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

[Topid]

*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.

I am not. And I consider the SC to be the best part of nationstates, so Callisdrun is very very far off.

[Todd McCloud]

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.

One of the things that complicate matters for me is the inability (as it stands right now) to use reflexive pronouns (I don't me the I, you... but the he / she). It just takes away that 'personal' aspect. It'd be one thing if it was looked down upon, but the fact that as of now, we can't is a big thing for me. I mean, Russians used to call Russia "the motherland," giving it a feminine touch. Germans once called Germany "the fatherland." Many people personify nations.

There are also certain words we can't use. Forums, for instance. And while this seems like a minor thing, it really isn't. People understand forums, roleplay, and in-chartacter. What goes through one's mind when it's replaced with "at home and abroad", "world events", and " in practice", respectfully? Doesn't it decrease the meaning of the commendation here, if it were worded that way? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like a C&C worded this way would be geared toward roleplay and not in what the player did OOCLY.

And that brings me to another point. Todd McCloud and Kandarin the players have done a lot in the game and are pretty cool dudes (I hope). Todd McCloud the nation is consists of guy who is still trying to get electricity in most of his nation, siphoning it from somewhere else. My main roleplay nation is Vekaiyu, and it certainly does not deserve to be commended... it's full of elitists and run by leaders that are pretty nuts and fascist-like at the same time (though it's getting better, I swear, lol). Kandarin the IC nation is not the best example to be commended either. How do we work around that? Having only IC C&C's, or rather, C&C's that are designed to fit the mold of IC-ness almost makes it that the player's roleplay nation is going to C&C'd, and not the player. But yet it's clear here that for these examples at least, that shouldn't be the case.

This also creates a problem for other players. ImagyNation designed cool flags for people. For his C&C to work, would it have to be worded such that people in his nation worked tirelessly with their various computers and then sent the designs off to textile factories to be made for the requesting nations? Or A Mean Old Man, who made that MSPaint thread, couldn't we just say he made a thread and it was really cool and his art was awesome (in more technical terms, of course)? Why does it have to be "citizens in his nation are known to be good artists for other nations"? It totally destroys what we're commending him for, if we were doing that.

I've probably missed more points, and people will certainly fill it in, I'm sure, but yeah. It really puts a stranglehold on the situation, and is why gameplayers are saying things aren't equal right now.

[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.

One of the things that complicate matters for me is the inability (as it stands right now) to use reflexive pronouns (I don't me the I, you... but the he / she). It just takes away that 'personal' aspect. It'd be one thing if it was looked down upon, but the fact that as of now, we can't is a big thing for me. I mean, Russians used to call Russia "the motherland," giving it a feminine touch. Germans once called Germany "the fatherland." Many people personify nations.

It could could be replaced with "The leader of, the nation of". It can be a bit awkward, yes, but it could be done. I think (And before anyone gets any bright ideas, I mean THINK as in I haven't talked this out yet) there might be a bit of a work around ala normal English usage with assigning a pronoun once the "nation of Whateverstan" gets mentioned.

There are also certain words we can't use. Forums, for instance. And while this seems like a minor thing, it really isn't. People understand forums, roleplay, and in-chartacter. What goes through one's mind when it's replaced with "at home and abroad", "world events", and " in practice", respectfully? Doesn't it decrease the meaning of the commendation here, if it were worded that way? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like a C&C worded this way would be geared toward roleplay and not in what the player did OOCLY.

I'm not exactly too sure it does. For instance, say you have a player who acts as a guide for newbies on the forums. While the direct way would be "He's a wonderful guide" it could be replaced with "The nation of X showed remarkable leadership in mentoring emerging nations". Also, given that OOC comments are perserved in the WA archives with the threads...

And that brings me to another point. Todd McCloud and Kandarin the players have done a lot in the game and are pretty cool dudes (I hope). Todd McCloud the nation is consists of guy who is still trying to get electricity in most of his nation, siphoning it from somewhere else. My main roleplay nation is Vekaiyu, and it certainly does not deserve to be commended... it's full of elitists and run by leaders that are pretty nuts and fascist-like at the same time (though it's getting better, I swear, lol). Kandarin the IC nation is not the best example to be commended either. How do we work around that? Having only IC C&C's, or rather, C&C's that are designed to fit the mold of IC-ness almost makes it that the player's roleplay nation is going to C&C'd, and not the player. But yet it's clear here that for these examples at least, that shouldn't be the case.

Well now, see if I understand things correctly RPers don't bother to pay much attention to their nation page. I know I don't when I do any RPing in the GA.

I don't forsee problems with using the name as a suit and just crouching forum actions in broader terms (Again, if I am understanding the current form).

This also creates a problem for other players. ImagyNation designed cool flags for people. For his C&C to work, would it have to be worded such that people in his nation worked tirelessly with their various computers and then sent the designs off to textile factories to be made for the requesting nations? Or A Mean Old Man, who made that MSPaint thread, couldn't we just say he made a thread and it was really cool and his art was awesome (in more technical terms, of course)? Why does it have to be "citizens in his nation are known to be good artists for other nations"? It totally destroys what we're commending him for, if we were doing that.

Does it though? For AMOM, I think stating a commendation for "NOTING the nation's unparralled production of art that has truely inspired the international community and caused the nations of the people of the world to gasp in awe" sounds a bit more, hm, impressive that "Your art's cool"

I've probably missed more points, and people will certainly fill it in, I'm sure, but yeah. It really puts a stranglehold on the situation, and is why gameplayers are saying things aren't equal right now.

Well, hopefully it's a start. I think if we can start getting more examples and work things through to were people can SEE how it would take form...

