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

[NERVUN]

I suppose the only community who actually hasn't adopted there own division of dimensions is General, unless of course there are certain players who post a certain way to maintain or promote a certain community perception of his or her internet personality (like LG always posting ridiculous but witty things, which he may or may not be what he always wants to post... ). Don't quote me on the General analysis, because I actually didn't get to start on my analysis of the General community yet, so this is all just my unresearched speculation.

It's an aside, but General does have a concept of IC and OOC, and oddly enough, ours is informed by both RP and Gameplay meaning we are an OOC forum (Saying for example, "In the nation of NERVUN, we prefer that our government does not take a stance on the existance of God" is a good way to get yourself slammed for the next half a page of posts. In General, possibly more than with GP'ers, you're the person, not the nation); OTOH, there are a number of people who create puppets for various reasons, some satirical some for reasons of trolling, and maintain that character throughout (Closer to Gameplay's idea of public persona and private one), Hammy is probably the most notable.

[Ardchoille]

Might I suggest "NS multi-verse" ? That's a term I've seen thrown around on some forums on occasion.

I love The Multiverse as a concept, but it's very much an RP term (on NSWiki, it's even classified under "roleplaying") -- or an SF term. I think a standard English word might be less loaded.

Speaking of SF terms, if we've got any filkers on board, this whole imbroglio could surely be set to music.

[Unibot]

As far as I can discern, your argument is that the rules and the game context shouldn't matter, as long as you can do what you want. If that argument made sense, I could walk out of my house right now, go down to the nearby park, and join a pickup basketball game, but insist on using a football, wearing lacrosse gear, and using curling rules, and somehow that would work.

This culture wasn't developed by one eccentric man, so your metaphor is inaccurate, but I suppose if everyone else on the court accepted the change then why not? Curling rules are much more sensible anyway...

But what if they didn't accept it? What if they said "no, Unibot. This is basketball and we're playing by basketball rules"? I suppose you would then try to force them to accept your bastardized version of "basketball" as a legitimate way of playing the game.

I'd probably bribe them or otherwise bring in a crowd of disgruntled people who have been oppressed from the basketball game for a long time and light a strawman on fire to pressure the ballers into seeing the logic behind my 'proposal'.

But honestly your metaphor isn't complete, what if the players (not just a player) asked the refs if they could play basketball that way, sure its the ref's job to say no, but if the game had no players, the ref's job would be nothing at all.

[Unibot]

Might I suggest "NS multi-verse" ? That's a term I've seen thrown around on some forums on occasion.

I love The Multiverse as a concept, but it's very much an RP term (on NSWiki, it's even classified under "roleplaying") -- or an SF term. I think a standard English word might be less loaded.

Speaking of SF terms, if we've got any filkers on board, this whole imbroglio could surely be set to music.

Err... what's wrong with a roleplay term?

[New Amerik]

As far as I can discern, your argument is that the rules and the game context shouldn't matter, as long as you can do what you want. If that argument made sense, I could walk out of my house right now, go down to the nearby park, and join a pickup basketball game, but insist on using a football, wearing lacrosse gear, and using curling rules, and somehow that would work.

This culture wasn't developed by one eccentric man, so your metaphor is inaccurate, but I suppose if everyone else on the court accepted the change then why not? Curling rules are much more sensible anyway...

But what if they didn't accept it? What if they said "no, Unibot. This is basketball and we're playing by basketball rules"? I suppose you would then try to force them to accept your bastardized version of "basketball" as a legitimate way of playing the game.

I'd probably bribe them or otherwise bring in a crowd of disgruntled people who have been oppressed from the basketball game for a long time and light a strawman on fire to pressure the ballers into seeing the logic behind my 'proposal'.

But honestly your metaphor isn't complete, what if the players (not just a player) asked the refs if they could play basketball that way, sure its the ref's job to say no, but if the game had no players, the ref's job would be nothing at all.

Of course, the ref still gets paid for doing his job, even if the players willingly deprive themselves of the game. And there is always the possibility that other players may join the game once they see the field is open.

Might I suggest "NS multi-verse" ? That's a term I've seen thrown around on some forums on occasion.

I love The Multiverse as a concept, but it's very much an RP term (on NSWiki, it's even classified under "roleplaying") -- or an SF term. I think a standard English word might be less loaded.

Speaking of SF terms, if we've got any filkers on board, this whole imbroglio could surely be set to music.

Err... what's wrong with a roleplay term?

