God-modding - What is or isn't acceptable

[Drogue]

But in RL, did Archaic found it as a new nation? If so, he is allowed it. However, it is simple, ignore it. Just say Urbanised is not a port of Sheepsta, is not in Sheepsta, and is nothing to do with you. Sheepsta remains intact, and just the same. If you feel someone is god-modding, which this would be (stating what a port in your nation wants) then the best way to defend is to ignore it. Simply state it isn't true if you want, and ignore the whole issue. If someone is god-modding, is it really worth your time arguing against it?

[Sheep]

good point thanks.

[Drogue]

There we go

That is what I urge all people to do, to help stop conflict. Do not god-mod, and if you feel someone is, state it isn't true, and ignore the issue. If you want to do join storylines, have both nations agreeing on it.

[Urban Ranger]

[OOC]
I am against god-modding
[/OOC}

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue
Archaic's statement about the nationalisation of New Sheepsta, even though it states that they banned capitalism, and did not allow the mining, it is not for Archaic to state.

If Sheep posts that, then by all means challange him, and then talke about damages, but whether it has happened is for Sheep to decide. Archaic posting that is God-modding, even though it may be reasonable to think that, it is not Archaic's to say.

How exactly is it god-modding for me to point out that Sheepsta has done that. Nationstates said it, ergo, it happened, regardless of if Sheep wants to state otherwise.

Nothing else I said in my news network was godmodding. Remember, Bulbagarden is one of my nations.

Originally posted by Drogue
Thank you, and please think of others when you post. I would like to stress that even if it seems reasonable, it is not yours to assume effects on another nation.

So you're saying that even when it's practically explicitly stated on Nationstates, we can't point out that fact. So even though it's patently obvious he's a Corrupt Dictatorship, if he says "No, no, I'm really a utopia", he's a Utopia.

Private Industry Illegal => All Industry is State Owned => All Private Industry must have been nationalised.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
How exactly is it god-modding for me to point out that Sheepsta has done that. Nationstates said it, ergo, it happened, regardless of if Sheep wants to state otherwise.

No, it did not say on NS that he had nationalised all industry.

Originally posted by Archaic
So you're saying that even when it's practically explicitly stated on Nationstates, we can't point out that fact. So even though it's patently obvious he's a Corrupt Dictatorship, if he says "No, no, I'm really a utopia", he's a Utopia.

No, he can state what he wants in RP, and you can ignore it if you think it is wrong, as with the Utopia example you gave. However, you cannot god-mod, and thus state something that he might be, but you don't know. You can point out facts, but you cannot RP about his nation. If you don't like what he says, say so,and then ignore that information. However, you may not RP something else in its place.

Originally posted by Archaic
Private Industry Illegal => All Industry is State Owned => All Private Industry must have been nationalised.

No, it doesn't have to be. And even if it did, if it doesn't state that he has nationalised it, you cannot presume it. He could have asked all corporations to leave, and started his own national companies. Saying he has taken over a private industry is god-modding, since it does not state it. Moreover, even if it did state it, by all means reiterate it, bnut to RP around it, that isn't for you to do. You can't start an RP around someone elses nation, without their consent.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue

No, it did not say on NS that he had nationalised all industry.

Private industry is banned, ergo all industry is in state hands, ergo all private industry has been forcibly dissolved and/or nationalised. What part of this do you not understand Drogue?

Originally posted by Drogue
No, he can state what he wants in RP, and you can ignore it if you think it is wrong, as with the Utopia example you gave. However, you cannot god-mod, and thus state something that he might be, but you don't know. You can point out facts, but you cannot RP about his nation. If you don't like what he says, say so,and then ignore that information. However, you may not RP something else in its place.

It is not god-modding to state something that is Drogue. I only pointed out facts.

Originally posted by Drogue
No, it doesn't have to be. And even if it did, if it doesn't state that he has nationalised it, you cannot presume it. He could have asked all corporations to leave, and started his own national companies. Saying he has taken over a private industry is god-modding, since it does not state it. Moreover, even if it did state it, by all means reiterate it, bnut to RP around it, that isn't for you to do.

