NationStates

Dorab wrote:Is there a sort of guide or template to writing a commendtion?

Look at passed resolutions to see what worked.

Dorab wrote: Also how important is it to follow the traditional WA style?

Some people think it is important. Clever variants are also more likely to be acceptable than some wall-of-text word salad.

Dorab wrote:Can I write it however I want within the rules and still have a chance of it passing?

You should absolutely NOT "write it however" and then submit it. It's almost impossible for a new author to get a proposal approved without posting a draft and spending days, weeks, or even months listening and adjusting to feedback.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Dorab wrote:Can I write it however I want within the rules and still have a chance of it passing?

You should absolutely NOT "write it however" and then submit it. It's almost impossible for a new author to get a proposal approved without posting a draft and spending days, weeks, or even months listening and adjusting to feedback.

I didn't mean write and submit, I was reffrencing the writing style.

Dorab wrote:

Frisbeeteria wrote:
You should absolutely NOT "write it however" and then submit it. It's almost impossible for a new author to get a proposal approved without posting a draft and spending days, weeks, or even months listening and adjusting to feedback.

I didn't mean write and submit, I was reffrencing the writing style.

Fris’ advice on reading passed resolutions is just as valid for referencing writing styles.

Dorab wrote:Is there a sort of guide or template to writing a commendtion? Also how important is it to follow the traditional WA style? Can I write it however I want within the rules and still have a chance of it passing?

Can't claim credit for this, but Bormiar suggested this framework recently:

Bormiar wrote:Authors should answer a series of questions, similar to how a roleplayer world-builds:

• What genre do they participate in? What is the extent of their significance (not to be confused with influence)?
• What is their alignment / ideology?
• What are major descriptor-changing events in their history?
• What were their major goals? Did they fulfill them?
• Etc. (see above)

They would then put that information into a proposal, and it would be done. Everything substantial about the region or nation would be answered with that alone.

In terms of writing style/format, anything that is legal can technically be passed but convention is there for a reason.

Also, keep in mind that every deviation you make away from the regular style is likely to lose you voters who don't like your own styling or structure regardless of the actual content of the proposal. Commendations should ultimately be about the subject of the proposal (the person who deserves to be commended) and shouldn't be held back or undermined by the aesthetic choices or bias of the author.

Thank you everyone for your help! I should have a very rough draft within the next few days.

I’m not sure if this question really belongs here, so I apologize in advance.

Would it be looked down upon if a member were to commend someone from the same region they reside in?

No, it happens all the time.

The Wiccan Israel wrote:I’m not sure if this question really belongs here, so I apologize in advance.

Would it be looked down upon if a member were to commend someone from the same region they reside in?

The main thing is whether the individual objectively deserves a Commendation, from a global perspective. If the author can demonstrate that, then there is no issue that they are based in the same region. The obvious problem is that there is a natural bias towards your friends and region-mates that the proposal must transcend.

It is worth comparing your subject with examples of passed and failed commendations to see whether their global contributions measure up.

Do resolutions work for refounder-imposed barriers?
And in this context the refounder isn't much different from a raider.

Apabeossie wrote:Do resolutions work for founder-imposed barriers?

No

I believe that they actually do in some situations.

If I recall correctly, liberations work whenever the founder has ceased to exist. Therefore, a founder-imposed password where the founder CTEd would be cleared.

If a nation is condemned what actually happens to them?

Adsuri wrote:If a nation is condemned what actually happens to them?

They get a shiny badge. That's it.

What was the link for the reasons nations were condemned or commended?

La xinga wrote:What was the link for the reasons nations were condemned or commended?

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=392800&p=30209769#p30209769
It needs updating.

I'm thinking about a commendation for somebody, but I am not sure how to express a lot of their achievements without breaking
rule 4.
For example - they have multiple nations who have done things in different communities, and they have an extensive graphic design portfolio.
How would I express this without breaking Rule 4?

North Prarie wrote:I'm thinking about a commendation for somebody, but I am not sure how to express a lot of their achievements without breaking
rule 4.
For example - they have multiple nations who have done things in different communities, and they have an extensive graphic design portfolio.
How would I express this without breaking Rule 4?

Rule 4B?

La xinga wrote:Rule 4B?

Rule 4(b) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they".

North Prarie wrote:I'm thinking about a commendation for somebody, but I am not sure how to express a lot of their achievements without breaking rule 4.
For example - they have multiple nations who have done things in different communities, and they have an extensive graphic design portfolio.
How would I express this without breaking Rule 4?

Have a look at some of the more recent resolutions. They cover everything from NS Sports, flag making and issues as well as general gameplay. You should get some ideas from reading these.

Can’t help you much more without a draft though.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

La xinga wrote:Rule 4B?

Rule 4(b) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they".

Would it be legal for North Prarie to refer to the nation, even though a lot of the stuff was done under puppets?

La xinga wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Rule 4(b) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they".

Would it be legal for North Prarie to refer to the nation, even though a lot of the stuff was done under puppets?

Under 4(b), yes. There are also ways of referring to puppets without breaking other parts of Rule 4.

BBD's advice on reading passed resolutions is good. Once you've done that, I'd suggest just going and writing a draft proposal, because with that in front of us, it's much easier to give feedback. It is definitely possible to reference actions across all NS communities, even when done with puppets, and graphic designs have been commended before.

Can you get yourself condemned? What would you have to do to get your nation enough of a bad international reputation to be condemned?

Refrigerator Resurrection wrote:Can you get yourself condemned? What would you have to do to get your nation enough of a bad international reputation to be condemned?

Suggest you read some of the passed Condemnations of various nations or regions. Generally Condemnations are regarded as an award for playing the villain well over a sustained period of time.

There is no rule against writing a self-Condemn (or Commend), but I’d advise against it. It won’t go anywhere, the SC never votes in favour of a self C&C.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Refrigerator Resurrection wrote:Can you get yourself condemned? What would you have to do to get your nation enough of a bad international reputation to be condemned?

Suggest you read some of the passed Condemnations of various nations or regions. Generally Condemnations are regarded as an award for playing the villain well over a sustained period of time.

There is no rule against writing a self-Condemn (or Commend), but I’d advise against it. It won’t go anywhere, the SC never votes in favour of a self C&C.

Ok, that makes sense, then. An RP tie in.

Which Security Council proposal had the most closest vote? (Both ''for'' and ''against'' percentages and/or numbers being very close, like a proposal passing with 0.5% more votes)