Topid's sampler

[Topid]

I laughed out loud as I read the first one. The others weren't quite as absurd.

I don't remember you being opposed to changing the words of Kandy's commendation a lot... It's very OOC...

The rule really doesn't change all that much, not after all the modifications.

Which is why I don't care anymore, I cared and was with 3WB pre-modifications.

It just forces us to re-word some things in awkward ways or be vague about what we mean when describing a player's OOC accomplishments.

Not even that really... Sedge's and Todd's were both standard Gameplay resolutions that weren't reworded much at all...

I realized that a while ago, after figuring out what Ard was trying to tell us and having a little chat with her in the cave. But 3WB had already been established by then due to the vagueness of the rule and the stringency of its terms during its early stages, and there's no stopping this runaway locomotive now.

I might as well keep riding. I can't say it isn't at least a little bit fun.

[Naivetry]

Don't have time to go through these all now, but a quick clarification on "eject" and "ban": depends on how they're used. "ejecting and banning the competition" sounds too much like a player in a game. OTOH, "forcibly eject unruly nations and ban them from returning to the region" sounds fine.

I'm not a fan of the way the original was phrased, but I want to make sure I understand the problem. Is it the word "competition" used in that context? What about "without means of ejecting and banning political competitors" (which is what I would have been more likely to say)?

Re the 222 points, etc: this would be utterly incomprehensible to a player coming on it cold -- some newbie who's just looking in for the first time. Not all players are FRA Rangers, or even know what one is or does. In a C&C, you need the essence of the thing; the detail comes later. What's apparently impressive about this is that only one other nation has "completed more missions" than Sedgistan. Okay, say that, and then give the back-up details in the debate thread.

Agreed in essence, I just want to make sure we're not talking about a Rule 4 "Imma gonna kick you out of the queue" violation there, but a problem of incomprehension on other grounds.

I keep going back and forth over the he/she, his/her issue. The problem is that, while most often the gender of a Gameplay political persona and the RL player behind the nation do coincide, they don't always. Part of taking on alternative identities in Gameplay may mean adopting a nation with a different gender... For a few months, I had a puppet nation named "Defero Emprie" who was a high school guy with spelling issues. Then there was "Stars of Sky" in TNP (not to mention Lots of Ants in TWP), a single nation run as a female political persona but controlled by several different players at any one time, not all of whom were female in RL. Gender is just another aspect of a nation's identity within Gameplay, and it need have nothing to do with the actual player. So the reasoning I came up with to let myself live with a ban on his/her doesn't really work...

[Ballotonia]

It just seems kind of pointless to me. If what has been passed has been so horrible as to require in-depth regulations on the very atom of speech used in a proposal, then clearly being able to make these SC proposals at all is borderline breaking some rule somewhere, even if you like in-character proposals. But I guess it doesn't matter--the means create the same ends. If I am correct, then in the advent the 3WB does stand down, this system will just stifle most new proposals (people won't make new ones, wondering if, in 30 proposals, everything they did will be struck down as 'no longer legal'), so then again, I need not say much more.

This brings me back to the old days, many many years ago, when I actively argued proposals. I still specifically remember Required Basic Healthcare and the RBH replacement, fun times. Back then I considered writing my own proposals, but ended up never doing it. The reason is simple: with the myriad of rules governing what is or is not legal, bumping ones head became far too dangerous, and punishment is quite harsh: banishment from the UN (now WA).

One thing I liked about the SC is that one didn't have to worry about that. Not that one would get away with spamming the queue, obviously, but at least normally writing a proposal once again became an option. Reading the edits done in the first post (the 'sampler') it is clear to me I should have rushed to the possibility when it was there. No way I'm going be able to correctly maneuver all the pitfalls in place now.

Ballotonia

[Darkesia]

Ah! I never even thought of that, Ballotonia. Since I have never had the time to invest in elaborate legislative RP, I have never even considered writing proposals. Thus, I never considered the harsh consequences for a gameplay player.

