Whew, when do you guys
sleep? Okay, working my way through:
Gendered pronouns.
Vagueness in proposals: There are several schools of thought on this. One favours vague, even weasel-word, proposals because the WA is full of diplomats and politicians should never tie diplomats down, but let them run wild and free. Plausible deniability, etc. A second demands total detail in a proposal because this is your only chance to convince the Delegates to approve it. A third (me) thinks it's better to get the broad outline into the prop -- the principles of why you're writing the C&C -- and then hit the minutiae in your first post. But it's entirely up to the proposal writer. When it comes to what the prop says, Rule 4 or any other rule is not half as important as the writer knowing exactly what they're setting out to do. And, on that note ...
@ Travancore-Cochin: "222 points" was the problem. "@@nation@@ earned 222 points" might get by in a Sports C&C, but otherwise, nix. That's the legality angle. The style point is this: the fiddly details hide the reason for the commendation. It's not the question of how many points or what organisation he was in: a newbie doesn't even have any direct way of knowing whether 222 points is a good effort or a feeble one. The big deal is that
only one other nation has ever completed more missions than he's managed to do. So that's your "headline". The details go in the body -- in the first post, where you can explain all about the significance of the FRA Rangers and the fact that it took him (just?)three years to get 222 points.
@ Darkesia: I remember the plagiarism episode. If I had my way plagiarism would be an insta-DEAT offence. It's despicable. As Bears Armed has pointed out, that player had his other chances.
On SC props, generally, expulsion from the WA is pretty unlikely. It's a function of how many fairly idiotic mistakes you make (minor ones may not even be recorded). Unless a player's going to be an SC regular, he makes his C&C and then skedaddles, so he's not going to rack up enough illegals to get the boot. The regulars, OTOH, with only four rules to contend with, are going to stick around long enough to learn to avoid making the sort of stupid mistakes that get recorded. A delegate who was particularly worried could just make a disposable WA puppet long enough to submit a prop, then switch back his WA membership to his main. Anyone unsure of their proposal writing skills should post a draft on the forum for other players to review.
@ Kandarin: it's up to you to find the replacement. Not by saying "@@nation@@ is a player of roles", but by being specific. To use your example, Shiro Academy was a big deal for Todd's RP, right? Not knowing Todd's RP, I translated it as an "incident". But you, knowing what you're talking about, could and should describe it with more precision. "TMcC took a major part in ... " what? Blowing up Shiro Academy? Its reopening as a trade training school? Its subjection to the Inquisition? You have to show the uninformed masses (me, again, and anyone who later reads the prop) something that will jump off the screen and grab for Todd the votes needed for the Commendation. If what he did in the Academy was bad, you could always go for the Raiders' Excuse to put a positive spin on it: "Todd McC re-energised/revitalised/woke up/renewed interest in/focussed TEP's attention on Shiro Academy ..." (as the hostage crisis developed? what did he do? I'm getting curious.)
@ Nai: Yes, it was "the competition". "What about 'without means of ejecting and banning political competitors' (which is what I would have been more likely to say)?" No probs.
Poree wrote: Wouldn't the term Founderless Region be a game term? I have never heard it used outside the game. It seems we are starting to have a double standard on what is and is not a "In Game" term.
Check out Mount Rushmore: founders of a nation. Check out Nelson Mandela: New founder. Check out the Australian flag, which show the nation was "founded by" Britain. I'm not happy with "Founderless Region", but I did say anything game-generated on the nation page was okay, and "Founder" is shown there. If you can have founders then other nations can also be founder-less (Scotland or England, for example; their founders, if any, lost in the mists of history). Dropping the caps would be an improvement, less "gamey".
I'm not going to go through every game-related term and suggest alternatives (yes, I know, you didn't ask me to). Players should develop the conventions (Nerv's been calling it a new language). What about "Feeders"? It would be fair to call them "the birthplace of many nations" -- that's a term that's been slung at the Houses of Parliament at Westminster because so many nations use the Westminster system of government. Might be a bit florid for some tastes. Play around with "developing"? The most populous regions ... Delegate of three of the world's most populous regions? Mega-regions? Whatever.
Anyway, with the [ nation] and {region} tags, it doesn't matter whether you see the electronic entity on the nation page as a nation, a citizen, a soldier or an eggplant. Provided you choose words with dual relevance, you should be sweet.