Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Sedgistan]

Just confirming that SC rulings on proposal legality don't apply to the GA.

[Excidium Planetis]

The SC has nothing to do with the WA. Its rules and rulings don't apply here. And given how strenuously SC players resisted playing by WA rules when it was first introduced, it would be at best unseemly for them now to force their stuff on us.

Wow. Way to completely ignore everything I wrote.

How does SC's Rule 4 vary substantially from our Real World and Metagaming rules?

Are you actually trying to argue that SC rules have any value in the GA? Like, is this a joke? The GA's rules on metagaming are significantly stricter than the SC's.

In what way are they "significantly stricter", and how would they restrict a mention of telegram campaigns in an IC manner?

The logic of Sedgistan's ruling still applies to the GA rules, even if the ruling does not apply to the GA. Were I to draft a proposal here mentioning telegram campaigns, I would make the same argument as I did in the SC. What would cause mods to rule differently?

[Sciongrad]

The logic of Sedgistan's ruling still applies to the GA rules, even if the ruling does not apply to the GA.

Just confirming that SC rulings on proposal legality don't apply to the GA.

Were I to draft a proposal here mentioning telegram campaigns, I would make the same argument as I did in the SC. What would cause mods to rule differently?

You've been here long enough to know that the SC rules do not apply to the GA. You're being deliberately contrarian. Quit it, please.

[Gruenberg]

In what way are they "significantly stricter"

Because the purpose of the WA rules is to actually separate IC and OOC, whereas the purpose of the SC rules is merely to require that any references to OOC actions be done in "Gameplay-IC" language. (Why, I have no idea; Rule 4 was an insipid creation.) You could write, in Gameplay-IC, Rule-4-compliant, language, a reference to region crashing, but such a reference would remain illegal in WA resolutions.

and how would they restrict a mention of telegram campaigns in an IC manner?

Probably depends on context. But in general, acknowledging actions on the forum is illegal, and that could reasonably be extended to actions undertaken through the telegram system.

[Talkistan]

and how would they restrict a mention of telegram campaigns in an IC manner?

Probably depends on context. But in general, acknowledging actions on the forum is illegal, and that could reasonably be extended to actions undertaken through the telegram system.

The fact that one can't refer to individual nations (or groups of nations) in GA proposals would make it quite difficult to reference TG campaigns without resorting to extreme circumlocution. Not that I'd put it beyond some of our esteemed members, but it would probably end up being a waste of effort.

[Gruenberg]

Probably depends on context. But in general, acknowledging actions on the forum is illegal, and that could reasonably be extended to actions undertaken through the telegram system.

The fact that one can't refer to individual nations (or groups of nations) in GA proposals would make it quite difficult to reference TG campaigns without resorting to extreme circumlocution. Not that I'd put it beyond some of our esteemed members, but it would probably end up being a waste of effort.

I don't think it would be very difficult:

"Noting that the recent diplomatic correspondence sent to WA member nations by the author of the resolution misleadingly implied that the resolution would ban carrots whereas it in fact bans only parsnips"

I just think it would be illegal. (However, the ruling forcing us to recognize the SC does mess up the metagaming rules a lot, so I may well be wrong.)

[Tzorsland]

And then someone manages to campaign successfully for a repeal later on. And then what?

Is is the hard coded resolution number or the category which is unrepealable (WA 1 is unrepealable and the only Bookkeeping resolution). I tend to forget.

[Excidium Planetis]

You've been here long enough to know that the SC rules do not apply to the GA. You're being deliberately contrarian. Quit it, please.

You are deliberately ignoring what I am saying.

In what way are they "significantly stricter"

Because the purpose of the WA rules is to actually separate IC and OOC, whereas the purpose of the SC rules is merely to require that any references to OOC actions be done in "Gameplay-IC" language. (Why, I have no idea; Rule 4 was an insipid creation.)

That's GA convention, yes... But how? What specific part of the GA rules differs from Rule 4 in such a way that makes it illegal? How are GA rules worded differently that makes this the case?

I'll argue my case with the current GA rules, ignoring the SC. The first problem is the Real World rule, obviously.

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, organizations and/or events. Generic references, however, are permitted, such as religions, political philosophies, languages, general scientific terminology, and phenomena.

But, as Sedgistan pointed out, the reference to telegram campaigns is a reference to the game, not anything in the real world. So this rule does not make it illegal to mention telegram campaigns.

What about metagaming?

Mechanics: There are aspects of gameplay and the game itself that cannot be legislated on, either because it requires a code change or it breaks the 'fourth wall'.
Meta-Gaming: Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing the Security Council to carry out specific actions, mandating that regions carry out specific actions, and forcing compliance on non-member nations.

Obviously, mentioning telegram campaigns is not attempting to force events outside the WA, so we can rule that out. That leaves the "fourth wall" breaking aspect. Again, Sedgistan's comments in the SC ruling apply here as well, since the mention of telegram campaigns was not done in a way that referred to the game as a game... it did not break the fourth wall. It referred to events which could plausibly have happened in the world of NationStates.

