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

[Darkesia]

Don't take it personally, dude. Now who is paranoid?

I hate rules lawyering. Hate it in the GA. Hate it IRL. Hate it in TWP community forums. I avoid TNP because they get off on it too. It's just the way I am. It's why I'm a gameplayer and not a GAer.

I am involved with 3WB because it was pointed out to me that in the midst of my region's debate over how to handle roleplay SC resolutions, the rules were changed in a manner which belittled our play style.

Yes, I hate the GA. But I thought that was the whole idea of splitting the SC off; the GAers can't stand us either.

[Urgench]

Don't take it personally, dude. Now who is paranoid?

I hate rules lawyering. Hate it in the GA. Hate it IRL. Hate it in TWP community forums. I avoid TNP because they get off on it too. It's just the way I am. It's why I'm a gameplayer and not a GAer.

I am involved with 3WB because it was pointed out to me that in the midst of my region's debate over how to handle roleplay SC resolutions, the rules were changed in a manner which belittled our play style.

Yes, I hate the GA. But I thought that was the whole idea of splitting the SC off; the GAers can't stand us either.

Well actually no, no body hated you, there were incompatibility issues between gamestyles that had nothing to do with emotions like hate, but this is highly revealing. You think people hate you, so you hate them back. Who told you that anyone couldn't stand you? Whom do you mean by "us"?

In what way does the 4th rule belittle your way of playing the game? I mean in your own view not someone elses.

[Darkesia]

Oh forgodssake man! Must you twist and mar every little thing posted to mean something it doesn't. You are not an idiot. Therefore I am assuming your willful "misinterpretation" of my words is just done to piss me off. Congrats. You did it.

And if you had bothered to read the far far far too many posts I have made in these tedious, stupid arguments, you would know exactly what I feel is discriminatory.

However, I understand if you don't read my posts. I seldom read yours. I think you can understand why after this "conversation"

[Krioval]

Rules Lawyering is a waste of time. Simply arguing over some words till a mod comes by and tells us, It's illegal, because they don't like it or whatever is not fun, nor desired. We have been through this with "condemn rule 4"

Problem is, no set of specific prohibitions will ever address a given problem because someone will ultimately do something borderline and retreat behind "but the rules didn't specifically say I can't say that". I've never seen a mod delete a proposal "because they don't like it". I have disagreed with proposal deletions in the past, but I would not categorize them in that way.

So it's more to do with what's the point of the Security council if nobody can use it? We can't draft a resolution because they are illegal, and we won't let any pass because they are legal.

Whose fault is that? Certainly it's not mine, as I've voted for and against about the same number of SC resolutions (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this).

My biggest concern is I have yet to see our voices being heard by the MODS. I have seen them listen to the GA folks when they didn't like the SC in the first place, and I would say that is a good thing, and while the MODS have been in the threads here, and responding, I have yet to see them really listen to what we want, and are unwilling to see our side, or work with us in a real way.

Have you read the list of GA proposal rules? Proposals can be declared illegal and deleted for many, many reasons, some of which I might disagree with from time to time. Saying that the mods somehow listen more to what "the GA folks" - we're hardly a monolithic group over there - want is to be ignorant of what the mods do and don't do. They enforce a massive list of restrictions on GA proposals. Those of us who are more active in GA affairs tend to be those who have adapted most readily to the rules and are able to transmit that information onto newer players - we don't receive preferential treatment from the mods as part of participating in the GA.

So I don't see us moving an inch either.

Well, forgive me for thinking that such comments represent a certain degree of petulance and inflexibility, given the number of inches that other player groups in NS have ceded over the years.

[Urgench]

Oh forgodssake man! Must you twist and mar every little thing posted to mean something it doesn't. You are not an idiot. Therefore I am assuming your willful "misinterpretation" of my words is just done to piss me off. Congrats. You did it.

And if you had bothered to read the far far far too many posts I have made in these tedious, stupid arguments, you would know exactly what I feel is discriminatory.

However, I understand if you don't read my posts. I seldom read yours. I think you can understand why after this "conversation"

What did I twist? I asked you questions? You have evaded them. I don't actually understand exactly what you feel is discriminatory as you put it about the rule, what I've read is some stuff you now say you were told to think by someone else, I'm trying to get at what you actually think.

[Metania]

Is it that you cannot believe other people choose to adopt views of other people as their own, Urgench?

