Rule 4, formerly 'Split from Commend "A Mean Old Man".'

[Tzorsland]

A nation page does not show gender. Your nation can be called "Girlie McGirlygirl" and your nation flag can be a glamorous pic of you, your very own extravagantly female self. But when you or anyone else looks at your nation page, the nation does not have an official gender. Same with regions.

I don't want to nit pick, but there is a tiny difference between what the nation page does show and what it can show; new features are being added to the page all the time. Nations can definitely have a gender in the real world. Commonly the feminie is used as in "God bless America, land that I love, stand beside her and guide her..." There is this interesting discusson on englishforums.com

The more poetic "she" or "her" is used when we know which country is being discussed. In a general discussion about "any and all states" then the neutral "its" is the only one that is appropriate.

The Macmillian Dictionary defines she as "used for referring to a nation, a ship, or a car, when it has already been mentioned or when it is obvious which one you are referring to."

This might imply that all nations are feminine, but that still is a gender.

[Urgench]

OK this is going to be my last post for a while because I'm finding it difficult to understand the definitions of helpful being used. Oh and I have RL stuff going on too.

You clearly don't understand why I'm explaining this - This is the perspective of the people who play my game, and I do not and cannot insist that they trust the moderators just because I happen to think NERVUN is mostly harmless (:P). The very nature of our game is the underlying reason why Gameplayers all reacted so negatively to the wording of Rule 4, and why we cannot just relax when the mods assure us it is going to be okay. It's not in our nature.

Fine I get it, Gameplay encourages vicious paranoia and a total inability to take things on face value. But I'm not actually addressing some silent majority of Gameplay entities right now, I'm addressing you, you the person, the player. Are you telling me that the tactics used to play an online game have so totally over taken the rational parts of your mind, your personal manner of reacting to the world, that you find it impossible to trust anyone any more? You can't as a person accept that when you are told that no one has it in for you and will not and does not intend to use this rule in some nefarious manner to harm the way you and others play the game that I or more importantly the Mods are telling you the truth?

What have the mods or I for that matter done to give you the impression that we are liars intent on game destruction?

Are you saying that you as a person don't trust Max when he publicly endorses the way you and others play the game?

Define "minimally" - NationStates the game refers to feeders, delegates, regional passwords, RMBs, and so on. Why can't C&Cs?

"Minimal" is currently being defined by Ard and other mods within the wording and interpretation of the rule, instead of berating me about how ignorant of GP you think I am why don't you take a close look at the conversation taking place between Ard and others about the rule to see if you can offer some insight and advice on how "minimal" will be defined?

Of course the SC is part of the WA. But the WA does not have a unified language.

It doesn't and nor will it post the implementation of the 4th rule. All that will change is that both chambers will speak about different things differently but with some small marks of relatedness which will indicate that they are both a part of the same organisation and are part of NS the online simulation game. I don't think Ive actually talked about a unified language, you've asked about the utility of one, and I've answered, but the 4th rule isn't about creating a single language, it's about leaving in a few markers here or there to suggest relationship.

You saw my first post about intelligibility, right? Because C&Cs done in a roleplay style are not intelligible to gameplayers!

No one is asking you to write C&Cs in roleplay style. How many times must it be said? You're clearly shouting at me here because you're annoyed with me in some way, but at least do me the service of recognising that I have bothered to try to discuss this with you, and am endeavouring to be patient and calm even though I tell you and others something which you then repeatedly ignore. And not just me, Ard has said this too numerously to count, as have other Mods and others involved in this debate.

It is a blatant lie to say that this is about "universal intelligibility".

I'm not talking about total universal intelligibility here, I'm not saying (because I have read the rule carefully) that what is being required is that all resolutions emanating from the WA tout court will be written in one single language which will make all resolutions totally intelligible in every detail to everyone. I'm merely saying that to some small degree it will be possible to recognise that both streams of WA resolutions have come from the same organisation within the same game. Everything else about what they contain and how they are worded remains up for grabs and developments and adaptations etc.

That's a piss poor demonstration. When two people wish to communicate, they speak in a mutually understandable language. Why is it necessary that a third person, unrelated to and uninterested in the discussion, be able to understand it?

If you and I are speaking (as we are now) with hundreds perhaps thousands of listeners, with some legitimate interest in our conversation, then it is of course important (dare I say polite) to also speak in a language which is not only capable of communicating between us two, but to third parties also. of course in this case we aren't even talking about third parties being able to garner every single detail of the conversation but perhaps just enough to get that they may have an interest in what it is we are discussing.

And I explained that - Many Gameplayers do not draw a distinction between RP-IC/OOC and GP-IC/OOC, because it is slightly simpler to describe what we do as OOC. But the lines are not so clearly drawn in the sand, and if Ballotonia wishes to call GP OOC, while the mods consider GP-IC to be a-okay, then we're fine. It's only when our game is placed into the OOC category that there are issues.

OK this is so confusing that at this stage it's difficult to address you on this on this point. One thing is interesting and I've seen it a fair bit, and it's the conflation of requirements in C&C language and a wider view of GP. I don't think this rule indicates a new definition of whether or not GP is totally OOC, I think it merely requires that while freely talking about things from your way of playing the game that you also make reference to the body through which you are doing this talking.

Someone else has already pointed out your gross errors (I wouldn't go so far as to call them lies, but it's getting there), so I will merely say:

Gee, I'm terribly sorry that my community saw an opportunity to participate in a new aspect of the game and ran with it.

Wait, no I'm not.

I am sad that your community is too timid to do the same, though.

This is specious. Look at the full list of SC resolutions, including Liberations, and look at the drafting threads in total. What kind of players have most utilised the SC when you look at it in the round? Whose language has therefore been predominant? Not RPers, not Generalites, Not Stats+Issues players, it has been as you rightly point enthusiastically used and predominantly used by GPers. No one has actually got a problem with GPers being the main users of the SC, but what is a problem is that if GPers use the SC in only their own language, and with no reference to the wider reality that they are using a feature of the game which is supposed to be available to all it gives the extremely strong impression that the SC is for and about GP and intended for use by those familiar with your technical language.

My community, by which I presume you mean WA/GA players is a small-ish one and there are exceptions to any rule but in general they cannot use the SC because it is in the main talking in a language and taking actions which cannot be incorporated in to an RP of the WA. For most WA RPers, the threads aren't just threads they are imagined rooms or halls in which drafting discussion take place between ambassadors and other diplomats, the entire structure of the WA is a part of the way many WA/GA RPers roleplay.

I understand you're mystification when you ask why can't we just ignore the stuff that doesn't make sense from our perspective, and the answer as Bears Armed has pointed out is that, yes we can ignore what does not makes sense in RP terms but to do so we must roleplay reasons for this intentional ignorance. In most cases this would be extremely complicated to do without simply saying that for RP purposes the SC simply doesn't exist or is a no-go zone for anything other than casual just for kicks (I'm thinking of Yelda) roleplay which is intended to go nowhere in particular and has no wider roleplayed significance.

