[Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
Moderator: Staff
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
Do we still do the whole "culture" thing about claims? Or has that been axed?
HRH High Prince Babs Beau
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
I always take it into account and hope the others do too. Rather than just looking at post count, it's good to see what those posts contain culturally before making a decision
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
What you're suggesting with the getting people to sponsor you is effectively what the treaty thing says, except it's 17 people not 3 as you suggest, so they would have to work more to get 17 people, especially if nations are selective like shireroth is, and culture may well sway their vote on whether to give them a treaty
If we make it advisory people claim bias
And yes, we still look at culture, but not as mathematically as my ideal world would look at it
If we make it advisory people claim bias
And yes, we still look at culture, but not as mathematically as my ideal world would look at it
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
By all means check that there aren't just 1500 posts of "Ocia Pwns"* or whatever, but that's different to checking for 'culturally' enhanced posts?
*highly unlikely.
*highly unlikely.
HRH High Prince Babs Beau
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
There's also off-topic talk, then there's talk about what to do with the nation...babs wrote:but that's different to checking for 'culturally' enhanced posts?
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
No that's what I mean... I should rephrase that..
"but that's different to checking for "culturally" enhanced posts, no?"
It comes back to the age old debate of what is classified as 'culture'. Which is why I disagree wiht it being used as a criteria to judge whether a nation is fit for expansion/land.
"but that's different to checking for "culturally" enhanced posts, no?"
It comes back to the age old debate of what is classified as 'culture'. Which is why I disagree wiht it being used as a criteria to judge whether a nation is fit for expansion/land.
HRH High Prince Babs Beau
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
I always think it's obvious what's cultural, if I'm honest. Anything that adds to the nation (good or bad - backstories, projects, history, activities, etc) which isn't spam or off-topic chat is cultural...
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
That's exactly why I dislike it, because it's completely individual to each person. What you see as cultural, one of the other councillors or members may think is tat... so there is no concrete answer.
HRH High Prince Babs Beau
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
That's also why the council is supposed to be a fair reflection of all member nations, to give varying views on claims. Not everyone's going to agree on culture, so if the majority think it's cultured enough, it's accepted. If not, it isn't. That even works for post count too; one council member might think a nation has enough PPM to sustain the land, while another might think it doesn't. It's all down to the individual person's discretion...
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
Yet again, I must disagree. But I'm not AdGen, so....
HRH High Prince Babs Beau
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
Nothing's stopping you from disagreeing but with your logic, you'd give an "aye" to any forum that's getting posts, no matter what's contained in them
When assessing claims, culture's important. That's just the way it is...
When assessing claims, culture's important. That's just the way it is...
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
No, I would say anything other than blatant spam or just... crap, constitutes activity... I wouldn't disregard posts or topics just because they were about someone's favourite cheese or something.
HRH High Prince Babs Beau
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
Anything constitutes activity. We're talking about what constitutes culture though...babs wrote:No, I would say anything other than blatant spam or just... crap, constitutes activity...
Re: [Discussion] Dropping the three month rule
Yes but I was saying that from the point of view of me using only activity as a criteron for claim validity.
Christ my debating skills have nosedived, I've been away for too long!!
Christ my debating skills have nosedived, I've been away for too long!!
HRH High Prince Babs Beau
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
<insertcountlesstitleshere>
ACTIVITY GOD!
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact: