The Real World Violations Rule

[Defwa]

The fact that nations clearly operate at different technology levels makes it difficult for me to justify an exception for scientific principles. And frankly, it's usually better to explain a principle than to use a shortcut-word for it.

We are agreed on the first part of your statement, but can you give an example of how we might avoid a situation where we have to define the length of a meter as the atomic decay of a cesium atom or whatever? Why might it necessarily be better to do that, instead of using a commonly understood lay term, or even a scientific term?

Somehow I doubt proposals are being deleted frequently because "Planck's Constant doesn't exist in the NS world."

There was a period in the last year where the use of year was being twisted as a method of creative compliance. Where a mandate might have said "inspect this every year", those who wished to avoid the requirements would claim their concept of a year is hundreds of times longer than that of one on earth or that their home planet had different year lengths.
That's also where talk of standardizing units of measurement comes about.

[Tzorsland]

There was a period in the last year where the use of year was being twisted as a method of creative compliance. Where a mandate might have said "inspect this every year", those who wished to avoid the requirements would claim their concept of a year is hundreds of times longer than that of one on earth or that their home planet had different year lengths.

That's a good point. On the other hand, this type of argument comes dangerously close to exposing one of the major fallacies of WA resolutions. From a technical perspective all WA resolutions are instantaneous at the point of passage and have no lingering effects. We have created a whole collections of lies that contradict this notion (such as the notion that all nations have to "comply" with all previously passed resolutions when we all know that there are no stat wank effects placed on a nation whatsoever for any resolution passed before their admission into the WA). Continued compliance, periodic inspections, whatever have no practical stat wank component whatsoever. You don't need "annual inspections" you need "periodic inspections" and you whack someone on the head with the "reasonable nation theory" and fire the IGNORE canons when anyone tries to adopt an extreme definition that even the Creative Solutions Agency would consider a nut case.

[Knootoss]

Personally, I don't have an issue with mentioning meters but my feathers would be ruffled if WA resolutions started mentioning dollars, inches, Roe v Wade, "constitutional government" or the moon landing. I'd rather be too strict and force things to remain abstract than to backslide on the Real World Violations Rule and inevitably get into the discussion on why "Roe v Wade" doesn't refer to people but to a concept, if the Planck constant is okay too.

[Defwa]

Personally, I don't have an issue with mentioning meters but my feathers would be ruffled if WA resolutions started mentioning dollars, inches, Roe v Wade, "constitutional government" or the moon landing. I'd rather be too strict and force things to remain abstract than to backslide on the Real World Violations Rule and inevitably get into the discussion on why "Roe v Wade" doesn't refer to people but to a concept, if the Planck constant is okay too.

I might need a better example before considering that. The Planck constant and Kessler syndrome exist and would exist even without humans to put them into words.
A Supreme court decision is not the same

[Knootoss]

Defwa: it would exist as an object without humans like the RL scientist, but it certainly wouldn't exist as a concept that could be part of a resolution. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_and_object

[Glen-Rhodes]

How are inches and constitutional government Real World Violations under any reasonable application of the rule?

Come on.

[Snefaldia]

Probably because there isn't a bright line on what is and what isn't a RW violation? Reasonably, units of measurement shouldn't be RW violations, nor should references to the Fibonacci Sequence (even if Fibonacci doesn't exist in Interstellar Cabbage Universe 324 A).

I mean, am I crazy and no one else remembers that big debate (I think it was on Jolt?) about how to define the length of a meter, and players were legitimately trying to use its scientific atomic decay in a resolution text in order to get around a RW violation. In no way is that a reasonable use of time.

Frankly I'm not sure how to resolve that, though. Obviously mentioning things like the Hubble Space Telescope should be prevented, but do we really need to ding mentioning the troposphere "because that's from Earth and Earth doesn't exist in NS?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Probably because there isn't a bright line on what is and what isn't a RW violation? Reasonably, units of measurement shouldn't be RW violations, nor should references to the Fibonacci Sequence (even if Fibonacci doesn't exist in Interstellar Cabbage Universe 324 A).

I mean, am I crazy and no one else remembers that big debate (I think it was on Jolt?) about how to define the length of a meter, and players were legitimately trying to use its scientific atomic decay in a resolution text in order to get around a RW violation. In no way is that a reasonable use of time.

Frankly I'm not sure how to resolve that, though. Obviously mentioning things like the Hubble Space Telescope should be prevented, but do we really need to ding mentioning the troposphere "because that's from Earth and Earth doesn't exist in NS?"

