The Metagaming Rule

[Christian Democrats]

There have been suggested rewrites, but there does not appear to be strong support behind any of them at this time

Who else offered a rewrite? I thought I was the only one.

[Excidium Planetis]

There have been suggested rewrites, but there does not appear to be strong support behind any of them at this time

Who else offered a rewrite? I thought I was the only one.

I submitted a rewrite, but honestly, I'd support yours. It still removes the forced roleplay rule, which is really all I wanted to change.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Actually, the forced roleplay rule is expanded upon in CD's version.

Again, if it's all the same, I'd rather not conflate metagaming and Game Mechanics. Half of CD's version is about suggesting changes to the game; if it's such an involved rule, it may as well remain a separate one.

[Excidium Planetis]

Actually, the forced roleplay rule is expanded upon in CD's version.

Again, if it's all the same, I'd rather not conflate metagaming and Game Mechanics. Half of CD's version is about suggesting changes to the game; if it's such an involved rule, it may as well remain a separate one.

"Proposals may only influence the governmental policies of WA nations or act directly on the persons of WA nations. A proposal that requires or suggests technical changes to NationStates or the functioning of the World Assembly will be removed. Similarly, proposals that would affect the way players answer issues, manage their settings, or roleplay on the forums are illegal. GA proposals may not extend themselves beyond the jurisdiction of the GA as it has been coded by the NationStates staff. Please recommend such changes in the Technical forum."

This is the only part I can see that would affect "forced roleplay", and it doesn't affect the kind of forced roleplay that I want allowed: Being able to write resolutions specifically acknowledging humans or non-human sapients in resolutions. CD's rewrite would allow the things CD and Dark Star Republic complained about:

Can you expand on that for newer players,

Okay, a simple example, which was raised in another thread:

The abortion rulings generated an enormous amount of complexity. One reason they got so tangled up was the insistence that resolutions couldn't be "human specific": that they had to take account of (literally quoting a moderator here) "sapient monotremes", because not all NS nations contain humans - in roleplay terms. There is nothing in the text of the rule to back any of that up, but it's how it's come to be interpreted: that even mentioning any particular roleplayed reality in a proposal constitutes "forced roleplaying" and is thus illegal.

I agree with DSR. During the Great Abortion Debate, various players used this rule against me (a person new to the GA!) because the abortion blocker resolution that I proposed assumed human anatomy and a 40-week gestational period. I submitted my proposal to ban abortion after 24 weeks (with five exceptions) and to leave the rest to member states, and it quickly reached quorum, but the moderators removed it. I was never given a ruling even though I waited for two weeks and, then, was told that my proposal had become moot given the passage of On Abortion. I hold the same position that Glen-Rhodes advanced then (2010): moderators should not strike down anthropocentric proposals. They ought to treat human-specific proposals and species-neutral proposals the same way. Otherwise, modern-tech, realistic roleplayers are being subjected to discrimination and forced roleplay of the future-tech, "sapient monotremes" kind.*

* Let's not forget that the daily issues are modern-tech, anthropocentric! Talking platypuses aren't intrinsically part of the game.

Because CD's rewrite only bans forcing roleplay on the forums, not in WA resolutions themselves. CD could still write a resolution that is anthropocentric, and I could write a resolution dealing with sapient aliens, as long as we aren't metagaming and trying to make roleplayers do something on the forums.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

the kind of forced roleplay that I want allowed: Being able to write resolutions specifically acknowledging humans or non-human sapients in resolutions.

Like I told you, that's already legal. What's not legal is excluding non-human sapients or extraterrestrials from the remit of your proposal; i.e., if it can be read as "humans-only" or "Earth only," it's illegal. But that's only according to some rulings; there is a lot of self-contradiction and inconsistency in the mod logs on the subject.

[Excidium Planetis]

the kind of forced roleplay that I want allowed: Being able to write resolutions specifically acknowledging humans or non-human sapients in resolutions.

Like I told you, that's already legal. What's not legal is excluding non-human sapients or extraterrestrials from the remit of your proposal; i.e., if it can be read as "humans-only" or "Earth only," it's illegal. But that's only according to some rulings; there is a lot of self-contradiction and inconsistency in the mod logs on the subject.

Bears Armed told me:

...according to past Modly rulling, a proposal can't legally mention the existence of non-human sapients as a definite fact because of the 'No Meta-gaming' rule's ban on forcing people to accept any particular bit of RP as canonical: You'd have to change to more "precautionary" language, instead...

I assumed, being a non-human nation active in the WA, Bears was correct. Is that wrong? Can you pass resolutions acknowledging non-human sapients as definitely existing?

But at any rate, I believe the ambiguity needs to be cleared up, and I think Christian Democrats' rewrite makes it fairly clear, and makes the changes I would like to see. If someone wants to write a WA proposal that deals only with Humans specifically, I would be fine with that being legal. I just want the reverse to also be true: resolutions dealing specifically with non-humans should be legal as well.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Like I told you, that's already legal. What's not legal is excluding non-human sapients or extraterrestrials from the remit of your proposal; i.e., if it can be read as "humans-only" or "Earth only," it's illegal. But that's only according to some rulings; there is a lot of self-contradiction and inconsistency in the mod logs on the subject.

Bears Armed told me:

...according to past Modly rulling, a proposal can't legally mention the existence of non-human sapients as a definite fact because of the 'No Meta-gaming' rule's ban on forcing people to accept any particular bit of RP as canonical: You'd have to change to more "precautionary" language, instead...

I assumed, being a non-human nation active in the WA, Bears was correct. Is that wrong? Can you pass resolutions acknowledging non-human sapients as definitely existing?

I don't know what BA is talking about, and as his sapient-rights proposal was introduced in 2008, I doubt it's very current besides. I myself have written two such proposals, and never got hit with metagaming.

OT: If he saw any legality problems with the linked draft, I'm not seeing them myself.

[Excidium Planetis]

Bears Armed told me:

I assumed, being a non-human nation active in the WA, Bears was correct. Is that wrong? Can you pass resolutions acknowledging non-human sapients as definitely existing?

I don't know what BA is talking about, and as his sapient-rights proposal was introduced in 2008, I doubt it's very current besides. I myself have written two such proposals, and never got hit with metagaming.

OT: If he saw any legality problems with the linked draft, I'm not seeing them myself.

What was the reason these proposals you and BA wrote didn't get passed? Were they defeated, ruled illegal, or simply not submitted?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

BA's and mine were both defeated by wide margins; unfortunately, sapients-rights proposals don't play well across the game, since non-RPers prefer to keep things realistic...also the Pony thing.

My most recent draft hit a snag over COCR issues. It was not ruled illegal, but I was advised it needed retooling to avoid duplication. Metagaming was not an issue.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Sorry to drag across a post from a different thread, but I didn't want to hijack that one. This seems to get to the heart of my confusion about the whole "forced roleplay" thing:

It's forced roleplay and therefore illegal. You cannot force members to acknowledge specific roleplay arcs or plots.

I'd always interpreted "forced roleplay" as meaning forcing people to engage in roleplays. But you seem to be saying that even mentioning roleplays - that players are under no obligation to take part in - in a proposal text would constitute "forced roleplay". Is that actually what the moderators mean when they invoke this rule?

[Bears Armed]

Sorry to drag across a post from a different thread, but I didn't want to hijack that one. This seems to get to the heart of my confusion about the whole "forced roleplay" thing:

It's forced roleplay and therefore illegal. You cannot force members to acknowledge specific roleplay arcs or plots.

I'd always interpreted "forced roleplay" as meaning forcing people to engage in roleplays. But you seem to be saying that even mentioning roleplays - that players are under no obligation to take part in - in a proposal text would constitute "forced roleplay". Is that actually what the moderators mean when they invoke this rule?

It's what they've meant on at least some past occasions: Simply requiring people to recognise any particular piece of RP as canonical counts as "forced RP".

[Greater Louisistan]

How was the multilateral trade talk thing ruled legal, then?

[Bears Armed]

How was the multilateral trade talk thing ruled legal, then?

The rule applies [or "was applied"?] to requiring recognition as 'canon' of any piece of RP that already existed before it was mentioned in the proposal concerned, and to any clause in a proposal that would somehow actually "force" players of member nations to do something actively (which is one reason for the ban on proposals that would require people to change any of their nations' customisable fields, and also for the ban on proposals that would specify certain particular nations -- or particular regions' delegates -- as having roles in committees): However just expecting passive recognition of [& compliance with] passed resolutions, on the other paw, obviously has to be 'legal' if the GA is to mean anything at all. As "the multilateral trade thing" doesn't actually force the players to RP participation in those talks it would have been legal under those limits.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations

I don't believe that this should be a rule anymore. If the World Assembly is an RP, wouldn't 'member' nations be implied?

[John Turner]

Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations

I don't believe that this should be a rule anymore. If the World Assembly is an RP, wouldn't 'member' nations be implied?

Yet there are how many hundreds of thousands of nations that aren't members? People have tried many times to force legislation upon non-members with creative wording (you somehow managed to accomplish it).

[The Dark Star Republic]

Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations

I don't believe that this should be a rule anymore. If the World Assembly is an RP, wouldn't 'member' nations be implied?

If you're going to try to make this argument again, I have a brick wall you can borrow.