4th rule clarification

[Urgench]

Why aren't we leaving this to the delegates to decide though? I mean, if a condemnation is solely based on a personal conflict that doesn't concern the World Assembly, that sounds like a good reason to vote it down like the current resolution, or repeal it, with "Condemn Ninja Awesome Pirate Whatever.."...

No?

No. Unibot this isn't some grass roots democracy gig, and how do you expect Delegates to know squat about anything? They regularly approve all kinds of illegal/batshit crazy rubbish. Why would that change?

[Naivetry]

And that's exactly the kind of nebulous, impossible-to-descry-on-appearances sort of thing which causes problems from the perspective of making C&Cs congruent with the way the WA functions as a part of the game. Ultimately the 4th rule seems like an attempt to standardise and rectify how GP is expressed in WA language.

Agreed, but the interpretations of the rule that I've seen suggested would take it out of the realm of Gameplay entirely. I would be perfectly happy with an interpretation that said you could only Condemn someone's actions in the game (again, where "game" includes the offsite entities which exist because of NationStates), rather than their personal character, and if that means I have to find ways to finagle things like Condemn Aegara so that I'm criticizing his actions alone, then that's perfect. That's the kind of rules-lawyering that I think would both help people to think through what they're saying, and be bizarrely fun.

Not an IC/OOC "it has to sound like something that would happen in a nation" standard. A standard of characterizing/criticizing actions instead of persons.

Fingers also crossed.

*runs off to eat dinner/grade exams*

[Unibot]

Why aren't we leaving this to the delegates to decide though? I mean, if a condemnation is solely based on a personal conflict that doesn't concern the World Assembly, that sounds like a good reason to vote it down like the current resolution, or repeal it, with "Condemn Ninja Awesome Pirate Whatever.."...

No?

No. Unibot this isn't some grass roots democracy gig, and how do you expect Delegates to know squat about anything? They regularly approve all kinds of illegal/batshit crazy rubbish. Why would that change?

Err.. these delegates know 'squat', because lobbyists work their arses off to tell them so -- like Nai and I swaying the delegates to vote against the current resolution (which is illegal without Rule #4). You know? Actually trying to play a game, instead of having rules that are incapable of differentiating between resolutions that are written in a traditional Gameplay dimension, and those that are grieving an individual. With a notable exception being "Condemn Nazi Europe", the voters have done well in the past to make that distinction, more so than this blunt rule will. Or atleast, they will make amends to fix the problems of the past with a repeal campaign.

Coming from someone who has actually enjoyed playing the Security Council side of things, one thing that made the culture of the SC so fun was that you could apply resolutions to so many things, because you had the freedom to do so, your only real restriction was what the voters thought of it. That's always been the real challenge, and in fact, it's been more fun to challenge myself with voters than the Secretariat, as we have to in the GA.

[Snefaldia]

Y'know, I can understand condemnations not being OOC, but commendations are a different story altogether. How many OOC commendations turn into all-out troll festivals?

Why should one half of a coin be shaped differently than the other?

[quote=Naivetry]Agreed, but the interpretations of the rule that I've seen suggested would take it out of the realm of Gameplay entirely. I would be perfectly happy with an interpretation that said you could only Condemn someone's actions in the game (again, where "game" includes the offsite entities which exist because of NationStates), rather than their personal character, and if that means I have to find ways to finagle things like Condemn Aegara so that I'm criticizing his actions alone, then that's perfect. That's the kind of rules-lawyering that I think would both help people to think through what they're saying, and be bizarrely fun.[/quote]

It's an opportunity to be creative with the way things are written. We can change a horrible C&C, like

AWARE of Minineenee's identity as Lady Phedre, the nation which recently seized the Delegacy of The East Pacific,

NOTING that Minineenee has admitted to taking over TEP not only to "increase activity" but just to see if she could,

BELIEVING this act to be inherently selfish and narcissistic,

DISGUSTED that Minineenee chose to conceal what she was doing from her "friends" in TWP...

Into something that makes sense for both parties (Q&D):

AWARE of Minineenee's status as a satellite of Lady Phedre, which recently seized control of The East Pacific,

NOTING that Minineenee has admitted to taking over said region for sheer thrill,

BELIEVING this act to be against the best interest of the region of the The East Pacific and the international community,

DISGUSTED that Minineenee chose to conceal such actions from supposed allies in TWP...

Granted, it sounds a bit strange, but it's the only thing that makes sense. Such wording as required by this rule is a compromise; it pay nominal service to this game as one of nation simulation, sounding in line with accepted WA rhetoric, while still accomplishing the act desired by the GP half of the community. I think it's fair to have some sort of compromise- GAers didn't like the nature of the Security Council because of the change in tenor, and GPers clearly don't like the way WAers construe game-reality... this meets in the middle, I think.