Adressed by both responses above.

Originally posted by Drogue
You can't start an RP around someone elses nation, without their consent.

Double Standards. You allowed Sheep to start an RP (Creation of New Sheepsta) in someone elses (Mine) nation (South Sheepsta) without my consent. Sheep had no claim to Sheepsta at that point in time. We both know his whole arguement was a special pleading fallacy.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
Private industry is banned, ergo all industry is in state hands, ergo all private industry has been forcibly dissolved and/or nationalised. What part of this do you not understand Drogue?

The bit that states that they have made it illegal for corporations to act in their nation does not mean that have forcibly taken anything. They simply said you cannot run your business here, something they are perfectly entitled to do. Are you so narrow visioned that you cannot see beyond the idea that nationalisation means forcibly taking something. Indeed, he hasn't nationalised. He has banned capitalism. Nomention of him taking anything from anyone, or nationalising it, just that there are no private enterprises there. Anything else, is not covered in the UN report, and is god-modding.

Originally posted by Archaic
It is not god-modding to state something that is Drogue. I only pointed out facts.

The quote for his UN Report. If it isn't there, its not a fact. Moreover, if its not your nation, its nothing to do with you.

Originally posted by Archaic
Double Standards. You allowed Sheep to start an RP (Creation of New Sheepsta) in someone elses (Mine) nation (South Sheepsta) without my consent. Sheep had no claim to Sheepsta at that point in time. We both know his whole arguement was a special pleading fallacy.

No, Sheepsta was originally his. Youn started an RP in his nation of Sheepsta, in creating North and South Sheepsta. His argument was based on the RP that you cannot just take a nation from someone. Yes in the game you can create North/South Sheepsta, but you may not place them where Sheepsta used to be, since that land is not yours. In RP terms, you had no right to that land, that is what the court decided.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue

The bit that states that they have made it illegal for corporations to act in their nation does not mean that have forcibly taken anything. They simply said you cannot run your business here, something they are perfectly entitled to do. Are you so narrow visioned that you cannot see beyond the idea that nationalisation means forcibly taking something. Indeed, he hasn't nationalised. He has banned capitalism. Nomention of him taking anything from anyone, or nationalising it, just that there are no private enterprises there. Anything else, is not covered in the UN report, and is god-modding.

So logical inference is godmodding now Drogue?

Private firms existed. Then when he took over, private firms were illegal. Now, something had to happen to all those firms, didn't it?

Originally posted by Drogue
The quote for his UN Report. If it isn't there, its not a fact. Moreover, if its not your nation, its nothing to do with you.

It's part of the continuing RP. It has plenty to do with me. Afterall, do you think a firm with a lot of power in the Alecrast government is going to lie down when they've practically had everything stolen from them? Legal or not under New Sheepstan law, it's not something they're going to accept, is it?

Originally posted by Drogue
No, Sheepsta was originally his. Youn started an RP in his nation of Sheepsta, in creating North and South Sheepsta. His argument was based on the RP that you cannot just take a nation from someone. Yes in the game you can create North/South Sheepsta, but you may not place them where Sheepsta used to be, since that land is not yours. In RP terms, you had no right to that land, that is what the court decided.

The court decided so based on a faulty premise that the nation was his, when it patently wasn't anymore. When I took the nations, I didn't take them from him, because at the time, they didn't belong to him. Yet, when he created New Sheepsta, he took part of a Nation that belonged to me, specifically South Sheepsta.

BTW, his arguement wasn't on RP terms at all. It was on his special pleading fallacy that he should be treated different from everyone else, and that just because he was away in hospital (Even though he demonstrated through his own claims that he had plenty of time to login at least once to nationstates, without even needing to post here), everything he didn't like in the RP that had happened since shouldn't apply. If this were in strictly RP terms, we both know that I should have won that.