New category rules

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Separate proposal queues would be necessary, primarily if we're going to explain the two different kinds of proposals as deriving from two chambers of the same legislature. Also, if we get actual legislation to quorum, it doesn't make sense to have to wait eight weeks for all the commend/condemn proposals in queue to be resolved before we even get to vote on it. A new nation could propose a resolution, draft it, get it to quorum, then get bored and start visiting other sites in that time. We'd be voting on proposals where the author has ceased to exist! Also, separate subforums are a must. But if this is not the right thread to be discussing that sort of thing, then kindly disregard all of the above.

I do agree that these new categories should be posted "in character"; we should be commending "the government of Funkytopia for its positive contributions to regional diplomacy," not "that Funky guy because he's cool and his offsite posts are always fun to read." We should NOT, however, mention specific characters, as there is the possibility of misspelling names, naming the wrong characters, etc., or in "Commend Ardchoille"'s case, characters that aren't even ICly affiliated with the nation in question. Rather, we should commend "the leaders of Funkytopia," "the diplomats of Funkytopia," "the government officials of Funkytopia" - not Sir Funks-a-lot (who has since changed his name to Mr. Funkalicious, and besides, he was exiled to Crete months ago, so it couldn't have been him who did all that great stuff!).

[Ardchoille]

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

Sorry, Cob, I was referring to my OP in this thread, not to OPs in a C&C proposal thread. I agree with you that the sooner a proposal writer provided confirmation links, the better.

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.

How would you feel about WA legislative proposals being in one WA subforum while WA gameplay-related proposals were in another? The thing is, IC is a debatable state: the gameplayers feel they are IC when posting as their nation. Generalites just don't go IC -- and I've no idea how a Generalite would commend another IC, since the things Generalites do are forum-based and involve mentioning such OOC events as starting/stopping a flamefest, making a clever one-liner, driveby posting, spam ... more spam ... still more spam ...

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

And one that the two WA members might consider before they endorsed a proposal for submission.

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

Good one: every C&C must have a destination.

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

Yup. Also good.

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.

Elected officers? Other features? Please expand; it's practically Yule here in the Southern Hemisphere, maybe somebody will give us forum-pressies!

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

(in loco [violet]us) Oh, and I unlocked it.

[Cobdenia]

How would you feel about WA legislative proposals being in one WA subforum while WA gameplay-related proposals were in another? The thing is, IC is a debatable state: the gameplayers feel they are IC when posting as their nation. Generalites just don't go IC -- and I've no idea how a Generalite would commend another IC, since the things Generalites do are forum-based and involve mentioning such OOC events as starting/stopping a flamefest, making a clever one-liner, driveby posting, spam ... more spam ... still more spam ...

Tricky one - I would really prefer all C&C's in a seperate subforum, but all in character in the WA sense. I think if we have as a rule the neccessity for a forum post, WA and GP versions of IC can be resolved - I'm don't think the latter would mind creative wording if it means that they get to commend and condemn who they like, as, I feel, for them it would be more about the GP aspect of the icon rather than the actual wording, whereas the icon will mean little to the WA-ites but the wording will be important. In any case, the wording is likely not to be that divorced from the actual events. My main concern about having OoC C&C's is the honest confusion when reading the proposal queue and past resolutions about what the WA does, and I feel the roleplay angle is neccessary for this.

The Generalite thing is confusing me somewhat too, I freely admit. My natural response is that general is completely divorced from the game unlike other aspects of the players, and that it would cause a spilling over of general discussions into the WA side of things, which I'm not sure is desirable. It may be possible, once again, to use the WA-ites genius for creative phraseology, but it may not be. I'd like to here from generalites about the issue, as to whether they feel that such icons would be a bonus or a detriment (I can, for example, see major problems with condemnations), though, conversely, I can see it being a bonus too. The more I think about it, the more I feel that creative wording could be used, to whit "Commends Dragonast din Tei for their diplomatic arbritration between Macarena and Las Ketchups over disputed views over the matter of abortion", etc. Proposals, afterall, don't have to be long and drawn out. We have the talent

Plus, as I say, I think it would everyones enjoyment. We get to play with legalese and writing daft things, intentional vagueness, and all the things we love, and those who deserve recognition get the recognition. It's kind of win-win, from my perspective

Elected officers? Other features? Please expand; it's practically Yule here in the Southern Hemisphere, maybe somebody will give us forum-pressies!

