Condemnation

[Allech-Atreus]

Well, I like it. I have three almost in queue!

Yes, and I think you completely jumped the gun and rammed three proposals through the WA for no other reason than to issued slaps on the back without having taken the time to think about the potential implications of those C&Cs.

But excuse me, Kandarin's going to get a pretty badge and you get to pat yourself on the back. What am I thinking, objecting like I am.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Well, I like it. I have three almost in queue!

Yes, and I think you completely jumped the gun and rammed three proposals through the WA for no other reason than to issued slaps on the back without having taken the time to think about the potential implications of those C&Cs.

Don't forget the all-important sticking it to those uppity WA types.

[Yelda]

uppity WA types.

"Firefox can't find the server at http://www.equilism.org. "

Let me guess. It's something that would piss me off, right?

[Kandarin]

uppity WA types.

"Firefox can't find the server at http://www.equilism.org. "

Let me guess. It's something that would piss me off, right?

It's the forum of a rather nice region. Check it out.

Yes, and I think you completely jumped the gun and rammed three proposals through the WA for no other reason than to issued slaps on the back without having taken the time to think about the potential implications of those C&Cs.

But excuse me, Kandarin's going to get a pretty badge and you get to pat yourself on the back. What am I thinking, objecting like I am.

Todd cannot ram proposals through the WA, as he controls only one Delegate vote.

Still, your post got me thinking. Todd telegrammed a lot of Delegates. Perhaps you're right, and C&C voting is like endorsement-swapping and the positive-vote effect; perhaps anyone can ram through a proposal by just telegramming enough people with something that sounds good. So, I took a look the people who voted for my own Commendation proposal. Turns out about half of them are Delegates of regions that know me. We've talked, I've visited their forums, and a lot of them have visited mine or run into me in other places. They know who I am and have opinions about me. As informed voters, they'd have every reason to avoid the proposal if they felt it wasn't appropriate. I can't speak for the other half, but given the sheer number of people who've visited my region in the last six years (or run into me on the official forums) I can't rule out some familiarity.

Equilism is if anything more familiar. Their diplomatic service is enthusiastic and far-reaching; they make a priority of letting huge numbers of other regions know who they are, what they do, and what they're up to. Practically any region of decent size with a forum will have an Equilism delegation at their doorstep in no time. Regional governments just know who they are and what their history is, and their interregional reputation is sterling. If that wasn't enough, most prominent Equilismers have dual citizenship somewhere else.

In short, Todd nominated some cases with very high interregional visibility and involvement in more than one aspect of the game. He got results from people who are familiar with the cases in question. I don't think you could get the same results with something less known and a lot of telegrams.

[Lucretia Borgia]

uppity WA types.

"Firefox can't find the server at http://www.equilism.org. "

Let me guess. It's something that would piss me off, right?

Depends on how well you can handle anothers opinion. Or how well you can take a joke. Or how well you can handle reading a satirical article.

[Quintessence of Dust]

In short, Todd nominated some cases with very high interregional visibility and involvement in more than one aspect of the game. He got results from people who are familiar with the cases in question. I don't think you could get the same results with something less known and a lot of telegrams.

Whereas in the past, WA votes have not been popularity contests in which the cheerleader and the quarterback get their resolutions passed. The votes have, at least in theory, depended on the quality of the legislation. I agree, entirely, with your analysis: it only serves to illustrate how fundamental a rupture for the WA this development represents.

[New Kervoskia]

In short, Todd nominated some cases with very high interregional visibility and involvement in more than one aspect of the game. He got results from people who are familiar with the cases in question. I don't think you could get the same results with something less known and a lot of telegrams.

Whereas in the past, WA votes have not been popularity contests in which the cheerleader and the quarterback get their resolutions passed. The votes have, at least in theory, depended on the quality of the legislation. I agree, entirely, with your analysis: it only serves to illustrate how fundamental a rupture for the WA this development represents.

Since when has it ever been any different?

[Yelda]

It's the forum of a rather nice region. Check it out.

OK, I finally got it to load. Cute. So we're "mostly residents of Wysteria"? I don't even have a puppet in Wysteria.

[Kandarin]

It's the forum of a rather nice region. Check it out.

OK, I finally got it to load. Cute. So we're "mostly residents of Wysteria"? I don't even have a puppet in Wysteria.

'tis satire.

[Todd McCloud]

Well, I like it. I have three almost in queue!

Yes, and I think you completely jumped the gun and rammed three proposals through the WA for no other reason than to issued slaps on the back without having taken the time to think about the potential implications of those C&Cs.

