NationStates Jolt Archive

You might ask WHY I was kicked from the UN, and it's simple: My ideology doesn't conform to that of the moderators.

I started a proposal to repeal the ban on slavery, following the rules, using the freedom of "...You don't have to be politically correct" . My point was that Nations might need Slavery, and even though other nations didn't approve, they could call each other names. I was told my resolution was offensive, and it got pulled.

I had another proposal about forcing women to wear burkas under penalty of stoning. Simply put, my nation was an extremist islamic state, and I hoped for others to follow this (THE POINT OF THE UN!) and it was also pulled for being too offensive. They then kicked me for this, because I was a threat to the UN.

They delete these, but the resolutions (there are 40 at a time) calling for a repeal on the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution don't get taken away, even though the rules say "When repealing a resolution, look to see if theres a proposal about this already". The Moderators HATE that resolution, and are trying to get it voted off as much as possible, thus the reason they let 40 proposals to get rid of it at one time.

The moderators are extreme liberals who hate everything to do with religion or things that are not politically correct. I feel they are the reason people are being forced to say "Coffee without milk" instead of "Black coffee". I demand to be reinstated in the UN! DON'T LET THE MODERATORS LEGISLATE FROM THE CHAIR!

Thank you for your time, and please join me in reform of the moderation team here.

Besides rolling my eyes at your rule-breaking and trying to blame it on "liberal mods," nevertheless, this belongs in the Moderation forum. :rolleyes:

You might ask WHY I was kicked from the UN, and it's simple: My ideology doesn't conform to that of the moderators.

I started a proposal to repeal the ban on slavery, following the rules, using the freedom of "...You don't have to be politically correct" . My point was that Nations might need Slavery, and even though other nations didn't approve, they could call each other names. I was told my resolution was offensive, and it got pulled.

I had another proposal about forcing women to wear burkas under penalty of stoning. Simply put, my nation was an extremist islamic state, and I hoped for others to follow this (THE POINT OF THE UN!) and it was also pulled for being too offensive. They then kicked me for this, because I was a threat to the UN.

They delete these, but the resolutions (there are 40 at a time) calling for a repeal on the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution don't get taken away, even though the rules say "When repealing a resolution, look to see if theres a proposal about this already". The Moderators HATE that resolution, and are trying to get it voted off as much as possible, thus the reason they let 40 proposals to get rid of it at one time.

The moderators are extreme liberals who hate everything to do with religion or things that are not politically correct. I feel they are the reason people are being forced to say "Coffee without milk" instead of "Black coffee". I demand to be reinstated in the UN! DON'T LET THE MODERATORS LEGISLATE FROM THE CHAIR!

Thank you for your time, and please join me in reform of the moderation team here.
do you have copys of the text

"NationStates Moderators
Received: 1 day ago Your repeal was deleted for being offensive. "

i mean your proposels

i mean your proposels

Insignificant.

This nation was ejected from the UN for inappropriate proposals; thus, they did not follow the rules specifically, IMHO, by A.) Encouraging nations to name call other nations who were slave nations (in their first proposal) and B.) Isolating a minority group (women) by forcing them to be stoned if they didn't wear burkas (in their second proposal).

Thus, ejection for multiple UN proposal violations. That's how the rules work; you should've read them before you participated.

You can create a new nation and join the UN with that nation, but "Lollingbow" will never be allowed back into the UN.

Just move on and make a new nation...don't start trouble.

You might ask WHY I was kicked from the UN, and it's simple: My ideology doesn't conform to that of the moderators.

:rolleyes: What a coincidence. Neither does mine. We should like, start a club or something.

I started a proposal to repeal the ban on slavery, following the rules, using the freedom of "...You don't have to be politically correct" . My point was that Nations might need Slavery, and even though other nations didn't approve, they could call each other names. I was told my resolution was offensive, and it got pulled.

That is unfortunate.

I had another proposal about forcing women to wear burkas under penalty of stoning. Simply put, my nation was an extremist islamic state, and I hoped for others to follow this (THE POINT OF THE UN!) and it was also pulled for being too offensive. They then kicked me for this, because I was a threat to the UN.

Also unfortunate.

They delete these, but the resolutions (there are 40 at a time) calling for a repeal on the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution don't get taken away, even though the rules say "When repealing a resolution, look to see if theres a proposal about this already". The Moderators HATE that resolution, and are trying to get it voted off as much as possible, thus the reason they let 40 proposals to get rid of it at one time.

