Particracy Forum

CCP wrote:

Auditorii wrote:I think being in charge of the WC you'd be interested in it's success, that doesn't quite appear to be the case. It rather appears you're content with the status quo and not advancing and building the organization.

James and Reddy, I've had it with this little asshole. Rein his bullshit in, or he'll get more like-for-like from me.

Honestly, for that message: #ImpeachCCP
Now, on a more serious note, we should really like make a vote on this or a real consultation for all players to be able to state their opinion.

CCP wrote:

Auditorii wrote:I think being in charge of the WC you'd be interested in it's success, that doesn't quite appear to be the case. It rather appears you're content with the status quo and not advancing and building the organization.

There you go casting aspersions again and attributing motive. You've responded directly to precisely two of the many substantive issues raised in this thread. You've told baldfaced lies about me, members of the roleplay team, and the moderators. You cut your snide, childish bullshit out, or I have nothing else to say to you out of character for any reason.

Regarding your point about the security council being designed for five members instead of three, it's a dumb, shallow point that has no significant impact on gameplay. If you were truly concerned about Luthori's activity, which has been an issue practically since the moment they were elected to the security council, you would've campaigned to get them voted out months ago.

James and Reddy, I've had it with this little asshole. Rein his bullshit in, or he'll get more like-for-like from me.

I don't think anyone here would use "little" as a word to describe my nature! I appreciate the appreciation though! If you'd like to discuss these lies and what not, I'd be hella interested to chat with you about it. I can't wait!

Now, moving on. Well, I have campaigned for many weeks to replace Luthori but the vast majority of our player base is inactive and doesn't see the reason to change votes or Luthori sent them a nice message saying: "wE aRE thE m0sT PoWrfUl nATion. SuPPort US!" and they were all excited and they did it, that's where that comes into play. It doesn't matter that Luthori in its home region of Artania is considered to be useless, it doesn't matter that their economic ranking and military ranking should suffer due to decades of neglect and misues, none of that matters.

Campaigning for a country have their seat removed in this game is incredibly difficult due to the fact that players rarely check the forums and rarely see that the nations they vote for, are like tits on a bull, useless.

This is uniformly true ^ I would know because I am trying to take Luthoris position in the security council for Malivia.

I have at least 2 replies being why should we change our vote from Luthori to you we are voting for them. And no its not from real active nations that responded.

Auditorii wrote:If you'd like to discuss these lies and what not, I'd be hella interested to chat with you about it. I can't wait!

PM me.

Auditorii wrote:Now, moving on. Well, I have campaigned for many weeks to replace Luthori but the vast majority of our player base is inactive and doesn't see the reason to change votes or Luthori sent them a nice message saying: "wE aRE thE m0sT PoWrfUl nATion. SuPPort US!" and they were all excited and they did it, that's where that comes into play. It doesn't matter that Luthori in its home region of Artania is considered to be useless, it doesn't matter that their economic ranking and military ranking should suffer due to decades of neglect and misues, none of that matters.

Campaigning for a country have their seat removed in this game is incredibly difficult due to the fact that players rarely check the forums and rarely see that the nations they vote for, are like tits on a bull, useless.

Yea, that's been the problem with Luthori since they first joined the SC. I think you're playing yourself short in terms of the amount of influence Dorvik has as an SC member. We didn't have great difficulty removing Vanuku as I said, and James has written elsewhere that he and Axxell didn't have great difficulty removing Hawu when I left the game. So I think it can be done within the parameters of the pre-Resolution 31 rules, which have the benefit of not reversing a game mechanics vote which is going to cause some justifiable constirnation. But James ruled that your R31 is fine with the changes you made, and as moderator that's his right, so R31 will go forward once three votes are in.

Mbites wrote:Now, on a more serious note, we should really like make a vote on this or a real consultation for all players to be able to state their opinion.

+1. This needs to be a game-wide consultation because many people won't notice this thread tucked away in the SC, but when they find out what's been done after the fact, there will be many complaints. I would like to strongly urge SC members to consider doing a comprehensive reform of the WC system including the drafting of a charter and to debate those comprehensive reforms in a thread in the General Discussion forum so that we can get maximum player input on this now and not have to revisit it later.

CCP is stepping down from his former role. I'll be filling in as the bureaucracy until someone new is appointed. If anybody would like the role, or if the SC members have someone to recommend then please let me or FPC know.

OOC: I apologize for the delay. I will post tonight.

Regarding the current Dundorf resolution:

I note that this resolution was amended (in a substantive way) after nations already cast their vote. At the time of this post, each of the nations that has cast a vote has voted for a proposal in a form that no longer exists. Zero nations have voted (either yes or no) on the proposal as amended. Obviously there are good reasons why the wording of a resolution might be redrafted, but when that occurs, you surely need to ensure that you still have everyone's agreement: i.e. through nations casting a new vote. It's the same in real life: if, for example, you are negotiating a contract with somebody else, you can't change the wording of the contract after the other person has already signed it.

It's potentially academic in this case, because I've deactivated the far-right party and the new government will presumably repeal the race laws. But you may wish to consider some kind of a rule about this, especially given the time limits imposed by Resolution 69.

StoiberKP wrote:Regarding the current Dundorf resolution:

I note that this resolution was amended (in a substantive way) after nations already cast their vote. At the time of this post, each of the nations that has cast a vote has voted for a proposal in a form that no longer exists. Zero nations have voted (either yes or no) on the proposal as amended. Obviously there are good reasons why the wording of a resolution might be redrafted, but when that occurs, you surely need to ensure that you still have everyone's agreement: i.e. through nations casting a new vote. It's the same in real life: if, for example, you are negotiating a contract with somebody else, you can't change the wording of the contract after the other person has already signed it.

It's potentially academic in this case, because I've deactivated the far-right party and the new government will presumably repeal the race laws. But you may wish to consider some kind of a rule about this, especially given the time limits imposed by Resolution 69.

Thank you for your feedback, the reforms posted here: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8304

Kind of have what you speak about in mind, traditionally amended proposals have a revote but there was still discussion. I’ve kind of gone back and forth with adding a component to the 7 day (formerly the 5 day rule) that if there is significant discussion then the time will be extended.

So Auditorii, please, now that I'm in the right place, can you give me some clarification about the question I posed into the Security Council?

Can Istalia partecipate? And how it can partecipate? As great power or not? If not, there is the possibility to add once again the option "Istalia" for the article on the game about the candidate for seat B of the security council? And there is the possibility to organize new elections for the member of the security council?
Sorry for all these question but... I don't know what's happening anymore.

Thank you