But excuse me, Kandarin's going to get a pretty badge and you get to pat yourself on the back. What am I thinking, objecting like I am.

I'm being accused of not thinking something through? I'm flattered!

Seriously, it's here to stay, it's not going anywhere, and soon you'll have three fresh-baked proposals courtesy of the guy in the boiler room of TEP. Funny thing is, they'll probably be passed too (as most regions just vote "yes" on any proposal anymore). So sit tight, we'll see just what's in store for us.

And you're free to write proposals too, you know? I'd be tickled to see a 'condemn Todd McCloud' proposal, but I don't think it's deserved. I'm just ready to jump into this and enjoy the new ride. It should be fun, and I thank the mods and coders who have made this possible.


I'm long winded, so you get the short version for the time being.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Todd McCloud's insistence that this function is done with no hope of change notwithstanding, a few additional issues would appear to need clarifying for the rest of us mortals:

- using the proposals as region ads;

- quoting real real real stuff: "condemns Israelstan for having an Israeli flag, because yesterday the IDF killed two people in the West Bank";

- requiring gameplay (or roleplay, or really any) action: "...and because of this commendation, they get to become delegate"; "...having been condemned, they will be ejected from their region and it returned to its rightful owners".

The regular WA mods will be delighted to note the above is not an exhaustive list.

[Todd McCloud]

Todd McCloud's insistence that this function is done with no hope of change notwithstanding, a few additional issues would appear to need clarifying for the rest of us mortals:

- using the proposals as region ads;

- quoting real real real stuff: "condemns Israelstan for having an Israeli flag, because yesterday the IDF killed two people in the West Bank";

- requiring gameplay (or roleplay, or really any) action: "...and because of this commendation, they get to become delegate"; "...having been condemned, they will be ejected from their region and it returned to its rightful owners".

The regular WA mods will be delighted to note the above is not an exhaustive list.

I do agree, there should be some form of boundaries, don't get me wrong. BUT, my argument is that this thing is here to stay, and we can't get things done by arguing or bickering. I believe a lot of the above scenarios will be weeded out by not reaching queue, but that's okay. I don't mind not voting for proposals which I think fit the above statement. All we have to do is be smart on how we vote.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I do agree, there should be some form of boundaries, don't get me wrong. BUT, my argument is that this thing is here to stay, and we can't get things done by arguing or bickering.

1. If it is here to stay, then that only goes to show that you will have the opportunity to resubmit your proposals if they are deleted now. So all the more reason to prevent them going to vote UNTIL the rules are decided upon. If it's here to stay, there's no rush.

2. Why does it have to be here to stay? I strongly doubt the admins are so stubborn as to refuse to undo a mistake - if that's what it proves to be.

I believe a lot of the above scenarios will be weeded out by not reaching queue, but that's okay. I don't mind not voting for proposals which I think fit the above statement. All we have to do is be smart on how we vote.

So do I. But first, "a lot" is not good enough, as evidenced by Max Barry Day. Furthermore, the likelihood of illegal proposals reaching the floor is going to be increased, because the mods are going to be so overworked by the massive increase in proposal policing this change will necessitate.

Second, the proposal rules are normative. They do not just ban Grossly Offensive proposals so they won't reach the floor: they ban them because a nation should not be submitting them in the first place.

Besides, in certain of my examples it doesn't really matter if they reach the floor or not: a region ad that gets 5 days in the proposal queue is still spam. (Though of course, it's going to be a difficult call on what constitutes a region ad: many close calls for the mods, I'd bet.)

You seem to believe the only thing that matters in the WA is the list of passed resolutions. That is less the tip of the iceberg than the shiny drop of water on top of that tip.

edit: in terms of the proposal rules, by the way, this change makes this sort of proposal - which before was flatly illegal - more questionable. Or at least, it's going to be harder to word a succinct explanation: "proposals can't do x, unless they're in category y, in which case they can but they can't do z..."

[Ardchoille]

QoD, thanks for the links. The one that's a pure regional ad looks to me like a prime candidate for the "C&C proposals are not legal if ..." list. Players already have a forum for regional ads.

The list is in the process of being worked out, with players' help. Please keep on checking the queue, finding proposals that you think should be illegal and explaining why. Try not to do it in terms of existing proposal violations, because this is a new kind of proposal.

The one in your edit had already gone when I checked the link; since it was late, late last night when I swept the queue, I can't remember why I killed it, if it was me who killed it. which it probably was. I have killed a couple that were empty of content -- "commend Joe, he's a nice guy" ones with no attempt to explain why or how Joe is a nice guy. I've also deleted a dupicate, but not any flamers yet, so the Grossly Offensive violation hasn't been called on.

