NationStates Jolt Archive

Will there be a mod kill of that stupid waste of space before it gets to the UN floor? Just wondering whether I need to be ready to leave the UN or not. I can't believe that 120 delegates actually endorse the stupid thing! Don't get met wrong, it's well written satire, and gave me a good laugh, but that's hardly reason to endorse it.

Hippos are big! :)

Proposal killed.

Thank you!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :cry:

I believe we are owed an explanation.

Also you should read your own forum:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99757
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99759

Is it again going to be claimed that we overreact?

what's wrong? hippos are still big :!:

:idea: no! it's a conspiracy to make us think that hippos are small!!!

It's to make every thursday the day of the hippo. If no would pass, hippos would still be big, but thursday would not be the international day of the big hippo.

Here we go again. :roll: Who cares what the rest of the players think just as long as one complainer is happy.

And the mods thought it was absolutely ridiculous that that other thread went to five pages.

Well, it's good thing that discussion was shut down early, because otherwise the other mods might have taken part in the free flow of ideas and accidentally learned something from it.

Well I would like to quote this,


Forum Moderator
Founded: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 4711
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:25 am** *Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is more reasonable as it implies effects on environmental stats. In contrast, the deleted version was not reasonable as it had no implications for any stats whatsoever and was therefore a waste of the UN mechanism's time, irrespective of the Proposal's democratic approval by the players. At the end of the day, that is the issue here. No amount of player approval is going to get a game mechanics Proposal passed. Similarly, no amount of player approval is going to get a stat-less Proposal passed. Two sides of the same coin, guys.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I looked at this Proposal and after reading the complaints about the previous Hippo one I contemplated this one and waited till I saw a Mod tuling on the legality of the proposal, then when I saw the above I endorsed it, in fact here is the last endorsement thingy I clippped,

Approvals: 139
(Goosetnam, Sunnydale_, Hoobville, Xaqon, Boaravia, Kowdom, Tremaine, Conrado, Apuent, Knootoss, Hidlberg, General Mike, Andinostan, Isanistan, KelDa, Britannian, Assasinated Beauty, Tyber, Ishkari, Cesspit III, Slowmo, Debrick, Canine Despotism, Wintermute, Cheese mongers, Mikaelsdaman, Architeuthis, Hampster Squared, Oplep, Helfania, Libertanica, Dudemonkeys, Francos Spain, StovjestovqueX, Phuckuvia, Philisophers, Adstarion, Lococo, Loopyland II, The All Powerfull Berg, Eynonistan, Kzagblech, Pope Hope, Bassonia, 1 Infinite Loop, Ravens Ait, Komunio, Canadagua, Marradon, Saturnzero, Guevara Rocha, Schizophonica, Christ the Messiah, Kulotos, Patalano, Nenuial, Motala, Beanbag Chairs, Penguin Troopers, Fig, Basketbalville, Anhinga, Morphesia, The Maple Leaf, Towarzysz Gomulka, Niea, Northfiels, Hello Kitties, New Dorkland, Polo de la hago, Corinos, Brandiland, Camarolina, Apparitions, Keisha, Themanistan, Haida Gwaii, Total Desolation, Kings World, Boudica, Repechagia, Naffiss, Fame Academy Rejects, The Cymreg, English Albion, Sanic States, Magnum Worship, Benlandia, Rotovia, The Judean Front, Arctopia, The Pyrenees, Fortis Frater, Rantchess, Fair Ithilien, Pancake_pl, Saido, Verniebury, Beanaville, Hill People, Sugar Bear, Mianimas, Hukbalahap, Dancers, Lothe, Athamasha, Colquhoun, Double Duece Action, APV, Stephanie Her Majesty, Squigy II, The European U nion, Squiggle fairys, Tannstaafal, Celebros, Valentria, Asasinated, Happyplace, Spudness, Wooly-Bully, Lamoni, Xeaon, House Ix, Steinbergland, A Marshall, Anti-Flex, Elmindar, Vsmufu, John-topia, Aoduth, Veromai, The Gargoyle, EATSUGARGOHYPER, Hedley Lamar, Lorolla, Old Tower, Bluedestiny, The Cardboard Tube, Christopher IV)
Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!


I mean this is twice that a resolution about or beloved water cow has made it to quorum and been shot down.
I think we deserve an explanation,

=-=-=
Loop
My current flag
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/1_infinite_loop.jpg

Didn't see it. Would anybody like to post the text?

Should mods really be able to delete proposals that have already achieved the required support?

For Goobergunchia and anyone else that's interested, here's my original post regarding this proposal, from the discussion on the original Hippo proposal which was pulled from the floor.


Ballotonia's point is a valid one. There's nothing wrong with a humorously written proposal - which is one of the reasons why we don't force you all to write like real-world UN delegates when you submit them - but if the proposal itself is just pointless (which you can't deny this was, really) then that will kill it.

Excellent. I think this is a fair compromise. In the spirit of compromise, I would like to offer the following resolution which I hope will satisfy everyone; it has a point on environmental awareness and endangered species and it's (I think anyway) humorously written. Also it has Hippos.


HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG

PREAMBLE: The intent of the UN rules governing proposals is to insure that substantial issues are discussed. It is entirely just and proper that this should be so. Similarly, the intent of the Freedom of Humor Act, which recently passed the UN by an almost 4 to 1 margin, is to allow these issues to be discussed in an entertaining and amusing way. This too is entirely just and proper and will lead to a happier and more humane citizenry. The Whimsical Republic of the Orion Nebula is therefore proud to submit the following for consideration.

HIPPO AWARENESS DAY

WHEREAS, although Hippos are indeed quite large there exists some controversy as to whether they are the second or third largest land animal;

AND WHEREAS the Hippos are known to be distressed by the terrible way that mankind has treated the environment of the Earth;

AND WHEREAS Hippos are not only an endangered species but young Hippos are often mocked in junior high school for their ridiculous looking windbreakers, their large glasses and their round sneakers that resemble above-ground pools;

LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT each member nation of the United Nations declare the first Thursday following the Winter Solstice to be "Hippo Awareness Day".

AND LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that each member nation shall create programs that, on this day, educate its populace to the plight of all endangered species, but mostly Hippos. These programs should also raise the environmental awareness of the citizenry and encourage conservation.

AND LET IT BE EVEN FURTHER RESOLVED that these programs should contain the information that HIPPOS ARE BIG to help them regain their rightful place as the Earth's second largest land animal. Also this could be best accomplished by encouraging people to visit the zoo to see Hippos in the flesh so they can understand just how big Hippos are. This would prevent hurt Hippo feelings when people, unfamiliar with the size of Hippos, say "Wow, Hippos are big!" as opposed to having a comfortable idea about the relative size of Hippos, which would cause them to say "Now, THAT is a big Hippo!" only in the presence of an overtly large representative of the species.

AND LET IT BE STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the member nations of the UN are encouraged to broadcast a national telethon on Hippo Awareness Day to raise money for the establishment of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

ALSO hello.

