NationStates

(Proposed) Security Council Rules for Proposals [v1.0]

Proposal Basics: Proposals must be written as laws, not commentaries, editorials, etc.

• Originality: Proposals cannot contradict or duplicate active resolutions. Ideally, proposals will present unique ideas.
  
  • Contradiction: If a nation or region has been commended, a condemnation proposal cannot use the same reasons used in the commendations without providing additional details as to why the actions are actually worthy of a condemnation. The same goes for the reverse situation in which a nation/region is condemned and a commendation is proposed.
    
  • Duplication: Nominees can be commended, condemned, or liberated multiple times - so long as the proposals are based on different sets of actions. If the commendation/condemnation/liberation uses similar behavior as the first, it must explain what's different about it now that means that it warrants another commendation/condemnation/liberation.
• Purpose: Commendations/Condemnation can only commend/condemn the nominee, Liberations can only liberate the targeted region, and Repeals can only repeal the targeted resolution. For example, proposals cannot impose fines, sanctions or a boycott on a condemned nation.
• Category: Proposals must be submitted under the appropriate category. A proposal submitted as a condemnation for a region can't also seek to liberate that region.
• Operative Clause: Proposals must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does, e.g. commends, condemns, liberates, or repeals.
  
  • Operative clauses must contain the full name of the nominee. For example, "Hereby Commends Sedgistan" is legal whereas "Hereby Commends Sedge" is not.
• Viewpoint: Your proposal must read as representing the opinion of the World Assembly, and as targeting a nation or region.
  
  • Proposals should not refer to the personal characteristics of the player behind the nation ("good roleplayer" "always rude" "bad speller") but to NationStates actions.
  • Proposals cannot use pronouns such as ‘I’ or ‘we’ but can use personal pronouns to refer to characters from the nominee, such as a nation’s Leader or World Assembly Ambassador.
• Venue: The Security Council is not an alternative to reporting rule-breaking behavior. Alleged misconduct should be reported to the site Moderators via filing a Getting Help Request.
  
  • Acknowledging actions that led to Moderator intervention is allowed.
• Language: Proposals must use understandable English. Conventional legalese and Latin terms are acceptable within reason. Proposals written in incomprehensible English or a foreign language will be deleted.
• Branding: Proposals can list up to three co-authors so long as the co-authors substantively helped with the proposal. Advertising is strictly prohibited.
  
  • Using a group nation e.g. ‘The North Pacific WA Committee’ to acknowledge a large collaborative project is allowed.

Repeal Basics: Resolutions are not written in stone.

• Amendments: Proposals cannot amend existing resolutions because the game's coding does not allow for it. To introduce new legislation, the active resolution must be repealed.
• Repeals: Repeals can only be submitted by clicking the repeal link at the foot of the target resolution. Repeals submitted using anything but the repeal function are automatically removed. Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.
  
  • Small inaccuracies ('Honest Mistakes') and rules violations in the target resolution are not acceptable reasons for a repeal.

Meta-Gaming: There are aspects of gameplay and the game itself that cannot be legislated on, either because it requires changes to the game’s code or it breaks the 'fourth wall'.

• Game Mechanics: Proposals can not affect any aspect of how the game works. This includes and is not limited to mandating ejection of nations from liberated regions or forcing a condemned nation/region to change their behavior. Suggestions for improving or modifying gameplay can be posted in the Technical forum.
• 'Fourth Wall': Proposals cannot reference anything outside the world of Nations or use language that implies that NationStates is a game. Most in-game terms are acceptable, but a few can only be reasonably interpreted as game mechanics e.g. "Game-Created Region", "User-Created Region", or the "Issues Player" region tag.
• Site Staff: Members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors etc.) cannot be commended/condemned for actions taken as part of their role.
  • General Assembly Secretariat members can be commended/condemned for their passed resolutions and advice given to other authors but not for deciding the legality of General Assembly proposals.
  • Issue Editors can be commended/condemned for issues published before becoming an editor or submitted after leaving the editorial staff but not for editing or writing issues while an editor.
  • Roleplay Mentors may be commended/condemned for actions committed during roleplay but not for mentoring other players while a Roleplay Mentor.
  • Admins can be commended/condemned for tools created independent of their role as site admin, but not for improvements made to the NationStates site.