I think the bright line should be proper nouns, as was said by someone before (I forget who).

[Mousebumples]

For the record, I referred to a number of diseases by RW name within my repeal of "Organ and Blood Donations Act" because it was the way that the resolution in question affected individuals with those conditions IRL that it was determined that those some health conditions were likely to also occur in NationStates. I don't know if a RW GHR was file about the repeal, but there is that precedent.

I could have sworn that I'd filed a Moderation appeal on the RW possibility, but I didn't see a link in thread, and I honestly don't feel up to d igging through Moderation or the Q&A right now. And, honestly, I guess a better question would be should that have been allowed ? I obviously think so, but that's because that argument was in many ways central to my ability to repeal that resolution. So I don't claim to be unbiased on this one.

However, those are in some ways "proper nouns," so I don't know if they would be outlawed with the proposed "no proper nouns" rule that is being proposed by some.

[Separatist Peoples]

We already reference a number of real world objects in WA law and drafts that don't get dinged, such as orangutans, diseases, etc., but limiting the names to those without proper nouns attached (like Kessler Syndrome) seems overly restrictive. This is why I'm all for rewriting this rule to affect references to people, places, and times (Late Cretaceous, Iron Age, Cold War-Era), but leave references to other items (Kessler Syndrome, Bunsen burner, Sprague's pipit, french fries) as acceptable.

[Frisbeeteria]

This is why I'm all for rewriting this rule

Then rewrite it.

Mods aren't the only ones with brains and keyboards. Somebody rephrased the NatSov rule very nicely, which I believe will resolve most of the problems with that rule. Do the same thing here, and get input from others. What have you got to lose?

[Tzorsland]

Personally, I don't have an issue with mentioning meters but my feathers would be ruffled if WA resolutions started mentioning dollars, inches, Roe v Wade, "constitutional government" or the moon landing. I'd rather be too strict and force things to remain abstract than to backslide on the Real World Violations Rule and inevitably get into the discussion on why "Roe v Wade" doesn't refer to people but to a concept, if the Planck constant is okay too.

Good point. Perhaps we should change this rule to "No Proper Names and No Historical Events."

I have no problem with "constitutional government" as a technical term. Mind you I can't think of a way to use it that doesn't run afoul of the ideological ban, but that is another problem entirely.

The same is true for "dollars." NS economies are so diverse that it is impossible to put any sort of details of this nature into a resolution without it falling into all sorts of problems. Calling it "national units of currency" doesn't solve the larger problems.

[Old Hope]

What about this:

Single World violations
No references to any imagined or real individual, type of species,specific locations, or anything else like that.
Ayers Rock, the Earth, your nation's leader, the national animal of any nation.. they have no place in the WA. The WA is for general legislation, not specific micromanagement for your nation. It is appropiate to use terms like desert, animal, predatory animal, the World, religion, aggressive insects,number, language...

[The Dark Star Republic]

What about this:

Single World violations
No references to any imagined or real individual, type of species,specific locations, or anything else like that.
Ayers Rock, the Earth, your nation's leader, the national animal of any nation.. they have no place in the WA. The WA is for general legislation, not specific micromanagement for your nation. It is appropiate to use terms like desert, animal, predatory animal, the World, religion, aggressive insects,number, language...

That confuses the RL violation with the MetaGaming violation. They should be kept separate.

[Old Hope]

What about this:

That confuses the RL violation with the MetaGaming violation. They should be kept separate.

And why, may I ask, is this bad? I mean, we can remove most unwanted references, be it to the Real World or some imagined world. Did I forget something?

[The Dark Star Republic]

That confuses the RL violation with the MetaGaming violation. They should be kept separate.

And why, may I ask, is this bad? I mean, we can remove most unwanted references, be it to the Real World or some imagined world. Did I forget something?

This is a thread for discussing the RL violation. When the thread for discussing the MetaGaming violation is opened up, we can discuss that there.

[Old Hope]

And why, may I ask, is this bad? I mean, we can remove most unwanted references, be it to the Real World or some imagined world. Did I forget something?

This is a thread for discussing the RL violation. When the thread for discussing the MetaGaming violation is opened up, we can discuss that there.

