by Sedgistan » Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:47 pm
by Ballotonia » Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:18 pm
by Unibot » Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:09 pm
Ballotonia wrote:1. I'm not sure whether the focus on liberations for defender-purposes is appropriate in a mod-created Guide. Liberations may be used by invaders as well. While in the current game situation defenders will typically block those, that limitation is created by users, not by the game, its design, or by the mods describing which liberation proposals are to be deemed "appropriate".
2. On the password you write: "They do not affect founder-imposed passwords". My understanding from a post by [violet] is that the current implementation allows anyone to enter a Liberated region regardless of there being a password or not, and regardless of who imposed that password. Could you please doublecheck that passwords remember who imposed them?
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Sedgistan » Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:14 pm
Ballotonia wrote:1. I'm not sure whether the focus on liberations for defender-purposes is appropriate in a mod-created Guide. Liberations may be used by invaders as well. While in the current game situation defenders will typically block those, that limitation is created by users, not by the game, its design, or by the mods describing which liberation proposals are to be deemed "appropriate".
2. On the password you write: "They do not affect founder-imposed passwords". My understanding from a post by [violet] is that the current implementation allows anyone to enter a Liberated region regardless of there being a password or not, and regardless of who imposed that password. Could you please doublecheck that passwords remember who imposed them?
by Sedgistan » Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:22 pm
Todd McCloud wrote:We even have two people writing a guide as to how this should be run, which has just now been unlocked so the others may comment.
In my personal opinion, this body should require no guide. Rules should be outlined, of course, but as for one or two people explaining to the entire body what is "good" and what is "bad", that's not what should happen. That's never what this body was about. In my opinion, "guides", if they are to be introduced, should be loose and still have room for what the SC did best: allow people to pick the proposals apart, debate over them, and create a good proposal together, not just by following a rubric written by a few people.
by Ballotonia » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:38 am
Sedgistan wrote:As Uni has pointed out, this is a player-written guide, and not to be considered modly advice on what is or isn't "appropriate". Uni would've posted it himself, but recommended that I did.
by Unibot » Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:31 am
OSRS wrote:Mods are players too: Mods are players too: Moderators have political, religious, and social opinions, and they are welcome to express them on the forums. In most cases, mods will add a "Moderation Team" signature block when posting in their official capacity, and all mod posts in Moderation and Technical are considered official unless specified otherwise. Otherwise, Mods are free to roleplay, argue, or otherwise post in any forum just as any other player may.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Todd McCloud » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:33 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Commending and Condemning
Why we commend or condemn
Before writing a Commend or Condemn resolution, you have to decide why you're doing it. There are a couple of common arguments which are used to justify these resolutions:
- Those who act on the Security Council’s principles should be recognized for doing what the Security Council cannot. In the same way, those who act against the Security Council's principles should be recognized for disrupting the work of the body. These justifications are common for raiders and defenders, whose military actions relate to Liberation resolutions, and also to those directly involved in the Security Council.
- The nominee’s actions need to be immortalized for future generations to learn from.
A couple of arguments you should be aware of are:
- If a condemnation nominee wants a condemnation, they should not be condemned.
- If a commendation nominee doesn't want a commendation, they should not be commended.
The first one, while still repeated occasionally, has fallen out of fashion. A strong counter-argument to it is this:Balawaristan wrote:It is clear that condemnation, like punishment, is not intended to produce some desired response. We may take the analogy of a violent criminal. Should we not condemn his actions, and even put him in prison, on the off chance that he wants to go to jail anyway, likes the attention of a trial, and we are only boosting his ego and popularity? This is absurdity.
The second argument is harder to refute - however, if the nominee is being commended to 'immortalize their actions for future generations to learn from', then it could be argued that the Commendation is for the benefit of the NationStates community, rather than the nominee. However, without their support, it will be extremely hard to pass a Commendation.
How to write a commendation or condemnation
This section is written for commendations to avoid constant repetition, but the process is designed to work for condemnations as well. To illustrate this guide, an example proposal is used - Commend Unibot (because there's no other way you're going to see that proposal ). For this proposal, the justification will be "Those who act on the Security Council’s principles should be recognized for doing what the Security Council cannot."
Once you've chosen to commend a nation or region, you should (as discussed above) decide on the fundamental reason (or in some occasions, reasons) for commending that nation. You should then come up with a list of the positive actions your nominee has done which can be used to justify that reason. Essentially, these will be the things about that nation/region which are 'good' or 'admirable'. You should aim to research as much as possible about your target - even if you're only commending them for a narrow range of ther actions, it helps to learn their complete history within NationStates. The best way of doing this is to ask the nominee themselves for information. Don't expect them to write the proposal for you, but presuming they want to be commended, they should be willing to provide you with information. The NS forums, regional offsite forums, friends of the target nation/region and NSWiki are all useful resources when researching a nation/region.