Now the 4th rule by no means totally redresses that situation, and nor am I under the impression that it was formulated to do so, but the inclusion of a few language requirements in C&Cs will not just make it easier for WA/GA players to recognise what the SC is about and become more involved in it but it will do the same for a wide variety of other kinds of player too.

I do understand what Nai is saying about it seeming that a larger proportion of GP language is proscribed by this rule, but in saying that what she forgets is that the only reason that WA RPer's language is closer to compliance is that the WA/GA had a long period of development of rules about language which insure that GA resolutions do seem to come from the WA and do seem to respect certain realities about the game. Introducing the 4th rule is part of the same process for the SC. WA RPers language is more compliant because it has been developed to be so, and not only that but the way WA RPers roleplay is in fact informed by this process also. WA RP is in many ways extremely distinct from other forms of RP, and that's because the language it uses and the realities it must respect have moulded it.

Now putting that in context what would naturally happen is that the SC would develop its own unique modus operandi and idiom which while being distinct from the GA in a large variety of ways (because of the nature of those using it and the actions it takes) would have similar fixed points about the WA and the WA's place in the game in mind also.

It's like two people using an etchasketch, they make different pictures in a different style and communicate different messages in their final drawings but they do so within the parameters of what the etchasketch is capable of doing.

[Ballotonia]

Urgench, since you seem so eager to repeatedly in your own words explain to others how Rule IV should be interpreted by them, how it will be enforced in practice, what its consequences are for everyone, etc... I'd like to ask you one very important question which is aimed at aiding me in evaluating the value of your contributions to this thread to other players who are trying to bring this nasty situation towards a good end.

Are you a Game Moderator?

Ballotonia

[Mousebumples]

Someone else has already pointed out your gross errors (I wouldn't go so far as to call them lies, but it's getting there), so I will merely say:

Gee, I'm terribly sorry that my community saw an opportunity to participate in a new aspect of the game and ran with it.

Wait, no I'm not.

I am sad that your community is too timid to do the same, though.

This is specious. Look at the full list of SC resolutions, including Liberations, and look at the drafting threads in total. What kind of players have most utilised the SC when you look at it in the round? Whose language has therefore been predominant? Not RPers, not Generalites, Not Stats+Issues players, it has been as you rightly point enthusiastically used and predominantly used by GPers. No one has actually got a problem with GPers being the main users of the SC, but what is a problem is that if GPers use the SC in only their own language, and with no reference to the wider reality that they are using a feature of the game which is supposed to be available to all it gives the extremely strong impression that the SC is for and about GP and intended for use by those familiar with your technical language.

My community, by which I presume you mean WA/GA players is a small-ish one and there are exceptions to any rule but in general they cannot use the SC because it is in the main talking in a language and taking actions which cannot be incorporated in to an RP of the WA. For most WA RPers, the threads aren't just threads they are imagined rooms or halls in which drafting discussion take place between ambassadors and other diplomats, the entire structure of the WA is a part of the way many WA/GA RPers roleplay.

As an author if resolutions in both the GA and the SC, I am hoping that I might be able to add a bit of insight into the dichotomy of how the SC can be so GP-centric while a number of RP-based C&C's have been passed (relative to GP C&C's). This is mostly theory - so I may be incorrect in my presumptions - but they are based largely on my own SC authoring experience.

Prior to writing the C&C for AO, I had previously passed 2 GA resolutions (although, technically, one was under the then-UN). I had experience writing proposals, and even though a C&C takes a totally different approach to proposal writing, I found a similar utilization of the English language (and a similar proposal setup, in terms of preambles and action statements) to be most useful. I knew how to run a telegram campaign, which allowed the proposal to reach quorum. Of course, attaining quorum doesn't ensure that a proposal will be passed, but I was fortunate enough where that was the case.

RP'ers - especially those who are GA regulars - have proposal writing experience. We know how to write a proposal - and I don't just mean in RP-IC terms. We know how to put our thoughts together in a way that is logical and convincing. I'm not saying that GPers can't or don't have those skills, but very few n00bs to the proposal writing game (GA or SC) have a great first (or second or third ... ) draft. If you check out the GA forum, there's generally more than a few threads that have poorly constructed proposal drafts. Some will be improved upon enough to be worthy of submission. Others will be headed for the trash bin. And, of course, there's still other (and generally much worse) proposals that are just submitted without any forum drafting.

Since the RP-IC'ers have experience writing and passing proposals, it makes sense to me that they would have a number of successful C&C's in the SC. While the language and culture between the two WA bodies are dissimilar, the procedure (and helpful techniques) of submitting and passing a proposal are very similar.

At least, that's my two cents on why there are so many (relative) RP C&C's compared to GP C&C's ... Yet some RPers state that they feel under-represented and/or out of place in the SC.

[Urgench]

Urgench, since you seem so eager to repeatedly in your own words explain to others how Rule IV should be interpreted by them, how it will be enforced in practice, what its consequences are for everyone, etc... I'd like to ask you one very important question which is aimed at aiding me in evaluating the value of your contributions to this thread to other players who are trying to bring this nasty situation towards a good end.

Are you a Game Moderator?

Ballotonia

No and in fact if you've read my post you would in no way come to the need to ask that question. If you want to be facetious and hostile that's fine. I've merely been discussing things with other people from my own point of view with no especially desire that anyone should take anything I say at all seriously if they do not wish to.

Others have decided to discuss things with me, if you don't care to that's fine.

[Metania]

I've merely been discussing things with other people from my own point of view with no especially desire that anyone should take anything I say at all seriously if they do not wish to.

Others have decided to discuss things with me, if you don't care to that's fine.

In all honesty, Urgench, all you've done for this conversation (unintentionally, at that) is make other people angry. I don't see how that is going to make the people who hate Rule IV understand it and stop fighting it.

Unlike some I don't think your intent is to make them angry, but constantly referring to Gameplayers as some sort of mass of anti-rule hatred and crybabies who can't get along with what the game's rules are is... well. You tell me, Urgench, how you think what you're saying is supposed to change their minds.

Would you change yours if I came at it by making snarky side-comments about Roleplayers and/or your friends every opportunity I got?

Because I even agree with a few things you say, but the way you say them seems to only help ensure the gameplayer group will never, ever agree to them, even if it is in their best interest to/doesn't actually conflict with what they want.

[Urgench]

In all honesty, Urgench, all you've done for this conversation (unintentionally, at that) is make other people angry. I don't see how that is going to make the people who hate Rule IV understand it and stop fighting it.

I don't think that's the case, and a lot of people seem to be coming to this conversation already angry, because I'm not a mod people can direct that at me without filtering themselves. I'm just a useful outlet for some people to vent there anger at this rule, and at those they think are behind it.

