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

[Bears Armed]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I have to ignore RP resolutions if you want to be like that. The concept of these accounts acting as nations has nothing to do with anything I do in this game.

So RPers should have to word their proposals in a way that sounds like something in Gameplay too, right?

(That argument has always bothered me. We are saying we are making it equal but we are only doing this one way.)

No. Because for the millionth time, you are not being asked to write C&Cs in RP lingo, you're being asked to use only the barest possible minimum reference to the specifics of the game. I don't suppose that compliant resolutions from different player groups will look exactly the same and I suppose there will always be a degree of heterogeneity but the 4th rule will ensure that to some degree or another they all look like they were produced by groups using NS as the basis for the way they play their game.

So why aren't RPers asked to do the barest possible minimum. Referring to the player has no chance of making sense to RPers, so it is out. We'll refer to nations. Referring to citizens has no chance of making sense to GPers, so ... It's in. They should (by that logic) be asked to not refer to citizens, but rather the nation as well.

Fully/Completely OOC, illegal. Fully/Completely IC, legal.

If THAT is the reason for this, why don't they have to do the barest minimum too?

Because Max has always intended that the 'nations' be seen & treated as actual nations, not as individual 'soldiers'...

[Topid]

Because Max has always intended that the 'nations' be seen & treated as actual nations, not as individual 'soldiers'...

Then don't claim equality when that isn't the goal. We aren't making things equal, we are making them unequal. Not that Max doesn't have the right to do that if he really ever felt like that, but the mods shouldn't pretend to be making things equal if they really aren't.

[Urgench]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I have to ignore RP resolutions if you want to be like that. The concept of these accounts acting as nations has nothing to do with anything I do in this game.

So RPers should have to word their proposals in a way that sounds like something in Gameplay too, right?

(That argument has always bothered me. We are saying we are making it equal but we are only doing this one way.)

No. Because for the millionth time, you are not being asked to write C&Cs in RP lingo, you're being asked to use only the barest possible minimum reference to the specifics of the game. I don't suppose that compliant resolutions from different player groups will look exactly the same and I suppose there will always be a degree of heterogeneity but the 4th rule will ensure that to some degree or another they all look like they were produced by groups using NS as the basis for the way they play their game.

So why aren't RPers asked to do the barest possible minimum. Referring to the player has no chance of making sense to RPers, so it is out. We'll refer to nations. Referring to citizens has no chance of making sense to GPers, so ... It's in. They should (by that logic) be asked to not refer to citizens, but rather the nation as well.

Fully/Completely OOC, illegal. Fully/Completely IC, legal.

If THAT is the reason for this, why don't they have to do the barest minimum too?

Well actually citizens are referred to by the game, they're there on your nation page, growing every day.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There's a moderation forum for reporting trolling in - it means we don't have threads dragged off-topic.

Thanks

Yes, and presumably, the moderators require no help from you in that regard.

[Topid]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I have to ignore RP resolutions if you want to be like that. The concept of these accounts acting as nations has nothing to do with anything I do in this game.

So RPers should have to word their proposals in a way that sounds like something in Gameplay too, right?

(That argument has always bothered me. We are saying we are making it equal but we are only doing this one way.)

No. Because for the millionth time, you are not being asked to write C&Cs in RP lingo, you're being asked to use only the barest possible minimum reference to the specifics of the game. I don't suppose that compliant resolutions from different player groups will look exactly the same and I suppose there will always be a degree of heterogeneity but the 4th rule will ensure that to some degree or another they all look like they were produced by groups using NS as the basis for the way they play their game.

So why aren't RPers asked to do the barest possible minimum. Referring to the player has no chance of making sense to RPers, so it is out. We'll refer to nations. Referring to citizens has no chance of making sense to GPers, so ... It's in. They should (by that logic) be asked to not refer to citizens, but rather the nation as well.

Fully/Completely OOC, illegal. Fully/Completely IC, legal.

If THAT is the reason for this, why don't they have to do the barest minimum too?

Well actually citizens are referred to by the game, they're there on your nation page, growing every day.

So are regional passwords, but as we already covered simply one page ago many RPers don't want recognize it.