Heh, just one of the things [violet] mentioned in the other thread!

Kenny snip

I understand what you're saying, but I think if, for a C&C to be legal, there needs to be a forum post about it (which I am advocating), a number of those problems could be solved.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Also, while I know that enforcing "Worthiness" is going to be a problem for mods, there must be some standard as to what is and what is not worthy of the WA's (and/or the Security Council's) time. Even if it can't be legally enforced, then it should be strongly discouraged (much like noncompliance). For example -- using GP examples since they seem to be the biggest issue right now -- "Commends Rickybickyboo for doing such a great job on our regional elections last month" strikes me as something a global body of 10,000 nations shouldn't be handing out trophies for. However, if it's "The standards Rickybickyboo has set for smooth transition of power in the region of Planet X have served as an example for several other regions in their own elections," or "The Haggaizecheriahmalachi regime's continued occupation of the region of Greatlandtopia poses a significant security risk to other regions, who have also under threat of foreign occupation," then these do sound like issues worthy of international praise or contempt.

[Cobdenia]

How about a requirement to demonstrate a series of do-good-ery or doo-bad-ery? One good/bad thing done is not enough, you require several?

So, just one raid/one proposal/one intervention/one good bit of RP isn't enough, but being consistant is

[Allech-Atreus]

How about a requirement to demonstrate a series of do-good-ery or doo-bad-ery? One good/bad thing done is not enough, you require several?

So, just one raid/one proposal/one intervention/one good bit of RP isn't enough, but being consistant is

A question of "Worthy of the Assembly's Time?" Couldn't we rely on the approving delegates to make that decision, whether the proposal is worth their time to consider, or if they feel the subject is worthy enough of their good graces? Rather how the delegates are the second line of defense in the WA against idiot proposals (or at least were until the current quorum limit), they would prevent those proposals which, not obviously illegal or pointless, are not worthy of the consideration of the body?

EDIT: As an afterthought- the system won't be perfect because it can't be. A repeal function (or a "REVOKE" function!) could be utilized to help remove those silly bits which get past the vetting process.

[Unibot]

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.

No, I agree with Ard. Create a proper format for IC commends and OOC commends - and stick by them for enforcement. That way there's no discrimination between cliques and dimensions of existence.

This hypothetical stuff has me hypothetically drooling...

One thing I'd like to interject into this conversation, because I got caught on it myself while discussing the WASC - the security council shouldn't/can't interfere with founders or Foundership, it can deal all we want about the delegacy, and influence which are both WA concepts. But the Founders are out of the WA's control, and pretending to do so... would be Metagaming.
I mention this, because I brought up an idea of a 'Expansion of Democracy' proposal category which would liberate particular totalitarian region's from the grasp of founders - but that seems illegal to me when I think about it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This may not be the place for this, but this thread seems to be getting the most activity today. Since C&Cs were introduced four days ago, six proposals have reached quorum. Four of those proposals are C&Cs. That's an entire month's worth of C&Cs. Some might say that the demand for C&Cs might wear off, but it took four days to get four weeks of resolutions in queue. I think we really need to reiterate the necessity of voting on more than one resolution at a time, and we need some kind of official response. Is it possible, from a coding standpoint?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

This may not be the place for this, but this thread seems to be getting the most activity today. Since C&Cs were introduced four days ago, six proposals have reached quorum. Four of those proposals are C&Cs. That's an entire month's worth of C&Cs. Some might say that the demand for C&Cs might wear off, but it took four days to get four weeks of resolutions in queue. I think we really need to reiterate the necessity of voting on more than one resolution at a time, and we need some kind of official response. Is it possible, from a coding standpoint?

I second your suggestion. I have been investigating a possibility of parallel voting recently to streamline the queue.

[Unibot]

I posted Ryberg's idea on the Big list, hoping someone with power would notice it - last night or so.

It's a really good one.

The basic concept was that there was one queue, but three entries displaying on the voting page at a time - one spot for resolutions, one for C&C and one for repeals. Which would really speed up the queue. If we had that for both councils (in a hypothetical bi-cameral world), I think running the two councils with the same queue would be entirely possible.

