SC Rules discussion

[Outer Sparta]

It definitely felt like opportunism given that the author basically wanted to use the player's ailing health as an excuse to push a proposal. If there were posthumous commendation proposals of NS regulars who died, wouldn't that also be inappropriate?

Tinhampton really does not strike me as the type. And they already have three Security Council Resolutions and a General Assembly Resolution under their belt, and co-authored three more. I'd maybe agree if this was someone with no prior authorship in the WA, but that clearly is not the case.

Still, using a player's health to push for a commendation (which obviously Owl doesn't qualify) seems wrong regardless of intent.

[Lord Dominator]

It definitely felt like opportunism given that the author basically wanted to use the player's ailing health as an excuse to push a proposal. If there were posthumous commendation proposals of NS regulars who died, wouldn't that also be inappropriate?

Tinhampton really does not strike me as the type. And they already have three Security Council Resolutions and a General Assembly Resolution under their belt, and co-authored three more. I'd maybe agree if this was someone with no prior authorship in the WA, but that clearly is not the case.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=498214

[The New California Republic]

Tinhampton really does not strike me as the type. And they already have three Security Council Resolutions and a General Assembly Resolution under their belt, and co-authored three more. I'd maybe agree if this was someone with no prior authorship in the WA, but that clearly is not the case.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=498214

There's a world of difference between that and saying there was an attempt to take advantage of someone's illness.

[Praeceps]

I think it should be against the rules regardless of whether it is currently against the rules as written or not. I think commendations or condemnations for RL actions are inappropriate. I would have thought that Rule 3 covers, with 3b being the best rule for it, apparently Sedge disagrees. Nevertheless, I agree with the action taken, would we really want a condemnation based on a nation saying they're leaving NS because they have to go to prison or something? RL is best kept out of the SC.

[Outer Sparta]

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=498214

There's a world of difference between that and saying there was an attempt to take advantage of someone's illness.

Any real-life actions by an individual should not be reflected in any SC commendation/condemnation. Not only that, I also still feel it's disrespectful to use a person's illness to write a commendation that only revolves around that.

[Refuge Isle]

I think it should be against the rules regardless of whether it is currently against the rules as written or not. I think commendations or condemnations for RL actions are inappropriate. I would have thought that Rule 3 covers, with 3b being the best rule for it, apparently Sedge disagrees. Nevertheless, I agree with the action taken, would we really want a condemnation based on a nation saying they're leaving NS because they have to go to prison or something? RL is best kept out of the SC.

Breaking with tradition, I agree with everything Praeceps said.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

My tuppence worth: glad to see Sedge discard the proposal, I just think it was wrong on all sorts of levels, but that’s just my personal opinion.

As to the ruling - a RL situation thinly disguised as IC? I’m completely in agreement with Praeceps on this. Keep it out of the SC.

[CoraSpia]

On Sedge’s statements on Discord, I can’t say I care. The proposal in question is fairly obviously about a player’s rl health (which is not an appropriate topic for the SC) - that the rules may not specifically prohibit proposals is to my mind is a reasonable oversight and Sedge ruling as such is plenty reasonable.

What is 'appropriate' for the SC is so subjective as to be meaningless, which is why we have published rules. If Tinhampton believes that a players health is appropriate for the SC and no rule has previously created stating that it isn't, it is down to the delegates and WA members to send that message. The issue I have isn't so much about the proposal but about mods deciding to pull new rules from their arses.

[CoraSpia]

I think it should be against the rules regardless of whether it is currently against the rules as written or not. I think commendations or condemnations for RL actions are inappropriate. I would have thought that Rule 3 covers, with 3b being the best rule for it, apparently Sedge disagrees. Nevertheless, I agree with the action taken, would we really want a condemnation based on a nation saying they're leaving NS because they have to go to prison or something? RL is best kept out of the SC.

That's still not relevant. It would be relevant if, after this proposal had run its course, somebody decided to make a thread in moderation regarding whether rule 3 should be enforced more strictly to prohibit that sort of thing. Given that nobody has raised that and no rule changes were made, we are now in the strange situation when a ruling has been made based on a rule that does not exist. Given the precedent that this creates and the lack of clarity concerning whether this is legal in other areas of the site, I think it's time for an admin to address this.

[Owlograd]

Just to be clear:

This proposal clearly hinged on my tumour bud, which I disapprove of. I also have done nothing to be commended. This proposal is either an act of good will, or a strategic move in the greater chess game. I lean towards one side heavily. Also, this was going to cause outrage either way. It could be discarded, and then all the previous shenanigans would go down, but if it passed, it would most likely not come into action, prompting owl madness, and if it somehow did come into action, all who voted against would be in uproar, and I’d have to repeal it.

[Wrapper]

I think it should be against the rules regardless of whether it is currently against the rules as written or not. I think commendations or condemnations for RL actions are inappropriate. I would have thought that Rule 3 covers, with 3b being the best rule for it, apparently Sedge disagrees. Nevertheless, I agree with the action taken, would we really want a condemnation based on a nation saying they're leaving NS because they have to go to prison or something? RL is best kept out of the SC.

Any real-life actions by an individual should not be reflected in any SC commendation/condemnation. Not only that, I also still feel it's disrespectful to use a person's illness to write a commendation that only revolves around that.

I just think it was wrong on all sorts of levels, but that’s just my personal opinion.

et al.

I have to agree with these sentiments. Obligatory "not a mod (anymore)" so what I have to say has absolutely no authority behind it, but, even if the proposal doesn't per se violate any of the rules as rewritten, were I still sitting in Sedge's seat, I would have reluctantly referenced 2b (4th Wall, real world) and marked it illegal. Such sensitive topics really have no place in the SC and can make the target feel extremely uncomfortable, which is the complete opposite of the intent of the author in this case.

Given that nobody has raised that and no rule changes were made, we are now in the strange situation when a ruling has been made based on a rule that does not exist. Given the precedent that this creates and the lack of clarity concerning whether this is legal in other areas of the site, I think it's time for an admin to address this.

It's hardly a "strange situation" nor a new precedent. There have been times in the past where something wasn't quite covered by the rules, so rulings were made (both in favor and against), and references to such rulings were added to the rules thread. For example, acrostics that advertise for a region or raiding group, certain legal/illegal terms, poetry, etc., were initially not covered by the rules at the time, and such rulings were added to the rules thread.

[Luna Amore]

On Sedge’s statements on Discord, I can’t say I care. The proposal in question is fairly obviously about a player’s rl health (which is not an appropriate topic for the SC) - that the rules may not specifically prohibit proposals is to my mind is a reasonable oversight and Sedge ruling as such is plenty reasonable.

What is 'appropriate' for the SC is so subjective as to be meaningless, which is why we have published rules. If Tinhampton believes that a players health is appropriate for the SC and no rule has previously created stating that it isn't, it is down to the delegates and WA members to send that message. The issue I have isn't so much about the proposal but about mods deciding to pull new rules from their arses.

There’s specifically a rule about the 4th wall that covers this just fine from my perspective.

Shifting the cancer to the leader of @@NAME@@ does not change the fact that it is a player’s real life medical issues and that is so obviously a break of the 4th wall that it’s more than a little a confusing why you are pretending Sedge did something unusual in tossing it.

[Unibot III]

In my opinion, the resolution proposal is a violation of 1B. The resolution is focused on why the leader of Owlograd ought to be commended, but it does not materially address why Owlograd ought to be commended.

WA Commendations can only commend nations or regions, so the opportunity to commend singular roleplayed characters within a nation is limited because the WA Commendation has to serve as a commendation of the nation and its actions, not just a single character (even a leader). This is why the WA Commendations usually focus on the accomplishments, roleplayed or not, of the nominated nation, and not their leaders or other characters in the nation.

If, for instance, the resolution had focused on the accomplishments of Owlograd, and then in a single subclause affirmed the WA's support for the nominee's leader in the wake of their diagnosis, the resolution should have cleared Rule 1B &, I feel, 2.

I personally don't think the resolution violated Rule 2 (Rule 4, c'mon). I don't agree that Rule 2 prohibits the veiled discussion of a player's health, I would argue Rule 2 prohibits the unveiled discussion of a player's health.

The reason why we don't discuss a player's health in WA resolutions is it's usually not relevant to the WA resolution at hand - and relevancy is an important test here and a big wall to climb. It's a tall order. If you're going to discuss a player's health in a WA resolution, I think you've got to clear a series of not so insignificant tests:

1. Relevancy - Rule 1B. It has to be relevant, and the more the discussion forms a central part of the resolution, the more relevant the discussion has to be relevant to the condemnation/condemnation of the nominee.

2. Ambiguity - Rule 2. The discussion has to take place in a way that is understandable from the perspective of the WA. That is to say, the discussion has to be veiled & inprecise.

