GA Discussion: NS and RL

[Flamels Stone]

I have question about GAR#148 ''Against Conflict Minerals''
It states ''that precious minerals (...) are mined or taxed by armed groups in various failed states and undeveloped nations, with the profits used to fund their militarization,''
Is this realy a NS problem?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

GA issues invariably have RL parallels. Whether or not the NS version of an RL vice is the WA's problem is usually up to the WA to decide.

[Flamels Stone]

But there have been so many proposals turned down because RL=/=NS. And I believe this is not a problem present in NS.
Yet, I may be wrong. Thanks for answering anyway.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I have question about GAR#148 ''Against Conflict Minerals''
It states ''that precious minerals (...) are mined or taxed by armed groups in various failed states and undeveloped nations, with the profits used to fund their militarization,''
Is this realy a NS problem?

Not an official answer, but as a player: there's not really any such thing as an "NS problem". People can roleplay whatever they like. And while I don't think conflict mineral roleplay is especially prevalent, that's more a function of everyone wanting to a hegemon: some people do roleplay realistic modern day conflicts in underdeveloped nations, and so it's reasonable to assume there are conflict minerals in the NS world. But the WA has also considered proposals on topics such as planet annihilating weapons and transhumanism, and has a historical resolution written by an actual caveman.

But there have been so many proposals turned down because RL=/=NS. And I believe this is not a problem present in NS.
Yet, I may be wrong. Thanks for answering anyway.

"RL =/= NS" is an extremely flawed statement that WA forum regulars have a tendency to toss around casually without thinking through the full ramifications of it.

[Defwa]

NS=/=RL is more about denying real solutions to roleplay problems. Like british style gun regulation, which won't work for all nations.
Some use it to claim a thing is not a problem at all, but they're generally dumb

[Araraukar]

NS=/=RL is more about denying real solutions to roleplay problems. Like british style gun regulation, which won't work for all nations.

OOC: I've found it's more useful for pointing out that some RL issues (global warming, for instance) aren't WA-wide issues in NS. It's also lazy to claim an issue from RL that's specific to one nation (most often something that's an issue in USA) and try to turn it into an international issue in NS, when it's not even an international issue in RL.

Also, using extensive RL statistics or studies to argue that an issue such as mentioned above is real in RL and thus must be real in NS too, leads to NS=/=RL being useful.

[Defwa]

NS=/=RL is more about denying real solutions to roleplay problems. Like british style gun regulation, which won't work for all nations.

OOC: I've found it's more useful for pointing out that some RL issues (global warming, for instance) aren't WA-wide issues in NS. It's also lazy to claim an issue from RL that's specific to one nation (most often something that's an issue in USA) and try to turn it into an international issue in NS, when it's not even an international issue in RL.

Also, using extensive RL statistics or studies to argue that an issue such as mentioned above is real in RL and thus must be real in NS too, leads to NS=/=RL being useful.

I totally understand the use of RL statistics though. It is completely unfair for an ambassador to say "prove it" and then deny both real life and role played evidence.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I've found it's more useful for pointing out that some RL issues (global warming, for instance) aren't WA-wide issues in NS.

When did this line of thinking become so prevalent? Environmental issues used to be fairly common subjects for legislation, and the idea that we can't discuss them because they're not relevant on the Planet Flobbadob held no weight. I'm not trying to argue it here (this isn't the thread for that) but as a point of historical inquiry, was there a particular proposal or player or discussion that so completely revised the RP sense of the WA?

[Defwa]

I've found it's more useful for pointing out that some RL issues (global warming, for instance) aren't WA-wide issues in NS.

When did this line of thinking become so prevalent? Environmental issues used to be fairly common subjects for legislation, and the idea that we can't discuss them because they're not relevant on the Planet Flobbadob held no weight. I'm not trying to argue it here (this isn't the thread for that) but as a point of historical inquiry, was there a particular proposal or player or discussion that so completely revised the RP sense of the WA?

I think Separatist Peoples in an example of that, maybe they'll say

[Separatist Peoples]

When did this line of thinking become so prevalent? Environmental issues used to be fairly common subjects for legislation, and the idea that we can't discuss them because they're not relevant on the Planet Flobbadob held no weight. I'm not trying to argue it here (this isn't the thread for that) but as a point of historical inquiry, was there a particular proposal or player or discussion that so completely revised the RP sense of the WA?

I think Separatist Peoples in an example of that, maybe they'll say

Oh, for Christsake, that was an argument against arbitrary time limits! It had nothing to do with the proposal's content, and could (and was) fixed in five minutes.

