NationStates Jolt Archive

Might want to split off this discussion into a separate thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14727232#post14727232

It actually starts with an omnibus post listing a bunch of other silly proposals, but there's not much I can do about that.

Alright, sorry, I'll stop posting to it. Delete the proposal if you want, though how that's less worthy of consideration that all the other bollocks that usually gets 20 approvals eludes me.

I wasn't casting judgment on the proposal. I was simply suggesting the conversation be split off from the main topic so as to avoid overwhelming it.

I'll stop posting there as well. I should have checked here sooner.

I've split it off from the Silly Proposals thread. It's now here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=591105).

I think it's an interesting discussion that could help newbies learn the weird customs of the WA, and I'd urge you all to continue it.

Diplomatically, of course.

Not quite. "Bloody stupid" is for proposals that leave you gasping in disbelief -- "I can't believe anybody would even be bothered to write this!" proposals, or "what in the name of all that's wonderful does this idiot imagine this incredible mishmash of incoherence actually says?" proposals. It could conveniently be re-labelled "WTF? proposals".

"Beneath/not worthy of the WA's notice" is an argument that belongs in the debate phase of a proposal's life. It's not a reason to list it in the "Silly/Illegal" thread. If it doesn't contain any of the violations listed, it shouldn't be there.

Think of it this way: the violations listed exist to restrain mods as well as to restrain players. We must be able to quote chapter and verse on any proposal we delete. "Not worthy" (or "too minor", or "too local") is too subjective. Imagine what the Uber-Bastard-Evil-Biased-Mod could do with it -- "QoD is unworthy of being in the WA, therefore all proposals from QoD are unworthy of the WA, therefore I now delete his proposal to create a World Assembly International Children's Emergency Fund."

(EDIT: This is particularly relevant every time the WA divides between "internationalists" -- the WA is a federation, making laws for its constituent states -- and "sovereigntists" -- the individual states make all their own laws, the WA is just an administrative, co-ordinating body. Some of the mods are internationalist, some sovereigntist. If "not appropriate" was a violation, a "sovereigntist" mod could quite honestly see legislation on, say, capital punishment, as not something the WA should consider, and delete it./EDIT)

Believe it or not, "bloody silly" is a rare reason for deleting a proposal, since most people who can't write a reasonable line of text also get the category or strength wrong, brand the thing, try to apply it selectively or fail under the "format" violation (asks a question, doesn't state a WA action). A string of them would be a red flag to the Admins to make sure the mod concerned was not off on some personal vendetta.Could I please request that in the future, if a player happens to post a proposal that you personally don't consider to be illegal or silly, that these sorts of rebukes not be handed out by a moderator? I had no idea we had such stringent regulations as to what can or cannot be posted in a discussion thread. Nor do I think it unreasonable to assume that a proposal on eating contests was not submitted with completely serious intentions, as it is definitely not a conventional subject for WA legislation. It seems to me that any proposal that elicits a chuckle, or is of obvious or questionable legality, is fair game for the Silly and/or Illegal Proposals thread. This is, after all, a discussion board, and our purpose here is to encourage discussion and participation in the forum community, not only to post if one can divine how the moderators would rule on a specific proposal. If we're going to limit the thread only to proposals containing positively reportable offenses, well, that's what the Getting Help page is for, isn't it?

I notice your mod edit to the OP includes a note that Quod is an established player. Well, that's lovely, and he is an established player, and certainly a fine one, but that does not mean that anyone, even newbs, raising a legality question on one of his proposals should be presumed to be in the wrong. The WA forum is not UNOG; it is not a gentleman's club for senior players; it is an open forum for all players, new and old, and we should certainly not be in the business of discouraging participation in threads by newer players, whether we agree with their legal assessment of unconventional proposals or not.

The WA forum is not UNOG; it is not a gentleman's club for senior players; it is an open forum for all players, new and old, and we should certainly not be in the business of discouraging participation in threads by newer players, whether we agree with their legal assessment of unconventional proposals or not.

Sounds sig worthy. Bravo.

Hmm...Elmo Fudgesucker (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14727697&postcount=3) is back at it again I see. :DFlamebait/trolling.

The part you've bolded wasn't intended as a rebuke, but an observation. I wan't aiming at stopping a newcomer from discussing the legality of a proposal; I would have thought that making a new thread so that the discussion could be carried on more freely would show that.

Posters in the Silly or Illegal Proposals thread have developed a convention -- not a rule, so I was wrong to say "shouldn't be there" -- of posting a proposal with a brief reference to the violation the poster thinks he has identified. QoD, recognising that the discussion was going to be very far from brief, asked for it to be hived off. I agreed; I subscribe to that convention.

The hived-off discussion was about the "bloody stupid" category and whether QoD's proposal should be deleted under that particular technicality. I explained my view of that category and said it shouldn't. That was a ruling, yes: I'm not going to delete QoD's proposal under "Bloody Silly". Any other suggestions on its legality will be welcome in the thread. I take the view Rutianas expressed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14727734&postcount=14), which can be discussed in that thread.

The intent of my reference to QoD's longevity was, ironically, just the opposite of what you've assumed: I wanted to underline that old players' proposals should be as open to challenge as anyone else's. I think it's great that Eluneyasa's taking issue with QoD's, and I certainly apologise if I've given him, her or (in RP form) them any impression to the contrary.

Flamebait/trolling

Wasn't meant as a Flamebait. It was meant as a joke - hence the smiley. But okay, sorry to anybody that was offended.

Flamebait/trolling.

Could you explain that a little further? As far as I can see, Elmo Fudgesucker was a name QoD said would apply to himself if he was wrong on "category violation". So I took Unibot's post as either a joking reference to QoD (eg, "wrong again!") or a (rather obscure) way of suggesting that the second proposal under discussion was also illegal because of a category violation.

The part you've bolded wasn't intended as a rebuke, but an observation. I wan't aiming at stopping a newcomer from discussing the legality of a proposal; I would have thought that making a new thread so that the discussion could be carried on more freely would show that.

Posters in the Silly or Illegal Proposals thread have developed a convention -- not a rule, so I was wrong to say "shouldn't be there" -- of posting a proposal with a brief reference to the violation the poster thinks he has identified. QoD, recognising that the discussion was going to be very far from brief, asked for it to be hived off. I agreed; I subscribe to that convention.Yes, I know, and I agree, which is why I requested the hive off* in the first place (scroll up). Only the bolded part from my post suggested to me that you were trying to explain to elune why he shouldn't have posted Quod's proposal to the thread. If that was what you meant, then I disagree; if not, then the time I've spent on this might better have been spent goofing off in the Strangers' Bar.

EDIT: -- not a rule, so I was wrong to say "shouldn't be there" --Somehow I missed this part of your post, and I can accept this.

*I don't know, is it Australian for "split"? If a fat man bends over and hears a tear, has he "hived" his jeans? Makes sense, I suppose.

Could you explain that a little further? As far as I can see, Elmo Fudgesucker was a name QoD said would apply to himself if he was wrong on "category violation". So I took Unibot's post as either a joking reference to QoD (eg, "wrong again!") or a (rather obscure) way of suggesting that the second proposal under discussion was also illegal because of a category violation.I understood the context; I just thought it was unnecessarily snarky, amusing smiley or no.

Yes, I know, and I agree, which is why I requested the hive off* in the first place (scroll up).

All right, credit where it's due: it was you what dunnit. But don't expect any more free artichokes.:tongue:

Also, hive off (http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/hive_off.htm).

And, no, not unnecessarily snarky, for the WA.

I'll take this excuse to clarify yet again: it is double-plus-GOOD for anyone, new or old, to post to the Silly Proposals thread with what they think might be violations. The fact that a mod doesn't agree that it is a violation doesn't make the posting improper, unwanted or anything else negative.

It is also GOOD for all WA players to discuss the rules for proposals in detail, because that spreads the Knowledge and helps guard against clogged queues and people trying to slip a false illegality challenge past the mods on a proposal they personally dislike.

Not that anyone's ever tried that, of course.

which is why I requested the hive off*

*I don't know, is it Australian for "split"? If a fat man bends over and hears a tear, has he "hived" his jeans? Makes sense, I suppose.

Presumably it comes from the way in which hives of Bees split up when they achieve high enough populations, by sending forth swarms to establish new nests...