[RULE CHANGE] Real World Reference rule revision

[Bears Armed]

I'm still in general agreement with this suggested change, because in my opinion allowing proposals to argue on the basis of or to promote RL religions although mentioning fictional faiths in those ways is banned discriminates unfairly against authors & would-be authors whose nations favour fictional faiths.
I reject the argument that the inclusion of some references to RL religions in Issues justifies continuing to allow them in proposals: For as long as I can remember it has been said, even by the Mods, that Issues and the UN UNWAGA are effectively two separately games within the wider game that is NS... and, after all, wouldn't allowing RL religious references for that reason also logically "require" allowing proposals to reference those fictional religions & religious concepts that are mentioned in Issues despite the current interpretation of the Metagaming rule? Why, to give some examples, should it be legal for proposals to mention the Church of Pizza (or whatever that concept is normally called) or Faithology but illegal for them to mention either Wenaism or Ursionity?

Political philosophies such as "Marxism", "Leninism", "Maoism", "Xi Jinping thought" are classical real world references.

I definitely agree on this point, and would argue for following the same "No proper nouns" standard that the Metagaming rule employs. Also, I would therefore include "political parties" in the list of forbidden types of reference.

[Bananaistan]

I'm opposed to these changes on account of the utterly petty and bizarre proposal to change the spelling of organization. The rules are not a place for one-upmanship related to personal preferences for style and spelling. Were there a total rewrite and the person responsible wrote the new version in British English, I'd have no problem. This minor edit smacks of "I'm in charge now and I'm gonna ram this down your throat whether you like it or not".

[Fachumonn]

I'm opposed to these changes on account of the utterly petty and bizarre proposal to change the spelling of organization. The rules are not a place for one-upmanship related to personal preferences for style and spelling. Were there a total rewrite and the person responsible wrote the new version in British English, I'd have no problem. This minor edit smacks of "I'm in charge now and I'm gonna ram this down your throat whether you like it or not".

Would agree with this viewpoint. It should at least be consistent.

[The Ice States]

I do want to make it clear that the details on this are not set in stone; if the community consensus is against the change to "organisations", as appears to be the case, I have no objections to leaving it as-is.

[Astrobolt]

Add me as another one against changing organization. Based on Discord discussions, it seems that most of the rule set is written with American English, so the change cannot even be justified out a desire for consistency. There is no good reason to change aside from personal preference.

More substantive comments about the rest of the revision to hopefully come later.

[First Nightmare]

Does the stated justification for this exclusion -- that languages and religions are mentioned in Issues, eg Issue #1 -- merit keeping it?

Yes.

No, but... it does warrant an exception for any language, religion or person actually mentioned in the issues(this would limit any RL intrusions except those that are canon anyways).
Along with an exception if the name of someone is embedded in the name of a political philosophy because... well IA already said why.

[Repreteop]

*** Public consultation on Real World Reference rule revision ***

The Secretariat proposes revision of the Real World Reference rule. This will make reference to specific real-world religions and languages illegal Real World References. Stylistic changes include removing a redundant "real world" and correcting "organizations" to conventional British English.

Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any real world references. This includes, but is not limited to, world leaders, real world persons, places, religions, languages, organisations, organizations and/or events. Generic references, however, are permitted, such as religions, political philosophies, languages, general scientific terminology, and phenomena.

What's the green stand for? Sorry.

[The Ice States]

*** Public consultation on Real World Reference rule revision ***

The Secretariat proposes revision of the Real World Reference rule. This will make reference to specific real-world religions and languages illegal Real World References. Stylistic changes include removing a redundant "real world" and correcting "organizations" to conventional British English.

Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any real world references. This includes, but is not limited to, world leaders, real world persons, places, religions, languages, organisations, organizations and/or events. Generic references, however, are permitted, such as religions, political philosophies, languages, general scientific terminology, and phenomena.

What's the green stand for? Sorry.

It's fine to ask! Green text indicates an official post by Gensec, in this case a public consultation for a rule change. We also use it for example when announcing a ruling.

[Repreteop]

What's the green stand for? Sorry.

It's fine to ask! Green text indicates an official post by Gensec, in this case a public consultation for a rule change. We also use it for example when announcing a ruling.

So green is basically gospel and will definitely change?

[The Ice States]

It's fine to ask! Green text indicates an official post by Gensec, in this case a public consultation for a rule change. We also use it for example when announcing a ruling.

So green is basically gospel and will definitely change?

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

[The Overmind]

So green is basically gospel and will definitely change?

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

They think you mean that green text indicates a position that GenSec has already taken and one not under review/consideration, rather than just indicating that GenSec is officially, as a body, proposing it

[The Ice States]

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

They think you mean that green text indicates a position that GenSec has already taken and one not under review/consideration, rather than just indicating that GenSec is officially, as a body, proposing it

Yes, to be clear it is the latter. The rule change is yet to be implemented; this thread exists for community input on whether it should be enacted, as well as the particular details of the change.

[Fachumonn]

So green is basically gospel and will definitely change?

