The Strength Violation Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Strength Violation

This is very rare, but has been used in extreme cases. If your Proposal calls for the immediate destruction of all nuclear weapons and forbids their construction, and you list it as 'mild', it'll probably be deleted, so you should take a look at how Strength is decided.

Strong - Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way.

Significant - Proposals that affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area.

Mild - Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way.

[Mallorea and Riva]

First round discussion bump.

[Elke and Elba]

In contrast with the Category rule, I think this is perfectly fine. There are only three strengths and that's easy to define, sans maybe Significant.

On the other hand, I'd like to see strengths expanded to everything sans Legalise/Outlaw(?) dichotomous classification Categories. I think it's silly when everyone says "Industry/All Business" all the time when better nuances can be made via strength rather than via what it affects.

[Snefaldia]

I really think the discussion about categories themselves should be resolved before we try to deal with strength/area violations.

[Mousebumples]

I remember in my early days of authoring, I could never keep significant or strong straight. If we keep the existing category system in place, would anyone support making it "mild, moderate, and strong" ?

Also, if memory serves, some categories introduce "new stats affected" as you go up in strength. (I.e. social justice and affecting health care, if memory serves) ... would it make more sense to have "strong stats" for each category and then go with 25% or 50% of those stats for the more moderately strengthed proposals?

(Yes, if we change the way categories work entirely, this is a moot point, but personally, I'd prefer to consider alternatives to the "get rid of categories"option so we're not just considering that concept in a vacuum and are looking at all the possibilities.)

[Bears Armed]

I'm happy enough with this rule as it is.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In order to comment on this, it's probably important for mods to explain how they decide on what strength a proposal *should* be.

[Mallorea and Riva]

In order to comment on this, it's probably important for mods to explain how they decide on what strength a proposal *should* be.

Generally speaking I dislike this rule (and the overall category system) simply because it can be so arbitrary. There isn't an easy, clean cut way to point at a proposal and say "yes, that is X and not Y strength". For the most part, as the rules say, unless it's egregious we leave it alone.

[Frisbeeteria]

In order to comment on this, it's probably important for mods to explain how they decide on what strength a proposal *should* be.

My interpretation of the Strength rule was based on the confluence of two factors:

• What is the area of effect?
  (Very widespread / a significant area / relatively small)
• How strong is the impact on the chosen area?
  (changes everything, a major subset, a minor subset)

Looking at the second page of GAR resolutions:

• GAR #6 affects a relatively tiny aspect of human rights during wartime, so it would be Mild almost regardless of the impact on that area of effect
• GAR #7 affects a huge area of everyone's life (the workplace), but addresses a fairly small impact area. Significant was appropriate.
• GAR #8 had a tiny impact in a tiny area of effect of any nation's day to day business. We didn't have anything milder than Mild, so that's appropriate.
• GAR #9 had a huge area of impact (everyone) and impacted a fairly major segment of the law, so Strong was appropriate
• GAR #10 affected a Significant impact area (military nuclear weapons) but made a fairly mild ruling with regard to their use. I could make a case for Significant or Mild on that one, and chose to not override the author's choice.

Strength violations generally happen only in egregious cases, typically when the player thinks, "this is REALLY important to ME, so it must be STRONG". Unfortunately, requiring every household to hang hummingbird feeders doesn't meet that strength, so we'd pull it.

Is that enough of an answer, or do you need more input from the other mods?

[Unibot III]

I completely agree with Mousebumbles that 'Significant' should be phased out in favour of something like 'Moderate'. That always tripped me up as a new player.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's good enough for me Fris. I do think showing deference to the author is a good idea, and only acting when it's an obvious mischaracterization. I've never really run into problems with Strength, and I've never cared when a mod said I should change it. But maybe somebody who has should comment.

[Mallorea and Riva]

That's good enough for me Fris. I do think showing deference to the author is a good idea, and only acting when it's an obvious mischaracterization. I've never really run into problems with Strength, and I've never cared when a mod said I should change it. But maybe somebody who has should comment.

