GA Discussion: NS and RL

[Wrapper]

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.

Perhaps I was too vague up there. This is one example of what I'm talking about. Don't you agree that statements like "In an alternative universe there is a country called the UK etc." or "I have just been informed that in that alternative universe I was talking about, overtime in Japan is limited etc." are poor form?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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.

You know, I find it offensive when people infer, when told that wanking is best avoided in proposal-drafting, that it means their critics aren't RPers or don't care about RP. Unibot and some of his Dharma flunkies used to flail about with this line of reasoning when confronted about their wank. I obviously am an RPer (and not a very serious or realistic one, either), and using wank to criticize proposal-drafts irritates the hell out of me too. So maybe some of your "non-RPer" critics have a point?

Though I also hate it when people use reams of RL statistics to prove their point, or are clearly writing a proposal in response to RL news. Reproductive Freedoms actually had a couple clauses that were responses to RL antiabortion developments in Texas and other red states. So annoying.

[The Dark Star Republic]

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.

Perhaps I was too vague up there. This is one example of what I'm talking about. Don't you agree that statements like "In an alternative universe there is a country called the UK etc." or "I have just been informed that in that alternative universe I was talking about, overtime in Japan is limited etc." are poor form?

It's a little artless, but there aren't style points in the WA. It used to be a common trope to reference "the mythical land of RL". If that is now considered "poor form" - then yes, things really have changed, and as I said before, my interest is in finding out when and why that convention changed.

[Wrapper]

It used to be a common trope to reference "the mythical land of RL". If that is now considered "poor form" - then yes, things really have changed, and as I said before, my interest is in finding out when and why that convention changed.

I may on occasion have a sense of self-importance, but I do realize that my own personal opinion is hardly "convention".

[Ardchoille]

Don't forget the game some ambassadors waste their time on when they should be, er, ambassadoring: RealWorld^TM, or, in some areas, RealLife^TM. It's apparently a massive multi-player online nation simulation game ...

[Mousebumples]

I don't have the time to dig through At Vote archives right now, but I remember one of my resolutions was greatly improved by moving from my original human-centric/RL-ish approach to a more general NS-oriented approach. (Or, at least, I think it was improved. Your mileage may vary. )

My Essential Medication Act was originally drafted as a Medical Marijuana Act, and I had someone (Maybe it was you, BA? *scratches head*) ask me what would happen if that resolution was enforced on nations/populations who didn't get the medical benefit from marijuana due to different physiologies, etc. It made me think twice, and I made the resolution a lot more general (and a lot more beneficial, from a health standpoint - although, again, your mileage may vary), and I think that made it a better proposal (and eventual resolution) overall.

In my non-modly Player Opinion, I think RL is a great place to get inspiration from - and even a great place to start a first draft from. However, it's important to be open to potential species-wank, etc., and think about other options and how to make your resolution properly applicable to as many different nations, environments, etc., as possible. One size Fits All proposals usually equate with One Size Fits None, in my book. Learning how to balance ensuring what you want to have happen happens while not causing undue harm on populations in an unexpected way takes practice.

... Although, if memory serves, there was someone in the old Jolt NSUN days who used to go "This will not apply to my nation because of [XYZ-random-nationwank]!" wasn't there? Those sorts of nations can be safely ignored, but sometimes there's a valid point to consider among the outcries and insanity.

[Araraukar]

You know, I find it offensive when people infer, when told that wanking is best avoided in proposal-drafting, that it means their critics aren't RPers or don't care about RP.

In proposal text, yes. But DSR seems to be opposed to the whole idea of roleplaying your ambassadorial replies. It is quite possible to point out serious issues or wording concerns while doing it through a heavy layer of RP. The most recent one that he's thrown up a bunch of arbitrary RPwank comments about (helped by Hakio, I admit) was the workweek one, where the RPed response of "not everyone's week is the same length" presented via the roleplay excuse of different planets as example, wasn't accepted even when it was pointed out that on Earth in actual history the week hasn't always been 7 days, nor has an hour always been the same length.

If even RL examples aren't accepted, then nothing will be, and you might as well present it in RP for your own amusement, if nothing else.

So maybe some of your "non-RPer" critics have a point?

If they do, I'm sure they can make proper examples (preferably with links to the posts they object to) instead of pulling ridiculous RPwank ones out of their asses.

Though I also hate it when people use reams of RL statistics to prove their point, or are clearly writing a proposal in response to RL news.

This is basically where the pointer about NS reality not being 100% copy of RL reality comes in handy.

... Although, if memory serves, there was someone in the old Jolt NSUN days who used to go "This will not apply to my nation because of [XYZ-random-nationwank]!" wasn't there?

Urgh, there still are, giving the rest of RPers a bad name. The smart RPers will just look at the text of a resolution and apply only the bits that are actually applicable in their RP, and don't overly advertize the fact.

[The Dark Star Republic]

... Although, if memory serves, there was someone in the old Jolt NSUN days who used to go "This will not apply to my nation because of [XYZ-random-nationwank]!" wasn't there?

DLE. What's sad is that there developed a general consensus that their arguments were too ridiculous to be taken seriously: yet those same arguments - mostly recently, that if you wanted to use any units of time you had to first define them in terms of the decay of caesium isotropes - have resurfaced and writers are emphatically told to respect them. So, nice attempt to pretend the NSUN was wankier than things are now, but not very accurate.

But DSR seems to be opposed to the whole idea of roleplaying your ambassadorial replies.

This is absolute nonsense. I am a strong advocate of conducting all drafting (other than legality queries) in character. My problem is that players - and moderators - consistently blur OOC and IC lines. I had to kill off my last character because so many times OOC statements were carelessly attributed to his IC presence in a way that didn't make sense.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You know, I find it offensive when people infer, when told that wanking is best avoided in proposal-drafting, that it means their critics aren't RPers or don't care about RP.

In proposal text, yes. But DSR seems to be opposed to the whole idea of roleplaying your ambassadorial replies. It is quite possible to point out serious issues or wording concerns while doing it through a heavy layer of RP. The most recent one that he's thrown up a bunch of arbitrary RPwank comments about (helped by Hakio, I admit) was the workweek one, where the RPed response of "not everyone's week is the same length" presented via the roleplay excuse of different planets as example, wasn't accepted even when it was pointed out that on Earth in actual history the week hasn't always been 7 days, nor has an hour always been the same length.

If even RL examples aren't accepted, then nothing will be, and you might as well present it in RP for your own amusement, if nothing else.

No offense, but if you honestly think that how long an hour is on Planet Nobulon (or even Earth 2,000 years ago) is more important than what requirements are made on workers and employers and whether they are sensible, then the problem is with you, not your "RP-hater" critics. Here's a helpful hint as to whether your "RP" points on proposals are actually constructive or not: if it sets off a tangent for half a page or more, or for so long that people start to forget what the freakin' proposal is about -- it's not. Or, maybe, you could try drafting a proposal yourself, see what sorts of responses irritate you, then pledge not to do them to others.

EDIT: another point. A good non-conventional RP example to follow would be Yelda/Iron Felix, who RPs as the planet-state of Trid (or "Yelda" as the actual nation is called) located in one of the Pleiades systems -- but nearly never complains when "Earth-centric" norms are imposed on him. True, Yelda has approximately 30,000 puppets, all of which have been in the WA at some point (and I cannot recall the last time Yelda was actually in the WA), but still.

So maybe some of your "non-RPer" critics have a point?

If they do, I'm sure they can make proper examples (preferably with links to the posts they object to) instead of pulling ridiculous RPwank ones out of their asses.

Oh. Like how long a week was according to French Revolutionaries?

[Bears Armed]

I don't have the time to dig through At Vote archives right now, but I remember one of my resolutions was greatly improved by moving from my original human-centric/RL-ish approach to a more general NS-oriented approach. (Or, at least, I think it was improved. Your mileage may vary. )

My Essential Medication Act was originally drafted as a Medical Marijuana Act, and I had someone (Maybe it was you, BA? *scratches head*) ask me what would happen if that resolution was enforced on nations/populations who didn't get the medical benefit from marijuana due to different physiologies, etc.

Yes, that was me.

____________________________________________________________________________________


On the "NS=/=RL" front in general, can we all at least agree (regardless of possibly conflicting opinions about how far to acknowledge and allow for the existence of non-human sapients, or Future-Tech, or magic, or whatever...) that
[1] there are too many nations involved in NS to fit onto a single planet, at least if that planet has to be genuinely 'Earth-like', and
[2] that the WA contains a significantly lower proportion of the NS nations than the [RL] UN does of the RL nations?

[Frustrated Franciscans]

There was once a sitcom about a cartoonist who used to draw a strip based on a cartoon cow. In one episode he looked for an assistant. When asked what the hardest thing to draw about his cartoon cow he replied, "The udders; they have to be there but they can't be obvious."

So about this RL? Well it has to be there, but it can't be "obvious."

Why does it have to be there? Well frankly, there isn't anything else to go on. If you think people complain about the real world, just try to write a resolution based on daily issues. So if you are looking at inspiration, there is nothing in this game you can effectively use. Outside of the daily issues there is ... well there is nothing actually. This leaves us with the real world, such as it is, but it can't be obvious and it can't be specific.

That wasn't always the case, however, and we all know we hated those days. (HR#1 Fight the Axis of Evil)

So it has to be there (vaguely) but it can't be obvious (using specifics).

Unfortunately, the line between acceptable and not acceptable is as solid as the line that denotes where a cloud is and where a cloud is not. From a ten thousand foot perspective, it looks clear, but up close it's totally confusing. Some resolutions that probably crossed the line are passed laws of the land, others that probably were perfectly fine were killed before they ever came to vote. Such is life.

[Araraukar]

No offense, but if you honestly think that how long an hour is on Planet Nobulon (or even Earth 2,000 years ago) is more important than what requirements are made on workers and employers and whether they are sensible, then the problem is with you, not your "RP-hater" critics.

Since this refers to the two workweek proposals (which fortunately now would be illegal without repealing the blocker), I'd like to point out that my argument was more against micromanagement than for recognizing the different lengths of week or whatnot, and I suggested an IC solution for the issue. Three pages of mostly OOC-fact argument had gone completely ignored by the author before I posted with PPU, and did attempt to explain it in OOC too, and weirdly enough, the RPed version got through better. Not that it really helped. Some others certainly did not help.

Or, maybe, you could try drafting a proposal yourself

I keep telling myself I'll get around to getting back to the proposal I have on hold (on PPU), but so far haven't found the mental energy to do so, as it needs a thorough rewrite.

see what sorts of responses irritate you, then pledge not to do them to others.

Heh, that whole proposal spawned off of one, where the author decided to go human-only after it was pointed out there were other intelligent species around...

who RPs as the planet-state of Trid (or "Yelda" as the actual nation is called) located in one of the Pleiades systems -- but nearly never complains when "Earth-centric" norms are imposed on him.

I do most of my arguing on Araraukar, but all 3 of my nations are connected in IC, nevermind that both PPU¹ and WA Kitty Kops² started from joking around with others. Generally I tend to support the non-human-specific and alternate-Earths views, using PPU mostly only on issues that are important to that nation's IC reality.

If they do, I'm sure they can make proper examples (preferably with links to the posts they object to) instead of pulling ridiculous RPwank ones out of their asses.

Oh. Like how long a week was according to French Revolutionaries?

No. More like...

and the idea that we can't discuss them because they're not relevant on the Planet Flobbadob

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!

but if you honestly think that how long an hour is on Planet Nobulon

(Although, knowing how things work around here, just watch someone creating those nations now...)

¹For those interested:

PPU evolution from a joke to a WA nation:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p12485912

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p12488141

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p12493655

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p12764200

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p12773826

²WA Kitty Kops' first post.

[The Dark Star Republic]

So what is this great nuanced difference between the unicorns from the Planet Jibberjabber and the Potted Plants?

[Araraukar]

So what is this great nuanced difference between the unicorns from the Planet Jibberjabber and the Potted Plants?

