New category rules

[Ardchoille]

Okay, [violet] has given us some new categories. They're different from the ones we have now, that deal with laws. They're about the WA's opinion of nations or regions, and there are no rules to cover them yet. Please check the main thread and then put in your oar.

Here's my rough idea for some rules:

Commend/Condemn proposals are exempt from the violations that apply to legislation proposals. Legislation proposals establish WA laws that apply to all WA nations. Commend/Condemn proposals are expressions of WA nations' opinion and may refer to nations or regions outside the WA, but only insofar as they concern the WA. For example, a "condemn" resolution may refer to a non-WA nation's treatment of prisoners but may not refer to the player who wrote the posts concerning the treatment of prisoners.

References in the proposal to RPd activities of the nation/region must be accompanied by links to threads or posts in which those actions take place.
References to voting patterns of the nation/region concerned must be accompanied by
*(five?) links to posts in which a vote is cast OR
*(five?) snapshots of the nation/region's vote as delivered by the nation's WA representative or the region's endorsed WA Delegate OR
*other independently verifiable source taken from the NationStates board. NOTE: References to offsite activity will cause the proposal to be deleted.
References to individuals must be to IC characters (nations' leaders, Ministers or other personalities) ONLY; direct references to the player behind the character(s), whether negative or positive, will cause the proposal to be deleted. Excessively negative direct references will be treated as flaming.
References to the Gameplay function of a player such as a Regional Delegate or a Founder must be confined solely to WA activities on behalf of the region concerned. It is not acceptable, for example, to condemn the methods a Regional Delegate used to gain endorsements or a Founder's decision to put a password or endorsement cap on a region.

So far, Omigodtheykilledkenny has found the idea of links confusing and Starblaydia has suggested that commendations may come from politicians latching on to successful sports teams, WA or non-WA. Absolvability has raised the question of whether the WA should be able to commend/condemn non-WA nations, but the answer to that will depend on [violet]'s response.

These suggestions will inevitably be overtaken by events, but you're welcome to suggest anything you think should be part of the rulesfor the new categories. Anything about what you think of the categories themselves, or how they should work, or (obviously) any questions to [violet], should go in the original thread.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I agree with OMGTKK about links: mentioning them is too confusing. I understand you're trying to require evidence for claims, but it frankly seems like making more work for yourself. After all, what's to stop people simply throwing in five random links, meaning you'd need to check each submission thoroughly.

It might be useful if the mods commented on the submissions that have already been tried: would they pass the test or not? Mine and Kenny's are IC submissions, whereas BIteland's are (seemingly) gameplay-related.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I agree with OMGTKK about links: mentioning them is too confusing. I understand you're trying to require evidence for claims, but it frankly seems like making more work for yourself. After all, what's to stop people simply throwing in five random links, meaning you'd need to check each submission thoroughly.

I've since suggested a "compromise", but I don't know if it would work, either. Links pose a variety of problems, so I would still oppose them in any case.

[Ardchoille]

As things seem to be getting a little clearer, with C&C proposals coming up in the queue that practically jump up and down saying "Kill me!", I've reopened this thread for your ideas on possible areas for rules on this category to cover. Remember it's about an opinion, without any statistical effects, so don't get too complicated.

As I've said elsewhere, I've already deleted proposals in this category that were "empty" or duplicates. I'll also kill flamey ones. I'm thinking that ones without enough information for players to make a yes/no decision should be illegal. The regional ad ones have gone or will go.

I don't think you need to worry about the branding or metagaming rules applying. I also don't think whether they're IC or OOC will be a problem.

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

Do players think real-world references should be allowed in C&Cs? Please give reasons.

Should commendations/condemnations for RPd characters be possible?

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

Suggestions for things that proposals need to cover -- ie, that would make a proposal legal -- would also be good.

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

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

[Unibot]

Do players think real-world references should be allowed in C&Cs? Please give reasons.

I can't imagine why one would want to mention the RL world, the events of the game world is all that could be useful as a reference anyway.

Should commendations/condemnations for RPd characters be possible?

Commending characters of a Nation, and therefore commending their nation of residence makes sense.

Suggestions for things that proposals need to cover -- ie, that would make a proposal legal -- would also be good.

• What the nation has contributed, or not contributed (essentially some sort of groundwork for an argument)
• Proof (not necessarily through links - I think links are ugly and destructive to a proposal's flow, personally)
• Focusing on the Nation, not the person behind the computer screen. (I think this is something that can be followed by even Gameplayers easily enough)
• No mentioning of real world events

[Glen-Rhodes]

Do players think real-world references should be allowed in C&Cs? Please give reasons.

No, they shouldn't, simply because we don't allow them in normal resolutions. I actually fail to see why you would need real-world references, anyways. If you're condemning a nation for genocide, do you really need to mention Rwanda to get your point across?

