The Metagaming Rule

[The Dark Star Republic]

proposals that would affect the way players ... 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.

This is the bit that's troubling. Of course proposals can affect the way we roleplay. The WA is fundamentally a roleplay organization. If you don't want to roleplay, then just go debate RL international law in the General forum.

[Mousebumples]

proposals that would affect the way players ... 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.

This is the bit that's troubling. Of course proposals can affect the way we roleplay. The WA is fundamentally a roleplay organization. If you don't want to roleplay, then just go debate RL international law in the General forum.

That's your opinion and how you prefer to play the game. Moderation has not ever forced members who post in the GA to roleplay as ambassadors or delegates or whatnot. To my knowledge, there are no plans among the moderation staff to change this approach.

[Excidium Planetis]

This is the bit that's troubling. Of course proposals can affect the way we roleplay. The WA is fundamentally a roleplay organization. If you don't want to roleplay, then just go debate RL international law in the General forum.

That's your opinion and how you prefer to play the game. Moderation has not ever forced members who post in the GA to roleplay as ambassadors or delegates or whatnot. To my knowledge, there are no plans among the moderation staff to change this approach.

But the proposals themselves are in character, are they not? Real World violations exist because the WA exists in a purely fictional world, so by nature the WA is a roleplay.

[Mousebumples]

That's your opinion and how you prefer to play the game. Moderation has not ever forced members who post in the GA to roleplay as ambassadors or delegates or whatnot. To my knowledge, there are no plans among the moderation staff to change this approach.

But the proposals themselves are in character, are they not? Real World violations exist because the WA exists in a purely fictional world, so by nature the WA is a roleplay.

Yes and no. They're "role play" as much as issues are role play, in my view. Passed resolutions impact your nation (just like your issue selections do), but not everyone wants to RP as ambassadors or diplomats - and that's their prerogative.

[Excidium Planetis]

But the proposals themselves are in character, are they not? Real World violations exist because the WA exists in a purely fictional world, so by nature the WA is a roleplay.

Yes and no. They're "role play" as much as issues are role play, in my view. Passed resolutions impact your nation (just like your issue selections do), but not everyone wants to RP as ambassadors or diplomats - and that's their prerogative.

Do the issues have a rule against "forced roleplay"?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Game Mechanics is *necessarily* metagaming, because you are acknowledging that there is a game and there mechanics to it.

The entire point is the metagaming is simply directly acknowledging that there's a game, in any way.

Adding Game Mechanics under Metagaming actually makes it far easier to understand.

[Glen-Rhodes]

But the proposals themselves are in character, are they not? Real World violations exist because the WA exists in a purely fictional world, so by nature the WA is a roleplay.

Yes and no. They're "role play" as much as issues are role play, in my view. Passed resolutions impact your nation (just like your issue selections do), but not everyone wants to RP as ambassadors or diplomats - and that's their prerogative.

This is what's makes rules like this confusing. Yes, the WA *is* roleplay. Issues aren't in the WA universe. Neither is really any stat or customizable option in your settings page. Making "stats" part of the WA universe -- even acknowledging that stat effects exist -- is metagaming, because those are all direct aspects of the game that, while they change the parameters of the roleplay universe, they don't "exist" in the universe. They are dice rolls.

We really should move away from this confusing meld of the game-side and the WA forum. That's why this rule is so confusing. We're trying to create a game that's part real and part roleplay, and there's no good way to delineate between the two when aspects of one are being put into the other.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is the bit that's troubling. Of course proposals can affect the way we roleplay. The WA is fundamentally a roleplay organization. If you don't want to roleplay, then just go debate RL international law in the General forum.

That's your opinion and how you prefer to play the game. Moderation has not ever forced members who post in the GA to roleplay as ambassadors or delegates or whatnot. To my knowledge, there are no plans among the moderation staff to change this approach.

You couldn't even if you wanted to. Moderation has no authority over RP per se, except as it violates site rules.

[Mousebumples]

That's your opinion and how you prefer to play the game. Moderation has not ever forced members who post in the GA to roleplay as ambassadors or delegates or whatnot. To my knowledge, there are no plans among the moderation staff to change this approach.

You couldn't even if you wanted to. Moderation has no authority over RP per se, except as it violates site rules.

Which is why I don't see how there could be any plans along those lines, yes.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This is the bit that's troubling. Of course proposals can affect the way we roleplay. The WA is fundamentally a roleplay organization. If you don't want to roleplay, then just go debate RL international law in the General forum.

That's your opinion and how you prefer to play the game. Moderation has not ever forced members who post in the GA to roleplay as ambassadors or delegates or whatnot. To my knowledge, there are no plans among the moderation staff to change this approach.

I'm not talking about the forum. Players don't even have to post in the forum at all.

