The Metagaming Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Meta-Gaming

Meta-gaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself.

Examples of meta-gaming:
Requiring the Security Council to take certain action
Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations
Mandating actions to be taken by regions
Requiring Moderators to perform specific actions
Mandating actions on the forums

[Frisbeeteria]

Bump for discussion.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Oh, this is GA? At first thought it was SC.
I don't see a problem with the rule right now,though it's wrong to presume a lack of problems.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The problem with this rule is not what is written in the rule, which is pretty clear and sensible. It's that it is by far the most expansively interpreted rule, especially under the rubric of "forced roleplay", and is used to shut down virtually any roleplay in proposal text.

[Frisbeeteria]

especially under the rubric of "forced roleplay", and is used to shut down virtually any roleplay in proposal text.

Can you expand on that for newer players, and perhaps suggest some mitigating edits to the rule?

[The Dark Star Republic]

especially under the rubric of "forced roleplay", and is used to shut down virtually any roleplay in proposal text.

Can you expand on that for newer players,

Okay, a simple example, which was raised in another thread:

The abortion rulings generated an enormous amount of complexity. One reason they got so tangled up was the insistence that resolutions couldn't be "human specific": that they had to take account of (literally quoting a moderator here) "sapient monotremes", because not all NS nations contain humans - in roleplay terms. There is nothing in the text of the rule to back any of that up, but it's how it's come to be interpreted: that even mentioning any particular roleplayed reality in a proposal constitutes "forced roleplaying" and is thus illegal.

and perhaps suggest some mitigating edits to the rule?

Not really, no - because I don't agree that the rule actually says any of this. It's about how the moderators interpret the rule, over which I have no control.

[Defwa]

I never understood why the region rule is under metagaming.
I get that not all members of all regions are WA members, but that seems like it would fit better under the rule for legislating on non members.

Otherwise, doing something like regulating trade between regions (bad example, wouldn't want to see it happen), should be doable without any sort of forced role play or real impact on regional operations.

[Christian Democrats]

I agree with DSR. During the Great Abortion Debate, various players used this rule against me (a person new to the GA!) because the abortion blocker resolution that I proposed assumed human anatomy and a 40-week gestational period. I submitted my proposal to ban abortion after 24 weeks (with five exceptions) and to leave the rest to member states, and it quickly reached quorum, but the moderators removed it. I was never given a ruling even though I waited for two weeks and, then, was told that my proposal had become moot given the passage of On Abortion. I hold the same position that Glen-Rhodes advanced then (2010): moderators should not strike down anthropocentric proposals. They ought to treat human-specific proposals and species-neutral proposals the same way. Otherwise, modern-tech, realistic roleplayers are being subjected to discrimination and forced roleplay of the future-tech, "sapient monotremes" kind.*

* Let's not forget that the daily issues are modern-tech, anthropocentric! Talking platypuses aren't intrinsically part of the game.

[Tzorsland]

I never understood why the region rule is under metagaming.

I can understand to an extent why this is so. Stat wise there is no such thing as a region. Each nation within a given region is a complete atomic unit and nothing any one nation can do can stat wank any other nation within the region. WA resolutions stat want everyone universally within the WA. From a stat wank view, they simply don't exist. They only exist in terms of the way voting occurs in the WA. Generally speaking, it would be wrong to subdivide the nations in the WA in any manner whatsoever, especially regionally.

[Tzorsland]

My personal preference: Just as we assume "English" is the written language of resolutions and they are all translated according to a WA roleplay language, we really need to assume an "Earth Normal" environment and simply assume that Gnomes will translate the language to all possible variations. There comes a point where trying to assume non earth normal conditions as well as past and future tech is just plain resolution writing blockers.

Always add a "your role played nation may vary" and this will drop the silly nonsense of "forced role play." (Leave that to the Stripper Commandos.)

