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

[Metania]

More or less what I said, but the 3WB seems to be asleep at the switch. They may have given up after all.

Or it may just be the calm before 1000 votes slams the current proposition into the ground.

[Ananke II]

More or less what I said, but the 3WB seems to be asleep at the switch. They may have given up after all.

Or it may just be the calm before 1000 votes slams the current proposition into the ground.

Not really. The only reason the resolution is winning right now is my votes and it's DFD's gameplay connections which is a big part of the reason my endorsers and I are supporting it. The same condemnation directed at a roleplayer without involvement in gameplay would not be supported by 10ki.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Shall I tell Ard to drop all the real life concerns she has so you can have an update, then?

Why would you, I asked for no such thing. IMHO, your vitriolic response is not constructive.

That wasn't vitriol. My interactions with Communist Mississippi were vitriolic (and deservedly so, in my opinion).

Regardless, your post seemed to be using an old last edit date as justification for the position you were adopting. I disagreed with that line of reasoning and pointed out why I felt it was fallacious; using a moderate amount of my usual snark. And since we're now considering how constructive things are, I would like to posit that my snark (or, if you prefer, vitriol) is far more constructive than 3WB.

[Unibot]

I would like to posit that my snark (or, if you prefer, vitriol) is far more constructive than 3WB.

No, because your snark is inflammatory, whilst the 3WB is not by nature. Nothing that serves to inflame the situation could be more constructive than a peace protest.

Yours,
Uni

[Quintessence of Dust]

Didn't you leave?

[Unibot]

Didn't you leave?

Didn't you leave, as well?

[Urgench]

Didn't you leave?

Didn't you leave, as well?

I don't recall Quod's exeunt stage left ever being as "La Traviata" as this little number viewtopic.php?f=24&t=59470

[Unibot]

Didn't you leave?

Didn't you leave, as well?

I don't recall Quod's exeunt stage left ever being as "La Traviata" as this little number viewtopic.php?f=24&t=59470

Yep, he's got a lot more class than that. I couldn't help it though.

[Ananke II]

I would like to posit that my snark (or, if you prefer, vitriol) is far more constructive than 3WB.

Depends. I haven't seen much interest from the moderators side so far in understanding why people are upset about the rule change. For a while we (gameplayers) actually thought you might have started seeing us as an equal part of Nationstates again, but the way this rule was implemented clearly shows that's not the case. More fool us for actually liking and using the Security Council, not expecting that we'd suddenly be locked out again with no warning and an explanation (flaming) which didn't add up and was quickly abandoned again anyway.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Not really. The only reason the resolution is winning right now is my votes and it's DFD's gameplay connections which is a big part of the reason my endorsers and I are supporting it. The same condemnation directed at a roleplayer without involvement in gameplay would not be supported by 10ki.

She ain't joking, neither. Yelda got creamed by 10KI, and all he ever did was found a puppet they didn't like!

[Urgench]

I would like to posit that my snark (or, if you prefer, vitriol) is far more constructive than 3WB.

Depends. I haven't seen much interest from the moderators side so far in understanding why people are upset about the rule change. For a while we (gameplayers) actually thought you might have started seeing us as an equal part of Nationstates again, but the way this rule was implemented clearly shows that's not the case. More fool us for actually liking and using the Security Council, not expecting that we'd suddenly be locked out again with no warning and an explanation (flaming) which didn't add up and was quickly abandoned again anyway.

I genuinely do not understand this, no one is stopping GPers from continuing to use the SC, nothing about this rule excludes anyone nor does it imply anyone is viewed as unequal. If you and others had troubled yourselves to look at what the rule actually says (rather than swallowing the frankly ludicrous ravings of certain high profile 3WB members hook line and sinker) and followed how the rule is being developed instead of boycotting the SC and making up lies about the nature of this rule I think that would be abundantly clear.

That you and others wish to see yourselves and Gameplay more generally as being persecuted and ignored is a perfectly self generated complex, and has nothing to do with this rule or, so far as I can see, how Gameplay is viewed by the Mods and Admins. If you didn't automatically want to see yourselves as perpetual victims then I'm pretty certain most of this controversy would never have arisen.

This mania some of you have about Gameplay victimhood has totally monopolised this entire debate, and it's almost too contrary to fact to be taken seriously.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It's almost as if the founders of 3WB wanted to exploit the fears of gameplayers to suit their own personal agendas! But Unibot would never lend his name to something to fiendishly cynical, would he? I mean, he's not even a gameplayer!

