NationStates

Posted: **Mon May 04, 2015 1:29 pm**

Real World Violations

George Bush, Barack Obama, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), Earth, Milky Way, and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted. Also, while it acceptable to use real world laws and UN resolutions as a starting point, don't plagiarize.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 12:51 pm**

Second round bump for discussion.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 12:56 pm**

Just to clarify this rule, there have been any number of precedence ruling on this topic.

Foremost is the fact that all proposals are written in RL languages (I'll save the English debate for that rule's topic)
Using "in English" or "on Earth" for WA mandated reporting or activities (despite RP nations' positions on those subjects) is generally not considered a RL violation
Use of common nouns like "dolphins", "nuclear weapons", or "drones" cannot be avoided and are therefore not RL violations
I'm sure there are other precedence rulings, but I'm working off of memory and haven't done the research.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 1:12 pm**

I'd like to appeal for the allowance of broad scientific concepts to be referred to with their proper name. Kessler Syndrome as an example.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 1:12 pm**

Frisbeeteria wrote:Using "in English" or "on Earth" for WA mandated reporting or activities (despite RP nations' positions on those subjects) is generally not considered a RL violation

Uh, no, Earth is absolutely considered to be a RL violation. English has been allowed before.

I'm sure there are other precedence rulings, but I'm working off of memory and haven't done the research.

The ones that get brought up most often are religions, Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, (Frisbeetarianism?), and so forth.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 1:20 pm**

I feel like we could easily loosen up the interpretation to include scientific concepts and the like. I like the hard rule against Real World nations and People, though. I always thought that direct reference to Real World religion ought to be illegal, but that's mostly a matter of preferring to see thenWA maintain a generalized view on religions.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 1:32 pm**

If we started making exceptions for scientific theories or concepts, we'd have to start making exception for all sorts of things. "Milky Way" has been mentioned as a banned word that should be given exception for, not to mention "World Wide Web," "Velcro," and "Kleenex." In my view we should cull everything specifically named for a RL person, place or thing full stop. It would just become confounding trying to deal with all instances on whether this term qualifies for an exception, or if that one does not, if that were not the case.

I do, however, have a problem with banning "earth" (lowercase e) when it could be reasonably interpreted as a synonym for the ground (that is a widely accepted use of the word) -- but not necessarily when it's clearly referring to the planet. As to English and all major world languages and religions - cut them. Who needs them, anyway?

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 1:44 pm**

Defwa wrote:Kessler Syndrome

I'd never heard that name before you posted it, and I imagine I'm not alone. Couldn't you use "cascading orbital debris syndrome" to say the same thing, without requiring a Wikipedia lookup?

The Dark Star Republic wrote: Earth is absolutely considered to be a RL violation.

Really? I disagree with that ruling, despite the prevalence of FT nations.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:The ones that get brought up most often are religions, Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, (Frisbeetarianism?), and so forth.

Separatist Peoples wrote: I always thought that direct reference to Real World religion ought to be illegal

In a vacuum, I would totally agree. However, Max's original issues mentioned the Catholic Church, Harry Potter, New Age cults, and Nazis, so it's hard to claim they aren't part of NS canon. I think we've extended that to the other major regions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc) out of a feeling that they should be allowed an equal place even though they're not technically canon.

As for Pastafarianism and Frisbeeterianism (invented by George Carlin, by the way), I don't think we felt they crossed over into the area of "major religions" and didn't deserve inclusion. As far as I know, we haven't been asked to rule on Scientology and a few other edge-straddling religions, and I'd be content to leave it that way.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 1:50 pm**

Frisbeeteria wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote: Earth is absolutely considered to be a RL violation.

Really? I disagree with that ruling, despite the prevalence of FT nations.

It's mentioned in the rule's first line:

George Bush, Barack Obama, Hammas [sic], France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), Earth

I'm not that fussed over it as it can be easily substituted for "world", which is the same number of letters. As OMGTKK pointed out, lower case earth is probably a fairer call to allow.

