New category rules

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Of course, I can sense objections coming to this from those who insist that only IC actions should be taken as grounds for a C&C. To that, I say that at some level there's an OOC basis for all interpretations of C&C justification anyhow. Consider: If the SC hands out condemnations to evil RP nations, we don't want that to be the only criteria. They should go to evil RP nations whose RPers play them well. Those that are just sloppy and attention-grabbing would only have that misbehavior fed by a Condemnation (or, on the other side, a Commendation). We're already basing these things on a certain level of OOC and technical integrity, so it's not that much of a stretch to go out and openly say it.

So, in essence, the entire game is "IC"-masked, from nation descriptions to daily issues to their effects to WA resolutions to compliance notices, right down to the military-grade choppers who transport your nation between regions and the telegram you get from the "Intelligence Ministry" when you are kicked out of nation -- but the Security Council shouldn't have to comport to in-game conventions, why? Because off-site play is so freakin' awesome it can't possibly be expected to meet minimum quality standards?

[Kandarin]

So, in essence, the entire game is "IC"-masked, from nation descriptions to daily issues to their effects to WA resolutions to compliance notices, right down to the military-grade choppers who transport your nation between regions and the telegram you get from the "Intelligence Ministry" when you are kicked out of nation -- but the Security Council shouldn't have to comport to in-game conventions, why? Because off-site play is so freakin' awesome it can't possibly be expected to meet minimum quality standards?

Because "quality" is not a function of IC-ness. There are plenty of aspects of NS - most of them, in fact - that are much more OOC than Issues and choppers and so forth. They're equally valid forms of activity and the admins, to their credit, don't discriminate. They're not of any lower quality, they're just different. Of course, once a community has been around for a while, its standards start to set in and need to be enforced; II is all IC, the GA follows the original nation-premise, General is all OOC and so forth. This establishment doesn't apply to new features, regions, and communities, who may establish their standards without needing to fit them into an existing one.

The SC is in such a position. Without any precedent that must be followed, it's free to decide what those standards will be and how much IC or OOC is prudent for the SC without any particular obligation to one or the other. This does not make it low-quality for not adhering to the control of a different community.

[Urgench]

So, in essence, the entire game is "IC"-masked, from nation descriptions to daily issues to their effects to WA resolutions to compliance notices, right down to the military-grade choppers who transport your nation between regions and the telegram you get from the "Intelligence Ministry" when you are kicked out of nation -- but the Security Council shouldn't have to comport to in-game conventions, why? Because off-site play is so freakin' awesome it can't possibly be expected to meet minimum quality standards?

Because "quality" is not a function of IC-ness. There are plenty of aspects of NS - most of them, in fact - that are much more OOC than Issues and choppers and so forth. They're equally valid forms of activity and the admins, to their credit, don't discriminate. They're not of any lower quality, they're just different. Of course, once a community has been around for a while, its standards start to set in and need to be enforced; II is all IC, the GA follows the original nation-premise, General is all OOC and so forth. This establishment doesn't apply to new features, regions, and communities, who may establish their standards without needing to fit them into an existing one.

The SC is in such a position. Without any precedent that must be followed, it's free to decide what those standards will be and how much IC or OOC is prudent for the SC without any particular obligation to one or the other. This does not make it low-quality for not adhering to the control of a different community.

I'm sorry that argument would only hold water if the SC weren't a part of the WA. If it were a totally novel aspect of the game uniquely formed and bearing its own imprimatur and authority. Unfortunately the SC seeks to use WA authority to justify itself, and under those circumstances it should fit with what the WA is and how it functions, no doubt with adaptations but it can't expect to be able to function in a completely novel way if it's supposed to fit in to an established and structurally harmonised part of the game.

[Goobergunchia]

I'm pretty sure I've referred to NSwiki ICly as the "Wiki Project" or some such. If a page needs to be mentioned IC, just say it's on a Wikipedia-equivalent site run by the Goobergunchian government. The nice thing about RPed websites is that you don't have hosting issues.

Goobergunch
NSwiki Administrator

[Kandarin]

I'm sorry that argument would only hold water if the SC weren't a part of the WA. If it were a totally novel aspect of the game uniquely formed and bearing its own imprimatur and authority. Unfortunately the SC seeks to use WA authority to justify itself, and under those circumstances it should fit with what the WA is and how it functions, no doubt with adaptations but it can't expect to be able to function in a completely novel way if it's supposed to fit in to an established and structurally harmonised part of the game.