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I'm opposed if this is an "official GenSec Proposal", Made by 1/6th of GenSec. Unless there was talk before this post? Im kinda confused

[The Ice States]

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I'm opposed if this is an "official GenSec Proposal", Made by 1/6th of GenSec. Unless there was talk before this post? Im kinda confused

As explicitly stated in the OP, 4/6th of Gensec voted for the change before the public thread was made. It is not one member acting unilaterally.

[Kenmoria]

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I'm opposed if this is an "official GenSec Proposal", Made by 1/6th of GenSec. Unless there was talk before this post? Im kinda confused

The first post in this thread shows which members of GenSec support the bulk of the change in general. We did discuss this previously.

[Fachumonn]

I'm opposed if this is an "official GenSec Proposal", Made by 1/6th of GenSec. Unless there was talk before this post? Im kinda confused

The first post in this thread shows which members of GenSec support the bulk of the change in general. We did discuss this previously.

Did not see that. Thanks for clarifying.

[Midlona]

[ooc] I support the changes on RL religions and languages. Like others have said, there seems little reason for there to be specific mentions of certain religions or languages in proposed resolutions anyway. It also serves to keep resolutions broad and general, which is appropriate for the GA.

On the spelling changes, I agree with Bananaistan.

I'm opposed to these changes on account of the utterly petty and bizarre proposal to change the spelling of organization. The rules are not a place for one-upmanship related to personal preferences for style and spelling. Were there a total rewrite and the person responsible wrote the new version in British English, I'd have no problem . . . "

[Simone Republic]

While we are at it, I suggest cleaning up on genericized trademarks as well, i.e., for example whether we can say "Vaseline" or "Band-aid" rather than petroleum jelly and adhesive bandages. (According to Wikipedia, Unilever has largely given up on Vaseline, but J&J is still according to Wikipedia defending Band-Aid(R) Brand Adhesive Bandages).

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547456

Edit: also draconian, boycott, what not.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The rule should really just read as follows:

Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein. No proposal clause may refer to any proper nouns for persons, organisations, or events in the real world. However, references to proper nouns themselves referenced by NationStates or which are necessary to refer to scientific or political phenomena are permissible.

The rule is motivated by two factors: (1) GA ≠ NS General and (2) GA law fits within NationStates. It's a perspective-style rule: perspective must at a minimum include things within the canon of NationStates. That includes Catholicism, Islam, and other things. Just because some people wish to banish religious references does not mean NationStates stopped including those things in its world, which is itself the limiting factor of the rule... a limiting factor which is present in all proposed versions.

The currently proposed versions also are vague as to the test used for this rule. The traditional test, which I don't see anyone wanting to get away from, is whether something is a proper noun. Simplifying the rule requires placing the test in the rule... not leaving it vague as to what inputs are given and what outputs are expected. The majority should not confuse black boxes with clarity.

[The Ice States]

IA, would your proposed wording mean that only those real-world religions mentioned in Issues -- ie Catholicism, Judaism, and Pastafarianism, per Jutsa's list -- can be mentioned in resolutions?

As to a bright-line test, how about this?

Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein. As such, a proposal may not contain any proper nouns which reference the real world. This includes, but is not limited to, world leaders, persons, places, religions, languages, political parties, organisations, and/or events. Proper nouns are permissible if they are necessary to refer to a general political or scientific concept.

FKGL: 12.1; current rule text is 15.8. I am not convinced by the argument that religions should be permissible as they are mentioned in Issues; Issues mention plenty of things which would be illegal in the GA, particularly as Metagaming (regions, roleplay canon), and the Issues and WA games are largely separate with the only real interaction between them being proposal stat effects and a few Issues which mention the GA. I don't see what good it causes to make the proposal rules dependent on the standards in a separate part of the site. I also believe that even the "prevent the GA from becoming NSG" rationale justifies prohibition of mentioning religions, lest we have proposals directly opposing some religion (eg "Religious Freedom Protection should be repealed as it prohibits criminalising Protestants!")

[The Ice States]

*** Real World Reference rule revision ***

The Secretariat has finalised the following wording for the Real World Reference rule,

Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein. A proposal may not contain any proper nouns which reference the real world. This includes, but is not limited to, world leaders, persons, places, religions, languages, political parties, organizations, and events. Proper nouns are permissible if they are necessary to refer to a generic political or scientific concept.

This is slightly different from the original proposal, notably with the addition of the bright-line proper noun test to the rule as suggested by Imperium Anglorum. Additionally, we have elected not to implement the change to "organisations" as per community consensus. As suggested by Bears Armed, political parties are now listed as a prohibited real-world reference. We also considered the suggestion of Simone Republic to clarify the status of generalised trademarks; however, a majority of Secretariat members declined to implement this.

Our thanks to all players who gave their input during this process!

[Yelda]

Seems reasonable.

[Fachumonn]

The Secretariat has finalised the following wording for the Real World Reference rule

You mean finalized

Anyways, this is fine. I don't see an organizational problem with the text.