NationStates

Posted: **Mon May 04, 2015 1:33 pm**

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103..."

If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existence; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're amending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2015 11:49 am**

I'm in favour of keeping this, but I do think we need to clarify what a "house of cards" violation actually is. For example, can you mention previous resolutions in the preamble? Are you allowed to mention GAR #1, since it's not going anywhere? Are you allowed to mention them in passing?

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2015 12:02 pm**

Making a resolution dependent on another e.g. "the definition is the one used in Resolution #999" should remain illegal, as if that resolution were ever repealed it would be problematic.

Simply mentioning other resolutions should be permitted. It's a stylistic preference about "excessive back referencing", and not an actual game issue.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2015 12:39 pm**

This rule should be rewritten and possibly even renamed (Dependency Rule?).

No resolution shall be dependent on another resolution. Every resolution must be capable of standing on its own. References to other resolutions are legal so long as the resolution that is doing the referencing could survive if those other resolutions were repealed. A committee may exist in multiple resolutions, and it continues to exist even if the resolution that brought it into existence goes away.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:15 am**

I like that rewording. I think it's also worth mentioning though that it doesn't apply to repeals.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:42 am**

I like that. It should be loosened a little bit to allow at least the mention of other resolutions.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:51 am**

Why does it need to be renamed? "House of Cards" is already amply demonstrative of what the rule involves.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:56 am**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Why does it need to be renamed? "House of Cards" is already amply demonstrative of what the rule involves.

New player: House of Cards . . . hey, that's a TV show, right?

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:07 pm**

"The Big Bang Theory...that's a TV show, right?"
"Twilight...that's a book (or movie), right?"
"The Philosopher's Stone...that's from Harry Potter, right?"

Lots of common terms are co-opted by popular media. What's your point?

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:59 pm**

We don't have any rules called The Big Bang Theory, Twilight, or The Philosopher's Stone. They could confuse new players.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:11 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:We don't have any rules called The Big Bang Theory, Twilight, or The Philosopher's Stone. They could confuse new players.

Yes.... I could see how that might be a problem. If we were to have a rule call the "Dukes of Hazzard" rule, would you expect an increase in proposals regarding Bo and Luke Duke, or orange Dodge Chargers as well?

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:33 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:We don't have any rules called The Big Bang Theory, Twilight, or The Philosopher's Stone. They could confuse new players.

Yes.... I could see how that might be a problem. If we were to have a rule call the "Dukes of Hazzard" rule, would you expect an increase in proposals regarding Bo and Luke Duke, or orange Dodge Chargers as well?

No, the "Dukes of Hazzard" rule is a pure blocker against regulating the length of jean shorts.

...

I don't see the coinciding titles of popular media as terribly confusing; and even if I did, I'd still be in favor of continuing to call it "House of Cards," because both titles are referencing the same underlying archetype, which is what we're really getting at anyway. The job we're trying to do is accurately and predictively promulgate the rules going forward; dumbing it down because someone might get confused that more than one thing can be called by a similar name is ~~surrendering to Newspeak and I won't fucking have it~~ not productive.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:40 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:We don't have any rules called The Big Bang Theory, Twilight, or The Philosopher's Stone. They could confuse new players.

My point being, people still know that the Big Bang Theory has to do with science, twilight is a time of day, and the Philosopher's Stone has something to do with Nicholas Flamel. There's a chance that people might still know that "house of cards" means something built on a weak foundation. The show is in its third season now; have there been many complaints from newbies that back-referencing has nothing to do with Kevin Spacey?

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:43 pm**

A bizarre but needed rule you don;t think of off the top of your head.

I fully support this one!

Posted: **Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:51 am**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:If we were to have a rule call the "Dukes of Hazzard" rule, would you expect an increase in proposals regarding Bo and Luke Duke, or orange Dodge Chargers as well?

