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

[Callisdrun]

This thread has shown me, through the tone taken by many on here, that a great many GPers have nothing but contempt for RPers.

You have said that before, and I will repeat my answer. We don't hold any resentment, hold no anger. or wish you to go away.

If I hated roleplayers, and wanted them gone. I would have to leave my own region, where there is a group of RPers have migrated to us even though we have always been a dedicated GP region. However in both my region, and in NS, "more the better"

Didn't see your earlier response. And while you seem fine, there seem to be a lot of people involved who are making it out as if we RPers are the bad guys or somehow behind this rule. I've seen a pretty hostile attitude in many of the posts.

[Topid]

This thread has shown me, through the tone taken by many on here, that a great many GPers have nothing but contempt for RPers.

You have said that before, and I will repeat my answer. We don't hold any resentment, hold no anger. or wish you to go away.

If I hated roleplayers, and wanted them gone. I would have to leave my own region, where there is a group of RPers have migrated to us even though we have always been a dedicated GP region. However in both my region, and in NS, "more the better"

Didn't see your earlier response. And while you seem fine, there seem to be a lot of people involved who are making it out as if we RPers are the bad guys or somehow behind this rule. I've seen a pretty hostile attitude in many of the posts.

A great many RPers have nothing but contempt for GPers as well...

I'd say a majority of both have the same opinion of the other side as me, which is that RPers don't matter to me in the least. I don't have any negative feelings toward them as a group, but they don't really effect me at all either.

[Ardchoille]

One of my non-WA puppets has been a face in the background and occasional offsite contributer in one of the game-created regions for a couple of years (except when I forget about it and it dies). I've seen the occasional clash of Titans (and a few clashes of minnows, too). I've been involved in regional governance on offsites (though, since I was modded, there's no time for that). But I haven't been active in raid/defend/military stuff because, apologies and all that, it just doesn't appeal to me.

Apart from that, I'll have to ask you to respect my culture. Ardchoille is a crazy nation and not all that punctilious about silly little details like statistics. But to haul it out of the WA, even for just the length of an update, would require some major RPing; in fact, it would completely reverse the way I play the nation. My WA delegation is loudly critical of nations that leave the WA on a whim. On top of that, the leader of the delegation is not a happy camper with the people who are actually in power. She uses the delegation to get away with things she can't get past the real powerbrokers back home. (She is the President, but in Ardchoille, public office is an official punishment.)

Not only do I not have time for RPing the nation out of the WA, I don't want to RP it. I'd have to find an excuse for all my major characters suddenly reversing their political stances, acting unlike themselves and generally standing on their heads. (Hmmm ... Darkesia infiltrates our magical defensive shield and sets off canisters of some a mind-altering gas ... but the WA delegation isn't affected because they're all hanging out in the Strangers' Bar ... )

I realise that to some of you this will just mean "imaginary stuff that Ard has completely made up is her feeble excuse for not even trying to understand". Sorry, you'll just have to think that. To give you a "game" idea of what a major thing it would be for me to shift WA membership, I've had puppets asked to join the WA so they could become Delegate of the regions they're in, and I've refused every time, even though it would have meant the ability for me-the-player to wield more votes. Ardchoille can't leave the WA without becoming not-Ardchoille. And to take it out of the WA without an RPd exit would be me-the-player cheating.

[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."

You’re a cruel wumman, Nai. I bet, if Nerv and I don’t surrender before this barrage of satire, you’ll bring on the haikus. But if you try any more diagrams on us I swear I’ll haul you up before the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Mods, so I will!

Not the RSPCM! *hastily deletes her library of screenshots from the I Can Has Cheezburger graph builder*

RE: Gender

I get that. But you're looking at the proposal as-- I dunno -- your property? Anyway, obviously, written from your viewpoint. But it won’t be read from your viewpoint. My job is to look at it as what it will (hopefully) become: the WA's property, an on-the-books resolution. It will be viewed, will come to vote and be voted on, by non-Gameplayers as well: people who don't read @@nationname@@ as a person. There will also be others who might guess it's aimed at a person, but don't know the person involved and don't want to know, because the person's gender has no relevance to the virtue or villainy of their nation -- ie, nothing to do with the vote.

Right. I wasn't making an argument there for the inclusion of gender - just discussing why, if we're going to avoid it, the word "they" is (from my perspective) an unacceptable workaround for a Gameplay C/C. It's not just an issue of being nitpicky about grammar; it's what the choice of pronouns implies about the nature of the nation being C/C'd. The alternatives you provided in Topid's thread seemed fine to me.

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.

I've been trying, and I cannot for the life of me think of examples. In every example I've come up with, there are always alternative reasons of indeterminacy or implied plurality for the speaker to be using a singular "they". For instance: 1) referring to a single anonymous individual interpreted as speaking for a collective (e.g. the tech support guy at work when you say, "I called and they said...") or 2) when using singular pronouns with a collective sense (e.g. "everyone gave their approval"), which is usually an attempt to avoid the inaccuracy (not to mention gender bias) of "his", these days. Am I overlooking a normal category of use?

You know how RPers don't understand Gameplayers? Well, I'm afraid this is one of those points where Gameplayers don't understand RPers.

*snipped brilliant explanation of newbie RPer behavior always hitherto perceived as the consequence of careless if not willful ignorance*

Oh. Oh, geez... I thought that was just Kalasparata. *blinks and reformulates*

“Not completely OOC” makes sense to them. “Talking about the game as if it's a game while still playing the game” makes sense, I would hope (since you wrote it) to Gameplayers.

Well, the wording is awkward, for that last bit - it describes the principle behind the rule, rather than clearly stating the rule itself. I took a shot at rewriting it below.

In light of that... er, different perspective on the game ( )... would it be possible to keep the OOC wording somewhere in the rule for the sake of the NS forum RPers, but rephrase and reorganize it a bit for the sake of Gameplayers? After I sorted out the double negatives in Ballotonia's version, I kinda liked that as a *coughs* more universally intelligible restatement of the essence of the rule. So a proposal would get thrown out if...

4. Your proposal was written entirely Out Of Character cannot be read as submitted by a Nation targeting a Nation or Region, either by
(a) referring directly to the player rather than to the NationStates nation itself including Out Of Character references to the player in an In Character proposal, or
(b) talking about the game discussing events or contributions in-game as if it's a game while still playing the game from an out-of-game perspective, or
(c) writing in the first person (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on the actions of other NationStates nations or regions at an international or interregional level.

Contrasting IC/OOC that way in (a) would, I think, cover not only RPers, but Gameplayers who distinguish between IC and OOC in Gameplay terms, while reassuring those who see all of Gameplay as OOC that a ban on that "OOC" only exists when inappropriately mixed with that nation-RP stuff.

It might not cover some classes of OOC C/Cs that should perhaps still be excluded, but I would hope some sort of personal characteristics clause (either the one already included or something more like Uni's) would discourage those.

And I added in the "or interregional" because I think it better describes situations like condemning Unknown for harboring Rougiers after his activities in other regions.

*winces preemptively, sticks her fingers in her ears and ducks behind a bunker*

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yeah, that's nice, but I'm thinking Ard wrote the rule the way she did, simply because it's much easier to understand and much less confusing. First-time users shouldn't have to have memorized Equilism's Complete Guide to Gamplaying and Out-of-Game Interaction just to make sure they're reading a rule correctly.

And for a group so intent on preventing GA-style "rules-lawyering" in the SC, some of you...well...

[Naivetry]

Yeah, that's nice, but I'm thinking Ard wrote the rule the way she did, simply because it's much easier to understand and much less confusing. First-time users shouldn't have to have memorized Equilism's Complete Guide to Gamplaying and Out-of-Game Interaction just to make sure they're reading a rule correctly.

You don't have to memorize other people's definitions of IC or OOC with this wording - that's the entire point. It ought to make sense no matter which idea of IC/OOC you have. I may be wrong on that, but that's at least the intent of (a).

I really don't think you can make a case that Ard's original version is easier to understand for everyone, given the contrast between the rule's supposed intent and the way an entire segment of the game has taken it.

And for a group so intent on preventing GA-style "rules-lawyering" in the SC, some of you...well...

I'll take rules-lawyering any day over rules that are so confusing that they're impossible to argue.

EDIT(s): Maybe a reword?

4. Your proposal does not respect the premises of "nation" or "region" in NationStates, either by
(a) including Out Of Character references in an In Character proposal, or
(b) discussing events or contributions in-game from an out-of-game perspective, or
(c) writing in the first person (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on the actions of other NationStates nations or regions at an international or interregional level.

*winces again* Any better?

[Metania]

Yeah, that's nice, but I'm thinking Ard wrote the rule the way she did, simply because it's much easier to understand and much less confusing.

Nuh-uh. Eons ago in this very topic it was discussed, and shown that people disagree on what IC and OOC mean. Sure, Ard thought it was less confusing when she wrote it, and you still think that it isn't confusing, but that doesn't change how vast hordes of other people don't seem to understand it.

That's the entire reason for this part of the discussion, anyway. If there was no confusion, then we wouldn't have the problem of gameplayers hating the rule when it doesn't actually impact what they do or so forth.

[Mousebumples]

4. Your proposal does not respect the premises of "nation" or "region" in NationStates, either by
(a) including Out Of Character references in an In Character proposal, or
(b) discussing events or contributions in-game from an out-of-game perspective, or
(c) writing in the first person (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)

*winces again* Any better?

*raises hand* I understand the concept behind Rule 4 as is from all the forum discussion, but reading that rewrite (and pretending that I don't know what's what with Rule 4) ...

Section B confuses me. I don't see how that's any clearer than referencing IC/OOC. "Out of game perspective" is, in my mind, far less clear/explicit than OOC. The two terms are not necessarily equivalent, as some may be able to justify (to themselves) that an OOC approach is not an out of game perspective and thereby get in trouble with rule violation.

I can understand Metania's point that different communities have different specific definitions of IC/OOC, but would it be correct to presume that all active players within a given NS community (RP, GP, NS Sports, F7, etc.) would at least have a basic understanding of the concept? I think it would be better to start with a point (IC/OOC) for which there is at least some amount of common ground. Further elaboration within the rule post (perhaps further expanding on what is already there) to better clarify what the mods mean by IC/OOC would certainly be useful to provide for a common definition for SC purposes.

[Unibot]

but would it be correct to presume that all active players within a given NS community (RP, GP, NS Sports, F7, etc.) would at least have a basic understanding of the concept?

Honestly, I've been writing an essay on dimensions in NationStates for a while (with Rule IV stalling the project because it completely fucks it up..grrr...) and nope, there is absolutely no basic understanding of what is in character and what is not. People characterize themselves as different entities in NationStates, mostly nations, characters, soldiers, citizens, personalities, politicians and national personifications, are the most common. But Rule IV can only respect one of those dimensions.

[Mousebumples]

but would it be correct to presume that all active players within a given NS community (RP, GP, NS Sports, F7, etc.) would at least have a basic understanding of the concept?

Honestly, I've been writing an essay on dimensions in NationStates for a while (with Rule IV stalling the project because it completely fucks it up..grrr...) and nope, there is absolutely no basic understanding of what is in character and what is not. People characterize themselves as different entities in NationStates, mostly nations, characters, soldiers, citizens, personalities, politicians and national personifications, are the most common. But Rule IV can only respect one of those dimensions.

Not the point I was trying to make. People in different dimensions use and understand the terms IC/OOC, yes?

[Unibot]

but would it be correct to presume that all active players within a given NS community (RP, GP, NS Sports, F7, etc.) would at least have a basic understanding of the concept?

Honestly, I've been writing an essay on dimensions in NationStates for a while (with Rule IV stalling the project because it completely fucks it up..grrr...) and nope, there is absolutely no basic understanding of what is in character and what is not. People characterize themselves as different entities in NationStates, mostly nations, characters, soldiers, citizens, personalities, politicians and national personifications, are the most common. But Rule IV can only respect one of those dimensions.

Not the point I was trying to make. People in different dimensions use and understand the terms IC/OOC, yes?

Errr... not universally, but for the most part, I suppose so. However in Gameplay culture, I've found that IC/OOC is rare and that inter-regional and intraregional language is more the common divide. Cultures understand the terms IC/OOC, very differently in many cases.

I suppose the only community who actually hasn't adopted there own division of dimensions is General, unless of course there are certain players who post a certain way to maintain or promote a certain community perception of his or her internet personality (like LG always posting ridiculous but witty things, which he may or may not be what he always wants to post... ). Don't quote me on the General analysis, because I actually didn't get to start on my analysis of the General community yet, so this is all just my unresearched speculation.

