World Assembly Councils

[Quintessence of Dust]

as the esteemed Kumquat says, the disrespect for IC/OOC conventions makes it nigh on impossible for RP-oriented nations to retain WA status.

I feel like I still don't understand this. The WA is, of course, rooted in gameplay in its implementation. As a participant in the legislative process, you know that, for example, the people most influential on whether a resolution passes or fails are the Delegates of large regions. In a close vote, at least in theory, a person could cause a resolution to fail by unseating a Delegate and swinging the region's votes.

Now I get that the now-GA has more or less separated itself from this: that when you're IC here, you're not your nation but a representative of your nation, and you ignore the gameplay world. What confuses me is a statement like the above, that RP nations can no longer function because there's a new part of the WA that acknowledges the existence of regions. Hasn't that always been the case? Not in your legislative face, to be sure, but there? I thought that GA play has always required mental partitioning, the decision to draw a world inside a particular scope, and ignore what's outside of it.

This is true, but I think you're addressing a complaint I haven't really made. The inescapable game mechanic aspects have usually been ok in roleplay terms. How can Gruenberg move from Malibu Islands to Antarctic Oasis or Quintessence of Dust from the IDU to Wysteria? Well, they didn't: they just switched their "political affiliation". (For example, this could be like when Tunisia applied for EU membership, despite not being in Europe - or maybe it was Morocco? I know Morocco was in the Eurovision Song Contest, with a song including the lyrics "we are all different colours but on the inside we are all red"!)

Ahem. Similarly, in AO we tend to assume the "delegate" is a title bestowed on a nation for services to the region, andRP contests to "elect" them. The Compliance Commission? The dreaded UN/WA Gnomes. It's even possible to RP the mechanical effects: for example, the recession RPs that followed both The 40 Hour Workweek and Promotion of Solar Panels.

Any "mental partitioning" required for these features is par for the course in a game of this nature - not, after all, designed with roleplaying in mind at first, from what I've read. What is beyond the pale, is voting on "the player behind Kandarin". (I feel it's worth pointing out, given this example is used so frequently, that no one bears any ill will to the player behind Kandarin - they're just a convenient example, like invisible pink unicorns or carrots.)

These are the people we "post as" in WA activity. How can they possibly have an opinion on a player? I'm not talking about the MetaGaming rule as applied to proposals, obviously that's out of the window. But forum posting in general is governed by the same conventions. The One Stop Rules Shop even says so! (It still does, by the way.) Shoehorning the conceit of a region, a delegate, a proposal category, automatic compliance, whatever, into a roleplay is possible. I fail to see, though, how our ambassadors, delegates, representatives, foreign secretaries, etc., can be expected to have opinions on "the player".

So then the answer is, presumably, that the SC business be conducted out-of-character. But then, I was elected delegate of my region based on my in-character activity. I'm not qualified to vote on whether Kandarin is nice and Macedon nasty, and I'm certainly not more qualified than others in my region. But we can't split up delegate duties. What I've been doing is hard ignoring SC activity. But the consequence of this, however gratifying for the preservation of my RP universe, is the complete withdrawal of Wysteria, one of the more populous UCRs, from a whole part of the game system. Not an ideal solution!

This not to mention that some players actually are trying to post in-character in the SC forum - meaning my out-of-character comments about an out-of-character resolution are met with an in-character reply that assumes my comments were in-character, but in which the character makes reference to out-of-character and in-character actions. Typing this reminded me of a teatowel we had in our kitchen that my English grandfather gave to my Austrian grandmother to explain his greatest passion in life, cricket, to an outsider. It went something like:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.

Each man that's in the side that's in, goes out, and when he's out, he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.

When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.

Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When both sides have been in and out including the not-outs, that's the end of the game.

Howzat?

Look, I know all this must come across as very obsessive. It's only a game, my characters don't really exist, it doesn't really matter. But given the amount of effort we've put into developing the game, it seems a shame to see it all end just at the time when the new forum had prompted quite an upsurge in WA activity.

Boy, not to dig up history, but the way I heard it, the push for that came out of this community. The idea didn't come from above.

It did!? Uh, that was the one April Fool's joke that had us rolling in the aisles - until we realized it was real. I don't see any of us could possibly have suggested it, given the first we saw of it was the resolution we had before us to vote on. You don't have a link or some details by chance, do you? Academic though it now is, it'd be interesting, because I honestly had no idea any WA players had suggested that.

I do have other issues: the statements by the gamestaff that WA play is now redundant, for example, are more than a little troubling,

QoD, you're being mischievous. You're taking a post I made before I understood the nature of this community, and which I've subsequently recanted and apologized for, and spinning it into a conspiracy.

Ok, I apologise. I hadn't realized you'd apologised. (Hmm, would an Australian use a 'z'? The mystery deepens...)

Nonetheless, it was a comment you made, and it wasn't in isolation. On separate occasions, you said we had "discussed pretty much every issue there is", that our game had "stagnated", and that it needed "new life" breathed into it. So I guess my question is: based on what? I'm really interested, because I do accept that some of us have been a little dissatisfied with WA play lately: the UN/WA break didn't really cause an upsurge in activity, in truth. But when we suggested some changes in Unibot's sticky, you said that all these would do is improve the game as it's currently being played, and that you were looking for something more fundamental.

