SC Rules discussion

[Glen-Rhodes]

It sounds like you think we shouldn't have any more condemnations dealing with gameplay because raiding was already addressed in SC #1. So what happens when (Max willing) we in-character condemn a roleplaying nation for its heinous (in-character) actions? Should we no longer bother addressing IC actions because the WA has already expressed its distaste for a single incident?

You're oversimplifying what I've said. We shouldn't have any more condemnations on destroying regions in the way Macedon does, because we've already condemned that action in SC#1. Likewise, if we condemn somebody for defenstrating somebody else, we shouldn't condemn another person for that same action, regardless of the situation. If we've already said that this-thing is bad, why do we need to reaffirm ourselves by voting on it again? Also, what happens when (inevitably, I presume) we have a condemnation for one thing, then a commendation gets passed for that same thing? Yes, it would likely be directed at different nations, but again, C&Cs have evolved (with Condemn NAZI EUROPE, I guess; I could be wrong, since 1 event does not create a pattern, but nonetheless that 1 event shouldn't have ever happened) to be more about the action itself, rather than about the nation committing the action...

[Far-Tortuga]

Condemn Nazi Europe isn't passing because of any lofty phrases that make the heart swell; its passing because its targeting Nazis, a group which is universally reviled like no other. A lot of the people voting For right now aren't going to support an appeal because that would be "supporting" the Nazis. I think that is what GR was getting at. Once this is in the books, nothing short of mod intervention is going to get it off.

[Unibot]

So long as we aren't condemning ideologies for future nations/regions, I have no problem with specific issues being brought up in condemnations that seem repetitive. But currently....

[Glen-Rhodes]

Condemn Nazi Europe isn't passing because of any lofty phrases that make the heart swell; its passing because its targeting Nazis, a group which is universally reviled like no other. A lot of the people voting For right now aren't going to support an appeal because that would be "supporting" the Nazis. I think that is what GR was getting at. Once this is in the books, nothing short of mod intervention is going to get it off.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at. It's also why I hate Sionis Prioratus' bleed-heart titles like "Access to Science in Schools"... it's very hard to get people to read past the title, especially when the title implies that a repeal would mean no access to science in schools. But, that's a completely different story...

On a side note, I'd approve of your Bad Things C&C, if my delegate seat wasn't stolen (if unintentionally, even).

[Unibot]

Condemn Nazi Europe isn't passing because of any lofty phrases that make the heart swell; its passing because its targeting Nazis, a group which is universally reviled like no other. A lot of the people voting For right now aren't going to support an appeal because that would be "supporting" the Nazis. I think that is what GR was getting at. Once this is in the books, nothing short of mod intervention is going to get it off.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

[Far-Tortuga]

C&Cs have evolved (with Condemn NAZI EUROPE, I guess; I could be wrong, since 1 event does not create a pattern, but nonetheless that 1 event shouldn't have ever happened) to be more about the action itself, rather than about the nation committing the action...

Now you're the one misinterpreting: Nazi Europe isn't being condemned because of anything its member states have done, but because it has "Nazi" in the regional name and thus must be bad. There was no action in NationStates at all. "Condemn NE" is going to pass solely on people's prejudices from Real World events, the resolution itself was written entirely in response to the Real World atrocities of Nazism. Now you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that that used to be illegal back in the General Assembly. Resolutions had to cite examples from the NS Universe, and effect things in the NS Universe. Condemn NE isn't doing the former and its just barely doing the latter.

Anyway, I still think we'd be setting the SC up for an idea bottleneck worse than any experienced by the GA if we made it so condemnations are directed at ideas and not specific actions. It would be equivalent to the @NAME REMOVED FOR LEGAL PURPOSES@ deciding that, after World War 2 and the Nuremberg trials, they would never bother condemning nations for genocide because they had just condemned the Germans for the "same thing."

[Glen-Rhodes]

Anyway, I still think we'd be setting the SC up for an idea bottleneck worse than any experienced by the GA if we made it so condemnations are directed at ideas and not specific actions. It would be equivalent to the @NAME REMOVED FOR LEGAL PURPOSES@ deciding that, after World War 2 and the Nuremberg trials, they would never bother condemning nations for genocide because they had just condemned the Germans for the "same thing."

It wouldn't really be the equivalent, because That One Body's condemnations actually carry negative effects for the condemned. C&Cs do not; they just put a badge on a page, which has been turned in to a positive symbol for both condemnations and commendations, anyways. I just really don't see why it's imperative that we condemn two, three, or eighty people for doing the exact same thing.

Now you're the one misinterpreting: Nazi Europe isn't being condemned because of anything its member states have done, but because it has "Nazi" in the regional name and thus must be bad. There was no action in NationStates at all. "Condemn NE" is going to pass solely on people's prejudices from Real World events, the resolution itself was written entirely in response to the Real World atrocities of Nazism.

Eh. For what it's worth, that's what I said, not using so many words. All three of us are in agreement.

[Unibot]

Well if we can't get admin support on this issue, which would be a shame..

That makes two talented proposal writers, and well ..me (admirably talentless) in favor of an instant repeal of Condemn Nazi Europe. (It's beyond me how someone could screw up a 'condemn the Nazis proposal !')

