[SPLIT] SC Rules/Liberations Discussion

[Sedgistan]

It seems to me that mods could fix this issue without any game mechanic changes. You guys could add a new SC rule that bans the kinds of Liberations that caused this outrage in the first place.

Conceptually, it's a good solution. As for in practice, it could be a subjective issue. What would the test to to determine it violates the spirit of this rule? The rules for SC proposals are cut and dry, whereas GA rules have a touch of subjectivity to them (though some more than others).

[Glen-Rhodes]

It seems to me that mods could fix this issue without any game mechanic changes. You guys could add a new SC rule that bans the kinds of Liberations that caused this outrage in the first place.

Conceptually, it's a good solution. As for in practice, it could be a subjective issue. What would the test to to determine it violates the spirit of this rule? The rules for SC proposals are cut and dry, whereas GA rules have a touch of subjectivity to them (though some more than others).

Eh, I think the SC rules have plenty of subjectivity in Rule 4. At some point, mods are going to have to stop being afraid of subjectivity, because it's becoming more and more clear that nothing can be done at all without some subjective input.

As for the rule itself, you guys could make a rule that Liberations can only be submitted for a region that's been raided. One other option is that you guys could make a rule that RP regions are immune from Liberation proposals.

[Esternial]

It seems to me that mods could fix this issue without any game mechanic changes. You guys could add a new SC rule that bans the kinds of Liberations that caused this outrage in the first place.

Conceptually, it's a good solution. As for in practice, it could be a subjective issue. What would the test to to determine it violates the spirit of this rule? The rules for SC proposals are cut and dry, whereas GA rules have a touch of subjectivity to them (though some more than others).

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, Kryo. Could you explain further?

[Kryozerkia]

Eh, I think the SC rules have plenty of subjectivity in Rule 4. At some point, mods are going to have to stop being afraid of subjectivity, because it's becoming more and more clear that nothing can be done at all without some subjective input.

As for the rule itself, you guys could make a rule that Liberations can only be submitted for a region that's been raided. One other option is that you guys could make a rule that RP regions are immune from Liberation proposals.

Rule 4 is fairly clear-cut, in my opinion. I do agree that subjectivity is not a bad thing. I was thinking for the sake of the SC's otherwise fairly black and white rules, a non-subjective rule would fit.

Your suggestion for the rule is an excellent place to start.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, Kryo. Could you give me an example?

The rules for the Security Council at their core are designed to be cut n' dry. The World Assembly has a convoluted code that entangles anyone who touches it due to its subjective nature. Although many rules are inherently objective, some become subjective because the boundaries aren't easily defined.

Three rules that could be considered subjective for GA proposals:

a) Meta-gaming has a lot to do with the language of the proposal itself, especially when determining if it affects non-member nations. A small slip up and you've got a meta-gaming violation.

b) Ideology ban's rule is subjective because it's easy to trample the fine line between banning an ideology and creating a boundary that still respects the general school of thought. Torture as a means to gather information or punish is some times part of authoritarian ideologies, but the WA has banned the practice under GAR#9: Prevention of Torture. However, no resolution exists to force the acceptance of democratic or libertarian principles.

c) National Sovereignty the natural go-to for many repeals in the hands of inexperienced proposal writers. In its most natural form, it's an objective rule, however, it's subjective when the proposal has heavily blurred lines. It becomes the responsibility of the mod(s) overseeing to determine if NatSov is the meat of the proposal or simply the appetizer.

[Esternial]

Eh, I think the SC rules have plenty of subjectivity in Rule 4. At some point, mods are going to have to stop being afraid of subjectivity, because it's becoming more and more clear that nothing can be done at all without some subjective input.

As for the rule itself, you guys could make a rule that Liberations can only be submitted for a region that's been raided. One other option is that you guys could make a rule that RP regions are immune from Liberation proposals.

Rule 4 is fairly clear-cut, in my opinion. I do agree that subjectivity is not a bad thing. I was thinking for the sake of the SC's otherwise fairly black and white rules, a non-subjective rule would fit.