Unlike some I don't think your intent is to make them angry, but constantly referring to Gameplayers as some sort of mass of anti-rule hatred and crybabies who can't get along with what the game's rules are is... well. You tell me, Urgench, how you think what you're saying is supposed to change their minds.

Where have I constantly done that? That's not even an exageration that's a total mischaracterisation.

Would you change yours if I came at it by making snarky side-comments about Roleplayers and/or your friends every opportunity I got?

Again, I haven't done that, so I can't really say anything about it. I have got in to some heated discussion with others in which both I and they have exchanged less than polite words, but it was a two way street and I was far from even mostly the instigator, if I'm prepared to defend myself in like kind that's hardly a bad thing. I'm not about to be bullied out of my opinions, or this discussion.

Because I even agree with a few things you say, but the way you say them seems to only help ensure the gameplayer group will never, ever agree to them, even if it is in their best interest to/doesn't actually conflict with what they want.

Come now, I have no such influence, if you want me to shut up because you don't like what I'm saying, that's fine, if you want me to go away because you don't like how I express myself that's fine too, but please don't try and pretend that I have any particular influence over this situation and then imply that it will be my fault that GPers who already hated this rule will continue to do so.

[Topid]

The problem here is, Gameplayers don't understand moderation here. At all. And pardon me for saying this, but y'all really don't understand us, either. Every other player group subject to moderation here has an active representative on the moderation team - even Sports. But not Gameplay. You have no idea how many times in the last 2 months I've wished Eras were here.

You are completely right. And I just now got around to nominating the GPer/GPers I think would make a good mod. This is a point I never responded to but I do very much think had there been a gameplay mod this situation would have gone much better because 1) Ard would have at least seen the shitstorm coming, 2) some adjustments could have been made before implementing the rule behind the scenes, and 3) Someone who we can understand could have told us about the rule.

[Metania]

I don't think that's the case, and a lot of people seem to be coming to this conversation already angry, because I'm not a mod people can direct that at me without filtering themselves. I'm just a useful outlet for some people to vent there anger at this rule, and at those they think are behind it.

Your opinion is respected, but thinking things are one way or another is not going to change what seems to keep happening.

Where have I constantly done that? That's not even an exageration that's a total mischaracterisation.

Multiple times I have seen the mods tell you to step back from being snarky. A topic was then made at the top of the forum, about snark thrown between you and your opponents. Said snark, more often than not (including one post I even commented on in here) denigrated Gameplayers as "making up propaganda and brainwashing people" as you desperately attempted to "find people's real opinions" underneath this.

Again, I haven't done that, so I can't really say anything about it. I have got in to some heated discussion with others in which both I and they have exchanged less than polite words, but it was a two way street and I was far from even mostly the instigator, if I'm prepared to defend myself in like kind that's hardly a bad thing. I'm not about to be bullied out of my opinions, or this discussion.

This is more a case of psychological projection, as far as I see it. You don't like the side of you which bullies other people, so you project it on whoever talks to you about the current matters. As a result, you are merely 'defending' yourself.

But if only you could see that not everyone who speaks to you about these matters is out to destroy your opinion--but rather, debate it. Instead every post devolves into a massive cluster-bomb quotefest (as you did to mine) followed by unending blocks of text.

I know this form very well, because I've used it before to overload people into oblivion. The issue is... this issue is going to be fixed by a 20 foot long post filled with quotes, whether it's by me, you, Ard, Topic, Uni, Old Man, that guy who made the Max Barry Day resolution, Kenny, or even Max Barry himself.

This is my opinion, of course, but whenever I see you go at it, it seems like someone violently trying to hammer a screw into the wall. It makes it hard to try to bridge the gap when, between posts of experiments of people trying to bridge the gap, you and others on the other side are busy punching one another. That doesn't make them or you right or wrong--it just doesn't seem to accomplish anything. That screw does get hammered into the wall--but it's not much use as a nail or a screw when you're done with it. It's just sort of silly. Of course, since I'm not a mod, or a jerk, I'm not going to say "Shut up", as it's your place to continue debating in this fashion forever--just questioning if it is useful.

Come now, I have no such influence, if you want me to shut up because you don't like what I'm saying, that's fine, if you want me to go away because you don't like how I express myself that's fine too, but please don't try and pretend that I have any particular influence over this situation and then imply that it will be my fault that GPers who already hated this rule will continue to do so.

By the contrary, I want to see your opinions more in this topic. I just wish they'd be phrased more in terms of "I respectfully disagree" or "I see where you might be coming from, but" rather than hammer-and-tong beat-em-up "it's me or them" "they won't bully me" rhetoric. As... well, then it's rather hard to understand what you're getting at, since it's often wrapped in a container of brick meant for throwing through somebody's window.

Just as much as Unibot's overblown victimization rhetoric was stalling meaningful debate, I think it kind of hard to have a proper discussion when every five minutes, some Gameplayer randomly goes in to fight with you to the death. Now that doesn't excuse the would-be Gameplayers that come in to just argue with you, but since you're the person they're going to, you could just ignore them entirely and focus on the more constructive side--trying to figure out some way that would appeal not only to Mods and Gameplayers but also whatever opinion you represent, since you seem adamant about giving it representation.

Since this needs a win-win solution to end; otherwise it seems like it'll go on forever with people fighting in circles.

In the spirit of that, anyway, if you disagree with this post, feel free to make another post of equal or greater size ripping it to pieces; I, however, am more interested in trying to find a solution, and will continue thinking on it, and let you have the last word on this mini-discussion we've had here. Since I'm not in it to 'defeat' your opinion or 'kick you around' as Unibot decided he was being 'attacked' in the past.

[Unibot]

Because let's face it, what other community cares?

Not to be a prick, because I agree with everything you wrote, but...

Generalities? Nation-Builders & Statwankers? .. just a few suggestions...

I do believe you misunderstood me, good sir.

It's not, "What other community cares about C&Cs?"

It's, "What other community cares about my community's C&Cs", for any definition of "my community".

Yep sorry, I did misunderstand you, but I agree.

[Unibot]

Okay, let me have another go. Rule 4 is a requirement that players abide by a verbal convention in proposals and only in proposals. Proposals are official announcements by an entity that has been coded into the game, the World Assembly. The verbal convention of the game is the one demonstrated in the game itself in the object we, the players, call "a nation page" or "a region (page)".

A nation page does not show gender. Your nation can be called "Girlie McGirlygirl" and your nation flag can be a glamorous pic of you, your very own extravagantly female self. But when you or anyone else looks at your nation page, the nation does not have an official gender. Same with regions.

You, the writer of the proposal, know that the object of your proposal is a person and has a gender. The game "knows" that the object of Security Council resolutions is a nation or a region, which is represented as not having a declared gender. When a proposal is passed and becomes a resolution, it is an official statement of an entity of the game. It is not your proposal. It is the game's resolution. The game, via the votes of "nations" and "regions", has resolved that its World Assembly function commends or condemns a "nation" or "region". It will express this decision by placing a symbol on the genderless nation/region page, with an expression of why the symbol has been placed there. That expression will say "commended/condemned by Security Council Resolution Number w/e".