I did have one enthusiastic newbie come to me in my first few days of being delegate in TWP. He was in a panic and horrified that he had been thrown out of the WA for posting a proposal that broke the rules. He begged me to advocate for him. My inquiries to the mods got me nowhere. They told me the new player was SOL and had to create a new nation if he wanted to join the WA again. Within a few days the player vanished from play.

I'm not certain there is anything that can (or should) be done to ease that sort of culture shock when it comes to the extensive roleplay here on the forum. I'm just sort of surprised by my realization of how being involved, even marginally, with WA proposal writing can "take out" a GP player for good. I'm not sure what to even say about it right now. It's...

[Kandarin]

I'm concerned about the fact that the word "roleplay" has been put into the list of forbidden terms without an adequate replacement. The suggested replacements pose a problem, like so much else, for those of us who do both RP and GP things. If a C&C is written in a primarily OOC context (even with Rule-4 compliant wording) mention of the nominee's RP involvement penalizes players for being familiar with the details of the RP. To use the example at hand:

ACKNOWLEDGING The Former TEP Chairman of Todd McCloud’s experience as a major player Role Player in The East Pacific’s affairs, with notable role-play incidents including Shiro Academy and The Listonian Crisis,

Todd McCloud the nation (Vekaiyu, for any other TEPers here) isn't very commendable. It's a super-militarized state rife with leftover fascism, racism, poorly guarded WMDs, and a racial inferiority complex a mile long. Its most prominent leaders keep trying to kill each other. It's getting better, but it's not exactly a very nice place.

Todd McCloud the nation isn't responsible for the incident that is Shiro Academy. Shiro Academy is a multinational school for students in all nations of the East Pacific, hosted successively by 1 Infinite Loop and Free Pacific States. OOCly, Todd isn't responsible for the thread either - it'd been running for a novel's worth of posts before he came along. Now, Todd certainly did have a major impact on it when he did join, which I think is what the resolution author was getting at, but the way it's reworded makes it sound like he made Shiro Academy happen.

Todd McCloud the nation did make the Listonian Crisis happen, but it wasn't exactly Commendable. The Listonian Crisis was a bad thing. There were nukes and chemical weapons deployments and zombies and civil war and other unpleasantness. OOCly, it certainly did get the region involved in a fun RP, which again is what the author was getting at, but the nation of Todd McCloud didn't exactly come out smelling like a rose.

All of this probably doesn't mean a lot to the rest of you, since you don't RP with Todd, but it's a bit jarring that it gets harder to justify voting for someone's resolution when you are more familiar with them in RP. I get that the point of the rule is to have everything be at least attributable to a nation doing it, but it really does hurt the interaction of Gameplay and RP when we're required to choose between a Commend that sounds like the nominee's nation did Commendable things in RP when its IC conduct was anything but, or not mentioning their RP skill in the Commend.

[Travancore-Cochin]

I'd like to seek a clarification here. In Commend Sedgistan, the Rule 4 compliant example had the following clause changed:

Knowing there exist countless other regions Sedgistan has defended from the grips of raiders, in numbers recognized as amassing 222 points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger, the second highest of all time,

and the following explanation was given:

The "amassing 222 points so far in his 3 years as an FRA Ranger" is too clearly a reference to the player playing a game.

Further clarification on that clause was issued, and was as follows:

Re the 222 points, etc: this would be utterly incomprehensible to a player coming on it cold -- some newbie who's just looking in for the first time. Not all players are FRA Rangers, or even know what one is or does. In a C&C, you need the essence of the thing; the detail comes later. What's apparently impressive about this is that only one other nation has "completed more missions" than Sedgistan. Okay, say that, and then give the back-up details in the debate thread.

My question is, what is a "reference to the player playing [the] game?" Is it the 222 points or the FRA Rangers?

