SC Rules discussion

[Lord Dominator]

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.

On gut instinct & comparison to GA rules, I would think not legal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

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.

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.

[Bears Armed]

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.

It wouldn't be allowable in the GA...

[Dome Artan]

Would it be proper to issue a condemnation to a nation for breaking major General Assembly Resolutions? (providing of course the nation is part of the WA) Or have condemnations been mostly limited to illegal raiding and similar actions?

[Lenlyvit]

Would it be proper to issue a condemnation to a nation for breaking major General Assembly Resolutions? (providing of course the nation is part of the WA) Or have condemnations been mostly limited to illegal raiding and similar actions?

You can certainly condemn a nation for non-compliance of GA resolutions. Raiding isn't considered illegal in the game.

[Dome Artan]

Would it be proper to issue a condemnation to a nation for breaking major General Assembly Resolutions? (providing of course the nation is part of the WA) Or have condemnations been mostly limited to illegal raiding and similar actions?

You can certainly condemn a nation for non-compliance of GA resolutions. Raiding isn't considered illegal in the game.

Ok thanks for the help

[Unibot III]

Would it be proper to issue a condemnation to a nation for breaking major General Assembly Resolutions? (providing of course the nation is part of the WA) Or have condemnations been mostly limited to illegal raiding and similar actions?

That's a fun question.

Prior to a GA 2016 decision, authors in the WA General Assembly were not allowed to 'acknowledge' non-compliance in resolutions as this was considered 'metagaming' and it contradicted the effect of the Compliance Commission. Moderators and the GA Secretariat overturned this interpretation and now maintain that non-compliance is possible and the possibility of non-compliance can be acknowledged.

Mentioning the possibility of noncompliance with a duly passed resolution is not a violation of the Metagaming rule. Given that there is no explicit rule in the General Assembly Rules for Proposals against it, and that the only justification for a ban on acknowledging noncompliance rests upon Metagaming itself, we rule that it is entirely legal to acknowledge the possibility of noncompliance in resolutions. We reaffirm this moderator ruling: viewtopic.php?p=29588233#p29588233.

In the past, non-compliance was a very heated topic in the GA. Some GA Authors were adamant that they could declare themselves non-compliant and that resolutions ought to consider the mechanics behind a resolution's enforcement and compliance. Other GA Authors maintained that non-compliance was impossible in the meta-verse and should not be referenced. A common philosophical problem that was raised was "what happens when it's not possible to comply to a resolution?" For instance, if a GA Resolution states that a member-state must financially support its agricultural producers, a member-state needs an agricultural producer to support - if the member-state's terrain is all rock and ice, compliance is not possible short of creative accounting / financial misappropriation.

Quietly in 2013, the Security Council passed a resolution that explictly acknowledged and condemned non-compliance.

Only one person, Topid, noticed at the time and said anything:

OOC: This is the first time I can recall a SC resolution asserting that mandatory compliance doesn't occur, while in the GA it is considered to occur, maybe I've forgotten past resolutions (I don't give RP resolutions too much thought, often, so it is possible) but I think it is an interesting cross over between the two worlds.

Later that year, the resolution was repealed on the grounds that non-compliance was not a reasonable threshold for condemnation.

"RECOGNIZING the World Assembly as a sovereign and governing body of the member nations therein,

REALIZING that many nations which hold membership in the World Assembly are in violation, intentionally or otherwise, of some laws passed by the General Assembly,

BELIEVING that it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls,"

This prompted a response from GA authors who noted that, at that time, compliance was indeed expected:

By that, he meant that yes - all WA members are not only expected to, but are obligated to abide by all laws passed by it. You even get the snazzy little telegram stating that the laws of your nation have changed immediately following the passage of a resolution. While role-playing non-compliance certainly doesn't warrant a condemnation, I can't, in good faith, support a resolution that relies on the argument that non-compliance is okay.

Shorter answer ----

Yes it is allowed, but at least one repeal has successfully argued that non-compliance isn't grounds for condemnation.

You're also exposing yourself to the risk of an unnecessary philosophical debate over GA/WA non-compliance.

[Dome Artan]

Would it be proper to issue a condemnation to a nation for breaking major General Assembly Resolutions? (providing of course the nation is part of the WA) Or have condemnations been mostly limited to illegal raiding and similar actions?

That's a fun question.

Prior to a GA 2016 decision, authors in the WA General Assembly were not allowed to 'acknowledge' non-compliance in resolutions as this was considered 'metagaming' and it contradicted the effect of the Compliance Commission. Moderators and the GA Secretariat overturned this interpretation and now maintain that non-compliance is possible and the possibility of non-compliance can be acknowledged.

Mentioning the possibility of noncompliance with a duly passed resolution is not a violation of the Metagaming rule. Given that there is no explicit rule in the General Assembly Rules for Proposals against it, and that the only justification for a ban on acknowledging noncompliance rests upon Metagaming itself, we rule that it is entirely legal to acknowledge the possibility of noncompliance in resolutions. We reaffirm this moderator ruling: viewtopic.php?p=29588233#p29588233.

In the past, non-compliance was a very heated topic in the GA. Some GA Authors were adamant that they could declare themselves non-compliant and that resolutions ought to consider the mechanics behind a resolution's enforcement and compliance. Other GA Authors maintained that non-compliance was impossible in the meta-verse and should not be referenced. A common philosophical problem that was raised was "what happens when it's not possible to comply to a resolution?" For instance, if a GA Resolution states that a member-state must financially support its agricultural producers, a member-state needs an agricultural producer to support - if the member-state's terrain is all rock and ice, compliance is not possible short of creative accounting / financial misappropriation.

Quietly in 2013, the Security Council passed a resolution that explictly acknowledged and condemned non-compliance.

Only one person, Topid, noticed at the time and said anything:

OOC: This is the first time I can recall a SC resolution asserting that mandatory compliance doesn't occur, while in the GA it is considered to occur, maybe I've forgotten past resolutions (I don't give RP resolutions too much thought, often, so it is possible) but I think it is an interesting cross over between the two worlds.

Later that year, the resolution was repealed on the grounds that non-compliance was not a reasonable threshold for condemnation.

"RECOGNIZING the World Assembly as a sovereign and governing body of the member nations therein,

REALIZING that many nations which hold membership in the World Assembly are in violation, intentionally or otherwise, of some laws passed by the General Assembly,

BELIEVING that it is fully unrealistic to expect all nations in the WA to comply to the letter of every mandate, law, and sub-council given power in these halls,"

This prompted a response from GA authors who noted that, at that time, compliance was indeed expected:

By that, he meant that yes - all WA members are not only expected to, but are obligated to abide by all laws passed by it. You even get the snazzy little telegram stating that the laws of your nation have changed immediately following the passage of a resolution. While role-playing non-compliance certainly doesn't warrant a condemnation, I can't, in good faith, support a resolution that relies on the argument that non-compliance is okay.

Shorter answer ----

Yes it is allowed, but at least one repeal has successfully argued that non-compliance isn't grounds for condemnation.

You're also exposing yourself to the risk of an unnecessary philosophical debate over GA/WA non-compliance.

Ah so this is a particularly well traversed rabbit hole. Thank you for that most helpful answer my friend.

[Bormiar]

So how could we write about P2TM roleplay without breaking 4a? The problems I foresee are 1) P2TM isn't directly related to your nation. This might be a blessing because we could have justification for calling the roleplay literary works; and 2) P2TM often relates to other real life stuff (e.g. Harry Potter). Would including that stuff not be referencing the real world, because it's actually the rpers doing the referencing? Would it be fine if we were very vague about it ("a wizard who fights an evil noseless wizard" rather than "Harry Potter").

[Lord Dominator]

At first thought, refer to it as produced literature perhaps?

[Bormiar]

At first thought, refer to it as produced literature perhaps?

That's what I was thinking. It's somewhat analogous to what Ard declared about ideology.

to condemn or commend a region or nation for its ideology you (now) have to show how it works in NS. Like, it's not real-world socialism, it's socialism as the SMA practises it in NS. So you need to show what it does that merits that description -- you can't just assume that everybody here knows what their version of "socialism" is.

As long as you have it reference NationStates rather than solely the real world, it should be fine. Right?

---

However, certain rulings (particularly delusions) suggest that claiming fictitiousness isn't ok.

[Lord Dominator]

At first thought, refer to it as produced literature perhaps?

That's what I was thinking. It's somewhat analogous to what Ard declared about ideology.

to condemn or commend a region or nation for its ideology you (now) have to show how it works in NS. Like, it's not real-world socialism, it's socialism as the SMA practises it in NS. So you need to show what it does that merits that description -- you can't just assume that everybody here knows what their version of "socialism" is.

As long as you have it reference NationStates rather than solely the real world, it should be fine. Right?

---

However, certain rulings (particularly delusions) suggest that claiming fictitiousness isn't ok.

I's argue that the difference for a P2TM case is that we're dealing with a large number of fictional reality kind of situations, not a single one, and not one relying on calling it NS. In essence, making up that the target has a giant and renowned publishing industry, vs making up that the entire nation has some weird delusion.

[Unibot III]

In my opinion, you should make the case very straightforwardly that you can reference the 'Portal to the Multiverse' without capitulation to Rule IV.

Extradimensionality is a recognized concept in NS - the NSUN itself was destroyed by a 'colossal fireball of extra-dimensional inanity' (WA#1). Many SC resolutions refer to 'multiverses' - and at least one references portals. It is important to remember that Rule IV does not enforce a staid, pseudo real life political roleplay - it is an inclusive simulation language that accepts most Gameplay-related concepts and a broad degree of Sci-Fi and Fantasy concepts from NS Roleplay. Given both portals and multiverses have been discussed in SC resolutions, I see no good reason why an SC resolution could not discuss contributions to a community that exists in the Portal to the Multiverse.

There's typically three ways to approach communicating the contributions of a roleplayer in NS:

• Narrational (events-based). This is how we typically discuss the contributions of players in II Roleplay and NS Sports, it means discussing the activities of the nation as if they happened, like a narrative or chronology. I.E., BadNationStan deployed nuclear weapons against SmallNationStan.
• Bibliographical (works-based). This is how we typically discuss the contributions of players in NS Issues and the WA, where we discuss the activities of the nation by listing the titles of their contributions; sometimes we equivocate over the word 'issue' or 'dilemma' and discuss the activity as though they were 'literary contributions.'
• Characterological (skills-based). This is how I discussed the contribution of an NS General player in a WASC resolution: I distilled Cat-Tribe's activity into a core list of attributes or skills that demonstrated what unique qualities they brought to NS General and that community, rather than discussing the content of their contributions more specifically.

You could jump around between a narrational, bibliographical, and characterlogical approach to discuss the contributions more robustly.

[Sedgistan]

There's some good advice here. My suggestion would be to write it the way you want to, and then it can get modly input (it's easier to give legality advice/rulings when there's actual proposal text to handle). It's a novel situation, so it may be that there's new rulings required.

[Wallenburg]

So since Sedge doesn't want to discuss it in the relevant thread, I'll ask it here: what rule does this proposal (viewtopic.php?f=24&t=500355) violate? You say that "Players' health is not an appropriate topic for the Security Council. You can file that under whichever rule you want." I take this for what it most obviously implies: this ruling doesn't actually have to do with any particular rule (otherwise you would have pointed to it). Rather, you just want to discard a proposal you dislike.

[Wallenburg]

For those not in the WA discord, Sedge has also, since discarding the proposal in question, admitted that this doesn't have to do with the ruleset as written, but is rather his attempt to create a new rule. What he ignores, of course, is that rule changes are made after deliberation and official changes to the written ruleset, not on the personal whim of one player.

[Outer Sparta]

So since Sedge doesn't want to discuss it in the relevant thread, I'll ask it here: what rule does this proposal (viewtopic.php?f=24&t=500355) violate? You say that "Players' health is not an appropriate topic for the Security Council. You can file that under whichever rule you want." I take this for what it most obviously implies: this ruling doesn't actually have to do with any particular rule (otherwise you would have pointed to it). Rather, you just want to discard a proposal you dislike.

It definitely felt like opportunism given that the author basically wanted to use the player's ailing health as an excuse to push a proposal. If there were posthumous commendation proposals of NS regulars who died, wouldn't that also be inappropriate?

[Lord Dominator]

So since Sedge doesn't want to discuss it in the relevant thread, I'll ask it here: what rule does this proposal (viewtopic.php?f=24&t=500355) violate? You say that "Players' health is not an appropriate topic for the Security Council. You can file that under whichever rule you want." I take this for what it most obviously implies: this ruling doesn't actually have to do with any particular rule (otherwise you would have pointed to it). Rather, you just want to discard a proposal you dislike.

Rule 2b regarding rl references most obviously - it’s pretty transparently about the player’s own health.

Possibly also 1b with a possible lack of actual argument for commendation - principally based on how you read the Gobsmacked clause.

[Wallenburg]

It definitely felt like opportunism given that the author basically wanted to use the player's ailing health as an excuse to push a proposal. If there were posthumous commendation proposals of NS regulars who died, wouldn't that also be inappropriate?

Legal =/= good. Players are allowed to do a whole lot of dumb and awful shit within the rules. I'm not arguing that the proposal was good. It wasn't. I'm arguing that it was legal, because nothing in the rules prohibits it. Instead of countercampaigning or convincing the author that the resolution idea is bad, Sedge marked a legal proposal illegal.

