NationStates

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=145157
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=145628

It is questionable as to whether these resolutions are fundamentally in violation of Rule 4, which states that an author may not "(d) Reference the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community."

There is no doubt that the actions by players (those targeted by each commendation) described in these proposals are related to the NS community; however, it is debatable as to whether these actions actually directly affect the in-character aspects of the game in a legitimately definable way or whether the authors are simply grasping at straws to make entirely OOC and behind-the-scenes administrative activity seem as if it could be recognized as a part of the in-character workings of this game.

The first commends a player for designing a color scheme (theme) for the NationStates website.

The second commends a player for writing issues.

Both are actions which, in essence, are impossible to define as having happened within the workings of the game mechanics. They can be compared to attempts to commend an administrator for making edits to the site itself.
[EDIT: In this sense, they almost break Rule 1, however they are not addressing staff members and therefore cannot.]

I'd like these proposals reviewed and a ruling made as to whether they are, because of their subject matter, violating R4. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and this kind of proposal is testing if not exceeding this body's limits.

We're looking at them, thank you for bringing this up

...and thank you for addressing it.

I think this post from the debate on "Commend Northrop-Grumman" helps clarify my argument. I'll post it here in case it is of any help to those reviewing these proposals.

EDIT: Changed quote to link.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=145157&p=7329619#p7329619

OK, the rulings:

Commend Eta Carinae is considered legal. Writing issues is something that players do, and something that can conceivably by done by nations (presenting/identifying things that national governments need to deal with). I know it's not exactly part of "playing" the game, but then neither are things like setting up NSwiki or writing helpful guides to aspects of NS, and we've allowed both of those to be referred to in proposals. Issue editing would be different - that's a "site staff" function - so we wouldn't allow that to be mentioned in proposals.

Commend Northrop-Grumman is illegal. The commendation of Tiago Silva (who re-did the pre-set nation flags) was allowed, but what he did there was just create the flags (not upload them), and flags are an 'attribute' of nations - they all have them, and we've allowed proposals (Commend Imagey Nation) in the past that were based on the creation of them. The creation of a theme is different - they're an OOC thing you select on the settings page, and they aren't an attribute of nations - they're part of the site. For that reason, we consider any kind of contribution to the site appearance (aside from flags) to be something that cannot be cited in proposals, as it violates Rule 1.

The proposal text probably violates Rule 4 too, but that's irrelevant, since the entire basis of the proposal is illegal.

I'm on holiday at the moment, so any possible edits to the SC rules thread/Compendium that arise as a result of this ruling, will have to wait.

Thanks for the ruling Sedge, esp Eta Carine.

I see process of submitting issues for national issues as equivalent to submitting proposals in the WA for international issues.

The former is only different because technical/coding problems of issues require mod intervention, while the latter is automated, but the idea is still the same.

Warzone Codger wrote:I see process of submitting issues for national issues as equivalent to submitting proposals in the WA for international issues.

Excuse me? You actually see it as the author's national government telling other nation's governments "Hey, why don't you try fixing this problem that I see you as having... but you can only do so in one or another of the limited number of ways that I'm listing here?"
If we ever get an official ruling that that's the case then you can expect to see Bears Armed not only switch to not accepting issues at all but also break off any diplomatic relations we might currently have with the nations of the more prolific issue authors in response to what we would definitely see as arrogant meddling on their part...

Thanks for the rulings.
I may write a commendation of an issues author now just to make an example of something that isn't brutally implausible so that someone else doesn't pass something utterly ridiculous and nauseating.
Or not. I don't know.
Anyway, thanks.