Topid's sampler

[Urgench]

Ok, I have no idea how they handle that in roleplay, but that IS how the game works. Themewise they're then moved elsewhere by black helicopters. Again, I don't know how RPers handle that, but I know GPers just ignore that wording entirely.

Like I said, I'm not a definitive authority on the customs of roleplaying, so what I say should be taken with a grain of salt. 'Roleplaying' is just viewing the game as if nations were real nations -- they acted like real nations, interacted like real nations, and, specific to this strain of discussion, had real-world-esque geography. In most roleplays, it wouldn't make sense for a region to be a 'feeder'. The term implies that the region is a place where new nations are placed before moving out -- but it's kind of impossible for a nation to pick itself up and move to another region in the world.

I'm not sure how II or NS handle nations moving from one region in the game to another; I'm assuming they just ignore that. We can ignore it too, just to make things easier, by using the alternative phrases Ardchoille has suggested.

I think it depends on the region and the nation/RPer in question, Urgench isn't "physically" in the Pleiades because Urgench couldn't "physically" be in any NS region because it's set on an alternative Earth so I tend to view regions as being like RL alliances similar to NATO in that one needn't actually be on the North Atlantic to be a member. I have other nations which are "physically" a part of the region they're in though.

[Ardchoille]

Possible for "feeder" -- "transit region". Doesn't mean that there can't be permanent members, but there are nations popping in and out.
"Hub region" -- the idea of a transport hub, which it must be, with all those helicopters zooming to and fro.
"Transitional region" -- nation are making transitions, some into specialist regions, some into becoming active in Feeder politics.
"Open region", one of the five Open Regions, because they can't stop newcomers crossing their borders. (Not good if lower case, because easily mixed up with un-passworded, player-created regions. But caps could do it.)
Possibly "Borderless region" (same caveat).
The Rejected Realms might be "the refugee region"?
Most of the time the [ region] links are all you'd need. But it's worth thinking about in case there's something that involves the need to distinguish between the game-created and the player-created regions.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why not just "the Pacific regions," "the Rejected Realms," and "Lazarus"?

"Core regions" might be a good euphemism, if for some reason writers cannot accept "feeder" as passable simulation language.

[Unibot]

Possible for "feeder" -- "transit region". Doesn't mean that there can't be permanent members, but there are nations popping in and out.
"Hub region" -- the idea of a transport hub, which it must be, with all those helicopters zooming to and fro.
"Transitional region" -- nation are making transitions, some into specialist regions, some into becoming active in Feeder politics.
"Open region", one of the five Open Regions, because they can't stop newcomers crossing their borders. (Not good if lower case, because easily mixed up with un-passworded, player-created regions. But caps could do it.)
Possibly "Borderless region" (same caveat).
The Rejected Realms might be "the refugee region"?
Most of the time the [ region] links are all you'd need. But it's worth thinking about in case there's something that involves the need to distinguish between the game-created and the player-created regions.

Okay so here's the big question then, are you mandating nation simulation language or enforcing national roleplay language ? Because you've been claiming 'nation simulation language' and that these changes are just to bring us in line with the 'universal' language of the game, but the nation simulation language doesn't describe nations in even semi-realistic nation terms (i.e nations towed by helicopters...) .. which you seem to be aiming for.

[NERVUN]

Possible for "feeder" -- "transit region". Doesn't mean that there can't be permanent members, but there are nations popping in and out.
"Hub region" -- the idea of a transport hub, which it must be, with all those helicopters zooming to and fro.
"Transitional region" -- nation are making transitions, some into specialist regions, some into becoming active in Feeder politics.
"Open region", one of the five Open Regions, because they can't stop newcomers crossing their borders. (Not good if lower case, because easily mixed up with un-passworded, player-created regions. But caps could do it.)
Possibly "Borderless region" (same caveat).
The Rejected Realms might be "the refugee region"?
Most of the time the [ region] links are all you'd need. But it's worth thinking about in case there's something that involves the need to distinguish between the game-created and the player-created regions.

