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

[Minineenee]

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

If I may interject a moment, some of us care because we are only just starting to explore this aspect. The Security Council was viewed as something that could inject some life back.

Personally, I find these forums way more appealing to Jolt used to be, so I lurk. I hang out with Nai, and heard about the goings on here whether I was interested or not simply by being in the (IRC) room, so I grew to care. I'm fairly stubborn, so actually coming around to this aspect of the game as usable in how I play wasn't a quick process. But just as I am starting to stop telling those kids with their new ideas to get off my lawn, this whole thing starts with Rule 4. And yes, I did see it as a roadblock, and a smack, even though it wasn't intended as such, to Gameplay. It was like some hope getting dashed away.

That's a quick intro into why I care, anyways. Take from it what you will.

[Naivetry]

But that all said, General is not GA. GA is not II. II is not GE&S, which is not FB&I, which is not NS, which is not Gameplay, which is not NS Sports, which is not the SC. Each subforum has different ways of expressing themselves with their own code words, terms, politics, identity and the like. The SC is the place where it all is supposed to come together and we need a way for everyone to be able to talk, or else we end up with the same divisons as before. Since NationStates is, at heart, a nation simulator with various and profoundly different ways of playing, we're going to base level.

As we see it, you're not going to base level. What you're calling base level is really this:



Base level would mean NOT always judging things in terms of "what sounds like a RL/RP'd nation" - because that is definitively outside of everything we do in Gameplay.

In terms of the year, yeah, it is late. But, as I explained elsewhere, it was because we were waiting to see what could and would happen. You guys have surprised us over and over again. We had the blueprints for what Max wanted, but we (And Max and the Admins) also knew that originally Max wanted a satirical nation simulation game to generate interest in his book Jennifer Government. What he GOT was radically different and that was due to the players. So we waited to see, would we get to the spirit of what was intended, would it be better than what was intended, or would what was going on start causing more issues.

I understand what you're saying, but I still don't see how it's an explanation, for the following reasons: 1) You didn't get to the spirit of what was intended, if you're saying that Rule 4 was what was intended. Okay. Understood. But 2) some of us, at least, thought it was better than what was intended. 3) None of the moderators have so far been able to point to issues that it was causing. No one except a couple of the "WA" players has even said that it was causing problems, and Urgench has a remarkably selective memory about these things, given that since late March of this year, there were 3 RP C/Cs, 1 C/C for contributions elsewhere (Imagey Nation), and no C/Cs of Gameplayers passed at all. If you take that to the beginning of March, then we had Kenny's C/C, AO's C/C, and Sedge's, still leaving us with a 6:1 ratio of C/Cs in favor of communities other than Gameplay. And if you look at the entire history of the SC, you only pick up 3 more C/Cs that could possibly be considered Gameplay-related (Kandarin, Goobergunchia, and Todd), leaving the final count at 6:4, with a clear and indisputable shift towards RP as time progressed and Unibot et al. worked to let other communities know they could use the SC, too.

So after a year, all we're left with is a decision to go back to "the spirit of what was intended", with absolutely no other justification based on demonstrable problems within the SC - just the idea that on second thought you liked it the other way better after all.

You said that Max wants the SC. With Rule 4, we're effectively keeping the two SC resolution categories and rejecting the SC itself as an institution in any way different from the GA. That's not keeping the SC. That's keeping C/Cs and Liberations in the shell of a forum that will continue an existence separate from the GA only so that newbies don't get confused about the targets of resolution categories.

Believe you me, I wish that Erastide was here as well. And you're right. You are very correct in saying that I don't know gameplay. I tried to get in, but my timezone plus other matters kept me out of it. You're right in that most, if not all, of the current active Moderators don't understand grameplay too well either.

Re: timezone - the first misconception is that Gameplay = raiding and defending. At an estimate, I would say that less than 10% of the people involved in Gameplay are active in raiding or defending. Gameplay is no more restricted to raiding and defending than RL politics are restricted to warfare. It's just that raiding, like warfare, makes the most noise - and so it's the only thing people on these forums ever pick up on.

So as a Moderator who wants to make sure you guys enjoy this game and feel welcome here as much as I can, let me ask you, no, let me beg you, educate us.

Please don't say "You don't understand us." "You don't know us." "You hate us." Please tell me WHY and WHAT you think we're not understanding. Fill in our gaps please. In other words, consider me and the rest of the Mods who are working hard on this to try and find that bridge not as the opposing side, but as newbies to the world of Gameplay who need our hands held.

I'm trying. It is, quite honestly, the only reason I ever came to these forums in the first place. It's also why I've spent so much of my time here writing ridiculously long guides, and posting clarifications of GP perspectives where no one was really looking for them.

We need one thing and one thing only: to know exactly what principle of playing NS you intend to uphold in your rulings. Ard seems to think her enforcement of "sounds as if it's about a nation" and my ban on "refers to NS as a game, or to the personal characteristics of a player" result in the same thing. I really, really don't think so. I'm waiting to hear back on the questions I asked in Topid's thread, for just that reason.

Ok, why do you feel so?

From looking at the changes she's made. I discussed my problems with each at length here, here, and here.

On another topic, Nai, I've wandered though the examples thread and I admit that I am now more than a little lost at which concerns of yours in there have been addressed to your statisfaction, which have not, and which have not been addressed at all. Could you point me in the right direction for those?

Oh, hey, so you found that. None of my concerns in there have been addressed - Ard touched on the issue of "ejecting and banning the competition" and the "222 points" thing, but I had further questions about both that she hasn't had time to get to.

[Palaam]

I have to ask: who's "we?"

I don't like this arbitrary division of players into categories, because it presumes that one iteration of a group has a particular control over the defining characteristics of that group. With all due respect, Nai, I don't recall someone passing a resolution proclaiming you Guardian of Gameplay, so I find it extremely hard to believe your statements when you address them as "we" or "Gameplayers think" or "GP is thus."

[Kalibarr]

I can see it now, a new resolution category, "Game Class Division" to call your self a gameplayer or a roleplayer you must first submit to the all powerful WA and kindly ask for them to vote you into being a gameplayer, or a roleplayer or a generalite and onward.

[Biyah]

I have to ask: who's "we?"

I don't like this arbitrary division of players into categories, because it presumes that one iteration of a group has a particular control over the defining characteristics of that group. With all due respect, Nai, I don't recall someone passing a resolution proclaiming you Guardian of Gameplay, so I find it extremely hard to believe your statements when you address them as "we" or "Gameplayers think" or "GP is thus."

She speaks for more people then you would imagine - especially as this entire discussion pisses most of us off, and she's one of the few who can (or will) keep her head.