Indeed...when an RPer sees the term multi-verse, it means the multiple universes that nations exist in. If a GPer like Uni sees it, I presume to him it means the different 'area's of NS.

[Unibot]

Speaking of SF terms, if we've got any filkers on board, this whole imbroglio could surely be set to music.

Err... what's wrong with a roleplay term?

Indeed...when an RPer sees the term multi-verse, it means the multiple universes that nations exist in. If a GPer like Uni sees it, I presume to him it means the different 'area's of NS.

I'm not really a GPer, I would have first and foremost have called myself a Security Councilor until about two months ago when Rule IV annihilated the true SC. Now I'll go by "NS Vagabond"/"GA Reject", I suppose.

And I would call the sum of all the subcommunal dimensions of NationStates, the Omniverse, because it includes the roleplayed multiverse, but also the gameplay multiverse. At one time the Security Council could tunnel through the Omniverse to where ever a nominee was.. now, the nominee has to go through a filtering process to arrive in the Security Council's banal and uncultured home for nomination.

[Ardchoille]

Indeed...when an RPer sees the term multi-verse, it means the multiple universes that nations exist in. If a GPer like Uni sees it, I presume to him it means the different 'area's of NS.

Given the evident discord, I'm hunting neutral terminology. We could go for a basic "Only write C&Cs if they're about something important to everybody!", and then have a pages-long threadjack about who, exactly, "everybody" is, and get all hurt because our "everybody" isn't their "everybody" ... or we could just go "meh" and get on with writing proposals so we'll have something new to talk about, then revisit this down the track.

Speaking of threadjacks, I'm blowing the whistle on the sports metaphor. Next person to try to punt it across the line gets to do 150 pushups. In the rain. Wearing weights.

*phweet!*

[New Amerik]

Indeed...when an RPer sees the term multi-verse, it means the multiple universes that nations exist in. If a GPer like Uni sees it, I presume to him it means the different 'area's of NS.

Given the evident discord, I'm hunting neutral terminology. We could go for a basic "Only write C&Cs if they're about something important to everybody!", and then have a pages-long threadjack about who, exactly, "everybody" is, and get all hurt because our "everybody" isn't their "everybody" ... or we could just go "meh" and get on with writing proposals so we'll have something new to talk about, then revisit this down the track.

Speaking of threadjacks, I'm blowing the whistle on the sports metaphor. Next person to try to punt it across the line gets to do 150 pushups. In the rain. Wearing weights.

*phweet!*

You...just....made a new sports metaphor.....


Nvrmind. Maybe (though I can't write officialese worth anything) the rules should be Commend or Condemn nations/people/F7ers based on what they did, not how they did whatever it was to deserve it.

Or maybe I should stop, as I'm not sure if that would simplify things or only complicate them further.

[Unibot]

Given the evident discord, I'm hunting neutral terminology.

Neutral terminology is impossible, Ard.. or at-least nearly unattainable, and incredibly banal. That's why the appropriate terminology was more fitting for the nominee and overall much better.

[Mousebumples]

Nvrmind. Maybe (though I can't write officialese worth anything) the rules should be Commend or Condemn nations/people/F7ers based on what they did, not how they did whatever it was to deserve it.

Respectfully disagree. Again, my understanding of R4 isn't that the "how" isn't important - so long as it's a game-related how.

GP example (likely oversimplified) - A delegate maintains control of a feeder for a long period of time. That, in and of itself, is not necessary commend/condemn-able. However, if that delegate encouraged activity among new nations (and even got some older nations to become more active/involved), that would be great - and perhaps worth of a commendation. Alternatively, if that delegate repeatedly banjects nations who come anywhere near threatening their powerhold on the region, that may be more worthy of a condemnation.

RP example - Many nations have passed resolutions (in the GA/WA and/or Historical Resolutions), so merely writing one or more successful resolutions isn't worthy of a C&C, in my mind. Writing multiple very useful/well-written resolutions is more beneficial; however, I'd be unlikely to support a proposal that merely elaborates on the multiple resolutions authored by Nation X. Actions of the nation (or RP'd WA delegation), however, may impact my vote. Does the ambassador/nation only show up to the forum for their own proposals, or do they offer assistance elsewhere? Are they well-versed in GA rules and past precedent - and are they willing to share that information with other nations authoring drafts on the forums? And so on.

Both of those "how"s (as I view them) could probably be interpreted as the "what" that is being done, but the distinction isn't clear enough in my mind to make that an effective alternative to current text.