Coincidence, I think not.

[Far-Tortuga]

It wouldn't really be the equivalent, because That One Body's condemnations actually carry negative effects for the condemned. C&Cs do not; they just put a badge on a page, which has been turned in to a positive symbol for both condemnations and commendations, anyways. I just really don't see why it's imperative that we condemn two, three, or eighty people for doing the exact same thing.

My big concern is for when C&Cs based solely in roleplay hopefully start getting through. I don't want to see one nation just happen to make it through a vote before anyone else for "Roleplay with theme X," thus locking all others who may also be doing great work within "theme X" out from being recognized.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Well if we can't get admin support on this issue, which would be a shame..

That makes two talented proposal writers, and well ..me (admirably talentless) in favor of an instant repeal of Condemn Nazi Europe. (It's beyond me how someone could screw up a 'condemn the Nazis proposal !')

Coincidence, I think not.

Hm.

[Qumkent]

OOC. I think I suggested a long time ago, maybe even in this thread, that ideologically motivated SC resolutions be against the rules, but that shark was jumped when Condemn Macedon was passed with all of its bunk about "Macedonism". Essentially we now face an SC which will constantly be dragged from ideological pillar to ideological post by which ever ideology happens to be supported by the most votes or championed by the most cunning resolution writers.

There's absolutely no doubt that a commendation for some Nazi themed nation or region will be voted for at some point because the writer had the wit to pose the thing in terms which appeal to those who do little more than read a resolution's title.

I'm not saying that I even care that much any more if the SC does descend in to an ideological war of attrition, but the trenches are going to be boring and interminable, and the whole spectacle will do nothing for the reputation of the Festering Snakepit.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC. I think I suggested a long time ago, maybe even in this thread, that ideologically motivated SC resolutions be against the rules, but that shark was jumped when Condemn Macedon was passed with all of its bunk about "Macedonism".

Hm. I assumed that the term was derived from the region's name, to describe region-destroying, simply because I couldn't see how their actions were genuine Macedonism... If "Condemn Macedon" is actually condemning a political ideology, I don't see why the repeal shouldn't be drafted alongside the repeal of "Condemn NAZI EUROPE". Though, to be fair, "Condemn Macedon" didn't solely condemn an ideology, the way "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" does.

If my repeal of "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" makes it through, the Security Council will at least have a precedent for ideological bans. With this 'user-created precedent', I guess you could call it, mods could finally make ideological bans against the rules.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OK, now that the previous resolution at vote has been exposed as a troll con job, can we finally consider the very serious ramifications that allowing the WA to adjudicate player conduct in a purely OOC context will have on the game?

Or if not, perhaps we should discuss implementing Mad Sheep Railgun's ideas instead?

[Urgench]

OK, now that the previous resolution at vote has been exposed as a troll con job, can we finally consider the very serious ramifications that allowing the WA to adjudicate player conduct in a purely OOC context will have on the game?

Or if not, perhaps we should discuss implementing Mad Sheep Railgun's ideas instead?

Does anyone remember me whinging on about the need for qualified majorities to prevent this kind of bullshit happening in the first place ?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

OK, now that the previous resolution at vote has been exposed as a troll con job, can we finally consider the very serious ramifications that allowing the WA to adjudicate player conduct in a purely OOC context will have on the game?

Or if not, perhaps we should discuss implementing Mad Sheep Railgun's ideas instead?

Does anyone remember me whinging on about the need for qualified majorities to prevent this kind of bullshit happening in the first place ?

I don't know, you do an awful lot of whinging. I'd have to look through my notes.

[Urgench]

OK, now that the previous resolution at vote has been exposed as a troll con job, can we finally consider the very serious ramifications that allowing the WA to adjudicate player conduct in a purely OOC context will have on the game?

Or if not, perhaps we should discuss implementing Mad Sheep Railgun's ideas instead?

Does anyone remember me whinging on about the need for qualified majorities to prevent this kind of bullshit happening in the first place ?

I don't know, you do an awful lot of whinging. I'd have to look through my notes.

I do do a lot of whinging ( LOL I said "do do")

[Glen-Rhodes]

Does anyone remember me whinging on about the need for qualified majorities to prevent this kind of bullshit happening in the first place ?

Eh. I'm starting to agree with you on 'qualified majorities'. Though, they shouldn't be suggested or implemented in a punitive sense.

Oh, dear. It looks like we've turned another thread in to a general C&C suggestion thread. :\

[Urgench]

Does anyone remember me whinging on about the need for qualified majorities to prevent this kind of bullshit happening in the first place ?

Eh. I'm starting to agree with you on 'qualified majorities'. Though, they shouldn't be suggested or implemented in a punitive sense.

Oh, dear. It looks like we've turned another thread in to a general C&C suggestion thread. :\

This might surprise you GR but dispite your presumptions to the contrary I had always suggested qualified majorities as an improvement to the functioning of the SC.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This might surprise you GR but dispite your presumptions to the contrary I had always suggested qualified majorities as an improvement to the functioning of the SC.