A [proposal] link tags would be much appreciated however then, because the queue would still be much bigger - and therefore increasing the need for using urls/links in telegrams. The [proposal] tag, as I suggested before, would just basically be using the 'Match' feature of the queue database.

[Whamabama]

I do agree that these new categories should be posted "in character"; we should be commending "the government of Funkytopia for its positive contributions to regional diplomacy," not "that Funky guy because he's cool and his offsite posts are always fun to read." We should NOT, however, mention specific characters, as there is the possibility of misspelling names, naming the wrong characters, etc., or in "Commend Ardchoille"'s case, characters that aren't even ICly affiliated with the nation in question. Rather, we should commend "the leaders of Funkytopia," "the diplomats of Funkytopia," "the government officials of Funkytopia" - not Sir Funks-a-lot (who has since changed his name to Mr. Funkalicious, and besides, he was exiled to Crete months ago, so it couldn't have been him who did all that great stuff!).

The only problem with that, is that there is no government of Whamabama. Commending it, or condemning the government of Whamabama would be absolutely silly in my eyes. There are no characters in a capital city deciding on laws within a nation with that name. My version of IC, and OOC are completely different. To me the nation in which I am involved is my region (Equilism) Whamabama is the character I play. To you to commend Whamabama would be considered OOC, to me it is IC. To commend me OOC, you would be commending my actual name.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Given the length of all the discussions thus far adding another essay in is probably not helpful, but here goes.

First, in the spirit of [violet]'s apology, I am in turn sorry if I overreacted. However, I would hope [violet] would take my behaviour as, in a way, a compliment: I got so worked up because I like this game so much.

Second, with no offence to anyone if I've overlooked them saying this, I think there's a key point about proposal rules that hasn't been made yet.

The NSUN did not begin with proposal rules (except, perhaps, not adding war to the game). Numerous of the earliest resolutions would nowadays be considered illegal; a whole slew of them were later deleted by Salusa. Over time some mods were created, and one of them, Enodia, took special interest in policing the NSUN. After a while they proposed a formal rule set, but when they did so those rules were largely based on an existing "common law" approach they'd already been taking. When Hack revised the proposal rules to their present form, he did so after having spent some months creating new precedents (for example, though Cogitation was the mod involved, on the famous Olympic Games proposal). So Hack's revised rules were also based strongly on precedent.

As such, I believe that, contrary to the arguments of some, we should try to stick as closely as possible to the existing sense of the rules, no matter how stark an innovation the C&C categories seem. In all likelihood, if the C&C system is here to stay in a basically unchanged form, any ruleset that the mods come up with now will have to change over time anyway.

Third, I want to be clear that this was not a snarky snipe, but a real concern:

Well, then someone should probably pass the word up to change the announcement, which states "The usual Resolution rules apply".

Fourth, I agree the discussion about the technical ramifications of this change should be split off. But, this concern is important:

Consider the One Stop Rules Shop:

WA posters are presumed to be ambassadorial representatives from their nations to the WA.

The mods will need to decide on how posts in the WA are to be policed from now to prevent mass confusion arising.

Fifth, at Ardchoille's request, I'm reposting the proposals I flagged:

- using the proposals as region ads; <-- resolved

- quoting real real real stuff: "condemns Israelstan for having an Israeli flag, because yesterday the IDF killed two people in the West Bank";

- requiring gameplay (or roleplay, or really any) action: "...and because of this commendation, they get to become delegate"; "...having been condemned, they will be ejected from their region and it returned to its rightful owners";

- this proposal makes a factually dubious claim ("most pirates come from..."): in the past, the issue of whether a proposal can be deleted for being factually incorrect has generally been a moderator judgment call, but when it comes to misrepresenting real people, it seems altogether more concerning;

- these proposals will quickly become out of date as their subjects' stats change, meaning that the WA members who vote at the start of voting may be presented with a different issue than those who vote later on (for example, if Crossman's economy declines);

- because non-WA members can be commended, there is no mechanism to prevent puppetwanking;

- this proposal seems to require in-game action in the severing of diplomatic ties - and even if the mods or admins or Unibot rule that C&C proposals may not do this, the issue that once arose with regard to repeals (whether they can "suggest", "call for", "recommend" such) will be presented anew;

- linking to offsite material raises separate issues: for example, if the links are not PG-13? if a Nazi region posts Stormfront links to support its commendation? This means the mods will themselves have to vet each individual link in a proposal;

- this proposal falsely invokes "the WA rules": now, [violet] has indicated they want to abandon the WA and use it instead to regulate gameplay, but while we're still breathing, is this kind of meta-regulation going to be permitted in C&C proposals?

