Conch KingdomBoard

watching intense fight*

Americo-Federation wrote:

watching intense fight*

Got anything of your own to weigh in on?

Free-Reorganized-States wrote:

Got anything of your own to weigh in on?

No :C

Americo-Federation wrote:

No :C

Fair enough

Free-Reorganized-States wrote:

Because as Kinshinsoukan pointed out, hate is subjective.

Right, but Nazism and White Supremacy is pretty straight forward. I'm not sure there is an instance where either of these would be acceptable.

Free-Reorganized-States wrote:

it ensures that you're only targeting groups you intend to.

I am only targeting groups I intend to based off their own creed as well as designation from the Southern Poverty Law Centers research which indicates as an organization or collection of individuals that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack, discriminate, or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

Free-Reorganized-States wrote:

If you don't define your terms

Right. Which will be explained in the actual policy when it is created. The thing is this is a list and nothing more that will accompany said policy which will outline the rules, policy, definitions, etc etc.

I apologize you guys took this as some official dispatch at this time however understand that is why I put "work in progress" in the title. Likewise, I really can't use other programs like google docs because it will not display the complicated bcode it takes to make said tables. There is a lot of coding if you click the raw button and making a dispatch on website is the only way that I can view if my code is working or is broken. Were I able to put it somewhere else I would. However simply creating a dispatch, despite insistance, does not inherently mean anything outside the authors intent for it.

Free-Reorganized-States wrote:

How about you define racist as any group whose stated goal is to implement authoritarian policy, in the name of a race based identitarian agenda?

This is already how I classify such.

Emiline wrote:

Right, but Nazism and White Supremacy is pretty straight forward. I'm not sure there is an instance where either of these would be acceptable.

I am only targeting groups I intend to based off their own creed as well as designation from the Southern Poverty Law Centers research which indicates as an organization or collection of individuals that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack, discriminate, or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

Right. Which will be explained in the actual policy when it is created. The thing is this is a list and nothing more that will accompany said policy which will outline the rules, policy, definitions, etc etc.

I apologize you guys took this as some official dispatch at this time however understand that is why I put "work in progress" in the title. Likewise, I really can't use other programs like google docs because it will not display the complicated bcode it takes to make said tables. There is a lot of coding if you click the raw button and making a dispatch on website is the only way that I can view if my code is working or is broken. Were I able to put it somewhere else I would. However simply creating a dispatch, despite insistance, does not inherently mean anything outside the authors intent for it.

This is already how I classify such.

Fair enough, in that case if someone points out how a group doesn't fit the defined term, will you remove them from the ban list?

Alternatively will you extend the ban if someone shows how an unlisted group would fit the definition?

If so then that's all my concerns at least.

Free-Reorganized-States wrote:

Fair enough, in that case if someone points out how a group doesn't fit the defined term, will you remove them from the ban list?

Alternatively will you extend the ban if someone shows how an unlisted group would fit the definition?

If so then that's all my concerns at least.

In both instances a case can be made to the Administrators, yes.

Emiline wrote:

In both instances a case can be made to the Administrators, yes.

Okay cool, that satisfies my liberal agenda then.

Have a nice day, hopefully the rule goes well.

Wallowis wrote:

whoever has the most endorsements will be the Delegate for the region, and the delegate is basically the leader

how does one become 'endorsed'?

also, how do I auction my cards?

Brown serpent wrote:

how does one become 'endorsed'?

You need to join the World Assembly!

Brown serpent wrote:

also, how do I auction my cards?

You can't auction cars but you can offer a sell price and hope someone buys it at that price ^^

Goo morning CK how are you all doing?

Socialist Platypus wrote:

You can't auction cars but you can offer a sell price and hope someone buys it at that price ^^

Goo morning CK how are you all doing?

I'm doing goo.~

How about you? :p

Galliadurm wrote:

I'm doing goo.~

How about you? :p

Doing well myself ^^

Free-Reorganized-States wrote:

Fair enough, in that case if someone points out how a group doesn't fit the defined term, will you remove them from the ban list?

Alternatively will you extend the ban if someone shows how an unlisted group would fit the definition?

If so then that's all my concerns at least.

Trust me, Emi has been diligent in consulting with people and sources of information (me for instance; hi I've got a modern history MA and specialised in fascism). There are some borderline cases on the draft list to be sure and ultimately it will come down to AA's own internal administrative review.

хай

Hey there, how have things been going?

Imperium of Josh wrote:

Trust me, Emi has been diligent in consulting with people and sources of information (me for instance; hi I've got a modern history MA and specialised in fascism). There are some borderline cases on the draft list to be sure and ultimately it will come down to AA's own internal administrative review.

Oh so we've got similar credentials then, that's cool.

Emiline wrote:

I am only targeting groups I intend to based off their own creed as well as designation from the Southern Poverty Law Centers research which indicates as an organization or collection of individuals that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack, discriminate, or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

my nation is canonically ruled by a massive chinchilla who values rodent lives over human lives but somehow they still have excellent civil rights so i guess we're ok

Tie-Died Chinchillas wrote:

my nation is canonically ruled by a massive chinchilla who values rodent lives over human lives but somehow they still have excellent civil rights so i guess we're ok

*rat noises that translate to: brother is that you???*