[Ananke II]

Not the point I was trying to make. People in different dimensions use and understand the terms IC/OOC, yes?

Hmm, depends. As a gameplayer I understand IC/OOC in a roleplay context, but I tend to see my part of gameplay as being wholly outside the IC/OOC spectrum or more as a blend of the two. A lot of gameplayers just doesn't think in IC/OOC terms. We play a game yes, but from a roleplayer's point of view everything we do probably looks as being OOC, while it just doesn't have much of a place in Gameplay. I've been part of Nationstates Gameplay for 5+ years and I really have no idea how to define IC and OOC in Gameplay terms, since they don't have any influence on how I play the game at all. That's part of why the wording of rule 4 seems so threatening. My only concept of OOC is in regard to roleplay and if you go from there everything we do in Gameplay is OOC.

Edit: As an example when I'm involved in inter-regional gameplay politics my friendship with other players (which often are based on a jumble on both ordinary friendship things like spending hours talking about RL stuff + being allies ingame) is often more important when it comes to me influencing things in Nationstates than just the fact that we might have common priorities ingame. Personal dislikes between powerful gameplay figures can quickly wreck alliances between regions/organisations, which has so many common priorities that you'd think working together would be a no-brainer.

[Mousebumples]

Not the point I was trying to make. People in different dimensions use and understand the terms IC/OOC, yes?

Hmm, depends. As a gameplayer I understand IC/OOC in a roleplay context, but I tend to see my part of gameplay as being wholly outside the IC/OOC spectrum or more as a blend of the two. A lot of gameplayers just doesn't think in IC/OOC terms. We play a game yes, but from a roleplayer's point of view everything we do probably looks as being OOC, while it just doesn't have much of a place in Gameplay. I've been part of Nationstates Gameplay for 5+ years and I really have no idea how to define IC and OOC in Gameplay terms, since they don't have any influence on how I play the game at all. That's part of why the wording of rule 4 seems so threatening. My only concept of OOC is in regard to roleplay and if you go from there everything we do in Gameplay is OOC.

Edit: As an example when I'm involved in inter-regional gameplay politics my friendship with other players (which often are based on a jumble on both ordinary friendship things like spending hours talking about RL stuff + being allies ingame) is often more important when it comes to me influencing things in Nationstates than just the fact that we might have common priorities ingame. Personal dislikes between powerful gameplay figures can quickly wreck alliances between regions/organisations, which has so many common priorities that you'd think working together would be a no-brainer.

That makes sense, Ananke - thanks for the clarification.

I wasn't sure if the (general) GP objections to the terms IC/OOC come from lack of clarity or more then fact that they are infrequently used or ... as you described, they consider IC/OOC to be purely RP terms and thereby all that they do is OOC. Thanks again!

[Ardchoille]

<snip> People characterize themselves as different entities in NationStates, mostly nations, characters, soldiers, citizens, personalities, politicians and national personifications, are the most common. But Rule IV can only respect one of those dimensions.

As I've said elsewhere, if you use the [ nation] and [ region] tags, it's not going to matter whether your C&C subject characterises themselves as a nation, a citizen, a soldier or an eggplant. Provided you use dual-meaning words, you can respect both the identity of the subject and the game's verbal conventions.

<snip>

4. Your proposal was written entirely Out Of Character cannot be read as submitted by a Nation targeting a Nation or Region, either by
(a) referring directly to the player rather than to the NationStates nation itself including Out Of Character references to the player in an In Character proposal

I prefer this first version to the "does not respect the premises ..." version. First, because "premises" can be read as "area belonging to"; but even if it's altered to "concept", I don't like "does not respect" in a rule. We've been using it merrily in this thread, where we all know what we're talking about (suuuure we do! ), but I can imagine all too easily a literal-minded newcomer saying earnestly, "But I do respect those things! Ask anyone, I'm very respectful!"

How does this grab you?

Your proposal cannot be read as submitted by a Nation targeting a Nation or Region because it includes Out Of Character references.

(... followed by a few OR (a) OR (b) clauses, but I'll get to that in a minute.)

I decidedly don't want to put the concept of "In Character Proposals" and "Out of Character Proposals" in the rules, because that would lead authors to think they can, after all, write totally OOC proposals somewhere in the SC. (I'm sorry, Nai, but if there's a completely bass-ackwards way to read a rule, that's the way a lot of people will read it.)

I've cut out "to a player" because "roleplay", "statwank" and the rest of that list aren't references to a player, they're references to what a player does.

Moooving right along,

(b) talking about the game discussing events or contributions in-game as if it's a game while still playing the game from an out-of-game perspective,

Mousebumples beat me to it. Again, "in game" to a regular forum player means "stuff I do while logged in to NationStates". There isn't any "Out of Game", there's just "bits of the game that I don't play". Your first version is, oddly, less puzzling than the second. Possibly "writing about NationStates events, actions or contributions as if they were part of a game"? But the first version might make the reader pause for a second to puzzle it out, and anything that makes a newbie proposal writer stop and think is gold.

Also, it's more friendly. Less formal.

The third one seems clear all round, yay.

I noticed you changed "by either" to "statement OR statement OR statement", and I think that does help. It seems to say, "if this line doesn't make sense, go to the next line and see if that clears it up".

What I'm after is "Your proposal was not written within SC conventions". But SC conventions won't become clear until a few more proposals have been written in this style. "Your proposal was not written SC IC" would also meet that requirement, because it would get across the "write it the way this forum does, not any other forum" idea, and also avoid "but that's not the way I write IC" by saying "no, it's not, it's the way the SC writes IC". Some Gameplay terms will seem OOC to some forumites, but the answer will just be, "It's IC here".

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on the actions of other NationStates nations or regions at an international or interregional level.

I can see why you want "international and interregional"; it would be even more direct if it were "interNational and interRgegional". But that's not the idea that line is supposed to convey. The idea is that C&Cs are supposed to be about things that have a really big impact or meaning. "International" is used there in its outside of NationStates sense. The synonyms for it are "world" and "global".

If we can't use "international" because it makes Gameplayers think regions are being treated as less important than nations, and we can't use "global" because any II Future Tech player will tell you that NS has a lot more than just one globe, I guess we'll have to go with "world", since that should just convey "the NS world".

Would this do?

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on those actions of other NationStates nations or regions that are significant to the whole NS world.

(If not, we'll just have to go with what we've got for a while. I think we all need a break from the intense detail. Once people have seen what a few more R 4-compliant proposals look like, we'll have a better idea of the glitches.)

*retires to mods' bunker*

[Unibot]

<snip> People characterize themselves as different entities in NationStates, mostly nations, characters, soldiers, citizens, personalities, politicians and national personifications, are the most common. But Rule IV can only respect one of those dimensions.

As I've said elsewhere, if you use the [ nation] and [ region] tags, it's not going to matter whether your C&C subject characterises themselves as a nation, a citizen, a soldier or an eggplant. Provided you use dual-meaning words, you can respect both the identity of the subject and the game's verbal conventions.

No, no I can't because everyone knows that the mods made this rule because the game's verbal conventions are to be respected in Security Council resolutions more so than the verbal conventions of the nominee's community -- or else I could write the resolution in the written convention's of the nominee's community and include some [nation] tags to satisfy well.. whoever supports nation simulation language. Because the nominee and their community to me as the author of their C&C is more important that what the game envisions for itself. The verbal conventions of the communities are more important than the conventions of the game, because without them you'd just have some HTML and Perl code.

[The Altani Confederacy]

No, no I can't because everyone knows that the mods made this rule because the game's verbal conventions are to be respected in Security Council resolutions more so than the verbal conventions of the nominee's community -- or else I could write the resolution in the written convention's of the nominee's community and include some [nation] tags to satisfy well.. whoever supports nation simulation language. Because the nominee and their community to me as the author of their C&C is more important that what the game envisions for itself. The verbal conventions of the communities are more important than the conventions of the game, because without them you'd just have some HTML and Perl code.

I've been staying out of this debate because reading it, frankly, makes my head hurt. But really? What the game envisions for itself doesn't matter? The conventions of the communities are more important than the conventions of the game? If you truly feel that way, why are you even bothering to play the game at all? It obviously doesn't matter to you whether or not the game even exists, if that's truly how you feel. The game is nothing more to you than a place to hang your carefully-constructed "community" on. And in all the things you've posted, I have yet to see a reasonable or logical explanation as to why, exactly, you shouldn't have to abide by the rules or why Rule 4 is such a horrible, oppressive burden that simply can't be abided. Ard and others have gone to great length to show how it can be done, without being horribly difficult, but you'd apparently rather be obstructionist and not listen.

