SC Rules discussion

[Ardchoille]

Now it says "you’re condemning an action that’s legal under NS rules".

So... if it's legal, it can't be condemned. And ofcourse, if it's illegal it can't be condemned either since that's Mod territory. Perhaps the "Note" should be part of the rule instead of something mentioned afterwards as if it's an aside comment?

Raiding is legal under NS rules. The action itself couldn't be condemned.

For the life of me, I can't think of why that would have to be a rule. Similarly for condemning defending, or pretty much any other action taken by anyone anywhere in NS. Isn't it the purpose of the SC to form majority-held opinions on stuff that happens in NS?

Ballotonia

We went through this one wa-a-ay back when C&Cs first hit. It'd be like condemning the law of gravity for making people fall off cliffs. There are some parts of NS that are, well, Max-legal. Not admin-legal, not mod-legal, but built into the game mechanism legal. You can't change it, you can't even hope that, if enough people express an opinion on it, it will change. You can't condemn a GA ambassador for writing proposals, because that's what ambassadors do in the GA. But you can condemn them for writing BAD proposals, and you can commend them for writing GOOD proposals.

Similarly, you can't condemn players who play the raider-defender game for playing the raider-defender game, because that's what they do on NS. But you can condemn them for doing it cruelly, or condescendingly, or bullyingly, or anything else that gets people's backs up. And you can commend them for doing it kindly -- "Excuse me, just passing through, we'll be gone in, like, two secs, you won't know we're here".

There is no point in allowing the SC to commend or condemn game-legal actions. That would, effectively, be one part of the game saying that another part of the game is wrong. When it's said on the forums it sparks flame wars. We should not be obliged to spend a week cementing a flame-war into a resolution.

Whatever the SC 's opinion of the different parts of the game, they're not going to go away: they're the world of NS. So it would be as silly for the SC to waste its time condemning a game-legal action as it would for the RL UN to spend its time condemning Mt Everest, or air-breathing.

A proposal that tries to do that will get turfed. But a proposal that tries to condemn the way that it's done, won't.

I could change it to "you can't condemn an action that is possible within the game mechanism", if that will make it clearer. I was trying to keep it simple. "Game mechanism" is a bit off-putting because newbies won't know what the game mechanism does. Whereas "raiding is legal" seems easy to understand.

EDIT 1:

Isn't it the purpose of the SC to form majority-held opinions on stuff that happens in NS?

No, it's the purpose of the SC to form majority-held opinions on player-performed stuff that happens on NS. Majority opinion might, in theory, influence players; it won't influence programming.

EDIT 2: CR, plagiarism is going to get any kind of proposal turfed, so I don't see the need to say that again here, which is strictly about what gets C&Cs turfed. It should go in the SC rules overview that Eras did,

[Ballotonia]

No, it's the purpose of the SC to form majority-held opinions on player-performed stuff that happens on NS. Majority opinion might, in theory, influence players; it won't influence programming.

Legal actions are player-performed stuff.

Anyway, that rule can be easily circumvented by not saying "condemn region X for raiding region Y" but "condemn region X for raiding region Y while looking funny at the natives". The latter being the WAY it is done, which is what you're arguing. I just think it's gonna be silly to punish people for forgetting to use that extra silly clause which serves just to please the mods perusing the list.

Ballotonia

[Ardchoille]

It's going to be the SC punishing itself, if it develops a reputation for not being absolutely clear about why it's condemning or commending. Deleting a proposal is not punishing the player who submitted it, it's just keeping the forums running. Why should players have to sit around arguing about what a proposal is actually aiming at, when what they want to know is whether they should vote for it? Every proposal that goes through adds an extra layer of precedent to the category. Every weak proposal dilutes all others -- "who cares about the SC condemning you, mate, they'll condemn anyone who's got a runny nose".

"Looking funny at the natives" might have got by, last week; not now. Thanks for the line about "silly clauses", though -- must remember to add the standard disclaimer about joke proposals.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I just posted a commendation in the silly C&Cs thread in which the proposer mentions themselves in the text along with the commendee. Is that legal? Is commendee a word?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

What about this proposal (which I assume is still on the list)? First off, it reads like a regional ad, which is something I'm sure you don't want C&Cs to be used for, but it also doesn't seem to meet the "Outstanding" criteria for Commendations. If such is the case, then wouldn't nearly all regional-ad type Commendations be stricken under this rule?