- given all the legal hoohah about The Organization Which Cannot Be Named, are we going to allow direct references to it to be put back into the game?

- this proposal also "recognises the E-army", which is a subset of Equilism players, yet this distinction will not be reflected in the final outcome: E-army members will not get an extra badge;

- this proposal highlights my concern about real stuff, because it could be misinterpreted as a comment on RL Macedonism;

- my proposal refers to an individual within a nation, not the nation itself, yet this will not be reflected in the game coded commendation badge.

To which I am going to add a few more. (Please note: I'm mainly linking to them so we can discuss actual test cases.)

- format, mechanics;

- branding: also raises the issue of proposals that are basically incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the region(?) in question - also the case for this, national, commendation;

- format, affecting non-WA members;

- this proposal illustrates the difficulty in differentiating between in-game OOC and RL;

- this one brings up a particularly odious possibility: the use of C&C proposals as an extended "chat" function that more properly belongs in debates, whether on NS forums, off-site forums, RMBs, or tattooed on the back of the bishop's neck;

- you know, GMC once deleted a proposal for being terminally vague.

And the questions I posed before in terms of the existing rule set:

Nonetheless, some reflections on the existing rules. While I still think RL References (previously "really easy to grasp and ... a "bright line" violation") are going to be the hardest to write a rule about, this has consequences for some other rules (as Sirocco's blog post seems to implicitly acknowledge).

1. Format. The rules state: "Remember where I mentioned needing more than rhetoric? Yeah, this is what I'm talking about." <-- This category is entirely rhetoric.

2. Branding. Necessarily these proposals will break this rule. So how far does this extend? Do we simply toss the Branding rule for C&C proposals?

3. Contradiction & Duplication. Can we commend Kandarin twice? Can we commend Kandarin and then condemn him without repealing the first one? (Presumably, this has a technical side, and only [violet] knows whether a nation can be given more than one Commendation.)

4. Jokes. What will the moderators be using to determine what constitutes a joke proposal?

5. House of Cards. "Excessive back-referencing" would seem to be almost required if we're to commend active WA members.

6. Amendment. If we commend Bob's Region for having blue in their WFE, and they then change it to green, can we ammend the Commendation?

And finally, to respond to Ard's questions:

I don't think you need to worry about the branding ... rules applying.

Branding isn't simply referring to a nation, though. Consider the following:

- if I want to ban carrots, my Ban Carrot proposal cannot be signed at the bottom "Written by the Ambassador of Quintessence of Dust". But my Commend Cabbagestan proposal could be if the branding rule were totally removed;

- if a bunch of us write a proposal, we can still only mention one nation, and we can't thank a region or an organization. But presumably, a region might wish to Commend a player: for example, "Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria, nominates The Bruce for a Commendation", "Gruenberg, on behalf of Obliquity, Tiki Taki, and Gurglestan, condemns The Den Region for their invasion of Malibu Islands" - and so on;

- and the above only serves to accentuate a problem I've pointed to, which is that it makes it harder for players not conversant with the proposal rules to understand why their proposals are illegal in one category and legal in another.

Additionally, if we remove many of the restrictions for proposals in the C&C categories, it will make them seem "easier": "If you want to Commend someone, press 'Submit'; if you want to promote Human Rights, please follow Subsection D Paragraph 12 of the Third Annex to The Standard Proposal Rules (Revised Edition)". If I were a new player, I know which route I'd choose.

No need to fiddle with the suggestion I made in the first post concerning links; we should be able to deal with that by just asking for enough information for voters to make an informed decision. (Call failure to provide such a "burden of proof" violation?)

I'm really against including links. If you want to include a "Worthy of the WA's consideration" rule, ok, but that should be enforced at the discretion of the mods. For example, imagine someone wishes to condemn TWP's delegate, and links to the TWP forum. Not being familiar with the situation I follow the link and discover that I am a "pompous, verbose, self aggrandizing...jerk" who is "mean spirited, narcissistic and nasty" who should be "crush[ed]".

