New Category: Ethics and Public Standards

[SilentScope4]

(EDIT: On the request of Qumkent, I have renamed the topic to discuss a new cateogory of WA resolutions, "Ethics and Public Standards", which will set the common rules that the community has agreed to.

Originally, the topic was named "Prohibition of Forced Deportation".)

I am going to regret this but...This new Security Council change bought me back into Nationstates, even though I am opposed to the Invasion subgame on principle. This post, however, raises an interesting point.

I haven't voted on this Condemnation, and I don't intend to vote on any C&C ever. My point is that unless C&Cs are capable of being put to the test of scrutiny then they're completely illegitimate. OK so you want to condemn other players, in this case Macedon, but why should any one feel compelled to agree with your dislike of Macedon ? Give us the ability to say " the WA expects this standard of conduct, and you have demonstrably not met that standard and so we condemn you ". If the WA can't do that then it's just involved in settling petty disputes in a completely partial and arbitrary fashion, what is the point of the WA if that's how it operates ?

Qumkent is right. Macedon has not done anything illegal. Deportation is allowed under the current Covention of Genocide, and the WA Counterterrorism Act applies to non-state actors. I understand this will NOT be allowed under "C&Cs", since this is not condemning or commending anyone at all, and I am against proposing this resolution in the General Assembly, because it would be metagaming. But you guys need guidelines.

I'm going to avoid the preambultory clauses for now, and hit right to the Operative Clauses.

1) DEFINES "Forced Deportation" as the removal of a nation from a region without the expressed consent of that nation,

2) DECLARES all "Forced Deportation" are to be prohibited except if the nation in question has violated reasonable rules and restrictions that govern the behaviors of this region,

3) MANDATES that the World Assembly enforce this resolution by condemning all Regions who violate this resolution

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why introduce a proposal if you know it doesn't fit in any category? What good could possibly come from drafting a proposal that cannot be submitted?

[SilentScope4]

Because it could either be classified as a "Bookkeeping" resolution, which could be re-introduced as a resolution type for the Security Council, or it could be some sort of unoffical guideline that could regulate Condemning behavior.

[Kandarin]

Even as a Bookkeeping resolution, you're treading into undesirable territory by trying to change the technical facts of how the WA works. It's an unenforcable technical change, too; how do we determine which nations were ejected without consent? What makes up reasonable rules and restrictions? To apply this, you'd need to have mods monitoring each and every ejection that ever happens anywhere, which is flatly impossible.

[SilentScope4]

Maybe #3 was a bit too...erm...unclear. Let me rephrase it then:

3) STRONGLY URGES the World Assembly to condemn all violators of this resolution

What I desire is that the WA is "strongly urged" to pass a condemnation resolution, but is under no obligiation to actually do so. If it does desire to do so, it could then cite this resolution as a justification for the condemnation.

I wanted to create some sort of clause that would then allow nations desiring to condemn 'forced deportation' to then cite this resolution as a reason why they would condemn said nation.

As for mods monitoring, I don't really intend for that. I intend for the WA to monitor the behaviors of nations, and for members to propose 'condemnation' motions if someone steps out of line, as opposed to having the moderators look at every incident of "forced deportation".

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Because it could either be classified as a "Bookkeeping" resolution, which could be re-introduced as a resolution type for the Security Council, or it could be some sort of unoffical guideline that could regulate Condemning behavior.

Book-keeping "could" also be reintroduced as an in-game competition for international drag queens. There is no indication from anyone that the SC's powers will extend beyond commending and condemning (or even "Liberating") any time soon, and just because one brainstorming thread mentions Book-keeping as a possible SC category, it doesn't mean we should immediately start drafting proposals for it.

What does "forced deportation" even have to do with "Book-keeping" anyway?

[Qumkent]

Maybe #3 was a bit too...erm...unclear. Let me reprhrase it then:

3) STRONGLY URGES the World Assembly to condemn all violators of this resolution

What I desire is that the WA is "strongly urged" to pass a condemnation resolution, but is under no obligiation to actually do so. If it does desire to do so, it could then cite this resolution as a justification for the condemnation.

I wanted to create some sort of clause that would then allow nations desiring to condemn 'forced deportation' to then cite this resolution as a reason why they would condemn said nation.

As for mods monitoring, I don't really intend for that. I intend for the WA to monitor the behaviors of nations, and for members to propose 'condemnation' motions if someone steps out of line, as opposed to having the moderators look at every incident of "forced deportation".

I'm extremely taken by this approach, naturally I suppose. But perhaps this thread might get less bombed by naysayers if you make it into a discussion about the creation of a new category ? Perhaps a category dealing with Ethics and Standards in Play?

That way we can discuss a number of different resolution types which deal with issues raised by the kind of anti-social play behaviour your trying to deal with ?

