Rule 4, formerly 'Split from Commend "A Mean Old Man".'

[Unibot]

<snip>

Condemning a player for their personality, personal characteristics or supposedly poor expertise in their area of the game – at the discretion of a moderator – will be ruled trolling or flame-baiting, and thus illegal and actionable under the sites’ rules.

Entirely focusing a commendation on a player’s personality, personal characteristics or supposedly good expertise in their area of their game – at the discretion of a moderator – will be ruled as a category violation as it strays too far away from the category’s description to “recognize outstanding contribution(s)” which is not “recognize outstanding personalities” or any other similar but not indistinguishable variation of the latter.

I acknowledge that you are now attempting some constructive input, but I draw your attention to the clause that already exists in Rule 4, thanks to the efforts of, I think, Naivetry, or possibly Metania (the examples may have been mine):

Proposals should not refer to the personal characteristics of the player behind the nation ("good roleplayer" "always rude" "bad speller") but to NationStates actions.

and to this:

Your reason is supposed to be an action that will cause “shock and dismay” to the international community (condemn) or “recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.” (commend).

That is, I think the essence of your modifications has already been achieved. If you have others, the tone should be more "here's how you do it" than "mods will get you with this specific penalty if you don't do it". It's a different verbal feel than the more prescriptive and rigorous rules of the GA.

Though I prefer my ruleset more than yours, because I think it allows a little more freedom but attacks the actual problem with better discussion as to why the rule is so (also all current legislation would be legal under my rule). But whatever, that still leaves the portion of Rule IV that I actually have a fundamental problem with, and I won't be able to accept, and what most, if not all of the 3WB, and the Security Council veterans are upset about.

[Callisdrun]

Lol at the term "security council veterans."

It's not even old. It's a relatively new feature.

[Mousebumples]

Lol at the term "security council veterans."

It's not even old. It's a relatively new feature.

Agreed. I could almost call myself a "security council veteran," and I haven't been that involved for that long - let alone heavily involved. (minus the one resolution that I wrote, anyhow)

[Topid]

Lol at the term "security council veterans."

It's not even old. It's a relatively new feature.

Agreed. I could almost call myself a "security council veteran," and I haven't been that involved for that long - let alone heavily involved. (minus the one resolution that I wrote, anyhow)

I've seen people consider themselves 'GA Veterans' after less passed resolutions than Uni has in the SC. So I'd say it is possible for the SC to have veterans, just not many.

[Unibot]

Lol at the term "security council veterans."

It's not even old. It's a relatively new feature.

It feels longer. There were periods of very extensive activity, more so that what I remember enjoying in the GA. The debates are longer, and more aggressive.

And this ol' veteran could whoop your ass in a quorum race any day of the week, buster. 'Tis important to be fast in the Security Council, which is something you learn and practice after submitting your first liberation. Every twelve hours that you gain is a blessing to the liberators.

[Palaam]

although I'm sure everyone is highly interested in the relative girth of everyones' SC-dongs, it's a bit off-topic.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Try writing a condemnation of Kenny for his "duality" and extensive activity in GP espionage.

What's this? Trolling again, I see. Then again, you're hardly interesting in any other mode. You play to your strengths. More power to you.

[Sedgistan]

Try writing a condemnation of Kenny for his "duality" and extensive activity in GP espionage.

What's this? Trolling again, I see. Then again, you're hardly interesting in any other mode. You play to your strengths. More power to you.

There's a moderation forum for reporting trolling in - it means we don't have threads dragged off-topic.

Thanks

[Ardchoille]

although I'm sure everyone is highly interested in the relative girth of everyones' SC-dongs, it's a bit off-topic.

THIS. Decidedly, this.

What's this? Trolling again, I see. Then again, you're hardly interesting in any other mode. You play to your strengths. More power to you.

"Troll" is apparently the word of the day. But calling someone a troll has more than once been ruled flamebait. Cut it out, Kenny, and play to your greater strength: argument.