Example wrote:
- Unibot has written several WA resolutions
- Unibot has written a guide to the Security Council
- Unibot helped to design the Security Council building
- Unibot is a defender
Once you've compiled a list of what you like about your target, you need to sift through these reasons so that you only keep the strongest ones. There is a character limit on proposals, and massive walls of text are unpopular. You also don't want your commendation being hijacked by people who focus on relatively minor points in your proposal at the expense of ignoring the important contributions your nominee has made. If your commendee has done a wide range of activities, you should divide the reasons up into groups - for example put those related to your target's WA actions together, and put points relating to their Defender activities together.
Example wrote:
- WA - Unibot has written several WA resolutions & a guide to the Security Council
- Defending - Unibot is a defender
- Discarded point - Unibot helped to design the Security Council building
The next step is to explain why those reasons are actually admirable and significant. It may be obvious to you, but not everyone will agree with you. Defending is not automatically considered a 'good thing', much as invading isn't always considered a 'bad thing' - spell it out, rather than assuming that others will understand.
Example wrote:
- Unibot has written several WA resolutions, including "A Ban on Forced Disappearances" which helped to protect citizens of WA nations against oppressive governments,
- Unibot has contributed significantly to a guide to the Security Council, which has led to an improvement in the quality of proposals submitted to the Security Council,
- Unibot's actions as a defender have helped prevent several regions from being invaded and passworded, thus saving the Security Council from having to Liberate them,
Finally, this can be put in proposal format, and given an operative clause:Example wrote:The World Assembly,
Recognising that Unibot has written several WA resolutions, including "A Ban on Forced Disappearances" which helped to protect citizens of WA nations against oppressive governments,
Noting that Unibot has contributed significantly to a guide to the Security Council, which has led to an improvement in the quality of proposals submitted to the Security Council,
Believing that these contributions have helped to improve the World Assembly, and that the World Assembly should recognise those who positively develop the organisation,
Observing Unibot's actions as a defender, which have helped prevent several regions from being invaded and passworded, thus saving the Security Council from having to Liberate them,
Asserting that The Security Council should recognise those who assist with its aim of spreading interregional peace and goodwilll,
Hereby Commends Unibot.
by Sedgistan » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Todd McCloud wrote:Really the first post doesn't need to be tweaked too much, IMO: it simply explains what the body is, very brief (albeit incomplete) history, and some key points. I do believe the history should include the debates we've had (The SC in relation to the GA crowd, the Rule IV crowd, etc).
The guide does not mention what the security council's principles are. I don't know if we can really conclusively determine just what those principles are, as this body means different things to different people. Part of the problem with that is this body has worked under very little definition and ruleset for a long time. We all saw what happened when Rule IV was passed, and how it was intended to be passed without any discussion. Mistakes such as that should not happen in this body again, or we will end up losing more players. So, I'd recommend not doing that.
I'd keep these principles vague. Something to the effect of 'The purpose of the Security Council is to officially recognize the outstanding or shocking achievements demonstrated by a single nation or a region and to provide liberations of region when deemed acceptable by the World Assembly Body.' That's about as vague as needs to be without being too vague, in my opinion. Then again, that's just my definition. I don't want to be responsible for defining this entire body, because I don't feel privileged to do so, but if it fits, alright.
The whole first sentence of the first bulleted point just doesn't seem right. I'd personally just get rid of the two bulleted points altogether and replace it with a principle statement. No need to really go into details or examples. That's the point of a guide: to not tell people what others do, but to provide someone with the tools they need to do what they'd like to do. I'd rather not have this turn into a 'well, people do this, so you probably should to.'. It should be more of a 'here's your tools, maybe a little advice by some people who have written successful C&C's, now have at it'.
I wouldn't say that this has fallen out of favor. Not saying it hasn't, but I'd rather this be less about opinion and more about fact. I'd instead replace this with 'this has been controversial due to the desire to still nevertheless recognize a condemned nation for their deplorable actions' or something to that nature. The quote is good, because this outlines it pretty well.
But the potentially better route here is to not even mention the arguments. Don't go into the details - let them carve their own paths. This goes for point two as well. I mean, if you're going to include it, then alright. But I personally would rather see them presented like this:
A couple of arguments you should be aware of are:
- Should a nation nominated to be condemned be condemned if they want such a distinction?
