New category rules

[Unibot]

Indeed, and that is Gameplay-IC. But as you can see it's not universal tender.

Eh, but I would say,

We could follow this groundwork....

• Don't refer to nations without the use of personal pronouns - they are nations.
• Commending or Condemning is okay for Citizens of a Nation.
• 'Citizens' can be loosely attributed to personnas of player's nations, as with the nature of Gameplay, however in all formalities they must be presented as characters who coincidentally have the name of his/her nation of residence - and have full power over its adminstration and proceedings.

Which is a funny sort of loophole, but... I like it.

[Whamabama]

Expecting us game players to go into some IC persona is not compatible with a RPers idea of IC. I have puppets, but I have never considered them a separate persona to myself, or my main nation. They are simply another nation to use somewhere else. What they do is not separate from what I do since I am the ones controlling it.

Yes, you-the-player, not you-the-nation. I can tell you I don't want to see C&Cs with "CONDEMNING Whamabama and all of his puppets," but I would not be opposed to seeing "CONDEMNING the government of Whamabama and all the nations under its' influence."

This still allows us to reference your gameplay use of puppets while keeping the RP aspect of the WA intact. It's a win-win.

Worded like that. That would not be a problem.

Indeed, and that is Gameplay-IC. But as you can see it's not universal tender.

Eh, but I would say,

We could follow this groundwork....

• Don't refer to nations without the use of personal pronouns - they are nations.
• Commending or Condemning is okay for Citizens of a Nation.
• 'Citizens' can be loosely attributed to personnas of player's nations, as with the nature of Gameplay, however in all formalities they must be presented as characters who coincidentally have the name of his/her nation of residence - and have full power over its adminstration and proceedings.

Which is a funny sort of loophole, but... I like it.

I think it would be much simpler to just condemn the nation. Even in RL we don't condemn the citizens of the nation for transgressions that the nation does.

[Allech-Atreus]

But no national government was ever involved. Lady Phedre was an alternate name of a player who had no interest in RPing a government. The administration described was composed of other player-alter-egos. The entire cast of that particular piece of drama was composed of players, some of whom affected alternate personas and funny names. RPing it nation-style didn't take off. The more you get into Gameplay, the more you find that this sort of thing happens all the time and things that can be IC-converted while remaining recognizable are rare.

Believe me, I've thought long and hard about how to convert that one to IC. Me and DFD spent many an evening debating what the invasion meant in IC terms for the nation-RPers of the region, what it'd look like on the map, what the conquering government and religion might look like in IC terms, and so forth. Nobody took the bait.

I understand where you're coming from, but I still see a conflict with the basic premise of the game. I'm not saying I don't sympathize with your views- I understand completely, but I don't understand what's so difficult about getting along to get along- what's so bad about adhering to a similar set of rules the WA has? I've even got a solution for you, since Lady Phedre is apparently a person:

NOTING the usurpation of the WA Delegacy in the East Pacific by the ruler of Lady Phedre...

In this way, we don't break the fourth wall, we adhere to the existing WA ruleset, and we acknowledge that Lady Phedre's action was undertaken by an individual.

For you, yes, but there are all the Gameplay players for whom the game is about being a leader, soldier, diplomat, citizen, spy, etc. That alone says nothing about all the RPers for whom it is about playing the characters or militaries or sports teams or some other facet of a nation rather than its direct government. And then there are all the General people for whom it's about discussion, no nation needed. Shouldn't they be allowed to use this feature too?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be- but again, this isn't a raiding game or a spy/civilian/diplomat game at it's core- those are outgrowths of the mechanism, they're not official actions of the game code. They're viable actions and facets to be sure, but I see no reason to ignore the part of the game that says "You run a nation-state" and say "You're a Defender" instead. We're nations, we play NationStates, and some of us happen to raid, defend, and go about regional politics.

Some players adopt different themes for different nations; others are overt about the same being used for all. Most puppets are placeholders, not developed alternate concepts. Some players have alternate nations with alternate concepts that could certainly be commended or condemned for separate things. A great many of us, however, are very overt about expressing a single undivided face - and for these the line between nation/forum persona and player is thin indeed.

And there can be a seperate C&C for each nation, depending on each set of circumstances. But I think there has to be definite consistency; historically the WA has been a function of gameplay but not beholden to it because the mods recognized it was an official organ of the game and that giving recognition to actions outside the coded stuff was potentially dangerous and work-inducing.

The past did not allow the WA to comment on individual nations or regions. Now that it has a more open application to the world, some new things are possible.

Emphasis mine, and I'd also add it didn't allow references to players, alliances, governments, or anything else of a metagaming nature, for the reasons I've said above. Things are possible, but again, we need to have a sort of continuity and stare decisis mentality for the future.

It's all about politics and personality for some parts of the game.