You may not like it, but underpinning all these "communities" is a game. Games have rules. And sometimes you may not like the rules. But such is life. All this dead-horse-beating is frankly tiresome.

[Unibot]

No, no I can't because everyone knows that the mods made this rule because the game's verbal conventions are to be respected in Security Council resolutions more so than the verbal conventions of the nominee's community -- or else I could write the resolution in the written convention's of the nominee's community and include some [nation] tags to satisfy well.. whoever supports nation simulation language. Because the nominee and their community to me as the author of their C&C is more important that what the game envisions for itself. The verbal conventions of the communities are more important than the conventions of the game, because without them you'd just have some HTML and Perl code.

I've been staying out of this debate because reading it, frankly, makes my head hurt. But really? What the game envisions for itself doesn't matter? The conventions of the communities are more important than the conventions of the game? If you truly feel that way, why are you even bothering to play the game at all? It obviously doesn't matter to you whether or not the game even exists, if that's truly how you feel. The game is nothing more to you than a place to hang your carefully-constructed "community" on. And in all the things you've posted, I have yet to see a reasonable or logical explanation as to why, exactly, you shouldn't have to abide by the rules or why Rule 4 is such a horrible, oppressive burden that simply can't be abided. Ard and others have gone to great length to show how it can be done, without being horribly difficult, but you'd apparently rather be obstructionist and not listen.

You may not like it, but underpinning all these "communities" is a game. Games have rules. And sometimes you may not like the rules. But such is life. All this dead-horse-beating is frankly tiresome.

You honestly believe that the people do not make the game, that the game makes itself? Are you for real? NationStates is a shell of perl strings and HTML that the community has been vital in cultivating. By not valuing the creations of the community, the mods and admins are putting the shell first before the community. Rule IV can't be abided without disrespecting nominees and absolutely ignoring the beautiful culture that the regulars of the Security Council had developed for the system, shell or mechanism that provides us with the power to C/C.

This is a game, and the collective opinion of the players on the rules, because they're the ones who the rules affect, is much more important than the opinion of the isolated installer of said rules. How can someone have the wisest perspective on implementing a rule if it doesn't affect them at all? If someone else has to live with the consequences?

[Krioval]

You honestly believe that the people do not make the game, that the game makes itself? Are you for real? NationStates is a shell of perl strings and HTML that the community has been vital in cultivating. By not valuing the creations of the community, the mods and admins are putting the shell first before the community. Rule IV can't be abided without disrespecting nominees and absolutely ignoring the beautiful culture that the regulars of the Security Council had developed for the system, shell or mechanism that provides us with the power to C/C.

This is a game, and the collective opinion of the players on the rules, because they're the ones who the rules affect, is much more important than the opinion of the isolated installer of said rules. How can someone have the wisest perspective on implementing a rule if it doesn't affect them at all? If someone else has to live with the consequences?

In the beginning, the NS world was without form, and void. And then Max said, "Let there be NationStates!" And there was, and it was good...for a bit. Then the sudden influx of players made it necessary to install mods, so that NS would be a happier, or at least more civil, place. And lo, he created the Holy FAQ, to outline his vision to any newcomer, to say, "Jennifer Government: NationStates is a nation simulation game" and other useful things, so that the masses might be less confused, lest they think that they've reached WoW or some other MMO, and spend hours complaining about the treacherous leveling curve.

In other words, Max made a game to parallel his book, and the game became outrageously popular. He had to make up some rules and give people the ability to enforce them. In doing so, he retains the right to set any arbitrary rule he wishes, though he and the other admins seem amenable to at least *asking* how the players want to see certain things implemented. But no, the players do not make the game. The many, many lines of code and their execution make the game.

Also, that you refer to the "beautiful culture that the regulars of the Security Council have developed" without any trace of apparent irony is entertaining, but an irrelevant fiction. Sure, there have been a few cooperative ventures, but it's mostly been one conflict or controversy after another.

