SC Rules discussion

[Sedgistan]

How to write a legal C&C proposal

Your proposal has to have three things: a destination for the proposal, a reason or reasons for it, and an action that you want the WA to take.

Here’s what the category says:

COMMEND: A resolution to recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.

CONDEMN: A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.

This tells you that the DESTINATION must be a nation or a region. You can still commend or condemn a person, an RPd character, or an action, event or philosophy. It just means that you must word your proposal so that the nation or region gets the award.

For example, if you wanted to commend an RPd character called Fred, you could describe why you thought Fred had made an outstanding contribution to NationStates, then finish off with, “COMMENDS the nation of Victimville for being the homeland of the glorious Fred.” (Don’t do it in colour, though.)

REASONS: Give reasons why, in your opinion, the subject of your proposal is “outstanding” or “shocking and dismaying”. These are strong terms, so think twice if you find you just want to say, “because he’s mean” or “because I like her”. It’s not uncommon to find 30 proposals listed, all competing for the delegates’ attention. You have to convince them to endorse yours.

TIP: Don’t use links in the text of your proposal. Successful proposals – resolutions – go into the permanent records of the World Assembly. But links die: the server shifts, posts gets deleted, whatever. The WA Librarian doesn’t like his records being messed up with dead links. Links in your proposal will make it illegal.

If you want to let delegates see for themselves how good or bad your subject is, put those links in your first post when you put your proposal up for drafting or debate. If you’re linking to an offsite forum, make sure the link is to a part that everyone can read.

ACTION: You must tell the WA what you want it to do. If you don’t, it can’t do it. This may seem obvious, but there have already been proposals that were illegal because the writer has ended with lines such as “so I think this is a good idea”, or “they really deserve it”. The WA can’t act on that. Nor can it act on just the title of the proposal. It has to be told, in the text, to “Commend” or “Condemn” a nation or region. Without an action, your proposal's illegal

Okay, you’ve got your proposal written. Before you submit it, though, check to make sure you’ve avoided these pitfalls:

C&C-ing a legal action. You may be angry with the raider who’s just taken over your region. But raiding’s legal in NS. The WA may be reluctnt to condemn something that the rules say is allowable; for some players, it’s like having NS vote that NS is wrong.

You can avoid this dilemma by condemning the way they did it. Maybe express an opinion that the raid was “unnecessarily disruptive” or “excessively harmful” or “glaringly unjust” or “disproportionately severe”. Or charge them with destroying a region, rather than just invading it. You can give details in your first post to show why you think it went beyond the norm.

Similarly, if your delegate always votes exactly the way the region wants him to, that’s not anything out of the ordinary. If you want to commend him (his nation), you should try to show that the way he handles the delegacy is outstandingly good.

Real World References: Anything that happens outside the borders of the NationStates community is invisible to the nations and regions inside it. Maybe you-the-player knows that Obama won the 2008 US election. The regions and nations don’t. RW references are illegal.

(A specific example: the Holocaust. The Nazi nation you’re condemning may have done lots of nasty things in NS, but it didn’t commit the Holocaust. Don’t condemn a particular philosophy, condemn the in-game actions of the specific nation that holds that philosophy.)

Extra legislation: You must write to the category. This category can only condemn or commend. Don’t write, “Condemns Victimville, and sows their fields with salt.” Or, “Commends Victimville, and awards it $NS 1million.” This will make your proposal illegal.

Similarly, repeals REPEAL. They reverse the condemnation or the commendation, but that’s all. Don’t put anything new in them and don’t try to bind the WA to never deal with the subject again. If you do, your repeal's illegal.

Consistency: you can write your proposals IC in the roleplaying sense, IC in the gameplaying sense or totally OOC: just don’t mix styles. It causes confusion, which means your proposal doesn’t get endorsements and doesn’t get discussed.

Snippets:

*You can’t get rid of a C&C badge by letting your nation die and then refounding.

I wonder if Macedon could just refound and lose the badge that way.

Someone should suggest that to them - and then sweep in to steal their region while they refound.

The admins are already aware of that one, can detect it and will take action.

*You may have more than one badge, including contradictory badges.

*A nation or region can’t be commended or condemned for the same thing twice. If you see it happening, please put in a Getting Help request.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Okay: comments? Anything you want transferred from the cut-and-paste Eras and I did from Hack's GA proposal rules? (Remembering that said c&p was intended to cover not-yet-existing SC proposals, whereas this is solely C&Cs).

