NationStates Jolt Archive

Something I've figured out in the short time I've been here: the forum is a good place to post a proposal, but don't let the criticism put you down. Yeah, there are a few people who seem to criticize anything and everything posted here. However, 4-5 people do not compose a majority, or even a relevant percentage of the nations on NS, much less the delegates who will be choosing to or not to support the proposals and allow it to be voted upon. The advice I would definitely take from others is which category is correct, grammar error corrections, and if the proposal is a violation of the rules or not. Anything about whether or not people will approve, while sometimes helpful, doesn't mean it will fail.

You shouldn't ignore the input of member states - after all, they might one day provide helpful input. Just like I don't ignore your proposals, simply because you might one day come up with a gem ;)

in seriousness though, don't get put off by peoples comments - I'm sure they don't mean to make you feel like an idiot. And don't get too serious about the whole thing - it is a game after all.

Something I've figured out in the short time I've been here (if anyone can prove me wrong, please do...): the forum is NOT a good place to post a proposal because of the few people who flame everyone who posts anything here. People the likes of The Lynx Alliance and DemonLordEnigma should be ignored and their opinions disregarded, especially since 4-5 people do not compose a majority, or even a relevant percentage of the nations on NS, much less the delegates who will be choosing to or not to support the proposals and allow it to be voted upon. The ONLY advice I would take is which category is correct, grammar error corrections, and if the proposal is a violation of the rules or not. Anything about whether people will approve is complete bull; 4-5 people cannot determine the fate of a resoultion.

I can almost guarantee that the people I have named, among others, will flame me, claim that they're not doing ANYTHING wrong... bull. The only reason that I may NOT get flamed would be to prove me wrong. But I doubt that will happen.

Under your mis-construed definition of flaming, you flamed the Gun Amnesty draft for the same aforementioned reasons.

This place is a good place to discuss and debate proposals. And debate involves presenting alternate views to the proposal itself. This is where compromise can be reached. It's the "my proposal stands, I will not compromise" attitudes which create the bad atmosphere in here.

I've seen DLE support proposals, and I've seen him opposed to them. Such happens, as people have differing views on what SHOULD and what SHOULD NOT be done.

Debate is not flaming. And attacking a proposal draft for ideological problems is not flame.

The proper response to ideological conflicts, is to seek compromise. You should never dis-regard another merely because of ideological conflict (DLE and I are opposed in some cases for example, and in other supportive), the idea is to review your own position in relation to the others, and find out where possible compromise can be layed (such is the duty of the diplomat). It's not the oppositions duty to "compromise" at the behest of the proponent. Both sides must compromise, and the initial compromise must come from the proponents and drafters.

The problem with most of the NSUN debate in here. Is proponents do not want compromise, or view "compromise" as the opponents bowing to their complete agenda. I've seen proposals that DLE would have easily supported had the drafter offered compromise on but one single facet. And the same with CRoT.

I'll take the present "Open Skies" resolution for example. No compromise has been offered. And while the proposal itself is not damaging to either DLE or myself, we have offered problems presented by the present resolution. Of course, the problems are discounted, since the writer presently has no intention of altering his "ideology" even when problems are self-evident. If the writer was taking his own position seriously, he would seek ways to close these problems while still acheiving even partial goals to his ideological perspective. Thus provide compromise where he garners support from previous opponents to his proposal.

Again, the "Peace Prize", were the author to have removed the "demobilzation" part, I would be moving my position from "no-consequence" to "in favor"...

I must voice my support of DLE's activities. The work on the proposal I have adopted, Rights for all Intelligences, has been greatly aided by DLE's input. However I do agree that the opinions of 4-5 member nations is not particularly meaningful as an indicator of the overall opinion of the UN. But that doesn not mean that the insight of even a single nation is useless.

I must voice my support of DLE's activities. The work on the proposal I have adopted, Rights for all Intelligences, has been greatly aided by DLE's input. However I do agree that the opinions of 4-5 member nations is not particularly meaningful as an indicator of the overall opinion of the UN. But that doesn not mean that the insight of even a single nation is useless.

I don't think it's the fault of those 4-5 nations that they are the only ones who chose to provide input - it is a failing of other member states that they do not invest the effort into this forum - I think everyone would appreciate more involvement from others.

Yes... I think it would be great to have more involvement.

We all wonder where all those yes and no votes come from. There are certainly many more ""votes" than involvement in discussion...

As long as it is not the "OMFG1111 Eye n00k you11111" involvement.

And I have yet to understand the Anti-UN'ers who join the UN to vote against all proposals. Do these people think the NSUN is mandatory?

This forum i have found immensely helpful in tweaking a proposal, especially if its your first. While some nations will invariably POO POOH your proposal there are many others who will give valuable advice and suggestion.

Regardless of this, two criteria will see a proposal move toward resolution.

1, Tweaking here to make it appear more acceptable to the Majority of members and keeping it within the guidelines of the UN.

2, How Many regional delegates you can manage to telegram to give your proposal support.

OOC. I personally telegrammed 600 + delegates to get the UNWODC to reach quorum, and that was on the third attempt and after a month of very long nights. May i give the same advice i was given after i threw a hissyfit when it failed 2nd time around? Its simply, dont give up.

Myxx, you do know your post can be construed as a form of trolling, right?

If you wish to see examples of the opposite, check the UN Peace Prize topic. The DLE posts there are mostly opposed to it for not seeing a need for it. Also, you should know that I often use examples to illustrate my points, such as I did in your last proposal.

Yes, I oppose a lot of proposals. But that's because I do not feel a lot of them are worthy of the UN's time, that they have topics done to death, or that they are too fundementally flawed to simply allow to go to vote. If you think that my opposing you is a form of flaming, you really need to examine your definitions carefully. Calling you an idiot is flaming, while calling your porposal idiotic and then showing how I came to that conclusion is not.

you're right... once again, i'm flying off the handle... over something unimportant... just ignore me... i get pretty emotional sometimes...