...why? I'm not taking you to task for it, I'm just interested. If this is about Influence and France/Belgium, then six and a half years into the game is a little late to change horses and decide the UN/WA should deal with OOC gameplay factors. If this is about the political tenor of the WA, or some particular resolutions, then maybe that can be corrected without Commendations. If it's about something else, then could you explain what? While I know the mods occasionally get irritated by the somewhat rules-intensive style of WA play, which takes up far more mod time than any other group in terms of modcentre activity per size of player group, I'd never realized until now that there was this negative attitude to WA play, and given it's a game I enjoy I'd be anxious to do what we could to overcome it.

As stated, I want to ensure that GA legislation is affected as little as possible by the SC. I've outlined my commitment to that several times, including in this thread. If we need different quorum figures, different voting times, whatever, we can do that.

But not, I assume, separating the SC and WA entirely? So long as they share the same voting and queue mechanics, there will always be this overlap.

[Unibot]

Personally at the moment, I see four fundemental problems with the SC

• The SC doesn't recognize GA's legislation, even though they are both in the WA. Thats totally wrong.
• The current proposal up-to-vote, leaves so much to the imagination that it is a skeleton of a commendation that essentially suggests "He's a nice guy - so give him a badge!" For the future, I think are unfounded rules for the WASC should include clauses to discourage that. As I can't just make a Enivironmental Proposal in the GA and pass it with the proposal merely creating an legal body, and doing nothing. The same sort of 'quality' should be expected in SA proposals.
• The SC runs with no legislation to control it. I've made arguments that the WASC is an executive/judicial body which runs from no legislation (except the GA), but instead looks at each particular case and judges with their moralities on the each specific situation as their guidance not law. I suppose thats not too different than the real UN SC. But thats a weak argument, they need a Bookkeeping category, or something similar so they can propose some laws.
• Then there is a fourth problem - In Character / Out of Character -ness. I personally prefer that players took a laissez-faire approach to such a thing, instead of claiming that what their saying doesn't exist - merely 'convert' their OCC-ness into an IC statement using your own blessed creativity...
  
  Like,
  
  I think we should remove invisible passwords on regions all together = Ambassador, I believe we should be removing all of these militarized borders in particular regions, especially the ones that have been stopping the liberation of regions under the rein of dictators, and terrorists.
  
  Of course this would only apply to discussion in the SC discussion threads that aren't 'devoutly' OOC statements and not just government opinions expressed out-of-character.
  
  And, I mean, It's hard to do when proposals are coming to the floor, talking about 'the player behind @@NATION@@'. I'd just ignore those clauses politely or jokingly refer to that as zealous theocratical ramblings in WA proposals .

[Urgench]

[*] The SC runs with no legislation to control it. I've made arguments that the WASC is an executive/judicial body which runs from no legislation (except the GA), but instead looks at each particular case and judges with their moralities on the each specific situation as their guidance not law. I suppose thats not too different than the real UN SC. But thats a weak argument, they need a Bookkeeping category, or something similar so they can propose some laws.

Actually the real world SC works fundamentally on the basis of international law, hence the USA and UK's inability to get a second resolution passed just before the second Iraq war. The members of that security council were not convinced of a legal argument to compel the UN to take action against Iraq despite all of the US and UK's blandishments, real politiking and naked bribery.

Added to this that the Security Council of the UN actually works to enforce numerous of the UN's treaty obligations and conventions and that it is fundamentally governed by the various treaties which founded it, I think it's fair to say that any notion that the real world UN Security Council just makes things up as it goes along is pretty spurious.

I do however have a lot of sympathy with the other tings your saying, especially in regard to the SC needing to respect and remain in compliance with already existing WA law and any future WA law regardless of its origin.

[Quintessence of Dust]

The SC doesn't recognize GA's legislation, even though they are both in the WA. Thats totally wrong.

No, it's not, since those laws were written to apply to in-character activities and the SC is being conducted in an out-of-character format. Your argument is akin to shock that the General Forum is not governed by the Freedom of Expression resolution.

The current proposal up-to-vote, leaves so much to the imagination that it is a skeleton of a commendation that essentially suggests "He's a nice guy - so give him a badge!" For the future, I think are unfounded rules for the WASC should include clauses to discourage that. As I can't just make a Enivironmental Proposal in the GA and pass it with the proposal merely creating an legal body, and doing nothing. The same sort of 'quality' should be expected in SA proposals.

The deficient rhetoric of a single proposal is hardly a "fundemental" [sic] problem. Furthermore, the WA proposal rules do not "discourage": they allow or prohibit. To discourage something is not to govern it.

The SC runs with no legislation to control it. I've made arguments that the WASC is an executive/judicial body which runs from no legislation (except the GA), but instead looks at each particular case and judges with their moralities on the each specific situation as their guidance not law. I suppose thats not too different than the real UN SC. But thats a weak argument, they need a Bookkeeping category, or something similar so they can propose some laws.

The WA also runs with no legislation to control it. This has never been a problem, and something like Rights & Duties merely - by the admission of its own (very sadly absent) author - restates mechanical necessities.

Then there is a fourth problem - In Character / Out of Character -ness. I personally prefer that players took a laissez-faire approach to such a thing, instead of claiming that what their saying doesn't exist - merely 'convert' their OCC-ness into an IC statement using your own blessed creativity...

Given you are the biggest contributor to this problem I feel it is a little rich for you to be righteously lecturing the rest of us on how we should play according to your own "personal prefer[ence]". Furthermore, the game staff do not require IIers, NSers, sports RPers, nation builders, or for that matter Generalites, to alter their style of play to suit another group's conventions; I fail to see why we should we accorded such unique pariah status in what has evolved as a very free-form roleplaying game.