You'll note I haven't said that the practice of condemning a legal action is illegal; the SC has already shown it is willing to condemn a legal action in specific circumstances.

If a proposal's illegal on the simple grounds described, it means a mod may cut it from the queue and possibly record a WA proposal warning against your nation.

[Erastide]

I find it a bit odd that you could C&C a character in an RP or a person within a nation. You're C&Cing the nation for someone they've made up?

[Ardchoille]

I find it a bit odd that you could C&C a character in an RP or a person within a nation. You're C&Cing the nation for someone they've made up?

Oho, the RP IC/Gameplay IC points of view meet head-on in the very first post!

The character or entity wasn't "made up by" the nation; he was "born in" or "started in" the nation. He or it was made up by the person behind the nation -- who also made up the nation. So if you can C&C a made-up nation, why not C&C a made-up character or entity?

It wan't for the argument I picked that as an example, though. [violet] said somewhere that the C&Cs were supposed to integrate the game a bit. I figured that II, NS and Sports regulars would have no trouble in pointing to ongoing characters or entities that have had a part in how NS is played, and letting that part be recognised would be an integrating thing to do -- bait to lure the RPers into proposal-writing.

Thing is, something like the Triumvirate of Yut has as many fingers in NS pies as the Vatican or the CIA has in RW ones. If anyone ever again parallels the magnificent villainy of the Kraven Corporation, they'd deserve a ringing commendation (or condemnation; damn megamultinationals). The mere appearance on the horizon of the disciplined afloat, roystering ashore, Dyelli Beybi fleet has been enough to quash a n00b war. They're not once-only, single-RP, creatures, they're part of the NS fabric, as "real" as their nations are. They're how RPers play the game.

This sort of thing happens in real life. The pragmatic government of New Zealand backs Ringbearer treks. Shrewsbury and its Abbey have Father Cadfael tours (and they're not "author Ellis Peters/Edith Pargeter" tours). It's a massive compliment to a writer to have their creation treated as real. So I reckon people should have a chance to offer NS writers that sort of compliment.

[Erastide]

I find it a bit odd that you could C&C a character in an RP or a person within a nation. You're C&Cing the nation for someone they've made up?

Oho, the RP IC/Gameplay IC points of view meet head-on in the very first post!

To me there's a difference between commending a character and the accomplishments of that character with a really loose reference to a nation and commending a nation for the creation of that character. I'm much more comfortable with the latter. Or at least can we have an example that's *not* that also included?

[Kandarin]

Does the "person" term mean that the actions of a player may be commended (though of course it must still go to their nation or region), or is that forbidden? This seems to be a bit of a bone of contention here; the GA folks insist that a player is a real-life reference that has nothing to do with the game, and the GP/SC people insist that if someone plays the game they are connected to it. Can we get an opinion on this?

[Ardchoille]

@ Eras: Your wish is my command. One of the anti-Nazi ones? The BNP's Britain one (which failed) condemns on the grounds of ideology. Would that do?

Having made my high-falutin' plea for characters to be C&Cd, I'm happy to just leave a passing reference to the possibility of such C&Cs and put something else in. We need an example of a condemnation that's aimed at a non-physical aspect of a nation (like, ideology's not "physical" in the sense raiding is). But I do think we need to leave the door open by making the wider-reaching ones clearly allowable. As I understand it, C&Cs aren't supposed to be limited to just one group of players.

(BTW, notice that where you say "nation" I say "player"? For me, once we start talking about "creating" things, we've gone OOC and you must be meaning "player". But for you, "player" and "nation" seem to be interchangeable. That's what I mean about the IC divide. Neither's "right", it's just a symptom of our points of view.)

EDIT: @ Kandarin: Dammit, I was hoping to delay that brawl until we could see if there was anything at all that everyone agreed on. Ah, well ...

I originally held the GA view that "person" "player" is absurdly outside the reach of resolutions. It would still be lugubrious in GA resolutions. But the one about you showed why it may be needed in some C&Cs. and this is a separate forum, so I don't see any point in trying to hammer its resolutions until they fit into GA rules.

Nor do I see any point in trying to dress it up in RP form if the outcome is confusion. I'd go for writing the proposal in terms of whatever it is you're commending or condemning for.

I do think "player" is better than "person", though. Me-the-person is not me-the-player (for one thing, as I player I don't have to bother about asthma, whereas I do as a person. Probably explains why I spend so much time here. ) I'll edit "person" out of the first post.

