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

[Topid]

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

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

The behaviors of both sides have been an incredible disappointment.

Both. Yes the attitudes are to blame. But the attitudes were clearly predictable. From day one I could have told you the effect of this rule wouldn't be even close to the intentions.

Oh well, there is no undo button. Because of how it was handled people will always have the wrong impression of Rule IV.

[Maul-5]

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

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

The behaviors of both sides have been an incredible disappointment.

I would say it is a bit of both, Rule IV hasn't really brought in swathes of people and the behaviour of both sides has been doing it's best to chase people off. The Security Council is haemorraghing people that care as a result of this rule and the overcaring of a few people. This situation won't be resolved by a quick compromise, it needs people to turn down the heat a tiny bit and a rewording of this rule a bit.

- Jimmy Maullet

(If you really consider it, this rule is about the rewording of resolutions but in maintaining the spirit of it, perhaps the mods should show that they can reword this rule but keep up the spirit of it - while making it easier to follow and less perceivably aggressive to gameplayers)

[Crabulonia]

The CTV News Network broadcasts all night so Javier Gonzalez had not had any sleep since his last original report. He had repeated the last one three or four times in the course of the hours before switching to more trivial news. Now there was something to report.

'It appears that predictions were correct, the Ananke II Mega Vote has swung the proposal in the opposite direction. The against votes now outnumber the for votes by approximately 400. Of course, to have a proposal based on the vote of one delegate is not particularly democratic but this is the manner in which the Security Council functions and has always done so. Sympathies in Crabulonia are divided, some feel the Security Council should get back to it's work despite Rule IV as it will only involve a slightly longer time in the draft stage. Others feel that language is a precious thing and that all forms should be permitted when necessary.'

Javier yawned before apologising, 'Sorry viewers, late night. Foreign reactions have also varied extensively. NERVUN has questioned the Third Wall Bloc view that Rule Four has destroyed the Security Council, claiming that the behaviour of those involved has played a larger role. Topid official view is that attitudes are to blame, but are very predictable given the dramatic change this rule seemed to represent. Also, there is the view that this rules implementation is misinformed. One has been heard to remark "From day one I could have told you the effect of this rule wouldn't be even close to the intentions" and that "people will always have the wrong impression of Rule IV". This situation will not resolve itself any time soon. Javier Gonzalez, signing off and going for a nap.'

With that the broadcast ended for a couple of hours, which is obscene for a twenty four hour news network.

[Urgench]

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

No what has driven people out of the SC is the impression that it is pointless to use it because 3WB has blocked it so thoroughly and spread a lot of misinformation about the 4th rule.

The 'language' has nothing to do with why this bodies most active members are gameplayers.

Nor did I make that point, so I'll presume this wasn't a response to what I wrote.

Everyone but gameplayers decided they didn't want to use this feature when it was released... Including yourself. (And of course the very few RPers and Generalites that did stay.) Changing the language isn't going to change that.

You clearly have no idea what I decided (nor anyone else for that matter) so please don't speak for me. Nor can you with any certainty say that changing how the SC's resolutions are written will not broaden its appeal by making them as universally intelligible as possible since C&Cs containing the new formulas have not been allowed to pass by 3WB.

[Maul-5]

Is the GA's language supposed to be "universally intelligible"? That isn't altogether popular with every person who plays the game, and Rule IV seems to suggest that it is GA style language that should be used as much as possible. Todd McCloud's commendation is understandable but if it was Rule IV compatible it becomes less so. I still don't quite get how this rule is supposed to be helping matters.

Jimmy Maullet

(OOC: Was this rule not discussed before it was implemented?)

[Urgench]

Is the GA's language supposed to be "universally intelligible"? That isn't altogether popular with every person who plays the game, and Rule IV seems to suggest that it is GA style language that should be used as much as possible. Todd McCloud's commendation is understandable but if it was Rule IV compatible it becomes less so. I still don't quite get how this rule is supposed to be helping matters.

Jimmy Maullet

(OOC: Was this rule not discussed before it was implemented?)

To your first question, yes. Your statement that the 4th rule has something to do with imposing GA style language on C&Cs is abundantly false. If you don't "get" how this rule is supposed to be helping matters I suggest you take a read through the list of passed SC resolutions and then take a look at the discussions Ard is having regarding how the rule will be used and interpreted.