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

*grabs olive branch*

Okay, let's talk about a hypothetical proposal: I'd like to commend Ballotonia for all his work throughout the years. First I talk about him as a major factor in my region (easily done, no technical problems here). Then about his relentless work in the Got Issues part (slightly more tricky, but still doable I guess)

Then we get into the tricky part: He liberated TNP with a puppet. Can that be put inside this commend or should it be left out since it was not the nation Ballotonia doing that? The same for pretty much all of his general defender work (only in rare cases this was done as Ballotonia). Because here comes a big factor, Gameplay tends to use a lot of puppets on both Invader and Defender side, should we then try to commend all of those puppets of a player seperately, instead of a "one commend fits all" to the main nation?

Or maybe I'm missing something here and this puppet issue was already discussed somewhere?

[Topid]

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.

*grabs olive branch*

Okay, let's talk about a hypothetical proposal: I'd like to commend Ballotonia for all his work throughout the years. First I talk about him as a major factor in my region (easily done, no technical problems here). Then about his relentless work in the Got Issues part (slightly more tricky, but still doable I guess)

Then we get into the tricky part: He liberated TNP with a puppet. Can that be put inside this commend or should it be left out since it was not the nation Ballotonia doing that? The same for pretty much all of his general defender work (only in rare cases this was done as Ballotonia). Because here comes a big factor, Gameplay tends to use a lot of puppets on both Invader and Defender side, should we then try to commend all of those puppets of a player seperately, instead of a "one commend fits all" to the main nation?

Or maybe I'm missing something here and this puppet issue was already discussed somewhere?

Some of the proposals Ard went over here for me would have been changed if puppets were an issue. Sedge's/Todd's especially.

[Darkesia]

After a nights sleep I realize my presence here only damages things, so this will be my last bit of bothering you. My apologies to Ard for losing my cool.

Try writing a condemnation of me, for never engaging in the GA and wasting the "power" of my position.

Or

Try writing a condemnation of Kenny for his "duality" and extensive activity in GP espionage.

Or

Try a commendation of DFD for her contributions to TEP's (and NS as a whole) in-game activity levels via her schemes of summer planning.

Or

Try writing a commendation for TAO and his CommRangers. <<< This surely deserves a commend!

My only requirement is that it makes sense to me and other Gameplayers. It's quite possible it can be done. I don't know. It's not something I have the patience or time to try. Good luck!

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

*grabs olive branch*

Okay, let's talk about a hypothetical proposal: I'd like to commend Ballotonia for all his work throughout the years. First I talk about him as a major factor in my region (easily done, no technical problems here). Then about his relentless work in the Got Issues part (slightly more tricky, but still doable I guess)

Then we get into the tricky part: He liberated TNP with a puppet. Can that be put inside this commend or should it be left out since it was not the nation Ballotonia doing that? The same for pretty much all of his general defender work (only in rare cases this was done as Ballotonia). Because here comes a big factor, Gameplay tends to use a lot of puppets on both Invader and Defender side, should we then try to commend all of those puppets of a player seperately, instead of a "one commend fits all" to the main nation?

Or maybe I'm missing something here and this puppet issue was already discussed somewhere?

Some of the proposals Ard went over here for me would have been changed if puppets were an issue. Sedge's/Todd's especially.

Wow, that really helped a lot Thanks.

And now I see the core of the problem in practice as well. Gameplayers play a game, and roleplayers play a role (that of a nation). And rule IV basically means total obfuscation of gameplay terms.

In practice a C&C for a gameplayer would be very indistinguishable from a RP C&C, which is a bit weird since they do different things and thus shouldn't it be logical that this is reflected in the C&C?

A term like "World Affairs" can mean so many things, from roleplaying in II to meddling in affairs of various regions and even to debating in NSG(not used in that sense yet AFAIK). Would using terms like this across C&Cs and meaning different things really help the quality and clearness of C&Cs?

[NERVUN]

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.

*grabs olive branch*

Okay, let's talk about a hypothetical proposal: I'd like to commend Ballotonia for all his work throughout the years. First I talk about him as a major factor in my region (easily done, no technical problems here). Then about his relentless work in the Got Issues part (slightly more tricky, but still doable I guess)

Then we get into the tricky part: He liberated TNP with a puppet. Can that be put inside this commend or should it be left out since it was not the nation Ballotonia doing that? The same for pretty much all of his general defender work (only in rare cases this was done as Ballotonia). Because here comes a big factor, Gameplay tends to use a lot of puppets on both Invader and Defender side, should we then try to commend all of those puppets of a player seperately, instead of a "one commend fits all" to the main nation?

Or maybe I'm missing something here and this puppet issue was already discussed somewhere?

Well, in terms of puppets, I was thinking of something along the lines of ACKNOWLEDGING the nation of Whateverstan's work through client states (or empire)."

That way what you're getting at is the player behind the puppets without having to commend each puppet or even name them.

[Topid]

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.

*grabs olive branch*

Okay, let's talk about a hypothetical proposal: I'd like to commend Ballotonia for all his work throughout the years. First I talk about him as a major factor in my region (easily done, no technical problems here). Then about his relentless work in the Got Issues part (slightly more tricky, but still doable I guess)

Then we get into the tricky part: He liberated TNP with a puppet. Can that be put inside this commend or should it be left out since it was not the nation Ballotonia doing that? The same for pretty much all of his general defender work (only in rare cases this was done as Ballotonia). Because here comes a big factor, Gameplay tends to use a lot of puppets on both Invader and Defender side, should we then try to commend all of those puppets of a player seperately, instead of a "one commend fits all" to the main nation?

Or maybe I'm missing something here and this puppet issue was already discussed somewhere?

Well, in terms of puppets, I was thinking of something along the lines of ACKNOWLEDGING the nation of Whateverstan's work through client states (or empire)."

That way what you're getting at is the player behind the puppets without having to commend each puppet or even name them.