[Urgench]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I have to ignore RP resolutions if you want to be like that. The concept of these accounts acting as nations has nothing to do with anything I do in this game.

So RPers should have to word their proposals in a way that sounds like something in Gameplay too, right?

(That argument has always bothered me. We are saying we are making it equal but we are only doing this one way.)

No. Because for the millionth time, you are not being asked to write C&Cs in RP lingo, you're being asked to use only the barest possible minimum reference to the specifics of the game. I don't suppose that compliant resolutions from different player groups will look exactly the same and I suppose there will always be a degree of heterogeneity but the 4th rule will ensure that to some degree or another they all look like they were produced by groups using NS as the basis for the way they play their game.

So why aren't RPers asked to do the barest possible minimum. Referring to the player has no chance of making sense to RPers, so it is out. We'll refer to nations. Referring to citizens has no chance of making sense to GPers, so ... It's in. They should (by that logic) be asked to not refer to citizens, but rather the nation as well.

Fully/Completely OOC, illegal. Fully/Completely IC, legal.

If THAT is the reason for this, why don't they have to do the barest minimum too?

Well actually citizens are referred to by the game, they're there on your nation page, growing every day.

So are regional passwords, but as we already covered simply one page ago many RPers don't want recognize it.

The two aren't analogous for a variety of reasons, and besides passwords may still be referred to.

[Topid]

The two aren't analogous for a variety of reasons, and besides passwords may still be referred to.

The last point is a good one.

So national government actions OTHER than issues, any structure to national government not from issues, or any international conflict other than the couple mentioned in issues. All of those things don't happen in my style of play...

We can do this all day. In the end we both know this 'equal' deal that Rule IV is made out to be isn't equal, because Gameplay is being told we have limits, Generalites have limits, but RPers and ICers don't. All because the underlying opinion that it is the 'valid' way to play the game, the one Max would have wanted. And again, I'm not saying that it is wrong to think that or that Max shouldn't think that if he does, but it shouldn't be made to sound equal when it is not.

[Ardchoille]

Let's stop this misunderstanding before it goes any further. My understanding of "what Max wants" is not the same as Bears Armed's version. I've already said what I was told was wanted: at least as IC as the Liberation category. Which was written by Max.

To RP in that style, an RPer does need to do what Nai once described: stand on their head and shut one eye. Tough. RPers have to change the form of their play, depending on what forum they're in. The IC used in International Incidents is not the same as that used in Storefronts; the Sports forum gives "RP points", which would seem cr-a-zy in other RP forums, but that's the way they do it. The General Assembly's RP is different again, and the SC's is different from that; because the SC gives opinions on any individual NS nation or region and their actions, while the GA makes laws for WA member nations only. If SC, GA, II, Sports or Storefront RPers want to post in General, they have to go OOC.

Also:

Kenny, stop sniping at Sedge. Sedge, don't respond. All, stick to the topic.

[Urgench]

So national government actions OTHER than issues, any structure to national government not from issues, or any international conflict other than the couple mentioned in issues. All of those things don't happen in my style of play...

We can do this all day. In the end we both know this 'equal' deal that Rule IV is made out to be isn't equal, because Gameplay is being told we have limits, Generalites have limits, but RPers and ICers don't. All because the underlying opinion that it is the 'valid' way to play the game, the one Max would have wanted. And again, I'm not saying that it is wrong to think that or that Max shouldn't think that if he does, but it shouldn't be made to sound equal when it is not.

Whatever the value of your arguments this nonsense about inequality and underlying opinions on validity etc are patently wrong and deeply unhelpful. Considering how little of what GPers do is actually based on the principles of a nation simulation game it's hardly surprising that some of the terms they use would not fit neatly with the language which might be expected to be used by a part of a nation simulation game- the WA. That this rule is being applied in a way which continues to allow GPers to convey what they want to convey about the way they play the game rather puts the lie to this inequality/validity absurdness.

[Topid]

So national government actions OTHER than issues, any structure to national government not from issues, or any international conflict other than the couple mentioned in issues. All of those things don't happen in my style of play...

