SC Rules discussion

[Metania]

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.

Hear hear! This is what I was trying to get at, but we leftover SC dregs know our OOCness is hated and so left accordingly. Given the lack of anyone else to take our place other than these sneaky spam proposal people and their gnarly, no-good, sucky spam things, it seems the rules basically killed it off.

Though I do feel my idea might help, I might alternatively suggest just axing it and combining Liberations into the GA instead. It's pretty clear that the SC as it was shaping up to be was not wanted, but no compelling alternative vision developed so all you're gonna get is these stupid blank proposals unless something big changes.

I just remember back when, there were all these people who cared, and Ard basically went "NO. GO AWAY. SHUT UP." Well! They did.

*shrugs* But like the others, I just sit in the background, knowing this belief is anathema to the mods, so I'll shut up and continue being deathly silent. Since I was here to randomly push the buttons long before there was an SC, and will be long after the SC is probably abolished.

[Bears Armed]

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.

No, what the RP community disliked was the fact that because many proposals were written completely OOC they didn't make sense in 'RP IC' and those players therefore couldn't respond to them IC... which meant that players accustomed to responding to UN WA GA proposals IC basically had to ignore those proposals IC although ignoring any of those proposals that actually passed meant that (to those players' nations) there seemed to be gaps in the numbering of resolutions... which IC didn't make sense.
There have, after all, been proposals -- some of them successful -- to commend or condemn nations purely on the basis of RP activity.

[Sedgistan]

There's a number of points in this thread I'd like to respond to, but it may be a while until I can get around to it - I'm on holiday at the moment (visiting CG), so please be patient.

[CSSR]

I had my proposal deleted, so i need some help.
Could someone please gove me an idea what would be a good proposal for someting like housing benifits in the GA.

[Jamie Anumia]

I had my proposal deleted, so i need some help.
Could someone please gove me an idea what would be a good proposal for someting like housing benifits in the GA.

Wrong thread. You'll want this one.

[CSSR]

I had my proposal deleted, so i need some help.
Could someone please gove me an idea what would be a good proposal for someting like housing benifits in the GA.

Wrong thread. You'll want this one.

Thanks

[Sedgistan]

FYI, I'm working on a re-write of the SC rules as Rules 2 and 4 in particular are messy. Rule 2 just looks like a load of little rules stuck together to avoid having to have a Rule 5, while Rule 4 is over-complex (EDIT: Rule 4 in particular needs the most work). As a very early draft, I have something like:

• 1. You cannot commend or condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, II Mentors etc.) for actions taken as part of their role.
  
  
• 2. Proposals must contain a unique and relevant argument.
  That means:
  
  • Don't plagiarise - that will get you expelled from the WA.
  • Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.
  • Repeals should address the contents of the resolution they're repealing, and not by just stating the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.
  • Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions.
• 3. Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actual does. 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, your proposal cannot impose fines, sanctions or a boycott on a condemned nation.
  
  
• 4. Your proposal should read as representing the opinion of the Security Council, and as targeting a Nation or Region.
  This means:
  
  • (a) You cannot reference the "real world" outside of NationStates, including players.
  • (b) You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game.
  • (c) Your proposal be written from the perspective of the Security Council.

However, I'd like to invite SCers (and that includes *shudders* Unibot) to have a go at re-writing the rules, from scratch if they want. The essential nature of the rules should stay the same, but a lot of the wording can be changed.

I'd like to have something that's short and simple - so a relatively new player can understand it on a first read, and come up with a legal proposal (with the Compendium remaining as a resource for mods/rules lawyers). There's a need to balance having too much information (off-putting) with too little (useless).

This isn't going to be a quick process, so don't get impatient if there's no modly acknowledgement of your post for a while.

[Unibot III]

4.c should read "Your proposal must be written".

Also, the explosion of Rule IV is my fault. Ard was forced to change the wording of Rule IV when I proposed that a proposal could represent a different organization than the Security Council. Here's a rewrite which I think simplifies it:

4. Your proposal should embody the Security Council, which solely inhabits the world of fictional nations and regions we call "NationStates".

• Write your proposal from the perspective of the Security Council.
• Do not use language which reveals that the subject is a part of a game (e.g., Calling a Nation a "He").
• Do not reference the "real world" outside of NationStates (e.g., "Players").
• Your proposal must target a Nation or Region.

[Sedgistan]

Hmmm. There is a certain appeal to using that and adding a footnote - "Rule 4 written by Unibot"

[Unibot III]

Hmmm. There is a certain appeal to using that and adding a footnote - "Rule 4 written by Unibot"

Blasphemy!

[Sedgistan]

The example for point 3 makes it look too similar to point 2. I'm sure there's a better real-world reference that could be given instead.

[SkyDip]

The example for point 3 makes it look too similar to point 2. I'm sure there's a better real-world reference that could be given instead.

• Do not reference the "real world" outside of NationStates (e.g., referring to 9/11).

[Unibot III]

The example for point 3 makes it look too similar to point 2. I'm sure there's a better real-world reference that could be given instead.

Max Barry.

[Ardchoille]

Hmmm. There is a certain appeal to using that and adding a footnote - "Rule 4 written by Unibot"

Have I mentioned lately that Ardchoille is a nation of magic-users, some of whom have hair-trigger tempers? Not that we'd ever do anything Dark, of course ...

[Toronina]

SC Rules discussion, Can we dicuss rule 4

[The Saturnian Republic]

It doesn't specifically say anything in the rules, so I decided to ask here: can a nation be commended for actions not related to the SC or anything involving security, but for contribution to the WA in general, because the GA has no commend resolutions?

[SkyDip]

It doesn't specifically say anything in the rules, so I decided to ask here: can a nation be commended for actions not related to the SC or anything involving security, but for contribution to the WA in general, because the GA has no commend resolutions?

Sure. See Commend Glen Rhodes, Commend A mean old man for some references, especially Glen Rhodes. He was basically commended for being a WA author.

SC Rules discussion, Can we dicuss rule 4

Anything...specific you have to discuss?

[Stomalia]

Can the WA condemn a non-WA member? If you have the answer please TG me.

[Kantrian Recruiter]

It can condemn anyone it wants.

[Sedgistan]

The rules have now been re-written.

[Ballotonia]

The rules have now been re-written.

To make that sound less ominous I'll add: ... to make them more clear and concise.

Ballotonia

[Sedgistan]

I was in a rush, and didn't have time for any explanation

[SkyDip]

The rules have now been re-written.

To make that sound less ominous I'll add: ... to make them more clear and concise.

Ballotonia

Yeah that wasn't nearly as drastic as I was expecting, Sedge.

[Indian Empire]

My proposal "Commend Grub" Was removed, but I don't see any rules violation for SC proposals.

[SkyDip]

My proposal "Commend Grub" Was removed, but I don't see any rules violation for SC proposals.

viewtopic.php?p=18850236#p18850236