To maintain the game's verbal convention, a proposal would have to be written in such a way that it did not allocate gender. To maintain your intention, a proposal would have to written in such a way that it points to a person, who does have a gender.

Dilemma: you signed up to play a game. The game has a requirement that you are not comfortable with. Do you accept the basis of the game, or reject the bits that don't suit you?

If you are the sort of contrarian whom NS seems to attract, you do neither. You find a way to appear to be accepting the basis of the game while still achieving your own ends.

In the case of SC proposals, the first step to doing this is to use the [ nation] links. The game can read it as "nation" while you and (some) others will read it the way you want it to be read, as the person who signs in via a given nation page.

But then you run into a snag. While writing your proposal, you wish to use a personal pronoun. "It" seems disrespectful when referring to a person. You have not yet accepted the developing convention of using the plural personal pronoun "their" for ungendered statements in the singular. What to do?

Write "[nation ]Female Gender Nation[/nation ] did this. [nation]Female Gender Nation[ /nation] did that." Seems a bit clunky? Then ...

Think about it. Do I really want to write a proposal about [person]Female Gender Nation[/person]? Do I condemn or commend [person]her[/person] actions that much?

If the answer's yes, then you owe it to [person]Female Gender Nation[/person] to do it. And so you rewrite.

"While doing this, [nation ]Female Gender Nation[ /nation] also did that."

"Having successfully brokered an alliance with Other Lot, [ nation]Female Gender nation[ /nation], as Delegate for This Lot, set up a training program for WA members in both regions."

The outcome is a crafted proposal. You cared enough to do it despite the barrier, and you defeated it. Warm feelgood.

Now, about that TG campaign ...

EDIT: Ballotonia, wrote this before you submitted your post. Reply later.

And why are we rules lawyering for something we could have done before easily enough? That's not really something that is appealing to anyone in the SC but the most die-hard GA enthusiast who would probably enjoy the GA more anyway... once again another moderator decision that seems very textbook GA (i.e it's fun to play lawyer!)

If people can't respect the nominee's way of play enough to step out of their usual roleplay character to talk about an OOC centric proposal, then they shouldn't have much to say about the nominee anyway that is of worth, to be frank. That's the beauty of the Security Council. Explain how this system was going wrong, and where? And why are we watering down certain types of proposals with 'crafty' language that won't be fun at all to write unless you're batty as a GA author, when others don't have to do that all, as well as isolating certain groups of authors because they don't want to do that, because the Security Council clearly doesn't want them to come with their type's submissions unless they use deceptive language, which others don't have to use. Clearly there is inequality there.

And what does that provide in reality? Sure, now any joe-blow ambassador can post in a Gameplay thread, sure he wouldn't have given a rat's ass before about some defender region or something being commended, but do you really think that he is going to care now with the personal pronouns taken out and the word 'player' removed? Extreme Roleplayers are still going to avoid gameplay debate threads just the same as before, and vice versa because it doesn't concern, interest or involve them. Now all that you've done is to ensure the isolation of a group from the Security Council, pissed off the consistent regulars who posted in threads regardless of dimension and attacked SC culture to make it reflect the GA more .. which many of us, Security Council regulars enjoy having a haven from (so when some of the GA regulars whine that the WA is too diverse ... we have to disagree... because the more different it is from the GA, the better!).

[Urgench]

Multiple times I have seen the mods tell you to step back from being snarky. A topic was then made at the top of the forum, about snark thrown between you and your opponents. Said snark, more often than not (including one post I even commented on in here) denigrated Gameplayers as "making up propaganda and brainwashing people" as you desperately attempted to "find people's real opinions" underneath this.

You keep misrepresenting me to make your point. I have been asked not to be snarky but so have others, and that sticky was by no means only about me and the arguments I may have had.

Anyway threadjack over. Invlovement over.

[Naivetry]

#071: Minority Group Demands Language Recognition [Pragmas; ed:SalusaSecondus]

The Issue
A group several thousands strong hailing from a remote, isolated corner of the World Assembly is staging a massive demonstration on the front steps of your capitol. They demand that their local dialect be recognized as an official language.

The Debate
1. Urgench, your Minister of Culture, has nothing but disdain for the demonstrators. "The language of the World Assembly is as important to our national identity as our history is. A truly erudite individual uses perfect grammar and refuses to speak as those ruffians do." Your Finance Minister is quick to chime in as well, "If business is required to print every road sign, instruction manual, and fast-food wrapper in two languages, it would increase everybody's overhead. That means higher prices for the person in the street."

2. "Smarker, but ee's gone blongie 'round the clonger! Trandy in the blang warked a newtie on the Cheebers, quaff me a duggle if it's brine. Sorky, hang our trandy high!" says Astarial, speaking for the demonstrators, in an apparently rousing response that draws a cascade of cheers. After a few uncomfortable minutes with a professional translator, you find the speaker said, "I respectfully disagree with the Minister. Multilingualism has brought stability to richly-cultured nations such as Brancaland; indeed, I challenge you to provide a single counterexample. I encourage this government to adopt a policy of multilingualism throughout the World Assembly!"

3. NERVUN, a radical opposition member who seems to tag along to every demonstration he can find, has his own proposal. "The language barrier is keeping us all apart. What the World Assembly needs is a new identity defined by a new language that we can all agree on. That's unity without favoritism."

With thanks to Ballotonia for the issues list.

Okay, let me have another go.

Okay. I don't like it, but explained as something that can be interpreted as "referring to the personal characteristics of the player" I can live with it. POST-NINJA EDIT: Uni, I think we disagree on this, yes? I don't have time to read through your post right now, but I'll try to respond when I get back.

Er... no. "Lady Phedre" is not multiple, nor gender-neutral. What was wrong with just saying "Lady Phedre's" ?

It would get pretty repetitive. The singular they is commonly used, and it doesn't have to be indicative of an indeterminate gender. But, I'm assuming it would be just fine to repeat "Lady Phedre's", considering NERVUN didn't change it in the first clause. If I were editing it as an essay, though, I would prefer to use 'she', so that the pronoun matches the antecedent. But that would be assuming 'Lady Phedre' is a singular girl, and a commendation for her would be illegal anyhow. 'They' bypasses that problem with just the right amount of ambiguity. Even though there's a better pronoun-antecedent match, it still makes sense when used here, and it would definitely make sense when used with nation names that aren't gender-indicative. The distaste for singular they seems more grammar pedantry than a concern for the actual effects on 'Gameplay' resolutions.

I'm okay with repetition when the alternative is to sacrifice accuracy. But Ard's treatment of Topid's sampler avoids both a singular "they" and excessive repetition.

