NationStates

Guys I'm really wondering what the use of the Security council is, is it gonna sanction countries that are opposing it?

Lukas Ernesto wrote:Guys I'm really wondering what the use of the Security council is, is it gonna sanction countries that are opposing it?

Security Council deals with gameplay. They commend, condemn, and liberate. Commends and condemns don't do anything. Liberates remove delegate-imposed passwords. It's a gameplay tool that (well, most of the time) defenders use to fight raiders.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Commends and condemns don't do anything.

Well, you get a badge on your nation. Some people want those.

There is a contradiction in the proposal rules:

Kryozerkia wrote:The 'No Military' rule has been completely removed. The only remaining obstacle is resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States, otherwise it's subject to remaining rules, including the committee rule.

Kryozerkia wrote:Do not use these categories to establish a WA military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The WA cannot maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Commends and condemns don't do anything.

Well, you get a badge on your nation. Some people want those.

They also protect the nation's name from being reused by anybody else in the unlikely event that its commended or condemned version ceases to exist and its name isn't already protected against reuse for any of the other reasons...

Hannasea wrote:There is a contradiction in the proposal rules:

Kryozerkia wrote:The 'No Military' rule has been completely removed. The only remaining obstacle is resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States, otherwise it's subject to remaining rules, including the committee rule.

Kryozerkia wrote:Do not use these categories to establish a WA military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The WA cannot maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.

That's because the second quote is from an outdated post.

Araraukar wrote:Considering Hitler & co. were a military regime (even before he rose to power), it leads to another hilarious opposites situation.

Sorry, wasn't it you before who was chewing people out for daring to make light of the Third Reich?

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:That's because the second quote is from an outdated post.

So maybe it should be updated. :)

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Araraukar wrote:Considering Hitler & co. were a military regime (even before he rose to power), it leads to another hilarious opposites situation.

Sorry, wasn't it you before who was chewing people out for daring to make light of the Third Reich?

Not chewing out, just pointing out how some things shouldn't be used in resolution text. Some people make jokes about other serious issues (the Jewish holocaust, 9/11, deadly catastrophes and accidents, etc.) too, which I would fight against being put into a resolution. And furthermore, just because I find an opposites comparison funny, doesn't mean I found either of the things being compared funny.

Hannasea wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:That's because the second quote is from an outdated post.

So maybe it should be updated.

I think you're allowed to TG the mod in question and ask them to change it. Just be sure to link to the right post so they'll know what you're on about.

Araraukar wrote:

Hannasea wrote:So maybe it should be updated.

I think you're allowed to TG the mod in question and ask them to change it. Just be sure to link to the right post so they'll know what you're on about.

Already raised the question, as it's in the categories section of the rules compendium. Hang on.

Thank you for raising it. :)

Updated IS category description. Thanks.

Does my country actually have to abide by the WA laws? And what are the consequences if I don't?

Kutzooi wrote:Does my country actually have to abide by the WA laws? And what are the consequences if I don't?

OOC: If you have any interest in being taken seriously by other players, yes. You can answer issues any way you want, WA membership or no, but when RPing in the GA forum, noncompliance is considered bad form. You can RP any way you want in other forums, though.

Kutzooi wrote:Does my country actually have to abide by the WA laws?

Nope.

Kutzooi wrote:And what are the consequences if I don't?

Consequences?! Hahahahahahahahaha!

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Kutzooi wrote:Does my country actually have to abide by the WA laws?

Nope.

Kutzooi wrote:And what are the consequences if I don't?

Consequences?! Hahahahahahahahaha!

Not actually a helpful explanation.

Kutzooi wrote:Does my country actually have to abide by the WA laws?

Absolutely. Compliance is mandatory.

And what are the consequences if I don't?

The gnomes will come for you while you sleep.

Not really. However, noncompliance is considered godmodding, and so you won't see that many people willing to RP with you here.

Thanks for all the answers, I'm not interested in RP for now, I just wanted the pretty badge.

Kutzooi wrote:Thanks for all the answers, I'm not interested in RP for now, I just wanted the pretty badge.

You generally need much better motivation than just the badge. Community participation is fairly important when trying to pass legislation, not the least of which is because a solid understanding of this part of the game is necessary. Badge hunting is universally looked down upon.

Mentioning the Security Council is still illegal under the newly redrafted metagaming rule, right?

Hannasea wrote:Mentioning the Security Council is still illegal under the newly redrafted metagaming rule, right?

I don't think it should be. If you're just mentioning the SC, I would consider it fine; but I'm not a mod.

My informal view is similar to CD's - you can acknowledge its existence, but legislating for it in any way that could be perceived as affecting how it could operate in-game, is a no-no.

For example, I would have considered this change in wording in WA General Fund acceptable: "1. Declares that the World Assembly General Assembly and Security Council shall be funded by donations from member states [...]" - that doesn't affect how the SC operates, and is doing nothing more than substituting "WA" for "GA + SC".

EDIT: I'd raised a request for someone else to take a look too, so we can give you an official answer soon.

If the original compromise announced by [violet] really is at end, and it's no longer the case that "[m]entioning the activities of the Security Council is metagaming", then - wow. That really is it.

Thank you for asking for a second opinion, in any case.

Second and third opinions have been sought and obtained, and my above post can now be considered an official ruling.

Sedgistan wrote:My informal view is similar to CD's - you can acknowledge its existence, but legislating for it in any way that could be perceived as affecting how it could operate in-game, is a no-no.

For example, I would have considered this change in wording in WA General Fund acceptable: "1. Declares that the World Assembly General Assembly and Security Council shall be funded by donations from member states [...]" - that doesn't affect how the SC operates, and is doing nothing more than substituting "WA" for "GA + SC".

EDIT: I'd raised a request for someone else to take a look too, so we can give you an official answer soon.

So its acceptable to mention the existence of the SC, but not acceptable to bring up commendations, condemnations, etc? That ruling seems to cover mere mentions of the organization as legal, but doesn't delve too deeply into what periphery are included.

Considering that the two are wholly separate entities that operate on two very different perspectives on the game: RP vs Gameplay, would it not be in the best interest of successfully moderating the Metagaming rule to simply make references to the Security Council expressly against the rules?