Besides, unless you've visted our forums, you wouldn't know if someone actually HAD passed such a resolution. Ta.

~B

[Palaam]

She speaks for more people then you would imagine - especially as this entire discussion pisses most of us off, and she's one of the few who can (or will) keep her head.

Besides, unless you've visted our forums, you wouldn't know if someone actually HAD passed such a resolution. Ta.

~B

How helpful of you to post! I stand corrected, sir, and I stand humbled before mighty Equilism and her spokespeople. Never will I dwell in ignorance again, oh no, not me!

This is exactly the sort of attitude I'm talking about. What makes residents in Lavinium any less Gameplayers than you? Is it because we RP more? Is it because I'm associated with-gasp- the Antarctic Oasis? And let's not get into what might make AO a GP region! Why, there's a division in terms that might add too many variables to this disgusting equation that NERVUN is trying so happily to solve.

Of course, if you'd been to OUR forums, you'd have a more informed opinion. Ta.

~P

[Biyah]

I'm also Nasicournia and The West Pacific. Thanks

I'm aware of who you are. I also know I don't care much about you or your group, ta.

~B

[Palaam]

If you're not here to talk about Rule 4, then why bother posting? Is it to rile up players who have other contributions to make? Is it to wave your e-schlong? Because here I am, trying to make a point about what qualifies players to be GP/RP/WA/SC, and you come in telling me that I'm...wrong? Or something?

I'll say it again: this rule involves compromise for everyone. The common ground is not so hard to get to- it's just realizing that life with Rule 4 is not as difficult and Orwellian as folks seem to be making it out to be.

[Naivetry]

As for the rest, let me ask you a favor if I may. I admit that this is going to require a bit of work, but it would really help me understand where you guys are coming from. Could you please write a proposal? Post it here in this thread. Commend or condem is up to you. Who is up to you. You don't have to be R4 compliant, because I want to see exactly what you want to write and why we cannot find different ways of putting them that still allows the meaning to go through.

I think the issues in Topid's thread are more varied and important, but I also wrote one here.

As I have been saying pretty much since this started, almost none of this controversy has to do with permitted wording. Even the much-dreaded gendered pronouns seemed to be okay with the rest of the people who commented on the example above, and the take-home lesson there should be that Gameplay-IC is perfectly intelligible if you're willing to accept that NationStates nations can have gender in the same way you expect us to accept that NationStates nations can be devastated by nuclear attack.

BOTH are true. That's what it means to play this nation simulator game.

The reason we can't create a language to cover us all is that we're already using the same words to speak different languages.

When RPers say "citizens", they're mean little imaginary people in their nations.
When GPers say "citizens", we mean players in regions.
When RPers say "war", they mean (among other things) nukes moving between nations.
When GPers say "war", we mean (among other things) nations moving between regions.

Examples could be multiplied. The point is, we may share some vocabulary. But we use each word to mean entirely different things.

Palaam - To turn the question around, why do you consider or want Lavinium to be considered a "Gameplay" region? Why do you think I'm trying to speak for you if nothing I'm saying applies to your region?

[NERVUN]

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

If I may interject a moment, some of us care because we are only just starting to explore this aspect. The Security Council was viewed as something that could inject some life back.

Personally, I find these forums way more appealing to Jolt used to be, so I lurk. I hang out with Nai, and heard about the goings on here whether I was interested or not simply by being in the (IRC) room, so I grew to care. I'm fairly stubborn, so actually coming around to this aspect of the game as usable in how I play wasn't a quick process. But just as I am starting to stop telling those kids with their new ideas to get off my lawn, this whole thing starts with Rule 4. And yes, I did see it as a roadblock, and a smack, even though it wasn't intended as such, to Gameplay. It was like some hope getting dashed away.

That's a quick intro into why I care, anyways. Take from it what you will.

It's a start.

[Yelda]

I also know I don't care much about you or your group, ta.

Biyah, are you capable of posting without trolling? I bet you can. C'mon, give it a try. You can do eet!

[NERVUN]

Going backwards a bit, but this I think is a bit more important than the previous, though I am going to go back and answer.

As for the rest, let me ask you a favor if I may. I admit that this is going to require a bit of work, but it would really help me understand where you guys are coming from. Could you please write a proposal? Post it here in this thread. Commend or condem is up to you. Who is up to you. You don't have to be R4 compliant, because I want to see exactly what you want to write and why we cannot find different ways of putting them that still allows the meaning to go through.

I think the issues in Topid's thread are more varied and important, but I also wrote one here.

This one?

NOTING Lady Phedre's unlawful seizure of the Delegacy of The East Pacific from its long-standing Delegate, Gnidrah,

DISTURBED by the rhetoric of religious fanaticism and unbridled military imperialism employed by Lady Phedre's new regional government, self-styled "The Empire",

DISMAYED by Lady Phedre's creation of a new "official" forum for the government of The East Pacific, in blatant disregard for its citizens' culture, traditions, and history,

NEWLY AWARE of Lady Phedre's identity as Minineenee of The West Pacific,

SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for her rise to power,

Ok, let me try to re-write it and if you could tell me if it still reads well enough for you:

NOTING Lady Phedre's unlawful seizure of the Delegacy of The East Pacific from its long-standing Delegate, Gnidrah,

DISTURBED by the rhetoric of religious fanaticism and unbridled military imperialism employed by their new regional government, self-styled "The Empire",

DISMAYED by their creation of a new "official" forum for the government of The East Pacific, in blatant disregard for its member nations' culture, traditions, and history,

NEWLY AWARE of their identity as the controler (or puppetmaster I think would be passable) of Minineenee of The West Pacific,

SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for their rise to power,

As I have been saying pretty much since this started, almost none of this controversy has to do with permitted wording. Even the much-dreaded gendered pronouns seemed to be okay with the rest of the people who commented on the example above, and the take-home lesson there should be that Gameplay-IC is perfectly intelligible if you're willing to accept that NationStates nations can have gender in the same way you expect us to accept that NationStates nations can be devastated by nuclear attack.

BOTH are true. That's what it means to play this nation simulator game.

The reason we can't create a language to cover us all is that we're already using the same words to speak different languages.

When RPers say "citizens", they're mean little imaginary people in their nations.
When GPers say "citizens", we mean players in regions.
When RPers say "war", they mean (among other things) nukes moving between nations.
When GPers say "war", we mean (among other things) nations moving between regions.

Examples could be multiplied. The point is, we may share some vocabulary. But we use each word to mean entirely different things.

Alright, more work for you, but could you multiple those examples?