I expect "nation" or "region" to become the most common form, simply because that's where the badge goes, but I can't see any reason at this stage to rule out fully RPd or fully OOC proposals, either.

One thing I don't want to do, if it can possibly be avoided, is making SC proposals illegal on the grounds of "style". We've got so many different opinions on what style should be that it would be confusion thrice confused, and extremely difficult for a newcomer to sort through.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Little suggestion that comes from the GA proposal rules and it would be really useful... based on game mechanics:

Game Mechanics: You can't change the way your nominee runs the nation, not even with Commend and Condemn. Stating that “Condemns Victimville, strips the nation of its endorsements and bans the nation being endorsed by anyone in future.” will make your proposal illegal.

Proposals written entirely in other languages are out, too.
Genuinely Illegal Actions: If you have a reason to believe that your nominee is genuinely performing an illegal action (such as swastikas in flags or being abusive to another nation/culture) then a C&C must not be used, but instead request for Moderator Intervention. (Put forward to the other thread)

[Erastide]

Little suggestion that comes from the GA proposal rules and it would be really useful... Game Mechanics:

This isn't meant to be the rules for the SC, this is a discussion on how best to write a C&C proposal, like a guideline for players. The rules discussion is still where it was primarily. Although we're getting into a few of the points here too, the overarching ones should stay in the rules thread.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The Genuinely Illegal Actions bit has been put forward for consideration in the other thread.

[Erastide]

@ Eras: Your wish is my command. One of the anti-Nazi ones? The BNP's Britain one (which failed) condemns on the grounds of ideology. Would that do?

Having made my high-falutin' plea for characters to be C&Cd, I'm happy to just leave a passing reference to the possibility of such C&Cs and put something else in. We need an example of a condemnation that's aimed at a non-physical aspect of a nation (like, ideology's not "physical" in the sense raiding is). But I do think we need to leave the door open by making the wider-reaching ones clearly allowable. As I understand it, C&Cs aren't supposed to be limited to just one group of players.

I want to allow people the chance to C&C for different actions, but the way the example about the RP character comes off is that you're in fact commending what actions an RP character took. Not that someone was able to create a really good character in an RP. The former I'm uncomfortable with because then legally you can just keep commending 1 nation's characters over and over again (whether it passes or not). The second, I agree with because it addresses the skill of the nation.

(BTW, notice that where you say "nation" I say "player"? For me, once we start talking about "creating" things, we've gone OOC and you must be meaning "player". But for you, "player" and "nation" seem to be interchangeable. That's what I mean about the IC divide. Neither's "right", it's just a symptom of our points of view.)

EDIT: @ Kandarin: Dammit, I was hoping to delay that brawl until we could see if there was anything at all that everyone agreed on. Ah, well ...

I originally held the GA view that "person" "player" is absurdly outside the reach of resolutions. It would still be lugubrious in GA resolutions. But the one about you showed why it may be needed in some C&Cs. and this is a separate forum, so I don't see any point in trying to hammer its resolutions until they fit into GA rules.

Nor do I see any point in trying to dress it up in RP form if the outcome is confusion. I'd go for writing the proposal in terms of whatever it is you're commending or condemning for.

I do think "player" is better than "person", though. Me-the-person is not me-the-player (for one thing, as I player I don't have to bother about asthma, whereas I do as a person. Probably explains why I spend so much time here. ) I'll edit "person" out of the first post.

I expect "nation" or "region" to become the most common form, simply because that's where the badge goes, but I can't see any reason at this stage to rule out fully RPd or fully OOC proposals, either.

One thing I don't want to do, if it can possibly be avoided, is making SC proposals illegal on the grounds of "style". We've got so many different opinions on what style should be that it would be confusion thrice confused, and extremely difficult for a newcomer to sort through.

I personally think we should avoid the use of player OR person in any of the SC resolutions. The name of the nation should be sufficient recognition, and the badge is going on a nation. Which at any given time could be run by a multitude of players for all we know. But the resolutions should be firmly based on accomplishments within the NS world.

[Jey]

I personally think we should avoid the use of player OR person in any of the SC resolutions. The name of the nation should be sufficient recognition, and the badge is going on a nation. Which at any given time could be run by a multitude of players for all we know. But the resolutions should be firmly based on accomplishments within the NS world.

