Frisbeeteria wrote: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.
Advertisement
by Christian Democrats » Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:05 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:There have been suggested rewrites, but there does not appear to be strong support behind any of them at this time
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Excidium Planetis » Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:58 pm
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:48 am
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:54 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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.
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Frisbeeteria wrote: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.
Christian Democrats wrote: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.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:16 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:the kind of forced roleplay that I want allowed: Being able to write resolutions specifically acknowledging humans or non-human sapients in resolutions.
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:41 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote: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 wrote:...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...
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:02 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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:Bears Armed wrote:...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?
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:23 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:
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.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:58 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Sun Jun 14, 2015 3:01 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:It's forced roleplay and therefore illegal. You cannot force members to acknowledge specific roleplay arcs or plots.
by Bears Armed » Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:11 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote: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:Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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?
by Greater Louisistan » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:39 am
by Bears Armed » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:02 am
Greater Louisistan wrote:How was the multilateral trade talk thing ruled legal, then?
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:02 pm
Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations
by John Turner » Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:34 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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 wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:53 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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?
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement