Rule 4, formerly 'Split from Commend "A Mean Old Man".'

[Ardchoille]

<snip>And this another reason why we need this rule 4 stuff resolved very quickly.

In the interests of "resolving quickly", I should point out that the basic premise of Rule 4 -- that all the official statements of an international body should sound as if they come from an international body -- is not going to go away. The purpose of the R4 discussion thread that I'm currently writing (in the intervals between computer malfunctions) is not to eliminate that requirement, but to explain how it will be interpreted and applied, and to deal with concerns as they come up. So if you are delaying a vote on this proposal in the hope that R4 will simply disappear, you should perhaps reconsider your stance.

As it would be entirely off-topic to divert this thread into yet another R4 discussion, please reserve any comments, queries, etc on that topic and instead return to discussing your view on whether AMOM's contribution to NS is such that a commendation is deserved.

EDIT: While it is sometimes legitimate to discuss the motives of delegates, remember the rules. Avoid flames, avoid flamebait and avoid trolling other groups of players.

[Biyah]

<snip>And this another reason why we need this rule 4 stuff resolved very quickly.

In the interests of "resolving quickly", I should point out that the basic premise of Rule 4 -- that all the official statements of an international body should sound as if they come from an international body -- is not going to go away. The purpose of the R4 discussion thread that I'm currently writing (in the intervals between computer malfunctions) is not to eliminate that requirement, but to explain how it will be interpreted and applied, and to deal with concerns as they come up. So if you are delaying a vote on this proposal in the hope that R4 will simply disappear, you should perhaps reconsider your stance.

As it would be entirely off-topic to divert this thread into yet another R4 discussion, please reserve any comments, queries, etc on that topic and instead return to discussing your view on whether AMOM's contribution to NS is such that a commendation is deserved.

EDIT: While it is sometimes legitimate to discuss the motives of delegates, remember the rules. Avoid flames, avoid flamebait and avoid trolling other groups of players.

You have already been ignoring issues as they come up, by trying to put a band-aid on language when language was not the problem - your basic attitude and approach to the whole situation was.

We control most of the Feeders and could stop the SC from functioning at all by blocking everything that comes up for a vote… but if your attitude is that this farce will continue regardless, I’m not sure what the point would be. Way to go, good job in listening. Go play with your Thee’s and Thou’s.

Good day, everyone in the SC - I will no longer pay attention to this BS.

[Todd McCloud]

<snip>And this another reason why we need this rule 4 stuff resolved very quickly.

In the interests of "resolving quickly", I should point out that the basic premise of Rule 4 -- that all the official statements of an international body should sound as if they come from an international body -- is not going to go away. The purpose of the R4 discussion thread that I'm currently writing (in the intervals between computer malfunctions) is not to eliminate that requirement, but to explain how it will be interpreted and applied, and to deal with concerns as they come up. So if you are delaying a vote on this proposal in the hope that R4 will simply disappear, you should perhaps reconsider your stance.

As it would be entirely off-topic to divert this thread into yet another R4 discussion, please reserve any comments, queries, etc on that topic and instead return to discussing your view on whether AMOM's contribution to NS is such that a commendation is deserved.

EDIT: While it is sometimes legitimate to discuss the motives of delegates, remember the rules. Avoid flames, avoid flamebait and avoid trolling other groups of players.

That's the problem. I think many people here would agree he could use a commendation, yet it's failing. Miserably. The problem is this C&C isn't about him - it's about an apparent protest against the Rule IV resolution. I don't think this will end here, to be honest, which is why this rule should *at least* be reviewed at a good convenience. I understand you're busy, but we're drowning here.

[Naivetry]

As it would be entirely off-topic to divert this thread into yet another R4 discussion, please reserve any comments, queries, etc on that topic and instead return to discussing your view on whether AMOM's contribution to NS is such that a commendation is deserved.

EDIT: While it is sometimes legitimate to discuss the motives of delegates, remember the rules. Avoid flames, avoid flamebait and avoid trolling other groups of players.

This resolution, unfortunately, is not about AMOM's contributions and never has been. I may not be an official member of 3WB, but I owe him every bit as much of an apology for helping to draft this resolution in the hopes that their defeat of a good Commendation, one that deserves by all rights to pass, would make more of a statement than the failure of a bad one.