[Excidium Planetis]

I agree with DSR. During the Great Abortion Debate, various players used this rule against me (a person new to the GA!) because the abortion blocker resolution that I proposed assumed human anatomy and a 40-week gestational period. I submitted my proposal to ban abortion after 24 weeks (with five exceptions) and to leave the rest to member states, and it quickly reached quorum, but the moderators removed it. I was never given a ruling even though I waited for two weeks and, then, was told that my proposal had become moot given the passage of On Abortion. I hold the same position that Glen-Rhodes advanced then (2010): moderators should not strike down anthropocentric proposals. They ought to treat human-specific proposals and species-neutral proposals the same way. Otherwise, modern-tech, realistic roleplayers are being subjected to discrimination and forced roleplay of the future-tech, "sapient monotremes" kind.*

* Let's not forget that the daily issues are modern-tech, anthropocentric! Talking platypuses aren't intrinsically part of the game.

Actually, were the forced roleplay rule removed, you could be subjected to FTers making you include sapient monotremes. I have a proposal written that would give any rights given to humans to any other sapients as well, a removal of the forced roleplay rule would allow me to write the proposal in such a way as to force recognition of non-human sapients by WA members.

Edit: Oh, and talking platypuses can be part of issues. Just make one your animal, or your leader, or make your religion "talking platypus-ism". And there are aliens in the issues, so non-human sapients are NS canon.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Actually, were the forced roleplay rule removed, you could be subjected to FTers making you include sapient monotremes. I have a proposal written that would give any rights given to humans to any other sapients as well, a removal of the forced roleplay rule would allow me to write the proposal in such a way as to force recognition of non-human sapients by WA members.

Yeah, that's great. I actually have a draft like that on hold, too. It was halted by a mod over COCR complications. It's not a new idea. Though it is kind of loopy that proposals essentially forcing nations to recognize non-human sapience are not forced roleplay, whereas humanoid-centered proposals are.

[Frisbeeteria]

and perhaps suggest some mitigating edits to the rule?

Not really, no - because I don't agree that the rule actually says any of this. It's about how the moderators interpret the rule, over which I have no control.

Fair enough. Can you suggest some mitigating edits that would add a rule that limited mods from interpreting it that way? And no, I'm not trying to put you on the spot - I welcome suggestions from anyone. If the rules aren't clear enough for the mods to act predictably, then perhaps better rules would help. It does work both ways.

[Excidium Planetis]

Not really, no - because I don't agree that the rule actually says any of this. It's about how the moderators interpret the rule, over which I have no control.

Fair enough. Can you suggest some mitigating edits that would add a rule that limited mods from interpreting it that way? And no, I'm not trying to put you on the spot - I welcome suggestions from anyone. If the rules aren't clear enough for the mods to act predictably, then perhaps better rules would help. It does work both ways.

Meta-Gaming

Meta-gaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself.

"Forced Roleplay" is not Meta-gaming since the roleplay is within the WA itself.

Examples of meta-gaming:
Requiring the Security Council to take certain action
Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations
Mandating actions to be taken by regions
Requiring Moderators to perform specific actions
Mandating actions on the forums

How about that? Does that make sense? I mean, the WA is really just a giant roleplay that happens to be a part of the actual game and has game effects, and the forced roleplay rules are kind of contradictory anyways (NAPA forces me to acknowledge nukes exist!) so why not just add a clause saying roleplay is a part of the WA?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Not really, no - because I don't agree that the rule actually says any of this. It's about how the moderators interpret the rule, over which I have no control.

Fair enough. Can you suggest some mitigating edits that would add a rule that limited mods from interpreting it that way?

Why does the rule even need to exist at all?

Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself.

Something that breaks the fourth wall is a RL violation. Something that attempts to force attempts the WA has no control over is a Game Mechanics violation. All of the specific examples cited are Game Mechanics: the WA cannot force an SC action, have an effect on a region, make stat changes in non-member countries. Even TMGH's original conception of the "forced roleplay" rule was clearly a Game Mechanics concern:

Proposals that don't force role-play are fine, always have been. When your Proposal would force all 30,000 some UN nations to do something on the forum is when we have problems. UN Resolutions cannot force the player to do something.

[Christian Democrats]

I agree. Combine Metagaming and Game Mechanics. Every time these rules are cited, I have to look back at the Rules thread because I cannot keep them straight. And I've been here for five years!