Your suggestion for the rule is an excellent place to start.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, Kryo. Could you give me an example?

The rules for the Security Council at their core are designed to be cut n' dry. The World Assembly has a convoluted code that entangles anyone who touches it due to its subjective nature. Although many rules are inherently objective, some become subjective because the boundaries aren't easily defined.

Three rules that could be considered subjective for GA proposals:

a) Meta-gaming has a lot to do with the language of the proposal itself, especially when determining if it affects non-member nations. A small slip up and you've got a meta-gaming violation.

b) Ideology ban's rule is subjective because it's easy to trample the fine line between banning an ideology and creating a boundary that still respects the general school of thought. Torture as a means to gather information or punish is some times part of authoritarian ideologies, but the WA has banned the practice under GAR#9: Prevention of Torture. However, no resolution exists to force the acceptance of democratic or libertarian principles.

c) National Sovereignty the natural go-to for many repeals in the hands of inexperienced proposal writers. In its most natural form, it's an objective rule, however, it's subjective when the proposal has heavily blurred lines. It becomes the responsibility of the mod(s) overseeing to determine if NatSov is the meat of the proposal or simply the appetizer.

Thanks! I'm kind of a newbie when it comes to WA/GA/(insert abbreviation). Maybe that doesn't make me the best person to involve myself in these debates, but I can try.

[Bears Armed]

Three rules that could be considered subjective for GA proposals:

a) Meta-gaming has a lot to do with the language of the proposal itself, especially when determining if it affects non-member nations. A small slip up and you've got a meta-gaming violation.

b) Ideology ban's rule is subjective because it's easy to trample the fine line between banning an ideology and creating a boundary that still respects the general school of thought. Torture as a means to gather information or punish is some times part of authoritarian ideologies, but the WA has banned the practice under GAR#9: Prevention of Torture. However, no resolution exists to force the acceptance of democratic or libertarian principles.

c) National Sovereignty the natural go-to for many repeals in the hands of inexperienced proposal writers. In its most natural form, it's an objective rule, however, it's subjective when the proposal has heavily blurred lines. It becomes the responsibility of the mod(s) overseeing to determine if NatSov is the meat of the proposal or simply the appetizer.

Also, I think _
d) Whether a 'blocker' would block "too much" of a category to be acceptable.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Hmm, if only people had told [violet] at the time that introducing liberations with no rules governing them was a terrible idea. Oh, wait - we did.

There must be a gap between what the game allows and what defenders consider "right." If there isn't, everyone in the game is either a defender or a griefer. There would be no way to conduct any kind of invasion that might interest a defender, except to break the game rules, in which case you risk having your account deleted. And there would be no real need for defenders to do anything even then, because mods could handle it more effectively anyway.

What makes you think [violet] has changed her mind about that? Because for all that these discussions have produced an enormous amount of discussion, virtually none of it can proceed without an admin sign-off, and having the game staff arbitrate gameplay conflicts was explicitly something [violet] wanted to avoid by introducing liberations.

[Elke and Elba]

It seems to me that mods could fix this issue without any game mechanic changes. You guys could add a new SC rule that bans the kinds of Liberations that caused this outrage in the first place.

Conceptually, it's a good solution. As for in practice, it could be a subjective issue. What would the test to to determine it violates the spirit of this rule? The rules for SC proposals are cut and dry, whereas GA rules have a touch of subjectivity to them (though some more than others).

Mhmm, you could always include "grey areas".

The most obvious mod-interpretation if the rule is to come into place, is to ensure that it is a "Liberation" and not "Oppression" or some of that sort.

[Sedgistan]

Quite simply, such a rule is not going to be introduced.

It's the same situation as mods having to rule on griefing in the pre-influence days - not something we want to do, as it puts us directly involved in the invasion game, and turns NS back into a game of "lobby the moderators". We'd have to judge what was an invasion, what was a coup, what was just an internal dispute, and work out where to draw the line there. Players would have an incentive to deceive us, in order to get their way in the game.

