[Challenge] Gruenberg v. Repeal "NAPA"

[Glen-Rhodes]

Gruenberg has requested a legality view of Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act", of which he is the author.

Link to challenge: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=393873
Link to challenged proposal: viewtopic.php?p=30201464#p30201464

Text of challenge:

I believe this proposal is illegal, as it breaks the Metagaming rules by mentioning the Security Council.

Mentioning the activities of the Security Council is metagaming; more than that, it had always been the intention of the person who actually created the Security Council that "the GA and SC ... operate in different worlds, and members of one ... ignore the other altogether".

If the Security Council is a roleplay organization, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning the International Freedom Coalition or NationStates Olympic Council.
If the Security Council is a gameplay organization, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning the Founderless Regions Alliance or United Defenders League.
If the Security Council is a technical game feature, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning Invading or Daily Issues.

Its mention in WA proposal texts is illegal, and the prohibition on such that has very happily existed for seven years should be reinstated.

Text of challenged proposal:

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the existence of the Security Council,

Believing that nuclear weapons are morally unjustifiable given their indiscriminate nature,

Aware that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act prevents the World Assembly from banning nuclear weapons:

Repeals "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

[Glen-Rhodes]

My cursory opinion is that it is a Metagaming violation, as the GA and SC are two separate bodies within the game. They were purposefully separated in 2009, with the GA as an IC game, and the SC as completely OOC and Gameplay-related. I find Gruenberg's argument that it's just as illegal as mentioning raiding/defending would be.

I'll be writing a more formal opinion. Just figured I'd share my initial thoughts.

[Sciongrad]

My cursory opinion is that it is a Metagaming violation, as the GA and SC are two separate bodies within the game. They were purposefully separated in 2009, with the GA as an IC game, and the SC as completely OOC and Gameplay-related. I find Gruenberg's argument that it's just as illegal as mentioning raiding/defending would be.

I'll be writing a more formal opinion. Just figured I'd share my initial thoughts.

I have a midterm tomorrow, so I also can't write up a formal opinion at the moment, but I agree. The SC cannot do anything that the GA is capable of recognizing due to the metagaming rule. It doesn't make any sense, then, for the GA to be able to recognize an institution whose most basic functions can't be mentioned. Any argument that suggests the SC is part of the WA and is therefore entitled to IC recognition by the GA ignores not only the clear, deliberate bifurcation of the two back in 2009 but fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the metagaming rule.

[Sedgistan]

For the record, Gruen is seeking to overturn this ruling (discussion continues onto the next page).

I don't think any of us (the mod team) are particularly attached to the ruling. We obviously had our preference, but it's something I'd file under "let the community determine their standards".

[Kryozerkia]

My cursory opinion is that it is a Metagaming violation, as the GA and SC are two separate bodies within the game. They were purposefully separated in 2009, with the GA as an IC game, and the SC as completely OOC and Gameplay-related. I find Gruenberg's argument that it's just as illegal as mentioning raiding/defending would be.

I'll be writing a more formal opinion. Just figured I'd share my initial thoughts.

I have a midterm tomorrow, so I also can't write up a formal opinion at the moment, but I agree. The SC cannot do anything that the GA is capable of recognizing due to the metagaming rule. It doesn't make any sense, then, for the GA to be able to recognize an institution whose most basic functions can't be mentioned. Any argument that suggests the SC is part of the WA and is therefore entitled to IC recognition by the GA ignores not only the clear, deliberate bifurcation of the two back in 2009 but fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the metagaming rule.

I have seen proposals use the terms "World Assembly", ' WA", "General Assembly", and "GA". It seems reasonable to allow the usage of all four, while not allowing for direct reference to the "Security Council" or "SC". "WA" and "World Assembly" are both recognized as "IC". An ideal ruling would allow for this.

[Separatist Peoples]

My cursory opinion is that it is a Metagaming violation, as the GA and SC are two separate bodies within the game. They were purposefully separated in 2009, with the GA as an IC game, and the SC as completely OOC and Gameplay-related. I find Gruenberg's argument that it's just as illegal as mentioning raiding/defending would be.

I'll be writing a more formal opinion. Just figured I'd share my initial thoughts.