DLE, Lynx: sorry for singling you out... suppose I'm just in a pissy mood... I ask your forgiveness... because i feel like a jackass... again... :headbang:

Myxx, you do know your post can be construed as a form of trolling, right?

If you wish to see examples of the opposite, check the UN Peace Prize topic. The DLE posts there are mostly opposed to it for not seeing a need for it. Also, you should know that I often use examples to illustrate my points, such as I did in your last proposal.

Yes, I oppose a lot of proposals. But that's because I do not feel a lot of them are worthy of the UN's time, that they have topics done to death, or that they are too fundementally flawed to simply allow to go to vote. If you think that my opposing you is a form of flaming, you really need to examine your definitions carefully. Calling you an idiot is flaming, while calling your porposal idiotic and then showing how I came to that conclusion is not.

For one thing, DLE doesn't always give his conclusions very well. And if one asks for clarification (or misunderstands and doesn't ask), the most common response, it seems, is "read my previous posts".

I see where Myxx comes from: I rarely read positive remarks from DLE; often, when someone disagrees with his posts, DLE resorts to personal attacks; and DLE has more than once been arbitrarily condescending.

Constructive criticism and grumpiness are not the same.

Oh, and puppet-wanking is still dumb...

i've changed my message... hopefully a little less harsh (and not specific)...

Yes, I oppose a lot of proposals. But that's because I do not feel a lot of them are worthy of the UN's time, that they have topics done to death, or that they are too fundementally flawed to simply allow to go to vote.Well, if a topic is done to death, wouldn't that imply that there is a significant number of people who think it's a good idea?

Myxx, no need to apologize. Hell, I've been accused of worse. How do you think I got the title of Demon Lord? It's based off of my real-life nickname.

The one thing you need to remember is this is pretty much impersonal. I deal with at least two dozen proposals a day, both in here and at my job. I critique way too many for it to be a case of emotions. And if you think your proposals are treated badly, keep in mind I have rejected every last one of my own ideas and had only one that survived long enough to reach draft form before my own critique of problems in it killed it.

Don't take what I say personally. It's just me critiquing another resolution and, to be honest, I never claim to be perfect. Hell, I've opposed resolutions that have passed and supported a couple that never made it to vote. And I've even been the source of a problem in a resolution (take a look at the Global Library resolution and remember it was my comments about holograms in part of a critique that led to the author taking them entirely the wrong way and including the wristbands).

I had a recent thread where I opposed the intend and direction of the author, and pushed for a change of direction.

The final response I get from the drafter is "I do not want a debate".

And since I questioned his purpose then, of preparing legislation, if he didn't want any debate on it, why he was even involved.

The presentation of holding an opinion to death, even when other alternatives are available to reach the same goal. Is ridiculous.

For one thing, DLE doesn't always give his conclusions very well. And if one asks for clarification (or misunderstands and doesn't ask), the most common response, it seems, is "read my previous posts".

PC, I've had a very long day, so you'll have to excuse me for this: Please provide the context from which you are getting that part. I do not remember ever being asked for a clarification that resulted in me telling them to read previous posts without it having been stated clearly in a previous post.

I see where Myxx comes from: I rarely read positive remarks from DLE; often, when someone disagrees with his posts, DLE resorts to personal attacks; and DLE has more than once been arbitrarily condescending.

Condescencion I have no problems with. If you feel like being it to me, so what? And if you'll notice, I've been making it a point to tone down most of my posts. Certain exceptions exist, of course.

Constructive criticism and grumpiness are not the same.

No, but nothing says you cannot have both at the same time.

Oh, and puppet-wanking is still dumb...

Who's puppet-wanking? It says in my factbook that this is one of my alts. You can go there and read it at any time. I'm only using this account more often due to not wanting to deal with proposals at the moment.

For one thing, DLE doesn't always give his conclusions very well. And if one asks for clarification (or misunderstands and doesn't ask), the most common response, it seems, is "read my previous posts".PC, I've had a very long day, so you'll have to excuse me for this: Please provide the context from which you are getting that part.

Okay, here are some reasons I say "DLE doesn't always give his conclusions very well."



I am considering submitting this resolution to the UN. Please tell me what you think. It is to repeal the UN Resolution '40 Hour Workweek':



The title alone will lose you a majority vote. But you can't do anything about that.

The reasoning behind the conclusion is not explained at all. If I were Te Empire of Cuba, I'd be inclined to believe that DLE has some sort of evidence to back that up, which he does not. If DLE's post were to be helpful, it's need to explain why the title is wrong, and why exactly has concluded that. Otherwise opinions should be qualified as opinions. Though even an opinion expressed should be better explained than this.

I'm going to abuse this now.

Any citizen from a nation that is not an allie of my own or a friend of my own is guilty of murder. Please report to my nation for prompt execution.

This conclusion is unhelpful because there's no explaination as to what part of the proposal this would be abusing and what could be done to end that opportunity for abuse. It may be a true point for abuse, it may not--but in its current form this isn't helpful to the proposal writer. It sends him or her on a wild goose chase which DLE may not even be correct in. It is easily worthy of the tag "a conclusion not explained well".

Some conclusions supplied in "School of DLE/Mik Arguments opens in UN":


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.


This conclusion is not well supported. Apparently, Mik believes DLE is talking about roleplaying, while DLE believes he is not. If DLE wants to show how he isn't talking about RP, he should show what he means instead of roleplaying, and how this "technical aspect of dealing with" proposals is differing from what Mik thinks he's saying. Instead, he just keeps going. This is not helpful, just DLE inciting anger. If Mik really is missing the entire point of DLE's post, and DLE so surely knows it, then shouldn't DLE explain what he means better? He's very certain Mik is missing the point, why doesn't DLE state himself more clearly?