Believe you me, I am well aware of the fun of having words that mean two different things. Japan has borrowed a number of English words and I've had the joy of finding out that not only do the meanings change, but some native Japanese words sound like English, but with very, very different meanings (I shall never read The 3 Little Pigs again), but if we have some of the words, I think we can find compromises that can work.

[Minineenee]

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

If I may interject a moment, some of us care because we are only just starting to explore this aspect. The Security Council was viewed as something that could inject some life back.

Personally, I find these forums way more appealing to Jolt used to be, so I lurk. I hang out with Nai, and heard about the goings on here whether I was interested or not simply by being in the (IRC) room, so I grew to care. I'm fairly stubborn, so actually coming around to this aspect of the game as usable in how I play wasn't a quick process. But just as I am starting to stop telling those kids with their new ideas to get off my lawn, this whole thing starts with Rule 4. And yes, I did see it as a roadblock, and a smack, even though it wasn't intended as such, to Gameplay. It was like some hope getting dashed away.

That's a quick intro into why I care, anyways. Take from it what you will.

It's a start.

Ok, hopefully it made sense. But, honestly, I have no idea where to go from "It's a start" to make a middle, then an end. >_>
That could be for a variety of reasons, most of which are RL related at the moment, but still.

[NERVUN]

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

If I may interject a moment, some of us care because we are only just starting to explore this aspect. The Security Council was viewed as something that could inject some life back.

Personally, I find these forums way more appealing to Jolt used to be, so I lurk. I hang out with Nai, and heard about the goings on here whether I was interested or not simply by being in the (IRC) room, so I grew to care. I'm fairly stubborn, so actually coming around to this aspect of the game as usable in how I play wasn't a quick process. But just as I am starting to stop telling those kids with their new ideas to get off my lawn, this whole thing starts with Rule 4. And yes, I did see it as a roadblock, and a smack, even though it wasn't intended as such, to Gameplay. It was like some hope getting dashed away.

That's a quick intro into why I care, anyways. Take from it what you will.

It's a start.

Ok, hopefully it made sense. But, honestly, I have no idea where to go from "It's a start" to make a middle, then an end. >_>
That could be for a variety of reasons, most of which are RL related at the moment, but still.

It did make sense, thank you and I meant it was a start for me to start to understand. Where we go from here is hopefully we can exchange enough information so that we can manage to make something that works enough not to piss off everyone, or at least everyone won't be pissed off enough to keep blocking everything, abandon the game, try to set fire to the forums, and send highly suggestive and insulting emails to Max.

[Minineenee]

It did make sense, thank you and I meant it was a start for me to start to understand. Where we go from here is hopefully we can exchange enough information so that we can manage to make something that works enough not to piss off everyone, or at least everyone won't be pissed off enough to keep blocking everything, abandon the game, try to set fire to the forums, and send highly suggestive and insulting emails to Max.

Oh, fantastic. If needed, I'd be happy to try to provide some of that information, if only from a different point of view and mindset than previously seen in posts here.

Besides, I make a habit to never burn forums down until I have found all the booze, and I haven't even begun to search for it here.

[Naivetry]

This one?

NOTING Lady Phedre's unlawful seizure of the Delegacy of The East Pacific from its long-standing Delegate, Gnidrah,

DISTURBED by the rhetoric of religious fanaticism and unbridled military imperialism employed by Lady Phedre's new regional government, self-styled "The Empire",

DISMAYED by Lady Phedre's creation of a new "official" forum for the government of The East Pacific, in blatant disregard for its citizens' culture, traditions, and history,

NEWLY AWARE of Lady Phedre's identity as Minineenee of The West Pacific,

SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for her rise to power,

Yep, that one.

Ok, let me try to re-write it and if you could tell me if it still reads well enough for you:

NOTING Lady Phedre's unlawful seizure of the Delegacy of The East Pacific from its long-standing Delegate, Gnidrah,

DISTURBED by the rhetoric of religious fanaticism and unbridled military imperialism employed by their new regional government, self-styled "The Empire",

Er... no. "Lady Phedre" is not multiple, nor gender-neutral. What was wrong with just saying "Lady Phedre's" ?

DISMAYED by their creation of a new "official" forum for the government of The East Pacific, in blatant disregard for its member nations' culture, traditions, and history,

No. Again, what was wrong with the previous? "Member nations" is a misrepresentation - ill-defined and probably inaccurate, depending on how you're interpreting "member". Nations that were simply resident in TEP at the time had neither claim to citizenship status nor any part in the creation and maintenance of its aforementioned culture, traditions, and history.

NEWLY AWARE of their identity as the controler (or puppetmaster I think would be passable) of Minineenee of The West Pacific,

Their = BLEH. I dislike "controller", as it refers to whoever happens to be logging into the nation at the time, not the player to whom the nation actually belongs. "Owner" is what we would typically say. But in this case, it's also inaccurate. Minineenee is the main nation and Lady Phedre the puppet. The point is that the persona (puppet) Lady Phedre is in fact the player known as Minineenee. An acceptable alternative would be "NEWLY AWARE of Lady Phedre's identity as a puppet of Minineenee of The West Pacific" to make the relationship clear.

SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for their rise to power,

I hate, detest, loathe, abhor, despise, and recoil in revulsion from this use of "their". Just in case that wasn't obvious.

Alright, more work for you, but could you multiple those examples?

Sure - tomorrow. After I sleep, sign a lease, and pick my dissertation topic.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Er... no. "Lady Phedre" is not multiple, nor gender-neutral. What was wrong with just saying "Lady Phedre's" ?

It would get pretty repetitive. The singular they is commonly used, and it doesn't have to be indicative of an indeterminate gender. But, I'm assuming it would be just fine to repeat "Lady Phedre's", considering NERVUN didn't change it in the first clause. If I were editing it as an essay, though, I would prefer to use 'she', so that the pronoun matches the antecedent. But that would be assuming 'Lady Phedre' is a singular girl, and a commendation for her would be illegal anyhow. 'They' bypasses that problem with just the right amount of ambiguity. Even though there's a better pronoun-antecedent match, it still makes sense when used here, and it would definitely make sense when used with nation names that aren't gender-indicative. The distaste for singular they seems more grammar pedantry than a concern for the actual effects on 'Gameplay' resolutions.

By the way, we are looking for universal guidelines on Rule 4, right? In that case, it would make sense to advocate singular they, since there are likely only few cases in which a nation name is indicative of a gender. I would't base any kind of guideline upon a 'Condemn Lady Phedre', personally.

[Biyah]

If you're not here to talk about Rule 4, then why bother posting? Is it to rile up players who have other contributions to make? Is it to wave your e-schlong? Because here I am, trying to make a point about what qualifies players to be GP/RP/WA/SC, and you come in telling me that I'm...wrong? Or something?