REMINDER: Proposals must comply with the site's general One Stop Rules Shop

• Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the theft of another person's work. If a player wishes to submit another person's proposal, explicit permission must be obtained and submitted either through the Getting Help page or Moderation so we have a paper trail. If not, the offender is ejected and the proposal is deleted.

Responses to Violations

Penalties

• Proposal Removal: When a proposal is removed for any of the above violations, the player will be notified via the Moderator Status line on the proposal page. For egregious violations, a Voice of Mod telegram may be sent to the author.
• Ejection: A player who has repeated submission of illegal proposals will result in removal from the WA. The exception to this is for plagiarism and extraordinary cases. Exceptionally severe infractions will earn an instant ejection.
• Exceptions: Warnings and ejections will not be issued under the following circumstances:
  
  • Accidental submission of multiple copies of your proposal, however, may get warned for spamming if it appears that it was more than an accidental double post. The proposal author can remove their own proposals via the link on the proposal page.

Previous Revisions:

---

Yes I realize this is basically the embodiment of an XKCD comic, but both semi-recent attempts to revise the SC Rules have ended with little progress achieved.

When writing this proposal, I had several goals I wanted to achieve, namely:

1. Get rid of the numbering;
2. Make the rules accurately reflect past mod rulings; and
3. Create a relatively comprehensive ruleset so you don't have to open 18 billion tabs just to understand what's legal and what's not.

I know some might not like it for some of the above reasons, but I think the changes are overall a net positive for the SC. I hate having to reference rules by their number. Just being able to call them by their name makes things easier on all parties: the author, the commenters, and the mods. Same goes for lengthening the rules post. While it's a lot longer than the current one, it really isn't very different compared to all the supplemental you have to read with the current setup.

I purposefully used large chunks of the GA rules because I like them and I think it's a pretty good format. Some of the language might still need to be tweaked. I also tried to write as little myself and use more official sources whenever possible.

I tried not to change most of the rules as far as I understood them. The only things I consciously changed were omitting both Tit-for-Tat and Joke Proposals as I feel both should be left up to the voters. In general, I want to remove subjectivity when possible so moderators can focus on objective judgments.

If things need to be changed or clarified, please say so! I want this draft to be torn to shreds so we can eventually create an even better version.

Generally supportive. A bit of feedback, though.

The contradiction/duplication sections could use some lightening up - As far as I can tell, based off of the rulings compendium, light contradiction/duplication is allowed. It also may be worth mentioning that elaboration on formerly recognized actions is permitted. (E.G. Condemn 1 says "Condemn Testlandia for committing genocide" and Condemn 2 says "Condemn Testlandia for committing the General Genocide, ultimately slaughtering over 10,000 Generalites" - my understanding is Condemn 2 would still be legal, even if Condemn 1 remains extant)

Purpose/Category/Operative Clauses could probably be combined into one rule, just for simplification. Something like this would probably do wonders:

All proposals must have an operative clause that correlates to the category it is submitted under (either Condemnation, Commendation, or Liberation), and that is the only operative action that each proposal can make. This includes actions that the Security Council can accomplish (a commendation cannot also liberate, etc.) and actions that the Security Council [i]cannot/i] accomplish (a condemnation cannot impose fines onto the condemned nation). Each proposal can also target only one nation or region.

I also think that the subclause of the current "Operative Clause" section is unnecessary - I can't find any rulings on that (though I admittedly looked only briefly), and it seems kinda silly anyways (especially if the nominee was given an established nickname earlier in the proposal).

I think that "Viewpoint" should be renamed to "Perspective", but that's picky. I also think the first subclause under Viewpoint should be moved to the "Fourth Wall" section.