- Should a nation nominated to be commended be commended if they do not want such a distinction?
And just left at that. I don't know if that's the best option, but I must say I like them presented in question form better, but that's just me. Still, that's something we can talk about.The second argument is harder to refute - however, if the nominee is being commended to 'immortalize their actions for future generations to learn from', then it could be argued that the Commendation is for the benefit of the NationStates community, rather than the nominee. However, without their support, it will be extremely hard to pass a Commendation.
Minus the last sentence, this part is alright to me.
Just say no to using concurrent examples here. If you're going to use an example, don't use a real-life example'and especially don't use yourself. I'd just make this part read 'this section is merely here to present some of the potential pitfalls in writing C&C's to save time and to save on repetition' or something to that nature.
This was supposed to be a guide for a commendation or condemnation, but it has now suddenly become just a guide for commendations. But if there is stuff about condemnations, wouldn't it be better to include it here? Like, saying stuff like 'Once you have decided to commend or condemn a nation or region, you should determine reasons as to why such a case is merited. These reasons should justify the case for the nominee to be condemned or commended. Some research may be required to strengthen your case, which can be done a number of ways: interviewing the nominee or others who have had close interactions with the nominee, reviewing the affects or impact the nominee has caused in the game, observing the actions or comments made on off-site forums, work the nominee has done off-site, reviewing the history reported on NSwiki, etc. The point you are trying to make is to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the nominee is deserved of a commendation or commendation.'
Change 'commendation' to 'proposal'. Change 'comendee' to 'nominee'. Also remove the example at the end of the last sentence - we want to keep this brief, and your wall of text comment goes hand in hand with this document too, lol.
The next step is to explain why those reasons are actually admirable and significant. It may be obvious to you, but not everyone will agree with you. Defending is not automatically considered a 'good thing', much as invading isn't always considered a 'bad thing' - spell it out, rather than assuming that others will understand.
Considering the debate we had last night, I think it would be best to remove the talk of labels here. If we're trying to create a non-objectionable I'd keep the first two sentences, and then add another one saying 'Be certain your explanations would provide insight to the significance of what the nominee has done to someone who may not be particularly familiar with a certain aspect of the game, eg roleplaying, raiding and defending, etc.'
All in all, not bad. I'll look at the other sections when I have time.
by Unibot » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:39 pm
But the potentially better route here is to not even mention the arguments. Don't go into the details - let them carve their own paths. This goes for point two as well. I mean, if you're going to include it, then alright. But I personally would rather see them presented like this:
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Unibot » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:46 pm
Todd McCloud wrote:This section is written for commendations to avoid constant repetition, but the process is designed to work for condemnations as well. To illustrate this guide, an example proposal is used - Commend Unibot (because there's no other way you're going to see that proposal ). For this proposal, the justification will be "Those who act on the Security Council’s principles should be recognized for doing what the Security Council cannot."
Just say no to using concurrent examples here. If you're going to use an example, don't use a real-life example'and especially don't use yourself. I'd just make this part read 'this section is merely here to present some of the potential pitfalls in writing C&C's to save time and to save on repetition' or something to that nature.
Plus I'd rather not have an example. Let people forge their own. They have many good examples in what has already been passed already.
The next step is to explain why those reasons are actually admirable and significant. It may be obvious to you, but not everyone will agree with you. Defending is not automatically considered a 'good thing', much as invading isn't always considered a 'bad thing' - spell it out, rather than assuming that others will understand.
Considering the debate we had last night, I think it would be best to remove the talk of labels here. If we're trying to create a non-objectionable I'd keep the first two sentences, and then add another one saying 'Be certain your explanations would provide insight to the significance of what the nominee has done to someone who may not be particularly familiar with a certain aspect of the game, eg roleplaying, raiding and defending, etc.'
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Todd McCloud » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:44 pm
Sedgistan wrote:I'm very wary about trying to sum up the majorargumentsdebates we've had, as I think it'd be hard to write them whilst remaining neutral. Additionally, I'm not sure they're that much use - would they really help someone write a better resolution? If someone can write a couple of sentences on the debates, I'll include them, but it's not something I feel is vital.
The principles of the Security Council are what those who participate in the body make them (either through writing resolutions, or by voting on them). I know there's a few vague descriptions on the forum/the game itself, but none of them really amount to much. Would it not be better to say something like what my first sentence above says (that the principles are made by those who participate in the SC)?
I'd like to include some example arguments, because I think it might otherwise be hard to understand what the guide is getting at when it says that authors should consider their reasons for commending/condemning before writing a proposal. I could re-phrase so that the first one was a bit more vague (The Security Council should recognise those whose actions align with the principles of the Security Council), and could add one about "recognising significant/unique achievement within NationStates".
