Legality Check

[Mahaj]

So I know that the Moderators tend to take a loooong time for legality checks, and since i'm an impatient person, i'm getting this asked now, because I won't submit it for a while, but if its ready in full form i'm probably not going to want to wait for a legality check then.

The backbone would remain the same anyhow.

does this proposal violate

A) The metagaming rule?
and/or

B) The "no affecting non WA nations" rule?


Thanks,
Mahaj.

[Sedgistan]

Handed it over to the lawyers.

[Mahaj]

Handed it over to the lawyers.

Lovely, thank you. (even though that still doesn't mean its anywhere close. )

[Ardchoille]

In view of what effect this may have on the lawyers' sensitive psyches, I'll compassionately rule in their stead:

It violates the metagaming rule hell, west and crooked. You're trying to discuss in-game practices and you're using in-game terminology.This is not a #GA2 parallel. The idea behind it is metagaming, no matter how you phrase it.

This proposal is an ex-parrot.

[Mahaj]

Is the main problem the last clause?

Because I could possibly word it in a different way, like such:

4. Member Nations are encouraged to hold the homelands of WA puppetry accountable for compliance with WA resolutions.

And would that be illegal for meta-gaming?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I think Ard made clear that pretty much the entirety of the proposal is intended to address gameplay acts, and thus the proposal in its entirety is metagaming. Whether or not the final clause is softened so that it doesn't violate the non-member rule quite so blatantly is neither here nor there.

[Mahaj]

I think Ard made clear that pretty much the entirety of the proposal is intended to address gameplay acts, and thus the proposal in its entirety is metagaming. Whether or not the final clause is softened so that it doesn't violate the non-member rule so blatantly is neither here nor there.

Isn't the important thing the text of the resolution, the letter of the law, as opposed to some thought held by the player behind the nation that may or may not exist?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

As nearly the entire concept of metagaming is that resolutions trying to "roleplay" gameplay acts using roleplay-ish language are still illegal and should be stamped out, no, I don't think the mods, who do exist within the metaverse (as opposed to the compliance gnomes, who don't), give a flip whether you've worded the proposal correctly using precise "Rule 4" language. The General Assembly is not the Security Council.

[Ardchoille]

You could dress the last clause up in a tutu and it still wouldn't be legal. It's the idea that's the problem, not the words you use to express it.

One way of thinking about metagaming is to look at it from the point of view of the people in a nation. They may know that their nation is a "puppet state" for another -- in the sense that the big one pulls the strings, exploits its resources, shapes its government. But they don't know that the big one is doing this to avoid an in-game penalty, because they don't know they're in a game.

If your response is "I don't RP", then you'll just have to go with the earlier explanation: you're trying to discuss in-game practices and you're using in-game terminology.

[Mahaj]

But couldn't the people know that their nation was doing it so that they could be undisturbed by legislation that actually affects them, perhaps the nation was denying its citizenry rights while at the same time having a puppet WA state. The people might know they were being oppressed by their nation, which was not in the WA so that it could oppress them, while at the same time purporting to have an international connection.

Is encouraging nations to hold puppetmasters accountable to WA legislation through their own separate diplomacy really a violation of the rules?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why? Can't you read?

You could dress the last clause up in a tutu and it still wouldn't be legal. It's the idea that's the problem, not the words you use to express it.

One way of thinking about metagaming is to look at it from the point of view of the people in a nation. They may know that their nation is a "puppet state" for another -- in the sense that the big one pulls the strings, exploits its resources, shapes its government. But they don't know that the big one is doing this to avoid an in-game penalty, because they don't know they're in a game.

If your response is "I don't RP", then you'll just have to go with the earlier explanation: you're trying to discuss in-game practices and you're using in-game terminology.

[Mahaj]

But, Kenny, they COULD know that they're doing it to oppress them and violate their human rights.

With all the softening i've done to clause 4, and its been a big change, I don't think that encouraging nations in their own separate diplomacy to view the puppeteers as accountable to WA resolutions is metagaming.

[Bears Armed]

But, Kenny, they COULD know that they're doing it to oppress them and violate their human rights.

With all the softening i've done to clause 4, and its been a big change, I don't think that encouraging nations in their own separate diplomacy to view the puppeteers as accountable to WA resolutions is metagaming.

As I pointed out in the proposal's own thread, wouldn't that depend on whether you're only talking about puppets with IC connections to their "masters" or you're talking about ones whose connections are purely OOC (and whose recognition as puppets would therefore have to be Meta-gaming) as well?

[Mahaj]

But, Kenny, they COULD know that they're doing it to oppress them and violate their human rights.

With all the softening i've done to clause 4, and its been a big change, I don't think that encouraging nations in their own separate diplomacy to view the puppeteers as accountable to WA resolutions is metagaming.

As I pointed out in the proposal's own thread, wouldn't that depend on whether you're only talking about puppets with IC connections to their "masters" or you're talking about ones whose connections are purely OOC (and whose recognition as puppets would therefore have to be Meta-gaming) as well?

Well, it would have to be IC, so that could mean either a RP admission or, like, Bears Armed Mission, you could clearly say thats a puppet of Bears Armed, in the IC world. (as well as the OOC world, for that matter)

[Bears Armed]

As I pointed out in the proposal's own thread, wouldn't that depend on whether you're only talking about puppets with IC connections to their "masters" or you're talking about ones whose connections are purely OOC (and whose recognition as puppets would therefore have to be Meta-gaming) as well?

