Time Honoured Tradition?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

So, is there now a "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions"? And if so, what effect does this have on the writing of C&Cs and Liberation proposals? Is it even possible to write a C&C or Liberation proposal that is neutral and fair to all nations and regions? I think it probably is, but they will have to be worded very carefully from now on.

I'm paraphrasing, but [violet] stated basically that the players would define the rules of SC proposals and that one of the ways they would be defined was through the precedent of passed Resolutions. The recently passed repeal of Commend 10000 Islands seems to have established the precedent of "World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions". Will this be enforced?

Discuss.

[Krioval]

I think it should be enforced. In the case of C/Cs, they should go the way of the dodo. In a game with 50K+ players at any given time, any C/C is going to run into the "but I know someone more deserving" argument, which will frequently be a reasonable statement, if a subjective one.

As for liberations, now the SC either should never pass another, or it will be in the business of dissecting the natives from the raiders and defenders, carefully listening to what they have to say, and even then, the SC will have to walk a fine line. Repealing liberations opens another can of worms entirely.

So, basically, either the SC should close up shop - I wouldn't really miss it - or it needs to respect a much stricter set of standards, among one of which is "neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions". Either way, maybe we can move on to more pressing WA business than the back-and-forth to which we were becoming unfortunately accustomed?

[Kalibarr]

in response to your reply on the other thread, I would not have voted for it If I knew you could not repeal repeals. I like the idea of WA neutrality in WA affairs but it's really impossible to be neutral in all aspects especially with C&C resolutions and I won't even bring up liberations.If the WA is going to take a side though people must realize that if they do this a majority of SC resolutions will be dealing with defender/raider stuff.

[Krioval]

I don't mind if the SC deals with raider/defender stuff generally. That seems to be the basic function of the SC, after all. What I do mind is that every C/C, every liberation, and every discussion here becomes a proxy battle for every raid, every defense, and every betrayal, every alliance made or broken in the history of NS! It's like listening to people gripe and complain about every wrong they were dealt in high school - at their twentieth annual reunion. After a while, I'd like to get past players' bad blood with one another. At least in the GA we have the pretense of being national ambassadors carping at one another, which leaves private channels for resolving some of the more explosive IC encounters.

[Sedgistan]

I'm just going to disregard the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" clause unless directed otherwise. I too would like to see the Security Council deal with issues beyond the defender/invader conflict (and hopefully gain some legitimacy with the wider NS audience), but I don't see that Commend/Condemn resolutions should be abandoned.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm just going to disregard the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" clause unless directed otherwise. I too would like to see the Security Council deal with issues beyond the defender/invader conflict (and hopefully gain some legitimacy with the wider NS audience), but I don't see that Commend/Condemn resolutions should be abandoned.

Do you even see how that's unfair and disrespectful to the World Assembly as a whole, not to mention antithetical to its entire purpose? Ignoring something simply because you don't like it? This is the kind of stuff that pisses off so many of us. The General Assembly has to live with their mistakes and the consequences of them -- so should the Security Council.

[Unibot]

Maybe I'm crazy, and I see that as a strong possibility.

But wasn't neutrality what everyone was screaming for, back in the debates of "Liberate Pakistan/France" ?

I see neutrality as impossible in all reality, so to achieve as neutral as possible, facts need to be layered on top of each.. evaluated and discussed. The Commendation of 10000 islands lacked evidence, and an argument, it relied on people's moral love of defenders to vote for it, instead of facts -- that certainly isn't neutral in my book.

My advice to future writers of the WASC would be not to see their commendations, condemnations and liberations as self-sufficient without a reasoned preamble, we're not all defenders who are instantly inspired to liberate a raided region, or honor a defender group without some well-researched history and arguments.

The best example I can give currently of this is Retired Resolution, SC#6 "Liberate Feudal Japan", which offered not only the moral reasoning behind a liberation, but a reasoned position... essentially saying "liberate this region, if not for the natives, than for the sake of community, and activity".

DISAPPOINTED that the region's current occupiers have left the region to rot and degrade into a mockery of its former self - with no indication of any community activity surviving the decay;

Some people may not be stirred by the screams of "self-determination!" by Defenders, but they might just see the activity of the region's community as something worth passing a resolution for.

[Kalibarr]

so were not supposed to not condemn,commend or liberate anyone then?

Edit: in response to glen-rhodes post

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I'm just going to disregard the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" clause unless directed otherwise. I too would like to see the Security Council deal with issues beyond the defender/invader conflict (and hopefully gain some legitimacy with the wider NS audience), but I don't see that Commend/Condemn resolutions should be abandoned.

Well I don't think they have to be abandoned, but if the "time honoured tradition" is taken into account (and I think it should be, since it's enshrined in WA law now) it will certainly change how they are written.

But to be truthful I imagine you'll be able to disregard the "time honoured tradition" as you say you are planning to do. I don't expect the mods to actually enforce precedent or any rules which would make writing SC proposals more difficult.

[Sedgistan]

I'm just going to disregard the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" clause unless directed otherwise. I too would like to see the Security Council deal with issues beyond the defender/invader conflict (and hopefully gain some legitimacy with the wider NS audience), but I don't see that Commend/Condemn resolutions should be abandoned.

Do you even see how that's unfair and disrespectful to the World Assembly as a whole, not to mention antithetical to its entire purpose? Ignoring something simply because you don't like it? This is the kind of stuff that pisses off so many of us. The General Assembly has to live with their mistakes and the consequences of them -- so should the Security Council.

Its something that would effectively stop the Security Council functioning, hence why I'm disregarding it. I think the General Assembly had a rule that repeals can't impose new restrictions/laws on the WA, and really we should have that for the Security Council too.

[Kandarin]

The World Assembly is awfully unfair and biased right now to nations that want child labor, total nuclear disarmament, or the right to shoot humanitarian vessels (to list a few non-related examples). People who love region-looting Macedonian nationalists are probably going to feel disenfranchised too. The recent repeal could be taken as a precedent for a policy of neutrality, yes, but its own reasoning relies entirely on the presence of an existing tradition that simply does not exist. Until such time as it can be proven that this policy of fairness and neutrality is 'time-honored' by existing legislation in both bodies of the WA (for the recent repeal spoke of the WA, not just the SC) it is rather difficult to take the idea that it is a precedent very seriously.

Those that want the SC to be actually removed should be reminded, again, that advancing a precedent that heavily discourages its use will not accomplish this. NS is insular, and even if the part of the community that visits this forum is persuaded by accumulated precedent to avoid the SC there will always be people who didn't get the message. You will continue to be on the receiving end of campaigns for SC proposals and resolutions as long as there are enthusiastic newbies and people with grievances, which is to say that it will continue for as long as you play NS. The only way that you are ever going to get the feature removed from the game is to go here and make your case to the people who handle such things that the feature ought to be removed.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Its something that would effectively stop the Security Council functioning, hence why I'm disregarding it. I think the General Assembly had a rule that repeals can't impose new restrictions/laws on the WA, and really we should have that for the Security Council too.

The World Assembly is awfully unfair and biased right now to nations that want child labor, total nuclear disarmament, or the right to shoot humanitarian vessels (to list a few non-related examples). People who love region-looting Macedonian nationalists are probably going to feel disenfranchised too. The recent repeal could be taken as a precedent for a policy of neutrality, yes, but its own reasoning relies entirely on the presence of an existing tradition that simply does not exist. Until such time as it can be proven that this policy of fairness and neutrality is 'time-honored' by existing legislation in both bodies of the WA (for the recent repeal spoke of the WA, not just the SC) it is rather difficult to take the idea that it is a precedent very seriously.

Well like I said earlier, I don't think it's anything either of you have to worry about because I doubt the mods will enforce this precedent, or even require that it be considered precedent.

As for repeals imposing new laws in the GA, no, they can't. However the text of repeals, the arguments used in them, can be seen as precedent setting for the purpose of determining the legality of future laws. That's why some of us have made such a fuss at times over the arguments used in GA repeals.