If they were allowed to delete those 40 redundant repeals, they would. As it stands, a rule prevents them from deleting repeals just because they are redundant, just as they would not be allowed to delete other proposals just because they are redundant. They can delete repeals based on other justifications though. (ie. offensive, unworthy of consideration, game mechanics violation, etc.)

The moderators are extreme liberals who hate everything to do with religion or things that are not politically correct. I feel they are the reason people are being forced to say "Coffee without milk" instead of "Black coffee". I demand to be reinstated in the UN! DON'T LET THE MODERATORS LEGISLATE FROM THE CHAIR!

Ah, an opponent of "judicial activism". Just lovely rhetoric you have there; too bad it's useless and largely baseless.

Thank you for your time, and please join me in reform of the moderation team here.

You plan to reform the Moderation team? I would suggest that you remove that log from your own eye first...you might see better.

Besides rolling my eyes at your rule-breaking and trying to blame it on "liberal mods," nevertheless, this belongs in the Moderation forum. :rolleyes:
Or the "I hate the UN" post. :rolleyes:

Insignificant.

This nation was ejected from the UN for inappropriate proposals; thus, they did not follow the rules specifically, IMHO, by A.) Encouraging nations to name call other nations who were slave nations (in their first proposal) and B.) Isolating a minority group (women) by forcing them to be stoned if they didn't wear burkas (in their second proposal).

Thus, ejection for multiple UN proposal violations. That's how the rules work; you should've read them before you participated.

You can create a new nation and join the UN with that nation, but "Lollingbow" will never be allowed back into the UN.
Minority? Women are 50% of the nation.

BTW: only a liberal or politically correct person would say that MY nation sees THEIR way as a CORRECT way and not at all in the wrong because of our religion.

I'm sorry, Lollingbow, but I completely failed to understand your last post. Are you accusing Tuesday Heights of being a liberal? Or accusing Tuesday of not being a liberal? Your last sentance was incomprehensible, please re-word it.

So I checked the U.N. Proposals now standing, that haven't been deleted by the Mods. The first one I saw was a proposal to repeal the Anti-Slavery Resolution, worded appropriately. After that was a repeal to gay rights, another conservative proposal. Really, it's beginning to look like the problem was how you made your proposal.

Wow. You're wrong on just about everything here. First of all, you were deleted by Hack, who is hardly what one would call "liberal".

You might ask WHY I was kicked from the UN, and it's simple: My ideology doesn't conform to that of the moderators.Let's see, we've got socialist mods, communist mods, capitalist mods, capitalizt mods, libertarian mods, liberal mods, conservative mods...

So, yeah, good luck finding a common ideology there. But, hey, don't reality get in the way of a good rant there, Sparky.

I started a proposal to repeal the ban on slavery, following the rules, using the freedom of "...You don't have to be politically correct" .Hm. Don't honestly remember that one. Of course, it would help if you could post the exact text of the proposal that was deleted. Then again, it's much easier to complain when there's no evidence, hmm?

I had another proposal about forcing women to wear burkas under penalty of stoning.Yeah... see... we don't have an "Oppression" category for proposals.

Simply put, my nation was an extremist islamic state,So what? A highly racist nation that hunts minorities in fox-hunt-style events will also be ejected if they try to have a UN Resolution to that effect.

They then kicked me for this, because I was a threat to the UN.A threat? Heh... you think too highly of yourself. You aren't a "threat" to anything. You're a rule-breaker who's complaining about being punished.

They delete these, but the resolutions (there are 40 at a time) calling for a repeal on the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution don't get taken away,Very observant. Your counting is a little off, but yeah, they stick around.

even though the rules say "When repealing a resolution, look to see if theres a proposal about this already".Well... there was a request about this. However, [violet] (you may be familiar, that's a Game Admin) has said that multiple repeals are to stay in the queue, regardless of their quality, as long as they don't break the rules.

The Moderators HATE that resolution, and are trying to get it voted off as much as possible,Laughable. Here's a little secret: most of the Mods don't care one way or the other about Fight the Axis of Evil. Furthermore, if there was some vast "liberal mod conspiracy", why are there also several repeals for Gay Rights, Legalize Euthanasia, and Abortion Rights still in the list? Wouldn't these evil liberal mods be squashing those left and right?