I'm talking about resolutions: yes, they absolutely are roleplayed. Maybe not in any really formal sense of roleplay, but simply in that they exist in the NationStates universe. It's why, as others have noted, RL references are illegal.

[Mousebumples]

This is the bit that's troubling. Of course proposals can affect the way we roleplay. The WA is fundamentally a roleplay organization. If you don't want to roleplay, then just go debate RL international law in the General forum.

(my earlier response snipped and above is edited for emphasis)

I'm not talking about the forum. Players don't even have to post in the forum at all.

I'm talking about resolutions: yes, they absolutely are roleplayed. Maybe not in any really formal sense of roleplay, but simply in that they exist in the NationStates universe. It's why, as others have noted, RL references are illegal.

*scratches head* If you're not talking about forum posts, why did you reference the General Forum? And if your response is all about one's affect on nations, with regards to the Real-World-reference rule, why is it in this thread and not that one?

[The Dark Star Republic]

*scratches head* If you're not talking about forum posts, why did you reference the General Forum?

There's no gameside equivalent to the General forum. If you want to debate the FIFA arrests, you have to enter the General forum. If you want to legislate on extradition rights, you can write a WA proposal without ever setting foot in the WA forum.

And if your response is all about one's affect on nations, with regards to the Real-World-reference rule, why is it in this thread and not that one?

Because I'm arguing that the MetaGaming rule should be abolished, because all of the important elements of it are already covered by other rules: Game Mechanics, and RL References. If it would offend your sensibilities less, I suppose I could change my argument to: "it should be abolished because the important elements are covered by other rules but I'm not going to say what those rules are".

Anyway, hopefully having put that typically useless pedantry out of the way, I find it quite shocking to see a moderator suggesting that WA proposals are not roleplayed. Even the Security Council is meant to be in character and that's much less roleplay oriented than the WA! We definitely need clarification on what would be a titanic reversal of policy if this is no longer to be the case.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Is there any part at all that isn't covered by other rules? I am having trouble finding anything. So maybe it is worth seriously considering just getting rid of it, because the quasi-roleplay we have here is just too complicated to have a simple metagaming rule.

[Tzorsland]

"Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations" is not metagaming, for example. Non-member nations actually do exist in the WA universe. Forcing legislation upon them is an issue of legal jurisdiction within the universe.

I may be nit picking here. WA legislation stat wanks WA member nations (we call that gnomes writing laws in member nations). WA legislation does not stat wank non WA member nations. You can't say you can "force" legislation on these nations because ... nothing happens in those nations. It's not that the non WA nations do not exist (well actually no other nation exists from your own national perspective, but that's another problem we can ignore for the most part) but that there is nothing the WA can do to impact a non WA member in any manner whatsoever. WA member nations can do whatever they want with non WA members but they only hurt/help themselves in the process. Anything other than that is not only impossible but exposes the man behind the curtain which one might say is a violation of the metagaming rule.

[Christian Democrats]

WA legislation stat wanks

I think you're addicted to this term.

[Knootoss]

As a roleplayer I have to ask: please keep this rule and do not weaken the "forced roleplay" clauses. Authors can always accomodate by using more general language in the drafting stage. Forcing roleplayers to acknowledge that the WA does not recognise their nation concept is far more troublesome.

[Glen-Rhodes]

"Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations" is not metagaming, for example. Non-member nations actually do exist in the WA universe. Forcing legislation upon them is an issue of legal jurisdiction within the universe.

I may be nit picking here. WA legislation stat wanks WA member nations (we call that gnomes writing laws in member nations). WA legislation does not stat wank non WA member nations. You can't say you can "force" legislation on these nations because ... nothing happens in those nations. It's not that the non WA nations do not exist (well actually no other nation exists from your own national perspective, but that's another problem we can ignore for the most part) but that there is nothing the WA can do to impact a non WA member in any manner whatsoever. WA member nations can do whatever they want with non WA members but they only hurt/help themselves in the process. Anything other than that is not only impossible but exposes the man behind the curtain which one might say is a violation of the metagaming rule.

This is a perfect example of the problem. You're justifying the metagaming rule by metagaming yourself. There has to be an in-universe explanation for why we can't write resolutions forcing non-members to do things. That explanation is that the WA's jurisdiction is limited.

However, that doesn't mean WA resolutions cannot *affect* non-members, which is how the rule has been interpreted before. People have even gone so far as to say acknowledging the existence of non-members is a violation of this rule.

We need to move away from caring so much about how the game code works. Just because stat effects aren't placed on non-members doesn't mean that non-members don't exist or can't be legislated about. That just doesn't make sense, and the only people have tried to make sense of it is by metagaming themselves.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I'm tempted to agree with G-R here, assuming he's referring to lines such as "Member states shall not militarily align themselves with non-members who possess and utilize biological weapons." That is and should be legal. As long as the WA is not making direct demands upon non-members, it's fine. I don't mind if (directly) affecting non-members is made a separate rule, if only for clarity. It is somewhat related to metagaming (in the sense that only members, presumably, are inside the chamber making rules; non-members are not party to such agreements), but it may be confusing to link it to more obvious fourth-wall violations.

[Excidium Planetis]

But the proposals themselves are in character, are they not? Real World violations exist because the WA exists in a purely fictional world, so by nature the WA is a roleplay.

Yes and no. They're "role play" as much as issues are role play, in my view. Passed resolutions impact your nation (just like your issue selections do), but not everyone wants to RP as ambassadors or diplomats - and that's their prerogative.

I just realized something else... issues reference real life. They talk of Nazis, Max Barry's Jennifer Government, and a couple other things I am forgetting. The WA is more roleplay than issues are.

I am going to stand by the argument that the WA is roleplay in every sense, it just happens to be game side roleplay with actual effects on member nations.

Given that other rules already prevent resolutions from referencing things outside the game or directly affecting non-WA members, or changing customizable fields, and other things, I agree with Dark Star here that this rule is pretty much unnecessary for the reasons it was implemented.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm tempted to agree with G-R here, assuming he's referring to lines such as "Member states shall not militarily align themselves with non-members who possess and utilize biological weapons." That is and should be legal. As long as the WA is not making direct demands upon non-members, it's fine. I don't mind if (directly) affecting non-members is made a separate rule, if only for clarity. It is somewhat related to metagaming (in the sense that only members, presumably, are inside the chamber making rules; non-members are not party to such agreements), but it may be confusing to link it to more obvious fourth-wall violations.

The point I was making is that there must be an in-universe explanation, preferably one that's not a deus ex machina. For directly legislating on non-members, we can say that whatever treaty created the WA says we can't do that. But it's not metagaming in and of itself to legislate on non-member states. When we ask, "Why can't we?" And all we have is to point to the game rule, that's what's actually metagaming.

[Tzorsland]

WA legislation stat wanks

I think you're addicted to this term.

Very well then ... "Internal Game National Statistical Parameter Adjustments" ... I'm going to have to copy this to a file somewhere. I'll never remember it.

[Tzorsland]

This is a perfect example of the problem. You're justifying the metagaming rule by metagaming yourself. There has to be an in-universe explanation for why we can't write resolutions forcing non-members to do things. That explanation is that the WA's jurisdiction is limited.

Why? Seriously, why? I would suggest the opposite, you need a in universe explanation for why you could write a resolution forcing non members to do things.

Do you think it is possible that the United States Congress can write a law that "forces" China to do something? (Note that the US is actually a federal government over 50 "states" so the comparison to member / non member states is valid ... if you prefer you can use the EU as another example.) In the first place, the default should be that WA resolutions must be applied to individual member states. (While this is technically meta-game this is the message you get whenever a resolution is passed.) Non member states are not bound by treaty to modify their own nations accordingly. Yes, we call them all "Resolutions" but's it's a lie; they are technically best described as "treaties" and this should be the in character justification for all WA law.

[Excidium Planetis]

This is a perfect example of the problem. You're justifying the metagaming rule by metagaming yourself. There has to be an in-universe explanation for why we can't write resolutions forcing non-members to do things. That explanation is that the WA's jurisdiction is limited.

Why? Seriously, why? I would suggest the opposite, you need a in universe explanation for why you could write a resolution forcing non members to do things.

Why would we need an explanation for that? Glen Rhodes is saying there is an in universe explanation for why they can't do that: the WA only has jurisdiction over member nations.

Do you think it is possible that the United States Congress can write a law that "forces" China to do something? (Note that the US is actually a federal government over 50 "states" so the comparison to member / non member states is valid ... if you prefer you can use the EU as another example.)

That's an in universe explanation. There isn't some metaphysical law that prevents the US from doing that, the explanation is that in the universe the US exists in, the US lacks the jurisdiction to do that.

You are trying to justify an out of universe rule, but why is that rule needed when there are in universe reasons that the WA cannot force non-members to do things?

[Mousebumples]

Meta-Gaming

Meta-gaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself.

Examples of meta-gaming:
Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations

Bumping this thread as the WA Army thread is resulting in some discussion on having the theoretical WA Army affect non-WA nations. There's been some discussion along those lines already, but I figured it could use a bump.

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

• No consensus - still arguing over definitions
• Suggestions of crossover/combining with various other rules: Real world, Game Mechanics, and WA Army
• There have been suggested rewrites, but there does not appear to be strong support behind any of them at this time