I might add that it's a lot more useful bashing my ear or [violet]'s than bashing fellow players.

[Quintessence of Dust]

QoD, thanks for the links. The one that's a pure regional ad looks to me like a prime candidate for the "C&C proposals are not legal if ..." list. Players already have a forum for regional ads.

The list is in the process of being worked out, with players' help. Please keep on checking the queue, finding proposals that you think should be illegal and explaining why. Try not to do it in terms of existing proposal violations, because this is a new kind of proposal.

Well, then someone should probably pass the word up to change the announcement, which states "The usual Resolution rules apply".

The one in your edit had already gone when I checked the link; since it was late, late last night when I swept the queue, I can't remember why I killed it, if it was me who killed it. which it probably was.

No, I don't think it was you because it was only posted about an hour ago, and deleted twenty minutes later.

It was a FoD proposal about "regional stabilisation". My point is that you would have to say, in justifying the deletion, "proposals can't affect Gameplay - see the Proposal Rules". The Proposal Rules which will have to amended to say that proposals CAN affect gameplay!

I'm not saying this creates a technical problem, but a rhetorical one in that it's going to be harder for new players to understand why their proposals are being deleted when seemingly similar ones are allowed.

But, with respect, the rules are not something that can (and certainly not something that should) be made up on the hoof without addressing the fundamental changes to WA play this innovation forces on us.

Edit: for example! Consider the One Stop Rules Shop:

WA posters are presumed to be ambassadorial representatives from their nations to the WA.

Edit edit: I would also note that in past rules discussions in the WA, draft rules have been posted. You claim 'the rules are being worked out' but it's very difficult for the players to know what to suggest without seeing an actual copy of these rules.

For example:

- this proposal makes a factually dubious claim ("most pirates come from..."): in the past, the issue of whether a proposal can be deleted for being factually incorrect has generally been a moderator judgment call, but when it comes to misrepresenting real people, it seems altogether more concerning;

- these proposals will quickly become out of date as their subjects' stats change, meaning that the WA members who vote at the start of voting may be presented with a different issue than those who vote later on (for example, if Crossman's economy declines);

- because non-WA members can be commended, there is no mechanism to prevent puppetwanking;

- this proposal seems to require in-game action in the severing of diplomatic ties - and even if the mods or admins or Unibot rule that C&C proposals may not do this, the issue that once arose with regard to repeals (whether they can "suggest", "call for", "recommend" such) will be presented anew;

- linking to offsite material raises separate issues: for example, if the links are not PG-13? if a Nazi region posts Stormfront links to support its commendation? This means the mods will themselves have to vet each individual link in a proposal;

- this proposal falsely invokes "the WA rules": now, [violet] has indicated they want to abandon the WA and use it instead to regulate gameplay, but while we're still breathing, is this kind of meta-regulation going to be permitted in C&C proposals?

- given all the legal hoohah about The Organization Which Cannot Be Named, are we going to allow direct references to it to be put back into the game?

- this proposal also "recognises the E-army", which is a subset of Equilism players, yet this distinction will not be reflected in the final outcome: E-army members will not get an extra badge;

- this proposal highlights my concern about real stuff, because it could be misinterpreted as a comment on RL Macedonism;

- my proposal refers to an individual within a nation, not the nation itself, yet this will not be reflected in the game coded commendation badge.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I agree that C&C proposals which require Gameplay actions should be illegal. Indeed, I think we may be able to call that miscategorization-- Mentioning a nation or region belongs in the C&C category and thus does not belong in any of the policy categories, instituting policy belongs in the appropriate policy category, and potentially making gameplay changes would belong in the appropriate category (but currently in no category).

I also agree that frivolous proposals which do not provide reasoning or are nothing but a regional ad should be illegal as well.

Finally, again, I don't believe [violet] has said we will abandon the WA...

[Kelssek]

Look fellas, this isn't us getting upset just over a frivolous feature that forces seperate rulesets to be formulated and was implemented in a manner which leads us to believe that the WA community was not consulted at all. The fact that [violet] expressed surprise that what is done in the WA forum is completely segregated from the invaders and the raiders and the gameplay speaks volumes. This isn't meant as an attack, to be clear, but to show that clearly more consideration and consultation had to be given than actually was, and to explain why the response has been so intense.