;_;

Furthermore, even if a mod checks a link and it's ok, it can always be changed after the fact. If people want to mention off-site activity, ok, but including links is not the right way to encourage this.

Do players think real-world references should be allowed in C&Cs?

I think this is the biggest area of confusion I have over the changes. How can they not be? My agnosticism would be severely tested if I were to discover that Kandarin's player did not exist in the real world. All gameplay actions occur IRL; even something such as Francoism is based on observations about people, not imagined characters.

Should commendations/condemnations for RPd characters be possible?

YES! It would be bizarre for them not to be.

Are there any obvious reasons to kill proposals in this category? Links to examples in the queue appreciated.

The most obvious reason is mentioning game mechanics. I raise again the question about merely "suggesting" game mechanics actions, or "recommending" gameplay actions.

I think there's a need for a statement that proposals in this category be worthy of consideration -- the real-world UN doesn't stop its activities to commend every country that manages to balance its budget, or every world leader who doesn't cheat on their partner. But I can see risks in setting the "worthiness" bar too high. Suggestions?

Do you remember my recent proposal to Ban Competitive Eating? It engendered a bit of discussion about what was "beneath the WA's consideration". You said then, and I think you were right, that by and large the mods should allow the voters to decide. I would stick to this.

Operational questions, too, in case [violet]'s passing by. Admins seem open to the idea of repeals, which might help nations that feel they were unjustly Condemned.

Forgive me, but doesn't the News Announcement state repeals are already enabled?

Edit: a number of the proposals I linked to seem to have been deleted. To clarify: it'd be helpful if we got comments on why they were deleted.

Edit edit: so, a new one, which is an absolute gift in terms of illustrating the complexities of "RL references".

The misunderstood King Edit the Third: do the rules on immediately resubmitting deleted proposals stand?

[Cobdenia]

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.

No, I agree with Ard. Create a proper format for IC commends and OOC commends - and stick by them for enforcement. That way there's no discrimination between cliques and dimensions of existence.

This hypothetical stuff has me hypothetically drooling...

I don't think that would work. In fact, I can't see how it can. That means two distinct set of rules, mods working out what set of rules are to be used, a bloody confusing porposal list, and an even more confusing resolutions list, plus my own fears that having a mixed OoC, IC, forth wall intact, and no forth wall would cause confusion to posters and seriously damage WA roleplay. At the moment, we have to presume the actual mechanics remain unchanged; it has already been indicated that there would be difficulties doing the changes neccessary to really stop the problem. As QoD as pointed, ideally the usual rules should apply. Now personally, I'm not sure this is entirely prossible, but the only major changes I advocate is allowing characters and nations to be mentioned in C&C's, and mandating that such should be accompanied by a forum post (ideally, preceding submission) with a short IC and/or OoC explanation (with or without links - it's not always possible to provide links afterall). The hypotheticals can be confusing, I admit - there not expected to go into the rules. But there is nothing that I can think of that cannot be expressed in a WA style IC method, and indeed one wouldn't need to use secret codes for one thing to another, wording can be used to indicate other actions without actually disguising the action. It would be challenging, yes, but if us WA-ites don't enjoy such a challenge, what are we doing here? The WA-ites would be happy, as the fourth wall is intact (the removal of which is what I, and I get the sense of others, feel would be most detrimental to the WA players game); everyone else would be happy as they get to honour people and it would remain, for them, understandable what the action is. And, it would bring the cliques together, as opposed to throwing them apart. Having two different rulesets and two differernt proposal styles is likely to simply set the sections against each other. The WA style IC method would get us working together.

I'm even willing to demonstrate how it could be done; turning a OoC style proposal into a WA style IC proposal, without sacrificing the content. Just need some examples

[Unibot]

I don't think that would work. In fact, I can't see how it can. That means two distinct set of rules, mods working out what set of rules are to be used, a bloody confusing porposal list, and an even more confusing resolutions list, plus my own fears that having a mixed OoC, IC, forth wall intact, and no forth wall would cause confusion to posters and seriously damage WA roleplay

I was applying that idea to a hypothetical WASC which Ard was talking about.