Well if you don't want to just say the main nation did it (as was ruled legal by Ard in the thread linked above because sedge didn't defend all those regions with his main nation) then Ard said somewhere (and I'm tired of looking for links because this whole incident is spread across 20 threads) that the term puppet is okay because we use it for real nations (or at least it could be used ICly as well).

Ex: Recognizing Saudi Arabia as a puppet of Iran,

[NERVUN]

After a nights sleep I realize my presence here only damages things, so this will be my last bit of bothering you. My apologies to Ard for losing my cool.

Try writing a condemnation of me, for never engaging in the GA and wasting the "power" of my position.

Or

Try writing a condemnation of Kenny for his "duality" and extensive activity in GP espionage.

Or

Try a commendation of DFD for her contributions to TEP's (and NS as a whole) in-game activity levels via her schemes of summer planning.

Or

Try writing a commendation for TAO and his CommRangers. <<< This surely deserves a commend!

My only requirement is that it makes sense to me and other Gameplayers. It's quite possible it can be done. I don't know. It's not something I have the patience or time to try. Good luck!

Sadly, I don't KNOW about 2-4, but the first... hmm...

The World Assembly:

APPALLED at the lack of leadership exhibited by the nation of Darkesia in refusing to attend to affairs in the General Assembly.

SHOCKED that this lack has resulted in the nations of the region of WHATEVER has lost their voice within the General Assembly due to this refusal.

DESIRING that the delegate-ship not be wasted on a nation that intends to remain a rogue-state in world affairs.

HEREBY CONDEMNS the nation of Darkesia and expresses hope that the government of Darkesia will change their ways.

[NERVUN]

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.

*grabs olive branch*

Okay, let's talk about a hypothetical proposal: I'd like to commend Ballotonia for all his work throughout the years. First I talk about him as a major factor in my region (easily done, no technical problems here). Then about his relentless work in the Got Issues part (slightly more tricky, but still doable I guess)

Then we get into the tricky part: He liberated TNP with a puppet. Can that be put inside this commend or should it be left out since it was not the nation Ballotonia doing that? The same for pretty much all of his general defender work (only in rare cases this was done as Ballotonia). Because here comes a big factor, Gameplay tends to use a lot of puppets on both Invader and Defender side, should we then try to commend all of those puppets of a player seperately, instead of a "one commend fits all" to the main nation?

Or maybe I'm missing something here and this puppet issue was already discussed somewhere?

Some of the proposals Ard went over here for me would have been changed if puppets were an issue. Sedge's/Todd's especially.

Wow, that really helped a lot Thanks.

And now I see the core of the problem in practice as well. Gameplayers play a game, and roleplayers play a role (that of a nation). And rule IV basically means total obfuscation of gameplay terms.

In practice a C&C for a gameplayer would be very indistinguishable from a RP C&C, which is a bit weird since they do different things and thus shouldn't it be logical that this is reflected in the C&C?

A term like "World Affairs" can mean so many things, from roleplaying in II to meddling in affairs of various regions and even to debating in NSG(not used in that sense yet AFAIK). Would using terms like this across C&Cs and meaning different things really help the quality and clearness of C&Cs?

Well, like I stated, any OOC chatter in the thread would be archived in the WA archives so more detail about whatever it was would be reflected in the record.

But, honestly, I think that no, the terms don't necessarily need to be reflected and separate for some good reasons. For example, those people who cross over between the various parts of NS, this blurring of the lines if you will allows someone to cover everything. I'd say that this is a chance to stretch the imaginations of players in how to best crouch things. Yes, new phrases and formulas will have to be developed on both sides, but you're a rather creative bunch, I have little doubt that it can be done.

[NERVUN]

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.

*grabs olive branch*

Okay, let's talk about a hypothetical proposal: I'd like to commend Ballotonia for all his work throughout the years. First I talk about him as a major factor in my region (easily done, no technical problems here). Then about his relentless work in the Got Issues part (slightly more tricky, but still doable I guess)

Then we get into the tricky part: He liberated TNP with a puppet. Can that be put inside this commend or should it be left out since it was not the nation Ballotonia doing that? The same for pretty much all of his general defender work (only in rare cases this was done as Ballotonia). Because here comes a big factor, Gameplay tends to use a lot of puppets on both Invader and Defender side, should we then try to commend all of those puppets of a player seperately, instead of a "one commend fits all" to the main nation?

Or maybe I'm missing something here and this puppet issue was already discussed somewhere?

Well, in terms of puppets, I was thinking of something along the lines of ACKNOWLEDGING the nation of Whateverstan's work through client states (or empire)."

That way what you're getting at is the player behind the puppets without having to commend each puppet or even name them.

Well if you don't want to just say the main nation did it (as was ruled legal by Ard in the thread linked above because sedge didn't defend all those regions with his main nation) then Ard said somewhere (and I'm tired of looking for links because this whole incident is spread across 20 threads) that the term puppet is okay because we use it for real nations (or at least it could be used ICly as well).

Ex: Recognizing Saudi Arabia as a puppet of Iran,

There's that too. I'm just trying to come up with good ways to structure things as examples right now.

[Ardchoille]

One of the things that complicate matters for me is the inability (as it stands right now) to use reflexive pronouns (I don't me the I, you... but the he / she). It just takes away that 'personal' aspect. It'd be one thing if it was looked down upon, but the fact that as of now, we can't is a big thing for me. I mean, Russians used to call Russia "the motherland," giving it a feminine touch. Germans once called Germany "the fatherland." Many people personify nations.

And many people don't. Here, let Unibot help you:

Okay I realize I might be totally spitting on Gameplayers' IC rules when I make these suggestions,

But what I'd like to see is, this verison be submitted instead, Kandy...

