Topid's sampler

[Ardchoille]

Topid asked me some time back to go through four existing SC resolutions and change them as little as possible to make them Rule 4 compliant. Here they are:

Commend Kandarin

RECOGNIZING the player of Kandarin as a leader in various aspects of NationStates’ affairs.

OBSERVING Kandarin’s tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in a "collecting" [refugee? specialised?] region without means of ejecting or banning the competition the usual powers of a Delegate.

VIEWING Kandarin’s knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, world events at all levels in both in character and out of character aspects, in theory and in practice, for off-site and on-site forums at home and abroad.

OFFICALLY praises the player behind the nation of Kandarin and recognizes his these achievements with a commendation from the World Assembly.

COMMENTARY:

The "nation" links have been used to blur the question of whether the writer is referring to the account "Kandarin", the person behind "Kandarin" or the nation "Kandarin". The term "NationStates" would make it illegal if the name were used as a reference to an online game, but a legal WA resolution adopted before the SC was created refers to "the entire NationStates community" and "we as NationStates" in the sense of, well, nation-states. Since the original of this proposal can be read in that sense, whether or not the writer meant it that way, it's retained. The possible descriptions of the RR aren't really necessary, I just put them in to provide an alternative to the game-sounding term "collecting" region. The actual point of the praise is that Kandarin is able to run his region without all the usual powers of a Delegate, so that's what it now says.

Commend Goobergunchia

RECOGNIZING Goobergunchia for the creation of the first Nation States' wiki, NSwiki, a highly informative and detailed account of in-game incidents, world affairs, resolutions, national profiles, region profiles, history, events, and terminology.

NOTING Goobergunchia's successful drafting and passage of Nation States United Nations (NSUN) Resolution #22, a resolution which had prohibited pedophilia, and Security Council Resolution #4, Liberate Belgium.

UNDERSTANDING the various positions Goobergunchia has held throughout history, including Deputy Secretary of State in the Alliance Defense Network and Secretary-General of Red Liberty Alliance.

HEREBY commends Goobergunchia in the form of an official commendation by the World Assembly.

^I very much want to see.

COMMENTARY:

There you are, then. The "in-game incidents" line was too general for me to come up with an accurate substitute -- what sort of in-game incidents? -- so I've inserted the equally general "world affairs". The "proposal" links could have been used to inform voters more fully, but they're not relevant to the legality of the proposal.

Commend Todd McCloud

The World Assembly,

NOTING The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud’s long list of accomplishments across various fields,

ACKNOWLEDGING The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud’s experience as a major player Role Player in The East Pacific’s affairs, with notable role-play incidents including Shiro Academy and The Listonian Crisis,

PRAISING the successful defenses of Poland, a founderless region, by then World Assembly Delegate of Poland The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud,

FURTHER PRAISING The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud’s work as leader of the Slavic Alliance in defending Slavic Regions from the grips of Macedon,

RECOGNIZING Todd McCloud as a highly successful raider, leading raiding missions and coups in many prominent regions,

IMPRESSED with Todd McCloud’s public stance against Macedon and other raiders who use hidden passwords to destroy the target region without giving natives or defenders any chance to fight for the region,

ASTONISHED that during Todd McCloud's delegacy The East Pacific -- previously one of the most inactive feeders regions -- has been transformed into one of the most active regions in the world,

RECALLING that Todd McCloud has been an active member of the World Assembly Security Council since its inception, having authored the Security Council commendations of The Republic of Kandarin and Goobergunchia and the condemnation of Macedon;

ALSO RECOGNIZING Todd McCloud’s use of media to improve the world, including his the creation of The South Pacific Wiki, a collection of articles about NationStates affairs; and his the use of online videos in Fox Rite and The East Pacific

COMMENDS Todd McCloud for his honorable service across many fields of the NationStates world.

Co Authored by: Sedgistan, Unibot, and Travancore-Cochin

COMMENTARY: "Nation" links used as before, to blur. If the writer didn't think Todd McCloud was "a major player", then "an active participant" would do the job.