I propose the following "Dukes of Hazzard" rule: You cannot avoid enforcement of gun control laws by claiming your nation uses crossbows or any other form of bow.

Posted: **Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:07 pm**

Tzorsland wrote:
Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:If we were to have a rule call the "Dukes of Hazzard" rule, would you expect an increase in proposals regarding Bo and Luke Duke, or orange Dodge Chargers as well?

I propose the following "Dukes of Hazzard" rule: You cannot avoid enforcement of gun control laws by claiming your nation uses crossbows or any other form of bow.

Or we could enact gun control by forcing anyone who owns a firearm to only use pearl handled pistols (a.k.a Rosco's gun).

I fear we may have lost some of our younger viewers though, so lets get this back on track.

Posted: **Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:17 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:I fear we may have lost some of our younger viewers though, so lets get this back on track.

OK, but I'm a little disappointed that an early 80's series would be lost on our younger viewers. I really wanted to make a number of references to the original series of Batman (in living color), Laugh In, He Haw, and Star Trek. :twisted:

When I was a small child I hit my head in the bathroom. Blood was gushing all over. My mother was in a panic. Me? "I'm missing BATMAN!" You have to have your priorities.

Posted: **Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:16 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Tzorsland wrote:
I propose the following "Dukes of Hazzard" rule: You cannot avoid enforcement of gun control laws by claiming your nation uses crossbows or any other form of bow.

Or we could enact gun control by forcing anyone who owns a firearm to only use pearl handled pistols (a.k.a Rosco's gun).

I fear we may have lost some of our younger viewers though, so lets get this back on track.

ummm

I might already own a set of those.....

Not that I'm admitting to anything mind you but it is possible.

......

Posted: **Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:05 pm**

Summary of proposed changes:

Suggested rewording: "No resolution shall be dependent on another resolution. Every resolution must be capable of standing on its own. References to other resolutions are legal so long as the resolution that is doing the referencing could survive if those other resolutions were repealed. A committee may exist in multiple resolutions, and it continues to exist even if the resolution that brought it into existence goes away."
Suggested names: "House of Cards", "Dependency"

Posted: **Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:09 pm**

We also might want to add DSR's suggestion to the proposed rewrite:

The Dark Star Republic wrote:I like that rewording. I think it's also worth mentioning though that it doesn't apply to repeals.

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:02 am**

Frisbeeteria wrote:"A committee may exist in multiple resolutions, and it continues to exist even if the resolution that brought it into existence goes away."

I suggest changing that slightly, as follows (with my suggested additions in red):
"A committee may exist in multiple resolutions, and it continues to exist for as long as that least one resolution that uses it is still in force even if the resolution that originally brought it into existence goes away."

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:29 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:"A committee may exist in multiple resolutions, and it continues to exist even if the resolution that brought it into existence goes away."

I suggest changing that slightly, as follows (with my suggested additions in red):
"A committee may exist in multiple resolutions, and it continues to exist for as long as that least one resolution that uses it is still in force even if the resolution that originally brought it into existence goes away."

I think Fris worded it the way he did to allow for situations where all resolutions that created/used a particular committee had been repealed and then someone else came along and wanted to resurrect said committee.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:36 am**

I am reminded of Reagan's quote, "Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"

I would just say a committee is eternal, it never dies, but without active resolutions it doesn't really do anything.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:40 am**

Tzorsland wrote:I would just say a committee is eternal, it never dies, but without active resolutions it doesn't really do anything.

Which is exactly what happens is it not?

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:44 pm**

Tzorsland wrote:I am reminded of Reagan's quote, "Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
I would just say a committee is eternal, it never dies, but without active resolutions it doesn't really do anything.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:Which is exactly what happens is it not?

Lots of people say that it is un-established. I've held this argument for quite a while, but when I wanted to assign new duties, some people came in and said it had to be reestablished to undertake such duties. Anyway, I agree with that. Perhaps it should be codified.

NationStates

The House of Cards Rule

The House of Cards Rule