We can do this all day. In the end we both know this 'equal' deal that Rule IV is made out to be isn't equal, because Gameplay is being told we have limits, Generalites have limits, but RPers and ICers don't. All because the underlying opinion that it is the 'valid' way to play the game, the one Max would have wanted. And again, I'm not saying that it is wrong to think that or that Max shouldn't think that if he does, but it shouldn't be made to sound equal when it is not.

Whatever the value of your arguments this nonsense about inequality and underlying opinions on validity etc are patently wrong and deeply unhelpful. Considering how little of what GPers do is actually based on the principles of a nation simulation game it's hardly surprising that some of the terms they use would not fit neatly with the language which might be expected to be used by a part of a nation simulation game- the WA. That this rule is being applied in a way which continues to allow GPers to convey what they want to convey about the way they play the game rather puts the lie to this inequality/validity absurdness.

No, I don't play a nation simulation game, I never will. But I don't think that makes my terms less valid, which is exactly what 'not fit neatly with' means. And I don't think the SC should be exclusively for those that do simulate nations.

[Urgench]

So national government actions OTHER than issues, any structure to national government not from issues, or any international conflict other than the couple mentioned in issues. All of those things don't happen in my style of play...

We can do this all day. In the end we both know this 'equal' deal that Rule IV is made out to be isn't equal, because Gameplay is being told we have limits, Generalites have limits, but RPers and ICers don't. All because the underlying opinion that it is the 'valid' way to play the game, the one Max would have wanted. And again, I'm not saying that it is wrong to think that or that Max shouldn't think that if he does, but it shouldn't be made to sound equal when it is not.

Whatever the value of your arguments this nonsense about inequality and underlying opinions on validity etc are patently wrong and deeply unhelpful. Considering how little of what GPers do is actually based on the principles of a nation simulation game it's hardly surprising that some of the terms they use would not fit neatly with the language which might be expected to be used by a part of a nation simulation game- the WA. That this rule is being applied in a way which continues to allow GPers to convey what they want to convey about the way they play the game rather puts the lie to this inequality/validity absurdness.

No, I don't play a nation simulation game, I never will. But I don't think that makes my terms less valid, which is exactly what 'not fit neatly with' means. And I don't think the SC should be exclusively for those that do simulate nations.

So you think the game should be rewritten because you found a novel use for it for which it wasn't intended? When has any other group been afforded that? RPers don't get to have the GA write RP related resolutions, Generalites don't get to have their debating skills replace their national description, GAers don't get to force compliance on errant non-compliant WA members, the list goes on and on.

And lets be clear once again the 4th rule does not change who may or may not use the SC it merely requires the use of a base minimum of universaly intelligible language which all players regardless of style may understand. That GPers will still be able to use C&Cs to convey whatever they want is in stark contradiction to this extreme vision you've conjured.

[Yelda]

No, I don't play a nation simulation game, I never will. But I don't think that makes my terms less valid, which is exactly what 'not fit neatly with' means. And I don't think the SC should be exclusively for those that do simulate nations.

Welcome to NationStates

NationStates is a free nation simulation game. Build a nation and run it according to your own warped political ideals. Create a Utopian paradise for society's less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them. Join the World Assembly or remain a rogue state. It's up to you.

[Kalibarr]

Why don't the mods outlaw gameplaying if we are apparently "not doing what max wants"?

[Northrop-Grumman]

I understand that there's always this misconception about RPers lacking restrictions in terms of the game. There most certainly is.

1.) Forum RPers aren't allowed to play anything beyond their nations or the characters therein. They cannot suddenly recreate World War 2 with someone playing as the UK and someone else as Germany or what have you. They cannot start RPing Harry Potter, Twilight, or other concepts that aren't directly integrated within their nation's continuity.

2.) Their main nation page doesn't reflect how RPers operate their nations, including the WA rankings. Considering that the population, political freedoms, civil rights, economy, category, and actually most things on the nation page aren't able to be easily edited by the player, we just have to live with that or ignore it, because nothing we do really affects the nation page and the underlying coding of the game.