Additionally, by your own admission, Ardchoille, the examples you've given include not only changes made to satisfy Rule 4, but also stylistic ones. Since this thread will inevitably be used in the future as a reference book for legality as per Rule 4, could you separate the legality changes from the stylistic ones?

[Bears Armed]

This brings me back to the old days, many many years ago, when I actively argued proposals. I still specifically remember Required Basic Healthcare and the RBH replacement, fun times. Back then I considered writing my own proposals, but ended up never doing it. The reason is simple: with the myriad of rules governing what is or is not legal, bumping ones head became far too dangerous, and punishment is quite harsh: banishment from the UN (now WA).

You get at least three chances, not just the one, unless perhaps your proposal's illegality is for being "grossly offensive" by -- for example -- calling for the extermination of some group of people... and if you post two or more illegal proposals in a single batch then sometimes the Mods will only count that as a single offence.

And anyway, such warnings/ejections can generally be avoided by _
(1) Reading the rules about proposal-writing;
(2) Checking the current body of passed resolutions, to ensure that your proposal doesn't contradict or duplicate any of those;
& (3) Posting a draft in the forum for vetting by more experienced players, and listening to their advice, instead of just submitting it straight away.

Oh, and if banishment does occur then it's normally only for the nation rather than the player so that re-joining the organisation with a different nation (which shouldn't be any problem for a gameplayer, should it?) is perfectly legal. You would have to do a LOT wrong in order to get banned from the WA as a player, probably enough to be seriously at risk of getting thrown out of NS as a whole...

[Darkesia]

I beg to differ that it is not a major thing for a GP nation to be removed from the WA.

For example, should I attempt to write a proposal, I can pretty much guess how it would end up. That would leave TWP in quite a pickle.

And before you claim the three warnings thing, I can say with certainty that the new nation I failed to protect had no such second or third chance.

[Bears Armed]

I beg to differ that it is not a major thing for a GP nation to be removed from the WA.

For example, should I attempt to write a proposal, I can pretty much guess how it would end up. That would leave TWP in quite a pickle.

If it's the delegate of a feeder or other large nation, okay, yes there'd be a problem... but aren't most GP nations in positions of lesser geopolitical importance, and don't many gameplayers commonly switch their WA membership between nations for invasion or defending anyway?

And before you claim the three warnings thing, I can say with certainty that the new nation I failed to protect had no such second or third chance.

Three warnings is certainly the normal situation, and I say that based on five years of involvement with the NSUN/WA/GA during which I have seen some nations get away with even more silly &/or illegal proposals than that when some of their individual offences were considered relatively minor or "innocent". Can you provide any further details about the specific case to which you are referring here, such as a link either to a drafting thread or to a relevant post in the 'Silly and Illegal Proposals' thread, or -- at least -- the name of the nation and the title of its proposal?

[Naivetry]

I beg to differ that it is not a major thing for a GP nation to be removed from the WA.

For example, should I attempt to write a proposal, I can pretty much guess how it would end up. That would leave TWP in quite a pickle.

If it's the delegate of a feeder or other large nation, okay, yes there'd be a problem... but aren't most GP nations in positions of lesser geopolitical importance, and don't many gameplayers commonly switch their WA membership between nations for invasion or defending anyway?

Most are in less important positions, just because there are fewer important positions than players (kind of by definition - if everyone could have an important position, it wouldn't be very important ). Only active members of regional militaries (or spies/infiltrators) commonly switch WA nations; most people are happy to play the way everyone else does, and sit quietly in their region endorsing their delegate.

It's more of an issue now that Influence is supposed to protect regions. TNP and TWP in particular have a number of high endorsement, high-Influence nations who have been around for years, whom they rely on as giant roadblocks to regional change. If those got banned from joining the WA, it would be very alarming indeed, and would set all the backroom schemers planning and calculating to see if a takeover could be managed now that so-and-so was out of the way.

As for the question on the player... found the post. Wasn't paying attention to the incident beyond that.