Look, I'm trying to propose a middle ground that the WA RPers and the GP folks can agree on, and you're not being very flexible. It's just a few words to keep the flow and feel of the world government aspect of it; you can be creative with the wording to get your point across. You can make references to the "members of DEN" or the "members of the East Pacific" without specifically saying they're nations; it keeps the language and feel of the legislation of the past while achieving the same result.

I'll be frank, it looks like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have newfangled things, but you don't want to have to adhere to the ruleset we've had for years- I'm not saying we should take them away, I'm saying we should bring them in line with what we've already got.

[Kandarin]

I understand where you're coming from, but I still see a conflict with the basic premise of the game. I'm not saying I don't sympathize with your views- I understand completely, but I don't understand what's so difficult about getting along to get along- what's so bad about adhering to a similar set of rules the WA has? I've even got a solution for you, since Lady Phedre is apparently a person:

NOTING the usurpation of the WA Delegacy in the East Pacific by the ruler of Lady Phedre...

In this way, we don't break the fourth wall, we adhere to the existing WA ruleset, and we acknowledge that Lady Phedre's action was undertaken by an individual.

The fourth wall doesn't exist in the endorsement-based politics that make up the lion's share of usage of the WA - or if it does, it's been in a million tiny pieces from day one.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be- but again, this isn't a raiding game or a spy/civilian/diplomat game at it's core- those are outgrowths of the mechanism, they're not official actions of the game code. They're viable actions and facets to be sure, but I see no reason to ignore the part of the game that says "You run a nation-state" and say "You're a Defender" instead. We're nations, we play NationStates, and some of us happen to raid, defend, and go about regional politics.

That's the original premise of the game, yes - the four walls that the various NS communities have since filled. Of those, you're the only ones who still uphold the "run your nation" thing as the primary feature of the game - every other active group I know of have developed a framework based on something else. Even the RPers have basically subsumed that to a collective-storyline concept. Shouldn't the other groups get to use this new feature too?

And there can be a seperate C&C for each nation, depending on each set of circumstances. But I think there has to be definite consistency; historically the WA has been a function of gameplay but not beholden to it because the mods recognized it was an official organ of the game and that giving recognition to actions outside the coded stuff was potentially dangerous and work-inducing.

And your usage of it is indeed not beholden to Gameplay now, nor is it likely to ever be. The addition of new features does not threaten legislation beyond lengthening the queue.

The past did not allow the WA to comment on individual nations or regions. Now that it has a more open application to the world, some new things are possible.

Emphasis mine, and I'd also add it didn't allow references to players, alliances, governments, or anything else of a metagaming nature, for the reasons I've said above. Things are possible, but again, we need to have a sort of continuity and stare decisis mentality for the future.

The whole concept of a Commendation or Condemnation breaks away from that stare decisis. It certainly could be subsumed into the existing WA group's dominion, but this would deny its use to the rest, or (at the very best) deny the ability of the many for the sake of the very few. Others are using the WA too; they have other uses for it, to which this feature caters (among others). They ought to be able to use it.

I'll be frank, it looks like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have newfangled things, but you don't want to have to adhere to the ruleset we've had for years- I'm not saying we should take them away, I'm saying we should bring them in line with what we've already got.

No, I don't - because this new feature is very different from the things that ruleset is designed to control. There are many different communities in NS that use the WA, and they have very different standards and terminology for what is commendable or condemnable. I believe that they all ought to be able to use it, and in their own language too. This does not mean I do not think we should have standards; quite the opposite. I believe that we should recognize the potential diversity of form of a good commendation or commendation and understand what the benefits and pitfalls of those diverse forms are.

[Urgench]

Snip.

No you see the whole tone of this post is highly threatening, and would prove the worst fears of Regulars. What your saying is GPers and others want a part of the w.a. ( a part that will be expanded over time ), that they want it completely on their own terms, that they are happy to shatter the game of w.a. regulars in the process because they see our game as anachronistic since GPers and others no longer actually play NS and instead play some hybrid version of it, and that we regulars should have no respect paid to us or our way of playing the game.

I'm not saying that that's what you think Kandarin, but it's what it sounds like. The details of the game already require you to at least pretend that your Nation is an actual nation, issues, population figures, all of the basic accoutrements of a NS nation presume that your Nation is an actual Nation, unless your telling me that Lady Phedre is in fact also billions of citizens ? So why can't you accept extending this pretence to the writing of C&Cs ?

[Kandarin]

No you see the whole tone of this post is highly threatening, and would prove the worst fears of Regulars.

I really wasn't trying to sound threatening.

What your saying is GPers and others want a part of the w.a. ( a part that will be expanded over time ), that they want it completely on their own terms, that they are happy to shatter the game of w.a. regulars in the process because they see our game as anachronistic since GPers and others no longer actually play NS and instead play some hybrid version of it, and that we regulars should have no respect paid to us or our way of playing the game.