[Sdaeriji]

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

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

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

So, I'm probably giving away who my proposal was for by saying this, but the main sticking point in Rule 4 compliance was "(a) referring directly to the player rather than to the NationStates nation itself." As the person in question utilized numerous puppets to accomplish his achievements in the General community, it was impossible for me to discuss everything I felt deserved commendation without referring to the single master behind the multiple puppets. Since I felt that there wasn't enough production by a single one puppet to deserve the commendation on its own, I decided to commend his "main" nation. If you've got advice on how to refer to a player's multiple puppets within the context of this new rule, I'm all ears, but we couldn't figure out a way to do it.

[Sdaeriji]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find it telling that everyone is chopping out the parts of my post that they disagree with without acknowledging the parts of my post that they agree with. It seems that both sides of the argument are seeking out conflict.

Regarding your reponse, I don't see how the central premise of my argument is invalid if the central premise of my argument is merely my opinion of events that have taken place. I personally tried to write a Rule 4 compliant commendation and I personally was unable to do so. Whether that can be chalked up to my neophyte status or not is rather irrelevant to the effect it has had on someone like me; someone who is trying to get involved in another community but is finding it difficult. I don't see how Rule 4 has added anything to these sorts of proposals, and honestly I'm not aware of the history here to even understand why this rule was added in the first place. All I can speak to is how it has affected me, and for me personally it has turned me off to this aspect of the game. As I said, I feel that the rule is exclusionary. The fact that the rule requires the commendation to be written as though the commendable/condemnable actions were taken by the nation or representatives of the nation is counterintuitive to the great many posters here who don't view the game through that context. As I said in my previous post, I couldn't figure out a way to do it, and some of the notes I got back from the people who had responded to my requests for assistance said they couldn't see a way around it either. If this view has been unduly influenced by the 3WB's position, then perhaps more non-3WB people should have offered assistance. I don't really know who is part of that and who is not.

As far as mischaracterizing the sides of this argument, I think I'm due a bit more respect than what you've seemed to offer. I am quite capable of reading both sides of the great many thread-hijacking discussions that have polluted this forum ever since this rule was instituted and make my own determinations as to how I believe the two sides to exist. And while I generally agree with your characterization of how the anti-Rule 4 side has been acting, it does not mean that their position does not have merit, even if they don't seem to want to engage the argument on the meritous points they could have.

[Ballotonia]

The behaviors of both sides have been an incredible disappointment.

The behavior we've seen is that of people, not nations

Ballotonia

[Urgench]

I find it telling that everyone is chopping out the parts of my post that they disagree with without acknowledging the parts of my post that they agree with. It seems that both sides of the argument are seeking out conflict.

"I want to have Sdaeriji's mutant spider babies" What did you expect that rather than try to address what we may feel you have misunderstood about this sutation that we should spend our time saying "hear hear!" and "bravo sir!" ? It's not a matter of seeking out conflict, it's a matter of having to dispel the fog of misunderstanding regarding this rule which with each post seems to get thicker and thicker.

Regarding your reponse, I don't see how the central premise of my argument is invalid if the central premise of my argument is merely my opinion of events that have taken place. I personally tried to write a Rule 4 compliant commendation and I personally was unable to do so.

Opinions can be wrong. Or based on a faulty perception of a situation, through no fault of the person holding the opinion.

Whether that can be chalked up to my neophyte status or not is rather irrelevant to the effect it has had on someone like me; someone who is trying to get involved in another community but is finding it difficult. I don't see how Rule 4 has added anything to these sorts of proposals, and honestly I'm not aware of the history here to even understand why this rule was added in the first place.

Well it's hardly possible to even say whether or not the 4th rule has added anything to C&Cs because no 4th rule compliant resolution has been allowed to pass as yet, this might be a part of what has leftyou feeling unable to write the resolution you wanted to, since there is no indication on how to do so in the record. No exemplar upon which to hang your draft or innovate from in order to achieve what you want to achieve.

All I can speak to is how it has affected me, and for me personally it has turned me off to this aspect of the game. As I said, I feel that the rule is exclusionary. The fact that the rule requires the commendation to be written as though the commendable/condemnable actions were taken by the nation or representatives of the nation is counterintuitive to the great many posters here who don't view the game through that context.

It isn't exclusionary, that part of your opinion is simply incorrect. You don't have to write your resolution as though representatives of the subject of it were involved in any way. Use nation tags and leave out gendered pronouns and you can write almost anything else you wish.

As I said in my previous post, I couldn't figure out a way to do it, and some of the notes I got back from the people who had responded to my requests for assistance said they couldn't see a way around it either. If this view has been unduly influenced by the 3WB's position, then perhaps more non-3WB people should have offered assistance. I don't really know who is part of that and who is not.

