NATION

PASSWORD

SC Rules discussion

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9366
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:45 am

Further to this post, should I assume that "catcher" and "restorer" are legal terms, much like "sinker" (which encompasses the three restorers and single catcher) is?
Last edited by Tinhampton on Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin

User avatar
Crazy girl
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 5210
Founded: Antiquity
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Crazy girl » Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:39 am

Yup

User avatar
Yaak
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Sep 19, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Yaak » Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:47 pm

I have two declarations - one legal and one more of a tit-for-tat war - up for review. Now it's just the waiting game?
China, oh my beautiful country, Our supreme leader is a god,
He lets us play games all day, Your supreme leader will pay,
We can visit the country of Taiwan too! And have multiple children woohoo!

User avatar
Crazy girl
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 5210
Founded: Antiquity
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Crazy girl » Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:59 am

Not sure what your question is?

If you're waiting for a mod to sign off on your proposals, we don't do that. See: viewtopic.php?p=38113783#p38113783

User avatar
Yaak
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Sep 19, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Yaak » Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:41 am

Crazy girl wrote:Not sure what your question is?

If you're waiting for a mod to sign off on your proposals, we don't do that. See: viewtopic.php?p=38113783#p38113783


I'm waiting for a drafting request. I put the tag [DR] in my title. It probably wasn't updated, because I can confirm of Sedge's previous posts that it exists.
China, oh my beautiful country, Our supreme leader is a god,
He lets us play games all day, Your supreme leader will pay,
We can visit the country of Taiwan too! And have multiple children woohoo!

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 30980
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:40 am

What is a "drafting request"? What are you actually asking Moderators to do?

Mods don't sign off proposals prior to submission.

User avatar
Yaak
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Sep 19, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Yaak » Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:54 am

Sedgistan wrote:What is a "drafting request"? What are you actually asking Moderators to do?

Mods don't sign off proposals prior to submission.


Basically a legality check.
China, oh my beautiful country, Our supreme leader is a god,
He lets us play games all day, Your supreme leader will pay,
We can visit the country of Taiwan too! And have multiple children woohoo!

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 30980
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Nov 02, 2021 10:22 am

You haven't read what CG linked to:
Sedgistan wrote:Legality Checks

If you require a legality check for an aspect of your proposal, make that request in your drafting thread. If it's not answered within a few days, then post in Moderation linking to the thread and asking for a check. We do not generally carry out full proposal legality checks - it is the author's responsibility to write a legal proposal. Moderators will simply clear up cases when there is an uncertainty with the application of an aspect of the rules.

If your check is urgent or requires confidentiality, we may occasionally entertain legality requests via Getting Help Request; this is entirely at our discretion, and whatever ruling is made will likely be made public in due course.

I have put some of it in large text to emphasise the point we are trying to get across to you.

User avatar
Yaak
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Sep 19, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Yaak » Wed Nov 03, 2021 9:54 am

Sedgistan wrote:You haven't read what CG linked to:
Sedgistan wrote:Legality Checks

If you require a legality check for an aspect of your proposal, make that request in your drafting thread. If it's not answered within a few days, then post in Moderation linking to the thread and asking for a check. We do not generally carry out full proposal legality checks - it is the author's responsibility to write a legal proposal. Moderators will simply clear up cases when there is an uncertainty with the application of an aspect of the rules.

If your check is urgent or requires confidentiality, we may occasionally entertain legality requests via Getting Help Request; this is entirely at our discretion, and whatever ruling is made will likely be made public in due course.

I have put some of it in large text to emphasise the point we are trying to get across to you.


Thanks.
China, oh my beautiful country, Our supreme leader is a god,
He lets us play games all day, Your supreme leader will pay,
We can visit the country of Taiwan too! And have multiple children woohoo!

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 30980
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Nov 11, 2021 12:51 am

With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:
Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.