Frisbeeteria wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:The ones that get brought up most often are religions, Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, (Frisbeetarianism?), and so forth.
Separatist Peoples wrote: I always thought that direct reference to Real World religion ought to be illegal

In a vacuum, I would totally agree. However, Max's original issues mentioned the Catholic Church, Harry Potter, New Age cults, and Nazis, so it's hard to claim they aren't part of NS canon.

This overlaps with the MetaGaming rule so I'm not expecting anything immediate, but the disjoint comes because you're not allowed to mention anything else in the "NS canon". Christianity clearly exists in the world of NationStates, but so do other roleplayed religions that can't be mentioned because of MetaGaming.

I can't see why it would ever actually be necessary to reference religions (the proposals that do are almost always either Grossly Offensive or duplication of existing human rights laws anyway) so it's more of an academic concern than anything, but it does create a bit of an inconsistency.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 1:58 pm**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:It's mentioned in the rule's first line:

I think that got added in a later revision and I missed it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't part of the Hack & Fris revisions. In any event, the workarounds you mentioned are fine.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:it does create a bit of an inconsistency.

Heavens! An inconsistency-free NationStates? I wouldn't know what to do with that.

... and no love for George Carlin's invented religion either. *tsk, tsk*

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 2:56 pm**

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Defwa wrote:Kessler Syndrome

I'd never heard that name before you posted it, and I imagine I'm not alone. Couldn't you use "cascading orbital debris syndrome" to say the same thing, without requiring a Wikipedia lookup?

I had to Google that. Why not call it "flying no air sky thing hit other thing and make boom on ground"

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 3:07 pm**

Defwa wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:I'd never heard that name before you posted it, and I imagine I'm not alone. Couldn't you use "cascading orbital debris syndrome" to say the same thing, without requiring a Wikipedia lookup?

I had to Google that. Why not call it "flying no air sky thing hit other thing and make boom on ground"

I have a suggestion for a coauthor.

Frisbeeteria wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:It's mentioned in the rule's first line:

I think that got added in a later revision and I missed it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't part of the Hack & Fris revisions.

You're right, it wasn't. You were actually pretty sharp, back in 2005, in dismissing the idea that "Earth" could be considered a RW violation.

Frisbeeteria wrote:In any event, the workarounds you mentioned are fine.

Good.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 5:19 pm**

About a month back, there was a proposal to Protect the English Language. There was a discussion, as the concept came perilously close to an RL violation. I am in favour of keeping some parts of the rule (any geographical location, RL religions) but maybe revisiting and clarifying other parts.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 6:10 pm**

I'd be in favour of allowing RL religions to be discussed - there are topics more related to say, islamophobia, which could be very interesting as more detailed and nuanced resolutions than a more general 'religious hate' proposal because of the particularities of that case.

The real heart of the rule seems to be preventing the mentioning of place names and people, but that some how got extended to just about anything.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 6:34 pm**

I think the rules is fine as is. Loosening it would degrade the quality of proposals I think.
It also is a good baseline to use to explain to the new players that this ain't Earth. Loosening it would make that task more difficult.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 8:27 pm**

I agree that no references should be made to real word objects and such, but I don't think that we should ban mention of scientific theories which are generally named after someone. For example, if we were to write some resolution about quantum mechanics (why? take it for the argument) and someone mentioned Planck's constant, Heisenberg's principle, etc, these references would be quite necessary for the resolution to accurately describe anything.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 8:39 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:For example, if we were to write some resolution about quantum mechanics (why? take it for the argument)

No, let's not take it for the argument. In a dozen years I don't recall any proposals that needed that sort of RL reference. If you've got actual examples from draft threads, feel free to link them ... but don't bog down the conversation in hypotheticals. Save those for General and Alternate History RPs.

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 3:45 am**

Fris: There was an entire discussion maybe five (or more?) years ago about how SI units were to be calculated because it wasn't clear whether using "meter" or even "SI" could be mentioned. Someone probably remembers which debate it was. Do we really need to be that strict with Real-World references?

