Split from discussion on the Religion Compromise Bill

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
flemingovia:
no, Romanoffia, it is not obnoxious of me. It is just weary and resigned.

You can play the knight in shining armour all you wish. In my book, you are just a thug.
Click to expand...
:cry: Flemingovia called me a thug. Bwaaaaaaaaaa! :cry:

I'm going to tell my mummy on you, you naughty nasty name-caller!


300px-Mummy_in_Vatican_Museums.jpg


Roman's mummy (he keeps it in the basement) is extremely mad that Roman was called a 'Thug'.
​

:P

Terms and Conditions

Please note that all comments made by Romanoffia (hereafter referred to as "the poster") should be taken to be prefaced with the phrase, "this is pure snark" whether or not the phrase "this is pure snark" is actually used in the post. Therefore the poster is not liable to any charges of thuggery resulting from this post (see TNP v Grosse, 2013). By continuing to read this post you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions.
 
I was on topic.

Edit: actually, seeing as you have been one of Roman's cheerleaders, is it really appropriate for you to be moderating on the issue?
 
I am no ones cheerleader. I can see both sides. I am asking for civility and to debate the issue on its merits rather then sink to name calling. I dont want the RA proposal threads to sink into petty name calling one another - I am pretty sure the Speaker doesnt either. If you see recent other RA proposal threads I have admonished the person you claim I am "cheerleading" for in the same manner and for the same reasons.
 
You know. Ive taken up for you to. As ive said ive told everyone to stop bickering and name calling. And ive sought admin side of things by asking questions to them specifically about how certain things have went rather than solely listening to little birds.

Like I said. I can see both sides. At least the IC issues. I cant really speak on mod issues. And personally OOC: I have nothing against anyone here. I quite enjoy interacting with the lot of you. No one has done anything personal to me. And back IC: yes I can moderate and move things to Formal debates fairly. All I am asking is folks no matter the side to tune the rhetoric and name calling and insuations down a bit. Please?!

Wanna know my positions:

Do I support Flemingovianism? YES - IT IS A NEAT CONCEPT RP RELIGION. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART AS LONG AS IT IS AROUND. IF NOT IM OPEN TO OTHER RP RELIGIONS SHOULD THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.

MY VIEW ON 'OFFICAL STATE SPONSORED RELIGION: IM ON THE FENCE AND AT THIS POINT DONT CARE EITHWR WAY - THOUGH IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BICKER AND TEAR WORKING RELATIONSHIPS APART OVER IT ID RATHER NOT HAVE IT. - I DONT KNOW WHY ANY RELIGION NEEDS OFFICAL RECOGNITION OVER ANY OTHER. IT IS IN OUR BOR FREE EXPRESSION AND FREE RELIGIOUS BELIEF - IMHO - GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY LAW ON THE BOOKS - RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION SHOULD BE TREATED AS FREE EXPRESSION AND PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CONGREGATE TOGETHER AND WORSHIP AS THEY SEE FIT WITHOUT GOVT NEEDING TO PASS A LAW. IF IT IS SIMPLY FOR RP FINE FAIR ENOUGH.

HAS ROMAN BLEW THINGS OUT OF PROPORTION, EXAGGERATED AND EXASERBATED AND NIT PICKED AT THE ISSUES: YES PROBABLY

HAVE OTHERS DONE THE SAME THINGS: YES PROBABLY.

Honestly I have not tried to intentionally act disrepectful in any way. If I have came across that way I do aplogize. I have simply tried to take the middle ground and understand all points of view. Flem as an admin I think you do an awesome job, I like your IC style, OOC I dont know you but I am sure your a swell bloke. I just dont want my friends to fight. If discussions are going to be had can we discuss them in a civil manner?

As far as Doing my RA duties in keeping up with proposal threads. If I have done something wrong I ask the Speaker to let me know. But for the sake of the RA. My only intrest as deputy is the best intrests of conversation and discussion and not taking anyones side.

*sigh* - goes to the assembly cafeteria for a chocolate milk.
 
Whoever this was, can I formally object to the splitting and squirrelling away of regional assembly debate (off topic or on) before even a vote has taken place on the proposal?

