SC Rules discussion

[Erastide]

I personally think that since a badge is awarded to a nation, the proposal should be written for a nation. Having them be for the actions of a character in a story in that nation. Like.... "character brought an end to world hunger" or "character argued forcefully for x argument"seems a bit odd when it's a nation writing that character's actions.

But it's a player writing the character's actions, not a "nation" doing so, i.e. the same player who writes the relevant nation's collective actions...

Yeah, but it's pretty ingrained now to refer to people by their NS names. To most gameplayers at least, if I say "Nai said this" or "Kandarin said that" they'll know it was the person behind the nation. So cutting player references works out.

And if the "IC and OOC aspects" part was just cut? How would that go over?

That, and "NationStates roleplay" would probably be okay. Referring to Kandarin as "their" is potentially troubling, but I suppose it's ambiguous enough to be acceptable ICly. The reference to the abilities of ejecting or banning a nation in a region, as delegate, is also probably OOC, but it's crafted in a way that could be interpreted ICly. I realize my line of thinking would also remove any references to "NationStates," as a game, which would be OOC, but even I think that's probably a little too extreme.

See... I wouldn't want NS roleplay removed. There has to be a way to talk about actions other than roleplay. The SC is going to be looking at actions in the game. I realize to the GA world so far that has been taboo, but C&C's have to recognize actions that have essentially no IC nature, like governing a region.

[Bears Armed]

I personally think that since a badge is awarded to a nation, the proposal should be written for a nation. Having them be for the actions of a character in a story in that nation. Like.... "character brought an end to world hunger" or "character argued forcefully for x argument"seems a bit odd when it's a nation writing that character's actions.

But it's a player writing the character's actions, not a "nation" doing so, i.e. the same player who writes the relevant nation's collective actions...

Yeah, but it's pretty ingrained now to refer to people by their NS names. To most gameplayers at least, if I say "Nai said this" or "Kandarin said that" they'll know it was the person behind the nation. So cutting player references works out.

Yes, but to most of the GA regulars & other roleplayers the characters are just as real as the nations, which are nations rather than just alternative names for players, and so for us mentioning characters by name in C&Cs -- when commending or condemning their home nations for actions taken under those characters' leadership, for example, or for ennabling/supporting those characters' individual acts -- also makes sense. I'm not trying to insist that you should have to do this, but I am defending our right to do so in the case of any C&Cs that are written about GA or RP matters rather than GP ones...

[Erastide]

Yes, but to most of the GA regulars & other roleplayers the characters are just as real as the nations, which are nations rather than just alternative names for players, and so for us mentioning characters by name in C&Cs -- when commending or condemning their home nations for actions taken under those characters' leadership, for example, or for ennabling/supporting those characters' individual acts -- also makes sense. I'm not trying to insist that you should have to do this, but I am defending our right to do so in the case of any C&Cs that are written about GA or RP matters rather than GP ones...

Ard wrote:

For example, if you wanted to commend an RPd character called Fred, you could describe why you thought Fred had made an outstanding contribution to NationStates, then finish off with, “COMMENDS the nation of Victimville for being the homeland of the glorious Fred.”

The way that's written, it's completely incidental that there's a nation even involved. Which seems stupid to me since the badge is getting awarded to the nation, not to Fred. Noone looks at the nation of "Victimville" and sees anything about Fred or knows that the badge is for Fred. It's for something the nation did.

[Urgench]

Yes, but to most of the GA regulars & other roleplayers the characters are just as real as the nations, which are nations rather than just alternative names for players, and so for us mentioning characters by name in C&Cs -- when commending or condemning their home nations for actions taken under those characters' leadership, for example, or for ennabling/supporting those characters' individual acts -- also makes sense. I'm not trying to insist that you should have to do this, but I am defending our right to do so in the case of any C&Cs that are written about GA or RP matters rather than GP ones...

Ard wrote:

For example, if you wanted to commend an RPd character called Fred, you could describe why you thought Fred had made an outstanding contribution to NationStates, then finish off with, “COMMENDS the nation of Victimville for being the homeland of the glorious Fred.”

The way that's written, it's completely incidental that there's a nation even involved. Which seems stupid to me since the badge is getting awarded to the nation, not to Fred. Noone looks at the nation of "Victimville" and sees anything about Fred or knows that the badge is for Fred. It's for something the nation did.

Right and why would anyone looking at the Badge on Macedon's page know what they got their condemnation for ? The badge itself tells you nothing at all.

Those who voted to commend Borin O'Redwood however would know that Bears Armed's page bore a badge because that lovable old bear was such a stalwart of the WA, just as those who voted for Macedon's condemnation know what the badge on their page is for.

[Erastide]

Yes, but Macedon is condemned because of something they did. They destroyed regions and people thought they should be condemned for it. *shrugs* To me the distinction is there between commending a nation for their great RP characters vs. commending the RP character itself.