Should commendations/condemnations for RPd characters be possible?

I don't see why not. RPd characters are representatives of nations. What Dr. Bradford Castro does is a representation of the actions of Glen-Rhodes.

Suggestions for things that proposals need to cover -- ie, that would make a proposal legal -- would also be good.

A C&C proposal needs to be worthy of recognition; condemning a nation for raising taxes to 100% is not worthy, neither is commending a nation for surpassing 1 billion citizens. We've done a good job with self-moderating worthiness with resolutions, and I think we're able to do so with C&Cs, too. C&C proposals also need to be diplomatic. You don't need to flame a nation when you're already formally condemning it. There needs to be clear evidence; you cannot condemn a nation based on hearsay, etc.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Do players think real-world references should be allowed in C&Cs? Please give reasons.

Since the real world is nothing to do with NationStates then I see no reason that this rule should be extended to these categories with the exception of geographic and country names.

Should commendations/condemnations for RPd characters be possible?

Not a bad idea.

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

Those without a good amount of reasoning or silly ones, such as this.

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

Agreed. Same process as with other resolutions.

[Unibot]

Admins seem open to the idea of repeals, which might help nations that feel they were unjustly Condemned.

Or nations thinking that others were unjustly commended. Like "Gatesville" getting a Commendation, shiver....

[Buffett and Colbert]

Do players think real-world references should be allowed in C&Cs? Please give reasons.

I don't see what this would contribute to the resolution and as Glen-Rhodes said, you don't need mention Rwanda when getting your point across about genocide.

Should commendations/condemnations for RPd characters be possible?

No I don't think the characters themselves should be able to be Commended or Condemned. But the actions of an RPed character should be able to be used as qualifications for a Commendation or Condemnation

Suggestions for things that proposals need to cover -- ie, that would make a proposal legal -- would also be good.

These proposals should obviously contain reasons for why the Nation should be Commended or Condemned such as:

1. Messages in the forums or RMBs
2. Drafts for proposals in the forum, proposals up for approval, resolutions and past resolutions.
3. Facts in the profile of the nations such as it's govt. type, motto, tax rate, etc. although the Commend. or Condemn. SHOULD NOT BE SOLELY about those facts.
4. The region the nation resides in

So there's my opinion if it's worth much anyway.

[Allech-Atreus]

I wonder about a situation where a nation RPs noncompliance with WA resolutions- a condemnation would be in order, rather like one of the RLUN's "strongly worded letters," but how would the mixing of metagaming and RP work, especially considering that technically compliance is mandatory for all nations?

A general guideline for what's acceptable to commend or condemn would work best.

[Unibot]

I wonder about a situation where a nation RPs noncompliance with WA resolutions- a condemnation would be in order, rather like one of the RLUN's "strongly worded letters," but how would the mixing of metagaming and RP work, especially considering that technically compliance is mandatory for all nations?

I was thinking about that too....

[Kandarin]

*other independently verifiable source taken from the NationStates board. NOTE: References to offsite activity will cause the proposal to be deleted.

Emphasis mine. There are a great many RP groups that, for any number of reasons, choose to operate out of regional forums instead of Nationstates or International Incidents. Some of them are quite large and well-developed; having seen the scope of regional forums, I would say that there are actually more players RPing on offsite forums than there are NS/II regulars. They ought to be able to cite their RPs too. I would, however, add an addendum that any forum link cited must be visible to guests to be valid.

References to individuals must be to IC characters (nations' leaders, Ministers or other personalities) ONLY; direct references to the player behind the character(s), whether negative or positive, will cause the proposal to be deleted. Excessively negative direct references will be treated as flaming.
References to the Gameplay function of a player such as a Regional Delegate or a Founder must be confined solely to WA activities on behalf of the region concerned. It is not acceptable, for example, to condemn the methods a Regional Delegate used to gain endorsements or a Founder's decision to put a password or endorsement cap on a region.

This would make Commendations and Condemnations nigh-impossible for Gameplay nations and regions. By and large, IC characters and national leaders as forum RPers understand them don't exist in Gameplay systems. Players/forum personalities fill in the roles of characters, and the reputation of a nation and that of its player are largely inseparable.

Now, it must be said that sometimes the player acts as an IC character, taking on a carefully constructed personality in her/his forum dealings, but this is still very different from IC characters as you or the NS/II RPers understand them. This is known as 'duality' and is perhaps the most difficult concept in Gameplay as the lines between IC construct and the genuine personality of the player are hard to spot. For example (using people who have posted here recently) Biyah is an IC construct, but Naivetry is not; she is actually like that in real life. This is almost impossible to tell without getting to know them quite well. I don't want to have to unravel the truth of duality cases in the WA, and trust me, you don't either. It'd be far more reasonable to tolerate nomination of players without picking through their words with a fine-toothed comb to weed out people who are using their real personalities.