Okay so here's the big question then, are you mandating nation simulation language or enforcing national roleplay language ? Because you've been claiming 'nation simulation language' and that these changes are just to bring us in line with the 'universal' language of the game, but the nation simulation language doesn't describe nations in even semi-realistic nation terms (i.e nations towed by helicopters...) .. which you seem to be aiming for.

This is a satirical nation simulation game (Well, the coding is BEFORE we start on that argument for the 50 zillionth time!), so things are... not so realistic... I mean, I've got over 11 billion people.

And again, we're asking that the proposals sound nation'ish. We're going to be doing large amounds of fudging, which is fine, but at least we're asking for a nodding relationship with the idea of a nation sim for the proposal.

[Unibot]

Possible for "feeder" -- "transit region". Doesn't mean that there can't be permanent members, but there are nations popping in and out.
"Hub region" -- the idea of a transport hub, which it must be, with all those helicopters zooming to and fro.
"Transitional region" -- nation are making transitions, some into specialist regions, some into becoming active in Feeder politics.
"Open region", one of the five Open Regions, because they can't stop newcomers crossing their borders. (Not good if lower case, because easily mixed up with un-passworded, player-created regions. But caps could do it.)
Possibly "Borderless region" (same caveat).
The Rejected Realms might be "the refugee region"?
Most of the time the [ region] links are all you'd need. But it's worth thinking about in case there's something that involves the need to distinguish between the game-created and the player-created regions.

Okay so here's the big question then, are you mandating nation simulation language or enforcing national roleplay language ? Because you've been claiming 'nation simulation language' and that these changes are just to bring us in line with the 'universal' language of the game, but the nation simulation language doesn't describe nations in even semi-realistic nation terms (i.e nations towed by helicopters...) .. which you seem to be aiming for.

This is a satirical nation simulation game (Well, the coding is BEFORE we start on that argument for the 50 zillionth time!), so things are... not so realistic... I mean, I've got over 11 billion people.

And again, we're asking that the proposals sound nation'ish. We're going to be doing large amounds of fudging, which is fine, but at least we're asking for a nodding relationship with the idea of a nation sim for the proposal.

'Nation-ish'? I'll nod to the nation sim, but as a player commenting on another player's contributions to his sector of the game to improve the nation sim -- not as an entity that isn't even promoted by the language of the original game interface.

[Ballotonia]

Possible for "feeder" -- "transit region". Doesn't mean that there can't be permanent members, but there are nations popping in and out.
"Hub region" -- the idea of a transport hub, which it must be, with all those helicopters zooming to and fro.
"Transitional region" -- nation are making transitions, some into specialist regions, some into becoming active in Feeder politics.
"Open region", one of the five Open Regions, because they can't stop newcomers crossing their borders. (Not good if lower case, because easily mixed up with un-passworded, player-created regions. But caps could do it.)
Possibly "Borderless region" (same caveat).
The Rejected Realms might be "the refugee region"?
Most of the time the [ region] links are all you'd need. But it's worth thinking about in case there's something that involves the need to distinguish between the game-created and the player-created regions.

None of those suggestions is language typically being used. At least I never heard of it. So, instead of enforcing use of the language of the game, you're now inventing a new language for all of us to use? Why not just go ahead and rule all resolutions have to be in Latin or Esperanto...

Well, you've clearly made my point for me.

Ballotonia

[Mousebumples]

None of those suggestions is language typically being used. At least I never heard of it. So, instead of enforcing use of the language of the game, you're now inventing a new language for all of us to use?

Does this part not cover language that is currently being used?

Most of the time the [ region] links are all you'd need. But it's worth thinking about in case there's something that involves the need to distinguish between the game-created and the player-created regions.

So far as I can see, Ard is trying to offer alternatives for authors who would prefer to not continuously say "The (X) Pacific" or ... what have you. You're welcome to state the region(s) in question with the region links as she specified above. While I admit to not being a GPer, I would think that you guys would be okay with using the official NS names of regions, correct?

[Ardchoille]

None of those suggestions is language typically being used. At least I never heard of it. <snip>

No, they're not typically being used. The language typically being used is "feeder". "Feeder'' is a game term. It falls foul of R4 by talking about the game as if it were a game, while you're "within" the game. So yes, it is an attempt to invent a new language, one that blurs or fudges or reaches across the distinction.

Why not just go ahead and rule all resolutions have to be in Latin or Esperanto...<snip>

Because then I'd have to hunt out all my old textbooks, and it's years since I've had anything to do with either of those. {EDIT: Besides, it would give Nai an unfair advantage!]

It doesn't have to be decided now. We're all just offering suggestions, and the person who decides will be the person who writes the first proposal that needs a workaround for "feeder". Maybe it'll never happen, and everyone will just work with the tags and a bit of language duality.

[Ballotonia]

It doesn't have to be decided now. We're all just offering suggestions, and the person who decides will be the person who writes the first proposal that needs a workaround for "feeder". Maybe it'll never happen, and everyone will just work with the tags and a bit of language duality.

You're describing exactly why the 3WB exists...

Ballotonia

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

To raise a big fuss and accomplish nothing? No, I think Ard was describing something else entirely.

[Ardchoille]

This is not a 3WB thread and it's not going to become one. Click here for details of the limits. Further threadjacking on that topic will be removed from this thread and players who persist may expect an appropriate mod response.

[Ballotonia]

This is not a 3WB thread and it's not going to become one. Click here for details of the limits. Further threadjacking on that topic will be removed from this thread and players who persist may expect an appropriate mod response.

The rules governing what may or may not be posted in this thread are on page 24 of a different discussion thread ?!? Ok, if you say so...


Anyway, my main points are (firstly) that the edits done to the four resolutions in the first post aren't earth shattering. Ok, I prefer just using the term Feeder since that's the term we all use anyway, and I've never heard a good alternative which is descriptive enough such that everyone would intuitively know that 'Feeder' is meant. But one word is a detail, and certainly not a major stumbling block.

More important is (secondly) getting a good understanding of the consequences of the new rule. By stating the consequences of Rule IV aren't going to be decided now but worked out over time as people write resolutions, the clarity which is asked for isn't being provided. It reinforces the notion that the creation of Rule IV is a sweeping rulechange with far-reaching yet-unknown effects, and that building on this is only going to make matters worse over time. And let's face it, in current game conditions there won't be many new resolutions written anyway. With players waiting for clarity to pass resolutions and mods waiting for resolutions to provide clarity... sounds like a total deadlock to me.

Thirdly... I'm not clear anymore on what this thread is for. Four prior resolutions were rewritten as requested, and that's all OK. If you cannot provide further clarification anyway, are we now done here?

Ballotonia

[Travancore-Cochin]

No, they're not typically being used. The language typically being used is "feeder". "Feeder'' is a game term. It falls foul of R4 by talking about the game as if it were a game, while you're "within" the game. So yes, it is an attempt to invent a new language, one that blurs or fudges or reaches across the distinction.

By that reasoning, "founders", "founderless", "password", "ejecting and banning" etc. and even "region" will fall foul of Rule 4, because they're all "game terms".

But I can hear what you'll be saying already; that they're all terms that can be used ambiguously and all. But why can't "Feeder" be used with dual meaning? After all, it's not a term exclusive to NationStates. A feeder is something which feeds something else. Feeder roads "feed" traffic to other (mostly larger) roads. A tributary of a river is often called its feeder. By that logic, why can't we use "feeder" within proposals with a meaning such as, "a region that feeds nations to other regions"?

[Bears Armed]

No, they're not typically being used. The language typically being used is "feeder". "Feeder'' is a game term. It falls foul of R4 by talking about the game as if it were a game, while you're "within" the game. So yes, it is an attempt to invent a new language, one that blurs or fudges or reaches across the distinction.

By that reasoning, "founders", "founderless", "password", "ejecting and banning" etc. and even "region" will fall foul of Rule 4, because they're all "game terms".

But I can hear what you'll be saying already; that they're all terms that can be used ambiguously and all. But why can't "Feeder" be used with dual meaning? After all, it's not a term exclusive to NationStates. A feeder is something which feeds something else. Feeder roads "feed" traffic to other (mostly larger) roads. A tributary of a river is often called its feeder. By that logic, why can't we use "feeder" within proposals with a meaning such as, "a region that feeds nations to other regions"?

