NationStates

I also don't think regions ought be considered metagaming.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I also don't think regions ought be considered metagaming.

You seem to have a very liberal interpretation of the rules. Perhaps instead of try to be cocky and see exactly what you can get away with, try following the rules as layed out instead? Trying to pass a two line blocker that is rife with metagaming and duplication issues isn't cute, and it isn't funny.

Edit: Further to that. Under your interpretation, I should be able to pass a resolution to force regions to uphold the terms of treaties and alliances then have made in good faith? That includes forcing regions to engage in game play, if they have a treaty that says they will.

Where exactly should the line be drawn?

Wayneactia wrote:You seem to have a very liberal interpretation of the rules. Perhaps instead of try to be cocky and see exactly what you can get away with, try following the rules as layed out instead? Trying to pass a two line blocker that is rife with metagaming and duplication issues isn't cute, and it isn't funny.

Edit: Further to that. Under your interpretation, I should be able to pass a resolution to force regions to uphold the terms of treaties and alliances then have made in good faith? That includes forcing regions to engage in game play, if they have a treaty that says they will.

Where exactly should the line be drawn?

You seem to have a very reactionary "interpretation" of the rules as they used to be many years ago. Perhaps instead of try[ing] to enforce that conception of the rules on an Assembly which no longer views the rules in that manner and harm the expression of players in the game, try reading the ruleset as laid out in 2019 instead?* Trying to pass minimalist legislation which is directly targeted towards the issue at hand is the kind of legislation which we should be advocating for, and it is the best hope for engagement in this part of the game.


Re edit. Under the metagaming rule, doing so is fine. However, to enforce laws on regional organisations that exist outside of the World Assembly would violate game mechanics. Forcing regions to engage in gameplay would similarly fall under game mechanics, whether or not they have a treaty or not. If you think that's wrong, please advance a coherent conception of metagaming. I view it as perspective.

Metagaming = Breaking the fourth wall. Regions do not exist in the world, countries do. Feel free to bring up the E.U. though as I know that is your comeback.

Define the fourth wall.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Define the fourth wall.

The clearly established in-character nature of the General Assembly. Regions and delegates do not exist in character, because they are a fundamental game mechanic.

Every nation is forced to be in a region. Also recognizing both regions and delegates is to recognize the endorsement system. The W.A. is modeled somewhat after the U.N. Madagascar for instance does not need the endorsement of two African nations, let alone two nations period to submit a resolution to the General Assembly. In NationStates you need two endorsements from region mates.

Yea, so I don't see any of that that can't be rationalised in an in-character manner.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yea, so I don't see any of that that can't be rationalised in an in-character manner.

Rationalize a fundamental game mechanic in an in-character manner? Fris tied with Rights and Duties and look what we ended up with. Please explain in detail how you reference regions and the delegates of said regions in an in-character manner.

Wayneactia wrote:I have far better things to do with my time, than bash my head off of an impervious brick wall thanks. You guys have it in your power to fix things yourselves. Whether you choose to do it or not is up to you.

Cool. Then we never need to get into the issue of whether GenSec is the worst thing ever or remotely redeemable ever again.

The rest of this discussion about Metagaming belongs in a Metagaming Rule discussion thread or in Technical, but not in a draft.

Separatist Peoples wrote:
The rest of this discussion about Metagaming belongs in a Metagaming Rule discussion thread or in Technical, but not in a draft.

Fine then. Is mentioning delegates in any way shape of form metagaming or not? It is relevant to the legality of this draft.

And I.A. I do apologize for jacking the thread here. It wasn't my intention to turn your drafting thread into a full blown conversation about metagaming.

Wayneactia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
The rest of this discussion about Metagaming belongs in a Metagaming Rule discussion thread or in Technical, but not in a draft.

Fine then. Is mentioning delegates in any way shape of form metagaming or not? It is relevant to the legality of this draft.

And I.A. I do apologize for jacking the thread here. It wasn't my intention to turn your drafting thread into a full blown conversation about metagaming.

Not per our precedent. It depends on context. Which was already pointed out. Twice. Thrice, now.

Wayneactia wrote:Is mentioning delegates in any way shape of form metagaming or not? It is relevant to the legality of this draft.

To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:Is mentioning delegates in any way shape of form metagaming or not? It is relevant to the legality of this draft.

To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."

I can accept that. So why was it applied selectively then?

Wayneactia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."

I can accept that. So why was it applied selectively then?

Because Bananaistan was wrong

Wayneactia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."

I can accept that. So why was it applied selectively then?

It wasn't.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:
I can accept that. So why was it applied selectively then?

It wasn't.

Sigh. Once again, can someone point out to me where the fucking word "bicameral" was used in that proposal? I noted Banana stated they marked it illegal at "Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:58 am", yet the OP was lasted edited at "Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:34 pm". Did it sit in he queue for 20 hours before it was dinged, or is it just supposition that "bicameral" was inferred? I have tried to check myself but The Wayback Machine doesn't have it archived.

If it was there and was edited out afterwards, that is fine and I am fully willing to drop any objections I have.

Edit: viewtopic.php?p=36219604#p36219604

IA was able to provide me the information I needed. We can take this debate over to that thread, or a mod can split the conversation out of this one.

“Category and strength?”

Wayneactia wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
It wasn't.

