General Assembly Q&A

[Sedgistan]

We haven't been asked to consider the legality of mentioning any other aspect of the SC (proposal categories or whatever), but those are more likely to be considered metagaming.

With regards to allowing the "Security Council" itself to be mentioned, the SC exists; it's part of the WA. You can basically substitute "World Assembly" for "General Assembly and Security Council", but not much beyond that. I know Hannasea will disagree, but ultimately I see it as making very little difference and thus not really worth prohibiting.

[Separatist Peoples]

We haven't been asked to consider the legality of mentioning any other aspect of the SC (proposal categories or whatever), but those are more likely to be considered metagaming.

With regards to allowing the "Security Council" itself to be mentioned, the SC exists; it's part of the WA. You can basically substitute "World Assembly" for "General Assembly and Security Council", but not much beyond that. I know Hannasea will disagree, but ultimately I see it as making very little difference and thus not really worth prohibiting.

If nothing else, it makes moderating a lot easier to simply ban it, since its unlikely that any other references would be legal. It offers no realistic benefit, and it invites future disputes regarding rulings to leave it open, especially as new players make the mistake of confusing the two. Considering the only thing the GA and SC really share, at the end of the day, is the voting system, it seems like it would make Moderation's job simpler, and many of our lives a little less twitchy, to see the two irrevocably separated, at least from the GA's point of view. This policy would enable that more fully without running roughshod over anybody's agenda. Its not an argument about legality so much one of efficacy in policy.

[Hannasea]

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

Is it possible for a final appeal on this? (If not, that's fine; it was actually a surprise to learn there were as many as 3 active WA moderators.)

Given what SP's posted below, it's unlikely there are any other WA moderators so there probably can't be an appeal. If no appeal, then, could the following questions be answered?

1. When splitting GA and SC, game admin [violet] said that the move was intended to allow each side to ignore each other should they wish. How is this going to be possible if we are now forced to vote on resolutions containing explicit references to the Security Council? The very origin of the split was that "Commend Kandarin" (and other similar proposals) made no sense in the GA universe; nor does mentioning the Security Council's existence.

2. "[T]he SC exists; it's part of the WA". Mousebumples exists, it's part of the WA; so is Separatist Peoples and Imperial Anglorum. Can they also therefore be mentioned in resolution texts?

3. Was the change to this MetaGaming rule part of the "Rules Consortium" discussion, and a response to comment by players requesting such a change?

[Separatist Peoples]

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

Is it possible for a final appeal on this? (If not, that's fine; it was actually a surprise to learn there were as many as 3 active WA moderators.)

Wrapper, Mouse, Sedge. Mall may or may not count.

[Hannasea]

Is it possible for a final appeal on this? (If not, that's fine; it was actually a surprise to learn there were as many as 3 active WA moderators.)

Wrapper, Mouse, Sedge. Mall may or may not count.

OK, didn't realize Mouse was still active - thanks. I think Mallorea is busy with school so there may not be anyone else. :(

[Sedgistan]

Kryo was actually the third in this case. I can ask Mouse to take a look at it as well, but it wouldn't be a final appeal.

If nothing else, it makes moderating a lot easier to simply ban it, since its unlikely that any other references would be legal. It offers no realistic benefit, and it invites future disputes regarding rulings to leave it open, especially as new players make the mistake of confusing the two. Considering the only thing the GA and SC really share, at the end of the day, is the voting system, it seems like it would make Moderation's job simpler, and many of our lives a little less twitchy, to see the two irrevocably separated, at least from the GA's point of view. This policy would enable that more fully without running roughshod over anybody's agenda. Its not an argument about legality so much one of efficacy in policy.

Simplicity is definitely a good thing. However, I think the ruling itself is simple, and I dislike going for a blanket ban simply because it's easier to enforce. If people have persistent problems understanding the ruling (assuming they're trying in good faith to comply, not simply being difficult to try and get it removed ) then we can reconsider it.

Also, I think Ardchoille's ruling has been taken to mean more than it did - she said "Mentioning the activities of the Security Council is metagaming," and Violet also didn't make any ruling on this either, only expressing an understanding that some/many GAers wanted to ignore what the SC was up to.