I'd also cite an interesting case from a few years ago - Liberate The Jedi Council, where the natives were attempting re-founding of their own region, and had passworded it and moved out - but had made a mistake while doing so, and one nation was left behind, inactive and not responding to telegrams. The natives had managed to forget (or not record) the password, and were attempting to use a Liberation to restore their access to the region. These are the complicated kind of situations that would cause an utter headache for the moderator team, as we'd have to try to establish whether the natives really were natives, or invaders in disguise; if the nation left behind in the region was a native or not, and so on.

It's easy to look at Mallorea's proposal and say "mods could just make it illegal to use a Liberation to invade" - but NS isn't black and white - there are plenty of shades of grey in-between, and players would be incentivised to game the system.

[Blood Wine]

It seems to me that mods could fix this issue without any game mechanic changes. You guys could add a new SC rule that bans the kinds of Liberations that caused this outrage in the first place.

Conceptually, it's a good solution. As for in practice, it could be a subjective issue. What would the test to to determine it violates the spirit of this rule? The rules for SC proposals are cut and dry, whereas GA rules have a touch of subjectivity to them (though some more than others).

If it's a rule against any abuse of the SC sure,if only raiders it's just plain silly

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's the same situation as mods having to rule on griefing in the pre-influence days - not something we want to do, as it puts us directly involved in the invasion game, and turns NS back into a game of "lobby the moderators". We'd have to judge what was an invasion, what was a coup, what was just an internal dispute, and work out where to draw the line there. Players would have an incentive to deceive us, in order to get their way in the game.

The two are only marginally similar, and that depends entirely on how a rule is crafted. It is not difficult to figure out if a region is an RP region. You guys subjectively judge whether something is roleplaying or not every single day, using a far more complicated and subjective rule set than simply looking over a region and seeing that it's not raider or defender. You would not have to judge invasion vs. coup vs. internal dispute, unless you wanted to. That's the beauty of rules. And frankly, if the average player can see plain as day when something is an invasion instead of a coup, moderators can surely do it too.

I'd also cite an interesting case from a few years ago - Liberate The Jedi Council, where the natives were attempting re-founding of their own region, and had passworded it and moved out - but had made a mistake while doing so, and one nation was left behind, inactive and not responding to telegrams. The natives had managed to forget (or not record) the password, and were attempting to use a Liberation to restore their access to the region. These are the complicated kind of situations that would cause an utter headache for the moderator team, as we'd have to try to establish whether the natives really were natives, or invaders in disguise; if the nation left behind in the region was a native or not, and so on.

But that doesn't seem very complicated at all. You just easily described the situation. There doesn't even seem to be any complication about it in the thread, either. And a rule could be crafted in a way that doesn't require determining who is a native and who is not.

It's easy to look at Mallorea's proposal and say "mods could just make it illegal to use a Liberation to invade" - but NS isn't black and white - there are plenty of shades of grey in-between, and players would be incentivised to game the system.

Those "shades of grey" are going to continue to cause far more problems for all of you, than creating a rule that requires you guys to use your judgement would ever cause, especially while the admin and mod team remain opposed or uninvolved in creating new game mechanics.

[Animarnia]

Quite simply, such a rule is not going to be introduced.

It's the same situation as mods having to rule on griefing in the pre-influence days - not something we want to do, as it puts us directly involved in the invasion game, and turns NS back into a game of "lobby the moderators". We'd have to judge what was an invasion, what was a coup, what was just an internal dispute, and work out where to draw the line there. Players would have an incentive to deceive us, in order to get their way in the game.

I'd also cite an interesting case from a few years ago - Liberate The Jedi Council, where the natives were attempting re-founding of their own region, and had passworded it and moved out - but had made a mistake while doing so, and one nation was left behind, inactive and not responding to telegrams. The natives had managed to forget (or not record) the password, and were attempting to use a Liberation to restore their access to the region. These are the complicated kind of situations that would cause an utter headache for the moderator team, as we'd have to try to establish whether the natives really were natives, or invaders in disguise; if the nation left behind in the region was a native or not, and so on.