Oh wait.

[Ballotonia]

More or less what I said, but the 3WB seems to be asleep at the switch. They may have given up after all.

Or it may just be the calm before 1000 votes slams the current proposition into the ground.

Not really. The only reason the resolution is winning right now is my votes and it's DFD's gameplay connections which is a big part of the reason my endorsers and I are supporting it. The same condemnation directed at a roleplayer without involvement in gameplay would not be supported by 10ki.

The proposal at vote mentions nothing about Gameplay. It's a condemnation based on Roleplay. What will enter the record is what the resolution says, not the non-listed reasons you and your endorsers have for voting in favor anyway.

And I'm left wondering whether the 3WB will survive this vote.

Ballotonia

[Maul-5]

More or less what I said, but the 3WB seems to be asleep at the switch. They may have given up after all.

Or it may just be the calm before 1000 votes slams the current proposition into the ground.

Not really. The only reason the resolution is winning right now is my votes and it's DFD's gameplay connections which is a big part of the reason my endorsers and I are supporting it. The same condemnation directed at a roleplayer without involvement in gameplay would not be supported by 10ki.

The proposal at vote mentions nothing about Gameplay. It's a condemnation based on Roleplay. What will enter the record is what the resolution says, not the non-listed reasons you and your endorsers have for voting in favor anyway.

And I'm left wondering whether the 3WB will survive this vote.

Ballotonia

It will likely cave in in some areas, but likely proposal writers in future will both have to write better material and perform more legwork to actually make it pass. If even half of the 3WB continue the actions then this will be a 400 against vote to overturn. This perhaps but marks another chapter in the 3WB.

- Jimmy Maullet.

[Crabulonia]

A CTV news report flashed on a TV screen nearby.

'Special Report: This is Javier Gonzalez, CEO of Crabulonian Television. I have a special World Assembly report. The Third Wall Bloc has been injected with new life as the deficit between votes for and against the most recent proposal has been brought down to a mere two hundred votes. It is believed that the "Lemming Effect" was causing many members of the Security Council to simply jump towards the more popular "for" vote. We have learned that the major shift was a result from Ananke II removing the 10K Islands vote - also known as the "Mega Vote" in CTV circles due to it's very high likelihood of deciding the result - from the "for" vote. More on this story as it develops.'

[Metania]

It's almost as if the founders of 3WB wanted to exploit the fears of gameplayers to suit their own personal agendas! But Unibot would never lend his name to something to fiendishly cynical, would he? I mean, he's not even a gameplayer!

Oh wait.

Oh no, someone is talking like this! Whatever they are talking about must be horrible and wrong as they say! Forget that all of it is rhetorical questions and exclamation marks, it has to be of substance! It has an italicized name, for cripes sake!

Exclamatioooooooooooooooooooooooooon!!!!!!!



The answer lies somewhere in-between. Strategically it'd make more sense to destabilize the 3WB by there being a carrot somewhere in all of this to draw roughly a quarter to a half of their members away, then using the stick to deal with the rest. All stick will just make them stick together, and of course, all carrot would mean we could refer to McDonalds, the United Nations, and Max Barry Day in every C&C.

[Franxico]

I would like to posit that my snark (or, if you prefer, vitriol) is far more constructive than 3WB.

No, because your snark is inflammatory, whilst the 3WB is not by nature. Nothing that serves to inflame the situation could be more constructive than a peace protest.

Yours,
Uni

Ambaixador Franxican a l'Assemblea Mundial Vicente Fernandez drives his pickup truck through a crowd of 3WB "peace protesters", sending beads, flowers, and protest signs flying in all directions. Members of various AO delegations wave and cheer as he drives past.

¡Fuera de mi manera usted hippies! ¡Ha ha ha! Ahora que es lo que llamo inflamatorio. ¡Arriba!

Vicente Fernandez
Ambaixador Franxican a l'Assemblea Mundial

[Sdaeriji]

OOC: This whole post is out of character since I don't roleplay. I'm not sure why I'm putting "OOC:" at the start of my post because it seems like this thread chucked any pretense of being in character a long time ago, but there you are.

