4th rule clarification

[Todd McCloud]

*Todd McCloud steps up to a soapbox, moving his ears and doing other things a vulpine humanoid probably would do*

I am kind of concerned about the new fourth rule that has been passed by the powers that be... for those who aren't in-the-know, here's what the fourth rule for Security Council resolutions states:

4. Your proposal was written entirely Out Of Character, either by
(a) referring to the player of the nation rather than to the nation itself, or
(b) writing in the first person (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be nations commenting on the actions of other nations at an international level. Nation-to-nation disagreements can often be met by sending a diplomatic note, calling their ambassador in to protest, withdrawing your ambassadors or expelling theirs.

The accompanying explanation is given below:

A year of allowing "player behind" proposals has made it clear that, though the existing successful resolutions in this format were genuine, Condemnations using Out of Character (OOC) phrasing are too often simply excuses to flame an individual player. Commendations and Condemnations must therefore be written in the same fashion as the Liberation category, referring to the actions of a nation in the NationStates world, and must be described in terms appropriate to a nation.

If players find this hard to do, they should start a Drafting thread in the SC forum seeking the help of other players.

This does not invalidate resolutions passed under the previous ruling, which now confer a unique distinction on their holders.

This is all very well, and I can understand the concern for developing such a rule. But the fact of the matter is, what is to become of those nations that have done a lot of work OOCly? A few of these 'special cases' come to mind:

• A Mean Old Man's MSPaint thread, that has by and large been a huge success in the Arts Forum
• Imagy Nation's artwork in the general thread regarding national seals
• A lot of the cool things TAO has done... he doesn't really play his nation as a nation, but instead, like a person (like me)

Those are just three examples off the top of my head (Yeah, I know Imagy Nation has been on the floor before, but you get my point, lol), but other examples exist. So the good things these nations have done OOCly are off the table? I mean, because it'd be really hard to put AMOM's work in a commendation now, especially worded in an IC tone... how would it work? Something like "The works this nation has done in providing beautiful artwork for various other nations as gifts and patronage... etc". That's a little silly. Wouldn't it be better, for instance, to just say, "His works in his MSPaint thread have been a showcase of his drawing prowess and stand as a beacon of his generosity to many nations" or something along those lines?

Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but it just seems like a bum rap to have some things commended, while other things that equally deserve commending moved "off the table," so to speak. I'm certain there are a lot of nations out there that have done much in this game OOCly as those who have done so ICly. This isn't a shot against the IC-savvy nations, on the contrary, I just believe that OOC-savvy nations should be commended if their accomplishments merit one. Does that make sense? Or is this part two of Todd making a mountain out of a molehill, lol?

[Oh my Days]

I think you could fit in a line like "His works in his MSPaint thread have been a showcase of his drawing prowess and stand as a beacon of his generosity to many nations" without being explicitly OOC. The idea of referring to a nation as having a gender has been floated before, although I would change "many nations" just to "many others", so it is less clunky. Basically, I think you can fit pretty much anything into an IC guise, you just have to be creative.

[Glen-Rhodes]

"A Mean Old Man makes nice pictures" is not the same as "The guy that plays A Mean Old Man makes nice pictures". The rule doesn't say that C&Cs have to written like they're from II or NS. It lists two extremely specific things that constitute an OOC proposal.

[Omigodtheyplutoedkenny]

I believe Ard already explained in the very post you just quoted: a few bad apples ruined it for everyone else. And you apparently encouraged the bad apples by trying to make OOC the standard fare in SC proposals. It's a vicious circle, and the mods just ended it.

Poor baby!

[Sedgistan]

I can't say I'm too happy about the rule either. There's a whole lot of gameplay activities which are now near impossible to mention in a clear way in resolutions. The best examples are commending Goobergunchia for creating NSwiki (yes I know its been done, but its the kind of thing that should be allowed again), or condemning a nation for forum destruction - which for most gameplayers is the worst act a person could possibly do, and should absolutely be worthy of condemnation. Phrases such as "condemning nation for destroying the administrative headquarters of region" just don't cut it, as they sound like RP actions.

