[discussion] IC and OOC threads in GA forum

[Gruenberg]

In most of the roleplaying forums, it is permitted to have at least two threads, an IC one and an OOC one. In II, the OOC might be used for arguing over military outcomes, in Sports for talking about rankings and scorinator mechanics, in P2TM for character sheets and GM decisions, etc. In the WA, they could be used for discussing legality and other details that can't easily be converted into IC language.

I recently asked about allowing separate IC and OOC threads in the WA forum, and Kryozerkia told me it wasn't the "etiquette". She's right - but I wonder if that etiquette is still applicable. It dates from a time when legality questions were rare, instead of the dominant topic of conversation, and when most active forum participants understood the basics of roleplaying. Given this is no longer true, and given we now have [Legality Challenge] threads, could we revisit whether allowing separate threads could work?

If there's a concern it will lead to clutter, I don't imagine everyone will actually post two threads for their proposal: many don't care about such divisions, especially newer players; equally, many proposals already have two threads, the drafting one and the seemingly inevitable Legality Challenge. To reduce clutter, the OOC thread could be used for any Legality Challenges, thus meaning there won't be three threads per proposal.

TL;DR: In the past, it hasn't been the custom to allow someone to post an IC and separate OOC thread for their proposal, but I believe the current state of the WA forum means that custom should be reevaluated.

[Sedgistan]

I think you want this as a discussion thread, which means that other GAers can contribute to it as well, rather than a straight query for Moderation to answer.

[Gruenberg]

Yeah, sorry. Fixed. :)

[The Forsworn Knights]

I dont really see the point. If you draft a proposal, then people generally talk in both IC and OOC terms as needed.

[Separatist Peoples]

I dont really see the point. If you draft a proposal, then people generally talk in both IC and OOC terms as needed.

We're a roleplay forum, and while a degree of OOC is necessary, too much interferes with the roleplay. Its a common practice in II and NationStates, so I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't, as the thread creator requires. Its not like the GA is so active as to see threads pushed lost to obscurity by doubling the thread count.

[Gruenberg]

SP, from your position as a Council member, what did you think of the part of my suggestion about just having all [Legality Challenges] take place within those OOC threads? Would that be too confusing to keep track of?

[The Forsworn Knights]

I dont really see the point. If you draft a proposal, then people generally talk in both IC and OOC terms as needed.

We're a roleplay forum, and while a degree of OOC is necessary, too much interferes with the roleplay. Its a common practice in II and NationStates, so I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't, as the thread creator requires. Its not like the GA is so active as to see threads pushed lost to obscurity by doubling the thread count.

Proposals are like IC discussion threads. There needs to be a clear and easy-to-read list of posts that anyone reading a drafting thread can view in proper order, in both IC and OOC terms. Because in the end, both impact each other very much, and both can, are, and have been done in the same post on a very regular basis.

Besides, it will only double the server's load and increase lag over a problem that is pretty much nonexistent.

[Gruenberg]

We're a roleplay forum, and while a degree of OOC is necessary, too much interferes with the roleplay. Its a common practice in II and NationStates, so I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't, as the thread creator requires. Its not like the GA is so active as to see threads pushed lost to obscurity by doubling the thread count.

Proposals are like IC discussion threads. There needs to be a clear and easy-to-read list of posts that anyone reading a drafting thread can view in proper order, in both IC and OOC terms.

I agree with everything you're saying - I'm just totally confused as to how having separate threads isn't the best way to achieve that.

Because in the end, both impact each other very much,

Not really, no. OOC legality questions, or general carping about mechanics, regions, etc., don't have any bearing on a nation's IC position on a proposal.

and both can, are, and have been done in the same post on a very regular basis.

Yeah, that used to be the custom, but most people seem content now to spam up proposal drafting threads with wholly OOC comments on a "regular basis" now.

Besides, it will only double the server's load and increase lag over a problem that is pretty much nonexistent.

Hahaha! I think I'm yet to have a drafting thread hit even 50% IC content. I've been taking bets on how quickly each draft will be derailed into OOC nonsense. And winning. Though given you seem to have posted in the WA forum about 7 times in 2 years, I can see how it might seem "nonexistent": maybe the perspective of those a bit more active in the forum is of greater weight?

[The Blaatschapen]

We're a roleplay forum, and while a degree of OOC is necessary, too much interferes with the roleplay. Its a common practice in II and NationStates, so I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't, as the thread creator requires. Its not like the GA is so active as to see threads pushed lost to obscurity by doubling the thread count.

