SC Questions & Answers

[Tinhampton]

Is it possible/ in good taste to condemn a CTE’d nation?

No. You can only C&C active nations due to how the game works.

[Bears Armed]

Is it possible/ in good taste to condemn a CTE’d nation?

It is not possible. Only nations [or regions] that exist at the time can be commended or condemned.

[Improper Classifications]

Is it possible/ in good taste to condemn a CTE’d nation?

It's not possible, and as a matter of fact there was a discussion a little while back about repealing a condemnation for a long-CTE'd nation (think 10 years) that brought up a "replacement" for the resolution, but that wouldn't have been possible, so the resolution failed.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

It's a deliberate choice. Some people genuinely try to pass proposals that are funny - they need their own thread. Some proposals that are joke ones and not intended to be passed are nonetheless funny and worthy enough to get appreciation in their own thread. Some are crappy and not really funny but not disruptive, so aren't really a problem if they have a thread. The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy, and some low-level Lardyland trolls. They're spammy, at times baity, and disruptive, and that's why they got locked. There's not a problem that requires a megathread - they'd still be spammy, disruptive and require mod action there - and it loses the benefits of actual funny proposals.

Or put another way - I don't want authors to feel humour in the SC has to be confined to one thread.

Well, far be it from me to doubt the judgement of a moderator (who I might add did approve my proposals not just as a mod but as a delegate), but I don't think I have a fanboy.

[Bovad]

What exactly are the rules on sending out TGs manually to delegates so they will approve your proposal?

[Rhaza]

What exactly are the rules on sending out TGs manually to delegates so they will approve your proposal?

Marking them as campaigns is the most important thing that comes to mind. Otherwise, I don't think there's any particular rules for manual campaigning? I don't manual campaign, though.

[United Calanworie]

What exactly are the rules on sending out TGs manually to delegates so they will approve your proposal?

Otherwise, I don't think there's any particular rules for manual campaigning?

Don't break the scripting rules. I mean, that one should go without saying, but... don't break em. But yes, marked as a campaign telegram, they are rules-compliant no matter the sending method. You're just limited to 8/telegram with manual and 2/minute with API.

[Sedgistan]

The other relevant bits from the rules are:

More than one request per proposal may be considered spam if the telegrams are materially the same. WA campaign telegrams shouldn't be sent to non-WA members.

[Tinhampton]

At what stage in the SC's history did the community start treating nominee consent as an overriding factor for C&Cs?

I'm fairly confident it was around 2020, based solely on gut feeling. Consent was discussed in the Guide to the Security Council when it was still pinned in the 2010s, but the Guide didn't make strong judgments either way - and it was still uncommon practice when I was starting out in 2018ish. (I never bothered to ask Arch if he ever wanted Commend Alasdair I Frosticus, but nobody seemed to care. By September of that year, Fratt literally let his nation CTE to avoid having the Commend badge show on it).

But by 2021-22 or so, every other C&C thread had somebody asking "Has [NOMINEENAME] given their consent to this?". Was there a turning point - a particularly big scandal involving somebody being nominated without their consent, say - a couple of years ago that I didn't pay attention to? Or was this a gradual shift like the move to explicitly labelling gameplay posts IC and OOC?

[Paradise 00City-State00]

is it legal to do a resolution that wipes every world assembly resolution out at once, giving it a clean slate? not saying it should be done, just curious.

[The North Polish Union]

is it legal to do a resolution that wipes every world assembly resolution out at once, giving it a clean slate? not saying it should be done, just curious.

Its not legal until Max decides to do it again as an April Fools joke

[Bears Armed]

is it legal to do a resolution that wipes every world assembly resolution out at once, giving it a clean slate? not saying it should be done, just curious.

No, you have to do it by passing separate repeals for each individual active resolution, one at a time... and the game's coding doesn't even allow repeals for G.A. Resolution #1 'The World Assembly' to be submitted let alone passed.

[Lord Dominator]

I would point out there have been exceptions to the nominee consent bit - in particular Fratt was Commended over his vocal objections & subsequently let the Commended nation CTE as soon as possible afterwards.

[Simone Republic]

Is there a technical reason to prevent IA from getting a third commendation, which (on current pace) he is probably entitled to by the end of this year on his GA work alone.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Is there a technical reason to prevent IA from getting a third commendation, which (on current pace) he is probably entitled to by the end of this year on his GA work alone.

None that I’m aware of. Any proposal would have to be sufficiently different from the other two to make it legal (see SC Rule 1(c)) and it would have to be well written enough to convince the voting public.

But, as I said, there’s no technical, game mechanics, reason for not having a third C&C that I know of.