I still don't see how this shatters anything. Your way of playing the game and the rules that govern it are unchanged, except for the huge increase in the queue length and lag time (which really does need a fix). I'm not saying you're anachronistic or inferior; following the original premise of the game is perfectly fine. I am saying that over time, equally valid premises have arisen. I believe that these deserve a seat at the table too.

I'm not saying that that's what you think Kandarin, but it's what it sounds like. The details of the game already require you to at least pretend that your Nation is an actual nation, issues, population figures, all of the basic accoutrements of a NS nation presume that your Nation is an actual Nation, unless your telling me that Lady Phedre is in fact also billions of citizens ? So why can't you accept extending this pretence to the writing of C&Cs ?

The premise of the WA is fine, but the bulk of RP and GP activities have adapted it into other forms. I believe that these forms are equally acceptable. Since the new feature accommodates their means of judging commendation and condemnation, it should also be able to accommodate their terminology.

[Urgench]

I really wasn't trying to sound threatening.

OK I believe you, but you did anyway.

I still don't see how this shatters anything. Your way of playing the game and the rules that govern it are unchanged, except for the huge increase in the queue length and lag time (which really does need a fix). I'm not saying you're anachronistic or inferior; following the original premise of the game is perfectly fine. I am saying that over time, equally valid premises have arisen. I believe that these deserve a seat at the table too.

No, that only makes sense if your saying that C&Cs which deal with Gameplayers in gameply terms will have a completely seperate place to be developed, approved, voted for etc. If they take place within this WA, this one we're in now, then they cannot help but serve to completely undermine the fourth wall. I know you don't hold much store in the fourth wall, and your allusions to how many others who no longer do suggest that you do not understand why we are attached to it and should expect to start to think of it as less important, but really the fourth wall represents one of the absolute fundimentals of our play. Without it the w.a. as we know it does not exist. My (now former ) Ambassador to the w.a. would be utterly mystified if he turned up for a day's work at the w.a. and found a huge bunch of threads, listed proposals and votes taking place regarding Gameplay if they only spoke in Gameplay terms. It's clear that GPers are a very large group in NS, how much of this forum would become Gameplay ( in gameplay terms ) and how much would be left to WA regulars in our terms ? Little enough. What your suggesting is that a few threads be left to us to talk in our strange and quiant old tongue about things GPers can't be bothered with.

On top of this is the fact that what that would create is a non WA-rp WA which essentially ignored the old rules and almost exclusively used completely contrary ones which regulars are not really able to play. A WA without a WA for us.

The premise of the WA is fine, but the bulk of RP and GP activities have adapted it into other forms. I believe that these forms are equally acceptable. Since the new feature accommodates their means of judging commendation and condemnation, it should also be able to accommodate their terminology.

Right and I have no problem with this having as much recognition as you guys want, but your terminology completely violates ours, and should therefore be quarantined from it. C&Cs in Gameplay terms can't coexist on the same page as any resolution in our terms. Your saying "the premise of the WA is fine" what your saying is that you think it shouldn't represent us in the way it does and that it should represent GPers and others to a vastly greater extent.

What I would suggest is that C&Cs use no specific terminology with the body of the text reffering to the Nation, or to the IC personality being honoured, the nation's in the title so that covers that.

the rest could read-

" For services to the region of - Blah

Or For services to- (insert nationa name here )

Or for services to the WA, with regard to - Blah resolution

and for services to peace, in the negotiation of treaty of -Blah"

And leave it at that. this way we get the reason why the nation is nominated for commendation ( or condemnation ) and we don't have to deal with what kind of nation they are either way.

[Allech-Atreus]

The fourth wall doesn't exist in the endorsement-based politics that make up the lion's share of usage of the WA - or if it does, it's been in a million tiny pieces from day one.

See, this is the kind of attitude that has our collective WA panties in a bunch- "lion's share usage." We know gameplayers make up a huge portion of the WA, but that doesn't give you ownership. Again, this seems like you wanting to charge in and take over without a thought about what we'd like to see- some continuity, some national politics. What's preventing you from doing that? The end goal is the same; you've got a commend and condemn function, you just have to be more creative in your wording.

That's the original premise of the game, yes - the four walls that the various NS communities have since filled. Of those, you're the only ones who still uphold the "run your nation" thing as the primary feature of the game - every other active group I know of have developed a framework based on something else. Even the RPers have basically subsumed that to a collective-storyline concept. Shouldn't the other groups get to use this new feature too?

And I'll say once more: I have never said they shouldn't be able to. But once again, consistency.

And your usage of it is indeed not beholden to Gameplay now, nor is it likely to ever be. The addition of new features does not threaten legislation beyond lengthening the queue.

Lengthening the queue is not now, nor has ever been, a concern of mine.