As you say contravention of these resolutions could then be easily invoked as the motivation for a condemnation, and loyal compliance with them would earn a commendation.

It would give all of us a chance to judge the behaviour of our fellow players by a defined standard and give a form and clear direction to the process of C&Cing.

[SilentScope4]

Qumkent, thanks for your suggestion, and I agree with it wholeheartly. I have renamed the topic to "New Category: Ethics and Public Standards." Altough, I'm not so sure if I would call what Macedon did as "anti-social", I would like for the Gameplay Community to at least codify the standards that guide their behavior.

[Marcuslandia]

Have to sort of ask "what is that the SECURITY Council at the UN actually does?" Then translate the answer into NS WA terms. I'm thinking UN peace enforcers. Condemnations of war crimes. Investigations of genocides and atrocities. But mainly what I see out of the UN SC is that members on SC use their position to put the kabosh on GA proposals that would impact on _their_ nation's interests (or the interests of their allies).

The big question then is, "How much of reality do we want to mirror here?"

[SilentScope4]

I see the Security Council as merely a council that intervenes on affairs that affect international security. Such as "regime changes"/invasions. The RL UNSC intervenes on genocide only because genocides affect international security, not because it is somehow morally wrong. Either way though, I don't quite see this World Assembly Security Council as very similar at all like the Real Life Security Council, considering that everyone has the right to vote on Security Council resolutions (like in the General Assembly), and that the World Assembly Security Council, at the moment, can only give pats on the backs and slaps on the wrists...not like the General Assembly, which has absolute political power.

At the moment, the World Assembly Security Council can only condemn war crimes. The World Assembly General Assembly can ban them outright. If you wish to regulate war crime behavior, a World Assembly resolution is the way to go. When I last played Nationstates, I proposed a resolution that punishes nationstates who deliberatly kill civilians with a fine. I decided against introducing the resolution because it had lots of loopholes and it would seriously go against national security. Now, if that resolution got passed, then there is no need for the World Assembly Security Council to pass condemnations. If a WA member from Macedon killed civilians, then that WA member is automatically punished with a fine.

As for investigating war crimes and such, well, that's what the RL International Court of Justice for. We had that already in the previous UN: The Permenta Panel, which investigated all war crimes. The TPP was actually a player-run organization for a time, but it never was able to actually complete a single case, so power was handed over to the mystical "gnomes". The TPP also had the power to authorize military interventions in order to stop genocide, but that power was stripped away during the last days of the UN. So, if you want the UN to investigate genocide, punish genociders and enforce peace, the General Assembly is the place to discuss such ideas.

[Marcuslandia]

I see the Security Council as merely a council that intervenes on affairs that affect international security. Such as "regime changes"/invasions. The RL UNSC intervenes on genocide only because genocides affect international security, not because it is somehow morally wrong.

Astute observation! It explains why the UN hasn't stopped what's going on in Darfur, and why nothing was done about Ruwanda and Uganda.

[Erastide]

I'm confused who is supposed to judge whether a nation has been removed unfairly. And how could you force people to condemn regions who are doing that?

[SilentScope4]

The WA is supposed to judge and condemn. If the resolution is passed, then a member of the WA can cite the resolution as the reason why they are condemning So-And-So Nation. Enforcement is basically expecting individual nations to find people violating the resolution and then proposing a resolution to condemn them.

I do suppose more strict guidelines to express when "force deportations" are okay might be useful, but at the end of the day, it is the individuals who must take it upon themselves to report violators and convince the WA to condemn them.

[Unibot]

I suggested categories earlier in the 'Other Categories' thread, that would outline legislation and such for the SC's members to follow.

The idea proved unpopular among the gameplayer crowd that was there, because they've already established their own rules, on their own forums. To do it again in the WA, was very unpopular because it makes it seem as if the rules they've established on their forums aren't as important as the ones established with the WASC. I suggested to them that by uploading their codes, and standards from their forums to the WASC, they would be given their rules even more universal respect - but the reply I got was essentially : Anything that de-powers or takes aways the value of offsite forums and communities is just not an avenue they want to travel down (at least from what I've observed).

[Urgench]

I suggested categories earlier in the 'Other Categories' thread, that would outline legislation and such for the SC's members to follow.

The idea proved unpopular among the gameplayer crowd that was there, because they've already established their own rules, on their own forums. To do it again in the WA, was very unpopular because it makes it seem as if the rules they've established on their forums aren't as important as the ones established with the WASC. I suggested to them that by uploading their codes, and standards from their forums to the WASC, they would be given their rules even more universal respect - but the reply I got was essentially : Anything that de-powers or takes aways the value of offsite forums and communities is just not an avenue they want to travel down (at least from what I've observed).