The World Assembly,

NOTING the usurpation of the WA Delegacy in the East Pacific by the new adminstration, led by the Wonderful World of Lady Phedre,

RECOGNIZING that this action goes against the stated will of the existing population of the East Pacific, and the disrespect with which Lady Phedre and those under the delegacy's authority have treated said population,

ACKNOWLEDGING that Lady Phedre has abolished the previous seat of government in the East Pacific and established one under their exclusive control,

UPHOLDING the right of all to equality under the law, freedom of religion, and the rights of citizens, abolished by Lady Phedre's establishment of mandatory protocol of nobility, establishment of an official religion, and expulsion of many prominent citizens of the East Pacific,

Officially and publically condemns Lady Phedre for the abovementioned actions.

Basically, I just took out personal pronouns when addressing a nation.

There are also certain words we can't use. Forums, for instance. And while this seems like a minor thing, it really isn't.

Missed this, did you? http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=52242

And that brings me to another point. <snip>Having only IC C&C's, or rather, C&C's that are designed to fit the mold of IC-ness almost makes it that the player's roleplay nation is going to C&C'd, and not the player. <snip>

I'm sorry, Todd, but the Commendation is going to go to your nation. I did ask the admins, at one stage, if a C&C logo could be put on posts -- say, under the flag icon -- so they would show up on the "player" every time they posted, but apparently it's not possible. However, you can use the [ nation] links to point people to the place where the commendation goes: your nation page. That is, I'm afraid, what the game sees as you. But those who know you can read it as "Todd, the person". Those who know your RPd nation can read it as that. Those who know only that there's an account for a nation called Todd McCloud can read it as that.

This also creates a problem for other players. ImagyNation designed cool flags for people. For his C&C to work, would it have to be worded such that people in his nation worked tirelessly with their various computers and then sent the designs off to textile factories to be made for the requesting nations?

No, it wouldn't. You could legally write "Commends ImagyNation for designing and creating (some adjective more evocative than "cool") flags for nations."

Or A Mean Old Man, who made that MSPaint thread, couldn't we just say he made a thread and it was really cool and his art was awesome (in more technical terms, of course)? Why does it have to be "citizens in his nation are known to be good artists for other nations"? It totally destroys what we're commending him for, if we were doing that.

You can't say "he made a thread". If you were writing an essay about Roger McGough's poetry, you wouldn't bother putting in, "McGough, using a black Bic biro and a cheap 48-page exercise book, wrote a searing indictment of ... His later work, written in 2B lead pencil on Basildon Bond notepaper, exposes a more cynical approach ... His collected poems, printed in Bodoni 9pt ...''. Or if you're discussing the architecture of the Sydney Opera House, you wouldn't normally write about the pH value of the dead-average soil it rests on. Nor do you see, "Breathing in and out, the President announced today ...". "Thread" is as basic to the action as these details are, and needs mentioning just as much -- ie, not at all.

But what you can say is, "The WA commends AMOM for creating (witty? original? humorous? lots of?) art and sharing it with other nations." Or just, "with others". Or "with the international community".

For the umpteenth time, Rule 4 does not oblige all proposal authors to adopt fully RP language.

[Ballotonia]

The 3WB (well, the Gameplay side - the 3WB doesn't seem to have official spokesfolks per se) made its positive goals clear quite early, but they can be hard to find in the later muddle. Basically, they want Rule 4 clarified to a list of the forbidden things that it was actually created to put a stop to. OOC flaming in Condemns is bad - ban it. The word 'player' makes people squirm - well, ban that too. Gender pronouns and the word 'roleplay'...are problematic, but can be banned and worked around in fairly predictable ways. Gameplay people, by and large, understand the virtue of a list of things that you can't do, and they're very good at tracking that stuff. So a specific list of words that you can't say would satisfy them - even though there'd be a lively and heated debate about the specifics, the opposition to the 4th Rule would disappear overnight if it was instead put as such a list.

When I read this, I thought to myself, let's hope Kandarin has more success with that suggestion than I did (see: viewtopic.php?p=2230525#p2230525 ). Sadly, no.

Odd thing is, I have no problem at all with Ard's explanation of the rule. I have a problem with the rule itself. And I do not understand why replacing Rule IV with its provided explanation is somehow unacceptable to the Mods. Shouldn't there be no difference between the two? I see a difference, and the refusal to substitute one with the other makes me think the Mods do too.

Mods, care to enlighten me on this?

Ballotonia

[Kalibarr]

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.

Explain how it is blind? he has given several very good reasons not to like "those people"

[Astarial]

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.

It's not an issue of "cannot comment on". It's more an issue of intelligibility.

As someone who does not RP her nation, reading RP C&Cs confuses and bewilders me. What do you mean they enslave people? What do you mean they nuke their neighbors? What do you mean they cut all funding for education just to fund the military? No they don't! Nothing happens! It's just answering a certain issue a certain way! Why are you condemning someone for how they answer issues, or what they pretend to do with their friends?

I don't get it. But I also know that that's not my concern. Enough of the RP community has exercised its expertise and decided that whatever this nation has claimed to have done is worth condemning, and as a GPer in a GP nation, it's not my place to contradict them. So my preference in these cases is to abstain, and to vote that my delegate abstain as well, so that the RP community as a whole can come to a decision about whether the C/C is worthwhile.

I take very little issue with how Ard has explained and justified the interpretation of Rule IV. But because explanation and justification has not thus far been backed up with actual wording changes that Lady Nai has suggested (and for what it's worth, if I have to parrot anybody's opinion it would be hers) (also FWIW, I recognize that Ard has Real Life (tm) that can delay any implementation of changes), GPers face the worrying prospect that Ard's explanations and justifications are hers alone, that other moderators might make different calls, and that we GPers might be told to write our C&Cs in the same manner that RP C&Cs are written - in a style that is bewildering and confusing, a style that we do not understand because it is not how we play.

It could could be replaced with "The leader of, the nation of". It can be a bit awkward, yes, but it could be done. I think (And before anyone gets any bright ideas, I mean THINK as in I haven't talked this out yet) there might be a bit of a work around ala normal English usage with assigning a pronoun once the "nation of Whateverstan" gets mentioned.

But this is exactly the problem - "The leader of" is a RolePlay concept, and does not translate to GP. I will use Lady Nai as an example, and of course she may scold me if I have misinterpreted her statements.

Naivetry, the nation, is sometimes roleplayed, and has a named leader, a government, a body of laws, and events that happen and so on. Naivetry is also gameplayed, and goes on defense missions and safeguards our region's founder-nation and so on. To commend "the leader of Naivetry" for initiative in battle leading to a successful expulsion of invader forces would be factually inaccurate. And suggesting that such terms be used plays right into the fear I mentioned above, that we will be forced to use language which is wrong, and unnatural (in the sense that it does not come naturally when describing events), and bewildering to read and write.

We don't want to have to "work around" our language, as if it's a disease to cure or a problem to solve. I hope you can see why that very idea makes us worry that you - the mods, the GAers, the RPers - think that we ourselves are a disease to cure, a problem to solve.

Well, in terms of puppets, I was thinking of something along the lines of ACKNOWLEDGING the nation of Whateverstan's work through client states (or empire)."

But they're not client states, which can mean two GP things that I know of - one, maintained puppets, such as for players who are active in multiple regions (as in Astarial, citizen of Equilism, and Astaling, former citizen of Nasicournia), or two, the description for national or regional citizens of a certain type of regional or organizational government (one might describe members of the former ADN as former client states, for example). And they're not empires, which can have the same meanings as client states, though on a larger scale. Defenders and invaders create puppets, use them, and then toss them away and let them die from inactivity once they've gotten dirtied. A commendation for regularly setting up petty warlords and using them to further one's own goals, then letting them and their population starve to death once the battle has been won? Really?

Well, like I stated, any OOC chatter in the thread would be archived in the WA archives so more detail about whatever it was would be reflected in the record.

A C/C should not need a discussion thread just to clarify that the target is not being C/Ced for what the resolution says, but for other things which the resolution can't put in terms that people who play with the target would understand.



Edited for clarity.

[Ardchoille]

But because explanation and justification has not thus far been backed up with actual wording changes that Lady Nai has suggested

Once again, I'm short of time here, but I have to point out that clause b of Rule 4 is Nai's
wording and both the paragraph beginning "Remember" and the paragraph beginning "proposals" contain changes she suggested.

[Kandarin]

But this is exactly the problem - "The leader of" is a RolePlay concept, and does not translate to GP. I will use Lady Nai as an example, and of course she may scold me if I have misinterpreted her statements.

Naivetry, the nation, is sometimes roleplayed, and has a named leader, a government, a body of laws, and events that happen and so on. Naivetry is also gameplayed, and goes on defense missions and safeguards our region's founder-nation and so on. To commend "the leader of Naivetry" for initiative in battle leading to a successful expulsion of invader forces would be factually inaccurate. And suggesting that such terms be used plays right into the fear I mentioned above, that we will be forced to use language which is wrong, and unnatural (in the sense that it does not come naturally when describing events), and bewildering to read and write.

We don't want to have to "work around" our language, as if it's a disease to cure or a problem to solve. I hope you can see why that very idea makes us worry that you - the mods, the GAers, the RPers - think that we ourselves are a disease to cure, a problem to solve.

This is a constant concern. It gets worse, too, when the nation in question is an active RPer and their RP history is incompatible with what would result from the attribution of their actions to the "leader" or "peoples" of that nation.

Asta is quite right to note that a Commend of "the leader of Naivetry" would be factually inaccurate. But going one step further to an existing resolution, let's look at my nation. A Commend of "the leader of Kandarin" or "the government of Kandarin" wouldn't just be factually inaccurate - it would be blatant lies. My nation is evil! It's a lying, cheating, violent cesspit of troglodytic, backstabbing racist elves who can't hold a nation together for two generations without either devolving into horrific civil war or getting taken over by a cabal that makes Stalin look like Little Miss Sunshine. It's got cities where all the horrible urban legends are true, where people who toe the line and never slip up live in high-tech security with the finest medical care in the world while the folks underneath them live brief lives in lawless, lightless ghettoes full of supernatural corruption and blood sports. My nation's leader is a double-talking, contract-killing religious fanatic who would (and did) pawn members of her own family to ancient evils to get an edge against the enemies of her faith. Most of my RPs are written from the perspective of said leader's protege, a deluded, pathologically lying, unaging tykebomb whose mood cycles between obliviousness, manipulative bastardry, and eschatological fury. The only way any of these people look good is because they're regularly pitted against something even worse.

Now, some are probably thinking, "Well, why not just Condemn your nation?" This is where we run into an unfortunate fact - with a few exceptions (And by "a few exceptions" I mean "Der Fuhrer Dyszel") major players in Gameplay aren't usually major players in RP to the degree that they've made enough of a splash to merit a resolution for their RP nation. My nation is Evil with a capital E, but it's not anywhere as established in NS RP as a DFD or an an AMF or even a Great Nepal. GP/RP hybrid players generally aren't. But it's not hard to see how a Commend of me, redirected at my nation, would hinder my ability to RP - people would join RP threads that I participate in expecting to be dealing with this saintly nation and then would get driven off by the seemingly sudden genre shift. It'd put me in the position of choosing between my gameplay and my roleplay, and I'd not be the only player stuck with such a choice - not a desirable outcome for a feature designed to be usable by both.

[Callisdrun]

*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.

I am not. And I consider the SC to be the best part of nationstates, so Callisdrun is very very far off.

My sincerest apologies. I was sorely mistaken.

[Metania]

I would agree with NERVUN and point towards the RP incompatibility towards being a more major problem--Rule 4 makes it impossible to properly commend or condemn roleplayer nations for actions that aren't related to their roleplayed nation's behavior. You can still do it, but it'll confuse people, damage their roleplaying, and generally be messy.

