SC Rules discussion

[Firstaria]

The Security Council,

Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion

Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.

Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis.

Ok, I'm here to effectively discuss a rule that could be found to stop this from happening. I think we all agree on the point that THIS should not be possible to do, or we will be overwhelmed by people just posting one line and go condemning around like no tomorrow.

I actually don't know what rule to form to stop this, but imagine if we allow this: every troll in the game will spam thousands of resolutions and be perfectly legal, and this is impossible. Something that would force proposer to show some work, like reasons or something.

[CoolLand]

Are you allowed to condemn non-WA nations? Also, can you condemn puppets?

[Jamie Anumia]

Are you allowed to condemn non-WA nations? Also, can you condemn puppets?

Yes. And yes. Though the latter is generally frowned on strongly if people try it.

[Sedgistan]

Ok, I'm here to effectively discuss a rule that could be found to stop this from happening. I think we all agree on the point that THIS should not be possible to do, or we will be overwhelmed by people just posting one line and go condemning around like no tomorrow.

I actually don't know what rule to form to stop this, but imagine if we allow this: every troll in the game will spam thousands of resolutions and be perfectly legal, and this is impossible. Something that would force proposer to show some work, like reasons or something.

There's been a spate of spammy proposals recently, and I posted something in the Liberate Nazi Europe thread on the matter:

...if you (and certain others) continue to submit idiotic, and virtually content-less proposals, there will be modly intervention - namely deletion of the proposals, and warnings for spamming the queue.

My preference is against adding new rules - for the most part, I'd like to leave new issues up to player preference (ie counter-campaign against proposals you dislike). However, proposals are already expected to contain an argument, and spamming proposals has always been an offence.

I think this one just sneaks in, but we may be a bit tougher on them in the future.

[XCOM Project]

Thank you for attention.

[The Great Destruction]

Since the proposal coantains a premise and an action it contains enough substance to be acceptable (barely) in my mind.

But we might want to making a ruling (not a rule) that states that a proposal must have at least one premise for every author. It is obviouse to all of us that the co-authorship of that proposal is rediculous in and of itself without considering other issues.

[Metania]

In my many years of watching the SC, I feel that somewhere along the line the anti-4th wall rules ended up just encouraging these spammy proposals. This is the ultimate outcome when referring to players has become such a huge thing that all sight of anything else has been lost--the players get around the rule by referring to nothing at all, because they don't understand the actual rules. Under the current rules it requires some sort of new precedent to help banish said blank proposals, but to do that without addressing the first problem would just be further painting the entire system into a corner.

On the flip side, the current system discourages people from really giving a damn, because they can research to their heart's content and get nothing, while some guy who screams "CONDEMN THIS PLACE BECAUSE MY UNDERWEAR IS NOT FITTING ME TODAY" can get quorum and even come close to being passed (or even get passed, should they succeed in enough telegrams.)

There are too many separate issues to really solve all at once, but I can give my (most likely futile, ignored, not applicable, or simply not considered possible) opinion: Rule 4 is a poorly written kludge that needs to be replaced with one that actually reflect the main use of the chamber rather than paranoia about some breaking of roleplaying terms. Yes, we don't want "You the player" to suddenly warp in and make proposals. But do we really need a million bullet points filled with technobabble specifying each and every way to break the rule?

Because ultimately, the problem goes outside of whether or not a thing is in SC IC, so trying to control it by trying to explicitly ban each and every way to get around it is futile, as demonstrated by the recent spam proposals.

Replace it with something more like this instead (Note: feel free to clean up the wording even further, this is just an idea):

4. The proposal must be fitting that of an actual proposal proposed to the Security Council, written and submitted from your region and only effecting only Regions or Nations in the Nationstates world.
5. The proposal must give an actual reason for being enacted other than "This target is bad/good." If none is given, then the proposal is invalid.

Now you say, "That's just simplifying Rule 4." Yes. Yes it is! That is the important part. For the short proposal problem comes by in part because nobody wants to learn what is or isn't "Nation Simulation Language" and so they resort to empty proposals because that's not explicitly banned yet. Those proposals should be banned, but rather than paint us in a corner, we should also clean up rule 4 so it no longer reads like a technical manual written for a space ship.