So, I have to say that I am very disappointed that this was pulled from the floor. My friend, Architeuthis, put forward a proposal and that was removed from the floor (after it achieved quorum) because it was a joke proposal that would have no effect on the stats of the nations in the UN. We were told at that time (by Enodia, who wrote the rules governing proposals to the UN) that humorously written proposals were acceptable provided that they had a point to them. Thus the proposal HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG was born. To summarize it for those of you who were not patient enough to read the proposal before passing judgment, it says that UN Nations should establish one day per year devoted to educating their citizens about the environment, conservation and endangered species. HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG is a humorously written proposal about a genuine and important social issue. The stuff about Hippos is to make the resolution fun which Nation States is usually, but arguing on the forum is not.

Thus we were told what is acceptable and we followed the rules as they were explained to us.

I was therefore both surprised and angered to find the following in my telegrams this morning:

That proposal was already deleted by the Mods, and is still unacceptable. Do not resubmit it. This is a warning.

This is simply not true. Despite the fact that both it and the previous proposal involve Hippos, it is a fundamentally different proposal as anyone who has read and understood both proposals would know.

Now, I understand that the moderators do a great deal of work and appreciate all that they do to keep Nation States available to those of us who enjoy playing it. I think what has happened here is that one of the moderators innocently made a mistake and didn't follow the discussion regarding "HIPPOS ARE BIG" or wasn't able to take the time to fully understand HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG before removing it from the floor. I should also point out that, as noted by 1 Infinite Loop above, at least one moderator (Tactical Grace) has reviewed HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG and deemed it appropriate.

I therefore ask that the following be done, that HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG be restored to the queue of UN resolutions with its endorsements intact and an apology be issued for its mistaken removal from the floor.

Thank you.

Should mods really be able to delete proposals that have already achieved the required support?
I remember when there was a game machanics-changing resolution that was up at vote that demanded the addition of war, trade, etc. to the game.

It was almost the deadline of the vote, and the resolution was winning by a landslide. The admin, however, being rather pissed off at so many people submitting game mechanics-changing proposals, added a few thousand votes to the "NO" vote, and the resolution failed.

So, I would answer, "yes, they should."

The proposal should be back.

Should mods really be able to delete proposals that have already achieved the required support?
I remember when there was a game machanics-changing resolution that was up at vote that demanded the addition of war, trade, etc. to the game.

It was almost the deadline of the vote, and the resolution was winning by a landslide. The admin, however, being rather pissed off at so many people submitting game mechanics-changing proposals, added a few thousand votes to the "NO" vote, and the resolution failed.

So, I would answer, "yes, they should."

I agree that there are times when this is appropriate, but I don't think any of them are applicable in this case.

Unless that proposal was in the wrong category, I see no rule violation.

Proposal killed.
If the proposal was indeed the same as the one The Orion Nebula quoted above, it appears the problems which the earlier "Hippos are big" proposal was deleted for are not present. Why did you delete this proposal, and (asuming it was you who sent the telegram) declare it to be the same as the previous one?

The issues on this proposal were valid and important worldwide.

What do you think is achieved by 'red nose day?'

It is a perfectly good proposal if you read it thoroughly, although some of the points are comically written, the general outcome would serve a very important worldwide issue.

I hope the mod silence means they are discussing the issue instead of pulling one of their famous "ignore it and it will go away" tricks.

Proposal killed.

Mod Alert (or is it Modalert). I believe MGH acted without knowledge of the threads already referenced in which mods said this would be okay, including Enodia.


On the side, I am getting really tired of over-reactions simply because one person complains. The goods of the 130 plus who endorsed it should not be taken over the one who complained. Not saying anything against MGH, I like him, just think this was an over-reaction because of one complaint, and realize he must not have known about previous thread.

All I have to say, is so far, Im Disgusted, Im Disgusted at the whole thing.
if what C Span says if correct then I will withdraw disgust, if not, the disgust will remain, this was a well written Enviromental proposal,
and well, I liked it, I am almost thinking about removing my Christmas flag and putting up a Support the Water Cow Flag.

(I want a Hippopotamus for Christmas !)

Loop

Only a Hippopotamus will do.

Ah, Christ, not again...

Ah, Christ, not again...

Yep, again someone complained about trying to bring humor and fun to a game, But, we simply have to accept them so don't be judgemental.

Only this time, MGH closed it, somehow oblivious of all of the hub-bub about this in the past, without seeing that this was already greenlighted by more then one mod (including the UN mod) as being an okay proposal.

So, I imagine somneone used Getting Help to raise attention to this seeming mistake?

I thought hippopotamus was river horse, not river cow?

(I want a Hippopotamus for Christmas !)
Je ne veux pas un hippopotame pour le Noël. :x

Hm.

Hm.

Hm. Hm?

Hm?

That's it? :wink:

Maybe "Hm." is how they apologize where he comes from.

Maybe "Hm." is how they apologize where he comes from.

Aren't you the polite one?

This thread is still alive? Surprising.

Aren't you the polite one?

Just theorizing. You haven't given us much to go on, so I was trying to be optimistic and put a positive spin your response.

I am all about thinking positive.

Okay, here's the scoop.

First, neither Enodia nor Sirocco approved of the "new" version of Hippos. Sirocco simply said it was "more acceptable". Much in the same way that driving 55mph in a school zone is "more legal" than driving 100mph in the same zone. Doesn't make it legal, just less illegal.

However, it has been decided that the proposal is acceptable, provided it stays an environmental proposal. So you can resubmit the damnable thing, and it shouldn't be deleted. I'll also remove the warning from Orion.

I still think it's a stupid and worthless proposal, and I hope to God its voted down, but, there you go. Not like its the first worthless proposal passed by the UN...

Hack, I'm going to order you a punching bag with a big pink hippo on it for Christmas, ok?

Well, a backdown but no apology.

Hmm that was a surprise.

I still think it's a stupid and worthless proposal, and I hope to God its voted down, but, there you go. Not like its the first worthless proposal passed by the UN...

You can say that again.

First of all let me thank you for working this through and coming to the correct conclusion. I really do appreciate the work that you guys do to keep the game up and running.

I do have a couple of comments though.

First, neither Enodia nor Sirocco approved of the "new" version of Hippos. Sirocco simply said it was "more acceptable". Much in the same way that driving 55mph in a school zone is "more legal" than driving 100mph in the same zone. Doesn't make it legal, just less illegal.

First of all, so far as I know, Enodia never said anything on the new version of "Hippos". What I said was that we crafted the proposal based upon what he told us would be acceptable, a humorously written proposal about a real issue.

Secondly, the person I quoted was Tactical Grace. I don't know if that's the same person as Sirocco or not but either way I think your interpretation the person's statement is incorrect. At the very least the original statement is unclear. The way I've always looked at this sort of thing is that you remove the modifiers to find the essential meaning of the statement. Thus the essence of the statement "that is more legal" is "that is legal" while the essence of "that is less illegal" is "that is illegal." These two statements have essentially opposite meanings. In other words driving 55mph in a school zone is not "more legal" than driving 100mph in the same zone in the same way that a three-way bulb shining at 100 watts is not "less on" than one shining at 150 watts. "Less illegal" is correct.

I realize that there are people who say "that doesn't look too bad" and mean "that looks pretty good" but that's a sloppy abuse of the language. At the very least we should agree that there are several realistic interpretations of the statement in question. I personally prefer not to assume that someone's words have the opposite of their actual meaning without evidence to the contrary.

However, it has been decided that the proposal is acceptable, provided it stays an environmental proposal.

I thank you for that.

So you can resubmit the damnable thing, and it shouldn't be deleted. I'll also remove the warning from Orion. I still think it's a stupid and worthless proposal, and I hope to God its voted down, but, there you go. Not like its the first worthless proposal passed by the UN...

And here I'd just like to say that in your position as a Moderator, your role is to objectively enforce the rules, your personal feelings shouldn't enter into it. So, I don't appreciate your tone here. I am simply a player who is trying to enjoy a game by following the rules and I think I should be able to do that without being insulted by the people in charge. In the previous discussion, I've tried to be both polite and respectful and even though I realize that you have to deal with a lot of immature jerks in the game, I'd appreciate it if you would treat me the same way.

Thanks again.

Also, when I resubmit the proposal could you please reinstate the approvals of it? Thanks.

Also, when I resubmit the proposal could you please reinstate the approvals of it? Thanks.

I highly doubt that the mods can do that.

I highly doubt that the mods can do that.

That may be, but I noticed that there was mention of an admin adding "nay" votes to an inappropriate resolution above. It seems it would be technically the same mechanism. Still, I'd like to know one way or the other.

I highly doubt that the mods can do that.

That may be, but I noticed that there was mention of an admin adding "nay" votes to an inappropriate resolution above. It seems it would be technically the same mechanism. Still, I'd like to know one way or the other.

*shrug* Never heard that. To my knowledge, only 6 resolutions have ever been defeated on the UN floor...I'd be curious to hear which one.

Okay, here's the scoop.

First, neither Enodia nor Sirocco approved of the "new" version of Hippos. Sirocco simply said it was "more acceptable". Much in the same way that driving 55mph in a school zone is "more legal" than driving 100mph in the same zone. Doesn't make it legal, just less illegal.

However, it has been decided that the proposal is acceptable, provided it stays an environmental proposal. So you can resubmit the damnable thing, and it shouldn't be deleted. I'll also remove the warning from Orion.

I still think it's a stupid and worthless proposal, and I hope to God its voted down, but, there you go. Not like its the first worthless proposal passed by the UN...


1) Thanks

2) Since the mods have said it is acceptable, your analogy is probably completely inaccurate. It is not like being less against the rules, instead is it completely within the rules or else the mods would not have approved it.

3) It may be worthless, isn't that what a gerneal vote is for, to weigh what we all think? I know you have lifted the banso are allowing this, just notice a trend to take action outside of general public, simply because a few disagree-- not from you in general, but does seem to be a trend none the less.

4). Senso O humor. I know you have one, not sure why it should be supressed even if you dislike the joke. The game needs to lighten up a bit, and this is a way to do it.

5) There is no 5.

Also, when I resubmit the proposal could you please reinstate the approvals of it? Thanks.

I highly doubt that the mods can do that.

First, I just noticed I posted with another account on this thread, sorry, not trying to throw more voices in, just didn't realize it.

My question-> Since this alreadt reached Qurom, and was in Que to be a Resolution for all to vote on, should go right back into being a Resolution vote right? It wouldn't make sense for it to have to be voted on as a proposal would it?

Also, when I resubmit the proposal could you please reinstate the approvals of it? Thanks.

I highly doubt that the mods can do that.

First, I just noticed I posted with another account on this thread, sorry, not trying to throw more voices in, just didn't realize it.

My question-> Since this alreadt reached Qurom, and was in Que to be a Resolution for all to vote on, should go right back into being a Resolution vote right? It wouldn't make sense for it to have to be voted on as a proposal would it?

As far as the game is concerned, this is a different proposal...the software has no way of telling that the proposals are the same.

It's back. Thanks again, everyone for all the help.

Also, when I resubmit the proposal could you please reinstate the approvals of it? Thanks.

I highly doubt that the mods can do that.

First, I just noticed I posted with another account on this thread, sorry, not trying to throw more voices in, just didn't realize it.

My question-> Since this alreadt reached Qurom, and was in Que to be a Resolution for all to vote on, should go right back into being a Resolution vote right? It wouldn't make sense for it to have to be voted on as a proposal would it?

As far as the game is concerned, this is a different proposal...the software has no way of telling that the proposals are the same.

Well, curious about offical answer, but yours is apreciated as well. You would sugget then that the proposal would have to get enough votes to go into que again? If that is the case, we need to know. And if it is the case, is hardly fair, though that is not to imply life should be fair.

Mod intervention at this point would then both put the propsal back, and cause the author to politc all over again. I do hope that Hack would offer his UN vote ino order to help it get bck into que, since that would mean creatign a lot more work for others since he was unaware of the previous discussion on the issue.

Hack isn't a UN member.

So the proposal is legal or no?

So the proposal is legal or no?

It's been ruled legal.

Incidentally, I've started a thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2307921) in the UN forum urging all delegates to approve it to return it to quorum.

So the proposal is legal or no?

It's been ruled legal.

Incidentally, I've started a thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2307921) in the UN forum urging all delegates to approve it to return it to quorum.

Thanks. That gives us two.

In the past, there have been server crashes which have had the effect of wiping the Proposal queue. The decision was to not restore Proposal approvals, effectively allowing them to compete a second time. Precedent. Thus, I do not see the approvals possessed by this Proposal being reinstated. For all I know, they may not have been stored anyway.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

In the past, there have been server crashes which have had the effect of wiping the Proposal queue. The decision was to not restore Proposal approvals, effectively allowing them to compete a second time. Precedent. Thus, I do not see the approvals possessed by this Proposal being reinstated. For all I know, they may not have been stored anyway.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Well, this isn't really the same situation and if the server crash wiped out the records, the reason for that decision might have been a purely technical one. It seems to me that the fair thing to do would have been to put those proposals back into the queue.

And, in this situation we do have access to the necessary information:

Approvals: 139
(Goosetnam, Sunnydale_, Hoobville, Xaqon, Boaravia, Kowdom, Tremaine, Conrado, Apuent, Knootoss, Hidlberg, General Mike, Andinostan, Isanistan, KelDa, Britannian, Assasinated Beauty, Tyber, Ishkari, Cesspit III, Slowmo, Debrick, Canine Despotism, Wintermute, Cheese mongers, Mikaelsdaman, Architeuthis, Hampster Squared, Oplep, Helfania, Libertanica, Dudemonkeys, Francos Spain, StovjestovqueX, Phuckuvia, Philisophers, Adstarion, Lococo, Loopyland II, The All Powerfull Berg, Eynonistan, Kzagblech, Pope Hope, Bassonia, 1 Infinite Loop, Ravens Ait, Komunio, Canadagua, Marradon, Saturnzero, Guevara Rocha, Schizophonica, Christ the Messiah, Kulotos, Patalano, Nenuial, Motala, Beanbag Chairs, Penguin Troopers, Fig, Basketbalville, Anhinga, Morphesia, The Maple Leaf, Towarzysz Gomulka, Niea, Northfiels, Hello Kitties, New Dorkland, Polo de la hago, Corinos, Brandiland, Camarolina, Apparitions, Keisha, Themanistan, Haida Gwaii, Total Desolation, Kings World, Boudica, Repechagia, Naffiss, Fame Academy Rejects, The Cymreg, English Albion, Sanic States, Magnum Worship, Benlandia, Rotovia, The Judean Front, Arctopia, The Pyrenees, Fortis Frater, Rantchess, Fair Ithilien, Pancake_pl, Saido, Verniebury, Beanaville, Hill People, Sugar Bear, Mianimas, Hukbalahap, Dancers, Lothe, Athamasha, Colquhoun, Double Duece Action, APV, Stephanie Her Majesty, Squigy II, The European U nion, Squiggle fairys, Tannstaafal, Celebros, Valentria, Asasinated, Happyplace, Spudness, Wooly-Bully, Lamoni, Xeaon, House Ix, Steinbergland, A Marshall, Anti-Flex, Elmindar, Vsmufu, John-topia, Aoduth, Veromai, The Gargoyle, EATSUGARGOHYPER, Hedley Lamar, Lorolla, Old Tower, Bluedestiny, The Cardboard Tube, Christopher IV)
Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Still, if that ends up being the ruling, we'll work with it.

Thanks.

To my knowledge, only 6 resolutions have ever been defeated on the UN floor...I'd be curious to hear which one.Thats The CATO Acts, Equality for All, Bill of No Rights...

Should mods really be able to delete proposals that have already achieved the required support?

Maybe if they had a sense of humor (not an apparent job requirement) they wouldn't.

To my knowledge, only 6 resolutions have ever been defeated on the UN floor...I'd be curious to hear which one.Thats The CATO Acts, Equality for All, Bill of No Rights...

Geneticorp Convention, Peace Prize, and International Arms Trade. The last two were back in June and July.

Should mods really be able to delete proposals that have already achieved the required support?

Maybe if they had a sense of humor (not an apparent job requirement) they wouldn't.

Not going to say they don't have a sense of humor, I know that some of them do. The issue here is a bit more complicated because 1) mods shut down a humorous proposal (Hippos Are Big), 2) decision was made to meet half-way and it was stated by a couple of Mods that Hippos are Still Big would meet requirements to be allowed to be voted on- it would not be interfered with like the first proposal, then 3)a mod deleted the new proposal. It isn't that they don't have a sense of humor, just a matter of over-reacting.

I guess it is too much to ask for the proposal to be put back in que, but it is a fair point that this is not exactly like cases where the system had a glitch.

In the past, there have been server crashes which have had the effect of wiping the Proposal queue. The decision was to not restore Proposal approvals, effectively allowing them to compete a second time. Precedent. Thus, I do not see the approvals possessed by this Proposal being reinstated. For all I know, they may not have been stored anyway.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

this would make its third time (a resolution with Hippos in the title that is,)

Personally I would jsut recommend that the mods rather than run all Bir Brother on teh Proposals, run a morality police on the proposals, delete the ones who actually deserve to be deleted (one like Naleths Spam Loop with Goatse idea, or ones which Blatantly violate the Max set TOS,)
I mean, once a proposal is passed, it has no further efect on your nation, as laws in proposals cannot be enforced, IE, if I wanted a proposal to reduce worldwide taxation, what does it mater if the proposal is three paragraphs long and abuses the henceforths thus's and uses a bunch of $5 words, or if it just says "hey my taxes are too high, so lets lower taxes".
Enforcing rules upon an unenforceable rule kinda makes no sense,
Im too tired to type more at the moment, so I going to quit typing for a bit.

Loop

Secondly, the person I quoted was Tactical Grace.

Correct. After I wrote my responce and logged out I started wondering if I had remembered wrong. No matter.

either way I think your interpretation the person's statement is incorrect. At the very least the original statement is unclear. The way I've always looked at this sort of thing is that you remove the modifiers to find the essential meaning of the statement.

No, my interpretation was accurate. Furthermore, you can't remove modifiers from the statement to find the "essential meaning". The modifiers are there for a reason. If TG had ment that it would be acceptable, he would have said so, as opposed to saying "more acceptable". However, grammatical dissertations don't belong here.

And here I'd just like to say that in your position as a Moderator, your role is to objectively enforce the rules, your personal feelings shouldn't enter into it.

Ah, no.

First, I am still allowed to have my personal feelings. I am also allowed to state them. What is not allowed is for me to let them interfere with the execution of my duties, which I have not. Were I letting my personal feelings enter into things, I would have said nothing about the decision, I would have left the warning on your nation, and I would have continued to delete permutations of this hippo resolution. I have not done that. I have put my personal views aside, and performed my job.

I still think the proposal is stupid, and I still think it doesn't belong in the UN. However, I am objectively enforcing the rules. If I didn't, it would be painfully obvious.

So, I don't appreciate your tone here.

C'est la vie.

I am simply a player who is trying to enjoy a game by following the rules and I think I should be able to do that without being insulted by the people in charge.

At the risk of further delving into semantics, I would like to point out that I never insulted you, nor any of the other players. I insulted the proposal.

Thanks again.

You're welcome.

Other points of note from other postings:
Mods are not able to restore votes to proposals. We can look at them, and we can delete them. That's it.
About the Admin adding "nay" votes. I remind you that the Admin has considerably more power than the mods :wink:
Goobergunchia is correct, this nation isn't in the UN, and hasn't been for several months now. However, rest assured that my UN puppet will vote against this proposal (for a few reasons, actually)
Also, said UN nation isn't a Delegate, and couldn't vote it into que anyway.
Less against the rules vs. allowed by the rules. My points still stand. TG and Enodia never gave an explicit green-light. My decision was overruled upon review. At the time, it was in accordance with SOP.
"General Vote". Do remember that this isn't a democracy. Re-read the FAQ if you've forgotten.
Yes, I do have a sense of humor. No, I'm not in the habit of laughing at things I don't find funny :?

I think I've covered everything...

This thread is funny. :)

Debating over whether a proposal about National Hippo Day has the right to be considered by UN Delegates as a first step towards being voted on by the general assembly... the real UN would be proud!

[quote=The Orion Nebula]Thanks again.

You're welcome.


Despite the silly point we have reached, thanks for being objective to what you have followed thus far. You know who I am, presumably, and we don’t agree on this. I believe you found something on the line, understood, but that you pushed it over the line to being against the rules because of your personal feelings on the proposal. I understand it was not intentional on your part, but it seems to have been the case.



Other points of note from other postings:[list]

Goobergunchia is correct, this nation isn't in the UN, and hasn't been for several months now. However, rest assured that my UN puppet will vote against this proposal (for a few reasons, actually)
Also, said UN nation isn't a Delegate, and couldn't vote it into que anyway.


To be fair, and I know we will likely disagree here, but to be fair you should encourage your delegate to vote in favor of the proposal, tho encourage him to vote against the resolution if you wish. As the part of an objective peer, you should help to rectify the action you created. And let’s be honest, despite your objective opinions, obviously your fellow mods disagreed with you and felt it should be allowed for UN vote if nothing else. Thus, you should try to get back into que, undo the ill you accidentally created, then act against it from that point… or at least, this my O.



]This thread is funny. :)

Debating over whether a proposal about National Hippo Day has the right to be considered by UN Delegates as a first step towards being voted on by the general assembly... the real UN would be proud!



Wow. Now that is funny.

However, rest assured that my UN puppet will vote against this proposal (for a few reasons, actually)

I do find this offensive. Moderators should not attempt to use their status to unjustly influence other players.