3.) Generally just about everything you do is up to those around you to accept, a sort of community self-policing. If you manage to piss the wrong people off, you can find yourself with a blanketed ignore OOCly or be otherwise treated poorly ICly. Wars are generally fragile constructs (which aren't accepted by game code, naturally) that have to be worked out between several players and often enough end in chaos when people just can't come to an agreement on how X weapon works and what the result of it is. General concepts like magic and technology can be used the wrong way and can also result in an ignore. Yes, there are restrictions. RPers cannot do whatever they want in terms of their nation.

[Urgench]

Why don't the mods outlaw gameplaying if we are apparently "not doing what max wants"?

Kalibarr, who said anything which even remotely suggests that such a thing would be desirable or is intended? Asking people to be a little more careful in how they word C&Cs has no relationship to what you're suggesting whatsoever, and considering the pronouncement of the game owner and operator I would have thought that kind of thing was well and truly beyond suspicion no?

[Naivetry]

Whatever the value of your arguments this nonsense about inequality and underlying opinions on validity etc are patently wrong and deeply unhelpful. Considering how little of what GPers do is actually based on the principles of a nation simulation game it's hardly surprising that some of the terms they use would not fit neatly with the language which might be expected to be used by a part of a nation simulation game- the WA. That this rule is being applied in a way which continues to allow GPers to convey what they want to convey about the way they play the game rather puts the lie to this inequality/validity absurdness.

Everything we do is based on the principles of a nation simulation game - the particular game called NationStates, which has unique elements like regional communities, delegates, passwords, etc. We take those principles as the important ones and ignore the ones that don't make sense, the same way that you do - we just choose to ignore different sets.

NS is not a perfectly consistent game with perfectly consistent principles. It's idiosyncratic in the extreme, and there is no way to take the game, with everything that happens inside it, as a logical whole. That's why every attempt to squeeze events in one community into language acceptable to another turns into a Procrustean exercise. Some of us object to being stretched while others object to having our feet cut off, but the real problem is no single NS community does - or logically can - make use of the full set of principles at work in the game itself.

[Ardchoille]

EDIT: I'm starting this post with an edit because I see from the "You may wish to review your post in light of this" function that Yelda's gazumped me. However, what I wrote said:

Before anyone jumps down Topid's throat: there is a difference between saying "I, personally, do not simulate a nation" and "NationStates is not a nation simulation game." The person whom his NS friends know by the nickname "Topid" does not play by making up things about a nation. We know this is so because he tells us so.

However, the game itself has been formatted to make up things about a nation called Topid. It (and we) know that the nation named Topid decides on (or dismisses, or ignores) issues and has a given population, a tax system and views on political freedoms and civil rights. We know this is so because the game tells us so on his nation page.

So if anyone wants to commend Topid-the-player, they will have to do so by using the game's language. But they can signal "Topid-the-player" by simply using the links that Pyth has given us. These will take readers to Topid's nation page, where those who know Topid-the-player can see him in the form the game represents him. Those whose style of play won't let them see the player behind a nation can keep on seeing him as a nation, and Max's web statisticians, if he has any, can see "Topid" as a game account that they can add to their totals about number of sign-ups and repeat log-ins.

Also, Kalibarr, stop being silly. You're "responding" to statements that haven't been made. Nobody has said that gameplayers aren't doing what Max wants. Do you seriously think I'd have spent most of my precious NS time for the past two -- or is it three -- months on this subject if I thought the guy who owns the game didn't want it? Do you think the other mods would have let me skive off the backlog of moderator jobs if they thought he didn't want it? Stop the emotive nonsense and stick to the topic.

FURTHER EDIT: Way back in the pages that are still full of points I want to reply to, but haven't had time, is a post from Nai lamenting the lack of a Gameplay based mod. I want to reply to that before it gets lost. Nai, you can't possibly have said "I wish Eras were here" as often as I have. The remedy lies in your (collective: gameplayers') hands. There is a form in the sticky at the top of the Moderation forum asking you for suggestions. Please, please use it.

One caution: remember that if a Gameplay mod is appointed (and, obviously, I can't guarantee it) the person you inflict the post on will have to reduce the time they spend doing the part of NS that they most love, because that's the way modding works. If you know someone who's so involved in every facet of Gameplay that you think they'd make the perfect mod, it may not be a kindness to nominate them.

And now I'm off to bed, it being 3.39 am here. G'nite.

[Palaam]

Everything we do is based on the principles of a nation simulation game - the particular game called NationStates, which has unique elements like regional communities, delegates, passwords, etc. We take those principles as the important ones and ignore the ones that don't make sense, the same way that you do - we just choose to ignore different sets.

NS is not a perfectly consistent game with perfectly consistent principles. It's idiosyncratic in the extreme, and there is no way to take the game, with everything that happens inside it, as a logical whole. That's why every attempt to squeeze events in one community into language acceptable to another turns into a Procrustean exercise. Some of us object to being stretched while others object to having our feet cut off, but the real problem is no single NS community does - or logically can - make use of the full set of principles at work in the game itself.

This is an entirely lucid and straightforward example of what we have been missing in the debate. The type of hard-and-fast accusations of game destruction aren't helping anyone (no matter what Unibot seems to think).

Look- we have to make compromises to play the game, whatever facet of the game we play. Northrop-Grumman makes an excellent points about restrictions and accepted standards of play; the community at large has a system of rules and regulations that limit the extent of what we can and cannot do. Players in the General Assembly don't have carte blanche over our little system, nor do players in II, NS, or Sports. Nations in regional play are similarly limited by the constraints of Influence, Delegacy and Foundership, regional population, etc. etc.

I will again say that the restrictions set down in Rule 4 do not seem, to me, to be onerous or unfair, and I don't want to hear anyone say "well that's because you're not a Gamplayer, you just don't understand" because that's a poor man's argument. Ard and NERVUN have delimited for all players Rule 4 by providing examples, suggestions, and concepts to throw around, and several in the GP camp have admitted it isn't too onerous.

If this is about being forced to compromise or admit subservience or something, my advice is to suck it up. We don't get to do whatever we want here, and the more people complain about cultural genocide or oppression or get all bleary-eyed about the Glory Days of Condemn Macedon and Commend 10000 Islands, the less we get to agree on.

[Urgench]

Whatever the value of your arguments this nonsense about inequality and underlying opinions on validity etc are patently wrong and deeply unhelpful. Considering how little of what GPers do is actually based on the principles of a nation simulation game it's hardly surprising that some of the terms they use would not fit neatly with the language which might be expected to be used by a part of a nation simulation game- the WA. That this rule is being applied in a way which continues to allow GPers to convey what they want to convey about the way they play the game rather puts the lie to this inequality/validity absurdness.

Everything we do is based on the principles of a nation simulation game - the particular game called NationStates, which has unique elements like regional communities, delegates, passwords, etc. We take those principles as the important ones and ignore the ones that don't make sense, the same way that you do - we just choose to ignore different sets.

NS is not a perfectly consistent game with perfectly consistent principles. It's idiosyncratic in the extreme, and there is no way to take the game, with everything that happens inside it, as a logical whole. That's why every attempt to squeeze events in one community into language acceptable to another turns into a Procrustean exercise. Some of us object to being stretched while others object to having our feet cut off, but the real problem is no single NS community does - or logically can - make use of the full set of principles at work in the game itself.

The only aspect of the game I've ever been obliged to ignore from an RP perspective is the SC, almost everything else, with the judicious use of reinterpretation can be justified in RP terms. In essence that's all that's being asked here of the GP community but on a much smaller scale, use language which is both subtle and clear and you will have the messages you want to convey and the SC will remain congruent with the game. It's actually not that huge an ask Nai.

[Ballotonia]

Whatever the value of your arguments this nonsense about inequality and underlying opinions on validity etc are patently wrong and deeply unhelpful. Considering how little of what GPers do is actually based on the principles of a nation simulation game it's hardly surprising that some of the terms they use would not fit neatly with the language which might be expected to be used by a part of a nation simulation game- the WA. That this rule is being applied in a way which continues to allow GPers to convey what they want to convey about the way they play the game rather puts the lie to this inequality/validity absurdness.

Yet oddly enough, Gameplayers play the game based exactly on what, mechanically, has been implemented. Not based on the verbiage of the theme, which is what Roleplayers seem to loosely be basing their actions on.

Let's see what we have in the game, shall we?