And as for precedent, I was under the impression that it was even more important in the SC than it is in the GA. We had been led to believe that the SC would make up its own rules as it went along and that the text of its passed resolutions, and the precedent that text sets, would play an important role in establishing those rules. So I would think that the text of a SC repeal would carry even more weight than the text of a GA repeal when it comes to setting precedent. We'll see.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Those that want the SC to be actually removed should be reminded, again, that advancing a precedent that heavily discourages its use will not accomplish this. NS is insular, and even if the part of the community that visits this forum is persuaded by accumulated precedent to avoid the SC there will always be people who didn't get the message. You will continue to be on the receiving end of campaigns for SC proposals and resolutions as long as there are enthusiastic newbies and people with grievances, which is to say that it will continue for as long as you play NS. The only way that you are ever going to get the feature removed from the game is to go here and make your case to the people who handle such things that the feature ought to be removed.

I don't think this discussion is about trying to remove the SC from the game. That's not why I started the thread anyway. It's about asking if SC proposal authors will now have to take into consideration the "time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" when writing proposals.

[Kandarin]

I don't think this discussion is about trying to remove the SC from the game.

I quite agree, but the subject keeps getting brought up as a motive for supporting the supposed precedent. I feel that a reminder is due that it's an awfully ineffective way of accomplishing that goal.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I don't think this discussion is about trying to remove the SC from the game.

I quite agree, but the subject keeps getting brought up as a motive for supporting the supposed precedent. I feel that a reminder is due that it's an awfully ineffective way of accomplishing that goal.

I doubt anyone really thinks that the SC would be removed from the game at this point. Enforcing this precedent wouldn't accomplish that anyway. It would simply impose a new set of conditions for writing legal C&Cs and Liberations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Until such time as it can be proven that this policy of fairness and neutrality is 'time-honored' by existing legislation in both bodies of the WA (for the recent repeal spoke of the WA, not just the SC) it is rather difficult to take the idea that it is a precedent very seriously.

I don't think we're pointing out the precedent expecting the SC to actually honor the legislation it passes. I think that we're pointing it out to prove a point, which is that the SC is completely unruly, hoping that one day the mods will actually enforce some kind of quality standard over here.

Anyways, SC resolutions do not affect the General Assembly... so we aren't really affected by whatever oversights are found here.

Those that want the SC to be actually removed should be reminded, again, that advancing a precedent that heavily discourages its use will not accomplish this. NS is insular, and even if the part of the community that visits this forum is persuaded by accumulated precedent to avoid the SC there will always be people who didn't get the message. You will continue to be on the receiving end of campaigns for SC proposals and resolutions as long as there are enthusiastic newbies and people with grievances, which is to say that it will continue for as long as you play NS.

Do you think this is at all fair? The SC doesn't have to abide by the text of its own resolutions. The GA has to do so religiously. That's what it boils down to, for me. The SC has been babied: they've been allowed to make their rules, use the WA for their own means, and they don't even have to abide by GA resolutions, because they've made the IC aspects of the WA completely irrelevant for their own little bureaucratic arm. The SC is getting all the benefits of the WA, but skirting past any of the responsibilities that come along with it...

Having to be more conscious of what goes in to SC resolutions isn't a big thing to ask. I think that the mods and players should sit down and have a discussion about what this new neutrality and fairness rule actually means, and how that's going to affect the way C&Cs/Liberations need to be written. Obviously, they aren't going to get thrown out the window, but this the perfect opportunity to hold them to a higher standard.

[Omigodtheyclonedkenny]

The most cogent remark from the last debate came from, believe it or not, Todd McCloud:

As a side note, it has become clear to me, at least, that the SC should be a separate entity of the GA, with its own quorums, votings, etc.

I really don't give a shit if resolutions set "precedents" by which the SC should be bound to abide; just give them their own chamber to brawl in, and let them do whatever the fuck they want. I think everyone, even gameplayers, can agree that the holding three votes on 10000 Islands in a single session wouldn't be quite so annoying if the WA didn't keep having to switch off between branches just to do it. The SC could pass a hundred thousand 10000 Islands C&Cs/repeals if it really wanted -- and a hundred thousand more repeals of Condemn NAZI EUROPE after that -- and do it all in half the time if they had their voting mechanism.

