Condemn Rule 4

[Unibot]

I wonder if it would illegal to condemn WA Building Mgmt for literally building a fourth wall in the SC HQ, given if it was roleplayed. The things that pop in my mind in the shower...

I usually just think of girls or catchy song lyrics in the shower, but that's much more constructive. I like the idea.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Or in a broader sense, condemning WA Building Mgmt for cruel mismanagement of WA headquarters, and making the SC's new fourth wall part of that. That way, we can prove we don't take ourselves so God-damned seriously, retain our good humor, remember this is just a stupid game, and still take a swipe at a rule that has caused much discontent in this chamber.

...even if it doesn't really change all that much.

[Unibot]

Or in a broader sense, condemning WA Building Mgmt for cruel mismanagement of WA headquarters, and making the SC's new fourth wall part of that. That way, we can prove we don't take ourselves so God-damned seriously, retain our good humor, remember this is just a stupid game, and still take a swipe at a rule that has caused much discontent in this chamber.

Hhhm.. well, when else has the WA Building Mgmt been a thorn in the WA's arse? I guess I should be looking at the Joltly archives and see what I find...

...even if it doesn't really change all that much.

Partly, one of the biggest concerns is the message this rule sends to gameplayers, who will now likely choose to not partake in the affairs of the Security Council because it doesn't respect their language. I'll be the first to admit, it would be quite easy to turn any of those resolutions into "Rule IV" compliant resolutions, but that isn't the point.. because its impossible to turn any of those resolutions into "Rule IV" compliant resolutions whilst respecting the nominee and his or her contributions to NationStates.

[American Capitalist]

Or in a broader sense, condemning WA Building Mgmt for cruel mismanagement of WA headquarters, and making the SC's new fourth wall part of that. That way, we can prove we don't take ourselves so God-damned seriously, retain our good humor, remember this is just a stupid game, and still take a swipe at a rule that has caused much discontent in this chamber.

...even if it doesn't really change all that much.

Hhhm.. well, when else has the WA Building Mgmt been a thorn in the WA's arse? I guess I should be looking at the Joltly archives and see what I find...

They've been a thorn in this ambassadors ass constantly making me slip on wet floors because they never put signs up. They always say they "forgot" but I know they didn't the Donald always knows.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Hhhm.. well, when else has the WA Building Mgmt been a thorn in the WA's arse? I guess I should be looking at the Joltly archives and see what I find...

UNBM (now WABM) are basically the standard-bearers for bureaucratic ineptitude; their cartoonish bumbling and inefficiency was even cited in the WAHQ resolution. They've caused much frustration among newcomers, mostly for their snail's pace in approving office requests.

Other examples of bureaucratic nightmares in the UN/WA, though not directly related to UNBM: trying to leave the UN; trying to file personnel paperwork

[Unibot]

Hhhm.. well, when else has the WA Building Mgmt been a thorn in the WA's arse? I guess I should be looking at the Joltly archives and see what I find...

UNBM (now WABM) are basically the standard-bearers for bureaucratic ineptitude; their cartoonish bumbling and inefficiency was even cited in the WAHQ resolution. They've caused much frustration among newcomers, mostly for their snail's pace in approving office requests.

Other examples of bureaucratic nightmares in the UN/WA, though not directly related to UNBM: trying to leave the UN; trying to file personnel paperwork

Ah yes... those bastards need a condemnation!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Partly, one of the biggest concerns is the message this rule sends to gameplayers, who will now likely choose to not partake in the affairs of the Security Council because it doesn't respect their language. I'll be the first to admit, it would be quite easy to turn any of those resolutions into "Rule IV" compliant resolutions, but that isn't the point.. because its impossible to turn any of those resolutions into "Rule IV" compliant resolutions whilst respecting the nominee and his or her contributions to NationStates.

I was actually speaking in the context of accepting the rule and moving on. Why would you even want to pass a Security Council resolution if you're still boycotting the Security Council?

Ah yes... those bastards need a condemnation!

Yup, and the sweetest part of this is that WABM is the puppet of an NS moderator, so we'd actually be condemning a mod by proxy!

[Unibot]

Partly, one of the biggest concerns is the message this rule sends to gameplayers, who will now likely choose to not partake in the affairs of the Security Council because it doesn't respect their language. I'll be the first to admit, it would be quite easy to turn any of those resolutions into "Rule IV" compliant resolutions, but that isn't the point.. because its impossible to turn any of those resolutions into "Rule IV" compliant resolutions whilst respecting the nominee and his or her contributions to NationStates.

I was actually speaking in the context of accepting the rule and moving on. Why would you even want to pass a Security Council resolution if you're still boycotting the Security Council?

