World Assembly Councils

[[violet]]

I'm happy to review all changes going forward. But C&Cs were not introduced solely for this community. If they had been, I'd probably agree with you: they've presented more problems than benefits. But they were added for the entire WA, particularly the gameplay part of it, and they represent a substantial potential benefit for NS overall. I thus want to keep the benefit while ameliorating the damage.

...really? Ok, I haven't been following every single thread on this change, but from the ones I have read, this is completely new. I didn't realize it was "particularly [for] the gameplay part". In fact, saying this seems to contradict some of your earlier statements, here and here, that the C&Cs were simple additions to the WA legislative function.

I've been over this already, including in the posts you reference. Initially I didn't realize the nature of the separation that existed between the gameplay and WA-IC communities. So when I said, "Here's something for the WA," I wasn't referring to just the WA-IC part, or just the gameplay part; I meant the whole thing.

Yes, and I have come to understand this very well since I asked the question. My question now is: What parts of the current situation cause difficulty? For example, earlier you said that having an SC resolution as "WA Resolution #51" is a problem, and I suggested designating it SC Resolution #1, with the next GA resolution to be GA Resolution #51. You haven't responded to this, so I'm still wondering if that's a solution for you or not. As I've said before, there are plenty of things I can do here.

I didn't respond to the resolution numbering thing because like five other people did in the intervening space: yes, I think renumbering them would be good.

Okay! That is good to know. Agreed solutions to specific problems I can deal with.

But still, the two are not in a meaninful sense separate. We have to spend 30 days voting on whether people have been naughty or nice, and whether that 30 days is spread out over 30 days or 60 days, it's still a monumental waste of everyone's time. If GR's Food Welfare Act reaches quorum, we will have our situation where before we are allowed to discuss global hunger, we have to spend a week discussing Equilism's offsite forum.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Who is "we"? The GA? I don't understand why you'd feel that the GA must discuss SC legislation.

By ignoring the SC my whole region is forced to ignore it.

Many Delegates ignore the WA altogether, or ignore specific resolutions; that doesn't mean their entire region is forced to ignore them. I have no problem with you declaring your nation won't participate in the SC whatsoever. Your region's residents will remain free to vote, discuss, or abstain as they see fit.

And the whole point about C&Cs is that they can't be ignored: they are game-coded.

They can't be ignored in the sense that if you go to a specific web page, the info is there, sure. But the deal we've constructed here is that the SC is not necessarily relevant to the operations of the GA. Regional passwords are game-coded and incompatible with WA-IC play, but you just ignore those as irrelevant to what you're doing--is that not the same thing?

[[violet]]

You already made a pretty profound change when you split the WA into two separate factions because you didn't think gameplayers should have to abide by existing proposal rules.

That is a total misrepresentation. I split the WA because this community did not want to deal with the new C&C legislation type. Which is completely okay, as already discussed to death, but exempting gameplayers from existing proposal rules had nothing to do with it. Please don't recast the work I did as a favor for the gameplayers, because they weren't asking for it.

it's already pretty confusing for new players when the two separate branches have different proposal types, different conventions and styles of play, and different rules. Yet separating the queues is the dealbreaker for you?

The difference is that new players don't deal with proposals at all. When they discover the WA, they see resolutions at vote, but that's it. It's far less problematic to introduce complexity in proposals, because by the time players are interested in those, they're more advanced.

If you're talking about shortening the vote time for C&Cs only, that might work: after all, whether a nation/region gets a badge is not nearly as profound a decision as whether each nation's stats should be changed to comply with a resolution.

That is of course your opinion. Please understand that many other people exist in the NS community, and to some of them, the SC part of the WA is equally or more interesting than the GA part. That opinion is no more correct than yours.

[Urgench]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Who is "we"? The GA? I don't understand why you'd feel that the GA must discuss SC legislation.

By ignoring the SC my whole region is forced to ignore it.

Many Delegates ignore the WA altogether, or ignore specific resolutions; that doesn't mean their entire region is forced to ignore them. I have no problem with you declaring your nation won't participate in the SC whatsoever. Your region's residents will remain free to vote, discuss, or abstain as they see fit.

And the whole point about C&Cs is that they can't be ignored: they are game-coded.

They can't be ignored in the sense that if you go to a specific web page, the info is there, sure. But the deal we've constructed here is that the SC is not necessarily relevant to the operations of the GA. Regional passwords are game-coded and incompatible with WA-IC play, but you just ignore those as irrelevant to what you're doing--is that not the same thing?

Why would the GA discuss SC proposals ? Because SC resolutions are WA resolutions. At the time it was being discussed I wasn't aware that "the deal" meant that the SC and the GA aren't relevant to one another, but surely if that's true then we can definitively say that the WA no longer exists no ?

I mean if neither of the two new bodies need take any notice of each other, and indeed may act in ways which are completely contrary to one another if they wish, if they are to deal with specifically separate aspects of the game, and ultimately have completely varying characteristics what do they both have to with one another ? Ultimately they only share this now meaningless association with an organisation which their very existence now contradicts, the WA.

Old Guard players certainly did ignore aspects of the game but they were never forced to ignore a massive chunk of the WA before, now not only are they expected to ignore that chunk ( if they wish to maintain the integrity of their game style ) but they are expected to perceive themselves as "GA players". So when I write a resolution now should I put phrases like "The General Assembly requires..." or "The GA hereby creates..." in place of "The World Assembly requires..." or "The WA hereby creates..." ? I ask because a GA resolution can't really require the membership of the (former) WA to abide by a law which is firstly written as though half of its institutions do not exist, and secondly when that unrecognised half does not recognise GA law or respect it. Indeed this surely means that the entire current legal code of the (former) WA is in fact illegitimate and should be struck down since it specifies its authority as that of the WA and in fact that authority no longer exists, the only authorities which now exist are that of the SC and the GA.

This also means that current C&Cs are illegitimate because they also specify the authority of the WA when in fact they use the authority of the SC which is ( we are expected to understand ) completely separate from the GA and operates in a completely different reality to it.

The SC and the GA cannot be functionally separate, act as though each other do not exist, and be at variance with one another and claim to use the same authority as one another.

This "deal" means that I am no longer a WA player if I wish to play the game I have enjoyed for over two years now, instead I am a GA player. Frankly the concurrent loss in meaning and the diminishment that represents, as well as the awkward and unwelcome compromises that status will require of the way I play the game remove a lot of what I found interesting about this aspect of NS, and since I seem to be in a minority in this position I imagine it is pointless me continuing to argue it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

What changes are you required to make, in regards to how you play? This is what I'm not understanding. The separation prevented us from having to acknowledge the Security Council during roleplays. So, how exactly are you going to have to change, to accommodate a part of the game that your character can't possibly know exists in the first place? If you don't want to reference the IC organization as the General Assembly, then don't; none of us have stopped saying "the World Assembly"... none of us have had to change how we play the game.

You seem to be incredibly too upset about a name change that we don't have to recognize, among other things that you, yourself are upset about. Nothing you have mentioned requires you to change your character or how you roleplay. The only force that's requiring this change is you. If you simply say to yourself -- "The two are separate. I don't have the change the way I play. The only time I have to see any part of the SC is when an SC resolution is at-vote. Thankfully, my character doesn't need to acknowledge it; our numbering system won't even be affected." -- then you'll find that you're blowing things way out of proportion, and being quite silly about everything.

[Urgench]

What changes are you required to make, in regards to how you play? This is what I'm not understanding. The separation prevented us from having to acknowledge the Security Council during roleplays. So, how exactly are you going to have to change, to accommodate a part of the game that your character can't possibly know exists in the first place? If you don't want to reference the IC organization as the General Assembly, then don't; none of us have stopped saying "the World Assembly"... none of us have had to change how we play the game.

I'm sorry but its a shitty compromise where the General Assembly of the World Assembly operates in a different reality from the Security Council of the World Assembly and neither need ever recognise each other's existence let alone respect one another's actions. Essentially there is either no WA or there are two separate WAs. In both cases the authority for legislation no longer comes from a gamewide overarching WA, it comes from the individual organisations which have been created which serve only the communities which use them.

Like I've said you may be happy to pretend that Dr Castro is still writing WA resolutions when in fact he's writing GA resolutions, but I'm not, especially if the other worldly SC can have ingame effects which directly contradict the meaning or spirit of those resolutions. The whole thing doesn't make any sense anymore.

You seem to be incredibly too upset about a name change that we don't have to recognize, among other things that you, yourself are upset about. Nothing you have mentioned requires you to change your character or how you roleplay. The only force that's requiring this change is you. If you simply say to yourself -- "The two are separate. I don't have the change the way I play. The only time I have to see any part of the SC is when an SC resolution is at-vote. Thankfully, my character doesn't need to acknowledge it; our numbering system won't even be affected." -- then you'll find that you're blowing things way out of proportion, and being quite silly about everything.

Thanks for the therapy GR, but I've never denied that I find aspects of these changes difficult. Again though I don't need you to put how I feel about this in perspective for me and am quite capable of rationalising it for myself.

Go ahead and have Dr Castro pretend that he's still writing resolutions for the WA when he isn't, and you can pretend that GA resolutions mean anything at all when the SC can ignore them completely just as Dr Castro ignores the existence of the SC if you want. I'm not comfortable with all that bullshit frankly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In both cases the authority for legislation no longer comes from a gamewide overarching WA, it comes from the individual organisations which have been created which serve only the communities which use them.

What I'm trying to get across to you, is that you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. It's quite clear that you don't have perspective on the issue, and that you're being completely irrational about the effect of this change. The World Assembly has always existed in two separate bodies, it's just that the Gameplay body is now congregated, instead of dispersed. The creation of a forum, or of Security Council resolutions, does not affect the roleplaying side of the World Assembly, just as delegates and regional controls never affected it. Gameplay has always "operat[ed] in a different reality" from the the WA roleplaying community, and the WA roleplaying community has always operated in a different reality from Gameplay. You're upset that we had to change to our name, even if it is a name that we've routinely used to reference ourselves, and that's incredibly ridiculous.

You're saying that SC resolutions can contradict our resolutions, yet that hasn't been the case. Again, you're creating problems that don't exist. Another example of this is that you think the creation of the SC caused a situation where the "authority for legislation no longer comes from a gamewide overarching WA". Well, there never has been an "overarching WA" that created resolutions; there's been our roleplaying community. We're the only ones that have been taking these imaginary pieces of legislation seriously. To most players, voting on the Food Welfare Act isn't going to mean deciding if their nation really wants to send aid to its neighbors, and the economic and social impact that's going to have; most people look at a resolution through the scope of the real world, meaning real-life nations should be sending aid to poor countries, not through a roleplaying lens. So, whether or not the title above the resolution reads "GENERAL ASSEMBLY" or "THE WORLD ASSEMBLY" doesn't matter to them. There is no "overarching WA". It's a figment of your imagination, and it can't possibly have been compromised by these changes.

But, in the end, I don't think you'll ever be happy with any changes. Even if you say that you don't oppose the SC's existence, it's obvious that you do, and it's obvious that the only change you'll be happy with is the deletion of anything Security Council. Either that, or the SC to be under our control, conforming to our standards, and only being used as we see fit. In fact, that's exactly what you were demanding when C&Cs were created; and I agreed. Then the separation took place, and I saw no reason why I should continue to be upset, because I was able to realize that the changes won't affect me, if I don't want them to affect me.

So, continue to delve way too deeply in to the supposed (and, as of yet, not realized) affects of these changes. The only thing that's going to come out of it, is you not enjoying the game. I'll continue on enjoying the game, doing the same things (the same way) I was doing before, despite whatever goes on in a part of the game I'm not connected with. I'll leave you alone after this post, because it's clear to me that you don't want to enjoy the game, so long as the Security Council is in the corner of your eye, and me trying to convince you that everything is actually fine is just as much a waste of time as you campaigning for the Security Council's assimilation.

[Absolvability]

This game has always suffered from limitations brought upon by game-coding and the like. We're limited in the changes we can make and in how we play the game by the fact that our scripters don't get paid, and may or may not have time to undertake serious endeavors.

Whatever developments we make, therefore, need a certain level of productive response. We need to exercise some understanding. The fact that the SC is part of the WA is mostly due to convenience. We're making use of the functions we're already granted. Like I've said before... I think you're confusing what is entirely convenient for what makes IC sense.

Lots of things about this game don't make sense. You're simply asked to ignore one more aspect so that a majority may be pleased. There doesn't NEED to be any further distinction between the two. It is entirely enough to say that they are indeed separate. These are the things that we know so that we, as writers, can apply our characters accordingly. It doesn't have to make sense ICly... IC doesn't exist.

And that might seem to be a blatantly obvious statement... but I feel it should be said, because if the IC world is entirely made-up, and it is, then all that is required for a change to be made is volition. You fail to recognize them as separate... so they are not separate. For the rest of us, very little has changed. We don't look past all of the weirdness to make the SC work. We do it so that we can continue doing what we enjoy.

[Urgench]

But, in the end, I don't think you'll ever be happy with any changes. Even if you say that you don't oppose the SC's existence, it's obvious that you do, and it's obvious that the only change you'll be happy with is the deletion of anything Security Council. Either that, or the SC to be under our control, conforming to our standards, and only being used as we see fit. In fact, that's exactly what you were demanding when C&Cs were created; and I agreed. Then the separation took place, and I saw no reason why I should continue to be upset, because I was able to realize that the changes won't affect me, if I don't want them to affect me.

So, continue to delve way too deeply in to the supposed (and, as of yet, not realized) affects of these changes. The only thing that's going to come out of it, is you not enjoying the game. I'll continue on enjoying the game, doing the same things (the same way) I was doing before, despite whatever goes on in a part of the game I'm not connected with. I'll leave you alone after this post, because it's clear to me that you don't want to enjoy the game, so long as the Security Council is in the corner of your eye, and me trying to convince you that everything is actually fine is just as much a waste of time as you campaigning for the Security Council's assimilation.

The only part of this I'm prepared to deal with GR is your assertion that I'm opposed to the SC, I'm not and please don't put words in my mouth. Nor do I want to have the SC be under anyone's control, quite the opposite in fact. To you the WA was always just writing resolutions and getting them passed, I enjoyed the sense ( however imaginary ) that this was a genuinely international organisation with a genuinely coherent body of international laws and a clear mandate to legislate, the fabric of those presumptions doesn't really hold up to scrutiny for me anymore.

[Absolvability]

The only reason to play any game is because it's fun. If this game isn't fun for you anymore then you should not play it.

On the other hand... if part of what you enjoyed was debating/arguing, and you're still having fun even while waging this odd OOC campaign, then you owe a serious debt of gratitude to whoever brought upon these changes.

Either way though... the problem exists in your own head. Which isn't to say that everything you say isn't true and slightly contradictory-- simply to say that you fail to put your blinders on and keep doing what you're doing because somewhere parallel to our IC GA exists an OOC (and therefore not compatibly functional, duh,) counter-part that has been declared separate. What you don't realize is that they are indeed both part of the WA. The distinction is that one is IC and one is OOC. Therefore, if you don't feel able, you don't have to acknowledge it ICly. It's entirely up to you.

Oh, and another thing. For the most part we're here trying to help you get through this transition. I'd like to say we're trying to iron things out with you... but, for the most part, we're already satisfied. Or at least content to go about our business while rules are being made (admittedly quite slowly.) It's annoying that (while you have a perfectly coherent arguement,) the vast majority of your responses to a direct approach to you is to declare, for one reason or another, that whoever you're talking to isn't qualified to say certain things. Which might have some merit, if you didn't cross the very same line repeatedly.

[Urgench]

Either way though... the problem exists in your own head. Which isn't to say that everything you say isn't true and slightly contradictory-- simply to say that you fail to put your blinders on and keep doing what you're doing because somewhere parallel to our IC GA exists an OOC (and therefore not compatibly functional, duh,) counter-part that has been declared separate. What you don't realize is that they are indeed both part of the WA. The distinction is that one is IC and one is OOC. Therefore, if you don't feel able, you don't have to acknowledge it ICly. It's entirely up to you.

Seriously IC or OOC really isn't my problem so either you haven't actually read what I've written or you didn't understand it.

Oh, and another thing. For the most part we're here trying to help you get through this transition. I'd like to say we're trying to iron things out with you... but, for the most part, we're already satisfied. Or at least content to go about our business while rules are being made (admittedly quite slowly.) It's annoying that (while you have a perfectly coherent arguement,) the vast majority of your responses to a direct approach to you is to declare, for one reason or another, that whoever you're talking to isn't qualified to say certain things. Which might have some merit, if you didn't cross the very same line repeatedly.

Who have I claimed isn't qualified to say anything ? And what line are you talking about ?

[Absolvability]

Who have I claimed isn't qualified to say anything ? And what line are you talking about ?

Well, I italicized 'qualified' because that isn't really what I meant. You do seem to try to undermine peoples' reasoning though... being very condescending and/or sarcastic.

Thanks for the therapy GR, but I've never denied that I find aspects of these changes difficult. Again though I don't need you to put how I feel about this in perspective for me and am quite capable of rationalising it for myself.

That probably isn't the best example, but I didn't feel like sifting back through this very repetative thread. A certain level of vehemence is acceptable ICly... hell, it's almost necessary. When we're discussing things OOCly about the game itself I don't see why we need to get petty. Granted, I'm sure people have said messed up things to you also, but you seem to have been heated about this from the very beginning. Which isn't without cause, but it seems misdirected.

I respect both you and GR. I think it's a little... well, mean, to assume that GR was trying to speak for you or anything. Hell, he's just trying to speak TO you. You don't always make it easy.

Seriously IC or OOC really isn't my problem so either you haven't actually read what I've written or you didn't understand it.

I don't mean to say it's your problem. I mean to say it's the solution.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I've been over this already, including in the posts you reference. Initially I didn't realize the nature of the separation that existed between the gameplay and WA-IC communities. So when I said, "Here's something for the WA," I wasn't referring to just the WA-IC part, or just the gameplay part; I meant the whole thing.

Well not "just", but "particularly the gameplay part" - gotcha.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Who is "we"? The GA? I don't understand why you'd feel that the GA must discuss SC legislation.

We can't vote on anything while SC "legislation" is at vote, that's what I mean.

Many Delegates ignore the WA altogether, or ignore specific resolutions; that doesn't mean their entire region is forced to ignore them. I have no problem with you declaring your nation won't participate in the SC whatsoever. Your region's residents will remain free to vote, discuss, or abstain as they see fit.

No, they won't. If the delegate doesn't vote, the region doesn't vote. (Yes, they can vote as individuals, but the 38 endorsement delegate vote doesn't get cast.) Furthermore, the delegate controls approvals. (Meaning when one of our region members submitted a Commendation of our own Founder, it went unapproved!)

The only vaguely consistent aim in introducing these changes appears to be promoting game activity. Actively advocating players ignore parts of the game seems to completely fly in the face of that.

That is a total misrepresentation. I split the WA because this community did not want to deal with the new C&C legislation type. Which is completely okay, as already discussed to death, but exempting gameplayers from existing proposal rules had nothing to do with it. Please don't recast the work I did as a favor for the gameplayers, because they weren't asking for it.

Total misrepresentation? Looks like two can play that tune.

We would have been perfectly contect to "deal with" C&Cs - had they been introduced as extensions of our game. They could have followed normal resolution rules - something I have to point out your own news announcement still says they do - with minor adjustment. Instead, the rules were completely ignored and they were used in a way incompatible with WA play. We objected, which we were informed was rank snobbery and Luddism. That's what we didn't want to deal with.

(I'm amused, also, that you made that comment to OMGTKK who was, um, the author of the first quorate C&C.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

The only part of this I'm prepared to deal with GR is your assertion that I'm opposed to the SC, I'm not and please don't put words in my mouth. Nor do I want to have the SC be under anyone's control, quite the opposite in fact. To you the WA was always just writing resolutions and getting them passed, I enjoyed the sense ( however imaginary ) that this was a genuinely international organisation with a genuinely coherent body of international laws and a clear mandate to legislate, the fabric of those presumptions doesn't really hold up to scrutiny for me anymore.

I'm merely going by what I'm reading: to me, you seem wholly opposed to the Security Council. Meaning, you either want it to exist in our roleplaying universe (which is to say, "under our control, conforming to our standards, and only being used as we see fit"), or to not exist at all. I see it this way, because you are opposed to any Gameplay-centric changes, whether they be allowing "Gameplay-IC", or the mention of regions or nation names, or whatever. To be clear, I don't want the resolutions to be OOC, and I would love for them to our version of IC, but it's not my right to tell them how to work things, just as they have no right telling us how to roleplay. I think every single C&C up for vote has been utterly pointless, and a huge waste of time; this is why I suggested multiple times that both an SC resolution and one of our resolutions be put up for vote, at the same time.

But, like I said earlier, if you say you aren't against it, then I'll believe you. However, I'm not naive, and what you've said completely contradicts your assuring that you aren't opposed the Security Council's existence. Perhaps this is unintentional, and I'm willing to believe that it is. But, if I see it this way, then I have no doubt in my mind that a lot of other people see it that way, too. On that same vein, I ask you to not put words in my mouth: the World Assembly isn't just some place for me to write resolutions. To me, while roleplaying, it is also a "genuinely international organization, with a genuinely coherent body of international laws and a clear mandate to legislate".

We would have been perfectly contect to "deal with" C&Cs - had they been introduced as extensions of our game. They could have followed normal resolution rules - something I have to point out your own news announcement still says they do - with minor adjustment. Instead, the rules were completely ignored and they were used in a way incompatible with WA play. We objected, which we were informed was rank snobbery and Luddism. That's what we didn't want to deal with.

Actually, Quod, and I'm not pointing this out with any hostility intended, C&Cs were "introduced as extensions of our game". We generally did not want them, and we asked for them and any other changes, to be sectioned off from the legislative side of the World Assembly. If I recall correctly, Kandarin popped in and said we were being unfair, intolerant Luddites... even if he/she didn't mean it that way. Kandarin isn't an administrator, and isn't in charge of any of the changes. [violet] is, however, and she has apologized for anything she said, and for introducing C&Cs without consulting anybody. So, two can't really 'play that tune', unless you want to direct that to Kandarin, or whoever.

[Kandarin]

Actually, Quod, and I'm not pointing this out with any hostility intended, C&Cs were "introduced as extensions of our game". We generally did not want them, and we asked for them and any other changes, to be sectioned off from the legislative side of the World Assembly. If I recall correctly, Kandarin popped in and said we were being unfair, intolerant Luddites... even if he/she didn't mean it that way. Kandarin isn't an administrator, and isn't in charge of any of the changes. [violet] is, however, and she has apologized for anything she said, and for introducing C&Cs without consulting anybody. So, two can't really 'play that tune', unless you want to direct that to Kandarin, or whoever.

How my words come across is important to me. If you've got a post where I said you were being unfair, intolerant Luddites, or if I've jut been generally projecting an impression of that kind of disdain, I'd appreciate it if you gave me links showing exactly where, when and how I said that. I've been trying to pick my words carefully so as to be inoffensive, and so this sort of interpretation really comes as a surprise.

[Glen-Rhodes]

How my words come across is important to me. If you've got a post where I said you were being unfair, intolerant Luddites, or if I've jut been generally projecting an impression of that kind of disdain, I'd appreciate it if you gave me links showing exactly where, when and how I said that. I've been trying to pick my words carefully so as to be inoffensive, and so this sort of interpretation really comes as a surprise.

I'm not honestly sure if it's you that I should be mentioning. I'm not the one that feels like I'm being called an intolerant Luddite. I've been using Kandarin and Todd McCloud as general terms for Gameplayers, since you two have been the most active in the debate. It may have been Naivetry, too. If I'm terribly off, then I apologize. But, Quod is the one that feels this way, so I'm sure she (or he?) has some examples ready...

[[violet]]

I've been over this already, including in the posts you reference. Initially I didn't realize the nature of the separation that existed between the gameplay and WA-IC communities. So when I said, "Here's something for the WA," I wasn't referring to just the WA-IC part, or just the gameplay part; I meant the whole thing.

Well not "just", but "particularly the gameplay part" - gotcha.

QoD, I'm concerned by your attitude here sometimes. I've responded to your posts as genuine attempt to improve the situation, but I wonder if that's really the case. If your interest here is point-scoring "gotchas," we're going nowhere.

This is the conversation we're having now:
You: C&Cs were introduced for the Old Guard, and we don't want them, so you should take them out.
Me: They weren't introduced solely for the Old Guard; they were mostly added for the gameplay part.
You: Earlier you said they were for the legislative side.
Me: Earlier I didn't realize the distinction between the legislative side and gameplay.
You: Aha, so they were mostly added for the gameplay part!

Which is what I said in the beginning. Every one of the above points I've gone over multiple times. Meanwhile, when it comes to dealing with actual, fixable problems, like renumbering resolution numbers, I have to chase you up to get a response.

I am happy to engage here, but I'm interested in fixing problems, not endlessly replaying the same, long-conceded points.

We would have been perfectly contect to "deal with" C&Cs - had they been introduced as extensions of our game. They could have followed normal resolution rules

Your first post on the subject stated why this wouldn't work, due to inherent incompatibilities. So I guess you're saying, "If C&Cs were some completely different type of legislation, we would have been perfectly happy with them." Well, sure. And if they were gold chocolates, they would have tasted yummy, but that's not a relevant point. It doesn't help me improve the situation for you. It's just raking over the coals.

- something I have to point out your own news announcement still says they do

This is about the fifth time you have made the point "When you first introduced C&Cs you said something that was wrong." I conceded that a long time ago, and many times since, yet you keep bringing it up. What do you want me to do, go back and edit my initial posts to pretend I understood Metagaming?

QoD, I can't have a productive discussion with you like this. I can't help fix the mistake when your only interest is pointing out that there was one.

We objected, which we were informed was rank snobbery and Luddism. That's what we didn't want to deal with.

And it's about the fifth time you've made the point that the community was misunderstood. I'll concede that every time, but how about you stop rehashing the events of a month ago and help me improve the situation we have now?

[Absolvability]

With all due respect to all parties involved... isn't it about time that we DO something? It's not just that I'm sick and tired of hearing about this, though I am, but we're really getting nowhere. This isn't a proposal that we're debating. This isn't up for vote. I'm glad to see the administration wants to please people... but lets just realize that everybody isn't going to be happy, and lets take some fairly obvious and reasonable steps.

Lets re-number the resolutions. That's a step towards further defining the separation between SC and GA.

And lets get some official rules for writing C&Cs on a sticky somewhere. It doesn't matter if it makes everyone happy or not. Hell, we can make changes here and there even. The time for rules was before C&Cs came about. And then we could've taken our sweet ass time discussing it. But as things sit... we've been talking about it way too long.

I don't know QuoD that much... but I respect Urgench. I also recognize them both as being helpful and intelligent members of the WA. But they seem to me to be the only two people really raising a stink. Everybody else is just kinda 'bleah' about the whole thing and would be much less 'bleah' if we had some damned rules.

If QuoD's region is excluded from the SC because QuoD refuses to acknowledge it... then maybe they need to elect a new Delegate.

If Urgench isn't having fun with the game anymore then maybe he should quit playing.

If Violet is going to accept getting snake-bitten as much as the rest of us, maybe his/her name shouldn't be purple.

[Unibot]

But most Gameplay folks are going to see the creation of a separate RP'd ambassador - for them - as a confusing mixture of two worlds. ("Wait... in order to post here, I have to create a fictional character living in my nation, with a hair color and a favorite Maxtopian cafe, who presumably goes home at night and watches Bigtopians Say the Darnedest Things, but who only exists in order to let me argue that 40 of Rolheath's endorsements come from outside forces and his regime is therefore democratically illegitimate?")

I see the problem - but is that a huge issue?

You wouldn't need to have a very ''developed'' character to state your ambassador's opinion on things,

[Urgench]

I'm merely going by what I'm reading: to me, you seem wholly opposed to the Security Council. Meaning, you either want it to exist in our roleplaying universe (which is to say, "under our control, conforming to our standards, and only being used as we see fit"), or to not exist at all. I see it this way, because you are opposed to any Gameplay-centric changes, whether they be allowing "Gameplay-IC", or the mention of regions or nation names, or whatever. To be clear, I don't want the resolutions to be OOC, and I would love for them to our version of IC, but it's not my right to tell them how to work things, just as they have no right telling us how to roleplay. I think every single C&C up for vote has been utterly pointless, and a huge waste of time; this is why I suggested multiple times that both an SC resolution and one of our resolutions be put up for vote, at the same time.

Well then either you haven't read everything I've posted on this subject or you've misunderstood what I've written. I don't want the SC to necessarily operate in the same universe, nor does it necessarily follow that I therefore wish the SC did not exist.

I've called for qualified majority voting at the SC, I've suggested that a new category regarding player conduct be created which could be used to actuate and justify the uses of C&Cs, I've been advocating that GA players be able to use C&Cs in character and in congruence with their style of play, I've been stressing when ever I can that the SC should operate in the interests of all its members ( regardless of how they play NS ) and should be responsible to them, I've strongly advocated the SC and GA have a strong and coherently unified source of authority in order to maintain the integrity of the WA. Now if that doesn't fit with your desire to want to pretend that the SC doesn't exist then I'm sorry GR, but I haven't said "The SC MUST play by GA rules or I want it gone!" and your characterisation of my position in this way is totally false.

I merely think that since the SC actually is a part of the WA then it should be formed with interests of all WA members ( regardless of what way they play NS ) in mind, and that the possibility that the SC may have quite a few powers in future makes it all the more important that it act fairly and justifiably. Now if your saying that because my main area of interest has been Old WA play that I somehow don't have a right to advocate those positions, or that I should shut up because the creation of the GA means I have no stake in the future of the SC and I should just ignore the development of part of an area of the game I take a strong interest in then I suspect we will remain at loggerheads. But if your willing to accept that the SC as part of the WA could and in my opinion should be able to be used by all WA members to expand how they play and that the SC and GA ( by compromise on both sides ) can be made to continue to appear to be a single organisation even if they operate in completely different ways and never overlap competences or even play styles then maybe we can move on. My initial opposition to C&Cs seems to have coloured how my posts are viewed, but I am genuinely interested in the future of the entire WA, not just the GA or the SC. I think we have the opportunity to collectively create a WA which future players will find fair, open, and responsive to the interests of all, that's purely why I'm continuing to be involved in the debate.


Since your reaction to these changes is to ignore them and presume that they will not effect you and therefore have nothing to do with you, I would have though that in fact it would appear that I'm much more readily acclimatised to them than you, I'm actually interested in them and want to offer my input in to them, your happy to pretend they never happened.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's all grand, Urgench, but you still don't seem willing to be on the short end of the compromising spectrum, from the general feelings I get when reading your posts. You want the SC and GA to coexist, but you apparently think that the only way they can coexist, is if the SC conforms to our own preexisting standards. If you don't feel this way, then you should start reviewing what you say, because this is how it's coming off.

On the flip side, the most prevalent SC members don't seem willing to be on the short end of the compromising spectrum, either. They're unwilling to not mention 'the player behind', or off-site forums, or even to not post links. Right now, it's all one huge stalemate between the most vocal players, even though those vocal players don't actually represent the majority, which has a more centrist opinion. You need to face the fact that the SC will never be part of the GA, and that the two are largely incompatible with each other. The two cannot fuse together, unless you want to change how you play, and they want to change, too.

"I think we have the opportunity to collectively create a WA which future players will find fair, open, and responsive to the interests of all..." I have this opinion, too. The only difference is that I think this already exists, for the most part. I can submit a C&C, and Kandarin can easily create an Ambassador and write some legislation. So, I guess I don't understand what it is you're asking for, if you're not asking for total assimilation. Instead of providing a long-winded, philosophical response about how the game is compromised, why don't you clearly list the changes that need to take place? I mean, click the "List" button, and go to town. It would not only help me understand, but it would actually get your points across much better than posts that take too long to read.

[Urgench]

That's all grand, Urgench, but you still don't seem willing to be on the short end of the compromising spectrum, from the general feelings I get when reading your posts. You want the SC and GA to coexist, but you apparently think that the only way they can coexist, is if the SC conforms to our own preexisting standards. If you don't feel this way, then you should start reviewing what you say, because this is how it's coming off.

On the flip side, the most prevalent SC members don't seem willing to be on the short end of the compromising spectrum, either. They're unwilling to not mention 'the player behind', or off-site forums, or even to not post links. Right now, it's all one huge stalemate between the most vocal players, even though those vocal players don't actually represent the majority, which has a more centrist opinion. You need to face the fact that the SC will never be part of the GA, and that the two are largely incompatible with each other. The two cannot fuse together, unless you want to change how you play, and they want to change, too.

"I think we have the opportunity to collectively create a WA which future players will find fair, open, and responsive to the interests of all..." I have this opinion, too. The only difference is that I think this already exists, for the most part. I can submit a C&C, and Kandarin can easily create an Ambassador and write some legislation. So, I guess I don't understand what it is you're asking for, if you're not asking for total assimilation. Instead of providing a long-winded, philosophical response about how the game is compromised, why don't you clearly list the changes that need to take place? I mean, click the "List" button, and go to town. It would not only help me understand, but it would actually get your points across much better than posts that take too long to read.

Did you not read this part of what your responding to -

I've called for qualified majority voting at the SC, I've suggested that a new category regarding player conduct be created which could be used to actuate and justify the uses of C&Cs, I've been advocating that GA players be able to use C&Cs in character and in congruence with their style of play, I've been stressing when ever I can that the SC should operate in the interests of all its members ( regardless of how they play NS ) and should be responsible to them, I've strongly advocated the SC and GA have a strong and coherently unified source of authority in order to maintain the integrity of the WA.

I should point out that my third listed item means that I think GA players should be able to C&C eachother's WA Ambassadors and other rp'd characters, something which mods and others are currently talking about making against the rules. The last thing I mention in that list is a reference to my desire that both parts of the WA not act as though eachother do not exist and not appear to be acting in complete contradiction to one another.


The fact that I've outlined frankly dozens of specific and purely practical ways in which what I think the WA could be might be achieved and you haven't read them, or have chosen to make the case that I haven't proposed them in order to justify blaming me for the lack of GA direction at the moment which seems to have you in a funk, is not really my fault.

If your able to ignore the SC and pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't effect you, why are you so unable to ignore my posts regarding the relationship between the SC and GA ? Surely they don't effect you either no ? You repeatedly misrepresenting my motives for posting and the nature of my position does directly effect me and frankly makes it much more difficult for me to make my case.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You can blow smoke all you want, Urgench. You've routinely opposed any compromise in which Gamplayers can use the Security Council how they want to use it. Rules would have been made by now, if you and other weren't sitting there filibustering any attempt.

The world is not going end if Todd McCloud mentions 'the player behind Kandarin', even if it an annoying inconsistency with how the World Assembly has done things up until now. All of these pretentious arguments about how your game is ruined, or how it's impossible to reconcile the Security Council with WA roleplaying, are pointless.

The way you've been doing things -- how you've been responding to people in the SC forum, how you've been responding to anybody that doesn't share your view, with general vehement hostility -- and the way Quod has been disrespectful, although she (or he) has actually done a slightly better job with that whole willingness to compromise thing -- obviously isn't working.

So... stop arguing and start talking, if you ever want to actually achieve any of your goals. That's all I really have to say, since this is quickly degenerating in to a cyclical argument.

[Urgench]

You can blow smoke all you want, Urgench. You've routinely opposed any compromise in which Gamplayers can use the Security Council how they want to use it. Rules would have been made by now, if you and other weren't sitting there filibustering any attempt.

The world is not going end if Todd McCloud mentions 'the player behind Kandarin', even if it an annoying inconsistency with how the World Assembly has done things up until now. All of these pretentious arguments about how your game is ruined, or how it's impossible to reconcile the Security Council with WA roleplaying, are pointless.

The way you've been doing things -- how you've been responding to people in the SC forum, how you've been responding to anybody that doesn't share your view, with general vehement hostility -- and the way Quod has been disrespectful, although she (or he) has actually done a slightly better job with that whole willingness to compromise thing -- obviously isn't working.

So... stop arguing and start talking, if you ever want to actually achieve any of your goals. That's all I really have to say, since this is quickly degenerating in to a cyclical argument.

I'm sorry, your accusing me of being hostile ? Have you read what you've posted here ? If you generally want to descend in to being out right rude and unpleasent then this conversation definitely is over. Like I said what is it about what I ( in particular ) have to say about this topic which has got you fuming ? Apparently none of this effects you and your happy to ignore it all, so leave me to my futility and carry on as normal.

[Absolvability]

I should point out that my third listed item means that I think GA players should be able to C&C eachother's WA Ambassadors and other rp'd characters, something which mods and others are currently talking about making against the rules.

That's funny, because I wrote up a Commendation for Ambassador Mongkha and posted it for review in the SC. It didn't get a single response, so I didn't submit it.

[Urgench]

I should point out that my third listed item means that I think GA players should be able to C&C eachother's WA Ambassadors and other rp'd characters, something which mods and others are currently talking about making against the rules.

That's funny, because I wrote up a Commendation for Ambassador Mongkha and posted it for review in the SC. It didn't get a single response, so I didn't submit it.

Well I didn't respond to it because it would have been a bit weird of me to do so frankly, though I did think it was well written. But the fact that Mongkha ( or more likely, me ) aint that popular shouldn't discourage GA players from using C&Cs and it shouldn't mean that they can't use it to expand their way of playing if they want to.