[Urgench]

Yes, but Macedon is condemned because of something they did. They destroyed regions and people thought they should be condemned for it. *shrugs* To me the distinction is there between commending a nation for their great RP characters vs. commending the RP character itself.

Right and in the context of a WA in which one is always in character the actions of another character are just as real as destroying regions. Don't forget for GA players their RPd characters are responsible for writing resolutions and managing diplomatic missions to the WA and a host of other WA related activities, which have just as much validity as destroying regions and WFE colours.

[Ardchoille]

Just to clarify, I'm talking about RP characters who appear repeatedly, not oncers.

On the IC/OOC question, I favour whichever form will enable most people to use this category, and it seems to me that allowing GA IC, Gameplay IC in whatever form the writer chooses to play it and everybody's version of OOC is the most likely. My sole requirement would be that the writer be consistent throughout the proposal. It would mean some players who play RP IC wouldn't be able to "see" an OOC-written proposal. They'd have to vote on it without debating, or debate OOC. But the limit on real world references retains the barrier between NS OOC and the stuff that happens on the other side of the monitor screen.

Kandarin gave a gameplay slant on the need for OOC. From a GA RPer's, there's this: I'd like to commend a particular player's work that extends from the UN through the WA to the GA. He's used three, I think, WA puppets in series to play regular ambassadors. As well, he has mischievous puppets that occasionally drop in a bit of light relief. He's also appeared on drafting offsites under other names. On and off site he's been directly involved in writing and drafting proposals and helping newcomers, even to the extent of helping improve proposals that he strongly opposed IC and OOC.

I could commend him via "the (Name) delegation", but his offsite work, which is such a part of the reason for commending him, is often not carried out in that name. I could commend him under the name of his current delegation, but that would fail to acknowledge his earlier and current puppets (which I can't name, because you don't out someone's puppet). I could say "(name} and ots colonies", staying IC, but that would include some puppets I don't want to commend ICly. Or I could say "(name) and some of its colonies", which would weaken the C&C's impact (since a delegate would instantly start wondering what was wrong with the others).

Or I could go OOC and commend the player of (name). I'd still have to pick which of his nations would get the C&C on its page, but I would have made it clear in the proposal that I really meant the body of work of the player, not that one nation.

I'm afraid I'll be offline for three days, so I won't be able to answer any comments immediately.

I'd appreciate it if you'd treat the first post (the one with the ruleset) the way the GA would a draft proposal. Comments alone help, but it would be great if you could rewrite a line or clause in a way that you feel makes the point better, or write whatever you want included as a clause so it's easy to copy and paste it in.

[Unibot]

You may be angry with the raider who’s just taken over your region. But raiding’s legal in NS. The WA may be reluctnt to condemn something that the rules say is allowable; for some players, it’s like having NS vote that NS is wrong.

You can avoid this dilemma by condemning the way they did it. Maybe express an opinion that the raid was “unnecessarily disruptive” or “excessively harmful” or “glaringly unjust” or “disproportionately severe”. Or charge them with destroying a region, rather than just invading it. You can give details in your first post to show why you think it went beyond the norm.

You may want to reinforce this with the 'ideological ban' concept from the GA.
Raiding, Defending, Francoism, Macedonism, Nazism- they're all philosophies, ideologies, ways of life.

Instead of banning them, we'd be condemning or commending the way those ideologies were put into practice by their practitioners.

[Unibot]

Right and why would anyone looking at the Badge on Macedon's page know what they got their condemnation for ? The badge itself tells you nothing at all.]

*can't restrain himself*

Well actually if you hover your cursor over the badge, it does tells you which resolution commended/condemned the nation or region.

Butttt.... I understand what you're saying.

I personally think that RP characters are totally fine for C&Cs. Though possibly one of the Admins could help us out here, and solve this ugly debate with a a little subcategory off of commendations which would output this on the regional happenings :

Commends "Mr. Good Guy" of Unibot

PLEASE!

Or possibly the only RP characters that can be C&Ced are ambassadors, observers, diplomats, 'political tourists' (hehehe) or politicians relevant to the WA, which happen to represent their nation or region. Therefore, a proposal that is condemning or commending them, is condemning or commending the nation or region they represent. No?

[Iglesian Archipelago]

I will condemn the nation of Longfort due to its oppression and war, which is made with almost no reason.

But first, condemning or commending puppets is still legal?

[Iglesian Archipelago]

I'm hoping for an answer to the question above, please.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I will condemn the nation of Longfort due to its oppression and war, which is made with almost no reason.

But first, condemning or commending puppets is still legal?

My guess is yes, but at the same time, no one else will give a shit, so there's really no point.

[Ardchoille]

As far as I can see, there's nothing to stop you commending one of a player's puppets while condemning another. Then you could commend his WA nation for having a commendable puppet, and condemn his WA nation for having a condemnable puppet ...IF you could get it through the SC.

