NationStates

And yet, this is a World Assembly.

As always, it depends on context. For example, in the Siwale commendation that's been proposed, it's legal: "Recognizing the immense contributions Siwale has made to the world of NationStates." On the other hand, starting a proposal with "To the World Assembly" would be illegal.

Wrapper wrote:And yet, this is a World Assembly.

As always, it depends on context. For example, in the Siwale commendation that's been proposed, it's legal: "Recognizing the immense contributions Siwale has made to the world of NationStates." On the other hand, starting a proposal with "To the World Assembly" would be illegal.

Wouldn't that be more of a violation for not speaking from the perspective of the WA?

The latter, yes, the former, no.

Wrapper wrote:On the other hand, starting a proposal with "To the World Assembly" would be illegal.

That’s a very strict interpretation of 4.D, no? I mean there’s a lot of variety in practice in the introduction clause, “to the WA,” or “The WA,” or Assembled Nations of the World (if you’re SP.)

For instance, you could interpret the “to the WA” as meaning “It is the opinion of the WA,” like “To me,” means “In my opinion.”

Or “To the World Assembly,” could be the WA addressing the future WA - since resolutions are written for, and enforced upon posterity.

In the event of reasonable ambiguity present, the generous interpretation - as far as Rule IV is concerned - is usually held valid.

Unibot III wrote:

Wrapper wrote:On the other hand, starting a proposal with "To the World Assembly" would be illegal.

That’s a very strict interpretation of 4.D, no? I mean there’s a lot of variety in practice in the introduction clause, “to the WA,” or “The WA,” or Assembled Nations of the World (if you’re SP.)

How can a proposal be from the point of view of the WA if it's addressed to the WA?

Wrapper wrote:

Unibot III wrote:
That’s a very strict interpretation of 4.D, no? I mean there’s a lot of variety in practice in the introduction clause, “to the WA,” or “The WA,” or Assembled Nations of the World (if you’re SP.)

How can a proposal be from the point of view of the WA if it's addressed to the WA?

Sorry, I had more to say in a subsequent draft of that post. >_<

Wrapper wrote:Forum and dispatch links are not allowed. Only links that are legal are the nation and region tags, and links to previous GA or SC resolutions, including repealed resolutions.

I'd just like to raise issue with this rules interpretation - not so much an issue so much as a request to reconsider it. Wrapper is completely right, of course, for years links have been found illegal except in cases where [nation], [region] tags or links to proposals. I do feel though this is a case where a narrow ruling has snowballed into a full-fledged, separate rule that lacks a justification. The basis of the GA ruleset reforms was culling rules that were on the books for reasons that had developed over time and the reasons had been forgotten, made irrelevant, deprecated etc.

Sedge ruled against links in resolutions at a time when you couldn't make internal links in NationStates, people were putting written urls in resolution text which was a blatant violation of Rule IV because having a url written down breaks the fourth wall obviously. Regional and national tags were never deemed a violation of R4; in fact they were encouraged because they assisted a text's readability and accessibility.

We know there are cases where clauses are written in ambiguous language to clear R4, links to dispatches and forum threads could be helpful in informing readers as to what the author is actually attempting to refer to. I don't believe that the existing link rule has any relevance to Rule I, Rule II, Rule III, or Rule IV, given links are not deemed to break the 4th Wall in other "kinds" of links. We have a case here were the actual rule is as holey as swiss cheese - it doesn't apply to WA links or Nation links or Regional Links, only other internal links.

Unibot III wrote:

Wrapper wrote:Forum and dispatch links are not allowed. Only links that are legal are the nation and region tags, and links to previous GA or SC resolutions, including repealed resolutions.

I'd just like to raise issue with this rules interpretation - not so much an issue so much as a request to reconsider it. Wrapper is completely right, of course, for years links have been found illegal except in cases where [nation], [region] tags or links to proposals. I do feel though this is a case where a narrow ruling has snowballed into a full-fledged, separate rule that lacks a justification.

Forum links could become useless gibberish in the event of another change of forums. Imagine if links to Jolt had been allowed...

And Dispatches are far more easily deletable than forum posts are

Bears Armed wrote:

Unibot III wrote:
I'd just like to raise issue with this rules interpretation - not so much an issue so much as a request to reconsider it. Wrapper is completely right, of course, for years links have been found illegal except in cases where [nation], [region] tags or links to proposals. I do feel though this is a case where a narrow ruling has snowballed into a full-fledged, separate rule that lacks a justification.

Forum links could become useless gibberish in the event of another change of forums. Imagine if links to Jolt had been allowed...

