The Blogposal Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing/Bloggish

Also know as a blogposal, this violation usually results from a proposal not actually doing anything due to lack of an operational clause. Remember, proposals must be more than just your idea and why it's great but must also give directions to the WA or member states in what to do. Operational (or directive) clauses would be words such as 'Requires', 'Urges', 'Demands', 'Mandates', etc. If your proposal reads more like a blog post about how it'd be great if the WA did this, it'll get chucked.

[Frisbeeteria]

Second round discussion bump (topic chosen randomly).

[Elke and Elba]

Taking this rule out would be like tearing the very fabric of which the GA is built on.

I'm for keeping this. It's a good rule to toss out glaring illegalities too.

[Kaboomlandia]

Taking this rule out would be like tearing the very fabric of which the GA is built on.

I'm for keeping this. It's a good rule to toss out glaring illegalities too.

Seconded. If a proposal does nothing, there's no point keeping it around.

[Old Hope]

Simple opinions are not resolutions. They are mere statements, and unworthy of resolution status.
Keep this rule.

[Unibot III]

Keep it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The problem with this rule is not really with the rule itself, it's the carelessness with which virtually every proposal is dismissed using this argument in the Silly/Illegal Proposals thread. Quite often proposals that actually do have an operative clause are dismissed (by players, not necessarily by mods) as "blogposals", just because they're not written using the SHOUTING/SHOUTS format.

Re: the wording of the clause, unless it's some American/Australian idiom I'm unaware of, "operational" should be "operative". Also, this discussion is likely to cross over with the Format Rule.

[Elke and Elba]

The problem with this rule is not really with the rule itself, it's the carelessness with which virtually every proposal is dismissed using this argument in the Silly/Illegal Proposals thread. Quite often proposals that actually do have an operative clause are dismissed (by players, not necessarily by mods) as "blogposals", just because they're not written using the SHOUTING/SHOUTS format.

Re: the wording of the clause, unless it's some American/Australian idiom I'm unaware of, "operational" should be "operative". Also, this discussion is likely to cross over with the Format Rule.

I thought more often that not proposals are thrown out over Bloody Stupid.

I haven't seen this one being abused that much - a blogposal is pretty much very clear to see from the start. Of course, our opinions might differ.

[Kryozerkia]

I'm all for keeping this rule, however, I think it could be merged with other rules, such as joke/silly, do-nothing one liners and bloody stupid under a uniform category of "other" or something similar.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The problem with this rule is not really with the rule itself, it's the carelessness with which virtually every proposal is dismissed using this argument in the Silly/Illegal Proposals thread. Quite often proposals that actually do have an operative clause are dismissed (by players, not necessarily by mods) as "blogposals", just because they're not written using the SHOUTING/SHOUTS format.

Re: the wording of the clause, unless it's some American/Australian idiom I'm unaware of, "operational" should be "operative". Also, this discussion is likely to cross over with the Format Rule.

I thought more often that not proposals are thrown out over Bloody Stupid.

I haven't seen this one being abused that much - a blogposal is pretty much very clear to see from the start. Of course, our opinions might differ.

Okay, well, here's an example from just now (not trying to discuss the proposal itself, but most of these discussions seem to work better when concrete examples are used rather than vague hypotheticals; the proposal may also be illegal for other reasons).

Defwa claims this is a "blogposal".The text states:

Research cleaner fuel which is cheaper than regular fossil fuel and much cleaner.

That can reasonably be interpreted as an operative clause: it is telling all nations - sorry, sorry, it is telling all member nations of the WA that are members of the WA and not any non-members whatsoever at all not even a little bit no nuh-uh - that they have to do something: "research cleaner fuel".

The rest of the proposal goes on to explain why this is a good idea: usually a preamble, as per "pre-", goes first, but whatever.

That is a proposal it is perfectly possible to interpret as legitimate (in format, anyway), yet it is written off as a "blogposal" purely because it doesn't follow conventional format. Unless they are literally going to insist that people have to use BELIEVING/UNDERSTANDING/RECOMMENDS/MANDATES/etc., why does it matter? It comes back to moderators making judgement calls about the quality of a proposal, judgements that should be left for the voters. If the voters don't think a proposal's mandate is clear enough, that's good grounds for voting it down or repealing it.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Why was it changed in the first place? If you look at some of the original U.N. resolutions, they were nothing more than blogposals.

[Defwa]

Okay, well, here's an example from just now (not trying to discuss the proposal itself, but most of these discussions seem to work better when concrete examples are used rather than vague hypotheticals; the proposal may also be illegal for other reasons).

Defwa claims this is a "blogposal".The text states:

Research cleaner fuel which is cheaper than regular fossil fuel and much cleaner.

That can reasonably be interpreted as an operative clause: it is telling all nations - sorry, sorry, it is telling all member nations of the WA that are members of the WA and not any non-members whatsoever at all not even a little bit no nuh-uh - that they have to do something: "research cleaner fuel".