I've only used that line against the proposals clearly born from somebody reading the newspaper and logging on to start drafting. Proposals like the global warming, fossil fuel use, and human-centric ideas.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Wow, if only you'd been around for Promotion of Solar Panels. That wasn't silly because it would have sent every industrial nation back to the stone age: it was silly because on the Planet Popsicle carbon dioxide makes the unicorns sparkle!

[Defwa]

I think Separatist Peoples in an example of that, maybe they'll say

Oh, for Christsake, that was an argument against arbitrary time limits! It had nothing to do with the proposal's content, and could (and was) fixed in five minutes.

I've only used that line against the proposals clearly born from somebody reading the newspaper and logging on to start drafting. Proposals like the global warming, fossil fuel use, and human-centric ideas.

Being human, terran, or anglo centric isn't a problem as long as it doesn't have negative impacts on those outside. Things like global warming and fossil fuels may be human centric but they're extremely common- we can't ignore things just because a minority isn't impacted.

[Separatist Peoples]

Being human, terran, or anglo centric isn't a problem as long as it doesn't have negative impacts on those outside. Things like global warming and fossil fuels may be human centric but they're extremely common- we can't ignore things just because a minority isn't impacted.

Not the place for this, but depending on the requirements for any of those, nations with no such issues could be forced to take action for a problem they don't have. A nonbinding promotion is one thing, forcing every nation to ban gasoline is another. It's not a bloody blanket statement, and it's disappointing that you'd take it as such.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This whole spacewank craze reminds me of that fad from a few years ago, when noncompliance was all the rage, and anyone who still paid the game FAQ a modicum of respect was a relic from the Dark Ages when resolutions actually meant something.

[Araraukar]

I've only used that line against the proposals clearly born from somebody reading the newspaper and logging on to start drafting. Proposals like the global warming, fossil fuel use, and human-centric ideas.

^This.

That doesn't mean you couldn't use any RL statistics or info to debate your side. It means that just because your local newspaper has a line or two about people protecting old trees in their local park, it's not a good idea to try and push a WA-wide blanket ban on logging.

Or, if there's a school shooting, the first thought to come to mind shouldn't be "gun violence is a problem in all WA nations". Or whatever similar issue of the day happens to be. And then using RL statistics to prove it should be an international issue.

Environmental issues used to be fairly common subjects for legislation

If you can think of a good, international environmental issue that hasn't been legislated upon yet, go for it. There's been several stabs at various issues in the past year or so, but the authors have usually given up after realizing a one-size-fits-all solution tends to fit no-one, and in the best case (if not illegal) gets voted down/insta-repealed. That doesn't mean some of the ideas hadn't been good, just that they weren't presented correctly (and with sensible limits).

but as a point of historical inquiry, was there a particular proposal or player or discussion that so completely revised the RP sense of the WA?

Not sure, but this has been discussed since 2009 at least: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12546

EDIT: Here's the search I used: search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=%2BNS+is+++%2Bnot+++%2BRL&fid[]=9

[The Dark Star Republic]

If you can think of a good, international environmental issue that hasn't been legislated upon yet, go for it.

But that's exactly what we're talking about: an international environmental issue such as fossil fuel use is being rubbished because it is "human-centric".

In short, I don't believe you.

Not sure, but this has been discussed since 2009 at least: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... =9&t=12546

A thread that reached no consensus and had no moderator input other than Flib telling people to stay on topic? Not very compelling. I note with amusement:

But this is an issue on which much of a consensus seems unlikely, because how people treat RP conventions is always a bit in flux.

[Araraukar]

In short, I don't believe you.

You don't give two shits about roleplay anyway, so it's one and same if you do or don't.

A thread that reached no consensus and had no moderator input other than Flib telling people to stay on topic? Not very compelling.

I didn't realize history had to be compelling. You asked "since when", I answered with evidence, "since 2009 at least".

[The Dark Star Republic]

I didn't realize history had to be compelling. You asked "since when", I answered with evidence, "since 2009 at least".

You do realize that literally no one in the thread you linked post a view in line with your own? The closest that thread came to a common conclusion was:

Simply saying "this is WA, not RL" shouldn't cut it.

Yes indeed, I can agree with that. It always will depend on the context.

[Bears Armed]

If you can think of a good, international environmental issue that hasn't been legislated upon yet, go for it.

But that's exactly what we're talking about: an international environmental issue such as fossil fuel use is being rubbished because it is "human-centric".

Which seems rather strange when one considers that the last-but-one resolution passed was actually about an aspect of fossil fuels but was produced by a nation of bears...