If the resolution was a Rule IV protest resolution, albeit a well hidden one, I might be able to convince members of the 3WB to support it (there was a general consensus between our members that if a resolution was aggressive or showed nonsupport for Rule IV, and didn't support Rule IV 'in spirit', than that was tantamount to not complying to Rule IV by the letter of the law.. in a case by case basis.) Though I think they would have been more receptive to a "Condemn Rule IV" resolution than a "Condemn WABM" resolution.

Ah yes... those bastards need a condemnation!

Yup, and the sweetest part of this is that WABM is the puppet of an NS moderator, so we'd actually be condemning a mod by proxy!

Hehehe, poor Flibble.

[Topid]

Do not use my position against my friends, Kenny.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I don't recall speaking "against" anyone in that post, dude.

And here's a little tip about forum posting for the future: if you don't want your public comments to be misconstrued or used in a manner you disagree with, don't make them public.

[Sedgistan]

OK, most of Ardchoille's ruling made sense. The wording in the proposal wasn't great... I could've fixed it, but apparently can't now. I'd still like to discuss a few of the things you said though:

So far, so legal. Provided you put in all the "nation" and "region" links, you're okay. Without them you would be talking about NS as if it's a game -- Rule 4, without the links, is a rule in an internet game, which would make the proposal non-compliant.

Is this a new ruling then, that when a term could refer to either a nation/region or a concept within NS, the nation/region tags have to be used?

If you're condemning Rule 4 because it hasn't stopped Flaming Proposals, the Founder of another region, then we're all worthy of condemnation. For example, Sedgistan has done nothing to stop Ardchoille, the Founder of Zhaucauozian Friendship. However, if you put in the nation and region links, it's technically legal -- just doesn't make sense, and therefore probable cause to delete.

Really? Surely it falls under one of the list of things that "are some possible reasons why [delegates] ignored your proposal" ? I don't see how it violates any of rules 1-4.

However, after discussions, the Hive Mind has decided that the proposal itself is trollbait, if not trolling (not in intent, but in effect), and therefore will be deleted if submitted. Rule 4 has been and is being thoroughly discussed and modified elsewhere.

Trollbait sounds to me to be a very clunky way of ruling "Condemn Rule 4" illegal. I was kind of expecting a blanket ban on the resolution, but thought that some more coherent justification would be used. Given that I've been clear that I don't care about having a debate thread, I'd like to hear some further explanation as to how the proposal is 'trollbait'. However, if by that you mean you don't want the WA putting moderator rules/rulings up to public vote (even if it doesn't have the power to overturn them), well then I'd understand that - but at least say it that way (and make it Rule 5).

[Novus Niciae]

Hhhm.. well, when else has the WA Building Mgmt been a thorn in the WA's arse? I guess I should be looking at the Joltly archives and see what I find...

UNBM (now WABM) are basically the standard-bearers for bureaucratic ineptitude; their cartoonish bumbling and inefficiency was even cited in the WAHQ resolution. They've caused much frustration among newcomers, mostly for their snail's pace in approving office requests.

Other examples of bureaucratic nightmares in the UN/WA, though not directly related to UNBM: trying to leave the UN; trying to file personnel paperwork

Ah yes... those bastards need a condemnation!

I still had an office when I got back from my holiday, but I had to fight a bear to get my fridge back.

[Unibot]

From my resignation thread from the 3WB forum...

Hello Fellow Members of the Third Wall Bloc,

Over the past weeks, no, correction: since the inception of the Third Wall Bloc, I have been struggling with my inner convictions surrounding our institution. I tried to guide it towards being an honorable and well intended source of hope for those who wish to see Rule IV abolished. I’m glad to say that in the past month, the train hasn’t runaway yet, and the Third Wall Bloc is still gathering support from moderates and has yet to isolate itself due to radical policies.

Nevertheless, I am deeply saddened and regretful to inform you of my resignation from the Third Wall Bloc. I do not wish to assail this institution, or cause it unnecessary harm, and I do not wish to isolate myself from the members of the Third Wall Bloc, many of whom are my sincere and earnest friends in this game, and I intend on keeping as friends, if you’ll have me. We share the same opinion on Rule IV, I think, and also I think we share the same vision for the Security Council, an institution that could potentially link a thread through the entirety of NationStates. But I’ve been hiding from you that I feel immense guilt for preventing future generations from enjoying the Security Council and finding what satisfaction they may from a post-Rule IV environment (however much that saddens me to imagine). Therefore, I will continue my individual protest of Rule IV, which I had been conducting previous to the Third Wall Bloc’s initiation. With said protests, I can only restrict my own capacity to enjoy this game and the Security Council, which reflects my indefinite dissatisfaction with a Security Council that disregards the dimension and scope of other communities as ‘unprofessional’.

