NationStates

Bears Armed wrote:
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.

That depends entirely on what kind of characters or nation one RPs. Plenty of member and non-member states are peopled by characters who would find a number of existing GA resolutions utterly nonsensical. The point is that the GA uses a language which is congruent with what it is described as being, RL and Game Mechanics are excluded as part of that. The rules aren't tailored so that all and any RPd characters can make sense of GA resolutions, rather they create GA resolutions which make sense within the context of what the WA is supposed to be, if RP'd characters can interpret them properly is kind of secondary. That is at least part of the reason why a significant number of RPers choose to ignore the WA completely. The WA doesn't make IC sense to a lot of RPers, hence they ignore it. Instead the WA makes sense according to what it is described as being, and RPers who choose to recognise the WA implicitly incorporate the kinds of RP "realities" the WA would then require in to how they RP their nation. That's what makes WA RP or RP which explicitly recognises the WA different from other kinds of NS RP.

Urgench wrote:

Astarial wrote:

Urgench wrote: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?

No, it's a Real Life (tm) term.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Astarial wrote:

Urgench wrote: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.

Well, it's fairly meaningless, first of all.

If we're talking about the language of the WA, both the GA and the SC have IC-language (that is, anything which is appropriate in those resolutions), and OOC-language (anything that wouldn't be). An example for the GA I can think of would be, referencing any kind of RL nation in a resolution ("MANDATES that 1% of all GNP be given to the United States of America" or whatever). They're not the same IC and OOC as the definitions used by various communities, but the terms do apply.

If you're not talking about the language of the WA, but rather the way a certain community uses the terms IC and OOC (RP, GP, whatever), then it's specious. Either the easiest way to understand what's okay and what isn't is by a community's understanding of IC and OOC behavior, in which case you're wrong, or IC/OOC have nothing at all to do with what flies in the SC, in which case you're correct but have gotten us no closer to an understanding of the guidelines.

Astarial wrote: No, it's a Real Life (tm) term.

Thanks, I knew that, but as you probably know, that wasn't the term which was being used, unless you're having a conversation with yourself that is. Anyways, this little tet a tet is hardly worth any of our time, and clearly you just want little war of condescencion and I'm not interested in being told off by a mod again so hasta luego.

To have a chance to settle this R4 situation, maybe a referendum is in order?

Don-Quixote wrote:To have a chance to settle this R4 situation, maybe a referendum is in order?

NS isn't a democracy. While I'm convinced a straight-up vote would go in the direction I favor, it's more important to realize it would be really bad to vote on how the game should be operated. Such a game would be utterly brutal (extreme example, imagine a new game rule passed through popular voting: "Don-Quixote is banned from the game." Fair?), no fun at all IMHO, and be contrary to the reality that someone might be held responsible for stuff going on in the game (another extreme example: a rule passes which makes it OK to trade in RL guns, drugs, counterfeit money, etc...) The person the authorities would likely hold responsible is named Max Barry. With the burden of responsibility comes the power to determine the rules. At the least, his public image as a writer is at stake (think of the banning of swastika's: it might be a problem for him as a public figure to be seen running a site which acts as a meeting ground for neo-nazi's.)

Ballotonia

Urgench wrote:

Astarial wrote: No, it's a Real Life (tm) term.

Thanks, I knew that, but as you probably know, that wasn't the term which was being used, unless you're having a conversation with yourself that is. Anyways, this little tet a tet is hardly worth any of our time, and clearly you just want little war of condescencion and I'm not interested in being told off by a mod again so hasta luego.

How is that not the term being used?

If the rule is phrased such that C&Cs must refer to events which happen within the NS multiverse, that's pretty clearly referring to all possible existences - nation RP, fantasy RP, sports RP, Gameplay, etc. In that case, I can't Commend Nai for baking delicious muffins and shipping them through the USPS, because that did not happen in an NS universe.

If that doesn't sound right, I think I don't know how you're using the term - can you elaborate?

Astarial wrote:

How is that not the term being used?

If the rule is phrased such that C&Cs must refer to events which happen within the NS multiverse, that's pretty clearly referring to all possible existences - nation RP, fantasy RP, sports RP, Gameplay, etc. In that case, I can't Commend Nai for baking delicious muffins and shipping them through the USPS, because that did not happen in an NS universe.

If that doesn't sound right, I think I don't know how you're using the term - can you elaborate?

http://nswiki.net/index.

As Ard puts it herself-

Ardchoille wrote:
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.

Unfortunately the NS Multiverse isn't as yet a term which includes GP, though I see no reason why aspects of the term could not fit some portion of GP activity. But currently the term is very much a RP term which explains certain unexplainables.

