NationStates

Sedgistan wrote:That probably falls under the umbrella of Rule 3a - "In some circumstances rules violations may be legal to refer to in a proposal - you must always request a ruling prior to submission if you wish to do this."

Some things, like referring to Milograd's coups, or Cormac's delegacy of wherever, are innocuous and likely fine. Others, of which I'm sure we can all imagine plenty of examples, would get a firm "no chance" from Moderation.

Thanks Sedge, makes sense.

Would a PSA pertaining to the well-being of nation’s citizens be appropriate for a SC declaration?

What is the point of condemning if it only gives the nation a badge?

Rick Perry wrote:What is the point of condemning if it only gives the nation a badge?

Recognition.

Rick Perry wrote:What is the point of condemning if it only gives the nation a badge?

It is recognition that a nation or region has managed to play the black hat for a long period of time.

Which is why the SC avoids rewarding players that have been puppet swept and had their main deleted.

Is there a separate list somewhere for the rules of SC declarations? Or is that just under the regular rules? I couldn’t find it if it is

Thousand Branches wrote:Is there a separate list somewhere for the rules of SC declarations? Or is that just under the regular rules? I couldn’t find it if it is

They follow the same standard rules as the Security Council.

Wayneactia wrote:

Thousand Branches wrote:Is there a separate list somewhere for the rules of SC declarations? Or is that just under the regular rules? I couldn’t find it if it is

They follow the same standard rules as the Security Council.

Ah thank you! Is there then a place that outlines what a declaration actually is in simple terms? Like what it does?

Thousand Branches wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:They follow the same standard rules as the Security Council.

Ah thank you! Is there then a place that outlines what a declaration actually is in simple terms? Like what it does?

None that I have seen. Sedge may be able to direct you further though as he has been handling the declarations side of things.

There isn't anything beyond the rules. I've been hoping someone might write a general (and unofficial) Guide to the SC, but the various attempts over the years haven't got anywhere.

How do repeals work with declarations? How does relevant argument apply?

Thousand Branches wrote:How do repeals work with declarations? How does relevant argument apply?

You would argue the clauses of the declaration as any normal repeal?

Same as ever - "it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing".

If I were to describe Big Jim P's marriage to a fellow NSer as:

Being the first nation that had an extra-dimensional alliance based on mutual love and understanding with another nation.

Would that be legal?

I suspect there would be deep reluctance on the part of Moderators to allow anything that referred to personal characteristics of players and their personal lives. Same as when Tin's proposal Commending someone who had cancer got pulled.

Question: I’m curious because of the Jakker repeal, how does 2a apply to DEAT/DOS players and the action of deleting a nation? I assume simply saying “deleted” would be illegal, but what is the generally accepted line for what is and isn’t legal there?

Thousand Branches wrote:Question: I’m curious because of the Jakker repeal, how does 2a apply to DEAT/DOS players and the action of deleting a nation? I assume simply saying “deleted” would be illegal, but what is the generally accepted line for what is and isn’t legal there?

Kaboom’s series of Predator repeals are useful here for prior examples:
search.php?keywords=Kaboomlandia&t=7503&sf=msgonly

I personally was using “act of violet” both because that’s a reasonably literal description (at the very least, they made the announcement) and as far as I’m aware using violet as the local “God” so to speak is generally legal.

There's a few ways of doing it legally, although "deleted" as a term wouldn't work. They key thing to remember is Rule 3b - request a mod ruling on legality first, before submitting.

How is the legality on mentioning the character limits for proposals?

Thousand Branches wrote:How is the legality on mentioning the character limits for proposals?

"Noting that NS Admin only lets me type up to a certain number of characters into this text box" - no.

"Noting that Nation X's accomplishments are too numerous to catalogue in their entirety, nevertheless detailing certain accomplishments such as: [list of whatever]" - yes.

With some decent writing you can get readers to infer it without breaking the rules.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Thousand Branches wrote:How is the legality on mentioning the character limits for proposals?

"Noting that NS Admin only lets me type up to a certain number of characters into this text box" - no.

"Noting that Nation X's accomplishments are too numerous to catalogue in their entirety, nevertheless detailing certain accomplishments such as: [list of whatever]" - yes.

With some decent writing you can get readers to infer it without breaking the rules.

But a specific reference to the NS character limit would be illegal?

Thousand Branches wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:"Noting that NS Admin only lets me type up to a certain number of characters into this text box" - no.

"Noting that Nation X's accomplishments are too numerous to catalogue in their entirety, nevertheless detailing certain accomplishments such as: [list of whatever]" - yes.

With some decent writing you can get readers to infer it without breaking the rules.

But a specific reference to the NS character limit would be illegal?

Can't rule on a hypothetical beyond the guidance given above - I don't know what you mean by a "specific reference", I don't know the context, I can't give a ruling. If you're working on a draft and would like to get our take on it, by all means post it to the forum and we'll take a look.

What - in your opinion - is the Security Council's direction of travel with apologies to James Heappey, eviscerator of free lateral flow tests in regards to raiding and defending?

Defenders have been, and will continue to be, Commended. Condemnations for raiders, however, are now widely seen as black commends/badges of honour for raiders, an argument that came to the forefront of the Condemn Raionitu back-and-forth. I'd be looking for defenders to start writing their own, particularly scathing, good-faith Condemnations (and TSP is huge on good faith, as they have been since the Commend Twobagger scandal).

Various raiding-adjacent declarations have been defeated: Against Quorum Raiding (by Jedinsto) was criticised for offering far too little leeway with the practice. With TNP moving away from the raider sphere over the Madjack delegacy, Thaecia being similarly scathing of raider groups and The League being a notable hard-line defender region, a redraft by Morover or a new symbolic decrying of the practice by another author could well pass... but only by a few hundred votes. It'll get repealed three weeks later anyway.

Against Destructive Raiding Practices was arguably too broad (and, like AQR, not too accomodating with certain forms of invasion widely believed to be acceptable). Aivintis has patched some holes with his redraft, but there are still other holes, I personally object to the concept of retaliatory justice, and not even a perfectly-written draft would be likely to pass.

On Raider Unity was criticised for being authored by a raider who wanted to paint his discipline in a negative light. Something along its lines could pass in future, but arguably only if written by a notable regional politician with little interest in R/D (such as Harkagrad) or an interested, active member of a roleplaying community (Eura? Chromatika? Lamoni? Northern New Solingarch????? Vancouvia?????????????). It could gut most of whatever symbolism is left in SC#52, if written particularly well.

Couple of small perspective questions. Would the proper pronoun in reference to the Security Council be we/our? In theory since resolutions are supposed to be from the perspective of the SC, you would be referring to the SC (and therefore yourself) as a body of individuals, and therefore we/our, yes? Just want to confirm.

Additionally, I know that SC resolutions have to be the WA speaking, can they be addressed to the nominee? I don’t believe a rule exists to prevent that but I’m also pretty sure nobody has tried before Anyway, what I mean by this would be basically, could I use you/yours in reference to the nominee? Say as if I were writing a letter to that person. Could I say like idk “We (the SC) has watched you (X nominee 1) grow throughout the many years you have graced this wide multiverse”

We/our would seem to be the correct pronouns.

I feel like addressing something to the nominee from the SC should be illegal, and that a reasonable view of the rules would prohibit it, but frustratingly I can not point to any particular ruling or description in R1 that says as much.