Commend & Condemn

[Cobdenia]

Right, I'm going to say this: this could be a nice addition to the WA - it is something that can be debated, argued, formed, etc. like other proposals, in a manner that is consistent with the WA style of RP, and could be quite fun. However, for it to be so, the forth wall must remain intact: this is really important. The desire to seperate these resolutions from the main ones is purely out of fear that the WA, as we know it, will die, and be replaced by a spate of commendations and condemnations, which would be rather boring for us; on a more positive side, it would, I think, make the game more enjoyable, having two things potentially going on at once, and the seperation of various functions would mean that certain aspects could be added (though please, pretty please, consult us and the WA mods first).

However, and perhaps most confusingly, us WA-ites do not want more real power. We prefer to RP the power (or lack of it), and the most important thing would be to keep the game playable as we've always played it. It's that forth wall - we want it standing and to get rid of it would, I'm afraid, kill the game from our perspective. More features, would be nice, but there are features we'd like to see (more categories, primarily) and those we'd not (anything that is automatically metagaming; such as the password lock remover).

C&C's can work within the WA, but we need a clear ruleset (such as the ones I wrote) to ensure the WA retains the RP element. Other ideas are also nice - I have no particular problem with WA officers, and think that could, again, be quite good fun if it remains in the style that we all love.

Actually, the best way of doing the seperation would be "Policy" and "Administration", the former being traditional proposals, the latter being more mundane, trivial things such as commendations, electing officers, etc.

If done like that, these changes could be a real plus to the WA, and the game.

[Kelssek]

Quite true, but I should point out that just because the "sheep vote", as we used to call it, tends to support resolutions that reach the floor, C&C is an entirely different beast, not just a new category but a whole different type of resolution, so that does not mean the trend would necessarily hold.

EDIT: That was intended as a quick response to Plutoni, but I'm Kelssek and I approve of Cob's message too.

[Naivetry]

Apparently these changes were being planned by Gameplayers in other forums, in a way which suggested that w.a. regular involvement was distinctly unnecessary and under the presumption that the way that regulars played the game was at best irrelevant, at worst not even worth considering.

This change was certainly not being proposed or even planned by us; we were just as surprised as all of you.

I have asked this repeatedly, and got no substantial answer, if we are to accept our aspect of the game being used to improve other aspects of the game what do we get in return ?

The World Assembly itself does not belong to any group of players - we all use it for different purposes. The legislative aspect of the WA is just one of several valid uses. A unique and dedicated community has grown up around writing and debating WA legislation, true - but that has never interfered with Gameplay; and neither would Gameplay's use of the WA in a new way (say, in a totally separate queue, with totally separate rules) interfere with the passage of the sort of legislation you enjoy. Other people have made suggestions for improvements to the WA regulars' side, too (burning proposals, etc.); it's not that your community is being overlooked in terms of requested changes, but that the admin team can only handle so many changes at once.

They've also offered us influence in the politics of their aspect of the game. I would be more inclined to believe this if Gameplay already tended to take any notice of w.a. resolutions, or if Gameplayers were suggesting that our aspect of the game be expanded in a way which actually brought in game politics in to a formal relationship with w.a. law.

That's exactly what we're suggesting. We do take notice of WA Resolutions - we debate and vote on them. But in-game politics (and thus the largest part of the attentions of the players) do not revolve around the issues about which the World Assembly currently legislates, because Gameplay politics are tied up in the manipulation of game code and regional communities, about which the WA can say nothing under its current rules. And that is what could change. The WA could be granted power within the Gameplay political world by creating new proposal categories - or even an entirely new branch or body within the WA - which operated under a different set of proposal rules without removing or negating the old ones. Again, addition - and if you like, continued segregation (because if you're not interested, we're not about to force you to participate in our brand of politics) - not alteration.

So far the only level of influence I can see the future w.a. regulars having is if they wholesale become Gameplayers interested in the detail of in game politics and become referees for an aspect of the game they currently have little or no interest in and there is absolutely no suggestion that Gameplayers should feel even remotely bound by resolutions which in any case deal with IC issues which Gameplayers have no interest in because nothing they do is role played.

But you would lose nothing of the influence you have now.

You also need not feel obliged to participate in any new branch of the WA that should appear simply because it has the WA label on it. The groups can remain entirely separate to protect the preexisting communities and their rules.

[Urgench]

Apparently these changes were being planned by Gameplayers in other forums, in a way which suggested that w.a. regular involvement was distinctly unnecessary and under the presumption that the way that regulars played the game was at best irrelevant, at worst not even worth considering.

This change was certainly not being proposed or even planned by us; we were just as surprised as all of you.

So what was all this about then ? viewtopic.php?f=12&t=375&start=100

I have asked this repeatedly, and got no substantial answer, if we are to accept our aspect of the game being used to improve other aspects of the game what do we get in return ?

The World Assembly itself does not belong to any group of players - we all use it for different purposes. The legislative aspect of the WA is just one of several valid uses. A unique and dedicated community has grown up around writing and debating WA legislation, true - but that has never interfered with Gameplay; and neither would Gameplay's use of the WA in a new way (say, in a totally separate queue, with totally separate rules) interfere with the passage of the sort of legislation you enjoy. Other people have made suggestions for improvements to the WA regulars' side, too (burning proposals, etc.); it's not that your community is being overlooked in terms of requested changes, but that the admin team can only handle so many changes at once.

No it's just that our suggestions were leapfrogged and Gameplay changes were seen as more pressing and more important. That's fine, I accept that there's more Gameplayers than W.A. regulars, and that they may have a raft of genuine and quite serious concerns that deserve to be dealt with. I hope that Gameplay can be improved and I'm not actually looking to have what I enjoy about the game intrude on Gameplayer's enjoyment of NS. I was only asking that there be some fairness in the exchange of territory that was all.

Sine the debate seems to be moving from "how should the w.a. be reshaped to suit Gameplayers?" to "Can we create another international body which will regulate in game play ?" I am beginning to be able to approach this subject with more equanimity. I do think it smacks of an attitude which thinks " If we can't get what we want from the w.a. without compromise then we'll just sideline it completely and shove it off in to a drafty annex somewhere, while we get on with running the game" but hey it sometimes feels like that anyway.

I know my tone has been outraged, but my actual attitude has been "ok you want to bring some spice back in to the relationship between regulars and Gameplayers eh ? Well cool, but you got to give a little to get a little. "

They've also offered us influence in the politics of their aspect of the game. I would be more inclined to believe this if Gameplay already tended to take any notice of w.a. resolutions, or if Gameplayers were suggesting that our aspect of the game be expanded in a way which actually brought in game politics in to a formal relationship with w.a. law.

That's exactly what we're suggesting. We do take notice of WA Resolutions - we debate and vote on them. But in-game politics (and thus the largest part of the attentions of the players) do not revolve around the issues about which the World Assembly currently legislates, because Gameplay politics are tied up in the manipulation of game code and regional communities, about which the WA can say nothing under its current rules. And that is what could change. The WA could be granted power within the Gameplay political world by creating new proposal categories - or even an entirely new branch or body within the WA - which operated under a different set of proposal rules without removing or negating the old ones. Again, addition - and if you like, continued segregation (because if you're not interested, we're not about to force you to participate in our brand of politics) - not alteration.

So you admit then that what regulars do with regard to legislation is of no substantial interest to Gameplayers because what you do has nothing to do with the issues we legislate ?

Fine, but your answer to that is to simply pollute what we do with new categories relating to issues which regulars have no interest in, that would be fine if this took place elsewhere than in the w.a. but either way ( new categories or new organisation ) does not actually reduce the segregation which supporters of the current changes seem to be pretending they want to end, if anything they increase that segregation.

If Gameplayers were posting here that they were genuinely interested in role playing how these new resolution categories effected their play and seemed willing to incorporate aspects of the old w.a.'s world view in to their own, I'm sure a hell of a lot more of us might have been more positive about this process.

As it is we were simply being asked to accept the death of w.a. roleplay, and the imposition of Gameplay concerns on an organisation with rules which make it (currently) impossible to address Gameplay. Now I can get on board with changes to the rules to make it possible for the w.a. to finally admit the existence of Gameplay, but only if Gameplayers can accept that they will have to develop a new attitude towards how the w.a. interacts with how they play, including abiding by resolutions not directly related to gameplay per se.

But you would lose nothing of the influence you have now.

You also need not feel obliged to participate in any new branch of the WA that should appear simply because it has the WA label on it. The groups can remain entirely separate to protect the preexisting communities and their rules.

Exactly finally your being honest, at least your admitting that what regulars do is of absolutely no interest or account to Gameplayers. I've been honest about how much interest I have in raiding/defending/regional politics e.t.c.

But surely what your suggesting isn't that these two new branches of the W.A. be separate but equal are you ? I mean your position wouldn't be that a recalcitrant "old" w.a. should have the same ability to effect stats or that delegates should be remotely interested in looking through the proposals list if those proposals weren't about gameplay issues are you ?

[Bears Armed]

Thinking about it further, there's yet another one of the rules that govern proposals of the "traditional" type that would clearly have to be ignored for Commendations/Condemnations: Not just the 'No Meta-gaming', 'No Branding' and 'No RL references' rules, but the 'Not worthy of the WA's attention' rule as well.
After all, when we can only vote on one topic at a time, how would singling out a single nation for that purpose -- when the WA has literally thousands of members, rather than "just" two hundred or so like the RLUN -- really be a worthwhile use of this organisation's time?

[Absolvability]

That and the fact that you do not seem to understand what the metagaming rules mean and are for, and the fact that you have clearly confused raiding/invadergaming and RPing, is reason that you should seriously revise both your argument and the tone that you have been taking.

Are you serious? I understand meta-gaming as well as anyone. Like I said, this mystical and awe-inspiring "fourth wall," is nothing new to me. Of all the things I've been accussed of... meta-gaming has never been one. I did not CONFUSE raiding with RPing, I was explaining how one can be used to explain the other.

My reason for trying to point this out is that, regardless of public opinion, Resolutions are written ICly. We do not need a separate list of rules for C&Cs. The present rules suffice... in fact, most of them aren't even applicable. Oh, and if you don't like my tone I'm not sure what to tell ya. My tone is significantly better than some others.

"MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-WA nations."
I've highlighted the relevant parts. How is this hard to reconcile with writing C&Cs? In order to submit one... you must be part of the WA. When you become part of the WA your nation feels effects of resolutions passed (which is why, regardless of interest, I think the influx of WA participants will indeed find time to vote and possibly even debate.) As part of the WA they will be subject to the rules. You can debate OOC, as I understand, but if you WRITE some legislation it must be IC. Does that really need explaining? Does the perfectly clear rule need re-defining? What can be thrown out is what I have not underlined above. Regions and nations shall obviously be mentioned. But they will be mentioned in an IC capacity, and C&C'd for IC actions.

"Real World Violations

George Bush, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), 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."

Easily applied. "All there is to it... is to do it." And again, the only problem I see is moderators having some extra crap to deal with until things settle in.

The point is that raiding/invading/gameplaying takes place entirely OOC, for entirely OOC reasons and motivations.

And will continue to do so until such point as one of them decides to join the WA and write some legislation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

But you could. That's what's at issue.

We don't want to. That much is crystal clear. People say we aren't being forced; people say this isn't an OMAC move. Yet, it certainly is beginning the look and feel that way. This is our part of the game -- our only part. Major changes ought to be decided by us, not by somebody who spends all of their time with Gameplay. And despite what some of you are saying, you aren't a member of the WA community just because you vote on resolutions or have wars over the delegate seat. You are a member of the WA community if, and only if, you participate in this forum, drafting and debating proposals day after day.

Let's not over-react here. Nobody is talking about dismantling the WA as it exists today. I've said multiple times that I'm here to get feedback on what you want, and I have no intention of ruining the game as it's played today. I simply want to be able to throw around a few ideas without people going off the deep end.

What Quod is feeling, which is what a lot of us are feeling, is that it doesn't really matter what we say. Your not responding to our most serious concerns helps fuel that, but the responses of Kandarin and other people that have no stake in the World Assembly as WA regulars use it is also fueling that fire. It's quite clear what we want and what we don't want. We're afraid that the wants of non-WA participators are going to overshadow the worries of WA participators.

We need to be able to discuss ideas for going forward without people screaming that they're leaving the game, it will destroy the site, etc. Please contribute positively.

I appreciate your want to not have these debates turn in to schoolyard fights, but the very essence of our argument is that these things will destroy the site -- our part of the site, anyways -- because, as of yet, we have not been ensured that our rules and traditions will be followed by those that use new additions. Can you at least sympathize with us in that you are wanting to use our house as a venue for all these things, and that we're so far being told our house rules don't really matter?

Look, sweeping away all the emotional language and resignations, all we are asking for is that C&Cs and future additions follow our rules and regulations. Yes, this means no resolutions to get rid of passwords, and other things that involve game mechanics. Kandarin may not like the fact that GP/II/RP don't get to have much of a say in these rules and regulations, but I don't consider those people to have any right to have a say. Like I've said time after time, this is our turf, no matter how many times anybody says we need to 'rise above' those things. If you add an addition to the game that affects II -- lets say that you make it possible for the World Assembly to end wars, which is something that shouldn't ever happen, because the WA shouldn't be affecting non-member nations -- then no doubt II would be giving the same turf arguments we are.

EDIT: To bring viewtopic.php?f=12&t=375&p=34990#p34990 this post over here: there have been suggestions on a separate body. Why haven't these suggestions been answered? It would be nice to get an answer from the person actually doing these things, rather than some mod (or whatever the colored name indicates).

[Flibbleites]

Most such proposals will fail because the subject matter isn't sufficiently well-known or the case hasn't been made. Stirring an international organization to take a stand on goings-on in some region should be hard, and if the present state of things is anything to go by, it will be. This is just fine; by requiring a lot of convincing and effort to use the WA for this sort of thing, it should cause those who would to choose their battles carefully.

With all due respect, I'm really not sure that's true. I don't need to berate the point that the numbers of nations aren't as high as they've been in the past. Currently 51 approvals are needed for quorum; other WA members know better than me how this fits into the long-term cycle, but that's lower than it's been for a while.

This is the lowest I've ever seen it.

[Absolvability]

lets say that you make it possible for the World Assembly to end wars, which is something that shouldn't ever happen, because the WA shouldn't be affecting non-member nations -- then no doubt II would be giving the same turf arguments we are.

If the WA ends wars it will be within the WA. Compliance is mandatory for those that recieve the telegram. This is game-coding. Compliance is ALSO RPed... which is to say you may still do whatever the heck you want. And no anti-war legislation should/would ever be construed to affect non-member nations.

Presuming rules particular to C&Cs are never drafted... we still have our own rules. And they take care of these concerns just fine. All of these examples I'm seeing are making the awkward assumption that somebody will do something illegal. It may happen. It already happens. It isn't a good point to make.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If the WA ends wars it will be within the WA. Compliance is mandatory for those that recieve the telegram. This is game-coding. Compliance is ALSO RPed... which is to say you may still do whatever the heck you want. And no anti-war legislation should/would ever be construed to affect non-member nations.

Presuming rules particular to C&Cs are never drafted... we still have our own rules. And they take care of these concerns just fine. All of these examples I'm seeing are making the awkward assumption that somebody will do something illegal. It may happen. It already happens. It isn't a good point to make.

Okay. Then take it as only affecting WA member. II would still throw around the same turf arguments.

[Absolvability]

Okay. Then take it as only affecting WA member. II would still throw around the same turf arguments.

Perhaps. But their point would be as moot as yours was moments ago... for the same reasons. They aren't affected, so who cares? Like I've said before... all that is required is mutual flexibility and a practical application of group logic. If we can use both of those tools, we won't even need to touch the presently existing rules.

[Plutoni]

Also, the National/Regional Happenings need a space between @@NATION/REGION@@ and "was nominated", as currently it reads something like "Kandarinwas nominated..."

[Glen-Rhodes]

Perhaps. But their point would be as moot as yours was moments ago... for the same reasons. They aren't affected, so who cares? Like I've said before... all that is required is mutual flexibility and a practical application of group logic. If we can use both of those tools, we won't even need to touch the presently existing rules.

How are they 'not affected'? The WA would have the power to end wars. You're making absolutely no sense. The point I'm making is that the 'turf arguments' are incredibly valid. Like Quod said, this isn't teenage drama about cliques. This is about our enjoyment in regards to this corner of the game. If you don't feel that the WA would likely be ruined, then fine. You've only been here for two months, and for those two months, you've been in heated fights with numerous delegations. To me, that wouldn't be very fun, so I'm going to assume that you haven't been having very much fun with the way things are. Forgive me if I stick you in with non-WA regulars that don't really know what it is that makes WA traditions, rules, and regulations so special to those of us that have been here for a long period of time.

[Absolvability]

How are they 'not affected'?

Because they aren't part of the WA, and you amended your example to include only WA members. Um... duh?

The WA would have the power to end wars.

Within the WA only. Compliance, for member-nations is mandated by game-coding and a handy dandy little TG. Compliance for non-member nations is RPed. Always has been, always should be. This makes LOTS of sense.

You've only been here for two months, and for those two months, you've been in heated fights with numerous delegations.

Which is to say I've taken an active role. What you call fights, I call debates. But whatever.

To me, that wouldn't be very fun, so I'm going to assume that you haven't been having very much fun with the way things are.

I've already said I love RPing. To say that I forsake that aspect of the game in order to delve more deeply into the politics is very much to say that I enjoy the politics.

Forgive me if I stick you in with non-WA regulars that don't really know what it is that makes WA traditions, rules, and regulations so special to those of us that have been here for a long period of time.

My arguements thus far have been supporting the idea that the present rules and regulations need not be altered. Though it might be wise to realize though flexibility and logic what obviously CAN'T apply. For example... creating committees. These rules need not apply to C&Cs. And I've explained why Meta-gaming and the fourth wall are easily reconcilable with C&Cs.

As far as 'tradition' goes... well, haha, that's too subjective to be a valid point. You, like many others, want to be considered somehow special due to your participation. And you don't want to permit others a level of participation that would, in the future, make them equally special.

[Urgench]

My arguements thus far have been supporting the idea that the present rules and regulations need not be altered. Though it might be wise to realize though flexibility and logic what obviously CAN'T apply. For example... creating committees. These rules need not apply to C&Cs. And I've explained why Meta-gaming and the fourth wall are easily reconcilable with C&Cs.

As far as 'tradition' goes... well, haha, that's too subjective to be a valid point. You, like many others, want to be considered somehow special due to your participation. And you don't want to permit others a level of participation that would, in the future, make them equally special.

Who are you to decide what's a valid point and what isn't ? GR is simply expressing his opinion that certain aspects of the game are not compatible with the rules as they stand, that's a fact, and the rules were developed to make that the case. You can't take a rule which says thieving is illegal and make it say that thieving actually is legal as long as you give it a different name.

And for the millionth time, nobody has ever stopped Gameplayers from being more involved in the legislative process, so no one is trying to deny anyone participation. What is at issue is whether or not that participation should constitute a complete destruction of the current system and its replacement with a new system which suits other kinds of participants and ignores those currently participating.