Then it is simple. People mentioning "You the player", real world things, doing actions outside the ones in the game, condemning ideologies for no reason and so on are still banned, but perhaps now people will be able to parse it since it no longer reads like a laundry list of "DO NOT DO THIS, OR THIS, OR THIS, OR THIS, OR THIS OR THIS OR... OH SCREW IT, JUST GIVE UP ALREADY."

That is my opinion, though having largely been ignored for the 8 years I've been at Nationstates, I do not really expect it to go anywhere. Read and take with as little or as much grains of salt as wanted. I gave up really participating in the SC other than commenting on weird events every quarter-decade after it was reduced to a brute force telegramming popularity contest anyway. Figured I'd note my opinion since it was requested, but that's all you'll probably hear out of me. Back to staring at the SC proposals and shrugging.

[Firstaria]

Indeed this I'm also afraid of, that people will simply ignore the rules by not writing what will activate the proposal deletion. Then this organism will become a joke.

[Imperium of Tanith]

Here's a solution: Create a minimum length of Proposal. Maybe a minimum of 10 lines of reason/explanation, not including the Addressing of the SC and the request.

That will eliminate many if not all of these idiot proposals like "Liberate Nazi Europe" and other one liners.

[The Dourian Embassy]

That won't work, we need to do something to encourage actual content in them, not just more lines. I could write a similar proposal that still said nothing, and met any line total requirements you could imagine.

[Frisbeeteria]

That won't work, we need to do something to encourage actual content in them, not just more lines. I could write a similar proposal that still said nothing, and met any line total requirements you could imagine.

A rule implies 'moderators must verify contents before it goes into play'. We really prefer for that role to remain in the hands of the players. I will say that if this use of obnoxious brevity continues to be used as a form of protest, we're perfectly willing to consider that as falling under the Spam rules. I believe Sedgistan has already made a comment to that effect elsewhere.

[The Dourian Embassy]

A rule implies 'moderators must verify contents before it goes into play'. We really prefer for that role to remain in the hands of the players. I will say that if this use of obnoxious brevity continues to be used as a form of protest, we're perfectly willing to consider that as falling under the Spam rules. I believe Sedgistan has already made a comment to that effect elsewhere.

I'm aware. But half of the proposals that went up for vote weren't mine(one guy probably still doesn't even know that I TGed for him). I don't have to write them for them to be bad and quorumed.

You need to have better rules. It's up to you if that seems like a good idea. I respect any decision you make on the subject, I'm just suggesting fixes where I see an obvious glaring problem.

[Frisbeeteria]

You need to have better rules.

How would you phrase a new rule that addressed the problem? It's a suggestion thread. Suggest something.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I'm not convinced there is a problem. The recent spat of epically bad proposals drafted/promoted by the Dourian Embassy have all failed miserably at vote. Democracy seems to be working.

The SC is ultimately a democratic institution where a quorum of delegates can bring a proposal to a common vote. The potential for abuse by hucksters and rakes is simply the nature of democracy.

What is really needed is personal accountability. Sure, some nations can play the part of the Die Hard 4 villain and abuse the system just to prove that the system can be abused. But frankly, if delegates want to approve such nonsense and the voters want to enact it then they have only themselves to blame for the quality of the game that results. The answer is not more modly intervention to save us from "bad" proposals, but a system that encourages authors, delegates, and nations to think critically about what they're doing. And part of that is living with the consequences of approving crap proposals. As they say, people in a democracy might not get the government they want, but they certainly get the government they deserve.

Then again, all that is philosophical, and this is a rules discussion. So, if a change to the rules is going to be made I recommend something like the "Bloody Stupid" rule from the WA:

Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to liberate a region because your underpants are too tight, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes proposals that are so devoid of content that they effectively lack an argument for commendation/condemnation/liberation.

Just like the WA version, resort to this rule to remove a proposal should be used with extreme caution and only in cases where the content of the proposal is truly, utterly lacking. Anything more risks diminishing the democratic nature of the SC.

