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

[Urgench]

And I'm trying to explain where we're coming from. In the game we play, leaving things open is asking to get hurt, so being asked to leave things open feels like asking us to punch ourselves in the face.

Like I said, I don't disbelieve him that the mods are in agreement. But letting the language stay where it could be used against us by someone bent on (in-game) evil runs counter to everything we know... so we don't trust it.

I understand why you were explaining this, what I don't understand is why you find it impossible to recognise that the WA is a different context in which no one has the kind of agenda which would mean the language of this rule would be used against you?

"The WA needs one common language because it's the WA."

You realize that's circular, right? And demonstrably inaccurate - GA and SC are both part of the WA, but they don't have a common language

They don't currently, because the SC was essentially created without rules, and of course the WA should speak in a language which is at least minimally compatible with the game it is a part of. I also wonder why you react with such simmering contempt for the suggestion that the SC is part of the WA and should be in some very small way asked to speak as though it were.

This is true, and it wouldn't make sense for it to be a Gameplay subforum, because it ought to be open to all groups to use in their native tongues.

Indeed it should be open to all players, but thus far it has failed to be so, and has become monopolised by one player group and associated with one particular lingua specifica. The 4th rule attempts to remedy that by including the requirement of a base level of universal intelligibility beyond which development and adaption is still allowed.

England, France, Russia, and their languages all developed outside of the UN... that did not stop the UN from recognizing more than one language.

(That it only recognizes six is another matter, and has some dimensions of argument that this does not.)

That's not the best comparison because in fact we all speak the same language (on these forums), we just have specific technical jargons which with the clever and imaginative use of the language we all do share could be made to be less mystifying.

You still have not established that one language is indeed superior - morally, spiritually, emotionally, legally, anything. You have merely stated that it is.

If you can demonstrate in the context of this game that using one language confers a definite advantage, you'll have something to stand on.

I hardly need demonstrate it to you, when we are both communicating in a single language now do I? You are not writing in Japanese while I respond in Malayalam right?

By WA, do you mean GA? If so, I see no possible application of Gameplay principles to its resolutions, as clean water and international criminal courts trouble us not one whit.

If you don't mean the GA, I'm not sure I follow. When creating a new body, why not give all groups the ability to use it as they see fit? Why enforce a method of communication that just plain does not work for them?

No I do not mean the GA, I mean the WA. The SC and the GA are two organs of the WA I see no clear logical distinction between them and see no reason they should act in totally contradictory ways or as though they were totally separate entities with conflicting purposes. Certainly it would be pointless to make both organs do extremely similar things but that's not even close to what's being asked. What's being asked is that both organs respect what it is they comprise. The rules of GA resolution writing already insure this of the GA, rules like this one should exist to help the SC do the same.

No, it's not about a dichotomy - but when the rule itself uses "OOC" as one method of determining legality, it's very important to be completely clear as to exactly what OOC is being referred to.

I'm not a mod so I'm not going to answer that, but I was interested in why you chose Ballotonia's post to quote in support of your query because Ballotonia clearly views the rule as enforcing IC language in diametric opposition to what he sees as OOC language. It was why I pointed out that the dichotomy in this instance is false.

[Urgench]

But I'm not the only one who wants to honor key players of my game. Other people want to too, and they might play different games, and because the SC is a body that ought to be open to all, I don't get to have my issues monopolize the queue.

Yes indeed, but that is not what has happened thus far. Issues relating to GP have dominated the SC until now and it's language has appeared to be the dominant language of the SC, giving the strong impression that the SC is a GP tool and little else.

Because let's face it, what other community cares?

Well actually there is one community which really does care about what any part of the WA says and does, that's WA players. I include myself among them. And besides increasing the amount that people don't care about what one group or other is doing in the SC will only create greater ennui and entropy rather than seeming to give universal utility and direction to the SC.

[The Blaatschapen]

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

Ah, it is because we have a inherent interest in the SC. The 'liberation' category is quite a big tool in the Gameplay world(by some unwanted perhaps, but that's a whole different thing). So we kinda have to be here... Unlike say, Forum 7 people or Generalites, they can ignore this little gem of NS, even if some of those nations/players might be perfectly worth to be C&Ced(thumbs up for Sdaeriji (sp?) on trying that one). Because I think it will be hard for generalites as well to be C&Ced in an IC way

And we're not concerned about how all of the SC should write its proposals, merely how we should write our own, as being told many times before: We're perfectly fine if C&C proposals are IC when that is best for the nation being C&Ced. We're asking for our own language, that's been developed and evolved over 7 years to be used, and that language is highly OOC since we first and foremost play a game, not a role

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

See above, and you don't sound belittling At most a bit unfamiliar with Gameplay.