Proposals are like IC discussion threads. There needs to be a clear and easy-to-read list of posts that anyone reading a drafting thread can view in proper order, in both IC and OOC terms. Because in the end, both impact each other very much, and both can, are, and have been done in the same post on a very regular basis.

Besides, it will only double the server's load and increase lag over a problem that is pretty much nonexistent.

The server load argument is fairly meh.

A few more threads is not going to do that.

SP, from your position as a Council member, what did you think of the part of my suggestion about just having all [Legality Challenges] take place within those OOC threads? Would that be too confusing to keep track of?

1 discussion at a time. First the OOC/IC split discussion (for the whole WA ), and then the council with the rest of the GA-community can battle if the legality challenge process needs to be changed.

[Gruenberg]

1 discussion at a time. First the OOC/IC split discussion (for the whole WA ), and then the council with the rest of the GA-community can battle if the legality challenge process needs to be changed.

What? This has nothing to do with the SC.

[The Blaatschapen]

1 discussion at a time. First the OOC/IC split discussion (for the whole WA ), and then the council with the rest of the GA-community can battle if the legality challenge process needs to be changed.

What? This has nothing to do with the SC.

Your title clearly references the WA forum: viewforum.php?f=8

Of which the SC is a part.

[Gruenberg]

You could probably have got me to make the edit by just asking rather than being snide, but OK.

[The Blaatschapen]

You could probably have got me to make the edit by just asking rather than being snide, but OK.

Sorry, Dutch directness.

Nothing snide.

[Separatist Peoples]

SP, from your position as a Council member, what did you think of the part of my suggestion about just having all [Legality Challenges] take place within those OOC threads? Would that be too confusing to keep track of?

That would make it way easier. Easy legality issues, like certain kinds of duplication or contradiction, can be dispensed with ICly, and we're savvy enough to pick that without an OOC thread, but for the more complicated issues, like the question of noncompliance or mentioning the SC, having a separate OOC thread would, in my opinion, make finding and addressing the relevant points easier.

Making this an option would be really delightful, especially for proposals we all know will involve a lot of OOC legality debate.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think that having multiple threads would cause clutter, make it hard to follow the lines of argumentation between multiple different threads, and be harder to use. The solution rather, is for us to stop pulling every goddamn resolution into a mess of legality challenges. If we clearly establish what the rules are and more importantly, what tests or guidelines are used to determine what is illegal, then this issue goes away.

We need clear tests and standards

For example, the Committees rule. Ignoring the fact that most people I've spoken to want it removed, most people who voted in the GA Rules Consortium straw poll wanted it removed, and I have now been convinced (I voted to keep in that poll, I would now vote to remove) that it ought be removed... the test for what passes the committees rule is clear: committee + anythingElse = legal. Make that clear, and all the Committee rule challenges go away.

The House of Cards rule is also somewhat overcomplicated. We ought include in it that committees do not count when it comes to the House of Cards rule, just as longstanding precedent has consistently delivered resolutions stating that it doesn't count. Deal with that and the misunderstandings go away.

The Category rule is also an issue with this as well. We've had ridiculous levels of litigation on the Category rule recently. Instead of the murky non-test which is the Category rule right now, something which says 'it is a category violation if and only if there is no possible way that the resolution has no impacts that could even tangentially effect the category' would make it very clear and establish exactly what the burdens are for a Category-violation removal. Establish the Categories rule as a standard and the vast majority of the legality drivel goes away.

Any rule which requires tons of interpretation will drown out the debate by turning every debate in to a debate about whether the proposal is illegal given some different interpretations of assessing whether it is illegal. If we want people to actually have in-character discussions about proposals, then we have to get rid of the legality nonsense which is currently drowning the in-character debate.

Basically, the rules ought include tests or interpretation standards. I have preferences on what those standards ought be. It doesn't really matter that much. As long as there are clear and consistent standards, all the ridiculous litigation can go away immediately.

Other solutions

Secondarily, if we actually want to prevent legality arguments from drowning out actual argumentation, then it ought be harder to file legality challenges and we ought create some concept of standing to limit who can bring suit. Otherwise, we get good old court clog.

Of course, we could also just find some convention to discuss legality reasons in the context of an IC debate. That would work too. Perhaps something like (for the Categories rule) "We are unconvinced that the Secretariat International Security Board would be the proper forum in which to propose this proposal".

Furthermore, another solution is simply to dismiss legality challenges and tell people that if they dislike a proposal, then they can deliver reasons for why that proposal ought not be passed... instead of reasons for why some proposal they dislike ought be removed.

