SC Rules discussion

[Fachumonn]

With regards to this.

The current rules were written in late 2020; that ruling comes from 2 years before and did not make it into the new ruleset.

However, a report has been received on this matter and we've felt that it's worth discussing our policy internally. There isn't a consensus yet between the team. I would suggest that players who have an opinion on whether there should be rules on which nations can be cited as co-authors should express them in the SC rules discussion thread.

The old ruleset said this about listing puppets as co-authors.

Listing your own puppet nation as a co-author is illegal, unless your puppet nation was clearly involved in an earlier version of the proposal (see here).

I, personally, think this rule should stand in the current situation otherwise it just debases the status of co-author. Co-authors should have made a concrete contribution to the writing of the proposal.

In the case under discussion there is no sign of the author having used their puppets in the drafting thread. I think they are just badge collecting for their puppets and the proposal should be declared illegal.

I concur with this statement.

Edit: Wait I actually agreed with BBD on something. Fat Chance.

[WayNeacTia]

I do believe that co-authorship should be enforced the same way as WA membership. Otherwise, what is to stop someone from creating three puppets, listing them as co-authors and thus acquiring authorship badges of four different nations? It seems very peculiar that this is not already prohibited and just devalues WA authorship more and more......

[Hulldom]

I do believe that co-authorship should be enforced the same way as WA membership. Otherwise, what is to stop someone from creating three puppets, listing them as co-authors and thus acquiring authorship badges of four different nations? It seems very peculiar that this is not already prohibited and just devalues WA authorship more and more......

I disagree there. If a nation is clearly just using their puppets as co-authors (as is the case with Jutra's proposals), that ought to be cracked down on. Simply saying "you have to be in the WA or no co-authorship credit possible for you" feels to devalue the contributions of people who, for whatever reason, aren't in the WA.

However, if a nation is using their own puppets, I think that ought to be illegal.

[Zukchiva]

I do believe that co-authorship should be enforced the same way as WA membership. Otherwise, what is to stop someone from creating three puppets, listing them as co-authors and thus acquiring authorship badges of four different nations? It seems very peculiar that this is not already prohibited and just devalues WA authorship more and more......

I disagree there. If a nation is clearly just using their puppets as co-authors (as is the case with Jutra's proposals), that ought to be cracked down on. Simply saying "you have to be in the WA or no co-authorship credit possible for you" feels to devalue the contributions of people who, for whatever reason, aren't in the WA.

However, if a nation is using their own puppets, I think that ought to be illegal.

agreed

[Wallenburg]

I do believe that co-authorship should be enforced the same way as WA membership. Otherwise, what is to stop someone from creating three puppets, listing them as co-authors and thus acquiring authorship badges of four different nations? It seems very peculiar that this is not already prohibited and just devalues WA authorship more and more......

I disagree there. If a nation is clearly just using their puppets as co-authors (as is the case with Jutra's proposals), that ought to be cracked down on. Simply saying "you have to be in the WA or no co-authorship credit possible for you" feels to devalue the contributions of people who, for whatever reason, aren't in the WA.

However, if a nation is using their own puppets, I think that ought to be illegal.

That's nonsense. Non-members have no more right to dictate the policies of members than the other way around.

[Refuge Isle]

I disagree there. If a nation is clearly just using their puppets as co-authors (as is the case with Jutra's proposals), that ought to be cracked down on. Simply saying "you have to be in the WA or no co-authorship credit possible for you" feels to devalue the contributions of people who, for whatever reason, aren't in the WA.

However, if a nation is using their own puppets, I think that ought to be illegal.

That's nonsense. Non-members have no more right to dictate the policies of members than the other way around.

The Security Council does not often "dictate the policies of members", but when co-authorship was simply a write-in, non-WA status was acceptable.

[Wallenburg]

That's nonsense. Non-members have no more right to dictate the policies of members than the other way around.

The Security Council does not often "dictate the policies of members", but when co-authorship was simply a write-in, non-WA status was acceptable.

Then I guess it's clear how I felt about that as well.

[WayNeacTia]

I do believe that co-authorship should be enforced the same way as WA membership. Otherwise, what is to stop someone from creating three puppets, listing them as co-authors and thus acquiring authorship badges of four different nations? It seems very peculiar that this is not already prohibited and just devalues WA authorship more and more......

I disagree there. If a nation is clearly just using their puppets as co-authors (as is the case with Jutra's proposals), that ought to be cracked down on. Simply saying "you have to be in the WA or no co-authorship credit possible for you" feels to devalue the contributions of people who, for whatever reason, aren't in the WA.

However, if a nation is using their own puppets, I think that ought to be illegal.

That isn’t what I meant. One person, one authorship badge is what I was getting at.

[Sedgistan]

I don't feel this is a matter for Moderation. My ethos for SC rules has always been to leave as much as possible to players to collectively decide their standards on via approvals/voting. I prefer for modly involvement in the SC to be restricted to our general site-wide "keeping order" role and then enforcing some minimum proposal standards to ensure coherence - things like requiring a veneer of "IC" and for proposals to do what they're actually meant to do.

I think the "undeserved badge" argument is a weak one. We do not currently do any policing on who is listed as co-authors, such as assessing contributions to a proposal's text. It is already plausible that a proposal could pass with an author and three co-authors who have not contributed anything to the text. It is not possible for Moderation to police levels of contribution to proposal text.