[Unibot]

Granted, it sounds a bit strange, but it's the only thing that makes sense. Such wording as required by this rule is a compromise; it pay nominal service to this game as one of nation simulation, sounding in line with accepted WA rhetoric, while still accomplishing the act desired by the GP half of the community. I think it's fair to have some sort of compromise- GAers didn't like the nature of the Security Council because of the change in tenor, and GPers clearly don't like the way WAers construe game-reality... this meets in the middle, I think.

Not to be Jonny-Raincloud, because I think you're doing a great thing by trying to strike a compromise.

Buuut...

Didn't we just split the voting floors to avoid the cross-bureau snipping?

~~~

Maybe its just me, but I don't see the reasoning behind Rule #4 as an attempt to harmonize the World Assembly's dimensions (or whatever you want to call it), because I don't see that as having been a problem since the split floors.

[Snefaldia]

Whatever the motivations were, it makes sense to have to mutually intelligible rulesets that keep the syntax of the game in harmony. I'm not advocating for a return to the single voting floors, because I actually thing it's a great idea to have two separate floors with different responsibilities.

I'm looking at this as if there is a silver lining hidden in Johnny Raincloud's gruff, scary exterior. I don't see a contradiction between this rule and the apparent reasoning behind the split.

[Omigodtheyplutoedkenny]

I might be wrong, but I think Lady Phedre was the puppet.

[Minineenee]

I might be wrong, but I think Lady Phedre was the puppet.

No, you are right. Lady Phedre was the puppet nation.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

I know what your saying, Snefaldia.

But in the past few months, particularly after the split, I've been apart of a community that has grown quite a bit, and it has a culture, albeit different than what the GA has. When an author wishes to write a Com. or Con., they use to have to make a decision to either do it IC or OOC, and part of the challenge was deciding which would be more effective. Even though Kenny is one of my heroes (regardless of if he'd ever want to show his face in public again because of that statement), I chose to condemn him in-character, because I thought it was more reflective of what he did for the World Assembly. I could have chosen an OOC resolution, but that wouldn't have been very reflective of Kenny's contributions to NationStates -- they were nearly always In-Character (turning a blind eye to, you know, his activity on NSwiki and whatnot). Oh My Days, one of the wisest players in the game, and a delegate I really respect, plans to write a commendation of Nai, even though Oh My Days is a raider -- he wrote a commendation of her that was OOC even for gameplay standards, the resolution transcended the ideological gameplay warfare with respect for each other's side. There was no better way to try and commend Nai, nothing could be more reflective of her contributions than that.

The Mosaic of different dimensions has made the process of writing a resolution and discussing it, something that isn't repetitive, and more thought has to be put into writing it -- for example, Sedge has had to discuss for months if he should condemn the Skeleton Army in-character, or commend them out-of-character. The freedom of both OOC and IC proposals is something that 'veterens' of the Security Council have become quite comfortable with -- we can easily say, 'this is an OOC one' or 'this is an IC one' -- it's the freedom to decide that makes the Security Council the place it is that some of us enjoy. One week I could decide to condemn a slave-trader, and then a few weeks later, I could tackle commending a defender.

[Yelda]

NOTING Lady Phedre's unlawful seizure of the Delegacy of The East Pacific from its long-standing Delegate, Gnidrah,

DISTURBED by the rhetoric of religious fanaticism and unbridled military imperialism employed by Lady Phedre's new regional government, self-styled "The Empire",

DISMAYED by Lady Phedre's creation of a new "official" forum for the government of The East Pacific, in blatant disregard for its citizens' culture, traditions, and history,

NEWLY AWARE of Lady Phedre's identity as Minineenee of The West Pacific,

SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for her rise to power,

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's not how I would write it, but it doesn't bother me either.

AWARE of Minineenee's identity as Lady Phedre, the nation which recently seized the Delegacy of The East Pacific,

NOTING that Minineenee has admitted to taking over TEP not only to "increase activity" but just to see if she could,

BELIEVING this act to be inherently selfish and narcissistic,

DISGUSTED that Minineenee chose to conceal what she was doing from her "friends" in TWP...

This on the other hand is awful.

[Naivetry]

This on the other hand is awful.

Yup.

And the difference between the two - Gameplay-IC (=fine) vs. Gameplay-OOC (=horrid) - has nothing to do with restricting it to talk about 'nations as nations', and everything to do with attacking actions instead of persons.

[Krioval]

NOTING Lady Phedre's unlawful seizure of the Delegacy of The East Pacific from its long-standing Delegate, Gnidrah,

DISTURBED by the rhetoric of religious fanaticism and unbridled military imperialism employed by Lady Phedre's new regional government, self-styled "The Empire",