If there's a problem with people flaming each other via condemnations, punish those who do that- not those of us who know how to behave.

Kenny - your comments don't really help - they'll just turn things into another SC-GA argument.

[A mean old man]

NOTE: Why aren't my spoiler tags working? I don't have time to figure them out; I'm posting them as they are, messed up or not.

Damn! I decided today that I'd put up a thread with a few questions on the new rule as well. You beat me to it, Todd.

My questions are mainly about already passed resolutions - there are certainly quite a few passed that now violate #4:

...ACCEPTING the fact that Macedon has prevented natives of a particular nation (such as Lithuania, Belarus, France, Pakistan, Finland, etc) from running their own region and celebrating the nation's culture. ...

RECOGNIZING the player of Kandarin as a leader in various aspects of NationStates.

OBSERVING his tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in a "collecting" region without means of ejecting or banning the competition.

VIEWING his knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, in both in character and out of character aspects, for off-site and on-site forums.

OFFICALLY praises the player behind the nation of Kandarin and recognizes his achievements with a commendation from the World Assembly.

…RECOGNIZING Goobergunchia for the creation of the first Nation States' wiki, NSwiki, a highly informative and detailed account of in-game incidents, resolutions, national profiles, region profiles, history, events, and terminology. …

[spoiler=SC12 – Commend Todd McCloud]

…ACKNOWLEDGING The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud’s experience as a Role Player in The East Pacific, with notable role-play incidents including Shiro Academy and The Listonian Crisis

PRAISING the successful defenses of Poland, a founderless region, by then World Assembly Delegate of Poland The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud,

I suppose this is also the end for R/D C&Cs as well, eh? Funny, this reminds me of a very, very old debate…

FURTHER PRAISING The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud’s work as leader of the Slavic Alliance in defending Slavic Regions from the grips of Macedon,

RECOGNIZING Todd McCloud as a highly successful raider, leading raiding missions and coups in many prominent regions,

IMPRESSED with Todd McCloud’s public stance against Macedon and other raiders who use hidden passwords to destroy the target region without giving natives or defenders any chance to fight for the region,

…

ALSO RECOGNIZING Todd McCloud’s use of media to improve the world, including his creation of The South Pacific Wiki, a collection of articles about NationStates; and his use of online videos in Fox Rite and The East Pacific

COMMENDS Todd McCloud for his honorable service across many fields of the NationStates world.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=SC18 – Commend Sedgistan]

Remembering the liberation of Feudal Japan authored by Sedge, which was followed by a defeat of the raiders by a defender force led by Sedge and including members from the FRA, TITO, Equilism, Texas, Europeia, 00000 A World Power, Yggdrasil, The United Kingdom, Crusaders of Justice, Liberty Alliance, Antarctica, and Royal Federation of Nations, and a refounding mission assisted by Sedge,

Impressed by the tireless work of Sedgistan to ensure the natives of Feudal Japan regained control of their region and kept control permanently,

Knowing there exist countless other regions Sedgistan has defended from the grips of raiders, amassing 222 brownie points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger, the second highest of all time,

Acknowledging the Security Council work of Sedgistan other than Liberate Feudal Japan, which includes authoring Liberate Free Thought, being listed as a co-author of Commend Todd McCloud, Liberate Utopia, and Liberate Land of the Liberals,

Asserting that any nation that has done as much work as Sedgistan has to ensure interregional peace and goodwill should be commended,

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=SC21 – Commend Imagey Nation]

NOTING that, to date, the Free Land of Imagey Nation's extremely successful thread, If you want a seal or logo, has received over 30 000 views and 1 000 responses, to which Imagey Nation has replied quickly, politely, and professionally regarding the creation of nation-specific images;

AWESTRICKEN by the meticulous care, precision, attention to detail, and overall creative genius Imagey Nation puts into his work and also by, not only the artistic and realistic value but the originality of the work,

FURTHER NOTING that Imagey Nation's image thread has been arguably the most successful thread of its kind on NationStates, and without it, images used for role-playing would be both few in number and poor in quality;

ACKNOWLEDGING that these seals, logos, communiqué templates, flags, and other related illustrations produced by Imagey Nation have almost always been received with positive feedback and responses of great thanks, and are still used significantly by the nations that Imagey Nation has been commissioned by;

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that despite being busy, Imagey Nation has had a history of commitment to his thread, and of creating images for the nations that commission him quickly and diligently, and is always willing to further amend his work to suit the ever-changing demands of his patrons, whom he does not charge;

The World Assembly hereby officially presents The Free Land of Imagey Nation with a World Assembly Commendation for outstanding artistic contributions to the international community of NationStates.