[Ardchoille]

Well, there's one thing I can happily rule on: Yes, commendee's a word.

On the other aspect ... Under GA rules I'd kill it for branding: proposals are a permanent record; nations (even proposers) aren't permanent, and their use in a proposal could later undermine the meaning or effectiveness of a resolution.

But there's nothing in the current C&C rules to support that. In fact, the nature of SC proposals works against it: both the categories so far created name nations that may cease to exist.

It doesn't create precedent of the sort that Condemn Nazi Germany did.

It doesn't detract from the meaning of the proposal. It doesn't contradict anything.

It might be suspect as mixing IC and OOC -- "spam" and "flame" are OOC actions, whereas from my point of view the entity "The Holy Empire of Albaron" is an IC, roleplayed entity, especially with that pretitle -- but I'm aware that for many gameplayers a nation's name is OOC, signifying that the person speaking is known on these forums by that nickname (@@nationname@@), and the proposal can easily be read in that context.

Mods' practice so far (there are three of us who intermittently sweep the queue) has been to leave SC proposals alone as much as possible.

Leaving it alone isn't going to be a problem now, as it's not going to make it to quorum before it dies, but obviously it's going to come up again.

So, on the precedent that SC proposals are already exempt from the existing GA rules on metagaming, game mechanics and RW references, I'll extend that to branding and rule that [u]"branding" doesn't apply in the SC .

(If a proposal's written in such a way that the branding is used to flame, troll or gloat, it'd be actionable and would be deleted.)

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

What about this proposal (which I assume is still on the list)? First off, it reads like a regional ad, which is something I'm sure you don't want C&Cs to be used for, but it also doesn't seem to meet the "Outstanding" criteria for Commendations. If such is the case, then wouldn't nearly all regional-ad type Commendations be stricken under this rule?

Hell they all sound like regional ads to me.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

It doesn't detract from the meaning of the proposal. It doesn't contradict anything.

Doesn't add anything to the proposal either. I could see if perhaps it was somehow relevant to the argument: the nominated region had done something extraordinarily kind to the proposer. But this is branding, pure and simple. It serves no purpose within the text of the proposal.

Why are these SC proposals being held to such a lower standard? Is it felt that the people who write them aren't capable of following a few simple rules? Are we grading them on a curve?

[Ardchoille]

What about this proposal (which I assume is still on the list)? First off, it reads like a regional ad, which is something I'm sure you don't want C&Cs to be used for, but it also doesn't seem to meet the "Outstanding" criteria for Commendations. If such is the case, then wouldn't nearly all regional-ad type Commendations be stricken under this rule?

That would oblige queue-sweeping mods to check every C&C to find out if the proposer were in the region. But proposers could simply switch regions till the proposal reached quorum or was voted on. And, in any case, there's no reason a proposer shouldn't think their region is sufficiently worthy of commendation to write a proposal on it.

I don't like regional-ad C&Cs, but QoD is right, in a sense: if you say a particular region's done something outstanding, it's going to work like a regional ad even it that wasn't the intention.

If it becomes a problem mods will have to review this policy and enforce the "outstanding" part of the category more narrowly. But at this stage I think we're going to have to rely on the opinions of the delegates approving proposals. If it reaches quorum, regional ad or no, we have to assume that delegates think it's possibly justified -- certainly enough to wait and see what further proof the proposer can come up with.

Like, the proposal, as it stands, might not make the region sound outstanding, but that may be because the writer's not good at spin; delegates checking on it may think it's actually justified. If it fails it becomes a sort of reverse ad -- Oh, @@Thatregion@@? It couldn't even get its own proposal to quorum. Couldn't even get 50 people to vote for it. Nah, wouldn't go there.

This is not to say that a concerned player cannot attempt to influence those opinions by posting a thread on the proposal, or joining an existing one, and pointing out what he considers are its faults. Though that, of course, would give the proposal more exposure and make it work even more like a regional ad.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

So, on the precedent that SC proposals are already exempt from the existing GA rules on metagaming, game mechanics and RW references, I'll extend that to branding and rule that "branding" doesn't apply in the SC .

I understand that the branding rule has to be waived as it pertains to the nominee and any nations/regions whose mention might be relevant to the proposal's argument, but do we have to chuck out the branding rule in its entirety? "The Holy Empire of Albaron asks of all World Assembly members to COMMEND the Rejected Realms" doesn't add anything to the argument. It's just the author mentioning himself in the text for no good reason.