Of course this would only apply to discussion in the SC discussion threads that aren't 'devoutly' OOC statements and not just government opinions expressed out-of-character.

Given my objection is to the uncertain nature of discussions in that forum, admitting that it will combine both IC and OOC statements only seems to be admitting the problem, not tackling it.

And, I mean, It's hard to do when proposals are coming to the floor, talking about 'the player behind @@NATION@@'. I'd just ignore those clauses politely or jokingly refer to that as zealous theocratical ramblings in WA proposals.

This makes no sense, making it fortunate that you are not - yet - empowered to instruct people on how they are to roleplay.

[Urgench]

The WA also runs with no legislation to control it. This has never been a problem, and something like Rights & Duties merely - by the admission of its own (very sadly absent) author - restates mechanical necessities.

Except that the WA's actions are in fact ruled by the laws it has so far made, and each new piece of legislation is held up to legal scrutiny to insure that it is in compliance with all other WA laws no ?

[Unibot]

Actually the real world SC works fundamentally on the basis of international law, hence the USA and UK's inability to get a second resolution passed just before the second Iraq war. The members of that security council were not convinced of a legal argument to compel the UN to take action against Iraq despite all of the US and UK's blandishments, real politiking and naked bribery.

Added to this that the Security Council of the UN actually works to enforce numerous of the UN's treaty obligations and conventions and that it is fundamentally governed by the various treaties which founded it, I think it's fair to say that any notion that the real world UN Security Council just makes things up as it goes along is pretty spurious.

I do however have a lot of sympathy with the other tings your saying, especially in regard to the SC needing to respect and remain in compliance with already existing WA law and any future WA law regardless of its origin.

Fair Enough.

No, it's not, since those laws were written to apply to in-character activities and the SC is being conducted in an out-of-character format. Your argument is akin to shock that the General Forum is not governed by the Freedom of Expression resolution.

The General Forum is not in the WA.

This makes no sense, making it fortunate that you are not - yet - empowered to instruct people on how they are to roleplay.

What makes no sense? To simply ignore a phrase that has no IC importance what-so-ever?
And I'm not empowered to tell anyone how to play, that ideology was extended to my "Laissez-Faire" approach to dealing with Government Positions being stated OOC. I can however, make suggestions.

[Erastide]

First, this has been a pretty lovely discussion recently, I've enjoyed watching it emerge guys.

So, I wanted to go through the list of current resolutions and say (as a gameplayer and one who is clueless where the GA is concerned) where there are problems or could be problems.

#2:
Article 5. Definition of war. Not something that gameplayers ascribe to. War happens between regions. Individual nations have no real power when it comes to delegacy, you have to band together.
Article 10. WA remains neutral to international strife. The SC is looking to take an active part in strife.
#14 and a few more later.
They say individual nations, but it comes down to war not being between 2 nations anymore. But could also not be a real problem. The issue is that the GA deals with individual nations and what goes on within those nations. The SC is poised to deal both with individual nations and alliances (regions) of nations. But when it deals with an individual nation, it won't be affecting the rights and freedoms of citizens within that nation, it will affect how the nation can act as a whole.

Honestly, I'd be happy with no SC resolutions (aside from C&C) that deal with individuals. For one thing I think it'd be a waste to have the whole WA vote on doing some action to a single nation when that player could then just use a puppet instead of the nation that was sanctioned or whatever. Second, it would make integration with the GA side harder.

Can you come to agreement where the SC is (sorry for word choice here) regulating alliances between nations and not individuals within a nation?

[Urgench]

First, this has been a pretty lovely discussion recently, I've enjoyed watching it emerge guys.

So, I wanted to go through the list of current resolutions and say (as a gameplayer and one who is clueless where the GA is concerned) where there are problems or could be problems.

#2:
Article 5. Definition of war. Not something that gameplayers ascribe to. War happens between regions. Individual nations have no real power when it comes to delegacy, you have to band together.
Article 10. WA remains neutral to international strife. The SC is looking to take an active part in strife.
#14 and a few more later.
They say individual nations, but it comes down to war not being between 2 nations anymore. But could also not be a real problem. The issue is that the GA deals with individual nations and what goes on within those nations. The SC is poised to deal both with individual nations and alliances (regions) of nations. But when it deals with an individual nation, it won't be affecting the rights and freedoms of citizens within that nation, it will affect how the nation can act as a whole.

Honestly, I'd be happy with no SC resolutions (aside from C&C) that deal with individuals. For one thing I think it'd be a waste to have the whole WA vote on doing some action to a single nation when that player could then just use a puppet instead of the nation that was sanctioned or whatever. Second, it would make integration with the GA side harder.

Can you come to agreement where the SC is (sorry for word choice here) regulating alliances between nations and not individuals within a nation?

I don't have any objection to the SC using its powers on a regional scale and not seeking to effect specific nations, I'd prefer it in that case that only Delegates were involved in it but that's a minor quibble, and I would prefer that SC C&Cs only deal with regions too.

I do have a big problem with the idea that the WA allowing the SC "to take an active part in strife". The only role that could possibly make sense would be the SC ending strife and bringing about the end of wars. The WA can't possibly be working in the interests of all of its members if its actively involved in strife and it would be immoral in character and deeply detrimental to the authority of the WA out of character. The WA should be an honest broker of peace and remain impartial at all times.

