Commend & Condemn

[Absolvability]

Feeder regions such as the Pacifics, Reject Realms, Warzone regions or Lazarus should be immune from the new categories due to the myriad functionality that other regions don't.

I've already made a suggestion that non-WA nations should be excluded from this... for the very same reason they are excluded from everything else. I don't think we should go as far as to exclude regions specifically. Afterall, some of the feeder regions house very powerful Delegates that may need commendation/condemnation.

[Sydia]

Feeder regions such as the Pacifics, Reject Realms, Warzone regions or Lazarus should be immune from the new categories due to the myriad functionality that other regions don't.

I've already made a suggestion that non-WA nations should be excluded from this... for the very same reason they are excluded from everything else. I don't think we should go as far as to exclude regions specifically. Afterall, some of the feeder regions house very powerful Delegates that may need commendation/condemnation.

Indeed.

Following on from thoughts earlier in the thread, is it appropriate to nominate yourself or your own region for commendation (or condemnation, if that's how you get your kicks)? I submit that it is not, and such proposals should be seen as illegal lest we turn the WA in to some sort of popularity contest. Er, moreso.

[Absolvability]

Agreed. Or, since we're OOC, "I can get down with that... yo"

[Blasted Pirates]

Now works in IE.

I'm still getting the same thing Cob is in IE.

[Blasted Pirates]

I'm not against the idea, I rather like it since it shows how many of us hate each other and how many of us adore others. But Like Kenny, we don't like how it's clogging up the proposal queue. As it stands right now there are almost two pages worth of these proposal types. A good set of reuls specifically pertaining to these types would be appreciated as well.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not against the idea, either. However, I think there needs to be a clear and concise set of reasons for World Assembly nations to be condemned, at least. Knowingly violating World Assembly resolutions could be one. I think if these categories are left to be freely used, the World Assembly would lose some of its prestige. What would you think if WAR#100 was an extremely well-written piece of humanitarian aid legislation, and just down the list at WAR#101 is a nation being condemned for slapping people in the face with a trout?

Furthermore, and forgive me if this has already been mentioned, what about II nations joining the World Assembly and flooding us with condemnations over wars, etc. that we've traditionally denied the existence of in the WA world?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That won't happen; the only IIers who care about the WA (and bug us for "intervention") are n00bs who don't really understand how the game works. Most IIers blissfully pretend we don't exist, and it's a lot better that way.

Still something must be done. If these things are going to start clogging the list, we really have to get cracking on making and enforcing uniform standards. No one cares about disputes in regional politics or land grabs or actions in diplomacy, trade or wars that have nothing to do with the WA itself. "Condemns [Nation X] for its application of torture on prisoners, in violation of WA Resolution #8" is fine; it is at least relevant to the business conducted here. Everything else - keep it to yourself; we really don't give a damn.

[Urgench]

That won't happen; the only IIers who care about the WA (and bug us for "intervention") are n00bs who don't really understand how the game works. Most IIers blissfully pretend we don't exist, and it's a lot better that way.

Still something must be done. If these things are going to start clogging the list, we really have to get cracking on making and enforcing uniform standards. No one cares about disputes in regional politics or land grabs or actions in diplomacy, trade or wars that have nothing to do with the WA itself. "Condemns [Nation X] for its application of torture on prisoners, in violation of WA Resolution #8" is fine; it is at least relevant to the business conducted here. Everything else - keep it to yourself; we really don't give a damn.

Quite, I couldn't agree more old chap.