However, rest assured that my UN puppet will vote against this proposal (for a few reasons, actually)

I do find this offensive. Moderators should not attempt to use their status to unjustly influence other players.

Oh please. There's probably more players who will vote in favor just to 'spite a Mod' than those who will vote against it just because Hack does so.

Ballotonia

]This thread is funny. :)

Debating over whether a proposal about National Hippo Day has the right to be considered by UN Delegates as a first step towards being voted on by the general assembly... the real UN would be proud!

Hey thanks for the imput V, glad ya like it, what do ya think about the proposal (newest versioon that is)?

also Just thought I would add this, it is from the Max written Faq,


How do I approve a proposal?

You must be a Regional Delegate. If you are, then you will have an option to approve proposals when you view the list. By allowing unapproved proposals to fall by the wayside, Regional Delegates make sure that the UN only votes on worthy issues.



this is the basis for my arguments to date, I finally fot around to actually quoting it.

However, rest assured that my UN puppet will vote against this proposal (for a few reasons, actually)

I do find this offensive. Moderators should not attempt to use their status to unjustly influence other players.

Oh please. There's probably more players who will vote in favor just to 'spite a Mod' than those who will vote against it just because Hack does so.

Ballotonia
What if it's actually a giant conspiracy and Hack wants the proposal to pass so by saying he's going to vote against it and by giving it spite-based for-votes, he pushes it over into passing? (nah :lol:)

However, rest assured that my UN puppet will vote against this proposal (for a few reasons, actually)

I do find this offensive. Moderators should not attempt to use their status to unjustly influence other players.

Oh please. There's probably more players who will vote in favor just to 'spite a Mod' than those who will vote against it just because Hack does so.

Ballotonia


I would have no problem with Hack voting against this, or unrging his DEl to.... once it is a proposal. Since he did act rashly, wouldn't it best serve the common good if he made up for it by trying to get it back to where it was before he deleted it?

I do not question his intent, but that does not make it any less of a mistake to have deleted the proposal.


Thanks [violet], glad you still feel humor is important in the game.

wouldn't it best serve the common good if he made up for it by trying to get it back to where it was before he deleted it?
As he said, that is impossible. Game Moderators can delete a Proposal, or not delete a Proposal. That is the extent of their powers.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he meant by helping it reach quorum again by supporting it, not manually adding the votes back on to it.

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he meant by helping it reach quorum again by supporting it, not manually adding the votes back on to it.
I do not see how that is possible either. A Proposal cannot be placed into the Resolution queue by Game Mod action. Also, if his UN nation is not a Delegate, he cannot approve it while it is a Proposal. He would only be able to vote on it as a Resolution. And I am not sure how many Mods vote in the UN at all, let alone would actually approve this.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he meant by helping it reach quorum again by supporting it, not manually adding the votes back on to it.
I do not see how that is possible either. A Proposal cannot be placed into the Resolution queue by Game Mod action. Also, if his UN nation is not a Delegate, he cannot approve it while it is a Proposal. He would only be able to vote on it as a Resolution. And I am not sure how many Mods vote in the UN at all, let alone would actually approve this.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I'm pretty sure that what he means is simply that, since the resolution had quorum and was in queue when it was deleted, it would be a nice gesture on the part of Hack to help it get back to quorum by approving it himself (if he's a delegate) or encouraging the delegate of his home region to approve it. That's all.

I'd just like to point out that the resolution regarding International Arms Trading was defeated primarily because resolutions back in June (when it came up for a vote) did not have line separations like they do now. [violet] reinstated the line separations a day before the end of the vote, but it was too late. That resolution did not get put back up for a vote.

However, rest assured that my UN puppet will vote against this proposal (for a few reasons, actually)

I do find this offensive. Moderators should not attempt to use their status to unjustly influence other players.

Other players? What other players? I'm declaring my actions, not the actions of others.

Also, the primary reason I would vote against it (and ask that my Delegate do the same) is because it damages the economy. My puppet is barely hanging on to its Anarchy setting as is, and I'm sick of the UN knocking it back down.

Also, don't worry about my Mod status effecting anyone's vote. The puppet is annonymous.

Other players? What other players?

All players who read this forum.

I'm declaring my actions, not the actions of others.

Your statements are interpreted differently than those of a regular player. You are part of the community that shapes the rules.

And, frankly, you owe Orion an apology (IMO), yet instead you have given him insults and defensiveness. I'm sure some people would still have been angry, but everyone would have understood it if you'd just said "Oh, sorry, I wasn't keeping up with forum messages. Sorry for deleting the proposal, I won't interfere with it if you re-submit it."

But your response wasn't even civil, much less ideal.

Also, the primary reason I would vote against it (and ask that my Delegate do the same) is because it damages the economy.

That's a totally reasonable statement, and certainly would have been a better way to state your dislike for the proposal, but it's still unfair even to mention that, in this context (ie, the place where legality is decided by people such as yourself).

I have spoken to several players who are afraid of encountering mod wrath if they re-endorse the proposal. They're already being scared off by the mod actions, they don't need that sort of language frightening them off as well.

Also, don't worry about my Mod status effecting anyone's vote. The puppet is annonymous.

And I wouldn't have minded anything you'd said as an anonymous player. But when you're wearing that uniform and you say "Proposal X sucks!", then you're not exactly putting the "moderate" in moderator.

I don't think civility is too much to ask for from the mods, even if Orion is never going to get that apology.

I still think it's a stupid and worthless proposal, and I hope to God its voted down, but, there you go. Not like its the first worthless proposal passed by the UN...

I think it's pretty clear in context that Hack is speaking as a player, not as a mod.

Incidentally, the proposal has now reached quorum. Ironically, I'm leaning towards it for the very reason Hack's against it.

Also, the primary reason I would vote against it (and ask that my Delegate do the same) is because it damages the economy. My puppet is barely hanging on to its Anarchy setting as is, and I'm sick of the UN knocking it back down.

I'm a Left-Leaning College State, and I'm hoping the UN can knock me back to a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise.

I'm not trying to get into the politics of it here...that's for the UN forum. However, Hack has a right to his opinion. I may not agree with it, but I respect it. He was a player before he was a mod...like all of the mods were.

And, frankly, you owe Orion an apology (IMO), yet instead you have given him insults and defensiveness.

Hm, no, don't agree there.

Again, I have not insulted him. I insulted the proposal, not the player. I called the proposal "worthless" and "stupid", not Orion. I've got nothing against Orion.

I'm sure some people would still have been angry, but everyone would have understood it if you'd just said "Oh, sorry, I wasn't keeping up with forum messages. Sorry for deleting the proposal, I won't interfere with it if you re-submit it."

That would have been lying. I had read Enodia's and Tactical Grace's points. I had read the posts talking about this proposal. I decided that the proposal was not appropriate, and I deleted it. That ruling was later overturned, and I announced that, and also removed the warning from Orion's nation. I, to the limits of my ability, undid my actions.

That's a totally reasonable statement, and certainly would have been a better way to state your dislike for the proposal, but it's still unfair even to mention that, in this context (ie, the place where legality is decided by people such as yourself).

I fail to see how this is relevant. I already stated that the proposal was deemed legal, and that it would not be interfered with. My personal distaste, while potentially off-topic, is a non-issue. Or do you honestly think that I'll copy down the names of everyone who votes in favor of this proposal and delete them?

I have spoken to several players who are afraid of encountering mod wrath if they re-endorse the proposal. They're already being scared off by the mod actions, they don't need that sort of language frightening them off as well.

Oh, please.

And I wouldn't have minded anything you'd said as an anonymous player. But when you're wearing that uniform and you say "Proposal X sucks!", then you're not exactly putting the "moderate" in moderator.

When I'm being attacked as a moderator, I respond as one. Posting as an unconnected nation would have accomplished nothing, as I would have had to reveal myself (thus once again posting as a mod, but with an anonymous nation revealed), or had my point ignored because I was "not a mod."

well I would like to say, I play this game to interact with folks, not to make sure my nation is a anarchy, or a left leaning colledge state, and well, my economy and enviroment were wonderful before a bunch of Legitimate Un resolutions got put up, so I dont care if a resolution si silly or serious if it makes me think or laugh, or better yet, both, I will endorse it, and vote for it,
Also, I am a Model three Cylon, and I will be killing all humans now.

K.H.A.N.

Again, I have not insulted him. I insulted the proposal, not the player. I called the proposal "worthless" and "stupid", not Orion. I've got nothing against Orion.

I'm glad to hear that. I can assure you, however that when I when I read those comments it sure didn't seem that way. Intentional or not it seemed like an attack.

That would have been lying. I had read Enodia's and Tactical Grace's points. I had read the posts talking about this proposal. I decided that the proposal was not appropriate, and I deleted it.

You seem to be parcing your words very carefully and so, I'd like to point out that you haven't mentioned this particular information before. To be frank, I don't understand how you read this:

Ballotonia's point is a valid one. There's nothing wrong with a humorously written proposal - which is one of the reasons why we don't force you all to write like real-world UN delegates when you submit them - but if the proposal itself is just pointless (which you can't deny this was, really) then that will kill it.

and come to the conclusion that HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG is unacceptable. I'm happy to assume that that's an honest difference of opinion. None the less, it seems to be at odds with:

That proposal was already deleted by the Mods, and is still unacceptable. Do not resubmit it. This is a warning.

That doesn't sound like the new proposal was weighed in the context of the HIPPOS ARE BIG discussion, it sounds like someone assumed that the old proposal was resubmitted. My initial statements about this ruling would have been different had I been given the second version of events first.

That ruling was later overturned, and I announced that, and also removed the warning from Orion's nation. I, to the limits of my ability, undid my actions.

And I still appreciate that you did that. Still the fact that the ruling was overturned means that it was mistaken (unless there's been a rule change that I am not aware of). I don't know why a simple statement like "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have deleted your proposal, you can resubmit." Is so difficult. You'll learn in life that graciously owning up to your mistakes enhances your reputation rather than diminishing it.

That reminds me, earlier in the thread it was evident that you had inferred that I thought your decisions were biased. That's entirely my fault and I'd like to apologize for giving you that impression. I had only intended to convey my opinion that your comments:

So you can resubmit the damnable thing,
and
I still think it's a stupid and worthless proposal, and I hope to God its voted down, but, there you go. Not like its the first worthless proposal passed by the UN...

are inappropriate in this context. Look, one of the basic rules of parliamentary procedure is that the chair of a meeting never votes on a motion unless his or her vote can affect the outcome. That doesn't mean that the chair doesn't get a vote. It doesn't mean that he or she isn't allowed to have an opinion. It means that the appearance of objectivity is important to the smooth running of the meeting. That's why the chair passes down the gavel when he or she feels a need to speak on an issue.

I think that you would be well served by the appearance of objectivity when you are writing a particular post that explains a ruling on some issue. Once that's done, you can express your personal feelings on the issue in the appropriate thread. Unlike Architeuthis, I even think it's okay if that's done with your moderator nation, although it would be better if you used another nation entirely.

Or do you honestly think that I'll copy down the names of everyone who votes in favor of this proposal and delete them?

Of course not. But you should ask yourself if you're making such a perception more or less likely when you make comments like the ones I address above.

When I'm being attacked as a moderator, I respond as one. Posting as an unconnected nation would have accomplished nothing, as I would have had to reveal myself (thus once again posting as a mod, but with an anonymous nation revealed), or had my point ignored because I was "not a mod."

I think what Archi meant was that it would be appropriate for you to discuss your rulings as a moderator with your moderator nation and to express your personal feelings regarding the resolution with a different nation.

Also I'm sorry that you feel that you are being attacked. I have certainly have not intended to attack you, but to raise an issue that I feel is valid. I see people who don't agree with a ruling asking that it be reviewed and I see them being firm in their opinions and polite in their requests. Actually, I think it's essentially the same point as:

Again, I have not insulted him. I insulted the proposal, not the player. I called the proposal "worthless" and "stupid", not Orion. I've got nothing against Orion.

except without insults.

Well, that's way more than I intended to say on the subject. Hope we're still cool.

You seem to be parcing your words very carefully and so, I'd like to point out that you haven't mentioned this particular information before. To be frank, I don't understand how you read this:

Ballotonia's point is a valid one. There's nothing wrong with a humorously written proposal - which is one of the reasons why we don't force you all to write like real-world UN delegates when you submit them - but if the proposal itself is just pointless (which you can't deny this was, really) then that will kill it.

and come to the conclusion that HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG is unacceptable.

Notice the emphasis I added. It seems that Enodia is clearly stating not only that the proposal was pointless, but that any unbiased observer would come to the same conclusion.

That ruling was later overturned, and I announced that, and also removed the warning from Orion's nation. I, to the limits of my ability, undid my actions.

And I still appreciate that you did that. Still the fact that the ruling was overturned means that it was mistaken (unless there's been a rule change that I am not aware of).

More a difference of opinion, really. Look at it as an apellate court overruling a lower court.


I think what Archi meant was that it would be appropriate for you to discuss your rulings as a moderator with your moderator nation and to express your personal feelings regarding the resolution with a different nation.

That strikes me as wasted time and effort. Again, if the puppet is known to be me, it still carries the presumed influence of my moderatorship. If the puppet is unknown, then it appears to be someone else's opinion, not mine.


Well, that's way more than I intended to say on the subject. Hope we're still cool.

Of course.

You seem to be parcing your words very carefully and so, I'd like to point out that you haven't mentioned this particular information before. To be frank, I don't understand how you read this:

Ballotonia's point is a valid one. There's nothing wrong with a humorously written proposal - which is one of the reasons why we don't force you all to write like real-world UN delegates when you submit them - but if the proposal itself is just pointless (which you can't deny this was, really) then that will kill it.

and come to the conclusion that HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG is unacceptable.

Notice the emphasis I added. It seems that Enodia is clearly stating not only that the proposal was pointless, but that any unbiased observer would come to the same conclusion.

But that statement was made with respect to HIPPOS ARE BIG, and notice that Enodia's statement was made before HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG even existed. HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG has a point, environmental awareness, ergo Enodia's statement above tells us that it is acceptable and should not have been deleted in the first place.

I had read Enodia's and Tactical Grace's points. I had read the posts talking about this proposal. I decided that the proposal was not appropriate, and I deleted it.