I'll say it again: this rule involves compromise for everyone. The common ground is not so hard to get to- it's just realizing that life with Rule 4 is not as difficult and Orwellian as folks seem to be making it out to be.

I was going to reply to this, but half way through writing my reply, I realized I was only reiterating things that have been said 20 times over the last few months. Nothing new is coming out of these threads, and for all that another Mod is here to breathe another breath of fresh hope into the subject - there IS NO POINT to this anymore.

The SC is staying, per Max. Great. And now we have a mod that says maybe there is some 'wiggle room' - but Rule IV is here to stay. Which means that all we're going to do is rehash the same tired argument: all so we can ‘compromise’ to something that most of the Game players wouldn’t be comfortable using anyway.

We're going to continue having the arguments, the insults, the tears of frustration and all the ancillary bullshit that has gone with it since Rule IV came down the pipe.

So, speaking for me and a few of the other more extreme gameplayers – To Hell with the SC.

And here's why, lest I simply be called a troll (again) for speaking my opinion. This is for myself; I claim no authority over the rest of the gameplayers.

1: The SC is already dead. Between the arguments and 3Wb, what worth it had to breathe some life into our part of the game is gone. It's now a battlefield, an arena of politics the sort that only a few of us would dabble in. Even if this issue were to be settled amicably, the attitude is now so sharp and condescending that a lot of the people I know would simply shake their heads at it – me included. If I wanted to deal with deaf and arrogant @ssholes who think they are God, I’d start having personal conversations at work.

2: It's clear that we're not going to be able to post the kinds of C&Cs we were able to in the past. We had it good for a year, we had real debates and the place was WORTH something. That entire atmosphere is gone, only those who are gluttons for punishment or driven are still here arguing. So many of us are disgusted that the mods had the proverbial balls to institute this without warning us after such a long time, that we won't bother to come back even if it's removed.
2a: And since it won't be removed, that point is moot. So far, only those with a foot in RP (or a serious need to argue) have even tried. That won't change, with the odd exception here and there.

3: It seems clear that the mods/admins want the SC to be the WA with a different goal. Never mind that the SC never should have split from the WA in that case, and that this argument would never have been brought up because we never would have taken a significant part in that situation. We are gameplayers because we do not choose to RP blowing the moon to pieces, or spreading plagues over 10 million fictional people, or passing resolutions that have ZERO effect except for e-penis wagging rights. Why, then, would we want to take part in an SC that offers nothing for us – unless we choose to become slaves to the WA? Why SHOULD we have to change many years worth of culture and history to suit the grammatical or RP expectations of a few?

… Apparently, just because. I love that answer – just because.

Pfft.

The SC can become a sub-unit of the WA for all I care anymore. The tragedy of all this is no longer that we’re being cut out or that all are arguments are moot because it was unilaterally decided that Rule IV would stay regardless of player complaint. No, the tragedy is that we’ll have to continue battling it out, simply because enough of us have invested so many bitter tears and frustration into the debate that they are unable to let it go.

My vote: shut this place down, or pass another unilateral decision making it a subsidiary of the WA, already. Let’s put this entire argument out of its misery and go back to hating each other from across our respective boundaries.

*gives a two finger salute
~B

Edit: BB Code

[Ballotonia]

The reason a relatively universal set of fixed language points are necessary is because this is the WA.

There are no rules covering the WA. There are rules covering the GA, and different rules covering the SC. They were split for a reason, and we should not even attempt for them to be the same. Even if just to avoid having the same debate all over again.

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

Astarial already phrased an answer very well. Hence I'll just say: "Me too."

Indeed it should be open to all players, but thus far it has failed to be so, and has become monopolised by one player group and associated with one particular lingua specifica. The 4th rule attempts to remedy that by including the requirement of a base level of universal intelligibility beyond which development and adaption is still allowed.

If anything, it's the GA which is tailored to one group specifically: WA players (though they really should be called GA players, IMHO). That community developed over time, and really is its own sub-culture within NS. I'll happily read their resolutions and vote on them according to my own political beliefs, but writing a piece of their legislation is something I'm not about to pick up anytime soon. Note my use of 'they' and 'their'. As a Gameplayer I do not regard myself to be part of their community. The debate on the splitting off of the SC was painful to my brain just to read in and of itself. A total culture clash, solved by others who do not belong there simply not attending their halls. Please let's not have the SC go down that same path. The GA should NOT be an example on what the SC is supposed to become. There's Gameplayers out there who would like to actually use the SC, ya know.

I was forced to accept the blasphemous concept of a WA resolution targeting and affecting non-WA nations (and by extension, players who might have wanted to avoid that part of the game). I continue to believe that such a condition is inherently wrong and inappropriate. But I'm not about to try to grind entire portions of NS to a halt over it.

Odd, since I remember a time when the rule 'resolutions may not target non-UN nations' did not exist. I was one of the (many?) people who argued that rules would have to be set for UN legislation, and that the text included should be consistent with the ACTUAL effect of passing that legislation, being the adjustment of nation statistics of UN member nations. This point is important to fully grasp: the rule you refer to isn't a visionary God-sent declaration of what the WA should be, it's merely reflecting the reality of what is actually implemented in the game, namely that only WA nations have their nation statistics altered when a resolution passes. Thus, there's no inconsistency or even 'blasphemy' whasoever when a resolution type affects non-WA nations. If that's what's implemented, then that's the way it works. (as a Gameplayer I have no problem adjusting a theme to what is coded, far more with the reverse: code being altered just to accomodate a desired theme instead of quality of play).


SUGGESTION
Let's try to make another constructive suggestion to alter Rule IV:
Instead of: "4. Your proposal was written entirely Out Of Character, either by"
It could read: "4. Your proposal cannot be read as submitted by a Nation targetting a Nation or Region, either by"

Note this doesn't ban OOC. It just means proposals have to be written such that even when they're OOC they must also have some reasonably valid IC interpretation. This should, as far as I can tell, meet the standard set forth in the examples provided and the reasoning provided behind those examples.

Ballotonia

[Ardchoille]

Okay, let me have another go. Rule 4 is a requirement that players abide by a verbal convention in proposals and only in proposals. Proposals are official announcements by an entity that has been coded into the game, the World Assembly. The verbal convention of the game is the one demonstrated in the game itself in the object we, the players, call "a nation page" or "a region (page)".

A nation page does not show gender. Your nation can be called "Girlie McGirlygirl" and your nation flag can be a glamorous pic of you, your very own extravagantly female self. But when you or anyone else looks at your nation page, the nation does not have an official gender. Same with regions.