I'm not suggesting that someone hypothetically listing three of their puppets as co-authors is desirable behaviour, but that it is behaviour that is best left for players to judge. In the same way, I would not consider it desirable for people to separately Condemn The Black Hawks for each and every raid they carry out, but it could legally be done.

Re. the suggestion that co-authors be required to be in the WA at time of submission: that would require admin time to code. There are numerous higher-priority items demanding admin attention, so I do not see this as a realistic option, even putting aside whether this would be a desirable technical change.

[Bears Armed]

I'll take this to the rest of GenSec: I suspect strongly that for proposals in the GA, although it hasn't been stated explicitly there in the past, we are going to use the old rule.

[Sedgistan]

I've added the following to the spoiler under Rule 1e ("no further actions") in the rules thread:

Declarations can encourage the creation of organisations, and set conditions for the WA/SC recognising them, as both are considered an expression of opinion. However, they cannot legislate on how organisations must act or be comprised.

This is based on the discussion in Lenlyvit's "Historical Region Act" proposal thread, and makes official this ruling:

Provisional ruling:

• A Declaration can encourage the creation of organisations.
• A Declaration cannot legislate on how organisations must act/be comprised etc.
• However, a Declaration can set conditions for those organisations to be recognised by the SC under that resolution.

Reasoning:

• Encouraging the creation of an organisation is nothing more than stating an opinion. It's not requiring anything, so fits absolutely fine within Declarations.
• Declarations have no formal power, so cannot start setting rules/requirements for regions/nations/the people within them.
• The SC "recognising" an organisation is nothing more than it expressing an opinion, and setting conditions for that recognition is the same.

Under the above, the draft proposal here would need a small tweak to the "Encourages" clause to make clear that the bullet points that follow are requirements for the SC to recognise those CCAs, not requirements for all CCAs.

Goobergunchia deserves the credit for coming up with this ruling.

[Sedgistan]

As mentioned elsewhere, we're looking to add something along the lines of this to Rule 3b ("Beyond the SC's capacities") to prevent the SC being used as GA-lite, or to cover topics that are intended to be reserved to that chamber:

If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration.

It's not intended to stamp on Declarations that cover topics the GA could handle, but considers how they apply to other aspects of the game. It's intending to prevent proposals like this which is effectively a non-binding GA proposal.

Any thoughts?

[Quebecshire]

Pretty indifferent, I don't think it's particularly necessary but it doesn't seem harmful.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I’m in favour of this change - it’s not too restrictive, but will keep the obvious “GA-lite” Declarations out.

[Lenlyvit]

I'm in favor as well. If the GA can handle it, let them handle it and not the SC.

[Sedgistan]

By universal popular acclaim, this has been edited into Rule 3b.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

yeah, I feel like it’s sort of already in effect anyway with rule 1(e) and sort of 3(b) even prior to the new wording but spelling it out explicitly so that declarations are their own thing is probably a good idea. Thanks for the update o/

[Sedgistan]

The rules will need updating to account for Injunctions. I don't think anything special needs to go in there, other than mentioning them.

[Lenlyvit]

The rules will need updating to account for Injunctions. I don't think anything special needs to go in there, other than mentioning them.

I really don't feel like there has to be any special rule either. They're self-explanatory, and can be covered by the current rules quite nicely.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

The rules will need updating to account for Injunctions. I don't think anything special needs to go in there, other than mentioning them.

I agree - the current rule set covers Injunctions quite adequately.

[Sedgistan]

I've been asked about use of the term "Frontier", and referring to regions transitioning to/from Frontier status. All of that seems fine to me.

The question was also asked about "Stronghold" - that's not an official term any more (it got dropped a few months back) but I can't see a problem with players using it if they see fit.

[Sedgistan]

The rules will need updating to account for Injunctions. I don't think anything special needs to go in there, other than mentioning them.

This is done.

I've been asked about use of the term "Frontier", and referring to regions transitioning to/from Frontier status. All of that seems fine to me.

This is mentioned in the rules now; same place that Feeders, Catchers etc. are.

[Sedgistan]

We're considering binning what is currently Rule 1c - "Duplication", but want player feedback first. It's been in the rules since the earliest days of the Security Council, and when we were talking about it recently, we wondered what the need for such a mod-enforced rule actually was. Ditching it seems like it would fit with our approach of "let WA members determine their standards".

[Hulldom]

We're considering binning what is currently Rule 1c - "Duplication", but want player feedback first. It's been in the rules since the earliest days of the Security Council, and when we were talking about it recently, we wondered what the need for such a mod-enforced rule actually was. Ditching it seems like it would fit with our approach of "let WA members determine their standards".

I wouldn't particularly be in favor of this. To illustrate why, I'll use an example.

Take IA. Two commends, entirely due to operating in the same domain and continuing to go above and beyond in its service.

I think that, in isolation, is fine, so long as the two resolutions mention different resolutions, etc. Two commends for IA that both mention one of his resolutions, unless there's something new that resolution has contributed in the time since, that doesn't seem quite right to me.

I'd keep it. I don't see it as causing any harm.

[Crazy girl]

I'd be more interested in seeing the community police that, rather than moderators, though.