[Starblaydia]

Perhaps a separate queue for Commend and Condem that treats them in the same manner as Resolutions but doesn't display them in amongst each other:

Proposals
Proposals are suggestions for resolutions. Any WA member nation with at least two endorsements may make a proposal, which, if it gains the necessary support, will become a resolution.
[List Proposals] [Submit a Proposal]

---

Commendations & Condemnations
A Commendation expresses the World Assembly's warm support and approval for the nation or region in question; a Condemnation, its outrage and dismay. Either way, the recipient is branded with a graphic to ensuring their fame (or infamy) is broadcast for all to see.
[List Proposals] [Propose to Commend or Condemn a Nation or Region]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Perhaps a separate queue for Commend and Condem that treats them in the same manner as Resolutions but doesn't display them in amongst each other:

Proposals
Proposals are suggestions for resolutions. Any WA member nation with at least two endorsements may make a proposal, which, if it gains the necessary support, will become a resolution.
[List Proposals] [Submit a Proposal]

---

Commendations & Condemnations
A Commendation expresses the World Assembly's warm support and approval for the nation or region in question; a Condemnation, its outrage and dismay. Either way, the recipient is branded with a graphic to ensuring their fame (or infamy) is broadcast for all to see.
[List Proposals] [Propose to Commend or Condemn a Nation or Region]

Hey that's a good idea.

[[violet]]

Perhaps a notification/telegram that someone has proposed something about you (or in the case of the region, to the founder and/or WA delegate) when it is first entered?

Whoops, it should have been doing that already, but there was a bug. Now fixed.

[Starblaydia]

Perhaps a notification/telegram that someone has proposed something about you (or in the case of the region, to the founder and/or WA delegate) when it is first entered?

Whoops, it should have been doing that already, but there was a bug. Now fixed.

Aw, nuts, I thought that was a great idea.

Not to say it isn't still a great idea, I just figured it was mine

[[violet]]

proposals, when they become successful resolutions, affect all WA nations' stats, depending on the categories. Do these?

No. Commendation and Condemnation join Bookkeeping as categories that do not affect WA member stats upon passing as Resolutions.

If it changes all the proposal rules, okay, it changes the proposal rules. They were the work of players-then, other players-now can rewrite them.

It would help, though if you could give us some guidelines -- area(s) of effect, a sample proposal in this category, what will happen if a nation gets a commendation/condemnation, will these have strengths.

If a Resolution passes, the nominee gets the badge displayed on its main page, and clicking that badge takes you to the relevant Resolution. That's pretty much it, aside from some logging. In all other respects, the Resolution is like any other.

Personally I think we shouldn't rush into rules limiting how these can be used. Naturally, there will be a lot of them proposed early, because they're something new in a game that hasn't had many updates lately. But having a long list of unsupported proposals is not a big problem -- it only means Delegates have more to wade through for a while. A lot of supported C&C proposals would be a problem, especially if the flow of them doesn't seem to be letting up, as that would clog up the queue for other legislation. But I'd rather not go overkill trying to solve a problem we don't yet, outlawing things that might have been quite cool.

For example, this could be fun ...

RECOGNISING that most nations in the Region of Theocracies refuse to fund secular education, and
NOTING that most of its member nations have failed to implement any WA human rights resolutions, and
APPALLED at the spelling of the documents in which they offensively declare their stubborn rejection of these noble aims, the World Assembly:

1. Condemns the Region of Theocracies
2. Declares that all nations within said region will be subject to an Official Outraged Communication from the Secretariat.
3. Exempts the nation of Goodygoody, which has been exemplary in its compliance with WA resolutions.

I'd like to see proposals like that--with, as mentioned, some supporting evidence. I think it would be a little heavy-handed to jump in straight away with "You must contain X links to Y," but perhaps the way to go is to start with something general that can be refined later. Maybe: "C&C Proposals should reference sufficient supporting evidence to allow a person unfamiliar with the nation or region in question to form a reasonable opinion of its merits."

(I also foresee an increase in WA mods' work, and I'm getting in touch with my shop steward right now: higher pay, daily doughnuts, staff discounts, the lot!)

I am prepared to raise your wages by one million percent! How's that?

What would you think if WAR#100 was an extremely well-written piece of humanitarian aid legislation, and just down the list at WAR#101 is a nation being condemned for slapping people in the face with a trout?

I don't think anyone has suggested abandoning all existing WA rules for these new Resolution categories. It's unacceptable to propose a trout-slapping Resolution no matter which category it's in.