You can lock every thread on the topic on this forum. You can hand out warnings, and I understand that I may be earning my first right now. But you can't force people to vote on or discuss only the text and the subject of this Commendation when voting is the only way you've left us to express our disagreement.

AMOM, I'm sorry - you've been the best, and you don't deserve to have this fail.

[Darkesia]

... you can't force people to vote on or discuss only the text and the subject of this Commendation when voting is the only way you've left us to express our disagreement.

With your permission, Nai, I would like to sig this bit.

[Oh my Days]

I should point out that the basic premise of Rule 4 -- that all the official statements of an international body should sound as if they come from an international body -- is not going to go away.

Why? We split from the GA, so they can't complain; they get their "international body". The SC is designed to be used by players, and should be used as well as possible. Gameplayers coming up with IC euphemisms isn't a good use of the SC, it just confuses new players and those not likely to come to the forums. We have so many players not understanding resolutions anyway (just look at the lemming effect, so many people vote for which ever side is winning) and this will only exacerbate that. Gameplayers writing OOC resolutions doesn't prevent or harm IC resolutions in any way, Uni and AMOM are both group leaders and have passed IC resolutions.

[Darkesia]

Frankly I would rather see gameplay banned outright than see this sort of cramming RP down our throats. At least banning is an honest action.

[Ballotonia]

The mixing of SC and GA had a darn good reason: they do not mix well. At all, in fact. That's why a lot of criticism happened, and the two were split.

Now with R4, the same mistake is made again. The SC is now forced to roleplay as if it were the GA. Once again: these worlds do not mix, and the criticism flung around is of the same type we've seen before. It's just that now it's the gameplayers complaining about roleplaying being forced upon them, not the roleplayers complaining about a non-roleplay game element being forced upon them. Game Management has made the same mistake again. It makes me feel strongly they really don't understand what makes their own playerbase tick.

So, let me suggest a way out of this mess. It's the same proposal I've made way back in the beginning when C&C's started. People thought I wasn't serious back then, but perhaps by now looking over the nitty-gritty ludricous rulebase which has slowly emerged over C&C's more people will be able to fully grasp the suggestion.

The suggestion is this: C&C's would not come with any text accompanying them. At all. So the text block underneath would be entirely blank. A link to the forum where discussion can be held is attached. The author can explain why he/she feels the C&C is needed there, and others can respond to it there. Since the forum is not part of the C&C, no amount of roleplay has to be enforced. At the same time, the C&C COULD be about roleplay. Problem solved.

Note that liberating C&C's from having to be limited to something specific written in stone into the C&C itself, it can instead cover a far more complicated elaborate ponderance of all information involved: roleplay, gameplay, whatever-play. And because it would be an overall judgment instead of just a judgment of what is mentioned in the text block of the C&C, the badge would actually increase in significance.

And one more thing: this would naturally limit the number of condemns of a nation/region to one. And the number of condemnations similarly would be limited to one. There would be no point in condemning an already condemned player. One badge is all what would be needed.

Ballotonia

[Naivetry]

... you can't force people to vote on or discuss only the text and the subject of this Commendation when voting is the only way you've left us to express our disagreement.

With your permission, Nai, I would like to sig this bit.

Feel free, though I would point out it's not true at the moment.

...which should certainly not be an encouragement for anyone to get this thread shut down, too. *hugs thread*

I think Oh My Days' question is what we've all been wondering, since the argument about preventing flames is not, shall we say, persuasive. Why make a fundamental change to the philosophy of the SC, after we've spent a year developing it on an entirely different set of assumptions, and when our disagreements about the nature of the game and of the World Assembly were the reason for the split chambers to begin with?

What problem was this meant to solve that is proportional to the disruption it is causing, not just to the embryonic SC authors' community, but to regional communities across the game?

Who asked for this rule, or has suggested it would help? Every player who has more than one passed SC resolution to their name is opposed to it.

It feels like we've been told the split chambers, the split queue, the last year we've spent working here, was nothing but a failed experiment - but we haven't been shown how it has failed. This whole thing has come as a horrible surprise.

------------------------

I would vastly prefer Ballotonia's suggestion of having blank C/C's to the existing Rule 4. That is how much of a difference this makes to me, and I think to anyone else in Gameplay.