As a part of the WA, it's not subject to the laws of the General Assembly. Even though they operate under the same umbrella, the GA is expressedly a body parallel and separate from the SC. It can be thought of like the Marketing and Manufacturing divisions of a corporation - one body, different functions, different rules.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Basically, what Urgench said. We all play the same game, we should abide by the same in-game conventions. Various off-site communities may adhere to their own conventions of play, but the Security Council, as part of the actual game, must be allowed to exist on the same imaginary plane of existence that the rest of the game does. You can call your car a "pedestrian" all you want, but when you get out on the street with all the other drivers, you still can't drive on the sidewalk.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Basically, what Urgench said. We all play the same game, we should abide by the same in-game conventions. Various off-site communities may adhere to their own conventions of play, but the Security Council, as part of the actual game, must be allowed to exist on the same imaginary plane of existence that the rest of the game does. You can call your car a "pedestrian" all you want, but when you get out on the street with all the other drivers, you still can't drive on the sidewalk.

Except that the very fact that Moderation is asking for discussion of new rules means that we're riding bikes in the new bike lane, and Moderation wants help figuring out how we should deal with stop lights!

[Naivetry]

Basically, what Urgench said. We all play the same game, we should abide by the same in-game conventions. Various off-site communities may adhere to their own conventions of play, but the Security Council, as part of the actual game, must be allowed to exist on the same imaginary plane of existence that the rest of the game does. You can call your car a "pedestrian" all you want, but when you get out on the street with all the other drivers, you still can't drive on the sidewalk.

We're not playing the same game, though. We use the same coded system to do a lot of very different things.

That is... we're playing with the same toy, but not playing the same game.

[Kandarin]

Indeed, and that toy includes many OOC things, or things that may be validly interpreted as either IC or OOC. NS may be a nation simulator, but so much of the fun of it is the fact that it doesn't take that all too seriously.

[Erastide]

Out of curiosity, and apologies if I'm taking this too far afield, what do people think about IC wiki contributions? Let's say I wanted to commend Starblaydia, a sports RPer. It'd be pretty easy, and probably most appropriate, to do this ICly (RECOGNIZING Starblaydia's successful hosting or co-hosting a Baptism of Fire, World Cup, and Cup of Harmony in the same cycle, the only nation to do this to date), blah blah blah. Could I also throw in something about "NOTING the Starblaydi compilation of World Cup history", alluding to an IC construct predominantly hosted outside the main NS fora? Although I don't have any plans to write a commendation, I think that this would be an acceptable use of an offsite web page. (Of course, I wouldn't talk about "NSWiki" in the proposal text, but rather explain it in the thread.) What do other people think about this?

This seems to fall into the same category as offsite forums - it's a tech-related project that assists with other things. Managing wiki information (or running a forum) is a lot of thankless work and a lot of players rely on it being done correctly. If someone's been running an important forum well for a long time, cataloging what goes on on a wiki really well, or hosts some big forum/wiki/whatever event in a responsible and fair-minded way, that seems like excellent grounds for a Commendation to me.

Of course, I can sense objections coming to this from those who insist that only IC actions should be taken as grounds for a C&C. To that, I say that at some level there's an OOC basis for all interpretations of C&C justification anyhow. Consider: If the SC hands out condemnations to evil RP nations, we don't want that to be the only criteria. They should go to evil RP nations whose RPers play them well. Those that are just sloppy and attention-grabbing would only have that misbehavior fed by a Condemnation (or, on the other side, a Commendation). We're already basing these things on a certain level of OOC and technical integrity, so it's not that much of a stretch to go out and openly say it.

My objection is if you say you can write into a C&C participation in something that is not NS ground there is no commonality for it for all players. Not everyone will have had the opportunity to experience or witness the good/evil. Things that take place on offsite forums may be vitally important to gameplayers, but the activities/events there are also often restricted and hidden behind masks and registration. Everyone does do *something* with the game, whether it be participation in these forums or in game actions (gameplayers). So you could easily base a C&C on that.

[Naivetry]

My objection is if you say you can write into a C&C participation in something that is not NS ground there is no commonality for it for all players. Not everyone will have had the opportunity to experience or witness the good/evil. Things that take place on offsite forums may be vitally important to gameplayers, but the activities/events there are also often restricted and hidden behind masks and registration. Everyone does do *something* with the game, whether it be participation in these forums or in game actions (gameplayers). So you could easily base a C&C on that.

Personally, I think the rewards are worth it. I may not know the first thing about sports RP, but if someone has contributed a lot to that community, I'd be interested in finding out what they'd done. Commendations, in particular, would provide an opportunity for me to learn quickly about the best that NS community had to offer.

Ardchoille definitely vetoed links in proposals, but it seemed okay as a compromise to link to stuff from the discussion thread - with the caveat that any threads provided for reference had to be publicly visible, sans registration.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

My objection is if you say you can write into a C&C participation in something that is not NS ground there is no commonality for it for all players. Not everyone will have had the opportunity to experience or witness the good/evil. Things that take place on offsite forums may be vitally important to gameplayers, but the activities/events there are also often restricted and hidden behind masks and registration. Everyone does do *something* with the game, whether it be participation in these forums or in game actions (gameplayers). So you could easily base a C&C on that.

Personally, I think the rewards are worth it. I may not know the first thing about sports RP, but if someone has contributed a lot to that community, I'd be interested in finding out what they'd done. Commendations, in particular, would provide an opportunity for me to learn quickly about the best that NS community had to offer.

Ardchoille definitely vetoed links in proposals, but it seemed okay as a compromise to link to stuff from the discussion thread - with the caveat that any threads provided for reference had to be publicly visible, sans registration.

That makes sense. I would add that referencing a specific offsite generally involves linking to it. I am not sure what the rule ought to be on referring to "Old Blue" or somesuch.

[Erastide]

Ardchoille definitely vetoed links in proposals, but it seemed okay as a compromise to link to stuff from the discussion thread - with the caveat that any threads provided for reference had to be publicly visible, sans registration.

Yeah, completely agree with that. I just don't think you need to say in the middle of the proposal that there's stuff on forums either.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Oh hell let 'em put links in the things. Links to forum posts, links to IRC logs, links to whatever. For that matter, why not enable [img] code or even HTML? That should make for some fun proposals.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Oh hell let 'em put links in the things. Links to forum posts, links to IRC logs, links to whatever. For that matter, why not enable [img] code or even HTML? That should make for some fun proposals.

Good lord, I wouldn't want to see that. The possibilities for abuse are immense.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Oh hell let 'em put links in the things. Links to forum posts, links to IRC logs, links to whatever. For that matter, why not enable [img] code or even HTML? That should make for some fun proposals.

Good lord, I wouldn't want to see that. The possibilities for abuse are immense.

Oh come now, it's all about making the game more fun for everyone isn't it? One man's "abuse" is another man's entertainment.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yeah, until Tubgirl shows up.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Yeah, until Tubgirl shows up.

Why on earth would anyone post tubgirl in an SC proposal? Unless, of course, tubgirl plays NationStates and has done something worthy of commendation/condemnation, then the image might be relevant to the proposal text.

[Romanar]

Yeah, until Tubgirl shows up.

Why on earth would anyone post tubgirl in an SC proposal? Unless, of course, tubgirl plays NationStates and has done something worthy of commendation/condemnation, then the image might be relevant to the proposal text.

I agree that only an evil troll would post Tubgirl (or goatsx). But there's no shortage of evil trolls who would post NSFW images just to stir up trouble.

[Sirocco]

No images or HTML code. As others have said, far too much room for abuse.

[Ardchoille]

Since I'm finally able to write without broadcasting flu germs through the monitor, I figure I'd better update you on some things I've done in the queue, which set precedents that may be the basis for rules:

KILLED a proposal that (for shame) condemned my nation. Reason: it did more than condemn, it also attempted to bind the WA to further action (make my unfortunate President serve in the Secretariat for life). Since that's not within the WA's ability to perform, and not within the C&C category description, the proposal was illegal.

KILLED a proposal that said something along the lines of "may eventually get around to commending". Not definite enough. Again, not within the category description.

KILLED (early on) proposals that said the equivalent of "commend Bozo because he's nice". I've since stopped doing that, because of the argument that the mods should not be making the decision on whether a C&C is worth putting to the Security Council. It's up to the Delegates. If a C&C gets enough endorsements, it goes to vote, regardless of how gormless the arguments.

That should be a strong reason for Delegates to think before they endorse. If you endorse such drek, it means you think the nations of the world should gather to decide, with no evidence either way, whether the nation Bozo is nice. But it's your call.

(NOTE: "If it reaches quorum, it gets debated" STILL DOES NOT APPLY TO GA PROPOSALS. It may not apply to SC proposals other than C&Cs. I don't see how we can have a firm rule on that until we see what other sorts of proposal categories are developed.)

BTW: Joke Proposals. The GA rule is, largely, write 'em up if you think it's funny, post it in the forum if you think others will find 'em funny, but DON'T SUBMIT 'em. Submitting joke proposals in the GA gets a proposal warning on your nation's permanent record. Three such warnings may get your nation kicked from the WA (which means you'll have to use another nation if you want to rejoin). The point of this was to reduce queue chaos caused by terribly clever proposals about "the right to arm bears".

However, there's a distinct possibility that some SC proposals -- particularly C&Cs -- will look like jokes, but not be. For example, if I wanted to commend my region-mate Bahgum, it would be hard to avoid reference to ferret-trouser-stuffing competitions, the Mothers in Law bodyguard and Bahgumian Blue, because all of those are RPd features with which he has entertained the GA. I think this will have to be left to the mods' discretion, with the usual avenues of appeal open if a player thinks he has been wrongly penalised or if a player believes another's proposal is, in fact, a joke rather than a serious attempt.

[Ardchoille]

Working from Erastide's idea, I've taken Hack's GA proposal rules and amended them for the SC. I'll pretty up the intro later. Mostly the reasons for leaving out bits (such as Metagaming) are obvious. I dumped the "Excessive Pimping" one because there's already a rule against flooding regions/nations with TGs. If you want it back, fine, back it goes. These are not final. even if adopted as is, they're still a work in progress open to development as other forms of SC proposal hit the floor.

I haven't tackled the vexed IC/OOC question in this lot. I'll write a separate post on that later.

WA members need to be aware that being in queue is not proof against action. Just because enough Delegates support a proposal to lift it to the queue does not mean it won't be deleted for being illegal. The WA Gnomes are not swayed by appeals to popularity.

With background information out of the way, let's move to discussing the various categories that lead to Proposal deletion.

Types Of Violations

• Game Mechanics
  
  Proposals cannot forbid WA action at a future point in time. You can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit specific types of resolution.
  
  
  
  • Army, Police, SWAT, etc
    
    The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it. This includes writing a proposal for the Security Council to form a coalition to deal with a particular offender or a specific type of offence. It doesn't mean you many not form a coalition in the usual gameplay fashion, but you may not claim any WA authorisation for it or bind the WA to do it.
    
    
  • Ideological Bans
    
    Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology.
    
    However, a Condemnation is not a ban. You may condemn a nation or region, and the ideology they espouse may be part of your reasoning, but you must make clear that your condemnation is aimed at the entity, not at the ideology.
• Format
  
  A Proposal won't be nuked for the occasional typo, but if moderators have to spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out what's going on, it'll be nuked before it reaches the floor.
  
  Proposals written entirely in other languages are out, too.
  
  
  
  • Real World Violations
    
    If it exists in the NationStates world, it can be mentioned in SC proposals. If it doesn’t, it can’t. Subjects forbidden in WA proposals from either council include real world documents, movies, and books, inventions known by the name of their inventor, brand names, companies, specific weapons (Smith and Wesson, Kalashnikovs).
    
    NOTE: this differs slightly from GA proposals. GA proposals treat references to regional forums, raider/defender armies, Wikis and similar entities as Real World references. SC proposals don't.
    
    SC players must be particularly wary of real-world references in C&Cs.For example, a reference to the Holocaust cannot be used to support a C&C against a Nazi region or player.
    
  • Category
    
    Proposals must conform exactly to category, If a category describes a proposal as “to do this OR to do that”, the proposal must select only one action. If it’s “to do this AND to do that”, it must include both actions.
    