Other than this Rule 4 hullabaloo, I don't hang out on the official forums. I've been playing since, what, 2004? 2005? and this is my fourth post.

Not totally fair here my dear Asta We had new forums a bit more than a year ago, so post counts were reset. But still point taken

Blaat, a Gameplayer and Generalite (that's why my post count is high )

Edit:

Also, this:

They don't currently, because the SC was essentially created without rules, and of course the WA should speak in a language which is at least minimally compatible with the game it is a part of.

You mean we should speak satirical and with unintended side effects? Because that's what the game started with

[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.

"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.

You know, at one point in time, many veterans of WWII weren't older than me now (Eighteen). But now, more recent generations hear the word, 'veteran' and thinks.. old geezer. You haven't survived your first SC thread so I wouldn't call you a veteran in these halls unless you also posted frequently and what not, but gawd help you if your first SC resolution is a liberation -- the raiders will try and scathe the flesh off you with "NEUTRALITY!" claims.

Oh, but as Palaam said.. girth bragging is boring, and only appropriate for senior-home swimming pool change rooms (*shudders*). So I'll be quitting now on this front.

[Naivetry]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

[NERVUN]

Ok, with you so far. However, I would like to note that the Security Council is supposed to cover the whole of NationStates, including RP nations, GP nations, General, Sports, and F7 (God there's a scary prospect, a commendation for an F7 nation...).

Sure - and anything that isn't GP, I don't follow. Not that I can't parse it, but more that the value just doesn't make sense to me. Commend someone for excellent skill in sports? For a fake population and pseudorandomly generated resultes? Color me not interested. But I give them all the same benefit of the doubt in terms of whether they're legit for their communities.

Fair enough.

Ok, I hear what you're saying. As Ard herself has pointed out though, the second clause of R4 is from the most worthy Lady Nai herself.

You're right, of course, and having reviewed the current wording I'm very tentatively less concerned (how's that for vague? ). Like Nai, I would like to see a response to the issues raised in Topid's thread before I feel comfortable making a judgement.

Oh great, now I've got ANOTHER R4 thread to go through and respond.

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.

For example, I've been trying to help out in the GA with legality questions for their proposals. Anything that is not a clear violation gets tossed to the rest of the Moderation staff to chew over and we come to concensus before issuing a ruling. If I, for example, ever made a really silly rulling (Such as forthwith, all GA proposals MUST start off with a nice haiku), I expect to be smacked down by Ard and my fellow Mods (And possibly turned into a frog).

That's definitely reassuring to hear, and I don't disbelieve you. But interpretation is something which is inherently frightening - we draft constitutions and laws and policies all designed to leave no wiggle room for interpretation, lest an enemy exploit them to gain an edge. We see a rule which can very clearly be interpreted in a way that hurts us (and it's very telling that so many of us pick up on that), and we're being told to put our WA status - our GP life - in your hands and trust that you won't abuse that loophole.

We play a game of espionage and lies, where a trusted friend can turn out to be a hated enemy. We play a game where ill-gotten trust can lead to complete destruction of a community, as in forum griefing. We play a game where we cannot let incorrectitudes stand because they will come back to bite us in the ass.

It's like developing software - you don't ask your users to not exploit bugs, you fix the bugs so they can't be exploited.

Ok, I can totally get to where you are coming from, Skuld knows that I have posted enough stuff in General that has come back to bite me in the rear and while Generalites aren't usually known for regional politics, we are known for having loud screaming arguments with someone whom two threads ago we were all buddy-buddy with.

To address your concerns about the Moderators. I'm afraid that I really can't. I can tell you that out of the many players chosen to be Moderators, only one has ever really been forced out due to abuse. Max and [violet] take a VERY dim view on us using our positions to abuse the game or other players and this has been pounded into us (With sharp pointy nails). However, I know these are just words so I'm going to have to ask you to trust me (As hard as that is) when I say that if ever a Moderator does abuse their position like that, you can (And indeed MUST) report it and it WILL be delt with, swiftly and in a way that will leave very little doubt as to the position of the Admins about it. In other words, if someone betrays you in the game, you lose your raid or region. If a Mod does it, they lose their ability to be a Moderator, and possibly their nation and ability to play on NationStates. So in the end, all I can really tell you is that we are held to a very high standard, is that protection enough? I hope so, because I am afraid I have nothing else to show to have you trust us.

As for those loopholes, forgive me, but which ones do you feel that your enemies (Not Mods) can exploit to harm you and why?

Yes, it will involve a change in terminology for some (If not all), but I have high hopes that all can adapt because, after all, you all learned the terminology for your chosen style of play in the first place.

I did learn the terminology for my style of play... as did all other Gameplayers with me. Asking us to change how we communicate with each other (because let's face it, non-GPers are going to have zero interest in GP-targeted resolutions) doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, one I would like to point out that we are asking you to change HERE, just here, on the SC and ONLY in terms of the written and submited proposal. Everything else is the same as before. We're not trying to regulate how you guys talk on the regional message boards or in TGs, or even in the debate thread about the C&C, JUST the C&C.

Or if I may use a real world anaology, the decleration of war between the UK and Japan for WWII was a very nice, flowery sounding TG from Sir. Winston Churchill. A number of people objected to the accepted diplomatic language that it was crouched it, but as Sir Churchill noted "But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite." This would be akin to that.

But I would also like to suggest that having the same styles would make for a good gameplay recruiting tool. If everyone reads it and it all sounds close to terms they are already familar with, you might just see more branching out than before.

Well, I used "The leader of" as an example to be able to be able to get around the loss of certain pronouns. The nation of works just as well. But to take it further, you could use the nation tag to write:

COMMENDS NERVUN for their great leadership in rallying their alies in the Battle of Kawanakajima which led to the expultion of invading forces.

Yes, you have to change the pronoun to their, but it does read the same. As Ard noted, anyone clicking on the link would be taken to the nation page. That page IS your identifier on the game, not the person behind it. It is, after all, what the game actually sees. What I hope is, and what I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, that during this period, everyone will come together and build the language and terms needed for this so that they will become as easy then as the terms you know now.

Fair enough, and I certainly have no objection to using "they" - it being the correct third person singular non-gendered pronoun, after all.

I'm an English teacher.

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.

As my Lady said,

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.

I keep reading it, and I honestly fail to see the difference. Meaning that the language used in the GA is different from what we are suggesting for the SC, and very different for the other RP forums. Not to mention compleatly off the scale for General and F7.

Again though, please explain it to me in detail. Not what you think the RPers can do or are doing, but what the GPers see that they cannot do here. In other words, please ignore RP for a second so I can see the issues here and not in terms of vs roleplay.

However, saying for example "AMAZED at the level of intelligence gathering exhibited by Batmanistan" because if I understand the use of puppets correctly, most of them are being used as spies, correct?

Spies sometimes, though spying dried up mostly when Influence happened. Now, they're mostly used for military missions - you use a clean puppet so your opponents can't watch your nation's activities and know what your army is planning, then you toss it once it's gotten dirty and can be tracked.

Could you say something like, "AMAZED at the intelligence gathered by Batmanistan through the use of puppets"? (I would even concede "puppet nations" if just "puppets" isn't okay - it's not quite how we'd say it, but it's clearly understandable by any GPer as referring to puppets. In contrast, "through the establishment of puppet governments" would cause a GPer to scratch their head in confusion and should not be considered an acceptable substitute.)

I would say that puppet nations would be fine because that IS something a nation would do. I would even admit to just puppets if pressed, but I think puppet nations would sound slightly better because I keep getting a weird mental image of someone using Howdy Doody to listen in through keyholes.

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.

That will never happen - never. Sorry. RP and GP are two entirely different spheres of play. They talk about nukes, and slavery - we hear "I'm playing with my imaginary friends!" We talk about defending, and feeders - they hear "I'm not a nation LALALALALA!" Our worlds may share some common terms, but they are fundamentally described using different language.

And that's okay! We don't all need to speak one language!

Can you explain why it has been determined that one language is better than letting each group speak to itself in its own way?

Because you are all playing one game called NationStates. Because we do have people who are involved in multiple aspects of it. Because it is far better to build a community than to build walls.

When I was in university, I was the member of a club that gave campus tours (Ambys). We had a sister orginization that handled new student orientation (SOS). The two groups, when I joined, HATED each other. Ambys didn't talk to SOSers, SOSers didn't talk to Ambys. The two groups, for all that they were students at the same university and within the same department, had very little in common and spoke very differently due to using our own terms.

Our advisor, a bit annoyed at this, symbolically married the two groups in an effort to stop the divsion and proposed that members could, if they wanted to, become crossdressers (An in-joke, has to do with wearing two shirts, but it's been fun to casually annouce, "Oh yeah, I crossed dressed in college for three years"). Both groups became stronger and while there were more just plain Ambys and SOSers than crossdressers, the crossdressers became a rather large group in and of themselves.

Obviously this is NOT just a straight anaology, but I feel strongly that the RPer and the GPer and the Generalite, and the Sports Player, and the NSer, and the whatever-the-hell-F7ers are can find SOME common ground and the SC is as good of a place as any to at least try.

The mods have no wiggle room to play with which matters from GP perspective, and the language changes (IC only) means we'd have to butcher our proposals to mask in generic language precisely those things we find important to say clearly in a resolution. Without OOC we can't saywhat we want to say, because making it readable ICly also removes the actual content to the point where it's no longer clear whether someone is being commended for being a good defender or playing RP really well. If one can no longer convey what is intended, language itself has failed miserably and all meaning is lost.

And here we come to my biggest remaining concern with Rule 4 as it is written - just what is IC and OOC anyway? It seems like it ought to be so simple, and within a community, it is. But between communities, we have these culture shocks, and this is one of them.

Roleplay-IC: My ambassador does naughty things to your princess, aka, RP personae.
Roleplay-OOC: Anything not part of that RP persona, including questions to the DM/GM, discussions among players as to damage done by one character to another in a fistfight, whole threads of "Post your picture!" or "Rant about school/work!".
Gameplay-IC: Things we do in the context of being a citizen of a regional government, being in a military and defending or invading, drafting Constitutions and laws, having trials, and so on.
Gameplay-OOC: The player behind the nation(s), the one who bakes blueberry muffins and distributes them via IRC, who rants about school/work, and so on.

Most Gameplayers consider what they do to be "OOC", because it's difficult to describe in an IC way. I'm not pretending to be a character - the closest I get is when spying, but then I'm just lying to everyone, not engaging in mutually agreed upon pretend. When thinking through the legal implications of a proposed law, I'm bringing my background and my knowledge to the discussion, not that of a constitutional scholar with a PhD in time travel.

But, what we advocate for in GP-IC does not necessarily line up with our true GP-OOC beliefs. I can advocate for a monarchy in our region based on the realities of the God-appointed Founder, while despising the vestiges of European monarchy. I can advocate for non-separate spheres of government due to the realities of forumial activity, while in Real Life (tm) believing in the separation of powers.

I don't want to be able to Commend Lady Nai for her blueberry muffins, or Condemn her for ruining a perfectly good tupperware by sticking it with postage stamps. That's all Gameplay-OOC, and it sits just as wrongly with us as with you. I would like to be able to Commend Nai for her extensive work as regional Founder in maintaining the security of the region, without having to bend over backwards to say it.

So when Rule 4 says things cannot be written OOC... which OOC does it mean?

In reading this, it doesn't sound like your idea of OOC is too off from where RP OOC is. That said, in terms of OOC, it would be best said, "C&C Proposals cannot address the player directly". But all you have to say is "COMMENDS Naivetry for their exceptional and extensive work as a regional founder for whateveritis and in maintaining the security of that region.

[Unibot]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

Agreed, the GA-lite is a pointless venture. Coming from someone who has played in the GA side of things for a while, its not really a big deal if they stuck C&Cs back into the General Assembly, put Rule IV in place there, and told them that those categories are *special*. They like a confusing, and complex ruleset over there anyway. Other categories are different too, some have strengths, some have areas of effect and some would have nominees.

Then the admins could just throw liberations into the dustbin and let regions burn. Sounds fun...

[NERVUN]

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

Other than this Rule 4 hullabaloo, I don't hang out on the official forums. I've been playing since, what, 2004? 2005? and this is my fourth post.

So I guess I'm qualified to answer your question?

My duly elected WA delegate dutifully copies all resolutions, and posts them on our forums. We discuss, debate, and hold a vote. However the majority swings, that is how he votes. So I read and think about resolutions, and care which way they swing, even though I don't spend time in these forums.

The SC introduced something new - resolutions that I not only care about intellectually, but that also actually affect my game. Liberation resolutions can make or break a defense, and in C&Cs we found a way to honor players who have significant impact on our game - great diplomats, decorated soldiers, and so on. And I have an emotional investment in honoring (or dissing) those players who have earned it.

But I'm not the only one who wants to honor key players of my game. Other people want to too, and they might play different games, and because the SC is a body that ought to be open to all, I don't get to have my issues monopolize the queue.

Ok, fair enough I can see where you guys are coming from. I would like to note that Liberations are seperate from C&Cs though.

I would, however, like to be able to understand the issues that do pertain to me, rather than having to decipher a style which is bewildering and confusing, along with digging through potential pages of thread, just to figure out what on earth Nai has done to deserve this specific commendation.

I don't care how the RP community writes their C&CS. I very, very much care how the GP community writes ours.

Ok, granted. Sometimes reading GA proposals makes my eyes water *Scowls at Unibot and the whole WA Police thingie*. Now, again though I would like to ask you specfically what could you do before that you feel that you cannot do so (Or at least cannot do so in a manner that is understandable)?

Every community should be able to Commend or Condemn their own members in a language which is clear and immediately understandable by members of that community.

Because let's face it, what other community cares?

Maybe a number of them.

[Urgench]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

I think you're running out of rhetoric, this stentorian and arrogant tone might suit me or Kenny or someone else, but to me it smells of arguments running thin when employed by you. You know full well the the 4th rule isn't about GA-lite as Uni puts it, you're just trying to twist what Nervun and I have said to make it seem that way. You can build strawmen all you like. I wont be addressing them.

[NERVUN]

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

Ah, it is because we have a inherent interest in the SC. The 'liberation' category is quite a big tool in the Gameplay world(by some unwanted perhaps, but that's a whole different thing). So we kinda have to be here... Unlike say, Forum 7 people or Generalites, they can ignore this little gem of NS, even if some of those nations/players might be perfectly worth to be C&Ced(thumbs up for Sdaeriji (sp?) on trying that one). Because I think it will be hard for generalites as well to be C&Ced in an IC way

And we're not concerned about how all of the SC should write its proposals, merely how we should write our own, as being told many times before: We're perfectly fine if C&C proposals are IC when that is best for the nation being C&Ced. We're asking for our own language, that's been developed and evolved over 7 years to be used, and that language is highly OOC since we first and foremost play a game, not a role

Ok, can I ask for some examples please? (Or to use a Generalite term, sauce? )

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

See above, and you don't sound belittling At most a bit unfamiliar with Gameplay.

More like very, but I'm trying to learn fast.

They don't currently, because the SC was essentially created without rules, and of course the WA should speak in a language which is at least minimally compatible with the game it is a part of.

You mean we should speak satirical and with unintended side effects? Because that's what the game started with

So tempting... so, so, so tempting....

[Krioval]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

Agreed, the GA-lite is a pointless venture. Coming from someone who has played in the GA side of things for a while, its not really a big deal if they stuck C&Cs back into the General Assembly, put Rule IV in place there, and told them that those categories are *special*. They like a confusing, and complex ruleset over there anyway. Other categories are different too, some have strengths, some have areas of effect and some would have nominees.

Then the admins could just throw liberations into the dustbin and let regions burn. Sounds fun...

Uh huh. Thing is, a "GA-lite" would be a pointless venture. Good thing the mods aren't trying to turn the SC into one, then isn't it? C&Cs don't belong with the other categories in the GA because those alter national stats and cannot affect non-WA nations. So yeah. One of the biggest rules from the UN/WA/GA since its inception would be violated by C&Cs unless one were to restrict their area of effect to WA members only. And then people would bitch because a CorC could be ignored by resigning from the WA. That would present a far worse problem, I would imagine, than rule 4 could ever create.

Now then, onto the condescending portion of your comment, Unibot. "They" do not "like a confusing, and complex ruleset" "over there". The fact that you seem to have successfully navigated the path of GA proposal legality, as you mention far more often than I consider appropriate, means that you and "they" seem to understand the rules just fine. By the way, the strength of an "area of effect" proposal is approximately "significant". The strength of a "nominee" proposal would be nonexistent. As you appear to think that your ideas have intellectual merit, Unibot, I would expect a bit more depth of analysis from you when making a specious claim and rolling it into an inaccurate and flippant soundbite.

[NERVUN]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

The only real responce I can give to you now is that... the SC is here. Max wants it here. And he has laid down some guidelines for it that we're trying out best to impliment without causing too much havoc (A little havoc is ok of course ).

I hate to sound like "Sit down, shut up, and deal with it," but unfortuneately, I and the other Mods cannot change certain aspects when the Boss hands them down because they are the stone tablets comming off the mountain in Moses's hands.

What I can say is that Max is listening so the more information we get, the more compromise we can reach, the better the case we can present to try and get a bit more wiggle room.

[NERVUN]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

I think you're running out of rhetoric, this stentorian and arrogant tone might suit me or Kenny or someone else, but to me it smells of arguments running thin when employed by you. You know full well the the 4th rule isn't about GA-lite as Uni puts it, you're just trying to twist what Nervun and have said to make it seem that way. You can build strawmen all you like. I wont be addressing them.

Urgench, please, you're not helping here. People are annoyed enough as is and I would MUCH rather calm everyone down so we can talk and find out why people are annoyed rather that stoking up the heat and start screaming at each other again.

[Urgench]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

I think you're running out of rhetoric, this stentorian and arrogant tone might suit me or Kenny or someone else, but to me it smells of arguments running thin when employed by you. You know full well the the 4th rule isn't about GA-lite as Uni puts it, you're just trying to twist what Nervun and have said to make it seem that way. You can build strawmen all you like. I wont be addressing them.

Urgench, please, you're not helping here. People are annoyed enough as is and I would MUCH rather calm everyone down so we can talk and find out why people are annoyed rather that stoking up the heat and start screaming at each other again.

Ah OK, I'm not helping I'll get lost then and leave you to it. Ciao.

[Unibot]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

I think you're running out of rhetoric, this stentorian and arrogant tone might suit me or Kenny or someone else, but to me it smells of arguments running thin when employed by you. You know full well the the 4th rule isn't about GA-lite as Uni puts it, you're just trying to twist what Nervun and have said to make it seem that way. You can build strawmen all you like. I wont be addressing them.

It's true, NERVUN isn't talking about making the SC, the GA-lite, (I feel like Ard's comments more hint at a GA-lite) he's more talking about it becoming the Tower of Babel, which is a flawed idea, in my opinion. The SC was quite beautiful before. Mostly because it was a mosaic of different cultures, which I think from reading NERVUN's comments, he'd have more respect for that than a mixing pot culture that a Tower of Babel would eventually become. Mixing pots are borrrrring, to say the least.

[Unibot]

As you appear to think that your ideas have intellectual merit, Unibot, I would expect a bit more depth of analysis from you when making a specious claim and rolling it into an inaccurate and flippant soundbite.

I actually wasn't really being serious with that post, I wouldn't think the mods would actually move the SC's efforts back in the GA, but with the SC possibly becoming GA-lite, I wouldn't see why not to. My inaccurate and flippant soundbites are all an unwarranted and frustrating rule deserves, but regrettably I've had to dedicate a lot more to get it removed than what Rule IV actually deserves. As the days pass, I keep getting more frustrated and more homesick, so... don't mind me. Statistically speaking, you probably won't have me around to criticize anymore in the SC, anyways! (hey, maybe we can be enemas in the GA, again! Or is that an indefinite characteristic of your delegation? )

[NERVUN]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

I think you're running out of rhetoric, this stentorian and arrogant tone might suit me or Kenny or someone else, but to me it smells of arguments running thin when employed by you. You know full well the the 4th rule isn't about GA-lite as Uni puts it, you're just trying to twist what Nervun and have said to make it seem that way. You can build strawmen all you like. I wont be addressing them.

Urgench, please, you're not helping here. People are annoyed enough as is and I would MUCH rather calm everyone down so we can talk and find out why people are annoyed rather that stoking up the heat and start screaming at each other again.

Ah OK, I'm not helping I'll get lost then and leave you to it. Ciao.

I don't mind you repsonding, just as Euro noted, could we all adopt a calmer tone and less pointedness.

[NERVUN]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

I think you're running out of rhetoric, this stentorian and arrogant tone might suit me or Kenny or someone else, but to me it smells of arguments running thin when employed by you. You know full well the the 4th rule isn't about GA-lite as Uni puts it, you're just trying to twist what Nervun and have said to make it seem that way. You can build strawmen all you like. I wont be addressing them.

It's true, NERVUN isn't talking about making the SC, the GA-lite, (I feel like Ard's comments more hint at a GA-lite) he's more talking about it becoming the Tower of Babel, which is a flawed idea, in my opinion. The SC was quite beautiful before. Mostly because it was a mosaic of different cultures, which I think from reading NERVUN's comments, he'd have more respect for that than a mixing pot culture that a Tower of Babel would eventually become. Mixing pots are borrrrring, to say the least.

I'm thinking (To borrow an anaology) of the salad bowl, mixes of different stuff, yes, but we're all coated with the same salad dressing.

It might help a bit more if I actually LIKED salads, but...

[Unibot]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

I think you're running out of rhetoric, this stentorian and arrogant tone might suit me or Kenny or someone else, but to me it smells of arguments running thin when employed by you. You know full well the the 4th rule isn't about GA-lite as Uni puts it, you're just trying to twist what Nervun and have said to make it seem that way. You can build strawmen all you like. I wont be addressing them.

It's true, NERVUN isn't talking about making the SC, the GA-lite, (I feel like Ard's comments more hint at a GA-lite) he's more talking about it becoming the Tower of Babel, which is a flawed idea, in my opinion. The SC was quite beautiful before. Mostly because it was a mosaic of different cultures, which I think from reading NERVUN's comments, he'd have more respect for that than a mixing pot culture that a Tower of Babel would eventually become. Mixing pots are borrrrring, to say the least.

I'm thinking (To borrow an anaology) of the salad bowl, mixes of different stuff, yes, but we're all coated with the same salad dressing.

It might help a bit more if I actually LIKED salads, but...

,

But still, mosaics are less discriminative and more equal than mixing pots or salad bowls, and ultimately C&Cs are about acknowledging the achievements of a nominee to the WA crowd .. doing so in the fashion of a respectful and inclusive mosaic makes more sense, as every little piece of a mosaic is respected in its own right, instead of throwing the achievements of others into a blender and pouring the shit out for voters of all kinds to swallow painfully.

[NERVUN]

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

I think you're running out of rhetoric, this stentorian and arrogant tone might suit me or Kenny or someone else, but to me it smells of arguments running thin when employed by you. You know full well the the 4th rule isn't about GA-lite as Uni puts it, you're just trying to twist what Nervun and have said to make it seem that way. You can build strawmen all you like. I wont be addressing them.

It's true, NERVUN isn't talking about making the SC, the GA-lite, (I feel like Ard's comments more hint at a GA-lite) he's more talking about it becoming the Tower of Babel, which is a flawed idea, in my opinion. The SC was quite beautiful before. Mostly because it was a mosaic of different cultures, which I think from reading NERVUN's comments, he'd have more respect for that than a mixing pot culture that a Tower of Babel would eventually become. Mixing pots are borrrrring, to say the least.

I'm thinking (To borrow an anaology) of the salad bowl, mixes of different stuff, yes, but we're all coated with the same salad dressing.

It might help a bit more if I actually LIKED salads, but...

,

But still, mosaics are less discriminative and more equal than mixing pots or salad bowls, and ultimately C&Cs are about acknowledging the achievements of a nominee to the WA crowd .. doing so in the fashion of a respectful and inclusive mosaic makes more sense, as every little piece of a mosaic is respected in its own right, instead of throwing the achievements of others into a blender and pouring the shit out for voters of all kinds to swallow painfully.

Hmm... I'm not exactly too sure we're all that far apart, my issue right now if trying to work out the salad dressing or the big picture of the mosaic (Though, admitiedly, that term has a very different meaning for me given where I live).

On another topic, Nai, I've wandered though the examples thread and I admit that I am now more than a little lost at which concerns of yours in there have been addressed to your statisfaction, which have not, and which have not been addressed at all. Could you point me in the right direction for those?