[Captain Apollo]

So, after being on most of today and just looking through the sheer number of Proposals that were submitted and then removed, I came up with a rather simple idea that could be implemented to stop the overwhelming queue of proposals at one time.

Why not have when submitting a Proposal have it like when Applying to the WA? It's submitted but only so the Mods can see it, and if the Mods find rule violations they reply and deny - and if they think it's all good they allow it.

This would stop so many Proposals from going through right when submitting. It's not a big problem, but this could help a bit.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to liberate a region because your underpants are too tight, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes proposals that are so devoid of content that they effectively lack an argument for commendation/condemnation/liberation.

I'd been thinking of a way to word that all day yesterday, but I think CP hit the nail on the head. Y'all need more discretion to just remove stupid proposals. We're talking about ones that fit all the rules, but that you know are meaningless. The WA has it, and so should the SC.

[United Federation of Canada]

You need to have better rules.

How would you phrase a new rule that addressed the problem? It's a suggestion thread. Suggest something.

How about we condemn them, and while they are under condemnation they are not permitted to submit proposals to either the SC or the GA. That would allow democracy to work and nations to stop seeking condemnations (Dourian Assembly) and stop the constant terrible proposals that somehow magically reach the floor.

[Frisbeeteria]

Why not have when submitting a Proposal have it like when Applying to the WA?

We don't do that. WA applications are automated, and only bounce when automation triggers are activated. Having a human in the loop would be horrific in terms of workload.

It's submitted but only so the Mods can see it, and if the Mods find rule violations they reply and deny - and if they think it's all good they allow it.

The objective here is to allow the PLAYERS to decide if it's good enough. Why should 15 of us decide everything for thousands of you?

"Bloody Stupid"

Perhaps this would work. It is a WA rule, but it doesn't get invoked nearly as often as you might think. We still prefer for WA members to make up their own minds.

Democracy seems to be working.

As well it should.

[Topid]

Any change of the rules won't do much, IMO. The problem isn't the rules, anymore, it is that the rule that was implemented chased away (or mostly away) the only player-base that actively used the SC. There are large groups of players that are GAers, that spend most of their time in the GA forums. There used to be that with the SC, I was one, but there are very few now. The SC is without a community to care for it, and the main reason is the SC was used primarily in an OOC way, with occasional IC inserts. I have not seen yet any indication that the community will ever come behind a strictly IC (or "Gameplay IC") version of the SC. Looks to me, after so long, it probably isn't going to happen. I know the mods aren't going to back down on letting the SC be OOC, the only reason I point this out is that it is important to me that it is remembered why the SC turned into this boring, passionless, wasteland.

[Ballotonia]

Any change of the rules won't do much, IMO. The problem isn't the rules, anymore, it is that the rule that was implemented chased away (or mostly away) the only player-base that actively used the SC. There are large groups of players that are GAers, that spend most of their time in the GA forums. There used to be that with the SC, I was one, but there are very few now. The SC is without a community to care for it, and the main reason is the SC was used primarily in an OOC way, with occasional IC inserts. I have not seen yet any indication that the community will ever come behind a strictly IC (or "Gameplay IC") version of the SC. Looks to me, after so long, it probably isn't going to happen. I know the mods aren't going to back down on letting the SC be OOC, the only reason I point this out is that it is important to me that it is remembered why the SC turned into this boring, passionless, wasteland.

Rule IV is strictly enforced, meaning that ALL SC resolutions must be readable in accordance with 'SC IC' game language. It's not an OOC format, and definitely not 'OOC only'. There was actually quite a ruckus about that when Rule IV was originally created, with Gameplayers protesting it thoroughly.

EDIT, see: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809

Ballotonia

[Topid]

Any change of the rules won't do much, IMO. The problem isn't the rules, anymore, it is that the rule that was implemented chased away (or mostly away) the only player-base that actively used the SC. There are large groups of players that are GAers, that spend most of their time in the GA forums. There used to be that with the SC, I was one, but there are very few now. The SC is without a community to care for it, and the main reason is the SC was used primarily in an OOC way, with occasional IC inserts. I have not seen yet any indication that the community will ever come behind a strictly IC (or "Gameplay IC") version of the SC. Looks to me, after so long, it probably isn't going to happen. I know the mods aren't going to back down on letting the SC be OOC, the only reason I point this out is that it is important to me that it is remembered why the SC turned into this boring, passionless, wasteland.