[Ainocra]

I can support that, combine them. it'll make life simpler all around

[Glen-Rhodes]

There are so many issues with this rule, because people have just dumped so many things into it.

"Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations" is not metagaming, for example. Non-member nations actually do exist in the WA universe. Forcing legislation upon them is an issue of legal jurisdiction within the universe.

Now we can have a separate rule we can't write resolutions forcing non-members to do something, and a role played analogue to that rule being that whatever unrepealable, unamendable treaty that created the WA makes that illegal. But again, it's not metagaming itself to attempt to do it-- it's simply illegal. What would be metagaming is discussing the actual game rule itself.

I bring that example up because people *have* taken this line and attempted to strike down proposals that discuss non-members period. That's not metagaming and it doesn't make any sense to call it metagaming.

At the end of the day, metagaming is a very simple rule. All metagaming is is breaking the wall between the fictional universe and the game that created that universe. It's not a difficult concept. Those last two examples in the existing rule are perfect examples of metagaming. The entire Game Mechanics rule is also about metagaming, so I think it would actually be helpful to merge these two

The whole "forced roleplay" thing in nonsense. That is not an issue of metagaming. That's an issue of disagreement on how the WA universe works. I believe it ought to be MT with humans, and that's it. Roleplay anything else you want, but the canon is MT-human, analogous to earth. No space empires. No talking plants or bears. No time-space warp that allows 10,000 nations to exist on the same planet, or that allow that planet quadrillions of people. Those are things we ignore for the sake of a realistic game. Choosing to bypass that isn't metagaming, it's simply violating the unwritten agreement about the parameters of the WA universe. What would be metagaming is this very discussion about how those parameters come about and are enforced.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations" is not metagaming, for example. Non-member nations actually do exist in the WA universe. Forcing legislation upon them is an issue of legal jurisdiction within the universe.

Now we can have a separate rule we can't write resolutions forcing non-members to do something, and a role played analogue to that rule being that whatever unrepealable, unamendable treaty that created the WA makes that illegal. But again, it's not metagaming itself to attempt to do it-- it's simply illegal. What would be metagaming is discussing the actual game rule itself.

What does this mean, exactly?

At the end of the day, metagaming is a very simple rule. All metagaming is is breaking the wall between the fictional universe and the game that created that universe. It's not a difficult concept. Those last two examples in the existing rule are perfect examples of metagaming. The entire Game Mechanics rule is also about metagaming, so I think it would actually be helpful to merge these two

But they're not the same thing. Game Mechanics is actually trying to change the game through legislation, and metagaming is confusing the game with the IC-verse. Two somewhat related, but distinct concepts.

The whole "forced roleplay" thing in nonsense. That is not an issue of metagaming. That's an issue of disagreement on how the WA universe works. I believe it ought to be MT with humans, and that's it. Roleplay anything else you want, but the canon is MT-human, analogous to earth. No space empires. No talking plants or bears. No time-space warp that allows 10,000 nations to exist on the same planet, or that allow that planet quadrillions of people. Those are things we ignore for the sake of a realistic game. Choosing to bypass that isn't metagaming, it's simply violating the unwritten agreement about the parameters of the WA universe. What would be metagaming is this very discussion about how those parameters come about and are enforced.

So what are you saying here? That any recognition of non-realistic RP in resolutions should be out? Isn't that just reverse-forced roleplay? Not that I don't agree that the forced roleplay rule is bullshit - at least the way it's enforced - but still...


EDIT: And now I see previous suggestions to combine Game Mechanics and MetaGaming: again, they're related but not the same. MetaGaming isn't trying to change the game-verse; that's Mechanics. Game Mechanics proposals do confuse universes, but they take it to another level, by trying to essentially give the IC-verse power over the game-verse. Combining the two rules is only going to make the metagaming rule even more confusing than it already is.

[Mousebumples]

EDIT: And now I see previous suggestions to combine Game Mechanics and MetaGaming: again, they're related but not the same. MetaGaming isn't trying to change the game-verse; that's Mechanics. Game Mechanics proposals do confuse universes, but they take it to another level, by trying to essentially give the IC-verse power over the game-verse. Combining the two rules is only going to make the metagaming rule even more confusing than it already is.