You should have started a drafting thread, this is why people do that. You start a thread and you maximise the number of experienced writers who can help you with rules issues and wording. Oh and bonus, you don't have to post in character to draft.

As far as mischaracterizing the sides of this argument, I think I'm due a bit more respect than what you've seemed to offer. I am quite capable of reading both sides of the great many thread-hijacking discussions that have polluted this forum ever since this rule was instituted and make my own determinations as to how I believe the two sides to exist. And while I generally agree with your characterization of how the anti-Rule 4 side has been acting, it does not mean that their position does not have merit, even if they don't seem to want to engage the argument on the meritous points they could have.

No I'm sorry, no part of what 3WB are saying or more importantly doing (blocking all SC resolutions and threatening to do the same to the GA) has any merit whatsoever. Their actions invalidate their arguments and make them in to flagrant hypocrites, and one cannot take seriously anyone who says one thing and does another.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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

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

[Ardchoille]

<snip>Since I felt that there wasn't enough production by a single one puppet to deserve the commendation on its own, I decided to commend his "main" nation. If you've got advice on how to refer to a player's multiple puppets within the context of this new rule, I'm all ears, but we couldn't figure out a way to do it.

I imagine you'd be able to do something along these lines ...

Noting that [ main nation] has impressed/enlightened/charmed/entertained the world community in debates on many general topics with (name impressive attribute) ....

Noting also that [ main nation] has on occasion used/been represented by/collaborated with [puppet list] to [insert noteworthy purpose] ...

or, .. has expressed its views through (puppet list) ... or persuaded (puppet list) to serve as spokesmen ... or, been assisted in this enterprise by [puppet list] ....

or, Observing that other dependents (client states?) of [ main nation] have won applause for ...

or, Observing that, under the tutelage/influence/with the advice of [ main nation], [puppet 1] has become renowned for ...

If you're really stumped, start a drafting thread so others can help out. You don't have to explain everything in the proposal itself, just offer enough outline to show delegates it's worth thinking about the badge.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The CTV News Network broadcasts all night so Javier Gonzalez had not had any sleep since his last original report. He had repeated the last one three or four times in the course of the hours before switching to more trivial news. Now there was something to report.

'It appears that predictions were correct, the Ananke II Mega Vote has swung the proposal in the opposite direction. The against votes now outnumber the for votes by approximately 400. Of course, to have a proposal based on the vote of one delegate is not particularly democratic but this is the manner in which the Security Council functions and has always done so. Sympathies in Crabulonia are divided, some feel the Security Council should get back to it's work despite Rule IV as it will only involve a slightly longer time in the draft stage. Others feel that language is a precious thing and that all forms should be permitted when necessary.'

Javier yawned before apologising, 'Sorry viewers, late night. Foreign reactions have also varied extensively. NERVUN has questioned the Third Wall Bloc view that Rule Four has destroyed the Security Council, claiming that the behaviour of those involved has played a larger role. Topid official view is that attitudes are to blame, but are very predictable given the dramatic change this rule seemed to represent. Also, there is the view that this rules implementation is misinformed. One has been heard to remark "From day one I could have told you the effect of this rule wouldn't be even close to the intentions" and that "people will always have the wrong impression of Rule IV". This situation will not resolve itself any time soon. Javier Gonzalez, signing off and going for a nap.'

With that the broadcast ended for a couple of hours, which is obscene for a twenty four hour news network.

Given that both 10KI and its delegate have openly admitted to being prejudiced against roleplay and roleplayers, posting these reports in-character is gravely insulting to them.

[Crabulonia]

Of course it's insulting, insulting is more often than not a by-word for unusual in todays world and, anything written well should be original. That being said, I'm writing about a news network, not supporting either side in particular. I was getting involved with this matter earlier but with this nation I'm just playing the role of comedic relief through ironic use of roleplay to salute the activities of a gameplayer.

[NERVUN]

The behaviors of both sides have been an incredible disappointment.

The behavior we've seen is that of people, not nations

Ballotonia

I dunno about that... I mean, I've seen some of the actions and statements made by nations in that one Blue-Hatted=Organization-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named...

[Metania]

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

The behaviors of both sides have been an incredible disappointment.

This is pretty much my position. Although now at times there seem to be more than one side and they all seem to be equally biased in favor of something or another. So am I, even, so maybe we should characterize the SC as the 'Insanity Cube' side-wise and move on to finding some way to unite the 'sides' on something, since we already know what's different.