Look, if we are considering merging two rules, then the discussion belongs no more into the one than the other rule discussion.
But I don't know why you are considering that to be a merge of those two.
It seems to be more an overlap with branding.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This is a thread for discussing the RL violation. When the thread for discussing the MetaGaming violation is opened up, we can discuss that there.

Look, if we are considering merging two rules

We're not. You are.

[Frisbeeteria]

Single World violations

Not what I was looking for, to be honest, but it's good that you're making the effort.

Let's have some other ideas presented, and maybe we can meld the best of them.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Single World violations

Not what I was looking for, to be honest, but it's good that you're making the effort.

Let's have some other ideas presented, and maybe we can meld the best of them.

That was Old Hope's phrasing, not mine.

Here's mine. Take out the reference to plagiarism and leave that for a separate rule.

Real World Violations

World Assembly laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal shouldn't contain any references to the real world. This includes specific references to real world events, such as "following 9/11", "in the light of last week's shooting", "before the next presidential election".

Examples:

• Barack Obama, Karl Marx, Max Barry
• London, Israel, the Amazon Rainforest
• NATO, the Red Cross, the Republican Party
• The Geneva Convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Second Amendment
• Google, RAND Corporation, Center for Disease Control
Generic references to things that also exist in the world of NationStates are allowed, for example religions (Christianity), political philosophies (capitalism), languages (English), scientific measurements (kg), and phenomena (desertification).

Concision's never been my forte so I'm sure someone can do better.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Perhaps...

World Assembly laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal shouldn't contain any references to the real world. This includes specific references to real world persons (Barack Obama, Max Barry), places (London, Israel, Mediterranean), organizations/treaties (NATO, Geneva Convention, Google), or events, such as "following 9/11", "in the light of last week's shooting", "before the next presidential election".

The next graf about generic references is fine -- although, have "capitalism," "desertification" or "kilograms" ever been considered RL references? The rule draft also doesn't resolve the question of scientific concepts.

Still not a fan of including RL religions or languages, but if that's the way this discussion is going, fine.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is why I'm all for rewriting this rule

Then rewrite it.

Mods aren't the only ones with brains and keyboards. Somebody rephrased the NatSov rule very nicely, which I believe will resolve most of the problems with that rule. Do the same thing here, and get input from others. What have you got to lose?

Jeez, no need to get tetchy. I added my $.02. Between Real Life, my IC work, and the various ideas I've had for the Rules Consortium, I've been balancing plenty of work. That I haven't posted my own version doesn't mean I'm unwilling, it means I haven't gotten around to it, not that I'm sitting here demanding the mods do the work for me.

[Bears Armed]

Generic references to things that also exist in the world of NationStates are allowed, for example religions (Christianity), political philosophies (capitalism), languages (English)

Would we then also be allowed to mention related things (religions, political/economic philosophies, languages, sapient species, etc) that only exist in the world of NationStates (as RPed details of our nations), rather than in RL as well, without falling foul of the rule against Meta-gaming? If not, then this suggested change would effectively privilege those players whose nations are heavily based on RL concepts over those players who invent more details themselves.

As for the "defining a year to prevent nations using odd definitions as a form of non-compliance" problem: Wasn't there a Modly ruling back when the [still extant] resolution on systems of measurement was passed that the gnomes could reasonably be presumed to convert any numbers of units used in resolutions into appropriate equivalents for each nation, just as they could be presumed to convert the actual languages in which the text was written where necessary?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Generic references to things that also exist in the world of NationStates are allowed, for example religions (Christianity), political philosophies (capitalism), languages (English)

Would we then also be allowed to mention related things (religions, political/economic philosophies, languages, sapient species, etc) that only exist in the world of NationStates (as RPed details of our nations), rather than in RL as well, without falling foul of the rule against Meta-gaming?

This is one of the very points I was thinking of when I said to Old Hope that I didn't like his conflation of the concepts and would prefer to wait until the MetaGaming rule is open for discussion before talking about that.

Seeing as it seems to have attracted concern, though, you can excise religions and languages from my wording of the rule. And I agree OMGTKK's wording is better.

[Frisbeeteria]

Jeez, no need to get tetchy.

Not getting "tetchy", getting into lecture mode. People often call for new language or improvements to the rules, but rarely contribute useful suggestions. This subforum is entirely about getting player input into what the rules are, and how they are phrased. You're a player. Give us input!

And I agree OMGTKK's wording is better.

Agreed. Brevity is better than countless examples. Which is not to say it couldn't still be improved upon. Give it a shot, everyone.