I'm sure you're all anxious to hear my opinion on this, being as I don't belong to either the roleplaying community or the gameplaying community, but I'm here to force you to read a far too lengthy post regardless. And, predictably, being someone who is not involved in either side of this "debate" and having no notable agenda to speak of, my opinion of this whole travishamockery is smack dab in the middle. As someone who spends most of his time in this game arguing politics to no real end, I've become rather adept at seeing both sides of an issue, and I'm going to try and see if I can get both communities to disagree with me simultaneously, somehow creating harmony and peace and brotherhood in the process. I flipped a coin to see who I would be a jerk to first, and gameplay won. Or lost. Whichever means that I'm going to talk about them first.

So, regarding this whole third wall bloc dealie thingie, I have to say as someone who has no real interest, or for that matter cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of, the whole invading/defending segment of this game, but having had more than one experience having been bludgeoned with that idea of "playing" NationStates, I find the gameplay community's stance on this issue remarkably hypocritical and amusingly blind to their own past. For literally years, the gameplay community has run roughshod over founderless or otherwise undefended regions, upsetting and unsettling countless people whose idea of playing this game was like mine: answer a few issues, get into a pointless argument about abortion, and complain to the mods (and to head this particular argument off at the pass, I understand and appreciate what the defending part of invading/defending has done to maintain stability in these regions, but you're the yang to the invaders' yin, so you get grouped in with them). I personally had more than one of the regions I settled down into in my early days of this game rather ruthlessly destroyed by the gameplay community.

Now, I've been playing this game long enough to have seen the "Ban Invading!" thread come up approximately 659,331 times, and inevitably, the argument in favor of invading continuation is ends up being, "Max Barry has decreed that it part of the game, so if you don't like it, tough." Again, to preempt potential retorts, I also appreciate that the argument is more nuanced than that, but at its core, the only point that people wanting gameplay gone cannot retort is that the owner, proprietor, creator, and mythological figure responsible for this game has said that invading is a-okay, so anyone who doesn't like it should find a new game to play. And I understand that; it's his game. He could decree that everyone's post has to start with the words "I am a giant tool" and we'd all have the choice of either complying or leaving. And I understand that the moderators, in their neverending quest to get us all to stop bothering them, have instituted numerous changes to the rules that allow people several options to defend themselves from the Macedonias of the NS world. Ultimately, though, invading/defending is part of the game and we all have to accept it, whether we like it or not.

That this is the gameplaying community's go-to argument in defense of their style of play is what makes this 3WB thing oh so hypocritical. This whole temper tantrum, and it is fair to call it a temper tantrum regardless of how justified you believe your position to be, is predicated upon the idea that the gameplay community should not have to play the game on anyone else's terms but their own. Presumably, Max Barry is alright with this new rule, otherwise I doubt it'd still be in effect. So, as an outside observer, what I see is a community who has, for years, inflicted their personal idea of how this game is supposed to be played throwing a fit and blowing up a part of the game because they don't want to have to participate in another community's idea of how the game is supposed to be played. For years, the familiar crutch in the pro-gameplay argument is that if Max says its part of the game we should all just accept that, and now they're arguing that that's unfair. I have to say, it's very amusing witnessing such a blatant 180 degree turn in position by a whole community.

On the other hand, I completely see where the gameplay community is coming from and I completely understand why something like 3WB would form. I've been privately pretty outspoken on how ridiculous I think this new rule is, and how I believe it's a gigantic misstep by the powers that be with regards to what the Security Council could have potentially been. I for one saw the Security Council as a chance for the World Assembly to finally actually be attractive to the other communities in this game besides those who already participated in the World Assembly. With commendations and condemnations, there existed a real possibility of involving EVERYONE in this particular part of the game. By instituting this rule, the Security Council has been reverted into just another playground for those people who were already involved and enjoyed the World Assembly. Much like General has Forum 7 (which should immediately be set on fire, but that's another argument for another day) or NationStates has International Incidents, or Moderation has whatever secret forum they all post in talking about how much they hate all of us, the Security Council is just a place for a particular subset of the World Assembly population, which I definitely felt was not the intention when it was first conceived.

Personally, I authored what was going to be my first and likely only resolution proposal, commending a member of my community, General, for what I felt were exemplary achievements in our community. It was just a rough draft and probably pretty terrible, but I sent it out to a few active members of the WA and SC forums for what would have probably been very exasperated notes. I thought that was what the Security Council, particularly the C&C resolutions, was meant to achieve. Acknowledging the contributions of players from all parts of this game. Needless to say, there was no way to salvage my proposal once it had to be Rule 4 compliant, and it's now lost to the Recycle Bin of time.