We've got RPers who consistently ignore entire aspects of the game just to make their own RP work. This can be simple stuff like population totals (simple example: DFD has been ignoring that one for years). Another one: you cannot kill your own citizens, since you cannot reduce the population total. Ever. No matter what your policies, it goes up steadily. Nations can and do move around tied to black helicopters. Even if those nations have 15+ billion people in them. We've got nations RPing medieval times, RPing Future tech, etc... The entire RP 'community' seems to me to be based on cherry-picking what they want from the game while totally ignoring everything else. Yet ignoring an SC proposal which isn't in accordance with your standards is described as too much effort and something that cannot be done, and even something that 'excludes' the RP community from using the SC. I don't buy that, it's utterly inconsistent with what RPers are already doing on a daily basis by their own choosing.

Gameplayers tend to ignore all written verbiage, the theme. For Gameplayers, it's all just players handling accounts. Being a 'defender' or 'invader' are qualities which belong to a player, not an abstract entity called 'nation'. Similarly, when we refer to 'native', we are talking about people. The theme of NS is inherently contradictory (for a supposed 'simulation game' it is deeply flawed and fails at being even close to a serious simulation), and Gameplayers ignore the theme entirely. We deal with which bits we can move around on the server. Some are important, others are not, depending on how many other bits can be altered as a result, and how they are perceived by others. Thing is, when a full GPer sees an IC proposal then that's just what it is, an IC proposal. We know it's IC, recognize it as part of someone elses way of playing the game, and treat it as such. Some with disdain, but most I know will handle it with sufficient respect. There's no problem with ignoring them if need be, or trying to see it from an RP perspective and estimate whether a Yay or Nay vote would be appropriate according to ones own personal political standards. All fine, no problem there.

Yet, despite all of this, it is deemed necessary (apparently 'because Max says so') that the GPers have to adjust their writing style to be in line with a type of play we do not even play, a type of play we do not want to play, and a type of play we certainly will not enjoy playing even if we're forced to play it.


@Nervun, thank you for your explanations. It has made a lot more clear to me. Primarily how this situation isn't going to be resolved any time soon. The mods have no wiggle room to play with which matters from GP perspective, and the language changes (IC only) means we'd have to butcher our proposals to mask in generic language precisely those things we find important to say clearly in a resolution. Without OOC we can't saywhat we want to say, because making it readable ICly also removes the actual content to the point where it's no longer clear whether someone is being commended for being a good defender or playing RP really well. If one can no longer convey what is intended, language itself has failed miserably and all meaning is lost.

Ballotonia

[Urgench]

Yet oddly enough, Gameplayers play the game based exactly on what, mechanically, has been implemented. Not based on the verbiage of the theme, which is what Roleplayers seem to loosely be basing their actions on.

Let's see what we have in the game, shall we?

We've got RPers who consistently ignore entire aspects of the game just to make their own RP work. This can be simple stuff like population totals (simple example: DFD has been ignoring that one for years). Another one: you cannot kill your own citizens, since you cannot reduce the population total. Ever. No matter what your policies, it goes up steadily. Nations can and do move around tied to black helicopters. Even if those nations have 15+ billion people in them. We've got nations RPing medieval times, RPing Future tech, etc... The entire RP 'community' seems to me to be based on cherry-picking what they want from the game while totally ignoring everything else. Yet ignoring an SC proposal which isn't in accordance with your standards is described as too much effort and something that cannot be done, and even something that 'excludes' the RP community from using the SC. I don't buy that, it's utterly inconsistent with what RPers are already doing on a daily basis by their own choosing.

I'm sorry but your breakdown of how RP works is incorrect. And you conflate a variety of different RP cultures which are distinct.