[Gruenberg]

The solution rather, is for us to stop pulling every goddamn resolution into a mess of legality challenges.

Absolutely!

Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen. The last effort to iron out what the rules mean was the Consortium, and we saw how terribly that went. Now we have the Council, who have rejected consideration of several legality challenges because they don't want to tackle difficult questions, something that means those difficult questions are only going to linger on for longer.

I agree that in your utopic vision of the forum, double threads wouldn't be necessary. I just don't think that situation is ever going to happen: Butwhataboutism is too rife among the newer, post-SC crop of WA forum players.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Now we have the Council, who have rejected consideration of several legality challenges because they don't want to tackle difficult questions, something that means those difficult questions are only going to linger on for longer.

You may recall that a while ago, I created a small project called the WA Law Review. It could be repurposed to help solve this problem just as law reviews writ large are currently used to inject new ideas for tests to clarify what the law means. If we want to create community standards, we can do that already. Obviously, we could also just post essays to the forum on the topic as well, rather than writing in a centralised publication. However it is done doesn't really matter — as long as substantiated ideas to choose from are already available.

[Gruenberg]

You can't really "create community standards", when the community was completely destroyed by the introduction of the SC categories. I don't think what you're proposing will work: look at the example of the ruling on mentioning the SC, people have continued to argue it - and will no doubt try to "relitigate" it - even once it was decided. So it's not become a "community standard", because there really isn't a community to share any such standard.

Anyway, for now, I'd like to discuss my idea, of separate threads; your different idea could always be discussed at another point.

[Glen-Rhodes]

SP, from your position as a Council member, what did you think of the part of my suggestion about just having all [Legality Challenges] take place within those OOC threads? Would that be too confusing to keep track of?

That would make it way easier. Easy legality issues, like certain kinds of duplication or contradiction, can be dispensed with ICly, and we're savvy enough to pick that without an OOC thread, but for the more complicated issues, like the question of noncompliance or mentioning the SC, having a separate OOC thread would, in my opinion, make finding and addressing the relevant points easier.

Making this an option would be really delightful, especially for proposals we all know will involve a lot of OOC legality debate.

Err--- I'm pretty against raising official challenges in threads not marked with the [Legality Challenge] tag. I'm not going to monitor every thread every day to see if there's a new challenge. That's why we created the tag in the first place.

As for the rest of this idea... Who's going to enforce it?

[Gruenberg]

[Legality Challenge] could always be edited into the title of an OOC thread when one is formally registered.

As for enforcement, same as all the other forums.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

[Legality Challenge] could always be edited into the title of an OOC thread when one is formally registered.

As for enforcement, same as all the other forums.

I could get behind this. I've already been surprised by the number of [legality challenge] threads (perhaps I'm naive), why not turn them into centralized courts for all OOC concerns?

[Christian Democrats]

I think that having multiple threads would cause clutter, make it hard to follow the lines of argumentation between multiple different threads, and be harder to use.

I agree.

[The Blaatschapen]

[Legality Challenge] could always be edited into the title of an OOC thread when one is formally registered.

As for enforcement, same as all the other forums.

Editing the title would either require the OP or the mods.

The OP, who if everything done right is the proposal maker, has no incentive to help out the challenger(s) by editing the title. Suddenly the ambassador is out for lun... oh, OOC, suddenly they conveniently forget about it.

The mods, would put us inside the process for a technicality. While we still are involved in some of the technical stuff, I'd personally like to avoid adding more of that.

[Gruenberg]

I don't see the fuss. It takes you...5 seconds to edit a thread title using mod tools? The Council has been live for a couple of months, and in that time 11 legality challenges have been launched, so let's say one every 4 days (generously...I expect that to slow down). That's the same as the At Vote thread every 4 days: it's changed from [DRAFT] to [AT VOTE] to [PASSED]/[DEFEATED], sometimes by the OP, sometimes by the mods.

[The Blaatschapen]

I don't see the fuss. It takes you...5 seconds to edit a thread title using mod tools? The Council has been live for a couple of months, and in that time 11 legality challenges have been launched, so let's say one every 4 days (generously...I expect that to slow down). That's the same as the At Vote thread every 4 days: it's changed from [DRAFT] to [AT VOTE] to [PASSED]/[DEFEATED], sometimes by the OP, sometimes by the mods.

It's not the editing process itself that will take the time. It's requesting the title change, waiting for a mod to see it. Given that some challenges are time bound, this puts an extra delay until the council sees it. I'm not necessarily against, but this puts a delay on things where it doesn't have to be.