It's easy to look at Mallorea's proposal and say "mods could just make it illegal to use a Liberation to invade" - but NS isn't black and white - there are plenty of shades of grey in-between, and players would be incentivised to game the system.

Not True, the Players still have an interest in decite, you are just moving the onus of it from yourselves onto the players and the SC. I realise that for good or ill, Moderation does not wish to Regulate the R/D Game, and Word of God says that is not going to be abolished. So instead of geting rid of what is causing the headache, you have moved the pain and just washed your hands of it. but as Staff you have a the job of ensuring that Nationstate is welcome to all not just to those that subscribe to a specific type of play. we are told, time and again there is no one Correct way to play nationstates, that R/D is Equal to RP. However the last few days have put a glaring spot light on that and as it turns out there IS a "correct" way to play nationstates and that is R/D even though We have no interest on the whole of playing R/D (about as much as the do in RPing). by abdicating responsability you are giving them free reign to do whatever they like, RPers right now feel like they are the kids in the corner no body wants so its okay for the 'cool kids' to come over and piss in their cereal and not only is that okay but they are being aplauded for it and anyone in a position of responsability to stop it are just holding up there hands and saying "hey nothing to do with me, I didn't see nothing"

With the SC surely intent should also be taken into account, Liberations were created so Defenders or "natives" as we are come to be known in R/D could get their region back, they were never intended to be used to open a region up to raiding. but without oversight thats what is happening and worse still is its happening to regions that have zero interest in taking part on either side. I can't think of a game in the history of games where it requires an unwilling victim to be 'fun' at least no legal ones anyway.

You menton "The Jedi Council" But surely intent should also be taken into account? the Intent there was to liberate themselves from well being idiots and forgeting their password...though quite how they all collectively managed to forget it I don't know. However, lets take the more recent Liberate Haven for example, Liberations are never going to be Happy affairs, but with Liberate Haven you were not only forcing upon them a "Liberation" but Forcing them into a game they did not want to play in the first place and the intent of that was only and specifically to cause anger and outrange in of itself from the RP Commnity not just as a byproduct of a liberation. Any SC Resolution that is drafted for the sole purpose of creating anger should be considered trolling in and of itself and not what Liberations were designed or created for and to do nothing is in the long run only going to make your jobs harder, provoke more outrage and whittle away further any trust the RP Community has.

[Sedgistan]

And frankly, if the average player can see plain as day when something is an invasion instead of a coup, moderators can surely do it too.

Right, so your argument is that players can clearly identify what is and isn't an invasion, and therefore we should take the decision-making process away from the players, and give it to moderators like myself, who has just said that I can't always clearly make that distinction?

[Frisbeeteria]

Sedge left out a few facts about moderator decision making.

• Fact: A great deal (I'd venture to say most) discussions about raiding, coups, and other transfers of WA power takes place in offsite forums, IRC, and messenger channels.
• Fact: NationStates Game Moderators are limited in what can be considered evidence. If it didn't get written in forum posts, RMB posts, or telegrams; we cannot consider it as evidence.
• Fact: Even if a moderator player is involved in a given offsite, IRC channel, or other communication method, information gained in those situations cannot be used in making Moderation decisions.
• Fact: Disregarding the large number of 1-nation regions, there are still close to 7000 regions in the game. It is simply not possible for a small team of mods to keep track of the political machinations running in all those regions. It's not possible to keep track of which of those 7000 regions is active at any given time. And given the sheer size and scope of the huge Game Created Regions, it's unlikely that the mod team can even keep up with current events in all the feeders and sinkers and warzones.
• Fact: Moderator rulings are inherently after-the-fact. We have to reconstruct motive and intent, based on written evidence, after the event has taken place. Whether that's a raid, a coup, or someone posting something on the forums, we can't act until it's already out there.
• Fact: There's nothing we can do to prevent these things from happening beyond attempting to block obvious trolls and rulebreakers from reaching the site. We don't ask for your names. We don't know who you are. We're not your parents or the police or Big Brother, watching you type and preventing you from posting.

So for all those who wish for us to do something based on obvious intent, I'd say our options are pretty limited. Given the difficulties of determining intent after the fact, our first choice will be a programmatic solution like Founders or Non-Exec Delegates. Intent is never obvious when there is more than one person claiming that they are the ones in the right.

[Glen-Rhodes]

And frankly, if the average player can see plain as day when something is an invasion instead of a coup, moderators can surely do it too.

Right, so your argument is that players can clearly identify what is and isn't an invasion, and therefore we should take the decision-making process away from the players, and give it to moderators like myself, who has just said that I can't always clearly make that distinction?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I think you guys are understating your ability to judge when a region is an RP region, because the default position when it comes to mods and R/D is that you guys remain willfully ignorant and let the players duke it out themselves. However, that paradigm obviously isn't working. Without you guys either supporting serious game mechanics changes to allow opt-outs, or creating rules to prevent RPers from being targeted, the mod and admin teams are going to continue to face serious damage every time this issue sparks up. These arguments aren't healthy for the game, but you guys don't seem to want to do anything other than throw your hands in the air and claim there's nothing you can do. That's pretty frustrating, when regular players seem to understand completely what's causing the problems and have plenty of workable ideas on how to fix it.

[Crystal Spires]

To be fair there are already solutions in the works, but RPers weren't invited to the summit (which means we had no say in the whole matter) the coding for this gamechanger is not done yet. On the other hand, it continues to be something that is creating flamewars all over this site.

[Crystal Spires]

Furthermore, I forgot to mention that this summit took place about two years ago. Which means... they're still not done.

[Ikania]

What would the test to to determine it violates the spirit of this rule?

Easy. If the proposal states that the Liberation is for the purposes of maliciously raiding the target region, among however many reasons it may be.

[Crystal Spires]

Neither Mall's nor Shadow's had this exact language in their proposals. It did however have language which said 'raiders can use it better', or 'Inactivity despite obvious activity'.

[Animarnia]

Sedge left out a few facts about moderator decision making.

• Fact: A great deal (I'd venture to say most) discussions about raiding, coups, and other transfers of WA power takes place in offsite forums, IRC, and messenger channels.
• Fact: NationStates Game Moderators are limited in what can be considered evidence. If it didn't get written in forum posts, RMB posts, or telegrams; we cannot consider it as evidence.
• Fact: Even if a moderator player is involved in a given offsite, IRC channel, or other communication method, information gained in those situations cannot be used in making Moderation decisions.
• Fact: Disregarding the large number of 1-nation regions, there are still close to 7000 regions in the game. It is simply not possible for a small team of mods to keep track of the political machinations running in all those regions. It's not possible to keep track of which of those 7000 regions is active at any given time. And given the sheer size and scope of the huge Game Created Regions, it's unlikely that the mod team can even keep up with current events in all the feeders and sinkers and warzones.
• Fact: Moderator rulings are inherently after-the-fact. We have to reconstruct motive and intent, based on written evidence, after the event has taken place. Whether that's a raid, a coup, or someone posting something on the forums, we can't act until it's already out there.
• Fact: There's nothing we can do to prevent these things from happening beyond attempting to block obvious trolls and rulebreakers from reaching the site. We don't ask for your names. We don't know who you are. We're not your parents or the police or Big Brother, watching you type and preventing you from posting.

So for all those who wish for us to do something based on obvious intent, I'd say our options are pretty limited. Given the difficulties of determining intent after the fact, our first choice will be a programmatic solution like Founders or Non-Exec Delegates. Intent is never obvious when there is more than one person claiming that they are the ones in the right.

Which are absolutely fair and Valid Fris and I get it I really do, being a moderator is an endless list of thankless tasks and Policing R/D is a massive headache one that for good or ill you have removed yourself from -but as a Player Mall should have known better, as a Moderator he deffinetly should have known better, But playing Devils advicate lets give him the benifit of the doubt and say he didn't know the Political shitstorm that would arise out of this or the sheer scale of anger it would stoke amongst not just Haven but the entire RP Comunity or the huge headache it would give you guys. Shadows Proposal to "Liberate Haven",made less than 12 hours after Malls proposal failed to reach quorm and locked wes clearly intended to provke anger in and of itself. people were still very angry at that point and Shadows proposal served no purpose other than to throw gasoline on the fire. surely that has to be considered actionable. surely that kind of behavior is unacceptable. when I sign on to NS, look at the list of most recent topics my first reaction should not be "Oh For fucks sake..."

RPers on the whole are already feeling like we're the kids in the corner unwanted or ignored, and that the Raiders are the "cool kids" who can do whatever they like to us, and anyone in a position of Authorty just seems to be washing there hands and saying "Sucks to be you!". I highly doubt thats the impression you guys want to give, but thats the perception we are getting and I don't think thats good for NS as a whole

[The divided]

I agree with everything Sedge and Frisbee have stated.

Having the moderators act as the thought police of liberations is certainly not going to be a good solution.

Lest we forget that this latest brouhaha occurred, but the liberation attempt never actually went to a vote.

[Animarnia]

I agree with everything Sedge and Frisbee have stated.

Having the moderators act as the thought police of liberations is certainly not going to be a good solution.

Lest we forget that this latest brouhaha occurred, but the liberation attempt never actually went to a vote.

We're not asking them to be "Thought Police" Fact of the matter is, Moderators make Judgment calls all the tme, any Moderator worth his or her salt knows how to do this. they do it every day, in General, in II, in F7, in P2TM. Conext and Intent are important. Lets take an example yeh? Lets pull a topic from the news, say...the Israeli Gaza thing. its a Hot bed Issue, its liable to cause heated debate now lets give the author the benift of the doubt and say he did not know it was going to turn into a massive riot but it does, Mods come in, lock it down and tell everyone to knock it off? Job done. Right. Then less than 12 hours later, another poster, comes in with the -exact- same topic, posted in almost the exact same way, while all that anger is still fresh from the previous one with the sole aim of contining to throw gasoline on an already burning fire. they would make a judgment call - lock the topic down, and almost certainly warn the Author for trolling because while the original author may not have intended to cause a riot and should not be warned, the second author knew the climate and aimed to continue it.

No one is askimg them to be thought police we're askimg them to use their experance and the context of the situation to mesure the intent of the author, they do it all the time elsewhere, why should that same standard not apply to Liberations and the SC?

[Blood Wine]

No one is askimg them to be thought police we're askimg them to use their experance and the context of the situation to mesure the intent of the author, they do it all the time elsewhere, why should that same standard not apply to Liberations and the SC?

Because C/C/L in the SC is MUCH more complex

The SC/GA are direct politics,which are much more subjective to the person what is and what isn't offensive and what is intended as offensive
For example,I see nothing wrong with the liberate haven proposal,yet many others hate it and want to see it deleted
Mall never intended it to blow up like this,yet it did - Mall can't be blamed for having the intend to piss everyone off because it cannot be proven

Moreso,the SC has a large amount of conventions to abide to - some that may seem strange to people not familiar with its working,a good example for this is the "no commending or condemning yourself" convention,a promising author may think "my region is worthy of commending",write a well thought out proposal,and get shot down for self-commend (sidenote here:obviously there are exceptions to this, SC #30 springs to mind with GRO as co-author)

[The divided]

Because unlike forum posts, liberations directly affect game mechanics.

Essentially the argument being given is "we want liberations, but only for those regions we deem acceptable" and then "we want the mods to weigh in on what regions can be liberated, and which ones cannot"

Do you not see the can of worms being created?

[Blood Wine]

Because unlike forum posts, liberations directly affect game mechanics.

Essentially the argument being given is "we want liberations, but only for those regions we deem acceptable" and then "we want the mods to weigh in on what regions can be liberated, and which ones cannot"

Do you not see the can of worms being created?

And everyone's favorite double standard!:
The SC can be abused by DNNs all they want,but raiders cannot!