I like your change, but I'd still like to include a suggestion that a proposal author consult the nation/region they're commending to gain their approval beforehand, as it's a solid piece of advice - if the nominee is against the proposal, it'll likely fall apart with an ugly argument.
I don't mind re-writing with a commendation of a non-existent nation (or Testladia/Bigtopia). I think an example is necessary to illustrate the points made.
by Sedgistan » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:44 pm
by Ballotonia » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:53 am
Sedgistan wrote:A liberation resolution, when passed, will remove any delegate imposed password on the target region, and prevent a password being imposed in the future by any delegate of that region. They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords, or the founder's ability to password a region in the future. However, Liberation resolutions can still be proposed for regions that do have founders.
by Mousebumples » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:30 am
Ballotonia wrote:Sedgistan wrote:A liberation resolution, when passed, will remove any delegate imposed password on the target region, and prevent a password being imposed in the future by any delegate of that region. They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords, or the founder's ability to password a region in the future. However, Liberation resolutions can still be proposed for regions that do have founders.
I'll presume you double checked with Admin that this is in fact how the feature works, and hence that I must've misunderstood [violet]'s prior remark.
by Ardchoille » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:14 am
by Sedgistan » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:52 am
Ballotonia wrote:Sedgistan wrote:A liberation resolution, when passed, will remove any delegate imposed password on the target region, and prevent a password being imposed in the future by any delegate of that region. They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords, or the founder's ability to password a region in the future. However, Liberation resolutions can still be proposed for regions that do have founders.
I'll presume you double checked with Admin that this is in fact how the feature works, and hence that I must've misunderstood [violet]'s prior remark.
Ballotonia
Ardchoille wrote:A password imposed by a Founder doesn't come under the ambit of this sort of proposal, regardless of how lacking in virtue the foundation was. It says, "delegate-imposed powers", not "all powers". (Applies even if the Founder is also the Delegate. It's assumed the password is imposed by the higher power.)
by Unibot » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:10 am
Ardchoille wrote:Very early in the SC's career, I asked Pyth on IRC whether it was technically possible for the SC to pass a Liberation for a region that had a founder-imposed password -- I'd been wondering if it was physically impossible to submit such a proposal, whether the system would be unable to recognise the final vote, or whether the Liberation would just fail to register in the system. He said then that the SC could pass it, but it wouldn't have any effect.
I took this to mean that a Liberation vote simply wouldn't remove the password if the password then in place had been imposed by a founder. Otherwise, any founders who took the trouble to defend their region by passwording it, with all the disadvantages that entails, would still be at the mercy of any group(s) of raiders who could muster enough SC votes. As some of my puppets are in small regions that the founder just wants to keep friendly, comfortable and free from disruption, I was somewhat interested in this point.
I don't have the chat records, so I can't check his exact words, and it's always possible I misunderstood, but he seemed pretty definite. If you could link to [violet]'s remarks, Ballotonia, it would be helpful.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ballotonia » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:29 pm
Ardchoille wrote:I don't have the chat records, so I can't check his exact words, and it's always possible I misunderstood, but he seemed pretty definite. If you could link to [violet]'s remarks, Ballotonia, it would be helpful.
First, it's true only for RP regions who have not exercised the main opt-out tool we provide: Foundership. A Liberation resolution cannot override a Founder.
Second, an RP region is not affected at all by a Liberation proposal unless it passes as a resolution. At that point, other nations would be able to enter. (Although not do very much.) The proposal itself, though, even if it reaches the floor, does not change anything about Haven.
by Ballotonia » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:33 pm
Sedgistan wrote:"They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords" can be considered a mod ruling, regardless of how the mechanics work - ie, a Liberation resolution that attempts to remove a founder-imposed password would be illegal. This is covered already under Rule 3.iii - "You asked the WA to perform an extra action".
by Unibot » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:26 pm
Ballotonia wrote:Sedgistan wrote:"They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords" can be considered a mod ruling, regardless of how the mechanics work - ie, a Liberation resolution that attempts to remove a founder-imposed password would be illegal. This is covered already under Rule 3.iii - "You asked the WA to perform an extra action".
In order for game mods to enforce this, they will have to be able to tell without any doubt which nation set the password on a region. So perhaps this is visible in the mod center, I wouldn't know.
Ballotonia
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Sedgistan » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:37 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A Bloodred Moon, Chef Big Dog, Miraregna
Advertisement