SC Rules discussion

[Port blood]

Joke proposals:
Illegal to submit, but legal to post on the forums:

Ardchoille wrote:So far, there are only a few things that will get a C&C killed before its proper span of life.

One of which, by the bye, is JOKE PROPOSALS. You can post all the joke proposals you like on the forum (while taking the risk that you'll get modded if they're flamey), but once you submit them in the queue, you're taking a chance of getting officially warned and of losing the nation you submit it with if you do it often enough (or if you do it once, depending on the proposal).

Could there be a slight clarification here? do joke proposals have to be marked as such? a recent "joke" proposal had no indication of being a joke proposal prior to the OP editing the post,causing several people to take it seriously and take the time to suggest improvements

(inb4 "they suspected a joke and only you took it serious" :they did take it seriously enough to respond fully)

[Sedgistan]

They don't need to be marked as joke proposals - it's up the the author to decide if they want to. Obviously, posting a load of un-labelled "joke" proposals with the intent of riling up others and have them waste their time discussing them, would not be a wise move.

[Port blood]

I disagree,especially when the joke resolution author is like "haha you fell for it and have bad grammar" like this viewtopic.php?f=24&t=287687#p19286474

[Port blood]

Could we get a extra rule that joke proposal threads need to have [joke] in the title?

[Elke and Elba]

Mhmm.

Question: this is here:

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.

Now, what about links of nations that is legal under the normal [nation] tags? I don't want to name Mall anymore as Cormac have rightly stated.

[Sedgistan]

Use the nation tags.

[Elke and Elba]

Use the nation tags.

Apologies for not stating the discussion is outdated as I have decided to reference to Morningstar Shining instead of Mall directly. Thanks though.

EnE

[Maltropia]

Quick question from a non-SCer: is using the term "password", in reference to regional passwords, a Rule 4 violation or whatever it was suggested (in the Liberate Haven thread, I think by Frattastan) that it might be? A quick search in the Illegal Proposals thread suggests that it isn't, and I'm assuming that's the case, but a definitive ruling would be nice.

[Elke and Elba]

Quick question from a non-SCer: is using the term "password", in reference to regional passwords, a Rule 4 violation or whatever it was suggested (in the Liberate Haven thread, I think by Frattastan) that it might be? A quick search in the Illegal Proposals thread suggests that it isn't, and I'm assuming that's the case, but a definitive ruling would be nice.

Is it? It was last applied in February, and I'm pretty sure Rule 4 came into effect a long time before that.

[Maltropia]

Is it? It was last applied in February, and I'm pretty sure Rule 4 came into effect a long time before that.

I haven't a clue. I'm just checking.

[Sedgistan]

It's legal, as passwords are a part of the game. Yes, it does sound a bit jarring as "nation simulation" language, but it's one of the oddities of the game.

[Maltropia]

It's legal, as passwords are a part of the game. Yes, it does sound a bit jarring as "nation simulation" language, but it's one of the oddities of the game.

Okay, thanks Sedge. That's what I thought the answer would be, and it seemed a bit unlikely that Mall's proposal could eventually have been pulled based on something silly like that.

[Elke and Elba]

[removed]

Answered by precedent - thanks.

[Maltropia]

Not sure if this is the right place to raise these points, but I'll give it a shot. I was reading the Guide to the SC (Sedge is instantly gratified), when in this post I encountered the misspelling "menioned", right at the start of the subsection on Powers. In this post, then, there's what I think is an image which has since ceased to exist on its hosting site. At the end of the first paragraph under Submitting in this post, lastly, it seems to be forgetting to provide a link to the Submissions page. It'd probably be worthwhile to add it in. Hope this is helpful.

[Crazy girl]

It certainly was, and it should all be sorted now. Thank you for your input

[Unibot III]

Early this week, a new ruling about "sleeper" and "trigger" (not triggerman) suggested that cases of strange phenomenon explained by the bizarre mechanics of the game pass Rule IV (like "passwords" or "helicopters"). "Feeder" and "Sinker" are two words that have a specific meaning in game and could be justified in terms of the game as products of a world whose physical mechanics are different than ours: nations are created in one physical spot and can be rejected to another physical spot and even can be resurrected. This isn't us breaking the fourth wall when we say this: this is how NS operates, however bizarre.

"Feeder" and "Sinker" distinguish between these different phenonoma and are adequately vague like Sleeper or Trigger as to not necessarily refer to players or break the fourth wall by virtue of their name only. Likewise, it's well known what these words mean nowadays given their usage in Regional Tags (one of the old arguments against using "Feeder" and "Sinker" was it was exclusively Gameplayer terminology)

[Sedgistan]

The mod team had a discussion on this a while ago, and arrived at a deadlock, hence the ruling remaining in place.

My view is that both terms should be legal under Rule 4. The key aim of Rule 4 is to make sure that proposals make sense within the NationStates world. What's sometimes overlooked is that the NationStates world is not the same as the real-world; we have oddities like passwords, nations moving region via black helicopters, and regions where nations are birthed. It makes sense that people within this world would come up with their own terms to describe these odd aspects of it. "Feeder" and "sinker" fit the description - they're the terms coined by NationStaters to describe two sets of regions with unique features.

The terms have also moved on from 2010, in that they have a level of official recognition, with tags for each, and featuring in News updates - they're no longer obscure gameplay terms, and are now more widely understood.

Neither of them have jarring references to people in them (like "triggerman" does), so they don't fail on that regards either.

Being unable to use the terms also makes proposal writing trickier - there aren't any substitute terms that have the same weight or clarity as them. I also think them being illegal is an arbitrary ruling that makes it harder for players to understand where the line is drawn on Rule 4.

Anyhow, I'm interested to see what other SCers think of the legality of these terms, whether for or against. If you've got thoughts, post them.

[Tano]

"What's sometimes overlooked is that the NationStates world is not the same as the real-world; we have oddities like passwords, nations moving region via black helicopters, and regions where nations are birthed. It makes sense that people within this world would come up with their own terms to describe these odd aspects of it. "Feeder" and "sinker" fit the description - they're the terms coined by NationStaters to describe two sets of regions with unique features."

This is pretty much my exact view on it. NS is a different world than RL, so it might have terms not normally used.

I'm in favor of allowing them.

[Mallorea and Riva]

At this point the terms have become normalized throughout NS. Sedge summed up my thoughts very well.

[Unibot III]

Being unable to use the terms also makes proposal writing trickier - there aren't any substitute terms that have the same weight or clarity as them. I also think them being illegal is an arbitrary ruling that makes it harder for players to understand where the line is drawn on Rule 4.

These are good points too. The old "The Pacifics" line still is even more confusing - especially when you try to describe sinkers.

"Feeders and Sinkers" would also make for a good R4 compliant substitute for "Game-Created Regions" (which should obviously break R4).

[Frattastan II]

It'd be reasonable to consider legal any term used by the game itself (and "Feeder" and "Sinker" are both tags). How can those even be considered "OOC"? If its game language, and not just player-created words they are necessarily in-character, and understood within the game.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The game also uses the word "game." Just because a word appears on the site it does not necessarily make it legal.

[Unibot III]

The game also uses the word "game." Just because a word appears on the site it does not necessarily make it legal.

But that is by virtue of the word, breaking the fourth wall.

[Sacara]

Hello all!

My proposal -- viewtopic.php?f=24&t=310213 -- was deleted for rule #4 violations, but no where did I mention 'he' or 'she'. Maybe clause #4 or rule #4, but I am not sure. Help please?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"Gameplay" is also a Rule 4 violation. Basically anything that identifies NationStates as a game is against the rules.

Though you could have asked this in the proposal thread.