I'll probably never get involved in this part of the game, other than randomly voting on various proposals to which I only read the title. That's why I understand the idea behind the 3WB and where they're coming from. Rule 4 is unnecessarily exclusionary. It turns people back off to the World Assembly, so that the Security Council just becomes another place for proposal writers to write proposals. I felt like it had a real chance to involve people from other aspects of this game, broaden their horizons, and perhaps even turn a few people on to a part of the game they never knew they might enjoy. Unfortunately, it seems like this new rule is pretty set in stone, so I'm likely barking at the wind here. At least I won't have to read the titles to as many proposals as long as this blockade continues.

So that's my two cents. As you can see, my two cents gets you a lot these days, like when a nickel could get you two movie tickets, a steak dinner, and a happy ending at Lucky's Massage Parlor. I'm sure I posted this in the wrong thread, though, and my keyboard just took some abuse for nothing. In self-referential nod, I will not be reading nor replying to any posts that do not start with the words, "I want to have Sdaeriji's mutant spider babies."

Thank you for probably a lot of your time reading this.

[Ballotonia]

For years, the familiar crutch in the pro-gameplay argument is that if Max says its part of the game we should all just accept that, and now they're arguing that that's unfair.

You're missing something here: invasion/defense was invented by the Gameplay community itself. After that Max OK'd it (and made it more potent by adding an eject/ban-button to the game). And that's how it's been going all along. The player community either just takes a new shiny ball and runs with it, or asks for a new ball to play with and when it gets it does something totally unexpected with it. Given that history, Rule IV is a departure of that principle. It removes something in the game for no good reason other than the aesthetics of what resolutions read like. I don't recall anyone asking for Rule IV. It's not a shiny new ball to play with, it's removing a ball from the game. So, yes, that's reason for players to go 'WTF?!?'

In self-referential nod, I will not be reading nor replying to any posts that do not start with the words, "I want to have Sdaeriji's mutant spider babies."

No can do, I'll just have to live without your reply.

Ballotonia

[Callisdrun]

Wow @ Sdaerji.

Said basically what I've been thinking.

[Ardchoille]

I want to have Sdaeriji's mutant spider babies, but feel Sdaeriji really should have investigated more closely the mating habits of mutant spider females.

So: Sdaeriji, there have been some incorrect statements about what's permissible. It is entirely possible to write R4-compliant proposals for Generalites. Use the [ nation] links and just write. Much of what Generalites do will need no changes at all. "Lunatic Goofballs has argued ..." is a statement entirely consistent with the language of the game. (Even without the links it's fine, I'm just suggesting the links so that if you don't see NationStates as concerned with nations or states you can read it that way, while others can read it differently. The links go to the nation page, so the proposal is about whatever it means to different readers when they see a nation page.) "Lunatic Goofballs' renowned spokesman" or "representative'' or "leader" also fits.

(I'm just using LG as the crash dummy here. You couldn't write a commend/condemn about his modly activities.)

[Urgench]

On the other hand, I completely see where the gameplay community is coming from and I completely understand why something like 3WB would form. I've been privately pretty outspoken on how ridiculous I think this new rule is, and how I believe it's a gigantic misstep by the powers that be with regards to what the Security Council could have potentially been. I for one saw the Security Council as a chance for the World Assembly to finally actually be attractive to the other communities in this game besides those who already participated in the World Assembly. With commendations and condemnations, there existed a real possibility of involving EVERYONE in this particular part of the game. By instituting this rule, the Security Council has been reverted into just another playground for those people who were already involved and enjoyed the World Assembly. Much like General has Forum 7 (which should immediately be set on fire, but that's another argument for another day) or NationStates has International Incidents, or Moderation has whatever secret forum they all post in talking about how much they hate all of us, the Security Council is just a place for a particular subset of the World Assembly population, which I definitely felt was not the intention when it was first conceived.

Personally, I authored what was going to be my first and likely only resolution proposal, commending a member of my community, General, for what I felt were exemplary achievements in our community. It was just a rough draft and probably pretty terrible, but I sent it out to a few active members of the WA and SC forums for what would have probably been very exasperated notes. I thought that was what the Security Council, particularly the C&C resolutions, was meant to achieve. Acknowledging the contributions of players from all parts of this game. Needless to say, there was no way to salvage my proposal once it had to be Rule 4 compliant, and it's now lost to the Recycle Bin of time.