Oh, right... reality again...

thus the reason they let 40 proposals to get rid of it at one time.Nevermind the fact that the existance of so many proposals makes it less likely for any of them to reach the floor...

The moderators are extreme liberals who hate everything to do with religion or things that are not politically correct.See above comments.

Or, even better, stop this tired old nonsense. Christ, in two weeks there'll be someone bitching about those "damn ultra-conservative mods"...

I feel they are the reason people are being forced to say "Coffee without milk" instead of "Black coffee".You're making less and less sense as you go on. Personally, I say "real coffee", because only heathens add crap to perfectly good coffee.

I demand to be reinstated in the UN!Oh, yeah, that always works...

DON'T LET THE MODERATORS LEGISLATE FROM THE CHAIR!That's kinda the point of Moderators. So where would you prefer the legislation come from? The sofa? Perhaps sitting on the floor?

The entire United Nations body is mostly a pack of Liberals, each squabbling about how their rose-tinted spectacles are more rosy than the one next to them. I never even joined the U.N. for just this reason, and look at me now! 58th in the world for Arms Manufacturing, and a merely 115 nations from the least liberal nation in the game!

Point of the matter is that the United Nations, much as it is mirrored in real life, is an effective joke. Just quit the bunch of idiots and revel in the joy of pursuing your own political ideals. Trust me, it's highly rewarding.

I wouldn't have supported those proposals, but I can see where the poster is coming from. The rules thread says that bigoted proposals aren't allowed, but the examples given are about killing minorities or deporting them. I could understand how someone choosing to RP an Islamic state wouldn't see the concept of a burka as bigoted. Of course the issue of whether or not a proposal is bigoted can't always be excused by roleplay, but in this case I think it's not extreme enough to justify a ban. I guess I can understand deleting the proposals, and maybe giving a warning. But you have to admit that from one angle it looks like his nation was banned from the UN because he was role playing a nation whose politics the moderators disagreed with.

I think it comes down to the difference between those who choose to roleplay their nations in more far out ways and those who choose to run their nations very similar to their real life personal beliefs. And by kicking out nations that are a bit extremist but in my opinion don't cross the line between having strange principles and being offensive, it seems that roleplaying extremist nations is being discouraged.

I didn't get a chance to read the proposals, so I have no idea if they were well written or made much sense. But I'd rather see real proposals based on roleplaying a certain type of politics over stupid crap like the two ANTI PETORIA RESOLUTIONs that want the UN to somehow take action against Petoria because "HE DECIDED TO HURL ABUSE AT ALL OF HIS REGIONS MEMBERS BECOME UN DELEGATE AND KICK ALL OF THE GOOD PEOPLE OUT." :rolleyes:

BTW: only a liberal or politically correct person would say that MY nation sees THEIR way as a CORRECT way and not at all in the wrong because of our religion.

It doesn't matter; you're wrong, and you probably won't even listen to any of us who have been around long enough to know you're wrong.

I'm liberal, yes, but that has nothing to do with the rules of this game, and as such, you should just back off, move on, and carry on, because you aren't going to get your way.

You're wrong; we're right. Get over it and carry on before you cause more trouble than it's worth.

Just move on and make a new nation...don't start trouble.

puffft! Nice one buddy. :rolleyes:

ok even me an extreme comservative find you proposal to be disgusting stoneing women, because they wont wear a headdress? i mean come on! as much as i disagree with the lib. mods at times i am backing this fully!

You might ask WHY I was kicked from the UN, and it's simple: My ideology doesn't conform to that of the moderators.

I started a proposal to repeal the ban on slavery, following the rules, using the freedom of "...You don't have to be politically correct" . My point was that Nations might need Slavery, and even though other nations didn't approve, they could call each other names. I was told my resolution was offensive, and it got pulled.

I had another proposal about forcing women to wear burkas under penalty of stoning. Simply put, my nation was an extremist islamic state, and I hoped for others to follow this (THE POINT OF THE UN!) and it was also pulled for being too offensive. They then kicked me for this, because I was a threat to the UN.

They delete these, but the resolutions (there are 40 at a time) calling for a repeal on the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution don't get taken away, even though the rules say "When repealing a resolution, look to see if theres a proposal about this already". The Moderators HATE that resolution, and are trying to get it voted off as much as possible, thus the reason they let 40 proposals to get rid of it at one time.