I am well aware that some folks here are fine with that and think that Gameplay nominations should be excluded as they do not relate directly to the WA's established laws or played characters. I contend that the fact that many of Gameplay's characters are simply the personalities of real people inserted into a game environment does not harm their validity as characters. If a real person is a genuine part of the game (and I am yet to see a coherent argument that there are not those that are) they should be allowed to be nominated. This does not defy the convention against commentary on real-life events, as these people are a part of the game. Real-life political leaders, celebrities, authors, and so forth should remain excluded unless these figures actually play NS.

[Unibot]

What would Gameplayers' being commending for that they couldn't do in a reasonable sphere of IC? Kandarin?

Some examples; applauding a popular liberation front, commending a nation that conducts the adminstration to a popular region such as the Rejected Realms, condemning a terrorist organization, commending the particular nations involved with the defense of a region.

Some bad examples; applauding some dude who happens to be delegate of a popular UCR, condemning a ache-scared computer n00b who has raided and pillaged a couple of players' regions.

[Kandarin]

What would Gameplayers' being commending for that they couldn't do in a reasonable sphere of IC? Kandarin?

Depends on what you call IC. What Gameplay people call IC wouldn't be recognized as IC by forum RPers. They'd basically have to toss out all they've done and invent a new IC framework for everything they do to qualify by WA-forum rules.

I am reminded of the invasion rules that inspired the change to Influence; they were thousands of words long and full of agonizing complexity, and the mods wound up punishing people for things that were not implicitly obvious and would be absolutely tedious to understand. Setting up a framework for modifying every single form of NS play into WA-ese would likely be similar. I think it would be better to have rules that respect the differing variations in NS perspective and play. What ought to make a RP commendation invalid is totally different than what ought to make a Gameplay commendation invalid.

[Unibot]

Depends on what you call IC. What Gameplay people call IC wouldn't be recognized as IC by forum RPers. They'd basically have to toss out all they've done and invent a new IC framework for everything they do to qualify by WA-forum rules.

I am reminded of the invasion rules that inspired the change to Influence; they were thousands of words long and full of agonizing complexity, and the mods wound up punishing people for things that were not implicitly obvious and would be absolutely tedious to understand. Setting up a framework for modifying every single form of NS play into WA-ese would likely be similar. I think it would be better to have rules that respect the differing variations in NS perspective and play. What ought to make a RP commendation invalid is totally different than what ought to make a Gameplay commendation invalid.

Give us an example of a 'Gameplay IC' post in terms of a C&C proposal.

I need something tangible to come up with ideas, opinions off. Please?

[Kandarin]

Depends on what you call IC. What Gameplay people call IC wouldn't be recognized as IC by forum RPers. They'd basically have to toss out all they've done and invent a new IC framework for everything they do to qualify by WA-forum rules.

I am reminded of the invasion rules that inspired the change to Influence; they were thousands of words long and full of agonizing complexity, and the mods wound up punishing people for things that were not implicitly obvious and would be absolutely tedious to understand. Setting up a framework for modifying every single form of NS play into WA-ese would likely be similar. I think it would be better to have rules that respect the differing variations in NS perspective and play. What ought to make a RP commendation invalid is totally different than what ought to make a Gameplay commendation invalid.

Give us an example of a 'Gameplay IC' post in terms of a C&C proposal.

I need something tangible to come up with ideas, opinions off. Please?

Sure thing.

The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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

Officially and publically condemns Lady Phedre for the abovementioned actions.

For those that are familiar with the case in question, I'm not saying that I'd necessarily submit such a proposal or vote for it, but that's probably what it'd look like.

[Sirocco]

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

[Unibot]

Okay I realize I might be totally spitting on Gameplayers' IC rules when I make these suggestions,

But what I'd like to see is, this verison be submitted instead, Kandy...

The World Assembly,

NOTING the usurpation of the WA Delegacy in the East Pacific by the new adminstration, led by the Wonderful World of Lady Phedre,

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

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

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

Officially and publically condemns Lady Phedre for the abovementioned actions.

Basically, I just took out personal pronouns when addressing a nation.

[Unibot]

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

I think the point of explaining ones' worth, is because sometimes it might not hold self-evident if the player in question has stayed in one clique of NationStates (such as the legislative process, gameplay, roleplaying..) and therefore is a bit of an unknown to some delegates, and well known by others.

[Allech-Atreus]

Let's go one step further- because nation prefixes can be changed so often, let's keep it more simple:

The World Assembly,

NOTING the usurpation of the WA Delegacy in the East Pacific by the new adminstration, led by the nation of Lady Phedre,

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

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

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

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

With this, we're both distancing ourselves from the metagaming line, keeping the IC barrier strong (which is good for the WA and II people), while at the same time getting more closely involved in the gameplay politics aspect. Further, it places the condemnation squarely on the head of the government, rather than the person who is playing the game, which might appear as a personal attack against a player- which to me would qualify as flaming through a C&C.