The rest of the proposal goes on to explain why this is a good idea: usually a preamble, as per "pre-", goes first, but whatever.

That is a proposal it is perfectly possible to interpret as legitimate (in format, anyway), yet it is written off as a "blogposal" purely because it doesn't follow conventional format. Unless they are literally going to insist that people have to use BELIEVING/UNDERSTANDING/RECOMMENDS/MANDATES/etc., why does it matter? It comes back to moderators making judgement calls about the quality of a proposal, judgements that should be left for the voters. If the voters don't think a proposal's mandate is clear enough, that's good grounds for voting it down or repealing it.

Operative in the barest sense of the word. The proposal was definitely not "operational" though. The author is basically saying "I hope this happens" and if its not the intent of the blogposal rule to get rid of such things, it definitely should be.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Blogposal rule should be kept. To that end, the label next to WA submission should also probably be changed from 'Description' to 'Resolution text', since 'Description' is misleading. I think that is part of why we get so many blogposals in the first place.

[Ainocra]

I agree that it should be kept, let er ride

[Flibbleites]

Why was it changed in the first place? If you look at some of the original U.N. resolutions, they were nothing more than blogposals.

If we're going Historical it should be noted that some of those resolutions predate the Enodian Protocols (which for anyone here who might be unaware, was the original proposal ruleset) which, if I remember correctly, is where the initial form of this rule came from. So in order to find out why he put it in there, you'd have to ask him and he been gone for quite some time now.

[Imperium Anglorum]

BTW, isn't this rule much like the format rule?

[Kaboomlandia]

BTW, isn't this rule much like the format rule?

Seems like it. Perhaps we could combine Bloody Stupid and Format, but that's a discussion for those threads.

[Separatist Peoples]

Since particular formats aren't mandatory, why not chuck this out? So long as categories and branding rules are kept, it really makes no difference what the format is, so long as there's an argument and an operative clause. Let the voters decide on the rest.

Edit: to be clear, I mean just the no bloggy submissions bit, not the complete lack of operative clauses. In the Silly and Illegal thread, I find it hard to tell whether or not the mods nixed something for being bloggy despite having an operative clause.

[Knootoss]

Keep it. (Merging with 'bloody stupid' etc would be fine.)

[Bananaistan]

Since particular formats aren't mandatory, why not chuck this out? So long as categories and branding rules are kept, it really makes no difference what the format is, so long as there's an argument and an operative clause. Let the voters decide on the rest.

Edit: to be clear, I mean just the no bloggy submissions bit, not the complete lack of operative clauses. In the Silly and Illegal thread, I find it hard to tell whether or not the mods nixed something for being bloggy despite having an operative clause.

Isn't this what this rule is, IE your proposal must do something? I'd also say keep the bones of it whether it's merged with another rule or not. It's an sensible rule. If people have a personal statement, let them post it to general or wherever is appropriate. The proposal queue is not the place though. I don't see that we should be wasting time considering proposals that do nothing.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Why was it changed in the first place? If you look at some of the original U.N. resolutions, they were nothing more than blogposals.

If we're going Historical it should be noted that some of those resolutions predate the Enodian Protocols (which for anyone here who might be unaware, was the original proposal ruleset) which, if I remember correctly, is where the initial form of this rule came from. So in order to find out why he put it in there, you'd have to ask him and he been gone for quite some time now.

So instead of this farce of a sub forum with all of these discussions, why don't we just re-write the Enodian rule set and the whole problem solves itself?

[Snefaldia]

If we're going Historical it should be noted that some of those resolutions predate the Enodian Protocols (which for anyone here who might be unaware, was the original proposal ruleset) which, if I remember correctly, is where the initial form of this rule came from. So in order to find out why he put it in there, you'd have to ask him and he been gone for quite some time now.

So instead of this farce of a sub forum with all of these discussions, why don't we just re-write the Enodian rule set and the whole problem solves itself?

Except we can extrapolate from the historical evidence why that decision was made; the first 30-40 resolutions when the game opened were total shit, some little more than a single line and many were removed from the game when things were moved over to Jolt. The point of Enodia's, and later these rules, was to provide a guideline for improving what was then the NSUN. This rule makes sense; it doesn't prevent idiots from writing crap but it does save the rest of us from being subjected to it.

[Kaboomlandia]

The rules have been changed before; doesn't mean they can't be changed again. For example:
UN #2 - illegal for branding.
UN #3 - one liner
UN #5 - two sentences, makes no sense.

The UN had some pretty low standards in the early days.

[Tzorsland]

I agree we need to keep this rule. It could be "refined." (Perhaps it is just me but the Blogposal Rule seems to be a borderline blog.) Resolutions need to be "centered" on the action clauses, not have action clauses appended to them in order to avoid the Blogposal Rule. Resolutions are all about actions.

[Mousebumples]

I think it could probably be merged with Format in some ways, and perhaps the wording/description could or should be rephrased in some ways to be clearer. But I don't want to get rid of it, in principle, at least.