New Category: Ethics and Public Standards

[Quintessence of Dust]

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).

It wasn't something we wanted to travel down, but our offsite forums got royally screwed by this change. Stop talking as though gameplayers are the only people to have offsite communities.

[Unibot]

I stated that in the sentence previous, Qod.

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 to

[Urgench]

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.

You've started with false analogies and come to a set of arguments based on them which aren't really applicable. Legislation is the application of logic and ethics and other factors to the problems of governance of one kind or another. Legislation does not need to apply "preplanned[sic] judicial decisions" it just ensures that current decision making processes can be organised and justified, naturally if current legislative implements are found wanting they can be replaced with improved legislation in the future.

In any case this is not a council, this is a congress of thousands of nations, allowing such a vast body to act without its actions being able to be held to account and properly justified is totally wrong headed.

[Unibot]

I'm not ignoring you, but I've got to go treat my Father out for dinner (Father's day), I'll reply in a bit.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I stated that in the sentence previous, Qod.

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 to

So your argument is: "now we've shitted up your game, let's leave theirs in tact"? Why, how beneficient of you.

[SilentScope4]

I'm an eccentric, at best, when it comes to the WA, but I am not against the Security "Council" per se. If you guys wished to keep the raiding subgame in, it would be better to let the players regulate it, rather than keep the old griefing rules. I would have preferred a different organizaton entirely, as opposed to it being a subchamber of the WA, but it's not that important.

However, I do desire for rules to govern the behavior of the Security Council, and for the Security Council to state the behaviors and standards that they desire of their membership. I do not want this Security Council to turn into a stick by which Gameplayers beat each other up. That's my main fear. If it turns into that stick, then the tenor of debate within the WA will worsen greatly.

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

Possibly. But even a well-written resolution may still have several "loopholes" that the defendants will try to use in order to claim innocence. If they are unconvicing though, the majority will dismiss these loopholes.

And, yet, at the same time, I can't help thinking that loopholes are pretty much a problem only with the GA. Compliance with a GA resolution is mandatory (due to the GA resolution affecting game stats), so people will always look for loopholes to get rid of it. There are three standard methods however to avoid GA resolutions: Leave the UN before the resolution get passed and then rejoin it after it is passed, Create a UN Embassy and have that Embassy join the UN while your Main Nation Stays Out, or Choose an Issue Option That Allows You To Non-Comply. These methods are always allowed, even if the resolution is well-written. This makes the GA rather weak.

If "Ethics and Public Standards" category gets implemented, then I'm sure that violators of this resolution will argue that compliance with that resolution is not mandatory at all. After all, if it was mandatory, why would we need to punish people who would go against them? If compliance is not mandatory, then there is no reason to search for loopholes.

[Bears Armed]

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.

And if later condemnations rely on this one for justification then they'd be illegal under the 'house of cards' rule... unless that, like the rules against branding and meta-gaming, doesn't apply to C&Cs...

[Unibot]

In any case this is not a council, this is a congress of thousands of nations, allowing such a vast body to act without its actions being able to be held to account and properly justified is totally wrong headed.

They would be 'properly' justified by their moralities and their logic. I'm not saying it would be appropriate all the time, nor is legislation.

Allowing for two schools of thought in the WA, the 'spirit of the law' and the 'word of the law' in the two different chambers of assembly, seems like a logic situation.


Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bears Armed]

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).

Which would be all well and good if their actions only affected the other members of their 'community'... but for as long as they insist on a "right" to invade regions who want nothing to do with that side of the game, they should have to accept that other people have a right to participate in setting the rules involved too.

[Urgench]

In any case this is not a council, this is a congress of thousands of nations, allowing such a vast body to act without its actions being able to be held to account and properly justified is totally wrong headed.

They would be 'properly' justified by their moralities and their logic. I'm not saying it would be appropriate all the time, nor is legislation.

Allowing for two schools of thought in the WA, the 'spirit of the law' and the 'word of the law' in the two different chambers of assembly, seems like a logic situation.


Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Even if the use of these two "schools of thought" arrive at laws which are incomatible with one another ? Or even ones which directly contradict one another ?

[Erastide]

Okay, completely from a gameplay perspective here. Asking the regions of NS to put their laws up as general laws seems completely unreasonable for everyone that is not that region. Gameplayers don't want to enforce often complicated sets of rules onto the general NS public. Things such as endorsement caps, rules on being a "citizen", guidelines on behavior, those all can differ greatly between regions. Which is part of the reason why there's more than just one region. People diversify and set up their own communities with their own rules, own governmental structure.