As with QoD's points, (which are all really good ones by the way)- discussion has shifted again to try to fit C&C proposals into our existed system. I'd say the only way I can think of now in which that idea I was talking about could work in our current system, is if the author was allowed to mention which method he was using to post it,

like; tagging, "Gameplay" or "Legislative", at the end of the proposal to signify which official method was being used to write the C&C.

Then there could be more specific rules for each method - though, the gameplayers probably would know better than us on how some of the technical details of their style work.

But I think it would solve of the problems pertaining to potential vagueness of the rules.

- this proposal seems to require in-game action in the severing of diplomatic ties - and even if the mods or admins or Unibot rule that C&C proposals may not do this, the issue that once arose with regard to repeals (whether they can "suggest", "call for", "recommend" such) will be presented anew;

Yeah Yeah... I tried to not sound too 'enforcing' in my above post, but according to the rules of metagaming, the WASC can't control founders - that would be claiming power over things that they don't have control over... yet. *Puts on Gatesville Conspiracy Tin Foil Hat...*

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The only problem with that, is that there is no government of Whamabama. Commending it, or condemning the government of Whamabama would be absolutely silly in my eyes. There are no characters in a capital city deciding on laws within a nation with that name. My version of IC, and OOC are completely different. To me the nation in which I am involved is my region (Equilism) Whamabama is the character I play. To you to commend Whamabama would be considered OOC, to me it is IC. To commend me OOC, you would be commending my actual name.

Uhh, while I can appreciate your own sophisticated manner of roleplaying, the game itself is telling us we're nominating "nations" and "regions" for these awards. We can't place special asterisks next to each nation/region name denoting what that particular player's RP style considers that "nation" to be. What happens when I nominate Altanar for a commendation, and the The Altan Steppes complains that I nominating one of the states in his nation, not the entire federation? Or what if Iron Felix gets a nod, and Yelda objects based upon the fact that Felix is a citizen of Yelda, not a "nation"? What about Surly the Repealinator, which is not a nation or citizen at all, but rather a resolution-killing terminator robot, which is contracted out to various nations?

I think we can acknowledge that we are all entitled to our own preferred form of roleplay, but as far as in-game conventions are concerned, I think we're going to be bound by the constructs created by the game itself.

[Urgench]

I've made a suggestion on wording elsewhere, I don't know if this might be helpful or not but..

I think the C&Cs should contain as little detail in them as is humanly possible. Like honours given in the British honours system or Nobel prizes. they could be backed up by more detailed description provided by proposers in debate threads, or indeed drafting ones too, but basically the submitted C or C would simply read " for Bigtopia for services to Peace." or " in light of Minutistan's disregard for regional unity" and maybe a few other formulaic sayings. Would a link within the body of the C or C then to the thread which created it then be impossible ?

This way we avoid having to make complicated and mutually baffling explanations in the actual text of the C or C, which violate eachother's play conventions and then people are automatically drawn to the debate to see what they're all about. These are simple motions, which are then explained in debate and not like resolutions in depth and detail at all.

In terms of deciding legality, the approach would be the same as current mod practice regarding legal or illegal threads at the WA. If the rules on why and how a C or C may be awarded aren't met then they are reported to a mod who closes the thread, this would also mean that fewer illegal C&Cs would make it to the queue which if it's a shared queue might be a blessing.

A C or C which was submitted without a thread on forum explaining it would be illegal because it didn't have anything backing it up, nice and simple.


This is probably all impossible and not practical but, well I'm trying to get behind this and help.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No offense, but I don't think C&Cs should be dull one-liners; Ard has already stated she would prefer the text make an actual argument for the commend-/condemnation. And I'll add my name to the list of objectors to including links in-text.

[Urgench]

No offense, but I don't think C&Cs should be dull one-liners; Ard has already stated she would prefer the text make an actual argument for the commend-/condemnation. And I'll add my name to the list of objectors to including links in-text.

Well I don't think it's going to be palatable to GPers to have to put the fiction of "the government of..." in to their C&Cs. At least from what they're saying anyway. My recommendation is to keep them as non specific as possible in that case in order to prevent mutual conflict. I don't really want to have to look through reams of argument about stuff I'm not really interested in do you ? And Mongkha certainly can't read some of what is being talked about without imploding in to some reality singularity. To be clear I'm only suggesting one link, and no more than that, the link in question being to the relevant drafting thread which actuated the C or C.