(There are quite a lot of points raised since I last read this that I want to reply to -- aren't you US guys still supposed to be recovering from July 4 celebrations? Shouldn't you be too tired to flood the thread with posts? -- but I'll have to get to them later. Just put my head round the door to yell "SIDDOWN YOU LOT!")

[Ballotonia]

Getting to the first part, a list of banned words, we don't want to provide a list of such words for the same reason that we don't provide a list in General as well. Pretty much from a Moderation standpoint it restricts us AND players way too much. For example, take player.

Ok, understood. So sadly, that's a no-go area as well. Which leaves the wording of Rule IV as is.

We had been talking about this for quite some time in order to bring the SC in-line with what Max had originally set out to us for the SC. It was just those C&Cs made it seem that we really needed this rule in place now and that matters were coming to a head.

Here's where I'm still somewhat misty about things. Why bother? What problem does Rule IV solve, and who has this problem?

Responding to some items in your next post:

This august *snirk* assembly is supposedly a collection of nations that have come together so anything produced by it should sound like it comes from such a body.

this may be Max's idea of what he originally intended, but apparently it's not how the Gameplayers have been using it. They see this as utterly limiting. And why would it have to be? What's wrong with every user group submitting a resolution in its own language? That way it's at least exactly clear what the intention is of the C&C. Using 'common verbiage' merely hides this, leaving one wondering who is exactly supposed to be getting a C&C for what specific reason. More general language hides details, which often are the important part.

Wouldn't it be rather ironic, and nice, if our Security Council, in doing so actually manages to make peace between the factions? We'd be one up over the OTHER SC that meets in New York.

Ok, let's run with that example. Say the Secretary general decided that all resolutions would have to be written in Esperanto. I think the first response would be that a bunch of nations would be very displeased with this change (check), and start arguing against it (check). They'd probably experience it as unnecessarily limiting to their efforts of writing resolutions (check). My estimation would be they'd fire the Secretary General and get one which serves the member states instead of forcing his own vision upon the nations of the world (and here's where the example and our reality separates... we're left arguing and pleading.)

Ballotonia

[Naivetry]

I find myself completely unable to start a post on this topic tonight without inserting four letter words to try to make people listen to what I'm saying, so here, have some splices of posts I wrote elsewhere to get warmed up.

[...] I've tried to understand [the problem] myself, because I thought we were close to a compromise, too. The closest I've been able to get is my distinction between "wording" and "principle". It's as if Ard looks at the wording she wants first, and doesn't bother justifying it until after. But the justification is what matters more - in fact, it's the only thing that matters. If the justification is solid, the wording will simply follow from it naturally.

It's like... inductive vs. deductive reasoning.

...no, WAIT! That's exactly what it is. Ard is approaching Rule 4 inductively: here are these examples of legal and illegal. Here is what can be extrapolated about legality from these examples. Here is the rule we can create to summarize what we have learned about legality from the rulings made. It's bottom-up:

Deductive (left) vs. Inductive (right):



But the principle is all we're worried about! We want to know before anything else that we're all working from the same theory - the same principles of playing NS. Because that's where our community has been burned time and time again: when admin, moderators, and other players simply fail to understand what on earth it is that we're doing over in Gameplay. We're incredibly anxious about that - and if we knew only what Theory was being set in stone, we could live with whatever other rules were derived from it. [...]

I then went on to explain at great and unnecessarily repetitive length how I thought this had played out in these arguments.

What I'm hearing from NERVUN (and thanks for chiming in) is a reaffirmation of bits and pieces of things Ard or others arguing in her place have said here for a while. And that is that, for unidentified reasons, suddenly it has become imperative that the SC express itself as "a collection of nations that have come together" where the concept of "collection of nations" has been defined in explicitly NATION with PEOPLE LIVING IN IT, DUR! terms. That is, in an unnecessary and still unexplained exclusion of the model of "nation" that is the very foundation of Gameplay.

