NationStates Jolt Archive

Half a percentage point of 38,043 nations GNP comes to an approximate funding of 2 Quadrillion USD equivalent.

With no control over the fundings, we see this amount being blown in a relatively short time - then again, nations are not told in what time period to give "0.5% of their GNP", so we are going to give one USD equivalent yearly for the next billion or so years.

Finally - so we give money. This solves the problem how?

Ill thought out, no teeth, does not solve the problem.

No support.

Couldn't you please take the side of this poorly written proposal, Vastiva? After your comments on third trimester abortion, I really hate having to agree with you. :)

Couldn't you please take the side of this poorly written proposal, Vastiva? After your comments on third trimester abortion, I really hate having to agree with you. :)

OOC: You really should consider the difference between disliking a proposal and disliking a player.

OOC: You really should consider the difference between disliking a proposal and disliking a player.

OOC It was sarcasm. Look it up.

OOC: From what I've seen of your methods of "debate," Rogue Newbie, I'm forced to take the side of Vastiva. I can't say that I've seen a recent debate in this forum that doesn't include you flaming those who oppose your views. If I remember correctly, you recently flamed a mod in the Moderation forum for being "uninformed" about abortion. In this case, you've taken Vastiva's views on an unrelated issue and used them as a reminder to all of your negative perception of him. Now, you may think that you're just being sarcastically humorous, and perhaps that would be the case if we could hear the tone in your voice, or see your facial expressions. However, we can't, and that leads to the conclusion on our part that your only intent is to flame your political opponents.

It's obvious that abortion is a sensitive issue for you, and I applaud your efforts to change what you see as unjust. However, stick to using legislation, not insults.

OOC: From what I've seen of your methods of "debate," Rogue Newbie, I'm forced to take the side of Vastiva. I can't say that I've seen a recent debate in this forum that doesn't include you flaming those who oppose your views. If I remember correctly, you recently flamed a mod in the Moderation forum for being "uninformed" about abortion. In this case, you've taken Vastiva's views on an unrelated issue and used them as a reminder to all of your negative perception of him. Now, you may think that you're just being sarcastically humorous, and perhaps that would be the case if we could hear the tone in your voice, or see your facial expressions. However, we can't, and that leads to the conclusion on our part that your only intent is to flame your political opponents.

It's obvious that abortion is a sensitive issue for you, and I applaud your efforts to change what you see as unjust. However, stick to using legislation, not insults.
* Puts the official stamp of modly endorsement on this post. Entirely correct, and well said. *

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

* Puts the official stamp of modly endorsement on this post. Entirely correct, and well said. *

"Well said," yes. "Entirely correct," no.

OOC: From what I've seen of your methods of "debate," Rogue Newbie, I'm forced to take the side of Vastiva. I can't say that I've seen a recent debate in this forum that doesn't include you flaming those who oppose your views. If I remember correctly, you recently flamed a mod in the Moderation forum for being "uninformed" about abortion. In this case, you've taken Vastiva's views on an unrelated issue and used them as a reminder to all of your negative perception of him. Now, you may think that you're just being sarcastically humorous, and perhaps that would be the case if we could hear the tone in your voice, or see your facial expressions. However, we can't, and that leads to the conclusion on our part that your only intent is to flame your political opponents.

OOC First of all, you remember incorrectly, I did not flame a mod for being uninformed about abortion, I called him uninformed with respect to my bill, which was a fact, as he called it an "abortion ban," which was utterly not the case. I was angered that he joined in on our conversation when he obviously hadn't even read my bill, and I believe I was right to be angry. Secondly, I only began insulting Vastiva's intelligence after he began insulting mine by claiming that my arguments were "emotionalist garbage," when in actuality the vast majority of my points had only to do with science and reality. Thirdly, it was sarcastic, and was intended to be humourous, but, if that was unclear to anyone, I apologize for the tone it may have had. A serious tone was not my intention at all. I am not one to hold grudges, and the situation is no different with Vastiva. Debates become heated, things are said that each party may find insulting, and I do not hold anything said in such an atmosphere against a person, personally.

I've had quite enough of your topic hijacks, Rogue Newbie. Since you insist on bringing up cross topic conversations in every thread you enter, I'm just going to start splitting them off to moderation or spam.

Can I talk to you, Frisbeeteria? On an instant messenger or a separate back-and-forth thread or something? I want to clear some things up, like that fact that I didn't hijack this topic. I would appreciate a chance to explain myself.

Seriously, please do not ignore this. My AIM handle is roguenewbie, and my MSN email is roguenewbie@hotmail.com, please speak to me on one of those or we can just talk here if you'll take five minutes to avert your attention to this thread.

Seriously, please do not ignore this. My AIM handle is roguenewbie, and my MSN email is roguenewbie@hotmail.com, please speak to me on one of those or we can just talk here if you'll take five minutes to avert your attention to this thread.

You can try #themodcave on IRC. I don't know if they accept such requests as tête-à-têtes with mods, but there's no harm in asking. It's on irc.esper.net

Thanks.

It's not working at all, that site keeps coming up as rydia.net.

It's not working at all, that site keeps coming up as rydia.net.

It's not a web site. It's a chat room. You have to either download a client, or use a program like Trillian, to access IRC.

irc.esper.net is a network in that chat world. #themodcave is a channel on that particular network where the mods hang out to make it convienent for people to report violations and ask for clarifiations.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8622592&postcount=10

Fris' post there explains it much better than myself.

OOC First of all, you remember incorrectly, I did not flame a mod for being uninformed about abortion, I called him uninformed with respect to my bill, which was a fact, as he called it an "abortion ban," which was utterly not the case. I was angered that he joined in on our conversation when he obviously hadn't even read my bill, and I believe I was right to be angry.GMC did, indeed, read your proposal. His calling it an abortion ban was a mistake of haste when typing and did not affect his judgment. It also does not change the fact that your proposal violated NationStates rules. Regardless of whether it's a repeal of legalized abortion or a subsequent proposal to ban abortion, shock tactics violate NationStates rules. Also, while you did not flame him, but you did flamebait him (at least mildly) by saying "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."

Secondly, I only began insulting Vastiva's intelligence after he began insulting mine by claiming that my arguments were "emotionalist garbage," when in actuality the vast majority of my points had only to do with science and reality.Rulebreaking does not justify rulebreaking. If one player insults another and the other player insult back, both are at fault regardless of who started it. Thus, arguments of "I only started rulebreaking after he started rulebreaking" are taken only as an admission of your guilt.

Thirdly, it was sarcastic, and was intended to be humourous, but, if that was unclear to anyone, I apologize for the tone it may have had. A serious tone was not my intention at all.Good. Hopefully we can move on past this.

Now, it's not entirely clear that you hijacked the topic; at first glance, it looks like topic drift, but your "when [GMC] obviously hadn't even read my bill" is possibly construable as flamebait and, as flamebait, would support a charge of hijacking. However, we're going to let this go wihtout an official warning for hijacking, but we consider this thread split AND the matter of your abortion repeal to be closed. Given your attitude here, we will not discuss this with you further.

iLock.

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