We already do introduce links to text without any guarantee that they will remain valid links though. For instance, resolutions refer to nations and regions that can CTE or be refounded by entirely new players with a new agenda and reputation. Some resolutions from 2009 have upwards of fifteen dead links each - it happens, time sweeps away things.

Links do not change the semantical meaning of the text, whether it is a valid link or not shouldn't be the biggest concern here, since the links just serve a supplementary role to help inform the reader - that this supplementary nature may not continue indefinitely is not a major risk to the overall validity of resolutions in the long term.

Links help inform readers in the here and now, especially when Rule IV tends to contort the overall readability of clauses without supplementary guidance. One of the challenges of Rule IV has always been that the main motivation behind the rules change was to ensure resolutions were accessible texts to non-gameplayers unfamiliar with gameplay jargon, but the result of eschewing jargon is resolution texts can become almost unintelligible without assistance because the alternative to game jargon is often more unclear and evasive than the initial jargon!

We already use nation/region links to guide the reader through the text where the meaning may be unclear, forum and dispatch links would greatly assist in readability and linking resolution text to tangible evidence.

So can you mention in game activities like raiding in a Security Council Proposal?

Oxes Republic wrote:So can you mention in game activities like raiding in a Security Council Proposal?

Yes, provided it is couched in terms of nations doing it rather than the players behind the nations

How long must a proposal be to be considered a proposal? And, is it okay if I base my commendation because of a particular topic only? (i.e. Contribution to SC ONLY)

Is mention of region tags illegal under R4(c)?

Third Asopia wrote:How long must a proposal be to be considered a proposal? And, is it okay if I base my commendation because of a particular topic only? (i.e. Contribution to SC ONLY)

There is no brevity limit from a legality standpoint but your proposal must be legal according to the proposal rules; e.g., it must have a unique and relevant argument, it must have an active clause, etc. That said, for commendations/condemnations, the less commend/condemn worthy material in your proposal, the less likely it will pass.

Lenlyvit wrote:Is mention of region tags illegal under R4(c)?

Since “tag raid”/“tag raiding” is legal, by extension “tag”/“tags” should also be legal.

Wrapper wrote:

Third Asopia wrote:How long must a proposal be to be considered a proposal? And, is it okay if I base my commendation because of a particular topic only? (i.e. Contribution to SC ONLY)

There is no brevity limit from a legality standpoint but your proposal must be legal according to the proposal rules; e.g., it must have a unique and relevant argument, it must have an active clause, etc. That said, for commendations/condemnations, the less commend/condemn worthy material in your proposal, the less likely it will pass.

Okie dokie.

In This Thread the op and Jocospor have admitted that the proposal is intended as an April Fools day joke proposal. I think that warrants an illegal ruling as a joke proposal right?

Lenlyvit wrote:In This Thread the op and Jocospor have admitted that the proposal is intended as an April Fools day joke proposal. I think that warrants an illegal ruling as a joke proposal right?

Reading the appropriate section in the rules Compendium I think that only applies to Commendation/Condemnation proposals which are more likely to be flamey/trollish and therefore not acceptable.

Both Wrapper and Ransium have marked it legal so the content has been deemed acceptable, even if the intent is otherwise.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Lenlyvit wrote:In This Thread the op and Jocospor have admitted that the proposal is intended as an April Fools day joke proposal. I think that warrants an illegal ruling as a joke proposal right?

Reading the appropriate section in the rules Compendium I think that only applies to Commendation/Condemnation proposals which are more likely to be flamey/trollish and therefore not acceptable.

Both Wrapper and Ransium have marked it legal so the content has been deemed acceptable, even if the intent is otherwise.

Well said.

Lenlyvit wrote:In This Thread the op and Jocospor have admitted that the proposal is intended as an April Fools day joke proposal. I think that warrants an illegal ruling as a joke proposal right?

Per the precedent set by Liberate the East Pacific, I think it's fine.

United Massachusetts wrote: I rule it fine.

Next time you may want to consider using different wording, lest someone accuses you of moderator impersonation.

Wrapper wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote: I rule it fine.

Next time you may want to consider using different wording, lest someone accuses you of moderator impersonation.

Apologies. It wasn't my intention

United Massachusetts wrote:

Wrapper wrote:Next time you may want to consider using different wording, lest someone accuses you of moderator impersonation.

Apologies. It wasn't my intention

*smacks UM's wrist* Bad! No dessert for you.

Is treating the real world (or just certain names from it) as sections of pop-culture in the NationStates world legal? I'd assume not because of the usage of "reference" in 4(a) but it'd make my life easier so I'm checking.