Some way to be able to separate the roleplayer from their nation should be possible, if only to avoid this. Some things are debatable, but if Rule 4 runs afoul of this, then ironically, it's no good for roleplayers either.

And yes, I helped contribute some of the modifications to Rule 4. So I see this as something else which should be added on--some method of telling them apart to minimize confusion. If I had an idea how to say it in ruleese, I'd say it, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

[Quintessence of Dust]

And many people don't. Here, let Unibot help you:

Simply brilliant, Ardchoille. Well done! :)

Great reminder of the disparity between intentions and actions.

[NERVUN]

The 3WB (well, the Gameplay side - the 3WB doesn't seem to have official spokesfolks per se) made its positive goals clear quite early, but they can be hard to find in the later muddle. Basically, they want Rule 4 clarified to a list of the forbidden things that it was actually created to put a stop to. OOC flaming in Condemns is bad - ban it. The word 'player' makes people squirm - well, ban that too. Gender pronouns and the word 'roleplay'...are problematic, but can be banned and worked around in fairly predictable ways. Gameplay people, by and large, understand the virtue of a list of things that you can't do, and they're very good at tracking that stuff. So a specific list of words that you can't say would satisfy them - even though there'd be a lively and heated debate about the specifics, the opposition to the 4th Rule would disappear overnight if it was instead put as such a list.

When I read this, I thought to myself, let's hope Kandarin has more success with that suggestion than I did (see: viewtopic.php?p=2230525#p2230525 ). Sadly, no.

Odd thing is, I have no problem at all with Ard's explanation of the rule. I have a problem with the rule itself. And I do not understand why replacing Rule IV with its provided explanation is somehow unacceptable to the Mods. Shouldn't there be no difference between the two? I see a difference, and the refusal to substitute one with the other makes me think the Mods do too.

Mods, care to enlighten me on this?

Ballotonia

Well, there's two parts to this:

Getting to the first part, a list of banned words, we don't want to provide a list of such words for the same reason that we don't provide a list in General as well. Pretty much from a Moderation standpoint it restricts us AND players way too much. For example, take player. If we ban the use of player, it would seem to do what you want, except what happens when members of NS sports wants to write a C&C and commend the players of Smufistan for their win in the World Smurfing Cup? What about all the various other words than can mean player? We would end up with a huge list that would make us nuts in chasing down everything and annoy you guys because huge swaths of vocab would be forbidden from use. It is far more flexable for both Mods and players to get more towards a "spirit of" rule than a "letter of" because while that moves towards more subjective judgement, it also allows for players to make their cases as well.

As for the second part, why don't we just ban flamebaiting, we do. I believe Ard has mentioned somewhere that while this was brought out at the same time as a bunch of bad C&Cs, it wasn't because of them. We had been talking about this for quite some time in order to bring the SC in-line with what Max had originally set out to us for the SC. It was just those C&Cs made it seem that we really needed this rule in place now and that matters were coming to a head. As I (And Ard) said, in retrospect, our timing was off and it made it seem like Ard slapped down this rule out of nowhere because of a few bad apples.

[NERVUN]

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.

It's not an issue of "cannot comment on". It's more an issue of intelligibility.

As someone who does not RP her nation, reading RP C&Cs confuses and bewilders me. What do you mean they enslave people? What do you mean they nuke their neighbors? What do you mean they cut all funding for education just to fund the military? No they don't! Nothing happens! It's just answering a certain issue a certain way! Why are you condemning someone for how they answer issues, or what they pretend to do with their friends?

Ok, taking it from here though, it should be noted that a lot of this stuff doesn't happen within the issues but on the forums. Many RPers do not use what the game is actually saying about their nation (I don't think I will ever understand where they get their stats from) and people who hang out more in General... well, most of us have forgotten there IS a game attached to this.

That said, what the issue is here is that C&Cs are coming from the World Assembly, which the Security Council is a part of. This august *snirk* assembly is supposedly a collection of nations that have come together so anything produced by it should sound like it comes from such a body.

I say this not to belittle your point or dismiss it, but to provide the background for where we're coming from.

I don't get it. But I also know that that's not my concern. Enough of the RP community has exercised its expertise and decided that whatever this nation has claimed to have done is worth condemning, and as a GPer in a GP nation, it's not my place to contradict them. So my preference in these cases is to abstain, and to vote that my delegate abstain as well, so that the RP community as a whole can come to a decision about whether the C/C is worthwhile.

Ok, with you so far. However, I would like to note that the Security Council is supposed to cover the whole of NationStates, including RP nations, GP nations, General, Sports, and F7 (God there's a scary prospect, a commendation for an F7 nation...).

I take very little issue with how Ard has explained and justified the interpretation of Rule IV. But because explanation and justification has not thus far been backed up with actual wording changes that Lady Nai has suggested (and for what it's worth, if I have to parrot anybody's opinion it would be hers)

Ok, I hear what you're saying. As Ard herself has pointed out though, the second clause of R4 is from the most worthy Lady Nai herself.

(also FWIW, I recognize that Ard has Real Life (tm) that can delay any implementation of changes), GPers face the worrying prospect that Ard's explanations and justifications are hers alone, that other moderators might make different calls, and that we GPers might be told to write our C&Cs in the same manner that RP C&Cs are written - in a style that is bewildering and confusing, a style that we do not understand because it is not how we play.