I am sorry, then, for giving you too much credit. There is no possible interpretation of Orion's proposal that could be in violation of any posted rules. I was under the impression that mods wouldn't delete a proposal simply because they didn't like it, but I see now that I was wrong.

I, to the limits of my ability, undid my actions.

This is not so. All you did was promise to not delete the next proposal, and then indirectly discourage others from supporting it.

If it is the position of [violet] that mods are not supposed to be objective or impartial, then you've certainly done nothing illegal, but you should at least be truthful.

Or do you honestly think that I'll copy down the names of everyone who votes in favor of this proposal and delete them?

Of course not, but do you honestly believe that the words of a mod have no effect on players? I should hope you would have more respect for your position.

I have spoken to several players who are afraid of encountering mod wrath if they re-endorse the proposal. They're already being scared off by the mod actions, they don't need that sort of language frightening them off as well.

Oh, please.

How am I to respond to "Oh, please."? I should hope that a mod would have a more acceptable reaction to the truth. One of the nations involved is the leader of one of the largest regions in the game, and he backed off the proposal because he didn't want any trouble from the mods.

It appears that you do not appreciate the power of your own position. Some players are wary of doing anything that doesn't meet with mod approval, and you've made it very clear that you do not approve of this proposal.

Think of this from a player's perspective: They supported a proposal and it was deleted. A new proposal replaces it, they support it, and it's also deleted. Is it so unreasonable to assume that a player might believe that they're pushing their luck if they support it a third time? It would be difficult to trust a supporter of a twice-nuked proposal at that point over the seemingly obvious intentions of the mods.

When I'm being attacked as a moderator, I respond as one.

That is entirely reasonable, but your response went over the line. You didn't simply say that it was your opinion that the proposal was not legal, you called it "stupid" and hoped to the God that it wouldn't pass. That is your personal opinion of what should happen in the game, unrelated to the legality of the situation. It isn't merely "off-topic", it's inappropriate.

If you'd posted that with a non-mod nation in the United Nations forum instead of the Moderation forum, that would be a hippo of a different color.

I hope that in the future you will regard your position with the respect that it deserves.

Interesting. I wandered away from the boards for a day or two, and missed all the excitement thus far with my thread. I requested that it be deleted for reasons that I thought were obvious - it is a colossal misuse of UN resources and time. If you look at my nation you will realise that I am a strong environmentalist, but days of recognition firstly accomplish next to nothing, and secondly are not matters of sufficient importance to warrant a UN resolution. I apologise for not checking the UN board and participating in the conversation there. It honestly never occurred to me that so many people would take something so obviously stupid so seriously.

Look, as someone whose politics are more than a little left of left, I am in a perpetual struggle with the much more conservative elements of my region, trying to justify the existence of the UN. What is it's purpose if only those nation of one political slant participate? When resolutions that are so obviously a waste of time and energy reach quorum and come to a formal UN vote, that just cements the view of the UN as a waste of time and energy that is unable to accomplish anything worthwhile in the world. And, frankly, I find myself inclined to agree.

I accept that it is the delegates' responsibility to ensure that only worthwhile proposals reach the floor - in this case, however, delegates have clearly misused their positions. Before reading this thread, I assumed that it was a case of irresponsible silliness from some of the less serious players of this game. Now I know that it was deliberate abuse of power.

As for a sense of humour, I most certainly have one. In fact, I enjoy the humorous proposals, and we keep a running list of them preserved for posterity on our Regional forum. But that doesn't mean I want to waste actual UN time on them.

It seems the reports of Hack scaring delegates off are unfounded or at least had no significant effect.

Approvals: 154 (The Global Market, Towarzysz Gomulka, Kzagblech, Francos Spain, BranTerralis, Taraguy, Allund, Kandarin, Perseity, Segania, Themanistan, Parknarf, Morphesia, 1 Infinite Loop, Naffiss, Zachnia, Xaqon, Thumb Wars, The All Powerfull Berg, Nocturnistan, Presnost, Tara TheGreate, Architeuthis, Eynonistan, Estolad, Benlandia, Broadbeam, Petohdom, Haida Gwaii, Britannian, Apetonia, Big Santa, Arctopia, Pancake_pl, Knootoss, Mikaelsdaman, Nenuial, Celebros, Apuent, Westrogoticae, Komunio, Andinostan, Port Coquitlam, Hill People, DragonWolve, Valentria, Dudemonkeys, Auirinus, New Tibooktu, Hampster Squared, Guevara Rocha, Helfania, Norion, Motala, Oplep, Isanistan, Fig, Schizophonica, Ravens Ait, Canadagua, Conrado, Michopolis, Ishkari, Patalano, Christ the Messiah, Markodonia, Hagge, Anhinga, General Mike, St Lafayette, Saturnzero, Xeaon, Pope Hope, Lothe, Cesspit III, Debrick, Wooly-Bully, Evil puppies, Slowmo, Athamasha, Beanbag Chairs, Hebrew National, The Maple Leaf, Loopyland II, Northfiels, Hukbalahap, Camarolina, Veromai, Christopher IV, Aoduth, Rotovia, Tyrantar, Credonia, The Scilly Islands, Basketbalville, Shasta Mountain, Hedley Lamar, Penguin Troopers, Sugar Bear, Shing-lo, Whittelwons2, Matalonia, Mmrkuudnia, Crunchy Sand, The European U nion, Cheshire and Ted, Magnum Worship, Canine Despotism, Rensel, Tannstaafal, Rondebosch, NewTexas, Sulon, Boaravia, The Crecent Moon, Saido, The Lowcountry, Isles Of Claymore, Buen Humor, Megatropic, Bananadine, John-topia, Gnuistan, Yisanville, Phuckuvia, Lord Rhodesy Esquire, A Marshall, Lococo, Avalonian Angels, Borogravia Moldavi, Stephanie Her Majesty, The Gargoyle, SpiderWoeb, Lost Congo, Harpenpesegomenmoscano, Asasinated, Excessive Oppulence, Hello Kitties, Corinos, Great Carthage, Kowdom, Dancers, Doovidle, Maldictus, Schexland, The Fenix Ouroboros, Bluedestiny, His Majesty, Sailor Saturn Fanboys, Old Tower, Lothlurien, Fortis Frater, EXCITING EXISTANCE, Total Desolation)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Interesting. I wandered away from the boards for a day or two, and missed all the excitement thus far with my thread. I requested that it be deleted for reasons that I thought were obvious - it is a colossal misuse of UN resources and time.

I think that all of these issues would be reasonable points to make in the United Nations Forum as an argument against the proposal and its approval. You didn't do that, however. You called for moderator intervention which should be reserved for situations in which the rules are broken.

It honestly never occurred to me that so many people would take something so obviously stupid so seriously.

First of all, it's the proposal isn't stupid, it's differently smart. And it's not the proposal in and of itself that we take so seriously, it's our right to enjoy the game within the context of the rules.

When resolutions that are so obviously a waste of time and energy reach quorum and come to a formal UN vote, that just cements the view of the UN as a waste of time and energy that is unable to accomplish anything worthwhile in the world. And, frankly, I find myself inclined to agree.

It's not a waste of time because its fun! The purpose is to enhance my enjoyment of the game and judging from the telegrams I'm getting, it's making the game more fun for a lot of other people as well.