[The Altani Confederacy]

You honestly believe that the people do not make the game, that the game makes itself? Are you for real? NationStates is a shell of perl strings and HTML that the community has been vital in cultivating.

The last I checked, NationStates was a nation simulation game. All the rule is asking you to do is to work within that context. Why this is so difficult for you, I frankly cannot grasp.

By not valuing the creations of the community, the mods and admins are putting the shell first before the community. Rule IV can't be abided without disrespecting nominees and absolutely ignoring the beautiful culture that the regulars of the Security Council had developed for the system, shell or mechanism that provides us with the power to C/C.

If they didn't value your input, they'd have told you to go away a long time ago, instead of having endless threads of discussion about the rule and taking the time to put together examples of how resolutions can be Rule 4-compliant. Again, you're ignoring the context that this is a nation simulation game. As far as I can discern, your argument is that the rules and the game context shouldn't matter, as long as you can do what you want. If that argument made sense, I could walk out of my house right now, go down to the nearby park, and join a pickup basketball game, but insist on using a football, wearing lacrosse gear, and using curling rules, and somehow that would work.

This is a game, and the collective opinion of the players on the rules, because they're the ones who the rules affect, is much more important than the opinion of the isolated installer of said rules. How can someone have the wisest perspective on implementing a rule if it doesn't affect them at all? If someone else has to live with the consequences?

Somehow, I don't think the mods/admins aren't "having to live with the consequences", considering how much silly dreck they've dealt with since this rule was implemented. And the rules tie into the context, as much as you may wish otherwise. Again, I'll ask you: what in the world is so hard about using nation simulation language in a nation simulation game, other than the fact that it's an adaptation you refuse to make? Would you play baseball with a trout instead of a bat?

[Unibot]

You honestly believe that the people do not make the game, that the game makes itself? Are you for real? NationStates is a shell of perl strings and HTML that the community has been vital in cultivating.

The last I checked, NationStates was a nation simulation game. All the rule is asking you to do is to work within that context. Why this is so difficult for you, I frankly cannot grasp.

And I am a player stepping out of that glorious simulation to comment on it, the Security Council at one time was able to be meta-cognitively aware that this is a simulation, because the Security Council was a thread between all dimensions and was able to bounce between all of them.

If they didn't value your input, they'd have told you to go away a long time ago, instead of having endless threads of discussion about the rule and taking the time to put together examples of how resolutions can be Rule 4-compliant. [...]...Somehow, I don't think the mods/admins aren't "having to live with the consequences", considering how much silly dreck they've dealt with since this rule was implemented.

They've worked at it, I'll give them that. But the fact remains if you or any of the mods were actually a Security Council regular who had enjoyed the game when we played it, one would be able to understand why this rule is so destructive and unwarranted -- it may just be some language tweaks, but it attacks the heart of the Security Council. It's like taking away compliance, or the equality in law from the General Assembly or taking away the 'freeform' in NS roleplaying. It attacks the heart, and it leaves those who have centered their gaming existence around those principles wondering 'why the fuck did I even bother?'.. its just frustrating. The admins might as well have declared the international pages of SC law blank, because that's what it feels like these days.

As far as I can discern, your argument is that the rules and the game context shouldn't matter, as long as you can do what you want. If that argument made sense, I could walk out of my house right now, go down to the nearby park, and join a pickup basketball game, but insist on using a football, wearing lacrosse gear, and using curling rules, and somehow that would work.

This culture wasn't developed by one eccentric man, so your metaphor is inaccurate, but I suppose if everyone else on the court accepted the change then why not? Curling rules are much more sensible anyway...

Would you play baseball with a trout instead of a bat?

If it were more fun. I suppose.

[Yelda]

As far as I can discern, your argument is that the rules and the game context shouldn't matter, as long as you can do what you want. If that argument made sense, I could walk out of my house right now, go down to the nearby park, and join a pickup basketball game, but insist on using a football, wearing lacrosse gear, and using curling rules, and somehow that would work.

This culture wasn't developed by one eccentric man, so your metaphor is inaccurate, but I suppose if everyone else on the court accepted the change then why not? Curling rules are much more sensible anyway...

But what if they didn't accept it? What if they said "no, Unibot. This is basketball and we're playing by basketball rules"? I suppose you would then try to force them to accept your bastardized version of "basketball" as a legitimate way of playing the game.