Gameplay nations don't have diplomats that speak for us. They are diplomats, and therefore perfectly capable of writing in an official, diplomatic, or whatever the heck else you want to get at stylistically, way. Why specifically make excuses for, when not excluding (gendered pronouns), the language in which we conduct our business in-game? We woke up one day to find that the SC, in a (completely) unprecedented spirit of harmony with the other half of the WA, has decided not to acknowledge, in any place where people might see it, that alternative ways of playing a nation simulation game exist.

The idea that [this change] was to stop flaming was dropped, but that means I still don't know why we have this rule. The only suggestions I've heard have been "because we want to the WA to sound consistent" - which is coming completely without warning, without discussion, in contradiction to the premise that we'd be setting precedent with the resolutions we passed, and a year too late.

Ah, now we're getting down to the meat and bones. Ok, for your first concern (About Moderators making different calls), I am afraid that you're going to have to take my word on this, but in the Suuuuuuuuuuuuper doooooooooooooooooper Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekrit Mod Lair (And izakaiya), there's currently 4 different threads a-going with various Mods tossing in their oars about Rule 4 and what it means and how to apply it. Ard, because she didn't run away fast enough, has, ah, volunteered for the job of being the main contact point for the SC, given her status as an active game mod. So while you have been seeing her mostly, the rest of us have been following along and trying to help. Furthermore, given that she IS the go-to-gal for the SC (And the WA in general), hers is the advice that the rest of us would seek concerning anything that is not cut and dried.

The problem here is, Gameplayers don't understand moderation here. At all. And pardon me for saying this, but y'all really don't understand us, either. Every other player group subject to moderation here has an active representative on the moderation team - even Sports. But not Gameplay. You have no idea how many times in the last 2 months I've wished Eras were here.

Of course, that gap is a result of none of us hanging out on the official forums post-Influence. For some perspective here - in 2008, I'd played NS for two years, getting horribly over-involved in the history, politics, and plotting of Gameplay. And I could not have named a single NS mod.

Not one. Two years of in-depth involvement, spending hours on NS every day, and I'd never needed to. The official forums were a no-man's land, and the moderators there had nothing to do with me or the game I was playing. For most of the players in my region and the other regions I know, that's still the case. And that ignorance goes the opposite way, too. The current slate of mods have never spent time in a Gameplay community. You/they have no idea who we are, let alone how we think or play the game, what our concerns are, or how the Gameplay system ticks.

So when you/they propose to adjudicate things of concern to us, you bet we get nervous. We're not used to dealing with the mods to begin with, and then to know that the person making the rules for our community knows nothing about that community... well, it's terrifying. Even when we trust your intentions, as I and (I think) most others do, we don't trust you to be able to make good decisions from a position of complete ignorance. Which is why we need to hear the basis of the rulings and have it all spelled out right up front.

Or to quote my esteemed colleagues from a year ago, when our positions were reversed:

I really wasn't trying to sound threatening.

OK I believe you, but you did anyway.

We need one thing and one thing only: to know exactly what principle of playing NS you intend to uphold in your rulings. Ard seems to think her enforcement of "sounds as if it's about a nation" and my ban on "refers to NS as a game, or to the personal characteristics of a player" result in the same thing. I really, really don't think so. I'm waiting to hear back on the questions I asked in Topid's thread, for just that reason.

Why, for instance, are Uni's alternative suggestions not the end of the story? If you incorporate people's suggestions without removing the elements that cause harm, you're just giving a shot of morphine to a man with a steel girder through his gut.

Like I said, while this seems to be aimed at GPs, it's going to be everyone who is going to have to adjust, and create, the langue needed for this to cover everyone. Yes, even RPers who can't just write about how so-and-so is such a good RPer or So-and-so godmods like hell.