[Unibot]

The suggestion is this: C&C's would not come with any text accompanying them. At all. So the text block underneath would be entirely blank. A link to the forum where discussion can be held is attached. The author can explain why he/she feels the C&C is needed there, and others can respond to it there. Since the forum is not part of the C&C, no amount of roleplay has to be enforced. At the same time, the C&C COULD be about roleplay. Problem solved.

Errr... if this was a forum post, couldn't this argument be edited -- and thus, be subject to the same problems as amendments are to GA resolutions?

I would be opposed to Ballotonia's method, as I've seen the convential method of submitting justified resolutions having worked for the SC, and I don't understand where the difference lies where the text of the proposal is situated.. but I'd prefer it over Rule IV.

[JURISDICTIONS]

The suggestion is this: C&C's would not come with any text accompanying them. At all. So the text block underneath would be entirely blank. A link to the forum where discussion can be held is attached. The author can explain why he/she feels the C&C is needed there, and others can respond to it there. Since the forum is not part of the C&C, no amount of roleplay has to be enforced. At the same time, the C&C COULD be about roleplay. Problem solved.

Errr... if this was a forum post, couldn't this argument be edited -- and thus, be subject to the same problems as amendments are to GA resolutions?

I would be opposed to Ballotonia's method, as I've seen the convential method of submitting justified resolutions having worked for the SC, and I don't understand where the difference lies where the text of the proposal is situated.. but I'd prefer it over Rule IV.

According to what I see, the answer is no...

Because no EXTRA coding is required for the "Amend". The nation just gets a badge... that is it.

[Oh my Days]

I agree with Ballotonia, blank C&Cs would be better than Rule 4 compliant C&Cs for gameplayers.

EDIT: I tried this and came up with an error message, which you can view here. There is a minimum length, if we find out what it is we could come up with a standard message to use. It may only be one character, I don't know.

EDIT2: I tried a period and I also tried the letter "a", the minimum length is more than one character.

[Todd McCloud]

I agree with Ballotonia, blank C&Cs would be better than Rule 4 compliant C&Cs for gameplayers.

But why should gameplayers be forced to choose between these two options? Why couldn't gameplayers simply have just as much of a right to submit a C&C that relfects what they did in-game as much as a roleplayed nation? And why did this happen just a month ago, suddenly, like that? I mean, one of the basic intents to split the GA from the SC was because GA folk were having difficulty with accepting the ooc tendencies of the SC. So we split it: ( viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22185 ). As I read through that thread, I'm quite impressed at how the mods and [violet] listened to us and, while I'm sure it was difficult and it took time (even with the coding and modding coming *free* of charge, lol), it was still implemented. It just needed a few changes here and there. As you can see, the split is quite different from what I initially proposed. But it was *done*. I don't think what we're asking here is too much, to be honest:

• All we want is to have equal representation for gameplayers - this is not and should not be a contest of which side of the game is better. We just want to coexist, that's all. You know, like we used to, instead of telling one faction 'no, you're style of gameplay is not allowed here, you have to adjust to this side's style.'
• This requires no coding, no major changes, if anything, it reverts back to how it was about two months ago. If it's removed, I doubt I'd even bring it up again, personally.
• The premise for this rule was apparently to stop bickering and joke proposals. I really think this has backfired... tremendously.

Now, I am pretty sure it is understood AMOM can and one day probably will get a commendation. Hell, I think he deserves one right now. But it's failing miserably. I know that most people here know it's failing not because he really doesn't deserve it, or it's written terribly or is full of lies or whatever, but because of this rule. This new rule, that was not debated on, not discussed upon, and certainly not advocated. On the contrary, there has been a fair amount of civil disobedience going on in protest. And I believe it won't cease until something is done. I personally detest having people caught in the crossfire through all of this, and strongly suggest a motion to reverse this rule or something along those lines. I think we've given enough reasons as to why this won't work.

[Unibot]

*nods with Todd*

I absolutely agree with Todd, 100%. This rule is hurting people, and blank resolutions are demeaning to authors who have worked hard to compose SC resolutions in the past -- and blanks will only open the Security Council to more outside ridicule -- additionally, blanks really wouldn't solve the real problem that people have with Rule IV. Gameplay culture doesn't need solving, it isn't a virus or something!

