Difference between revisions of "Talk:Coalition of Anti-Capitalist Economies/Archive"

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
m (putting remarks in proper order and adding in breaklines for readability)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
Obviously, there is bound to be a great deal of disagreement from both sides.  I only ask that everyone keep it civil and *try* to understand where the other person is coming from.  Including myself!  No flaming the mediator! ;-) -- [[User:Iansisle|Iansisle]] 01:41, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)
 
Obviously, there is bound to be a great deal of disagreement from both sides.  I only ask that everyone keep it civil and *try* to understand where the other person is coming from.  Including myself!  No flaming the mediator! ;-) -- [[User:Iansisle|Iansisle]] 01:41, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)
 
----
 
----
 +
Now wait just a minute here... I was going to stay out of this but it strikes me as a bit odd to go on the rightious indignation trip on the talk page while editing the actual page further and further away from the compromise suggested by Iansisle. ''"more transparent decision making than similar organizations on the capitalist side"''??? I beg your pardon but even though it is technically stated as an opinion it is really totally NPOV *and* simply disproven. KIST, the WTO and the Martian Free Trade Agreement do NOT have compulsory registration, secret forums with password protection and an elaborate system of offsite boards for secret meetings of parts of the membership. Using a disputed text to take a direct jab at "the other side" via the Wiki just doesn't do it for me. As I see it we can:
 +
 +
#Accept Iansisles compromise as is. It does not distract too much from the overall tenet of your story while not being as NPOV.
 +
#Scrap the entire reference to openness. (And, obviously, the reference to being better then the evil capitalists.)
  
  

Revision as of 19:06, 16 November 2004

Since we're all a bunch of red bastards, the CACE is going to keep our red background, thanks. --Pudding


Let's not start editing other people's entries to make petty points. I'm refereing to the edit that said that CACE makes it's decisions behind closed doors. Utter rubbish. A few people may think that way because they're been banned from the site for getting their friends to aqcuire passwords and using them to gain access to the secutiry forum - note: security, not policy - or that users are now required to register on the CACE forums before gaining acces to them. No restirictions are placed on registration (unless you're banned for the aforementioned reasons).

So please, let's not go down this road or the site will become useless.

--Celdonia 13:31, 15 Oct 2004 (GMT)


I made my point previously but it seems Rezo still want to make his petty points.

I think this site is a wonderful initiative and should be commended, but it would be Ohhhh so easy for me, or any one else I RP with, to start screwing with the entries of nations or alliances we don't see eye-to-eye with. But we haven't done it because we realise that the site would become useless if we all started screwing around with other people’s entries.

Rezo do us all a favour and just stick to your own entries and stop acting like an arse.

Celdonia 00:25, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)


I have to agree. Most of the time I've tried to be very neutral when it comes to OOC disputes, but this is beyond the heights of pettiness. Just stop it, I'm tired of the endless crap. --62.252.128.19 07:34, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)


The spirit of compromise:

The sentence which currently reads "The Coalition is a very open organization, and prides itself on transparent decision making..." apparently have caused a great deal of debate among wiki users and threaten to start an edit war - which I was about to participate in - that could undermine the NPOV sentiment of the wiki. Therefore, I propose that both sides sit down and see if we can't hammer out a compromise.

Now, Celdonia states above that the CACE, compared to many other treatied organizations, has its doors open. However, he does mention that some people have been blocked from registering due to past infractions, perhaps leading those people to feel 'locked out'. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion on this matter and a definate verb like 'is' simply won't do.

The original sentence read: "The Coalition considers itself an open organization, and prides itself on transparent decision making", which I believe satisfies the basic tenent - the Coalition considers itself indicated that outside the Coalition, opinion is not uniform. A good compromise may be "The Coalition considers itself an open organization, though some disagree, and prides itself on its almost entirely transparent decision making process..." This maintains that the CACE believes itself to be open and is proud of the fact, that some disagree with that sentiment, and it keeps the sentence from becoming too unwieldly.

Obviously, there is bound to be a great deal of disagreement from both sides. I only ask that everyone keep it civil and *try* to understand where the other person is coming from. Including myself! No flaming the mediator! ;-) -- Iansisle 01:41, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Now wait just a minute here... I was going to stay out of this but it strikes me as a bit odd to go on the rightious indignation trip on the talk page while editing the actual page further and further away from the compromise suggested by Iansisle. "more transparent decision making than similar organizations on the capitalist side"??? I beg your pardon but even though it is technically stated as an opinion it is really totally NPOV *and* simply disproven. KIST, the WTO and the Martian Free Trade Agreement do NOT have compulsory registration, secret forums with password protection and an elaborate system of offsite boards for secret meetings of parts of the membership. Using a disputed text to take a direct jab at "the other side" via the Wiki just doesn't do it for me. As I see it we can:

  1. Accept Iansisles compromise as is. It does not distract too much from the overall tenet of your story while not being as NPOV.
  2. Scrap the entire reference to openness. (And, obviously, the reference to being better then the evil capitalists.)


Coalition of Anti-Capitalist Economies FAC Vote (1/4/0)

  • Just a request - could people please remember to sign their votes with 4 tildes (~~~~) and update the vote tally when they vote? Thanks. --Goobergunch

Support

  1. Nominated by me as an historically significant, and very log standing alliance --Celdonia 17:18, 24 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Oppose

  1. It seems to me a featured article should be of high quality and this is a rather short entry that does not really stand out one way or the other. The "political significance" should make no difference IMO. If it had a history and an overview of policies and all that it would be a different matter. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 17:28, 24 Oct 2004 (GMT)
  2. I don't think this article meets the standard of "one of the finest examples of NSwiki's work." There's a lot that could be said about CACE, and this article doesn't do it justice in my opinion. Is CACE a subject that could get a featured article on it? Yes. Does the article at present qualify it for featured status? No. --Goobergunch|? 17:38, 24 Oct 2004 (GMT)
  3. I don't really have an opinion on the page, but it seems to me it was nominated due to its significance to the game, not the wiki. That's not reason for a FAC nomination, IMO. Frisbeeteria Θtalk 17:57, 24 Oct 2004 (GMT)
  4. I don't really think this article is deserving of a featured article nomination. It just doesn't seem long enough. International Racing

Neutral

Comments/Questions

  1. Ok, as "significance to the game" is apparantly not a valid criteria I withdraw the nomination until a more in depth article become available.