Even if he has a view underneath there, he's not using it, or telling you about it.

So it may as well not exist. *Shrug*

[NERVUN]

Rule 4 was introduced due to a spat of flamebaiting, but we had been talking about it previously.

Why not attack the problem directly? Flamebaiting that is...

Re-read what I wrote there, Unibot. I said that it was introduced due to a spat of flamebaiting, not made because of it. It had been under consideration for sometime by us because of some of the issues that were cropping up with the SC. The problem of flamebaiting just hastened what had been previously decided.

In retrospect, the timing was probably off in those regards.

[Whamabama]

Problem is, no set of specific prohibitions will ever address a given problem because someone will ultimately do something borderline and retreat behind "but the rules didn't specifically say I can't say that". I've never seen a mod delete a proposal "because they don't like it". I have disagreed with proposal deletions in the past, but I would not categorize them in that way.

My dislike like of rules lawyering is just that, a dislike of it. I also didn't say the MODS did this alot, but the one time.

Whose fault is that? Certainly it's not mine, as I've voted for and against about the same number of SC resolutions (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this).

It's the fault of us GPers. me included, and it doesn't look like that will change for for a while.

Have you read the list of GA proposal rules? Proposals can be declared illegal and deleted for many, many reasons, some of which I might disagree with from time to time. Saying that the mods somehow listen more to what "the GA folks" - we're hardly a monolithic group over there - want is to be ignorant of what the mods do and don't do. They enforce a massive list of restrictions on GA proposals. Those of us who are more active in GA affairs tend to be those who have adapted most readily to the rules and are able to transmit that information onto newer players - we don't receive preferential treatment from the mods as part of participating in the GA.

Ah.......... what? the GA rules are not an interest to me, as I don't participate there, and have nothing to do with what I was referring to.

Well, forgive me for thinking that such comments represent a certain degree of petulance and inflexibility, given the number of inches that other player groups in NS have ceded over the years.

you are forgiven.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*snip*

One, Darkesia is a she, and two, Urgench is not the one expressing blind hatred for an entire group of players. Whom do you think is being the more intolerant here?

[NERVUN]

My biggest concern is I have yet to see our voices being heard by the MODS. I have seen them listen to the GA folks when they didn't like the SC in the first place, and I would say that is a good thing, and while the MODS have been in the threads here, and responding, I have yet to see them really listen to what we want, and are unwilling to see our side, or work with us in a real way.

So I don't see us moving an inch either.

I'm sorry? Ard (Who in my opinion should be sainted by the SC, not just mearly commended), has been in multiple threads addressing concerns and adjusting the langauge to help give as much as we can.

If I may repeat something I told Generalites during the last blow up, compromise and listening does not mean "You drop what I hate and start doing what I want".

[Ardchoille]

Are you talking about me? I did refer to your true colours etc remember? It just rather suggests that you're here in this controversy because you hate a lot of other players of the game, I mean you admit yourself to not having been all that interested in the SC until recently. Could your expressed hatred of the GA and its players be a huge factor behind your nasty minded involvement in 3WB do you think? And nothing to do with your nonsense about GPers being persecuted?

All the mods have tried not to impede discussion by overly zealous modding, but I think this is the end of the friendly warnings. Urgench, I've appreciated your well-informed commentary on the new rule, but you've been told several times to stop denigrating other players who disagree with you. Darkesia said she hated a particular forum on the game, not the individuals in it. You can't know all her motives, yet you've given them the most damaging spin. The only reason you're not currently carrying a warning for flaming is that Nerv is wiser than I am (and types faster, too).

Darkesia, dial it back. "Rules-lawyering", in the sense of scrupulously interpreting the proposal rules, is a respected, approved and often officially encouraged activity in the WA (see "legality challenges"; and yes, I do mean the WA, not just the GA). "Rules-lawyering", in the sense of whining for special application of the game rules, is everything you've described. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, assuming you were simply unaware of the difference, rather than baiting Urgench.

Yelda, I know a picture is worth 1000 words, but the 1000 words in that one are inflammatory. Cut it out.

<snip>

Condemning a player for their personality, personal characteristics or supposedly poor expertise in their area of the game – at the discretion of a moderator – will be ruled trolling or flame-baiting, and thus illegal and actionable under the sites’ rules.

