Rule 4 update - "feeder" and "sinker"After discussion amongst the team, we've decided that the terms "feeder" and sinker" are now compliant with Rule 4, and as such can be used within Security Council proposals.
Rule 4 is intended to ensure that Security Council proposals make sense in terms of the NS world. While "feeder" and "sinker" would not make sense as real-world terms, they do within NationStates. This is due to the nature of the game, which sees nations created in a specific set of regions, restored in another set of regions, and ejected to a specific region - it is understandable that within the NationStates world, unique terms would exist to refer to these regions.
We would like to stress that Rule 4 remains in place, as before, to ensure that Security Council proposals make sense within the NationStates world. The change to the legality of "feeder" and "sinker" within proposals is a result of a re-evaluation by the team of how they fit in with the spirit and intent of Rule 4.
We've written the following rubric to help determine whether terms fit within Rule 4 or not:
1. Is the term something that could be applied to real-world nations. If yes, then fine. If no, see #2.
2. Is the term something that could be applied to the NationStates world? If yes, see point 3, if no, then what on earth are you writing about?
3. Is the term referring to NationStates as a game, or to the people behind the nations? If yes, it's not acceptable. If no, it's fine.
This allows language used to describe the unique aspects NationStates world to be used within proposals - not just the gameplay aspects, but also one from roleplay and other communities.
If you have any questions as a result of this ruling, please feel free to ask them in this thread.