You, the writer of the proposal, know that the object of your proposal is a person and has a gender. The game "knows" that the object of Security Council resolutions is a nation or a region, which is represented as not having a declared gender. When a proposal is passed and becomes a resolution, it is an official statement of an entity of the game. It is not your proposal. It is the game's resolution. The game, via the votes of "nations" and "regions", has resolved that its World Assembly function commends or condemns a "nation" or "region". It will express this decision by placing a symbol on the genderless nation/region page, with an expression of why the symbol has been placed there. That expression will say "commended/condemned by Security Council Resolution Number w/e".

To maintain the game's verbal convention, a proposal would have to be written in such a way that it did not allocate gender. To maintain your intention, a proposal would have to written in such a way that it points to a person, who does have a gender.

Dilemma: you signed up to play a game. The game has a requirement that you are not comfortable with. Do you accept the basis of the game, or reject the bits that don't suit you?

If you are the sort of contrarian whom NS seems to attract, you do neither. You find a way to appear to be accepting the basis of the game while still achieving your own ends.

In the case of SC proposals, the first step to doing this is to use the [ nation] links. The game can read it as "nation" while you and (some) others will read it the way you want it to be read, as the person who signs in via a given nation page.

But then you run into a snag. While writing your proposal, you wish to use a personal pronoun. "It" seems disrespectful when referring to a person. You have not yet accepted the developing convention of using the plural personal pronoun "their" for ungendered statements in the singular. What to do?

Write "[nation ]Female Gender Nation[/nation ] did this. [nation]Female Gender Nation[ /nation] did that." Seems a bit clunky? Then ...

Think about it. Do I really want to write a proposal about [person]Female Gender Nation[/person]? Do I condemn or commend [person]her[/person] actions that much?

If the answer's yes, then you owe it to [person]Female Gender Nation[/person] to do it. And so you rewrite.

"While doing this, [nation ]Female Gender Nation[ /nation] also did that."

"Having successfully brokered an alliance with Other Lot, [ nation]Female Gender nation[ /nation], as Delegate for This Lot, set up a training program for WA members in both regions."

The outcome is a crafted proposal. You cared enough to do it despite the barrier, and you defeated it. Warm feelgood.

Now, about that TG campaign ...

EDIT: Ballotonia, wrote this before you submitted your post. Reply later.

[Bears Armed]

It isn't GP that has squashed many RPers interests in the SC, it is rule 4 that is hobbling the ability to write a C&C that would fit into what most RPers that I know want.

Oh? How many RPers have you consulted on the matter? If you’re using the term in the sense of ‘nations are nations & contain lot of individual character’ RP rather than ‘nation=individual/region=’nation’ RP then Rule 4 — which would make every ‘legal’ proposal (other than, so far, Liberations…) look as though it could have been written from the former viewpoint — should be fine…

And that's okay! We don't all need to speak one language!

Can you explain why it has been determined that one language is better than letting each group speak to itself in its own way?

I though that I already had explained: Because proposals/resolutions written OOC are incomprehensible in RP-IC terms they make it extremely difficult for RPers to see the SC as even existing IC…
Could you personally believe in the validity of a supposed ‘legislature’ in RL that used terminology such as OOC SC proposals & resolutions here have been doing?

GP developed outside the official forums meaning that it has its own specific technical language which it seems is somewhat independent of the customary language of the official forums.

England, France, Russia, and their languages all developed outside of the UN... that did not stop the UN from recognizing more than one language.

(That it only recognizes six is another matter, and has some dimensions of argument that this does not.)

But all of those languages discuss RL matters in RL terminology, more or less (and ignoring the spin that some ideologies have put on the meaning of certain terms), they don’t include any that use what would seem ‘OOC’ in a RL context… do they?

[quote= "Urgench"]I mean surely the extension of GP in to the WA would mean a natural development in technical idiom wouldn't it? Or was the WA itself expected to change it's character totally to suit the apparently immovable, unevolving, language of GP?

By WA, do you mean GA? If so, I see no possible application of Gameplay principles to its resolutions, as clean water and international criminal courts trouble us not one whit.

If you don't mean the GA, I'm not sure I follow. When creating a new body, why not give all groups the ability to use it as they see fit? Why enforce a method of communication that just plain does not work for them?[/quote]
Because, as I’ve already explained, allowing the use of GP’s OOC language makes the SC “unintelligible” IC and thus makes RP-IC behaviour there extremely difficult thus forcing the RPers out?

Uni's suggestions are good ones, but they do fail to address the whole Part of the WA and allow all groups to make C&Cs that at least sound like they are coming from the same body. That said, I must admit that we haven't had a chance to talk about Uni's suggestions in depth due to the evil curse of RL. Ard is very busy right now so the talk for the Mods is going far, far slower than this thread.

Well I won't blame you on the RL thingy, fucking Real Life.. always getting in the way of NationStates, eh? Anyway, you've acknowledged somewhere in that post that all subcommunities have a different way of doing things, but you've failed to recognize that the sort of Post-Babel world (which here you're stating is a bad thing) is what the Security Council has reveled in. Regulars have enjoyed changing their dimension to suit the nominee,

Except that most of the GA regulars have found participation on those terms to be at least as impossible as GPers are now claiming participation in compliance with Rule 4 would be for them…

People come and go quite a bit, and they want to post and submit resolutions in what dimension they are familiar with the most, because they're only here because their friend or enema is being recognized by the SC, and their friend or enema typically shares their dimension.

?!?

I'm not going to quote this first point because it's annoying to pick at posts just in order to repeat myself - but it's aimed at both NERVUN and Urgench's explanations of why Rule 4 should exist.

The WA, like NS itself, has NOT been a single and monumental entity ever in its existence, let alone after the split between the GA and the SC. The SC was split from the GA for no other reason than our complete and utter inability to play or communicate within the premise of the WA as it existed on these forums. If you want me to dig up the 8 threads from last year where we argued that to a standstill until everyone agreed on a separation, I can.

If you're doing this so that the WA can be internally consistent, you are reversing the decision we came to a year ago to split the SC from the GA to begin with. Given your reasoning for this change, THE SC SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and I would prefer that it not pretend to be a separate council now. Shove this whole mess back into the undivided entity of the WA so you can have it back the way you wanted it, all internally consistent. All you need to do is just add a little tag to the GA rules that says "oh, and you can't target individual nations or regions except with these two resolution types".

Done. Neat, clean, and apparently should've happened a year ago. So fix it. Undo the mistake.

It's very, very clear to me that if "WA coherency" is the reason Rule 4 exists, the SC never should have. If you don't understand that, you have either forgotten why the SC was created in the first place, or you weren't here.