Once again I completely agree with Erastide. There's no reason at all to legalize breaking the 4th wall: if you truly want to commend an RP'd character of a nation, it can easily be developed ICly in a C&C. "COMMENDS the actions of Erastide as they pertain to *action you want to commend the RP'd character for*". I really don't understand why there should be such a ridiculously stark contrast between legal GA proposals and SC proposals. It's entirely possible to write an IC C&C no matter what you want to commend a nation for. Just like it was entirely possible for repealers to ICly repeal resolutions they just wanted to get rid of because they were blatantly illegal.

What is the issue with holding C&Cs to the standards of being IC and about a nation? You can get around it if you really want to, and know how to write.

[Erastide]

I think one of the scary things to the Gameplay world is the use of the "IC" standard. At least to me, a distinction about IC signifies someone is conducting a roleplay. And I don't view most gameplay actions as roleplay, so it's a bit odd to consider it IC. I understand not mentioning player or person, but if you say "write it IC" I'll be a bit befuddled.

[Urgench]

I find it a bit odd that you could C&C a character in an RP or a person within a nation. You're C&Cing the nation for someone they've made up?

Oho, the RP IC/Gameplay IC points of view meet head-on in the very first post!

To me there's a difference between commending a character and the accomplishments of that character with a really loose reference to a nation and commending a nation for the creation of that character. I'm much more comfortable with the latter. Or at least can we have an example that's *not* that also included?

Seriously ? In the most extreme unlikelihood that Urgench wished to commend Aundotutunagir's Ambassador to the (former) WA, now GA+SC, for his excellent services to the (former)WA, now GA+SC, you would require me to thank Aundotutunagir for creating General Aurorogul instead ? Even if in character Urgench's government despised the government of Aundotutunagir but nonetheless wished to commend their Ambassador who may have done stirling work for the (former) WA, now GA+SC ?

[Todd McCloud]

I think one of the scary things to the Gameplay world is the use of the "IC" standard. At least to me, a distinction about IC signifies someone is conducting a roleplay. And I don't view most gameplay actions as roleplay, so it's a bit odd to consider it IC. I understand not mentioning player or person, but if you say "write it IC" I'll be a bit befuddled.

Agreed. I can see omitting sayings like "The player behind" or "he/she", but I really believe we would lose quite a bit if we *only* could write things IC... when C&C's tend to deal with OOC things...

[Erastide]

To me there's a difference between commending a character and the accomplishments of that character with a really loose reference to a nation and commending a nation for the creation of that character. I'm much more comfortable with the latter. Or at least can we have an example that's *not* that also included?

Seriously ? In the most extreme unlikelihood that Urgench wished to commend Aundotutunagir's Ambassador to the (former) WA, now GA+SC, for his excellent services to the (former)WA, now GA+SC, you would require me to thank Aundotutunagir for creating General Aurorogul instead ? Even if in character Urgench's government despised the government of Aundotutunagir but nonetheless wished to commend their Ambassador who may have done stirling work for the (former) WA, now GA+SC ?

Yes, because the badge is awarded to the nation. Not the character. The badge sits on a nation's page. So I think they should be awarded to nations for what they do. Whether it's how the player acts or where their imagination takes them.

[Urgench]

To me there's a difference between commending a character and the accomplishments of that character with a really loose reference to a nation and commending a nation for the creation of that character. I'm much more comfortable with the latter. Or at least can we have an example that's *not* that also included?

Seriously ? In the most extreme unlikelihood that Urgench wished to commend Aundotutunagir's Ambassador to the (former) WA, now GA+SC, for his excellent services to the (former)WA, now GA+SC, you would require me to thank Aundotutunagir for creating General Aurorogul instead ? Even if in character Urgench's government despised the government of Aundotutunagir but nonetheless wished to commend their Ambassador who may have done stirling work for the (former) WA, now GA+SC ?

Yes, because the badge is awarded to the nation. Not the character. The badge sits on a nation's page. So I think they should be awarded to nations for what they do. Whether it's how the player acts or where their imagination takes them.

So essentially you want them awarded only OOC ? You don't want them to be used in character at all ?

[Jey]

I think one of the scary things to the Gameplay world is the use of the "IC" standard. At least to me, a distinction about IC signifies someone is conducting a roleplay. And I don't view most gameplay actions as roleplay, so it's a bit odd to consider it IC. I understand not mentioning player or person, but if you say "write it IC" I'll be a bit befuddled.

