'm still failing to see what this has to do with my original point, as so far this is still your purposeful misinterpretation of my posts and you ignoring almost everything I have posted.


Going along with your fallacious misinterpretation, I would say the vote changing doesn't all have to be in one direction for it to have affected the voting.



Once again, a statement without any backing from anything resembling evidence. If you had it, I suspect you would have posted it by now, so I must assume you don't have it.



And also a waste of time, as you are not actually dealing with what I have said and instead are making up the arguement as you go along. That is probably why you are not quoting me and trying to argue against the method of arguing I have.



Got proof of that?



Got proof of that? As I see it, the only one guilty of denying everything said is you, Mik. You have outright ignored my points to argue a topic you started and attributed to me, which is not backed up by any of the evidence presented, and are trying your best to discredit my style of arguing instead of discrediting what I am actually saying. In other words, you are trying to dodge my arguement and thinking it will fly. It won't, so get off your damned high horse and actually deal with what I have said instead of making up an entire arguement.



And who was it that was just arguing that roleplaying has no affects in discussions? If it doesn't, then why do you respect it so much? I smell hypocrisy.

Moderators, the following is one example of many more that I will continue to provide of flaming from DemonLordEnigma directed at me. I'm officially asking that you review his posts. He continues to claim that I've not provided information to support my point of view and that by not engaging in his style of attack, but instead by protesting it that I'm trying to avoid his side of the story. I don't see it as such. If you review this entire thread, you'll see that while I've stated my opinion, I've not restorted to the same style of attacks he is using here.

*clapping*
This style of debate is what I call PING-PONG. And I agree, it is utterly useless.


Got proof of that?

Er...Proof that he's clapping?

Seriously, I don't see anything posted here but *clapping*, Mik's personal terminology, and his opinion of the thing described by his terminology. I'm not sure he needs "proof" for any of that...