No one cares about disputes in regional politics or land grabs or actions in diplomacy, trade or wars that have nothing to do with the WA itself. "Condemns [Nation X] for its application of torture on prisoners, in violation of WA Resolution #8" is fine; it is at least relevant to the business conducted here. Everything else - keep it to yourself; we really don't give a damn.

I appreciate that point of view, but there's is an equally valid section of the WA that doesn't give a damn about a torture RP on the forum--doesn't even consider it real--but cares very much about regional politics. I don't think one group should be able to declare the other irrelevant.

[Urgench]

No one cares about disputes in regional politics or land grabs or actions in diplomacy, trade or wars that have nothing to do with the WA itself. "Condemns [Nation X] for its application of torture on prisoners, in violation of WA Resolution #8" is fine; it is at least relevant to the business conducted here. Everything else - keep it to yourself; we really don't give a damn.

I appreciate that point of view, but there's is an equally valid section of the WA that doesn't give a damn about a torture RP on the forum--doesn't even consider it real--but cares very much about regional politics. I don't think one group should be able to declare the other irrelevant.

So the w.a. should be condemning or commending regions or nations for things it can't possibly have any interest or involvement in ? It's not like the w.a. can involve itself in regional politics but it can have votes to commend or condemn regions and nations for what they get up to in regional politcs ?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't think anyone has suggested abandoning all existing WA rules for these new Resolution categories. It's unacceptable to propose a trout-slapping Resolution no matter which category it's in.

I don't think it's so much a matter of rules, but of reputation and prestige, even if it's all just in our heads; even if I have some kind of delusion of self-importance and elitism, because the following is going to sound like I do.

When it comes down to it, there's a certain acceptable quality of WA resolutions; anything below this perceived and self-moderated quality is generally not ever going to make it in to the books. I'm not trying to say and C&C resolutions are inherently below this quality marker. But, I am saying that if we introduce regional politics and happenings in to the World Assembly without a set list of regulations, C&C resolutions are destined to become about trout-slapping (which is, of course, a metaphor for just plain dumb things that the World Assembly would never bother with otherwise). Since this quality marker is self-moderated, it's likely that those resolutions won't pass very often. But, it's easier to make a case against them when you have rules to quote.

[Unibot]

It's not like the w.a. can involve itself in regional politics but it can have votes to commend or condemn regions and nations for what they get up to in regional politcs ?

It can't involve itself, yet.... muhahaah

[Ardchoille]

(I also foresee an increase in WA mods' work, and I'm getting in touch with my shop steward right now: higher pay, daily doughnuts, staff discounts, the lot!)

I am prepared to raise your wages by one million percent! How's that?

Bah, what will that do for infrastructure? I want my economy stimulated, too. *sulks*

Damn, orright, the topic ... I like the idea of separating these from regular WA proposals. Maybe even separating the debates into a sub-forum.

As said at my usual wordy length elsewhere, I'm also discombobulated about what effect this will have on quorum: I imagine it will push it sky-high, which may mean (a) even these light-hearted category proposals will be difficult to get to vote (b) a whole lot of players will suddenly learn about TG campaigns, which isn't a bad thing, as such.

[[violet]]

I don't think anyone has suggested abandoning all existing WA rules for these new Resolution categories. It's unacceptable to propose a trout-slapping Resolution no matter which category it's in.

I don't think it's so much a matter of rules, but of reputation and prestige, even if it's all just in our heads; even if I have some kind of delusion of self-importance and elitism, because the following is going to sound like I do.

Naturally the first thing some people did was run off and make joke proposals with Commend and Condemn, but I don't expect that to be the norm. In fact, it's illegal, according to the WA rules sticky. I would be disappointed if the WA didn't hold C&C proposals to the usual standard.

[[violet]]

Wait, I get it, you're saying that those Gameplay types are going to rush in and get their muddy feet over everything. They won't appreciate the WA's dignity and stature and will use it as their personal trophy case. Right?