Oh and stop trying to get rises out of GR and others, your not helping by borderline flaming people who are already quite exercised by what's going on.

[Absolvability]

Who are you to decide what's a valid point and what isn't ?

Just expressing my opinion. I think this should be dealt with an objective eye towards fair. That's hard to do when people keep talking about who has done this... how long they've been doing it... and making assumptions as to what 'Gameplayers' are likely to do and/or take advantage of.

GR is simply expressing his opinion that certain aspects of the game are not compatible with the rules as they stand, that's a fact, and the rules were developed to make that the case.

Yes, certain aspects of the game are not compatible with the rules as they stand. Agreed. My point this whole time has been that in order to make use of these new options people will need to be members of the WA. In which case the rules now apply to them, and they'll be enforced with equal fervor.

What is at issue is whether or not that participation should constitute a complete destruction of the current system and its replacement with a new system which suits other kinds of participants and ignores those currently participating.

The current system is not being replaced. It is being added to. Or, if it fits into your head better, there will now be two systems that use the same rules.

Oh and stop trying to get rises out of GR and others, your not helping by borderline flaming people who are already quite exercised by what's going on.

Oh get off it, man. I'm being fairly civil here. If I step one toe out of line I'm a flamer but everybody else who is flipping shit is merely 'exercised,' eh?

[Urgench]

Oh and stop trying to get rises out of GR and others, your not helping by borderline flaming people who are already quite exercised by what's going on.

Oh get off it, man. I'm being fairly civil here. If I step one toe out of line I'm a flamer but everybody else who is flipping shit is merely 'exercised,' eh?

Oh so you think yours and Sionis's responses to some of QoD's posts earlier in this thread were really helpful and mature do you ?

[Absolvability]

Oh so you think yours and Sionis's responses to some of QoD's posts earlier in this thread were really helpful and mature do you ?

I think my responses were decidedly more helpful and mature than QoD's own. I also think it's curious that you link me to Sionis, or think that I should speak for him or about him. Clean your mind, man.

There should be a 'fifth wall,' in this game. I'm tired of being seen prejudicially because of what my character may have done in the past... or any affiliations he may've gathered.

[Naivetry]

This change was certainly not being proposed or even planned by us; we were just as surprised as all of you.

So what was all this about then ? viewtopic.php?f=12&t=375&start=100

This is the first post in which changes to the World Assembly are mentioned: viewtopic.php?p=26078#p26078
This is the second idea: viewtopic.php?p=28283#p28283

Discussion continued on the first idea (a Liberation category of WA resolution) for several posts. It then moved to talk of a potential reworking of the way the WA interacts with the sphere of Gameplay, which came as a surprise. Neither had anything to do with the introduction of the C&C's.

So you admit then that what regulars do with regard to legislation is of no substantial interest to Gameplayers because what you do has nothing to do with the issues we legislate ?

Not quite. It is of no interest to us within the sphere of Gameplay, but some of us as general NS players and political geeks are interested in the implications of WA resolutions anyway. The first thing I did when I joined the game was read through all the UN resolutions (there were 169 at the time) to see if I would be ideologically okay with joining the UN. My first in-game goal was to repeal UN Resolution #80. G l o g eventually did it with far more panache than I would have, but somewhere in the vast expanses of the aether, I have a draft repeal of UNR #80 sitting on the Reclamation forums. Within three months I'd been sucked in by Gameplay, never to return; but it's not like I ignore WA resolutions now. They're just lower on my list of priorities than they once were.

Fine, but your answer to that is to simply pollute what we do with new categories relating to issues which regulars have no interest in, that would be fine if this took place elsewhere than in the w.a. but either way ( new categories or new organisation ) does not actually reduce the segregation which supporters of the current changes seem to be pretending they want to end, if anything they increase that segregation.

