NationStates Jolt Archive

Why was I kicked out of the UN? None of your explanations held water...

I put a resolution in the wrong place- Nope. The right to life is a human right. In fact, it's the most important one. This is BS and you've done it to me before.

I called someone a "complete moron"- Guilty. But if you can't even recognize the above, what does that say about your intelligence?

And because you knew the first two couldn't hold water, you added number three...

I have more than one nation in the UN- There are two nations run from this computer- The United States of Metztralia and the United States of John Elway. I run the USM, my brother runs USJE. USJE is not and never has been in the UN.

Care to give another reason?

DEAT!

The telegram sent to you claiming that you were a UN multi was sent in error. You were ejected for three bad proposals.

For the record, I am not the Moderator who handled your case.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

The telegram sent to you claiming that you were a UN multi was sent in error. You were ejected for three bad proposals.

For the record, I am not the Moderator who handled your case.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Why not send the idiot who was? Or is his mommy still trying to help him login? :roll:

That's a little rough don't you think? Are you asking to be deated or something? Talking to a moderator like that isn't the best way to help further your case. Moderators are volunteers who donate their time to help keep the game clean and lawful. You could at least talk to them more respectfully.

(not a moderator)

That telegram is sent out automatically when a nation is ejected from the UN.
Flaming the moderators is hardly likely to make us more receptive.

Wow.

"That's a little rough don't you think? Are you asking to be deated or something? Talking to a moderator like that isn't the best way to help further your case. Moderators are volunteers who donate their time to help keep the game clean and lawful. You could at least talk to them more respectfully. "


Does he have to kiss their butt too, or would that encroach on your turf?


:?:

That's a very nice first post, some flamebait.

Okay, kids, knock off the flamebaiting of eachother.

Metz, Cog has already explained what got you ejected. Proposals in the wrong category, or that suggest game mechanics changes, or are repeals of previous resolutions will, upon accumulating enough strikes, get you booted from the UN.

Why not send the idiot who was? Or is his mommy still trying to help him login?

And congratulations, you just earned yourself another warning for flaming. If you want to get deleted instead of just booted from the UN, by all means, keep up the hostile, uncivil attitude. If you don't want to be deleted, I strongly recommend you cool it with the attitude and wait for the mod who handled your case to see this thread and respond.

Majesto, Cinncidel, please don't post to this thread, as you can only speculate as to why the UN ejection occured and stuff. If you want to bicker about mod-worshipping/mod-hating, do so elsewhere.

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/RepProdtheModsig3.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

modhating? does that mean we get to tie you mods up and throw eggs and pies? :twisted:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Why was I kicked out of the UN? None of your explanations held water...

I put a resolution in the wrong place- Nope. The right to life is a human right. In fact, it's the most important one. This is BS and you've done it to me before.

[SNIP]

FWIW, I've just been to the page where this is explained:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286
...and there it says:
"Category and Description not matching
"Some proposals which get deleted for this reason are exceedingly Orwellian, most are just disturbing. Simply put, pay attention to your proposal's category and prevent it from being different to the description. A classic example here is the "Human Rights" category. Proposals here are automatically "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" - with the key word being "worldwide".

"As a result, a proposal saying "we should kill all the gays" (yes, it comes up) listed under "Human Rights" is going to be deleted. If you have to ask why, I'm rather worried, but I'll explain briefly: To quote Brooke Shields, "If you're dead, you've lost a very important part of your life". In other words, a proposal to improve worldwide human rights will not do that if it involves killing off a section of the worldwide humans." [italics added]

Clearly, the rules would seem to agree that "Human Rights" is to do with the right to life. But then, I'm only a lifelong student of language, so what do I know? :lol:

Peace.

PT

P.S. - I can't help noticing that the mod who codified these rules is now an ex-nation. *mind wanders to possible offences that would get a mod axed*

I put a resolution in the wrong place- Nope. The right to life is a human right. In fact, it's the most important one. This is BS and you've done it to me before.

I assume that we're talking about abortion, here?

Philosophically, I agree with you. However, the official ruling is that pro-choice proposals are "Human Rights" (because human rights are tied to civil rights, and the civil rights of pregnant women are being considered here) and pro-life proposals are "Moral Decency" (because you're restricting the civil rights of pregnant women in favor of a moral/ethical code that says that the lives of unborn children should be preserved).

P.S. - I can't help noticing that the mod who codified these rules is now an ex-nation. *mind wanders to possible offences that would get a mod axed*

Enodia resigned as Moderator and subsequently became inactive. His nation died of inactivity, not due to Moderator action (unless you want to call "resigning and walking away for a while" to be a "Moderator action" :lol: ).

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

P.S. - I can't help noticing that the mod who codified these rules is now an ex-nation. *mind wanders to possible offences that would get a mod axed*

Enodia resigned as Moderator and subsequently became inactive. His nation died of inactivity, not due to Moderator action (unless you want to call "resigning and walking away for a while" to be a "Moderator action" :lol: ).