By IC I do mean IC for WA RPing. I do view the SC as being part of the WA and as such I don't see how we can possibly have a wing of the WA that has both OOC and IC resolutions passed. It wouldn't make any sense to even attempt to ICly recognize an institution with such different laws on the books.

I want to know what the huge fuss is over being held to the standard of staying IC only in the actual resolutions. You can recognize OOC activity ICly, you just have to write it in a way that makes sense. While adjusting to an IC-standard may be tough for some GPers, it's really the lesser of two evils in my opinion. Having OOC resolutions destroys the game for many "GA"-ers, especially if the SC remains as a 50% stake of the WA.

[Erastide]

Yes, because the badge is awarded to the nation. Not the character. The badge sits on a nation's page. So I think they should be awarded to nations for what they do. Whether it's how the player acts or where their imagination takes them.

So essentially you want them awarded only OOC ? You don't want them to be used in character at all ?

I personally think that since a badge is awarded to a nation, the proposal should be written for a nation. Having them be for the actions of a character in a story in that nation. Like.... "character brought an end to world hunger" or "character argued forcefully for x argument"seems a bit odd when it's a nation writing that character's actions.

C&C's would be rather silly if they were written about multiple RP characters and the actions they took in 1 nation. You could stack up a bunch by writing a bunch of really good characters essentially. I don't really think that's worth voting on for weeks at a time.

I think one of the scary things to the Gameplay world is the use of the "IC" standard. At least to me, a distinction about IC signifies someone is conducting a roleplay. And I don't view most gameplay actions as roleplay, so it's a bit odd to consider it IC. I understand not mentioning player or person, but if you say "write it IC" I'll be a bit befuddled.

By IC I do mean IC for WA RPing. I do view the SC as being part of the WA and as such I don't see how we can possibly have a wing of the WA that has both OOC and IC resolutions passed. It wouldn't make any sense to even attempt to ICly recognize an institution with such different laws on the books.

I want to know what the huge fuss is over being held to the standard of staying IC only in the actual resolutions. You can recognize OOC activity ICly, you just have to write it in a way that makes sense. While adjusting to an IC-standard may be tough for some GPers, it's really the lesser of two evils in my opinion. Having OOC resolutions destroys the game for many "GA"-ers, especially if the SC remains as a 50% stake of the WA.

So, I want to ask if the resolution below would pass your IC/OOC filter. Because to me this isn't especially IC.

RECOGNIZING Kandarin as a leader in various aspects of NationStates.

OBSERVING their tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in the Rejected Realms region as delegate without means of ejecting or banning the competition.

VIEWING their knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, in both in character and out of character aspects.

OFFICALLY praises Kandarin and recognizes their achievements with a commendation from the World Assembly.

[Urgench]

Yes, because the badge is awarded to the nation. Not the character. The badge sits on a nation's page. So I think they should be awarded to nations for what they do. Whether it's how the player acts or where their imagination takes them.

So essentially you want them awarded only OOC ? You don't want them to be used in character at all ?

I personally think that since a badge is awarded to a nation, the proposal should be written for a nation. Having them be for the actions of a character in a story in that nation. Like.... "character brought an end to world hunger" or "character argued forcefully for x argument"seems a bit odd when it's a nation writing that character's actions.

C&C's would be rather silly if they were written about multiple RP characters and the actions they took in 1 nation. You could stack up a bunch by writing a bunch of really good characters essentially. I don't really think that's worth voting on for weeks at a time.

What and colours on WFEs are ? They only characters for instance that Urgench's government would even think about commending would be those which frequent the (former) WA, now SC+GA, such as Dicey Rilley, or Palentine's Senator Sulla ( Ambassador to the WA ), are you saying that players who play the GA cannot really use C&Cs in this way ?

[Jey]

So, I want to ask if the resolution below would pass your IC/OOC filter. Because to me this isn't especially IC.

RECOGNIZING Kandarin as a leader in various aspects of NationStates.

OBSERVING their tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in the Rejected Realms region as delegate without means of ejecting or banning the competition.

VIEWING their knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, in both in character and out of character aspects.

OFFICALLY praises Kandarin and recognizes their achievements with a commendation from the World Assembly.

No, it would not. Recognizing the existence between IC and OOC in a resolution is OOC. The "VIEWING" clause is an immediate deal-breaker then.

The resolution could easily say: VIEWING the nation's knowledge, teachings, and leadership in many areas, including: *commendable RP'd act #1*, *commendable RP'd act #2*, etc. I don't think this is particularly difficult: all of Todd McCloud's C&Cs can be written as a WA IC resolution. And maybe it will force C&C writers to be more descriptive in their proposals if they can't use blanket statements like "NationStates roleplay."

[Erastide]

What and colours on WFEs are ? They only characters for instance that Urgench's government would even think about commending would be those which frequent the (former) WA, now SC+GA, such as Dicey Rilley, or Palentine's Senator Sulla ( Ambassador to the WA ), are you saying that players who play the GA cannot really use C&Cs in this way ?

I'm not dictating anything. I just think it's a bit odd to commend the actions those characters would take in the realm of the WA and only at the end pop in with something that mentions the actual nation that will end up with the badge.

So, I want to ask if the resolution below would pass your IC/OOC filter. Because to me this isn't especially IC.

RECOGNIZING Kandarin as a leader in various aspects of NationStates.

OBSERVING their tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in the Rejected Realms region as delegate without means of ejecting or banning the competition.

VIEWING their knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, in both in character and out of character aspects.

OFFICALLY praises Kandarin and recognizes their achievements with a commendation from the World Assembly.

No, it would not. Recognizing the existence between IC and OOC in a resolution is OOC. The "VIEWING" clause is an immediate deal-breaker then.

The resolution could easily say: VIEWING the nation's knowledge, teachings, and leadership in many areas, including: *commendable RP'd act #1*, *commendable RP'd act #2*, etc. I don't think this is particularly difficult: all of Todd McCloud's C&Cs can be written as a WA IC resolution. And maybe it will force C&C writers to be more descriptive in their proposals if they can't use blanket statements like "NationStates roleplay."

And if the "IC and OOC aspects" part was just cut? How would that go over?

[Kandarin]

The resolution could easily say: VIEWING the nation's knowledge, teachings, and leadership in many areas, including: *commendable RP'd act #1*, *commendable RP'd act #2*, etc. I don't think this is particularly difficult: all of Todd McCloud's C&Cs can be written as a WA IC resolution. And maybe it will force C&C writers to be more descriptive in their proposals if they can't use blanket statements like "NationStates roleplay."

I think I've already covered the reasons why reverting to RPed actions would be a bad idea in that particular case, and I'm hardly unique in that respect either.

Some sort of clarification as to what constitutes GP IC here might be a good idea. I should warn that what is and isn't IC may collectively be the most controversial subject that GP has. The GP community has never come close to full agreeing on what actions are those of a player and what actions are those of a 'character' persona corresponding to their forum account, nation, or whatever. The subject occasionally comes up under the category "Duality", and never seems to go back to whence it came without stirring up a lot of resentment.

[Urgench]

I'm not dictating anything. I just think it's a bit odd to commend the actions those characters would take in the realm of the WA and only at the end pop in with something that mentions the actual nation that will end up with the badge.

Well I think it's bizarre to codemn nations for activities they undertake essentially as characters and not as actual simulated nations, or to commend regions for actions they undertake as though they were nations. But colour me pluralistic if I point out that I don't choose to have a problem with that at this stage.

[Jey]

RECOGNIZING Kandarin as a leader in various aspects of NationStates.

OBSERVING their tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in the Rejected Realms region as delegate without means of ejecting or banning the competition.

VIEWING their knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, in both in character and out of character aspects.

OFFICALLY praises Kandarin and recognizes their achievements with a commendation from the World Assembly.

And if the "IC and OOC aspects" part was just cut? How would that go over?

That, and "NationStates roleplay" would probably be okay. Referring to Kandarin as "their" is potentially troubling, but I suppose it's ambiguous enough to be acceptable ICly. The reference to the abilities of ejecting or banning a nation in a region, as delegate, is also probably OOC, but it's crafted in a way that could be interpreted ICly. I realize my line of thinking would also remove any references to "NationStates," as a game, which would be OOC, but even I think that's probably a little too extreme.

[Bears Armed]

I personally think that since a badge is awarded to a nation, the proposal should be written for a nation. Having them be for the actions of a character in a story in that nation. Like.... "character brought an end to world hunger" or "character argued forcefully for x argument"seems a bit odd when it's a nation writing that character's actions.

But it's a player writing the character's actions, not a "nation" doing so, i.e. the same player who writes the relevant nation's collective actions...