The moderators are extreme liberals who hate everything to do with religion or things that are not politically correct. I feel they are the reason people are being forced to say "Coffee without milk" instead of "Black coffee". I demand to be reinstated in the UN! DON'T LET THE MODERATORS LEGISLATE FROM THE CHAIR!

Thank you for your time, and please join me in reform of the moderation team here.


Repeat after me the holy purple cow: "IT - IS - JUST - A - GAME." Besides, we're not all liberals here... but at least we know the difference from a reality and a fantasy. Reality: You didn't read the rules, posted some information you should of previewed and it's unlikely you're coming back.Fantasy: The fact that by some golden force of opportunity, a "glech" in the system will allow you to log in as a UN member and a magic web genie will grant you you're three wishes... :rollseyes: :)

From the purple cows to you, cheers. :cool:

puffft! Nice one buddy. :rolleyes:

Why? It's what needs to be done.

iI agree tuesday was right but remeber if u break the rules again we can do a IP ban on u! But doesnt always work considering some us dial up but w/e

iI agree tuesday was right but remeber if u break the rules again we can do a IP ban on u!

You're not a moderator/admin; don't threaten players like that.

Breaking UN rules hardly constitutes an IP ban... repeated, multiple offenses, may result in a ban but in extreme cases only.

i was threatening when i said we i meant the game in general dont be so weird about it geez.

i was threatening when i said we i meant the game in general dont be so weird about it geez.

Then, next time, don't use the word we making a player think that you may be capable of doing so.

ok im sorry bad me *slaps hiself* but truthfully have noticed a disbalance of conservative versus liberal mods which dos not seem fair to me but then again what does the peoples voice matter? Democracy is just a word to make things look nice.

ok im sorry bad me *slaps hiself* but truthfully have noticed a disbalance of conservative versus liberal mods which dos not seem fair to me but then again what does the peoples voice matter?

Actually, most of the mods are moderatre and barely lean far left or right... except for maybe Stephistan. ;)

Well, the biggest problem is the prevalence of 2-dimentional political thought.... many of the "libertarian" persons within this forum get labled as left or right wing depending on what the issue is... since our social thought is predominately liberal in nature, and our economic thought is predominately conservative in nature (though I use the terms liberal and conservative in their traditional sense, and not modern sense). I would agree the moderators are moderate in their approach.

I think I've stated before, many times, I preffer the 2-axis approach to political labeling..... left-right along the X and individualist-statist along the Y....

So, to label baseline political motifs:
A stalinist would be a far-left statist
A fascist would be a far-right statist
A "Liberal" would be a left-leaning centrist
A "Conservative" would be a right-leaning centrist
A Libertarian generally is a right-leaning individualist
And from the unique US view the Constitutionalist Party is far-right individualist
Communist are generally far-left statists
The French Libertaire are generally left-leaning individualists
Anarchists, in general, are centrist individualists.

The system allows much easier mapping out of peoples political ideologies, and even finding similarities for agreement between differing views when in contest....

Just, not everything falls into the "black&white" political spectrums that are layed out by most of the major operators these days.

I wouldn't have supported those proposals, but I can see where the poster is coming from. The rules thread says that bigoted proposals aren't allowed, but the examples given are about killing minorities or deporting them.

"Examples" being the key word there. By definition, "examples" are not all inclusive. They are guidelines. We like to think that players can logically extrapolate from examples.

I could understand how someone choosing to RP an Islamic state wouldn't see the concept of a burka as bigoted.

But Mods don't read UN proposals from a role-playing perspective.

Of course the issue of whether or not a proposal is bigoted can't always be excused by roleplay, but in this case I think it's not extreme enough to justify a ban.

I do. However, it doesn't much matter: he already had two previous unacceptable proposals. When a player submits 3 unacceptable proposals, they're ejected from the UN.

I guess I can understand deleting the proposals, and maybe giving a warning.

He already had two.

But you have to admit that from one angle it looks like his nation was banned from the UN because he was role playing a nation whose politics the moderators disagreed with.

As above: we don't look at proposals through a role-playing lens.

I think it comes down to the difference between those who choose to roleplay their nations in more far out ways and those who choose to run their nations very similar to their real life personal beliefs.

If he wants to be an oppressive Islamic state, he can do so. Just not in UN proposals.

