Condemn Rule 4

[Unibot]

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.

It might not even ruin the game for you, bud. It just does for me.

I see it as this, the Security Council was this thread between all of the communities of NS, every week we'd have a new condemnation or commendation, a nominee, and new language or dimension we'd have to adopt to converse about the resolution. Sometimes we'd communicate as diplomats, sometimes as players, if I had gotten "Commend New South Hell" submitted before Rule IV, we would even had to have talked as nations that are players... that one is my personal favorite for creativity's sake. Rule IV says, one style should be used to submit a resolution, we've picked one and said, that is the legitimate language of this institution, which I think undermines what this whole institution was about and where it was heading... a place that could be shared by all, so long as its participants are willing to expand their minds for different nominees... because respecting one another's contributions is something we can do universally across the communities of NationStates regardless of if you're a gameplayer or a roleplayer or a talking dildo.

[Urgench]

EDIT- N.M.

[Unibot]

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

Successful? No. The satisfaction of seeing Rule IV abolished would be immense to me, and I retain hope that it is possible, what distresses me is to what end would we go to see Rule IV abolished? Who will suffer for us to benefit?

[Maul-5]

I still don't see any good Rule IV compliant resolutions. When they start then I'll start voting on them by their merits (or lack of such) but right now there are three proposals, none of which are any good in the humble opinion of this ambassador.

- Jimmy Maullet.

[Enn]

Unibot, if you're going to make blanket statements about UNOG's founding, could you try talking directly to those of us who founded it first? It was never created to dream of a repeal-free NSUN. It was created simply as a way of keeping in touch with people we'd been playing with, and weren't sure whether we'd continue to play with.

[Topid]

Remember this thread was only allowed to be if it was used to discuss the specifics of the proposal. We have a thread to discuss Rule IV, and this isn't it. I'd hate to see Sedge's topic locked because discussion goes off topic.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why? Sedge's proposal has already been ruled illegal anyway.

[Topid]

Why? Sedge's proposal has already been ruled illegal anyway.

That doesn't mean ignore the mods wishes and make this thread into whatever we want. They said they didn't want Rule IV discussed here... So it shouldn't be IMO. And I do believe there are still proposal ideas floating pages back.

[Unibot]

Unibot, if you're going to make blanket statements about UNOG's founding, could you try talking directly to those of us who founded it first? It was never created to dream of a repeal-free NSUN. It was created simply as a way of keeping in touch with people we'd been playing with, and weren't sure whether we'd continue to play with.

Sure.. but you were the one who first made the comparison.

[Ardchoille]

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? (EDIT: my emphasis)

A proposal about a "concept" nation/region is an attempt to blur the lines, but the badge has to go on a nation/region. Using the tags is a technical sleight-of-hand to make it Rule 4 compliant.

However, it would depend on the concept and on the way the proposal was written.

The tags weren't necessary, for example, in a recent proposal condemning a nation called "Evil", because the content of the proposal made it clear that the concept "evil" was not the subject of the condemnation; it was clearly aimed at a nation.

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.

It made sense only as a concept. If you interpret it as referring to a nation/region, it didn't make (much) sense.

That said, in SC proposals I generally ignore effect-neutral clauses if the rest of the text is getting somewhere. So with reference to this proposal, it was more "possible cause" than "probable cause".
A proposal that totally didn't make sense would get deleted because it ... didn't make sense. I don't think we need a rule for that.

... 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'. ...

You've said you didn't want this legality-query thread to be a debate thread, but an At Vote proposal gets a debate thread. It doesn't have to be started by the proposal author. You can't tell other nations that they have to vote on a topic without talking about it and hearing others' views on it. The At Vote debate thread on it would have been trollbait -- assuming that it would get to vote, which is the assumption made when considering every proposal.

[

'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).

We don't need to make it Rule 5. It's illegal under Rule 4. Making proposals about moderator rulings is making proposals about the game as a game. See also Rule 2.

---

In leaving this thread open earlier so that Sedgistan could reply, I said this:

Generally, folks, take note that this thread is not a vehicle for rants, grandstanding, deliberate misinterpretations, essays on How I Would Run the SC or declarations that equate to "Roleplayers are poopy-heads!" and "Gameplayers got cooties!". It exists to discuss questions about the legality interpretation. Please stick to the topic, start a new thread or go sit on the Naughty Chair, as appropriate.

Since Sedgistan has now replied, and the above request was disregarded, I'm locking the thread. If anyone (particularly Sedge) has any further legality queries about this proposal only, TG me. If it seems like a fairly widespread query I'll post it and the reply here.

If you want to develop a proposal idea, please make a new thread for it.