[Bears Armed]

I beg to differ that it is not a major thing for a GP nation to be removed from the WA.

For example, should I attempt to write a proposal, I can pretty much guess how it would end up. That would leave TWP in quite a pickle.

If it's the delegate of a feeder or other large nation, okay, yes there'd be a problem... but aren't most GP nations in positions of lesser geopolitical importance, and don't many gameplayers commonly switch their WA membership between nations for invasion or defending anyway?

Most are in less important positions, just because there are fewer important positions than players (kind of by definition - if everyone could have an important position, it wouldn't be very important ). Only active members of regional militaries (or spies/infiltrators) commonly switch WA nations; most people are happy to play the way everyone else does, and sit quietly in their region endorsing their delegate.

It's more of an issue now that Influence is supposed to protect regions. TNP and TWP in particular have a number of high endorsement, high-Influence nations who have been around for years, whom they rely on as giant roadblocks to regional change. If those got banned from joining the WA, it would be very alarming indeed, and would set all the backroom schemers planning and calculating to see if a takeover could be managed now that so-and-so was out of the way.

Okay, fair point for the region-based gameplayers, i was thinking more of the free-roving invader type who seem more conspicuous. Any idea what the ratio between them is?

As for the question on the player... found the post. Wasn't paying attention to the incident beyond that.

*(does some research)*
Okay, from what I can see in that case -- which, so far, doesn't include the actual text of their proposal -- it was a case of massive plagiarism from RL law and the Mods apparently took that more seriously than they would most other types of offence. Nevertheless, on the basis of my aforementioned experience within the NSUN & then the WA, I can assure you that such 'insta-ejections' are extremely rare occurences...

EDIT: found that proposal... and immediately following that post is one about another illegal proposal from that same nation, too, so it seems that they got at least two chances -- rather than just one -- after all and didn't tell you about the other one or two proposals involved...

[Kandarin]

Okay, fair point for the region-based gameplayers, i was thinking more of the free-roving invader type who seem more conspicuous. Any idea what the ratio between them is?

No idea about numbers, but it's a big margin. I'd say 3:1 at the very least. When people say 'Gameplay' (at least, the people who say it on this forum) they generally mean 'region-based gameplay' with regional warfare as a sort of corollary to that that needs to be present at some level but is rarely invoked in the case of major regions. Invaders and defenders merely get more press because they're the ones getting into other people's business; the overwhelming majority of regional gameplay really are staying out of your hair.

[Ardchoille]

Whew, when do you guys sleep? Okay, working my way through:

Gendered pronouns.

Vagueness in proposals: There are several schools of thought on this. One favours vague, even weasel-word, proposals because the WA is full of diplomats and politicians should never tie diplomats down, but let them run wild and free. Plausible deniability, etc. A second demands total detail in a proposal because this is your only chance to convince the Delegates to approve it. A third (me) thinks it's better to get the broad outline into the prop -- the principles of why you're writing the C&C -- and then hit the minutiae in your first post. But it's entirely up to the proposal writer. When it comes to what the prop says, Rule 4 or any other rule is not half as important as the writer knowing exactly what they're setting out to do. And, on that note ...

@ Travancore-Cochin: "222 points" was the problem. "@@nation@@ earned 222 points" might get by in a Sports C&C, but otherwise, nix. That's the legality angle. The style point is this: the fiddly details hide the reason for the commendation. It's not the question of how many points or what organisation he was in: a newbie doesn't even have any direct way of knowing whether 222 points is a good effort or a feeble one. The big deal is that only one other nation has ever completed more missions than he's managed to do. So that's your "headline". The details go in the body -- in the first post, where you can explain all about the significance of the FRA Rangers and the fact that it took him (just?)three years to get 222 points.

@ Darkesia: I remember the plagiarism episode. If I had my way plagiarism would be an insta-DEAT offence. It's despicable. As Bears Armed has pointed out, that player had his other chances.