[Unibot]

Nvrmind. Maybe (though I can't write officialese worth anything) the rules should be Commend or Condemn nations/people/F7ers based on what they did, not how they did whatever it was to deserve it.

Respectfully disagree. Again, my understanding of R4 isn't that the "how" isn't important - so long as it's a game-related how.

GP example (likely oversimplified) - A delegate maintains control of a feeder for a long period of time. That, in and of itself, is not necessary commend/condemn-able. However, if that delegate encouraged activity among new nations (and even got some older nations to become more active/involved), that would be great - and perhaps worth of a commendation. Alternatively, if that delegate repeatedly banjects nations who come anywhere near threatening their powerhold on the region, that may be more worthy of a condemnation.

RP example - Many nations have passed resolutions (in the GA/WA and/or Historical Resolutions), so merely writing one or more successful resolutions isn't worthy of a C&C, in my mind. Writing multiple very useful/well-written resolutions is more beneficial; however, I'd be unlikely to support a proposal that merely elaborates on the multiple resolutions authored by Nation X. Actions of the nation (or RP'd WA delegation), however, may impact my vote. Does the ambassador/nation only show up to the forum for their own proposals, or do they offer assistance elsewhere? Are they well-versed in GA rules and past precedent - and are they willing to share that information with other nations authoring drafts on the forums? And so on.

Both of those "how"s (as I view them) could probably be interpreted as the "what" that is being done, but the distinction isn't clear enough in my mind to make that an effective alternative to current text.

I'd say you're both wrong, respectively.

C/Cs should be a combination of what they did, how they did it and why they did it (when too, I suppose for specifics). I think that was what New Amerik was getting at when he said "how", he meant the mentioning of personality in condemnations and commendations, they're typically unnecessary. In my alternative ruleset I restricted talking about personality to a mention in a commendation so long as it wasn't the entire focus of the resolution (i.e Commend Kandarin.. 'has done a lot of great stuff + good guy') This was also to protect Generalities from being isolated from the SC, because I figure personality is so much more important to General that it is to other subcommunities.

As for valuing quantity over quality in WA resolutions, Mouse, I'd much prefer to commend the author of GA#23, if that had been his lone resolution, than commend the author of a dozen 'well-written' resolutions on toothpaste regulations. That's where the why comes in to play, did the author submit those resolutions to increase their stature or improve the roleplayed world? (EDIT: I think you were touching on this... nevermind.)

[JURISDICTIONS]

Might I suggest "NS multi-verse" ? That's a term I've seen thrown around on some forums on occasion.

I love The Multiverse as a concept, but it's very much an RP term (on NSWiki, it's even classified under "roleplaying") -- or an SF term. I think a standard English word might be less loaded.

Speaking of SF terms, if we've got any filkers on board, this whole imbroglio could surely be set to music.

If we can assume that this theory is true ( see above quote and the link "The Multiverse"), then this means that the WA as a whole abides by all "IC" and all "OOC" rules at the same time. So since they intersect so much... why don't we just allow them to " intersect" by having rules that cater to both forms of the game. We know even without the theory that IC and OOC exist. So why should we detest that the rules for both intersect now and again.

With that said, I think that possibly, just as an Idea. Have proposals specifically designed for commending the "certain player" aspect and still allow their condemnation for the "Certain nation" aspect.On one plane all the nations in the worlds are players (sounds a lot like shakespeare, right), on the other the "nations" have billions of people in them. So "World A" has a WA that acts like a body of nations with people represnting them, on "World B" the WA acts like a body of people/players who pass laws and conmends for all the interaction of themselfs as one body with out any "Nation" adentifer to them.

So Allow them to intersect. A commend for the player and a condem for the nation does not bother me at all.

[Palaam]

IC and OOC only intersect in the WA during floor debates, drafting, and all other forum-related activities. Proposals are required to be written as legislation by the World Assembly, so it is not possible to write them as OOC in any meaningful capacity.

I would go so far as to say that where WA legislation is concerned, there is no IC/OOC boundary, because there is no "character" there at all- it's just the WA.

[Urgench]

IC and OOC only intersect in the WA during floor debates, drafting, and all other forum-related activities. Proposals are required to be written as legislation by the World Assembly, so it is not possible to write them as OOC in any meaningful capacity.

I would go so far as to say that where WA legislation is concerned, there is no IC/OOC boundary, because there is no "character" there at all- it's just the WA.

Nailed it! There is no OOC or IC language, there is just the language of the WA.