What if a resolution specifies that, in a specific situation the Condorcet Method is to be used for tallying votes? Would the author need to spell out the specifics of the Condorcet Method or actually list how Planck's Constant is to be calculated?

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 3:51 am**

Snefaldia wrote:Fris: There was an entire discussion maybe five (or more?) years ago about how SI units were to be calculated because it wasn't clear whether using "meter" or even "SI" could be mentioned. Someone probably remembers which debate it was. Do we really need to be that strict with Real-World references?

It matters particularly with the nautical mile, because it's defined in reference to earth.

What if a resolution specifies that, in a specific situation the Condorcet Method is to be used for tallying votes? Would the author need to spell out the specifics of the Condorcet Method or actually list how Planck's Constant is to be calculated?

It always amuses me when people try to define a second as "the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" because they're afraid of it being a RL violation. :lol:

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 5:13 am**

With most of the participants here I think it would be agreeable to loosen a bit on the scientific names/field.

Most weird stuff that require people's names in that term would be largely a non-applicable kind of thing in here. Like the Opik-Oort Cloud. Or Parkinson syndrome (which you could alternative generally call it a neuro-degenerative syndrome?)

In my current National Airspace Act project I did encounter such a problem, though, with regards to the Karman line. But given that the Karman line essentially is the boundary where the atmosphere is too thin to support flight (although IRL they like to use 100km and all the extraneous jazz), it's easier to rephrase the latter and use it to define a new term that could be invented just to explain this phenomena (which now is an "edge of space line" in my proposal).

And this same way can be used to circumvent the Real World Violations Rule without detracting from the exact meaning of what you're trying to say.

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 7:52 am**

I'm rather in favour of keeping the Real World Violations Rule strict, if only because the places where I've encountered Real World references tend to involve irritating anglosaxon biases. Appeals to how things are in the Real World tend to focus quite narrowly on how they are in the United States, with no regard for the fact that the vast majority of the planet lives in very different conditions. 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.

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 9:40 am**

Knootoss wrote:I'm rather in favour of keeping the Real World Violations Rule strict, if only because the places where I've encountered Real World references tend to involve irritating anglosaxon biases. Appeals to how things are in the Real World tend to focus quite narrowly on how they are in the United States, with no regard for the fact that the vast majority of the planet lives in very different conditions. 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.

Reasonable Nation Theory...

You don't have to keep it strict just because of the Anglo-Saxon bias. Often more than not they get dinged out for more than one illegality, and I don't think a slight loosening of this rule for scientific principles would kill anyone nor make Anglo-Saxon bias drafts suddenly legal.

I would also like to see how you'd explain a scientific principle or phenomena without being unneccessary lengthy and long-winded about it, too.

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 10:23 am**

Knootoss wrote: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."

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 11:06 am**

My personal preference is to scrap it entirely and replace it with something simple and easy to understand: "No Proper Names." That has always been the crux of the rule anyway.

The use of terms like "meter" or "gold" or (heaven forbid) "hydrogen hydroxide" should be perfectly permitted. Using units in a resolution should be no different from using English in a resolution - it is assumed that all resolutions are written to the linguistic standard of the individual nation, why not units of measurement?

Trying to reword laws based on proper names might be a pain in the you know where but I can live with that. But when the daggers and derringers start being pulled out because someone wants a "40 hour work week" (why look, there is not only the term "hour" but "week" in this one) I just bang my head against wall; it's just plain stupid.

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 11:10 am**

Tzorsland wrote:My personal preference is to scrap it entirely and replace it with something simple and easy to understand: "No Proper Names." That has always been the crux of the rule anyway.

I agree with that assessment.

But when the daggers and derringers start being pulled out because someone wants a "40 hour work week" (why look, there is not only the term "hour" but "week" in this one) I just bang my head against wall; it's just plain stupid.

Especially silly is when people object to only one of the terms. Someone wrote a resolution on working time regulation in which they obstinately refused to use "hour" - yet had no problem with "week".

NationStates

The Real World Violations Rule

The Real World Violations Rule