+1. I'll try to write something up just so you aren't the only one doing it, but it won't happen until later tomorrow. Possibly late afternoon.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

My opinion draft:

---

Notwithstanding the slightly creative selectivity with which [violet]'s sentence was quoted in the challenge brief, I agree with its central claim.

The Metagaming rule is a crucial umbrella to GA activity. Without it, the General Assembly would be completely nonsensical as the "mandatory compliance" conceit would fall apart entirely. Without the Metagaming rule, a Furtherment of Democracy resolution could include a requirement for nations to create a republican constitution for every game region. "Dude, why would that be a bad thing?" you ask. "That sure would directly Further some Democracy."

The problem is compliance. GA resolutions by design always alter national statistics. Therefore, it is fact that all nations are compliant with resolutions. Yet when it inevitably happens that some region's inhabitants fail to create a republican constitution and in fact say "To hell with democracy, we pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to Shahanshah Torg the Abominable in perpetual totalitarian absolutism," then they are emphatically and obviously not in compliance. Yet their statistics have changed to reflect their clear and inescapable compliance! Thus the lack of a Metagaming rule would create a situation in which two mutually exclusive, logically irreconcilable things could be the case simultaneously.

So the Metagaming rule is essential. But why should it extend as far as prohibiting the mere mention of the Security Council? It's not like we're ordering the SC to impose a no-fly zone on West Bigtopia, we just want to name-drop it to give our resolution more gravitas. Isn't this just a terribly petty imposition of some old-timer's crotchety role-playing preferences?

The answer is no. By acknowledging the existence of a body that materially affects gameplay mechanics in a way that is logically absurd from the GA's perspective,¹ the GA would be examining (and thereby inviting) precisely the kind of nonsensical result described above. The GA only makes any sense if it is the sole supreme supranational body; and if all of its powers can be felt by member nations. If an alleged "power" of the GA does not actually affect member nations, that is an absurd result and therefore it cannot actually be a power of the GA. The Security Council, mechanically speaking an independent and somehow equally supreme supranational body², cannot be affected by the GA even though membership in both bodies is exactly contiguous; therefore for GA actions to make any sense whatsoever, the GA must not be able to recognize the SC's existence.

I therefore uphold the challenge at issue; the resolution is illegal as drafted.


¹It could be argued that the Security Counsel's entire raison d'etre is the premeditated (not to say malicious) continual violation of GA Resolution #2, but not here.

²This state of affairs is nothing short of astonishing in the logic of the General Assembly; were it acknowledged openly in character, it would quickly become the sole topic of debate, legislation, military action, etc. etc. etc.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't think it's right to mention mandatory compliance in this ruling, since it's unnecessary to reach the meta gaming conclusion.

e: Further reading, I would say I'm actually fairly opposed to that opinion in its entirety...

[Glen-Rhodes]

Here's a draft of my more formal opinion. It's light, but gets the point across:

---

The General Assembly Secretariat finds the challenged proposal to be in violation of the Metagaming rule.

In 2009, NationStates developers created a new council called the “Security Council,” in response to General Assembly authors raising concerns about the incompatibility between an in-character General Assembly and an out-of-character Security Council. Site Admin [violet] elucidated this split in a series of posts in the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2545

It is clear and obvious that the General Assembly is “in-character,” even if individual members disagree on what exactly that entails. They have generally agreed for many years that it doesn’t entail mentioning of Game Mechanics like raiding, defending, regional controls, and circa 2009, the Security Council. Ardchoille further referenced that the Security Council was “created to deal with Gameplay events” in a ruling on a Security Council Condemnation in 2010. (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 6#p1572076)

Because the Security Council was created specifically to avoid mixing up “GA-IC” with tools specific to Gameplay and out-of-character activities, it must follow logically that acknowledging the existence of that specific body is an acknowledgement of the game itself. In other words, Metagaming.

This ruling overturns the following: viewtopic.php?p=29557939#p29557939

---

To go further in why I think we shouldn't rule this illegal on mandatory compliance grounds... This is a repeal, which calls into question the appropriateness of touching on mandatory compliance at all. What exactly would member states not be complying with? They'd reject the existence of a repeal? That doesn't make sense. We aren't ruling on a proposal that actually introduces new things or even acknowledges directly that members don't have to comply with it. So relying on mandatory compliance seems like going down a very winding path to reach a foregone conclusion.