Rule 2b regarding rl references most obviously - it’s pretty transparently about the player’s own health.

Possibly also 1b with a possible lack of actual argument for commendation - principally based on how you read the Gobsmacked clause.

I think it's fairly clear by Sedge's choice of argument that he wasn't thinking about Rule 2 when he struck down the proposal. That's probably because Rule 2 doesn't prohibit it as written. 2a is adhered to deliberately, and while the proposal incorporates real world information into its argument it does so in the same manner that so many other authors have, molding it into a narrative which fits entirely within the IC nature of the SC.

As to Rule 1, it doesn't even remotely begin to apply, especially in the shadow of Condemn The Communist Bloc's far less developed argument.

[Lord Dominator]

On Sedge’s statements on Discord, I can’t say I care. The proposal in question is fairly obviously about a player’s rl health (which is not an appropriate topic for the SC) - that the rules may not specifically prohibit proposals is to my mind is a reasonable oversight and Sedge ruling as such is plenty reasonable.

[Outer Sparta]

On Sedge’s statements on Discord, I can’t say I care. The proposal in question is fairly obviously about a player’s rl health (which is not an appropriate topic for the SC) - that the rules may not specifically prohibit proposals is to my mind is a reasonable oversight and Sedge ruling as such is plenty reasonable.

I mean player's health is a sensitive topic and can easily be abused for malicious purposes.

[Comfed]

Clearly the mod team can't be expected to account for this situation - but I don't think it should have been discarded. Marking it illegal would have been fine.

[Lord Dominator]

It definitely felt like opportunism given that the author basically wanted to use the player's ailing health as an excuse to push a proposal. If there were posthumous commendation proposals of NS regulars who died, wouldn't that also be inappropriate?

Legal =/= good. Players are allowed to do a whole lot of dumb and awful shit within the rules. I'm not arguing that the proposal was good. It wasn't. I'm arguing that it was legal, because nothing in the rules prohibits it. Instead of countercampaigning or convincing the author that the resolution idea is bad, Sedge marked a legal proposal illegal.

Rule 2b regarding rl references most obviously - it’s pretty transparently about the player’s own health.

Possibly also 1b with a possible lack of actual argument for commendation - principally based on how you read the Gobsmacked clause.

I think it's fairly clear by Sedge's choice of argument that he wasn't thinking about Rule 2 when he struck down the proposal. That's probably because Rule 2 doesn't prohibit it as written. 2a is adhered to deliberately, and while the proposal incorporates real world information into its argument it does so in the same manner that so many other authors have, molding it into a narrative which fits entirely within the IC nature of the SC.

As to Rule 1, it doesn't even remotely begin to apply, especially in the shadow of Condemn The Communist Bloc's far less developed argument.

I don’t believe I’ve seen a proposal incorporate comparable rl information as such - at most stuff about their personal qualities - if there is one with comparable info I’ll happily recant.

As to r1, that’s why I said “based on how you read it” - it’s on the edge in terms of presenting an actual argument. Commend TCB presents a clear argument, if a terrible one.

[The New California Republic]

So since Sedge doesn't want to discuss it in the relevant thread, I'll ask it here: what rule does this proposal (viewtopic.php?f=24&t=500355) violate? You say that "Players' health is not an appropriate topic for the Security Council. You can file that under whichever rule you want." I take this for what it most obviously implies: this ruling doesn't actually have to do with any particular rule (otherwise you would have pointed to it). Rather, you just want to discard a proposal you dislike.

It definitely felt like opportunism given that the author basically wanted to use the player's ailing health as an excuse to push a proposal. If there were posthumous commendation proposals of NS regulars who died, wouldn't that also be inappropriate?

Tinhampton really does not strike me as the type. And they already have three Security Council Resolutions and a General Assembly Resolution under their belt, and co-authored three more. I'd maybe agree if this was someone with no prior authorship in the WA, but that clearly is not the case.

[Wallenburg]

On Sedge’s statements on Discord, I can’t say I care. The proposal in question is fairly obviously about a player’s rl health (which is not an appropriate topic for the SC) - that the rules may not specifically prohibit proposals is to my mind is a reasonable oversight and Sedge ruling as such is plenty reasonable.

I mean player's health is a sensitive topic and can easily be abused for malicious purposes.

If that's really what has you concerned, then the mods should probably be striking this entire thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=500325

No, information willingly shared with the public by the person whom it concerns is absolutely fair game for public recognition.