If this were a proposal, it wouldn't help the proposal writer in any way.

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.

-snip-


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.

All of these include a label and a short explanation of how DLE thinks this label fits. It isn't clear exactly what part of the preceding paragraph the labels apply to or why we should agree with DLE in this. It amounts to little more than a form of name-calling.

Later...



[quote=Mikitivity]
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.

-snip-

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


Got proof of that?


The first example here is just an assertion that DLE's side is "the truth", which, since DLE says so, we must all agree with.

The second example is just nonsensical. Mik's post is an opinion and DLE asks for "proof". Hm...

Granted These Mik/DLE examples are not in regard to a proposal, but they're of the same stuff that DLE uses in proposals as shown here:

Description: UN Resolution #46: Legalize prostitution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Not going to pass. I'll bet the souls of four young nations on it.

DLE never explains Why it won't pass. Just that it won't an he's certain. (ironically it does pass).


REPEALS “Legalize Prostitution”, implemented February 2 2004;

Not likely to happen.

Again: No explanation. No help.


Before you lecture me about whether or not my proposals will reach quorum, try to gain some meaningful credentials.

Two words: Religious Tolerance.

No explanation as to the significance of Religious Tolerance. Cryptic answers are as bad or worse than no answers.

The point through all of this is the DLE has a history of being unhelpful when it comes to proposal authors. I don't mean that he cannot be helpful. I mean that he often is more detrimental to a proposal's development than he is helpful. This is because he often just posts his conclusions, personal opinions about proposals without explanation, leaving proposal authors, especially new-to-the-forum proposal authors unsure of what to do, and how much DLE's conclusions depict reality.


Constructive criticism and grumpiness are not the same.


No, but nothing says you cannot have both at the same time.

To make a conclusion about one's proposal without explaining why that conclusion came about is not "constructive". In the types of posts which mirror the examples I've brought up, there is in no way constructive criticism.

All I'm saying is that it is very easy for a new proposal author to become discouraged when DLE says his proposal's "worthless", "illegal", "open to abuse" and the like without some explanation on the matter. I see where Myxx is coming from.

Okay, here are some reasons I say "DLE doesn't always give his conclusions very well."

This should be good.

The reasoning behind the conclusion is not explained at all. If I were Te Empire of Cuba, I'd be inclined to believe that DLE has some sort of evidence to back that up, which he does not. If DLE's post were to be helpful, it's need to explain why the title is wrong, and why exactly has concluded that. Otherwise opinions should be qualified as opinions. Though even an opinion expressed should be better explained than this.

I have yet to check the thread. If he asks, I'll explain.

This conclusion is unhelpful because there's no explaination as to what part of the proposal this would be abusing and what could be done to end that opportunity for abuse. It may be a true point for abuse, it may not--but in its current form this isn't helpful to the proposal writer. It sends him or her on a wild goose chase which DLE may not even be correct in. It is easily worthy of the tag "a conclusion not explained well".

Amazingly, you're the only one who didn't figure it out. The author himself not only figured it out but managed to fix the problem, and that was after he pointed out the legality of my statement and forced me to correct my example.

Some conclusions supplied in "School of DLE/Mik Arguments opens in UN":


This conclusion is not well supported. Apparently, Mik believes DLE is talking about roleplaying, while DLE believes he is not. If DLE wants to show how he isn't talking about RP, he should show what he means instead of roleplaying, and how this "technical aspect of dealing with" proposals is differing from what Mik thinks he's saying. Instead, he just keeps going. This is not helpful, just DLE inciting anger. If Mik really is missing the entire point of DLE's post, and DLE so surely knows it, then shouldn't DLE explain what he means better? He's very certain Mik is missing the point, why doesn't DLE state himself more clearly?

If this were a proposal, it wouldn't help the proposal writer in any way.

PC, that is a topic the mods have dealt with. I would advise dropping this one, as it can only get you into trouble. I had hoped you would take the hint when I didn't bother to reply to the topic or at least would have bothered to read Mik's last post and check the moderation forum.

All of these include a label and a short explanation of how DLE thinks this label fits. It isn't clear exactly what part of the preceding paragraph the labels apply to or why we should agree with DLE in this. It amounts to little more than a form of name-calling.

Later...



The first example here is just an assertion that DLE's side is "the truth", which, since DLE says so, we must all agree with.

The second example is just nonsensical. Mik's post is an opinion and DLE asks for "proof". Hm...

And, PC, you might want to see what I said above. Continuing to bring it up is not adviseable.

These Mik/DLE examples are not in regard to a proposal, but they're of the same stuff that DLE uses in proposals as shown here:



DLE never explains Why it won't pass. Just that it won't an he's certain. (ironically it does pass).

Ironically, PC not only failed to tell anyone where it is, but he posted just a small portion of the post. PC, since you seem to be so big on the evidence comments, why don't you provide some? And, anyone who reads this thread would know I've already know I've posted I'm sometimes wrong.

Oh, and for those of you who want to read the actual post, go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7853799&postcount=4). Unlike PC, I'm actually willing to provide you links so you can read it for yourselves. And, note

Again: No explanation. No help.

Again, a lack of a link and just a claim. What was it you said about me earlier?

All of these include a label and a short explanation of how DLE thinks this label fits. It isn't clear exactly what part of the preceding paragraph the labels apply to or why we should agree with DLE in this. It amounts to little more than a form of name-calling.

and

The first example here is just an assertion that DLE's side is "the truth", which, since DLE says so, we must all agree with.

And yet, you are pulling the exact same thing here. You are posting random portions of posts without providing links and telling people to trust you just because you say so. That's a little something we call hypocrisy.

Oh, the link to the post is above. Read it and realize that PC is making it a point to take each quote out of context for his post. Finally, if you want to read a continuation of the arguement, go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7855562&postcount=13)

No explanation as to the significance of Religious Tolerance. Cryptic answers are as bad or worse than no answers.

1) Anyone familiar with passed and failed resolutions immediately recognizes the name.

2) Once again, you failed to provide evidence.

3) Considering all of this is your topic on a repeal that passed long ago, I have to wonder how much of this is legitimate and how much is pettiness.

The link for those of you interested is here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7859655&postcount=24)

For anyone interested in the topic itself, it's here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386527&page=1&pp=15).

The point through all of this is the DLE has a history of being unhelpful when it comes to proposal authors. I don't mean that he cannot be helpful. I mean that he often is more detrimental to a proposal's development than he is helpful. This is because he often just posts his conclusions, personal opinions about proposals without explanation, leaving proposal authors, especially new-to-the-forum proposal authors unsure of what to do, and how much DLE's conclusions depict reality.

Tell me this, PC: What proof have you provided? In order to get the majority of your evidence, you had to take from an arguement that started on a topic not even about a resolution involving two people who have a history of hating each other and then had to butcher posts without providing links that came from a topic early in the year. And of the remaining evidence, one case is just part of a post and the other actually helped the author out by pointing out a weakness. So, tell me what proof you really have? As it is, this won't cut it.

And, as it is you are doing exactly what you have accused me of.

To make a conclusion about one's proposal without explaining why that conclusion came about is not "constructive". In the types of posts which mirror the examples I've brought up, there is in no way constructive criticism.

You mention posts, but can't provide links. I wonder which of us that makes look bad?

All I'm saying is that it is very easy for a new proposal author to become discouraged when DLE says his proposal's "worthless", "illegal", "open to abuse" and the like without some explanation on the matter. I see where Myxx is coming from.

The worthless comments come at the end of proposals that are mostly just the already passed resolutions, the illegal comments are easily verified by checking the rules and I'll sometimes be nice and direct you to a portion, and being open to abuse is a case where I can easily find a way to abuse it without really trying and which I am willing to prove (these days, I like to provide examples).

PC, if you wish to continue your accusations, have some actual evidence to back you up.

Amazingly, you're the only one who didn't figure it out. The author himself not only figured it out but managed to fix the problem, and that was after he pointed out the legality of my statement and forced me to correct my example.

Perhaps he did figure it out, but this is pattern of behavior is not helpful to most proposal writers--writers who have little experience and are likely reluctant to even come to the forums. Regardless of the outcome, it still is a case when I feel DLE did not present his conclusions adequately.



PC, that is a topic the mods have dealt with. I would advise dropping this one, as it can only get you into trouble. I had hoped you would take the hint when I didn't bother to reply to the topic or at least would have bothered to read Mik's last post and check the moderation forum.

And, PC, you might want to see what I said above. Continuing to bring it up is not adviseable.

I have read the moderation thread. I found no ruling except that DLE and Mik might want to stop talking to each other, in order to avoid any flame/flamebait in the future. The ruling (or lack thereof) is not addressed to me, however. I see no reason that bringing up DLE's repeated personal attacks (which I feel are unsubstantiated) would be "not advisable".

Ironically, PC not only failed to tell anyone where it is, but he posted just a small portion of the post. PC, since you seem to be so big on the evidence comments, why don't you provide some? And, anyone who reads this thread would know I've already know I've posted I'm sometimes wrong.

But DLE has come out with predictions like these repeatedly. Where they come from is anyone's guess, though DLE seems to act as though they are some sort of supreme authority.

Oh, and for those of you who want to read the actual post, go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7853799&postcount=4). Unlike PC, I'm actually willing to provide you links so you can read it for yourselves.

I hope DLE does not think attempts to patronize me are in any way convincing me that he's is always helpful. On the contrary, if DLE were to become defensive or childish here, it'd only increase the drought of personal positive evaluations I have for his comments.

And, as DLE might say: if asked, I would have provided links.

Tell me this, PC: What proof have you provided? In order to get the majority of your evidence, you had to take from an arguement that started on a topic not even about a resolution involving two people who have a history of hating each other and then had to butcher posts without providing links that came from a topic early in the year. And of the remaining evidence, one case is just part of a post and the other actually helped the author out by pointing out a weakness. So, tell me what proof you really have? As it is, this won't cut it.

It's not for you to decide if my list of examples "cuts it", as it isn't about whether you think DLE's helpful or not. I'm not expecting you, Tiamat, a DLE puppet, to be convinced of DLE's lack of helpfulness, as I am. I'm simply explaining some of the past incidents which incline me to feel the way I do--as you asked. Were I DLE, I might accuse you of "missing my point entirely" and might commence in a large-scale personal attack or at least a snide or petty counter-retort. However, I'm not. And accusations that my examples are "insufficient" (which is for me to decide, since it is me that it has been convinced) won't be addressed.

you're right... once again, i'm flying off the handle... over something unimportant... just ignore me... i get pretty emotional sometimes...

DLE, Lynx: sorry for singling you out... suppose I'm just in a pissy mood... I ask your forgiveness... because i feel like a jackass... again... :headbang:
we accept your appology. we only try to help people with proposals. if we are against it, we will point that out. if it is a topic that has come up for the umpteenth time, we will point that out to. if it is something that we like, but there are certain parts, we will point those out an try to help rectify them. sometimes people will come in with a brilliant idea, and they wont have done the research to see if it has already come up, if failed why, and who it will affect. when we first came on, back under the independent Resistancia, we submitted a ban on tobbacco proposal, that immediatly got shot down in here. we thought it was good, but others did not. and it happens a lot with n00bs that think they can make a change (again, we were n00bs at the time). which i admit, is a pitty, because it can kind of ruin the UN experience for them. but then again, DLE, TLA, YGSM, Vasitiva, Fibbleites, Krioval, PC (main ones we see popping up, someone let me know if i have missed ones) are only human, and in being such, after dealing with proposals that have come up again and again, and coming across another, or one that we dont like, you cant exactly blame us sometimes for our reaction.