Then we have the fact that governments change. People move on, or the current people (large or small subset) become annoyed and revolt against the current system and create their own. Sometimes the old guard takes back their region, sometimes they split off and go somewhere else, and sometimes they fight for a very long time before giving in and joining the "new" government.

If you really want a taste of laws, here's TNP's.

[Urgench]

Okay, completely from a gameplay perspective here. Asking the regions of NS to put their laws up as general laws seems completely unreasonable for everyone that is not that region. Gameplayers don't want to enforce often complicated sets of rules onto the general NS public. Things such as endorsement caps, rules on being a "citizen", guidelines on behavior, those all can differ greatly between regions. Which is part of the reason why there's more than just one region. People diversify and set up their own communities with their own rules, own governmental structure.

Then we have the fact that governments change. People move on, or the current people (large or small subset) become annoyed and revolt against the current system and create their own. Sometimes the old guard takes back their region, sometimes they split off and go somewhere else, and sometimes they fight for a very long time before giving in and joining the "new" government.

If you really want a taste of laws, here's TNP's.

This is exactly my point, currently there is a plethora of different codes for different regions, so how is any one supposed to make a proper judgement on these matters ?

There must be points of overlap and similarity between many of these codes no ? Well the SC provides the excellent environment in which GPers and others can draw up a list of these most commonly agreed conventions, they can negotiate the details of them which might differ to arrive at a commonly agreed basic set of standards of behaviour. Nothing is stopping them from protecting the rights of regions to have more complicated and more detailed regulations of their own so long as the most basic common standard is the same for all.

This skeleton of base regulations held in common is what C&Cs can be used to enforce, after all your not seriously expecting the WA to enforce or even be familiar with every regional rule set are you ? Even if these rule sets conflict ?

[Bears Armed]

Okay, completely from a gameplay perspective here. Asking the regions of NS to put their laws up as general laws seems completely unreasonable for everyone that is not that region.

So if each region's home-made rules are to be considered binding as the sole source of Law within that region, what happens if a region whose laws say "We aren't to be invaded" gets invaded?

[Erastide]

Okay, completely from a gameplay perspective here. Asking the regions of NS to put their laws up as general laws seems completely unreasonable for everyone that is not that region.

So if each region's home-made rules are to be considered binding as the sole source of Law within that region, what happens if a region whose laws say "We aren't to be invaded" gets invaded?

Regions that consider themselves defender regions would try to send help. Regions that consider themselves invaders would either be a part of it or think it's okay. And regions that stay neutral wouldn't do anything except perhaps express disappointment or dismay.

[Erastide]

This is exactly my point, currently there is a plethora of different codes for different regions, so how is any one supposed to make a proper judgement on these matters ?

There must be points of overlap and similarity between many of these codes no ? Well the SC provides the excellent environment in which GPers and others can draw up a list of these most commonly agreed conventions, they can negotiate the details of them which might differ to arrive at a commonly agreed basic set of standards of behaviour. Nothing is stopping them from protecting the rights of regions to have more complicated and more detailed regulations of their own so long as the most basic common standard is the same for all.

This skeleton of base regulations held in common is what C&Cs can be used to enforce, after all your not seriously expecting the WA to enforce or even be familiar with every regional rule set are you ? Even if these rule sets conflict ?

God no, I don't think the WA should be familiar with each ruleset. I would expect each region will apply its ruleset to the resolutions set forth in the SC to make decisions on whether to pass them or not. I'm not opposed to looking for commonalities, but I don't really believe in the WA declaring invading an invalid form of play just because there are more defenders (especially given the feeders).

[Urgench]

This is exactly my point, currently there is a plethora of different codes for different regions, so how is any one supposed to make a proper judgement on these matters ?

There must be points of overlap and similarity between many of these codes no ? Well the SC provides the excellent environment in which GPers and others can draw up a list of these most commonly agreed conventions, they can negotiate the details of them which might differ to arrive at a commonly agreed basic set of standards of behaviour. Nothing is stopping them from protecting the rights of regions to have more complicated and more detailed regulations of their own so long as the most basic common standard is the same for all.

This skeleton of base regulations held in common is what C&Cs can be used to enforce, after all your not seriously expecting the WA to enforce or even be familiar with every regional rule set are you ? Even if these rule sets conflict ?

God no, I don't think the WA should be familiar with each ruleset. I would expect each region will apply its ruleset to the resolutions set forth in the SC to make decisions on whether to pass them or not. I'm not opposed to looking for commonalities, but I don't really believe in the WA declaring invading an invalid form of play just because there are more defenders (especially given the feeders).

