SC Rules discussion

[Hulldom]

I'd be more interested in seeing the community police that, rather than moderators, though.

If there's been effective policing of it (I think most people generally shy away because it's against the rules and we're not talking a ton of people/regions ever meriting consideration for two), then feel free to discard my objection. If there has been effective policing in the community, heck, remove my objection altogether.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I'd be more interested in seeing the community police that, rather than moderators, though.

The community can police it, bring up the fact that a draft contains duplications of an existing C&C, but we can’t do anything about it if an author still decides to submit and campaign for it.

I’d like to see the rule retained. True, duplications rarely arise, but that’s probably because the rule exists.

[Unibot III]

We're considering binning what is currently Rule 1c - "Duplication", but want player feedback first. It's been in the rules since the earliest days of the Security Council, and when we were talking about it recently, we wondered what the need for such a mod-enforced rule actually was. Ditching it seems like it would fit with our approach of "let WA members determine their standards".

Some background …

Duplication - of clear GA provenance - is a holdover from the Ard rulings prior to the canonical three/four rules. After the Ard rulings, duplication was shoehorned as a part of Rule II which broadly encapsulated the idea that a resolution needed to be original and logically connected to its objective.

I’m inclined to say, scrap the rule. It’s unnecessary, the community is perfectly capable of determining for itself what level of duplication between resolutions is permissible.

Generally, Sedge & CG have maintained the minimalist spirit of the SC’s rules enforcement, but in the hands of more interventionist arbiters, the duplication rule could be warped and expanded beyond its current limited scope.

You could imagine someone saying “you can’t commend Ballotonia for the Puppetmaster Attack because we’ve already commended Crazygirl for it” or “You can’t repeal-and-replace Commend Kandarin because we’ve already commended him for his work as TRR’s delegate” etc … over-reach, but the kind of over-reach that is possible when a ‘dead letter’ rule exists on paper that is later enforced more stringently. Whereas, it’s hard to imagine the WA greenlighting multiple commendations for the same nominees for the same accomplishments without further context.

The GA should be a cautionary tale for the SC in that we’ve witnessed how a change in moderation can approach similar conventions and rules much more stringently.

[The North Polish Union]

We're considering binning what is currently Rule 1c - "Duplication", but want player feedback first. It's been in the rules since the earliest days of the Security Council, and when we were talking about it recently, we wondered what the need for such a mod-enforced rule actually was. Ditching it seems like it would fit with our approach of "let WA members determine their standards".

I would prefer that the rule stay for the same reasoning as BBD.

[Lord Dominator]

I can think of several issue editors I would commend again if I can just write another Commend with the few issues they can be commended for, if that’s a perfectly acceptable outcome from getting rid of it.

[Hulldom]

We're considering binning what is currently Rule 1c - "Duplication", but want player feedback first. It's been in the rules since the earliest days of the Security Council, and when we were talking about it recently, we wondered what the need for such a mod-enforced rule actually was. Ditching it seems like it would fit with our approach of "let WA members determine their standards".

I would prefer that the rule stay for the same reasoning as BBD.

This is like the one time I actually agree with NPU.

[The Dictatorship of Vanilla]

So I don't really know where to ask this but:
If a resolution references NS, which I believe is illegal? Correct me if I'm wrong, please! But would a repeal be legal, and would you be able to say, the reason I'm repealing is because of metagaming contradictions? I think that might be considered metagaming.

[Improper Classifications]

So I don't really know where to ask this but:
If a resolution references NS, which I believe is illegal? Correct me if I'm wrong, please! But would a repeal be legal, and would you be able to say, the reason I'm repealing is because of metagaming contradictions? I think that might be considered metagaming.

If you think a proposal or resolution, post it in the Illegal SC Proposals thread and let the mods judge it.

[Sedgistan]

So I don't really know where to ask this but:
If a resolution references NS, which I believe is illegal? Correct me if I'm wrong, please! But would a repeal be legal, and would you be able to say, the reason I'm repealing is because of metagaming contradictions? I think that might be considered metagaming.

It sounds like you're quoting General Assembly rules, not the Security Council rules. The SC doesn't prohibit mentioning NS, or have a metagaming rule.

If you have GA questions, post them here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48437

[Wymondham]

Firmly agree with Hulldom and BBD on this, we don't need Commend or Condemnception.

[Sedgistan]

I see people saying they don't want duplication, but no real arguments for mods enforcing that standard over players doing so. In BBD's hypothetical, if WA members are passing Commend Whoever for the same set of actions they were already commended three times for, it sounds like that's what WA members want to do, so why not? It doesn't active harm the SC, break the fourth wall, or fail to meet the minimal format standards required for proposals to make sense.

[Refuge Isle]

I see people saying they don't want duplication, but no real arguments for mods enforcing that standard over players doing so.

If you don't want or think you can't enforce the rule anymore, just say so. But the players have responded that status quo is preferred, which is also my position.

Do with that whatever you intended to do anyway, but this response to the consultation is revealing a farce.

[Sedgistan]

That's an overly dramatic response to a post that's taking part in an open discussion with players and seeking feedback.

Yes, staff would prefer to change the rule. Yes, we could just do that. Yes, we don't expect there to be compelling arguments not to do so. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing to check, and I've given guidance on what we'd be looking for to try and change our minds.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

That's an overly dramatic response to a post that's taking part in an open discussion with players and seeking feedback.

Yes, staff would prefer to change the rule. Yes, we could just do that. Yes, we don't expect there to be compelling arguments not to do so. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing to check, and I've given guidance on what we'd be looking for to try and change our minds.

As I said we, the players, can highlight duplication but we can’t sanction it - that’s your function as long as Duplication remains part of the ruleset.

Allowing duplication will make it ridiculously easy to write a C&C - why bother doing any original research when someone’s done it for you. Just change the wording enough to avoid the charge of plagiarism and you’re quids in.

[Free Social Conservatives]

What type of situation would require you to add material from a previous C/C of the region/nation you are writing about?

[Unibot III]

That's an overly dramatic response to a post that's taking part in an open discussion with players and seeking feedback.

Yes, staff would prefer to change the rule. Yes, we could just do that. Yes, we don't expect there to be compelling arguments not to do so. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing to check, and I've given guidance on what we'd be looking for to try and change our minds.

As I said we, the players, can highlight duplication but we can’t sanction it - that’s your function as long as Duplication remains part of the ruleset.

Allowing duplication will make it ridiculously easy to write a C&C - why bother doing any original research when someone’s done it for you. Just change the wording enough to avoid the charge of plagiarism and you’re quids in.

First, are our moderators best positioned to moderate the duplication rule? It’s the only rule in the SC where legality cannot be decided a priori — they need to be cross referencing extant C&Cs with current texts to provide a legality endorsement. This task will only grow harder to do as the number of extant C&Cs grows indefinitely and I fear the rule isn’t really sustainable as NS matures from being a inexplicably popular ten year old text-based game (when the SC first began) to a thirty-year old thing that people check up on once in a while.

The community will of course take the time to catch quasi-plagiarism when it arises, but I worry it will get less and less sustainable for our moderators to confidentially click “Legal” on resolutions if they’re having to consider a larger and larger base of resolutions.

I think it is also likely that if this kind of duplication is caught, regions will stomp against it.

I’m also concerned as I’ve said before that a change in the moderators themselves could result in new life being breathed into what is more or less a dead letter at the moment.

[Warzone Codger]

Sure the players can point it out and stomp it but it's annoying. And anything can get to vote so let's not pretend otherwise. The duplication rule means you at least has to make some minimum effort to try.

Let the players decide breaks down when the bar for bad faith actors to cause inconvenience is so low.

[Lenlyvit]

I guess I have a couple of questions. I see why moderation is thinking of scrapping the duplication rule, and I think I understand the reasoning behind it. Is that reasoning because the moderation team is too small and busy to handle looking for duplicating resolutions and wants to put the policing in the hands of more people by having the community itself police it? Especially in light of the growing resolution count?

[Thousand Branches]

I guess I have a couple of questions. I see why moderation is thinking of scrapping the duplication rule, and I think I understand the reasoning behind it. Is that reasoning because the moderation team is too small and busy to handle looking for duplicating resolutions and wants to put the policing in the hands of more people by having the community itself police it? Especially in light of the growing resolution count?