Perhaps he did figure it out, but this is pattern of behavior is not helpful to most proposal writers--writers who have little experience and are likely reluctant to even come to the forums. Regardless of the outcome, it still is a case when I feel DLE did not present his conclusions adequately.

Part of a pattern of behavior that got the rules of the TPP revised (though, utilized by someone else), helped revise the proposal you were talking about, showed defects in a trade proposal that later got abandoned, helped revise the attempts to establish a Global Library on both occasions, has been used recently by Tekania to help fix a problem with a proposal about airspace, and was utilized for the current attempts at extending human rights to nonhumans. Also, those tactics are utilized by not one member, but at least six, and the tactic is often used in just about every arguement at least once to help illustrate a point. It's called "making a point by providing an example" and has been an established and accepted part of arguing since before either of us was born.

In that case, if the author had not figured it out I would, as I did for NeoCon, point out which section I am talking about.

I have read the moderation thread. I found no ruling except that DLE and Mik might want to stop talking to each other, in order to avoid any flame/flamebait in the future. The ruling (or lack thereof) is not addressed to me, however. I see no reason that bringing up DLE's repeated personal attacks (which I feel are unsubstantiated) would be "not advisable".

It's not adviseable because it is potentially instigating a restart of the same arguement by attempting to drag one of the people involved into a discussion of said arguement.

But DLE has come out with predictions like these repeatedly. Where they come from is anyone's guess, though DLE seems to act as though they are some sort of supreme authority.

And you do not act like some supreme authority? You complain about personal attacks, and yet here you are making them. Tell me how that is not hypocrisy.

As for the predictions: They are based on observation, particularly paying attention to voting and support patterns of the UN.

I hope DLE does not think attempts to patronize me are in any way convincing me that he's is always helpful. On the contrary, if DLE were to become defensive or childish here, it'd only increase the drought of personal positive evaluations I have for his comments.

Ya know, I find it odd some people don't quite get that puppet of = same person as. Part of why I make it so obvious who my puppets are, including going as far as to make a topic to let people know when I'm not the one using it.

So, in other words, defending myself = providing evidence for your arguements? That doesn't fly, as in this case you are effectively saying that any attempts to defend myself against your statements are simply going to be ignored and editted in some way to be added back into your posts in some way as evidence of what they're not.

And, as DLE might say: if asked, I would have provided links.

You've known for quite awhile I want links to accusations. Nettiquette specifies that if you are going to post a quote of something someone posted online, you also post a link to where you got it from. Otherwise, issues of plagiarism and context come up.

It's not for you to decide if my list of examples "cuts it", as it isn't about whether you think DLE's helpful or not. I'm not expecting you, Tiamat, a DLE puppet, to be convinced of DLE's lack of helpfulness, as I am. I'm simply explaining some of the past incidents which incline me to feel the way I do--as you asked. Were I DLE, I might accuse you of "missing my point entirely" and might commence in a large-scale personal attack or at least a snide or petty counter-retort.

And you don't call bringing up posts from a topic long dead, seriously editting them to fit your point of view, and then not providing links to where you got them from petty, especially when you were the target of the quotes?

Actually, unlike you I would have posted links to those posts so people could read them for themselves. That way, they can get an idea of what was said, the context it was said in, and know that I am not maliciously changing what was said to fit into a viewpoint which they don't support.

However, I'm not. And accusations that my examples are "insufficient" (which is for me to decide, since it is me that it has been convinced) won't be addressed.

Actually, PC, that's completely false. You posted your post as though it is the truth and as though you were trying to convince others you are right. The burden of proof for these claims lies on your shoulders as by all appearances you are trying to convince the reader of what you are saying. If you weren't, a simple statement of "I'm just presenting my viewpoint" or using telegrams would have worked. That's part of why I TGed you over one particular issue.

If you hadn't intended to sound as though you were trying to convince others, there are plenty of ways to do it.

Part of a pattern of behavior that got the rules of the TPP revised (though, utilized by someone else), helped revise the proposal you were talking about, showed defects in a trade proposal that later got abandoned, helped revise the attempts to establish a Global Library on both occasions, has been used recently by Tekania to help fix a problem with a proposal about airspace, and was utilized for the current attempts at extending human rights to nonhumans. Also, those tactics are utilized by not one member, but at least six, and the tactic is often used in just about every arguement at least once to help illustrate a point. It's called "making a point by providing an example" and has been an established and accepted part of arguing since before either of us was born.

As many good things as it may have done, I feel as though this pattern of behavior has also turned away many potential-filled proposal authors. Rough treatment may be an adequate means to reach an end with some. But this pattern seems to be applied indiscriminately. Some people don't respond well to attack-like responses. That's a fact that's been established and accepted for a long time, too.

There's also no certainty that this “pattern of behavior” is the only way to effect said positive changes or that it is in any way superior to other methods.


And you do not act like some supreme authority? You complain about personal attacks, and yet here you are making them. Tell me how that is not hypocrisy.

As for the predictions: They are based on observation, particularly paying attention to voting and support patterns of the UN.

No, I don't act like a supreme authority. I--most of the time--qualify my observations and opinions. Perhaps I've forgotten to qualify my statements a few times. But that's very different from systematic assertions of fact.

And before you throw around "hypocrisy", you might want to make sure the pot isn't the same color as the kettle.

Ya know, I find it odd some people don't quite get that puppet of = same person as. Part of why I make it so obvious who my puppets are, including going as far as to make a topic to let people know when I'm not the one using it.

