NationStates

Kuriko wrote:This thread is for SC related questions and answers, not the spam you are doing right now. Please stop spamming the thread.

I apoligize. But Tigrexia made me do it!

Atzcapotzalco wrote:Tigrexia made me do it!

And with that we'll go with an *** official warning for spamming ***. Knock it off before you lose your nation.

Why there's not wars?

Borisyukishvililand wrote:Why there's not wars?

Because the security council is useless like the real United Nations all talk no action

Is there a way for us to petition for a new type of SC resolution to be made?

Would that go in technical?

For clarification, just to explore whether this would even be possible, I want there to be a SC resolution that stops certain nations from using telegram stamps if passed.

I have a particular Nazi region in mind that has been harassing the NS community over telegrams for nearly a year now.

Herzog Nequedum von Lokerzen wrote:Is there a way for us to petition for a new type of SC resolution to be made?

Would that go in technical?

For clarification, just to explore whether this would even be possible, I want there to be a SC resolution that stops certain nations from using telegram stamps if passed.

I have a particular Nazi region in mind that has been harassing the NS community over telegrams for nearly a year now.

The admins will never go for that, as it's metagaming. If you look and search in technical though you will see many threads dedicated to talking about new SC types.

Kuriko wrote:

Herzog Nequedum von Lokerzen wrote:Is there a way for us to petition for a new type of SC resolution to be made?

Would that go in technical?

For clarification, just to explore whether this would even be possible, I want there to be a SC resolution that stops certain nations from using telegram stamps if passed.

I have a particular Nazi region in mind that has been harassing the NS community over telegrams for nearly a year now.

The admins will never go for that, as it's metagaming. If you look and search in technical though you will see many threads dedicated to talking about new SC types.

I mean, passwords would by that very definition be metagaming as well then.

Herzog Nequedum von Lokerzen wrote:

Kuriko wrote:The admins will never go for that, as it's metagaming. If you look and search in technical though you will see many threads dedicated to talking about new SC types.

I mean, passwords would by that very definition be metagaming as well then.

Uh, no. Passwords are a valid part of the game that the SC can effect. Stamps are bought using RL money and used for various things.

How do you gain population?

Expleserger wrote:How do you gain population?

Exist. There's no other feature you can do that can affect population yet.

Expleserger wrote:How do you gain population?

It comes with time, whatever you do, as long as your nation stays in existence. The amount gained per day increases in several steps during the first few weeks, until it reaches +(5-7 million, randomly determined each time) per day. Nothing except time affects it, not even Issues that look as though they should have relevant effects...

Since this was talked about in the WA discord, think I'll ask moderation here. Is listing three co-author nations controlled by the authoring nation legal, or do co-authors need to be seperate individuals?

The rules are very specific in that they say co-authors have to be separate nations, ones who have contributed to the text of the proposal. There’s nothing in the rules mentioning that those nations have to be controlled by different players, nor can I find any previous rulings mandating as such.

Wrapper wrote:The rules are very specific in that they say co-authors have to be separate nations, ones who have contributed to the text of the proposal. There’s nothing in the rules mentioning that those nations have to be controlled by different players, nor can I find any previous rulings mandating as such.

Thanks for the clarification Wrapper, although if/when co-author badges are added to the game I can see it getting abused. On another note, I have a different question. I'm probably missing this in Vancouvia's thread, but mentioning Wiki and factbooks is legal in C&C's?

“Factbook” (as in “World Factbook Entry” or “WFE”) has always been legal, as explicitly stated in the rulings compendium. As for ‘wiki’, it’s in the dictionary as a common noun, so that’s legal too.

Wrapper wrote:“Factbook” (as in “World Factbook Entry” or “WFE”) has always been legal, as explicitly stated in the rulings compendium. As for ‘wiki’, it’s in the dictionary as a common noun, so that’s legal too.

But in the case of Commend Ponderosa its clearly referring to the dispatch kind of factbook. Or, at least that's how I see it. As for Wiki, thanks for clearing that up

I mean, Factbook as a regular word still at least sounds like something you could call published information IC

I think it's covered by this:

Any term included within NationStates the game - eg. passwords, World Factbook Entries, founders, eject, 'black helicopters transporting nations between regions' - legal (see here, here, here, here and here)

Wrapper wrote:The rules are very specific in that they say co-authors have to be separate nations, ones who have contributed to the text of the proposal. There’s nothing in the rules mentioning that those nations have to be controlled by different players, nor can I find any previous rulings mandating as such.

There's certainly GA precedent, anyway: I listed St Edmund, which had created the 'historical' resolution, as co-author when Bears Armed Mission produced the current version of 'Meteorological Cooperation' (which became GAR #87)... Same player, and legality confirmed by at least one Mod before it went to vote.
However, in that case the co-author listed had actually been responsible for drafting & sponsoring the original version, which became 'historical resolution' #148, whereas Bears Armed Mission was responsible for the GA's expanded version. What did the 'co-authors separately contribute in this case?

Fris has closed the co-author puppetry loophole and made an official ruling on it here. I’ll add this to the rulings compendium in the coming days (when I’m at a PC; making such changes from an iPad are not easy).

Is commendations and condemnations all the SC does? If you are mad enough to condemn, can we impose an embargo. If you like someone enough to commend them, just give them favored nation trading status. If there is no result for commendation an condemnation, what is the point?

South World wrote:Is commendations and condemnations all the SC does? If you are mad enough to condemn, can we impose an embargo. If you like someone enough to commend them, just give them favored nation trading status. If there is no result for commendation an condemnation, what is the point?

There's liberations. Liberations free up the borders so liberators can move in the region.

Embargoes cannot be imposed since the functions of the security council are limited. Same for favored status. It's more symbolic. It would be nice to to have effect on trade but you would need to canonize and fully develop the character of every nation. Some people reject NS stats and don't have factbooks and trade by itself alone will not be fully beneficial without other nation characteristics.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=456182

I recently drafted this proposal and feedback I’ve gotten suggest that I cannot refer to “Roleplay” as such. However, reading over the rules, the closest thing I can find is to not refer to NS as a game

Can anyone confirm this? And if possible, some feedback on how to word the proposal differently to fit with rules?

Aureumterra wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=456182

I recently drafted this proposal and feedback I’ve gotten suggest that I cannot refer to “Roleplay” as such. However, reading over the rules, the closest thing I can find is to not refer to NS as a game

Can anyone confirm this? And if possible, some feedback on how to word the proposal differently to fit with rules?

Rule 4 prohibits certain words from being used, such as Roleplay, and can be found in the mod rulings thread Here. Most times to get around the fact Roleplay is an illegal term people word it differently, such as saying things like "dedication to international relations" and stuff. You want to write it from an IC perspective, not an OOC perspective.