[Astarial]

Nailed it! There is no OOC or IC language, there is just the language of the WA.

Sure, aside from the fact that that's demonstrably untrue.


On the term "multiverse", I'd just like to say that I think it's a perfectly wonderful term, easily understandable by all. I could see a group of real nations acknowledging the scientific idea of a multiverse... why not a group of NationStates nations?

[Urgench]

Nailed it! There is no OOC or IC language, there is just the language of the WA.

Sure, aside from the fact that that's demonstrably untrue.


On the term "multiverse", I'd just like to say that I think it's a perfectly wonderful term, easily understandable by all. I could see a group of real nations acknowledging the scientific idea of a multiverse... why not a group of NationStates nations?

You're aware that multiverse is an NS roleplaying term right?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Nailed it! There is no OOC or IC language, there is just the language of the WA.

Sure, aside from the fact that that's demonstrably untrue.

Yeah? Demonstrate its untruthiness.

[NERVUN]

Might I suggest "NS multi-verse" ? That's a term I've seen thrown around on some forums on occasion.

I love The Multiverse as a concept, but it's very much an RP term (on NSWiki, it's even classified under "roleplaying") -- or an SF term. I think a standard English word might be less loaded.

Speaking of SF terms, if we've got any filkers on board, this whole imbroglio could surely be set to music.

If we can assume that this theory is true ( see above quote and the link "The Multiverse"), then this means that the WA as a whole abides by all "IC" and all "OOC" rules at the same time. So since they intersect so much... why don't we just allow them to " intersect" by having rules that cater to both forms of the game. We know even without the theory that IC and OOC exist. So why should we detest that the rules for both intersect now and again.

With that said, I think that possibly, just as an Idea. Have proposals specifically designed for commending the "certain player" aspect and still allow their condemnation for the "Certain nation" aspect.On one plane all the nations in the worlds are players (sounds a lot like shakespeare, right), on the other the "nations" have billions of people in them. So "World A" has a WA that acts like a body of nations with people represnting them, on "World B" the WA acts like a body of people/players who pass laws and conmends for all the interaction of themselfs as one body with out any "Nation" adentifer to them.

So Allow them to intersect. A commend for the player and a condem for the nation does not bother me at all.

The thing is though, that is pretty much getting rid of Rule 4 and returning to the previous status quo. I'm sorry to say this, but as Ard pointed out, this is not going to happen baring a major U turn by Max and the Admins. But, this is also why there's the fudging factor of using the [nation] tags to blur the line between player and nation.

[Sedgistan]

Nailed it! There is no OOC or IC language, there is just the language of the WA.

Sure, aside from the fact that that's demonstrably untrue.

Yeah? Demonstrate its untruthiness.

OOC language in a WA resolution:

Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"

OBSERVING the completely useless nature of this particular liberation, and, while accepting that numerous liberations have succeeded in repairing damaged communities and freeing would-be trophy regions, noting that this liberation is of a region with an active founder (or, at least, an active player behind the founding nation who has the ability to re-found it at any time), and does nothing to help this region besides place a badge on its page;

[Urgench]

Nailed it! There is no OOC or IC language, there is just the language of the WA.

Sure, aside from the fact that that's demonstrably untrue.

Yeah? Demonstrate its untruthiness.

OOC language in a WA resolution:

Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"

OBSERVING the completely useless nature of this particular liberation, and, while accepting that numerous liberations have succeeded in repairing damaged communities and freeing would-be trophy regions, noting that this liberation is of a region with an active founder (or, at least, an active player behind the founding nation who has the ability to re-found it at any time), and does nothing to help this region besides place a badge on its page;

My point wasn't that no OOC language has been used in a WA resolution, merely that talk about whether the language of the WA should be OOC or IC or partially IC or GP IC or RP OOC etc is pointless because that's not what's ever been required even before the SC ever existed. Even GA resolutions aren't strictly speaking IC, they merely conform to the strictures of writing a resolution for WA states, nothing in the rules about GA resolutions requires that they be IC, merely that they not make references to the game or indeed require the game to be played in a certain way, amongst other things.

Rule 4, as I see it, isn't about IC or OOC, even if certain kinds of OOC language fall within it's proscriptions, its about a language which suits what the WA is.

[Unibot]

Nailed it! There is no OOC or IC language, there is just the language of the WA.

Sure, aside from the fact that that's demonstrably untrue.

Yeah? Demonstrate its untruthiness.