[Lenlyvit]

Is there a technical reason to prevent IA from getting a third commendation, which (on current pace) he is probably entitled to by the end of this year on his GA work alone.

I'll add on that IA was made a member of Sec-Gen, which means that he's not allowed to be commended for any legislation passed after he was appointed to that position. Sec-Gen members fall under R3(a) since it's a site staff position.

[Ostrovskiy]

Is there a technical reason to prevent IA from getting a third commendation, which (on current pace) he is probably entitled to by the end of this year on his GA work alone.

I'll add on that IA was made a member of Sec-Gen, which means that he's not allowed to be commended for any legislation passed after he was appointed to that position. Sec-Gen members fall under R3(a) since it's a site staff position.

Wait seriously? Can you not commend Sec-Gen for writing WA resolutions?That's not their job, their job is policing proposals.

[Lenlyvit]

I'll add on that IA was made a member of Sec-Gen, which means that he's not allowed to be commended for any legislation passed after he was appointed to that position. Sec-Gen members fall under R3(a) since it's a site staff position.

Wait seriously? Can you not commend Sec-Gen for writing WA resolutions?That's not their job, their job is policing proposals.

Since their job is policing proposals they have an inherent understanding of the rules that gives them an advantage, as well as the fact that they write those said rules. That gives them an unfair leg up, which is why they can't be acknowledged for the proposals they write.

Edit: Rule 3

"Site staff: Proposals cannot Commend or Condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors, General Assembly Secretariat etc.) for actions taken as part of their role, and Declarations cannot cover site staff policy or decisions.
Staff may still be Commended or Condemned for non-staff actions. Note that there are some "niche" staff roles such as Northrop-Grumman's work on the Dark Theme that are still covered by this rule."

[Ostrovskiy]

Wait seriously? Can you not commend Sec-Gen for writing WA resolutions?That's not their job, their job is policing proposals.

Since their job is policing proposals they have an inherent understanding of the rules that gives them an advantage, as well as the fact that they write those said rules. That gives them an unfair leg up, which is why they can't be acknowledged for the proposals they write.

I see. Thank you!

[Lenlyvit]

Since their job is policing proposals they have an inherent understanding of the rules that gives them an advantage, as well as the fact that they write those said rules. That gives them an unfair leg up, which is why they can't be acknowledged for the proposals they write.

I see. Thank you!

You're welcome!

[Sedgistan]

That's not actually correct - see the "Expanded details" under Rule 3a.

[Lenlyvit]

That's not actually correct - see the "Expanded details" under Rule 3a.

We were speaking of his writing of GA proposals, as far as I'm aware commending him for that while Gensec would be illegal would it not? All the expanded details says is that there are niche site staff roles.

[Improper Classifications]

That's not actually correct - see the "Expanded details" under Rule 3a.

We were speaking of his writing of GA proposals, as far as I'm aware commending him for that while Gensec would be illegal would it not? All the expanded details says is that there are niche site staff roles.

Since the WA is a game mechanic rather than a moderator tool then it’s not a niche staff role but a person just writing a lot of WA proposals. The path to illegality under rule 3(a) would be commending him for approving WA proposals.

[Heidgaudr]

That's not actually correct - see the "Expanded details" under Rule 3a.

We were speaking of his writing of GA proposals, as far as I'm aware commending him for that while Gensec would be illegal would it not? All the expanded details says is that there are niche site staff roles.

General Assembly Secretariat - Authoring GA resolutions is fine to mention in proposals, as their role doesn't impact on this.

This seems pretty explicit to me. Unlike issue editors and authoring issues (as their position allows them to influence the rest of the editing team), GenSec don't have any unique avenues to influence passing resolutions. Sure, they have a reputation they can potentially use to politic and such, but so do players who aren't members of GenSec. Ultimately it's up to the voters to decide whether a proposal passes or fails, not GenSec.

[Lenlyvit]

We were speaking of his writing of GA proposals, as far as I'm aware commending him for that while Gensec would be illegal would it not? All the expanded details says is that there are niche site staff roles.

General Assembly Secretariat - Authoring GA resolutions is fine to mention in proposals, as their role doesn't impact on this.

This seems pretty explicit to me. Unlike issue editors and authoring issues (as their position allows them to influence the rest of the editing team), GenSec don't have any unique avenues to influence passing resolutions. Sure, they have a reputation they can potentially use to politic and such, but so do players who aren't members of GenSec. Ultimately it's up to the voters to decide whether a proposal passes or fails, not GenSec.

Seems fair enough to me. I guess I'm a little outdated, I always figured they fell into the category of not being able to be commended or condemned for writing proposals. Thanks for setting me right!