Urgench wrote:

Astarial wrote:

How is that not the term being used?

If the rule is phrased such that C&Cs must refer to events which happen within the NS multiverse, that's pretty clearly referring to all possible existences - nation RP, fantasy RP, sports RP, Gameplay, etc. In that case, I can't Commend Nai for baking delicious muffins and shipping them through the USPS, because that did not happen in an NS universe.

If that doesn't sound right, I think I don't know how you're using the term - can you elaborate?

http://nswiki.net/index.

As Ard puts it herself-

Ardchoille wrote:
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.

Unfortunately the NS Multiverse isn't as yet a term which includes GP, though I see no reason why aspects of the term could not fit some portion of GP activity. But currently the term is very much a RP term which explains certain unexplainables.

In an essay I'm writing I used something like this to explain it:
"The Security Council exists beyond the RP Multiverse to the Omniverse, which includes the RP Multiverse (Different dimensions of roleplay) and the GP Mutliverse (Different dimensions of gameplay.. including political, military, inter and intraregional play ..ect.)."

I believe those are the terms you're looking for.

Could it be that we are trying to define the WA or the GA or the SC to one thing? Could that be the problem? The WA is so many different things to people. With the WA being in many universes of the Multiverse... each one has its own standards on how things are run... so how can we limit the WA to just one standard?

JURISDICTIONS wrote:Could it be that we are trying to define the WA or the GA or the SC to one thing? Could that be the problem? The WA is so many different things to people. With the WA being in many universes of the Multiverse... each one has its own standards on how things are run... so how can we limit the WA to just one standard?

Well that's the principle that the Security Council always stood for... other than to disseminate inter-regional peace and goodwill, although I suppose Rule IV would want us to disseminate international peace and goodwill only, now.

Unibot wrote:<snip> I suppose Rule IV would want us to disseminate international peace and goodwill only, now.

You've misunderstood again. Rule 4 applies to, and permits, Condemnations as well.

Urgench wrote: <snip re "multiverse"> But currently the term is very much a RP term which explains certain unexplainables.

If, as seems to be the case, it's acceptable to all parts of the game, great. I've tried to avoid terms which would give credence to the all too evident notion that Rule 4 attempts to enforce one style of play above another, and that's why I was leery of "multiverse".

My hope for R4 is to channel the SC’s evolving style so that it is kept consistent with the verbal conventions of a nation simulation game. The development of the nation/region tags has made it possible to blur the verbal distinctions between references to player actions (and to the game itself) and references to nation/region actions within the game’s basic concept.

To that end, what do those of you who've been trying to evolve a more generally comprehensible version think of this:

4. Your proposal cannot be read as submitted by a Nation, or as targeting a Nation or Region, because it does not use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

For example, it:

(a) Refers directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.

(b) Refers to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.

(c) Reads as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on those actions of other NationStates nations or regions that are significant to the entire NS Multiverse.

Proposals should not refer to the personal characteristics of the player behind the nation ("good roleplayer" "always rude" "bad speller") but to NationStates actions.

I would have preferred from the start to write "Proposals must be written SC IC", but didn't for fear of misunderstanding -- which "OOC" provoked anyway . It seems now there is now at least a general understanding that nation-sim language is being sought. This version picks up on Ballotonia’s and Nai’s wording and avoids the “OOC” that gives gameplayers concern, while retaining the idea that the language of SC proposals is different: not exactly “gameplayer” IC, very different from “GA IC”, not “II IC” or any of the other ICs, but the SC’s. Some deeply IC players will regard much of what goes on here as OOC, some gameplayers won’t think the distinction necessary, but it’s a shorthand way of getting the point across to forum players.

I think we should also have what most other forums have, a stickied “introduction” thread that would give explanations of terms that may come up in debate and may not be instantly understandable to players from another area (eg, region griefing, godmoding, statwanking, scorinator, special SC terms such as “blurring” or “fudging” and “saying while playing”, Nai’s explanation of why regional forum destruction is so unforgivable, what using a hidden password does, and so on, much of which can be pinched from this thread and Topid’s Sampler ... if anyone's short of things to do ....

This looks OK to me. Gone is the "no OOC" clause, and the rule contains 'read as', which I see as that it enforces the requirement of a certain interpretation being possible, not that that would be the only interpretation allowed or that the submitter would have to have RP-IC intentions to begin with.

Ofcourse it still won't allow commends like 'X is a cool person', but that might actually be a good thing. Now the submitter will have to think about why X is a cool person within the game NS, and explain that to others who don't even know X to begin with. Being nice to ones grandmother is great, but shouldn't qualify one for a commendation.

