The Game Mechanics Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how either the World Assembly or NationStates work. Generally, these are proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires an adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category.

Examples of game mechanics violations:
Requiring "proper" spelling and/or grammar
Adjusting the number of votes needed for queue
Creating a universal WA currency
Forming a secondary WA, or forcing the current WA to dissolve
Requiring that nations are ejected for non-compliance with any resolution

[Frisbeeteria]

Bump for discussion.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Creating a universal WA currency

Get rid of this. It doesn't make sense to include this under Game Mechanics. Whether it should be legal or not - which is not the question here - making such a thing doesn't infringe on game mechanics. I get what you mean is "requiring nations to change their currency fields", but that can be applied more generally. Any regulation on customisable fields (animals, flags, mottos, @@LEADER@@, etc.) is a game mechanics issue.

Otherwise it's fine.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Currency is also a customizable field. A "universal currency" rather infringes on that.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Currency is also a customizable field. A "universal currency" rather infringes on that.

There's nothing against creating a universal currency. There was even a legal proposal to do such in the latter days of the NSUN! It's just forcing nations to replace their own currency with it that would be a game mechanics violation. I get that the rule lists examples, but singling out currency gives the false impression there's something particular to that when it's really just:

"Forcing nations to change their customisable fields, flags, or any other gameside settings"

[Christian Democrats]

The currency rule should be abolished. If somebody wants to propose a world monetary union, the moderators shouldn't stop him. The idea that such a resolution would affect nations' currency fields is absurd because, from a roleplay standpoint, nations could have multiple currencies in circulation at the same time.

I know this statement will be controversial, but I also question the need for the "number of votes needed for queue" rule. All the administrators would need to do to bring such a resolution into effect is change one number in the code. Surely, this would not be a burden (a minor inconvenience but not a burden); and, surely, we can trust the players of the World Assembly to set their own rules.

[Flibbleites]

I know this statement will be controversial, but I also question the need for the "number of votes needed for queue" rule.

First off, it's not a rule specifically. It's provided as an example of something that falls under the aegis of Game Mechanics.

All the administrators would need to do to bring such a resolution into effect is change one number in the code.

How can you be sure of that? You've never seen the code.

Surely, this would not be a burden (a minor inconvenience but not a burden);

Spoken like someone who's never tried to get the admins to change something in the game's code. Not to mention that should we allow that to be done (and actually get the admins to make the changes) and a resolution passes to change the votes needed for queue to 5%, then someone else comes along and repeals it necessitating the admins to change it back. Then another resolution passes to make it 10%, necessitating the admins to change it again. Eventually the admin's are going to say enough.

[Kaboomlandia]

How about this:

Game Mechanics

Your proposal cannot cause anything in the game to change that would require new code beyond what resolutions already change: your stats.
This means that:

• Your proposal cannot force any of the customizable boxes to change.
• The number of votes needed to make quorum won't be changed. Don't ask.
• You can't make a secondary WA, or force the current one to dissolve.
• You can't make the WA eject nations for not complying with resolutions.

[Excidium Planetis]

I also support replacing the currency ban with "cannot change customizable fields". If someone wants to make the "First bank of the WA" to trade WA Dollars or whatever, I don't see why that would necessitate a game mechanics change.

[Excidium Planetis]

How about this:

Game Mechanics

Your proposal cannot cause anything in the game to change that would require new code beyond what resolutions already change: your stats.
This means that:

• Your proposal cannot force any of the customizable boxes to change.
• The number of votes needed to make quorum won't be changed. Don't ask.

1. You forgot abolishing the WA or making WA 2.
2. Do WA resolutions really change your stats? I didn't think they did.

[Kaboomlandia]

How about this:

1. You forgot abolishing the WA or making WA 2.
2. Do WA resolutions really change your stats? I didn't think they did.

1. Edited.
2. Yes, they do. This is a proposed change to the way it's coded.

[Christian Democrats]

Surely, this would not be a burden (a minor inconvenience but not a burden);

Spoken like someone who's never tried to get the admins to change something in the game's code.

Funny. I got the admins to add the regional vote tally to the GA and SC pages a few years ago:

Amongst <region> residents, voting is currently X-X (X% For/Against).

In the old days, we knew only how the world was voting at any given time.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

How about this:

1. You forgot abolishing the WA or making WA 2.
2. Do WA resolutions really change your stats? I didn't think they did.

Repeal Sexual Privacy Act passed and I went from Civil Rights Lovefest to (ugh) New York Times Democracy (you can watch the civil rights drop off here, though I can't say if the next major update will bring it back up from its current 72). Being a WA member makes nation-customizing & stat-wank via issues somewhat more challenging, which is part of the charm.

I had no idea so many people in my country were banging their sisters. Learn something new every day, I guess...

[Flibbleites]

Spoken like someone who's never tried to get the admins to change something in the game's code.

Funny. I got the admins to add the regional vote tally to the GA and SC pages a few years ago:

Amongst <region> residents, voting is currently X-X (X% For/Against).

In the old days, we knew only how the world was voting at any given time.

Ok, you got them to do it once. The situation you describe would require them to potentially do it multiple times.

[Excidium Planetis]

1. You forgot abolishing the WA or making WA 2.
2. Do WA resolutions really change your stats? I didn't think they did.

Repeal Sexual Privacy Act passed and I went from Civil Rights Lovefest to (ugh) New York Times Democracy (you can watch the civil rights drop off here, though I can't say if the next major update will bring it back up from its current 72). Being a WA member makes nation-customizing & stat-wank via issues somewhat more challenging, which is part of the charm.

I had no idea so many people in my country were banging their sisters. Learn something new every day, I guess...

Oh, so that's why I went from Anarchy to Corporate Bordello!

[Ainocra]

I could support changing it to say custom fields.

I think the no coding bit works very well.

for the most part I think this rule is fine.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Creating a universal WA currency

Get rid of this. It doesn't make sense to include this under Game Mechanics. Whether it should be legal or not - which is not the question here - making such a thing doesn't infringe on game mechanics. I get what you mean is "requiring nations to change their currency fields", but that can be applied more generally. Any regulation on customisable fields (animals, flags, mottos, @@LEADER@@, etc.) is a game mechanics issue.

Otherwise it's fine.

A better way to word this would be:

"Proposals cannot explicitly require that players alter their account or nation settings."

Additionally, I think we need to learn the distinction between a proposal actually asking for technical changes in the game, and a proposal where a mod can twist the language into thinking somebody's asking for a technical change.

[Frisbeeteria]

Additionally, I think we need to learn define the distinction between a proposal actually asking for technical changes in the game, and a proposal where a mod can twist the language into thinking somebody's asking for a technical change.

Corrected. I'm fine with "learning", but I'm happier with definitions.

Players don't like the way mods interpret rules? I completely understand. Help us write language that prevents those kind of conflicts. And since most of the original language was written by the mods, we could use some player input.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If it were up to me, the only things this would cover are explicit demands/suggestions for additions or changes to the game, rather than the imagined universe.

That means creating a universal currency is allowed, but writing in the resolution that players must change their nation settings to match would be illegal. As far as I'm aware, that's how the rule currently works.

What I talked about in my last post is when we *can* interpret something as possibly requiring a change in the game mechanics, but it's not a necessary interpretation. When I'm on my PC I'll search for an example.

[Kryozerkia]

This makes sense.

[Unibot III]

Perhaps it would be best for a new 'rule' to discuss how moderators should interpret rules and proposals - a kind of 'Benefit of the Doubt' test.

If a proposal can be interpreted as not necessarily requiring technical changes, it shall be interpreted as such - only if a proposal cannot be interpreted in any plausible way as not requiring technical changes shall a proposal be considered violating the 'game mechanics' rule.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Perhaps it would be best for a new 'rule' to discuss how moderators should interpret rules and proposals - a kind of 'Benefit of the Doubt' test.

If a proposal can be interpreted as not necessarily requiring technical changes, it shall be interpreted as such - only if a proposal cannot be interpreted in any plausible way as not requiring technical changes shall a proposal be considered violating the 'game mechanics' rule.

More generally, it would be better to say: if a proposal can reasonably be interpreted as legal, it should be. That applies to stuff like "all nations" as well as game mechanics.

[Christian Democrats]

Perhaps it would be best for a new 'rule' to discuss how moderators should interpret rules and proposals - a kind of 'Benefit of the Doubt' test.

If a proposal can be interpreted as not necessarily requiring technical changes, it shall be interpreted as such - only if a proposal cannot be interpreted in any plausible way as not requiring technical changes shall a proposal be considered violating the 'game mechanics' rule.

More generally, it would be better to say: if a proposal can reasonably be interpreted as legal, it will be. That applies to stuff like "all nations" as well as game mechanics.

I agree completely. The moderators should adopt a position similar to that of U.S. courts:

The elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality. Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 (1895)

For General Assembly moderators, I propose:

The elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a proposal from illegality.

This elementary rule should be used when judging the legality of regular proposals as well as repeal proposals. If it's possible that a reasonable person could interpret the proposal to be legal, it should be considered legal. The unreasonable proposals are the ones that clearly go against the rules (presumably because the authors did not read the rules) and the ones that clearly duplicate or contradict existing resolutions (presumably because the authors were unaware of those resolutions when they submitted their proposals).

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

• The Game Mechanics rule is mostly fine as is.
• Change "Creating a universal WA currency" to "Changing member nation's custom fields"
• add (somewhere, not necessarily here) "if a proposal can reasonably be interpreted as legal, it should be."

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Perhaps we could add- either under this rule or metagaming- a clause clarifying the legality of a resolution whose effects do not extend past the borders of WA controlled land, but do not require any re-coding? IE, a ban on murder on WA property.