[Unibot]

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_mosaic

^^^^
NERVUN, this what I mean by mosaic vs. melting pot. it's a common North American debate/analogy.

[NERVUN]

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_mosaic

^^^^
NERVUN, this what I mean by mosaic vs. melting pot. it's a common North American debate/analogy.

Er... Unibot... I know... I was making a bad joke about Japanese pornography laws and the mosaics that they use to blur out, er, certain parts.

[Krioval]

But still, mosaics are less discriminative and more equal than mixing pots or salad bowls, and ultimately C&Cs are about acknowledging the achievements of a nominee to the WA crowd .. doing so in the fashion of a respectful and inclusive mosaic makes more sense, as every little piece of a mosaic is respected in its own right, instead of throwing the achievements of others into a blender and pouring the shit out for voters of all kinds to swallow painfully.

The problem is that your analogy breaks down right around you use the word "respectful". Non-WA nations that do not want to participate in the WA portion of the game can now be forced to do so if they are targeted by a CorC (most likely being condemned, but you never know). I'll buy the argument that the inclusion of C&Cs can be a net positive for NS under the right conditions, but as it stands today, there has been little to no discussion about how people are already forced to deal with the existence of a rule that they cannot avoid; this makes the entire C&C category "unfair" as it stands. Fact of the matter is, Max wants C&Cs to exist, and he wants them in the frame of an international lawmaking body.

All the cutesy metaphors and analogies, as well as the paeans to justice and equality for all, don't really improve the debate. I was forced to accept the blasphemous concept of a WA resolution targeting and affecting non-WA nations (and by extension, players who might have wanted to avoid that part of the game). I continue to believe that such a condition is inherently wrong and inappropriate. But I'm not about to try to grind entire portions of NS to a halt over it. Likewise, rule 4 changes a part of the SC that people felt was innate. I can understand feeling that it is wrong and inappropriate. At the same time, the goal should be to work to incorporate as much of the existing culture into the new ruleset. Just as I would advocate against any CorC directed at a non-WA nation if the target complained about it, find ways to work within the constraints of rule 4, or at least wait to see how people might make it work without obliterating the SC.

[Unibot]

The problem is that your analogy breaks down right around you use the word "respectful". Non-WA nations that do not want to participate in the WA portion of the game can now be forced to do so if they are targeted by a CorC (most likely being condemned, but you never know).

Maybe that's the catch, I guess we haven't passed a bill in a long time like "Condemn Macedon" for a reason, if we don't have some sort of respect in some way for the nominee, it's just acting upon mass hysteria, aka the conscience of the majority being soothed. So without the respect, the condemnation falls apart, because it weakens other condemnations for truly deserving candidates that have worked hard to roleplay their nation as evil or invade regions the most mercilessly.

I'll buy the argument that the inclusion of C&Cs can be a net positive for NS under the right conditions, but as it stands today, there has been little to no discussion about how people are already forced to deal with the existence of a rule that they cannot avoid; this makes the entire C&C category "unfair" as it stands. Fact of the matter is, Max wants C&Cs to exist, and he wants them in the frame of an international lawmaking body.

I remember the discussion, the end result was that condemnations and condemnations are opinions, so they can't actually affect a nation, if the nations don't want them to (ignore the opinion). And liberations affect how a WA delegate runs a region, so that's pretty self-explanatory.

Likewise, rule 4 changes a part of the SC that people felt was innate. I can understand feeling that it is wrong and inappropriate. At the same time, the goal should be to work to incorporate as much of the existing culture into the new ruleset. Just as I would advocate against any CorC directed at a non-WA nation if the target complained about it, find ways to work within the constraints of rule 4, or at least wait to see how people might make it work without obliterating the SC.

The existing culture was based around the removed principle, so its pretty much scraped, and the culture to replace it is going to be boring, and more .. bleh... whatever, I'm already getting homesick.. now I'm getting nauseous as well...

[Unibot]

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_mosaic

^^^^
NERVUN, this what I mean by mosaic vs. melting pot. it's a common North American debate/analogy.

Er... Unibot... I know... I was making a bad joke about Japanese pornography laws and the mosaics that they use to blur out, er, certain parts.

Hehehehe, that's not exclusive to Japan.