The logic behind Sierra's draft opinion is that the GA can't recognize the SC, because it would break the GA's roleplay fundamentals. That is, essentially, the same logic underpinning a Metagaming violation. Why is "acknowledging the existence of a body that materially affects gameplay mechanics," as the draft says, "logically absurd from the GA's perspective?" That sounds exactly like pure Metagaming, not an issue with 'mandatory compliance.' There's also no reason why 'mandatory compliance' would break down if the GA shared power with the SC-- they do completely different things. It's not like the SC is issuing new environmental regulations, nor is the GA getting rid of regional passwords. So the logic of a 'mandatory compliance' violation quickly breaks down, which is something I'm sure GA regulars will see.

[Bears Armed]

I would agree with ruling that mentioning the SC in a GA proposal constitutes Meta-gaming...
... and, even if we decided to the contrary, there's the fact that the NS SC can't do anything to prevent nuclear warfare so that mentioning it here wouldn't really "address the target resolution".

The only potential reason that I could see for allowing GA proposals to mention the SC is that SC proposals legally can mention (and in some cases have mentioned) the GA, and I don't think that that's enough of a reason...

[Glen-Rhodes]

The only potential reason that I could see for allowing GA proposals to mention the SC is that SC proposals legally can mention (and in some cases have mentioned) the GA, and I don't think that that's enough of a reason...

If I recall correctly, though, the reason for this is exactly the reason why it *is* a Metagaming violation in the GA. It's legal in the SC because the SC is an OOC body. They can mention the GA because it's part of NationStates, and the SC has no rolepkaying "fourth wall" that means they can't acknowledge that they're playing a game.

[Christian Democrats]

In my view, we should dismiss the challenge. Repeal NAPA hasn't been submitted, there's no indication that Gruen intends to submit it, and it would be nonsensical to afford authors standing to challenge their own proposals.

(Also, "fishing for attention" is actually listed as a kind of spam in the OSRS. Does anybody deny that Gruen is "fishing for attention"?)

[Sciongrad]

In my view, we should dismiss the challenge. Repeal NAPA hasn't been submitted, there's no indication that Gruen intends to submit it, and it would be nonsensical to afford authors standing to challenge their own proposals.

(Also, "fishing for attention" is actually listed as a kind of spam in the OSRS. Does anybody deny that Gruen is "fishing for attention"?)

Standing has never been a requirement for legality reviews in the past. What's stopping him from submitting this and campaigning for it, which would then result in this same exact discussion?

[Christian Democrats]

In my view, we should dismiss the challenge. Repeal NAPA hasn't been submitted, there's no indication that Gruen intends to submit it, and it would be nonsensical to afford authors standing to challenge their own proposals.

(Also, "fishing for attention" is actually listed as a kind of spam in the OSRS. Does anybody deny that Gruen is "fishing for attention"?)

Standing has never been a requirement for legality reviews in the past. What's stopping him from submitting this and campaigning for it, which would then result in this same exact discussion?

The effort it would take and the chance that he could have his WA membership removed.

No matter how tempting it might be, I don't think we should entertain this challenge. Otherwise, in the future, we could just be flooded with a plethora of so-called rules challenges, which are, in fact, just abstract questions that players want answered.

Honestly, what sort of precedent would a decision on this challenge set? If you want an abstract rules question answered, all you have to do is write a short proposal that you don't plan to submit and, then, challenge it yourself?

[Sciongrad]

Standing has never been a requirement for legality reviews in the past. What's stopping him from submitting this and campaigning for it, which would then result in this same exact discussion?

The effort it would take and the chance that he could have his WA membership removed.

No matter how tempting it might be, I don't think we should entertain this challenge. Otherwise, in the future, we could just be flooded with a plethora of so-called rules challenges, which are, in fact, just abstract questions that players want answered.

Honestly, what sort of precedent would a decision on this challenge set? If you want an abstract rules question answered, all you have to do is write a short proposal that you don't plan to submit and, then, challenge it yourself?

Right, but that would not present any change in policy. The moderators already allowed players to seek reviews without standing and they wren't overwhelmed by abstract rules questions before. Why would continuing that policy change the outcome?