Commend Sedgistan

The Security Council,

Observing the efforts of Sedgistan, as a long time member and current Arch Chancellor of the Founderless Region Alliance (FRA) to ensure interregional peace and goodwill,

Remembering the liberation of Feudal Japan authored by Sedgistan, which was followed by a defeat of the raiders by a defender force led by Sedgistan and including members from the FRA, TITO, Equilism, Texas, Europeia, 00000 A World Power, Yggdrasil, The United Kingdom, Crusaders of Justice, Liberty Alliance, Antarctica, and Royal Federation of Nations, and a refounding mission assisted by Sedgistan,

Impressed by the tireless work of Sedgistan to ensure the natives of Feudal Japan regained control of their region and kept control permanently,

Knowing there exist countless other regions Sedgistan has defended from the grips of raiders, in numbers recognized as amassing 222 points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger, the second highest of all time,

Acknowledging the Security Council work of Sedgistan other than Liberate Feudal Japan, which includes authoring Liberate Free Thought, being listed as a co-author of Commend Todd McCloud, Liberate Utopia, and Liberate Land of the Liberals,

Asserting that any nation that has done as much work as Sedgistan has to ensure interregional peace and goodwill should be commended,

Hereby commends Sedgistan.

COMMENTARY:

Changed "Sedge" to "Sedgistan" so it could be read as the nation or the player or the account. If blurring is needed, use the links.

The fourth clause could be written as "Knowing there exist countless other regions Sedgistan has defended from the grips of raiders in numbers recognized as amassing 222 points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger the second highest of all time".

That removes "countless", not for legality, but for sense: if they're "countless", then you can't count 'em well enough to know that they're "the second highest of all time".

The "amassing 222 points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger" is too clearly a reference to the player playing a game.

[Topid]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

Now, after looking at that I'm confident that this rule changes very little. We can go on as always, and the only frustrating part is the blunt and unwise way it was implemented.

[Naivetry]

*eyes resolutions critically for signs of 'sounds like a nation' justification; finds none; relaxes a bit*

Well, there's the ban on gendered personal pronouns. *frowns and thinks about that* I suppose if you consider gender to be a personal characteristic of the player in question, and that resolutions shouldn't discuss personal characteristics of players, but rather their actions... if that's the reasoning, I could live with it.

COMMENTARY:

Changed "Sedge" to "Sedgistan" so it could be read as the nation or the player or the account. If blurring is needed, use the links.

The fourth clause could be written as "Knowing there exist countless other regions Sedgistan has defended from the grips of raiders in numbers recognized as amassing 222 points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger the second highest of all time".

That removes "countless", not for legality, but for sense: if they're "countless", then you can't count 'em well enough to know that they're "the second highest of all time".

The "amassing 222 points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger" is too clearly a reference to the player playing a game.

Technically, we'd really have to add in something like "the second highest in FRA history"; as much as I love Sedge, I don't know that his record is really the greatest in all of NS defender history.

And that brings up a problem with the original resolution - the FRA point system gives credit for activities which potentially contribute to the defense of a region, such as invasion spotting; it's more a measure of active participation in defending than of regions actively defended.

That said... is the problem the word "points", the number "222", the "3 years", the "his", or the "FRA Ranger" ? None of those words (the "his" excepted) necessarily refers to a player playing a game; the FRA system is an idiosyncratic, internal record-keeping device for their defending alliance.

Would the following be acceptable?

Knowing there exist countless other regions Sedgistan has defended from the grips of raiders, amassing, with 222 points, the second-highest record of all time so far in three years of service as an FRA Ranger,

(That's just the "his" removed, and the wording rearranged accordingly.)

[Topid]

I have a feeling the word 'points' sounds too gamey for Ard...

Knowing there exist countless other regions Sedgistan has defended from the grips of raiders, as Sedgistan is credited with the second-highest amount of completed missions so far in three years of service as an FRA Ranger,

Although I'm sure there is a better word than missions to fit the point system, I'm just in a hurry. (work)

[Naivetry]

I have a feeling the word 'points' sounds too gamey for Ard...

Yes; the point is, it actually isn't about a player playing a game in this context, at all. It's about Sedge's service record within the FRA administrative system.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Really, does it matter how many points he collected? If the resolution is to commend his actions as a defender, rather than his standing in some arbitrary points system (which sounds suspiciously to me like a fraternity sex wager), then who the hell cares if it's 222 points or 222 billion?

[Naivetry]

Looking this over, I have a few other concerns.

OBSERVING Kandarin’s tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in a "collecting" [refugee? specialised?] region without means of ejecting or banning the competition the usual powers of a Delegate.

To clarify: "ejecting" and "banning" aren't going to be illegal words, are they? (Similarly, "ban list", "password", "Regional Control", "World Factbook Entry", "Civil Headquarters"...)

ASTONISHED that during Todd McCloud's delegacy The East Pacific -- previously one of the most inactive feeders regions -- has been transformed into one of the most active regions in the world,

We really need that word, "feeders" - or something that can double for it. We can't call them game-created regions. But they're fundamentally different from any UCR; this isn't a matter of size, but of their nature, their relationship to the rest of the NS, and the lasting importance of the feeders derived from their status as the birthing place of all new nations. TEP was not one of the most inactive regions - it was one of the most inactive feeder regions, which is the only reason this line is noteworthy.

Similarly, we would never Commend someone for being "Delegate of three regions" - but "Delegate of three feeders"? Yeah, that'd be worth a mention.

ACKNOWLEDGING The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud’s experience as a major player Role Player in The East Pacific’s affairs

...and I just thought this was funny, given the previous discussion on the rule; well-played.

Really, does it matter how many points he collected? If the resolution is to commend his actions as a defender, rather than his standing in some arbitrary points system (which sounds suspiciously to me like a fraternity sex wager), then who the hell cares if it's 222 points or 222 billion?

Frankly, I don't care. But the authors of the proposal did. And so I want to know what exactly is the justification for forbidding it - not just that it's "too clearly a reference to the player playing a game". That would make the rule, once again, purely arbitrary.

[Kalibarr]

I personally believe the word changes change the meaning of the clauses, "Role player" to "player" means Todd would be a major influence(which he is, but is that something that warrants a commendation?), not someone skilled at RPing, "inactive feeders" is different than "inactive regions", and "world affairs" imply doing something in II or NS forums not the interregional community.

[Todd McCloud]

Mind if I comment on each revision separately?

Topid asked me some time back to go through four existing SC resolutions and change them as little as possible to make them Rule 4 compliant. Here they are:

Commend Kandarin

RECOGNIZING the player of Kandarin as a leader in various aspects of NationStates’ affairs.

This is fine as far as I'm concerned. Saying "the player of" is oocly redundant.

OBSERVING Kandarin’s tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in a "collecting" [refugee? specialised?] region without means of ejecting or banning the competition the usual powers of a Delegate.

Collecting may not be the best choice, but it gets the job done. I think it's okay, but yeah, could've used a better word there, lol. "Usual powers of the delegate" is a bit confusing. In a IC world, this means something completely different - it means he didn't really have any power as a delegate or wasn't able to be effective, or it could be interpreted that way. OOCly we know he is/was effective and does have both a form of power and a current power (WFE, regional flag). I think ejecting and banning needs to be specific, especially since liberation proposals have and will use those specifics. If Lib proposals are here to stay, then I really cannot see a reason to consider ejecting / banning as a violation of rule IV.

VIEWING Kandarin’s knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, world events at all levels in both in character and out of character aspects, in theory and in practice, for off-site and on-site forums at home and abroad.

Kandarin has done a lot in TEP roleplay as an RP admin, that's why I was specific there. In light of the commendation, it could be made to be less specific, but yeah. So are we going to have "roleplay" = "world events" now? Also, I'm not sure if I'm keen on losing the ability to say "forums", especially since forums are an integral part of regions. Really, I don't think forums should be removed. I'd change it to "for multiple regional and world forums" but even so, that's a stetch for me. See, it's not so much the inability to say certain things that irks me, it's the fact that I would like to commend or condemn a nation to the point where people can understand why he or she is being C&C'd. People understand forums, roleplay, and in chartacter. What goes through one's mind when it's replaced with "world events" or "at home and abroad"? Doesn't it decrease the meaning of the commendation here, if it were worded that way? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like the source of his commendation comes from works in II, not in gameplay.

OFFICALLY praises the player behind the nation of Kandarin and recognizes his these achievements with a commendation from the World Assembly.

Russians used to call Russia "the motherland," giving it a feminine touch. Germans once called Germany "the fatherland." Many people personify nations. I don't think object pronouns should be removed.

RECOGNIZING Goobergunchia for the creation of the first Nation States' wiki, NSwiki, a highly informative and detailed account of in-game incidents, world affairs, resolutions, national profiles, region profiles, history, events, and terminology.

Again, okay. But, see, this is a problem we're having with a few of these changes. What does "world affairs" mean? Is it world affairs as it pertains to II, world affairs as it pertains to real-life, world affairs as it pertains to gameplay? There are multiple "world affairs" in this game.

NOTING Goobergunchia's successful drafting and passage of Nation States United Nations (NSUN) Resolution #22, a resolution which had prohibited pedophilia, and Security Council Resolution #4, Liberate Belgium.

We're personifying Goobergunchia here. So could we use those object pronouns now?

ACKNOWLEDGING The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud’s experience as a major player Role Player in The East Pacific’s affairs, with notable role-play incidents including Shiro Academy and The Listonian Crisis,

This is... okay for me, personally. It's specific enough where it points to some form of roleplay. But it'd have to be specific to where a player would be like "oh, this means roleplay". I'm not keen on having people decipher C&C's, but that's a problem I'm running into a lot with such revisions. Also, technically speaking, we can still use the word "player" according to these recent revisions. I think that's certainly a good thing, but I'd like more clarification, bouncing off of what Nai has said. When is player acceptable and when is it not?

ASTONISHED that during Todd McCloud's delegacy The East Pacific -- previously one of the most inactive feeders regions -- has been transformed into one of the most active regions in the world,

I agree with Nai, we need to be able to use the word feeder. I know, I know, it sounds like I'm being very picky here, but it's a very bing distinction in gameplay.

ALSO RECOGNIZING Todd McCloud’s use of media to improve the world, including his the creation of The South Pacific Wiki, a collection of articles about NationStates affairs; and his the use of online videos in Fox Rite and The East Pacific

COMMENDS Todd McCloud for his honorable service across many fields of the NationStates world.

I already talked about the object pronouns, so I'll refrain from that here.

Knowing there exist countless other regions Sedgistan has defended from the grips of raiders, in numbers recognized as amassing 222 points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger, the second highest of all time,

I am of the camp where writing in the point system but not saying what these points really mean is kind of pointless to those who don't know that 222 points is probably a good thing. But still, does this mean that if, let's say, this C&C explained some kind of impressive thing regarding this point system (like 'very few nations ever achieve such points'), would it be okay then? *reads your explanation* Oh, okay. It looks like it can be.

[Ardchoille]

Don't have time to go through these all now, but a quick clarification on "eject" and "ban": depends on how they're used. "ejecting and banning the competition" sounds too much like a player in a game. OTOH, "forcibly eject unruly nations and ban them from returning to the region" sounds fine.

Re the 222 points, etc: this would be utterly incomprehensible to a player coming on it cold -- some newbie who's just looking in for the first time. Not all players are FRA Rangers, or even know what one is or does. In a C&C, you need the essence of the thing; the detail comes later. What's apparently impressive about this is that only one other nation has "completed more missions" than Sedgistan. Okay, say that, and then give the back-up details in the debate thread.

Re "roleplay, roleplayer": you can't say it, RPers can't say it, Generalites can't say it, Sports regulars can't say it in a proposal. Sports can't talk about their "RP points" directly in a proposal, either. Interestingly, you (and they) can say "raider" and "defender".

[Whamabama]

This sounds pretty much, if gameplay does it, it's not allowed to be quite frank since so much of our terminology can't be used, or not in our way, even if we are blurring the meaning of the name/nation.

[Mousebumples]

Re: he/she object pronouns:

Would it be legal to refer to the leader of a given nation for nations who RP with specific leaders? (i.e. should Mousebumples ever receive a C&C - "she" or "they" could refer to either/both of the sisters who lead the country - versus necessarily referring to me personally) I would think that - depending on the specifics of the C&C - specific actions of the Head of State or a particular Military Leader or Diplomat may be worthy of specific recognition. Certainly, if this is the case, naming the individual by name (i.e. Ambassador Lizzy Hall of Mousebumples) before switching to a pronoun would be most appropriate.

Again, just wanting some further clarification regarding the the rule. I don't have any specific C&C's in mind, but - as always - your continued consideration is greatly appreciated.

[Unibot]

Re "roleplay, roleplayer": you can't say it, RPers can't say it, Generalites can't say it, Sports regulars can't say it in a proposal. Sports can't talk about their "RP points" directly in a proposal, either. Interestingly, you (and they) can say "raider" and "defender".

Rule IV, promoting more inequality in the Security Council, since 2010!

[Urgench]

On pronouns, it's true to say that many countries in the real world have personified themselves, though in fact this is more common in a European context than any other. The problem is that even in the case of Germany which did use the term "Fatherland" the pronouns used when talking about states in English were always feminine. It was "Germany and her neighbours" not "Germany and his neighbours", the use of gendered pronouns to refer to nations is an archaic usage, and is a turn of phrase not a grammatical convention since plural pronouns and pronouns for abstract concepts (i.e. nations in this context) and inanimate objects in English are gender inclusive or neuter. In most other Indo-European languages third person possessive plurals such as "it's" are gender inclusive. Since the convention of referring to states as "her" or "she" etc. does not occur outside of a European context I'm not sure that the argument for use of any kind of gendered pronoun, let alone "he" or "him" etc. makes much sense in an NS context.

If Gameplayers can use nation tags anyway is there a strong reason why gendered pronouns would be necessary?

[Poree]

Wouldn't the term Founderless Region be a game term? I have never heard it used outside the game. It seems we are starting to have a double standard on what is and is not a "In Game" term.

[Kandarin]

On pronouns, it's true to say that many countries in the real world have personified themselves, though in fact this is more common in a European context than any other. The problem is that even in the case of Germany which did use the term "Fatherland" the pronouns used when talking about states in English were always feminine. It was "Germany and her neighbours" not "Germany and his nieghbours", the use of gendered pronouns to refer to nations is an archaic usage, and is a turn of phrase not a grammatical convention since plural pronouns and pronouns for abstract concepts (i.e. nations in this context) and inanimate objects in English are gender inclusive or neuter. In most other Indo-European languages third person possessive plurals such as "it's" are gender inclusive. Since the convention of referring to states as "her" or "she" etc. does not occur outside of a European context I'm not sure that the argument for use of any kind of gendered pronoun, let alone "he" or "him" etc. makes much sense in an NS context.

If Gameplayers can use nation tags anyway is there a strong reason why gendered pronouns would be necessary?

Regardless of the etymology of national pronouns, they're not necessary. Following the "Motherland, Fatherland" line of thinking would run right into one of the existing major problems with the reception of Rule 4 - that of confusing the issue when someone is both a RPer and a Gameplayer. No one wants to wind up in the situation of writing a C&C where the recipient nation's player is one gender and the only characterization of their RP nation that makes sense is the opposite.

[Unibot]

On pronouns, it's true to say that many countries in the real world have personified themselves, though in fact this is more common in a European context than any other. The problem is that even in the case of Germany which did use the term "Fatherland" the pronouns used when talking about states in English were always feminine. It was "Germany and her neighbours" not "Germany and his nieghbours", the use of gendered pronouns to refer to nations is an archaic usage, and is a turn of phrase not a grammatical convention since plural pronouns and pronouns for abstract concepts (i.e. nations in this context) and inanimate objects in English are gender inclusive or neuter. In most other Indo-European languages third person possessive plurals such as "it's" are gender inclusive. Since the convention of referring to states as "her" or "she" etc. does not occur outside of a European context I'm not sure that the argument for use of any kind of gendered pronoun, let alone "he" or "him" etc. makes much sense in an NS context.

If Gameplayers can use nation tags anyway is there a strong reason why gendered pronouns would be necessary?

Regardless of the etymology of national pronouns, they're not necessary. Following the "Motherland, Fatherland" line of thinking would run right into one of the existing major problems with the reception of Rule 4 - that of confusing the issue when someone is both a RPer and a Gameplayer. No one wants to wind up in the situation of writing a C&C where the recipient nation's player is one gender and the only characterization of their RP nation that makes sense is the opposite.

Back in the good ol' days, you selected a dimension to work with, when it suited your nominee. If the nominee was both a solid roleplayer who roleplayed his/her nation as a positive contributor to world, and a gameplayer who contributed a lot.. well, he or she would be deserving of either two commendations, or a OOC commendation that reviewed both his/her work in the Gameplay and the Roleplay community. Personally the two commendations tailored for either dimension would be more respectful to the nominee, but I'd say that would be up to the author's discretion.. I mean, passing two commendations for the same person might not be feasible for some authors.

[Metania]

Call my comment strange, but I have a bit of a weird question: Let's pretend the 3WB stood down, but continued to dislike this language. Considering that most of the people who make proposals and actively get them through are 3WB or seem to have similar beliefs, and the others who don't dislike it infrequently make SC proposals, if ever...

Is there much of a point to changing it if the change simply obliterates the purpose of there being an SC?

It just seems kind of pointless to me. If what has been passed has been so horrible as to require in-depth regulations on the very atom of speech used in a proposal, then clearly being able to make these SC proposals at all is borderline breaking some rule somewhere, even if you like in-character proposals. But I guess it doesn't matter--the means create the same ends. If I am correct, then in the advent the 3WB does stand down, this system will just stifle most new proposals (people won't make new ones, wondering if, in 30 proposals, everything they did will be struck down as 'no longer legal'), so then again, I need not say much more.

After all, if there exists some bizarre third party who likes Noveau SC-style proposals, they'll show up sooner or later, 3WB or not; and if they don't, well, I guess the SC had a good run and we should just go and take condemns and commends to player-run message boards rather than the in-game system. Not like C&Cs were terribly powerful in the in-game system anyway, if this is such a big deal, the 3WB can probably just make a RSS/external database thing with a browser plugin to display the people their own off-site legislative body condemn/commends.

That's probably more sensible than trying to not only push the boulder uphill, but go back in time and try to make it not exist anymore by standing in its path and not moving anywhere.

[Unibot]

That's probably more sensible than trying to not only push the boulder uphill, but go back in time and try to make it not exist anymore by standing in its path and not moving anywhere.

If it was good enough for Sisyphus, it's good enough for me. The Security Council will be only be truly dead when no one cares about it any longer. So long as the 3WB is in existence, the Security Council can never die, its members care too much about its fate -- and when I say the Security Council, I mean the Security Council that we all know and love, the one that connected NationStates.. not this faint caricature that is trying to be shoved down our throats like a bad tasting medicine.

[Enn]

... you are aware Sisyphus was in that position as a punishment, right?

[Glen-Rhodes]

After all, if there exists some bizarre third party who likes Noveau SC-style proposals, they'll show up sooner or later, 3WB or not; and if they don't, well, I guess the SC had a good run...

How would you ever know, if there's a group out there preventing such proposals from existing?

The Security Council will be only be truly dead when no one cares about it any longer. So long as the 3WB is in existence, the Security Council can never die, its members care too much about its fate...

You don't think that the stagnation of the Security Council won't result in a decrease in the number of people that care about it? Usually, when something stops doing stuff, people stop paying attention to it. :\ I'm not too sure that there would be a benefit to keeping the 3WB going, if the mods are adamant about keeping the rule in some form.

[Darkesia]

No, I don't imagine you would see a benefit to the continuation of the 3WB. We, however, do.

And if we are to be legislated out of the WA and the SC ceases to be, that only leaves the GA for us bored Gameplayers to revisit. Won't that be fun?

[Metania]

After all, if there exists some bizarre third party who likes Noveau SC-style proposals, they'll show up sooner or later, 3WB or not; and if they don't, well, I guess the SC had a good run...

How would you ever know, if there's a group out there preventing such proposals from existing?

It could be argued that if there is any such group of people that is beyond the random people going "OMGZ 3WB BAD" they would eventually organize their own group and make their interests known, even if they couldn't succeed in passing anything.

Otherwise? Well, it is true; we may never know, especially if this would-be group is characterized by not saying much outside of actual proposals.

[A mean old man]

I laughed out loud as I read the first one. The others weren't quite as absurd.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

Now, after looking at that I'm confident that this rule changes very little. We can go on as always, and the only frustrating part is the blunt and unwise way it was implemented.

The rule really doesn't change all that much, not after all the modifications. It just forces us to re-word some things in awkward ways or be vague about what we mean when describing a player's OOC accomplishments. I realized that a while ago, after figuring out what Ard was trying to tell us and having a little chat with her in the cave. But 3WB had already been established by then due to the vagueness of the rule and the stringency of its terms during its early stages, and there's no stopping this runaway locomotive now.

I might as well keep riding. I can't say it isn't at least a little bit fun.

[Unibot]

... you are aware Sisyphus was in that position as a punishment, right?

I'll admit, it was only a partial allusion. But the absurdity of Rule IV is equal to the absurdity of Sisyphus's punishment, and if the members of the 3WB can not find success in their goal to get Rule IV abolished, they will have to continue to retain and find meaning in their eternal battle with Rule IV -- the day the system steals even that meaning away from them is the day the members of the 3WB truly lose.

We can never lose our cause, till the cause loses us.

You don't think that the stagnation of the Security Council won't result in a decrease in the number of people that care about it? Usually, when something stops doing stuff, people stop paying attention to it. :\ I'm not too sure that there would be a benefit to keeping the 3WB going, if the mods are adamant about keeping the rule in some form.

The stagnation of the Security Council is not our doing, without our involvement, you would have seen a well oiled resolution-passing machine, make no mistake, but the unequal fundamentals of that system are something we cannot care to recognize or respect when its existence is in exchange for the institution we truly care about -- the Security Council that we came to love and respect as an institution. Without our protests, the system strives to kill it with a mockery of its former self, if the only way to protect it is to kill the mockery, the substitute... so be it, but I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope the mods listen to us before it comes to that.