I do (and did) know that Tiamat is your puppet. However, it's bad form to carry on discussions through puppets--even disclosing their owners. I decided to reference DLE in third-person because I was not responding to that nation.

Besides that, many believe in a partition between, sometimes called duality, between the OOC person and nations. I wasn't about to make an arbitrary assumption on whether you liked to be known as the person or the nation, so I didn't.

You've known for quite awhile I want links to accusations. Nettiquette specifies that if you are going to post a quote of something someone posted online, you also post a link to where you got it from. Otherwise, issues of plagiarism and context come up.

You cannot--I repeat--cannot dictate what I do and do not know. You can make logical guesses of what I probably know, but in no way can you definitively state that I've "known for quite a while" your desires as far as evidence. Even then I don’t believe there’s any reason to presume I should have known about any link preference. In this case, I have no recollection of a time when you've insisted people provide links. I cannot remember a time you've raised a stink about netiquette or plagiarism before. As I didn't remember any specific sensitivity of yours to such a matter, it wasn't exactly my primary concern--especially since it was just a listing of, and I do quote, "some reasons I say 'DLE doesn't always give his conclusions very well.'" (here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8631134#post8631134) a link to the thread).

And you don't call bringing up posts from a topic long dead, seriously editing them to fit your point of view, and then not providing links to where you got them from petty, especially when you were the target of the quotes?

I didn't edit anything you or I or Mik or others wrote. To the best of my knowledge, all text was quoted as it was typed. Omitted were portions I felt to be irrelevant. It was a long post; I didn't want it to become longer with unrelated sections of quotation. Perhaps it was oversight by me not to include links or to forget to type in the thread titles of the last couple of quotes, but it was nothing malicious. If you had just asked, I would've quite willingly clarified.

Actually, PC, that's completely false. You posted your post as though it is the truth and as though you were trying to convince others you are right.

Perhaps you read it that way. I didn't intend it to be a post "trying to convince others" that I was right. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.

The burden of proof for these claims lies on your shoulders…

I definitely don‘t want a lecture on “burden of proof” from DLE.

As many good things as it may have done, I feel as though this pattern of behavior has also turned away many potential-filled proposal authors. Rough treatment may be an adequate means to reach an end with some. But this pattern seems to be applied indiscriminately. Some people don't respond well to attack-like responses. That's a fact that's been established and accepted for a long time, too.

And some people don't respond well it you don't just automatically support their proposal. But that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically support every proposal out of fear of chasing someone off.

]There's also no certainty that this “pattern of behavior” is the only way to effect said positive changes or that it is in any way superior to other methods.

Nor did I claim it to be.

No, I don't act like a supreme authority. I--most of the time--qualify my observations and opinions. Perhaps I've forgotten to qualify my statements a few times. But that's very different from systematic assertions of fact.

Strange to hear that comming from you, as systematic assertions of fact are pretty much what you have done. You failed to provide the links to the posts your quotes came from, which I did so that people can read them, and basically asked everyone to trust that you weren't just making the quotes up on the spot.

And before you throw around "hypocrisy", you might want to make sure you the pot isn't the same color as the kettle.

The kettle's blue and the pot's red. Unless you have proof -with links- otherwise.

Oh, and I generally level the charge at people who act as though they are innocent of doing something while in the commission of the very same thing they have accused the other person of doing.

I do (and did) know that Tiamat is your puppet. However, it's bad form to carry on discussions through puppets--even disclosing their owners. I decided to reference DLE in third-person because I was not responding to that nation.

It's also well known that the only difference between any of the DLE Empire nations is merely a separate NS entry and the occasional reference to a past RP. And as long as you make it known who you are, it's not bad form.

Besides that, many believe in a partition between, sometimes called duality, between the OOC person and nations. I wasn't about to make an arbitrary assumption on whether you liked to be known as the person or the nation, so I didn't.

I thought I had made it well-established that they are effectively that unless I post it as OOC it's IC. Whether comming from Tiamat Taveril, DLE, or Apsu Lilith, it's still the DemonLordEnigma Empire.

You cannot--I repeat--cannot dictate what I do and do not know. You can make logical guesses of what I probably know, but in no way can you definitively state that I've "known for quite a while" your desires as far as evidence.

As many times as I have stated it on this forum, to Mik and several others, the only way you cannot know is to be a newb, to have forgotten it, to have not paid attention (not an accepted excuse), or to be willfully ignoring past posts.

Even then I don’t believe there’s any reason to presume I should have known about any link preference. In this case, I have no recollection of a time when you've insisted people provide links. I cannot remember a time you've raised a stink about netiquette or plagiarism before.

I generally don't raise that much of a stink about nettiquette. But, considering your posting of certain quotes from a recent topic, I cannot accept this excuse.

As I didn't remember any specific sensitivity of yours to such a matter, it wasn't exactly my primary concern--especially since it was just a listing of, and I do quote, "some reasons I say 'DLE doesn't always give his conclusions very well.'" (here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8631134#post8631134) a link to the thread).

Linking to the thread we are in isn't necessary, especially when it takes me to my post. Try linking to the Tiamat Taveril post instead.

I didn't edit anything you or I or Mik or others wrote. To the best of my knowledge, all text was quoted as it was typed. Omitted were portions I felt to be irrelevant. It was a long post; I didn't want it to become longer with unrelated sections of quotation. Perhaps it was oversight by me not to include links or to forget to type in the thread titles of the last couple of quotes, but it was nothing malicious. If you had just asked, I would've quite willingly clarified.

PC, omitting is a form of editting. Part of editting includes removing the portions you feel irrelevant to the topic at hand or to the work itself. Movies often omit certain scenes simply because the editors feel they have no relevance or should be removed.