Under "Branding", the 3 co-author limit is merely a suggestion and not a set-in-stone rule. I think that it would be worth mentioning that you cannot reference the submitting nation as the author of the proposal, nor can you cite someone who didn't help in drafting as a co-author. The subclause under there should also probably reference some individual region ("Testregionia" for instance).

Under "Fourth Wall", it's probably worth mentioning that referencing game mechanics is permitted, so long as it does not actually explicitly mention it.

Under "Site Staff", you managed to miss Moderators in your explanations subclasses.

---

That's all I saw on a first run-through. Again, I'm generally supportive of this.

Drasnia wrote:Repeal Basics: Resolutions are not written in stone.
Amendments: Proposals cannot amend existing resolutions because the game's coding does not allow for it. To introduce new legislation, the active resolution must be repealed.
Repeals: Repeals can only be submitted by clicking the repeal link at the foot of the target resolution. Repeals submitted using anything but the repeal function are automatically removed. Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.
Small inaccuracies ('Honest Mistakes') and rules violations in the target resolution are not acceptable reasons for a repeal.

I would caution against using the same terms as those used in the GA. This is because, not only we in the GA would not be plussed about misapplication of those terms, I would expect SC regulars could be irritated also.

Drasnia wrote:

Proposal Basics: Proposals must be written as laws, not commentaries, editorials, etc.

Proposals are not laws. Proposals should not be laws. SC Proposals are resolutions. To my understanding, they differ from laws, because they don't necessarily govern anything.

Furthermore, SC resolutions don't even have to be written as resolutions, to my knowledge. Commend Haiku is the best example of a resolutions which... wasn't a resolution. Commend Yelda would've been another example. In my opinion, any resolution which does not start with "The Security Council," (or similar) is not a resolution, as they would not be sentences. Those proposals are tolerated, as SC formatting rules are very relaxed; much more relaxed than this ruleset.

Drasnia wrote:

• Originality: Proposals cannot contradict or duplicate active resolutions. Ideally, proposals will present unique ideas.

You seem to understand this judging by the sections below, but this is a misleading characterization of rule 2(b). Resolutions are not laws, so they can contradict and duplicate each other. Resolutions can notably contradict values and perspectives of other resolutions (e.g. commending and subsequently condemning for the same cards strategy). But, interestingly, there doesn't seem to be anything against me commending Player A for a certain action, then condemning Player B for participating in the exact same action. Resolutions can also duplicate values, nominees, perspectives, evidence (provided the nominees are different), categories, etc.

Drasnia wrote:

• Contradiction: If a nation or region has been commended, a condemnation proposal cannot use the same reasons used in the commendations without providing additional details as to why the actions are actually worthy of a condemnation. The same goes for the reverse situation in which a nation/region is condemned and a commendation is proposed.
  
• Duplication: Nominees can be commended, condemned, or liberated multiple times - so long as the proposals are based on different sets of actions. If the commendation/condemnation/liberation uses similar behavior as the first, it must explain what's different about it now that means that it warrants another commendation/condemnation/liberation.

These are conceptually the same thing, so they should be combined. The rules are either confusing, wrong, or both:

Rule 2(d) paraphrased:

You cannot use the same evidence or reason for a proposal as is already being used by an active resolution for the same nominee. For example, you may not condemn Examplestan for raiding Testregionia when Examplestan has already been condemned for raiding Testregionia (and that condemnation has not been repealed). You may still:

• Condemn Examplestan for raiding a different region.
  
• Condemn a different nation for raiding Testregionia.
• Condemn Examplestan for raiding Testregionia on a different occasion from the one already mentioned.

without providing additional details as to why the actions are actually worthy of a condemnation.

So this is wrong. Saying that the reason was better fit for a condemnation than a commendation is not an adequate exception to the rule.

If the commendation/condemnation/liberation uses similar behavior as the first, it must explain what's different about it now that means that it warrants another commendation/condemnation/liberation.