DISMAYED by Lady Phedre's creation of a new "official" forum for the government of The East Pacific, in blatant disregard for its citizens' culture, traditions, and history,

NEWLY AWARE of Lady Phedre's identity as Minineenee of The West Pacific,

SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for her rise to power,

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's not how I would write it, but it doesn't bother me either.

Just to add a bit, I think it's fine because of the ambiguity - one could read it as referring to the nation or the person. I think that plausibility should be the standard, in that so long as "the person" isn't directly mentioned, it should still work. But that's me.

[Morgan Avery]

The Mosaic of different dimensions has made the process of writing a resolution and discussing it, something that isn't repetitive, and more thought has to be put into writing it -- for example, Sedge has had to discuss for months if he should condemn the Skeleton Army in-character, or commend them out-of-character. The freedom of both OOC and IC proposals is something that 'veterens' of the Security Council have become quite comfortable with -- we can easily say, 'this is an OOC one' or 'this is an IC one' -- it's the freedom to decide that makes the Security Council the place it is that some of us enjoy. One week I could decide to condemn a slave-trader, and then a few weeks later, I could tackle commending a defender.

I agree with this part of what you said. I feel a little overwhelmed here b/c I'm a new delegate (so please don't eat me xD) but talking with some people from my region, they wanted to protest this new rule, too, but weren't sure how. Reading a bit of this thread, your post stuck out to me as the one that made the most sense, since I haven't been here long. I think it comes down to being able to simply write a proposal versus being able to write eloquently and skillfully, be it a proposal or anything.

[Ardchoille]

I'm fine with the literal meaning of the rule in question, which would imply that everything is as they were, barring the use of 'the player behind the nation'

Good. Now we’re cookin’ with gas.

However. <snip Ard quote> I’m not fine with the interpreted meaning, which seems to suggest that words like 'raiders', 'defenders', 'invasion', 'banjection' etc., the very mention of defender groups and other GP-related terms would be illegal, since they neither appear in the wording of the 'Liberation category' nor in the pages of individual nations.

No, it doesn’t mean that. I can’t see how a writer could talk about the things that happen to make a Liberation necessary without mentioning raiding, and where there’s raiding, there are raiders. The fact that you and an RPer give the word different flavours doesn’t matter. They still fit the intent of Rule 4. They sound like things nations would do. I don’t like “banjection”, since that’s not a word that could be used ambiguously, but “eject and ban” fits. Both “password” and “secret password” are covered by the phrase “Delegate-imposed barriers” in the category, but obviously it’s necessary to distinguish between them to discuss some Liberations, so you’d use them when you needed them.

I would be perfectly happy with an interpretation that said you could only Condemn someone's actions in the game … rather than their personal character, and if that means I have to find ways to finagle things like Condemn Aegara so that I'm criticizing his actions alone, then that's perfect. That's the kind of rules-lawyering that I think would both help people to think through what they're saying, and be bizarrely fun. (Ard: emphasis added)

That’s IT! I want you to rules-lawyer! And the bolded bit is why I want you to do it!

It’s not only the accidental flamers that Rule 4 is trying to stop (deliberate flamers, the mods can deal with). The rule is also for the proposals that condemn a player’s spelling, the ones that blast the delegate who allows “naughty words” (despite the fact that the words aren’t naughty at all, by NS rules). Of course a Condemnation will attack something -– how could it not? But it should be for something worthy of the attention of the SC: something a RL ambassador wouldn’t feel like an idiot standing and debating in a peak international forum. That’s what Rule 4 is intended to make proposal writers think about.

Nai, I’m sure you’ll notice the significant bit I snipped from your post. DON’T PANIC! There is a detail I want to raise in connection with all offsite forums, and I also want to go through the resolutions you cited, but it’s late here and I’ve got to get up for work in five hours, so I’ll put it in another post.

[Naivetry]

That’s IT! I want you to rules-lawyer! And the bolded bit is why I want you to do it!

Yes, I know. I'm just very skeptical (and now a little confused) about how saying proposals should not be "written entirely Out of Character" - given the disagreements between NS players about what OOC entails - is helpful towards that end. Which is why I'd be happier with an "actions, not persons" wording...

The rule is also for the proposals that condemn a player’s spelling, the ones that blast the delegate who allows “naughty words” (despite the fact that the words aren’t naughty at all, by NS rules).

But those could equally as well be written up in IC style:

"DEPLORING the numerous offenses against conventions of grammar and spelling committed in the official publications of NOOBX, which have become not only a source of ridicule but also confusion, frustration, and the occasional unfortunate nuclear incident for all those with whom NOOBX interacts,

OUTRAGED by NOOBX's refusal to enforce standards of civility and common decency in international communications..."

It seems like what you're getting at there is a question of whether something is worthy of the WA's time, but to a large extent that seems to be what the voting in the SC is all about. Not that I want to Condemn someone for misspellings or *coughs* godmodding, but in some ways that's what C/C's are all about... finding out how much people care, or how much you can make them.

Nai, I’m sure you’ll notice the significant bit I snipped from your post. DON’T PANIC!

Yes, I... okay. *eyes big red button nervously*

There is a detail I want to raise in connection with all offsite forums, and I also want to go through the resolutions you cited, but it’s late here and I’ve got to get up for work in five hours, so I’ll put it in another post.

Thanks, Ard. Looking forward to it.

Silly work, getting in the way of SRS FORUM BSNS. Clearly we should Condemn it.

[Krioval]

It seems like what you're getting at there is a question of whether something is worthy of the WA's time, but to a large extent that seems to be what the voting in the SC is all about. Not that I want to Condemn someone for misspellings or *coughs* godmodding, but in some ways that's what C/C's are all about... finding out how much people care, or how much you can make them.

The problem is that many delegates will approve almost anything, and counter-TG campaigns can be a pain in the butt to implement. Likewise for the floor vote, but even worse if a resolution takes off that quality control would prefer never see the light of day. I suppose I see the rules change as an attempt to head off a lot of the crap that's been, at least for me, making the SC experience a negative one. Otherwise, I think that I agree with your major points of late; feel free to point out any glaring trends to the opposite.

[Naivetry]

The problem is that many delegates will approve almost anything, and counter-TG campaigns can be a pain in the butt to implement. Likewise for the floor vote, but even worse if a resolution takes off that quality control would prefer never see the light of day. I suppose I see the rules change as an attempt to head off a lot of the crap that's been, at least for me, making the SC experience a negative one. Otherwise, I think that I agree with your major points of late; feel free to point out any glaring trends to the opposite.

I suppose I find counter-TG campaigns perversely fun. I honestly enjoy telegramming random people and seeing if I can change their mind on something; the chance to persuade is at least half of the thrill of NS for me. And as for the quality control, I have a dream that one day... one day the body of WA Delegates will be so well-educated on what is and is not a quality C/C, that they will shoot things down on their own.

(I know, I know... allow me my delusions... )

[Sedgistan]

I haven't had time to read through all this thread, but just thought of another possible problem (apologies if its already covered).

Would it still be possibly to condemn a raider's main nation for actions done with their puppet nations?

[Omigodtheyplutoedkenny]

Would it still be possibly to condemn a raider's main nation for actions done with their puppet nations?

Didn't Nai already demonstrate this with her proposed Lady Phedre condemnation?

[Enn]

I haven't had time to read through all this thread, but just thought of another possible problem (apologies if its already covered).

Would it still be possibly to condemn a raider's main nation for actions done with their puppet nations?

Given that in RL history there have been nations and governments referred to as 'puppets', I don't see that that would, in itself, be a problem. It would come down to specific phrasing, but leaving it open for broad interpretation sounds reasonable.

[Ardchoille]

Actually, I'd have preferred it if Nai had said

NEWLY AWARE that Lady Phedre was a puppet of Minineenee of The West Pacific

instead of

NEWLY AWARE of Lady Phedre's identity as Minineenee of The West Pacific

because RL nations can't "be" other nations, but it's not unusual to hear @@nation@@ described as "a puppet of the United States", or "a mouthpiece for the EU", or "a front for China". So "puppet" could very easily be read as referring to a nation.

[A mean old man]

Oh, this is so awkward...

[Ardchoille]

Oh, this is so awkward...

You know how it is, AMOM, I weren't brung up proper.

[JURISDICTIONS]

I sense that it is weird as well. Can't you just...I don't know... ban the proposals about the spelling, and proposals that talk about moderation actions, ect....Instead of banning OCC?

Really. You must note that nations are "accounts" and they have a player. You can't just stamp out people just talking to each other because NationStates as a whole is really one big ginormous forum!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, it's a game. A nation-simulation game, in fact, where the name of the game, so to speak, is to simulate as though you are nations interacting in a global setting. You can bray all you like on your offsites about how you're really "players" and "politicians," but as far as the game is concerned, you're nations.

Besides, I believe this matter has been settled. This rule does not require you to bend over backward to engage in roleplay when commending or condemning, just to observe a menial respect for the game's central purpose as a nation simulator: "Nations," not "players"; "puppets," not "identities"; "regional diplomacy," not "offsites." It's not a life-altering event.