The whole concept of a Commendation or Condemnation breaks away from that stare decisis. It certainly could be subsumed into the existing WA group's dominion, but this would deny its use to the rest, or (at the very best) deny the ability of the many for the sake of the very few. Others are using the WA too; they have other uses for it, to which this feature caters (among others). They ought to be able to use it.

I'm not saying it should be subsumed, nor am I arguing that my group (yes, I'll admit my party) should control the process. But it's not fair to say that because you're gameplayers and your style of enjoyment is so different, and there are so many of you, that therefore you should'nt have to abide in some small part by the original spirit of the game. That's really quite facetious.

No, I don't - because this new feature is very different from the things that ruleset is designed to control. There are many different communities in NS that use the WA, and they have very different standards and terminology for what is commendable or condemnable. I believe that they all ought to be able to use it, and in their own language too. This does not mean I do not think we should have standards; quite the opposite. I believe that we should recognize the potential diversity of form of a good commendation or commendation and understand what the benefits and pitfalls of those diverse forms are.

I can see you're really not listening to anything I'm saying. I'm asking for a small concession, and you're sitting here telling me our styles of play have no place in your new GP-oriented World Assembly. I've given numerous examples of how the lines can be blurred in legislative language so that both our parties can be happy- and you're unwilling to even contemplate the possibility of such concessions being compatible with your style of play. I'm trying to work for both sides- yes, we can integrate gameplay and WA play. But you need some give and take.

I'm not asking to abandon your IC/OOC style of play, just to calibrate it a little for the sake of consistency and community harmony. What's wrong with that?

[Whamabama]

No, that only makes sense if your saying that C&Cs which deal with Gameplayers in gameply terms will have a completely seperate place to be developed, approved, voted for etc. If they take place within this WA, this one we're in now, then they cannot help but serve to completely undermine the fourth wall. I know you don't hold much store in the fourth wall, and your allusions to how many others who no longer do suggest that you do not understand why we are attached to it and should expect to start to think of it as less important, but really the fourth wall represents one of the absolute fundimentals of our play. Without it the w.a. as we know it does not exist. My (now former ) Ambassador to the w.a. would be utterly mystified if he turned up for a day's work at the w.a. and found a huge bunch of threads, listed proposals and votes taking place regarding Gameplay if they only spoke in Gameplay terms. It's clear that GPers are a very large group in NS, how much of this forum would become Gameplay ( in gameplay terms ) and how much would be left to WA regulars in our terms ? Little enough. What your suggesting is that a few threads be left to us to talk in our strange and quiant old tongue about things GPers can't be bothered with.

Going about being ambassador, and just visiting other regional forums. I run into people who both straight talk to me, and play IC persona's. One thing I have learned is which is which. I have grasped what threads might interest me, and which don't. I personally don't understand why you are in such an uproar over something you are in no way forced to even read. Instead click on what interests you, and ignore anything that you could care less about.

[Urgench]

Going about being ambassador, and just visiting other regional forums. I run into people who both straight talk to me, and play IC persona's. One thing I have learned is which is which. I have grasped what threads might interest me, and which don't. I personally don't understand why you are in such an uproar over something you are in no way forced to even read. Instead click on what interests you, and ignore anything that you could care less about.

This shows that you in no way understand how regulars play the game at all. I don't take interests in things at all, and I am not an Ambassador to anywhere or to any organisation. This chap is http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=M ... of_Kashgar Urgench's Ambassador to the WA, and he has completely different interests to me quite a lot of the time.

You don't understand our "uproar" I would say dismay but whatever, because you don't understand how regulars play this game.

If Mongkha ( Urgench's Ambassador to the WA) turns up to work and finds that almost the entirety of the place he works in is now devoted to things he cannot possibly understand, and can never even begin to speak about, and which hint at the imaginary nature of his entire universe, and which in fact imply that he doesn't exist himself, how do you think he would react ? Because I would have to think about that, and I would have to find some way for an elderly Mongol diplomat to react to that. The entire structure of this subforum represents the imagined halls and chambers and offices of an imagined building in which his Excellency Mongkha, the Khan of Kashgar works and socialises and interacts with other imagined Ambassadors. If the fabric of that place no longer exists then neither does he and neither does the way we play.

Mongkha can't just haunt a few ignored threads somewhere at the bottom of a last page of reams of other pages of stuff which basically denies his entire existence. Does that help you understand my "uproar" ?

[Naivetry]

I think the issue of wording is going to come down to whether C&C's fit better into an expanded WA branch - say, the World Assembly Security Council (WASC) - or whether they should be handled in the regular WA forum.

If they will be handled in the WA forum, our (Gameplay) terminology can be made vague enough to suit. Not particularly ideal (I'd really prefer not to put in the tag Unibot suggested at the end), but I could cope, especially understanding that these were being hosted in your section of the forums.

If they will be handled in the WASC forum, all bets are off for rules and wording, as we have barely begun to discuss what might be possible there, let alone what rules would apply.