[/spoiler]

…and the deceased Commend 10000 Islands and Condemn Ninja Pirate Awesome Town.

So what about these relics? They will stay as they are, I surmise, but I also assume we can’t ever create anything like them again in the future.

And I'm glad you characters appreciate my artistic ability; I enjoy making those pictures. Though the way you’re incorporating it into your questions regarding commendations makes me a bit nervous.

[Todd McCloud]

"A Mean Old Man makes nice pictures" is not the same as "The guy that plays A Mean Old Man makes nice pictures". The rule doesn't say that C&Cs have to written like they're from II or NS. It lists two extremely specific things that constitute an OOC proposal.

But it also says it wants to keep things in the NS Universe. AMOM's paint thread, for all intents and purposes, is pretty much outside that realm. At least, that's how I interpreted this law.

Honestly, if this law was created because of a few guys turning this into flaming, that's a real shame, because there are also a lot of nations that can and have submitted good OOC-ish SC resolutions. I'd like to think that if we could just get rid of the bad ones and keep the good ones, that would be the best compromise. I could be wrong. Maybe even offer a warning for a C&C flame? Removal of their WA, depending on the track record of the nation? I don't know.

[Ardchoille]

The rule was changed for the same reason railway points are switched: to steer traffic onto another track. It's an attempt to keep proposal writers thinking of the nation, not the person.

I can see Todd's point about there being things that players do that nations both don't and can't. Indeed, that was the reason I originally argued a year ago that the option should be kept open: I was convinced mainly by thinking about Kandarin's commendation. It would have been possible to write that about his nation, but the people who had most reason to commend him would have had trouble with it in that form.

However, we have since seen a large number of players who are unable to draw the distinction between the player and the nation, and end up writing proposals that, while they may not directly flame a player, are unrestrained criticisms (often verging on bullying) that they would not be allowed to post elsewhere in NS. Such proposals are personal, and they're about pique they feel towards individual players, not about how that player's nation acts in NS. They don't usually stay up, undeleted, for three days; but we don't let attacks in the forums stay up for even an hour, if we hear about them, so it seems unfair to let them stay longer here, and even be expanded on in drafting threads.

Since this is supposed to be the international body that takes a stance on the morality of nations' actions, the bottom line is that it deals with nations. It may be difficult to express the matters complained of or commended in "nation" terms, but it can be done. I'm hoping that the difficulty will be enough to slow some of the more strident down a bit, so they think about what they're writing, and why it's good or bad for a nation to do it, rather than a person. Perhaps, even, whether it matters, on an international level, that the nation does that at all.

As to the "outside" concepts, they can be encompassed in this form. For example:

The Security Council,
REJOICING in the artistic talent so plainly evident among the citizenry of A Mean Old Man;
GRATEFUL for their readiness to share the fruits of their skill with the international community;
APPLAUDING their generosity in freely creating works of art at request for individual nations to treasure;
AWED by their foresight in providing an internationally accessible permanent exhibition of their nation's greatest works;
IMPRESSED by their willingness to do so by their own efforts, without requiring support from the international community;
APPROVING their educational efforts to spread information about the artistry and creativity of other nations, free of any limit of race, creed or political affiliation;
Hereby COMMENDS A Mean Old Man for services to the cause of Art.

Or this:

WHEREAS the nation of Lunatic Goofballs has for many years participated in international debates on divers subjects, and
WHEREAS spokesmen for that nation have made a point of leavening their serious points with humour, pies and tacos, and
WHEREAS this has contributed greatly to international peace and goodwill, by diverting many confrontations before they escalate, and
WHEREAS this humorous approach has been emulated by other nations, to the ultimate benefit of the world community, and
WHEREAS official recognition may encourage still more to follow this admirable lead, the Security Council therefore
COMMENDS Lunatic Goofballs for their lighthearted yet profound contributions.