The only pressing question here is, will [violet] be willing to listen to players' concerns this time?

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

The most cogent remark from the last debate came from, believe it or not, Todd McCloud:

As a side note, it has become clear to me, at least, that the SC should be a separate entity of the GA, with its own quorums, votings, etc.

I really don't give a shit if resolutions set "precedents" by which the SC should be bound to abide; just give them their own chamber to brawl in, and let them do whatever the fuck they want. I think everyone, even gameplayers, can agree that the holding three votes on 10000 Islands in a single session wouldn't be quite so annoying if the WA didn't keep having to switch off between branches just to do it. The SC could pass a hundred thousand 10000 Islands C&Cs/repeals if it really wanted -- and a hundred thousand more repeals of Condemn NAZI EUROPE after that -- and do it all in half the time if they had their voting mechanism.

The only pressing question here is, will [violet] be willing to listen to players' concerns this time?

No.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

The only pressing question here is, will [violet] be willing to listen to players' concerns this time?

Seriously? I doubt it. And you're right (and so is Todd), the sensible solution would be to separate the SC and GA entirely so that they don't interfere with one another in any way.

[Sedgistan]

The only pressing question here is, will [violet] be willing to listen to players' concerns this time?

Seriously? I doubt it. And you're right (and so is Todd), the sensible solution would be to separate the SC and GA entirely so that they don't interfere with one another in any way.

So long as they're both part of the WA (ie membership isn't separated), then that would be the best solution (Though I would note that there doesn't appear to be a GA resolution that has reached quorum at the moment).

[Martyrdoom]

[...]The Commendation of 10000 islands lacked evidence, and an argument, it relied on people's moral love of defenders to vote for it, instead of facts -- that certainly isn't neutral in my book.[...]

Exactly right.

As for the purported precedent of ""World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions", I welcome it wholeheartedly. Whether it's enforceable or not, I doubt it will be going by Sedgistan's comments, but it should at least seen to be.

I know c/cs and liberations cannot be 'neutral' given their respective natures, however, they must actually contain arguments and the wording these arguments use should be based on facts as far as possible, thereby at least giving the impression that the SC is an institution above regions and not a political/military organsation which can be co-opted by those regions with the sweetest singing voices.

Moreover, I'll never understand the laissez-faire oversight to the development of the SC; indeed, the split between the GA and SC must happen.

[Todd McCloud]

Figured I'd post this here:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22185&p=834820

[Sedgistan]

With regards to the 'time honoured tradition' clause, to explain better why I'd ignore it (aside from the fact that it would otherwise invalidate the WA), you just have to look at other passed WA resolutions to see that the WA is obviously not neutral on nations/regions (eg especially "Condemn Macedon"). These resolutions set a precedent as much as "Repeal Commend 10000 Islands".

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

With regards to the 'time honoured tradition' clause, to explain better why I'd ignore it (aside from the fact that it would otherwise invalidate the WA), you just have to look at other passed WA resolutions to see that the WA is obviously not neutral on nations/regions (eg especially "Condemn Macedon"). These resolutions set a precedent as much as "Repeal Commend 10000 Islands".

Yeah I don't really expect the neutrality thing to be enforced. It would be nice if it were to lead to more solid arguments being used in the text of SC proposals though, as Unibot has suggested.

[Anime Daisuki]

I think a few people have raised this in their post. Repeated repeals are a waste of time. There needs to be some kind of rule to protect C&C resolutions for a time period after they are passed.

Since Condemn Macedon passed for example, there have been repeated attempts to repeal it. The same thing goes for Commend 10000 Islands and Condemn Nazi Europe.

I would propose a 6 month period where any passed C&C resolutions should be 'protected', this goes for repeals as well. Otherwise the current situation now will continue: People will continue to fight over C&Cs over and over and over again. (The alternative proposal to have separate queues for GA and SC don't really solve this problem since repeated repeals will continue to occur even after the queues are separated).

I would propose this to cover liberation proposals as well. Regions once liberated, should stay liberated for a fixed period of time before others are allowed to repeal the original resolution.