I realize that you're being lax with the rules on these C&Cs, but can we at least have some standards?

[Firstaria]

I agree, using the name of the C&C nation/region is a good thing, almost compulsory, talking about others not.

[Ardchoille]

Why are these SC proposals being held to such a lower standard? Is it felt that the people who write them aren't capable of following a few simple rules? Are we grading them on a curve?

I realize that you're being lax with the rules on these C&Cs, but can we at least have some standards?

Not being lax, being simpler.

Simpler, because GA resolutions create laws. They have to be internationally applicable laws that apply to billions of citizens in every nation in the multiverse, and that makes them complex. Situations are bound to arise that haven't been thought of, but to which these rules will have to apply. They'll be challenged by the finest lawyers available internationally and they've got to hold up to that kind of scrutiny, so they've got to be as precise as possible. An infelicity in the wording will mean a mistake in the effect. They're for-all-time laws, unless they get repealed. They'll shape every new WA nation that comes along. So if @@nationname@@ is in the proposal text, and @@nationame@@ dies, there's an opening for the lawyers of remaining nations to insist that it's now invalid. It probably wouldn't work, but the GA doesn't need to get tied up in that sort of pettifogging, so GA proposals can't brand.

SC resolutions create actions. What action they create is in the proposal category itself. The nation to which/whom the action applies is entered into the game mechanism by the proposal form. The purpose of the proposal is to get the WA's permission to perform the action. An infelicity in the wording won't mean a mistake in the effect, because they can have only one effect, and have it only once. The use of the proposer's name couldn't undermine the meaning or effect of the resolution. Each SC proposal has to be a oncer.

Say we had a GA proposal saying "Feed the dog". It would have to define what was meant by "dog", what was meant by "feed", under what conditions WA nations were required to feed the damned dog, and probably what kind of food was to be given in what form (cooked? cut up? on the bone?) and in what proportions (not quantities, because different nations use different systems of measurement). The author would have to consider its areas of effect, and how strongly it would affect those areas. And all this has to be IC.

An SC proposal saying "feed the dog" would simply have to say what dog was to be fed. It wouldn't have to say who'd do it: the WA is the doer of any SC actions. It wouldn't have to say how much, or in what conditions, or any of the GA details, because the game mechanism is going to take care of all that. If the nation asking that this be done dies after the resolution is enacted, it won't make a "hole" in all future applications of that resolution, because there is no future application of that resolution. Its application is over, the action has been done. And it doesn't have to be IC.

That being so, the area of the proposal that has to be precise is the area that tells why the proposal should become a resolution -- which is to say, why the action should be done. We're not even demanding that it be factually accurate; that's left to the SC to determine. So (it seems to me) that's where the rules should focus.

I don't object to GA proposal rules being complex because, to do their jobs, the proposals have to be complex. I do object to making SC proposal rules complex because, to do their jobs, the proposals don't have to be complex. The two councils are two different bodies that do two different jobs with two different sorts of proposal and so (again, to my mind) it makes sense to insist that they have two different sets of proposal-making rules.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't look to Hack's guidelines on general matters, because years of experience backs those rules. They build on previous ones and they've kept what works. They've been developed to help make the business of making laws easier. But the SC doesn't make laws. The GA rules like "stick strictly to the category"and "you can't do more than the category says" fit both sorts. But "you can't propose to do things the game mechanics do" isn't needed, because the SC categories tell you exactly what the game mechanics will let you do. I don't see why the SC should take from the GA rules that it doesn't need, any more than the GA should take from the SC rules that it doesn't need (for example, the one that says "if it can be done in Moderation or Getting Help, don't make a proposal about it").

Is there a need for a rule on branding, other than the fact that the GA has a rule on branding?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Is there a need for a rule on branding, other than the fact that the GA has a rule on branding?

Bah! Nevermind. It just seems like we're encouraging SC resolutions to be the crappy low-rent alternative to real resolutions. "SC Resolutions™, the resolution anyone can write!" It didn't have to be that way.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Really? If that is your position, that SC proposals needn't live up to the rigorous standards of GA law, then why are you guys being such hardasses about humor in proposals? Hack and Fris were never the humorless schoolmarms the lot of you are being on this, and, as you rightly pointed out, they were responsible for enforcing standards for actual laws, not badges for nations to wear. I received this as a result of my attempt to "liberate" Jordia:

You submitted a Proposal that was unfortunately invalid. If you would like to re-submit this or any other proposal, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines in the Proposal Rules forum thread -- especially the one about Joke Proposals, where it says DON'T SUBMIT joke proposals! They shall not pass!

Can you guess which "Proposal Rules forum thread" I was linked to? That's right! The General Assembly one! It seems to me you guys are insisting on GA-par standards for the SC, but you're being incredibly selective as to which standards to enforce.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

It seems to me you guys are insisting on GA-par standards for the SC, but you're being incredibly selective as to which standards to enforce.

Quoted for truth.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Really? If that is your position, that SC proposals needn't live up to the rigorous standards of GA law, then why are you guys being such hardasses about humor in proposals?

Because your form of humor is actually insulting and general 'neener-neener'-ing anything Security Council, in an attempt to prove a point that somehow you're better than it, or whatever it is you're trying to prove... when you're actually just being annoying? I don't know. That's sounds like a good reason why. You'd think people who complained for weeks about how C&Cs were a waste of time, and go on endless diatribes about GA standards applying to the SC, wouldn't actually try and waste the WA's time with stupid joke proposals.

If you want to introduce GA standards in the SC, then do it the same way the World Assembly came to have its modern standards: write proposals the way you think they should be written. Being a nuisance isn't going to create nor enforce standards.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Flamebaiting Kenny

Was there any purpose to this other than to flamebait? Funny how you haven't been interested in the topic of rules enforcement until a certain poster posted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Flamebaiting Kenny

Was there any purpose to this other than to flamebait? Funny how you haven't been interested in the topic of rules enforcement until a certain poster posted.

How is that flamebait? I'm not allowed to tell people what they're doing? If I called him a stupid poo, that would be flamebait. I called him a hypocrite, instead, showing him the error of his ways. Anyways, I've posted several times in this thread, thank you very much.

And yes, there is a purpose:

If you want to introduce GA standards in the SC, then do it the same way the World Assembly came to have its modern standards: write proposals the way you think they should be written. Being a nuisance isn't going to create nor enforce standards.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

What mystifies me, as you obviously have a problem with me posting here, is why you still haven't put me on ignore.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Flamebaiting Kenny

Was there any purpose to this other than to flamebait? Funny how you haven't been interested in the topic of rules enforcement until a certain poster posted.

How is that flamebait? I'm not allowed to tell people what they're doing? If I called him a stupid poo, that would be flamebait. I called him a hypocrite, instead, showing him the error of his ways. Anyways, I've posted several times in this thread, thank you very much.

Woo, that must have taken a long time to write. All those links cleverly crafted into a sentence. I'm impressed.

No what I meant, and I'm pretty sure you knew I meant, was that you hadn't taken an interest in the enforcement of either the branding rule, the joke proposal rule, or the double standard on rules enforcement in general. That is what Kenny and I were discussing with Ard, and look!, Glen-Rhodes suddenly shows up to start an argument!

I'm aware that you posted in the thread when the subject was the Nazi Europe condemnation.

And yes, there is a purpose:

If you want to introduce GA standards in the SC, then do it the same way the World Assembly came to have its modern standards: write proposals the way you think they should be written. Being a nuisance isn't going to create nor enforce standards.

I'm pretty sure your purpose was to commence an argument and then get the last word, thus proving your superior debating skills.

[Glen-Rhodes]

What mystifies me, as you obviously have a problem with me posting here, is why you still haven't put me on ignore.

Because that's cheap. I want to know what you're saying. What if I agree? What if I want to point out something? Besides, I didn't like it when Absolvability or Sionis Prioratus put me on ignore, simply because we disagreed with each other. Anyways, it's not like I fish out your posts, analyzing every detail, formulating how I can possibly make a snarky remark. What I don't understanding is how you can ask why Ard is being hard on joke proposals, when knowing full well that you don't have a good laugh in mind when writing them. "Liberate Jordia" was a 'neener-neener' response to me saying backwater regions wouldn't be the subject of a successful liberation, not a joke proposal made in good humor.

No what I meant, and I'm pretty sure you knew I meant, was that you hadn't taken an interest in the enforcement of either the branding rule, the joke proposal rule, or the double standard on rules enforcement in general. That is what Kenny and I were discussing with Ard, and look!, Glen-Rhodes suddenly shows up to start an argument!

What? The discussion has been going on for a whole 3 hours, as far as I can tell. If I had popped in four days later...

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

What? The discussion has been going on for a whole 3 hours, as far as I can tell. If I had popped in four days later...

*yawn* Whatever.

[Erastide]

Was there any purpose to this other than to flamebait? Funny how you haven't been interested in the topic of rules enforcement until a certain poster posted.

How is that flamebait? I'm not allowed to tell people what they're doing? If I called him a stupid poo, that would be flamebait. I called him a hypocrite, instead, showing him the error of his ways. Anyways, I've posted several times in this thread, thank you very much.

Woo, that must have taken a long time to write. All those links cleverly crafted into a sentence. I'm impressed.

No what I meant, and I'm pretty sure you knew I meant, was that you hadn't taken an interest in the enforcement of either the branding rule, the joke proposal rule, or the double standard on rules enforcement in general. That is what Kenny and I were discussing with Ard, and look!, Glen-Rhodes suddenly shows up to start an argument!

I'm aware that you posted in the thread when the subject was the Nazi Europe condemnation.

Frankly, I see you and Kenny along with Glen-Rhodes veering off into insults and general dickheadedness.

Cut the crap gentlemen.

[Ardchoille]

<snip snipes>

Cut it out: you, Kenny, Mad Sheep Railgun and anyone else who joins the chorus in this constant sniping between you. It accomplishes nothing, it creates bad feeling and, dammit, it's not even the sort of natsov vs internationalist political attitudinising that would fit ICly. Tension between the chambers might work as an RP convention, but this thread is not IC, it's a discussion thread. "Discussion" doesn't mean "yell at each other".

As to joke proposals ...

(1) the reason "proposal cut" TGs get linked to the GA rules thread is that the SC rules thread -- which, so far, is the C&C one -- has to be linked to manually at the moment. Sometimes mods forget and leave the GA reference in.

(2) the rule about NOT SUBMITTING joke proposals has been in force as long as I've been playing NS. You've always been able to make all the joke proposals you like and post them on the forums, where they have a wider audience anyway. The reason for the DON'T SUBMIT rule is obvious: we don't want the WA to be stuck with them as legislation, an attitude I'm sure you all, with your insistence on standards, will understand. When the quorum was high and there were always proposal-specialist mods sifting the queue, the risk of that was small. It's not now.

(3) the reason for enforcing the DON'T SUBMIT rule now in particular is that there's been an upsurge in not-so-funny joke C&Cs that flame their subject when quorum is so low there's a risk of them getting to vote. The writers of joke proposals can still post them on the forums and have the guts to take whatever flak or the wit to enjoy whatever happy nuttiness ensues. Submitting them to be queued means the victims have no ready reply. Sure, they can complain in Moderation -- and then find themselves popularly regarded as humourless bastards who can't take a bit of fun. So the mods are volunteering for the "humourless bastards" flak instead.

As far as I remember, I must have thought Kenny's "liberate Jordia" was meant to be funny, since Inflatable Gandalfs got a "They shall not pass!" instead of a "Cut the crap, you know damn well what the rules say, a warning has been recorded against your nation" response. Which is more what some proposals deserve. The only joke proposal I've actually penalised recently was a strikingly idiotic GA one that cost someone their WA membership. I haven't noticed Sirocco or Melkor recording any, GA or SC, but with the quorum so low and the "jokes" so unfunny, it's probably just a matter of time.

But that's really a side issue. The thing we're butting heads over is that we differ on how much of the GA's general rules should transfer to the SC (obviously category-specific ones can't). I think the SC should adopt only what it needs to do its job inside the limits of the NS community. You seem to me to be saying that it must be bound by all the rules that existed when it was formed, except for the ones that it physically can't. I was of the same mind when it looked as if the two were to be forced into impossible togetherness, but now they're separated, I'm for treating them separately.

I've been trying to compromise by looking at the GA rules one by one and seeing how they'd fit. I think branding introduces a complication the SC doesn't need, but if you can show me why it's needed, I'll include it.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I think branding introduces a complication the SC doesn't need, but if you can show me why it's needed, I'll include it.

Yeah you're right, it's too complicated. Forget I mentioned it.