So are we talking about what the rules would be if they're in the normal WA forum, or what they would be in a hypothetical WASC forum?

[Scotchpinestan]

I'd like to make a suggestion about C&Cs that may have been made elsewhere, but I haven't seen it.

I think C&Cs should be separated completely from WA proposals, with their own proposal queue.

Then we can get them out from under the realm of WA resolutions, and thus, out from under WA resolution rules.

That would be MUCH easier and make more sense then trying to carve out all these exceptions to WA rules that you'd need to allow 90% of these C&Cs.

[Allech-Atreus]

If they will be handled in the WASC forum, all bets are off for rules and wording, as we have barely begun to discuss what might be possible there, let alone what rules would apply.

So are we talking about what the rules would be if they're in the normal WA forum, or what they would be in a hypothetical WASC forum?

Considering the WASC is just hypothetical, as if in the World Assembly as it is.

But I don't really want to rule anything out for the hypothetical second branch- We don't know what's happening with that, and we don't know what the mods/admins think or what they would like to do, so to say "all bets are off" is very wrong-headed and smacks of domineering.

Lest you think I am a softie.

[Urgench]

I think the issue of wording is going to come down to whether C&C's fit better into an expanded WA branch - say, the World Assembly Security Council (WASC) - or whether they should be handled in the regular WA forum.

If they will be handled in the WA forum, our (Gameplay) terminology can be made vague enough to suit. Not particularly ideal (I'd really prefer not to put in the tag Unibot suggested at the end), but I could cope, especially understanding that these were being hosted in your section of the forums.

If they will be handled in the WASC forum, all bets are off for rules and wording, as we have barely begun to discuss what might be possible there, let alone what rules would apply.

So are we talking about what the rules would be if they're in the normal WA forum, or what they would be in a hypothetical WASC forum?

Well from Kandarin and Whamabama and other it would seem we're discussing rules for C&Cs in this subforum, if your discussing rules for C&Cs in another subforum then I have nothing to add to that discussion really because that's you guys's business, and I am truly happy for you all to work out that kind of thing to your own perfect satisfaction. I don't want to force my play on you at all, unless and only if we are both to share the same space in which case I think give and take would be fair. Kandarin doesn't seem to get that, and their argument seems to be "numerical superiority will out" if we have to share.

[Unibot]

I think the issue of wording is going to come down to whether C&C's fit better into an expanded WA branch - say, the World Assembly Security Council (WASC) - or whether they should be handled in the regular WA forum.

If they will be handled in the WA forum, our (Gameplay) terminology can be made vague enough to suit. Not particularly ideal (I'd really prefer not to put in the tag Unibot suggested at the end), but I could cope, especially understanding that these were being hosted in your section of the forums.

If they will be handled in the WASC forum, all bets are off for rules and wording, as we have barely begun to discuss what might be possible there, let alone what rules would apply.

So are we talking about what the rules would be if they're in the normal WA forum, or what they would be in a hypothetical WASC forum?

So is no one else thinking that C & Cs should be give out by both the GR and the WASC.

That way, the General Assembly could use C&C's in their way - commending nations for excellence in the WA or condemning them for terrible actions in the WA, and always remaining IC for it all.

And the Security Council could hand out security C&C's - to commend nations/regions for excellence in retaining world peace, regional securities , whatever... or condemning them, whilst in a gameplayer OOC frame of mind.

I hate being the compromise-making dude, I feel like a clueless, goofy Lester B. Pearson trying to talk down to LBJ.

[Erastide]

So is no one else thinking that C & Cs should be give out by both the GR and the WASC.

That way, the General Assembly could use C&C's in their way - commending nations for excellence in the WA or condemning them for terrible actions in the WA, and always remaining IC for it all.

And the Security Council could hand out security C&C's - to commend nations/regions for excellence in retaining world peace, regional securities , whatever... or condemning them, whilst in a gameplayer OOC frame of mind.

Noone in the normal WA seems to *want* C&C. It conflicts with the normal rules and way of doing business. And honestly, if WA people wanted to use the Security Council to propose commending their fellows for good resolutions or condemn them for violating WA rules, they could do so.

[Unibot]

Noone in the normal WA seems to *want* C&C. It conflicts with the normal rules and way of doing business. And honestly, if WA people wanted to use the Security Council to propose commending their fellows for good resolutions or condemn them for violating WA rules, they could do so.

Well then, that solves that...

*rubs imaginary dirt off hands like Sherlock Holmes*

... oh wait, the SC doesn't exist, yet.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Kandarin doesn't seem to get that, and their argument seems to be "numerical superiority will out" if we have to share.

I think it's a little surprising that you allege that it is Kandarin who does not understand your views as Kandarin is a Roleplayer and as Delegate of the Rejected Realms regularly discusses WA resolutions. I am also a Roleplayer, though mainly as Eluvatar.