[Unibot]

Damn, orright, the topic ... I like the idea of separating these from regular WA proposals. Maybe even separating the debates into a sub-forum.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1308 ?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Wait, I get it, you're saying that those Gameplay types are going to rush in and get their muddy feet over everything. They won't appreciate the WA's dignity and stature and will use it as their personal trophy case. Right?

If regional offsite activity is any indicator, I imagine most gameplayers would use commendations to brownnose, and condemnations to attack other players with whom they share personal disagreements. The WA proposal rules eschew most gameplay/metagaming/other OOC crap for a reason, you know. We have minimum standards for submitting WA resolutions; why can we not have minimum standards for proposing commend-/condemnations?

[[violet]]

I don't mean to imply it's not a valid concern; I'm just trying to figure out if that is your concern.

Minimum standards: these aren't changing. The only tweak I see needed is Branding (for obvious reasons). Nothing about C&Cs is OOC, or implies changing gameplay mechanics.

I pose a genuine question: is the resistance here actually because you don't want to share the World Assembly with Gameplay? Because I don't want to run around trying to solve problems that aren't the real issue.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Reference to gameplay (i.e., nations, regions, invasions, daily issues, anything else) is illegal as a metagaming offense. I believe Quod explained this in the very first reply to this thread. Seeing as his question still has not been answered clearly, perhaps it would do to pose it again: are these new categories specially exempt from metagaming rules, or not?

It doesn't explain things a whole lot when in one post you claim of course the rules are going to be enforced, and in the next you're seemingly rebuking us for being snobs and wanting to ruin the game for everybody else.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to be an asshole. I would really like to see how this things works out, and help out in any way I can. But I would like some straight answers on existing game rules first.

[Ardchoille]

I pose a genuine question: is the resistance here actually because you don't want to share the World Assembly with Gameplay? Because I don't want to run around trying to solve problems that aren't the real issue.

Much of the "resistance" -- which I think is more "confusion" -- is based on this:

Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-WA nations.

That's not an arbitrary rule created last time Hack updated the thread, It's the distillation of almost six years of mods and players struggling to work out rules for dealing with proposals on a forum where some play IC and some are permanently OOC. The latter speak with their "own" voice, but they're also the leader, shaper, owner and creator of a nation.

Add to that the double vision created by some people playing as delegates for their nation, some playing as Delegates for their region (a Gameplay and in some cases a roleplay position), some as both and some as neither.

Put these together with metagaming, which is a damn difficult concept to explain to people who don't RP, and you've got a lot of room for argument. Those simple "no-nos" have reduced the arguments, by making it easier for the non-RPers to deal with. They've been reinforced by many a deleted proposal and heated debate.

Consequently, anyone who plays the WA for a while "knows" that you can't mention your nation or anybody else's in a proposal, in any form. If you're indignant about something your regionmate has done to his people, you have to write it into a generalised form that will apply internationally.

The side-effect of this distancing is that WA proposals are deliberately broad, intentionally international, and supposed to be, as far as possible, about establishing a principle and instructing national governments to put it into practice, but leaving the details up to them.

If, however, you're indignant about some Gameplay thing someone's done to your region, well, tough cheddar, as far as the WA is concerned. It's something that happened "back home"; it's part of the Delegate's (or delegate's, or president's, or Glorious Leader's) private life. If you've got the power to endorse proposals as a result of an impeccably democratic election, or as the result of dictatorially forcing all newcomers to endorse the Delegate on pain of expulsion from the region, or because you're the Founder and what you say, goes, the WA just doesn't care. If you lose that power because your region has been invaded by a bunch of teenage graffitists or by a shrewd politico-military operation, the WA still doesn't care. You don't put that sort of stuff in proposals. A region is a geographical or political grouping of nations, like the EU or NATO or the Commonwealth, and its doings don't turn up in WA proposals just as the EU isn't the specific subject of general UN resolutions.