I request that the split be reversed. As I said, part of the opposition to the bill is to do with rewarding bad behaviour. As such the split posts are[/] relevant.

 
Grosse made the motion idk procedure. Ill differ to the speaker on this that way theres no possible way someone can say COI. I can at least see if it will let me move the split thread back to the RA floor. I had it titled "non-germane posts on religion debate per grosse request" that way people knew where the comments were split from and could still read them.

Edit: Apparently I do not have the powet to move things out of archive that is as admin duty I guess or global mod? - your admin? Can you add them back in then we will let Zyvet decide?
 
Grosse made the motion idk procedure
Click to expand...

If you do not know procedure you should not be doing the action.

I have looked in the archive and i cannot find the thread you mention. Besides which, as the objector i do not think it would be appropriate for me to do the action either.
 
by the way, if recollection serves, one of the posts you split out was specifically titled "back on topic" and was germane to the argument against the proposal.

So even if the speakers desk argue that the split was justified, i would ask why relevant debate against the proposal was cut from the record, even before the vote.
 
I meant for adding them back in. I know how to split. Like I said they were still in the RA forum clearly readable as part of this argument for people who wanted to. - I saw grosses motion and thought it reasonable you said as much too. - I just dont think the bickering is germane to the topic at hand. Lets be adults non of us have acted rationaly or clearheaded weve let our personal feelings and egos get in the way. This is a game after all. Anyway personal opinion aside.

I saw grosses request thought it was reasonsble and split some posts out (but looking at the archive I think someone split more out earlier because honestly I do not remember splitting some of those out.)

Any way put it on the RA floor titled "non-germane relgious posts" or something to that affect. With sub topic "per Bill proposer Grosseschnauzer's request"

Someone another mod/admin moved it to archives titled A number of things

I understand if you feel for COI you cant move it back. But someone needs to. It shouldnt have left the floor. And I do believe your concerns are valid to. So they should be moved back in and we should appeal to the actual Speaker Zyvet to make a decision a time lord and truly neutral in all the things. (I think hes a robot)

Unfortunately I am only a mini mod as deputy and can only do these forums. If It would let me move them back in I would.

Someone jumped the gun. We dont archive RA threads til past 30 days anyway.
 
A lot of it seemed snarky IMO. And not very civil I guess? I just want some civility around here. My opinion. I used my discretion. Though I even say if i split something in error let me know. If someone would have left my splits on the RA where they were I could have easily moved them back no foul.

*shrug*

I am honestly trying to do what I feel best for facilitating RA debate - wrong or right making a decison my IRL bosd always tells me to just "make a decision - we wont fault you for deciding something."

Im not trying to continue anything malicious or undermine any discussion. I am sincerely trying to do my part in earnest. As I hope by now everyone is.

Anyway *off my soapbox* back on topic hopefully another mod or admin rectifies this.
 
saw grosses motion and thought it reasonable you said as much too
Click to expand...

No. I did not think it reasonable. I said I understood the intent of the request.

I understand the intent of the assassination of the archduke Ferdinand, which precipitated the first world war. that does not mean that I think the action reasonable.

But my main point is that since behaviour was a relevant part of the argument, splitting the posts increases the chances of the bill passing. Because anyone coming into the debate now would look and say "i do not see any bad behaviour being rewarded"

I will move the thread back to The RA floor and rename it "non-germane posts on religion debate per grosse request", which was your original title.

But I reiterate my original objection to splitting posts out from this topic before a vote has taken place.
 
If it goes back on the floor I can re add them (ive not done that before - but im smart i know how to read. Also im sure i can ask admin for technical assistance)

Then Grosse can remake his request if he wants, this time we will wait for Zyvet to decide.
 
Looking at the thread with the split posts in it, it seems to contain a merge of posts from at least a couple of topics.

So good luck sorting that one out.

Seriously guys, what were you thinking splitting, merging and archiving while a debate was still going on? especially when behaviour was relevant to the debate in hand.
 
Thats what I said I did not remember spliting some of those? Esp Romans mummy post. (Shaking my head) I am trying to see if it will let me add them back to their Original topics.