1. When splitting GA and SC, game admin [violet] said that the move was intended to allow each side to ignore each other should they wish. How is this going to be possible if we are now forced to vote on resolutions containing explicit references to the Security Council? The very origin of the split was that "Commend Kandarin" (and other similar proposals) made no sense in the GA universe; nor does mentioning the Security Council's existence.

The activities of the SC still can't be acknowledged, only the fact that a chamber called the Security Council exists. So the problematic bits (regions, nations, gameplay actions, opinions) can't be mentioned in GA proposal text.

2. "[T]he SC exists; it's part of the WA". Mousebumples exists, it's part of the WA; so is Separatist Peoples and Imperial Anglorum. Can they also therefore be mentioned in resolution texts?

Modly view: no. Personal view if the GA were starting from scratch: yes. But the latter is irrelevant, as that's not happening. I'd have to look into the reasoning for why mentioning nations is banned, but I think it's not based on whether they exist or not - there are other reasons for that.

3. Was the change to this MetaGaming rule part of the "Rules Consortium" discussion, and a response to comment by players requesting such a change?

Nope. You asked for clarification on the question, we discussed it, and decided the previous ruling either wasn't necessary any more or wasn't quite what people had thought it was.

[Hannasea]

I can ask Mouse to take a look at it as well, but it wouldn't be a final appeal.

Well, I'd appreciate it if you did. You are someone who once said you wanted to close down the GA, and are here delivering a ruling that so completely overturns what has been the law of the game since long before I started playing.

Also, I think Ardchoille's ruling has been taken to mean more than it did - she said "Mentioning the activities of the Security Council is metagaming," and Violet also didn't make any ruling on this either, only expressing an understanding that some/many GAers wanted to ignore what the SC was up to.

If that really is what [violet] meant, then I dearly wish she'd said so at the time. The "compromise" she offered would have been a lot less favorably received knowing that it didn't actually solve the central issue.

The activities of the SC still can't be acknowledged, only the fact that a chamber called the Security Council exists. So the problematic bits (regions, nations, gameplay actions, opinions) can't be mentioned in GA proposal text.

Right, and the WA rules have never previously forced anyone to acknowledge the existence of any such entity: that's the core of the MetaGaming rule. So I suppose what I'm getting at is: why is the SC the special exception?

Because it exists in the game code? So does Violetism and Marche Noire, and so do all the "problematic bits".

I'd have to look into the reasoning for why mentioning nations is banned, but I think it's not based on whether they exist or not - there are other reasons for that.

It's because roleplay has to operate according to mutual consent. Specifically mentioning a certain nation, character, technology, roleplay incident, etc., would require all players to recognize that in-universe in order to be able to vote on it.

The previous state of the MetaGaming rules meant that of course people could recognize the Security Council in-character should they wish to, and there was also room for those who didn't.

The latter group will no longer be able to operate in the GA once this rule goes into effect.

Nope. You asked for clarification on the question, we discussed it, and decided the previous ruling either wasn't necessary any more or wasn't quite what people had thought it was.

If it's any consolation, if I'd known this was remotely on the table during the Consortium, it would have been the only thing I would have brought up. Never had a clue such a massive change was brewing.

[Sedgistan]

I can ask Mouse to take a look at it as well, but it wouldn't be a final appeal.

Well, I'd appreciate it if you did. You are someone who once said you wanted to close down the GA, and are here delivering a ruling that so completely overturns what has been the law of the game since long before I started playing.

I'd already asked Mouse to do so. As for the comment on myself - I don't recall ever saying that, and if I ever did (I can't rule it out) it wouldn't have been anything more than a tongue-in-cheek joke. I have no desire to see the GA closed down.

[Bears Armed]

1. When splitting GA and SC, game admin [violet] said that the move was intended to allow each side to ignore each other should they wish. How is this going to be possible if we are now forced to vote on resolutions containing explicit references to the Security Council? The very origin of the split was that "Commend Kandarin" (and other similar proposals) made no sense in the GA universe; nor does mentioning the Security Council's existence.