Agreed, if that’s the only solution other than continued arguments for which the people running NS will settle…
BUT
… perhaps a better solution would be to split the SC off from the WA completely, by changing its name to something un-‘WA’ related, and then require that all of its proposals be written in OOC terms? Speaking as a RPer, that would be preferable to trying to consider the SC as a part of the WA, when I’m accustomed to the WA (and its predecessor) being a purely IC body… (and I can see the point that some people have raised about needing to commend certain players for OOC actions when their nations certainly don’t deserve it IC…)

Then the admins could just throw liberations into the dustbin and let regions burn. Sounds fun...

I don’t see why 'Rule 4'-compliant Liberations should be impossible, and I don’t see why the rule about GA resolutions not targeting specific nations or regions couldn’t be dropped for Liberations — as well as, as you suggest, for C&Cs — too…

(reply to Unibot;p="2612643")
C&Cs don't belong with the other categories in the GA because those alter national stats and cannot affect non-WA nations. So yeah. One of the biggest rules from the UN/WA/GA since its inception would be violated by C&Cs unless one were to restrict their area of effect to WA members only. And then people would bitch because a CorC could be ignored by resigning from the WA. That would present a far worse problem, I would imagine, than rule 4 could ever create.

*(snip)*

By the way, the strength of an "area of effect" proposal is approximately "significant". The strength of a "nominee" proposal would be nonexistent.

Well, it could (quite reasonably in terms of IC effects, in my opinion) be coded as affecting the nation’s ‘Tourism’ industry…

It's true, NERVUN isn't talking about making the SC, the GA-lite, (I feel like Ard's comments more hint at a GA-lite) he's more talking about it becoming the Tower of Babel, which is a flawed idea, in my opinion. The SC was quite beautiful before. Mostly because it was a mosaic of different cultures

From which, by its inclusion of blatantly OOC elements alongside the IC ones, most of the GA regulars — accustomed to a much more IC body — felt (despite what has been said by Admins && Mods about Max’s intentions) excluded. As has already been pointed out, we couldn’t respond to OOC proposals IC but at the same time we couldn’t (from an IC viewpoint) accept that the SC was spending so much of its time speaking what seemed to our characters to be gibberish.
A purely IC SC would work for some players; and a purely OOC SC would probably work for more; but any in my opinion reverting to the “Tower of Babel” as which the SC began would be MUCH worse than turning it into a purely OOC forum…

As for the rest, let me ask you a favor if I may. I admit that this is going to require a bit of work, but it would really help me understand where you guys are coming from. Could you please write a proposal? Post it here in this thread. Commend or condem is up to you. Who is up to you. You don't have to be R4 compliant, because I want to see exactly what you want to write and why we cannot find different ways of putting them that still allows the meaning to go through.

I think the issues in Topid's thread are more varied and important, but I also wrote one here.

As I have been saying pretty much since this started, almost none of this controversy has to do with permitted wording. Even the much-dreaded gendered pronouns seemed to be okay with the rest of the people who commented on the example above, and the take-home lesson there should be that Gameplay-IC is perfectly intelligible if you're willing to accept that NationStates nations can have gender in the same way you expect us to accept that NationStates nations can be devastated by nuclear attack.

BOTH are true. That's what it means to play this nation simulator game.

The reason we can't create a language to cover us all is that we're already using the same words to speak different languages.

When RPers say "citizens", they're mean little imaginary people in their nations.
When GPers say "citizens", we mean players in regions.
When RPers say "war", they mean (among other things) nukes moving between nations.
When GPers say "war", we mean (among other things) nations moving between regions.

Examples could be multiplied. The point is, we may share some vocabulary. But we use each word to mean entirely different things.

Agreed.

So, separate the SC — under a new, less UNWA-related name — from the WA(GA) completely?

I was forced to accept the blasphemous concept of a WA resolution targeting and affecting non-WA nations (and by extension, players who might have wanted to avoid that part of the game). I continue to believe that such a condition is inherently wrong and inappropriate. But I'm not about to try to grind entire portions of NS to a halt over it.

Odd, since I remember a time when the rule 'resolutions may not target non-UN nations' did not exist.

Whau! I hadn’t realised that that was ever the case, that really is — unlike much of the other contents in this thread — something that I found interesting to read. When did the change occur?

SUGGESTION
Let's try to make another constructive suggestion to alter Rule IV:
Instead of: "4. Your proposal was written entirely Out Of Character, either by"
It could read: "4. Your proposal cannot be read as submitted by a Nation targetting a Nation or Region, either by"

Note this doesn't ban OOC. It just means proposals have to be written such that even when they're OOC they must also have some reasonably valid IC interpretation. This should, as far as I can tell, meet the standard set forth in the examples provided and the reasoning provided behind those examples.

Except for the cases where commendation of a player can not be matched with commendation of their nation (or, I suppose condemnation ditto…), as has already been explained in the case of Kandarin?

________________________________________________________________________________

My final conclusion, and probably the last that I'll add to this multi-thread discussion which has been taking up far too much of the limited time that I've had available for NS lately:

In my opinion the best solution would be to split the SC off from the WA completely, by changing its name to something un-‘WA’ related, and then require that all of its proposals be written in OOC terms.
Speaking as a RPer, that would be preferable to trying to consider the SC as a part of the WA, when I’m accustomed to the WA (and its predecessor) being a purely IC body… and I can see the point that some GPers have raised about needing to commend certain players for OOC actions when their nations certainly don’t deserve it IC, too…

But any attempt at leaving the SC as it now is, as a part of the WA, is going to lead either to one "side" out of the RPers and the GPers giving up on it altogether or this same argument going on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on...

[Ballotonia]

Odd, since I remember a time when the rule 'resolutions may not target non-UN nations' did not exist.

Whau! I hadn’t realised that that was ever the case, that really is — unlike much of the other contents in this thread — something that I found interesting to read. When did the change occur?

Read: http://www.nationstates.net/HISTORY for an overview of changes in the past. You can also check the News page, where the news item for wednesday april 16, 2003, states: "Second, admin is deleting inappropriate proposals." Before that time, there were no rules on proposals, and they hence weren't deleted. 'Inappropriate' should be read generically here though. It started off with Admin simply removing obvious spam and such. The actual rules were fleshed out summer 2003 and beyond when the game had moderators (before that, Admin did all the work in person).

Anyway, if you're interested in discussing NS History further, I suggest starting a new thread for it.

Ballotonia

[Bears Armed]

Odd, since I remember a time when the rule 'resolutions may not target non-UN nations' did not exist.