Singular "they" is always indeterminate/neutral gender. That's my problem with it. Because the gender of the persona posting through the nation is almost always public in Gameplay, using "they" is a marker of ignorance, as if the proposal author couldn't be bothered to find out even the most basic element of the target's identity. It'd be like the ICC declaring someone a war criminal and writing, "that Omar Al Bashir is criminally responsible [...] for war crimes and crimes against humanity and that their
arrest appears to be necessary". Every time I read "they" in an ambiguous context where I do know the gender of the person being obscured by the pronoun, I automatically read the pronoun as plural and referring to a different object. So, in NERVUN's "SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for their rise to power", I say, "Huh? Whose rise to power? The Empire's?" When gender (real or feigned) is known, a workaround to avoid the pronoun is infinitely better as a compromise than using a word that implies that the gender, and therefore the person, doesn't exist.

By the way, we are looking for universal guidelines on Rule 4, right? In that case, it would make sense to advocate singular they, since there are likely only few cases in which a nation name is indicative of a gender. I would't base any kind of guideline upon a 'Condemn Lady Phedre', personally.

It worried me to use the example originally because of that ambiguity.

Just a quick note because I think I owe him the acknowledgment of effort, I found Urgench's last post to be relatively patient and civil - but then we've been dealing in harsher words so much lately that my impressions may be off.

NERVUN - I have to run out to RL for a couple hours, but I (or someone else) can get back to you with more linguistic examples later tonight.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Singular "they" is always indeterminate/neutral gender.

That's its typical usage, but it's not a necessity that the gender be unknown. It's preferred to use gendered pronouns, but it's certainly not unheard of to use 'they' when 'he' or 'she' would typically be used.

When gender (real or feigned) is known, a workaround to avoid the pronoun is infinitely better as a compromise than using a word that implies that the gender, and therefore the person, doesn't exist.

Then I guess you could repeat. But, as a guideline on pronouns, I would prefer to use singular they, since it's pretty universal and would make sense in 99% of the resolutions. If someone were to commend me, I would have no problem with them using 'they', rather than 'he'. I personally don't understand why it's such a huge insult that a gendered pronoun isn't used. But, if you feel that it's rude or impolite, repeating the nation's name should be just fine. I caution to write in a way that would decrease the repetition, but that could be difficult without using pronouns or without sounding a robot reading off a list.

[Unibot]

Okay, let me have another go.

Okay. I don't like it, but explained as something that can be interpreted as "referring to the personal characteristics of the player" I can live with it. POST-NINJA EDIT: Uni, I think we disagree on this, yes? I don't have time to read through your post right now, but I'll try to respond when I get back.

This was the replacement I suggested for Rule IV.

Condemning a player for their personality, personal characteristics or supposedly poor expertise in their area of the game – at the discretion of a moderator – will be ruled trolling or flame-baiting, and thus illegal and actionable under the sites’ rules.

Entirely focusing a commendation on a player’s personality, personal characteristics or supposedly good expertise in their area of their game – at the discretion of a moderator – will be ruled as a category violation as it strays too far away from the category’s description to “recognize outstanding contribution(s)” which is not “recognize outstanding personalities” or any other similar but not indistinguishable variation of the latter.

It allows for a limited amount of description on one's personality in commendations so long as the focus of the resolution is on contributions, not personality (for example, "Commend Kandarin" might have clause that basically says, 'he's a nice guy', but the proposal needs contributions to defend its legality and its worth for that matter).

Other than that, referring to the personal characteristics would be out under that ruleset. Its the protection of dimensions in SC halls that I want to ensure, not flamebaiting and weak commendations.

[Ardchoille]

Unibot, that was a nice rant earlier, but it's not about the post of mine that you've quoted. In that post, I was having a conversation with Nai and a few others about gendered pronouns in C&C proposals.

I can see, of course, that calling it rules-lawyering does fit better with the "outraged rhetoric" theme, but, thanks to the efforts of Nerv and many players who are a bit tired of two months of head-on aggro, we're now pretty much over the "shouting" mode and into the "talking to each other" stage.

We probably should have taken it to the "Topid's Sampler" thread, though, since that's where this sort of detailed discussion has been going on. Unfortunately, I can't move all the posts on that subject over to it because they also contain comments pertinent to other subjects that have come up. I'll go over there and link to it shortly.

BTW, as a courtesy to other players, please use the "Spoiler" tags when you're quoting a long post, or split it up and comment on each point separately.

Metania, Urgench, I can't say your discussion is off-topic, since "Rule 4" is a pretty broad thread title; I can't even say it's unhelpful, since it is helpful to make clear to another poster that you find their style of argument detracts from the content. But I can say that, now you've both explained your position to each other, we should turn from the personal to the more general side of the topic.

(There's another point Nai raised that I want to write about; this is just a placeholder so the thread doesn't spin off again.)

[NERVUN]

Before anyone wonders if I've dropped off the face of the earth, I be researching and a thinking.

In other words, I still plan to keep responding.

[Unibot]

Unibot, that was a nice rant earlier, but it's not about the post of mine that you've quoted. In that post, I was having a conversation with Nai and a few others about gendered pronouns in C&C proposals.

I can see, of course, that calling it rules-lawyering does fit better with the "outraged rhetoric" theme, but, thanks to the efforts of Nerv and many players who are a bit tired of two months of head-on aggro, we're now pretty much over the "shouting" mode and into the "talking to each other" stage.

We probably should have taken it to the "Topid's Sampler" thread, though, since that's where this sort of detailed discussion has been going on. Unfortunately, I can't move all the posts on that subject over to it because they also contain comments pertinent to other subjects that have come up. I'll go over there and link to it shortly.
)

Just because I'll never be able to accept that reason or the compromise of multidimensionality in the Security Council doesn't mean I'm shouting... if you keep insisting on calling dissidence, 'uncooperative', I don't think anything is going to get accomplished, Ard. So its up to you, you've never responded to or even acknowledged that this change is extremely uncomplimentary to the culture of the Security Council, and isn't actually going to solve anything but keep a few GA extremists happy-campers.

As I stated in that 'rant', many roleplayers are still going to avoid gameplayer threads because the nominee doesn't concern them, and removing a couple of personal pronouns isn't going to change that, and many gameplayer threads are going to still avoid roleplayer C&Cs because they don't concern them. In the original Security Council, people who could respect how the nominee played the game, tried to keep their posts in the dimension that the resolution was written in... if people can't respect how the nominee plays the game, then what are they going to contribute to a debate thread? Reams of 'I don't like your style of play' Crap, which we've had enough in these halls ..

Secondly, can't you at least admit that you're making one group of people go out of their way to satisfy these stipulations, and making one group of people go out of their way to hide the language of their culture to make it accessible to roleplayers. While, others don't have to go out of their way at all to satisfy these stipulations, they don't have to hide the language of their culture behind anything. Why wouldn't that one group feel isolated?