Besides, it was your repeal topic that you did the most grievous editting on.

Perhaps you read it that way. I didn't intend it to be a post "trying to convince others" that I was right. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.

PC, I have to call bullshit on this one. You're too experienced of an arguer to make such a newbie mistake. I've argued with you before and found you too knowledgeable to be able to not know the effect a post would have with a certain presentation. And I've already posted a link to the main topic we argued on before this.

And, yes, I am aware of the effect my posts have in most cases. There are rare cases when I'm surprised because of that awareness.

I definitely don‘t want a lecture on “burden of proof” from DLE.

Let's just say I had some fun playing around with the burden recently and know more about it than I should. Keep in mind I've managed to actually provide links to items in my posts that are not this topic while you haven't so far.

Now, just to add to the fun, let me point out that you are not known for being the most honest of arguers as well. In fact, on one thread you admitted the only reason you were arguing was to keep the thread up at the top and people able to see it. You're quote was:

I haven't. First of all, argument on the forum has little to do with the passage of a proposal (as you and Vastiva seem to have trouble understanding). The main reasons I keep posting here are to keep the thread up and to keep the contact information updated. I'm not interested in winning your support. But there are plenty of other delegates out there. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll come to grips with your powerlessness in the UN.

From here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7858982&postcount=22).

The arguement in question is better read in its entirety in the thread itself, to which a link already exists.

Anyone can tell you that continuing an arguement just for the sake of people being able to see the thread is far, far from honest. I'll admit to a bit of dishonesty myself, such as my famous proposal draft to ban the use of FT weapons capable of destroying planets as a way to sneak an anti-nuke resolution through the UN, but in this case I'm enjoying how you're doing exactly what you are accusing me of having done.

Quote:
I do (and did) know that Tiamat is your puppet. However, it's bad form to carry on discussions through puppets--even disclosing their owners. I decided to reference DLE in third-person because I was not responding to that nation.



It's also well known that the only difference between any of the DLE Empire nations is merely a separate NS entry and the occasional reference to a past RP. And as long as you make it known who you are, it's not bad form.

i actually queried a mod on this one time, because the nation he was using in the UN discussion wasnt his UN nation. their reply, and i agreed to it, was that he didnt want to change from his mod axs to his UN nation axs, as it was only a puppet. and i agree here. we all know tiamat is a puppet and that DLE mainly talks through DLE, and it isnt like he is using it to puppet wank either, using Tiamat to give the image of outside support, because they openly state that it is a puppet. if there wasnt this transparency, if it was someone doing this without aknowledging they were talking through a puppet, then it would be different.

Strange to hear that comming from you, as systematic assertions of fact are pretty much what you have done. You failed to provide the links to the posts your quotes came from, which I did so that people can read them, and basically asked everyone to trust that you weren't just making the quotes up on the spot.

I've made no systematic assertions. I try to be objective and to keep opinions qualified as opinions. Even when I do forget to do this, it's not "systematic" as I obviously didn't plan for it, thus there’s no system involved.

Drop the links complaint: you're wrong on this. The only problem with my references was that I forgot to include the title of the thread on the last quote or two. I was more than willing to correct my mistake afterwards (had it been pointed out to me). The Titles of the threads I quoted were enough for anyone interested to look up the quotes. It isn't really required for me to post links to my quotes in the first place.

How am I supposed to know what you (or any other viewers) expect when referencing quotes? Not everyone on these forums watches you closely and knows your bent-out-of-shaped-ness without links—which I’m sure are an unnecessary convenience. Second, you've posted the links to my quoted threads, anyway. Why would I post them now (to correct my "mistake")? It'd be a waste of my time as well as everyone else’s.

Oh, and I generally level the charge at people who act as though they are innocent of doing something while in the commission of the very same thing they have accused the other person of doing.

Yes, that would, uh, be the definition of hypocrisy. And I say that you shouldn't level it in this case because a) it doesn't apply (my "personal attacks" referenced you, but I'm pretty sure I phrased most of those references to make them strictly a statement of my perception of things—which, of course, are accurate). And b) because you aren't cleared of hypocrisy yourself.

It's also well known that the only difference between any of the DLE Empire nations is merely a separate NS entry and the occasional reference to a past RP. And as long as you make it known who you are, it's not bad form.


What is your definition of "well-known"?

Well known or not, it's still bad form in my opinion, because it creates the appearance of deception, and can be easily confusing to those not “in the know”. Plus, like I said, it's not fair to put the pressure of guessing your stance on duality on the person responding to your puppets.

As many times as I have stated it on this forum, to Mik and several others, the only way you cannot know is to be a newb, to have forgotten it, to have not paid attention (not an accepted excuse), or to be willfully ignoring past posts.

That's bull. It's hardly my responsibility to track down your posts and analyze your preferences in reference gathering. Just like burden of proof, the burden of explaining your preferences is on you. One can't get mad at delegates who don't go out of their way to approve one’s proposal, Likewise one can't get mad at me for not being as aware of one’s posting preferences as one, obviously, is.

Perhaps you read it that way. I didn't intend it to be a post "trying to convince others" that I was right. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. PC, I have to call bullshit on this one. You're too experienced of an arguer to make such a newbie mistake. I've argued with you before and found you too knowledgeable to be able to not know the effect a post would have with a certain presentation. And I've already posted a link to the main topic we argued on before this.

I'm pretty sure I’m not responsible if you misinterpreted my post, especially if you didn’t ask for clarification. My experience as an arguer, proposer, etc. is pretty irrelevant in this case. I'm not responsible for your misconceptions.

Let's just say I had some fun playing around with the burden recently and know more about it than I should. Keep in mind I've managed to actually provide links to items in my posts that are not this topic while you haven't so far.

Again, you've already linked to the quoted threads, so I won’t go back and link them again. I don't have to fit into your referencing expectations, and provide links, anyway (especially without prior knowledge of you preferences).