Rule IV is strictly enforced, meaning that ALL SC resolutions must be readable in accordance with 'SC IC' game language. It's not an OOC format, and definitely not 'OOC only'. There was actually quite a ruckus about that when Rule IV was originally created, with Gameplayers protesting it thoroughly.

EDIT, see: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809

Ballotonia

<.< Ballo... It's me.
I'm saying the only people who liked the SC wanted to use it for gameplay issues. The RP community disliked it from the outset. The moderators tried to fix the situation, by enforcing IC, which did not change the mind of the IC community, and forced the OOC community to try to awkwardly use it by writing oddly and vaguely until the actual text of the resolutions were basically meaningless. And now we're left with the SC where people that play in an IC manner still don't really care, people that play in an OOC manner don't really care, and there's almost no "SCers" (again, players that primarily post and play in the SC) left. That is why the SC is this vast void, because there is no community left, no one that cares anymore.

I understand why the moderators tried to act, half the community wanted the SC removed, while a lot loved it. The attempt failed at convincing less people to dislike the SC, and only drove away people that liked the SC. And here we are.

[Jamie Anumia]

I've been thinking about this a little, so I thought I'd post my thoughts. I think it's a shame that many of the proposals that have been able to reach quorum have been of very low quality. The question is, what can be done to improve of proposals? Loosen the rules? Add a limit of how long a proposal has to be? I'm not fully sure. There's pros and cons of each. I do think, one or two-liners shouldn't be allowed, however. In regards to the rules, on the other hand - I don't personally have an issue with proposals being written using IC language, because we are technically performing our actions as 'nations', and not as the person behind the nation. I do, agree partly with Topid's points about how the SC is viewed now - the majority of proposals which pass are gameplay related - commending nations for running regions/being delegates/being involved in R/D or liberations, and because of that, the SC can bee seen as very gameplay feature. However, I don't think it is 100% true. 3/8 of the last proposals passed have been RP related. Maybe the interest from non-gameplayers isn't there as much, true, but I do think personally it is still there, be it on a small scale.

[Captain Apollo]

It's submitted but only so the Mods can see it, and if the Mods find rule violations they reply and deny - and if they think it's all good they allow it.

The objective here is to allow the PLAYERS to decide if it's good enough. Why should 15 of us decide everything for thousands of you?

Not if it's good enough, if it breaks the rules. My proposal was removed yesterday because of a rule 4 violation (using 'his') and a Mod was the one that removed it, not a player saying it was an invalid proposal -- but I do see your point.

[Frisbeeteria]

The objective here is to allow the PLAYERS to decide if it's good enough. Why should 15 of us decide everything for thousands of you?

Not if it's good enough, if it breaks the rules. My proposal was removed yesterday because of a rule 4 violation (using 'his') and a Mod was the one that removed it, not a player saying it was an invalid proposal -- but I do see your point.

Using an improper pronoun is a bright-line violation. Deciding if something is "good enough" or "not bloody stupid" is subjective. Each mod, just like each player, has his or her own interpretation of subjective judgment, so it's virtually impossible to codify that into an actual rule that can be enforced consistently.

[Mahaj]

So, after being on most of today and just looking through the sheer number of Proposals that were submitted and then removed, I came up with a rather simple idea that could be implemented to stop the overwhelming queue of proposals at one time.

Why not have when submitting a Proposal have it like when Applying to the WA? It's submitted but only so the Mods can see it, and if the Mods find rule violations they reply and deny - and if they think it's all good they allow it.

This would stop so many Proposals from going through right when submitting. It's not a big problem, but this could help a bit.

There are times when Liberation resolutions are needed to get to vote quickly to pass quickly to help the region.

Implementing a delay would reduce their effectiveness.