These are off the top of my head and open to anyone who cares to take, amend, polish and submit them. My point is, there are plenty of people around who can advise on this form of writing, and the need to use it may encourage players to draft their proposals here instead of plunging in with faulty work and seeing it deleted or failing to achieve quorum.

EDIT: Just noticed AMOM's references to passwords, etc. What the rules now say is that you must follow the practice established in the Liberation category. Here's how the Liberation category refers to passwords:

A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region

.

Similarly, "region" and "delegate" get their mention there -- even "Delegate", capped. On that admin-blessed basis, I guess "Founder" has to be in order, too, in the SC, though a reference to the Gameplay position would get a GA proposal killed.(And there are "founding nations" of many an organisation.) WFE could be "official description" or even "official factbook", RMB = "official (or regional) communications service(s)" -- you don't have to stick to those; come up with some other work-around, use it in a proposal, and if others like it, they'll pick it up. On the whole, I think it's easier to write SC-legally about in-game events than on-forum events, but neither's impossible.

[Travancore-Cochin]

I have a question: Does Gameplay-IC not count as IC anymore?

[Omigodtheyplutoedkenny]

I have a question: Does Gameplay-IC not count as IC anymore?

It probably depends: do you mean Nai's definition of Gameplay-IC or Ard's?

[Todd McCloud]

I appreciate your response. But, it still seems like jargon to me. If someone's done a lot of OOC things, I mean, things that are blatantly OOC, wouldn't it just be best to honor that player and not the nation? Especially if they don't participate in IC relations? We've had the SC split from the GA completely. That much is true, and many people are very happy about that. But, honestly, trying to write an IC C&C for someone who has done a lot of work OOCly just seems like a shallow representation of what they do, maybe even a little irritating. It wasn't the citizens of AMOM who drew those pictures, *he* did it. If it was his citizens, there would've been an IC thread of it somewhere, or something else along those lines. Other similar arguments can be made. It almost reminds me of a Dilbert comic: "That? No, that's not a pair of pants, that's a leg-and-waist retraining tool used by male and sometimes female co-workers"

As for the bums that have tried to use the SC as a bully tool, I'd be all for taking down proposals that lean toward such actions the moment they go out of the gates and giving the proposal writer a warning or something along those lines, similar to what we do when someone outwardly flames another poster on the forums. I don't think that just because a few people didn't quite use the SC as a means to maturely write a proposal that the rest of the body should have to adhere to rules they were responsible in initiating.

[Travancore-Cochin]

I have a question: Does Gameplay-IC not count as IC anymore?

It probably depends: do you mean Nai's definition of Gameplay-IC or Ard's?

Naivetry's, of course.

I appreciate your response. But, it still seems like jargon to me. If someone's done a lot of OOC things, I mean, things that are blatantly OOC, wouldn't it just be best to honor that player and not the nation? Especially if they don't participate in IC relations? We've had the SC split from the GA completely. That much is true, and many people are very happy about that. But, honestly, trying to write an IC C&C for someone who has done a lot of work OOCly just seems like a shallow representation of what they do, maybe even a little irritating. It wasn't the citizens of AMOM who drew those pictures, *he* did it. If it was his citizens, there would've been an IC thread of it somewhere, or something else along those lines. Other similar arguments can be made. It almost reminds me of a Dilbert comic: "That? No, that's not a pair of pants, that's a leg-and-waist retraining tool used by male and sometimes female co-workers"

I have to agree with Todd here. IC commendations for OOC work would look odd and will probably end up getting people confused even more.

Rather than a blanket, outright ban on such type of proposals, wouldn't it be better if the mods rule on legality on a case-by-case basis? That way, we can have all the good proposals while the bad ones can be left in the trash.