I understand the confusion, but I think that's more due to the similarities in the wording/phrasing of the rule names than the rules themselves. Are there alternate names/descriptors we could use to make them more distinct? For those like CD who have expressed an interest in combining them to minimize confusion, would that help?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

EDIT: And now I see previous suggestions to combine Game Mechanics and MetaGaming: again, they're related but not the same. MetaGaming isn't trying to change the game-verse; that's Mechanics. Game Mechanics proposals do confuse universes, but they take it to another level, by trying to essentially give the IC-verse power over the game-verse. Combining the two rules is only going to make the metagaming rule even more confusing than it already is.

I understand the confusion, but I think that's more due to the similarities in the wording/phrasing of the rule names than the rules themselves. Are there alternate names/descriptors we could use to make them more distinct? For those like CD who have expressed an interest in combining them to minimize confusion, would that help?

I just said that combining them would not help, and that it would lead to even more confusion. Metagaming is already confusing enough without squeezing new rules under the same banner. Metagaming and Game Mechanics are two different things; it won't help players to understand the distinction if they were made the same rule.

[Christian Democrats]

Are there alternate names/descriptors we could use to make them more distinct? For those like CD who have expressed an interest in combining them to minimize confusion, would that help?

Maybe. I'd still like to see them merged into a Jurisdiction rule or something like that:

Proposals may only influence the governmental policies of WA nations or act directly on the persons of WA nations. A proposal that requires or suggests technical changes to NationStates or the functioning of the World Assembly will be removed. Similarly, proposals that would affect the way players answer issues, manage their settings, or roleplay on the forums are illegal. GA proposals may not extend themselves beyond the jurisdiction of the GA as it has been coded by the NationStates staff. Please recommend such changes in the Technical forum.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's an issue of disagreement on how the WA universe works. I believe it ought to be MT with humans, and that's it. Roleplay anything else you want, but the canon is MT-human, analogous to earth. No space empires. No talking plants or bears. No time-space warp that allows 10,000 nations to exist on the same planet, or that allow that planet quadrillions of people. Those are things we ignore for the sake of a realistic game.

But NS canon includes space empires (Aliens are in at least 2 issues, and some issue choices allow you to build starships, moon colonies, and orbital battlestations).
And what is this "realistic game" you speak of? This is a game where having 60% of the population die from "disappearance" is a fairly easy to achieve thing, and every year on April 1st some bizarre thing like zombie invasions and ByteCoin exchanges takes place. Even the WA itself has nonsense. The very first WA resolution states "NOTING that the United Nations has spectacularly imploded in a colossal fireball of extra-dimensional inanity". (Side Note: Isn't that meta-gaming? Bad Max Barry! Breaking the rules!).

I expect this game to be a ridiculous simulation of real politics, not a realistic simulation of ridiculous politics.

[Tinfect]

The whole "forced roleplay" thing in nonsense. That is not an issue of metagaming. That's an issue of disagreement on how the WA universe works. I believe it ought to be MT with humans, and that's it. Roleplay anything else you want, but the canon is MT-human, analogous to earth. No space empires. No talking plants or bears. No time-space warp that allows 10,000 nations to exist on the same planet, or that allow that planet quadrillions of people. Those are things we ignore for the sake of a realistic game

Eh, lets not do that, yeah? Personally, I think that it is not only enjoyable, but makes for interesting debate when Non MT-Earth/Human nations join the discussion. If you want to debate wholly realistic International Politics there are far better places for that than the NS-GA.

[Mousebumples]

I understand the confusion, but I think that's more due to the similarities in the wording/phrasing of the rule names than the rules themselves. Are there alternate names/descriptors we could use to make them more distinct? For those like CD who have expressed an interest in combining them to minimize confusion, would changing the names of one or both rules that help?

I just said that combining them would not help, and that it would lead to even more confusion. Metagaming is already confusing enough without squeezing new rules under the same banner. Metagaming and Game Mechanics are two different things; it won't help players to understand the distinction if they were made the same rule.

I think I was unclear. I tried to edit in above in red with what I was intending.