Kandarin is not threatening you and he doesn't want to detrimentally affect your legislative RP. Neither do I, or as far as I know, anyone else. Kandarin, in fact, tried to explain to you how IC/OOC work in the Gameplay world. Generally, personas are treated as if people with the name of their nation, who live in a land that is the region. He honestly explained that many regional players blur the IC/OOC line, playing with their own personality. In order for C&C to work for them, he believes, as I do, that it would be consistent with the nature of regional play to be permitted to refer to the nation with personal pronouns, and in general treat it as a character. I think you see a hostility from Kandarin to your interests that simply isn't there.

Perhaps it would work for you if this were how things were done?

The World Assembly,

NOTING the usurpation of the WA Delegacy in the East Pacific by Lady Phedre,

RECOGNIZING that this action goes against the stated will of the existing population of the East Pacific, and the disrespect with which Lady Phedre and those under her authority have treated said population,

ACKNOWLEDGING that Lady Phedre has abolished the previous seat of government in the East Pacific and established one under her exclusive control,

UPHOLDING the right of all to equality under the law, freedom of religion, and the rights of citizens, abolished by Lady Phedre's establishment of mandatory protocol of nobility, establishment of an official religion, and expulsion of many prominent citizens of the East Pacific,

Officially and publically condemns the nation of Lady Phedre for the abovementioned actions.

Here I am reminded of Hamlet, where England and Denmark as referred to as people-- the people in question being their monarchs...

[Ardchoille]

I'd like to make a suggestion about C&Cs that may have been made elsewhere, but I haven't seen it.

I think C&Cs should be separated completely from WA proposals, with their own proposal queue.

Then we can get them out from under the realm of WA resolutions, and thus, out from under WA resolution rules.

That would be MUCH easier and make more sense then trying to carve out all these exceptions to WA rules that you'd need to allow 90% of these C&Cs.

Spot on. However, I'm told that a separate proposal queue would be a nightmare coding, and our coders already have enough nightmares. But that doesn't make a separate body dealing with something different from WA resolutions impossible.

Let's make it a hypothetical. If the new sort of proposal were being made for a body that didn't produce WA-type, nation-stats-altering resolutions, what rules should apply? Pretend we're writing a

Guide to Writing Successful Proposals for an Unnamed Organisation.

IC/OOC: I think it would need to be something that all sections of NS could use without having to integrate different concepts of IC/OOC. Then you could fit it to the way the person played and the area you were commending.

A WA proposal writer could be Commended as "The (name of organisation) COMMENDS the delegation of Wouldnitbeloverly, and in particular its chef de mission, Major-General Stanley, for the elegance of their proposals, the success of their resolutions, the purity of their logic, the probity of their conduct, the regularity of their Strangers' Bar bill-payments and the generosity of their tips".

Yet (the organisation) could also Commend Generalite player Crazy Candy (named by their nation name, but just because that's how Generalites know each other) for consistently defusing confrontations with humour or diplomatic posts, lightening heavy topics with a flash of wit and gently making sure newbies kept between the flags and didn't make such a fuss they attracted sharks.

REAL-WORLD REFERENCES: Sorry, my fault, I should have made clear when bringing that up that I was thinking from a WA background. Under WA Proposal rules, use of the words "offsite" or "onsite" would be real-world references, and if they're forbidden it would rather limit the new proposal type. So I'm thinking that that sort of RW reference should be allowed. So far I haven't seen anyone approving the idea of the other type of RW reference, eg, "Commends President Obama for choosing a nice dog".

I take the point that [whoever] made, that C&Cs would be pretty limited if you couldn't make one for someone who was a shining light of their region's offsite. So scrub the reference in the OP to offsite references being a reason to delete a proposal.

WORTHINESS:

Worth of recognition could very well (lit. will) turn out to be a real nightmare to make rulings on. I think deciding a C&C's worth should be left up to the delegates.

Yes, indeedy, me too -- left to the writer of the proposal, who, if they're a WA member, might very well be a delegate, though not necessariy a Delegate, though possibly both ... let's not go there.

I was thinking of "worthiness" as a reason for killing a proposal from the approval queue. For example, among the WA's reasons for deleting a proposal ("proposal rule violations") are "not worthy of the WA's consideration" and "Bloody Silly". A proposal that all WA member nations introduce legislation that all garbage pick-ups be made by 6am might be "not worthy"; a proposal that all WA member nations' delegates wear garbage bin lids on their heads while addressing the General Assembly would be Bloody Silly. It should certainly be up to proposal writers to make sure that their proposals are neither Bloody Silly nor Unworthy, which is why I'm suggesting it as a possible category violation.

BURDEN OF PROOF: A proposal may deleted if the writer does not provide enough information for a reader to make an informed decision.