Equally, WA proposals haven't been legal if they deal with RPd events, because, for the OOC players, such events don't happen; they haven't been legal if they tell mods how to act, because the mods don't exist in many RP players' worlds (the Secretariat are, basically, just administrators); they can't require players to RP compliance or non-compliance on the forums, because RP (for some) doesn't exist and for others the other forums don't exist.

Now, after several years of refining these concepts, we're faced with proposals that accept WA interest in non-WA nations. They're not broad; they're very specific. They allow WA action on RPd events. They allow WA action on Gameplayed events. They even allow WA action on characters (and what I'm to do with a proposal about Neville, who is one of my characters but is not actually an Ardchoillean, I haven't a clue. Ardchoille the nation can't claim any credit for him.)

The impact of this is bothering some as much as the removal of Influence did raiders and defenders, with the difference that the WA hasn't exactly been a constant source of friction.

You've said it's supposed to be extending the moral WA's reach (and thank you for clarifying that; I thought it was just feelgood pics). That's easy to deal with ICly; a parliament or assembly can hold a Special Sitting and suspend standing orders. But OOCly, in a Gameplay sense, it means some proposals are allowed to break more than one rule. We can get around that by rewriting all the rules, or simply by fiat: by saying that the rules for these proposals are different. That's what I, for one, would prefer.

But , like many other WA players, I'm finding it hard to understand your view that proposals in these categories can fit within the same rules as the others when, for most of us, they manifestly can't. The new categories deal with areas that were previously off limits. In the old categories, they're still off limits. That's confusing.

[Kandarin]

Reference to gameplay (i.e., nations, regions, invasions, daily issues, anything else) is illegal as a metagaming offense.

The underlying rationale behind this classification (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the things you describe are metagaming. They are not. They are not RP as the main forum RP groups (NS/II) understand it, but this does not make them any less valid. They are not circumventing the 'true' RP game and thus metagaming; rather, they have made up a game of their own and are playing it. There is a large, complex game world with an intricate storyline and an exciting cast of characters out there. This is confused with 'metagaming' by some because only some of those characters are actually role-playing (the 'acting' kind, not the 'group writing' kind!). Some of them are just real people being themselves in a fun setting. It's not a matter of abandoning play; it's just a matter of playing a different game.

The natural response to that, if what you've said in this thread so far is anything to go by, is that the WA is inherently the property of nation-RP. That is, that the role of the WA's process is to create resolutions that alter nations and stats. And (at least by my reading of the proposal rules) that would certainly be true - up until this point. By the very nature of the Commend and Condemn system, the new feature causes the WA to step out of that role and start commenting on other parts of the game. This is where the cultural divide between the gameplay crowd and the official-forum crowd steps in, although there is some degree of overlap between them. Both would rather think of the commendable and the condemnable in terms of the rules of their own version of the game. But it doesn't need to be that way. I think the implication here, unless the admins/mods rule otherwise, is that both are equally welcome to use the system. It's entirely appropriate to create a resolution commending nations that RP as uniters and regions that RP harmony, or to condemn nations that are RPed as run by torture-happy maniacs and regions that are RPed as nuke-loving bands of dictators. It's equally appropriate to create a resolution commending the nations of players who help newcomers and regions that are welcoming and well-run, or condemning ban-happy feeder delegates and particularly devious crasher regions.

Both of these possible areas of commendation or condemnation are well out of the traditional jurisdiction of the WA, but there really isn't an application for this new feature within the traditional jurisdiction of the WA. As the original post said, the WA is expanding. If the places it expands to take it into areas we're not used to, that's not reason to try to pull back and stop that. Rather, it's our job as members and delegates of the WA to ensure that worthwhile resolutions are the ones that make it to the floor. That may mean forum RPers trying to figure out what's so condemnable about Upper Banjectopia running the North By Northwest Pacific into the ground. It may mean Gameplayers trying to figure out exactly what wars Interventionstan is being commended for stopping. If we try to limit this so that it's only usable by one or the other, it won't be nearly so much fun.