3. Privacy - Rule 3C. The discussion cannot controvene the site rules that protect player's privacy - privacy violations are a major site rule. This is another way of saying that the discussion should, in some shape or form, be consented to by the player.

In this case, Owlograd shared his diagnosis to all of the NS in a dispatch, so I can't imagine he views the resolution as a privacy violation. But I think we could imagine other scenerios where players wanted the state of their health to remain private.

Let's imagine, for instance, someone's WA Commendation being repealed for couping the region they were commended for leading, and then we found out later they were undergoing a serious mental health or substance abuse problem, and they're recovering - and regretful for their behaviour - and should be forgiven for their actions over that period of time.* I could see an author making a veiled remark about the nation's rehabilitation, recovery, and remorse in a replacement commendation. It seems plausible to me that this kind of a reference could pass Rule 1B, 2, and 3C.

I don't think that the rules as we've concieved them wholesale prohibit the discussion of a player's health but each rule - 1, 2, 3 - tightly knit together a series of tests that such a discussion has to overcome to survive, and therefore, the ruleset as a whole renders the possibilities for the discussion of a player's health to be very rare and limited in WA resolutions, because any discussion of a player's health in a WA resolution has to be relevant, tactful, and consensual.

* I don't think this is an academic hypothetical, I think it seems like a very plausible scenerio.

[Nova Vandalia]

For what it's worth I don't envy Sedge for having to make the choice. I think he, as does most of the moderation typically do an admirable job.

First, my concern over the fact that we have some folks on this thread attacking the person who wrote a WA SC Proposal to give a person with terminal cancer a last hurrah on a website they dedicated a lot of their time to. Is that who we are, where a community who gets mad a people for being nice? Y'all need to calm down on the accusations.

I know some folks aren't Tinhampton fans, but gosh darn don't attack her for perceived mistakes you think she made before, in regards to her trying to do something nice now. We're more than a mistake we've made in the past. From what I know of Tin she wanted to genuinely give this person a positive moment on NS before they leave our community.

Is being mean to folks how we want this moment to be remembered?

Now moving on to the actually rule discussion. I agree with Sedge, it probably is illegal, he probably made the right call rule wise. That being said I don't think it was the right call for the community, that we allow the sanctity of rules to keep us from doing something meaningful for a person well loved in their niche of NS. To give them a nice moment, in a time in which they're facing something I think we can all agree is a pretty awful and horrifying thing that even the idea of facing ourselves scare the pants off of most of us.

I think the mods should break the rules here, and I think we should collectively ask them. I don't give a darn about the rule for one second if it means I can do something nice and meaningful for someone who might need it right now and I think most of would agree.

That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

Anyways. I'll go back to my little corner now.

[Outer Sparta]

For what it's worth I don't envy Sedge for having to make the choice. I think he, as does most of the moderation typically do an admirable job.

First, my concern over the fact that we have some folks on this thread attacking the person who wrote a WA SC Proposal to give a person with terminal cancer a last hurrah on a website they dedicated a lot of their time to. Is that who we are, where a community who gets mad a people for being nice? Y'all need to calm down on the accusations.

I know some folks aren't Tinhampton fans, but gosh darn don't attack her for perceived mistakes you think she made before, in regards to her trying to do something nice now. We're more than a mistake we've made in the past. From what I know of Tin she wanted to genuinely give this person a positive moment on NS before they leave our community.

Is being mean to folks how we want this moment to be remembered?

Now moving on to the actually rule discussion. I agree with Sedge, it probably is illegal, he probably made the right call rule wise. That being said I don't think it was the right call for the community, that we allow the sanctity of rules to keep us from doing something meaningful for a person well loved in their niche of NS. To give them a nice moment, in a time in which they're facing something I think we can all agree is a pretty awful and horrifying thing that even the idea of facing ourselves scare the pants off of most of us.

I think the mods should break the rules here, and I think we should collectively ask them. I don't give a darn about the rule for one second if it means I can do something nice and meaningful for someone who might need it right now and I think most of would agree.

That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

Anyways. I'll go back to my little corner now.

Is it really an appropriate matter to use somebody's illness to write a commendation solely based on that and nothing else? Anything remotely related to RL stuff behind the player is not appropriate material for any SC resolution.

[Comfed]

For what it's worth I don't envy Sedge for having to make the choice. I think he, as does most of the moderation typically do an admirable job.