OOC language in a WA resolution:

Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"

OBSERVING the completely useless nature of this particular liberation, and, while accepting that numerous liberations have succeeded in repairing damaged communities and freeing would-be trophy regions, noting that this liberation is of a region with an active founder (or, at least, an active player behind the founding nation who has the ability to re-found it at any time), and does nothing to help this region besides place a badge on its page;

My point wasn't that no OOC language has been used in a WA resolution, merely that talk about whether the language of the WA should be OOC or IC or partially IC or GP IC or RP OOC etc is pointless because that's not what's ever been required even before the SC ever existed. Even GA resolutions aren't strictly speaking IC, they merely conform to the strictures of writing a resolution for WA states, nothing in the rules about GA resolutions requires that they be IC, merely that they not make references to the game or indeed require the game to be played in a certain way, amongst other things.

Rule 4, as I see it, isn't about IC or OOC, even if certain kinds of OOC language fall within it's proscriptions, its about a language which suits what the WA is.

There doesn't need to be a consistent language between the GA and the SC, the SC stands to function all subcommunities of the game with the World Assembly extending to both players and nations, and the GA is limited in scope due to the game mechanics.

There should never be a 'universal' WA language, because then you're restricting the SC to the GA, and then you might as well combine the two again, anyway.

So we need a SC language, which was always what suited the nominee -- an ever changing, and ever flowing language.. that is what 'suited' the SC. But you likely wouldn't understand, Urg, because you never gave the SC a chance... so how do you know that it didn't work? Because most people that I know who actually participated in the Security Council as a regular recognized the accommodating language to be one of the defining qualities of the Security Council.

[Palaam]

Nailed it! There is no OOC or IC language, there is just the language of the WA.

Sure, aside from the fact that that's demonstrably untrue.

Yeah? Demonstrate its untruthiness.

OOC language in a WA resolution:

Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"

OBSERVING the completely useless nature of this particular liberation, and, while accepting that numerous liberations have succeeded in repairing damaged communities and freeing would-be trophy regions, noting that this liberation is of a region with an active founder (or, at least, an active player behind the founding nation who has the ability to re-found it at any time), and does nothing to help this region besides place a badge on its page;

You're going to have to do better than a repeal of an SC Liberation. That's not a WA proposal; repeals are in a class of their own. Which I'm sure you knew already.

[Sedgistan]

You're going to have to do better than a repeal of an SC Liberation. That's not a WA proposal; repeals are in a class of their own. Which I'm sure you knew already.

Uh-huh, so they're not actually the WA saying something? If that was the case, repeals would have no text - they'd simply repeal the target resolution.

Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure what the point is here that you're trying to argue. There demonstrably are OOC references in SC proposals (if you must, go and check out The Security Council's forum, where I had the same argument a couple of weeks ago, you'll find some examples) - and if there weren't OOC references then no-one would be making this rule.

Either way, this particular sub-set of the Rule 4 argument looks entirely pointless, so I'm going to drop out of it now.

[NERVUN]

You're going to have to do better than a repeal of an SC Liberation. That's not a WA proposal; repeals are in a class of their own. Which I'm sure you knew already.

Uh-huh, so they're not actually the WA saying something? If that was the case, repeals would have no text - they'd simply repeal the target resolution.

Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure what the point is here that you're trying to argue. There demonstrably are OOC references in SC proposals (if you must, go and check out The Security Council's forum, where I had the same argument a couple of weeks ago, you'll find some examples) - and if there weren't OOC references then no-one would be making this rule.

Either way, this particular sub-set of the Rule 4 argument looks entirely pointless, so I'm going to drop out of it now.

Just as an aside, we've already noted that pre-Rule 4 stuff is going to have pre-R4 style language and that makes said C&Cs, liberations, and repeals collectors items.

[Bears Armed]

My point wasn't that no OOC language has been used in a WA resolution, merely that talk about whether the language of the WA should be OOC or IC or partially IC or GP IC or RP OOC etc is pointless because that's not what's ever been required even before the SC ever existed. Even GA resolutions aren't strictly speaking IC, they merely conform to the strictures of writing a resolution for WA states, nothing in the rules about GA resolutions requires that they be IC, merely that they not make references to the game or indeed require the game to be played in a certain way, amongst other things.

They might not be written 'IC' in the context of being written in the first person by characters from within the nations, but they are all required to be 'IC' in the context of only including details that such characters could understand... Hence the ban on references to RL matters, or to the game's underlying mechanics.