And even if we all threw out our cultures for some ugly unified language of the birds, first, it would be pointless as I first argued, and second, why should we all be oppressed, when instead we could go back to being free to describe our words as they were meant to be written? You don't have to feel isolated if a resolution isn't in a dimension that you usually post with, Security Council debates are suppose to be self-inclusive -- you do so by biting the bullet and posting in another culture's language and dimension, it's one of the ultimate signs of respect in the Security Council for how different players use NationStates. If you can't bite that bullet, then for you to post is really .. unnecessary. In the Security Council, everyone goes out of your way to compliment the nominee and his community, instead of forcing the community to compliment everyone else -- and because every week the nominee and their community changes, this keeps everyone on their toes, and the joy being tossed around. That's how I'll remember the good ol' SC at-least.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Just because I'll never be able to accept that reason or the compromise of multidimensionality in the Security Council

Well, as long as you're keeping an open mind about things.

[Krioval]

if you keep insisting on calling dissidence, 'uncooperative', I don't think anything is going to get accomplished, Ard.

Actually, I think that dissidence is by its very nature "uncooperative". You don't want to cooperate, as you have plainly stated many times.

So its up to you, you've never responded to or even acknowledged that this change is extremely uncomplimentary to the culture of the Security Council, and isn't actually going to solve anything but keep a few GA extremists happy-campers.

First, that's not the effect of rule 4, as evidenced by Topid's Sampler and the involvement of several moderators. Second, it is categorically unfair to single out Ard as you have done repeatedly now. She is in a difficult position, as she has to try to satisfy the requirements of the game's creator with its players, and all the while keeping things civil and on an even keel. As I have said earlier, though perhaps not to you directly, Unibot, it is personally unfair to single her out, knowing that she has to keep her comments restrained while you can push to the limit.

As I stated in that 'rant', many roleplayers are still going to avoid gameplayer threads because the nominee doesn't concern them, and removing a couple of personal pronouns isn't going to change that, and many gameplayer threads are going to still avoid roleplayer C&Cs because they don't concern them. In the original Security Council, people who could respect how the nominee played the game, tried to keep their posts in the dimension that the resolution was written in... if people can't respect how the nominee plays the game, then what are they going to contribute to a debate thread? Reams of 'I don't like your style of play' Crap, which we've had enough in these halls ..

Irrelevant.

Secondly, can't you at least admit that you're making one group of people go out of their way to satisfy these stipulations, and making one group of people go out of their way to hide the language of their culture to make it accessible to roleplayers. While, others don't have to go out of their way at all to satisfy these stipulations, they don't have to hide the language of their culture behind anything. Why wouldn't that one group feel isolated?

Even if Ard were to concede this, plenty of groups "feel isolated" when a rules change takes place. The wiser and more adaptable of those learn to work with the moderation staff to minimize the perceived negative effects of those changes, and in some cases, look to see if there are positive impacts as well.

[Astarial]

Fine I get it, Gameplay encourages vicious paranoia and a total inability to take things on face value. But I'm not actually addressing some silent majority of Gameplay entities right now, I'm addressing you, you the person, the player. Are you telling me that the tactics used to play an online game have so totally over taken the rational parts of your mind, your personal manner of reacting to the world, that you find it impossible to trust anyone any more? You can't as a person accept that when you are told that no one has it in for you and will not and does not intend to use this rule in some nefarious manner to harm the way you and others play the game that I or more importantly the Mods are telling you the truth?

I am but one person, and my region alone had seventeen votes cast when determining whether we wished to join 3WB. And we are but one region. You could try to convince each Gameplayer individually that Rule 4 isn't dangerous, or you could fix the wording so all Gameplayers can see for themselves that it can't be used against us.

One of these things is less tedious than the other.

What have the mods or I for that matter done to give you the impression that we are [s]liars[/s] non-gameplayers [s]intent on game destruction[/s] who could inadvertently damage gameplay by virtue of not understanding it?

Fixed that for you.

Define "minimally" - NationStates the game refers to feeders, delegates, regional passwords, RMBs, and so on. Why can't C&Cs?

"Minimal" is currently being defined by Ard and other mods within the wording and interpretation of the rule, instead of berating me about how ignorant of GP you think I am why don't you take a close look at the conversation taking place between Ard and others about the rule to see if you can offer some insight and advice on how "minimal" will be defined?

That's right, accuse me of not contributing. Because more people piling questions on top of the pile of ones waiting to be answered is ever so helpful for Ard.

And you're assuming the questions I want answered haven't already been asked, which they have. They're merely lacking answers.

I don't think Ive actually talked about a unified language, you've asked about the utility of one, and I've answered, but the 4th rule isn't about creating a single language, it's about leaving in a few markers here or there to suggest relationship.

I asked about the better-itude of a unified language within the SC, and you broadened that to the WA as a whole. You still have not answered me on the original point.

No one is asking you to write C&Cs in roleplay style. How many times must it be said? You're clearly shouting at me here because you're annoyed with me in some way, but at least do me the service of recognising that I have bothered to try to discuss this with you, and am endeavouring to be patient and calm even though I tell you and others something which you then repeatedly ignore. And not just me, Ard has said this too numerously to count, as have other Mods and others involved in this debate.

Siiigh.

I never said anybody was asking me to write in a roleplay style. I said that GPers cannot understand RP C&Cs, and yet, RPers not being able to understand GP C&Cs is held up as a reason GPers need to sit down and shut the fuck up. I am inquiring as to the difference.

It is a blatant lie to say that this is about "universal intelligibility".

I'm not talking about total universal intelligibility here, I'm not saying (because I have read the rule carefully) that what is being required is that all resolutions emanating from the WA tout court will be written in one single language which will make all resolutions totally intelligible in every detail to everyone. I'm merely saying that to some small degree it will be possible to recognise that both streams of WA resolutions have come from the same organisation within the same game. Everything else about what they contain and how they are worded remains up for grabs and developments and adaptations etc.

You know I was directly quoting you when I said "universal intelligibility", right? If that's not what you mean, you should really use more precise words.

Regardless, it seems pretty clear that Commends and Condemns all come from the same body, regardless of how they're written.

That's a piss poor demonstration. When two people wish to communicate, they speak in a mutually understandable language. Why is it necessary that a third person, unrelated to and uninterested in the discussion, be able to understand it?

If you and I are speaking (as we are now) with hundreds perhaps thousands of listeners, with some legitimate interest in our conversation, then it is of course important (dare I say polite) to also speak in a language which is not only capable of communicating between us two, but to third parties also. of course in this case we aren't even talking about third parties being able to garner every single detail of the conversation but perhaps just enough to get that they may have an interest in what it is we are discussing.

And that's just as poor of an example. When I wish to communicate with my community, it is important that I use a language that we all understand. Why is it necessary that other people, unrelated to and uninterested in the discussion, be able to understand it?

