NationStates Jolt Archive

I need to speak with a U.N. moderator, if any are online please reply.

We have a Moderation forum for this purpose. That's why we call it the "Moderation" forum.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/moved_sm.jpg UN to Moderation

I just got an telegram from NationStates saying that it is totally unnecessary to put a graphic description of dilation and extraction in my proposal, and not to do it. First of all, nowhere in the rules did I see that graphic descriptions were not allowed in proposals, though I suppose that I could have missed it despite how carefully I made sure I was legal, and second, I find it completely necessary, because 95% of the people that vote here don't even read the forums or look things up, therefore the only way in which they will understand the point of the repeal is to describe it in the repeal itself. If I left out said description, most voters would not take it into consideration, because most voters don't come to the forums. Also, I figure that while I have your attention, I should mention my confusion at why my thread was closed; supposedly, it had to do with the fact that we were debating abortion, not the resolution being considered. However, dilation and extraction was the basis for the resolution being considered, so debating is was hardly irrelevant, and was, in fact, necessary for people to understand the concept behind the repeal.

By the way, I posted it in U.N. because I wanted the attention of a U.N. moderator that was most likely paying attention to what has been said recently. I was hoping not to get a global or technical moderator.

Shocking concept, I know, but the Terms and Conditions apply to UN Proposals, too.

Oh, it said that in the Terms and Conditions? Apologies, I must have missed it. Thanks.

I just wanted to try to minimalize the number of completely uninformed voters on this one. My intentions were in the name of scrupulosity, seeing as people are rarely meticulous in considering these bills and the repeal's wording itself is often all that they see.

I find it completely necessary, because 95% of the people that vote here don't even read the forums or look things up

Graphically violent content in proposals is not legal. A 'ban guns' resolution does not require a Three Kings grade description of a wound channel, and your 'ban abortion' proposal is not in any way added to by the graphic description.

It's just the truth that many people seem not to know, or not to fully comprehend. Also, I am hardly trying to ban abortion. I am trying to repeal the legislature that forces more than first and second term abortion to be legalized. I am pro choice up until the baby is fully-formed, at about 5 or 6 months, at which point it is biologically living and human, and at which point grotesque procedures like those I detailed are used to remove the baby.

PS: Thanks for not even reading it, and adding yourself to that statistic of people who don't consider the things they disagree with unless prompted by such graphic content.

PS: Thanks for not even reading it, and adding yourself to that statistic of people who don't consider the things they disagree with unless prompted by such graphic content.
It's this attitude that is earning you the responses you have been getting - or rather the "lack of respectful responses". When you dismiss all criticism and commentary as groundless, no matter where it is coming from, people find it impossible to hold a civil debate with you.

I'll remind you once again that it is permissible for players to hold opinions that you don't agree with, and for them to post such here. It is not permissible for you to flame people for disagreeing with you.

That is all.

I was simply stating a fact. He claimed I was trying to ban abortion, which was completely untrue and was obvious in light of the debate and the repeal itself. How is pointing out when the uninformed join in on a debate disrespectful?

PS: Thanks for not even reading it, and adding yourself to that statistic of people who don't consider the things they disagree with unless prompted by such graphic content.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 'accent' fallacy. That fact that I used an incorrect shorthand for your proposal does not mean I didn't read it, nor does it mean I don't know what a repeal can and cannot do.

Here's the rub: we do not allow shock tactics in UN proposals. They are supposed to be pieces of legislature made by an international body, not poster ads in newspapers. You should consider that if you need to use shock tactics to get people to pay attention to your proposal, it was probably never much of a proposal to begin with.

How is pointing out when the uninformed join in on a debate disrespectful?
When addressing a Game Moderator who was commenting on a decsion made jointly after review in the secret Mod IRC channel? I'd call it disrespectful to call him uninformed about it, yeah.

Since you seem to be determined to carry on your argument despite having been told multiple times to stop, I'll just lock this now.



Edit: Sorry, GMC - didn't mean to step on your toes with my concurrent response.