Yeah see that’s the way I read it and like I get it honestly. It always felt weird to me that the SC was moderated by moderators instead of a separate entity like the GA is. And for rules that require immense and deep knowledge of prior resolutions, we have plenty of massive nerds in the SC who’ve spent entirely too much time here (not an insult, I promise) who can definitely make those distinctions better and easier than actual moderators.

Honestly, I would advocate for an entirely separate body for SC moderation given the work and time put into it, but something tells me this has probably been turned down before

Edit: I suppose my problem with the current solution is that there’s no authority behind it. Sure you can say the community can police itself, but the community has no status to be able to do so themselves. We can’t declare things illegal. So it’s just gonna lead to a bunch of nonsense spam that we have to vote down over and over. Which is… obviously not appealing

[Lenlyvit]

Honestly, I would advocate for an entirely separate body for SC moderation given the work and time put into it, but something tells me this has probably been turned down before

It has. I've brought it up before and it was indeed shot down.

[Sedgistan]

A "SecSec" body really isn't the solution people think it is.

The Duplication rule is one of the easiest to Moderate. It's vanishingly rare for someone to attempt to repeat a resolution on a target nation/region. We're not looking to drop the rule due to workload - the SC is extremely easy to manage from a Moderation point of view, courtesy of its simple rule set. We're looking to remove it because it goes against the principles of SC moderation, which are to enforce only essential minimum standards, and to leave everything else up to players.

The community can police things the same way everything else is decided in the WA - via approvals and votes. That, in our view, is the best way for standards to be set in the SC. I don't doubt that to prove a point, if we drop this rule, someone will submit a load of proposals that previously would have violated the Duplication rule, but beyond that I expect that if WA members are largely opposed to such efforts, it will remain incredibly rare for someone to attempt them.

As the GenSec/SecSec, if I were designing the General Assembly rules system and enforcement from scratch, it is not the system I would choose. The view of its members is that it has a negative impact on their community's activity, as it restricts the ability to participate of some of their most accomplished authors. I feel the GA would be much better off with a mirror of the SC's ruleset (the only complication there - and it is a significant one - being enforcement of proposals being submitted in the appropriate category), i.e. a minimalist one that Moderators can enforce with minimal time investment, leaving players free to set the majority of their own standards, as is done here.

That's an aside; the main point is that there's no workload-related reasons to have a separate team to make legality rulings on the SC, and there's a chance such a body would be damaging to activity by requiring some of the chamber's key participants to step back from their SC player activities. If we ever did struggle with the workload, we'd just add another SC interested mod or two; there's always plenty of good candidates.

[Tinhampton]

I agree with Sedgistan on all points raised.

[Lenlyvit]

Sedge's post is reasonable, and if moderation has faith in us to keep this in check ourselves I think we can do it. There are multiple ways to counteract a proposal, whether it be at vote already or reaching quorum. I agree to remove it.

[SherpDaWerp]

I think the only edge-case here that's worth re-iterating here is Lord Dominator's.

While there's no appetite in the community to suddenly start passing duplicate C/C's for the hell of it, the existing rules around staff C/C's (especially for Issues Editors) change the ball-game. Now, suddenly, you can't mention any of someone's modern contributions due to a staff appointment, and you have to rely on their old ones? Duplicate C/C's are the only way that we'll see Editors holding double C/C's.

I absolutely don't think this will be commonplace, because double C/C's are vanishingly rare for a reason, but this is a direct outcome that will eventually happen - high-profile or highly-active staff (I suspect the primary candidate would be CWA, who's written or edited close to 350 issues since their current commend, none of which are C/C'able) receiving duplicate C/C's because any non-duplicating contributions are covered by 3a. Is double-badging staff via wink-wink-nudge-nudge "yeah this is the same as the old one but we all know they've done more since then" commends a desirable outcome?

[Lord Dominator]

I think the only edge-case here that's worth re-iterating here is Lord Dominator's.
~~snip~~
I suspect the primary candidate would be CWA, who's written or edited close to 350 issues since their current commend, none of which are C/C'able

Which is to say, the only reason I haven’t drafted something like this is because I forgot to start (and only just now asked permission), so this isn’t at all hypothetical really.