Would Defenders actually declare invading invalid ? It would kill they're game no ? I didn't suggest that.

What I'm suggesting is that the commonalities be codified by the WA and enforced by the WA, it's what I've been suggesting for ages, I think it would clarify numerous issues surrounding C&Cs and would make it possible for the WA to continue to claim to be working in the interests of its entire membership in a fair and open way which could be made responsible and universally justifiable.

You'd support this then ?

[Unibot]

Even if the use of these two "schools of thought" arrive at laws which are incomatible with one another ? Or even ones which directly contradict one another ?

I don't see how the SC has broken a law of the GA, I know that someone brought up the Rights & Duties act - but I don't see that as being a worry because the lack of a definition of "Neutrality" really hinders the clause in consideration. "Neutrality" is a very ambiguous term - and is the source of much debate. So if the SC hasn't broken any GA laws, then why not just write it in stone now, the SC can't break the laws of the GA.

Is there still a incompatibility issue then?

[Unibot]

So if each region's home-made rules are to be considered binding as the sole source of Law within that region, what happens if a region whose laws say "We aren't to be invaded" gets invaded?

If so, that case would make a compelling resolution, no? Oh look a 'poor neutral region' has been squashed by 'the big bad raiders'.

[Urgench]

Even if the use of these two "schools of thought" arrive at laws which are incomatible with one another ? Or even ones which directly contradict one another ?

I don't see how the SC has broken a law of the GA, I know that someone brought up the Rights & Duties act - but I don't see that as being a worry because the lack of a definition of "Neutrality" really hinders the clause in consideration. "Neutrality" is a very ambiguous term - and is the source of much debate. So if the SC hasn't broken any GA laws, then why not just write it in stone now, the SC can't break the laws of the GA.

Is there a still incompatibility issue then?

Right ok and how would that work exactly ?

[Unibot]

Right ok and how would that work exactly ?

Let's see here,

The WASC at the moment can't discriminate, help terrorists, encourage piracy ....

[Erastide]

Would Defenders actually declare invading invalid ? It would kill they're game no ? I didn't suggest that.

What I'm suggesting is that the commonalities be codified by the WA and enforced by the WA, it's what I've been suggesting for ages, I think it would clarify numerous issues surrounding C&Cs and would make it possible for the WA to continue to claim to be working in the interests of its entire membership in a fair and open way which could be made responsible and universally justifiable.

You'd support this then ?

My worry is how enforceable such decisions are. GA resolutions affect the stats on a nation. I thought the idea would be for the SC to affect mostly regional stats and sometimes individual, but never the nation stats like the GA does.

I could easily see if there's an "ethics" standard that the nations of the GA declare invasion to be an abhorrent process and not to be allowed. Most people are against the invasion of other regions. But that goes against the part of the game that allows such an act. Aside from that type of concern, what commonalities do you see regions having?

[Urgench]

Would Defenders actually declare invading invalid ? It would kill they're game no ? I didn't suggest that.

What I'm suggesting is that the commonalities be codified by the WA and enforced by the WA, it's what I've been suggesting for ages, I think it would clarify numerous issues surrounding C&Cs and would make it possible for the WA to continue to claim to be working in the interests of its entire membership in a fair and open way which could be made responsible and universally justifiable.

You'd support this then ?

My worry is how enforceable such decisions are. GA resolutions affect the stats on a nation. I thought the idea would be for the SC to affect mostly regional stats and sometimes individual, but never the nation stats like the GA does.

I could easily see if there's an "ethics" standard that the nations of the GA declare invasion to be an abhorrent process and not to be allowed. Most people are against the invasion of other regions. But that goes against the part of the game that allows such an act. Aside from that type of concern, what commonalities do you see regions having?

I had thought the Ethics category would not having a specific in-game effect on passage, but violation of a specific ethic would be sited in a C or C or perhaps in a Liberation resolution.

Because they're essentially conventions of player behaviour they would be self policed and voluntary, this is similar to how the real world organisation which shall not be named operates, in that there are specific kinds of resolution which in theory are not optional, though countries do wriggle out of them ( as with GA resolutions) and then there are a raft of conventions which some countries are a party to and some are not. In this situation those states or Regions which refuse to be a part of the conventions laid out in an Ethics resolution ( which they would not have voted for presumably ) would be deserving of a condemnation a badge which would mark them out as not being party to these conventions. The opposite would also be true, in that a badge of commendation would represent a region or nation which has assiduously lived up to the conventions it presumably either voted for or supports.