Off topic: this stuff is redic srsly were redic im redic. Im honestly getting a headache looking at this. I can appreciate what Admin does even if I may not personally approve of the methods?
 
Some of these posts came out of the private RA debate on a treaty (Silly String's post came from that one) I don't know where some of them came from.

I'd rather the split posts stay that way. In this forum. To be archived in regular order.
 
posts should only be split when they are off topic. In this instance the issue of behaviour is actually central to opposition to this bill.

Split, merge, archive - whatever. But not before a vote is cast.
 
Thx Grosse for explaining some of these mystery posts. Hopefully admin can put heads together and fix this? As to the two requests I appeal to the higher authority the Zyvet-bot
 
flemingovia:
Seriously guys, what were you thinking splitting, merging and archiving while a debate was still going on? especially when behaviour was relevant to the debate in hand.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this seems like a really poorly thought out move.
PaulWallLibertarian42:
A lot of it seemed snarky IMO. And not very civil I guess? I just want some civility around here. My opinion.
Click to expand...
Civility is definitely a good thing, but it's not the only thing. Sometimes people getting impolite (or worse) is part and parcel of a topic, and hiding all of that away in order to preserve the veneer of civility is problematic - and when taken to a certain level (not this one), interferes with the free expression of dissent.

Interpersonal conflict makes some people uncomfortable, and that's okay - and it's okay if you're one of those people. But sometimes the best response is to grit your teeth and scroll past while people air their grievances.
 
I insist my post on levers was perfectly on topic, as grosse brought up levers.

PWL, if you split out my levers post into its own thread, then move it back into the private subforum, you should then be able to merge it back in where it came from. :)
 
I got that. Now if I can do it with the rest of them. Then if someone wants to object to the on topicness they can again motion and I think it would be advisable to wait on the Zyvet-bot to make the ultimate ruling.
 
The 7 posts starting with flem's request for the thread to retitled "a compromise" all came from grosse's bill. And they don't even seem off-topic to me... :unsure:
 
Yeah I didnt split those.

Honestly the only ones I think *I* split where Nierr and I had a spat and I got a bit heated - I didnt feel it was nessicary or prudent to bill discussion anf inapproprate on both of our parts and flems "back on topic" do to romans response about "appeasement" it was snarky and I felt the flem comment read as intentionally trying to get a rise out of someone. - but again my opinion. I was even open to if I moved something I shouldnt have let me know.

The only things not put back in the mummy pic post as the site wont let me check mark it. And this "discussion" concerning moving things back.
 
Okay everything should be put back in this thread now. If Grosse and Flem would now like to explain their motions/request on why Posts should or should not be Split please do that. And I encourage waiting on a ruling from Mr. Speaker himself. This time. That way there can be no spectre of COI. Though I feel I have acted within the scope of my duties and no Conflict from my part except I guess I have a low tolerance for out and out arguments. People can disagree on proposals obviously that is part of debate - but flaming one another I dont feel is approprate and obv I also have a low tolerance of what that is as far as RA debate goes. *puts on some thick skin*
 
Right, posts discussing the splitting of posts have been split back to here. The first post (by Flem) on the matter of retitling the thread on the compromise bill remains, subsequent posts on the matter have been split back to here. Posts on the compromise bill made after Neirr's comment on the value of a generic law and before Flem's post on retitling have been split back to here. The mummy shall remain here. The levers, as they are not relevant to the on going private chamber debate (unless they are and this is a cunning way to distract from the lever related plotting), have been split back to here.

Now, hopefully this matter can be left where it is, and if it can, I shall lock this thread.
 
What the hell, Zyvet?

A) Split posts from different threads should not be merged!

B) Flem's request to rename was relevant as were the followups to that!

C) When a post is made in the private forum, it should stay in the private forum!

D) The mummy post absolutely belongs where it came from, as it is entirely part of the whole pattern of behavior that's being objected to. Hiding it hides that.

E) Not everything that expands the scope of a thread slightly, or veers into a little bit of silliness, needs to be immediately split out and squashed away in a corner as if it's shameful. These posts belong where they came from, all of them. Put them back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top