Sigh. Once again, can someone point out to me where the fucking word "bicameral" was used in that proposal? I noted Banana stated they marked it illegal at "Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:58 am", yet the OP was lasted edited at "Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:34 pm". Did it sit in he queue for 20 hours before it was dinged, or is it just supposition that "bicameral" was inferred? I have tried to check myself but The Wayback Machine doesn't have it archived.

If it was there and was edited out afterwards, that is fine and I am fully willing to drop any objections I have.

(OOC: As far as I recall, the original proposal did have ‘the bicameral nature of the World Assembly’ in it directly, but was later edited. Either way, this proposal is clearly legal, at least from the perspective of Gensec.)

OOC: Contradicts PRA as long as sterilization counts as a medical procedure (and all existing RL methods to do so, do count). Technically giving meds to achieve the same effect likely wouldn't, so you could make a resolution about that if you wanted. Implanting a hormone release system into a person, again, does count, at least in RL.

And to borrow from the At Vote thread:

Bananaistan wrote:"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures."

Keywords "in that nation". Basically talking about national laws. Unless you accept what IA calls magical compliance and that member nations' laws do actually get changed upon the passing of resolutions, rather than the nation's own legislation needing to go through the process of changing them, which can take (many) years.

Araraukar wrote:Unless you accept what IA calls magical compliance and that member nations' laws do actually get changed upon the passing of resolutions, rather than the nation's own legislation needing to go through the process of changing them, which can take (many) years.

It's not "magical compliance", it's the way the game works. The resolution passes, and if you are member nation, your stats change. Henceforth you are in compliance. Is it really that hard to comprehend this?

Wayneactia wrote:It's not "magical compliance", it's the way the game works. The resolution passes, and if you are member nation, your stats change. Henceforth you are in compliance. Is it really that hard to comprehend this?

OOC: That's what I keep saying!!!!!! But IA & co. argue that that's not how it works, and have created an IC method for a nation to be noncompliant via a resolution or two.

Which actually reminds me that if a nation is noncompliant, then the procedure would be legal there, even if banned by a WA resolution, and they wouldn't have to violate PRA, only this particular one (if it passed). Snip someone's balls off, and when compliance committee comes to complain at you, go "oh, so sorry, we'll obey it from now on". And rinse and repeat whenever the new committee doesn't make the decisions you want.

The whole "enforce" clause is also an empty threat, as there's no way for the WA to enforce anything, since the compliance committee resolution made noncompliance possible.

Araraukar wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:It's not "magical compliance", it's the way the game works. The resolution passes, and if you are member nation, your stats change. Henceforth you are in compliance. Is it really that hard to comprehend this?

OOC: That's what I keep saying!!!!!! But IA & co. argue that that's not how it works, and have created an IC method for a nation to be noncompliant via a resolution or two.

Which actually reminds me that if a nation is noncompliant, then the procedure would be legal there, even if banned by a WA resolution, and they wouldn't have to violate PRA, only this particular one (if it passed). Snip someone's balls off, and when compliance committee comes to complain at you, go "oh, so sorry, we'll obey it from now on". And rinse and repeat whenever the new committee doesn't make the decisions you want.

The whole "enforce" clause is also an empty threat, as there's no way for the WA to enforce anything, since the compliance committee resolution made noncompliance possible.

OOC: Magical enforcement is entirely unrealistic from an IC perspective. It literally doesn't exist anywhere irl, and it takes a great deal of challenge out of writing to ignore enforcement mechanisms.

Ara, I linked above a link to the difference between delegated and primary legislation. Further in it is the difference between self-executing provisions and directives. That difference is an important one which, as a citizen in an EU country, is important directly to your domestic legal framework. That difference is where you will find, with minimal logical leaps that I am confident are within your abilities, the reasons as to why this temporal contradiction claim is illogical.

Re compliance. Supra. Sep.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: That's what I keep saying!!!!!! But IA & co. argue that that's not how it works, and have created an IC method for a nation to be noncompliant via a resolution or two.

Which actually reminds me that if a nation is noncompliant, then the procedure would be legal there, even if banned by a WA resolution, and they wouldn't have to violate PRA, only this particular one (if it passed). Snip someone's balls off, and when compliance committee comes to complain at you, go "oh, so sorry, we'll obey it from now on". And rinse and repeat whenever the new committee doesn't make the decisions you want.

The whole "enforce" clause is also an empty threat, as there's no way for the WA to enforce anything, since the compliance committee resolution made noncompliance possible.

OOC: Magical enforcement is entirely unrealistic from an IC perspective. It literally doesn't exist anywhere irl, and it takes a great deal of challenge out of writing to ignore enforcement mechanisms.

Before the creation of the Compliance Commission,pretty much no resolution had any sort of enforcement mechanism and things weren't a problem. When did it start to become a problem?

Wayneactia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
OOC: Magical enforcement is entirely unrealistic from an IC perspective. It literally doesn't exist anywhere irl, and it takes a great deal of challenge out of writing to ignore enforcement mechanisms.

Before the creation of the Compliance Commission,pretty much no resolution had any sort of enforcement mechanism and things weren't a problem. When did it start to become a problem?

Other resolutions have included enforcement provisions. No, I am not going to waste my time finding them for you. You're capable of research. No, I'm not trying to conceal anything. Reading the relevant ruling will provide detailed analysis of our decision.

The shift in dealing with compliance has its origins in the repeal of the ICC. Its been considered since. It wasn't a new problem, it was a change in considering the game. Since the genie is out of the bottle on that front, though, its fairly moot as anything but a talking point for dumping on GenSec.