[Sedgistan]

As to the "outside" concepts, they can be encompassed in this form. For example:

The Security Council,
REJOICING in the artistic talent so plainly evident among the citizenry of A Mean Old Man;
GRATEFUL for their readiness to share the fruits of their skill with the international community;
APPLAUDING their generosity in freely creating works of art at request for individual nations to treasure;
AWED by their foresight in providing an internationally accessible permanent exhibition of their nation's greatest works;
IMPRESSED by their willingness to do so by their own efforts, without requiring support from the international community;
APPROVING their educational efforts to spread information about the artistry and creativity of other nations, free of any limit of race, creed or political affiliation;
Hereby COMMENDS A Mean Old Man for services to the cause of Art.

[Naivetry]

The rule was changed for the same reason railway points are switched: to steer traffic onto another track. It's an attempt to keep proposal writers thinking of the nation, not the person.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 4th rule... it replaces the 4th wall.

However, we have since seen a large number of players who are unable to draw the distinction between the player and the nation, and end up writing proposals that, while they may not directly flame a player, are unrestrained criticisms (often verging on bullying) that they would not be allowed to post elsewhere in NS. Such proposals are personal, and they're about pique they feel towards individual players, not about how that player's nation acts in NS. They don't usually stay up, undeleted, for three days; but we don't let attacks in the forums stay up for even an hour, if we hear about them, so it seems unfair to let them stay longer here, and even be expanded on in drafting threads.

So make rules against that, not against the way we play the game.

As to the "outside" concepts, they can be encompassed in this form. For example:
*snip*

In addition to Sedge's point, neither of your examples has to do with Gameplay.

[Unibot]

Replace Rule #4 with Rule #5, lets burn Rule #4 and salt the ground where it laid so we can forever forget about that silly fourth wall -- there is a reason why our headquarters is shaped like a prism.

Rule 5: Mini-Modding by using a resolution to conduct business that should have been instead conducted by a moderator is prohibited, this includes using a resolution to augment or extend the punishment ruled by a moderator -- as only other moderators can do so after much deliberation -- not the World Assembly.

[/not a mod]

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

It does seem that this is the wrong rule change.

It will do nothing to stop people from flaming each other, which is already illegal.

It will prohibit resolutions which commend or condemn for any actions but roleplay actions unless they are written in a kind of jargon impenetrable to the average player.

[Minineenee]

Are the mods specifically doing things to make it harder for Gameplay to participate on the forum?

[Krulltopia]

If I may expand the train metaphor, this rule addition seems like switching the train to a track that will send it straight into a ravine.

The majority of people currently involved in the SC are Gameplayers. Forcing them to utilise a format that is similar to that used in the GA will discourage them from posting. It's awkward and cumbersome, so most GPers will simply begin to ignore the SC. What else would it be used for? Roleplayers have little interest in the C&C's, so you are basically alienating the main group that uses it by implementing this rule. For example (I know this is not covered by the rule change) how can Liberations be written in Character? What's the point of applying this just to C&C's when the other Security Council resolution type is under a different format?
So, the way the mods deal with the flamebaiting problem is to introduce a rule that is both exploitable by clever trolls, and alienates those who wish to use it for legitimate purposes? I don't understand the reasoning behind this.
Wasn't the SC created to bridge the gap between Gameplay and the WA, or am I gravely mistaken? I certainly got more interested in the WA when the SC was formed. This new rule sounds counter productive and a step backwards. If it was such a problem, then why not delete the SC? The end effect, which will be having gameoplayers lose interest in the WA, would be the same.

[A mean old man]

Ardy... what's the point of writing it IC like that if it is, essentially, OOC? Everyone can tell that it's really OOC just tossed around a bit and made to look IC, and they'll answer it OOC anyway. Hell - Condemn Great Nepal has now been re-written to be IC... and most people are answering to it OOC anyway!

Besides, many people's votes on C&Cs and posts in the forums will be strongly influenced by their OOC opinion of the player behind the nation anyway, no matter how the C&C is written and if it's IC or not.

It's the nature of the resolution type.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I think this rule should have been in place from the start.

But it wasn't, and mods and gameplayers alike repeatedly informed us no such rule would be put in place. You can't, now, turn around and change everything, after resolutions that don't adhere to it have been passed, after the Security Council has been 'separated' from the WA.

Ardchoille, you argue that any OOC proposal can be made IC by simply sticking 'the people of @@NATION@@', 'the citizens of @@NATION@@', into the mix. But that simply doesn't work. OOC actions are not conducted IC. For example:

- Some people RP their nations differently to their RL political convictions. It would be impossible to commend them for their contributions to General debates if this clearly conflicted with what their 'citizenry'.

- Turning gameplay contributions into IC language might actually make it difficult to understand what's going on.

- Some players' OOC contributions really are not matched by anything their people can be said to have done ICly - as someone else has mentioned, NSwiki is an example of this.

Ardy... what's the point of writing it IC like that if it is, essentially, OOC?

Well, exactly. Because:

The World Assembly,

NOTING the repeated achievement of technologically dubious claims by the people of [a certain nation],

FURTHER NOTING the appalling treatment of their prisoners by the people of [a certain nation],

DISAPPOINTED by the atrocious spelling and grammar, ridiculous image spam, and whining brattishness of all public communications announced to the world by the people of [a certain nation],

BELIEVING that the people of [a certain nation] do not in fact constitute an enlightened civilization, but possess the average intelligence of an emotionally stunted pre-pubescent,

CONDEMNS the people of [a certain nation] for generally being idiots.

Can you honestly say that's not trolling just because it refers to 'the people of...'?

For precedent: remember how Cluich used to flame everyone and their grandmother, but claim that these posts were IC communiques from Sheikh Nadnerb? Well, eventually he was punished (by Fris) anyway - because it was recognised by the moderators that this nominal roleplaying was really just a way to barrack players he disagreed with or didn't like.

[Biyah]

This has got to be the worst rule I've seen yet. Sorry, I can't even sugar-coat it; this is singularly the worst direction the SC could possibly take. It will make the Security Council a 5th wheel to the Gameplay world, totally superfluous. Ninety percent of what we do is behind the scenes, we don't roleplay interactions between nations like that - we don't play AS a nation.

There really isn't all that much argument that can be made that hasn't already been made. I can only emphasize that this would be yet another wedge between the gameplayer regions and the official forums. C&C's can (and will) become an amusing little tool for forum players who want to pin medals to their chests because they can write cool sounding posts. Nothing more.

I doubt this development would disturb the role players. However, we had high hopes for the SC to become the binding that finally tied our worlds together. If this 5th Wheel Rule stands, it’ll be the death of a lot of dreams.

Please reconsider.

~B

[A mean old man]

From what I've seen lately, the new rule seems to have set a precedent for condemning godmodders and/or bad roleplayers.

Pick your poison, I suppose. Trollfest or condemning godmodders for the rest of eternity. Or we could just pull those sort of silly, "in character" charades that you've described, Ardchoille. Of course, Trollfest was a liberation...

[Ardchoille]

For example (I know this is not covered by the rule change) how can Liberations be written in Character? What's the point of applying this just to C&C's when the other Security Council resolution type is under a different format?

Look:

Commendations and Condemnations must therefore be written in the same fashion as the Liberation category, referring to the actions of a nation in the NationStates world, and must be described in terms appropriate to a nation.

The idea is to stop the SC's two proposal formats being different.

@ Nai: those examples didn't touch on Gameplay events because AMOM was talking about events he regarded as "outside", and I was bringing them "inside". Most Gameplay events are already "inside". "Goobergunchia created an international reference tool known as NSWiki" doesn't strike me as outside the terms of this. It's like saying "Scotland invented television" or "Australia invented the stump-jump plough"'; it can be (and, by any passing imaginary citizens, will be) read as meaning that a citizen did it.

The problem it creates is for C&Cs based on forum actions; the advantage is for C&Cs based on Gameplay actions. Actions that take place in sections other than those you can see on a nation or region page will require a little thought. But, as Glenn-Rhodes said,

"A Mean Old Man makes nice pictures" is not the same as "The guy that plays A Mean Old Man makes nice pictures".

So you can go "@@nation@@ organised the successful invasion of @@region@@" (or "36 regions"), because nations do invade other nations. You can write "@@nation@@ encourages new nations"; you can say how they (not "he") helped new nations. ("Advising them on matters of government and diplomacy", perhaps?) Or "@@nation@@ wrote the Rules of War while holding the Presidency of the Whatsit Alliance". What you can't say is "@@nation@@ stayed awake for 24 hours to catch all the updates".

Pretty much, all the usual writer has to do is say "They did X" instead of "He did X", being careful not to suggest that he is referring to a person, and he's home and hosed. But he'll have had to think, briefly, about the nation as a nation, not a person, to make that adjustment -- eg, not referring to "a thread", which is a thing a player creates, but to "a display" or some such (like, you wouldn't have to go as far as I did in hauling AMOM's cartoons "inside"). That's what will make the forum-based C&Cs harder, but it's also what might help slow down the flamer types and the inconsequential "my Delegate was nasty" types.

@ the regulars: Read the new rule again with a more typical WA-player frame of mind about proposal rules; not "what does it stop me doing?" but more "how can I keep on doing what I want to do and still fit in with this?" The rules are part of the challenge. Blimey, people, you've been playing this part of the game for a year and you haven't picked up on that yet?

I think much of this is over-reaction. Most gameplay events can still be written as usual, because they involve nations. If you're a player who sees your nation name as just another online nick for yourself, well, yes, you will have to switch for the time it takes to write a proposal. Change "he" and "I" to "they" and you've got something that could be read as referring to the people of a nation, rather than the god-in-the-machine who makes it go. Then you can go back to arguing about it in the debate thread as Mynick=NationName.

QoD, I'm not going into the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". Mods said when the SC started that its rules would evolve. As you can see from the OP of the rules thread, experiences since then have evolved the hell out of them, including the "no links in proposals", which I had thought was graven in stone. This is the latest. Since the SC is now, hallelujah, totally separate from the GA, it can go its own way. But it's still part of the WA and part of NS, and has to fit in with the overall assumption of the game, which is about nations; the part of the SC that the rest of NS sees is its resolutions and their effects.

As for the example you give, I'd call the first two clauses acceptable, and the remaining clauses as references to the player behind the nation, which under this would qualify it for deletion. What I'm trying to do with the new rule is to get people to focus before they write that sort of rubbish on what it was the actual nation did.

[Todd McCloud]

No dice. I still don't really see why this had to become a rule. If those causing problems were the main cause of such a sudden and swift rule change (which was not totally discussed by the main players of the SC or other competent players), then punish them, not the entire group. Change the rules to reflect their actions, not the actions of the body. Really, the beauty of the SC was that there was no clear cut law on how proposals should be written, aside from the very basic rules. This posed a problem at first, but people eventually settled in and things gradually settled down. Now the rules are to change again? As Krull pointed out, rules that will cause alienation between gameplayers, many of which are unfamiliar with the definitions of IC and OOC for that matter?

All because a few abused the system?

I, for one, would have my faith restored in this system if I saw this rule removed. It would really impress me to see that, honestly, because I know it is difficult to remove something that was put into place. But I am hopeful. Now, a rule on flaming would be more than appropriate, since this seems to be the root cause, and would not affect those who are "caught in the crossfire", so to speak. I would not mind writing more C&C's in the future. But if I have to write it in such a manner where I have to hide the efforts of players by masking their works and accomplishments by IC jargon so that it "fits the mold", what's the point? How disappointing would it be to see Kandarin's commendation ICly? Or Goob's? Or Imagy Nation's? Wouldn't doing that deter from their accomplishments? To turn Goob's NSwiki into "an international catalog of national events, phenomena, flags, etc" deter from the very basic "Praises Goobergunchia for the creation of NSwiki?" It just seems shallow to me.

Please give us back our ability to choose how we feel a C&C should be written.

[Gangal]

One problem that nags at me is the Kandarin commendation. During the debates, he mentioned that he RPd his nation as an evil one. It would have been difficult or impossible to commend his RP nation. His commendation was for his OOC activities as the Delegate of The Rejected Realms, not his RPd nation. How would this new rule impact that? Even if Kandy were "grandfathered" in, there could easily be another nation that was commend-worthy for OOC rather than IC reasons.