Entirely focusing a commendation on a player’s personality, personal characteristics or supposedly good expertise in their area of their game – at the discretion of a moderator – will be ruled as a category violation as it strays too far away from the category’s description to “recognize outstanding contribution(s)” which is not “recognize outstanding personalities” or any other similar but not indistinguishable variation of the latter.

I acknowledge that you are now attempting some constructive input, but I draw your attention to the clause that already exists in Rule 4, thanks to the efforts of, I think, Naivetry, or possibly Metania (the examples may have been mine):

Proposals should not refer to the personal characteristics of the player behind the nation ("good roleplayer" "always rude" "bad speller") but to NationStates actions.

and to this:

Your reason is supposed to be an action that will cause “shock and dismay” to the international community (condemn) or “recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.” (commend).

That is, I think the essence of your modifications has already been achieved. If you have others, the tone should be more "here's how you do it" than "mods will get you with this specific penalty if you don't do it". It's a different verbal feel than the more prescriptive and rigorous rules of the GA.

[Kalibarr]

*snip*

One, Darkesia is a she, and two, Urgench is not the one expressing blind hatred for an entire group of players. Whom do you think is being the more intolerant here?

I don't believe she ever stated she hated you, she hates "rule lawyering" and hates the GA, she also hates that you take every damn thing out of context and twist it to fit your needs, I hardly call that "blind hatred of a group of players"

[Callisdrun]

AMOM's commend of Yelda was very in character and roleplay orientated.

No it wasn't. It was a poem about a player and his puppets. How is that "in character"?

I really don't like AMOM, but a poem can be in character, and I don't see how an ode is inappropriate for a commendation. It's just very... um... old school... going back to bards and such.

[Yelda]

Darkesia said she hated a particular forum on the game, not the individuals in it.

I hardly call that "blind hatred of a group of players"

I beg to differ.

I wonder when the hell I am going to learn that those people will only make me hate them more each time I attempt to make reasoned contact with them.

What's wrong with me? Why can't I just give it up? Why do I go back for more reinforcement on how much I loathe them? It's not like they are going to change.

[Callisdrun]

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.

No, 3WB has driven everyone out. We don't post because it's futile to do so. No resolutions are going to pass, so why bother?

It's done just what you want it to do, I suppose, in making the SC your own little gameplayer fiefdom.

I hope that's not really what you guys want, but that's the way it really seems right now. Why do you hate us so much?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I really don't like AMOM, but a poem can be in character, and I don't see how an ode is inappropriate for a commendation. It's just very... um... old school... going back to bards and such.

We're getting a little off-topic here, but:

There be a sillious among us today,
Among us today in the great WA,
Who brightens our day when our day has gone gray,
With proposals and humor and Knootian “gay-spray,”

His names be of many of his puppet empire,
Like Yelda or Hiriaurtung or New Leicestershire,
And Mad Sheep and Glog and Aundotutunagir,
With syllables so strange and so marvelous to hear,

Iron Felix was once a prized face of he,
With its rather keen interest in necromancy,
And its massive devotion to the NSUN,
In the days before the World Assemblian opium den,

Lately we see him with Arororugul,
Assuring that things here will never grow dull,
He also was present with Mad Sheep Railgun,
Keeping things thoughtful yet awfully fun,

He amuseth us greatly with that he creates,
Such as the insertion of popcorn in serious debates,
Our good old friend Yelda will often play the big fool,
Thus helping things from growing too nasty and cruel,

His resolutions be many and proposals be more,
Nineteen have been passed and more are in store,
Clever they are whether helpful they may be,
And some give a great laugh to both you and me,

While silly he can seem and mock he may do,
Great wisdom and insight does sometimes break through,
Analogies and comments on intentions and deeds,
And in enlightening minds he often succeeds,

So come one and come all, witness this spectacular man,
As he entertains the WA however he can,
We dance a jig of jubilant joy,
In honor of a truly hilarious boy,

A pat on the back and a cheer of acclaim,
While we give good old Yelda his moment of fame,
Remembering you since nearly antiquity,
Yelda, the World Assembly hereby does COMMEND thee.

He was writing about the player, not the nation. I do not fault AMOM for writing his Commendation that way -- in fact, I voted for it -- but that's the way it was written.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*snip*

No, 3WB has driven everyone out. We don't post because it's futile to do so. No resolutions are going to pass, so why bother?

It's done just what you want it to do, I suppose, in making the SC your own little gameplayer fiefdom.

I hope that's not really what you guys want, but that's the way it really seems right now. Why do you hate us so much?

I might be wrong, but I don't think Topid is a member of 3WB.

[Callisdrun]

Ah, but can't nations also be personified? Especially in an artistic medium?

[Kandarin]

Ah, but can't nations also be personified? Especially in an artistic medium?

Last I checked, gender pronouns are one of the testier specifics of Rule 4 (Ard, did we ever get a ruling on that?) since it's got such a major impact on the amount of finagling needed to word a Gameplay (or General, or a fair amount of GA) C&C.

[NERVUN]

Darkesia said she hated a particular forum on the game, not the individuals in it.

I hardly call that "blind hatred of a group of players"

I beg to differ.

I wonder when the hell I am going to learn that those people will only make me hate them more each time I attempt to make reasoned contact with them.

What's wrong with me? Why can't I just give it up? Why do I go back for more reinforcement on how much I loathe them? It's not like they are going to change.

But what happens off NS is off our beat.

[Glen-Rhodes]

There is a reason I do not participate over in the GA. I don't hide my distaste for the whole thing. You've just noticed?

Ugh. Can I just say something? It's delegates like this... GA folks spend their time playing their game, but the final outcome of their hard work is decided by people that couldn't care less or by people that actively hate them. Seriously, you guys shouldn't be able to have the clout you do, if you despise the organization that gives you that clout. I would suggest separating influence from WA votes, or some kind of one-nation-one-vote thing, but with amount of work the tech dept. already has on its plate, I don't want to be the person to send them over the edge.

But I digress. I came here to say something about rules-lawyering before I noticed that little post: don't knock it. It's a fundamental part of the World Assembly. It's pretty much your best friend. The Security Council, by virtue of its limited activities, is never going to have as many rules as the General Assembly. Take solace in the fact that there a so few things that make a proposal illegal.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

But what happens off NS is off our beat.

That's fine; the conversation was not in the context of moderator intervention. Just player opinions of one another.

[Sedgistan]

If you have others, the tone should be more "here's how you do it" than "mods will get you with this specific penalty if you don't do it". It's a different verbal feel than the more prescriptive and rigorous rules of the GA.

I might be reading this wrong, but does the C&C Rules thread not say "Four things will get your proposal killed as soon as it hits the floor:", and then list the four rules - which are all things you shouldn't do in a proposal? The way that Unibot wrote his suggestion (as far as I can see), it could slot into that thread instead of Rule 4, and would fit the tone/style of writing perfectly...

If this post comes across as sounding rude, thats not the intention - I'm just genuinely a bit confused.

[Yelda]

Darkesia said she hated a particular forum on the game, not the individuals in it.

I hardly call that "blind hatred of a group of players"

I beg to differ.

I wonder when the hell I am going to learn that those people will only make me hate them more each time I attempt to make reasoned contact with them.

What's wrong with me? Why can't I just give it up? Why do I go back for more reinforcement on how much I loathe them? It's not like they are going to change.

But what happens off NS is off our beat.

I know, and I didn't expect any action to be taken for something that was said offsite. Just throwing it out there for context.

[NERVUN]

If you have others, the tone should be more "here's how you do it" than "mods will get you with this specific penalty if you don't do it". It's a different verbal feel than the more prescriptive and rigorous rules of the GA.

I might be reading this wrong, but does the C&C Rules thread not say "Four things will get your proposal killed as soon as it hits the floor:", and then list the four rules - which are all things you shouldn't do in a proposal? The way that Unibot wrote his suggestion (as far as I can see), it could slot into that thread instead of Rule 4, and would fit the tone/style of writing perfectly...

If this post comes across as sounding rude, thats not the intention - I'm just genuinely a bit confused.

If I'm reading Ard correctly (And will probably get smacked and/or turned into something umplesant if I am not), she's stating that Unibot's suggestion is already covered in the rules. What would be helpful now is examples of how to use the rules to write the proposals instead of writting more rules.

In reading the tussles about this, I honestly feel that gameplayers can continue to commend and condem each other to their hearts content, they just have to change the language a bit.

So, to extend an olive branch, let me ask what actions gameplayers feel they cannot comment on and let's see if we can't write something to that effect.