Because that is a part of the game mechanics, rather than (in many cases) something that the governments of the actual nations concerned could recognise (IC) as having been the case, and therefore constitutes 'Meta-gaming'?

[Unibot]

No, they're not typically being used. The language typically being used is "feeder". "Feeder'' is a game term. It falls foul of R4 by talking about the game as if it were a game, while you're "within" the game. So yes, it is an attempt to invent a new language, one that blurs or fudges or reaches across the distinction.

By that reasoning, "founders", "founderless", "password", "ejecting and banning" etc. and even "region" will fall foul of Rule 4, because they're all "game terms".

But I can hear what you'll be saying already; that they're all terms that can be used ambiguously and all. But why can't "Feeder" be used with dual meaning? After all, it's not a term exclusive to NationStates. A feeder is something which feeds something else. Feeder roads "feed" traffic to other (mostly larger) roads. A tributary of a river is often called its feeder. By that logic, why can't we use "feeder" within proposals with a meaning such as, "a region that feeds nations to other regions"?

Because that is a part of the game mechanics, rather than (in many cases) something that the governments of the actual nations concerned could recognise (IC) as having been the case, and therefore constitutes 'Meta-gaming'?

Exactly, the Security Council is becoming the GA-lite because of Rule IV. *nods*

[Sedgistan]

Because that is a part of the game mechanics, rather than (in many cases) something that the governments of the actual nations concerned could recognise (IC) as having been the case, and therefore constitutes 'Meta-gaming'?

In that case, will it be illegal to say that a nation has moved around several regions?

[Bears Armed]

Because that is a part of the game mechanics, rather than (in many cases) something that the governments of the actual nations concerned could recognise (IC) as having been the case, and therefore constitutes 'Meta-gaming'?

In that case, will it be illegal to say that a nation has moved around several regions?

If the nation is actually "supposed" to be nomadic (and I've seen several that are/were...), then maybe not; otherwise, how about saying that it has "transferred its loyalties" between them? (EDIT: No, wait - That wouldn't cover the ones that retained their old loyalties while infiltrating other regions, would it? Damn! You've raised a tricky point...)

[Mousebumples]

Because that is a part of the game mechanics, rather than (in many cases) something that the governments of the actual nations concerned could recognise (IC) as having been the case, and therefore constitutes 'Meta-gaming'?

In that case, will it be illegal to say that a nation has moved around several regions?

Depending on the terminology, I wouldn't think so.

I can't see how stating that "[nation] has resided in multiple regions, including [region], [region], [region], and [region]" would be an issue.

However, I'm not sure if that's quite what you had in mind ... ?

[Travancore-Cochin]

Because that is a part of the game mechanics, rather than (in many cases) something that the governments of the actual nations concerned could recognise (IC) as having been the case, and therefore constitutes 'Meta-gaming'?

Ardchoille had offered a sample alternative for feeders here which was, "transit region"; so I fail to see the case where "feeder" in the sense "feeding nations to other regions" would classify as meta-gaming, or not be comprehensible IC.

[Yelda]

This is not a 3WB thread and it's not going to become one. Click here for details of the limits. Further threadjacking on that topic will be removed from this thread and players who persist may expect an appropriate mod response.

The rules governing what may or may not be posted in this thread are on page 24 of a different discussion thread ?!? Ok, if you say so...

The rules governing what may or may not be posted in this or any other thread are found here.

"Thread Hijacking: Appropriating a thread for a discussion totally unrelated to the original purpose of said thread. Hijacking can take the form of a single post or a long discussion. Such posts may be split or deleted, and the poster warned."

[Darkesia]

I am going to tell you a story. It's a true story from my RL. With all the slinking around and attempting to define "IC" and "OOC" while not actually defining them is... it's... Well, I can't put my finger on the expression. This is why I am going to tell a story. What's important in the story is that I feel exactly the same way now as I did then.


There is a cheezy movie, DragonHeart, which my daughter and I found ourselves watching one Saturday night. The movie is based on a premise of a human and a dragon sharing the same heart, so if you kill one, you kill the other. The movie is full of magic and fantasy.

