[PASSED] Commend The NationStates Community

[Azerzia]

In the context of the proposal, it would not be the owner of the game but the owner of the communication company. Since a company has an owner I didn't feel his would be an issue. Theirs is fine since it can be interpreted as either a nation or gender neutral.
Again, I don't think either change is of enough importance to deserve a switch. Thank you to the Mods for checking this for me

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Of course companies have owners; to contend that acknowledging this amounts to an R4 violation because the owner in this case doesn't have a nation is profoundly silly. And just because something says "rules" does not mean it's an illegal game reference. It wasn't talking about game rules at all (or was it?).

[Azerzia]

In this case, it was the rules of the IPO which would be changed. I don't object to the change from rules to conditions one since conditions and rules are synonymous in this case; that said, I would assume IPO's have rules and conditions which can be altered.

[Azerzia]

Submitted the proposal, and am now sending out TGs to delegates to endorse it

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Yeah, I agree that ruling represents a pretty serious expansion on Rule 4. It sounds like now we've basically banned certain words entirely, without worrying about whether it violates the nation-simulation language guideline whatsoever.

[Frisbeeteria]

Yeah, I agree that ruling represents a pretty serious expansion on Rule 4.

I had no intention of expanding Rule 4 - my comments were extemporaneous, not authoritative. I was simply trying to help explain what I thought Sedgistan was stating. Perhaps he (the Rule 4 expert) can come back and give a better explanation.

[Milograd]

Meh. April Fools was fun, but nah.

AMOM's statement essentially echos my thoughts on this proposal.

[Azerzia]

With this submitted and getting fairly close to being in the queue, could I ask any of the mods to relook over the change in wording? Again, in this context, it was not a big deal since it was changing two words to synonymous words. But, as Crushing Our Enemies stated,

Yeah, I agree that ruling represents a pretty serious expansion on Rule 4. It sounds like now we've basically banned certain words entirely, without worrying about whether it violates the nation-simulation language guideline whatsoever.

So I am wondering if we could get someone to relook over this and make a ruling on if the original word choice of "rules" and "his" in this specific context, when used in reference to a change in rules for an event in the game, not game rules, and an individual within the game universe and not a nation?\.

[Sedgistan]

Specific words are not banned entirely from proposals - what matters is how they're used. The word "rules" was not acceptable in this case, as it was referring to site rules (either rules that players have to obey, or rules about how the game works). 'His' was not acceptable in this case, since it referred to Max Barry the person. The suggested changes, which you adopted, suitably 'fudged' the language so that the proposal was written in nation-simulation language.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_pas ... /start=224

Duly congratulating this resolution's intended honoree on his many titles from coed beauty pageants throughout the NS world;

If the GA allows it, why not the SC?

[Sedgistan]

Clear references to Max Barry the site owner might've been allowed in the UN five years ago, but this is the WA Security Council, an entirely different body, and the rules are different.

[A mean old man]

Holy shit, OMGTKK, where the hell were you during Summer 2010? Remember when we were all arguing over Rule 4? What in God's name would make you think that referencing a resolution from a time when the rules were so different and from a defunct international body could possibly be a relevant argument in the WASC today?

[Azerzia]

10 endorsements still needed. Hm, do my ten page paper due on Monday or get people to endorse this?

[Azerzia]

3 more, almost a day left. I think It'll reach quorum

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Clear references to Max Barry the site owner might've been allowed in the UN five years ago, but this is the WA Security Council, an entirely different body, and the rules are different.

So far as I was aware, R4 was instituted to prevent overt game references, not harmless metagaming. Ard said repeatedly that her intention was not to turn the SC into another bickering morass of pointless legalism like the GA. You're right: the SC and the GA are different bodies, but the SC is supposed to be the more lenient one.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I've posted a request for clarification on Rule 4 in Moderation, in light of the recent ruling.

[A mean old man]

I think it's the fact that the "leader" of this company was player behind a nation. If this was an RP proposal or a GP/RP-confused proposal, and a "leader" could be referenced whose actions appeared separate from those of the "player behind the nation," I'm guessing it wouldn't be considered a R4 violation.

[Paffnia]

Quick question: I'm pretty sure the ownership of the nation The NationStates Community has changed hands since, but was The NationStates Community involved in raiding when it was located in The Black Hawks (NSHistory link)?

[Crushing Our Enemies]

As I understand it, NSC originally belonged to Mahaj who then gave it to Lyanna Stark on April Fool's Day. One of them can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it every belonged to anyone else, and I can say with certainty that it was never involved with The Black Hawks in a military capacity. Frankly, I have no clue what it was doing in our region.

EDIT: I did a little RMB research. This is the only post by that nation on The Black Hawks RMB: http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=515546. Sunrawr replied to it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=515919. Clearly, it was under Mahaj control, as I assume above, and was just visiting.

[SunRawr]

EDIT: I did a little RMB research. This is the only post by that nation on The Black Hawks RMB: http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=515546. Sunrawr replied to it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=515919. Clearly, it was under Mahaj control, as I assume above, and was just visiting.

If I remember correctly, I was just guessing it was Mahaj.

But yeah, never raided with us.

[Azerzia]

At vote now everyone. I encourage everyone to vote for this proposal or at least to read through the arguments for voting for it on this thread

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate and Media Minister of Europeia am voting AYE on this Commendation after a 6/3 internal vote. What happened took time to organise and kept those not involved on the edge of their seat, wondering what was coming next. A commendation is appropriate given that The NationStates Community fully embraced the spirit of NationStates, made a positive contribution to the community as a whole as well as in-keeping with the spirit of the World Assembly.

[Eist]

I will be voting AGAINST this commendation, because NS Community has not done anything worthwhile (let alone commendation worthy) in NS.

The IPO was fun, and that's about it. To commend this NS Community cheapens the commendations that have been issued to the more deserving nations before it.

[Unibot II]

I will be voting AGAINST this commendation, because NS Community has not done anything worthwhile (let alone commendation worthy) in NS.

The IPO was fun, and that's about it. To commend this NS Community cheapens the commendations that have been issued to the more deserving nations before it.

The nation is symbolic to the whole community that worked behind the scenes to make April Fools what it was... the spirit behind their cause and the coming together of people was certainly commendable.

[The Asylum Manager]

We did not partake in this event, but we read part of the transcript of the talks and were surprised at the professionalism and the scope of it. This means we vote FOR and if we find our delegate voting NO will post a query concerning his/her motivation doing so. The voting system that was installed in our region has gone defunct and nobody has bothered to fix it so we are now unable to give instructions by majority.