Ah, now we're getting down to the meat and bones. Ok, for your first concern (About Moderators making different calls), I am afraid that you're going to have to take my word on this, but in the Suuuuuuuuuuuuper doooooooooooooooooper Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekrit Mod Lair (And izakaiya), there's currently 4 different threads a-going with various Mods tossing in their oars about Rule 4 and what it means and how to apply it. Ard, because she didn't run away fast enough, has, ah, volunteered for the job of being the main contact point for the SC, given her status as an active game mod. So while you have been seeing her mostly, the rest of us have been following along and trying to help. Furthermore, given that she IS the go-to-gal for the SC (And the WA in general), hers is the advice that the rest of us would seek concerning anything that is not cut and dried.

For example, I've been trying to help out in the GA with legality questions for their proposals. Anything that is not a clear violation gets tossed to the rest of the Moderation staff to chew over and we come to concensus before issuing a ruling. If I, for example, ever made a really silly rulling (Such as forthwith, all GA proposals MUST start off with a nice haiku), I expect to be smacked down by Ard and my fellow Mods (And possibly turned into a frog).

I hope that answers your concern that different Moderators would change the rules without consulting others. As for the style change, I hope to address it in more detail below, the short answer though is that what we are trying to do here is build a language that ALL may use. Yes, it will involve a change in terminology for some (If not all), but I have high hopes that all can adapt because, after all, you all learned the terminology for your chosen style of play in the first place.

It could could be replaced with "The leader of, the nation of". It can be a bit awkward, yes, but it could be done. I think (And before anyone gets any bright ideas, I mean THINK as in I haven't talked this out yet) there might be a bit of a work around ala normal English usage with assigning a pronoun once the "nation of Whateverstan" gets mentioned.

But this is exactly the problem - "The leader of" is a RolePlay concept, and does not translate to GP. I will use Lady Nai as an example, and of course she may scold me if I have misinterpreted her statements.

Naivetry, the nation, is sometimes roleplayed, and has a named leader, a government, a body of laws, and events that happen and so on. Naivetry is also gameplayed, and goes on defense missions and safeguards our region's founder-nation and so on. To commend "the leader of Naivetry" for initiative in battle leading to a successful expulsion of invader forces would be factually inaccurate. And suggesting that such terms be used plays right into the fear I mentioned above, that we will be forced to use language which is wrong, and unnatural (in the sense that it does not come naturally when describing events), and bewildering to read and write.

Well, I used "The leader of" as an example to be able to be able to get around the loss of certain pronouns. The nation of works just as well. But to take it further, you could use the nation tag to write:

COMMENDS NERVUN for their great leadership in rallying their alies in the Battle of Kawanakajima which led to the expultion of invading forces.

Yes, you have to change the pronoun to their, but it does read the same. As Ard noted, anyone clicking on the link would be taken to the nation page. That page IS your identifier on the game, not the person behind it. It is, after all, what the game actually sees. What I hope is, and what I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, that during this period, everyone will come together and build the language and terms needed for this so that they will become as easy then as the terms you know now.

We don't want to have to "work around" our language, as if it's a disease to cure or a problem to solve. I hope you can see why that very idea makes us worry that you - the mods, the GAers, the RPers - think that we ourselves are a disease to cure, a problem to solve.

I hope that you can take my assurence that we don't view GPs as a disease to cure, a problem to solve. Max has said point blank that you guys are a part of NS, and one that is not going away. Like I said, while this seems to be aimed at GPs, it's going to be everyone who is going to have to adjust, and create, the langue needed for this to cover everyone. Yes, even RPers who can't just write about how so-and-so is such a good RPer or So-and-so godmods like hell.

Wouldn't it be rather ironic, and nice, if our Security Council, in doing so actually manages to make peace between the factions? We'd be one up over the OTHER SC that meets in New York.

Well, in terms of puppets, I was thinking of something along the lines of ACKNOWLEDGING the nation of Whateverstan's work through client states (or empire)."

But they're not client states, which can mean two GP things that I know of - one, maintained puppets, such as for players who are active in multiple regions (as in Astarial, citizen of Equilism, and Astaling, former citizen of Nasicournia), or two, the description for national or regional citizens of a certain type of regional or organizational government (one might describe members of the former ADN as former client states, for example). And they're not empires, which can have the same meanings as client states, though on a larger scale. Defenders and invaders create puppets, use them, and then toss them away and let them die from inactivity once they've gotten dirtied. A commendation for regularly setting up petty warlords and using them to further one's own goals, then letting them and their population starve to death once the battle has been won? Really?

Well, I did not know that. I was directed at a ruling that Ard had made previously that puppets would be an acceptable term to use as you do see it in RL. I would also note that any commodation would probably not read "COMMENDS Batmanistan for the creation of warlords just to kill them off later". However, saying for example "AMAZED at the level of intelligence gathering exhibited by Batmanistan" because if I understand the use of puppets correctly, most of them are being used as spies, correct?

Well, like I stated, any OOC chatter in the thread would be archived in the WA archives so more detail about whatever it was would be reflected in the record.

A C/C should not need a discussion thread just to clarify that the target is not being C/Ced for what the resolution says, but for other things which the resolution can't put in terms that people who play with the target would understand.

My appologies, let me re-state that. The drafting thread for any work done here ususally includes a lot of IC and OOC explinations, jokes, spam, and the like. That thread then becomes the AT VOTE thread once it reaches that point with MORE IC and OOC stuff, and then finally it is either archived as DEFEATED or PASSED. We Mods don't bother stripping out the thread before shoving it into archives, so everything that was said is there as a record, warts and all. So clarifications needed will be there.

I hope I managed to answer your questions and concerns.

[NERVUN]

But this is exactly the problem - "The leader of" is a RolePlay concept, and does not translate to GP. I will use Lady Nai as an example, and of course she may scold me if I have misinterpreted her statements.

Naivetry, the nation, is sometimes roleplayed, and has a named leader, a government, a body of laws, and events that happen and so on. Naivetry is also gameplayed, and goes on defense missions and safeguards our region's founder-nation and so on. To commend "the leader of Naivetry" for initiative in battle leading to a successful expulsion of invader forces would be factually inaccurate. And suggesting that such terms be used plays right into the fear I mentioned above, that we will be forced to use language which is wrong, and unnatural (in the sense that it does not come naturally when describing events), and bewildering to read and write.