On SC props, generally, expulsion from the WA is pretty unlikely. It's a function of how many fairly idiotic mistakes you make (minor ones may not even be recorded). Unless a player's going to be an SC regular, he makes his C&C and then skedaddles, so he's not going to rack up enough illegals to get the boot. The regulars, OTOH, with only four rules to contend with, are going to stick around long enough to learn to avoid making the sort of stupid mistakes that get recorded. A delegate who was particularly worried could just make a disposable WA puppet long enough to submit a prop, then switch back his WA membership to his main. Anyone unsure of their proposal writing skills should post a draft on the forum for other players to review.

@ Kandarin: it's up to you to find the replacement. Not by saying "@@nation@@ is a player of roles", but by being specific. To use your example, Shiro Academy was a big deal for Todd's RP, right? Not knowing Todd's RP, I translated it as an "incident". But you, knowing what you're talking about, could and should describe it with more precision. "TMcC took a major part in ... " what? Blowing up Shiro Academy? Its reopening as a trade training school? Its subjection to the Inquisition? You have to show the uninformed masses (me, again, and anyone who later reads the prop) something that will jump off the screen and grab for Todd the votes needed for the Commendation. If what he did in the Academy was bad, you could always go for the Raiders' Excuse to put a positive spin on it: "Todd McC re-energised/revitalised/woke up/renewed interest in/focussed TEP's attention on Shiro Academy ..." (as the hostage crisis developed? what did he do? I'm getting curious.)

@ Nai: Yes, it was "the competition". "What about 'without means of ejecting and banning political competitors' (which is what I would have been more likely to say)?" No probs.

Wouldn't the term Founderless Region be a game term? I have never heard it used outside the game. It seems we are starting to have a double standard on what is and is not a "In Game" term.

Check out Mount Rushmore: founders of a nation. Check out Nelson Mandela: New founder. Check out the Australian flag, which show the nation was "founded by" Britain. I'm not happy with "Founderless Region", but I did say anything game-generated on the nation page was okay, and "Founder" is shown there. If you can have founders then other nations can also be founder-less (Scotland or England, for example; their founders, if any, lost in the mists of history). Dropping the caps would be an improvement, less "gamey".

I'm not going to go through every game-related term and suggest alternatives (yes, I know, you didn't ask me to). Players should develop the conventions (Nerv's been calling it a new language). What about "Feeders"? It would be fair to call them "the birthplace of many nations" -- that's a term that's been slung at the Houses of Parliament at Westminster because so many nations use the Westminster system of government. Might be a bit florid for some tastes. Play around with "developing"? The most populous regions ... Delegate of three of the world's most populous regions? Mega-regions? Whatever.

Anyway, with the [ nation] and {region} tags, it doesn't matter whether you see the electronic entity on the nation page as a nation, a citizen, a soldier or an eggplant. Provided you choose words with dual relevance, you should be sweet.

[Minineenee]

Ardchoille, sleep? Cat-naps and coffee. I know a few are making it by on that, and it's how I played NS for years (except for mine included wine. Wine, naps, coffee, the rest of RL)

I actually got sidetracked by the sleep thing, so I'll have to reread to see if I have more substantial comments. >_>

[Naivetry]

Whew, when do you guys sleep?

Briefly and seldom
For which I blame NationStates -
Such constant drama!

@ Travancore-Cochin: "222 points" was the problem. "@@nation@@ earned 222 points" might get by in a Sports C&C, but otherwise, nix. That's the legality angle. The style point is this: the fiddly details hide the reason for the commendation. It's not the question of how many points or what organisation he was in: a newbie doesn't even have any direct way of knowing whether 222 points is a good effort or a feeble one. The big deal is that only one other nation has ever completed more missions than he's managed to do. So that's your "headline". The details go in the body -- in the first post, where you can explain all about the significance of the FRA Rangers and the fact that it took him (just?)three years to get 222 points.