My theory is that if one branch of the WA suddenly became directly important to Gameplay concerns, the other branch would pick up some activity too, simply because every Gameplay Delegate would have a reason to be checking for new proposals. They might be checking for their kind of proposals, but at least they would have learned what the proposal system was and how it worked. I picked up that information early on because I wanted to write an appeal - but I was discussing the new C&C's last night with a former feeder delegate who was not aware that you had to be a WA Delegate in order to support a proposal. That's a pretty amazing level of segregation. I tend to think encouraging Gameplay familiarity with the voting mechanisms of the WA could only help.

If Gameplayers were posting here that they were genuinely interested in role playing how these new resolution categories effected their play and seemed willing to incorporate aspects of the old w.a.'s world view in to their own, I'm sure a hell of a lot more of us might have been more positive about this process.

As it is we were simply being asked to accept the death of w.a. roleplay, and the imposition of Gameplay concerns on an organisation with rules which make it (currently) impossible to address Gameplay. Now I can get on board with changes to the rules to make it possible for the w.a. to finally admit the existence of Gameplay, but only if Gameplayers can accept that they will have to develop a new attitude towards how the w.a. interacts with how they play, including abiding by resolutions not directly related to gameplay per se.

This is the thing: we can no more incorporate aspects of the old WA legislation into our style of play (in the way you seem to be suggesting) than you can conduct raids in yours. We would certainly abide by the resolutions, I would hope, if we were RPing our nations or anything remotely related to national politics. But that's not what we do - and I'm not sure what you would get out of it if we did.

But you would lose nothing of the influence you have now.

You also need not feel obliged to participate in any new branch of the WA that should appear simply because it has the WA label on it. The groups can remain entirely separate to protect the preexisting communities and their rules.

Exactly finally your being honest, at least your admitting that what regulars do is of absolutely no interest or account to Gameplayers. I've been honest about how much interest I have in raiding/defending/regional politics e.t.c.

We're interested - sometimes. But most of us are not invested in it the way you are. Those of us who occasionally moonlight as WA legislation buffs consider that a part of their NS experience, but not usually as something related to the rest of Gameplay.

But surely what your suggesting isn't that these two new branches of the W.A. be separate but equal are you ? I mean your position wouldn't be that a recalcitrant "old" w.a. should have the same ability to effect stats or that delegates should be remotely interested in looking through the proposals list if those proposals weren't about gameplay issues are you ?

I don't see why the "old" WA branch shouldn't still be able to affect stats. In fact, I would go further and propose that the "new" WA branch shouldn't be able to. (Gameplayers have as little use for legislation on national stats as WA legislators have for legislation on regions.) The choice of what to look through would be, as it always as been, up to the individual delegate or region.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Just expressing my opinion. I think this should be dealt with an objective eye towards fair.

I'm not going to be objective, period. Nobody here is being objective, and to assert that subjectivity has no place in asking that my corner of the game not be violated is plain stupid. Deciding what is 'fair' is inherently subjective.

Yes, certain aspects of the game are not compatible with the rules as they stand. Agreed. My point this whole time has been that in order to make use of these new options people will need to be members of the WA. In which case the rules now apply to them, and they'll be enforced with equal fervor.

You still aren't making any sense. To you, all that's needed to be considered a member of this community is that little badge on your nation's page. To actual members of this community, the requirements are bit a higher. I do not think it's 'fair' that decisions that affect Quod, Urgench, Kelssek, myself and the other few WA regulations largely aren't going through us. I realize that this thread has become a place to express opinions, so that Violet can decide whether or not to continue with this. However, it is not what the thread started as, and going on the responses to our incredibly valid concerns (which have just been met with accusations of elitism and prejudice), there never was an intent to make sure that we want this expanded power.

(Since you, Absolvability might take the below as speaking directly to you, note that it's directed towards GP/II/RP)

What people need to realize is that they are not legitimate members of the World Assembly community simply because they vote on resolutions, read resolutions, or debate resolutions within their own RMBs. Because I have to go and telegram you to get my resolution to vote does not mean that you are legitimate member of the World Assembly community. Because you use endorsements to invade regions does not mean that you are legitimate member of the World Assembly community. There is but a single way that you can become a legitimate member of this community, and that is actively posting on these forums, debating and drafting proposals. The community as it stand is a relatively small, close-knit one. That does not mean we are xenophobic, like a lot of proponents of C&Cs are implying.