Ballotonia

Ballotonia wrote:This looks OK to me. Gone is the "no OOC" clause, and the rule contains 'read as', which I see as that it enforces the requirement of a certain interpretation being possible, not that that would be the only interpretation allowed or that the submitter would have to have RP-IC intentions to begin with.

Ofcourse it still won't allow commends like 'X is a cool person', but that might actually be a good thing. Now the submitter will have to think about why X is a cool person within the game NS, and explain that to others who don't even know X to begin with. Being nice to ones grandmother is great, but shouldn't qualify one for a commendation.

Ballotonia

But what about those who deserve a commendation but haven't contributed IC?

Don-Quixote wrote:But what about those who deserve a commendation but haven't contributed IC?

They can still be commended, as long as their commendation is for stuff done as part of playing the game. It's not about the actions being commended being done IC, it's that the commendation text must be readable as "SC IC".

At least, that's how I read Ardchoille's proposal.

(it's unclear to me whether you're asking me or Ardchoille, so I'm offering my answer just in case)

Ballotonia

Ballotonia wrote:This looks OK to me. Gone is the "no OOC" clause, and the rule contains 'read as', which I see as that it enforces the requirement of a certain interpretation being possible, not that that would be the only interpretation allowed or that the submitter would have to have RP-IC intentions to begin with.

Provided it's that both interpretations (nation/person) are possible, that's what I mean by "fudging" with the tags. If it reads solely as "person", it's still not good. If it reads solely "nation" or "region" it should fit the nation-sim requirement already and not need fudging. To a forum player, the OOC clause hasn't gone very far; in their reading, it will still mean "not OOC", because it specifies a form of "IC".

Ballotonia wrote:Of course it still won't allow commends like 'X is a cool person', but that might actually be a good thing. Now the submitter will have to think about why X is a cool person within the game NS, and explain that to others who don't even know X to begin with.

My added emphasis there -- with the sub-title, "Now we're cookin' with gas!" That's part of what I wanted R4 to do: make proposers think about what they were proposing. And the flip side of the coin of having to think why X is a cool person is that for a condemnation, they'll have to think about why X is an idiot (or whatever other all-too-easy insult they wanted to use).

As for those in the situation Don Quixote describes, Ballotonia's got it:

it's that the commendation text must be readable as "SC IC".

Yes, this is and always has been about the proposal text. There will be things that make RPers wonder why the writer's allowed to use them, and things that make Gameplayers wonder why the writer's not allowed to use them, but they'll be sorted out by writing and submitting proposals.

My only concern with the rule is that it prevents nations from being commended because they have not contributed to the game in an IC way.

Don-Quixote wrote:My only concern with the rule is that it prevents nations from being commended because they have not contributed to the game in an IC way.

Can you give an example of someone (or a situation) that you'd like to offer a commendation for that you don't think will fit under the current rules?

Don-Quixote wrote:My only concern with the rule is that it prevents nations from being commended because they have not contributed to the game in an IC way.

Question asked, and answered.

We have a 13-and-over age limit on these forums for a reason, you know.

Hey Ard... remember when i asked you how certain proposals worked for under the old txt under rule four?

And i asked if something like this

One could write…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commend Todd McCloud

The World Assembly Security Council,

APPLAUDS the sole Citizen of Todd McCloud; who is named as “Todd McCloud”

FOR singularly bringing some of his best ideas for Security Council and the World Assembly to the table.

NOTING that as being a one-person nation, Todd feels lonely and sad.

WISHING TO end his grief with this highest honor that can only be bestowed by the World Assembly and the Security Council.

Commends Todd McCloud for being the nation of “birth” of Todd McCloud.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
This was deemed as right... so with that being said... Could we still commend or condem a person within their nation or who leads their nation for something... sure it could be a stretch that a INTERNATIONAL/INTERREGIONAL body could condem a single person or commend a single person....

So in this way I could still commend "a Mean Old Man" but like this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commend "a Mean Old Man"

We the Secutity Council APPALUD the only citizen of "a Mean Old Man" for the createive fruits of art of which he has posted on the World Wide Web for the conveience of all most all nations citizens blah blah blah...

COMMENDS "a Mean Old Man" for being for being the place of residence of the mean old man.

(My apoligies, i only want to Honor you AMOM... I did not want the resolution to fail)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So would SOMETHING like that still work? (OF course it has to be MUCH BETTER than this)....

And then we could do this to everyone... because that is their name...or at least the name we know them by...


BTW

4. Your proposal cannot be read as submitted by a Nation, or as targeting a Nation or Region, because it does not use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

For example, it:

(a) Refers directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.

(b) Refers to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.

(c) Reads as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on those actions of other NationStates nations or regions that are significant to the entire NS Multiverse.

