NS Forum Adjustment - New WA Subforum?

[Unibot]

A little bit of a pet peeve of mine is the inability to post a WA roleplay in the WA subforum. Its always seemed more logical to me to have a roleplay concerning the WA in a WA subforum not NationStates or whatever...

So I was wondering if a WA roleplay subforum could be created, with the old World Assembly subforum remaining the same as usual for the roleplaying/discussion of proposals/resolutions.

Possibly even, renaming the 'World Assembly' subforum as 'Proposals' or something pertaining to the discussion of proposals, drafts, resolutions ..ect. - Whilst having a subforum for WA roleplays like the infamous "Stranger's Bar" and anything else that could crop up with a new fangled subforum.

Yes/No?

[Cosmera]

yes/oui/da

[Sirocco]

That's not a bad idea.

[Glen-Rhodes]

While we're at it, it ought to be named "General Assembly" rather than "Proposals". But, a roleplaying subforum would be neat.

[Unibot]

While we're at it, it ought to be named "General Assembly" rather than "Proposals". But, a roleplaying subforum would be neat.

I believe it was discussed between the senior members of the day that the "General Assembly" isn't the proper term with the WA - because it sounds 'redundant'.

Thats atleast what this article says > http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=General_Assembly

However regardless of the name, I think this is something that could really help with the confusion surrounding the WA subforum when it comes to what/where to post - and could really open some doors up for WA roleplaying. I know the proper thing to do is to WA roleplay in the NationStates subforum - I just think we might as well keep these threads close to the WA regulars fingertips, which I think could help these roleplay threads thrive more than they do.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I believe it was discussed between the senior members of the day that the "General Assembly" isn't the proper term with the WA - because it sounds 'redundant'.

Thats atleast what this article says > http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=General_Assembly

It's common in the World Assembly to call the building in which debates occur the General Assembly. At least, that's what I've noticed.

[Unibot]

It's common in the World Assembly to call the building in which debates occur the General Assembly. At least, that's what I've noticed.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying I haven't seen it used, I'm just questioning if that is the proper term anymore.

[Flibbleites]

It's common in the World Assembly to call the building in which debates occur the General Assembly. At least, that's what I've noticed.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying I haven't seen it used, I'm just questioning if that is the proper term anymore.

Since it's being used currently, it's the proper term.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Limited roleplay in the WA is allowed, but it has to be WA-based, like introducing your ambassadors (Meet the Reps), debating proposals/resolutions, or interacting at the Strangers' Bar. Sometimes the mods look the other way when it's a resignation notice or a silly argument over office space. I would not be a big fan of a WA subforum for dedicated roleplay. If you want to roleplay so bad, try the NationStates forum.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think a "fact book" and "proposal discussion" subsections would do.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I don't like this idea. There's no reason RPing with a WA element can't be done in the existing RP forums, and for things like the Strangers' Bar there's never been a problem before having them in the existing WA forum.

[Unibot]

and for things like the Strangers' Bar there's never been a problem before having them in the existing WA forum.

Not if my memory serves me correctly.

[Allech-Atreus]

What does that even mean? The Stranger's Bar has always been a strict RP thread within the regular WA forum; the line between IC and OOC is often quite fluid, and the general behaviour of the forum is, by it's nature, both RP and GP. That's the way it's been, and really, that's the way it should be.

I don't like this idea of dividing RP up into multiple, cliquish forums- WA RPer's shouldn't have their own subforum in which to wank about the WA, because that encourages factionalism and "US vs. Them" mentalities. Keeping the blurry RP rules in the WA are good because if people want hard RP, they'll do it in II or NS, but can continue to roleplay in the WA as well.

[Sirocco]

I'm inclined to agree. There's simply not enough WA RPs out there cluttering up forums to merit its own subforum. WA-centric RPs are welcome in any of the RP forums (including WA).

[Valipac]

I'm inclined to agree. There's simply not enough WA RPs out there cluttering up forums to merit its own subforum. WA-centric RPs are welcome in any of the RP forums (including WA).

Quite, but I believe that RPs involving the WA in a large capacity ought to stay in the WA forum. The fact that a quite large majority of the established RPers in II (not sure about the massive influx of new players and how they treat it) simply ignore the WA and everything regarding it when it comes to RP makes it hard to establish WA RPs there. I'm not sure how NS treats the WA, but given that I never saw mention of it on the old forums, I'd imagine it's roughly the same.

[Sirocco]

Eh, if the thread author specifically wants his thread to be in NS or II rather than WA for some reason, I have no objection.

[Unibot]

WA-centric RPs are welcome in any of the RP forums (including WA)

Okay, it was different in the Jolt days (with the notable exception of the Stranger's Bar) .. I had atleast two roleplays moved from the WA to the NS subforum (where that sat, and collected dust from being in the wrong subforum to attract WA members).

Thanks Sirocco for clearing that up!