Since this is primarily a game about nation politics, why shouldn't the official graces of the world's legislative assembly be addressed to the governments of nations?

Kandarin
...I contend that the fact that many of Gameplay's characters are simply the personalities of real people inserted into a game environment does not harm their validity as characters. If a real person is a genuine part of the game (and I am yet to see a coherent argument that there are not those that are) they should be allowed to be nominated. This does not defy the convention against commentary on real-life events, as these people are a part of the game. Real-life political leaders, celebrities, authors, and so forth should remain excluded unless these figures actually play NS.

I strongly disagree that this is the way to proceed with regard to the WA ruleset. There is no denying your thought of duality, but basic fact is that this is a game whose heart is the administration of an imaginary nation. The name "Kandarin" isn't your personal name even if that's how people address you on the forums, that's the name of the nation you play.

If your logic were applied to players behind multiple nations- I personally play three different nations, I know Yelda, Kenny, St. Edmund, HotRodia, and Ardchoille all use multiple nations- where do we draw the line when referring to the player? Do we go by primary nations? The oldest one? The one with the most posts on the forum? The most famous? I think that's a big grey area the mods won't be too happy to get into, and besides- why have multiple confusing rules when one or two will do?

Depends on what you call IC. What Gameplay people call IC wouldn't be recognized as IC by forum RPers. They'd basically have to toss out all they've done and invent a new IC framework for everything they do to qualify by WA-forum rules.

The question is, what's IC to those who focus on gameplay? When I played Allech-Atreus in regional politics, I very clearly established that it was a roleplayed nation that administered regions; I play Snefaldia as an IC nation involved in the World Assembly. In-character is, to me, when you clearly distinguish that you the nation, not you the player, is performing the action. Out of character is when you the person is doing something personally. I would say that's standard.

The second half of your statement, that GP frameworks would have to be tossed out, is a non-issue now just as it was in the past because the rules have always required any nation to eliminate personal, metagame, or IRL references when they get involved with the World Assembly.

My general point is that this game is about nation simulation, not personal politics. You're behind a nation, but you're not the actual nation. If we're simulating government, shouldn't international legislation be formatted along those lines?

[Whamabama]

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

[Allech-Atreus]

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

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

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

[Kandarin]

With this, we're both distancing ourselves from the metagaming line, keeping the IC barrier strong (which is good for the WA and II people), while at the same time getting more closely involved in the gameplay politics aspect. Further, it places the condemnation squarely on the head of the government, rather than the person who is playing the game, which might appear as a personal attack against a player- which to me would qualify as flaming through a C&C.

Since this is primarily a game about nation politics, why shouldn't the official graces of the world's legislative assembly be addressed to the governments of nations?

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

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

I strongly disagree that this is the way to proceed with regard to the WA ruleset. There is no denying your thought of duality, but basic fact is that this is a game whose heart is the administration of an imaginary nation. The name "Kandarin" isn't your personal name even if that's how people address you on the forums, that's the name of the nation you play.

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

If your logic were applied to players behind multiple nations- I personally play three different nations, I know Yelda, Kenny, St. Edmund, HotRodia, and Ardchoille all use multiple nations- where do we draw the line when referring to the player? Do we go by primary nations? The oldest one? The one with the most posts on the forum? The most famous? I think that's a big grey area the mods won't be too happy to get into, and besides- why have multiple confusing rules when one or two will do?

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

The question is, what's IC to those who focus on gameplay? When I played Allech-Atreus in regional politics, I very clearly established that it was a roleplayed nation that administered regions; I play Snefaldia as an IC nation involved in the World Assembly. In-character is, to me, when you clearly distinguish that you the nation, not you the player, is performing the action. Out of character is when you the person is doing something personally. I would say that's standard.

I'd try to reply to this, but getting all the disparate views together would require me to publish a book. Suffice it to say that there are many differing interpretations of what level of "IC" vs. "OOC" is real or acceptable, or even what those things mean.

The second half of your statement, that GP frameworks would have to be tossed out, is a non-issue now just as it was in the past because the rules have always required any nation to eliminate personal, metagame, or IRL references when they get involved with the World Assembly.

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

My general point is that this game is about nation simulation, not personal politics. You're behind a nation, but you're not the actual nation. If we're simulating government, shouldn't international legislation be formatted along those lines?

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

[Unibot]

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

Then you're commending a character (regardless if that character is real or not).

Personal Pronouns would then apply.

However a silly line like this,

The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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

Officially and publically condemns Lady Phedre, and her honored nation of residence, for the abovementioned actions.

... would be much appreciated.

[Kandarin]

Then you're commending a character (regardless if that character is real or not).

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