[Christian Democrats]

The effort it would take and the chance that he could have his WA membership removed.

No matter how tempting it might be, I don't think we should entertain this challenge. Otherwise, in the future, we could just be flooded with a plethora of so-called rules challenges, which are, in fact, just abstract questions that players want answered.

Honestly, what sort of precedent would a decision on this challenge set? If you want an abstract rules question answered, all you have to do is write a short proposal that you don't plan to submit and, then, challenge it yourself?

Right, but that would not present any change in policy. The moderators already allowed players to seek reviews without standing and they wren't overwhelmed by abstract rules questions before. Why would continuing that policy change the outcome?

Individually, certain mods would weigh in on abstract questions. I don't recall any team-wide rulings on questions such as this one.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Gruen has no disincentive to submit the proposal. Under existing mod precedent, acknowledging the SC isn't a metagaming violation, so he wouldn't get any kind of infraction if the repeal is deleted. You only risk membership revocation if you submit a knowingly illegal proposal. Given he's made his submission intent clear, I don't really see a reason to wait for him to submit it.

[Christian Democrats]

Allowing players to challenge themselves is unreasonable. It'd be like permitting people to sue themselves. "Judge, I keep skateboarding even though I'm terrible at it and often injure myself. Thus, I'm suing myself for battery. Award me damages, and enjoin me from skateboarding!"

[Glen-Rhodes]

Plenty of players request legality reviews of their own proposals in good faith, though. I did with many of mine. We shouldn't screw those players over, here. :/ Gruen will submit it anyways, and we can't delete a proposal just because the author suvmitted it in bad faith.

[Christian Democrats]

We're not talking about a good faith request for an opinion on a real proposal. We're talking about a bad faith request for an opinion on a fake proposal -- a proposal written for the sole purpose of requesting an opinion.

The normal process goes something like this:
Proposal carefully written --> oops, legality concern --> ask for an opinion

It does not go like this:
Legality concern --> proposal thrown together --> ask for an opinion

[Separatist Peoples]

We're not talking about a good faith request for an opinion on a real proposal. We're talking about a bad faith request for an opinion on a fake proposal -- a proposal written for the sole purpose of requesting an opinion.

The normal process goes something like this:
Proposal carefully written --> oops, legality concern --> ask for an opinion

It does not go like this:
Legality concern --> proposal thrown together --> ask for an opinion

If we decline it, he'll just submit it, and then we'll be right back at it.

And we really shouldn't play chicken with proposal. In this case, NAPA won't pass. But if we try to bluff him with a different proposal, it may pass and then we look like the obstructionists who can't play ball.

Its really in our best interests to answer the challenges until we have enough standing in the GA to refuse without losing face.

[Sciongrad]

We're not talking about a good faith request for an opinion on a real proposal. We're talking about a bad faith request for an opinion on a fake proposal -- a proposal written for the sole purpose of requesting an opinion.

The normal process goes something like this:
Proposal carefully written --> oops, legality concern --> ask for an opinion

It does not go like this:
Legality concern --> proposal thrown together --> ask for an opinion

If we decline it, he'll just submit it, and then we'll be right back at it.

And we really shouldn't play chicken with proposal. In this case, NAPA won't pass. But if we try to bluff him with a different proposal, it may pass and then we look like the obstructionists who can't play ball.

Its really in our best interests to answer the challenges until we have enough standing in the GA to refuse without losing face.

Right. There is basically no benefit to declining to hear his proposal and several ways we can embarrass ourselves.

[Christian Democrats]

If this is the case, then I'll have to dissent. I won't express any opinions on the merits one way or the other.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That seems like a cop-out, but it's your choice. If you dissent, that's a vote in favor of legality, however. You'd want to recuse yourself.

Setting that aside, where are we on the merits? I can't tell who supports "illegal because of pure metagaming" or "illegal because of mandatory compliance"...

[Christian Democrats]

That seems like a cop-out, but it's your choice. If you dissent, that's a vote in favor of legality, however. You'd want to recuse yourself.

Not exactly. We could, for example, have a 3-2-1 decision:

3 for illegal, 2 for legal, 1 for no standing