[Bananaistan]

NS =/= RL often appears to be just an unreasonable cop out used by players who just don't want to debate the substance of a proposal. If this attitude were taken to the extreme, there would be no passed WA resolutions whatsoever. I can't recall the exact ambassadors involved but I do remember some posters speaking about their opposition to the recent anti-corporal punishment proposal on the basis that the problems identified by the author couldn't possibly be relevant to parenting of the offspring of grumpkins and snarks. In that instance, the NS =/= RL argument was rather unreasonable as it would have been impossible for the author to justify his assertions within that context.

I would also mention that while I see that stock argument as unreasonable, I note that, as mentioned by Bears Armed, it hasn't stopped well written proposals on what might appear to be humano-centric and earth-centric issues being passed, such as their recent passed resolutions. A particularly good example is the requirement in the "wildfires" one about all nations having laws against malicious or reckless starting of fires. Thankfully, at least so far as I can recall, there was no one moaning that fire doesn't exist in their dimension or such like.

Ofc there is the second less common case, where it is a reasonable response to people talking about RL specific persons and places and so on.

[Flamels Stone]

Wow this became a discussion >,.<.

[Araraukar]

I didn't realize history had to be compelling. You asked "since when", I answered with evidence, "since 2009 at least".

You do realize that literally no one in the thread you linked post a view in line with your own? The closest that thread came to a common conclusion was:

Again, I didn't realize I was supposed to dig up only stuff that supported my point of view. I'm not even sure what you think my point of view is on this issue, since every time this is touched on, you or someone else uses a ridiculous example of RPwank to justify your side of it.

NS =/= RL often appears to be just an unreasonable cop out used by players who just don't want to debate the substance of a proposal.

So... care to provide me with examples of "NS =/= RL" being the (even better if it's my) sole argument against a proposal? DSR can do this too, if he wants.

Wow this became a discussion >,.<.

I'm surprised it didn't just get split from Q&A and locked, since that's what usually happens in these cases.

[Wrapper]

NS =/= RL often appears to be just an unreasonable cop out used by players who just don't want to debate the substance of a proposal.

Perhaps, in many instances, but I can only recall using such an argument when someone tries to use real life statistics or studies (especially contested ones or ones from dubious sources) and uses them as in-character arguments in their favor. I'm all for using such data as an OOC argument (as I myself did numerous times in the unleaded fuel ban debate), but when RL stuff is used as IC justification, that's kind of poor form.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Again, I didn't realize I was supposed to dig up only stuff that supported my point of view.

Honestly, your inability to construct a basic argument constantly flabbergasts me. I ask for evidence of the "RL =/= NS" argument becoming "prevalent". You post to a thread of people agreeing that it is in general not a reasonable argument.

I'm not even sure what you think my point of view is on this issue, since every time this is touched on, you or someone else uses a ridiculous example of RPwank to justify your side of it.

It's not ridiculous. Let's take the most recent example: someone arguing that the existence of aliens means we can't repeal a resolution that legalises incest because in some exotic biochemistry such inbreeding might not be inherently harmful. These arguments are made, and they do deserve to be corrected.

DSR can do this too, if he wants.

Why would I? I've never made any such argument.

Perhaps, in many instances, but I can only recall using such an argument when someone tries to use real life statistics or studies (especially contested ones or ones from dubious sources) and uses them as in-character arguments in their favor. I'm all for using such data as an OOC argument (as I myself did numerous times in the unleaded fuel ban debate), but when RL stuff is used as IC justification, that's kind of poor form.

Why? That seems incredibly arbitrary. Many players acknowledge RL in their roleplays: alternative history is one of the most popular jumping off points for nation creation. For example: there are many Nazi or anti-Nazi nations in NS, and so acknowledging Nazi war crimes during a debate on war crimes doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

[Bananaistan]

NS =/= RL often appears to be just an unreasonable cop out used by players who just don't want to debate the substance of a proposal.

So... care to provide me with examples of "NS =/= RL" being the (even better if it's my) sole argument against a proposal? DSR can do this too, if he wants.

What's the relevance of sole? Who ever mentioned that? I'm sure plenty of individuals have used it as their sole argument. Are you suggesting it doesn't happen?

NS =/= RL often appears to be just an unreasonable cop out used by players who just don't want to debate the substance of a proposal.

Perhaps, in many instances, but I can only recall using such an argument when someone tries to use real life statistics or studies (especially contested ones or ones from dubious sources) and uses them as in-character arguments in their favor. I'm all for using such data as an OOC argument (as I myself did numerous times in the unleaded fuel ban debate), but when RL stuff is used as IC justification, that's kind of poor form.

I agree.