Bring back the option to compose OOC resolutions, and let it be!

[Rule IV]

*nods with Todd*

I absolutely agree with Todd, 100%. This rule is hurting people, and blank resolutions are demeaning to authors who have worked hard to compose SC resolutions in the past -- and blanks will only open the Security Council to more outside ridicule -- additionally, blanks really wouldn't solve the real problem that people have with Rule IV. Gameplay culture doesn't need solving, it isn't a virus or something!

Bring back the option to compose OOC resolutions, and let it be!

So then, does that mean that the Security Council does not exist in roleplay-IC?

[The Theban Legion]

Speaking of a lack of knowledge... I had no idea this was such a hot topic. But I can see where AMOM is going with this RP thing. It forces new players to get involved with their regions to gain knowledge. But if that knowledge is unattainable for some then we should allow OOC stuff too.

[Rule IV]

Speaking of a lack of knowledge... I had no idea this was such a hot topic. But I can see where AMOM is going with this RP thing. It forces new players to get involved with their regions to gain knowledge. But if that knowledge is unattainable for some then we should allow OOC stuff too.

How is it unattainable?

[Unibot]

*nods with Todd*

I absolutely agree with Todd, 100%. This rule is hurting people, and blank resolutions are demeaning to authors who have worked hard to compose SC resolutions in the past -- and blanks will only open the Security Council to more outside ridicule -- additionally, blanks really wouldn't solve the real problem that people have with Rule IV. Gameplay culture doesn't need solving, it isn't a virus or something!

Bring back the option to compose OOC resolutions, and let it be!

So then, does that mean that the Security Council does not exist in roleplay-IC?

Errr... no. "Blanks" was referring to the Ballotonian idea. As a role-player, and the author of a couple of role-played SC resolutions, I wouldn't suggest that roleplay doesn't exist in the Security Council.

[Todd McCloud]

*nods with Todd*

I absolutely agree with Todd, 100%. This rule is hurting people, and blank resolutions are demeaning to authors who have worked hard to compose SC resolutions in the past -- and blanks will only open the Security Council to more outside ridicule -- additionally, blanks really wouldn't solve the real problem that people have with Rule IV. Gameplay culture doesn't need solving, it isn't a virus or something!

Bring back the option to compose OOC resolutions, and let it be!

So then, does that mean that the Security Council does not exist in roleplay-IC?

They would have to coexist, it coexisted and grew for a year with admittedly a few rocky moments, but overall, it was a neat mix. Gameplayers came off the site and checked this place out. They mixed with the GA folk, and it was fun. Maybe some of the arguing wasn't fun, but overall, it was something that was unique. And because it was born this way, I don't think it should be suddenly reversed. It is hurting this SC enough as it is, and turning a lot of people off to the notion of what the SC intended to do (at least how I saw it): give people something new to play with, but have it so that the two factions of the game would come together. And yes, it would cause conflict. And yes, it would cause people to get sour. But look at what we created. I think it's a pretty cool thing.

Had it not been for the SC, I would've never even had the privilege to know people here. And we don't get along all the time, but hey, I'm glad I was able to be a part of it. Why? It was fun. It was fun writing those resolutions. It was fun trying to hammer out *our own rules, that we agreed on and discussed*. It was fun working to split the SC from the GA since people wanted it and the GA rules were not equal to those of the SC. But this rule almost reverses all that we did. If it stays, we're at ground zero. Gameplayers are ticked and no SC resolution passes. GA & WA savvy members probably wouldn't like it either, I'd imagine (I, for one, would be ticked to see the GA enter a crisis like this one, so I am not differentiating here). And to anyone new, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth:

New nation: What is this SC I keep hearing about
Angry "vet": Something that sucks and doesn't work in the game anymore.
New naton: Oh...

I mean, just look at how much of a disaster this seemingly innocent C&C of AMOM has turned into. That's really all the proof you need. I'm not saying the 3WB is an awesome idea, I'm not saying it's bad either. People are angry. But they're also disappointed. You just *have* to work toward equality here. For *anything* to work. And, that means, consequently, that really, what we had before wasn't a bad thing. Honestly, what we have here, I'd gladly take the raider-defender bickering over this. At least we could put the proposal in the Silly C&C thread and be done with it.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Unlike, it appears, most gameplayers, I'm willing to tolerate some limits on how what terms you can use in a resolution, and I am looking forward to Ardchoille's explanation.