I don't quite understand the idea behind that question. You could as well ask what's the difference between Bears Armed and Eireann Fae. Or the Three Weasels and the Eternal Kawaii.

[Bears Armed]

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.

Acknowledging that there have been “Nazi war crimes” of some kind, I’d say yes: Assuming those war crimes to have been a direct copy of those from RL, and therefore sufficient justification for using RL figures as evidence, I’d say not. There might have been an exact copy included in some nation’s RP, but we can’t count on the fact. Also, considering the sheer scale of NS, I think that — even when one considers the existence in NS of multiple ‘Nazi’ nations — any such atrocities would have had less impact on the overall international community than they did in RL so that any ambassadors referring to them could reasonably be asked for clarification.

[The Dark Star Republic]

So what is this great nuanced difference between the unicorns from the Planet Jibberjabber and the Potted Plants?

I don't quite understand the idea behind that question.

The point is that as upset as you get about the "RP hater" (who happens to be participating in four roleplays right now, which is about average for the past nine years), you are simultaneously willing to dismiss some such arguments as "ridiculous wank". Where's the line? Because I honestly don't see it. The planet where the different law of gravity makes it impossible to pass healthcare reform and the alien species that need to simultaneously have their sexual freedom protected but where incest isn't harmful seem like silly non-arguments dreamed up to avoid discussing the actual issue; but so do Potted Plants and Infectious Microorganisms (and my sapient nukes puppet). I'm not seeing what distinguishes the kind of RPing that has to be rammed down everyone's throats on every proposal and criticism of which is treated with such horror, and the kind of lazy non-arguing that has so reduced the level of policy discussion in the WA.

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.

Acknowledging that there have been “Nazi war crimes” of some kind, I’d say yes: Assuming those war crimes to have been a direct copy of those from RL, and therefore sufficient justification for using RL figures as evidence, I’d say not. There might have been an exact copy included in some nation’s RP, but we can’t count on the fact. Also, considering the sheer scale of NS, I think that — even when one considers the existence in NS of multiple ‘Nazi’ nations — any such atrocities would have had less impact on the overall international community than they did in RL so that any ambassadors referring to them could reasonably be asked for clarification.

I'm trying to avoid getting into specific proposal arguments, because I'm sure that will be the excuse used to lock this thread, but the example here came up during the discussion of perfidy. Some people wanted to only require WA nations to treat other WA nations lawfully, but permit them to commit war crimes against non-WA nations. I used the example of the disparity between Nazi treatment of Western and Eastern Front POWs as a counterargument: because the Nazis argued that the USSR was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention.*

More generally, it's just a pattern of: what are we actually discussing here?

We use a RL example: "NS isn't RL!"
We use an RP example: "That's MetaGaming, making up RP examples is bad form!"
We use an OOC example: "This isn't General!"
So how exactly do we construct an argument without any frames of reference?

* Whether this argument was actually valid on the part of the Wehrmacht (it wasn't) isn't relevant.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

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.

Acknowledging that there have been “Nazi war crimes” of some kind, I’d say yes: Assuming those war crimes to have been a direct copy of those from RL, and therefore sufficient justification for using RL figures as evidence, I’d say not.

I would even argue against it in the general. You are taking a specific, converting it to generic and then trying to use it as a example in a resolution.

Let's use a different example for a moment. Everyone know about the "inquisition" right? But it's a general term. There have been many "inquisitions" throughout all of church history, starting from the 12th century. There are those form France, and those from Spain. There are those held by the Franciscans, and those held by the Dominicans. The term is in and of itself too vague to be used as a specific reference. "Recalling the inquisition" doesn't recall anything specifically.

The key to a NS resolution is that it is universal. Recalling vague specifics is practically pointless. Viking war crimes, Nazi war crimes, Socialist war crimes, are all so totally vague without the RW linkage as to make them a waste of precious characters in any resolution for the GA. More over the modifier is pointless. How can one prove that a "My Little Pony" war crime is less heinous than another war crime based solely on the modifier "My Little Pony." Because of the non solid history of the NS universe examples should never be used in the GA (only in the WA where we are dealing with specific nations and regions).