I'll probably never get involved in this part of the game, other than randomly voting on various proposals to which I only read the title. That's why I understand the idea behind the 3WB and where they're coming from. Rule 4 is unnecessarily exclusionary. It turns people back off to the World Assembly, so that the Security Council just becomes another place for proposal writers to write proposals. I felt like it had a real chance to involve people from other aspects of this game, broaden their horizons, and perhaps even turn a few people on to a part of the game they never knew they might enjoy. Unfortunately, it seems like this new rule is pretty set in stone, so I'm likely barking at the wind here. At least I won't have to read the titles to as many proposals as long as this blockade continues.

So that's my two cents. As you can see, my two cents gets you a lot these days, like when a nickel could get you two movie tickets, a steak dinner, and a happy ending at Lucky's Massage Parlor. I'm sure I posted this in the wrong thread, though, and my keyboard just took some abuse for nothing. In self-referential nod, I will not be reading nor replying to any posts that do not start with the words, "I want to have Sdaeriji's mutant spider babies."

Thank you for probably a lot of your time reading this.

"I want to have Sdaeriji's mutant spider babies" . As Ard points out, the central premise of this part of your argument is simply inaccurate. The 4th rule changes very little in terms of how the SC may be used, or how or by whom C&Cs may be used. The 4th rule does not require in character language, nor does it require any form of role-playing, and the 4th rule most definitely does not require that C&Cs be written in the mode or style of resolutions which emanate from the GA.

The hope you had that the SC might appeal to all players of the game regardless of their play style is in fact implicit in the new language requirement. That in fact the SC has failed to have the wider appeal you're talking about thus far is a symptom of the way it has been monopolised by GP and that its resolutions thus far have been written in the language of one player group and have been to one degree or another unintelligible or meaningless to a large segment of the rest of the membership of the WA, the handful of lack luster RP based C&Cs not withstanding.

That the 4th rule requires the use of the absolute bare minimum of language which is universal within the game (and not the technical language of any particular player group) is part of the attempt to make C&Cs intelligible to as many kinds of player as possible, that this language requirement is adaptable enough to allow a huge variety of concepts and ideas to be communicated is part of the intention of the rule.

I must say that while you claim a kind of impartiality based upon your play background, the very fact that you see this argument as having been divided in to "sides" in a dualistic fashion smells strongly of someone who has been heavily influenced by the misinformation put about by 3WB and the wider GP narrative of "us vs them", I'm not saying this is definitely the case but it is telling that the sides you seem to have identified seem to be GP on the one hand and "Resolutions Writers" on the other. The fact is there aren't really any sides in this debate, there are just those who support the rule because they understand what it will do and why it has been introduced and those who oppose it because they have not understood the rule and have decided to pretend that it is part of an attempt to exclude or marginalise one group of players who have developed a a narrative in which they portray themselves as being at the sharp end of an organised attempt to exclude or marginalise them, no matter what the actual facts of the situation may be.

[Maul-5]

AMOM's commend of Yelda was very in character and roleplay orientated. The Commendation of AO was likewise written like a GA proposal. The Security Council did not dismiss any community, but it would have taken more time before multiple communities became involved.

Jimmy Maullet

[Topid]

That in fact the SC has failed to have the wider appeal you're talking about thus far is a symptom of the way it has been monopolised by GP and that its resolutions thus far have been written in the language of one player group and have been to one degree or another unintelligible or meaningless to a large segment of the rest of the membership of the WA, the handful of lack luster RP based C&Cs not withstanding.

Thank god Rule IV fixed that problem! Oh wait, NO it didn't, in fact even less roleplayers post in this sub-forum now than ever, I'd say if anything this Rule has completely driven out everyone other than Gameplayers. The fact is prior to this rule, whether you can bare it or not, the gameplay community got along very well with what little roleplay community we had here and was trying to get more roleplayers interested. That is gone, the communities are back to never speaking.

The 'language' has nothing to do with why this bodies most active members are gameplayers. Everyone but gameplayers decided they didn't want to use this feature when it was released... Including yourself. (And of course the very few RPers and Generalites that did stay.) Changing the language isn't going to change that.

[NERVUN]

Thank god Rule IV fixed that problem! Oh wait, NO it didn't, in fact even less roleplayers post in this sub-forum now than ever, I'd say if anything this Rule has completely driven out everyone other than Gameplayers. The fact is prior to this rule, whether you can bare it or not, the gameplay community got along very well with what little roleplay community we had here and was trying to get more roleplayers interested. That is gone, the communities are back to never speaking.

Now is that the result of R4, or the result of what has been happening since it was announced?

The behaviors of both sides have been an incredible disappointment.