This is something that threatens to undermine entirely the way we enjoy the game. I think we're all reacting not just to this one little thing, it's also to what [violet] said about the future plans:

the C&C resolutions are actually just the tip of the iceberg. They are intended as the first step in a much broader ramping up of World Assembly's power over gameplay. It is hoped that this will reinvigorate the WA and introduce new purpose to an organization that has, over six and a half years, already debated pretty much every kind of legislation there is. I can't reveal details, but there are proposals for committees and the election of WA officers, for example, and a resolution type that could break a regional password-lock.

In other words, the WA is to be subsumed to give the gameplayers another toy to play with. To reiterate what I have said in the previous thread on this topic:

supposing all the planned changes are enacted, the raiders get a whole new dimension of their game, and we resolution-writers get our entire game smooshed against the wall. Where's the reward for us in this? It's been suggested that this gives the WA more power... well, yes, but it's not power we've been after. Not really, anyway. The WA as it was satisfied our own sense of fun, and that was all.

I understand a lot of raider and region-oriented people were very upset with the introduction of influence. If it helps, maybe you could think of it in those terms, because that's what it feels like over here - another group of players with no concept of how you play your game decided that you're of less worth than they are and lobbied for your game to be shunted aside in favour of theirs. And then ridiculed you for being angry when that happens. So instead of writing insulting "jokes" that just drive deeper wedges between the groups of players, try to understand that other players are potentially being asked to give up their primary reason for participation in NationStates.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Try not to do it in terms of existing proposal violations, because this is a new kind of proposal.

Nonetheless, some reflections on the existing rules. While I still think RL References (previously "really easy to grasp and ... a "bright line" violation") are going to be the hardest to write a rule about, this has consequences for some other rules (as Sirocco's blog post seems to implicitly acknowledge).

1. Format. The rules state: "Remember where I mentioned needing more than rhetoric? Yeah, this is what I'm talking about." <-- This category is entirely rhetoric.

2. Branding. Necessarily these proposals will break this rule. So how far does this extend? Do we simply toss the Branding rule for C&C proposals?

3. Contradiction & Duplication. Can we commend Kandarin twice? Can we commend Kandarin and then condemn him without repealing the first one? (Presumably, this has a technical side, and only [violet] knows whether a nation can be given more than one Commendation.)

4. Jokes. What will the moderators be using to determine what constitutes a joke proposal?

5. House of Cards. "Excessive back-referencing" would seem to be almost required if we're to commend active WA members.

6. Amendment. If we commend Bob's Region for having blue in their WFE, and they then change it to green, can we ammend the Commendation?

[Urgench]

I agree that C&C proposals which require Gameplay actions should be illegal. Indeed, I think we may be able to call that miscategorization-- Mentioning a nation or region belongs in the C&C category and thus does not belong in any of the policy categories, instituting policy belongs in the appropriate policy category, and potentially making gameplay changes would belong in the appropriate category (but currently in no category).

I also agree that frivolous proposals which do not provide reasoning or are nothing but a regional ad should be illegal as well.

Finally, again, I don't believe [violet] has said we will abandon the WA...

No indeed, apparently Violet has great plans for the WA.

Are you suggesting that there be new categories of resolution which deal explicitly with gameplay changes ? And as an aside Does the current proposal queue look like it makes any kind of sense ? I mean there are old style resolutions ( good and bad ) dealing with IC issues, and then a rash of really randomised condemnations and commendations, ranging from clear jokes, to score settling, to personal rants to the outright mystifying.

I understand that the C&Cs are just being tried out, and that in time they will normalise themselves, but they wont ever do so in a way which dovetails in to what resolutions are doing, the C&Cs as written clearly show what poor bedfellows they make with old resolutions.

At this stage I have to ask myself, since writing resolutions was always a relatively less common interest and C&Cs are intrinsically more accessable and significantly easier to write, how long will it be before actual resolution writing becomes a thing of the past ?

Clearly other new categories dealing with gameplay are being planned, they're also going to radically contribute to the decline of the WA as it currently is. It's a matter of statistics.

[Kelssek]

this has consequences for some other rules (as Sirocco's blog post seems to implicitly acknowledge).

Wasn't the approach going to be to have a completely different set?

I'd also be interested in how far you want to take metagaming. If you require entirely IC C&C resolutions, what if you want to commend someone for OOC actions when they RP as being a complete hole? Say someone RPing a horrifically brutal genocide, in doing so, sparks responses and revives a particular region, it would be difficult to put that into IC terms.

[Quintessence of Dust]

this has consequences for some other rules (as Sirocco's blog post seems to implicitly acknowledge).