  • Repeals
    
    Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and call it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.
    
  • Amendments
    
    You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.
    
    
  • Sundries
    
    Mods may delete proposals that they consider are jokes, grossly offensive or duplicates or contradictions of existing resolutions. You may have a WA violation recorded against your nation, or may be expelled from the WA, for submitting such proposals.
    
    This is not an anti-humour rule. You may make joke proposals and post them on the forum for the amusement of other players. Just don’t overdo it, don’t flame and don’t submit joke proposals.
    
    
  • Bloody Stupid
    
    Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to mandate that all RMBs use pink text, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands.
    
    Illicit Activity Outside of Proposals
    
  • Proposal Stealing
    
    If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the WA as well.

Schedule of Offences

In general, you get two "freebies" before you're chucked. Usually, after your second deleted Proposal, you'll get a little note letting you know you're on your last chance (but if you don't, don't come crying to the Mods, ignorance of the law and all...). After the third deleted Proposal, you're out of the WA. You’ll have to rejoin with a new nation.

Exceptions to the Above

Exceptionally minor infractions will not receive a warning. Also, if you've accidentally posted your Proposal three times you probably won't be warned. Same if you realise your error and ask for it to be deleted before a Mod sweeps the list. The definition of "minor" is up to the Mod doing the sweep, of course.

Exceptionally severe infractions will earn you an instant kick. Usually these are Proposals that fall under the 'Grossly Offensive' group. Also, you may be ejected for a second infraction if you submit the exact same Proposal after having it be deleted by the Mods. Unless we expressly told you it was okay to repost, don't.


Closing Remarks

While these rules are binding, we don't want players to feel like they will be hunted down in the middle of the night if they violate the rules. The hope is that players will continue to post drafts in this forum so that others can make sure a Proposal is legal. Also, remember that warnings for illegal Proposals do not count towards being deleted or anything like that. They're simply to keep people from flooding the queue with bad or improperly written proposals.


- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator
Amended, Erastide and Ardchoille

[Ardchoille]

This is what I'm suggesting for an alteration to the OSRS. New bits in red. I'm reading the "ambassadorial representatives" line as referring to the general conduct of players, rather than to what form of IC they use. Again, I'll be more specific on that later.

The World Assembly, the international governing body of NationStates, consists of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The WA contains an element of roleplay, but often there will be a mixture of OOC comments mixed in with the purely diplomatic comments made IC. (Note: definitions of IC differ between the councils.) The WA is only semi-RP, and posts there are subject to more mod intervention for inappropriateness than in the other two RP forums. The GA Forum is limited to WA business in the context of the General Assembly; the SC forum is limited to WA business in the context of the Security Council. If a WA nation is discovered to be in violation of WA legislation resolutions, challenges to that nation should move to NationStates or International Incidents.

Civility: WA posters are presumed to be ambassadorial representatives from their nations to the WA. There is a higher expectation of decorum and politeness. Player attacks are not tolerated, whether uncouth language is part of the mix or not. Smilie spam is also more heavily policed in the WA, as it really has no place there at all.

Still to come: a specific "how to write a legal C&C proposal" post.

Obviously, these aren't set in stone. They're just ideas to give everyone something to pick over.

[Erastide]

Real World Violations

If it exists in the NationStates world, it can be mentioned in SC proposals. If it doesn’t, it can’t. Subjects forbidden in WA proposals from either council include real world documents, movies, and books, inventions known by the name of their inventor, brand names, companies, specific weapons (Smith and Wesson, Kalashnikovs).

NOTE: this differs slightly from GA proposals. GA proposals treat references to regional forums, raider/defender armies, Wikis and similar entities as Real World references. SC proposals don't.

I'm really not fond of allowing mention of offsite things. You should be able to make your point (within the proposal text) using examples from the NS world. Then in the discussion you can bring up all the examples from forums and wikis (onsite and offsite) you want.

[Erastide]

Category
Proposals must conform exactly to category, If a category describes a proposal as “to do this OR to do that”, the proposal must select only one action. If it’s “to do this AND to do that”, it must include both actions.

I don't think more than one action should be allowed on a SC proposal... You can't both liberate and condemn a region or condemn and commend at the same time...

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category.

I still think something that says you can't introduce new category types belongs here.