To be fair, the SC already has to vote on [occasional] resolutions that contain explicit references to the GA…

The activities of the SC still can't be acknowledged, only the fact that a chamber called the Security Council exists. So the problematic bits (regions, nations, gameplay actions, opinions) can't be mentioned in GA proposal text.

I’ve never really understood why the existence of regions [as a basic concept, without naming any of them individually in proposals] is officially considered non-canonical in terms of the GA, bearing in mind that regional Delegates have their game-given roles in approving and casting enhanced votes for/against GA proposals.

[Mousebumples]

Pinged for a semi-final appeal, although my opinion isn't that different from what's been voiced so far. While I didn't personally comment on the seekrit Mod Lair discussions on those two topics, that was largely because I agreed with what had been said and didn't have anything new to add.

The WASC name being used as a committee name seems to be directing the actual Security Council to do something, which is obviously a no-go. The obvious intention is to create a whole other committee - and just happen to give it the same name - but I don't know that the gnomes would be able to make such a distinction. Similarly, I don't know that a committee called the NationStates Issue Editors would be permitted either, as an non-WA related counterexample.

So far as "mentioning the SC," I'd consider that to be similar to "mentioning non-WA member nations." It can be done legally, but I'd generally advise against doing so, if only for simplicity. The examples given above (i.e. substituting "GA&SC" for "WA" as a generic term) are fine, but there's a risk of meta-gaming and unintentionally directing the SC to do something. It's not forbidden; however ... authors should tread carefully. (And, of course, authors should consider the possible pushback from voters that want to continue to pretend that the SC doesn't exist and who may vote against such a proposal that they'd otherwise agree with solely because of the SC-reference.)

A slightly different take, but nothing new here really.

[Sciongrad]

Simplicity is definitely a good thing. However, I think the ruling itself is simple, and I dislike going for a blanket ban simply because it's easier to enforce. If people have persistent problems understanding the ruling (assuming they're trying in good faith to comply, not simply being difficult to try and get it removed ) then we can reconsider it.

OOC: I'm sorry, can someone explain to me why this rule change is necessary? What possible benefit is there to making an exception to the metagaming rule just so players can mention the Security Council? In what context would that improve the quality of the GA? In what context would that even make sense? Is this just a rule change for the sake of changing the rules? And with all due respect to Sedgistan, when did he become a GA mod?

Also, unrelated, but equally important: if accepting non-compliance is now standard in the GA, can we get an increase in the character limit? Authors can't be expected to write resolutions and include compliance mechanisms in 3500 characters.

[Wallenburg]

Simplicity is definitely a good thing. However, I think the ruling itself is simple, and I dislike going for a blanket ban simply because it's easier to enforce. If people have persistent problems understanding the ruling (assuming they're trying in good faith to comply, not simply being difficult to try and get it removed ) then we can reconsider it.

OOC: I'm sorry, can someone explain to me why this rule change is necessary? What possible benefit is there to making an exception to the metagaming rule just so players can mention the Security Council? In what context would that improve the quality of the GA? In what context would that even make sense? Is this just a rule change for the sake of changing the rules? And with all due respect to Sedgistan, when did he become a GA mod?

This is neither an exception to the metagaming rule, nor a change of the rules. The metagaming rule as currently written absolutely permits acknowledgement of the Security Council.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I'm sorry, can someone explain to me why this rule change is necessary? What possible benefit is there to making an exception to the metagaming rule just so players can mention the Security Council? In what context would that improve the quality of the GA? In what context would that even make sense? Is this just a rule change for the sake of changing the rules? And with all due respect to Sedgistan, when did he become a GA mod?

This is neither an exception to the metagaming rule, nor a change of the rules. The metagaming rule as currently written absolutely permits acknowledgement of the Security Council.

Yes, it is, because mentioning any other aspect of the game is still illegal. The Security Council, which is a separate part of the game, would typically fall under the metagaming rule. Secondarily, for many years, mentioning the SC was a violation of the metagaming rule. Ardchoille ruled so. Frankly, I don't care about the SC and I can't see how this ruling does anything at all except allow authors to use a new opening phrase for the proposals, but this is a departure from the previous understanding of how the Security Council existed in the GA meta game.

[Wallenburg]

This is neither an exception to the metagaming rule, nor a change of the rules. The metagaming rule as currently written absolutely permits acknowledgement of the Security Council.

Yes, it is, because mentioning any other aspect of the game is still illegal. The Security Council, which is a separate part of the game, would typically fall under the metagaming rule. Secondarily, for many years, mentioning the SC was a violation of the metagaming rule. Ardchoille ruled so. Frankly, I don't care about the SC and I can't see how this ruling does anything at all except allow authors to use a new opening phrase for the proposals, but this is a departure from the previous understanding of how the Security Council existed in the GA meta game.

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.

Please, point me to where this says mentioning the Security Council is illegal.

[Hannasea]

Please, point me to where this says mentioning the Security Council is illegal.

Can you point me to where in that rule mentioning individual nations in a resolution text is illegal?

[Sciongrad]

Yes, it is, because mentioning any other aspect of the game is still illegal. The Security Council, which is a separate part of the game, would typically fall under the metagaming rule. Secondarily, for many years, mentioning the SC was a violation of the metagaming rule. Ardchoille ruled so. Frankly, I don't care about the SC and I can't see how this ruling does anything at all except allow authors to use a new opening phrase for the proposals, but this is a departure from the previous understanding of how the Security Council existed in the GA meta game.

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.

Please, point me to where this says mentioning the Security Council is illegal.

You disregarded the ruling that explicitly demonstrates my point. Whether the rule explicitly states it is irrelevant, because the GA moderators treated mentioning the Security Council as a metagaming violation until Sedge made that ruling just a couple of days ago.

[Wallenburg]

Please, point me to where this says mentioning the Security Council is illegal.

You disregarded the ruling that explicitly demonstrates my point.

Was that ruling not overturned just now? I thought modly opinions were repeatedly telling us that it is legal.

[Wallenburg]

Please, point me to where this says mentioning the Security Council is illegal.

Can you point me to where in that rule mentioning individual nations in a resolution text is illegal?

I never said it was.

[Hannasea]

Can you point me to where in that rule mentioning individual nations in a resolution text is illegal?

I never said it was.

But the moderators not only have always said it is illegal - but have reaffirmed that just now.

So it must be the case that there is more to the way they interpret "Metagaming" than the bald text of that rule.

[Wallenburg]

I never said it was.

But the moderators not only have always said it is illegal - but have reaffirmed that just now.

So it must be the case that there is more to the way they interpret "Metagaming" than the bald text of that rule.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Where did a mod say that?

[Hannasea]

2. "[T]he SC exists; it's part of the WA". Mousebumples exists, it's part of the WA; so is Separatist Peoples and Imperial Anglorum. Can they also therefore be mentioned in resolution texts?

Modly view: no. Personal view if the GA were starting from scratch: yes. But the latter is irrelevant, as that's not happening. I'd have to look into the reasoning for why mentioning nations is banned, but I think it's not based on whether they exist or not - there are other reasons for that.

[Wallenburg]

Modly view: no. Personal view if the GA were starting from scratch: yes. But the latter is irrelevant, as that's not happening. I'd have to look into the reasoning for why mentioning nations is banned, but I think it's not based on whether they exist or not - there are other reasons for that.

That's fucked up. We can put them in as co-authors, but we can't mention them?

[Hannasea]

That has always* been the case. I don't see what has happened to bring it into question.

[Tinfect]

That's fucked up. We can put them in as co-authors, but we can't mention them?

OOC:
Well, one is properly crediting a co-author, the other is Branding.

[Wallenburg]

That's fucked up. We can put them in as co-authors, but we can't mention them?

OOC:
Well, one is properly crediting a co-author, the other is Branding.

Actually, it isn't. I checked the branding rule for that specific reason, and it only applies to the proposal's author.