I don’t want your pity; I don’t need your support, I don’t intend on becoming the Jesus of NationStates. Because that’s silly -- first, I don’t have a beard, and secondly, I’m not a carpenter. I just want your respect, that’s all I ever wanted really. One person isn’t going to bring down Rule IV alone, I know that, but by continuing my own protests, I’m protecting the principle that an old friend of mine reminded me of, today… one person shouldn’t and can’t spoil the gaming experience for another player. Well, someone obviously did spoil the gaming experience for me, by enforcing Rule IV, and I don’t want to lash out and commit a double standard any longer against another player, just because the mods devastated how I played the game. Nevertheless, I will refuse to accept Rule IV as what is best for the future of Security Council, and will continue my efforts in civil disobedience to reject the authority of Rule IV – and I hope to convince new members to the Security Council, that a free institution that binds our world together can be a reality if we’re willing to fight for it, and it is worth fighting for. If the moderators wish to ban me for playing as I think the game should be played, and being the change that I want to see in this game, so be it. I’ll be the first person to be banned for not hindering anyone else’s enjoyment of the game, and instead doing what I thought was right.

In a few short months, I helped NationStates progress from a state of complete apathy to being emailed by Max Barry and having the pleasure to witness a complete reversal of the general attitude towards alterations to the game code. Within a few months more, Belgium was liberated. I can’t wait to see what we’ll accomplish in the coming months as NationStates is expanded beyond a community that respects a game to a game that respects its community.

Yours,
Uni

I figured it should be posted somewhere here, so people don't get confused about my current affiliations.

[Ballotonia]

If the moderators wish to ban me for playing as I think the game should be played, and being the change that I want to see in this game, so be it. I’ll be the first person to be banned for not hindering anyone else’s enjoyment of the game, and instead doing what I thought was right.

People who violate game rules all have their own motivations. And you wouldn't be the first to get banned with a vision of oneself as fighting the powers in charge for 'what is right'. The bottomline however is that if you start doing things to get yourself banned, you'll be banned for the very same reason others get banned: violation(s) of the game rules. You'll be far from the first and probably won't be the last either.

Ballotonia

[Unibot]

If the moderators wish to ban me for playing as I think the game should be played, and being the change that I want to see in this game, so be it. I’ll be the first person to be banned for not hindering anyone else’s enjoyment of the game, and instead doing what I thought was right.

People who violate game rules all have their own motivations. And you wouldn't be the first to get banned with a vision of oneself as fighting the powers in charge for 'what is right'. The bottomline however is that if you start doing things to get yourself banned, you'll be banned for the very same reason others get banned: violation(s) of the game rules. You'll be far from the first and probably won't be the last either.

Ballotonia

Well, then, that's one more mistake that I'll be making to add to the Big List of Bad Mistakes made by Unibot ^TM. I accept that what I'm doing is a violation of the rules, but I won't accept that something is wrong because my authority says it is wrong, and if they ban me for violating a rule, I'll be able to accept that, because I know that I didn't sit back and do nothing, and accept the game as it is now.

Thanks, Ballo.

But I need to do something, this rule isn't.. right, it tells other communities that their language isn't worth submitting. Nevertheless, I don't want to further inhibit other's enjoyment of the game, so this is the poison I've chosen.. the spray-tanks won't be necessary to kill a single weed in the garden. When I first the joined the game, my region's delegacy was taken over by a internal troublemaker who was multiying to become delegate.. if I had know moderators banned that sort of thing, I would have contacted them, but instead I encouraged our region to multi back, and got myself and a friend banned from the WA. Then, I ran to the WA forum, all mad and pissy about having myself and my friend kicked from the WA, and that's when I started participating in the WA. Most of my NS career has been about making mistakes from doing what I thought was right, and its worked out fairly well for me, I made a lot of friends, had a lot of laughs and even had a couple of moments of extreme pride for what I have accomplished in two years or so. Eh, I can't think of a more appropriate way to end my career than going out with a righteous mistake.

Yours,
Uni

[Darkesia]

It seems silly and attention grabbing, frankly.

If you want to break the rules, do it. Don't make a ceremony of covering yourself in the shroud of martyrdom before you do anything. I still don't understand why you need to quit 3WB in order to do whatever it is you are planning to do. If you do something bad enough that they delete every member of 3WB for your actions, it would have an unprecedented but not unexpected effect on the game. Remember, some of us wacky radicals believe it's only cowardice and political correctness that keeps the powers that be from banning all gameplay outright.

I think you should put the club colors back on. They bring out the blue in your eyes.

[Unibot]

It seems silly and attention grabbing, frankly.

If you want to break the rules, do it. Don't make a ceremony of covering yourself in the shroud of martyrdom before you do anything. I still don't understand why you need to quit 3WB in order to do whatever it is you are planning to do. If you do something bad enough that they delete every member of 3WB for your actions, it would have an unprecedented but not unexpected effect on the game. Remember, some of us wacky radicals believe it's only cowardice and political correctness that keeps the powers that be from banning all gameplay outright.