Well, it would have to be IC, so that could mean either a RP admission or, like, Bears Armed Mission, you could clearly say thats a puppet of Bears Armed, in the IC world. (as well as the OOC world, for that matter)

So all that you'd really achieve would be [potentially] to push some players into switching WA puppets from ones that do have IC links with their main nations to ones that don't?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

But, Kenny, they COULD know that they're doing it to oppress them and violate their human rights.

With all the softening i've done to clause 4, and its been a big change, I don't think that encouraging nations in their own separate diplomacy to view the puppeteers as accountable to WA resolutions is metagaming.

I really don't know what logical dysfunction seems to be affecting you that you cannot understand a simple mod ruling: the fourth clause isn't the problem, your entire concept is. Addressing gameplay actions in the GA, in whatever context, using whatever "softened" language, is illegal. It doesn't matter if you roleplay it, reword it, hide it, pretend it isn't there, or dress it up like Marilyn Monroe and bid it sing "Happy Birthday Mr. President", gameplay does not belong in the GA. Puppetwanking is a gameplay act, done for purely gameplay reasons; though you can roleplay it however you like, just like you can roleplay region-crashing, both are illegal as a GA resolution topic.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Puppetwanking is a gameplay act, done for purely gameplay reasons...

Bears Armed doesn't do it for 'purely gameplay reasons.' There is a roleplaying aspect to puppetwanking. It's no more exclusively gameplay than compliance. If a proposal is discussing the roleplaying aspect -- such as Bears Armed maintaining an 'embassy state' to avoid roleplayed compliance until certain resolutions are repealed -- I don't see how that's illegal in any respect. You're saying that even if we can roleplay it, we can't talk about it because it's not roleplaying.

[Mahaj]

But, Kenny, they COULD know that they're doing it to oppress them and violate their human rights.

With all the softening i've done to clause 4, and its been a big change, I don't think that encouraging nations in their own separate diplomacy to view the puppeteers as accountable to WA resolutions is metagaming.

I really don't know what logical dysfunction seems to be affecting you that you cannot understand a simple mod ruling: the fourth clause isn't the problem, your entire concept is. Addressing gameplay actions in the GA, in whatever context, using whatever "softened" language, is illegal. It doesn't matter if you roleplay it, reword it, hide it, pretend it isn't there, or dress it up like Marilyn Monroe and bid it sing "Happy Birthday Mr. President", gameplay does not belong in the GA. Puppetwanking is a gameplay act, done for purely gameplay reasons; though you can roleplay it however you like, just like you can roleplay region-crashing, both are illegal as a GA resolution topic.

So the idea, that member nations, when conducting diplomacy with puppetwanking nations, should, through their own diplomacy, hold nations accountable to WA resolutions, not enforced by the WA itself, is illegal? Why? Its purely RolePlaying.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh my God.

The whole proposal is illegal. Not Clause 4. The whole proposal. Illegal. Get it through your freaking head. "Hell, west and crooked"...ILLEGAL.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Puppetwanking is a gameplay act, done for purely gameplay reasons...

Bears Armed doesn't do it for 'purely gameplay reasons.' There is a roleplaying aspect to puppetwanking. It's no more exclusively gameplay than compliance. If a proposal is discussing the roleplaying aspect -- such as Bears Armed maintaining an 'embassy state' to avoid roleplayed compliance until certain resolutions are repealed -- I don't see how that's illegal in any respect. You're saying that even if we can roleplay it, we can't talk about it because it's not roleplaying.

Exactly. Referencing gameplay using RP language is central to the concept of metagaming, which is why it is illegal. Just because BA and others have elected to roleplay their puppetwank doesn't make it any less an illegal gameplay reference.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Exactly. Referencing gameplay using RP language is central to the concept of metagaming, which is why it is illegal. Just because BA and others have elected to roleplay their puppetwank doesn't make it any less an illegal gameplay reference.

It's not referencing gameplay. It's acknowledging a roleplayed construct. I can have an 'embassy state' without physically creating it on NationStates, and the resolution would apply to that as well. Metagaming isn't just 'referencing gameplay.' It's referencing things that cannot possibly be known in the roleplayed universe. If people are roleplaying WA puppets, then you can't say that it's impossible to know that WA puppets exist.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I'm not aware of any realistic, RL-based roleplay scenario that involves designating embassies as sovereign nations, are you? What Mahaj is referencing is obviously the gameplay practice of creating micronations for the sole purpose of circumventing WA stats changes. Which doesn't become magically legal just because one or more nations have constructed the novel idea of roleplaying a gameplay-esque situation.

[Mahaj]

I'm not aware of any realistic, RL-based roleplay scenario that involves designating embassies as sovereign nations, are you? What Mahaj is referencing is obviously the gameplay practice of creating micronations for the sole purpose of circumventing WA stats changes. Which doesn't become magically legal just because one or more nations have constructed the novel idea of roleplaying a gameplay-esque situation.

You might call it obvious, but its not the only thing you could infer from the text of the resolution.

[Sedgistan]

That's more than enough here. You've been given an explanation for the ruling, this is not the place to argue it. If Ardchoille has anything further to say, she'll put it here or in your proposal's thread.