This came up when discussing the possibility of deleting proposals that make false accusations. I was complaining that checking would take up too much time in a proposal-queue sweep. An admin pointed out that such checking would be evaluating the proposer's argument, which was an evaluation that should not be made by a mod, as that would be imposing the mod's view on NS. Rather, it should be made by the [body -- we were talking about the WA at the time].

Essentially, what is needed to make an informed decision is the subject's nation name (correctly spelled, so that the reader can find it in the Members list) and the reason for commending/condemning them (so that the reader, having found the player profile, can then view that player's posts and decide for themselves whether the proposal is justified). If a proposer has made an unsupportable (unfair, false) argument, this should emerge when the proposal is debated.

I think that deciding whether condemning/commending on false grounds is an actionable offence would have to be determined case by case. I don't think a proposer submitting a factually false proposal should be exempt from moderator action. A player is responsible for all their posts, so it's Let the Proposer Beware.

[Allech-Atreus]

I take the point that [whoever] made, that C&Cs would be pretty limited if you couldn't make one for someone who was a shining light of their region's offsite. So scrub the reference in the OP to offsite references being a reason to delete a proposal.

Aren't we going to run into problems with allowing links to off-site forums, though? the moderators don't have any control over what happens outside the NS site and forums; the potential for abuse and bias is immense when only one party has the ability to provide the evidence; especially in cases where those offsite forums require either membership or a trial period for new members.

To use the example of General, you don't allow inflammatory sigs because they can't be debated; you can't really debate a situation where you didn't have the ability to make any input or comment.

Since I know it's coming- yes, the gameplay forum is the perfect place for gameplay-oriented folks to take threads and raise issues. That's what it's for.

EDIT: While I'm on the same tack; links in general are dangerous, because the mods can be asked to close, delete, or move threads, which could affect the coded aspect of the C&C further down the line; the historical reason for a certain commendation might be lost in a jumble.

I could also see problems for the mods ensuring the links are valid- they could be links to irrelevant material, or incorrectly formatted. Is the burden on the delegates to winnow the chaff, then? Or are the mods going to be content with the workload of verifying the accuracy and operability of each and every offsite or onsite link in a C&C?

[Minineenee]

Since I know it's coming- yes, the gameplay forum is the perfect place for gameplay-oriented folks to take threads and raise issues. That's what it's for.

I was baffled when I read this. Have you looked at what goes on in those off-site forums? I suggest you check out the feeders, Equilism, Gatesville, etc to get an idea of why I, and I am sure some others, just do not see how that suggestion is entirely feasible.

If you need a list of links, let me know and I will happily provide you with as many as I can, including archives/old forums.

[Naivetry]

Aren't we going to run into problems with allowing links to off-site forums, though? the moderators don't have any control over what happens outside the NS site and forums; the potential for abuse and bias is immense when only one party has the ability to provide the evidence; especially in cases where those offsite forums require either membership or a trial period for new members.

You could institute rules that the information has to be publicly available, with no forum registration required to read it. Abuse and bias are part of the political game - you counter it with better and more-believable propaganda, backed up in action and supported by your interregional reputation.

To use the example of General, you don't allow inflammatory sigs because they can't be debated; you can't really debate a situation where you didn't have the ability to make any input or comment.

For a C&C, it's more about opinion than debate. All that you need to form an opinion is access to the information.

Since I know it's coming- yes, the gameplay forum is the perfect place for gameplay-oriented folks to take threads and raise issues. That's what it's for.

Some discussion could take place there, but since the action takes place on the off-site boards, the Gameplay forum would just be an additional arena for political posturing and rhetoric leading up to a vote. Nothing wrong with that - I want nothing more than for the world of Gameplay politics to become more visible to NS as a whole. I think, though, that if a new council were created it would deserve its own proposal forum.

I could also see problems for the mods ensuring the links are valid- they could be links to irrelevant material, or incorrectly formatted. Is the burden on the delegates to winnow the chaff, then? Or are the mods going to be content with the workload of verifying the accuracy and operability of each and every offsite or onsite link in a C&C?

Leave it to the delegates, I'd say - the politicians among us will care about the accuracy, and we'll vet the proposals as carefully as you vet yours.

If you need a list of links, let me know and I will happily provide you with as many as I can, including archives/old forums.

Or there's the big collaborative one in my sig.

[Kandarin]

Spot on. However, I'm told that a separate proposal queue would be a nightmare coding, and our coders already have enough nightmares. But that doesn't make a separate body dealing with something different from WA resolutions impossible.

That's unfortunate. The idea of a bicameral WA is the closest thing we've had to a well-accepted compromise since this started. Would it be possible to stick it in a separate place for voting or something instead?

Are we talking about a separate body within the WA, or something new? Given that the whole basis of all Gameplay actions and power comes from the WA, creating a whole new body for C&C - and presumably all those Gameplay-altering WA functions that [violet] had in mind - would essentially (at least, for the latter) seriously alter it. If this new body wasn't similar in nature to the WA, whoever got control of it could use it to destroy the regions that rely on the WA for security. It seems a lot simpler to just make it all a function of the WA than to create a whole new body to define politics.

