NATION

PASSWORD

Does SC Resolution #21 break Rule 4? (DRAFT?)

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Vitius
Minister
 
Posts: 2709
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Does SC Resolution #21 break Rule 4? (DRAFT?)

Postby Vitius » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:15 pm

NOTE: This is just a question, not much of a statement, and I personally have nothing against Imagey Nation. I am a fan of their work, in fact.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=2/start=20

Security Council Resolution #21 is entitled 'Commend Imagey Nation'. It was passed on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010. It is a sound article, and this is the full document:
Description: THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

NOTING that, to date, the Free Land of Imagey Nation's extremely successful thread, If you want a seal or logo, has received over 30 000 views and 1 000 responses, to which Imagey Nation has replied quickly, politely, and professionally regarding the creation of nation-specific images;

AWESTRICKEN by the meticulous care, precision, attention to detail, and overall creative genius Imagey Nation puts into his work and also by, not only the artistic and realistic value but the originality of the work,

FURTHER NOTING that Imagey Nation's image thread has been arguably the most successful thread of its kind on NationStates, and without it, images used for role-playing would be both few in number and poor in quality;

ACKNOWLEDGING that these seals, logos, communiqué templates, flags, and other related illustrations produced by Imagey Nation have almost always been received with positive feedback and responses of great thanks, and are still used significantly by the nations that Imagey Nation has been commissioned by;

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that despite being busy, Imagey Nation has had a history of commitment to his thread, and of creating images for the nations that commission him quickly and diligently, and is always willing to further amend his work to suit the ever-changing demands of his patrons, whom he does not charge;

The World Assembly hereby officially presents The Free Land of Imagey Nation with a World Assembly Commendation for outstanding artistic contributions to the international community of NationStates.



I am concerned it breaks Rule 4 because:
-It refers to Imagey Nation as a 'he', which is mentioning the real life player, which breaks Rule 4a and possibly Rule 4d.
-It mentions NationStates as a game, breaking Rule 4b.
-It also mentions Imagey Nation's popular thread several times, possibly breaking Rule 4b.

This is Rule 4:
4. Your proposal must be able to be read as being submitted by a Nation, and as targeting a Nation or Region, and therefore must use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

For example, you proposal cannot:

(a) Refer directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.
(b) Refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.
(c) Read as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)
(d) Reference the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community.
(e) Contain reference to ideologies without explaining how they apply to NationStates in terms of actions, policies or attributes of nations/regions.





If my arguments against this article are sound enough, I would like to make a draft on this subject. What are your thoughts?
Last edited by Vitius on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bambi Praxis wrote:
4years wrote:Hitler was worse, but I hate stalin more.

Maintain the rage! Spell the bastard's name without a capital letter, that will settle the score!
Proud Reform Jew

User avatar
Takaram
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8973
Founded: Feb 23, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Takaram » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:17 pm

Was Rule 4 in place back then?

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8391
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:19 pm

(1) I'm pretty sure that was submitted before R4 - or at least before R4 was "finalized." As such, that rule did not apply.

(2) It looks like you're thinking of drafting a repeal on these grounds. I can't speak for the SC for sure, but I know that mentioning rule violations in a repeal is a big No No in the GA. Once a proposal passes into law, it is "legal" by virtue of being law.

(3) I have no idea if this is answering your question or query, so if I'm not helpful, let me (and everyone else) know what you're still looking for help with ... :)
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Unibot II
Senator
 
Posts: 3852
Founded: Jan 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot II » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:19 pm

Takaram wrote:Was Rule 4 in place back then?


Nope and the resolution is grandfathered.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
Member of Gholgoth | The Capitalis de Societate of The United Defenders League (UDL) | Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL?
World Assembly Card Gallery // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78;
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Takaram
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8973
Founded: Feb 23, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Takaram » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:21 pm

Unibot II wrote:
Takaram wrote:Was Rule 4 in place back then?


Nope and the resolution is grandfathered.


Ergo a repeal on these grounds is unfounded.

User avatar
Vitius
Minister
 
Posts: 2709
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Vitius » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:21 pm

Mousebumples wrote:(1) I'm pretty sure that was submitted before R4 - or at least before R4 was "finalized." As such, that rule did not apply.

(2) It looks like you're thinking of drafting a repeal on these grounds. I can't speak for the SC for sure, but I know that mentioning rule violations in a repeal is a big No No in the GA. Once a proposal passes into law, it is "legal" by virtue of being law.

(3) I have no idea if this is answering your question or query, so if I'm not helpful, let me (and everyone else) know what you're still looking for help with ... :)

Thank you for your help, you made me realize my mistake.

I didn't realize the possibility of Rule 4 being processed after the resoultion was submitted and passed, and I forgot about the OOC of rules (which might make my repeal invalid, etc.). Thanks again.
Bambi Praxis wrote:
4years wrote:Hitler was worse, but I hate stalin more.

Maintain the rage! Spell the bastard's name without a capital letter, that will settle the score!
Proud Reform Jew

User avatar
Unibot II
Senator
 
Posts: 3852
Founded: Jan 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot II » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:25 pm

Mousebumples wrote:(2) It looks like you're thinking of drafting a repeal on these grounds. I can't speak for the SC for sure, but I know that mentioning rule violations in a repeal is a big No No in the GA. Once a proposal passes into law, it is "legal" by virtue of being law.


I think the discussion of "rules" is the discussion of the game as a game, and runs afoul of R4. I know mentioning R4 in a resolution is illegal.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
Member of Gholgoth | The Capitalis de Societate of The United Defenders League (UDL) | Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL?
World Assembly Card Gallery // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78;
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Takaram
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8973
Founded: Feb 23, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Takaram » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:27 pm

Unibot II wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:(2) It looks like you're thinking of drafting a repeal on these grounds. I can't speak for the SC for sure, but I know that mentioning rule violations in a repeal is a big No No in the GA. Once a proposal passes into law, it is "legal" by virtue of being law.


I think the discussion of "rules" is the discussion of the game as a game, and runs afoul of R4. I know mentioning R4 in a resolution is illegal.


Irony. Rule 4 prevents a repeal based on Rule 4 violations, meaning that Rule 4 does not comply with Rule 4. It should be struck down.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:17 am

Takaram wrote:Irony. Rule 4 prevents a repeal based on Rule 4 violations, meaning that Rule 4 does not comply with Rule 4. It should be struck down.

Thankfully, Rule 4 is just an OOC rule, rather than a WA resolution :P

Yes, the replies given here are correct - it does violate Rule 4, but you can't mention that in a repeal.

User avatar
Flemingovia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 474
Founded: Dec 22, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Flemingovia » Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:18 am

Even the suggestion that SC resolution #21 breaks rule 4 is serious enough to warrant that the entire nation which proposed this resolution* be dragged through the town**, flogged all the while, and then burned at the stake for the heretics they are.

Hanging is too good for 'em.








*naturally it has to be a whole nation, because individuals do not exist, only nations or regions.
** I realize that the use of the word "town" may be taken to imply that individuals exist, but we (the Flemingovian nation, not an individual) have in mind a very very very big town populated entirely by nations.
IMPORTANT: Before reading this post please read the terms and conditions below. By accessing this post you signify your acceptance, full and in part, of those terms and conditions:

http://img808.imageshack.us/i/disclaimer.jpg/

User avatar
InquisitorBruce
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Feb 23, 2009
Capitalist Paradise

Postby InquisitorBruce » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:47 am

If you plan to repeal the commendation, at least have the forethought to advise the person who you plan to repeal it from.

User avatar
Vitius
Minister
 
Posts: 2709
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Vitius » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:19 pm

InquisitorBruce wrote:If you plan to repeal the commendation, at least have the forethought to advise the person who you plan to repeal it from.

Why would I need to advise the person who I 'plan to repeal it from' if it was a basic question for the populace?
Bambi Praxis wrote:
4years wrote:Hitler was worse, but I hate stalin more.

Maintain the rage! Spell the bastard's name without a capital letter, that will settle the score!
Proud Reform Jew

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4016
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Todd McCloud » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:19 pm

Unibot II wrote:
Takaram wrote:Was Rule 4 in place back then?


Nope and the resolution is grandfathered.


I smell a WASC card candidate... if the Grandfather Clause hasn't been made yet...
I wrote a book, and another one is on the way!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads