The WA Army Rule

by **Frisbeeteria** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:02 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:It wasn't in the UN Rights and Duties (it is in the WA one)

I misread my 2004 resolution. I stand corrected.

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:14 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:If that's the case, why wasn't the resolution deleted?

LOTS wasn't deleted either; it was illegal. So was Promotion of Solar Panels - if I remember correctly.

The mods said after the event that Law of the Sea was illegal. They didn't say the same about Humanitarian Intervention or Promotion of Solar Panels.

by **Flibbleites** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:35 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:LOTS wasn't deleted either; it was illegal. So was Promotion of Solar Panels - if I remember correctly.

The mods said after the event that Law of the Sea was illegal. They didn't say the same about Humanitarian Intervention or Promotion of Solar Panels.

I don't remember Promotion of Solar Panels actually being illegal, it was just crap.

by **Glen-Rhodes** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:08 pm

So, to generate some more discussion, here's a draft re-wording of the rule:

Military and Police Rule

The WA is allowed to take military and police actions, or support member nations in the same. However, proposals cannot be specific "declarations of war" on individual nations or groups. Additionally, any roleplay derived from a WA resolution authorizing military or police action is non-canon and will not be run or made "official" by moderators.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:20 pm

The RP note is unnecessary; rules should focus on the legality of proposals, not how legit "WA army" RP is. For a proposal to require forum activity for RPing an army would be illegal under metagaming anyway.

by **Bezombia** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:41 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:So, to generate some more discussion, here's a draft re-wording of the rule:

Military and Police Rule

The WA is allowed to take military and police actions, or support member nations in the same. However, proposals cannot be specific "declarations of war" on individual nations or groups. Additionally, any roleplay derived from a WA resolution authorizing military or police action is non-canon and will not be run or made "official" by moderators.

Literally that entire rule is redundant. You could have no rule at all and it would have the same effect as putting THAT in the rulebook.

by **Glen-Rhodes** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:55 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:The RP note is unnecessary; rules should focus on the legality of proposals, not how legit "WA army" RP is. For a proposal to require forum activity for RPing an army would be illegal under metagaming anyway.

The RP note is in there because it seems to be an issue regularly brought up about the WA having police and military powers.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:52 pm

Again I say...

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Rules should focus on the legality of proposals, not how legit "WA army" RP is.

by **Glen-Rhodes** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:42 pm

That doesn't change that one of the primary reasons given for the rule is that the mods don't want to DM an army. It makes sense to include that, then, in a proposed rewrite.

Take it out for all I care. I've been saying all along that the argument against the rule is nonsensical.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 6:50 pm

It should be pointed out that mods do not generally police roleplay aside from that which breaks site/forum rules. To specifically set a rule for RP like this would be highly irregular.

But if you're willing to let it go, then great.

The WA Army Rule

Re: The WA Army Rule

Re: The WA Army Rule

Who is online