Specifically, I'd be happy to write and support resolutions which simply use the nation name to refer to the target and use certain specific terms:

1. "regional forum"
2. "regional government"
3. "founder"
4. "delegate"
5. "ejection"
6. "invader"
7. "native"
8. "defender"
9. "raider"
10. "fender"
11. and perhaps similar terms..

I would also like for the ability to use the pronouns "he" and "she" for nations in resolutions where this makes sense, but I could live without it. I don't know if the rest of Gameplay could.

[Punk Reloaded]

I should point out that the basic premise of Rule 4 -- that all the official statements of an international body should sound as if they come from an international body -- is not going to go away.

This is the statement I have the most problems with. I've played this game for a little over 6 years. I've had very little to do with the UN (Now named World Assembly) and didn't know until a few days ago that there was a Security Council. I turned by back on the UN (hereafter WA) b/c I thought many of the resolutions were silly and completely lacking any connection with reality. That's my opinion, and I wouldn't suppose all hold to it. However, I know many gameplayers who continued to try to make inroads within the WA and it would seem that the creation of the SC fits within their attempts.

For a game moderator to unilaterally state something isn't going to change despite the fact that many are requesting that it be looked into, is death for a game like this. This is a political game in which today you may side with the "right" and tomorrow change your mind and go with the "left". In other words, a vibrant NationStates is one that is organic and can evolve as the players - yes, players - evolve. To remain stagnant or to put in place didactic structures because you fall on one side of the argument or another is harmful to the game. People need an avenue to make change through a transparent process. I don't believe Ardochille's process, from what I can see has been that open.

I say all this to ask Ardochille to consider what people are saying in this thread and elsewhere. Even if you lock threads or whatever people are still going to discuss this situation and look for remedies.

[Poree]

AMOM, I'm sorry - you've been the best, and you don't deserve to have this fail.

Then why pick him to dump it on? Why not pick one of the key members of the 3WB? Why not let them take the hit?

[Ananke II]

Another thing to consider in regards to the rule 4 thing is that the introduction of the Security Council (C&Cs and liberations) helped revitalize part of gameplay. It gave us a new toy to play politics with. There's still lingering bitterness among many gameplayers about how influence (+ a couple of other gameplay mechanics changes) was handled, when it got introduced. It really hurt the gameplay part of Nationstates. We saw most of our part of the game wither and die, but noone cared, when this was pointed out. The willingness of [violet] to listen to people's opinion about what works and what doesn't in Nationstates throughout the last year has done a lot to make us feel more included. This rule change, with no real reason behind it, comes out of the blue and only affects gameplayers, so of course it upsets people, because we remember the influence debacle and are scared that gameplay will once again loose out, by being shut out (and making us write all resolutions in roleplay terms pretty much says that gameplay is not an equal aspect of Nationstates) from the new toy, which is helping us regain activity.

[Oh my Days]

I agree with Ballotonia, blank C&Cs would be better than Rule 4 compliant C&Cs for gameplayers.

But why should gameplayers be forced to choose between these two options? Why couldn't gameplayers simply have just as much of a right to submit a C&C that relfects what they did in-game as much as a roleplayed nation? And why did this happen just a month ago, suddenly, like that?

Of course, abolishing Rule 4 is the best option but I would rather have blank C&Cs than IC C&Cs where they are not applicable.

[Topid]

AMOM, I'm sorry - you've been the best, and you don't deserve to have this fail.

Then why pick him to dump it on? Why not pick one of the key members of the 3WB? Why not let them take the hit?

We didn't pick him. 3WB didn't bring this to vote, author it, or support it in queue. The only 3WB delegate I know of that approved the proposal was Oh My Days. I didn't approve it and hoped it wouldn't make quorum.

The resolution's author wrote, submitted, and brought it to vote all on his own. We had all already agreed to vote against ALL the resolutions before this was submitted or even being drafted. 3WB or any member never outed or picked AMOM's as the first resolution to be shot down. We have no control over that. It just made quorum.