This system would make it easy to tell which regions were ones where common standards of behaviour were to be expected, and which regions one might expect to have somewhat less of a pleasant experience of. The beauty of this system is that any state new or old and of whatever player type could check to see what kind of a region or nation they were dealing with by seeing which convention they had been commended for adherence to or condemned for non-observance of. They wouldn't need to go looking for reams of offsite material, or threads from all over the NSverse to see what a C or C was referring to since the relevant Ethics resolution would be there to show them all the details they needed to know.

[SilentScope4]

I had thought the Ethics category would not having a specific in-game effect on passage, but violation of a specific ethic would be sited in a C or C or perhaps in a Liberation resolution.

Exactly. Urgench has laid out my case plainly.

[Naivetry]

I'm going to back up a bit and see if I can clarify a few things.

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 ?

The SC cannot regulate our part of the game without the exercise of power. Our game is not one of collaborative story-creation, but one of real politics where we have to deal primarily with issues of self-preservation and self-interest rather than a sense of what makes for good drama. Voluntary compliance will therefore not be ensured nor increased by moving the rules from the province of off-site forums to SC legislation - if a nation or region feels that defiance is in their best interest, they will defy it. Only if SC legislation is backed up by threat of force that damages a nation's or region's interests - and I'm not talking about badges, but of the movements of nations and delegacies - can it become a true regulatory body for gameplay.

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.

It's not that the WASC will become the center of rules, it's that there is no reason for it to be the center for rules and conventions which already exist unless it can also enforce those rules. It'd be annoying for us and for everyone else to copy-paste gameplay agreements into the WASC - and if they garnered no further power of enforcement for all that effort, it would also be pointless.

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.

I could see it for raiders and defenders, as such a conference has taken place in the past - the accords created there were, unfortunately, never ratified, but they could be used as precedent. I think we're very unlikely to see a ruleset for delegates or Founders, because each region handles the responsibilities attached to each office in very different ways, and that diversity is what provides one of the main categories of political difference across NS.

Things like the COPS treaty (multi-regional treaty condemning forum destruction), however, would be great things to add, if conviction under the COPS treaty (as expressed through the SC vote) could get someone, say, permanently banned from the WA. We need significant in-game results for these resolutions, or they will be no improvement at all on our own methods of regulation (forum and regional bans).

[Urgench]

I'm going to back up a bit and see if I can clarify a few things.

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 ?

The SC cannot regulate our part of the game without the exercise of power. Our game is not one of collaborative story-creation, but one of real politics where we have to deal primarily with issues of self-preservation and self-interest rather than a sense of what makes for good drama. Voluntary compliance will therefore not be ensured nor increased by moving the rules from the province of off-site forums to SC legislation - if a nation or region feels that defiance is in their best interest, they will defy it. Only if SC legislation is backed up by threat of force that damages a nation's or region's interests - and I'm not talking about badges, but of the movements of nations and delegacies - can it become a true regulatory body for gameplay.

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.

It's not that the WASC will become the center of rules, it's that there is no reason for it to be the center for rules and conventions which already exist unless it can also enforce those rules. It'd be annoying for us and for everyone else to copy-paste gameplay agreements into the WASC - and if they garnered no further power of enforcement for all that effort, it would also be pointless.

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.

I could see it for raiders and defenders, as such a conference has taken place in the past - the accords created there were, unfortunately, never ratified, but they could be used as precedent. I think we're very unlikely to see a ruleset for delegates or Founders, because each region handles the responsibilities attached to each office in very different ways, and that diversity is what provides one of the main categories of political difference across NS.

Things like the COPS treaty (multi-regional treaty condemning forum destruction), however, would be great things to add, if conviction under the COPS treaty (as expressed through the SC vote) could get someone, say, permanently banned from the WA. We need significant in-game results for these resolutions, or they will be no improvement at all on our own methods of regulation (forum and regional bans).

Well far be it for me to point out that the "real politics" you describe is in fact a collective effort in story telling regardless of whether those writing that story have an eye for drama.

I'm struck that you say that more voluntary systems would not be welcome, and that self regulation is impossible. I have no personal objection to the SC using powers to enforce its laws, but if it has such powers then they must be held to an even more responsible standard which will require a serious collective effort in rules writing. If there are significant punishments for non-compliance with an Ethics resolution the tendency for misuse will be all the more pronounced, therefore the safe guards and checks and balances will need to be more robust.