Just from the recent response, some people might get the wrong impression. I was talking more generally, if that really counts. We shouldn't suggest or implement a higher threshold of C&Cs simply because they're C&Cs. I remember you giving a pretty clear reason why it would make those that do reach quorum more worthy and prestigious, though.

[Ballotonia]

Per Game Mod request, responding to this thread http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809 here.

3. Your reasons were wrong. The nation or region didn’t do what you said they did, or you’re commending an action that’s illegal under NS rules, or you’re condemning an action that’s legal under NS rules.

The latter part strikes me as odd. We CAN condemn actions which should've been handled by the mods for being illegal in the first place?!? I would expect that phrase to read: "... you're condemning or commending an action that's illegal under NS rules."

Similarly, it makes no sense to me to disallow condemning an action that's legal under NS rules. I'm allowed to RP that I butcher the inhabitants of many nations, and somehow I couldn't be condemned for that because the game rules do not forbid it?!?

Ballotonia

[Ardchoille]

Folks, the fiasco with the Condemn Nazi Europe proposal has forced my hand a bit. The idea was that we would all work out a How-To full of nice positive statements contributed by the players. Since we didn't have any active rules, the suitability of proposals was going to be determined by whether the SC delegates gave them enough approvals to reach quorum, and mods were going to keep ourselves in the background.

Unfortunately, delegates gave enough approvals to reach quorum, and pass, to a proposal written in a snit over a minor matter, unclear as to whether the ideology referred to was the RW or NS version, and lacking any NS-related argument, or, indeed, any argument at all, other than "Nazis bad".

Consequently, based on discussions here, I've written a "How NOT to" set of rules and posted it here. While this may seem to contradict the original aims, [violet] said today in discussion that mods should lead their respective communities in creating a ruleset. Okay, consider yourselves led.

The stickied set still isn't finished. As you can see, it refers only sketchily to the points Eras and others raised about use of offsite forums, player-behind-nation and "real world", nor does it go into detail about even vague references to GA lawmaking in SC action resolutions. It continues my avoidance of any ruling on IC/OOC, except to say don't mix 'em.

But, while it's not finished, it is active. It's what I'll be using to get rid of proposals that I consider defective. So, if you want your C&C to have a chance to reach At Vote, you'll either avoid those defects or hope I don't touch the queue until yours gets to the floor.

IF you want to scream blue murder, you'll have to do it here, because I've locked the sticky. If there are any conflicts between the sticky and the post that started this thread, the sticky wins.

If there's time, I'm planning to copy each proposal I delete, with a brief explanation where possible, and archive them so that would-be authors can see what caused a proposal to get the chop. That way things that aren't clear may become clearer by example.

[Ardchoille]

Per Game Mod request, responding to this thread http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809 here.

3. Your reasons were wrong. The nation or region didn’t do what you said they did, or you’re commending an action that’s illegal under NS rules, or you’re condemning an action that’s legal under NS rules.

The latter part strikes me as odd. We CAN condemn actions which should've been handled by the mods for being illegal in the first place?!? I would expect that phrase to read: "... you're condemning or commending an action that's illegal under NS rules."

Similarly, it makes no sense to me to disallow condemning an action that's legal under NS rules. I'm allowed to RP that I butcher the inhabitants of many nations, and somehow I couldn't be condemned for that because the game rules do not forbid it?!?

Ballotonia

Thanks, You're right about "commending an action that's illegal ...". I was thinking back to the feeling of not being able to kill anything, so that it was possible that, say, someone might have spammed an RMB, but the collective feeling of the SC was that the region concerned deserved it, so a commendation for the spamming could be written and reach quorum. I'll delete that line.

On the second part, I can't see how an international body can condemn a member for acting legally under existing rules. I'm getting at the situation that came up in with Macedon. Raiding is legal under NS rules. The action itself couldn't be condemned. But the way it was done could be.

So, if you RP the genocide of millions, you're acting NS-legally, because you're allowed to RP. What you'd be condemned for would be the IC action, and the whole C&C would have to be written IC.

EDIT: Fixed.

[Ballotonia]

Now it says "you’re condemning an action that’s legal under NS rules".

So... if it's legal, it can't be condemned. And ofcourse, if it's illegal it can't be condemned either since that's Mod territory. Perhaps the "Note" should be part of the rule instead of something mentioned afterwards as if it's an aside comment?

Raiding is legal under NS rules. The action itself couldn't be condemned.

For the life of me, I can't think of why that would have to be a rule. Similarly for condemning defending, or pretty much any other action taken by anyone anywhere in NS. Isn't it the purpose of the SC to form majority-held opinions on stuff that happens in NS?

Ballotonia

[Erastide]

3. Your reasons were wrong. The nation or region didn’t do what you said they did, or you’re condemning an action that’s legal under NS rules.

I'll agree with Ballotonia, I'm not sure why you can't commend or condemn for doing a legal action. I would say you shouldn't be C&Cd for an ILLEGAL action instead, since that should go through the moderation system.

You forgot the #1 for point 1 under Confusion.

Given the sticking point of mentioning things outside the NS site isn't in there yet, looks good.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Plagiarism is also out too. That should be another reason to remove C&C proposals from the queue.