Ironic about the timing, too.

9 hours ago: The Electorate of Enodia ceased to exist. :cry:

However, a copy of Enodia's nation page can be found here (http://www.freewebs.com/goobergunch/Enodia.htm) and the XML feed can be found here (http://www.freewebs.com/goobergunch/Enodia.xml).

I put a resolution in the wrong place- Nope. The right to life is a human right. In fact, it's the most important one. This is BS and you've done it to me before.

I assume that we're talking about abortion, here?

Philosophically, I agree with you. However, the official ruling is that pro-choice proposals are "Human Rights" (because human rights are tied to civil rights, and the civil rights of pregnant women are being considered here) and pro-life proposals are "Moral Decency" (because you're restricting the civil rights of pregnant women in favor of a moral/ethical code that says that the lives of unborn children should be preserved).
<snip>


I'll ignore whether Metztralia really was talking about a proposal about abortion, since his proposal was deleted for being a naughty proposal. He'll have to tell us what he meant, if that isn't censored.

I have to say, the rules there about how it is determined which categories incorporate which proposals aren't exactly intuitive. And they must border on the arbitrary at least at times.

That's fine if that's how the mods want to do it -- after all, the mods hold the power to censor what they will, so disagreements are irrelevant to how NS will be conducted -- but I think you might find it hard on philosophical, legal, or logical grounds to demonstrate that your doing more than playing a shell game with words. In particular, your distinctions around "moral decency" could be considered arbitrary and question-begging, since you assume that abortion is a civil right and that the pro-life position is a relativistic and inferior category of proposal.

Now, I'm not interested in arguing the case as a case; the specifics of that quarrel belong in another thread. However, I'm very interested in the way the inner workings of the game are biased towards a particular set of views, elevating one side of the argument to a superior category while demoting contrary views to inferior categories. IF the other side of the argument were in fact the true one, the categories as assigned by NS would be in error. For example, if the pro-life argument were true, the right to life of the unborn baby would be the child's Civil Right -- it's Human Right, if you will.

The distinction you use as an example (I really wish you'd chosen a different one, but there we are) further errs in that it ignores the degree to which the question-begging conclusion that abortion is a civil/human right itself arises from a particular set of beliefs. That is, it is a conclusion from a particular moral/ethical code that says that the lives of unborn children should not be preserved if the mother wishes to terminate the pregnancy.

Do you see? Both positions arise in the same fashion, from someone's belief-generated code, in equal measure. Civil and human rights are not a given (unless you believe in a particular doctrine of Divine Revelation); they are an interpretation of civil and human existence, based on the belief-systems we bring to the issues.

Someone who approaches the act of proposing something in the UN might try to be logical about this. And it appears that if he or she does that, he or she might get it wrong, and be punished for not sharing the biases of the NS way of doing it.

Of course it's the right of the Powers-That-Be to be arbitrary, biased or illogical if they insist. It's their universe. But should there not be a comprehensive set of guidelines explaining what we need to know, and prominently posted with the rest of the stuff about UN proposals, so we can at least try to follow this arbitrary set of categories?

This leads to a question I mustn't forget to ask. You used the words "official ruling" rather than "rules". It suggests that this decision took place at a point in time, and may have been made the subject of a public notice. Could you tell me (and the rest of us) where to find these rulings?

As it is, you're asking people to walk around blindfolded in the dark, and then beating them when they stumble.

TIA.

Peace,

PT

Unfortunately, finding an official ruling in these forums that hasn't been stickied is like finding a needle in a haystack.

If you're not sure if the proposal you wish to submit is legal, then post it as a topic in the "United Nations" forum and get a Moderator opinion before you submit it. This should definitely keep you in the clear.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Unfortunately, finding an official ruling in these forums that hasn't been stickied is like finding a needle in a haystack.

If you're not sure if the proposal you wish to submit is legal, then post it as a topic in the "United Nations" forum and get a Moderator opinion before you submit it. This should definitely keep you in the clear.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Thanks for that.

Peace,

PT

Isn't it kind of dumb to ban resolutions from being repealed? I mean, if the eighteenth amendment hadn't been repealed, maybe the mod who handled my case would have answered by now... :lol:

First, repealing a resolution qualifies as game mechanics because there's no way to remove a passed resolution. Admin's working on it, but it's going to be a while before it gets programmed in.

Second, for those who aren't American: The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibited alcoholic beverages throughout all of the United States and the teritories under it's jurisdiction. The Amendment was passed in 1918 (as I recall) and was later repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Thus, Metzralia is implying that the Moderator who handled his case was drunk.

As this, in my opinion, qualifies as trolling, this therefore constitutes a repeat offense. iModBomb.

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

I don't see why we allow the repeal of passed resolutions but just leave the previous resolutions in the queue..