I think you should put the club colors back on. They bring out the blue in your eyes.

Thanks Darkesia, *bats his chocolate hazel eyes at Dark* but obviously you didn't witness my 'shroud of martyrdom' when I participated in it earlier. It's just a quiet protest, I submit a resolution, I tell the mods its there, they delete the proposal and slap my wrist until I do it too much, and I'm banned, and then there's no discussion on it at all, because what happened, happened and Uni would have wanted for it to end like this... and if I make quorum, I cheer, and then watch the resolution get deleted. That's what Rule IV has downgraded good authors to doing, for me. Because if we want to see good resolutions get submitted to acknowledge good nominees who have contributed a lot to this game, becoming a quiet outlaw is what we'll have to do.

[Darkesia]

Explain again why you can't do that while being part of 3WB?

[Unibot]

Explain again why you can't do that while being part of 3WB?

Back in 06' '04, before I was around. The repeal function was established for players to use in the United Nations, and dozens of players revolted and declared that it undermined how they had come to accept the game. Some players still to this day, bless their hearts, support a WA that doesn't have a repeal function. Those revolutionaries created what was called the United Nations Old Guard (UNOG). You probably already know this. If UNOG had been a voting instrument like the 3WB, I don't know if it would have had the power to shut down the UN, but if it had.. I might not have been able to enjoy the game when I joined the WA community in Nov. 2008. I don't mind repeals, I don't think they should be necessary, but I don't mind them... and to be honest with you, the whole concept of a group that was against repeals seems silly now, after years of social change. Its only now, when I've been faced with a change in the game that is forcing me to make a philosophical compromise, that I've understood their complaints, I think. But if the UNOG had reacted like I have now, with the 3WB, things wouldn't have worked out like they have in the GA.. .

I won't accept Rule IV because its ruining how some play the game, me included, and I reject the principles of the rule. But I'm not going to ruin some other player's enjoyment of the game because of my complaints -- at least, not anymore. My quiet disobedience will be enough to make sure I sleep at night.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Back in 06', before I was around. The repeal function was established for players to use in the United Nations

Try '04 -- way back before any of the UNOG-ers you now know and love even played the game!

[Unibot]

Back in 06', before I was around. The repeal function was established for players to use in the United Nations

Try '04 -- way back before any of the UNOG-ers you now know and love even played the game!

Wow, slap me for talking about something I don't know about, apparently. I think I got the dates mixed up with the implementation of influence. Its been a while since I did my research for that NS generations paper.

[The Palentine]

Some players still to this day, bless their hearts, support a WA that doesn't have a repeal function. Those revolutionaries created what was called the United Nations Old Guard (UNOG). You probably already know this.

Hmmmm. I find it a nice social place to plot neferious schemes of world domination.

[Darkesia]

Explain again why you can't do that while being part of 3WB?

Back in 06' '04, before I was around. The repeal function was established for players to use in the United Nations, and dozens of players revolted and declared that it undermined how they had come to accept the game. Some players still to this day, bless their hearts, support a WA that doesn't have a repeal function. Those revolutionaries created what was called the United Nations Old Guard (UNOG). You probably already know this. If UNOG had been a voting instrument like the 3WB, I don't know if it would have had the power to shut down the UN, but if it had.. I might not have been able to enjoy the game when I joined the WA community in Nov. 2008. I don't mind repeals, I don't think they should be necessary, but I don't mind them... and to be honest with you, the whole concept of a group that was against repeals seems silly now, after years of social change. Its only now, when I've been faced with a change in the game that is forcing me to make a philosophical compromise, that I've understood their complaints, I think. But if the UNOG had reacted like I have now, with the 3WB, things wouldn't have worked out like they have in the GA.. .

I won't accept Rule IV because its ruining how some play the game, me included, and I reject the principles of the rule. But I'm not going to ruin some other player's enjoyment of the game because of my complaints -- at least, not anymore. My quiet disobedience will be enough to make sure I sleep at night.

You're quitting because you are afraid it will be successful.

[Manticore Reborn]

I won't accept Rule IV because its ruining how some play the game, me included, and I reject the principles of the rule. But I'm not going to ruin some other player's enjoyment of the game because of my complaints -- at least, not anymore. My quiet disobedience will be enough to make sure I sleep at night.

Can you please explain how Rule IV ruins the game? I really don't understand and what I've read so far does explain it clearly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You're quitting because you are afraid it will be successful.

Depends on how you define 'success'. Unibot is quitting because he apparently wants no part in the hypocritical mission of the 3WB: destroy the game for others on the platform that the game shouldn't be destroyed for others.