Like... I would guess all sides want to eventually be able to pass or be involved in watching things pass in the SC. So, I pose the question, what is the minimum those who are blocking the queue want in resolutions? Is it universally 'refer to anything ever' or are there in fact, amazingly, potential agreements between what even 3WB advocates consider stupid and things the 4th rule are meant to block?

Since discussing how everyone is different is just going to make an indefinite chasm of difference. We know already, that dead horse is now a mutant horse skeleton.

[Palaam]

This is pretty much my position. Although now at times there seem to be more than one side and they all seem to be equally biased in favor of something or another. So am I, even, so maybe we should characterize the SC as the 'Insanity Cube' side-wise and move on to finding some way to unite the 'sides' on something, since we already know what's different.

Like... I would guess all sides want to eventually be able to pass or be involved in watching things pass in the SC. So, I pose the question, what is the minimum those who are blocking the queue want in resolutions? Is it universally 'refer to anything ever' or are there in fact, amazingly, potential agreements between what even 3WB advocates consider stupid and things the 4th rule are meant to block?

Since discussing how everyone is different is just going to make an indefinite chasm of difference. We know already, that dead horse is now a mutant horse skeleton.

This is why 3WB is so problematic- they don't stand for something, they stand against something. There's no plan for reconciliation, there's not a "Rule 4 replacement" suggestion. It's like "we don't know what we want, but we know it's not this!"

The whole blarghhhlll rule 4 bad bit is so obnoxious because it subjugates the entire SC community to the whims of a few contrarians who seem to simply want laissez-faire control over... something, I think, but they aren't willing to let the mods do their job, and, you know, moderate that shit.

Now, I have argued the position of moderation in the past on this Rule 4 business, arguing that it was vague enough that everyone could really be happy about it. Sort of the menshevik of our little Russian Revolution here. I even got Nai (or Topid?) to briefly agree with me before the bolsheviks came in and said "no deal."

Except, that position of plausible deniability and vagueness in tenor has been the explanation for the rule the entire time- Ard has made it abundantly clear. Yet, in the face of that, the forces behind 3WB have argued for a future of... what, exactly?

[Sedgistan]

Like... I would guess all sides want to eventually be able to pass or be involved in watching things pass in the SC. So, I pose the question, what is the minimum those who are blocking the queue want in resolutions? Is it universally 'refer to anything ever' or are there in fact, amazingly, potential agreements between what even 3WB advocates consider stupid and things the 4th rule are meant to block?

"Universally 'refer to everything ever'" was not the situation before Rule 4 was implemented. We had 3 other rules, plus a number of moderator rulings, which people were satisfied with. They included such things as a ban on "real real world" happenings (George Bush, war in Iraq, BP etc.) - anything that was part of NationStates and its associated activities (including OOC happenings in regional offsites, NS General, Forum 7 etc.) was allowed in resolutions.

That is what we want to see again.

This is why 3WB is so problematic- they don't stand for something, they stand against something. There's no plan for reconciliation, there's not a "Rule 4 replacement" suggestion. It's like "we don't know what we want, but we know it's not this!"

See above. Of course we "stand against something" - whats wrong with that? But what we do stand for, is what the Security Council was before Rule 4.

The whole blarghhhlll rule 4 bad bit is so obnoxious because it subjugates the entire SC community to the whims of a few contrarians who seem to simply want laissez-faire control over... something, I think, but they aren't willing to let the mods do their job, and, you know, moderate that shit.

Its not subjugated to "the whims of a few contrarians", the number of gameplayers who support the 3WB from offsite forums is immense, which is why proposals haven't been passing.

Now, I have argued the position of moderation in the past on this Rule 4 business, arguing that it was vague enough that everyone could really be happy about it. Sort of the menshevik of our little Russian Revolution here. I even got Nai (or Topid?) to briefly agree with me before the bolsheviks came in and said "no deal."

Topid doesn't mind Rule 4 now, Nai does - but I think you'll find she's fairly independent in thought, and that she doesn't oppose the rule because she's been told to.

[Metania]

So, essentially, Rule IV is New Coke/Coke II.

[Palaam]

See above. Of course we "stand against something" - whats wrong with that? But what we do stand for, is what the Security Council was before Rule 4.

Its not subjugated to "the whims of a few contrarians", the number of gameplayers who support the 3WB from offsite forums is immense, which is why proposals haven't been passing.

This is only true if:

1. We accept that the republican form of delegate power as indicative of a larger public agreement,
2. The delegate-approval process of submitting proposals is a function of premise 1,
2. When a proposal actually comes to vote, the received wisdom of how the voting paradigms play out is not, in fact, correct. Specifically that, when the numbers on the queue are reach a certain margin, people generally vote for whichever side is winning, barring any sort of massive PR campaign.

