Commend & Condemn

[[violet]]

The World Assembly is expanding!

[Quintessence of Dust]

I struggle to see how these could be used without breaking the existing rules:

"Bobtopia is condemned for [forum activity]" <-- illegal for mentioning forum activity

"Bobistan is commended for [gameplay activity]" <-- illegal for mentioning gameplay activity

"Boberia is condemned for being a poo-poo head Jew" <-- also illegal

And if the rules are to be relaxed on those issues, will those same changes apply to other resolutions too?

[Cobdenia]

Not to mention all of those are branding violations...

I'm not sure how this works. Had a look at it and couldn;t see where one selects nation or region - just all codey stuff whatsitdoodles, so I'm thinking it's not quite polished yet.

Still, I can't exactly say I see the point of this. A international standardisation category would have been preferred....

[Australian Labor Party]

Wow. Could be interesting. Condemnation will be a badge of honour for some nations.

[[violet]]

"Bobtopia is condemned for [forum activity]" <-- illegal for mentioning forum activity
"Bobistan is commended for [gameplay activity]" <-- illegal for mentioning gameplay activity

Where are those things banned?

Had a look at it and couldn;t see where one selects nation or region - just all codey stuff whatsitdoodles, so I'm thinking it's not quite polished yet.

Hmm, any more detail than "codey stuff whatsitdoodles"? Looks fine to me. You select the category, options open up to select nations/regions.

[Quintessence of Dust]

"Bobtopia is condemned for [forum activity]" <-- illegal for mentioning forum activity
"Bobistan is commended for [gameplay activity]" <-- illegal for mentioning gameplay activity

Where are those things banned?

Under the MetaGaming section of the rules. For example, in the past resolutions to condemn the genocide going on in Genocidetopia, or the region-crashing of Nicepeacefulregiontopia by Bignastyinvadertopia, have been deleted by moderators. Hersfold's Olympic Games resolution established the precedent of not permitting mention of forum activity; I imagine the gameplay equivalent was introduced even earlier.

They're also illegal under the "resolutions must affect all WA members" rule.

My point is we cannot, as it stands, write a Global Disarmament resolution to ban Bobtopia from arming itself, nor can we write a Furtherment of Democracy resolution to require Bob's Region to vote on who its delegate should be, yet these categories could be used as a reach-around on both.

Sorry, it must seem like I'm trying to rules-lawyer this innovation into the ground; I'm not, I'm just concerned about how the rules will change.

[Cobdenia]

[[violet]]

Aha, thank you! Which browser is this?

[Cobdenia]

IE something or other. Probably the newest one as the computer's only a week old....

[Mexar]

My point is we cannot, as it stands, write a Global Disarmament resolution to ban Bobtopia from arming itself, nor can we write a Furtherment of Democracy resolution to require Bob's Region to vote on who its delegate should be, yet these categories could be used as a reach-around on both.

The difference, IMHO, is that Commendations & Condemnations don't force a nation to do anything. They just give them a good (or evil) badge.

[[violet]]

Ah, IE... ok, will have a fix shortly.

[[violet]]

Now works in IE.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The WA proposal rules would also require updating and probably an in-depth guide to how this new feature would work and the rules for using this category. That would clear things up.

[[violet]]

"Bobtopia is condemned for [forum activity]" <-- illegal for mentioning forum activity
"Bobistan is commended for [gameplay activity]" <-- illegal for mentioning gameplay activity

Where are those things banned?

Under the MetaGaming section of the rules. For example, in the past resolutions to condemn the genocide going on in Genocidetopia, or the region-crashing of Nicepeacefulregiontopia by Bignastyinvadertopia, have been deleted by moderators.

Ah, I see. The Metagaming ruling stands: its central principle, that the World Assembly can't pretend to control stuff it doesn't, is a good one. But the new Resolutions have slightly extended the WA's reach. I'd say it remains unacceptable to propose a Resolution that claims to be binding on non-WA nations, but you can Commend (or Condemn) one.

[Unibot]

I love the new proposal categories - however the picture tags (IMG) arn't working correctly on my browser (Internet Explorer 8- WindowsXP) for the resolution.

I think extending the effects of the WA to regions is a brilliant leap. Bravo.

[Stash Kroh]

Oh and the nominee selection box doesn't work either. (Its appears as a couple lines of code too)

[Unibot]

Oops, didn't read some of the posts above...

____

[Bears Armed]

*(wonders how long it will be before the first nation tries to condemn itself)*

[Urgench]

O.O.C. Considering that to reach quorum is to have succeeded in having a resolution passed these days, what's to stop this badge from being misused ? OK so it might not end up being taken very seriously that the world assembly doesn't like you that much but still badges of honor might end up being parcelled out among an in crowd, and badges of disgrace to those who by dint of being nothing more than unpopular have earned the displeasure of the "festering snake pit" ( as I believe Palentine would have us all call it in perpetuam ) ?

I'm sure it might not be the most scarring form of cyber bullying but none the less.


Edit; oh and on this kind of area, how do we know if a condemnation or a commendation is legal or not ? Are there rules regarding how they may be given out ?