Whau! I hadn’t realised that that was ever the case, that really is — unlike much of the other contents in this thread — something that I found interesting to read. When did the change occur?

Read: http://www.nationstates.net/HISTORY for an overview of changes in the past. You can also check the News page, where the news item for wednesday april 16, 2003, states: "Second, admin is deleting inappropriate proposals." Before that time, there were no rules on proposals, and they hence weren't deleted. 'Inappropriate' should be read generically here though. It started off with Admin simply removing obvious spam and such. The actual rules were fleshed out summer 2003 and beyond when the game had moderators (before that, Admin did all the work in person).

Thanks. I'd read some of the 'News' page before this, but apaprently not quite back that far.

Anyway, if you're interested in discussing NS History further, I suggest starting a new thread for it.

No, that's okay, it was just this point in your previous post about which I was curious.


__________________________________________________________________________

Okay, just a couple more points that I didn’t manage to include in my previous post because I had to hurry & post that before the (library public-access) computer system that I'm using today said that my session online was up _

Firstly do the GPers understand that the “IC” v “OOC” dichotomy only works from an OOC viewpoint, and that from an IC viewpoint it’s actually “comprehensible (hopefully, anyway…) v “nonsensical” instead? This means that although scrapping Rule 4 would help you, and there might still be occasional groups of RPers popping in from II or the ‘NS’ section of the forum or ‘NS Sports’ for C&C proposals of the nations with which they interact the most, most members of the ‘GA community’ (who are not only a significant element within the overall WA at present but have been such a large part of its past as well, and whom Max apparently didn’t want to exclude from this chamber’s activities…) simply wouldn’t be able to take the SC seriously from a accustomed RP-based viewpoint and so would still feel unable to participate in its activities… A legislature that passes some comprehensible ones and some that are pure gibberish simply doesn’t work IC, but ignoring the OOC ones IC would require accepting serious error on the part of the WA Gnomes whereas the paradigm of the Gnomes’ effectiveness (& honesty, too) must be upheld in order both to make the ‘Committees’ rule generally acceptable and to negate any godmoded claims that they aren’t enforcing compliance to certain resolutions in the case of certain nations…

Secondly, I really do think that the most workable solution overall would be the one that I said i'd prefer, to allow IC C&Cs of WA members in the GA (perhaps with, as I suggested before, a stat-changing effect on those nation's 'Tourism' industries) -- although I'm unsure how that could actually be managed considering how easily nations can leave the WA -- and then to have a fully-OOC body (preferably with a name that, unlike 'Security Council', doesn't look NSUNWA-related...) to handle all of the SC's other current roles...


Oh, and I apologise for the one not-working-properly set of ‘quote’ boxes in the preceding post's text: I’ve looked several times, but can’t find the cause of that problem…


And that really, absolutely and most truly, is the last that I have to say on the matter, so don't expect me to be posting in (or even trying to keep up with) this discussion any more...

[Astarial]

Because let's face it, what other community cares?

Not to be a prick, because I agree with everything you wrote, but...

Generalities? Nation-Builders & Statwankers? .. just a few suggestions...

I do believe you misunderstood me, good sir.

It's not, "What other community cares about C&Cs?"

It's, "What other community cares about my community's C&Cs", for any definition of "my community".

[Astarial]

And now to double post, because two pages sprung up overnight! >_<

I understand why you were explaining this, what I don't understand is why you find it impossible to recognise that the WA is a different context in which no one has the kind of agenda which would mean the language of this rule would be used against you?

You clearly don't understand why I'm explaining this - This is the perspective of the people who play my game, and I do not and cannot insist that they trust the moderators just because I happen to think NERVUN is mostly harmless (:P). The very nature of our game is the underlying reason why Gameplayers all reacted so negatively to the wording of Rule 4, and why we cannot just relax when the mods assure us it is going to be okay. It's not in our nature.

of course the WA should speak in a language which is at least minimally compatible with the game it is a part of.

Define "minimally" - NationStates the game refers to feeders, delegates, regional passwords, RMBs, and so on. Why can't C&Cs?

I also wonder why you react with such simmering contempt for the suggestion that the SC is part of the WA and should be in some very small way asked to speak as though it were.

Of course the SC is part of the WA. But the WA does not have a unified language.

Indeed it should be open to all players, but thus far it has failed to be so, and has become monopolised by one player group and associated with one particular lingua specifica. The 4th rule attempts to remedy that by including the requirement of a base level of universal intelligibility beyond which development and adaption is still allowed.

You saw my first post about intelligibility, right? Because C&Cs done in a roleplay style are not intelligible to gameplayers!

It is a blatant lie to say that this is about "universal intelligibility".

I hardly need demonstrate it to you, when we are both communicating in a single language now do I? You are not writing in Japanese while I respond in Malayalam right?

That's a piss poor demonstration. When two people wish to communicate, they speak in a mutually understandable language. Why is it necessary that a third person, unrelated to and uninterested in the discussion, be able to understand it?

I'm not a mod so I'm not going to answer that, but I was interested in why you chose Ballotonia's post to quote in support of your query because Ballotonia clearly views the rule as enforcing IC language in diametric opposition to what he sees as OOC language. It was why I pointed out that the dichotomy in this instance is false.

And I explained that - Many Gameplayers do not draw a distinction between RP-IC/OOC and GP-IC/OOC, because it is slightly simpler to describe what we do as OOC. But the lines are not so clearly drawn in the sand, and if Ballotonia wishes to call GP OOC, while the mods consider GP-IC to be a-okay, then we're fine. It's only when our game is placed into the OOC category that there are issues.

~~

But I'm not the only one who wants to honor key players of my game. Other people want to too, and they might play different games, and because the SC is a body that ought to be open to all, I don't get to have my issues monopolize the queue.

Yes indeed, but that is not what has happened thus far. Issues relating to GP have dominated the SC until now and it's language has appeared to be the dominant language of the SC, giving the strong impression that the SC is a GP tool and little else.

Someone else has already pointed out your gross errors (I wouldn't go so far as to call them lies, but it's getting there), so I will merely say:

Gee, I'm terribly sorry that my community saw an opportunity to participate in a new aspect of the game and ran with it.

Wait, no I'm not.

I am sad that your community is too timid to do the same, though.

~~

Oh great, now I've got ANOTHER R4 thread to go through and respond.

That's exactly how I feel! Except I can get away with not responding.

