Something stopped being the way it was ten years ago.Excidium Planetis wrote:What about the system is broken?
AKA unthinkable horrors.
Advertisement
by Gruenberg » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:37 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:32 am
Don't create the GA Council. Turn the SC into one instead.
by Topid » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:36 am
Eluvatar wrote:I don't think the new title's any better.
You aren't really asking to separate the SC, you're asking to replace the SC with a small group of nations.
by Gruenberg » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:41 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:If it matters, the phraseDon't create the GA Council. Turn the SC into one instead.
...has the same number of characters as the current title. Feel free to use, or if you've stopped caring by all means ignore.
by Eluvatar » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:05 am
Ardchoille wrote:There are four rules for Security Council proposals:
- 1. You cannot commend or condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, II Mentors etc.) for actions taken as part of their role.
- 2. Proposals must contain a unique and relevant argument.
That means:
- (a) Don't plagiarise - that will get you expelled from the WA.
- (b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.
- (c) Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions.
- (d) Repeals should address the contents of the resolution they're repealing, and not by just stating the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.
- 3. Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does, e.g. commends, condemns, liberates, or repeals. Commendations/Condemnation can only commend/condemn the nominee, Liberations can only liberate the targeted region, and Repeals can only repeal the targeted resolution. For example, your proposal cannot impose fines, sanctions or a boycott on a condemned nation.
- 4. Your proposal must read as representing the opinion of the World Assembly, and as targeting a Nation or Region.
This means:
- (a) You cannot reference the "real world" outside of NationStates.
- (b) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they".
- (c) You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game.
- (d) Your proposal must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly.
The primary responsibility for determining the standards of Security Council resolutions lies with delegates. Unless a proposal violates one of the above rules, it is unlikely to be deleted. If you don't like misspelled proposals, or proposals condemning raiders just because they're raiders, or proposals commending your region's bitterest enemies, or the way a group of nations has got together to push a particular line, it's up to you to do something about it. And the "something" is not "call the mods".
Rules discussion here
(EDITED 26/07/09: accuracy in proposals -- Ard. 18/08/09: delegates' responsibility -- Ard. 28/12/09: links are okay if they're NS links -- Ard. Put an active clause in everything, even repeals. -- Ard, 29/03/10. Moved "not doing anything" to the kill zone -- Ard. 23/04/10: "Player behind" ruling withdrawn -- Ard. Wording re "player behind" amended. Expanded proposal references re non-WA nations 29/05/10 -- Ard. Self commendation added 30/05/10 -- Ard. "directly" added, 09/06/10 -- Ard. 4(b) added 11/06/10 -- Ard. 14/07/10: Fixed 4(c) because Hack is a grammar Nazi -- Ard. latest revision of R4 23/07/10 -- Ard. Repeals discussion added and Ideology amended, 19/10/10 -- Ard. Rephrased RW ideology, 20/11/10 -- Sedge. Added Rule 4 RW references, removed point 3 of 'Confusion', Ideology amended, 06/12/10 -- Sedge. Entirely re-written without Ard or Nerv so much as lifting a finger to help, 07/01/11 -- Sedge. Oh, yeah? So who wrote the blueprint? (Link to rules discussion added)-- Ard, 06/02/11. -- Added the latest edit to rule 4, because Sedge was too lazy to do it for me. CG 13/05/11. -- Edited Rule 2 (d) to allow multiple Liberations for one region. Sedge 28/10/11. Rules re-written, 27/09/13 -- Sedge
by Gruenberg » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:11 am
by Cormactopia II » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:50 pm
by Gruenberg » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:08 pm
Cormactopia II wrote:The Security Council a) is more open and welcoming to input from more players,
Cormactopia II wrote:b) has more in-game impact, and impact that actually makes sense.
Cormactopia II wrote:If anything, I agree with the suggestion that we should do the reverse: We should keep the Security Council, and reduce the General Assembly to a smaller council of players who vote on RP legislation that has no in-game impact.
Cormactopia II wrote:The main reason most players join the World Assembly is for regional gameplay, not participation in the General Assembly.
by Flanderlion » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:45 pm
by Cormactopia II » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:46 pm
Gruenberg wrote:The WA has more in-game impact: as [violet] put it, "[f]or mine, the GA's ability to alter nation stats is more significant than the SC's ability to award a badge ... GA legislation can alter the fundamental nation type of every WA member in the game; a Liberation will affect at most a few hundred nations."
Gruenberg wrote:Cormactopia II wrote:If anything, I agree with the suggestion that we should do the reverse: We should keep the Security Council, and reduce the General Assembly to a smaller council of players who vote on RP legislation that has no in-game impact.
Just want to be clear I'm not arguing against this suggestion, although it's not the topic of this thread. Anything to separate WA and SC would be worth it.
Gruenberg wrote:Cormactopia II wrote:The main reason most players join the World Assembly is for regional gameplay, not participation in the General Assembly.
A minority of players participate in regional gameplay, so that's unlikely. It's more probable - though I don't have the stats to support this assumption - that the vast majority of players are neither SC gameplayers nor WA roleplayers, but simply casual "issue answerer" players who join up simply because it's there.
by Gruenberg » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:29 pm
Cormactopia II wrote:Liberations, on the other hand, are fairly important
Cormactopia II wrote:I recognize that you're not proposing elimination of the Security Council with no replacement, but what you are proposing is that these decisions regarding important aspects of regional gameplay -- which would literally affect the future existence of some regions -- be left to a handful of gameplayers. I'm not sure that is at all a viable proposal in terms of fairness.
Cormactopia II wrote:Would merging both institutions into one World Assembly without two separate branches -- eliminating Commendations and Condemnations, but retaining Liberations and later Custodian and Reformation -- resolve the issue as well?
Cormactopia II wrote:Can you explain, to those of us who aren't General Assembly regulars, exactly how the Security Council interferes with the General Assembly in such a way that separation is so vital? That would perhaps help those of us who don't really see a pressing issue be more supportive of some kind of separation.
Cormactopia II wrote:Why shouldn't those players also have an institution for their area of the game?
by Cormactopia II » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:00 am
Gruenberg wrote:Cormactopia II wrote:Liberations, on the other hand, are fairly important
Not advocating getting rid of them. But there's nothing inherent to them requiring a vote by the WA. So long as liberations happen, it doesn't matter whether they're effected by a committee of the whole, or a recognition committee.
Gruenberg wrote:Cormactopia II wrote:I recognize that you're not proposing elimination of the Security Council with no replacement, but what you are proposing is that these decisions regarding important aspects of regional gameplay -- which would literally affect the future existence of some regions -- be left to a handful of gameplayers. I'm not sure that is at all a viable proposal in terms of fairness.
Why not, though? There honestly are only a handful of gameplayers who are ever going to understand the specifics of the situation. Whether or not to Liberate Belgium is something that at most a few hundred (and Belgium was a really exceptional case, even I'd heard of it) players can weigh in on in a meaningful sense. Whether or not to ban torture is something every player can form a personal opinion on.
Gruenberg wrote:Cormactopia II wrote:Can you explain, to those of us who aren't General Assembly regulars, exactly how the Security Council interferes with the General Assembly in such a way that separation is so vital? That would perhaps help those of us who don't really see a pressing issue be more supportive of some kind of separation.
It's notable that Sedgistan, who's previously advocated for the deletion of the WA entirely, recently revoked [violet]'s rule separating the two. It was always [violet]'s aim to eventually do away with the WA and have it become a gameplay arbitration council instead - she mocked us for having "already discussed pretty much every issue" - and that ruling is just the latest step in that. Soon it will be "why can't Furtherment of Democracy resolutions encourage regions to have democratic elections?", and so forth. That is the ultimate agenda, and while I recognize players will be powerless to stop it, we can at least point it out.
Gruenberg wrote:That's not counting the sheer amount of confusion the situation generates, mainly for newer or casual players. Every week there are roleplay threads in the SC forum or gameplay threads in the WA that have to be locked or moved, or moderation complaints arising from players not understanding the difference between the two - which, especially give Rule 4 applies (so far as I'm aware) to C&Cs but not Liberations, and that some players roleplay or gameplay-roleplay in the SC but some don't - really is quite complex.
Gruenberg wrote:And finally, because they're linked, suggestions for one impact the other. A change that might be really great for the SC - like the Secretary General - would also apply to the WA, where it might not be such a good fit. The telegram filter blocks all WA telegrams: I use it because I don't want to receive SC telegrams, but that means I lose out on WA telegrams I might be interested in. I'm sure there are gameplayers for whom the inverse is true. When one side of the game does something - like Liberate Haven - it leads people to be angry at "the WA", even though the other side had nothing to do with it, or similarly, when the WA constantly passes repeals or votes on different versions of the same resolution, it bores some people even though they might find what's going on in the SC more interesting.
by Excidium Planetis » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:36 am
Cormactopia II wrote:Would that be so bad? Haven't you discussed pretty much every issue in the General Assembly? I don't see very many new issues come up these days.