The difference between what you just described and what we want is that RP'ers have to move OUT of their in-game world in order to talk that way. I.e., they are NO LONGER PLAYING THE GAME when they start to talk about godmoding or statwanking. We, on the other hand, are just asking to be allowed to remain within the linguistic framework of the game we're playing.

Or in other words, we believe

the C&C should be cast in the terms used for what they're being C&Cd for.

It was fine for a whole year. Why isn't it now?

*spots Ard via the thread ninja'd warning system, and waves*

[Callisdrun]

Lol at the term "security council veterans."

It's not even old. It's a relatively new feature.

It feels longer. There were periods of very extensive activity, more so that what I remember enjoying in the GA. The debates are longer, and more aggressive.

And this ol' veteran could whoop your ass in a quorum race any day of the week, buster. 'Tis important to be fast in the Security Council, which is something you learn and practice after submitting your first liberation. Every twelve hours that you gain is a blessing to the liberators.

"This ol' veteran"?! You're a 2008 nation. You must be kidding.

Whether you could "whoop my ass" is irrelevant. Nobody's winning any quorums recently, and the one proposal that did seems to be going down (unfortunately).

And I don't write liberations. That's gameplay, I don't play that part of the game except to vote on security council proposals. I trust that the gameplayers know enough about their own side of the game to write decent liberation proposals.

[Bears Armed]

I would agree with NERVUN and point towards the RP incompatibility towards being a more major problem--Rule 4 makes it impossible to properly commend or condemn roleplayer nations for actions that aren't related to their roleplayed nation's behavior. You can still do it, but it'll confuse people, damage their roleplaying, and generally be messy.

But then removing rule 4 and letting proposals include details that are blatantly OOC would mean that those proposals -- although probably intelligible OOC to the RP players -- would be unintelligible IC to the RP nations' characters... which means that players who approach the WA from a RP viewpoint would have to either ignore the SC completely (as many have been doing) although Max & Violet intended it to be as useable by us as by you, treat the SC as a purely OOC entity and give up their own playing style as far as that part of the game is concerned, have their IC people accept that sometimes other diplomats there will lapse into gibberish that the WA Secretariat will take as seriously as the IC-intelligible proposals (which would devalue the entire WA from a RP viewpoint), or treat those proposals as non-existent even if they get passed and are therefore placed in the consecutively numbered list of resolutions (which again would seem nonsensical IC; in case you don't know, the WA Gnomes being too efficent to make serious mistakes -- such as faulty numbering like that would be -- is a long-established part of the NSUN/WA(GA) paradigm)... and so removing Rule 4 would itself exclude an entire group of players from SC participation.

Now, given that rule 4 only prevents gameplayers from creating some of the resolutions that they would like whereas the effects that its removal would have on roleplayers' participation would be to pretty much exclude them from SC activity altogether, which approach would actually have worse effects overall?

We had been talking about this for quite some time in order to bring the SC in-line with what Max had originally set out to us for the SC. It was just those C&Cs made it seem that we really needed this rule in place now and that matters were coming to a head.

Here's where I'm still somewhat misty about things. Why bother? What problem does Rule IV solve, and who has this problem?

Responding to some items in your next post:

This august *snirk* assembly is supposedly a collection of nations that have come together so anything produced by it should sound like it comes from such a body.

this may be Max's idea of what he originally intended, but apparently it's not how the Gameplayers have been using it. They see this as utterly limiting. And why would it have to be? What's wrong with every user group submitting a resolution in its own language? That way it's at least exactly clear what the intention is of the C&C.

(Please see my reply to Metania, above....)

If I, for example, ever made a really silly rulling (Such as forthwith, all GA proposals MUST start off with a nice haiku).

I could get along perfectly well with that ruling...

[NERVUN]

Getting to the first part, a list of banned words, we don't want to provide a list of such words for the same reason that we don't provide a list in General as well. Pretty much from a Moderation standpoint it restricts us AND players way too much. For example, take player.

Ok, understood. So sadly, that's a no-go area as well. Which leaves the wording of Rule IV as is.