Now, just to add to the fun, let me point out that you are not known for being the most honest of arguers as well.

Not known for being "the most honest of arguers"? By Whom? You? Don't make me laugh. You aren't Nationstates. You aren't the NS forums. You aren't even the United Nations forum. My reputation is decided by the prevailing, overall opinion of me. Your opinion alone, or even those of your friends and colleagues, is hardly enough to make a claim about how honest I'm regarded as. Maybe if you gathered scientific information--with full disclosure of your scientific procedures used, and presented it in an objective scientific way--I'd believe you. But right now I could hardly care less what your opinion is--as I have no reason to believe this anything but your opinion.

In fact, on one thread you admitted the only reason you were arguing was to keep the thread up at the top and people able to see it. You're quote was:
I haven't. First of all, argument on the forum has little to do with the passage of a proposal (as you and Vastiva seem to have trouble understanding). The main reasons I keep posting here are to keep the thread up and to keep the contact information updated. I'm not interested in winning your support. But there are plenty of other delegates out there. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll come to grips with your powerlessness in the UN.


*Spews Cola on keyboard*

Wow, this is not helping. You denounce my "misrepresentation" of you in my quotations illustrating my position on things (this accusation stemming from but me sparing us length of quotations and not including links) and here you are misrepresent me in, I feel, an even more egregious fashion.

Allow me to provide some context:

--DLE, you had just claimed something I disagreed with, and I was unwilling to invest the time to refute it.

--My proposal was in the list, gathering approvals, contrary to your studious prediction, DLE.

--I had, at the top of each page, endeavored to include “contact information” for a delegate who happened upon the topic to go to the proposal and approve it.

First I'd like to point out from your bolded section ("The main reasons I keep posting here are to keep the thread up and to keep the contact information updated") that

Posting =/= Arguing

Just because I said I was mainly “posting” to keep the contact information updated, doesn't mean I was “arguing” just for that purpose. Obviously, I cared somewhat about the argument, as I kept responding to it in my predetermined-as-occurring posts. I said “posting” instead of “arguing” because whether you were arguing with me or not, I was going to post to update. Me including your arguments in my posts show that I cared a little, at least, about the argument. Also I was only “mostly” posting to update things. I could’ve clearly still been 49% interested in continuing the argument with you, which is not disingenuous at all compared to others uninterested in arguments

Second, I think the disclosure of my non-interest in the argument was the most honest thing I could've done. Otherwise you could’ve been under false pretenses that I cared about the argument with you more than I did. My admitting a lack of enthrallment with your “declaration of self-defeat” (what I was responding to) was not dishonest. Maybe it was annoying, to you, but I don't see "dishonest".

Third, in this phrase I was also explaining my policy of bumping. Bumping was necessary because of the limited window of my proposal in the proposal list, and forum threads have generally low view-to-approval ratios. So, if I didn't get every single delegate who viewed the UN forum regularly to at least look at my proposal, the thread wasn't worth the effort. I misinterpreted your interest in “shop talk”, thinking you might want to discuss how few delegates actually come to the forum.

The arguement in question is better read in its entirety in the thread itself, to which a link already exists.

Heh. I think it's a good read, too, but for obviously different reasons than you.

you're right... once again, i'm flying off the handle... over something unimportant... just ignore me... i get pretty emotional sometimes...

DLE, Lynx: sorry for singling you out... suppose I'm just in a pissy mood... I ask your forgiveness... because i feel like a jackass... again... :headbang:

You are not being a jackass - it's good to have some new (or occassionally old) ideas, it's a breath of fresh air in an occassionally stuffy enviroment.

And don't worry about some of the others - they are not as welcoming as they should be, and prefer to have a good old squabble over irrelevant things - I sense you might have noticed that though ;) they are not always this bad.

But please do continue to contribute on here, and don't get too offended by the others. Soon you will be just as grumpy and cynical as some of the other regulars on here ;)

DemonLordEnigma, I've mentioned this before, as have many others - you are not the arbiter of all that is true and good in the UN. Statements like this one ...As many times as I have stated it on this forum, to Mik and several others, the only way you cannot know is to be a newb, to have forgotten it, to have not paid attention (not an accepted excuse), or to be willfully ignoring past posts.... are absolutely absurd. I too am an active UN reader, and I find your extensively quoted and rambling posts to be entirely incomprehensible. There is a difference between "not paying attention" and "not wanting to spend my entire free evening trying to figure out what the hell DLE is on about this time."
PC, omitting is a form of editting.This is something you need to learn how to emulate, then. Copying EVERY word in EVERY post and responding line by line is something that you do on virtually every post, but most people somehow manage to respond only to the salient points. Selective editing is more often considered a virtue than a vice.

Your posts frequently amount to topic hijacking, a point I have rasied before and been brushed off. That needs to end, completely. In this one, you/ve taken a statement that Myxx later retracted and turned it into a chance to slam Powerhungry Chipmunks for not reading your every post. I don't care how politely you phrase it, attacking a poster is flaming. That's what you're doing here.

That's what I'm doing here too, but then, that's my job. As a Forum Moderator, I get to point out the behavior that breaks the rules, and ask you ... or TELL you ... to stop.

STOP.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

But please do continue to contribute on here, and don't get too offended by the others. Soon you will be just as grumpy and cynical as some of the other regulars on here ;)

I'll show you grumpy and cynical!!!

*whacks Hirota with cane*

*hobbles away*


[Standard Disclaimer: This post was a joke.]

I had a lengthy response pointing out that spiteful arguments are never helpful, and how we should all respect each other. Then Jolt ate the post. Ah, well, I guess that's an excuse to be grumpy, even if nothing else is.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y15/cosmicthoughts/deargod.jpg