We don't want to have to "work around" our language, as if it's a disease to cure or a problem to solve. I hope you can see why that very idea makes us worry that you - the mods, the GAers, the RPers - think that we ourselves are a disease to cure, a problem to solve.

This is a constant concern. It gets worse, too, when the nation in question is an active RPer and their RP history is incompatible with what would result from the attribution of their actions to the "leader" or "peoples" of that nation.

Asta is quite right to note that a Commend of "the leader of Naivetry" would be factually inaccurate. But going one step further to an existing resolution, let's look at my nation. A Commend of "the leader of Kandarin" or "the government of Kandarin" wouldn't just be factually inaccurate - it would be blatant lies. My nation is evil! It's a lying, cheating, violent cesspit of troglodytic, backstabbing racist elves who can't hold a nation together for two generations without either devolving into horrific civil war or getting taken over by a cabal that makes Stalin look like Little Miss Sunshine. It's got cities where all the horrible urban legends are true, where people who toe the line and never slip up live in high-tech security with the finest medical care in the world while the folks underneath them live brief lives in lawless, lightless ghettoes full of supernatural corruption and blood sports. My nation's leader is a double-talking, contract-killing religious fanatic who would (and did) pawn members of her own family to ancient evils to get an edge against the enemies of her faith. Most of my RPs are written from the perspective of said leader's protege, a deluded, pathologically lying, unaging tykebomb whose mood cycles between obliviousness, manipulative bastardry, and eschatological fury. The only way any of these people look good is because they're regularly pitted against something even worse.

Now, some are probably thinking, "Well, why not just Condemn your nation?" This is where we run into an unfortunate fact - with a few exceptions (And by "a few exceptions" I mean "Der Fuhrer Dyszel") major players in Gameplay aren't usually major players in RP to the degree that they've made enough of a splash to merit a resolution for their RP nation. My nation is Evil with a capital E, but it's not anywhere as established in NS RP as a DFD or an an AMF or even a Great Nepal. GP/RP hybrid players generally aren't. But it's not hard to see how a Commend of me, redirected at my nation, would hinder my ability to RP - people would join RP threads that I participate in expecting to be dealing with this saintly nation and then would get driven off by the seemingly sudden genre shift. It'd put me in the position of choosing between my gameplay and my roleplay, and I'd not be the only player stuck with such a choice - not a desirable outcome for a feature designed to be usable by both.

I would agree with NERVUN and point towards the RP incompatibility towards being a more major problem--Rule 4 makes it impossible to properly commend or condemn roleplayer nations for actions that aren't related to their roleplayed nation's behavior. You can still do it, but it'll confuse people, damage their roleplaying, and generally be messy.

Some way to be able to separate the roleplayer from their nation should be possible, if only to avoid this. Some things are debatable, but if Rule 4 runs afoul of this, then ironically, it's no good for roleplayers either.

And yes, I helped contribute some of the modifications to Rule 4. So I see this as something else which should be added on--some method of telling them apart to minimize confusion. If I had an idea how to say it in ruleese, I'd say it, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

Metania, I believe you mean Kandarin, and not me.

I can understand your concerns here with people confusing the RP'd nation and the GP player where a commendation for leadership actions taken during a defence would impact against the nastiness being RP'd or vice versa. I am not sure it is that much of an issue however. This is not trying to belittle your very real points that you made, but I question just how much influence a C&C will have on people partisapating in either an RP with you or a GP action.

That is to say, if I wanted to be involved in a promising looking roleplay of "Nations Run by Bastards" (After all, my leader is not even close to nice given whom he is based off of), I'm not too sure that before I jump in the waters and send you a TG asking to be allowed to play I would check with the SC and read up on any of your commendations to see if you are indeed a bastard (Er, I mean YOUR nation's leader, not YOU of course). The same goes for GP actions.

However, I can see your points and the potential is there, even if I am unsure it is a great one.

Might have to talk about this one...

[Unibot]

And many people don't. Here, let Unibot help you:

Okay I realize I might be totally spitting on Gameplayers' IC rules when I make these suggestions,

But what I'd like to see is, this verison be submitted instead, Kandy...

The World Assembly,

NOTING the usurpation of the WA Delegacy in the East Pacific by the new adminstration, led by the Wonderful World of Lady Phedre,

RECOGNIZING that this action goes against the stated will of the existing population of the East Pacific, and the disrespect with which Lady Phedre and those under the delegacy's authority have treated said population,

ACKNOWLEDGING that Lady Phedre has abolished the previous seat of government in the East Pacific and established one under their exclusive control,

UPHOLDING the right of all to equality under the law, freedom of religion, and the rights of citizens, abolished by Lady Phedre's establishment of mandatory protocol of nobility, establishment of an official religion, and expulsion of many prominent citizens of the East Pacific,

Officially and publically condemns Lady Phedre for the abovementioned actions.

Basically, I just took out personal pronouns when addressing a nation.

Ard, I'm a different player than when I wrote that, my opinions have changed on the matter... when I wrote that I was still deeply influenced by the General Assembly culture -- as I believe you are. After participating in some gameplay activities myself, to get to know the culture better, and after participating the debates for several gameplay C&Cs... you learn things about others' way of play that you never knew before -- you're assumptions of what are 'easy' compromises to make are defenestrated with your preconceived notions. When I read many of my own posts from those early SC threads, they reek of ignorance to the GP world. While you're at it you might as well blow the cobwebs off that masculism proposal and wave it around as evidence of misogyny.

If you'd like me to explain to others what Rule IV can and can't do now, I'll do it now. You don't need to troll me. Just ask. next time.