And by kicking out nations that are a bit extremist but in my opinion don't cross the line between having strange principles and being offensive, it seems that roleplaying extremist nations is being discouraged.

Take a look in the NationStates and International Incidents forum...

But I'd rather see real proposals based on roleplaying a certain type of politics over stupid crap like the two ANTI PETORIA RESOLUTIONs that want the UN to somehow take action against Petoria because "HE DECIDED TO HURL ABUSE AT ALL OF HIS REGIONS MEMBERS BECOME UN DELEGATE AND KICK ALL OF THE GOOD PEOPLE OUT." :rolleyes:

I deletes `em as I sees `em. I average about 15 proposals a day deleted. Personally, I'm surprized I don't get more complaint theads...

Oh, and kicked to Moderation, which is where this really belongs.

Nobody cares about your resolution,
Not me, not the UN, and definitely not the moderators.
Chances are it wouldn't have passed anyway.
And coming to the Moderation forum is a mistake if you're looking for sympathy.
All you have here is hard-nosed moderators who apply their own rules, as well as their legion of brown-nosing moderator-wannabees who kiss their asses.
My suggestion:
find something worthy to bitch about.

You aren't the one to decide about "caring".
Besides you aren't helping his case anything at all.

Weren't you hunted to get DEAT btw??

Seems I was right..
Errr..
*moving along.. nothing to see*

I do. However, it doesn't much matter: he already had two previous unacceptable proposals. When a player submits 3 unacceptable proposals, they're ejected from the UN.


I'd like the Team to consider removing "strikes" after a year. Why? Some of those strikes are "rewarded" to players whom are not only active in the UN, but were honestly unaware that there was an issue with their proposal. The question really is, are the strikes issued for the same type of violation?

Consider it like this ... traffic tickets show on the record, but only those in a given time frame can automatically cause you to loose your license. The logic behind this is people shouldn't be penalized for making mistakes and learning from them.

I'd like the Team to consider removing "strikes" after a year.In this case that wouldn't have mattered:

Warned: UN Warning (mechanics). October 10th, 2004 -MGH | Level 2 (offensive). October 15th, 2004 -MGH | Ejected (highly offensive). October 16th, 2004 -MGHAs you can see, this was all within the period of a week.

Why? Some of those strikes are "rewarded" to players whom are not only active in the UN, but were honestly unaware that there was an issue with their proposal. The question really is, are the strikes issued for the same type of violation?

Not quite sure I follow. UN Warnings are a separate animal from other warnings. Two bad proposals and a Nazi flag won't get you ejected or deleted. Proposal warnings are only used to determin if someone should be ejected from the UN for bad proposals, nothing more, nothing less. For the first part, there's a sticky called "Before You Make A Resolution" for a reason. Remember, Enodia put that into place because the list was getting flooded with bad proposals. Something that's still occuring, I might add.

Consider it like this ... traffic tickets show on the record, but only those in a given time frame can automatically cause you to loose your license. The logic behind this is people shouldn't be penalized for making mistakes and learning from them.

Illinois "remembers" for four years... I don't think you want us to follow that method.

However, moderators do take time into account when deciding if we deleted / eject a nation for any rule violation. There's no hard set rule or anything, it's up to Mod descretion.

Democracy is just a word to make things look nice.Pity this is not a democracy any-way, other-wise that might actually have become some kind of " valid point ", a rare beast indeed these days.

Respectfully,
Do you think the reason you were removed was simply because you took previously passed resolutions, changed a few key words, and submitted them (over 40 if memory serves me correctly) to repeal said resolutions?

The added work you put on those that have to process each resolution is tremendous. I have no idea, nor do I care if these people get paid, but I do know that getting slammed with over 40 proposals in a short period, plus the usual flow would be excessive to say the least.

Maybe if you had sent one a week in instead of the flood, things would have turned out differently.


As for the "Liberal" leanings of the game, I totally agree. I wondered this very thing when I set my nation up. It was a crappy land and for some reason all "left of center" nations were getting "plush green land". The questions are heavily slanted as well, but what can you do or say when it's free?? LOL
Regards,

Republican Ideology

Lush forests = no mining for uranium in your rainforests whatsoever.
Crappy land = mining some or stripmining.

Nothing to do with left, right, center or other -- just with how you answer your first issues.

Rule #1: NEVER PO the people who have the power over you!
Rule #2: Don't be stupid; see rule one