[SUBMITTED] Liberate Japan

[Ankura]

As the dearest nations of the World Assembly,

SHOCKED such an important and large region could be subject to raid by an invader region infamous for hundreds of raids.

DISMAYED that the new WA delegate nation is doing its best to damage the region and vandalise its embassies, World Factbook entry, and flag.

BELIEVING an affirmative action taken by the Security Council will be the most helpful repelling the invaders of this large and important region with high amounts of power.

RECOGNIZING Japan to be still an independent region holding its importance and not a playground .

AFRAID if immediate action isn't taken as soon as possible, Japan's damage will be irreversible and the invaders will leave a permanent mark.

Hereby liberates Japan

[Ankura]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1526765532

[Nippon]

Submitted right away? Without prior drafting?

I understand there's the matter of urgency, but shouldn't there have been a few hours of drafting first?

[Ankura]

Submitted right away? Without prior drafting?

I understand there's the matter of urgency, but shouldn't there have been a few hours of drafting first?

Of course, I kinda rushed this and am quite new to WA, so forgot to draft out of all the stuff.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Not sure if world factbook entry, embassies, and flag should be Mentioned as that is a game feature. It could say something different.

[Ankura]

Withdrawn. I guess we'll have to liberate Japan the hard way.

[Ransium]

I have marked it illegal:

As the dearest nations of the World Assembly, on behalf of every nation affected by the invasion of Japan,

I find the "on behalf" part to violate Rule 4d.

Not sure if world factbook entry, embassies, and flag should be Mentioned as that is a game feature. It could say something different.

These are actually okay

Legal/illegal terms:

Firstly, there are certain terms banned by Rule 4, and others which are still allowed. This list should not be considered definitive - the mods deliberately didn't provide a list of 'banned words' as so many words have multiple meanings - for example, the word "player" would be illegal if one was referring to someone as a player of NS the game, but would be legal if referring to a nation as a "major player" within a region.

We've written the following rubric to help determine whether terms fit within Rule 4 or not:

1. Is the term something that could be applied to real-world nations. If yes, then fine. If no, see #2.
2. Is the term something that could be applied to the NationStates world? If yes, see point 3, if no, then what on earth are you writing about?
3. Is the term referring to NationStates as a game, or to the people behind the nations? If yes, it's not acceptable. If no, it's fine.

This allows language used to describe the unique aspects NationStates world to be used within proposals - not just the gameplay aspects, but also one from roleplay and other communities.

• NationStates or NationStates community- legal (see here and here)
• Multiverse - legal, as it's a term that is acceptable to all parts of the game (see here)
• Personal pronouns - illegal when referring to the nation (see here, here and here). However, using the personal pronoun "who" to refer to a nation, while discouraged, is considered a grammatical error, not a rules violation (see here)
• Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - now legal; see here.
• Roleplayer, Gameplayer - illegal (see here and here)
• 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)
• Forums - legal unless it "plainly refers to the electronic entity" (see here and here)
• Thread (as in a forum topic) - illegal - simply describe what is done within the thread (see here). You cannot link to threads either.
• Post (as in 'post' on the forums or an RMB) - illegal (see here)
• Reference to paid aspects of the site is legal (see here), but must be worded carefully. There is no ruling yet on specific terms such as "postmaster general" or "stamps".

Using 'defining' clauses to include any of these terms is also illegal:

Not when you're using definitions in this fashion, to get words that talk about the game as a game into proposals. It's too easy to move on to "Defining roleplaying as ..." "Defining the proper way to play this game as ..." "Defining moderators as ..."

Additionally, proper nouns explicitly referencing game mechanics illegal under Rule 4 are not allowed (see here).

[Ransium]

Withdrawn. I guess we'll have to liberate Japan the hard way.

If you just change the first line to say, "The World Assembly," I believe it is legal, FYI.

[Ankura]

I have marked it illegal:

the dearest nations of the World Assembly, on behalf of every nation affected by the invasion of Japan,

I find the "on behalf" part to violate Rule 4d.

Not sure if world factbook entry, embassies, and flag should be Mentioned as that is a game feature. It could say something different.

These are actually okay

Legal/illegal terms:

Firstly, there are certain terms banned by Rule 4, and others which are still allowed. This list should not be considered definitive - the mods deliberately didn't provide a list of 'banned words' as so many words have multiple meanings - for example, the word "player" would be illegal if one was referring to someone as a player of NS the game, but would be legal if referring to a nation as a "major player" within a region.

We've written the following rubric to help determine whether terms fit within Rule 4 or not:

1. Is the term something that could be applied to real-world nations. If yes, then fine. If no, see #2.
2. Is the term something that could be applied to the NationStates world? If yes, see point 3, if no, then what on earth are you writing about?
3. Is the term referring to NationStates as a game, or to the people behind the nations? If yes, it's not acceptable. If no, it's fine.

This allows language used to describe the unique aspects NationStates world to be used within proposals - not just the gameplay aspects, but also one from roleplay and other communities.

• NationStates or NationStates community- legal (see here and here)
• Multiverse - legal, as it's a term that is acceptable to all parts of the game (see here)
• Personal pronouns - illegal when referring to the nation (see here, here and here). However, using the personal pronoun "who" to refer to a nation, while discouraged, is considered a grammatical error, not a rules violation (see here)
• Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - now legal; see here.
• Roleplayer, Gameplayer - illegal (see here and here)
• 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)
• Forums - legal unless it "plainly refers to the electronic entity" (see here and here)
• Thread (as in a forum topic) - illegal - simply describe what is done within the thread (see here). You cannot link to threads either.
• Post (as in 'post' on the forums or an RMB) - illegal (see here)
• Reference to paid aspects of the site is legal (see here), but must be worded carefully. There is no ruling yet on specific terms such as "postmaster general" or "stamps".

Using 'defining' clauses to include any of these terms is also illegal:

Additionally, proper nouns explicitly referencing game mechanics illegal under Rule 4 are not allowed (see here).

Would it be okay to re-submit it with different wording?

[Ransium]

Yes, you can re-submit it.

[Ankura]

Re-submitted

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1526770772

[Lenlyvit]

This is not needed. Europeia, which is piling for TBH, has a strict no-griefing policy and will never join a griefing operation.

[Lenlyvit]

Ill also add that the native delegate, and many native nations, have denied the idea of a liberation before.

Edit: Also, no forum draft and no native support means it won't pass. Its well written, so good job! You're definitely a good author, and it'd be nice to see you write more often. This just isn't a necessary piece of legislation, and you should go through forum drafting and getting native approval before submitting, because some nations will not support a piece without those two important things.

[Tupelope]

just gonna note there is an extremely high likelyhood a refound aint gonna happen cuz there are 2 homeboys in there with hella high influence

[Willania Imperium]

No forum draft + no native support = no support.

[North Saitama]

Opposed, for reasons that are classified.

[New Keam]

"If there is no native support, New Keam will not support this proposal".