Juuust to be sure I've got this: "222 points" = Rule 4 violation, or just something that should be changed because (point taken) it's incomprehensible?

I'm not going to go through every game-related term and suggest alternatives (yes, I know, you didn't ask me to). Players should develop the conventions (Nerv's been calling it a new language). What about "Feeders"? It would be fair to call them "the birthplace of many nations" -- that's a term that's been slung at the Houses of Parliament at Westminster because so many nations use the Westminster system of government. Might be a bit florid for some tastes. Play around with "developing"? The most populous regions ... Delegate of three of the world's most populous regions? Mega-regions? Whatever.

*wrinkles nose* "Feeders" is just so beautifully concise. The birthplace idea is what's important, because that's what lends them their attraction - but yes, unfortunately florid. None of those other things would be at all clear to someone reading in Gameplay. They're not usually developing (that's one of our perennial complaints ). Most populous is true for Laz and the Pacifics, but if TRR hasn't been overtaken yet, it's still well within reach of some of the larger UCRs (when TRR isn't benefiting from tyrannical mass ejections). In addition, "most populous" has no defined boundaries to keep delegates of large UCRs from claiming the title for themselves, even though everyone in Gameplay would agree that becoming a "feeder delegate" is a qualitatively different accomplishment. "Delegate of several of the Pacifics" would be the only phrase I can think of with parallels in Gameplay parlance.

I don't suppose this is something we could get around with definitions, a la the definitions of "griefing" or "native" in Liberation proposals?

[NERVUN]

I don't suppose this is something we could get around with definitions, a la the definitions of "griefing" or "native" in Liberation proposals?

I think it is something that can be, and in fact I would highly suggest that while we work on getting the nuts and bolts down, we should try for a kind of SC glossary under the idea that since everyone from all walks of NS is supposed to use this bloody thing, we should know what we're talking about.

If no one else wants to try, I could toss something together. After all, I has experience.

[Ballotonia]

What's wrong with just using the term 'Feeder' ?

It's also used in the OneStoprulesShop thread: viewtopic.php?p=78#p78 (emphasis added in quote below)

o Feeder regions, defined as The Pacific, The North Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, and The West Pacific. Note that it is not legal to advertise in copycat regions like "West Pacific",

...

Note that the Pacifics, Lazarus, and the Rejected Realms do not receive special treatment here. WA approval requests have even less relevance in the feeder regions than they do in player-created regions, and are thus forbidden.

But, admittedly, I was kinda suprised to notice now that the term 'feeder' isn't being used in the FAQ. Its use is so ubiquitous I regard it a normal widely understood term. RPd WA Delegates should also be able to grasp the meaning of the term, IMHO.

Ballotonia

[Glen-Rhodes]

RPd WA Delegates should also be able to grasp the meaning of the term, IMHO.

I'm no encyclopedia of all roleplays ever, but I doubt, in the roleplaying world, nations are moved into one of five 'regions' upon their 'creation'.

[Ballotonia]

RPd WA Delegates should also be able to grasp the meaning of the term, IMHO.

I'm no encyclopedia of all roleplays ever, but I doubt, in the roleplaying world, nations are moved into one of five 'regions' upon their 'creation'.

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.

Ballotonia

[Topid]

RPd WA Delegates should also be able to grasp the meaning of the term, IMHO.

I'm no encyclopedia of all roleplays ever, but I doubt, in the roleplaying world, nations are moved into one of five 'regions' upon their 'creation'.

No but I fail to see why the Feeders should be undefinable in RP terms because it could be viewed as a group of regions, like a continent or something. No one says the word feeders has to mean the same thing for them as it does for us, but because that term always refers to TEP, TWP, TSP, TNP, and TP they could define it as a continent or something containing those 5 regions.

-shrugs-

It doesn't seem like a huge concession for the RP world to make all things considered.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

[Ballotonia]

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.