[Ardchoille]

Re links: Allech-Atreus's point about the unreliability of links underlines why I said "scrub the point about links in the OP". I'm suggesting NO LINKS in the actual proposal, just as there are none in WA legislative proposals. As the debate on the proposal progressed, proponents and opponents would be free to include links in their comments and, as Naivetry has pointed out, these would have to be accessible links.

Re "bi-cameral": Having proposals of both kinds queued together would certainly be a major nuisance, but it doesn't have to be a dealbreaker. The WA could still be bi-cameral. If there were a separate sub-forum ... we'd probably have to send Reppy lots of chocolates to get a separate sub-forum, but still ... the proposals that had reached quorum would come to vote, and the proposer could then ask a mod to move/sticky it to the appropriate "chamber". (And the WA delegates would run up- or down-stairs to argue and vote, depending on which kind of proposal it was.) If not, then the At Vote would be stickied at the top of the WA, as it is now.

If we can't get separate queues, I'd sure prefer a separate sub-forum because there are always proposals being drafted as well as proposals being voted on, and plonking drafts of the two different kinds of proposal in one forum could be bothersome. Though maybe the admins could do some trick that would make WA proposals show up on the menu in different colours? Or maybe that could be something mods could do (like we need any more work). Still, in the Australian Parliament, the legislative House, the House of Representatives, has green upholstery on the Members' benches and the House of review, the Senate, has red, so there'd be precedent.

[violet] hasn't suggested at any time that the process of getting a proposal into the queue be changed. So a proposal author would still have to get it endorsed by two other WA members, it would still go into the queue, it would still have to reach quorum via Regional Delegates' endorsements and it would still have to gain the votes of a majority of WA member nations. That would happen wherever the actual debate on the proposal took place, so whether the "legislative house" and the "opinion house" both met in the same WA forum, in separate WA subforums or whether the "opinion house" met in Gameplay, wouldn't make all that much practical difference ... let's save that fight till we know if we've got two "houses" to fight over, though.

Right now, even the idea of two separate sets of proposal rules isn't confirmed. This thread is, as I said, a hypothetical, just to see how much people can agree on.

[Cobdenia]

You bring up some good issues, and as you know, I've been sort of working out what I feel would be a viable ruleset in my own head.

Firstly, I do feel that links should be provided in the OP; both on-site and certain off-site links (regional forums, old jolt, NS wiki for some things, etc) so that we can judge - I think this is a definate neccessity if the functions of C&C's are not just going to disolve into a brown-nosing fest. If links are unprovidable (such as with raiders, defenders, etc), a brief synopsis should surfice. But a forum post would really be neccessary. Naturally, posts on the forum would be IC and OOC depending on the subject

Two, I feel that they should remain IC; it wouldn't be difficult to do, but I do appreciate that it may be confusing for many players. However, this is wear my first points comes into play: the neccessity of a forum post would mean that us WA-ites, with experience in this sort of thing, can re-write them in an IC style that is acceptable - and I think most of us would help with that sort of thing, especially due to clear determination on our part to ensure that the forth wall remain intact. What might be an interesting addition, and reduce the mods workload in deleting loads of unsourced and un forum posted proposals (which would neccisitate swinging backwards and forwards between the list and the forum) would be to require a link to the OP to the forum topic in question as part of the C&C proposal form. No linky, no submitty. This would mean that RPers, GPers, WA-ites could use the system, without offending one another, and without detriment to either. Indeed, I think it would aid harmony, as WA-ites helping out, say, GP'ers and ensuring that our section of the game remains unimpeded whilst still honouring those from other areas who are worthy.

Three: Worthiness; probably best judged in the posts. This is automatically a judgement call

Four: With regards characters, you can commend a nation because of the actions of a character, but there must be a link made to the country. Again, not hard to do. Should, say, my own Sir Cyril be plauded, you could add right at the end "COMMENDS the Cobdenian Government for sending such a sage Representative", or some such. Again, easily solvable in the forums, I should think

Five: Condemnations; this is a tricky one, as I can see people honestly getting upset. Again, the forum should help, as it means someone can defend themselves, or, OoC, claim they don't mind being condemned or whatever.

Sixth: one cannot commend or condemn on something fluid and liable to change. This is largely aimed at preventing people commending people for being a Scandinavian Liberl Paradise, or for banning skateboards in an issue, etc

Seventh: seperation. Perhaps a good compromise, even if only after it is passed. It's not totally neccessary, but may be if other features are added (I for one quite like the idea of elected officers, for example), and best to get it set up now. I think we may have to stear clear of Security Council and General Assembly, as we don't want another letter, but something along those lines would be nice.

Eighth: i know that thread is locked, but thanks for the apology violet, and hope in future we can work together