When 10ki controls the vast majority of the votes in the 3WB bloc, more than any other voting region, and they vote with the 3WB... how many WA players do you think vote on a regular basis?

[Maul-5]

See above. Of course we "stand against something" - whats wrong with that? But what we do stand for, is what the Security Council was before Rule 4.

Its not subjugated to "the whims of a few contrarians", the number of gameplayers who support the 3WB from offsite forums is immense, which is why proposals haven't been passing.

This is only true if:

1. We accept that the republican form of delegate power as indicative of a larger public agreement,

They elected them didn't they? Most large regions have a further democracy that the delegate only votes for what option has most approval.

2. The delegate-approval process of submitting proposals is a function of premise 1,

Covered in first point

2. When a proposal actually comes to vote, the received wisdom of how the voting paradigms play out is not, in fact, correct. Specifically that, when the numbers on the queue are reach a certain margin, people generally vote for whichever side is winning, barring any sort of massive PR campaign.

When 10ki controls the vast majority of the votes in the 3WB bloc, more than any other voting region, and they vote with the 3WB... how many WA players do you think vote on a regular basis?

Enough of them are 3WB voters for this to make a very large change in the voting. That being said, the Third Wall Bloc's power is in decline it appears with them almost being defeated on this issue.

[Kandarin]

This is why 3WB is so problematic- they don't stand for something, they stand against something. There's no plan for reconciliation, there's not a "Rule 4 replacement" suggestion. It's like "we don't know what we want, but we know it's not this!"

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

The problem is that it isn't worded as a list of things that you can't do. It's listed as a broad, sweeping preference that is worded in a way that Gameplay people instinctively read as dismissive of them. Now, I understand why mods don't understand why it comes off as so universally dismissive, given which parts of the game all mods originate from - but the fact is that it does, nearly universally over a section of the game that has at least as many players as this entire official forum. When one of your rules is worded in such a way that that many people take such consistent offense, there is something wrong with the wording that can't be chalked up to a clique. You can of course tell that many people to change the way that they think, but in that case ignorance is no excuse for it coming off as insulting. All the mods need to is realize why it sounds so bad and reword the rule to forbid the problem behaviors that it was actually meant to forbid, and all of this opposition will go away.

Its not subjugated to "the whims of a few contrarians", the number of gameplayers who support the 3WB from offsite forums is immense, which is why proposals haven't been passing.

Aye, I've been following the debate on the current resolution on a lot of offsite forums, and there's a lot of 3WB-like opposition from people who aren't actually in 3WB. Even those that support the resolution at hand have been quick to point out that they like the resolution, but they don't like Rule 4. The offsite communities' responses to this are essentially divided into people who dislike Rule 4 and people who haven't heard about it yet. 3WB is just what a small segment of that are doing.

[Unibot]

This is why 3WB is so problematic- they don't stand for something, they stand against something. There's no plan for reconciliation, there's not a "Rule 4 replacement" suggestion. It's like "we don't know what we want, but we know it's not this!"

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

That isn't what I'm gunning for, I don't know about my colleagues. Yeah sure, I think flaming is bad, but I thought that is already illegal anyway.

[Maul-5]

This is why 3WB is so problematic- they don't stand for something, they stand against something. There's no plan for reconciliation, there's not a "Rule 4 replacement" suggestion. It's like "we don't know what we want, but we know it's not this!"

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

That isn't what I'm gunning for, I don't know about my colleagues. Yeah sure, I think flaming is bad, but I thought that is already illegal anyway.

And I thought we had made up that "No tit for tat rule" to prevent condemnation for writing condemnations, such as Condemn Grub setting up another condemn. In the end, neither condemantion was passed.

Jimmy Maullet

[Unibot]

This is why 3WB is so problematic- they don't stand for something, they stand against something. There's no plan for reconciliation, there's not a "Rule 4 replacement" suggestion. It's like "we don't know what we want, but we know it's not this!"

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

That isn't what I'm gunning for, I don't know about my colleagues. Yeah sure, I think flaming is bad, but I thought that is already illegal anyway.

And I thought we had made up that "No tit for tat rule" to prevent condemnation for writing condemnations

We did, but I also think any source of flame-baiting is still flame-baiting and thus illegal and actionable by the mods under the site rules.. so it doesn't matter if it is a resolution or not, or if the SC rules specifically state anything about flame-baiting.

Correct me if I am wrong, mods.