[Unibot]

Article 5. Definition of war. Not something that gameplayers ascribe to. War happens between regions. Individual nations have no real power when it comes to delegacy, you have to band together.

Seems thats already covered, right? ....

War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates.

Article 10. WA remains neutral to international strife. The SC is looking to take an active part in strife.

Yep, that is a problem ...

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

As for not regulating Citizens as Individuals in the SC, that seems like a good division line between the GA and the SC.

[Quintessence of Dust]

The General Forum is not in the WA.

Nor is the SC in any meaningful sense; that it shares membership is but a mechanical burp. Those active in the SC have openly admitted they don't care about WA activity: Naivetry, for example, sniffing that she'd "rather concern [herself] with things that actually happen".

What makes no sense? To simply ignore a phrase that has no IC importance what-so-ever?

Yes, this makes no sense. The contradiction embodied in it was, for the record, the reason that Frisbeeteria dropped the reference to "IGNORE cannons" in the redraft of Rights & Duties.

And I'm not empowered to tell anyone how to play, that ideology was extended to my "Laissez-Faire" approach to dealing with Government Positions being stated OOC.

Could you rephrase it, as I have no earthly idea what it means in English.

[Unibot]

Could you rephrase it, as I have no earthly idea what it means in English.

Um you mean that particular sentence ...

and I'm not empowered to tell anyone how to play, that ideology was extended to my "Laissez-Faire" approach to dealing with Government Positions being stated OOC.

I agreeded with you by saying I'm not entitled to tell anyone else how to play. I also stated, that I brought that school of thought, 'can't tell anyone else how to play', and applied it to the WASC, by suggesting that we should all just show patience, and tolerance for each others' way of stating our government's position on proposals, and 'convert' statements that cannot be replied to by a IC character or OOC player, into something that could be. This 'conversion' would just be something done politely in the mind of the player, and would require some creativity, no doubt.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why is it so hard to simply not acknowledge that "Commend Kandarin" is at vote, when you're in character? This is what I don't understand. Given that we don't acknowledge things like endorsements or anything else regarding the technical aspects of the game, it should be rather easy to not acknowledge the existence of the Security Council or any actions that it takes. If it seems impossible to reconcile our IC world and their OOC world, then it would seem to me that the path of least resistance would be for both worlds to remain separate, and in complete ignorance of each other.

But, it doesn't seem like anybody is willing to do that. So, you guys are going to continue what you're doing. The thing is that what you're doing obviously isn't working. Instead of initiating a conversation about rules, you're (seemingly, because I don't read all of them) spamming each and every "At Vote" thread about your feelings on C&Cs in general, rather than the merits of the C&C at hand.

Also, Urgench, you say that the whole IC-OOC dichotomy isn't the greatest problem. I said before that I'm not really sure what you guys are actually angry about. So, what is the greatest problem? I'm not looking for any broad statement like "the SC challenges the fundamentals of the GA", but instead specific, itemized problems. Seeing as I stand in the the middle of the spectrum of this whole issue, I want to give my shot in addressing what the issues actually are.

[Urgench]

Why is it so hard to simply not acknowledge that "Commend Kandarin" is at vote, when you're in character? This is what I don't understand. Given that we don't acknowledge things like endorsements or anything else regarding the technical aspects of the game, it should be rather easy to not acknowledge the existence of the Security Council or any actions that it takes. If it seems impossible to reconcile our IC world and their OOC world, then it would seem to me that the path of least resistance would be for both worlds to remain separate, and in complete ignorance of each other.

But, it doesn't seem like anybody is willing to do that. So, you guys are going to continue what you're doing. The thing is that what you're doing obviously isn't working. Instead of initiating a conversation about rules, you're (seemingly, because I don't read all of them) spamming each and every "At Vote" thread about your feelings on C&Cs in general, rather than the merits of the C&C at hand.

Also, Urgench, you say that the whole IC-OOC dichotomy isn't the greatest problem. I said before that I'm not really sure what you guys are actually angry about. So, what is the greatest problem? I'm not looking for any broad statement like "the SC challenges the fundamentals of the GA", but instead specific, itemized problems. Seeing as I stand in the the middle of the spectrum of this whole issue, I want to give my shot in addressing what the issues actually are.

I've explained it to you more than once in this thread. It boils down to what I said to you before, I'm not a GA player, that may suit you, and it may suit you to pretend that the WA no longer exists and that in it's place are two brand new organisations with no relationship with one another that need never recognise one another's existence.

I don't find that it any way satisfactory. I'm more interested in what this new bifid WA can and should become, and as it happens I've lost count of all the practical suggestions I've offered here and in other threads started for the purpose. The fact that your seemingly rather scared of the changes and what they mean is not my fault, and I'm not going to hide my head in the sand and not try to have at least some role in the moulding of the new WA. I assure you if all WA Old Guard players took your advice you'd have found yourself in a WA you barely recognised by now.


You keep accusing me of being some kind of Luddite about the changes, in fact my contributions signify the opposite, I'm all for change, I just want to have a stake in them so that things don't happen that I really object to and all I can tell myself is "well you said and did nothing at the time so what are you moaning about?"

[Quintessence of Dust]

Why is it so hard to simply not acknowledge that "Commend Kandarin" is at vote, when you're in character?

According to Dr. Castro, what is WA Resolution #51?

