Definitions: voting

[Zimmerwald]

Should the definitions agreed upon here:

http://forum.taijitu.org/index.php/topic,916.0.html

be accepted as valid and binding by the RP Council?

[Bustos]

I disagree with expansion and joint colonies definitions.

[Zimmerwald]

New rule.  Instead of being anal and saying "I disagree with x, y, and z," you must also say why you disagree with the definitions, and what changes you would make.

Be constructive, please.

[Xyrael]

A Jewel Colony is the pride and joy of an empire. I would recommend that a nation be limited to either ONE Jewel Colony OR ONE Joint Jewel Colony. You can't have two favorites.

But, in fairness, I would ask that a further rule be tacked onto the Joint Jewel Colony so that a participating nation can treat it as a regular colony and not gain the rare from it, essentially it would act just the same as a Joint Colony. For example, if the Socialist nations of the world wanted to create a Joint Jewel Colony with diamonds, and I thought diamonds to be utterly useless, I wouldn't mine it. But I'd still like to be represented on Socialist alliance's land. So I'd get the Rice, and no diamonds. If that's too complex, then just leave it as one OR the other.

[Zimmerwald]

A Jewel Colony is the pride and joy of an empire. I would recommend that a nation be limited to either ONE Jewel Colony OR ONE Joint Jewel Colony. You can't have two favorites.

That is, I believe, included in the definitions of both Jewel Colonies and Joint Jewel Colonies.  It says you can only have one Jewel Colony, which includes Joint Jewel Colonies, and if you have a Joint Jewel Colony, you can't have anything else.

But, in fairness, I would ask that a further rule be tacked onto the Joint Jewel Colony so that a participating nation can treat it as a regular colony and not gain the rare from it, essentially it would act just the same as a Joint Colony. For example, if the Socialist nations of the world wanted to create a Joint Jewel Colony with diamonds, and I thought diamonds to be utterly useless, I wouldn't mine it. But I'd still like to be represented on Socialist alliance's land. So I'd get the Rice, and no diamonds. If that's too complex, then just leave it as one OR the other.

What's the point?  Even if you don't like diamonds, export them.

[Bustos]

New rule.  Instead of being anal and saying "I disagree with x, y, and z," you must also say why you disagree with the definitions, and what changes you would make.

Be constructive, please.

Thats what the discussion thread is for.

[Zimmerwald]

Well, you could have posted it there.  In fact, I remember that you did have objections to other definitions, and posted them, so I don't see why you take this time to post that you dislike completely different definitions.

Besides, it's ever so much more polite, and people listen to you more if you provide solutions, not just problems.

[Bustos]

"Yes to some (specify which ones)" is an option.  I specified which ones I am not supporting instead of listing the ones I do I'm lazy.

We are voting.   The time to talk about other solutions is at an end with the creation of this poll.  I stated my disagreements in the discussion thread.  As no alterations were made (despite some support), I continue to have those disagreements and am voting accordingly.  I fail to see what your problem is.

I am just specifying my vote accordingly to the options you have given!

[Zimmerwald]

No changes were made?  What the hell?

I changed Joint Jewel Colonies, Expansions, Joint Colonies, and Joint Expansions specifically at your and Eluvatar's requests, and fulfilled all of your requests except for the self-serving bullshit that deliberately tried to make these definitions serve your interests specifically. 

If expansions are changed to allow new resources per expansion, all that does is initiate massive landgrabs, especially by the powerful nations, and gives new RPers no chance to build themselves up or even get a substantial portion of the map.  Colonies are harder create than expansions, therefore they get more rewards.

[Bustos]

If I sound like I am debating about the definitions, I am not.  In that respect, I apologize.  I am well aware of your arguments.  That has nothing to do with my point.  And before you go further off on a topic that has nothing to do with what I am saying, let me try a simpler approach as I am often misunderstood.   

This is the voting thread.  "Yes to some (specify which ones)" is an option.  I choose that option.  I specified which definitions I do not agree with.  That's it.

Maybe I originally should have answered like this.  It might sound more "constructive" to you even though it says the exact same thing.

I voted Yes to some (specify which ones) and support the definitions of Colony and Jewel Colony only.

Better?

[Zimmerwald]

Not really.  Constructive is saying why you disagree and what could be improved.

If you don't want to be constructive with the criticism, I'm not going to take you very seriously.

[Bustos]

That's your perogitive.  My vote still stands.

[Zimmerwald]

And that's your perogative.

[Bustos]

It would appear either not everyone is aware of this vote or people just dont care.

[Bustos]

Arg!  I hate polls that do not let me change my vote.