Proposals should not refer to the personal characteristics of the player behind the nation ("good roleplayer" "always rude" "bad speller") but to NationStates actions.

Much much better!

4. Your proposal cannot be read as submitted by a Nation, or as targeting a Nation or Region, because it does not use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

For example, it:

(a) Refers directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.

(b) Refers to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.

(c) Reads as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on those actions of other NationStates nations or regions that are significant to the entire NS Multiverse.

Proposals should not refer to the personal characteristics of the player behind the nation ("good roleplayer" "always rude" "bad speller") but to NationStates actions.

It's very much an improvement in that it loses the OOC clause that was bumping into the fact that everyone has differing definitions of IC and OOC. On that note, though, is we're using the term "SC-IC", will there be a more extensive explanation of what that means around here, or is this it? We spent quite some time trying to hash out a definition of SC-IC that it's still hard to get people to agree on, so some more detail might be in order if we want to avoid the same problems that the OOC clause created.

Kandarin wrote:

4. Your proposal cannot be read as submitted by a Nation, or as targeting a Nation or Region, because it does not use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

For example, it:

(a) Refers directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.

(b) Refers to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.

(c) Reads as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)

Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on those actions of other NationStates nations or regions that are significant to the entire NS Multiverse.

Proposals should not refer to the personal characteristics of the player behind the nation ("good roleplayer" "always rude" "bad speller") but to NationStates actions.

It's very much an improvement in that it loses the OOC clause that was bumping into the fact that everyone has differing definitions of IC and OOC. On that note, though, is we're using the term "SC-IC", will there be a more extensive explanation of what that means around here, or is this it? We spent quite some time trying to hash out a definition of SC-IC that it's still hard to get people to agree on, so some more detail might be in order if we want to avoid the same problems that the OOC clause created.

As Ard said:

I think we should also have what most other forums have, a stickied “introduction” thread that would give explanations of terms that may come up in debate and may not be instantly understandable to players from another area (eg, region griefing, godmoding, statwanking, scorinator, special SC terms such as “blurring” or “fudging” and “saying while playing”, Nai’s explanation of why regional forum destruction is so unforgivable, what using a hidden password does, and so on, much of which can be pinched from this thread and Topid’s Sampler ... if anyone's short of things to do ....

That's what we're trying to do, and what will be built slowly by the players in the SC.

NERVUN wrote:As Ard said:

I think we should also have what most other forums have, a stickied “introduction” thread that would give explanations of terms that may come up in debate and may not be instantly understandable to players from another area (eg, region griefing, godmoding, statwanking, scorinator, special SC terms such as “blurring” or “fudging” and “saying while playing”, Nai’s explanation of why regional forum destruction is so unforgivable, what using a hidden password does, and so on, much of which can be pinched from this thread and Topid’s Sampler ... if anyone's short of things to do ....

That's what we're trying to do, and what will be built slowly by the players in the SC.

You've doing it backwards then... I would have contacted the players first if that was your intention... and also a player's guide to the Security Council would be more useful to newbies than a controversial ruleset..

And (a) and (b) will always be unacceptable to the regulars of the Security Council, unless we just spontaneously decide to throw away the core element of the Security Council -- which could happen, because attrition is a bitch, but that's not going to be even nearly as stimulating as an environment as the pre-Rule IV SC.. so , sucks for the newcomers! I actually feel really bad for the newcomers, not only is the controversy shutting down the SC, but even with a revised Rule IV (which does the same thing as it always did, just its clarified for those who didn't understand) this Security Council isn't even going to be half as fun to play. Once again, sucks for me, sucks for the newcomers. Yippi! I suppose... err.. someone is going to find inner-peace and satisfaction out of this rule... um.. probably someone who hated to see people get enjoyment out of the SC -- out of spite.

Unibot wrote: <snippity> And (a) and (b) will always be unacceptable to the regulars of the Security Council,<snip, snip>

Yeah, that's great. Hey, maybe Max will send you an email saying that "the regulars of the Security Council" can ignore (a) and (b).

The new version looks fine to me. It says SC-IC, but then defines what that is, ending or muting potential for people to become confused. Er... at least, become confused unintentionally.

Player behind the nation was always something fashionable to use to protest Rule 4, buuut ultimately I recall it being out of vogue even BEFORE Rule 4. As for referring to the game as a game, that, too, is pretty high on the 'lame' scale.

With the inference being more towards the IC of the SC and it being specifically noted, there's less holes for dumb things to happen over. The question merely remains whether the 3WB will accept it, or continue demanding even more to the points of absurdity.

Unibot wrote:[And (a) and (b) will always be unacceptable to the regulars of the Security Council

Tough.