[Whamabama]

I don't see the need for vague. If someone writes up a commend proposal, they need to give a good reason why people should vote on it. Vague reasoning is not reason enough. I like to know what I am voting for, and whether or not I think they deserve it. If it is vague in nature, people will just assume that the Nation/region didn't do anything special to deserve to be commended. Same thing with condemning.

Also I am in favor of a separate sub forum. Also if it is to be a separate sub forum. I think keeping with GP idea of IC should be allowed. I don't think any GP wants to write about some government of some nation, we simply don't see it that way. Being in it's own sub forum, it in no way interrupts in the traditional way the WA-regulars discuss, and make their resolutions.

[Unibot]

No offense, but I don't think C&Cs should be dull one-liners; Ard has already stated she would prefer the text make an actual argument for the commend-/condemnation. And I'll add my name to the list of objectors to including links in-text.

I agree, if it gets the point where we are thinking of not including anything in these proposals - I'd take a second looky at the idea I had with the C&C's being bought with influence in a hypothetical delegate store.

[Urgench]

I don't see the need for vague. If someone writes up a commend proposal, they need to give a good reason why people should vote on it. Vague reasoning is not reason enough. I like to know what I am voting for, and whether or not I think they deserve it. If it is vague in nature, people will just assume that the Nation/region didn't do anything special to deserve to be commended. Same thing with condemning.

I'll give this up soon, but, I did say that a good reason would be mandatory, but it would be contained in a thread in a subforum which the C or C would link to so that one could go and read up about it before making your mind up.

[Cobdenia]

I think that's doable, and I would agree preferable. Need not go into detail, but should still list multiple acheivements with some detail written in a WA IC form. As I say, it's not actually too difficult, I think. The neccessity for an opening post is for the inclusion of links outside of the actual proposal, for justifying it OoC, to allow debate and accused to defend themselves, and to allow us to craft the proposal into a WA freindly format without removing the reasons why they should be honoured from such. Detailed and vague simultaneously.

[Urgench]

No offense, but I don't think C&Cs should be dull one-liners; Ard has already stated she would prefer the text make an actual argument for the commend-/condemnation. And I'll add my name to the list of objectors to including links in-text.

I agree, if it gets the point where we are thinking of not including anything in these proposals - I'd take a second looky at the idea I had with the C&C's being bought with influence in a hypothetical delegate store.

Don't you think that this is an extraordinarily complicated approach though ? Why bring influence in to this at all ? Isn't that just forcing relationships between aspects of game mechanics that don't need to be there ?

[Naivetry]

Yeah, sorry for the discussion split that's been going on. I'll try to keep to the guidelines suggested earlier in... er... whichever of the four threads that was... (ah, it was the the original one) from now on. Hope y'all don't mind a bit of a cross-post, here, for the sake of continuity...

From the other thread in Gameplay...

What it comes down to, is that nations are the only structures that the various groups in NS have in common, and we view nations in almost opposite ways. Gameplay can refrain from talking about players, etc. as our compromise to traditional WA wording - but it would be nice if you would let us stop there. I don't think anyone in Gameplay would object if the RP folks wrote about their characters, or you wrote about your nation's delegates to the WA - we might be mystified by the things you were talking about, but the wording wouldn't bother us. It would bother us, though, to have to translate everything we did in-game into a kind of RP-ified construct, always inserting "the government of" in front of our nation names, or whatever. Our governments are real structures made up of nations (=players) commanding other nations (=players) - it seems to me like talking about Gameplay folks with just nation names is the best place to leave it, for everyone's peace of mind.

And here's what I'm talking about in terms of "vague" - it's not a one-liner at all.

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...

More detail can be provided in the discussion threads here if proof is needed. These discussions could take place in Gameplay (or a new subforum) when they dealt with Gameplay stuff, and in the WA when they did not.

[Urgench]

The World Assembly,

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

RECOGNISES the insult to regional democracy this represents

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES Lady Phedre's continued attempts at regional destabilisation and,

UPHOLDS the civil liberties of the citizens of the East Pacific and,

Officially and publicly condemns the nation of Lady Phedre.

How about this ? Is this too vague ?