[Absolvability]

edit:erase

[Glen-Rhodes]

I've explained it to you more than once in this thread. It boils down to what I said to you before, I'm not a GA player, that may suit you, and it may suit you to pretend that the WA no longer exists and that in it's place are two brand new organisations with no relationship with one another that need never recognise one another's existence.

Well, to get it out of the way, you haven't explained anything to me. You've given extremely broad complaints, which don't mean anything significant to me. So, I'm left to assume that the greatest problem is that you can't reconcile roleplaying and gameplaying. I've offered the only workable solution: roleplay and ignore what the other side is doing. You aren't going to find a way to reconcile the two, when it's clear that the big forces in the gameplaying world aren't interested in roleplaying. You can go ahead and mock my suggestion as being a proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, but you aren't going to find happiness by trying to achieve that which is unachievable.

Anyways, I don't consider myself a "GA" player. This is still very much the World Assembly, and I have and will continue to address it as such in roleplays. Dr. Bradford Castro is still the Chief Ambassador, and thus he is still the top World Assembly representative from Glen-Rhodes. He doesn't acknowledge the existence of the Security Council, and neither does any other ambassadors or staffers he talks to, because the Security Council doesn't exist in this little roleplayed world. To everybody that is still playing, this is the solution to the problem; while you guys have been out doing whatever it is that you're doing, we quickly and harmlessly found that the best and easiest way to deal with the changes is to continue doing what we were doing before.

This doesn't mean that I'm complacent. Nor does it mean that I'm not going to participate in discussions about changes. What I've been trying to get across to you is that I've found a way to continue playing this game, and participate in whatever discussions are taking place elsewhere. When you sent me a telegram explaining why you decided to go on hiatus, I understood, and I even thought of doing so myself. But, now that the fire has died down, I don't understand what good can possibly come out of your choice. I'm in no place to say what works and what doesn't work, nor to tell you what you should and shouldn't be doing. All I know is that the stagnancy you were worried about exists today, and the Security Council has nothing to do with it.

But, whatever. I'm going to continue on ignoring the Security Council and their resolutions while I'm in character. I'm going to do so, because it's the only way that I can still be a part of the game that's become part of a daily routine. I would love to sit in protest, but that would mean not having any fun. If you're able to achieve your reconciliation goal, then I'll go ahead and join you. For now, though, I've found a perfectly suitable way for Dr. Bradford Castro to exist. The fact that he can't explain why we jumped from WAR#50 to #53 isn't a big enough deterrent for me to give up something that I enjoy. To reiterate: I'm fully capable of having fun and expressing my concerns at the same time.

[[violet]]

The problem arises when the SC and GA do not seem to speak from the same hymn book. Right now even the way the SC is being expected to operate is completely at variance with the way the GA operates, it's being used to impose totally subjective and personal opinions of an arbitrary nature in to the WA's legislative record. GPers and others seem totally unconcerned that the actions of the SC should be responsible and justifiable, that all WA players should be able to point to some specific legal cause for their congratulations or chastisement.

Well, this is where it's gotten sticky. Originally, I thought C&Cs could slot into the WA's usual activities, being subject to all the same rules. I was then educated by the WA Old Guard (to use that term) on how this couldn't be the case, that many (most?) wanted nothing to do with C&Cs, but rather to be left to continue doing what they'd been doing. In response to this, I sectioned off C&Cs into the Security Council. This struck me as a pretty good solution, in that it allowed the GA and SC to operate in different worlds, and members of one to ignore the other altogether, if they so wished.

Now, being separate, it's fair that the SC be allowed to evolve into whatever it likes, as did the NSUN. That is, GA members can choose to have nothing to do with the SC, and I will work to support that, but it means the SC operates outside of the GA world and its rules.

If it's both, we have obvious issues. And I think that's the source of some tension here: people feeling it's separate-but-not-really. That's a problem for the GA, as eloquently described in the posts above. It's a problem for the SC, which feels it's being simultaneously rejected and dictated to by the WA Old Guard.

Perhaps we need to define greater clarity in the three spheres: the GA, the SC, and the WA, which encompasses them both. At the moment, there's confusion over whether WA rules & conventions apply to both the GA and the SC, or just the former. I suspect this is partly because there was no precise name for the world this community has long operated within: it has used the term "WA" to refer to just the non-gameplay part of that organization, never intending to actually influence gameplay. Now we have terms for the gameplay and non-gameplay sides, and some WA conventions can probably be revisited to determine whether they in truth belong to the WA or the GA.

I fear the above might sound like I'm advocating a shrinking of your world, but I'm actually talking about identifying the lines of demarcation that have always been there. If Dr. Castro can't exist in a world that acknowledges the existence of Macedon, for example, then Dr. Castro's world is a subset of the actual World Assembly, because the actual World Assembly includes the region of Macdeon. There's always going to be trouble if the edges of that world are not defined.

Then we add to this that no one who isn't a WA old guard player seems remotely interested in holding the SC's actions to be in compliance with the WA's already existing laws and we arrive at a highly invidious situation for the GA.

I think it's difficult for gameplay/SC players to reconcile the messages that (a) the GA rejects the SC, and (b) the SC should follow existing GA rules. It's like being told how to play by someone who has no intention of joining in.

I think everyone would welcome GA members who would like to actively participate in the SC. You guys are clearly the most qualified to help craft its starter ruleset, and, if we pursue the above, the joint WA rules that should apply to both the GA and the SC. But this needs to come from a genuine interest in SC play, not an attempt to suck it back into a subset of the GA.