'fraid so.

We had been talking about this for quite some time in order to bring the SC in-line with what Max had originally set out to us for the SC. It was just those C&Cs made it seem that we really needed this rule in place now and that matters were coming to a head.

Here's where I'm still somewhat misty about things. Why bother? What problem does Rule IV solve, and who has this problem?

The problem was that the way the C&Cs were being carried out was against what Max had originally stated he wanted the SC to be. Yes, it took us a year to get to this, but that was also a year of seeing what the players were coming up with, if that could be steered to where it was supposed to go, and the general setting up of a new system. Max has stated, any number of times, that he has been amazed at what the players have come up with, taking this game in directions that he and the other admins had never previously considered, given what NationStates was supposed to be in the first place. That said, he is still the boss and while the players have been great in coming up with new things, the Admins, and by extension the Mods, have the job of attempting to forge some kind of order out of the chaos and set some limits under the guidelines that Max and/or [violet] give us.

So the main problem was, as Mister Bear explained so well was that while the Security Council was meant to be another chamber of the World Assembly and therefore acting at least SOMEWHAT in harness with the General Assembly, it really hadn't been doing this. While we have been trilled that Game Players have seen the SC as their gateway into the rest of NS, there was the problem of how to make a World Assembly that didn't seem like some kind of sewn together monster that had one half constantly violating the 4th wall as it were.

Responding to some items in your next post:

This august *snirk* assembly is supposedly a collection of nations that have come together so anything produced by it should sound like it comes from such a body.

this may be Max's idea of what he originally intended, but apparently it's not how the Gameplayers have been using it. They see this as utterly limiting. And why would it have to be? What's wrong with every user group submitting a resolution in its own language? That way it's at least exactly clear what the intention is of the C&C. Using 'common verbiage' merely hides this, leaving one wondering who is exactly supposed to be getting a C&C for what specific reason. More general language hides details, which often are the important part.

Well, the problem with allowing every group to submit their own language means that we would quickly have the SC cease to function as part of its umbrella organization. If you would allow me a Biblical analogy, it would become a Tower of Babel. So, yes, while this language limits everyone, it is limiting everyone together. In other words, instead of groups ignoring each other in the SC because they cannot understand what the other is talking about, we're hopefully talking in the same language.

Wouldn't it be rather ironic, and nice, if our Security Council, in doing so actually manages to make peace between the factions? We'd be one up over the OTHER SC that meets in New York.

Ok, let's run with that example. Say the Secretary general decided that all resolutions would have to be written in Esperanto. I think the first response would be that a bunch of nations would be very displeased with this change (check), and start arguing against it (check). They'd probably experience it as unnecessarily limiting to their efforts of writing resolutions (check). My estimation would be they'd fire the Secretary General and get one which serves the member states instead of forcing his own vision upon the nations of the world (and here's where the example and our reality separates... we're left arguing and pleading.)

Ballotonia

Er... I hate to tell you this, but the UN has 6 official languages so even if your native tongue isn't one of them, they still have to be submitted in one of those.

Jokes aside though, I understand your point. The problem is that a. The Sec Gen (Max) isn't voted in, he owns the place and sets the rules. And b. I understand the arguing and pleading part, and that is what Ard (and now I) have been attempting to do is address concerns as best we can and find the flexibility we can within the rules that Max has given us to get a compromise that, while no one is happy with, can at least be lived with. This isn't to say that your voice isn't being heard, just that there's only so much that can be done. But, I honestly think that within those other things we can find a way that everyone can live with this and not worry about it.