I accept that it is the delegates' responsibility to ensure that only worthwhile proposals reach the floor - in this case, however, delegates have clearly misused their positions. Before reading this thread, I assumed that it was a case of irresponsible silliness from some of the less serious players of this game. Now I know that it was deliberate abuse of power.

This is ridiculous. It's not an abuse of power or any of those other nefarious things that you claim. It's simply a different style of gameplay. I think we've established many times that NationStates has room for many of those.

I think that you could even argue that the style of play represented by this resolution is more consistent with Max's original vision of the game since what we have here is a humorously written proposal about a real issue. That's exactly what you encounter everytime you check your nation's issues.

But that doesn't mean I want to waste actual UN time on them.

Which is why you are free to not support the proposal to reach quorum and why you are free to argue against it making quorum in the UN forum.

Does this still serve a purpose? I mean, [violet] has given the green light and it has been resubmitted, right? So the way I see it, this issue is resolved.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Whether you know, care or eat a pear, want to mention foremost that I like you as a mod, and feel that you do your best to contribute to the community. So, don’t think I am nit picking, rather attempting to communicate an observation… been just about 2 months since I had to add a disclosure to a post, right on schedule. :wink:




I had read Enodia's and Tactical Grace's points. I had read the posts talking about this proposal. I decided that the proposal was not appropriate, and I deleted it. That ruling was later overturned, and I announced that, and also removed the warning from Orion's nation. I, to the limits of my ability, undid my actions.

You got Mod powers, GM powers, so this isn’t a question of what you do. My concern though is that you at least understand the complications implied by this post. That two mods felt it was okay, you read this and instead of discussing this with them (either in super secret mod forum, or even better- on the thread they discussed this as well) instead of commenting on or to the two mods who said this was within game rules, you simply deleted the proposal. You can do this, yes, that is not the question. But I hope you can at least see how that creates an implication of non-congruency within the moderation.

Also, I agree with Archi on another point that I only half-way disagree with you on, Hack, I don’t think you owe Orion an apology at all. But, I don’t think people should apologize because they have to. It would have been perhaps more political, if not more courteous to have apologized for mistakenly deleting a proposal. Again, you didn’t have to, but I think you can agree it would have been nice.


TG, I don't see this as a slug fest, it is actually smart for the most part, if disagreeable at times. Can we see if it at leasts ends when points are polished off?

Zeke, remember back when Married with Children Debuted, there was a woman, a Neilson family Member who watched every Episode and wrote Detailed notes on how the show was bad, and how it was immoral, and she submitted 5 page documents to her Neilson TV vierwing journal on each episode, calling for its cancellation, when interviewed by a reported she told the reported how she hated it and thought it should be cancelled,
Perhaps the reporters comment to her applies in your case although slightly reworded, he said, "If you dont like it then Dont watch it."

Perhaps rather than immeadiatly go to the mod forum, and start a new topic calling for mod action, you should, if you dont like the proposal, DOnt Vote for it,, simple enough, I do it everyday, if I dont like a proposal I dont vote for it I dont scream for Neut, TG, Enodia, or Hack to delete every one I dont like, in fact the only time I vote on a proposal lately is if it is a favor, a repayment for a favor, or if it was submitted by a person in the EP, as it is my policy, No matter how bad it is , and as long as I dont see it as being a TOS violation, I will blindly endorse any proposal anyone in the EP submits.

So again, I will say, let this be our mantra,

"If you dont like the UN Proposal, then dont vote for it"

remember a pond is most beautiful when the surface is as glass, and it is most ugly when a fat Frog has hopped in and disturbed it.

"If you dont like the UN Proposal, then dont vote for it"

The issue is whether the proposal itself is a violation of the rule, as it were. I have already conceded that my understanding of the rules is clearly different on this issue from yours, and, as it turns out, from the rules of the powers that be. That's fine. I can, and do, accept that. If the initial response had simply been to say that it was the judgement of the moderators that there was no rule violation, then that would have been fine at that point, as well. That doesn't change the fact that I still believe this to be a violation of the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Again, the ruling has been made, and I accept that, and am no longer appealing for intervention. (So, yes, the issue is resolved, TG). I was simply attempting to make clear why I had asked for intervention in the first place - not because I disagreed with the politics of the proposal, but because I perceive it to be a violation of the rules of the game.

And, for the record, I thought "Married with Children" was simply brilliant ;)

As the "UN Mod", I should probably weigh in here, although the issue is largely put to bed now.

Firstly, my apologies for not dealing with this issue when it came up. I was without internet access and consequently didn't realise that a proposal like this was even submitted let alone in the queue. Hindsight being 20/20, I should probably have used more of the time I managed to cadge from a friend to look around here rather than to Email people, but that's beside the point.

In future, I wouldn't object in the slightest if people looking to propose resolutions like this (re-writes of a previous proposal in order to get it to work within the rules) would telegram me with the proposed text. I promise that I'd have a look at it and suggest revisions where necessary, not always within 24hrs of you sending it to me, but I will do it at some time. That way, we can make certain that you guys as proposers and us as mods are at least closer to being on the same page.

That is a generous offer, Enodia, and I thank you for it. However, I do feel that this should be unnecessary in most cases. We can all read the rules and it should be apparent to everyone (especially the mods) that something as clearly legal as HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE shouldn't even be up for debate.

I acknowledge that there is room for debate regarding the original HIPPOS ARE BIG proposal, even though I disagree with you.

But HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE is not even controversial. It is well within the boundaries of all stated rules. Its purpose is clear and well-stated, it's in the right category, it's not spam, it doesn't call for game engine or rule changes, it's not a repeat of a previous proposal, there are many real world parallels to such a proposal (Arbor Day, MLK Day, etc.), and on and on.

It does employ humor, but perhaps the mods should remember that Max himself has written issues that include the required nudity of all citizens and the execution of "wackos". Perhaps these issues should be kept in mind and used as a mental yardstick when deciding which proposals are actually illegal, as opposed to simply subjectively displeasing to a particular individual.

Quite true, Architeuthis. The situation I was seeking to avoid was one where "Proposal X" is made based on an implied licence by a mod and then deleted by a second mod. It isn't necessarily the case here, but given that this was a "hot-button" issue, I thought it was probably worthwhile to make the offer.

cool, I however still go by the old Max written Faq saying that the Delegates are in charge of deciding what is good enough to get voted on, and well the mods should be looking out for Blatant violations of the TOS and common Decency,

However this incident is prehaps a situation that should be dlet with in the manner of Only one mod should be dealing with the UN proposals bit, to keep a repeat of the incident from happening again,
as we all know how much trouble has occured due to miscommunication or lack of communication.

I honestly believe as well, that the only time a Resolution affects us is in that one message we get as soon as it is pased, and from there on out, it means nothing, except to the person who wrote it, and the majority of the complaints about the resolutions comes from the RPers, well the majority of the time the RPers overlook or ignore Non RPers and look upon us as scum, or Undermensch in the more extreme cases, well rather than raise a stink about somehting especially soemthing tha makes a bunch of folks laugh, just ignore it, it isnt that hard, Heck I ignore a few resolutions myself .


(I have always wnted to get a few resolutins and submit them but I figure someone willsay that they are too silly, and pointles because they are not RP friendly)

Your thoughtfulness and honesty are appreciated, Enodia. Thank you.