To be blunt, I don't give a rat's ass if you think it would be fun if the World Assembly has game mechanic powers. I don't think it's fun, and my opinion on the matter means more than somebody who doesn't participate within the community. So, because the consensus seems to be against C&Cs as they stand, and the other side of the river doesn't want them to be regulated, the most logical thing to do is to use some other venue for these additions.

[Absolvability]

I'm not going to be objective, period. Nobody here is being objective, and to assert that subjectivity has no place in asking that my corner of the game not be violated is plain stupid. Deciding what is 'fair' is inherently subjective.

Well, I'm TRYING to be objective. But maybe I've failed. At any rate... I'm not proposing total objectivity. What I'm saying is that... somewhere between you and Objective-ville resides this little place where this is not YOUR corner of the game... and objectivity decides what constitutes a VIOLATION... though you may certainly contest, subjectively, how this affects you.

Which is certainly what you're doing, but you seem to be marginalizing other people in the process.

To you, all that's needed to be considered a member of this community is that little badge on your nation's page. To actual members of this community, the requirements are bit a higher.

So like... if I don't volunteer to help plant trees in the local park, I'm not a member of my real life community? In FACT, all you need IS that little badge. Because, due to game-coding, that badge carries with it many responsibilities. One such responsibility is not writing resolutions. It is however complying with them. Do not confuse 'regulars' with 'members.'

[Unibot]

What people need to realize is that they are not legitimate members of the World Assembly community simply because they vote on resolutions, read resolutions, or debate resolutions within their own RMBs. Because I have to go and telegram you to get my resolution to vote does not mean that you are legitimate member of the World Assembly community. Because you use endorsements to invade regions does not mean that you are legitimate member of the World Assembly community. There is but a single way that you can become a legitimate member of this community, and that is actively posting on these forums, debating and drafting proposals. The community as it stand is a relatively small, close-knit one. That does not mean we are xenophobic, like a lot of proponents of C&Cs are implying.

Bullshit, they're just not 'legitimate' regulars of this particular forum-based community surrounding the legislative process in the WA. The World Assembly extends well past proposal writing.

I'm going with Cobdenia on this one. Enforce the continuation of RP with C&C proposals, but throw out the old stigma on mentioning nations/regions as long as it is mentioning nations & region's contributions, not the player behind the screen.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

With commend and condemn we now have a possibility of a quorum queue that has never been so long since I first joined NationStates. I suggest that more than one resolution, one repeal and one commend/condemn resolution be put on the voting floor simultaneously so more resolutions can be debated and passed compared to a singular queue.

[Unibot]

With commend and condemn we now have a possibility of a quorum queue that has never been so long since I first joined NationStates. I suggest that more than one resolution, one repeal and one commend/condemn resolution be put on the voting floor simultaneously so more resolutions can be debated and passed compared to a singular queue.

I like it. I like it alot.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Bullshit, they're just not 'legitimate' members of this particular forum-based community surrounding the legislative process in the WA. The World Assembly extends well past proposal writing.

The community does not. A community implies more than mere membership. The World Assembly as an organization is 10,647 strong, but the community that drives the WA is at best 20-30 strong. Those that do not participate in drafting proposals are not members of the community, and I don't quite care if you disagree. C&Cs affect WA regulars vastly more than they affect mere WA members. It's us that have to change our traditions; it's us that have to deal with proposal backlogs; it's us that have to give up the only part of this game that actually entertains us. Mere WA members are largely concerned with whether or not to vote for or against a resolution. The WA community is concerned with every facet of the process it took for that resolution to come to vote, from formulating ideas, to drafting, to debating, to campaigning.