What we have then is an SC with a large and powerful constituency, which has a completely different modus operandi, which behaves in a way which is completely different to the GA, which does not hold its actions to the same standard, and which effectively ignores the laws of the GA.

What part of this picture tends to suggest that the SC will not rapidly make the GA the anachronism many GPers seem to wish it was now ?

I still don't quite understand that. You can flip "GA" and "SC" around in the above quote and it makes just as much sense.

[[violet]]

Nonetheless, it was a comment you made, and it wasn't in isolation. On separate occasions, you said we had "discussed pretty much every issue there is", that our game had "stagnated", and that it needed "new life" breathed into it. So I guess my question is: based on what?

I had heard around the time of the UN->WA transition that the UN had stagnated under the weight of its history, and people here felt there was no new legislation left to pass. This is why we had the reboot--as, on my understanding, something that would revitalize this community, on its request. That was still my impression when I first started talking about C&Cs: that the WA was running out of things to do, and would like something new. It wasn't a first-hand observation; I (obviously) haven't spent much time here previously.

But when we suggested some changes in Unibot's sticky, you said that all these would do is improve the game as it's currently being played, and that you were looking for something more fundamental.

I'm not sure which changes/posts you are referring to here.

As stated, I want to ensure that GA legislation is affected as little as possible by the SC. I've outlined my commitment to that several times, including in this thread. If we need different quorum figures, different voting times, whatever, we can do that.

But not, I assume, separating the SC and WA entirely? So long as they share the same voting and queue mechanics, there will always be this overlap.

It was proposed that the SC be an entirely separate organization to the WA, but there is no method I've seen that (a) has any practical difference to what we have now, and (b) isn't ridiculous. I'm against, for example, having a World Assembly whose members are determined via gameplay (endorsements, delegates, regional power plays) voting on non-gameplay legislation, while a new organization whose members are determined by some other non-gameplay method votes on gameplay. Particularly when, at the end of the day, this still means we have a page just like now, where you can list legislation from one organization or the other.

[[violet]]

What is beyond the pale, is voting on "the player behind Kandarin". ... These are the people we "post as" in WA activity. How can they possibly have an opinion on a player?

This is related to that Metagaming rule that first tripped me up. As I now understand it, there are three relevant modes:

1. Game-OOC: "NationStates is a great game", "Kandarin was very helpful to me on an off-site forum."
2. Gameplay-IC: "We oppose the region of Macedon," "Endorse Kandarin!"
3. GA-IC: "Ambassador Jenner, we just added that to the bill."

I sure didn't appreciate the difference between #2 and #3 until recently, and most likely many gameplay players still don't. To them, #1 is OOC, and #2 and #3 are both IC. But this community uses "IC" to refer exclusively to #3, and calls #1 and #2 OOC. I mention this just to point out that to an outsider, that's confusing. It can seem like people are arguing for one thing when they're actually not.

The WA resolution currently at vote is Type #1: Game-OOC. I think that presents difficulties not just for this community, but several other, smaller RP regions & communities. I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up with a ruleset banning Game-OOC from SC proposals, while accepting Gameplay-IC. But to reach that point, we need an SC community to decide to do it.

[Unibot]

This is related to that Metagaming rule that first tripped me up. As I now understand it, there are three relevant modes:

Game-OOC: "NationStates is a great game", "Kandarin was very helpful to me on an off-site forum."
Gameplay-IC: "We oppose the region of Macedon," "Endorse Kandarin!"
GA-IC: "Ambassador Jenner, we just added that to the bill."

I sure didn't appreciate the difference between #2 and #3 until recently, and most likely many gameplay players still don't. To them, #1 is OOC, and #2 and #3 are both IC. But this community uses "IC" to refer exclusively to #3, and calls #1 and #2 OOC. I mention this just to point out that to an outsider, that's confusing. It can seem like people are arguing for one thing when they're actually not.

The WA resolution currently at vote is Type #1: Game-OOC. I think that presents difficulties not just for this community, but several other, smaller RP regions & communities. I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up with a ruleset banning Game-OOC from SC proposals, while accepting Gameplay-IC. But to reach that point, we need an SC community to decide to do it.

As a suggestion, before I leave for Paris (w00t!)...

Prohibit #1 from proposals
Enforce #2 in proposals
Encourage #3 in discussion-on-proposals (Use an ambassador to argue your points, however unlike the GA - the ambassador should be aware of the existence of Passwords, and such to make arguing proposals written in a #2 state of mind easy. NationStates doesn't function like the real world, so why pretend like it does ? I'd imagine some players might have a hard time accepting a compromise like this, but I wouldn't mind my RP character agknowledging devices for Region's security like Passwords - its bizarre when you think about in a RP frame of mind. But I'd be fine with it. In other words, use a roleplayed ambassador for a #2 world )

As Erastide pointed out, proposals should be written on an international level, and not dealing with individuals.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

This is related to that Metagaming rule that first tripped me up. As I now understand it, there are three relevant modes:

Game-OOC: "NationStates is a great game", "Kandarin was very helpful to me on an off-site forum."
Gameplay-IC: "We oppose the region of Macedon," "Endorse Kandarin!"
GA-IC: "Ambassador Jenner, we just added that to the bill."