Gameplayers tend to ignore all written verbiage, the theme. For Gameplayers, it's all just players handling accounts. Being a 'defender' or 'invader' are qualities which belong to a player, not an abstract entity called 'nation'. Similarly, when we refer to 'native', we are talking about people. The theme of NS is inherently contradictory (for a supposed 'simulation game' it is deeply flawed and fails at being even close to a serious simulation), and Gameplayers ignore the theme entirely. We deal with which bits we can move around on the server. Some are important, others are not, depending on how many other bits can be altered as a result, and how they are perceived by others. Thing is, when a full GPer sees an IC proposal then that's just what it is, an IC proposal. We know it's IC, recognize it as part of someone elses way of playing the game, and treat it as such. Some with disdain, but most I know will handle it with sufficient respect. There's no problem with ignoring them if need be, or trying to see it from an RP perspective and estimate whether a Yay or Nay vote would be appropriate according to ones own personal political standards. All fine, no problem there.

Yet, despite all of this, it is deemed necessary (apparently 'because Max says so') that the GPers have to adjust their writing style to be in line with a type of play we do not even play, a type of play we do not want to play, and a type of play we certainly will not enjoy playing even if we're forced to play it.

Again it must be pointed out that this rule does not force RP style C&Cs, nor is it a rule introduced to favour RPers. I really do think you're trapped in an oppositional paradigm which is warping how you view this rule.

[Naivetry]

The only aspect of the game I've ever been obliged to ignore from an RP perspective is the SC, almost everything else, with the judicious use of reinterpretation can be justified in RP terms. In essence that's all that's being asked here of the GP community but on a much smaller scale, use language which is both subtle and clear and you will have the messages you want to convey and the SC will remain congruent with the game. It's actually not that huge an ask Nai.

My point is that Gameplay is already congruent with the game - every bit as congruent as RP. RP and GP are simply not congruent with each other, because each is based upon the core principles of the game ignored or downplayed by the other community. And because I'm a fan of my little bug-eyed Venn diagram today:


I can has affirmation of big blue circle in the SC, please? I could hardly care less about how Rule 4 is worded so long as that's the end result.

(Or in other words, I agree entirely with Ballotonia.)

[Todd McCloud]

For what it's worth...

I sort of liked it before, where we could do IC vs OOC C&C's. I know the idea of reverting back to the way it was has been thoroughly defeated, but the way *that* was allowed for both types of C&C's. Perhaps I am a bit behind in these discussions, but for me at least, that was ideal. Wasn't perfect, but hey, things were much simpler and fluid.

[Todd McCloud]

The only aspect of the game I've ever been obliged to ignore from an RP perspective is the SC, almost everything else, with the judicious use of reinterpretation can be justified in RP terms. In essence that's all that's being asked here of the GP community but on a much smaller scale, use language which is both subtle and clear and you will have the messages you want to convey and the SC will remain congruent with the game. It's actually not that huge an ask Nai.

My point is that Gameplay is already congruent with the game - every bit as congruent as RP. RP and GP are simply not congruent with each other, because each is based upon the core principles of the game ignored or downplayed by the other community. And because I'm a fan of my little bug-eyed Venn diagram today:


I can has affirmation of big blue circle in the SC, please? I could hardly care less about how Rule 4 is worded so long as that's the end result.

(Or in other words, I agree entirely with Ballotonia.)

Double post time!

I agree with the venn diagram Nai has put forth. And yes, Rule 4 should be all-inclusive to allow for both. Yet it is clear from that diagram that RP and GP are separate entities. We're pretty much in agreement of that there. Therefore, and this is just me playing devil's advocate here, why should we attempt to make one set of rules for two separate entities? Would it be better to make the rule more specific, like 'roleplay C&C rules' and 'gameplay C&C rules'? I mean, the more I think about this, it's like trying to fit a European plug in an American electrical socket - it's not going to work no matter how hard you try. It seems to me that we need an adapter. And adapters have two sides to them, so one can go into the other.

Why not try for that?

[Urgench]

For what it's worth...

I sort of liked it before, where we could do IC vs OOC C&C's. I know the idea of reverting back to the way it was has been thoroughly defeated, but the way *that* was allowed for both types of C&C's. Perhaps I am a bit behind in these discussions, but for me at least, that was ideal. Wasn't perfect, but hey, things were much simpler and fluid.

What IC C&Cs of any significance were there? How much actual constructive IC involvement had actually developed in the SC? To what extent was the SC a clearly open and clearly multi-purpose? To my eyes there was a dramatic bias in use towards OOC and GP orientated resolutions and the IC involvement was peripheral and poorly supported.