So in your experience Unibot are GPers actually interested in being as subject to the WASC as they would like to use it to effect their own aims in using it ? Or do they like the idea of the powers it can offer them but not the idea of it helping to regulate their part of the game ?

[Marcuslandia]

So in your experience Unibot are GPers actually interested in being as subject to the WASC as they would like to use it to effect their own aims in using it ? Or do they like the idea of the powers it can offer them but not the idea of it helping to regulate their part of the game ?

Isn't all of these debates starting to sound like, "If it's good for _me_, it MUST be a Good Thing. But anything that adversely affects _my_ gameplay MUST be a Bad Thing"?

All these debates on so many threads in so many forums. It feels like they won't be resolved by what is best for _everyone_, but rather by who has the "loudest" voice. A regular war of attrition.

[Erastide]

I guess I'm confused why there needs to be a resolution that then gives a reason to condemn. It's seems a bit superfluous.

[Unibot]

So in your experience Unibot are GPers actually interested in being as subject to the WASC as they would like to use it to effect their own aims in using it ? Or do they like the idea of the powers it can offer them but not the idea of it helping to regulate their part of the game ?

Well I think they're optimistic for what the WASC could add (or fix) to the gameplay world. Because just the fact that they might be able to do something to fight back, and liberate regions like Belgium have them looking forward to this new institution. In other words, morality is driving the gameplaying crowd. But I don't think anyone of them wants to see their culture taken from them in favor of more in-game features - a feeling I think the GA players can relate too. I think they fear if the WASC becomes the center of rules, and regulations which the Gameplayers have been deciding for years on their own forums, that it will drain the off-site forums of their usefulness - which obviously isn't a good thing.

Or do they like the idea of the powers it can offer them but not the idea of it helping to regulate their part of the game ?

I think Gameplayers want to regulate themselves through executive and judicial decisions, not legislation, if that means more action-based proposals like Liberation categories and such as their 'arsenal of democracy' not proposals entirely composed of rules to follow- so be it.


You should to talk to some real gameplayers (or read the 'other categories thread' ) to get some more qualified opinions on the matter though.

I guess I'm confused why there needs to be a resolution that then gives a reason to condemn. It's seems a bit superfluous.

I don't know about the OP, but I was thinking of a full set of resolutions that stated the 'proper' conduct of invaders, defenders, delegates and such - passed by the players themselves. I don't see how that would be superfluous - as Condemns would just be one of the ways that the WASC would be 'enforcing' their rules that were previously decided using those categories.

[Urgench]

It feels like they won't be resolved by what is best for _everyone_, but rather by who has the "loudest" voice.

Wow that argument sounds familiar... oh yeah it's almost exactly what I said about C&Cs, that they would be the opinion, not of the WA, but of those with the loudest voices....

[Urgench]

I think Gameplayers want to regulate themselves through executive and judicial decisions, not legislation, if that means more action-based proposals like Liberation categories and such as their 'arsenal of democracy' not proposals entirely composed of rules to follow- so be it.

This is part of the problem then, because Executives and Judiciaries do not make decisions with out the guidance of legislation, and it would be bizarre beyond words to have this Executive and/or Judiciary composed as it is of thousands of voters not be guided by clear legislative imperatives. Thousands of voters cannot be expected to be experts in laws and customs which aren't written down in one place for all to familiarise themselves with.

[Unibot]

This is part of the problem then, because Executives and Judiciaries do not make decisions with out the guidance of legislation, and it would be bizarre beyond words to have this Executive and/or Judiciary composed as it is of thousands of voters not be guided by clear legislative imperatives. Thousands of voters cannot be expected to be experts in laws and customs which aren't written down in one place for all to familiarise themselves with.

In a perfect world, the GA would be writing the legislation. However thats not really an option, unless either GA writers opened up to writing for Gameplay events - which would be stupid, considering the Security Council was created to prevent that from happening, or GA writers could write proposals in their IC frame of mind, with Gameplay events in consideration while writing (with some proposals). Like a "Ban on the Destruction of Native Territories", which would be a direct attack on Password Griefing - but discussed as the "Fortification following Forced Migration of the Natives from their Home Region" or something of the latter.

Something like this might even encourage a team-up of a gameplayer (SC member) and an experienced GA writer, with a member of the WASC, or the entirety of the WASC suggesting a problem in the gameplay world to a GA writer, who would then write it. But of course I wouldn't want to see the GA as a slave to the SC - so there would have to be something in return for the GA.

But then, you still have these rules being 'reestablished' in the WASC which takes away from the Offsite forums.

So I really don't know anymore.

[Urgench]

This is part of the problem then, because Executives and Judiciaries do not make decisions with out the guidance of legislation, and it would be bizarre beyond words to have this Executive and/or Judiciary composed as it is of thousands of voters not be guided by clear legislative imperatives. Thousands of voters cannot be expected to be experts in laws and customs which aren't written down in one place for all to familiarise themselves with.

