SC Rules discussion

[Indian Empire]

My proposal "Commend Grub" Was removed, but I don't see any rules violation for SC proposals.

viewtopic.php?p=18850236#p18850236

how are those illegal?

[SkyDip]

R4c - You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game. Ergo, "player created region" is illegal.

Furthermore, feeder and sinker are illegal terms, per this thread

Feeder (as in 'feeder region') - illegal, and two appeals against that have been rejected. Use of the [nation] tags instead is recommended, though there are other workarounds (see here, here, here, here and here)

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Feeder (as in 'feeder region') - illegal, and two appeals against that have been rejected. Use of the [nation] tags instead is recommended, though there are other workarounds (see here, here, here, here and here)

...by which they mean [region] tags, I'm assuming.

[Avacon Diplomat]

Hello,
I have a query which I would like clarified on.
Recently, I edited a proposal by Indian Empire "Commend Grub". This proposal has unfortunately been already submitted.

Ramaeus states on a discussion thread that:
"R4 violation. You can't plainly refer to an offsite forum that NS doesn't control."

He is referring to:
"Acknowledging Grub as the founder of 10000 Islands and was instrumental to many of the region's accomplishments specified in SC Resolution #30 including but not limited to:

The creation of the first third-party forums.
The establishment of the first regional currency.
The inception of the first regional constitution."

My question is whether this is a violation considering the precedent set by SC R# 30 which states:
" create its own private forum"? Or am I mistaken and this is a matter of the specific wording used within the proposal?

[Ballotonia]

Hello,
I have a query which I would like clarified on.
Recently, I edited a proposal by Indian Empire "Commend Grub". This proposal has unfortunately been already submitted.

Ramaeus states on a discussion thread that:
"R4 violation. You can't plainly refer to an offsite forum that NS doesn't control."

He is referring to:
"Acknowledging Grub as the founder of 10000 Islands and was instrumental to many of the region's accomplishments specified in SC Resolution #30 including but not limited to:

The creation of the first third-party forums.
The establishment of the first regional currency.
The inception of the first regional constitution."

My question is whether this is a violation considering the precedent set by SC R# 30 which states:
" create its own private forum"? Or am I mistaken and this is a matter of the specific wording used within the proposal?

The term "Forum" is no problem. Nations and their leaders discuss things in forums in RL as well. Albeit not forums of the online phpBB kind. This is a long-standing SC ruling, going back to the beginning of current SC rules.

I think a problem MIGHT be "third party", as that could be interpreted as indirectly recognizing NS the game as a 'party' while within SC lingo NS doesn't exist as a game (you're really referring to proboards as a third party, with NS itself and its users being the first two parties involved). But, saving grace is that the resolution doesn't spell out who the parties are, so a solution would be to figure out who the 'parties' could be that the resolution refers to within the confines SC language.

Ballotonia

[Unibot III]

I'm actually curious about that because third-party forum can only be taken to implying the existence of the game, if you are using the internet definition of a "forum". SC's use of "forum" should be read as a forum in the diplomatic sense. It makes a lot of sense for a diplomatic forum to be run as a third-party.

[Cerian Quilor]

But the forums in this sense are exclusive to 10KI, not to diplomatic needs.

[Frattastan II]

But the forums in this sense are exclusive to 10KI, not to diplomatic needs.

They are a meeting place for nations (or national representatives).

[Cerian Quilor]

[Ramaeus]

They are a meeting place for nations (or national representatives).

This quote will hopefully clarify things:

1. "regional forum" --- see here. Could be acceptable in some contexts, but not if it plainly refers to the electronic entity over which Nation States has no control.

From this post: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=52675&p=2212924#p2212924

[Port blood]

Question:
Can GA #1 be repealed?,in theory i mean

[SkyDip]

Question:
Can GA #1 be repealed?,in theory i mean

GA #1? Or SC#1?

[Port blood]

Question:
Can GA #1 be repealed?,in theory i mean

GA #1? Or SC#1?

GA #1
Category: Bookkeeping

[SkyDip]

GA #1? Or SC#1?

GA #1
Category: Bookkeeping

Why would we be discussing GA#1 in the Security Council?

[Port blood]

GA #1
Category: Bookkeeping

Why would we be discussing GA#1 in the Security Council?

....Well that was derpy

*sneaks out*

[SkyDip]

Why would we be discussing GA#1 in the Security Council?

....Well that was derpy

*sneaks out*

Happens to the best of us.

[Port blood]

....Well that was derpy

*sneaks out*

Happens to the best of us.

So I AM the best

[DWAsnia]

Happens to the best of us.

So I AM the best

But answer your original queston, no. Repealing it would change the game by disbanding the WA. If you look, there isn't a link on the resolution to submit a repeal.

A side note, you could submit a repeal using some URL Manipulation

[Auralia]

A side note, you could submit a repeal using some URL Manipulation

Tried it, doesn't work. Game treats it as a repeal internally.

[Port blood]

So I AM the best

But answer your original queston, no. Repealing it would change the game by disbanding the WA. If you look, there isn't a link on the resolution to submit a repeal.

A side note, you could submit a repeal using some URL Manipulation

It seems to be like it's just bookkeeping,not supporting the whole WA

[Sedgistan]

Why would we be discussing GA#1 in the Security Council?

This still applies.

[Port blood]

Wondering if this is true:

GA #2 states:

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Doesn't this mean that condemnations are per default illegal?

[Sedgistan]

Nope. Bear in mind that the General Assembly does not legislate for the Security Council.

[Unibot III]

Nope. Bear in mind that the General Assembly does not legislate for the Security Council.

This may be confusing to some because the earliest WA Condemnation discussions actually pre-date the separation of the GA and the SC -- so there were initial attempts to try to rectify Article 3.2 (?) of GA#2 with the WA Condemnations and Commendations.

[Port blood]

Nope. Bear in mind that the General Assembly does not legislate for the Security Council.

You know,I find this really weird,the GA and SC are both part of the WA,yet are completely separate legislative bodies but vote on the same page