I sure didn't appreciate the difference between #2 and #3 until recently, and most likely many gameplay players still don't. To them, #1 is OOC, and #2 and #3 are both IC. But this community uses "IC" to refer exclusively to #3, and calls #1 and #2 OOC. I mention this just to point out that to an outsider, that's confusing. It can seem like people are arguing for one thing when they're actually not.

The WA resolution currently at vote is Type #1: Game-OOC. I think that presents difficulties not just for this community, but several other, smaller RP regions & communities. I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up with a ruleset banning Game-OOC from SC proposals, while accepting Gameplay-IC. But to reach that point, we need an SC community to decide to do it.

As a suggestion, before I leave for Paris (w00t!)...

Prohibit #1 from proposals
Enforce #2 in proposals
Encourage #3 in discussion-on-proposals (Use an ambassador to argue your points, however unlike the GA - the ambassador should be aware of the existence of Passwords, and such to make arguing proposals written in a #2 state of mind easy. NationStates doesn't function like the real world, so why pretend like it does ? I'd imagine some players might have a hard time accepting a compromise like this, but I wouldn't mind my RP character agknowledging devices for Region's security like Passwords - its bizarre when you think about in a RP frame of mind. But I'd be fine with it. In other words, use a roleplayed ambassador for a #2 world )

As Erastide pointed out, proposals should be written on an international level, and not dealing with individuals.

I agree, noting that I almost and nearly always play in character. Recommends that the rules should be put into force for all future SC proposals after the next GA vote.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think it's difficult for gameplay/SC players to reconcile the messages that (a) the GA rejects the SC, and (b) the SC should follow existing GA rules. It's like being told how to play by someone who has no intention of joining in.

If I'm guilty of sending out a message that the SC/Gameplayers are not welcome in my tree-house, then I apologize. I don't oppose the SC's existence, or the existence of C&Cs, as strongly as I did when the two were first released. If somebody strays upon this post, they should know that I'm only ignoring the SC because it's the only immediately satisfying way to reconcile the two wildly different worlds.

But, I'm doubtful that I could go and comfortably post as Dr. Bradford Castro in the SC, without significantly changing my expectations of how that debate is going to play out -- am I going to have to respond out-of-character most of the time? are other players going to realize that I'm speaking through a character, if I seem to be getting hot-headed? are other players going to bother to reply in-character, or am I going to get a poorly-written, one-line response? I'm not so much a Luddite, as I am a lazy WA regular that doesn't really want to deal with this new aspect of the game. I'd rather just ignore it and let Urgench work all of that stuff out, personally. But, that's just the stance I have on playing this game, not on discussing changes, which is why I don't want to be seen as opposed entirely to whatever newfangled additions might be planned.

[Absolvability]

The WA resolution currently at vote is Type #1: Game-OOC. I think that presents difficulties not just for this community, but several other, smaller RP regions & communities. I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up with a ruleset banning Game-OOC from SC proposals, while accepting Gameplay-IC. But to reach that point, we need an SC community to decide to do it.

I agree with this approach more than the total enforcement of "Gameplay-IC."

It seems to me that the trouble of carrying ideas with us is exclusive to the path upwards from 3 to 1. For obvious, RP-necessitated-detachment issues. Conversely, we have no mental problem on the reverse path.

[Naivetry]

This is related to that Metagaming rule that first tripped me up. As I now understand it, there are three relevant modes:

Game-OOC: "NationStates is a great game", "Kandarin was very helpful to me on an off-site forum."
Gameplay-IC: "We oppose the region of Macedon," "Endorse Kandarin!"
GA-IC: "Ambassador Jenner, we just added that to the bill."

I sure didn't appreciate the difference between #2 and #3 until recently, and most likely many gameplay players still don't. To them, #1 is OOC, and #2 and #3 are both IC. But this community uses "IC" to refer exclusively to #3, and calls #1 and #2 OOC. I mention this just to point out that to an outsider, that's confusing. It can seem like people are arguing for one thing when they're actually not.

The WA resolution currently at vote is Type #1: Game-OOC. I think that presents difficulties not just for this community, but several other, smaller RP regions & communities. I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up with a ruleset banning Game-OOC from SC proposals, while accepting Gameplay-IC. But to reach that point, we need an SC community to decide to do it.

As a suggestion, before I leave for Paris (w00t!)...

Prohibit #1 from proposals
Enforce #2 in proposals
Encourage #3 in discussion-on-proposals (Use an ambassador to argue your points, however unlike the GA - the ambassador should be aware of the existence of Passwords, and such to make arguing proposals written in a #2 state of mind easy. NationStates doesn't function like the real world, so why pretend like it does ? I'd imagine some players might have a hard time accepting a compromise like this, but I wouldn't mind my RP character agknowledging devices for Region's security like Passwords - its bizarre when you think about in a RP frame of mind. But I'd be fine with it. In other words, use a roleplayed ambassador for a #2 world )

As Erastide pointed out, proposals should be written on an international level, and not dealing with individuals.

I'm concerned about the possibility of misunderstanding if we try to mix #3 (a RP'd ambassador) with #2 concerns. If that provides a way for players more comfortable with GA-IC to approach Gameplay-IC concerns, that's great. But most Gameplay folks are going to see the creation of a separate RP'd ambassador - for them - as a confusing mixture of two worlds. ("Wait... in order to post here, I have to create a fictional character living in my nation, with a hair color and a favorite Maxtopian cafe, who presumably goes home at night and watches Bigtopians Say the Darnedest Things, but who only exists in order to let me argue that 40 of Rolheath's endorsements come from outside forces and his regime is therefore democratically illegitimate?")