Now, my daughter and I were watching a scene where a prince is mortally wounded and is taken to a dragon to save his life. The dragon agrees to help and opens up his own chest as well as opening up the chest of the prince. The dragon then removes half of his heart and places it in the prince, saving the life of the prince and linking himself with the child.

My daughter, who was about 12 at the time, was outraged. She was horrified that the film makers would ask us to believe that half of an enormous dragon's heart could fit inside a small human's chest.

True story.

True reaction.

It's all just so...

[Kandarin]

Why not just "the Pacific regions," "the Rejected Realms," and "Lazarus"?

"Core regions" might be a good euphemism, if for some reason writers cannot accept "feeder" as passable simulation language.

^ This didn't get enough attention the first time around. Everyone in GP who uses the term "feeders" uses (or at least recognizes) "the Pacifics" as a synonym. Some forum RPers might not understand it, but there isn't a credible case to be made that five regions with Pacific names and chock full of nations do not exist in the NS world. Likewise, "a collecting (refugee, etc.) region" is superfluous, for there are no other collecting regions. There is only the Rejected Realms, and everyone in Gameplay knows what it is and what it does. Again, some RPers may not be familiar with it, but they can't deny its existence any more than they can deny the existence of, say, Haven. Just saying "The Rejected Realms" (or "Lazarus", or "the Pacifics", or "the $DIRECTION Pacific"...) would surely be understandable by all.

[Astarial]

The language typically being used is "feeder". "Feeder'' is a game term. It falls foul of R4 by talking about the game as if it were a game, while you're "within" the game. So yes, it is an attempt to invent a new language, one that blurs or fudges or reaches across the distinction.

This is what I don't understand.

How does using the name for a certain class of region break the rule? In RL, I might talk about first-world countries, or third-world countries. I'm not living OOC, I'm just acknowledging that not all countries are equal in terms of economic income. It's not living OOC to acknowledge that a nation is land-locked, though that's due to the realities of plate tectonics (just like being a feeder region is due to the realities of game mechanics).

I really, really liked the description you had in the other thread - "SC IC". Things can be OOC elsewhere but in the SC, they're not. And it'd be nice if that's a consistent list - that things which could be used in a Liberation can also be used in C&Cs.

I imagine a Liberation resolution could reference a feeder region - not as the target, of course, but more like: "Noting the recent invasion of RegionName by RaiderGroup, Remembering the attempted takeover by said RaiderGroup of three feeders for the purpose of mass ejection, Concerned that they will do such a thing to RegionName, blah blah blah".

If SC-IC is going to be different based on whether your resolution is a Liberation or a C&C, what's the justification for that? And how can we determine in advance what will be okay in one but not in the other?

It's worth noting, too, "Feeder" is used in the One Stop Rules Shop as a definition for certain regions:

AdSpam: Spamming other people's regional messageboards (RMB) with adverts for your region. The only places where you are allowed to put advertisements are:
[...]
o Feeder regions, defined as The Pacific, The North Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, and The West Pacific.

They have an in-game definition... but we aren't allowed to use it?

[Kandarin]

Some food for thought when it comes to an IC rationale for "feeders": Real life is chock full of nicknames for places that are nonintuitive or obscure in origin, yet used widely. Over time, an assumed name can equal - or overshadow - the formal name of a place. Some such nicknames can achieve such prominence that media, governments and even international bodies will use them. Examples abound: The Beltway, The Twin Cities, The Big Apple, Big Ben, Il Duomo, etc. etc. One particularly relevant example that I found once was that a certain international body of nations that shall remain nameless regularly uses the term "the Holy Land" in its official communications. Many of the members of said body do not consider it to be a "holy land", nor necessarily even recognize the concept of "holy"...but still the term persists, because it is so popular with one vocal subset of membership. From a standpoint of trying to see the term through the lens of a fictional international body, "feeders" could easily be assumed to be one such nickname. That is what a large portion of the body's membership, for whatever reason, calls those places; the rest of it doesn't have to agree with the reason to allow the use of the term.