[Travancore-Cochin]

But then removing rule 4 and letting proposals include details that are blatantly OOC would mean that those proposals -- although probably intelligible OOC to the RP players -- would be unintelligible IC to the RP nations' characters... which means that players who approach the WA from a RP viewpoint would have to either ignore the SC completely (as many have been doing) although Max & Violet intended it to be as useable by us as by you, treat the SC as a purely OOC entity and give up their own playing style as far as that part of the game is concerned, have their IC people accept that sometimes other diplomats there will lapse into gibberish that the WA Secretariat will take as seriously as the IC-intelligible proposals (which would devalue the entire WA from a RP viewpoint), or treat those proposals as non-existent even if they get passed and are therefore placed in the consecutively numbered list of resolutions (which again would seem nonsensical IC; in case you don't know, the WA Gnomes being too efficent to make serious mistakes -- such as faulty numbering like that would be -- is a long-established part of the NSUN/WA(GA) paradigm)... and so removing Rule 4 would itself exclude an entire group of players from SC participation.

What about Liberations, then? They're Security Council proposals too, and they're "blatantly OOC" from an RP viewpoint.

[Mousebumples]

What about Liberations, then? They're Security Council proposals too, and they're "blatantly OOC" from an RP viewpoint.

My understanding (and, of course, I don't presume to speak for anyone else) is that Liberations were geared towards the GP community when they were created - a tool to be wielded by both Defenders and (if they're innovative and sneaky enough) Raiders. I'm not sure how Liberations would be IC from an RP perspective, and I don't believe that Rule 4 applies to Liberations.

Speaking as someone who isn't a part of the GP community (and is only very peripherally involved in RP - I really just RP my WA delegate), I generally don't approve Liberation proposals, simply because I'm generally not familiar enough with the situation. I often abstain from such votes, unless I'm prompted by members of my region to vote in one way or another. I don't think that Rule 4 is geared at Liberations, so I don't know that the OOC/IC commentary is relevant in that regard.

C&C's can be written about (literally) any nation or region, and I believe that they could be submitted by a nation from any "type" of nation - GP, RP, issue-centric .... I'm sure there are other "types" of nations that I'm missing too. And I'm guessing this is what prompted the creation of Rule 4. Yes, GPers have been the predominant users of the SC thus far in it's existence, and I don't believe that the mods/Max want to chase away the GPers from using this forum. However, I believe that they also want to expand the scope of the SC to include those who RP or who are issue-centric or ... whatever. And I think that's what Rule 4 is likely geared towards from what I've heard.

[Bears Armed]

*(snip)*

What about Liberations, then? They're Security Council proposals too, and they're "blatantly OOC" from an RP viewpoint.

They don't automatically have to be OOC: I'm fairly sure that I could draft one in IC terms, if there were a relevant situation about which I had the necessary information...

[The Blaatschapen]

What about Liberations, then? They're Security Council proposals too, and they're "blatantly OOC" from an RP viewpoint.

My understanding (and, of course, I don't presume to speak for anyone else) is that Liberations were geared towards the GP community when they were created - a tool to be wielded by both Defenders and (if they're innovative and sneaky enough) Raiders. I'm not sure how Liberations would be IC from an RP perspective, and I don't believe that Rule 4 applies to Liberations.

Rule 4 does not apply to Liberations. The topic where Rule 4 appears is called 'Why Did My C&C Get Chucked Out of the Queue?'.

Anyway, it is a very good question: How are RPers handling Liberation proposals? Since those are part of the SC as well, also included in the numbering system, handled on the floors of the SC, etc...

[Bears Armed]

Anyway, it is a very good question: How are RPers handling Liberation proposals? Since those are part of the SC as well, also included in the numbering system, handled on the floors of the SC, etc...

Mostly, as far as I can see, RPers -- the NSUN/WA(GA) veterans, at least -- seem to be "handling" the OOC nature of Liberations by ignoring the SC entirely at the IC level...

[Naivetry]

C&C's can be written about (literally) any nation or region, and I believe that they could be submitted by a nation from any "type" of nation - GP, RP, issue-centric .... I'm sure there are other "types" of nations that I'm missing too. And I'm guessing this is what prompted the creation of Rule 4. Yes, GPers have been the predominant users of the SC thus far in it's existence, and I don't believe that the mods/Max want to chase away the GPers from using this forum. However, I believe that they also want to expand the scope of the SC to include those who RP or who are issue-centric or ... whatever. And I think that's what Rule 4 is likely geared towards from what I've heard.

This does NOT EXPAND the scope. It restricts GP while doing nothing for RP or any other community except allow SOME people to quit selectively ignoring the SC. Except, you know, for those pesky Liberations, which I guess they still have to ignore.

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

[Palaam]

C&C's can be written about (literally) any nation or region, and I believe that they could be submitted by a nation from any "type" of nation - GP, RP, issue-centric .... I'm sure there are other "types" of nations that I'm missing too. And I'm guessing this is what prompted the creation of Rule 4. Yes, GPers have been the predominant users of the SC thus far in it's existence, and I don't believe that the mods/Max want to chase away the GPers from using this forum. However, I believe that they also want to expand the scope of the SC to include those who RP or who are issue-centric or ... whatever. And I think that's what Rule 4 is likely geared towards from what I've heard.

This does NOT EXPAND the scope. It restricts GP while doing nothing for RP or any other community except allow people to quit selectively ignoring the SC. Except, you know, for those pesky Liberations, which I guess they still have to ignore.

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

That's not what "we" are saying and that's know what Mousebumples said. Don't be so obtuse.

I think the discussion is sliding back into the definitions of what GP/RP/SC/WA/BBQ are. Although, for the latter, I definitely prefer a Louisiana-style BBQ. Digression. But, I think you'll find that players don't fit quite neatly into one category or the other- for instance, Palaam-the-nation is the delegate of Lavinium, but clearly it's also Palaam-the-player, even if we cloak it with the trappings of RP, Lavinium still has a quintessentially GP form of government.

Summary: there is a gray area here. That's what makes it difficult.

[Bears Armed]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

[Topid]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I have to ignore RP resolutions if you want to be like that. The concept of these accounts acting as nations has nothing to do with anything I do in this game.

So RPers should have to word their proposals in a way that sounds like something in Gameplay too, right?

(That argument has always bothered me. We are saying we are making it equal but we are only doing this one way.)

[Urgench]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I have to ignore RP resolutions if you want to be like that. The concept of these accounts acting as nations has nothing to do with anything I do in this game.

So RPers should have to word their proposals in a way that sounds like something in Gameplay too, right?

(That argument has always bothered me. We are saying we are making it equal but we are only doing this one way.)

No. Because for the millionth time, you are not being asked to write C&Cs in RP lingo, you're being asked to use only the barest possible minimum reference to the specifics of the game. I don't suppose that compliant resolutions from different player groups will look exactly the same and I suppose there will always be a degree of heterogeneity but the 4th rule will ensure that to some degree or another they all look like they were produced by groups using NS as the basis for the way they play their game.

[Topid]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I have to ignore RP resolutions if you want to be like that. The concept of these accounts acting as nations has nothing to do with anything I do in this game.

So RPers should have to word their proposals in a way that sounds like something in Gameplay too, right?

(That argument has always bothered me. We are saying we are making it equal but we are only doing this one way.)

No. Because for the millionth time, you are not being asked to write C&Cs in RP lingo, you're being asked to use only the barest possible minimum reference to the specifics of the game. I don't suppose that compliant resolutions from different player groups will look exactly the same and I suppose there will always be a degree of heterogeneity but the 4th rule will ensure that to some degree or another they all look like they were produced by groups using NS as the basis for the way they play their game.

So why aren't RPers asked to do the barest possible minimum. Referring to the player has no chance of making sense to RPers, so it is out. We'll refer to nations. Referring to citizens has no chance of making sense to GPers, so ... It's in. They should (by that logic) be asked to not refer to citizens, but rather the nation as well.

Fully/Completely OOC, illegal. Fully/Completely IC, legal.

If THAT is the reason for this, why don't they have to do the barest minimum too?