This is in no way about wanting to understand it and not being able to.

This is specious. Look at the full list of SC resolutions, including Liberations, and look at the drafting threads in total. What kind of players have most utilised the SC when you look at it in the round? Whose language has therefore been predominant? Not RPers, not Generalites, Not Stats+Issues players, it has been as you rightly point enthusiastically used and predominantly used by GPers. No one has actually got a problem with GPers being the main users of the SC, but what is a problem is that if GPers use the SC in only their own language, and with no reference to the wider reality that they are using a feature of the game which is supposed to be available to all it gives the extremely strong impression that the SC is for and about GP and intended for use by those familiar with your technical language.

Oh goodness! Liberations, which really only have an interest to gameplayers, are predominantly passed by (shock!) gameplayers!

My community, by which I presume you mean WA/GA players is a small-ish one and there are exceptions to any rule but in general they cannot use the SC because it is in the main talking in a language and taking actions which cannot be incorporated in to an RP of the WA. For most WA RPers, the threads aren't just threads they are imagined rooms or halls in which drafting discussion take place between ambassadors and other diplomats, the entire structure of the WA is a part of the way many WA/GA RPers roleplay.

I understand you're mystification when you ask why can't we just ignore the stuff that doesn't make sense from our perspective, and the answer as Bears Armed has pointed out is that, yes we can ignore what does not makes sense in RP terms but to do so we must roleplay reasons for this intentional ignorance. In most cases this would be extremely complicated to do without simply saying that for RP purposes the SC simply doesn't exist or is a no-go zone for anything other than casual just for kicks (I'm thinking of Yelda) roleplay which is intended to go nowhere in particular and has no wider roleplayed significance.

RPers ignore parts of this game all the damn time - how do you RP wars when there is actually, codically, no way to lower your or another's population count? Some way, somehow, RPers manage to file this little code gem away in their "Do not care" box. What, exactly, is the difference?

I do understand what Nai is saying about it seeming that a larger proportion of GP language is proscribed by this rule, but in saying that what she forgets is that the only reason that WA RPer's language is closer to compliance is that the WA/GA had a long period of development of rules about language which insure that GA resolutions do seem to come from the WA and do seem to respect certain realities about the game.

No, that's just factually wrong (the second best kind of wrong!). Gameplay language is just as much a part of NationStates the game as Roleplay language is, but because there is not and never has been a Gameplay game mod, it is not understood by the moderators and is assumed to not be acceptable.

It's like two people using an etchasketch, they make different pictures in a different style and communicate different messages in their final drawings but they do so within the parameters of what the etchasketch is capable of doing.

So why tell one person that they can't make any diagonal lines, just because the other person can't percieve angles other than 90 degrees?

[Urgench]

Fine I get it, Gameplay encourages vicious paranoia and a total inability to take things on face value. But I'm not actually addressing some silent majority of Gameplay entities right now, I'm addressing you, you the person, the player. Are you telling me that the tactics used to play an online game have so totally over taken the rational parts of your mind, your personal manner of reacting to the world, that you find it impossible to trust anyone any more? You can't as a person accept that when you are told that no one has it in for you and will not and does not intend to use this rule in some nefarious manner to harm the way you and others play the game that I or more importantly the Mods are telling you the truth?

I am but one person, and my region alone had seventeen votes cast when determining whether we wished to join 3WB. And we are but one region. You could try to convince each Gameplayer individually that Rule 4 isn't dangerous, or you could fix the wording so all Gameplayers can see for themselves that it can't be used against us.

One of these things is less tedious than the other.

What have the mods or I for that matter done to give you the impression that we are [s]liars[/s] non-gameplayers [s]intent on game destruction[/s] who could inadvertently damage gameplay by virtue of not understanding it?

Fixed that for you.

Define "minimally" - NationStates the game refers to feeders, delegates, regional passwords, RMBs, and so on. Why can't C&Cs?

"Minimal" is currently being defined by Ard and other mods within the wording and interpretation of the rule, instead of berating me about how ignorant of GP you think I am why don't you take a close look at the conversation taking place between Ard and others about the rule to see if you can offer some insight and advice on how "minimal" will be defined?

That's right, accuse me of not contributing. Because more people piling questions on top of the pile of ones waiting to be answered is ever so helpful for Ard.

And you're assuming the questions I want answered haven't already been asked, which they have. They're merely lacking answers.

I don't think Ive actually talked about a unified language, you've asked about the utility of one, and I've answered, but the 4th rule isn't about creating a single language, it's about leaving in a few markers here or there to suggest relationship.

I asked about the better-itude of a unified language within the SC, and you broadened that to the WA as a whole. You still have not answered me on the original point.

No one is asking you to write C&Cs in roleplay style. How many times must it be said? You're clearly shouting at me here because you're annoyed with me in some way, but at least do me the service of recognising that I have bothered to try to discuss this with you, and am endeavouring to be patient and calm even though I tell you and others something which you then repeatedly ignore. And not just me, Ard has said this too numerously to count, as have other Mods and others involved in this debate.

Siiigh.

I never said anybody was asking me to write in a roleplay style. I said that GPers cannot understand RP C&Cs, and yet, RPers not being able to understand GP C&Cs is held up as a reason GPers need to sit down and shut the fuck up. I am inquiring as to the difference.

It is a blatant lie to say that this is about "universal intelligibility".

I'm not talking about total universal intelligibility here, I'm not saying (because I have read the rule carefully) that what is being required is that all resolutions emanating from the WA tout court will be written in one single language which will make all resolutions totally intelligible in every detail to everyone. I'm merely saying that to some small degree it will be possible to recognise that both streams of WA resolutions have come from the same organisation within the same game. Everything else about what they contain and how they are worded remains up for grabs and developments and adaptations etc.

You know I was directly quoting you when I said "universal intelligibility", right? If that's not what you mean, you should really use more precise words.

Regardless, it seems pretty clear that Commends and Condemns all come from the same body, regardless of how they're written.

That's a piss poor demonstration. When two people wish to communicate, they speak in a mutually understandable language. Why is it necessary that a third person, unrelated to and uninterested in the discussion, be able to understand it?

If you and I are speaking (as we are now) with hundreds perhaps thousands of listeners, with some legitimate interest in our conversation, then it is of course important (dare I say polite) to also speak in a language which is not only capable of communicating between us two, but to third parties also. of course in this case we aren't even talking about third parties being able to garner every single detail of the conversation but perhaps just enough to get that they may have an interest in what it is we are discussing.

And that's just as poor of an example. When I wish to communicate with my community, it is important that I use a language that we all understand. Why is it necessary that other people, unrelated to and uninterested in the discussion, be able to understand it?

This is in no way about wanting to understand it and not being able to.