Ok, I'm just hoping everyone understands that if this reasoning holds up, the discussion isn't about adjusting C&C language to what the actual theme of the game is, but adjusting C&C language to accomodate Roleplayers to the theme THEY are accustomed to (even though they're making it all up for themselves, and it exists just to suit their own style of play).

Ballotonia

[Round Tire]

I see nothing wrong with the term "Feeder". Maybe it refers to an old myth about nations being created (or fed? ) into there. I see them as 5 very large regions that are mostly unexplored, which is why nations keep being discovered there. As for moving regions, well, I haven't figured that one out, but I refuse to believe that helicopters can move an entire nation of up to 17 billion (!) people.

[Mousebumples]

Juuust to be sure I've got this: "222 points" = Rule 4 violation, or just something that should be changed because (point taken) it's incomprehensible?

Absolutely not a mod (obviously), but I find 222 points to be utterly incomprehensible, as stated. I believe it could be changed to avoid the Rule 4 violation.

Again, my understanding is not that you can't say/refer to what you usually do, but some of the wording needs to be changed/adapted to be made understandable to delegates/members from differing "NS walks of life." I thought that Ard (or Nervun?) gave examples of alternatives elsewhere, so I don't believe that a more understandable reference to how those 222 points were accumulated would be rules a violation.

Re: "feeders" being legal/illegal terminology
I may be missing a past C&C that was passed due to a faulty memory, but I'm wondering the term "feeder" is necessary. Most active nations are familiar enough with the feeder nations (and/or TRR/Lazarus) that I would figure it would be simple enough to replace with something along the lines of "large region of nations that inhabit the North Pacific" (perhaps with a region link?) Further details could be included regarding a given delegate's encouragement of new nations (if applicable) with something like: "Successful mentor of newly elected leaders" or "Willing to assist with the establishment and regional integration of newly formed nations."

If I'm missing other circumstances in which the term "feeder" would need to be used, give a shout. I don't have much experience within those regions myself as I've been in the same player-created region since shortly after my founding 7+ years ago.

Again, as I stated before - I'm totally not a mod, but I'm sure someone will correct me if any of the wording examples I've given would be a R4 violation. However, if this sort of brainstorming is helpful, I'm happy to share concepts/ideas that I think may be acceptable alternatives to commonly used terms that may not be as clear as would be preferred by the mods.

[Unibot]

Juuust to be sure I've got this: "222 points" = Rule 4 violation, or just something that should be changed because (point taken) it's incomprehensible?

Absolutely not a mod (obviously), but I find 222 points to be utterly incomprehensible, as stated. I believe it could be changed to avoid the Rule 4 violation.

That would be because Sedge gain those points as a soldier not a nation.

Again, my understanding is not that you can't say/refer to what you usually do, but some of the wording needs to be changed/adapted to be made understandable to delegates/members from differing "NS walks of life."

This could have been done by suggesting in the draft thread that the FRA point system needed to be clearly explained. Rule IV once again proves unnecessary...

I may be missing a past C&C that was passed due to a faulty memory, but I'm wondering the term "feeder" is necessary. Most active nations are familiar enough with the feeder nations (and/or TRR/Lazarus) that I would figure it would be simple enough to replace with something along the lines of "large region of nations that inhabit the North Pacific" (perhaps with a region link?) Further details could be included regarding a given delegate's encouragement of new nations (if applicable) with something like: "Successful mentor of newly elected leaders" or "Willing to assist with the establishment and regional integration of newly formed nations."

If I'm missing other circumstances in which the term "feeder" would need to be used, give a shout. I don't have much experience within those regions myself as I've been in the same player-created region since shortly after my founding 7+ years ago.

Well if the boys from AO are correct, in their thread on the SC regional forum, Rule IV is mandating that we all write in nation simulation language, not necessary roleplay language.. and in the nation simulation, nations spring into existence and can be moved by helicopter. So the existence of a 'feeder' makes sense in said nation simulation.

Probably not what the mods had in mind though.