It happens so rarely that I doubt anyone who reads the forums will have run into it. I figured this topic would be relatively uncontroversial as is.

[The Flame Dawn]

I guess the rule makes sense. If you want to prevent us from making WMDs it can't be labled as mild because it affects the world in almost every way possible.

I support this. I've seen some bizzare proposals in my short time as a player on NS so I understand.

[Ainocra]

I too agree with Mouse, lets get some clearer language on what is what, Mild, Moderate, Sweeping

other than that leave em be

[Kryozerkia]

I too agree with Mouse, lets get some clearer language on what is what, Mild, Moderate, Sweeping

This makes sense.

[Snefaldia]

I too agree with Mouse, lets get some clearer language on what is what, Mild, Moderate, Sweeping

This makes sense.

Following G-R's comment, how do you typically interpret them? Or rather, what you look for when you see a strength violation in general.

[Bears Armed]

I completely agree with Mousebumbles that 'Significant' should be phased out in favour of something like 'Moderate'. That always tripped me up as a new player.

So then, instead of confusing 'Significant' with 'Strong', some people would confuse 'Moderate' with 'Mild'...

If there isa a replacement term then I'd argue for 'Medium', with its more obviously "middle" meaning, rather than 'Moderate'.

[Mallorea and Riva]

So just to get an idea of where we're standing on this rule, assuming we keep the category system in place it seems that there is a need to clarify the Strength levels' language. What about Weak, Moderate, and Strong? Or do we not want to label resolutions as "Weak"? Bear's the Medium idea is another good alternative.

[Elke and Elba]

So just to get an idea of where we're standing on this rule, assuming we keep the category system in place it seems that there is a need to clarify the Strength levels' language. What about Weak, Moderate, and Strong? Or do we not want to label resolutions as "Weak"? Bear's the Medium idea is another good alternative.

Low, Medium, High would make sense but are pretty brute terms for this.

I'm more of the opinion of upping the "Strong". Like say Mild, Significant, All-Encompassing or something like that? Significant is quite... significant a word but lacks the divine aura in it.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I completely agree with Mousebumbles that 'Significant' should be phased out in favour of something like 'Moderate'. That always tripped me up as a new player.

So then, instead of confusing 'Significant' with 'Strong', some people would confuse 'Moderate' with 'Mild'...

One could always use Minimal instead of Mild? Then one could choose between Minimal, Significant/Moderate, and Sweeping?

[Railana]

I agree with Snefaldia that the discussion about categories should be resolved before we start talking about the strength violation rule; for instance, this thread will be moot if we decide to abolish categories altogether.

However, as long as we're talking about this, I agree that clearer names for the various strengths wouldn't hurt. I'd vote for "Mild, Significant, Sweeping".

In addition, more of Frisbeeteria's analysis about how the strength rule should be applied should appear in the actual rule itself.

[Snefaldia]

I think we're drifting away from the actual rule itself and more into how the proposal category/strength system works. I think it makes sense, as it stands, for a proposal to be deleted for having an incorrect strength; i.e. it's a "Mild" proposal and the text of the proposal is clearly something much heavier than that.

[Kryozerkia]

Following G-R's comment, how do you typically interpret them? Or rather, what you look for when you see a strength violation in general.

Interpreted based on a) how closely the language matches the intended strength; b) how far reaching the policy itself is. Most of the time, it's close enough that it's not an issue. Only obvious ones, such as a mild proposal mandating sweeping reform would be likely to get dinged, whereas a moderate proposal with mild to modest requirements wouldn't be less likely to get dinged unless it could be justified.

[Sciongrad]

Serious question: why is this debate in the first batch when the whole discussion may be moot soon. Wouldn't it make sense to hold off discussions on category and strength until we know whether or not they'll even continue to exist?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Serious question: why is this debate in the first batch when the whole discussion may be moot soon. Wouldn't it make sense to hold off discussions on category and strength until we know whether or not they'll even continue to exist?

I wanted the debates to occur simultaneously so that we could have a discussion on alternatives to the new proposed system while it was being considered.