Shouldn't the World Assembly, one of the two primary components of this game, involve more people and have broader appeal? It doesn't make sense for the World Assembly's legislative component to continue catering to a small niche community, while the World Assembly as a gameplay component is comprised of and affects more than 26,000 individual players.
In my view, it would be better to have a Furtherment of Democracy proposal that encourages regions to have democratic elections, and to have a spirited gameplay debate about that of the kind that attracts a range of player input in the Security Council, than to have the long spells we see more and more often in the General Assembly these days in which there is no resolution at vote at all.
Why continue having one of the primary components of the game cater to a niche community of RPers who want to RP legislate? You can RP legislate without the World Assembly, but there is much that can't be done by average players without World Assembly membership.
Given that players have to be members of the World Assembly to participate in many aspects of the game, the legislative component of the World Assembly should have broader appeal and should not be dominated by a niche RP community.
This is a good point, but goes back to my question of why we shouldn't divorce the RP legislation from the World Assembly instead.
I think you have me sold on the idea that the two institutions should be split and only one of them should remain as the World Assembly, it's just that I'm now convinced that the rest of the game should keep the World Assembly, and the RP community that comprises the General Assembly core community should have the alternative institution. That makes infinitely more sense given that the needs of the RP community in the General Assembly are holding us back from changes to the World Assembly that would be more interesting to the broader game and generate more game-wide activity and enthusiasm.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Gruenberg » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:01 am
Cormactopia II wrote:But the same could be said for General Assembly resolutions, and you've acknowledged elsewhere that gameplayers are more numerous. So shouldn't the more numerous group have their proposals decided by the World Assembly instead of a committee comprised of a few people, and the smaller, niche group of RPers have their proposals decided by a committee?
Cormactopia II wrote:There are at least dozens of gameplayers, spread out across dozens of regions, who can understand the specifics of gameplay situations. You're arguing that decisions for those dozens of people should be made by a few gameplayers, who may not even be elected but could instead be selected by Moderation.
Cormactopia II wrote:Aside from that, I think you're wrong that General Assembly resolutions are easier to understand than Security Council resolutions. Sure, anyone can understand torture, but can anyone understand that a clause is worded the way it is because the author had to be sensitive to concerns about sapient rather than human rights, or because an RP species in some nation may not reproduce the same way human beings do, or because a particular religion that exists in the real world may not exist in the NationStates world, or because wording it a different way may have conflicted with or duplicated a previous resolution, etc.? It's not the subject matter of the General Assembly that most players can't understand, it's the arcane legalism.
Cormactopia II wrote:Would that be so bad? Haven't you discussed pretty much every issue in the General Assembly? I don't see very many new issues come up these days. Shouldn't the World Assembly, one of the two primary components of this game, involve more people and have broader appeal? It doesn't make sense for the World Assembly's legislative component to continue catering to a small niche community, while the World Assembly as a gameplay component is comprised of and affects more than 26,000 individual players.
Cormactopia II wrote:Agreed that this is problematic. Rule 4 does apply to Liberations, as well, and Rule 4 makes it very challenging, to say the least, to write certain resolutions about certain gameplay topics. If anything, Rule 4 just makes it harder for players to understand what is going on in the Security Council by forbidding us from spelling it out in plain and easily understandable language, forcing us to instead use RP language that most players don't understand and don't really care about. How many players find their game experience enriched by Moderation forcing Security Council resolutions not to use the word "Feeder," or would have a negative game experience if Moderation allowed it? But I digress.
Cormactopia II wrote:This is a good point, but goes back to my question of why we shouldn't divorce the RP legislation from the World Assembly instead.
Cormactopia II wrote:I think you have me sold on the idea that the two institutions should be split and only one of them should remain as the World Assembly, it's just that I'm now convinced that the rest of the game should keep the World Assembly, and the RP community that comprises the General Assembly core community should have the alternative institution. That makes infinitely more sense given that the needs of the RP community in the General Assembly are holding us back from changes to the World Assembly that would be more interesting to the broader game and generate more game-wide activity and enthusiasm.
by Flanderlion » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:17 am
by Gruenberg » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:52 am
Flanderlion wrote:Confusion wise, splitting the forums might help, but is it worth moving around the forums and all the work entailed to only slightly seperate the two bits of the WA?
Flanderlion wrote:And I'm pretty sure [V] doesn't want to kill off the GA.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Champlania, Countriopia, Craic, Dionysou, Great Bights Mum, Grelb, Sabal Islands, Siluvia
Advertisement