And this too. Resolutions don't have to explain that they fit rule 2(b). That's a big waste of time. The burden of proof is on the community and moderators if they believe a resolution is illegal. If that were not the case, resolutions would be illegal by default.

Drasnia wrote:

• Operative Clause: Proposals must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does, e.g. commends, condemns, liberates, or repeals.

"E.g." means "for example" . What you're looking for is "i.e.", meaning "in other words". I point this out not to nitpick, but because "e.g." suggests that there are other forms of operative clause (like sanctions).

Drasnia wrote:

• Operative clauses must contain the full name of the nominee. For example, "Hereby Commends Sedgistan" is legal whereas "Hereby Commends Sedge" is not.

You should also clarify that pretitles should not be included.

Drasnia wrote:

Proposals cannot use pronouns such as ‘I’ or ‘we’ but can use personal pronouns to refer to characters from the nominee, such as a nation’s Leader or World Assembly Ambassador.

To better explain this rule, proposals are actually third person accounts of the SC's opinion/actions -- "The Security Council, noting [blank], condemns Drasnia". That's why "we" is not allowed. That's also why you can't say "To the Security Council,".

Drasnia wrote:

• Branding: Proposals can list up to three co-authors so long as the co-authors substantively helped with the proposal. Advertising is strictly prohibited.

This is a GA rule none of us want. I don't think there is a co-author limit in the SC.

Drasnia wrote:

• Amendments: Proposals cannot amend existing resolutions because the game's coding does not allow for it. To introduce new legislation, the active resolution must be repealed.

Resolutions aren't legislation. "To introduce a resolution which violates the duplication/contradiction rule or make a better version of a resolution...".

Drasnia wrote:

• Repeals: Repeals can only be submitted by clicking the repeal link at the foot of the target resolution. Repeals submitted using anything but the repeal function are automatically removed. Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.

The link rule only exists because of GA#1. It's completely irrelevant to the SC.

You should give an example of the second rule. In a repeal, you cannot just say "[Commendee] is not commendable". You have to say why the evidence provided in the commendation is misleading, wrong, or generally isn't adequate evidence for commendation. This took me a while to interpret out of 2(d), which is very ambiguous.

Drasnia wrote:

• Small inaccuracies ('Honest Mistakes') and rules violations in the target resolution are not acceptable reasons for a repeal.

I would love if they weren't, but honest mistakes are perfectly fine for repeals. See all the repeals supplemented by grammar mistakes and ambiguity. As for rules violations, clarify that you're referring to SC rules. This could be interpreted as "You can't repeal a commendation because the nation broke a rule". The general description is "Passed resolutions are legal by default".

Drasnia wrote:

Meta-Gaming: There are aspects of gameplay and the game itself that cannot be legislated on, either because it requires changes to the game’s code or it breaks the 'fourth wall'.

Not legislation.

Drasnia wrote:

• 'Fourth Wall': Proposals cannot reference anything outside the world of Nations or use language that implies that NationStates is a game. Most in-game terms are acceptable, but a few can only be reasonably interpreted as game mechanics e.g. "Game-Created Region", "User-Created Region", or the "Issues Player" region tag.

There's a set of legal terms and a rubric here which is useful.

Drasnia wrote:

• Site Staff: Members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors etc.) cannot be commended/condemned for actions taken as part of their role.
  • General Assembly Secretariat members can be commended/condemned for their passed resolutions and advice given to other authors but not for deciding the legality of General Assembly proposals.
  • Issue Editors can be commended/condemned for issues published before becoming an editor or submitted after leaving the editorial staff but not for editing or writing issues while an editor.
  • Roleplay Mentors may be commended/condemned for actions committed during roleplay but not for mentoring other players while a Roleplay Mentor.
  • Admins can be commended/condemned for tools created independent of their role as site admin, but not for improvements made to the NationStates site.