That's the main limitation on C&C proposals: the voters. [violet] made it clear early on that she would prefer most decision-making on C&Cs came from player decisions, not mod rulings. So far, there are only a few things that will get a C&C killed before its proper span of life.

One of which, by the bye, is JOKE PROPOSALS. You can post all the joke proposals you like on the forum (while taking the risk that you'll get modded if they're flamey), but once you submit them in the queue, you're taking a chance of getting officially warned and of losing the nation you submit it with if you do it often enough (or if you do it once, depending on the proposal).

[Glen-Rhodes]

Could you explicitly point out that C&Cs are not meant to be addressed solely to ideologies? For instance, Condemn Fascist White Supremacism. Or say... Condemn NAZI EUROPE?

Might I also point out that, in my opinion, once "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" is passed, all of these condemnations for Nazi regions/nations are going to quite redundant. Perhaps a suggestion that if one region was condemned for doing some act, condemning another region for doing that same act is pointless? The WA doesn't need to address every single big raider region, if we've already condemned the practice of raiding with "Condemn Macedon". Likewise, the WA doesn't need to condemn every Nazi region for supposedly supporting Nazism, not that we should be condemning ideologies anyways, if we've already (errantly) condemned Nazism with "Condemn NAZI EUROPE".

[Unibot]

Might I also point out that, in my opinion, once "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" is passed, all of these condemnations for Nazi regions/nations are going to quite redundant. Perhaps a suggestion that if one region was condemned for doing some act, condemning another region for doing that same act is pointless?

Some problems lie there,

1. According to this document, we aren't suppose to be writing condemnations that condemn ideologies, they're suppose to attack specific cases, and written to emphasize the horrific way that ideology was practiced by the nation/region. If we are writing about specific cases, then they should be treated as separate proposals.
2. For technical reasons, its impossible to have the condemnation apply to all those in the future that commit the same tragedies that some nation or region did in the past. Thats an over extension of the proposals' power, which is merely to "Condemn *blank*".

[Glen-Rhodes]

1. According to this document, we aren't suppose to be writing condemnations that condemn ideologies, they're suppose to attack specific cases, and written to emphasize the horrific way that ideology was practiced by the nation/region. If we are writing about specific cases, then they should be treated as separate proposals.

Yet we are, and as far as I can tell, there's no consensus that we shouldn't be. I understand that [violet] doesn't want moderators making the rules, but [violet] is not infallible. Obviously, if a resolution condemning an ideology went to vote because there's no rule saying it can't, when this thread actually states that it can't (but, mind you, this thread has no binding rules), that whole theory has kind of been proven shoddy-at-best... I wasn't around for the early days of the UN, but from what I've gathered, a bunch of piss-poor resolutions were passed. Why would we want to repeat that, when we have a perfectly good set of rules right now, in this very thread and in the thread Erastide posted in? But, I digress, as I'm not sure this is the correct thread to discuss this (if there even is a correct thread, anymore).

2. For technical reasons, its impossible to have the condemnation apply to all those in the future that commit the same tragedies that some nation or region did in the past. Thats an over extension of the proposals' power, which is merely to "Condemn *blank*".

That's all fine and everything, but voting more than once to condemn a raider region for raiding this way or that way, is stupid and wasteful. "Condemn Macedon" sent a pretty clear message. I don't want to see another WA resolution complaining about how some horrible region did the same thing. It will quickly turn me sour to the whole C&C concept.

[Unibot]

Yet we are.

*takes a second look*

gulp... yes, I suppose we are.

That's all fine and everything, but voting more than once to condemn a raider region for raiding this way or that way, is stupid and wasteful. "Condemn Macedon" sent a pretty clear message. I don't want to see another WA resolution complaining about how some horrible region did the same thing. It will quickly turn me sour to the whole C&C concept.

You are forgetting that, history repeats itself, in a few months, a year, NationStates will have a new global villain, if you will. There was Gatesville, there was Macedon, there will be more.... And it will seem very important to those future generations to condemn their enemies, just the same as it was important to us to condemn ours.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You are forgetting that, history repeats itself, in a few months, a year, NationStates will have a new global villain, if you will. There was Gatesville, there was Macedon, there will be more.... And it will seem very important to those future generations to condemn their enemies, just the same as it was important to us to condemn ours.

And in a year, somebody might find it imperative that the WA gives food the poor, and will want to write a resolution to do it... But, they wouldn't need to, since it's already been done. Condemnations are clearly intended to condemn an idea, rather than a nation employing an idea: at least, this is what they have evolved to be, since nobody is preventing it from happening, because apparently setting rules is limiting freedom or whatever; I don't think we should be wasting our time saying over-and-over that destroying regions is kind of bad. We've already set precedent that we think it's bad. Placing another fiery icon on another nation's page isn't going to change that, for the better or for the worst, nor is it going to stop another region from popping up and destroying some other region, and somebody feeling the need to condemn them, and so on and so on...

[Unibot]

Condemnations are clearly intended to condemn an idea, rather than a nation employing an idea: at least, this is what they have evolved to be;

But they really shouldn't be.

To me, banning ideologies with a thick, all encompassing brush, seems worse than creating a WA army in regards to future corruption, and accumulative problems down the road.

[Glen-Rhodes]

But they really shouldn't be.

I agree, and I'd only hope that admins would delete "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" if ideological bans were declared illegal, if it was not repealed by then... I'm not 100% sure, but I believe we can't repeal WA resolutions merely for being illegal, which would make repealing "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" kind of hard.

Anyways, even if we don't condemn an ideology, there should still be some kind of rule that the actions we are condemning (or commending, really) must be unique; that is, we shouldn't see another resolution condemning a group for destroying a region, since we've already condemned that. I don't particularly care that C&Cs inherently allow duplication: it's a huge waste of time for really no reason at all.

[Far-Tortuga]

I suppose once my resolution condemning The Bad Place for unspecified but all-encompassing Bad Things passes then, we can just retire condemnations all together!

In all seriousness, I have to disagree with the notion that C&Cs are supposed to condemn ideas. That just seems to limiting to me. It sounds like you think we shouldn't have any more condemnations dealing with gameplay because raiding was already addressed in SC #1. So what happens when (Max willing) we in-character condemn a roleplaying nation for its heinous (in-character) actions? Should we no longer bother addressing IC actions because the WA has already expressed its distaste for a single incident? Aiming C&Cs at ideas is fundamentally flawed, because it is too wide a target and stifling of all further activity of the SC. Nations/players should be commended or condemned on their actions, not their thoughts.

My big objection to Condemn NAZI EUROPE is that its solely based on outside information, its going through the 4th wall even more than the "commend Kandarin the player" resolution did. If the nations of that region had been raiding regions under the guise of Nazi expansionism, or posting roleplays where they're exterminating the Jews, and the resolution reflected this, then I could understand condemning them. Personally I think we should only very rarely if ever actually condemn players for their negative actions, like we did with Macedon. Thinking that a SC condemnation actually influences the thought-process of the nominee is a pipe dream. Most of the responses I saw in Macedon and in NAZI EUROPE are in support of the condemnations because it gives them notoriety and a cool region flag.

That said, I'm more infinitely more comfortable with Macedon being condemned than NAZI EUROPE. Macedon at least actually did something in NationStates that was notorious, and their condemnation has rallied people against them. The NE Nazis are just riding Hitler's moldy coattails into the spotlight. Condemning the Nazis like we are is equivalent to condemning a troll because he's a troll; all you do is reward the nominee for their bad behavior.

[Unibot]

I feel like a real idiot, I had read "NAZI Europe" in one of its earlier drafts, and came back after a week to NS. Approved it without looking at the current draft, , and now see it to be a Nazism bashing fest with zero proof, or argument. Hell, it doesn't seem important to the author that the proposal is even attacking specifically, Nazi Europe, the region could have been "Nazi Soup Kitchen" for all they cared. This was a blatant attack on NS Nazism as a whole, admirable, but not for a system which requires specifics, and a victim that deserves specifics.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I agree, and I'd only hope that admins would delete "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" if ideological bans were declared illegal, if it was not repealed by then... I'm not 100% sure, but I believe we can't repeal WA resolutions merely for being illegal, ...

According to GA rules. If the direction of this thread is any indication, however, the SC is shaping up to be an "anything goes" kind of deal -- with the sole proviso that jokes are bad. Which is sad (on both points).

[Far-Tortuga]

And now its going to pass with over a thousand vote lead.

Its kind of funny how easy it is to take that Resolution and, with a few added words, write a condemnation that can condemn conceivably anything. I myself made one in less than 30 seconds condemning "militant Muslims" in the thread itself as part of an argument. And of course my own "Condemn The Bad Place" shares about 80% of its text with "Nazi." "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" is really a sort of Mad Libs for ultra-vague condemnations.

with the sole proviso that jokes are bad. Which is sad (on both points).

Its not a joke as long as you don't say it is. 39 endorsements to go!

[Unibot]

which would make repealing "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" kind of hard.

Not to be a broken record, but ...

the Proposal is condemning Nazi Europe with zero proof, or argument.
Its condemning the region essentially because its name is "Nazi Europe".

Thats a fundamental flaw of a condemnation, so it should be easy to write a convincing repeal - getting it passed will be another thing entirely however.

Imagine the common voter -he/she looks at the title, *sees, repeal "Condemn Nazi Europe" *
Takes one glance, and shrugs it off as Nazi sympathizing.