Wasn't the approach going to be to have a completely different set?

Well, that's as may be: but it's the mods who'll have to do the work of policing the queue, so I'm raising the issues I can think of such that they might consider soliciting some player input on these new rules. That I'm doing so in terms of the existing rules is because 1) it's what I'm most familiar with and 2) they've worked ok for the last four years.

And as an aside Does the current proposal queue look like it makes any kind of sense ? I mean there are old style resolutions ( good and bad ) dealing with IC issues, and then a rash of really randomised condemnations and commendations, ranging from clear jokes, to score settling, to personal rants to the outright mystifying.

I understand that the C&Cs are just being tried out, and that in time they will normalise themselves, but they wont ever do so in a way which dovetails in to what resolutions are doing, the C&Cs as written clearly show what poor bedfellows they make with old resolutions.

I do agree, and as well as format there's another concern:

Everyone has an opinion about nuclear weapons. Even if their nation doesn't have nuclear weapons, their role in the world is likely to affect their nation. Voting on a proposal about nuclear weapons involves everyone.

Not everyone has an opinion on Bob's Region and whether it should have a password. Spending five days voting on whether it should would leave many in the dark.

Contrary to the assertions of some, then, these new C&C proposals would actually prove more alienating! Edit: especially because, of course, this function is necessarily off-limits to new players, who as Kandarin et al. have argued, won't have the prestige or renown to get enough approvals. Only older players will be well-known enough to be Commended or Condemned. In the old WA, a new player could get their proposal passed because, back then, we considered legislation on the merits of its text alone.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I like this idea a lot except for the fact that it seems as if there was a massive surge of WA Delegates with extremely low standards. Totally horrendous proposals are getting in queue! The good ones still make it but I hate going through the repeal process!

[Erastide]

Question for the regular WA forumites that have made their way here. If [violet]'s plan for an expanded WA is put into place, how would you react to having the "traditional" WA be a part of it? Sorta like a legislative branch? I am assuming here the C&C stuff would end up somewhere else in terms of rulesets. Because I do like the idea of bringing gameplayers (specifically those that govern regions and thereby have to be in the WA) more into WA matters, but I as you've said, I don't exactly see them jumping into writing proposals. If it hasn't happened by now, there's not going to be a grand revelation in thought.

[Urgench]

Contrary to the assertions of some, then, these new C&C proposals would actually prove more alienating! Edit: especially because, of course, this function is necessarily off-limits to new players, who as Kandarin et al. have argued, won't have the prestige or renown to get enough approvals. Only older players will be well-known enough to be Commended or Condemned. In the old WA, a new player could get their proposal passed because, back then, we considered legislation on the merits of its text alone.

In fact C&Cs will function purely as a tool of the in game politics of established powerful groups who want to congratulate one another and keep others in their place. What is especially unifying about this I can't tell. Until now one of the very appealing aspects of NS has been its openness and the way it encourages free form self expression in a non-competitive and non-judgemental environment. Players were free to explore whatever aspects of the game they wished and within certain rules, how they wished. Now we have an honours system which explicitly places higher value on what certain players do over and above what others do. And in time statistical biases within the player base will skew this honours system entirely. The net effect of all this will be to prioritise one way of playing the game over all others. Not only is the 4th wall shattered, but so is this game's innate ability to encourage free expression and unique forms of play.

[Urgench]

Question for the regular WA forumites that have made their way here. If [violet]'s plan for an expanded WA is put into place, how would you react to having the "traditional" WA be a part of it? Sorta like a legislative branch? I am assuming here the C&C stuff would end up somewhere else in terms of rulesets. Because I do like the idea of bringing gameplayers (specifically those that govern regions and thereby have to be in the WA) more into WA matters, but I as you've said, I don't exactly see them jumping into writing proposals. If it hasn't happened by now, there's not going to be a grand revelation in thought.

Urgench has already resigned from the WA. I might put one of my puppets in it in the future, just to give me a reason to post on things I do find interesting, but essentially this "expanded" WA doesn't make sense to me and I wouldn't be able to play it in anything like the manner I enjoy. There isn't any actual relationship between Gameplayers and Regulars, except for one soliciting the approvals and votes of the other, and their play cannot be reconciled, in my opinion. Gameplay has nothing to offer the old WA in terms of an actual improvement to the way it works, and the gameplay functions of this new "expanded" WA would dwarf the older aspects of it. Gameplayers are in no way likely to be seduced by what will be an insignificant committee of legislators which deals with issues they don't recognise now and will have less reason to recognise in the future.