To address your concerns about the Moderators. I'm afraid that I really can't. I can tell you that out of the many players chosen to be Moderators, only one has ever really been forced out due to abuse. Max and [violet] take a VERY dim view on us using our positions to abuse the game or other players and this has been pounded into us (With sharp pointy nails). However, I know these are just words so I'm going to have to ask you to trust me (As hard as that is) when I say that if ever a Moderator does abuse their position like that, you can (And indeed MUST) report it and it WILL be delt with, swiftly and in a way that will leave very little doubt as to the position of the Admins about it. In other words, if someone betrays you in the game, you lose your raid or region. If a Mod does it, they lose their ability to be a Moderator, and possibly their nation and ability to play on NationStates. So in the end, all I can really tell you is that we are held to a very high standard, is that protection enough? I hope so, because I am afraid I have nothing else to show to have you trust us.

As for those loopholes, forgive me, but which ones do you feel that your enemies (Not Mods) can exploit to harm you and why?

I may have phrased myself poorly - it's not that we're worried that mods will abuse their power, it's that we're worried they'll have vastly different interpretations of this rule (because we can see! right there! waving at us! the possible problems) than the current mostly-acceptable rulings.

I do believe you when you say that the mods are not going to suddenly pull a 180, but it's hard to convince a community that loopholes are okay (and I do still think it'd be better to close them anyway).

Well, one I would like to point out that we are asking you to change HERE, just here, on the SC and ONLY in terms of the written and submited proposal. Everything else is the same as before. We're not trying to regulate how you guys talk on the regional message boards or in TGs, or even in the debate thread about the C&C, JUST the C&C.

Or if I may use a real world anaology, the decleration of war between the UK and Japan for WWII was a very nice, flowery sounding TG from Sir. Winston Churchill. A number of people objected to the accepted diplomatic language that it was crouched it, but as Sir Churchill noted "But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite." This would be akin to that.

But the objections to that weren't because the language was incomprehensible, it was because they thought diplomacy was the wrong tone to be taking. The comparison would have been if he'd written it in, oh, German? A perfectly lovely language, but one entirely unrelated to the issue at hand.

Fair enough, and I certainly have no objection to using "they" - it being the correct third person singular non-gendered pronoun, after all.

I'm an English teacher.

And I'm a linguist. Oh dear.

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.

As my Lady said,

The difference between what you just described and what we want is that RP'ers have to move OUT of their in-game world in order to talk that way. I.e., they are NO LONGER PLAYING THE GAME when they start to talk about godmoding or statwanking. We, on the other hand, are just asking to be allowed to remain within the linguistic framework of the game we're playing.

I keep reading it, and I honestly fail to see the difference. Meaning that the language used in the GA is different from what we are suggesting for the SC, and very different for the other RP forums. Not to mention compleatly off the scale for General and F7.

Again though, please explain it to me in detail. Not what you think the RPers can do or are doing, but what the GPers see that they cannot do here. In other words, please ignore RP for a second so I can see the issues here and not in terms of vs roleplay.

Honestly, it's easiest to demonstrate the difference by comparing to RP.

In RP, you have a persona - an ambassador, a king, an elf barbarian, whatever. All your character can be said to know is what actually happens inside the game - how many beers they drank, what weapon they're using, how many fingers they lost in that fight. The persona cannot possibly, ever, know about an argument among players about godmodding. So, a resolution condemning someone for godmodding would requiring the player to not act as that persona in order to write the resolution - to step outside the game.

Similarly, Astarial-the-Equilismer knows nothing about Lady Nai's baking skills (phenomenal), nor her tupperware abuses (monstrous). I should not, ever, be able to get away with a C&C targeting my outside knowledge of her.

But the knowledge that I have of her within the scope of our game - that she is the appointed Founder, that she participates in liberations, that she used such and so puppets... that has to be within the scope of what a C&C can address.

The issue is that the equivalency is often painted as, "RPers can't talk about god-modding, so you can't talk about feeders!" (Or replace feeders with other GP-IC issue of choice). But that's clearly a false equivalent, because one is OOC, and the other is not

Because you are all playing one game called NationStates. Because we do have people who are involved in multiple aspects of it. Because it is far better to build a community than to build walls.

The people who are involved in multiple aspects need to speak different languages anyway, just in order to play those different games. And the ones not involved in multiple aspects don't need to speak those languages.

Basically, you want one group to abandon it's native tongue in favor of another group's, while I want the members of both groups who wish to communicate to become bilingual - to make an effort to understand the other group's history and culture.

And these are groups that do not need to communicate - the Sports RP folks don't need me to understand what they're doing, and I'm sure they don't particularly care whether or not I follow along. As long as I'm not trying to oppress them by making them talk about feeders and invasions, or oppose them by preventing their C&Cs, they and I can coexist perfectly peacefully.

In reading this, it doesn't sound like your idea of OOC is too off from where RP OOC is. That said, in terms of OOC, it would be best said, "C&C Proposals cannot address the player directly". But all you have to say is "COMMENDS Naivetry for their exceptional and extensive work as a regional founder for whateveritis and in maintaining the security of that region.

Okay, that sounds reasonable.

~~

SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for their rise to power,

I hate, detest, loathe, abhor, despise, and recoil in revulsion from this use of "their". Just in case that wasn't obvious.

Oh, my lady.... wanna fight about it?

~~

Can you explain why it has been determined that one language is better than letting each group speak to itself in its own way?

I though that I already had explained: Because proposals/resolutions written OOC are incomprehensible in RP-IC terms they make it extremely difficult for RPers to see the SC as even existing IC…

1: And resolutions written RP-IC are utterly incomprehensible in GP terms. Why is your comprehension more important than mine?

2: So? Why do RPers need to be able to "see" GP resolutions? And pray tell, how do you poor, beleaguered folk handle such abominations as Liberations?

3: And you completely failed to address the question. Why is one universal language better than letting each group speak to its own members in its own way? "Because I don't wanna learn another language!" is not a reason.

Could you personally believe in the validity of a supposed ‘legislature’ in RL that used terminology such as OOC SC proposals & resolutions here have been doing?

You're going to have to be more specific in what you mean by "OOC".

Because, as I’ve already explained, allowing the use of GP’s OOC language makes the SC “unintelligible” IC and thus makes RP-IC behaviour there extremely difficult thus forcing the RPers out?

To repeat myself, in hopes that it sticks, allowing the use of RP's IC language makes the SC "unintelligible" and thus makes GP behavior there extremely difficult thus forcing GPers out.

Wait, no it doesn't, because we're okay letting other people use the SC how they want, as long as they don't start dictating to us how we use it.

But RP-IC language is still completely unintelligible.

And again, you're going to have to be more specific with "OOC". We don't want to write GP-OOC resolutions.

Except that most of the GA regulars have found participation on those terms to be at least as impossible as GPers are now claiming participation in compliance with Rule 4 would be for them…

Incorrect, as addressed. More of these, and you'll be lying.