SC Rules discussion

[Lenlyvit]

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.

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.

The change looks good to me.

[Thousand Branches]

Don’t wanna snip but I concur with Lenly, it looks like a good change. And thanks for updating the other line!

[Unibot III]

The precedent against working groups was set in a case against the South Pacific during ‘Commend Fudgetopia.’ I also hated the ruling and happy to see it reversed.

[Lenlyvit]

Following the introduction of the new code for co-authors, would it be fair to say that Rule 4(b) should be removed and Rule 4(c) should be renamed to 4(b)?

[Sedgistan]

That's what I asked on the last page - viewtopic.php?p=39133063#p39133063 - but never followed up on.

The question is whether "Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted." should remain in the rules, or be left up to WA members.

[Lenlyvit]

That's what I asked on the last page - viewtopic.php?p=39133063#p39133063 - but never followed up on.

The question is whether "Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted." should remain in the rules, or be left up to WA members.

Oh, duh. I just read back and forgot I even made a post about it. I feel stupid now I stand by my last post here...

[Sedgistan]

I've gone and implemented the change to Rule 4b I suggested at the end of the last page.

[Thousand Branches]

I have a question. With the retirement of the RP mentor program, what does that mean in terms of the Security Council? Is it still illegal to mention any mentor duties as part of future resolutions since those positions no longer exist? Should it be?

[Sedgistan]

Nothing has changed by the ending of the program. Mentor roles were still staff roles, so Rule 3a applies as it always has.

[Thousand Branches]

Thanks Sedge, just wanted to make sure ^-^ But from this point forward, any mentoring these players do can be used because it’s no longer part of a staff role?

[Sedgistan]

Absolutely.

[Sedgistan]

Noting that I've added the following under Rule 3a to codify the above:

Roleplay Mentors - While the scheme has now been disbanded, mentoring carried out while an individual was on the Mentor staff cannot be cited.

[Thousand Branches]

Okay so as per some discussion I had offsite, I have a question about the wording of the issues editor section of 3a. It notes:

Issues Editors - Any issue-related work carried out by Issues Editors while on the staff is covered by this rule, including issues authoring. You may still Commend or Condemn for issues added to the game before joining the team or after leaving the team.

But does this refer to the point when issues were authored or the point when they were submitted? It seems to lean towards when issues are actually added to the game, but if anything, I think that might be somewhat unfair. Given that NS issues often take months to process, edit, and accept, there are certain folks where basing it on authorship rather than submission would knock out several issues that could otherwise be mentioned.

Additionally, at the moment any issues that are drafted or submitted while a player is an editor, but only actually added to the game after their departure would also count as mentionable issues. Is that also intentional?

And finally, whichever way this does swing, it may serve well to make the official rules more clear on the subject.

[Lord Dominator]

The last I heard, the official coverage is everything while they’re an editor, everything else is fine.

I believe this may be related to the concept that the point of the rule is to prevent accusations of self-dealing and whatnot on issue writing/editing, rather than simply trying to block off everything an editor does. /notamod though

[Thousand Branches]

The last I heard, the official coverage is everything while they’re an editor, everything else is fine.

I believe this may be related to the concept that the point of the rule is to prevent accusations of self-dealing and whatnot on issue writing/editing, rather than simply trying to block off everything an editor does. /notamod though

The problem is whether or not something counts as “while they were an editor” or not. If a draft has already been submitted before that player becomes an editor, but is officially published afterwards, does that count? Or the other way around, if an editor started writing an issue while editing, but left the editing dept before it was published, does that count?

[Lord Dominator]

The last I heard, the official coverage is everything while they’re an editor, everything else is fine.

I believe this may be related to the concept that the point of the rule is to prevent accusations of self-dealing and whatnot on issue writing/editing, rather than simply trying to block off everything an editor does. /notamod though

The problem is whether or not something counts as “while they were an editor” or not. If a draft has already been submitted before that player becomes an editor, but is officially published afterwards, does that count? Or the other way around, if an editor started writing an issue while editing, but left the editing dept before it was published, does that count?

Sorry, what I meant is that my understanding is that’s is based on publication date vs when you’re an editor, no matter whether or not being an editor actually affected it.

[Sedgistan]

Lord Dominator is correct.

[Thousand Branches]

Lord Dominator is correct.

Fair enough Sedge, thank you

[Crazy girl]

May need a rule saying all proposals should be in English

[Hulldom]

May need a rule saying all proposals should be in English

Is there a reason the SC has no such rule when the GA has had one for some time? I don't think it would be that hard to simply say it were so and provide an opt-out for IC positions/RP characters.

[Sedgistan]

It just never had one, and nothing has come up until now to suggest it's necessary.

[Wallenburg]

Such rules as "use English" usually come up because there has been a problem where people weren't. The SC gets a great deal of stinker proposals just like the GA, but failure to write in English (including any approximation thereof) hasn't been an issue.

[Crazy girl]

This has now been added as rule 4d (and I didn't mess up Sedge's code!)

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Just noticed this when reading the rules:

Branding: Co-authors should use the in-built mechanics for recording co-authors, rather than listing them in the text of proposals. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.

Shouldn’t the highlighted text be authors, not co-authors?

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

With regards to this.

There is precedent to such proposals being declared illegal for such actions (see Commend Auralia by United Massachusetts)

The current rules were written in late 2020; that ruling comes from 2 years before and did not make it into the new ruleset.

However, a report has been received on this matter and we've felt that it's worth discussing our policy internally. There isn't a consensus yet between the team. I would suggest that players who have an opinion on whether there should be rules on which nations can be cited as co-authors should express them in the SC rules discussion thread.

The old ruleset said this about listing puppets as co-authors.

Listing your own puppet nation as a co-author is illegal, unless your puppet nation was clearly involved in an earlier version of the proposal (see here).

I, personally, think this rule should stand in the current situation otherwise it just debases the status of co-author. Co-authors should have made a concrete contribution to the writing of the proposal.

In the case under discussion there is no sign of the author having used their puppets in the drafting thread. I think they are just badge collecting for their puppets and the proposal should be declared illegal.