First, my concern over the fact that we have some folks on this thread attacking the person who wrote a WA SC Proposal to give a person with terminal cancer a last hurrah on a website they dedicated a lot of their time to. Is that who we are, where a community who gets mad a people for being nice? Y'all need to calm down on the accusations.

I know some folks aren't Tinhampton fans, but gosh darn don't attack her for perceived mistakes you think she made before, in regards to her trying to do something nice now. We're more than a mistake we've made in the past. From what I know of Tin she wanted to genuinely give this person a positive moment on NS before they leave our community.

Is being mean to folks how we want this moment to be remembered?

Now moving on to the actually rule discussion. I agree with Sedge, it probably is illegal, he probably made the right call rule wise. That being said I don't think it was the right call for the community, that we allow the sanctity of rules to keep us from doing something meaningful for a person well loved in their niche of NS. To give them a nice moment, in a time in which they're facing something I think we can all agree is a pretty awful and horrifying thing that even the idea of facing ourselves scare the pants off of most of us.

I think the mods should break the rules here, and I think we should collectively ask them. I don't give a darn about the rule for one second if it means I can do something nice and meaningful for someone who might need it right now and I think most of would agree.

That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

Anyways. I'll go back to my little corner now.

Is it really an appropriate matter to use somebody's illness to write a commendation solely based on that and nothing else? Anything remotely related to RL stuff behind the player is not appropriate material for any SC resolution.

I completely agree with this.

[Eumaeus]

I think that Unibot has done a very good job of summarizing the reasons why a proposal such as this does or at the least should violate the rules of the Security Council. I particularly agree with their point regarding Rule 1B: when read from an IC perspective, the proposal lists arguments for commending the leader of a nation but refrains from doing so in the operative clause (due to the OOC fact that game mechanics regarding proposal targets would force such an effort into violating Rule 1D), however the only justification that is (implicitly) provided for commending the nation itself is through association. The relevancy of the proposal's arguments to the target nation is dubious at best.

Additionally, even if the proposals didn't violate the text of Rule 2B as written, it certainly violates the spirit of the rule. While there are past resolutions that have referenced offsite activities, the vast majority of them have been references to activities directly related to the game and they have almost never been the primary argument. Owlograd's health (which I'm sorry to hear about btw) is not only an offsite matter but it is a matter that has little to nothing to do with NationStates as well: it is a personal matter accompanied by an expression of gratitude that they have chosen to share with the community to help explain an expected absence.

In fairness, while I'm not sure that Sedge handled the ruling in the best manner possible, how could we expect anyone to make a flawless ruling in this situation. It can and unfortunately seems to have been misconstrued as choosing to follow/alter the rules over being empathetic, and I'm loathe to imagine being put in that situation. I think Sedge's comment about this being a "new rule" is at most referencing a potential need for explicit clarification within the text of one or more of the current rules, but even that in my opinion shouldn't be necessary. As has been shown by several people in this thread, there is a clear basis within the existing rules (both for the SC and for the site) for the proposal in question to be deemed illegal even if it isn't as easily articulable as the basis behind some more common rules violations.

Owlograd has explicitly asked that this matter be dropped, so regardless of however inappropriate the proposal originally was, the fact that we're still squabbling over it is arguably worse. It communicates that we don't care about Owlograd's situation except in terms of its connections with the game, something that I seriously doubt anyone in this thread actually feels. We don't need to commend Owlograd to extend our support and compassion to them when we can step fully out of character and beyond our roles players to extend our support as people. From what I've read, Owlograd has made an exceptional, positive impact on other players in their comparatively brief time on NationStates, enough to garner the outcry of support that can be found in the previously mentioned thread in General and in the massive view count on their dispatch. Owlograd is a member of this community who will be missed until their return but respected well after, and nothing that happens in the Security Council will change that.

[Wallenburg]

A whole lot of you seem to either be forgetting or deliberately ignoring how proposal rules work. Whether a proposal is considered appropriate for passing in the Security Council has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is legal. Many, many inappropriate and obviously bad proposals have gone to Vote and even passed. There's an inappropriate resolution at Vote right now. That you think the content is bad doesn't make it illegal.

I'll ask you this: would you prefer having to shout down a proposal you don't like, or having to operate in a system where mods get to remove proposals and punish players on a whim for things that aren't against the rules?

[Comfed]

It references RL stuff as it's main justification - it is illegal.

[Outer Sparta]

It references RL stuff as it's main justification - it is illegal.

Even if Tinhampton tried their hardest to conceal the RL reference, it still was a reference.

[Unibot III]

I think that Unibot has done a very good job of summarizing the reasons why a proposal such as this does or at the least should violate the rules of the Security Council. I particularly agree with their point regarding Rule 1B: when read from an IC perspective, the proposal lists arguments for commending the leader of a nation but refrains from doing so in the operative clause (due to the OOC fact that game mechanics regarding proposal targets would force such an effort into violating Rule 1D), however the only justification that is (implicitly) provided for commending the nation itself is through association. The relevancy of the proposal's arguments to the target nation is dubious at best.

Additionally, even if the proposals didn't violate the text of Rule 2B as written, it certainly violates the spirit of the rule. While there are past resolutions that have referenced offsite activities, the vast majority of them have been references to activities directly related to the game and they have almost never been the primary argument. Owlograd's health (which I'm sorry to hear about btw) is not only an offsite matter but it is a matter that has little to nothing to do with NationStates as well: it is a personal matter accompanied by an expression of gratitude that they have chosen to share with the community to help explain an expected absence.

One thing I will say about Rule 2 is: I think the convention behind Rule 2 is to treat its spirit as one that is intended to be circumvented. In the long storied history of the WA Security Council, authors have sought to push the boundaries of what can be discussed within a resolution using nation simulation language.

The difficulty in outright banning the discussion of "RL events" is RL and NS are blurred. What is a RL event, and what is an NS event, can easily become a definitional problem. Rule 2 is most functional if it ignores the question of what is RL and what is NS, and focuses, as it traditionally does, on what sounds nation-y and what does not.

I think the best course of action is not to invent new rules regarding "RL" stuff, but to look at our existing ruleset for guidence in circumstances such as this ...

• What are you commending and does your argument support that commendation?
  
• Is the argument understandable from the perspective of the WA?
  
• Does the proposal comply with the site rules, especially regarding privacy?

If this resolution were to be rewritten, I would suggest writing a commendation of Owlograd that focused on their accomplishments - with a sub clause expressing the WA's heartfelt wishes to the nation's leader. I think a single clause in good faith should survive consideration - extending Rule 2 that far would be heavy-handed.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Wallenburg posted. There's a difference between legality & appropriateness.

[CoraSpia]

It references RL stuff as it's main justification - it is illegal.

Even if Tinhampton tried their hardest to conceal the RL reference, it still was a reference.

Surely this resolution, that was passed, is therefore illegal? It is entirely concerned with OOC matters as a justification for repealing a commendation.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=456105

[Nova Vandalia]

Is it really an appropriate matter to use somebody's illness to write a commendation solely based on that and nothing else? Anything remotely related to RL stuff behind the player is not appropriate material for any SC resolution.

Look, I personally think we should break the rules give someone a nice send off, I get that not everyone agrees with that. I have no issue with y'all who are saying it's not a valid basis for a SC resolution and that rules should be maintained, I just disagree personally. As far as I'm concerned our rules can go bugger themselves if they makes a person going through some intense stuff right now a little more bearable. This is just a game, that is somebodies life and there is no comparison for me on which we should give more of a hoot about and I'm not upset at you if you disagree. I don't get your side, but I respect it.

What does upsets me, and loses all respect I had for folks, is them accusing someone else of proposing this for an underhanded reason. We all play politics on this game I get it. We're all ne'erdowells to someone else in the game and we're mistrustful of othesr outside of the niches we have built and joined in this game cool, that fine, but come the fuck on if you can't put that aside for a moment and think that maybe someone wanted to be nice for a person facing a pretty major thing in thier life.

Blame the rules, say it's against an IC thing cool, just don't assume and attack the OOC reasoning of the writer like others have.

[Wrapper]

Even if Tinhampton tried their hardest to conceal the RL reference, it still was a reference.

Surely this resolution, that was passed, is therefore illegal? It is entirely concerned with OOC matters as a justification for repealing a commendation.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=456105

In-game actions and real life maladies are obviously two different things.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Even if Tinhampton tried their hardest to conceal the RL reference, it still was a reference.

Surely this resolution, that was passed, is therefore illegal? It is entirely concerned with OOC matters as a justification for repealing a commendation.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=456105

It passed, therefore it was legal. Hard to tell from the writing that it's anything to do with RL or OOC matters. To me that's the major difference between it and Tin's attempt.