Poor moderators being ignored. The overarching theme of Rule 1 is that players cannot be commended/condemned for actions taken with powers/status unavailable to non-staff. So creating the dark theme cannot be commended, despite Northrop-Grumman not being an official site staff member. And being a site tester can't be commended either. Etc. That's how I phrased my version of the rule:

It is illegal to commend or condemn a nation for any work created using back-end access or access not given to most players, or condemn or commend a member of site staff for actions taken as part of their role.

Drasnia wrote:

• Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the theft of another person's work. If a player wishes to submit another person's proposal, explicit permission must be obtained and submitted either through the Getting Help page or Moderation so we have a paper trail. If not, the offender is ejected and the proposal is deleted.

[/list]

I believe any onsite permission is alright.

Drasnia wrote:[*]Ejection: A player who has repeated submission of illegal proposals will result in removal from the WA. The exception to this is for plagiarism and extraordinary cases. Exceptionally severe infractions will earn an instant ejection.

"Exception" sounds like you don't get ejected, when, in reality, you get ejected immediately.

Drasnia wrote:

Proposal Basics: Proposals must be written as laws, not commentaries, editorials, etc.

[*]Originality: Proposals cannot contradict or duplicate active resolutions. Ideally, proposals will present unique ideas.

I'm against the idea of writing proposals as laws, given that a bit of creativity, as Bormiar said, led to unique resolutions such as Commend Haiku. The SC has a format it likes and generally sticks with that. There are very few deviations to the norm. Resolutions are not laws and a lot of this feels like trying to impose the GA standards on the SC people.

Not to mention that this:

Originality: Proposals cannot contradict or duplicate active resolutions. Ideally, proposals will present unique ideas.

Is a problem. In the SC, numerous notable actions have been comprised of efforts by many, and excluding one leader of a major operation or political maneuver because someone else got credit for it first would be disingenuous and essentially grant all recognition to one person and take it from someone who might have actually contributed even more to that event. Contradiction is also subjective, since one person might see an event differently than another. This is a problematic rule and very GA-esque. It won't fit in the SC.

Not gonna lie, I want to see more Resolutions like Commend Haiku or Commend Yelda. Poetry is always more interesting than legal texts.

I just want to pop in and thank everyone who's commented so far. I definitely see where I've inadvertently strayed pretty far. Hopefully I'll be able to give in depth responses and edit the OP tomorrow. Unfortunately, I'm pretty busy all afternoon/evening today.

In the mean time, please keep the comments coming!

The SC rules are due a reorganisation. When I put the Compendium together back in 2010 it was a novel idea to actually record all the rulings mods made (rather than relying on players'/mods' memories of them) and for about two days after posting it I was still a regular player -- so it went in a separate thread to the main rules.

It's not ideal having effectively two rules threads though. It originally appealed to me to have a "beginners' rules" which was the main thread,and the Compendium was for the veterans, but I don't think it actually makes the SC rules more accessible. Therefore at a minimum, the two documents need to be combined.

I haven't yet worked out the best way of doing that - whether it's a first post with the basic rules, and expanded rulilings/detailing in subsequent posts (which wouldn't be much more than combining the two threads), or a more ambitious attempt at writing slightly longer rules and having full explanations in spoilers under each one that detail all the rulings made on niche cases.

There's certainly some rewriting that needs doing for the rules, however I do not agree with the anal retentive strict GA style approach with set formating, limits on branding and so on. The SC rules are deliberately light-touch. It's the more accessible chamber of the WA, and it offers players the freedom to write in their own styles and do a bit more politicking with their proposals. We want players to be setting their own standards, not a top-down mod dictated style. Since I've been back, the direction we've been taking as a team with the rules is to loosen them up even further, and that's the way I want to see things continuing.

Sorting out the rules is on a list of projects I intend to get done this year... but as to when I actually get down to it really depends on when the whim strikes me - it could be tomorrow, it could be December 24th.

I don't want to discourage efforts here, because I do take on board the arguments made, and it's highly likely the re-written ruleset will plagiarise ideas and wordings from the recent re-write attempts. Plus the longer this goes on the more likely it is that I'll drop the other stuff I'm doing and focus on this instead.