In a perfect world, the GA would be writing the legislation. However thats not really an option, unless either GA writers opened up to writing for Gameplay events - which would be stupid, considering the Security Council was created to prevent that from happening, or GA writers could write proposals in their IC frame of mind, with Gameplay events in consideration while writing (with some proposals). Like a "Ban on the Destruction of Native Territories", which would be a direct attack on Password Griefing - but discussed as the "Fortification following Forced Migration of the Natives of their Home Region" or something of the latter.

Something like this might even encourage a team-up of a gameplayer and an experienced GA writer, with a Gameplayer suggesting a problem in the gameplay world to a GA writer, who would then write it.

But then, you still have these rules being 'reestablished' in the WASC which takes away from the Offsite forums.

So I really don't know anymore.

So in your ideal world WA Old Guard players would have written ( in character ) totally euphemistic laws regarding out of character activities which they have no expertise in for a group of players who were largely opposed to such laws being written and presumable would never have cooperated in the drafting process as a result ? You think that that situation would have developed anything productive or useful ?

If we're starting with the premise that GPers simply don't want the autonomy of the offsite forums touched by the WA why has anyone gone to the trouble of creating WA powers over GP activities at all ? Can't all of these activities be regulated off site ?

Or are we looking at the SC becoming purely a kind of WA justice vending machine which GPers feed their complaints in to the slot and the WA hands out punishments and in game effects without any real consideration or responsibility at all ?

[Unibot]

So in your ideal world WA Old Guard players would have written ( in character ) totally euphemistic laws regarding out of character activities which they have no expertise in for a group of players who were largely opposed to such laws being written and presumable would never have cooperated in the drafting process as a result ? You think that that situation would have developed anything productive or useful ?

If we're starting with the premise that GPers simply don't want the autonomy of the offsite forums touched by the WA why has anyone gone to the trouble of creating WA powers over GP activities at all ? Can't all of these activities be regulated off site ?

Or are we looking at the SC becoming purely a kind of WA justice vending machine which GPers feed their complaints in to the slot and the WA hands out punishments and in game effects without any real consideration or responsibility at all ?

*Smacks head on table*

Thats what I mean - its silly.

If we're starting with the premise that GPers simply don't want the autonomy of the offsite forums touched by the WA why has anyone gone to the trouble of creating WA powers over GP activities at all ? Can't all of these activities be regulated off site ?

Because the WASC offers the potential to do things that GPers could never do before, such as stopping the annexing of places by password grievers, and awarding and condemning their greatest players and foes in-game. Great executive stuff!

Has it ever occurred to you, Urgench, and I don't say this in a mean way or anything - that maybe this could lead to more fairness then following the 'letter of the law' when concerning executive decisions, by having each individual problem or case being judged on separately, without laws to loophole out of?

[Urgench]

Because the WASC offers the potential to do things that GPers could never do before, such as stopping the annexing of places by password grievers, and awarding and condemning their greatest players and foes in-game. Great executive stuff!

Has it ever occurred to you, Urgench, and I don't say this in a mean way or anything - that maybe this could lead to more fairness then following the 'letter of the law' when concerning executive decisions, by having each individual problem or case being judged on separately, without laws to loophole out of?

What Executive use of power was ever made more fair by being used arbitrarily ? Why would anyone feel they had been treated fairly by an executive which never used any standards in delivering its judgements ? This would lead to one player or region saying "I did exactly the same as this other player or region and I get punished for it, this is unfair " and because there are no regulations we cannot refute what that player or region says and cannot point out where the specific differences are between the two cases, all we can say is "Well we think there are differences which make you punishable, you'll just have to take our word for it". You really think that is fair ?

Loopholes need not be a problem if the regulations are written properly.

[Unibot]

What Executive use of power was ever made more fair by being used arbitrarily ? Why would anyone feel they had been treated fairly by an executive which never used any standards in delivering its judgements ? This would lead to one player or region saying "I did exactly the same as this other player or region and I get punished for it, this is unfair " and because there are no regulations we cannot refute what that player or region says and cannot point out where the specific differences are between the two cases, all we can say is "Well we think there are differences which make you punishable, you'll just have to take our word for it". You really think that is fair ?

Loopholes need not be a problem if the regulations are written properly.

There will always be injustice when one is prosecuted by breaking laws not written specifically around their case. There will also, always be injustice when situations are decided on through the application of moralities on each specific case. Its a fundamental, long-time standing philosophical debate between the arbitrary judicial application of logic & ethics vs. the at-times, inappropriate application of legislation's preplanned judicial decisions.

The case has been made for both systems in numerously well written essays for both sides of the argument, I don't think you can rule out a no-legislation council being productive and effective, so much as a fully legislated council. Just saying.