Probably depends on context. But in general, acknowledging actions on the forum is illegal, and that could reasonably be extended to actions undertaken through the telegram system.

Can you provide a ruling for that?

The fact that one can't refer to individual nations (or groups of nations) in GA proposals would make it quite difficult to reference TG campaigns without resorting to extreme circumlocution. Not that I'd put it beyond some of our esteemed members, but it would probably end up being a waste of effort.

That's due to the Branding rule, however, not the Metagaming rule. If we return to the original topic of debate, a mention of the Council, no Branding violations would occur.

[Araraukar]

...why are you guys arguing about SC/GA rules on this thread? Go make a discussion thread for it. Mods have previously said we're allowed to do that for issues that are argued about a lot.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Please don't put EP on the council.

[Gruenberg]

Can you provide a ruling for that?

No, obviously I can't. The relevant ruling absolutely exists, in fact it was one of the most important rulings in the development of the current rules, but unfortunately the mods recently ruled that rulings from that era can no longer be cited. It was an asinine and bizarre decision of theirs to do that, but it's what we're stuck with.

[Excidium Planetis]

Please don't put EP on the council.

No one has nominated me, so obviously that can't happen even if the mods really, really liked me.

And let's face it, no one here is going to nominate me.

Can you provide a ruling for that?

No, obviously I can't. The relevant ruling absolutely exists, in fact it was one of the most important rulings in the development of the current rules, but unfortunately the mods recently ruled that rulings from that era can no longer be cited. It was an asinine and bizarre decision of theirs to do that, but it's what we're stuck with.

So, you claim that mentioning actions on the forums is illegal, but the rules don't mention that, and moderators have no official rulings on it.

[Sedgistan]

Please could this discussion continue elsewhere.

[Christian Democrats]

Whoa, I didn't say anything about the SC. All I did is broach the question of putting the new council within or outside the "fourth wall."

[Christian Democrats]

viewtopic.php?p=30167048#p30167048

[Gruenberg]

Earlier in the thread, there was an openness to ideas, no matter how far-fetched and unlikely. Does that still apply? I have a far-fetched and unlikely idea, but, if we're passed that stage and it would just be distractingly off-topic, fair enough.

[Sedgistan]

You might as well suggest it. If it's liable to start a massive threadjack, it can always be split off into its own thread.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Whoa, I didn't say anything about the SC. All I did is broach the question of putting the new council within or outside the "fourth wall."

RP the council any way you freakin' want, just don't try to force RP in proposals. If players don't wish to recognize the council as legitimate RP, they shouldn't be forced to acknowledge it in a WA resolution. Metagaming is metagaming is metagaming.

[Mexiklyn]

The World Assembly Has Not prepare any issues to vote on! The Assembly Has a Duty That It Must Comply so Pass More Issues!

[Separatist Peoples]

The World Assembly Has Not prepare any issues to vote on! The Assembly Has a Duty That It Must Comply so Pass More Issues!

No, it doesn't. The GA has nothing to do with daily issues. Nobody wants to write anything because there is an impending legality change regarding the rules. Capitalization is for the first letter in the sentence and any proper nouns.

[Kaboomlandia]

The World Assembly Has Not prepare any issues to vote on! The Assembly Has a Duty That It Must Comply so Pass More Issues!

No, it doesn't. The GA has nothing to do with daily issues. Nobody wants to write anything because there is an impending legality change regarding the rules. Capitalization is for the first letter in the sentence and any proper nouns.

I've been kind of out of the loop lately...what rule does this legality challenge cover? I'm writing something up at the moment.

[Separatist Peoples]

No, it doesn't. The GA has nothing to do with daily issues. Nobody wants to write anything because there is an impending legality change regarding the rules. Capitalization is for the first letter in the sentence and any proper nouns.

I've been kind of out of the loop lately...what rule does this legality challenge cover? I'm writing something up at the moment.

Anything. Depends on the ultimate powers of the Secretariat's Council.

[Tzorsland]

OH that's nonsense. If I get the time, I'll have the Franciscans write up a proposal and throw it on the queue. Of course no one is going to approve it anyway.

[Separatist Peoples]

OH that's nonsense. If I get the time, I'll have the Franciscans write up a proposal and throw it on the queue. Of course no one is going to approve it anyway.

Nobody said you couldn't do it. It just seems that its a major component of why nobody is moving forward with very much. That and October is the Time of the Midterm.

[Gruenberg]

OH that's nonsense. If I get the time, I'll have the Franciscans write up a proposal and throw it on the queue. Of course no one is going to approve it anyway.

Nobody said you couldn't do it. It just seems that its a major component of why nobody is moving forward with very much.

Agreed. For "a few months (at least)" it would seem very unwise to invest very much in a proposal.