[Absolvability]

O.O.C. Considering that to reach quorum is to have succeeded in having a resolution passed these days, what's to stop this badge from being misused ? OK so it might not end up being taken very seriously that the world assembly doesn't like you that much but still badges of honor might end up being parcelled out among an in crowd, and badges of disgrace to those who by dint of being nothing more than unpopular have earned the displeasure of the "festering snake pit" ( as I believe Palentine would have us all call it in perpetuam ) ?

Good concerns, but really, politics is about favoritism. Maybe it shouldn't be... maybe it isn't HERE... but it can be, and often is. If anything this just makes it more obvious. Considering that I'll probably be condemned >_< you should really take my word for it: "we don't mind." At least not OOCly. Uhm... that being said, I haven't gone to the link yet (wanted to read the thread first,) so I don't really know how it works or anything.

[Sydia]

*(wonders how long it will be before the first nation tries to condemn itself)*

I was wondering that too. First person to do so, loses.

Could be interesting. For clarification, what activities are acceptable/unacceptable for giving out commendations and condemnations?

[Quintessence of Dust]

I submitted one as a test: it seems to work on Firefox.

Please note: if my submission is ruled illegal, I was mainly just doing it to get the ball rolling so please don't delete my face or something.

[Absolvability]

Could be interesting. For clarification, what activities are acceptable/unacceptable for giving out commendations and condemnations?

Just about anything that is IC and in accordance with the meta-gaming rules and whatnot. 'Course, I'm most definately not the authority on this. But it makes sense, right? I don't see how meta-gaming or branding will be a problem. And one need not confine their condemnation/commendation to a particular category, since this WILL BE the category.

So when considering acceptability one must really only consider what they think will merit support and votes. I think we'll find that pointless and hateful comments weed themselves out.

That being said, I have now taken a look at how it works. I have to agree it IS a little extreme. Which is to say it's permanent? (though subject to repeal? haha.) And not the most fruitful legislation to be considering. But still, it'll be fun. lol

-deletes QoD's face.-

[Allanea]

THis is interesting. It could whittle down the separation between the WA people and the RP people a bit, so I'm all for it.

[Ardchoille]

Sorry, it must seem like I'm trying to rules-lawyer this innovation into the ground; I'm not, I'm just concerned about how the rules will change.

I've been loooonging (ICly) to condemn certain regions for years! And there are some (possibly tongue-in-cheek) commendations I wouldn't mind voting on, too.

But I have to agree with QoD; we do need to sort out the technical stuff. If those were proposals, they'd be illegal as the "violations" rules stand now.

Putting that aside for the moment, since rules can be rewritten, I'd like this sorted: proposals, when they become successful resolutions, affect all WA nations' stats, depending on the categories. Do these?

How would thyse affect a region's stats? What stats?

Bear with me, I'm trying to muddle through. I see you've said it expands the reach of the WA. It seems to me it makes this part of the metagaming violation largely irrelevant:

MetaGaming

MetaGaming 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. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-WA nations.

It also seems to contradict the way this one has been applied:

Branding

Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.

(This has been applied to mean that you may not mention your nation, or any other nation, in the proposal text. That is, you can't write a "Ban Nuclear Arms" proposal that explains you want them banned because [a specific nation]'s nuclear tests have been affecting other WA nations. But under the new category you'd have to mention the nation and it wouldn't be illegal to mention the RPd action.)

Or do we regard these as "RP" categories? Something we could work with as entirely separate from the mechanics? Like, it would be impossible to write an "illegal" Commend or Condemn, unless the proposal was flaming so outrageous that it would cause a post (in this case, the proposal) to be deleted anyway? All commend/condemn proposals that get quorum get voted on?

If it changes all the proposal rules, okay, it changes the proposal rules. They were the work of players-then, other players-now can rewrite them.

It would help, though if you could give us some guidelines -- area(s) of effect, a sample proposal in this category, what will happen if a nation gets a commendation/condemnation, will these have strengths.

For example, this could be fun ...

Category: Condemn. Strength: Mild

RECOGNISING that most nations in the Region of Theocracies refuse to fund secular education, and
NOTING that most of its member nations have failed to implement any WA human rights resolutions, and
APPALLED at the spelling of the documents in which they offensively declare their stubborn rejection of these noble aims, the World Assembly:

1. Condemns the Region of Theocracies
2. Declares that all nations within said region will be subject to an Official Outraged Communication from the Secretariat.
3. Exempts the nation of Goodygoody, which has been exemplary in its compliance with WA resolutions.

... despite the fact that it contains several violations in existing terms.

(What would a "strong" proposal urge?)

Or do proposal writers have to keep work in these categories to simple Yes/No statements, with no argument in the proposal, though expecting some in the debate?

I suspect debates would see IC posts referring to gameplay facts (stats, nation home page description), maybe OOC posts referring to RPd positions.

(I also foresee an increase in WA mods' work, and I'm getting in touch with my shop steward right now: higher pay, daily doughnuts, staff discounts, the lot!)