This is specious. Look at the full list of SC resolutions, including Liberations, and look at the drafting threads in total. What kind of players have most utilised the SC when you look at it in the round? Whose language has therefore been predominant? Not RPers, not Generalites, Not Stats+Issues players, it has been as you rightly point enthusiastically used and predominantly used by GPers. No one has actually got a problem with GPers being the main users of the SC, but what is a problem is that if GPers use the SC in only their own language, and with no reference to the wider reality that they are using a feature of the game which is supposed to be available to all it gives the extremely strong impression that the SC is for and about GP and intended for use by those familiar with your technical language.

Oh goodness! Liberations, which really only have an interest to gameplayers, are predominantly passed by (shock!) gameplayers!

My community, by which I presume you mean WA/GA players is a small-ish one and there are exceptions to any rule but in general they cannot use the SC because it is in the main talking in a language and taking actions which cannot be incorporated in to an RP of the WA. For most WA RPers, the threads aren't just threads they are imagined rooms or halls in which drafting discussion take place between ambassadors and other diplomats, the entire structure of the WA is a part of the way many WA/GA RPers roleplay.

I understand you're mystification when you ask why can't we just ignore the stuff that doesn't make sense from our perspective, and the answer as Bears Armed has pointed out is that, yes we can ignore what does not makes sense in RP terms but to do so we must roleplay reasons for this intentional ignorance. In most cases this would be extremely complicated to do without simply saying that for RP purposes the SC simply doesn't exist or is a no-go zone for anything other than casual just for kicks (I'm thinking of Yelda) roleplay which is intended to go nowhere in particular and has no wider roleplayed significance.

RPers ignore parts of this game all the damn time - how do you RP wars when there is actually, codically, no way to lower your or another's population count? Some way, somehow, RPers manage to file this little code gem away in their "Do not care" box. What, exactly, is the difference?

I do understand what Nai is saying about it seeming that a larger proportion of GP language is proscribed by this rule, but in saying that what she forgets is that the only reason that WA RPer's language is closer to compliance is that the WA/GA had a long period of development of rules about language which insure that GA resolutions do seem to come from the WA and do seem to respect certain realities about the game.

No, that's just factually wrong (the second best kind of wrong!). Gameplay language is just as much a part of NationStates the game as Roleplay language is, but because there is not and never has been a Gameplay game mod, it is not understood by the moderators and is assumed to not be acceptable.

It's like two people using an etchasketch, they make different pictures in a different style and communicate different messages in their final drawings but they do so within the parameters of what the etchasketch is capable of doing.

So why tell one person that they can't make any diagonal lines, just because the other person can't percieve angles other than 90 degrees?

Hey I'm busy with RL atm, but I thought I just let you know that I wont be answering this because you're not even bothering to read what I'm writing. But hey shout at me and tell me how ignorant I am all you like anyways, if it makes you feel better.

Ciao.

[Palaam]

The thing that I have the hardest time understanding is this concept of unintelligibility on the part of "Gameplayers."

I never said anybody was asking me to write in a roleplay style. I said that GPers cannot understand RP C&Cs, and yet, RPers not being able to understand GP C&Cs is held up as a reason GPers need to sit down and shut the fuck up. I am inquiring as to the difference.

Cannot understand, or refuse to?

When I look at "Commend Goobergunchia," I understand it perfectly. I understand what it's saying, I understand the aim, and I understand why it was written. I dislike immensely the manner in which it was written, but I don't point angrily and shout "GIBBERISH! IT'S GIBBERISH I SAY!."

Equally, I can totally understand where an NSer or a IIer or a Generalite is coming from if they had ever decided to write a C&C. But this arbitrary argument of "we don't have any idea what you're talking about" is just silly- you understand, you just don't involve it in your holistic concept of "The Game."

So we have two options, then:
1. I'm wrong, and when the average GP person sees a proposal that's Rule 4 compliant, it appears as if it's written in Linear B?
2. You understand perfectly, but it doesn't fit into your play style, so you just ignore it or get angry.

Which is more likely?

[Ballotonia]

So we have two options, then:
1. I'm wrong, and when the average GP person sees a proposal that's Rule 4 compliant, it appears as if it's written in Linear B?
2. You understand perfectly, but it doesn't fit into your play style, so you just ignore it or get angry.

Which is more likely?

More likely C.: among SC-interested Gameplayers there's a genuine concenr that the "no OOC" part of Rule IV will mean that any GP-style C&C would have to be reworded to such an extend that nobody (not even RPers) will be able to tell the difference between a commend for heroically liberating a region and a commend for RPing that one liberated a bunch of enslaved nations/citizens/whatever. Personally, I wouldn't event want to be commended by a resolution which sounded like I was spending my time here RPing. If other people like to do that, more power to them and please do enjoy your RPs, but it's just not my cup of tea.

The examples already provided by the moderators have put my mind at ease on the fear of that kind of confusion happening though, but I still see a gap between the way Rule IV is worded and the examples provided. Hence my earlier suggestion (see: viewtopic.php?p=2615395#p2615395 ) to rephrase the 'no OOC' part of the rule to something I personally regard to be more in line with the examples provided. Reality is that 'no OOC' is a gigantic red flag for SC-interested GPers, akin to telling them they're not welcome or allowed to participate.

Two more things:
1. I fully realize my suggested rewording isn't a perfect solution for us GPers. I regard it workable though, and hence acceptable.
2. I'm really wondering whether players arguing amongst one another is helping this issue to come to a conclusion beneficial to all. It would be my preference to limit posting until the Moderators have had a chance to catch up again.

Ballotonia

[Tzorsland]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I really don’t feel like entering this conflict between different styles of play because in part it feels like déjà uv. I do want to make this one observation; there seems to be this assumption on a part of many game players that nation simulation is role playing or that role playing is a subset of nation simulation. No it is not. I’ve had many an arguments with role players in the past who simply refused to look at the stats of the game and played a magic tea party with their nations. I understand why many game players want to do likewise.

On the face value there are a lot of things that are simply wrong, both from a role play to game stat and from a game play to a game stat perspective. On the role playing side you have nations with populations greater than the entire population of the real world, economies with a tax rate greater than 100% (the display is capped but if you do a tax cut and you still wind up with 100% you know that your real rate is above that). On the game play side the notion of moving nations around (via large black helicopters IIRC) is so bizarre that most mods will probably not allow such references in the proposals.

But, that is the game. Like it or not, that is the game. What part of that is the game can’t you understand? Resolutions, like daily issues, at least have to pretend they are a part of the game. That is what the game is; the parts have to fit together, even if some people look at the game as a whole differently.

Is it true that the SC doesn’t completely fit all the needs of the game players? Absolutely! It is also true that the GA doesn’t completely fit all of the needs of the role players! Hundreds of good resolutions are chucked off the queues or never put on them because they don’t fit into the game stat perspective or the nature of how GA resolutions are applied. Commend and Condemn merely place a cute graphic on the nation/region. Liberate does have a strong game play effect, but that’s just a stat wank; the words themselves are meaningless.