There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

User avatar
Insidium
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Nov 10, 2021
Anarchy

Postby Insidium » Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:38 am

Sedgistan wrote:... allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

That's a really cool idea, and it reminds me of the PBS underwriting/acknowledgement segments at the beginning of (Edit: and/or the end of) programs, with the now-famous "Viewers Like You" at the end.
Last edited by Insidium on Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Minister
 
Posts: 3190
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:05 am

Sedgistan wrote:With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:
Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.


There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

I think listing sponsors etc. in a proposal is a bad idea - could end up with lists that are longer than the proposal itself. Keep it limited to co-authors as current is my thought.
Former Delegate of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs. Currently Guardian and Security Council Advisor for The West Pacific.

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart

Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

User avatar
Emodea
Attaché
 
Posts: 70
Founded: May 21, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Emodea » Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:08 am

Sedgistan wrote:There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

Don't really see any need for it? I think keeping it limited to co-authors is just fine.
Moon

User avatar
Insidium
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Nov 10, 2021
Anarchy

Postby Insidium » Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:08 am

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:
Sedgistan wrote:There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

I think listing sponsors etc. in a proposal is a bad idea - could end up with lists that are longer than the proposal itself. Keep it limited to co-authors as current is my thought.

Perhaps not lists of supporters, but I think an author should be allowed to add a small note of acknowledgement, like, "Thanks to Bhang Bhang Duc for their invaluable help in drafting this proposal."
Last edited by Insidium on Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:12 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Emodea
Attaché
 
Posts: 70
Founded: May 21, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Emodea » Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:11 am

Insidium wrote:Perhaps not lists of supporters, but I think an author should be allowed to add a small note of acknowledgement, like, "Thanks to Bhang Bhang Duc for their invaluable help in drafting this proposal."

If they did indeed contribute so greatly to the proposal that it needs to be mentioned, then why not list them as a co-author? It is how this entire thing has worked in the past and there seems to be nothing wrong with keeping as it is.
Moon

User avatar
Insidium
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Nov 10, 2021
Anarchy

Postby Insidium » Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:19 am

Emodea wrote:
Insidium wrote:Perhaps not lists of supporters, but I think an author should be allowed to add a small note of acknowledgement, like, "Thanks to Bhang Bhang Duc for their invaluable help in drafting this proposal."

If they did indeed contribute so greatly to the proposal that it needs to be mentioned, then why not list them as a co-author? It is how this entire thing has worked in the past and there seems to be nothing wrong with keeping as it is.

It might not be accurate to say that someone who so kindly provided an author with valuable feedback on a regional forum was a co-author, but that doesn't mean their contribution is undeserving of an acknowledgement.

User avatar
Emodea
Attaché
 
Posts: 70
Founded: May 21, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Emodea » Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:31 am

Insidium wrote:It might not be accurate to say that someone who so kindly provided an author with valuable feedback on a regional forum was a co-author, but that doesn't mean their contribution is undeserving of an acknowledgement.


If you wish to give them acknowledgement, you could do so in the OP of your drafting thread;
Emodea wrote:Thanks to Dilber, Ananke II, Crazy girl, Goobergunchia, Nasicournius, Orioni 2, Bhang Bhang Duc, ROM, HumanSanity, Honeydewistania, Quebecshire, Refuge Isle, The Python and Minskiev for the help while drafting this!
Moon

User avatar
Insidium
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Nov 10, 2021
Anarchy

Postby Insidium » Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:35 am

Emodea wrote:
Insidium wrote:It might not be accurate to say that someone who so kindly provided an author with valuable feedback on a regional forum was a co-author, but that doesn't mean their contribution is undeserving of an acknowledgement.

If you wish to give them acknowledgement, you could do so in the OP of your drafting thread

That's not a bad idea!

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1052
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:16 am

Sedgistan wrote:With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:
Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.


There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

I feel like this rule should stay in place. Supporters of a proposal have no place within the text of a resolution and should go in the OP. In my opinion, having a list of supporters could create a kind of influence on a proposals passage if included in the text. Especially if disliked players or extremely well known players are listed. It could take away from the merits of the proposal itself.
Former three time Delegate of 10000 Islands

I've been commended by the Security Council. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 892
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:41 am

Lenlyvit wrote:
Sedgistan wrote:With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:


There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

I feel like this rule should stay in place. Supporters of a proposal have no place within the text of a resolution and should go in the OP. In my opinion, having a list of supporters could create a kind of influence on a proposals passage if included in the text. Especially if disliked players or extremely well known players are listed. It could take away from the merits of the proposal itself.

Agree with the above for similar reasons.

I feel that it's been largely accepted that the "supporters" of a resolution, the likes of which you may be thinking, are expressed through the approval process, which functions as a lower house to the WA. Picking up large or unexpected names do not go unnoticed and do carry weight. Most importantly, they do this in a mechanically impactful way that does not diminish a resolution or its content by spamming it with names or nation tags of players who did not contribute to its substance at all.

The rule should remain in place.

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 195
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Thousand Branches » Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:42 am

This line should be changed in the SC rules post to reflect the new names for GCRs:

"Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal."
You are frikkin beautiful!! Have the best day ever my friend!!
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at Aramantha#4290 for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Have an awesome day you! •○•

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1052
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:18 am

Thousand Branches wrote:This line should be changed in the SC rules post to reflect the new names for GCRs:

"Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal."

The names "Feeder" and "Sinker" are still in use, however you're right that the new terms "Restorer" and "Catcher" should be added in as legal terms to be used in proposals.
Former three time Delegate of 10000 Islands

I've been commended by the Security Council. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Warzone Codger
Diplomat
 
Posts: 962
Founded: Oct 30, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Warzone Codger » Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:12 pm

Sedgistan wrote:With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:
Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.


There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.


Are nations such as the 'TRR WA Committee' allowed to be listed as co authors? I thought they are barred from the current interpretation of this rule, which unfortunately might be one of the reasons such regional programs never got off the ground.

I think the rule should be adjusted to allow such programs and regional promotion - if a region is focused on the WA they should be entitled to boast about it.
Last edited by Warzone Codger on Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Warwick Z Codger the Warzone Codger.
Warzone Pioneer | Peacezone Philosopher | Scourge of Polls | Forever Terror Officer of TRR
GA #121: Medical Facilities Protection | SC #183: Commend Haiku | Commended by SC #87: Commend Warzone Codger

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 195
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Thousand Branches » Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:21 pm

Lenlyvit wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:This line should be changed in the SC rules post to reflect the new names for GCRs:

"Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal."

The names "Feeder" and "Sinker" are still in use, however you're right that the new terms "Restorer" and "Catcher" should be added in as legal terms to be used in proposals.

Oh yes that’s what I meant, apologies if that was unclear. I just meant the new terms should be grouped there as well since they’re now official :)
You are frikkin beautiful!! Have the best day ever my friend!!
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at Aramantha#4290 for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Have an awesome day you! •○•

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 30980
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:21 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:This line should be changed in the SC rules post to reflect the new names for GCRs:

"Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal."

Done.

Warzone Codger wrote:Are nations such as the 'TRR WA Committee' allowed to be listed as co authors? I thought they are barred from the current interpretation of this rule, which unfortunately might be one of the reasons such regional programs never got off the ground.

I think the rule should be adjusted to allow such programs and regional promotion - if a region is focused on the WA they should be entitled to boast about it.

They're allowed. I don't recall us banning them previously, though I may be wrong. It sounds like the kind of thing the GA would have prohibited.

Suggested change to 4b:

Co-authors should use the in-built mechanics for recording co-authors, rather than listing them in the text of proposals. [Note: since this feature was added in November 2021, resolutions prior to this have co-authors listed in the resolution text, which was legal at the time.] Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.


This introduces a new restriction - adding additional co-authors via the text. The coded co-author system has notifications for co-authors (they they've been listed as one, and when someone tries to repeal a passed resolution they co-authored), badges, and allows the co-author to withdraw a proposal without having to go via the Moderation team. Since that system is far superior, it makes sense to force people to use it.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Emodea, Frenchy II, Grea Kriopia

Advertisement

Remove ads