NationStates Jolt Archive

this is censorship! you deleted this proposal because no one supported this resolution, and that was because support for region griefing is weak


NationStates Moderators
Received: 103 minutes ago Your proposal "Banning Region Griefing" was deleted because it discusses game rules. Do not propose game mechanics resolutions. The repeated submission of bad proposals will result in your permanent ejection from the United Nations. --The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

No, it's not "Censorship". The UN clearly states that you are not allowed to submit UN proposals that change game mechanics. Thus, it was deleted.

Are you not able to read what that telegram said?

If you had read it you would have found no need to have started this thread.

Just adding to what Bas said, you realize that even though this is a legal automatic deletion, there is no "censoring" in NS? The Mods have the right to delete proposals that they don't think correspond with the games rules, so even if your proposal didn't go against a stated rule, which it does, they could still delete it and be within their rights.

No, it's not "Censorship". The UN clearly states that you are not allowed to submit UN proposals that change game mechanics. Thus, it was deleted.

Not only was it a game mechanics proposal, it was a game mechanics proposal in favor of a rule that already exists.

Banning Region Griefing
It is unacceptable for nationstates to grief other nationstates and this resolution codifies this in UN policy. Failure to adopt this resolution means that there is weak opposition region griefing.

I also note that the proposal inferred a particular opinion from a lack of support from the proposal. This erroneously assumes that every Delegate in the world reads, analyzes, and makes a decision on every proposal ever submitted. I would consider this bad form (though I don't know if Enodia or the other mods ever deleted a proposal for this reason.

this is censorship! you deleted this proposal because no one supported this resolution, and that was because support for region griefing is weak

I assume you mean "...support against region griefing...."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

this is censorship!

Yes, you are correct. This site belongs to Max Berry and he dictates what is allowed and what isn't. This is like his own "father knows best state".

This site belongs to Max Berry and he dictates what is allowed and what isn't. This is like his own "father knows best state".
Way to copy and paste. Original ideas are for chumps.

No, it's not "Censorship". The UN clearly states that you are not allowed to submit UN proposals that change game mechanics. Thus, it was deleted.

Not only was it a game mechanics proposal, it was a game mechanics proposal in favor of a rule that already exists.

Banning Region Griefing
It is unacceptable for nationstates to grief other nationstates and this resolution codifies this in UN policy. Failure to adopt this resolution means that there is weak opposition region griefing.

I also note that the proposal inferred a particular opinion from a lack of support from the proposal. This erroneously assumes that every Delegate in the world reads, analyzes, and makes a decision on every proposal ever submitted. I would consider this bad form (though I don't know if Enodia or the other mods ever deleted a proposal for this reason.

this is censorship! you deleted this proposal because no one supported this resolution, and that was because support for region griefing is weak

I assume you mean "...support against region griefing...."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator
I'm not 100% certain what "this reason" is exactly, Cog (poor old me in need of sleep), but it's the same call I would have made if moderating. The rule already exists, as do the rules governing proposals (linked to from the submission screen). For both of those reasons, the proposal would die.
The idea of deleting unsupported proposals is one which has occurred to me in the past (e.g. "if the proposal has no support with 24hrs or less to run before its expiry it will be deleted"), but for time-zone related reasons if nothing else it's never something I would implement.

I'm not 100% certain what "this reason" is exactly, Cog (poor old me in need of sleep)....

What I meant by "this reason": The deletion of a proposal merely because {the proposal stated "Failure to support this proposal means (that there is little support for this idea) OR (some set of consequences)"}.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

This site belongs to Max Berry and he dictates what is allowed and what isn't. This is like his own "father knows best state".
Way to copy and paste. Original ideas are for chumps.

yes, I borrowed Max his own words from the FAQ (the part), do you have a problem with that?

I'm not 100% certain what "this reason" is exactly, Cog (poor old me in need of sleep)....

What I meant by "this reason": The deletion of a proposal merely because {the proposal stated"Failure to support this proposal means (that there is little support for this idea) OR (some set of consequences)}.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

My opinion:

A resolution failing to be passed cannot actually DO something, because it wasn't passed. That means ALL the text in it wasn't passed, including the part where it claims it would do something if it wasn't.

Also: Such a proposal being not allowed is also already covered under the principle that the text of a resolution must be in line with its stated effect: when a resolution fails there is no adjustement made to nation stats (eg: there is no effect), so the effect stated in the text should be nothing whatsoever.

And then there's yet a third way of looking at it. Suppose someone evily minded could draft a resolution that has an effect for both passing and not passing. So imagine: [Pass: do X ; Fail: do Y]. Now if only X is sufficiently close to Y, there's no real choice left! Like, X could be to outlaw guns, with Y being outlawing it only for non-military/police citizens. Those who believe in the right to have guns would be left in the cold either way. So, it's a bad idea to allow proposals which make proclamations upon not being passed because of possible abuse.

Ballotonia

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Post Edited By Nationstates Moderator!

Whatever.