[Qumkent]

Well, this is where it's gotten sticky. Originally, I thought C&Cs could slot into the WA's usual activities, being subject to all the same rules. I was then educated by the WA Old Guard (to use that term) on how this couldn't be the case, that many (most?) wanted nothing to do with C&Cs, but rather to be left to continue doing what they'd been doing. In response to this, I sectioned off C&Cs into the Security Council. This struck me as a pretty good solution, in that it allowed the GA and SC to operate in different worlds, and members of one to ignore the other altogether, if they so wished.

(I wrote a response earlier it got lost in a timeout blurp)

Actually we would have accepted C&Cs if they had respected the original rules for resolutions, it turned out that GPers didn't want to see how that would work, C&Cs which violated the fourth wall among other things suddenly appeared in the queue and that's when things really got complicated and heated.

That being said, I really am worried by this "apartness" within the WA. A GA and an SC which operate as though each other don't exist is surely not a tenable compromise. It will force people to choose what kind of WA member they want to be and if one branch is bigger and has powers and seems to be full of the activity of a large GP community then I really do think the GA will suffer. The idea that the WA's branches could actually end up appearing to be in conflict with one another is also a worry.

Now, being separate, it's fair that the SC be allowed to evolve into whatever it likes, as did the NSUN. That is, GA members can choose to have nothing to do with the SC, and I will work to support that, but it means the SC operates outside of the GA world and its rules.

I'm not suggesting that the SC operate within the GA's world, but I do think that the GA and the SC should appear to be coherently both a part of the WA.

If it's both, we have obvious issues. And I think that's the source of some tension here: people feeling it's separate-but-not-really. That's a problem for the GA, as eloquently described in the posts above. It's a problem for the SC, which feels it's being simultaneously rejected and dictated to by the WA Old Guard.

I certainly don't reject the SC, quite the opposite, I think the SC and the GA have the opportunity to create a place within the WA for an interesting overlap of play realities from which both GPers and WA old Guard player can garner new opportunities for enjoyment of the game.

Perhaps we need to define greater clarity in the three spheres: the GA, the SC, and the WA, which encompasses them both. At the moment, there's confusion over whether WA rules & conventions apply to both the GA and the SC, or just the former. I suspect this is partly because there was no precise name for the world this community has long operated within: it has used the term "WA" to refer to just the non-gameplay part of that organization, never intending to actually influence gameplay. Now we have terms for the gameplay and non-gameplay sides, and some WA conventions can probably be revisited to determine whether they in truth belong to the WA or the GA.

So now the name WA is appropriated to new meanings ? And now Old Guard players should think of themselves as GA players and see the old terminology as defunct ?

Why couldn't we have kept our old name and the SC have been given some new appellation for its own uses ? I'm interested in that, not objecting to it or being possessive about it.

I fear the above might sound like I'm advocating a shrinking of your world, but I'm actually talking about identifying the lines of demarcation that have always been there. If Dr. Castro can't exist in a world that acknowledges the existence of Macedon, for example, then Dr. Castro's world is a subset of the actual World Assembly, because the actual World Assembly includes the region of Macdeon. There's always going to be trouble if the edges of that world are not defined.

What matters is who does the defining.

I think it's difficult for gameplay/SC players to reconcile the messages that (a) the GA rejects the SC, and (b) the SC should follow existing GA rules. It's like being told how to play by someone who has no intention of joining in.

I've been pretty "joined in" so far haven't I ? I certainly don't reject the SC, I do reject the sudden and unbidden destruction of a game I had enjoyed playing for a long time but that's not the same thing. I think what's happened here is that the failed grafting of GP in to the WA forum has lead to a GP community which thinks Old Guard players just hate GPers because they're different, that's not the case. I don't want to force GPers to play the game as I do, but if we have to share the same space, be that in the old WA forum or just as two branches of the WA I think we should all try to find a way to make our play as respectful of one another's as possible. We should at least try to see if this semi detached relationship can be made to work.

I think everyone would welcome GA members who would like to actively participate in the SC. You guys are clearly the most qualified to help craft its starter ruleset, and, if we pursue the above, the joint WA rules that should apply to both the GA and the SC. But this needs to come from a genuine interest in SC play, not an attempt to suck it back into a subset of the GA.

And those with a genuine interest should be able to be confident that their involvement matters and that despite being a small minority we can have a positive effect on the future of the WA. Thus far hope that this will be the case has been scant, not withstanding your own words which while comforting do not seem to represent the huge majority of GPers I've read the postings of.

I still don't quite understand that. You can flip "GA" and "SC" around in the above quote and it makes just as much sense.

OK well I just don't see GP taking a dive in the way that Old Guard play could easily do. The numbers of GPers and their enthusiasm, stoked by the expansion of their play sphere in the WA, are too high right now. Old Guard players are either gone for good or feeling very edged out right now. I don't necessarily feel that way anymore but I do sympathise with those feelings and will be heartily disappointed if the GA atrophies because of the big powerful SC next door.

When I ask that the SC respect the canon of WA resolutions it's not because I want GPers to post as Ambassadors or respect the fourth wall, it's because the resolutions are what we created as the WA for all members of the WA with the intention that they would apply to all members. They are the democratically expressed will of the WA just as much as C&Cs are or liberation will be and GA players will have little enough choice about whether to respect those kinds of resolution or not.