[Metania]

Could we, er, concentrate on the topic here? Not to try to be a mod, but, last I checked, this wasn't "Unibot fights some random people who wander in over philosophical questions: the Topic."

It's just a game, and it isn't just the game code or just the players who make it, but how they interact. Currently that interaction has soured because some confusing 'code' (in this case, rules) was put down, making this Rule 4 more of a Rorsach test for each person's beliefs rather than a hard and fast 'This is right, and this is wrong' rule. Work is being done to make the rule more obvious to those who don't understand it. Arguing over bizarre, overly emotional ideas over whether the game is a ruthless rule machine that cuts down all who oppose it or if the game is the property of the players and no one else, on the other hand, doesn't really solve anything. Not that I can stop you from debating it until we all die of old age, of course. *shrug*

[Mousebumples]

I can see why you want "international and interregional"; it would be even more direct if it were "interNational and interRgegional". But that's not the idea that line is supposed to convey. The idea is that C&Cs are supposed to be about things that have a really big impact or meaning. "International" is used there in its outside of NationStates sense. The synonyms for it are "world" and "global".

If we can't use "international" because it makes Gameplayers think regions are being treated as less important than nations, and we can't use "global" because any II Future Tech player will tell you that NS has a lot more than just one globe, I guess we'll have to go with "world", since that should just convey "the NS world".

Would this do?

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on those actions of other NationStates nations or regions that are significant to the whole NS world.

Might I suggest "NS multi-verse" ? That's a term I've seen thrown around on some forums on occasion.

[Yelda]

Currently that interaction has soured because some confusing 'code' (in this case, rules) was put down, making this Rule 4 more of a Rorsach test for each person's beliefs rather than a hard and fast 'This is right, and this is wrong' rule.

It isn't confusing, nor is it a Rorschach test. It is being willfully misinterpreted by a handful of individuals for the purpose of justifying this "protest" or whatever you want to call it.

As for the interaction being soured, it's been soured for a looong time. This isn't a new development that only occurred with the introduction of Rule 4. The Security Council has introduced more rancor and uproar into this game than any other element in its nearly 8 year history.

[NERVUN]

I can see why you want "international and interregional"; it would be even more direct if it were "interNational and interRgegional". But that's not the idea that line is supposed to convey. The idea is that C&Cs are supposed to be about things that have a really big impact or meaning. "International" is used there in its outside of NationStates sense. The synonyms for it are "world" and "global".

If we can't use "international" because it makes Gameplayers think regions are being treated as less important than nations, and we can't use "global" because any II Future Tech player will tell you that NS has a lot more than just one globe, I guess we'll have to go with "world", since that should just convey "the NS world".

Would this do?

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on those actions of other NationStates nations or regions that are significant to the whole NS world.

Might I suggest "NS multi-verse" ? That's a term I've seen thrown around on some forums on occasion.

I agree with that. I was going to suggest the NationStates Universe given just how wide this damn thing is.

I wonder, if a mod or two could stand to spend a little time in GP land. Just to get to know us a little. I don't mean becoming an update raider/defender or tracker or spy or anything so time consuming. Come to the forums with a silly little throw away (WA)puppet. (A WA nation would help you understand just how much power that marker has in our world).
Chat on the RMB about the evils of marsupials. Join the Regional Assembly (or whatever the region's voting body is called). Run for office. Engage in internal regional politics. The inter-regional stuff is dead and rotting, but internally the regions still live.

It won't take up much time and it may give a little insight. I understand it won't be easy and you have little time to spend on such things. But it might be worth it to get some idea of where we are coming from.

Just an idea

If you make me gameplay in addition to being Ard's Dark Aprentice to the WA (Always two there shall be), AND my Moderator duties, AND being active in General, AND teaching English to Japanese junior high school kids, AND being a father to a two-year-old... I will explode.

That said, I just spent a very informative (If very tiring) weekend reading up on a regional history and other documents for which I'd like to thank someone who-shall-remain-nameless unless that someone agrees to be named (I.e. I'm gonna TG you here in a second). So while I don't have first hand experience, I feel I am far more informed that I was before and I think it can be done. But THAT mega-post of DOOM is going to have to wait just a bit.